A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECOND SERIES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
VOLUMES I–VII.
UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
AND
HENRY WACE, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.
VOLUME I
EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS:
CHURCH HISTORY
LIFE OF CONSTANTINE
ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE.
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Preface.
————————————
The First Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Library of the Christian Fathers, containing, in fourteen volumes, the principal works of St. Augustin and St. Chrysostom, has been completed in less than four years, according to the Prospectus of the Publisher issued in 1886.
I am happy to state that the Second Series, containing the chief works of the Fathers from Eusebius to John of Damascus, and from Ambrose to Gregory the Great, will be issued on the same liberal terms, as announced by the Publisher.
The present volume opens the Second Series with a new translation and critical commentary of the historical works of Eusebius, by my friends, Dr. Arthur C. McGiffert and Dr. Ernest C. Richardson, who have bestowed a vast amount of labor of love on their tasks for several years past. I desired them to make these works a reliable and tolerably complete Church History of the first three centuries for the English reader. I think they have succeeded. Every scholar will at once see the great value and superiority of this over every other previous edition of Eusebius.
The next two volumes will contain the Church Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius. For further details the reader is referred to the Publisher’s announcement at the end of this volume.
PHILIP SCHAFF
New York, March, 1890.
the church history of eusebius.
————————————
Translated with prolegomena and notes
by
The rev. arthur cushman mcgiffert, Ph.d.
professor of church history in lane theological seminary, cincinnati
Preface.
————————————
The present translation of the Church History of Eusebius has been made from Heinichen’s second edition of the Greek text, but variant readings have been adopted without hesitation whenever they have approved themselves to my judgment. In all such cases the variation from Heinichen’s text has been indicated in the notes. A simple revision of Crusè’s English version was originally proposed, but a brief examination of it was sufficient to convince me that a satisfactory revision would be an almost hopeless task, and that nothing short of a new and independent translation ought to be undertaken. In the preparation of that translation, invaluable assistance has been rendered by my father, the Rev. Joseph N. McGiffert, D.D., for whose help and counsel I desire thus publicly to give expression to my profound gratitude. The entire translation has been examined by him and owes much to his timely suggestions and criticisms; while the translation itself of a considerable portion of the work (Bks. V.–VIII. and the Martyrs of Palestine) is from his hand. The part thus rendered by him I have carefully revised for the purpose of securing uniformity in style and expression throughout the entire work, and I therefore hold myself alone responsible for it as well as for the earlier and later books. As to the principle upon which the translation has been made, little need be said. The constant endeavor has been to reproduce as nearly as possible, both the substance and form of the original, and in view of the peculiar need of accuracy in such a work as the present, it has seemed better in doubtful cases to run the risk of erring in the direction of over-literalness rather than in that of undue license.
A word of explanation in regard
to the notes which accompany the text may not be out of place. In view
of the popular character of the series of which the present volume
forms a part, it seemed important that the notes should contain much
supplementary information in regard to persons, places, and events
mentioned in the text which might be quite superfluous to the
professional historian as well as to the student enjoying access to
libraries rich in historical and bibliographical material, and I have
therefore not felt justified in confining myself to such questions as
might interest only the critical scholar. Requested by the general
editor to make the work in some sense a general history of, or
historical commentary upon, the first three centuries of the Christian
Church, I have ventured to devote considerable space to a fuller
presentation of various subjects but briefly touched upon or merely
referred to by Eusebius. At the same time my chief endeavor has been,
by a careful study of difficult and disputed points, to do all that I
could for their elucidation, and thus to perform as faithfully as
possible the paramount duty of a commentator. The number and fulness of
the notes needed in such a work must of course be matter of dispute,
but annoyed as I have repeatedly been by the fragmentary character of
the annotations in the existing editions of the work, I have been
anxious to avoid that defect, and have therefore passed by no passage
which seemed to me to need discussion, nor consciously evaded any
difficulty. Working with historical students constantly in mind I have
felt it due to them to fortify all my statements by references to the
authorities upon which they have been based, and to indicate at the
same time with sufficient fullness the sources whose examination a
fuller investigation of the subject on their part might render
necessary. The modern works which have been most helpful are mentioned
in the notes, but I cannot in justice refrain from making
espe
It was my privilege some three years ago to study portions of the fourth and fifth books of Eusebius’ Church History with Professor Adolf Harnack in his Seminar at Marburg. Especial thanks are due for the help and inspiration gained from that eminent scholar, and for the light thrown by him upon many difficult passages in those portions of the work.
It gives me pleasure also to express my obligation to Dr. Isaac G. Hall, of New York, and to Dr. E. C. Richardson, of Hartford, for information furnished by them in regard to certain editions of the History, also to the Rev. Charles R. Gillett, Librarian of Union Theological Seminary, and to the Rev. J. H. Dulles, Librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary, for their kindness in granting me the privileges of the libraries under their charge, and for their unfailing courtesy shown me in many ways. To Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville, Ky., my thanks are due for his translation of the Testimonies for and against Eusebius, printed at the close of the Prolegomena, and to Mr. F. E. Moore, of New Albany, Ind., for assistance rendered in connection with the preparation of the indexes.
Arthur Cushman McGiffert.
Lane Theological Seminary,
April 15, 1890.
Prolegomena.
__________
The Life and writings of
Eusebius of Cæsarea.
__________
Chapter I
The Life of Eusebius.
§ 1. Sources and Literature
Acacius, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in the bishopric of Cæsarea, wrote a life of the latter (Socr. H. E. II. 4) which is unfortunately lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E. III. 2, IV. 23) and had exceptional opportunities for producing a full and accurate account of Eusebius’ life; the disappearance of his work is therefore deeply to be regretted.
Numerous notices of Eusebius are found in the works of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, Jerome, and other writers of his own and subsequent ages, to many of which references will be made in the following pages. A collection of these notices, made by Valesius, is found in English translation on p. 57 sq. of this volume. The chief source for a knowledge of Eusebius’ life and character is to be found in his own works. These will be discussed below, on p. 26 sq. Of the numerous modern works which treat at greater or less length of the life of Eusebius I shall mention here only those which I have found most valuable.
Valesius: De vita scriptisque Eusebii Diatribe (in his edition of Eusebius’ Historia Eccles.; English version in Cruse’s translation of the same work).
Cave: Lives of the Fathers, II. 95–144 (ed. H. Cary, Oxf. 1840).
Tillemont: Hist. Eccles. VII. pp. 39–75 (compare also his account of the Arians in vol. VI.).
Stroth: Leben und Schriften des Eusebius (in his German translation of the Hist. Eccles.).
Closs: Leben und Schriften des Eusebius (in his translation of the same work).
Danz: De Eusebio Cæsariensi, Historiæ Eccles. Scriptore, ejusque fide historica recte æstimanda, Cap. II.: de rebus ad Eusebii vitam pertinentibus (pp. 33–75).
Stein: Eusebius Bischof von Cæsarea. Nach seinem Leben, seinen Schriften, und seinem dogmatischen Charakter dargestellt (Würzburg, 1859; full and valuable).
Bright, in the introduction to his edition of Burton’s text of the Hist. Eccles. (excellent).
Lightfoot (Bishop of Durham): Eusebius of Cæsarea, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. II. pp. 308–348. Lightfoot’s article is a magnificent monument of patristic scholarship and contains the best and most exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of Eusebius that has been written.
The student may be referred finally to all the larger histories of the Church (e.g. Schaff, vol. III. 871 sqq. and 1034 sq.), which contain more or less extended accounts of Eusebius.
§2. Eusebius’ Birth and Training. His Life in Cæsarea until the Outbreak of the Persecution.
Our author was commonly known
among the ancients as Eusebius of Cæsarea or Eusebius Pamphili.
The former designation arose from the fact that he was bishop of the
church in Cæsarea for many years; the latter from the fact that he
was the intimate friend and devoted admirer of Pamphilus, a presbyter
of Cæsarea and a martyr. Some such specific appellation was
The exact date of our author’s birth is unknown to us, but his Ecclesiastical History contains notices which enable us to fix it approximately. In H. E. V. 28 he reports that Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in his day (καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς) the heresy of Artemon. But Paul of Samosata was deposed from the episcopate of Antioch in 272, and was condemned as a heretic at least as early as 268, so that Eusebius must have been born before the latter date, if his words are to be strictly interpreted. Again, according to H. E. III. 28, Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria in Eusebius’ time (καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς). But Dionysius was bishop from 247 or 248 to 265, and therefore if Eusebius’ words are to be interpreted strictly here as in the former case, he must have been born before 265. On the other hand, inasmuch as his death occurred about 340, we cannot throw his birth much earlier than 260. It is true that the references to Paul and to Dionysius do not prove conclusively that Eusebius was alive in their day, for his words may have been used in a loose sense. But in H. E. VII. 26, just before proceeding to give an account of Paul of Samosata, he draws the line between his own and the preceding generation, declaring that he is now about to relate the events of his own age (τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς). This still further confirms the other indications, and we shall consequently be safe in concluding that Eusebius was born not far from the year 260 a.d. His birthplace cannot be determined with certainty. The fact that he is called “Eusebius the Palestinian” by Marcellus (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), Basil (Lib. ad. Amphil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 29), and others, does not prove that he was a Palestinian by birth; for the epithet may be used to indicate merely his place of residence (he was bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine for many years). Moreover, the argument urged by Stein and Lightfoot in support of his Palestinian birth, namely, that it was customary to elect to the episcopate of any church a native of the city in preference to a native of some other place, does not count for much. All that seems to have been demanded was that a man should have been already a member of the particular church over which he was to be made bishop, and even this rule was not universal (see Bingham’s Antiquities, II. 10, 2 and 3). The fact that he was bishop of Cæsarea therefore would at most warrant us in concluding only that he had made his residence in Cæsarea for some time previous to his election to that office. Nevertheless, although neither of these arguments proves his Palestinian birth, it is very probable that he was a native of that country, or at least of that section. He was acquainted with Syriac as well as with Greek, which circumstance taken in connection with his ignorance of Latin (see below, p. 47) points to the region of Syria as his birthplace. Moreover, we learn from his own testimony that he was in Cæsarea while still a youth (Vita Constantini, I. 19), and in his epistle to the church of Cæsarea (see below, p. 16) he says that he was taught the creed of the Cæsarean church in his childhood (or at least at the beginning of his Christian life: ἐν τῇ κατηχήσει), and that he accepted it at baptism. It would seem therefore that he must have lived while still a child either in Cæsarea itself, or in the neighborhood, where its creed was in use. Although no one therefore (except Theodorus Metochita of the fourteenth century, in his Cap. Miscell. 17; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLIV. 949) directly states that Eusebius was a Palestinian by birth, we have every reason to suppose him such.
His parents are entirely
unknown. Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37) reports that his
mother was a sister of Pamphilus. He does not mention his authority for
this statement, and it is extremely unlikely, in the face of the
silence of Eusebius himself and of all other writers, that it is true.
It is far more probable that the relationship was later assumed to
account for the close intimacy of the two men. Arius, in an epistle
addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (contained in Theodoret’s
Hist. Eccles. I. 5), calls Eusebius of Cæsarea the
latter’s brother. It is objected to this that Eusebius of
Nicomedia refers to Eusebius of Cæsarea on one occasion as
his
From Eusebius’ works we gather that he must have received an extensive education both in secular philosophy and in Biblical and theological science. Although his immense erudition was doubtless the result of wide and varied reading continued throughout life, it is highly probable that he acquired the taste for such reading in his youth. Who his early instructors were we do not know, and therefore cannot estimate the degree of their influence over him. As he was a man, however, who cherished deep admiration for those whom he regarded as great and good men, and as he possessed an unusually acquisitive mind and a pliant disposition, we should naturally suppose that his instructors must have possessed considerable influence over him, and that his methods of study in later years must have been largely molded by their example and precept. We see this exemplified in a remarkable degree in the influence exerted over him by Pamphilus, his dearest friend, and at the same time the preceptor, as it were, of his early manhood. Certainly this great bibliopholist must have done much to strengthen Eusebius’ natural taste for omnivorous reading, and the opportunities afforded by his grand library for the cultivation of such a taste were not lost. To the influence of Pamphilus, the devoted admirer and enthusiastic champion of Origen, was doubtless due also in large measure the deep respect which Eusebius showed for that illustrious Father, a respect to which we owe one of the most delightful sections of his Church History, his long account of Origen in the sixth book, and to which in part antiquity was indebted for the elaborate Defense of Origen, composed by Pamphilus and himself, but unfortunately no longer extant. Eusebius certainly owed much to the companionship of that eager student and noble Christian hero, and he always recognized with deep gratitude his indebtedness to him. (Compare the account of Pamphilus given below in Bk. VII. chap. 32, §25 sq.) The names of his earlier instructors, who were eminently successful, at least in fostering his thirst for knowledge, are quite unknown to us. His abiding admiration for Plato, whom he always placed at the head of all philosophers (see Stein, p. 6), would lead us to think that he received at least a part of his secular training from some ardent Platonist, while his intense interest in apologetics, which lasted throughout his life, and which affected all his works, seems to indicate the peculiar bent of his early Christian education. Trithemius concluded from a passage in his History (VII. 32) that Eusebius was a pupil of the learned Dorotheus of Antioch, and Valesius, Lightfoot and others are apparently inclined to accept his conclusion. But, as Stroth remarks (Eusebii Kirchengeschichte, p. xix), all that Eusebius says is that he had heard Dorotheus expound the Scriptures in the church (τούτου μετρίως τὰς γραφὰς ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διηγουμένου κατηκούσαμεν), that is, that he had heard him preach. To conclude from this statement that he was a pupil of Dorotheus is certainly quite unwarranted.
Stroth’s suggestion that he probably enjoyed the instruction of Meletius for seven years during the persecution rests upon no good ground, for the passage which he relies upon to sustain his opinion (H. E. VII. 32. 28) says only that Eusebius “observed Meletius well” (κατενοήσαμεν) during those seven years.
In Cæsarea Eusebius was at
one time a presbyter of the church, as we may gather from his words in
the epistle to that church already referred to, where, in speaking of
the creed, he says, “As we believed and taught in the presbytery
and in the episcopate itself.” But the attempt to fix the date of
his ordination to that office is quite vain. It is commonly assumed
that he
During these years of quiet, before the great persecution of Diocletian, which broke out in 303 a.d., Eusebius’ life must have been a very pleasant one. Pamphilus’ house seems to have been a sort of rendezvous for Christian scholars, perhaps a regular divinity school; for we learn from Eusebius’ Martyrs in Palestine (Cureton’s edition, pp. 13 and 14) that he and a number of others, including the martyr Apphianus, were living together in one house at the time of the persecution, and that the latter was instructed in the Scriptures by Pamphilus and acquired from him virtuous habits and conduct. The great library of Pamphilus would make his house a natural center for theological study, and the immense amount of work which was done by him, or under his direction, in the reproduction of copies of the Holy Scriptures, of Origen’s works (see Jerome’s de vir. ill. 75 and 81, and contra Ruf. I. 9), and in other literary employments of the same kind, makes it probable that he had gathered about him a large circle of friends and students who assisted him in his labors and profited by his counsel and instruction. Amidst these associations Eusebius passed his early manhood, and the intellectual stimulus thus given him doubtless had much to do with his future career. He was above all a literary man, and remained such to the end of his life. The pleasant companionships of these days, and the mutual interest and sympathy which must have bound those fellow-students and fellow-disciples of Pamphilus very close together, perhaps had much to do with that broad-minded spirit of sympathy and tolerance which so characterized Eusebius in later years. He was always as far as possible from the character of a recluse. He seems ever to have been bound by very strong ties to the world itself and to his fellow-men. Had his earlier days been filled with trials and hardships, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes and unfulfilled ambitions, with harsh experiences of others’ selfishness and treachery, who shall say that the whole course of his life might not have been changed, and his writings have exhibited an entirely different spirit from that which is now one of their greatest charms? Certainly he had during these early years in Cæsarea large opportunities for cultivating that natural trait of admiration for other men, which was often so strong as to blind him even to their faults, and that natural kindness which led him to see good wherever it existed in his Christian brethren. At the same time these associations must have had considerable influence in fostering the apologetic temper. The pursuits of the little circle were apparently exclusively Christian, and in that day when Christianity stood always on its defense, it would naturally become to them a sacred duty to contribute to that defense and to employ all their energies in the task. It has been remarked that the apologetic temper is very noticeable in Eusebius’ writings. It is more than that; we may say indeed in general terms that everything he wrote was an apology for the faith. His History was written avowedly with an apologetic purpose, his Chronicle was composed with the same end in view. Even when pronouncing a eulogy upon a deceased emperor he seized every possible opportunity to draw from that emperor’s career, and from the circumstances of his reign, arguments for the truth and grandeur of the Christian religion. His natural temper of mind and his early training may have had much to do with this habit of thought, but certainly those years with Pamphilus and his friends in Cæsarea must have emphasized and developed it.
Another characteristic which
Pamphilus and the circle that surrounded him doubtless did something to
develop in our author was a certain superiority to the trammels of mere
traditionalism, or we might perhaps better say that they in some
measure checked the opposite tendency of
One thing in fact which is particularly noticeable in Eusebius’ works is the comparatively small amount of time and space which he devotes to heretics. With his wide and varied learning and his extensive acquaintance with the past, he had opportunities for successful heresy hunting such as few possessed, and yet he never was a heresy hunter in any sense. This is surprising when we remember what a fascination this employment had for so many scholars of his own age, and when we realize that his historical tastes and talents would seem to mark him out as just the man for that kind of work. May it not be that the lofty spirit of Origen, animating that Cæsarean school, had something to do with the happy fact that he became an apologist instead of a mere polemic, that he chose the honorable task of writing a history of the Church instead of anticipating Epiphanius’ Panarium?
It was not that he was not alive
to the evils of heresy. He shared with nearly all good church-men of
his age an intense aversion for those who, as he believed, had
corrupted the true Gospel of Christ. Like them he ascribed heresy to
the agency of the evil one, and was no more able than they to see any
good in a man whom he looked upon as a real heretic, or to do justice
in any degree to the error which he taught. His condemnations of
heretics in his Church History are most severe. Language is
hardly strong enough to express his aversion for them. And yet,
although he is thus most thoroughly the child of his age, the
difference between him and most of his contemporaries is very apparent.
He mentions these heretics only to dismiss them with dis
§3. The Persecution of Diocletian.
In this delightful circle and
engaged in such congenial tasks, the time must have passed very happily
for Eusebius, until, in 303, the terrible persecution of Diocletian
broke upon the Church almost like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. The
causes of the sudden change of policy on Diocletian’s part, and
the terrible havoc wrought in the Church, it is not my intention to
discuss here (see below, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3 sq.). We are
concerned with the persecution only in so far as it bears upon the
present subject. In the first year of the persecution Procopius, the
first martyr of Palestine, was put to death at Cæsarea
(Eusebius’ Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton’s ed. p.
4), and from that time on that city, which was an important Christian
center, was the scene of a tempest which raged with greater or less
violence, and with occasional cessations, for seven years. Eusebius
himself was an eyewitness of many martyrdoms there, of which he gives
us an account in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle
which surrounded Pamphilus did not escape. In the third year of the
persecution (Mart. of Pal. p. 12 sq.) a youth named Apphianus,
or Epiphanius (the former is given in the Greek text, the latter in the
Syriac), who “resided in the same house with us, confirming
himself in godly doctrine, and being instructed by that perfect martyr,
Pamphilus” (as Eusebius says), committed an act of fanatical
daring which caused his arrest and martyrdom. It seems that without the
knowledge of his friends, concealing his design even from those who
dwelt in the same house with him, he laid hold of the hand of the
governor, Arbanus, who was upon the point of sacrificing, and
endeavored to dissuade him from offering to “lifeless idols and
wicked devils.” His arrest was of course the natural consequence,
and he had the glory of witnessing a good profession and suffering a
triumphant death. Although Eusebius speaks with such admiration of his
conduct, it is quite significant of the attitude of himself, and of
most of the circle of which he was one, that Apphianus felt obliged to
conceal his purpose from them. He doubtless feared that they would not
permit him to perform the rash act which he meditated, and we may
conclude from that, that the circle in the main was governed by the
precepts of good common sense, and avoided that fanaticism which so
frequently led men, as in the present case it led Apphianus, to expose
themselves needlessly, and even to court martyrdom. It is plain enough
from what we know of Eusebius’ general character that he himself
was too sensible to act in that way. It is true that he speaks with
admiration of Apphianus’ conduct, and in H. E. VIII. 5, of
the equally rash procedure of a Nicomedian Christian; but that does not
imply that he considered their course the wisest one, and that he would
not rather recommend the employment of all proper and honorable
precautions for the preservation of life. Indeed, in H. E. IV.
15, he speaks with evident approval of the prudent course pursued by
Polycarp in preserving his life so long as he could without violating
his Christian profession, and with manifest disapproval of the rash act
of the Phrygian Quintus, who presumptuously courted martyrdom, only to
fail when the test itself came. Pamphilus also possessed too much sound
Christian sense to advocate any such fanaticism, or to practice it
himself, as is plain enough from the fact that he was not arrested
until the fifth year of the persecution. This unhealthy temper of mind
in the midst of persecution was indeed almost universally condemned by
the wisest men of the Church, and yet the boldness and the very
rashness of those who thus voluntarily and needlessly threw their lives
away excited widespread admiration and too often a degree
In the fifth year of the
persecution Pamphilus was arrested and thrown into prison, where he
remained for two years, when he finally, in the seventh year of the
persecution, suffered martyrdom with eleven others, some of whom were
his disciples and members of his own household. (Pal. Mart.
Cureton’s ed. p. 36 sq.; H. E. App. chap. 11.) During the
two years of Pamphilus’ imprisonment Eusebius spent a great deal
of time with him, and the two together composed five books of an
Apology for Origen, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth
(see below, p. 36). Danz (p. 37) assumes that Eusebius was imprisoned
with Pamphilus, which is not an unnatural supposition when we consider
how much they must have been together to compose the Apology as
they did. There is, however, no other evidence that he was thus
imprisoned, and in the face of Eusebius’ own silence it is safer
perhaps to assume (with most historians) that he simply visited
Pamphilus in his prison. How it happened that Pamphilus and so many of
his followers were imprisoned and martyred, while Eusebius escaped, we
cannot tell. In his Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11, he states
that Pamphilus was the only one of the company of twelve martyrs that
was a presbyter of the Cæsarean church; and from the fact that he
nowhere mentions the martyrdom of others of the presbyters, we may
conclude that they all escaped. It is not surprising, therefore, that
Eusebius should have done the same. Nevertheless, it is somewhat
difficult to understand how he could come and go so frequently without
being arrested and condemned to a like fate with the others. It is
possible that he possessed friends among the authorities whose
influence procured his safety. This supposition finds some support in
the fact that he had made the acquaintance of Constantine (the Greek in
Vita Const. I. 19 has žγνωμεν,
which implies, as Danz remarks, that he not only saw, but that he
became acquainted with Constantine) some years before in Cæsarea.
He could hardly have made his acquaintance unless he had some friend
among the high officials of the city. Influential family connections
may account in part also for the position of prominence which he later
acquired at the imperial court of Constantine. If he had friends in
authority in Cæsarea during the persecution his exemption from
arrest is satisfactorily accounted for. It has been supposed by some
that Eusebius denied the faith during the terrible persecution, or that
he committed some other questionable and compromising act of
concession, and thus escaped martyrdom. In support of this is urged the
fact that in 335, at the council of Tyre, Potamo, bishop of Heraclea,
in Egypt, addressed Eusebius in the following words: “Dost thou
sit as judge, O Eusebius; and is Athanasius, innocent as he is, judged
by thee? Who can bear such things? Pray tell me, wast thou not with me
in prison during the persecution? And I lost an eye in behalf of the
truth, but thou appearest to have received no bodily injury, neither
hast thou suffered martyrdom, but thou hast remained alive with no
mutilation. How wast thou released from prison unless thou didst
promise those that put upon us the pressure of persecution to do that
which is unlawful, or didst actually do it?” Eusebius, it seems,
did not deny the charge, but simply rose in anger and dismissed the
council with the words, “If ye come hither and make such
accusations against us, then do your accusers speak the truth. For if
ye tyrannize here, much more do ye in your own country” (Epiphan.
Hær. LXVIII. 8). It must be noticed, however, that Potamo
does not directly charge Eusebius with dishonorable conduct, he simply
conjectures that he must have acted dishonorably in order to escape
punishment; as if every one who was imprisoned with Potamo must have
suffered as he did! As Stroth suggests, it is quite possible that his
peculiarly excitable and violent temperament was one of the causes of
his own loss. He evidently in any case had no knowledge of unworthy
conduct on Eusebius’ part, nor had any one else so far as we can
judge. For in that age of bitter controversy, when men’s
characters were drawn by their opponents in the blackest lines,
Eusebius must have suffered at the hands of the Athanasian party if it
had been known that he had acted a cowardly part in the persecution.
Athanasius himself refers to this incident (Contra Arian. VIII.
1), but he only says that Eusebius was “accused of
sacrificing,” he does
From his History and his Martyrs in Palestine we learn that Eusebius was for much of the time in the very thick of the fight, and was an eyewitness of numerous martyrdoms not only in Palestine, but also in Tyre and in Egypt.
The date of his visits to the latter places (H. E. VIII. 7, 9) cannot be determined with exactness. They are described in connection with what seem to be the earlier events of the persecution, and yet it is by no means certain that chronological order has been observed in the narratives. The mutilation of prisoners—such as Potamo suffered—seems to have become common only in the year 308 and thereafter (see Mason’s Persecution of Diocletian, p. 281), and hence if Eusebius was imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, as seems most probable, there would be some reason for assigning that visit to the later years of the persecution. In confirmation of this might be urged the improbability that he would leave Cæsarea while Pamphilus was still alive, either before or after the latter’s imprisonment, and still further his own statement in H. E. VII. 32, that he had observed Meletius escaping the fury of the persecution for seven years in Palestine. It is therefore likely that Eusebius did not make his journey to Egypt, which must have occupied some time, until toward the very end of the persecution, when it raged there with exceeding fierceness during the brief outburst of the infamous Maximin.
§4. Eusebius’ Accession to the Bishopric of Cæsarea.
Not long after the close of the
persecution, Eusebius became bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, his
own home, and held the position until his death. The exact date of his
accession cannot be ascertained, indeed we cannot say that it did not
take place even before the close of the persecution, but that is hardly
probable; in fact, we know of no historian who places it earlier than
313. His immediate predecessor in the episcopate was Agapius, whom he
mentions in terms of praise in H. E. VII. 32. Some writers have
interpolated a bishop Agricolaus between Agapius and Eusebius (see
e.g. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles. VII. 42), on the ground
that his name appears in one of the lists of those present at the
Council of Ancyra (c. 314), as bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine (see
Labbei et Cossartii Conc. I. 1475). But, as Hefele shows
(Conciliengesch. I. 220), this list is of late date and not to
be relied upon. On the other hand, as Lightfoot points out, in the
Libellus Synodicus (Conc. I. 1480), where Agricolaus is
said to have been present at the Council of Ancyra, he is called bishop
of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; and this statement is confirmed by a
Syriac list given in Cowper’s Miscellanies, p. 41. Though
perhaps no great reliance is to be
The persecution of Licinius, which continued until his defeat by Constantine, in 323, was but local, and seems never to have been very severe. Indeed, it did not bear the character of a bloody persecution, though a few bishops appear to have met their death on one ground or another. Palestine and Egypt seem not to have suffered to any great extent (see Görres, ib. p. 32 sq.).
§5. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.
About the year 318, while
Alexander was bishop of Alexandria, the Arian controversy broke out in
that city, and the whole Eastern Church was soon involved in the
strife. We cannot enter here into a discussion of Arius’ views;
but in order to understand the rapidity with which the Arian party
grew, and the strong hold which it possessed from the very start in
Syria and Asia Minor, we must remember that Arius was not himself the
author of that system which we know as Arianism, but that he learned
the essentials of it from his instructor Lucian. The latter was one of
the most learned men of his age in the Oriental Church, and founded an
exegetico-theological school in Antioch, which for a number of years
stood outside of the communion of the orthodox Church in that city, but
shortly before the martyrdom of Lucian himself (which took place in 311
or 312) made its peace with the Church, and was recognized by it. He
was held in the highest reverence by his disciples, and exerted a great
influence over them even after his death. Among them were such men as
Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Asterius, and others who were afterward
known as staunch Arianists. According to Harnack the chief points in
the system of Lucian and his disciples were the creation of the Son,
the denial of his co-eternity with the Father, and his immutability
acquired by persistent progress and steadfastness. His doctrine, which
differed
Socrates (H. E. I. 5
sq.), Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) and Theodoret (H. E. I. 2
sq.), all of whom give accounts of the rise of Arianism, differ as to
the immediate occasion of the controversy, but agree that Arius was
excommunicated by a council convened at Alexandria, and that both he
and the bishop Alexander sent letters to other churches, the latter
defending his own course, the former complaining of his harsh
treatment, and endeavoring to secure adherents to his doctrine.
Eusebius of Nicomedia at once became his firm supporter, and was one of
the leading figures on the Arian side throughout the entire
controversy. His influential position as bishop of Nicomedia, the
imperial residence, and later of Constantinople, was of great advantage
to the Arian cause, especially toward the close of Constantine’s
reign. From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to Paulinus of Tyre
(Theodoret, H. E. I. 6) we learn that Eusebius of Cæsarea
was quite zealous in behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date of the
letter we do not know, but it must have been written at an early stage
of the controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius
of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), claims Eusebius of
Cæsarea among others as accepting at least one of his fundamental
doctrines (“And since Eusebius, your brother in Cæsarea, and
Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Ætius,
and all the bishops of the East say that God existed before the Son,
they have been condemned,” etc.). More than this, Sozomen (H.
E. I. 15) informs us that Eusebius of Cæsarea and two other
bishops, having been appealed to by Arius for “permission for
himself and his adherents, as he had already attained the rank of
presbyter, to form the people who were with them into a church,”
concurred with others “who were assembled in Palestine,” in
granting the petition of Arius, and permitting him to assemble the
people as before; but they “enjoined submission to Alexander, and
commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to peace and
communion with him.” The addition of the last sentence is
noticeable, as showing that they did not care to support a presbyter in
open and persistent rebellion against his bishop. A fragment of a
letter written by our Eusebius to Alexander is still extant, and is
preserved in the proceedings of the Second Council of Nicæa, Act.
VI. Tom. V. (Labbei et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). In this
epistle Eusebius strongly remonstrates with Alexander for having
misrepresented the views of Arius. Still further, in his epistle to
Alexander of Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, H.
E. I. 4) complains of three Syrian bishops “who side with
them [i.e. the Arians] and excite them to plunge deeper and
deeper into iniquity.” The reference here is commonly supposed to
be to Eusebius of Cæsarea, and his two friends Paulinus of Tyre
and Theodotus of Laodicea, who are known to have shown favor to Arius.
It is probable, though not certain, that our Eusebius is one of the
persons meant. Finally, many of the Fathers (above all Jerome and
Photius), and in addition to them the Second Council of Nicæa,
directly accuse Eusebius of holding the Arian heresy, as may be seen by
examining the testimonies quoted below on p. 67 sq. In agreement with
these early Fathers, many modern historians have attacked Eusebius with
great severity, and have endeavored to show that the opinion that he
was an Arian is supported by his own writings. Among those who have
judged him most harshly are Baronius (ad ann. 340, c. 38 sq.),
Petavius
On the other hand, as may be seen from the testimonies in Eusebius’ favor, quoted below on p. 57 sq., many of the Fathers, who were themselves orthodox, looked upon Eusebius as likewise sound on the subject of the Trinity. He has been defended in modern times against the charge of Arianism by a great many prominent scholars; among others by Valesius in his Life of Eusebius, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 20, III. 9. 3, 11), Cave (Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 sq.), Fabricius (Bibl. Græc. VI. p. 32 sq.), Dupin (Bibl. Eccles. II. p. 7 sq.), and most fully and carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition of Eusebius’ Theophania, p. xxiv. sq. Lightfoot also defends him against the charge of heresy, as do a great many other writers whom it is not necessary to mention here. Confronted with such diversity of opinion, both ancient and modern, what are we to conclude? It is useless to endeavor, as Lee does, to clear Eusebius of all sympathy with and leaning toward Arianism. It is impossible to explain such widespread and continued condemnation of him by acknowledging only that there are many expressions in his works which are in themselves perfectly orthodox but capable of being wrested in such a way as to produce a suspicion of possible Arianistic tendencies, for there are such expressions in the works of multitudes of ancient writers whose orthodoxy has never been questioned. Nor can the widespread belief that he was an Arian be explained by admitting that he was for a time the personal friend of Arius, but denying that he accepted, or in any way sympathized with his views (cf. Newman’s Arians, p. 262). There are in fact certain fragments of epistles extant, which are, to say the least, decidedly Arianistic in their modes of expression, and these must be reckoned with in forming an opinion of Eusebius’ views; for there is no reason to deny, as Lee does, that they are from Eusebius’ own hand. On the other hand, to maintain, with some of the Fathers and many of the moderns, that Eusebius was and continued through life a genuine Arian, will not do in the face of the facts that contemporary and later Fathers were divided as to his orthodoxy, that he was honored highly by the Church of subsequent centuries, except at certain periods, and was even canonized (see Lightfoot’s article, p. 348), that he solemnly signed the Nicene Creed, which contained an express condemnation of the distinctive doctrines of Arius, and finally that at least in his later works he is thoroughly orthodox in his expressions, and is explicit in his rejection of the two main theses of the Arians,—that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that he was produced out of nothing. It is impossible to enter here into a detailed discussion of such passages in Eusebius’ works as bear upon the subject under dispute. Lee has considered many of them at great length, and the reader may be referred to him for further information.
A careful examination of them
will, I believe, serve to convince the candid student that there is a
distinction to be drawn between those works written before the rise of
Arius, those written between that time and the Council of Nicæa,
and those written after the latter. It has been very common to draw a
distinction between those works written before and those written after
the Council, but no one, so far as I know, has distinguished those
productions of Eusebius’ pen which appeared between 318 and 325,
and which were caused by the controversy itself, from all his other
writings. And yet such a distinction seems to furnish the key to the
problem. Eusebius’ opponents have drawn their strongest arguments
from the epistles which Eusebius wrote to Alexander and to Euphration;
his defenders have drawn their arguments chiefly from the works which
he produced subsequent to the year 325; while the exact bearing of the
expressions used in his works produced before the controversy broke out
has always been a matter of sharp dispute. Lee has abundantly shown his
Contra Marcel., his De Eccl. Theol., his Thephania
(which was written after the Council of Nicæa, and not, as Lee
supposes, before it), and other later works, to be thoroughly orthodox
and to contain nothing which a trinitarian might not have written. In
his Hist. Eccl., Præparatio Evang., Demonstratio Evang.,
and other earlier works, It is
interesting to notice that the creed of the Cæsarean church which
Eusebius presented at the Council of Nice contains a clause which
certainly looks as if it had been composed in opposition to the
familiar formula of the Sabellians: “The same one is the Father,
the same one the Son, the same one the Holy Spirit” (τὸν αὐτὸν
εἶναι πατέρα,
τὸν αὐτὸν
εἶναι υἱ& 232·ν,
τὸν αὐτὸν
εἶναι ἅγιον
πνεῦμα; see
Epiphan. Hær. LXII. 1; and compare the statement made in
the same section, that the Sabellians taught that God acts in three
forms: in the form of the Father, as creator and lawgiver; in the form
of the Son, as redeemer; and in the form of the Spirit, as life-giver,
etc.). The clause of the Cæsarean creed referred to runs as
follows: “That the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and
the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit” (πατέρα
ἀληθῶς
πατέρα, καὶ
υἱ& 232·ν
ἀληθῶς υἱ&
232·ν, καὶ
πνεῦμα ἅγιον
ἀληθῶς
ἅγιον). It is
significant that in the revised creed adopted by the Council these
words are omitted, evidently because the occasion for them no longer
existed, since not Sabellianism but Arianism was the heresy combated;
and because, more than that, the use of them would but weaken the
emphasis which the Council wished to put upon the essential divinity of
all three persons.
Let us suppose now that
Eusebius, holding fast to the divinity of Christ, and yet convinced
just as firmly of his subordination to the Father, becomes acquainted
through Arius, or other like-minded disciples of Lucian of Antioch,
with a doctrine which seems to preserve the Godhood, while at the same
time emphasizing strongly the subordination of the Son, and which
formulates the relation of Father and Son in a clear and rational
manner. That he should accept such a doctrine eagerly is just what we
should expect, and just what we find him doing. In his epistles to
Alexander and Euphration, he shows himself an Arian, and Arius and his
followers were quite
When we examine the
Cæsarean creed For a
translation of the creed see below, p. 16, where it is given as a part
of Eusebius’ epistle to the Church of Cæsarea.
We are now, the writer hopes, prepared to admit that Eusebius, after the breaking out of the Arian controversy, became an Arian, as he understood Arianism, and supported that party with considerable vigor; and that not as a result of mere personal friendship, but of theological conviction. At the same time, he was then, as always, a peace-loving man, and while lending Arius his approval and support, he united with other Palestinian bishops in enjoining upon him submission to his bishop (Sozomen, H. E. I. 15). As an Arian, then, and yet possessed with the desire of securing, if it were possible, peace and harmony between the two factions, Eusebius appeared at the Council of Nicæa, and there signed a creed containing Athanasian doctrine and anathematizing the chief tenets of Arius. How are we to explain his conduct? We shall, perhaps, do best to let him explain his own conduct. In his letter to the church of Cæsarea (preserved by Socrates, H. E. I. 8, as well as by other authors), he writes as follows:—
“What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great Council assembled at Nicæa you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves; and next, the second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:—
“‘As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:—
“‘We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.’
“On this faith being
publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our
most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised
most orthodox statements. He confessed, moreover, that such were his
own sentiments; and he advised all present to agree to it, and to
subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the
single word, ‘One in substance’ (ὁμοούσιος), which, moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of
the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father,
in the way of division, or any sever
“‘We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:— And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.
“‘And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, “Once He was not,” and “Before His generation He was not,” and “He came to be from nothing,” or those who pretend that the Son of God is “Of other subsistence or substance,” or “created,” or “alterable,” or “mutable,” the Catholic Church anathematizes.’
“On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced ‘of the substance of the Father,’ and ‘one in substance with the Father.’ Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase ‘of the substance’ was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not, however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term ‘One in substance,’ peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted ‘begotten, not made’; since the Council alleged that ‘made’ was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of a substance which is too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is ‘one in substance’ with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance; no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father’s substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate nature of the Father is alien), but because ‘one in substance with the Father’ suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and substance, but from the Father.
“To which term also, thus
interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that, even
among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers
have used the term ‘one in substance’ in their theological
teaching concerning the Father and Son. So much, then, be said
concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented,
not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned
before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the
fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published by
them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to
use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and
disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no divinely inspired
Scripture has used the phrases, ‘out of nothing’ and
‘once He was not,’ and the rest which follow, there
appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we
assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto
to use these terms. Moreover, to anathematize ‘Before His
generation He was not’ did not seem preposterous, in that it is
confessed by all that the Son of God was before the generation
according to the flesh. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time
prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine
generation which is before all ages, since even before he was
generated The
translation is that of Newman, as given in the Oxford edition of
Athanasius’ Select Treatises against Arianism, p. 59
sq.
It will be seen that while the expressions “of the substance of the Father,” “begotten not made,” and “One in substance,” or “consubstantial with the Father,” are all explicitly anti-Arianistic, yet none of them contradicts the doctrines held by Eusebius before the Council, so far as we can learn them from his epistles to Alexander and Euphration and from the Cæsarean creed. His own explanation of those expressions, which it is to be observed was the explanation given by the Council itself, and which therefore he was fully warranted in accepting,—even though it may not have been so rigid as to satisfy an Athanasius,—shows us how this is. He had believed before that the Son partook of the Godhood in very truth, that He was “begotten,” and therefore “not made,” if “made” implied something different from “begotten,” as the Nicene Fathers held that it did; and he had believed before that the “Son of God has no resemblance to created’ things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him, and that He is of no other substance or essence than the Father,” and therefore if that was what the word “Consubstantial” (ὁμοούσιος) meant he could not do otherwise than accept that too.
It is clear that the dread of Sabellianism was still before the eyes of Eusebius, and was the cause of his hesitation in assenting to the various changes, especially to the use of the word ὁμοούσιος, which had been a Sabellian word and had been rejected on that account by the Synod of Antioch, at which Paul of Samosata had been condemned some sixty years before.
It still remains to explain
Eusebius’ sanction of the anathemas attached to the creed which
expressly condemn at least one of the beliefs which he had himself
formerly held, viz.: that the “Father was before the Son,”
or as he puts it elsewhere, that “He who is begat him who was
not.” The knot might of course be simply cut by supposing an act
of hypocrisy on his part, but the writer is convinced that such a
conclusion does violence to all that we know of Eusebius and of his
subsequent treatment of the questions involved in this discussion. It
is quite possible to suppose that a real change of opinion on his part
took place during the sessions of the Council. Indeed when we realize
how imperfect and incorrect a conception of Arianism he had before the
Council began, and how clearly its true bearing was there brought out
by its enemies, we can see that he could not do otherwise than change;
that he must have become either an out-and-out Arian, or an opponent of
Arianism as he did. When he learned, and learned for the first time,
that Arianism meant the denial of all essential divinity to Christ, and
when he saw that it involved the ascription of mutability and of other
finite attributes to him, he must either change entirely his views on
those points or he must leave the Arian party. To him who with all his
subordinationism had laid in all his writings so much stress on the
divinity of the Word (even though he had not realized exactly what that
divinity involved) it would have been a revolution in his Christian
life and faith to have admitted what he now learned that Arianism
involved. Sabellianism had been his dread, but now this new fear, which
had aroused so large a portion of the Church, seized him too, and he
felt that stand must be made against this too great separation of
Father and Son, which was leading to dangerous results. Under the
pressure of this fear it is not surprising that he should become
convinced that the Arian formula—“there was a time when the
Son was not”—involved serious consequences, and that
Alexander and his followers should have succeeded in pointing out to
him its untruth, because it led necessarily to a false conclusion. It
is not surprising, moreover, that they should have succeeded in
explaining to him at least
He says toward the close of his epistle to the Cæsarean church that he had not been accustomed to use such expressions as “There was a time when he was not,” “He came to be from nothing,” etc. And there is no reason to doubt that he speaks the truth. Even in his epistles to Alexander and Euphration he does not use those phrases (though he does defend the doctrine taught by the first of them), nor does Arius himself, in the epistle to Alexander upon which Eusebius apparently based his knowledge of the system, use those expressions, although he too teaches the same doctrine. The fact is that in that epistle Arius studiously avoids such favorite Arian phrases as might emphasize the differences between himself and Alexander, and Eusebius seems to have avoided them for the same reason. We conclude then that Eusebius was not an Arian (nor an adherent of Lucian) before 318, that soon after that date he became an Arian in the sense in which he understood Arianism, but that during the Council of Nicæa he ceased to be one in any sense. His writings in later years confirm the course of doctrinal development which we have supposed went on in his mind. He never again defends Arian doctrines in his works, and yet he never becomes an Athanasian in his emphasis upon the ὁμοούσιον. In fact he represents a mild orthodoxy, which is always orthodox—when measured by the Nicene creed as interpreted by the Nicene Council—and yet is always mild. Moreover, he never acquired an affection for the word ὁμοούσιος, which to his mind was bound up with too many evil associations ever to have a pleasant sound to him. He therefore studiously avoided it in his own writings, although clearly showing that he believed fully in what the Nicene Council had explained it to mean. It must be remembered that during many years of his later life he was engaged in controversy with Marcellus, a thorough-going Sabellian, who had been at the time of the Council one of the strongest of Athanasius’ colleagues. In his contest with him it was again anti-Sabellianistic polemics which absorbed him and increased his distaste for ὁμοούσιον and minimized his emphasis upon the distinctively anti-Arianistic doctrines formulated at Nicæa. For any except the very wisest minds it was a matter of enormous difficulty to steer between the two extremes in those times of strife; and while combating Sabellianism not to fall into Arianism, and while combating the latter not to be engulfed in the former. That Eusebius under the constant pressure of the one fell into the other at one time, and was in occasional danger of falling into it again in later years, can hardly be cited as an evidence either of wrong heart or of weak head. An Athanasius he was not, but neither was he an unsteady weather-cock, or an hypocritical time-server.
§6. The Council of Nicæa.
At the Council of Nicæa,
which met pursuant to an imperial summons in the year 325 A.D., Eusebius played a very prominent part. A description
of the opening scenes of the Council is given in his Vita
Constantini, III. 10 sq. After the Emperor had entered in pomp and
had taken his seat, a bishop who sat next to him upon his right arose
and delivered in his honor the opening oration, to which the Emperor
replied in a brief Latin address. There can be no doubt that this
bishop was our Eusebius. Sozomen (H. E. I. 19) states it
directly; and Eusebius, although he does not name the speaker, yet
refers to him, as he had referred to the orator at the dedication of
Paulinus’ church at Tyre, in such a way as to make it clear that
it was himself; and moreover in his Vita Constantini, I. 1, he
mentions the fact that he had in the midst of an assembly of the
servants of God addressed an oration to the Emperor on the occasion of
the latter’s vicennalia, i.e. in 325 a.d. On the other hand, however, Theodoret (H. E.
I. 7) states that this opening oration was delivered by Eustathius,
bishop of Antioch; while Theodore of Mopsuestia and Philostorgius
(according to Nicetas Choniates, Thes. de orthod. fid. V. 7)
assign it to Alexander of Alexandria. As Lightfoot suggests, it is
possible to explain the discrepancy in the reports by
That Eusebius, instead of the bishop of some more prominent church, should have been selected to deliver the opening address, may have been in part owing to his recognized standing as the most learned man and the most famous writer in the Church, in part to the fact that he was not as pronounced a partisan as some of his distinguished brethren; for instance, Alexander of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Nicomedia; and finally in some measure to his intimate relations with the Emperor. How and when his intimacy with the latter grew up we do not know. As already remarked, he seems to have become personally acquainted with him many years before, when Constantine passed through Cæsarea in the train of Diocletian, and it may be that a mutual friendship, which was so marked in later years, began at that time. However that may be, Eusebius seems to have possessed special advantages of one kind or another, enabling him to come into personal contact with official circles, and once introduced to imperial notice, his wide learning, sound common sense, genial temper and broad charity would insure him the friendship of the Emperor himself, or of any other worthy officer of state. We have no record of an intimacy between Constantine and Eusebius before the Council of Nicæa, but many clear intimations of it after that time. In fact, it is evident that during the last decade at least of the Emperor’s life, few, if any, bishops stood higher in his esteem or enjoyed a larger measure of his confidence. Compare for instance the records of their conversations (contained in the Vita Constantini, I. 28 and II. 9), of their correspondence (ib. II. 46, III. 61, IV. 35 and 36), and the words of Constantine himself (ib. III. 60). The marked attention paid by him to the speeches delivered by Eusebius in his presence (ib. IV. 33 and 46) is also to be noticed. Eusebius’ intimacy with the imperial family is shown likewise in the tone of the letter which he wrote to Constantia, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, in regard to a likeness of Christ which she had asked him to send her. The frankness and freedom with which he remonstrates with her for what he considers mistaken zeal on her part, reveal a degree of familiarity which could have come only from long and cordial relations between himself and his royal correspondent. Whatever other reasons therefore may have combined to indicate Eusebius as the most fitting person to deliver the oration in honor of the Emperor at the Council of Nicæa, there can be little doubt that Constantine’s personal friendship for him had much to do with his selection. The action of the Council on the subject of Arianism, and Eusebius’ conduct in the matter, have already been discussed. Of the bishops assembled at the Council, not far from three hundred in number (the reports of eye-witnesses vary from two hundred and fifty to three hundred and eighteen), all but two signed the Nicene creed as adopted by the Council. These two, both of them Egyptians, were banished with Arius to Illyria, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicæa, who subscribed the creed itself but refused to assent to its anathemas, were also banished for a time, but soon yielded, and were restored to their churches.
Into the other purposes for
which the Nicene Council was called,—the settlement of the
dispute respecting the time of observing Easter and the healing of the
Meletian schism,—it is not neces
§7. Continuance of the Arian Controversy. Eusebius’ Relations to the Two Parties.
The Council of Nicæa did
not bring the Arian controversy to an end. The orthodox party was
victorious, it is true, but the Arians were still determined, and could
not give up their enmity against the opponents of Arius, and their hope
that they might in the end turn the tables on their antagonists.
Meanwhile, within a few years after the Council, a quarrel broke out
between our Eusebius and Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, a resolute
supporter of Nicene orthodoxy. According to Socrates (H. E. I.
23) and Sozomen (H. E. II. 18) Eustathius accused Eusebius of
perverting the Nicene doctrines, while Eusebius denied the charge, and
in turn taxed Eustathius with Sabellianism. The quarrel finally became
so serious that it was deemed necessary to summon a Council for the
investigation of Eustathius’ orthodoxy and the settlement of the
dispute. This Council met in Antioch in 330 a.d. (see Tillemont, VII. p. 651 sq., for a discussion of
the date), and was made up chiefly of bishops of Arian or semi-Arian
tendencies. This fact, however, brings no discredit upon Eusebius. The
Council was held in another province, and he can have had nothing to do
with its composition. In fact, convened, as it was, in
Eustathius’ own city, it must have been legally organized; and
indeed Eustathius himself acknowledged its jurisdiction by appearing
before it to answer the charges made against him. Theodoret’s
absurd account of the origin of the synod and of the accusations
brought against Eustathius (H. E. I. 21) bears upon its face the
stamp of falsehood, and is, as Hefele has shown
(Conciliengeschichte, I. 451), hopelessly in error in its
chronology. It is therefore to be rejected as quite worthless. The
decision of the Council doubtless fairly represented the views of the
majority of the bishops of that section, for we know that Arianism had
a very strong hold there. To think of a packed Council and of illegal
methods of procedure in procuring the verdict against Eustathius is
both unnecessary and unwarrantable. The result of the Council was the
deposition of Eustathius from his bishopric and his banishment by the
Emperor to Illyria, where he afterward died. There is a division of
opinion among our sources in regard to the immediate successor of
Eustathius. All of them agree that Eusebius was asked to become bishop
of Antioch, but that he refused the honor, and that Euphronius was
chosen in his stead. Socrates and Sozomen, however, inform us that the
election of Eusebius took place immediately after the deposition of
Eustathius, while Theodoret (H. E. I. 22) names Eulalius as
Eustathius’ immediate successor, and states that he lived but a
short time, and that Eusebius was then asked to succeed him. Theodoret
is supported by Jerome (Chron., year of Abr. 2345) and by
Philostorgius (H. E. III. 15), both of whom insert a bishop
Eulalius between Eustathius and Euphronius. It is easier to suppose
that Socrates and Sozomen may have omitted so unimportant a name at
this point than that the other three witnesses inserted it without
warrant. Socrates indeed implies in the same chapter that his knowledge
of these affairs is limited, and it is not surprising that
Eusebius’ election, which caused a great stir, should have been
connected in the mind of later writers immediately with
Eustathius’ deposition, and the intermediate steps forgotten. It
seems probable, therefore, that immediately after the condemnation of
Eustathius, Eulalius was appointed in his place, perhaps by the same
Council, and that after his death, a few months later, Eusebius, who
had meanwhile gone back to Cæsarea, was elected in due order by
another Council of neighboring bishops summoned for the purpose, and
that he was supported by a large party of citizens. It is noticeable
that the letter written by the Emperor to the Council, which wished to
transfer Eusebius to Antioch (see Vita Const. III. 62), mentions
in its salutation the names of five bishops, but among them is only one
(Theodotus) who is elsewhere named as present at the Council which
deposed Eusta
It is greatly to Eusebius’ credit that he refused the call extended to him. Had he been governed simply by selfish ambition he would certainly have accepted it, for the patriarchate of Antioch stood at that time next to Alexandria in point of honor in the Eastern Church. The Emperor commended him very highly for his decision, in his epistles to the people of Antioch and to the Council (Vita Const. III. 60, 62), and in that to Eusebius himself (ib. III. 61). He saw in it a desire on Eusebius’ part to observe the ancient canon of the Church, which forbade the transfer of a bishop from one see to another. But that in itself can hardly have been sufficient to deter the latter from accepting the high honor offered him, for it was broken without scruple on all sides. It is more probable that he saw that the schism of the Antiochenes would be embittered by the induction into the bishopric of that church of Eustathius’ chief opponent, and that he did not feel that he had a right so to divide the Church of God. Eusebius’ general character, as known to us, justifies us in supposing that this high motive had much to do with his decision. We may suppose also that so difficult a place can have had no very great attractions for a man of his age and of his peace-loving disposition and scholarly tastes. In Cæsarea he had spent his life; there he had the great library of Pamphilus at his disposal, and leisure to pursue his literary work. In Antioch he would have found himself compelled to plunge into the midst of quarrels and seditions of all kinds, and would have been obliged to devote his entire attention to the performance of his official duties. His own tastes therefore must have conspired with his sense of duty to lead him to reject the proffered call and to remain in the somewhat humbler station which he already occupied.
Not long after the deposition of
Eustathius, the Arians and their sympathizers began to work more
energetically to accomplish the ruin of Athanasius, their greatest foe.
He had become Alexander’s successor as bishop of Alexandria in
the year 326, and was the acknowledged head of the orthodox party. If
he could be brought into discredit, there might be hopes of restoring
Arius to his position in Alexandria, and of securing for Arianism a
recognition, and finally a dominating influence in the church at large.
To the overthrow of Athanasius therefore all good Arians bent their
energies. They found ready accomplices in the schismatical Meletians of
Egypt, who were bitter enemies of the orthodox church of Alexandria. It
was useless to accuse Athanasius of heterodoxy; he was too widely known
as the pillar of the orthodox faith. Charges must be framed of another
sort, and of a sort to stir up the anger of the Emperor against him.
The Arians therefore and the Meletians began to spread the most vile
and at the same time absurd stories about Athanasius (see especially
the latter’s Apol. c. Arian. §59 sq.). These at last
became so notorious that the Emperor summoned Athanasius to appear and
make his defense before a council of bishops to be held in Cæsarea
(Sozomen, H. E. II. 25; Theodoret, H. E. I. 28).
Athanasius, however, fearing that the Council would be composed wholly
of his enemies, and that it would therefore be impossible to secure
fair play, excused himself and remained away. But in the following year
(see Sozomen, H. E. II. 25) he received from the Emperor a
summons to appear before a council at Tyre. The summons was too
peremptory to admit of a refusal, and Athanasius therefore attended,
accompanied by many of his devoted adherents (see Sozomen, ib.;
Theodoret, H. E. I. 30; Socrates, H. E. I. 28;
Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. §71 sq.; Eusebius, Vita
Const. IV. 41 sq., and Epiphanius, Hær. LXVIII. 8).
After a time, perceiving that he had no chance of receiving fair play,
he suddenly withdrew from the Council and proceeded directly to
Constantinople, in order to lay his case before the Emperor himself,
and to induce the latter to allow him to meet his accusers in his
presence, and plead his cause before him. There was nothing for the
Synod to do after his flight but to sustain the charges brought against
him, some of which he had not stayed to refute, and to pass
condemnation upon him. Besides various immoral and sacrilegious deeds
of which he was accused, his refusal to appear before the Council
of
Meanwhile Athanasius had induced
Constantine, out of a sense of justice, to summon the bishops that had
condemned him at Tyre to give an account of their proceedings before
the Emperor himself at Constantinople. This unexpected, and, doubtless,
not altogether welcome summons came while the bishops were at
Jerusalem, and the majority of them at once returned home in alarm,
while only a few answered the call and repaired to Constantinople.
Among these were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicæa,
Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and other prominent Arians, and with them
our Eusebius (Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. §§86 and 87;
Socrates, I. 33–35; Sozomen, II. 28). The accusers of Athanasius
said nothing on this occasion in regard to his alleged immoralities,
for which he had been condemned at Tyre, but made another equally
trivial accusation against him, and the result was his banishment to
Gaul. Whether Constantine banished him because he believed the charge
brought against him, or because he wished to preserve him from the
machinations of his enemies (as asserted by his son Constantine, and
apparently believed by Athanasius himself; see his Apol. c.
Arian. §87), or because he thought that Athanasius’
absence would allay the troubles in the Alexandrian church we do not
know. The latter supposition seems most probable. In any case he was
not recalled from banishment until after Constantine’s death. Our
Eusebius has been severely condemned by many historians for the part
taken by him in the Eustathian controversy and especially in the war
against Athanasius. In justice to him a word or two must be spoken in
his defense. So far as his relations to Eustathius are concerned, it is
to be noticed that the latter commenced the controversy by accusing
Eusebius of heterodoxy. Eusebius himself did not begin the quarrel, and
very likely had no desire to engage in any such doctrinal strife; but
he was compelled to defend him
Eusebius has been blamed still
more severely for his treatment of Athanasius. But again the facts must
be looked at impartially. It is necessary always to remember that
Sabellianism was in the beginning and remained throughout his life the
heresy which he most dreaded, and which he had perhaps most reason to
dread. He must, even at the Council of Nicæa, have suspected
Athanasius, who laid so much stress upon the unity of essence on the
part of Father and Son, of a leaning toward Sabellianistic principles;
and this suspicion must have been increased when he discovered, as he
believed, that Athanasius’ most staunch supporter, Eustathius,
was a genuine Sabellian. Moreover, on the other side, it is to be
remembered that Eusebius of Nicomedia, and all the other leading
Arians, had signed the Nicene creed and had proclaimed themselves
thoroughly in sympathy with its teaching. Our Eusebius, knowing the
change that had taken place in his own mind upon the controverted
points, may well have believed that their views had undergone even a
greater change, and that they were perfectly honest in their
protestations of orthodoxy. And finally, when Arius himself presented a
confession of faith which led the Emperor, who had had a personal
interview with him, to believe that he had altered his views and was in
complete harmony with the Nicene faith, it is not surprising that our
Eusebius, who was naturally unsuspicious, conciliatory and
peace-loving, should think the same thing, and be glad to receive Arius
back into communion, while at the same time remaining perfectly loyal
to the orthodoxy of the Nicene creed which he had subscribed. Meanwhile
his suspicions of the Arian party being in large measure allayed, and
his distrust of the orthodoxy of Athanasius and of his adherents being
increased by the course of events, it was only natural that he should
lend more or less credence to the calumnies which were so industriously
circulated against Athanasius. To charge him with dishonesty for being
influenced by these reports, which seem to us so absurd and palpably
calumnious, is quite unwarranted. Constantine, who was, if not a
theologian, at least a clear-headed and sharp-sighted man, believed
them, and why should Eusebius not have done the same? The incident
which took place at the Council of Tyre in connection with Potamo and
himself was important; for whatever doubts he may have had up to that
time as to the truth of the accusations made against Athanasius and his
adherents, Potamo’s conduct convinced him that the charges of
tyranny and high-handed dealing brought against the whole party were
quite true. It could not be otherwise than that he should believe that
the good of the Alexandrian church, and therefore of the Church at
large, demanded the deposition of the seditious and tyrannous
archbishop, who was at the same time quite probably Sabellianistic in
his tendencies. It must in justice be noted that there is not the
slightest reason to suppose that our Eusebius had anything to do with
the dishonorable intrigues of the Arian party throughout this
controversy. Athanasius, who cannot say enough in condemnation of the
tactics of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his supporters, never mentions
Eusebius of Cæsarea in a tone of bitterness. He refers to him
occasionally as a member of the opposite party, but he has no
complaints to utter against him, as he has against the others. This is
very significant, and should put an end to all suspicions of unworthy
conduct on Eusebius’ part. It is to be observed that the latter,
though having good cause as he believed to condemn Athanasius and his
adherents, never acted as a leader in the war against them. His name,
if mentioned at all, occurs always toward the end of the list as one
of
§8. Eusebius and Marcellus.
It was during this visit to Constantinople that another synod was held, at which Eusebius was present, and the result of which was the condemnation and deposition of the bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (see Socrates, I. 36; Sozomen, II. 33; Eusebius, Contra Marc. II. 4). The attitude of our Eusebius toward Marcellus is again significant of his theological tendencies. Marcellus had written a book against Asterius, a prominent Arian, in which, in his zeal for the Nicene orthodoxy, he had laid himself open to the charge of Sabellianism. On this account he was deposed by the Constantinopolitan Synod, and our Eusebius was urged to write a work exposing his errors and defending the action of the Council. As a consequence he composed his two works against Marcellus which will be described later. That Eusebius, if not in the case of Athanasius and possibly not in that of Eustathius, had at least in the present case good ground for the belief that Marcellus was a Sabellian, or Sabellianistic in tendency, is abundantly proved by the citations which he makes from Marcellus’ own works; and, moreover, his judgment and that of the Synod was later confirmed even by Athanasius himself. Though not suspecting Marcellus for some time, Athanasius finally became convinced that he had deviated from the path of orthodoxy, and, as Newman has shown (in his introduction to Athanasius’ fourth discourse against the Arians, Oxford Library of the Fathers, vol. 19, p. 503 sq.), directed that discourse against his errors and those of his followers.
The controversy with Marcellus seems to have been the last in which Eusebius was engaged, and it was opposition to the dreaded heresy of Sabellius which moved him here as in all the other cases. It is important to emphasize, however, what is often overlooked, that though Eusebius during these years was so continuously engaged in controversy with one or another of the members of the anti-Arian party, there is no evidence that he ever deviated from the doctrinal position which he took at the Council of Nicæa. After that date it was never Arianism which he consciously supported; it was never the Nicene orthodoxy which he opposed. He supported those members of the old Arian party who had signed the Nicene creed and protested that they accepted its teaching, against those members of the opposite party whom he believed to be drifting toward Sabellianism, or acting tyrannously and unjustly toward their opponents. The anti-Sabellianistic interest influenced him all the time, but his post-Nicene writings contain no evidence that he had fallen back into the Arianizing position which he had held before 325. They reveal, on the contrary, a fair type of orthodoxy, colored only by its decidedly anti-Sabellian emphasis.
§9. The Death of Eusebius.
In less than two years after the
celebration of his tricennalia, on May 22, 337 a.d., the great Constantine breathed his last, in
Nicomedia, his former Capital. Eusebius, already an old man, produced a
lasting testimonial of his own unbounded affection and admiration for
the first Christian emperor, in his Life of Constantine. Soon
afterward he followed his imperial friend at the
Chapter II
The Writings of Eusebius.
§1. Eusebius as a Writer
Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his labors covered almost every field of theological learning. In the words of Lightfoot he was “historian, apologist, topographer, exegete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn.” It is as an historian that he is best known, but the importance of his historical writings should not cause us to overlook, as modern scholars have been prone to do, his invaluable productions in other departments. Lightfoot passes a very just judgment upon the importance of his works in the following words: “If the permanent utility of an author’s labors may be taken as a test of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold a very high place indeed. The Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique and indispensable. The Chronicle is the vast storehouse of information relating to the ancient monarchies of the world. The Preparation and Demonstration are the most important contributions to theology in their own province. Even the minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine, the Life of Constantine, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to Marinus, and others, would leave an irreparable blank, if they were obliterated. And the same permanent value attaches also to his more technical treatises. The Canons and Sections have never yet been superseded for their particular purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the most important contribution to our knowledge in its own department. In short, no ancient ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under heavier obligations.”
If we look in Eusebius’
works for evidences of brilliant genius we shall be disappointed. He
did not possess a great creative mind like Origen’s or
Augustine’s. His claim to greatness rests upon his vast erudition
and his sterling sense. His powers of acquisition were remarkable and
his diligence in study unwearied. He had at his command undoubtedly
more acquired material than any man of his age, and he possessed that
true literary and historical instinct which enabled him to select from
his vast stores of knowledge those things which it was most worth his
while to tell to the world. His writings therefore remain valuable
while the works of many others, perhaps no less richly equipped than
himself for the mission of adding to the sum of human knowledge, are
entirely forgotten. He thus had the ability to do more than acquire; he
had the ability to impart to others the very best of that which he
acquired, and to make it useful to them. There is not in his writings
the brilliancy which we find in some others, there is not the same
sparkle and freshness of new and suggestive thought, there is not the
same impress of an overmastering individuality which transforms
everything it touches. There is, however, a true and solid merit which
marks his works almost without exception, and raises them above the
commonplace. His exegesis is superior to that of most of his
contemporaries, and his apologetics is marked by fairness of statement,
breadth of treatment, and instinctive appreciation of the difference
between the important and the unimportant points under discussion,
which give to his apologetic works a
We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the works of Eusebius for evidences of a refined literary taste, or for any of the charms which attach to the writings of a great master of composition. His style is, as a rule, involved and obscure, often painfully rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in large part to the desultoriness of his thinking. He did not often enough clearly define and draw the boundaries of his subject before beginning to write upon it. He apparently did much of his thinking after he had taken pen in hand, and did not subject what he had thus produced to a sufficiently careful revision, if to any revision at all. Thoughts and suggestions poured in upon him while he was writing; and he was not always able to resist the temptation to insert them as they came, often to the utter perversion of his train of thought, and to the ruin of the coherency and perspicuity of his style. It must be acknowledged, too, that his literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly vicious. Whenever a flight of eloquence is attempted by him, as it is altogether too often, his style becomes hopelessly turgid and pretentious. At such times his skill in mixing metaphors is something astounding (compare, for instance, H. E. II. 14). On the other hand, his works contain not a few passages of real beauty. This is especially true of his Martyrs of Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for and deep sympathy with the heroes of the faith cause him often to forget himself and to describe their sufferings in language of genuine fire or pathos. At times, too, when he has a sharply defined and absorbing aim in mind, and when the subject with which he is dealing does not seem to him to demand rhetorical adornment, he is simple and direct enough in his language, showing in such cases that his commonly defective style is not so much the consequence of an inadequate command of the Greek tongue as of desultory thinking and vicious literary taste.
But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius’ writings, we ought not to fail to give him due credit for the conscientiousness and faithfulness with which he did his work. He wrote often, it is true, too rapidly for the good of his style, and he did not always revise his works as carefully as he should have done; but we seldom detect undue haste in the collection of materials or carelessness and negligence in the use of them. He seems to have felt constantly the responsibilities which rested upon him as a scholar and writer, and to have done his best to meet those responsibilities. It is impossible to avoid contrasting him in this respect with the most learned man of the ancient Latin Church, St. Jerome. The haste and carelessness with which the latter composed his De Viris Illustribus, and with which he translated and continued Eusebius’ Chronicle, remain an everlasting disgrace to him. An examination of those and of some others of Jerome’s works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly in our esteem. He was at least conscientious and honest in his work, and never allowed himself to palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive his readers by sophistries, misstatements, and pure inventions. He aimed to put the reader into possession of the knowledge which he had himself acquired, but was always conscientious enough to stop there, and not attempt to make fancy play the rôle of fact.
One other point, which was
mentioned some pages back, and to which Lightfoot calls particular
attention, should be referred to here, because of its bearing upon the
character of Eusebius’ writings. He was, above all things, an
apologist; and the apologetic aim governed both the selection of his
subjects and method of his treatment. He composed none of his works
with a
§2. Catalogue of his Works.
There is no absolutely complete edition of Eusebius’ extant works. The only one which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne: Eusebii Pamphili, Cæsareæ Palestinæ Episcopi, Opera omnia quæ extant, curis variorum, nempe: Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri, Bernardi Montfauconii, Card. Angelo Maii edita; collegit et denuo recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. 1857. 6 vols. (tom. XIX.–XXIV. of Migne’s Patrologia Græca). This edition omits the works which are extant only in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some brief but important Greek fragments (among them the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The edition, however, is invaluable and cannot be dispensed with. References to it (under the simple title Opera) will be given below in connection with those works which it contains. Many of Eusebius’ writings, especially the historical, have been published separately. Such editions will be mentioned in their proper place in the Catalogue.
More or less incomplete lists of our author’s writings are given by Jerome (De vir. ill. 87); by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37); by Ebedjesu (in Assemani’s Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18 sq.); by Photius (Bibl. 9–13, 27, 39, 127); and by Suidas (who simply copies the Greek version of Jerome). Among modern works all the lives of Eusebius referred to in the previous chapter give more or less extended catalogues of his writings. In addition to the works mentioned there, valuable lists are also found in Lardner’s Credibility, Part II chap. 72, and especially in Fabricius’ Bibl. Græca (ed. 1714), vol. VI. p. 30 sq.
The writings of Eusebius that
are known to us, extant and non-extant, may be classified for
convenience’ sake under the following heads: I. Historical. II.
Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV. Dogmatic. V. Critical and Exegetical. VI.
Biblical Dictionaries. VII. Orations. VIII. Epistles. IX. Spurious or
doubtful works. The classification is necessarily somewhat artificial,
and claims to be neither exhaustive nor exclusive. In the
preparation of the following Catalogue of Eusebius’ writings
Stein, and especially Lightfoot, have been found most
helpful.
I. Historical Works.
Life of Pamphilus
(ἡ
τοῦ
Παμφίλου
βίου
ἀναγραφή; see H. E. VI. 32). Eusebius himself refers to this work
in four passages (H. E. VI. 32, VII. 32, VIII. 13, and Mart.
Pal. c. 11). In the last he informs us that it consisted of three
books. The work is mentioned also more than once by Jerome (De vir.
ill. 81; Ep. ad Marcellam, Migne’s ed. Ep. 34;
Contra Ruf. I. 9), who speaks of it in terms of praise, and in
the last passage gives a brief extract from the third book, which is,
so far as known, the only extant fragment of the work. The date of its
composition can be fixed within comparatively narrow limits. It must of
course have been written before the shorter recension of the Martyrs
of Palestine, which contains a reference to it (on its relation to
the
Martyrs of Palestine (περὶ τῶν ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ μαρτυρησ€ντων). This work is extant in two recensions, a longer and a shorter. The longer has been preserved entire only in a Syriac version, which was published, with English translation and notes, by Cureton in 1861. A fragment of the original Greek of this work as preserved by Simon Metaphrastes had previously been published by Papebroch in the Acta Sanctorum (June, tom. I. p. 64; reprinted by Fabricius, Hippolytus, II. p. 217), but had been erroneously regarded as an extract from Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus. Cureton’s publication of the Syriac version of the Martyrs of Palestine showed that it was a part of the original of that work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts of St. Procopius, which were published by Valesius (in his edition of Eusebius’ Hist. Eccles. in a note on the first chapter of the Mart. Pal.; reprinted by Cureton, Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). Moreover, according to Cureton, Assemani’s Acta SS. Martyrum Orient. et Occidentalium, part II. p. 169 sq. (Romæ, 1748) contains another Syriac version of considerable portions of this same work. The Syriac version published by Cureton was made within less than a century after the composition of the original work (the manuscript of it dates from 411 a.d.; see Cureton, ib., preface, p. i.), perhaps within a few years after it, and there is every reason to suppose that it represents that original with considerable exactness. That Eusebius himself was the author of the original cannot be doubted. In addition to this longer recension there is extant in Greek a shorter form of the same work which is found attached to the Ecclesiastical History in most mss. of the latter. In some of them it is placed between the eighth and ninth books, in others at the close of the tenth book, while one ms. inserts it in the middle of VIII. 13. In some of the most important mss. it is wanting entirely, as likewise in the translation of Rufinus, and, according to Lightfoot, in the Syriac version of the History. Most editions of Eusebius’ History print it at the close of the eighth book. Migne gives it separately in Opera, II. 1457 sq. In the present volume the translation of it is given as an appendix to the eighth book, on p. 342 sq.
There can be no doubt that the shorter form is younger than the longer. The mention of the Life of Pamphilus which is contained in the shorter, but is not found in the corresponding passage of the longer form would seem to indicate that the former was a remodeling of the latter rather than the latter of the former (see below, p. 30). Moreover, as Cureton and Lightfoot both point out, the difference between the two works both in substance and in method is such as to make it clear that the shorter form is a revised abridgment of the longer. That Eusebius himself was the author of the shorter as well as of the longer form is shown by the fact that not only in the passages common to both recensions, but also in those peculiar to the shorter one, the author speaks in the same person and as an eye-witness of many of the events which he records. And still further, in Chap. 11 he speaks of having himself written the Life of Pamphilus in three books, a notice which is wanting in the longer form and therefore must emanate from the hand of the author of the shorter. It is interesting to inquire after Eusebius’ motive in publishing an abridged edition of this work. Cureton supposes that he condensed it simply for the purpose of inserting it in the second edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the other hand, suggests that it may have formed “part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors,” and he is inclined to see in the brief appendix to the eighth book of the History (translated below on p. 340) “a fragment of the second part of the treatise of which the Martyrs of Palestine in the shorter recension formed the first.” The suggestion is, to say the least, very plausible. If it be true, the attachment of the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine to the Ecclesiastical History was probably the work, not of Eusebius himself, but of some copyist or copyists, and the disagreement among the various mss. as to its position in the History is more easily explained on this supposition than on Cureton’s theory that it was attached to a later edition of the latter work by Eusebius himself.
If we then suppose that the
greater part of the longer recension of the Martyrs was already
complete before the end of the persecution, it is natural to conclude
that the whole work was published at an early date, probably as soon as
possible after the first edition of the History. How much later
the abridgment was made we cannot tell. Since the
above section was written, another possibility has suggested itself to
me. As remarked below, on p. 45, it is possible that Eusebius issued a
second edition of his History in the year 324 or 325, with a
tenth book added, and that he inserted at that time two remarks not
contained in the first edition of the first nine books. It is possible,
therefore to suppose that the references to the Vita Pamphili,
as an already published book, found in H. E. VI. 32 and VII. 32,
may have been added at the same time. Turning to the latter passage we
find our author saying, “It would be no small matter to show what
sort of man he [Pamphilus] was, and whence he came. But we have
described in a separate work devoted to him all the particulars of his
life, and of the school which he established, and the trials which he
endured in many confessions during the persecution, and the crown of
martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of all who were
there he was the most admirable” (ἀλλ᾽
οὗτος μὲν τῶν
τῇδε
θαυμασιώτατος). The ἀλλὰ, but, seems
very unnatural after the paragraph in regard to the work which Eusebius
had already written. In fact, to give the word its proper adversative
force after what precedes is quite impossible, and it is therefore
commonly rendered (as in the translation of the passage on p. 321,
below) simply “indeed.” If we suppose the passage in regard
to the Biography of Pamphilus to be a later insertion, the use of
the ἀλλὰ becomes quite
explicable. “It would be no small matter to show what sort of man
he was and whence he came. But (this much I can say here) he was
the most admirable of all who were there.” Certainly the
reference at this point to the Vita Pamphili thus has something
of the look of a later insertion. In VI. 32, the reference to that work
might be struck out without in the least impairing the continuity of
thought. Still further, in VIII. 13, where the Vita is
mentioned, although the majority of the mss.
followed by most of the modern editions have the past tense
ἀνεγρ€ψαμεν
“we have written,” three of the best mss. read ἀναγρ€ψομεν
“we shall write.” Might not this confusion
have arisen from the fact that Eusebius, in revising the
History, instead of rewriting this whole passage simply
substituted in the copy which he had before him the word ἀνεγρ€ψαμεν
for the earlier ἀναγρ€ψομεν, and that some copyist, or copyists, finding the earlier
form still legible, preferred that to the substituted form, thinking
the latter to be an insertion by some unauthorized person? If we were
then to suppose that the Vita Pamphili was written after the
first edition of the History, but before the issue of the
complete work in its revised form, we should place its composition
later than the longer recension of the Martyrs, but earlier than
the shorter recension, and thus explain quite simply the lack of any
reference to the Vita in the former. Against the theory stated
in this note might be urged the serious objection that the reference to
the Martyrs of Palestine in VIII. 13 is allowed to remain in the
future tense even in the revised edition of the History, a fact
which of course argues against the change of ἀναγρ€ψομεν
to ἀνεγρ€ψαμεν
in the reference to the Vita in the same
chapter. Indeed, I do not which to be understood as maintaining this
theory, or as considering it more probable than the one stated in the
text. I suggest it simply as an alternative possibility.
The differences between the two recensions lie chiefly in the greater fullness of detail on the part of the longer one. The arrangement and general mode of treatment is the same in both. They contain accounts of the Martyrs that suffered in Palestine during the years 303–310, most of whom Eusebius himself saw.
Collection of Ancient
Martyrdoms (ἀρχαίων
μαρτυρίων
συναγωγή). This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his H. E. IV. 15,
V. præf., 4, 21. These notices indicate that it was not an
original
Chronicle (χρονικοὶ κανόνες). Eusebius refers to this work in his Church History (I. 1), in his Præparatio Evang. X. 9, and at the beginning of his Eclogæ propheticæ. It is divided into two books, the first of which consists of an epitome of universal history drawn from various sources, the second of chronological tables, which “exhibit in parallel columns the succession of the rulers of different nations in such a way that the reader can see at a glance with whom any given monarch was contemporary.” The tables “are accompanied by notes, marking the years of some of the more remarkable historical events, these notes also constituting an epitome of history.” Eusebius was not the first Christian writer to compose a work on universal chronology. Julius Africanus had published a similar work early in the third century, and from that Eusebius drew his model and a large part of the material for his own work. At the same time his Chronicle is more than a simple revision of Africanus’ work, and contains the result of much independent investigation on his own part. The work of Africanus is no longer extant, and that of Eusebius was likewise lost for a great many centuries, being superseded by a revised Latin edition, issued by Jerome. Jerome’s edition, which comprises only the second book of Eusebius’ Chronicle, is a translation of the original work, enlarged by notices taken from various writers concerning human history, and containing a continuation of the chronology down to his own time. This, together with numerous Greek fragments preserved by various ancient writers, constituted our only source for a knowledge of the original work, until late in the last century an Armenian translation of the whole work was discovered and published in two volumes by J. B. Aucher: Venice, 1818. The Armenian translation contains a great many errors and not a few lacunæ, but it is our most valuable source for a knowledge of the original work.
The aim of the Chronicle was, above all, apologetic, the author wishing to prove by means of it that the Jewish religion, of which the Christian was the legitimate continuation, was older than the oldest of heathen cults, and thus deprive pagan opponents of their taunt of novelty, so commonly hurled against Christianity. As early as the second century, the Christian apologists had emphasized the antiquity of Judaism; but Julius Africanus was the first to devote to the matter scientific study, and it was with the same idea that Eusebius followed in his footsteps. The Chronology, in spite of its errors, is invaluable for the light it throws on many otherwise dark periods of history, and for the numerous extracts it contains from works no longer extant.
There are good and sufficient reasons (as is pointed out by Salmon in his article in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography) for supposing that two editions of the Chronicle were published by Eusebius. But two of these reasons need be stated here: first, the chronology of the Armenian version differs from that of Jerome’s edition in many important particulars, divergencies which can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a difference in the sources from which they respectively drew; secondly, Jerome states directly that the work was brought down to the vicennalia of Constantine,—that is, to the year 325,—but the Chronicle is referred to as an already published work in the Eclogæ propheticæ (I. 1), and in the Præparatio Evang. (X. 9), both of which were written before 313. We may conclude, then, that a first edition of the work was published during, or more probably before, the great persecution, and that a second and revised edition was issued probably in 325, or soon thereafter.
For further particulars in
regard to the Chronicle see especially the article of Salmon
already referred to. The work has been issued separately a great many
times. We may refer here to the edition of Scaliger, which was
published in 1606 (2d ed. 1658), in which he attempted
Ecclesiastical History (ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία). For a discussion of this work see below, p. 45 sq.
Life of Constantine (εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ μακαρίου Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ βασιλέως). For particulars in regard to this work, see the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, on pp. 466–469 sq., of this volume.
II. Apologetic Works.
Against Hierocles (πρὸς τοὺς ὑπὲρ ᾽Απολλωνίου τοῦ τυανέως ῾Ιεροκλέους λόγους, as Photius calls it in his Bibl. 39). Hierocles was governor of Bithynia during the early years of the Diocletian persecution, and afterwards governor of Egypt. In both places he treated the Christians with great severity, carrying out the edicts of the emperors to the fullest extent, and even making use of the most terrible and loathsome forms of persecution (see Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 16, and Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 5, Cureton’s ed. p. 18). He was at the same time a Neo-Platonic philosopher, exceedingly well versed in the Scriptures and doctrines of the Christians. In a work against the Christians entitled λόγος φιλαλήθης πρὸς τοὺς χριστιανούς, he brought forward many scriptural difficulties and alleged contradictions, and also instituted a comparison between Christ and Apollonius of Tyana, with the intention of disparaging the former. Eusebius feels called upon to answer the work, but confines himself entirely to that part of it which concerned Christ and Apollonius, leaving to some future time a refutation of the remainder of the work, which indeed, he says, as a mere reproduction of the arguments of Celsus, had been already virtually answered by Origen (see chap. 1). Eusebius admits that Apollonius was a good man, but refuses to concede that he was anything more, or that he can be compared with Christ. He endeavors to show that the account of Apollonius given by Philostratus is full of contradictions and does not rest upon trustworthy evidence. The tone of the book is mild, and the arguments in the main sound and well presented. It is impossible to fix the date of the work with any degree of certainty. Valesius assigns it to the later years of the persecution, when Eusebius visited Egypt; Stein says that it may have been written about 312 or 313, or even earlier; while Lightfoot simply remarks, “it was probably one of the earliest works of Eusebius.” There is no ground for putting it at one time rather than another except the intrinsic probability that it was written soon after the work to which it was intended to be a reply. In fact, had a number of years elapsed after the publication of Hierocles’ attack, Eusebius would doubtless, if writing against it at all, have given a fuller and more complete refutation of it, such as he suggests in the first chapter that he may yet give. The work of Hierocles, meanwhile, must have been written at any rate some time before the end of the persecution, for it is mentioned in Lactantius’ Div. Inst. V. 2.
Eusebius’ work has been published by Gaisford: Eusebii Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum libri, Oxon. 1852; and also in various editions of the works of Philostratus. Migne, Opera IV. 795 sq., reprints it from Olearius’ edition of Philostratus’ works (Lips. 1709).
Against Porphyry
(κατὰ
Πορφυρίον). Porphyry, the celebrated Neo-Platonic philosopher,
regarded by the early Fathers as the bitterest and most dangerous enemy
of the Church, wrote toward the end of the third century a work against
Christianity in fifteen books, which was looked upon as the most
powerful attack that had ever been made, and which called forth
refutations from some of the greatest Fathers of the age: from
Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of Cæsarea, and Apollinaris of
Laodicea; and even as late as the end of the fourth or beginning of the
fifth century the historian Philostorgius thought it necessary to write
another reply to it (see his H. E. X. 10). Porphyry’s work
is no longer extant, but the fragments of it which remain show us that
it was both learned and skillful. He made much of the alleged
contra
It is impossible to form an accurate notion of the nature and quality of Eusebius’ refutation. Socrates speaks of it in terms of moderate praise (“which [i.e. the work of Porphyry] has been ably answered by Eusebius”), and Jerome does the same in his Ep. ad Magnum (“Alteri [i.e. Porphyry] Methodius, Eusebius, et Apollinaris fortissime responderunt”). At the same time the fact that Apollinaris and others still thought it necessary to write against Porphyry would seem to show that Eusebius’ refutation was not entirely satisfactory. In truth, Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, §2, Migne’s ed. Ep. 84) appears to rank the work of Apollinaris above that of Eusebius, and Philostorgius expressly states that the former far surpassed the latter (ἐπὶ πολὺ κρατεῖν ἠγωνισμένων ᾽Ευσεβί& 251· κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ). The date of Eusebius’ work cannot be determined. The fact that he never refers to it, although he mentions the work of Porphyry a number of times, has been urged by Valesius and others as proof that he did not write it until after 325 a.d.; but it is quite possible to explain his silence, as Lardner does, by supposing that his work was written in his earlier years, and that afterward he felt its inferiority and did not care to mention it. It seems, in fact, not unlikely that he wrote it as early, or even earlier than his work against Hierocles, at any rate before his attention was occupied with the Arian controversy and questions connected with it.
On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients (περὶ τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν πολυπαιδίας). This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his Præp. Evang. VII. 8. 20 (Migne, Opera, III. 525), but by no one else, unless it be the book to which Basil refers in his De Spir. Sancto, 29, as Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. The work is no longer extant, but we can gather from the connection in which it is mentioned in the Præparatio, that it aimed at accounting for the polygamy of the Patriarchs and reconciling it with the ascetic ideal of the Christian life which prevailed in the Church of Eusebius’ lifetime. It would therefore seem to have been written with an apologetic purpose.
Præparatio
Evangelica (προπαρασκευὴ
εὐαγγελική) and Demonstratio Evangelica (᾽Ευαγγελικὴ
ἀπόδειξις). These two treatises together constitute Eusebius’
greatest apologetic work. The former is directed against heathen, and
aims to show that the Christians are justified in accepting the sacred
books of the Hebrews and in rejecting the religion and philosophy of
the Greeks. The latter endeavors to prove from the sacred books of the
Hebrews themselves that the Christians do right in going beyond the
Jews, in accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and in adopting another mode
of life. The former is therefore in a way a preparation for the latter,
and the two together constitute a defense of Christianity against all
the world, Jews as well as heathen. In grandeur of conception, in
comprehensiveness of treatment, and in breadth of learning, this
apology undoubtedly surpasses all other apologetic works of antiquity.
Lightfoot justly says, “This great apologetic work exhibits the
same merits and defects which we find elsewhere in Eusebius. There is
the same greatness of conception marred by the same inadequacy of
execution, the same profusion of learning combined with the same
inability to control his materials, which we have seen in his
History. The divisions are not kept distinct; the topics start
up unexpectedly and out of season. But with all its faults this is
probably the most important apologetic work of the early Church. It
necessarily lacks the historical interest of the apologetic
A very satisfactory summary of the contents of the Præparatio is given at the beginning of the fifteenth book. In the first, second, and third books, the author exposes the absurdities of heathen mythology, and attacks the allegorical theology of the Neo-Platonists; in the fourth and fifth books he discusses the heathen oracles; in the sixth he refutes the doctrine of fate; in the seventh he passes over to the Hebrews, devoting the next seven books to an exposition of the excellence of their system, and to a demonstration of the proposition that Moses and the prophets lived before the greatest Greek writers, and that the latter drew their knowledge from the former; in the fourteenth and fifteenth books he exposes the contradictions among Greek philosophers and the vital errors in their systems, especially in that of the Peripatetics. The Præparatio is complete in fifteen books, all of which are still extant.
The Demonstratio consisted originally of twenty books (see Jerome’s de vir. ill. 81, and Photius’ Bibl. 10). Of these only ten are extant, and even in the time of Nicephores Callistus no more were known, for he gives the number of the books as ten (H. E. VI. 37). There exists also a fragment of the fifteenth book, which was discovered and printed by Mai (Script. vet. nova coll. I. 2, p. 173). In the first book, which is introductory, Eusebius shows why the Christians pursue a mode of life different from that of the Jews, drawing a distinction between Hebraism, the religion of all pious men from the beginning, and Judaism, the special system of the Jews, and pointing out that Christianity is a continuation of the former, but a rejection of the latter, which as temporary has passed away. In the second book he shows that the calling of the Gentiles and the repudiation of the Jews are foretold in Scripture. In books three to nine he discusses the humanity, divinity, incarnation, and earthly life of the Saviour, showing that all were revealed in the prophets. In the remainder of the work we may assume that the same general plan was followed, and that Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and the spread of his Church, were the subjects discussed in this as in nearly all works of the kind.
There is much dispute as to the date of these two works. Stroth and Cave place them after the Council of Nicæa, while Valesius, Lightfoot, and others, assign them to the ante-Nicene period. In two passages in the History Eusebius has been commonly supposed to refer to the Demonstratio (H. E. I. 2 and 6), but it is probable that the first, and quite likely the second also, refers to the Eclogæ Proph. We can, therefore, base no argument upon those passages. But in Præp. Evang. XII. 10 (Opera, III. 969) there is a reference to the persecution, which seems clearly to imply that it was still continuing; and in the Demonstratio (III. 5 and IV. 6; Opera, IV. 213 and 307), which was written after the Præparatio, are still more distinct indications of the continuance of the persecution. On the other hand, in V. 3 and VI. 20 (Opera, IV. 364 and 474) there are passages which imply that the persecution has come to an end. It seems necessary then to conclude, with Lightfoot, that the Demonstratio was begun during the persecution, but not completed until peace had been established. The Præparatio, which was completed before the Demonstratio was begun (see the proœmium to the latter), must have been finished during the persecution. It contains in X. 9 (Opera, III. 807) a reference to the Chronicle as an already published work (see above, p. 31).
The Demonstratio was also published by Gaisford in 2 vols., Oxon. 1852, with critical apparatus and Latin translation. Hænell has made the two works the subject of a monograph entitled De Eusebio Cæsariensi religionis Christianæ Defensore (Gottingæ, 1843) which I know only from the mention of it by Stein and Lightfoot.
Præparatio Ecclesiastica (᾽Εκκλησιαστικὴ Προπαρασκευή), and Demonstratio Ecclesiastica (᾽Εκκλησιαστικὴ ᾽Απόδειξις). These two works are no longer extant. We know of the former only from Photius’ reference to it in Bibl. 11, of the latter from his mention of it in Bibl. 12.
Lightfoot says that the latter is referred to also in the Jus Græco-Romanum (lib. IV. p. 295; ed. Leunclav.). We know nothing about the works (except that the first according to Photius contained extracts), and should be tempted to think them identical with the Præparatio and Demonstratio Evang. were it not that Photius expressly mentions the two latter in another part of his catalogue (Bibl. 10). Lightfoot supposes that the two lost works did for the society what the Præp. and Dem. Evang. do for the doctrines of which the society is the depositary, and he suggests that those portions of the Theophania (Book IV.) which relate to the foundation of the Church may have been adopted from the Dem. Ecclesiastica, as other portions of the work (Book V.) are adopted from the Dem. Evang.
If there is a reference in the Præp. Evang. I. 3 (Opera, III. 33) to the Demonstratio Eccles., as Lightfoot thinks there may be, and as is quite possible, the latter work, and consequently in all probability the Præp. Eccles. also, must have been written before 313 a.d.
Two Books of Objection and Defense (᾽Ελέγχου καὶ ᾽Απολογίας λόγοι δύο). These are no longer extant, but are mentioned by Photius in his Bibl. 13. We gather from Photius’ language that two editions of the work were extant in his time. The books, as Photius clearly indicates, contained an apology for Christianity against the attacks of the heathen, and not, as Cave supposed, a defense of the author against the charge of Arianism. The tract mentioned by Gelasius of Cyzicus (see below, p. 64) is therefore not to be identified with this work, as Cave imagined that it might be.
Theophaniaor Divine Manifestation (θεοφ€νεια). A Syriac version of this work is extant in the same
ms. which contains the Martyrs of
Palestine, and was first published by Lee in 1842. In 1843 the same
editor issued an English translation with notes and extended
prolegomena (Cambridge, 1 vol.). The original work is no longer extant
in its entirety, but numerous Greek fragments were collected and
published by Mai in 1831 and 1833 (Script. vet. nov. coll. I.
and VIII.), and again with additions in 1847 (Bibl. Nova Patrum,
IV. 110 and 310; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 607–690.
Migne does not give the Syriac version). The manuscript which contains
the Syriac version was written in 411, and Lee thinks that the
translation itself may have been made even during the lifetime of
Eusebius. At any rate it is very old and, so far as it is possible to
judge, seems to have reproduced the sense of the original with
comparative accuracy. The subject of the work is the manifestation of
God in the incarnation of the Word. It aims to give, with an apologetic
purpose, a brief exposition of the divine authority and influence of
Christianity. It is divided into five books which handle successively
the subject and the recipients of the revelation, that is, the Logos on
the one hand, and man on the other; the necessity of the revelation;
the proof of it drawn from its effects; the proof of it drawn from its
fulfillment of prophecy; finally, the common objections brought by the
heathen against Christ’s character and wonderful works. Lee says
of the work: “As a brief exposition of Christianity,
The Theophania contains much that is found also in other works of Eusebius. Large portions of the first, second, and third books are contained in the Oratio de Laudibus Constantini, nearly the whole of the fifth book is given in the Dem. Evang., while many passages occur in the Præp. Evang.
These coincidences assist us in determining the date of the work. That it was written after persecution had ceased and peace was restored to the Church, is clear from II. 76, III. 20, 79, V. 52. Lee decided that it was composed very soon after the close of the Diocletian persecution, but Lightfoot has shown conclusively (p. 333) from the nature of the parallels between it and other writings of Eusebius, that it must have been written toward the end of his life, certainly later than the De Laud. Const. (335 a.d.), and indeed it is not improbable that it remained unfinished at the time of his death.
III. Polemic Works.
Defense of Origen (᾽Απολογία ὑπὲρ ᾽Ωριγένους). This was the joint work of Eusebius and Pamphilus, as is distinctly stated by Eusebius himself in his H. E. VI. 33, by Socrates, H. E. III. 7, by the anonymous collector of the Synodical Epistles (Ep. 198), and by Photius, Bibl. 118. The last writer informs us that the work consisted of six books, the first five of which were written by Eusebius and Pamphilus while the latter was in prison, the last book being added by the former after Pamphilus’ death (see above, p. 9). There is no reason to doubt the statement of Photius, and we may therefore assign the first five books to the years 307–309, and assume that the sixth was written soon afterward. The Defense has perished, with the exception of the first book, which was translated by Rufinus (Rufin. ad Hieron. I. 582), and is still extant in his Latin version. Rufinus ascribed this book expressly to Pamphilus, and Pamphilus’ name alone appears in the translation. Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 8; II. 15, 23; III. 12) maintains that the whole work was written by Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, and accuses Rufinus of having deliberately substituted the name of the martyr Pamphilus for that of the Arianizing Eusebius in his translation of the work, in order to secure more favorable acceptance for the teachings of Origen. Jerome’s unfairness and dishonesty in this matter have been pointed out by Lightfoot (p. 340). In spite of his endeavor to saddle the whole work upon Eusebius, it is certain that Pamphilus was a joint author of it, and it is quite probable that Rufinus was true to his original in ascribing to Pamphilus all the explanations which introduce and connect the extracts from Origen, which latter constitute the greater part of the book. Eusebius may have done most of his work in connection with the later books.
The work was intended as a
defense of Origen against the attacks of his opponents (see
Eusebius’ H. E. VI. 33, and the Preface to the
Defense itself). According to Socrates (H. E. VI. 13),
Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus all wrote against
Origen. Of these only Methodius had written before the composition of
the Defense, and he was expressly attacked in the sixth book of
that work, according to Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 11). The wide
opposition aroused against Origen was chiefly in consequence not of his
personal character, but of his theological views. The Apology,
therefore, seems to have been devoted in the main to a defense of those
views over against the attacks of the men that held and taught opposite
opinions, and may thus be regarded as in some sense a regular polemic.
The extant book is devoted principally to a discussion of
Origen’s views on the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is not
printed in Migne’s edition of Eusebius’ Opera, but
is published in the various editions of
Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (κατὰ Μαρκέλλου τοῦ ᾽Αγκύρας ἐπισκόπου). The occasion of this work has been already described (see p. 25), and is explained by Eusebius himself in Book II. chap. 4. The work must have been written soon after the Council at which Marcellus was condemned. It aims simply to expose his errors, exegetical as well as theological. The work consists of two books, and is still extant (Opera, VI. 707–824).
On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of Marcellus (οἱ πρὸς Μ€ρκελλον žλεγχοι περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Θεολογίας). The occasion of this work is stated in the first chapter. In the previous work Eusebius had aimed merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, but in this he devotes himself to their refutation, fearing that some might be led astray by their length and plausibility. The work, which consists of three books, is still extant, and is given by Migne in the Opera, VI. 825–1046. Both it and the preceding are published with the Contra Hieroclem in Gaisford’s Euseb. Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum, Oxon. 1852. Zahn has written a valuable monograph entitled Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867).
Against the Manicheans. Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 21) mentions, among other refutations of the Manicheans, one by our Eusebius. The work is referred to nowhere else, and it is possible that Epiphanius was mistaken in his reference, or that the refutation he has in mind formed only a part of some other work, but we are hardly justified in asserting, as Lightfoot does, that the work cannot have existed.
IV. Dogmatic Works.
General Elementary Introduction (῾Η καθόλου στοιχειώδης εἰσαγωγή). This work consisted of ten books, as we learn from a reference to it in the Eclogæ Propheticæ, IV. 35. It was apparently a general introduction to the study of theology, and covered a great variety of subjects. Five brief fragments have been preserved, all of them apparently from the first book, which must have dealt largely with general principles of ethics. The fragments were published by Mai (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316), and are reprinted by Migne (Opera, IV. 1271 sq.). In addition to these fragments, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth books of the work are extant under the title:
Prophetical Extracts (Προφητικαὶ ᾽Εκλογαί). Although this formed a part of the larger work, it is complete in itself, and circulated independently of the rest of the Introduction. It contains extracts of prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. It is divided into four books, the first containing extracts from the historical Scriptures, the second from the Psalms, the third from the other poetical books and from the prophets, the fourth from Isaiah alone. The personality of the Logos is the main topic of the work, which is thus essentially dogmatic, rather than apologetic, as it might at first glance seem to be. It was composed during the persecution, which is clearly referred to in Book I. chap. 8 as still raging; it must have been written therefore between 303 and 313. The date of these books, of course, fixes the date of the General Introduction, of which they formed a part. The Eclogæ are referred to in the History, I. 2. On the other hand, they mention the Chronicle as a work already written (I. 1: Opera, p. 1023); a reference which goes to prove that there were two editions of the Chronicle (see above, p. 31). The four books of the Prophetical Extracts were first published by Gaisford in 1842 (Oxford) from a Vienna ms. The ms. is mutilated in many places, and the beginning, including the title of the work, is wanting. Migne has reprinted Gaisford’s edition in the Opera, IV. 1017 sq.
On the Paschal
Festival (περὶ τῆς τοῦ
π€σχα ἑ&
231·ρτης). This work,
as Eusebius informs us in his Vita Const. IV. 34, was addressed
to the Emperor Constantine, who commends it very highly in an epistle
to Eusebius preserved in the Vita Const. IV. 35. From this
epistle we learn, more
Jerome, although he does not mention this work in his catalogue of Eusebius’ writings (de vir. ill. 81), elsewhere (ib. 61) states that Eusebius composed a paschal canon with a cycle of nineteen years. This cycle may have been published (as Lightfoot remarks) as a part of the writing under discussion. The date of the work cannot be determined with exactness. It was written after the Council of Nicæa, and, as would seem from the connection in which it is mentioned in the Vita Constantini, before the Emperor’s tricennalia (335 a.d.), but not very long before. The extant fragment, as published by Mai, is reprinted by Migne in the Opera, VI. 693–706.
V. Critical and Exegetical Works.
Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Præf. in librum Paralip.) that Eusebius and Pamphilus published a number of copies of Origen’s edition of the LXX., that is, of the fifth column of the Hexapla. A colophon found in a Vatican ms., and given in facsimile in Migne’s Opera, IV. 875, contains the following account of their labors (the translation is Lightfoot’s): “It was transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which also had been corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting; whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected [this copy].” Compare also Field’s Hexapla, I. p. xcix.
Taylor, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, III. p. 21, says: “The whole work [i.e. the Hexapla] was too massive for multiplication; but many copies of its fifth column alone were issued from Cæsarea under the direction of Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius, and this recension of the LXX. came into common use. Some of the copies issued contained also marginal scholia, which gave inter alia a selection of readings from the remaining versions in the Hexapla. The oldest extant ms. of this recension is the Leiden Codex Sarravianus of the fourth or fifth century.” These editions of the LXX. must have been issued before the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, and in all probability before 307, when he was imprisoned (see Lardner’s Credibility, Part II. chap. 72.
In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the publication of copies of the Scriptures. According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare fifty sumptuous copies of the Scriptures for use in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The commission was carefully executed, and the mss. prepared at great cost. It has been thought that among our extant mss. may be some of these copies which were produced under Eusebius’ supervision, but this is extremely improbable (see Lightfoot, p. 334).
Ten Evangelical Canons, with
the Letter to Carpianus prefixed (κανόνες
δέκα; Canones decem
harmoniæ evangeliorum præmissa ad Carpianum epistola).
Ammonius of Alexandria early in the third century had constructed a
harmony of the Gospels, in which, taking Matthew as the standard, he
placed alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages from the three
others. Eusebius’ work was suggested by this Harmony, as he tells
us in his epistle to Carpianus. An inconvenient feature of
Ammonius’ work was that only the Gospel of Matthew could be read
continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels being broken in order
to bring their parallel sections into the order followed by Matthew.
Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect, constructed his work on a
different principle. He made a table of ten canons, each containing a
list of passages as follows: Canon I. passages common to all four
Gospels; II. those common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; III. those
Each Gospel was then divided into sections, which were numbered continuously. The length of the section was determined, not by the sense, but by the table of canons, each section comprising a passage common to four, to three, to two Gospels, or peculiar to itself, as the case might be. A single section therefore might comprise even less than a verse, or it might cover more than a chapter. The sections were numbered in black, and below each number was placed a second figure in red, indicating the canon to which the section belonged. Upon glancing at that canon the reader would find at once the numbers of the parallel sections in the other Gospels, and could turn to them readily. The following is a specimen of a few lines of the first canon:—
|
MT. |
MP. |
Λ. |
ΙΩ. |
|
η |
β |
ζ |
ι |
|
ια |
δ |
ι |
ς |
|
ια |
δ |
ι |
ιβ |
|
ια |
δ |
ι |
ιδ |
Thus, opposite a certain passage in John, the reader finds ιβ (12) written, and beneath it, Α (1). He therefore turns to the first canon (A) and finds that sections ια(11) in Matthew, δ (4) in Mark, and ι(10) in Luke are parallel with ιβ in John. The advantage and convenience of such a system are obvious, and the invention of it shows great ingenuity. It has indeed never been superseded, and the sections and canons are still indicated in the margins of many of our best Greek Testaments (e.g., in those of Tregelles and of Tischendorf). The date of the construction of these canons it is quite impossible to determine. For further particulars in regard to them, see Lightfoot’s article on Eusebius, p. 334 sq., and Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2d ed. p. 54 sq. The canons, with the letter to Carpianus prefixed, are given by Migne, Opera, IV. 1275–1292.
Gospel Questions and
Solutions. This work consists of two parts,
or of two separate works combined. The first bears the title Gospel
Questions and Solutions addressed to Stephanus (πρὸς
Στέφανον
περὶ τῶν ἐν
εὐαγγελίοις
ζητημ€των
καὶ λύσεων), and is referred to by Eusebius in his Dem. Evang.
VII. 3, as Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of our
Saviour (τῶν
εἰς τὴν
γενεαλογίαν
τοῦ σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν
ζητημ€των
καὶ λύσεων). The second part is entitled Gospel Questions and
Solutions addressed to Marinus (πρὸς
Μαρῖνον).
The first work consisted of two books, we learn from the opening of the
second work. In that passage, referring to the previous work, Eusebius
says that having discussed there the difficulties which beset the
beginning of the Gospels, he will now proceed to consider questions
concerning the latter part of them, the intermediate portions being
omitted. He thus seems to regard the two works as in a sense forming
parts of one whole. In his de vir ill. 81, Jerome mentions among
the writings of Eusebius one On the Discrepancy of the Gospels (De
Evangeliorum Diaphonia), and in his Comm. in Matt. chap. I.
vers. 16, he refers to Eusebius’ libri διαφωνίας
εὐαγγελίων. Ebedjesu also remarks, “Eusebius Cæsariensis
composuit librum solutionis contradictionum evangelii.” In the
sixteenth century there were found in Sicily, according to the
announcement of Latino Latini, “libri tres Eusebii
Cæsariensis de Evangeliorum diaphonia,” but nothing more has
been heard or seen of this Sicilian ms. There
can be no doubt that the work referred to under the title De
Evangeliorum Diaphonia is identical with the Gospel Questions
and Solutions, for the discrepancies in the Gospels occupy a
considerable space in the Questions and Solutions as we have it,
and the word διαφωνία occurs frequently. The three books mentioned by Latino
Latini were therefore the two books addressed to Stephanus which
Eusebius himself refers to, and the one book addressed to Marinus. The
complete work is no longer extant, but an epitome of
The work purports to have been written in answer to questions and difficulties suggested by Stephanus and Marinus, who are addressed by Eusebius in terms of affection and respect. The first work is devoted chiefly to a discussion of the genealogies of Christ, as given by Matthew and Luke; the second work deals with the apparent discrepancies between the accounts of the resurrection as given by the different evangelists. Eusebius does not always reach a solution of the difficulties, but his work is suggestive and interesting. The question as to the date of the work is complicated by the fact that there is in the Dem. Evang. VII. 3 a reference to the Questions and Solutions addressed to Stephanus, while in the epitome of the latter work (Quæst. VII. §7) there is a distinct reference to the Demonstratio Evang. This can be satisfactorily explained only by supposing, with Lightfoot, that the Epitome was made at a later date than the original work, and that then Eusebius inserted this reference to the Demonstratio. We are thus led to assume two editions of this work, as of the others of Eusebius’ writings, the second edition being a revised abridgement of the first. The first edition, at least of the Quæstiones ad Stephanum, must have been published before the Demonstratio Evangelica. We cannot fix the date of the epitome, nor of the Quæstiones ad Marinum.
Commentary on the Psalms (εἰς τοὺς ψαλμούς). This commentary is extant entire as far as the 118th psalm, but from that point to the end only fragments of it have been preserved. It was first published in 1707, by Montfaucon, who, however, knew nothing of the fragments of the latter part of the work. These were discovered and published by Mai, in 1847 (Bibl. Nov. Patrum, IV. 65 sq.), and the entire extant work, including these fragments, is printed by Migne, Opera, V. and VI. 9–76. According to Lightfoot, notices of extant Syriac extracts from it are found in Wright’s Catal. Syr. mss. Brit. Mus. pp. 35 sq. and 125. Jerome (de vir. ill. 96 and Ep. ad Vigilantium, §2; Migne’s ed. Ep. 61) informs us that Eusebius of Vercellæ translated this commentary into Latin, omitting the heretical passages. This version is no longer extant. The commentary had a high reputation among the Fathers, and justly so. It is distinguished for its learning, industry, and critical acumen. The Hexapla is used with great diligence, and the author frequently corrects the received LXX. text of his day upon the authority of one of the other versions. The work betrays an acquaintance with Hebrew, uncommon among the Fathers, but by no means extensive or exact. Eusebius devotes considerable attention to the historical relations of the Psalms, and exhibits an unusual degree of good judgment in their treatment, but the allegorical method of the school of Origen is conspicuous, and leads him into the mystical extravagances so common to patristic exegesis.
The work must have been written after the close of the persecution and the death of the persecutors (in Psal. XXXVI. 12). In another passage (in Psal. LXXXVII. 11) there seems to be a reference to the discovery of the site of the Holy Sepulchre and the erection of Constantine’s basilica upon it (see Vita Const. III. 28, 30, &c.). The basilica was dedicated in the year 335 (see above, p. 24), and the site of the sepulchre was not discovered until the year 326, or later (see Lightfoot, p. 336). The commentary must have been written apparently after the basilica was begun, and probably after its completion. If so, it is to be placed among the very latest of Eusebius’ works.
Commentary on
Isaiah (ὑπομνήματα
εἰς
῾Ησαΐαν).
This work is also extant almost entire, and was first published in
1706, by Montfaucon (Coll. Nova Patrum et Script. Græc.
II.; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 77–526). In his de
vir. ill. 81 Jerome refers to it as containing ten books (in
Isaiam libri decem), but in the preface to his Comment. in
Isaiam he speaks of it as composed of fifteen (Eusebius quoque
Pamphili juxta historicam explanationem quindecim edidit
Commentary on Luke (εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαλλέλιον). This work is no longer extant, but considerable fragments of it exist and have been published by Mai (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 159 sq.; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 529–606). Although the fragments are all drawn from Catenæ on Luke, there are many passages which seem to have been taken from a commentary on Matthew (see the notes of the editor). A number of extracts from the work are found in Eusebius’ Theophania (see Mai’s introduction to his fragments of the latter work).
The date of the commentary cannot be fixed with certainty, but I am inclined to place it before the persecution of Diocletian, for the reason that there appears in the work, so far as I have discovered, no hint of a persecution, although the passages expounded offer many opportunities for such a reference, which it is difficult to see how the author could have avoided making if a persecution were in progress while he was writing; and further, because in discussing Christ’s prophecies of victory and dominion over the whole world, no reference is made to the triumph gained by the Church in the victories of Constantine. A confirmation of this early date may be found in the extreme simplicity of the exegesis, which displays neither the wide learning, nor the profound study that mark the commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah.
Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This work is no longer extant, and we know of it only from a reference in Jerome’s Ep. ad Pammachium, §3 (Migne’s ed. Ep. 49): “Origenes, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius Cæsariensis, Didymus, Apollinaris latissime hanc Epistolam interpretati sunt.”
Exegetical Fragments. Mai has published brief fragments containing expositions of passages from Proverbs (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 75–78), from Daniel (ib. p. 314; Migne, VI. 525–528), and from the Epistle to the Hebrews (ib. p. 207; Migne, VI. 605). Fabricius mentions also fragments from a commentary on the Song of Songs as published by Meursius, and says that other commentaries are referred to by Montfaucon in his Epistola de Therapeutis, p. 151. We have no references in the works of the ancients to any such commentaries, so far as I am aware, and it is quite possible that the various fragments given by Mai, as well as those referred to by Fabricius may have been taken not from continuous commentaries, but from Eusebius’ General Elementary Introduction, or others of his lost works. According to Migne (VI. 527) some Greek Catenæ published by Cramer in Oxford in the year 1884 contain extensive fragments on Matthew and John, which, however, have been taken from Eusebius’ Quæst. Evang. Other fragments in Catenæ on the same Evangelists and on Mark, have been taken, according to Migne, from the Quæstiones ad Stephanum, or from the Commentary on Luke.
It is, however, quite possible, as it seems to me, that Eusebius wrote a commentary on Daniel. At any rate, the exegetical fragments which we have, taken with the extended discussions of certain passages found in the Dem. Evang. VIII. 2 and in the Eclogæ Proph. III. 40 sq., show that he expounded at one time or another a considerable portion of the book.
VI. Biblical Dictionaries.
Interpretation of the
Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures. This work is no longer extant, but is known to us from
Eusebius’ reference to it in the preface to his work On the
Names of Places, where he writes as follows: τῶν ἀνὰ τὴν
οἰκουμένην
ἐθνῶν ἐπὶ
τὴν ἑλλ€δα
φωνὴν
μεταβαλὼν
τὰς ἐν τῇ
θεί& 139· γραφῇ
κειμένας
ἑβραίοις
ὀνόμασι
προσρήσεις. Jerome, in the preface to his Latin version of the same
work, also refers to it in the following words:
“…diversarum
Chorography of Ancient Judea with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes. This work too is lost, but is referred to by Eusebius in the same preface in the following words: τῆς π€λαι ᾽Ιουδαίας ἀπὸ π€σης Βίβλου καταγραφὴν πεποιημένος καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν διαιρῶν κλήρους. Jerome (ib.) says: “…Chorographiam terræ Judaeæ, et distinctas tribuum sortes …laboravit.”
It is remarked by Fabricius that this work is evidently intended by Ebedjesu in his catalogue, where he mentions among the writings of Eusebius a Librum de Figura Mundi (cf. Assemani’s Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18, note 7).
A Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple, accompanied with Memoirs relating to the Various Localities. This too is lost, but is referred to by Eusebius (ib.) in the following words: ὡς ἐν γραφῆς τύπῳ τῆς π€λαι διαβοήτου μητροπόλεως αὐτῆς (λέγω δὲ τὴν ῾Ιερουσαλήμ) τοῦ τε ἐν αὐτῇ ἱεροῦ τὴν εἰκόνα διαχαρ€ξας μετὰ παραθέσεως τῶν εἰς τοὺς τύπους ὑπομνημ€των. Jerome (ib.) says: “ipsius quoque Jerusalem templique in ea cum brevissima expositione picturam, ad extremum in hoc opusculo laboravit.”
On the Names of Places in Holy Scripture (περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομ€των τῶν ἐν τῇ θεί& 139· γραφῇ). In Jerome’s version this work bears the title Liber de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum, but in his de vir. ill. 81, he refers to it as τοπικῶν, liber unus, and so it is commonly called simply Topica. It is still extant, both in the original Greek and in a revised and partly independent Latin version by Jerome. Both are published by Vallarsi in Hieronymi Opera, III. 122 sq. Migne, in his edition of Eusebius’ works, omits the Topica and refers to his edition of Jerome’s works, where, however, he gives only Jerome’s version, not the original Greek (III. 859–928). The best editions of the Greek text are by Larsow and Parthey (Euseb. Pamph. Episc. Cæs. Onomasticon, &c., Berolini, 1862), and by Lagarde (Onomastica Sacra, I. 207–304, Gottingæ, 1870). The work aims to give, in the original language, in alphabetical order, the names of the cities, villages, mountains, rivers, &c., mentioned in the Scriptures, together with their modern designations and brief descriptions of each. The work is thus of the same character as a modern dictionary or Biblical geography. The other three works were narrower than this one in their scope, but seem also to have been arranged somewhat on the dictionary plan. The work is dedicated to Paulinus, a fact which leads us to place its composition before 325 a.d., when Paulinus was already dead (see below, p. 369). Jerome, in the preface to his version, says that Eusebius wrote the work after his History and Chronicle. We are to conclude, then, either that the work was published in 324 or early in 325, within a very few months after the History, or, what is more probable, that Jerome is mistaken in his statement. He is proverbially careless and inaccurate, and Eusebius, neither in his preface—from which Jerome largely quotes in his own—nor in the work itself, gives any hint of the fact that his History and Chronicle were already written.
On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets (περὶ τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν προφητῶν ὀνομασίας καὶ ἀπὸ μέρους τί περιέχει ἕκαστος). This work contains brief accounts of the several prophets and notes the subjects of their prophecies. It is thus, so far as it goes, a sort of biographical dictionary. It was first published by Curterius in his Procopii Sophistæ Christinæ variarum in Isaiam Prophetam commentationum epitome (Paris, 1850, under the title De vitis Prophetarum, by which it is commonly known. We have no means of determining the date of its composition. Curterius’ text has been reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 1261–1272.
VII. Orations.
Panegyric on the Building of the Churches, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre (Πανηγυρικὸς ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν οἰκοδομῇ, Παυλίνῳ Τυρίων ἐπισκόπῳ προσπεφωνημένος). This oration was delivered at the dedication of Paulinus’ new church in Tyre, to which reference has already been made (see above, p. 11). It has been preserved in Eusebius’ History, Book X. chap. 4 (see below, p. 370. sq.).
Oration on the Sepulchre of the Saviour. In his Vita Const. IV. 33 Eusebius informs us that he delivered an oration on this subject (ἀμφὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου μνήματος λόγος) in the presence of the Emperor at Constantinople. In the same work, IV. 46, he says that he wrote a description of the church of the Saviour and of his sepulchre, as well as of the splendid presents given by the Emperor for their adornment. This description he gave in a special work which he addressed to the Emperor (ἐν οἰκεί& 251· συγγρ€μματι παραδόντες, αὐτῷ βασιλεῖ προσεφωνήσαμεν). If these two are identical, as has always been assumed, the Oration on the Sepulchre must have been delivered in 335, when Eusebius went to Constantinople, just after the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (see above, p. 23), and just before the Oratio deo laudibus Constantini (see ib. IV. 46). That the two are identical has always been assumed, and seems most probable. At the same time it is worthy of notice that in IV. 33 Eusebius speaks as if he returned to Cæsarea immediately after delivering his oration, and gives no hint of the delivery of his De laud. Const. at that time. It is noticeable also that he speaks in IV. 46 of a work (σύγγραμμα) not of an oration (λόγος), and that in IV. 45 he mentions the fact that he has described the splendid edifice and gifts of the Emperor in writing (διὰ γρ€μματος), which would seem to imply something else than an address. Finally, it is to be observed that, whereas, in IV. 46, he expressly refers to the church erected by Constantine and to his rich gifts in connection with its construction, in IV. 33 he refers only to the sepulchre. It appears to me, in fact, quite possible that Eusebius may be referring to two entirely different compositions, the one an oration delivered after the discovery of the sepulchre and before the Emperor had built the church (perhaps containing the suggestion of such a building), the other a descriptive work written after the completion of that edifice. I present this only as a possibility, for I realize that against it may be urged the unlikelihood that two separate works should have been composed by Eusebius upon subjects so nearly, if not quite, identical, and also the probability that, if there were two, both, and not one only, would have been attached to the end of the Vita Const. with the De laud Const. (see IV. 46). Neither the Oration on the Sepulchre of the Saviour nor the Work on the Church and the Sepulchre (whether the two are the same or not) is now extant.
Oration delivered at the Tricennalia of Constantine (εἰς Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν βασιλέα τριακονταετηρικός), commonly known under the title Oratio de laudibus Constantini. In his Vita Const. IV. 46, Eusebius promised to append this oration, together with the writing On the Church and the Sepulchre, to that work. The de laudibus is still found at the end of the mss. of the Vita, while the other writing is lost. It was delivered in Constantinople in 335 on the occasion of the Emperor’s tricennalia, very soon after the dedication of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (see above, p. 25). It is highly panegyrical, but contains a great deal of theology, especially in regard to the person and work of the Logos. Large portions of it were afterward incorporated into the Vita Constantini and the Theophania. The oration is published in most, if not all, editions of the Vita Constantini; in Migne, Opera, II. 1315–1440.
Oration in Praise of the Martyrs. This oration is mentioned in the catalogue of Ebedjesu (et orationem de laudibus eorum [i.e. Martyrum Occidentalium]; see Assemani, Bibl. Orient. III. p. 19), and, according to Lightfoot, is still extant in a Syriac version, which has been published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, N. S., Vol. V. p. 403 sq., with an English translation by B. H. Cowper, ib. VI. p. 129 sq. Lightfoot finds in it an indication that it was delivered at Antioch, but pronounces it of little value or importance.
On the Failure of Rain. This is no longer extant, and is known to us only from a reference in the catalogue of Ebedjesu (et orationem de defectu pluviæ; see Assemani, ib.).
To Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. The purpose and the character of this epistle have been already discussed (see above). A fragment of it has been preserved in the Proceedings of the Second Council of Nicæa, Act VI., Tom. V. (Labbei et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). For a translation of the epistle, see below. This and the following epistle were written after the outbreak of the Arian controversy, but before the Nicene Council.
To Euphration, bishop of Balaneæ in Syria, likewise a strong opponent of the Arians (see Athan. de Fuga, 3; Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 5). Athanasius states that this epistle declared plainly that Christ is not God (Athan. de Synod. 17). A brief fragment of it has been preserved in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicæa (l.c.), which probably contains the very passage to which Athanasius refers. Upon the interpretation and significance of the fragment, see above.
To Constantia Augusta, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. Constantia had written to Eusebius requesting him to send her a certain likeness of Christ of which she had heard. Eusebius, in this epistle, rebukes her, and speaks strongly against the use of such representations, on the ground that it tends toward idolatry. The tone of the letter is admirable. Numerous fragments of it have been discovered, so that we have it now almost entire. It is printed in Migne, Opera, II. 1545–1550. We have no means of ascertaining the date at which it was written.
To the Church of Cæsarea. This epistle was written from Nicæa in 325 a.d., during or immediately after the Council. Its purpose and character have been discussed above on p. 16 sq., where a translation of it is given. The epistle is preserved by Athanasius (de Decret. Syn. Nic. app.); by Socrates, H. E. I. 8; by Theodoret, H. E. I. 11, and others. It is printed by Migne, Opera, II. 1535–1544.
In the Acts of the Second Council of Nicæa (l.c.) we find a mention of “all the epistles” of Eusebius, as if many were at that time extant. We know, however, only of those which have been mentioned above.
IX. Spurious or Doubtful Works.
Fourteen Latin opuscula were discovered and published by Sirmond in 1643, and have been frequently reprinted (Migne, Opera, VI. 1047–1208). They are of a theological character, and bear the following titles:—
De fide adv. Sabellium, libri duo.
De Resurrectione, libri duo.
De Incorporali et invisibili Deo.
De Incorporali.
De Incorporali Anima.
De Spiritali Cogitatu hominis.
De eo quod Deus Pater incorporalis est, libri duo.
De eo quod ait Dominus, Non veni pacem, etc.
De Mandato Domini, Quod ait, Quod dico vobis in aure, etc.
De operibus bonis et malis.
De operibus bonis, ex epist. II. ad Corinth.
Their authenticity is a matter of dispute. Some of them may be genuine, but Lardner is doubtless right in denying the genuineness of the two Against Sabellius, which are the most important of all (see Lardner’s Credibility, Part II. chap. 72).
Lightfoot states that a treatise, On the Star which appeared to the Magi, was published by Wright in the Journal of Sacred Literature (1866) from a Syriac ms. It is ascribed to Eusebius, but its genuineness has been disputed, and good reasons have been given for supposing that it was written originally in Syriac (see Lightfoot, p. 345).
Chapter III
Eusebius’ Church History.
§1. Date of its Composition
The work with which we are especially concerned at this time is the Church History, the original Greek of which is still extant in numerous mss. It consists of ten books, to which is added in most of the mss. the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine (see above, p. 29). The date of the work can be determined with considerable exactness. It closes with a eulogy of Constantine and his son Crispus; and since the latter was put to death by his father in the summer of 326, the History must have been completed before that time. On the other hand, in the same chapter Eusebius refers to the defeat of Licinius, which took place in the year 323 a.d. This gives a fixed terminus a quo. It is not quite certain from Eusebius’ words whether the death of Licinius had already taken place at the time he wrote, but it seems probable that it had, and if so, the completion of the work must be put as late as the summer of 324. On the other hand, not the slightest reference is made to the Council of Nicæa, which met in the summer of 325; and still further the tenth book is dedicated to Paulinus, at one time bishop of Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. I. 4, and Philost. H. E. III. 15), who was already dead in the summer of 325: for at the Nicene Council, Zeno appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius as bishop of Antioch (see for further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322). We are thus led to place the completion of the History in the year 324, or, to give the widest possible limits, between the latter part of 323 and the early part of 325 a.d.
But the question has been raised whether the earlier books may not have been composed some years before this. Lightfoot (following Westcott) supposes that the first nine books were completed not long after the edict of Milan and before the outbreak of the quarrel between Constantine and Licinius in 314. There is considerable to be said in favor of this theory. The language used in the dedication of the tenth book seems to imply that the nine books had been completed some time before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of postscript. The close of the ninth book strengthens that conclusion. Moreover, it would seem from the last sentences of that book that Constantine and Licinius were in perfect harmony at the time it was written, a state of affairs which did not exist after 314. On the other hand, it must be noticed that in Book IX. chap. 9 Licinius’ “madness” is twice referred to as having “not yet” seized him (in §1 οὔπω μανέντος τοτε, and in §12 οὔπω τότε ἐφ᾽ ἣν ὕστερον ἐκπέπτωκε μανίαν, τὴν δι€νοιαν ἐκτραπείς). It is necessary either to interpret both these clauses as later insertions (possibly by Eusebius’ own hand at the time when he added the tenth book; cf. also p. 30, above), or to throw the composition of the ninth book down to the year 319 or later. It is difficult to decide between these alternatives, but I am inclined on the whole to think that Westcott’s theory is probably correct, and that the two clauses can best be interpreted as later insertions. The very nature of his History would at any rate lead us to think that Eusebius spent some years in the composition of it, and that the earlier books, if not published, were at least completed long before the issue of the ten books as a whole. The Chronicle is referred to as already written in I. 1; the Eclogæ Proph. (? see below, p. 85) in I. 2 and 6; the Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15, V. preface, 4, and 22; the Defense of Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36; the Life of Pamphilus in VI. 32, VII. 32, and VIII. 13. In VIII. 13 Eusebius speaks also of his intention of relating the sufferings of the martyrs in another work (but see above, p. 30).
That the composition of a history of the Church was Eusebius’ own idea, and was not due to any suggestion from without, seems clear, both from the absence of reference to any one else as prompting it, and from the lack of a dedication at the beginning of the work. The reasons which led him to undertake its composition seem to have been both scientific and apologetic. He lived, and he must have realized the fact, at the opening of a new age in the history of the Church. He believed, as he frequently tells us, that the period of struggle had come to an end, and that the Church was now about entering upon a new era of prosperity. He must have seen that it was a peculiarly fitting time to put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had taken place within the Church during the generations that were past, to sum up in one narrative all the trials and triumphs which had now emerged in this final and greatest triumph, which he was witnessing. He wrote, as any historian of the present day would write, for the information and instruction of his contemporaries and of those who should come after, and yet there was in his mind all the time the apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the history of Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. The plan which he proposed to himself is stated at the very beginning of his work: “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate how many and how important events are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and the number and the times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so-called, have, like fierce wolves, unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ. It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour afforded them all.” It will be seen that Eusebius had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of the Church should comprise, and that he was fully alive to its importance.
§3. Eusebius as a Historian. The Merits and Defects of his History.
The whole Christian world has
reason to be thankful that there lived at the opening of the fourth
century a man who, with his life spanning one of the greatest epochs
that has occurred in the history of the Church, with an intimate
experimental knowledge of the old and of the new condition of things,
was able to conceive so grand a plan and possessed the means and the
ability to carry it out. Had he written nothing else, Eusebius’
Church History would have made him immortal; for if immortality
be a fitting reward for large and lasting services, few possess a
clearer title to it than the author of that work. The value of the
History to us lies not in its literary merit, but in the wealth
of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early
Church. How many prominent figures of the first three centuries are
known to us only from the pages of Eusebius; how many fragments,
priceless on account of the light which they shed upon movements of
momentous and far-reaching consequence, have been preserved by him
alone; how often a hint dropped, a casual statement made in passing, or
the mention of some apparently trifling event, gives the clue which
enables us to unravel some perplexing labyrinth, or to fit into one
whole various disconnected and apparently unrelated elements, and thus
to trace the steps in the development of some important historical
movement whose rise and whose bearing must
But the value of Eusebius’ Church History does not lie solely in the fact that it contains so many original sources which would be otherwise unknown to us. It is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in the truest sense, and it possesses an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its quotations from other works. Eusebius possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible to us. His History contains the results of his extended perusal of many works which are now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance with the current traditions of his day, of his familiar intercourse with many of the chief men of the age. If we cut out all the documents which he quotes, there still remains an extensive history whose loss would leave an irreparable blank in our knowledge of the early Church. How invaluable, for instance, to mention but one matter, are the researches of our author in regard to the circulation of the books of the New Testament: his testimony to the condition of the canon in his own time, and to the more or less widespread use of particular writings by the Fathers of preceding centuries. Great as is the value of the sources which Eusebius quotes, those that he does not give are still more extensive, and it is the knowledge gained from them which he has transmitted to us.
The worth of these portions of his History must depend in the first place upon the extent and reliability of his sources, and in the second place upon the use which he made of them.
A glance at the list of his authorities given in the index, reveals at once the immense range of his materials. The number of books which he either quotes or refers to as read is enormous. When to these are added the works employed by him in the composition of his Præp. Evang., as well as the great number which he must have perused, but does not mention, we are amazed at the extent of his reading. He must have been a voracious reader from his earliest years, and he must have possessed extraordinary acquisitive powers. It is safe to say that there was among the Fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, no more learned man than he. He thus possessed one of the primary qualifications of the historian. And yet even in this respect he had his limitations. He seems to have taken no pains to acquaint himself with the works of heretics, but to have been content to take his knowledge of them at second hand. And still further, he was sadly ignorant of Latin literature and of the Latin Church in general (see below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to glean from his History a very thorough or extended knowledge of western Christendom.
But his sources were not
confined to literary productions. He had a wide acquaintance with the
world, and he was enabled to pick up much from his intercourse with
other men and with different peoples that he could not have found upon
the shelves of the Cæsarean or of any other
But the value of his work must depend in the second place upon the wisdom and honesty with which he used his sources, and upon the faithfulness and accuracy with which he reproduced the results thus reached. We are therefore led to enquire as to his qualifications for this part of his work.
We notice, in the first place, that he was very diligent in the use of his sources. Nothing seems to have escaped him that might in any way bear upon the particular subject in hand. When he informs us that a certain author nowhere mentions a book or an event, he is, so far as I am aware, never mistaken. When we realize how many works he read entirely through for the sake of securing a single historical notice, and how many more he must have read without finding anything to his purpose, we are impressed with his untiring diligence. To-day, with our convenient indexes, and with the references at hand which have been made by many other men who have studied the writings of the ancients, we hardly comprehend what an amount of labor the production of a History like Eusebius’ must have cost him, a pioneer in that kind of work.
In the second place, we are compelled to admire the sagacity which our author displays in the selection of his materials. He possessed the true instinct of the historian, which enabled him to pick out the salient points and to present to the reader just that information which he most desires. We shall be surprised upon examining his work to see how little it contains which it is not of the utmost importance for the student of early Church history to know, and how shrewdly the author has anticipated most of the questions which such a student must ask. He saw what it was in the history of the first three centuries of the Church which posterity would most desire to know, and he told them. His wisdom in this respect is all the more remarkable when compared with the unwisdom of most of his successors, who filled their works with legends of saints and martyrs, which, however fascinating they may have been to the readers of that age, possess little either of interest or of value for us. When he wishes to give us a glimpse of the persecutions of those early days, his historical and literary instinct leads him to dwell especially upon two thoroughly representative cases,—the martyrdom of Polycarp and the sufferings of the churches of Lyons and Vienne,—and to preserve for posterity two of the noblest specimens of martyrological literature which the ancient Church produced. It is true that he sometimes erred in his judgment as to the wants of future readers; we could wish that he had been somewhat fuller and clearer on many points, and that he had not so entirely neglected some others; but on the whole I am of the opinion that few historical works, ancient or modern, have in the same compass better fulfilled their mission in this respect.
In the third place, we can
hardly fail to be impressed by the wisdom with which Eusebius
discriminated between reliable and unreliable sources. Judged by the
modern standard he may fall short as a literary critic, but judged by
the standard of antiquity he must be given a very high rank. Few indeed
are the historians of ancient times, secular or ecclesiastical, who can
compare with Eusebius for sound judgment in this matter. The general
freedom of his work from the fables and prodigies, and other improbable
or impossible tales which disfigure the pages of the great majority
even of the soberest of ancient historians, is one of its most marked
features. He shows himself uncommonly particular in demanding good
evidence for the circumstances which he records, and uncommonly shrewd
in detecting spurious and unreliable sources. When we remember the
great number of pseudonymous works which were current in his day we are
compelled to admire his care and his discrimination. Not that he always
succeeded in detecting the false. More than once he was sadly at fault
(as for instance in regard to the Abgarus correspondence and
Josephus’ testimony to Christ), and has in consequence been
severely denounced or held up to unsparing ridicule by many modern
writers. But the wonder certainly is not that he erred as often as he
did, but that he did not err oftener; not that he was sometimes
careless in
In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for his constant sincerity and unfailing honesty. I believe that emphasis should be laid upon this point for the reason that Eusebius’ reputation has often suffered sadly in consequence of the unjust imputations, and the violent accusations, which it was for a long time the fashion to make against him, and which lead many still to treat his statements with distrust, and his character with contempt. Gibbon’s estimate of his honesty is well known and has been unquestioningly accepted in many quarters, but it is none the less unjust, and in its implications quite untrue to the facts. Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness upon the virtues than upon the vices of the early Church, upon its glory than upon its shame, and he tells us directly that it is his intention so to do (H. E. VIII. 2), but he never undertakes to conceal the sins of the Christians, and the chapter immediately preceding contains a denunciation of their corruptness and wickedness uttered in no faint terms. In fact, in the face of these and other candid passages in his work, it is the sheerest injustice to charge him with dishonesty and unfairness because he prefers, as almost any Christian historian must, to dwell with greater fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the dark side of the picture. Scientific, Eusebius’ method, in this respect, doubtless is not; but dishonest, no one has a right to call it. The most severe attack which has been made upon Eusebius in recent years is found in an article by Jachmann (see below, p. 55). The evident animus which runs through his entire paper is very unpleasant; the conclusions which he draws are, to say the least, strained. I cannot enter here into a consideration of his positions; most of them are examined below in the notes upon the various passages which he discusses. The whole article, like most similar attacks, proceeds upon the supposition that our author is guilty, and then undertakes simply to find evidence of that which is already presupposed. I submit that few writers could endure such an ordeal. If Eusebius is tried according to the principles of common justice, and of sound literary criticism, I am convinced, after long and careful study, that his sincerity and honesty of purpose cannot be impeached. The particular instances which have been urged as proving his dishonesty will be discussed below in the notes upon the respective passages, and to those the reader is referred (compare especially pp. 88, 98, 100, 111, 112, 114, 127, 194).
Eusebius’ critics are wont to condemn him severely for what they are pleased to call the dishonesty displayed by him in his Vita Constantini. Such critics forget, apparently, that that work pretends to be, not a history, but a panegyric. Judging it as such, I am unable to find anything in it which leads me to entertain for a moment a suspicion of the author’s honesty. It is true that Eusebius emphasizes the Emperor’s good qualities, and fails to mention the darker spots in his character; but so far as I am aware he misstates no facts, and does only what those who eulogize deceased friends are accustomed to do the world over. For a discussion of this matter the reader is referred to the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, pp. 467 sq. of this volume. I am pleased to learn from him that his study of the Vita has shown him nothing which justifies the charge of dishonesty brought against Eusebius.
One of the most decisive marks
of veracity upon the part of our author is the frankness with which he
confesses his lack of knowledge upon any subject (cf. IV. 5), and the
care with which he distinguishes between the different kinds of
evidence upon which he bases his statements. How frequently the
phrases λόγος
žχει, φασί, λέγεται, &c., occur in connection with accounts which a less
scrupulous historian would not hesitate to record as undoubted fact.
How particular he is to mention his sources for any unusual or
startling event. If the authorities seem to him quite inadequate, he
simply omits all reference to an occurrence which most of his
contemporaries and successors would have related with the greatest
gusto; if the testimony seems to him strong, he records the
circumstance and expressly mentions his authority, whether oral
He is often blamed by modern writers for what they are pleased to call his excessive credulity. Those who accuse him thus seem to forget that he lived in the fourth, not in the nineteenth century. That he believed many things which we now declare to be incredible is perfectly true, but that he believed things that other Christians of his day pronounced incredible is not true. Judged, in fact, according to the standard of his age—and indeed of eleven succeeding centuries—he must be pronounced remarkably free from the fault of over-credulity, in truth uncommonly skeptical in his attitude toward the marvelous. Not that he denies the occurrence of prodigies and wonders in his own and other ages, but that he always demands the strongest testimony before he allows himself to be convinced of their truth. Compare, e.g., the care with which he gives his authorities for the anecdote in regard to the Thundering Legion (V. 5), and his final suspension of judgment in the matter; compare also the emphasis which he lays upon the personal testimony of the Emperor in the matter of the appearance of the sign of the cross in the sky (Vita Const. I. 28 sq.), a phenomenon which he himself tells us that he would have believed upon no ordinary evidence. His conduct in this matter is a sign rather of a skepticism uncommon in his age than of an excessive and unusual credulity. Gibbon himself gives our author due credit in this respect, when he speaks of his character as “less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries” (Decline and Fall, chap. XVI.).
On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had many very grave faults which it is not my wish in the least to palliate or conceal. One of the most noticeable of these is his complete lack of any conception of historiography as a fine art. His work is interesting and instructive because of the facts which it records, but that interest is seldom if ever enhanced by his mode of presentation. There is little effective grouping, almost no sense of perspective, utter ignorance of the art of suggesting by a single line or phrase a finished picture of a man or of a movement. He was not, in other words, a Thucydides or a Tacitus; but the world has seen not many such as they.
A second and still more serious fault is our author’s want of depth, if I may so express myself, his failure to look beneath the surface and to grasp the real significance of things, to trace the influence of opinions and events. We feel this defect upon every page. We read the annals, but we are conscious of no masterful mind behind them, digesting and comprehending them into one organic and imposing whole. This radical weakness in our author’s method is revealed perhaps most clearly in his superficial and transcendental treatment of heretics and heresies, his failure to appreciate their origin and their bearing upon the progress of Christian thought. Of a development in theology, in fact, he knows nothing, and hence his work lacks utterly that which we now look upon as the most instructive part of Church history,—the history of doctrine.
In the third place, severe
censure must be passed upon our author for his carelessness and
inaccuracy in matters of chronology. We should expect that one who had
produced the most extensive chronological work that had ever been given
to the world, would be thoroughly at home in that province, but in
truth his chronology is the most defective feature of his work. The
difficulty is chiefly due to his inexcusable carelessness, we might
almost say slovenliness, in the use of different and often
contradictory sources of information. Instead of applying himself to
the discrepancies, and endeavoring to reach the truth by carefully
weighing the respective merits of the sources, or by testing their
conclusions in so far as tests are possible, he adopts in many cases
the results of both, apparently quite unsuspicious of the confusion
consequent upon such a course. In fact, the critical spirit which
actuates him in dealing with many other matters seems to leave him
entirely when he is concerned with chronology; and instead of
proceeding with the care and circumspection of an historian, he accepts
what he finds with the unquestioning faith
Finally, the character of the History is greatly impaired by our author’s desultory method. This is a characteristic of his literary work in general, and was referred to in the previous chapter. All his works are marred by it, but few suffer more noticeably than the History. The author does not confine himself as strictly as he should to the logical limits of the subject which he is treating, but allows himself to be led away from the main point by the suggestions that pour in upon him from all sides. As Lightfoot remarks, “We have not unfrequently to pick out from various parts of his work the notices bearing on one definite and limited subject. He relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season, according as it is recalled to his memory by some accidental connexion.” This unfortunate habit of Eusebius’ is one into which men of wide learning are very apt to fall. The richness of their acquisitions embarrasses them, and the immense number of facts in their possession renders a comprehension of them all into one logical whole very difficult; and yet unless the facts be thus comprehended, unless they be thoroughly digested and arranged, the result is confusion and obscurity. To exclude is as necessary as to include, if one would write history with the highest measure of success; to exclude rigidly at one time what it is just as necessary to include at another. To men like Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult than this. Only a mind as intensive as it is extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is wide, can accomplish it, and few are the minds that are blessed with both qualities. Few are the writers whose histories stand upon our shelves that fail not sadly in the one or in the other; and in few perhaps does the failure seem more marked than in our author.
And yet, though it is apparent
that the value of Eusebius’ work is greatly impaired by its
desultory method of treatment, I am confident that the defect is
commonly exaggerated. The paragraph which Lightfoot quotes from
Westcott on this subject leaves a false impression. Altogether too
often our author introduces irrelevant matters, and repeats himself
when repetition “mars the symmetry of his work”; and yet on
the whole he follows a fairly well ordered plan with fairly good
success. He endeavors to preserve a strictly chronological sequence in
his arrangement of the books, and he adheres for the most part to his
purpose. Though there may be disorder and confusion within the various
periods, for instance within the apostolic age, the age of Trajan, of
Hadrian, of the Antonines, &c., yet the periods themselves are kept
reasonably distinct from one another, and having finished his account
of one of them the author seldom returns to it. Even in his treatment
of the New Testament canon, which is especially desultory, he says most
of what he has to say about it in connection with the apostles
themselves, and before passing on to the second century. I would not
overlook the exceeding flagrancy of his desultoriness and
repetitiousness in his accounts of the writings of many of the Fathers,
especially of the two Clements, and yet I would emphasize the fact that
he certainly had an outline plan which he designed to follow, and for
which due credit should be given him. He compares favorably in this
respect with at least most of the writers of antiquity. Only with our
modern method of dividing history into periods, separated by natural
boundary lines, and of handling it
§4. Editions and Versions.
The original Greek of Eusebius’ History has been published in many editions.
1. The editio princeps is that of Robert Stephanus, which appeared at Paris in 1544, and again, with a few changes, and with the Latin translation of Christophorsonus and the notes of Suffridus Petrus, at Geneva in 1612.
2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first edition of the Greek text, with a new Latin translation and with copious critical and explanatory notes, at Paris in 1659. His edition was reprinted at Mainz in 1672, but the reprint is full of errors. In 1677, after Valesius’ death, a revised edition was issued at Paris, which in 1695 was reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam. In 1720 Valesius’ edition of Eusebius, together with his edition of Socrates, Sozomen, and the other Greek historians, was republished at Cambridge by William Reading, in three folio volumes. This is the best edition of Valesius, the commentary being supplemented by ms. notes which he had left among his papers, and increased by large additions from other writers under the head of Variorum. A reprint of Reading’s edition was issued in 1746–1748, but according to Heinichen it is not as accurate as that of 1720. For the elucidation of Eusebius’ History we owe more to Valesius than to any other man. His edition of the text was an immense advance upon that of Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all subsequent editions, while his notes are a perfect storehouse of information from which all annotators of Eusebius have extensively drawn. Migne’s edition (Opera, II. 45–906) is a reprint of Valesius’ edition of 1659.
3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779). A new edition of the Greek text, of which, however, only the first volume appeared, comprising Books I.-VII.
4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822). A new edition of the Greek text, containing also the Latin translation of Valesius, and a few critical notes.
5. F. A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828). An edition of the Greek text in three volumes, with a reprint of the entire commentary of Valesius, and with the addition of Variorum notes. The critical apparatus, printed in the third volume, is very meager. A few valuable excursuses close the work. Forty years later Heinichen published a second edition of the History in his Eusebii Pamphili Scripta Historica (Lips. 1868–1870, 3 vols.). The first volume contains the Greek text of the History, with valuable prolegomena, copious critical apparatus and very useful indices; the second volume contains the Vita Constantini, the Panegyricus or De laudibus Constantini, and Constantine’s Oratio ad Sanctorum coetum, also accompanied with critical apparatus and indices; the third volume contains an extensive commentary upon the works included in the first two volumes, together with twenty-nine valuable excursuses. This entirely supersedes the first, and is on the whole the most complete and useful edition of the History which we have. The editor made diligent use of the labors of his predecessors, especially of Laemmer’s. He did no independent work, however, in the way of collecting material for the criticism of the text, and was deficient in critical judgment. As a consequence his text has often to be amended on the basis of the variant readings, which he gives with great fullness. His commentary is made up largely of quotations from Valesius and other writers, and is valuable for the material it thus contains as well as for its references to other works. It labors under the same incompleteness, however, that mars Valesius’ commentary, and, moreover, contains almost nothing of independent value.
6. E. Burton (Oxford, 1838). The
Greek text in two volumes, with the translation of Valesius and with
critical apparatus; and again in 1845, with the critical apparatus
omitted, but with the notes of Valesius, Heinichen and others added.
Burton made large contributions to the criticism of the text, and had
he lived to superintend the issue of the second edition, would perhaps
have succeeded in giving us a better text than any which we now
possess, for he was a far more
7. Schwegler (Tübingen, 1852, in one volume). The Greek text with critical apparatus, but without translation and notes. An accurate and useful edition.
8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859–1862). The Greek text in one volume, with extensive critical apparatus, but without explanatory notes. Laemmer had unusual opportunities for collecting material, and has made larger additions to the critical apparatus than any one else. His edition was issued, however, in a most slovenly manner, and swarms with mistakes. Great care should therefore be exercised in the use of it.
9. Finally must be mentioned the text of Dindorf (Lips. 1871), which is published in the Teubner series, and like most of the volumes of that series is handy and convenient, but of little value to the critical student.
There are few writings of the Fathers which more sadly need and more richly deserve a new critical edition than the History of Eusebius. The material for the formation of a reliable text is extensive and accessible, but editors have contented themselves too much in the past with the results of their predecessors’ labors, and unfortunately those labors have not always been accurate and thorough. As a consequence a new and more careful collation of most of the mss. of the original, together with those of Rufinus’ translation, must lie at the foundation of any new work which is to be done in this line. The publication of the Syriac version will doubtless furnish much valuable material which the next editor of the History will be able to use to advantage. Anything less than such a thorough work as I have indicated will be of little worth. Unless the new edition be based upon extensive and independent labors, it will be little if any improvement upon that of Heinichen. It is to be hoped that a critical text, up to the standard of those of some other patristic works which we already possess, may yet be issued, which shall give us this, one of the noblest productions of the ancient Church, in a fitting and satisfactory form.
Translations of Eusebius’ History are very numerous. Probably the earliest of all is the ancient Syriac version which is preserved in great part in two mss., one of which is at St. Petersburg and contains the entire History with the exception of Book VI. and large portions of Books V. and VII. The ms. is dated 462 a.d. (see Wright’s description of it in his Catalogue of the Syriac mss. in the British Museum acquired since the year 1838, Part III. p. xv. sq.). The second ms. is in the British Museum, and contains Books I.–V., with some mutilations at the beginning of the first book. The ms. dates from the sixth century (see Wright’s description of it in his Catalogue, p. 1039). From these mss. Wright was engaged in preparing an edition of the Syriac, which remained unfinished at the time of his death. Whether he left his work in such shape that it can soon be issued by some one else I have not yet learned. The version was probably made at a very early date, possibly within the lifetime of Eusebius himself, though of that we can have no assurance. I understand that it confirms in the main the Greek text as now printed in our best editions.
The original Latin version was
made by Rufinus in the early years of the fifth century. He translated
only nine books, and added to them two of his own, in which he brought
the history down to the death of Theodosius the Great. He allowed
himself his customary license in translating, and yet, although his
version is by no means exact, it is one of our best sources for a
knowledge of the true text of Eusebius, for it is possible, in many
doubtful cases where our mss. are hopelessly
divided, to ascertain from his rendering what stood in the original
Greek.
A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was published in Basle, in 1549, and again in 1557, 1562, and 1611, according to Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI. p. 60). I have myself seen only the edition of 1562.
Still another Latin version, from the hand of Christophorsonus, was published at Louvain in 1570. This is the only edition of Christophorsonus which I have seen, but I have notices of Cologne editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of a Paris edition of 1571. According to Fabricius the Paris edition, and according to Brunnet the Cologne edition of 1581, contain the notes of Suffridus Petrus. A revision of Christophorsonus’ version is said by Crusè to have been published by Curterius, but I have not seen it, nor am I aware of its date.
Another translation, by Grynæus, was published at Basle in 1611. This is the only edition of Grynæus’ version which I have seen, and I find in it no reference to an earlier one. I have been informed, however, that an edition appeared in 1591. Hanmer seems to imply, in his preface, that Grynæus’ version is only a revision of that of Musculus, and if that were so we should have to identify the 1611 edition with the 1611 edition of Musculus mentioned by Fabricius (see above). I am able, however, to find no hint in Grynæus’ edition itself that his version is a revision of that of Musculus.
The translation of Valesius, which was first published in 1659 (see above), was a great improvement upon all that had preceded it, and has been many times reprinted in other editions of Eusebius, as well as in his own.
The first German translation was published by Caspar Hedio. The date of publication is given by Fabricius as 1545, but the copy which I have seen is dated 1582, and contains no reference to an earlier edition. It comprises only nine books of Eusebius, supplemented by the two of Rufinus. The title runs as follows: Chronica, das ist: wahrhaftige Beschreibunge aller alten Christlichen Kirchen; zum ersten, die hist. eccles. Eusebii Pamphili Cæsariensis, Eilff Bücher; zum andern, die hist. eccles. tripartita Sozomeni, Socratis und Theodoreti, Zwölff Bücher; zum dritten die hist. eccles. sampt andern treffenlichen Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutschef Sprache wenig gelesen sind, auch Zwölff Bücher. Von der Zeit an da die hist. eccles. tripartita aufhöret: das ist, von der jarzal an, vierhundert nach Christi geburt, biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch D. Caspar Hedion zu Strassburg verteutscht und zusamen getragen. Getruckt zu Franckfurt am Mayn, im jar 1582.
A second German translation of the entire History (with the exception of the Martyrs of Palestine, and the Oration on the Building of the Churches, X. 4), together with the Life of Constantine, was published by F. A. Stroth in Quedlinburg in 1777, in two volumes. Stroth prefaced the translation with a very valuable Life of Eusebius, and added a number of excellent notes of his own. The translation is reasonably accurate.
A much more elegant German version (including the Oration, but omitting the Martyrs of Palestine) was published by Closs in Stuttgart in 1839, in one volume. This is in my opinion the best translation of the History that exists. Its style is admirable, but pure German idiom is sometimes secured at the expense of faithfulness. In fact the author has aimed to produce a free, rather than a literal translation, and has occasionally allowed himself to depart too far from the original. A few brief notes, most of them taken from Valesius or Stroth, accompany the translation.
More recently a German
translation has been published by Stigloher (Kempten, 1880) in the
Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. It purports to be a
new translation, but is practically
Fabricius mentions a French translation by Claudius Seysselius, but does not give the date of it, and I have not myself seen it. Dr. Richardson, however, informs me that he has a copy of this translation (which is from the Latin, not from the Greek) bearing the following title: L’Histoire ecclesiastique translatie de Latin au Français, par M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille, et depuis archevesque de Thurin. Paris, 1532 [or ’33], fº. He informs me also that there exist editions of the years 1537 and 1567.
More than a century later appeared a new French translation by Louis Cousin, bearing the following title: Histoire de l’Eglise écrité par Eusèbe Césarée, Socrate, Sozomène, Theodoret et Evagre, avec l’abrégé de Philostorge par Photius, et de Théodore par Nicephore Calliste. Paris, 1675–1676. 4 vol. 4º. Another edition appeared in Holland in 1686, 5 vol. 12º.
The first English translation was made by Hanmer, and was issued in 1584, and, according to Crusè, passed through five editions. The fourth edition, which lies before me, was published in London in 1636. The volume contains the Histories of Eusebius, of Socrates, and of Evagrius; Dorotheus’ Lives, and Eusebius’ Life of Constantine.
Another translation is said by Crusè to have been published about a century later by T. Shorting, and to be a decided improvement upon that of Hanmer. I have seen no copy bearing Shorting’s name, but have examined an anonymous translation which bears the following title: The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus in ten books. Made into English from that edition set forth by Valesius, and printed at Paris in the year 1659; together with Valesius’ notes on the said historian, which are done into English and set at their proper place in the margin. Hereto also is annexed an account of the life and writings of the aforesaid historian, collected by Valesius and rendered into English. Cambridge: John Hayes, 1683. This is evidently the translation of Shorting referred to by Crusè, for it answers perfectly the description which he gives of it.
An abridgment of this version, made by Parker, is mentioned both by Fabricius (ib. p. 62) and by Crusè, but I have not myself seen it. Fabricius gives its date as 1703, and Dr. Richardson informs me that he has seen an edition bearing the date 1729, and that he has a note of another published in 1703 or 1720.
The latest English translation was made by the Rev. C. F. Crusè, an American Episcopalian of German descent, and was published first in Philadelphia in 1833, with a translation, by Parker, of Valesius’ Life of Eusebius prefixed. It has been reprinted a great many times both in England and America, and is included in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library. In Bohn’s edition are printed a few scattered notes from Valesius’ commentary, and in some other editions an historical account of the Council of Nicæa, by Isaac Boyle, is added. The translation is an improvement upon its predecessors, but is nevertheless very faulty and unsatisfactory. The translator is not thoroughly at home in the English, and, moreover, his version is marred by many serious omissions and interpolations which reveal an inexcusable degree of carelessness on his part.
§5. Literature.
The literature upon
Eusebius’ History is very extensive. Many of the editions
already mentioned discuss, in their prolegomena, the History
itself and Eusebius’ character as a historian, as do also all the
lives of Eusebius referred to above, and all the larger histories of
the Church. In addition to these we have numerous important monographs
and essays, of which the following may be mentioned here: Möller,
de Fide Eusebii in rebus christianis enarrandis, Havn. 1813;
Danz, de Eusebio Cæsariensi Hist. Ecclesiasticæ
Scriptore, Jenæ, 1815. This was mentioned in Chapter I. as
containing a valuable discussion of the life of Eusebius. Its chief
importance lies in its treatment of the sources of the Church
History, to which the author devotes the whole of
The
following Testimonies of the Ancients were collected by
Valesius, and are printed in the original languages in his edition of
Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, at the close of his
Vita Eusebii. The order of Valesius has been preserved in the
following pages, but occasionally a passage, for the sake of greater
clearness, has been given more fully than by him. A few extracts have
been omitted (as noted below), and one or two, overlooked by him, have
been added. The extracts have all been translated from the original for
this edition, with the exception of the quotations from the Life of
Constantine, and from the Greek Ecclesiastical
Historians,—Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and
Evagrius,—which have been copied, with a few necessary
corrections, from the version found in Bagster’s edition of the
Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. The translation has been made
at my request by Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville, Ky., a member of
the senior class (1890) of Lane Theological Seminary.
__________
From Constantine’s Letter to the Antiochians (in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 60).
“I confess, then, that on reading your records I perceived, by the highly eulogistic testimony which they bear to Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea (whom I have myself long well known and esteemed for his learning and moderation), that you are strongly attached to him and desire to appropriate him as your own prelate. What thoughts then do you suppose that I entertain on this subject, desirous as I am to seek for and act on the strict principles of right? What anxiety do you imagine this desire of yours has caused me? O holy faith, who givest us in our Saviour’s words and precepts a model, as it were, of what our life should be, how hardly wouldst thou thyself resist the course of sin were it not that thou refusest to subserve the purposes of gain! In my own judgment, he whose first object is the maintenance of peace seems to be superior to Victory herself; and where a right and honorable course lies open to one’s choice, surely no one would hesitate to adopt it. I ask then, brethren, why do we so decide as to inflict an injury on others by our choice? Why do we covet those objects which will destroy the credit of our own character? I myself highly esteem the individual whom ye judge worthy of your respect and affection; notwithstanding, it cannot be right that those principles should be entirely disregarded which should be authoritative and binding on all alike; for example, that each should be content with the limits assigned them, and that all should enjoy their proper privileges; nor can it be right in considering the claims of rival candidates to suppose but that not one only, but many, may appear worthy of comparison with this person. For as long as no violence or harshness are suffered to disturb the dignities of the Church, they continue to be on an equal footing, and worthy of the same consideration everywhere. Nor is it reasonable that an enquiry into the qualifications of one person should be made to the detriment of others; since the judgment of all churches, whether reckoned of greater importance in themselves, is equally capable of receiving and maintaining the divine ordinances, so that one is in no way inferior to another (if we will but boldly declare the truth), in regard to that standard of practice which is common to all. If this be so, we must say that you will be chargeable, not with retaining this prelate, but with wrongfully removing him; your conduct will be characterized rather by violence than justice; and whatever may be generally thought by others, I dare clearly and boldly affirm that this measure will furnish ground of accusation against you, and will provoke factious disturbances of the most mischievous kind; for even timid flocks can show the use and power of their teeth when the watchful care of their shepherd declines, and they find themselves bereft of his accustomed guidance. If this then be really so, if I am not deceived in my judgment, let this, brethren, be your first consideration (for many and important considerations will immediately present themselves, if you adopt my advice), whether, should you persist in your intention, that mutual kindly feeling and affection which should subsist among you will suffer no diminution? In the next place remember that Eusebius, who came among you for the purpose of offering disinterested counsel, now enjoys the reward which is due to him in the judgment of heaven; for he has received no ordinary recompense in the high testimony you have borne to his equitable conduct. Lastly, in accordance with your usual sound judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming diligence in selecting the person of whom you stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and tumultuous clamor: for such clamor is always wrong, and from the collision of discordant elements both sparks and flame will arise.”
“I have most carefully perused your letter, and perceive that you have strictly conformed to the rule enjoined by the discipline of the Church. Now to abide by that which appears at the same time pleasing to God, and accordant with apostolic tradition, is a proof of true piety: and you have reason to deem yourself happy on this behalf, that you are counted worthy, in the judgment, I may say, of all the world, to have the oversight of the whole Church. For the desire which all feel to claim you for their own, undoubtedly enhances your enviable fortune in this respect. Notwithstanding, your Prudence, whose resolve it is to observe the ordinances of God and the apostolic rule of the Church, has done excellently well in declining the bishopric of the Church at Antioch, and desiring to continue in that Church of which you first received the oversight by the will of God.”
From Constantine’s Letter to the Council (in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 62).
“I have perused the letters written by your Prudences, and highly approve of the wise resolution of your colleague in the ministry, Eusebius. Having, moreover, been informed of the circumstances of the case, partly by your letters, partly by those of our illustrious friends Acacius and Strategius, after sufficient investigation I have written to the people at Antioch, suggesting the course which will be at once pleasing to God and advantageous for the Church. A copy of this I have ordered to be subjoined to this present letter, in order that ye yourselves may know what I thought fit, as an advocate of the cause of justice, to write to that people: since I find in your letter this proposal, that, in consonance with the choice of the people, sanctioned by your own desire, Eusebius the holy bishop of Cæsarea should preside over and take the charge of the Church at Antioch. Now the letters of Eusebius himself on this subject appeared to be strictly accordant with the order prescribed by the Church.”
From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book IV. chap. 35).
“It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the power of language itself, worthily to treat of the mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a fitting manner the controversy respecting the feast of Easter, its origin as well as its precious and toilsome accomplishment. For it is not in the power even of those who are able to apprehend them, adequately to describe the things of God. I am, notwithstanding, filled with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself read your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere followers of our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more frequently with those compositions, to the practice of which, indeed, you confess yourself to have been trained from an early period, so that I am urging a willing man (as they say), in exhorting you to your customary pursuits. And certainly the high and confident judgment we entertain is a proof that the person who has translated your writings into the Latin tongue is in no respect incompetent to the task, impossible though it be that such version should fully equal the excellence of the works themselves.”
From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, Book IV. chap. 36).
“It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy Church in the city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of Churches should also be increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures (the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church) to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a commodious and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. The procurator of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible. You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your Church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother!”
“Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning the truth, nor thy silence in this matter been unknown, but has reached even us. And, as was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced on account of my lord Eusebius; but on the other, we are grieved on thy account, since we look upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our cause.”
From the Book of Basil, to Amphilochius, on the Holy Spirit (chap. 29).
“If to any one Eusebius of Palestine seem trustworthy on account of his great experience, we give his own words in the Difficulties concerning the Polygamy of the Ancients.”
From the Book of Questions on the Old and New Testaments, which is published among the Works of Augustine (chap. 125).
“We remember to have read in a certain pamphlet of Eusebius, a man formerly distinguished among the rest of men, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and I wonder that a man of so great learning should have imposed this stigma upon the Holy Spirit.”
From Jerome’s Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 65).
“Apollinarius wrote the very strongest books against Porphyry; Eusebius has excellently composed his Ecclesiastical History. Of these men, one taught an incomplete human nature in Christ; the other was a most open defender of the heresy of Arius.”
From the Apology of Jerome against Rufinus (Book I. chap. 8).
“As I have already said, Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, formerly leader of the Arian party, has written six books in defense of Origen—a very extensive and elaborate work; with much evidence he has proved that Origen was, from his point of view, a Catholic, that is, from ours, an Arian.”
From the same book (chap. 9).
“For Eusebius himself, a friend, eulogist and companion of Pamphilus, has written three very elegant books comprising a life of Pamphilus. In these, after extolling other things with wondrous praises and exalting his humility to the skies, he also adds this in the third book,” &c.
And a little farther on in the same book (chap. 11).
“I have praised Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, in his Chronological Canons, in his Description of the Holy Land; and turning these same little works into Latin I have given them to those of my own tongue. Am I therefore an Arian, because Eusebius who wrote these books is an Arian?”
From Jerome’s second book against Rufinus (chap. 16).
“Eusebius, a very learned man (I have said learned, not Catholic; lest after the usual manner, even in this thing, thou heap calumny upon me), in six volumes does nothing else than show Origen to be of his own faith; that is, of the Arian heresy.”
From the Preface of Jerome’s Book on Hebrew Topography.
“Eusebius, who took his surname from the blessed martyr Pamphilus, after the ten books of his Ecclesiastical History, after his Chronological Canons, which we have published in the Latin tongue, after his Names of Various Nations, in which he showed how these were formerly, and are now, called among the Hebrews; after his Topography of the Land of Judea, with the inheritances of the tribes; after his Jerusalem, also, and his Plan of the Temple, with a very brief explanation,—after all these he has finally in this little work labored that he might collect for us from Holy Scripture the names of almost all the cities, mountains, rivers, villages, and divers places, which either remain the same, or have since been changed, or else have become corrupted from some source, wherefore we also, following the zeal of this admirable man,” &c.
“Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (I have not indeed been able to find out the name of the city), wrote a reckoning of Easter, and chronological tables up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander, and hit upon a cycle of sixteen years which the Greeks call ἑκκαιδεκαετηρίδα; and gave an occasion to Eusebius, who also composed an Easter canon, with a cycle of nineteen years, that is ἐννεαδεκαετηρίδα.”
From the same book (chap. 81).
“Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, a man most studious in the sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent investigator of sacred literature, has edited an infinite number of volumes, some of which are these: of the Demonstratio Evangelica, twenty books; of the Præparatio Evangelica, fifteen books; of the Theophania, five books; of the Ecclesiastical History, ten books; a General History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome of them; also, On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; On Isaiah, ten books; and Against Porphyry (who at the same time was writing in Sicily, as some think), thirty books, of which only twenty have come to my notice; of his Topica, one book; of the Apologia, in defense of Origen, six books; On the Life of Pamphilus, three books; Concerning the Martyrs, other small works; also very learned commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms, and many other writings. He flourished chiefly under the emperors Constantine and Constantius; and on account of his friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, he took from him his surname.”
From the same book (chap. 96).
“Eusebius, by nation a Sardinian, and, after being reader in Rome, bishop of Vercellæ, on account of his confession of the faith banished by the Prince Constantius to Scythopolis, and thence to Cappadocia, under Julian the emperor sent back to the Church, has published the Commentaries on the Psalms of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which he had translated from Greek into Latin.”
Jerome in the Preface to his Commentaries on Daniel.
“Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote a twelfth volume, denying that that book was composed by him with whose name it is inscribed, &c. To him Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, has replied very skillfully in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX. Apollinarius also in one large volume, that is, in the twenty-sixth volume, and before these, in part, Methodius.”
Jerome on the Twenty-fourth Chapter of Matthew.
“Concerning this place, that is, concerning the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place, Porphyry has uttered many blasphemies against us in the thirteenth volume of his work. To whom Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, has replied in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX.”
The same, in his Epistle to Magnus (Ep. 84).
“Celsus and Porphyry have written against us. To the former Origen, to the latter Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have very vigorously replied. Of whom Origen wrote eight books, Methodius proceeded as far as ten thousand lines, Eusebius and Apollinarius composed twenty-five and thirty volumes respectively.”
The same, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 65).
“What more skillful, more learned, more eloquent men can be found than Eusebius and Didymus, the advocates of Origen? The former of whom, in the six volumes of his Apologia, proves that he [Origen] was of the same opinion as himself.”
Jerome, in the Preface to his Commentaries on Isaiah.
“Eusebius Pamphili also has published an historical commentary in fifteen volumes.”
The same, in the Preface to the Fifth Book of his Commentaries on Isaiah.
“Shall I take upon myself
a work at which the most learned men have labored hard? I speak of
Origen and Eusebius Pamphili. Of these the former wanders afar in the
free spaces of alle
The same, in the fifth book of his Commentaries on Isaiah.
“Eusebius of Cæsarea, while promising in his title an historical exposition, strays off in divers notions: while reading his books I found much else than what he gave promise of in his title. For wherever history has failed him, he has crossed over into allegory; and in such a manner does he unite things that are distinct, that I wonder at his joining together by a new art of discourse stone and iron into one body.”
Jerome on the first chapter of Matthew.
“This [chapter] also Africanus, a writer of chronology, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, in his books on the Discrepancies of the Gospels, have discussed more fully.”
Rufinus in his Epistle to the Bishop Chromatius.
“You charge me to translate into Latin the Ecclesiastical History, which the very learned Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote in the Greek tongue.”
Augustine, in his Book on Heresies (chap. 83).
“When I had searched through the History of Eusebius, to which Rufinus, after having himself translated it into the Latin tongue, has also added two books of subsequent history, I did not find any heresy which I had not read among these very ones, except that one which Eusebius inserts in his sixth book, stating that it had existed in Arabia. Therefore these heretics, since he assigns them no founder, we may call Arabians, who declared that the soul dies and is destroyed along with the body, and that at the end of the world both are raised again. But he states that they were very quickly corrected, these by the disputation of Origen in person, and those by his exhortation.”
Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius of Cæsarea’s Apology for Origen.
“Since now this man was very learned, having searched out and traced back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers, and having set forth the opinions of almost all of them, and having left behind very many writings, some of which are worthy of all acceptation, making use of such an estimation as this of the man, they attempt to lead away some, saying, that Eusebius would not have chosen to take this view, unless he had accurately ascertained that all the opinions of the ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very learned, and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter.”
From the First Book of Extracts from the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius.
“Philostorgius, while praising Eusebius Pamphili both as to whatever of worth belongs to his histories and as to other things, yet declares that with regard to religion he has fallen into great error; and that he impiously sets forth this error of his in detail, holding that the Deity is unknowable and incomprehensible. Moreover, he holds that he has also gone astray on other such things. But he unites with others in attesting that he brought his History down to the accession of the sons of Constantine the Great.”
Socrates in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).
“Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus (i.e. universally beloved), has composed a History of the Church in ten books, brought down to the time of the Emperor Constantine, when the persecution ceased which Diocletian had commenced against the Christians. But, in writing the life of Constantine, this author has very slightly treated of the Arian controversy, being evidently more intent on a highly wrought eulogium of the emperor than an accurate statement of facts.”
“Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a witness worthy of credit, and praises the Emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines; but he still brands the faith which was declared at Nice as having been set forth by ignorant men, and such as had no intelligence in the matter. Thus he voluntarily contemns the testimony of a man whom he himself pronounces a wise and true witness; for Eusebius declares that of the ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod, some were eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their life; and that the Emperor himself being present, leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and conformity of opinion among them.”
The same Socrates, in Book II. chap. 21.
“But since some have attempted to stigmatize Eusebius Pamphilus as having favored the Arian views in his works, it may not be irrelevant here to make a few remarks respecting him. In the first place, then, he was present at the council of Nice, and gave his assent to what was there determined in reference to the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he thus expressed himself: ‘The Emperor incited all to unanimity, until he had rendered them united in judgment on those points on which they were previously at variance: so that they were quite agreed at Nice in matters of faith.’ Since, therefore, Eusebius, in mentioning the Nicene Synod, says that all differences were composed, and that unanimity of sentiment prevailed, what ground is there for assuming that he was himself an Arian? The Arians are certainly deceived in supposing him to be a favorer of their tenets. But some one will perhaps say that in his discourses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because of his frequently saying by Christ. Our answer is that ecclesiastical writers often use this mode of expression, and others of a similar kind denoting the economy of our Saviour’s humanity: and that before all these the apostle made use of such expressions without ever being accounted a teacher of false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has dared to say that the Son is a creature, as one of the others, observe what Eusebius says on this subject in his first book against Marcellus:
“‘He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, and is the only-begotten Son of God; whence any one would justly censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing, like the rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son? and how could he be God’s only-begotten, were he assigned the same nature as the other creatures, and were he one of the many created things, seeing that he, like them, would in that case be partaker of a creation from nothing? The sacred Scriptures do not thus instruct us concerning these things.’ He again adds a little afterwards: ‘Whoever then determines that the Son is made of things that are not, and that he is a creature produced from nothing pre-existing, forgets that while he concedes the name of Son, he denies him to be so in reality. For he that is made of nothing cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than the other things which have been made: but the true Son of God, forasmuch as he is begotten of the Father, is properly denominated the only-begotten and beloved of the Father. For this reason also, he himself is God: for what can the offspring of God be but the perfect resemblance of him who begat him? A sovereign, indeed, builds a city, but does not beget it; and is said to beget a son, not to build one. An artificer may be called the framer, but not the father of his work; while he could by no means be styled the framer of him whom he had begotten. So also the God of the Universe is the father of the Son; but would be fitly termed the Framer and Maker of the world. And although it is once said in Scripture, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways on account of his works, yet it becomes us to consider the import of this phrase, which I shall hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus has done, from a single passage to subvert one of the most important doctrines of the Church.’
“These and many other such
expressions are found in the first book of Eusebius Pamphilus against
Marcellus; and in his third book, declaring in what sense the term
creature is to be taken, he says: ‘Accordingly these things
being established, it follows that in the same sense as that which
preceded, these words also are to be understood, The Lord created
me in the beginning of his ways on account of his works. For
although he says that he was created, it is not as if he should say
that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor that he himself
also was made of nothing like the rest of the creatures, which some
have erroneously supposed: but as subsisting, living, pre-existing, and
being before the constitution of the whole world; and having been
appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and Father: the word created
being here used instead of ordained or constituted.
Certainly the apostle expressly called the rulers and governors
among men creature, when he said, Submit yourselves to every
human creature for the Lord’s sake;
“These quotations from the books of Eusebius against Marcellus have been adduced to confute those who have slanderously attempted to traduce and criminate him. Neither can they prove that Eusebius attributes a beginning of subsistence to the Son of God, although they may find him often using the expressions of dispensation: and especially so, because he was an emulator and admirer of the works of Origen, in which those who are able to comprehend that author’s writings, will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son was begotten of the Father. These remarks have been made in passing, in order to refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius.”
Sozomen in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1.).
“I at first felt strongly inclined to trace the course of events from the very commencement; but on reflecting that similar records of the past, up to their own time, had been compiled by the learned Clemens and Hegesippus, successors of the apostles, by Africanus the historian and Eusebius surnamed Pamphilus, a man intimately acquainted with the sacred Scriptures and the writings of the Greek poets and historians, I merely drew up an epitome in two books of all that is recorded to have happened to the churches, from the ascension of Christ to the deposition of Licinius.”
Victorius in the Paschal Canon.
“Reviewing therefore the trustworthy histories of the ancients, namely the Chronicles and prologue of the blessed Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, a city in Palestine, a man pre-eminently accomplished and learned; and likewise those things which have been added to these same Chronicles by Jerome of sacred memory.”
Jerome, in his Epistle to Chromatius and Heliodorus, prefixed to the Martyrology which bears Jerome’s Name.
“It is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ obtains triumphs at every martyrdom of his saints, whose sufferings we find described by the saintly Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea. For when Constantine Augustus came to Cæsarea and told the celebrated bishop to ask some favors which should benefit the church at Cæsarea, it is said that Eusebius answered: That a church enriched by its own resources was under no necessity of asking favors, yet that he himself had an unalterable desire, that whatever had been done in the Roman republic against God’s saints by successive judges in the whole Roman world they should search out by a careful examination of the public records; and that they should draw from the archives themselves and send to Eusebius himself, by royal command, the names of the martyrs: under what judge, in what province or city, upon what day, and with what steadfastness, they had obtained the reward of their suffering. Whence it has come about that, being an able narrator and a diligent historiographer, he has both composed an Ecclesiastical History and has set forth the triumphs of nearly all of the martyrs of all the Roman provinces.”
“Likewise as to the Chronicles of Eusebius and the books of his Ecclesiastical History, although in the first book of his narration he has grown cold, and has afterwards written one book in praise and in defense of Origen the schismatic, yet on account of his singular knowledge of things which pertain to instruction, we do not say that they ought to be rejected.”
The same in his book On the Two Natures.
“That saying the same thing with one heart and one mouth we may also believe what we have received from our forefathers, and, God giving them to us, that we may hand them down to posterity to be believed in, with which things the adduced testimony of the Catholic masters, being summed up, bear witness that a united faith in a gracious God endures.”
And a little farther on.
“From the exposition of the seventh psalm, by Eusebius, bishop in Palestine, by surname Pamphili, etc. Likewise from his Præparatio Evangelica, Book VII.”
Pope Pelagius II. in his Third Epistle to Elias of Aquileia and other Bishops of Istria.
“For, indeed, among hæresiarchs who can be found worse than Origen, and among historiographers who more honorable than Eusebius? And who of us does not know with how great praises Eusebius extols Origen in his books? But because the holy Church deals more kindly with the hearts of her faithful ones than she does severely with their words, neither could the testimony of Eusebius remove him from his proper place among heretics, nor on the other hand has she condemned Eusebius for the fault of praising Origen.”
Evagrius, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).
“Eusebius Pamphili—an especially able writer, to the extent, in particular, of inducing his readers to embrace our religion, though failing to perfect them in the faith—and Sozomen, Theodoret, and Socrates have produced a most excellent record of the advent of our compassionate God, and his ascension into heaven, and of all that has been achieved in the endurance of the divine Apostles, as well as of the other martyrs,” etc.
Gregory the Great in his Epistle to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.
“I have now become one of the number of hearers, to whom your Holiness has taken the pains to write, that we ought to transmit the deeds of all the martyrs which have been collected by Eusebius of Cæsarea in the age of Constantine of holy memory. But I was not aware before receiving your Holiness’ letter whether these things had been collected or not. I therefore am thankful that being informed by the writings of your most holy learning, I have begun to know what I did not know before. For excepting these things which are contained in the books of this same Eusebius On the deeds of the holy martyrs, I have met with nothing else in the archives of this our church, nor in the libraries of Rome, except some few collected in a single volume.”
Gelasius of Cyzicus in his Second Book On the Council of Nicæa (chap. 1).
“Let us hear now what says this the most illustrious husbandman in ecclesiastical farming, the most truth-loving Eusebius, surnamed after the celebrated Pamphilus. Licinius, indeed, he says, having followed the same path of impiety with the ungodly tyrants, has justly been brought to the same precipice with them, etc. (which may be found at the end of the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History). As to Eusebius Pamphili, the most trustworthy of ancient ecclesiastical historians, who has investigated and set forth so many struggles, having made a choice from among his simply written works, we say that in all ten books of his Ecclesiastical History he has left behind an accurately written work. Beginning with the advent of our Lord he has, not without much labor, proceeded as far as those times. For how else could it be with him who took so great care to preserve for us the harmony of this collection? But as I have just said, he brought to bear upon it much study and an untold amount of labor. But let no one suppose, from those things which have been alleged with regard to him, that this man ever adopted the heresy of Arius; but let him be sure, that even if he did speak somewhat of, and did write briefly concerning the conjectures of Arius, he certainly did not do it on account of his entertaining the impious notion of that man, but from artless simplicity, as indeed he himself fully assures us in his Apology, which he distributed generally among orthodox bishops.”
“The very learned Eusebius Pamphili has written thus: As the Jews crucified Christ at the feast, so they all perished at their own feast.”
Nicephorus in the Sixth Book of his History (chap. 37).
“Upon whose authority also we know of the divine Pamphilus as both living the life of a philosopher and wearing the dignity of presbyter in that place. His life and every event in it, also his establishing in that place the study of sacred and profane philosophy, also his confession of his religion in divers persecutions, his struggles, and at last his wearing the martyr’s crown, Eusebius his nephew, who had such a regard for him as to take from him his surname, has comprehended in detail in one separate book; to this we refer those who may wish to find out accurately concerning him. This Eusebius, indeed, although having prosecuted many studies, especially excels in the study of sacred literature. His life extended until the time of Constantius. Being a man pre-eminently Christian, and endowed with great zeal for Christ, he has written the Præparatio Evangelica in fifteen books, and in ten more the Demonstratio Evangelica. He was also the first one to take in hand this subject, having been the first to call his book an Ecclesiastical History; this work is contained in ten volumes. There is also another book of his extant which he entitled Canons, in which he accurately investigates chronological matters. He has also composed five books On the Life of Constantine, and another addressed to him which he calls τριακονταετήρικον. To Stephanus he also dedicates another concerning those things in the sacred Gospels which have been called in question; and he has also left behind divers other works which are of great benefit to the Church. Apart from being such a man as this, he in many ways seems to uphold the opinions of Arius,” etc.
From the ms. Acts of Pope Silvester.
“Eusebius Pamphili, in writing his Ecclesiastical History, has in every case omitted to mention those things which he has pointed out in other works; for he has put into eleven books the sufferings of the martyrs, bishops, and confessors, who have suffered in almost all the provinces. But indeed as to the sufferings of women and maidens, such as with manly fortitude suffered for the sake of Christ the Lord, he records nothing. He is, moreover, the only one who has set forth in their order the sufferings of the bishops, from the Apostle Peter down. Moreover, he drew up for the benefit of the public a catalogue of the pontiffs of those cities and apostolic seats; that is, of the great city of Rome, and the cities of Alexandria and Antioch. Of the number then of those of whom, up to his own times, the above-mentioned author wrote in the Greek tongue, this man’s life he was unable to paraphrase; that is, the life of the saint Silvester,” etc.
An ancient author in the Passion of the Holy Valerian.
“The glorious struggles of the most blessed martyrs, for the honor of Christ the Lord and of our God, are celebrated by perpetual services and an annual solemnity, that while our faithful people know the faith of the martyrs, they may also rejoice in their triumphs, and may rest assured that it is by the protection of these that they themselves are to be protected. For it is held in repute that Eusebius the historian, of sacred memory, bishop of the city of Cæsarea, a most blessed priest of excellent life, very learned also in ecclesiastical matters, and to be venerated for his extraordinary carefulness, set forth for every city, in so far as the truth was able to be ascertained, the Holy Spirit announcing the deeds that had been done,—inasmuch as the cities of single provinces and localities or towns have merited being made famous by the heavenly triumphs of martyrs,—set forth, I say, in the time of what rulers the innumerable persecutions were inflicted at the command of officials. Who, although he has not described entire the sufferings of individual martyrs, yet has truly intimated why they ought to be described or celebrated by faithful and devoted Christians. Thus this faithful husbandman has cultivated the grace of God, which has been scattered abroad in all the earth, while, as it were, from a single grain of wheat, plenteous harvests are produced on account of the fertility of the field, and go on in multiplied abundance. So through the narration of the above-mentioned man, diffused from the fountain of a single book, with the ever-spreading writings of the faithful, the celebrating of the sufferings of the martyrs has watered all the earth.”
Usuardus in his Martyrology.
“On the twenty-first day of June, in Palestine, the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor, a man of most excellent genius, and a historiographer.”
“On the twenty-first day of June, the deposition in Cæsarea of the holy bishop Eusebius.”
Manecharius in his Epistle to Ceraunius, Bishop of Paris.
“Unceasing in thy continual efforts to equal in merit the very excellent persons of the most blessed bishops in all the conversation of the priesthood, zealous to adorn thyself every day with holy religion, by thy zeal for reading thou hast searched through the whole of the doctrines of the sacred Scriptures. Now as an addition to thy praiseworthiness thou dost faithfully purpose, in the city of Paris, to gather together for the love of religion, the deeds of the holy martyrs. Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in zeal with Eusebius of Cæsarea, and art worthy of being remembered perpetually with an equal share of glory.”
From an old Manuscript Breviary of the Lemovicensian Church.
“Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.
“Lesson 1. Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, on account of his friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, took from him the surname of Pamphili; inasmuch as along with this same Pamphilus he was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. The man indeed is very worthy of being remembered in these times, both for his skill in many things, and for his wonderful genius, and by both Gentiles and Christians he was held distinguished and most noble among philosophers. This man, after having for a time labored in behalf of the Arian heresy, coming to the council of Nicæa, inspired by the Holy Spirit, followed the decision of the Fathers, and thereafter up to the time of his death lived in a most holy manner in the orthodox faith.
“Lesson 2. He was, moreover, very zealous in the study of the sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. At the same time he has written many things, but especially the following books: The Præparatio Evangelica, the Ecclesiastical History, Against Porphyry, a very bitter enemy of the Christians; he has also composed Six Apologies in Behalf of Origen, a Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on account of friendship he took his surname, in three books; likewise very learned Commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms.
“Lesson 3. Moreover, as we read, after having ascertained the sufferings of many holy martyrs in all the provinces, and the lives of confessors and virgins, he has written concerning these saints twenty books; while on account of these books therefore, and especially on account of his Præparatio Evangelica, he was held most distinguished among the Gentiles, because of his love of truth he contemned the ancestral worship of the gods. He has written also a Chronicle, extending from the first year of Abraham up to the year 300 a.d., which the divine Hieronymus has continued. Finally this Eusebius, after the conversion of Constantine the Great, was united to him by strong friendship as long as he lived.”
In the Breviary of the same church, June twenty-first.
“Omnipotent, eternal God,
who dost permit us to take part in the festivities in honor of
Eusebius, thy holy confessor and priest, bring us, we pray thee,
through his prayers, into the society of heavenly joys, through our
Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. Valesius
adds brief extracts from other missals of the same church, which it is
not necessary to quote here.
From the book On the Lights of the Church.
“Eusebius of Cæsarea, the key of the Scriptures and custodian of the New Testament, is proved by the Greeks to be greater than many in his treatises. There are three celebrated works of his which truly testify to this: the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical History, and the Chronicon, that is, a chronological summary. We have never found any one who has been able to follow in all his foot-prints.”
From the Miscellanies of Theodore Metochita (chap. 19)
“Eusebius Pamphili was also a Palestinian by birth, but as he himself says, he sojourned for quite a long time in Egypt. He was a very learned man, and it is evident indeed that he published many books, and that he used language thus.”
__________
From the Epistle of Arius to
Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia (in
Theodoret’s Eccles. Hist. I. 5). This
extract is not given by Valesius.
“Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotius, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory, Ætius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of his Son.”
From the Book of Marcellus of Ancyra against the Arians.
“Having happened upon a letter of Narcissus, bishop of Neronias, which he wrote to one Chrestus and to Euphronius and to Eusebius, in which it seems that Hosius, the bishop, had asked him whether or not like Eusebius of Palestine he believed in the existence of two essences, I read in the writing that he answered that he believed in the existence of three essences.”
From the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt, met in the City of Alexandria, to All the Bishops of the Catholic Church (which Athanasius gives in his second apology against the Arians).
“For what sort of a council of bishops was that? What sort of an assembly having truth for its aim? Who out of the great majority of them was not our enemy? Did not the followers of Eusebius rise up against us on account of the Arian madness? Did not they bring forward the others who held the same opinions as themselves? Were we not continually writing against them as against those who held the opinions of Arius? Was not Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine accused by our confessors of sacrificing?”
Epiphanius in the Heresy of the Meletians (Hær. LXVIII.).
“The emperor upon hearing these things becomes very angry and orders that a synod be convoked in Phœnicia in the city of Tyre; he also gave orders that Eusebius and some others should act as judges: these persons moreover had leaned somewhat too far toward the vulgarity of the Arians. There were also summoned the bishops of the Catholic Church in Egypt, also certain men subject to Athanasius, who were likewise great and who kept their lives transparent before God, among whom was the great Potamo of blessed memory, bishop and confessor of Heraclea. But there were also present Meletians, the chief accusers of Athanasius. Being zealous for truth and for orthodoxy, the above-mentioned Potamo of blessed memory, a free-spoken man, who regarded the person of no man,—for he had been deprived of an eye in the persecution for the truth,—seeing Eusebius sitting down and acting as judge, and Athanasius standing up, overcome by grief and weeping, as is the wont with true men, he addressed Eusebius in a loud voice, saying, ‘Dost thou sit down, Eusebius, and is Athanasius, an innocent man, judged by thee? Who could bear such things? Do thou tell me, wert thou not in confinement with me at the time of the persecution? I have parted with an eye for the sake of the truth, but thou neither seemest to be maimed at all in body, nor hast thou suffered martyrdom, but art alive, and in no part mutilated. How didst thou escape from the confinement unless that thou didst promise those who have inflicted upon us the violence of persecution to perform the ungodly act, or didst actually perform it?’”
From the Epistle of the Catholic Bishops of Egypt to the Synod of Tyre (which Athanasius gives in the above-mentioned Apology).
“For ye also know, as we have said before, that they are our enemies, and ye know why Eusebius of Cæsarea has become our enemy since last year.”
Athanasius in his Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicæa.
“The strange thing is that
Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine, who had denied on one day, but
on the next day had subscribed, sent to his church, saying that this is
the faith of the Church,
The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.
“Most of all, what would Acacius say to Eusebius his own teacher? who not only signed in the synod at Nicæa, but also made it known by letter to the people under him that that was the true faith, which had been agreed upon at the council of Nicæa; for although he defended himself as he pleased through the letter, yet he did not deny the grounds taken. But he also accused the Arians, since, in saying that ‘the Son did not exist before that he was begotten,’ they also deny that he existed before Mary.”
The same, in his Epistle to the Bishops of Africa.
“This also was known all the while to Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, who, at first identifying himself with the Arian heresy, and having afterwards signed at the self-same synod of Nicæa, wrote to his own particular friends, firmly maintaining that, ‘We have known of certain learned and renowned bishops and writers among the ancients who have used the term ὁμοούσιος in reference to the divinity of the Father and Son.’”
The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.
“Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop, did not fear to say openly that Christ is not true God.”
Jerome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians.
“He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might designate with the name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six books in defense of Origen which were written by Eusebius of Cæsarea, whom every one knows to have been an Arian.”
The same, in his Second Book against Rufinus.
“As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians),” etc.
The same, in his First Book against Rufinus.
“Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, of whom I have made mention above, in the sixth book of his Apology in behalf of Origen, lays this same charge against Methodius the bishop and martyr, which you lay against me in my praises [of him]; he says: ‘How did Methodius dare to write against Origen after having said this and that concerning his opinions?’ This is no place to speak in behalf of a martyr, for not all things ought to be discussed in all places. Now let it suffice to have barely touched upon the matter, that this same thing was charged against a most renowned and most eloquent martyr by an Arian, which you as a friend praise in me, and, being offended, censure me for.”
The same, in his Epistle to Minervius and Alexander.
“I both in manhood and in extreme old age am of the same opinion, that Origen and Eusebius of Cæsarea were indeed very learned men, but went astray in the truth of their opinions.”
Socrates, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 23).
“Eusebius Pamphilus says that immediately after the Synod Egypt became agitated by intestine divisions; but as he does not assign the reason for this, some have accused him of disingenuousness, and have even attributed his failure to specify the causes of these dissensions to a determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings at Nice.”
“Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed; but Eusebius denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius. In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of Persons; yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace.”
Theodoritus, in his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes as follows:
“If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it at least behooves them to believe Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call the chief advocate of their own doctrines.”
Nicetas, in his Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith, Book V. Chap. 7.
“Moreover, Theodore of
Mopsuestia relates that there were only nine persons out of all whom
the decrees of the Synod did not please, and that their names are as
follows: Theognis of Nicæa, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of
Scythopolis, Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine, Narcissus of
Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre,
Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemaïs, which borders upon
Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica.” Valesius
inserts after this extract a brief and unimportant quotation from
Eulogius of Alexandria, which, however, is so obscure,—severed as
it is from its context, which is not accessible to me,—that no
translation of it has been attempted.
Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius’ Apology for Origen.
“I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the doctrines; wherefore he ought to be given place to so far as regards his great learning, but as regards his knowledge of doctrine he ought not. But, moreover, we know him to have been altogether lacking in such accurate knowledge.”
And a little farther on.
“So now, that we may not seem to be trampling upon the man,—concerning whom it is not our purpose for the present to speak,—examining into the accuracy of his Apology, we may go on to show that both were heretics, both he who composed the Apology, and he in whose behalf it was composed.”
And farther on.
“For as to your attempting to show that others as well as he [Origen] have spoken of the subordination of the Son to the Father, we may not at first wonder at it, for such is your opinion and that of your followers; wherefore we say nothing concerning this matter for the present, since it was long ago submitted and condemned at the general Council.”
From the Acts of the Seventh Œcumenical Council.
“For who of the faithful
ones in the Church, and who of those who have obtained a knowledge of
true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius Pamphili has given himself
over to false ways of thinking, and has become of the same opinion and
of the same mind with those who follow after the opinions of Arius? In
all his historical books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, a
servant, and to be adored as second in rank. But if any speaking in his
defense say that he subscribed in the council, we may admit that that
is true; but while with his lips he has respected the truth, in his
heart he is far from it, as all his writings and epistles go to show.
But if from time to time, on account of circumstances or from different
causes, he has become confused or has changed around, sometimes
praising those who hold to the doctrines of Arius, and at other times
feigning the truth, he shows himself to be, according to James the
brother of our Lord, a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways; and
let him not think that he shall receive anything of the Lord. For if
with the heart he had believed unto righteousness, and with the mouth
had confessed the truth unto salvation, he would have asked forgiveness
for his writings, at the same time correcting them. But this he has by
no means done, for he remained like Æthiops with his skin
unchanged. In interpreting the verse ‘I said to the Lord, Thou
art my Lord,’ he has strayed far away from the true sense, for
this is what he says: ‘By the laws of nature every son’s
father This
extract is translated from the original Greek of the Acts of the Second
Nicene Council, Act VI. Tom. V. (as given by Labbe and Cossartius in
their Concilia, Tom. VII. p. 495 sq.). Valesius gives only a
Latin translation, and that in a fragmentary form.
Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine.
“That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses to his infirmity; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not repented. For he cannot show, by means of those writings in which he would seem to be defending himself, that he has withdrawn from his former heretical doctrines, nor can he show that he agreed with the holy and Œcumenical Synod. But he speaks of it as a marvel that the upholders of the Homoousion should concur with him in sentiment and agree with him in opinion: and this fact both many other things and the epistle written by him to his own people at Cæsarea accurately confirm. But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he did not cease following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many sources; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, the error with regard to the common resurrection of us all, is to most persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly disease than he was by the Arian madness.”
Photius, in his Bibliotheca (chap. 13).
“Of the Objection and
Defense of Eusebius two books have been read; also other two, which
although differing in some respects from the former two, are in other
respects the same with regard
Photius, in the Same Work (chap. 127).
“There has been read the work of Eusebius Pamphili In praise of the great emperor Constantine, consisting of four books. In this is contained the whole life of the man, starting with his very boyhood, also whatever deeds of his belong to ecclesiastical history, until he departed from life at the age of sixty-four. Eusebius is, however, even in this work, like himself in diction, except that his discourse has risen to a somewhat more than usual brilliancy, and that sometimes he has made use of more flowery expressions than he is wont. However, of pleasantness and beauty of expression there is little, as indeed is the case in his other works. He inserts, moreover, in this work of his in four books very many passages from the whole decalogue of his Ecclesiastical History. He says that Constantine the Great himself also was baptized in Nicomedia, he having put off his baptism until then, because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan. Who baptized him he does not clearly show. However, as to the heresy of Arius, he does not definitely state whether he holds that opinion, or whether he has changed; or even whether Arius held correct or incorrect views, although he ought to have made mention of these things, because the synod occupied an important place among the deeds of Constantine the Great, and it again demands a detailed account of them. But he does state that a ‘controversy’ arose between Arius and Alexander (this is the name he cunningly gives to the heresy), and that the God-fearing prince was very much grieved at this controversy, and strove by epistles and through Hosius, who was then bishop of Cordova, to bring back the dissenting parties into peace and concord, they having laid aside the strife existing between them with regard to such questions; and that when he could not persuade them to do this he convoked a synod from all quarters, and that it dissolved into peace the strife that had arisen. These things, however, are not described accurately or clearly; it would seem then that he is ashamed, as it were, and does not wish to make public the vote cast against Arius in the Synod, and the just retribution of those who were his companions in impiety and who were cast out together with him. Finally, he does not even mention the terrible fate which was inflicted by God upon Arius in the sight of all. None of these things he brings to the light, nor has he drawn up an account of the Synod and the things that were done in it. Whence, also, when about to write a narrative concerning the divine Eustathius, he does not even mention his name, nor what things were threatened and executed against him; but referring these things also to sedition and tumult, he again speaks of the calmness of the bishops, who having been convened in Antioch by the zeal and cooperation of the Emperor, changed the sedition and tumult into peace. Likewise as to what things were maliciously contrived against the ever-conquering Athanasius, when he set about making his history cover these things, he says that Alexandria again was filled with sedition and tumult, and that this was calmed by the coming of the bishops, who had the imperial aid. But he by no means makes it clear who was the leader of the sedition, what sort of sedition it was, or by what means the strife was settled. He also keeps up almost the same mode of dissimulating in his account of the contentions existing among bishops with respect to doctrines, and their disagreements on other matters.”
Joannes Zonaras, in his Third Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of Constantine
“Even Eusebius Pamphili,
bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, was at that time one of those who
upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have afterwards withdrawn
from the opinion of Arius, and to have become of like mind with those
who hold that the Son is coëqual and of the same nature with the
Father, and to have been received into communion by the holy Fathers.
Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to have defended
the faithful. These things are found thus narrated by some; but he
makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which he is seen to
have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in many places
in the above-mentioned work he seems to be following after Arius. In
the very beginning of his book, where he quotes David as saying,
‘He spake and they were made, he commanded and they were
estab
Suidas, under the word Διόδωρος
“Diodorus, a monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, in the times of Julian and Valens, wrote divers works, as Theodorus Lector states in his Ecclesiastical History. These are as follows: A Chronicle, which corrects the error of Eusebius Pamphilus with regard to chronology,” etc.
The same Suidas, from Sophronius.
“Eusebius Pamphili, a
devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, a man
zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus
the martyr a most careful investigator of sacred literature, has
published many books, among which are the following.” The
remainder of this extract from Sophronius is a translation of the
chapter of Jerome’s de viris illustribus, which is quoted
above, on p. 60, and is therefore omitted at this point. Valesius adds
some extracts from Baronius and Scaliger; but inasmuch as they are to
be classed with modern rather than with ancient writers, it has seemed
best to omit the quotations from their works.
The Church History of Eusebius.
————————————
Book I.
Chapter I.—The Plan of the Work.
1. It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.
2. It is my purpose also to give
the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation
have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves
discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called Cf.
3. It is my intention, moreover,
to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish
nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record
the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by
the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various
periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as
well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and
finally the gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded
them all. Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence
my work with the beginning of the dispensation Greek οἰκονομία. Suicer (Thesaurus Eccles.) points out four uses of
this word among ecclesiastical writers: (1) Ministerium
Evangelii. (2) Providentia et numen (i.e. of God). (3)
Naturæ humanæ assumtio. (4) Totius redemptionis
mysterium et passionis Christi sacramentum. Valesius says,
“The ancient Greeks use the word to denote whatever Christ did in
the world to proclaim salvation for the human race, and thus the
first οἰκονομία
τοῦ χριστοῦ
is the incarnation, as the last οἰκονομία
is the passion.” The word in the present case is
used in its wide sense to denote not simply the act of incarnation, but
the whole economy or dispensation of Christ upon earth. See the notes
of Heinichen upon this passage, Vol. III. p. 4 sq., and of Valesius,
Vol. I. p. 2. Five
mss., followed by nearly all the editors of
the Greek text and by the translators Stigloher and Crusè,
read τοῦ
θεοῦ after χριστόν. The words, however, are omitted by the majority of the best
mss. and by Rufinus, followed by Heinichen and
Closs. (See the note of Heinichen, Vol. I. p. 4).
4. But at the outset I must
crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, All the
mss. followed by the majority of the editors
read εὐγνωμονῶν, which must agree with λόγος.
Heinichen, however, followed by Burton, Schwegler, Closs, and
Stigloher, read εὐγνωμόνων, which I have also accepted. Closs translates die
Nachsicht der Kenner; Stigloher, wohlwollende Nachsicht.
Crusè avoids the difficulty by omitting the word; an omission
which is quite unwarranted. Eusebius
is rightly called the “Father of Church History.” He had no
predecessors who wrote, as he did, with a comprehensive historical plan
in view; and yet, as he tells us, much had been written of which he
made good use in his History. The one who approached nearest to the
idea of a Church historian was Hegesippus (see Bk. IV. chap. 22, note
1), but his writings were little more than fragmentary memoirs, or
collections of disconnected reminiscences. For instance, Eusebius, in
Bk. II. chap 23, quotes from his fifth and last book the account of the
martyrdom of James the Just, which shows that his work lacked at least
all chronological arrangement. Julius Africanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 31,
note 1) also furnished Eusebius with much material in the line of
chronology, and in his Chronicle Eusebius made free use of him.
These are the only two who can in any sense be said to have preceded
Eusebius in his province, and neither one can rob him of his right to
be called the “Father of Church History.”
5. Having gathered therefore
from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider
important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a
meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers, One of
the greatest values of Eusebius’ History lies in the quotations
which it contains from earlier ecclesiastical writers. The works of
many of them are lost, and are known to us only through the extracts
made by Eusebius. This fact alone is enough to make his History of
inestimable worth.
6. This work seems to me of especial importance because I know of no ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this subject; and I hope that it will appear most useful to those who are fond of historical research.
7. I have already given an
epitome of these things in the Chronological Canons On
Eusebius’ Chronicle, see the Prolegomena, p. 31,
above.
8. My work will begin, as I have
said, with the dispensation οἰκονομία. See above, note 2. θεολογία. Suicer gives four meanings for this word: (1) Doctrina
de Deo. (2) Doctrina de SS. Trinitate. (3) Divina Christi
natura, seu doctrina de ea. (4) Scriptura sacra utriusque
Testamenti. The word is used here in its third signification (cf.
also chap. 2, §3, and Bk. V. chap. 28, §5). It occurs very
frequently in the works of the Fathers with this meaning, especially in
connection with οἰκονομία, which is then quite commonly used to denote the
“human nature” of Christ. In the present chapter
οἰκονομία
keeps throughout its more general signification of
“the Dispensation of Christ,” and is not confined to the
mere act of incarnation, nor to his “human
nature.”
9. for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from Christ, for one who proposes to write a history of the Church to begin with the very origin of Christ’s dispensation, a dispensation more divine than many think.
Chapter II.—Summary View of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.
1. Since in Christ there is a twofold nature, and the
one—in so far as he is thought of as God—resembles the head
of the body, while the other may be compared with the feet,—in so
far as he, for the sake of our salvation, put on human nature with the
same passions as our own,—the following work will be complete
only if we begin with the chief and lordliest events of all his
history. In this way will the antiquity and divinity of Christianity be
shown to those who suppose it of recent and foreign origin, νέαν αὐτὴν
καὶ
ἐκτετοπισμένην This
was one of the principal objections raised against Christianity.
Antiquity was considered a prime requisite in a religion which claimed
to be true, and no reproach was greater than the reproach of novelty.
Hence the apologists laid great stress upon the antiquity of
Christianity, and this was one reason why they appropriated the Old
Testament as a Christian book. Compare, for instance, the apologies of
Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian and Minucius
Felix, and the works of Clement of Alexandria. See Engelhardt’s
article on Eusebius, in the Zeitschrift für die hist.
Theologie, 1852, p. 652 sq.; Schaff’s Church History,
Vol. II. p. 110; and Tzschirner’s Geschichte der
Apologetik, p. 99 sq.
2. No language is sufficient to
express the origin and the worth, the being and the nature of Christ.
Wherefore also the divine Spirit says in the prophecies, “Who
shall declare his generation?” Cf.
3. For who beside the Father
could clearly understand the Light which was before the world, the
intellectual and essential Wisdom which existed before the ages, the
living Word which was in the beginning with the Father and which was
God, the first and only begotten of God which was before every creature
and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the
rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great
counsel, the executor of the Father’s unspoken will, the creator,
with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after
the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and
King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and
power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father;
as it is said in regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture
which speak of his divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
4. This, too, the great Moses
teaches, when, as the most ancient of all the prophets, he describes
under the influence of the divine Spirit the creation and arrangement
of the universe. He declares that the maker of the world and the
creator of all things yielded to Christ himself, and to none other than
his own clearly divine and first-born Word, the making of inferior
things, and communed with him respecting the creation of man.
“For,” says he, “God said, Let us make man in our
image and in our likeness.”
5. And another of the prophets
confirms this, speaking of God in his hymns as follows: “He spake
and they were made; he commanded and they were created.”
6. All that are said to have excelled in righteousness and piety since the creation of man, the great servant Moses and before him in the first place Abraham and his children, and as many righteous men and prophets as afterward appeared, have contemplated him with the pure eyes of the mind, and have recognized him and offered to him the worship which is due him as Son of God.
7. But he, by no means
neglectful of the reverence due to the Father, was appointed to teach
the knowledge of the Father to them all. For instance, the Lord God, it
is said, appeared as a common man to Abraham while he was sitting at
the oak of Mambre. See
8. For if it is unreasonable to
suppose that the unbegotten and immutable essence of the almighty God
was changed into the form of man or that it deceived the eyes of the
beholders with the appearance of some created thing, and if it is
unreasonable to suppose, on the other hand, that the Scripture should
falsely invent such things, when the God and Lord who judgeth all the
earth and executeth judgment is seen in the form of a man, who else can
be called, if it be not lawful to call him the first cause of all
things, than his only pre-existent Word? Eusebius accepts the common view of the early Church, that the
theophanies of the Old Testament were Christophanies; that is,
appearances of the second person of the Trinity. Augustine seems to
have been the first of the Fathers to take a different view,
maintaining that such Christophanies were not consistent with the
identity of essence between Father and Son, and that the Scriptures
themselves teach that it was not the Logos, but an angel, that appeared
to the Old Testament worthies on various occasions (cf. De Trin.
III. 11). Augustine’s opinion was widely adopted, but in modern
times the earlier view, which Eusebius represents, has been the
prevailing one (see Hodge, Systematic Theology, I. p. 490, and
Lange’s article Theophany in Herzog).
9. Moses most clearly proclaims
him second Lord after the Father, when he says, “The Lord rained
upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord.” εἶδος
θεοῦ.
10. Nor is it admissible to suppose that the theophanies recorded were appearances of subordinate angels and ministers of God, for whenever any of these appeared to men, the Scripture does not conceal the fact, but calls them by name not God nor Lord, but angels, as it is easy to prove by numberless testimonies.
11. Joshua, also, the successor
of Moses, calls him, as leader of the heavenly angels and archangels
and of the supramundane powers, and as lieutenant of the Father, The
mss. differ greatly at this point. A number of
them followed by Valesius, Closs, and Crusè, read, ὡσανεὶ τοῦ
πατρὸς
ὑπ€ρχοντα
δύναμιν καὶ
σοφίαν.
Schwegler, Laemmer, Burton, and Heinichen adopt another reading which
has some ms. support, and which we have
followed in our translation: ὡσανεὶ τοῦ
πατρὸς
ὕπαρχον.
See Heinichen’s edition, Vol. 1. p. 10, note 41.
12. “And it came to pass
when Joshua was at Jericho ἐν
῾Ιεριχὼ.
13. You will perceive also from
the same words that this was no other than he who talked with Moses. Eusebius
agrees with other earlier Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Origen, and
Cyprian) in identifying the one that appeared to Joshua with him that
had appeared to Moses, on the ground that the same words were used in
both cases (cf. especially Justin’s Dial. c. Trypho, chap.
62). Many later Fathers (e.g. Theodoret) regard the person that
appeared to Joshua as the archangel Michael, who is described by
14. And that there is a certain
substance which lived and subsisted οὐσία τις
προκόσμιος
ζῶσα καὶ
ὑφεστῶσα.
15. To which she adds:
“The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways, for his works;
before the world he established me, in the beginning, before he made
the earth, before he made the depths, before the mountains were
settled, before all hills he begat me. When he prepared the heavens I
was present with him, and when he established the fountains of the
region under heaven τῆς ὑπ᾽
οὐρανόν,
with all the mss. and the LXX., followed by
Schwegler, Burton, Heinichen, and others. Some editors, in agreement
with the version of Rufinus (fontes sub cœlo), read
τὰς ὑπ᾽
οὐρανόν.
Closs, Stigloher, and Crusè translate in the same way.
16. That the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed and appeared to some, if not to all, has thus been briefly shown by us.
17. But why the Gospel was not
preached in ancient times to all men and to all nations, as it is now,
will appear from the following considerations. Eusebius pursues much the same line of argument in his Dem.
Evang., Prœm. Bk. VIII.; and compare also Gregory of
Nyssa’s Third Oration on the birth of the Lord (at the
beginning). The objection which Eusebius undertakes to answer here was
an old one, and had been considered by Justin Martyr, by Origen in his
work against Celsus, and by others (see Tzschirner’s
Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 25 ff.).
18. For immediately in the beginning, after his original life of blessedness, the first man despised the command of God, and fell into this mortal and perishable state, and exchanged his former divinely inspired luxury for this curse-laden earth. His descendants having filled our earth, showed themselves much worse, with the exception of one here and there, and entered upon a certain brutal and insupportable mode of life.
19. They thought neither of city
nor state, neither of arts nor sciences. They were ignorant even of the
name of laws and of justice, of virtue and of philosophy. As nomads,
they passed their lives in deserts, like wild and fierce beasts,
destroying, by an excess of voluntary wickedness, the natural reason of
man, and the seeds of thought and of culture implanted in the human
soul. They gave themselves wholly over to all kinds of profanity, now
seducing one another, now slaying one another, now eating human flesh,
and now daring to wage war with the Gods and to undertake those battles
of the giants celebrated by all; now planning to fortify earth against
heaven, and in the madness of ungoverned pride to prepare an attack
upon the very God of all. The
reference here seems to be to the building of the tower of Babel
(
20. On account of these things, when they conducted themselves thus, the all-seeing God sent down upon them floods and conflagrations as upon a wild forest spread over the whole earth. He cut them down with continuous famines and plagues, with wars, and with thunderbolts from heaven, as if to check some terrible and obstinate disease of souls with more severe punishments.
21. Then, when the excess of wickedness had overwhelmed nearly all the race, like a deep fit of drunkenness, beclouding and darkening the minds of men, the first-born and first-created wisdom of God, the pre-existent Word himself, induced by his exceeding love for man, appeared to his servants, now in the form of angels, and again to one and another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of God, in his own person as the saving power of God, not otherwise, however, than in the shape of man, because it was impossible to appear in any other way.
22. And as by them the seeds of piety were sown among a multitude of men and the whole nation, descended from the Hebrews, devoted themselves persistently to the worship of God, he imparted to them through the prophet Moses, as to multitudes still corrupted by their ancient practices, images and symbols of a certain mystic Sabbath and of circumcision, and elements of other spiritual principles, but he did not grant them a complete knowledge of the mysteries themselves.
23. But when their law became
celebrated, and, like a sweet odor, was diffused among all men, as a
result of their influence the dispositions of the majority of the
heathen were softened by the lawgivers and philosophers who arose on
every side, and their wild and savage brutality was changed into
mildness, so that they enjoyed deep peace, friendship, and social
intercourse. It
was the opinion of Eusebius, in common with most of the Fathers, that
the Greek philosophers, lawgivers, and poets had obtained their wisdom
from the ancient Hebrews, and this point was pressed very strongly by
many of the apologists in their effort to prove the antiquity of
Christianity. The assertion was made especially in the case of Plato
and Pythagoras, who were said to have become acquainted with the books
of the Hebrews upon their journey to Egypt. Compare among other
passages Justin’s Apol. I. 59 ff.; Clement of
Alexandria’s Cohort. ad Gentes, chap. 6; and
Tertullian’s Apol. chap. 47. Compare also Eusebius’
Præp. Evang., Bks. IX. and X.
24. For instance, Daniel the
prophet, under the influence of the divine Spirit, seeing his kingdom
at the end of time, The
Greek has only ἐπὶ
τέλει, which can
refer, however, only to the end of time or to the end of the
world.
25. And again, “I
saw,” says he, “and behold, one like the Son of man came
with the clouds of heaven, and he hastened unto the Ancient of Days and
was brought into his presence, and there was given him the dominion and
the glory and the kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues serve
him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.”
26. It is clear that these words can refer to no one else than to our Saviour, the God Word who was in the beginning with God, and who was called the Son of man because of his final appearance in the flesh.
27. But since we have collected
in separate books Eusebius
refers here probably to his Eclogæ propheticæ, or
Prophetical Extracts, possibly to his Dem. Evang.; upon
these works see the Prolegomena, p. 34 and. 37, above.
Chapter III.—The Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were known from the Beginning, and were honored by the Inspired Prophets.
1. It
is now the proper place to show that the very name Jesus and also the
name Christ were honored by the ancient prophets beloved of God. Compare
the Dem. Evang. iv. 17.
2. Moses was the first to make
known the name of Christ as a name especially august and glorious. When
he delivered types and symbols of heavenly things, and mysterious
images, in accordance with the oracle which said to him, “Look
that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee
in the mount,” “Eusebius here has in mind the passages
3. He knew so well that in Christ was something divine. And the same one foreseeing, under the influence of the divine Spirit, the name Jesus, dignified it also with a certain distinguished privilege. For the name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among men before the time of Moses, he applied first and only to the one who he knew would receive after his death, again as a type and symbol, the supreme command.
4. His successor, therefore, who
had not hitherto borne the name Jesus, but had been called by another
name, Auses, A few
mss., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, read
here Ναυῇ, but the best
mss. followed by the majority of editors
read ᾽Αυσῇ, which is a
corruption of the name Oshea, which means
“Salvation,” and which Joshua bore before his name was
changed, by the addition of a syllable, to Jehoshua=Joshua=Jesus,
meaning “God’s salvation” (
5. Thus Moses bestowed the name of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, as a mark of the highest honor, upon the two men who in his time surpassed all the rest of the people in virtue and glory; namely, upon the high priest and upon his own successor in the government.
6. And the prophets that came
after also clearly foretold Christ by name, predicting at the same time
the plots which the Jewish people would form against him, and the
calling of the nations through him. Jeremiah, for instance, speaks as
follows: “The
7. And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs. For they also bore in their own persons types of the royal and sovereign power of the true and only Christ, the divine Word who ruleth over all.
8. And we have been told also that certain of the prophets themselves became, by the act of anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired and heavenly Word, who is the only high priest of all, and the only King of every creature, and the Father’s only supreme prophet of prophets.
9. And a proof of this is that no one of those who were of old symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed so great a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.
10. None of them at least, however superior in dignity and honor they may have been for many generations among their own people, ever gave to their followers the name of Christians from their own typical name of Christ. Neither was divine honor ever rendered to any one of them by their subjects; nor after their death was the disposition of their followers such that they were ready to die for the one whom they honored. And never did so great a commotion arise among all the nations of the earth in respect to any one of that age; for the mere symbol could not act with such power among them as the truth itself which was exhibited by our Saviour.
11. He, although he received no symbols and types of high priesthood from any one, although he was not born of a race of priests, although he was not elevated to a kingdom by military guards, although he was not a prophet like those of old, although he obtained no honor nor pre-eminence among the Jews, nevertheless was adorned by the Father with all, if not with the symbols, yet with the truth itself.
12. And therefore, although he did not possess like honors with those whom we have mentioned, he is called Christ more than all of them. And as himself the true and only Christ of God, he has filled the whole earth with the truly august and sacred name of Christians, committing to his followers no longer types and images, but the uncovered virtues themselves, and a heavenly life in the very doctrines of truth.
13. And he was not anointed with
oil prepared from material substances, but, as befits divinity, with
the divine Spirit himself, by participation in the unbegotten deity of
the Father. And this is taught also again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as
if in the person of Christ himself, “The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me; therefore hath he anointed me. He hath sent me to preach the
Gospel to the poor, to proclaim deliverance to captives, and recovery
of sight to the blind.”
14. And not only Isaiah, but
also David addresses him, saying, “Thy throne, O God, is forever
and ever. A scepter of equity is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast
loved righteousness and hast hated iniquity. Therefore God, thy God,
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”
15. Then a little farther on, after the divine and royal power, it represents him in the third place as having become Christ, being anointed not with oil made of material substances, but with the divine oil of gladness. It thus indicates his especial honor, far superior to and different from that of those who, as types, were of old anointed in a more material way.
16. And elsewhere the same
writer speaks of him as follows: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy
footstool”;
17. But this Melchizedec is
introduced in the Holy Scriptures as a priest of the most high God, See
18. History, therefore, does not
relate that he was anointed corporeally by the Jews, nor
19. But it is a great and
convincing proof of his incorporeal and divine unction that he alone of
all those who have ever existed is even to the present day called
Christ by all men throughout the world, and is confessed and witnessed
to under this name, and is commemorated both by Greeks and Barbarians
and even to this day is honored as a King by his followers throughout
the world, and is admired as more than a prophet, and is glorified as
the true and only high priest of God. Eusebius, in this chapter and in the Dem. Evang. IV. 15, is
the first of the Fathers to mention the three offices of
Christ.
20. But most wonderful of all is the fact that we who have consecrated ourselves to him, honor him not only with our voices and with the sound of words, but also with complete elevation of soul, so that we choose to give testimony unto him rather than to preserve our own lives.
21. I have of necessity prefaced my history with these matters in order that no one, judging from the date of his incarnation, may think that our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ, has but recently come into being.
Chapter IV.—The Religion Proclaimed by Him to All Nations Was Neither New Nor Strange.
1. But that no one may suppose that his doctrine is new and strange, as if it were framed by a man of recent origin, differing in no respect from other men, let us now briefly consider this point also.
2. It is admitted that when in
recent times the appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ had become
known to all men there immediately made its appearance a new nation; a
nation confessedly not small, and not dwelling in some corner of the
earth, but the most numerous and pious of all nations, Cf.
Tertullian, Apol. XXXVII. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed.
Vol. III. p. 45).
3. One of the prophets, when he
saw beforehand with the eye of the Divine Spirit that which was to be,
was so astonished at it that he cried out, “Who hath heard of
such things, and who hath spoken thus? Hath the earth brought forth in
one day, and hath a nation been born at once?”
4. But although it is clear that we are new and that this new name of Christians has really but recently been known among all nations, nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion, have not been lately invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural understanding of divinely favored men of old. That this is so we shall show in the following way.
5. That the Hebrew nation is not new, but is universally honored on account of its antiquity, is known to all. The books and writings of this people contain accounts of ancient men, rare indeed and few in number, but nevertheless distinguished for piety and righteousness and every other virtue. Of these, some excellent men lived before the flood, others of the sons and descendants of Noah lived after it, among them Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as their own founder and forefather.
6. If any one should assert that
all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham
himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name,
he would not go beyond the truth. Compare
Justin Martyr’s Apol. I. 46.
7. For that which the name indicates, that the Christian man, through the knowledge and the teaching of Christ, is distinguished for temperance and righteousness, for patience in life and manly virtue, and for a profession of piety toward the one and only God over all—all that was zealously practiced by them not less than by us.
8. They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things. But they also clearly knew the very Christ of God; for it has already been shown that he appeared unto Abraham, that he imparted revelations to Isaac, that he talked with Jacob, that he held converse with Moses and with the prophets that came after.
9. Hence you will find those
divinely favored men honored with the name of Christ, according to the
passage which says of them, “Touch not my Christs, and do my
prophets no harm.”
11. If it is said that Abraham,
a long time afterward, was given the command of circumcision, we reply
that nevertheless before this it was declared that he had received the
testimony of righteousness through faith; as the divine word says,
“Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness.”
12. And indeed unto Abraham, who
was thus before his circumcision a justified man, there was given by
God, who revealed himself unto him (but this was Christ himself, the
word of God), a prophecy in regard to those who in coming ages should
be justified in the same way as he. The prophecy was in the following
words: “And in thee shall all the tribes of the earth be
blessed.”
13. It is permissible to understand this as fulfilled in us. For he, having renounced the superstition of his fathers, and the former error of his life, and having confessed the one God over all, and having worshiped him with deeds of virtue, and not with the service of the law which was afterward given by Moses, was justified by faith in Christ, the Word of God, who appeared unto him. To him, then, who was a man of this character, it was said that all the tribes and all the nations of the earth should be blessed in him.
14. But that very religion of Abraham has reappeared at the present time, practiced in deeds, more efficacious than words, by Christians alone throughout the world.
15. What then should prevent the confession that we who are of Christ practice one and the same mode of life and have one and the same religion as those divinely favored men of old? Whence it is evident that the perfect religion committed to us by the teaching of Christ is not new and strange, but, if the truth must be spoken, it is the first and the true religion. This may suffice for this subject.
Chapter V.—The Time of his Appearance among Men.
1. And now, after this necessary introduction to our proposed history of the Church, we can enter, so to speak, upon our journey, beginning with the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh. And we invoke God, the Father of the Word, and him, of whom we have been speaking, Jesus Christ himself our Saviour and Lord, the heavenly Word of God, as our aid and fellow-laborer in the narration of the truth.
2. It was in the forty-second
year of the reign of Augustus Eusebius here makes the reign of Augustus begin with the death of
Julius Cæsar (as Josephus does in chap. 9, §1, below), and he
puts the birth of Christ therefore into the year 752 U.C. (2 b.c.), which agrees with Clement of
Alexandria’s Strom. I. (who gives the twenty-eighth year
after the conquest of Egypt as the birth-year of Christ), with
Epiphanius, Hær. LI. 22, and Orosius, Hist. I. 1.
Eusebius gives the same date also in his Chron. (ed.
Schœne, II. p. 144). Irenæus, III. 25, and Tertullian,
Adv. Jud. 8, on the other hand, give the forty-first year of
Augustus, 751 U.C. (3 b.c.). But all these
dates are certainly too late. The true year of Christ’s birth has
always been a matter of dispute. But it must have occurred before the
death of Herod, which took place in the spring of 750 U.C. (4 b.c.). The most widely accepted opinion is that
Christ was born late in the year 5, or early in the year 4 b.c., though some scholars put the date back as far as 7
b.c. The time of the year is also
uncertain, the date commonly accepted in the occident (Dec. 25th)
having nothing older than a fourth century tradition in its favor. The
date accepted by the Greek Church (Jan. 6th) rests upon a somewhat
older tradition, but neither day has any claim to
reliability. For a full and excellent
discussion of this subject, see the essay of Andrews in his Life of
our Lord, pp. 1–22. See, also, Schaff’s Church
Hist. I. p. 98 sq. Cf. Quirinius is the original Latin
form of the name of which Luke gives the Greek form κυρήνιος or Cyrenius (which is the form given also by
Eusebius). The statement of Luke
presents a chronological difficulty which has not yet been completely
solved. Quirinius we know to have been made governor of Syria in a.d. 6; and under him occurred a census or
enrollment mentioned by Josephus, Ant. XVII. 13. 5, and XVIII.
1. 1. This is undoubtedly the same as that referred to in
3. Flavius Josephus, the most
celebrated of Hebrew historians, also mentions this census, Eusebius here identifies the census mentioned by Josephus
(Ant. XVIII. 1. 1) and referred to in The
New Testament (Textus Rec.) reads λαὸν
ἱκανόν, with
which Laemmer agrees in his edition of Eusebius. Two mss., followed by Stephanus and Valesius, and by the
English and German translators, read λαὸν
πολύν. All the other
mss., and editors, as well as Rufinus,
read λαόν
alone.
4. The above-mentioned author,
in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in agreement with these
words, adds the following, which we quote exactly: “Cyrenius, a
member of the senate, one who had held other offices and had passed
through them all to the consulship, a man also of great dignity in
other respects, came to Syria with a small retinue, being sent by
Cæsar to be a judge of the nation and to make an assessment of
their property.” Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 1. 1. Upon Josephus and his works,
see below, Bk. III. c. 9.
5. And after a little Ibid. Judas
the Gaulonite. In Greek, Σ€δδοχον; Rufinus, Sadduchum. He, too, must have been a man
of influence and position. Later in the same paragraph he is made by
Josephus a joint founder with Judas of the “fourth
philosophy,” but in §6 of the same chapter, where the author
of it is referred to, Judas alone is mentioned.
6. And in the second book of his
History of the Jewish War, he writes as follows concerning the same
man: “At this time a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas,
persuaded his countrymen to revolt, declaring that they were cowards if
they submitted to pay tribute to the Romans, and if they endured,
besides God, masters who were mortal.” Josephus, B. J. II. 8. 1.
Chapter VI.—About the Time of Christ, in accordance with Prophecy, the Rulers who had governed the Jewish Nation in Regular Succession from the Days of Antiquity came to an End, and Herod, the First Foreigner, Became King.
1. When
Herod, Herod
the Great, son of Antipater, an Idumean, who had been appointed
procurator of Judea by Cæsar in b.c. 47.
Herod was made governor of Galilee at the same time, and king of Judea
by the Roman Senate in b.c. 40. Ibid.
2. This prediction remained
unfulfilled so long as it was permitted them to live under rulers from
their own nation, that is, from the time of Moses to the reign of
Augustus. Under the latter, Herod, the first foreigner, was given the
Kingdom of the Jews by the Romans. As Josephus relates, Eusebius refers here to Ant. XIV. 1. 3 and 7. 3. According
to Josephus, Herod’s father was Antipater, and his mother Cypros,
an Arabian woman of noble birth. The
Idumeans or Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and inhabited the
Sinaitic peninsula south of the Dead Sea. Their principal city and
stronghold was the famous rock city, Petra. They were constant enemies
of the Jews, refused them free passage through their land ( On
Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. This account is given by Africanus in
his epistle to Aristides, quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter.
Africanus states there (§11) that the account, as he gives it, was
handed down by the relatives of the Lord. But the tradition, whether
much older than Africanus or not, is certainly incorrect. We learn from
Josephus (Ant. XIV. 2), who is the best witness upon this
subject, that Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, was the son of
another Antipater, or Antipas, an Idumean who had been made governor of
Idumea by the Jewish king Alexander Jannæus (of the Maccabæan
family). In Ant. XVI. 11 Josephus informs us that a report had
been invented by friends and flatterers of Herod that he was descended
from Jewish ancestors. The report originated with Nicolai Damasceni, a
writer of the time of the Herods. The tradition preserved here by
Africanus had its origin, evidently, in a desire to degrade Herod by
representing him as descended from a slave. Ascalon,
one of the five cities of the Philistines (mentioned frequently in the
Old Testament), lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, between Gaza and Joppa.
It was beautified by Herod (although not belonging to his dominions),
and after his death became the residence of his sister Salome. It was a
prominent place in the Middle Ages, but is now in ruins. Of this Herod
of Ascalon nothing is known. Possibly no such man existed. ἱερόδουλος, “a temple-slave.”
3. This Antipater, having been
taken a prisoner while a boy by Idumean robbers, lived with them,
because his father, being a poor man, was unable to pay a ransom for
him. Growing up in their practices he was afterward befriended by
Hyrcanus, Hyrcanus II., eldest son of the King Alexander Jannæus of the
Maccabæan family, became high priest upon the death of his father,
in 78 b.c.; and upon the death of his mother,
in 69 b.c., ascended the throne. He gave up
his kingdom afterward (66 b.c.) to his younger
brother, Aristobulus; but under the influence of Antipater the Idumean
endeavored to regain it, and after a long war with his brother, was
re-established in power by Pompey, in 63 b.c.,
but merely as high priest and governor, not with the title of king. He
retained his position until 40 b.c., when he
was driven out by his nephew Antigonus. He was murdered in 30 b.c., by command of Herod the Great, who had married
his grand-daughter Mariamne. He was throughout a weak man, and while in
power was completely under the influence of his minister,
Antipater. Herod
the Great.
4. When the Kingdom of the Jews had devolved upon such a man the expectation of the nations was, according to prophecy, already at the door. For with him their princes and governors, who had ruled in regular succession from the time of Moses came to an end.
5. Before their captivity and their transportation to Babylon they were ruled by Saul first and then by David, and before the kings leaders governed them who were called Judges, and who came after Moses and his successor Jesus.
6. After their return from
Babylon they continued to have without interruption an aristocratic
form of government, with an oligarchy. For the priests had the
direction of affairs until Pompey, the Roman general, took Jerusalem by
force, and defiled the holy places by entering the very innermost
sanctuary of the temple. In 63
b.c., when Pompey’s curiosity led him to
penetrate into the Holy of Holies. He was much impressed, however, by
its simplicity, and went away without disturbing its treasures,
wondering at a religion which had no visible God. Aristobulus II., younger brother of Hyrcanus, a much abler and
more energetic man, assumed the kingdom by an arrangement with his
brother in 66 b.c. (see note 9, above). In 63
b.c. he was deposed, and carried to Rome by
Pompey. He died about 48 b.c. Eusebius is
hardly correct in saying that Aristobulus was king and high priest by
regular succession, as his elder brother Hyrcanus was the true heir,
and he had assumed the power only because of his superior
ability. The
real independence of the Jews practically ceased at this time. For
three years only, from 40 to 37 b.c., while
Antigonus, son of Aristobulus and nephew of Hyrcanus, was in power,
Jerusalem was independent of Rome, but was soon retaken by Herod the
Great and remained from that time on in more or less complete
subjection, either as a dependent kingdom or as a province.
7. But Hyrcanus, who was the
last of the regular line of high priests, was very soon afterward taken
prisoner by the Parthians, 40
b.c., when Antigonus, by the aid of the
Parthians took Jerusalem and established himself as king there, until
conquered by Herod in 37 b.c. Hyrcanus
returned to Jerusalem in 36 b.c., but was no
longer high priest.
8. Under him Christ appeared in
bodily shape, and the expected Salvation of the nations and their
calling followed in accordance with prophecy. Compare Eusebius’ statement is perfectly correct. The high priestly
lineage had been kept with great scrupulousness until Hyrcanus II., the
last of the regular succession. (His grandson Aristobulus, however, was
high priest for a year under Herod, but was then slain by him.)
Afterward the high priest was appointed and changed at pleasure by the
secular ruler. Herod the Great first
established the practice of removing a high priest during his lifetime;
and under him there were no less than six different ones.
9. Of these things Josephus is
also a witness, Josephus, Ant. XX. 8. Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a Samaritan
woman, and younger brother of Herod Antipas. Upon the death of his
father, b.c. 4, he succeeded to the government
of Idumea, Samaria, and Judea, with the title of Ethnarch. After
the death of Archelaus (a.d. 7), Judea was
made a Roman province, and ruled by procurators until Herod Agrippa I.
came into power in 37 a.d. (see below, Bk. II.
chap. 4, note 3). The changes in the high priesthood during the most of
this time were very rapid, one after another being appointed and
removed according to the fancy of the procurator, or of the governor of
Syria, who held the power of appointment most of the time. There were
no fewer than nineteen high priests between the death of Archelaus and
the fall of Jerusalem.
10. The same writer shows Josephus, Ant. XV. 11. 4.
11. These things have been
recorded by us in order to show that another prophecy has been
fulfilled in the appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For the
Scripture, in the book of Daniel, It is
commonly assumed that Eusebius refers here to the Dem. Evang.
VIII. 2 sq., where the prophecies of Daniel are discussed at length.
But, as Lightfoot remarks, the reference is just as well satisfied by
the Eclogæ Proph. III. 45. We cannot, in fact, decide which
work is meant.
Chapter VII.—The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.
1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the
genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at
variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in
ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation
which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the
account of the matter which has come down to us, “Over against the various opinions of uninstructed
apologists for the Gospel history, Eusebius introduces this account of
Africanus with the words, τὴν περὶ
τούτων
κατελθούσαν
εὶς ἡμᾶς
ἱστορίαν.” (Spitta.) On
Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. Of this Aristides to whom the epistle
is addressed we know nothing. He must not be confounded with the
apologist Aristides, who lived in the reign of Trajan (see below, Bk.
IV. c. 3). Photius (Bibl. 34) mentions this epistle, but tells
us nothing about Aristides himself. The epistle exists in numerous
fragments, from which Spitta (Der Brief des Julius Africanus an
Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt, Halle, 1877)
attempts to reconstruct the original epistle. His work is the best and
most complete upon the subject. Compare Routh, Rel. Sacræ,
II. pp. 228–237 and pp. 329–356, where two fragments are
given and discussed at length. The epistle (as given by Mai) is
translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VI. p. 125
ff. The attempt of Africanus is, so
far as we know, the first critical attempt to harmonize the two
genealogies of Christ. The question had been the subject merely of
guesses and suppositions until his time. He approaches the matter in a
free critical spirit (such as seems always to have characterized him),
and his investigations therefore deserve attention. He holds that both
genealogies are those of Joseph, and this was the unanimous opinion of
antiquity, though, as he says, the discrepancies were reconciled in
various ways. Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law
of Levirate marriages, and his view is advocated by Mill (On the
Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.); but of this
interpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, “There is neither
reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all.” Upon the supposition
that both genealogies relate to Joseph the best explanation is that
Matthew’s table represents the royal line of legal successors to
the throne of David, while Luke’s gives the line of actual
descent. This view is ably advocated by Hervey in Smith’s
Bible Dictionary (article Genealogy of Jesus). Another
opinion which has prevailed widely since the Reformation is that Luke
gives the genealogy of Mary. The view is defended very ingeniously by
Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 205, 2d edition). For further particulars
see, besides the works already mentioned, the various commentaries upon
Matthew and Luke and the various lives of Christ, especially
Andrews’, p. 55 sq. Eusebius makes a mistake in saying that Africanus had received the
explanation which follows from tradition. For Africanus himself says
expressly (§15, below) that his interpretation is not supported by
testimony. Eusebius’ error has been repeated by most writers upon
the subject, but is exposed by Spitta, ibid. p. 63.
2. “For whereas the names
of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature
or according to law;—according to nature by the succession of
legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a
child to the name of a brother dying childless; The law
is stated in
3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4. Thus neither of the gospels
is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line
of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan Nathan
was a son of David and Bathsheba, and therefore own brother of
Solomon.
5. But in order that what I have
said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the
generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon,
the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the
father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son
of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, Melchi, who is here given as the third from the end, is in our
present texts of Luke the fifth (
6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8. By Estha We
know nothing more of Estha. Africanus probably refers to the tradition
handed down by the relatives of Christ, who had, as he says, preserved
genealogies which agreed with those of the Gospels. He distinguishes
here what he gives on tradition from his own interpretation of the
Gospel discrepancy upon which he is engaged. φυλή. γένος. “In
this place γένος is used to
denote family. Matthan and Melchi were of different families,
but both belonged to the same Davidic race which was divided into two
families, that of Solomon and that of Nathan”
(Valesius).
9. Thus we shall find the two,
Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren
by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had
died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son All
the mss., and editions of Eusebius read
τρίτον
instead of ὑιόν here. But it is very
difficult to make any sense out of the word τρίτον in this connection. We therefore prefer to follow Spitta (see
ibid. pp. 87 sqq.) in reading ὑιόν instead of
τρίτον, an
emendation which he has ventured to make upon the authority of Rufinus,
who translates “genuit Joseph filium suum,” showing no
trace of a τρίτον. The
word τρίτον is
wanting also in three late Catenæ which contain the fragments of
Africanus’ Epistle (compare Spitta, ibid. p. 117, note
12). κατὰ
λόγον. These words
have caused translators and commentators great difficulty, and most of
them seem to have missed their significance entirely. Spitta proposes
to alter by reading κατ€λογον, but the emendation is unnecessary. The remarks which he
makes (p. 89 sqq.) upon the relation between this sentence and the next
are, however, excellent. It was necessary to Africanus’ theory
that Joseph should be allowed to trace his lineage through Jacob, his
father “by nature,” as well as through Eli, his father
“by law,” and hence the words κατὰ λόγον
are added and emphasized. He was his son by nature and
therefore “rightfully to be reckoned as his son.” This
explains the Biblical quotation which follows:
“Wherefore”—because he was Jacob’s son by
nature and could rightfully be reckoned in his line, and not only in
the line of Eli—“it is written,” &c. See
Rev. John Lightfoot’s remarks on
10. Hence the genealogy traced
through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in
his enumeration gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke,
on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was
supposed’ This
passage has caused much trouble. Valesius remarks, “Africanus
wishes to refer the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο
(‘as was supposed’) not only to the
words ὑιὸς
᾽Ιωσήφ, but
also to the words τοῦ
῾Ηλὶ, which follow, which
although it is acute is nevertheless improper and foolish; for if Luke
indicates that legal generation or adoption by the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as Africanus claims, it would follow that Christ was the
son of Joseph by legal adoption in the same way that Joseph was the son
of Eli. And thus it would be said that Mary, after the death of Joseph,
married his brother, and that Christ was begotten by him, which is
impious and absurd. And besides, if these words, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, are extended to the words τοῦ ῾Ηλὶ, in the same way they can be extended to all which follow. For
there is no reason why they should be supplied in the second grade and
not in the others.” But against Valesius,
Stroth says that Africanus seeks nothing in the words ὡς ἐνομίζετο, but in the fact that Luke says “he was the son
of,” while Matthew says “he begat.” Stroth’s
interpretation is followed by Closs, Heinichen, and others, but Routh
follows Valesius. Spitta discusses the matter carefully (p. 91 sq.),
agreeing with Valesius that Africanus lays the emphasis upon the
words ὡς ἐνομίζετο, but by an emendation (introducing a second ὡς ἐνομίζετο, and reading “who was the son, as was supposed, of
Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was himself also the son, as was
supposed,—for this he also adds,—of Eli, the son of
Melchi”) he applies the ὡς ἐνομίζετο
only to the first and second members, and takes it in
a more general sense to cover both cases, thus escaping Valesius’
conclusions expressed above. The conjecture is ingenious, but is
unwarranted and unnecessary. The words which occur in the next
sentence, “and the expression, ‘he begat’ he has
omitted,” show that Africanus, as Stroth contends, lays the
emphasis upon the difference of form in the two genealogies, “Son
of” and “he begat.” The best explanation seems to me
to be that Africanus supposes Luke to have implied the legal generation
in the words “the Son of,” used in distinction from the
definite expression “he begat,” and that the words
ὡς ἐνομίζετο, which “he also adds,” simply emphasize this
difference of expression by introducing a still greater ambiguity into
Luke’s mode of statement. He not only uses the words, the
“Son of,” which have a wide latitude, admitting any
kind of sonship, but “he also adds,” “as was
supposed,” showing, in Africanus’ opinion, still more
clearly that the list which follows is far from being a closely defined
table of descent by “natural generation.” This
seems the best possible rendering of the Greek, which reads
τὴν
ἀναφορὰν
ποιησ€μενος
ἑ& 240·ς τοῦ
᾽Αδὰμ, τοῦ
θεοῦ κατ᾽
ἀν€λυσιν.
οὐδὲ μὴν
ἀναπόδεικτον
κ.τ.λ., which is very dark,
punctuated thus, and it is difficult to understand what is meant
by κατ᾽
ἀν€λυσιν in connection with the preceding words. (Crusè translates,
“having traced it back as far as Adam, ‘who was the son of
God,’ he resolves the whole series by referring back to God.
Neither is this incapable of proof, nor is it an idle
conjecture.”) The objections which Spitta brings against the
sentence in this form are well founded. He contends (p. 63 sqq.), and
that rightly, that Africanus could not have written the sentence thus.
In restoring the original epistle of Africanus, therefore, he throws
the words κατ᾽
ἀν€λυσιν into the next sentence, which disposes of the difficulty, and
makes good sense. We should then read, “having traced it back as
far as Adam, the Son of God. This interpretation (more literally,
‘as an interpretation,’ or ‘by way of
interpretation’) is neither incapable of proof, nor is it an idle
conjecture.” That Africanus wrote thus I am convinced. But as
Spitta shows, Eusebius must have divided the sentences as they now
stand, for, according to his idea, that Africanus’ account was
one which he had received by tradition, the other mode of reading would
be incomprehensible, though he probably did not understand much better
the meaning of κατ᾽
ἀν€λυσιν as he placed it. In translating Africanus’ epistle here, I
have felt justified in rendering it as Africanus probably wrote it,
instead of following Eusebius’ incorrect reproduction of
it.
11. For the relatives of our
Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or
simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed
down the following account: The
Greek reads: παρέδοσαν
καὶ τοῦτο, “have handed down also.” The καὶ occurs
in all the mss. and versions of Eusebius, and
was undoubtedly written by him, but Spitta supposes it an addition of
Eusebius, caused, like the change in the previous sentence, by his
erroneous conception of the nature of Africanus’ interpretation.
The καὶ is certainly troublesome if we suppose that all that
precedes is Africanus’ own interpretation of the Biblical lists,
and not a traditional account handed down by the “relatives of
our Lord”; and this, in spite of Eusebius’ belief, we must
certainly insist upon. We may therefore assume with Spitta that
the καὶ did not stand in the original epistle as Africanus wrote it.
The question arises, if what precedes is not given upon the authority
of the “relatives of our Lord,” why then is this account
introduced upon their testimony, as if confirming the preceding? We may
simply refer again to Africanus’ words at the end of the extract
(§15 below) to prove that his interpretation did not rest upon
testimony, and then we may answer with Spitta that their testimony,
which is appealed to in §14 below, was to the genealogies
themselves, and in this Africanus wishes it to be known that they
confirmed the Gospel lists. See
above, chap. VI. notes 5 and 6. We
should expect the word “temple-servant” again instead of
“priest”; but, as Valesius remarks, “It was possible
for the same person to be both priest and servant, if for instance it
was a condition of priesthood that only captives should be made
priests.” And this was really the case in many places.
12. And having been sent by
Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to Appointed by Julius Cæsar in 47 b.c.
(see chap. VI. note 1, above). He
was poisoned by Malichus in 42 b.c. (see
Josephus, Ant. XIV. 11. 4). Appointed king in 40 b.c. (see chap. VI.
note 1, above). The
ethnarch Archelaus (see chap. VI. note 18) and the tetrarchs Herod
Antipas and Herod Philip II. Cf.
Dion Cassius, XXXVII. 15 sqq. and Strabo, XVI. 2. 46.
13. But as there had been kept
in the archives It was
the custom of the Jews, to whom tribal and family descent meant so
much, to keep copies of the genealogical records of the people in the
public archives. Cf. e.g. Josephus, De Vita, §1, where he
draws his own lineage from the public archives; and cf. Contra
Apion. I. 7. ἄχρι
προσηλύτων. Heinichen and Burton read ἀρχιπροσηλύτων, “ancient proselytes.” The two readings are
about equally supported by ms. authority, but
the same persons are meant here as at the end of the paragraph,
where προσηλύτους, not ἀρχιπροσηλύτους, occurs (cf. Spitta, pp. 97 sq., and Routh’s
Reliquiæ Sacræ II. p. 347 sq., 2d ed.). Achior was a general of the Ammonites in the army of Holofernes,
who, according to the Book of Judith, was a general of Nebuchadnezzar,
king of the Assyrians, and was slain by the Jewish heroine, Judith.
Achior is reported to have become afterward a Jewish
proselyte. The
Greek reads ἐνέπρησεν
αὐτῶν τὰς
ἀναγραφὰς
των γενων, but, with Spitta, I venture, against all the Greek mss. to insert π€σας before τὰς
ἀναγραφὰς upon the authority of Rufinus and the author of the Syriac
version, both of whom reproduce the word (cf. Spitta, p. 99 sq.).
Africanus certainly supposed that Herod destroyed all the
genealogical records, and not simply those of the true Jews. This account of the burning of
the records given by Africanus is contradicted by history, for we learn
from Josephus, De Vita, §1, that he drew his own lineage
from the public records, which were therefore still in existence more
than half a century after the time at which Herod is said to have
utterly destroyed them. It is significant that Rufinus translates
omnes Hebræorum generationes descriptæ in Archivis templi
secretioribus habebantur. How old this tradition
was we do not know; Africanus is the sole extant witness of
it. τοὺς τε
καλουμένους
γειώρας.
The word γειώρας occurs in the LXX. of
14. A few of the careful,
however, having obtained private records of their own, either by
remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the
registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble
extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called
Desposyni, δεσπόσυνοι: the persons called above (§11) the relatives of the
Saviour according to the flesh (οἱ κατὰ
σ€ρκα
συγγενεις). The Greek word signifies “belonging to a
master.” Cochaba, according to Epiphanius (Hær. XXX. 2 and 16),
was a village in Basanitide near Decapolis. It is noticeable that this
region was the seat of Ebionism. There may therefore be significance in
the care with which these Desposyni preserved the genealogy of
Joseph, for the Ebionites believed that Christ was the real son of
Joseph, and therefore Joseph’s lineage was his. “Judea” is here used in the wider sense of Palestine
as a whole, including the country both east and west of the Jordan. The
word is occasionally used in this sense in Josephus; and so in
Matt. xix. 1, and ἐκ
μνήμης. These
words are not found in any extant mss., but I
have followed Stroth and others in supplying them for the following
reasons. The Greek, as we have it, runs: καὶ τὴν
προκειμένην
γενεαλογίαν
žκ τε τῆς
βίβλου τῶν
ἡμερῶν κ.τ.λ. The particle τε indicates plainly that some
phrase has fallen out. Rufinus translates ordinem supra dictæ
generationis partim memoriter partim etiam ex dierum libris in quantum
erat perdocebant. The words partim memoriter find no
equivalent in the Greek as we have it, but the particle τε, which still
remains, shows that words which Rufinus translated thus must have stood
originally in the Greek. The Syriac version also confirms the
conclusion that something stood in the original which has since
disappeared, though the rendering which it gives rests evidently upon a
corrupt text (cf. Spitta, p. 101). Valesius suggests the insertion
of ἀπὸ
μνήμης, though
he does not place the phrase in his text. Heinichen supplies
μνημονεύσαντες, and is followed by Closs in his translation. Stroth,
Migne, Routh, and Spitta read ἐκ
μνήμης. The
sense is essentially the same in each case. It
has been the custom since Valesius, to consider this “Book of
daily records” (βίβλος τῶν
ἡμερῶν) the
same as the “private records” (ἰδιωτικὰς
ἀπογραφ€ς) mentioned just above. But this opinion has been combated
by Spitta, and that with perfect right. The sentence is, in fact, an
exact parallel to the sentence just above, where it is said that a few
of the careful, either by means of their memory or by means of copies,
were able to have “private records of their own.” In the
present sentence it is said that “they drew the aforesaid
genealogy (viz., ‘the private records of their own’)
from memory, or from the Book of daily records” (which
corresponds to the copies referred to above). This book of daily
records is clearly, therefore, something other than the ἰδιωτικὰς
ἀπογραφὰς, but exactly what we are to understand by it is not so easy
to say. It cannot denote the regular public records (called the
archives above), for these were completed, and would not need to be
supplemented by memory; and apparently, according to Africanus’
opinion, these private records were made after the destruction of the
regular public ones. The “Book of daily records” referred
to must have been at any rate an incomplete genealogical source needing
to be supplemented by the memory. Private family record books, if such
existed previous to the supposed destruction of the public records, of
which we have no evidence, would in all probability have been complete
for each family. Spitta maintains (p. 101 sq.) that the Book of
Chronicles is meant: the Hebrew דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים
, words or records of the days. This is a very attractive
suggestion, as the book exactly corresponds to the book described: the
genealogies which it gives are incomplete and require supplementing,
and it is a book which was accessible to all; public, therefore, and
yet not involved in the supposed destruction. The difficulty lies in
the name given. It is true that Jerome calls the Books of Chronicles
Verba Dierum and Hilary Sermones Dierum, &c.; but we
should expect Africanus to use here the technical LXX.
designation, Παραλειπομένων. But whatever this “Book of daily records”
was, it cannot have been the “private records” which were
formed “from memory and from copies,” but was one of the
sources from which those “private records” were
drawn.
15. Whether then the case stand
thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my
own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice
us, Compare
note 3, above. Africanus’ direct statement shows clearly enough
that he does not rest his interpretation of the genealogies (an
interpretation which is purely a result of Biblical study) upon the
testimony of the relatives of the Saviour. Their testimony is invoked
with quite a different purpose, namely, in confirmation of the
genealogies themselves, and the long story (upon the supposition that
their testimony is invoked in support of Africanus’
interpretation, introduced absolutely without sense and reason)
thus has its proper place, in showing how the “relatives of the
Saviour” were in a position to be competent witnesses upon this
question of fact (not interpretation), in spite of the burning
of the public records by Herod.
17. Thus far Africanus. And the
lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be
of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses,
intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. The
law to which Eusebius refers is recorded in δήμου. πατριᾶς
Chapter VIII.—The Cruelty of Herod toward the Infants, and the Manner of his Death.
1. When
Christ was born, according to the prophecies, in Bethlehem of Judea, at
the time indicated, Herod was not a little disturbed by the enquiry of
the magi who came from the east, asking where he who was born King of
the Jews was to be found,—for they had seen his star, and this
was their reason for taking so long a journey; for they earnestly
desired to worship the infant as God, οἷα θεῷ
προσκυνῆσαι. Eusebius adds the words οἷα θεῷ,
which are not found in
2. But the child anticipated the
snare, being carried into Egypt by his parents, who had learned from an
angel that appeared unto them what was about to happen. These things
are recorded by the Holy Scriptures in the Gospel.
3. It is worth while, in addition to this, to observe the reward which Herod received for his daring crime against Christ and those of the same age. For immediately, without the least delay, the divine vengeance overtook him while he was still alive, and gave him a foretaste of what he was to receive after death.
4. It is not possible to relate
here how he tarnished the supposed felicity of his reign by successive
calamities in his family, by the murder of wife and children, and
others of his nearest relatives and dearest friends. Herod’s reign was very successful and prosperous, and for
most of the time entirely undisturbed by external troubles; but his
domestic life was embittered by a constant succession of tragedies
resulting from the mutual jealousies of his wives (of whom he had ten)
and of their children. Early in his reign he slew Hyrcanus, the
grandfather of his best-loved wife Mariamne, upon suspicion of treason;
a little later, Mariamne herself was put to death; in 6 b.c. her sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, were condemned
and executed; and in 4 b.c., but a few days
before his death, Antipater, his eldest son, who had been instrumental
in the condemnation of Alexander and Aristobulus, was also slain by his
orders. These murders were accompanied by many others of friends and
kindred, who were constantly falling under suspicion of
treason. In
the later books of the Antiquities and in the first book of the
Jewish war.
5. How, immediately after his
crime against our Saviour and the other infants, the punishment sent by
God drove him on to his death, we can best learn from the words of that
historian who, in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews,
writes as follows concerning his end: Josephus, Ant. XVII. 6. 5.
6. “But the disease of Herod grew more severe, God inflicting punishment for his crimes. For a slow fire burned in him which was not so apparent to those who touched him, but augmented his internal distress; for he had a terrible desire for food which it was not possible to resist. He was affected also with ulceration of the intestines, and with especially severe pains in the colon, while a watery and transparent humor settled about his feet.
7. He suffered also from a
similar trouble in his abdomen. Nay more, his privy member was
putrefied and produced worms. He found also excessive difficulty in
breathing, and it was particularly disagreeable because of the
offensive
8. He had convulsions also in every limb, which gave him uncontrollable strength. It was said, indeed, by those who possessed the power of divination and wisdom to explain such events, that God had inflicted this punishment upon the King on account of his great impiety.”
9. The writer mentioned above
recounts these things in the work referred to. And in the second book
of his History he gives a similar account of the same Herod, which runs
as follows: B.
J. I. 33. 5 and 6. ποινὴν
εἰναι τὰ
νοσήματα
λέγειν.
Josephus, according to the text of Hudson, reads ποινὴν
εἶναι τῶν
σοφιστῶν τὰ
νοσήματα
λέγειν, which is
translated by Traill, “pronounced his maladies a judgment for his
treatment of the Sophists.” Nicephorus (H. E. I. 15)
agrees with Eusebius in omitting the words τῶν
σοφιστῶν, but he is not an independent witness. Whether Hudson’s
text is supported at this point by strong ms.
authority I do not know. If the words stood in the original of
Josephus, we may suppose that they were accidentally omitted by
Eusebius himself or by one of his copyists, or that they were thrown
out in order to make Josephus’ statement better correspond with
his own words in Ant. XVII. 6, quoted just above, where his
disease is said to have been a result of his impiety in general, not of
any particular exhibition of it. On the other hand, the
omission of the words in Ant. XVII. 6 casts at least a suspicion
on their genuineness, and if we were to assume that the words did not
occur in the original text of Josephus, it would be very easy to
understand their insertion by some copyist, for in the previous
paragraph the historian has been speaking of the Sophists, and of
Herod’s cruel treatment of them.
10. But he, although wrestling
with such sufferings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped for safety,
and devised methods of cure. For instance, crossing over Jordan he used
the warm baths at Callirhoë, Callirhoë was a town just east of the Dead Sea. τὴν
᾽Ασφαλτῖτιν
λίμνην. This is
the name by which Josephus commonly designates the Dead Sea. The same
name occurs also in Diodorus Siculus (II. 48, XIX. 98).
11. His physicians here thought that they could warm his whole body again by means of heated oil. But when they had let him down into a tub filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the eyes of a dead person. But when his attendants raised an outcry, he recovered at the noise; but finally, despairing of a cure, he commanded about fifty drachms to be distributed among the soldiers, and great sums to be given to his generals and friends.
12. Then returning he came to Jericho, where, being seized with melancholy, he planned to commit an impious deed, as if challenging death itself. For, collecting from every town the most illustrious men of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the so-called hippodrome.
13. And having summoned
Salome, Salome
was own sister of Herod the Great, and wife in succession of Joseph,
Costabarus, and Alexas. She possessed all the cruelty of Herod himself
and was the cause, through her jealousy and envy, of most of the
terrible tragedies in his family. Alexander, the third husband of Salome, is always called Alexas by
Josephus. B.
J.I. 13. 6 (cf. Ant. XVII. 6. 5).
This terrible story rests upon the authority of Josephus alone, but is
so in keeping with Herod’s character that we have no reason to
doubt its truth. The commands of Herod, however, were not carried out,
the condemned men being released after his death by Salome (see
ibid. §8).
14. And after a little Josephus
says, “And again he was so tortured by want of food and by a
convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains, he planned to anticipate
his fate. Taking an apple he asked also for a knife, for he was
accustomed to cut apples and eat them. Then looking round to see that
there was no one to hinder, he raised his right hand as if to stab
himself.” B.
J.I. 33. 7 (cf. Ant. XVII. 7).
Herod’s suicide was prevented by his cousin Achiabus, as Josephus
informs us in the same connection.
15. In addition to these things
the same writer records that he slew another of his own sons B. J.I. 33. 7 and 8 (cf. Ant.
XVII. 7). Antipater, son of Herod and his first wife Doris, was
intended by his father to be his successor in the kingdom. He was
beheaded five days before the death of Herod, for plotting against his
father. He richly deserved his fate.
16. Such was the end of Herod,
who suffered a just punishment for his slaughter of the children of
Bethlehem, Eusebius gives here the traditional Christian interpretation of
the cause of Herod’s sufferings. Josephus nowhere mentions the
slaughter of the innocents; whether through ignorance, or because of
the insignificance of the tragedy when compared with the other bloody
acts of Herod’s reign, we do not know.
17. After this an angel appeared
in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and commanded him to go to Judea with the
child and its mother, revealing to him that those who had sought the
life of the child were dead. See
1. The
historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to the
fact that Archelaus Archelaus was a son of Herod the Great, and own brother of the
Tetrarch Herod Antipas, with whom he was educated at Rome. Immediately
after the death of Antipater he was designated by his father as his
successor in the kingdom, and Augustus ratified the will, but gave him
only the title of ethnarch. The title of King he never really received,
although he is spoken of as king in Philip, a son of Herod the Great by his wife Cleopatra, was
Tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurinitis, &c., from b.c. 4 to a.d. 34. He was
distinguished for his justice and moderation. He is mentioned only once
in the New Testament, Herod
Antipas, son of Herod the Great by his wife Malthace, was Tetrarch of
Galilee and Perea from b.c. 4 to a.d. 39. In 39 a.d. he went to
Rome to sue for the title of King, which his nephew Herod Agrippa had
already secured. But accusations against him were sent to the emperor
by Agrippa, and he thereby lost his tetrarchy and was banished to
Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul, and died (according to Josephus, B. J.
II. 9. 6) in Spain. It was he who beheaded John the Baptist, and to him
Jesus was sent by Pilate. His character is plain enough from the New
Testament account. For further particulars of his life, see Josephus,
Ant. XVII. 8. 1; 11. 4; XVIII. 2. 1; 5 and 7; B. J. II.
9. The
Lysanias referred to here is mentioned in Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. 2 and 4. 2. Josephus reckons here from the death of Augustus (14 a.d.), when Tiberius became sole emperor. Pilate was
appointed procurator in 26 a.d. and was
recalled in 36. Josephus dates the beginning of Augustus’ reign at the time
of the death of Julius Cæsar (as Eusebius also does in chap. 5,
§2), and calls him the second emperor. But Augustus did not
actually become emperor until 31 b.c., after
the battle of Actium.
2. Accordingly the forgery of
those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour Eusebius refers here, not to the acts of Pilate written by
Christians, of which so many are still extant (cf. Bk. II. chap. 2,
note 1), but to those forged by their enemies with the approval of the
emperor Maximinus (see below, Bk. IX. chap. 5). ὁ τῆς
παρασημειώσεως
χρόνος.
“In this place παρασ. is the
superscription or the designation of the time which was customarily
prefixed to acts. For judicial acts were thus drawn up: Consulatu
Tiberii Augusti Septimo, inducto in judicium Jesu, &c.”
(Val.)
3. For the things which they
have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into
the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year
of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling
in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly
shows in the above-mentioned work Ant.XVIII. 2. 2. Compare §1,
above.
Chapter X.—The High Priests of the Jews under whom Christ taught.
1. It
was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Luke says simply, “while Pontius Pilate was governor of
Judea,” and does not mention the year, as Eusebius
does. See
the previous chapter. Eusebius’ reckoning would make Christ’s birthday
synchronize with the beginning of our Christian era, which is at least
three years out of the way.
2. The Divine Scripture says,
moreover, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high
priests Annas and Caiaphas, Stroth remarks:
“Had I not feared acting contrary to the duty of a translator, I
should gladly, for the sake of Eusebius’ honor, have left out
this entire chapter, which is full of historical inaccuracies and
contradictions. Eusebius deduces from Josephus himself that the
Procurator Gratus, whom Pilate succeeded, appointed Caiaphas high
priest. Therefore Caiaphas became high priest before the twelfth year
of Tiberius, for in that year Pilate became procurator. In the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ began his work when Caiaphas had
already been high priest three years and according to the false account
of our author he became high priest for the first time in the
nineteenth year of Tiberius. The whole structure of this chapter,
therefore, falls to the ground. It is almost inconceivable how so
prudent a man could have committed so great a mistake of the same sort
as that which he had denounced a little before in connection with the
Acts of Pilate.” The whole confusion is
due to Eusebius’ mistaken interpretation of the Gospel account,
which he gives in this sentence. It is now universally assumed that
Annas is named by the evangelists as ex-high-priest, but Eusebius, not
understanding this, supposed that a part of Christ’s ministry
must have fallen during the active administration of Annas, a part
during that of Caiaphas, and therefore his ministry must have run from
the one to the other, embracing the intermediate administrations of
Ishmael, Eleazer, and Simon, and covering less than four years. In
order to make this out he interprets the “not long after”
in connection with Ishmael as meaning “one year,” which is
incorrect, as shown below in note 9. How Eusebius could have overlooked
the plain fact that all this occurred under Valerius Gratus instead of
Pilate, and therefore many years too early (when he himself states the
fact), is almost incomprehensible. Absorbed in making out his
interpretation, he must have thoughtlessly confounded the names of
Gratus and Pilate while reading the account. He cannot have acted
knowingly, with the intention to deceive, for he must have seen that
anybody reading his account would discover the glaring discrepancy at
once.
3. For the rites of the law
having been already abolished since that time, the customary usages in
connection with the worship of God, according to which the high priest
acquired his office by hereditary descent and held it for life, were
also annulled and there were appointed to the high priesthood by the
Roman governors now one and now another person who continued in office
not more than one year. It
is true that under the Roman governors the high priests were frequently
changed (cf. above, chap. 6, note 19), but there was no regularly
prescribed interval, and some continued in office for many years; for
instance, Caiaphas was high priest for more than ten years, during the
whole of Pilate’s administration, having been appointed by
Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor, and his successor being
appointed by the Proconsul Vitellius in 37 a.d. (vid. Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. 2 and 4.
3).
4. Josephus relates that there
were four high priests in succession from Annas to Caiaphas. Thus in
the same book of the Antiquities Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2.2. This
Valerius Gratus was made procurator by Tiberius, soon after his
accession, and ruled about eleven years, when he was succeeded by
Pilate in 26 a.d. Ananus (or Annas) was appointed high priest by Quirinius, governor
of Syria, in 6 or 7 a.d. (Josephus,
Ant. XVIII. 2. 1), and remained in office until a.d. 14 or 15, when he was deposed by Valerius Gratus
(ib. §2). This forms another instance, therefore, of a term
of office more than one year in length. Annas is a familiar personage
from his connection with the Gospel history; but the exact position
which he occupied during Christ’s ministry is difficult to
determine (cf. Wieseler’s Chronology of the Life of
Christ). Either this Ishmael must have held the office eight or ten years,
or else Caiaphas that long before Pilate’s time, for otherwise
Gratus’ period is not filled up. Josephus’ statement is
indefinite in regard to Ishmael, and Eusebius is wrong in confining his
term of office to one year. According to Josephus, Ant. XX. 9. 1, five of the sons of
Annas became high priests. This Simon is an otherwise unknown personage. Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, is well known from his
connection with the Gospel history.
5. Our Saviour and Lord, not
long after the beginning of his ministry, called the twelve apostles, See Matt. x. 1–4; See
Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ.
1. Not
long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, Herod Antipas. Matt. xiv. 1–12;
Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 5. 2. Herodias, a daughter of Aristobulus and grand-daughter of Herod
the Great, first married Herod Philip (whom Josephus calls Herod, and
whom the Gospels call Philip), a son of Herod the Great, and therefore
her uncle, who seems to have occupied a private station. Afterwards,
leaving him during his lifetime, she married another uncle, Herod
Antipas the Tetrarch. When her husband, Antipas, was banished to Gaul
she voluntarily shared his banishment and died there. Her character is
familiar from the accounts of the New Testament. Aretas
Æneas is identical with the Aretas mentioned in
2. It was on her account also
that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace
inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in this
war, when they came to battle, Herod’s entire army was
destroyed, In
this emergency Herod appealed to Tiberius, with whom he was a favorite,
and the emperor commanded Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to proceed
against Aretas. The death of Tiberius interrupted operations, and under
Caligula friendship existed between Aretas and the Romans.
3. The same Josephus confesses
in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man,
and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He
records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of Josephus gives the account of Herod’s banishment in his
Antiquities XVIII. 7. 2, but names Lyons instead of Vienne as
the place of his exile. Eusebius here confounds the fate of Herod with
that of Archelaus, who was banished to Vienne (see above, chap. 9, note
1).
4. He relates these things in
the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the
following words: Ant.XVIII. 5. 2. This passage upon
John the Baptist is referred to by Origen in his Contra Cels. I.
47, and is found in all our mss. of Josephus.
It is almost universally admitted to be genuine, and there is no good
reason to doubt that it is, for such a dispassionate and strictly
impartial account of John could hardly have been written by a Christian
interpolator.
5. For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.
6. And when others gathered
about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words),
Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for
they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise. He therefore
considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under
John’s influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent
after revolution had come, and when he found himself in the midst of
difficulties. Josephus differs with the Evangelists as to the reason for
John’s imprisonment, but the accounts of the latter bear
throughout the stamp of more direct and accurate knowledge than that of
Josephus. Ewald remarks with truth, “When Josephus, however,
gives as the cause of John’s execution only the Tetrarch’s
general fear of popular outbreaks, one can see that he no longer had
perfect recollection of the matter. The account of Mark is far more
exact and instructive.” Machæra was an important fortress lying east of the northern
end of the Dead Sea. It was the same fortress to which the daughter of
Aretas had retired when Herod formed the design of marrying Herodias;
and the word “aforesaid” refers to Josephus’ mention
of it in that connection in the previous paragraph.
7. After relating these things
concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in
the following words: Ant.XVIII. 3. 3. This account occurs
before that of John the Baptist, not after it. It is found in all our
mss. of Josephus, and was considered genuine
until the sixteenth century, but since then has been constantly
disputed. Four opinions are held in regard to it; (1) It is entirely
genuine. This view has at present few supporters, and is absolutely
untenable. A Christian hand is unmistakably apparent,—if not
throughout, certainly in many parts; and the silence in regard to it of
all Christian writers until the time of Eusebius is fatal to its
existence in the original text. Origen, for instance, who mentions
Josephus’ testimony to John the Baptist in Contra Cels. I.
47, betrays no knowledge of this passage in regard to Christ. (2) It is
entirely spurious. Such writers as Hase, Keim, and Schürer adopt
this view. (3) It is partly genuine and partly interpolated. This
opinion has, perhaps, the most defenders, among them Gieseler,
Weizsäcker, Renan, Edersheim, and Schaff. (4) It has been changed
from a bitter Jewish calumny of Christ to a Christian eulogy of him.
This is Ewald’s view. The second opinion seems to me the correct
one. The third I regard as untenable, for the reason that after the
obviously Christian passages are omitted there remains almost nothing;
and it seems inconceivable that Josephus should have given so colorless
a report of one whom the Jews regarded with such enmity, if he
mentioned him at all. The fourth view might be possible, and is more
natural than the third; but it seems as if some trace of the original
calumny would have survived somewhere, had it ever existed. To me,
however, the decisive argument is the decided break which the passage
makes in the context; §2 gives the account of a sedition of the
Jews, and §4 opens with the words, “About the same time also
another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder”; while §3,
containing the account of Christ, gives no hint of sedition or disorder
among the Jews. It has been suggested that
Eusebius himself, who is the first one to quote this passage,
introduced it into the text of Josephus. This is possible, but there is
no reason to suppose it true, for it is contrary to Eusebius’
general reputation for honesty, and the manner in which he introduces
the quotation both here and in his Dem. Evang. III. 5 certainly
bears every mark of innocence; and he would scarcely have dared to
insert so important an account in his History had it not existed
in at least some mss. of Josephus. We may be
confident that the interpolation must have been made in the mss. of Josephus before it appeared in the
History. For a brief summary of the various views upon the
subject, see Schaff’s Church History, Vol. I. p. 9 sq.,
and Edersheim’s article on Josephus in Smith and Wace’s
Dict. of Christian Biography. Compare also Heinichen’s
Excursus upon the passage in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III.
p. 623–654.
8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.”
9. Since an historian, who is
one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things
concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left
for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have
forged the acts against them? See
chap. 9, note 8, above.
Chapter XII.—The Disciples of our Saviour.
1. The
names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to every one from the
Gospels. See Matt. x. 2–4; See See
2. They say that Sosthenes also,
who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. Sosthenes is mentioned in On
Clement and his works see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1, and Bk. VI. chap.
13. Clement
is, so far as I know, the first to make this distinction between Peter
the Apostle, and Cephas, one of the Seventy. The reason for the
invention of a second Peter in the post-apostolic age is easy to
understand as resulting from the desire to do away with the conflict
between two apostles. This Cephas appears frequently in later
traditions and is commemorated in the Menology of Basil on December 9,
and in the Armenian calendar on September 25. In the Ecclesiastical
Canons he is made one of the twelve apostles, and distinguished
from Peter.
3. Matthias, We
learn from Joseph Barsabas, surnamed Justus. He, too, had been with Christ
from the beginning, and therefore may well have been one of the
Seventy, as Eusebius reports. Papias (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39,
below) calls him Justus Barsabas, and relates that he drank a deadly
poison without experiencing any injury. From a
comparison of the different lists of apostles given by Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, Thaddeus is seen to be one of the Twelve, apparently
identical with Jude and Lebbæus (compare Jerome, In Matt.
X.). Eusebius here sunders him from the apostles and makes him one of
the Seventy, committing an error similar to that which arose in the
case of Peter and Cephas. He perhaps records only an oral tradition, as
he uses the word φασί. He is, so far
as is known, the first to mention the tradition. See the
next chapter. See
4. Afterwards he says he
appeared unto James, who was one of the so-called brethren of the
Saviour. The
relationship of James and Jesus has always been a disputed matter.
Three theories have been advanced, and are all widely
represented. The first is the
full-brother hypothesis, according to which the brothers and sisters of
Jesus were children of both Joseph and Mary. This was advocated
strongly by the heretic Helvidius in Rome in 380, and is widely
accepted in the Protestant Church. The only serious objection to it is
the committal of Mary to the care of John by Christ upon the cross. But
John was at any rate an own cousin of Jesus, and the objection loses
its weight when we realize the spiritual sympathy which existed between
Jesus and John, and the lack of belief exhibited by his own brothers.
The second is the half-brother hypothesis which regards the brethren
and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph by a former wife. This has
the oldest tradition in its favor (though the tradition for none of the
theories is old or universal enough to be of great weight), the
apocryphal Gospel of James, chap. ix., recording that Joseph was
a widower and had children before marrying Mary. It is still the
established theory in the Greek Church. The greatest objection to it is
that if it be true, Christ as a younger son of Joseph, could not have
been regarded as the heir to the throne of David. That the objection is
absolutely fatal cannot be asserted for it is nowhere clearly stated
that he was the heir-apparent to the throne; it is said only that he
was of the line of David. Both of these theories agree in
distinguishing James, the brother of the Lord, from James, the son of
Alphæus, the apostle, and thus assume at least three Jameses in
the New Testament. Over against both of them is to be mentioned a
third, which assumes only two Jameses, regarding the brethren of the
Lord as his cousins, and identifying them with the sons of
Alphæus. This theory originated with Jerome in 383 a.d. with the confessedly dogmatic object of preserving
the virginity both of Mary and of Joseph in opposition to Helvidius.
Since his time it has been the established theory in the Latin Church,
and is advocated also by many Protestant scholars. The original and
common form of the theory makes Jesus and James maternal cousins:
finding only three women in For a fuller discussion
of this whole subject, see Andrews (Life of our Lord, pp.
104–116), Schaff (Church Hist. I. 272–275), and
Weiss (Einleitung in das N. T. p. 388 sqq.), all of whom defend
the natural brother hypothesis; Lightfoot (Excursus upon “The
Brethren of the Lord” in his Commentary on Galatians, 2d
ed. p. 247–282), who is the strongest advocate of the
half-brother theory; Mill (The Accounts of our Lord’s Brethren
in the N. T. vindicated, Cambridge, 1843), who maintains the
maternal cousin theory; and Lange (in Herzog), who presents the
paternal cousin hypothesis. Compare finally Holtzmann’s article
in the Zeitschrift für Wiss. Theologie, 1880, p. 198
sqq.
1. The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being noised abroad among all men on account of his wonder-working power, he attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from Judea, who had the hope of being cured of their diseases and of all kinds of sufferings.
2. For instance the King
Abgarus, Abgarus was the name of several kings of Edessa, who reigned at
various periods from b.c. 99 to a.d. 217. The Abgar contemporary with Christ was called
Abgar Ucomo, or “the Black.” He was the fifteenth king, and
reigned, according to Gutschmid, from a.d. 13
to a.d. 50. A great many ecclesiastical
fictions have grown up around his name, the story, contained in its
simplest form in the present chapter, being embellished with many
marvelous additions. A starting-point for this tradition of the
correspondence with Christ,—from which in turn grew all the later
legends,—may be found in the fact that in the latter part of the
second century there was a Christian Abgar, King of Edessa, at whose
court Bardesanes, the Syrian Gnostic, enjoyed high favor, and it is
certain that Christianity had found a foothold in this region at a much
earlier period. Soon after the time of this Abgar the pretended
correspondence was very likely forged, and foisted back upon the Abgar
who was contemporary with Christ. Compare Cureton’s Anc.
Syriac Documents relative go the Earliest Establishment of Christianity
in Edessa, London, 1864.
3. But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed him worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised salvation to himself and all his house.
4. Not long afterward his
promise was fulfilled. For after his resurrection from the dead and his
ascent into heaven, Thomas, On the
traditions in regard to Thomas, see Bk. III. chap 1. See
chap. 12, note 11. Edessa, the capital of Abgar’s dominions, was a city of
Northern Mesopotamia, near the river Euphrates. History knows nothing
of the city before the time of the Seleucidæ, though tradition
puts its origin back into distant antiquity, and some even identify it
with Abraham’s original home, Ur of the Chaldees. In the history
of the Christian Church it played an important part as a centre of
Syrian learning. Ephraem, the Syrian, founded a seminary there in the
fourth century, which after his death fell into the hands of the
Arians.
5. And all that our Saviour had
promised received through him its fulfillment. You have written
evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa, We
have no reason to doubt that Eusebius, who is the first to mention
these apocryphal epistles, really found them in the public archives at
Edessa. Moses Chorenensis, the celebrated Armenian historian of the
fifth century, who studied a long time in Edessa, is an independent
witness to their existence in the Edessene archives. Eusebius has been
accused of forging this correspondence himself; but this unworthy
suspicion has been refuted by the discovery and publication of the
original Syriac (The Doct. of Addai the Apostle, with an English
Translation and Notes, by G. Phillips, London, 1876; compare also
Contemp. Rev., May, 1877, p. 1137). The epistles were forged
probably long before his day, and were supposed by him to be genuine.
His critical insight, but not his honesty, was at fault. The apocryphal
character of these letters is no longer a matter of dispute, though
Cave and Grabe defended their genuineness (so that Eusebius is in good
company), and even in the present century Rinck (Ueber die Echtheit
des Briefwechsels des Königs Abgars mit Jesu, Zeitschrift für
Hist. Theol., 1843, II. p. 326) has had the hardihood to enter the
lists in their defense; but we know of no one else who values his
critical reputation so little as to venture upon the task. Eusebius does not say directly that he translated these documents
himself, but this seems to be the natural conclusion to be drawn from
his words. ῾Ημῖν is used only
with ἀναληφθεισῶν, and not with μεταβληθεισῶν. It is impossible, therefore, to decide with certainty;
but the documents must have been in Syriac in the Edessene archives,
and Eusebius’ words imply that, if he did not translate them
himself, he at least employed some one else to do it. At the end of
this chapter he again uses an indefinite expression, where perhaps it
might be expected that he would tell us directly if he had himself
translated the documents.
Copy of an epistle written by
Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by
Ananias In the
greatly embellished narrative of Cedrenus (Hist. Compendium, p.
176; according to Wright, in his article on Abgar in the Dict. of
Christian Biog.) this Ananias is represented as an artist who
endeavored to take the portrait of Christ, but was dazzled by the
splendor of his countenance; whereupon Christ, having washed his face,
wiped it with a towel, which miraculously retained an image of his
features. The picture thus secured was carried back to Edessa, and
acted as a charm for the preservation of the city against its enemies.
The marvelous fortunes of the miraculous picture are traced by Cedrenus
through some centuries (see also Evagrius, H. E. IV.
27).
6. “Abgarus, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the excellent Saviour who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting. I have heard the reports of thee and of thy cures as performed by thee without medicines or herbs. For it is said that thou makest the blind to see and the lame to walk, that thou cleansest lepers and castest out impure spirits and demons, and that thou healest those afflicted with lingering disease, and raisest the dead.
7. And having heard all these
things concerning thee, I have concluded that one of two things must be
true: either thou art God, and having come down from heaven thou doest
these things, or else thou, who doest these things, art the Son of
God. The
expression “Son of God” could not be used by a heathen
prince as it is used here.
8. I have therefore written to thee to ask thee that thou wouldest take the trouble to come to me and heal the disease which I have. For I have heard that the Jews are murmuring against thee and are plotting to injure thee. But I have a very small yet noble city which is great enough for us both.”
9. “Blessed art thou who
hast believed in me without having seen me. Compare γέγραπται, as used by Christ and his disciples, always referred to
the Old Testament. The passage quoted here does not occur in the Old
Testament; but compare
10. To these epistles there was
added the following account in the Syriac language. “After the
ascension of Jesus, Judas, Thomas is not commonly known by the name of Judas, and it is
possible that Eusebius, or the translator of the document, made a
mistake, and applied to Thomas a name which in the original was given
to Thaddeus. But Thomas is called Judas Thomas in the Apocryphal Acts
of Thomas, and in the Syriac Doctrina Apostolorum, published by
Cureton. The
word “apostle” is by no means confined to the twelve
apostles of Christ. The term was used very commonly in a much wider
sense, and yet the combination, “the apostle, one of the
Seventy,” in this passage, does not seem natural, and we cannot
avoid the conclusion that the original author of this account did not
thus describe Thaddeus. The designation, “one of the
Seventy,” carries the mind back to Christ’s own appointment
of them, recorded by Luke, and the term “apostle,” used in
the same connection, would naturally denote one of the Twelve appointed
by Christ,—that is, an apostle in the narrow sense. It might be
suggested as possible that the original Syriac connected the word
“apostle” with Thomas, reading, “Thomas the apostle
sent Judas, who is also called Thaddeus, one of the Seventy,”
&c. Such a happy confusion is not beyond the power of an ancient
translator, for most of whom little can be said in the way of praise.
That this can have been the case in the present instance, however, is
rendered extremely improbable by the fact that throughout this account
Thaddeus is called an apostle, and we should therefore expect the
designation upon the first mention of him. It seems to me much more
probable that the words, “one of the Seventy,” are an
addition of Eusebius, who has already, in two places (§4, above,
and chap. 12, §3), told us that Thaddeus was one of them. It is
probable that the original Syriac preserved the correct tradition of
Thaddeus as one of the Twelve; while Eusebius, with his false tradition
of him as one of the Seventy, takes pains to characterize him as such,
when he is first introduced, but allows the word “apostle,”
so common in its wider sense, to stand throughout. He does not intend
to correct the Syriac original; he simply defines Thaddeus, as he
understands him, more closely. Tobias was very likely a Jew, or of Jewish extraction, the name
being a familiar one among the Hebrews. This might have been the reason
that Thaddeus (if he went to Edessa at all) made his home with
him.
11. Thaddeus began then in the power of God to heal every disease and infirmity, insomuch that all wondered. And when Abgarus heard of the great and wonderful things which he did and of the cures which he performed, he began to suspect that he was the one of whom Jesus had written him, saying, ‘After I have been taken up I will send to thee one of my disciples who will heal thee.’
12. Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom Thaddeus lodged, he said, I have heard that a certain man of power has come and is lodging in thy house. Bring him to me. And Tobias coming to Thaddeus said to him, The ruler Abgarus summoned me and told me to bring thee to him that thou mightest heal him. And Thaddeus said, I will go, for I have been sent to him with power.
13. Tobias therefore arose early on the following day, and taking Thaddeus came to Abgarus. And when he came, the nobles were present and stood about Abgarus. And immediately upon his entrance a great vision appeared to Abgarus in the countenance of the apostle Thaddeus. When Abgarus saw it he prostrated himself before Thaddeus, while all those who stood about were astonished; for they did not see the vision, which appeared to Abgarus alone.
14. He then asked Thaddeus if he were in truth a disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who had said to him, ‘I will send thee one of my disciples, who shall heal thee and give thee life.’ And Thaddeus said, Because thou hast mightily believed in him that sent me, therefore have I been sent unto thee. And still further, if thou believest in him, the petitions of thy heart shall be granted thee as thou believest.
15. And Abgarus said to him, So much have I believed in him that I wished to take an army and destroy those Jews who crucified him, had I not been deterred from it by reason of the dominion of the Romans. And Thaddeus said, Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father, and having fulfilled it has been taken up to his Father. And Abgarus said to him, I too have believed in him and in his Father.
16. And Thaddeus said to him, Therefore I place my hand upon thee in his name. And when he had done it, immediately Abgarus was cured of the disease and of the suffering which he had.
17. And Abgarus marvelled, that
as he had heard concerning Jesus, so he had received in very deed
through his disciple Thaddeus, who healed him without medicines and
herbs, and not only him, but also Abdus Moses Chorenensis reads instead (according to Rinck),
“Potagrus, the son of Abdas.” Rinck thinks it probable that
Eusebius or the translator made a mistake, confusing the Syrian name
Potagrus with the Greek word ποδ€γρα, “a sort of gout,” and then inserting a second Abdas.
The word “Podagra” is Greek and could not have occurred in
the Armenian original, and therefore Eusebius is to be corrected at
this point by Moses Chorenensis (Rinck, ibid. p. 18). The Greek
reads ῎Αβδον τὸν
τοῦ ῎Αβδου
ποδ€γραν
žχοντα.
18. And afterward Abgarus said, Thou, O Thaddeus, doest these things with the power of God, and we marvel. But, in addition to these things, I pray thee to inform me in regard to the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and in regard to his power, by what power he performed those deeds of which I have heard.
19. And Thaddeus said, Now
indeed will I keep silence, since I have been sent to proclaim the word
publicly. But tomorrow assemble for me all thy citizens, and I will
preach in their presence and sow among them the word of God, concerning
the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and concerning his mission, for
what purpose he was sent by the Father; and concerning the power of his
works, and the mysteries which he proclaimed in the world, and by what
power he did these things; and concerning his new preaching, and his
abasement and humiliation, and how he humbled himself, and died and
debased his divinity and was crucified, and descended into Hades, This is probably the earliest distinct and formal statement of the
descent into Hades; but no special stress is laid upon it as a new
doctrine, and it is stated so much as a matter of course as to show
that it was commonly accepted at Edessa at the time of the writing of
these records, that is certainly as early as the third century. Justin,
Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, &c., all
witness to the belief of the Church in this doctrine, though it did not
form an article in any of the older creeds, and appeared in the East
first in certain Arian confessions at about 360 a.d. In the West it appeared first in the Aquileian creed,
from which it was transferred to the Apostles’ creed in the fifth
century or later. The doctrine is stated
in a very fantastic shape in the Gospel of Nicodemus, part II.
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 435 sq.), which is based
upon an apocryphal gospel of the second century, according to
Tischendorf. In it the descent of Christ into Hades and his ascent with
a great multitude are dwelt upon at length. Compare Pearson, On the
Creed, p. 340 sq.; Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, I.
p. 46; and especially, Plumptre’s Spirits in Prison, p. 77
sq. Compare the Gospel of Nicodemus, II. 5. καταβὰς γὰρ
μόνος
συνήγειρεν
πολλοὺς, ειθ᾽
οὕτως ἀνέβη
πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα
αὐτοῦ. Other mss. read κατέβη
μόνος, ἀνέβη
δὲ μετὰ
πολλοῦ ὀχλοῦ
πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα
αὐτοῦ. Rufinus
translates Qui descendit quidem solus, ascendit autem cum grandi
multitudine ad patrem suum. Compare the words of Cyril of Jerusalem
(Catech. IV. 11): κατῆλθεν
εἰς τὰ
καταχθόνια,
ἱνα κακεῖθεν
λυτρώσηται
τοὺς
δικαίους, “He descended into the depths, that he might ransom thence
the just.”
20. Abgarus therefore commanded
the citizens to assemble early in the morning to hear the preaching of
Thaddeus, and afterward he ordered gold and silver to be given him. But
he refused to take it, saying, If we have forsaken that which was our
own, how shall we take that which is another’s? These things were
done in the three hundred and fortieth year.” According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (ed. Schoene, II. p.
116) the Edessenes dated their era from the year of Abraham 1706 (b.c. 310), which corresponded with the second year
of the one hundred and seventeenth Olympiad (or, according to the
Armenian, to the third year of the same Olympiad), the time when
Seleucus Nicanor began to rule in Syria. According to this reckoning
the 340th year of the Edessenes would correspond with the year of
Abraham 2046, the reign of Tiberius 16 (a.d.
30); that is, the second year of the two hundred and second Olympiad
(or, according to the Armenian, the third year of the same). According
to the Chronicle of Eusebius, Jesus was crucified in the
nineteenth year of Tiberius (year of Abraham 2048 = a.d. 32), according to Jerome’s version in the
eighteenth year (year of Abraham 2047 = a.d.
31). Thus, as compared with these authorities, the 340th year of the
Edessenes falls too early. But Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustine, and
others put Christ’s death in 783 U.C., that is in 30 a.d., and this corresponds with the Edessene reckoning as
given by Eusebius.
I have inserted them here in
their proper place, translated from the Syriac See
note 6.
Introduction.
1. We have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by Christians, together with the events which have taken place in connection with Christ’s recent appearance, and in connection with his passion and with the choice of the apostles.
2. In the present book let us examine the events which took place after his ascension, confirming some of them from the divine Scriptures, and others from such writings as we shall refer to from time to time.
Chapter I.—The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ.
1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer,
Matthias, See Bk.
I. chap. 12, §2. The
view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenæus (adv.
Hær. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. I), then in Cyprian
(Ep. 64. 3), and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman
Church in the third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters,
they had only seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has been
ever since almost universally accepted. In favor of the identification
are urged this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity of the
duties assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the use of the
words διακονία and διακονεῖν
in connection with the “Seven” in
In view of these considerations
I feel compelled to doubt the traditional identification, although it
is accepted without dissent by almost all scholars (cf. e.g.
Lightfoot’s article on The Christian Ministry in his
Commentary on Philippians). There remain but two possibilities:
either the Seven constituted a merely temporary committee (as held by
Chrysostom, and in modern times, among others, by Vitringa, in his
celebrated work on the Synagogue, and by Stanley in his Essays on
the Apostolic Age); or they were the originals of permanent
officers in the Church, other than deacons. The former alternative is
possible, but the emphasis which Luke lays upon the appointment is
against it, as also the fact that the very duties which these men were
chosen to perform were such as would increase rather than diminish with
the growth of the Church, and such as would therefore demand the
creation of a new and similar committee if the old were not
continued. In favor of the second
alternative there is, it seems to me, much to be said. The limits of
this note forbid a full discussion of the subject. But it may be urged:
First, that we find in the Acts frequent mention of a body of men in
the Jerusalem church known as “elders.” Of the appointment
of these elders we have no account, and yet it is clear that they
cannot have been in existence when the apostles proposed the
appointment of the Seven. Secondly, although the Seven were such
prominent and influential men, they are not once mentioned as a body in
the subsequent chapters of the Acts, while, whenever we should expect
to find them referred to with the apostles, it is always the
“elders” that are mentioned. Finally, when the elders
appear for the first time ( Against this identification of
the Seven with the elders of the Jerusalem church it might be urged:
First, that Luke does not call them elders. But it is quite possible
that they were not called by that name at first, and yet later acquired
it; and in that case, in referring to them in later times, people would
naturally call the first appointed “the Seven,” to
distinguish them from their successors, “the
elders,”—the well-known and frequently mentioned officers
whose number may well have been increased as the church grew. It is
thus easier to account for Luke’s omission of the name
“elder,” than it would be to account for his omission of
the name “deacon,” if they were deacons. In the second
place, it might be objected that the duties which the Seven were
appointed to perform were not commensurate with those which fell to the
lot of the elders as known to us. This objection, however, loses its
weight when we realize that the same kind of a development went on in
connection with the bishop, as has been most clearly pointed out by
Hatch in his Organization of the Early Christian Churches, and
by Harnack in his translation of that work and in his edition of the
Teaching of the Apostles. Moreover, in the case of the Seven,
who were evidently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem church after the
apostles, and at the same time were “full of the Spirit,”
it was very natural that, as the apostles gradually scattered, the
successors of these Seven should have committed to them other duties
besides the purely financial ones. The theory presented in
this note is not a novel one. It was suggested first by Böhmer (in
his Diss. Juris eccles.), who was followed by Ritschl (in his
Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche), and has been accepted in a
somewhat modified form by Lange (in his Apostolisches
Zeitalter), and by Lechler (in his Apost. und Nachapost.
Zeitalter). Before learning that the theory had been proposed by
others, I had myself adapted it and had embodied it in a more elaborate
form in a paper read before a ministerial association in the spring of
1888. My confidence in its validity has of course been increased by the
knowledge that it has been maintained by the eminent scholars referred
to above. See See στέφανος, “a crown.”
2. Then James, whom the ancients
surnamed the Just James is not called the “Just” in the New Testament,
but Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23) says that he was called
thus by all from the time of Christ, on account of his great piety, and
it is by this name that he is known throughout history. See
above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13. Eusebius testimony is in favor of the half-brother theory; for had
he considered James the son of Mary, he could not have spoken in this
way.
3. But Clement in the sixth book
of his Hypotyposes On
Clement’s Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. On
Clement’s life and writings, see Bk. V. chap. 11. ἀλλ᾽
᾽Ι€κωβον τὸν
δίκαιον
ἐπίσκοπον
τῶν
῾Ιεροσολύμων
ἕλεσθαι, as
the majority of the mss. and editions read.
Laemmer, followed by Heinichen, substitutes γενέσθαι
for ἕλεσθαιon the
authority of two important codices. The other reading, however, is as
well, if not better, supported. How soon after the
ascension of Christ, James the Just assumed a leading position in the
church of Jerusalem, we do not know. He undoubtedly became prominent
very soon, as Paul in 37 (or 40) a.d. sees him
in addition to Peter on visiting Jerusalem. But we do not know of his
having a position of leadership until the Jerusalem Council in 51
(
4. But the same writer, in the
seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things
concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted
knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it
to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the
seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. See
above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 3. Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with
James, the son of Alphæus (compare the words just above:
“These delivered it to the rest of the apostles,” in which
the word “apostles,” on account of the
“Seventy” just following, seems to be used in a narrow
sense, and therefore this James to be one of the Twelve), and he is
thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis (see above, Bk. I.
chap. 12, note 13). Papias, too, in a fragment given by Routh (Rel.
Sac. I. p. 16) identifies the two. But Hegesippus (quoted by
Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many of this
name, and that he was therefore called James the Just to distinguish
him from others. Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement with
apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in regard
to the relationship of James to Christ. The contradiction, indeed,
appears only upon careful examination. Josephus (Ant. XX. 9. 1) says he was stoned to death. The
account of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius in
chap. 23, below, which see. James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I.,
44 a.d. See
5. At that time also the promise
of our Saviour to the king of the Osrhœnians was fulfilled. For
Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent Thaddeus to Edessa as a preacher
and evangelist of the religion of Christ, as we have shown a little
above from the document found there. See
above, Bk. I. chap. 13.
7. When he came to that place he
healed Abgarus by the word of Christ; and after bringing all the people
there into the right attitude of mind by means of his works, and
leading them to adore the power of Christ, he made them disciples of
the Saviour’s teaching. And from that time down to the present
the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to the name of
Christ, The
date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not known (see
above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes 1 and 3) but it was the seat of a bishop
in the third century, and in Eusebius’ time was filled with
magnificent churches and monasteries.
8. These things have been drawn
from ancient accounts; but let us now turn again to the divine
Scripture. When the first and greatest persecution was instigated by
the Jews against the church of Jerusalem in connection with the
martyrdom of Stephen, and when all the disciples, except the Twelve,
were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria, See See
9. During this time Paul was
still persecuting the church, and entering the houses of believers was
dragging men and women away and committing them to prison. See
10. Philip also, one of those
who with Stephen had been entrusted with the diaconate, being among
those who were scattered abroad, went down to Samaria, See See
11. Simon was at that time so
celebrated, and had acquired, by his jugglery, such influence over
those who were deceived by him, that he was thought to be the great
power of God. τὴν
μεγ€λην
δύναμιν τοῦ
θεοῦ. Compare Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church,
which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the
founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back
into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward
distinguished in Church history. The account of the Acts does not say
that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it be
implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring to
purchase the gift of God with money.
12. And what is surprising, the
same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his most impure
heresy. Eusebius may refer here to the Simonians, an heretical sect
(mentioned by Justin, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and others),
which recognized him as its founder and leader (though they originated
probably at a later date), and even looked upon him as a God. They were
exceedingly licentious and immoral. Their teachings gradually assumed a
decidedly Gnostic character, and Simon came to be looked upon as the
father of all Gnostics (compare Irenæus, I. 27. 4), and hence of
heretics in general, and as himself the arch-heretic. Eusebius,
therefore, perhaps refers in this place simply to the Gnostics, or to
the heretics in general. Another instance of the external and artificial conception of
heresy which Eusebius held in common with his age.
13. But as the preaching of the
Saviour’s Gospel was daily advancing, a certain providence led
from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of the queen of that
country, Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 12. 8) says that this
Eunuch returned to Ethiopia and preached there. But by no one else, so
far as I know, is the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to
him. The first certain knowledge we have of the introduction of
Christianity into Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumentius
and Ædesius, of whom Rufinus, I. 9, gives the original account;
and yet it is probable that Christianity existed there long before this
time. Compare Neander’s Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 46. See
also H. R. Reynolds’ article upon the “Ethiopian
Church” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian
Biography, II. 232 sqq.
14. In addition to these, Paul,
that “chosen vessel,” See
Chapter II.—How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate concerning Christ.
1. And
when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were
already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which
prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the
emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that
nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by
Tertullian (Apol. 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin
Martyr (Apol. I. 35 and Apol. I. 48) mentions certain
Acts of Pilate as well known in his day, but the so-called
Acts of Pilate which are still extant in various forms are
spurious, and belong to a much later period. They are very fanciful and
curious. The most important of these Acts is that which is
commonly known under the title of the Gospel of Nicodemus. There
are also extant numerous spurious epistles of Pilate addressed to
Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c. The extant Acts and Epistles
are collected in Tischendorf’s Evang. Apoc., and most of
them are translated by Cowper in his Apocryphal Gospels. See
also the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VIII. p. 416 sqq. Compare
the excellent article of Lipsius upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also the Prolegomena of
Tischendorf, p. lxii sqq.
2. He gave an account also of
other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death,
having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God. The
existing Report of Pilate (translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, ibid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius’
description, containing as it does a detailed account of Christ’s
miracles and of his resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it
is in its present form of a much later date, but at the same time is
very likely based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been
changed by interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of
Tischendorf referred to in the previous note. See
below, note 12.
3. But although the Senate of
the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour,
Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and
contrived no hostile measures against Christ. That
Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but this was
simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and not
because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.
4. These things are recorded by
Tertullian, Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second
century. The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius
pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some even
into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst
Nöldechen in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche
Theologie, 1886, Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150
and lived until about 230. Tertullian’s father was a Roman
centurion, and he himself became a lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He
was converted to Christianity probably between 180 and 190, and
according to Jerome, became a presbyter and continued as such until
middle life (whether in Rome or in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in
the latter, for he certainly spent the later years of his life, while
he was a Montanist, in Carthage, and also a considerable part of his
earlier life, as his writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism
(probably about 200 a.d.), and died at an
advanced age (220+). That he was a presbyter rests only upon the
authority of Jerome (de vir. ill. 53), and is denied by some
Roman Catholic historians in the interest of clerical celibacy, for
Tertullian was a married man. He wrote a great number of
works,—apologetic, polemic, and practical—a few in Greek,
but most of them in Latin,—and many of the Latin ones are still
extant. The best edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three
volumes. Vol. III. contains valuable dissertations upon the life and
works of Tertullian by various writers. An English translation of his
works is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. III. and IV.
1–125. Our main sources for a knowledge of his life are his own
writings, and Jerome’s de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller
account of Tertullian, see any of the larger Church histories, and
especially a good monograph by A. Hauck, Tertullian’s Leben
und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. For the literature, see
Schaff’s Church Hist. II. p. 818. His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not very
conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that as a
lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of
resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne out by his
own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have
been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the
acquirement of extensive and accurate learning. Καὶ τῶν
μ€λιστα ἐπὶ
῾Ρώμης
λαμπρῶν.
Rufinus translates inter nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and
Valesius inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus, taking
ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης to mean the Latin language. But this is not the
literal translation of the words of Eusebius. He says expressly, one
of the especially distinguished men in Rome. From his work de
cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent some
time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would imply a
residence of some duration there. He very likely practiced law and
rhetoric in Rome until his conversion. Tertullian’s Apology ranks first among his extant
works, and is “one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic
age of the Church” (Schaff). The date of its composition is
greatly disputed, though it must have been written during the reign of
Septimius Severus, and almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it
to the years 197–204. Since the investigations of Bonwetsch
(Die Schriften Tertullian’s, Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in
the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 1878, p. 572 sqq.),
and of Nöldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und
Untersuchungen, Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning its
composition to the latter part (summer or fall) of the year 197, its
date may be accepted as practically established. Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage
from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from
an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language
appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance
with it, for he translates Hadrian’s rescript to Fundanus from
Latin into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the
translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require
a profound knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for
concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the
only work of Tertullian’s which he quotes is his Apology,
and he uses only a Greek translation of that. It is not unnatural to
conclude that the rest of Tertullian’s works, or at least the
most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not enough of
a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original with any degree
of ease. Moreover, this conclusion in regard to his knowledge of Latin
is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he shows with the works of
Latin writers in general. In fact, he does not once betray a personal
acquaintance with any of the important Latin works which had been
produced before his time, except such as existed in Greek translations.
Compare Heinichen’s note in his edition of Eusebius’
History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The translation of
Tertullian’s Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as
may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted
in Bk. II. chap. 25, §4. For the mistakes, however, of course not
Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held
responsible. Tertullian’s Apology, chap. 5.
5. “But in order that we
may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient
decree Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian’s
Apology, p. 56) that this law is stated in the second book of
Cicero’s De Legibus in the words: Separatim nemo
habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas nisi publice adscitos
privatim colunto. Μ€ρκος
᾽Αιμίλιος
οὕτως περί
τινος
εἰδώλου
πεποίηκεν
᾽Αλβούρνου. Latin: Scit M. Æmilius de deo suo Alburno. In
Adv. Marcionem, I. 18, Tertullian says, Alioquin si sic homo
Deum commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et
Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus
Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non
regem, nec imperatorem. I cannot discover that
this εἰδωλος or Deus Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than
Tertullian, nor do I find a reference to him in any dictionary
accessible to me. Literally, “This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake
of) our doctrine” (καὶ τοῦτο
ὑπὲρ τοῦ
ἡμῶν λόγου
πεποίηται); but the freer translation given in the text better
expresses the actual sense. The original Latin reads: facit et hoc
ad causam nostram.
6. Tiberius, therefore, under
whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this
doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began,
communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was
pleased with the doctrine. This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and
cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine. Tertullian was probably,
as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated documents
from some Christian source. He cannot have secured his knowledge from
original state records. The falsification took place, probably, long
after the time of Tiberius. Tertullian is the first writer to mention
these circumstances, and Tertullian was not by any means a critical
historian. Compare Neander’s remarks in his Church
History, Vol. I. p. 93 sqq. (Torrey’s
Translation). Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan’s rescript and
all subsequent imperial action upon the subject would become
inexplicable.
1. Thus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the
divine co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the
sun, quickly illumined the whole world; Compare
2. In every city and village, churches were quickly established, filled with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor. And those whose minds, in consequence of errors which had descended to them from their forefathers, were fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous superstition, were, by the power of Christ operating through the teaching and the wonderful works of his disciples, set free, as it were, from terrible masters, and found a release from the most cruel bondage. They renounced with abhorrence every species of demoniacal polytheism, and confessed that there was only one God, the creator of all things, and him they honored with the rites of true piety, through the inspired and rational worship which has been planted by our Saviour among men.
3. But the divine grace being
now poured out upon the rest of the nations, Cornelius, of Cæsarea
in Palestine, with his whole house, through a divine revelation and the
agency of Peter, first received faith in Christ; See See See See ἀπ᾽
εὐθαλοῦς καὶ
γονίμου
πηγῆς. Two mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Closs, and
Crusè, read γῆς; but all the other
mss., together with Rufinus, support the
reading πηγῆς, which is
adopted by the majority of editors.
4. And Agabus, one of the
prophets who was with them, uttered a prophecy concerning the famine
which was about to take place, See See
Chapter IV.—After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa King of the Jews, having punished Herod with Perpetual Exile.
1. Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two
years, From
Aug. 29, a.d. 14, to March 16, a.d. 37. Caius ruled from the death of Tiberius until Jan. 24, a.d. 41. Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grandson of
Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and gained high favor with
Caius, and upon the latter’s accession to the throne received the
tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in a.d. 39 the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which had
belonged to Herod Antipas. After the death of Caius, his successor,
Claudius, appointed him also king over the province of Judea and
Samaria, which made him ruler of all Palestine, a dominion as extensive
as that of Herod the Great. He was a strict observer of the Jewish law,
and courted the favor of the Jews with success. It was by him that
James the Elder was beheaded, and Peter imprisoned ( Herod
Antipas. See He
was banished in a.d. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul
(according to Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according
to his B. J. II. 9. 6), and died in Spain (according to B.
J. II. 9. 6). See Ant. XVIII. 6 and 7, and B. J. II. 9.
2. Under this emperor, Philo Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born probably
about 20–10 b.c. (in his Legat. ad
Cajum, he calls himself an old man). Very little is known about his
life, and the time of his death is uncertain. The only fixed date which
we have is the embassy to Caligula (a.d. 40),
and he lived for at least some time after this. He is mentioned by
Jerome (de vir. ill. 11), who says he was born of a priestly
family; but Eusebius knows nothing of this, and there is probably no
truth in the statement. He is mentioned also by Josephus in his
Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. He was a Jewish philosopher, thoroughly imbued
with the Greek spirit, who strove to unite Jewish beliefs with Greek
culture, and exerted immense influence upon the thought of subsequent
ages, especially upon Christian theology. His works (Biblical,
historical, philosophical, practical, &c.) are very numerous, and
probably the majority of them are still extant. For particulars, see
chap. 18, below. For an excellent account of Philo, see Schürer,
Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi;
zweite Auflage, Bd. II. p. 831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1886), where the chief
literature upon the subject is given. Philo
was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its departments,
and shows great familiarity with it in his works. The influence of
Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his philosophical system,
but also upon his language; and all the Greek philosophers were studied
and honored by him. He may, indeed, himself be called one of them. His
system is eclectic, and contains not only Platonic, but also
Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements. Upon his doctrinal system, see
especially Schürer, ibid. p. 836 sq.
Chapter V.—Philo’s Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews.
1. Philo has given us an account, in five books, of the
misfortunes of the Jews under Caius. Upon
this work, see Schürer, p. 855 sqq. According to him, the whole
work embraced five books, and probably bore the title περὶ
ἀρετῶν καὶ
πρεσβείας
πρὸς Γ€ϊον. Eusebius cites what seems to be the same work under these
two different titles in this and in the next chapter; and the
conclusion that they were but one work is confirmed by the fact that
Eusebius (in chap. 18) mentions the work under the title On the
Virtues, which he says that Philo humorously prefixed to his work,
describing the impiety of Caius. The omission of the title ἡ πρεσβεία in so complete a catalogue of Philo’s works makes its
identification with περὶ
ἀρετῶν very
probable. Of the five, only the third and fourth are
extant,—εἰς
Φλ€κκον,
Adversus Flaccum, and περὶ
πρεσβείας
πρὸς Γ€ϊον, de legatione ad Cajum (found in Mangey’s ed.
Vol. II. p. 517–600). Book I., which is lost, contained,
probably, a general introduction; Book II., which is also lost,
contained an account of the oppression of the Jews during the time of
Tiberius, by Sejanus in Rome, and by Pilate in Judea (see below, note
9); Book III., Adversus Flaccum (still extant), contains an
account of the persecution of the Jews of Alexandria at the beginning
of the reign of Caius; Book IV., Legatio ad Cajum (still
extant), describes the sufferings which came upon the Jews as a result
of Caius’ command that divine honors should everywhere be paid
him; Book V., the παλινωδία
(which is lost), contained an account of the change
for the better in the Jews’ condition through the death of Caius,
and the edict of toleration published by Claudius. Upon the other works
of Philo, see chap. 18, below. The
occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which had arisen
between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had continued with
occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much blood had been
shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse. All efforts to secure
peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 a.d.,
the Greeks dispatched an embassy to the emperor, hoping to secure from
him an edict for the extermination of the Jews. The Jews, on their
side, followed the example of the Greeks, sending an embassy for their
own defense, with Philo at its head. The result was as Eusebius
relates, and the Jews were left in a worse condition than before, from
which, however, they were speedily relieved by the death of Caius.
Claudius, who succeeded Caius, restored to them for a time religious
freedom and all the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed.
2. Josephus also makes mention
of these things in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in the
following words: Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. This
sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 a.d.,
soon after the accession of Caius. The Jews, since the time of
Alexander the Great, when they had come in great numbers to the newly
founded city, Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions
high favor there, and were among the most influential inhabitants. They
possessed all the rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality with
their neighbors in all respects. When Alexandria fell into the hands of
the Romans, all the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks, were compelled
to take a position subordinate to the conquerors, but their condition
was not worse than that of their neighbors. They had always, however,
been hated more or less by their fellow-citizens on account of their
prosperity, which was the result of superior education and industry.
This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when the financial condition
of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants felt themselves unusually
burdened by the Roman demands. The old hatred for their more prosperous
neighbors broke out afresh, and the terrible disturbance mentioned was
the result. The refusal of the Jews to worship Caius as a God was made
a pretext for attacking them, and it was this refusal which gained for
them the hatred of Caius himself.
3. One of the Alexandrian
deputies was Apion, Apion,
chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of Alexandria who had won
great fame as a writer and Greek scholar. He seems to have been very
unscrupulous and profligate, and was a bitter and persistent enemy of
the Jews, whom he attacked very severely in at least two of his
works—the Egyptian History and a special work Against
the Jews, neither of which is extant. He was very unscrupulous in
his attacks, inventing the most absurd and malicious falsehoods, which
were quite generally believed, and were the means of spreading still
more widely the common hatred of the Jews. Against him Josephus wrote
his celebrated work, Contra Apionem (more fully de
antiquitate Judæorum contra Apionem), which is still extant,
and in the second book of which he exposes the ignorance and mendacity
of Apion. In the Pseudo-Clementines he plays an important (but of
course fictitious) role as an antagonist of the Gospel. The extant
fragments of Apion’s works are given, according to Lightfoot, in
Müller’s Fragm. Hist. Græc. II. 506 sq., and in
Fabricius’ Bibl. Græc. I. 503, and VII. 50. Compare
Lightfoot’s article in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ.
Biog.
4. And when Apion had uttered
many severe charges by which he hoped that Caius would be aroused, as
indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of the Jewish embassy, a man
celebrated in every respect, a brother of Alexander the Alabarch, The
Alabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexandria. Alexander
was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely known and held in
high esteem. His son Tiberius Alexander was appointed procurator of
Judea in 46 a.d., as successor of Cuspius
Fadus. Philo thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family. The
accuracy of Josephus’ statement that Philo was the brother of the
Alabarch Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald. Gesch. des
Jüdischen Volkes, Vol. VI. p. 235), and the Alabarch has been
assumed to have been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient
ground (compare Schürer, ibid. p. 832, note 5).
5. But Caius prevented him and ordered him to leave, and being very angry, it was plain that he meditated some severe measure against them. And Philo departed covered with insult and told the Jews that were with him to be of good courage; for while Caius was raging against them he was in fact already contending with God.”
6. Thus far Josephus. And Philo
himself, in the work On the Embassy See
note 1, above. The work is cited here under the title ἡ πρεσβεία (Legatio).
7. And in the first place he
relates that at Rome in the reign of Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that
time enjoyed great influence with the emperor, made every effort to
destroy the Jewish nation utterly; The
Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had increased
greatly in numbers and influence there. They were first disturbed by
Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose notice all the
worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their enemies,
especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the emperor, and
was moreover a deadly enemy of the Jews. The Jews were driven out of
Rome, and suffered many acts of violence. After the death of Sejanus,
which took place in 31 a.d., they were allowed
to return, and their former rights were restored. Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical and was very
obnoxious to the Jews, offending them greatly at different times during
his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as no
procurator before him had ventured to do. Soon after his accession he
changed his quarters from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the
Roman standard into the Holy City. The result was a great tumult, and
Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns
(Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2; see the next chapter). At another
time he offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields
inscribed with the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon
an express order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, chap. 38). Again,
he appropriated a part of the treasure of the temple to the
construction of an aqueduct, which caused another terrible tumult which
was quelled only after much bloodshed (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4;
see the next chapter). For further particulars about Pilate, see chap.
7, below.
Chapter VI.—The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their Presumption against Christ.
1. After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire,
and, besides innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he
greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews. Caius’ hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as mentioned
above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors,
which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects. His
demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and in
Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his worship,
the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the yielding of the
emperor, who was induced to give up his demands by the request of
Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor with him. Whether the
Jews suffered in the same way in Rome we do not know, but it is
probable that the emperor endeavored to carry out the same plan there
as elsewhere. Philo, Legat. ad Caium, 43.
2. “So great was the
caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and especially toward the
nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly hated that he
appropriated to himself their places of worship in the other cities, ἐν
ταῖς ἄλλαις
πόλεσι. The
reason for the use of the word “other” is not quite clear,
though Philo perhaps means all the cities except Jerusalem, which he
mentions a little below. “‘Caius the younger,’ to distinguish him from
Julius Cæsar who bore the name Caius, and who was also
deified” (Valesius).
3. Innumerable other terrible
and almost indescribable calamities which came upon the Jews in
Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor, are recorded by the
same author in a second work, to which he gave the title, On the
Virtues. This
work is probably the same as that mentioned in the beginning of chap.
5. (See chap. 5, note 1.) The work seems to have borne two
titles ἡ πρεσβεία
and περὶ
ἀρετῶν. See
Schürer, ibid. p. 859, who considers the δευτέρω
here the addition of a copyist, who could not
reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius. This
is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of Eusebius, as
Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities of the nation
were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour.
4. Hear what he says in the
second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows: Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2. σημαῖαι
καλοῦνται
5. Comparing these things with
the writings of the evangelists, you will see that it was not long
before there came upon them the penalty for the exclamation which they
had uttered under the same Pilate, when they cried out that they had no
other king than Cæsar.
6. The same writer further
records that after this another calamity overtook them. He writes as
follows: Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4. Heb. קָרְבָּן; Greek κορβᾶν
and κορβανᾶς. The word denoted originally any offering to God,
especially an offering in fulfillment of a vow. The form κορβανᾶς, which Josephus has employed here, was used to denote
the sacred treasure or the treasury itself. In Josephus, in Ant. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was
200 stadia long. In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number given
is 400, according to the Greek mss. of
Josephus, though the old Latin translation agrees with Eusebius in
reading 300. The situation of the aqueduct we do not know, though the
remains of an ancient aqueduct have been found to the south of
Jerusalem, and it is thought that this may have been the same. It is
possible that Pilate did not construct a new aqueduct, but simply
restored one that had been built in the time of Solomon. Schultz
(Jerusalem, Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 40, supposing that
the aqueduct began at Bethlehem, which is 40 stadia from
Jerusalem.
7. The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud complaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen’s clothing, forbidding them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those who should make an outcry. To them he now gave the preconcerted signal from the tribunal. And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot by their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives. But the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who were slain, held their peace.”
8. In addition to these the same
author records See
B. J. II. 10, 12 sqq.
Chapter VII.—Pilate’s Suicide.
It is
worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time of our
Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius,
whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own
murderer and executioner; Pilate’s downfall occurred in the following manner. A leader
of the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures which
Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the
Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters. Pilate,
supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops
against them and defeated them with great slaughter. The Samaritans
complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome (36
a.d.) to answer the charges brought against
him. Upon reaching Rome he found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the
throne. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to defend himself, and,
according to tradition, was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a
monument is still shown as Pilate’s tomb. According to another
tradition he committed suicide upon the mountain near Lake Lucerne,
which bears his name. Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this
case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known to
us. We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the
trustworthiness of the account.
Chapter VIII.—The Famine which took Place in the Reign of Claudius.
1. Caius had held the power not quite four years, Caius ruled from March 16, a.d. 37, to
Jan. 24, a.d. 41, and was succeeded by his
uncle Claudius. Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion
Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Annal. XII. 13, and Eusebius,
Chron., year of Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but
no universal famine is recorded such as Eusebius speaks of. According
to Josephus (Ant. XX. 2.5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place
in Judea while Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander were successively
procurators. Fadus was sent into Judea upon the death of Agrippa (44
a.d.), and Alexander was succeeded by Cumanus
in 48 a.d. The exact date of Alexander’s
accession we do not know, but it took place probably about 45 or 46.
This famine is without doubt the one referred to by Agabus in
The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record a
famine during the reign of Claudius, are Dion Cassius and Tacitus, who
mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the famine in
Judea (see the previous note for the references). Eusebius, in his
Chron., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome during this
reign, but upon what authority we do not know. As already remarked, we
have no extant account of a general famine at this time.
2. And Luke, in the Acts, after
mentioning the famine in the time of Claudius, and stating that the
brethren of Antioch, each according to his ability, sent to the
brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and Barnabas,
Chapter IX.—The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.
1. “ Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.
2. And concerning this James,
Clement, in the seventh book of his Hypotyposes, On
Clement’s Hypotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note
3. This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account was
probably received by Clement from oral tradition. He had a great store
of such traditions of the apostles and their immediate
followers,—in how far true or false it is impossible to say;
compare the story which he tells of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III.
chap. 23, below. This story of James is not intrinsically improbable.
It may have been true, though external testimony for it is, of course,
weak. The Latin legends concerning James’ later labors in Spain
and his burial in Compostella are entirely worthless. Epiphanius
reports that he was unmarried, and lived the life of a Nazarite; but he
gives no authority for his statement and it is not improbable that the
report originated through a confusion of this James with James the
Just.
3. They were both therefore, he says, led away together; and on the way he begged James to forgive him. And he, after considering a little, said, “Peace be with thee,” and kissed him. And thus they were both beheaded at the same time.
4. And then, as the divine
Scripture says,
Chapter X.—Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the Apostles, immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance.
1. The
consequences of the king’s undertaking against the apostles were
not long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice overtook
him immediately after his plots against them, as the Book of Acts
records. See
2. We must admire the account of
Josephus for its agreement with the divine Scriptures in regard to this
wonderful event; for he clearly bears witness to the truth in the
nineteenth book of his Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the
following words: Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8. 2.
3. “He had completed the
third year of his reign over all Judea 44 a.d. Agrippa began to reign over the
whole kingdom in 41 a.d. See above, chap. 4,
note 3. Cæsarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of
Jerusalem. In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this
point, called “Strato’s Tower”; but about 10 b.c. Herod the Great built the city of Cæsarea,
which soon became the principal Roman city of Palestine, and was noted
for its magnificence. It became, later, the seat of an important
Christian school, and played quite a part in Church history. Eusebius
himself was Bishop of Cæsarea. It was a city of importance, even
in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of utter
desolation. The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have considered
it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival
in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of these
suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival mentioned
was the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of
Augustus in 12 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant.
XV. 8. 1; B. J. I. 21. 8), and celebrated regularly every five
years. See Wieseler’s Chronologie des ap. Zeitalters, p.
131 sqq., where this question is carefully discussed in connection with
the date of Agrippa’s death which is fixed by Wieseler as Aug. 6,
44 a.d.
4. And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the theater at break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection of the sun’s earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly as to produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him.
5. And immediately his flatterers, some from one place, others from another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for his good, calling him a god, and saying, ‘Be thou merciful; if up to this time we have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art superior to the nature of mortals.’
6. The king did not rebuke them,
nor did he reject their impious flattery. But after a little, looking
up, he saw an angel sitting above his head. The
passage in Josephus reads: “But as he presently afterward looked
up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and
immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil
tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to
him.” This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being
omitted in Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have
made the gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful
perversion of the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a
confirmation of the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is
spoken of, but in which no mention is made of an owl. The case
certainly looks serious, but so severe an accusation—an
accusation which impeaches the honesty of Eusebius in the most direct
manner—should not be made except upon unanswerable grounds.
Eusebius elsewhere shows himself to be a writer who, though not always
critical, is at least honest in the use he makes of his materials. In
this case, therefore, his general conduct ought to be taken into
consideration, and he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an explanation which appears
to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says: “Doubtless also the
omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa’s death was
already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in which Eusebius deals
with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his
honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge.”
And in a note he adds: “It is not the substitution of an
angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result is
produced mainly by the omission of some words in the text of
Josephus, which runs thus: ἀνακύψας δ᾽
οὖν μετ᾽
ὀλίγον[τὸν
βουβῶνα] τῆς
ἑαυτοῦ
κεφαλῆς ὑπὲρ
καθεζόμενον
εἶδεν[ἐπὶ σχοινίου
τινός] ἀγγελόν[τε] τοῦτον
εὐθὺς ἐνόησε
κακῶν εἶναι,
τὸν καί ποτε
τῶν ἀγαθῶν
γενόμενον. The words bracketed are omitted, and αἴτιον is added after εἶναι, so that
the sentence runs, εἶδεν
ἄγγελον
τοῦτον εὐθὺς
ἐνόησε κακῶν
εἶναι αἴτιον
κ.τ.λ. This being so, I do not
feel at all sure that the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by
any disingenuous motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble
over τὸν
βουβῶνα,
which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have been used
of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to extract
some sense out of it. In the previous mention of the bird (Ant.
XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator, gives it as a Latin
name: βουβῶνα δὲ
οἱ ῾Ρωμαῖοι
τὸν ὄρνιν
τοῦτον
καλοῦσι.
Möller (quoted by Bright, p. XLV.) calls this ‘the one
case’ in which, so far as he recollects, ‘a sinceritatis
via paululum deflexit noster’; and even here the indictment
cannot be made good. The severe strictures against Eusebius, made e.g.
by Alford on Whiston in his
translation of Josephus inserts a note to the following effect:
“We have a mighty cry made here by some writers, as if the great
Eusebius had on purpose falsified this account of Josephus, so as to
make it agree with the parallel account in the Acts of the Apostles,
because the present copies of his citation of it, Hist. Eccles.
Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the words βουβῶνα …ἐπι
σχοινίου,
τινος, i.e. ‘an
owl …on a certain rope,’ which Josephus’ present
copies retain, and only have the explanatory word ἄγγελον, or
‘angel,’ as if he meant that ‘angel of the
Lord’ which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was
in chains—having been condemned to imprisonment by
Tiberius—an owl made its appearance and perched upon a tree near
him. A fellow-prisoner interpreted the event as a good omen,
prophesying that Agrippa would soon be released from his bonds and
become king, but that the same bird would appear to him again five days
before his death. Tiberius died in the following year, and the events
prophesied came to pass. The story was apparently implicitly believed
by Josephus, who relates it in good faith.
7. And straightway distress,
beginning with the greatest violence, seized his bowels. And looking
upon his friends he said, ‘I, your god, am now commanded to
depart this life; and fate thus on the spot disproves the lying words
you have just uttered concerning me. He who has been called immortal by
you is now led away to die; but our destiny must be accepted as God has
determined it. For we have passed our life by no means ingloriously,
but in that splendor which is pronounced happiness.’ The
text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the mss. of Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton,
and Schwegler, read ἐπὶ
τῆς
μακαριζομένης
λαμπρότητος, which I have adopted in preference to the reading of
Heinichen, who follows a few good mss. in
substituting μακαρί&
231·τητος for λαμπρότητος
8. And when he had said this he
labored with an increase of pain. He was accordingly carried in haste
to the palace, while the report spread among all that the king would
undoubtedly soon die. But the multitude, with their wives and children,
sitting on sackcloth after the custom of their fathers, implored God in
behalf of the king, and every place was filled with lamentation and
tears. This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the favor of
the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death from that
exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.
9. And after suffering
continually for five days with pain in the bowels, he departed this
life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of
his reign. He
was born in 10 b.c., and began to reign as
successor of Philip and Lysanias in 37 a.d.
See above, chap. 4, note 3. Herod Antipas.
10. I marvel greatly that
Josephus, in these things as well as in others, so fully agrees with
the divine Scriptures. But if there should seem to any one to be a
disagreement in respect to the name of the king, the time at least and
the events show that the same person is meant, whether the change of
name has been caused by the error of a copyist, or is due to the fact
that he, like so many, bore two names. Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name,
while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is known to us
under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange that Eusebius
should not have known that he bore the two names, Herod Agrippa,
instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does. In the heading
of the chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that he
entertained any uncertainty in the matter.
Chapter XI.—The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.
1. Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the
consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time
referred to, κατὰ τὸν
δηλούμενον
χρόνον, i.e.
about the time of Agrippa’s death. But Luke writes πρὸ γὰρ
τούτων τῶν
ἡμερῶν,
“Before these days.” Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1.
2. “While Fadus was
procurator of Judea About
44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2. There
is a chronological difficulty in connection with this Theudas which has
caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by Josephus arose in the
time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by Gamaliel in the Acts
must have lived many years before that. Various solutions of greater or
less plausibility have been offered, almost any one of which is
possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the alleged
discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare
Wieseler’s Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1;
Ewald’s Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532;
Jost’s Gesch. der Israeliten, Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and
the various commentaries on the Acts in loco. A question of more
importance for us, in the present instance, is as to Eusebius’
conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke with the Theudas
of Josephus,—an identification which is impossible, if both
accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently been
accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of promoting
the credibility of Luke’s accounts. But a protest must again be
entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius. A
man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not
have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a
glaring anachronism—an anachronism which every reader had the
means of exposing—for the sake of making a point in confirmation
of the narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he
would certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it
would not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to
discover in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible
reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius’
anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many
blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology.
He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar
character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without
a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the
passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting
that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of
the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.
3. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem.” Besides this he also makes mention of the famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following words.
Chapter XII.—Helen, the Queen of the Osrhœnians.
1. Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2. In
the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius
Alexander. Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of his
Ant., chap. 2, §5. Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son
Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king
Monabazus of Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor. Both
Izates and Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening
to come to Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to
relieve the distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by her son.
After their death the bones of both mother and son were brought to
Jerusalem and buried just outside of the walls, where Helen had erected
three pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).
2. You will find this statement
also in agreement with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that
the disciples at Antioch, “each according to his ability,
determined to send relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea; which
also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and
Paul.”
3. But splendid monuments “Pausanias (in Arcadicis) speaks of these great
monuments of Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome,
too, testifies that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a
palace in Jerusalem” (Stroth). Ælia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by
Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6). Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris,
Lycus, and the Gordiæan Mountains (see Dion Cassius, LXVIII.), but
before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith’s Dict.
of Greek and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense
to indicate Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N. VI. 12, and
Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII. 6). Izates was king of Adiabene in the
narrower sense.
Chapter
XIII.—Simon Magus. It is
justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Eusebius’
History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which
relate to heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age
than to the author. A right understanding of heresies and an
appreciation of any truth which they might contain was utterly
impossible to men who looked upon heresy as the work of the devil, and
all heretics as his chosen tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some,
because he gives his information about heretics only from second hand,
and quotes none of them directly; but it must be remembered that this
method was by no means peculiar to Eusebius, and, moreover, it is
highly probable that he did not have access to any of their works. The
accounts of the heretics given by Irenæus, Hippolytus, and others
would of course be preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves
would be piously excluded as completely as possible from all Christian
libraries, and the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the
Church. The sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for a
knowledge of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know
them almost solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in the
same way and very likely for the same reason.
1. But
faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused
among all men, See
chap. 3, note 1. Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in
2. This is stated by Justin, In
his Apology, I. 26, 56. In
Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16–18. On
Justin’s Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note
2. Justin’s Apology, I. 26.
3. “And after the
ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men
who said they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you to go
unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was
Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto, Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapolis (the modern
Nâblus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village of
Kuryet Jît (see Robinson’s Biblical Researches, III.
p. 144, note). Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin’s report,
for the reason that Josephus (Ant. XXII. 7. 2) mentions a
magician named Simon, of about the same date, who was born in Cyprus.
There was a town called Κίτιον in
Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this
place for the Samaritan Gitton. But even if we assume the identity of
the two Simons as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a
native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own
country, than that Josephus was. Simon’s activity may have
extended to Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken
his birthplace. Justin here assigns Simon’s visit to Rome to the reign of
Claudius (41–54 a.d.), as Irenæus
also does. Other accounts assign it to the reign of Nero, but all
differ as to the details of his death; suicide, death from injuries
received while trying to fly, voluntary burial in expectation of rising
again on the third day, &c., are reported in different traditions.
All, however, agree that he visited Rome at some time or
another. That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a
short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name Isola
Tiberiana, or di S. Sebastiano. In
1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco deo fidio,
&c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but this
statue was erected to the Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is therefore
highly probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue of Simon
Magus. This is now the commonly accepted view, though the translator of
Justin Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to dispute it
(see the Am. ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given a second
time by Justin in his Apol. 56, and also by Irenæus, I. 23.
1 (who, however, simply says “It is said,” and may have
drawn his knowledge only from Justin Martyr) and by Tertullian,
Apol. chap. 13. The last named is in general a poor authority
even if he be independent of Justin at this point, which is not
probable. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us an account of
the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing about the statue
and his silence is a strong argument against it.
4. And nearly all the Samaritans
and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first
God. And there went around with him at that time a certain Helena A
similar story is told of this Helen by Irenæus, I. 23; by
Hippolytus, VI. 15 (who adds some important particulars); by
Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Hær. 21;
and by Theodoret, Hær. Fab. I. 1; compare also Origen,
Contra Celsum, V. 62. Simon taught that this Helen was the first
conception of his mind, the mother of all things, the impersonation of
the divine intelligence, &c. The Simonians, according to
Irenæus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus (VI. 15; see chap. 14, note 8),
had images of Simon and Helen whom they honored as Jupiter and Minerva.
Simon’s doctrines and practice, as recorded by these Fathers,
show some of the general conceptions common to all the Gnostic systems,
but exhibit a crude and undeveloped form of Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see
Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 880 sq., and all
the works upon Simon Magus. This conception of the idea (žννοια) is
thoroughly Gnostic, and plays an important part in all the Gnostic
systems. Most of these systems had a dualistic element recognizing
the δύναμις and the žννοιαas the original principles from whose union all beings emanated.
These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the
different systems.
5. Justin relates these things,
and Irenæus also agrees with him in the first book of his work,
Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the man Irenæus adv. Hær. I. 23.
6. We have understood that Simon
was the author of all heresy. See note 3, above.
7. But those matters which they
keep more secret than these, in regard to which they say that one upon
first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the written
phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded, θαμβωθήσεσθαι This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom
picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and
Irenæus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for
the purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of
them as an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or
sense. This thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of
Gnosticism has been perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the
subject. Neander was the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical
treatment of it (in his Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost.
Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and since that time the subject has been
treated intelligently and discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur,
Lipsius, Lightfoot, Salmon and especially Harnack who has grasped the
true principle of Gnosticism perhaps more fully than any one else. See
his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 158 sqq.
8. For whatever could be
conceived of, viler than the vilest thing—all that has been
outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed of those who
make a sport of those miserable females that are literally overwhelmed
with all kinds of vices. This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and
licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the
Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see
below, IV. 11, note 24), Saturninus, Tatian, &c., went to the
opposite extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying
both of these extremes we perceive the same principle—a dualism
of matter and spirit, therefore of body and mind—the former
considered as the work of the devil, and therefore to be despised and
abused: the latter as divine, and therefore to be honored above all
else. The abhorrence of the body, and of matter and nature in general,
logically led to one of the two opposite results, asceticism or
antinomianism, according to the character and instincts of the person
himself. See Schaff, Church Hist. II. p. 457 sqq. The Fathers,
in their hatred of all forms of heresy, naturally saw no good in any of
them, and heretics were therefore indiscriminately accused of
immorality and licentiousness in their worst forms.
1. The
evil power, See the previous chapter, note 1. See chap. 1, note 25.
2. For that divine and celestial
grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and
presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled
and cast down through them “every high thing that exalted itself
against the knowledge of God.”
3. Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.
4. Immediately The significance of the word “immediately” as employed
here is somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding
context with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that
Eusebius may have been using at this point some unknown source and that
the word “immediately” refers to an encounter which Simon
had had with Peter (perhaps his Cæsarean discussion, mentioned in
the Clementines), of which an account was given in the document
employed by Eusebius. The figure employed here is most
remarkable.
5. And coming to the city of
Rome, Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics. They
were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism which
the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his transcendental
conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial seat of the
devil. See above, chap. 13, note 11.
6. But this did not last long.
For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and
gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that
strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of
his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome Upon the historic truth of Peter’s visit to Rome, see below,
chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did
visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that
he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition
that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost
universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent
years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so
long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubtedly took
its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous
chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits
of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier
date for Simon’s arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also
the same date for Peter’s arrival there, although Justin does not
mention Peter in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius
quotes. The assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during
the reign of Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter’s
later life from the New Testament and from other early writers. In 44
a.d. he was in Jerusalem (according to
A
most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an excellent
illustration of Eusebius’ rhetorical style.
Chapter XV.—The Gospel according to Mark.
1. And
thus when the divine word had made its home among them, The origin of the Church at Rome is shrouded in mystery. Eusebius
gives the tradition which rules in the Catholic Church, viz.: that
Christianity was introduced into Rome by Peter, who went there during
the reign of Claudius. But this tradition is sufficiently disproved by
history. The origin of the Church was due to unknown persons, though it
is possible we may obtain a hint of them in the Andronicus and Junta
of See chap. 12, note 9, and chap. 14, note 8. John Mark, son of Mary ( That
Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of Peter, or as a
record of what he had heard from him, is the universal tradition of
antiquity. Papias, in the famous and much-disputed passage (quoted by
Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first to record the tradition. Justin
Martyr refers to Mark’s Gospel under the name “Memoirs
(ἀπομνημονεύματα) of Peter” (Dial. c. Tryph. 106; the
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. I. p. 252,
which refers the αὐτοῦ to
Christ, is incorrect; compare Weiss, N. T. Einleitung, p. 44,
note 4). Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 11. 1, quoted below,
V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV. 5), and Origen (quoted
below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which is repeated over and over
again by the Fathers. The question as to the
real authorship of our second Gospel, or rather as to its composition
and its relation to Matthew and Luke, is a very difficult one. The
relationship of the three synoptical Gospels was first discussed by
Augustine (De Consensu Evangelistarum), who defended the
traditional order, but made Mark dependent upon Matthew. This view
prevailed until the beginning of the present century, when the problem
was attacked anew, and since then it has been the crux of the literary
criticism of the Bible. The three have been held to be dependent upon
each other, and every possible order has found its advocates; a common
source has been assumed for the three: the Hebrew Matthew, the
Gospel according to the Hebrews (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note
24), our canonical Gospel of Mark, or an original Mark, resembling the
present one; a number of fragmentary documents have been assumed; while
others, finally, have admitted only oral tradition as the basis.
According to Baur’s tendency theory, Matthew (polemically
Jewish-Christian) came first, followed by an original Luke (polemically
Pauline-Christian), then by our Mark, which was based upon both and
written in the interest of neutrality, and lastly by our present Luke,
designed as a final irenicum. This view now finds few advocates. The
whole matter is still unsettled, but criticism seems to be gradually
converging toward a common ground type (or rather two independent
types) for all three while at the same time maintaining the relative
independence of the three, one toward the other. What these ground
types were, is a matter of still sharper dispute, although criticism is
gradually drawing their larger features with more and more certainty
and clearness. (The latest discussion upon the subject by Handmann,
das Hebräer-Evangelium, makes the two types the
“Ur-Marcus” and the Gospel of the Hebrews.) That in the
last analysis, however, some space must still be left for floating
tradition, or for documents irreducible to the one or two types, seems
absolutely certain. For further information as to the state of
discussion upon this intricate problem, see among recent works,
especially Weiss, Einleitung, p. 473 sqq., Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 328 sqq., and Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. 575
sqq., where the literature down to 1882 is given with great fullness.
Conservative opinion puts the composition of all the synoptic Gospels
before the destruction of Jerusalem (for the date of Luke, see III. 4,
note 12); but the critical school, while throwing the original type
back of that date, considers the composition of our present Gospels to
have been the gradual work of years, assuming that they were not
finally crystallized into the form in which we have them before the
second century.
2. And they say that Peter when
he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had
been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work
obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in
the churches. This
mention of the “pleasure” of Peter, and the
“authority” given by him to the work of Mark, contradicts
the account of Clement to which Eusebius here appeals as his authority.
In Bk. VI. chap. 14 he quotes from the Hypotyposes of Clement, a
passage which must be identical with the one referred to in this place,
for it is from the same work and the general account is the same; but
there Clement says expressly, “which when Peter understood he
neither directly hindered nor encouraged it.” The
passage from Papias is quoted below in Bk. III. chap. 39. Papias is a
witness to the general fact that Mark wrote down what he had heard from
Peter, but not (so far as he is extant) to the details of the account
as given by Eusebius. Upon Papias himself, see Bk. III. chap.
39.
Chapter XVI.—Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of Egypt.
1. And
they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that
he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established
churches in Alexandria. That Mark labored in Egypt is stated also by Epiphanius
(Hær. LI. 6), by Jerome (de vir. ill. 8), by
Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43), and by the Acta Barnabæ,
p. 26 (Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 74), which were
written probably in the third century. Eusebius gained his knowledge
apparently from oral tradition, for he uses the formula, “they
say” (φασὶν). In chap.
24, below, he says that Annianus succeeded Mark as a leader of the
Alexandrian Church in the eighth year of Nero (62 a.d.), thus implying that Mark died in that year; and
Jerome gives the same date for his death. But if the tradition that he
wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter (or after Peter’s death, as
the best tradition puts it, so e.g. Irenæus) be correct, then this
date is hopelessly wrong. The varying traditions are at best very
uncertain, and the whole career of Mark, so far as it is not recorded
in the New Testament, is involved in obscurity.
2. And the multitude of
believers, both men and women, that were collected there at the very
outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive
asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe
their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole
manner of life.” See
the next chapter.
1. It
is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at
Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. This tradition that Philo met Peter in Rome and formed an
acquaintance with him is repeated by Jerome (de vir ill. 11),
and by Photius (Cod. 105), who even goes further, and says
directly that Philo became a Christian. The tradition, however, must be
regarded as quite worthless. It is absolutely certain from
Philo’s own works, and from the otherwise numerous traditions of
antiquity that he never was a Christian, and aside from the report of
Eusebius (for Jerome and Photius do not represent an independent
tradition) there exists no hint of such a meeting between Peter and
Philo; and when we realize that Philo was already an old man in the
time of Caius (see above, chap. 4, note 8), and that Peter certainly
did not reach Rome before the later years of Nero’s reign, we may
say that such a meeting as Eusebius records (only upon
tradition, λόγος
žχει) is certainly not
historical. Where Eusebius got the tradition we do not know. It may
have been manufactured in the interest of the Philonic authorship of
the De vita contemplativa, or it may have been a natural
outgrowth of the ascription of that work to him, some such explanation
suggesting itself to the reader of that work as necessary to explain
Philo’s supposed praise of Christian monks. Philo’s visit
to Rome during the reign of Caligula being a well-known historic fact,
and Peter’s visit to Rome during the reign of Claudius being
assumed as likewise historic (see above, chap. 14, note 8), it was not
difficult to suppose a meeting between them (the great Christian
apostle and the great Jewish philosopher), and to invent for the
purpose a second visit of Philo to Rome. It seems probable that the
ascription of the work De vita contemplativa to Philo came
before the tradition of his acquaintance with Peter in Rome (which is
first mentioned by Eusebius); but in any case the two were mutually
corroborative.
2. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients.
3. In the work to which he gave
the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, περὶ βίου
θεωρητικοῦ ἢ
ἱκετῶν; De
Vita Contemplativa. This work is still extant, and is given by
Mangey, II. 471–486. Eusebius is the first writer to mention it,
and he identifies the Therapeutæ described in it with the
Christian monks, and assumes in consequence that monasticism in the
form in which he knew it existed in the apostolic age, and was known
and praised by Philo. This opinion was generally adopted by the Fathers
(with the single exception of Photius, Cod. 105, who looked upon
the Therapeutæ as a Jewish sect) and prevailed unquestioned until
the Reformation, when in the Protestant reaction against monasticism it
was denied that monks existed in the apostolic age, and that the
Therapeutæ were Christians at all. Various opinions as to their
identity have been held since that time, the commonest being that they
were a Jewish sect or school, parallel with the Palestinian Essenes, or
that they were an outgrowth of Alexandrian Neo-Pythagoreanism. The
former opinion may be said to have been the prevailing one among
Christian scholars until Lucius, in his work entitled Die
Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Gesch. der Askese (Strassburg,
1879), proved (what had been asserted already by Grätz and Jost)
that the Therapeutæ are really to be identified with Christian
monks, and that the work De Vita Contemplativa is not a genuine
work of Philo’s. If the former proposition is proved, the latter
follows of necessity, for it is absolutely impossible to suppose that
monasticism can have existed in so developed a form (or indeed in any
form) in the time of Philo. On the other hand it may be proved that the
work is not Philonic, and yet it may not follow that the
Therapeutæ are to be identified with Christian monks. And so some
scholars reject the Philonic authorship while still maintaining the
Jewish character of the Therapeutæ (e.g. Nicolas, Kuenen, and
Weingarten; see Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi, p. 863). In the opinion of the writer, who agrees therein
with the great majority of scholars, Lucius has conclusively
demonstrated both his propositions, and has shown that the work De
Vita Contemplativa is the production of some Christian of the
latter part of the third century, who aimed to produce an apology for
and a panegyric of monasticism as it existed in his day, and thus to
secure for it wider recognition and acceptance. Lucius concludes with
the following words: “Wir haben es demnach in D.V.C. mit einer
Tendenzschrift zu thun, welche, da sie eine weit ausgebildete und in
zahlreichen Ländern verbreitete Askese, so wie Zustände
voraussetzt, genau wie dieselben nur im Christenthum des dritten
Jahrhunderts vorhanden waren, kaum anders aufgefasst werden kann, als
eine, etwa am Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts, unter dem Namen
Philo’s, zu Gunsten der Christlichen Askese, verfasste Apologie,
als erstes Glied eines an derartigen Producte überaus reichen
Litteratur-zweige der alten Kirche.” Compare with Lucius’
work the reviews of it by Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschrift für
wiss. Theol., 1880, pp. 423–440, and by Schürer in the
Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1880, No. 5. The latter
especially has added some important considerations with reference to
the reasons for the composition of this work under the name of Philo.
Assuming then the correctness of Lucius’ conclusions, we see that
Eusebius was quite right in identifying the Therapeutæ with the
Christian monks as he knew them in his day, but that he was quite wrong
in accepting the Philonic authorship of the work in question, and in
concluding that the institution of monasticism as he knew it existed
already in the apostolic age (compare note 19, below). It may fairly be doubted whether the work does not really contain
considerable that is not in strict accordance with the facts observed
by the author, whether his account is not to an extent idealized, and
whether, in his endeavor to emphasize the Jewish character of the
Therapeutæ, with the design of establishing the antiquity of
monasticism (compare the review of Schürer referred to above), he
has not allowed himself to introduce some imaginative elements. The
strong asseveration which he makes of the truthfulness of his account
would rather increase than allay this suspicion, and the account itself
at certain points seems to bear it out. On the whole, however, it may
be regarded as a reasonably accurate sketch. Were it not such, Eusebius
would not have accepted it, so unreservedly as he does, as an account
of Christian monks. Lucius’ exhibition of the points of
similarity between the practices of the Therapeutæ, as described
here, and of early Christian monks, as known from other sources, is
very interesting (see p. 158 sq.). θεραπευταί
and θεραπευτρίδες, “worshipers” or “physicians”;
from θεραπεύω, which means either to do service to the gods, or to tend
the sick.
4. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here.
5. He bears witness, however,
that first of all they renounce their property. When they begin the
philosophical See Bk.
VI. chap. 3, note 9.
6. For in the Acts of the
Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as authentic, See Bk.
III. chap. 4, note 14.
7. Philo bears witness to facts
very much like those here described and then adds the following
account: De
Vita Contemplativa, §3. Namely, the Therapeutæ. Heinichen omits, without explanation, the words και τὴν
῾Ελλᾶδα,
which are found in all the other editions that I have examined.
Inasmuch as Heinichen gives no hint of an alternate reading at this
point, I can conclude only that the words were accidentally omitted by
him. Egypt,
exclusive of the cities Alexandria and Ptolemais, was divided into land
districts, originally 36 in number, which were called νομοί (see Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire,
Scribner’s ed. I. p. 255 sq.).
8. The best men from every
quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the Therapeutæ’s
fatherland, πατρίδα. This word, as Schürer points out (Theol.
Literaturzeitung, 1880, no. 5), is not a noun, as it is commonly
regarded (and hence translated “fatherland”), but an
adjective (and hence to be translated “eine vaterländische
Colonie,” “a colony of the fatherland”); the
οἰκουμένη, mentioned in the previous paragraph, being the fatherland
of the Therapeutæ. ὑπὲρ
λίμνης
Μαρίας. In
Strabo the name is given as ἡ Μαρεῶτις or Μαρεία
λίμνη. The Lake
Mareotis (as it is most commonly called) lies in the northern part of
the Delta, just south of Alexandria. It was in ancient times much more
of a lake than it is now, and the description of the climate as given
here is quite accurate.
9. And then a little further on,
after describing the kind of houses which they had, he speaks as
follows concerning their churches, which were scattered about here and
there: Ibid. σεμνεῖον
καὶ
μοναστήριον
10. And after some other matters
he says: Ibid.
“The whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of exercise. For they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy of their fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the written words as symbols of hidden truth which is communicated in obscure figures.
11. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method. These they use as models, and imitate their principles.”
12. These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul’s Epistles.
13. Then again he writes as
follows concerning the new psalms which they composed: Ibid.
14. The same book contains an account of many other things, but it seemed necessary to select those facts which exhibit the characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode of life.
15. But if any one thinks that
what has been said is not peculiar to the Gospel polity, but that it
can be applied to others besides those mentioned, let him be convinced
by the subsequent words of the same author, in which, if he is
unprejudiced, he will find undisputed testimony on this subject.
Philo’s words are as follows: Ibid.§4.
16. “Having laid down temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul, they build upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or drink before sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy of the light, but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in the darkness, and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the latter a small portion of the night.
17. But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to take food for three days; and some are so delighted and feast so luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly and without stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and are accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food.” These statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to those of our communion.
18. But if after these things
any one still obstinately persists in denying the reference, let him
renounce his incredulity and be convinced by yet more striking
examples, which are to be found nowhere else than in the evangelical
religion of the Christians. See
Ibid. §8.
19. For they say that there were
women also with those of whom we are speaking, and that the most of
them were aged virgins How
Eusebius, who knew that Philo lived and wrote during the reign of
Claudius, could have overlooked the fact that Christianity had not at
that time been long enough established to admit of virgins growing old
within the Church, is almost inexplicable. It is but another example of
his carelessness in regard to chronology which comes out so often in
his history. Compare Stroth’s words: “In der That ein
wichtiger Beweis, der gerade der irrigen Meinung des Eusebius am
meisten entgegen ist. Denn sie hätten alt zum Christenthum kommen
müssen, sonst konnten sie ja zu Philo’s Zeiten
unmöglich im Christenthum alt geworden sein, dessen Schrift
Eusebius selbst in die Regierung des Claudius setzt. Es ist beinahe
unbegreiflich, wie ein so guter Kopf, wie Eusebius ist, in so grobe
Irrthümer fallen konnte.” For a
description of the religious cults among the Greeks and Romans, that
demanded virginity in their priests or priestesses, see
Döllinger’s Heidenthum und Judenthum, p. 182 and 521
sq.
20. Then after a little he adds
still more emphatically: De Vita Contemplativa, §10.
21. Why is it necessary to add to these things their meetings and the respective occupations of the men and of the women during those meetings, and the practices which are even to the present day habitually observed by us, especially such as we are accustomed to observe at the feast of the Saviour’s passion, with fasting and night watching and study of the divine Word.
22. These things the
above-mentioned author has related in his own work, indicating a mode
of life which has been preserved to the present time by us alone,
recording especially the vigils kept in connection with the great
festival, and the exercises performed during those vigils, and the
hymns customarily recited by us, and describing how, while one sings
regularly in time, the others listen in silence, and join in chanting
only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days referred to they
sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and to use his own words, Ibid.§9.
23. In addition to this Philo
describes the order of dignities which exists among those who carry on
the services of the church, mentioning the diaconate, and the office of
bishop, which takes the precedence over all the others. Ibid.§§8–10. The
author of the D. V. C. mentions young men that serve at table
(διακονοῦντες) and a president (πρόεδρος) who leads in the exposition of the Scriptures. Eusebius is
quite right in finding in these persons deacons and bishops. The
similarity is too close to be merely accidental, and the comment of
Stroth upon this passage is quite unwarranted: “Was einer doch
alles in einer Stelle finden kann, wenn er es darin finden will! Philo
sagt, dass bei ihren gemeinschaftlichen Gastmählern einige bei
Tische dienten (διακονοῦντες), hieraus macht Eusebius Diakonate; und dass bei ihren
Untersuchungen über die Bibel einer (πρόεδρος) den Vorsitz habe; hieraus macht Eusebius die
bischöfliche würde (ἐπισκοπῆς
προεδρίαν).”
24. But that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in view the first heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by the apostles, is clear to every one.
Chapter
XVIII.—The Works of Philo On
Philo’s works, see Schürer, Gesch. des jüd.
Volkes, II. p. 831 sqq. The best (though it leaves much to be
desired) complete edition of Philo’s works is that of Mangey: 2
vols., folio, London, 1742; English translation of Philo’s works
by Yonge, 4 vols., London, 1854–55. Upon Philo’s life, see
chaps. 4–6, above. Eusebius, in his Præp. Evang.,
quotes extensively from Philo’s works and preserves some
fragments of which we should otherwise be ignorant.
1. Copious in language, comprehensive in thought, sublime and
elevated in his views of divine Scripture, Philo has produced manifold
and various expositions of the sacred books. On the one hand, he
expounds in order the events recorded in Genesis in the books to which
he gives the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws; νόμων ἱερῶν
ἀλληγορίαι. This work is still extant, and, according to
Schürer, includes all the works contained in the first volume of
Mangey’s edition (except the De Opificio Mundi, upon which
see Schürer, p. 846 sqq. and note 11, below), comprising 16
different titles. The work forms the second great group of writings
upon the Pentateuch, and is a very full and allegorical commentary upon
Genesis, beginning with the second chapter and following it verse by
verse through the fourth chapter; but from that point on certain
passages are selected and treated at length under special titles, and
under those titles, in Schürer’s opinion, were published by
Philo as separate works, though really forming a part of one complete
whole. From this much confusion has resulted. Eusebius embraces all of
the works as far as the end of chap. 4 (including five titles in
Mangey) under the one general title, but from that point on he too
quotes separate works under special titles, but at the end (§5,
below) he unites them all as the “extant works on Genesis.”
Many portions of the commentary are now missing. Compare Schürer,
ibid. pp. 838–846. ζητήματα
καὶ λύσεις: Quaestiones et solutiones. According to
Schürer (ibid. p. 836 sq.), a comparatively brief
catechetical interpretation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions
and answers, embracing probably six books on Genesis and five on
Exodus, and forming the first great group of writings upon the
Pentateuch. So far as Eusebius seems to have known, they covered only
Genesis and Exodus, and this is all that we are sure of, though some
think that they included also the remainder of the Pentateuch. About
half of his work (four books on Genesis and two on Exodus) is extant in
an Armenian version (published by Aucher in 2 vols., Venet. 1822 and
’26, and in Latin by Ritter, vols. 6 and 7 of his edition of
Philo’s works); and numerous Latin and Greek fragments still
exist (see Schürer, p. 837 sqq.).
2. There are, besides these,
treatises expressly worked out by him on certain subjects, such as the
two books On Agriculture, περὶ
γεωργίας
δύο: De Agricultura duo
(so Jerome, de vir. ill. 11). Upon περὶ μέθης
τοσαῦτα:
De ebrietate duo (so Jerome, ibid.). Upon περὶ ὧν
νήψας ὁ νοῦς
εὔχεται καὶ
καταρᾶται. Jerome, de vir. ill. 11, de his quæ sensu
precamur et detestamur. Upon περὶ
συγκύσεως
τῶν
διαλέκτων. Upon περὶ φυγῆς
καὶ
εὑρέσεως. The same title is found in Johannes Monachus (Mangey, I. 546,
note), and it is probably correct, as the work treats of the flight and
the discovery of Hagar ( περὶ τῆς
πρὸς τὰ
παιδεύματα
συνόδου,
“On Assembly for the sake of instruction.” Upon
περὶ τε τοῦ,
τίς ὁ τῶν
θείων ἐστὶ
κληρονόμος, ἢ
περὶ τῆς εἰς
τὰ ἴσα καὶ
ἐναντία
τομῆς. From this
double title Jerome (de vir. ill. 11) wrongly makes two works.
The writing is still extant, and is given by Mangey (I. 473–518)
under the title περὶ τοῦ τίς
ὁ τῶν θείων
πραγμ€των
κληρονόμος
(Schürer, 844). περὶ τῶν
τριῶν ἀρετῶν,
ἃς σὺν ἄλλαις
ἀνέγραψε
Μωυσῆς. This
work is still extant, and is given by Mangey under the title
περὶ
τριῶν ἀρετῶν
ἤτοι περὶ
ἀνδρείας καὶ
φιλανθρωπίας
καὶ
μετανοίας:
περὶ
ἀνδρείας, II. 375–383; περὶ
φιλανθρωπίας, II. 383–405; περὶ
μετανοίας, II. 405–407. Jerome gives the simple title De
tribus virtutibus liber unus. According to
Schürer (p. 852 sqq.) it forms an appendix to the third great
group of works upon the Pentateuch, containing those laws which do not
belong to any one of the ten commandments in particular, but fall under
the head of general cardinal virtues. The third group, as Schürer
describes it (p. 846), aims to give for non-Jews a complete view of the
Mosaic legislation, and embraces, first, the work upon the Creation
(which in the mss. and editions of Philo is
wrongly placed at the beginning in connection with the great
Allegorical Commentary, and is thus included in that by Eusebius
in his list of Philo’s works, so that he does not make special
mention of it); second, the lives of great and good men, the living
unwritten law; and third, the Mosaic legislation proper (1. The ten
commandments; 2. The special laws connected with each of these); and
finally an appendix treating of certain cardinal virtues, and of reward
and punishments. This group is more historic and less allegoric than
the two others, which are rather esoteric and scientific.
3. In addition to these is the
work On those whose Names have been changed and why they have been
changed, περὶ τῶν
μετονομαζομένων
καὶ ὧν ἓνεκα
μετονομ€ζονται, De Mutatione nominum. Upon ἐν ᾧ
φησι
συντεταχέναι
καὶ περι
διαθηκῶν
πρῶτον καὶ
δεύτερον. Nearly all the mss., followed by some
of the editors, read πρώτης καὶ
δευτέρας, instead of πρῶτον καὶ
δεύτερον, thus making Eusebius mention a work “On the first and
second covenants,” instead of a first and second book “On
the covenants.” It is plain from Philo’s own reference to
the work (on p. 586 in Mangey’s ed.) that he wrote two books
“On covenants,” and not a work “On the two
covenants.” I have therefore felt warranted in reading with
Heinichen and some other editors πρῶτον καὶ
δεύτερον, a reading which is more natural in view of the absence of an
article with διαθηκῶν, and which is confirmed by Nicephorus Callistus. This
reading must be correct unless we are to suppose that Eusebius misread
Philo. Fabricius suggests that Eusebius probably wrote ὰ καὶ β', which the
copyists wrongly referred to the “covenants” instead of to
the number of the books, and hence gave the feminine instead of the
neuter form. This work “On
covenants,” or “On the whole discussion concerning
covenants” (as Philo gives it), is now lost, as it was already in
the time of Eusebius; at least he knew of it only from Philo’s
reference to it. See Schürer, p. 845.
4. And there is also a work of
his On Emigration, περὶ
ἀποικίας: De Migratione Abrahami. Upon βιοῦ σοφοῦ
τοῦ κατὰ
δικαιοσύνην
τελειωθέντος,
ἢ νόμων
ἀγρ€φων.
(According to Schürer, δικαιοσύνην
here is a mistake for διδασκαλίαν, which is the true reading in the original title.) This
work, which is still extant, is given by Mangey, II. 1–40, under
the same title (διδασκαλίαν, however, instead of δικαιοσύνην), with the addition, ὁ ἐστὶ περὶ
᾽Αβρα€μ:
De Abrahamo. It opens the second division of the third great
group of writings on the Pentateuch (see note 11, above): the
biographical division, mentioning Enos, Enoch and Noah, Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, but dealing chiefly with Abraham. The biographies of Isaac
and Jacob probably followed, but they are lost, and we have no trace of
them, so that the life of Joseph (see below, note 26) in the mss. follows directly upon that of Abraham
(Schürer, p. 848 sqq.). περὶ
γιγ€ντων, ἢ
περὶ τοῦ μὴ
τρέπεσθαι τὸ
θεῖον. Upon
περὶ τε τοῦ
κατὰ Μωϋσέα
θεοπέμπτους
εἶναι τοὺς
ὀνείρους
πρῶτον,
δεύτερον,
κ.τ.λ. Two books are extant, the
first upon
5. But on Exodus we are
acquainted with the first, second, third, fourth and fifth books of
Questions and Answers; ζητήματα
καὶ λύσεις; see above, note 3. Eusebius knew only five books upon
Exodus, and there is no reason to think there were any more. Philo wrote a work entitled περὶ βίου
Μωσέως: Vita
Mosis, which is still extant, but is not mentioned in the catalogue
of Eusebius. It contains a long description of the tabernacle, and
consequently Schürer concludes that the work mentioned here by
Eusebius (περὶ
τῆς σκήνης) represents that portion of the larger work. If this be the
case, it is possible that the section in the mss. used by Eusebius was detached from the rest of the
work and constituted an independent book. The omission of the title of
the larger work is doubtless due, as Schürer remarks, to the
imperfect transmission of the text of Eusebius’ catalogue. See
Schürer, p. 855. περὶ τῶν
δέκα
λογίων: De
Decalogo. Still extant, and given by Mangey, II. 180–209.
Jerome has the condensed title de tabernaculo et decalogo libri
quattuor, and this introduces the third division of the third
general group of works upon the Pentateuch (see note 11, above), and,
according to Schürer, should be joined directly to the
βίος
πολιτικός, or Life of Joseph, and not separated from it by the
insertion of the Life of Moses (as is done by Mangey), which
does not belong to this group (Schürer, p. 849 sqq.). τὰ περὶ τῶν
ἀναφερομένων
ἐν εἴδει
νόμων εἰς τὰ
συντείνοντα
κεφ€λαια τῶν
δέκα λόγων,
α'β'γ'δ': De specialibus
legibus. A part of the third division of the third general group of
works (see note 11, above). It is still extant in four books, each with
a special title, and each containing many subdivisions. They are given
by Mangey: first book, II. 210–269, in seven parts: de
circumcisione, de monarchia Liber I., de monarchia Liber II., de
præmiis sacerdotum, de victimis, de sacrificantibus, or de
victimis offerentibus, de mercede meretricis non accipienda in
sacrarium; second book, 270–298, incomplete in Mangey, but
entire in Tischendorf’s Philonea, p. 1–83; third
book, 299–334; fourth book, 335–374: made up like the first
of a number of tracts on special subjects. Philo, in this work,
attempts to bring all the Mosaic laws into a system under the ten
rubrics of the decalogue: for instance, under the first two
commandments, the laws in regard to priests and sacrifices; under the
fourth, the laws in regard to the Sabbath, &c. See Schürer, p.
850 sqq. περὶ τῶν εἰς
τὰς
ἱερουργίας
ζώων, καὶ
τίνα τὰ τῶν
θυσιῶν
εἴδη. This is really only
a portion of the first book of the work just mentioned, given in Mangey
under the title de victimis (II. 237–250). It is possible
that these various sections of books—or at least this
one—circulated separately, and that thus Eusebius took it for an
independent work. See Schürer, p. 851. περὶ τῶν
προκειμένων
ἐν τῷ νόμω
τοῖς μὲν
ἀγαθοῖς
ἄθλων, τοῖς
δὲ πονηροῖς
ἐπιτιμίων
καὶ ἀρῶν,
still extant and given by Mangey (incorrectly as two separate works)
under the titles περὶ ἄθλων
καὶ
ἐπιτιμίων, de præmiis et pœnis (II. 408–428),
and περὶ
ἀρῶν, de
execrationibus (II. 429–437). The writing forms a sort of
epilogue to the work upon the Mosaic legislation. Schürer, p.
854.
6. In addition to all these
there are extant also some single-volumed works of his; as for
instance, the work On Providence, τὸ περὶ
προνοίας, De providentia. This work is extant only in an Armenian
version, and is published with a Latin translation by Aucher, Vol. I.
p. 1–121 (see above, note 3), and in Latin by Ritter (Vol.
VIII.). Two Greek fragments, one of considerable extent, are preserved
by Eusebius in his Præparatio Evang. VII. 21, and VIII. 14.
In the Armenian the work consists of two books, but the first is of
doubtful genuineness, and Eusebius seems to have known only one, for
both quotations in the Præp. Evang. are from the present
second book, and the work is cited in the singular, as also in the
present passage, where τὸ is to be read instead
of τὰ, though some mss. have the latter. The
work (which is not found in Mangey’s ed.) is one of Philo’s
separate works which does not fall under any of the three groups upon
the Pentateuch. περὶ
᾽Ιουδαίων, which is doubtless to be identified with the ἡ ὑπὲρ
᾽Ιουδαίων
ἀπολογία, which is no longer extant, but which Eusebius mentions, and from
which he quotes in his Præp. Evang. VIII. 2. The fragment
given by Eusebius is printed by Mangey in Vol. II. p. 632–634,
and in Dähne’s opinion (Theol. Studien und Kritiken,
1883, p. 990) the two preceding fragments given by Mangey (p. 626 sqq.)
also belong to this Apology. The work entitled de
nobilitate (Mangey, II. 437–444) possibly formed a part of
the Apology. This is Dähne’s opinion (see
ibid. p. 990, 1037), with whom Schürer agrees. The
genuineness of the Apology is generally admitted, though it has
been disputed on insufficient grounds by Grätz (Gesch. der
Juden, III. p. 680, third ed.), who is followed by Hilgenfeld (in
the Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie, 1832, p. 275 sq. and
in his Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums, p. 87 sq.). This too,
like the preceding, was one of the separate works of Philo. See
Schürer, p. 861 sq. ὁ πολιτικός. Still extant, and given by Mangey (II. 41–79) under
the title βίος
πολιτικὸς
ὅπερ ἐστὶ
περὶ
᾽Ιωσήφ: De
Josepho. Photius, Bib. Cod. 103, gives the title
περὶ
βίου
πολιτικοῦ. This forms a part of the second division of the third
great group upon the Pentateuch (see above, note 11), and follows
directly the Life of Abraham, the Lives of Isaac and Jacob probably
having fallen out (compare note 15, above). The work is intended to
show how the wise man should conduct himself in affairs of state or
political life. See Schürer, p. 849. ὁ ᾽Αλέξανδρος
ἢ περὶ τοῦ
λόγου žχειν
τὰ ἄλογα
ζῶα, De Alexandro et quod
propriam rationem muta animalia habeant, as the title is given by
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 11). The work is extant only in
Armenian, and is given by Aucher, I. p. 123–172, and in Latin by
Ritter, Vol. VII. Two short Greek fragments are also found in the
Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes, according to Schürer.
This book is also one of the separate works of Philo, and belongs to
his later writings. See Schürer, p. 860 sqq. ὁ περὶ τοῦ
δοῦλον εἶναι
π€ντα φαῦλον,
ᾧ ἐξῆς ἐστιν
ὁ περὶ τοῦ
π€ντα
σπουδαῖον
ἐλεύθερον
εἶναι. These two
works formed originally the two halves of a single work, in which the
subject was treated from its two sides,—the slavery of the wicked
man and the freedom of the good man. The first half is lost; but the
second half is extant, and is given by Mangey (II. 445–470). A
long fragment of the extant second half is given also by Eusebius, in
his Præp. Evang. VIII. 12. The genuineness of the work has
been disputed by some, but is defended with success by Lucius, Der
Essenismus, p. 13–23, Strasburg, 1881 (Schürer, p.
85).
7. After these was composed by
him the work On the contemplative life, or On
suppliants, See the preceding chapter; and on the work, see note 2 on that
chapter. τῶν ἐν νόμῳ
δὲ και
προφήταις
᾽Εβραϊκῶν
ὀνομ€των αἱ
ἑρμηνεῖαι. The way in which Eusebius speaks of this work
(τοῦ
αὐτοῦ
σπουδαῖ
εἰναι
λέγονται) shows that it lay before him as an anonymous work, which,
however, was “said to be the result of Philo’s
industry.” Jerome, too, in speaking of the same work (at the
beginning of his own work, De nominibus Hebraicis), says that,
according to the testimony of Origen, it was the work of Philo. For
Jerome, too, therefore, it was an anonymous work. This testimony of
Origen cannot, according to Schürer, be found in his extant works,
but in his Comment. in Joann. II. 27 (ed. Lommatzsch, I. 50) he
speaks of a work upon the same subject, the author of which he does not
know. The book therefore in view of the existing state of the tradition
in regard to it, is usually thought to be the work of some other writer
than Philo. In its original form it is no longer extant (and in the
absence of this original it is impossible to decide the question of
authorship), though there exist a number of works upon the same subject
which are probably based upon this lost original. Jerome, e.g., informs
us that his Liber de Nominibus Hebraicis (Migne, III. 771) is a
revision of it. See Schürer, p. 865 sq.
8. And he is said to have read
in the presence of the whole Roman Senate during the reign of
Claudius “This report is very improbable, for a work full of hatred
to the Romans and of derogatory references to the emperor Caligula
could not have been read before the Roman Senate, especially when the
author was a Jew” (Closs). It is in fact quite unlikely that
Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (see above, chap. 17,
note 1). The report given here by Eusebius owes its origin perhaps to
the imagination of some man who supposed that Philo was in Rome during
the reign of Claudius (on the ground of the other tradition already
referred to), and whose fancy led him to picture Philo as obtaining at
that time his revenge upon the emperor Caligula in this dramatic way.
It was not difficult to imagine that this bitterly sarcastic and vivid
work might have been intended for public reading, and it was an
attractive suggestion that the Senate might have constituted the
audience. See
above, chap. 5, note 1.
9. At this time, while Paul was
completing his journey “from Jerusalem and round about unto
Illyricum,” See
Chapter XIX.—The Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of the Passover.
1. While Claudius was still emperor, it happened that so
great a tumult and disturbance took place in Jerusalem at the feast of
the Passover, that thirty thousand of those Jews alone who were
forcibly crowded together at the gate of the temple perished, This
disturbance (described by Jos. B. J. II. 12. 1, and Ant.
XX. 5. 3) took place in 48 a.d. while Cumanus
was procurator of Judea. During the Passover feast the procurator, as
was the custom, brought extra troops to Jerusalem to guard against any
uproar which might arise among the great mass of people. One of the
soldiers, with the view of insulting the Jews, conducted himself
indecently in their presence, whereupon so great an uproar arose that
the procurator felt obliged to collect his troops upon the temple hill,
but the appearance of the soldiers so greatly alarmed the multitude
assembled there that they fled in all directions and crushed each other
to death in their eagerness to escape. Josephus, in his Jewish
War, gives the number of the slain as ten thousand, and in the
Antiquities as twenty thousand. The latter work was written
last, but knowing Josephus’ fondness for exaggerating numbers, we
shall perhaps not accept the correction as any nearer the truth. That
Eusebius gives thirty thousand need not arouse suspicion as to his
honesty,—he could have had no object for changing
“twenty” to “thirty,” when the former was
certainly great enough,—we need simply remember how easily
numbers become altered in transcription. Valesius says that this
disturbance took place under Quadratus in 52 a.d. (quoting Pearson’s Ann. Paull. p. 11
sqq., and Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54). But Eusebius, in his
Chron., gives the eighth year of Claudius (48 a.d.), and Orosius, VII. 4, gives the seventh year. Jost
and Ewald agree with Eusebius in regard to the date. Eusebius simply sums up in the one sentence what fills half a page
in Josephus.
2. But Claudius appointed
Agrippa, Herod
Agrippa II., son of Herod Agrippa I. At the time of his father’s
death (44 a.d.) he was but seventeen years of
age, and his youth deterred Claudius from giving him the kingdom of his
father, which was therefore again converted into a Roman province, and
Fadus was sent as procurator. In 49 a.d.
Agrippa was given the kingdom of Chalcis which had belonged to his
uncle Herod (a brother of Agrippa I.), and in 53 a.d. he was transferred to the tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanias with the title of King. He was never king of the Jews in the
same sense in which his father was, as Judea remained a Roman province
throughout his reign, while his dominion comprised only the
northeastern part of Palestine. He enjoyed, however, the right of
appointing and removing the high priests, and under Nero his domain was
somewhat increased by the addition of several cities of Galilee, and
Perea. He sided with the Romans in the Jewish war, and afterwards went
to Rome, where he died in 100 a.d., the last
prince of the Herodian line. It was before this Agrippa that Paul made
his defense recorded in Felix, a freedman of Claudius, succeeded Cumanus as procurator of
Judea in 52 (or, according to Wieseler, 53) a.d. The territory over which he ruled included Samaria
and the greater part of Galilee and Perea, to which Judea was added by
Nero, according to Josephus, B. J. II. 13. 2. Ewald, in the
attempt to reconcile Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54, and Josephus,
Ant. XX. 5. 2–7. 1,—the former of whom makes Cumanus
and Felix contemporary procurators, each over a part of the province,
while the latter makes Felix the successor of Cumanus,—concludes
that Felix was sent to Judea as the assistant of Cumanus, and became
procurator upon the banishment of the latter. This is not impossible,
though we have no testimony to support it. Compare Wieseler, p. 67,
note. Between 59 and 61 (according to Wieseler, in 60; see chap. 22,
note 1, below) he was succeeded by Porcius Festus. For the relations of
these two procurators to the apostle Paul, see Eusebius evidently supposed the Roman province at this time to
have been limited to Samaria, Galilee, and Perea; but in this he was
wrong, for it included also Judea (see preceding note), Agrippa II.
having under him only the tetrarchies mentioned above (note 3) and a
few cities of Galilee and Perea. He had, however, the authority over
the temple and the power of appointing the high priests (see Jos.
Ant. XX. 8. 11 and 9. 1, 4, 6, 7), which had been given by
Claudius to his uncle, the king of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. XX. 1.
3). Claudius ruled from Jan. 24, 41 a.d., to
Oct. 13, 54.
Chapter XX.—The Events which took Place in Jerusalem during the Reign of Nero.
1. Josephus again, in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, relates the quarrel which arose among the priests during the reign of Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea.
2. His words are as follows Jos.
Ant. XX. 8. 8. Felix showed himself throughout very mean and
cruel, and his procuratorship was marked with continual
disturbances. This
disturbance arose toward the end of Felix’s term, under the high
priest Ishmael, who had been appointed by Agrippa but a short time
before. No cause is given by Josephus for the quarrel.
3. And so great was the shamelessness and audacity of the high priests that they dared to send their servants to the threshing-floors to seize the tithes due to the priests; and thus those of the priests that were poor were seen to be perishing of want. In this way did the violence of the factions prevail over all justice.”
4. And the same author again
relates that about the same time there sprang up in Jerusalem a certain
kind of robbers, B. J.II. 13. 3. These open robberies
and murders, which took place in Jerusalem at this period, were in part
a result of the conduct of Felix himself in the murder of Jonathan (see
the next note). At least his conduct in this case started the practice,
which was kept up with zeal by the ruffians who were so numerous at
that time.
5. For, especially at the
feasts, they mingled with the multitude, and with short swords, which
they concealed under their garments, they stabbed the most
distinguished men. And when they fell, the murderers themselves were
among those who expressed their indignation. And thus on account of the
con
6. The first that was slain by
them was Jonathan the high priest; This high priest, Jonathan, had used his influence in procuring
the appointment of Felix as procurator, and was therefore upon intimate
terms with him, and took the liberty of advising and rebuking him at
pleasure; until at last he became so burdensome to Felix that he bribed
a trusted friend of Jonathan to bring about his murder. The friend
accomplished it by introducing a number of robbers into the city, who,
being unknown, mingled freely with the people and slew Jonathan and
many others with him, in order to turn away suspicion as to the object
of the crime. See Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 5. Josephus has omitted to
mention Jonathan’s appointment to the high priesthood, and this
has led Valesius to conclude that he was not really a high priest, but
simply one of the upper class of priests. But this conclusion is
unwarranted, as Josephus expressly calls him the high priest in the
passage referred to (cf. also the remarks of Reland, quoted in
Havercamp’s ed. of Josephus, p. 912). Wieseler (p. 77, note)
thinks that Jonathan was not high priest at this time, but that he had
been high priest and was called so on that account. He makes Ananias
high priest from 48 to 57, quoting Anger, De temporum in Act. Ap.
ratione.
Chapter XXI.—The Egyptian, who is mentioned also in the Acts of the Apostles.
1. After other matters he proceeds as follows: Jos.
B. J. II. 13. 5. An
Egyptian Jew; one of the numerous magicians and false prophets that
arose during this century. He prophesied that Jerusalem, which had made
itself a heathen city, would be destroyed by God, who would throw down
the walls as he had the walls of Jericho, and then he and his
followers, as the true Israel and the army of God, would gain the
victory over the oppressors and rule the world. For this purpose he
collected his followers upon the Mount of Olives, from whence they were
to witness the falling of the walls and begin their attack.
2. But Felix anticipated his attack, and went out to meet him with the Roman legionaries, and all the people joined in the defense, so that when the battle was fought the Egyptian fled with a few followers, but the most of them were destroyed or taken captive.”
3. Josephus relates these events
in the second book of his History. Josephus gives two different accounts of this event. In the B.
J. he says that this Egyptian led thirty thousand men out of the
desert to the Mount of Olives, but that Felix attacked them, and the
Egyptian “escaped with a few,” while most of his followers
were either destroyed or captured. In Ant. XX. 8. 6, which was
written later, he states that the Egyptian led a multitude “out
from Jerusalem” to the Mount of Olives, and that when they were
attacked by Felix, four hundred were slain and two hundred taken
captive. There seems to be here a glaring contradiction, but we are
able to reconcile the two accounts by supposing the Egyptian to have
brought a large following of robbers from the desert, which was
augmented by a great rabble from Jerusalem, until the number reached
thirty thousand, and that when attacked the rabble dispersed, but that
Felix slew or took captive the six hundred robbers, against whom his
attack had been directed, while the Egyptian escaped with a small
number (i.e. small in comparison with the thirty thousand), who may
well have been the four thousand mentioned by the author of the Acts in
the passage quoted below by Eusebius. It is no more difficult therefore
to reconcile the Acts and Josephus in this case than to reconcile
Josephus with himself, and we have no reason to assume a mistake upon
the part of either one, though as already remarked, numbers are so
treacherous in transcription that the difference may really have been
originally less than it is. Whenever the main elements of two accounts
are in substantial agreement, little stress can be laid upon a
difference in figures. Cf. Tholuck, Glaubwürdigkeit, p. 169
(quoted by Hackett, Com. on Acts, p. 254). Valesius and Heinichen assert that Eusebius is incorrect in
assigning this uproar, caused by the Egyptian, to the reign of Nero, as
he seems to do. But their assertion is quite groundless, for Josephus
in both of his accounts relates the uproar among events which he
expressly assigns to Nero’s reign, and there is no reason to
suppose that the order of events given by him is incorrect. Valesius
and Heinichen proceed on the erroneous assumption that Festus succeeded
Felix in the second year of Nero, and that therefore, since Paul was
two years in Cæsarea before the recall of Felix, the uprising of
the Egyptian, which was referred to at the time of Paul’s arrest
and just before he was carried to Cæsarea, must have taken place
before the end of the reign of Claudius. But it happens to be a fact
that Felix was succeeded by Festus at the earliest not before the sixth
year of Nero (see chap. 22, note 2, below). There is, therefore, no
ground for accusing either Josephus or Eusebius of a blunder in the
present case.
Chapter XXII.—Paul having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, made his Defense, and was acquitted of every Charge.
1. Festus The
exact year of the accession of Festus is not known, but it is known
that his death occurred before the summer of 62 a.d.; for at that time his successor, Albinus, was already
procurator, as we can see from Josephus, B. J. VI. 5. 3. But
from the events recorded by Josephus as happening during his term of
office, we know he must have been procurator at least a year; his
accession, therefore, took place certainly as early as 61 a.d., and probably at least a year earlier, i.e. in 60
a.d., the date fixed by Wieseler. The widest
possible margin for his accession is from 59–61. Upon this whole
question, see Wieseler, p. 66 sqq. Festus died while in office. He
seems to have been a just and capable governor,—in this quite a
contrast to his predecessor. See
below, Bk. III. chap. 4. See
2. Thus after he had made his
defense it is said that the apostle was sent again upon the ministry of
preaching, Eusebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a
first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He
introduces the statement with the formula λόγος
žχει, which indicates
probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority, and his
efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show how weak the
tradition was. Many maintain that Eusebius follows no tradition here,
but records simply his own conclusion formed from a study of the
Pastoral Epistles, which apparently necessitate a second imprisonment.
But were this the case, he would hardly have used the formula
λόγος
žχει. The report may have
arisen solely upon exegetical grounds, but it can hardly have
originated with Eusebius himself. In accordance with this tradition,
Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the date of Paul’s death as
67 a.d. Jerome (de vir. ill. 5) and
other later writers follow Eusebius (though Jerome gives the date as 68
instead of 67), and the tradition soon became firmly established (see
below, chap. 25, note 5). Scholars are greatly divided as to the fact
of a second imprisonment. Nearly all that defend the genuineness of the
Pastoral Epistles assume a second imprisonment, though some (e.g.
Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and others) defend the epistles while assuming
only one imprisonment; but this is very difficult. On the other hand,
most opponents of the epistles (e.g. the Tübingen critics and the
majority of the new critical school) deny the second imprisonment. As
to the place where Paul spent the interval—supposing him to have
been released—there is again a difference of opinion. The
Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be genuine, seem to necessitate
another visit to the Orient. But for such a visit there is no ancient
tradition, although Paul himself, in the Epistle to the Philippians,
expresses his expectation of making such a visit. On the other hand,
there is an old tradition that he visited Spain (which must of course
have been during this interval, as he did not reach it before the first
imprisonment). The Muratorian Fragment (from the end of the second
century) records this tradition in a way to imply that it was
universally known. Clement of Rome (Epistle to the Corinthians,
c. 5.) is also claimed as a witness for such a visit, but the
interpretation of his words is doubtful, so that little weight can be
laid upon his statement. In later times the tradition of this visit to
Spain dropped out of the Church. The strongest argument against the
visit is the absence of any trace of it in Spain itself. If any church
there could have claimed the great apostle to the Gentiles as its
founder, it seems that it must have asserted its claim and the
tradition have been preserved at least in that church. This appears to
the writer a fatal argument against a journey to Spain. On the other
hand, the absence of all tradition of another journey to the Orient
does not militate against such a visit, for tradition at any place
might easily preserve the fact of a visit of the apostle, without
preserving an accurate account of the number of his visits if more than
one were made. Of the defenders of the Pastoral Epistles, that accept a
second imprisonment, some assume simply a journey to the Orient, others
assume also the journey to Spain. Between the spring of 63 a.d., the time when he was probably released, if released,
and the date of his death (at the earliest the summer of 64), there is
time enough, but barely so, for both journeys. If the date of
Paul’s death be put later with Eusebius and Jerome (as many
modern critics put it), the time is of course quite sufficient. Compare
the various Lives of Paul, Commentaries, etc., and especially, among
recent works, Schaff’s Church Hist. I. p. 231 sqq.;
Weiss’ Einleitung in das N. T. p. 283 sqq.;
Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 295 sqq.; and
Weizsäcker’s Apostolisches Zeitalter, p. 453
sqq. See
below, chap. 25, note 6. Eusebius looked upon the Pastoral Epistles as undoubtedly genuine,
and placed them among the Homologumena, or undisputed writings
(compare Bk. III. chaps. 3 and 25). The external testimony for them is
very strong, but their genuineness has, during the present century,
been quite widely denied upon internal grounds. The advanced critical
scholars of Germany treat their non-Pauline authorship as completely
established, and many otherwise conservative scholars follow their
lead. It is impossible here to give the various arguments for or
against their genuineness; we may refer the reader particularly to
Holtzmann’s Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch
behandelt (1880), and to his Einleitung (1886), for the most
complete presentation of the case against the genuineness; and to
Weiss’ Einleitung in das N. T. (1886), p. 286 sqq., and to
his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, in the fifth edition of the
Meyer Series, for a defense of their genuineness, and also to
Woodruff’s article in the Andover Review, October, 1886,
for a brief and somewhat popular discussion of the subject. The second
epistle must have been written latest of all Paul’s epistles,
just before his death,—at the termination of his second
captivity, or of his first, if his second be denied.
3. But hear his testimony on
these matters: “At my first answer,” he says, “no man
stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be
laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and
strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and
that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth
of the lion.”
4. He plainly indicates in these words that on the former occasion, in order that the preaching might be fulfilled by him, he was rescued from the mouth of the lion, referring, in this expression, to Nero, as is probable on account of the latter’s cruelty. He did not therefore afterward add the similar statement, “He will rescue me from the mouth of the lion”; for he saw in the spirit that his end would not be long delayed.
5. Wherefore he adds to the
words, “And he delivered me from the mouth of the lion,”
this sentence: “The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work,
and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom,”
6. In his second epistle to
Timothy, moreover, he indicates that Luke was with him when he wrote, See See This is a very commonly accepted opinion among conservative
commentators, who thus explain the lack of mention of the persecution
of Nero and of the death of Paul. On the other hand, some who accept
Luke’s authorship of the Acts, put the composition into the
latter part of the century and explain the omission of the persecution
and the death of Paul from the object of the work, e.g. Weiss, who
dates the Gospel of Luke between 70 and 80, and thus brings the Acts
down to a still later date (see his Einleitung, p. 585 sqq.). It
is now becoming quite generally admitted that Luke’s Gospel was
written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and if this be so, the Acts
must have been written still later. There is in fact no reason for
supposing the book to have been written at the point of time at which
its account of Paul ceases. The design of the book (its text is found
in the eighth verse of the first chapter) was to give an account of the
progress of the Church from Jerusalem to Rome, not to write the life of
Paul. The record of Paul’s death at the close of the book would
have been quite out of harmony with this design, and would have formed
a decided anti-climax, as the author was wise enough to understand. He
was writing, not a life of Paul, nor of any apostle or group of
apostles, but a history of the planting of the Church of Christ. The
advanced critics, who deny that the Acts were written by a pupil of
Paul, of course put its composition much later,—some into the
time of Domitian, most into the second century. But even such critics
admit the genuineness of certain portions of the book (the celebrated
“We” passages), and the old Tübingen theory of
intentional misrepresentation on the part of the author is finding less
favor even among the most radical critics.
7. But these things have been
adduced by us to show that Paul’s martyrdom did not take place at
the time of that Roman sojourn which Luke
8. It is probable indeed that as
Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning, Paul’s
defense of his doctrine was more easily received; but that when he had
advanced to the commission of lawless deeds of daring, he made the
apostles as well as others the subjects of his attacks. Whether Eusebius’ conclusion be correct or not, it is a fact
that Nero became much more cruel and tyrannical in the latter part of
his reign. The famous “first five years,” however
exaggerated the reports about them, must at least have been of a very
different character from the remainder of his reign. But those five
years of clemency and justice were past before Paul reached
Rome.
Chapter XXIII.—The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord.
1. But
after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Cæsar, had been sent
to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of
entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned
against James, the brother of the Lord, See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14. See
above, chap. 1, note 11.
2. Leading him into their midst
they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the
presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a
clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he
spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and
Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the
testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic
virtue φιλοσοφίας. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9. See the preceding chapter, note 1, and below, note 40.
3. The manner of James’
death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement,
who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was
beaten to death with a club. See chap. 1, above. On
Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22. As the
Memoirs of Hegesippus consisted of but five books, this account of
James occurred in the last book, and this shows how entirely lacking
the work was in all chronological arrangement (cf. Book IV. chap. 22).
This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 208 sqq., with
a valuable discussion on p. 228 sqq.
4. “James, the brother of
the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with
the apostles. μετὰ τῶν
ἀποστόλων, “with the apostles”; as Rufinus rightly
translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads
post apostolos, “after the apostles,” as if the
Greek were μετὰ
τοὺς
ἀποστόλους. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a
leader of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we
see from See
chap. 1, note 6.
5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.
6. He alone was permitted to
enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.
And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was
frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so
that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his
constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness
for the people. “The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an overdrawn
picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing
traits which may have been derived from the Ascents of James,
and other Apocryphal sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest and
Nazarite saint (cf. his advice to Paul,
7. Because of his exceeding
great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, ᾽Ωβλίας: probably a corruption of the Heb. אֹפֶל עַם, which
signifies “bulwark of the people.” The same name is given
to James by Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others. See
Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, s.v. περιοχὴ τοῦ
λαοῦ καὶ
δικαιοσύνη To
what Hegesippus refers I do not know, as there is no passage in the
prophets which can be interpreted in this way. He may have been
thinking of the passage from Isaiah quoted in §15, below, but the
reference is certainly very much strained.
8. Now some of the seven sects,
which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in
the Memoirs, See
Bk. IV. chap. 22. For a discussion of this very difficult question, whose
interpretation has puzzled all commentators, see Routh Rel. Sac.
I. p. 434 sq., and Heinichen’s Mel. IV., in his edition of
Eusebius, Vol. III., p. 654 sqq. The explanation given by Grabe (in his
Spic. PP. p. 254), seems to me the best. According to him, the
Jews wish to ascertain James’ opinion in regard to Christ,
whether he considers him a true guide or an impostor, and therefore
they ask, “What (of what sort) is the gate (or the way) of
Christ? Is it a gate which opens into life (or a way which leads to
life); or is it a gate which opens upon death (or a way which leads to
death)?” Cf.
9. On account of these words
some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above
did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to
give to every man according to his works. Rufinus translates non crediderunt neque surrexisse eum,
&c., and he is followed by Fabricius (Cod. Apoc. N. T. II.
p. 603). This rendering suits the context excellently, and seems to be
the only rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence.
And yet, as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus, as
both ἀν€στασιν
and ἐρχόμενον are left entirely indefinite. The Greek runs, οὐκ
ἐπίστευον
ἀν€στασιν,
οὐτε
ἐρχόμενον
ἀποδοῦναι,
κ.τ.λ. Cf. the notes of Valesius
and of Heinichen on this passage. Of these seven sects, so far as we
know, only one, the Sadducees, disbelieved in the resurrection from the
dead. If Hegesippus’ words, therefore, be understood of a general
resurrection, he is certainly in error.
10. Therefore when many even of
the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes
and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people
would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to
James they said, ‘We entreat thee, restrain the people; for they
are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. This
sentence sufficiently reveals the legendary character of
Hegesippus’ account. James’ position as a Christian must
have been well enough known to prevent such a request being made to him
in good faith (and there is no sign that it was made in any other
spirit); and at any rate, after his reply to them already recorded,
such a repetition of the question in public is absurd. Fabricius, who
does not think the account is true, says that, if it is, the Jews seem
to have asked him a second time, thinking that they could either
flatter or frighten him into denying Christ. Cf.
11. Do thou therefore persuade
the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole
people, and all of us also, have confidence in thee. Stand therefore
upon the pinnacle of the temple, ἐπὶ
τὸ πτερύνιον
τοῦ ναοῦ.
Some mss. read τοῦ ἱεροῦ, and in the preceding paragraph that phrase occurs, which
is identical with the phrase used in
12. The aforesaid Scribes and
Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and
cried out to him and said: ‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all
to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus,
the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’ Some
mss., with Rufinus and the editions of
Valesius and Heinichen, add σταυρωθέντος, “who was crucified,” and Stroth, Closs, and
Crusé follow this reading in their translations. But many of the
best mss. omit the words, as do also
Nicephorus, Burton, Routh, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Stigloher, and I
prefer to follow their example, as the words seem to be an addition
from the previous line.
13. And he answered with a loud
voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He
himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is
about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’ Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64 and
14. And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.’
15. And they cried out, saying,
‘Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.’ And they fulfilled
the Scripture written in Isaiah, ἄρωμεν. The LXX,
as we have it to-day, reads δήσωμεν, but Justin Martyr’s Dial., chap. 136, reads
ἄρωμεν (though in
chaps. 17 and 133 it reads δήσωμεν). Tertullian also in his Adv. Marc. Bk. III. chap. 22,
shows that he read ἄρωμεν, for he
translates auferamus.
16. So they went up and threw
down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James
the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by
the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, ‘I entreat thee,
Lord God our Father, Κύριε θεὲ
π€τερ.
17. And while they were thus
stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the
Rechabites, ῾Ραχαβείμ, which is simply the reproduction in Greek letters of the
Hebrew plural, and is equivalent to “the Rechabites.” But
Hegesippus uses it without any article as if it were the name of an
individual, just as he uses the name ῾Ρηχ€β which
immediately precedes. The Rechabites were a tribe who took their origin
from Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, who appears from See In
Epiphanius, Hær. LXXVIII. 14, these words are put into the
mouth of Simeon, the son of Clopas; from which some have concluded that
Simeon had joined the order of the Rechabites; but there is no ground
for such an assumption. The Simeon of Epiphanius and the Rechabite of
Hegesippus are not necessarily identical. They represent simply
varieties of the original account, and Epiphanius’, as the more
exact, was undoubtedly the later tradition, and an intentional
improvement upon the vagueness of the original.
Clement (in chap. 5, §4, above), who undoubtedly used the
account of Hegesippus as his source, describes the death of James as
taking place in the same way, but omits the stoning which preceded.
Josephus, on the other hand (quoted below), mentions only the stoning.
But Hegesippus’ account, which is the fullest that we have gives
us the means of reconciling the briefer accounts of Clement and of
Josephus, and we have no reason to think either account
incorrect. Valesius remarks that the monument (στήλη) could not
have stood through the destruction of Jerusalem until the time of
Hegesippus, nor could James have been buried near the temple, as the
Jews always buried their dead without the city walls. Tillemont
attempted to meet the difficulty by supposing that James was thrown
from a pinnacle of the temple overlooking the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
and therefore fell without the walls, where he was stoned and buried,
and where his monument could remain undisturbed. Tillemont however,
afterward withdrew his explanation, which was beset with difficulties.
Others have supposed that the monument mentioned by Hegesippus was
erected after the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Jerome, de vir.
ill. 2), while his body was buried in another place. This is quite
possible, as Hegesippus must have seen some monument of James which was
reported to have been the original one but which must certainly have
been of later date. A monument, which is now commonly known as the tomb
of St. James, is shown upon the east side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
and therefore at a considerable distance from the temple. See Routh,
Rel. Sac. I. p. 246 sqq. See
below, note 40.
19. These things are related at
length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. See
above, chap. I. §4. His agreement with Clement is not very
surprising, inasmuch as the latter probably drew his knowledge from the
account of the former.
20. Josephus, at least, has not
hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, This
passage is not found in our existing mss. of
Josephus, but is given by Origen (Contra Celsum, I. 47), which
shows at any rate that Eusebius did not invent the words. It is
probable therefore, that the copies of Josephus used by Origen and
Eusebius contained this interpolation, while the copies from which our
existing mss. drew were without it. It is of
course possible, especially since he does not mention the reference in
Josephus, that Eusebius quoted these words from Origen. But this does
not help matters any, as it still remains as difficult to account for
the occurrence of the words in Origen, and even if Eusebius did take
the passage from Origen instead of from Josephus himself, we still have
no right with Jachmann (ib. p. 40) to accuse him of wilful
deception. For with his great confidence in Origen, and his unbounded
admiration for him, and with his naturally uncritical spirit, he would
readily accept as true in all good faith a quotation given by Origen
and purporting to be taken from Josephus, even though he could not find
it in his own copy of the latter’s works.
21. And the same writer records
his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the
following words: Ant.XX. 9. 1. Albinus succeeded Festus in 61 or 62 a.d.
He was a very corrupt governor and was in turn succeeded by Gessius
Florus in 64 a.d. See Wieseler, Chron. d.
Ap. Zeitalters, p. 89. Ananus
was the fifth son of the high priest Annas mentioned in the N.T. His
father and his four brothers had been high priests before him, as
Josephus tells us in this same paragraph. He was appointed high priest
by Agrippa II. in 61 or 62 a.d., and held the
office but three months. Ananus’ accession is recorded by Josephus in a sentence
immediately preceding, which Eusebius, who abridges Josephus’
account somewhat, has omitted in this quotation. I can
find no previous mention in Josephus of the hardness of the Sadducees;
but see Reland’s note upon this passage in Josephus. It may be
that we have lost a part of the account of the Sadducees and
Pharisees.
22. Ananus, therefore, being of
this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on
account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the
way, called together the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother
of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some
others, καὶ
παραγαγὼν
εἰς αὐτὸ [τὸν
ἀδελφὸν
᾽Ιησοῦ τοῦ
χριστοῦ
λεγομένου,
᾽Ι€κωβος
ὄνομα αὐτῷ,
καί] τινας
[ἑτέρους],
κ.τ.λ. Some critics regard the
bracketed words as spurious, but Neander, Gesch. der Pflanzung und
Leitung der Christlichen Kirche, 5th ed., p. 445, note, contends
for their genuineness, and this is now the common opinion of critics.
It is in fact very difficult to suppose that a Christian in
interpolating the passage, would have referred to James as the brother
of the “so-called Christ.” On the other hand, as the
words stand there is no good reason to doubt their
genuineness. The
date of the martyrdom of James, given here by Josephus, is 61 or 62
a.d. (at the time of the Passover, according
to Hegesippus, §10, above). There is no reason for doubting this
date which is given with such exactness by Josephus, and it is further
confirmed by Eusebius in his Chron., who puts James’s
martyrdom in the seventh year of Nero, i.e. 61 a.d., while Jerome puts it in the eighth year of Nero. The
Clementines and the Chronicon Paschale, which state that James
survived Peter, and are therefore cited in support of a later date, are
too late to be of any weight over against such an exact statement as
that of Josephus, especially since Peter and James died at such a
distance from one another. Hegesippus has been cited over and over
again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 a.d., and as thus being in direct conflict with
Josephus; as a consequence some follow his supposed date, others that
of Josephus. But I can find no reason for asserting that Hegesippus
assigns the martyrdom to 69. Certainly his words in this chapter, which
are referred to, by no means necessitate such an assumption. He
concludes his account with the words καὶ εὐθὺς
Οὐεσπασιανὸς
πολιορκεῖ
αὐτούς.
The πολιορκεῖ
αὐτούς is
certainly to be referred to the commencement of the war (not to the
siege of the city of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Titus, not by
Vespasian), i.e. to the year 67 a.d., and in
such an account as this, in which the overthrow of the Jews is
designedly presented in connection with the death of James, it is
hyper-criticism to insist that the word εὐθύς must
indicate a space of time of only a few months’ duration. It is a
very indefinite word, and the most we can draw from Hegesippus’
account is that not long before Vespasian’s invasion of Judea,
James was slain. The same may be said in regard to Eusebius’
report in Bk. III. chap. 11, §1, which certainly is not definite
enough to be cited as a contradiction of his express statement in his
Chronicle. But however it may be with this report and that of
Hegesippus, the date given by Josephus is undoubtedly to be accepted as
correct.
23. But those in the city who
seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this,
and sent secretly to the king, Agrippa II. ὡς οὐκ ἐξὸν
ἦν ᾽Αν€νῳ
χωρὶς τῆς
αὐτοῦ γνώμης
καθίσαι
συνέδριον. Jost reads ἐκείνου (referring to Agrippa) instead of αὐτοῦ (referring to Albinus), and consequently draws the conclusion that
the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of Agrippa, and
that therefore Ananus had acted contrary to the rights of Agrippa, but
not contrary to the rights of Albinus. But the reading αὐτοῦ is supported by overwhelming ms.
authority and must be regarded as undoubtedly correct. Jost’s
conclusion, therefore, which his acceptance of the ἐκείνου forced upon him, is quite incorrect. The passage appears to imply
that the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of the
procurator, and it has been so interpreted; but as Schürer points
out (Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, p. 169 sq.)
this conclusion is incorrect and all that the passage implies is that
the Sanhedrim could not hold a sovereign process, that is, could not
meet for the purpose of passing sentence of death and executing the
sentence, during the absence or without the consent of the procurator.
For the transaction of ordinary business the consent of the procurator
was not necessary. Compare the Commentaries on
24. And Albinus, being
Agrippa, as remarked above, chap. 19, note 4 exercised government
over the temple, and enjoyed the power of appointing and removing the
high priests. Of
Jesus, the son of Damnæus, nothing further is known. He was
succeeded, while Albinus was still procurator, by Jesus, the son of
Gamaliel (Ant. XX. 9. 4).
25. These things are recorded in
regard to James, who is said to be the author of the first of the
so-called catholic This term was applied to all or a part of these seven epistles by
the Alexandrian Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, and since the time of
Eusebius has been the common designation. The word is used in the sense
of “general,” to denote that the epistles are encyclical
letters addressed to no particular persons or congregations, though
this is not true of II. and III. John, which, however, are classed with
the others on account of their supposed Johannine authorship, and
consequent close connection with his first epistle. The word was not
first used, as some have held, in the sense of “canonical,”
to denote the catholic or general acceptance of the epistle,—a
meaning which Eusebius contradicts in this very passage, and which the
history of the epistles themselves (five of the seven being among the
antilegomena) sufficiently refutes. See Holtzmann’s
Einleitung, p. 472 sqq., and Weiss, ibid. p. 89
sqq. νοθεύεται. It is common to translate the word νόθος,
“spurious” (and the kindred verb, “to be
spurious”); but it is plain enough from this passage, as also
from others that Eusebius did not employ the word in that sense. He
commonly used it in fact, in a loose way, to mean
“disputed,” in the same sense in which he often employed
the word ἀντιλεγόμενος. Lücke, indeed, maintained that Eusebius always used
the words νόθος and
ἀντιλεγόμενος
as synonymous; but in Bk. III. chap. 25, as pointed
out in note 1 on that chapter, he employed the words as respective
designations of two distinct classes of books. The Epistle of James is
classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the antilegomena. The
ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very few. It was used by
no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the second century.
Irenæus seems to have known the epistle (his works exhibit some
apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly cites it. The
Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and
Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his
extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon
“Jude and the other catholic epistles.” It is quoted
frequently by Origen, who first connects it with the “Brother of
the Lord,” but does not express himself with decision as to its
authenticity. From his time on it was commonly accepted as the work of
“James, the Lord’s brother.” Eusebius throws it among
the antilegomena; not necessarily because he considered it unauthentic,
but because the early testimonies for it are too few to raise it to the
dignity of one of the homologoumena (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1).
Luther rejected the epistle upon purely dogmatic grounds. The advanced
critical school are unanimous in considering it a post-apostolic work,
and many conservative scholars agree with them. See Holtzmann’s
Einleitung, p. 475 sqq. and Weiss’ Einleitung, p.
396 sqq. The latter defends its authenticity (i.e. the authorship of
James, the brother of the Lord), and, in agreement with many other
scholars of conservative tendencies, throws its origin back into the
early part of the fifties. The
authenticity of the Epistle of Jude (also classed among the
antilegomena by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 25) is about as well
supported as that of the Epistle of James. The Peshito does not contain
it, and the Syrian Church in general rejected it for a number of
centuries. The Muratorian Fragment accepts it, and Tertullian evidently
considered it a work of Jude, the apostle (see De Cultu Fem. I.
3). The first to quote from it is Clement of Alexandria who wrote a
commentary upon it in connection with the other catholic epistles
according to Eusebius, VI. 14. 1. Origen looked upon it much as he
looked upon the Epistle of James, but did not make the “Jude, the
brother of James,” one of the twelve apostles. Eusebius treats it
as he does James, and Luther, followed by many modern conservative
scholars (among them Neander), rejects it. Its defenders commonly
ascribe it to Jude, the brother of the Lord, in distinction from Jude
the apostle, and put its composition before the destruction of
Jerusalem. The advanced critical school unanimously deny its
authenticity, and most of them throw its composition into the second
century, although some put it back into the latter part of the first.
See Holtzmann, p. 501. On
the Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, notes 1 and 2. On the
Epistles of John, see ibid. chap. 44, notes 18 and
19. ἐν
πλείσταις
ἐκκλησίαις
Chapter XXIV.—Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria after Mark.
1. When
Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, 62
a.d. With this agrees Jerome’s version
of the Chron., while the Armenian version gives the seventh year
of Nero. Annianus, according to Bk. III. chap. 14, below, held his office
twenty-two years. In Apost. Const. VII. 46 he is said to have
been ordained by Mark as the first bishop of Alexandria. The Chron.
Orient. 89 (according to Westcott in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog.) reports that he was appointed by Mark after he had performed
a miracle upon him. He is commemorated in the Roman martyrology with
St. Mark, on April 25. Upon
Mark’s connection with Egypt, see above, chap. 16, note
1.
Chapter XXV.—The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion.
1. When the government of Nero was now firmly established, he began to plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against the religion of the God of the universe.
2. To describe the greatness of
his depravity does not lie within the plan of the present work. As
there are many indeed that have recorded his history in most accurate
narratives, Tacitus (Ann. XIII.–XVI.), Suetonius (Nero),
and Dion Cassius (LXI.–LXIII.). Nero’s mother, Agrippina the younger, daughter of Germanicus
and of Agrippina the elder, was assassinated at Nero’s command in
60 a.d. in her villa on Lake Lucrine, after an
unsuccessful attempt to drown her in a boat so constructed as to break
to pieces while she was sailing in it on the lake. His younger brother
Britannicus was poisoned by his order at a banquet in 55 a.d. His first wife Octavia was divorced in order that he
might marry Poppæa, the wife of his friend Otho, and was afterward
put to death. Poppæa herself died from the effects of a kick given
her by Nero while she was with child.
3. But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine religion.
4. The Roman Tertullian is
likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: Tertullian, Apol. V. We
learn from Tacitus, Ann. XV. 39, that Nero was suspected to be
the author of the great Roman conflagration, which took place in 64
a.d. (Pliny, H. N. XVII. I, Suetonius,
38, and Dion Cassius, LXII. 18, state directly that he was the author
of it), and that to avert this suspicion from himself he accused the
Christians of the deed, and the terrible Neronian persecution which
Tacitus describes so fully was the result. Gibbon, and in recent times
especially Schiller (Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit unter
der Regierung des Nero, p. 584 sqq.), have maintained that Tacitus
was mistaken in calling this a persecution of Christians, which was
rather a persecution of the Jews as a whole. But we have no reason for
impeaching Tacitus’ accuracy in this case, especially since we
remember that the Jews enjoyed favor with Nero through his wife
Poppæa. What is very significant, Josephus is entirely silent in
regard to a persecution of his countrymen under Nero. We may assume as
probable (with Ewald and Renan) that it was through the suggestion of
the Jews that Nero’s attention was drawn to the Christians, and
he was led to throw the guilt upon them, as a people whose habits would
best give countenance to such a suspicion, and most easily excite the
rage of the populace against them. This was not a persecution of the
Christians in the strict sense, that is, it was not aimed against their
religion as such; and yet it assumed such proportions and was attended
with such horrors that it always lived in the memory of the Church as
the first and one of the most awful of a long line of persecutions
instituted against them by imperial Rome, and it revealed to them the
essential conflict which existed between Rome as it then was and
Christianity. The
Greek translator of Tertullian’s Apology, whoever he may
have been (certainly not Eusebius himself; see chap. 2, note 9, above),
being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, has made very bad
work of this sentence, and has utterly destroyed the sense of the
original, which runs as follows: illic reperietis primum Neronem in
hanc sectam cum maxime Romæ orientem Cæsariano gladio
ferocisse (“There you will find that Nero was the first to
assail with the imperial sword the Christian sect, which was then
especially flourishing in Rome”). The Greek translation
reads: ἐκεῖ
εὑρήσετε
πρῶτον
Νερῶνα τοῦτο
τὸ δόγμα,
ἡνίκα
μ€λιστα ἐν
῾Ρώμῃ τὴν
ἀνατολὴν
πᾶσαν
ὑποτ€ξας
ὠμὸς ἦν εἰς
π€ντας,
διώξοντα, in the rendering of which I have followed Crusè, who has
reproduced the idea of the Greek translator with as much fidelity as
the sentence will allow. The German translators, Stroth and Closs,
render the sentence directly from the original Latin, and thus preserve
the meaning of Tertullian, which is, of course, what the Greek
translator intended to reproduce. I have not, however, felt at liberty
in the present case to follow their example.
5. Thus publicly announcing
himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he was led on to
the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was
beheaded in Rome itself, This
tradition, that Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, is early and
universal, and disputed by no counter-tradition and may be accepted as
the one certain historical fact known about Paul outside of the New
Testament accounts. Clement (Ad. Cor. chap. 5) is the first to
mention the death of Paul, and seems to imply, though he does not
directly state, that his death took place in Rome during the
persecution of Nero. Caius (quoted below, §7), a writer of the
first quarter of the third century, is another witness to his death in
Rome, as is also Dionysius of Corinth (quoted below, §8) of the
second century. Origen (quoted by Euseb. III. 1) states that he was
martyred in Rome under Nero. Tertullian (at the end of the second
century), in his De præscriptione Hær. chap. 36, is
still more distinct, recording that Paul was beheaded in Rome. Eusebius
and Jerome accept this tradition unhesitatingly, and we may do
likewise. As a Roman citizen, we should expect him to meet death by the
sword. The
tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old and as
universal as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great amount of
falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition by the end of
the second century the whole has been rejected as untrue by some modern
critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter was ever at Rome. (See
especially Lipsius’ Die Quellen der römischen
Petrus-Sage, Kiel, 1872; a summary of his view is given by Jackson
in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, 1876, p. 265
sq. In Lipsius’ latest work upon this subject, Die Acta Pauli
und Petri, 1887, he makes important concessions.) The tradition is,
however, too strong to be set aside, and there is absolutely no trace
of any conflicting tradition. We may therefore assume it as
overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome and suffered martyrdom
there. His martyrdom is plainly referred to in
6. It is confirmed likewise by
Caius, The
history of Caius is veiled in obscurity. All that we know of him is
that he was a very learned ecclesiastical writer, who at the beginning
of the third century held a disputation with Proclus in Rome (cf. Bk.
VI. chap. 20, below). The accounts of him given by Jerome, Theodoret,
and Nicephorus are drawn from Eusebius and furnish us no new data.
Photius, however (Bibl. XLVIII.), reports that Caius was said to
have been a presbyter of the Roman Church during the episcopates of
Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been elected “Bishop of the
Gentiles,” and hence he is commonly spoken of as a presbyter of
the Roman Church, though the tradition rests certainly upon a very
slender foundation, as Photius lived some six hundred years after
Caius, and is the first to mention the fact. Photius also, although
with hesitation, ascribes to Caius a work On the Cause of the
Universe, and one called The Labyrinth, and another
Against the Heresy of Artemon (see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, note
1). The first of these (and by some the last also), is now commonly
ascribed to Hippolytus. Though the second may have been written by
Caius it is no longer extant, and hence all that we have of his
writings are the fragments of the Dialogue with Proclus
preserved by Eusebius in this chapter and in Bk. III. chaps. 28, 31.
The absence of any notice of the personal activity of so distinguished
a writer has led some critics (e.g. Salmon in Smith and Wace, I. p.
386, who refers to Lightfoot, Journal of Philology, I. 98, as
holding the same view) to assume the identity of Caius and Hippolytus,
supposing that Hippolytus in the Dialogue with Proclus styled
himself simply by his prænomen Caius and that thus as the book
fell into the hands of strangers the tradition arose of a writer Caius
who in reality never had a separate existence. This theory is
ingenious, and in many respects plausible, and certainly cannot be
disproved (owing chiefly to our lack of knowledge about Caius), and yet
in the absence of any proof that Hippolytus actually bore the
prænomen Caius it can be regarded as no more than a bare
hypothesis. The two are distinguished by Eusebius and by all the
writers who mention them. On Caius’ attitude toward the
Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 28, note 4; and on his opinion in regard
to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. VI. chap. 20,
and Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The fragments of Caius (including
fragments from the Little Labyrinth, mentioned above) are given
with annotations in Routh’s Rel. Sacræ, II.
125–158 and in translation (with the addition of the Muratorian
Fragment, wrongly ascribed to Caius by its discoverer) in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 599–604. See also the article of
Salmon in Smith and Wace, of Harnack, in Herzog (2d ed.), and
Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 775 sqq. ἐκκλησιαστικὸς
ἀνἡρ. γεγονώς. Crusè translates “born”; but Eusebius cannot
have meant that, for in Bk. VI. chap. 20 he tells us that Caius’
disputation with Proclus was held during the episcopate of Zephyrinus.
He used γεγονώς, therefore, as to indicate that at that time he came into public
notice, as we use the word “arose.” On
Zephyrinus, see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, §7. This
Proclus probably introduced Montanism into Rome at the beginning of the
third century. According to Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. omnes
Hær. chap. 7) he was a leader of one division of the
Montanists, the other division being composed of followers of
Æschines. He is probably to be identified with the Proculus
noster, classed by Tertullian, in Adv. Val. chap. 5, with
Justin Martyr, Miltiades, and Irenæus as a successful opponent of
heresy. The
sect of the Montanists. Called the “Phrygian heresy,” from
the fact that it took its rise in Phrygia. Upon Montanism, see below,
Bk. IV. chap. 27, and especially Bk. V. chap. 16 sqq.
7. “But The δὲ here makes it probable that Caius, in reply to certain
claims of Proclus, was asserting over against him the ability of the
Roman church to exhibit the true trophies of the greatest of all the
apostles. And what these claims of Proclus were can perhaps be gathered
from his words, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 31, §4, in
which Philip and his daughters are said to have been buried in
Hierapolis. That these two sentences were closely connected in the
original is quite possible. According to an ancient tradition, Peter was crucified upon the
hill of Janiculum, near the Vatican, where the Church of San Pietro in
Montorio now stands, and the hole in which his cross stood is still
shown to the trustful visitor. A more probable tradition makes the
scene of execution the Vatican hill, where Nero’s circus was, and
where the persecution took place. Baronius makes the whole ridge on the
right bank of the Tiber one hill, and thus reconciles the two
traditions. In the fourth century the remains of Peter were transferred
from the Catacombs of San Sebastiano (where they are said to have been
interred in 258 a.d.) to the Basilica of St.
Peter, which occupied the sight of the present basilica on the
Vatican. Paul
was beheaded, according to tradition, on the Ostian way, at the spot
now occupied by the Abbey of the Three Fountains. The fountains, which
are said to have sprung up at the spots where Paul’s head struck
the ground three times after the decapitation, are still shown, as also
the pillar to which he is supposed to have been bound! In the fourth
century, at the same time that Peter’s remains were transferred
to the Vatican, Paul’s remains are said to have been buried in
the Basilica of St. Paul, which occupied the site now marked by the
church of San Paolo fuori le mura. There is nothing improbable in the
traditions as to the spot where Paul and Peter met their death. They
are as old as the second century; and while they cannot be accepted as
indisputably true (since there is always a tendency to fix the
deathplace of a great man even if it is not known), yet on the other
hand if Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, it is hardly possible
that the place of their death and burial could have been forgotten by
the Roman church itself within a century and a half. Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman church in the strict
sense, for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul
came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have
reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early
fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that
city.
8. And that they both suffered
martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, On
Dionysius of Corinth, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 23. Another quotation from this epistle is given in Bk. IV. chap. 23.
The fragments are discussed by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. 179
sq. Whatever may be the truth of Dionysius’ report as to
Peter’s martyrdom at Rome, he is almost certainly in error in
speaking as he does of Peter’s work in Corinth. It is difficult,
to be sure, to dispose of so direct and early a tradition, but it is
still more difficult to accept it. The statement that Paul and Peter
together planted the Corinthian church is certainly an error, as we
know that it was Paul’s own church, founded by him alone. The
so-called Cephas party, mentioned in κατὰ τὸν
αὐτὸν
καιρόν.
The κατὰ
allows some margin in time and does not necessarily
imply the same day. Dionysius is the first one to connect the deaths of
Peter and Paul chronologically, but later it became quite the custom.
One tradition put their deaths on the same day, one year apart
(Augustine and Prudentius, e.g., are said to support this tradition).
Jerome (de vir. ill. 1) is the first to state explicitly that
they suffered on the same day. Eusebius in his Chron. (Armen.)
puts their martyrdom in 67, Jerome in 68. The Roman Catholic Church
celebrates the death of Peter on the 29th and that of Paul on the 30th
of June, but has no fixed tradition as to the year of the death of
either of them.
Chapter XXVI.—The Jews, afflicted with Innumerable Evils, commenced the Last War Against the Romans.
1. Josephus again, after relating many things in connection
with the calamity which came upon the whole Jewish nation, records, Josephus, B. J. II. 14. 9. He relates that Florus, in order
to shield himself from the consequences of his misrule and of his
abominable extortions, endeavored to inflame the Jews to rebel against
Rome by acting still more cruelly toward them. As a result many
disturbances broke out, and many bitter things were said against
Florus, in consequence of which he proceeded to the severe measures
referred to here by Eusebius. μυρίους
ὅσους. Josephus gives
the whole number of those that were destroyed, including women and
children, as about thirty-six hundred (no doubt a gross exaggeration,
like most of his figures). He does not state the number of noble Jews
whom Florus whipped and crucified. The “myriads” of
Eusebius is an instance of the exaggerated use of language which was
common to his age, and which almost invariably marks a period of
decline. In many cases “myriads” meant to Eusebius and his
contemporaries twenty, or thirty, or even less. Any number that seemed
large under the circumstances was called a
“myriad.” Gessius Florus was a Greek whose wife, Cleopatra, was a friend of
the Empress Poppæa, through whose influence he obtained his
appointment (Jos. Ant. XX. 11. 1). He succeeded Albinus in 64
a.d. (see above, chap. 23, note 35), and was
universally hated as the most corrupt and unprincipled governor Judea
had ever endured. Josephus (B. J. II. 14. 2 sqq. and Ant.
XX. 11. 1) paints him in very black colors. Josephus (B. J. II. 14. 4) puts the beginning of the war in
the twelfth year of the reign of Nero (i.e. a.d. 66) in the month of Artemision, corresponding to the
month Iyar, the second month of the Jewish year. According to Josephus
(Ant. XX. 11. 1) this was in the second year of Gessius Florus.
The war began at this time by repeated rebellious outbreaks among the
Jews, who had been driven to desperation by the unprincipled and
tyrannical conduct of Florus,—though Vespasian himself did not
appear in Palestine until the spring of 67, when he began his
operations in Galilee.
Jos.
B. J. II. 18. 2. Ibid.
Chapter I.—The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached Christ.
1. Such
was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and
disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the
apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that
of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second
century. But this separation was put at various dates by different
traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to twenty-four
years later. A lost book, referred to by the Decretum Gelasii as
Liber qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very likely
contained the original tradition, and an account of the fate of the
apostles, and was probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The efforts
to derive from the varying traditions any trustworthy particulars as to
the apostles themselves is almost wholly vain. The various traditions
not only assign different fields of labor to the different apostles,
but also give different lists of the apostles themselves. See
Lipsius’ article on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in
Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 17 sqq. The
extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses, &c., are translated
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 361 sqq. Lipsius
states that, according to the oldest form of the tradition, the
apostles were divided into three groups: first, Peter and Andrew,
Matthew and Bartholomew, who were said to have preached in the region
of the Black Sea; second, Thomas, Thaddeus, and Simeon, the Canaanite,
in Parthia; third, John and Philip, in Asia Minor. Parthia, in the time of the apostles, was an independent kingdom,
extending from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian Sea to the
Persian Gulf. This is the oldest form of the tradition in regard to
Thomas (see preceding note). It is found also in the Clementine
Recognitions, IX. 29, and in Socrates, H. E. I. 19.
Rufinus (H. E. II. 5) and Socrates (H. E. IV. 18) speak
of Edessa as his burial place. Later traditions extended his labors
eastward as far as India, and made him suffer martyrdom in that land;
and there his remains were exhibited down to the sixteenth century.
According to the Martyrium Romanum, however, his remains were
brought from India to Edessa, and from thence to Ortona, in Italy,
during the Crusades. The Syrian Christians in India called themselves
Thomas-Christians; but the name cannot be traced beyond the eighth
century, and is derived, probably, from a Nestorian
missionary. The
name Scythia was commonly used by the ancients, in a very loose sense,
to denote all the region lying north of the Caspian and Black Seas. But
two Scythias were distinguished in more accurate usage: a European
Scythia, lying north of the Black Sea, between the Danube and the
Tanais, and an Asiatic Scythia, extending eastward from the Ural. The
former is here meant. The
traditions respecting Andrew are very uncertain and contradictory,
though, as remarked above (note 1), the original form, represented
here, assigned as his field the region in the neighborhood of the Black
Sea. His traditional activity in Scythia has made him the patron saint
of Russia. He is also called the patron saint of Greece, where he is
reported to have been crucified; but his activity there rests upon a
late tradition. His body is said to have been carried to Constantinople
in 357 (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. III. 2), and during the
Crusades transferred to Amalpæ in Italy, in whose cathedral the
remains are still shown. Andrew is in addition the patron saint of
Scotland; but the tradition of his activity there dates back only to
the eighth century (cf. Skene’s Celtic Scotland, II. 221
sq.). Numerous other regions are claimed, by various traditions, to
have been the scene of his labors. Proconsular Asia included only a narrow strip of Asia Minor, lying
upon the coast of the Mediterranean and comprising Mysia, Lydia, and
Caria. The
universal testimony of antiquity assigns John’s later life to
Ephesus: e.g. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 1. 1 and 3. 4,
etc.; Clement of Alex., Quis Dives Salvetur, c. 42 (quoted by
Eusebius, chap. 23, below); Polycrates in his Epistle to Victor (quoted
by Eusebius in chap. 31, below, and in Bk. V. chap. 24); and many
others. The testimony of Irenæus is especially weighty, for the
series: Irenæus, the pupil of Polycarp, the pupil of John, forms a
complete chain such as we have in no other case. Such testimony, when
its force is broken by no adverse tradition, ought to be sufficient to
establish John’s residence in Ephesus beyond the shadow of a
doubt, but it has been denied by many of the critics who reject the
Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel (e.g. Keim, Holtzmann, the
author of Supernat. Religion, and others), though the denial is
much less positive now than it was a few years ago. The chief arguments
urged against the residence of John in Ephesus are two, both a
silentio: first, Clement in his first Epistle to the Corinthians
speaks of the apostles in such a way as to seem to imply that they were
all dead; secondly, in the Ignatian Epistles, Paul is mentioned, but
not John, which is certainly very remarkable, as one is addressed to
Ephesus itself. In reply it may be said that such an interpretation of
Clement’s words is not necessary, and that the omission of John
in the epistles of Ignatius becomes perfectly natural if the Epistles
are thrown into the time of Hadrian or into the latter part of
Trajan’s reign, as they ought to be (cf. chap. 36, note 4). In
the face of the strong testimony for John’s Ephesian residence
these two objections must be overruled. The traditional view is
defended by all conservative critics as well as by the majority even of
those who deny the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel (cf.
especially Hilgenfeld in his Einleitung, and Weizsäcker in
his Apostaliches Zeitalter). The silence of Paul’s
epistles and of the Acts proves that John cannot have gone to Ephesus
until after Paul had permanently left there, and this we should
naturally expect to be the case. Upon the time of John’s
banishment to Patmos, see Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1. Tradition reports
that he lived until the reign of Trajan (98–117). Cf.
Irenæus, II. 22. 5 and III. 3. 4. Origen in this extract seems to be uncertain how long John
remained in Ephesus and when he died.
2. Peter appears to have
preached The
language of Origen (κεκηρυχέναι
žοικεν, instead
of λόγος
žχει or παρ€δοσις
περιέχει) seems to imply that he is recording not a tradition, but a
conclusion drawn from the first Epistle of Peter, which was known to
him, and in which these places are mentioned. Such a tradition did,
however, exist quite early. Cf. e.g. the Syriac Doctrina
Apostolorum (ed. Cureton) and the Gnostic Acts of Peter and
Andrew. The former assigns to Peter, Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia,
in addition to Galatia and Pontus, and cannot therefore, rest solely
upon the first Epistle of Peter, which does not mention the first three
places. All the places assigned to Peter are portions of the field of
Paul, who in all the traditions of this class is completely crowded out
and his field given to other apostles, showing the Jewish origin of the
traditions. Upon Peter’s activity in Rome and his death there,
see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 7. Five
provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his
head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common. It is
of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to it by
earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the crucifixion), and
its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly
doubtful. Cf. See
above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 5. This
fragment of Origen has been preserved by no one else. It is impossible
to tell where the quotation begins—whether with the words
“Thomas according to tradition received Parthia,” as I have
given it, or with the words “Peter appears to have
preached,” etc., as Bright gives it.
Chapter II.—The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.
1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus The
actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is a greatly
disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by Irenæus
(Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius,
according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus
gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and
in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations
of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the
difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists,
have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle
of Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature
prefixed to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained
by Peter, and Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the
order, putting Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng.
Trans., I. p. 107, note 10) explains the disagreements in the various
traditions by supposing that the three were presbyters together at
Rome, and that later, in the endeavor to make out a complete list of
bishops, they were each successively elevated by tradition to the
episcopal chair. It is at least certain that Rome at that early date
had no monarchical bishop, and therefore the question as to the order
of these first three so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact,
but simply as to which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions.
The Roman Church gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus,
Anacletus, following Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of
the single Anencletus of the original tradition. The apocryphal
martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are falsely ascribed to Linus (see
Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apocr. p. xix. sq.). Eusebius (chap.
13, below) says that Linus was bishop for twelve years. In his
Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen years, while Jerome says
eleven. These dates are about as reliable as the episcopal succession
itself. We have no trustworthy information as to the personal character
and history of Linus. Upon the subjects discussed in this note see
especially Salmon’s articles, Clemens Romanus, and
Linus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
Chapter III.—The Epistles of the Apostles.
1. One
epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of
the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it),
and was cited under the name of Peter by Irenæus, Tertullian, and
Clement of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine
authorship were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the
homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct
Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely
ungenuine. The Tübingen School followed, and at the present time
the genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on
account of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 428
sqq., who confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and
to the Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the
epistle). The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine
authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption of
the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was
written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that the
name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents no
fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to find
an author for the anonymous epistle. In support of this is urged the
fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second
century, it is never connected with Peter’s name until the time
of Irenæus. (Cf. Harnack’s Lehre der Zwölf
Apostel, p. 106, note, and his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278,
note 2.) This theory has found few supporters. οἱ π€λαι
πρεσβύτεροι. On the use of the term “elders” among the
Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6. ὡς ἀναμφιλέκτῳ οὐκ
ἐνδι€θηκον
μὲν εἶναι
παρειλήφαμεν. The authorship of the second Epistle of Peter has always
been widely disputed. The external testimony for it is very weak, as no
knowledge of it can be proved to have existed before the third century.
Numerous explanations have been offered by apologists to account for
this curious fact; but it still remains almost inexplicable, if the
epistle be accepted as the work of the apostle. The first clear
references to it are made by Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in
Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to Cyprian, §6
(Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian’s Epistles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted
by Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as
disputed. Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known
and used it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted
into the Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and
discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by
all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative scholars.
Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of
Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it into the
second century,—some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria
(e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 15 and
159, who assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 495 sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness
an open question), Einleitung, p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the
genuineness, see especially Warfield, in the Southern Pres.
Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq., and Salmon’s Introduction to the
N. T., p. 512 sqq. Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently
not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth
century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from
the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus,
Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which the
Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.
2. The so-called Acts of
Peter, These πρ€ξεις (or περίοδοι, as they are often called) Πέτρου were
of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the
heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the
collection of περίοδοι
τῶν
ἀποστόλων, which were ascribed to Lucius Charinus, and, like them,
formed also, from the end of the fourth century, a part of the
Manichean Canon of the New Testament. The work, as a whole, is no
longer extant, but a part of it is preserved, according to Lipsius, in
a late Catholic redaction, under the title Passio Petri. Upon
these Acts of Peter, their original form, and their relation to
other works of the same class, see Lipsius, Apocryphen
Apostelgeschichten, II. I, p. 78 sq. Like the heretical Acta
Pauli already referred to, this work, too, was used in the
composition of the Catholic Acts of Paul and Peter, which are
still extant, and which assumed their present form in the fifth
century, according to Lipsius. These Catholic Acts of Peter and
Paul have been published by Thilo (Acta Petri et Pauli,
Halle, 1837), and by Tischendorf, in his Acta Apost. Apocr., p.
1–39. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am.
ed.), VIII. p. 477. This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of
Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was rejected
by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained. It is
mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as heretical;
also by Origen (in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome (de vir.
ill. 1), who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work
employed by no early teachers of the Christian Church. Lipsius regards
it as probably a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels. From
Serapion’s account of this Gospel (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 12),
we see that it differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their
truth, or in giving a contradictory account of Christ’s life, but
rather in adding to the account given by them. This, of course, favors
Lipsius’ hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right
in denying that the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin
Martyr, and that it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel of
Mark. The Gospel (as we learn from the same chapter) was used by the
Docetæ, but that does not imply that it contained what we
call Docetic ideas of Christ’s body (cf. note 8 on that chapter).
The Gospel is no longer extant. See Lipsius, in Smith and Wace’s
Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 712. This
Preaching of Peter (Κήρυγμα
Πέτρου,
Prædicatio Petri), which is no longer extant, probably
formed a part of a lost Preaching of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement
of Alexandria, Strom. VI. 5, and Lactantius, Inst. IV.
21). It was mentioned frequently by the early Fathers, and a number of
fragments of it have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, who
quotes it frequently as a genuine record of Peter’s teaching.
(The fragments are collected by Grabe in his Spic. Patr. I.
55–71, and by Hilgenfeld in his N. T. extra Can. rec., 2d
ed., IV. p. 51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by Origen (in Johan.
XIII. 17, and De Princ. Præf. 8), and in the latter place
is expressly classed among spurious works. It was probably, according
to Lipsius, closely connected with the Acts of Peter and Paul
mentioned in note 6, above. Lipsius, however, regards those Acts
as a Catholic adaptation of a work originally Ebionitic, though he says
expressly that the Preaching is not at all of that character,
but is a Petro-Pauline production, and is to be distinguished from the
Ebionitic κηρύγματα. It would seem therefore that he must put the
Preaching later than the original of the Acts, into a
time when the Ebionitic character of the latter had been done away
with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the Preaching is as old as the
middle of the second century and the most ancient of the works
recording Peter’s preaching, and hence (if this view be accepted)
the Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to the Acts did
not (if it existed at all) belong to the original form of the record of
Peter’s preaching embodied in the Acts and in the
Preaching. The latter (if it included also the Preaching of
Paul, as seems almost certain) appears to have contained an account
of some of the events of the life of Christ, and it may have been used
by Justin. Compare the remarks of Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. I. p. 28 (Cath. Adaptations of Ebionitic Acts), and
Salmon’s article on the Preaching of Peter, ibid. IV.
329. The
Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early
Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the
apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with
the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted
by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at
that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes
(according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus showing
that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the third
century it was still received in the North African Church (so Harnack,
who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus). The
Eclogæ or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria
give it as a genuine work of Peter (§§41, 48, 49, p. 1000
sq., Potter’s ed.), and so Methodius of Tyre (Sympos. XI.
6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to Lipsius). After Eusebius’ time
the work seems to have been universally regarded as spurious, and thus,
as its canonicity depended upon its apostolic origin (see chap. 24,
note 19), it gradually fell out of the Canon. It nevertheless held its
place for centuries among the semi-scriptural books, and was read in
many churches. According to Sozomen, H. E. VII. 19, it was read
at Easter, which shows that it was treated with especial respect.
Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it among the Antilegomena, in
immediate connection with the Apocalypse of John. As Lipsius remarks,
its “lay-recognition in orthodox circles proves that it could not
have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have contained what was
offensive to Catholic Christians” (see Lipsius, Dict. of
Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the work are
extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test. extra
Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic. Patr. I. 71
sqq. οὐδ᾽ ὅλως
ἐν
καθολικαῖς
ἴσμεν
παραδεδομένα Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The Apocalypse of
Peter was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn
from the Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in
VI. 14) wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other
Antilegomena.
3. But in the course of my
history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official
succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use
of any of the disputed works, τῶν
ἀντιλεγομένων περὶ τῶν
ἐνδιαθήκων
καὶ
ὁμολογουμένων
4. Such are the writings that
bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine ὧν
μόνην μίαν
γνησίαν
žγνων. As
above; see note 2.
5. Paul’s fourteen
epistles are well known and undisputed. The
thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the Epistle to the
Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely undisputed part of the
Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of them with the same
complete assurance), and were universally accepted until the present
century. The external testimony for all of them is ample, going back
(the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part of the second
century. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians have
never been disputed (except by an individual here and there, especially
during the last few years in Holland), even the Tübingen School
accepting them as genuine works of Paul. The other epistles have not
fared so well. The genuineness of Ephesians was first questioned by
Usteri in 1824 and De Wette in 1826, and the Tübingen School
rejected it. Scholars are at present greatly divided; the majority of
negative critics reject it, while many liberal and all conservative
scholars defend it. Colossians was first attacked by Mayerhoff in 1838,
followed by the whole Tübingen School. It fares to-day somewhat
better than Ephesians. It is still, however, rejected by many extreme
critics, while others leave the matter in suspense (e.g.
Weizsäcker in his Apostolisches Zeitalter). Since 1872,
when the theory was proposed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that
our present Epistle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul to the
Colossians, of which it is a later revision and expansion. Baur and the
Tübingen School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole,
and it too is still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it
is more widely accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g.
Weizsäcker and even Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness). Second
Thessalonians was first attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a
number of scholars, until Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle
also. Second Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by
negative critics, and even by some moderates, while First Thessalonians
has regained the support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld,
Weizsäcker, and even Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by
comparatively few critics. Philemon—which was first attacked by
Baur—is quite generally accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are
almost as generally rejected, except by the regular conservative school
(upon the Pastorals, see Bk. II. chap. 22, note 8, above). For a
concise account of the state of criticism upon each epistle, see
Holtzmann’s Einleitung. For a defense of them all, see the
Einleitung of Weiss. τινες
ἠθετήκασι. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul is
now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely certain.
It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship; its theology
and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external testimony is
strongly against its direct connection with Paul. The first persons to
assign the epistle to Paul are Pantænus and Clement of Alexandria
(see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14), and they evidently find it necessary to
defend its Pauline authorship in the face of the objections of others.
Clement, indeed, assumes a Hebrew original, which was translated into
Greek by Luke. Origen (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 25) leaves its
authorship undecided, but thinks it probable that the thoughts are
Paul’s, but the diction that of some one else, who has recorded
what he heard from the apostle. He then remarks that one tradition
assigned it to Clement of Rome, another to Luke. Eusebius himself, in
agreement with the Alexandrians (who, with the exception of Origen,
unanimously accept the Pauline authorship), looks upon it as a work of
Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria’s theory that it was
written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that Clement of Rome was its
translator (see chap. 38, below). In the Western Church, where the
epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement of Rome uses it freely), it
is not connected with Paul until the fourth century. Indeed, Tertullian
(de pudicit. 20) states that it bore the name of Barnabas, and
evidently had never heard that it had been ascribed to any one else.
The influence of the Alexandrians, however, finally prevailed, and from
the fifth century on we find it universally accepted, both East and
West, as an epistle of Paul, and not until the Reformation was its
origin again questioned. Since that time its authorship has been
commonly regarded as an insoluble mystery. Numerous guesses have been
made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos, and he has been followed by many),
but it is impossible to prove that any of them are correct. For
Barnabas, however, more can be said than for any of the others.
Tertullian expressly connects the epistle with him; and its contents
are just what we should expect from the pen of a Levite who had been
for a time under Paul’s influence, and yet had not received his
Christianity from him; its standpoint, in fact, is Levitic, and
decidedly non-Pauline, and yet reveals in many places the influence of
Pauline ideas. Still further, it is noticeable that in the place where
the Epistle to the Hebrews is first ascribed to Paul, there first
appears an epistle which is ascribed (quite wrongly; see below, chap.
25, note 20) to Barnabas. May it not be (as has been suggested by Weiss
and others) that the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was originally
accepted in Alexandria as the work of Barnabas, but that later it was
ascribed to Paul; and that the tradition that Barnabas had written an
epistle, which must still have remained in the Church, led to the
ascription of another anonymous epistle to him? We seem thus most
easily to explain the false ascription of the one epistle to Paul, and
the false ascription of the other to Barnabas. It may be said that the
claims of both Barnabas and Apollos have many supporters, while still
more attempt no decision. In regard to the canonicity of the epistle
there seems never to have been any serious dispute, and it is this fact
doubtless which did most to foster the belief in its Pauline authorship
from the third century on. For the criterion of canonicity more and
more came to be looked upon as apostolicity, direct or indirect. The
early Church had cared little for such a criterion. In only one place
does Eusebius seem to imply that doubts existed as to its
canonicity,—in Bk. VI. chap. 13, where he classes it with the
Book of Wisdom, and the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude, among
the antilegomena. But in view of his treatment of it elsewhere
it must be concluded that he is thinking in that passage not at all of
its canonicity, but of its Pauline authorship, which he knows is
disputed by some, and in reference to which he uses the same
word, ἀντιλέγεσθαι, in the present sentence. Upon the canonicity of the
epistle, see still further chap. 25, note 1. For a discussion of the
epistle, see especially the N. T. Introductions of Weiss and
Holtzmann. ἀντιλέγεσθαι See
Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25. These πρ€ξεις are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where they are classed
among the νόθοι, implying
that they had been originally accepted as canonical, but were not at
the time Eusebius wrote widely accepted as such. This implies that they
were not, like the works which he mentions later in the chapter, of an
heretical character. They were already known to Origen, who (De
Prin. I. 2, 3) refers to them in such a way as to show that they
were in good repute in the Catholic Church. They are to be
distinguished from the Gnostic περίοδοι or πρ€ξεις
Παύλου, which
from the end of the fourth century formed a part of the Manichean canon
of the New Testament, and of which some fragments are still extant
under various forms. The failure to keep these Catholic and heretical
Acta Pauli always distinct has caused considerable confusion.
Both of these Acts, the Catholic and the heretical, formed, according
to Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgeschichten, II. 1, p. 305 sq.) one of
the sources of the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in
their extant form belong to the fifth century. For a discussion of
these Catholic Acts of Paul referred to by Eusebius, see
Lipsius, ibid., p. 70 sq. οὐδὲ μὴν
τὰς
λεγομένας
αὐτοῦ
πρ€ξεις ἐν
ἀναμφιλέκτοις
παρείληφα
6. But as the same apostle, in
the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, See The
Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of the
second century, and is quoted by Irenæus (Adv. Hær.
IV. 20. 2) as Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of
Scripture testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he
considered it not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of
Alexandria and Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the
latter expressly distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting
that it is disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius in
chap. 25 places it among the νόθοι or
spurious writings in connection with the Acts of Paul and the
Apocalypse of Peter. According to the Muratorian Fragment it was
“written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by
Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church
of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made
public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as
their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of
time.” This shows the very high esteem in which the work was held
in that age. It was very widely employed in private and in public, both
in the East and the West, until about the fourth century, when it
gradually passed out of use. Jerome (de vir. ill. 10) says that
it was almost unknown among the Latins of his time. As to the date and
authorship of the Shepherd opinions vary widely. The only direct
testimony of antiquity is that of the Muratorian Fragment, which says
that it was written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, during the
episcopacy of the latter (139–154 a.d.).
This testimony is accepted by the majority of scholars, most of whom
date the book near the middle of the second century, or at least as
late as the reign of Hadrian. This opinion received not long ago what
was supposed to be a strong confirmation from the discovery of the fact
that Hermas in all probability quoted from Theodotion’s version
of Daniel (see Hort’s article in the Johns Hopkins University
Circular, December, 1884), which has been commonly ascribed to the
second century. But it must now be admitted that no one knows the
terminus a quo for the composition of Theodotian’s
version, and therefore the discovery leaves the date of Hermas entirely
undetermined (see Schürer, Gesch. des jüdischen
Volkes, II. p. 709). Meanwhile Eusebius in this connection records
the tradition, which he had read, that the book was written by the
Hermas mentioned in Until recent years only
a Latin translation of Hermas was known. In 1856 the first Greek
edition was issued by Anger and Dindorf, being based upon a Mt. Athos
ms. discovered shortly before by Simonides. Of
the ten leaves of the ms. the last was lost;
three were sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the
other six were transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic
Codex has enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but
unfortunately it contains only the Visions and a small part of
the Mandates. All recent editions have been obliged to take the
faulty transcription of Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six
leaves of the Athos Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and
which were known only through Simonides’ transcription, were
discovered by Lambros at Mt. Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the
Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was
issued in English translation by J. A. Robinson, at Cambridge, England.
We thus have now a reliable Greek text of nine-tenths of the
Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last edition (1887) of
his Novum Test. Extra Can. Rec., published also a Greek text of
the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended transcription by
Simonides from the lost Athos ms. But this has
been conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides,
and we are therefore still without any ms.
authority for the Greek text of the close of the work. Cf.
Robinson’s introduction to the Collation of Lambros
mentioned above, and Harnack’s articles in the Theol.
Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful edition of the original is
that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Opera, Fasc. III.
(Lips. 1877). The work is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. II. The literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the
reader should examine especially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his
edition. Cf. Zahn’s Hirt des Hermas (1868), and the
article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq.
Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard to the reasons for the
non-canonicity of the Shepherd.
7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.
1. That
Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the churches
“from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum,” is
evident both from his own words, From
2. And in how many provinces
Peter preached Christ and taught the doctrine of the new covenant to
those of the circumcision is clear from his own words in his epistle
already mentioned as undisputed, In
chap. 3, §1.
3. But the number and the names of those among them that became true and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those mentioned in the writings of Paul.
4. For he had innumerable
fellow-laborers, or “fellow-soldiers,” as he called them,
5. Luke also in the Acts speaks
of his friends, and mentions them by name. Barnabas (
6. Timothy, so it is recorded,
was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, That
Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus is stated also by the Apost.
Const. (VII. 46), and by Nicephorus (H. E. III. 11), who
records (upon what authority we do not know) that he suffered martyrdom
under Domitian. Against the tradition that he labored during his later
years in Ephesus there is nothing to be urged; though on the other hand
the evidence for it amounts to little, as it seems to be no more than a
conclusion drawn from the Epistles to Timothy, though hardly a
conclusion drawn by Eusebius himself, for he uses the word ἱστορεῖται, which seems to imply that he had some authority for his
statement. According to those epistles, he was at the time of their
composition in Ephesus, though they give us no hint as to whether he
was afterward there or not. From Cf.
7. But Luke, Of
Luke personally we know very little. He is not mentioned in the Acts,
and only three times in Paul’s epistles ( See Of
Luke’s acquaintance with the other apostles we know nothing,
although, if we suppose him to have been the author of the
“We” sections in the Acts, he was with Paul in Jerusalem at
the time he was taken prisoner ( The
testimony to the existence of our third Gospel, although it is not so
old as that for Matthew and Mark, is still very early. It was used by
Marcion, who based upon it his own mutilated gospel, and is quoted very
frequently by Justin Martyr. The Gospel is first distinctly ascribed to
Luke by Irenæus (III. 1. 1) and by the Muratorian Fragment. From
that time on tradition was unanimous both as to its authorship and its
authority. The common opinion—still defended by the great
majority of conservative critics—has always been that the third
Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The radical
critics of the present century, however, bring its composition down to
a latter date—ranging all the way from 70 to 140 (the latter is
Baur’s date, which is now universally recognized as very wild).
Many conservative critics put its composition after the destruction of
Jerusalem on account of the peculiar form of its eschatological
discourses—e.g. Weiss, who puts it between 70 and 80 (while
putting Matthew and Mark before the destruction of Jerusalem). The
traditional and still prevalent opinion is that Luke’s Gospel was
written later than those of Matthew and Mark. See the various
commentaries and New Testament Introductions, and for a clear
exhibition of the synoptical problem in general, see Schaff’s
Ch. Hist. I. p. 607 sqq. On Luke in particular, p. 648
sqq. Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic
Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, and before the end of the second
century the book occupied a place in the Canon undisputed except by
heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. The Muratorian
Fragment and Irenæus (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke as
the author of the Acts, but from that time on tradition has been
unanimous in ascribing it to him. The only exception occurs in the case
of Photius (ad Amphil. Quæst. 123, ed. Migne), who states
that the work was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barnabas,
and by others to Luke; but it is probable as Weiss remarks that
Photius, in this case, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the
Hebrews. As to the date of its composition. Irenæus (III. 1. 1)
seems (one cannot speak with certainty, as some have done) to put it
after the death of Peter and Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the Acts
still later. The Muratorian Fragment implies that the work was written
at least after the death of Peter. Later, however, the tradition arose
that the work was written during the lifetime of Paul (so Jerome, de
vir. ill. 7), and this has been the prevailing opinion among
conservative scholars ever since, although many put the composition
between the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem; while some
(e.g. Weiss) put it after the destruction of Jerusalem, though still
assigning it to Luke. The opposite school of critics deny Luke’s
authorship, throwing the book into the latter part of the first century
(Scholten, Hilgenfeld, &c.), or into the times of Trajan and
Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim, Hausrath, &c.). The Tübingen
School saw in the Acts a “tendency-writing,” in which the
history was intentionally perverted. This theory finds few supporters
at present, even among the most extreme critics, all of whom, however,
consider the book a source of the second rank, containing much that is
legendary and distorted and irreconcilable with Paul’s Epistles,
which are looked upon as the only reliable source. The question turns
upon the relation of the author of the “we” sections to the
editor of the whole. Conservative scholars agree with universal
tradition in identifying them (though this is not necessary in order to
maintain the historical accuracy of the work), while the opposite
school denies the identity, considering the “we” sections
authentic historical accounts from the pen of a companion of Paul,
which were afterward incorporated into a larger work by one who was not
a pupil of Paul. The identity of the author of the third Gospel and of
the Acts is now admitted by all parties. See the various Commentaries
and New Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of the Acts,
compare especially Weizsäcker’s Apost. Zeitalter, p.
182 sqq., and Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 569 sq.
8. And they say that Paul meant
to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel
of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”
9. As to the rest of his
followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; See
chap. 2, note 1, above.
10. Clement also, who was
appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies,
his co-laborer and fellow-soldier. Clement is mentioned in
11. Besides these, that
Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after
Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by
Luke in the Acts) Our Dionysius has had the
further honor of being identified by tradition with Dionysius (St.
Denis), the patron saint of France,—an identification which we
may follow the most loyal of the French in accepting, if we will,
though we shall be obliged to suppose that our Dionysius lived to the
good old age of two to three hundred years. The statement of
Dionysius of Corinth that the Areopagite was bishop of Athens (repeated
by Eusebius again in Bk. IV. chap. 23) is the usual unwarranted
throwing back of a second century conception into the first century.
That Dionysius held a position of influence among the few Christians
whom Paul left in Athens is highly probable, and the tradition that
later he was made the first bishop there is quite natural. The church
of Athens plays no part in the history of the apostolic age, and it is
improbable that there was any organization there until many years after
Paul’s visit; for even in the time of Dionysius of Corinth, the
church there seems to have been extremely small and weak (cf. Bk. IV.
chap. 23, §2). Upon Dionysius and the writings ascribed to him,
see especially the article of Lupton in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. I. p. 841–848. Upon
Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.
12. But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our history.
Chapter V.—The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.
1. After Nero had held the power thirteen years, Nero
was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d. Eusebius figures are incorrect. He omits Vitellius entirely, while
he stretches Galba’s and Otho’s reigns to make them cover a
period of eighteen months, instead of nine (Galba reigned from June 9,
68, to Jan. 15, 69; and Otho from Jan. 15 to April 20, 69). The total
of the three reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius was about eighteen
months. Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at
Alexandria, July 1, 69, while Vitellius was the acknowledged emperor in
Italy. His choice was immediately ratified by his army in Judea, and
then by all the legions in the East. Vitellius was conquered by
Vespasian’s generals, and slain in Italy, Dec. 20, 69, while
Vespasian himself went to Alexandria. The latter was immediately
recognized by the Senate, and reached Italy in the summer of 70.
Eusebius is thus approximately correct, though he is not exact as to
details. Titus
undertook the prosecution of the war against the Jews after his
father’s departure, and brought the siege of Jerusalem to an end,
Sept. 8, 70 a.d.
2. For the Jews after the
ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had
been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First
Stephen was stoned to death by them, See See See Bk. II. chap. 23. See
chap. 1, note 1. See
3. But the people of the church
in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved
men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain
town of Perea called Pella. Pella was a town situated beyond the Jordan, in the north of
Perea, within the dominions of Herod Agrippa II. The surrounding
population was chiefly Gentile. See Pliny V. 18, and Josephus, B.
J. III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15)
also records this flight of the Christians to Pella.
4. But the number of calamities
which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme
misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially
subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that
perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death
innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges
which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive.
sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city
of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as
well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the
abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, Josephus, B. J. Bks. V. and VI.
5. But it is necessary to state
that this writer records that the multitude of those who were assembled
from all Judea at the time of the Passover, to the number of three
million souls, B. J.VI. 9, §§3 and 4.
Eusebius simply gives round numbers. Josephus in §3 puts the
number at 2,700,000, exclusive of the “unclean and the
strangers” who were not allowed to eat the Passover. In the same
work, Bk. II. chap. 14, §3, Josephus states that when Cestius
Gallus, governor of Syria, came to Jerusalem at the time of the
Passover in 65 a.d., no less than 3,000,000
persons came about him to enter complaint against the procurator
Florus. These numbers are grossly exaggerated. Tacitus estimates the
number in the city at the time of the siege as 600,000, but this, too,
is far above the truth. The writer of the article Jerusalem, in
Smith’s Bible Dict., estimates that the city can never
have had a population of more than 50,000 souls, and he concludes that
at the time of the siege there cannot have been more than 60,000 or
70,000 collected within the walls. This is probably too low an
estimate, but shows how far out of the way the figures of Josephus and
Tacitus must be.
6. For it was right that in the very days in which they had inflicted suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of God, that in those days, shut up “as in a prison,” they should meet with destruction at the hands of divine justice.
7. But passing by the particular
calamities which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the
sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the
misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read
Chapter VI.—The Famine which oppressed them.
1. Taking the fifth book of the History of Josephus again in
our hands, let us go through the tragedy of events which then
occurred. Josephus, B. J. Bk. V. chap. 10, §§2 and
3.
2. “For the wealthy,” he says, “it was equally dangerous to remain. For under pretense that they were going to desert men were put to death for their wealth. The madness of the seditions increased with the famine and both the miseries were inflamed more and more day by day.
3. Nowhere was food to be seen; but, bursting into the houses men searched them thoroughly, and whenever they found anything to eat they tormented the owners on the ground that they had denied that they had anything; but if they found nothing, they tortured them on the ground that they had more carefully concealed it.
4. The proof of their having or not having food was found in the bodies of the poor wretches. Those of them who were still in good condition they assumed were well supplied with food, while those who were already wasted away they passed by, for it seemed absurd to slay those who were on the point of perishing for want.
5. Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for one measure of wheat, if they belonged to the wealthier class, of barley if they were poorer. Then shutting themselves up in the innermost parts of their houses, some ate the grain uncooked on account of their terrible want, while others baked it according as necessity and fear dictated.
6. Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet uncooked food from the fire, they tore it in pieces. Wretched was the fare, and a lamentable spectacle it was to see the more powerful secure an abundance while the weaker mourned.
7. Of all evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and it destroys nothing so effectively as shame. For that which under other circumstances is worthy of respect, in the midst of famine is despised. Thus women snatched the food from the very mouths of their husbands and children, from their fathers, and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from their babes. And while their dearest ones were wasting away in their arms, they were not ashamed to take away from them the last drops that supported life.
8. And even while they were eating thus they did not remain undiscovered. But everywhere the rioters appeared, to rob them even of these portions of food. For whenever they saw a house shut up, they regarded it as a sign that those inside were taking food. And immediately bursting open the doors they rushed in and seized what they were eating, almost forcing it out of their very throats.
9. Old men who clung to their food were beaten, and if the women concealed it in their hands, their hair was torn for so doing. There was pity neither for gray hairs nor for infants, but, taking up the babes that clung to their morsels of food, they dashed them to the ground. But to those that anticipated their entrance and swallowed what they were about to seize, they were still more cruel, just as if they had been wronged by them.
10. And they devised the most terrible modes of torture to discover food, stopping up the privy passages of the poor wretches with bitter herbs, and piercing their seats with sharp rods. And men suffered things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of compelling them to confess to the possession of one loaf of bread, or in order that they might be made to disclose a single drachm of barley which they had concealed. But the tormentors themselves did not suffer hunger.
11. Their conduct might indeed have seemed less barbarous if they had been driven to it by necessity; but they did it for the sake of exercising their madness and of providing sustenance for themselves for days to come.
12. And when any one crept out of the city by night as far as the outposts of the Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they went to meet him; and when he thought he had already escaped the enemy, they seized what he had brought with him, and even though oftentimes the man would entreat them, and, calling upon the most awful name of God, adjure them to give him a portion of what he had obtained at the risk of his life, they would give him nothing back. Indeed, it was fortunate if the one that was plundered was not also slain.”
13. To this account Josephus,
after relating other things, adds the following: Ibid.chap. 12, §§3 and
4. Titus had just completed the building of a wall about the city by
which all egress from the town was shut off. Josephus gives an account
of the wall in the paragraph immediately preceding.
14. Children and youths, swollen
with the famine, wandered about the market-places like shadows, and
fell down wherever the death agony overtook them. The sick were not
strong enough to bury even their own relatives, and those who had the
strength
15. There was neither weeping nor lamentation under these misfortunes; but the famine stifled the natural affections. Those that were dying a lingering death looked with dry eyes upon those that had gone to their rest before them. Deep silence and death-laden night encircled the city.
16. But the robbers were more terrible than these miseries; for they broke open the houses, which were now mere sepulchres, robbed the dead and stripped the covering from their bodies, and went away with a laugh. They tried the points of their swords in the dead bodies, and some that were lying on the ground still alive they thrust through in order to test their weapons. But those that prayed that they would use their right hand and their sword upon them, they contemptuously left to be destroyed by the famine. Every one of these died with eyes fixed upon the temple; and they left the seditious alive.
17. These at first gave orders that the dead should be buried out of the public treasury, for they could not endure the stench. But afterward, when they were not able to do this, they threw the bodies from the walls into the trenches.
18. And as Titus went around and saw the trenches filled with the dead, and the thick blood oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned aloud, and, raising his hands, called God to witness that this was not his doing.”
19. After speaking of some other
things, Josephus proceeds as follows: Ibid.chap. 13, §6.
20. And in the sixth book he
writes as follows: Ibid.Bk. VI. chap. 3, §§3
and 4.
21. Nor would they believe that even the dying were without food; but the robbers would search them while they were expiring, lest any one should feign death while concealing food in his bosom. With mouths gaping for want of food, they stumbled and staggered along like mad dogs, and beat the doors as if they were drunk, and in their impotence they would rush into the same houses twice or thrice in one hour.
22. Necessity compelled them to
eat anything they could find, and they gathered and devoured things
that were not fit even for the filthiest of irrational beasts. Finally
they did not abstain even from their girdles and shoes, and they
stripped the hides off their shields and devoured them. Some used even
wisps of old hay for food, and others gathered stubble and sold the
smallest weight of it for four Attic drachmæ. ᾽Αττικῶν
τεσσ€ρων; the word δραχμῶν is to be supplied. An Attic drachm, according to some authorities,
was equal to about fifteen cents, according to others (among them
Liddell and Scott), to about nineteen cents.
23. “But why should I speak of the shamelessness which was displayed during the famine toward inanimate things? For I am going to relate a fact such as is recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians; horrible to relate, incredible to hear. And indeed I should gladly have omitted this calamity, that I might not seem to posterity to be a teller of fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it in my own age. And besides, I should render my country poor service if I suppressed the account of the sufferings which she endured.
24. “There was a certain
woman named Mary that dwelt beyond Jordan, whose father was Eleazer, of
the village of Bathezor βαθεζώρ. Some mss. have βαθεχώρ, and the mss. of Josephus
have βηθεζώβ, which Whiston translates Bethezub.
25. The tyrants had robbed her of the rest of the property which she had brought with her into the city from Perea. And the remnants of her possessions and whatever food was to be seen the guards rushed in daily and snatched away from her. This made the woman terribly angry, and by her frequent reproaches and imprecations she aroused the anger of the rapacious villains against herself.
26. But no one either through anger or pity would slay her; and she grew weary of finding food for others to eat. The search, too, was already become everywhere difficult, and the famine was piercing her bowels and marrow, and resentment was raging more violently than famine. Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as her counsellors, she proceeded to do a most unnatural thing.
27. Seizing her child, a boy
which was sucking at her breast, she said, Oh, wretched child, in war,
in famine, in sedition, for what do I pre “In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered
tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death”
(Stroth).
28. And when she had said this she slew her son; and having roasted him, she ate one half herself, and covering up the remainder, she kept it. Very soon the rioters appeared on the scene, and, smelling the nefarious odor, they threatened to slay her immediately unless she should show them what she had prepared. She replied that she had saved an excellent portion for them, and with that she uncovered the remains of the child.
29. They were immediately seized
with horror and amazement and stood transfixed at the sight. But she
said This is my own son, and the deed is mine. Eat for I too have
eaten. Be not more merciful than a woman, nor more compassionate than a
mother. But if you are too pious and shrink from my sacrifice, I have
already ἤδη. All the mss. of Eusebius read ὑμῶν. Some of the mss. of Josephus read ἤδη, and Rufinus translates nam et ego prior comedi.
Valesius, without ms. authority (but
apparently with the support of some mss. of
Josephus, for Whiston translates “one-half”) reads
ἥμισυ, a half, and he
is followed by the English and German translators. Some change from the
reading of the mss. of Eusebius is certainly
necessary; and though the alteration made by Valesius produces very
good sense and seems quite natural, I have preferred to accept the
reading which is given by many of the mss. of
Josephus, and which has the support of Rufinus.
30. At these words the men went out trembling, in this one case being affrighted; yet with difficulty did they yield that food to the mother. Forthwith the whole city was filled with the awful crime, and as all pictured the terrible deed before their own eyes, they trembled as if they had done it themselves.
31. Those that were suffering from the famine now longed for death; and blessed were they that had died before hearing and seeing miseries like these.”
32. Such was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness and impiety, against the Christ of God.
Chapter VII.—The Predictions of Christ.
1. It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events.
2. His words are as follows:
3. The historian, reckoning the
whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons
perished by famine and sword, Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 9, §3. Josephus simply
says that the whole number of those that perished during the siege was
1,100,000; he does not specify the manner of their death. On the
accuracy of the numbers which he gives, see above, chap. 5, note
13. Ibid.§2. εἰς τὰ κατ᾽
῎Αιγυπτον
žργα. The works meant are
the great stone quarries of Egypt (commonly called the mines of Egypt),
which furnished a considerable part of the finest marble used for
building purposes in Rome and elsewhere. The quarries were chiefly in
the hands of the Roman government, and the work of quarrying was done
largely by captives taken in war, as in the present case. Josephus does not say that the number of those sold as slaves was
upward of 90,000, as Eusebius asserts, but simply (ibid.
§3) that the number of captives taken during the whole war was
97,000, a number which Eusebius, through an error, applies to the one
class of prisoners that were sold as slaves.
4. These things took place in
this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, In
B. J. Bk. VI. 8. 5 and 10. 1 Josephus puts the completion of the
siege on the eighth of the month Elul (September), and in the second
passage he puts it in the second year of Vespasian. Vespasian was
proclaimed emperor in Egypt July 1, 69, so that Sept. 8 of his second
year would be Sept. 8, a.d. 70. (Cf.
Schürer, N. T. Zeitgesch. p. 347.)
5. “If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground.”
6. And then, as if speaking
concerning the people, he says,
7. If any one compares the words
of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the
whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the
foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and
marvellously strange. It
is but right to remark that not merely the negative school of critics,
but even many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss) put the composition of
the Gospel of Luke after the year 70, because its eschatological
discourses seem to bear the mark of having been recorded after the
fulfillment of the prediction, differing as they do in many minor
particulars from the accounts of the same discourses in Matthew and
Mark. To cite a single instance: in the passage quoted just above
from
8. Concerning those calamities,
then, that befell the whole Jewish nation after the Saviour’s
passion and after the words which the multitude of the Jews uttered,
when they begged the release of the robber and murderer, but besought
that the Prince of Life should be taken from their midst, Compare
9. But it may be proper to
mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that
all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years
after their crime against Christ,—during which time many of the
apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the
one who is called the brother of the Lord, See
above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
10. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for the benefit of the readers of this work.
Chapter VIII.—The Signs which preceded the War.
1. Taking, then, the work of this author, read what he
records in the sixth book of his History. His words are as follows: Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 5, §3. καταψευδόμενοι
τοῦ θεοῦ.
In the previous paragraph Josephus says that a great many false
prophets were suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people. It is to
these false prophets therefore that he refers here, and I have
consequently felt at liberty thus to translate the Greek word given
above, instead of rendering merely “liars against God” (as
Crusè does), which is indefinite, and might have various
meanings.
2. At one time a star, in form
like a sword, stood over the city, and a comet, which lasted for a
whole year; and again before the revolt and before the disturbances
that led to the war, when the people were gathered for the feast of
unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthicus, The
feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek name of the
month used here is ξανθικός, which was the name of a Macedonian month corresponding to
our April. According to Whiston, Josephus regularly used this name for
the Jewish month Nisan (the first month of the Jewish year), in which
case this event took place six days before the Passover, which began on
the 14th of Nisan.
3. And at the same feast a cow, led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.
4. And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.
5. And not many days after the
feast, on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium, ᾽Αρτεμίσιος. According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan and
Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth Attic month
(ἐλαφηβολιών), which in turn corresponded to the latter part of our
March and the early part of April. According to Wieseler, Josephus used
the word to denote the second month of the Jewish year, the month
Iyar.
6. And at the feast which is
called Pentecost, when the priests entered the temple at night, as was
their custom, to perform the services, they said that at first they
perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as of a great
multitude, saying, ‘Let us go hence.’ The
majority of the mss. of Eusebius read
μεταβαίνομεν, “we go hence.” But at least one of the best
mss. and a majority of the mss. of Josephus, supported by Rufinus and Jerome (who
render migremus), read μεταβαίνωμεν, “let us go hence,” and I have followed
Stephanus, Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in
adopting that reading.
7. But what follows is still
more terrible; for a certain Jesus, the son of Ananias, a common
countryman, four years before the war, That
is, in 62 a.d. for, according to Josephus, the
war began in 66 a.d. A little further on,
Josephus says that he continued his cry for seven years and five
months, when he was slain during the siege of Jerusalem. This shows
that he is here, as well as elsewhere, reckoning the date of the
beginning of the war as 66 a.d. That
is, the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the
seventh month of the Jewish year, and continued seven days.
8. But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the ominous cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes. But without uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in particular to those that were present, he continued to cry out in the same words as before.
9. And the rulers, thinking, as
was true, that the man was moved by a higher power, brought him before
the Roman governor. This was Albinus, as we should know from the date of the event,
and as Josephus directly states in the context. He was procurator from
61 or 62 to 64 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap.
23, note 35, and chap. 22, note 1.
10. The same historian records
another fact still more wonderful than this. He says See
Josephus, B. J. VI. 5.4, and cf. ibid. III. 8.
9.
11. But Vespasian did not rule
the whole world, but only that part of it which was subject to the
Romans. With better right could it be applied to Christ; to whom it was
said by the Father, “Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen
for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy
possession.”
Chapter IX.—Josephus and the Works which he has left.
1. After all this it is fitting that we should know something
in regard to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so
much to the history in hand. He himself gives us information on this
point in the following words: B. J.,Preface, §1. We have an
original source for the life of Josephus, not only in his various
works, in which he makes frequent reference to himself, but also in his
autobiography, which was written after the year 100. The work was
occasioned by the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, which had
represented him as more patriotic and more hostile to the Romans than
he liked, and he therefore felt impelled to paint himself in the
blackest of colors, as a traitor and renegade,—probably much
blacker than he really was. It is devoted chiefly to an account of the
intrigues and plots formed against him while he was governor of
Galilee, and contains little of general biographical interest, except
in the introduction and the conclusion. Josephus was of a priestly
family,—his father Matthias belonging to the first of the
twenty-four courses—and he was born in the first year of Caius
Cæsar; i.e. in the year beginning March 16, 37 a.d. He played a prominent part in the Jewish war, being
entrusted with the duty, as governor of Galilee and commander of the
forces there, of meeting and opposing Vespasian, who attacked that
province first. He was, however, defeated, and gave himself up to the
victors, in the summer of 67. He was treated with honor in the camp of
the Romans, whom he served until the end of the war, and became a
favorite and flatterer of the Vespasian house, incurring thereby the
everlasting contempt of his country men. He went to Rome at the close
of the war, and lived in prosperity there until early in the second
century. His works are our chief source for a knowledge of Jewish
affairs from the time of the Maccabees, and as such are, and will
always remain, indispensable, and their author immortal, whatever his
character. He was a man of learning and of talent, but of inordinate
selfishness and self-esteem. He was formerly accused of great
inaccuracy, and his works were considered a very poor historical
source; but later investigations have increased his credit, and he
seems, upon the whole, to have been a historian of unusual ability and
conscientiousness.
2. He was the most noted of all
the Jews of that day, not only among his own people, but also among the
Romans, so that he was honored by the erection of a statue in Rome, Eusebius is the only one, so far as we know, to mention this
statue in Rome, and what authority there is for his statement we cannot
tell. In
§64 of his Life Josephus tells us that Titus was so much
pleased with his accounts of the Jewish war that he subscribed his name
to them, and ordered them published (see the next chapter, §8
sqq., where the passage is quoted). The first public library in Rome,
according to Pliny, was founded by Pollio (76 b.c.–4 a.d.). The one
referred to here is undoubtedly the imperial library, which, according
to Suetonius, was originally established by Augustus in the temple of
Apollo on the Palatine, and contained two sections,—one for
Greek, and the other for Latin works. It was greatly enlarged by
Tiberius and Domitian.
3. He wrote the whole of the
Antiquities of the Jews ᾽Ιουδαϊκὴ
᾽Αρχαιολογία, Antiquitates Judaicæ. This work, which is
still extant, is Josephus’ most extensive work, and aims to give,
in twenty books, a complete history of the Jews, from the time of
Abraham to the beginning of the great war with Rome. The object of the
work is mainly apologetic, the author aiming to place Judaism before
Gentile readers in as favorable a light as possible. It contains much
legendary matter, but is the main source for our knowledge of a long
period of Jewish history, and as such is invaluable. The work was
completed, according to his own statement (XX. 11. 2), in the
thirteenth year of Domitian (93–94 a.d.), and frequently corrects erroneous statements made
in his earlier work upon the Jewish war. ῾Ιστορία
᾽Ιουδαϊκοῦ
πολέμου πρὸς
῾Ρωμαίους, de Bello Judaico. This work, in seven books,
constitutes our most complete and trustworthy source for a knowledge of
that great war, so momentous in its consequences both to Judaism and to
Christianity. The author wrote from personal knowledge of many of the
events described, and had, besides, access to extensive and reliable
written sources: and the general accuracy of the work may therefore be
accepted. He says that he undertook the work for the purpose of giving
a true narrative of the war, in consequence of the many false and
distorted accounts which had already appeared in various quarters. He
presented the work, when finished, to Vespasian and Titus, and obtained
their approval and testimony to its trustworthiness: and hence it must
have been written during the reign of Vespasian, probably toward the
end of it, as other works upon the war had preceded his (B. J.,
Preface, §1). The
work, as Josephus informs us (B. J., Preface, §1; and
contra Apion. I. 9), was written originally in his own
tongue,—Aramaic,—and afterwards translated by himself into
Greek, with the help of others. Eusebius inverts the fact, making the
Greek the original.
4. There are extant also two
other books of his which are worth reading. They treat of the antiquity
of the Jews, The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavius Josephus
on the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (περὶ
ἀρχαιότητος
᾽Ιουδαίων
κατὰ
᾽Απίωνος, De Antiquitate Judæorum contra Apionem). It is
ordinarily cited simply as contra Apionem (Against
Apion). It consists of two books, and is, in fact, nothing else
than an apology for Judaism in general, and to a less extent, a defense
of himself and his former work (the Antiquities) against hostile
critics. The common title, contra Apionem, is rather misleading,
as he is not once mentioned in the first book, although in the first
part of the second book he is attacked with considerable bitterness and
through him a large class of enemies and detractors of Judaism. (Upon
Apion, the famous Alexandrian and the bitter enemy of the Jews, see
above, Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5.) The work is Josephus’ best
effort from a literary point of view, and shows both learning and
ability, and in spite of its brevity contains much of great value. It
was written after his Antiquities (i.e. after 93 a.d.), how long afterward we cannot tell. These three
works of Josephus, with his autobiography already mentioned (note 1),
are all that are extant, although he seems to have written another work
relating to the history of the Seleucidæ (cf. Ant. XIII. 2.
1, 2. 4, 4. 6, 5. 11) of which not a trace remains, and which is
mentioned by no one else. The other works planned by
Josephus—On God and his Essence (Ant. XX. 11. 3),
and On the Laws of the Jews (ibid. and Ant. III.
5. 6, 8. 10)—seem never to have been written. (They are mentioned
also by Eusebius in the next chapter.) Other compositions attributed to
him are not from his hand. The best edition of the works of Josephus is
that of Benedict Niese (Berlin, 1885 sq.), of which the first two
volumes have been already issued, comprising ten books of the
Antiquities. A good complete edition is that of Dindorf (Paris,
1845–47, 2 vols.). That of Bekker (Leipzig, 1855, 6 vols.) is
very convenient. The only complete English translation is by Whiston,
unfortunately uncritical and inaccurate. Traill’s translation of
the Jewish War (London, 1862) is a great improvement, but does
not cover the remainder of Josephus’ works. Upon Josephus and his
writings, see the article of Edersheim in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. III. 441–460, and compare the literature given
there.
5. In the first of these books
he gives the number of the canonical books of the so-called Old
Testament. Apparently ὡσ€ν.
Chapter X.—The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books.
1. Against Apion, I. 8. The common
Christian tradition (since the first century, when it was stated in the
fourth book of 1–5. Books of
Moses. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9. Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11. Ezra and
Nehemiah. 12. Esther. 13. Isaiah. 14. Jeremiah and
Lamentations. 15. Ezekiel. 16. Daniel. 17. Twelve Minor
Prophets. 18. Job. 19. Psalms. 20. Proverbs. 21. Ecclesiastes. 22. Song of Songs. The earliest detailed list of
Old Testament books is that of Melito (given by Eusebius, IV. 26),
which is as follows:— Books of Moses Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua Nave. Judges. Ruth. Four of Kings. Chronicles. Psalms. Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Song of Songs. Job. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Twelve Minor
Prophets. Daniel. Ezekiel. Ezra. Melito says nothing of the
number twenty-two, and, in fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers only
twenty-one. His list really differs from Josephus’ only in
omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may be accidental, though it
is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention of
Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of
Josephus’ canon. His canon purports to be the Palestinian one,
and hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which
makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only accidental.
Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were twenty-two books
in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat from that of
Josephus. It is as follows:— 1–5. Books of
Moses. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9. Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11. Ezra I. and II. 12. Psalms. 13. Proverbs. 14. Ecclesiastes. 15. Song of Songs. 16. [Twelve Minor Prophets
(Rufinus).] 17. Isaiah. 18. Jeremiah, Lamentations, and
Epistle. 19. Daniel. 20. Ezekiel. 21. Job. 22. Esther. “Besides these also the
Maccabees.” The peculiar thing about the
list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of
the Epistle of Jeremiah. The former were certainly looked upon by
Origen as sacred books, for he wrote a commentary upon them (according
to Eusebius, VI. 36). There is no conceivable reason for their
omission, and indeed they are needed to make up the number twenty-two.
We must conclude that the omission was simply an oversight on the part
of Eusebius or of some transcriber. Rufinus gives them as number
sixteen, as shown in the list, but the position there assigned to them
is not the ordinary one. We should expect to find them in connection
with the other prophets; but the various lists are by no means uniform
in the order of the books. On the other hand, the Greek Epistle of
Jeremiah (
2. Of these, five are by Moses,
and contain the laws and the tradi Literally, “the tradition respecting the origin of man
(ἀνθρωπογονίας) down to his own death.” I have felt it necessary to
insert the words, “and continue the history,” which are not
found in the Greek, but which are implied in the words, “down to
his own death.” Among the Jews in the time of Christ a world’s era was in
use, dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which
Josephus employs here and throughout his Antiquities. His
figures are often quite inconsistent,—probably owing, in large
part, to the corrupt state of the existing text,—and the
confusion which results is considerable. See Destinon’s
Chronologie des Josephus.
3. From the death of Moses to
the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the
prophets that followed Moses wrote the history of their own times in
thirteen books. These thirteen books were:— 1. Joshua. 2. Judges and Ruth. 3. Samuel. 4. Kings. 5. Chronicles. 6. Ezra and
Nehemiah. 7. Esther. 8. Isaiah. 9. Jeremiah and
Lamentations. 10. Ezekiel. 11. Daniel. 12. Twelve Minor
Prophets. 13. Job. As will be seen, Josephus
divided the canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of
Moses); second, the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the
Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The
division of the canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at
the same time, his division is quite different from any other division
known. Jerome’s is as follows:— 1. Law: five books of
Moses. 2. Prophets: Joshua, Judges and
Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve
Minor Prophets (eight books). 3. Hagiographa (Holy
writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Daniel,
Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books). The division which
exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome’s only in
transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third division, and thus
making twenty-four books. This is held by many to be a later form, as
remarked above, but as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the
LXX., which is followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged,
without reference to the three divisions, solely according to their
subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his
looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to
include in the second division all the books which contained, as he
says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes.
4. From the time of Artaxerxes
to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are
not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which
preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact
succession of prophets. The
Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and
Nehemiah carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished.
Malachi—the last of them—uttered his prophecies at the end
of Artaxerxes’ or at the beginning of Darius’ reign. It was
commonly held among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi
the prophetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was
sharply drawn, as here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the
Apocrypha who followed them.
5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them. For although so great a period has already passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them.”
These remarks of the historian I have thought might advantageously be introduced in this connection.
6. Another work of no little
merit has been produced by the same writer, On the Supremacy of
Reason, εἰς
Μακκαβαίους
λόγος ἣ περὶ
αὐτοκρ€τορος
λογισμοῦ: De Maccabæis, seu de rationis imperio liber. This
book is often called the Fourth Book of Maccabees, and was formerly
ascribed to Josephus. As a consequence it is printed with his works in
many editions. But it is now universally acknowledged to be spurious,
although who the author is we cannot tell. Μακκαβαϊκόν
7. And at the end of the
twentieth book of his Antiquities Ant.XX. 11. 3. See the previous
chapter, note 7. See the same note. See the same note.
8. In addition to these things
it is proper to quote also the words that are found at the close of his
Antiquities, The
passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is found in his
Life, §65, and not in the Antiquities. But we can
see from the last paragraph of the Antiquities that he wrote his
Life really as an appendix to that work, and undoubtedly as
Ewald suggests, issued it with a second edition of the
Antiquities about twenty years after the first. In the mss. it is always found with the Antiquities,
and hence the whole might with justice be viewed as one work. It will
be noticed that Eusebius mentions no separate Life of Josephus, which
shows that he regarded it simply as a part of the
Antiquities. Justus of Tiberias was the leader of one of the factions of that
city during the troublous times before the outbreak of the war, while
Josephus was governor of Galilee, and as an opponent he caused him
considerable trouble. He is mentioned frequently in Josephus’
Life, and we are thus enabled to gather a tolerably complete
idea of him—though of course the account is that of an enemy. He
wrote a work upon the Jews which was devoted chiefly to the affairs of
the Jewish war and in which he attacked Josephus very severely. This
work, which is no longer extant, was read by Photius and is described
by him in his Bibl. Cod. 33, under the title, βασιλεῖς
᾽Ιουδαῖοι οἱ
ἐν τοῖς
στέμμασι. It was in consequence of this work that Josephus felt obliged to
publish his Life, which is really little more than a defense of
himself over against the attacks of Justus. See above, note
1. Vita,§65.
9. “I indeed was not
afraid in respect to my writings as you were, Josephus has just affirmed in a previous paragraph that Justus had
had his History written for twenty years, and yet had not
published it until after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa,
and he accuses him of waiting until after their death because he was
afraid that they would contradict his statements. Josephus then goes on
to say in the passage quoted that he was not, like Justus, afraid to
publish his work during the lifetime of the chief actors in the
war.
10. And I presented my history
also to many others, some of whom were present at the war, as, for
instance, King Agrippa Agrippa II. See above, Bk. II. chap. 19, note 3. Agrippa sided
with the Romans in the war and was with Vespasian and Titus in their
camp much of the time, and in Galilee made repeated efforts to induce
the people to give up their rebellion, that the war might be
avoided.
11. For the Emperor Titus
desired so much that the knowledge of the events should be communicated
to men by my history alone, that he indorsed the books with his own
hand and commanded that they should be published. And King Agrippa
wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the truthfulness of my
account.” Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two. These
two epistles are still extant, and are given by Josephus in his
Vita, immediately after the passage just quoted by Eusebius. The
first of them reads as follows (according to Whiston’s
translation): “King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth
greeting. I have read over thy book with great pleasure, and it appears
to me that thou hast done it much more accurately and with greater care
than have the other writers. Send me the rest of these books. Farewell,
my dear friend.”
Chapter XI.—Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.
1. After the martyrdom of James 61 or
62 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap.
23. See
ibid. note 40. The date of Symeon’s accession (assuming
that he did take charge of the Jerusalem church as James had done)
cannot be fixed. Eusebius himself, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 5,
although he had a list of the Jerusalem bishops, had no information as
to the dates of their accession, or the length of their incumbency. He
puts Symeon’s accession after the destruction of Jerusalem, but
he evidently does that only because he supposed that it followed
immediately upon the death of James. Some (e.g. Lightfoot) think it
probable that Symeon was appointed immediately after James’
death, therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem; others (e.g.
Renan) suppose that in Pella they had no bishop and appointed Symeon
only after the return of the church to Jerusalem. λόγος
κατέχει.
Hegesippus (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, below) says that “Symeon
was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as the cousin of our
Lord.” Upon what authority Eusebius’ more definite account
rests we do not know. He introduces it with the formula λόγος
κατέχει,
and we know of no other author who has put it as he does. It may be
that the simple statement of Hegesippus was the sole ground of the more
detailed tradition which Eusebius repeats in this chapter. The reason
of Symeon’s appointment as given by Hegesippus is quite
significant. It was the common Oriental custom to accord the highest
honors to all the members of a prophet’s or religious
leader’s family, and it was undoubtedly owing chiefly to his
close physical relationship to Christ that James enjoyed such
prominence and influence in the Jerusalem church, apparently exceeding
even that of the apostles themselves.
2. They all with one consent
pronounced Symeon, This
Symeon is to be distinguished from the apostle Simon, the Canaanite,
and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned in In Hegesippus, quoted below in Bk. IV. chap. 22, calls Clopas the
uncle of the Lord, which would make him of course the brother or
brother-in-law of Joseph. Eusebius evidently considered them own
brothers. Whether Hegesippus elsewhere stated this directly, or whether
Eusebius’ opinion is simply an inference from the words of
Hegesippus already referred to, we do not know. There is no objection
to the conclusion that Clopas and Joseph were own brothers, although it
cannot be proved from Hegesippus’ words that they were more than
brothers-in-law. From
Chapter XII.—Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be sought.
He also
relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that
all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in
order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in
consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the
Jews. It
is not certain that Eusebius intends to give Hegesippus as his
authority for the statements of this chapter, inasmuch as he does not
mention his name. He gives the account, however, upon the authority of
some one else, and not as a direct historical statement, for the verb
is in the infinitive, and it is much more natural to supply
῾Ηγήσιππος
ἱστορεῖ,
the last words of the preceding chapter, than to supply any other
phrase, such as λόγος
κατέχει,
which occurs two chapters earlier. The translators are divided as to
the words that are to be supplied, but it seems to me beyond doubt that
this account rests upon the same authority as that of the previous
chapter. There is in any case nothing at all unlikely in the report, as
Vespasian and his successors kept a very close watch upon the Jews, and
this would have been a very natural method of endeavoring to prevent
future revolutions. The same course was pursued also by Domitian; see
below, chaps. 19 and 20. We hear from no other source of a persecution
raised against the Jews by Vespasian, and we may therefore conclude
that it cannot have amounted to much, if indeed it deserves to be
called a persecution at all.
After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. Vespasian reigned from July 1 (if his reign be dated from the time
he was proclaimed emperor in Egypt; if from the death of Vitellius,
Dec. 20), 69, to June 24, 79 a.d. In
his Chron. (Armenian) Eusebius gives the length of Linus’
episcopate as fourteen years, while Jerome gives it as eleven years.
Both figures are about equally reliable; see above, chap. 2, note
1. Of
Anencletus, or Cletus, as he is also called, we know nothing more than
that he was one of the traditional first three bishops of Rome.
Hippolytus makes two bishops, Anencletus and Cletus, out of the one
man, and he is followed by the Roman Catholic Church (see above, chap.
2, note 1). According to chap. 15, Anencletus held office twelve
years. Titus
died Dec. 13, a.d. 81. He therefore reigned
two years and six months, instead of two years and two months as
Eusebius states.
Chapter XIV.—Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.
In the
fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, 85
a.d.; on Annianus, see above, Bk. II. chap.
24, note 2. ᾽Αβίλιος. According to one tradition Abilius was ordained presbyter with
his successor Cerdon by Mark himself (see Smith and Wace). According to
another (Ap. Const. VII. 46) he was appointed bishop by Luke. He
held office thirteen years according to chap. 21, below. Valesius
claims that the name should be written Avilius, regarding it as a Latin
name, and citing in support of his opinion the name of a prefect of
Egypt, Avilius Flaccus, mentioned by Philo, and the fact that the name
of Avilius’ predecessor, Annianus, is also Latin.
Chapter XV.—Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.
In the
twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus On
Anencletus, see chap. 13, note 3.
Chapter XVI.—The Epistle of Clement.
There is extant an epistle of this Clement This
epistle of Clement, which is still extant in two Greek mss., and in a Syriac version, consists of fifty-nine
chapters, and is found in all editions of the Apostolic Fathers. It
purports to have been written from the church at Rome to the church at
Corinth, but bears the name of no author. Unanimous tradition, however
(beginning with Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, IV. 23), ascribes it
to Clement, Bishop of Rome, and scholars, with hardly an exception,
accept it as his work. It was, in all probability, written immediately
after the persecution of Domitian, in the last years of the first
century, and is one of the earliest, perhaps the very earliest,
post-biblical works which we have. It was held in very high repute in
the early Church, and in the Alexandrian Codex it stands among the
canonical books as a part of the New Testament (though this is
exceptional; cf. chap. 3, above, and chap. 25, below, in both of which
this epistle is omitted, though Eusebius is giving lists of New
Testament books, both accepted and disputed). We have had the epistle
complete only since 1875, when Bryennios discovered a ms. containing it and other valuable works. Previously a
part of the epistle had been wanting. In consequence the older editions
have been superseded by the more recent. See appendix to
Lightfoot’s edition (1877), which gives the recovered portions of
the text; so, also, the later editions of Gebhardt and Harnack’s,
and of Hilgenfeld’s Apostolic Fathers. The epistle is translated
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 5–21. μεγ€λη τε
καὶ
θαυμασία. See
the epistle itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3. It was these seditions
in the church at Corinth which occasioned the epistle. Compare the words of Dionysius of Corinth, in Bk. IV. chap. 23.
Though the epistle was held in high esteem, it was not looked upon as a
part of the New Testament canon. Hegesippus’ testimony upon this point is no longer
extant.
Chapter XVII.—The Persecution under Domitian.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put
to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and
having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great
many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his
hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up
a persecution against us, The
persecutions under Nero and Domitian were not undertaken by the state
as such; they were simply personal matters, and established no
precedent as to the conduct of the state toward Christianity. They were
rather spasmodic outbursts of personal enmity, but were looked upon
with great horror as the first to which the Church was subjected. There
was no general persecution, which took in all parts of the empire,
until the reign of Decius (249–251), but Domitian’s cruelty
and ferocity were extreme, and many persons of the highest rank fell
under his condemnation and suffered banishment and even death, not
especially on account of Christianity, though there were Christians
among them, but on account of his jealousy, and for political reasons
of various sorts. That Domitian’s persecution of the Christians
was not of long duration is testified by Tertullian, Apol. 5.
Upon the persecutions of the Christians, see, among other works,
Wieseler’s Die Christenverfolgungen der Cäsaren, hist.
und chronolog. untersucht, 1878; Uhlhorn’s Der Kampf des
Christenthums mit dem Heidenthum, English translation by Smyth and
Ropes, 1879; and especially the keen essay of Overbeck, Gesetze der
römischen Kaiser gegen die Christen, in his Studien zur
Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. (1875). The
fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasian is abundantly
confirmed by the absence of any tradition to the opposite effect.
Compare Tertullian’s Apol. chap. 5, where the persecutions
of Nero and Domitian are recorded.
1. It
is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who
was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in
consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenæus (V. 30. 3, quoted
just below, and again in Eusebius V. 8) assigns the banishment of John
and the apocalyptic visions to the reign of Domitian. This was formerly
the common opinion, and is still held by some respectable writers, but
strong internal evidence has driven most modern scholars to the
conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been written before the
destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment therefore (upon the assumption
that John wrote the Apocalypse, upon which see chap. 24, note 19)
taking place under Nero instead of Domitian. If we accept this, we have
the remarkable phenomenon of an event taking place at an earlier date
than that assigned it by tradition, an exceptional and inexplicable
thing. We have too the difficulty of accounting for the erroneousness
of so early and unanimous a tradition. The case thus stood for years,
until in 1886 Vischer published his pamphlet Die Offenbarung des
Johannes, eine jüdische Apocalypse in Christlicher Bearbeitung
(Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Band II.
Heft. 3), which if his theory were true, would reconcile external and
internal evidence in a most satisfactory manner, throwing the original
into the reign of Nero’s successor, and the Christian recension
into the reign of Domitian. Compare especially Harnack’s appendix
to Vischer’s pamphlet; and upon the Apocalypse itself, see chap.
24, below.
2. Irenæus, in the fifth
book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the
name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of
John, Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 30. 3; quoted also below,
in Bk. V. chap. 8.
3. “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”
4. To such a degree, indeed, did
the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers
who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their
histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during
it. Jerome, in his version of the Chron. of Eusebius (year of
Abr. 2112), says that the historian and chronographer Bruttius recorded
that many of the Christians suffered martyrdom under Domitian. Since
the works of Bruttius are not extant, we have no means of verifying the
statement. Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) relates some of the banishments
which took place under Domitian, among them that of Flavia Domitilla,
who was, as we know, a Christian; but he does not himself say that any
of these people were Christians, nor does he speak of a persecution of
the Christians.
5. And they, indeed, accurately
indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of
Domitian We
learn from Suetonius (Domit. chap. 15) that the events referred
to by Eusebius in the next sentence took place at the very end of
Domitian’s reign; that is, in the year 96 a.d., the fifteenth year of his reign, as Eusebius says.
Dion Cassius also (LXVII. 14) puts these events in the same
year. Flavius Clemens was a cousin of Domitian, and his wife, Domitilla,
a niece of the emperor. They stood high in favor, and their two sons
were designated as heirs to the empire, while Flavius Clemens himself
was made Domitian’s colleague in the consulship. But immediately
afterward Clemens was put to death and Domitilla was banished.
Suetonius (Domit, chap. 15) accuses Clemens of
contemtissimæ inertiæ, and Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) of
atheism (ἀθεότητος). These accusations are just such as heathen writers of
that age were fond of making against the Christians (compare, for
instance, Athenagoras’ Adv. Gent. chap. 4, and
Tertullian’s Apol. chap. 42). Accordingly it has been very
commonly held that both Flavius Clemens and Domitilla were Christians,
and were punished on that account. But early tradition makes only
Domitilla a Christian; and certainly if Clemens also—a man of
such high rank—had been a Christian, an early tradition to that
effect would be somewhere preserved. We must, therefore, conclude that
his offense was something else than Christianity. The very silence of
Christian tradition as to Clement is an argument for the truth of the
tradition in regard to Domitilla, and the heathen historians referred
to confirm its main points, though they differ in minor details. The
Acts of Martyrdom of Nereus and Achilles represent Domitilla as
the niece, not the wife, of Flavius Clemens, and Eusebius does the
same. More than that, while the heathen writers report that Domitilla
was banished to the island Pandeteria, these Acts, as well as
Eusebius and Jerome (Ep. adv. Eustachium, Migne’s ed.,
Ep. CVIII. 7), give the island of Pontia as the place of
banishment. Tillemont and other writers have therefore assumed that
there were two Domitillas,—aunt and niece,—one banished to
one island, the other to another. But this is very improbable, and it
is easier to suppose that there was but one Domitilla and but one
island, and that the discrepancies are due to carelessness or to the
mistakes of transcribers. Pandeteria and Pontia were two small islands
in the Mediterranean, just west of central Italy, and were very
frequently employed by the Roman emperors as places of exile for
prisoners.
Chapter XIX.—Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain.
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of
David should be slain, an ancient tradition says παλαιὸς
κατέχει
λόγος. It is
noticeable that, although Eusebius has the written authority of
Hegesippus for this account, he still speaks of it as supported by
“ancient tradition.” This is different from his ordinary
custom, and serves to make us careful in drawing conclusions as to the
nature of Eusebius’ authority for any statement from the
expression used in introducing it.
Chapter XX.—The Relatives of our Saviour.
1. “Of the family of the Lord there were still living the
grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s
brother according to the flesh. This
Jude was the brother of James, “the brother of the Lord,”
who is mentioned in
2. Information was given that
they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the
Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. According to Andrew’s Lexicon, “An Evocatus was a
soldier who, having served out his time, was called upon to do military
duty as a volunteer.” This suspiciousness is
perfectly in keeping with the character of Domitian. The same thing is
told also of Vespasian, in chap. 12; but in his case the political
situation was far more serious, and revolutions under the lead of one
of the royal family might most naturally be expected just after the
terrible destruction. The same act is also mentioned in connection with
Trajan, in chap. 32, and there is no reason to doubt its truthfulness,
for the Jews were well known as a most rebellious and troublesome
people. A
denarius was a Roman silver coin, in value about sixteen, or, according
to others, about nineteen, cents.
4. and this property did not
consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only
thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes “Taxes or tributes were paid commonly in the products of the
land” (Val.). Most editors (including Valesius, Heinichen, Crusè, &c.)
regard the quotation from Hegesippus as extending through §8; but
it really ends here, and from this point on Eusebius reproduces the
sense in his own words (and so Bright gives it in his edition). This is
perfectly clear, for in the first place, the infinitive ἐπιδεικνῦναι
occurs in the next sentence, a form possible only in
indirect discourse: and secondly, as Lightfoot has pointed out, the
statement of §8 is repeated in chap. 32, §6, and there in the
exact language of Hegesippus, which differs enough from the language of
§8 to show that the latter is a free reproduction.
5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.
6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.
8. But when they were released
they ruled the churches because they were witnesses μ€ρτυρας. On the use of this word, see chap. 32, note 15. Compare Renan’s Les Evangiles, p. 466.
9. Tertullian also has mentioned
Domitian in the following words: Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5. τι
συνέσεως. Lat. sed qua et homo.
10. But after Domitian had
reigned fifteen years, Domitian reigned from Dec. 13, 81 a.d.,
to Sept. 18, 96. See
Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 1 sq., and Suetonius’ Domitian,
chap. 23.
11. It was at this time that the
apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his
abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition. Literally, “the word of the ancients among us”
(ὁ τῶν παρ᾽
ἡμῖν ἀρχαίων
λόγος). On the
tradition itself, see chap. 1, note 6.
Chapter XXI.—Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church of Alexandria.
1. After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year From Sept. 18, 96, to Jan. 27, 98 a.d. On Abilius, see chap. 14, note 2, above. According to the legendary Acts of St. Mark, Cerdo was one
of the presbyters ordained by Mark. According to Eusebius (H. E.
IV. I and Chron.) he held office until the twelfth year of
Trajan.
2. He was the third that
presided over that church after Annianus, On
Annianus, see Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.
3. Linus was the first, and
after him came Anencletus. On
the order of succession of the early Roman bishops, see above, chap. 2,
note 1. Paul and Peter are here placed together by Eusebius, as
co-bishops of Rome. Compare the association of the two apostles by
Caius, and by Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. II.
chap. 25).
Chapter XXII.—Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
At this
time Ignatius On Ignatius’ life, writings, and martyrdom, see below, chap.
36. We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first
bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion of
his name before the great name of Ignatius. The tendency would be, of
course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apostles, and to make him
the first bishop. This tendency is seen in Athanasius and Chrysostom,
who do not mention Evodius at all; also in the Apost. Const.
VII. 46, where, however, it is said that Evodius was ordained by Peter,
and Ignatius by Paul (as in the parallel case of Clement of Rome). The
fact that the name of Evodius appears here shows that the tradition
that he was the first bishop seemed to the author too old and too
strong to be set aside. Origen (in Luc. Hom. VI.) is an indirect
witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the
second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch. As to the respective
dates of the early bishops of Antioch, we know nothing certain. On
their chronology, see Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, and cf.
Salmon’s article Evodius, in Smith and Wace’s
Dict. of Christ. Biog. On
Symeon, see above, chap. 11, note 4.
1. At
that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved,
was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region,
having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the
island. See
chap. 1, note 6, and chap. 18, note 1.
2. And that he was still alive
at that time That
is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan. The
test of a man’s trustworthiness in Eusebius’ mind—and
not in his alone—was his orthodoxy. Irenæus has always been
looked upon as orthodox, and so was Clement, in the early Church, which
reckoned him among the saints. His name, however, was omitted in the
Martyrology issued by Clement VIII., on the ground that his orthodoxy
was open to suspicion.
3. The former in the second book
of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: Irenæus, Adv. Hær. II. 22. 5. It
is in this immediate connection that Irenæus makes the
extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who
were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty
years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false
report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John’s
continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other
passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap. 1, note 6).
Irenæus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in
III. 3, 4 (quoted just below). It may also be said that the opinion as
to Christ’s age is founded upon subjective grounds (cf. the
preceding paragraph of Irenæus) and upon a mistaken interpretation
of
4. And in the third book of the
same work he attests the same thing in the following words: Adv. Hær. III. 3, 4.
5. Clement likewise in his book
entitled What Rich Man can be saved? τίς ὁ
σωζόμενος
πλούσιος: Quis Dives salvetur. This able and interesting little
treatise upon the proper use of wealth is still extant, and is found in
the various editions of Clement’s works; English translation in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), II. p. 591–604. The
sound common sense of the book, and its freedom from undue asceticism
are conspicuous, and furnish a pleasing contrast to most of the
writings of that age. He
indicates the time only by saying “after the tyrant was
dead,” which might refer either to Domitian or to Nero. But the
mention of John a little below as “an aged man” would seem
to point to the end of the century rather than to Nero’s time. At
any rate, Eusebius understood Clement as referring to Domitian, and in
the presence of unanimous tradition for Domitian, and in the absence of
any counter-tradition, we can hardly understand him
otherwise. Quis Dives salvetur, chap.
42.
6. “Listen to a tale,
which is not a mere tale, but a narrative μῦθον οὐ
μῦθον, ἀλλὰ
ὄντα λόγον. Clement in these words asserts the truth of the story
which he relates. We cannot regard it as very strongly corroborated,
for no one else records it, and yet we can hardly doubt that Clement
gives it in good faith. It may have been an invention of some early
Christian, but it is so fully in accord with what we know of
John’s character that there exists no reason for refusing to
believe that at least a groundwork of truth underlies it, even though
the story may have gained in the telling of it. It is certainly
beautiful, and fully worthy of the “beloved
disciple.” See
note 8. κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ
τινα
κληρώσων. Compare the note of Heinichen in his edition of Eusebius, Vol.
I. p. 122. Upon the use of the word κλῆρος in
the early Church, see Baur’s Das Christenthum und die
christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2d ed., p. 266
sq., and especially Ritschl’s Entstehung der alt-kath.
Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq. Ritschl shows that the word κλῆρος was originally used by the Fathers in the general sense of
order or rank (Reihe, Rang), and that from this arose its later
use to denote church officers as a class,—the clergy. As he
remarks, the word is employed in this later specific sense for the
first time in this passage of Clement’s Quis Dives
salvetur. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian are the next ones to
use it in the same sense. Ritschl remarks in connection with this
passage: “Da für eine Wahl der Gemeindebeamten durch das
Loos alle sonstigen Beweisen fehlen, und da in dem vorliegenden Satze
die Einsetzung von einer Mehrzahl von ἐπίσκοποι durch den Apostel ohne jede Methode erwähnt wird, so
fällt jeder Grund hinweg, dass bei der Wahl einzelner Beamten das
Mittel des Loosens angewandt sein sollte, zumal bei dieser Deutung ein
Pleonasmus vorausgesetzt würde. Es ist vielmehr zu erklären,
dass Johannes an einzelnen Orten mehrere Beamte zugleich eingesetzt, an
anderen Orten wo schon ein Collegium bestand, dem Beamtenstande je ein
Mitglied eingereiht habe.”
7. When he had come to one of
the cities not far away (the name of which is given by some According to Stroth the Chronicon Paschale gives Smyrna as
the name of this city, and it has been suggested that Clement withholds
the name in order to spare the reputation of Polycarp, who, according
to tradition, was appointed bishop of that city by John.
8. But the presbyter The
same man that is called a bishop just above is here called a presbyter.
It is such passages—and they are not uncommon in the early
Fathers—that have seemed to many to demonstrate conclusively the
original identity of presbyters and bishops, an identity which is
maintained by most Presbyterians, and is admitted by many Episcopalians
(e.g. by Lightfoot in his essay on the Christian Ministry, printed in
his Commentary on Philippians). On the other hand, the passages which
reveal a distinction between presbyters and bishops are very early, and
are adduced not merely by prelatists, but by such disinterested
scholars as Harnack (in his translation of Hatch’s
Organization of the Early Christian Churches) as proving that
there was from the beginning a difference of some sort between a bishop
and a presbyter. I cannot enter here into a discussion of the various
views in regard to the original relation between bishops and
presbyters. I desire simply to suggest a theory of my own, leaving the
fuller exposition of it for some future time. My theory is that the
word πρεσβύτερος
was originally employed in the most general sense to
indicate any church officer, thus practically equivalent to the
ἡγούμενος of ἐφώτισε:
literally, “enlightened him.” The verb φωτίζω was very commonly used among the Fathers, with the meaning
“to baptize.” See Suicer’s Thesaurus, where
numerous examples of this use of the word by Chrysostom, Gregory
Nazianzen, and others, are given. τὴν
σφραγῖδα
κυρίου. The
word σφραγίς was very widely used in the primitive Church to denote baptism.
See Suicer’s Thesaurus for examples. Gregory Nazianzen, in
his Orat. XL., gives the reason for this use of the word:
“We call baptism a seal,” he says, “because it is a
preservative and a sign of ownership.” Chrysostom, in his third
Homily on 2 Cor. §7, says, “So also art thou thyself made
king and priest and prophet in the laver; a king, having dashed to
earth all the deeds of wickedness and slain thy sins; a priest, in that
thou offerest thyself to God, having sacrificed thy body and being
thyself slain also; …a prophet, knowing what shall be, and being
inspired by God, and sealed. For as upon soldiers a seal, so is also
the Spirit put upon the faithful. And if thou desert, thou art manifest
to all. For the Jews had circumcision for a seal, but we the earnest of
the Spirit.” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First
Series, Vol. XII. p. 293.)
9. But some youths of his own age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus prematurely freed from restraint. At first they enticed him by costly entertainments; then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they took him with them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with them in some greater crime.
10. He gradually became
accustomed to such practices, and on account of the positiveness of his
character, Literally, “greatness of his nature” (μέγεθος
φύσεως).
11. And finally despairing of salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having committed some great crime, since he was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like fate with the rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, most cruel of them all.
12. Time passed, and some necessity having arisen, they sent for John. But he, when he had set in order the other matters on account of which he had come, said, ‘Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit which both I and Christ committed to thee, the church, over which thou presidest, being witness.’
13. But the bishop was at first confounded, thinking that he was falsely charged in regard to money which he had not received, and he could neither believe the accusation respecting what he had not, nor could he disbelieve John. But when he said, ‘I demand the young man and the soul of the brother,’ the old man, groaning deeply and at the same time bursting into tears, said, ‘He is dead.’ ‘How and what kind of death?’ ‘He is dead to God,’ he said; ‘for he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, he haunts the mountain with a band like himself.’
14. But the Apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head with great lamentation, he said, ‘A fine guard I left for a brother’s soul! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.’ He rode away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place, he was taken prisoner by the robbers’ outpost.
15. He, however, neither fled
nor made entreaty,
16. The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was. But when he recognized John approaching, he turned in shame to flee.
17. But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might, crying out, ‘Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thine own father, unarmed, aged? Pity me, my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death as the Lord suffered death for us. For thee will I give up my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.’
18. And he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down; then he threw away his arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And when the old man approached, he embraced him, making confession with lamentations as he was able, baptizing himself a second time with tears, and concealing only his right hand.
19. But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness with the Saviour, besought him, fell upon his knees, kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by repentance, and led him back to the church. And making intercession for him with copious prayers, and struggling together with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not depart, as they say, until he had restored him to the church, furnishing a great example of true repentance and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection.”
Chapter XXIV.—The Order of the Gospels.
1. This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle.
2. And in the first place his
Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be
acknowledged as genuine. The
testimony of antiquity,—both orthodox and heretical,—to the
authenticity of John’s Gospel is universal, with the exception of
a single unimportant sect of the second century, the Alogi, who denied
the Johannine authorship on account of the Logos doctrine, which they
rejected, and very absurdly ascribed the Gospel to the Gnostic
Cerinthus; though its absolute opposition to Cerinthus’ views is
so apparent that Irenæus (III. 11. 1) even supposed John to have
written the Gospel against Cerinthus. The writings of the second
century are full of the spirit of John’s Gospel, and exhibit
frequent parallels in language too close to be mistaken; while from the
last quarter of the second century on it is universally and expressly
ascribed to John (Theophilus of Antioch and the Muratorian Fragment
being the first to name him as its author). The Church never
entertained a doubt of its authenticity until the end of the
seventeenth century, when it was first questioned by the English
Deists; but its genuineness was vindicated, and only scattering and
occasional attacks were made upon it until the rise of the
Tübingen school, since which time its authenticity has been one of
the most fiercely contested points in apostolic history. Its opponents
have been obliged gradually to throw back the date of its origin, until
now no sensible critic thinks of assigning it to a time later than the
early part of the second century, which is a great gain over the
position of Baur and his immediate followers, who threw it into the
latter half of the century. See Schaff’s Ch. Hist. I.
701–724 for a full defense of its authenticity and a
comprehensive account of the controversy; also p. 406–411 for the
literature of the subject. For the most complete summary of the
external evidence, see Ezra Abbott’s The Authorship of the
Fourth Gospel, 1880. Among recent works, compare Weiss’
Leben Jesu, I. 84–124, and his N. T. Einleitung,
586–620, for a defense of the Gospel, and upon the other side
Holtzmann’s Einleitung, 413–460, and
Weizsäcker’s Apost. Zeitalter, p.
531–558.
3. Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works.
4. And this they did because
they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for
instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness
of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles, Overbeck remarks that Eusebius in this passage is the first to
tell us that Paul wrote no more than what we have in the canon. But
this is a mistake, for Origen (quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below)
states it just as distinctly as Eusebius does. The truth is, neither of
them says it directly, and yet it is clear enough when this passage is
taken in connection with chapter 3, that it is what Eusebius meant, and
the same idea underlies the statement of the Muratorian Fragment. Of
course this does not prove that Paul wrote only the epistles which we
have (which is indeed contrary to fact), but it shows what the idea of
the early Church was. See
5. And the rest of the followers
of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and
countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things.
Nevertheless, of all the disciples The
majority of the mss., followed by Burton,
Schwegler, and Laemmer, read διατριβῶν
instead of μαθητῶν; and Burton therefore translates, sed tamen ex his omnibus
sole Matthæus et Joannes nobis reliquerunt commentarios de vita et
sermonibus Domini, “but of all these only Matthew and John
have left us commentaries on the life and conversations of the
Lord.” Two important mss., however,
read μαθητῶν, and this is confirmed by Rufinus and adopted by Heinichen,
Closs, and Crusè.
6. For Matthew, who had at first
preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples,
committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, That
Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew, although denied by many, is at
present the prevailing opinion among scholars, and may be accepted as a
fact both on account of its intrinsic probability and of the testimony
of the Fathers, which begins with the statement of Papias, quoted by
Eusebius in chap. 39, below, is confirmed by Irenæus (III. 1. 1,
quoted below, V. 8, §2),—whether independently of Papias or
not, we cannot say,—by Pantænus (but see below, Bk. V. chap.
10), by Origen (see below, VI. 25), by Jerome (de vir. ill.
3),—who says that a copy of it still existed in the library at
Cæsarea,—and by Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. 9). The
question as to the relation of this Hebrew original to our present
Greek Matthew is much more difficult. That our Greek Matthew is a mere
translation of the original Hebrew was once a prevailing theory, but is
now completely abandoned. That Matthew himself wrote both is a common
conservative position, but is denied by most critical scholars, many of
whom deny him the composition even of the Hebrew original. Upon the
theory that the original Hebrew Matthew was identical with the
“Gospel according to the Hebrews,” see chap. 27, note 8.
Upon the synoptic problem, see above, II. 15, note 4; and see the works
mentioned there for a discussion of this original Matthew, and in
addition the recent works by Gla, Original-Sprache des Matt.
Evang., 1887, and Resch, Agrapha, Leipzig, 1889. The very natural reason
which Eusebius gives for the composition of Matthew’s
Gospel—viz. that, when on the point of going to other nations, he
committed it to writing, and thus compensated them for the loss of his
presence—occurs in none of the earlier reports of the composition
of the Gospel which we now possess. It was probably a fact which he
took from common tradition, as he remarks in the previous sentence that
tradition says “they undertook it from
necessity.”
7. And when Mark and Luke had
already published their Gospels, Upon the date and authorship of the Gospel of Luke, see above,
chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Upon Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15, note
4. No
writer before Eusebius’ time, so far as is known, assigned the
reason given by him for the composition of John’s Gospel. Jerome,
de vir. ill. chap. 9, repeats the view, combining with it the
anti-heretical purpose. The indefinite expression, “they
say,” shows that Eusebius was recording tradition commonly
received in his time, and does not involve the authority of any
particular writer. This object—viz. the supplementing and filling
out of the accounts of the Synoptists—is assumed as the real
object by some modern scholars; but it is untenable, for though the
book serves this purpose to a great extent, the author’s real aim
was much higher,—viz. the establishment of belief in the
Messiahship and divinity of Christ (
8. And this indeed is true. For
it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done
by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the
Baptist, The
Synoptic Gospels certainly give the impression that Christ’s
public ministry lasted but a single year; and were it not for the
additional light which John throws upon the subject, the one year
ministry would be universally accepted, as it was by many of the early
Fathers,—e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,
Lactantius, &c. John, however, expressly mentions three, perhaps
four, passovers, so that Christ’s ministry lasted either two or
three years. Upon comparison of the Synoptists with John, it will be
seen that the events which they record are not all comprised within a
single year, as Eusebius thought, but that they are scattered over the
whole period of his ministry, although confined to his work in Galilee
up to the time of his last journey to Judea, six months before his
crucifixion. The distinction between John and the Synoptists, as to the
events recorded, is therefore rather that of place than of time: but
the distinction is not absolute.
9. For Matthew, after the forty
days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the
chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John
was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.”
10. Mark likewise says:
“Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into
Galilee.”
11. They say, therefore, that
the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his
Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier
evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period;
that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the
Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following
words: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus”;
12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.
13. One who understands this can
no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another,
inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of
Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his
life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John
quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew
and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it
were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit. Eusebius approaches here the opinion of Clement of Alexandria,
mentioned in note 7, above, who considered John’s Gospel a
spiritual supplement to the others,—a position which the Gospel
certainly fills most admirably.
14. These things may suffice,
which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led
to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by
us. See Bk. II. chap. 15.
15. But as for Luke, in the
beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to
write it. See
16. So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them.
17. But of the writings of John,
not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been
accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. The testimony to the first Epistle of John goes hand in hand with
that to the fourth Gospel (cf. note 1, above). But we can find still
clearer trace of the Epistle in the early part of the second century
than of the Gospel (e.g. in Polycarp’s Epistle, where traces of
the Gospel are wanting; and so, too, in Papias, according to chap. 39,
below). The writings of the second century are full of the spirit of
the Epistle as well as of the Gospel and exhibit frequent parallels in
language too close to be mistaken. The first express testimony as to
its authorship occurs in the Muratorian Fragment. The first systematic
attack upon the Epistle was made by Bretschneider, in 1820, in
connection with the attack upon the Gospel. The Tübingen school
likewise rejected both. Before Bretschneider there had been a few
critics (e.g. Lange, 1797) who had rejected the Epistle while accepting
the Gospel, and since then a few have accepted the Epistle while
rejecting the Gospel; but these are exceptional cases. The Gospel and
Epistle have almost universally, and quite rightly, been regarded as
the work of the same author, and may be said to stand or fall together.
Cf. the works cited in note 1, and also Westcott’s Epistles of
St. John. (On the use of πρότερα instead of πρώτη, see p.
388, note.) The
Muratorian Fragment expressly ascribes two epistles to John. Citations
from the second Epistle appear first in Irenæus, though he does
not distinguish it from the first. Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
II. 15) quotes from 1 John under the formula “John says in his
larger Epistle,” showing that he knew of a second. The lack of
citations from the second and third Epistles is easily explained by
their brevity and the minor importance of their doctrinal contents. The
second and third Epistles belong to the seven Antilegomena.
Origen cites the first Epistle often, the second and third never, and
of the latter he says “not all agree that they are genuine”
(quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25), and apparently he himself did not
consider them of apostolic origin (cf. Weiss’ Einleitung,
p. 87). Origen’s treatment of the Catholic Epistles was
implicitly followed by his pupil Dionysius and by succeeding
generations. Eusebius himself does not express his own judgment in the
matter, but simply records the state of tradition which was a mere
repetition of Origen’s position in regard to them. Jerome (de
vir. ill. 9 and 18) says that most writers ascribe them to the
presbyter John—an opinion which evidently arose upon the basis of
the author’s self-designation in
18. In regard to the Apocalypse,
the opinions of most men are still divided. The Apocalypse is one of the best authenticated books of the New
Testament. It was used by Papias and others of the earliest Fathers,
and already by Justin Martyr was expressly ascribed to the apostle
John. (Compare also the epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne,
Eusebius, V. 1.) Tradition, so far as we have it, is unanimous (with
the exception of the Alogi, an insignificant heretical sect of the
second century, who attributed the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel to
Cerinthus. Caius is not an exception: see below, chap. 28, note 4) in
ascribing the Apocalypse to the apostle John, until Dionysius of
Alexandria, who subjected the book to severe literary criticism (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 25), and upon the assumption of the genuineness
of the Gospel and the first Epistle, doubted its authenticity on
account of its divergence from these writings both in spirit and in
style. He says (VII. 25, §2) that some others before him had
denied the Johannine authorship and ascribed the book to Cerinthus, but
the way in which he speaks of them shows that there cannot have been a
ruling tradition to that effect. He may have referred simply to the
Alogi, or he may have included others of whom we do not know. He
himself rejects this hypothesis, and supposes the books to have been
written by some John, not the apostle (by what John he does not
decide), and does not deny the inspiration and prophetic character of
the book. Dionysius was led to exercise criticism upon the Apocalypse
(which was as well supported by tradition as any book of the New
Testament) from dogmatic reasons. The supposed sensuous and
materialistic conceptions of the Apocalypse were offensive to the
spiritualizing tendencies of the Alexandrian school, and the
offensiveness increased with time. Although Dionysius held the work as
inspired and authoritative, yet his position would lead logically to
the exclusion of the Apocalypse from the canon, just as Hermas had been
already excluded, although Origen held it to be inspired and
authoritative in the same sense in which Dionysius held the Apocalypse
to be,—i.e. as composed by an apostle’s pupil, not by an
apostle. Apocalyptic literature did not belong properly to the New
Testament, but rather to the prophetic portion of the Old Testament;
but the number of the Old Testament prophets was already complete
(according to the Muratorian Fragment), and therefore no prophetic
writing (e.g. Hermas) could find a place there; nor, on the other hand,
could it be made a part of the New Testament, for it was not apostolic.
The same was true of the Apocalypse of Peter, and the only thing which
kept the Apocalypse of John in the canon was its supposed apostolic
authorship. It was received as a part of the New Testament not because
it was apocalyptic, but because it was apostolic, and thus the
criticism of Dionysius would lead logically to its rejection from the
canon. John’s Apocalypse is the only New Testament book cited by
Justin as γραφή (so also
by the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, Eusebius, V. 1), and this because
of its prophetic character. It must have been (according to their
opinion) either a true prophecy (and therefore inspired by the Holy
Spirit) or a forgery. Its authenticity being accepted, the former
alternative necessarily followed, and it was placed upon a line with
the Old Testament prophets, i.e. with the γραφή. After
Dionysius’ time doubts of its authenticity became quite
widespread in the Eastern Church, and among the doubters was Eusebius,
who evidently wished to ascribe it to the mysterious presbyter John,
whose existence he supposed to be established by Papias in a passage
quoted in chap. 39, §4, below (compare the note on the passage).
Eusebius’ treatment of the book is hesitating. He evidently
himself discredited its apostolic authority, but at the same time he
realized (as a historian more keenly than Dionysius the theologian) the
great weight of external testimony to its authenticity, and therefore
he gives his readers the liberty (in the next chapter) of putting it
either with the Homologoumena or with the νόθοι. It
legitimately belonged among the Homologoumena, but
Dionysius’ attitude toward it doubtless led Eusebius to think
that it might at some time in the future be thrown out of the canon,
and of course his own objections to its contents and his doubts as to
its apostolicity caused him to contemplate such a possibility not
without pleasure (see the next chapter, note 1). In chapter 18, above,
he speaks of it as the “so-called” Apocalypse of John, but
in other places he repeats many testimonies in favor of its
authenticity (see the next note), and only in chapter 39 does he state
clearly his own opinion in the matter, which even there he does not
press as a fixed conviction. The reason for the doubts of the
book’s genuineness on the part of Eusebius and so many others lay
evidently most of all in objections to the contents of the book, which
seemed to favor chiliasm, and had been greatly abused for the
advancement of the crassest chiliastic views. Many, like Dionysius of
Alexandria were no doubt influenced also by the idea that it was
impossible that the Gospel and the Apocalypse could be the works of one
author, and they preferred to sacrifice the latter rather than the
former. The book has found objectors in almost every age of the Church,
but has continued to hold its place in the canon (its position was
never disturbed in the Western Church, and only for some two or three
centuries after Eusebius in parts of the Eastern Church) as an
authentic work of the apostle John. The Tübingen school exalted
the Apocalypse to the honorable position of one of the five genuine
monuments of the apostolic age, and from it as a basis conducted their
attacks upon the other Johannine writings. The more modern critical
school is doubtful about it as well as the rest of the Johannine
literature, and the latest theory makes the Apocalypse a Jewish
document in a Christianized form (see above, chap. 18, note 1). Compare
especially Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 411–413, and
Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 93. See Bk. VII. chap. 25, where Eusebius quotes a lengthy discussion
of the Apocalypse by Dionysius of Alexandria. He also cites opinions
favorable to the authenticity of the Apocalypse from Justin (in IV. 18,
below), Theophilus (IV. 24), Irenæus (V. 8), and Origen (VI. 25),
but such scattered testimonies can hardly be regarded as the
fulfillment of the definite promise which he makes in this
passage.
Chapter XXV.—The Divine
Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not. This chapter is the only place in which Eusebius attempts to treat
the canon systematically, and in it he is speaking purely as an
historian, not as a critic. He is endeavoring to give an accurate
statement of the general opinion of the orthodox Church of his day in
regard to the number and names of its sacred books. He does not, in
this passage, apply to the various works any criterion of canonicity
further than their acceptance as canonical by the orthodox Church. He
simply records the state of the canon; he does not endeavor to form a
canon. He has nothing to do, therefore, with the nature and origin of
the books which the church accepts. As remarked by Weiss (Einleitung
in das N. T., p. 96), the influence of Eusebius in the formation of
the canon is very commonly overestimated. He contributed himself very
little; his office was to record the usage of the church of his age,
not to mould it. The church whose judgment he
takes is, in the main, the church of the Orient, and in that church at
this time all the works which we now call canonical (and only those)
were already commonly accepted, or were becoming more and more widely
accepted as such. From the standpoint, then, of canonicity, Eusebius
divided the works which he mentions in this chapter into two classes:
the canonical (including the Homologoumena and the
Antilogomena) and the uncanonical (including the νόθοι and the ἀναπλ€σματα
αὶρετικῶν
ἀνδρῶν). But
the νόθοι he
connects much more closely with the Homologoumena and
Antilegomena than with the heretical works, which are, in fact,
separated from all the rest and placed in a class by themselves. What,
then, is the relation of the Homologoumena, Antilegomena,
and νόθοι to each
other, as Eusebius classifies them? The crucial point is the relation
of the νόθοι to
the ἀντιλεγόμενα. Lücke (Ueber den N. T. Kanon des Eusebius, p.
11 sq.) identified the two, but such identification is impossible in
this passage. The passages which he cites to confirm his view prove
only that the word Antilegomena is commonly employed by Eusebius
in a general sense to include all disputed works, and therefore, of
course, the νόθοι also; that
is, the term Antilegomena is ordinarily used, not as identical
with νόθοι, but as
inclusive of it. This, however, establishes nothing as to
Eusebius’ technical use of the words in the present passage,
where he is endeavoring to draw close distinctions. Various views have
been taken since Lücke’s time upon the relation of these
terms to each other in this connection; but, to me at least, none of
them seem satisfactory, and I have been led to adopt the following
simple explanation. The Antilegomena, in the narrower sense
peculiar to this summary, were works which, in Eusebius’ day,
were, as he believed, commonly accepted by the Eastern Church as
canonical, but which, nevertheless, as he well knew, had not always
been thus accepted, and, indeed, were not even then universally
accepted as such. The tendency, however, was distinctly in the
direction of their ever-wider acceptance. On the other hand, the
νόθοι were works which, although they had been used by the Fathers
and were quoted as γραφὴ by some of
them, were, at this time, not acknowledged as canonical. Although
perhaps not universally rejected from the canon, yet they were commonly
so rejected, and the tendency was distinctly in the direction of their
ever-wider rejection. Whatever their merit, and whatever their
antiquity and their claims to authenticity, Eusebius could not place
them among the canonical books. The term νόθοι, then, in
this passage, must not be taken, as it commonly is, to mean spurious or
unauthentic, but to mean uncanonical. It is in this sense, as against
the canonical Homologoumena and Antilegomena, that
Eusebius, as I believe, uses it here, and his use of it in this sense
is perfectly legitimate. In using it he passes no judgment upon the
authenticity of the works referred to; that, in the present case, is
not his concern. As an historian he observed tendencies, and judged
accordingly. He saw that the authority of the Antilegomena was
on the increase, that of the νόθοι on the
decrease, and already he could draw a sharp distinction between them,
as Clement of Alexandria could not do a century before. The distinction
drawn has no relation to the authenticity or original authority of the
works of the two classes, but only to their canonicity or uncanonicity
at the time Eusebius wrote. This interpretation will help us
to understand the peculiar way in which Eusebius treats the Apocalypse,
and thus his treatment of it becomes an argument in favor of the
interpretation. He puts it, first among the Homologoumena with
an εἴγε
φανείη, and then
among the νόθοι with
an εἴ
φανείη. No one,
so far as I know, has explained why it should be put among the
νόθοι as an alternative to the Homologoumena, instead of
among the Antilegomena, which, on the common interpretation of
the relation of the classes, might be naturally expected. If the view
presented is correct, the reason is clear. The Antilegomena were
those works which had been disputed, but were becoming more and more
widely accepted as canonical. The Apocalypse could not under any
circumstances fall into this class, for the doubts raised against it in
the orthodox Church were of recent date. It occupied, in fact, a
peculiar position, for there was no other work which, while accepted as
canonical, was doubted in the present more than in the past. Eusebius
then must either put it into a special class or put it conditionally
into two different classes, as he does. If the doubts should become so
widespread as to destroy its canonicity, it would fall naturally into
the νόθοι, for then
it would hold the same position as the other works of that class. As an
historian, Eusebius sees the tendency and undoubtedly has the idea that
the Apocalypse may eventually, like the other Christian works of the
same class (the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), become one of
the νόθοι, one of
the works which, formerly accepted, is at length commonly denied to be
canonical: and so, as an historian, he presents the alternative. The
Apocalypse was the only work in regard to which any doubt could
exist. Eusebius’ failure to
mention explicitly in this passage the Epistle to the Hebrews, has
caused considerable misunderstanding. The explanation, if the view
presented be adopted, is simple. Eusebius included it, I believe, among
the epistles of Paul, and did not especially mention it, simply because
there was no dispute about its canonicity. Its Pauline authorship had
been widely disputed as Eusebius informs us elsewhere, and various
theories had been proposed to account for it; but its canonicity had
not been doubted in the orthodox Church, and therefore doubts as to the
authorship of it did not in the least endanger its place among the
Homologoumena, as used here in a technical sense; and since
Eusebius was simply stating the works of each class, not discussing the
nature and origin of those works, he could, in perfect fairness,
include it in Paul’s epistles (where he himself believed it
belonged) without entering upon any discussion of it. Another noticeable omission is
that of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. All efforts to find
a satisfactory reason for this are fruitless. It should have been
placed among the νόθοι with the
Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as Eusebius’ treatment of it in other
passages shows. It must be assumed, with Holtzmann, that the omission
of it was nothing more nor less than an oversight. Eusebius, then, classifies the
works mentioned in this chapter upon two principles: first, in relation
to canonicity, into the canonical and the uncanonical; and secondly, in
relation to character, into the orthodox (Homologoumena,
Antilegomena, which are canonical, and νόθοι,
which are uncanonical), and heterodox (which are not, and never have
been, canonical, never have been accepted as of use or authority). The
Homologoumena and Antilegomena, then, are both canonical
and orthodox, the ἀναπλ€σματα
αἱρετικῶν
ἀνδρῶν are
neither canonical nor orthodox, while the νόθοι occupy a
peculiar position, being orthodox but not canonical. The last-named are
much more closely related to the canonical than to the heterodox works,
because when the canon was a less concrete and exact thing than it had
at length become, they were associated with the other orthodox works
as, like them, useful for edification and instruction. With the
heretical works they had never been associated, and possessed in common
with them only the negative characteristic of non-canonicity. Eusebius
naturally connects them closely with the former, and severs them
completely from the latter. The only reason for mentioning the latter
at all was the fact that they bore the names of apostles, and thus
might be supposed, as they often had been—by Christians, as well
as by unbelievers—to be sacred books like the rest. The statement
of the canon gives Eusebius an opportunity to warn his readers against
them. Upon Eusebius’ New
Testament Canon, see especially the work of Lücke referred to
above, also Westcott’s Canon of the New Testament, 5th
ed., p. 414 sq., Harnack’s Lehre der Zwölf Apostel,
p. 6 sq., Holtzmann’s Einleitung in das N.T., p. 154 sq.,
and Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 92 sq. The greater part of the
present note was read before the American Society of Church History in
December, 1888, and is printed in Vol. I. of that Society’s
papers, New York, 1889, p. 251 sq.
1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum
up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned.
First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; On
Matthew, see the previous chapter, note 5; on Mark, Bk. II. chap. 15,
note 4; on Luke, Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15; on John, the
previous chapter, note 1. See
above, chap. 4, note 14.
2. After this must be reckoned
the epistles of Paul; See chap. 3, note 16. Eusebius evidently means to include the
Epistle to the Hebrews among Paul’s epistles at this point, for
he mentions it nowhere else in this chapter (see above, note
1). See the previous chapter, note 18. See chap. 3, note 1. κυρωτέον See the previous chapter, note 20. Upon Eusebius’ treatment
in this chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note 1,
above. Compare the previous chapter, note 21. ἐν
ὁμολογουμένοις
3. Among the disputed
writings, τῶν
ἀντιλεγομένων γνωρίμων See
Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46. See
ibid. note 47. See
above, chap. 3, note 4. See the previous chapter, note 19.
4. Among the rejected writings ἐν
τοῖς
νόθοις. See
above, chap. 3, note 20. Ibid.note 23. Ibid.note 9. The author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is unknown. No
name appears in the epistle itself, and no hints are given which enable
us to ascribe it to any known writer. External testimony, without a
dissenting voice, ascribes it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. But
this testimony, although unanimous, is neither very strong nor very
extensive. The first to use the epistle is Clement of Alexandria, who
expressly and frequently ascribes it to Barnabas the companion of Paul.
Origen quotes from the epistle twice, calling it the Epistle of
Barnabas, but without expressing any judgment as to its authenticity,
and without defining its author more closely. Jerome (de vir.
ill. 6) evidently did not doubt its authenticity, but placed it
nevertheless among the Apocrypha, and his opinion prevailed down to the
seventeenth century. It is difficult to decide what Eusebius thought in
regard to its authorship. His putting it among the νόθοι here does not prove that he considered it unauthentic (see note 1,
above); nor, on the other hand, does his classing it among the
Antilegomena just below prove that he considered it authentic,
but non-apostolic, as some have claimed. Although, therefore, the
direct external testimony which we have is in favor of the apostolic
Barnabas as its author, it is to be noticed that there must have
existed a widespread doubt as to its authenticity, during the first
three centuries, to have caused its complete rejection from the canon
before the time of Eusebius. That this rejection arose from the fact
that Barnabas was not himself one of the twelve apostles cannot be. For
apostolic authorship was not the sole test of canonicity, and Barnabas
stood in close enough relation to the apostles to have secured his work
a place in the canon, during the period of its gradual formation, had
its authenticity been undoubted. We may therefore set this inference
over against the direct external testimony for Barnabas’
authorship. When we come to internal testimony, the arguments are
conclusive against “the Levite Barnabas” as the author of
the epistle. These arguments have been well stated by Donaldson, in his
History of Christian Literature, I. p. 204 sqq. Milligan, in
Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., endeavors to
break the force of these arguments, and concludes that the authenticity
of the epistle is highly probable; but his positions are far from
conclusive, and he may be said to stand almost alone among modern
scholars. Especially during the last few years, the verdict against the
epistle’s authenticity has become practically unanimous. Some
have supposed the author to have been an unknown man by the name of
Barnabas: but this is pure conjecture. That the author lived in
Alexandria is apparently the ruling opinion, and is quite probable. It
is certain that the epistle was written between the destruction of
Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and the time of Clement of
Alexandria: almost certain that it was written before the building of
Ælia Capitolina; and probable that it was written between 100 and
120, though dates ranging all the way from the beginning of
Vespasian’s reign to the end of Hadrian’s have been, and
are still, defended by able scholars. The epistle is still extant in a
corrupt Greek original and in an ancient Latin translation. It is
contained in all the editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially
Gebhardt and Harnack’s second edition, 1876, and
Hilgenfeld’s edition of 1877). An English translation is given in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 133 sqq. For the most
important literature, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 671 sqq., and
Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition, p. xl. sqq. τῶν
ἀποστόλων αἰ
λεγόμεναι
διδαχαί.
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Διδαχὴ τῶν
δώδεκα
ἀποστόλων, a brief document in sixteen chapters, was published in
1884 by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, from a ms. discovered by him in the Jerusalem convent in
Constantinople in 1873. The discovery threw the whole theological world
into a state of excitement, and the books and articles upon the subject
from America and from every nation in Europe have appeared by the
hundred. No such important find has been made for many years. The light
which the little document has thrown upon early Church history is very
great, while at the same time the questions which it has opened are
numerous and weighty. Although many points in regard to its origin and
nature are still undecided, the following general positions may be
accepted as practically established. It is composed of two parts, of
which the former (chaps. 1–6) is a redaction of an independent
moral treatise, probably of Jewish origin, entitled the Two
Ways, which was known and used in Alexandria, and there formed the
basis of other writings (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, chaps.
18–21, and the Ecclesiastical Canons) which were at first
supposed to have been based upon the Teaching itself.
(Bryennios, Harnack, and others supposed that the Teaching was based
upon Barnabas, but this view has never been widely accepted.) This
(Jewish) Two Ways which was in existence certainly before the
end of the first century (how much earlier we do not know) was early in
the second century (if not before) made a part of a primitive church
manual, viz. our present Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The
Two Ways, both before and at the time of (perhaps after) its
incorporation into the Teaching, received important additions,
partly of a Christian character. The completed Teaching dates
from Syria, though this is denied by many writers (e.g. by Harnack),
who prefer, upon what seem to me insufficient grounds, Egypt as the
place of composition. The completed Teaching formed the basis of
a part of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which
originated in Syria in the fourth century. The most complete and useful
edition is that of Schaff (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
3d ed., New York, 1889), which contains the Greek text with English
translation and a very full discussion of the work itself and of the
various questions which are affected by its discovery. Harnack’s
important edition Die Lehre der zwölff Apostel (Texte
und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., II. 1 and 2,
1884) is still the standard German work upon the subject, though it
represents many positions in regard to the origin and history of the
work which have since been proved incorrect, and which he himself has
given up. His article in Herzog, 2d ed., XVII. 656 sqq. and his Die
Apostel-Lehre und die jüdischen Beiden Wege, 1886, should
therefore be compared with his original work. Schaff’s book
contains a very complete digest of the literature down to the close of
1888. As to the position which the Teaching occupied in the
canon we know very little, on account of the very sparing use of it
made by the early Fathers. Clement of Alexandria cites it once as
Scripture (γραφή), but no
other writer before the time of Eusebius treats it in the same way, and
yet Eusebius’ mention of it among the νόθοι shows that it must have enjoyed a wide circulation at some time
and have been accepted by at least a portion of the Church as a book
worthy to be read in divine service, and thus in a certain sense as a
part of the canon. In Eusebius’ time, however, its canonicity had
been denied (though according to Athanasius Fest. Ep. 39, it was
still used in catechetical instruction), and he was therefore obliged
to relegate it to a position among the νόθοι. Upon
Eusebius’ use of the plural διδαχαί, see the writer’s article in the Andover Review,
April, 1886, p. 439 sq. ἀθετοῦσιν. See the previous chapter, note 20. τοῖς
ὁμολογουμένοις. See note 1, above.
5. And among these some have
placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, This
Gospel, probably composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), is no longer extant, but
we possess a few fragments of it in Greek and Latin which are collected
by Grabe, Spic. I. 15–31, and by Hilgenfeld, N. T.
Extra Can. rec. II. The existing material upon which to base a
judgment as to the nature of the lost Gospel and as to its relation to
our canonical gospels is very limited. It is certain, however, that it
cannot in its original form have been a working over of our canonical
Matthew (as many have thought); it contains too many little marks of
originality over against our Greek Matthew to admit of such a
supposition. That it was, on the other hand, the original of which our
Greek Matthew is the translation is also impossible; a comparison of
its fragments with our Matthew is sufficient to prove this. That it was
the original source from which Matthew and Luke derived their common
matter is possible—more cannot be said. Lipsius (Dict. of
Christ. Biog. II. 709–712) and Westcott (Hist. of the
Canon, p. 515 sqq.) give the various quotations which are supposed
to have been made from it. How many of them are actually to be traced
back to it as their source is not certain. It is possible, but not
certain, that Papias had seen it (see chap. 39, note 28), possible also
that Ignatius had, but the passage relied on to establish the fact
fails to do so (see chap. 36, note 14). It was probably used by Justin
(see Westcott, ibid. p. 516, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 712),
undoubtedly by Hegesippus (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22), and was
perhaps known to Pantænus (see below, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 8).
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 9) and Origen (in
Johan. II. 6 and often) are the first to bear explicit testimony to
the existence of such a gospel. Eusebius also was personally acquainted
with it, as may be gathered from his references to it in III. 39 and
IV. 22, and from his quotation in (the Syriac version of) his
Theophany, IV. 13 (Lee’s trans. p. 234), and in the Greek
Theophany, §22 (Migne, VI. 685). The latter also shows the
high respect in which he held the work. Jerome’s testimony in
regard to it is very important, but it must be kept in mind that the
gospel had undergone extensive alterations and additions before his
time, and as known to him was very different from the original form
(cf. Lipsius, ibid. p. 711), and therefore what he predicates of
it cannot be applied to the original without limitation. Epiphanius has
a good deal to say about it, but he evidently had not himself seen it,
and his reports of it are very confused and misleading. The statement
of Lipsius, that according to Eusebius the gospel was reckoned by many
among the Homologoumena, is incorrect; ἐν
τούτοις refers rather to the νόθοι among
which its earlier acceptance by a large part of the Church, but present
uncanonicity, places it by right. Irenæus expressly states that
there were but four canonical gospels (Adv. Hær. III. 2,
8), so also Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV. 5), while Clement of
Alexandria cites the gospel with the same formula which he uses for the
Scriptures in general, and evidently looked upon it as, if not quite,
at least almost, on a par with the other four Gospels. Origen on the
other hand (in Johan. II. 6, Hom. in Jer. XV. 4, and
often) clearly places it upon a footing lower than that of the four
canonical Gospels. Upon the use of the gospel by the Ebionites and upon
its relation to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, see chap. 27, note
8. The literature upon the
Gospel according to the Hebrews is very extensive. Among recent
discussions the most important are by Hilgenfeld, in his Evangelien
nach ihrer Entstehung (1854); in the Zeitschrift f. wiss.
Theol., 1863, p. 345 sqq.; in his N. T. extra Canon. rec.
(2d ed. 1884); and in his Einleitung z. N. T. (1875); by
Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879); and
finally, a very thorough discussion of the subject, which reached me
after the composition of the above note, by Handmann, Das
Hebräer-Evangelium (Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und
Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3, Leipzig, 1888). This work gives the
older literature of the subject with great fullness. Still more
recently Resch’s Agrapha (ibid. V. 4, Leipzig,
1889) has come to hand. It discusses the Gospel on p. 322
sq. τῶν
ἀντιλεγομένων
6. But we have nevertheless felt
compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works
which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and
commonly accepted, ἀνωμολογημένας οὐκ
ἐνδιαθήκους
μὲν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἀντιλεγομένας. Eusebius, in this clause, refers to the νόθοι, which, of course, while distinguished from the canonical
Antilegomena, yet are, like them, disputed, and hence belong as
truly as they to the more general class of Antilegomena. This,
of course, explains how, in so many places in his History, he can use
the words νόθοι and
ἀντιλεγόμενα
interchangeably (as e.g. in chap. 31, §6). In the
present passage the νόθοι, as both
uncanonical and disputed, are distinguished from the canonical
writings,—including both the universally accepted and the
disputed,—which are here thrown together without distinction. The
point to be emphasized is that he is separating here the uncanonical
from the canonical, without regard to the character of the individual
writings within the latter class. See
chap. 3, note 5. The
Gospel of Thomas is of Gnostic origin and thoroughly Docetic. It was
written probably in the second century. The original Gnostic form is no
longer extant, but we have fragmentary Catholic recensions of it in
both Latin and Greek, from which heretical traits are expunged with
more or less care. The gospel contained many very fabulous stories
about the childhood of Jesus. It is mentioned frequently by the Fathers
from Origen down, but always as an heretical work. The Greek text is
given by Tischendorf, p. 36 sqq., and an English translation is
contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 395–405. See
Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p.
703–705. This gospel is mentioned by Origen (Hom. in Lucam I.), by
Jerome (Præf. in Matt.), and by other later writers. The
gospel is no longer extant, though some fragments have been preserved
by Clement of Alexandria, e.g. in Strom. II. 9, Strom.
III. 4 (quoted below in chap. 30), and Strom. VII. 13, which
show that it had a high moral tone and emphasized asceticism. We know
very little about it, but Lipsius conjectures that it was
“identical with the παραδόσεις
Ματθίου which were in high esteem in Gnostic circles, and especially among
the Basilidæans.” See Lipsius, ibid. p.
716. Eusebius so far as we know is the first writer to refer to these
Acts. But they are mentioned after him by Epiphanius, Philaster, and
Augustine (see Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apoc. p. xl.).
The Acts of Andrew (Acta Andrææ) were of Gnostic
origin and circulated among that sect in numerous editions. The oldest
extant portions (both in Greek and somewhat fragmentary) are the
Acts of Andrew and Matthew (translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VIII. 517–525) and the Acts of Peter and
Andrew (ibid. 526–527). The Acts and Martyrdom of
the Holy Apostle Andrew (ibid. 511–516), or the
so-called Epistle of the Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning
the Passion of Andrew, is a later work, still extant in a Catholic
recension in both Greek and Latin. The fragments of these three are
given by Tischendorf in his Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 105 sqq. and
132 sqq., and in his Apocal. Apoc. p. 161 sq. See Lipsius in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 30. Eusebius is likewise, so far as we know, the first writer to refer
to these Acts. But they are afterward mentioned by Epiphanius, Photius,
Augustine, Philaster, &c. (see Tischendorf, ibid. p.
lxxiii.). They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few fragments
(collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. Johannis a Leucio Charino
conscriptorum, Halle, 1847). A Catholic extract very much abridged,
but containing clear Gnostic traits, is still extant and is given by
Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 266 sq. (translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 560–564). The last two works
mentioned belong to a collection of apocryphal Acts which were commonly
ascribed to Leucius, a fictitious character who stands as the legendary
author of the whole of this class of Gnostic literature. From the
fourth century on, frequent reference is made to various Gnostic Acts
whose number must have been enormous. Although no direct references are
made to them before the time of Eusebius, yet apparent traces of them
are found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, &c., which
make it probable that these writers were acquainted with them, and it
may at any rate be assumed as established that many of them date from
the third century and some of them even from the second century. See
Salmon’s article Leucius in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. III. 703–707, and Lipsius’ article in the same
work, I. 28.
7. And further, the character of
the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts
and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so
completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show
themselves to be the fictions of heretics. αἱρετικῶν
ἀνδρῶν
ἀναπλ€σματα ἐν
νόθοις.
Let us now proceed with our history.
Chapter XXVI.—Menander the Sorcerer.
1. Menander, Justin, in the passage quoted just below, is the first one to tell
us about Menander. According to him, he was a Samaritan and a disciple
of Simon Magus, and, like him, deceived many by the practice of magic
arts. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 23) gives a somewhat
fuller account of him, very likely based upon Justin’s work
against heresies which the latter mentions in his Apol. I. 26,
and from which Irenæus quotes in IV. 6. 2 (at least he quotes from
a Contra Marcionem, which was in all probability a part of the
same work; see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22), and perhaps in V. 26. 2.
From this account of Irenæus that of Eusebius is drawn, and no new
particulars are added. Tertullian also mentions Menander (De
Anima, 23, 50) and his resurrection doctrine, but evidently knows
only what Irenæus has already told; and so the accounts of all the
early Fathers rest wholly upon Justin and Irenæus, and probably
ultimately upon Justin alone. See Salmon’s article
Menander in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Upon Simon Magus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3. “Instrument of diabolical power,” is an embellishment
of Eusebius’ own, quite in keeping with his usual treatment of
heretics. It is evident, however, that neither Justin nor Irenæus
looked upon Menander with any greater degree of allowance.
2. For he said that he was
himself the Saviour, who had been sent down from invisible æons
for the salvation of men; Simon (Irenæus, I. 23. 1) taught that he himself was the
Supreme Power; but Menander, according to Irenæus (ibid.
§5), taught that the Supreme Power continues unknown to all, but
that he himself (as Eusebius here says) was sent forth as a saviour for
the deliverance of men. He
agreed with Simon in teaching that the world was formed by angels who
had taken their origin from the Ennœa of the Supreme Power, and
that the magical power which he imparted enabled his followers to
overcome these creative angels, as Simon had taught of himself before
him. This baptism (according to Irenæus “into his own
name”), and the promise of the resurrection as a result, seem to
have been an original addition of Menander’s. The exemption from
death taught by Menander was evidently understood by Irenæus,
Tertullian (De Anima, 50), and Eusebius in its physical, literal
sense; but the followers of Menander must of course have put a
spiritual meaning upon it, or the sect could not have continued in
existence for any length of time. It is certain that it was flourishing
at the time of Justin; how much longer we do not know. Justin himself
does not emphasize the physical element, and he undoubtedly understood
that the immortality taught was spiritual simply. Hegesippus (quoted
below, in Bk. IV. chap. 22) mentions the Menandrianists, but this does
not imply that he was himself acquainted with them, for he draws his
information largely from Justin Martyr. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 23. 5. In III. 4. 3 he
mentions Menander again, making him the father of all the
Gnostics.
3. And Justin, in the passage in
which he mentions Simon, gives an account of this man also, in the
following words: Justin, Apol. I. 26. The
situation of the village of Capparattea is uncertain. See
Harnack’s Quellen-Kritik des Gnosticismus, p.
84. Menander’s Antiochene activity is reported only by Justin.
It is probable, therefore, that Tertullian used Irenæus alone in
writing his account of Menander, for it is unlikely that both of them
would have omitted the same fact if they drew independently from
Justin.
4. And it was indeed an artifice
of the devil to endeavor, by means of such sorcerers, who assumed the
name of Christians, to defame the great mystery of godliness by magic
art, and through them to make ridiculous the doctrines of the Church
concerning the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the
dead. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. XVIII. 1) says that the denial of
the resurrection of the body was a peculiarly Samaritan heresy, and it
would seem therefore that the heresy of these Menandrianists was in
that direction, i.e. that they taught rather a spiritual immortality
and denied a bodily resurrection (as suggested in note 6); evidently,
however, this was not Eusebius’ idea. He probably looked upon
them as discrediting the Christian doctrine of a resurrection by
teaching a physical immortality, which of course was soon proved
contrary to truth, and which thus, being confounded by the masses with
the doctrines of the Christians, brought the latter also into contempt,
and threw discredit upon immortality and resurrection of every
kind.
Chapter
XXVII.—The Heresy of the
Ebionites. The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic
was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the
Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated
them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed
all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the
Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile
Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation
of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish
Christians. With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as time
went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the Gentiles, the
breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there were two opposite
tendencies among such Christians as still observed the Jewish law: some
wished to impose it upon all Christians; others confined it to
themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with charity; but the former
he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. Trypho. 47). For Justin
the distinguishing mark of such schismatics is not a doctrinal heresy,
but an anti-Christian principle of life. But the natural result of
these Judaizing tendencies and of the involved hostility to the apostle
of the Gentiles was the ever more tenacious clinging to the Jewish idea
of the Messiah; and as the Church, in its strife with Gnosticism, laid
an ever-increasing stress upon Christology, the difference in this
respect between itself and these Jewish Christians became ever more
apparent until finally left far behind by the Church in its rapid
development, they were looked upon as heretics. And so in Irenæus
(I. 26. 2) we find a definite heretical sect called Ebionites, whose
Christology is like that of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who reject the
apostle Paul, use the Gospel of Matthew only, and still cling to the
observance of the Jewish law; but the distinction which Justin draws
between the milder and stricter class is no longer drawn: all are
classed together in the ranks of heretics, because of their heretical
Christology (cf. ibid. III. 21. 1; IV. 33. 4; V. 1. 3). In
Tertullian and Hippolytus their deviation from the orthodox Christology
is still more clearly emphasized, and their relation to the Jewish law
drops still further into the background (cf. Hippolytus, Phil.
VII. 22; X. 18; and Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 14, 18,
&c.). So Origen is acquainted with the Ebionites as an heretical
sect, but, with a more exact knowledge of them than was possessed by
Irenæus who lived far away from their chief centre, he
distinguishes two classes; but the distinction is made upon
Christological lines, and is very different from that drawn by Justin.
This distinction of Origen’s between those Ebionites who accepted
and those who denied the supernatural birth of Christ is drawn also by
Eusebius (see below, §3). Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. sqq.)
is the first to make two distinct heretical sects—the Ebionites
and the Nazarenes. It has been the custom of historians to carry this
distinction back into apostolic times, and to trace down to the time of
Epiphanius the continuous existence of a milder party—the
Nazarenes—and of a stricter party—the Ebionites; but this
distinction Nitzsch (Dogmengesch. p. 37 sqq.) has shown to be
entirely groundless. The division which Epiphanius makes is different
from that of Justin, as well as from that of Origen and Eusebius; in
fact, it is doubtful if he himself had any clear knowledge of a
distinction, his reports are so contradictory. The Ebionites known to
him were most pronounced heretics; but he had heard of others who were
said to be less heretical, and the conclusion that they formed another
sect was most natural. Jerome’s use of the two words is
fluctuating; but it is clear enough that they were not looked upon by
him as two distinct sects. The word “Nazarenes” was, in
fact, in the beginning a general name given to the Christians of
Palestine by the Jews (cf.
1. The
evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their
allegiance The
word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew אֶבְיֹון, which signifies “poor.” Different
explanations more or less fanciful have been given of the reason for
the use of the word in this connection. It occurs first in Irenæus
(I. 26. 2), but without a definition of its meaning. Origen, who uses
the term often, gives different explanations, e.g., in Contra
Celsum, II. 1, he says that the Jewish converts received their name
from the poverty of the law, “for Ebion signifies poor
among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are
called by the name of Ebionites.” In De Prin. IV. 1. 22,
and elsewhere, he explains the name as referring to the poverty of
their understanding. The explanation given by Eusebius refers to their
assertion that Christ was only a common man, born by natural
generation, and applied only to the first class of Ebionites, a
description of whom follows. For the same name as applied to the second
class (but see note 9) who accepted Christ’s supernatural birth,
he gives a different reason at the end of the chapter, the same which
Origen gives for the application of the name to Ebionites in general.
The explanation given in this place is so far as we know original with
Eusebius (something similar occurs again in Epiphanius,
Hær. XXX. 17), and he shows considerable ingenuity in thus
treating the name differently in the two cases. The various reasons do
not of course account for the existence of the name, for most of them
could have become reasons only long after the name was in use.
Tertullian (De Præscr. Hær. 33, De Carne
Christi, 14, 18, &c.) and Hippolytus (in his
Syntagma,—as can be gathered from Pseudo-Tertullian,
Adv. Hær. chap. 3, and Epiph. Hær.
XXX.,—and also in his Phil. chap. 23, where he mentions
Ebion incidentally) are the first to tell us of the existence of a
certain Ebion from whom the sect derived its name, and Epiphanius and
later writers are well acquainted with the man. But Ebion is a myth
invented simply for the purpose of explaining the origin of Ebionism.
The name Ebionite was probably used in Jerusalem as a designation of
the Christians there, either applied to them by their enemies as a term
of ridicule on account of their poverty in worldly goods, or, what is
more probable, assumed by themselves as a term of
honor,—“the poor in spirit,”—or (as Epiphanius,
XXX. 17, says the Ebionites of his day claimed) on account of their
voluntarily taking poverty upon themselves by laying their goods at the
feet of the apostles. But, however the name originated, it became soon,
as Christianity spread outside of Palestine, the special designation of
Jewish Christians as such, and thus when they began to be looked upon
as heretical, it became the name of the sect.
2. For they considered him a
plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior
virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In
their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether
necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in
Christ alone and by a corresponding life. ὡς μὴ ἂν διὰ
μόνης τῆς εἰς
τὸν χριστὸν
πίστεως καὶ
τοῦ κατ᾽
αὐτὴν βίου
σωθησομένοις. The addition of the last clause reveals the difference
between the doctrine of Eusebius’ time and the doctrine of Paul.
Not until the Reformation was Paul understood and the true
formula, διὰ
μόνης τῆς εἰς
τὸν χριστὸν
πίστεως,
restored.
3. There were others, however,
besides them, that were of the same name, Eusebius clearly knew of no distinction in name between these two
classes of Ebionites such as is commonly made between Nazarenes and
Ebionites,—nor did Origen, whom he follows (see note 1,
above). That there were two different views among the Ebionites as to the
birth of Christ is stated frequently by Origen (cf. e.g. Contra
Cels. V. 61), but there was unanimity in the denial of his
pre-existence and essential divinity, and this constituted the essence
of the heresy in the eyes of the Fathers from Irenæus on.
Irenæus, as remarked above (note 1), knows of no such difference
as Eusebius here mentions: and that the denial of the supernatural
birth even in the time of Origen was in fact ordinarily attributed to
the Ebionites in general, without a distinction of the two classes, is
seen by Origen’s words in his Hom. in Luc.
XVII. There seems to have been no difference between these two classes
in regard to their relation to the law; the distinction made by Justin
is no longer noticed.
4. These men, moreover, thought
that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom
they called an apostate from the law; This is mentioned by Irenæus (I. 26. 2) and by Origen
(Cont. Cels. V. 65 and Hom. in Jer. XVIII. 12). It was a
general characteristic of the sect of the Ebionites as known to the
Fathers, from the time of Origen on, and but a continuation of the
enmity to Paul shown by the Judaizers during his lifetime. But their
relations to Paul and to the Jewish law fell more and more into the
background, as remarked above, as their Christological heresy came into
greater prominence over against the developed Christology of the
Catholic Church (cf. e.g. the accounts of Tertullian and of Hippolytus
with that of Irenæus). The “these”
(οὗτοι
δὲ) here would seem to refer only to
the second class of Ebionites; but we know from the very nature of the
case, as well as from the accounts of others, that this conduct was
true as well of the first, and Eusebius, although he may have been
referring only to the second, cannot have intended to exclude the first
class in making the statement. Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I.
26. 2, III. 11. 7) says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the
fact that he mentions no difference between it and the canonical
Matthew shows that, so far as he knew, they were the same. But
according to Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to
the Hebrews was used by the Ebionites, and, as seen above (chap. 25,
note 18), this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical
Matthew. Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in the
time of Irenæus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Matthew,
was something different from the canonical Matthew, or else the
Ebionites had given up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a
different gospel (for the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot have been an
outgrowth of the canonical Matthew, as has been already seen, chap. 25,
note 24). The former is much more probable, and the difficulty may be
most simply explained by supposing that the Gospel according to the
Hebrews is identical with the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see
chap. 24, note 5), or at least that it passed among the earliest Jewish
Christians under Matthew’s name, and that Irenæus, who was
personally acquainted with the sect, simply hearing that they used a
Gospel of Matthew, naturally supposed it to be identical with the
canonical Gospel. In the time of Jerome a Hebrew “Gospel
according to the Hebrews” was used by the “Nazarenes and
Ebionites” as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. in Matt. XII. 13;
Contra Pelag. III. 2). Jerome refrains from expressing his own
judgment as to its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its
existing form identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear from
his words in de vir. ill. chap. 3, taken in connection with the
fact that he himself translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states
in chap. 2. Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. 9) says that the
Nazarenes still preserved the original Hebrew Matthew in full, while
the Ebionites (XXX. 13) had a Gospel of Matthew “not complete,
but spurious and mutilated”; and elsewhere (XXX. 3) he says that
the Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew and called it the
“Gospel according to the Hebrews.” It is thus evident that
he meant to distinguish the Gospel of the Ebionites from that of the
Nazarenes, i.e. the Gospel according to the Hebrews from the original
Hebrew Matthew. So, likewise. Eusebius’ treatment of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews and of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew clearly
indicates that he considered them two different gospels (cf. e.g. his
mention of the former in chap. 25 and in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his
mention of the latter in chap. 24, and in Bk. IV. chap. 10). Of course
he knew that the former was not identical with the canonical Matthew,
and hence, naturally supposing that the Hebrew Matthew agreed with the
canonical Matthew, he could not do otherwise than make a distinction
between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Hebrew Matthew, and
he must therefore make the change which he did in Irenæus’
statement in mentioning the Gospel used by the Ebionites, as he knew
them. Moreover, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 17, the Ebionite
Symmachus had written against the Gospel of Matthew (of course the
canonical Gospel), and this fact would only confirm Eusebius in his
opinion that Irenæus was mistaken, and that the Ebionites did not
use the Gospel of Matthew. But none of these facts militate
against the assumption that the Gospel of the Hebrews in its original
form was identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or at least
passed originally under his name among Jewish Christians. For it is by
no means certain that the original Hebrew Matthew agreed with the
canonical Matthew, and, therefore, lack of resemblance between the
Gospel according to the Hebrews and the canonical Matthew is no
argument against its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. Moreover, it is
quite conceivable that, in the course of time, the original Gospel
according to the Hebrews underwent alterations, especially since it was
in the hands of a sect which was growing constantly more heretical, and
that, therefore, its resemblance to the canonical Matthew may have been
even less in the time of Eusebius and Jerome than at the beginning. It
is possible that the Gospel of Matthew, which Jerome claims to have
seen in the library at Cæsarea (de vir. ill. chap. 3), may
have been an earlier, and hence less corrupt, copy of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews. Since the writing of
this note, Handmann’s work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews
(Das Hebräer-Evangelium, von Rudolf Handmann. Von Gebhardt
and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3) has
come into my hands, and I find that he denies that that Gospel is to be
in any way identified with the traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it
bore the name of Matthew. The reasons which he gives, however, are
practically the same as those referred to in this note, and, as already
shown, do not prove that the two were not originally identical.
Handmann holds that the Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called
simply “the Gospel,” or some general name of the kind, and
that it received from others the name “Gospel according to the
Hebrews,” because it was used by them. This may well be, but does
not militate at all against the existence of a tradition among the
Jewish Christians that Matthew was the author of their only gospel.
Handmann makes the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent
source of the Synoptic Gospels alongside of the
“Ur-Marcus,” (a theory which, if accepted, would go far to
establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew), and even goes so far
as to suggest that it is to be identified with the λόγια of Papias (cf. the writer’s notice of Handmann’s book,
in the Presbyterian Review, July, 1889). For the literature on
this Gospel, see chap. 25, note 24. I find that Resch in his
Agrapha emphasizes the apocryphal character of the Gospel in its
original form, and makes it later than and in part dependent upon our
Matthew, but I am unable to agree with him.
5. The Sabbath and the rest of
the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the
same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial
of the The question again arises whether Eusebius is referring here to
the second class of Ebionites only, and is contrasting their conduct in
regard to Sabbath observance with that of the first class, or whether
he refers to all Ebionites, and contrasts them with the Jews. The
subject remains the same as in the previous sentence; but the persons
referred to are contrasted with ἐκεῖνοι,
whom they resemble in their observance of the Jewish Sabbath, but from
whom they differ in their observance of the Lord’s day. The most
natural interpretation of the Greek is that which makes the
οὗτοι
δὲ refer to the second class of
Ebionites, and the ἐκεῖνοι to
the first; and yet we hear from no one else of two sharply defined
classes separated by religious customs, in addition to doctrinal
opinions, and it is not likely that they existed. If this
interpretation, however, seems necessary, we may conclude that some of
them observed the Lord’s day, while others did not, and that
Eusebius naturally identified the former with the more, and the latter
with the less, orthodox class, without any especial information upon
the subject. It is easier, too, to explain Eusebius’ suggestion
of a second derivation for the name of Ebionite, if we assume that he
is distinguishing here between the two classes. Having given above a
reason for calling the first class by that name, he now gives the
reason for calling the second class by the same.
6. Wherefore, in consequence of
such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the
poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor
man is called among the Hebrews. See note 2.
Chapter XXVIII.—Cerinthus the Heresiarch.
1. We
have understood that at this time Cerinthus, The earliest account which we have of Cerinthus is that of
Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 26. 1; cf. III. 3. 4, quoted at
the end of this chapter, and 11. 1), according to which Cerinthus, a
man educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was
not made by the supreme God, but by a certain power distinct from him.
He denied the supernatural birth of Jesus, making him the son of Joseph
and Mary, and distinguishing him from Christ, who descended upon him at
baptism and left him again at his crucifixion. He was thus Ebionitic in
his Christology, but Gnostic in his doctrine of the creation. He
claimed no supernatural power for himself as did Simon Magus and
Menander, but pretended to angelic revelations, as recorded by Caius in
this paragraph. Irenæus (who is followed by Hippolytus, VII. 21
and X. 17) says nothing of his chiliastic views, but these are
mentioned by Caius in the present paragraph, by Dionysius (quoted by
Eusebius, VII. 25, below), by Theodoret (Hær. Fab. II. 3),
and by Augustine (De Hær. I. 8), from which accounts we can
see that those views were very sensual. The fullest description which
we have of Cerinthus and his followers is that of Epiphanius
(Hær. XXVIII.), who records a great many traditions as to
his life (e.g. that he was one of the false apostles who opposed Paul,
and one of the circumcision who rebuked Peter for eating with
Cornelius, &c.), and also many details as to his system, some of
which are quite contradictory. It is clear, however, that he was Jewish
in his training and sympathies, while at the same time possessed of
Gnostic tendencies. He represents a position of transition from
Judaistic Ebionism to Gnosticism, and may be regarded as the earliest
Judaizing Gnostic. Of his death tradition tells us nothing, and as to
his dates we can say only that he lived about the end of the first
century. Irenæus (III. 2. 1) supposed John to have written his
gospel and epistle in opposition to Cerinthus. On the other hand,
Cerinthus himself was regarded by some as the author of the Apocalypse
(see Bk. VII. chap. 25, below), and most absurdly as the author of the
Fourth Gospel also (see above, chap. 24, note 1). See Bk. II. chap. 25, §7. Upon Caius, see the note given
there. The Disputation is the same that is quoted in that
passage.
2. “But Cerinthus also, by
means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle,
brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown
him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of
Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in
Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an
enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of
deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years Cf. It is a commonly accepted opinion founded upon this passage that
Caius rejected the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse and
considered it a work of Cerinthus. But the quotation by no means
implies this. Had he believed that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse
commonly ascribed to John, he would certainly have said so plainly, and
Eusebius would just as certainly have quoted his opinion, prejudiced as
he was himself against the Apocalypse. Caius simply means that
Cerinthus abused and misinterpreted the vision of the Apocalypse for
his own sensual purposes. That this is the meaning is plain from the
words “being an enemy to the Divine Scriptures,” and
especially from the fact that in the Johannine Apocalypse itself occur
no such sensual visions as Caius mentions here. The sensuality was
evidently superimposed by the interpretation of Cerinthus. Cf.
Weiss’ N. T. Einleitung, p. 82.
3. And Dionysius, Upon Dionysius and his writings, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note
1. The same passage is quoted with its context in Bk. VII. chap. 25,
below. The verbs in the portion of the passage quoted here are all in
the infinitive, and we see, from Bk. VII. chap. 25, that they depend
upon an indefinite λέγουσιν, “they say”; so that Eusebius is quite right
here in saying that Dionysius is drawing from tradition in making the
remarks which he does. Inasmuch as the verbs are not independent, and
the statement is not, therefore, Dionysius’ own, I have inserted,
at the beginning of the quotation, the words “they say
that,” which really govern all the verbs of the passage.
Dionysius himself rejected the theory of Cerinthus’ authorship of
the Apocalypse, as may be seen from Bk. VII. chap. 25,
§7.
4. “But (they say that)
Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the
Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the
name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of
Christ will be an
5. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.”
6. These are the words of
Dionysius. But Irenæus, in the first book of his work Against
Heresies, Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 26. 1. See
ibid. III. 3. 4. This story is repeated by Eusebius, in Bk. IV.
chap. 14. There is nothing impossible in it. The occurrence fits well
the character of John as a “son of thunder,” and shows the
same spirit exhibited by Polycarp in his encounter with Marcion (see
below, Bk. IV. chap. 14). But the story is not very well authenticated,
as Irenæus did not himself hear it from Polycarp, but only from
others to whom Polycarp had told it. The unreliability of such
second-hand tradition is illustrated abundantly in the case of
Irenæus himself, who gives some reports, very far from true, upon
the authority of certain presbyters (e.g. that Christ lived fifty
years; II. 22. 5). This same story, with much more fullness of detail,
is repeated by Epiphanius (Hær. XXX. 24), but of Ebion (who
never existed), instead of Cerinthus. This shows that the story was a
very common one, while, at the same time, so vague in its details as to
admit of an application to any heretic who suited the purpose. That
somebody met somebody in a bath seems quite probable, and there is
nothing to prevent our accepting the story as it stands in
Irenæus, if we choose to do so. One thing, at least, is certain,
that Cerinthus is a historical character, who in all probability was,
for at least a part of his life, contemporary with John, and thus
associated with him in tradition, whether or not he ever came into
personal contact with him.
Chapter XXIX.—Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.
1. At
this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its appearance and
lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in the Apocalypse
of John. See Stromata, III. 4.
2. “They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry her. For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh. And those that have followed his heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, commit fornication without shame.
3. But I understand that
Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than her to whom he was married,
and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters continued
in a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt.
If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously loved, into
the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his passion; and
when he used the expression, ‘to abuse the flesh,’ he was
inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are
eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of
the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the
Lord. Compare
4. But they say that Matthias
also taught in the same manner that we ought to fight against and abuse
the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but
strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge.” This teaching was found in the Gospel of Matthias, or the
παραδόσεις
Ματθίου,
mentioned in chap. 25 (see note 30 on that chapter).
Chapter XXX.—The Apostles that were Married.
1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after
the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who
rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. A
chapter intervenes between the quotation given by Eusebius just above
and the one which follows. In it Clement had referred to two classes of
heretics,—without giving their names,—one of which
encouraged all sorts of license, while the other taught celibacy.
Having in that place refuted the former class, he devotes the chapter
from which the following quotation is taken to a refutation of the
latter, deducing against them the fact that some of the apostles were
married. Clement here, as in his Quis dives salvetur (quoted in
chap. 23), shows his good common sense which led him to avoid the
extreme of asceticism as well as that of license. He was in this an
exception to most of the Fathers of his own and subsequent ages, who in
their reaction from the licentiousness of the times advised and often
encouraged by their own example the most rigid asceticism, and thus
laid the foundation for monasticism. Strom.III. 6. Peter was married, as we know from Matt. viii. 14 (cf. It is
probable that Clement here confounds Philip the evangelist with Philip
the apostle. See the next chapter, note 6. Philip the evangelist,
according to The
passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes in this
connection is
2. And since we have mentioned
this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is
given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh
book of his Stromata he writes as follows: Strom.VII. 11. Clement, so far as we
know, is the only one to relate this story, but he bases it upon
tradition, and although its truth cannot be proved, there is nothing
intrinsically improbable in it.
Chapter XXXI.—The Death of John and Philip.
1. The
time and the manner of the death of Paul and Peter as well as their
burial places, have been already shown by us. See Bk. II. chap. 25, §§5 sqq.
2. The time of John’s
death has also been given in a general way, See
chap. 23, §§3, 4. Upon
Polycrates, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 9. Upon Victor, see ibid. note 1. This epistle is the only writing of Polycrates which is preserved
to us. This passage, with considerably more of the same epistle, is
quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 24. From that chapter we see that the
epistle was written in connection with the Quarto-deciman controversy,
and after saying, “We therefore observe the genuine day,”
Polycrates goes on in the words quoted here to mention the “great
lights of Asia” as confirming his own practice. (See the notes
upon the epistle in Bk. V. chap. 24.) The citation here of this
incidental passage from a letter upon a wholly different subject
illustrates Eusebius’ great diligence in searching out all
historical notices which could in any way contribute to his
history.
3. “For in Asia also great
lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at
the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and
shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the
twelve apostles, Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist are here confounded.
That they were really two different men is clear enough from
Luke’s account in the Acts (cf. Hierapolis was a prominent city in Proconsular Asia, about five
miles north of Laodicea, in connection with which city it is mentioned
in The
fact that only three of Philip’s daughters are mentioned here,
when from the Acts we know he had four, shows that the fourth had died
elsewhere; and therefore it would have been aside from
Polycrates’ purpose to mention her, since, as we see from Bk. V.
chap. 24, he was citing only those who had lived in Asia (the
province), and had agreed as to the date of the Passover. The separate
mention of this third daughter by Polycrates has been supposed to arise
from the fact that she was married, while the other two remained
virgins. This is, however, not at all implied, as the fact that she was
buried in a different place would be enough to cause the separate
mention of her. Still, inasmuch as Clement (see the preceding chapter)
reports that Philip’s daughters were married, and inasmuch as
Polycrates expressly states that two of them were virgins, it is quite
possible that she (as well as the fourth daughter, not mentioned here)
may have been a married woman, which would, perhaps, account for her
living in Ephesus and being buried there, instead of with her father
and sister in Hierapolis. It is noticeable that while two of the
daughters are expressly called virgins, the third is not. μ€ρτυς; see chap. 32, note 15. The Greek word is πέταγον, which occurs in the LXX. as the technical term for the plate or
diadem of the high priest (cr. Upon John’s Ephesian activity and his death there, see Bk.
III. chap. 1, note 6.
4. So much concerning their
death. And in the Dialogue of Caius which we mentioned a little
above, Bk. II. chap. 25, §6, and Bk. III. chap. 28, §1. Upon
Caius and his dialogue with Proclus, see the former passage, note
8. Upon Proclus, a Montanistic leader, see Bk. II. chap. 25, note
12. The agreement of the two accounts is not perfect, as Polycrates
reports that two daughters were buried at Hierapolis and one at
Ephesus, while Proclus puts them all four at Hierapolis. But the report
of Polycrates deserves our credence rather than that of Proclus,
because, in the first place, Polycrates was earlier than Proclus; in
the second place, his report is more exact, and it is hard to imagine
how, if all four were really buried in one place, the more detailed
report of Polycrates could have arisen, while on the other hand it is
quite easy to explain the rise of the more general but inexact account
of Proclus; for with the general tradition that Philip and his
daughters lived and died in Hierapolis needed only to be combined the
fact that he had four daughters, and Proclus’ version was
complete. In the third place, Polycrates’ report bears the stamp
of truth as contrasted with mere legend, because it accounts for only
three daughters, while universal tradition speaks of four. How Eusebius could have
overlooked the contradiction it is more difficult to explain. He can
hardly have failed to notice it, but was undoubtedly unable to account
for the difference, and probably considered it too small a matter to
concern himself about. He was quite prone to accept earlier accounts
just as they stood, whether contradictory or not. The fact that they
had been recorded was usually enough for him, if they contained no
improbable or fabulous stories. He cannot be accused of intentional
deception at this point, for he gives the true accounts side by side,
so that every reader might judge of the agreement for himself. Upon the
confusion of the apostle and evangelist, see above, note 6. I
read μετὰ
τοῦτον with the
majority of the mss., with Burton, Routh,
Schwegler, Heinichen, &c., instead of μετὰ
τοῦτο, which occurs
in some mss. and in Rufinus, and is adopted by
Valesius, Crusè, and others. As Burton says, the copyists of
Eusebius, not knowing to whom Proclus here referred, changed
τοῦτον
to τοῦτο; but if we
had the preceding context we should find that Proclus had been
referring to some prophetic man such as the Montanists were fond of
appealing to in support of their position. Schwegler suggests that it
may have been the Quadratus mentioned in chap. 37, but this is a mere
guess. As the sentence stands isolated from its connection,
τοῦτον
is the harder reading, and could therefore have more
easily been changed into τοῦτο than the
latter into τοῦτον.
5. But Luke, in the Acts of the
Apostles, mentions the daughters of Philip who were at that time at
Cæsarea in Judea with their father, and were honored with the gift
of prophecy. His words are as follows: “We came unto
Cæsarea; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who
was one of the seven, we abode with him. Now this man had four
daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”
6. We have thus set forth in
these pages what has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles
themselves and the apostolic age, and concerning the sacred writings
which they have left us, as well as concerning those which are
disputed, but nevertheless have been publicly used by many in a great
number of churches, ἱερῶν
γραμμ€των,
καὶ τῶν
ἀντιλεγομένων
μὲν, ὅμως…δεδημοσιευμένων. The classification here is not inconsistent with that
given in chap. 25, but is less complete than it, inasmuch as here
Eusebius draws no distinction between ἀντιλεγόμενα
and νόθοι, but uses
the former word in its general sense, and includes under it both the
particular classes (Antilegomena and νόθοι) of
chap. 25 (see note 27 on that chapter).
Chapter XXXII.—Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Martyrdom.
1. It
is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor
whose times we are now recording, Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 a.d. Upon the state of the Christians under Trajan, see the next
chapter, with the notes. See chap. 11.
2. Hegesippus, whose words we
have already quoted in various places, Quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 20, and
mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 11. Upon his life and writings, see Bk. IV.
chap. 8, note 1. In the passage quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, §4, Hegesippus
speaks of various heretics, and it looks as if the passage quoted there
directly preceded the present one in the work of Hegesippus. That is, by crucifixion, as stated in §6.
3. But there is nothing like
hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of
these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on
the ground that he was a descendant of David It is noticeable that Symeon was not sought out by the imperial
authorities, but was accused to them as a descendant of David and as a
Christian. The former accusation shows with what suspicion all members
of the Jewish royal family were still viewed, as possible instigators
of a revolution (cf. chap. 20, note 2); the latter shows that in the
eyes of the State Christianity was in itself a crime (see the next
chapter, note 6). In the next paragraph it is stated that search was
made by the officials for members of the Jewish royal family. This was
quite natural, after the attention of the government had been
officially drawn to the family by the arrest of Symeon. The date of the martyrdom of Symeon is quite uncertain. It has
been commonly ascribed (together with the martyrdom of Ignatius) to the
year 106 or 107, upon the authority of Eusebius’ Chron.,
which is supposed to connect these events with the ninth or tenth year
of Trajan’s reign. But an examination of the passage in the
Chron., where Eusebius groups together these two events and the
persecutions in Bithynia, shows that he did not pretend to know the
exact date of any of them, and simply put them together as three
similar events known to have occurred during the reign of Trajan (cf.
Lightfoot’s Ignatius, II. p. 447 sqq.). The year of
Atticus’ proconsulship we unfortunately do not know, although
Wieseler, in his Christen-Verfolgungen der Cæsaren, p. 126,
cites Waddington as his authority for the statement that Herodes
Atticus was proconsul of Palestine from 105 to 107; but all that
Waddington says (Fastes des prov. Asiat., p. 720) is, that since
the proconsul for the years 105 to 107 is not known, and Eusebius puts
the death of Symeon in the ninth or tenth year of Trajan, we may assume
that this was the date of Atticus’ proconsulship. This, of
course, furnishes no support for the common opinion. Lightfoot, on
account of the fact that Symeon was the son of Clopas, wishes to put
the martyrdom earlier in Trajan’s reign, and it is probable that
it occurred earlier rather than later; more cannot be said. The great
age of Symeon and his martyrdom under Trajan are too well authenticated
to admit of doubt; at the same time, the figure 120 may well be an
exaggeration, as Lightfoot thinks. Renan (Les Evangiles, p. 466)
considers it very improbable that Symeon could have had so long a life
and episcopate, and therefore invents a second Symeon, a great-grandson
of Clopas, as fourth bishop of Jerusalem, and makes him the martyr
mentioned here. But there is nothing improbable in the survival of a
contemporary of Jesus to the time of Trajan, and there is no warrant
for rejecting the tradition, which is unanimous in calling Symeon the
son of Clopas, and also in emphasizing his great age. ἐπὶ
Τραϊανοῦ
καίσαρος καὶ
ὑπατικοῦ
᾽Αττικοῦ. The nouns being without the article, the phrase is to be
translated, “while Trajan was emperor, and Atticus
governor.” In §6, below, where the article is used, we must
translate, “before Atticus the governor” (see
Lightfoot’s Ignatius, I. p. 59). The word ὑπατικός is an adjective signifying “consular, pertaining to a
consul.” It “came to be used in the second century
especially of provincial governors who had held the consulship, and at
a later date of such governors even though they might not have been
consuls” (Lightfoot, p. 59, who refers to Marquardt,
Römische Staatsverwaltung, I. 409).
4. And the same writer says that
his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David,
were arrested as belonging to that family. This is a peculiar statement. Members of the house of David would
hardly have ventured to accuse Symeon on the ground that he belonged to
that house. The statement is, however, quite indefinite. We are not
told what happened to these accusers, nor indeed that they really were
of David’s line, although the ὡσ€ν with which Eusebius
introduces the charge does not imply any doubt in his own mind, as
Lightfoot quite rightly remarks. It is possible that some who were of
the line of David may have accused Symeon, not of being a member of
that family, but only of being a Christian, and that the report of the
occurrence may have become afterward confused. This is certainly a reasonable supposition, and the unanimous
election of Symeon as successor of James at a time when there must have
been many living who had seen the Lord, confirms the
conclusion. Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned in See above, chap. 11.
5. The same historian says that
there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of
the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony
before Domitian, as has been already recorded, See above, chap. 20.
6. He writes as follows:
“They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church See p. 389, note. μ€ρτυρες. The word is evidently used here in its earlier sense of
“witnesses,” referring to those who testified to Christ
even if they did not seal their testimony with death. This was the
original use of the word, and continued very common during the first
two centuries, after which it became the technical term for persons
actually martyred and was confined to them, while ὁμολογητής, “confessor,” gradually came into use as the
technical term for those who had borne testimony in the midst of
persecution, but had not suffered death. As early as the first century
(cf. This part of the quotation has already been given in
Eusebius’ own words in chap. 20, §8. See note 5 on that
chapter. ἐπὶ
τῷ αὐτῷ
λόγῳ, that is, was
accused for the same reason that the grandsons of Judas (whom
Hegesippus had mentioned just before) were; namely, because he belonged
to the line of David. See chap. 20; but compare also the remarks made
in note 10, above. ἐπὶ
᾽Αττικοῦ τοῦ
ὑπατικοῦ. See above, note 9.
7. In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.
8. But when the sacred college
of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of
those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with
their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took
its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap.
22. τὴν
ψευδόνυμον
γνῶσιν;
Chapter XXXIII.—Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.
1. So
great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many places
that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being
disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor
concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for
Plinius Cæcilius Secundus, commonly called “Pliny the
younger” to distinguish him from his uncle, Plinius Secundus the
elder, was a man of great literary attainments and an intimate friend
of the Emperor Trajan. Of his literary remains the most important are
his epistles, collected in ten books. The epistle of which Eusebius
speaks in this chapter is No. 96 (97), and the reply of Trajan No. 97
(98) of the tenth book. The epistle was written from Bithynia, probably
within a year after Pliny became governor there, which was in 110 or
111. It reads as follows: “It is my custom, my Lord, to refer to
thee all questions concerning which I am in doubt; for who can better
direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I have never been
present at judicial examinations of the Christians; therefore I am
ignorant how and to what extent it is customary to punish or to search
for them. And I have hesitated greatly as to whether any distinction
should be made on the ground of age, or whether the weak should be
treated in the same way as the strong; whether pardon should be granted
to the penitent, or he who has ever been a Christian gain nothing by
renouncing it; whether the mere name, if unaccompanied with crimes, or
crimes associated with the name, should be punished. Meanwhile, with
those who have been brought before me as Christians I have pursued the
following course. I have asked them if they were Christians, and if
they have confessed, I have asked them a second and third time,
threatening them with punishment; if they have persisted, I have
commanded them to be led away to punishment. For I did not doubt that
whatever that might be which they confessed, at any rate pertinacious
and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There have been others
afflicted with like insanity who as Roman citizens I have decided
should be sent to Rome. In the course of the proceedings, as commonly
happens, the crime was extended, and many varieties of cases appeared.
An anonymous document was published, containing the names of many
persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians I
thought ought to be released, when they had followed my example in
invoking the gods and offering incense and wine to thine
image,—which I had for that purpose ordered brought with the
images of the gods,—and when they had besides cursed
Christ—things which they say that those who are truly Christians
cannot be compelled to do. Others, accused by an informer, first said
that they were Christians and afterwards denied it, saying that they
had indeed been Christians, but had ceased to be, some three years,
some several years, and one even twenty years before. All adored thine
image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ. Moreover, they
affirmed that this was the sum of their guilt or error; that they had
been accustomed to come together on a fixed day before daylight and to
sing responsively a song unto Christ as God; and to bind themselves
with an oath, not with a view to the commission of some crime, but, on
the contrary, that they would not commit theft, nor robbery, nor
adultery, that they would not break faith, nor refuse to restore a
deposit when asked for it. When they had done these things, their
custom was to separate and to assemble again to partake of a meal,
common yet harmless (which is not the characteristic of a nefarious
superstition); but this they had ceased to do after my edict, in which
according to thy demands I had prohibited fraternities. I therefore
considered it the more necessary to examine, even with the use of
torture, two female slaves who were called deaconesses
(ministræ), in order to ascertain the truth. But I found
nothing except a superstition depraved and immoderate; and therefore,
postponing further inquiry, I have turned to thee for advice. For the
matter seems to me worth consulting about, especially on account of the
number of persons involved. For many of every age and of every rank and
of both sexes have been already, and will be brought to trial. For the
contagion of this superstition has permeated not only the cities, but
also the villages and even the country districts. Yet it can apparently
be arrested and corrected. At any rate, it is certainly a fact that the
temples, which were almost deserted, are now beginning to be
frequented, and the sacred rites, which were for a long time
interrupted, to be resumed, and fodder for the victims to be sold, for
which previously hardly a purchaser was to be found. From which it is
easy to gather how great a multitude of men may be reformed if there is
given a chance for repentance.” The reply of
Trajan—commonly called “Trajan’s
Rescript”—reads as follows: “Thou hast followed the
right course, my Secundus, in treating the cases of those who have been
brought before thee as Christians. For no fixed rule can be laid down
which shall be applicable to all cases. They are not to be searched
for; if they are accused and convicted, they are to be punished;
nevertheless, with the proviso that he who denies that he is a
Christian, and proves it by his act (re ipsa),—i.e. by
making supplication to our gods,—although suspected in regard to
the past, may by repentance obtain pardon. Anonymous accusations ought
not to be admitted in any proceedings; for they are of most evil
precedent, and are not in accord with our age.” ἅμα
τῇ žῳ
διεγειρομένους. See note 9, below.
2. In reply to this Trajan made
the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought
after, but when found should be punished. On account of this the
persecution which had threatened to be a most terrible one was to a
certain degree checked, but there were still left plenty of pretexts
for those who wished to do us harm. Sometimes the people, sometimes the
rulers in various places, would lay plots against us, so that, although
no great persecutions took place, local persecutions were nevertheless
going on in particular provinces, This is a very good statement of the case. There was nothing
approaching a universal persecution,—that is a persecution
simultaneously carried on in all parts of the empire, until the time of
Decius.
3. We have taken our account
from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above. Mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 2. On the translation of
Tertullian’s Apology employed by Eusebius, see note 9 on
that chapter. The present passage is rendered, on the whole, with
considerable fidelity; much more accurately than in the two cases
noticed in the previous book. Apol.chap. 2. The view which Tertullian here takes of Trajan’s rescript is
that it was, on the whole, favorable,—that the Christians stood
after it in a better state in relation to the law than
before,—and this interpretation of the edict was adopted by all
the early Fathers, and is, as we can see, accepted likewise by Eusebius
(and so he entitles this chapter, not “Trajan commands the
Christians to be punished, if they persist in their
Christianity,” but “Trajan forbids the Christians to be
sought after,” thus implying that the rescript is favorable). But
this interpretation is a decided mistake. Trajan’s rescript
expressly made Christianity a religio illicita, and from that
time on it was a crime in the sight of the law to be a Christian;
whereas, before that time, the matter had not been finally determined,
and it had been left for each ruler to act just as he pleased. Trajan,
it is true, advises moderation in the execution of the law; but that
does not alter the fact that his rescript is an unfavorable one, which
makes the profession of Christianity—what it had not been
before—a direct violation of an established law. Compare,
further, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 14. κατακρίνας
χριστιανούς
τινας καὶ τῆς
ἀξίας
ἐκβαλών.
The Latin original reads: damnatis quibusdam christianis, quibusdam
gradu pulsis. The Greek translator loses entirely the antithesis of
quibusdam …quibusdam (some he condemned,
others he deprived of their dignity). He renders gradu
by τῆς
ἀξίας, which is
quite allowable; but Thelwall, in his English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, renders the second phrase, “and
driven some from their steadfastness,” in which the other sense
of gradus is adopted. Greek: žξω τοῦ μὴ
βούλεσθαι
αὐτοὺς
εἰδωλολατρεῖν. Latin original: præter obstinationem non
sacrificandi. The εἰδωλολατρεῖν
is quite indefinite, and might refer to any kind of
idolatry; but the Latin sacrificandi is definite, referring
clearly to the sacrifices which the accused Christians were required to
offer in the presence of the governor, if they wished to save their
lives. I have, therefore, translated the Greek word in the light of the
Latin word which it is employed to reproduce.
4. And he reported this also,
that the Christians arose Greek: ἀνίστασθαι
ἕωθεν. Latin
original: cœtus antelucanos. The Latin speaks of
“assemblies” (which is justified by the ante lucem
convenire of Pliny’s epistle), while the Greek (both here and
in §1, above) speaks only of “arising,” and thus fails
to reproduce the full sense of the original. Greek: πρὸς
τὸ τὴν
ἐπιστήμην
αὐτῶν
διαφυλ€σσειν. Latin original: ad confœderandum disciplinam.
The Greek translation is again somewhat inaccurate. ἐπιστήμη (literally, “experience,” “knowledge”)
expresses certain meanings of the word disciplina, but does not
strictly reproduce the sense in which the latter word is used in this
passage; namely, in the sense of moral discipline. I have again
translated the Greek version in the light of its Latin
original.
Chapter XXXIV.—Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of Rome.
1. In
the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above, The
Emperor Trajan. On
Clement of Rome, see chap. 4, note 19. In
Bk. IV. chap. 1, Eusebius gives eight years as the duration of
Evarestus’ episcopate; but in his Chron. he gives seven.
Other catalogues differ widely, both as to the time of his accession
and the duration of his episcopate. The truth is, as the monarchical
episcopate was not yet existing in Rome, it is useless to attempt to
fix his dates, or those of any of the other so-called bishops who lived
before the second quarter of the second century.
Chapter XXXV.—Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem.
1. But
when Symeon also had died in the manner described, See
above, chap. 32. Of this
Justus we know no more than Eusebius tells us here. Epiphanius
(Hær. LXVI. 20) calls him Judas.
Chapter XXXVI.—Ignatius and His Epistles.
1. At
that time Polycarp, On
Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.
2. And at the same time
Papias, Of
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. Four
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. Eusebius 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.
That
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).
4. And as he made the journey through Asia under the strictest military surveillance, he fortified the parishes in the various cities where he stopped by oral homilies and exhortations, and warned them above all to be especially on their guard against the heresies that were then beginning to prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the tradition of the apostles. Moreover, he thought it necessary to attest that tradition in writing, and to give it a fixed form for the sake of greater security.
5. So when he came to Smyrna,
where Polycarp was, he wrote an epistle to the church of Ephesus, The
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. Of
this Onesimus, and of Damas and Polybius mentioned just below, we know
nothing more.
6. In addition to these he wrote also to the church of Rome, entreating them not to secure his release from martyrdom, and thus rob him of his earnest hope. In confirmation of what has been said it is proper to quote briefly from this epistle.
7. He writes as follows: Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. chap. 5. λεοπ€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. Compare
8. May I have joy of the beasts
that are prepared for me; and I pray that I may find them ready; I will
even coax them to devour me quickly that they may not treat me as they
have some whom they have refused to touch through fear. Compare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V.
chap. I, §42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7.
9. I know what is expedient for
me. Now do I begin to be a disciple. May naught of things visible and
things invisible envy me; The
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.
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 That 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. See
Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.
11. And the same man, writing to
the Smyrnæans, used the following words concerning Christ, taken I
know not whence: Ep.
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. δαιμόνιον
ἀσώματον. Compare
12. Irenæus also knew of
his martyrdom and mentions his epistles in the following words: Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 28. 4.
13. Polycarp also mentions these
letters in the epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him. On
Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note
16. Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9. Of
these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.
14. And afterwards he adds: Polycarp, 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.
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 According 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, This
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. This
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.
2. For indeed most of the
disciples of that time, animated by the divine word with a more ardent
love for philosophy, That
is, an ascetic mode of life. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9. See
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.
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, In
chap. 36, above. See
above, chap. 16.
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. On
the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to its
authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.
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. Eusebius 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.
5. And certain men have lately
brought forward other wordy and There 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. In 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. λογίων
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. ὡς 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. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 33. 4.
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. The
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.
3. He says: “But I shall
not hesitate also to put down for you along with my
interpreta This 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. As
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. παραγινομένοις, 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. That
is, “to those that believe, to those that are possessed of
faith.”
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 Of
this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this mention of him
by Papias. See above, note 6. ἐκ
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.
5. It is worth while observing
here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. See
above, note 4.
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. The
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. A
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.
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
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. In
chap. 31, above. On the confusion of the evangelist with the apostle
Philip, see that chapter, note 6. That
is, in the time of Philip.
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.”
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. Compare 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.
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. Chiliasm, 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
13. For he appears to have been
of very limited understanding, σφόδρα
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. See
above, note 19.
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 We
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. Papias 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. λόγων,
“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.
16. But concerning Matthew he
writes as follows: “So then μὲν 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. On
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. Since
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. On
the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above, chap. 3,
note 1. It
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.”
Chapter
I.—The Bishops of Rome and of
Alexandria during the Reign of Trajan. We
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,
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.
1. About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the
above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria Cerdon, mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 21. The
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.
2. At that time also
Alexander, According 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. On
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 115 a.d. Closs 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.
2. For in Alexandria and in the
rest of Egypt, and also in Cyrene, The
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 Lupus is, to me at least, an otherwise unknown
character.
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, νόμοι. See Bk.
II. chap. 17, note 10. Lucuas 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. Marcius 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.
4. He carried on the war against
them for a
5. But the emperor, fearing that
the Jews in Mesopotamia would also make an attack upon the inhabitants
of that country, commanded Lucius Quintus Lucius 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. The
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 Trajan reigned from Jan. 27, 98, to Aug. 7 or 8, 117. The 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. This 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. ὀρθοτομία. Compare the use of ὀρθομοῦντα
in
2. He himself reveals the early
date at which he lived in the following words: “But the works of
our Saviour were always present, The 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. Quadratus 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.
3. Aristides also, a believer
earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for
the faith, addressed to Adrian. Aristides 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. I.e. the emperor Hadrian.
In the
third year of the same reign, Alexander, On
Alexander, see above, chap. 1, note 4. Known
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. On
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. We
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; In
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.
2. But I have learned this much
from writings, Reuterdahl (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. In
135 a.d. See below, chap. 7. From 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.
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; On
James, see above, Bk. II chap. 1. On
Symeon, see above, Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4. Of
Justus and the following named bishops we know nothing more. Justus is
called Judas by Epiphanius, Hær. LXVI. 20. Zacchæus 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. The
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. ᾽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. ᾽Ιωσήφ. He is
called ᾽Ιωσίς
by Epiphanius, and Joses by Jerome.
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
On
Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3. Telesphorus 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. We
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. His
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, The
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.
2. The leader of the Jews at
this time was a man by the name of Barcocheba Heb. בר כוכבא, Bar-Cochba, which signifies
“Son of a star” (cf.
3. The war raged most fiercely
in the eighteenth year of Adrian, I.e.
Aug. 134 to Aug. 135. Βίθθηρα, 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. Whether 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.
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 com Of
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. ψευδωνύμου
γνώσεως.
Compare
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, This
statement is of course an exaggeration. See above, Bk. II. chap. 3,
note 1. These 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.
2. But now, being shut off from
the use of such means, Eusebius’ 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.
3. Accordingly there proceeded
from that Menander, whom we have already mentioned as the successor of
Simon, See
Bk. III. chap. 26. Saturninus 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. Basilides 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.
4. Irenæus states See
Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 24.
5. But as there were at that
time a great many members of the Church ἐκκλησιαστικῶν
ἀνδρῶν. The
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.
6. Of these there has come down
to us a most powerful refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, Of
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.
7. While exposing his mysteries
he says that Basilides wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel, εἰς 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 According 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. This 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.). Exactly 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.
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 See
Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 25. The
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. ἐκεῖνος,
referring back to Basilides. Where 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).
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. The
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.
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 Eusebius 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.
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. See
above, note 10.
Chapter VIII.—Ecclesiastical Writers.
1. Among these Hegesippus was well known. On
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. Already quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap.
32.
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, Antinoüs, 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. Hadrian rebuilt the city of Besa in the Thebais, in whose
neighborhood Antinoüs was drowned, and called it
Antinoöpolis.
3. At the same time also Justin,
a genuine lover of the true philosophy, was still continuing to busy
himself with Greek literature. On
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. Justin, Apol. I. 29.
4. The same writer, speaking of
the Jewish war which took place at that time, adds the following: Justin, Apol. I. 31. χριστιανοὺς
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).
5. And in the same work he shows
that his conversion from Greek philosophy to Christianity ἐπὶ
τὴν
θεοσέβειαν Justin, 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.
6. The same writer, moreover,
relates that Adrian having received from Serennius Granianus, The
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. γρ€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. ἀντιγρ€ψαι This
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.
7. And he gives a copy of the
epistle, preserving the original Latin in which it was written, Our
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. Justin, Apol. I. 68.
8. After these words the author
referred to gives the rescript in Latin, which we have translated into
Greek as accurately as we could. We
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, Greek, ἐπιστολήν; Latin, litteras. Greek, οἱ
ἄνθρωποι; Latin, innoxii.
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. This
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. Compare 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. Greek, ὅπως ἂν
ἐκδικήσειας; Latin, suppliciis severioribus
vindices.
Such are the contents of Adrian’s rescript.
Chapter X.—The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of Antoninus.
Adrian having died after a reign of twenty-one years, Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July 10, 138 a.d. On
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. We
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. In
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. On
Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next chapter. Irenæus, 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. Valentinus 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. Cerdon 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. On
Marcion, see below, note 24. The Latin text of Irenæus here reads “eighth”
instead of “ninth.” See below, note 7. ἐφιστ€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.
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: Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 27. 1–2. Hyginus 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. Marcion 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.
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, Irenæus 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. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 21. 3.
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. εἰς 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. The
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.
6. But Hyginus On
Hyginus, see the previous chapter, note 3. Eusebius 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. Of
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. On
Eumenes, see above, chap. 5, note 14. Of
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.
7. And in Rome Pius died in the
fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus Anicetus, 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. Eusebius 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.
8. But Justin Eusebius 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). ἐν
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. This 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.
9. He speaks as follows: Justin, Apol. I. 26. Marcion 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. Pontus was a province in Northeastern Asia Minor, bordering upon
the Black Sea. Justin
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. The
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. ἄλλον
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. Justin 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.
10. To this he adds: Ibid. I. 26. This
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.
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. On
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. Justin, Apol. I. 1.
Chapter XII.—The Apology of Justin addressed to Antoninus.
“To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrian Antoninus Pius
Cæsar Augustus, On
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.). That
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. The
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.). Of
Justin’s father and grandfather we know nothing except their
names. On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note
20. This
“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.
This
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.
1. The
Emperor Cæsar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, Eusebius 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.
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, Numerous 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. This
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.
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. An
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.
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. Among these epistles the writer of this edict undoubtedly meant to
include the rescript ostensibly addressed by Hadrian to Minucius
Fundanus. See chap. 9, above.
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. This
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.
8. To these things Melito, On
Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note 1. Eusebius 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.
1. At
this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome, On
Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. He was bishop probably from 154
to 165 a.d. γένεσθαι
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. On
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.
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: Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 3. 4.
3. “But Polycarp Eusebius 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. The
church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of the “seven
churches of Asia,” and is mentioned in
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, On
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. Irenæus emphasizes here, as was his wont, the importance of
tradition in determining true doctrine. Compare also Eusebius’
words in chap. 21.
5. To these things all the
Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present
time, have succeeded Polycarp, Of
these successors of Polycarp we know nothing. κακογνωμόνων See
above, note 2.
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.’ See above, Bk. III. chap. 28, where the same story is
related.
7. And Polycarp himself, when
Marcion once met him Marcion 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. ἐπιγινώσκεις, 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.
8. There is also a very powerful
epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, Polycarp’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.
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. Polycarp 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).
10. And when Antoninus, called
Pius, had completed the twenty-second year of his reign, Antoninus Pius reigned from July 2, 138, to March 7,
161. Both
were adopted sons of Antoninus Pius. See above, chap. 12, note
3.
Chapter XV.—Under Verus, Marcus Aurelius Verus. See below, p. 390, note.
1. At
this time, Polycarp’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.).
2. There is a letter, written in
the name of the church over which he himself presided, I.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. Pontus 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.
3. “The church of God
which dwelleth in Philomelium, Philomelium, according to Lightfoot (ibid. p. 947), was an
important city in Phrygia Paroreios, not far from Pisidian
Antioch. τῆς 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. ἐγρ€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
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 Of Germanicus we know only what is told us in this
epistle This 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.
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; Compare Justin Martyr’s Apol. I. 6;
Tertullian’s Apol. 10, &c.; and see chap. 7, note 20,
above.
7. And when a very great tumult
arose in consequence of the cries, a certain Phrygian, Quintus Of
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).
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. Σαββ€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.). Of
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). εἰρήναρχος
(see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 955).
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.’ Compare
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; τὴν
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).
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 See 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.
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, See τιμὴν…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). The
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.
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, The
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.
27. When they had said this,
they cried out and asked the Asiarch Philip “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.
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, The
Greek reads simply προσηλοῦν
αὐτόν.
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 παιδός 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. Compare
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, It
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.
38. So at length the lawless
men, when they saw that the body could not be consumed by the fire,
commanded an executioner Κομφέκτορα. 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.
39. And when he had done this
there came forth a quantity of blood Before 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. See
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.
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, All,
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. This
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.
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, This 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).
45. Such are the events that
befell the blessed Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom in Smyrna with the
eleven The 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.
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 γραφῇ.
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.).
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, This
is an excellent summary of Pionius’ sufferings, as recorded in
the extant Acts referred to in the previous note. This 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.
48. And there are also records
extant of others that suffered martyrdom in Pergamus, a city
A
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 That 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). In
chap. 11. Marcus 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. That 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. Of
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).
2. And he himself, a man most
learned in the truth, in his Apology already referred to Harnack 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.
3. His words are as follows: Justin, Apol. II. 3. κἀγὼ 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. ξύλῳ
ἐντιναγῆναι. Compare This accusation was very commonly made against the Christians in
the second century. See above, chap. 7, note 20.
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 In §3, above. This 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.
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, On
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. Tatian, 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.
8. Then, after making some
remarks about the philosophers, he continues as follows: Ibid.chap. 19.
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.
Chapter XVII.—The Martyrs whom Justin mentions in his Own Work.
1. The
same man, before his conflict, mentions in his first Apology Eusebius 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.
2. He writes thus: Justin, Apol. II. 2.
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 Our 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.
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, Of 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”). ᾽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.
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, Of this Lucius we know only what is told us here. Marcus Aurelius. See above, chap. 12, note 2.
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, In
chap. 16, §3. Justin, 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. Eusebius 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.
2. There is a certain
discourse This 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. Eusebius 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.
3. Also another work against the
Greeks, This
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).
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, We
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.
5. Still further, a work
entitled Psaltes, This work and the following have entirely disappeared, but were
genuine productions of Justin, for all that we know to the
contrary.
6. He composed also a dialogue
against the Jews, This 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. See
Dial. chap. 2 sq.
7. And he records of the Jews in
the same work, that they were plotting against the teaching of Christ,
asserting the ibid. chap. 17.
8. He writes also that even down
to his time prophetic gifts shone in the Church. ibid.chap. 82. ibid.chap. 81. ibid.chap. 71. Of
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.
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: Irenæus, Adv. Hær. IV. 6. 2. Irenæus, 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. Epiphanius expresses the same thought in his Hær.
XXXIX. 9.
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.
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 The reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus mentioned at the end
of chap. 14. As
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. On
Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. On
Celadion, see above, chap. 11, note 17. Of
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 On
Theophilus and his writings, see chap. 24. Of
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. On
Hero, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 23. On
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, On
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. On the life and writings of Dionysius, see below, chap.
23. On
Pinytus, see below, chap, 23, note 14. On
Philip, see below, chap. 25. On
Apolinarius, see below, chap. 27. On
Melito, see chap. 26. On Musanus, see chap. 28. On
Modestus, see chap. 25. Irenæus 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. ὧν
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 The 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).
2. His words are as follows:
“And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until
Primus Of 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.
3. And when I had come to Rome I
remained there until Anicetus, The 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.
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, See
Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.
“Therefore, Διὰ
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.
5. But Thebuthis, Of 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). The 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. Simon Magus (see Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3). Cleobius 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.). Trustworthy 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). Epiphanius 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. The 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.” On 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. There 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.).
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, Hemerobap These 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.
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, The 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. Eusebius 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.
8. And not only he, but also
Irenæus and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs
of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom. This phrase (παν€ρετος
σοφία) was very
frequently employed among the Fathers as a title of the Book of
Proverbs. Clement of Rome (
Chapter XXIII.—Dionysius, Bishop
of Corinth, and the Epistles which he wrote. Eusebius 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).
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, This 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). Of 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.
3. He mentions Quadratus We 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. On
Dionysius the Areopagite, see Bk. III. chap. 4, note 20. See
4. And there is extant another
epistle of his addressed to the Nicomedians, The
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.
5. Writing also to the church
that is in Gortyna, Gortyna 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. Of
this Philip, bishop of Gortyna, and a contemporary of Dionysius, we
know only what Eusebius tells us here and in chap. 25.
6. And writing to the church
that is in Amastris, Amastris 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). This
Bacchylides is perhaps identical with the Bacchylus who was afterward
bishop of Corinth (Bk. V. chap. 22). Elpistus is an otherwise unknown
personage. This 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. It
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.
7. Among these is inserted also
another epistle addressed to the Cnosians, Cnossus, 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.
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, On
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.
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, On
Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, see Bk. III. chap.
16.
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. See
above, note 1. Compare A
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. οὐ
τοιαύταις
There is extant, in addition to
these, another epistle of Dionysius, written to Chrysophora, Chrysophora is an otherwise unknown person.
Chapter XXIV.—Theophilus Bishop of Antioch.
1. Of
Theophilus, Eusebius 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). In chap. 20, above. This 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. These 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.
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. This 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.
Maximinus, Here, 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.
Philip who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius, See above, chap. 23, §5. Philip’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 On Irenæus, see above, chap. 21, note 9. Modestus, 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, The 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. On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27. Marcus Aurelius.
2. The following works of these
writers have come to our knowledge. Of Melito, The 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. The 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. The 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. ὁ περὶ
ἐκκλησίας. Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum. ὁ περὶ
κυριακῆς
λόγος. Jerome, de
Die Dominica librum unum. Valesius, 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. ὁ περὶ
πλ€σεως.
Jerome, de plasmate librum unum. All 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. A 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. ὁ περὶ
λουτροῦ;
Jerome, de baptismate. Apolinarius (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. Six
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. All
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. περὶ
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). ἡ 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. All 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). ὁ 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. ἐπὶ
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).
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.” A
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.
4. And Clement of Alexandria
refers to this work in his own discourse On the Passover, This 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).
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, This statement of Melito’s is a very remarkable one. See
chap. 8, note 14.
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: The
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. εὐκταῖος
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 The
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. ἀφ᾽
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.
10. But thy pious fathers
corrected their ignorance, having frequently rebuked in writing ἐγγρ€φως: i.e. in edicts or rescripts. This
epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon its genuineness,
see chap. 8, note 14. On
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.
11. And as for thee,—since
thy opinions respecting the Christians περὶ
τούτων.
12. But in the Extracts ἐν
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.
13. “Melito to his brother
Onesimus, This Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person.
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, Some
mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before
Numbers, but the best mss., followed by
Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order. ψαλμῶν
Δαβίδ. Literally,
“of the Psalms of David” [one book]. ἣ καὶ Σοφία: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200). Literally, “in one book” (τῶν δώδεκα
ἐν
μονοβίβλῳ). ῎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 The
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. On
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. No 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). No 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. Eusebius 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. καινοτομηθείσης
Chapter XXVIII.—Musanus and His Writings.
And as
for Musanus, Of
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. On Tatian and the Encratites, see the next chapter.
Chapter XXIX.—The Heresy of Tatian. From 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.
1. He
is the one whose words we quoted a little above In chap. 16. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 28. 1.
2. “Those who are called
Encratites, ᾽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. On Saturninus and on Marcion, see chap. 7, note 6, and 11, note
15. On their asceticism, see especially Irenæus, Adv.
Hær. I. 24. τῶν
λεγομένων
ἐμψύχων:
i.e. animal food in general. Cf. 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 (
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, On
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.
4. But a little later a certain
man named Severus That 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.
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, οὐκ 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. τὸ 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. i.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).
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, λόγος 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. Tatian 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, i.e. Mesopotamia: ἐπὶ
τῆς μέσης τῶν
ποταμῶν. Bardesanes 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). γνώριμοι
2. Among them there is also his
most able dialogue On Fate, See
note 2. Hort 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.
3. He indeed was at first a
follower of Valentinus, See note 2. It 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.
About this time also Soter, On Soter, see chap. 19, note 2.
Introduction.
1. Soter, On
Soter, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 2. Eusebius 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. i.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.
2. A full account, containing
the most reliable information on the subject, is given in our
Collection of Martyrdoms, All 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.
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 τοῦ 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 Λούγδουνος
καὶ Βίεννα, the ancient Lugdunum and Vienna, the modern Lyons and
Vienne in southeastern France.
2. The most celebrated churches
in that country sent an account of the witnesses μαρτύρων. 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.
I will give their own words. The 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.
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.’
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, Of
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.”
8. Then, being taken to the
forum by the chiliarch χιλιαρχής, strictly the commander of a thousand men, but commonly
used also to translate the Latin Tribunus militum.
9. When, afterwards, they were
brought before him, and he treated us with the utmost cruelty, Vettius
Epagathus, Of
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.
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 κλῆρον, 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. παρ€κλητον; cf. πνεῦμα 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. See Compare
11. “Then the others were
divided, διεκρίνοντο. 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). ἐξέτρωσαν, 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.
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, Gieseler (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. i.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.
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.’
16. Then finally the holy
witnesses endured sufferings beyond description, Satan striving
earnestly that some of the slanders might be uttered by them also. καὶ 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.”
17. “But the whole wrath
of the populace, and governor, and soldiers was aroused exceedingly
against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne, Valesius 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. Pergamos in Asia Minor (mentioned in Cf.
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
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 ὑπὲρ
π€ντα
ἄνθρωπον.
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, Blasphemy 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).
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, See Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9.
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
32. “Then a certain great
dispensation of God occurred, and the compassion of Jesus appeared
beyond measure, The 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).
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, Cf.
36. After certain other words they continue:
“After these things,
finally, their martyrdoms were divided into every form. μετὰ ταῦτα
δὴ λοιπὸν εἰς
πᾶν εἶδος
διῃρεῖτο τὰ
μαρτύρια τῆς
ἐξόδου
αὐτῶν.
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, διὰ
πλειόνων
κλήρων;
undoubtedly a reference to the athletic combats (see Valesius’
note in loco). τὰς
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.
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. Among 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.
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; Compare
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. ὡς νεκροὺς
ἐξέτρωσε. Compare §11, above.
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,
47. For Cæsar commanded
that they should be put to death, ἀποτυμπανισθῆναι. 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. Renan (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.
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, Cf.
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.
56. And, after the scourging,
after the wild beasts, after the roasting seat, τήγανον: 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.
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. The 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).
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.’
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, These 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, Namely, 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.
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,’
3. For they conceded cheerfully
the appellation of Witness to Christ ‘the faithful and true
Witness,’ ἀρχηγῷ τῆς
ζωῆς τοῦ
θεοῦ. Cf. ὁμολογοι. The regular technical term for “confessor,” which
later came into general use, was ὁμολογητής τελειωθῆναι; 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.
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, πρὸς τοὺς
ἀδελφούς.
5. A little further on they say:
“They humbled themselves under the mighty hand, by which they are
now greatly exalted. Compare πᾶσι 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. The
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.
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 ἡμῖν, 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.
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. Eusebius 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, Of
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.
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, On
Montanus and the Montanists, see below, chap. 16 sq. Of
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). Of
the Montanist Theodotus we know only what is told us here and in chap.
16, below (see that chapter, note 25). On
Eleutherus, see above, Bk. V. Introd. note 2. It
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, On
Irenæus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
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 ὁμολογητῶν. 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). Cf.
§2 of the Introduction to this book (Bk. V.). On Eusebius’
Collection of Martyrdoms, see above, p. 30. i.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 The
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. τούτου 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. It 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. This legion was called the Melitene from the place where it was
regularly stationed,—Melitene, a city in Eastern Cappadocia, or
Armenia. Kneeling 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.
2. This was indeed a strange
sight to the enemy, but it is reported λόγος
žχει. See above, note
1.
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. Dion 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.
4. Among these is Apolinarius, i.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.
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, In
Bk. II. chap. 2, §4, and Bk. III. chap. 33, §3 (quoted also
in Bk. III. chap. 20, §9).
6. He writes Apol.chap. 5. A
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. The 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.
7. He adds further: Apol. ibid.
“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; See Bk. III. chap. 12, note 1. Upon Trajan’s rescript, and the universal misunderstanding
of it in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 33
(notes). Upon Hadrian’s treatment of the Christians, see above, Bk.
IV. chap. 9. Upon Antoninus Pius’ relation to them, see above, Bk. IV.
chap. 13. Whether 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.”
8. Pothinus having died with the
other martyrs in Gaul at ninety years of age, See above, chap. 1, §29. Upon Irenæus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9. Cf. Adv. Hær. II. 3. 4, &c., and Eusebius, chap.
20, below.
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: Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3.
1. “The blessed apostles Namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the Roman
church. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17. On Linus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 2, note 1; and for the
succession of the early Roman bishops, see the same note.
2. Anencletus On
Anencletus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3. On
Clement, see above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19. Although the identification of this Clement with the one mentioned
in
3. In the times of Clement, a
serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, See the Epistle of Clement itself, especially chaps. 1 and
3. Upon the epistle, see above, Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1. ἀνεοῦσα 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. It 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.
4. A little farther on he
says: Ibid.
“Evarestus Upon Evarestus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3. Upon
Alexander, see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 4. Upon
Xystus, see IV. 4, note 3. Upon Telesphorus, see IV. 5, note 13. Upon Hyginus, see IV. 10, note 3. Upon Pius, see IV. 11, note 14. Upon
Anicetus, see IV. 11, note 18. Upon Soter, see IV. 19, note 2. Upon Eleutherus, see Introd. to this book, note 2.
5. In the same order and
succession διαδοχῇ, 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, In
the various passages referred to in the notes on the previous
chapter. ἐλέγχου καὶ
ἀνατροπῆς
τῆς
ψευδωνύμου
γνώσεως (cf.
2. He says: Adv. 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.
“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, See the previous note.
3. And again, after other
remarks, he says: Adv. Hær. II. 32. 4.
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.” Cf.
6. And in another place the same
author writes: Adv. Hær. V. 6. 1.
“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.
Chapter VIII.—The Statements of Irenæus in regard to the Divine Scriptures.
1. Since, in the beginning of this work, Eusebius 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. Adv. Hær. III. 1. 1.
2. “Matthew published his
Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, See 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. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
3. After their departure Mark,
the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in
writing those things which Peter had preached; See
above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4. See above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 15.
4. Afterwards John, the disciple
of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel,
while staying at Ephesus in Asia.” See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1.
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: Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 30. 1.
“As these things are so,
and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies, The 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.
6. And farther on he says
concerning the same: i.e. concerning the Beast or Antichrist. Irenæus, Adv.
Hær. V. 30. 3; quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 18,
above.
“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.” See above, Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1.
7. He states these things
concerning the Apocalypse Upon the Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20. In 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. In
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. i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas; see above, Bk. III. chap. 3,
note 23. Adv. Hær. IV. 20. 2.
“Well did the Scripture ἡ 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). The Shepherd of Hermas, II. 1.
8. And he uses almost the
precise words of the Wisdom of Solomon, saying: Adv. 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. ἀπομνημονευμ€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. Adv. 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.
9. And he refers to Justin the
Martyr, In 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). Irenæus 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. Adv. 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.
10. Concerning the translation
of the inspired θεοπνεύστων Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1.
“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,’ This 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. Upon the Ebionites and their doctrines, see Bk. III. chap.
27.
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, Ptolemy, 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.
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. ποιήσαντος
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).
13. But wishing to try them
individ τὴν 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.
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 κατ᾽
ἐπίπνοιαν
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.” This
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.
Such are the words of Irenæus.
Chapter IX.—The Bishops under Commodus.
1. After Antoninus i.e.
Marcus Aurelius. See below, p. 390, note. March
17, 180 a.d. Of
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). Upon
Agrippinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5.
Chapter X.—Pantænus the Philosopher.
1. About that time, Pantænus, Pantænus 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). The
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. Jerome (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. παρειλήφαμεν λόγος
žχει.
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. Jerome
(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. ἦσαν
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.
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, See
note 6. If
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.
4. After many good deeds,
Pantænus finally became the head of the school at Alexandria, Eusebius 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. See
above, note 1.
Chapter XI.—Clement of Alexandria.
1. At
this time Clement, Of
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. συνασκούμενος Upon Clement of Rome and his relation to the apostles, see Bk.
III. chap. 4, note 19.
2. In his Hypotyposes On
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. τοὺς
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). Strom.I. 1.
3. “This work i.e. his Stromata.
4. Of these the one—the
Ionian This 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. The
lower part of the peninsula of Italy was called Magna Græcia,
because it contained so many Greek colonies. Cœle-Syria was the valley lying between the eastern and
western ranges of Lebanon. This 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. Various 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). Pantænus. 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).
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.” This 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 The
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. Upon 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.
2. After him the succession in
the episcopate was: first Cassianus; after him Publius; then Maximus; Called Maximinus by the Armenian Chron., but all our other
authorities call him Maximus. The 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). Eusebius has Καπίτων, so also Epiphanius, with whom Jerome agrees, writing
Capito. The Armenian, however, has Apion, and Syncellus
says ᾽Απίων, οἱ δὲ
Καπίτων.
1. At
this time Rhodo, We
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. See Bk. IV. chap. 29. Upon Marcion and Marcionism, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note
22. It 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.
2. But hear what he writes: These fragments of Rhodo are collected and discussed by Routh in
his Rel. Sacræ, I. 437–446.
“Therefore also they
disagree among themselves, maintaining an inconsistent opinion. The
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. Apelles 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. The
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. This 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. i.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. This
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
(
3. But others, among whom are
Potitus and Basilicus, Of
these two men we know only what is told us here. They are not mentioned
elsewhere. See note 9. ὁ 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.
4. These following the wolf It
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. See
note 9. Of
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). διδασκ€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.
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, Apelles 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. τὸν
λόγον. This
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.”
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; Rhodo 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.
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.” A
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.
8. In the same work, addressing
Callistio, Of
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). Upon
Tatian, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1. Upon
this work (προβλημ€των
βιβλίον)
see ibid. Whether 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. εἰς 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.
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. Hippolytus (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.
So much concerning these.
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. Cf.
Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 3. On
Montanus and the Montanists, see chap. 16.
Chapter
XV.—The Schism of Blastus at
Rome. The
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.
Others,
of whom Florinus On
Florinus and Blastus, see chap. 20.
Chapter XVI.—The Circumstances
related of Montanus and his False Prophets. Montanism 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.
1. Against the so-called Phrygian τὴν
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). In
Bk. IV. chaps. 21, 26 and 27, and in Bk. V. chap. 5. See especially Bk.
IV. chap. 27, note 1.
2. A certain one of these, in
the beginning of his work against them, The
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.
3. He commences his work in this
manner: The 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.
“Having for a very long
and sufficient time, O beloved Avircius Marcellus, ᾽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. εἰς 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.
4. But being recently in
Ancyra Ancyra was the metropolis and one of the three principal cities of
Galatia. Quite an important town, Angora, now occupies its
site. κατὰ
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.
5. The presbyters in the place,
our fellow-presbyter Zoticus Of 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).
“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. ἐν
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. The 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. Ambition 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. The 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).
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 i.e. between true and false prophets. Cf. ὡς ἁγί& 251·
πνεύματι καὶ
προφητικῷ
χαρίσματι
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, Maximilla 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). i.e. Montanus.
“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, That 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.
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 Cf. 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. Cf. There
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).
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; Whether 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.
14. So also, as general report
says, that remarkable person, the first steward, ἐπίτροπος: 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. The 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.
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, Of
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. Cf.
note 21, above. Of
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. Of
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. Themiso 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.
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.” This 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.
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. Our
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).
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, This
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. Apamea 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, This 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.
“Having found these things
in a certain work of theirs in opposition to the work of the brother
Alcibiades, ῎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. This
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).
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 Of
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. This 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.
“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, On
Agabus, see On
Judas, see On
Silas, see On
the daughters of Philip, see
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.” On
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).
5. He writes thus. But the
Miltiades to whom he refers has left other monuments of his own zeal
for the Divine Scriptures, περὶ 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. žν 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. ἑκατέρᾳ&
184·δίως
ὑποθέσει ἐν
δυσὶν
ὑπαντησας
συγγρ€μμασιν Or,
“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.
Or
events (τίνων).
1. As
the so-called Phrygian heresy On the name, see chap. 16, note 2. Of
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.
2. “His actions and his
teaching show who this new teacher is. This is he who taught the
dissolution of marriage; We
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. One
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. Pepuza 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). This 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. There 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.
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.” See
chap. 16, note 18.
4. Afterwards he says:
“Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to
receive gifts and money? See note 8.
5. And again a little farther on he speaks thus concerning one of their confessors:
“So also Themiso, On Themiso, see chap. 16, note 31. καθολικὴν
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.
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, This 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. A
very common accusation brought against various sects. Upon the
significance of it, see Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 82,
note 2. ὀπισθόδομος, 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.
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,’
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.’
9. But that those who wish may
know concerning Alexander, he was tried by Æmilius Frontinus, We know, unfortunately, nothing about this proconsul, and hence
have no means of fixing the date of this occurrence. i.e. of Christ. παραβ€της εἶτα
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. We have no means of controlling the truth of this
statement. δημόσιον
ἀρχεῖον. ὃν 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.
10. Exposing him, through him we
expose also the pretense τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
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? β€πτεται στιβίζεται Knowing 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.
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. On
the date of Apollonius’ work, see above, note 3.
13. And he says also that
Zoticus, who was mentioned by the former writer, See chap. 16, §17. This 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.
He speaks, moreover, of a
tradition that the Saviour commanded his apostles not to depart from
Jerusalem for twelve years. Clement (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. Compare Eusebius’ promise in Bk. III. chap. 24, §18,
and see note 21 on that chapter. No
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, Both
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.). On
Maximinus, see Bk. IV. chap. 24, note 6. See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1. Caricus 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. This
fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sacræ, and, in English, in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775.
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 See
Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 5.
3. In the same letter of
Serapion the signatures of several bishops are found, Valesius 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.
“I, Aurelius Cyrenius, a
witness, Of 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.
And another in this manner:
“Ælius Publius
Julius, Ælius Publius Julius is also an otherwise unknown personage.
Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western shore of
the Black Sea. Lightfoot (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.
4. And the autograph signatures of many other bishops who agreed with them are contained in the same letter.
So much for these persons.
Chapter XX.—The Writings of Irenæus against the Schismatics at Rome.
1. Irenæus On
Irenæus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9. Eusebius, 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. Florinus, 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.). This 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. Literally, “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.
2. At the close of the treatise
we have found a most beautiful note which we are constrained to insert
in this work. It
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
“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, The epistle On Monarchy mentioned at the beginning of this
chapter.
“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, ἐν
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.
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
man
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. This 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.
8. And this can be shown plainly
from the letters We
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, Marcia, 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.
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, Jerome (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. Jerome, 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).
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. M.
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.”
4. But the martyr, highly
beloved of God, being ear Valesius 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. On 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 The 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.). On 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. On
Julian, bishop of Alexandria, see chap. 9, note 2. The 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). On Serapion, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 19. Theophilus, 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. On Narcissus, see above, chap. 12. This 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. Polycrates, 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. The 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.
2. Synods and assemblies of
bishops were held on this account, Although 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. On Theophilus and Narcissus, see the preceding chapter, notes 6
and 7. ἐπίσκοπον
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. Palmas, bishop of Amastris, in Pontus, mentioned by Dionysius, in
Bk. IV. chap. 23, above. Osrhoëne was a region of country in northwestern
Mesopotamia. This 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.
3. And that which has been given
above was their unanimous decision. Namely, 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. For
a general account of the paschal controversy, see the preceding
chapter, note 1. On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9. A
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.
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 On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5. This 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.
5. Why need I mention the bishop
and martyr Sagaris On
Sagaris, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 22. Polycrates 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. On
Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.
6. All these observed the
fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no
respect, but following the rule of faith. A
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. i.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
(
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.’”
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; According 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.
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 excommuni There 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.
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: This 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.
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. The 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).
13. And this variety in its
observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of
our ancestors. The
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.
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 i.e.
the fourteenth day. The
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.
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. Valesius, 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.
16. And when the blessed
Polycarp was at Rome ἐπιδημήσαντος
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.
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. The 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.
18. Thus Irenæus, who truly
was well named, The
Greek form of the name is Εἰρηναῖος, from εἰρήνη,
which means “peace.” None 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, In chaps. 22 and 23. For particulars in regard to them, see chap.
22, notes 6 and 7. Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men. i.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. This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, Rel.
Sac. II. p. 3 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VIII. p. 774.
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.” These 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, For a general summary of the works of Irenæus mentioned by
Eusebius, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9. πρὸς
῞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. εἰς
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. βίβλιον 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.).
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. Commodus 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 This 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. The 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. εἰς 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. Apion’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. Sextus 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. Nothing 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. Eusebius 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. Eusebius 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, This 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. On Paul of Samosata, see below, Bk. VII. chap. 27, note
4.
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. The 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.
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, On 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). The 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.
4. And what they say might be
plausible, if first of all On
Justin Martyr, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 20. On
Miltiades, see above, chap. 17, note 1. On 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. On Clement of Alexandria, see above, chap. 11, note 1. θεολογεῖται
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.
5. For who does not know the
works of Irenæus On
Irenæus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9. On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1. Irenæus’ 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”). This 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.
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, τὸν
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).
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. See
above, note 5.
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, Of
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.
9. This man was deceived at one
time by Asclepiodotus ᾽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. On 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. The Greek contains a play of words at this point: ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ
φρονήσει,
μᾶλλον δὲ
ἀφροσύνῃ.
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. This 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.
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 en It
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.”
13. We will add from the same
writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows: The 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.
“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. The 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 ᾽Ευκλείδης…γεωμετρεῖται: literally, Euclid is geometrized.
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, All
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). κατωρθωμένα,
τουτέστιν
ἠφανισμένα Of this Hermophilus we know nothing more. ᾽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
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, These 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.
Let this suffice for these things.
Chapter I.—The Persecution under Severus.
When Severus began to persecute the churches, During 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. We 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. This 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.)
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, This 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. On the dates of Demetrius’ episcopacy, see Bk. V. chap. 22,
note 4. On
Julian, see Bk. V. chap. 9, note 2.
3. As the flame of persecution
had been kindled greatly, On the persecution, see more particularly chap. 1, note
1.
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, This 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.
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, τῇ 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).
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. On the date of Origen’s birth, see note 1.
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; Of 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.
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 διὰ τὸ
δοκοῦν
ἱκανὸν ἐν
λόγῳ. Redepenning (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. φυλ€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.” Redepenning (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]). ἐπὶ
τὰ
γραμματικ€ See 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, Of 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). Heraclas, 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.
3. He was in his eighteenth year
when he took charge of the catechetical school. See below, p. 392. It 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.
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. How 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.
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. οἷος 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).
8. But when he saw yet more
coming to him for instruction, and the catechetical school This 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.
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. The 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. It
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.
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 See See
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. Greek: 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.
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.
Chapter IV.—The pupils of Origen that became Martyrs.
1. The
first of these was Plutarch, who was mentioned just above. See 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.
2. After Plutarch, the second
martyr among the pupils of Origen was Serenus, These two persons named Serenus, the first of whom was burned, the
second beheaded, are known to us only from this chapter.
3. The third martyr from the
same school was Heraclides, Of 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. Our authentic information of Hero is likewise limited to this
account of Eusebius. Herais 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).
Potamiæna, 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.).
1. Basilides Basilides 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. Of
Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the more celebrated
Potamiæna, and suffered martyrdom 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 The word σφραγίς, “seal,” was very commonly used by the Fathers to
signify baptism (see Suicer’s Thesaurus).
7. For Potamiæna appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them. But let this suffice in regard to this matter.
Chapter VI.—Clement of Alexandria.
Clement This 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. On
Pantænus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2. Stephanus, 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. In
Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21. On this and the other works of
Clement, see chap. 13.
Chapter
VII.—The Writer, Judas. The 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.
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. It 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. This 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.
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 See chap. 23.
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, On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see below,
p. 394.
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. Septimius 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. Eusebius 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). On
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. This 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.
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
6. But he could not in any wise
endure the wickedness of these men; and as he had followed a
philosophic See above, chap. 3, note 9. The date of Narcissus’ retirement we have no means of
ascertaining.
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.
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. Of 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. Eusebius 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. Literally, “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, The 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. Of 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.
εὐχῆς καὶ
τῶν τόπων
ἱστορίας
ἕνεκεν.
3. Alexander, himself, in
private letters to the Antinoites, ᾽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.
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, On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1. The 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. Literally “confessions” (ὁμολογίαις).
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, On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.
“My honored brethren, κύριοί μου
ἀδελφοί.
Chapter XII.—Serapion and his Extant Works.
1. It
is probable that others have preserved other memorials of
Serapion’s On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1. The Greek reads: τοῦ δὲ
Σαραπίωνος
τῆς περὶ
λόγους
ἀσκήσεως καὶ
ἄλλα μὲν
εἰκὸς
σώζεσθαι
παρ᾽ ἐτέροις
ὑπομνήματα Of 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 See Bk. V. chap. 19, note 4. On the so-called “Gospel of Peter,” see Bk. III. chap.
3, note 7.
2. He wrote this last to refute
the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the
parish of Rhossus Rhossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Gulf of
Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.
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, This 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.
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 By 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. The 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. On
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.
1. All
the eight Stromata of Clement are preserved among us, and have been
given by Clement’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.
2. The books entitled
Hypotyposes The 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. Pantænus, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.
3. Besides these there is his
Hortatory Discourse addressed to the Greeks; The 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. The 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). The Quis Dives Salvetur? as it is called (τίς ὁ
σωζόμενος
πλούσιος), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in
τὸ 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.). διαλέξεις
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. ὁ 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. ὁ 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.
4. In the Stromata, he has not
only treated extensively Literally, “made a spreading” (κατ€στρωσιν
πεποίηται). Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work
(Στρωματεῖς).
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. See note 2.
6. He makes use also in these
works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures, ἀντιλεγομένων
γραφῶν. On the
Antilegomena, see Bk. III. chap 25, note 1. The 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. On
the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note
20. The Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1. On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note 47.
7. He mentions also
Tatian’s On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1. This 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. On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and
18. The 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. On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9. Demetrius 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. Eupolymus 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
8. These books abound also in
much other learning. In the first of them Eusebius 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.
9. In them he promises also to
write a commentary on Genesis. In 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. On this work, see note 8.
Chapter XIV.—The Scriptures mentioned by Him.
1. To
sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes See the previous chapter, note 3. On the Antilegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament
canon in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1. On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note
20. On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note
9.
2. He says that the Epistle to
the Hebrews On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note
17.
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 On 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).
7. When Peter learned of this,
he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John,
perceiving that the external τὰ
σωματικ€. See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.
8. Again the above-mentioned
Alexander, Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.
“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; We 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. It 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.
10. So much for these matters.
But Adamantius, The 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. On 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.
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. On Demetrius’ relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note
4.
Chapter
XV.—Heraclas. On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
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.
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, Origen’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. On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31. Aquila 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. Symmachus 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 It 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. We 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
2. Since he did not Nicopolis 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.
3. In the Hexapla Origen’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.). Valesius 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.
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. Greek: 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.
On Symmachus, see the previous chapter, note 4.
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. In Bk. III. chap. 27. For a discussion of Ebionism, see the notes
on that chapter. On 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). This 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, Of 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. On Valentinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 1.
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 Greek, αἰρέσεις
4. And he instructed many of the
less learned in the common school branches, ἐγκύκλια
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). On
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, Porphyry, 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).
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, Of
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.
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. τὸ 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. On
Origen’s Greek culture, see p. 392, and also his own words quoted
below in §12 sq.
8. For he was continually
studying Plato, and he busied himself with the writings of Numenius Numenius 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.). Of
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. The
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. Longinus 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. Moderatus 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. Nicomachus 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. Chæremon 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. Cornutus 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. Origen 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.
9. These things are said by
Porphyry in the third book of his work against the Christians. On
this great work of Porphyry, see note 1. See note 3.
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 This 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.
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, The
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).
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, On
Pantænus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1. On
Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2. ἐκείνων τῶν
λόγων.
14. And though he had formerly
worn the common dress, he laid it aside and assumed and still wears the
philosopher’s garment; See above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 21.
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 The 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.
16. But sometime after a
considerable war broke out in the city, In
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. οἱ τῇδε
ἐπίσκοποι. The τῇδε must refer to
Palestine, not to Cæsarea, for “bishops” are spoken
of, not “bishop.” In 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
17. This is evi On Alexander, see chap. 8, note 6. Theoctistus, 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. Eusebius 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.”
“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. Of
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.
He was honored in this manner
while yet a young man, not only by his countrymen, but also by foreign
bishops. οὐ 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.
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.
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, Ælia, 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.
2. Among these Beryllus On Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, see chap. 33. On
Hippolytus, see chap. 22.
3. There has reached us also a
dialogue of Caius, On Caius and his discussion with Proclus, see Bk. II. chap. 25,
notes 7 and 8. Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome from 198 or 199 to 217. See Bk. V.
chap. 28, note 5. On 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 i.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. On
Zephyrinus, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5. As
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.
2. He continued for five years,
and was succeeded by Lipsius, 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. Elagabalus 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. Philetus, 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. On
Asclepiades, see chap. 11, note 6.
3. The mother of the emperor,
Mammæa Julia 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.
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.
Chapter XXII.—The Works of Hippolytus which have reached us.
1. At
that time Hippolytus, Hippolytus (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. This 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.
2. Of his other writings the
following have reached us: On the Hexæmeron, This 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). Greek, 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. This
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. Eusebius 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. This commentary on portions of Ezekiel is mentioned by no one
else. A supposed fragment of it is given by Lagarde, Anal. Syr.,
p. 90. Jerome 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. This
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.
1. At
that time Origen began his commentaries on the Divine Scriptures, being
urged thereto by Ambrose, On
Ambrose and his relation to Origen, see chap. 18, note 1.
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, On
Urbanus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 21, note 4. For 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. The
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. On
Philetus, see chap. 21, note 6.
4. At this time Origen was sent
to Greece on account of a pressing necessity in connection with
ecclesiastical affairs, See
the note on p. 395, below. Eusebius 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 Origen’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.
2. In the ninth of those on
Genesis, Of
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 Origen’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). There 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.
3. In them he mentions also his
books On the Resurrection, Jerome (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. Of 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. In
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, On
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. On
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.
“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, I
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. Οὐελεσμώθ. I represent the diphthong οὐ at the beginning of a word
by “w.” The 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. Whether 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).
On 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.
4. “Among the four
Gospels, Compare 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. See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5.
5. The second is by Mark, who
composed it according to the instructions of Peter, See Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
6. And the third by Luke, the
Gospel commended by Paul, See Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Origen refers here
to See Bk. III. chap. 24.
7. In the fifth book of his
Expositions of John’s Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the
epistles of the apostles: This fragment from the fifth book of Origen’s commentary on
John is extant only in this chapter. The context is not
preserved. See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 2.
8. And Peter, on whom the Church
of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not
prevail,’ On the first and second Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3,
notes 1 and 4.
9. Why need we speak of him who
reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, See On
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. See See
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 Upon 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.
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 προσέχων,
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.
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.
It was
in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen removed from
Alexandria to Cæsarea, The 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. On 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. Firmilian, 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, On
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6. On
Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, see chap. 19, note
27. A
number of mss., followed by Heinichen and some
others, insert at this point ὡς žπος
εἰπεῖν (“so to speak”). The
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. τὰ 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. Alexander 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. The
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). This
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. On
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. On
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; Gordianus 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. On
Pontianus, see chap. 23, note 3. Both
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. Greek 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.).
2. They say φασί. Eusebius
is our only authority for the following story. Rufinus (VI. 21) tells a
similar tale in connection with Zephyrinus.
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. τὸν θρόνον
τῆς
ἐπισκοπῆς
5. About that time Zebinus, On
Zebinus, see chap. 23, note 4. Babylas 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. On
Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2. On
the episcopate of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4. On
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, Our
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. Athenodorus 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, Julius 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 ἀποροῦντος. A very mild way of putting his complete rejection of the
story!
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, On
Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
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. In
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 “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. Eusebius 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. i.e. to
2. Being at that time in
Athens, The
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. From
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.
3. But why should we give in
this history an accurate catalogue of the man’s works, which
would require a separate treatise? ἰδίας
δεόμενον
σχολῆς. On
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, Beryllus, 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. τὸν
ἐκκλησιαστικὸν
κανόνα: i.e. the
rule of faith. μὴ
προϋφεστ€ναι
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν
οὐσίας
περιγραφήν θεότητα
ἰδίαν.
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 re
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 τῶν 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. On 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. The 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. There
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. Chrysostom (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. That 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 On
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. On
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, τοῦ καθ᾽
ἡμας παρὰ
πᾶσι λόγου Since 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.
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 Of
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. The 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 Jerome 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.
3. There is extant also an
epistle These
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. This
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.
4. He wrote also to Fabianus, On
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. On
this Defense, see above, p. 36.
Chapter
XXXVII.—The Dissension of the
Arabians. The
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.
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.
Another error also arose at this time, called the heresy of the
Elkesites, The
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. On
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.
“A certain man Alciabades, according to Hippolytus (see above, note
1). The apostle Paul (see note 1). Origen 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. Philip 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. On
Fabianus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 29, note 4. After 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.
2. In Palestine, Alexander, On
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
3. And after his honorable and
illustrious confession at the tribunal of the governor, he fell asleep
in prison, and Mazabanes The
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.
4. Babylas On
Babylas, see chap. 29, note 8. Eusebius 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.
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 τοὺς 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. A
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. Dionysius 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.
1. I
shall quote from the epistle of Dionysius to Germanus This
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.
2. But even before this, at the
very hour when the Decian persecution was commanded, Sabinus Sabinus, an otherwise unknown personage, seems to have been
prefect of Egypt at this time, as Æmilianus was during the
persecution of Valerian, according to Bk. VII. chap. 11. One of the frumentarii milites, or military commissaries,
who were employed for various kinds of business, and under the emperors
especially as detectives or secret spies.
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, μὴ
εὑρίσκων. It is not meant that the frumentarius could not find the house,
but that he did not think to go to the house at all, through an error
of judgment (“being smitten with blindness”), supposing
that Dionysius would certainly be elsewhere. οἱ
παῖδες. This is
taken by many scholars to mean “children,” and the
conclusion is drawn by them that Dionysius was a married man. Dittrich
translates it “pupils,” supposing that Dionysius was still
at the head of the catechetical school, and that some of his scholars
lived with him, as was quite common. Others translate
“servants,” or “domestics.” I have used the
indefinite word“ attendants” simply, because the
παῖδες
may well have included children, scholars, servants,
and others who made up his family and constituted, any or all of them,
his attendants. As shown in note 8, the word at any rate cannot be
confined in the present case to servants.
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, Strabo (Bk. XVII. chap. 1) mentions a small town called Taposiris,
situated in the neighborhood of Alexandria. We
know nothing about this Timothy, except that Dionysius addressed to him
his work On Nature, as reported by Eusebius in VII. 26. He is
there called Τιμώθεος ὁ
παῖς. Dionysius can hardly
have addressed a book to one of his servants, and hence we may conclude
that Timothy was either Dionysius’ son (as Westcott holds) or
scholar (as Dittrich believes). It is reasonable to think him one of
the παῖδες,
with others of whom Dionysius was arrested, as recorded just above. It
is in that case of course necessary to give the word as used there some
other, or at least some broader sense than
“servants.” Greek ἐξηνδραποδισμένους, meaning literally “reduced to slavery.” The
context, however, does not seem to justify such a rendering, for the
reference is apparently only to the fact that they were captured. Their
capture, had they not been released, would have resulted probably in
death rather than in slavery.
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. These four men are known to us only as companions of Dionysius
during the persecution of Decius, as recorded here and in Bk. VII.
chap. 11. From that chapter, §23, we learn that Caius and Peter
were alone with Dionysius in a desert place in Libya, after being
carried away by the rescuing party mentioned here. From §3 of the
same chapter we learn that Faustus was a deacon, and that he was with
Dionysius also during the persecution of Valerian, and from §26
that he suffered martyrdom at a great age in the Diocletian
persecution. See also Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 11. As
we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, §23, this rescuing party carried
Dionysius to a desert place in Libya, where he was left with only two
companions until the persecution ceased.
Dionysius relates these things respecting himself.
1. The
same writer, in an epistle to Fabius, I
read φ€βιον with
the majority of the mss., and with Valesius,
Stroth, Burton, Closs, and Crusè, preferring to adopt the same
spelling here that is used in the other passages in which the same
bishop is mentioned. A number of mss.
read φαβιανόν, which is supported by Rufinus, and adopted by Schwegler,
Laemmer, and Heinichen. On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see chap. 39,
note 7. The time of his episcopate stated in that note fixes the date
of this epistle within narrow limits, viz. between 250 and the spring
of 253. The whole tone of the letter and the discussion of the
readmission of the lapsed would lead us to think that the epistle was
written after the close of the persecution, but in §20, Dioscorus
is said to be still among them, waiting for “a longer and more
severe conflict,” which seems to imply that the persecution, if
not raging at the time, was at least expected to break out again soon.
This would lead us to think of the closing months of Decius’
reign, i.e. late in the year 251, and this date finds confirmation in
the consideration that the epistle (as we learn from chap. 44) was
written after the breaking out of the Novatian schism, and apparently
after the election of Novatian as opposition bishop, for Fabius can
hardly have sided with him against his bishop, so long as he was only a
presbyter. Doubtless Novatian’s official letter, announcing his
election, had influenced Fabius. But Novation was elected bishop in
251, probably in the summer or early fall; at least, some months after
Cornelius’ accession which took place in February, 251. It seems,
from chap. 44, that Fabius was inclined to side with Novatian, and to
favor his rigoristic principles. This epistle was written (as we learn
from chap. 42, §6) with the express purpose of leading him to
change his position and to adopt more lenient principles in his
treatment of the lapsed. It is with this end in view that Dionysius
details at such length in this chapter the sufferings of the martyrs.
He wishes to impress upon Fabius their piety and steadfastness, in
order to beget greater respect for their opinions. Having done this, he
states that they who best understood the temptations to which the
persecuted were exposed, had received the lapsed, when repentant, into
fellowship as before (see chap. 42, note 6). Dionysius’ own
position in the matter comes out very clearly in this epistle. He was
in full sympathy with the milder treatment of the lapsed advocated in
Rome and in Carthage by Cornelius and Cyprian.
“The persecution among us
did not begin with the royal decree, but preceded it an entire year. The edict of Decius was published early in the year 250, and
therefore the persecution in Alexandria, according to Dionysius, began
in 249, while Philip was still emperor. Although the latter showed the
Christians favor, yet it is not at all surprising that this local
persecution should break out during his reign. The peace which the
Christians were enjoying naturally fostered the growth of the Church,
and the more patriotic and pious of the heathen citizens of the empire
must necessarily have felt great solicitude at its constant increase,
and the same spirit which led Decius to persecute would lead many such
persons to desire to persecute when the opportunity offered itself; and
the closing months of Philip’s reign were so troubled with
rebellions and revolutions that he had little time, and perhaps less
inclination, to interfere in such a minor matter as a local persecution
of Christians. The common people of Alexandria were of an excitable and
riotous disposition, and it was always easy there to stir up a tumult
at short notice and upon slight pretexts. ὁ κακῶν τῇ
πόλει ταύτῃ
μ€ντις καὶ
ποιητής.
The last word is rendered “poet” by most translators, and
the rendering is quite possible; but it is difficult to understand why
Dionysius should speak of this person’s being a poet, which could
have no possible connection with the matter in hand. It seems better to
take ποιητής in its common sense of “maker,” or
“author,” and to suppose Dionysius to be thinking of this
man, not simply as the prophet of evils to the city, but also as their
author, in that he “moved and aroused against us the masses of
the heathen.”
2. And being thus excited by him and finding full opportunity for any wickedness, they considered this the only pious service of their demons, that they should slay us.
3. “They seized first an
old man named Metras, Of the various martyrs and confessors mentioned in this chapter,
we know only what is told us by Dionysius in this epistle.
4. Then they carried to their idol temple a faithful woman, named Quinta, that they might force her to worship. And as she turned away in detestation, they bound her feet and dragged her through the entire city over the stone-paved streets, and dashed her against the millstones, and at the same time scourged her; then, taking her to the same place, they stoned her to death.
5. Then all with one impulse rushed to the homes of the pious, and they dragged forth whomsoever any one knew as a neighbor, and despoiled and plundered them. They took for themselves the more valuable property; but the poorer articles and those made of wood they scattered about and burned in the streets, so that the city appeared as if taken by an enemy.
6. But the brethren withdrew and
went away, and ‘took joyfully the spoiling of their
goods,’
7. Then they seized also that most admirable virgin, Apollonia, an old woman, and, smiting her on the jaws, broke out all her teeth. And they made a fire outside the city and threatened to burn her alive if she would not join with them in their impious cries. And she, supplicating a little, was released, when she leaped eagerly into the fire and was consumed.
8. Then they seized Serapion in his own house, and tortured him with harsh cruelties, and having broken all his limbs, they threw him headlong from an upper story. And there was no street, nor public road, nor lane open to us, by night or day; for always and everywhere, all of them cried out that if any one would not repeat their impious words, he should immediately be dragged away and burned.
9. And matters continued thus
for a considerable time. But a sedition and civil war came upon the
wretched people and turned their cruelty toward us against one
another. We
know that the closing months of Philip’s reign were troubled with
seditions in various quarters; but Dionysius is our only authority for
this particular one, unless it be connected, as some think, with the
revolt which Zosimus describes as aroused in the Orient by the bad
government of Philip’s brother, who was governor there, and by
excessive taxation (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p.
272). This refers to the death of Philip and the accession of Decius.
The hostile edicts of the latter seem not to have been published until
some months after his accession, i.e. early in 250. But his hostility
to Christianity might have been known from the start, and it might have
been understood that he would persecute as soon as he had attended to
the other more important matters connected with his
accession.
10. For the decree arrived,
almost like unto that most terrible time foretold by our Lord, which if
it were possible would offend even the elect.
11. All truly were affrighted.
And many of the more eminent in their fear came forward immediately; i.e. to sacrifice. οἱ δὲ
δημοσιεύοντες
ὑπὸ τῶν
πρ€ξεων
ἤγοντο. Every
officer of the government under the imperial regimen was obliged to
sacrifice to the Gods upon taking office, and also to sacrifice at
stated times during his term of office, and upon special occasions, or
in connection with the performance of important official duties. He
might thus be called upon in his official capacity frequently to offer
sacrifices, and a failure to perform this part of his duties was looked
upon as sacrilege and punished as a crime against the state. Christian
officials, therefore, were always in danger of suffering for their
religion unless they were allowed as a special favor, to omit the
sacrifices, as was often the case under those emperors who were more
favorably inclined toward Christianity. A private citizen was never
obliged to sacrifice except in times of persecution, when he might be
ordered to do so as a test. But an official could not carry out fully
all the duties of his position without sacrificing. This is one reason
why many of the Christians avoided public office, and thus drew upon
themselves the accusation of a lack of patriotism (cf. Origen,
Contra Cels. VI. 5 sq., and Tertullian’s Apol. c.
42); and it is also one reason why such Christians as happened to be in
office were always the first to suffer under a hostile
emperor.
12. But some advanced to the
altars more readily, declaring boldly that they had never been
Christians. Of these the prediction of our Lord is most true that they
shall ‘hardly’ Cf.
13. And of the latter some continued faithful until bonds and imprisonment, and some who had even been imprisoned for many days yet abjured the faith before they were brought to trial. Others having for a time endured great tortures finally retracted.
14. But the firm and blessed pillars of the Lord being strengthened by him, and having received vigor and might suitable and appropriate to the strong faith which they possessed, became admirable witnesses of his kingdom.
15. The first of these was
Julian, a man who suffered so much with the gout that he was unable to
stand or walk. They brought him forward with two others who carried
him. One of these immediately denied. But the other, whose name was
Cronion, and whose surname was Eunus, and the old man Julian himself,
both of them having confessed the Lord, were carried on camels through
the entire city, which, as you know, is a very large one, and in this
elevated position were beaten and finally burned in a fierce fire, ἀσβέστῳ
πυρί.
16. But a soldier, named Besas, who stood by them as they were led away rebuked those who insulted them. And they cried out against him, and this most manly warrior of God was arraigned, and having done nobly in the great contest for piety, was beheaded.
17. A certain other one, a
Libyan by birth, but in name and blessedness a true Macar, The
Greek word μ€καρ means
“blessed.” ξυστῆρας. “The instrument of torture here mentioned was an
iron scraper, calculated to wound and tear the flesh as it passed over
it” (Crusè). πυρὶ
ἀσβέστῳ.
18. And with them there were
four women. Ammonarium, a holy virgin, the judge tortured relentlessly
and excessively, because she declared from the first that she would
utter none of those things which he commanded; and having kept her
promise truly, she was dragged away. The others were Mercuria, a very
remarkable old woman, and Dionysia, the mother of many children, who
did not love her own children above the Lord. Rufinus adds at this point the words et alia Ammonaria
(“and another Ammonaria”). Valesius therefore conjectures
that the words καὶ
᾽Αμμον€ριον
ἕτερα must have stood
in the original text, and he is followed by Stroth and Heinichen. The
mss., however, are unanimous in their omission
of the words, and the second sentence below, which speaks of only a
single Ammonarium, as if there were no other, certainly argues against
their insertion. It is possible that Rufinus, finding only three women
mentioned after Dionysius had referred to four, ventured to insert the
“other Ammonaria.”
19. The Egyptians, Heron and
Ater and Isidorus, and with them Dioscorus, It
has been suggested (by Birks in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) that
this Dioscorus may be identical with the presbyter of the same name
mentioned in Bk. VII. chap. 11, §24. But this is quite impossible,
for Dioscorus, as we learn from this passage, was but fifteen years old
at the time of the Decian persecution, and Dionysius is still speaking
of the same persecution when he mentions the presbyter Dioscorus in the
chapter referred to (see note 31 on that chapter).
20. As the
21. But a certain Nemesion, who also was an Egyptian, was accused as an associate of robbers; but when he had cleared himself before the centurion of this charge most foreign to the truth, he was informed against as a Christian, and taken in bonds before the governor. And the most unrighteous magistrate inflicted on him tortures and scourgings double those which he executed on the robbers, and then burned him between the robbers, thus honoring the blessed man by the likeness to Christ.
22. A band of soldiers, Ammon
and Zeno and Ptolemy and Ingenes, and with them an old man, Theophilus,
were standing close together before the tribunal. And as a certain
person who was being tried as a Christian, seemed inclined to deny,
they standing by gnashed their teeth, and made signs with their faces
and stretched out their hands, and gestured with their bodies. And when
the attention of all was turned to them, before any one else could
seize them, they rushed up to the tribunal saying that they were
Christians, so that the governor and his council were affrighted. And
those who were on trial appeared most courageous in prospect of their
sufferings, while their judges trembled. And they went exultingly from
the tribunal rejoicing in their testimony; μαρτυρί&
139·. It is difficult to ascertain from
Dionysius’ language whether these five soldiers suffered
martyrdom or whether they were released. The language admits either
interpretation, and some have supposed that the magistrate was so
alarmed at what he feared might be a general defection among the troops
that he dismissed these men without punishing them. At the same time it
seems as if Dionysius would have stated this directly if it were a
fact. There is nothing in the narrative to imply that their fate was
different from that of the others; and moreover, it hardly seems
probable that the defection of five soldiers should so terrify the
judge as to cause him to cease executing the imperial decree, and of
course if he did not execute it in the case of the soldiers, he could
hardly do it in the case of others.
Chapter XLII.—Others of whom Dionysius gives an Account.
1. “Many others, in cities and villages, were torn asunder by
the heathen, of whom I will mention one as an illustration. Ischyrion Ischyrion is known to us only from this passage. ἐντέρων καὶ
σπλ€γχνων
2. “Why need I speak of the multitude that wandered in the deserts and mountains, and perished by hunger, and thirst, and cold, and sickness, and robbers, and wild beasts? Those of them who survived are witnesses of their election and victory.
3. But I will relate one
occurrence as an example. Chæremon, Of the
bishop Chæremon of Nilus we know only what is told us here. The
city Nilus or Nilopolis was situated on an island in the Nile, in
middle Egypt, some distance south of Memphis. τῇ συμβί& 251·
ἑαυτοῦ. The
word σύμβιος, which means a “companion” or “partner,”
can signify nothing else than “wife” as used here in the
feminine. τὸ
᾽Αρ€βιον
ὄρος. The name Arabicus
mons, τὸ
᾽Αρ€βιον
οὖρος, was given by Herodotus to the range of
mountains which separated that part of Arabia lying west of the Arabian
Gulf from the Nile valley (see Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Rom.
Geography).
4. And many who fled to the same Arabian mountain were carried into slavery by the barbarian Saracens. Some of them were ransomed with difficulty and at a large price; others have not been to the present time. I have related these things, my brother, not without an object, but that you may understand how many and great distresses came upon us. Those indeed will understand them the best who have had the largest experience of them.”
5. A little further on he adds:
“These divine martyrs among us, who now are seated with Christ,
and are sharers in his kingdom, partakers of his judgment and judges
with him, received some of the brethren who had fallen away and become
chargeable with the guilt of sacrificing. When they perceived that
their conversion and repentance were sufficient to be acceptable with
him who by no means desires the death of the sinner, but his
repentance, having proved them they received them back and brought them
together, and met with them and had fellowship with them in prayers and
feasts. εἰσεδέξαντο
καὶ
συνήγαγον
καὶ
συνέστησαν
καὶ
προσευχῶν
αὐτοῖς καὶ
ἑστι€σεων
ἐκοινώνησαν. It will be observed that nothing is said here about
joining with these persons in celebrating the eucharist, or about
admitting them to that service, and hence Valesius is quite right in
distinguishing the kind of communion spoken of here from official
communion in the church, around the Lord’s table. Dionysius does
not imply that these confessors had the power given them to receive the
lapsed back again into the Church, and to dispense the eucharist to
them. That was the prerogative of the bishop, and evidently Dionysius
has no thought of its being otherwise. The communion of which he speaks
was private fellowship merely, and implied a recognition on the part of
these confessors that the persons in question had truly repented of
their sin, and could be recommended for readmission into the Church. As
we see from chap. 44, §2, the recommendation of these persons or
of the people in general was quite necessary, before the bishop would
consent to absolve the fallen person and receive him back again into
the Church. And Dionysius’ words in this passage show that he
felt that the judgment of these confessors in regard to the fitness of
the lapsed for readmission ought to be received with consideration, and
have influence upon the final decision. Dionysius thus shows great
respect to the confessors, but does not accord them the privileges
which they claimed in some places (as we learn from Tertullian’s
de Pudicitia, 22, and from a number of Cyprian’s
Epistles) of themselves absolving the lapsed and readmitting
them to church communion. In this he showed again his agreement with
Cyprian and with the principles finally adopted in the Roman and
Carthaginian churches (cf. e.g. Cyprian’s Epistles, 9 sq.,
al. 15; see also Dittrich, p. 51 sq.).
6. What counsel then,
The
object of the letter is clearly revealed in these sentences (see chap.
41, note 1).
Chapter
XLIII.—Novatus, Eusebius, and the Greeks in general, write the name Νοου€τος (though in Bk. VII. chap. 8, below, Dionysius writes
Νοουατι€νος). Socrates has the form Ναυ€τος, which appears also in some mss. of
Eusebius. Cyprian and the Latins write the name Novatianus. Lardner, in
a note on chap. 47 of his Credibility, argues with great force
for the correctness of the name Novatus, while Heinichen and others
maintain that Novatianus is the right form. The name
Novatiani, Νοουατιανοί, which was given to his followers, is urged with some
reason by Lardner as an argument for the shorter form of the name. But
even if his opinion is correct, the name Novatian is too long
established to be displaced, and serves to distinguish him from the
Carthaginian presbyter Novatus. The schism of Novatian was only one of
the outcrops of the old strife between lax and strict discipline in the
Church, the strife which had shown itself in connection with Montanism
and also between Callistus and Hippolytus (see above, chap. 21, note
3). But in the present case the immediate cause of the trouble was the
treatment of the lapsed. The terrible Decian persecution had naturally
caused many to deny the faith, but afterward, when the stress was past,
they repented and desired to be readmitted to the Church. The question
became a very serious one, and opinions were divided, some advocating
their acceptance after certain prescribed penances, others their
continued exclusion. The matter caused a great deal of discussion,
especially in Rome and Carthage. The trouble came to a head in Rome,
when Cornelius, who belonged to the lax party, was chosen bishop in the
year 251, after the see had been vacant for more than a year. The
stricter party at once aroused to action and chose Novatian, the leader
of the party, opposition bishop. He had been made a presbyter by the
bishop Fabian, and occupied a very prominent position in the Roman
Church. He seems originally to have held less rigid notions in regard
to the treatment of the lapsed, but before the end of the persecution
he became very decided in his opposition to their absolution and
restoration. His position, as well as his ability and piety, made him
the natural leader of the party and the rival candidate for the
bishopric. He does not, however, seem to have desired to accept
consecration as an opposition bishop, but his party insisted. He
immediately sent the usual letters announcing the fact to the bishops
of the principal sees, to Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome. Cyprian at
once refused to recognize his appointment. Dionysius wrote to him
advising him to withdraw (see his epistle, quoted in chap. 45). But
Fabius of Antioch was inclined to take his side (see chap. 44,
§1). Novatian was excommunicated by the council mentioned just
below, and then founded an independent church, baptizing all who came
over to his side. We know nothing of his subsequent career (according
to the tradition of his followers, and also Socrates, H. E. IV.
28, he suffered martyrdom under Valerian), but his sect spread
throughout the East and West, and continued in existence until the
sixth century. Novatian was not at all heretical in doctrine. His work
upon the Trinity is both able and orthodox. His character was austere
and of unblemished purity (the account given by Cornelius below is a
gross misrepresentation, from the pen of an enemy) and his talents were
of a high order. But the tendency of the Church was toward a more
merciful treatment of the lapsed and of other sinners, and the stricter
methods advocated by him fell more and more into disfavor. Novatian was
quite a prolific writer. According to Jerome, de vir. ill. chap.
10, he wrote de Pascha, de Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote,
de Oratione, de Cibis Judaicis, de Instantia, de Attalo Multaque alia,
et de Trinitate grande Volumen. The de Cibis Judaicis and
the de Trinitate are still extant. The best edition of his works
is that of Jackson (London, 1728). An English translation is given in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 611–650. Novatian was the
author also of one of the epistles of the Roman clergy to Cyprian
(Ep. 30). Our contemporaneous sources for a knowledge of
Novatian and his schism are the epistles of Cyprian (some ten of them),
and the epistles of Dionysius and Cornelius, quoted by Eusebius in this
chapter and in chaps. 44 and 45.
1. After this, Novatus, a presbyter of the church at Rome,
being lifted up with arrogance against these persons, as if there was
no longer for them a hope of salvation, not even if they should do all
things pertaining to a genuine and pure conversion, became leader of
the heresy of those who, in the pride of their imagination, call
themselves Cathari. καθαροί, “pure.”
2. There upon a very large synod
assembled at Rome, This council is undoubtedly identical with the one mentioned in
Cyprian’s epistle to Antonianus (Ep. 51, §6;
al. 55). It was held, according to Cyprian, soon after the
Carthaginian synod, in which the treatment of the lapsi was
first discussed, and accepted the decisions of that council. The
Carthaginian synod met in the spring of 251 (see Hefele,
Conciliengesch. I. p. 112). The Roman synod must, therefore,
have been held before the end of the same year; Hefele thinks about
October (ibid. p. 114). Cornelius would not, of course, have
waited long before procuring the official condemnation of the
opposition bishop. We know nothing more about the constitution of the
council than is told us here. It was, of course, only a local synod.
The pastors of the remaining provinces were the other Italian bishops
who could not be present at the council. Cornelius solicits their
opinion, in order that the decree passed by the council may represent
as large a number of bishops as possible. τοὺς δὲ τῇ
συμφορŽ
περιπεπτοκότας. The Carthaginian synod had decided that no offenses are
beyond the regular power of the Church to remit.
3. There have reached us
epistles Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 66) gives the singular instead
of the plural (epistolam ad Fabium); so also Rufinus; but there
is no reason for doubting the integrity of the Greek text of Eusebius,
which runs, ἦλθον δ᾽
οὖν εἰς ἡμᾶς
ἐπιστολαὶ
Κορνηλίου. Valesius, although translating epistolæ
Cornelii, yet follows Jerome and Rufinus in believing that only one
epistle is meant here. Neither Rufinus nor, apparently, Jerome knew
anything about the epistle, except what they read in Eusebius, and
therefore it is more probable that Eusebius was correct in using the
plural than that they were correct in using the singular. It is easy to
understand the change of Eusebius’ indefinite plural into their
definite singular. They were evidently written in Greek; for in
speaking of Cyprian’s epistles immediately afterward, Eusebius
especially mentions the fact that they were written in Latin. The
epistle from which Eusebius quotes just below was also written in
Greek, for Eusebius would otherwise, as is his custom have mentioned
the fact that he gives only a translation of it. This has been pointed
out by Valesius; but, as Routh remarks, we can certainly go further,
and say that the other epistle mentioned by Eusebius must have been in
Greek, too, since it was written by the same Cornelius, and addressed
to the same Fabius. These epistles are no longer extant. Eusebius says, τὰ
περὶ τῆς
῾Ρωμαίων
συνόδου καὶ
τὰ δόξαντα
πᾶσι τοῖς
κατὰ τὴν
᾽Ιταλίαν
κ.τ.λ., which Jerome has
transformed or compressed into de Synodo Romana, Italica,
Africana, another instance of the careless way in which his de
vir. ill. was composed. These epistles from Cyprian and the African bishops Jerome
transforms into a single epistle from Cornelius to Fabius, de
Novatiano, et de his qui lapsi sunt. At least, it seems impossible
to explain this epistle mentioned by Jerome in any other way. Knowing
the slovenly way in which he put his work together, it is not
surprising that he should attribute these epistles to the same person
who wrote the ones mentioned just before and after. Since the first
epistles mentioned are said to have been addressed to Fabius and also
the last one, from which Eusebius quotes, it is reasonable to conclude
that all mentioned in this connection were addressed to him; and it
would of course be quite natural for Cyprian, too, to write to Fabius
(who was known to be inclined to favor Novatian), in order to confirm
the account of Cornelius, and to announce that he agreed with the
latter in regard to the treatment of the lapsed. No epistle, however,
of Cyprian or of other African bishops to Fabius are extant, though the
same subject is discussed in many epistles of Cyprian addressed to the
people.
4. Another epistle of Cornelius,
concerning the resolutions of the synod, is attached to these; and yet
others, Rufinus mentions only two epistles of Cornelius in this
connection, apparently confounding this one on the deeds of the
Novatians with the one mentioned just before on the Decrees of the
Council. Jerome, on the other hand, making Cornelius, as already
mentioned, the author of the epistles of Cyprian and the African
bishops, assigns four epistles to Cornelius. None of the epistles
mentioned in this section are extant, except the long fragment of the
last one quoted just below. As mentioned in the next chapter, Fabius
inclined to take the side of Novatian over against the laxer party; and
it was on this account that Cornelius wrote him so many epistles
(compare also the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, quoted in chaps.
41 and 42, and see note 1 on the former chapter), and endeavored to
blacken the character of Novatian as he does in the passages
quoted.
5. Cornelius informs Fabius what sort of a man Novatus was, in the following words:
“But that you may know that a long time ago this remarkable man desired the episcopate, but kept this ambitious desire to himself and concealed it,—using as a cloak for his rebellion those confessors who had adhered to him from the beginning,—I desire to speak.
6. Maximus, This Maximus was a presbyter, and one of a party of Roman
confessors who played a prominent part in the controversy about the
lapsed. He and his companions were imprisoned at the very beginning of
the Decian persecution (Cyprian, Ep. 24; al. 28), i.e.
early in the year 250, and while in prison they adopted rigoristic
views and wrote to some Carthaginian confessors, urging strict methods
in dealing with the lapsed (see Cyprian, Ep. 22; al. 27).
Early in the year 251, after eleven months in prison, the presbyter
Moses, the leading spirit of the party, died, and Maximus became the
chief one among them. Moses before his death, in spite of his
rigoristic principles, refused to commune with Novatian and his five
presbyters (as we learn from §20 of this chapter), apparently
because he saw that his insistence upon strict discipline was tending
toward schism, and that such discipline could not be maintained without
sacrificing the Church. But Maximus and those mentioned with him here,
together with some others (see Cyprian, Ep. 45; al. 49),
became even stricter than at first, and finally went over to the party
of Novatian (which took its rise after the election of Cornelius in
251), but were at length reconciled to Cornelius and the rest of the
Church, and received back with rejoicing (see Cyprian, Ep. 43,
45, 46, 49, 50; al. 46, 49, 51, 53, 54). The notices of Maximus
and Urbanus in Cyprian’s epistles, which with the epistle of
Cornelius constitute our only source for a knowledge of their lives, do
not mention a second confession made by these two men, so that we
cannot tell when it took place, but it must of course have been during
the persecution of Decius. Urbanus was a confessor only, not a presbyter or deacon as we
learn from the notices of him in Cyprian’s epistles, in
connection with the party referred to in the previous note. Sidonius likewise was a confessor simply, and is mentioned with
the others in the epistles of Cornelius and Cyprian. Celerinus was also one of this party of Roman confessors (as we
learn from Cyprian, Ep. 15, al. 87), who, upon his
release from prison, went to Carthage, and was there ordained a reader
by Cyprian (Ep. 33, al. 39). His release from prison and
departure for Carthage took place before the release of the others and
before the death of Moses (as we learn from Ep. 15), that is,
before the end of the year 250. He was still in Rome, however, at
Easter of that year, as we learn from his epistle to Lucian, mentioned
below. He came of a family of martyrs (Ep. 33), and was himself
one of the most celebrated confessors of his time. There is extant an
epistle written by him to Lucian, the Carthaginian confessor (Cyprian,
Ep. 21), in which he begs absolution for his sisters, who had
denied the faith. The epistle (as we learn from its own statements) was
written at Easter time and in the year 250, for there was no bishop of
Rome at the time of its composition. As we learn from this passage,
Celerinus went over with these other Roman confessors to the party of
Novatian, and returned with them to the Church. He is, however,
mentioned neither by Cyprian nor by Cornelius (in his epistle to
Cyprian) in connection with the schism of these confessors. This is
very remarkable, especially since Celerinus was quite a prominent
character. It is possible that he was in Carthage the greater part of
the time, and did not return to Rome until shortly before the
confessors returned to the Church. He might then have thrown in his lot
with them, and have returned with them to the orthodox church; and yet,
not having been mentioned by Cornelius’ earlier epistle to
Cyprian, announcing the schismatic position of the confessors, he was
omitted also in the later letters announcing their return (which in
fact only mentions the three leaders), and in Cyprian’s reply,
which of course would only mention those of whom he had been told in
Cornelius’ first epistle. Of the subsequent career of Celerinus
and of these other confessors we know nothing.
7. “How remarkable,
beloved brother, the change and transformation which we have seen take
place in him in a short time. For this most illustrious man, who bound
himself with terrible oaths in nowise to seek the bishopric, There is no reason to doubt, as Cornelius does, Novatian’s
sincerity in declaring that he did not seek the office of bishop. Both
Cornelius and Cyprian make his ambition and his jealousy of Cornelius,
the successful candidate, the cause of his schism. But such an
accusation was made against every schismatic, even when there was not a
shadow of support for it, and there is no reason to suppose it nearer
the truth in this than in other cases. In fact, his own protestation,
as recorded here by Cornelius, and as testified to by Dionysius in
chap. 45, as well as the character of the man as revealed in his life
previous to his episcopal ordination (as certified to even by his
enemies), and in his writings, are entirely opposed to the supposition
that he sought the episcopal office and that his schism was a result of
his defeat. We shall do much better to reject entirely this exceedingly
hostile and slanderous account of his enemy Cornelius, and to accept
his own account of the matter as reported by Dionysius in chap. 25. He
was the natural head of the rigoristic party, made such by his
commanding ability, his deep piety, and his ascetic principles of
living; and when Cornelius, the head of the lax party, was made bishop
(in March, 251), the strict party revolted, and it could not be
otherwise than that Novatian should be elected bishop, and that even if
reluctant he should feel compelled to accept the office in order to
assert the principles which he believed vital, and to prevent the
complete ruin of the Church. Cornelius gives a sad story of his
ordination to the episcopate. But one thing is certain, he had with him
for some time a large portion of the best people in the Roman church,
among them Maximus and others of the most influential confessors, who
seem at length to have returned to the Church only because they saw
that the schism was injuring it. Certainly if Novatian had been a
self-seeker, as Cornelius describes him, and if his ordination had been
of such a nature as Cornelius reports, he could never have had the
support of so many earnest and prominent men. It is doubtless true, as
Cornelius states, that Novatian was ordained by three Italian bishops,
very likely bishops of rural and comparatively insignificant sees, and
it is quite possible that one of them, as he also records, afterwards
repented of his act as schismatic, and returned to the Church and
received absolution. But all this does not imply that these three
bishops were deceived by false pretenses on the part of Novatian, or
that they were intoxicated when they performed the service. This, in
fact, may be looked upon as baseless calumny. Novatus, the Carthaginian
agitator who had caused Cyprian so much trouble, took a prominent part
in the Novatian schism, though to make him the author of it, as Cyprian
does, is undoubtedly incorrect (see Lardner, Works, III. p. 94
sq.; London ed. 1829). It was perhaps he (as reported by Eulogius,
according to Photius, Cod. 182, and by Theodoret, Hær.
Fab. III. 5) that found these three bishops to ordain Novatian. It
is not at all improbable, when so many prominent men in the Roman
church favored the stricter principles and supported Novatian, that
bishops could be found in Italy who held the same principles and would
be glad to ordain Novatian as bishop of Rome. μ€γγανον
8. For this dogmatist, this
defender of the doctrine of the Church, As
Closs remarks, these words are evidently an allusion to
Novatian’s work, de Trinitate.
9. When they had come, being, as we have stated, very simple in the craft and artifice of the wicked, they were shut up with certain selected men like himself. And by the tenth hour, when they had become drunk and sick, he compelled them by force to confer on him the episcopate through a counterfeit and vain imposition of hands. Because it had not come to him, he avenged himself by craft and treachery.
10. One of these bishops shortly after came back to the church, lamenting and confessing his transgression. And we communed with him as with a layman, all the people present interceding for him. And we ordained successors of the other bishops, and sent them to the places where they were.
11. This avenger of the Gospel ἐκδικητἡς
τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου. Possibly another sarcastic reference to Novatian’s
work in defense of the doctrine of the Church; possibly only an
allusion to the fact that he prided himself on his
orthodoxy. The
principle, that there should be only one bishop in a city, was not
clearly enunciated and forcibly emphasized until the third century.
Cyprian’s writings are full of it (cf. his treatise On the
Unity of the Church), and in connection with this Novatian schism,
which showed so plainly the disintegrating effects of a division of the
church under two bishops, the principle was established so firmly as
never again to be questioned. I do not mean to assert here that the
principle so clearly and conclusively established at this time was a
new principle. We find it enunciated even by Ignatius at the beginning
of the second century, and it was the common opinion of Christendom, or
otherwise Cyprian could not have appealed to universal custom as he
does in discussing the matter. I mean simply that the principle had
never before been brought to such a test as to require its formal
enunciation and public recognition by the clergy and the Church at
large. The emergency which now arose compelled such formal statement of
it; and the Council of Nicæa made it canon law (cf.
Bingham’s Antiquities, I. p. 160 sq.). The limitation of the deacons to seven in number was due to the
fact that the appointment of the Seven by the apostles ( The sub-deacons (the highest of the inferior orders of the clergy)
are first mentioned in this epistle of Cornelius and in various
epistles of Cyprian. At what time they arose we cannot tell, but they
seem to have appeared in the East later than in the West, at least the
first references we have to them in the Orient are in the fourth
century, e.g. in the Apost. Const. VIII. 21. They acted as
deacons’ assistants, preparing the sacred vessels for use at the
altar, attended the doors during communion service, and were often
employed by the bishops for the conveyance of letters or messages to
distant churches. See Bingham’s Ant. Bk. III. chap.
2. The Acolyths (ἀκόλουθοι), another of the inferior orders of the clergy, are
likewise first mentioned here and in Cyprian’s epistles. They
seem to have been of much later institution in the East, for we first
hear of them there in the time of Justinian (Justin. Novel. 59).
Their duties seem to have been to attend to the lights of the church
and to procure the wine for communion service. See Bingham,
ibid. chap. 3. The
Exorcists likewise constituted one of the inferior orders of the
clergy; but although we find exorcism very frequently referred to by
the Fathers of the second century, there seems to have been no such
office until the third century, the present being the earliest distinct
reference to it. In the fourth century we find the office in all parts
of the Church East and West. Their duty was to take charge of those
supposed to be possessed of an evil spirit; to pray with them, care for
them, and exorcise the demon when possible. See Bingham, ibid.
chap. 4. The Readers, or Lectors (Greek, ἀναγνῶσται; Latin, Lectores), constituted still another of the
inferior orders, and were already a distinct office in the time of
Tertullian (cf. de Præscrip. chap. 41). From the third
century on the order seems to have been universal. Their duty was to
read the Scriptures in the public services of the sanctuary. See
Bingham, ibid. chap. 5. The Janitors, or Doorkeepers (Greek, πυλωροί or θυρωροί; Latin, ostiarii or janitores), are first mentioned
in this passage. In the fourth century, however, we find them
frequently referred to. Their office seems to have been about the same
as that of the modern janitor or sexton. See Bingham, ibid.
chap. 6.
12. But not even this great multitude, so necessary in the church, nor those who, through God’s providence, were rich and full, together with the very many, even innumerable people, could turn him from such desperation and presumption and recall him to the Church.”
13. Again, farther on, he adds these words: “Permit us to say further: On account of what works or conduct had he the assurance to contend for the episcopate? Was it that he had been brought up in the Church from the beginning, and had endured many conflicts in her behalf, and had passed through many and great dangers for religion? Truly this is not the fact.
14. But Satan, who entered and
dwelt in him for a long time, became the occasion of his believing.
Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a severe sickness; and
as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion,
There is no reason to doubt that Novatian received clinical
baptism, as here stated by Cornelius. This does not imply, as is
commonly supposed, that he was of heathen parentage, for many
Christians postponed baptism as long as possible, in order not to
sacrifice baptismal grace by sins committed after baptism. We do not
know whether his parents were heathen or Christians. Upon the objection
to Novatian’s ordination, based upon his irregular baptism, see
below, §17.
15. And when he was healed of
his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary
to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by
the bishop. τοῦ τε
σφραγισθῆναι
ὑπὸ τοῦ
ἐπισκόπου σφραγισθῆναι
here means confirmation or consignation (as it was
commonly called among the Latins); that is, the imposition of the hands
of the bishop which regularly followed baptism, immediately if the
bishop were on the ground, in other cases at as early a date as
possible. The imposition of hands was for the purpose of conveying the
Holy Spirit, who should supply the newly baptized Christian with the
necessary grace to fit him for the Christian life. Confirmation was
thus looked upon as completing the baptism and as a necessary
pre-condition of receiving the eucharist. At the same time, if a person
died after baptism, before it was possible to receive imposition of
hands, the baptism was not regarded as rendered invalid by the
omission, for in the baptism itself the full remission of sins was
supposed to be granted. The confirmation was not necessary for such
remission, but was necessary for the bestowal of the requisite
sustaining grace for the Christian life. Cornelius in the present
paragraph does not intend to imply that regenerating grace was not
given in Novatian’s baptism. He means simply that the Holy Spirit
was not given in that full measure in which it was given by the laying
on of hands, and which was necessary for growth in grace and Christian
living. The baptism was looked on in ordinary cases as in a sense
negative,—effecting the washing away of sin, the laying on of
hands as positive, confirming the gift of the Spirit. The former,
therefore, was sufficient to save the man who died immediately
thereafter; the latter was necessary to sustain the man who still
remained in the world. Compare with these words of Cornelius
Tertullian’s de Baptism. chap. 6. The earliest extant
canon on this subject is the thirty-eighth of the synod of Elvira (306
a.d.), which decrees that a sick person may in
case of necessity be baptized by a layman, but that he is afterward, if
he recovers, to be taken to the bishop that the baptism may be
perfected by the laying on of hands. The seventy-seventh canon decrees
the same thing for those baptized by deacons, but expressly declares
that if the baptized person die before the imposition of hands, he is
to be regarded as saved in virtue of the faith which he confessed in
his baptism. It is not necessary to give other references in connection
with this matter. For further particulars, see Bingham, ibid.
Bk. XII. On the signification of
the verb σθραγίζω, see Suicer’s Thesaurus. We can hardly believe
that Novatian failed to receive imposition of hands from the bishop,
for it is inconceivable that the latter would have omitted what was
regarded as such an important prerequisite to church communion in the
case of one whom he ordained to the presbyterate. Novatian may not have
received confirmation immediately after his recovery, but he must have
received it before his ordination. As seen in §17, it is not the
omission of confirmation that causes the objections on the part of the
clergy, but the clinical baptism. The
majority of the mss., followed by Schwegler,
Laemmer, and Heinichen, read τούτων. But
some of the best mss., followed by all the
other editors, read τούτου.
16. Shortly after he says again:
“In the time of
persecution, through cowardice and love of life, he denied that he was
a presbyter. For when he was requested and entreated by the deacons to
come out of the chamber in which he had imprisoned himself and give aid
to the brethren as far as was lawful and possible for a presbyter to
assist those of the brethren who were in danger and needed help, he
paid so little respect to the entreaties of the deacons that he went
away and departed in anger. For he said that he no longer desired to be
a presbyter, as he was an admirer of another philosophy.” This is certainly a calumny. It is possible, as Neander suggests,
that Novatian, although a presbyter, withdrew somewhat from active duty
and lived the life of an ascetic, and that it is this to which
Cornelius refers in speaking of his admiration for “another
philosophy.” But however that may be, Cornelius’
interpretation of his conduct as cowardly or unworthy is quite false.
See above, note 1.
17. Passing by a few things, he adds the following:
“For this illustrious man
forsook the Church of God, in which, when he believed, he was judged
worthy of the presbyterate through the favor of the bishop who ordained
him to the presbyterial office. This had been resisted by all the
clergy and many of the laity; because it was unlawful that one who had
been affused on his bed on account of sickness as he had been should
enter into any clerical office; Clinic baptism (so-called from κλίνη, “a
bed”) was ordinarily looked upon in the early Church, in which
immersion was the common mode of baptism, as permanently debarring a
person from the presbyterate, and by many persons it was denied that
such baptism was baptism at all. The latter opinion, however, the
Church refused to sustain (cf. Cyprian, Ep. 75; al. 19). The
twelfth canon of the Council of Neo-Cæsarea (held early in the
fourth century) says, “If any man is baptized only in time of
sickness, he shall not be ordained a presbyter; because his faith was
not voluntary, but as it were of constraint; except his subsequent
faith and diligence recommend him, or else the scarcity of men make it
necessary to ordain him.” It is clear that this canon meant to
apply only to persons whose baptism was delayed by their own fault. It
was common for catechumens to postpone the rite as long as possible in
order not to forfeit baptismal grace by their post-baptismal sins, and
it was to discourage this practice that such canons as this of
Neo-Cæsarea were passed. Even this canon, however, provided for
exceptional cases, and the fact that Novatian was ordained in spite of
his irregular baptism is a proof that he must have been an
exceptionally pious and zealous man.
18. He adds to these yet another, the worst of all the man’s offenses, as follows:
“For when he has made the offerings, and distributed a part to each man, as he gives it he compels the wretched man to swear in place of the blessing. Holding his hands in both of his own, he will not release him until he has sworn in this manner (for I will give his own words):
‘Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never forsake me and turn to Cornelius.’
19. And the unhappy man does not taste until he has called down imprecations on himself; and instead of saying Amen, as he takes the bread, he says, I will never return to Cornelius.” Farther on he says again:
20. “But know that he has
now been made bare and desolate; as the brethren leave him every day
and return to the church. Moses On Moses (or Moyses, as he is called by Cyprian), see note 9,
above. Lipsius (Chron. der
röm. Bischöfe, p. 202, note) maintains that Cornelius is
referring, at this point, not to Novatian, but to Novatus, the
Carthaginian presbyter, and that Eusebius has confounded the two men.
He bases this opinion upon the mention of the five presbyters, whom he
identifies with those who, with Novatus, separated from the
Carthaginian church in connection with the schism of Felicissimus (see
Cyprian, Ep. 39; al. 43), and also upon the fact that
Moses died before the election of Novatian as opposition bishop. In
regard to the first point, it must be noticed that, in an epistle to
Cyprian upon the schism of Novatian (Cyprian, Ep. 47; al.
50), Cornelius mentions five presbyters (including Novatus) as
connected with Novatian in his schism. Certainly it is most natural to
refer Cornelius’ words in this paragraph to the same five men.
Indeed, to speak of Novatus and the five presbyters with him would be
very peculiar, for Novatus himself was one of the five, and therefore
there were but four with him. As to the second point, it may simply be
said that Moses might well have refused to commune with Novatian,
before the election of the latter, seeing that his position would
inevitably lead to schism. There remains, therefore, no reason for
supposing Eusebius mistaken, and for referring these words to Novatus
of Carthage, instead of Novatian of Rome.
21. At the close of his letter he gives a list of the bishops who had come to Rome and condemned the silliness of Novatus, with their names and the parish over which each of them presided.
22. He mentions also those who
did not come to Rome, but who expressed by letters their agreement with
the vote of these bishops, giving their names and the cities from which
they severally sent them.” These lists of the bishops present at the council, and of those
who expressed their agreement with the decision of the synod, are no
longer extant.
Chapter XLIV.—Dionysius’ Account of Serapion.
1. To
this same Fabius, who seemed to lean somewhat toward this schism, See above, chap. 39, note 7. This epistle, as we may gather from the description of its
contents in the next sentence, is without doubt the same from which
Eusebius has quoted at such length in chaps. 41 and 42. Upon the date
and purpose of it, see chap. 41, note 1. We possess only the fragments
quoted by Eusebius in these three chapters.
2. “I will give thee this
one example which occurred among us. There was with us a certain
Serapion, Of this Serapion we know only what is told us in this
chapter.
3. Having recovered somewhat on the fourth day he sent for his daughter’s son, and said, How long do you detain me, my child? I beseech you, make haste, and absolve me speedily. Call one of the presbyters to me. And when he had said this, he became again speechless. And the boy ran to the presbyter. But it was night and he was sick, and therefore unable to come.
4. But as I had commanded that
persons at the point of death, if they requested it, and especially if
they had asked for it previously, should receive remission, that they
might depart with a good hope, he gave the boy a small portion of the
eucharist, telling him to soak ἀποβρέξαι. This is translated by Crusè and by Salmond (in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 101) “soak (or steep) in
water”; but the liquid is not specified in the text, and it has
consequently been thought by others that the bread was dipped in the
wine, as was commonly done in the celebration of the eucharist in the
Eastern Church (see Bingham’s Ant. Bk. XV.). But it must
be noticed that the bread was soaked not by the presbyter but by the
boy, and that too after his return home, where there can have been no
consecrated wine for eucharistic use, and there is no hint that wine
was given him for the purpose by the presbyter. It therefore seems
probable that the bread was soaked simply in water, and that the
soaking was only in order that the old man, in his enfeebled state,
might be able to receive the element in a liquid instead of in a solid
form. κατὰ τοῦ
στόματος
ἐπιστ€ξαι
5. The boy returned with it, and as he drew near, before he entered, Serapion again arousing, said, ‘Thou art come, my child, and the presbyter could not come; but do quickly what he directed, and let me depart.’ Then the boy soaked it and dropped it into his mouth. And when he had swallowed a little, immediately he gave up the ghost.
6. Is it not evident that he was
preserved and his life continued till he was absolved, and, his sin
having been blotted out, he could be acknowledged ὁμολογηθῆναι. The meaning is apparently “acknowledged or
confessed by Christ,” and Valesius is doubtless correct in
remarking that Dionysius was alluding to the words of
Dionysius relates these things.
Chapter XLV.—An Epistle of Dionysius to Novatus.
1. But
let us see how the same man addressed Novatus This epistle to Novatian was doubtless written in reply to a
letter from him announcing his election to the episcopate of Rome, for
we know that Novatian sent such letters, as was customary, to all the
prominent bishops of the Church. Dionysius’ epistle, therefore,
must have been written soon after the election of Novatian, which took
place in the year 251. We have only the fragment quoted in this
chapter. Novatian may well have been urged against his will to permit
himself to be made opposition bishop; but of course, once having taken
the step, so long as he believed in the justice of the cause for which
he was contending, he could not turn back, but must maintain his
position with vigor and firmness. This, of course, would lead his
enemies to believe that he had himself sought the position, as
Dionysius evidently believed that he had.
2. “Dionysius to his
brother Novatus, greeting. If, as thou sayest, thou hast been led on
unwillingly, thou wilt prove this if thou retirest willingly. For it
were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God.
Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less
glorious than for refusing to worship idols. Nay, to me it seems
greater. For in the one case a man suffers martyrdom
Chapter XLVI.—Other Epistles of Dionysius.
1. He
wrote also an epistle to the brethren in Egypt on Repentance. This epistle on the subject of repentance or penance, which was
the burning one just at this time in connection with the lapsed, was
doubtless written at about the same time with those to Fabius and
Novatian, already referred to. No fragments of it have been
preserved.
2. There is extant also a
private letter on Repentance, which he wrote to Conon, This work (πρὸς Κόνωνα
ἰδία τις περὶ
μετανοίας
γραφή), which was
probably written at about this same time, is mentioned also by Jerome
(de vir. ill. 69). Eusebius preserves no extract from it, but
extended fragments have been preserved in various mss., and have been published by Pitra (Spic.
Solesm. I. p. 15 sq.), though it is questionable whether all that
he gives are genuine. The translation of Dionysius’ works in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers omits all of these fragments, though they
are interesting and valuable. For further particulars, see Dittrich, p.
62. The general character of the letter must have been the same as that
of the preceding. ἐπιστρεπτική; literally, “calculated to turn.” Musculus and
Christophorsonus translate hortatoria; Valesius,
objurgatoria; Stroth and Closs, “Ermahnungsschrift”;
Crusè, “epistle of reproof.” The word does not
necessarily carry the idea of reproof with it, but it is natural to
suppose in the present case that it was written while Dionysius was
absent from Alexandria, during the persecution of Decius, and if so,
may well have contained an admonition to steadfastness, and at the same
time, possibly, an argument against rigoristic measures which some of
the people may have been advocating in reference to the lapsed. At
least, the connection in which Eusebius mentions it might lead us to
think that it had something to do with that question, though, as the
epistle is no longer extant, we can reach no certainty in the
matter. This epistle was doubtless written while Origen was suffering
imprisonment in the persecution of Decius (see above, chap. 39, and
below, p. 394), and was for the purpose of comforting and encouraging
him (cf. Origen’s own work on martyrdom, referred to in chap. 28,
above). The epistle is no longer extant. Numerous fragments are given
by Gallandi, Migne, and others, which they assign to this work; but
Dittrich has shown (p. 35 sq.) that they are to be ascribed to some one
else, perhaps to another Dionysius who lived much later than the great
bishop. This epistle to the Laodiceans, which is no longer extant, very
likely dealt, like so many of the others, with the question of
discipline. Of Thelymidres, bishop of Laodicea, we know
nothing. We know no more about this epistle to the Armenians than is told
us here. The character of the letter must have been similar to the two
upon the same subject mentioned above. Of the bishop Merozanes nothing
is known.
3. Besides all these, he wrote
to Cornelius of Rome, when he had received from him an epistle against
Novatus. On
Cornelius, see above, chap. 39, note. 3. His epistle to Dionysius is no
longer extant. Dionysius’ epistle to him is likewise lost, and is
known to us only from what Eusebius tells us here. It was written after
the death of Fabius of Antioch (see below, §4), and therefore
probably in 253 (see above, chap. 39, note 7). It has been questioned
whether this synod of Antioch to which, according to Eusebius,
Dionysius referred, was really held, or only projected. The Libellus
Synodicus records it as an actual synod, but its authority is of no
weight. On the other hand, Eusebius’ words seem plainly to
indicate that he believed that the council was really held, for he
speaks of it as “the synod at Antioch”; had he
thought of it only as projected, he could hardly have referred to it in
such definite terms. In spite, therefore, of the doubts of Dittrich,
Hefele, and others, I am inclined to believe that Eusebius supposed
that the synod had actually been held in Antioch. Whether the epistle
of Dionysius warranted him in drawing that conclusion is another
question, which cannot be decided. I look upon it, however, as probable
that, had the synod been simply projected and failed to convene, some
indication of that fact would have been given by Dionysius, and would
have caused a modification of Eusebius’ statement. Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, played a prominent part in the
controversy concerning the re-baptism of heretics, maintaining, like
most of the Oriental bishops, the necessity of re-baptizing them (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 5), and also in the controversy which arose about
Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). From the latter
chapter we should gather that he presided at the final council in
Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul, Firmilian, who seems to
have presided at the previous councils, having died on his way to the
last one. Of Helenus’ dates we know only what we can gather from
the facts here stated. He must have been bishop as early as 252; and he
cannot have died until after 265 (on the date of the Antiochian synod
at which Paul was condemned, see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1). On
Firmilian, see above, chap. 26, note 3. On
Theoctistus, see above, chap. 19, note 27.
4. Besides this he writes that
he had been informed that Fabius On
Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 39, note 7. Demetrianus, the successor of Fabius, and predecessor of Paul in
the bishopric of Antioch, is mentioned also in Bk. VII. chaps. 5, 14,
27, and 30. The date of his accession is uncertain; but as Fabius died
probably in 253 (possibly in 252), we can fix approximately the
beginning of his episcopate. In Bk. VII. chaps. 5 and 14, he is said to
have survived Gallienus’ edict of toleration (260 a.d.); but as Harnack has shown (Zeit des Ignatius,
p. 51), this notice is quite unreliable, as are also the notices in the
Chronicle. We can only say that his successor, Paul, became
bishop between the years 257 and 260. On
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see above, chap. 8, note 6.
5. In addition to this there is
extant also a certain other diaconal epistle of Dionysius, sent to
those in Rome through Hippolytus. The
interpretation of this sentence is very difficult. The Greek
runs ἑξῆς ταύτῃ
καὶ ἑτέρα τις
ἐπιστολὴ
τοῖς ἐν
῾Ρώμῃ τοῦ
Διονυσίου
φέρεται
διακονικὴ
διὰ
῾Ιππολύτου. The φέρεται, according to the usage of Eusebius, must mean “is
extant,” and some participle (e.g. “written” or
“sent”) must then be supplied before διὰ
῾Ιππολύτου. Whether Eusebius means that the letter was written by
Hippolytus or was carried by him to Rome cannot be determined. The
latter is more probable and is the commonly accepted interpretation.
That Eusebius should name a messenger in this particular case and in no
other seems peculiar, unless it be supposed that Hippolytus was so
prominent a character as to merit especial mention. Who he was we do
not know, for chronology will not permit us (as was formerly done by
some scholars) to identify him with the great writer of the Roman
church (see above, chaps. 20 and 22), and no other Hippolytus of
prominence is known to us. In view of Eusebius’ mention of the
name at this point, I am inclined, however, to think that he, knowing
so little about the Roman Hippolytus, fancied that this was the same
man. If he did, he had good reason to mention him. The word
“diaconal” (διακονικὴ) in this sentence has caused much dispute. Rufinus
translates epistola de ministeriis; Valesius, epistola de
officio diaconi, that is, “concerning the office (or duties)
of the diaconate,” and it seems out of the question to understand
the word in any other way. Why Dionysius should address an epistle on
this subject to the Roman church it is impossible to say. Magistris
supposed that it was called “diaconal” because it was to be
read in church by a deacon, and concluded that it was an exhortation to
peace, since it was customary for the deacons to offer the εἰρηνικ€, or prayers for peace. The supposition is attractive, for
it is natural to think that this epistle, like the others, discussed
the Novatian schism and contained an exhortation to peace. But we
cannot without further evidence adopt Magistris’ explanation, nor
indeed can we assume that a diaconal epistle as such (whether the word
is a technical one or not, and though it might seem such we have no
other trace of such a use of it) had to do with the unity or peace of
the Church. We must, in fact, leave the matter quite undetermined.
Compare Dittrich, ibid. p. 55. Of
these two epistles to the Romans we know only the titles, as given here
by Eusebius. On these confessors, and their return to the Church, see above,
chap. 43, note 9. Dionysius’ epistles to them are known to us
only from Eusebius’ reference to them in this passage. Besides the epistles mentioned by Eusebius in this and the
previous chapter we know at least the titles of a number of others. In
Bk. VII. many are referred to, and extracts from some are quoted by
Eusebius. See especially Bk. VII. chap. 26, where another partial list
of them is given. Eusebius does not pretend to mention all of
Dionysius’ epistles; indeed, he states that he wrote many besides
those mentioned. For further particulars in regard to all the epistles
known to us, see Dittrich’s monograph.
Introduction.
In this
seventh book of the Church History, the great bishop of Alexandria,
Dionysius, On
Dionysius, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.
Chapter I.—The Wickedness of Decius and Gallus.
When Decius had reigned not quite two years, Decius reigned about thirty months, from the summer of 249 until
almost the close of the year 251 (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp.
III. p. 285). His son Herennius Etruscus was slain with his father in a
battle fought against the Goths in Thrace; another son, Hostilianus,
was associated in the purple with Decius’ successor, Gallus, but
died soon afterwards, probably by the plague, which was at that time
raging; possibly, as was suspected, by the treachery of Gallus. There
has been some controversy as to whether Hostilianus was a son, or only
a nephew, or a son-in-law of Decius. Eusebius in speaking of more than
one son becomes an independent witness to the former alternative, and
there is really little reason to doubt it, for Zosimus’
statements are explicit (see Zosimus, I. 25, and cf. Tillemont,
ibid. p. 506). Two other sons are mentioned in one inscription
but its genuineness is doubtful. Eusebius, however, may be urged as a
witness that he had more than two (cf. Tillemont,
ibid.). ἑνὸς
δέοντα τῆς
ζωῆς
ἑβδομήκοντα
ἀποπλήσας
žτη
τελευτŽ.
Upon the date of Origen’s birth and upon his life in general, see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 2, note 1, and below, p. 391 sq. Of this Hermammon we know nothing. The words of Eusebius at the
close of chap. 22, below, lead us to think that he was probably a
bishop of some church in Egypt. Fragments of the epistle addressed to
him are preserved in this chapter and in chapters 10 and 23, below. It
is possible that Dionysius wrote more than one epistle to Hermammon and
that the fragments which we have are from different letters. This,
however, is not probable, for Eusebius gives no hint that he is quoting
from more than one epistle, and, moreover, the three extracts which we
have correspond excellently with one another, seeming to be drawn from
a single epistle which contained a description of the conduct of
successive emperors toward the Christians. The date of the epistle is
given at the close of chap. 23; namely, the ninth year of the Emperor
Gallienus (i.e. August, 261–August, 262), reckoning from the time
of his association with his father Valerian in the purple. Gallus succeeded Decius toward the close of the year 251 and
reigned until the summer of 253 (some with less ground say 254), when
he was slain, with his son, by his own soldiers. His persecution of the
Christians (under him, for instance, Cornelius, bishop of Rome, was
banished, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3), seems to have been less
the result of a deeply rooted religious conviction and a fixed
political principle (such as Decius possessed) than of the terrible
plague which had begun during the reign of Decius and was ravaging the
empire during the early part of Gallus’ reign (see
Tillemont’s Hist. des Emp. III. p. 288). He persecuted,
therefore, not so much as a matter of principle as because he desired
either to appease the populace or to propitiate the Gods, whom he
superstitiously believed, as the people did, to be the authors of the
terrible scourge.
“Gallus neither recognized the wickedness of Decius, nor considered what had destroyed him; but stumbled on the same stone, though it lay before his eyes. For when his reign was prosperous and affairs were proceeding according to his mind, he attacked the holy men who were interceding with God for his peace and welfare. Therefore with them he persecuted also their prayers in his behalf.” So much concerning him.
Chapter II.—The Bishops of Rome in those Times.
Cornelius, On
Cornelius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3. Eusebius makes Cornelius’ episcopate a year too long (see
Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3), and hence puts the accession of Julius too
late. Jerome puts him in the second year of Gallus (see the same note)
and gives the duration of his episcopate as eight months, agreeing with
Eusebius in the present passage. The Armenian Chron. puts Lucius
in the seventh year of Philip, and assigns only two months to his
episcopate. But it is far out of the way, as also in regard to
Cornelius. The Liberian catalogue assigns three years and eight months
to Lucius’ episcopate, putting his death in 255; but Lipsius has
shown conclusively that this must be incorrect, and concludes that he
held office eight months, from June, 253, to March, 254. He was
banished while bishop of Rome, but returned very soon, and died in a
short time, probably a natural death. The strife in regard to the
lapsed, begun while Cornelius was bishop, continued under him, and he
followed the liberal policy of his predecessor. One letter of Cyprian
addressed to him is extant (Ep. 57; al. 61). Lipsius puts the accession of Stephen on the twelfth of May, 254,
and his death on the second of August, 257, assigning him an episcopate
of three years, two months and twenty-one days. The dates given by the
chief authorities vary greatly. The Liberian catalogue gives four
years, two months and twenty-one days, which Lipsius corrects simply by
reading three instead of four years, for the latter figure is
impossible (see chap. 5, note 5). Eusebius, in chap. 5, tells us that
Stephen held office two years. Jerome’s version of the
Chron. says three years, but puts his accession in the second
year of Gallus, which is inconsistent with his own statement that
Cornelius became bishop in the first year of Gallus. The Armenian
Chron. agrees with Eusebius’ statement in chap. 5, below,
in assigning two years to the episcopate of Stephen, but puts his
accession in the seventh year of Philip, which, like his notices of
Cornelius and Lucius is far out of the way. The discussion in regard
to the lapsed still continued under Stephen. But the chief controversy
of the time was in regard to the re-baptism of heretics, which caused a
severe rupture between the churches of Rome and Carthage. Stephen held,
in accordance with ancient usage and the uniform custom of the Roman
church (though under Callistus heretics were re-baptized according to
Hippolytus, Phil. IX. 7), that baptism, even by heretics and
schismatics, is valid; and that one so baptized is not to be
re-baptized upon entering the orthodox church, but is to be received by
the imposition of hands. Cyprian, on the other hand, supported by the
whole of the Asiatic and African church, maintained the invalidity of
such baptism and the necessity of re-baptism. The controversy became
very sharp, and seems to have resulted in Stephen’s hurling an
excommunication against the Asiatic and African churches. Compare the
epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian (Ep. 75), and that of Dionysius,
quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below. Stephen appears to have been a
man of very dictatorial and overbearing temper, if our authorities are
to be relied upon, and seems to have made overweening claims in regard
to Rome’s prerogatives; to have been the first in fact to assume
that the bishop of Rome had the right of exercising control over the
whole Church (see especially the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian;
Cyprian’s Epistles, No. 74, al. 75). It must be
remembered, however, that we know Stephen only through the accounts of
his opponents. It had been the practice in the churches of Asia for a
long time before Cyprian to re-baptize heretics and schismatics (cf.
the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian, and the epistle of Dionysius,
quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below), and the custom prevailed also in
Africa, though it seems to have been a newer thing there. Cyprian, in
his epistle to Jubaianus (Ep. 72, al. 73), does not trace
it back beyond Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, under whom the practice
was sanctioned by a council (186–187 or 215–217 a.d.). Under Cyprian himself the practice was
confirmed by a council at Carthage, in 255 a.d. The more liberal view of the Roman church, however,
in time prevailed and was confirmed with some limitations by the
Council of Arles, in 314. Stephen figures in tradition as a martyr, but
there is no reason to think that he was one, for the Church was
enjoying comparative peace at the time of his death. Two epistles are
extant, addressed to him by Cyprian (Nos. 66 and 71, al. 68 and
72). A number of Cyprian’s epistles refer to Stephen. Six epistles by Dionysius on the subject of baptism are mentioned
by Eusebius (see below, chap. 5, note 6). It is clear that Dionysius,
so far as Eusebius knew, wrote but one to Stephen on this subject, for
he calls the one which he wrote to Xystus the second (in chap. 5).
Dionysius’ own opinion on the subject of re-baptism is plain
enough from Eusebius’ words in this chapter, and also from
Dionysius’ own words in chap. 5, below. He sided with the entire
Eastern and African church in refusing to admit the validity of
heretical baptism, and in requiring a convert from the heretics to be
“washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure
leaven” (see chap. 5, §5). See note 3.
Chapter III.—Cyprian, and the Bishops with him, first taught that it was necessary to purify by Baptism those converted from Heresy.
First of all, Cyprian, pastor of the parish of Carthage, From 247 or 248 to 258, when he suffered martyrdom. See the previous chapter, note 3.
Chapter IV.—The Epistles which Dionysius wrote on this Subject.
Dionysius, therefore, having communicated with him extensively on this
question by letter, διὰ
γραμμ€των, which might mean “letters,” but in the present
case must refer apparently to a single letter (the plural, γρ€μματα, like the Latin litteræ, was very commonly used
to denote a single epistle), for in chap. 2 Eusebius says that
Dionysius’ first epistle on baptism was addressed to Stephen, and
in chap. 5 informs us that his second was addressed to Xystus. The
epistle mentioned here must be the one referred to in chap. 2 and must
have been devoted chiefly to the question of the re-baptism of heretics
or schismatics (περὶ
τούτου referring
evidently to the subject spoken of in the previous chapter). But
Eusebius quite irrelevantly quotes from the epistle a passage not upon
the subject in hand, but upon an entirely different one, viz. upon the
peace which had been established in the Eastern churches, after the
disturbances caused by the schism of Novatian (see Bk. VI. chap. 43
sq.). That the peace spoken of in this epistle cannot mean, as Baronius
held, that the Eastern churches had come over to Stephen’s
opinion in regard to the subject of baptism is clear enough from the
fact that Dionysius wrote another epistle to Stephen’s successor
(see the next chapter) in which he still defended the practice of
re-baptism. In fact, the passage quoted by Eusebius from
Dionysius’ epistle to Stephen has no reference to the subject of
baptism. The persecution referred to is that of Decius.
Chapter V.—The Peace following the Persecution.
1. “But know now, my brethren, that all the churches
throughout the East and beyond, which formerly were divided, have
become united. And all the bishops everywhere are of one mind, and
rejoice greatly in the peace which has come beyond expectation. Thus
Demetrianus in Antioch, On Demetrianus, Thelymidres, and Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46. On
Theoctistus, see ibid. chap. 19, note 27; on Firmilian,
ibid. chap. 26, note 3; on Mazabanes, ibid. chap. 39,
note 5. This clause (κοιμηθέντος
᾽Αλεξ€νδρου) is placed by Rufinus, followed by Stroth, Zimmermann,
Valesius (in his notes), Closs, and Crusè, immediately after the
words “Mazabanes in Ælia.” But all the mss. followed by all the other editors give the clause in
the position which it occupies above in my translation. It is natural,
of course, to think of the famous Alexander of Jerusalem as referred to
here (Bk. VI. chap. 8, note 6), but it is difficult to see how, if he
were referred to, the words could stand in the position which they
occupy in the text. It is not impossible, however, to assume simple
carelessness on Dionysius’ part to explain the peculiar order,
and thus hold that Alexander of Jerusalem is here referred to. Nor is
it, on the other hand, impossible (though certainly difficult) to
suppose that Dionysius is referring to a bishop of Tyre named
Alexander, whom we hear of from no other source.
2. And all Syria, and Arabia to
which you send help when needed, The church of Rome had been from an early date very liberal in
assisting the needy in every quarter. See the epistle of Dionysius of
Corinth to Soter, bishop of Rome, quoted above in Bk. IV. chap.
23. Dionysius speaks just below (§6) of epistles or an epistle of
Stephen upon the subject of baptism, in which he had announced that he
would no longer commune with the Oriental bishops, who held to the
custom of baptizing heretics. And it is this epistle which must have
stirred up the rage of Firmilian, which shows itself in his epistle to
Cyprian, already mentioned. The epistle of Stephen referred to here,
however, cannot be identical with that one, or Dionysius would not
speak of it in such a pleasant tone. It very likely had something to do
with the heresy of Novatian, of which Dionysius is writing. It is no
longer extant, and we know only what Dionysius tells us about it in
this passage.
3. But Stephen, having filled
his office two years, was succeeded by Xystus. Known as Sixtus II. in the list of Roman bishops. On Sixtus I. see
above, Bk. IV. chap. 4, note 3. That Xystus (or Sixtus) was martyred
under Valerian we are told not only by the Liberian catalogue, but also
by Cyprian, in an epistle written shortly before his own death, in 258
(No. 81, al. 80), in which he gives a detailed account of it.
There is no reason to doubt the date given by the Liberian catalogue
(Aug. 6, 258); for the epistle of Cyprian shows that it must have taken
place just about that time, Valerian having sent a very severe rescript
to the Senate in the summer of 258. This fixed point for the martyrdom
of Xystus enables us to rectify all the dates of the bishops of this
period (cf. Lipsius, l.c.). As to the duration of his
episcopate, the ancient authorities differ greatly. The Liberian
catalogue assigns to it two years eleven months and six days, but this
is impossible, as can be gathered from Cyprian’s epistle. Lipsius
retains the months and days (twelve or six days), rejecting the two
years as an interpolation, and thus putting his accession on Aug. 24
(or 31), 257. According to Eusebius, chap. 27, and the Armenian
Chron., he held office eleven years, which is quite impossible,
and which, as Lipsius remarks, is due to the eleven months which stood
in the original source from which the notice was taken, and which
appears in the Liberian catalogue. Jerome’s version of the
Chron. ascribes eight years to his episcopate, but this, too, is
quite impossible, and the date given for his accession (the first year
of Valerian) is inconsistent with the notice which he gives in regard
to Stephen. Xystus upheld the Roman practice of accepting heretics and
schismatics without re-baptism, but he seems to have adopted a more
conciliatory tone toward those who held the opposite view than his
predecessor Stephen had done (cf. Pontius’ Vita Cypriani,
chap. 14). The first of Dionysius’ epistles on baptism was written to
Stephen of Rome, as we learn from chap. 2, above. Four others are
mentioned by Eusebius, addressed respectively to Philemon, a Roman
presbyter (chap. 7, §1), to Dionysius of Rome (ibid.
§6), to Xystus of Rome (chap. 9, §1), and to Xystus and the
church of Rome (ibid. §6).
4. “He therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying that he would not commune with them for this same cause; namely, that they re-baptized heretics. But consider the importance of the matter.
5. For truly in the largest
synods of the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been passed on this
subject, that those coming over from heresies should be instructed, and
then should be washed ἀπολούσασθαι
6. “I wrote also, at first
in few words, recently in many, to our beloved fellow-presbyters,
Dionysius Dionysius afterward became Xystus’ successor as bishop of
Rome. See below, chap. 27, note 2. Of this Philemon we know only that he was a presbyter of Rome at
this time (see below, chap. 7, §1). A fragment from
Dionysius’ epistle to him on the subject of baptism is quoted in
that chapter.
Chapter VI.—The Heresy of Sabellius.
He refers also in the same letter to the heretical teachings of
Sabellius, Of the life of Sabellius we know very little. He was at the head
of the Monarchian (modalistic) party in Rome during the episcopate of
Zephyrinus (198–217), and was there perhaps even earlier. He is,
and was already in the fourth century, commonly called a native of
Africa, but the first one directly to state this is Basil, and the
opinion seems to rest upon the fact that his views were especially
popular in Pentapolis as early as the middle of the third century, as
Dionysius says here. Hippolytus in speaking of him does not mention his
birthplace, which causes Stokes to incline to the opinion that he was a
native of Rome. The matter, in fact, cannot be decided. We are told by
Hippolytus that Callistus led Sabellius into heresy, but that after he
became pope he excommunicated him in order to gain a reputation for
orthodoxy. Of the later life of Sabellius we know nothing. His writings
are no longer extant, though there are apparently quotations from some
of them in Epiphanius, Hær. 62, and Athanasius, Contra
Arian. Oratio 4. In the third century
those Monarchians (modalists) who were known as Patripassians in the
West were called Sabellians in the East. In the fourth and fifth
centuries the Fathers used the term Sabellianism in a general sense for
various forms of Monarchianism, all of which, however, tended in the
one direction, viz. toward the denial of any personal distinction in
the Godhead, and hence the identification of Father and Son. And so we
characterize every teaching which tends that way as Sabellianistic,
although this form of Monarchianism is really much older than
Sabellius. See Harnack’s article on Monarchianism in Herzog, 2d
ed. (abridged translation in Schaff-Herzog), and Stokes’ article
on Sabellius and Sabellianism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.,
both of which give the literature, and Schaff’s Ch. Hist.
II. p. 580 sqq., which gives the sources in full. Neander’s
account deserves especial notice. Upon Eusebius’ attitude toward
Sabellianism, see above, p. 13 sq.
“For concerning the
doctrine now agitated in Ptolemais of Pentapolis,—which is
impious and marked by great blasphemy against the Almighty God, the
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and contains much unbelief
respecting his Only Begotten Son and the first-born of every creature,
the Word which became man, and a want of perception of the Holy
Spirit,—as there came to me communications from both sides and
brethren discussing the matter, I wrote certain letters treating the
subject as instructively as, by the help. of God, I was able. ἐπέστειλ€
τινα ὡς
ἐδυνήθην,
παρασχόντος
τοῦ θεοῦ,
διδασκαλικώτερον
ὑφηγούμενος,
ὧν τὰ
ἀντίγραφα
žπεμψ€ σοι. Of these letters no fragments are extant. They are not to
be confounded with the four books against Sabellius, addressed to
Dionysius of Rome, and mentioned in chap. 26, below. It is possible, as
Dittrich suggests, that they included the letters on the same subject
to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and others which Eusebius mentions in
that chapter. Upon Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. žπεμψα. The
epistolary aorist as used here does not refer to a past time, but to
the time of the writing of the letter, which is past when the person to
whom the letter is sent reads the words. The same word (žπεμψα) is used in
this sense in
Chapter VII.—The Abominable Error of the Heretics; the Divine Vision of Dionysius; and the Ecclesiastical Canon which he received.
1. In
the third epistle on baptism which this same Dionysius wrote to
Philemon, Of this Philemon we know no more than we can gather from this
chapter. Upon Dionysius’ position on the re-baptism of heretics,
see above, chap. 2, note 4, and upon his other epistles on that
subject, see chap. 5, note 6.
2. And when a certain brother
among the presbyters restrained me, fearing that I should be carried
away with the filth of their wickedness (for it would defile my
soul),—in which also, as I perceived, he spoke the
truth,
3. And the word which came to me
commanded me, saying distinctly, ‘Read everything which thou
canst take in hand, Dionysius, in following this vision, was but showing himself a
genuine disciple of his master Origen, and exhibiting the true spirit
of the earlier Alexandrian school. ὡς ἀποστολικῇ
φωνῇ
συντρέχον…γίνεσθε
δόκιμοι
τραπεζιται. This saying, sometimes in the brief form given here,
sometimes as part of a longer sentence (e.g. in Clement of Alex.
Strom. I. 28, γίνεσθε δὲ
δόκιμοι
τραπεζιται,
τὰ μὲν
ἀποδοκιμ€ζοντες,
τὸ δὲ καλὸν
κατέχοντες), appears very frequently in the writings of the Fathers.
In some cases it is cited (in connection with
4. Then after saying some things
concerning all the heresies he adds: “I received this rule and
ordinance from our blessed father, π€πα. According
to Suicer (Thesaurus) all bishops in the Occident as late as the
fifth century were called Papæ as a mark of honor and
though the term by that time had begun to be used in a distinctive
sense of the bishop of Rome, the older usage continued in parts of the
West outside of Italy, until Gregory VII. (a.d. 1075) forbade the use of the name for any other than
the pope. In the East the word was used for a long time as the especial
title of the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome (see Suicer’s
Thesaurus and Gieseler’s Church Hist.
Harper’s edition, I. p. 499). On
Heraclas, see Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2. Compare Cyprian’s epistle to Quintus concerning the baptism
of heretics (Ep. 70, al. 71). Cyprian there takes the
position stated here, that those who have been baptized in the Church
and have afterward gone over to heresy and then returned again to the
Church are not to be re-baptized, but to be received with the laying on
of hands only. This of course does not at all invalidate the position
of Cyprian and the others who re-baptized heretics, for they baptized
heretics not because they had been heretics, but because they had not
received true baptism, nor indeed any baptism at all, which it was
impossible, in their view, for a heretic to give. They therefore
repudiated (as Cyprian does in the epistle referred to) the term
re-baptism, denying that they re-baptized anybody.
5. Again, after treating the
question thoroughly, he adds: “I have learned also that this Namely the re-baptism (or, as they would say, the baptism)
of those who had received baptism only at the hands of heretics
standing without the communion of the Church. Iconium was the principal city of Lycaonia, and Synnada a city of
Phrygia. The synod of Iconium referred to here is mentioned also by
Firmilian in his epistle to Cyprian, §§7 and 19 (Cypriani
Ep. 74, al. 75). From that epistle we learn that the synod
was attended by bishops from Phrygia, Cilicia, Galatia, and other
countries, and that heretical baptism was entirely rejected by it.
Moreover, we learn that Firmilian himself was present at the synod, and
that it was held a considerable time before the writing of his epistle.
This leads us to place the synod between 230 (on Firmilian’s
dates, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3) and 240 or 250. Since it
took place a considerable time before Firmilian wrote, it can hardly
have been held much later than 240. Of the synod of Synnada, we know
nothing. It very likely took place about the same time. See
Hefele’s Conciliengesch. I. p. 107 sq. Dionysius was
undoubtedly correct in appealing to ancient custom for the practice
which he supported (see above, chap. 2, note 3). φησί, i.e.
“The Scripture saith.”
6. His fourth epistle on
baptism On
Dionysius’ other epistles on baptism, see above, chap. 5, note
6. On Dionysius of Rome, see below, chap. 27, note 2.
Chapter VIII.—The Heterodoxy of Novatus.
“For with good reason do we feel hatred toward Novatian, The majority of the mss. have
Νοουατιανῷ, a few Ναυατιανῷ. This is the only place in which the name Novatian occurs
in Eusebius’ History, and here it is used not by Eusebius
himself but by Dionysius. Eusebius, in referring to the same man,
always calls him Novatus (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1). Upon
Novatian and his schism, see the same note. λουτρόν. That Novatian re-baptized all those who came over to him
from the Church is stated by Cyprian in his epistle to Jubaianus,
§2 (No. 72, al. 73). His principle was similar to that
which later actuated the Donatists, namely, that baptism is valid only
when performed by priests of true and approved Christian character.
Denying, then, that those who defiled themselves and did despite to God
s holy Church by communing with the lapsed were true Christians, he
could not do otherwise than reject their baptism as quite
invalid. It
was the custom from a very early period to cause the candidate for
baptism to go through a certain course of training of greater or less
length, and to require him to assent to a formulated statement of
belief before the administration of the sacred rite. Thus we learn from
the Didache that even as early as the very beginning of the
second century the custom of pre-baptismal training was already in
vogue, and we know that by the third century the system of catechetical
instruction was a highly developed thing, extending commonly over two
to three years. Candidates for baptism were then known as catechumens.
So far as a baptismal creed or confession of faith is concerned,
Caspari (see his great work, Studien zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols)
has shown that such a creed was in use in the Roman church before the
middle of the second century, and that it formed the basis of what we
know as the Apostles’ Creed, which in the form in which we have
it is a later development. Inasmuch as Novatian, so
far as we can learn, was perfectly orthodox on matters of faith, he
would not have cared to make any alteration in such a creed as the
present Apostles’ Creed. Exactly what Dionysius means in the
present case is not certain. It is possible that he is simply speaking
in general terms, assuming that if Novatian does not accept the Church
baptism, he must overturn and pervert with it the instruction which had
preceded; or it may be that he is thinking of that form of confession
to which the candidate was required to give his assent, according to
Cyprian, Ep. 69 (al. 70): credis in vitam æternam
et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam? “Dost thou
believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy
Church?” The latter is the view of Valesius, who is followed by
all others that have discussed the passage so far as I am aware. Of
course Novatian could not put the last clause of this question to his
converts, and hence Dionysius may have been thinking of this omission
in using the words he does. At the same time I confess myself unable to
agree with others in interpreting him thus. In the first place, it is,
to say the least, very doubtful whether the question quoted above from
Cyprian formed an article in the baptismal confession of the Church in
general. It does not appear in the Apostles’ Creed, and can
therefore hardly have formed a part of the earlier Roman formula which
underlay that. And so far as I am aware there are no traces of the use
of such an article in the church of Alexandria. In the second place,
Dionysius’ language seems to me too general to admit of such a
particular application. Had he been thinking of one especial article of
the confession, as omitted or altered by Novatian, he would, in my
opinion, have given some indication of it. I am, therefore, inclined to
take his words in the most general sense, suggested as possible just
above. These last clauses are, according to Valesius, fraught with
difficulty. He interprets the αὐτῶν (“entirely banished from them”) as referring to
the lapsi, and interpreted thus I find the passage not simply
difficult, as he does, but incomprehensible. But I confess myself again
unable to accept his interpretation. To me the αὐτῶν seems not to refer to the lapsi, to whom there has been no
direct reference in this fragment quoted by Eusebius, but rather to
Novatian’s converts, to whom reference is made in the previous
sentence, and who are evidently in the mind of the writer in referring
to Novatian’s baptism in the first clause of the present
sentence. It seems to me that Dionysius means simply to say that in
rejecting the baptism of the Church, and the “faith and
confession which precede it,” Novatian necessarily drove away
from his converts the Holy Spirit, who works in and through right
confession and true baptism. The meaning of the words “if,
indeed, there was any hope,” &c., thus becomes very clear;
Dionysius does not believe, of course, that the Holy Spirit would
remain with those who should leave the Church to go with Novatian, but
even if he should remain, he would be driven entirely away from them
when they blasphemed him and denied his work, by rejecting the true
baptism and submitting to another baptism without the
Church.
Chapter IX.—The Ungodly Baptism of the Heretics.
1. His
fifth epistle i.e. his fifth epistle on the subject of baptism (see above, chap.
5, note 6). The sixth, likewise addressed to Xystus, is mentioned below
in §6. On
Xystus II. of Rome, see chap 5, note 5.
2. For one of the brethren that
assemble, who has long been considered a believer, and who, before my
ordination, and I think before the appointment of the blessed
Heraclas, On
Heraclas, see above Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2. See
the previous chapter, note 3. The
reference here, of course, is not to the Novatians, because this old
man, who had been a regular attendant upon the orthodox Church since
the time of Heraclas, if not before, had been baptized by the heretics
long before Novatian arose. The epistle seems to contain no reference
to Novatian; at least, the fragment which we have is dealing with an
entirely different subject.
3. And he said that his soul was now pierced with sorrow, and that he had not confidence to lift his eyes to God, because he had set out from those impious words and deeds. And on this account he besought that he might receive this most perfect purification, and reception and grace.
4. But I did not dare to do this; and said that his long communion was sufficient for this. For I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the Amen; who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and who had received it, and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I exhorted him to be of good courage, and to approach the partaking of the saints with firm faith and good hope.
5. But he does not cease
lamenting, and he shudders to approach the table, and scarcely, though
entreated, does he dare to be present at the prayers.” Dittrich finds in this epistle an evidence that Dionysius was not
fully convinced of the advisability of re-baptizing converts from
heretical bodies, that he wavered in fact between the Eastern and the
Roman practices, but I am unable to see that the epistle implies
anything of the kind. It is not that he doubts the necessity of
re-baptism in ordinary cases,—he is not discussing that subject
at all,—the question is, does long communion itself take the
place of baptism; does not a man, unwittingly baptized, gain through
such communion the grace from the Spirit which is ordinarily conveyed
in baptism, and might not the rite of baptism at so late a date be an
insult to the Spirit, who might have been working through the sacrament
of the eucharist during all these years? It is this question which
Dionysius desires to have Xystus assist him in answering—a
question which has nothing to do, in Dionysius’ mind, with the
validity or non-validity of heretical baptism, for it will be noticed
that he does not base his refusal to baptize the man upon the fact that
he has already been baptized, partially, or imperfectly, or in any
other way, but solely upon the fact that he has for so long been
partaking of the eucharist.
On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2. So
many Lucians of this time are known to us that we cannot speak with
certainty as to the identity of the one referred to here. But it may
perhaps be suggested that the well-known Carthaginian Confessor is
meant, who caused Cyprian so much trouble by granting letters of pardon
indiscriminately to the lapsed, in defiance of regular custom and of
Cyprian’s authority (see Cypriani Ep. 16, 17, 20, 21, 22;
al. 23, 26, 21, 22, 27). If this be the Lucian referred to, the
epistle must have discussed the lapsi, and the conditions upon
which they were to be received again into the Church. That the epistle
did not, like the one mentioned just before, have to do with the
subject of baptism, seems clear from the fact that it is not numbered
among the epistles on that subject, as six others are.
Chapter X.—Valerian and the Persecution under him.
1. Gallus and the other rulers, οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν
Γ€λλον. Eusebius
is undoubtedly referring to Gallus, Volusian, his son and co-regent,
and Æmilian, his enemy and successor. Gallus himself, with his son
Volusian, whom he made Cæsar and co-regent, reigned from the
latter part of the year 251 to about the middle of the year 253, when
the empire was usurped by Æmilian, and he and his son were slain.
Æmilian was recognized by the senate as the legal emperor, but
within four months Valerian, Gallus’ leading general,—who
had already been proclaimed emperor by his legions,—revenged the
murder of Gallus and came to the throne. Valerian reigned until 260,
when his son Gallienus, who had been associated with him in the
government from the beginning, succeeded him and reigned until
268. Upon this epistle, see above, chap. 1, note 3.
2. “And in like manner it
is revealed to John; ‘For there was given to him,’ he says,
‘a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy; and there was given
unto him authority and forty and two months.’
3. It is wonderful that both of
these things occurred under Valerian; and it is the more remarkable in
this case when we consider his previous conduct, for he had been mild
and friendly toward the men of God, for none of the emperors before him
had treated them so kindly and favorably; and not even those who were
said openly to be Christians Philip was the only emperor before this time that was openly said
to have been a Christian (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 34, note 2).
Alexander Severus was very favorable to the Christians, and Eusebius
may have been thinking of him also in this connection.
4. But the teacher and ruler of
the synagogue of the Magi from Egypt viz. Macrianus, one of the ablest of Valerian’s generals,
who had acquired great influence over him and had been raised by him to
the highest position in the army and made his chief counselor.
Dionysius is the only one to tell us that he was the chief of the
Egyptian magicians. Gibbon doubts the statement, but Macrianus may well
have been an Egyptian by birth and devoted, as so many of the Egyptians
were, to arts of magic, and have gained power over Valerian in this way
which he could have gained in no other. It is not necessary of course
to understand Dionysius’ words as implying that Macrianus was
officially at the head of the body of Egyptian magicians, but simply
that he was the greatest, or one of the greatest, of them. He figures
in our other sources simply as a military and political character, but
it was natural for Dionysius to emphasize his addiction to magic,
though he could hardly have done it had Macrianus’ practices in
this respect not been commonly known. The
persecution which the Christians suffered under Valerian was more
terrible than any other except that of Diocletian. Numerous calamities
took place during his reign. The barbarians were constantly invading
and ravaging the borders of the empire, and on the east the Persians
did great damage. Still worse was the terrible plague which had begun
in the reign of Decius and raged for about fifteen years. All these
calamities aroused the religious fears of the emperor. Dionysius tells
us that he was induced by Macrianus to have recourse to human
sacrifices and other similar means of penetrating the events of the
future, and when these rites failed, the presence of
Christians—irreligious men hated by the gods—in the
imperial family was urged as the reason for the failure, and thus the
hostility of the emperor was aroused against all Christians. As a
consequence an edict was published in 257 requiring all persons to
conform at least outwardly to the religion of Rome on the penalty of
exile. And at the same time the Christians were prohibited from holding
religious services, upon pain of death. In 258 followed a rescript of
terrible severity. Only the clergy and the higher ranks of the laity
were attacked, but they were sentenced to death if they refused to
repent, and the clergy, apparently, whether they repented or not. The
persecution continued until Valerian’s captivity, which took
place probably late in 260. The dates during this period are very
uncertain, but Dionysius’ statement that the persecution
continued forty-two months is probably not far out of the way; from
late in the year 257 to the year 261, when it was brought to an end by
Gallienus. In Egypt and the Orient the persecution seems to have
continued a few months longer than elsewhere (see chap. 13, note 3).
The martyrs were very numerous during the Valerian persecution,
especially in Rome and Africa. The most noted were Cyprian and Xystus
II. On the details of the persecution, see Tillemont, H. E. IV.
p. 1 sq.
5. He adds to this the
following: “Splendid indeed were the thank-offerings which
Macrianus brought them i.e. the evil spirits. As Valesius remarks, the meaning is that
since the evil spirits had promised him power, he showed his gratitude
to them by inducing the Emperor Valerian to persecute the
Christians. ἐπῖ
τῶν καθόλου
λόγων. The phrase is
equivalent to the Latin Rationalis or Procurator summæ
rei, an official who had charge of the imperial finances, and who
might be called either treasurer or finance minister. The position
which Macrianus held seems to have been the highest civil position in
the empire (cf. Valesius’ note ad locum). Gibbon calls him
Prætorian Prefect, and since he was the most famous of
Valerian’s generals, he doubtless held that position also, though
I am not aware that any of our sources state that he did. The Greek contains a play upon the words καθόλου and λόγος in this
sentence. It reads ὅς πρότερον
μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν
καθόλου
λόγων
λεγόμενος
εἶναι
βασιλέως,
οὐδὲν
εὔλογον οὐδὲ
καθολικὸν
ἐφρόνησεν. The play upon the word καθόλου continues in the next sentence, where the Greek runs τὸ
καθόλου μὴ
βλέπουσιν, and in the following, where it reads οὐ γὰρ
συνῆκε τὴν
καθόλου
πρόνοιαν. Again in the next sentence the adjective καθολική
occurs: “his universal
Church.”
6. ‘Woe unto those who
prophesy from their own heart and do not consider the general
good.’ καθολικῆς, “catholic” in the sense of
“general” or “universal,” the play upon the
word still continuing. Μακριανός. The Greek word μακρ€ν means “far,” “at a distance.”
7. And again, farther on he
says: “For Valerian, being instigated to such acts by this man,
was given over to insults and reproaches, according to what was said by
Isaiah: ‘They have chosen their own ways and their abominations
in which their soul delighted; I also will choose their delusions and
will render unto them their sins.’
8. But this man i.e. Macrianus. Valerian reposed complete confidence in Macrianus and followed his
advice in the conduct of the wars against the Persians. The result was
that by Macrianus’ “weak or wicked counsels the imperial
army was betrayed into a situation where valor and military skill were
equally unavailing.” (Gibbon.) Dionysius, in chap. 23, below,
directly states that Macrianus betrayed Valerian, and this is the view
of the case commonly taken. Valerian fell into the hands of the
Persians (late in 260 a.d.), and Macrianus was
proclaimed emperor by his troops, and on account of his lameness (as
both Dionysius and Zonaras put it) or his age, associated with him his
two sons, Quietus and Macrianus. After some months he left his son
Quietus in charge of Syria, and designing to make himself master of the
Occident, marched with his son Macrianus against Gallienus, but was met
in Illyrium by the Pretender Aureolus (262) and defeated, and both
himself and son slain. His son Quietus meanwhile was besieged in Edessa
by the Pretender Odenathus and slain. Cf. Tillemont’s Histoire
des Empereurs, III. p. 333 sq. and p. 340 sq.
9. For heaping on the heads of
his sons his own evil desires, in which he had met with success, ηὐτύχει. Three mss., followed by
Stephanus, Valesius, Burton, Stroth (and by the translators Closs,
Crusè, and Salmond in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 107),
read ἠτύχει,
“failed” (“in whose gratification he
failed”). ηὐτύχει, however, is supported by overwhelming ms. authority, and is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen,
and approved by Valesius in his notes. It seems at first sight the
harder reading, and is, therefore, in itself to be preferred to the
easier reading, ἠτύχει. Although it seems harder, it is really fully in accord with what
has preceded. Macrianus had not made himself emperor (if Dionysius is
to be believed), but he had succeeded fully in his desires, in that he
had raised his sons to the purple. If he had acquired such power as to
be able to do that, he must have given them the position, because he
preferred to govern in that way; and if that be so, he could hardly be
said to have failed in his desires.
Dionysius relates these things concerning Valerian.
Chapter XI.—The Events which happened at this Time to Dionysius and those in Egypt.
1. But
as regards the persecution which prevailed so fiercely in his reign,
and the sufferings which Dionysius with others endured on account of
piety toward the God of the universe, his own words shall show, which
he wrote in answer to Germanus, On Germanus, and Dionysius’ epistle to him, see above, Bk.
VI. chap. 40, note 2.
2. “Truly I am in danger
of falling into great folly and stupidity through being forced to
relate the wonderful providence of God toward us. But since it is
said Literally “it says” (φησί), a common
formula in quoting from Scripture.
3. I went not alone to
Æmilianus; This Æmilianus, prefect of Egypt, under whom the persecution
was carried on in Alexandria during Valerian’s reign, later,
during the reign of Gallienus, was induced (or compelled) by the troops
of Alexandria to revolt against Gallienus, and assume the purple
himself. He was defeated, however, by Theodotus, Gallienus’
general, and was put to death in prison, in what year we do not know.
Cf. Tillemont’s Hist. des Emp. III. p. 342 sq. Maximus is mentioned a number of times in this chapter in
connection with the persecution. After the death of Dionysius he
succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria, and as such is referred to
below, in chaps. 28, 30, and 32. For the dates of his episcopate, see
chap. 28, note 10. On Faustus, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10. In regard to this deacon Eusebius, who later became bishop of
Laodicea, see chap. 32, note 12. Chæremon is mentioned three times in the present chapter, but
we have no other reliable information in regard to him.
4. But Æmilianus did not at
first say to me: ‘Hold no assemblies;’ We may gather from §11, below, that Germanus had accused
Dionysius of neglecting to hold the customary assemblies, and of
seeking safety by flight. Valesius, in his note ad locum,
remarks, “Dionysius was accused by Germanus of neglecting to hold
the assemblies of the brethren before the beginning of the persecution,
and of providing for his own safety by flight. For as often as
persecution arose the bishops were accustomed first to convene the
people, that they might exhort them to hold fast to their faith in
Christ. Then they baptized infants and catechumens, that they might not
depart this life without baptism, and they gave the eucharist to the
faithful, because they did not know how long the persecution might
last.” Valesius refers for confirmation of his statements to an
epistle sent to Pope Hormisdas, by Germanus and others, in regard to
Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica (circa a.d.
519). I have not been able to verify the reference. The custom
mentioned by Valesius is certainly a most natural one, and therefore
Valesius’ statements are very likely quite true, though there
seems to be little direct testimony upon which to rest them.
5. But I answered him, neither
unsuitably nor in many We learn from §10, below, that Cephro was in Libya. Beyond
this nothing is known of the place so far as I am aware.
6. But listen to the very words
which were spoken on both sides, as they were recorded:
“Dionysius, Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus, This Marcellus, the only one not mentioned in §3, above, is
an otherwise unknown person.
7. ‘I have reasoned
verbally with you concerning the clemency which our rulers have shown
to you; for they have given you the opportunity to save yourselves, if
you will turn to that which is according to nature, and worship the
gods that preserve their empire, and forget those that are contrary to
nature. τῶν παρὰ
φύσιν. That
the τῶν refers to “gods” (viz. the gods of the
Christians, Æmilianus thinking of them as plural) seems clear,
both on account of the θεοὺς just
preceding, and also in view of the fact that in §9 we have the
phrase τῶν
κατὰ φύσιν
θεῶν. A contrast,
therefore, is drawn in the present case between the gods of the heathen
and those of the Christians.
8. Dionysius replied: ‘Not all people worship all gods; but each one those whom he approves. We therefore reverence and worship the one God, the Maker of all; who hath given the empire to the divinely favored and august Valerian and Gallienus; and we pray to him continually for their empire that it may remain unshaken.’
9. Æmilianus, the prefect, said to them: ‘But who forbids you to worship him, if he is a god, together with those who are gods by nature. For ye have been commanded to reverence the gods, and the gods whom all know.’ Dionysius answered:
10. ‘We worship no
other.’ Æmilianus, the prefect, said to them: ‘I see
that you are at once ungrateful, and insensible to the kindness of our
sovereigns. Wherefore ye shall not remain in this city. But ye shall be
sent into the regions of Libya, to a place called Cephro. For I have
chosen this place at the command of our sovereigns, and it shall by no
means be permitted you or any others, either to hold assemblies, or to
enter into the so called cemeteries. κοιμητήρια; literally, “sleeping-places.” The word was
used only in this sense in classic Greek; but the Christians, looking
upon death only as a sleep, early applied the name to their burial
places; hence Æmilian speaks of them as the
“so-called (καλούμενα) cemeteries.”
11. But if any one shall be seen without the place which I have commanded, or be found in any assembly, he will bring peril on himself. For suitable punishment shall not fail. Go, therefore where ye have been ordered.’
“And he hastened me away,
though I was sick, not granting even a day’s respite. What
opportunity then did I have, either to hold assemblies, or not to hold
them?” See above, note 9.
12. Farther on he says:
“But through the help of the Lord we did not give up the open
assembly. But I called together the more diligently those who were in
the city, as if I were with them; being, so to speak, ὡς εἰπεῖν, a reading approved by Valesius in his notes, and adopted
by Schwegler and Heinichen. This and the readings ὡς
εἶπεν, “as he said” (adopted by Stroth, Zimmermann,
and Laemmer), and ὡς εἶπον, “as
I said” (adopted by Stephanus, Valesius in his text, and Burton),
are about equally supported by ms. authority,
while some mss. read ὡς εἶπεν ὁ
ἀπόστολος, “as the apostle said.” It is impossible to
decide with any degree of assurance between the first three
readings.
13. At first we were persecuted and stoned; but afterwards not a few of the heathen forsook the idols and turned to God. For until this time they had not heard the Word, since it was then first sown by us.
14. And as if God had brought us
to them for this purpose, when we had performed this ministry he
transferred us to another place. For Æmilianus, as it appeared,
desired to transport us to rougher and more Libyan-like places; Λιβυκωτέρους
τόπους. Libya
was an indefinite term among the ancients for that part of Africa which
included the Great Desert and all the unexplored country lying west and
south of it. Almost nothing was known about the country, and the desert
and the regions beyond were peopled by the fancy with all sorts of
terrible monsters, and were looked upon as the theater of the most dire
forces, natural and supernatural. As a consequence, the term
“Libyan” became a synonym for all that was most
disagreeable and dreadful in nature. Mareotis, or Mareia, or Maria, was one of the land districts into
which Egypt was divided. A lake, a town situated on the shore of the
lake, and the district in which they lay, all bore the same name. The
district Mareotis lay just south of Alexandria, but did not include it,
for Alexandria and Ptolemais formed an independent sphere of
administration sharply separated from the thirty-six land districts of
the country. Cf. Bk. II. chap. 17, notes 10 and 12, above. Mommsen
(Roman Provinces, Scribner’s ed. Vol. II. p. 255) remarks
that these land districts, like the cities, became the basis of
episcopal dioceses. This we should expect to be the case, but I am not
aware that we can prove it to have been regularly so, at any rate not
during the earlier centuries. Cf. e.g. Wiltsch’s Geography and
Statistics of the Church, London ed., I. p. 192 sq. ἡμᾶς
δὲ μᾶλλον ἐν
ὁδῷ καὶ
πρώτους
καταληφθησομένους
žταξεν.
15. When I was first ordered to
go to Cephro I did not know where the place was, and had scarcely ever
heard the name; yet I went readily and cheerfully. But when I was told
that I was to remove to the district of Colluthion, τὰ
Κολλουθίωνος
(sc. μέρη), i.e. the parts
or regions of Colluthion. Of Colluthion, so far as I am aware, nothing
is known. It seems to have been a town, possibly a section of country
in the district of Mareotis. Nicephorus spells the word with a single
l, which Valesius contends is more correct because the word is
derived from Colutho, which was not an uncommon name in Egypt (see
Valesius’ note ad locum).
16. For here I will accuse myself. At first I was grieved and greatly disturbed; for though these places were better known and more familiar to us, yet the country was said to be destitute of brethren and of men of character, and to be exposed to the annoyances of travelers and incursions of robbers.
17. But I was comforted when the
brethren reminded me that it was nearer the city, and that while Cephro
afforded us much intercourse with the brethren from Egypt, so that we
were able to extend the Church more widely, as this place was nearer
the city we should enjoy more frequently the sight of those who were
truly beloved and most closely related and dearest to us. For they
would come and remain, and special meetings κατὰ μέρος
συναγωγαί, literally, “partial meetings.” It is plain
enough from this that persons living in the suburbs were allowed to
hold special services in their homes or elsewhere, and were not
compelled always to attend the city church, which might be a number of
miles distant. It seems to me doubtful whether this passage is
sufficient to warrant Valesius’ conclusion, that in the time of
Dionysius there was but one church in Alexandria, where the brethren
met for worship. It may have been so, but the words do not appear to
indicate, as Valesius thinks they do, that matters were in a different
state then from that which existed in the time of Athanasius, who, in
his Apology to Constantius, §14 sq., expressly speaks of a
number of church buildings in Alexandria.
18. “Germanus indeed
boasts of many confessions. He can speak forsooth of many adversities
which he himself has endured. But is he able to reckon up as many as we
can, of sentences, confiscations, proscriptions, plundering of goods,
loss of dignities, contempt of worldly glory, disregard for the
flatteries of governors and of councilors, and patient endurance of the
threats of opponents, of outcries, of perils and persecutions, and
wandering and distress, and all kinds of tribulation, such as came upon
me under Decius and Sabinus, Sabinus has been already mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, §2,
from which passage we may gather that he held the same position under
Decius which Æmilianus held under Valerian (see note 3 on the
chapter referred to).
19. But I turn from this great folly into which I am falling on account of Germanus. And for the same reason I desist from giving to the brethren who know it an account of everything which took place.”
20. The same writer also in the
epistle to Domitius and Didymus We
learn from chap. 20, below, that this epistle to Domitius and Didymus
was one of Dionysius’ regular festal epistles (for there is no
ground for assuming that a different epistle is referred to in that
chapter). Domitius and Didymus are otherwise unknown personages.
Eusebius evidently (as we can see both from this chapter and from
chapter 20) supposes this epistle to refer to the persecution, of which
Dionysius has been speaking in that portion of his epistle to Germanus
quoted in this chapter; namely, to the persecution of Valerian. But he
is clearly mistaken in this supposition; for, as we can see from a
comparison of §22, below, with Bk. VI. chap. 40, §6 sq.,
Dionysius is referring in this epistle to the same persecution to which
he referred in that chapter; namely, to the persecution of Decius. But
the present epistle was written (as we learn from §23) while this
same persecution was still going on, and, therefore, some years before
the time of Valerian’s persecution, and before the writing of the
epistle to Germanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2), with which Eusebius
here associates it. Cf. Valesius’ note ad locum and
Dittrich’s Dionysius der Grosse, p. 40 sq.
21. But in the case of some a
very long time was not sufficient to make them appear acceptable to the
Lord; as, indeed, it seems also in my own case, that sufficient time
has not yet elapsed. Wherefore he has retained me for the time which he
knows to be fitting, saying, ‘In an acceptable time have I heard
thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee.’
22. For as you have inquired of
our affairs and desire us to tell you how we are situated, you have
heard fully that when we—that is, myself and Gaius and Faustus
and Peter and Paul See above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10. See ibid. §6 sq.
23. But now I and Gaius and
Peter are alone, deprived of the other brethren, and shut up in a
desert and dry place in Libya, three days’ journey from
Parætonium.” Parætonium was an important town and harbor on the
Mediterranean, about 150 miles west of Alexandria. A day’s
journey among the ancients commonly denoted about 180 to 200 stadia (22
to 25 miles), so that Dionysius retreat must have lain some 60 to 70
miles from Parætonium, probably to the south of it.
24. He says farther on:
“The presbyters, Maximus, On
Maximus, see above, note 5. Of Dioscorus we know only what is told us here. He is not to be
identified with the lad mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 41, §19 (see
note 17 on that chapter). Of Demetrius and Lucius we know only what is recorded
here. Faustinus and Aquila are known to us only from this
passage. On
these three deacons, see above, notes 6–8.
25. For as I have said
be
26. Thus far Dionysius. But it
should be known that Eusebius, whom he calls a deacon, shortly
afterward became bishop of the church of Laodicea in Syria; See below, chap. 32, §5. See chap. 28, note 8. That is, until the persecution of Diocletian, a.d. 303 sq. That is, according to Eusebius, in the time of Valerian, but only
the events related in the first part of the chapter took place at that
time; those recorded in the epistle to Domitius and Didymus in the time
of Decius. See above, note 25.
Chapter XII.—The Martyrs in Cæsarea in Palestine.
During the above-mentioned persecution under Valerian, three men in
Cæsarea in Palestine, being conspicuous in their confession of
Christ, were adorned with divine martyrdom, becoming food for wild
beasts. One of them was called Priscus, another Malchus, and the name
of the third was Alexander. Of
these three men we know only what is told us in this
chapter. Marcionitic martyrs are mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. IV. chap. 15,
and in Martyrs of Pal. chap. 10. In H. E. V. 16, it is
stated that the Marcionites as well as the Montanists had many martyrs,
but that the orthodox Christians did not acknowledge them as
Christians, and would not recognize them even when they were martyred
together. Of course they were all alike Christians in the eyes of the
state, and hence all alike subject to persecution.
Chapter XIII.—The Peace under Gallienus.
1. Shortly after this Valerian was reduced to slavery by the barbarians, Valerian was taken captive by Sapor, king of Persia, probably late
in the year 260 (the date is somewhat uncertain) and died in captivity.
His son Gallienus, already associated with him in the empire, became
sole emperor when his father fell into the Persians’
hands. Eusebius has not preserved the text of these edicts (προγρ€μματα, which were public proclamations, and thus differed from
the rescripts, which were private instructions), but the rescript to
the bishops which he quotes shows that they did more than simply put a
stop to the persecution,—that they in fact made Christianity a
religio licita, and that for the first time. The right of the
Christians as a body (the corpus Christianorum) to hold property
is recognized in this rescript, and this involves the legal recognition
of that body. Moreover, the rescript is addressed to the
“bishops,” which implies a recognition of the organization
of the Church. See the article of Görres, Die Toleranzedicte
des Kaisers Gallienus, in the Jahrb. für prot. Theol.,
1877, p. 606 sq. ἀντιγραφή: the technical term for an epistle containing private
instructions, in distinction from an edict or public proclamation. This
rescript was addressed to the bishops of the province of Egypt
(including Dionysius of Alexandria). It was evidently issued some time
after the publication of the edicts themselves. Its exact date is
uncertain, but it was probably written immediately after the fall of
the usurper Macrianus (i.e. late in 261 or early in 262), during the
time of whose usurpation the benefits of Gallienus’ edicts of
toleration could of course not have been felt in Egypt and the
Orient.
2. “The Emperor Cæsar
Publius Licinius Gallienus, Pius, Felix, Augustus, Εὐσεβὴς,
Εὐτυχὴς,
Σεβαστός. Of Pinnas and Demetrius we know nothing. The identification of
Demetrius with the presbyter mentioned in chap. 11, §24, might be
suggested as possible. There is nothing to prevent such an
identification, nor, on the other hand, is there anything to be urged
in its favor beyond mere agreement in a name which was not an uncommon
one in Egypt. ὅπως
ἀπὸ τῶν
τόπων τῶν
θρησκευσίμων
ἀποχωρήσωσι. This is commonly taken to mean that the “Christians
may come forth from their religious retreats,” which, however,
does not seem to be the sense of the original. I prefer to read, with
Closs, “that the heathen may depart from the Christians’
places of worship,” from those, namely, which they had taken
possession of during the persecution. The reference is doubtless to the edicts, referred to above, which
he had issued immediately after his accession, but which had not been
sooner put in force in Egypt because of the usurper Macrianus (see
above, note 3). So far as I am aware, this man is known to us only from this
passage. ὁ τοῦ
μεγίστου
πρ€γματος
προστατεύων. Heinichen, following Valesius, identifies this office
with the ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν
καθόλου
λόγων (mentioned in
chap. 10, §5), with the ὁ τῶν
καθόλου
λόγων
žπαρχος (mentioned in Bk. IX. chap. 11, §4), &c. For the nature
of that office, see chap. 10, note 8. The phrase used in this passage
seems to suggest the identification, and yet I am inclined to think,
inasmuch as the rescript has to do specifically with the Church in
Egypt, that Aurelius Cyrenius was not (as Macrianus was under Valerian)
the emperor’s general finance minister, in charge of the affairs
of the empire, but simply the supreme finance minister or administrator
of Egypt (cf. Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire,
Scribner’s ed., II. p. 268).
The use of their cemeteries, both as places of burial and as
meeting-places for religious worship, had been denied to the Christians
by Valerian. On the origin of the word κοιμητήρια, see chap. 11, note 14.
Chapter XIV.—The Bishops that flourished at that Time.
At that
time Xystus On Xystus II., see chap. 5, note 5. On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12. On Fabius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 7. On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3. Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus from
about 233–270 (?). Upon Gregory, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, note
1. On Athenodorus, see ibid. note 2. On Theoctistus, see Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27. Of the life and character of Domnus we know nothing. So far as I
am aware he is mentioned only here. His dates are uncertain, but his
predecessor, Theoctistus, was still bishop in the time of Stephen of
Rome (254–257; see above, Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27), while he
himself became bishop before the death of Xystus of Rome, as we may
gather from this chapter, i.e. before August, 258 (see chap. 5, note
5), so that between these dates his accession must be placed.
Eusebius’ words in this passage will hardly admit an episcopate
of more than one or two years; possibly he was bishop but a few
months. The dates of Theotecnus are likewise uncertain. Eusebius in Bk.
VII. chap. 32, says that he was acquainted with Pamphilus during the
episcopate of Agapius (the successor of Theotecnus), implying that he
first made his acquaintance then. It is therefore likely that Agapius
became bishop some years before the persecution of Diocletian, for
otherwise we hardly allow enough time for the acquaintance of Pamphilus
and Eusebius who did so much work together, and apparently were friends
for so long a time. Pamphilus himself suffered martyrdom in 309 a.d. Theotecnus was quite a prominent man and was
present at the two Antiochian synods mentioned in chaps. 27 and 30,
which were convened to consider the heresy of Paul of
Samosata. On Mazabanes, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 5. According to the Chron. of Eusebius, Hymenæus was
bishop of Jerusalem from 265–298. It is expressly stated in the
Chron. that the dates of the earlier Jerusalem bishops are not
known (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1); but with the dates of the bishops
of the latter part of the third century Eusebius can hardly have been
unacquainted, and that Hymenæus was bishop at any rate as early as
265 is proved by chaps. 27 and 30 (see the note on Mazabanes referred
to just above). The dates given in the Chron. may therefore be
accepted as at least approximately correct.
Chapter XV.—The Martyrdom of Marinus at Cæsarea.
1. At
this time, when the peace of the churches had been everywhere The martyrdom of Marinus after the promulgation of
Gallienus’ edict of toleration and after peace had been, as
Eusebius remarks, everywhere restored to the churches, has caused
historians some difficulty. It is maintained, however, by Tillemont and
others, and with especial force by Görres in the
Jahrbücher für prot. Theol., 1877, p. 620 sq., that
the martyrdom of Marinus took place while the usurper Macrianus, who
was exceedingly hostile to the Christians, was still in power in the
East, and at a time, therefore, when the edicts of Gallienus could have
no force there. This of course explains the difficulty completely. The
martyrdom then must have taken place toward the beginning of
Gallienus’ reign, for Macrianus was slain as early as 262. Of the
martyr Marinus we know only what Eusebius tells us here.
2. The vine-branch τὸ κλῆμα. The centurion received as a badge of office a vine-branch
or vine-switch, which was called by the Romans Vitis.
3. Thereupon the judge, whose
name was Achæus, Achæus is an otherwise unknown person. That he was governor
of Palestine, as Valesius asserts, is apparently a pure assumption, for
the term used of him (δικαστής) is quite indefinite.
4. When he came out from the
tribunal, Theotecnus, On
Theotecnus, see above, chap. 14, note 9.
5. Immediately on his return the herald cried out calling him to the tribunal, for the appointed time was already completed. And standing before the tribunal, and manifesting greater zeal for the faith, immediately, as he was, he was led away and finished his course by death.
Astyrius We know nothing more about this Astyrius than is recorded here.
Rufinus, in his H. E. VII. 13, tells us that he suffered
martyrdom at about this time; but Eusebius says nothing of the kind,
and it is therefore not at all probable that Rufinus is correct. He
probably concluded, from Eusebius’ account of him, that he also
suffered martyrdom. Burton and Crusè close the chapter at this point, throwing
the next sentence into chap. 17. Such a transposition, however, is
unnecessary, and I have preferred to follow Valesius, Heinichen,
Schwegler, and other editors, in dividing as above.
Chapter XVII.—The Signs at Paneas of the Great Might of our Saviour.
Among these is also the following wonder. At Cæsarea Philippi,
which the Phœnicians call Paneas, Cæsarea Philippi (to be distinguished from Cæsarea, the
chief city of Palestine, mentioned in previous chapters) was originally
called Paneas by the Greeks,—a name which it retained even after
the name Cæsarea Philippi had been given it by Philip the
Tetrarch, who enlarged and beautified it. The place, which is now a
small village, is called Banias by the Arabs. It lies at the base of
Mt. Hermon, and is noted for one of the principal sources of the
Jordan, which issues from springs beneath the rocks of Mt. Hermon at
this point. The spot is said to be remarkably beautiful. See
Robinson’s Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. III, p.
409 sq. Valesius remarks that the heathen were accustomed to throw victims
into their sacred wells and fountains, and that therefore Publicola
asks Augustine, in Epistle 153, whether one ought to drink from a
fountain or well whither a portion of sacrifice had been
sent.
Chapter
XVIII.—The Statue which the Woman with
an Issue of Blood erected. This account of the statue erected by the woman with the issue of
blood is repeated by many later writers, and Sozomen (H. E. V.
21) and Philostorgius (H. E. VII. 3) inform us that it was
destroyed by the Emperor Julian. Gieseler remarks (Eccles.
Hist., Harper’s ed. I. p. 70), “Judging by the analogy
of many coins, the memorial had been erected in honor of an emperor
(probably Hadrian), and falsely interpreted by the Christians, perhaps
on account of a σωτῆρι or θεῷ
appearing in the inscription.” There can be no
doubt of Eusebius’ honesty in the matter, but no less doubt that
the statue commemorated something quite different from that which
Christian tradition claimed. Upon this whole chapter, see
Heinichen’s Excursus, in Vol. III. p. 698 sq.
1. Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper
to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they
say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the
sacred Gospel, See
2. For there stands upon an
elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman
kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying.
Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same
material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand
toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, οὗ παρὰ
τοῖς ποσὶν
ἐπὶ τῆς
στήλης
αὐτῆς. This is
commonly translated “at his feet, upon the
pedestal”; but, as Heinichen remarks, in the excursus
referred to just above, the plant can hardly have grown upon the
pedestal, and what is more, we have no warrant for translating
στήλη “pedestal.” Paulus, in his commentary on Matthew
in loco, maintains that Eusebius is speaking only of a
representation upon the base of the statue, not of an actual plant. But
this interpretation, as Heinichen shows, is quite unwarranted. For the
use of ἐπὶ in the sense of
“near” or “beside,” we have numerous examples
(see the instances given by Heinichen, and also Liddell and
Scott’s Greek Lexicon, s.v.).
3. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city.
4. Nor is it strange that those
of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have
done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his
apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in
paintings, Eusebius himself, as we learn from his letter to the Empress
Constantia Augusta (see above, p. 44), did not approve of the use of
images or representations of Christ, on the ground that it tended to
idolatry. In consequence of this disapproval he fell into great
disrepute in the later image-worshiping Church, his epistle being cited
by the iconoclasts at the second Council of Nicæa, in 787, and his
orthodoxy being in consequence fiercely attacked by the defenders of
image-worship, who dominated the council, and won the day.
The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at
Jerusalem from the Saviour himself That
James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old
and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the Clementine
Recognitions, Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic
Constitutions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom’s Homily
XXXVII. on First Corinthians. See Valesius’ note ad
locum; and on the universal tradition that James was bishop of
Jerusalem, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 11. See There can be no doubt that a chair (θρόνος),
said to be the episcopal seat of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem,
was shown in that church in the time of Eusebius, but there can be no
less doubt that it was not genuine. Even had James been bishop of
Jerusalem, and possessed a regular episcopal chair, or throne (a very
violent supposition, which involves a most glaring anachronism), it was
quite out of the question that it should have been preserved from
destruction at the fall of the city in 70 a.d.
As Stroth drily remarks: “Man hatte auch wohl nichts wichtigeres
zu retten, als einen Stuhl!” The beginning of that veneration of
relics which later took such strong hold on the Church, and which still
flourishes within the Greek and Roman communions is clearly seen in
this case recorded by Eusebius. At the same time, we can hardly say
that that superstitious veneration with which we are acquainted
appeared in this case. There seems to be nothing more than the
customary respect for an article of old and time-honored associations
which is seen everywhere and in all ages (cf. Heinichen’s
Excursus on this passage, Vol. III. p. 208 sq.). Crusè has
unaccountably rendered θρόνος in
this passage as if it referred to the see of Jerusalem, not to the
chair of the bishop. It is plain enough that such an interpretation is
quite unwarranted.
Chapter XX.—The Festal Epistles of Dionysius, in which he also gives a Paschal Canon.
Dionysius, besides his epistles already mentioned, Upon Dionysius of Alexandria, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1, and
see that note for references to the various passages in which Eusebius
mentions or quotes from his epistles. Eusebius supposes all of these epistles to have been written in
the time of Valerian or Gallienus; but he is mistaken, at least so far
as the epistle to Domitius and Didymus is concerned (see above, chap.
11, note 25), and possibly in regard to some of the others
also. τὰς
φερομένας
ἑορταστικ€ς. It was the custom for the bishops of Alexandria to write
every year before Easter a sort of epistle, or homily, and in it to
announce the time of the festival. These writings thus received the
name Festal or Festival Epistles or Homilies (see Suicer’s
Thesaurus s.v. ἑορταστικός, and Valesius’ note ad locum). This is
apparently the earliest mention of such epistles. Others are referred
to by Eusebius in chaps. 21 and 22, as written by Dionysius to various
persons. Undoubtedly all the Alexandrian bishops during these centuries
wrote such epistles, but none are extant, so far as I am aware, except
a number by Athanasius (extant only in a Syriac version, published in
Syriac and English by Cureton in 1846 and 1848), a few by Theophilus
(extant only in Latin), and thirty by Cyril (published in Migne’s
Patr. Gr. LXXVII. 391 sq.). Of
this Flavius we know nothing. The epistle addressed to him is no longer
extant. On Domitius and Didymus, and the epistle addressed to them, see
above, chap. 11, note 25. Eusebius quotes from the epistle in that
chapter. That is, an eight-year cycle for the purpose of determining the
time of the full moon. Hippolytus had employed the old eight-year
cycle, but had, as he thought, improved it by combining two in a single
sixteen-year cycle (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 22), as was done also by
the author of the so-called Cyprianic Chronicle at the middle of the
third century. The more accurate nineteen-year Metonic cycle (already
in use among the Greeks in the fifth century b.c.) had not come into general use in the Church until
later than this time. The Nicene Council sanctioned it and gave it wide
currency, but it had apparently not yet come into use in the Church. In
fact, the first Christian to make use of it for the computation of
Easter, so far as we know, was Anatolius of Alexandria, later bishop of
Laodicea (see below, chap. 32, §14). It was soon adopted in the
Alexandrian church, and already in the time of Athanasius had become
the basis of all Easter calculations, as we can gather from
Athanasius’ Festal Epistles. From about the time of the Nicene
Council on, Alexandria was commonly looked to for the reckoning of the
date of Easter, and although an older and less accurate cycle remained
in use in the West for a long time, the nineteen-year cycle gradually
won its way everywhere. See Ideler’s great work on chronology,
and cf. Hefele’s Conciliengesch. 2d ed. 1. p. 332, and
Lightfoot in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 313
sq. These various epistles are no longer extant, nor do we know the
names of the persons to whom they were addressed. At least a part of
them, if not all, were very likely written during the Valerian
persecution, as Eusebius states, for the fact that he made a mistake in
connection with the epistle to Domitius and Didymus does not prove that
he was in error in regard to all the others as well.
Chapter XXI.—The Occurrences at Alexandria.
1. Peace had but just been restored when he returned to
Alexandria; This was after the fall of the usurper Macrianus, probably late in
the year 261 or early in 262 (see above, chap. 13, note 3). This epistle written by Dionysius during the civil war to his
scattered flock is no longer extant.
2. And in another festal epistle
written later to Hierax, Of this Hierax we know no more than is told us here.
“What wonder is it that it is difficult for me to communicate by letters with those who live far away, when it is beyond my power even to reason with myself, or to take counsel for my own life?
3. Truly I need to send letters
to those who are as my own bowels, cf.
5. And the river which flows by
the city has sometimes seemed drier than the waterless desert, and more
parched than that in which Israel, as they passed through it, so
suffered for thirst, that they cried out against Moses, and the water
flowed for them from the steep rock, ἐκ
πέτρας
ἀκροτόμου. The adjective is an addition of Dionysius’ own. The
LXX of
6. Again it has overflowed so
greatly as to flood all the surrounding country, and the roads and the
fields; threatening to bring back the deluge of water that occurred in
the days of Noah. And it flows along, polluted always with blood and
slaughter and drownings, as it became for Pharaoh through the agency of
Moses, when he changed it into blood, and it stank. ἐποζέσας; the same word which is used in the LXX of
7. And what other water could
purify the water which purifies everything? How could the ocean, so
great and impassable for men, if poured into it, cleanse this bitter
sea? Or how could the great river which flowed out of Eden, if it
poured the four heads into which it is divided into the one of Geon, Γηὼν; LXX
(
8. Or when can the air poisoned by these noxious exhalations become pure? For such vapors arise from the earth, and winds from the sea, and breezes from the river, and mists from the harbors, that the dews are, as it were, discharges from dead bodies putrefying in all the elements around us.
9. Yet men wonder and cannot understand whence these continuous pestilences; whence these severe sicknesses; whence these deadly diseases of all kinds; whence this various and vast human destruction; why this great city no longer contains as many inhabitants, from tender infants to those most advanced in life, as it formerly contained of those whom it called hearty old men. But the men from forty to seventy years of age were then so much more numerous that their number cannot now be filled out, even when those from fourteen to eighty years are enrolled and registered for the public allowance of food.
10. And the youngest in appearance have become, as it were, of equal age with those who formerly were the oldest. But though they see the race of men thus constantly diminishing and wasting away, and though their complete destruction is increasing and advancing, they do not tremble.”
Chapter XXII.—The Pestilence which came upon them.
1. After these events a pestilential disease followed the
war, and at the approach of the feast he wrote again to the brethren,
describing the sufferings consequent upon this calamity. This letter seems to have been written shortly before Easter of
the year 263; for the festal epistle to Hierax, quoted in the last
chapter, was written while the war was still in progress (i.e. in 262),
this one after its close. It does not seem to have been a regular
festal epistle so-called, for in §11, below, we are told that
Dionysius wrote a regular festal letter (ἑορταστικὴν
γραφήν) to the
brethren in Egypt, and that apparently in connection with this same
Easter of the year 263.
2. “To other men i.e. to the heathen. i.e. there is no time when heathen can fitly rejoice.
3. For as it was written of the
firstborn of the Egyptians, so now ‘there has arisen a great cry,
for there is not a house where there is not one dead.’ καὶ ὄφελόν
γε, with the majority of the mss., followed by Valesius, Schwegler, and
Heinichen. Stroth, Burton, and Zimmermann, upon the authority of two
mss., read καὶ ὄφελόν
γε εἷς (“and
would that there were but one!”), a reading which Valesius
approves in his notes. The weight of ms.
authority, however, is with the former, and it alone justifies
the γ€ρ of the following sentence.
4. For many terrible things have happened already. First, they drove us out; and when alone, and persecuted, and put to death by all, even then we kept the feast. And every place of affliction was to us a place of festival: field, desert, ship, inn, prison; but the perfected martyrs kept the most joyous festival of all, feasting in heaven.
5. After these things war and famine followed, which we endured in common with the heathen. But we bore alone those things with which they afflicted us, and at the same time we experienced also the effects of what they inflicted upon and suffered from one another; and again, we rejoiced in the peace of Christ, which he gave to us alone.
6. “But after both we and
they had enjoyed a very brief season of rest this pestilence assailed
us; to them more dreadful than any dread, and more intolerable than any
other calamity; and, as one of their own writers has said, the only
thing which prevails over all hope.
7. Farther on he adds:
“The most of our brethren
were unsparing in their exceeding love and brotherly kindness. They
held fast to each other and visited the sick fearlessly, and ministered
to them continually, serving them in Christ. And they died with them
most joyfully, taking the affliction of others, and drawing the
sickness from their neighbors to themselves and willingly receiving
their pains. And many who cared for the sick and gave strength to
others died themselves having transferred to themselves their death.
And the popular saying which always seems a mere expression of
courtesy, they then made real in action, taking their departure as the
others’ ‘offscouring.’ περίψημα; cf.
8. “Truly the best of our brethren departed from life in this manner, including some presbyters and deacons and those of the people who had the highest reputation; so that this form of death, through the great piety and strong faith it exhibited, seemed to lack nothing of martyrdom.
9. And they took the bodies of the saints in their open hands and in their bosoms, and closed their eyes and their mouths; and they bore them away on their shoulders and laid them out; and they clung to them and embraced them; and they prepared them suitably with washings and garments. And after a little they received like treatment themselves, for the survivors were continually following those who had gone before them.
10. “But with the heathen everything was quite otherwise. They deserted those who began to be sick, and fled from their dearest friends. And they cast them out into the streets when they were half dead, and left the dead like refuse, unburied. They shunned any participation or fellowship with death; which yet, with all their precautions, it was not easy for them to escape.”
11. After this epistle, when
peace had been restored to the city, he wrote another festal letter The connection into which this festal epistle is brought with the
letter just quoted would seem to indicate that it was written not a
whole year, but very soon after that one. We may, therefore, look upon
it as Dionysius’ festal epistle of the year 263 (see above, note
1). Neither this nor the “several others” spoken of just
below is now extant. This and the next epistle are no longer extant, and we know
neither the time of their composition nor the persons to whom they were
addressed.
12. Moreover, he wrote again an
epistle to Hermammon On Hermammon and the epistle addressed to him, see above, chap. 1,
note 3. An extract from this same epistle is given in that chapter and
also in chap. 10.
Chapter XXIII.—The Reign of Gallienus.
1. But there is nothing like hearing his own words, which are as follows:
“Then he, i.e. Macrianus; see above, chap. 10, note 5. He is supposed to have betrayed Valerian into the hands of the
Persians, or at least, by his treachery, to have brought about the
result which took place, and after Valerian’s capture he made war
upon Gallienus, the latter’s son and successor. See the note
referred to just above.
2. For according to the word
spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘Behold the things from the
beginning have come to pass, and new things shall now arise.’
3. And his kingdom, as if it had
cast aside old age, and had been purified from the former wickedness,
now blossoms out more vigorously, and is seen and heard farther, and
extends in all directions.” Dionysius is evidently somewhat dazzled and blinded by the favor
shown by Gallienus to the Christians. For we know from the profane
historians of this period that the reign of Gallienus was one of the
darkest in all the history of the Roman Empire, on account of the
numerous disasters which came upon the empire, and the internal
disturbances and calamities it was called upon to endure.
4. He then indicates the time at which he wrote this in the following words:
“It occurs to me again to
review the days of the imperial years. For I perceive that those most
impious men, though they have been famous, yet in a short time have
become nameless. But the holier and more godly prince, Gallienus is known to us as one of the most abandoned and
profligate of emperors, though he was not without ability and courage
which he displayed occasionally. Dionysius’ words at this point
are not surprising, for the public benefits conferred by Gallienus upon
the Christians would far outweigh his private vices in the minds of
those who had suffered from the persecutions of his
predecessors. The peculiar form of reckoning employed here (the mention of the
seventh and then the ninth year) has caused considerable perplexity.
Stroth thinks that “Dionysius speaks here of the time when
Gallienus actually ruled in Egypt. For Macrianus had ruled there for a
year, and during that time the authority of Gallienus in that country
had been interrupted.” The view of Pearson, however, seems to me
better. He remarks: “Whoever expressed himself thus, that one
after his seven years was passing his ninth year? This
septennium (ἑπταετηρίς) must designate something peculiar and different from the
time following. It is therefore the septennium of imperial power which
he had held along with his father. In the eighth year of that empire
[the father, Valerian being in captivity in Persia], Macrianus
possessed himself of the imperial honor especially in Egypt. After his
assumption of the purple, however, Gallienus had still much authority
in Egypt. At length in the ninth year of Gallienus, i.e. in 261,
Macrianus, the father and the two sons being slain, the sovereignty of
Gallienus was recognized also among the Egyptians.” “The
ninth year of Gallienus, moreover, began about midsummer of this year;
and the time at which this letter was written by Dionysius, as Eusebius
observes, may be gathered from that, and falls consequently before the
Paschal season of 262 a.d.” See also
chap. 1, note 3, above.
Chapter
XXIV.—Nepos and his
Schism. Of this Egyptian bishop Nepos, we know only what is told us in
this chapter. Upon chiliasm in the early Church, see above, Bk. III.
chap. 39, note 19. It is interesting to note, that although chiliasm
had long lost its hold wherever the philosophical theology of the third
century had made itself felt, it still continued to maintain its sway
in other parts of the Church, especially in outlying districts in the
East, which were largely isolated from the great centers of thought,
and in the greater part of the West. By such Christians it was looked
upon, in fact, as the very kernel of Christianity,—they lived as
most Christians of the second century had, in the constant hope of a
speedy return of Christ to reign in power upon the earth. The gradual
exclusion of this remnant of early Christian belief involved the same
kind of consequences as the disappearance of the belief in the
continued possession by the Church of the spirit of prophecy (see Bk.
V. chap. 16, note 1), and marks another step in the progress of the
Church from the peculiarly enthusiastic spirit of the first and second,
to the more formal spirit of the third and following centuries. Compare
the remarks of Harnack in his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 482 sq. It
seems, from §6, below, that Dionysius had engaged in an oral
discussion of the doctrines taught in the book of Nepos, which had
prevailed for a long time in Arsinoë, where the disputation was
held. The best spirit was exhibited by both parties in the discussion,
and the result was a decided victory for Dionysius. He was evidently
afraid, however, that the book of Nepos, which was widely circulated,
would still continue to do damage, and therefore he undertook to refute
it in a work of his own, entitled On the Promises (see the next
note). His work, like his disputation, undoubtedly had considerable
effect, but chiliasm still prevailed in some of the outlying districts
of Egypt for a number of generations.
1. Besides all these the two books on the Promises περὶ
ἐπαγγελιῶν. This work, as we learn from §3, below, contained in
the first book Dionysius’ own views on the subject under dispute,
in the second a detailed discussion of the Apocalypse upon which Nepos
based his chiliastic opinions. The work is no longer extant, though
Eusebius gives extracts from the second book in this and in the next
chapter; and three brief fragments have been preserved in a Vatican
ms., and are published in the various editions
of Dionysius’ works. The Eusebian extracts are translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 81–84. We have no means
of ascertaining the date of Dionysius work. Hefele
(Conciliengesch. I. p. 134), Dittrich (p. 69), and others, put
the disputation at Arsinoë, in 254 or 255, and the composition of
the work of Dionysius of course soon thereafter; but we have no
authority for fixing the date of the disputation with such exactness,
and must be content to leave it quite undetermined, though it is not
improbable that it took place, as Dittrich maintains, between the
persecutions of Decius and Valerian. In the preface to the eighteenth
book of his commentary on Isaiah, Jerome speaks of a work of Dionysius,
On the Promises (evidently referring to this same work),
directed against Irenæus. In his de vir ill. 69, however,
he follows Eusebius in stating that the work was written against Nepos.
There can be no doubt on this score, and Jerome’s statement in
his commentary seems to be a direct error. It is possible, however,
that Irenæus, as the most illustrious representative of chiliastic
views, may have been mentioned, and his positions refuted in the work,
and thus Jerome have had some justification for his report.
2. As he thought that he could
establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a
book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists. Evidently directed against Origen and other allegorical
interpreters like him, who avoided the materialistic conceptions
deduced by so many from the Apocalypse, by spiritualizing and
allegorizing its language. This work of Nepos has entirely
perished.
3. Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives his own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John, and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner:
4. “But since they bring
forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely confidently, as if
it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ upon
earth, I confess that The words “I confess that” are not in the original,
but the insertion of some clause of the kind is necessary to complete
the sentence. On early Christian hymnody, see above, Bk. V. chap. 28, note
14.
5. Were he present to state his
opinion orally, mere unwritten discussion, persuading and reconciling
those who are opposed by question and answer, would be sufficient. But
as some think his work very plausible, and as certain teachers regard
the law and prophets as of no consequence, and do not follow the
Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while they make
promises “i.e. dire ante promittunt quam tradunt. The metaphor
is taken from the mysteries of the Greeks, who were wont to promise
great and marvelous discoveries to the initiated, and then kept them on
the rack by daily expectation in order to confirm their judgment and
reverence by suspense of knowledge, as Tertullian says in his book
Against the Valentinians [chap. 1].” Valesius.
6. “When I was in the
district of Arsinoë, ἐν
τῷ
᾽Αρσινοείτῃ. The Arsinoite nome or district (on the nomes of Egypt,
see above, Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10) was situated on the western bank
of the Nile, between the river and Lake Mœris, southwest of
Memphis.
7. Accordingly when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it.
8. And I rejoiced over the constancy, sincerity, docility, and intelligence of the brethren, as we considered in order and with moderation the questions and the difficulties and the points of agreement. And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
9. And finally the author and
mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, Of this Coracion, we know only what is told us here.
Chapter XXV.—The Apocalypse of John. Upon the Apocalypse in the early Church, and especially upon
Dionysius’ treatment of it, see above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note
20.
1. Afterward he speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John.
“Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent.
2. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a vail of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name.
3. For the doctrine which he
taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And
as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether
sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in
those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and
of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying,
and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the
guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better
grace. A
portion of this extract (§§2 and 3) has been already quoted
by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28.
4. “But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words.
5. I do not measure and judge them by my own reason, but leaving the more to faith I regard them as too high for me to grasp. And I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it.”
6. After this he examines the entire Book of Revelation, and having proved that it is impossible to understand it according to the literal sense, proceeds as follows:
“Having finished all the
prophecy, so to speak, the prophet pronounces those blessed who shall
observe it, and also himself. For he says, ‘Blessed is he that
keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw
and heard these things.’
7. Therefore that he was called
John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I
agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot
readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother
of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle On the Gospel and Epistle, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 1 and
18.
8. For I judge from the
character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire
execution of the book, τῆς τοῦ
βιβλίου
διεξαγωγῆς
λεγομένης. Valesius considers διεξαγωγή
equivalent to dispositionem or οἰκονομίαν, “for διεξαγωγεῖν
is the same as διοικεῖν, as Suidas says.” He translates ex libelli totius
ductu ac dispositione, remarking that the words may be interpreted
also as formam et rationem scribendi, seu characterem. The
phrase evidently means the “general disposition” or
“form” of the work. Closs translates “aus ihrer
ganzen Ausführung”; Salmond, “the whole disposition
and execution of the book”; Crusè, “the execution of
the whole book.”
9. Farther on he adds:
“But John never speaks as
if referring to himself, or as if referring to another person. i.e. never speaks of himself in the first person, as “I,
John”; nor in the third person, as e.g. “his servant,
John.”
10. Then he writes also an
epistle: ‘John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace be
with you, and peace.’
11. But neither in the reputed
second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the
name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, ‘the
elder.’ See
12. “But that he who wrote
these things was called John must be believed, as he says it; but who
he was does not appear. For he did not say, as often in the Gospel,
that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, See See
13. For he would have spoken of these things if he had wished to show himself plainly. But he says none of them; but speaks of himself as our brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he had seen and heard the revelations.
14. But I am of the opinion that there were many with the same name as the apostle John, who, on account of their love for him, and because they admired and emulated him, and desired to be loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves the same surname, as many of the children of the faithful are called Paul or Peter.
15. For example, there is also
another John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, In
16. But I think that he was some
other one of those in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in
Ephesus, each bearing the name of John. See above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 13; and on the “presbyter
John,” mentioned by Papias, see also note 4 on the same chapter,
and on his relation to the Apocalypse, the same chapter, note
14.
17. “And from the ideas,
and from the words and their arrangement, it may be reasonably
conjectured that this one is different from that one. i.e. the writer of the Apocalypse is different from the writer of
the Gospel and Epistles.
18. For the Gospel and Epistle
agree with each other and begin in the same manner. The one says,
‘In the beginning was the Word’;
19. For he introduces these
things at the beginning, maintaining them, as is evident from what
follows, in opposition to those who said that the Lord had not come in
the flesh. Wherefore also he carefully adds, ‘And we have seen
and bear witness, and declare unto you the eternal life which was with
the Father and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you also.’
20. He holds to this and does
not digress from his subject, but discusses every
21. Any one who examines carefully will find the phrases, ‘the life,’ ‘the light,’ ‘turning from darkness,’ frequently occurring in both; also continually, ‘truth,’ ‘grace,’ ‘joy,’ ‘the flesh and blood of the Lord,’ ‘the judgment,’ ‘the forgiveness of sins,’ ‘the love of God toward us,’ the ‘commandment that we love one another,’ that we should ‘keep all the commandments’; the ‘conviction of the world, of the Devil, of Anti-Christ,’ the ‘promise of the Holy Spirit,’ the ‘adoption of God,’ the ‘faith continually required of us,’ ‘the Father and the Son,’ occur everywhere. In fact, it is plainly to be seen that one and the same character marks the Gospel and the Epistle throughout.
22. But the Apocalypse is different from these writings and foreign to them; not touching, nor in the least bordering upon them; almost, so to speak, without even a syllable in common with them.
23. Nay more, the
Epistle—for I pass by the Gospel—does not mention nor does
it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of
the Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some indication of his
revelations, See
24. “Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse.
25. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse,—that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression,—as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him.
26. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.
27. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing clearly the difference between the writings.”
Chapter XXVI.—The Epistles of Dionysius.
1. Besides these, many other epistles of Dionysius are
extant, as those against Sabellius, On Sabellius, and on Dionysius’ attitude toward
Sabellianism, see above, chap. 6, note 1. The works addressed to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus,
are no longer extant, nor do we know anything about them (but see chap.
6, note 2, above). It is possible that it was in these epistles that
Dionysius laid himself open in his zeal against the Sabellians to the
charge of tritheism, which aroused complaints against him, and resulted
in his being obliged to defend himself in his work addressed to
Dionysius of Rome. If so, these letters must have been written before
that work, though perhaps not long before. Of Ammon himself we know
nothing. There were a number of cities in North Africa, called Berenice
(the form Bernice is exceptional), but, according to Wiltsch, Berenice,
a city of Libya Pentapolis, or Cyrenaica, is meant in the present case.
This city (whose original name was Hesperides) lay on the Mediterranean
some six hundred miles west of Alexandria. Of Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, we know
nothing. On these books addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see below, p.
397.
2. Besides these many of his
epistles are with us, and large books written in epistolary form, as
those on Nature, οἱ περὶ
φύσεως. The date
and immediate occasion of this work cannot be determined. The
supposition of Dittrich, that it was written before Dionysius became
bishop, while he had more leisure than afterward for philosophical
study, has much in its favor. The young man, Timothy, to whom it was
addressed, is perhaps to be identified with the one mentioned in Bk.
VI. chap. 40, §4. That it was a work of considerable extent,
embracing more than one book, is indicated by Eusebius in this passage.
A long extract from it is given by Eusebius in his Præp.
Evang. XIV. 23–27 (printed with commentary by Routh, Rel.
Sac. IV. p. 393 sq.; translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. VI. p. 84–91), and a few fragments are still preserved in a
Vatican codex, and have been published by Simon de Magistris, in his
edition of Dionysius’ works (Rome, 1796), p. 44 sq. (cf. also
Routh, IV. p. 418, 419). In the extract quoted by Eusebius, Dionysius
deals solely with the atomic theory of Democritus and Epicurus. This
subject may have occupied the greater part of the work, but evidently,
as Dittrich remarks (Dionysius der Grosse, p. 12), the doctrines
of other physicists were also dealt with (cf. the words with which
Eusebius introduces his extracts; Præp. Evang. XIV. 22. 10:
“I will subjoin from the books [of Dionysius] On Nature a
few of the things urged against Epicurus.” The translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 84, note 7, which implies that
the work was written “against the Epicureans” is not
correct). φύσις seems to
have been taken by Dionysius in the sense of the “Universe”
(compare, for instance, the words of Cicero, De nat. deorum,
II., to which Dittrich refers: Sunt autem, qui naturæ nomine
rerum universitatem intelligunt), and to have been devoted to a
refutation of the doctrines of various heathen philosophers in regard
to the origin of the universe. For a fuller discussion of the work, see
Dittrich, ibid. p. 12 sq. This work on Temptations (περὶ
πειρασμῶν) is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about the
time or occasion of its composition. Dittrich strangely omits all
reference to it. Of Euphranor, as remarked in note 3, we know
nothing.
3. Moreover, in a letter to
Basilides, Of this Basilides we know only what Eusebius tells us here, that
he was bishop of the “parishes in Pentapolis” (or
Cyrenaica, a district, and under the Romans a province, lying west of
Egypt, along the Mediterranean Sea), which would seem to imply that he
was metropolitan of that district (cf. Routh, Rel. Sac. III. p.
235). A canonical epistle addressed to him by Dionysius is still extant
(see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1). Eusebius tells us that Dionysius
addressed “various epistles” to him, but no others are
known to us. It is possible that this work also, like that On Nature,
was written, as Dittrich thinks, before Dionysius became bishop.
Eusebius evidently had not seen the commentary himself, for he speaks
only of Dionysius’ reference to it. A few fragments, supposed to
be parts of this commentary, were published in the appendix to the
fourteenth volume of Galland’s Bibliotheca Patrum Veterum,
after the latter’s death, and were afterward reprinted in De
Magistris’ edition of Dionysius’ works, p. 1 sq. (English
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 111–114).
The fragments, or at least a part of them, are ascribed to Dionysius in
the codex in which they are found, and are very likely genuine, though
we cannot speak with certainty. For fuller particulars, see Dittrich,
p. 22 sq.
But our account of these matters
being now completed, permit us to show to posterity the character of
our own age. τὴν καθ᾽
ἡμᾶς
γενε€ν. This
seems to indicate that the events recorded by Eusebius from this point
on took place during his own lifetime. See above, p. 4.
Chapter XXVII.—Paul of Samosata, and the Heresy introduced by him at Antioch.
1. After Xystus had presided over the church of Rome for
eleven years, Xystus II. was bishop only eleven months, not eleven years. See
chap. 5, note 5. Eusebius’ chronology of the Roman bishops of
this time is in inextricable confusion. After the martyrdom of Xystus II. the bishopric of Rome remained
vacant for nearly a year on account of the severe persecution of
Valerian. Dionysius became bishop on the 22d of July, 259, according to
the Liberian catalogue. Lipsius accepts this as the correct date.
Jerome’s version of the Chron. gives the twelfth year of
“Valerian and Gallienus” (i.e. 265–266) which is wide
of the mark. The Armenian Chron. gives the eighth year of the
same reign. As to the duration of his episcopate, authorities vary
considerably. Eusebius (chap. 30, §23, below) and Jerome’s
version of the Chron. say nine years; the Armenian
Chron., twelve; the Liberian catalogue, eight. Lipsius shows
that nine is the correct figure, and that five months and two days are
to be read instead of the two months and four days of the Liberian
catalogue. According to Lipsius, then, he was bishop until Dec. 27,
268. Dionysius of Alexandria addressed to Dionysius of Rome, while the
latter was still a presbyter, one of his epistles on baptism (see
above, chap. 7, §6, where the latter is called by Eusebius a
“learned and capable man”). Another epistle of the same
writer addressed to him is mentioned in chap. 9, §6. Dionysius of
Alexandria’s four books against the Sabellians were likewise
addressed to him (see chap. 26, above, and Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1).
Gallienus’ edict of toleration was promulgated while Dionysius
was bishop (see chap. 13, note 3). On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12. Paul of Samosata was one of the most famous heretics of the early
Church. He was bishop of Antioch and at the same time viceroy of
Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. Both versions of Eusebius’
Chron. put the date of his accession to the see of Antioch in
the seventh year of Valerian and Gallienus, the year of Abr. 2277
(2278), i.e. in a.d. 259 (260); and
Jerome’s version puts his deposition in the year of Abr. 2283,
i.e. a.d. 265. These dates, however, are not
to be relied upon. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51) shows that
he became bishop between 257 and 260. Our chief knowledge of his
character and career is derived from the encyclical letter written by
the members of the council which condemned him, and quoted in part by
Eusebius in chap. 30, below. This, as will be seen, paints his
character in very black colors. It may be somewhat overdrawn, for it
was written by his enemies; at the same time, such an official
communication can hardly have falsified the facts to any great extent.
We may rely then upon its general truthfulness. Paul reproduced the
heresy of Artemon (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28), teaching that Christ
was a mere man, though he was filled with divine power, and that from
his birth, not merely from his baptism, as the Ebionites had held. He
admitted, too, the generation by the Holy Spirit. “He denied the
personality of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit, and considered them
merely powers of God, like reason and mind in man; but granted that the
Logos dwelt in Christ in a larger measure than in any former messenger
of God, and taught, like the Socinians in later times, a gradual
elevation of Christ, determined by his own moral development, to divine
dignity. He admitted that Christ remained free from sin, conquered the
sin of our forefathers, and then became the Saviour of the race”
(Schaff). At various Antiochian synods (the exact number of them we do
not know), efforts were made to procure his condemnation, but they were
not successful. Finally one of the synods condemned and excommunicated
him, and Domnus was appointed bishop in his place. The date of this
synod is ordinarily fixed at 268 or 269, but it cannot have occurred in
269, and probably occurred earlier than 268 (see below, chap. 29, note
1). Since Paul was in favor with Zenobia, his deposition could not be
effected until 272, when Aurelian conquered her. Being appealed to by
the Church, Aurelian left the decision between the claims of Paul and
Domnus to the bishops of Rome and Italy, who decided at once for
Domnus, and Paul was therefore deposed and driven out in
disgrace. Our sources for a
knowledge of Paul and his heresy are the letter quoted in chap. 30; a
number of fragments from the acts of the council, given by Routh,
Rel. Sac. III. 287 sq.; and scattered notices in the Fathers of
the fourth century, especially Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa,
&c. Cf. also Jerome’s de vir. ill. 71, and
Epiphanius’ Hær. 65. See Harnack’s article
Monarchianismus, in Herzog, second ed. (abbreviated in
Schaff-Herzog); also Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ.
Biog., art. Paulus of Samosata.
2. As he held, contrary to the
teaching of the Church, low and degraded views of Christ, namely, that
in his nature he was a common man, Dionysius of Alexandria was
entreated to come to the synod. This synod to which Dionysius was invited was not the last one, at
which Paul was condemned, but one of the earlier ones, at which his
case was considered. It is not probable that the synod was called
especially to consider his case, but that at two or more of the regular
annual synods of Antioch the subject was discussed without result,
until finally condemnation was procured (cf. Harnack, ibid. p.
52, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 228). Dionysius mentions the fact that
he was invited to attend this synod in an epistle addressed to
Cornelius, according to Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 46. Jerome, de vir. ill. 69, tells us that Dionysius wrote a
few days before his death, but that is only an inference drawn from
Eusebius’ statement. This epistle of Dionysius is no longer
extant, although a copy of it was originally appended to the encyclical
of the Antiochian synod (as we learn from chap. 30, §4), and hence
must have been extant in the time of Eusebius, and also of Jerome. An
epistle purporting to have been written by Dionysius to Paul of
Samosata is given by Labbe, Concil. I. 850–893, but it is
not authentic.
Chapter XXVIII.—The Illustrious Bishops of that Time.
1. Of
these, the most eminent were Firmilianus, On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3. Gregory Thaumaturgus. On him and his brother, Athenodorus, see Bk.
VI. chap. 30, notes 1 and 2. On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. He presided at the final
council which deposed Paul of Samosata, according to the Libellus
Synodicus (see Labbe, Concilia, I. 893, 901), and this is
confirmed by the fact that in the encyclical epistle written by this
synod his name stands first (see chap. 30). Of Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, we know nothing. An
earlier bishop of the same city, named Celsus, is mentioned in Book VI.
chap. 19, above. On Hymenæus, see chap. 14, note 11. On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9. Of Maximus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, we know nothing. On
Beryllus, an earlier and more celebrated bishop of the same city, see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 33. i.e. Antioch.
2. When all of these assembled at different times and frequently to consider these matters, the arguments and questions were discussed at every meeting; the adherents of the Samosatian endeavoring to cover and conceal his heterodoxy, and the others striving zealously to lay bare and make manifest his heresy and blasphemy against Christ.
3. Meanwhile, Dionysius died in
the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, In both versions of the Chron. the death of Dionysius is
put in the eleventh year of Gallienus, i.e. August, 263, to August,
264, and this, or the date given here by Eusebius (the twelfth year,
August, 264, to August, 265) is undoubtedly correct. Upon the dates of
his accession and death, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. Maximus had been a presbyter while Dionysius was bishop of
Alexandria, and had shared with him the hardships of the Decian and
Valerian persecutions (see above, chap. 11). In chap. 32, he is said to
have held office eighteen years, and with this both versions of the
Chron. agree, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of
the report.
4. Gallienus after a reign of
fifteen years Eusebius here, as in his Chron., reckons the reign of
Gallienus as beginning with the date of his association with his father
in the supreme power; i.e. August, 253. Claudius became emperor in March, 268, and died of an epidemic in
Sirmium some time in the year 270, when he was succeeded by Aurelian,
whom he had himself appointed his successor just before his death. It
is, perhaps, with this in mind that Eusebius uses the somewhat peculiar
phrase, μεταδίδωσι
τὴν
ἡγεμονίαν
Chapter XXIX.—Paul, having been refuted by Malchion, a Presbyter from the Sophists, was excommunicated.
1. During his reign a final synod Eusebius puts this council in the reign of Aurelian
(270–275), and in chap. 32 makes it subsequent to the siege of
the Brucheium which, according to his Chron., took place in 272.
The epistle written at this council (and given in the next chapter) is
addressed to Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, and Dionysius, bishop of
Rome, so that the latter must have been alive in 272, if the council
was held as late as that. The council is ordinarily, however, assigned
to the year 269, and Dionysius’ death to December of the same
year; but Lipsius has shown (ibid. p. 226 ff.) that the synod
which Eusebius mentions here was held in all probability as early as
265 (but not earlier than 264, because Dionysius of Alexandria was not
succeeded by Maximus until that year), certainly not later than 268,
and hence it is not necessary to extend the episcopate of Dionysius of
Rome beyond 268, the date which he has shown to be most probable (see
chap. 27, note 2). Eusebius then is entirely mistaken in putting the
council into the reign of Aurelian. i.e. Paul of Samosata. Malchion gained such fame from his controversy with Paul that an
account of him is given by Jerome in his de vir. ill. 71. He
tells us, however, nothing new about him, except that he was the author
of an epistle to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, referring probably
to the encyclical letter given in the next chapter. We do not know upon
what authority he bases this statement; in fact knowing the character
of his work, we shall probably be safe in assuming that the statement
is no more than a guess on his part. There is nothing improbable in the
report, but we must remember that Jerome is our only authority for it,
and he is in such a case very poor authority (nevertheless, in
Fremantle’s articles, Malchion, in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog., the report is repeated as a fact). Both Eusebius and Jerome
tell us that the report of his discussion with Paul was extant in their
day, and a few fragments of it have been preserved, and are given by
Leontius (de Sectis, III. p. 504, according to
Fremantle). τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν
οὐρανὸν
καθολικῆς
ἐκκλησίας, i.e., “from the entire Catholic
Church.” The phrase is usually strengthened by a πᾶς, as in the next
chapter, § 2. On the use of the phrase, “Catholic
Church,” see Bk. IV. chap. 15, note 6.
2. Malchion especially drew him out of his hiding-place and refuted him. He was a man learned in other respects, and principal of the sophist school of Grecian learning in Antioch; yet on account of the superior nobility of his faith in Christ he had been made a presbyter of that parish. This man, having conducted a discussion with him, which was taken down by stenographers and which we know is still extant, was alone able to detect the man who dissembled and deceived the others.
Chapter XXX.—The Epistle of the Bishops against Paul.
1. The
pastors who had assembled about this matter, prepared by common consent
an epistle addressed to Dionysius, On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2. On Maximus of Alexandria, see chap. 28, note 10.
2. “To Dionysius and
Maximus, and to all our fellow-ministers throughout the world, bishops,
presbyters, and deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church under
heaven, This phrase differs from that used in the previous chapter by the
addition of πᾶς. On
Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. On Hymenæus and Theotecnus
see above chap. 14, notes 11 and 9. Hierax is possibly the bishop
addressed by Dionysius in the epistle quoted in chap. 21. Malchion is
mentioned in the preceding chapter; Maximus of Bostra and Nicomas of
Iconium, in chap. 28, as distinguished bishops. Of the others we know
nothing. It
has been suggested that Theodorus may be Gregory Thaumaturgus, who was
also known by that name (see Bk. VI. chap. 30); but this is extremely
improbable for everywhere else in referring to him as bishop, Eusebius
calls him Gregory, and in chap. 31 speaks of him as one of the most
celebrated bishops, and puts him near the head of the list. Here
Theodorus is placed near the end of the list, and no prominence is
given him. There is in fact no reason to identify the two. The name
Theodorus was a very common one.
3. A little farther on they
proceed thus: “We sent for and called many of the bishops from a
distance to relieve us from this deadly doctrine; as Dionysius of
Alexandria See
chap. 27. On
Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3. On
this epistle, see chap. 27, note 6. As we see from this passage, the
epistle of Dionysius was addressed not to Paul himself, but to the
council, and hence could not be identified with the epistle given by
Labbe, even were the latter authentic.
4. But Firmilianus came twice It
is plain from this passage that the case of Paul of Samosata had been
discussed in at least two Antiochian synods before the one which
deposed him, and not only in one as has been claimed. The passage
shows, too, the way in which Paul escaped condemnation so long. Not
merely on account of his influential position, as some have said, but
also because he promised that he would give up his heresy and conform
his teaching to the orthodox faith. The language would seem to imply
that Firmilian had presided at the synod or synods, which are referred
to here; and this is assumed by most writers. On Firmilian, see Bk. VI.
chap. 26, note 3. The
words “and Lord” are wanting in some good mss. as well as in Rufinus, and are consequently omitted
by Schwegler and Heinichen. But I have preferred to follow the majority
of the mss. and all the other editors in
retaining the words which are really necessary to the sense; for it is
not meant that Paul denied God, but that he denied his God and Lord
Jesus Christ; namely, by rejecting his essential deity.
5. And now Firmilianus was again
on his way to Antioch, and had come as far as Tarsus because he had
learned by experience his God-denying wickedness. But while we, having
come together, were calling for him and awaiting his arrival, he
died.” On
the date of Firmilian’s death, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3,
above.
6. After other things they
describe as follows the manner of life which he i.e. Paul of Samosata.
7. “Whereas he has
departed from the rule of faith, τοῦ
κανόνος. I
follow Heinichen in reading ὧν žτι
ἐκσείει τοὺς
ἀδελφούς, which is supported by five important mss. (cf. Heinichen’s note in loco). The
majority of the editors read ὧν
αἰτεῖ καὶ
σείει κ.τ.λ., which, however, is not so well supported by ms. authority. Laemmer, on the authority of a single
codex, reads ὧν žτι καὶ
σείει, and still
other variations occur in some mss.
8. or in that he is haughty, and
is puffed up, and assumes worldly dignities, preferring to be called
ducenarius Paul was the “Procurator Ducenarius” of Zenobia, the
queen of Palmyra, an official so-called because his salary was 200
sestertia. “The Ducenarius was an imperial procurator, so-called
from his salary of 200 sesteria, or 1600 pounds a year. Some critics
suppose that the bishop of Antioch had actually obtained such an office
from Zenobia” (Gibbon). There seems to be no reason to doubt that
Paul held such a position under Zenobia, which appears to be the
implication of the words here, and so he is commonly spoken of as a
high official, even as “Viceroy” of Zenobia. We know from
Athanasius (Hist. Ar. §71, Oxf. ed. Chap. VIII. §10),
that he was a great favorite with Zenobia, and that to her he owed the
privilege of retaining his bishopric after the synod had deposed him.
This friendship shown toward him by Zenobia, who was of the strictest
manners, is much in his favor, and almost tempts us to doubt the
terrible character given him in this epistle by the members of the
synod. There must have been some palliating circumstances in the case.
He can hardly have been as unqualifiedly bad as this letter paints
him.
9. or in that he practices
chicanery in ecclesiastical assemblies, contrives to glorify himself,
and deceive with appearances, and astonish the minds of the simple,
preparing for himself a tribunal and lofty throne, Valesius says, “The Fathers do not here condemn Paul because
he had a throne; …but because he erected a tribunal for himself
in the church and placed upon that a high throne. Rufinus, therefore,
translates this passage correctly: In ecclesia vero tribunal sibi
multo altius quam fuerat exstrui, et thronum in excelsioribus collocari
jubet. Bishops did sit on a seat a little higher than the rest of
the presbyters, but they did not have a tribunal.” This has been
frequently quoted, and is on the whole a true statement of facts. But
the Greek is βῆμα μὲν καὶ
θρόνον
ὑψηλόν, and
Rufinus is certainly wrong in putting his multo altius with the
tribunal. The emphasis, as the Greek reads, is upon the βῆμα as such, not upon the height of it, while the θρόνος is condemned because of its height. The translation of
Rufinus shows what was the custom in his day. He could not understand
that a βῆμα should be
objected to as such. Greek σήκρητον, for the Latin secretum, which was the name of the
place where the civil magistrates and higher judges sat to decide
cases, and which was raised and enclosed with railings and curtains in
order to separate it from the people. In the present case it means of
course a sort of cabinet which Paul had at the side of the tribunal, in
which he could hold private conferences, and whose resemblance to the
secretum of a civil magistrate he delighted to
emphasize.
10. and stops the psalms to our
Lord Jesus Christ, as being the modern productions of modern men, and
trains women to sing psalms to himself in the midst of the church on
the great day of the passover, which any one might shudder to hear, and
persuades the bishops and presbyters of the neighboring districts and
cities who fawn
11. For to anticipate something
of what we shall presently write, he is unwilling to acknowledge that
the Son of God has come down from heaven. And this is not a mere
assertion, but it is abundantly proved from the records which we have
sent you; and not least where he says ‘Jesus Christ is from
below.’ ᾽Ιησοῦν
χριστὸν
κ€τωθεν.
Compare, by way of contrast, the words of The account seems to me without doubt overdrawn at this point. It
was such a common thing, from the time of Herod Agrippa down, to accuse
a man who was noted for his arrogance of encouraging the people to call
him an angel descended from heaven, that we should almost be surprised
if the accusation were omitted here. We have no reason to think, in
spite of the report of these good Fathers, that Paul’s
presumption went to such a blasphemous and at the same time absurd
length.
12. And there are the women, the
‘subintroductæ,’ συνείσακτοι. On these Subintroductæ, see Smith and
Cheetham’s Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v. It is quite probable that Paul had given some ground for the
suspicions which the worthy bishops breathe here, but that is very far
from saying that he was actually guilty of immorality. In fact, just
below (§13), they show that these are nothing more than
suspicions. Exactly what position the two women held who are mentioned
in §14 it is difficult to say, but Paul must of course have given
some plausible reason for their presence, and this is implied in
§16, where the writers say that were he orthodox, they would
inquire his reasons for this conduct, but since he is a heretic, it is
not worth while to investigate the matter. As remarked above, while the
direct statements of the epistle can in the main hardly be doubted, we
must nevertheless remember that the prejudices of the writers would
lead them to paint the life of Paul as black as circumstances could
possibly warrant, and unfounded suspicions might therefore easily be
taken as equivalent to proved charges.
13. We know, beloved, that the bishop and all the clergy should be an example to the people of all good works. And we are not ignorant how many have fallen or incurred suspicion, through the women whom they have thus brought in. So that even if we should allow that he commits no sinful act, yet he ought to avoid the suspicion which arises from such a thing, lest he scandalize some one, or lead others to imitate him.
14. For how can he reprove or
admonish another not to be too familiar with women,—lest he fall,
as it is written, cf.
15. Because of these things all mourn and lament by themselves; but they so fear his tyranny and power, that they dare not accuse him.
16. But as we have said, while
one might call the man to account for this conduct, if he held the
Catholic doctrine and was numbered with us, We
get a glimpse here of the relative importance of orthodoxy and morality
in the minds of these Fathers. Had Paul been orthodox, they would have
asked him to explain his course, and would have endeavored to persuade
him to reform his conduct; but since he was a heretic, it was not worth
while. It is noticeable that he is not condemned because he is immoral,
but because he is heretical. The implication is that he might have been
even worse than he was in his morals and yet no decisive steps have
been taken against him, had he not deviated from the orthodox faith.
The Fathers, in fact, by their letters, put themselves in a sad
dilemma. Either Paul was not as wicked as they try to make him out, or
else they were shamefully indifferent to the moral character of their
bishops, and even of the incumbents of their most prominent
sees. On
Artemas, or Artemon, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1. Paul’s heresy
was a reproduction of his, as remarked above, chap. 27, note
4.
17. Afterwards, at the close of the epistle, they add these words:
“Therefore we have been
compelled to excommunicate him, since he sets himself against God, and
refuses to obey; and to appoint in his place another bishop for the
Catholic Church. By divine direction, as we believe, we have appointed
Domnus, The action of this council in appointing Domnus was entirely
irregular, as the choice of the bishop devolved upon the clergy and the
people of the diocese. But the synod was afraid that Paul’s
influence would be great enough to secure his re-election, and hence
they took this summary means of disposing of him. But it was only after
the accession of Aurelian that Paul was actually removed from his
bishopric and Domnus was enabled to enter upon his office (see chap.
27, note 4). The exact date of Domnus’ appointment is uncertain,
as already shown (see the note just referred to); so also the date of
his death. Both versions of the Chron. put his accession in the
year of Abr. 2283 (a.d. 265), and
Jerome’s version puts the accession of his successor,
Timæus, in the year of Abr. 2288 (a.d.
270), while the Armenian omits the notice entirely. We can place no
reliance whatever upon these dates; the date of Domnus’ death is
certainly at least two years too early (see the note already referred
to). On Demetrianus, the predecessor of Paul in the episcopate of
Antioch, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12. τὰ
κοινωνικὰ
γρ€μματα. Valesius says: “The Latins call them literas
communicatorias, and the use of them is very ancient in the Church.
They were also called formatæ (cf. Augustine Epistle 163).
These writers were of two kinds: the one given to the clergy and laity
when they were going to travel, in order that they might be admitted to
communion by foreign bishops: while the other kind were sent by bishops
to other bishops to declare their communion with them, and were in turn
received from other bishops. Of the latter the synod speaks here. They
were usually sent by new bishops soon after their ordination.”
Valesius refers to Augustine (ibid.), to Cyprian’s epistle
to Cornelius (Ep. 41, al. 45), and to the synodical
epistle of the Council of Sardica. This is a very keen bit of sarcasm. As Harnack remarks, the
mention of Artemas in this way proves (or at least renders it very
probable) that he was still alive at this time, in which case his
activity in Rome must be put somewhat later than the commonly accepted
dates, viz. the episcopate of Zephyrinus (202–217).
19. But as Paul refused to
surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned; and
he decided the matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given
to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should
adjudge it. See chap. 27, note 4. The bishop of Rome to whose judgment
Aurelian appealed was Felix, mentioned below.
20. Such was Aurelian’s
treatment of us at that time; but in the course of his reign he changed
his mind in regard to us, and was moved by certain advisers to
institute a persecution against us. Aurelian, according to tradition, was the author of the ninth of
the “ten great persecutions” against the Church. But the
report is a mistake. Eusebius apparently is the ultimate source to
which the report is to be referred, but he says expressly that he died
before he was able to begin his intended persecution, and more than
that, that he was even prevented from signing the decree, so that it is
not proper to speak even of an hostile edict of Aurelian (as many do
who reject the actual persecution). It is true that in
Lactantius’ De mort. persecutorum, chap. 6, it is said
that Aurelian actually issued edicts against the Christians, but that
he died before they had found their way to the most distant provinces.
It seems probable, however, that Eusebius’ account is nearest the
truth, and that the reports that Aurelian actually signed the edicts as
well as that he commenced the persecution are both developments from
the original and more correct version of the affair which Eusebius
gives. There is no reason to doubt the account of Eusebius.
Aurelian’s conduct in the case of Paul does not imply any special
friendliness on his part toward the Church. The Christians had secured
legal recognition under Gallienus; and it was a simple act of common
justice to put the valuable property of the Church in Antioch into the
hands of the rightful owners whoever they might be. His act does imply,
however, that he cannot have been in the beginning actively hostile to
the Church, for in that case he would simply have driven Paul out, and
confiscated the property.
21. But as he was about to do
it, and was, so to speak, in the very act of signing the decrees
against us, the divine judgment came upon him and restrained him at the
very verge μονονουχὶ
ἐξ ἀγκώνων
τῆς
ἐγχειρήσεως
αὐτὸν
ἐπιδεσμοῦσα
22. After a reign of six
years, Aurelian reigned from 270 to 275, and was succeeded by Tacitus,
who ruled only six months, and he in turn by Probus (276 to 282), who
was followed by Carus and his sons Carinus and Numerian, and they in
turn by Diocletian in 284. Eusebius here omits Tacitus, although he
mentions him in his Chron., and assigns six months to his reign,
and five years and six months to the reign of Aurelian. Diocletian associated Maximian with himself in the government in
286, and sent him to command the West with the title of Augustus. In
293 he appointed Constantius Chlorus and Galerius as Cæsars,
giving to the former the government of Gaul and Britain, to the latter
that of the provinces between the Adriatic and the Euxine, while
Maximian held Africa and Italy, and Diocletian himself retained the
provinces of Asia. He issued an edict, opening his famous persecution
against the Christians, of which Eusebius gives an account in the next
book, on Feb. 23, 303.
23. Shortly before this,
Dionysius, On Dionysius, bishop of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2. According to the Liberian catalogue, Felix became bishop on the
fifth of January, 269, and held office five years eleven months and
twenty-five days, until the thirtieth of December, 274, and these dates
Lipsius accepts as correct. Eusebius, in chap. 32, gives five years as
the duration of his episcopate, and with this Jerome’s version of
the Chron. agrees, while the Armenian gives nineteen years,
which is absolutely inconsistent with its own notices, and must be of
course a copyist’s mistake. Jerome puts the accession of Felix in
the first year of Probus, which is wide of the mark, and the Armenian
in the first year of Aurelian, which is not so far out of the
way. Felix addressed a
letter, in regard to Paul of Samosata, to Maximus and the clergy of
Antioch, of which fragments have been preserved in the Apology of Cyril
of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (given by
Mansi, Conc. I. 1114). The report of his martyrdom is probably a
mistake, and has resulted from confusing him with Felix II., who was
bishop of Rome in the fourth century.
Chapter XXXI.—The Perversive Heresy of the Manicheans which began at this Time.
1. At
this time, the madman, The name Manes, or Mani, is not of Greek, but of Persian or
Semitic origin. It has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The Greek
form is Μ€νης or
Μανιχαῖος; the Latin form, Manes or Manichæus. In
this place Eusebius instead of giving him his true name makes a play
upon it, calling him ὁ
μανεὶς
τὰς φρένας, “the madman.” This does not imply that
Eusebius supposed his name was originally Greek. He perhaps—as
others of the Fathers did—regarded it as a sign of divine
providence that the Persian name chosen by himself (Mani was not his
original name) should when reproduced in Greek bear such a significant
meaning. See Stroth’s note on this passage. Eusebius’ brief
account is the first authentic description we have of Manes and
Manichæism. It is difficult to get at the exact truth in regard to
the life of Manes himself. We have it reported in two conflicting
forms, an Oriental and an Occidental. The former, however,—though
our sources for it are much later than for the latter—is
undoubtedly the more reliable of the two. The differences between the
two accounts cannot be discussed here. We know that Mani was a
well-educated Persian philosopher of the third century (according to
Kessler, 205–276 a.d.; according to the
Oriental source used by Beausobre, about 240–276), who attempted
to supersede Zoroastrianism, the old religion of Persia, by a
syncretistic system made up of elements taken from Parsism, Buddhism,
and Christianity. He was at first well received by the Persian king,
Sapor I., but aroused the hatred of the Magian priests, and was
compelled to flee from the country. Returning after some time, he
gained a large following, but was put to death by King Varanes I, about
276 a.d. His sect spread rapidly throughout
Christendom, and in spite of repeated persecutions flourished for many
centuries. The mysteriousness of its doctrine, its compact
organization, its apparent solution of the terrible problem of evil,
and its show of ascetic holiness combined to make it very attractive to
thoughtful minds, as, e.g. to Augustine. The fundamental principle of
the system is a radical dualism between good and evil, light and
darkness. This dualism runs through its morals as well as through its
theology, and the result is a rigid asceticism. Christianity furnished
some ideas, but its influence is chiefly seen in the organization of
the sect, which had apostles, bishops, presbyters, deacons, and
traveling missionaries. Manichæism cannot be called a
heresy,—it was rather an independent religion as Mohammedanism
was. The system cannot be further discussed here. The chief works upon
the subject are Beausobre’s Hist. Crit. de Manichée et du
Manichéisme, Amst. 1734 and 1739, 2 vols.; Baur’s Das
Manichäische Religionssystem, Tüb. 1831;
Flügel’s Mani, Seine Lehre und seine Schriften, aus den
Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadûn, Leipzig, 1882; and two
works by Kessler (Leipzig, 1876 and 1882). See also the discussions of
the system in the various Church histories, and especially the
respective articles by Stokes and Kessler in Smith and Wace’s
Dict. of Christ. Biog. and in Herzog. Beausobre maintains that Mani did not pretend to be the Paraclete,
but merely a man, the messenger of the Paraclete. The Fathers
generally, however agree with Eusebius in asserting that his claims
were of the very highest sort. The point cannot be satisfactorily
settled.
2. And he patched together false
and godless doctrines collected from a multitude of long-extinct
impieties, and swept them, like a deadly poison, from Persia to our
part of the world. From him the impious name of the Manicheans is still
prevalent among many. Such was the foundation of this “knowledge
falsely so-called,” See
Chapter
XXXII.—The Distinguished
Ecclesiastics ἐκκλησιαστικῶν
ἀνδρῶν.
1. At
this time, Felix, On Felix, see chap. 30, note 34. Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees with this
passage in assigning eight months to the episcopate of Eutychianus,
while the Armenian gives him only two months. The Liberian catalogue,
however, gives eight years eleven months and three days; and Lipsius
accepts these figures as correct, putting his accession on the fifth of
January, 275, and his death on the eighth of December, 283. Jerome puts
his accession in the fifth year of Probus, which is wide of the mark,
the Armenian in the second year, which is also too late by about two
years. Lipsius explains the eight months of the Church History
and the Chron. as a change, in their original source, of years
to mouths. The present error makes up in part for the error in chap.
27, where Xystus is given eleven years instead of eleven months.
Eutychianus was not a martyr, but was buried, according to the Liberian
catalogue, in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, a statement which has been
confirmed by the discovery of a stone bearing his name. According to the Liberian catalogue, Caius became bishop on the
17th of December, 283, and held office for twelve years four months and
six (or seven) days, i.e. until April 22, 296, and these dates are
accepted by Lipsius as correct. Both versions of the Chron.
agree with the History in assigning fifteen years to
Caius’ episcopate, but this error is of a piece with the others
which abound in this period. The report of his martyrdom is
fabulous. According to the Liberian catalogue, Marcellinus became bishop on
the 30th of June, 296, and held office for eight years three months and
twenty-five days, i.e. until the 25th of October, 304, and these dates
Lipsius accepts as correct, although there is considerable uncertainty
as to the exact date of his death. Jerome’s version of the
Chron. puts his accession in the twelfth year of Diocletian,
which is not far out of the way, but does not give the duration of his
episcopate, nor does Eusebius in his History. The Armenian
Chron. does not mention Marcellinus at all. Tradition, although
denied by many of the Fathers, says that he proved wanting in the
Diocletian persecution, and this seems to have been a fact. It is also
said that he afterward repented and suffered martyrdom, but that is
only an invention. The expression of Eusebius in this connection is
ambiguous; he simply says he was “overtaken by the
persecution,” which might mean martyrdom, or might mean simply
arrest. The eleven bishops that preceded him from Pontianus to Caius
were buried in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, but he was buried in
those of Priscilla.
2. About the same time
Timæus Of
Timæus we know nothing, nor can we fix his dates. The
Chron. puts his accession in the year of Abr. 2288 (270 a.d.), and the accession of his successor, Cyril, in
2297 (279 a.d.), but the former at least is
certainly far too early. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53)
concludes that Cyril must have been bishop as early as 280, and hence
neither Domnus nor Timæus can have held office a great
while. On Domnus, see chap. 30, note 24. According to Jerome’s Chron., Cyril became bishop in
the year of Abr. 2297, or fourth year of Probus (279–280 a.d.); and Harnack accepts this as at least
approximately correct. The same authority puts the accession of his
successor, Tyrannus, in the eighteenth year of Diocletian
(301–302 a.d.), and just below Eusebius
says that the destruction of the churches (in Diocletian’s
persecution) took place under Tyrannus, not under Cyril. But the
Passio sanctorum quattuor coronatorum (see Mason’s
Persecution of Diocletian, p. 259–271) contains a
reference to him which assumes that he was condemned to the mines, and
died there after three years. The condemnation, if a fact, must have
taken place after the second edict of Diocletian (303 a.d.), and his death therefore in 306. There is no other
authority for this report, but Harnack considers it in the highest
degree probable, and the indirect way in which Cyril is mentioned
certainly argues for its truth. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome, however,
seems to have known anything about it, and this is very hard to
explain. The matter must, in fact, be left undecided. See Harnack,
Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53 sq. This Dorotheus and his contemporary, Lucian (mentioned below, in
Bk. VIII. chap. 13), are the earliest representatives of the sound
critical method of Biblical exegesis, for which the theological school
at Antioch was distinguished, over against the school of Alexandria, in
which the allegorical method was practiced. From Bk. VIII. chap. 6 we
learn that Dorotheus suffered martyrdom by hanging early in the
Diocletian persecution, so that it must have been from this emperor,
and not from Constantine, that he received his appointment mentioned
just below. Diocletian, before he began to persecute, had a number of
Christian officials in his household, and treated them with
considerable favor. As
Closs remarks, the knowledge of Hebrew was by no means a common thing
among the early teachers of the Church; and therefore Dorotheus is
praised for his acquaintance with it.
3. He belonged to those who were
especially liberal, and was not unacquainted with Grecian
propædeutics. προπαιδείας
τῆς καθ᾽
῞Ελληνας. Compare. Bk. VI. chap. 18, §3. According to the first canon of the Council of Nicæa (see
Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I. p. 376), persons who made
themselves eunuchs were not to be allowed to become clergymen, nor to
remain clergymen if already such. But this prohibition was not to apply
to persons who were made eunuchs by physicians or by their persecutors;
and the latter part of the canon confines the prohibition expressly to
those who have purposely performed the act upon themselves, and hence
nothing would have stood in the way of the advancement of one born a
eunuch as Dorotheus was, even had he lived after the Council of
Nicæa, and still less previous to that time. Closs (followed by
Heinichen) is therefore hardly correct in regarding the fact that
Dorotheus held office as an exception to the established order of
things. i.e. Diocletian.
4. After Cyril, Tyrannus According to Jerome’s Chron. Tyrannus became bishop
in the eighteenth year of Diocletian (301–302). If the account of
Cyril’s death accepted by Harnack be taken as correct, this date
is at least a year too early. If Cyril was sent to the mines in 303 and
died in 306, Tyrannus may have become bishop in 303, or not until 306.
According to Theodoret, H. E. I. 3, his successor, Vitalis, is
said to have become bishop “after peace had been restored to the
Church,” which seems to imply, though it is not directly said,
that Tyrannus himself lived until that time (i.e. until 311). We know
nothing certainly either about his character or the dates of his
episcopate.
5. Eusebius, This
Eusebius, who is mentioned with praise by Dionysius of Alexandria, in
the epistle quoted in chap. 11, above, was a deacon in the church of
Alexandria, who distinguished himself by his good offices during the
persecution of Valerian (a.d. 257), as
recorded in that epistle, and also during the revolt and siege of
Alexandria after the death of Valerian (in 262), as recorded in this
chapter. From the account given here we see that he attended the first,
or at least one of the earlier councils of Antioch in which the case of
Paul was discussed (undoubtedly as the representative of Dionysius,
whose age prevented his attending the first one, as mentioned in chap.
27), and the Laodiceans, becoming acquainted with him there, compelled
him to accept the bishopric of their church, at that time vacant. As we
see from the account of Anatolius’ appointment farther on in this
chapter, he died before the meeting of the council which condemned
Paul. We know in regard to him only what is told us in these two
chapters. The name Eusebius was a very common one in the early Church.
The Dict. of Christ. Biog. mentions 137 persons of that name
belonging to the first eight centuries. Of
this Socrates we know nothing. In
chap. 11, above.
6. Anatolius Anatolius we are told here was a man of great distinction both for
his learning and for his practical common sense. It is not said that he
held any ecclesiastical office in Alexandria, but farther on in the
chapter we are told that he left that city after the close of the
siege, as Eusebius had done, and that he was ordained assistant bishop
by Theotecnus, bishop of Cæsarea, and was the latter’s
colleague in that church for a short time. When on his way to (possibly
on his return from) the synod of Antioch, which passed condemnation
upon Paul (and at which Theotecnus was also present), he passed through
Laodicea and was prevailed upon to accept the bishopric of that city,
Eusebius, his old friend, being deceased. The way in which Laodicea got
its two bishops is thus somewhat remarkable. The character of Anatolius
is clear from the account which follows. Jerome mentions him in his
de vir. ill. chap. 73, and in his Ep. ad Magnum (Migne,
No. 70), but adds nothing to Eusebius’ account. Upon his
writings, one of which is quoted in this chapter, see below, notes 21
and 32. τῆς
᾽Αριστοτέλους
διαδοχῆς τὴν
διατριβήν: “A school of the Aristotelian succession,” or
“order.”
7. They relate of him many other
eminent deeds during the siege of the Pyrucheium The
Pyrucheium (the mss. of Eusebius vary
considerably in their spelling, but I have adopted that form which
seems best supported) or Brucheium (as it is called by other ancient
writers and as it is more generally known) was one of the three
districts of Alexandria and was inhabited by the royal family and by
the Greeks. It was the finest and most beautiful quarter of the city,
and contained, besides the royal palaces, many magnificent public
buildings. Comprising, as it did, the citadel as well, it was besieged
a number of times, and it is uncertain which siege is meant in the
present case. It seems to me most likely that we are to think of the
time of the revolt of Æmilian (see above, chap. 11, note 4), in
260 a.d., when the Romans under Theodotus
besieged and finally (just how soon we cannot tell, but the city seems
to have been at peace again at least in 264) took the Brucheium.
Valesius and others think of a later siege under Claudius, but that
seems to me too late (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 345
sq.).
8. They say that bread had failed the besieged, so that it was more difficult to withstand the famine than the enemy outside; but he being present provided for them in this manner. As the other part of the city was allied with the Roman army, and therefore was not under siege, Anatolius sent for Eusebius,—for he was still there before his transfer to Syria, and was among those who were not besieged, and possessed, moreover, a great reputation and a renowned name which had reached even the Roman general,—and he informed him of those who were perishing in the siege from famine.
9. When he learned this he requested the Roman commander as the greatest possible favor, to grant safety to deserters from the enemy. Having obtained his request, he communicated it to Anatolius. As soon as he received the message he convened the senate of Alexandria, and at first proposed that all should come to a reconciliation with the Romans. But when he perceived that they were angered by this advice, he said, “But I do not think you will oppose me, if I counsel you to send the supernumeraries and those who are in nowise useful to us, as old women and children and old men, outside the gates, to go wherever they may please. For why should we retain for no purpose these who must at any rate soon die? and why should we destroy with hunger those who are crippled and maimed in body, when we ought to provide only for men and youth, and to distribute the necessary bread among those who are needed for the garrison of the city?”
10. With such arguments he persuaded the assembly, and rising first he gave his vote that the entire multitude, whether of men or women, who were not needful for the army, should depart from the city, because if they remained and unnecessarily continued in the city, there would be for them no hope of safety, but they would perish with famine.
11. As all the others in the
senate agreed to this, he saved almost all the besieged. He provided
that first, those belonging to the church, and afterwards, of the
others in the city, those of every age should escape, not only the
classes included in the decree, but, under cover of these, a multitude
of others, secretly clothed in women’s garments; and through his
management they went out of the gates by night and escaped to the Roman
camp.
12. The church of Laodicea was honored by two such pastors in succession, who, in the providence of God, came after the aforesaid war from Alexandria to that city.
13. Anatolius did not write very
many works; but in such as have come down to us we can discern his
eloquence and erudition. In these he states particularly his opinions
on the passover. It seems important to give here the following extracts
from them. Anatolius’ work on the passover is still extant in a Latin
translation supposed to be the work of Rufinus (though this is
uncertain), and which was first published by Ægidius Bucherius in
his Doctrina Temporum, Antwerp, 1634. Ideler (Chron. II.
230) claims that this supposed translation of Anatolius is a work of
the seventh century. But there are the best of reasons for supposing it
an early translation of Anatolius’ genuine work (see Zahn,
Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, III. p. 177–196).
The Latin version is given with the other extant fragments of
Anatolius’ works in Migne’s Pat. Gr. X.
209–222, 231–236, and an English translation of the
Paschal Canons in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p.
146–151. Upon this work of Anatolius, see especially the works of
Ideler and Zahn referred to just above.
14. From the Paschal Canons
of Anatolius. “There is then in the first year the new moon
of the first month, which is the beginning of every cycle of nineteen
years, Anatolius was, so far as we know, the first Christian to employ
the old Metonic nineteen-year cycle for the determination of Easter
(see above, chap. 20, note 6). Phamenoth was the seventh month of the Alexandrian year, which was
introduced in the reign of Augustus (b.c. 25)
and began on the 29th of August. The month Phamenoth, therefore, began
on the 25th of February, and the 26th of the month corresponded to the
22d of our March. Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded exactly with our March, so that the 22d of Dystrus was the
22d of March, which according to the Roman method of reckoning was the
eleventh day before the Kalends of April.
15. On the said twenty-sixth of
Phamenoth, the sun is found not only entered on the first segment, i.e. the first of the twelve signs of the Zodiac. On
Anatolius’ method of calculation, see Ideler,
ibid. δωδεκατημόριον: “twelfth-part.”
16. And this is not an opinion
of our own; but it was known to the Jews of old, even before Christ,
and was carefully observed by them. This may be learned from what is
said by Philo, Josephus, and Musæus; So far as I am aware, Musæus is known to us only from this
reference of Anatolius. Who the two Agathobuli were we do not know. In the Chron.
of Eusebius a philosopher Agathobulus is mentioned under the third year
of Hadrian in connection with Plutarch, Sextus, and Œnomaus.
Valesius therefore suspects that Anatolius is in error in putting the
Agathobuli earlier than Philo and Josephus. I must confess, however,
that the connection in which Eusebius mentions Agathobulus in his
Chron. makes it seem to me very improbable that he can be
referring to either of the Agathobuli whom Anatolius mentions, and that
it is much more likely that the latter were two closely related Jewish
writers (perhaps father and son), who lived, as Anatolius says, before
the time of Philo. Aristobulus was a well-known Hellenistic philosopher of
Alexandria, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor in the second
century b.c. He was thoroughly acquainted with
Greek philosophy, and was in many respects the forerunner of Philo.
Anatolius’ statement that he wrote in the time of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, and consequently his report that he was one of the
seventy translators of the Septuagint (on the legend as to its
composition, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31) must be looked upon as
certainly an error (see Clement Alex Strom. I. 22,
Eusebius’ Præp. Evang. IX. 6, and XIII. 12, and his
Chron., year of Abr. 1841). He is mentioned often by Clement of
Alexandria, by Origen (Contra Cels. IV. 51), and by Eusebius,
who in his Præp. Evang. (VII. 14 and VIII. 10) gives two
fragments of his work (or works) On the Mosaic Law. It is
doubtless to this same work that Anatolius refers in the present
passage. No other fragments of his writings are extant. See especially
Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II. p.
760 sq. See also Bk. VI. chap. 23, note 13, above. On
the origin of the LXX, see above, Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31. The mythical
character of the common legend in regard to its composition is referred
to in that note, and that the LXX (or at least that part of it which
comprises the law) was already in existence before the time of
Aristobulus is clear from the latter’s words, quoted by Eusebius,
Præp. Evang. XIII. 12, 1–2 (Heinichen’s
ed.).
17. These writers, explaining questions in regard to the Exodus, say that all alike should sacrifice the passover offerings after the vernal equinox, in the middle of the first month. But this occurs while the sun is passing through the first segment of the solar, or as some of them have styled it, the zodiacal circle. Aristobulus adds that it is necessary for the feast of the passover, that not only the sun should pass through the equinoctial segment, but the moon also.
18. For as there are two equinoctial segments, the vernal and the autumnal, directly opposite each other, and as the day of the passover was appointed on the fourteenth of the month, beginning with the evening, the moon will hold a position diametrically opposite the sun, as may be seen in full moons; and the sun will be in the segment of the vernal equinox, and of necessity the moon in that of the autumnal.
19. I know that many other
things have been said by them, some of them probable, and some
approaching absolute demonstration, by which they endeavor to prove
that it is altogether necessary to keep the passover and the feast of
unleavened bread after the equinox. But I refrain from demanding this
sort of demonstration for matters from which the veil of the Mosaic law
has been removed, so that now at Cf. The Book of Enoch is one of the so-called Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, which was widely used in the ancient Church, and is
quoted in the The teachings of the
book to which Anatolius refers are found in the seventy-second chapter
(Schodde’s ed. p. 179 sq.), which contains a detailed description
of the course of the sun during the various months of the
year.
20. The same writer has also
left the Institutes of Arithmetic, in ten books, ᾽Αριθμητικὰς
εἰσαγωγ€ς. A few fragments of this work are given in the
Theologumena Arithmeticæ (Paris, 1543), p. 9, 16, 24, 34,
56, 64 (according to Fabricius), and by Fabricius in his Bibl.
Gr. II. 275–277 (ed. Harles, III. 462 sq.).
21. Theotecnus, On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9. On
the custom of appointing assistant bishops, see Bk. VI. chap. 11, note
1. Eusebius doubtless refers here to the final council at which Paul
was condemned, and which has been already mentioned in chaps. 29 and 30
(on its date, see chap. 29, note 1). That it is this particular council
to which he refers is implied in the way in which it is spoken
of,—as if referring to the well-known synod, of which so much has
been said,—and still further by the fact that Eusebius, who had
attended the first one (see above, §5), and had then become bishop
of Laodicea, was already dead.
22. And after Anatolius had
departed this life, the last bishop of that parish before the
persecution was Stephen, Of Stephen, bishop of Laodicea, we know only what Eusebius tells
us in this passage.
23. But this did not seriously
injure the church, for Theodotus Theodotus, of whom Eusebius speaks in such high terms in this
passage, was bishop of Laodicea for a great many years, and played a
prominent part in the Arian controversy, being one of the most zealous
supporters of the Arian cause (see Theodoret, H. E. I. 5 and V.
7, and Athanasius de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. I. 17). He was
present at the Council of Nicæa (Labbe, Concil. II. 51),
and took part in the council which deposed Eustathius of Antioch, in
330 (according to Theodoret, H. E. I. 21, whose account, though
unreliable, is very likely correct so far as its list of bishops is
concerned; on the council, see also p. 21, above). He was already dead
in the year 341; for his successor, George, was present at the Council
of Antioch (In Encæniis), which was held in that year (see
Sozomen, H. E. III. 5, and cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I.
p. 502 sq.). We have no information that he was present at the Council
of Tyre, in 335 (as is incorrectly stated by Labbe, who confounds
Theodore of Heraclea with Theodotus; see Theodoret, H. E. I.
28). It is, therefore, possible that he was dead at that time, though
his absence of course does not prove it. According to Socrates, H.
E. II. 46, and Sozomen, H. E. VI. 25, Theodotus had trouble
with the two Apolinarii, father and son, who resided at Antioch. We do
not know the date of the younger Apolinarius’ birth (the
approximate date, 335, given in the article in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. is a gross error), but we can hardly put it much earlier than
320, and therefore as he was a reader in the church, according to
Socrates (Sozomen calls him only a youth) in the time of Theodotus, it
seems best to put the death of the latter as late as possible, perhaps
well on toward 340. The date of his accession is unknown to us; but as
Eusebius says that he became bishop straightway after the fall of
Stephen, we cannot well put his accession later than 311; so that he
held office in all probability some thirty years. Venables’
article on Theodotus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. is a tissue
of errors, caused by identifying Theodotus with Theodore of Heraclea
(an error committed by Labbe before him) and with another Theodotus,
present at the Council of Seleucia, in 359 (Athanasius, ibid. I.
12; cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 713). Θεόδοτος: “God-given.”
24. In Cæsarea in
Palestine, Agapius Of Agapius we know only what Eusebius tells us in this passage. He
was the immediate predecessor of Eusebius in the church of
Cæsarea, and probably survived the persecution, but not for many
years (see above, p. 10 sq.). Eusebius speaks of him in the past tense,
so that he was clearly already dead at the time this part of the
History was written (i.e. probably in 313; see above, p.
45).
25. In his time we became
acquainted with Pamphilus, Pamphilus, a presbyter of Cæsarea, was Eusebius’
teacher and most intimate friend, and after his death Eusebius showed
his affection and respect for him by adopting his name, styling himself
Eusebius Pamphili. He pursued his studies in Alexandria (according to
Photius, under Pierius, more probably under Achillas, the head of the
catechetical school there; see below, notes 42 and 53), and conceived
an unbounded admiration for Origen, the great light of that school,
which he never lost. Pamphilus is chiefly celebrated for the library
which he collected at Cæsarea and to which Eusebius owes a large
part of the materials of his history. Jerome also made extensive use of
it. It was especially rich in copies of the Scripture, of commentaries
upon it, and of Origen’s works (see above, p. 38). He wrote very
little, devoting himself chiefly to the study of Scripture, and to the
transcription of mss. of it and of the works
of Origen. During the last two years of his life, however, while in
prison, he wrote with the assistance of Eusebius a Defense of
Origen in five books, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth
(see above, p. 36 sq.). During the persecution under Maximinus, he was
thrown into prison by Urbanus, prefect of Cæsarea, in 307, and
after remaining two years in close confinement, cheered by the
companionship of Eusebius, he was put to death by Firmilian, the
successor of Urbanus, in 309, as recorded below, in the Martyrs of
Palestine, chap. 11 (see above, p. 9). The Life of Pamphilus
which Eusebius wrote is no longer extant (see above, p. 28). On
Pamphilus, see Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 75, and Photius,
Cod. 118. See also the present volume, p. 5–9
passim. On Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus, see above p. 28
sq.
26. Among those nearest our
times, we have known Pierius, According to Jerome (de vir. ill. 76) Pierius was a
presbyter and a teacher in Alexandria under the emperors Carus and
Diocletian, while Theonas was bishop there (see note 51, below), on
account of the elegance of his writings was called “the younger
Origen,” was skilled, moreover, in dialectics and rhetoric, lived
an ascetic life, and passed his later years, after the persecution, in
Rome. According to Photius, Cod. 118, he was at the head of the
catechetical school of Alexandria, was the teacher of Pamphilus, and
finally suffered martyrdom. Photius may be correct in the former
statements. The last statement is at variance with Jerome’s
distinct report which in the present instance at least is to be
decidedly preferred to that of Photius. The first statement also is
subject to grave doubt, for according to Eusebius (§30, below),
Achillas, who was made presbyter at the same time as Pierius, and who
lived until after the persecution (when he became bishop), was
principal of the school. Eusebius’ statement must be accepted as
correct, and in that case it is difficult to believe the report of
Photius, both on account of Eusebius’ silence in regard to
Pierius’ connection with the school, and also because if Pierius
was principal of the school, he must apparently have given it up while
he was still in Alexandria, or must have left the city earlier than
Jerome says. It is more probable that Photius’ report is false
and rests upon a combination of the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. If
both the first and third statements of Photius are incorrect, little
faith can be placed on the second, which may be true, or which may be
simply a combination of the known fact that Pamphilus studied in
Alexandria with the supposed fact that Pierius was the principal of the
catechetical school while he was there. It is quite as probable that
Pamphilus studied with Achillas. Jerome tells us that a number of works
(tractatuum) by Pierius were extant in his day, among them a
long homily on Hosea (cf. also Jerome’s Comment. in Osee,
prologus). In his second epistle to Pammachius (Migne, No. 49)
Jerome refers also to Pierius’ commentary on First Corinthians,
and quotes from it the words, “In saying this Paul openly
preaches celibacy.” Photius, Cod. 119, mentions a work in
twelve books, whose title he does not name, but in which he tells us
Pierius had uttered some dangerous sentiments in regard to the Spirit,
pronouncing him inferior to the Father and the Son. This work
contained, according to Photius, a book on Luke’s Gospel, and
another on the passover, and on Hosea. Pierius’ writings are no
longer extant. The passages from Jerome’s epistle to Pammachius
and from Photius, Cod. 119, are given, with notes, by Routh,
Rel. Sac. 2d ed. III. 429 sq., and an English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 157. Pierius was evidently a
“younger Origen” in his theology as well as in his literary
character, as we can gather from Photius’ account of him (cf.
Harnack’s Dogmengesch. I. p. 640). A Meletius, bishop of Sabastopolis, is mentioned by Philostorgius
(H. E. I. 8) as in attendance upon the Council of Nicæa,
and it is commonly assumed that this is the same one referred to here
by Eusebius. But Eusebius’ words seem to me to imply clearly that
the Meletius of whom he speaks was already dead at the time he wrote;
and, therefore, if we suppose that Philostorgius is referring to the
same man, we must conclude that he was mistaken in his statement,
possibly confounding him with the later Meletius of Sebaste, afterwards
of Antioch. Our Meletius is, however, doubtless to be identified with
the orthodox Meletius mentioned in terms of praise by Athanasius, in
his Ep. ad Episc. Æg. §8, and by Basil in his De
Spir. Sanct. chap. 29, §74. It is suggested by Stroth that
Eusebius was a pupil of Meletius during the time that the latter was in
Palestine, but this is not implied in Eusebius’ words (see above,
p. 5).
27. The first was distinguished
for his life of extreme poverty and his philosophic learning, and was
exceedingly diligent in the contemplation and exposition of divine
things, and in public discourses in the church. Meletius, whom the
learned called the “honey of Attica,” τὸ μέλι τῆς
᾽Αττικῆς, in allusion to Meletius’ name.
28. For in all branches of knowledge had you undertaken to try him even once, you would have said that he was the most skillful and learned. Moreover, the virtues of his life were not less remarkable. We observed him well in the time of the persecution, when for seven full years he was escaping from its fury in the regions of Palestine.
29. Zambdas The majority of the mss. and editors
read Ζ€μβδας. A few mss. followed by Laemmer
read Ζαβαδᾶς, and a few others with Rufinus, both versions of the
Chron. and Nicephorus Ζ€βδας. We
know nothing about this bishop, except what is told us here and in the
Chron., where he is called the thirty-eighth bishop (Jerome
calls him the thirty-seventh, but incorrectly according to his own
list), and is said to have entered upon his office in the fifteenth
year of Diocletian (Armen. fourteenth), i.e. in 298. Hermon succeeded
him three years later, according to Jerome; two years later, according
to the Armenian version. In chap. 14. See note 11 on that chapter. According to Jerome’s version of the Chron., Hermon
became bishop in the eighteenth year of Diocletian, a.d. 301; according to the Armenian, in the sixteenth
year. The accession of his successor Macharius is put by Jerome in the
eighth year of Constantine, a.d. 312.
Eusebius’ words seem to imply that Hermon was still bishop at the
time he was writing, though it is not certain that he means to say
that. Jerome’s date may be incorrect, but is probably not far out
of the way. Of Hermon himself we know nothing more. See above, chap. 19.
30. In Alexandria, Maximus, On Maximus, see chap. 28, note 10. On Dionysius the Great, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note
1. According to Jerome’s Chron., Theonas became bishop
in the sixth year of Probus (281 a.d.);
according to the Armenian, in the first year of Numerian and Carinus,
i.e. a year later. Both agree with the History in assigning
nineteen years to his episcopate. An interesting and admirable epistle
is extant addressed to Lucian, the chief chamberlain of the emperor,
and containing advice in regard to the duties of his position, which is
commonly and without doubt correctly ascribed to Theonas. The name of
the emperor is not given, but all of the circumstances point to
Diocletian, who had a number of Christians in influential positions in
his household during the earlier years of his reign. The epistle, which
is in Latin (according to some a translation of a Greek original), is
given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 439–445, and an English
translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p.
158–161. The character given to Achillas by Eusebius is confirmed by
Athanasius, who calls him “the great Achillas” (in his
Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt, §23). He succeeded Peter
as bishop of Alexandria (Epiphanius makes him the successor of
Alexander, but wrongly, for the testimony of Athanasius, to say nothing
of Jerome, Socrates, and other writers, is decisive on this point; see
Athanasius’ Apology against the Arians, §§11 and
59, and Epist. to the Bishops of Egypt, §23), but our
authorities differ as to the date of his accession and the length of
his episcopate. Eusebius, in this chapter, §31, puts the death of
Peter in the ninth year of the persecution 311–312), and with
this Jerome agrees in his Chron., and there can be no doubt as
to the correctness of the report. But afterwards, quite inconsistently
(unless it be supposed that Achillas became bishop before Peter’s
death, which, in the face of Eusebius’ silence on the subject, is
very improbable), Jerome puts the accession of Achillas into the fifth
year of Constantine, a.d. 309. Jerome commits
another error in putting the accession of his successor, Alexander, in
the sixteenth year of Constantine (a.d. 320);
for Alexander’s controversy with Arius (see above, p. 11 sq.) can
hardly have broken out later than 318 or 319, and it would appear that
Alexander had been bishop already some time when that took place.
Theodoret (H. E. I. 2) states that Achillas ruled the church but
a short time, and with him agrees Epiphanius (Hær. LXIX.
11), who says that he held office but three months. The casual way in
which Achillas is spoken of in all our sources, most of which mention
him only in passing from Peter to Alexander, would seem to confirm
Theodoret’s report, and Alexander’s accession may,
therefore, be put not long after 311. τῆς ἱερᾶς
πίστεως τὸ
διδασκαλεῖον. Eusebius refers here to the famous catechetical school of
Alexandria (upon which, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2). The
appointment of Achillas to the principalship of this school would seem
to exclude Pierius, who is said by Photius to have been at the head of
it (see above, note 42).
31. After Theonas had held the
office for nineteen years, Peter Peter is mentioned again in Bk. VIII. chap. 13, and in Bk. IX.
chap. 6, and both times in the highest terms. In the latter passage his
death is said to have taken place by order of Maximinus, quite
unexpectedly and without any reason. This was in the ninth year of the
persecution, as we learn from the present passage (i.e. Feb. 311 to
Feb. 312, or according to Eusebius own reckoning, Mar. or Apr. 311 to
Mar. or Apr. 312; see below Bk. VII. chap. 2, note o), and evidently
after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius, when the
Christians were not looking for any further molestation (see below, Bk.
VIII. chap. 14, note 2). According to this passage, Peter was bishop
less than three years before the outbreak of the persecution, and hence
he cannot have become bishop before the spring of 300. On the other
hand since he died as early as the spring of 312, and was bishop twelve
years he must have become bishop not later than the spring of 300, and
he must have died not long before the spring of 312, and even then, if
Eusebius’ other statements are exact, it is impossible to make
his episcopate fully twelve years in length. The date thus obtained for
his accession is in accord with the dates given for the episcopate of
his predecessor Theonas (see above, note 51). Jerome puts his accession
in the nineteenth year of Diocletian (a.d.
302), but this is at variance with his own figures in connection with
Theonas, and is plainly incorrect. Fourteen Canons,
containing detailed directions in regard to the lapsed were drawn up by
Peter in 306 (see the opening sentence of the first canon), and are
still extant. They are published in all collections of canons and also
in numerous other works. See especially Routh’s Rel. Sac.
IV. p. 23 sq. An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VI. p. 269–278. Brief fragments of other
works—On the Passover, On the Godhead, On the Advent of the
Saviour, On the Soul, and the beginning of an epistle addressed to
the Alexandrians—are given by Routh, ibid. p. 45 sq. These
fragments, together with a few others of doubtful origin, given by
Gallandius and Mai, are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
ibid. p. 280–283. In the same volume (p. 261–268) are
given The Genuine Acts of Peter, containing an account of his
life and martyrdom. These, however, are spurious and historically quite
worthless. Peter seems, to judge
from the extant fragments, to have been in the main an Origenist, but
to have departed in some important respects from the teachings of
Origen, especially on the subject of anthropology (cf. Harnack’s
Dogmengesch. I. p. 644). The famous Meletian schism took its
rise during the episcopate of Peter (see Athanasius, Apology against
the Arians, §59).
32. Having written out in these
books the account of the successions from the birth of our Saviour to
the destruction of the places of worship,—a period of three
hundred and five years, Diocletian’s edict decreeing the demolition of the churches
was published in February, 303. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note
3.
Introduction.
As we
have described in seven books the events from the time of the
apostles, Literally, “the succession of the apostles”
(τὴν
τῶν
ἀποστόλων
διαδοχήν).
Chapter I.—The Events which preceded the Persecution in our Times.
1. It is beyond our ability to describe in a suitable manner the extent and nature of the glory and freedom with which the word of piety toward the God of the universe, proclaimed to the world through Christ, was honored among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, before the persecution in our day.
2. The favor shown our people by
the rulers might be adduced as evidence; as they committed to them the
government of provinces, τὰς τῶν
ἐθνῶν
ἡγεμονίας
3. Why need I speak of those in
the royal palaces, and of the rulers over all, who allowed the members
of their households, wives γαμεταῖς. Prisca, the wife, and Valeria, the daughter, of
Diocletian, and the wife of Galerius, were very friendly to the
Christians, and indeed there can be little doubt that they were
themselves Christians, or at least catechumens, though they kept the
fact secret and sacrificed to the gods (Lactantius, De mort.
pers. 15) when all of Diocletian’s household were required to
do so, after the second conflagration in the palace (see Mason’s
Persecution of Diocletian, p. 40, 121 sq.). It is probable in
the present case that Eusebius is thinking not simply of the wives of
Diocletian and Galerius, but also of all the women and children
connected in any way with the imperial household.
4. Indeed they esteemed them
highly, and preferred them to their fellow-servants. Such an one was
that Dorotheus, Of
this Dorotheus we know only what is told us here and in chap. 6, below,
where it is reported that he was put to death by strangling. It might
be thought at first sight that he is to be identified with the
Dorotheus mentioned above in Bk. VII. chap. 32, for both lived at the
same time, and the fact that the Dorotheus mentioned there was a eunuch
would fit him for a prominent station in the emperor’s household.
At the same time he is said by Eusebius to have been made
superintendent of the purple dye house at Tyre, and nothing is said
either as to his connection with the household of the emperor or as to
his martyrdom; nor is the Dorotheus mentioned in this chapter said to
have been a presbyter. In fact, inasmuch as Eusebius gives no hint of
the identity of the two men, we must conclude that they were different
persons in spite of the similarity of their circumstances. Of Gorgonius, who is mentioned also in chap. 6, we know only that
he was one of the imperial household, and that he was strangled, in
company with Dorotheus and others, in consequence of the fires in the
Nicomedian palace. See chap. 6, note 3.
5. And one could see the rulers
in every church accorded the greatest favor ἀποδοχῆς. A few mss., followed by Stephanus,
Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and most translators, add the words
καὶ
θεραπείας
καὶ
δεξιώσεως οὐ
τῆς
τυχούσης, but the weight of ms. authority is
against them, and they are omitted by the majority of
editors.
6. No envy hindered the progress of these affairs which advanced gradually, and grew and increased day by day. Nor could any evil demon slander them or hinder them through human counsels, so long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded his own people as worthy.
7. But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy.
8. This persecution began with
the brethren in the army. But as if without sensibility, we were not
eager to make the Deity favorable and propitious; and some, like
atheists, thought that our affairs were unheeded and ungoverned; and
thus we added one wickedness to another.
9. And according to what was
foretold in the Psalms: “He has made void the covenant of his
servant, and profaned his sanctuary to the earth,—in the
destruction of the churches,—and has thrown down all his
strongholds, and has made his fortresses cowardice. All that pass by
have plundered the multitude of the people; and he has become besides a
reproach to his neighbors. For he has exalted the right hand of his
enemies, and has turned back the help of his sword, and has not taken
his part in the war. But he has deprived him of purification, and has
cast his throne to the ground. He has shortened the days of his time,
and besides all, has poured out shame upon him.”
Chapter II.—The Destruction of the Churches.
1. All
these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the
houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine
and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the
market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and
there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their
enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word,
“Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to
wander in an untrodden and pathless way.”
2. But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.
3. Hence we shall not mention
those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything
pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were
sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this
history in general only those events which may be usefull first to
ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Gibbon uses this passage as the basis for his severe attack upon
the honesty of Eusebius (Decline and Fall, chap. 16), but he has
certainly done our author injustice (cf. the remarks made on p. 49,
above).
4. It was in the nineteenth year
of the reign of Diocletian, Diocletian began to reign Sept. 17, 284, and therefore his
nineteenth year extended from Sept. 17, 302, to Sept. 16, 303. Eusebius
is in agreement with all our authorities in assigning this year for the
beginning of the persecution, and is certainly correct. In regard to
the month, however, he is not so accurate. Lactantius, who was in
Nicomedia at the time of the beginning of the persecution, and
certainly much better informed than Eusebius in regard to the details,
states distinctly (in his De mort. pers. chap. 12) that the
festival of the god Terminus, the seventh day before the Kalends of
March (i.e. Feb. 23), was chosen by the emperors for the opening of the
persecution, and there is no reason for doubting his exact statement.
At the beginning of the Martyrs of Palestine (p. 342, below) the
month Xanthicus (April) is given as the date, but this is still further
out of the way. It was probably March or even April before the edicts
were published in many parts of the empire, and Eusebius may have been
misled by that fact, not knowing the exact date of their publication in
Nicomedia itself. We learn from Lactantius that on February 23d the
great church of Nicomedia, together with the copies of Scripture found
in it, was destroyed by order of the emperors, but that the edict of
which Eusebius speaks just below was not issued until the following
day. For a discussion of the causes which led to the persecution of
Diocletian see below, p. 397. Δύστρος, the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corresponding to
our March. See the table on p. 403, below. Valesius (ad locum) states, on the authority of Scaliger
and Petavius, that Easter fell on April 18th in the year 303. I have
not attempted to verify the statement. This
is the famous First Edict of Diocletian, which is no longer extant, and
the terms of which therefore have to be gathered from the accounts of
Eusebius and Lactantius. The interpretation of the edict has caused a
vast deal of trouble. It is discussed very fully by Mason in his
important work, The Persecution of Diocletian, p. 105 sq. and p.
343 sq. As he remarks, Lactantius simply describes the edict in a
general way, while Eusebius gives an accurate statement of its
substance, even reproducing its language in part. The first provision
(that the churches be leveled to the ground) is simply a carrying out
of the old principle, that it was unlawful for the Christians to hold
assemblies, under a new form. The second provision, directed against
the sacred books, was entirely new, and was a very shrewd move,
revealing at the same time an appreciation on the part of the authors
of the persecution of the important part which the Scriptures occupied
in the Christian Church. The third provision, as Mason has pointed out,
is a substantial reproduction of a part of the edict of Valerian, and
was evidently consciously based upon that edict. (Upon the variations
from the earlier edict, see Mason, p. 115 sq.) It is noticeable that
not torture nor death is decreed, but only civil degradation. This
degradation, as can be seen from a comparison with the description of
Lactantius (ibid. chap. 13) and with the edict of Valerian
(given in Cyprian’s Epistle to Successus, Ep. No. 81, al.
80), consisted, in the case of those who held public office
(τιμῆς
ἐπειλημμένους), in the loss of rank and also of citizenship; that is,
they fell through two grades, as is pointed out by Mason. In the
interpretation of the fourth provision, however, Mason does not seem to
me to have been so successful. The last clause runs τοὺς δὲ ἐν
οἰκετίαις, εἰ
ἐπιμένοιεν
τῇ τοῦ
χριστιανισμοῦ
προθέσει
ἐλευθερίας
στερεῖσθαι. The difficult point is the interpretation of the
τοὺς ἐν
οἰκετίαις. The words usually mean “household slaves,” and
are commonly so translated in this passage. But, as Valesius remarks,
there is certainly no sense then in depriving them of freedom
(ἐλευθερία) which they do not possess. Valesius consequently
translates plebeii, “common people,” and Mason
argues at length for a similar interpretation (p. 344 sq.), looking
upon these persons as common people, or individuals in private life, as
contrasted with the officials mentioned in the previous clause. The
only objection, but in my opinion a fatal objection, to this attractive
interpretation is that it gives the phrase οἱ ἐν
οἰκετίαις a wider meaning than can legitimately be applied to it.
Mason remarks: “The word οἰκετία means, and is here a translation of, familia; οἱ ἐν
οἰκετίαις means ii qui in familiis sunt,—not graceful
Latin certainly, but plainly signifying ‘those who live in
private households.’ Now in private households there lived not
only slaves, thank goodness, but free men too, both as masters
and as servants; therefore in the phrase τοὺς ἐν
οἰκετίαις itself there is nothing which forbids the paraphrase
‘private persons.’” But I submit that to use so
clumsy a phrase, so unnecessary a circumlocution, to designate simply
private people in general—οἱ πολλοί—would be the height of absurdity. The interpretation
of Stroth (which is approved by Heinichen) seems to me much more
satisfactory. He remarks: “Das Edict war zunächst nur gegen
zwei Klassen von Leuten gerichtet, einmal gegen die, welche in
kaiserlichen Æmtern standen, und dann gegen die freien oder
freigelassenen Christen, welche bei den Kaisern oder ihren Hofleuten
und Statthaltern in Diensten standen, und zu ihrem Hausgesinde
gehörten.” This seems to me more satisfactory, both on
verbal and historical grounds. The words οἱ ἐν
οἰκετίαις certainly cannot, in the present case, mean “household
slaves,” but they can mean servants, attendants, or other persons
at court, or in the households of provincial officials, who did not
hold rank as officials, but at the same time were freemen born, or
freedmen, and thus in a different condition from slaves. Such persons
would naturally be reduced to slavery if degraded at all, and it is
easier to think of their reduction to slavery than of that of the
entire mass of Christians not in public office. Still further, this
proposition finds support in the edict of Valerian, in which this class
of people is especially mentioned. And finally, it is, in my opinion,
much more natural to suppose that this edict (whose purpose I shall
discuss on p. 399) was confined to persons who were in some way
connected with official life,—either as chiefs or assistants or
servants,—and therefore in a position peculiarly fitted for the
formation of plots against the government, than that it was directed
against Christians indiscriminately. The grouping together of the two
classes seems to me very natural; and the omission of any specific
reference to bishops and other church officers, who are mentioned in
the second edict, is thus fully explained, as it cannot be adequately
explained, in my opinion, on any other ground.
As
we learn from chap. 6, §8, the edict commanding the church
officers to be seized and thrown into prison followed popular uprisings
in Melitene and Syria, and if Eusebius is correct, was caused by those
outbreaks. Evidently the Christians were held in some way responsible
for those rebellious outbursts (possibly they were a direct consequence
of the first edict), and the natural result of them must have been to
make Diocletian realize, as he had not realized before, that the
existence of such a society as the Christian Church within the
empire—demanding as it did supreme allegiance from its
members—was a menace to the state. It was therefore not strange
that what began as a purely political thing, as an attempt to break up
a supposed treasonable plot formed by certain Christian officials,
should speedily develop into a religious persecution. The first step in
such a persecution would naturally be the seizure of all church
officers (see below, p. 397 sq.). The decrees of which
Eusebius speaks in this paragraph are evidently to be identified with
the one mentioned in chap. 6, §8. This being so, it is clear that
Eusebius’ account can lay no claims to chronological order. This
must be remembered, or we shall fall into repeated difficulties in
reading this eighth book. We are obliged to arrange the order of events
for ourselves, for his account is quite desultory, and devoid both of
logical and chronological sequence. The decrees or writings
(γρ€μματα) mentioned in this paragraph constituted really but one
edict (cf. chap. 6, §8), which is known to us as the Second Edict
of Diocletian. Its date cannot be determined with exactness, for, as
Mason remarks, it may have been issued at any time between February and
November; but it was probably published not many months after the
first, inasmuch as it was a result of disturbances which arose in
consequence of the first. Mason is inclined to place it in March,
within a month after the issue of the first, but that seems to me a
little too early. In issuing the edict Diocletian followed the example
of Valerian in part, and yet only in part; for instead of commanding
that the church officers be slain, he commanded only that they be
seized. He evidently believed that he could accomplish his purpose best
by getting the leading men of the church into his hands and holding
them as hostages, while denying them the glory of martyrdom (cf. Mason,
p. 132 sq.). The persons affected by the edict, according to Eusebius,
were “all the rulers of the churches” (τοὺς τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν
προέδρους
π€ντας; cf. also
Mart. Pal. Introd., §2). In chap. 6, §8, he
says τοὺς
πανταχόσε
τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν
προεστῶτας. These words would seem to imply that only the bishops
were intended, but we learn from Lactantius (De mort. pers. 15)
that presbyters and other officers (presbyteri ac ministri) were
included, and this is confirmed, as Mason remarks (p. 133, note), by
the sequel. We must therefore take the words used by Eusebius in the
general sense of “church officers.” According to
Lactantius, their families suffered with them (cum omnibus suis
deducebantur), but Eusebius says nothing of that. We
learn from Lactantius (l.c.) that the officers of the church,
under the terms of the second edict, were thrown into prison without
any option being given them in the matter of sacrificing. They were not
asked to sacrifice, but were imprisoned unconditionally. This was so
far in agreement with Valerian’s edict, which had decreed the
instant death of all church officers without the option of sacrificing.
But as Eusebius tells us here, they were afterwards called upon to
sacrifice, and as he tells us in the first paragraph of the next
chapter, multitudes yielded, and that of course meant their release, as
indeed we are directly told in chap. 6, §10. We may gather from
the present passage and from the other passages referred to, taken in
connection with the second chapter of the Martyrs of Palestine,
that this decree, ordaining their release on condition of sacrificing,
was issued on the occasion of Diocletian’s Vicennalia, which were
celebrated in December, 303, on the twentieth anniversary of the death
of Carus, which Diocletian reckoned as the beginning of his reign,
though he was not in reality emperor until the following September. A
considerable time, therefore, elapsed between the edict ordaining the
imprisonment of church officers and the edict commanding their release
upon condition of sacrificing. This latter is commonly known as
Diocletian’s Third Edict, and is usually spoken of as still
harsher than any that preceded it. It is true that it did result in the
torture of a great many,—for those who did not sacrifice readily
were to be compelled to do so, if possible,—but their death was
not aimed at. If they would not sacrifice, they were simply to remain
in prison, as before. Those who did die at this time seem to have died
under torture that was intended, not to kill them, but to bring about
their release. As Mason shows, then, this third edict was of the nature
of an amnesty; was rather a step toward toleration than a sharpening of
the persecution. The prisons were to be emptied, as was customary on
such great occasions, and the church officers were to be permitted to
return to their homes, on condition that they should sacrifice.
Inasmuch as they had not been allowed to leave prison on any condition
before, this was clearly a mark of favor (see Mason, p. 206 sq.). Many
were released even without sacrificing, and in their desire to empty
the prisons, the governors devised various expedients for freeing at
least a part of those who would not yield (cf. the instances mentioned
in the next chapter). At the same time, some governors got rid of their
prisoners by putting them to death, sometimes simply by increasing the
severity of the tortures intended to try them, sometimes as a penalty
for rash or daring words uttered by the prisoners, which were
interpreted as treasonable, and which, perhaps, the officials had
employed their ingenuity, when necessary, to elicit. Thus many might
suffer death, under various legal pretenses, although the terms of the
edict did not legally permit death to be inflicted as a punishment for
Christianity. The death penalty was not decreed until the issue of the
Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap.3, note 2).
Chapter III.—The Nature of the Conflicts endured in the Persecution.
1. Then
truly a great many rulers of the churches eagerly endured terrible
sufferings, and furnished examples of noble conflicts. But a multitude
of others, μυρίοι δ᾽
ἄλλοι. See the
previous chapter, note 8. i.e.
those who, when freedom was offered them on condition of sacrificing,
refused to accept it at that price. It was desirous that the prisons
which had for so long been filled with these Christian prisoners (see
chap. 6, §9) should, if possible, be cleared; and this doubtless
combined with the desire to break the stubbornness of the prisoners to
promote the use of torture at this time.
2. Others passed through
different conflicts. Thus one, while those around pressed him on by
force and dragged him to the abominable and impure sacrifices, was
dismissed as if he had sacrificed, though he had not. See
the previous chapter, note 8.
3. Another being taken up half dead, was cast aside as if already dead, and again a certain one lying upon the ground was dragged a long distance by his feet and counted among those who had sacrificed. One cried out and with a loud voice testified his rejection of the sacrifice; another shouted that he was a Christian, being resplendent in the confession of the saving Name. Another protested that he had not sacrificed and never would.
4. But they were struck in the mouth and silenced by a large band of soldiers who were drawn up for this purpose; and they were smitten on the face and cheeks and driven away by force; so important did the enemies of piety regard it, by any means, to seem to have accomplished their purpose. But these things did not avail them against the holy martyrs; for an accurate description of whom, what word of ours could suffice?
Chapter IV.—The Famous Martyrs of God, who filled Every Place with their Memory and won Various Crowns in behalf of Religion.
1. For we might tell of many who showed admirable zeal for the religion of the God of the universe, not only from the beginning of the general persecution, but long before that time, while yet peace prevailed.
2. For though he who had received power was seemingly aroused now as from a deep sleep, yet from the time after Decius and Valerian, he had been plotting secretly and without notice against the churches. He did not wage war against all of us at once, but made trial at first only of those in the army. For he supposed that the others could be taken easily if he should first attack and subdue these. Thereupon many of the soldiers were seen most cheerfully embracing private life, so that they might not deny their piety toward the Creator of the universe.
3. For when the commander, στρατοπεδ€ρχης In
the Chron. we are told of a commander by name Veturius, who is
doubtless to be identified with the one referred to here. Why Eusebius
does not give his name in the History, we do not know. There seems to
be contempt in the phrase, “whoever he was,” and it may be
that he did not consider him worth naming. In Jerome’s version of
the Chron. (sixteenth year of Diocletian) we read: Veturius
magister militiæ Christianos milites persequitur, paulatim ex illo
jam tempore persecutione adversum nos incipiente; in the Armenian
(fourteenth year): Veturius magister militiæ eos qui in
exercitu Christiani erant, clanculum opprimebat atque ex hoc inde
tempore ubique locorum persecutio se extendit. Evidently the
occurrence took place a few years before the outbreak of the regular
persecution, but the exact date cannot be determined. It is probable,
moreover, from the way in which Eusebius refers to the man in the
History that he was a comparatively insignificant commander, who took
the course he did on his own responsibility. At least, there is no
reason to connect the act with Diocletian and to suppose it ordered by
him. All that we know of his relation to the Christians forbids such a
supposition. There may have been some particular occasion for such a
move in the present instance, which evidently affected only a small
part of the army, and resulted in only a few deaths (see the next
paragraph). Perhaps some insubordination was discovered among the
Christian soldiers, which led the commander to be suspicious of all of
them, and hence to put the test to them,—which was always in
order,—to prove their loyalty. It is plain that he did not intend
to put any of them to death, but only to dismiss such as refused to
evince their loyalty by offering the customary sacrifices. Some of the
Christian soldiers, however, were not content with simple dismission,
but in their eagerness to evince their Christianity said and did things
which it was impossible for any commander to overlook (cf. the
instances given by Mason, p. 41 sq.). It was such soldiers as these
that suffered death; and they of course were executed, not because they
were Christians, but because they were insubordinate. Their death was
brought on themselves by their foolish fanaticism; and they have no
claim to be honored as martyrs, although Eusebius evidently regarded
them as such.
4. And one and another of them
occasionally received in exchange, for their pious constancy, We
should rather say “for their rash and unjustifiable
fanaticism.”
5. But when he made the attack
more boldly, it is impossible to relate how many and what sort of
martyrs of God could be seen, among the inhabitants of all the cities
and countries. In
this sentence reference is made to the general persecution, which did
not begin until some time after the events recorded in the previous
paragraphs.
Chapter V.—Those in Nicomedia. Nicomedia, the capital city of Bithynia, became Diocletian’s
chief place of residence, and was made by him the Eastern capital of
the empire.
1. Immediately on the publication of the decree against the
churches in Nicomedia, The
great church of Nicomedia was destroyed on Feb. 23, 303, and the First
Edict was published on the following day (see above, chap. 2, note
3). Lactantius relates this account in his De mort. pers. chap.
13, and expresses disapproval of the act, while admiring the spirit of
the man. He, too, is silent in regard to the name of the man, though,
living as he did in Nicomedia, he can hardly have been ignorant of it.
We may perhaps imagine that he did not care to perpetuate the name of a
man whom he considered to have acted rashly and illegally. The old
martyrologies give the man’s name as John. That he deserved death
is clear enough. He was not a martyr to the faith, but a criminal, who
was justly executed for treasonable conduct. The first edict
contemplated no violence to the persons of the Christians. If they
suffered death, it was solely in consequence of their own rashness, as
in the present case. It is clear that such an incident as this would
anger Diocletian and increase his suspicions of Christians as a class,
and thus tend to precipitate a regular persecution. It must have seemed
to the authorities that the man would hardly commit such a foolhardy
act unless he was conscious of the support of a large body of the
populace, and so the belief in the wide extension of the plot which had
caused the movement on the part of the emperors must have been
confirmed. See below, p. 398 sq. i.e. Diocletian and Galerius.
2. But this man, first in that place, after distinguishing himself in such a manner suffered those things which were likely to follow such daring, and kept his spirit cheerful and undisturbed till death.
Chapter VI.—Those in the Palace.
1. This
period produced divine and illustrious martyrs, above all whose praises
have ever been sung and who have been celebrated for courage, whether
among Greeks or barbarians, in the person of Dorotheus On
Dorotheus, see above, chap. 1, note 3.
2. We will describe the manner
in which one of them ended his life, and leave our readers to infer
from his case the sufferings of the others. A certain man was brought
forward in the above-mentioned city, before the rulers of whom we have
spoken. i.e.
in Nicomedia, before Diocletian and Galerius.
3. But as he was unmoved by these sufferings, and his bones were already appearing, they mixed vinegar with salt and poured it upon the mangled parts of his body. As he scorned these agonies, a gridiron and fire were brought forward. And the remnants of his body, like flesh intended for eating, were placed on the fire, not at once, lest he should expire instantly, but a little at a time. And those who placed him on the pyre were not permitted to desist until, after such sufferings, he should assent to the things commanded.
4. But he held his purpose
firmly, and victoriously gave up his life while the tortures were still
going on. Such was the martyrdom of one of the servants of the palace,
who was indeed well worthy of his name, for he was called Peter. πέτρος, “a rock.” It is clear from the account of Lactantius
(chap. 15) that this man, and the others mentioned in this connection,
suffered after the second conflagration in the palace and in
consequence of it (see below, p. 400). The two conflagrations led
Diocletian to resort to torture in order to ascertain the guilty
parties, or to obtain information in regard to the plots of the
Christians. Examination by torture was the common mode of procedure
under such circumstances, and hence implies no unusual cruelty in the
present case. The death even of these men, therefore, cannot be looked
upon as due to persecution. Their offense was purely a civil one. They
were suspected of being implicated in a treasonable plot, and of twice
setting fire to the palace. Their refusal to sacrifice under such
circumstances, and thus evince their loyalty at so critical a time, was
naturally looked upon as practically a confession of guilt,—at
any rate as insubordination on a most grave occasion, and as such fitly
punishable by death. Compare Pliny’s epistle to Trajan, in which
he expresses the opinion that “pertinacious and inflexible
obstinacy” ought at any rate to be punished, whatever might be
thought of Christianity as such (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33, note 1);
and at such a time as this Diocletian must have felt that the first
duty of all his subjects was to place their loyalty beyond suspicion by
doing readily that which was demanded. His impatience with the
Christians must have been increasing under all these provocations, and
thus the regular persecution was becoming ever more
imminent.
5. The martyrdoms of the rest,
though they were not inferior to his, we will pass by for the sake of
brevity, recording only that Dorotheus and Gorgonius, Gorgonius has been already mentioned in chap. 1, above. See note 4
on that chapter.
6. At this time Anthimus, In a fragment preserved by the Chron. Paschale, and
purporting to be a part of an epistle written from prison, shortly
before his death, by the presbyter Lucian of Antioch to the church of
that city, Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, is mentioned as having just
suffered martyrdom (see Routh’s Rel. Sac. IV. p. 5).
Lucian, however, was imprisoned and put to death during the persecution
of Maximinus (a.d. 311 or 312). See below, Bk.
IX. chap. 6, and Jerome’s de vir. ill. chap. 77. It would
seem, therefore, if the fragment given in the Chron. Paschale be
genuine, and there seems no good reason to doubt it, that Anthimus
suffered martyrdom not under Diocletian, but under Maximinus, in 311 or
312. In that case Eusebius is mistaken in putting his death at this
early date, in connection with the members of the imperial household.
Indeed, we see no reason for his execution at this time, and should
find it difficult to explain if we were to accept it. In the time of
Maximinus, however, it is perfectly natural, and of a piece with the
execution of Peter of Alexandria and other notable prelates. Eusebius,
as we have already seen, pays no attention to chronology in this Eighth
Book, and hence there is no great weight to be placed upon his mention
of the death of Anthimus at this particular place. Mason (p. 324) says
that Hunziker (p. 281) has conclusively shown Eusebius’ mistake
at this point. I have not seen Hunziker, and therefore cannot judge of
the validity of his arguments, but, on the grounds already stated, have
no hesitation in expressing my agreement with his conclusion. Of
Anthimus himself, we know nothing beyond what has been already
intimated. In chap. 13, §1, below, he is mentioned again, but
nothing additional is told us in regard to him. Having observed
Eusebius’ mistake in regard to Anthimus, we realize that there is
no reason to consider him any more accurate in respect to the other
martyrdoms referred to in this paragraph. In fact, it is clear enough
that, in so far as his account is not merely rhetorical, it relates to
events that took place not at this early date, but during a later time
after the regular religious persecution had begun. No such
“multitude” suffered in consequence of the conflagration as
Eusebius thinks. The martyrdoms of which he has heard belong rather to
the time after the Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap. 3,
note 2), or possibly to the still later time when Maximinus was at
Nicomedia, and was in the midst of his bloody career of
persecution. Eusebius does not accuse Galerius of being the author of the
conflagration, as Lactantius does. In fact, he seems to have known very
little about the matter. He mentions only one fire, whereas Lactantius
distinctly tells us there were two, fifteen days apart (chap. 14).
Eusebius evidently has only the very vaguest information in regard to
the progress of affairs at Nicomedia, and has no knowledge of the
actual order and connection of events. In regard to the effects of the
fire upon Diocletian’s attitude toward the Christians, see above,
note 3, and below, p. 400. Constantine (Orat. ad Sanct. Coet.
XXV. 2) many years afterwards referred to the fire as caused by
lightning, which is clearly only a makeshift, for, as Burckhardt
remarks, there could have been no doubt in that case how the fire
originated. And, moreover, such an explanation at best could account
for only one of the fires. The fact that Constantine feels it necessary
to invent such an explanation gives the occurrence a still more
auspicious look, and one not altogether favorable to the Christians. In
fact, it must be acknowledged that the case against them is pretty
strong. Literally, “The executioners, having bound a large number of
others on boats, threw them into the depths of the sea”
(δήσαντες δὲ
οἱ δήμιοι
ἄλλο τι
πλῆθος ἐπὶ
σκ€φαις, τοῖς
θαλαττίοις
ἐναπέ&
207·ῥιπτον
βυθοῖς). The
construction is evidently a pregnant one, for it cannot be supposed
that boats and all were thrown into the depths of the sea. They seem to
have bound the prisoners, and carried them out to sea on boats, and
then thrown them overboard. Compare the Passion of St. Theodotus
(Mason, p. 362), where we are told that the “President then bade
them hang stones about their necks, and embark them on a small shallop
and row them out to a spot where the lake was deeper; and so they were
cast into the water at the distance of four or five hundred feet from
the shore.” Crusè translates, “binding another number
upon planks,” but σκ€φη will
hardly bear that meaning; and even if it could, we should scarcely
expect men to be bound to planks if the desire was to
“cast them into the depths of the sea.” Lactantius (chap.
15), in speaking of these same general occurrences, says,
“Servants, having millstones tied about their necks, were cast
into the sea.” Closs remarks that
drowning was looked upon in ancient times as the most disgraceful
punishment, because it implied that the criminals were not worthy to
receive burial.
7. And those who had been
esteemed their masters considered it necessary to dig up the bodies of
the imperial servants, who had been committed to the earth with
suitable burial and cast them into the sea, lest any, as they thought,
regarding them as gods, might worship them lying in their sepulchers. Compare Bk. IV. chap. 15, §41, above, and Lactantius, Div.
Inst. V. 11. That in the present case the suspicion that the
Christians would worship the remains of these so-called martyrs was not
founded merely upon knowledge of the conduct of Christians in general
in relation to the relics of their martyrs, but upon actual experience
of their conduct in connection with these particular martyrs, is shown
by the fact that the emperor first buried them, and afterward had them
dug up. Evidently Christians showed them such honor, and collected in
such numbers about their tombs, that he believed it was necessary to
take some such step in order to prevent the growth of a spirit of
rebellion, which was constantly fostered by such demonstrations.
Compare the remarks of Mason on p. 135.
8. Such things occurred in
Nicomedia at the beginning of the persecution. Part of the events mentioned in this chapter occurred at the
beginning; others, a considerable time later. See note 5,
above. Melitene was the name of a district and a city in Eastern
Cappadocia. Upon the outbreak there we know only what can be gathered
from this passage, although Mason (p. 126 sq.) connects it with a
rebellion, of which an account is given in Simeon Metaphrastes. It is
possible that the account of the Metaphrast is authentic, and that the
uprising referred to here is to be identified with it, but more than
that cannot be said. There can be no doubt that the outbreak was one of
the causes of the promulgation of the Second Edict, in which case of
course it is clear that the Christians, whether rightly or wrongly,
were held responsible for it. See above, chap. 2, note 7. Valesius identifies this usurpation in Syria with that of Eugenius
in Antioch, of which we are told by Libanius (in his Oratio ad
Theodosium post reconciliationem, and in his Oratio ad Theod. de
seditione Antioch., according to Valesius). The latter was but a
small affair, involving only a band of some five hundred soldiers, who
compelled their commander Eugenius, to assume the purple, but were
entirely destroyed by the people of the city within twenty-four hours.
See the note of Valesius ad locum, Tillemont’s Hist.
des Emp. IX. 73 sq., and Mason, p. 124 sq. This rebellion took
place in the time of Diocletian, but there is no reason for connecting
it with the uprising mentioned here by Eusebius. The words of Eusebius
would seem to imply that he was thinking, not of a single rebellion,
but of a number which took place in various parts of Syria. In that
case, the Antiochian affair may have been one of them. τοὺς
πανταχόσε
τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν
προεστῶτας. Upon this second edict, see above, chap. 2, note
7.
9. What was to be seen after
this exceeds all description. A vast multitude were imprisoned in every
place; and the prisons everywhere, which had long before been prepared
for murderers and robbers of graves, were filled with bishops,
presbyters and deacons, readers and exorcists, It
is evident enough from this clause alone that the word προεστῶτας, “rulers,” is to be taken in a broad sense.
See the note just referred to.
10. And as other decrees
followed the first, directing that those in prison if they would
sacrifice should be permitted to depart in freedom, but that those who
refused should be harassed with many tortures, The Third Edict of Diocletian. Eusebius evidently looks upon the
edict as a sharpening of the persecution, but is mistaken in his view.
The idea was not that those who refused to sacrifice should be punished
by torture for not sacrificing, but that torture should be applied in
order to induce them to sacrifice, and thus render it possible to
release them. The end sought was their release, not their punishment.
Upon the date and interpretation of this edict, see chap. 2, note
8. Eusebius is probably again in error, as so often in this book, in
connecting a “multitude of martyrs in every province” with
this Third Edict. Wholesale persecution and persecution as
such—aimed directly at the destruction of all
Christians—did not begin until the issue of the Fourth Edict (see
below, Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2). These numerous martyrdoms
referred to here doubtless belong to the period after the issue of that
edict, although in Africa and Mauritania, which were under Maximian,
considerable blood was probably shed even before that time. For it was
possible, of course, for a cruel and irresponsible ruler like Maximian
to fix the death penalty for refusal to deliver up the Christian books,
or for other acts of obstinacy which the Christian would quite commonly
commit. These cases, however, must be looked upon as exceptional at
this stage of affairs, and certainly rare.
Chapter VII.—The Egyptians in Phœnicia.
1. Those of them that were conspicuous in Palestine we know,
as also those that were at Tyre in Phœnicia. From the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 8 sq. (more fully in
the Syriac; Cureton’s English translation p. 26 sq.), we learn
that in the sixth and following years of the persecution, many Egyptian
Christians were sent to Palestine to labor in the mines there, and that
they underwent the severest tortures in that country. No mention is
made of such persons in the Martyrs of Palestine previous to the
sixth year. Those in Tyre to whom Eusebius refers very likely suffered
during the same period; not under Diocletian, but under Maximinus, when
the persecution was at its height. Since in his Martyrs of
Palestine Eusebius confines himself to those who suffered in that
country (or were natives of it), he has nothing to say about those
referred to in this chapter, who seem, from the opening of the next
chapter, to have suffered, all of them, in Tyre.
2. We were present ourselves when these things occurred, and have put on record the divine power of our martyred Saviour Jesus Christ, which was present and manifested itself mightily in the martyrs. For a long time the man-devouring beasts did not dare to touch or draw near the bodies of those dear to God, but rushed upon the others who from the outside irritated and urged them on. And they would not in the least touch the holy athletes, as they stood alone and naked and shook their hands at them to draw them toward themselves,—for they were commanded to do this. But whenever they rushed at them, they were restrained as if by some divine power and retreated again.
3. This continued for a long time, and occasioned no little wonder to the spectators. And as the first wild beast did nothing, a second and a third were let loose against one and the same martyr.
4. One could not but be astonished at the invincible firmness of these holy men, and the enduring and immovable constancy of those whose bodies were young. You could have seen a youth not twenty years of age standing unbound and stretching out his hands in the form of a cross, with unterrified and untrembling mind, engaged earnestly in prayer to God, and not in the least going back or retreating from the place where he stood, while bears and leopards, breathing rage and death, almost touched his flesh. And yet their mouths were restrained, I know not how, by a divine and incomprehensible power, and they ran back again to their place. Such an one was he.
5. Again you might have seen others, for they were five in all, cast before a wild bull, who tossed into the air with his horns those who approached from the outside, and mangled them, leaving them to be token up half dead; but when he rushed with rage and threatening upon the holy martyrs, who were standing alone, he was unable to come near them; but though he stamped with his feet, and pushed in all directions with his horns, and breathed rage and threatening on account of the irritation of the burning irons, he was, nevertheless, held back by the sacred Providence. And as he in nowise harmed them, they let loose other wild beasts upon them.
6. Finally, after these terrible and various attacks upon them, they were all slain with the sword; and instead of being buried in the earth they were committed to the waves of the sea.
Chapter
VIII.—Those in Egypt. No
part of Christendom suffered more severely during these years than the
territory of the tyrant Maximinus, who became a Cæsar in 305, and
who ruled in Egypt and Syria.
1. Such was the conflict of those Egyptians who contended nobly for religion in Tyre. But we must admire those also who suffered martyrdom in their native land; where thousands of men, women, and children, despising the present life for the sake of the teaching of our Saviour, endured various deaths.
2. Some of them, after scrapings and rackings and severest scourgings, and numberless other kinds of tortures, terrible even to hear of, were committed to the flames; some were drowned in the sea; some offered their heads bravely to those who cut them off; some died under their tortures, and others perished with hunger. And yet others were crucified; some according to the method commonly employed for malefactors; others yet more cruelly, being nailed to the cross with their heads downward, and being kept alive until they perished on the cross with hunger.
Chapter IX.—Those in Thebais. Thebais, or the territory of Thebes, was one of the three great
divisions of Egypt, lying between lower Egypt on the north and
Æthiopia on the south. From §4, below, we learn that Eusebius
was himself an eye-witness of at least some of the martyrdoms to which
he refers in the present chapter. Reasons have been given on p. 10,
above, for supposing that he did not visit Egypt until the later years
of the persecution, indeed not until toward the very end of it; and it
is therefore to this period that the events described in this chapter
are to be ascribed.
1. It would be impossible to describe the outrages and tortures which the martyrs in Thebais endured. They were scraped over the entire body with shells instead of hooks until they died. Women were bound by one foot and raised aloft in the air by machines, and with their bodies altogether bare and uncovered, presented to all beholders this most shameful, cruel, and inhuman spectacle.
2. Others being bound to the
branches and trunks of trees perished. For they drew the stoutest
branches
3. All these things were done, not for a few days or a short time, but for a long series of years. Sometimes more than ten, at other times above twenty were put to death. Again not less than thirty, then about sixty, and yet again a hundred men with young children and women, were slain in one day, being condemned to various and diverse torments.
4. We, also being on the spot ourselves, have observed large crowds in one day; some suffering decapitation, others torture by fire; so that the murderous sword was blunted, and becoming weak, was broken, and the very executioners grew weary and relieved each other.
5. And we beheld the most wonderful ardor, and the truly divine energy and zeal of those who believed in the Christ of God. For as soon as sentence was pronounced against the first, one after another rushed to the judgment seat, and confessed themselves Christians. And regarding with indifference the terrible things and the multiform tortures, they declared themselves boldly and undauntedly for the religion of the God of the universe. And they received the final sentence of death with joy and laughter and cheerfulness; so that they sang and offered up hymns and thanksgivings to the God of the universe till their very last breath.
6. These indeed were wonderful; but yet more wonderful were those who, being distinguished for wealth, noble birth, and honor, and for learning and philosophy, held everything secondary to the true religion and to faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.
7. Such an one was Philoromus,
who held a high office under the imperial government at Alexandria, ἀρχήν τινα οὐ
τὴν τυχοῦσαν
τῆς κατ᾽
᾽Αλεξ€νδρειαν
βασιλικῆς
διοικήσεως
ἐγκεχειρισμένος. Valesius says that Philoromus was the Rationalis, seu
procurator summarum Ægypti, i.e. the general finance minister
of Egypt (see above, Bk. VII. chap. 10, note 8). But the truth is, that
the use of the τινα implies that
Eusebius is not intending to state the particular office which he held,
but simply to indicate that he held some high office, and this is all
that we can claim for Philoromus. We know no more of him than is told
us here, though Acts of St. Phileas and St. Philoromus are
extant, which contain an account of his martyrdom, and are printed by
the Bollandists and by Ruinart (interesting extracts given by
Tillemont, H. E. V. p. 486 sq., and by Mason, p. 290 sq.).
Tillemont (ibid. p. 777) and others defend their genuineness,
but Lardner doubts it (Credibility, chap. 60). I have examined
only the extracts printed by Tillemont and Mason, and am not prepared
to express an opinion in the matter. Phileas, bishop of Thmuis (an important town in lower Egypt,
situated between the Tanite and Mendeaian branches of the Nile),
occupies an important place among the Diocletian martyrs. The extant
Acts of his martyrdom have been referred to in the previous
note. He is mentioned again by Eusebius in chaps. 10 and 13, and in the
former a considerable part of his epistle to the people of his diocese
is quoted. Jerome mentions him in his de vir. ill. chap. 78,
where he says: elegantissimum librum de martyrum laude composuit, et
disputatione actorum habita adversum judicem, qui eum sacrificare
cogebat, pro Christo capite truncatur. The book referred to by
Jerome seems to be identical with the epistle quoted by Eusebius in the
next chapter, for we have no record of another work on this subject
written by him. There is extant, however, the Latin version of an
epistle purporting to have been written by the imprisoned bishops
Hesychius, Pachymius, Theodorus, and Phileas, to Meletius, author of
the Meletian schism. There seems to be nothing in the epistle to
disprove its genuineness, and it is accepted by Routh and others. The
authorship of the epistle is commonly ascribed to Phileas, both because
he is known to us as a writer, and also because his name stands last in
the opening of the epistle. Eusebius says nothing of such an epistle
(though the names of all four of the bishops are mentioned in chap. 13,
below). Jerome’s silence in regard to it signifies nothing, for
he only follows Eusebius. This epistle, and also the fragment of the
one quoted in the next chapter by Eusebius, are given by Routh, Rel.
Sac. IV. p. 87 sq., and an English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 161 sq. Phileas’ learning
is praised very highly by Eusebius and Jerome, and his scholarly
character is emphasized in his Acts. The date of his death
cannot be determined with exactness, but we may be confident that it
did not, at any rate, take place before 306, and very likely not before
307. The epistle quoted in the next chapter was written shortly before
his martyrdom, as we learn from §11 of that chapter.
8. These persons, although a multitude of relatives and other friends besought them, and many in high position, and even the judge himself entreated them, that they would have compassion on themselves and show mercy to their children and wives, yet were not in the least induced by these things to choose the love of life, and to despise the ordinances of our Saviour concerning confession and denial. But with manly and philosophic minds, or rather with pious and God-loving souls, they persevered against all the threats and insults of the judge; and both of them were beheaded.
Chapter X.—The Writings of Phileas the Martyr describing the Occurrences at Alexandria.
1. Since we have mentioned Phileas as having a high
reputation for secular learning, let him be his own witness in the
following extract, in which he shows us who he was, and at the same
time describes more accurately than we can the martyrdoms which
occurred in his time at Alexandria: On this epistle, see the previous chapter, note 3.
2. “Having before them all
these examples and models and noble tokens which are given us in the
Divine and Sacred Scriptures, the blessed martyrs who were with us did
not hesitate, but directing the eye of the soul in sincerity toward the
God over all, and having their mind set upon death for religion, they
adhered firmly to their calling. For they understood that our Lord
Jesus Christ had become man on our account, that he might cut off all
sin and furnish us with the means of entrance into eter
3. Wherefore also being zealous
for the greater gifts, the Christ-bearing martyrs endured all trials
and all kinds of contrivances for torture; not once only, but some also
a second time. And although the guards vied with each other in
threatening them in all sorts of ways, not in words only, but in
actions, they did not give up their resolution; because ‘perfect
love casteth out fear.’
4. “What words could describe their courage and manliness under every torture? For as liberty to abuse them was given to all that wished, some beat them with clubs, others with rods, others with scourges, yet others with thongs, and others with ropes.
5. And the spectacle of the
outrages was varied and exhibited great malignity. For some, with their
hands bound behind them, were suspended on the stocks, and every member
stretched by certain machines. Then the torturers, as commanded,
lacerated with instruments τοῖς
ἀμυντηρίοις. The word ἀμυντήριον
means literally a weapon of defense, but the word
seems to indicate in the present case some kind of a sharp instrument
with claws or hooks. Rufinus translates ungulæ, the
technical term for an instrument of torture of the kind just described.
Valesius remarks, however, that these ἀμυντήρια seem to have been something more than ungulæ,
for Hesychius interprets ἀμυντήριον
as ξίφος
δίστομον, i.e. a “two-edged sword.”
6. And they endured this, not merely as long as the governor talked with them or was at leisure, but through almost the entire day. For when he passed on to others, he left officers under his authority to watch the first, and observe if any of them, overcome by the tortures, appeared to yield. And he commanded to cast them into chains without mercy, and afterwards when they were at the last gasp to throw them to the ground and drag them away.
7. For he said that they were not to have the least concern for us, but were to think and act as if we no longer existed, our enemies having invented this second mode of torture in addition to the stripes.
8. “Some, also, after
these outrages, were placed on the stocks, and had both their feet
stretched over the four The majority of the mss., followed by
Laemmer and Heinichen, omit τεσσ€ρων, “four.” The word, however, is found in a few
good mss., and is adopted by all the other
editors and translators, and seems necessary in the present case. Upon
the instrument referred to here, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9.
It would seem that “four holes” constituted in ordinary
cases the extreme limit. But in two cases (Bk. V. chap. 1, §27,
and Mart. Pal. chap. 2) we are told of a “fifth
hole.” It is possible that the instruments varied in respect to
the number of the holes, for the way in which the “four” is
used here and elsewhere seems to indicate that the extreme of torture
is thought of.
9. As this went on, some died under the tortures, shaming the adversary by their constancy. Others half dead were shut up in prison, and suffering with their agonies, they died in a few days; but the rest, recovering under the care which they received, gained confidence by time and their long detention in prison.
10. When therefore they were
ordered to choose whether they would be released from molestation by
touching the polluted sacrifice, and would receive from them the
accursed freedom, or refusing to sacrifice, should be condemned to
death, they did not hesitate, but went to death cheerfully. For they
knew what had been declared before by the Sacred Scriptures. For it is
said, φησί: “He
says,” or “the Scripture saith.”
11. Such are the words of the truly philosophical and God-loving martyr, which, before the final sentence, while yet in prison, he addressed to the brethren in his parish, showing them his own circumstances, and at the same time exhorting them to hold fast, even after his approaching death, to the religion of Christ.
12. But why need we dwell upon these things, and continue to add fresh instances of the conflicts of the divine martyrs throughout the world, especially since they were dealt with no longer by common law, but attacked like enemies of war?
Chapter XI.—Those in Phrygia.
1. A
small town I
read πολίχνην with the majority of mss. and
editors. A number of mss. read πόλιν, which is supported by Rufinus (urbem quandam) and
Nicephorus, and is adopted by Laemmer and Heinichen; but it would
certainty be more natural for a copyist to exaggerate than to
understate his original. Lactantius (Dio inst. V. 11), in speaking of persecutions
in general, says, “Some were swift to slaughter, as an individual
in Phyrgia who burnt an entire people, together with their place of
meeting (universum populum cum ipso pariter
conventiculo).” This apparently refers to the same incident
which Eusebius records in this chapter. Gibbon contends that not the
city, but only the church with the people in it was burned; and so
Fletcher, the translator of Lactantius in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, understands the passage (“who burnt a whole assembly
of people, together with their place of meeting”). Mason, on the
other hand, contends that the population of the entire city is meant.
The Latin would seem, however, to support Gibbon’s interpretation
rather than Mason’s; but in view of the account in Eusebius, the
latter has perhaps most in its favor. If the two passages be
interpreted differently, we can hardly determine which is the true
version of the incident. Mason has “no hesitation” in
referring this episode to the period immediately following the First
Edict of Diocletian, at the time when the rebellions in Melitene and
Syria were taking place. It may have occurred at that time, but I
should myself have considerable hesitation in referring it
definitely to any particular period of the persecution. If
Eusebius’ statement at the close of this paragraph could be
relied upon, we should be obliged to put the event after the issue of
the fourth edict, for not until that time were Christians in general
called upon to offer sacrifices. But the statement may be merely a
conclusion of Eusebius’ own; and since he does not draw a clear
distinction between the various steps in the persecution, little weight
can be laid upon it.
2. There was another man of
Roman dignity named Adauctus, Rufinus connects this man with the town of Phrygia just referred
to, and makes him one of the victims of that catastrophe. But Eusebius
does not intimate any such connection, and indeed seems to separate him
from the inhabitants of that city by the special mention of him as a
martyr. Moreover, the official titles given to him are hardly such as
we should expect the citizen of an insignificant Phrygian town to bear.
He is said, in fact, to have held the highest imperial—not merely
municipal—offices. We know nothing more about the man than is
told us here; nor do we know when and where he suffered. τὰς καθόλου
διοικήσεις
τῆς ταρ᾽
αὐτοῖς
καλουμένης
μαγιστρότητος
τε καὶ
καθολικότητος. The second office (καθολικότης) is apparently to be identified with that mentioned in Bk.
VII. chap. 10, §5 (see note 8 on that chapter). We can hardly
believe, however, that Adauctus (of whom we hear nowhere else) can have
held so high a position as is meant there, and therefore are forced to
conclude that he was but one of a number of such finance ministers, and
had the administration of the funds only of a particular district in
his hands.
Chapter XII.—Many Others, both Men and Women, who suffered in Various Ways.
1. Why
need we mention the rest by name, or number the multitude of the men,
or picture the various sufferings of the admirable martyrs of Christ?
Some of them were slain with the axe, as in Arabia. The limbs of some
were broken, as in Cappadocia. Some, raised on high by the feet, with
their heads down, while a gentle fire burned beneath them, were
suffocated by the smoke which arose from the burning wood, as was done
in Mesopotamia. Others were mutilated by cutting off their noses and
ears and hands, and cutting to pieces the other members and parts of
their bodies, as in Alexandria. The
barbarous mutilation of the Christians which is spoken of here and
farther on in the chapter, began, as we learn from the Martyrs of
Palestine, in the sixth year of the persecution (a.d. 308). The tyrant Maximin seems to have become alarmed
at the number of deaths which the persecution was causing, and to have
hit upon this atrocious expedient as a no less effectual means of
punishment. It was practiced apparently throughout Maximin’s
dominions; we are told of numbers who were treated in this way, both in
Egypt and Palestine (see Mart. Pal. chap. 8 sq.).
2. Why need we revive the recollection of those in Antioch who were roasted on grates, not so as to kill them, but so as to subject them to a lingering punishment? Or of others who preferred to thrust their right hand into the fire rather than touch the impious sacrifice? Some, shrinking from the trial, rather than be taken and fall into the hands of their enemies, threw themselves from lofty houses, considering death preferable to the cruelty of the impious.
3. A certain holy
person,—in soul admirable for virtue, in body a woman,—who
was illustrious beyond all in Antioch for wealth and family and
reputation, had brought up in the principles of religion her two
daughters, who were now in the freshness and bloom of life. Since great
envy was excited on their account, every means was used to find them in
their concealment; and when it was ascertained that they were away,
they were summoned deceitfully to Antioch. Thus they were caught in the
nets of the soldiers. When the woman saw herself and her daughters thus
helpless, and knew the things terrible to speak of that men would do to
them,—and the most unbearable of all terrible things, the
threatened violation of their chastity, This abominable treatment of female Christians formed a feature of
the persecutions both of Maximian and Maximin, who were alike monsters
of licentiousness. It was entirely foreign to all the principles of
Diocletian’s government, and could never have been allowed by
him. It began apparently in Italy under Maximian, after the publication
by him of the Fourth Edict (see Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2), and
was continued in the East by Maximin, when he came into power. We have
a great many instances given of this kind of treatment, and in many
cases, as in the present, suicide relieved the victims of the proposed
indignity.
4. They then listened to her
advice. And after arranging their garments suitably, they went aside
from the middle of the road, having requested of the guards a little
time for retirement, and cast themselves into a river which was
flowing
5. Thus they destroyed
themselves. Eusebius evidently approved of these women’s suicide, and it
must be confessed that they had great provocation. The views of the
early Church on the subject of suicide were in ordinary cases very
decided. They condemned it unhesitatingly as a crime, and thus made a
decided advance upon the position held by many eminent Pagans of that
age, especially among the Stoics. In two cases, however, their opinion
of suicide was somewhat uncertain. There existed in many quarters a
feeling of admiration for those who voluntarily rushed to martyrdom and
needlessly sacrificed their lives. The wiser and steadier minds,
however, condemned this practice unhesitatingly (cf. p. 8, above). The
second case in connection with which the opinions of the Fathers were
divided, was that which meets us in the present passage. The majority
of them evidently not only justified but commended suicide in such an
extremity. The first Father distinctly to condemn the practice was
Augustine (
6. In Pontus, others endured sufferings horrible to hear. Their fingers were pierced with sharp reeds under their nails. Melted lead, bubbling and boiling with the heat, was poured down the backs of others, and they were roasted in the most sensitive parts of the body.
7. Others endured on their bowels and privy members shameful and inhuman and unmentionable torments, which the noble and law-observing judges, to show their severity, devised, as more honorable manifestations of wisdom. And new tortures were continually invented, as if they were endeavoring, by surpassing one another, to gain prizes in a contest.
8. But at the close of these calamities, when finally they could contrive no greater cruelties, and were weary of putting to death, and were filled and satiated with the shedding of blood, they turned to what they considered merciful and humane treatment, so that they seemed to be no longer devising terrible things against us.
9. For they said that it was not fitting that the cities should be polluted with the blood of their own people, or that the government of their rulers, which was kind and mild toward all, should be defamed through excessive cruelty; but that rather the beneficence of the humane and royal authority should be extended to all, and we should no longer be put to death. For the infliction of this punishment upon us should be stopped in consequence of the humanity of the rulers.
10. Therefore it was commanded that our eyes should be put out, and that we should be maimed in one of our limbs. For such things were humane in their sight, and the lightest of punishments for us. So that now on account of this kindly treatment accorded us by the impious, it was impossible to tell the incalculable number of those whose right eyes had first been cut out with the sword, and then had been cauterized with fire; or who had been disabled in the left foot by burning the joints, and afterward condemned to the provincial copper mines, not so much for service as for distress and hardship. Besides all these, others encountered other trials, which it is impossible to recount; for their manly endurance surpasses all description.
11. In these conflicts the noble martyrs of Christ shone illustrious over the entire world, and everywhere astonished those who beheld their manliness; and the evidences of the truly divine and unspeakable power of our Saviour were made manifest through them. To mention each by name would be a long task, if not indeed impossible.
Chapter XIII.—The Bishops of the Church that evinced by their Blood the Genuineness of the Religion which they preached.
1. As
for the rulers of the Church that suffered martyrdom in the principal
cities, the first martyr of the kingdom of Christ whom we shall mention
among the monuments of the pious is Anthimus, On
Anthimus, see above, chap. 6, note 5.
2. Among the martyrs at Antioch
was Lucian, On
Lucian of Antioch, see below, Bk. IX. chap. 6, note 4.
3. Of the martyrs in
Phœnicia the most distinguished were those devoted pastors of the
spiritual flocks of Christ: Tyrannion, Of
Tyrannion and Zenobius, we know only what is told us here and in the
next paragraph. All of the martyrs of whom Eusebius tells us in this
and the following books are commemorated in the Martyrologies, and
accounts of the passions of many of them are given in various Acts,
usually of doubtful authority. I shall not attempt to mention such
documents in my notes, nor to give references to the Martyrologies,
unless there be some special reason for it in connection with a case of
particular interest. Wherever we have farther information in regard to
any of these martyrs, in Eusebius himself or other early Fathers, I
shall endeavor to give the needed references, passing other names by
unnoticed. Tillemont (H. E. V.) contains accounts of all these
men, and all the necessary references to the Martyrologies, the
Bollandist Acts, etc. To his work the curious reader is
referred. Silvanus is mentioned again in Bk. IX. chap. 6, and from that
passage we learn that he was a very old man at the time of his death,
and that he had been bishop forty years. It is, moreover, directly
stated in that passage that Silvanus suffered martyrdom at the same
period with Peter of Alexandria, namely, in the year 312 or
thereabouts. This being the date also of Lucian’s martyrdom,
mentioned just above, we may assume it as probable that all mentioned
in this chapter suffered about the same time.
i.e. Tyrannion.
5. Of the martyrs in Palestine,
Silvanus, Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, is mentioned also in Mart. Pal.
chaps. 7 and 13. From the former chapter we learn that he became a
confessor at Phæno in the fifth year of the persecution (a.d. 307), while still a presbyter; from the latter,
that he suffered martyrdom in the seventh year, at the very close of
the persecution in Palestine, and that he had been eminent in his
confessions from the beginning of the persecution. Phæno was a village of Arabia Petræa, between Petra and
Zoar, and contained celebrated copper mines, which were worked by
condemned criminals. Peleus and Nilus are mentioned in Mart. Pal. chap. 13, from
which passage we learn that they, like Silvanus, died in the seventh
year of the persecution. An anonymous presbyter and a man named
Patermuthius, are named there as perishing with them in the
flames.
6. Among these we must mention Pamphilus, a presbyter, who was the great glory of the parish of Cæsarea, and among the men of our time most admirable.
7. The virtue of his manly deeds
we have recorded in the proper place. On
Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40. Eusebius refers here
to his Life of Pamphilus (see above, p. 28). On Peter of Alexandria, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note
54. Faustus is probably to be identified with the deacon of the same
name, mentioned above in Bk. VI. chap. 40 and in Bk. VII. chap. 11. At
any rate, we learn from the latter chapter that the Faustus mentioned
there lived to a great age, and died in the persecution of Diocletian,
so that nothing stands in the way of identifying the two, though in the
absence of all positive testimony, the identification cannot be
insisted upon. Of Dius and Ammonius we know nothing. On
Phileas, see above, chap. 9, note 3. A
Latin version of an epistle purporting to have been written by these
four bishops is still extant (see above, chap. 9, note 3). We know
nothing more about the last three named here. It has been customary to
identify this Hesychius with the reviser of the text of the LXX and the
Gospels which was widely current in Egypt in the time of Jerome, and
was known as the Hesychian recension (see Jerome, Præf. in
Paralipom., Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 27, Præf in quattuor
Evangelia; and cf. Comment. in Isaiam, LVIII. 11). We know
little about this text; but Jerome speaks of it slightingly, as does
also the Decretal of Gelasius, VI. §15 (according to
Westcott’s Hist. of the Canon, 5th ed. p. 392, note 5).
The identification of the two men is quite possible, for the recension
referred to belonged no doubt to this period; but no positive arguments
beyond agreement in name and country can be urged in support of it.
Fabricius proposed to identify our Hesychius with the author of the
famous Greek Lexicon, which is still extant. But this identification is
now commonly rejected; and the author of the lexicon is regarded as a
pagan, who lived in Alexandria during the latter part of the fourth
century. See Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Biography
and Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.
s.v.
It is not for us to describe the
conflicts of those who suffered for the divine religion throughout the
entire world, and to relate accurately what happened to each of them.
This would be the proper work of those who were eye-witnesses of the
events. I will describe for posterity in another work Eusebius refers here to his Martyrs of Palestine. See
above, p. 29 sq.
8. But in the present book κατὰ τὸν
παρόντα
λόγον. Eusebius seems
to refer here to the eighth book of his History; for he
uses λόγος frequently
in referring to the separate books of his work, but nowhere else, so
far as I am aware, in referring to the work as a whole. This would seem
to indicate that he was thinking at this time of writing only eight
books, and of bringing his History to an end with the toleration
edict of Galerius, which he gives in chap. 17, below. Might it be
supposed that the present passage was written immediately after the
publication of the edict of Galerius, and before the renewal of the
persecution by Maximin? If that were so, we might assume that after the
close of that persecution, in consequence of the victory of Constantine
and Licinius, the historian felt it necessary to add yet a ninth book
to his work, not contemplated at the time he was writing his eighth; as
he seems still later, after the victory of Constantine over Licinius,
to have found it necessary to add a tenth book, in order that his work
might cover the entire period of persecution and include the final
triumph of the Church. His motive, indeed, in adding the tenth book
seems not to have been to bring the history down to the latest date
possible, for he made no additions during his later years, in spite of
the interesting and exciting events which took place after 325 a.d., but to bring it down to the final triumph of
the Church over her pagan enemies. Had there been another persecution
and another toleration edict between 325 and 338, we can hardly doubt
that Eusebius would have added an account of it to his History.
In view of these considerations, it is possible that some time may have
elapsed between the composition of the eighth and ninth books, as well
as between the composition of the ninth and tenth. It must be admitted,
however, that a serious objection to this supposition lies in the fact
that in chaps. 15 and 16, below, the tenth year of the persecution is
spoken of, and in the latter chapter the author is undoubtedly thinking
of the Edict of Milan, which was issued in 312, after the renewal of
Maximin’s persecution described in Book IX. I am, nevertheless,
inclined to think that Eusebius, when he wrote the present passage, was
expecting to close his work with the present book, and that the
necessity for another book made itself manifest before he finished the
present one. It may be that the words in chaps. 15 and 16 are a later
insertion. I do not regard this as probable, but knowing the changes
that were made in the ninth book in a second edition of the
History, it must be admitted that such changes in the eighth
book are not impossible (see above, p. 30 and 45). At the same time I
prefer the former alternative, that the necessity for another book
became manifest before he finished the present one. A slight
confirmation of the theory that the ninth book was a later addition,
necessitated by the persecution of Maximin’s later years, may be
found in the appendix to the eighth book which is found in many mss. See below, p. 340, note 1.
9. What words could sufficiently describe the greatness and abundance of the prosperity of the Roman government before the war against us, while the rulers were friendly and peaceable toward us? Then those who were highest in the government, and had held the position ten or twenty years, passed their time in tranquil peace, in festivals and public games and most joyful pleasures and cheer.
10. While thus their authority
was growing uninterruptedly, and increasing day by day, suddenly they
changed their peaceful attitude toward us, and began an implacable war.
But the second year of this movement was not yet past, when a
11. For a severe sickness came
upon the chief of those of whom we have spoken, by which his
understanding was distracted; and with him who was honored with the
second rank, he retired into private life. The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, the two Augusti, took
place on May 1, 305, and therefore a little more, not a little less,
than two years after the publication of Diocletian’s First Edict.
The causes of the abdication have been given variously by different
writers, and our original authorities are themselves in no better
agreement. I do not propose to enter here into a discussion of the
subject, but am convinced that Burckhardt, Mason, and others are
correct in looking upon the abdication, not as the result of a sudden
resolve, but as a part of Diocletian’s great plan, and as such
long resolved upon and regarded as one of the fundamental requirements
of his system to be regularly observed by his successors, as well as by
himself. The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian raised the
Cæsars Constantius and Galerius to the rank of Augusti, and two
new Cæsars, Maximinus Daza in the East, and Severus in the West,
were appointed to succeed them. Diocletian himself retired to Dalmatia,
his native province, where he passed the remainder of his life in rural
pursuits, until his death in 313. Eusebius is correct in saying that the empire had never been
divided up to this time. For it had always been ruled as one whole,
even when the imperial power was shared by two or more princes. And
even the system of Diocletian was not meant to divide the empire into
two or more independent parts. The plan was simply to vest the supreme
power in two heads, who should be given lieutenants to assist them in
the government, but who should jointly represent the unity of the whole
while severally administering their respective territories. Imperial
acts to be valid had to be joint, not individual acts, and had to bear
the name of both Augusti, while the Cæsars were looked upon only
as the lieutenants and representatives of their respective superiors.
Finally, in the last analysis, there was theoretically but the one
supreme head, the first Augustus. While Diocletian was emperor, the
theoretical unity was a practical thing. So long as his strong hand was
on the helm, Maximian, the other Augustus, did not venture to do
anything in opposition to his wishes, and thus the great system worked
smoothly. But with Diocletian’s abdication, everything was
changed. Theoretically Constantius was the first Augustus, but
Galerius, not Constantius, had had the naming of the Cæsars; and
there was no intention on Galerius’ part to acknowledge in any
way his inferiority to Constantius. In fact, being in the East, whence
the government had been carried on for twenty years, it was natural
that he should be entirely independent of Constantius, and that thus,
as Eusebius says, a genuine division of the empire, not theoretical but
practical, should be the result. The principle remained the same; but
West and East seemed now to stand, not under one great emperor, but
under two equal and independent heads.
12. Not long after, the Emperor
Constantius, who through his entire life was most kindly and favorably
disposed toward his subjects, and most friendly to the Divine Word,
ended his life in the common course of nature, and left his own son,
Constantine, as emperor and Augustus in his stead. Constantius Chlorus died at York, in Britain, July 25, 306.
According to the system of Diocletian, the Cæsar Severus should
regularly have succeeded to his place, and a new Cæsar should have
been appointed to succeed Severus. But Constantine, the oldest son of
Constantius, who was with his father at the time of his death, was at
once proclaimed his successor, and hailed as Augustus by the army. This
was by no means to Galerius’ taste, for he had far other plans in
mind; but he was not in a position to dispute Constantine’s
claims, and so made the best of the situation by recognizing
Constantine not as Augustus, but as second Cæsar, while he raised
Severus to the rank of Augustus, and made his own Cæsar Maximin
first Cæsar. Constantine was thus theoretically subject to
Severus, but the subjection was only a fiction, for he was practically
independent in his own district from that time on. Our sources are
unanimous in giving Constantius an amiable and pious character,
unusually free from bigotry and cruelty. Although he was obliged to
show some respect to the persecuting edicts of his superiors,
Diocletian and Maximian, he seems to have been averse to persecution,
and to have gone no further than was necessary in that direction,
destroying some churches, but apparently subjecting none of the
Christians to bodily injury. We have no hint, however, that he was a
Christian, or that his generous treatment of the Christians was the
result in any way of a belief in their religion. It was simply the
result of his natural tolerance and humanity, combined, doubtless, with
a conviction that there was nothing essentially vicious or dangerous in
Christianity. Not the first of Roman emperors to be so honored, but the first of
the four rulers who were at that time at the head of the empire. It had
been the custom from the beginning to decree divine honors to the Roman
emperors upon their decease, unless their characters or their reigns
had been such as to leave universal hatred behind them, in which case
such honors were often denied them, and their memory publicly and
officially execrated, and all their public monuments destroyed. The
ascription of such honors to Constantius, therefore, does not in itself
imply that he was superior to the other three rulers, nor indeed
superior to the emperors in general, but only that he was not a
monster, as some had been. The last emperor to receive such divine
honors was Diocletian himself, with whose death the old pagan regime
came finally to an end.
13. He was the kindest and
mildest of emperors, and the only one of those of our day that passed
all the time of his government in a manner worthy of his office.
Moreover, he conducted himself toward all most favorably and
beneficently. He took not the smallest part in the war against us, but
preserved the pious that were under him unharmed and unabused. He
neither threw down the church buildings, This is a mistake; for though Constantius seems to have proceeded
as mildly as possible, he did destroy churches, as we are directly
informed by Lactantius (de Mort. pers. 15), and as we can learn
from extant Acts and other sources (see Mason, p. 146 sq.). Eusebius,
perhaps, knew nothing about the matter, and simply drew a conclusion
from the known character of Constantius and his general tolerance
toward the Christians.
14. His son Constantine entered on the government at once, being proclaimed supreme emperor and Augustus by the soldiers, and long before by God himself, the King of all. He showed himself an emulator of his father’s piety toward our doctrine. Such an one was he.
But after this, Licinius was
declared emperor and Augustus by a common vote of the rulers. The steps which led to the appointment of Licinius are omitted by
Eusebius. Maxentius, son of the old Augustus Maximian, spurred on by
the success of Constantine’s move in Britain, attempted to follow
his example in Italy. He won the support of a considerable portion of
the army and of the Roman people, and in October of the same year (306)
was proclaimed emperor by soldiers and people. Severus, who marched
against the usurper, was defeated and slain, and Galerius, who
endeavored to revenge his fallen colleague, was obliged to retreat
without accomplishing anything. This left Italy and Africa in the hands
of an independent ruler, who was recognized by none of the others.
Toward the end of the year 307, Licinius, an old friend and
comrade-in-arms of Galerius, was appointed Augustus to succeed Severus,
whose death had occurred a number of months before, but whose place had
not yet been filled. The appointment of Licinius took place at
Carnuntum on the Danube, where Galerius, Diocletian, and Maximian met
for consultation. Inasmuch as Italy and Africa were still in the hands
of Maxentius, Licinius was given the Illyrian provinces with the rank
of second Augustus, and was thus nominally ruler of the entire
West.
15. These things grieved
Maximinus greatly, for until that time he had been entitled by all only
Cæsar. He therefore, being exceedingly imperious, seized the
dignity for himself, and became Augustus, being made such by himself. Early in 308 Maximinus, the first Cæsar, who was naturally
incensed at the promotion of a new man, Licinius, to a position above
himself, was hailed as Augustus by his troops, and at once notified
Galerius of the fact. The latter could not afford to quarrel with
Maximinus, and therefore bestowed upon him the full dignity of an
Augustus, as upon Constantine also at the same time. There were thus
four independent Augusti (to say nothing of the emperor Maxentius), and
the system of Diocletian was a thing of the past. The reference is to the Augustus Maximian. After his abdication he
retired to Lucania, but in the following year was induced by his son,
Maxentius, to leave his retirement, and join him in wresting Italy and
Africa from Severus. It was due in large measure to his military skill
and to the prestige of his name that Severus was vanquished and
Galerius repulsed. After his victories Maximian went to Gaul, to see
Constantine and form an alliance with him. He bestowed upon him the
title of Augustus and the hand of his daughter Fausta, and endeavored
to induce him to join him in a campaign against Galerius. This,
however, Constantine refused to do; and Maximian finally returned to
Rome, where he found his son Maxentius entrenched in the affections of
the soldiers and the people, and bent upon ruling for himself. After a
bitter quarrel with him, in which he attempted, but failed, to wrest
the purple from him, he left the city, attended the congress of
Carnuntum, and acquiesced in the appointment of Licinius as second
Augustus, which of course involved the formal renunciation of his own
claims and those of his son. He then betook himself again to
Constantine, but during the latter’s temporary absence
treacherously had himself proclaimed Augustus by some of the troops. He
was, however, easily overpowered by Constantine, but was forgiven and
granted his liberty again. About two years later, unable to resist the
desire to reign, he made an attempt upon Constantine’s life with
the hope of once more securing the power for himself, but was detected
and allowed to choose the manner of his own death, and in February,
310, strangled himself. The general facts just stated are well made
out, but there is some uncertainty as to the exact order of events, in
regard to which our sources are at variance. Compare especially the
works of Hunziker, Burckhardt, and Mason, and the respective articles
in Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog. Eusebius’ memory
plays him false in this passage; for he has not mentioned, as he
states, Maximian’s resumption of the imperial dignity after his
abdication. A few important mss., followed by
Heinichen, omit the entire clause, “whom we have mentioned as
having resumed his dignity after his abdication.” But the words
are found in the majority of the mss. and in
Rufinus, and are accepted by all the other editors. There can, in fact,
be no doubt that Eusebius wrote the words, and that the omission of
them in some codices is due to the fact that some scribe or scribes
perceived his slip, and consequently omitted the clause. Valesius understands by this (as in §12, above), the first of
the four emperors. But we find in Lactantius (ibid. chap. 42)
the distinct statement that Diocletian (whose statues were thrown down
in Rome with those of Maximian, to which they were joined,
Janus-fashion) was the first emperor that had ever suffered such an
indignity, and there is no hint in the text that Eusebius means any
less than that in making his statement, though we know that it is
incorrect.
Chapter XIV.—The Character of the Enemies of Religion.
1. Maxentius his son, who obtained the government at Rome, See the previous chapter, note 21. The character which
Eusebius gives to Maxentius in this chapter is borne out by all our
sources, both heathen and Christian, and seems not to be greatly
overdrawn. It has been sometimes disputed whether he persecuted the
Christians, but there is no ground to suppose that he did, though they,
in common with all his subjects, had to suffer from his oppression, and
therefore hated him as deeply as the others did. His failure to
persecute the Christians as such, and his restoration to them of the
rights which they had enjoyed before the beginning of the great
persecution, can hardly be looked upon as a result of a love or respect
for our religion. It was doubtless in part due to hostility to
Galerius, but chiefly to political considerations. He apparently saw
what Constantine later saw and profited by,—that it would be for
his profit, and would tend to strengthen his government, to gain the
friendship of that large body of his subjects which had been so
violently handled under the reign of his father. And, no doubt, the
universal toleration which he offered was one of the great sources of
his strength at the beginning of his reign. Upon his final defeat by
Constantine, and his death, see below, Bk. IX. chap. 9.
2. But he did not prove in his deeds to be such a person as was hoped, but ran into all wickedness and abstained from no impurity or licentiousness, committing adulteries and indulging in all kinds of corruption. For having separated wives from their lawful consorts, he abused them and sent them back most dishonorably to their husbands. And he not only practiced this against the obscure and unknown, but he insulted especially the most prominent and distinguished members of the Roman senate.
3. All his subjects, people and rulers, honored and obscure, were worn out by grievous oppression. Neither, although they kept quiet, and bore the bitter servitude, was there any relief from the murderous cruelty of the tyrant. Once, on a small pretense, he gave the people to be slaughtered by his guards; and a great multitude of the Roman populace were slain in the midst of the city, with the spears and arms, not of Scythians and barbarians, but of their own fellow-citizens.
4. It would be impossible to recount the number of senators who were put to death for the sake of their wealth; multitudes being slain on various pretenses.
5. To crown all his wickedness, the tyrant resorted to magic. And in his divinations he cut open pregnant women, and again inspected the bowels of newborn infants. He slaughtered lions, and performed various execrable acts to invoke demons and avert war. For his only hope was that, by these means, victory would be secured to him.
6. It is impossible to tell the ways in which this tyrant at Rome oppressed his subjects, so that they were reduced to such an extreme dearth of the necessities of life as has never been known, according to our contemporaries, either at Rome or elsewhere.
7. But Maximinus, the tyrant in
the East, having secretly formed a friendly alliance with the Roman
tyrant as with a brother in wickedness, sought to conceal it for a long
time. But being at last detected, he suffered merited punishment. On the alliance of Maximinus with Maxentius, his war with
Licinius, and his death, see below, Bk. IX. chaps. 9 and 10. Upon his
accession to the Cæsarship, and usurpation of the title of
Augustus, see above, chap. 13, notes 16 and 22. Maximinus Daza was a
nephew of Galerius, who owed his advancement, not to his own merits,
but solely to the favor of his uncle, but who, nevertheless, after
acquiring power, was by no means the tool Galerius had expected him to
be. Eusebius seems not to have exaggerated his wickedness in the least.
He was the most abandoned and vicious of the numerous rulers of the
time, and was utterly without redeeming qualities, so far as we can
ascertain. Under him the Christians suffered more severely than under
any of his colleagues, and even after the toleration edict and death of
Galerius (a.d. 311), he continued the
persecution for more than a year. His territory comprised Egypt and
Syria, and consequently the greater part of the martyrdoms recorded by
Eusebius in his Martyrs of Palestine took place under him. (See
that work, for the details.) Upon the so-called Fifth Edict, which was
issued by him in 308, see Mart. Pal. chap. 9, note 1. Upon his
treatment of the Christians after the death of Galerius, and upon his
final toleration edict, see Bk. IX. chap. 2 sq. and chap. 9
sq.
8. It was wonderful Literally, “a finger-nail” (ὄνυχος).
9. Therefore he persecuted us more violently and incessantly than his predecessors. He ordered temples to be erected in every city, and the sacred groves which had been destroyed through lapse of time to be speedily restored. He appointed idol priests in every place and city; and he set over them in every province, as high priest, some political official who had especially distinguished himself in every kind of service, giving him a band of soldiers and a body-guard. And to all jugglers, as if they were pious and beloved of the gods, he granted governments and the greatest privileges.
10. From this time on he distressed and harassed, not one city or country, but all the provinces under his authority, by extreme exactions of gold and silver and goods, and most grievous prosecutions and various fines. He took away from the wealthy the property which they had inherited from their ancestors, and bestowed vast riches and large sums of money on the flatterers about him.
11. And he went to such an excess of folly and drunkenness that his mind was deranged and crazed in his carousals; and he gave commands when intoxicated of which he repented afterward when sober. He suffered no one to surpass him in debauchery and profligacy, but made himself an instructor in wickedness to those about him, both rulers and subjects. He urged on the army to live wantonly in every kind of revelry and intemperance, and encouraged the governors and generals to abuse their subjects with rapacity and covetousness, almost as if they were rulers with him.
12. Why need we relate the licentious, shameless deeds of the man, or enumerate the multitude with whom he committed adultery? For he could not pass through a city without continually corrupting women and ravishing virgins.
13. And in this he succeeded with all except the Christians. For as they despised death, they cared nothing for his power. For the men endured fire and sword and crucifixion and wild beasts and the depths of the sea, and cutting off of limbs, and burnings, and pricking and digging out of eyes, and mutilations of the entire body, and besides these, hunger and mines and bonds. In all they showed patience in behalf of religion rather than transfer to idols the reverence due to God.
14. And the women were not less
manly than the men in behalf of the teaching of the Divine Word, as
they endured conflicts with the men, and bore away equal prizes of
virtue. And when they were dragged away for corrupt purposes, they
surrendered their lives to death rather than their bodies to
impurity. Compare chap. 12, note 3, above.
15. One only of those who were seized for adulterous purposes by the tyrant, a most distinguished and illustrious Christian woman in Alexandria, conquered the passionate and intemperate soul of Maximinus by most heroic firmness. Honorable on account of wealth and family and education, she esteemed all of these inferior to chastity. He urged her many times, but although she was ready to die, he could not put her to death, for his desire was stronger than his anger.
16. He therefore punished her with exile, and took away all her property. Many others, unable even to listen to the threats of violation from the heathen rulers, endured every form of tortures, and rackings, and deadly punishment.
These indeed should be admired. But far the most admirable was that woman at Rome, who was truly the most noble and modest of all, whom the tyrant Maxentius, fully resembling Maximinus in his actions, endeavored to abuse.
17. For when she learned that
those who served the tyrant in such matters were at the house (she also
was a Christian), and that her husband, although a prefect of Rome,
would suffer them to take and lead her away, having requested a little
time for adorning her body, she entered her chamber, and being alone,
stabbed herself with a sword. Dying immediately, she left her corpse to
those who had come for her. And by her deeds, more powerfully than by
any words, she has shown to all men now and hereafter that the virtue
which prevails among Christians is the only invincible and
indestructible possession. Ibid.
18. Such was the career of wickedness which was carried forward at one and the same time by the two tyrants who held the East and the West. Who is there that would hesitate, after careful examination, to pronounce the persecution against us the cause of such evils? Especially since this extreme confusion of affairs did not cease until the Christians had obtained liberty.
τοῖς
ἐκτός.
1. During the entire ten years Diocletian’s First Edict was issued on Feb. 24, 303; and the
persecution was brought to a final end by Constantine and
Licinius’ edict of toleration, which was issued at Milan late in
the year 312 (see below, Bk. IX. chap. 9, note 17). The persecution may
therefore be said to have lasted altogether ten years; although of
course there were many cessations during that period, and in the West
it really came to an end with the usurpation of Maxentius in 306, and
in the East (except in Maximin’s dominions) with the edict of
Galerius in 311. This passage is largely rhetorical. It is true that enough
plotting and warring went on after the usurpation of Maxentius in 306,
and after the death of Galerius in 311, to justify pretty strong
statements. Gibbon, for instance, says: “The abdication of
Diocletian and Maximian was succeeded by eighteen years of discord and
confusion. The empire was afflicted by five civil wars; and the
remainder of the time was not so much a state of tranquillity as a
suspension of arms between several hostile monarchs, who, viewing each
other with an eye of fear and hatred, strove to increase their
respective forces at the expense of their subjects” (chap. xiv.).
At the same time, during the four years between 307 and 311, though
there was not the harmony which had existed under Diocletian, and
though the interests of the West and East were in the main hostile, yet
the empire was practically at peace, barring the persecution of the
Christians.
2. And besides these things
shields and breastplates were preparing, and darts and spears and other
warlike accoutrements were making ready, and galleys and naval armor
were collecting in every place. And no one expected anything else than
to be attacked by enemies any day. In addition to this, famine and
pestilence came upon them, in regard to which we shall relate what is
necessary in the proper place. See below, Bk. IX. chap. 8.
Chapter XVI.—The Change of Affairs for the Better.
1. Such
was the state of affairs during the entire persecution. But in the
tenth year, through the grace of God, it ceased altogether, having
begun to decrease after the eighth year. The edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius toward the
close of the year 312 (upon the date, see Mason, p. 333, note) put an
end to the persecution in its tenth year, though complete toleration
was not proclaimed by Maximin until the following spring. Very soon
after the close of the eighth year, in April, 311, Galerius issued his
edict of toleration which is given in the next chapter. It is,
therefore, to the publication of this edict that Eusebius refers when
he says that the persecution had begun to decrease after the eighth
year. Maximin yielded reluctant and partial consent to this edict for a
few months, but before the end of the year he began to persecute again;
and during the year 312 the Christians suffered severely in his
dominions (see Bk. IX. chap. 2 sq.). The plural here seems a little peculiar, for the edict was issued
only in the name of Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, not in the
name of Maximin. We have no record of Licinius as a persecutor before
this time, and Eusebius’ words of praise in the ninth book would
seem to imply that he had not shown himself at all hostile to the
Church. And in fact Licinius seems ruled out by §2, below, where
“they” are spoken of as having “from the beginning
devised more and more severe measures against us.” And yet, since
Constantine did not persecute, we must suppose either that Licinius is
included in Eusebius’ plural, or what is perhaps more probable,
that Eusebius thinks of the edict as proceeding from all four emperors
though bearing the names of only three of them. It is true that the
latter is rather a violent supposition in view of Eusebius’ own
words in the first chapter of Bk. IX. I confess that I find no
satisfactory explanation of the apparent inconsistency.
2. But this was not due to any
human agency; nor was it the result, as one might say, of the
compassion or philanthropy of our rulers;—far from it, for daily
from the beginning until that time they were devising more and more
severe measures against us, and continually inventing outrages by a
greater variety of instruments;—but it was manifestly due to the
oversight of Divine Providence, on the one hand becoming reconciled to
his people, and on the other, attacking him i.e. Galerius.
3. For though it was necessary
that these things should take place, according to the divine judgment,
yet the Word saith, “Woe to him through whom the offense
cometh.” Galerius seems to have been smitten with the terrible disease,
which Eusebius here refers to, and which is described by Lactantius at
considerable length (De mort. pers. chap. 33) and with many
imaginative touches (e.g. the stench of his disease pervades “not
only the palace, but even the whole city”!), before the end of
the year 310, and his death took place in May of the following
year.
4. For an abscess suddenly appeared in the midst of the secret parts of his body, and from it a deeply perforated sore, which spread irresistibly into his inmost bowels. An indescribable multitude of worms sprang from them, and a deathly odor arose, as the entire bulk of his body had, through his gluttony, been changed, before his sickness, into an excessive mass of soft fat, which became putrid, and thus presented an awful and intolerable sight to those who came near.
5. Some of the physicians, being wholly unable to endure the exceeding offensiveness of the odor, were slain; others, as the entire mass had swollen and passed beyond hope of restoration, and they were unable to render any help, were put to death without mercy.
1. Wrestling with so many evils, he thought of the cruelties which he had committed against the pious. Turning, therefore, his thoughts toward himself, he first openly confessed to the God of the universe, and then summoning his attendants, he commanded that without delay they should stop the persecution of the Christians, and should by law and royal decree, urge them forward to build their churches and to perform their customary worship, offering prayers in behalf of the emperor. Immediately the deed followed the word.
2. The imperial decrees were published in the cities, containing the revocation of the acts against us in the following form:
3. “The Emperor Cæsar Galerius Valerius Maximinus, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, conqueror of the Germans, conqueror of the Egyptians, conqueror of the Thebans, five times conqueror of the Sarmatians, conqueror of the Persians, twice conqueror of the Carpathians, six times conqueror of the Armenians, conqueror of the Medes, conqueror of the Adiabeni, Tribune of the people the twentieth time, Emperor the nineteenth time, Consul the eighth time, Father of his country, Proconsul;
4. and the Emperor Cæsar Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Pius, Felix, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribune of the people, Emperor the fifth time, Consul, Father of his country, Proconsul;
5. and the Emperor Cæsar
Valerius Licinius, Pius, Felix, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus,
Tribune of the people the fourth time, Emperor the third time, Consul,
Father of his country, Proconsul; to the people of their provinces,
greeting: This edict was issued in April, 311 (see the previous chapter,
note 1). There has been considerable discussion as to the reason for
the omission of Maximin’s name from the heading of the edict. The
simplest explanation is that he did not wish to have his name appear in
a document which was utterly distasteful to him and which he never
fully sanctioned, as we learn from Bk. IX. chaps. 1 and 2, below. It is
possible, as Mason suggests, that in the copies of the edict which were
designed for other parts of the empire than his own the names of all
four emperors appeared. Eusebius gives a Greek translation of the
edict. The original Latin is found in Lactantius’ De mort.
pers. chap. 34. The translation in the present case is in the main
accurate though somewhat free. The edict is an acknowledgment of defeat
on Galerius’ part, and was undoubtedly caused in large part by a
superstitious desire, brought on by his sickness, to propitiate the God
of the Christians whom he had been unable to conquer. And yet, in my
opinion, it is not as Mason calls it, “one of the most bizarre
state documents ever penned,” “couched in language
treacherous, contradictory, and sown with the most virulent
hatred”; neither does it “lay the blame upon the Christians
because they had forsaken Christ,” nor aim to “dupe
and outwit the angry Christ, by pretending to be not a persecutor, but
a reformer.” As will be seen from note 3, below, I interpret the
document in quite another way, and regard it as a not inconsistent
statement of the whole matter from Galerius’ own point of
view.
6. “Among the other things
which we have ordained for the public advantage and profit, we formerly
wished to restore everything to conformity with the ancient laws and
public discipline τὴν
δημοσίαν
ἐπιστήμην. Latin: publicam disciplinam. τῶν γονέων
τῶν ἑαυτῶν
τὴν
αἵρεσιν.
Latin: parentum suorum sectam. There has been some discussion as
to whether Galerius here refers to primitive Christianity or to
paganism, but the almost unanimous opinion of scholars (so far as I am
aware) is that he means the former (cf. among others, Mason, p. 298
sq.). I confess myself, however, unable, after careful study of the
document, to accept this interpretation. Not that I think it impossible
that Galerius should pretend that the cause of the persecution had been
the departure of the Christians from primitive Christianity, and its
object the reform of the Church, because, although that was certainly
not his object, he may nevertheless, when conquered, have wished to
make it appear so to the Christians at least (see Mason, p. 302 sq.).
My reason for not accepting the interpretation is that I cannot see
that the language of the edict warrants it; and certainly, inasmuch as
it is not what we should a priori expect Galerius to say, we are
hardly justified in adopting it except upon very clear grounds. But in
my opinion such grounds do not exist, and in fact the interpretation
seems to me to do violence to at least a part of the decree. In the
present sentence it is certainly not necessarily implied that
the ancestors of the Christians held a different religion from the
ancestors of the heathen; in fact, it seems on the face of it more
natural to suppose that Galerius is referring to the earlier ancestors
of both Christians and heathen, who were alike pagans. This is
confirmed by the last clause of the sentence: ad bonas mentes
redirent (εἰς
ἀγαθήν
πρόθεσιν
ἐπανέλθοιεν), which in the mouth of Galerius, and indeed of any
heathen, would naturally mean “return to the worship of our
gods.” This in itself, however, proves nothing, for Galerius may,
as is claimed, have used the words hypocritically; but in the next
sentence, which is looked upon as the main support of the
interpretation which I am combating, it is not said that they have
deserted their ancient institutions in distinction from the
institutions of the rest of the world, but illa veterum
instituta (a term which he could hardly employ in this unqualified
way to indicate the originators of Christianity without gross and
gratuitous insult to his heathen subjects) quæ forsitan primum
parentes eorumdem constituerant, “those institutions of the
ancients which perchance their own fathers had first
established” (the Greek is not quite accurate, omitting the
demonstrative, and reading πρότερον for primum). There can hardly have been a
“perchance” about the fact that the Christians’
ancestors had first established Christian institutions, whatever they
were—certainly Galerius would never have thought of implying that
his ancestors, or the ancestors of his brother-pagans, had established
them. His aim seems to be to suggest, as food for reflection, not only
that the ancestors of the Christians had certainly, with the ancestors
of the heathen, originally observed pagan institutions, but that
perhaps they had themselves been the very ones to establish those
institutions, which would make the guilt of the Christians in departing
from them all the worse. In the next clause, the reference to the
Christians as making laws for themselves and assembling in various
places may as easily be a rebuke to the Christians for their separation
from their heathen fellow-citizens in matters of life and worship as a
rebuke to them for their departure from the original unity of the
Christian Church. Again, in the next sentence the “institutions
of the ancients” (veterum instituta) are referred to in
the most general way, without any such qualification as could possibly
lead the Christians or any one else to think that the institutions of
the Christian religion were meant. Conformity to “the ancient
laws and public discipline of the Romans” is announced in the
beginning of the edict as the object which Galerius had in view. Could
he admit, even for the sake of propitiating his Christian subjects,
that those laws and that discipline were Christian? Veterum
instituta in fact could mean to the reader nothing else, as thus
absolutely used, than the institutions of the old Romans. Still further it is to
be noticed that in §9 Galerius does not say “but
although many persevere in their purpose…nevertheless,
in consideration of our philanthropy, we have determined that we ought
to extend our indulgence,” &c., but rather “and
since (atque cum) many persevere in their purpose,”
&c. The significance of this has apparently been hitherto quite
overlooked. Does he mean to say that he feels that he ought to extend
indulgence just because they do exactly what they did
before—worship neither the gods of the heathen nor the God of the
Christians? I can hardly think so. He seems to me to say rather,
“Since many, in spite of my severe measures, still persevere in
their purpose (in proposito perseverarent) and refuse to worship
our gods, while at the same time they cease under the pressure to
worship their own God as they have been accustomed to do, I have
decided to permit them to return to their own worship, thinking it
better that they worship the God of the Christians than that they
worship no God; provided in worshiping him they do nothing contrary to
discipline (contra disciplinam), i.e. contrary to Roman
law.” Thus interpreted, the entire edict seems to me consistent
and at the same time perfectly natural. It is intended to propitiate
the Christians and to have them pray for the good of the emperor to
their own God, rather than refuse to pray for him altogether. It is not
an acknowledgment even to the Christians that their God is the supreme
and only true God, but it is an acknowledgment that their God is
probably better than no god, and that the empire will be better off if
they become loyal, peaceable, prayerful citizens again (even if their
prayers are not directed to the highest gods), than if they continue
disaffected and disloyal and serve and worship no superior being. That
the edict becomes, when thus interpreted, much more dignified and much
more worthy of an emperor cannot be denied; and, little respect as we
may have for Galerius, we should not accuse him of playing the
hypocrite and the fool in this matter, except on better grounds than
are offered by the extant text of this edict.
7. For in some way such arrogance had seized them and such stupidity had overtaken them, that they did not follow the ancient institutions which possibly their own ancestors had formerly established, but made for themselves laws according to their own purpose, as each one desired, and observed them, and thus assembled as separate congregations in various places.
8. When we had issued this
decree that they should return to the institutions established by the
ancients, ἐπὶ
τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀρχαὶων
καταστ€θεντα. Latin: ad veterum instituta. πλεῖστοι. Latin: multi. παντοίους
θαν€τους
ὑπέφερον. Latin: deturbati sunt.
9. And since many continue in
the same folly, τῇ αὐτῇ
ἀπονοί& 139·
διαμενόντων. Latin: in proposito perseverarent. τοὺς
οἰκοὺς, ἐν
οἷς
συνήγοντο,
συνθῶσιν. Latin: conventicula sua componant. contra disciplinam, i.e.
“against the discipline or laws of the Romans.” Galerius
does not tell us just what this indefinite phrase is meant to cover,
and the letter to the magistrates, in which he doubtless explained
himself and laid down the conditions, is unfortunately lost. The edict
of Milan, as Mason conclusively shows, refers to this edict of Galerius
and to these accompanying conditions; and from that edict some light is
thrown upon the nature of these conditions imposed by Galerius. It has
been conjectured that in Galerius’ edict, Christianity was
forbidden to all but certain classes: “that if a man chose to
declare himself a Christian, he would incur no danger, but might no
longer take his seat as a decurion in his native town, or the
like”; that Galerius had endeavored to make money out of the
transaction whereby Christians received their church property back
again; that proselytizing was forbidden; that possibly the toleration
of Christianity was made a matter of local option, and that any town or
district by a majority vote could prohibit its exercise within its own
limits (see Mason p. 330 sq.). These conjectures are plausible, though
of course precarious.
10. Wherefore, on account of
this indulgence of ours, they ought to supplicate their God for our
safety, and that of the people, and their own, that the public welfare
may be preserved in every place, The
Greek reads, in all our mss., κατὰ
π€ντα
τρόπον,
“in every manner.” The Latin original, however, reads
undique versum. In view of that fact, I feel confident that the
Greek translator must have written τόπον instead
of τρόπον. If,
therefore, that translator was Eusebius, we must suppose that the
change to τρόπον is
due to the error of some scribe. If, on the other hand, Eusebius simply
copied the Greek translation from some one else, he may himself have
carelessly written τρόπον. In
either case, however, τόπον must have
been the original translation, and I have therefore substituted it
for τρόπον, and
have rendered accordingly. I find that Crusè has done likewise,
whether for the same reason I do not know.
11. Such is the tenor of this
edict, translated, as well as possible, from the Roman tongue into the
Greek. Eusebius does not say whether the translating was done by himself
or by some one else. The epistle of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus,
quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 9, above, was translated by himself, as he
directly informs us (see ibid. chap. 8, note 17). This might
lead us to suppose him the translator in the present case; but, on the
other hand, in that case he directly says that the translation was his
work, in the present he does not. It is possible that Greek copies of
the edict were in common circulation, and that Eusebius used one of
them. At the same time, the words “translated as well as
possible” (κατὰ τὸ
δυνατόν)
would seem to indicate that Eusebius had supervised the present
translation, if he had not made it himself. Upon his knowledge of
Latin, see the note just referred to.
That which follows is found
in Some Copies in the Eighth Book. The words of this title, together with the section which follows,
are found in the majority of our mss. at the
close of the eighth book, and are given by all the editors. The
existence of the passage would seem to imply that the work in only
eight books came into the hands of some scribe, who added the appendix
to make the work more complete. (Cf. chap. 13, note 15, above.) Whoever
he was, he was not venturesome in his additions, for, except the notice
of Diocletian’s death and the statement of the manner of the
death of Maximinus, he adds nothing that has not been already said in
substance by Eusebius himself. The appendix must have been added in any
case as late as 313, for Diocletian died in that year.
1. The author of the edict very shortly after this confession was released from his pains and died. He is reported to have been the original author of the misery of the persecution, having endeavored, long before the movement of the other emperors, to turn from the faith the Christians in the army, and first of all those in his own house, degrading some from the military rank, and abusing others most shamefully, and threatening still others with death, and finally inciting his partners in the empire to the general persecution. It is not proper to pass over the death of these emperors in silence.
2. As four of them held the
supreme authority, those who were advanced in age and honor, after the
persecution had continued not quite two years, abdicated the
government, as we have already stated, See
above, chap. 13, §11.
3. The end of their lives was as
follows. He who was first in honor and age perished through a long and
most grievous physical infirmity. Diocletian died in 313, at the age of sixty-seven. The final ruin
of all his great plans for the permanent prosperity of the empire, the
terrible misfortunes of his daughter, and the indignities heaped upon
him by Maximin, Licinius, and Constantine, wore him out and at length
drove the spirit from the shattered body. According to Lactantius
(De mort. pers. 42), “having been treated in the most
contumelious manner, and compelled to abhor life, he became incapable
of receiving nourishment, and, worn out with anguish of mind,
expired.” Upon the death of Maximian, see above, chap. 13, note
23.
4. Of those after them, the
last, ὁμὲν
ὕστατος,
i.e. Galerius, who was the second Cæsar and therefore the last, or
lowest, of the four rulers. Upon his illness and death, see chap. 16,
above. Constantius was first Cæsar, and thus held third rank in the
government. The following passage in regard to him is found also in
chap. 13, §12–14, above. Constantius was first Cæsar, and thus held third rank in the
government. The following passage in regard to him is found also in
chap. 13, §12–14, above. i.e.
Constantine.
5. and he showed himself an emulator of his father’s piety toward our doctrine. Such were the deaths of the four of whom we have written, which took place at different times.
6. Of these, moreover, only the
one referred to a little above by us, i.e. Galerius. I
read λοιπόν which is found in some mss. and is
adopted by Stephanus and Burton. Valesius, Schwegler, Laemmer and
Heinichen follow other mss. in reading
λιπών, and this is adopted by Stroth, Closs and Crusè in
their translations. The last, however, makes it govern “the
above-mentioned confession,” which is quite ungrammatical, while
Stroth and Closs (apparently approved by Heinichen) take it to mean
“still alive” or “still remaining” (“Der
unter diesen allein noch Ueberlebende”; “Der unter diesen
noch allein uebrige”), a meaning which belongs to the middle but
not properly to the active voice of λείπω. The
latter translation, moreover, makes the writer involve himself in a
mistake, for Diocletian did not die until nearly two years after the
publication of Galerius’ edict. In view of these considerations I
feel compelled to adopt the reading λοιπόν which is nearly, if not quite, as well supported by ms. authority as λιπών.
On this work, see above, p. 29 sq. As remarked there, the shorter
form of the work, the translation of which follows, is found in most,
but not all, of the mss. of Eusebius’
Church History, in some of them at the close of the tenth book,
in one of them in the middle of Bk. VIII. chap. 13, in the majority of
them between Bks. VIII. and IX. It is found neither in the Syraic
version of the History, nor in Rufinus. Musculus omits it in his
Latin version, but a translation of it is given both by
Christophorsonus and Valesius. The Germans Stroth and Closs omit it;
but Stigloher gives it at the close of his translation of the
History. The English translators insert it at the close of the
eighth book. The work is undoubtedly genuine, in this, its shorter, as
well as in its longer form, but was in all probability attached to the
History, not by Eusebius himself, but by some copyist, and
therefore is not strictly entitled to a place in a translation of the
History. At the same time it has seemed best in the present case
to include it and to follow the majority of the editors in inserting it
at this point. In all the mss. except one the
work begins abruptly without a title, introduced only by the
words καὶ
ταῦτα žν τινι
ἀντιγρ€φῳ ἐν
τῷ ὀγδό& 251·
τόμῳ
εὕρομεν:
“The following also we found in a certain copy in the eighth
book.” In the Codex Castellanus, however, according to Reading
(in his edition of Valesius, Vol. I. p. 796, col. 2), the following
title is inserted immediately after the words just quoted: Εὐσεβίου
σύγγραμμα
περὶ τῶν κατ᾽
αὐτὸν
μαρτυρησ€ντων
ἐν τῷ
ὀκταέτει
Διοκλητιανοῦ
καὶ ἐφεξῆς
Γαλερίου τοῦ
Μαξιμίνου
διωγμῷ.
Heinichen consequently prints the first part of this title
(Εὐσεβίου…μαρτυρησ€ντων) at the head of the work in his edition, and is followed
by Burton and Migne. This title, however, can hardly be looked upon as
original, and I have preferred to employ rather the name by which the
work is described at its close, where we read Εὐσεβίου
τοῦ Παμφιλου
περί τῶν ἐν
Παλαιστίνῃ
μαρτυρησ€ντων
τέλος. This agrees
with the title of the Syriac version, and must represent very closely
the original title; and so the work is commonly known in English as the
Martyrs of Palestine, in Latin as de Martyribus
Palestinæ. The work is much more systematic than the eighth
book of the Church History; in fact, it is excellently arranged,
and takes up the persecution year by year in chronological order. The
ground covered, however, is very limited, and we can consequently
gather from the work little idea of the state of the Church at large
during these years. All the martyrs mentioned in the following pages
are commemorated in the various martyrologies under particular days,
but in regard to most of them we know only what Eusebius tells us. I
shall not attempt to give references to the martyrologies. Further
details gleaned from them and from various Acts of martyrdom may be
found in Ruinart, Tillemont, &c. I shall endeavor to give full
particulars in regard to the few martyrs about whom we have any
reliable information beyond that given in the present work, but shall
pass over the others without mention.
————————————
The Following also we found
in a Certain Copy in the Eighth Book. The Martyrs of Palestine, in all the mss. that contain it, is introduced with these words. The
passage which follows, down to the beginning of Chap. 1, is a
transcript, with a few slight variations, of Bk. VIII. chap. 2,
§§4 and 5. For notes upon it, see that chapter.
It was
in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month
Xanthicus, The
month Xanthicus was the eighth month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded to our April (see the table on p. 403, below). In Bk.
VIII. chap. 2, Eusebius puts the beginning of the prosecution in the
seventh month, Dystrus. But the persecution really began, or at least
the first edict was issued, and the destruction of the churches in
Nicomedia took place, in February. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note
3. Flavianus is not mentioned in Bk. VIII. chap. 2. In the Syriac
version he is named as the judge by whom Procopius was condemned
(Cureton, p. 4). Nothing further is known of him, so far as I am
aware.
Such was the force of the first edict against us. But not long after other letters were issued, commanding that all the bishops of the churches everywhere be first thrown into prison, and afterward, by every artifice, be compelled to sacrifice.
Chapter I.
1. The
first of the martyrs of Palestine was Procopius, The account of Procopius was somewhat fuller in the longer
recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, as can be seen from the
Syriac version (English translation in Cureton, p. 3 sq.). There exists
also a Latin translation of the Acts of St. Procopius, which was
evidently made from that longer recension, and which is printed by
Valesius and also by Cureton (p. 50 sq.), and in English by Crusè
in loco. We are told by the Syriac version that his family was
from Baishan. According to the Latin, he was a native of Ælia
(Jerusalem), but resided in Scythopolis (the Greek name of Baishan).
With the Latin agrees the Syriac version of these Acts, which is
published by Assemani in his Acta SS. Martt. Orient. et
Occident. ed. 1748, Part II. p. 169 sq. (see Cureton, p. 52). We
learn from the longer account that he was a lector, interpreter, and
exorcist in the church, and that he was exceedingly ascetic in his
manner of life. It is clear from this paragraph that Procopius was put
to death, not because he was a Christian, but because he uttered words
apparently treasonable in their import. To call him a Christian martyr
is therefore a misuse of terms. We cannot be sure whether Procopius was
arrested under the terms of the first or under the terms of the second
edict. If in consequence of the first, it may be that he was suspected
of complicity in the plot which Diocletian was endeavoring to crush
out, or that he had interfered with the imperial officers when they
undertook to execute the decree for the destruction of the church
buildings. The fact that he was commanded by the governor to sacrifice
would lead us to think of the first, rather than of the second edict
(see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6, note 3, and chap. 2, note 8). Still, it
must be admitted that very likely many irregularities occurred in the
methods by which the decrees were executed in the province, and the
command to sacrifice can, therefore, not be claimed as proving that he
was not arrested under the terms of the second edict; and in fact, the
mention of imprisonment as the punishment which he had to expect would
lead us to think of the second edict as at least the immediate occasion
of his arrest. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that his
arrest would have resulted in his death had he not been rash in his
speech. οὐκ ἀγαθὸν
πολυκοιρανίη
εἷς κοίρανος
žστω, εἷς
βασιλεύς. The sentence is from
Homer’s Iliad, Bk. II. vers. 204 and 205. It was a sort of
proverb, like many of Homer’s sayings, and was frequently quoted.
As a consequence the use of it by Procopius does not prove at all his
acquaintance with Homer or Greek literature in general.
2. It was the seventh The majority of the mss. read
“eighth,” which according to Eusebius’ customary mode
of reckoning the Macedonian months is incorrect. For, as Valesius
remarks, he always synchronizes the Macedonian with the Roman months,
as was commonly done in his time. But the seventh before the Ides of
June is not the eighth, but the seventh of June (or Desius). In fact, a
few good mss. read “seventh”
instead of “eighth,” and I have followed Burton, Schwegler,
and Heinichen in adopting that reading. Desius was the tenth month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded to our June (see the table on p. 403, below). On
the Roman method of reckoning the days of the month, see below, p.
402.
3. Afterwards, We may gather from §5, below, that the sufferings to which
Eusebius refers in such general terms in this and the following
paragraphs took place late in the year 303. In fact, from the Syriac
version of the longer recension (Cureton, p. 4) we learn that the
tortures inflicted upon Alphæus and Zacchæus were, in
consequence of the third edict, issued at the approach of the
emperor’s vicennalia, and intended rather as a step toward
amnesty than as a sharpening of the persecution (see above, Bk. VIII.
chap. 5, note 8). This leads us to conclude that all the tortures
mentioned in these paragraphs had the same occasion, and this explains
the eagerness of the judges to set the prisoners free, even if they had
not sacrificed, so long as they might be made to appear to have done
so, and thus the law not be openly violated. Alphæus and
Zacchæus alone suffered death, as we are told in §5, and they
evidently on purely political grounds (see note 10).
4. Yet they endured what came upon them, as in accordance with the inscrutable purposes of God. For the hands of one were seized, and he was led to the altar, while they thrust into his right hand the polluted and abominable offering, and he was dismissed as if he had sacrificed. Another had not even touched it, yet when others said that he had sacrificed, he went away in silence. Another, being taken up half dead, was cast aside as if already dead, and released from his bonds, and counted among the sacrificers. When another cried out, and testified that he would not obey, he was struck in the mouth, and silenced by a large band of those who were drawn up for this purpose, and driven away by force, even though he had not sacrificed. Of such consequence did they consider it, to seem by any means to have accomplished their purpose.
5. Therefore, of all this
number, the only ones who were honored with the crown of the holy
martyrs were Alphæus and Zacchæus. We learn from the Syriac version that Zacchæus was a deacon
of the church of Gadara, and that Alphæus belonged to a noble
family of the city of Eleutheropolis, and was a reader and exorcist in
the church of Cæsarea. See above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9. The month Dius was the third month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded with our November (see below, p. 403). μόνον ἕνα
Θεὸν καὶ
χριστὸν
βασιλέα
᾽Ιησοῦν
ὁμολογησ€ντες Βασιλεύς was the technical term for emperor, and it is plain enough
from this passage that these two men, like Procopius, were beheaded
because they were regarded as guilty of treason, not because of their
religious faith. The instances given in this chapter are very
significant, for they reveal the nature of the persecution during its
earlier months, and throw a clear light back upon the motives which had
led Diocletian to take the step against the Christians which he
did.
Chapter II.
1. What
occurred to Romanus on the same day We learn from the Syriac version that the death of Romanus
occurred on the same day as that of Alphæus and Zacchæus. His
arrest, therefore, must have taken place some time before, according to
§4, below. In fact, we see from the present paragraph that his
arrest took place in connection with the destruction of the churches;
that is, at the time of the execution of the first edict in Antioch. We
should naturally think that the edict would be speedily published in so
important a city, and hence can hardly suppose the arrest of Romanus to
have occurred later than the spring of 303. He therefore lay in prison
a number of months (according to §4, below, a “very long
time,” πλεῖστον
χρόνον). Mason
is clearly in error in putting his arrest in November, and his death at
the time of the vicennalia, in December. It is evident from the Syriac
version that the order for the release of prisoners, to which the
so-called third edict was appended, preceded the vicennalia by some
weeks, although issued in view of the great anniversary which was so
near at hand. It is quite possible that the decree was sent out some
weeks beforehand, in order that time might be given to induce the
Christians to sacrifice, and thus enjoy release at the same time with
the others. There is no implication here that these persons were commanded, or
even asked, to sacrifice. They seem, in their dread of what might come
upon them, when they saw the churches demolished, to have hastened of
their own accord to sacrifice to the idols, and thus disarm all
possible suspicion.
2. Being arrested for his
boldness, he proved a most noble witness of the truth, if there ever
was one. For when the judge informed him that he was to die by fire, As Mason remarks, to punish Romanus with death for dissuading the
Christians from sacrificing was entirely illegal, as no imperial edict
requiring them to sacrifice had yet been issued, and therefore no law
was broken in exhorting them not to do so. At the same time, that he
should be arrested as a church officer was, under the terms of the
second edict, legal, and, in fact, necessary; and that the judge should
incline to be very severe in the present case, with the emperor so near
at hand, was quite natural. That death, however, was not yet made the
penalty of Christian confession is plain enough from the fact that,
when the emperor was appealed to, as we learn from the Syriac version,
he remanded Romanus to prison, thus inflicting upon him the legal
punishment, according to the terms of the second edict. Upon the case
of Romanus, see Mason, p. 188 sq.
3. Having said this, he was
summoned again before the emperor, Valesius assumes that this was Galerius, and Mason does the same.
In the Syriac version, however, he is directly called Diocletian; but
on the other hand, in the Syriac acts published by Assemani (according
to Cureton, p. 55), he is called “Maximinus, the son-in-law of
Diocletian”; i.e. Galerius, who was known as Maximianus (of which
Maximinus, in the present case, is evidently only a variant form). The
emperor’s conduct in the present case is much more in accord with
Galerius’ character, as known to us, than with the character of
Diocletian; and moreover, it is easier to suppose that the name of
Maximinus was later changed into that of Diocletian, by whose name the
whole persecution was known, than that the greater name was changed
into the less. I am therefore convinced that the reference in the
present case is to Galerius, not to Diocletian.
4. After this punishment he was
thrown into prison, and suffered there for a very long time. At last
the twentieth anniversary of the emperor being near, See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 8. See above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9, and Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note
5.
5. Although he was outside of his country, yet, as he was a native of Palestine, it is proper to count him among the Palestinian martyrs. These things occurred in this manner during the first year, when the persecution was directed only against the rulers of the Church.
Chapter III.
1. In
the course of the second year, the persecution against us increased
greatly. And at that time Urbanus Of Urbanus governor of Palestine, we know only what is told us in
the present work (he is mentioned in this passage and in chaps. 4, 7,
and 8, below) and in the Syriac version. From the latter we learn that
he succeeded Flavianus in the second year of the persecution (304), and
that he was deposed by Maximinus in the fifth year (see also chap. 8,
§7, below), and miserably executed. This is the famous fourth edict of Diocletian, which was issued in
the year 304. It marks a stupendous change of method; in fact,
Christianity as such is made, for the first time since the toleration
edict of Gallienus, a religio illicita, whose profession is
punishable by death. The general persecution, in the full sense, begins
with the publication of this edict. Hitherto persecution had been
directed only against supposed political offenders and church officers.
The edict is a complete stultification of Diocletian’s principles
as revealed in the first three edicts, and shows a lamentable lack of
the wisdom which had dictated those measures. Mason has performed an
immense service in proving (to my opinion conclusively) that this
brutal edict, senseless in its very severity, was not issued by
Diocletian, but by Maximian, while Diocletian was quite incapacitated
by illness for the performance of any public duties. Mason’s
arguments cannot be reproduced here; they are given at length on p. 212
sq. of his work. He remarks at the close of the discussion:
“Diocletian, though he might have wished Christianity safely
abolished, feared the growing power of the Church, and dared not
persecute (till he was forced), lest he should rouse her from her
passivity. But this Fourth Edict was nothing more nor less than a loud
alarum to muster the army of the Church: as the centurions called over
their lists, it taught her the statistics of her numbers, down to the
last child: it proved to her that her troops could endure all the
hardships of the campaign: it ranged her generals in the exact order of
merit. Diocletian, by an exquisite refinement of thought, while he did
not neglect the salutary fear which strong penalties might inspire in
the Christians, knew well enough that though he might torture every
believer in the world into sacrificing, yet Christianity was not
killed: he knew that men were Christians again afterwards as well as
before: could he have seen deeper yet, he would have known that the
utter humiliation of a fall before men and angels converted many a hard
and worldly prelate into a broken-hearted saint: and so he rested his
hopes, not merely on the punishment of individuals, but on his three
great measures for crushing the corporate life,—the destruction
of the churches, the Scriptures, and the clergy. But this Fourth Edict
evidently returns with crass dullness and brutal complacency to the
thought that if half the church were racked till they poured the
libations, and the other half burned or butchered, Paganism would reign
alone forever more, and that the means were as eminently desirable as
the end. Lastly, Diocletian had anxiously avoided all that could rouse
fanatic zeal. The first result of the Fourth Edict was to rouse
it.” According to the
Passio S. Sabini, which Mason accepts as in the main reliable,
and which forms the strongest support for his theory, the edict was
published in April, 304. Diocletian, meanwhile, as we know from
Lactantius (de Mort. pers. 17) did not recover sufficiently to
take any part in the government until early in the year 305, so that
Maximian and Galerius had matters all their own way during the entire
year, and could persecute as severely as they chose. As a result, the
Christians, both east and west, suffered greatly during this
period.
In Gaza, a city of Palestine,
Timotheus endured countless tortures, and afterwards was subjected to a
slow and moderate fire. Having given, by his patience in all his
sufferings, most genuine evidence of sincerest piety toward the Deity,
he bore away the crown of the victorious athletes of religion. At the
same time Agapius Agapius, as we learn from chap. 6, below, survived his contest
with the wild beasts at this time, and was thrown into prison, where he
remained until the fourth year of the persecution, when he was again
brought into the arena in the presence of the tyrant Maximinus, and was
finally thrown into the sea. ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς
Θέκλα. Thecla seems
to be thus designated to distinguish her from her more famous namesake,
whom tradition connected with Paul and who has played so large a part
in romantic legend (see the Acts of Paul and Thecla in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 487 sq., and the Dict. of Christ.
Biog., s.v.). She is referred to again in chap. 6, below, but we
are not told whether she actually suffered or not.
2. But who that beheld these
things would not have admired, or if they heard of them by report,
would not have been astonished? For when the heathen everywhere were
holding a festival and the customary shows, it was noised abroad that
besides the other entertainments, the public combat of those who had
lately been condemned to wild beasts would also
3. As this report increased and
spread in all directions, six young men, namely, Timolaus, a native of
Pontus, Dionysius from Tripolis in Phœnicia, Romulus, a sub-deacon
of the parish of Diospolis, A city of Palestine, lying northwest of Jerusalem, and identical
with the Lydda of
4. Immediately, after creating
no ordinary astonishment in the governor and those who were with him,
they were cast into prison. After a few days two others were added to
them. One of them, named Agapius, To be distinguished from the Agapius mentioned earlier in the
chapter, as is clear from the date of his death, given in this
paragraph. Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year,
corresponding to our March. See the table on p. 403, below.
5. Meanwhile, a change in the
emperors occurred, and the first of them all in dignity, and the second
retired into private life, Diocletian and Maximian abdicated on May 1, 305. See above, Bk.
VIII. chap. 13, note 16.
6. Shortly after the Roman
government became divided against itself, and a cruel war arose among
them. When Maxentius usurped the purple in Rome, in the year 306. See
above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 21.
7. For when this peace arose for all, as the daylight after the darkest and most gloomy night, the public affairs of the Roman government were re-established, and became happy and peaceful, and the ancestral good-will toward each other was revived. But we will relate these things more fully at the proper time. Now let us return to the regular course of events.
Chapter IV.
1. Maximinus
Cæsar On Maximinus and his attitude toward the Christians, see above,
Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 2. He was made a Cæsar at the time of the
abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, May 1, 305, and Egypt and Syria
were placed under his supervision.
2. In consequence, no little
confusion arose among all, and they scattered here and there,
endeavoring in some way to escape the danger; and there was great
commotion everywhere. But what words would suffice for a suitable
description of the Divine love and boldness, in confessing God, of the
blessed and truly innocent lamb,—I refer to the martyr
Apphianus, Apphianus is called, in the Syriac version, Epiphanius. We know
him only from this account of Eusebius. For some remarks upon his
martyrdom, see above, p. 8 sq.
3. He was at that time not
twenty years old. He had first spent a long time at Berytus, The modern Beirût. A celebrated school of literature and law
flourished there for a number of centuries.
4. If it is needful to mention his native country, and give honor to it as producing this noble athlete of piety, we will do so with pleasure.
5. The young man came from
Pagæ, The mss., according to Valesius, are
somewhat at variance in the spelling of this name, and the place is
perhaps to be identified with Araxa, a city of some importance in
northwestern Lycia.
6. Abiding with us there, and conferring with us in the Divine Scriptures diligently for a short time, and fitting himself zealously by suitable exercises, he exhibited such an end as would astonish any one should it be seen again.
7. Who, that hears of it, would
not justly admire his courage, boldness, constancy, and even more than
these
8. For in the second attack upon
us under Maximinus, in the third year of the persecution, edicts of the
tyrant were issued for the first time, commanding that the rulers of
the cities should diligently and speedily see to it that all the people
offered sacrifices. This was simply a republication in its fullness of
Maximian’s fourth edict, which was referred to in chap. 3 (see
note 2 on that chapter). Eusebius does not mean to say that this was
the first time that such an edict was published, but that this was the
first edict of Maximinus, the newly appointed Cæsar.
9. It is probable that this was done by the youth through a divine power which led him forward, and which all but cried aloud in his act, that Christians, who were truly such, were so far from abandoning the religion of the God of the universe which they had once espoused, that they were not only superior to threats and the punishments which followed, but yet bolder to speak with noble and untrammeled tongue, and, if possible, to summon even their persecutors to turn from their ignorance and acknowledge the only true God.
10. Thereupon, he of whom we are speaking, and that instantly, as might have been expected after so bold a deed, was torn by the governor and those who were with him as if by wild beasts. And having endured manfully innumerable blows over his entire body, he was straightway cast into prison.
11. There he was stretched by the tormentor with both his feet in the stocks for a night and a day; and the next day he was brought before the judge. As they endeavored to force him to surrender, he exhibited all constancy under suffering and terrible tortures. His sides were torn, not once, or twice, but many times, to the bones and the very bowels; and he received so many blows on his face and neck that those who for a long time had been well acquainted with him could not recognize his swollen face.
12. But as he would not yield under this treatment, the torturers, as commanded, covered his feet with linen cloths soaked in oil and set them on fire. No word can describe the agonies which the blessed one endured from this. For the fire consumed his flesh and penetrated to his bones, so that the humors of his body were melted and oozed out and dropped down like wax.
13. But as he was not subdued by this, his adversaries being defeated and unable to comprehend his superhuman constancy, cast him again into prison. A third time he was brought before the judge; and having witnessed the same profession, being half dead, he was finally thrown into the depths of the sea.
14. But what happened immediately after this will scarcely be believed by those who did not see it. Although we realize this, yet we must record the event, of which to speak plainly, all the inhabitants of Cæsarea were witnesses. For truly there was no age but beheld this marvelous sight.
15. For as soon as they had cast
this truly sacred and thrice-blessed youth into the fathomless depths
of the sea, an uncommon commotion and disturbance agitated the sea and
all the shore about it, so that the land and the entire city were
shaken by it. And at the same time with this wonderful and sudden
perturbation, the sea threw out before the gates of the city the body
of the divine martyr, as if unable to endure it. It is perhaps not necessary to doubt that an earthquake took place
at this particular time. Nor is it surprising that under the
circumstances the Christians saw a miracle in a natural
phenomenon.
Such was the death of the
wonderful Apphianus. It occurred on the second day of the month
Xanthicus, Xanthicus was the eighth month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded to our April (see table on p. 403, below). The martyrdom
of Apphianus must have taken place in 306, not 305; for according to
the direct testimony of Lactantius (de Mort. pers. chap. 19; the
statement is unaccountably omitted in the English translation given in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers), Maximinus did not become Cæsar
until May 1, 305; while, according to the present chapter, Apphianus
suffered martyrdom after Maximinus had been raised to that position.
Eusebius himself puts the abdication of the old emperors and the
appointment of the new Cæsars early in April or late in March (see
above, chap. 3, §5, and the Syriac version of the Martyrs,
p. 12), and with him agree other early authorities. But it is more
difficult to doubt the accuracy of Lactantius’ dates than to
suppose the others mistaken, and hence May 1st is commonly accepted by
historians as the day of abdication. About the year there can be no
question; for Lactantius’ account of Diocletian’s movements
during the previous year exhibits a very exact knowledge of the course
of events, and its accuracy cannot be doubted. (For a fuller discussion
of the date of the abdication, see Tillemont’s Hist. des
Emp., 2d ed., IV. p. 609.) But even if it were admitted that the
abdication took place four or five weeks earlier (according to
Eusebius’ own statement, it did not at any rate occur before the
twenty-fourth of March: see chap. 3, above, and the Syriac version, p.
12), it would be impossible to put Apphianus’ death on the second
of April, for this would not give time for all that must intervene
between the day of his appointment and the republication and execution
of the persecuting edicts. In fact, it is plain enough from the present
chapter that Apphianus did not suffer until some time after the
accession of Maximinus, and therefore not until the following year.
Eusebius, as can be seen from the first paragraph of this work on the
martyrs, reckoned the beginning of the persecution in Palestine not
with the issue of the first edict in Nicomedia on Feb. 24, 303, but
with the month of April of that same year. Apphianus’ death
therefore took place at the very close of the third year of the
persecution, according to this reckoning. i.e. Friday, the old Jewish term being still retained and widely
used, although with the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the
first day of the week it had entirely lost its meaning. Upon the
prevalence of the word among the Fathers as a designation of Friday,
see Suicer’s Thesaurus, s.v. παρασκευή
and νηστεῖα. The day of Christ’s crucifixion was called μεγ€λη
παρασκευή, the “great preparation.”
1. About the same time, in the city of Tyre, a youth named
Ulpianus, The
martyrdom of Ulpian is omitted in the Syriac version. It was apparently
a later addition, made when the abridgment of the longer version was
produced; and this perhaps accounts for the brevity of the notice and
the words of explanation with which the mention of him is
concluded.
2. Shortly afterwards,
Ædesius, Called Alosis in the Syriac version.
3. Finally in the city of Alexandria, when he beheld the judge, who was trying the Christians, offending beyond all bounds, now insulting holy men in various ways, and again consigning women of greatest modesty and even religious virgins to procurers for shameful treatment, he acted like his brother. For as these things seemed insufferable, he went forward with bold resolve, and with his words and deeds overwhelmed the judge with shame and disgrace. After suffering in consequence many forms of torture, he endured a death similar to his brother’s, being cast into the sea. But these things, as I have said, happened to him in this way a little later.
Chapter VI.
1. In
the fourth year of the persecution against us, on the twelfth day
before the Kalends of December, which is the twentieth day of the month
Dius, The month Dius was the third month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded to our November (see table on p. 403, below). προσαββ€του
ἡμέρᾳ, i.e. on
Friday, προσ€ββατος
being sometimes used among the Jews as a designation
of that day, which was more commonly called παρασκευή
(cf.
2. As it was an ancient custom to furnish the spectators more splendid shows when the emperors were present than at other times, new and foreign spectacles taking the place of the customary amusements, such as animals brought from India or Ethiopia or other places, or men who could astonish the beholders with skillful bodily exercises,—it was necessary at this time, as the emperor was giving the exhibition, to add to the shows something more wonderful. And what should this be?
3. A witness of our doctrine was
brought into the midst and endured the contest for the true and only
religion. This was Agapius, who, as we have stated a little above, See above, chap. 3, §1. Cf.
4. He was taken into the midst of the arena with a certain malefactor who they said was charged with the murder of his master.
5. But this murderer of his master, when he had been cast to the wild beasts, was deemed worthy of compassion and humanity, almost like Barabbas in the time of our Saviour. And the whole theater resounded with shouts and cries of approval, because the murderer was humanely saved by the emperor, and deemed worthy of honor and freedom.
6. But the athlete of religion was first summoned by the tyrant and promised liberty if he would deny his profession. But he testified with a loud voice that, not for any fault, but for the religion of the Creator of the universe, he would readily and with pleasure endure whatever might be inflicted upon him.
7. Having said this, he joined
the deed to the word, and rushed to meet a bear which had been let
loose against him, surrendering himself most cheerfully to be devoured
by him. After this, as he still breathed, he was cast into prison. And
living yet one day, stones
Chapter VII.
1. Again, in Cæsarea, when the persecution had continued
to the fifth year, on the second day of the month Xanthicus, i.e. April 2, 307. Eusebius is inconsistent with himself in this
case. In chap. 3, above, he states that Apphianus suffered on April 2,
in the third year of the persecution. But as shown in the note on that
passage, Apphianus suffered in April, 306, and therefore, in that case,
Eusebius reckons the first year of the persecution as beginning after
the second of April. But in the present case he reckons it as beginning
before the second of April, and the latter date as falling early in a
new year of the persecution. That the martyrdom recorded in the present
case actually took place in 307, and not in 308, as it must have done
if Eusebius were consistent with himself, is proved, first, by the fact
that, in entering upon this new chapter, he says, “the
persecution having continued to the fifth year,” implying thereby
that the event which he is about to relate took place at the beginning,
not at the end, of the fifth year; and secondly, by the fact that later
on, in this same chapter, while still relating the events of the fifth
year, he recounts martyrdoms as taking place in the month of November
(Dius). This is conclusive, for November of the fifth year can be only
November, 307, and hence the April mentioned in the present paragraph
can be only April of the same year. Evidently Eusebius did not reckon
the beginning of the persecution in Palestine from a fixed day, but
rather from the month Xanthicus (April). As a consequence, the
inconsistency into which he has fallen is not very strange; the second
day of April might easily be reckoned either as one of the closing days
of a year, or as the beginning of the ensuing year. In the present
case, he evidently forgot that he had previously used the former
reckoning. i.e. on Easter Sunday. In the Syriac version, the events recorded
in the present chapter are put on a Sunday; but that it was Easter is
not stated.
2. Thereupon, as if she had committed a profane and impious act, the soldiers seized her and led her to the governor. And he immediately, like a madman and a wild beast in his anger, tortured her with dreadful and most terrible torments in her sides and breasts, even to the very bones. And as she still breathed, and withal stood with a joyful and beaming countenance, he ordered her thrown into the waves of the sea. Then passing from her to the other confessors, he condemned all of them to the copper mines in Phæno in Palestine.
3. Afterwards on the fifth of
the month Dius, i.e. November fifth. On
Silvanus, who afterward became bishop of Gaza, see above, Bk. VIII.
chap. 13.
4. At the same time he delivered
to the flames a man who was illustrious through numerous other
confessions. This was Domninus, who was well known to all in Palestine
for his exceeding fearlessness. Or
“frankness”; literally, “freedom” (ἐλευθερία).
Among these was my dearest
friend Pamphilus, On
Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.
5. Urbanus first tested him in rhetorical philosophy and learning; and afterwards endeavored to compel him to sacrifice. But as he saw that he refused and in nowise regarded his threats, being exceedingly angry, he ordered him to be tormented with severest tortures.
6. And when the brutal man, after he had almost satiated himself with these tortures by continuous and prolonged scrapings in his sides, was yet covered with shame before all, he put him also with the confessors in prison.
7. But what recompense for his cruelty to the saints, he who thus abused the martyrs of Christ, shall receive from the Divine judgment, may be easily determined from the preludes to it, in which immediately, and not long after his daring cruelties against Pamphilus, while he yet held the government, the Divine judgment came upon him. For thus suddenly, he who but yesterday was judging on the lofty tribunal, guarded by a band of soldiers, and ruling over the whole nation of Palestine, the associate and dearest friend and table companion of the tyrant himself, was stripped in one night, and overwhelmed with disgrace and shame before those who had formerly admired him as if he were himself an emperor; and he appeared cowardly and unmanly, uttering womanish cries and supplications to all the people whom he had ruled. And Maximinus himself, in reliance upon whose favor Urbanus was formerly so arrogantly insolent, as if he loved him exceedingly for his deeds against us, was set as a harsh and most severe judge in this same Cæsarea to pronounce sentence of death against him, for the great disgrace of the crimes of which he was convicted. Let us say this in passing.
8. A suitable time may come when
we shall have leisure to relate the end and the fate of those
impious The death of Maximinus is related in Bk. IX. chap. 10. Nothing
further is said in regard to Urbanus; but the fate of his successor
Firmilianus is recorded in chap. 11, below. It is quite possible that
Eusebius, in the present case, is referring to a more detailed
statement of the fates of the various persecutors, which was to form
the second part of the present work; and it is possible, still further,
that the appendix printed at the close of the eighth book is a fragment
of this second part, as suggested by Lightfoot (see above, p.
29).
Chapter VIII.
1. Up
to the sixth year the storm had been incessantly raging against us.
Before this time there had been a very large number of confessors of
religion in the so-called Porphyry quarry in Thebais, which gets its
name from the stone found there. Of these, one hundred men, lacking
three, together with women and infants, were sent to the governor of
Palestine. When they confessed the God of the universe and Christ,
Firmilianus, Of Firmilianus, the successor of Urbanus, we know only what is
told us here and in chaps. 9 and 11, below. In the latter chapter,
§31, his execution is recorded.
2. But it was not sufficient that these only who suffered such miseries should be deprived of their eyes, but those natives of Palestine also, who were mentioned just above as condemned to pugilistic combat, since they would neither receive food from the royal storehouse nor undergo the necessary preparatory exercises.
3. Having been brought on this account not only before the overseers, but also before Maximinus himself, and having manifested the noblest persistence in confession by the endurance of hunger and stripes, they received like punishment with those whom we have mentioned, and with them other confessors in the city of Cæsarea.
4. Immediately afterwards others who were gathered to hear the Scriptures read, were seized in Gaza, and some endured the same sufferings in the feet and eyes; but others were afflicted with yet greater torments and with most terrible tortures in the sides.
5. One of these, in body a woman, but in understanding a man, would not endure the threat of fornication, and spoke directly against the tyrant who entrusted the government to such cruel judges. She was first scourged and then raised aloft on the stake, and her sides lacerated.
6. As those appointed for this purpose applied the tortures incessantly and severely at the command of the judge, another, with mind fixed, like the former, on virginity as her aim,—a woman who was altogether mean in form and contemptible in appearance; but, on the other hand, strong in soul, and endowed with an understanding superior to her body,—being unable to bear the merciless and cruel and inhuman deeds, with a boldness beyond that of the combatants famed among the Greeks, cried out to the judge from the midst of the crowd: “And how long will you thus cruelly torture my sister?” But he was greatly enraged, and ordered the woman to be immediately seized.
7. Thereupon she was brought forward and having called herself by the august name of the Saviour, she was first urged by words to sacrifice, and as she refused she was dragged by force to the altar. But her sister continued to maintain her former zeal, and with intrepid and resolute foot kicked the altar, and overturned it with the fire that was on it.
8. Thereupon the judge, enraged like a wild beast, inflicted on her such tortures in her sides as he never had on any one before, striving almost to glut himself with her raw flesh. But when his madness was satiated, he bound them both together, this one and her whom she called sister, and condemned them to death by fire. It is said that the first of these was from the country of Gaza; the other, by name Valentina, was of Cæsarea, and was well known to many.
9. But how can I describe as it deserves the martyrdom which followed, with which the thrice-blessed Paul was honored. He was condemned to death at the same time with them, under one sentence. At the time of his martyrdom, as the executioner was about to cut off his head, he requested a brief respite.
10. This being granted, he
first, in a clear and distinct voice, supplicated God in behalf of his
fellow-Christians, ὁμοεθνῶν.
11. After all these, oh! great
and unspeakable forbearance! he entreated the God of the universe for
the judge who had condemned him to death, and for the highest
12. Having prayed for these
things with a loud voice, and having, as one who was dying unjustly,
moved almost all to compassion and tears, of his own accord he made
himself ready, and submitted his bare neck to the stroke of the sword,
and was adorned with divine martyrdom. This took place on the
twenty-fifth day of the month Panemus, i.e. July 25 (a.d. 308). See the table on
p. 403, below.
13. Such was the end of these persons. But not long after, one hundred and thirty admirable athletes of the confession of Christ, from the land of Egypt, endured, in Egypt itself, at the command of Maximinus the same afflictions in their eyes and feet with the former persons, and were sent to the above-mentioned mines in Palestine. But some of them were condemned to the mines in Cilicia.
Chapter IX.
1. After such noble acts of the distinguished martyrs of Christ, the flame of persecution lessened, and was quenched, as it were by their sacred blood, and relief and liberty were granted to those who, for Christ’s sake, were laboring in the mines of Thebais, and for a little time we were beginning to breath pure air.
2. But by some new impulse, I
know not what, he who held the power to persecute was again aroused
against the Christians. Immediately letters from Maximinus against us
were published everywhere in every province. This is the so-called Fifth Edict, and was issued (according to
the Passio S. Theodori) by Galerius and Maximinus, but was
evidently inspired by Maximinus himself. Mason speaks of it as follows:
“It would be inaccurate to say that this Fifth Edict (if so we
may call it) was worse than any of the foregoing. But there is in it a
thin bitterness, a venomous spitefulness, which may be noticed as
characteristic of all the later part of the persecution. This
spitefulness is due to two main facts. The first was that Paganism was
becoming conscious of defeat; the Church had not yielded a single
point. The second fact was that the Church had no longer to deal with
the sensible, statesmanlike hostility of Diocletian,—not even
with the bluff bloodiness of Maximian. Galerius himself was now, except
in name, no longer persecutor-in-chief. He was content to follow the
lead of a man who was in all ways even worse than himself. Galerius was
indeed an Evil Beast; his nephew was more like the Crooked Serpent. The
artful sour spirit of Maximin employed itself to invent, not larger
measures of solid policy against his feared and hated foes, but petty
tricks to annoy and sting them.” For a fuller discussion of the
edict, see Mason, p. 284 sq. It must have been published in the autumn
of the year 308, for the martyrdom of Paul, recorded in the previous
chapter, took place in July of that year, and some little time seems to
have elapsed between that event and the present. On the other hand, the
martyrdoms mentioned below, in §5, took place in November of this
same year, so that we can fix the date of the edict within narrow
limits. ὁ τοῦ τῶν
στρατοπέδων
ἄρχειν
ἐπιτεταγμένος. Many regard this officer as the prætorian prefect.
But we should naturally expect so high an official to be mentioned
before the governors (ἡγεμόνες). It seems probable, in fact, that the commander in charge of the
military forces of Palestine, or possibly of Syria, is referred to in
the present case. See Valesius’ note, ad locum. Or “town clerks,” ταβουλ€ριοι
3. When these orders were being carried out, our people, as was natural, were at the beginning greatly distressed in mind; and even the unbelieving heathen blamed the severity and the exceeding absurdity of what was done. For these things appeared to them extreme and burdensome.
4. As the heaviest storm
impended over all in every quarter, the divine power of our Saviour
again infused such boldness into his athletes, Literally, “its athletes” (αὐτῆς), the antecedent of the pronoun being “the divine
power.”
5. Thereupon Firmilianus, being
greatly enraged, sentenced them to capital punishment without
inflicting tortures upon them. The name of the eldest of these was
Antoninus; of the next, Zebinas, who was a native of Eleutheropolis;
and of the third, Germanus. This took place on the thirteenth of the
month Dius, the Ides of November. i.e. Nov. 13, 308.
6. There was associated with them on the same day Ennathas, a woman from Scythopolis, who was adorned with the chaplet of virginity. She did not indeed do as they had done, but was dragged by force and brought before the judge.
7. She endured scourgings and
cruel insults, which Maxys, a tribune of a neighboring district,
without the knowledge of the superior authority, dared to inflict upon
her. He was a man worse than his name, Μ€ξυς is
not a Greek word. Ruinart, Acta Martt., p. 327, remarks, An a
Syris repetenda, apud quos mochos est pulicanus a casas increpare?
But the derivation is, to say the least, very doubtful. Cureton throws
no light on the matter. The word in the Syriac version seems to be
simply a reproduction of the form found in the Greek
original.
8. After such treatment she manifested the noblest constancy at the judgment seat of the governor himself; and the judge condemned her to be burned alive. He also carried his rage against the pious to a most inhuman length and transgressed the laws of nature, not being ashamed even to deny burial to the lifeless bodies of the sacred men.
9. Thus he ordered the dead to be exposed in the open air as food for wild beasts and to be watched carefully by night and day. For many days a large number of men attended to this savage and barbarous decree. And they looked out from their post of observation, as if it were a matter worthy of care, to see that the dead bodies should not be stolen. And wild beasts and dogs and birds of prey scattered the human limbs here and there, and the whole city was strewed with the entrails and bones of men,
10. so that nothing had ever appeared more dreadful and horrible, even to those who formerly hated us; though they bewailed not so much the calamity of those against whom these things were done, as the outrage against themselves and the common nature of man.
11. For there was to be seen near the gates a spectacle beyond all description and tragic recital; for not only was human flesh devoured in one place, but it was scattered in every place; so that some said that limbs and masses of flesh and parts of entrails were to be seen even within the gates.
12. After these things had
continued for many days, a wonderful event occurred. The air was clear
and bright and the appearance of the sky most serene. When suddenly
throughout the city from the pillars which supported the public porches
many drops fell like tears; and the market places and streets, though
there was no mist in the air, were moistened with sprinkled water,
whence I know not. Then immediately it was reported everywhere that the
earth, unable to endure the abomination of these things, had shed tears
in a mysterious manner; and that as a rebuke to the relentless and
unfeeling nature of men, stones and lifeless wood had wept for what had
happened. I know well that this account may perhaps appear idle and
fabulous to those who come after us, but not to those to whom the truth
was confirmed at the time. This is a glaring instance of uncritical credulity on
Eusebius’ part, and yet even Crusè can say: “Perhaps
some might smile at the supposed credulity of our author, but the
miracle in this account was not greater than the
malignity, and if man can perform miracles of vice, we can
scarcely wonder if Providence should present, at least, miracles of
admonition.” Cureton more sensibly remarks: “This, which
doubtless was produced by natural causes, seemed miraculous to
Eusebius, more especially if he looked upon it as fulfilling a prophecy
of our Lord—
Chapter X.
1. On
the fourteenth day of the following month Appellæus, i.e. Dec. 14, 308 (see the tables on p. 403, below). The majority of the codices read Πρόμος, but
as Valesius remarks, such a proper name is quite unknown in Greek, and
the form probably arose from a confusion of β and μ, which in ancient mss. were written alike. Two of our existing codices
read Πρόβος, and
this has been adopted by Zimmermann and Heinichen, whom I have followed
in the text.
2. On the eleventh day of the
month Audynæus, i.e. Jan. 11, 309. In the Syriac version “Absalom.” Of this village we know nothing, but Eleutheropolis (originally
Bethozabris) was an important place lying some forty miles southwest of
Jerusalem. εἶναι
δοκῶν. Eusebius did
not wish to admit that he was a bishop in a true sense.
Chapter XI.
1. It
is time to describe the great and celebrated spectacle of Pamphilus, On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.
2. Of these the leader and the
only one honored with the position of presbyter at Cæsarea, was
Pamphilus; a man who through
3. In a separate treatise on his
life, On Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus, see above, p. 28
sq.
4. Second after Pamphilus,
Vales, who was honored for his venerable gray hair, entered the
contest. He was a deacon from Ælia, i.e. Jerusalem.
5. The third was Paul from the
city of Jamna, τῆς
᾽Ιαμνιτῶν
πόλεως. Jamna,
or Jamnia, was a town of Judea, lying west of Jerusalem, near the
sea.
After these persons had continued in prison for two entire years, the occasion of their martyrdom was a second arrival of Egyptian brethren who suffered with them.
6. They had accompanied the confessors in Cilicia to the mines there and were returning to their homes. At the entrance of the gates of Cæsarea, the guards, who were men of barbarous character, questioned them as to who they were and whence they came. They kept back nothing of the truth, and were seized as malefactors taken in the very act. They were five in number.
7. When brought before the
tyrant, being very bold in his presence, they were immediately thrown
into prison. On the next day, which was the nineteenth of the month
Peritius, i.e. Feb. 19 (see the table on p. 403, below). We learn from chap.
7, §§3–5, that Pamphilus was thrown into prison in the
fifth year of the persecution and as late as November of that year,
i.e. between November, 307, and April, 308. Since he had lain two whole
years in prison (according to §5, above), the date referred to in
the present passage must be February of the year 310. The martyrdom of
Pamphilus is commonly, for aught I know to the contrary, uniformly put
in the year 309, as the seventh year of the persecution is nearly
synchronous with that year. But that the common date is a mistake is
plain enough from the present chapter.
8. Having practised these
cruelties upon the leader προήγορος, literally “advocate,” or
“defender.”
9. But he gave a second answer
similar to the former, saying that Jerusalem was his country, meaning
that of which Paul says, “Jerusalem which is above is free, which
is our mother,”
10. This was what he meant; but the judge thinking only of the earth, sought diligently to discover what that city was, and in what part of the world it was situated. And therefore he applied tortures that the truth might be acknowledged. But the man, with his hands twisted behind his back, and his feet crushed by strange machines, asserted firmly that he had spoken the truth.
11. And being questioned again repeatedly what and where the city was of which he spoke, he said that it was the country of the pious alone, for no others should have a place in it, and that it lay toward the far East and the rising sun.
12. He philosophized about these things according to his own understanding, and was in nowise turned from them by the tortures with which he was afflicted on every side. And as if he were without flesh or body he seemed insensible of his sufferings. But the judge being perplexed, was impatient, thinking that the Christians were about to establish a city somewhere, inimical and hostile to the Romans. And he inquired much about this, and investigated where that country toward the East was located.
13. But when he had for a long time lacerated the young man with scourgings, and punished him with all sorts of torments, he perceived that his persistence in what he had said could not be changed, and passed against him sentence of death. Such a scene was exhibited by what was done to this man. And having inflicted similar tortures on the others, he sent them away in the same manner.
14. Then being wearied and
perceiving that
15. When this had been done, a young man, one of the household servants of Pamphilus, who had been educated in the noble life and instruction of such a man, learning the sentence passed upon his master, cried out from the midst of the crowd asking that their bodies might be buried.
16. Thereupon the judge, not a man, but a wild beast, or if anything more savage than a wild beast, giving no consideration to the young man’s age, asked him only the same question. When he learned that he confessed himself a Christian, as if he had been wounded by a dart, swelling with rage, he ordered the tormentors to use their utmost power against him.
17. And when he saw that he refused to sacrifice as commanded, he ordered them to scrape him continually to his very bones and to the inmost recesses of his bowels, not as if he were human flesh but as if he were stones or wood or any lifeless thing. But after long persistence he saw that this was in vain, as the man was speechless and insensible and almost lifeless, his body being worn out by the tortures.
18. But being inflexibly merciless and inhuman, he ordered him to be committed straightway, as he was, to a slow fire. And before the death of his earthly master, though he had entered later on the conflict, he received release from the body, while those who had been zealous about the others were yet delaying.
19. One could then see
Porphyry, The reference is still to the same slave of Pamphilus whose
tortures Eusebius has just been describing, as we learn from the Syriac
version, where the slave’s name is given at the beginning of the
account.
20. His death was reported to Pamphilus by a messenger, Seleucus. He was one of the confessors from the army. As the bearer of such a message, he was forthwith deemed worthy of a similar lot. For as soon as he related the death of Porphyry, and had saluted one of the martyrs with a kiss, some of the soldiers seized him and led him to the governor. And he, as if he would hasten him on to be a companion of the former on the way to heaven, commanded that he be put to death immediately.
21. This man was from Cappadocia, and belonged to the select band of soldiers, and had obtained no small honor in those things which are esteemed among the Romans. For in stature and bodily strength, and size and vigor, he far excelled his fellow-soldiers, so that his appearance was matter of common talk, and his whole form was admired on account of its size and symmetrical proportions.
22. At the beginning of the persecution he was prominent in the conflicts of confession, through his patience under scourging. After he left the army he set himself to imitate zealously the religious ascetics, and as if he were their father and guardian he showed himself a bishop and patron of destitute orphans and defenceless widows and of those who were distressed with penury or sickness. It is likely that on this account he was deemed worthy of an extraordinary call to martyrdom by God, who rejoices in such things more than in the smoke and blood of sacrifices.
23. He was the tenth athlete among those whom we have mentioned as meeting their end on one and the same day. On this day, as was fitting, the chief gate was opened, and a ready way of entrance into the kingdom of heaven was given to the martyr Pamphilus and to the others with him.
24. In the footsteps of Seleucus
came Theodulus, a grave and pious old man, who belonged to the
governor’s household, and had been honored by Firmilianus himself
more than all the others in his house on account of his age, and
because he was a father of the third generation, and also on account of
the kindness and most faithful conscientiousness which he had
manifested toward him. I read περὶ
αὐτὸν with
Zimmermann, Heinichen, Burton, and Migne. The mss. all have περὶ
αὐτοὺς, which
can hardly have stood in the original. The
common mode of punishment inflicted on slaves.
25. As there lacked yet one to
fill up the number of the twelve martyrs of
26. The ministers of slaughter straightway seized him as he was doing this and led him to Firmilianus. Acting as was his custom, he condemned him to a slow fire. Thereupon Julian, leaping and exulting, in a loud voice gave thanks to the Lord who had judged him worthy of such things, and was honored with the crown of martyrdom.
27. He was a Cappadocian by birth, and in his manner of life he was most circumspect, faithful and sincere, zealous in all other respects, and animated by the Holy Spirit himself. Such was the company which was thought worthy to enter into martyrdom with Pamphilus.
28. By the command of the impious governor their sacred and truly holy bodies were kept as food for the wild beasts for four days and as many nights. But since, strange to say, through the providential care of God, nothing approached them,—neither beast of prey, nor bird, nor dog,—they were taken up uninjured, and after suitable preparation were buried in the customary manner.
29. When the report of what had
been done to these men was spread in all directions, Adrianus and
Eubulus, having come from the so-called country of Manganaea Of
the so-called country of Μαγγαναία
I know nothing. The Syriac version reads Batanea,
which was a district of country lying to the northeast of Palestine,
and it may be that Manganea was another name for the same
region.
30. After two days, on the fifth
of the month Dystrus, i.e. March 5, 310. It was the universal custom in ancient times for a city to have
its special tutelary divinity, to which it looked for protection and to
which it paid especial honor. The name of the Cæsarean deity is
unknown to us.
31. It is proper also to relate here, how in a short time the heavenly Providence came upon the impious rulers, together with the tyrants themselves. For that very Firmilianus, who had thus abused the martyrs of Christ, after suffering with the others the severest punishment, was put to death by the sword. Such were the martyrdoms which took place at Cæsarea during the entire period of the persecution.
Chapter XII.
1. I
think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in
the meantime: such as those which happened to the bishops of the
churches, when instead of shepherds of the rational λογικῶν “It was a punishment among the Romans that freemen should be
condemned to take care of the emperor’s horses or camels, and to
perform other personal offices of that kind” (Valesius). For
fuller particulars, see Valesius’ note ad locum. In the
Acts of St. Marcellus (who was bishop of Rome) we are told that
he was set by Maximian to groom his horses in a church which the
emperor had turned into a stable. ἀλόγου
ζώου. Cf. Bk. VIII, chap. 2, §§2 and 3, and the note on that
passage.
Chapter XIII.
1. The
seventh year of our conflict was completed; and the hostile measures
which
2. Thereupon, being appointed superintendent of the mines, he divided the band of confessors as if by a royal decree, and sent some to dwell in Cyprus and others in Lebanon, and he scattered others in different parts of Palestine and ordered them to labor in various works.
3. And, selecting the four who
seemed to him to be the leaders, he sent them to the commander of the
armies in that section. These were Peleus and Nilus, On Peleus and Nilus, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 8. Paleus
is called Paul in the Syriac version. The
name of this man is given as Elias in the Syriac version; but both he
and Patermuthius are called laymen.
4. There were others there who
had been allotted to dwell in a separate place by
themselves,—such of the confessors as on account of age or
mutilations, or for other bodily infirmities, had been released from
service. Silvanus, On
Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note
6.
5. This man having from the first day of the persecution, and throughout its entire continuance, been eminent for his confessions in all sorts of conflicts, had been kept all that time that he might, so to speak, set the final seal upon the whole conflict in Palestine.
6. There were with him many from Egypt, among whom was John, who surpassed all in our time in the excellence of his memory. He had formerly been deprived of his sight. Nevertheless, on account of his eminence in confession he had with the others suffered the destruction of his foot by cauterization. And although his sight had been destroyed he was subjected to the same burning with fire, the executioners aiming after everything that was merciless and pitiless and cruel and inhuman.
7. Since he was such a man, one
would not be so much astonished at his habits and his philosophic life,
nor would he seem so wonderful for them, as for the strength of his
memory. For he had written whole books of the Divine Scriptures,
“not in tables of stone” Ibid.
8. I confess that I was astonished when I first saw the man as he was standing in the midst of a large congregation and repeating portions of the Divine Scripture. While I only heard his voice, I thought that, according to the custom in the meetings, he was reading. But when I came near and perceived what he was doing, and observed all the others standing around him with sound eyes while he was using only the eyes of his mind, and yet was speaking naturally like some prophet, and far excelling those who were sound in body, it was impossible for me not to glorify God and wonder. And I seemed to see in these deeds evident and strong confirmation of the fact that true manhood consists not in excellence of bodily appearance, but in the soul and understanding alone. For he, with his body mutilated, manifested the superior excellence of the power that was within him.
9. But as to those whom we have mentioned as abiding in a separate place, and attending to their customary duties in fasting and prayer and other exercises, God himself saw fit to give them a salutary issue by extending his right hand in answer to them. The bitter foe, as they were armed against him zealously through their prayers to God, could no longer endure them, and determined to slay and destroy them from off the earth because they troubled him.
10. And God permitted him to
accomplish this, that he might not be restrained from the wickedness he
desired, and that at the same time they might receive the prizes of
their manifold conflicts. Therefore at the command of the most accursed
Maximinus, forty, lacking one, The Syriac version says forty.
11. These martyrdoms were
accomplished in Palestine during eight complete years; and of this
description was the persecution in our time. Beginning with the
demolition of the churches, it increased greatly as the rulers rose up
from time to time against us. In these assaults the multiform and
various conflicts of those who wrestled in behalf of religion produced
an innumerable multitude of martyrs in every province,—in the
regions extending from Libya and throughout all Egypt, and Syria,
and
12. But the countries beyond
these, all Italy and Sicily and Gaul, and the regions toward the
setting sun, in Spain, Mauritania, and Africa, suffered the war of
persecution during less than two years, On
the cessation of the persecution in the West at the accession of
Maxentius, see Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1.
13. For what had never before
been recorded in the annals of the Roman government, first took place
in our day, contrary to all expectation; for during the persecution in
our time the empire was divided into two parts. On
the division of the empire to which Eusebius here refers, see above,
Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 17.
14. But when the divine grace
kindly and compassionately manifested its care for us too, then truly
our rulers also, those very ones through whom the wars against us had
been formerly carried on, changed their minds in a most wonderful
manner, and published a recantation; i.e. the toleration edict of Galerius, published in the spring of
311. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1. It would seem that the edict was originally appended to this
shorter recension of the martyrs (the longer recension is complete in
its present form, and contains no hint of such an addition). Very
likely it was dropped with the second half of the work (see above, p.
29) as unnecessary, when the first half was inserted in the
History. The edict is given in full in Bk. VIII. chap. 17,
above.
The End of the Book of Eusebius
Pamphili concerning those who suffered Martyrdom in
Palestine. περὶ τῶν ἐν
Παλαιστίνῃ
μαρτυρησ€ντων
τέλος. On the title
of the work, see above, p. 342, note 1.
Chapter I.—The Pretended Relaxation.
1. The
imperial edict of recantation, which has been quoted above, The
toleration edict of Galerius, given in Bk. VIII. chap. 17. For the reason of Maximin’s failure to join with the other
emperors in the issue of this edict, see Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note
1.
2. For since he could not in any other way oppose the decision of his superiors, keeping the law which had been already issued secret, and taking care that it might not be made known in the district under him, he gave an unwritten order to his governors that they should relax the persecution against us. They communicated the command to each other in writing.
3. Sabinus, Of Sabinus we know only what is told us here. He seems to have
been Maximin’s prime minister, or prætorian prefect
(τῷ τῶν
ἐξοχωτ€των
ἐπ€ρχων
ἀξιώματι
τετιμημένος, Eusebius says of him). He is mentioned again in chap. 9,
where an epistle of Maximin addressed to him is quoted.
4. “With continuous and
most devoted earnestness their Majesties, our most divine masters, the
emperors, Literally, “the divinity of our most divine masters, the
emperors.” The style throughout the epistle is of an equally
stilted character.
5. Since therefore it has come
to pass that by such conduct many have brought themselves into danger,
their Majesties, our most powerful masters, the emperors, in the
exalted nobility of piety, esteeming it foreign to their
Majesties’ purpose to bring men into so great danger for such a
cause, have commanded their devoted servant, myself, to write to thy
wisdom, Literally, “have commanded my devotedness to write to thy
wisdom.” It is clear that the communication was dictated, or at
least directly inspired, by Maximin himself.
6. Therefore it should be thy
care to write to the curators τοὺς
λογιστ€ς, commonly used to translate the Latin curatores
urbium. τοὺς
στρατηγοὺς
(the common designation for the chief magistrates of
cities in the eastern part of the empire) καὶ τοὺς
πραιποσίτους
τοῦ π€γου. The mss. all read γρ€μματος, but Valesius conjectures that πρ€γματος
is the true reading, and his conjecture is supported
by Nicephorus, who has φροντίδα
περὶ
χριστιανῶν
ποιεῖθαι. Stroth follows Valesius, and I have done the same. Heinichen
remarks: “Sed non necessaria, credo, est hæc emendatio,
immo eadem fere exsistet sententia per γρ€μματος, hoc modo: ut scient sibi non licere operam dare sc. ut
facile intelligitur persequendis Christianis, ultra hoc scriptum, id
est, magis quam hoc scripto est designatum.” Closs interprets
in the same way, translating: “dass sie sich nicht weiter, als in
diesem Schreiben befohlen ist, mit den Christen zu befassen
haben.” The Greek, however, does not seem to me to admit of this
interpretation (it reads ἵνα
γνῷεν,
περαιτέρω
αὐτοῖς
τούτου τοῦ
γρ€μματος
φροντίδα
ποιεῖσθαι μὴ
προσήκειν), and there seems to be no other alternative than to change
the word γρ€μματος
to πρ€γματος, or at least give it the meaning of πρ€γματος, as Mason does, without emending the text (though I am not
aware that γρ€μμα can
legitimately be rendered in any such way). I am inclined to think that
the word negotium stood in the original, and that it was
translated by the word πρ€γμα. Had
epistola or litteræ been used, referring to the
present document,—and it could not well refer to anything
else,—we should expect Eusebius to translate by ἐπιστολγή, for he calls the document an ἐπιστολή in §3, above. On the other hand, if scriptura, or any
other similar word, had been used and translated γρ€μμα by Eusebius, we should have expected him to call the document
a γρ€μμα, not
an ἐπιστολή in §3. The general drift of the
letter cannot be mistaken. As Mason paraphrases it: “In other
words, Christianity strictly is still illicit, though in particular
cases not to be punished as severely as heretofore; and the emperor,
though forced for the present not to require you to persecute,
will expect you not to relax your exertions more than can be
helped.” Mason justly emphasizes in the same connection the use
of the words μὴ
προσήκειν in the last clause, which do not mean non licere
(“it is not permitted”) as Valesius, followed by many
others, render them, but “it is not necessary,” “they
need not.” It is plain that Maximin made his concessions very
unwillingly and only because compelled to; and it is clear that he
suppressed the edict of Galerius, and substituted general and not
wholly unambiguous directions of his own, in order that as little as
possible might be done for the Christians, and that he might be left
free for a future time when he should find himself in a more
independent position; he evidently did not care to compromise and
hamper himself by officially sanctioning the full and explicit
toleration accorded in the edict of Galerius. For a fuller discussion
of Maximin’s attitude in the matter, see Mason, p. 309 sq. As he
remarks, it is “almost a wonder that the judges interpreted
Maximin’s document in a sense so favorable to the brotherhood as
they really did. Though no effectual security was given against the
recurrence of the late atrocities, the Persecution of Diocletian was at
an end, even in the East. The subordinate officers issued and posted
local mandates, which conceded more than they were bidden to
concede.”
7. Thereupon the rulers of the
prov τοῖς κατ᾽
ἀγροὺς
ἐπιτεταγμένοις
8. And when these things had thus been done, immediately, like a light shining forth in a dark night, one could see in every city congregations gathered and assemblies thronged, and meetings held according to their custom. And every one of the unbelieving heathen was not a little astonished at these things, wondering at so marvelous a transformation, and exclaiming that the God of the Christians was great and alone true.
9. And some of our people, who had faithfully and bravely sustained the conflict of persecution, again became frank and bold toward all; but as many as had been diseased in the faith and had been shaken in their souls by the tempest, strove eagerly for healing, beseeching and imploring the strong to stretch out to them a saving hand, and supplicating God to be merciful unto them.
10. Then also the noble athletes of religion who had been set free from their sufferings in the mines returned to their own homes. Happily and joyfully they passed through every city, full of unspeakable pleasure and of a boldness which cannot be expressed in words.
11. Great crowds of men pursued their journey along the highways and through the market-places, praising God with hymns and psalms. And you might have seen those who a little while before had been driven in bonds from their native countries under a most cruel sentence, returning with bright and joyful faces to their own firesides; so that even they who had formerly thirsted for our blood, when they saw the unexpected wonder, congratulated us on what had taken place.
Chapter II.—The Subsequent Reverse.
1. But
the tyrant who, as we have said, ruled over the districts of the
Orient, a thorough hater of the good and an enemy of every virtuous
person, as he was, could no longer bear this; and indeed he did not
permit matters to go on in this way quite six months. The Edict of Galerius was issued in April, 311 (see Lactantius,
de Mort. pers. 35, and Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1, above), so
that Maximin’s change of policy, recorded in this chapter, must
have begun in October, or thereabouts. Valesius supposes that the death
of Galerius was the cause of Maximin’s return to persecuting
measures. But Galerius died, not some months after the issue of the
edict, as Valesius, and others after him, assert, but within a few days
after it, as is directly stated by Lactantius (ibid.), whose
accuracy in this case there is no reason to question. Another
misstatement made by Valesius in the same connection, and repeated by
Heinichen, Crusè, and others, is that Maximin became Augustus only
after the death of Galerius. The truth is, he was recognized as an
Augustus in 308 (see Lactantius, ibid. chap. 32; and Bk. VIII.
chap. 13, note 22, above). The cause of the renewal of the persecution
seems to have been simply impatience at the exultation of the Church
and at the wonderful recuperative power revealed the moment the
pressure was taken off. That it was not renewed sooner was doubtless
due to the more important matters which engaged the attention of
Maximinus immediately after the death of Galerius, in connection with
the division of the Eastern Empire between himself and Licinius (see
Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36). It would seem from the passage just
referred to, that as soon as these matters were satisfactorily
adjusted, Maximin turned his attention again to the Christians, and
began to curtail their liberty. Very likely under the pretext that night gatherings at the tombs
of the martyrs, with the excitement and enthusiasm necessarily
engendered under such circumstances, were of immoral tendency.
Naturally, the honor shown by the Christians to their fellows who had
been put to death at the command of the state was looked upon as an
insult to the authorities, and could not but be very distasteful to
them. They imagined that such meetings would only tend to foster
discontent and disloyalty on the part of those who engaged in them, and
consequently they were always suspicious of them.
2. Then through the agency of
some wicked men he sent an embassy to himself against us, The same account is given by Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36
(“First of all he took away the toleration and general protection
granted by Galerius to the Christians, and, for this end, he secretly
procured addresses for the different cities, requesting that no
Christian church might be built within their walls; and thus he meant
to make that which was his own choice appear as if extorted from him by
importunity”). It is possible that the account is correct, but it
is more probable that the embassies were genuine, and were voluntarily
sent to the emperor, while he was on a tour through his dominions, by
the pagan population of some of the cities who knew the emperor’s
own position in the matter, and desired to conciliate him and secure
favors from him. Of course such deputations would delight him greatly;
and what one city did, others would feel compelled to do also, in order
not to seem behindhand in religious zeal and in order not to run the
risk of offending the emperor, who since the death of Galerius was of
course a more absolute master than before. Cf. Mason, p. 313
sq. Theotecnus, according to the Passion of St. Theodotus
(translated in Mason, p. 354 sq.) an apostate from Christianity, was
for some time chief magistrate of Galatia, where he indulged in the
most terrible cruelties against the Christians. Beyond the account
given in the Passion referred to we know in regard to Theotecnus
only what is told us by Eusebius in the present book, in which he is
frequently mentioned. His hatred of the Christians knew no bounds. He
seems, moreover, to have been something of a philosopher and literary
man (Mason calls him a Neo-Platonist, and makes him the author of the
anti-Christian Acta Pilati; but see below, chap. 5, note 1). He
was executed by command of Licinius, after the death of Maximinus (see
below, chap. 11). Θεοτέκνος, “child of God.” The λογισταὶ, or curatores urbium, were the chief finance
officers of municipalities. See Valesius’ note on Bk. VIII. chap.
11.
After this man had carried on all kinds of war against us and had caused
our people to be diligently hunted up in their retreats, as if they
were unholy thieves, and had devised every sort of slander and
accusation against us, and become the cause of death to vast numbers,
he finally erected a statue of Jupiter Philius Jupiter Philius, the god of friendship or good-will, was widely
honored in the East. He seems to have been the tutelary divinity of
Antioch, and, according to Valesius, a temple of his at Antioch is
mentioned by the emperor Julian and by Libanius. “The ceremonies of the Gentiles, used in the erection and
consecration of images to their gods, were various. Jupiter Ctesius was
consecrated with one sort of rites, Herceus with another, and Philius
with a third sort” (Valesius). For farther particulars, see his
note ad locum.
Chapter
IV.—The Memorials against
us. περὶ τῶν
καθ᾽ ἡμῶν
ψηφισμ€των
1. Thefact that this man, who took the lead in this matter, had
succeeded in his purpose was an incitement to all the other officials
in the cities under the same government to prepare a similar
memorial. ψηφόν.
2. And as the tyrant by a
rescript declared himself well pleased with their measures, ψηφίσμασι Lactantius (ibid. chap. 36) says: “In compliance with
those addresses he [Maximinus] introduced a new mode of government in
things respecting religion, and for each city he created a high priest,
chosen from among the persons of most distinction. The office of those
men was to make daily sacrifices to all their gods, and, with the aid
of the former priests, to prevent the Christians from erecting
churches, or from worshiping God, either publicly or in private; and he
authorized them to compel the Christians to sacrifice to idols, and, on
their refusal, to bring them before the civil magistrate; and, as if
this had not been enough, in every province he established a
superintendent priest, one of chief eminence in the state; and he
commanded that all those priests newly instituted should appear in
white habits, that being the most honorable distinction of
dress.” Maximin perceived the power that existed in the Catholic
Church with its wonderful organization, and conceived the stupendous
idea of rejuvenating paganism by creating a pagan Catholic Church. The
Roman religion should cease to be the loose, unorganized, chaotic thing
it had always been, and should be made a positive aggressive power over
against Christianity by giving it a regular organization and placing
the entire institution in the hands of honorable and able men, whose
business it should be to increase its stability and power in every way
and in all quarters. We are compelled to admire the wisdom of
Maximin’s plan. No persecutor before him had ever seen the need
of thus replacing the Christian Church by another institution as great
and as splendid as itself. The effort, like that of Julian a
half-century later, must remain memorable in the annals of the conflict
of paganism with Christianity.
3. Indeed, the extraordinary superstition of the emperor, to speak in brief, led all his subjects, both rulers and private citizens, for the sake of gratifying him, to do everything against us, supposing that they could best show their gratitude to him for the benefits which they had received from him, by plotting murder against us and exhibiting toward us any new signs of malignity.
Chapter V.—The Forged Acts.
1. Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate These Acts are no longer extant, but their character can be
gathered from this chapter. They undoubtedly contained the worst
calumnies against Christ’s moral and religious character. They
cannot have been very skillful forgeries, for Eusebius, in Bk. I. chap.
9, above, points out a palpable chronological blunder which stamped
them as fictitious on their very face. And yet they doubtless answered
every purpose; for few of the heathen would be in a position to detect
such an error, and perhaps fewer still would care to expose it if they
discovered it. These Acts are of course to be distinguished from the
numerous Acta Pilati which proceeded from Christian sources (see
above, Bk. II. chap. 2, note 1). The way in which these Acts were
employed was diabolical in its very shrewdness. Certainly there was no
more effectual way of checking the spread of Christianity than
systematically and persistently to train up the youth of the empire to
look with contempt and disgust upon the founder of Christianity, the
Christian’s Saviour and Lord. Incalculable mischief must
inevitably have been produced had Maximin’s reign lasted for a
number of years. As it was, we can imagine the horror of the Christians
at this new and sacrilegious artifice of the enemy. Mason assigns
“the crowning, damning honor of this masterstroke” to
Theotecnus, but I am unable to find any proof that he was the author of
the documents. It is, of course, not impossible nor improbable that he
was; but had Eusebius known him to be the author, he would certainly
have informed us. As it is, his statement is entirely indefinite, and
the Acts are not brought into any connection with
Theotecnus.
2. While these things were
taking place, another military commander, whom the Romans call Dux, The commandant of the Roman garrison in Damascus. Damascus, from the time of Hadrian (according to Spruner-Menke),
or of Severus (according to Mommsen), was the capital of the newly
formed province of Syria-Phœnice, or
Syro-Phœnicia.
Chapter VI.—Those who suffered Martyrdom at this Time.
1. Not
long afterward, however, this military commander became his own
murderer and paid the penalty for his wickedness. But we were obliged
again to endure exile and severe persecutions, and the governors in
every province were once more terribly stirred up against us; so that
even some of those illustrious in the Divine Word were seized and had
sentence of death pronounced upon them without mercy. Three of them in
the city of Emesa Emesa was an important city in Northern Phœnicia, the
birthplace of the Emperor Elagabalus, and chiefly famous for its great
temple of the Sun. On Silvanus, bishop of Emesa, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note
4.
2. At about the same time
Peter On Peter, bishop of Alexandria, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note
54. According to that chapter he suffered in the ninth year of the
persecution; that is, at least as early as April, 312.
3. And Lucian, The presbyter Lucian, who is mentioned also in Bk. VIII. chap. 13,
above, was one of the greatest scholars of the early Church, and with
Dorotheus (see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 9) at the head of the
famous theological school at Antioch. He produced a revised version of
the LXX, which enjoyed a wide circulation (see Jerome’s de
vir. ill. 77, and Westcott’s Hist. of the N. T. Canon,
p. 392 sq.); and also wrote some books on Faith (see Jerome,
ibid.), some epistles (see ibid., and Suidas,
s.v.), and a commentary on Job, of which a Latin fragment has
been preserved and is given by Routh, Rel. Sacræ, IV. p.
7–10. His works have perished, with the exception of a brief
fragment of an epistle, the fragment from his commentary on Job just
referred to, and a part of his defense before Maximinus (referred to in
the present chapter) which is preserved by Rufinus, H. E. IX. 6,
and is probably genuine (cf. Westcott, ibid. p. 393). These
extant fragments are given, with annotations, by Routh, ibid. p.
5 sq. Lucian’s chief historical significance lies in his relation
to Arianism. On this subject, see above, p. 11 sq.
4. Such trials were brought upon us in a brief time by Maximinus, the enemy of virtue, so that this persecution which was stirred up against us seemed far more cruel than the former.
Chapter VII.—The Decree against us which was engraved on Pillars.
1. The
memorials against us See above, chaps. 2 and 4. These decrees must have been published in this way in June, 312,
or thereabouts; for in chap. 10, §12, we learn that they were thus
made public a little less than a year before the final edict of
toleration, which was apparently issued in May, 313. See chap. 5.
2. It appears to me necessary to
insert here this document of Maximinus which was posted on pillars, in
order that there may be made manifest at the same time the boastful and
haughty arrogance of the God-hating man, and the sleepless evil-hating
divine vengeance upon the impious, which followed close upon him, and
under whose pressure he not long afterward took the opposite course in
respect to us and confirmed it by written laws. οὐκ εἰς
μακρὸν
τἀναντία
περὶ ἡμῶν
ἐβουλεύσατο
τε καὶ δι᾽
ἐγγρ€φων
νόμων
ἐδογμ€τισε. Crusè translates, “So that he did not long
devise hostilities and form decrees against us.” It is true that
the phrase οὐκ
εἰς μακρόν may in general bear the meaning “not for long,”
as well as “not long afterward”; but an examination of the
numerous passages in which the words are used by Eusebius (e.g. I. 11.
1; I. 13. 4; II. 6. 5; II. 7; III. 5. 7; IV. 7. 12; VII. 13. 1) will
show that, with a single exception, he uniformly employs them in the
sense of “not long afterward.” The single exception occurs
in Bk. IV. chap. 7, §12, where the phrase is clearly used with the
other meaning—“not for long.” In view of this
preponderance of instances for the former use of the phrase in this
single work, it seems best in the present case—the only doubtful
one, so far as I am aware—to follow Valesius, Stroth, and Closs
in translating “not long afterward,” which is in full
accord with the context, and more in harmony than the other reading
with the structure of this particular sentence.
The rescript is in the following words:
Copy of a translation of the rescript of Maximinus in answer to the memorials against us, taken from the pillar in Tyre.
3. “Now at length the
feeble power of the human mind has become able to shake off and to
scatter every dark mist of error, which before this besieged the senses
of men, who were more miserable than impious, and enveloped them in
dark and destructive ignorance; and to perceive that it is governed and
estab
4. It passes belief how grateful, how pleasing and how agreeable it is to us, that you have given a most decided proof of your pious resolution; for even before this it was known to every one how much regard and reverence you were paying to the immortal gods, exhibiting not a faith of bare and empty words, but continued and wonderful examples of illustrious deeds.
5. Wherefore your city may justly be called a seat and dwelling of the immortal gods. At least, it appears by many signs that it flourishes because of the presence of the celestial gods.
6. Behold, therefore, your city, regardless of all private advantages, and omitting its former petitions in its own behalf, when it perceived that the adherents of that execrable vanity were again beginning to spread, and to start the greatest conflagration,—like a neglected and extinguished funeral pile when its brands are rekindled,—immediately resorted to our piety as to a metropolis of all religiousness, asking some remedy and aid.
7. It is evident that the gods have given you this saving mind on account of your faith and piety.
“Accordingly that supreme and mightiest Jove, who presides over your illustrious city, who preserves your ancestral gods, your wives and children, your hearths and homes from every destructive pest, has infused into your souls this wholesome resolve; showing and proving how excellent and glorious and salutary it is to observe with the becoming reverence the worship and sacred rites of the immortal gods.
8. For who can be found so ignorant or so devoid of all understanding as not to perceive that it is due to the kindly care of the gods that the earth does not refuse the seed sown in it, nor disappoint the hope of the husbandmen with vain expectation; that impious war is not inevitably fixed upon earth, and wasted bodies dragged down to death under the influence of a corrupted atmosphere; that the sea is not swollen and raised on high by blasts of intemperate winds; that unexpected hurricanes do not burst forth and stir up the destructive tempest; moreover, that the earth, the nourisher and mother of all, is not shaken from its lowest depths with a terrible tremor, and that the mountains upon it do not sink into the opening chasms. No one is ignorant that all these, and evils still worse than these, have oftentimes happened hitherto.
9. And all these misfortunes have taken place on account of the destructive error of the empty vanity of those impious men, when it prevailed in their souls, and, we may almost say, weighed down the whole world with shame.”
10. After other words he adds: “Let them look at the standing crops already flourishing with waving heads in the broad fields, and at the meadows glittering with plants and flowers, in response to abundant rains and the restored mildness and softness of the atmosphere.
11. Finally, let all rejoice that the might of the most powerful and terrible Mars has been propitiated by our piety, our sacrifices, and our veneration; and let them on this account enjoy firm and tranquil peace and quiet; and let as many as have wholly abandoned that blind error and delusion and have returned to a right and sound mind rejoice the more, as those who have been rescued from an unexpected storm or severe disease and are to reap the fruits of pleasure for the rest of their life.
12. But if they still persist in their execrable vanity, let them, as you have desired, be driven far away from your city and territory, that thus, in accordance with your praiseworthy zeal in this matter, your city, being freed from every pollution and impiety, may, according to its native disposition, attend to the sacred rites of the immortal gods with becoming reverence.
13. But that ye may know how acceptable to us your request respecting this matter has been, and how ready our mind is to confer benefits voluntarily, without memorials and petitions, we permit your devotion to ask whatever great gift ye may desire in return for this your pious disposition.
14. And now ask that this may be done and that ye may receive it; for ye shall obtain it without delay. This, being granted to your city, shall furnish for all time an evidence of reverent piety toward the immortal gods, and of the fact that you have obtained from our benevolence merited prizes for this choice of yours; and it shall be shown to your children and children’s children.”
15. This was published against
us in all the provinces, depriving us of every hope of good, at least
from men; so that, according to that divine utterance, “If it
were possible, even the elect would have stumbled”
16. And now indeed, when the hope of most of us was almost extinct, suddenly while those who were to execute against us the above decree had in some places scarcely finished their journey, God, the defender of his own Church, exhibited his heavenly interposition in our behalf, well-nigh stopping the tyrant’s boasting against us.
Chapter VIII.—The Misfortunes which happened in Connection with these Things, in Famine, Pestilence, and War.
1. The
customary rains and showers of the winter season ceased to fall in
their wonted ἅνθραξ:
“a carbuncle, malignant pustule (acc. to some,
small-pox).” Liddell and Scott. Eusebius is the only
writer to tell us of this famine and pestilence during Maximin’s
reign, though Lactantius (De Mort. pers. 37) does refer in a
single sentence to a famine, without giving us any particulars in
regard to it, or informing us of its severity or extent.
2. In addition to this the
tyrant was compelled to go to war with the Armenians, who had been from
ancient times friends and allies of the Romans. As they were also
Christians We do not know when Christianity was first preached in Armenia,
but late in the third century Gregory, “the Illuminator,”
an Armenian of royal blood who had received a Christian training in
Cappadocia, returned as a missionary to his native land, which was
mainly heathen, and at the beginning of the fourth century succeeded in
converting the king, Tiridates III., and a large number of the nobles
and people, and Christianity was established as the state religion (see
the articles Armenia and Gregory, the Illuminator, in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog.). The Armenians had been
friends of the Romans for many generations and allies in their wars
with the Persians on many occasions. The present war is mentioned, so
far as I know, only by Eusebius. According to §4, below, it ended
in a defeat for Maximinus. It cannot have been a war of great
consequence. It was very likely little more than a temporary
misunderstanding, resulting perhaps in a few skirmishes between troops
on the border, and speedily settled by a treaty of some kind or
another. Maximinus at any rate could not afford to quarrel long with
his Eastern neighbors, in view of the struggle with Licinius which he
knew must come in time. Whether the Armenians or the Romans were the
aggressors in this affair, Eusebius does not tell us. It is very
probable, as Mason suggests, that Maximinus tried to put down
Christianity in Lesser Armenia, which was a Roman province and
therefore under his sway, and that their brethren in the kingdom of
Armenia took up arms against Rome to avenge their kindred and their
faith.
3. All these things suddenly
took place at one and the same time, and refuted the tyrant’s
empty vaunt against the Deity. For he had boasted that, because of his
zeal for idols and his hostility against us, neither famine nor
pestilence nor war had happened in his time. See the previous chapter, § 8.
4. He himself with his forces
was defeated in the war with the Armenians, and the rest of the
inhabitants of the cities under him were terribly afflicted with famine
and pestilence, so that one measure of wheat was sold for twenty-five
hundred Attic drachms. An Attic drachm was a silver coin, worth about eighteen or
nineteen cents.
5. Those who died in the cities were innumerable, and those who died in the country and villages were still more. So that the tax lists which formerly included a great rural population were almost entirely wiped out; nearly all being speedily destroyed by famine and pestilence.
6. Some, therefore, desired to dispose of their most precious things to those who were better supplied, in return for the smallest morsel of food, and others, selling their possessions little by little, fell into the last extremity of want. Some, chewing wisps of hay and recklessly eating noxious herbs, undermined and ruined their constitutions.
7. And some of the high-born women in the cities, driven by want to shameful extremities, went forth into the market-places to beg, giving evidence of their former liberal culture by the modesty of their appearance and the decency of their apparel.
8. Some, wasted away like ghosts and at the very point of death, stumbled and tottered here and there, and too weak to stand fell down in the middle of the streets; lying stretched out at full length they begged that a small morsel of food might be given them, and with their last gasp they cried out Hunger! having strength only for this most painful cry.
9. But others, who seemed to be better supplied, astonished at the multitude of the beggars, after giving away large quantities, finally became hard and relentless, expecting that they themselves also would soon suffer the same calamities as those who begged. So that in the midst of the market-places and lanes, dead and naked bodies lay unburied for many days, presenting the most lamentable spectacle to those that beheld them.
10. Some also became food for dogs, on which account the survivors began to kill the dogs, lest they should become mad and should go to devouring men.
11. But still worse was the
pestilence which consumed entire houses and families, and especially
those whom the famine was not able to destroy because of their
abundance of food. Thus men of wealth, rulers and governors and
multitudes in office, as if left by the famine on purpose for the
pestilence, suffered swift and speedy death. Every place therefore was
full of lamentation; in every lane and market-place and street there
was nothing else to be seen or heard than tears, with the customary
instruments and the voices of the mourners. αὐλῶν τε καὶ
κτύπων.
12. In this way death, waging war with these two weapons, pestilence and famine, destroyed whole families in a short time, so that one could see two or three dead bodies carried out at once.
13. Such were the rewards of the boasting of Maximinus and of the measures of the cities against us.
Then did the evidences of the universal zeal and piety of the Christians become manifest to all the heathen.
14. For they alone in the midst
of such ills showed their sympathy
15. After these things were thus done, God, the great and celestial defender of the Christians, having revealed in the events which have been described his anger and indignation at all men for the great evils which they had brought upon us, restored to us the bright and gracious sunlight of his providence in our behalf; so that in the deepest darkness a light of peace shone most wonderfully upon us from him, and made it manifest to all that God himself has always been the ruler of our affairs. From time to time indeed he chastens his people and corrects them by his visitations, but again after sufficient chastisement he shows mercy and favor to those who hope in him.
Chapter
IX.—The Victory of the God-Beloved
Emperors. All the mss., followed by Valesius and
Crusè, give this as the title of the next chapter, and give as the
title of this chapter the one which I have placed at the head of
chapter 10. It is plain enough from the contents of the two chapters
that the titles have in some way become transposed in the mss., and so they are restored to their proper position by
the majority of the editors, whom I have followed.
1. Thus
when Constantine, whom we have already mentioned See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13. On
Licinius, see ibid. note 21. Constantine and Licinius were both
Augusti, and thus nominally of equal rank. Nevertheless, both in the
edict of Galerius, quoted in Bk. VIII. chap. 17, and in the edict of
Milan, given in full in the De Mort. pers. chap. 48,
Constantine’s name precedes that of Licinius, showing that he was
regarded as in some sense the latter’s senior, and thus
confirming Eusebius’ statement, the truth of which Closs
unnecessarily denies. It seems a little peculiar that Constantine
should thus be recognized as Licinius’ senior, especially in the
edict of Galerius; for although it is true that he had been a
Cæsar some time before Licinius had been admitted to the imperial
college, yet, on the other hand, Licinius was made Augustus by Galerius
before Constantine was, and enjoyed his confidence and favor much more
fully than the latter. On
Maxentius, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1. i.e. Maximinus. For an account of his defeat by Licinius and his
death, see below, chap. 10. οὔπω
μανέντος
τότε. This refers to
Licinius’ hostility to the Christians, which made its appearance
some years later, and resulted in a persecution (see below, Bk. X.
chap. 8). The clause, if a part of the original, obliges us to suppose
that the ninth book was composed after Licinius had begun to persecute,
but there are strong reasons for thinking that the first nine books
were completed before 314 (see above, p. 45); indeed, we cannot explain
Eusebius’ eulogistic words in speaking of Licinius here and
elsewhere in this book on any other ground. It seems necessary,
therefore, to regard this clause and the similar clause in §12,
below, as later insertions, made possibly at the time of the addition
of the tenth book (see p. 45).
2. Constantine, who was the
superior both in dignity and imperial rank, See above, note 2. Constantine’s battle with Maxentius, described in this
chapter, took place on the sixth anniversary of the latter’s
accession, Oct. 27, 312 (see Lactantius, De Mort. pers. 44 and
46). For particulars respecting Constantine himself and his campaign
against Maxentius, see Dr. Richardson’s prolegomena to his
translation of the Life of Constantine, p. 416. sq. of this
volume.
3. But Maxentius, putting confidence rather in the arts of sorcery than in the devotion of his subjects, did not dare to go forth beyond the gates of the city, but fortified every place and district and town which was enslaved by him, in the neighborhood of Rome and in all Italy, with an immense multitude of troops and with innumerable bands of soldiers. But the emperor, relying upon the assistance of God, attacked the first, second, and third army of the tyrant, and conquered them all; and having advanced through the greater part of Italy, was already very near Rome.
4. Then, that he might not be compelled to wage war with the Romans for the sake of the tyrant, God himself drew the latter, as if bound in chains, some distance without the gates, and confirmed those threats against the impious which had been anciently inscribed in sacred books,—disbelieved, indeed, by most as a myth, but believed by the faithful,—confirmed them, in a word, by the deed itself to all, both believers and unbelievers, that saw the wonder with their eyes.
5. Thus, as in the time of Moses
himself and of the ancient God-beloved race of Hebrews, “he cast
Pharaoh’s chariots and host into the sea, and overwhelmed his
chosen charioteers in the Red Sea, and covered them with the
flood,” which means literally a
“third,” and hence a “third man” (Greek
τριστ€της, is used, according to Gesenius, to denote a chariot
warrior, who was so called because “three always stood upon one
chariot, one of whom fought, while the second protected him with the
shield, and the third drove.”
6. In regard to him one might
say, “he digged a pit and opened it and fell into the hole which
he had made; his labor shall turn upon his own head, and his
unrighteousness shall fall upon his own crown.”
7. Thus, then, the bridge over
the river being broken, the passageway settled down, and immediately
the boats with the men disappeared in the depths, and that most impious
one himself first of all, then the shield-bearers who were with him, as
the divine oracles foretold, “sank like lead in the mighty
waters”; The LXX, followed by Eusebius, reads δεδοξασμένος
ἐν ἁγίοις to translate the Hebrew נֶאְדָּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ. It seems probable both from the Hebrew original and from
the use of the plural δόξαις in
the next clause, that the LXX translator used the plural ἁγίοις, not to
denote “saints,” as Closs renders (“durch die
Heiligen”), which would in strictness require the article, but
“holiness.” I have therefore ventured to render the word
thus in the text, although quite conscious that the translation does
not accurately reproduce the Greek phrase as it stands.
8. These and the like praises Constantine, by his very deeds, sang to God, the universal Ruler, and Author of his victory, as he entered Rome in triumph.
9. Immediately all the members of the senate and the other most celebrated men, with the whole Roman people, together with children and women, received him as their deliverer, their saviour, and their benefactor, with shining eyes and with their whole souls, with shouts of gladness and unbounded joy.
10. But he, as one possessed of inborn piety toward God, did not exult in the shouts, nor was he elated by the praises; but perceiving that his aid was from God, he immediately commanded that a trophy of the Saviour’s passion be put in the hand of his own statue.
11. And when he had placed it,
with the saving sign of the cross in its right hand, in the most public
place in Rome, he commanded that the following inscription should be
engraved upon it in the Roman tongue: “By this salutary sign, the
true proof of bravery, I have saved and freed your city from the yoke
of the tyrant and moreover, having set at liberty both the senate and
the people of Rome, I have restored them to their ancient distinction
and splendor.” Upon Constantine’s conversion, see Dr. Richardson’s
prolegomena, p. 431, below. On the famous tale of the flaming cross
with its inscription τούτῳ
νίκα, related in the
Life of Constantine, I. 28, see his note on that passage, p.
490, below.
12. And after this both
Constantine himself and with him the Emperor Licinius, who had not yet
been seized by that madness into which he later fell, Σεε αβόε,
νοτε 5. This is the famous edict of Milan, which was issued late in the
year 312, and which is given in the Latin original in Lactantius’
De Mort. pers. 48, and in a Greek translation in Eusebius’
History, Bk. X. chap. 5, below. For a discussion of its date and
significance, see the notes upon that chapter.
13. But he, like a tyrant, was
greatly pained by what he learned; but not wishing to seem to yield to
others, nor, on the other hand, to suppress that which was commanded,
for fear of those who enjoined it, as if on his own authority, he
addressed, under compulsion, to the governors under him this first
communication in behalf of the Christians, This epistle or rescript (Eusebius calls it here a γρ€μμα, just below an ἐπιστολή) of Maximin’s was written before the end of the year 312,
as can be seen from the fact that in §17, below, his visit to
Nicomedia is spoken of as having taken place in the previous year. But
that visit, as we learn from the De Mort. pers. chap. 36,
occurred in 311 (cf. chap. 2, note 1, above). It must therefore have
been issued immediately upon the receipt of the edict of Constantine
and Licinius. As Mason remarks, his reasons for writing this epistle
can hardly have been fear of Constantine and Licinius, as Eusebius
states, for he was bent upon war against them, and attacked Licinius at
the earliest possible moment. He cannot have cared, therefore, to take
any special pains to conciliate them. He was probably moved by a desire
to conciliate, just at this crisis, the numerous and influential body
of his subjects whom he had persecuted, in order that he might not have
to contend with disaffection and disloyalty within his own dominions
during his impending conflict with Licinius. The document itself is a
most peculiar one, full of false statements and contradictions. Mason
well says: “In this curious letter Maximin contradicts himself
often enough to make his Christian subjects dizzy. First he justifies
bloody persecution, then plumes himself upon having stopped it, next
apologizes for having set it again on foot, then denies that it was
going on, and lastly orders it to cease. We cannot wonder at what
Eusebius relates, that the people whose wrongs the letter applauded and
forbade, neither built church nor held meeting in public on the
strength of it; they did not know where to have it.”
Copy of a translation of the epistle of the tyrant Maximinus.
14. “Jovius Maximinus
Augustus to Sabinus. On Sabinus, see above, chap. 1, note 3.
15. But when I first came to
the Νοτηινγ
χουλδ βε
φαρτηερ φρομ
τηε τρυτη
τηαν τηισ ανδ
τηε
φολλοωινγ
στατεμεντ.
16. Then when, in accordance with my command, these orders were obeyed by the judges, it came to pass that none of those who lived in the districts of the East were banished or insulted, but that they were rather brought back to the worship of the gods by the fact that no severity was employed toward them.
17. But afterwards, when I went
up last year That is, after the death of Galerius in the year 311.
“Maximinus, on receiving this news (i.e. of the death of
Galerius), hasted with relays of horses from the East that he might
seize the provinces, and, while Licinius delayed, might arrogate to
himself the Chalcedonian straits. On his entry into Bithynia, with the
view of acquiring immediate popularity, he abolished the tax to the
great joy of all. Dissension arose between the two emperors, and almost
war. They stood on the opposite shores with their armies. But peace and
friendship were established under certain conditions; a treaty was
concluded on the narrow sea, and they joined hands” (Lactantius,
De mort. pers. 36). See above, chap. 2, note 1. On these embassies, see ibid. note 3.
18. But when I learned that many
men of the same religion dwelt in those regions, I replied that I
gladly thanked them for their request, but that I perceived that it was
not proffered by all, and that if, therefore, there were any that
persevered in the same superstition, each one had the privilege of
doing as he pleased, even if he wished to recognize the worship of the
gods. There is no sign of such consideration in Maximin’s
rescript, quoted in chap. 7, above. The sentences which follow are
quite contradictory. Certainly no one could gain from them any idea as
to what the emperor had done in the matter.
19. Nevertheless, I considered it necessary to give a friendly answer to the inhabitants of Nicomedia and to the other cities which had so earnestly presented to me the same petition, namely, that no Christians should dwell in their cities,—both because this same course had been pursued by all the ancient emperors, and also because it was pleasing to the gods, through whom all men and the government of the state itself endure,—and to confirm the request which they presented in behalf of the worship of their deity.
20. Therefore, although before
this time, special letters have been sent to thy devotedness, and
commands have likewise been given that no harsh measures should be
taken against those provincials who desire to follow such a course, but
that they should be treated mildly and moderately,—nevertheless,
in order that they may not suffer insults or extortions σεισμούς, literally, “shakings,” or
“shocks.” The word is doubtless used to translate the Latin
concussio, which in legal language meant the extortion of money
by threats or other similar means. The words concussio, concussor,
concutit, are used very frequently by Tertullian in this sense;
e.g. in his De fuga in persecutione, chap. 12, ad Scap.
chaps. 4 and 5, Apol. chap. 7. See especially Oehler’s
note on the word in his edition of Tertullian’s works, I. p.
484. βενεφικιαλίων, a simple reproduction of the Latin beneficiarii.
These beneficiarii were “free or privileged soldiers, who
through the favor of their commander were exempt from menial
offices” (Andrews’ Lexicon). We are nowhere told, so far as
I am aware, that these beneficiarii were especially active in
thus practicing extortions upon the Christians; but we can gather from
Tertullian’s words in the various passages referred to that the
Christians had to suffer particularly from the soldiers in this
respect, and doubtless from the beneficiarii most of all; for
they possessed more leisure than the common soldiers, and at the same
time greater opportunity, because of their more intimate relations with
the authorities, of bringing the Christians into difficulty by entering
accusations against them. τοῖς
γρ€μμασι. On the use of the plural in speaking of a single epistle, see
above, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 12.
21. Hence, if any one of his own choice should decide to adopt the worship of the gods, it is fitting that he should be welcomed, but if any should wish to follow their own religion, do thou leave it in their power.
22. Wherefore it behooves thy
devotedness to observe that which is committed to thee, and to see that
power is given to no one to oppress our provincials with insults and
extortions, Σεε νοτε 24.
23. Since he was forced to do this by necessity and did not give the command by his own will, he was not regarded by any one as sincere or trustworthy, because he had already shown his unstable and deceitful disposition after his former similar concession.
24. None of our people, therefore, ventured to hold meetings or even to appear in public, because his communication did not cover this, but only commanded to guard against doing us any injury, and did not give orders that we should hold meetings or build churches or perform any of our customary acts.
25. And yet Constantine and
Licinius, the advocates of peace and piety, had written him to permit
this, and had granted it to all their subjects by edicts and
ordinances. See above, note 17, and below, Bk. X. chap. 5.
On the transposition of the titles of chaps. 9 and 10, see the
previous chapter, note 1.
1. The
circumstances which drove him to this course were the following. Being
no longer able to sustain the magnitude of the government which had
been undeservedly committed to him, in consequence of his want of
prudence and imperial understanding, he managed affairs in a base
manner, and with his mind unreasonably exalted in all things with
boastful pride, even toward his colleagues in the empire who were in
every respect his superiors, in birth, in training, in education, in
worth and intelligence, and, greatest of all, in temperance and piety
toward the true God, he began to venture to act audaciously and to
arrogate to himself the first rank. That Maximin should arrogate to himself, as Eusebius says, the
highest rank is not very surprising, when we realize that that
position, in so far as any difference in rank between the different
rulers was acknowledged, belonged to him by right, inasmuch as he was
Constantine’s senior (having been first Cæsar when the
latter was only second), while Constantine (see above, chap. 9, note 2)
was regarded as the senior of Licinius.
2. Becoming mad in his folly, he
broke the treaties which he had made with Licinius The treaty made in 311, just after the death of Galerius (see
De mort. pers. 36).
3. And when he joined battle This battle between Licinius and Maximin was fought on April 30,
313, at Adrianople, in Thrace. For a more detailed but somewhat
imaginative account of the battle, see De mort. pers. chap. 45
sq. Lactantius is considerate enough to accord Licinius the honor of a
divine vision, that he may not be behind his imperial colleague
Constantine; and he is pious enough to ascribe the victory wholly to
the divine aid vouchsafed in response to the prayers of Licinius and
his soldiers. The word Licinius is omitted by Laemmer and Heinichen, but without
sufficient warrant, for it is found in nearly all the mss.
4. First, the army in which he
trusted was destroyed, and as all his guards abandoned him and left him
alone, and fled to the victor, he secretly divested himself as quickly
as possible of the imperial garments, which did not fitly belong to
him, and in a cowardly and ignoble and unmanly way mingled with the
crowd, and then fled, concealing himself in fields and villages. Lactantius (ibid. chap. 47) informs us that Maximin’s
flight was so rapid that he reached Nicomedia, which was 160 miles from
Adrianople, on the evening of the day following the battle. As Gibbon
remarks, “The incredible speed which Maximin exerted in his
flight is much more celebrated than his prowess in
battle.”
5. Behold, the eyes of the Lord
are upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy, to
deliver their souls from death.”
6. Thus the tyrant, covered with
shame, went to his own country. And first, in frantic rage, he slew
many priests and prophets of the gods whom he had formerly admired, and
whose oracles had incited him to undertake the war, as sorcerers and
impostors, and besides all as betrayers of his safety. Then having
given glory to the God of the Christians and enacted a most full and
complete ordinance in behalf of their liberty, The final toleration edict of Maximin must have been issued very
soon after his defeat, and its occasion is plain enough. If he were to
oppose Licinius successfully, he must secure the loyalty of all his
subjects, and this could be done only by granting the Christians full
toleration. He could see plainly enough that Licinius’ religious
policy was a success in securing the allegiance of his subjects, and he
found himself compelled in self-defense to pursue a similar course,
distasteful as it was to him. There is no sign that he had any other
motive in taking this step. Religious considerations seem to have had
nothing to do with it; he was doubtless as much of a pagan as ever. The
edict itself is composed in an admirable vein. As Mason remarks,
“Maximin made the concession with so much dignity and grace, that
it is impossible to help wishing that his language were truer.”
As in the previous decree, he indulges his passion for lying without
restraint; but, unlike that one, the present edict is straightforward
and consistent throughout, and grants the Christians full liberty in
the most unequivocal terms. Maximin’s death took place at Tarsus (according to De
mort. pers. chap. 49), and apparently within a few weeks after his
defeat at Adrianople and the publication of his edict of toleration.
The reports of his death are somewhat conflicting. Zosimus and the
epitomist of Victor say merely that he died a natural death; Lactantius
tells us that he took poison; while Eusebius in § 14 sq. gives us
a horrible account of his last sickness which, according to him, was
marked, to say the least, with some rather remarkable symptoms. Mason
facetiously remarks that Eusebius seems to be thinking of a spontaneous
combustion. It was quite the fashion in the early Church to tell
dreadful tales in connection with the deaths of the persecutors, but in
the present case exaggeration is hardly necessary, for it would seem
from Lactantius’ account, that he died not of poison, as he
states, but of delirium tremens. As Mason remarks, “It is
probable that Maximin died of nothing worse than a natural death. But
the death which was natural to him was the most dreadful perhaps that
men can die. Maximin was known as an habitual drunkard; and in his
dying delirium he is said to have cried out that he saw God, with
assessors, all in white robes, judging him.”
Copy of the edict of the tyrant in behalf of the Christians, translated from the Roman tongue.
7. “The Emperor Cæsar Caius Valerius Maximinus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, Pius, Felix, Invictus, Augustus. We believe it manifest that no one is ignorant, but that every man who looks back over the past knows and is conscious that in every way we care continually for the good of our provincials, and wish to furnish them with those things which are of especial advantage to all, and for the common benefit and profit, and whatever contributes to the public welfare and is agreeable to the views of each.
8. When, therefore, before this,
it became clear to our mind that under pretext of the command of our
parents, the most divine Diocletian and Maximianus, which enjoined that
the meetings of the See chap. 9, note 24. i.e. the epistle addressed to Sabinus, and quoted in the previous
chapter, which was written toward the end of 312 (see that chapter,
note 18).
9. But even now we cannot help perceiving that some of the judges have mistaken our commands, and have given our people reason to doubt the meaning of our ordinances, and have caused them to proceed too reluctantly to the observance of those religious rites which are pleasing to them.
10. In order, therefore, that in the future every suspicion of fearful doubt may be taken away, we have commanded that this decree be published, so that it may be clear to all that whoever wishes to embrace this sect and religion is permitted to do so by virtue of this grant of ours; and that each one, as he wishes or as is pleasing to him, is permitted to practice this religion which he has chosen to observe according to his custom. It is also granted them to build Lord’s houses.
11. But that this grant of ours may be the greater, we have thought good to decree also that if any houses and lands before this time rightfully belonged to the Christians, and by the command of our parents fell into the treasury, or were confiscated by any city,—whether they have been sold or presented to any one as a gift,—that all these should be restored to their original possessors, the Christians, in order that in this also every one may have knowledge of our piety and care.”
12. These are the words of the
tyrant which were published not quite a year after the decrees against
the Christians engraved by him on pillars. See above, chap. 7.
13. And having made such confessions, as if he had received some benefit on account of them, he suffered perhaps less than he ought to have suffered, and being smitten by a sudden scourge of God, he perished in the second campaign of the war.
14. But his end was not like that of military chieftains who, while fighting bravely in battle for virtue and friends, often boldly encounter a glorious death; for like an impious enemy of God, while his army was still drawn up in the field, remaining at home and concealing himself, he suffered the punishment which he deserved. For he was smitten with a sudden scourge of God in his whole body, and harassed by terrible pains and torments, he fell prostrate on the ground, wasted by hunger, while all his flesh was dissolved by an invisible and God-sent fire, so that the whole appearance of his frame was changed, and there was left only a kind of image wasted away by length of time to a skeleton of dry bones; so that those who were present could think of his body as nothing else than the tomb of his soul, which was buried in a body already dead and completely melted away.
15. And as the heat still more violently consumed him in the depths of his marrow, his eyes burst forth, and falling from their sockets left him blind. Thereupon still breathing and making free confession to the Lord, he invoked death, and at last, after acknowledging that he justly suffered these things on account of his violence against Christ, he gave up the ghost.
Chapter XI.—The Final Destruction of the Enemies of Religion.
1. Thus
when Maximinus, who alone had remained of the enemies of religion Maximian died in 310 (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 23),
Galerius in 311 (see ibid. chap. 16, note 5), Maxentius in 312
(see above, chap. 9, note 7), and Diocletian early in 313 (see Bk.
VIII. App. note 3).
2. For Maximinus himself, being first pronounced by the emperors a common enemy, was declared by public proclamations to be a most impious, execrable, and God-hating tyrant. And of the portraits which had been set up in every city in honor of him or of his children, some were thrown down from their places to the ground, and torn in pieces; while the faces of others were obliterated by daubing them with black paint. And the statues which had been erected to his honor were likewise overthrown and broken, and lay exposed to the laughter and sport of those who wished to insult and abuse them.
3. Then also all the honors of the other enemies of religion were taken away, and all those who sided with Maximinus were slain, especially those who had been honored by him with high offices in reward for their flattery, and had behaved insolently toward our doctrine.
4. Such an one was Peucetius, Of
this Peucetius (Rufinus Peucedius) we know only what is told us
here. Valesius says: “The name is to be rendered
Picentius, a name which was borne by a certain
calumniator in the time of Constantine, as is stated by Zosimus
at the end of his second book. The Latins, indeed, call them
Picentes whom the Greeks call Πυκετίους.” τῶν
καθόλου
λόγων
žπαρχος,
apparently equivalent to the phrase ἐπὶ
τῶν καθόλου
λόγων, used in Bk.
VII. chap. 10, §5. On its significance, see the note on that
passage, and cf. Valesius’ note ad locum. This same Culcianus appears in the Acts of St. Phileas of
Thmuis (Ruinart, p. 434 sq.; see the extract printed in Mason, p.
290 sq.) as the magistrate or governor under whom Phileas suffered in
Thebais. He is doubtless to be identified, as Valesius remarks, with
Culeianus (Κουληιανός) mentioned by Epiphanius (Hær. LXVIII. 1) as
governor of Thebais at the time of the rise of the Meletian schism,
while Hierocles was governor of Alexandria. Culcianus seems to have been governor of Thebais (where Phileas
suffered, according to Bk. VIII. chap. 9), not of Egypt. Possibly
Eusebius employs the word Egypt in its general sense, as including
Thebais.
5. And Theotecnus On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 2, note 4. See chap. 3.
6. But Licinius, coming down to the city of Antioch, made a search for impostors, and tortured the prophets and priests of the newly erected statue, asking them for what reason they practiced their deception. They, under the stress of torture, were unable longer to conceal the matter, and declared that the whole deceptive mystery had been devised by the art of Theotecnus. Therefore, after meting out to all of them just judgment, he first put Theotecnus himself to death, and then his confederates in the imposture, with the severest possible tortures.
7. To all these were added also
the children Lactantius (De mort. pers. chap. 50) tells us that Maximin
left a wife and two children, a boy eight years old, named Maximus, and
a daughter seven years old who was betrothed to Candidianus.
8. “Put not your trust in
princes, nor in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation; his
spirit shall go forth and return to his earth; in that day all their
thoughts perish.”
9. The impious ones having been
thus removed, the government was preserved firm and undisputed for
Constantine and Licinius, to whom it fittingly belonged. They, having
first of all cleansed the world of hostility to the Divine Being,
conscious of the benefits which he had conferred upon them, showed
their love of virtue and of God, and their piety and gratitude to the
Deity, by their ordinance in behalf of the Christians. See below, Bk. X. chap. 5.
Chapter I.—The Peace granted us by God.
1. Thanks for all things be given unto God the Omnipotent Ruler and King of the universe, and the greatest thanks to Jesus Christ the Saviour and Redeemer of our souls, through whom we pray that peace may be always preserved for us firm and undisturbed by external troubles and by troubles of the mind.
2. Since in accordance with thy
wishes, my most holy Paulinus, Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, became afterward bishop of Antioch, as
we are told by Eusebius, Contra Marcellum, I. 4, and by
Philostorgius, H. E. III. 15. According to Jerome’s
Chron, year of Abr. 2345, he was the successor of Philogonius
and the predecessor of Eustathius in the episcopate of Antioch. He was
still alive when Eusebius completed his History, that is, at
least as late as 323 (see above, p. 45), but he was already dead when
the Council of Nicæa met; for Eustathius was at that time bishop
of Antioch (see e.g. Sozomen, H. E. I. 17, Theodoret, H.
E. I. 7, and the Acts of the Council of Nicæa, ed. Labbei et
Cossartii, I. p. 51), and Zeno, bishop of Tyre (see the Acts of the
Nicene Council, ibid.). Philostorgius (ibid.) informs us
that he became bishop of Antioch but six months before his death, and
there is no reason to doubt the statement. Eusebius speaks of him in
the highest terms, both here and in his Contra Marcellum, and it
was at the dedication of his church in Tyre that he delivered the
panegyric oration quoted in chap. 4, below. He is claimed as a
sympathizer by Arius in his epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia
(Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), and that he accepted Arius’
tenets is implied by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who, however, feels obliged
to admonish him for not showing greater zeal in the support of the
cause (see this epistle quoted by Theodoret, H. E. I. 6). This
is the extent of our information in regard to him. On
the date of the composition of the tenth book of the History,
and its relation to the earlier books, see above, p. 45. εἰκότως δ᾽
ἐν ἀριθμῷ
τελεί& 251· τὸν
τέλειον
ἐνταῦθα καὶ
πανηγυρικὸν
τῆς τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν
ἀνανεώσεως
λόγον
κατατ€ξομεν. The meaning of this sentence is very obscure. Valesius
translates: Nec absurde ut opinor, absolutam omnibus numeris
orationem panegyricam de ecclesiarum instauratione hic in perfecto
numero collocabimus. Stroth, followed by Closs, renders: “Mit
Recht werden wir hier auch eine vollständige feierliche Rede, von
der Wiedererneuerung der Kirchen, als einen ordentlichen Theil
miteinrücken.” Crusè reads: “Justly, indeed,
shall we here subjoin in a perfect number a complete discourse and
panegyric on the renovation of the churches.” The “perfect
number” seems to refer to the number of the book (the number ten
being commonly so called in ancient times), to which he has referred in
the previous clause. Could we regard the “perfect
panegyric” as referring to the book as a whole, as Crusè
does, the sentence would be somewhat clearer; but the phrase seems to
be a plain reference to the oration given in chap. 4, especially since
Eusebius does not say τῆς
ἐκκλησίας, but τῶν
ἐκκλησὶ&
242·ν, as in the title of that
oration. I have preserved the play of words, τελεί& 251·—τέλειον, in order to bring out Eusebius’ thought more clearly, but
it must be remarked that the word τέλειον does not imply praise of the quality of his oration on the
author’s part. It is used rather in the sense of complete or
final, because it celebrates a completed work, as the tenth book
completes his History, and thus crowns the whole.
3. “Sing unto the Lord a
new song, for he hath done marvelous things. His right hand and his
holy arm hath saved him. The Lord hath made known his salvation, his
righteousness hath he revealed in the presence of the nations.”
4. And in accordance with the
utterance which commands us to sing the new song, let us proceed to
show that, after those terrible and gloomy spectacles which we have
described, Literally, “spectacles and narratives” (ὄψεις
τε καὶ
διηγήσεις). Cf.
5. But they, hastening on,
obtained far better things, Cf.
6. Rejoicing in these things which have been clearly fulfilled in our day, let us proceed with our account.
7. The whole race of God’s
enemies was destroyed in the manner indicated, See chaps. 10 and 11 of the preceding book.
8. And finally a bright and
splendid day, overshadowed by no cloud, illuminated with beams of
heavenly light the churches of Christ throughout the entire world. And
not even those without our communion τοῖς žξωθεν
τοῦ καθ᾽
ἡμᾶς
θι€σου. By
the edict of Constantine and Licinius full religious liberty was
granted, not only to the Christians, but to all men of whatever creed
or cult.
Chapter II.—The Restoration of the Churches.
1. All men, then, were freed from the oppression of the tyrants, and being released from the former ills, one in one way and another in another acknowledged the defender of the pious to be the only true God. And we especially who placed our hopes in the Christ of God had unspeakable gladness, and a certain inspired joy bloomed for all of us, when we saw every place which shortly before had been desolated by the impieties of the tyrants reviving as if from a long and death-fraught pestilence, and temples again rising from their foundations to an immense height, and receiving a splendor far greater than that of the old ones which had been destroyed.
2. But the supreme rulers also
confirmed to us still more extensively the munificence of God by
repeated ordinances in behalf of the Christians; and personal letters
of the emperor were sent to the bishops, with honors and gifts of
money. It may not be unfitting to insert these documents, translated
from the Roman into the Greek tongue, at the proper place in this
book, See below, chaps. 5–7.
Chapter III.—The Dedications in Every Place.
1. After this was seen the sight which had been desired and prayed for by us all; feasts of dedication in the cities and consecrations of the newly built houses of prayer took place, bishops assembled, foreigners came together from abroad, mutual love was exhibited between people and people, the members of Christ’s body were united in complete harmony.
2. Then was fulfilled the
prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place:
“Bone to bone and joint to joint,”
3. And there was one energy of
the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and
the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the
Deity. Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the
sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the
Church observed, These sentences are excellent examples of Eusebius’
rhetorical style, which marks the greater part of this tenth book. My
endeavor has been to adhere as closely as possible to the original; and
yet there are cases in which it is quite out of the question to give a
literal translation without violating all grammatical laws, and in
which the sense can be reproduced only by paraphrasing. The present
sentence runs ναὶ
μὴν καὶ τῶν
προηγουμένων
ἐντελεῖς
θρησκεῖαι,
ἱερουργίαι
τε τῶν
ἱερωμένων,
καὶ
θεοπρεπεῖς
ἐκκλησίας
θεσμοί.
4. At the same time people of every age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor unto God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly.
Chapter IV.—Panegyric on the Splendor of Affairs.
1. A
certain one of those of moderate talent, This person was clearly Eusebius himself (see above, p. 11). Upon
the date of this dedicatory service, at which Eusebius delivered the
oration given in full in this chapter, see ibid. Paulinus, bishop of Tyre. See above, chap. 1, note 1.
Panegyric upon the building of the churches, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre.
2. “Friends and priests of
God who are clothed in the sacred gown and adorned with the heavenly
crown of glory, the inspired unction and the sacerdotal garment of the
Holy Spirit; and thou, i.e. Paulinus. Cf.
3. one might call thee a new
Beseleel, βεσελεήλ, which is the form found in the LXX. The Hebrew is
לאֵלְצַבְּ, which the R.V. renders “Bezalel.” See
See
4. and you also, oh nurslings of
the sacred flock of Christ, habitation of good words, school of wisdom,
and august and pious auditory of religion: Eusebius addresses first the assembled clergymen in general, then
Paulinus in particular, and finally the people, calling the latter
“nurslings,” “habitation,”
“school,” “auditory.” The significance of the
words as used by him is plain enough, but their collocation is rather
remarkable.
5. It was long ago permitted us
to raise hymns and songs to God, when we learned from hearing the
Divine Scriptures read the marvelous signs of God and the benefits
conferred upon men by the Lord’s wondrous deeds, being taught to
say ‘Oh God! we have heard with our ears, our fathers have told
us the work which thou didst in their days, in days of old.’
6. But now as we no longer
perceive the lofty arm Cf.
7. And in what city but in this
newly built and God-constructed one, which is a ‘church of the
living God, a pillar and foundation of the truth,’
8. And let us not only one by
one, but all together, with one spirit and one soul, honor him and cry
aloud, saying, ‘Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in
the city of our God, in his holy mountain.’
9. Not only to the faithful, but
also to unbelievers, has he confirmed the record of ancient events; he
that worketh miracles, he that doeth great things, the Master of all,
the Creator of the whole world, the omnipotent, the all-merciful, the
one and only God. To him let us sing the new song, Cf. προσυπακούοντες. Eusebius seems to use this rather peculiar expression
because the words of song which he suggests are not the words of the
“new song” given by the Psalmist, but are taken from other
parts of the book.
10. And let us never cease to cry aloud in these words to the Father of the universe. And let us always honor him with our mouth who is the second cause of our benefits, the instructor in divine knowledge, the teacher of the true religion, the destroyer of the impious, the slayer of tyrants, the reformer of life, Jesus, the Saviour of us who were in despair.
11. For he alone, as the only
all-gracious Son of an all-gracious Father, in accordance with the
purpose of his Father’s benevolence, has willingly put on the
nature of us who lay prostrate in corruption, and like some excellent
physician, who for the sake of saving them that are ill, examines their
sufferings, handles their foul sores, and reaps pain for himself from
the miseries of another, It is remarked by Valesius that these words are taken from some
tragic poet. That they are quoted from an ancient writer is clear
enough from the Ionic forms which occur (ὁρῇ,
ἀλλοτριῇσι,
ξυμφορῇσι), and if a few slight changes be made (καμνόντων
to καμόντων, ἕνεκεν to
εἵνεκεν, μὲν to τὰ, ἐπ᾽
ἀλλοτριῇσι
τε to ἀλλοτριῇσι) the words resolve themselves into iambic
trimeters:— τῆς
τῶν καμόντων
εἵνεκεν
σωτηρίας ὁρῇ τὰ δεινὰ,
θιγγ€νει δ᾽
ἀηδέων, ἀλλοτριῇσι
συμφορῇσιν
ἰδίας καρποῦται
λύπας. According to Valesius,
Gregory Nazianzen in his first Oratio quotes the last verse
(καὶ τὸ
ἐπ᾽
ἀλλοτρίαις
συμφοραῖς
ἰδίας
καρποῦσθαι
λύπας, in which there
is no trace of the poetical form) with the remark ὡςžφη τις τῶν
παρ᾽
ἐκείνοις
σοφῶν; and Valesius
adds: “Ad quem locum Elias Cretensis notat verba hæc esse
Hippocratis quem Gregorius Nazianzenus sapientis cujusdam nomine
designat.” Moreover, Schwegler remarks that the words are
taken from Hippocrates. In a note ad locum he says:
“Hippocratis medici (cf. Hippocr. de Flat. init. p.
78, ed. Foes) quæ eadem laudantur et ab aliis Scriptoribus,
veluti a Luciano in Bis. Accus. c. I. p. 49, ed. Bip. Cf.
quæ interpretes adnotaverunt ad Luciani, l.c. Tom.
VII. p. 400, ed. Bip.” I have not examined these references, and
can therefore form no judgment in the matter. ἀβλαβῶς. The
application of the word is not perfectly clear, but the meaning seems
to be “without harm to himself,” “unharmed.”
“He is the only one able to minister to our salvation without
sinking under the weight of the burden, or suffering from his contact
with us.” Eusebius is perhaps thinking especially of
Christ’s absolute sinlessness and victory over all temptation;
perhaps only in a more general way of the great strength needed for
such a task, strength possessed by Christ alone in sufficient measure
to prevent his own complete exhaustion under the immense
task.
12. But he alone having reached our deep corruption, he alone having taken upon himself our labors, he alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties, having recovered us who were not half dead merely, but were already in tombs and sepulchers, and altogether foul and offensive, saves us, both anciently and now, by his beneficent zeal, beyond the expectation of any one, even of ourselves, and imparts liberally of the Father’s benefits,—he who is the giver of life and light, our great Physician and King and Lord, the Christ of God.
13. For then when the whole human race lay buried in gloomy night and in depths of darkness through the deceitful arts of guilty demons and the power of God-hating spirits, by his simple appearing he loosed once for all the fast-bound cords of our impieties by the rays of his light, even as wax is melted.
14. But when malignant envy and
the evil-loving demon well-nigh burst with anger at such grace and
kindness, and turned against us all his death-dealing forces, and when,
at first, like a dog gone mad which gnashes his teeth at the stones
thrown at him, and pours out his rage against his assailants upon the
inanimate missiles, he leveled his ferocious madness at the stones of
the sanctuaries and at the lifeless material of the houses, and
desolated the churches,—at least as he supposed,—and then
emitted terrible hissings and snake-like sounds, now by the threats of
impious tyrants, and again by the blasphemous edicts of profane rulers,
vomiting forth death, moreover, and infecting with his deleterious and
soul-destroying poisons the souls captured by him, and almost slaying
them by his death-fraught sacrifices of dead idols, and causing every
beast in the form of man and every kind of savage to assault
us—then, indeed, the ‘Angel of the great Council,’ Cf. μέγας
ἀρχιστρ€τηγος; cf.
15. But his friends and relatives he raised to the highest glory, in the presence not only of all men, but also of celestial powers, of sun and moon and stars, and of the whole heaven and earth, so that now, as has never happened before, the supreme rulers, conscious of the honor which they have received from him, spit upon the faces of dead idols, trample upon the unhallowed rites of demons, make sport of the ancient delusion handed down from their fathers, and acknowledge only one God, the common benefactor of all, themselves included.
16. And they confess Christ, the
Son of God, universal King of all, and proclaim him Saviour on
monuments, This seems to be simply a rhetorical expression of what is
recorded in Bk. IX. chap. 9, in regard to the great statue of
Constantine with a cross in his hand, erected in Rome after his victory
over Maxentius. It is possible that other smaller monuments of a
similar kind were erected at the same time. αὐτοθεόν. The exact sense in which Eusebius uses this word is open
to dispute. That it asserts the Son to be possessed per se, in
and of himself, of absolute deity,—that is, that he is
self-existent,—can hardly be maintained, though Valesius does
maintain it. The word admits some latitude of meaning, as Heinichen
shows (in his edition of Eusebius, III. p. 736 sq., Melet. XX.),
and its use does not forbid a belief in the subordination of the Son.
In my opinion it clearly indicates a belief in an essential deity of
the Son, but not a full and absolute deity. Stein, in his
Eusebius, p. 138, remarks: “Eusebius wendet hier dei
platonischen Ausdrücke nach dem Vorbilde des Origenes auf das
Wesen des Sohnes an. Nach Origines bezeichnen diese Ausdrücke die
Absolutheit des Sohnes, nach den Platonikern jedoch bedeuten sie nicht
das höchste Wesen. Es ist nun Zweifelhaft, ob Eusebius mit diesen
Begriffen den Sinn des Origenes, oder den der Platoniker verknüpft
habe.” There can be little doubt, in my opinion, that Eusebius
followed Origen so far as he understood him, but that he never carried
the essential deity of the Son so far as to cease to think of some kind
of an essential subordination. See the discussion of Eusebius’
position, on p. 11 sq. of this volume. I have translated the
word αὐτοθεόν “very God,” because there seems to be no other
phrase which does not necessarily express more, or less, than Eusebius
means by the word. It must be remembered, however, that in using the
phrase which is commonly employed to translate the later Nicene
ἀληθινὸν
θεόν, I do not use it in
the full sense thus ordinarily attached to it.
17. For what king that ever lived attained such virtue as to fill the ears and tongues of all men upon earth with his own name? What king, after ordaining such pious and wise laws, has extended them from one end of the earth to the other, so that they are perpetually read in the hearing of all men?
18. Who has abrogated barbarous and savage customs of uncivilized nations by his gentle and most philanthropic laws? Who, being attacked for entire ages by all, has shown such superhuman virtue as to flourish daily, and remain young throughout his life?
19. Who has founded a nation which of old was not even heard of, but which now is not concealed in some corner of the earth, but is spread abroad everywhere under the sun? Who has so fortified his soldiers with the arms of piety that their souls, being firmer than adamant, shine brilliantly in the contests with their opponents?
20. What king prevails to such
an extent, and even after death leads on his soldiers, and sets up
trophies over his τοῦ
παμβασιλέως
καὶ
πανηγεμόνος
καὶ αὐτοῦ
θεοῦ λόγου. Valesius translates, Verbi omnium regis ac principis ac
per se Dei; Closs, “des Wortes, das der König aller
Könige, der oberste Fürst und selbst Gott ist”;
Crusè, “The universal King, the universal Prince, and God,
the Word himself.” A conception is thus introduced which the
clause as it stands, without the repetition of the article with
λόγου, seems to me hardly to warrant. At any rate, the rendering which
I have adopted seems more accurately to reproduce the
original.
21. “A special discourse
would be needed accurately to survey and explain all this; and also to
describe how great the zeal of the laborers is regarded by him who is
celebrated as divine, θεολογουμένῳ. The use of the word θεολογέω in the sense of speaking of, or celebrating a person as
divine, or attributing divinity to a person, was very common among the
Fathers, especially in connection with Christ. See Suicer’s
Thesaurus, s.v. II. and Bk. V. chap. 28, § 4,
above. Eusebius’ reference to these various buildings is somewhat
confusing. He speaks first of the Church of Christ, “the living
temple which we all constitute”; then of the Jews, “the
builders of that ancient temple which no longer stands”; and
finally, as it seems, of the heathen, “builders of the structure
which still endures and is composed of the mass of men”
(τῶν
πολλῶν
ἀνθρώπων).
22. Who that beholds this living temple of the living God formed of ourselves—this greatest and truly divine sanctuary, I say, whose inmost shrines are invisible to the multitude and are truly holy and a holy of holies—would venture to declare it? Who is able even to look within the sacred enclosure, except the great High Priest of all, to whom alone it is permitted to fathom the mysteries of every rational soul?
23. But perhaps it is granted to another, to one only, to be second after him in the same work, namely, to the commander of this army whom the first and great High Priest himself has honored with the second place in this sanctuary, the shepherd of your divine flock who has obtained your people by the allotment and the judgment of the Father, as if he had appointed him his own servant and interpreter, a new Aaron or Melchizedec, made like the Son of God, remaining and continually preserved by him in accordance with the united prayers of all of you.
24. To him therefore alone let it be granted, if not in the first place, at least in the second after the first and greatest High Priest, to observe and supervise the inmost state of your souls,—to him who by experience and length of time has accurately proved each one, and who by his zeal and care has disposed you all in pious conduct and doctrine, and is better able than any one else to give an account, adequate to the facts, of those things which he himself has accomplished with the Divine assistance.
25. As to our first and great
High Priest, it is said, Literally, “it says” (φησί), i.e.
“the Scripture says.” i.e. Paulinus.
26. Thus this one also bearing in his own soul the image of the whole Christ, the Word, the Wisdom, the Light, has formed this magnificent temple of the highest God, corresponding to the pattern of the greater as a visible to an invisible, it is impossible to say with what greatness of soul, with what wealth and liberality of mind, and with what emulation on the part of all of you, shown in the magnanimity of the contributors who have ambitiously striven in no way to be left behind by him in the execution of the same purpose. And this place,—for this deserves to be mentioned first of all,—which had been covered with all sorts of rubbish by the artifices of our enemies he did not overlook, nor did he yield to the wickedness of those who had brought about that condition of things, although he might have chosen some other place, for many other sites were available in the city, where he would have had less labor, and been free from trouble.
27. But having first aroused
himself to the work, and then strengthened the whole people with zeal,
and formed them all into one great body, he fought the first contest.
For he thought that this church, which had been
28. For when the Great Shepherd
had driven away the wild animals and wolves and every cruel and savage
beast, and, as the divine oracles say, ‘had broken the jaws of
the lions,’ Literally, “the God-fighting, daring deeds of the
impious” (ταῖς
θεομ€χοις
τῶν ἀσεβῶν
τόλμαις).
29. And now they are not,—the haters of God,—for they never were. After they had troubled and been troubled for a little time, they suffered the fitting punishment, and brought themselves and their friends and their relatives to total destruction, so that the declarations inscribed of old in sacred records have been proved true by facts. In these declarations the divine word truly says among other things the following concerning them:
30. ‘The wicked have drawn
out the sword, they have bent their bow, to slay the righteous in
heart; let their sword enter into their own heart and their bows be
broken.’
31. But having waged war like
the giants against God, Cf. Bk. I. chap. 2, § 19, above, and the note on that
passage.
32. ‘Rejoice, thirsty
desert, let the desert rejoice and blossom as the lily, and the desert
places shall blossom and be glad.’
33. These things which were
prophesied long ago have been recorded in sacred books; but no longer
are they transmitted to us by hearsay merely, but in facts. This
desert, this dry land, this widowed and deserted one, ‘whose
gates they cut down with axes like wood in a forest, whom they broke
down with hatchet and hammer,’ Diocletian’s first edict included the destruction of the
sacred books of the Christians, as well as of their churches. See
above, Bk. VIII. chap. 2.
34. Then after being chastened
in a measure, according to the necessities of the case, she is
commanded to rejoice anew; and she blossoms as a lily and exhales her
divine odor among all men. ‘For,’ it is said, ‘water
hath broken out in the wilderness,’ τῆς θείας
τοῦ σωτηρίου
λουτροῦ
παλιγγενεσίας. Cf. τὴν οἰκείαν
ποίμνην.
35. And if there are any whose
souls have been stupefied by the threats of the tyrants, not even they
are passed by as incurable by the saving Word; but he heals them also
and urges them on to receive divine comfort, saying, ‘Be ye
comforted, ye who are faint-hearted; be ye strengthened, fear
not.’
36. This our new and excellent
Zerubabel, having heard the word which announced beforehand, that she
who had been made a desert on account of God should enjoy these things,
after the bitter cap
37. Thus, enclosing a much
larger space, he fortified the outer court with a wall surrounding the
whole, which should serve as a most secure bulwark for the entire
edifice. The description of the church of Tyre which follows is very
valuable, as being the oldest detailed description which we have of a
Christian basilica. Eusebius mentions other churches in his Vita
Constantini, III. 30–39, 41–43, 48, 50, 51–53,
58, IV. 58, and describes some of them at considerable length. We have
a number of descriptions from later sources, but rely for our knowledge
of early Christian architecture chiefly upon the extant remains of the
edifices themselves. For a very full discussion of the present church,
which was an excellent example of an ancient Christian basilica, and
for a detailed description of its various parts, see Bingham’s
Antiquities, Bk. VIII. chap. 3 sq., and compare also the article
Basilika in Kraus’ Real-Encyclopädie der Christ.
Alterthümer. The literature on the general subject of early
Christian architecture is very extensive. See more particularly the
works referred to in the articles in Smith and Cheetham’s
Dict. of Christ. Antiq. and in the Encyclop. Britannica;
and cf. also Schaff’s Ch. Hist. III. p. 538 sq.
38. And he raised and spread out
a great and lofty vestibule toward the rays of the rising sun, Bingham remarks that the ancient basilicas commonly faced the
west, and that therefore the position of this church of Tyre was
exceptional; but this is a mistake. It is true that from the fifth
century on, the altar almost uniformly occupied the east end of the
church, but previous to that time the position observed in the present
case was almost universally followed, so that the present building was
not at all exceptional in its position. See the article
Orientierung in Kraus’ Real-Encyclopädie.
Although the common custom was to have the church stand east and west,
yet the rule was often neglected, and there exist many notable examples
of churches standing north and south, or quite out of line with the
points of the compass.
39. But when one comes within
the gates he does not permit him to enter the sanctuary immediately,
with impure and unwashed feet; but leaving as large a space as possible
between the temple and the outer entrance, he has surrounded and
adorned it with four transverse cloisters, making a quadrangular space
with pillars rising on every side, which he has joined with
lattice-work screens of wood, rising to a suitable height; and he has
left an open space αἴθριον, the Latin atrium.
40. Here he has placed symbols of sacred purifications, setting up fountains opposite the temple which furnish an abundance of water wherewith those who come within the sanctuary may purify themselves. This is the first halting-place of those who enter; and it furnishes at the same time a beautiful and splendid scene to every one, and to those who still need elementary instruction a fitting station.
41. But passing by this spectacle, he has made open entrances to the temple with many other vestibules within, placing three doors on one side, likewise facing the rays of the sun. The one in the middle, adorned with plates of bronze, iron bound, and beautifully embossed, he has made much higher and broader than the others, as if he were making them guards for it as for a queen.
42. In the same way, arranging the number of vestibules for the corridors on each side of the whole temple, he has made above them various openings into the building, for the purpose of admitting more light, adorning them with very fine wood-carving. But the royal house he has furnished with more beautiful and splendid materials, using unstinted liberality in his disbursements.
43. It seems to me superfluous
to describe here in detail the length and breadth of the building, its
splendor and its majesty surpassing description, and the brilliant
appearance of the work, its lofty pinnacles reaching to the heavens,
and the costly cedars of Lebanon above them, which the divine oracle
has not omitted to mention, saying, ‘The trees of the Lord shall
rejoice and the cedars of Lebanon which he hath planted.’
44. Why need I now describe the
skillful architectural arrangement and the surpassing beauty of each
part, when the testimony of the eye renders instruction through the ear
superfluous? For when he had thus completed the temple, he provided it
with lofty thrones in honor of those who preside, and in addition with
seats arranged in proper order throughout the whole building, and
finally placed in the middle i.e. in the apse, or chancel, not in the middle of the nave, or
body of the church.
45. And not even the pavement
was neglected by him; for this too he adorned with beautiful marble of
every variety. Then finally he passed on to the parts without the
temple, providing spacious exedræ and buildings ἐξέδρας καὶ
οἴκους. Large
basilicas were always provided with additional rooms, and adjacent
buildings, such as baptisteries, diaconica, secretaria, &c., which
were used for various ecclesiastical purposes, and which were often of
considerable size, so that important synods frequently met in one or
another of them. Cf. Bingham, ibid. chap. 7. The name Solomon (Heb. הׁמׁלשְׁ) means “peaceful.”
46. For it was necessary and
fitting that as her shepherd and Lord had once tasted death for her,
and after his suffering had changed that vile body which he assumed in
her behalf into a splendid and glorious body, leading the very flesh
which had been delivered λυθεῖσαν, which may mean also “dissolved, decayed.”
Crusè translates “dissolved”; Closs, “schon
verwesend.” Cf.
47. But for the present, she
that was formerly widowed and desolate is clothed by the grace of God
with these flowers, and is become truly like a lily, as the prophecy
says, See
48. Let us hear her saying,
‘My soul shall rejoice in the Lord; for he hath clothed me with a
garment of salvation and with a robe of gladness; he hath bedecked me
like a bridegroom with a garland, and he hath adorned me like a bride
with jewels; and like the earth which bringeth forth her bud, and like
a garden which causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
thus the Lord God hath caused righteousness and praise to spring forth
before all the nations.’
49. In these words she exults.
And in similar words the heavenly bridegroom, the Word Jesus Christ
himself, answers her. Hear the Lord saying, ‘Fear not because
thou hast been put to shame, neither be thou confounded because thou
hast been rebuked; for thou shalt forget the former shame, and the
reproach of thy widowhood shalt thou remember no more.’ The word “not” is omitted in the Hebrew (and
consequently in our English versions), but is found in the
LXX.
50. ‘Awake, awake, thou
who hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; for thou
hast drunk the cup of ruin, the vessel of my wrath, and hast drained
it. And there was none to console thee of all thy sons whom thou didst
bring forth, and there was none to take thee by the hand.’
51. ‘Awake, awake, put on
thy strength, put on thy glory. Shake off the dust and arise. Sit thee
down, loose the bands of thy neck.’
52. For thy sons whom thou hast
lost shall say in thine ears, The place is too narrow for me, give
place to me that I may dwell. Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who
hath begotten me these? I am childless and a widow, and who hath
brought up these for me? I was left alone, and these, where were they
for me?’
53. “These are the things which Isaiah foretold; and which were anciently recorded concerning us in sacred books and it was necessary that we should sometime learn their truthfulness by their fulfillment.
54. For when the bridegroom, the
Word, addressed such language to his own bride, the sacred and holy
Church, this bridesman, νυμφοστόλος, referring to Paulinus.
55. This
56. This the Divine Son himself
created after his own image, imparting to it everywhere and in all
respects the likeness of God, an incorruptible nature, incorporeal,
rational, free from all earthly matter, a being endowed with its own
intelligence; and when he had once called her forth from non-existence
into existence, he made her a holy spouse, an all-sacred temple for
himself and for the Father. This also he clearly declares and confesses
in the following words: ‘I will dwell in them and will walk in
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’
57. But when by the envy and zeal of the malignant demon she became, of her own voluntary choice, sensual and a lover of evil, the Deity left her; and as if bereft of a protector, she became an easy prey and readily accessible to those who had long envied her; and being assailed by the batteries and machines of her invisible enemies and spiritual foes, she suffered a terrible fall, so that not one stone of virtue remained upon another in her, but she lay completely dead upon the ground, entirely divested of her natural ideas of God.
58. “But as she, who had been made in the image of God, thus lay prostrate, it was not that wild boar from the forest which we see that despoiled her, but a certain destroying demon and spiritual wild beasts who deceived her with their passions as with the fiery darts of their own wickedness, and burned the truly divine sanctuary of God with fire, and profaned to the ground the tabernacle of his name. Then burying the miserable one with heaps of earth, they destroyed every hope of deliverance.
59. But that divinely bright and saving Word, her protector, after she had suffered the merited punishment for her sins, again restored her, securing the favor of the all-merciful Father.
60. Having won over first the
souls of the highest rulers, he purified, through the agency of those
most divinely favored princes, the whole earth from all the impious
destroyers, and from the terrible and God-hating tyrants themselves.
Then bringing out into the light those who were his friends, who had
long before been consecrated to him for life, but in the midst, as it
were, of a storm of evils, had been concealed under his shelter, he
honored them worthily with the great gifts of the Spirit. And again, by
means of them, he cleared out and cleaned with spades and
mattocks—the admonitory words of doctrine ταῖς
πληκτικαῖς
τῶν
μαθημ€των
διδασκαλίας
61. And when he had made the ground of all your minds clean and clear, he finally committed it to this all-wise and God-beloved Ruler, who, being endowed with judgment and prudence, as well as with other gifts, and being able to examine and discriminate accurately the minds of those committed to his charge, from the first day, so to speak, down to the present, has not ceased to build.
62. Now he has supplied the
brilliant gold, again the refined and unalloyed silver, and the
precious and costly stones in all of you, so that again is fulfilled
for you in facts a sacred and mystic prophecy, which says,
‘Behold I make thy stone a carbuncle, and thy foundations of
sapphire, and thy battlements of jasper, and thy gates of crystals, and
thy wall of chosen stones; and all thy sons shall be taught of God, and
thy children shall enjoy complete peace; and in righteousness shalt
thou be built.’
63. Building therefore in righteousness, he divided the whole people according to their strength. With some he fortified only the outer enclosure, walling it up with unfeigned faith; such were the great mass of the people who were incapable of bearing a greater structure. Others he permitted to enter the building, commanding them to stand at the door and act as guides for those who should come in; these may be not unfitly compared to the vestibules of the temple. Others he supported by the first pillars which are placed without about the quadrangular hall, initiating them into the first elements of the letter of the four Gospels. Still others he joined together about the basilica on both sides; these are the catechumens who are still advancing and progressing, and are not far separated from the inmost view of divine things granted to the faithful.
64. Taking from among these the
pure souls that have been cleansed like gold by divine washing, θεί& 251·
λουτρῷ; i.e.
baptism. Heinichen, followed by Closs, reads τοὺς μὲν…τοὺς
δέ: “Some of them he
supports by pillars…others of them he illumines by
windows.” But all the mss. read
τοὺς μὲn…τοῖς
δὲ, which, in view of the general
character of Eusebius’ style throughout this oration, we are
hardly justified in changing. I have therefore followed Valesius,
Burton, and Crusè in retaining the reading of the mss.
65. Adorning the whole temple
with a great vestibule of the glory of the one universal King and only
God, and placing
66. And in this temple there are
also thrones, and a great number of seats and benches, in all those
souls in which sit the Holy Spirit’s gifts, such as were
anciently seen by the sacred apostles, and those who were with them,
when there ‘appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as
of fire, and sat upon each one of them.’
67. But in the leader of all it
is reasonable to suppose ἴσως αὐτὸς ὅλος
ἐγκ€θηται
χριστός. Valesius remarks, “Sic Hieronymus seu quis alius de
ordinibus ecclesiæ: in illis esse partes et membra virtutem, in
episcopo plenitudinem divinitatis habitare.” From what source
the quotation comes I do not know.
68. But the great and august and unique altar, what else could this be than the pure holy of holies of the soul of the common priest of all? Standing at the right of it, Jesus himself, the great High Priest of the universe, the Only Begotten of God, receives with bright eye and extended hand the sweet incense from all, and the bloodless and immaterial sacrifices offered in their prayers, and bears them to the heavenly Father and God of the universe. And he himself first worships him, and alone gives to the Father the reverence which is his due, beseeching him also to continue always kind and propitious to us all.
69. “Such is the great temple which the great Creator of the universe, the Word, has built throughout the entire world, making it an intellectual image upon earth of those things which lie above the vault of heaven, so that throughout the whole creation, including rational beings on earth, his Father might be honored and adored.
70. But the region above the
heavens, with the models of earthly things which are there, and the
so-called Jerusalem above, Cf. Cf.
71. Since we, men, children, and
women, small and great, are already in part partakers of these things,
let us not cease all together, with one spirit and one soul, to confess
and praise the author of such great benefits to us, ‘Who
forgiveth all our iniquities, who healeth all our diseases, who
redeemeth our life from destruction, who crowneth us with mercy and
compassion, who satisfieth our desires with good things.’
72. Rekindling these thoughts in
our memories, both now and during all time to come, and contemplating
in our mind night and day, in every hour and with every breath, so to
speak, the Author and Ruler of the present festival, and of this bright
and most splendid day, let us love and adore him with every power of
the soul. And now rising, let us beseech him with loud voice to shelter
and preserve us to the end in his fold, granting his unbroken and
unshaken peace forever, in Christ Jesus our Saviour; through whom be
the glory unto him forever and ever. εἰς τοὺς
σύμπαντας
αἰ& 242·νας τῶν
αἰ& 240·νων.
Chapter
V.—Copies of Imperial
Laws. Heinichen gives ᾽Αντίγραφα
βασιλικῶν
νόμων περὶ
τῶν
χριστιανοῖς
προσηκόντων
as the title of this chapter. All but three of the
mss., however, agree in limiting the title to
the first three words, the last four being given by the majority of
them as the title of chap. 6. The words are quite out of place at the
head of that chapter, which in two important mss., followed by Stroth, is made a part of chap. 5.
Heinichen inserts the words at this point because they are out of place
in the position in which they commonly occur; but the truth is, they
are no better adapted to the present chapter than to that one, for only
one of the edicts quoted in this chapter has reference to the property
of Christians. It seems to me much more likely that the words were
originally written in the margin of some codex opposite that particular
rescript, and thence by an error slipped into the text at the head of a
later one, which was then made a separate chapter. In view of the
uncertainty, however, as to the original position of the words, I have
followed Laemmer, Schwegler, Stroth, Closs, and Stigloher, in omitting
them altogether.
1. Let us finally subjoin the translations from the Roman tongue of the imperial decrees of Constantine and Licinius.
This is the famous Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and
Licinius late in the year 312, after the former’s victory over
Maxentius (see above, Bk. IX. chap. 9, note 7). The edict has a claim
to be remembered as the first announcement of the great doctrine of
complete freedom of conscience, and that not for one religion only, but
for all religions. In this respect it was a great advance upon the
edict of Galerius, which had granted conditional liberty to a single
faith. The greater part of the edict (beginning with § 4) is
extant in its original Latin form in Lactantius’ De mort.
pers. chap. 48. The Greek translation is still less accurate than
the translation of the edict of Galerius given in Bk. VIII. chap. 17,
above, but the variations from the original are none of them of great
importance. The most marked ones will be mentioned in the
notes.
2. “Perceiving long ago
that religious liberty ought not to be denied, but that it ought to be
granted to the judgment and desire of each individual to perform his
religious duties according to his own choice, we had given orders that
every man, Christians as well as others, should preserve the faith of
his own sect and religion. The reference in this sentence is not, as was formerly supposed,
to a lost edict of Constantine and Licinius, but to the edict of
Galerius, as is proved by Mason (p. 327 sq.), who has completely
exploded the old belief in three edicts of toleration, and has shown
that there were only two; viz. that of Galerius, Constantine, and
Licinius, published in 311, and the present one, issued by Constantine
and Licinius in 312.
3. But since in that rescript,
in which such liberty was granted them, many and various conditions The Greek word is αἱρέσεις, which has been commonly translated “sects,”
and the reference has been supposed to be to various schismatic bodies
included in the former edict, but, as Mason remarks, such an
interpretation is preposterous, and introduces an idea in direct
contradiction to the entire tenor of the present document. The fact is
that, although “sects” is the natural translation of the
word αἱρέσεις, we find the same word in § 6, below, used to
translate conditiones, and it may be reasonably assumed—in
fact, it may be regarded as certain in view of the context—that
in the present case the same word stood in the Latin original. I have
no hesitation, therefore, in adopting the rendering which I have given
in the text. These “conditions,” then, to which the edict
refers were enumerated, not in the former edict itself, but in the
rescript which accompanied it (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 9).
What these conditions were may be conjectured, as remarked in that
note, from the provisions of the present edict (cf. Mason, p. 330
sq.).
4. When I, Constantine Augustus,
and I, Licinius Augustus, came under favorable auspices to Milan and
took under consideration everything which pertained to the common weal
and prosperity, we resolved among other things, or rather first of all,
to make such decrees as seemed in many respects for the benefit of
every one; namely, such as should preserve reverence and piety toward
the deity. We resolved, that is, to grant both to the Christians and to
all men freedom to follow the religion which they choose, that whatever
heavenly divinity exists ὅτί
ποτέ ἐστι
θειότης καὶ
οὐρανίου
πρ€γματος. Latin: quo quidem divinitas in sede cœlesti.
The Greek is by no means a reproduction of the sense of the Latin, and
indeed, as it stands, is quite untranslatable. I have contented myself
with a paraphrase, which does not express what the Greek translator
says, but perhaps is not entirely at variance with what he meant to
say.
5. We have, therefore,
determined, with sound and upright purpose, that liberty is to be
denied to no one, to choose and to follow the religious observances of
the Christians, but that to each one freedom is to be given to devote
his mind to that religion which he may think adapted to himself, In
this sentence it is stated distinctly, not simply that Christians may
remain Christians, but that anybody that pleases may become a
Christian; that is, that the fullest liberty is granted to every man
either to observe his ancestral religion or to choose
another.
6. It was fitting that we should
write that this is our pleasure, that those conditions Greek, αἱρέσεων; Latin, conditionibus (see note 4,
above).
7. We have resolved to communicate this most fully to thy care, in order that thou mayest know that we have granted to these same Christians freedom and full liberty to observe their own religion.
8. Since this has been granted
freely by us to them, thy devotedness perceives that liberty is granted
to others also who may wish to follow their own religious observances;
it being clearly in accordance with the tranquillity of our times, that
each one should have the liberty of choosing and worshiping whatever
deity he pleases. This has been done by us in order that we might not
seem in any way to discriminate against any rank or religion. μηδεμιŽ
τιμῇ μηδὲ
θρησκεία
τινί. Latin, honori,
neque cuiquam religioni. Mason concludes from this clause that in
the rescript which accompanied the previous edict Christians had been
excluded from certain official positions.
9. And we decree still further
in regard to the Christians, that their places, in which they were
formerly accustomed to assemble, and concerning which in the former
letter sent to thy devotedness a different command was given, That there was some condition attached in the last rescript to the
restoration of their property to the Christians is clear from these
words. We may gather from what follows that the Christians were obliged
to pay something for the restored property, either to the occupants or
to the government. Constantine states that henceforth the imperial
treasury will freely bear all the expense involved in the
transfer.
10. If any happen to have
received the said places as a gift, they shall restore them as quickly
as possible to these same Christians: with the understanding that if
those who have bought these places, or those who have received them as
a gift, demand anything from our bounty, they may go to the judge of
the district, that provision may be made for them by our clemency. All
these things are to be granted to the society of Christians by your
care immediately and
11. And since the said
Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which
they were accustomed to assemble, but also other places, belonging not
to individuals among them, but to the society τῷ σωματί&
251·. Latin, corpori. The use of
this word (which we might almost translate “body
corporate”) is a distinct recognition of the full legal status of
the Christian Church, and of their right as a corporation in the eyes
of the law to hold property. The right did not on this occasion receive
recognition for the first time, but more distinctly and in broader
terms than ever before. Upon the right of the Church to hold property
before the publication of this edict, see especially Hatch’s
Constitution of the Early Christian Churches, p. 152, note
25.
12. In all these things, for the
behoof of the aforesaid society of Christians, you are to use the
utmost diligence, to the end that our command may be speedily
fulfilled, and that in this also, by our clemency, provision may be
made for the common and public tranquillity. Greek, τῆς
κοινῆς καὶ
δημοσίας
ἡσυχίας.
Latin, more simply, quieti publicæ.
13. For by this means, τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ
λογισμῷ.
Latin, hactenus.
14. And that the terms of this our gracious ordinance may be known to all, it is expected that this which we have written will be published everywhere by you and brought to the knowledge of all, in order that this gracious ordinance of ours may remain unknown to no one.”
Copy of another imperial
decree which they issued, It would seem that this communication was sent to Anulinus soon
after the issue of the Edict of Milan; for it gives directions for the
carrying out of some of the provisions made in that edict, and is very
likely but a sample of special letters sent in connection with that
document to the governors of the various provinces. We know from the
next chapter that Anulinus was proconsul of the Roman province of
Africa, of which Carthage was the capital city, and which was very
thickly populated with Christians. Of Anulinus himself we know only
what we can learn from this and the next two chapters. The title of the
rescript as given by Eusebius is somewhat misleading. There is no
indication in the document itself that it was written with the distinct
purpose of distinguishing the Catholic Church from schismatic bodies,
and granting it privileges denied to them. If such had been its aim, it
would certainly have stated it more clearly. The term “Catholic
Church” (in § 16) seems in fact to be used in a general
sense to indicate the Christian Church as a whole. It is, to be sure,
possible that Constantine may already have had some knowledge of the
schismatics whom he refers to in another epistle, quoted in the next
chapter; but his omission of all reference to them in the present case
shows that he did not intend at this time to draw lines between
parties, or to pass judgment upon any society calling itself a
Christian church.
15. “Greeting to thee, our
most esteemed Anulinus. It is the custom of our benevolence, most
esteemed Anulinus, to will that those things which belong of right to
another should not only be left unmolested, but should also be
restored. i.e. that if they have been molested, or taken from their
owners, they should be restored.
16. Wherefore it is our will
that when thou receivest this letter, if any such things belonged to
the Catholic Church of the Christians, in any city or other place, but
are now held by citizens πολιτῶν. Valesius conjectures that πολιτευτῶν
should be read instead of πολιτῶν, and therefore translates a decurionibus. Crusè,
following him, reads “by the decurions.” The correction,
however, though an improvement, is not necessary, and I have not felt
justified in adopting it.
17. Since therefore thy devotedness perceives that this command of ours is most explicit, do thou make haste to restore to them, as quickly as possible, everything which formerly belonged to the said churches,—whether gardens or buildings or whatever they may be,—that we may learn that thou hast obeyed this decree of ours most carefully. Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus.”
Copy of an epistle in which
the Emperor commands that a synod of bishops be held at Rome in behalf
of the unity and concord of the churches. This and the next epistle were occasioned by the Donatist schism.
This great schism arose after the close of the Diocletian persecution,
and divided the church of North Africa for more than a century. Like
the Novatian schism, it was due to the conflict of the more rigid and
the more indulgent theories of discipline. In Novatianism, however, the
burning question was the readmission of the lapsed; in Donatism, the
validity of clerical functions performed by unholy or unfaithful
clergymen. In the latter, therefore, the question was one of clerical,
not lay discipline, and there was involved in it a very important
theological principle. The Donatists maintained that the validity of
clerical functions depended upon the character of the administering
clergyman; the Catholic party maintained that the validity of those
functions depended solely upon Christ, and was quite independent of the
character of the officiating clergyman, provided he had been duly
qualified by the Church for the performance of such functions.
Augustine, nearly a century after the rise of the sect, found it
necessary to oppose it, and it was in the controversy with it that he
developed his doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments. The immediate
occasion of the schism was the election of Cæcilianus, who favored
the milder principles of church discipline, to the bishopric of
Carthage, in 311. His election was opposed by the entire rigoristic
party in Carthage and throughout North Africa. It was claimed that the
Bishop Felix of Aptunga, by whom he was ordained, had been a traditor
during the persecution, and that therefore Cæcilian’s
ordination was not valid. As a consequence the bishops of Numidia, who
had not been invited to assist in the choice and ordination of
Cæcilian, held a synod in Carthage, and elected a counter-bishop,
Majorinus. Thus the schism was definitely launched. The party called
itself for a time by the name of its first bishop, but in 315 he was
succeeded by Donatus, called the Great, to distinguish him from
Donatus, bishop of Casæ Nigræ, who had been one of the
original leaders of the movement. From him the sect took the name by
which it was thenceforth known. Doubtless personal jealousies and
enmities had considerable to do with the origin of the schism, but it
is quite inaccurate to ascribe it wholly to such causes. The
fundamental ground lay in the deep-seated difference in principles
between the two parties in the Church, and it was inevitable that that
difference should make itself felt in some such rupture, even had
personal reasons not co-operated to such an extent as they did. Our
chief sources for a knowledge of Donatism are the anti-Donatistic works
of Augustine (see The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first
series, Vol. IV. p. 369 sq.), together with a number of his epistles,
and Optatus’ De Schismate Donatistarum. The literature on
the subject is very extensive. See especially Valesius’ essay,
De Schismate Donat., appended to his edition of Eusebius
(Reading’s edition, p. 775 sq.); Ribbeck, Donatus and
Augustinus, 1858; the articles Cæcilianus and
Donatism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.; Neander’s
Church History, Torrey’s translation, II. p. 182 sq.;
Hefele’s Conciliengesch. 2d ed., I. p. 293 sq.; and
Schaff’s Church History, III. p. 360 sq. Constantine did
not voluntarily meddle in the Donatistic controversy. He was first
appealed to by the Donatists themselves, through the proconsul
Anulinus, early in the year 313 (see Augustine, Epistle 88, for
a copy of the letter in which Anulinus communicates their request to
the emperor). In response to their appeal Constantine (in the present
epistle) summoned the two parties to appear before a Roman synod, which
was held in October, 313. The Donatists were unable to prove their
charges, and the synod gave decision against them. Again, at their own
request, their case was heard at a council held in Gaul the following
year (the synod of Arles; see the next epistle of Constantine quoted in
this chapter). This council also decided against them, and the
Donatists appealed once more to the judgment of the emperor himself. He
heard their case in Milan in 316, and confirmed the decisions of the
councils, and soon afterward issued laws against them, threatening them
with the banishment of their bishops and the confiscation of their
property. He soon, however, withdrew his persecuting measures, and
adopted a policy of toleration. During subsequent reigns their
condition grew worse, and they were often obliged to undergo severe
hardships; but they clung rigidly to their principles until the
invasion of the Vandals in 428, when the entire North African Church
was devastated.
Miltiades (called also Melchiades) was bishop of Rome from July 2,
310, to Jan. 10 or 11, 314. See Lipsius, Chron. der röm.
Bischöfe, p. 257 sq. Marcus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless Valesius’
not improbable conjecture be accepted, that he was at this time a
presbyter of Rome, and is to be identified with the Marcus who was
bishop of Rome for some eight months in 336. χ€ρται. The
reference, as remarked by Valesius, seems to be not to epistles of
Anulinus, but to the communications of the Donatists forwarded to the
emperor by Anulinus. In his epistle to the emperor, which was written
April 15, 313 (see Augustine, Ep. 88), Anulinus speaks of two
communications handed to him by the Donatists, which he forwards to the
emperor with his own letter. The former of them, which is no longer
extant, bore the title Libellus ecclesiæ Catholicæ
criminum Cæciliani. The other, which is preserved by Optatus
(Du Pin’s edition, p. 22, and Routh, Rel. Sac. IV. 280)
contained the request that the emperor would appoint some Gallic
bishops to hear the case, because the church of that country had not
been subjected to the same temptation as themselves during the
persecution, and could therefore render an impartial decision. It was
in consequence of this request that the Gallic bishops mentioned below
were directed by the emperor to proceed to Rome to join with Miltiades
in the adjudication of the case. Constantine speaks of receiving many
such communications, but no others are preserved to us. Cæcilianus had been arch-deacon of the church of Carthage
under the bishop Mensurius, and had been a diligent supporter of the
latter in his opposition to the fanatical conduct and the extreme rigor
of the stricter party during the persecution. In 311 he became bishop,
and lived until about 345. We know nothing about his life after the
first few years of the conflict. His title to the bishopric was
universally acknowledged outside of North Africa, and by all there
except the Donatists themselves. The chief charge brought against Cæcilian was that he had
been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga, and that his ordination
was therefore invalid. The charge against Felix was carefully
investigated at the Council of Arles, and pronounced quite groundless.
Many personal charges, such as cruelty to the martyrs in prison (which
had its ground, doubtless, in his condemnation of the foolish
fanaticism which was so common during the persecution in Africa),
tyranny, bloodthirstiness, &c., were brought against Cæcilian,
but were dismissed in every case as quite groundless.
19. it has seemed good to me
that Cæcilianus himself, with ten of the bishops that appear to
accuse him, and with ten others whom he may consider necessary for his
defense, should sail to Rome, that there, in the presence of yourselves
and of Retecius Retecius was bishop of Autun in Gaul (see Optatus, I. 22, and the
references given below). An extended account of him, largely legendary,
is given by Gregory of Tours (De gloria Conf. 75, according to
the Dict. of Christ. Biog.). The dates of his accession and
death are unknown to us. He attended the Council of Arles in 313 (see
the list of those present, in Routh, IV. p. 312), and is spoken of in
high terms by Augustine (Contra Jul. I. 7; Opus imperf. cont.
Jul. I. 55), and also by Jerome, who informs us that he wrote a
commentary on the Song of Songs and a work against Novatian (see his
de vir. ill. 82, Ep. ad Florentium, and ad
Marcellam, Migne, Nos. 5 and 37). Maternus was bishop of Cologne, the first one of that see known to
us, but the date of his accession and death are unknown. He is
mentioned by Optatus (ibid.), and was present at the Council of
Arles (Routh, ibid.). Marinus, whose dates are likewise unknown, was bishop of Arles
(see Optatus, ibid.), and was present at the Council in that
city in 314 (see Routh, ibid. p. 313). This Roman Council convened in the house of Fausta, in the
Lateran, on the second day of October, 313, and was attended by
nineteen bishops,—the three from Gaul just mentioned, Miltiades
himself, and fifteen Italian bishops (see Optatus, ibid.). The
synod resulted in the complete victory of the party of Cæcilian,
as remarked above (note 15).
20. But in order that you may be
enabled to have most perfect knowledge of all these things, I have
subjoined to my letter copies of the documents sent to me by Anulinus,
and have sent them to your above-mentioned colleagues. When your
firmness has read these, you will consider in what way the
above-mentioned case may be most accurately investigated and justly
decided. For it does not escape your diligence that I have such
reverence for the legitimate ἐνθέσμῳ.
Copy of an epistle in which the emperor commands another synod to be held for the purpose of removing all dissensions among the bishops.
21. “Constantine Augustus
to Chrestus, The name of Chrestus appears first in the list of those present at
the Council of Arles (see Routh, IV. 312), and in consequence it has
been thought that he presided at the Council, a conclusion which some
have regarded as confirmed by Constantine’s own words in §
24, below. But on the other hand, in the epistle of the synod addressed
to Sylvester of Rome, and containing the canons of the Council, it is
distinctly stated that Marinus, bishop of Arles, presided; and this in
itself seems more probable, although the document in which the
statement is found may not perhaps be genuine (see, for instance,
Ffoulke’s article Marinus in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog., which needs, however, to be taken with allowance, for the
case against the genuineness of the extant canons of the Council is by
no means so strong as he implies). Of Chrestus himself we know nothing
more than can be gathered from this epistle. ἀποδιΐστασθαι τῆς
αἱρέσεως τῆς
καθολικῆς See the previous epistle.
22. But since, as it happens,
some, forgetful both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to
the most holy religion, do not even yet bring hostilities to an end,
and are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed, and assert
that those who expressed their opinions and decisions were few, or that
they had been too hasty and precipitate in giving judgment, before all
the things which ought to have been accurately investigated had been
examined,—on account of all this it has happened that those very
ones who ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each
other, are shamefully, or rather abominably, αἰσχρῶς,
μᾶλλον δὲ
μυσερῶς.
23. Since, therefore, we have
commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places ἐκ
διαφόρων καὶ
ἀμυθήτων
τόπων. Some old
accounts give the number of bishops present at the Council as six
hundred, but this is wild. Baronius gave the number as two hundred, and
he has been followed by many others, but this rests upon a false
reading in a passage in Augustine’s works. The truth seems to be
that there were not more than thirty-three bishops present, the number
given in the only lists of the members of the synod which we have (see
Routh, ibid., and see also Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p.
201). Arles (Latin Arelate), a city of Southern France, situated
not far from the mouth of the Rhone. It was at this time one of the
most prominent episcopal sees of Gaul, and was the seat of more than
one important council, of which the present is the first known to us.
The one summoned by Constantine convened, as we may gather from this
passage, on the first of August, 314. We do not know how long its
sessions continued, nor indeed any particulars in regard to it, though
twenty-two canons are extant in an epistle addressed to Sylvester of
Rome, which purport to be the genuine canons of the Council, and are
commonly so regarded. Their genuineness, however, is by no means
universally admitted (cf. e.g. the article in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. referred to in note 27). If the canons are genuine, we see
that the Council busied itself with many other maters besides the
Donatistic schism, especially with the Easter question and with various
matters of church discipline. See Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p.
201 sq. (2d ed.). According to Valesius the name of Latronianus is found (teste
Gualthero) in an ancient Palermo inscription (in tabulis
Siculis, numero 164). He is an otherwise unknown
personage. The Greek τοῦ
κοῤ&
191·ήκτορος is evidently simply a transliteration of the original Latin
correctoris. Corrector, in the time of the emperors, was
“the title of a kind of land bailiff, a governor”
(Andrews’ Lexicon). τῶν ἐκ τοῦ
δευτέρου
θρόνου; i.e.
presbyters. Valesius remarks ad locum that presbyters were
commonly called “priests of the second order,” as may be
gathered from various authors. He refers among others to Jerome, who
says in his Epitaph on the blessed Paula, “There were present the
bishops of Jerusalem and other cities, and an innumerable company of
priests and Levites of the lower order (inferioris
gradus)”; and to Gregory Nazianzen (Carm. iambic. de vita
sua, p. 6), who says, “the bishops in the church sat on a
higher throne, the presbyters on lower seats on either side, while the
deacons stood by in white garments.” Compare also Eusebius’
description of the arrangement of the seats in the church of Tyre
(chap. 4, § 67, above), and for other references see
Valesius’ note. Possibly the Latin phrase used by Constantine was
similar to that employed by Jerome: secundi gradus.
24. May the Almighty God preserve thee in health for many years.”
Chapter VI. Upon the title of this chapter given in the majority of the mss., see above, chap. 5, note 1. The accompanying epistle furnishes the first instance which we
have of financial support furnished the clergy by the state. From this
time on the old system of voluntary contributions fell more and more
into disuse, and the clergy gained their support from the income upon
the church property, which accumulated rapidly, in consequence of
special grants by the state and voluntary gifts and legacies by pious
Christians, or from imperial bounties, as in the present case.
Chrysostom, however, complains that the clergy in his time were not as
well supported as under the ancient voluntary system. The accuracy of
his statement, however, is open to doubt, as is the accuracy of all
such comparisons between an earlier age and our own, unless it be based
upon exhaustive statistics. Upon the general subject of the maintenance
of the clergy in the early Church, see Bingham’s
Antiquities, Bk. V. Compare also Hatch’s Constitution
of the Early Christian Churches, p. 150 sq. Upon the Montanistic
practice of paying their clergy salaries, see above, Bk. V. chap. 18,
note 8, and for an example of the same thing among the Theodotians, see
Bk. V. chap. 28, § 10.
1. “Constantine Augustus to Cæcilianus, On Cæcilianus, see above, chap. 5, note 20. ἐνθέσμου. Ursus is an otherwise unknown personage. καθολικόν. Cf. Bk. VIII. chap. 11, note 3. φόλλεις. We learn from Epiphanius (De pond. et mens., at the end
of the work; Dindorf’s ed. IV. p. 33) that there were two folles,
one a small coin, and the other a sum of money of uncertain value. The
latter is evidently referred to here. According to one computation it
was worth 208 denarii. If this were correct, the present sum would
amount to over ninety thousand dollars; but the truth is, we can reach
no certainty in the matter. For an exhaustive discussion of the
subject, see Petavius’ essay in Dindorf’s edition of
Epiphanius, IV. p. 109 sq.
2. Do thou there βρεού&
187·ον; probably for the Latin
breviarium. Doubtless to be identified with the famous Hosius, bishop of
Cordova in Spain, who was for many years Constantine’s most
influential adviser and took a prominent part in all the great
controversies of the first half of the fourth century, and who died
shortly before 360, when he was upwards of a hundred years old. Upon
his life, see especially the exhaustive article by Morse, in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog.
3. But if thou shouldst find
that anything is wanting for the fulfillment of this purpose of mine in
regard to all of them, thou shalt demand without hesitation from
Heracleides, Heracleides is, so far as I am aware, mentioned only
here. τοῦ
ἐπιτρόπου
τῶν ἡμετέρων
κτημ€των.
4. And since I have learned that
some men of unsettled mind wish to turn the people from the most holy
and catholic Church by a certain method of shameful corruption, This would seem to be a reference to the Donatists. If it is, it
leads us to suppose that Constantine had heard about the troubles in
Carthage before he received the communication from Anulinus referred to
in the previous chapter; for we can hardly suppose that pending the
trial of Cæcilian Constantine would show him such signal marks of
favor, which would lay him at once open to the charge of partiality,
and would be practically a prejudgment of the case. On the other hand,
he could not have referred to the Donatists in this way after the trial
of the case, for his words imply that he is referring, not to an
already well-established and well-known party, but simply to
individuals whom he has recently learned to be making some kind of
trouble in the church. These considerations seem to me to lead to the
conclusion that this epistle preceded the one to Miltiades quoted in
the previous chapter, and also the one from Anulinus to Constantine
(see notes 16 and 19 on that chapter). If this be so, it must have been
written as early as April, 313, and therefore soon after the epistle to
Anulinus quoted in the previous chapter, § 15 sq. We might then be
led to suppose that it was in consequence of this grant made by
Constantine solely to Cæcilian and the clergy under him that the
Donatists decided to appeal to the emperor, his treatment of all who
were opposed to Cæcilian showing them that he had heard reports of
them by no means to their advantage, and thus impelling them to try and
set themselves right in his eyes and in the eyes of the world by a
public investigation of their cause. There are difficulties connected
with the exact order of events at this point which beset any theory we
may adopt, but the one just stated seems to me most in harmony with our
sources and with the nature of the case. For a full, though not
altogether satisfactory, discussion of the matter, which I cannot dwell
upon here, see Walch’s Ketzergeschichte, IV. p. 116
sq. This Patricius is known to us, so far as I am aware, from this
passage only. τῷ οὐικαρί&
251· τῶν
ἐπ€ρχων,
which doubtless represents the Latin Vicarius Præfectorum,
the vicar or deputy of the prefects. See Valesius’ note ad
locum and the note of Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 463), with the
additional references given by him. This is the first instance we have of an effort on
Constantine’s part to suppress schismatics. In 316 he enacted a
stringent law against the Donatists (see the previous chapter, note
16), which, however, he withdrew within a few years, finding the policy
of repression an unwise one. The same was done later in connection with
the Arians, whom he at first endeavored to suppress by force, but
afterward tolerated. His successors were in the main far less tolerant
than he was, and heretics and schismatics were frequently treated with
great harshness during the fourth and following centuries.
Chapter VII.—The Exemption of the Clergy.
Copy of an Epistle in which
the emperor commands that the rulers of the churches be exempted from
all political duties. Municipal offices and magistracies were a great burden under the
later Roman empire. They entailed heavy expenses for those who filled
them, and consequently, unless a man’s wealth was large, and his
desire for distinction very great, he was glad to be exempted, if
possible, from the necessity of supporting such expensive honors, which
he was not at liberty to refuse. The same was true of almost all the
offices, municipal and provincial offices, high and low. Discharging
the duties of an office was in fact practically paying a heavy tax to
government, and of course the fewer there were that were compelled to
pay this tax, the greater the burden upon the few. As a consequence,
the exemption of any class of persons always aroused opposition from
those who were not exempted. In granting this immunity to the clergy,
however, Constantine was granting them only what had long been enjoyed
by the heathen priesthood, and also by some of the learned professions.
The privilege bestowed here upon the African clergy was afterward
extended to those of other provinces, as we learn from the Theodosian
Code, 16. 2. 2 (a.d. 319). The direct result
of the exemption was that many persons of means secured admission to
the ranks of the clergy, in order to escape the burden of
office-holding; and this practice increased so rapidly that within a
few years the emperor was obliged to enact various laws restricting the
privilege. See Hatch’s Constitution of the Early Christ.
Churches, p. 144 sq.
1. “Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus. Since it
appears from many circumstances that when that religion is despised, in
which is preserved the chief reverence for the most holy celestial
Power, great dangers are brought upon public affairs; but that when
legally adopted and observed ἐνθέσμως
ἀναληφθεῖσαν
καὶ
φυλαττομενην
2. Wherefore it is my will that
those within the province entrusted to thee, i.e. the proconsular province of Africa (see above, chap. 5,
§ 18). i.e. the Church of the entire province; for the bishop of Carthage
was the metropolitan of the province, and indeed was the leading bishop
of North Africa, and thus recognized as in some sense at the head of
the church of that entire section of country.
1. Such blessings did divine and heavenly grace confer upon us through the appearance of our Saviour, and such was the abundance of benefits which prevailed among all men in consequence of the peace which we enjoyed. And thus were our affairs crowned with rejoicings and festivities.
2. But malignant envy, and the demon who loves that which is evil, were not able to bear the sight of these things; and moreover the events that befell the tyrants whom we have already mentioned were not sufficient to bring Licinius to sound reason.
3. For the latter, although his
government was prosperous and he was honored with the second rank after
the great Emperor Constantine, and was connected with him by the
closest ties of marriage, abandoned the imitation of good deeds, and
emulated the wickedness of the impious tyrants whose end he had seen
with his own eyes, and chose rather to follow their principles than to
continue in friendly relations with him who was better than they. Being
envious of the common benefactor he waged an impious and most terrible
war against him, paying regard neither to laws of nature, nor treaties,
nor blood, and giving no thought to covenants. To
speak of Licinius as alone responsible for the civil war between
himself and Constantine, which ended in his own downfall, is quite
unjustifiable; indeed, this entire chapter is a painful example of the
way in which prejudice distorts facts. The positions of the two
emperors was such that a final struggle between them for the sole
supremacy was inevitable. Already, in 314, a war broke out, which seems
to have resulted from Licinius’ refusal to deliver up a relative
of his own, who had in some way been concerned in a conspiracy against
Constantine. The occasion of the war is not perfectly plain, but it is
certain that Constantine, not Licinius, was the aggressor. Constantine
came off victorious, but was not able to overthrow his rival, and a
treaty was concluded by which Illyricum, one of Licinius’ most
important provinces, was ceded to Constantine. The two emperors
remained at peace, each waiting for a time when he could with advantage
attack the other, until 323, when a second and greater war broke out,
to which Eusebius, who omits all reference to the former, refers in
these two chapters. The immediate occasion of this war, as of the
former, is obscure, but it was certainly not due to Constantine’s
pity for the oppressed Christian subjects of Licinius, and his pious
desire to avenge their sufferings, as Eusebius, who in his Vita
Const. II. 3, in contradiction to this present passage, claims for
his prince the honor of beginning the war without any other
provocation, would have us believe. Doubtless the fact that Licinius
was persecuting his Christian subjects had much to do with the outbreak
of the war; for Constantine saw clearly that Licinius had weakened his
hold upon his subjects by his conduct, and that therefore a good time
had arrived to strike the decisive blow. A pretext—for of course
Constantine could not go to war without some more material and
plausible pretext than sympathy with oppressed Christian
brethren—was furnished by some sort of a misunderstanding in
regard to the respective rights of the two sovereigns in the border
territory along the Danube frontier, and the war began by Constantine
taking the initiative, and invading his rival’s territory. Two
battles were fought,—one at Adrianople in July, and the other at
Chrysopolis in September, 323,—in both of which Constantine was
victorious, and the latter of which resulted in the surrender of
Licinius, and the accession of Constantine to the supreme sovereignty
of both East and West. Cf. Gibbon, Harper’s ed., I. p. 490 sq.,
and Burckhardt’s Zeit Constantins, 2d ed., p. 328
sq.
4. For Constantine, like an
all-gracious emperor, giving him evidences of true favor, did not
refuse alliance with him, and did not refuse him the illustrious
marriage with his sister, but honored him by making him a partaker of
the ancestral nobility and the ancient imperial blood, See below, p. 400. A more flagrant misrepresentation of facts could hardly be
imagined. Licinius received his appointment directly from Galerius and
owed nothing whatever to Constantine; in fact, was an Augustus before
the latter was, and held his half of the empire quite independently of
the latter, and indeed by a far clearer title than Constantine held
his. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, notes 18 and 21.
5. But Licinius, on the
contrary, pursued a course directly opposite to this; forming daily all
kinds of plots against his superior, and devising all sorts of
mischief, that he might repay his benefactor with evils. At first he
attempted to conceal his preparations, and pretended to be a friend,
and practiced frequently fraud and deceit, in the hope that he might
easily accomplish the desired end. There is no reason to suppose that Licinius was any more guilty
than Constantine in these respects.
6. But God was the friend, protector, and guardian of Constantine, and bringing the plots which had been formed in secrecy and darkness to the light, he foiled them. So much virtue does the great armor of piety possess for the warding off of enemies and for the preservation of our own safety. Protected by this, our most divinely favored emperor escaped the multitudinous plots of the abominable man.
7. But when Licinius perceived
that his secret preparations by no means progressed according to his
mind,—for God revealed every plot and wickedness to the
God-favored emperor,—being no longer able to conceal himself, he
undertook an open war. This is in direct contradiction to Eusebius’ own statement
in his Vita Const. II. 3 (see above, note 1), and is almost
certainly incorrect.
8. And at the same time that he
determined to wage war with Constantine, he also proceeded to join
battle with the God of the universe, whom he knew that Constantine
worshiped, and began, gently for a time and quietly, to attack his
pious subjects, who had never done his government any harm. Licinius, as Görres has shown in his able essay Die
Licinianische Christenverfolgung, p. 5 sq., did not begin to
persecute the Christians until the year 319 (the persecution was
formerly commonly supposed to have begun some three or four years
earlier). The causes of his change of policy in this matter it is
impossible to state with certainty, but the exceedingly foolish step
seems to have been chiefly due to his growing hatred and suspicion of
the Christians as the friends of Constantine. Though he had not
hitherto been hostile to them, he had yet never taken any pains to win
their friendship and to secure their enthusiastic support as
Constantine had, and as a consequence they naturally looked with envy
upon their brethren in the west, who were enjoying such signal marks of
imperial favor. Licinius could not but be conscious of this; and as the
relations between himself and Constantine became more and more
strained, it was not unnatural for him to acquire a peculiar enmity
toward them, and finally to suspect them of a conspiracy in favor of
his rival. Whether he had any grounds for such a suspicion we do not
know, but at any rate he began to show his changed attitude in 319 by
clearing his palace of Christians (see § 10). No more foolish step
can be imagined than the opening of a persecution at this critical
juncture. Just at a time when he needed the most loyal support of all
his subjects, he wantonly alienated the affections of a large and
influential portion of them, and in the very act gave them good reason
to become devoted adherents of his enemy. The persecution of Licinius,
as Görres has clearly shown (ibid. p. 29 sq.) was limited
in its extent and mild in its character. It began, as Eusebius informs
us, with the expulsion of Christians from the palace, but even here it
was not universal; at least, Eusebius of Nicomedia and other prominent
clergymen still remained Licinius’ friends, and were treated as
such by him. In fact, he evidently punished only those whom he thought
to be his enemies and to be interested in the success of Constantine,
if not directly conspiring in his behalf. No general edicts of
persecution were issued by him, and the sufferings of the Christians
seem to have been confined almost wholly to occasional loss of property
or banishment, or, still less frequently, imprisonment. A few bishops
appear to have been put to death, but there is no reason to suppose
that they suffered at the command of Licinius himself. Of course, when
it was known that he was hostile to the Christians, fanatical heathen
officials might venture, occasionally at least, to violate the existing
laws and bring hated bishops to death on one pretext or another. But
such cases were certainly rare, and there seem to have been no
instances of execution on the simple ground of Christianity, as indeed
there could not be while the Edict of Milan remained unrepealed.
Eusebius’ statement that Licinius was about to proceed to severer
measures, when the war with Constantine broke out and put a stop to his
plans, is very likely true; but otherwise his report is rather highly
colored, as many other sources fully warrant us in saying. For a
careful and very satisfactory discussion of this whole subject, see
Görres, ibid. p. 32 sq.
9. He did not therefore keep before his eyes the memory of those who had persecuted the Christians before him, nor of those whose destroyer and executioner he had been appointed, on account of the impieties which they had committed. But departing from sound reason, being seized, in a word, with insanity, he determined to war against God himself as the ally of Constantine, instead of against the one who was assisted by him.
10. And in the first place, he drove from his house every Christian, thus depriving himself, wretched man, of the prayers which they offered to God in his behalf, which they are accustomed, according to the teaching of their fathers, to offer for all men. Then he commanded that the soldiers in the cities should be cashiered and stripped of their rank unless they chose to sacrifice to the demons. And yet these were small matters when compared with the greater things that followed.
11. Why is it necessary to
relate minutely and in detail all that was done by the hater of God,
and to recount how this most lawless man invented unlawful laws? Note the play on the word νόμος.
νόμους
ἀνόμους ὁ
πανανομώτατος
12. Why should we recount his
innovations in regard to marriage or in regard to the
dying—innovations by which he ventured to annul the ancient laws
of the Romans which had been well and wisely formed, and to introduce
certain barbarous and cruel laws, which were truly unlawful and
lawless? Another play upon the same word: νόμους,
ἀνόμους ὡς
ἀληθῶς καὶ
παρανόμους ἐπισκήψεις. The same word is used in connection with Maximinus in Bk.
VIII. chap. 14, § 10, above. Valesius cites passages from Aurelius
Victor, and Libanius, in which it is said that Licinius was very kindly
disposed toward the rural population of his realm, and that the cities
flourished greatly under him. Moreover, Zosimus gives just such an
account of Constantine as Eusebius gives of Licinius. Allowance must
undoubtedly be made on the one side for Eusebius’ prejudice
against Licinius, as on the other for Zosimus’ well-known hatred
of Constantine. Doubtless both accounts are greatly exaggerated, though
they probably contain considerable truth, for there were few Roman
emperors that did not practice severe exactions upon their subjects, at
times at least, if not continually, and it is always easy in a case of
this kind to notice the dark and to overlook the bright features of a
reign. Licinius was certainly a cruel man in many respects, and one
hardly cares to enter the lists in his defense, but it should be
observed that, until he became the enemy of Constantine and the
persecutor of the Christians, Eusebius uniformly spoke of him in the
highest terms. Compare Stroth’s note ad locum (quoted also
by Closs). i.e. for the purpose of making new assessments, which is always
apt to be looked upon as an oppressive act, whether unjust or
not.
13. Why is it necessary to speak
at length of the banishments which, in addition to these things, this
enemy of mankind inflicted upon those who had done no wrong, the
expatriations of men of noble birth and high reputation whose young
wives he snatched from them and consigned to certain baser fellows of
his own, to be shamefully abused by them, and the many married women
and virgins upon whom he gratified his passions, although he was in
advanced age ἐσχατόγηρως. Valesius remarks that, according to the epitomist of
Victor, Licinius died in the sixtieth year of his age, so that at the
time of which Eusebius was speaking he was little more than fifty years
of age.
14. For, finally, he reached such a pitch of madness that he attacked the bishops, supposing that they—as servants of the God over all—would be hostile to his measures. He did not yet proceed against them openly, on account of his fear of his superior, but as before, secretly and craftily, employing the treachery of the governors for the destruction of the most distinguished of them. And the manner of their murder was strange, and such as had never before been heard of.
15. The deeds which he
performed Amaseia, or Amasia, as it is more commonly called, was an
important city of Pontus, situated on the river Iris.
16. For his evil conscience led
him to suppose that prayers were not offered in his behalf; but he was
persuaded that we did everything in the interest of the God-beloved
emperor, and that we supplicated God for him. Eusebius makes it clear enough in this sentence that Licinius
suspected a treasonable conspiracy on the part of the Christians. See
above, note 1.
17. And then those among the
governors who wished to flatter him, perceiving that in doing such
things they pleased the impious tyrant, See ibid.
18. Thereupon the worshipers of God again fled, and fields and deserts, forests and mountains, again received the servants of Christ. And when the impious tyrant had thus met with success in these measures, he finally planned to renew the persecution against all.
19. And he would have succeeded in his design, and there would have been nothing to hinder him in the work, had not God, the defender of the lives of his own people, most quickly anticipated that which was about to happen, and caused a great light to shine forth as in the midst of a dark and gloomy night, and raised up a deliverer for all, leading into those regions with a lofty arm, his servant, Constantine.
Chapter IX.—The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire.
1. To him, therefore, God granted, from heaven above, the deserved fruit of piety, the trophies of victory over the impious, and he cast the guilty one with all his counselors and friends prostrate at the feet of Constantine.
2. For when Licinius carried his
madness to the last extreme, the emperor, the friend of God, thinking
that he ought no longer to be tolerated, acting upon the basis of sound
judgment, and mingling the firm principles of justice with humanity,
gladly determined to come to the protection of those who were oppressed
by the tyrant, and undertook, by putting a few destroyers out of the
way, to save the greater part of the human race. Eusebius speaks in the same way of the origin of the war in his
Vita Const. II. 3. Cf. the previous chapter, note 1.
3. For when he had formerly exercised humanity alone and had shown mercy to him who was not worthy of sympathy, nothing was accomplished; for Licinius did not renounce his wickedness, but rather increased his fury against the peoples that were subject to him, and there was left to the afflicted no hope of salvation, oppressed as they were by a savage beast.
4. Wherefore, the protector of
the virtuous, mingling hatred for evil with love for good, went forth
with his son Crispus, a most beneficent prince, Κρίσπῳ
Βασιλεῖ
φιλανθρωποτ€τῳ. Crispus, the oldest son of Constantine, by his first wife
Minervina, was born about the beginning of the fourth century, made
Cæsar in 317, and put to death by Constantine in 326 on suspicion,
whether justified or not we do not know, of conspiracy and treason. Our
sources agree in pronouncing him a young man of most excellent
character and marked ability; and indeed he proved his valor and
military talents in the west in a campaign against the Franks, and also
in the present war with Licinius, in which he won a great naval battle,
and thus contributed materially to his father’s victory. His
execution is the darkest blot on the memory of Constantine, and however
it may be palliated can never, as it seems, be excused. Eusebius
prudently omits all reference to it in his Vita
Const. The final battle was fought in September, 323. See the previous
chapter, note 4.
5. Thus, suddenly, and sooner than can be told, those who yesterday and the day before breathed death and threatening were no more, and not even their names were remembered, but their inscriptions and their honors suffered the merited disgrace. And the things which Licinius with his own eyes had seen come upon the former impious tyrants he himself likewise suffered, because he did not receive instruction nor learn wisdom from the chastisements of his neighbors, but followed the same path of impiety which they had trod, and was justly hurled over the same precipice. Thus he lay prostrate.
6. But Constantine, the
mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his
son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his
father, recovered the East which belonged to them; τὴν οἰκείαν
ἑ& 252·αν
ἀπελ€μβανον. Constantine’s sole right to the East was the right
of conquest.
7. All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children.
8. There was oblivion of past
evils and forgetfulness of every deed of impiety; there was enjoyment
of present benefits and expectation of those yet to come. Edicts full
of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence and true piety
were issued in every place by the victorious emperor. Some of these laws of Constantine have been preserved by Eusebius
in his Vita Const. Bk. II.
9. Thus after all tyranny had
been purged away, the empire which belonged to them was preserved firm
and without a rival for Constantine and his sons alone. It is clear from this statement, as well as from the references to
Crispus in the previous paragraphs, that the History was
completed before his execution. See above, p. 45.
The end, with God’s help, of the Tenth Book of the Church History of Eusebius Pamphili.
————————————
On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 5 (note 17, continued).
Since this note was in type Dr. Gardiner’s admirable and exhaustive essay on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XIV. p. 341 sq.) has come to hand, and I have been much pleased to see that the theory that Barnabas wrote the epistle is accepted and defended with vigor.
On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 6 (note 22, continued).
Upon the last chapter of Romans and its relation to the remainder of the epistle, see especially Farrar’s Life and Work of St. Paul, p. 450 sq., Weiss’ Einleitung in das N. T. p. 245 sq., Pfleiderer’s Urchristenthum, p. 145 , Renan’s Saint Paul, p. 461 sq. (maintaining that an editor has combined four copies of the one encyclical letter of Paul, addressed severally to as many different churches), Lightfoot’s Commentary on Philippians, p. 172 sq., and Schaff, Ch. History, I. p. 765.
On Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17 (note 18 continued).
In three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17, chap. 25, § 2, and chap. 39, § 16) John’s “former” epistle is referred to, as if he had written only two. In the last passage the use of προτέρα instead of πρώτη might be explained as Westcott suggests (Canon of the New Testament, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing the words of Papias; but in the other passages this explanation will not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius’ own. In the Muratorian Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Irenæus the second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, ibid. p. 384, note 1). These facts lead Westcott to ask: “Is it possible that the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and may we thus explain the references to two epistles of John?” He continues: “The first epistle, as is well known, was called ad Parthos by Augustine and some other Latin authorities; and the same title πρὸς Π€ρθους is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of Clement’s Outlines (IV. 66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola quæ ad virgines (παρθένους) scripta simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.).” On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, § 7, Eusebius speaks of the “first” (πρώτη) epistle of John, and in Bk. III. chap. 25, § 3, he expressly mentions a second and third epistle of John. It is evident, therefore, that whatever the use of προτέρα instead of πρώτη in connection with John’s first epistle may mean as used by others, it does not indicate a knowledge of only a first and second as used by him. It is by no means impossible, however, that Westcott’s suggestion may be correct, and that the first and second epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is possible that such use of them by some of his predecessors may account for Eusebius’ employment of the word προτέρα in three separate passages.
On Bk. III. chap. 25, § 4 (note 18 continued).
The words ἡ φερομένη
Βαρν€βα
ἐπιστολή have been commonly translated “the so-called Epistle of
Barnabas,” or “the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas,”
implying a doubt in Eusebius’ mind as to the authenticity of the
work. This translation, however, is, in my opinion, quite unwarranted.
There are passages in Eusebius where the word φέρομαι used in connection with writings cannot by any possibility
be made to bear this meaning; cases in which it can be interpreted only
“to be extant” or “in circulation.” Compare,
for instance, Bk. II. chap. 15, § 1, Μ€ρκον οὗ τὸ
εὐγγέλιον
φέρεται;
II. 18. 6, μονόβιβλα
αὐτοῦ
φέρεται;
III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, ἡ λεγο
A considerable portion of my translation was in type before I had observed this distinction between the two words, which is commonly quite overlooked, and as a consequence in a few cases my rendering of the word φερομένη is inaccurate. All such cases I have endeavored to call attention to in these supplementary notes.
On Bk. III. chap. 28, § 1.
For the Disputation which is ascribed to him, read his extant Disputation.
On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14a).
The Greek reads π€σης ἐκκλησίας (without the article), and so, two lines below, ἐν π€σῃ ἐκκλησί& 139·. All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII., who reads, “the churches”) render “the whole church,” as if reading πᾶς with the article. We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus’ writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of πᾶς, and it is possible that he carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to signify the definite “all” or “the whole.” In the absence of positive testimony, however, that he failed to draw the proper distinction between its use with and its use without the article, and in view of the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far as I am able to recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I have not felt at liberty in my translation to depart from a strict grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question. Moreover, upon second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say “every” not “all”; for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of the Lord to have presided literally over the whole Church, while he might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city in which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply. The phrase just below, “in every church,” is perhaps as natural as “in the whole church.”
On Bk. III. chap. 36 § 13.
For the Epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him, read his extant Epistle to the Philippians.
On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 1 (note 1, continued).
Since the above note was in type
Resch’s important work on the Agrapha(von Gebhardt and
Harnack’s Texte und
Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 4) has come to
hand. On p. 27 sq. he discusses at considerable length the sources of
the Synoptic Gospels. He accepts the theory which is most widely
adopted by New-Testament critics, that the synoptic tradition as
contained in our Synoptic Gospels rests upon an original Gospel of Mark
(nearly if not quite identical with our present Gospel of Mark) and a
pre-canonical Hebrew Gospel. In agreement with such critics he draws a
sharp distinction between this original Hebrew Gospel and our canonical
Greek Matthew, while at the same time recognizing that the latter
reproduces that original more fully
On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 6.
For ascribed by name to John, read extant under the name of John.
On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 16.
For from the first epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise, read from the former epistle of John and from the epistle of Peter likewise. See p. 388.
On Bk. IV. chap. 10.
For the Pious, read Pius.
On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.
For the Pious, read Pius.
On Bk. V. Introd. § I (note 3, continued). The Successors of Antoninus Pius.
Antoninus Pius was succeeded in 161 by his adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Verus and Lucius Ceionius Ælius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus. Upon his accession to the throne the former transferred his name Verus to the latter, who was thenceforth called Lucius Aurelius Verus. In his Chronicle Eusebius keeps these two princes distinct, but in his History he falls into sad confusion in regard to them, and this confusion has drawn upon him the severe censure of all his critics. He knew of course, as every one did, that Antoninus Pius had two successors. In Bk. IV. chap. 14, § 10, he states this directly, and gives the names of the successors as “Marcus Aurelius Verus, who was also called Antoninus,” and “Lucius.” From that point on he calls the former of these princes simply Antoninus Verus, Antoninus, or Verus, dropping entirely the name Marcus Aurelius. In Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2, he speaks of the emperor “whose times we are now recording,” that is, the successor of Antoninus Pius, and calls him Antoninus Verus. In Bk. V. Introd. § I he refers to the same emperor as Antoninus Verus, and in Bk. V. chap. 4, § 3, and chap. 9, he calls him simply Antoninus, while in Bk. IV. chap. 13, § 8, he speaks of him as the “Emperor Verus.” The death of this Emperor Antoninus is mentioned in Bk. V. chap. 9, and it is there said that he reigned nineteen years and was then succeeded by Commodus. It is evident that in all these passages he is referring to the emperor whom we know as Marcus Aurelius, but to whom he gives that name only once, when he records his accession to the empire. On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 5, § 1, Eusebius speaks of Marcus Aurelius Cæsar and expressly distinguishes him from the Emperor Antoninus, to whom he has referred at the close of the previous chapter, and makes him the brother of that emperor. Again, in the same chapter, § 6, he calls this Marcus Aurelius Cæsar, just referred to, the “Emperor Marcus,” still evidently distinguishing him from the Emperor Antoninus. In this chapter, therefore, he thinks of Marcus Aurelius as the younger of the two sons left by Antoninus Pius; that is, he identifies him with the one whom we call Lucius Verus, and whom he himself calls Lucius in Bk. IV. chap. 14 § 10. Eusebius thus commits a palpable error. How are we to explain it?
The explanation seems to me to
lie in the circumstance that Eusebius attempted to reconcile the
tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor with the fact known
to him as a historian, that the emperor who succeeded Antoninus Pius
was. It was the common belief in the time of Eusebius, as it had been
during the entire preceding century, that all the good emperors had
been friendly to the Christians, and that only the bad
That Eusebius in accepting such a lame theory showed himself altogether too much under the influence of traditional views cannot be denied; but when we remember that the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor was supported by writers whose honesty and accuracy he could never have thought of questioning, as well as by the very nature of the case, we must, while we smile at the result, at least admire his effort to solve the contradiction which he, as an historian, felt more keenly than a less learned man, unacquainted with the facts on the other side, would have done.
On Bk. V. chap. 1, § 27 (note 26, continued).
See also Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note 5.
On Bk. VI. chap. 2 (note 1, continued). Origen’s Life and Writings.
Origen Adamantius (on the second
name, see Bk. VI. chap. 14, note 12) was of Christian parentage and
probably of Greek descent on his father’s side (as stated in the
previous note), but whether born in Alexandria or not we do not know.
Westcott suggests that his mother may have been of Jewish descent,
because in an epistle of Jerome (ad Paulam: Ep. 39,
§ 1, Migne’s ed.) he is said to have learned Hebrew so
thoroughly that he “vied with his mother” in the singing of
psalms (but compare the stricture of Redepenning on this passage, p.
187, note 1). The date of his birth may be gathered from the fact
(stated in this chapter) that he was in his seventeenth
In the tenth year of Alexander
Severus (a.d. 231) he left Alexandria
(according to chap. 26) and took up his residence in Cæsarea,
leaving his catechetical school in charge of his assistant, Heraclas.
The cause of his departure is stated in chap. 23 to have been
“some necessary affairs of the church” which called him to
Greece. (For a statement of the reasons which lead me, contrary to the
common opinion, to identify the departure mentioned in chap. 23 with
that mentioned in chap. 26, see below, p. 395 sq.) Jerome (de vir.
ill. c. 54) says that he went to Achaia on account of heresies
which were troubling the churches there. His words are: Et propter
ecclesias Achaiæ, quæ pluribus hæresibus vexabantur, sub
testimonio ecclesiasticæ epistolæ Athenas per Palæstinam
pergeret. He passed through Palestine on his way to Greece, and it
was at this time that he was ordained a presbyter by the Palestinian
bishops (chap. 23), Theoctistus of Cæsarea and Alexander of
Jerusalem (according to Jerome, l.c.; cf. also Euseb. chap. 8).
Whether he remained long in Palestine at this time, or went on at once
to Greece, we do not know; but that a visit (to be distinguished from
the second visit mentioned in chap. 32; see note 4 on that chapter) was
made we know from a fragment of one of Origen’s epistles written
from Athens (printed in Lommatzsch’s ed. of Origen’s works,
XXV. p. 388); with which are to be compared Epiphanius,
Hær. LXIV. 1, and the remark made by Eusebius in chap. 16,
§ 2. in regard to the finding of a copy of a translation in
Nicopolis. Origen’s ordination resulted in the complete
alienation of the bishop Demetrius (upon his earlier and later attitude
toward Origen, and the causes of the change, see below, p. 394 sq.),
and he called a council in Alexandria of bishops and presbyters (the
council must have been held very soon after the receipt of the news of
Origen’s ordination, for Demetrius died in 232; see Bk. V. chap.
22, note 4) which decided that Origen should be required to leave
Alexandria and not be allowed to reside or to teach there, but did not
depose him from the priesthood. Afterward, however, Demetrius,
combining with some bishops of like mind with himself, deposed Origen
from his office, and the sentence was ratified by those who had before
voted with him. Photius gives this account in Cod. 118, quoting
from the lost Defense of Pamphilus and Eusebius. Eusebius
himself tells us nothing
Origen was without doubt the greatest scholar and the most original thinker of his age. He was at the same time a man of most devout piety, and employed all his wonderful talents in the service of what he believed to be the truth. His greatest labors were in the field of exegesis, and here his writings were epoch-making, although his results were often completely vitiated by his use of the allegorical method of interpretation and his neglect of the grammatical and historical sense. His services in the cause of scientific theology cannot be overestimated, and his thinking long stimulated the brightest minds of the Church, both orthodox and heretical. Both his natural predilections and his training in the philosophy which prevailed in Alexandria in that day led him in the direction of idealism, and to an excess of this, combined with his deep desire—common also to Clement—to reconcile Christianity with reason and to commend it to the minds of philosophers, are due most of his errors, nearly all of which are fascinating and lofty in conception. Those errors led the Church to refuse him a place among its saints and even among its Fathers in the stricter sense. Even before his death suspicions of his orthodoxy were widespread; and although he had many followers and warm defenders, his views were finally condemned at a home synod in Constantinople in 543 (?) (see Helele, II. 790). Into the bitter controversies which raged during the fourth and fifth centuries, and in which Jerome and Rufinus (the former against, the latter for, Origen) played so large a part we cannot enter here. See the article Origenistic Controversies in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., or any of the Church histories and lives of Origen.
Origen was a marvelously prolific writer. Epiphanius (Hær. LXIV. 63) says that it was commonly reported that he had written 6000 works. Jerome reduces the number to less than a third (adv. Ruf. II. 22). But whatever the number, we know that he was one of the most voluminous—perhaps the most voluminous writer of antiquity. He wrote works of the most diverse nature, critical, exegetical, philosophical and theological, apologetic and practical, besides numerous epistles. (On his great critical work, the Hexpla, see chap. 16, note 8.) His exegetical works consisted of commentaries, scholia (or detached notes), and homilies. Of his commentaries on the Old Testament, which were very numerous, only fragments of those on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, and the Song of Solomon are presented in the version of Rufinus, and a fragment of the commentary on Ezekiel in the Philocalia. Of the New Testament commentaries we have numerous fragments both in Greek and Latin (especially on Matthew and John), and the whole of Romans in the translation of Rufinus. Upon the commentaries composed by Origen while still in Alexandria, see chap. 24; on those written afterwards, see chaps. 32 and 36. No complete scholia are extant; but among the numerous exegetical fragments which are preserved there may be portions of these scholia, as well as of the commentaries and homilies. It is not always possible to tell to which a fragment belongs. Of the homilies, over 200 are preserved, the majority of them in the translation of Rufinus.
Origen’s great apologetic work is his Contra Celsum (see chap. 36, note 3).
Two works of a practical character are known to us: On Martyrdom (see chap. 28, note 3); and On Prayer. The latter work is not mentioned by Eusebius in his History, but is referred to in Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, Chap. VIII. (Lommatzsch, XXIV. p. 397). It is extant in the original Greek, and is printed by Lommatzsch, XVII. p. 79–297. It is addressed to two of his friends, Ambrosius and Tatiana, and is one of his most beautiful works. As to the date at which Origen wrote the work, we know (from chap. 23 of the work) only that it was written after the composition of the commentary on Genesis (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 24), but whether before or after his departure from Alexandria we cannot tell.
Of his epistles only two are preserved entire, one to Julius Africanus, and another to Gregory Thaumaturgus. On the former, see chap. 31, note 1. On the latter and on Origen’s other epistles, see chap. 36, note 7.
Finally must be mentioned the Philocalia (Lommatzsch, XXV. p. 1–278), a collection of judiciously selected extracts from Origen’s works in twenty-seven books. Its compilers were Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.
The principal edition of Origen’s works is that of the Benedictine Delarue in 4 vols. fol.; reprinted by Migne in 8 vols. 8vo. A convenient edition is that of Lommatzsch, in 25 vols. small 8vo., a revision of Delarue’s. Only his De principiis, Contra Cels., and the epistles to Africanus and to Gregory have been translated into English, and are given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV. p. 221 sqq. Of lives of Origen must be mentioned that of Huetius: Origeniana (Paris, 1679, in 2 vols.; reprinted in Delarue and Lommatzsch); also Redepenning’s Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre (Bonn, 1841 and 1846, in 2 vols.). The respective sections in Lardner and Tillemont should be compared, and the thorough article of Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 96–142. For a good list of the literature on Origen, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 785.
On Bk. VI. chap. 8, § 5 (note 4). Origen and Demetrius.
The friendship of Demetrius for
Origen began early and continued, apparently without interruption, for
many years. In 203 he committed to him the charge of the catechetical
school (chap. 3); in the present chapter we find him encouraging him
after learning of his rash deed; some years afterward, upon
Origen’s return from a visit to Rome, where his fame as a teacher
had already become very great, Demetrius still showed the very best
spirit toward him (chap. 14); and a little later sent him into Arabia
to give instruction to an officer in that country (chap. 19). It is
soon after this that the first sign of a difference between the two men
appears, upon the occasion of Origen’s preaching in Cæsarea
(ibid.). There seems, however, to have been no lasting quarrel,
if there was any quarrel at all; for in 231 we find Demetrius giving
Origen letters of recommendation upon the occasion of his visit to
Achaia (see below, p. 396). The fact that he gives him these letters,
thus recognizing him as a member of his church in good standing, and
sending him upon his important mission with his official approval,
shows that no open break between himself and Origen can as yet have
taken place. But in his commentary on John (Tom. VI. præf.)
Origen shows us that his last years in Alexandria were by no means
pleasant ones. He compares his troubles there to the waves of a stormy
sea, and his final departure to the exodus of the children of Israel.
We know that he had been engaged for some time in writing commentaries,
and that the first five books of his commentary on
John—epoch-making in their significance, and sure to cause a
sensation in orthodox, conservative circles—had recently
appeared. We know that his reputation for heterodoxy was already quite
widespread and that the majority of the Egyptian clergy were by no
means upon his side. The trials to which he refers, therefore, may well
have been a result of this hostility to his teachings existing among
the clergy about him, and Demetrius may have shared to an extent in the
common feeling. At the same time his disapproval cannot have been very
pronounced, or he could not have given his official sanction to
Origen’s important visit to Achaia. But now, things being in this
condition, Origen set out upon his mission, leaving Heraclas in charge
of his school, and undoubtedly with the expectation of returning again,
for he left the unfinished sixth book of his commentary on John behind
him (see preface to the sixth book). He stopped in Palestine on his way
to Athens, and there was ordained a presbyter by the bishops of that
country (upon the motives which prompted him in the matter, see below,
p. 397). The result was a complete break between Demetrius and himself,
and his condemnation by an Alexandrian synod. To understand
Demetrius’ action in the matter, we must remember that both
Eusebius and Jerome attribute the change in his attitude to jealousy
of
On Bk. VI. chap. 12, § 6.
Since this passage was printed, I have seen Westcott’s translation of this fragment of Serapion’s epistle in his Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed. p. 390 sq. (cf. especially p. 391, note), and am glad to note that his rendering of the words καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ is the same as my own. His interpretation of one or two other points I am unable to adopt.
On Bk. VI. chap. 23, § 4 (note 6). Origen’s Visit to Achaia.
Eusebius gives as the cause of
Origen’s visit to Greece simply “a pressing necessity in
connection with ecclesiastical affairs,” but Jerome (de vir.
ill. c. 54) tells us that it was on account of heresies which were
troubling the churches of Achaia (propter ecclesias Achaiæ,
quæ pluribus hæresibus vexabantur). Photius (Cod.
118) reports that Origen went to Athens without the
As to the cause of Origen’s ordination, it is quite possible, as Redepenning suggests, that when he went a second time to Palestine, his old friends, the bishops of Cæsarea, of Jerusalem, and of other cities, wished to hear him preach again, but that remembering the reproof of the bishop Demetrius, called forth by his preaching on the former occasion (see chap. 19), he refused, and that then the Palestinian bishops, in order to obviate that difficulty, insisted on ordaining him. It is not impossible that Origen, who seems never to have been a stickler for the exact observance of minor ecclesiastical rules and formalities, supposed that Demetrius, who had shown himself friendly in the past, and not hostile to him because of his youthful imprudence (see chap. 8), would concur willingly in an ordination performed by such eminent bishops, and an ordination which would prove of such assistance to Origen in the accomplishment of the work in Achaia which he was undertaking with the approval of Demetrius himself, even though the latter could not bring himself to violate what he considered an ecclesiastical canon against the ordination of eunuchs. We can thus best explain Origen’s consent to the step which, when we consider his general character, it is difficult to suppose he would have taken in conscious opposition to the will of his bishop. (On Demetrius’ view of the matter, see above, p. 394 sq.) He was ordained, according to Jerome’s de vir. ill. c. 54 (cf. also chap. 8, above), by Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, together with “the most distinguished bishops of Palestine” (as Eusebius says in chap. 8).
On Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 11.
For in the reputed second or third Epistle of John, read in the extant second and third Epistles of John (ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φερομένῃ ᾽Ιω€ννου καὶ τρίτῃ).
On Bk. VII. chap. 26, § 1 (note 4, continued).
On Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism and the occasion of the Apology (žλεγχος καὶ ἀπολογία) in four books, which he addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. This work is no longer extant, but brief fragments of it have been preserved by Athanasius (in his De Sent. Dionysii) and by Basil ( in his De Spir. Sancto). English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 92 sq. The longer work was preceded by a shorter one, now lost, to which reference is made in one of the fragments of the longer work. We do not know the exact date of the work, but may assign it with considerable probability to the earlier part of the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome; that is, soon after 259. Upon this work and upon Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see especially Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, p. 91. sq.
On Bk. VIII. chap. 2, § 4 (note 3, continued). The Causes of the Diocletian Persecution.
The persecution of Diocletian,
following as it did a period of more than forty years during which
Christianity had been recognized as a religio licita, and
undertaken as it was by a man who throughout the first eighteen years
of his reign had shown himself friendly to the Christians, and had even
filled his own palace with Christian servants, presents a very
difficult problem to the historian. Why did Diocletian persecute? The
question has taxed the ingenuity of many scholars and has received a
great variety of answers. Hunziker (in his Regierung und Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Diocletianus
und seiner Nachfolger, Leipzig, 1869),
Burckhardt (in his Zeit
Constantins, Basel, 1853, 2d and improved
edition, Leipzig, 1880), and A. J. Mason (in his Persecution of
Diocletian, Cambridge and London, 1876), not to mention other
investigators, have treated the subject with great ability and at
considerable
We may suppose that at the same
time whatever vague plans were in the minds of any of the Christians
were crystallizing during that winter, as they began to realize that
Galerius’ hold upon the emperor was such that the latter could
never be brought to break with him. We may thus imagine that while
Galerius was seeking evidence of a plot, the plot itself was growing
and taking a more serious shape in the minds at least some of the more
daring and worldly minded Christians. Finally, sufficient proof was
gathered to convince even Diocletian that there was some sort of a plot
on foot, and that the plotters were Christians. The question then arose
what course should be pursued in the matter. And this question may well
have caused the calling together of a number of counsellors and the
consultation of the oracle of Apollo of which Lactantius tells us.
Galerius naturally wished to exterminate the Christians as a whole,
knowing their universal hostility to him; but Diocletian just as
naturally wished to punish only such as were concerned in the plot, and
was by no means convinced that the Christians as a whole were engaged
in it. The decision which was reached, and which is exhibited in the
edict of the 24th of February, 303 seems to confirm in a remarkable
manner the theory which has been presented. Instead of issuing an edict
against Christians in general, Diocletian directs his blows solely
against Christians in governmental circles,—public officials and
servants in official families (cf. the interpretation of the edict
given above in Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 6). This is certainly not the
procedure of an emperor who is persecuting on religious grounds. The
church officers should in that case have been first attacked as they
had been by Decius and Valerian. The singling out of Christians in
official circles—and the low as well as the high ones, the
servants as well as the masters—is a clear indication that the
motive was political, not religious. Moreover, that the edict was drawn
in such mild terms is a confirmation of this. These men were certainly
not all guilty, and it was not necessary to put them all to death. It
was necessary to put an end to the plot in the most expeditious and
complete way. The plotters should be shown that their plot was
discovered, and the whole thing should be broken up by causing some of
them to renounce their faith, by degrading and depriving of citizenship
all that would not renounce it. It was a very shrewd move. Executions
would but have increased the rebellious spirit and caused the plot to
spread. But Diocletian was well aware that any one that renounced his
faith would lose caste with his fellow-Christians, and even if he had
been a plotter in the past, he could never hope to gain anything in the
future from the accession of a Christian emperor. He was
The course of events after the publication of the First Edict is not difficult to follow. Fire broke out twice in the imperial palace. Lactantius ascribes it to Galerius, who was supposed to have desired to implicate the Christians; but, as Burckhardt remarks, Diocletian was not the man to be deceived in that way, and we may dismiss the suspicion as groundless. That the fires were accidental is possible, but extremely improbable. Diocletian at least believed that they were kindled by Christians, and it must be confessed that he had some ground for his belief. At any rate, whether true or not, the result was the torture (for the sake of extorting evidence) and the execution of some of his most faithful servants (see Bk. VIII. chap. 6). It had become an earnest matter with Diocletian, and he was beginning to feel—as he had never had occasion to feel before—that a society within the empire whose claims were looked upon as higher than those of the state itself, and duty to which demanded, in case of a disagreement between it and the state, insubordination, and even treason, toward the latter, was too dangerous an institution to tolerate longer, however harmless it might be under ordinary circumstances. It was at about this time that there occurred rebellions in Melitene and Syria, perhaps in consequence of the publication of the First Edict; at any rate, the Christians, who were regarded with ever increasing suspicion, were believed to be in part at least responsible for the outbreaks, and the result was that a second edict was issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches should be thrown into prison (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6). Here Diocletian took the same step taken by Decius and Valerian, and instituted thereby a genuine religious persecution. It was now Christians as Christians whom he attacked; no longer Christian officials as traitors. The vital difference between the first and second edicts is very clear. All that followed was but the legitimate carrying out of the principle adopted in the Second Edict,—the destruction of the Church as such, the extermination of Christianity.
On Bk. X. chap. 8, § 4 (note I, a).
After Constantine’s victory over Maxentius, his half-sister Constantia, daughter of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, was married to Licinius, and thus the alliance of the two emperors was cemented by family ties. Constantius Chlorus was a grandson of Crispus, brother of the Emperor Claudius II., and hence could claim to be, in a sense, of imperial extraction; a fact which gave him a dignity beyond that of his colleagues, who were all of comparatively low birth. Constantine himself and his panegyrists always made much of his illustrious descent.
|
Augustus......................................................................................................... b.c. 27–a.d. 14 |
||||||||||||
|
Tiberius................................................................................................................. a.d. 14–37 |
||||||||||||
|
Caius Caligula................................................................................................................ 37–41 |
||||||||||||
|
Claudius........................................................................................................................ 41–54 |
||||||||||||
|
Nero............................................................................................................................. 54–68 |
||||||||||||
|
Galba............................................................................................................................ 68–69 |
||||||||||||
|
Otho................................................................................................................................... 69 |
||||||||||||
|
Vitellius............................................................................................................................... 69 |
||||||||||||
|
Vespasian...................................................................................................................... 69–79 |
||||||||||||
|
Titus.............................................................................................................................. 79–81 |
||||||||||||
|
Domitian........................................................................................................................ 81–96 |
||||||||||||
|
Nerva............................................................................................................................ 96–98 |
||||||||||||
|
Trajan......................................................................................................................... 98–117 |
||||||||||||
|
Hadrian..................................................................................................................... 117–138 |
||||||||||||
|
Antoninus Pius........................................................................................................... 138–161 |
||||||||||||
|
Marcus Aurelius [Antoninus Verus] Lucius Verus |
} |
............................................................. 161–180 ............................................................. 161–169 |
||||||||||
|
Commodus................................................................................................................ 180–192 |
||||||||||||
|
Pertinax............................................................................................................................. 193 |
||||||||||||
|
Didius Julianus................................................................................................................... 193 |
||||||||||||
|
Niger......................................................................................................................... 193–194 |
||||||||||||
|
Septimius Severus...................................................................................................... 193–211 |
||||||||||||
|
Caracalla Geta |
} |
....................................................................................................... 211–217 ....................................................................................................... 211–212 |
||||||||||
|
M. Opilius Macrinus.................................................................................................. 217–218 |
||||||||||||
|
Heliogabalus, or Elagabalus........................................................................................ 218–222 |
||||||||||||
|
Alexander Severus..................................................................................................... 222–235 |
||||||||||||
|
Maximin I.................................................................................................................. 235–238 |
||||||||||||
|
The Gordians, I and II............................................................................................... 237–238 |
||||||||||||
|
Maximus Pupienus Balbinus |
} |
................................................................................................ 238 |
||||||||||
|
Gordian III................................................................................................................ 238–244 |
||||||||||||
|
Philip......................................................................................................................... 244–249 |
||||||||||||
|
Decius....................................................................................................................... 249–251 |
||||||||||||
|
Gallus........................................................................................................................ 251–252 |
||||||||||||
|
Æmilian............................................................................................................................. 253 |
||||||||||||
|
Valerian..................................................................................................................... 253–260 |
||||||||||||
|
Gallienus.................................................................................................................... 260–268 |
||||||||||||
|
Claudius II................................................................................................................. 268–270 |
||||||||||||
|
Aurelian..................................................................................................................... 270–275 |
||||||||||||
|
Tacitus...................................................................................................................... 275–276 |
||||||||||||
|
Probus...................................................................................................................... 276–282 |
||||||||||||
|
Carus........................................................................................................................ 282–283 |
||||||||||||
|
Carinus Numerian |
} |
.................................................................................................... 283–284 |
||||||||||
|
Diocletian Maximian |
} |
.................................................................................................... 284–305 .................................................................................................... 285–305 |
||||||||||
|
Constantius Galerius Maxentius (not recognized by the others) Licinius Constantine Maximin II. |
} |
.............. .............. |
} |
....................................... 305–306 ....................................... 305–311 ....................................... 306–312 ....................................... 307–323 ....................................... 308–313 ....................................... 308–337 |
||||||||
The Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, mentioned by Eusebius.
Bishops of Rome.
(Dates taken from the table given by Lipsius in his Chronologie der röm. Bischöfe, p. 263 sq.)
|
Linus. |
Pontianus, 5 years 2 months 7 days; (July 21?), 230–Sept. 28, 235. |
|
Anencletus. |
Anteros, 1 month 12 days; Nov. 21, 235–Jan. 3, 236. |
|
Clement. |
Fabianus, 14 years 10 days; 236–Jan. 20, 250. Vacancy from Jan. 21, 250–March, 251. |
|
Evarestus. |
Cornelius, 2 years 3 months 10 days; beginning of March, 251–middle of June, 253. |
|
Alexander. |
Lucius, 8 months 10 days; June (25?), 253–March 5, 254. |
|
Xystus I, for about ten years; died between 124 and 126. |
Stephanus, 3 years 2 months 21 days; (May 12?), 254–Aug. 6, 258. |
|
Telesphorus, 11 years; died between 135 and 137. |
Xystus II., 11 months 12 (6?) days; Aug. 24 (31?), 257–Aug. 6, 258. |
|
Hyginus, 4 years; died between 139 and 141. |
Dionysius, 9 years 5 months 2 days; July 22, 259–Dec. 27, 268. |
|
Pius, 15–16 years; died between 154 and 156. |
Felix I., 5 years 11 months 25 days; Jan. 5, 269–Dec. 30, 274. |
|
Anicetus, 11–12 years; died in 166 or 167. |
Eutychian, 8 years 11 months 3 days; (Jan. 5?) 275–Dec. 8, 283. |
|
Soter, 8–9 years; died in 174 or 175. |
Caius, 12 years 4 months 6 days; Dec. 17, 283–April 22, 296. |
|
Eleutherus, 15 years; died in 189. |
Marcellinus, 8 years 3 months 25 days; June 30, 296–(Oct. 25?), 304. Vacancy until 307. |
|
Victor, 9–10 years; 189–198 or 199. |
Marcellus, 1 year 7 months 21 days; (May 24?), 307–Jan. 15, 309. |
|
Zephyrinus, 18–19 years; 198 or 199–217 (Aug. 26?). |
Eusebius, 3 (4?) months 23 (16?) days; April 23 (16?), 309–Aug. 17, 309. Vacancy until 310. |
|
Callistus, 5 years; 217–Oct. 14, 222. |
Miltiades, 3 years 6 months 8 days; July 2, 310–Jan. 10 (11?), 314. |
|
Urbanus, 8 years; 222–230 (May 19?). |
Bishops of Alexandria.
|
Annianus. |
Justus. |
Agrippinus. |
Dionysius. |
|
Abilius. |
Eumenes. |
Julian. |
Maximus. |
|
Cerdon. |
Marcus. |
Demetrius. |
Theonas. |
|
Primus. |
Celadion. |
Heraclas. |
Peter. |
(Dates taken from the table given by Harnack in his Zeit des Ignatius, p. 62.)
|
Evodius. |
Zebinus, died between 238 and 249. |
|
Ignatius. |
Babylas, died in 250, during the persecution of Decius. |
|
Hero. |
Fabius, died toward the end of 252 or early in 253. |
|
Cornelius. |
Demetrian, died between 257 and 260. |
|
Eros. |
Paul, deposed between 266 and 269 (probably in 268). |
|
Theophilus, died not earlier than 182. |
Domnus. |
|
Maximinus, died between 189 and 192. |
Timæus, died about 280. |
|
Serapion, died about 209. |
Cyril, sent to the mines in 303, and died probably toward the end of 306. |
|
Asclepiades, died between 211 and 222. |
Tyrannus, succeeded Cyril probably in 303, possibly not until 306, and lived until the close of the persecution. |
|
Philetus, died not long before 229–231. |
Bishops of Jerusalem.
|
James. |
Justus. |
Gaius I. |
Dius. |
|
|
Symeon. |
Levi. |
Symmachus. |
Germanio. |
|
|
Justus. |
Ephres. |
Gaius II. |
Gordius. |
|
|
Zacchæus. |
Joseph. |
Julian II. |
Narcisscus, a second time. |
|
|
Tobias. |
Judas. |
Capito. |
Alexander. |
|
|
Benjamin. |
Marcus. |
Maximus II. Antoninus. |
} These two names are omitted by Eusebius in his History, but
are given in his Chron. and also by Epiphanius. See above, Bk.
V. chap. 12, note 2. |
Mazabanes. |
|
John. |
Cassianus. |
Hymenæus. |
||
|
Matthias. |
Publius. |
Valens. |
Zambdas. |
|
|
Philip. |
Maximus I. |
Dolichianus. |
Hermon. |
|
|
Seneca. |
Julian I. |
Narcissus. |
||
Table showing the Roman Method of counting the Days of the Month.
(Taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica, article Calendar.)
|
Days of the Month. |
March. May. July. October. |
January. August. December. |
April. June. September. November. |
February. |
|
1 |
Kalendæ. |
Kalendæ. |
Kalendæ. |
Kalendæ. |
|
2 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
3 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
4 |
4 |
Prid. Nonas. |
Prid. Nonas. |
Prid. Nonas. |
|
5 |
3 |
Nonæ. |
Nonæ. |
Nonæ. |
|
6 |
Prid. Nonas. |
8 |
8 |
8 |
|
7 |
Nonæ. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
|
8 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
9 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
|
10 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
11 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
12 |
4 |
Prid. Idus. |
Prid. Idus. |
Prid. Idus. |
|
13 |
3 |
Idus. |
Idus. |
Idus. |
|
14 |
Prid. Idus. |
19 |
18 |
16 |
|
15 |
Idus. |
18 |
17 |
15 |
|
16 |
17 |
17 |
16 |
14 |
|
17 |
16 |
16 |
15 |
13 |
|
18 |
15 |
15 |
14 |
12 |
|
19 |
14 |
14 |
13 |
11 |
|
20 |
13 |
13 |
12 |
10 |
|
21 |
12 |
12 |
11 |
9 |
|
22 |
11 |
11 |
10 |
8 |
|
23 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
7 |
|
24 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
6 |
|
25 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
|
26 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
|
27 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
|
28 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
Prid. Kal. Mart. |
|
29 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
30 |
3 |
3 |
Prid. Kalen. |
|
|
31 |
Prid. Kalen. |
Prid. Kalen. |
“Those which were comprised between the Kalends and the Nones were called the days before the Nones; those between the Nones and the Ides were called the days before the Ides; and, lastly, all the days after the Ides to the end of the month were called the days before the Kalends of the succeeding month.
“In the months of March, May, July, and October, the Ides fell on the 15th day, and the Nones consequently on the 7th: so that each of these months had six days named from the Nones. In all the other months the Ides were on the 13th and the Nones were on the 5th; consequently there were only four days named from the Nones. Every month had eight days named from the Ides. The number of days receiving their denomination from the Kalends depended on the number of days in the month and the day on which the Ides fell. For example, if the month contained 31 days, and the Ides fell on the 13th as was the case in January, August, and December, there would remain 18 days after the Ides, which, added to the first of the following month, made 19 days of Kalends. In January, therefore, the 14th day of the month was called the nineteenth before the Kalends of February (counting inclusively), the 15th was the 18th before the Kalends, and so on to the 30th, which was called the third before the Kalends (tertio Kalendas), the last being the second of the Kalends, or the day before the Kalends (pridie Kalendas).”
Table of Macedonian Months
The months of the Macedonian year, as commonly employed in the time of Eusebius, corresponded exactly to the Roman months, but the year began with the first of September. The names of the months were as follows:—
|
Macedonian. |
Roman. |
Macedonian. |
Roman. |
|
1. Gorpiæus. |
September. |
7. Dystrus. |
March. |
|
2. Hyperberetæus. |
October. |
8. Xanthicus. |
April. |
|
3. Dius. |
November. |
9. Artemisius. |
May. |
|
4. Apellæus. |
December. |
10. Dæsius. |
June. |
|
5. Audynæus. |
January. |
11. Panemus. |
July. |
|
6. Peritius. |
February. |
12. Loüs. |
August. |
the life of constantine,
By Eusebius,
together with the
oration of constantine to the assembly of the saints,
and the
oration of eusebius in praise of constantine.
A Revised Translation, with Prolegomena and Notes, by
Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.d.
librarian and associate professor in hartford theological seminary.
Preface.
————————————
In accordance with the instruction of the editor-in-chief the following work consists of a revision of the Bagster translation of Eusebius’ “Life of Constantine,” Constantine’s “Oration to the Saints,” and Eusebius’ “Oration in Praise of Constantine,” with somewhat extended Prolegomena and limited notes, especial attention being given in the Prolegomena to a study of the Character of Constantine. In the work of revision care has been taken so far as possible not to destroy the style of the original translator, which though somewhat inflated and verbose, represents perhaps all the better, the corresponding styles of both Eusebius and Constantine, but the number of changes really required has been considerable, and has caused here and there a break in style in the translation, whose chief merit is that it presents in smooth, well-rounded phrase the generalized idea of a sentence. The work on the Prolegomena has been done as thoroughly and originally as circumstances would permit, and has aimed to present material in such way that the general student might get a survey of the man Constantine; and the various problems and discussions of which he is center. It is impossible to return special thanks to all who have given special facilities for work, but the peculiar kindness of various helpers in the Bibliothèque de la Ville at Lyons demands at least the recognition of individualized thanksgiving.
E.C.R.
Hartford, Conn., April 15, 1890.
Prolegomena.
__________
I.—Constantine the Great.
__________
Chapter I
Life. This sketch of the life of Constantine is intended to give the
thread of events, and briefly to supplement, especially for the earlier
part of his reign, the life by Eusebius, which is distinctly confined
to his religious acts and life.
§1. Early Years
The Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed the Great, “Imperator Cæsar Augustus Consul Proconsul Pontifex
Maximus, Magnus, Maximus, Pius, Felix, Fidelis, Mansuetus, Benificus,
Clementissimus, Victor, Invictus, Triumphator, Salus Reip. Beticus,
Alemanicus, Gothicus, Sarmarticus, Germanicus, Britannicus, Hunnicus,
Gallicanus,” is a portion of his title, as gathered from coins,
inscriptions, and various documents. Calendarium Rom. in Petavius Uranal. p. 113. The date varies by a
year or two, according to way of reckoning, but 274 is the date usually
given. (Cf. Burckhardt, Manso, Keim, De Broglie, Wordsworth, etc.)
Eutropius and Hieronymus say he died in his sixty-sixth year,
Theophanes says he was sixty-five years old, and Socrates and Sozomen
say substantially the same, while Victor, Epit. has sixty-three,
and Victor, Cæs. sixty-two. Eusebius says he lived twice
the length of his reign, i.e. 63 +. Manso chose 274, because
it agreed best with the representations of the two Victors as over
against the “later church historians.” But the two Victors
say, one that he lived sixty-two years and reigned thirty-two, and the
other that he lived sixty-three and reigned thirty; while Eutropius,
secretary to Constantine, gives length of reign correctly, and so
establishes a slight presumption in favor of his other statement.
Moreover, it is supported by Hieronymus, whose testimony is not of the
highest quality, to be sure, and is quite likely taken from Eutropius,
and Theophanes, who puts the same fact in another form, and who
certainly chose that figure for a reason. The statement of Eusebius is
a very elastic generalization, and is the only support of Victor,
Epit. Socrates, who, according to Wordsworth, says he was in his
sixty-fifth year, uses the idiom “mounting upon”
(ἐπιβ€ς)
sixty-five years, which at the least must mean nearly sixty-five years
old, and unless there is some well-established usage to the contrary,
seems to mean having lived already sixty-five years. In the
interpretation of Sozomen (also given in translation “in
his sixty-fifth year”) he was “about” sixty-five
years old. Now if he died in May, his following birthday would not have
been as “about,” and he must have been a little over
sixty-five. This would make a strong consensus against Victor, against
whom Eutropius alone would have a presumption of accuracy. On the whole
it may be said that in the evidence, so far as cited by Manso,
Wordsworth, Clinton, and the run of historians, there is no critical
justification for the choice of the later date and the shorter
life. Anon. Vales. p. 471. Const. Porphyr. (De themat. 2. 9),
Stephanus Byzant. art. Ναϊσσός (ed. 1502, H. iii.), “Firmicus 1. 4.” According to
some it was Tarsus (“Julius Firmic. 1. 2”), or Drepanum
(Niceph. Callist.), or in Britain (the English chroniclers, Voragine,
and others, the mistake arising from one of the panegyrists (c. 4)
speaking of his taking his origin thence), or Trèves (Voragine).
Compare Vogt, who adds Rome (“Petr. de Natalibus”), or Roba
(“Eutychius”), or Gaul (“Meursius”). Compare
also monographs by Janus and by Schoepflin under
Literature. For characterization of Constantius compare V. C. 1. 13
sq. It has been a much discussed question, whether Helena was
legitimate wife or not. Some (Zosimus 2. 8; Niceph. Callist. 7. 18)
have asserted that Helena was a woman “indifferent honest,”
and the birth of Constantine illegitimate. This view is simply
psychologically impossible regarding a woman of so much and such
strength of character. That she stood in the relation of legitimate
concubinage (cf. Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1. 422) is not
improbable, since many (Hieron. Orosius, Zosimus 2.8; Chron. Pasch. p.
516, and others) assert this lesser relationship. This would have been
not unlike a modern morganatic marriage. The facts are: 1. That she is
often spoken of as concubine (cf. above). 2. That she is distinctly
called wife, and that by some of the most competent authorities
(Eutrop. 10. 2; Anon. Vales. p. 471; Euseb. H. E. 8. 13; Ephraem
p. 21, etc.), also in various inscriptions (compare collected
inscriptions in Clinton 2. 81). 3. That she was divorced (Anon. Vales.
p. 47). The weight of testimony is clearly in favor of the word
“wife,” though with divorce so easy it seems to have been a
name only. The view that she was married in the full legal sense, but
only after the birth of Constantine, is plausible enough, and has a
support more apparent than real, in the fact that he “first
established that natural children should be made legitimate by the
subsequent marriage of their parents” (Sandars Inst. Just.
(1865) 113; cf. Cod. Just. V. xxvii. 1 and 5 ed. Krueger 2 (1877)
216). Of course the story of
her violation by and subsequent marriage to Constantius (Inc. auct. ed.
Heydenreich) is purely legendary, and the same may be said of the
somewhat circumstantial account of her relation as concubine, given by
Nicephorus Callistus 7, 18. For farther account of Helena, compare the
V. C. 3. 42 and notes. Helena was born probably at Drepanum, afterwards called
Helenopolis, in her honor, by Constantine (Procopius De
ædif. V. 2, p. 311, Chron. Pasch. etc.). This appears from the disregard of his father’s repeated
requests that he be sent back to him (Lact., Anon. Vales. p. 471), and
the whole story of his final flight. So also it is said by Anon. Vales.
p. 471, and the two Victors (Cæs. p. 156, Epit. p.
49). Zonaras (12. 33, ed. Migne 1091), gives both reasons for sending,
and is likely right. Nicephorus Callistus (7. 18) suggests that he was
sent there for education, since Constantius could not take him himself
on account of Theodora. He was with Diocletian still in 305 (cf. Lact. and note, below),
and was with his father early in 306. Eusebius, who saw him on his way to Egypt in 296, gives the
impression which he made on him at that time (l.c.). According to some
he was also with Galerius in his Persian war, and this is possible (cf.
Clinton 1. 338–40). Theophanes describes him as “already
eminent in war” (p. 10), Anon. Vales. p. 471, as conducting
himself “bravely.” This
was probably a morganatic marriage or concubinate (Victor, Epit.
41, Zosimus 2. 20; Zonaras 13. 2, &c.). “The improbability
that Constantine should have marked out an illegitimate son as his
successor” which Ramsay (Smith, Dict. 2. 1090) mentions as
the only argument against, is reduced to a minimum in view of
Constantine’s law for the legitimization of natural children by
rescript (Cod. Just. V. xxvii. ed. Krueger 2 (1877), 216–17; cf.
notes of Sandars in his Inst. Just. (1865) 113). It would be
uncritical, as in the case before mentioned, to lay stress on this as
positive evidence, but over against a simple
“improbability” it has a certain suggestiveness at least.
The panegyrical praises of Constantine’s continence hardly
justify Clinton’s claim that she was lawful wife; for to have a
regular concubine would not have been considered in any sense immoral,
and it would not have been particularly pertinent in a wedding oration
to have introduced even a former wife. For what little is known of
Minervina, compare Ramsay, in Smith Dict. 2. 1090,
“Tillemont, Hist. Emp. IV. iv. p. 84,” and Clinton,
Fasti Rom. 2. (1850) 86, note k. Crispus was “already a young man” when made Cæsar
in 317 (Zos. 2. 30). According to some (e.g. Victor, Cæs. p. 156; Victor,
Epit. p. 51; Zos. 2. 8) his father was already in
Britain.
The will of the father was
promptly ratified by the soldiers, who at once proclaimed Constantine
Augustus. So
Eusebius H. E. 8. 13; Lact. c. 25; Julian Orat. 1. p. 13.
Eumenius (Paneg. 310, c. 7) says that he was elected
“imperator,” but in cc. 8–9 speaks of him as having
become Cæsar. Eutropius (10. 2) also uses the word
“imperator.” Zosimus, on the other hand (2. 9), and
Anonymus Vales. say he was elected “Augustus,” but was only
confirmed “Cæsar” by Galerius (see below). The
elevation was in Britain (cf. Eutrop. 10. 2; Eumen. Paneg. (310)
c. 9; Soz. 1. 5, &c.). See
coins in Eckhel 8, p. 72, under the year. It is also expressly stated
by Paneg. (307) c. 5.
Meanwhile affairs were marching
at Rome, too. The same year (306) that Constantine was elected Augustus
by the soldiers, Maxentius at Rome was proclaimed emperor by the
Pretorian Guards (Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Cæs. p. 156; Anon.
Vales. p. 472; Zos. 2. 9; Socr. 1. 2; Oros. c. 26, &c.; Lact. c.
26). He persuaded the willing (Eutrop. 10. 2) Maximian to resume the
imperial purple (Lact. c. 26; Zos. 2. 10), but soon quarreled with him
(Socr. 1. 2; Eutrop. 10. 3; Zos. 2. 11; Lact. c. 28). It
is said by many that the quarrel was a feigned one, and that it was
wholly for the purpose of getting rid of Constantine in behalf of
Maxentius that he betook himself to Gaul. That he went to Gaul with
this purpose, at least, is mentioned by many (cf. Lact. c. 29; Oros. c.
28; Eutrop. 10. 2, “on a planned stratagem”). It seems
curious, if he had attempted to supersede Maxentius by raising a mutiny
(Eutrop. 10. 3), that he should now be working for him and planning to
rejoin him (Eutrop. 10. 2), but it is no inconsistency in this man, who
was consistent only in his unceasing effort to destroy others for his
own advantage. Compare on all this Lact. c. 29; Eumen. Paneg c.
14. Socrates (1. 2) with many others (e.g. Zos. 2. 11) says he died at
Tarsus, confusing him thus with Maximinus.
Though in the midst of wars and
plots, and liable at any time to have to run from one end of his
province to the other to put down some insurrection, Constantine kept
steadily at the work of internal improvement, organizing the interior,
fortifying the boundaries, building bridges, restor Notably at Autun. The city had been almost destroyed. Eumenius,
whose oration of thanks in behalf of the people of Autun is extant,
praises Constantine as the restorer, almost the founder. The work had
been undertaken by Constantius, indeed, but was carried on by his son.
Constantine’s work of internal improvement was in many ways
distinctly a continuation of the work begun by Constantius. Compare
Eumen. Paneg. (especially c. 13, 22, &c.) and Grat.
act.
§3. State of Affairs in 311.
In the meantime, while the extreme west of the empire was enjoying the mild rule of Constantine, the other corners of the now quadrangular and now hexagonal world, over which during this time Maximinus, Galerius, Licinius, Maximian, and Maxentius had tried to reign, had had a much less comfortable time. Every emperor wanted a corner to himself, and, having his corner, wanted that of some one else or feared that some one else wanted his. In order clearly to understand Constantine, a glimpse of the state of affairs in these other parts of the empire, together with some idea of the kind of men with whom he had to deal is essential, and may be gotten from a brief view of (1) The rulers, (2) Characters of the rulers, (3) Condition of the ruled.
I. The Rulers.
The intricate process of evolution and devolution of emperors, mysterious to the uninitiated as a Chinese puzzle, is briefly as follows: In 305 Diocletian and Maximian had abdicated (Lact. c. 18; Eutrop. 9. 27; Vict. Cæs.), Galerius and Constantius succeeding as Augusti and Severus, Maximinus Daza succeeding them as Cæsars (Lact. c. 19). In 306 Constantius died, Constantine was proclaimed Augustus by his army, Maxentius by the Pretorian Guards (cf. above), and Severus by Galerius (Lact. c. 25), while Maximian resumed the purple (see above)—four emperors, Galerius, Severus, Maximian, and Maxentius, with two Cæsars, Constantine and Maximinus, one with a pretty definite claim to the purple, and the other bound not to be left out in the cold. In 307 Licinius was appointed Augustus by Galerius (Lact. c. 29; Vict. Cæs.; Zos. 2. 11; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 4), who also threw a sop to Cerberus by naming Constantine and Maximin “sons of emperors” (Lact. c. 32; Coins in Eckhel 8 (1838) 52. 3). Constantine was given title of Augustus by Maximianus (?), and Maximinus about this time was forced, as he said, by his army to assume the title. Meantime the growing procession of emperors was reduced by one. Severus, sent against Maxentius, was deserted by his soldiers, captured, and slain in 307 (Lact. c. 26; Zos. 2. 10; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Cæs. &c. &c.), leaving still six emperors or claimants,—Galerius, Licinius, Maxentius, Maximian, Maximinus, and Constantine. In 308, making the best of a bad matter, Galerius appointed Constantine and Maximin Augusti (see above), leaving the situation unchanged, and so it remained until the death of Maximian in 310 (see above), and of Galerius in May, 311 (Lact. c. 33; Vict. Cæs., Vict. Epit.; Zos. 2. 11) reduced the number to four.
II. Characters of the Rulers.
Constantine’s own
character has been hinted at and will be studied later. Severus was the
least significant of the others, having a brief reign and being little
mentioned by historians. Diocletian’s characterization of him
was, according to Lactantius (c. 18), as ejaculated to Galerius,
“That dancing, carousing drunkard who turns night into day and
day into night.” The average character of the other emperors was
that of the prisoners for life in our modern state prisons. Galerius,
“that pernicious wild beast” (Lact. c. 25), was uneducated,
drunken (Anon. Vales. p. 472); fond of boasting himself to be the
illegitimate son of a dragon (Lact. 9; Vict. Epit. p. 49), and
sanguinary and ferocious to an extraordinary degree (Lact. c. 9. 21,
22, &c.). Licinius, characterized by “ingratitude” and
“cold-blooded ferocity,” was “not only totally
III. Condition of the Ruled.
Under such rulers there was a reign of terror during this period which contrasted strangely with the state of things under Constantine. Galerius was “driving the empire wild with his taxations” (cf. Lact. c. 23 and 26), affording in this also a marked contrast with the course of Constantine in Gaul. Maxentius led in the unbridled exercise of passion (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14; cf. Lact. c. 18), but in this he differed from the others little except in degree (compare Euseb. V. C. 1. 55 on Licinius), and according to Lactantius (c. 28) he was surpassed by Maximin. In brief, all did according to their own sweet wills, and the people had to stand it as best they could. The worst was that the oppression did not end with the emperors nor the friends and officials to whom they delegated power to satisfy their desires at the expense of the helpless. Their armies were necessary to them. The soldiers had to be conciliated and exactions made to meet their demands. They followed the examples of their royal leaders in all manner of excesses and oppressions. No property or life or honor was safe.
The persecution of the
Christians reached a climax of horror in this period. The beginning of
the tenth persecution was, to be sure, a little before this (303), but
its main terror was in this time. Galerius and Maximian are said indeed
to have persecuted less during this period, and Maxentius not at all;
but Galerius was the real author and sanguinary promoter of the
persecution which is ascribed to Diocletian (Lact. c. 11), while
Maximian was, in 304, the author of the celebrated “Fourth
Edict” which made death the penalty of Christianity, and
Maxentius was only better because impartial—he persecuted both
Christian and heathen (Euseb. V. C. 1. 33–6; H. E.
8. 14; Eutrop. 10. 4). “Raging against the nobles with every kind of
destruction,” Eutrop. 10. 4. Edict of toleration was April 30; Constantine’s anniversary,
July 24. This edict was signed by Constantine and Licinius as well as by
Galerius. The Latin text is found in Lactantius, de mort. pers.
c. 24, and the Greek translation in Eusebius, H. E. 8.
17.
§4. Second Five Years.
This period was most momentous
for the world’s history. Maxentius, seeking an excuse for war
against Constantine, found it in a pretended desire to avenge his
father (Zos. 2. 14), and prepared for war. Eusebius represents the occasion of Constantine’s movement
as a philanthropic compassion for the people of Rome (V. C. 1.
26; H. E. 9. 9). Praxagoras (ed. Müller, p.
1) says distinctly that it was to avenge those who suffered under the
tyrannical rule of Maxentius and Nazarius (Paneg. c. 19), that
it was “for liberating Italy.” So, too, Nazarius
(Paneg. [321] c. 27), Zonaras (13. 1), Cedrenus, and Ephraem (p.
22) speak of a legation of the Romans petitioning him to go. Undoubtedly he did pity
them, and as to the legation, every Roman who found his way to
Trèves must have been an informal ambassador asking help. The fact
seems to be that he had long suspected Maxentius (Zos. 2. 15), and now,
learning of his preparations for war, saw that his suspicions were well
grounded. Whatever underlying motive of personal ambition there may
have been, it is probable that the philanthropic motive was his
justification and pretext to his own conscience for the attempt to rid
himself of this suspected and dangerous neighbor. Zosimus being
Zosimus, it is probable that Maxentius was the aggressor if he says
so. Constantine numbered, according to Zosimus, 90,000 foot, 8,000
horse; and Maxentius, 170,000 foot, and 18,000 horse. According to
Panegyr. (313) c. 3, he left the major part of his army to guard the
Rhine and went to meet a force of 100,000 men with less than 40,000 (c.
5). See
note on Bk. I. c. 28. That “on the same day the enemy of the Romans should
perish” (Lact. c. 44.). The circumstance pronounced by Wordsworth “almost
incredible” is witnessed to by Eusebius (V. C. 1. 38),
Zosimus (2. 15), Praxagoras (ed. Müller, p. 1). The bridge
certainly broke as mentioned by Lactantius (c. 44) and as represented
on the triumphal arch, but whether the “plot” was an ex
post facto notion or not is unclear. “Senate and people rejoiced with incredible rejoicing”
(Vict. Cæs. p. 159). Cf. Euseb. V. C. 1. 39;
Paneg. [313] c. 19; Naz. Paneg. c. 30; Chron.
Pasch. p. 521, &c. It
is said he put to death Romulus, son of Maxentius, but it lacks
evidence, and the fact that Romulus was consul for two years
(208–9) with Maxentius, and then Maxentius appears alone, seems
to indicate that he died in 209 or 210 (cf. Clinton, under the years
208 and 209). For
the churches he is said to have founded, compare note on Bk. I. ch.
42. The curious patchwork
triumphal arch which still stands in a state of respectable
dilapidation near the Coliseum at Rome, was erected in honor of this
victory. It is to be hoped that it was erected after Constantine had
gone, and that his æsthetic character is not to be charged with
this crime. It was an arch to Trajan made over for the
occasion,—by itself and piecemeal of great interest. Apart from
the mutilation made for the glory of Constantine, it is a noble piece
of work. The changes made were artistic disfigurements; but art’s
loss is science’s gain, and for the historian it is most
interesting. The phrase “instinctu divinitatis” has
its value in the “Hoc signo” discussion (cf. notes
to the V. C.); and the sculptures are most
suggestive.
Constantine was now sole emperor
in the West, and the emperors were reduced to three. History was making
fast. After a very brief stay in Rome he returned to Milan (Lact. c.
45), where Licinius met him (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Lact. c. 25; Vict.
Epit. p. 50; Zos. 2. 17, &c.). It had become of mutual
advantage to these emperors to join alliance. So a betrothal had been
made, and now the marriage of Licinius to the sister of Constantine was
celebrated (cf. refs. above Lact.; Vict.; Zos.; Anon. Vales.). At the
same time the famous Second Edict or Edict of Milan was drawn up by the
two emperors (Euseb. H. E. 10. 5; Lact. c. 48), and probably
proclaimed. It
has been maintained that there were three edicts of Constantine up to
this time: 1. Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius in 311; 2.
Constantine and Licinius in 312 (lost); 3. Constantine and Licinius in
313 (cf. Keim, p. 16 and 81–84; Zahn, p. 33). So Gass in Herzog,
p. 201, Wordsworth (Ch. Hist.), and others. But, like most
certain things, it seems to have been disproved. The “harder
edict” seems to have been a product of Eusebius’ rather
slovenly historical method, and to refer to the first, or Galerian
edict. The appeal of the Donatists to Constantine was first met by the
appointment of a “court of enquiry,” held at Rome, Oct. 2,
313. The result was unsatisfactory, and Constantine ordered an
examination on the spot, which took place at Carthage, Feb. 15, 314
(Phillott). The Donatists still urging, the Council of Arles was
called, Aug. 1, 314, and some progress seemed to be made, but progress
more satisfactory to the orthodox than to the schismatics, who urged
again that Constantine hear the matter himself, as he finally did,
November, 316 (Wordsworth; cf. Augustine, Ep. 43, ¶20). He
confirmed the previous findings, and took vigorous but ineffective
measures to suppress the Donatists, measures which he saw afterwards
could not be carried out, and perhaps saw to be unjust. Compare
Augustine, Ep. 43, ch. 2, and elsewhere, also various documents
from Augustine, Lactantius, Eusebius, Optatus, &c., collected in
Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 673–784. Compare also
Fuller, Donatism, Phillott, Felix,—articles in
Smith and W. Dict. &c.; and for general sources and
literature, cf. Donatist Schism, Hartranft, in Schaff, Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369–72; Völter,
Ursprung des Donatismus, 1883; and Seeck in Brieger’s
Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, 10 (1889),
505–508.
Licinius had a more critical
problem to meet. Maximin thought it a good time to strike while
Licinius was off in Milan engaged in festivities (Lact. c. 45); but the
latter, hastily gathering his troops and pushing on by forced marches,
met near Heraclea and utterly defeated him (Lact. c. 46). Maximin fled
precipitately, escaping the sword only to die a more terrible death
that same summer (Lact. c. 49; Euseb. V. C. 1. 58; cf. Zos. 2.
17). According to Lactantius (c. 49), an attempt at suicide by poison
was followed by a wretched disease, bringing to a lingering and most
painful death.
They, too, promptly fell out.
The next year they were at war. Causes and pretexts were various; but
the pretext, if not the cause, was in general that Licinius proved an
accomplice after the fact, at least, to a plot against Constantine. Bassianus, who had married Anastasia, sister of Constantine, was
incited by his brother, who was an adherent of Licinius, to revolt
against Constantine. The attempt was nipped in the bud, and Constantine
demanded from Licinius the author of the plot. His refusal, together
with the throwing down of the statues of Constantine, was the direct
occasion of the war (Anon. Vales. p. 473). Compare Eusebius, V.
C. 1. 50–51, and Socr. 1. 3, where Licinius is charged with
repeated treachery, perjury, and hypocrisy. Zosimus, on the other hand
(2. 18), distinctly says that Licinius was not to blame, but that
Constantine, with characteristic faithlessness to their agreement,
tried to alienate some of Licinius’ provinces. Here, however,
notice that Zosimus would not count any movement in behalf of
Christians as a proper motive, and sympathy for them was
undoubtedly one of the underlying reasons. Constantine at Cibalis had 20,000 Licinius 35,000 (Anon. Vales. p.
473). Zos. 2. 18; “by a sudden attack” (Eutrop. 10. 4);
“by night” (Vict. Epit. p. 50). Cf. Orosius, c.
28. After the battle of Cibalis the Greeks and the Macedonians, the
inhabitants of the banks of the Danube, of Achaia, and the whole nation
of Illyrica became subject to Constantine (Soz. 1. 6; cf. Anon. Vales.
p. 474; Zos. 2. 20; Oros. c. 28, &c.).
§5. Third Five Years.
About the time of his decennial
celebration, Perhaps earlier and perhaps later. It is generally placed in 317
(cf. Clinton, p. 370).
§6. Fourth Five Years.
If the third period was
relatively quiet the fourth was absolutely stirring. There had
undoubtedly been more or less fighting along the Danube frontier during
the preceding years, but early in this period there was a most
important campaign against the Sarmatians, in which they were defeated
and their king taken prisoner. Zos. 2. 21. An exhaustive discussion of this is that by Bessell,
Gothen, in Ersch u. Gruber, Encykl. I. 75 (Leipz. 1862),
132–33. The same article (p. 133–35) discusses various
relations of Goths and Sarmatians with Constantine. According to Sozomen, Licinius withdrew his favor from Christians
and persecuted them, because “He was deeply incensed against the
Christians on account of his disagreement with Constantine, and thought
to wound him by their sufferings; and, besides, he suspected that they
earnestly desired that Constantine should enjoy the sovereign
rule” (1. 7). In this view of the case, it is easy to see how and
why affairs marched as they did. Eusebius (H. E. 10. 9) makes
this, like the war against Maxentius, a real crusade in behalf of the
persecuted Christians. According to Zos. 2. 27, the final siege and surrender was at
Nicomedia. Compare note on Bk. II. ch. 18. For his presence at Rome at this time, compare authorities above,
and also law dated July, 326, given in Clinton (p. 380).
§7. Fifth Five Years.
The beginning of this period was
the beginning of the series of acts which have taken most from the
reputation of Constantine. Sometime in 326, perhaps while at Rome, he
ordered the death of his son Crispus. Crispus was alive and in power March 1, 326, as appears from coins
(cf. Eckhel, 8, p. 101–2). Whether he was put to death before the
Vicennalia does not appear, but that he was is not probable. For death
of Crispus and its date, compare Zos. 2. 29; Vict. Cæs.;
Soz. 1. 5; Vict. Epit. p. 50; Chron. Pasch.; Eutrop. 10.
6, &c., and discussion under Character. The same year according to Greg. Tur. (1. 34). Cf. Eutrop. and
Sidon. 327, and even 328, is the date given by some (cf. Clinton, v. 1,
p. 382, and Wordsworth). Disputed, but generally allowed. On this series of deaths, compare
the somewhat opposite views of Görres and Seeck in the articles
mentioned under Literature for latest views. The date of the beginning of the work is curiously uncertain.
Socrates (1. 6) puts it directly after the Council of Nicæa, and
Philostorgius in 334, while there is almost equal variety among the
modern historians. Burckhardt says Nov. 4, 326; De Broglie, 328 or 329;
Wordsworth as early as 325. It is possible that the strangeness which
he felt in visiting Rome in 326, and the hostility with which he was
met there (Zos. 2. 29, 30), may have been a moving cause in the
foundation of this “New Rome,” and that it was begun soon
after his visit there. He first began to build his capital near the
site of Ilium (Soz. 2. 3; Zos. 2. 30), but “led by the hand of
God” (Soz.), he changed his plan to that city whose site he so
much admired (Soz.). For accounts of the founding of Constantinople, see Soz. 2. 3;
Philostorgius, 2. 9; Malalas, 13. 5; Glycas, p. 462–64; Cedrenus,
p. 495–98; Theoph. 41–42. Compare Zosimus, 2. 30; Anon.
Vales. p. 475–76; Socrates, 1. 16; Orosius, c. 28; Praxagoras,
Zononas, Codinus, Nicephoras Callistus, &c.
§8. Sixth Five Years.
The main event of the last full
five-year period of this reign was the Gothic war (Hieron. An. 2347;
Idat.; Oros. c. 28; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Eutrop. 10. 7; Vict.
Cæs. p. 352; cf. Soz. 1. 26), undertaken in behalf of the
Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. l.c.), carried on by Constantine II.,
and brought to an end April 20, 332 (cf. Clinton). The following year
(333) Constans was
§9. Last Years.
Later in this year, Constantine
is known to have been at Jerusalem, where he dedicated a church (V.
C. 4. 40; Chron. Pasch., but wrong year). It was also the year of
the Synods of Tyre (Athanas. c. Ar. 1. p. 788; V. C. 4.
41; Theod. 1. 28). The same year, or early in the following one,
Eusebius pronounced his tricennial oration (see Special
Prolegomena). In 337 the Great Emperor died at Ancyrona, near
Nicomedia, just as he was preparing for an expedition against the
Persians, and was buried in the Church of the Apostles, at
Constantinople (cf. notes on Eusebius’ Life of Constantine). The events and dates of these later periods have to do mainly with
theological matters,—the “religious” activity of
Constantine, to which Eusebius devotes his attention so
fully,—and are treated in the V. C.
Chapter II
Character.
§1. Introduction
A man’s character consists of an inherited personality enlarged, modified, or disfigured by his own repeated voluntary acts. A sufficiently exhaustive survey of such character may be made under the rubrics of: 1. Inherited characteristics. 2. Physical characteristics. 3. Mental characteristics. 4. Moral characteristics. 5. Religious characteristics.
The character of Constantine has been so endlessly treated, with such utter lack of agreement, that it seems hopeless to try to reach any clear results in a study of it. “Who shall decide when doctors disagree?” “How shall I go about it to find what sort of a man Constantine really was?” Certainly nothing can be gained by that method which chooses a few acts or characteristics to which shifting tests of various philosophies are applied. Nor can any haphazard selection and stringing together of traits give what is by its nature a synthesis of them all. Like any other scientific study, the first condition of method is that it be systematic. Then, a character generalization is worth just so much, no more, as the grounds on which it is based. To get a man’s character from secondary sources, from other men’s generalizations, is a hopelessly will-of-the-wisp effort. Again, another vice of characterization as usually practised is the interpretation of the whole by a part rather than the part by the whole. The individual act is thus made the standard of character. To get at what this personality called Constantine was therefore requires a systematic survey of the primary sources with a view to getting the ensemble that the eccentric may be judged by the normal. In such survey the main thing is the body of analyzed and grouped facts. The editor’s summary, like any summary, is worth only what the facts are worth. This method, however imperfectly carried out, is at least better than rambling observations of incoherent phenomena; and has therefore been adopted in this attempt to find out what sort of a man this Constantine was; Physically, Mentally, Morally, Spiritually.
The fact of the inheritance of character, virtues or vices as the case may be, curiously recognized in various nations and ancient philosophies (cf. Ribot. Heredity, N.Y. 1875, p. 375–6), and even in the ten commandments, has received the clearer exposition of modern science. In view of it, a scientific study of character considers antecedent generations. Biography rests properly on genealogy. Constantine’s father, Constantius Chlorus, was a man of great mildness, self-possession, and philosophic virtue, just, and a Neo-Platonist of the best type, a monotheist and philanthropist (cf. Sinclair, in Smith & W. 1. 661–2). Constantine is said to have inherited his father’s strength, courage, personal appearance (Eumen. Paneg. c. 4), piety (Pseud.-Leo, p. 83; cf. Const. and Euseb. in V. C. 2. 49), and general virtues. The slur of Zosimus on the character of Constantine’s mother seems to have been quite gratuitous. Her relation to Constantius was in nowise incompatible with virtue, and the honor afterwards paid her, along with the indisputable good early training of Constantine which was with her, indicate a woman of unusual character. The later enterprise and activity with the honors and responsibilities given her show her to have been of very considerable energy and ability.
§3. Physical Characteristics.
A graphic picture of his
personal appearance is drawn by Cedrenus (p. 472–3).
“Constantinus Magnus was of medium height, broad-shouldered,
thick-necked, whence his epithet Bull-necked. His complexion was ruddy,
his hair neither thick nor crisp curling, his beard scanty and not
growing in many places, his nose slightly hooked, and his eyes like the
eyes of a lion. He was joyous of heart and most cheery of
countenance.” Cf.
Vict. Epit. p. 51, where “bull-necked” is rendered
as equal to “scoffer,” “such according to
physiognomical writers being the character of stout men,” Liddell
and Scott, Lex. p. 1569. But the very proverb on which Victor
bases this interpretation would seem to make it refer to energy and
obstinate force of character, which is altogether better fitting the
word and the physiognomical characteristic.
Added to his beauty of face was
an unquestioned beauty of form. His distinguished comeliness of
Figure (Lact. c. 18) is a favorite theme with his enthusiastic
friend Eusebius, who says, “No one was comparable with him for
grace and beauty of person” (cf. Eumen. c. 17; V. C.
1.
§4. Mental Characteristics.
According to his
biographer-friend, Constantine was even more conspicuous for the
excellence of his psychical qualities than his physical (V. C.
1. 19). Among these qualities are natural intelligence (V. C. 1.
19), sound judgment (V. C. 1. 19), well-disciplined power of
thought (Theoph. p. 29), and peculiarly, as might be expected from his
eye and general energy, penetration (Theoph. p. 29). In respect of
Education, it is said on the one hand that he “reaped the
advantages of a liberal education” (V. C. 1. 19), and
particularly that he was thoroughly trained in the art of reasoning
(V. C.); but according to Anonymous Vales. (p. 471), and also
Cedrenus (p. 473), his literary education was scanty. If there was
early lack, he made up for it afterwards with characteristic energy,
for he attained very considerable erudition (of a sort) for an emperor,
as is shown in his Oration. According to Eutropius he was
devoted to liberal studies. According to Lydus he was skilled both in
the science of letters and the science of arms; for “if he had
not excelled in both sciences, he would not have been made emperor of
the Romans” (Lydus, de Magist. 3. 33),—a somewhat
subjective ground. Such was his devotion to study that, according to
Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29), “he sometimes passed sleepless
nights in furnishing his mind with divine knowledge.” The measure
of his thoroughness may be gathered from the fact that his knowledge of
Greek even, does not seem to have been very extensive—“with
which he was not altogether unacquainted” (V. C. 3. 13).
His learning, as shown in his orations, is the learning of a man of
affairs, and has many elements of crudity and
His learning had at least the excellent quality that it was radiated with reference to expression, as all sound learning must be. According to Eusebius, much of his time was spent in composing discourses, many of which he delivered in public (V. C. 4. 29), and he continued to the last to compose discourses and to deliver frequent orations in public.
The description by Eusebius of the character of his orations (V. C. 4. 24) seems to forbid any assumption of pure vanity as his motive. It is the most natural thing in the world that an emperor should make speeches, and that he should speak on scholastic or religious themes, and with the use of classical philosophy, mythology, and literature, should be no surprise in the days of President Harrison, Mr. Gladstone, and the Emperor William. There is no doubt he wrote and spoke vigorously and effectively to his soldiers, and on political and judicial matters (witness his laws), and his learned literary production is very fair amateur work, considering. In the Delivery of his speeches he seems to have had self-possession and modesty of manner, as e.g. at the Council of Nicæa, where “he looked serenely around on the assembly with a cheerful aspect, and having collected his thoughts in a calm and gentle tone…proceeded to speak” (V. C. 3. 11). His Literary style was somewhat inflated and verbose, but for this, compare Special Prolegomena. His Patronage of learning showed his interest in it. Following his father’s example and continuing his work, he encouraged the schools in Gaul (cf. above). Hosius and Eusebius were his friends and counselors. He made Lactantius tutor to Crispus (Hieron. Chron.). He had copies of the Scriptures made and distributed (V. C. 3. 1). In short, he especially “encouraged the study of letters” (Vict. Epit. 51) in every way.
§5. Moral Characteristics.
(a) In relations with events,
things, or persons. First of all, Constantine excelled in
Energy, that fundamental of all developed character. He was
pre-eminent for masculine strength of character (Theoph. p. 29), a man
of energy (vir ingens, Eutrop. 10. 1). This was manifested at
every turn, in his successful military activity under Diocletian, in
the decisive acts at the time of leaving him, in the prosecution of
campaigns against Maximian, Maxentius, Licinius, in the wholesale way
in which he pushed internal improvements, the building of
Constantinople, the multiplication of Christian houses of worship, in
his studies, in his law-making; in short, in everything he touched
there was the same teeming, resistless energy of the man. His
Determination was “bent on effecting whatever he had
settled in his mind” (Eutrop. 10. 5). His Rapidity of
action when he rejoined his father is described by Lactantius as
incredible (Lact. c. 24). He showed the same alacrity in his quick
return and surprise of Maximian, in his first entry into Italy, and in
his campaign against Licinius. This energy and activity rose to
positive Impetuosity, which led him at Verona, before Rome, and
at Cibalis to plunge into the midst of battle, communicating his own
resistless, indomitable, alert will to do, to his soldiers. Closely
linked with these qualities was that personal Courage and Valor,
inherited from his father (Paneg. 307, c. 3), mentioned by Eusebius
(V. C. 1. 11), and explicitly or implicitly by almost every one.
This most indubitable of all his qualities was witnessed to even by the
scoffing Julian as “inexpressibly” great (Orat. p.
13), and mentioned even in the work whose chief aim seems, almost, to
detract from Constantine (Cæs. p. 23). United with all
these characteristics of greatness was a far-reaching Ambition.
This on the one hand is represented to be an ambition for power and
glory. He was “exceedingly ambitious of military glory”
(Eutrop. 10. 7); “aspiring to the sovereignty of the whole
world” (Eutrop. 10. 5). According to Zosimus, at the time of the
appointment of Severus and Maximin, already having his mind set on
attaining royalty he was roused to a greater desire by the honor
conferred on Severus and Maximin, and this eager desire of power was
already well known to many. On the other hand, this ambition is
represented to be a burning zeal for righting wrongs; his
In view of all this powerfulness of personality, it may be said of all successes of this “man of power” (Eutrop. 10. 5) what Eutropius says of his success in war, that it was great, “but not more than proportioned to his exertions” (Eutrop.). With all this energy of personality, however, he was far from being headstrong. On the contrary, he showed marked Prudence, resembling his father in this also (Paneg. 307, c. 3). Sustaining so long the delicate position at the court of Diocletian, all his provision for guarding the frontiers, his long-suffering in waiting to be confirmed Cæsar, in waiting his opportunity to meet Maxentius, in waiting and getting everything in hand before meeting Licinius, his wise moderation in demand on the conquered, and the not pressing forward until he had everything well arranged, show this, and a high degree of Patience withal. This latter virtue was peculiarly characteristic whether exercised in respect of things or plans or people, and his great patience in listening to complaints (Naz. c. 24) is only a part of the whole. As he was patient, so he was distinguished for Perseverance, and “firm and unshaken” (Theoph. p. 29) Steadfastness. So great energy united with these other qualities barely needs testimony to suggest great Faithfulness to his tasks in hand, as in that “strict attention to his military duties” which Lactantius says (c. 18) characterized him as a young man. In brief, his whole personality was a marked example of that balance of power and the measuring of remote ends which is included under the word Self-control, in the use of the philosophy of which he, as well as his father, was a disciple. In this exercise of his great energy towards himself he was recognized to be remarkable. This self-control was manifested especially in his unusual Chastity. As a young man he was marked by correct moral habits (probis moribus, Lact. c. 18). The specific testimony of Eusebius to this (V. C.) would have comparatively little weight on a point like this, and the same might be said, in a measure, of the testimony of the Panegyrists (Naz. c. 24; 307, c. 4; 313, c. 4), who mention this virtue. But panegyrical art would forbid the laudation of what was conspicuously lacking; rather it would not be mentioned, and the general testimony goes to show at least a contemporary reputation for extraordinary continence, considering his time and environment. His relationship with Minervina hardly touches this reputation, whether she was wife or only legitimate concubine. The accusations and innuendoes of Julian, Cæsars, have, in any fairly critical estimate, hardly more than the weight of some malignant gossip whose backbiting is from his own heart. “Honi soit qui mat y pense.” Like Licinius, he seems to have been unable to understand that purity of heart which permitted the free companionship of women in social or religious life. Julian’s general charge of luxuriousness and sensuousness (p. 43, 306, 25, 38, 42, &c.) must be regarded largely in the same light; for this delight in soft garments, precious gems, games, and festivities was, if we can judge aright, in no sense “enervating pleasure and voluptuous indulgence”: for he was indefatigable in studies and works of all sorts, although it is perhaps to be referred to the vanity and love of display of which he is accused, and of which more later.
(b) In relations with people. In general he was Amiable,—popular with the soldiers, popular even with his subdued enemies (Eutrop. 10. 7). Diocletian reminded Galerius (Lact. c. 18) that he was “amiable,” and he must have been so; for he was “loved by soldiers” (Eumen. c. 16), and so “endeared to the troops” that in the appointment of Cæsar he was “the choice of every individual” (Lact. c. 18). This popularity he indeed “sought by every kind of liberality and obligingness” (Eutr. 10. 7.), but what he sought he found.
A very large element in this
popularity was the universal Mildness, Mercifulness, and
Forbearance which he showed. In these is found a class of
characteristics which stand alongside his energy of character as
peculiarly characteristic and great. “He whose familiar habit it
was to save men’s lives” (V. C. 4. 6), as a young
man promised, in the opinion of Diocletian
This fact becomes more clear in
seeing how he excelled in kindred virtues. The Patience already
mentioned, distinguished forbearance, and undoubted benevolence, or at
least generosity, are traits which group with mercy and have no
fellowship with cruelty. And these he had. He showed distinguished
Forbearance, and that oftentimes, as in a disturbance at
Antioch, where he “applied with much forbearance the remedy of
persuasion” (V. C. 3. 59). The outrageous conduct of those
who, in the Arian disturbances, dared “even to insult the statues
of the emperor…had little power to excite his anger, but rather
caused in him sorrow of spirit” (V. C. 3. 4), “and
he endured with patience men who were exasperated against
himself.” These words are by Eusebius, to be sure; but his
conduct with Donatists, Arians, Maximinianus, and Licinius, in
individual and on the whole, show that in fact he did habitually
exercise great forbearance. To this was added much activity of positive
Kindness. On first accession he “visited with much
Though slow to serve some
friends through suspicion (i.e. dubius thus explained), he was
“exceedingly generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity
to add to their riches and honors” (Eutrop. 10. 7). “With
royal magnificence he unlocked all his treasures and distributed his
gifts with rich and high-souled liberality” (V. C. 3. 1).
He seems to have carried it rather to excess, even on the showing of
Eusebius. “No one could request a favor of the emperor, and fail
of obtaining what he sought.…He devised new dignities, that he
might invest a larger number with the tokens of his favor” (V.
C. 4. 2). It is worth giving the account by Eusebius of this
conduct in full here. He says (V. C. 4. 54) that this “was
a virtue, however, which subjected him to censure from many, in
consequence of the baseness of wicked men, who ascribed their own
crimes to the emperor’s forbearance. In truth, I can myself bear
testimony to the grievous evils which prevailed during those times: I
mean the violence of rapacious and unprincipled men, who preyed on all
classes of society alike, and the scandalous hypocrisy of those who
crept into the church.…His own benevolence and goodness of heart,
the genuineness of his own faith, and his truthfulness of character
induced the emperor to credit the professions of those reputed
Christians who craftily preserved the semblance of sincere affection
for his person. The confidence he reposed in such men sometimes forced
him into conduct unworthy of himself, of which envy took
advantage to cloud in this respect the luster of his character.”
There seems, therefore, some ground for the charge of
Prodigality, that he “wasted public money in many useless
buildings, some of which he shortly after destroyed because they were
not built to stand” (Zos.), and (Zos. p. 104) “gave great
largesses to ill-deserving persons, mistaking profusion for
munificence” (τὴν γὰρ
ἀσωτίαν
ἡγεῖτο
φιλοτιμίαν). Zosimus adds that to do this, he “imposed severe
taxes on all, so severe that fathers were obliged to prostitute their
daughters to raise the money, that tortures were employed, and in
consequence whole villages depopulated.” This testimony is,
however, by one bitterly prejudiced, who regarded money spent on
Christian houses of worship as worse than wasted, and indicates only
what appears from Eusebius as well, that expenditures for cities,
schools, and churches built, and for other matters, must have been
enormous. But so, too, they were enormous under other emperors, and
Constantine, at least, instead of spending on debauchery, seems to have
had something to show for it. As to taxes, Zosimus would undoubtedly
sympathize with the Kentucky moonshiners in their
“oppression” by revenue officers, if he were here now and
Constantine were President, and would fulminate in the daily papers
against the wicked party which by its wicked tariff compels men to
marry
But success with men and
popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of
success,—Vanity,—and it is charged that he fell
thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According
to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was “immeasurably greedy of
praise.” This agrees with, and is at the same time modified by
Eutropius’ testimony to his ambition for glory and for honorable
popularity (10. 7), and his apparently complacent reception of the
outrageous flattery of Optatian (cf. his letter), seems at least to
show some weakness in this direction. So again his tendency toward
Magnificence, as shown in his assuming the diadem and his dress
in general (cf. above), in the splendor of banquets as witnessed by his
approving friend (V. C. 3. 15), his desire to do on a large
scale whatever he did, whether in the building of cities or splendid
houses of worship, or in book-binding ornamentations of pearls and
gems. And yet again it is shown in what seems at this distance his
Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a
sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in
the disposition for his burial, “anticipating with extraordinary
fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles
themselves.…He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in
this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of the apostolic
number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs
on either side of it” (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read
in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that
Eunapius (Vic. ædes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in
the stimulant of “intoxicating flattery.” Still it is not
to be supposed that this was a peculiarly weak vanity or an absorbing
one. The testimony to his Modesty (V. C. 3. 10), though
by Eusebius, is too circumstantial to be wholly unreal, and the
testimony to his Humility in his “indignation at excessive
praise” (V. C. 4. 48), and the records of Eusebius that he
“was not rendered arrogant by these plaudits nor uplifted by the
praises” (Euseb. V. C. 1. 39), and of the Chronicon
Paschale (p. 521) that “he was not at all puffed up by the
acclamations,” evidently represent a
(c) In relations with his family. He was a filial Son, having the confidence of his father, as shown in his wish of succession, and showing his mother all honors when he came to power (cf. coins showing her position as empress, and V.C.). “And well may his character be styled blessed for his filial piety as well as on other grounds” (V. C. 3. 47).
It is in this relation to his
family, however, that the most serious attacks on the character of
Constantine have been made. Eutropius says: “But the pride of
prosperity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former
agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he
put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister’s son, a youth
of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently many
of his friends.” This has been a battle-ground of accusation or
excusation in all the centuries. The testimony is very meagre and
uncertain, but this much may be said: 1. That any jury would regard the
fact of deaths as evidenced. It is It
is hardly necessary to say that the various tales of the remorse of
Constantine for the death of Crispus are mythical. The tale of Sopater
has been mentioned. That of Codinus (De signo Cp. p.
62–63), also that, “in regret for death of Crispus, he
erected a statue of pure silver with the inscription, ‘My
unjustly treated son,’ and did penance besides,” falls into
the same category. Seeck (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1890, p. 73) maintains that
it is established (“urkundlich fest”) that Licinius was
still living in 336, in which case he would have been more than twenty
years old. He maintains also that he was not the son of Constantine,
but the illegitimate son of Licinius by a slave woman.
In estimating the characteristic
value of the acts it must be noted, 1. That it has in no sense the
character of private execution. The emperor was judge. Even if he
mistook evidence and put to death an innocent man, it was as when a
judge does the same. 2. That the relative moral character of
punishments inflicted is conditioned by the custom of punishment. An
English judge of the past was not as cruel in hanging a man for theft,
as a modern one in applying the extreme penalty of the law to an
offense with mitigating circumstances, would be. 3. That all law of
evidence, all rhyme and reason, says that any man’s any act is to
be interpreted in the light of his general character. Where
evidence is lacking or doubtful, such evidence of general character has
actual weight, and may be conclusive. In application to these acts note
(a) The peculiar forbearance which Constantine exercised toward
Maximian. (b) The conclusive universal testimony to the general
mildness of his character and his habitual mercifulness. In view of
this, it is to be judged that there was some real, or appearing, great
ground of judicial wrath. 4. That Constantine had suffered from plots
on the part of his own relatives over and over again, and spared, and
been plotted against again, as in the cases of Maximian, Bassianus, and
Licinius. 5. That they were not put to death “in a gust of
passion” at once, but in successive acts. In view of these things
it is fair and just to say that they were put to death on grounds which
seemed just and for the welfare of society, and their deaths in no
sense indicate cruelty or unnaturalness on the part of Constantine.
Even the death of Licinius must be interpreted by the political ethics
of the times and its circumstances. So long as sentimentalists continue
to send bouquets to murderers and erect monuments to anarchists, they
will regard execution, even legal execution, as prima facie
evidence of cruelty, and the killing of a murderer in self-defense, or
the hanging of a traitor, as crime. Constantine’s whole character
ensures that if he thought he could have spared them, or any one, with
safety, he would have done so. On this question compare especially monographs of Görres and
Seeck. See under Literature, where other titles, e.g. Hug and
Wegnerus, will also be found. In general, the remark of Ludermann
(Lipsius, Theol. Jahrb. 1886, p. 108) is valid, “The
arguments against Constantine’s Christianity, which are drawn
from his moral character, have ever been the weakest.”
In general he was a faithful husband as respects marital virtue, and a good father. He took care that his children should be well educated. Crispus was under Lactantius (Hieron.), and the others perhaps under Arborius (“Auson. de Prof. Burdig. 16”); at all events, he had the most accomplished teachers of secular learning to instruct in the art of war, and in political and legal science (V. C. 4. 51), and both by his own instruction and that of men of approved piety, took special pains with their religious training. He early appointed them to offices of authority, and distributed the empire among them.
(e) In relations with society. 1. As General he seems to have been popular with his own soldiers (cf. above), inspiring them with enthusiasm and energy. Toward hostile soldiers he was merciful (cf. above), not following up an advantage further than was necessary, and toward conquered enemies unusually forbearing; e.g. at Sigusium, at Rome, with Maximian, with Licinius, and with the Goths (cf. above). His generalship is characterized by careful provision for the guarding of his rear, and by rapidity of movement and dash in actual conflict. 2. As Legislator he “enacted many laws, some good, but most of them superfluous, and some severe” (Eutrop. 10. 8). He seems to have had a weakness for law-making which, at all events, shows a characteristic respect for law little shared by his early contemporaries. Of course Eutropius would consider all laws in favor of Christians superfluous. Laws for the abolition of idolatrous practices, for the erection of Christian houses of worship, observance of the Lord’s Day (V. C. 4. 23), permitting cases to be tried before bishops (Soz. 1. 9; Euseb. H. E. 10. 7; Cod. Theod. Tit. de episc. 2) &c., would surely seem so. But even in other laws Constantine seems to have had at times an abnormal zeal for law-making, when his energies were not occupied in war or church-building. The laws were generally wise and, at the least, benevolently or righteously meant. Such were the abolition of crucifixion (Vict. Cæs.) and of gladiatorial shows (V. C. 4. 25; Socr. 1. 8; C. Theod. 15. 12. 1), the law that the families of slaves were not to be separated (C. Theod. 2.25), that forbidding the scourging of debtors (C. Theod. 7. 3), and that repressing calumny (Vict. Epit. 51). Among the “severe” laws were such as punished certain forms of illicit intercourse with death. 3. As Statesman his policy was broad and far-reaching. He fully organized and carefully established one section of his territory before he enlarged. He changed the whole constitution of the empire, both civil and military (cf. Wordsworth, in Smith & W.). He inaugurated reforms in finance, and especially was most assiduous in the matter of internal improvements, restoring and building from one end of the empire to the other. The great characteristic consummation of his reign was the union of Church and State, over which men are still divided as to whether it was a tremendous blessing or a tremendous curse. Tremendous it surely was in its shaping power on world history. (Compare numerous titles under Literature.) The general statement of Eutropius that “in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes, in the latter part only to those of a middling character,” must be interpreted by the fact that during the latter part of his reign he was so associated with Christianity, in itself a falling away in the eyes of the old religionists. His reign was one of order and justice such as few were, and an order out of chaos, a reign in which it could be peculiarly said that “chastity was safe and marriage protected” (Naz. c. 38), where a man’s life and property were secure as under few of the Roman emperors. It is idle to refuse the title of Great to a man who, from the beginning, followed a consistent, though developing policy, organized the interior, and securely guarded the frontier of his empire at each enlargement, and finally unified the whole on such a basis as to secure large internal prosperity and development.
§6. Religious Characteristics.
Was Constantine a Christian?
This vain question has to be considered, hardly discussed. The
interminable opinions, one way or the other, are for the most part
wise-seeming, meaningless generalizations. Like any generalized
statement, it is conditioned by the point of view of the author. When
ten men answered the question “What is a Christian?” in ten
different ways, who
The tales of his baptism at this
time, or by Sylvester at all, are pure fables (cf. under The
Mythical Constantine), but it appears from antecedent probability,
from testimony, and from his early subsequent identification with the
Christians that he became fairly convinced at this time. His letters
concerning the council at Arles, to be sure, have little direct
evidence, but enough to show that he regarded the Christian religion as
the worship of that one supreme God, and in them Hosius was already his
trusted adviser. But in his letters to Chrestus (314) he speaks of
those who are “forgetful of their own salvation and the reverence
due to the most holy faith,” and if his letter to the bishops
after the council at Arles—a letter full of expressions like
“Christ the Saviour,” “brethren beloved,”
“I who myself await the judgment of Christ,” “our
Saviour” It
seems to have been frequently accepted as such—in the collections
of councils, by the editor of Optatus, Ceillier, &c. It first
appeared in the edition of Optatus, among the monuments relating to the
Donatists gathered by him. These monuments are from one single though
tolerably ancient ms. and no source for this
is quoted, though the sources of others are given. In itself considered
it is a surprise to find it at this stage of Constantine’s life.
Still, it is not unlike his later productions, and it is not impossible
to think of its having been written in the enthusiasm of a successfully
ended enterprise. It would seem (unless there be some confirmatory
study of the letter, not now at hand) that a cautious criticism would
base nothing on this letter alone. His
saying before baptism is discussed in the V. C. 4. 2,
notes.
Expositions of his doctrinal and ethical positions might be multiplied almost without end from the many and fruitful sources, but a few specimens in his own expression will best show the spirit of his religious life. A most suggestive and beautiful sketch of Christ’s ministry on earth too long to quote here may be found in his Oration (ch. 15), but the following selections will give the idea:
A description of the inner Christian life. “For the only power in man which can be elevated to a comparison with that of God is sincere and guiltless service and devotion of heart to Himself, with the contemplation and study of whatever pleases Him, the raising our affections above the things of earth, and directing our thoughts, as far as we may, to high and heavenly objects” (S. C. 14).
A description of the outer Christian life. “Compare our religion with your own. Is there not with us genuine concord, and unwearied love of others? If we reprove a fault, is not our object to admonish, not to destroy; our correction for safety, not for cruelty? Do we not exercise not only sincere faith toward God, but fidelity in the relations of social life? Do we not pity the unfortunate? Is not ours a life of simplicity which disdains to cover evil beneath the mask of fraud and hypocrisy?” (S. C. 23).
A prayer. “Not without cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to Thee, the Lord of all. Under Thy guidance have I devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessing: preceded by Thy sacred sign, I have led Thy armies to victory: and still on each occasion of public danger, I follow the same symbol of Thy perfections while advancing to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicated to Thy service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For Thy name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which Thou hast given abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith” (Ad prov. Or.).
A confession of faith in God
and in Christ. “This God I confess
that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I delight to
contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in the height of his
glory.” “His pleasure is in works of moderation and
gentleness. He loves the meek and hates the turbulent spirit,
delighting in faith. He chastises unbelief” (Ad
Sap.).
Was Constantine a Christian? Let each one apply his own test.
§7. General Characterization.
Before trying to gather into
continuous statement the traits of character which have been examined,
a few general characterizations must be mentioned at least. Beginning
at the bottom, the unfriendly, or hostile, or at the least
unsympathetic, heathen testimonies generalize him as at least
relatively and on the whole both great and good. The general tendency
of heathen testimony is to represent him as admirable in the early part
of his reign, but execrable, or less admirable, in the latter part;
that of Christian writers is to represent a growth of excellence, which
raises him to saintship at the end. This is most natural. Favoring
Christianity was itself a moral fall to a heathen, and bestowing money
on Christians would be robbery. The turning of his character was with
his changing face towards Christianity, and culminated in the overthrow
of Licinius. Licinius fought really as the champion of heathenism. The
adherents of a lost cause are characterizing their victor. It is like
an ex-Confederate characterizing Lincoln or Grant. The point of view is
different. Honest and true men in the South thought Lincoln a curse,
and often in popular verdict his character was “black.” The
popular proverb quoted by Victor (Epit. p. 51),
“Bull-necked for ten years, for twelve a freebooter, and for ten
a spendthrift (immature child),” has just the value of a Southern
popular opinion of Lincoln, or a rural Northerner’s of
“Jeff Davis.” Indeed, the first might summarize at times
the Southern popular verdict of Grant; the second, a frequently
expressed estimate of Lincoln’s conduct in the emancipation of
slaves; and the third, their view of the enormous expenditure for
pensions of Union soldiers, even as it was fifteen years ago. But even
the rather severe Victor, who reports this proverb, finds Constantine
“most excellent (commodissimus) in many
respects,”—in respect of certain laws, in his patronage of
the arts, especially that of letters, as scholar, as author, in the
hearing of delegations and complaints (p. 51). Again,
“Praxagoras, though a heathen, says that in all sorts of virtue
and personal excellence and good fortune, Constantine outshone all the
emperors who preceded him” (Photius, Cod. 62, ed.
Müller, p. 1). And finally, the heathen Eutropius, who
characterizes from his standpoint so admirably, Constantine, being a man of great energy, bent upon effecting
whatever he had settled in his mind.…But the pride of prosperity
caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness
of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he put to death his
son, an excellent man; his sister’s son, a youth of amiable
disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently many of his
friends.” “He was a man who,
in the beginning of his reign, might have been compared to the best
princes; in the latter part of it, only to those of middling character.
Innumerable good qualities of mind and body were apparent in him; he
was exceedingly ambitious of military glory, and had great success in
his wars; a success, however, not more than proportioned to his
exertions. After he had terminated the Civil War, he also overthrew the
Goths on various occasions, granting them at last peace, and leaving on
the minds of the barbarians a strong remembrance of his kindness. He
was attached to the arts of peace and to liberal studies, and was
ambitious of honorable popularity, which he, indeed, sought by every
kind of liberality and obligingness. Though he was slow, from
suspicion, to serve some of his friends, yet he was exceedingly
generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their
riches and honors. He enacted many laws, some good and equitable, but
most of them superfluous, and some severe.”
§8. Summary.
With this as center of perspective, we have a picture of Constantine with lights and shadows, to be sure, but in the main true in its drawing and coloring. He was a man of rather more than medium height, strongly built, with broad shoulders, thick neck, and generally athletic and well-formed figure. His piercing eye, slightly aquiline nose, scanty reddish beard, and florid complexion, together with his bright expression, made a countenance striking and even handsome. Of great physical strength and vigor, he carried himself in a manly, self-possessed, dignified, and serene manner, uniting a dignity which might rise at times even to hauteur, or even incipient arrogance, with a general and customary affability. His dress, like his complexion, was somewhat florid. His mind was active, alert, intense without being somber, penetrating, sound, fairly cultivated, and well exercised in expression by pen or word. He was animated, habile, and attentive in conversation, self-possessed, steady, and calm in formal address. He was pre-eminently a man of energy, intense and resistless, with a determination to accomplish whatever he attempted, which rose under opposition to irresistible impetuosity, and wrought a courage which, in action, was absolutely fearless. His ambition was limitless, but not wholly or even mainly selfish.
With his energy and ambition were united the ballast of marked prudence, patience, perseverance, faithfulness to details, steadfastness, and supreme self-control. He was amiable and tactful, popular with his soldiers, and careful to please. Toward those who came into his power he showed habitual mildness and forbearance,—a mildness so great that he was generally blamed for it; and toward all he showed great kindness, justice, and a generosity which verged on the lavish. He was open to the charge of over-generosity, almost of prodigality, a good measure of real vanity, some over-insistence on his own will and thought as the final standard of right, and by no means free from mistakes or human weaknesses. He was a good son, husband, father, a remarkably successful general, a tolerable legislator, and a clear-sighted, firm-willed statesman. In his religious life he abounded in creed and confession—believing in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and Eternal Life, in Repentance and Faith, in love to God, and love to man. He preached his faith on all occasions; he practiced thanksgiving and prayer abundantly. He regarded everything that he had or was as from God. The editor’s brief judgment is that Constantine, for his time, made an astonishingly temperate, wise, and, on the whole, benevolent use of absolute power, and in morality, kindly qualities, and, at last, in real Christian character, greatly surpassed most nineteenth century politicians—standing to modern statesmen as Athanasius to modern theologians.
Writings.
§1. Introduction
Quite a
number of works by this emperor-author are extant. It is curious that there should be no critical edition of the
collected works of so considerable a writer. A large portion of his
works are, to be sure, included in Migne’s Patrologia
Latina, vol. 84, Paris, 1844; but this Opera Universa is
neither wholly complete nor in any sense critical, and this seems to be
the only attempt at a collection. The works enumerated here are mostly
in the edition of Migne, but not all.
§2. Oratorical Writings.
According to Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29; cf. 4. 55) these were very numerous, and it may well be believed. He seems to have done much of everything he undertook at all—fighting, or learning, or building temples, or making laws, he was nothing if not incessant. He had a habit of inflicting his orations on his court, and undoubtedly had plenty of enthusiastic hearers, as any emperor would, and as Eusebius says he did. They seem to have been generally philosophical with as much religion as possible worked in (V. C. 4. 9). Not many are extant, but we have some account of the few following:
1. Oration to the saints (Oratio ad sanctum cœtum, S. C.). For this see the following translation and Special Prolegomena.
2. Address to the Council of Nicæa in praise of peace (Ad Syn. Nic.), in Euseb. V. C. 3. 12. Address of welcome. He rejoices in the assembly, and exhorts them to be united, that they may thereby please God and do a favor to their emperor.
3. Oration to the Council of Nicæa, in Gelasius, Hist. Coun. Nic. 1. 7. Begins with rhetorical comparison of the Church to a temple, and ends with injunctions to observe peace and to search the Scriptures as the authority in all points of doctrine. Appears dubiously authentic.
4. Address to the bishops on their departure from Nicæa. Abstract in Euseb. V. C. 32. 1. Exhorts them to keep peace, cautions against jealousy, &c.
5. Funeral oration. A description in Euseb. V. C. 4. 55. Dwells on the immortality of the soul, the blessings laid up for those who love God, and the ruin of the ungodly.
His method of composition is spoken of by Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29), and his manner of delivery may be gathered from Eusebius’ description of his speech at the opening of the Council of Nicæa (V. C. 3. 11). For the style of his oratorical discourses, compare remarks on the Oration to the Saints in the Special Prolegomena.
§3. Letters and Edicts.
It is hard to separate between
letters, edicts, and laws. A substantial autocrat, the form of address
was much the same, and the force. The extant letters are quite
numerous, and those of which we have definite or general mention, many.
He seems to have been a most industrious letter-writer. Of the extant
letters a majority are undoubtedly or probably genuine. Some, however,
need more critical study than seems to have been given to them. There is of course more or less critical treatment of various
letters in critical works on Donatism or Arianism or other special
topics. Since writing the above, the exceedingly interesting analysis
of sources for early Donatist history, by Seeck, in Briegers’
Ztschr. f. Kirchenges., 1889, has been examined. He has, like
Völter and Deutsch before him, admirable critical studies of
certain letters. But a systematic critical study of the Constantinian
letters as a whole seem to be still lacking.
1. (313 a.d.) Edict of Constantine and Licinius for the restoration of the Church. In Lact. De M. P. c. 48, and also in Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed. Migne, 105–110). The second edict of toleration. The first edict (Euseb. 8. 17; Lact. De M. P. 34) can hardly be classed among the “writings” of Constantine. This famous second edict grants full religious liberty to the Christians and restoration of their property. Compare section on Acts of Toleration in Wordworth’s Constantinus.
2. (313.) First letter of Constantine and Licinius to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed. Migne, 479–480). Restores goods to the Catholic Christians; written about the same time as the edict of toleration, according to Ceillier.
3. (313.) Second Letter of Constantine to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 7 (Op. Const. 481–2). Ordering that the Catholic clergy be free from public service, that they might not be disturbed in their worship of God.
4. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Cæcilianus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 6 (Op. Const. 481–4). Presents money—three thousand purses (folles)—to be distributed according to direction of Hosius.
5. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Melchiades (or Miltiades). In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 477- ). Having received various letters from Anulinus regarding Cæcilian and the Donatists, he summons a council at Rome to consider the matter.
6. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Ablavius (or Ælafius). In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 283–4 (Op. Const. 483–6). The result of the council at Rome not having proved final, he summons the Council of Arles.
7. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Chrestus (Crescentius), bishop of Syracuse. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 485–8). Invites to the Council of Arles.
8. (314.) Letter of Constantine to the Bishops after the Council of Arles. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 287–8 (Op. Const. 487–90). Contains gratulations, reprobations of obstinate schismatists, and exhortations to patience with such obstinateness. It is full of religious expressions, and if genuine, is a most interesting exhibition of Constantine’s religious position at this time, but it looks suspicious, and probably is not genuine.
9. (314) Letter of Constantine and Licinius to Probianus, the Proconsul of Africa. In Augustine, Ep. 88 (ed. Migne 33 [1865] 3045), and also in Contr. Cresc. (43 [1861] 540, also in Op. Const. and tr. Engl. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1, p. 370). Orders that the Donatist Ingentius be brought to his court. One text adds Maximianus or Maximus in place of Maximus as epithet of Constantine.
10. (314 or 315.) Letter of Constantine to the Donatist Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 290 (Op. Const. ed. Migne [1844] 490). As the Donatists were not yet satisfied, he summons them to meet Cæcilian, and promises if they convict him in one particular, it shall be as if in all.
11. (315.) Letter of Constantine to Celsus. In Optat. Mon. vet p. 291 (Op. Const. 489–90). In reply to letter mentioning disturbances of the Donatists, he hints that he expects to go shortly to Africa and settle things summarily.
12. (315.) Fragment of a Letter of Constantine to Eumalius Vicarius. In Augustine’s Contr. Crest. 3. 71 (ed. Migne 43 [1861] 541; also Op. Const. 491–2). An extract of six lines, in which he says Cæcilianus was entirely innocent.
13. (316 or 317.) Letter of Constantine to the bishops and people of Africa. Optat. Mon. vet. p. 294 (Op. Const. 491–2). He has tried every way to settle the Donatist disturbances in vain, and now leaves them to God and advises patience.
14. (323.) First Letter of Constantine to Eusebius. In Euseb. V. C. 2. 46; Theodoret, 1. 14; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 491–4). Empowers the repairing, enlarging of old, and building of new churches.
16. (324.) Constantine’s edict to the people of the eastern provinces concerning the error of polytheism, &c. (Ad. prov. Or). In Euseb. V. C. 48– . This letter, written in Latin and translated by Eusebius, begins with “some general remarks on virtue and vice,” touches on the persecutions and the fate of the persecutors, expresses the wish that all would become Christians, praises God, and exhorts concord.
17. (323 or 324.) Letter of Constantine to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter. In Euseb. V. C. 2. 64–72; Gelas. 2. 4; Socr. 1. 7 (Op. Const. 493–502). Expresses his desire for peace, his hope that they might have helped him in the Donatist troubles, his distress at finding that they, too, were in a broil, his opinion that the matters under discussion are of little moment, and what he thinks they are. He exhorts to unanimity, repeats his opinion that the matters are of little moment, mentions his “copious and constant tears,” and finally gets through.
18. (324–5.) Letter to Porphyrius (Optatian). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 [1846] 393–394 and in various editions of Optatian. This letter to Porphyrius or Optatian was on the occasion of the sending of a poem by the latter for his vicennalia. It expresses his pleasure and his disposition to encourage the cultivation of belles lettres. Compare note on Optatian under sources.
19. (325.) Letter of Constantine the King, summoning the bishops to Nicæa. In Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1841, p. 5–6. This is translated from a Syriac ms. in the British Museum, written in 501. Gives as reason for the choice of Nicæa the convenience for the European bishops and “the excellent temperature of the air.” This, if genuine, is the letter mentioned by Eusebius, V. C., but it looks suspicious.
20. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches after the Council of Nicæa. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 17–20; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 501–506). Dwells on the harmonious result, especially respecting the Easter controversy, and commends to the bishops to observe what the Council has decreed.
21. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the church of Alexandria. In Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 507–510). Expresses great horror of the blasphemy of Arius, and admiration for the wisdom of the more than three hundred bishops who condemned him.
22. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Arius and the Arians. In “Conc. 2. 269.” A long and rather railing address against Arius.
23. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches. In Socr. H. E. 1. 9. A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501, in Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1861, p. 6–7. Against Arius and the Porphyrians, and threatens that any one who conceals a work of Arius shall be punished with death.
24. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis. In Gelas. 3. 2; Theodoret, 1. 20; Soz. 1. 21 (Op. Const. 519–524). A theological discussion partly of the relation of Father and Son, and an attack on Eusebius of Nicomedia.
25. (325.) Letter to Theodotus. In Gelas. 3. 3 (Op. Const. 523–524). Counsels him to take warning by what has happened to Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and Theognis, i.e. banishment, and get rid of such evil influence, if any, as they may have had on him.
26. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Macarius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 30–32; Theodoret, 1. 16. Directs the erection of a peculiarly magnificent church at the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
27. (330.) Letter of Constantine to the Numidian Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 295 (Op. Const. 531–532). Concerns a church taken possession of by schismatists.
28. (332.) Letter of Constantine to the Antiochians. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 60 (Op. Const. 533- ). Exhorts them not to persist in their effort to call Eusebius from Cæsarea to Antioch.
30. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Eusebius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 61 (Op. Const. 537–540). Commends Eusebius for having declined the call to Antioch.
31. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Macarius and the rest of the Bishops in Palestine (to Eusebius). In Euseb. V. C. 3. 52–53 (Op. Const. 539–544). Directs the suppression of idolatrous worship at Mamre.
32. (332.?) Edict against the heretics. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 64–5. Against Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, Cataphrygians who are forbidden to assemble and whose houses of worship are to be given to the Catholic party.
33. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Sapor, King of the Persians. In Euseb. 4. 9–13; Theodoret, 1. 24 (Op. Const. 545–552). Is mainly a confession of faith commending the Persian Christians to the special care of their king.
34. (333.) Letters of Constantine to Antonius, the monk, and of Antonius to him are mentioned in Athanasius, 1. 855 (Op. Const. 551–552). Constantine and his sons write as to a father. Antony grudgingly replies with some good advice for them to remember the day of judgment, regard Christ as the only emperor, and have a care for justice and the poor.
35. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius in praise of his discourse concerning Easter. Eusebius, V. C. 4. 35 (Op. Const. 551–554) praises the discourse and asks for more.
36. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius on the preparation of the copies of the Scriptures. In Euseb. V. C. 4. 36; Theod. 1. 15; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 553–554). Orders fifty copies with directions as to style.
37. (335.) Fragment of the first letter of Constantine to Athanasius. In Athan. Apol.; Socr. 1. 27 (Op. Const. 553–556; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1843, p. 89). The letter summoning to the Council of Tyre, but only a half-dozen lines remain. This bids him admit all who wish to enter the church.
38. (335.) Letter of Constantine to the people of the Alexandrian Church. In Athan. Apol. c. Ar. c. 61 (Op. Const. 559–562; abstract in Soz. 2. 31; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 90–92). Is a general lamentation over the dissensions of the Church, with expression of confidence in Athanasius.
39. (335.) Second Letter of Constantine to Athanasius. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 555–558). Expresses his reprobation of the false accusations of the Meletians against Athanasius.
40. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Joannes the Meletian. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 557–560). Congratulates on his reconciliation with Athanasius.
41. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Arius. In Socr. 1. 25 (Op. Const. 561–562). Invites Arius to visit him—the famous visit where he presented a confession of faith claimed to be in conformity with that of Nicæa.
42. (335.) A Letter to Dalmatius is mentioned by Athanasius, Apol. 5. 13, but not preserved (Op. Const. 563–564; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 94). It required him to make judicial enquiry respecting the charge against Athanasius of the murder of Arsenius.
43. (335.) Celebrated Letter of Constantine concerning the Synod of Tyre. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 42 (Op. Const. 561–564). Exhorts the bishops to give zeal to fulfilling the purpose of the synod in the restitution of peace to the Church.
44. (335.) Letter to the Bishops assembled at Tyre. In Socr. H. E. 1. 34, and in Soz. H. E. 2. 28. Summons them to come to him at Constantinople and give account of their proceedings.
Besides these there are the clearly spurious:
1. Letter of Helena to Constantine (Op. Const. 529–530).
2. Letter of Constantine in response to Helena (Op. Const. 529–532).
3. Treaty of peace between
Constantine, Sylvester and Tiridates (Op. Const. 579–582).
On
4. Edict of Constantine to Pope Silvester (Op. Const. 567–578). The famous Donation which first appeared in Pseudo-Isidore, and for which see under The Mythical Constantine, p. 442–3.
There are also quite a large number of letters mentioned with more or less description, and a “multitude of letters” (V. C. 3. 24) of which there is no specific knowledge. Of the former may be mentioned that to the inhabitants of Heliopolis, one to Valerius (or Valerianus or Verinus) (Augustine, Ad Donat. p. c. c. 33); one to the Council of Tyre, asking them to hasten to Jerusalem (V. C. 4. 43; Soz. 2. 26); and one acknowledging the copies of the Scriptures prepared at his order, through Eusebius (V. C. 4. 37).
§4. Laws.
The numerous laws are collected in the edition of Migne (Patrol. Lat. 8. p. 93–400), mainly from the Theodosian code. They are in the opinion of Eutropius (10. 8) “many,” “some good and equitable, but most of them superfluous, and some severe” (cf. under Character). Many of them show the author’s tendency to declamation, but taken all in all they are businesslike and do credit, in the main, to their author’s heart, and even, though less conspicuously, to his head. For more specific account, compare the laws themselves as collected in Migne, the relating passages in Wordsworth and Ceillier, standard and annotated editions of the codes, and special treatises, such as Balduin, De leg. eccl. et civ. 1737.
§5. Various.
Besides the more formal works mentioned above, various conversations, sayings, bon mots, prayers, &c., are preserved, among which may be mentioned:
1. Memoirs of himself, of which no portion is extant. Writings of Constantine are mentioned by Lydus (p. 194, 226), but whether the writings referred to deserve the title given by Burckhardt it is hard to say.
2. A form of prayer given by Constantine to his soldiers (V. C. 4. 20).
3. His address when the memorials of contendents, at Council of Nicæa, were brought to him (Soz. 1. 17).
4. The conversation with Acesius, for which Socrates vouches, closing, “O Acesius, set up a ladder, and do you alone climb up to heaven.”
5. His rebuke to the courtier concerning covetousness (V. C. 4. 30).
6. His answer when told his statues had been stoned, “Strange, but I feel no wound” (“Chrysost. Ad Pop. Ant.”).
7. His appeal to the bishops, requesting them to confer upon him the rite of baptism (V. C. 4. 62).
8. His Thanksgiving after baptism and testimony (V. C. 4. 63).
In general, his writings were composed in Latin, and translated into Greek by those appointed for this special purpose (V. C. 4. 32). His general style is rhetorical, rather profuse, and declamatory, abounding in pious allusion and exhortation, as well as philosophical quotation and reflection. His works are interesting to study and not without a touch here and there of genuine literary interest. A remark on friendship, for example, unless it be a product of his habit of borrowing the thoughts of other men more or less directly, is delightful and most quotable. “For it often happens,” he says, “that when a reconciliation is effected by the removal of the causes of enmity, friendship becomes even sweeter than it was before” (Const. to Alex. and Ar. in V. C. 2. 71).
The Mythical Constantine.
The many legends which have attached themselves to the name of Constantine are valuable chiefly as curiosities, and can be treated here only in specimens. A few of the more interesting and important are the following:
1. Constantine and his Mother Helena.
A little anonymous work of some thirty pages, edited by Heydenreich from a fourteenth-century manuscript, was published under this title in 1879, and has drawn forth an astonishing amount of literature for so slight a thing. It has little value except as an illustration of mediæval romance, though Coen seems to think the honor of having introduced it into literature enough to warrant the expenditure of a good deal of pains in vindicating his claim to it. The story is written with tolerable art, and runs, abbreviated, something as follows:
Helena, daughter of a noble family of Trèves, came on a pious journey to Rome. The Emperor Constantius, crossing a bridge of the Tiber, saw Helena among other pilgrims. Struck with her beauty, he arranged that she should be detained by force at the inn where she stayed, when her fellow-pilgrims returned to Gaul. The emperor then constrained her by force, but, seeing the great grief which his act had caused, gave her a certain ornament of precious stones and his ring, as a sort of pledge, and went away. She did not venture to return to her country, but remained at Rome with the son who was born to her, representing that her Gallic husband was dead. This son, Constantine, grew up pleasing, handsome, and versatile. Certain merchants, seeing his excellent quality, formed a scheme of making money by palming him off on the emperor of the Greeks as a son-in-law, representing him to be a son of the Roman emperor.
The scheme was carried out, and the merchants after some time embarked again for Rome, with the Constantine and the princess, and much treasure. Toward the end of their journey they stopped over night at a little island. In the morning the young people awoke to find they had been deserted by the merchants, and Constantine in great grief confessed the deception which had been practiced. To this the princess replied that she cared little who he was or his family, since he was himself and her husband. After a few days of short rations they were taken by passing voyagers to Rome, where they joined Helena, and having purchased a house with the proceeds from the sale of certain valuables which the princess had kept with her, they went to hotel-keeping. Constantine took naturally to military life, and at tournaments surpassed everyone else so far as to arouse astonishment and inquiry. The emperor would not believe him a poor and friendless man, and had his mother called. After much vigorous evasion the truth came out, confirmed by the ring which the emperor had given Helena. Constantius first had the merchants put to death, and gave all their property to Constantine. Then a treaty was made with the emperor of the East, and Constantine was recognized as heir to the empire.
A more wildly unhistorical historical novel could hardly have been written even by a Muhlbach. For further account, see under Literature especially articles by Heydenreich and by Coen.
2. Constantine the Son of a British Princess.
Duke Coel of Colchester, say the
old chronicles, by an insurrection became king. The Senate, rejoiced at
the overthrow of an enemy, sent Constantius to Britain. Coel, fearing,
sent ambassadors to meet him, gave hostages, and shortly died.
Constantius was crowned, married Helena, daughter of Coel, the most
beautiful, cultivated, and educated woman of her time. By her he had a
son, Constantine, afterwards called the Great. This is in substance the
account of Geoffrey of Monmouth (5. 6) and Pierre de Langloft (1, p.
66–7). The story is mentioned by
3. Constantine’s Leprosy; Healing and Baptism by Silvester.
This tale is one of the most frequently found. The earliest account is said to be that of the Acts of Silvester. Some of the many who repeat it are Ephraem, Cedrenus, Zonaras. The following account is mainly from Glycas, p. 461–462.
When Constantine was fighting against Maxentius, after he had seen the sign of the cross, he was victorious. Then, forgetting, he was conquered, and grieving, he fell asleep and had a vision in which the blow of a switch on his nostrils brought blood which flowed down on his linen tunic in the form of a cross. Seeing this, he was filled with penitence, and became again victorious. Being led away a second time into idolatry through his wife Fausta, he was divinely afflicted with leprosy. The priests prescribed a bath in the blood of infants, and it was ordered; but when he heard the lamentations of the mothers, he said it was better to suffer than that so many infants should perish. Therefore the apostles, Peter and Paul as some say, appeared to him and told him Silvester would cure him, as he did. There are many varieties of the story and various details as to baptism, but in general the whole series of stories regarding his baptism at Rome centers in this story, and gratitude for this cure is the supposed occasion of the famous donation of Constantine. In this the circumstances of the miracle are given at length,—the words of the apostles, Silvester’s identification of them as apostles by portraits, the immersion, and subsequent instruction.
4. Donation of Constantine.
This most remarkable of
forgeries for its practical effect on world-history has been the
subject of endless discussion. It is, in brief, a supposed grant to the
Pope of Rome, Silvester, of certain sweeping privileges in recognition
of the miracle he has wrought. The edict gives a long confession of
faith followed by an account of the miracle and mention of the churches
he has built. Then follow the grants to Silvester, sovereign Pontiff
and Pope of Rome, and all his successors until the end of the
world,—the Lateran palace, the diadem, phryginus, the purple
mantle and scarlet robe, imperial scepters, insignia, banners and the
whole imperial paraphernalia, as well as various clerical privileges
and pretty much the whole world to govern. It is impossible here even
to represent in outline the history of this extraordinary fiction.
Composed not earlier than the latter part of the eighth century
(Martens et alt. 9 cent.; Grauert, 840–850; Hauck, Bonneau,
752–757; Langen, 778, &c.; Friedrich acc. to Seeberg, divides
into an earlier [653] and a later [753] portion), it early came to be
general, though not unquestioned, authority. In 1229–1230 a
couple of unfortunates who ventured to doubt its authenticity were
burned alive at Strasburg (Documents communicated by Ristelhuber to
Bonneau p. 57–58). Not many years after, Dante seems (Inf.
19. 115) to have taken its authenticity for granted; and although there
is a possible doubting (De Monarch. 4. 10), he does not venture
to dispute this. He denies, however, Constantine’s power or right
to give, if he did give. In modern times the fictitious character of
the document is recognized by Protestants and Catholics alike, and the
discussion, so vigorous for
5. Dream concerning the Founding of Constantinople.
“As Constantine was sleeping in this city [Byzantium], he imagined that there stood before him an old woman whose forehead was furrowed with age; but that presently, clad in an imperial robe, she became transformed into a beautiful girl, and so fascinated his eyes by the elegance of her youthful charms that he could not refrain from kissing her; that Helena, his mother, being present, then said, ‘She shall be yours forever; nor shall she die till the end of time.’ The solution of this dream, when he awoke, the emperor extorted from heaven, by fasting and alms-giving. And behold, within eight days, being cast again into a deep sleep, he thought he saw Pope Silvester, who died some little time before, regarding his convert with complacency, and saying, ‘You have acted with your customary prudence in waiting for a solution from God of that enigma which was beyond the comprehension of man. The old woman you saw is this city, worn down by age, whose time-struck walls, menacing approaching ruin, require a restorer. But you, renewing its walls, and its affluence, shall signalize it also with your name; and here shall the imperial progeny reign forever’” (William of Malmesbury, Chronicle, tr. English. Lond. 1847, p. 372–3. The final section, which instructs Constantine how to lay out the city, is omitted). This is taken by the Chronicler from Aldhelm’s (d. 709) de laudibus virginitatis (c. 52, ed. Giles, 1844, p. 28–29), where, however, instead of kissing her, he much more appropriately “clothes her with his mantle, and puts his diadem adorned with pure gold and brilliant gems on her head.” It is given also by Ralph de Diceto (ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876), 74–75, and probably by many others.
6. Voyage of Helena.
A matter-of-fact account of things which are not so, given in Hakluyt’s Voyages, 2 (1810), p. 34, is worth giving in the words of the translator:
“Helena Flavia Augusta,
the heire and onely daughter of Cœlus, sometime the most excellent
king of Britaine, by reason of her singular beautie, faith, religion,
goodnesse, and godly Maiestie (according to the testimonie of Eusebius)
was famous in all the world. Amongst all the women of her time there
was none either in the liberall arts more learned, or in the
instruments of musike more skilfull, or in the divers languages of
nations more abundant than herselfe. She had a naturall quicknesse of
wit, eloquence of speech, and a most notable grace in all her
behaviour. She was seene in the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latin tongues. Her
father (as Virumnius reporteth) had no other childe,…had by her a
sonne called Constantine the great, while hee remained in
Britaine…peace was granted to the Christian churches by her good
meanes. After the light and knowledge of the Gospel, she grew so
skilfull in divinity that she wrote and composed divers bookes and
certaine Greeke verses also, which (as Ponticus reporteth) are yet
extant…went to Jerusalem…lived to the age of fourscore
years, and then died at Rome the
7. The Finding of the Cross.
It is said in a certain “tolerably authentic chronicle,” according to Voragine, that Constantine sent his mother Helena to Jerusalem to try to find the cross on which our Lord was crucified. When she arrived, she bade all the Jewish Rabbis of the whole land gather to meet her. Great was their fear. They suspected that she sought the wood of the cross, a secret which they had promised not to reveal even under torture, because it would mean the end of Jewish supremacy. When they met her, sure enough, she asked for the place of the crucifixion. When they would not tell, she ordered them all to be burned. Frightened, they delivered up Judas, their leader and instigator, saying that he could tell. She gave him his choice of telling or dying by starvation. At first he was obstinate, but six days of total abstinence from food brought him to terms, and on the seventh he promised. He was conducted to the place indicated, and in response to prayer, there was a sort of earthquake, and a perfume filled the air which converted Judas. There was a temple of Venus on the spot. This the queen had destroyed. Then Judas set to digging vigorously, and at the depth of twenty feet, found three crosses, which he brought to Helena. The true cross was tested by its causing a man to rise from the dead, or according to others, by healing a woman, or according to others, by finding the inscription of Pilate. After an exceedingly vigorous conversation between the devil and Judas, the latter was baptized and became Bishop Cyriacus. Then Helena set him hunting for the nails of the cross. He found them shining like gold and brought them to the queen, who departed, taking them and a portion of the wood of the cross. She brought the nails to Constantine, who put them on his bridle and helmet, or according to another account, two were used in this way, and one was thrown into the Adriatic Sea.
It is interesting to trace the melancholy consequences of this particular enterprise of Constantine’s in the sad death of St. Cyriacus née Judas. The Emperor Julian, the apostate, “invited” him to sacrifice to idols. When he refused, melted lead was poured into his mouth; then an iron bedstead was brought, on which he was stretched, while a fire was built underneath and the body of the martyr larded with salt and fat. The saint did not budge, and Julian had a deep well dug, which was filled with venomous serpents. But contact with the saint killed the serpents, and a cauldron of boiling oil succeeded. Julian was so angry at the alacrity and cheerfulness of the saint’s preparations for this bath, that he killed him with a blow of his sword. There is some consolation in the thought of this premature death, in the fact that, unless his claim that he was nephew to Stephen, the Proto-martyr, be disallowed, he had reached a ripe old age of two hundred and fifty years or thereabouts.
The literature on this legend is very great. The finding of the cross is mentioned as early as Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 347–350), within twenty-five years of the visit of Helena recorded by Eusebius (V. C. 3. 26), and with great frequency afterwards. The failure of any mention by Eusebius seems, however, conclusive against any finding, or pretended finding, at the time of Helena’s famous visit, though the contrary is acutely argued by Newman. The finding and use of the nails is often separated from the other, and is found in many of the sources on Constantine. But even those who believe in the miracle of the finding of the cross will hardly vouch for the story in the above form, which is substantially that of Voragine.
Compare Sinker’s article, Cross, Finding of, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1 (1880), 503–506; Jameson, Hist. of Our Lord, 2 (1872) 385–391; Newman, Essays on Miracles (Lond. 1875) 287–326; and especially Voragine, whom see under Sources. Under the article Helena, in Smith & W. is a sub-article by Argles on the Invention of the Cross, which gives an admirable abstract of the sources in order.
These examples of the stories
which have gathered around the name of Constantine do not
Chapter V
Sources and Literature.
§1. Introduction
The insertion in such a work as this of what seems almost technical in its character has this twofold purpose: first, to give a glimpse of the grounds of our knowledge of Constantine, with a view of how far and in what directions it has been worked out through literature; second, to serve the expressed purpose of this series, of encouraging farther study in its lines. The very knowledge of what the sources are, and their character, apart from any special study of them, gives a width of horizon and definiteness of conception to the general student, which can hardly be gotten in any other way; while for any one who plans farther study in any line, it is of first importance to find the what and where of his material.
§2. Sources.
Remembering the class of students for which the series is chiefly intended, effort has been made to refer to translations of sources where they are at hand, and to refer to the best accessible English authorities on them. But the plan has been to refer to the source itself in the edition actually used, and for literature on them to choose the best for ready reference. Both editions and authorities on sources are therefore selections, usually from many, of such as seem most directly useful. The intention has been to guide to all frequently mentioned sources, whether they were of great value or not, since a useless one costs often quite as much trouble to hunt up and find useless, as a good one to use. It is hardly to be hoped that all the sources often referred to have been gathered, but the following list represents pretty much all that are worth mentioning, and some which are not.
1. Inscriptions, coins, medals, &c.
In some sense these are the most reliable of sources, in spite of counterfeits. A large number will be found collected in Clinton. For farther critical study, compare the collections, great and small; for which, with the matter of inscriptions in general, see Hicks, E. L., and Hübner, E., in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 13 (1881) 121–133; and Babington, in Smith and Cheetham, 1 (1880) 841–862. Monographs on those relating to Constantine will be found under the names, Cavedoni, Cigola, Eltz, Freherus, Garucci, Harduin, Penon, Revellot, Valois, Westphalen, Werveke, in the Literature of this volume.
2. Laws.
These, with their dates, their official nature, their fullness and variety, are primary, and are the only sources recognized by some. They are embodied in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and collected from these are edited in Migne, Patrol. Latina, Vol. 8. See under Writings of Constantine, above.
3. Other Writings by Constantine.
See under Writings, above, p. 436. With this might perhaps be included also writings to Constantine, like that of Anulinus in Augustinus, Ep. 88.
4. General Literary Sources.
Taking in general chronological
order, without attempting the impossibility of fixing the exact
chronological place, the first group of contemporary sources is that of
the Panegyrists (for collected editions, see Engelmann).
(1) Incerti auctoris Panegyricus Maximiano et Constantino dictus (Paneg. 307). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 609–620. Pronounced at celebration of marriage of Constantine and Fausta, a.d. 307. Besides having the great value of being contemporary evidence, the author shows a certain ingenuity in enlarging on the virtues of the young Constantine, who had few deeds to show, and on the deeds of Maximian, who had few virtues, and has therefore a certain discernible modicum of truth.
Compare the Monitum in Migne, Ramsay’s article on Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1073–4, and references under Eumenius.
(2) Eumenius (310–311). (a) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1884), 619–640. (b) Thanksgiving Oration (Gratiarum Actio Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 641–654. Eumenius flourished during the reigns of Constantius, with whom he was in high favor, and Constantine. He was head of the school at Autun. The Panegyric was delivered at Treves, in 310. The authorship of Eumenius has been unwarrantably questioned, on the ground that the flattery and exaggeration of the work are not consistent with his taste and sense; but it would seem that both his exaggeration and his taste have been themselves exaggerated. His praise is hardly more “outrageous” than panegyrics were wont to be,—or are, for that matter; and so far from being “worthless,” there is a peculiar deal of interesting, unquestionable, and primary historical evidence. Still, his taste and veracity are not much above that of modern eulogists of living or dead emperors and politicians. The Gratiarum Actio is the official oration of thanks to Constantine in behalf of the citizens of Autun, on account of favors shown them. It was pronounced at Treves in 311.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 92; the Proœmium, in ed. Migne, 619–622; also for editions, Ramsay, article Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1. 1073–4; and for literature, Chevalier. For general account of the Panegyrists, see this article on Drepanius.
(3) Incerti Panegyricus Constantino Augusto (Paneg. 313). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 653– . This is usually ascribed to Nazarius, on the ground of style. It was spoken at Treves in 313, and relates mainly to the war with Maxentius. Various details relating to this are of such nature and form as to suggest again that the author is the same as that of the 321 Paneg.,—Nazarius.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145; the Proœmium in ed. Migne, &c., and literature as under Eumenius, above.
(4) Nazarius. (321) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto dictus). In ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 581–608. Nazarius is mentioned by Jerome as a distinguished rhetorician. This oration was delivered at Rome in 321. Constantine was not present. It is superlatively eulogistic, but like the related panegyrics contains many historical facts of greatest value.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145, the Monitum, in Migne, and references under Eumenius.
In the midst of the period which these cover comes one of the two great Christian sources, and he is followed by a considerable row of great and small Christians during the century.
(5) Lactantius (ab. 313–314). On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De M. P.). Ed. Fritsche (Lips. 1842), 248–286; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 7 (Par. 1844), 157–276; tr. in T. & T. Clark Library, 22 (Edinb. 1871), 164–211, and in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo and N.Y.), 300–326 [Lord Hailes’ translation]. There are many editions in collected works, and about a dozen separate, and many translations,—in all a hundred or more editions and translations. There has been much controversy regarding the author of this work, but there is little doubt that it was Lactantius. Ebert (Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1. 83) claims to have demonstrated the fact, and most of the later writers agree. The work was composed after the edict of Constantine and Licinius, and before the break between the two, i.e. 313–314. It was written thus in the midst of things, and has the peculiar historical value of a contemporary document, unprejudiced by later events. It is a sort of psalm of triumph, colored by the passionate rejoicing of one persecuted over the Divine vengeance which has come upon the persecutors. “In the use of the work the historian must employ great critical discernment” (Ebert, in Herzog, 8 [1881], 365). But granted all his prejudice, the facts he witnesses are of first value.
Compare Ffoulkes, in Smith and Wace, 3 (1882), 613–617; Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit. 2 (1873), 334; Ebert, in Herzog, Encyk. 8 (1881), 364–366, and Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 83; and for farther literature, Bibliog, Synops. inAnte-Nicene Fathers Suppl. (1887), 77–81.
(6) Eusebius (ab. 260–340). I. Ecclesiastical History. 2. Constantine. 3. Chronicle.
For 1 and 3 compare Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert at the beginning of this volume, and for 2, Special Prolegomena, p. 466.
(7) Optatian (fl. ab. 326). Panegyric, in Migne,
Patrol. Lat. 19 (1846), 395–432; Letter to Constantine,
do. 391–392. Optatian, Porfirius, or Porphyrius, as he is
variously called, is dubiously Christian, composed this
Compare Wilson, article Porfirius, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 440; article Porphyrius, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 502; and for editions and literature, Engelmann.
(8) Athanasius (296–373). Apology against the Arians, and various works, ed. Bened. (1698), 2 v. in 3, fo; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 25–28 (1857), 4 v.; translated in part in Newman, Library of the Fathers, and in Schaff-Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (announced). The works of Athanasius contain various letters of Constantine (see under Works) and much of primary historical value for the latter part of Constantine’s reign. So far as it goes, the matter is almost equal to official documents as source.
Compare Bright, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 179–203; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 23 (1884), 884–893; and for extensive literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.
(9) Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 315–386). Catechetical Lectures. In Migne, Patrol Gr. 33 (1857), especially 830. English translations in Newman, Library of Fathers, 2 (1838), one ref. p. 178. Letter to Constantine II. concerning the sign of the cross seen at Jerusalem, c 3. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 33 (1857), 1165–1176, ref. on 1167–1168. Two or three references only to excavation of the cross and building of churches, &c., at Jerusalem. They take significance only in the fact that Cyril is so near the time (the letter was 351 [?], or not many years later), and delivered his lectures in the very church which Constantine had built (sect. 14, 22).
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884) 923–925; Venables, in Smith & W. 1 (1887), 760–763; and literature in Chevalier Schaff, &c.; also editions in Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.
(10) Ambrosius of Milan (ab. 340–397). Oration on the Death of Theodosius. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 16 (1866), portion relating to Constantine especially, 1462–1465. Relates chiefly to the Finding of the Cross.
Compare Davies, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 91–99; also Chevalier, Engelmann, Schoenemann, &c.
(11) Hieronymus (Jerome) (331–420). Chronicle. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 27 (1866). Part relating to Constantine, 493 (497)–500. A translation and continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who ends with the death of Licinius. An indispensable but aggravating authority.
Compare Salmon, Eusebius, Chronicle of, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 348–355.
(12) Augustinus (354–430). Ep. 43, ed. Migne, 33 (1865), 159– , §§4, 5, 20, &c. He gives account of the various Donatist hearings, and speaks of having read aloud from various original documents, including the petition to Constantine, the proconsular acts, the proceedings of the court at Rome, and the letters of Constantine. He speaks of the hearing at Milan. Ep. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 33 (1865), 302–309. This has the text of letter of Anulinus to Constantine and Constantine to Probianus. Eps. 76. 2; 93. 13–14, 16 (which contains account of decree of Constantine that property of obstinate Donatists should be confiscated); 105. 9, 10 (not translated); 141. 8–10 (not translated), in ed. Migne, and tr. English ed. Schaff, contain various matter on the Donatist acts of Constantine. Ad Donatistas post collationem, c. 33, §56; ed. Migne, 43 (1861), 687 (important for dates given). Contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. ch. 92, §205; ed. Migne, 45 (1861), 326. Tr. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 580–581. Contr. Epist. Parmen. Bk. I. chs. 5–6, §10–11; ed. Migne, 43 (1841), 40–41. Augustine as a source is of primary value, because of the otherwise unknown sources which he uses and quotes.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 988–1028; Maclear, in Smith & W. Dict. 1 (1877), 216–228. For literature see Schaff, Chevalier, Engelmann, and for particular literature of the Donatist portions, Hartranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369–372; and for editions, see Schoenemann, Graesse, Brunet, Engelmann, Schaff, Hartranft, &c.
The equally numerous series of non-Christian writers is headed, in value at least, though not in time, by Constantine’s secretary.
(13) Eutropius (4th cent.). Abridgment of Roman History, Bk. 10. Multitudes of editions and translations; the ones used are: (Paris, 1539), 63–68; transl. by Watson, (Bohn, 1853), 527–535. Eutropius was secretary to Constantine, and afterwards the intimate of Julian. His testimony, though brief, is of peculiar weight from his position for knowing and from a certain flavor of fairness. It was early remarked (Nicephorus Gregoras) that his praise of Constantine had peculiar force, coming from a heathen and friend of Julian. His dispraise, on the other hand, is conditioned by the fact that he applies it only to the period after Constantine began peculiarly to favor the Christians. He seems to be a cool, level-headed man of the world, unsympathetic with Constantine’s religion and, writing from this standpoint, presents a just, candid, reliable account of him.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 126–127; Watson, Notice, in his translations; also for multitudinous editions and translations, and relatively scanty though considerable literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse.
Compare Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. tr. Wagner, 2 (Lond. 1873), 320–324.
(15) Victor, Sextus Aurelius (fl. 350–400). Cæsars. In ed. Schottius, Antv. Plantin, 1579, p. 97–167. Section on Constantine chiefly, 157–162. Epitome, Antv. 1579. Section on Constantine, p. 49–52. These works, by different authors, have been associated since the time of the above edition with the name of Victor. The former is by him, the latter probably by a slightly later Victor. They use the same sources with Zosimus, but supplement him (Wordsworth). Both are interesting and important, and in Manso’s judgment, final where they agree.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1256–1257; Thomas, article Aurelius, in Biog. Dict. (1886), 228; Manso, Leben Const. p. 215; and scanty references in Chevalier. For editions and farther literature, see Engelmann.
(16) Praxagoras Atheniensis (4th cent). In Photius, Cod. 62; Ed. Bekker, p. 20; ed. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 2–3. Lived in reign of Constantine (Müller, p. 2). Although a heathen (Photius, Cod, 62), he lauds Constantine above all his predecessors. He wrote various works in the Ionic dialect, among others a “history of the deeds of Constantine the Great, in two books,” composed at the age of twenty-two. The fragments or resumé are preserved by Photius, as above. Though brief (three columns), it is a concise mass of testimony.
Compare Smith, Dict. 3. 517; also for literature, Chevalier; and for editions, the various editions of Photius in Graesse, Hofmann, Engelmann, &c.
(17) Calendarium Romanum Constantini Magni (350). In Petavius, Uranologium (1630), 112–119. Written after 337, and in or before 355, probably in 355. It is authority for the birthday of Constantine, Constantius, &c.
Compare Greswell, Origines Kalendariæ Italicæ, 4 (Oxf. 1854), 388–392.
(18) Julian the Apostate (331–363). Cæsars. Orations on Constantius and Constantinus, et pass. Ed. Paris, 1630, p. 12–96, 422; Vol. 2, 1–54, passim. Compare also ed. Hertlein, Lips. 1875–76, 2 v. 8vo. Editions and translations are very numerous. (Compare arts. of Wordsworth and Graves; also Engelmann, Graesse, &c. The orations which are panegyrical were delivered (Wordsworth) 355 and 358, and the Cæsars dates from shortly after his accession (in 361). The latter is a satire which has found literary favor, the substantial purpose of which is thought to be a suggestion that he (Julian) is much superior to all the great emperors; but which if one were to venture a guess at its real motive is quite as much a systematic effort to minimize by ridicule the lauded Constantine. The laudatory words of Julian himself in his orations are quite overshadowed by the bitter sarcasms of the Cæsars. As a matter of estimate of the value of this source, there is to be remembered the bitterness of Julian’s hostility to Christianity. What to Eusebius was a virtue would to Julian be a vice. In view of his prejudice, everything which he concedes is of primary weight, while his ill-natured gossip carries a presumption of slanderousness.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 2. 40–59; Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 3. 484–525; Graves, in Smith, Dict. 644–655. Compare for endless literature, Wordsworth, Chevalier, Engelmann, 1 (1880), 476–477.
(19) Libanius, (314 or 316–391 +). Orations. Ed. Morellus, Par. 1606–1627. Contain a few allusions of more or less interest and historical value, for which, see ed. Morellus, Index volume 2, fol. Qqqvb.
Compare Schmitz, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 774–776; and for editions and literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.
(21) Ammianus Marcellinus (d. ab. 395). Histories. There are many editions, for which compare Engelmann, Graesse, and Wordsworth. Among editions are ed. Valesius (1636) and ed. Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1871. The work was a continuation of Tacitus, but the first thirteen books (including Constantine’s period) are best. He says (Bk. 15, ed. Valesius, 1636, p. 56–57) that Constantine investigated the Manichæans and like sects through Musonius, and gives account of the bringing of his obelisk to Rome, perhaps by Constantine (Bk. 17, p. 92–93; compare Parker, Twelve Egypt. Obelisks in Rome, Oxf. 1879, p. 1), and makes other mention, for which see Index to ed. Eyssenhardt, p. 566.
Compare Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 1 (1879, 99–101, and for literature, Chevalier (scanty) and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 43–45 (Rich).
(22) Eunapius (Anti-Christian) (ab. 347–414). Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists; Ædesius. Ed. Boissonade (Amst. 1822), 19–46 passim. Eunapius was born at Sardis about 347, and died after 414 a.d. (cf. Müller, Fragm. 87). He was a teacher of rhetoric, and besides this work wrote a continuation of the history of Dexippus, extending from 270–404 a.d. Fragments of this are preserved, but none relating to Constantine. Photius (Cod. 77) says that he calumniated the Christians, especially Constantine. With the fragments in Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 11–56, is included also (14–15) a fragment from the Vita Ædes., relating to Sopater. The death of Sopater and the relation of Ablavius to it is given more fully in the Vita Ædes. with various suggestive allusions. Much of his history is supposed to be incorporated in Zosimus, and this gives importance to his name, weight to Zosimus, and light on the hostile position of Zosimus towards Constantine.
(23) Bemarchius (4th cent.) was of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; wrote the Acts of Constantine in ten books (Suidas, s.v. Βήμαρχιος; cf. Zonaras, p. 386). No portion is preserved. Wrote under Constantius, on whom he is said (Libanius, Orat. ed. Reiske, p. 24) to have delivered a panegyric.
Cf. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 3; Smith, Dict. 1 (1859), 482, &c.
An early but as yet valueless group is that of Syriac and Armenian sources on the (apocryphal) treaty of Constantine with Tiridates.
(24) Zenobius of Klag (fl. ab. 324). History of Daron. French translation from Armenian in Langlois, Coll. Hist. Arm. 1 (1867), 353–355. Like the works of the other Armenian historians, the text of this writer has suffered more or less from corruption. He has two mentions (p. 344 and 351) of Constantine, the latter being an account of the treaty with Tiridates.
Compare introduction of Langlois, and literature in Chevalier.
(25) Agathangelus (ab. 330). History of the Reign of Tiridates and of the Preaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator, c. 125–127, §163–169; in Acta SS. Boll. Sept. VIII. 320– ; also with French translation from Armenian in Langlois Coll. d. hist. de l’Arm. p. 97– . The work extends for 226–330 a.d. The author was secretary to Tiridates, but the work as we have it is a redaction made, however, not long after, as it was used by Moses of Khorene. This was in turn later (seventh century?) retouched by some Greek hagiographer. This Greek form is extant in mss. at Florence and Paris (cf. editions above), and there is reason to suppose that the extant Armenian is a version from this Greek form. But with its additions of arrantly apocryphal matter, it is hard to tell what is what, and so all considerable mention of the relation of Constantine and Tiridates has been left out of the account of Constantine’s life. Yet we must hesitate to put it all down under the mythical; for Tiridates certainly had intercourse with the Romans, and the original form of this life was certainly by a competent hand, and the matter relating to Constantine is in part soberly historical enough.
For farther information, compare Davidson on Gregorius Illuminator, in Smith & W., Dict. 2. 737–739; Introduction, Langlois, p. 99–103.
(26) Faustus of Byzantium (320–392). Historical Library. French translation from the Armenian in Langlois, Coll. d. hist. Arm. 1. 201–310. There are mentions of Constantine and Tiridates in Bk. 3, chaps. 10 and 21. The work is open to some suspicions of having been tampered with, but Langlois inclines to give it a fairly good character. If genuine, the mention of the treaty with Tiridates would nearly establish it as historical fact.
Compare Beauvois Nouv. biog. gén. 17 (1856), 203, and Introduction of Langlois; also, literature in Chevalier.
The writers of the following centuries are for the most part Christian, uncertain or religiously unknown, excepting the very pronounced non-Christian who heads the list.
(27) Zosimus (fl. ab. 400–450). History. Ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837), 8vo. Section on Constantine occupying Bk. 2. 8– , p. 72–106. The date of this writer has been put as early as the fourth century and as late as the end of the fifth. It will be safe to divide extremes. He is a heathen who, on the period of Constantine, draws from an anti-Christian and anti-Constantinian source, and who regards the introduction of Christianity as a chief cause of the decline of the Roman Empire (cf. various passages cited by Milligan). He is prejudiced against Christianity with the bitter prejudice of one who finds himself in a steadily narrowing minority, and he is occasionally credulous. But he wrote in a clear, interesting style, without intentional falsifications, and was quite as moderate as the Christian writer (Evagrius 3. 41) who calls Zosimus himself a “fiend of hell.” His extended account is therefore of great value among the sources, and especially as it is probably drawn in large measure from the earlier lost work of Eunapius.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W., 4 (1887), 1225–1227: Mason, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1334–1335; also, for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, and for editions, Engelmann.
Anonymus Valesianus (fifth century). Ed. Valesius (Paris, 1636), p. 471–476. This fragment, first published by Valesius in the above editions of Ammianus, is of the highest value for the life of Constantine. It is evidently drawn from various sources, many of which are now lost. The compiler or writer shows a judiciousness and soberness which commends his statements as peculiarly trustworthy.
Compare the exhaustive examination by Ohnesorge, Der Anonymus Valesii de Constantino. Kiel, 1885. 8vo.
(27) Stephen of Byzantium (ab. 400). Greek Cities. Venet. Aldus, 1502, fol. H. iii. s.v. Ναϊσσὸς. The work is a dictionary of geography, and the fact in these few lines is of first value.
Compare Smith, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 904–906. Chevalier, Hoffmann, etc.
(28) Sozomen (b. ab. 400). Ecclesiastical History. Ed.
Hussey, English translation, London, Bohn, 1855; newly edited by
Hartranft in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2 (1890)
[in press]. This history covers the period 323–423 (not 439). He
draws largely from Eusebius. He has been described rightly
(Dowling,
Compare also Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 722–723, and literature in Chevalier.
(29) Socrates (b. ab. 408). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, reprinted with Introduction by Bright, Oxf. 1878. English translation London, Bohn, newly edited by Zenos in volume 2 of this series [in press]. This history covers the period 306–439. It is written with general good judgment, but for Constantine adds little to Eusebius of which it professes to be a continuation.
For farther description and discussion, compare Zenos, Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 709–711, and literature in Chevalier.
(30) Theodoret (b. ab. 393?–457?). Ecclesiastical History. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 82 (1859), 879–1280. English translation, London, Bohn, 1854. The birth of Theodoret has been placed at various dates, 386, 387, 393, &c., and the exact time of his death (453–458) is equally uncertain. This work reaches from 324 to 429, and is generally regarded as learned and impartial. It gives much concerning Constantine’s relations to the Arian controversy and incorporates many documents, which appear to be taken mainly from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. A chief value is, it would seem, for the text of Eusebius. But his very use of documents shows care and gives value.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 904–919; Newman, Hist. Sketches, 2 (1876), 303–362; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 881–882; and literature in Chevalier; also for editions, Graesse and Hoffmann.
(31) Orosius, Paulus (ab. 417). Histories, Bk. 7, chaps. 26–28. Ed. Migne Patrol. Lat. 31 (1846), 635–1174; section relating to Constantine occupies 1128–1137. For many editions and mss. compare Schoenemann, Bibl. Patr. Lat. 2 (1794), 481–507, and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 441– . It is said (Manso) that Orosius adds nothing to existing material. This is only in part true. At all events, his value as corroboratory evidence is considerable, brief as the work is.
Compare Phillott, in Smith & W, 4 (1887), 157–158; Ebert, Gesch. d. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 323–330, and literature in Chevalier and Engelmann.
(32) Prosper Aquitanus (403–463+). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 535–606 (8). Portion relating to Constantine, 574–576. The Chronicle extends to 444 or 455. To 326 he depends mainly on Eusebius’ Chronicle, and for the rest of our period on the continuation of Hieronymus.
Compare Phillott, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 492–497; Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. 2 (Lond. 1873), 482–484; and for literature, editions, &c., Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.
(33) Idatius (468+). List of Consuls (Fasti Idatiani). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 891–914; portion relating to Constantine, 907–908. Idatius lived until after 469. This work, which is not generally acknowledged to be his, although quoted under his name, ends in 468. It contains brief statements of some events under the most significant years.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), and literature under “Idace de Lamego,” in Chevalier.
(34) Gelasius of Cyzicus (ab. 450– ). History of the Council of Nicæa. In Labbe, Concilia, 2 (1671), 103–286. There is also an abstract in Photius, Bibl. Cod. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 103 (1860), 293–296. Venables is probably just when he says: “His work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue.” There is a little on Constantine not in those sources, but to try to fix on any of it as authoritative quite baffles one. Still, it is not wholly clear that he did not use sources, as well as his own imagination, in adding to the other sources. It may be said to be “of doubtful value,” as source. It is not easy to see what Venables means in saying that the third hook, as we have it, gives only three letters of Constantine. This is true; but the second book, “as we have it,” gives several more.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 621–623.
(35) Jacobus of Sarug (452–521). Homily on the Baptism of Constantine. Ed. Frothingham, Roma, 1882. For further information consult the extended study of Frothingham.
(25) Philostorgius (b. ab. 468). English translation by Walford (Lond. Bohn, 1855), 425–528. The original work covered the period between 300 and 425. The fragments preserved contain several interesting facts, or fictions, relating to Constantine, some not found elsewhere. Photius and all the orthodox have always called him untrustworthy or worse, and a very unorthodox critic (Gibbon) finds him passionate, prejudiced, and ignorant; but it seems to be agreed that he used some sources not availed of by others.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1587), 390; Dowling, Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 26–27; and literature in Chevalier.
(26) Hesychius Milesius (ab. 500?– ). Origins of Constantinople. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 146–155; also in ed. Orelli (Lips. 1820), 59–73. Hesychius, surnamed Illustris, of Miletus lived in the early part of the sixth century. This work contains several allusions to the founding of the city of Constantine. It seems to have been taken almost word for word in parts by Codinus.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 12–13; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 447–448; Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 143–145; also literature in Chevalier, and editions and literature in Engelmann.
Compare Young, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 416–418, or (better for this work) Ramsay, in Smith, 1 (1859), 623–625; and for literature and editions, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse, etc.
(28) Lydus, Joannes (Laurentius) (490–550+). De Mensibus; De Magistratibus; De Ostentis, passim. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. Hist. Byz. (1837). Other editions of the various works may be found noticed in Graesse, Trésor, 4 (1863), 122; Brunet, Manuel, 3 (1862), 880; Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 478–479; Hoffmann, Lex. He was born at Philadelphia in 490, and lived some time after 550. He was a heathen, but respectful toward Christianity (Photius, Cod. 180). He mentions Constantine ten or a dozen times; e.g. his foundation of Constantinople (De O. 21. 5), Constantine’s learning and military skill (De mag. 3. 53), and quotes (De magistr. 3. 33, ed. Bonn., p. 226), Constantine’s own writings.
Compare Photius, Cod. 180; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 600; Hase, Pref. and in ed. Bekker; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer), 32 (1860), 388–391; and for farther literature, Chevalier and the article of Joubert, and Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 479.
(29) Jordanes (or Jornandes) ( –551?). History of the Goths, (De Getarum origine et rebus gestis). In Cassiodorus, Opera, ed. Garetius, 1 (Rotom. 1679), 397–425; same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69 (1865), 1251–1296. This work on the Goths is said by its author to be an epitome of the work of Cassiodorus. It says (p. 406–407) that Constantine employed Goths in his campaign against Licinius, and also in the building of Constantinople. It was composed in 551 or 552 (cf. Wattenbach, Deutschland’s Geschichtsq. 1 [1877], 66).
Compare Hodgkin, in Encycl. Brit. 13 (1881), 747–749; Acland, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 431–438 (exhaustive); and abundant literature in Chevalier, Engelmann, Wattenbach, &c.; also editions in Engelmann, “Potthast. Bibl. hist. med. æv. 1862, p. 102,” &c.
(30) Anonymous, qui Dionis Cassii historias continuavit (sixth century?). 14. Licinius (18 lines); 15. Constantinus (9 lines). In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 199; of especially Introd. in Müller, p. 191–192. These were first published by Ang. Mai in Script. Vet. Nov. Call. 2, 135–, 527–, and are found also in various editions of Dion Cassius; e.g. ed. Sturz. 9 (Spz. 1843). Mai strongly inclines to suspect that Johannes Antiochenus is the author, but this Müller (p. 191) argues to be impossible. They are sometimes referred to as Excerpta Vaticana. Petrus Patricius and various others have been suggested as authors, but all that is affirmed with any assurance is that the author was a Christian. This is on the ground of Diocletianus, 1 (p. 198). The fragments are very brief, but contain several little facts and turns not found elsewhere.
(31) Evagrius (536?–594+). Ecclesiastical History, 3. 40–41. English translation (1709), 472–474. A violent invective against and disproval of the charges of Zosimus against Constantine and adds nothing to historical facts.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 423–424.
(32) Procopius Cæsariensis (fl. 547–565). Histories. Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1833–1838, 3 v. Two or three slight mentions, of which the nearest to any account is the division of the empire by Constantine, and the founding of Constantinople (De bel. Vand, 1. 1). He flourished from about 547 to 565. Whether he was Christian or heathen is uncertain. He is characterized by peculiar truthfulness (cf. his De ædif. 1; Praf. ed. Bonn, v. 3, 170–, and Milligan).
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 487–488; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 3, 538–540; also for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, 1. 655; and for editions, Milligan, Plate, and the various bibliographies.
(33) Petrus Patricius (fl. 550–562). Fragments. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 189. Gives account of an embassy of Licinius to Constantine.
Compare Means, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 226–227; also Chevalier and Hoffmann.
(34) Gregory of Tours (ab. 573–594). History of the Franks, 1. 34. Ed. Ruinart (Paris, 1699), 27, &c. (?) History of the Seven Sleepers, do. 1272–1273, &c. Liber miraculorum, do. 725–729. The edition of Ruinart is reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Lat. vol. 71 (1867). In the first of these he quotes as authorities, Eusebius and Junius; the latter are full of legendary matter.
Compare Buchanan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 771–776; also for editions and literature, Engelmann, Chevalier, and Graesse.
(35) Chronicon Paschale (ab. 630 a.d.) Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832, 2 v.; section relating to Constantine occupies vol. 1, p. 516–533. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 92 (Paris, 1865). The work is a chronicle of the world from the creation until 630. It has been thought, but on insufficient grounds (cf. Salmon), that the first part ended with a.d. 354 and was written about that time. It is really a homogeneous work and written probably not long after 630 a.d. (Salmon). It is frequently quoted, unfortunately, as Alexandrian Chronicle (e.g. M’Clintock and Strong Cycl.). The chief value is the chronological, but the author has used good sources and presumably some not now extant. It has something the value of a primary source of second rate.
(36) Anonymous Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander (seventh century?), “in which is contained also a life of the emperor Constantine the Great.” In Photius, Cod. 256; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 104 (1860), 105–120. A more complete recession of this anonymous piece was edited by Combefis, who regards it as the work of a contemporary, written therefore in the middle of the fourth century (cf. his Hist. Mon. p. 573, teste Fabricius). The authentic details can be traced word for word, according to Tillemont, in other historians, while impossible statements show it to be not the work of a contemporary. It seems to fall under the class of works where “What is true is not new, and what is new is not true,” but it can hardly be regarded as sufficiently determined whether or no it is worthless.
Compare Tillemont, Mém. 7 (1732), 657; Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. 9 (1737), 124 and 498; Acta. SS. Nov. 1.
(37) Johannes Antiochenus (fl. 610–650). Chronological History. Fragments in Müller, 4 (1868), 535 (8)–622; Fragm. 168–169, on Constantius and Galerius, and 170–171a, on Constantine, p. 602–603. This writer is to be distinguished from Johannes Malalas, also known as Johannes Antiochenus. He flourished somewhere between 610–650 (Müller, p. 536). The sections relating to Constantine are in the main exactly correspondent to Eutropius. It has been conjectured (Müller, p. 1538) that Eutropius and Johannes copied from a common Greek source; but the curious error in the section on Constantine (p. 603), by which “commodæ” is converted into a proper name, and becomes the name of the sister whose son Constantine put to death, shows it to have been translated from the Latin. The work of Johannes has, however, some interesting suggestions and additions; e.g. its paraphrase of the word “dubius” in the characterization of Constantine’s conduct towards his friends.
Compare Müller, p. 535–538; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 587; also article of Stokes, and other literature under Malalas.
(38) Malalas (= John of Antioch) (ab. 700). Chronography, Bk. 13, 1–11. Ed. Dindorf (Bonnæ, 1831); in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (section on Constantine, p. 316–324); also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 97 (Par. 1865), 1–70. Earlier editions are, Oxf. 1691, 8o; Venice, 1733, fol. [reprint of 1691, “quite useless”]. Lived about 700 (Müller, Fragm. 4 [1868], 536), or about 650 (Chevalier, 1205). He has been placed as late as ninth century (Hody), and as early as 601 (Cave). Noting is known of his personal history. He is to be distinguished from the John of Antioch in Müller’s Fragm. who is earlier than Malalas. He is very credulous and inaccurate and the section on Constantine is no exception to the rule.
Compare Prolegomena of Hody and Dindorf; Stokes, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 787–788, &c.; and farther literature in Chevalier, Rép. 1205; Hoefer, Nouv. biog. gén. 32 (1060), 1007, and the article of Stokes.
(39) Pseudo-Isidore (eighth cent.?). Decretals. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 130 (1853), 245–252. The famous “Donation of Constantion,” which appears here for the first time. See under The Mythical Constantine.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 4 (1885), 268–733; and for literature, Chevalier under Isidore Mercator; also the literature of the Donation.
(40) Theophanes (758–818). Chronography. Ed. Classen, Bonn. 1839–41, 2 v. Section on Constantine occupying vol. 1, p. 10–51; also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 108 (186). This work “is justly regarded as one of the most important in the whole series of Byzantine historians” (Dowling, p. 69). Theophanes was friend of Georgius Syncellus; and at his request (Prœm. p. 5) took up the latter work at the point where he left off (Diocletian), extending it to 811. He is an authority of judgment and weight for matters relating to his own times, and on quite a different level of historical character from Cedrenus and Zonaras. Although of very much less value for Constantine, he shows even here a certain historical judgment and discrimination. His book is an intelligent work from various sources, one of which is Eusebius. He says that he has diligently examined many works, and reports nothing on his own authority, but on the authority of ancient historiographers and “logographers” (Prœm. p. 5).
Compare Dowling Introd. (Lond. 1838), 69–70; Smith, in Smith, Dict. 3. 1082–1083; Gass, in Herzog, Real Enc. 15 (1885), 536–537; Acta sanctorum Boll. March 12; and for (extensive) literature, Chevalier.
(41) Anastasius Bibliothecarius (d. 879). Lives of the Roman Pontiffs. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 127–128 (1852). 34. S. Silvester, vol. 127, 1511–1527. Small use.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of the Church, 4 (1885), 774–776; and for literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.
(42) Photius (ninth cent.). Bibliotheca. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. vols. 103–104 (1860). Contains excerpts from and comments on Praxagoras, Eunapius, Gelasius, Anon. Metroph., and Eusebius, which see.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 4 (1885), 636–642; Means, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 347–355.
(43) Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (c. VII.) (fl. 911–959). De thematibus. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1840), 1–64, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz.; and in ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 113 (1864), 63–140. Gives (2. 8, ed. Bonn. p. 57–58) account of division of the empire among his sons by Constantine. He also mentions in his De cer. aul. Byz. (ed. Reiske, Bonn. 1829; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 112); e.g. the “cross of Constantine” several times mentioned, and gives a few facts of archæological interest. Constantinus VII was emperor 911–959.
(44) Leo Diaconus (tenth century). Histories, 5. 9 and 8. 8. In ed. Hase (Bonn. 1828), p. 91 and 138. Mentions the foundation of a city, the vision of the cross, the Scythian wars, and burial in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, and characterizes him as “among emperors the one renowned in story” (8. 8). For other editions, compare Brunet, Graesse, Hoffmann, and Engelmann. He lived from about 950 to at least 993. He was used by Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus) and perhaps Zonaras. “Style vicious,” and “knowledge…of ancient history is slight” (Means).
Compare Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 743–744; M’Clintock and Strong, Encycl. 5 (1875), 351; Hase, Præf.; and for literature, Chevalier.
It is by some stretching of the term that many of those dating before the year 1000 are admitted as sources. Some contribute hardly a single fact not in other sources. This is still more true of the period following, but this period is especially rich in sources of historical fictions—and these must be considered. So the Byzantine historians to the invention of printing are given, and some Western writings, which contain relevant matter.
(45) Zonaras, Johannes (1042–1130?). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 134–135 (Par. 1864). The section relating to Constantine occupies Vol. I. 1097–1118, Bk. 13, chs. 1–4; cf. also end of Bk. 12. The ed. Pinder, Bonn. 1841–1844, 2 v., is unfinished, containing only twelve books. It has since been edited by Dindorf, Lips. 1868–1875, 6 v. Bk. 13 is in Vol. 3 (1870). This work consists of eighteen books extending from the beginning of the world until 1118. Zonaras draws, for Christian period, from Eusebius, Philostorgius, &c., with some discernment, and so deserves a tolerably high place among the Byzantine historians (Zöckler). He incorporates a choice variety of fables, but gives more or less facts which seem to be facts. He actually adds almost nothing to the sources of Constantine, though there are certain facts over which one lingers a little before relegating to the great class of “interesting, if true.”
Compare Smith, Dict. 3. 1331; (Zöckler), in Herzog, Real Enc. 17 (1886), 555–556; and for (rich) literature, Zöckler, Chevalier, and Engelmann, 1 (1880), 798.
(46) Cedrenus, Georgius (ab. 1057). Compendium of History. Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1838–1839, 2 v., the section relating to Constantine occupying Vol. I, p. 472–520 et pass. Also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 121–122 (Par. 1864). Nothing is known of his personal history. The work is a chronicle from the beginning of the world until 1057 a.d. He mentions as his chief sources Georgius Syncellus, “until the time of Maximianus and Maximinus,” and from this point Theophanes, Siculus, Psellus, and others (cf. p. 4; cf. also Glycas. Chron., ed. Bonn. p. 457), and claims to have collected facts not in these sources. He mentions the work of Joannes Thracesius, or Curopalates, who is probably Scylitzes, whose work corresponds so exactly with that of Cedrenus in parts as to suggest the one or the other a better copier than compiler. The statement of Ceillier is that Cedrenus copied the work of Scylitzes for the period 811–1057, and that Scylitzes afterwards continued his work to 1081; i.e. there was a double edition of the work of Scylitzes, and Cedrenus wrote between. But Means (p. 760) thinks otherwise, and gives good reasons, making one edition and placing Cedrenus’ work later, i.e. after 1081. The “additional facts” are few, the compilation is uncritical and credulous; but the work is recognized as a source to be consulted, though with greatest critical care.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 658; Ceillier, 13 (1863), 560; Means, Scylitzes, in Smith, Dict. 3. 759–762; and for literature, Chevalier, under the words Cedrene and Scylitzes.
(47) Pseudo-Leo. Chronography, under Constantius Chlorus and Constantinus Magnus. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1842), p. 83–90. In Corp. scr. hist. Byz. from Cramer, Anecd. gr. bibl. reg. Par. 2 (1839), 243–379. It is published as the first part of the Chronography of Leo Grammaticus, because assigned to him by the catalogues of the ms. at Paris. It is thought by Cramer, however, not to be by him, but to be “compiled from various writers,—Cedrenus, Joannes Antiochenus, Chronicon Paschali, and perhaps others which are lost” (cf. Cramer, Anecd. gr. 2. 243–379, quoted by Bekker, Præf. iii.–iv.). In this section the author quotes Socrates and Eusebius, but uses other and some unusual sources. While one hesitates to lay much weight on an author of such unknown age and personality, and which contains obvious errors, yet it carries the conviction of a certain moderate weight. Many passages are identical, almost word for word, with Cedrenus. In one of these passages the author refers to Socrates as his authority, while there is no such mention in Cedrenus. They may have taken from the same source. At all events, this work appears on its face much more like sober history than do Cedrenus and Zonaras. Its absolute value as source is very slight.
Compare Preface of Bekker.
(48) Attaliata, Michael (ab. 1072). History. Ed. De Presle and Bekker, Bonn. 1853. 8°. He mentions (p. 217, also p. 222) half a dozen things relating to Constantine; that he was reckoned among the apostles, the sign of the cross, &c., but nothing of value, unless (p. 222) the transposition of a colony from Iberia to Assyria (?).
Compare Præf. of De Presle, also Graves, in Smith, Dict. 1. 409, who, however, does not mention this work; and for literature, Chevalier and De Presle, p. 7–8.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 179; Klippel, in Herzog, 1 (1877), 427–429, &c.
(50) Glycas, Mich (after 1118). Chronicle (or Annals). Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1836; the section relating to Constantine occupies p. 460–468, ed. Migne, 158 (Par. 1866), 1–958. This work of Glycas extends from the beginning of the world to a.d. 1118. Though “justly placed among the better Byzantine historians” (Plate), for the period of Constantine he is one of the worst. His critical judgment seems to incline to the selection of the most unhistoric. He gives at end of preceding section a description of the work of Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus), and quotes in it a work of Alexander on the Invention of the Cross.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 277; Joubert. in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer), 20 (1857), 845–846; and for literature, Chevalier; also for editions, Hoffmann.
(51) Nicetas Choniatas (Acominatus) (1150–1216+). History. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. Bonn. 1835, 8°; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 139 (1865), 282–1088 (=Mai, Bibl. nov. patr. 6. ?). Thesaurus, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 139–140 (1865), 1087–1443, 1–282 (=Mai, Spicil. Rom. v. 4). Born about 1150, and lived until 1216 at least. Gives in his History two or three things which relate to “the first and mightiest among Christian emperors” (De Is. Aug. 3. 7, ed. Bonn. p. 583); e.g. the tale of the nails from the cross (do. p. 584), and the despoiling of his tomb (De Al. Is. Aug. 1. 7, p. 632); also a few in the Thesauri, e.g. his conciliation to Arianism through his sister and her friend, the Arian presbyter (6. 3 and 6), and various matters relating to the Arian controversy (mainly in Bk. 5), where he uses the familiar sources,—Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius, &c, but also some other less familiar ones.
Compare Worman, in M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclop. 7 (1877), 54–55; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 1182–1183; Ullmann, in Stud. u. Krit. (1833), 674–700; Gass, in Herzog, 10 (1882), 540–541, and abridged in Schaff-Herz. 2. 1652. Compare for literature, the above and Chevalier; and for editions, Worman, Plate, Brunet, Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.
(52) Gregoras, Nicephoras (1295–1359). Byzantine History, Bks. 1–37. Ed. Shopen (v. 1–2) and Bekker (v. 3), Bonn. 1829, 1830, and 1855. In Corp. scr. hist. Byz.; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 148–149 (1865). Mentions incidentally half a dozen facts relating to foundation of Constantinople (10.1; 14. 3, &c.), his destruction of idolatry (19. 1), treatment of the Jews (26. 15), and enlargement of empire (26. 37). He was born 1295, and died after 1359. Was more learned but less judicious than Cantacuzenus (Plate).
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 304–306; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gén. 21 (1857), 889–891; also for literature, Chevalier, and for editions, Plate and Joubert.
(53) Ephræmius (fourteenth century). Cæsars (?). Constantinus. Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1840, 8°; section on Constantine occupies p. 21–25; ed. Migne, 143 (Par. 1865), 1–380. It was first edited by Mai, Scr. vet. nov. coll. 3 (1828), 1–225 (Dowl.). This metrical chronicle introduces one or two fables, but is in the main at least semi-historical, but its additional facts give no impression of having special sources,—in brief, it is scarcely a source, rather literature.
Compare Smith, Dict. 2. 28; Bonneau, in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer) 16 (1856), 127; Mai, Præf. in ed. Bekker, also ed. Migne. Compare for literature, Chevalier.
(54) Cantacuzenus, Joannes. Angelus Comnenus Palæologus (d. 1375+). Histories. Ed. Schopen, Bonn. 1828–1832, 3 v.; also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 153–154 (Dowl. 1866). Speaks of Constantine as a model of clemency (4. 2; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 18) worthy to be compared with the apostles (3. 92), and as led by the spirit of God like David (4. 48; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 351), and mentions the time (in May) when his memory is celebrated (4. 4; 3. 92), but has hardly a half-dozen mentions and fewer facts of interest or value. He reigned 1342–1355, abdicated, and lived until after 1375.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 579–581; and for farther literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, also for editions.
(55) Nicephorus Callistus (d. ab. 1450). Ecclesiastical History, 7. 17–18, 55. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 145–147. Bk. 7 is in 145, and Bk. 8 in 146. This late history, not so bad as some in style, but full of legendary matter, was compiled from the standard existing historians, and perhaps some others. The portions on Constantine are taken almost wholly from Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and other existing historians.
Compare Schaff, Church Hist. 3 (1884), 883–884; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1180–1181; Dowling, Introd.(1838), 91–93.
(56) Monody on the Younger Constantine (ab. 1450). Ed. Frotscher, Anon. Græci oratio funebris, Freiberg i. S., 1855. This work has not been seen, but according to Seeck (Ztschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1890, p. 64) and Wordsworth (p. 630) this edition contains the result of a study by Wesseling, which shows that this work, referring to an anonymous emperor, does not refer to Constantine II. at all, but to some ruler who belongs in the fifteenth century.
Compare Seeck and Wordsworth for editions.
(57) Codinus (d. ab. 1453?). Excerpts on the origins of
Constantinople. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1843). For
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1 (1859), 810–811; Nouv. biog. gén. 11 (1855), 24–25; and for literature, Chevalier.
(58) Ducas (fl. 1450–1460 a.d.) gives “From the incarnation until Constantine the Great, 318 years,” and speaks of a church restored by him. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (1834), p. 13 and 48.
(59) Geoffrey of Monmouth (d. 1154). British History. English translation (Lond. Bohn, 1848), 162– . The passage relating to Constantine covers a number of pages, and is ninety-five per cent fiction, five per cent fact.
Compare Tedder, in Stephen, Dict. of Nat. Biog. 21 (1890), 133–135.
Various of the old chronicles are only translations or paraphrases of this; e.g. the Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft (ed. Wright, Lond. 1866, p. 76–78), various Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, and French chronicles, Waurin’s Recueil des Chroniques (ed. Hardy, Lond. 1864), although Hardy maintains that neither Waurin or any of the other versions are real translations, but says there is some lost common source.
(60) Henry of Huntingdon (1135). History of the English. Ed. Arnold, Lond. 1879, 8°, p. 29–31. Engl. translation, Lond. Bohn, 1853, p. 28–29. This is written from generally good sources, notably Eutropius, and means to be historical; but its mythical details—e.g. Helena, a British princess, Constantine cured of leprosy—make it useless.
Compare Forester, Preface to translation; Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 167–173.
(61) William of Malmesbury (1137). Chronicle of England. English translation, Giles (Lond. Bohn, 1847), 6. Mentioned as a source because often quoted in literature. He ascribes to Constantine the introduction of the British settlement in France.
Compare Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 134–142.
(62) Diceto, Ralph de (d. 1202?). Abbreviated Chronicles. Ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876; section on Constantine, p. 73–76. This work was composed before 1188. It consists in the main of abstracts from Eutropius, Eusebius, Jerome, and Rufinus, with various mythical details from William of Malmesbury and other sources.
Compare Poole, in Stephen, Dict. of Nat. Biog. 15 (1888), 12–14. This is taken from Stubbs, Introduction, q.v.
(63) Eulogium Historiarum (ab. 1366). Ed. Haydon, Lond. 1858, 3 v.; section on Constantine, 1. 337–339; 2. 267–268, 332–333; 3. 12, 265. This was probably written by Peter, a monk of Malmesbury (Haydon), about 1366. Compiled from various sources, has familiar facts, but is of no value except for legends.
Compare Preface of Haydon.
(64) Voragine (1230–1298). Golden Legend. Legend concerning the Invention of the Cross. Ed. Graesse (Lips. 1846, repr. Vratisl. 1890). French translation by Brunet, 2 (1843), 118–116. Early English translation printed by Caxton. A curious mixture of fact and fable, in which legendary is gathered, but all facts are expressed with a curious conscientiousness, or pretended conscientiousness, in quoting authorities. But on Constantine, however, his authorities do not always come to the test of containing what he quotes from them.
Compare article Varaggio, in M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclop. 10 (1881), 719, Brunet’s Preface and the Proceedings of the American Soc. of Ch. Hist. for 1889.
Besides the above-mentioned sources there are many mentions which may be found in the various collections of mediæval documents, such, e.g., as Pertz, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, which has various interesting chronicles covering the period of Constantine.
§ 3. Literature.
In making the following thread to the rich literature on Constantine the plan has been to confine almost wholly to Monographs, since to refer to all histories, encyclopædias, and the like which treat of him would be endless. Only such few analyzed references are introduced as have special reasons. Even with this limit it cannot be at all hoped that the list is exhaustive. Considerable pains has been taken, however, to make it full, as there is no really extended modern list of works on Constantine, excepting, perhaps, Chevalier (Rép. des sources hist. du Moyen Age). The effort was made to see each work referred to personally, but the libraries of London, Oxford, Berlin, Paris, could not supply them, and after a good deal of search in other libraries and more or less successful effort to purchase, there is still a considerable portion which has not been seen. The editor has tried in vain to decide in various instances whether præses or respondent is author in certain dissertations. Following is the list:
Alexander, Natalis. Hist. eccles. IV. (1778), 345–351 (=Zaccaria, Thes. theolog. VII. 886–900), 431–451.
Alford, Mich. Brittania illustrata, s. liber de Lucii, Helenæ, et Constantini patria et fide. Antwerpiæ, 1641. 4°.
Altus, Henricus. Donatio Constantini imperatoris facto (ut aiunt) Sylvestro papæ (prœs. Joach. Hildebrando). Helmstadii, 1661. 4° (p. 56). Not Hildebrand?
Alzog, J. Manual of Universal Church History. Tr. Pabisch and Byrne. Cincinnati, O., 1874. 3 v. 8°, p. 462–476. Relations of Constantine the Great to the Catholic Church. Very Roman Catholic.
Andlau, Fr. von. Die byz. Kaiser. Hist.-stud. Mainz, 1865, 8°.
Antoniades, Crysanthos. Kaiser Licinius, eine historische Untersuchung nach dem bestern alten und neueren Quellen. München, 1884. 8°. Unfortunately not at hand, but often mentioned with greatest respect by Görres and others.
Arbellot. Mémoire sur Ies statues équestres de Constantin placées dans Ies églises de l’ouest de la France. Limoges, 1885. 8°, 34 pp. (Cf. Audiat, Louis, in Bull. soc. arch. Saintonge, 1885. II. v. 186–193, 280–292.) Contains a history of the long archaeological discussion on the subject of the equestrian statue on the facades of various churches in the west of France. Some say it represents Charles Martel, Charlemagne, the founder of the church, the rider who appeared to Heliodorus, Rider of the Apocalypse, St. Martin, St. George or the Church Triumphant. Consult for many titles on the discussion, which it is not worth while to give here. Arrives at the result that the “greater part” represent Constantine.
Arendt. Ueber Constantin und sein Verhältniss zum Christenthum. In Theolog. Quartalschr. Tübing. 1834. III. 387.
Arrhenius, Laur. Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magno. Upsal. 1719. 4°.
—— —— Refutatio commenti de donatione Constantini Magni. Upsal. 1729. 8°.
Aubé, B. De Constantino imperatore, pontifice maximo dissertatio. Lutetiæ, 1861. 8°, 108 pp. Examines Constantine’s attitude toward (1) Pagans, (2) Christians; concludes that, as a matter of fact, he exercised the office of Pontifex Maximus over both.
Audiat, Louis. Les statues au portail des églises. In Bull. de la soc. des arch. de la Saintogne. 5 (1884–1885) (1885), 186, 193. Starts out from Arbellot. Gives ten various theories. Mentions various works. This with Arbellot a sufficient apparatus for this topic.
Bachmann, P. Wider die Natterzungen,…Dabey ein Antwort auff Constantini Donation, welche der Luther spöttlich nennet den Hohen Artickel des allerheyligisten Bebstlichen glaubens (Dresden), 1538, 4°, (45). p. Examines whether the Donation is “ein Teuffelische lügen und Gottes lasterung (wie sie der Luther nennet).”
Baier, Joh. Dav. Disputatio de erroribus quibusdam politicis Constantino Magno imputatis. Jenæ, 1705, 4°.
Balduinus, Franc. Constantinus Magnus, sive de Constantini imperatoris Iegibus ecclesiasticis atque civilibus commentariorum libri 2. Basileæ, 1556, 8°; Argent, 1612, 8°; præf. Nic. Hier. Gundling, Lipsiæ-Halæ, 1727, 8°, 235 (23) pp.
Bang, A. Chrs. Kirchen og Romerstaten indtil Constantin den Stre. Christiana, 1879, 8°.
Baring, Nicol. Dissertatio epistolica de crucis signo a Constantino Magno conspecto. Hannov. 1645, 8°.
Baronius. Annales (1590), 306, 16–18, 3–25; 307, 3–15; 312, 7–337, 37; 358, 27. Cf. Pagi, Crit. (1689), 306, 5–307, 14; 311, 9–337, 6; 547, 12.
Bartolini, Domenico. Come Costantini Augusti imperatore innalzasse in Roma i primi sacri edifici del culto cristiano. Dissertezione in Atti Accad. Rom. archeol. 12 (1852) 1. 281–308. Opposes the idea that these belong to a period not before Honorius. Separately printed. “Dissertazione…letta nell’ Adunanza tenuta. il di 16 di marzo, 1843.” pp. 30 (1).
Baudot. Dissertation critique sur la famille de Constantin, & en particulier sur Constantin le Jeune. In Magas. encyclop. 6 (1812), 241–274. Under head of Numismatiqueopposes Valois in Acad. Inscr. 1740. The medals do refer to Constantine. Includes a discussion of Constantine’s family.
Baune, J. de la. Vita Constantini Magni, herausgegeben von A. Jäger. Norimb. 1779, 8°.
Bayet, C. La fausse donation de Constantini, examen de quelques théories récentes. In Ann. fac. lett. Lyon, 1884, 1. 3 (1884), 12–44. The donation belongs in second half of eighth century, or first half of ninth.
Berthelé, Jos. In Bibl. ec. des Chartes, 46 (1885), 330–331. [Review of Arbellot.] Gives brief analysis, and mentions one statue omitted by Arbellot.
Beuste, Joach. V. Oratio de Constantino Magno. Witteb. 1569, 8°. “Extat Tom VI. Orationum Vitemburgensium.”
βίος καὶ πολιτεία τῶν ἁγίων θεοστέπτων μεγ€λων βασιλέων καὶ ἰσαποστόλων Κωνσταντίνου καὶ ῾Ελενης [Mnemeia hagiologica, p. 164] Βενετία, 1884, la. 8°.
Boehringer. Athanasius u. Arius. 1874, p. 1–53.
Boissier. Essais d’histoire religieuse, I. un dernier mot sur les persecutions; II. la conversion de Constantin. In Rev. d. deux mondes (Feb. 1886), p. 790–818, (July) p. 51–72.
Bonnetty, A. De la donation de Constantin et de la protection qu’il accorda au christianisme. In Annal de Philos. chrèt. (1831), 125–136. Personal conversion a secondary question. It is sufficient to have proved that it was no longer possible for paganism to occupy the throne of the world.
Borchmann, Jac. Frid. Dissertatio historico-critica de labaro Constantini Magni. Hafniæ, 1700. 4o.
Bott, Theod. Constantin le Grand et sa position entre le paganisme et le christianisme, essai historico-critique. Colmar, 1874. 8o, 51 pp.
Brieger, Theod. Constantine der Grosse als Religions-politicker. Kirchengeschichtlicher Beitrag. Gotha, 1880. 8o, 48 pp. Cf. Grisar, in Zeitschr. kath. Theol. 1882, vi. 554–562.
Bridges, Matth. Roman Empire under Constantine the Great. London, 1828. 8o, 467 pp.
Broglie, A. de. L’Eglise et L’Empire Romaine au IV. siècle. I. Régne de Constantin. Paris, 1856. 8o. One of the best and most frequently cited.
Brunner, H. In the Festgabe für R. v. Gneist, Berlin, 1888, p. 5 (1)–35. Donation.
Buchholz, Sam. Constantin der Grosse in seiner wahren Grösse wirderhergestellt. Berlin, 1772. 4o.
Buddeus. Observ. sel. liter. I. (1700), 370–440.
Burckhardt, Jak. Die Zeit Constantin’s des Grossen. Basel, 1853. 8o, 222 pp. Leipzig, 1880. 8o. For a long time the standard work on Constantine. Unsympathetic, and in a measure unjust.
De Burigney. Hist. des Revolutions de l’empire le Constantinople depuis le fondation.…Paris, 1750; tr. German, Hamb. 1754.
Busæus, Joh. Disputatio theolog. de baptismo Constantini Magni. 4o. Moguntiæ, 1589.
Canonici, Matt. Alois. Proposizioni storico-critiche intorno alla vita dell’ imperatore Costantino.…4o. Parma, 1760. Compare Cigola, Vincenzo.
Castelli, Ign. Intorno al battesimo di Costantino imper. dissertazione. In La scienza e la fede. 11 (Nap. 1870), 201–219.
Caussin, Nicolas. Eques christianus, s. Constantius Magnus. Trad. du franç. par Henri Lamormain. Vienn. 1637, 8o.
Cave. Scr. Eccl. I. (1741), 183–185.
Cavedoni, C. Disamina della nuova edizione della Numismatica Costantiniana del P. Raffaele Garrucci d. C. d. G. 19 pp. Extr. dalla Rivista della Numismatica (Olivieri), 2 (1864).
Cavedoni. “Recherches critique sur les médailles de Constantin le Grand et de son fils ornées de types et de symboles chrétiens.” Modena, 1858.
Ceillier. Histoire des auteurs sac. et eccl. 3 (1865), 118–148.
Chaulnes, Gabriel de. In Ann. philos. chrét. 5 ser. E. XVI. (1867), 261–271. On the donation of Constantine.
Chauner. Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine. 1874, 8o.
Chiffletus, Petr. Franc. Dissert.…De loco, tempore & cæteris adjunctis conversionis magni Constantini ad fidem christianam.…Paris, 1676, 8o.
Church Policy of Constantine
the Great. In North British
Ciampini, Joan. De sacris ædificiis a Constantino Magno constructis synopsis historica. Romæ, 1693, la. 4o (or fol.), 8 f.–218 p.
Cigola, Vincenzo. Proposizioni storico-critiche intorno alla vita dell’ Imperatore Costantino (praes. Madama Isabella di Spagna) Vincenzo Cigola Bresciano Convittore nel Regio-Ducal ecclegio de’ Nobili ei Parma. Parma, 1760, 4o, 44 pp. Three plates of coins and medals of Constantine and (2) various theses. At end sixteen pages of inscriptions, and three pages of coins and medals (60 pages in all).
Civilità Cattolica. Ser. 5, Vol. 10 (1864), 601–609. 1. La frase instinctu Divinitatis nell’ arco trionfale di Costantino. 2. Le monete di Costantino, posteriori alla vittoria sopra Massenzio.
Clinton, H. F. Fasti Romani, 1 (Oxf. 1845), 348–397; 2 (1850), 86–94. This is a most convenient massing of sources, including groupings of laws and inscriptions. One of the most thoroughly useful of works.
Coen, Ach. Di una leggenda relativa alla nascità e alla gioventù di Costantino Magno. In Arch. soc. Romana stor. patria, 1880–1882, IV. 1–55, 293–316, 535–561; V. 33–66, 489–541. Roma, 1882. 8o, 191 pp.
Cf. Rev. d. Quest. hist. 33. 682; Vesselofsky, A. in Romania, 14 (1885), 137–143.
Colombier, H. M. La donation de Constantin. In Études relig. hist litt. (1877), 31 year, 5 ser. Vol. II. 801–829. Is worth looking over, as it gathers many of the facts which bear on date. Thinks he has “exact date.” “L’origine Romaine n’est guère douteuse” “vers l’an 687,” by “clecs mécontents du pape.”
Combes, Francois. Les liberateurs des nations. Paris, 1874. 8o, p. 208–229. Constantin Liberateur des Chrétiens.
Considérations générales sur le christianisme (iv. s.). L’empereur Constantin. St. Etiénne, 1884. 16o, 136 pp.
Constantin Imp. Byzantini Numismatis argentei Expositio, 1600.
Constantinus Magnus Romanorum imperator Joanne Reuchline Phorcensi interprete. Tubingæ, 1513. 4o, 23 pp.
Contin. Monthly, 6 (1864), 161 (Schaff?).
Crackenthorpe, Richard. The Defense of Constantine: with a treatise of the Popes temporall monarchie, Wherein, besides divers passages, touching other Counsels, both General and Proviciall, the second Roman Synod, under Sylvester, is declared to be a meere Fiction and Forgery. London, 1621. 4o, pp. (16), 283 (1). Ch. 1–7. Seven reasons proving the Synod to be a forgery. Ch. 8. That Constantine made no such donation, and Gretser refuted. Ch. 9. Three reasons to prove that Constantine never made donation. Ch. 10–15. Seven witnesses, four popes, sixteen other witnesses, thrity lawyers, and eight emperors alleged by Marta as witnesses of Constantine’s donation examined; also four reasons brought by Marta and Albanus. Consult for older literature relating to the Donation.
La crueldad, y Sinrazon | La venuce auxilio y valor, Maxencio y Constantino (coloph.). Barcelona per Carlo Gilbert y Tuto, Impressor y Librerio. Historical drama. Introduces character of Constantine, the younger Constantine, Fausta, &c.
Curton, A. de. In Nouv. biog. gén. 11 (1855), 581–595.
Cusa, Nicolaus de. De Concordantia Catholica. Judicium de donatione Constantini. Basil, 1568.
Cutts, Edw. L. Constantine the Great, the union of the State and the Church. London and New York, 1881. 12o, XIV. 422 pp. For general, not especially scholarly use.
Dalhus. Dissertatio de baptismo Constantini Magni. Hafniæ, 1696 (1698, Vogt.).
Demetriades, Kalliop. Die christliche Regierung und Orthodoxie Kaiser Constantin d. Grossen, eine histor. Studie. München, 1878. 8o, IV. 47 pp.
Dieze, Joh. Andr. Dissertatio de forma imperii Romani Constantino Magno recte atque sapienter mutata. Lipsiæ, 1752, 4o, 34 pp.
Döllinger, J. v. Die Papst-Fabeln des Mittelalters. 1863. Cf. Civiltà cattol., ser. 5, v. 10 (1864), 303–330; tr. Ger. Mainz, 1867. gr. 8o, 34 pp.
Döllinger. In Münchener Hist. Jahrb. (1865), 337–.
Dudley, Dean. History of the First Council of Nice: A world’s Christian convention, A.D. 325; with a life of Constantine. Boston, Dean Dudley & Co., 1879, 120 pp.
Duerr, Joan Frid. Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magno. Jenæ, 1684, 4o.
Du Pin. Nov. Bibl. Aut. Eccl. 2, p. 16–.
Duruy, Vict. Les premières années du règne de Constantin (305–323). In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1881). F. XVI. 737–765. Speaks of his “cold cruelty.” He was convinced that “the future was victory to Christians, and political wisdom counselled to go with them.”
—— —— La politique religieuse de Constantin (312–337). In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1882), XVII. 185–227. Orleans, 1882, 8o, 47 pp. = Rev. archæolog., 1882, B. XLIII. 96–110, pl. 155–175. Cf. Allard, P., in Lettres chrét. (1882), V. 244–249. “Fragment de son Histoire des Romains.” Treats: I. La vision miraculeuse. II. Le lavarum. III. Popularité croissante du culte du Soleil. IV. Constantin à Rome en 312: son arc de triomphe. V. L’édit de Milan (313). VI. Mesures pour l’éxecution de l’édit de Milan. VIII. Monnaies de Constantin; Constantinople. IX. Resumé.
—— —— Les conditions sociales au temps de Constantin. In Compte rendu acad. scien. mor. polit. (1882), XVIII. 729–772. Treats: La cour, La noblesse, La bourgeoisie, La plèbe, Les corporations réglementées, L’armée.
Du Voisin, J. B. Dissertation critique sur la vision de Constantin. Paris, 1774. 12o, 331 pp. Cf. Journ. d. sçavans (1774), 452–459.
Eckhel. Doctrina numorum veterum. 8 (Vindob. 1828), 71–95.
Eltz, H. In Public. hist. Inst. Luxembourg (1874–1875), XXIX. 225–236. In this paper, p. 215–236, p. 225–235, are occupied with coins of Constantine and his sons.
Ewyck, Florentius ob. Oratio in laudem Constantini Magni habitu a…Tempore Exanimis Huberni Gandæ a. d. XII. Cal. Januar. MDCXCIII. Gandæ, 1692, pp. 11 (1). Draws nice little moral of the “good example” from Constantine.
Fabricius, Joan. Alb. Dissertatio de cruce Constantini Magni qua probatur eam fuisse phænomenon in halone solari, quo Deus usus, sit ad Constantini Magni animum promovendum. Hamburgi, 1706. 40 (or Woltereck, who is resp.?). Cf. “Bibl. gr. VI. (1714–1749), 1–29; IX. 68 (2a, IV. 882; VI. 693–718).”
Farlati. Illyric. sac. VIII. (1819), 25–27.
Fletcher, Jos. Life of Constantine the Great. London, 1852. 12mo.
Freherus. “Diss. Const. Imp. Numis.” 1600. Evidently = Const. Imp. Byz. Numism. cf. above.
Finckius, Casp. De disput. de Baptismo. T.V. p. 313, disp. XIII.
Frick, Joh. Dissertatio de fide Constantini Magni haud dubie christiana. Ulmæ, 1713. 4o. Not Frick (who is præses), but Miller (?).
Frimelius, Joannis. De Constantini Magni Religione, Baptismo & rerum sacrarum apparatu. Mentioned by Kunardus, in a “Disputationum Catalogus,” p. (8).
Frommann, E. A. De codicibus s. jussu Constantini ab Eusebio curatis. Coburgi, 1761. 4o.
Frothingham, Arthur. Compare edition of Jacobus of Sarug.
Fuhrmann, Matthias. Historia sacra de baptismo Constantino Max. Augusti. I. Romæ, 1742; II. Viennæ in Austria, 1747, 4o, fig.
Garrucci, Raff. Esame critico e cronologico della numismatica Costantiniana portante segni di cristianesimo. Roma, 1858, 8o, 72 pp.
—— —— In Vetri cimit. crist. Roma (1884), append. 1858. Croce greca sulle monete di Costantino e sua famigla, 89, 90, 91. Croce latina sulle…Costantino padre e figlio e di Costanzo, 95. Vario modo di figuriale ai tempi di Costantino, 103.
—— —— Verres ornés de figures en or, trouvés dans les Catacombes Romaines. 2d ed. 1864. Has at end discussion of symbols of Constantine. Compare Anal. Jur. Pout. 1873.
Gasparin, Ag. de. Innocent III., le siècle apostolique, Constantin. Paris, 1873, 12o, p. 75–193.
—— —— Constantin. In Le christianisme au quatrième siècle. Genéve, 1858, 8o, p. 1–139. The question of church and state. The present problem of the churches is to undo the work of Constantine. Lectures to Y.M.C.A. of Geneva.
Genelin. Das Schenkungsversprechen und die Schenkung Pippins. Wien und Leipzig. 1880.
Gengel, Georg. De Constantino Magno, primo Christianorum imperatore, dissertatio…Calissii, 1726, 8o, 14–89–6 pp.
Gibbon. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Many editions. Furnishes later historians of Constantine with almost unlimited material for adoring quotation.
Girault, Cl. Xav. Dissertation histor. & critique sur le lieu où la croix miraculeuse apparut à Constantin & à son armée. In Magas. encyclop. Paris, 1810, 8o.
Görres, Franz. Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin’s des Grossen. In Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 30 (1887), 343–377. Reaches, with Hilgenfeld, the rather severe judgment that, on the whole, the bloodguiltiness of Licinius is less than that of Constantine. There are also various other interesting reviews or treatises by Görres.
Graetz, H. Die Herrschaft des Christenthums durch Constantin’s Bekehrung. In Monatsschrift f. gesch. u. wiss. Judenthum (1887), 416–421.
Grauert, Herm. Die Konstantinische Schenkung. In Görres-Ges. Histor. Jahrb. 1882–84, III. p. 3–30; IV. (1883), 45–95, 525–617, 674–680; V. 117–120. Reaches result that it arose not in Rome, but in France, from the cloister of St. Denis, shortly before or at the same time with the Pseudo-Isidore, and shortly after 840. (Weiland, p. 142.)
Gretser. De sancta cruce. In Opera, v. 2. Ratisbonæ, 1734, fol.
Grisar, Hartm. Die vorgeblichen Beweise gegen die Christlichkeit Constantins des Grossen. In Zeitschr. f. kathol. Theolog. VI. (1882), 585–607. Cf. La Controverse, 1882, III. 693–702.
Grossius, Matth. Dissertatio de donatione Constantini Magni. Lipsiæ, 1620. 4o.
Gualtherius. See Walther.
Guidi, Ign. Il battesimo di Costantino imperatore. In Nuova Antologia, B. XLI. (1883), 41–52. Starts from Frothingham’s work. Consult for list of authors who repeat the story. Mentions some who still believe in the fable.
Gusta, Franc. Vita di Costantino il grande, 1o imperat. christiano. Foligno, 1786; 2 v. 4o. ediz. 2, rev. ricorr. ed. accresc. 1790; ed. 3. 2 v. 320 and 282 pp. 8o. 1816. 2 v. 332 and 296 pp. 8o. In Zaccaria, Raccolta di dissertazioni, 13. (1795), 172–189.
Haenisius, Gottlieb. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno non ex rationibus politicis christiano. Vulgo Ob Constantinus Magnus ohngeachtet seiner späten Tauffe, ein wahrer Christ zu nennen. (Praes. Gott. Chr. Lentnerus.) 1714, Lipsiæ. p. 76. Usually referred to under Lentner, but B.M. correctly gives Haenisius (?)
Hakluyt. Voyages, 2 (1810), 34–35. 1. The voyage of Helena. Latin and English. The author of Latin not given. He quotes as authorities, Eusebius, Virumnius, and Ponticus. 2. The voyage of Constantine the Great, emperor and king of Britaine, to Greece, Ægypt, Persia, and Asia, Anno 339. Latin and English. Rather phenomenal energy on the part of a man two years dead.
Hallern (Heller?), Godofredus (Vratisl.). Disputatio theologio quanta de religione Constantini Magni.…Jodoci Kedii…(Praes. And. Kunardo [19 Maji, A.O.K. MDLIIX.], Wittenbergæ [1658]. 4o, p. 123–172. Kunardus?)
Halloix, Petr. Epistola de baptismo Constantini. In Morin, Antiq. eccl. orient. (1682).
Hartmann, J. A. Dissertatio historica de Helena, Constantini Magni matre. Marb. 1723. 4o.
Hauck, A. Zur donatio Constantini. In Ztschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. u. kirchl. Leben (1888), 201–207.
Hebenstreit, G. E. (=Hofmann, C. F.). Histoire de Constantin le Grand. Limoges, 1866. 12o. 148 pp.
Heckenhoek, Adr. Oratio in laudem Constantini Magni primi christianorum imperatoris. (viii. Aprilis MDCCXVI.), Dordrechti. (4) 23 pp.
Helmke. De Constantini Magni ita moribus et legibus penitus ex fontibus repetita disputatio. Pars 1, Progr-Stargard, 1827. 4o.
Hesse, Joann. Christianus. Dissertatio Historico-Pragmatica qua Constantinum Magnum ex rationibus politicis Christianum. (Præs. B. G. Struvius ) [“autor respondens,” Hesse]. May, MDCCXIII. Jenæ, (4)76 pp. Not Struve? Pref. is by Struve, to be sure, but seems to be congratulatory letter to Hesse on his work? But Haenisius(?) (1714), the following year, ascribes to Struve.
Heumann, Chph. A. De cruce cœlesti a Constantino Magno conspecta. In his Poecile, 2. 50–.
Heydenreich, Eduard. Ueber einen neu gefundenen Roman von der Jugendgeschichte Constantins des Grossen und von der Kaiserin Helena. In Verhandll. d. Philologenversammlung in Trier, p. 177 ff.; Repr. in d. Berliner Zeitschr. f. d. Gymnasialwesen, 34 (1880), 271–.
—— —— Der libellus de Constantino Magno ejusque matre Helena und die übrigen Berichte über Constantins des Grossen Geburt und Jugend. Eine kritische Untersuchung von…In Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte hrsg. Fr. Schnorr. Carolsfeld. X (1881), 319–363.
Hildebrand, Joach. Dissertatio de donatione Constantini Magni. Helmstad, 1661, 4o; 1703; 1739; 1761. Altus or Hildebrand?
Hofmann, Car. Frid. et Hebenstreit, Geo. Ern. Disputatio Historico-Critica de Constantini Magni sepulchro. Lipsiæ, 1759, 4o, 48 pp.
Hojer, J. C. Quæ Constantino Magno favoris in Christian. fuerunt caussæ. Jenæ, 1758, 16 pp.
Haute, Theodorus van der. Oratio prior de Constantino Magno, dicta a…Delfis. Apud Joannem. Speyers, Bibliopolam, 1702, 14 pp. Spoken at the same time with Rouille’s Oration. Cf. Rouille for estimate.
[Hug] Denkschrift zur Ehrenrettung Constantin’s des Grossen. In Zeitschrift Geistlichkeit Erzbisth. Freiburg, III. Heft. (Freib. 1829.) 1–104. Treats various charges. The death of Crispus a plot of Fausta for the sake of her children, she causing it to seem to Constantine that Crispus and his nephew were plotting against the empire.
Hunckler. Constantin le Grand et son règne. Limoges, 1843 and 1846. 12o. (“1843, 12o; do. 1846, 12o.”)
Hynitzsch, Adolf. Die Taufe Constantins des Grossen nach Geschichte und Sage. 1870. Progr. des Gymnasium in Stendel.
Incerti auctoris de Constantino Magno ejusque matre Helena libellus. E codicibus primus edidit Eduardus-Heydenreich. Lips., Teubner, 1879. 12o. p. vii. [1], 30. See under The Mythical Constantine.
Jacobatius. De concilio tractatus. Romæ, 1538, lib. X. art. 8, p. 780–783. De donatione Constantini.
Jacobus of Sarug. L’omilia di Giacomo di Sarúg sul Battesimo di Costantino imperatore, trad. ed. annot. da Arthur L. Frothingham, Jr. Roma, 1882. Fol. (From Reale Accad. dei Lincei. CCLXXIX [1881–82].) Consult for various sources and writers where story is found.
Jacutius, Matth. Syntagma quo ad parentis magno Constantino crucis historia complexa est universa.…Romæ, 1755. 4o.
Janus, Joh. W. Schediasma historicum de patria Constantini Magni. Witteb. 1716. 4o.
“Janus.” Der Pabst und das Concil. Leipzig, 1869. 8o, xix, 451 pp.
Jeep, Ludw. Zur Gesch. Constantins. Festschrift f. E. Curtius. (Berlin, 1884. 8o.) p. 79.
Journal des Sçavants. (1774), p. 451–459. Review and analysis of Du Voisin.
Kaufmann, Georg. Eine neue Theorie über die Entstehung u. Tendenz der angeblichen Schenkung Constantins. In Allgem. Zeitung (1884), 194–196, 211–212. Valuable. Weiland, p. 146–147.
Kedd, Jod. Constantinus Magnus Romano-catholicus, ecclesia catholicus, s. Stephanus & primi Hungariæ reges Romano catholici…Viennæ Austriæ, 1655. 4o, 145 pp.
Keim. Die röm Toleranz-Edickte. In “Theol. Jahrb. 1852 II.”
Keim, Theodor. Der Uebertritt Constantins des Grossen zum Christenthum, academ. Vortrag…Zürich, 1862, 8o. viij.–106 pp. “A Christian in its strict sense Constantine was certainly not, even up to the end of his life,” and yet he was inwardly touched by Christianity.
Keri, Francisc. Borg. Imperatores orientes…a Constantio Magno ad Constantini ultimum.…Tyrnaviæ…, 1774. Fol.
Kist, N. C. De commutatione quam, Constantino auctore societas subiit christiana. Trajecti ad Rh. 1818, 120 pp. 8o.
Kormart, Chrph. Dissertatio politica de Constantino Magno. Lipsiæ, 1665. 4o.
Krüger, G. Zur Frage nach der Entstehungszeit der Konstantinschen Schenkung. In Theol. Literaturzeitung, 14 (1889), 429–435, 455–460.
Kunadus, And. Constantinus Magnus Evangelicus Constantino Romano-Catholico Jodoci Keddii Jesuitæ oppositus. Ed. second, Witteb. 1666. 4o, p. (8) 224.
Landucci. Una celebre costituzione dell’ imperatore Costantino, saggio esegetico. Padova, 1886. 8o, 30 pp.
Langen, Henricus. Constantinus Magnus Intentu Utriusque Maximiani, et Herculii et Galerii in regimine confirmatus. (Præs. J. J. Weidner.) 8 Sept. 1703. Rostochii (p. 48). (By Langen, not Weidner?)
Langen, J. Entstehung und Tendenz der Konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde. In Sybel, Hist. Zeitschr. (1883), p. 413–435. “Erweitete Ausfürhung e. Aufsatze in deutschen Merkur, 1881, Nr. 34.”
Langen. In Geschichte d. römischen Kirche. Bonn, 1885, p. 726–.
La Salle. In Biografia universale, XIII. (Venezia, 1823), 363–370.
Le Beau. Hist. du Bas-Emp. en commenç. a Constantin. T. 1–21, Par. 1757–1781, Cont. par (H.P.) Ameiltron. T. 22–26, Par. 1781–1807. T. 2711.2 do. 1811. 8o (28 vols.). Nouv. ed. ed. St. Martin. T. 1–13, Par. 1824–1832. Cont. Brosset, T. 14–21, Par. 1833–1836. 8o.
(Lefort de la Morinière, Adrien Claude.) Histoire abrégée du règne de Constantin empereur d’Orient et d’Occident. Par. 1756. 12o.
Lentner, Gottfr. Christ. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno non ex rationibus politicis christiano. 4o. Lipsiæ, 1714. Cf. note under Haenisius. Yet the author regards the præses of a preceding dissertation as author, and the præses here is printed in capitals, so Lentner is real author?
Life of Constantine the
Great. In Christ.
Literary and Theological Review (1839), 541.
Lupi, Ant. Mar. Theses historicæ, chronolog., cricticæ, philolog., &c., ad vitam s. Constantini Magni imper. aug. Panormi, 1736. 4o.
—— —— Dissertaz. lett. ed. alt. oper. 1 (1785), 267–292, in Gori, Symbolæ litter. IX. (Florent. 1752), 133–176.
Mabrun. Constantinus Magnus sive idolatria debellata. Par. 1658. 4o. Latin poem.
Mamachi, Thom. Mar. De cruce Constantino visa & de evangelica chronotaxi. Florentiæ, 1738. 8o.
Manso, Joh. Casp. Frdr. Leben Constantins des Grossen, nebst einigen Abhandlungen geschichtlichen Inhalts. Breslau, 1817, 8o; Wien, 1819. 8o.
Marçay, De. Histoire de Constantin le Grand. Limoges, 1873, 8o, 126 pp.
Martens. Die falsche General-Konzession Konstantins. München (Leipzig), 1889, 8o. Contains especially convenient reprint, with commentary.
——. Die römische Frage unter Pipin und Karl dem Grossen, p. 327 sq. Says donation arose after 800, in last years of Charlemagne or beginning of Louis. Wieland, p. 141.
——. Die drei unechten Kapitel der Vita Hadrian. In Tübingen Theol. Quartalschrift (1886), 601.
——. Heinrich IV. und Gregor VII. nach der Schilderung von Ranke’s Weltgeschichte. Kritische Betrachtungen. Danzig, 1887.
Martini, E. D. A. Ueber die Einführung der christlichen Religion als Staatsreligion im römischen Reiche durch den Kaiser Constantin. München, 1813. 4o, 48 pp.
Mas, Auguste. L’empereur d’Arles. In Mém. de l’acad. de Vaucluse, IV. (1885), 197–213. Rev. of Alex. Mouzin’s “drama in verse.” Treats early events. Very full description and analysis of poem.
Mercersburg Review, 12 (1850), 173.
Meyer, P. In Festschrift d. Gymn. Adolfinum zu Moers. Bonn, 1882. 4o. So noted; but the editor’s copy of this Festschrift contains nothing by Meyer, while the separately printed De Vita Constantini Eusebiana, by Meyer, paged 23–28, which is at hand, has no indication of its origin and may be from Program.
Millerus, Joann. Martinus. De fide Constantini Magni haud dubie christiana. Dissertatio (præs. Jo. Frickii) e fontibus genuinis…Ulmæ (1613), 4o, p. (4) 62. (Not Frick?)
Molinet, Cl. In Ephemer, erudit. Parisien. (1681), Eph. XI. Dissertatio de veritate Crucis a Constantino visæ ex numis antiquis confirmata.
Moller, Dan. Guil. Disputatio de labaro Constantiniano. Altorf, 1696. 4o.
Monod, Paul. La politique religieuse de Constantin. Montaubon, 1886. 8o.
Morin, Jean. Histoire de la déliverance de l’église chrétienne par l’empereur Constantin et de la grandeur et souveraineté temporelle donnée à l’église Romaine par les roys de France. Par. 1630. Fol. A translation of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine.
Mouzin, Alex. Cf. Mas, Aug., in Mém, acad. Vaucluse, 1885, IV. 197–213.
Mühlbacher, E. In Mitth. Inst. öster. Geschforsch (1881), 2. 115–116.
Münch, Ernst. Jos. Herm. Uber die Schenkung Constantin’s, beitrag zur Literatur u. Kritik der Quellen des kanonischen Rechts u. der Kirchengeschichte. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1824. 8o, 102 pp. Also in Vermischte Schriften, Ludwigsburg, 1828, p. 185–.
Nestius, Jacob. Apologia pro Constantino Magno. In Miscell. Lipsien. nova (1716), II. 471–476.
Nève, Felix. Constantin et Théodose devant les églises orientales, étude tirée des sources grecques et arméniennes, in Rev. catholiq. E. III. (1857), 356–364, 401–414, 507–521. Louvain, 1857. 8o.
Nicolai, Joan. De Constantini baptismo, ubi, quando et a quo fuerit celebratus, historica dissertatio. Paris, 1680. 12o, 266 pp. (1690, Vogt.)
Ohnesorge, W. Der Anonymus Valesii de Constantino. 1885. 8o, 112 pp. Reviewed at length by Fr. Görres, in Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 29 (1886), 504–512. It is, in fact, a most interesting and exhaustive study of the document.
Ongaroni, Franc. Dissertationes III. de moribus et religione Constantini Magni, de Juliani religione et gestis, deque templi Hierosolymitani instauratione ab eodem Juliano attentata et divinitus impedita. Mediolani, 1778. 4o.
Oordt, J. W. G. Van. Constantijn de Groote en zijne voorgangers, eine studie over den Romeinschen keizertijde. I Deel. Haarlem, 1868. 8o, x, 383 pp. This first part takes only to Antoninus Pius.
Origine della Donazione di Costantino secundo il Döllinger. In Civilità cattolica, Ser. 5, v. 10 (1864), 303–330.
Papebrochius. Comment histor. In Acta s. s. Bolland. Maii V. (1685), 12–27 pl. Cf. Jun. p. 16–.
Penon. Des monnaies de Constantin-le-Grand relatives à la Provence. In Rep. Trav. soc. statist. Marseille. 28 (1866), 176–182. Such as relate to coinage at Arles.
Pfahler. Trad fr. Histoire de Constantin le Grand et de son siècle. 1862. 8o, 202 pp.
(Pilati, C. Ant.) Gesch. d. Veränderungen in d. Regierungu d. Gesetzen u. d. menschl. Geiste von Constantins Bekehrung an bis auf d. Untergang d. weström–Reichs. A. d. Franz. Leipz. 1784.
Plate, W. Constantinus I. In Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biog. 1 (1859), 831–837.
Polus, Regin. …De baptismo Constantini Magni imper.…Romæ, Paul Manut, 1562, 4o; Dilingæ, 1562, 8o; Venet. 1563, 4o; Lovanii, 1567, fol.
Prologue and epilogue to the last new play, Constan the Great [by N. Lee]. s. e. (1683), one leaf, fol.
Rallaye, Léonce de la. De la donation de Constantin d’après le Dr. Doellinger [i.e. Papst leg.]. In Le Monde (1864), Juillet, 3, p. 3–4; Juillet, 7, p. 3–4. Review, but has value of an original article. Origin in France.
La rappresentatione di Costantino imperatore et di San Silvestro Papa, et di Santa Elena Imperatrice. Stampata in Siena, con licenza de’ superiori, et ristampata in Orvieto. [1550?? B. M. Catal.; Fierenze, 1562, 4o; do. 1588. 4o.]
Reign of Constantine the
Great. In Dublin
Reiskius, Joannes. (Program.) 1681. 4o.
Reumont, Alfred von. Constantin der Grosse. In his Gesch. d. Stadt Rom, 1 (Berlin, 1867), B. 3, Abschn. 2=p. 595–646. p. 859–860 has a Chronological table of reign of Constantine.
Revellat, J. P. Notice sur une remarquable particularité que présente toute une série de milliaires de Constantin le Grand. In Rev. archéolog. 1883, c. 11. 39–48, 69–78, 148–155; Par. 188–. 8o. Cf. Thédenat, H. in Bull. critiq. 1885, vi. 69–73. The name of Maximian removed.
Richardson, Samuel. The necessity of toleration in matters of religion…Here also is the copy of the Edict of the Emperors Constantine and Licinius. Lond. 1647, p. (2) 21 (1). Edict, p. 1–3.
Richter, Heinrich. Das weströmische Reich. Berlin, 1865. 8o, p. 31–101, “Die römischen Kaiser und die christliche Kirche von Diocletian bis zum Tode Constantins I.”
Romane, Alfred. Essai sur Constantin et ses rapports avec l’église chrétienne. Thèse présentée à la Faculté de théologie protestante de Strasbourg. Strasbourg, 1867. 8o, p. (2) 114. Study of relation of church and state in fourth century. Does not find one solitary evidence of regenerate life in Constantine. He had no religion but his policy.
Rossignol, Jean. Pierre. Virgile et Constantin le Grand. 1e p. Paris, 1845. 8o. Première partie, p. (2) xxxvi, 351 (1). Examines Eclogue of Virgil found in C.’s Oration and arrives at conclusion that “beyond a doubt” Constantine did not write the oration, but Eusebius “le coupable c’est Eusèbe.”
Rouille, Joannes Ludovicus du. Orat. posterior de Constantino Magno dicta…III. Nonas. Februarii, No. c/o, iocii. Delfis.…4o, 14 pp. Brief, rhetorical, eulogistic, worthless.
Royon, Jas. C. Hist. du Bas-Empire depuis Constantin. v. 1–4. Paris, xii–1803. 8o.
Sagittarius, Joh. Christfried. Dissertatio histor. de Constantino Magno. Jenæ, 1650. 4o.
Sandinus, Ant. Disput. histor. (1742), 135–149.
St. Victor, Léonard de. Fondation de Constantinople. In Anal. Jur. Pontif. XII. (1873), col. 402–414.
—— ——. Apparition de la croix à l’emper. Constantin. In Anal. juris pontif. XII. (1873), 389–401. Moyen d’accorder Lactance avec Eusèbe. Written middle of last century; mss. in Bibl. Nat.
Schaff, P. Constantine the Great and the Downfall of Paganism in the Roman Empire. In Biblioth. Sac. 1863; XX. 778. Review of Burckhardt, Keim, and Stanley’s Eastern Church.
Schelstrate, Emanuel. Antiq. illust. circa Concil Gen., etc., et præcipua tr. Hist. Eccles. Cog. Antv. 1678, p. 11, diss III. c. VI. De baptismo Constantini num Romæ a S. Silvestro num Nicomediæ ab Eusebio collatus fuit, an potius et Romæ et Nicomediæ.
Die Schenkung Constantin’s. Mainz, 1866. 8o. Translated from Civilità Cattolica.
Schmidius, Jo. Andr. In hist. Ser. IV. fabulis Variorum, etc. Helmst. 1712. 4o. (Conradus resp.).
Schmidt, O. Zur Beurtheilung Constantins des Grossen. Duisberg, 1863. 4o. Progr.
Schoepflin. Constantinus Magnus non fuit britannus. In Commentationes historicæ. Basil, 1741. 4o.
Schroeckh, J. M. Leben des Kaisers Constantin des Grossen. In his
Allgemeine Biographie. Cf.
Schultze, Viktor. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Konstantin’s des Gr. In Ztschr. f. Kirchengeschichte, 7 (1885), 343–371; 8 (1886), 517–542. 1. Die römische Bildsäule mit dem Kreuze. 2. Die Tempelbauten in Konstantinopel. 3. Die Inschrift von Hispellum. 4. Konstantin und die Haruspicen. 5. Der Staat und das Osferwesen. 6. Der Untergang des Licinius.
Schurzfleisch, Conr. Sam. Quæ sit vera origo imperii Rom. christiani. In his Controverss, XXXV.
—— ——. Dissertatio de primo christianorum imperatore. Wittebergæ, 1679. 4o, 52 pp. (præs. M. Difenbach).
Schwarz. Colleg. histor. 8 (1737), 436–715.
Scultetus, Abrah. Confutatio Cæs. Baronii de baptismo Constantini Magni. Neustadii, 1607. 4o.
Seeberg. Zur konstantinischen Schenkung. In Theol. Literaturblatt, 1890, cols. 25–27, 33–36, 41–45. Rev. of Friedrich.
Seeck, Otto. Quellen und Urkunden über die Aufänge des Donatismus. In Ztschr. f. Kirchenges 10 (1889), 505–568. A very systematic and interesting examination of sources.
—— ——. Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin’s des Grossen. In Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 33 (1890), 63–77. While disclaiming any attempt to whitewash Constantine, he finds his conduct not incompatible with being a good Christian.
Sevestre. Dict. patrol. I. (1861), 1137–1148.
Simonides, Constant. Panegyric of that holy and apostolic heaven-crowned King Constantine the Great. London, 1854. 8o.
Smith, W. Browning. Constantine. In Enc. Brit. 6 (1878), 298–301.
Solikov, I. I. Moscow, 1810. In Russian.
Stapfer, Edm. Constantin I. In Lichtenberger, Encycl. des. sciences rel. 3 (1878), 388–393.
Steuchus, August. Contra Laurent Valla. De falsa donatione Constantini…Lugduni Bat. 1545, 8o; 1547, 4o.
Streso, J. A. Konstantijn de Groote en Karel de Groote. Arnhem, 1836. 8o.
Struve, Bern. Gotth. Bibl. hist. V. (1790), 1, 178–207.
—— ——. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno ex rationibus politicis christiano. Jenæ, 1713. 4o. See Hesse.
Suchier. Disputationis de Zosimi et Eusebii, historiarum scriptorum in Constantini Magni imperatoris rebus exponendis fide et auctoritate, part I. Hersfeld, 1856. 4o. 25 pp. Gymn. Progr.
——. Qualem Eusebius Constantinum Magnum imperatorem adumbraverat, paucis exponitur. Hersfeld, 1857. 4o, 36 pp.
Suhr, Balthus, Joachim. Constantini Magni signo crucis Christi in nubibus viso, ad Christianismum inauguratus (præs. J. J. Weidner). Rostochii, 1703. (Suhr, not Weidner?)
Tacut, Gulielmus. Oratio in Donationem Constantini Magni nomine falso
jactatam. Delphis, 1726. 4o. Do.
Tentzel, Guil, Ern. Examen fabulæ Romanæ de duplici baptismo Constantini Magni. Witteberge, 1683. 4o.
Thielmann. Ueber Sprache und Kritik des libellus de Constantino Magno ejusque matre Helena. In Blätter f. d. bayerische Gymnasialwesen, 16 (1880), 124– .
Theirry, Amadée. Constantin en Gaule. In Acad. d. sciences mor. et polit., 9 (1846), 349–364. Pleasantly written resumé of the period, with not very exact characterization of Constantine in very attractive style.
—— ——. XI. (1847), 374–387. Fragment d’histoire sur la politique chrètienne de Constantin. Takes the heathen side. Neat rhetorically.
Thomasius, Christ. De fide scriptorum Constantini Magni. In Observatt Hallens. XXII. I. Treats especially Zosimus. Cf. Vogt. p. 15–16.
—— ——. In fabulas de parentibus Constantini Magni. In Obs. Hall. T. 1, n. 23, p. 377–388.
Tillemont. Histoire des empereurs, 4 (1697), 76–381, 613–664.
Tiraboschi. Stor. lett. Ital. II. (1806), 373–377, 457.
Tobler, Adolf. Kaiser Constantinus als betrogner Ehemann. In Jahrb. Roman. Engl. Lit. 13 (=N.F.I.) (1874), 104–108. Various allusions in old French poetry.
Trescho, Leb. F. Beitr. üb. einige Vorwürfe wider d. Ksr. Constantin d. Gr. In his Brr. üb. d. neueste theol. Literat. II. 360–.
Unger, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die Bauten Constantin’s des Grossen am heiligen Grabe zu Jerusalem. Göttingen, 1866. 8o. iv, 128 pp. Abdruck aus Benfey, Th., Orient. u. Occid. II. 177–232, 385–466. He thinks to demonstrate that a part of the Haram in Jerusalem has indisputable evidences of Constantinian origin. He seems to build dangerously much on Fergusson (Lond. 1847).
Valentini. Il codice di Eusebio della Biblioteca Queriniana di Brescia illustrato. In Commentari dell’ Ateneo di Brescia, 1885, p. 20–32 (?).
Valla, Laurentius. De falso credita et ementita donatione Constantini. For various editions, see Graesse, vol. 6. 2, p. 249, and the Étude of Bonneau. The edition of 1520 is usually cited as princeps, for the first edition was published clandestinely by Ulrich von Hutten in 1517. A convenient one is that with translation by Bonneau, Paris, 1879. It was written in the middle of the fifteenth century, and for venturing to deny the authority of the Donation, the author was obliged to flee in disguise from Rome.
Varenne, Bernard de. Histoire de Constantin le Grand, 1er empereur chrétien. Par. 1728. 4o.
Valois, Charles de. Discours dans lequel on prétend faire voir que les médailles qui portent pour légende: F. Cl. Constantinus Jun N. C. n’apartiennent point à Constantin le jeune fils de Constantin le Grand. In Soc. Trav. Acad. inscr. et belles let. 4o. V. 3. Maintains that all such medals belong to a brother of Constantine, and not to his son.
Vedelius, Nicolaus. De episcopatu Constantini Magni seu de potestate magistratuum Reformatorum circa res Ecclesiasticas dissertatio. Repetita cum responsione ad interrogata quædam. Franekenæ, Apud Uldericum Balck, 1642. p. (48) 143. Nature indicated by sub-title. Takes as text Constantine’s remark that he, too, was a bishop. (V. c. 4, 24.)
Vincentius Belvacensis. Spec. hist. XIV. 1, 43–44, 47–58, 102.
Visconti. Sopra la cristianità di Costantino Magno, dimonstrata co monumenti e con le medaglie.…In Atti Accad. Rom. Archeol. VI. (1835), 207–228. “Sopra il nimbo usato ne’ ritiatti di esso imperatore.”
Vogt, Joh. Historia litteraria Constantini Magni, plus centum et quinquaginta rerum Constantinianarum Scriptores sistens. Hamburgi, Apud Viduam B. Schilleri & J. C. Kisnerum, 1720.
Compare for older literature on Constantine. There is long account of literature by topics.
Voigt, Gottfr. Vita Constantini Magni disputatione historica descripta. Rostochii, 1675. 4o.
Voigt, Moritz. Drei epigraphische Constitutionen Constantin’s des Grossen und ein epigraphisches Rescript des præf. Præt. Ablavius.…Leipzig, 1860. 8o. ix. (1) 242. The documents occupy to p. 42. The remainder of the work taken up with an essay on the Pagi and Vici of the Roman Empire.
Walch, Chr. Guil. Franc. De τοις εισω της εκκλησιας et τοις εκτος Constantini Magni Commentatio. D. II. August, MCCDLXXXIII. lecta. In Comment. Soc. Reg. Sci. Gotting. vi. 2, 1783–84 (Got. 1785), 81–106. Separate title-page to part 2, dated 1784. Is a discussion of Constantin’s famous saying. Gives passim many references to writers who have discussed the question.
Walther, Balthas. Diatribe elenchetica de imperatoris Constantini Magni baptismo, donatione et legatione ad concilium Nicænum. Jenæ, 1816. 12o.
Wegnerus, Joh. Ernestus. Constantinus Magnus Imperator, Maximorum postulatus criminum, sed potiori parte absolutus ex Judiciali Gen. (Præs. Georgi Casp. Kirchmaieri.) Wittenbergæ, 1698, 16 pp. Note title.
Weidner, Johan. Joach. (resp. Johannes Goethe). Dissertatio historica de Constantino Magno qua illum honeste & ex legitimo matrimonio natum contra G. Arnoldum vindicatur ac defenditur. Rostochii, 1702. 4o, p. (2) 34. Weidner is præses. The dedication is by Goethe to his father, and Goethe is called author by the British Museum Catalogue.
—— ——. Constantinus Magnus superatis juventæ discriminibus legitimus tandem patris Constantii successor. 1702; ib. 1703, p. (4) 40. Accorded to Weidner by Vogt. “Burck” is respondant, and seems by preface to be author, but?
—— ——. Dissertatio de Constantino Magno Signo crucis Christi in nubibus viso ad Christianismum inaugurato. ib. 1703. 4o.
Weiland, L. Die constantinische Schenkung. In Ztschr. f. Kirchenrecht, 221 (1887), 137–160; 222 (1888), 185–210. Origin was between 813 and 875 and was by contemporary of Hadian I.
Wernsdorf, Jo. Chr. D. de visu Constantini Magni locus Eumenii Rhetoris capite xxi. Panegyrici Constantini dictus explicatus. In Stosch. Ferd., Museum Crit. II11. (Lemgoviae, 1778), 131–187. Shows that the “appearance related by Eumenius (as taking place in Gaul) is the same as that referred to by Eusebius.”
Wernsdorf, E. F. De Constantini Magni religione Paschali ad Euseb. de vita Const. M. b. iv. c. 22. Wittebergæ, 1758. 4o, pp. 24. Constantine’s piety exemplified in his paschal observance.
Werveke, N. van. Trouvaille d’Ermsdorf. Médailles romaines de
l’époque de Constantin. p. 440–498.
Wesselofsky, Alex. Le dit de l’empereur Constant. In Romania, 6 (Paris, 1877), 161–198 (cf. G. Paris, 588–596, VII. 331. Poem from ms. in Copenhagen. Records three redactions of the story.
Westphalen, Comte de. La date de l’avènement au trône de Constantin le Grand, d’après Eusèbe et les médailles. In Revue numismatique (1877), 26–42.
Weytingh, Joannes Henricus Arnoldus. Disquisitio historica de Constantino Magno. Daventriæ, 1826. 8o. (4) 74 (2). Treats: 1. State of empire to death of Augustus; 2. State of empire to death of Constantius Chlorus; 3. Constantine and his acts; 4. Critical estimate of Constantine.
Withof, Frid. Theod. Dissertatio histor. de ficta Constantini Magni lepra. Lingen, 1767. 4o.
Wolff, Joh. Chrtph. Disputatio de visione crucis Constantino Magno in cœlo oblatæ. Witteb. 1706. 4o. “1707” (Danz); “also in Oelrichs German liter. opusce, II. 303–” (Danz).
Woltereck, Chr. Exercitatio critica qua disputatur crucem quam in cœlis vidisse se juravit Constantinus Magnus Imperator, fuisse naturalem, in Halone Solari. (Praes J. A. Fabricius.) Hamburgi, 1706, pp. 32 and plate. (Not Fabricus?)
Wordsworth. Constantine the Great and his sons: Constantinus I. In Smith & Wace. Dict. 1 (1877), 624–649. Treats Authorities, Life, in three periods, Legislation and Policy, Character and Writings, Vision of the Cross, and Coins.
Zahn, Thdr. Constantin der Grosse und die Kirche. Hannover, 1876. Gr. 8o, 35 pp.
Zeumer, K. Der älteste Text des Constitutum Constantini. Berlin, 1888. In Festgabe für Gneist.
Note 1.–The number of works which have suggested themselves as really necessary to complete a working list for the student of Constantine is very great. Some works like Hefele’s Conciliengeschichte seem indispensable, others like Harnack’s article in Herzog, Encykl. on the Konstantinopolitanisches Symbol have a very important correlative bearing, and ought really to be especially mentioned because the general student would not readily find them out. Several works on the historical value of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, also should really have been inserted. The latest of these is:
Crivellucci, A. Della fede storica di Eusebio nella vita di Costantino: appendice al volume I. della Storia delle relazioni tra lo stato e la chiesa. Livorno, tip. di Raffaelo Giusti edit. 1888. 8o, 145 pp. Reviewed in Nuova Antologia, Ser. 3, vol. 21, 1 Maggio, 1889; by F. Görres, in Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 33. 1 (1890); by V. Schultze, Theol. Litbl. (1889), Nos. 9, 10. Says that the life of Constantine is no better than a historical novel.
For farther literature on special points compare references in the notes.
Note 2.—The attempt to secure accuracy in the above list has proved one of great difficulty. All references could not be verified, and as “conjectural emendation” is even more dangerous in bibliography than in textual criticism, readings have not generally been changed excepting on what seemed actual evidence. The only way to avoid laying oneself open to criticism in making a bibliography is not to make it. The editor can only say for this that a great deal of pains has been expended on improving accuracy as well as in gathering titles and anotating. The difficulty is shown in the fact that the work quoted on the double authority of Oettinger and of Chevalier as by Janus, proves on securing the work itself, after the list is in plate, to be really by Vogt and dedicated to Janus.
__________
§1. The Life of Constantine.
1. Editions
The Life is found in the editions of Eusebius (compare list in Dr. McGiffert’s Prolegomena) of 1544 (p. 117a–), 1612 (p. 301–), 1659, 1672, 1678, 1720 (p. 583–) and 1822 at least. The edition of Heinichen first published in 1830 (p. 1–332, 333–406, 407–500) and republished in 1869: Eusebius Pamphili Vita Constantini et Panegyricus atque Constantini ad sanctorum Coetum oratio. Recensuit cum annotatione critica atque indicibus denuo edidit…Lipsiæ, Hermann Mendelssohn, 1869. 8o is the latest and best.
2. Translations
The editions of Latin translations are very numerous. Basil. 1549, Portesius (V.C. 650–698, O.C. 698–715, no L.C.); Basil, 1557, Musculus (V.C. 158–215, O.C. 217–231, no L.C.); Basil, 1559 (V.C. 650–698, O.C. 698–715); Par. 1562, Musculus (V.C. 160–218, O.C. 218–234); Antv. 1568 (?), Christophorson (V.C. 224–306a, O.C. 306b–326a, L.C. 326b–361); Basil, 1570, Portesius (V.C. 862–914, O.C. 915–932) and Christophorson (L.C. 932–971); Paris, 1571, Christophorson (258–341, 341–362, 362–397); Basil, 1579, Portesius (V.C. 862–914, O.C. 915–932), and Christophorson (L.C. 923–971); Paris, 1581 (V.C. p. 214–297, O.C. 297–317, L.C. 317–355); Colon. 1581, Christophorson (V.C. 195–268, O.C. 269–286, L.C. 287–317); “1591 (Grynæus)”; Basil, 1611 (Grynæus), Christophorson (V.C. 118–170, O.C. 171–184, no L.C.); Paris, 1677, Valesius (V.C. 164–232, O.C. 233–248; L.C. 249–275); Frf. ad M. 1695, Valesius (328–465, 466–497, 498–549); Cambr. 1720 (Reading) Valesius; Cambr. 1746 (Reading) Valesius; 1822 (Zimmermann), Valesius (772–1046, 1047–1117, 1118–1232); Par. 1842 (Cailleau). The editions of 1612, 1659, and 1672 at least also have Latin translations. There is a French translation by J. Morin, Histoire de la délivrance de l’Église, &c., Par. 1630, fol., and another by Cousin, Par. 1675, 4º, and 1686, 4º. There is a German translation by Stroth, Quedlinb. 1799, v. 2, p. 141–468, and one by Molzberger. Kempten, 1880. For English translations, see the following paragraph.
3. English translations
The first English translation of Eusebius was by Merideth Hanmer (compare Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert). The first editions of Hanmer did not contain the Life of Constantine. It is a little hard to distinguish the early editions, but there were at least three, and perhaps four, editions (1577 (76), 1585 (84), 1607, 1619?), before there was added in 1637 to the 1636 edition (“fourth edition” not “fifth edition 1650,” as Wood, Athenæ Oxon.), a translation by Wye Saltonstall as follows:
Eusebius | His life of Constantine, | in foure |
bookes. | With Constantine’s Oration to the Clergie |
… | London. | Printed by Thomas Cotes, for Michael Sparke,
and are to be | sold at the blue Bible in greene Arbour |
1637; fol. pp. (2) 1–106 (E), 107–132 (C),
133–163 (4) (L.C.). The dedication by the
“translator” is signed Wye Saltonstall. This was
reprinted: London.
The | Life | of | Constantine | in four books, | Written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cæsarea in | Palestine; done into English from that edition set forth by | Valesius, and Printed at Paris in the Year 1659. | Together with | Valesius’s Annotations on the said Life, which are made | English, and set at their proper places in the margin. | Hereto is also annext the Emperour Constantine’s Oration to the | Convention of the Saints, and Eusebius Pamphilus’s Speech concerning the praises of Constantine, | spoken at his tricennalia. | Cambridge, | Printed by John Hayes, Printer to the University, 1682, fol. This was published with the 1683 edition of the History, and so is properly 1683 in spite of title-page. In 1692 this was reprinted with a general title-page, but otherwise identically the same edition with same sub-titles and same paging. In 1709 a new edition was published, also with the History, having substantially the same matter on the title-page but The second edition. London. Printed for N. and J. Churchill, in the Year 1709. In this paging is the same (527–633), but there is preliminary matter added before the History. This version is said by Crusé (compare also Dr. McGiffert’s Prolegomena) to be by T. Shorting. Whoever it was by, it was well done and most interesting. In the course of time, however, it became antiquated in form, and there was added in 1845 to the Bagster edition of the ecclesiastical historians an anonymous translation:
The | Life | of | the Blessed Emperor |
Constantine, | in four books. | From 306–337
a.d | By
| Eusebius Pamphilus | ... | London: | Samuel Bagster
and Sons; | ... | MDCCCXLV. 8º p. xx, 380. This
translation is in somewhat inflated style, which perhaps represents
Eusebius and Constantine better than a simpler one, but which sometimes
out-Herods Herod, as, e.g. in the oration of Constantine, p. 279, where
it takes fourteen English words to express seven Greek ones, “Far
otherwise has it been during the corrupt and lawless period of human
life” for “It was not thus in lawless times.” A
quotation from Matthew (
4. Author and date
Almost no fact of history is unquestioned; therefore the unquestionable authorship of Eusebius has been questioned. Some have made the author Macarius (compare Vog. Hist. lit. p. 12), evidently on the ground of the letter (3. 52) which the author says was addressed to himself, but which is to Macarius and others, but there is no real doubt of the Eusebian authorship. It was written after the death of Constantine (337), and therefore between 337 and 340, when Eusebius died. The interesting hypothesis of Meyer (p. 28) that it was perhaps written mainly in Constantine’s lifetime, at the suggestion and under the direction of Constantine, to defend him against charges brought, or which might be brought, against him, is worth mentioning, although it is more ingenious than probable. The headings of the chapters are by another, though probably not much later, and a competent hand (cf. Lightfoot).
5. Trustworthiness of Eusebius
The value of a writer is
determined by (1) His sources of knowledge, (2) His own intellectual
and moral ability. Again, the criticism of a given work seeks whether
the aim pro
(1) The Scope of the Work. This is quite definitely outlined (i. 11). In contrast with those who have recorded the evil deeds of other emperors and have thus “become to those who by some favor had been kept apart from evil, teachers not of good, but of what should be silenced in oblivion and darkness,” he proposes to record the noble actions of this emperor. He proposes, however, to pass over many things,—his wars, personal bravery, victories, and successes, his legislative acts, and many other things, and confine himself to such things as have reference to his religious character. His aim, therefore, is distinctly limited to his religious acts, and it is not stretching his meaning too far to say, expressly limited to his virtuous actions.
(2) Character of the Sources. Respecting this there is endless controversy. The fullness of material is unquestionable, the intellectual competency of Eusebius is almost equally so, and the questionings regard mainly whether the author has made a proper use of material. Opinions are various, but this does not mean that they are equally well grounded and valuable. Some of the latest judgments are the most severe. Crivellucci (Livorno, 1888) calls it an historical novel, and Görres, in a review of Crivellucci, agrees that it is worth less than the Panegyrics of Eumenius and Nazarius, which is certainly milder than Manso’s (p. 222) “more shameless and lying” than these. Right or wrong, this is a frequently repeated view. Some (Hely, p. 141) cannot speak too strongly of the “contempt” which he “deserves,” and accuse of “pious fraud” or the next thing to it (Kestner, 1816, p. 67). For farther criticisms consult the works cited by Dr. McGiffert under Literature, and the special works on Eusebius cited in the Literature to Constantine above, passim. The criticisms group generally around 1. The suppression of the facts respecting the deaths of Crispus, &c., and various others derogatory to Constantine. 2. The eulogistic tone and coloring of the work, especially the very pietistic saintly sort of flavor given to Constantine.
As to the suppression of facts, note (1) That he gives entire warning of his plan. It would have been artistically and ethically improper, in a work which distinctly sets out with such purpose, to admit that class of facts. It takes more or less from the value of the work, but it does not reflect on the general trustworthiness of what is said. (2) No similar judgment is passed on Eutropius, the Victors, Anonymous Valesianus or Zosimus, for not mentioning his pious acts. (3) A comparison of most biographies of living and dead presidents, kings, and emperors will be greatly to the advantage, even, of this fourth century eulogist over those of our boasted critical age.
As to the eulogistic and exaggerated tone, observe (1) That it was more or less justified. That is, the premises of the criticism which are substantially that Constantine was not saintly or pietistic and was non-committal toward Christianity, are false. His extreme testimony is backed by very general testimony in the election of Constantine to technical saintship. (2) That is compares well with modern eulogists and extremely well with the contemporary Panegyrists of Constantine. (3) That Eusebius takes care frequently to guard his statements by quoting his source, as in the matter of the vision of the cross, or by ascribing to hearsay.
In general, the work stands much
on the same level as the biographies of generals in the late civil war,
or of presidents, written by admiring members of their staffs or
cabinets, incorporat
6. Value of the Work
That the work on any basis but the untenable one of out-and-out forgery should be characterized as “worthless” or “a mere romance” or “of less value than the heathen panegyrists” is a curious bit of psychological performance, for it does precisely what it grounds its contempt for Eusebius on,—suppresses and exaggerates. Taking the minimum residuum of the most penetrating criticism, and the work is yet a source of primary value for understanding the man Constantine. This residuum includes (1) The documents which the work contains. These amount at the very least estimate to more than one-fourth of the whole matter, and the appended oration of Constantine is nearly as much more. (2) Many facts and details where there could be no possibility of motive for falsifying. (3) Much which critical care can draw out of the over-statements of eulogy.
§2. Oration of Constantine.
The Editions and Translations of this work are substantially identical with those of the Life. See above, under Life. The Authenticity of the work has been doubted, and its composition ascribed to Eusebius or some other Christian writer, but without sufficient reason. It was appended by Eusebius to his Life of Constantine as specimens of the latter’s style (cf. V.C. 4. 32). As such it shows a man of some learning, though learning taken at second hand, it is thought, from Lactantius and others (cf. Wordsworth’s Constantine I.). It was composed in Latin, and translated into Greek by the special officials appointed for such work (V.C. 4. 32). It was delivered on Good Friday, but in what year or where is not known. It has been placed before the year 324 (Ceiller, 130), but the mention of events and the character of the work itself suggest a considerably later date.
§3. Oration of Eusebius.
The Editions and Translations of this work are substantially identical with those of the Life, above, but some of the earlier ones do not contain the work. It was delivered in the year 336 (or possibly 335) at Constantinople, in celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine’s accession, Constantine himself being present (cf. V.C. 4. 46 and O.C. 1). It gave the emperor lively satisfaction, from which one may safely infer a peculiar taste for combined panegyric and philosophical theology unless the hypothesis of a double work be true. According to this hypothesis the work consists of two separate orations, spoken perhaps at different times, the first including chapters 1–10, which are panegyrical in character, and the other chapters 11–18, which are theological (compare Lightfoot, Eusebius, p. 343; also McGiffert, Prolegomena, p. 43). It is like the oration of Constantine, a proper part of the Life of Constantine being appended according to his promise in Bk. 4, ch. 46.
The special points relating to these works are treated in the notes.
constantine.
————————————
I. The Life of Constantine.
II. The Oration of Constantine.
III. The Oration of Eusebius.
The Life
of the
blessed emperor constantine,
by
eusebius pamphilus.
————————————
Book I.
Chapter I.—Preface.—Of the Death of Constantine.
Already Literally “recently” or “not long since,”
and so it is rendered by Tr. 1709, Stroth, Molzberger, Valesius
(“nuper”), and Portesius. Christophorson and Cousin avoid
the awkwardness by circumlocution or simple omission, while our
translator shows his one characteristic excellence of hitting nearly
the unliteral meaning in a way which is hard to improve. The
assembly referred to was the Council of Nicæa. Constantine’s
vicennial celebration was held at Nicomedia during the session of the
Council at Nicæa (July 25), according to Hieronymus and others,
but celebrated again at Rome the following year. The speech of Eusebius
on this occasion is not preserved. Valesius thinks the one spoken of in
the V. C. 3. 11, as delivered in the presence of the council, is
the one referred to. This
oration is the one appended by Eusebius to this Life of
Constantine, and given in this translation (cf. V. C. 4.
46).
But now, while I desire [In
the text it is ὁ λόγος, “my power of speech, or of description, much
desires,” and so throughout this preface: but this kind of
personification seems scarcely suited to the English
idiom.—Bag.] This usage of Logos is most interesting. Both
he and his friend, the emperor, are fond of dwelling on the circles of
philosophical thought which center about the word Logos (cf. the
Oration of Constantine, and especially the Vicennial Oration of
Eusebius). “My Logos desires” seems to take the place in
ancient philosophical slang which “personality” or
“self” does in modern. In ancient usage the word includes
“both the ratio and the oratio” (Liddell and Scott), both
the thought and its expression, both reasoning and saying,—the
“internal” and “expressed” of the Stoics,
followed by Philo and early Christian theology. He seems to use it in
the combined sense, and it makes a pretty good equivalent for
“personality,” “my personality desires,”
&c. The idiom is kept up through the chapter. Constantine II., Constantius, and Constans proved on the whole
sorry reflectors of glory. The
first had been Cæsar more than twenty years; the second, ten; and
the third, less than five.
Chapter II.—The Preface Continued.
And I
am indeed amazed, when I consider that he who was but lately visible
and present with us in his mortal body, is still, even after death,
when the natural thought disclaims everything superfluous as
unsuitable, most marvelously endowed with the same imperial dwellings,
and honors, and praises as heretofore. Referring to special honors paid after death, as mentioned in Bk.
4. Here there is play on the word Logos. My logos stands voiceless
and a-logos, “un-logosed.” If the author meant both to
refer to expression, the first relates to the sound, and the second to
the power of construction or composition. The interchangeableness of
the weaving of consecutive thought in the mind, and the weaving it in
expressed words, is precisely the question of the “relation of
thought and language,” so warmly contested by modern philosophers
and philologians (cf. Müller, Science of Thought,
Shedd’s Essays, &c.). The old use of logos for both
operations of “binding together” various ideas into one
synthetical form has decided advantages. Here there is again the play on the word Logos. For
Eusebius’ philosophy of the logos, and of Christ as the Logos or
Word, see the second half of his tricennial oration and
notes.
Chapter III.—How God honors Pious Princes, but destroys Tyrants.
Having given assurance that those who glorify and honor him will meet
with an abundant recompense at his hands, while those who set
themselves against him as enemies and adversaries will compass the ruin
of their own souls, he has already established the truth of these his
own declarations, having shown on the one hand the fearful end of those
tyrants who denied and opposed him, Compare Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, which
doubtless the author had in mind.
Mankind, devising some
consolation for the frail and precarious duration of human life, have
thought by the erection of monuments to glorify the memories of their
ancestors with immortal honors. Some have employed the vivid
delineations and colors of painting [Κηροχύτου
γραφῆς, properly
encaustic painting, by means of melted wax.—Bag] Compare
admirable description of the process in the Century Dictionary, ed.
Whitney, N.Y. 1889, v. 2. Κύβεις, at first used of triangular tablets of wood, brass, or stone,
but afterwards of any inscribed “pillars or tablets.” Cf.
Lexicons.
Chapter IV.—That God honored Constantine.
And God
himself, whom Constantine worshiped, has confirmed this truth by the
clearest manifestations of his will, being present to aid him Whether δεξιῶς is
read or δεξιός,
with Valesius, “present to aid,” covers the idea better
than “graciously present” (Molz).
Chapter V.—That he reigned above Thirty Years, and lived above Sixty.
With respect to the duration of his reign, God honored him with three
complete periods of ten years, and something more, extending the whole
term of his mortal life to twice this number of years. Compare discussion of length of reign and life under Life
in Prolegomena, p. 411. ̓́Γιγ€ντων. The persecuting emperors appear to be meant, of whom there
is more mention hereafter.—Bag.] Refers of course to the
mythical Gigantes who fought against the gods. It is used in the same
sense in which Æschylus uses it of Capaneus (Theb. 424), who
defied Zeus in declaring that even his thunderbolts should not keep him
out of Thebes.
Chapter VI.—That he was the Servant of God, and the Conqueror of Nations.
Thus,
like a faithful and good servant, did he act and testify, openly
declaring and confessing himself the obedient minister of the supreme
King. And God forthwith rewarded him, by making him ruler and
sovereign, and victorious to such a degree that he alone of all rulers
pursued a continual course of conquest, unsubdued and invincible, and
through his trophies a greater ruler than tradition records ever to
have been before. So dear was he to God, and so blessed; so pious and
so fortunate in all that he undertook, that with the greatest facility
he obtained the authority over more nations than any who had preceded
him, Compare the various wars against Franks, Bructerians, Goths,
Sarmatians and others mentioned in Life in Prolegomena. Compare
also chapter 8 of this book.
Chapter VII.—Comparison with Cyrus, King of the Persians, and with Alexander of Macedon.
Ancient history describes Cyrus, king of the Persians, as by far the most
illustrious of all kings up to his time. And yet if we regard the end
of his days, [Such seems to be the probable meaning of this passage, which is
manifestly corrupt, and of which various emendations have been
proposed.—Bag.] Perhaps better paraphrased, “But
since the test of blessedness lies not in this, but in his end, we look
and find that this.” The key to the idea is found in the remark
near the end of chapter 11. Cf. also note. This is the account of Diodorus, who says he was taken prisoner
and crucified by the queen of the “Scythians” (3. 11, ed.
1531, f. 80b). Herodotus says that he was slain in battle,
but his head cut off afterwards and dipped in a sack of blood by the
queen Tomyris, who had rejected his suit, the death of whose son he had
caused, and who had sworn to “give him his fill of blood”
(Herod. Bk. I, §§205–214). Xenophon says he died
quietly in bed (Cyrop. 8. 7).
Again, the sons of Greece
celebrate Alexander the Macedonian as the conqueror of many and diverse
nations; yet we find that he was removed by an early death, before he
had reached maturity, being carried off by the effects of revelry and
drunkenness. A
malarial fever, but made fatal by drinking at a banquet (cf. Plut.
chaps. 75 and 76, Arrian, Bk. 7). Eusebius’ rhetorical purpose makes him unfair to Alexander,
who certainly in comparison with others of his time brought relative
blessing to the conquered (cf. Smith, Dict. I, p.
122).
Chapter VIII.—That he conquered nearly the Whole World.
But our
emperor began his reign at the time of life at which the Macedonian
died, yet doubled the length of his life, and trebled the length of his
reign. And instructing his army in the mild and sober precepts of
godliness, he carried his arms as far as the Britons, and the nations
that dwell in the very bosom of the Western ocean. He subdued likewise
all Scythia, though situated in the remotest North, and divided into
numberless diverse and barbarous tribes. He even pushed his conquests
to the Blemmyans and Ethiopians, on the very confines of the South; nor
did he think the acquisition of the Eastern nations unworthy his care.
In short, diffusing the effulgence of his holy light to the ends of the
whole world, even to the most distant Indians, the nations dwelling on
the extreme circumference of the inhabited earth, he received the
submission of all the rulers, Toparchs or prefects. Ethnarchs.
Chapter IX.—That he was the Son of a Pious Emperor, and bequeathed the Power to Royal Sons.
Nor did
he give this testimony in words merely, while exhibiting failure in his
own practice, but pursued every path of virtue, and was rich in the
varied fruits of godliness. He ensured the affection of his friends by
magnificent proofs of liberality; and inasmuch as he governed on
principles of humanity, he caused his rule to be but lightly felt and
acceptable to all classes of his subjects; until at last, after a long
course of years, and when he was wearied by his divine labors, the God
whom he honored crowned him with an immortal reward, and translated him
from a transitory kingdom to that endless life which he has laid up in
store for the souls of his saints, after he had raised him up three
sons to succeed him in his power. As then the imperial throne had
descended to him from his father, so, by the law of nature, was it
reserved for his children and their descendants, and perpetuated, like
some paternal inheritance, to endless generations. And indeed God
himself, who distinguished this blessed prince with divine honors while
yet present with us, and who has adorned his death with choice
blessings from his own hand, should be the writer of his actions; since
he has recorded his labors and successes on heavenly monuments. “The pillars of heaven.”—Molz
(?).
Chapter X.—Of the Need for this History, and its Value for Edification.
However, hard as it is to speak worthily of this blessed character, and
though silence were the safer and less perilous course, nevertheless it
is incumbent on me, if I would escape the charge of negligence and
sloth, to trace as it were a verbal portraiture, by way of memorial of
the pious prince, in imitation of the delineations of human art. For I
should be ashamed of myself were I not to employ my best efforts,
feeble though they be and of little value, in praise of one who honored
God with such surpassing devotion. I think too that my work will be on
other grounds both instructive and necessary, since it will contain a
description of those royal and noble actions which are pleasing to God,
the Sovereign of all. For would it not be disgraceful that the memory
of Nero, and other impious and godless tyrants far worse than he,
should meet with diligent writers to embellish the relation of their
worthless deeds with elegant language, and record them in voluminous
histories, and that I should be silent, to whom God himself has
vouchsafed such an emperor as all history records not, and has
permitted me to come into his presence, and enjoy his acquaintance and
society? The Bagster translation, following Valesius, divides the tenth
chapter, making the eleventh begin at this point.
Wherefore, if it is the duty of
any one, it certainly is mine, to make an ample proclamation of his
virtues to all in whom the example of noble actions is capable of
inspiring the love of God. For some who have written the lives of
worthless characters, and the history of actions but little tending to
the improvement of morals, from private motives, either love or enmity,
and possibly in some cases with no better object than the display of
their own learning, have exaggerated unduly their description of
actions intrinsically base, by a refinement and elegance of diction. It looks as if there might perhaps be a direct hit at Lactantius
here, as having, through “enmity,” described actions
intrinsically base in peculiarly elegant diction; but Lactantius’
descriptions are hardly more realistic than Eusebius’
own.
Chapter XI.—That his Present Object is to record only the Pious Actions of Constantine.
It is my intention, therefore, to pass over the greater part of the royal deeds of this thrice-blessed prince; as, for example, his conflicts and engagements in the field, his personal valor, his victories and successes against the enemy, and the many triumphs he obtained: likewise his provisions for the interests of individuals, his legislative enactments for the social advantage of his subjects, and a multitude of other imperial labors which are fresh in the memory of all; the design of my present undertaking being to speak and write of those circumstances only which have reference to his religious character.
And since these are themselves
of almost infinite variety, I shall select from the facts [Alluding probably to
Chapter XII.—That like Moses, he was reared in the Palaces of Kings.
Ancient history relates that a cruel race of tyrants oppressed the Hebrew
nation; and that God, who graciously regarded them in their affliction,
provided that the prophet Moses, who was then an infant, should be
brought up in the very palaces and bosoms of the oppressors, and
instructed in all the wisdom they possessed. And when in the course of
time he had arrived at manhood, and the time was come for Divine
justice to avenge the wrongs of the afflicted people, then the prophet
of God, in obedience to the will of a more powerful Lord, forsook the
royal household, and, estranging himself in word and deed from the
tyrants by whom he had been brought up, openly acknowledging his true
brethren and kinsfolk. Then God, exalting him to be the leader of the
whole nation, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of their enemies,
and inflicted Divine vengeance through his means on the tyrant race.
This ancient story, though rejected by most as fabulous, has reached
the ears of all. But now the same God has given to us to be
eye-witnesses of miracles more wonderful than fables, and, from their
recent appearance, more authentic than any report. For the tyrants of
our day have ventured to war against the Supreme God, and have sorely
afflicted His Church. The persecuting emperors. Compare Prolegomena,
Life. He was brought up with Diocletian and Galerius. Compare
Prolegomena, Life. Constantius Chlorus, Neo-Platonist and philanthropist. Compare
following description.
Chapter XIII.—Of Constantius his
Father, who refused to imitate Diocletian, Maximian, and
Maxentius, The author of the chapter heading means of course Galerius.
Maxentius was not emperor until after the death of
Constantius.
At a
time when four emperors [Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and
Constantius.—Bag.]
For while they besieged and
wasted the churches of God, leveling them to the ground, and
obliterating the very foundations of the houses of prayer, For account of these persecutions, see Church History, Bk.
8, and notes of McGiffert. Compare the Church History, 8. 13, and Lactantius, De
mort. pers. 15. The latter says he allowed buildings to be
destroyed, but spared human life.
In consequence of the many reports in circulation respecting this prince, describing his kindness and gentleness of character, and the extraordinary elevation of his piety, alleging too, that by reason of his extreme indulgence to his subjects, he had not even a supply of money laid up in his treasury; the emperor who at that time occupied the place of supreme power sent to reprehend his neglect of the public weal, at the same time reproaching him with poverty, and alleging in proof of the charge the empty state of his treasury. On this he desired the messengers of the emperor to remain with him awhile, and, calling together the wealthiest of his subjects of all nations under his dominion, he informed them that he was in want of money, and that this was the time for them all to give a voluntary proof of their affection for their prince.
As soon as they heard this (as
though they had long been desirous of an opportunity for showing the
sincerity of their good will), with zealous alacrity they filled the
treasury with gold and silver and other wealth; each eager to surpass
the rest in the amount of his contribution: and this they did with
cheerful and joyous countenances. And now Constantius desired the
messengers of the great emperor Or the senior Augustus. “Diocletian is thus entitled in the
ancient panegyrists and in
inscriptions.”—Heinichen. It was “towards
the end of the second century of the Christian era” that there
began to be a plurality of Augusti, but “from this time we
find two or even a greater number of Augusti; and though in that
and in all similar cases the persons honored with the title were
regarded as participators of the imperial power, still the one who
received the title first was looked upon as the head of the
empire.”—Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant.
This one circumstance, then, conveys a proof of the generosity of him whose character we are attempting to illustrate: another will contain the clearest testimony to his piety.
Chapter XV.—Of the Persecution raised by his Colleagues.
By command of the supreme authorities of the empire, the governors of
the several provinces had set on foot a general persecution of the
godly. Indeed, it was from the imperial courts themselves that the very
first of the pious martyrs proceeded, who passed through those
conflicts for the faith, and most readily endured both fire and sword,
and the depths of the sea; every form of death, in short, so that in a
brief time all the royal palaces were bereft of pious men. Compare accounts of martyrs in the palaces, in the Church
History, 8. 6.
Chapter XVI.—How Constantius, feigning Idolatry, expelled those who consented to offer Sacrifice, but retained in his Palace all who were willing to confess Christ.
On the other hand, Constantius conceived an expedient full of sagacity, and did a thing which sounds paradoxical, but in fact was most admirable.
He made a proposal to all the
officers of his court, including even those in the highest stations of
authority, offering them the following alternative: either that they
should offer sacrifice to demons, and thus be permitted to remain with
him, and enjoy their usual honors; or, in case of refusal, that they
should be shut out from all access to his person, and entirely
disqualified from acquaintance and association with him. Accordingly,
when they had individually made their choice, some one way and some the
other; and the choice of each had been ascertained, then this admirable
prince disclosed the secret meaning of his expedient, and condemned the
cowardice and selfishness of the one party, while he highly commended
the other for their conscientious devotion to God. He declared, too,
that those who had been false to their God must be unworthy of the
confidence of their prince; for how was it possible that they should
preserve their fidelity to him, who had proved themselves faithless to
a higher power? He determined, therefore, that such persons should be
removed altogether from the imperial court, while, on the other hand,
declaring that those men who, in bearing witness for the truth, had
proved them
Chapter XVII.—Of his Christian Manner of Life.
The father of Constantine, then, is said to have possessed such a
character as we have briefly described. And what kind of death was
vouchsafed to him in consequence of such devotion to God, and how far
he whom he honored made his lot to differ from that of his colleagues
in the empire, may be known to any one who will give his attention to
the circumstances of the case. For after he had for a long time given
many proofs of royal virtue, in acknowledging the Supreme God alone,
and condemning the polytheism of the ungodly, and had fortified his
household by the prayers of holy men, “Is said to have” is added conjecturally here by an
earlier editor, but Heinichen omits, as it would seem Eusebius himself
did.
Accordingly, during the whole
course of his quiet and peaceful reign, he dedicated his entire
household, his children, his wife, and domestic attendants, to the One
Supreme God: so that the company assembled within the walls of his
palace differed in no respect from a church of God; wherein were also
to be found his ministers, who offered continual supplications on
behalf of their prince, and this at a time when, with most, Other readings are “with the others,” or “with
the rest,” but in whatever reading it refers to all the other
emperors.
Chapter XVIII.—That after the Abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius became Chief Augustus, and was blessed with a Numerous Offspring.
The immediate consequence of this conduct was a recompense from the
hand of God, insomuch that he came into the supreme authority of the
empire. For the older emperors, for some unknown reason, resigned their
power; and this sudden change took place in the first year after their
persecution of the churches. The persecution was in 303 or 304. Compare discussion of date in
Clinton, Fasti Rom. ann. 303–305. The abdication was in
305.
From that time Constantius alone
received the honors of chief Augustus, having been previously, indeed,
distinguished by the diadem of the imperial Cæsars, Eusebius uses the terms Augustus, king, autocrat, and Cæsar
with a good deal of interchangeableness. It is hard to tell sometimes
whether king (βασιλεύς) means emperor or Cæsar. In general, Augustus has been
transferred in translations, and king and autocrat both rendered
emperor, which seems to be his real usage. Constantine reached him just before his death, though possibly
some weeks before. Compare Prolegomena.
Chapter XIX.—Of his Son Constantine, who in his Youth accompanied Diocletian into Palestine.
The latter had been with his father’s imperial colleagues, Diocletian and Galerius. Diocletian. He was on his way to Egypt in the famous campaign
against Achilleus in 296–297. Or
“psychical,” meaning more than intellectual. Rather, perhaps, “self-control.”
Chapter XX.—Flight of
Constantine to his Father because of the Plots of Diocletian. Eusebius himself speaks in the plural, and other writers speak of
plots by both Diocletian and Galerius. Compare Prolegomena.
The emperors then in power, observing his manly and vigorous figure
and superior mind, were moved with feelings of jealousy and fear, and
thenceforward carefully watched for an opportunity of inflicting some
brand of disgrace on his character. But the young man, being aware of
their designs, the details of which, through the providence of God,
more than once came to him, sought safety in flight; Compare detailed account in Lactantius, De M. P. c.
24.
Chapter XXI.—Death of
Constantius, who leaves his Son Constantine Emperor. Βασιλεύς. The writer of the chapter headings uses this word here and
Augustus in the following chapter, but it does not seem to mean
technically “Cæsar,” and so the rendering emperor is
retained.
Immediately, therefore, on his escape from the plots which had been thus
insidiously laid for him, he made his way with all haste to his father,
and arrived at length at the very time that he was lying at the point
of death. This seems to imply that Constantine reached him only after he was
sick in bed, i.e. at York in Britain; but other accounts make it
probable that he joined him at Boulogne before he sailed on this last
expedition to Britain. Compare Prolegomena. Literally, “than immortality [on earth].” It will hardly be agreed that imperial succession is a law of
nature anyway. Rather, “the succession [where it exists] is
established by the express will or the tacit consent of the
nation,” and the “pretended proprietary right…is a
chimera” (Vattell, Law of Nations, Phila., 1867, p. 24,
25). That primogeniture is a natural law has been often urged, but it
seems to be simply the law of first come first served. The English
custom of primogeniture is said to have risen from the fact that in
feudal times the eldest son was the one who, at the time of the
father’s death, was of an age to meet the duties of feudal tenure
(compare Kent, Commentaries, Boston, 1867, v. 4, p. 420, 421).
This is precisely the fact respecting Constantine. His several brothers
were all too young to be thought of.
Chapter XXII.—How, after the Burial of Constantius, Constantine was Proclaimed Augustus by the Army.
Nor did
the imperial throne remain long unoccupied: for Constantine invested
himself with his father’s purple, and proceeded from his
father’s palace, presenting to all a renewal, as it were, in his
own person, of his father’s life and reign. He then conducted the
funeral procession in company with his father’s friends, some
preceding, others following the train, and performed the last offices
for the pious deceased with an extraordinary degree of magnificence,
and all united in honoring this thrice blessed prince with acclamations
and praises, and while with one mind and voice, they glorified the rule
of the son as a living again of him who was dead, they hastened at once
to hail their new sovereign by the titles of Imperial and Worshipful
Augustus, with joyful shouts. The verdict was not confirmed at once. Galerius refused him the
title of emperor, and he contented himself with that of Cæsar for
a little. Compare Prolegomena.
In the instance of the Emperor Constantius, God has made manifest to our generation what the end of those is who in their lives have honored and loved him.
Chapter XXIII.—A Brief Notice of the Destruction of the Tyrants.
With respect to the other princes, who made war against the churches of
God, I have not thought it fit in the present work to give any account
of their downfall, But
he has done this himself in his Church History. Compare also
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum.
Thus then the God of all, the Supreme Governor of the whole universe, by his own will appointed Constantine, the descendant of so renowned a parent, to be prince and sovereign: so that, while others have been raised to this distinction by the election of their fellow-men, he is the only one to whose elevation no mortal may boast of having contributed.
Chapter XXV.—Victories of Constantine over the Barbarians and the Britons.
As soon
then as he was established on the throne, he began to care for the
interests of his paternal inheritance, and visited with much
considerate kindness all those provinces which had previously been
under his father’s government. Some tribes of the barbarians who
dwelt on the banks of the Rhine, and the shores of the Western ocean,
having ventured to revolt, he reduced them all to obedience, and
brought them from their savage state to one of gentleness. He contented
himself with checking the inroads of others, and drove from his
dominions, like untamed and savage beasts, those whom he perceived to
be altogether incapable of the settled order of civilized life. The
Franci, Bructeri, &c. [Eusebius here speaks of a second expedition of Constantine
to Britain, which is not mentioned by other ancient writers; or he may
have been forgetful or ignorant of the fact that Constantine had
received the imperial authority in Britain itself, Constantius having
died in his palace at York, a.d. 306. Vide
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chap. 14.—Bag.] It
seems to be a part of the confusion about his crossing to Britain in
the first place.
Chapter XXVI.—How he resolved to deliver Rome from Maxentius.
While,
therefore, he regarded the entire world as one immense body, and
perceived that the head of it all, the royal city of the Roman empire,
was bowed down by the weight of a tyrannous oppression; at first he had
left the task of liberation to those who governed the other divisions
of the empire, as being his superiors in point of age. But when none of
these proved able to afford relief, and those who had attempted it had
experienced a disastrous termination of their enterprise, Referring to the unsuccessful expeditions of Severus and
Galerius.
Chapter XXVII.—That after reflecting on the Downfall of those who had worshiped Idols, he made Choice of Christianity.
Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his
military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical
enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, Compare chapters 36 and 37; also Lactantius, De M. P. chap.
44. Galerius. Severus. This last phrase has exercised the ingenuity of translators
greatly. This translation does well enough, though one might hazard
“was easily overcome by death,” or “was an easy
victim to death.”
Chapter XXVIII.—How, while he was praying, God sent him a Vision of a Cross of Light in the Heavens at Mid-day, with an Inscription admonishing him to conquer by that.
Accordingly he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he
would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to
help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying
with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from
heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it
been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor
himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, Note here the care Eusebius takes to throw off the responsibility
for the marvelous. It at the same time goes to show the general
credibility of Eusebius, and some doubt in his mind of the exact nature
and reality of what he records. This very circumstantial account has met with doubters from the
very beginning, commencing with Eusebius himself. There are all sorts
of explanations, from that of an actual miracle to that of pure later
invention. The fact of some, at least supposed, special divine
manifestation at this time can hardly be denied. It is mentioned
vaguely by Paneg. 313, and on the triumphal arch shortly after.
It is reported as a dream by Lactantius about the same time with the
erection of the arch, and alluded to in general, but hardly to be
doubted, terms by Nazarius in 321. Moreover, it is witnessed to by the
fact of the standard of the cross which was made. As to the real nature
of the manifestation, it has been thought to be as recorded by
Constantine, and if so, as perhaps some natural phenomenon of the sun,
or to have been a simple dream, or an hallucination. It is hardly
profitable to discuss the possibilities. The lack of contemporary
evidence to details and the description of Lactantius as a dream is
fatal to any idea of a miraculous image with inscriptions clearly seen
by all. Some cross-like arrangement of the clouds, or a
“parahelion,” or some sort of a suggestion of a cross, may
have been seen by all, but evidently there was no definite, vivid,
clear perception, or it would have been in the mouths of all and
certainly recorded, or at least it would not have been recorded as
something else by Lactantius. It seems probable that the
emperor, thinking intensely, with all the weight of his great problem
resting on his energetic mind, wondering if the Christian God was
perhaps the God who could help, saw in some suggestive shape of the
clouds or of sunlight the form of a cross, and there flashed out in his
mind in intensest reality the vision of the words, so that for the
moment he was living in the intensest reality of such a vision. His
mind had just that intense activity to which such a thing is possible
or actual. It is like Goethe’s famous meeting of his own self. It
is that genius power for the realistic representation of ideal things.
This is not the same exactly as “hallucination,” or even
“imagination.” The hallucination probably came later when
Constantine gradually represented to himself and finally to Eusebius
the vivid idea with its slight ground, as an objective reality,—a
common phenomenon. When the emperor went to sleep, his brain molecules
vibrating to the forms of his late intense thought, he inevitably
dreamed, and dreaming naturally confirmed his thought. This does not
say that the suggestive form seen, or the idea itself, and the
direction of the dream itself, were not providential and the work of
the Holy Spirit, for they were, and were special in character, and so
miraculous (or why do ideas come?); but it is to be feared that
Constantine’s own spirit or something else furnished some of the
later details. There is a slight difference of authority as to when and
where the vision took place. The panegyrist seems to make it before
leaving Gaul, and Malalas is inaccurate as usual in having it happen in
a war against the barbarians. For farther discussion of the subject see
monographs under Literature in the Prolegomena, especially under
the names: Baring, Du
Voisin, Fabricius,
Girault, Heumann,
Jacutius Mamachi,
Molinet, St. Victor, Suhr, Toderini, Weidener, Wernsdorf, Woltereck. The most
concise, clear, and admirable supporter of the account of Eusebius, or
rather Constantine, as it stands, is Newman, Miracles (Lond.
1875), 271–286.
Chapter XXIX.—How the Christ of God appeared to him in his Sleep, and commanded him to use in his Wars a Standard made in the Form of the Cross.
He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
Chapter XXX.—The Making of the Standard of the Cross.
At dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing.
Chapter XXXI.—A Description of the Standard of the Cross, which
the Romans now call the Labarum. [From the Bretagnic lab, to raise, or from labarva,
which, in the Basque language, still signifies a
standard.—Riddle’s Lat. Dict. voc. Labarum.
Gibbon declares the derivation and meaning of the word to be
“totally unknown, in spite of the efforts of the critics, who
have ineffectually tortured the Latin, Greek, Spanish, Celtic,
Teutonic, Illyric, Armenian, &c., in search of an
etymology.”—Decline and Fall, chap. 22, note
33.—Bag.] Compare the full article of Venables, in Smith
and Cheetham, Dict. 1 (1880), 908–911, with its references
and cuts.
Now it
was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold,
formed the Thus rather than “on.” Compare cuts in article of
Venables. “It [the monogram of Christ] is often set within a
crown or palm branch.”—Wolcott, Sacred
Archæalogy, p. 390. [Χιαζομένου
τοῦ ῥ κατὰ τὸ
μεσαίτατον.
The figure ΧΡ would seem to answer to the
description in the text. Gibbon gives two specimens, –Ρ and ×Ρ as engraved from ancient
monuments. Chap. 20, note 35.—Bag.] The various coins
given by Venables all have the usual form of the monogram ×Ρ . Compare also Tyrwhitt, art. Monogram, in Smith and
Cheetham; also the art. Monogramme du Christ, in Martigny,
Dict. d. ant. (1877), 476–483. That this was no new invention of Constantine may be seen by
comparing the following description of an ordinary Roman standard,
“…each cohort had for its own ensign the serpent or dragon,
which was woven on a square piece of cloth, elevated on a gilt staff,
to which a cross-bar was adapted for the purpose…under the eagle
or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning emperor.”
Yates, art. Signa militaria, in Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom.
Ant. (1878), 1044–1045. “Which in its full extent was of great
length.”—Bag., according to suggestion of Valesius
of a possible meaning, but better as above, meaning the part below the
cross-bar. So Valesius, Christopherson, 1709,
Molzberger. “Medallions.”—Venables.
The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.
Chapter XXXII.—How Constantine received Instruction, and read the Sacred Scriptures.
These things were done shortly afterwards. But at the time above
specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and
resolving to worship no other God save Him who had appeared to him, he
sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of His doctrines,
and enquired who that God was, and what was intended by the sign of the
vision he had seen. They affirmed that He was God, the only begotten
Son of the one and only God: that the sign which had appeared was the
symbol of immortality, Both Socrates (5. 17) and Sozomen (7. 15) relate that symbols of
the cross found in a temple of Serapis, on its destruction by
Theodosius, were explained by the Christians of the time as symbols of
immortality. Cf. also Suidas (ed. Gasiford, 2 (1834), 3398), s.
v. Σταυροί; Valesius on Socrates and Sozomen; Jablonski, Opuscula, 1,
p. 156– . The study of the pre-christian use of the cross is most
suggestive. It suggests at least that in some way the passion of our
Lord was the realization of some world-principle or “natural
Law.”
Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by well-grounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench the threatening fire of tyranny.
Chapter
XXXIII.—Of the Adulterous Conduct of
Maxentius at Rome. Compare the Church History, 8. 14.
For he
who had tyrannically possessed himself of the imperial city, Maxentius, made emperor by an uprising of the Prætorian
Guards in 306.
For example: he would separate
women from their husbands, and after a time send them back to them
again, and these insults he offered not to men of mean or obscure
condition, but to those who held the first places in the Roman senate.
Moreover, though he shamefully dishonored almost numberless free women,
he was unable to satisfy his ungoverned and intemperate desires. But “For” seems to express the author’s real
meaning, but both punctuation of editors and renderings of translators
insist on “but.” Various readings of text add “lawfully married” women,
and send them back again “grievously dishonored,” and so
Bag., but Heinichen has this reading. Compare note of
Heinichen.
This chapter is found almost word for word in the Church
History, 8. 14.
Now a certain woman, wife of one of the senators who held the authority of prefect, when she understood that those who ministered to the tyrant in such matters were standing before her house (she was a Christian), and knew that her husband through fear had bidden them take her and lead her away, begged a short space of time for arraying herself in her usual dress, and entered her chamber. There, being left alone, she sheathed a sword in her own breast, and immediately expired, leaving indeed her dead body to the procurers, but declaring to all mankind, both to present and future generations, by an act which spoke louder than any words, that the chastity for which Christians are famed is the only thing which is invincible and indestructible. Such was the conduct displayed by this woman.
Chapter XXXV.—Massacre of the Roman People by Maxentius.
All men, therefore, both people and magistrates, whether of high or low degree, trembled through fear of him whose daring wickedness was such as I have described, and were oppressed by his grievous tyranny. Nay, though they submitted quietly, and endured this bitter servitude, still there was no escape from the tyrant’s sanguinary cruelty. For at one time, on some trifling pretense, he exposed the populace to be slaughtered by his own body-guard; and countless multitudes of the Roman people were slain in the very midst of the city by the lances and weapons, not of Scythians or barbarians, but of their own fellow-citizens. And besides this, it is impossible to calculate the number of senators whose blood was shed with a view to the seizure of their respective estates, for at different times and on various fictitious charges, multitudes of them suffered death.
Chapter XXXVI.—Magic Arts of Maxentius against Constantine; and Famine at Rome.
But the
crowning point of the tyrant’s wickedness was his having recourse
to sorcery: sometimes for magic purposes ripping up women with child,
at other times searching into the bowels of new-born infants. He slew
lions also, and practiced certain horrid arts for evoking demons, and
averting the approaching war, hoping by these means to get the victory.
In short, it is impossible to describe the manifold acts of oppression
by which this tyrant of Rome enslaved his subjects: so that by this
time they were reduced to the most extreme penury and want of necessary
food, a scarcity such as our contemporaries do not remember ever before
to have existed at Rome. 1709, Molz. &c., add “nor
anywhere else,” but Bag. is undoubtedly right in
translating simply “ever before.” The chapter is found
substantially and in part word for word in the Church History,
8. 14.
Chapter XXXVII.—Defeat of Maxentius’s Armies in Italy.
Constantine, however, filled with compassion on account of all these miseries, began to arm himself with all warlike preparation against the tyranny. Assuming therefore the Supreme God as his patron, and invoking His Christ to be his preserver and aid, and setting the victorious trophy, the salutary symbol, in front of his soldiers and body-guard, he marched with his whole forces, trying to obtain again for the Romans the freedom they had inherited from their ancestors.
And whereas, Maxentius, trusting
more in his magic arts than in the affection of his subjects, dared not
even advance outside the city gates, “Because the soothsayers had foretold that if he went out of
it, he should perish.” Lact. De M. P. Bag.adds “and numberless
ambuscades,” following Valesius and 1709. The word
so rendered is the word for “companies of soldiers.” The
rather awkward “multitude of heavy-armed soldiers and myriads of
companies of soldiers” may be rendered as above, although
“larger bodies of soldiers and limitless supplies”
suggested by the translation is perhaps the real meaning. He had both
“men and means.” At
Sigusium, Turin, Brescia, and Verona.
Chapter
XXXVIII.—Death of Maxentius on the
Bridge of the Tiber. The Milvian, the present Ponte Molle.
And already he was approaching very near Rome itself, when, to save
him from the necessity of fighting with all the Romans for the
tyrant’s sake, God himself drew the tyrant, as it were by secret
cords, a long way outside the gates. The present Ponte Molle is nearly 2½ kilometers (say 1½
miles) from the Porta del Popolo (at the Mons Pincius). The walls at
that time were the ones built by Aurelian, and are substantially the
same as the present ones. This Pons Milvius was first built 100 years
b.c., and “some part of the first bridge
is supposed to remain” (Jenkin, p. 329). Compare Jenkin, art.
Bridges, in Enc. Brit. 4 (1878), 329, for cut and
description. “Heavy armed and light armed.” “Godless,” or if ἄνευis to be read,
“destitute of his aid,” as Bag. Much conjecture has
been expended on this reading. Heinichen has ἀθεεὶ. This matter is discussed in the Prolegomena.
Chapter XXXIX.—Constantine’s Entry into Rome.
Having then at this time sung these and suchlike praises to God, the
Ruler of all and the Author of victory, after the example of his great
servant Moses, Constantine entered the imperial city in triumph. And
here the whole body of the senate, and others of rank and distinction
in the city, freed as it were from the restraint of a prison, along
with the whole Roman populace, their countenances expressive of the
gladness of their hearts, received him with acclamations and abounding
joy; men, women, and children, with countless multitudes of servants,
greeting him as deliverer, preserver, and benefactor, with incessant
shouts. But he, being possessed of inward piety toward God, was neither
rendered arrogant by these plaudits, nor uplifted by the praises he
heard: Compare Prolegomena under Character, and also for other
accounts of the universal joy under Life.
Chapter XL.—Of the Statue of Constantine holding a Cross, and its Inscription.
Moreover, by loud proclamation and monumental inscriptions he made known
to all men the salutary symbol, setting up this great trophy of victory
over his enemies in the midst of the imperial city, and expressly
causing it to be engraven in indelible characters, that the salutary
symbol was the safeguard of the Roman government and of the entire
empire. Accordingly, he immediately ordered a lofty spear in the figure
of a cross to be placed beneath the hand of a statue representing
himself, in the most frequented part of Rome, and the following
inscription to be engraved on it in the Latin language: by virtue of this salutary sign, which is the true test of valor,
I have preserved and liberated your city from the yoke of tyranny. I
have also set at liberty the roman senate and people, and restored them
to their ancient distinction and splendor. Compare the Church History, 9. 9. If it be true, as
Crusè says, that in this inscription there are traces of the Latin
original, it gives a strong presumption that Eusebius was quoting a
really existing inscription and accordingly that it is genuine. If so,
of course the probability of the vision of the cross is greatly
increased.
Thus the pious emperor, glorying in the confession of the victorious cross, proclaimed the Son of God to the Romans with great boldness of testimony. And the inhabitants of the city, one and all, senate and people, reviving, as it were, from the pressure of a bitter and tyrannical domination, seemed to enjoy purer rays of light, and to be born again into a fresh and new life. All the nations, too, as far as the limit of the western ocean, being set free from the calamities which had heretofore beset them, and gladdened by joyous festivals, ceased not to praise him as the victorious, the pious, the common benefactor: all, indeed, with one voice and one mouth, declared that Constantine had appeared by the grace of God as a general blessing to mankind. The imperial edict also was everywhere published, whereby those who had been wrongfully deprived of their estates were permitted again to enjoy their own, while those who had unjustly suffered exile were recalled to their homes. Moreover, he freed from imprisonment, and from every kind of danger and fear, those who, by reason of the tyrant’s cruelty, had been subject to these sufferings.
Chapter XLII.—The Honors Conferred upon Bishops, and the Building of Churches.
The emperor also personally inviting the society of God’s
ministers, distinguished them with the highest possible respect and
honor, showing them favor in deed and word as persons consecrated to
the service of his God. Accordingly, they were admitted to his table,
though mean in their attire and outward appearance; yet not so in his
estimation, since he thought he saw not the man as seen by the vulgar
eye, but the God in him. He made them also his companions in travel,
believing that He whose servants they were would thus help him. Besides
this, he gave from his own private resources costly benefactions to the
churches of God, both enlarging and heightening the sacred edifices, “Oratories,” or chapels. Variously rendered, but seems to say that the smaller buildings
were enlarged and the larger ones enriched. The number of buildings
which Constantine is claimed to have erected in Rome alone is
prodigious. One meets at every turn in the modern city churches which
were, it is said, founded or remodeled by him. For interesting
monograph which claims to have established the Constantinian foundation
of many of these, see Ciampini in Prolegomena,
under Literature.
Chapter XLIII.—Constantine’s Liberality to the Poor.
He likewise distributed money largely to those who were in need, and
besides these showing himself philanthropist and benefactor even to the
heathen, who had no claim on him; So
usually rendered literally, “to those who came to him from
without,” but it might rather mean “foreigners.” His
generosity included not only the worthy poor citizens, but foreigners
and beggars. The word used is the κοινωνία, familiar in the doctrine of the “communion” or
“fellowship” of the saints. It has the notion of
reciprocity and mutual sharing. The popular proverb that at the end of his life he was a
spendthrift, as given by Victor, represents the other side of this
liberality. Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
Chapter XLIV.—How he was present at the Synods of Bishops.
Such,
then, was his general character towards all. But he exercised a
peculiar care over the church of God: and whereas, in the several
provinces there were some who differed from each other in judgment, he,
like some general bishop constituted by God, convened synods of his
ministers. Nor did he disdain to be present and sit with them in their
assembly, but bore a share in their deliberations, ministering to all
that pertained to the peace of God. He took Constantine, like Eusebius himself, would be a distinct
“tolerationist” in modern theological controversy. One may
imagine that Eusebius entered into favor with Constantine in this way.
It commends itself to our feeling; but after all, the unyielding
Athanasius was a greater man than Eusebius.
Chapter XLV.—His Forbearance with Unreasonable Men.
Moreover he endured with patience some who were exasperated against
himself, directing them in mild and gentle terms to control themselves,
and not be turbulent. And some of these respected his admonitions, and
desisted; but as to those who proved incapable of sound judgment, he
left them entirely at the disposal of God, and never himself desired
harsh measures against any one. Hence it naturally happened that the
disaffected in Africa reached such a pitch of violence as even to
venture on overt acts of audacity; Compare Prolegomena, under Life and
Works. [This passage in the text is defective or
corrupt.—Bag.] What is given is substantially the
conventional translation of Valesius, Heinichen, Molzberger, and
with some variation, 1709 and Bag. It is founded,
however, on a conjectural reading, and reluctating against this, a
suggestion may be hazarded—“an excessive philanthropy for
the folly of the insane, even to the point of sympathy for
them.”
Chapter XLVI.—Victories over the Barbarians.
Thus the emperor in all his actions honored God, the Controller of all
things, and exercised an unwearied Some read “unbroken” or
“perfect.”
Chapter
XLVII.—Death of Maximin, There is long discussion of whether Maximian or Maximin is
intended. To any one who compares the order of narration in the
Church History, 9. 9, 11, the discussion will seem idle, though
it is curious that the one most jealous and greedy of power should have
been mistaken for one of the abdicators. It seems as if there had been
some confusion in the mind of Eusebius himself.
While he was thus engaged, the second of those who had resigned the throne, being detected in a treasonable conspiracy, suffered a most ignominious death. He was the first whose pictures, statues, and all similar marks of honor and distinction were everywhere destroyed, on the ground of his crimes and impiety. After him others also of the same family were discovered in the act of forming secret plots against the emperor; all their intentions being miraculously revealed by God through visions to His servant.
For he frequently vouchsafed to him manifestations of himself, the Divine presence appearing to him in a most marvelous manner, and according to him manifold intimations of future events. Indeed, it is impossible to express in words the indescribable wonders of Divine grace which God was pleased to vouchsafe to His servant. Surrounded by these, he passed the rest of his life in security, rejoicing in the affection of his subjects, rejoicing too because he saw all beneath his government leading contented lives; but above all delighted at the flourishing condition of the churches of God.
Chapter XLVIII.—Celebration of Constantine’s Decennalia.
While he was thus circumstanced, he completed the tenth year of his
reign. On this occasion he ordered the celebration of general
festivals, and offered prayers of thanksgiving to God, the King of all,
as sacrifices without flame or smoke. Unburnt offerings, meat offerings.
For he
was informed that in that quarter a certain savage beast was besetting
both the church of God and the other inhabitants of the provinces,
owing, as it were, to the efforts of the evil spirit to produce effects
quite contrary to the deeds of the pious emperor: so that the Roman
empire, divided into two parts, seemed to all men to resemble night and
day; since darkness overspread the provinces of the East, while the
brightest day illumined the inhabitants of the other portion. And
whereas the latter were receiving manifold blessings at the hand of
God, the sight of these blessings proved intolerable to that envy which
hates all good, as well as to the tyrant who afflicted the other
division of the empire; and who, notwithstanding that his government
was prospering, and he had been honored by a marriage connection Licinius married in 313 Constantia, sister of
Constantine. Thus
generally following the Church History (10. 8).
Chapter L.—How Licinius attempted a Conspiracy against Constantine.
Accordingly he engaged in an implacable war against his benefactor, altogether
regardless of the laws of friendship, the obligation of oaths, the ties
of kindred, and already existing treaties. For the most benignant
emperor had given him a proof of sincere affection in bestowing on him
the hand of his sister, thus granting him the privilege of a place in
family relationship and his own ancient imperial descent, and investing
him also with the rank and dignity of his colleague in the empire. This rendering of Bag. is really a gloss from the Church
History, 10. 8. Compare rendering of McGiffert. Molzberger renders
“and left him in complete possession of the portions of the
kingdom which had fallen to his lot.”
Chapter LI.—Intrigues of Licinius against the Bishops, and his Prohibition of Synods.
And at
first he made secret enquiry respecting the ministers of God subject to
his dominion, who had never, indeed, in any respect offended against
his government, in order to bring false accusations against them. And
when he found no ground of accusation, and had no real ground of
objection against them, he next enacted a law, to the effect that the
bishops should never on any account hold communication with each other,
nor should any one of them absent himself on a visit to a neighboring
church; nor, lastly, should the holding of synods, or councils for the
consideration of affairs of common interest, Perhaps “synods or councils and conferences on economic
matters.”
Chapter LII.—Banishment of the Christians, and Confiscation of their Property.
And whereas Constantine, the friend of God, had granted to His
worshipers freedom of access to the imperial palaces; this enemy of
God, in a spirit the very reverse of this, expelled thence all
Christians subject to his authority. He banished those who had proved
themselves his most
Chapter LIII.—Edict that Women should not meet with the Men in the Churches.
Accordingly he passed a second law, which enjoined that men should not appear in company with women in the houses of prayer, and forbade women to attend the sacred schools of virtue, or to receive instruction from the bishops, directing the appointment of women to be teachers of their own sex. These regulations being received with general ridicule, he devised other means for effecting the ruin of the churches. He ordered that the usual congregations of the people should be held in the open country outside the gates, alleging that the open air without the city was far more suitable for a multitude than the houses of prayer within the walls.
Chapter LIV.—That those who refuse to sacrifice are to be dismissed from Military Service, and those in Prison not to be fed.
Failing, however, to obtain obedience in this respect also, at length he
threw off the mask, and gave orders that those who held military
commissions in the several cities of the empire should be deprived of
their respective commands, in case of their refusal to offer sacrifices
to the demons. Accordingly the forces of the authorities in every
province suffered the loss of those who worshiped God; and he too who
had decreed this order suffered loss, in that he thus deprived himself
of the prayers of pious men. And why should I still further mention how
he directed that no one should obey the dictates of common humanity by
distributing food to those who were pining in prisons, or should even
pity the captives who perished with hunger; in short, that no one
should perform a virtuous action, and that those whose natural feelings
impelled them to sympathize with their fellow-creatures should be
prohibited from doing them a single kindness? Truly this was the most
utterly shameless and scandalous of all laws, and one which surpassed
the worst depravity of human nature: a law which inflicted on those who
showed mercy the same penalties as on those who were the objects of
their compassion, and visited the exercise of mere humanity with the
severest punishments. Compare Church History, 10. 9.
Chapter LV.—The Lawless Conduct and Covetousness of Licinius.
Such were the ordinances of Licinius. But why should I enumerate his
innovations respecting marriage, or those concerning the dying, whereby
he presumed to abrogate the ancient and wisely established laws of the
Romans, and to introduce certain barbarous and cruel institutions in
their stead, inventing a thousand pretenses for oppressing his
subjects? Hence it was that he devised a new method of measuring land,
by which he reckoned the smallest portion at more than its actual
dimensions, from an insatiable desire of acquisition. Hence too he
registered the names of country residents who were now no more, and had
long been numbered with the dead, procuring to himself by this
expedient a shameful gain. His meanness was unlimited and his rapacity
insatiable. So that when he had filled all his treasuries with gold,
and silver, and boundless wealth, he bitterly bewailed his poverty, and
suffered as it were the torments of Tantalus. But why should I mention
how many innocent persons he punished with exile; how much property he
confiscated; how many men of noble birth and estimable character he
imprisoned, whose wives he handed over to be basely insulted by his
profligate slaves, and to how many married women and virgins he himself
offered violence, though already feeling the infirmities of age? I need
not enlarge on these subjects, since the enormity of his last actions
causes the former to appear trifling and of little moment. Compare Church History, 10. 9, and the same for the
following chapters, in parts or whole.
Chapter LVI.—At length he undertakes to raise a Persecution.
For the
final efforts of his fury appeared in his open hostility to the
churches, and he directed his attacks against the bishops
themselves,
Chapter LVII.—That Maximian, [Galerius Maximian. The description of his illness and death in
the next chapter is repeated from the author’s Ecclesiastical
History, Bk. 8, c. 16.—Bag.] Compare translation of
McGiffert, p. 338, and note; also Lactantius, De M. P. c.
33.
For whereas this man had commenced the attack on the churches, and had
been the first to pollute his soul with the blood of just and godly
men, a judgment from God overtook him, which at first affected his
body, but eventually extended itself to his soul. For suddenly an
abscess appeared in the secret parts of his person, followed by a
deeply seated fistulous ulcer; and these diseases fastened with
incurable virulence on the intestines, which swarmed with a vast
multitude of worms, and emitted a pestilential odor. Besides, his
entire person had become loaded, through gluttonous excess, with an
enormous quantity of fat, and this, being now in a putrescent state, is
said to have presented to all who approached him an intolerable and
dreadful spectacle. Having, therefore, to struggle against such
sufferings, at length, though late, he came to a realization of his
past crimes against the Church; and, confessing his sins before God, he
put a stop to the persecution of the Christians, and hastened to issue
imperial edicts and rescripts for the rebuilding of their churches, at
the same time enjoining them to perform their customary worship, and to
offer up prayers on his behalf. Compare edict in the Church History, 8. 17.
Chapter LVIII.—That Maximin, who had persecuted the Christians, was compelled to fly, and conceal himself in the Disguise of a Slave.
Such was the punishment which he underwent who had commenced the
persecution. He, Licinius. [Maximin, ruler of the Eastern provinces of the
empire.—Bag.] He
was defeated by Licinius, who had much inferior forces. Compare
Prolegomena, under Life, and references.
He afterwards lurked about the fields and villages in the habit of a slave, hoping he should thus be effectually concealed. He had not, however, eluded the mighty and all-searching eye of God: for even while he was expecting to pass the residue of his days in security, he fell prostrate, smitten by God’s fiery dart, and his whole body consumed by the stroke of Divine vengeance; so that all trace of the original lineaments of his person was lost, and nothing remained to him but dry bones and a skeleton-like appearance.
Chapter LIX.—That Maximin, blinded by Disease, issued an Edict in Favor of the Christians.
And still the stroke of God continued heavy upon him, so that his eyes
protruded and fell from their sockets, leaving him quite blind: and
thus he suffered, by a most righteous retribution, the very same
punishment which he had been
Chapter I.—Secret Persecution by Licinius, who causes Some Bishops to be put to Death at Amasia of Pontus.
In this manner, he of whom we have spoken continued to rush headlong towards that destruction which awaits the enemies of God; and once more, with a fatal emulation of their example whose ruin he had himself witnessed as the consequence of their impious conduct, he re-kindled the persecution of the Christians, like a long-extinguished fire, and fanned the unhallowed flame to a fiercer height than any who had gone before him.
At first, indeed, though breathing fury and threatenings against God, like some savage beast of prey, or some crooked and wriggling serpent, he dared not, from fear of Constantine, openly level his attacks against the churches of God subject to his dominion; but dissembled the virulence of his malice, and endeavored by secret and limited measures to compass the death of the bishops, the most eminent of whom he found means to remove, through charges laid against them by the governors of the several provinces. And the manner in which they suffered had in it something strange, and hitherto unheard of. At all events, the barbarities perpetrated at Amasia of Pontus surpassed every known excess of cruelty.
Chapter II.—Demolition of Churches, and Butchery of the Bishops.
For in that city some of the churches, for the second time since the commencement of the persecutions, were leveled with the ground, and others were closed by the governors of the several districts, in order to prevent any who frequented them from assembling together, or rendering due worship to God. For he by whose orders these outrages were committed was too conscious of his own crimes to expect that these services were performed with any view to his benefit, and was convinced that all we did, and all our endeavors to obtain the favor of God, were on Constantine’s behalf.
These servile governors Literally, “the flatterers and time-servers about
him.” Or
“openly.” [The reading in the text is τούτων, but
should be π€ντων, of
all Christians, as it is in Hist. Eccles. Bk. 10, c. 8,
from which this passage is almost verbally
taken.—Bag.]
Chapter III.—How Constantine was stirred in Behalf of the Christians thus in Danger of Persecution.
He,
perceiving the evils of which he had heard to be no longer tolerable,
took wise counsel, and tempering the natural clemency of his character
with a certain measure of severity, hastened to succor those who were
thus grievously oppressed. For he judged that it would rightly be
deemed a pious and holy task to secure, by the removal of an
individual, the safety of the greater part of the human race. He judged
too, that if he listened to the dictates of clemency only, and bestowed
his pity on one utterly unworthy of it, this would, on the one hand,
confer no real benefit on a man whom nothing would induce to abandon
his evil practices, and whose fury against his subjects would only be
likely to in This seems to intend some exoneration of Constantine, explaining
why he was what the heathen called “faithless” towards
Licinius.
Influenced by these reflections, the emperor resolved without farther delay to extend a protecting hand to those who had fallen into such an extremity of distress. He accordingly made the usual warlike preparations, and assembled his whole forces, both of horse and foot. But before them all was carried the standard which I have before described, as the symbol of his full confidence in God.
Chapter IV.—That Constantine prepared himself for the War by Prayer: Licinius by the Practice of Divination.
He took with him also the priests of God, feeling well assured that now, if ever, he stood in need of the efficacy of prayer, and thinking it right that they should constantly be near and about his person, as most trusty guardians of the soul.
Now, as soon as the tyrant understood that Constantine’s victories over his enemies were secured to him by no other means than the cooperation of God, and that the persons above alluded to were continually with him and about his person; and besides this, that the symbol of the salutary passion preceded both the emperor himself and his whole army; he regarded these precautions with ridicule (as might be expected), at the same time mocking and reviling the emperor with blasphemous words.
On the other hand, he gathered
round himself Egyptian diviners and soothsayers, with sorcerers and
enchanters, and the priests and prophets of those whom he imagined to
be gods. He then, after offering the sacrifices which he thought the
occasion demanded, enquired how far he might reckon on a successful
termination of the war. They replied with one voice, that he would
unquestionably be victorious over his enemies, and triumphant in the
war: and the oracles everywhere held out to him the same prospect in
copious and elegant verses. The soothsayers certified him of favorable
omens from the flight of birds; the priests Soothsayers and priests. These were technically
“augurs” and “haruspices.” Compare for their
functions the articles Augur, Divinatio, and
Haruspices, in Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant.
Chapter V.—What Licinius, while sacrificing in a Grove, said concerning Idols, and concerning Christ.
And when he was now ready to engage, he desired the most approved of
his body-guard Literally, “shield-bearers,” but here relates to a
chosen body of guards, as in the Macedonian army. Compare Liddell and
Scott, Lex. s.v. ὑπασπιστής
“Friends and fellow-soldiers! These are our country’s gods, and these we honor with a worship derived from our remotest ancestors. But he who leads the army now opposed to us has proved false to the religion of his forefathers, and adopted atheistic sentiments, honoring in his infatuation some strange and unheard-of Deity, with whose despicable standard he now disgraces his army, and confiding in whose aid he has taken up arms, and is now advancing, not so much against us as against those very gods whom he has forsaken. However, the present occasion shall prove which of us is mistaken in his judgment, and shall decide between our gods and those whom our adversaries profess to honor. For either it will declare the victory to be ours, and so most justly evince that our gods are the true saviours and helpers; or else, if this God of Constantine’s, who comes we know not whence, shall prove superior to our deities (who are many, and in point of numbers, at least, have the advantage), let no one henceforth doubt which god he ought to worship, but attach himself at once to the superior power, and ascribe to him the honors of the victory. Suppose, then, this strange God, whom we now regard with ridicule, should really prove victorious; then indeed we must acknowledge and give him honor, and so bid a long farewell to those for whom we light our tapers in vain. But if our own gods triumph (as they undoubtedly will), then, as soon as we have secured the present victory, let us prosecute the war without delay against these despisers of the gods.”
Such were the words he addressed
to those then present, as reported not long after to the writer of this
history by some who heard them spoken. The whole passage seems altogether too appropriate to receive
ready credence; but it is worth noting here how Eusebius “quotes
his authors,” and seems to give the thing for what it is worth,
keeping perhaps the same modicum of reservation for the hearers’
relative imagination and memory, when relating after the events, that
the modern reader does.
While these things were taking place a supernatural appearance is said
to have been observed in the cities subject to the tyrant’s rule.
Different detachments of Constantine’s army seemed to present
themselves to the view, marching at noonday through these cities, as
though they had obtained the victory. In reality, not a single soldier
was anywhere present at the time, and yet this appearance was seen
through the agency of a divine and superior power, and foreshadowed
what was shortly coming to pass. For as soon as the armies were ready
to engage, he who had broken through the ties of friendly alliance [Licinius was suspected of having secretly countenanced Bassianus
(who had married Constantine’s sister Anastasia, and received the
rank of Cæsar) in a treasonable conspiracy. Vide Gibbon,
Decline and Fall, chap. 14.—Bag.] Compare
Prolegomena, under Life.
Chapter VII.—That Victory everywhere followed the Presence of the Standard of the Cross in Battle.
Indeed,
wherever this appeared, the enemy soon fled before his victorious
troops. And the emperor perceiving this, whenever he saw any part of
his forces hard pressed, gave orders that the salutary trophy should be
moved in that direction, like some triumphant charm Or “remedy”; i.e. that which keeps off
harm.
Chapter VIII.—That Fifty Men were selected to carry the Cross.
Accordingly, he selected those of his bodyguard who were most distinguished for personal strength, valor, and piety, and entrusted them with the sole care and defense of the standard. There were thus no less than fifty men whose only duty was to surround and vigilantly defend the standard, which they carried each in turn on their shoulders. These circumstances were related to the writer of this narrative by the emperor himself in his leisure moments, long after the occurrence of the events: and he added another incident well worthy of being recorded.
Chapter IX.—That One of the Cross-Bearers, who fled from his Post, was slain: while Another, who faithfully stood his Ground, was preserved.
For he said that once, during the very heat of an engagement, a sudden tumult and panic attacked his army, which threw the soldier who then bore the standard into an agony of fear, so that he handed it over to another, in order to secure his own escape from the battle. As soon, however, as his comrade had received it, and he had withdrawn, and resigned all charge of the standard, he was struck in the belly by a dart, which took his life. Thus he paid the penalty of his cowardice and unfaithfulness, and lay dead on the spot: but the other, who had taken his place as the bearer of the salutary standard, found it to be the safeguard of his life. For though he was assailed by a continual shower of darts, the bearer remained unhurt, the staff of the standard receiving every weapon. It was indeed a truly marvelous circumstance, that the enemies’ darts all fell within and remained in the slender circumference of this spear, and thus saved the standard-bearer from death; so that none of those engaged in this service ever received a wound.
This story is none of mine, but
for this, [Π€λιν,
“again,” alluding to the former miracle, the vision of the
cross, which Eusebius does not venture to attest himself, but relates
on the word and oath of Constantine. Vide Bk. 1, cc. 28 and
30.—Bag.]
Chapter X.—Various Battles, and Constantine’s Victories.
The van, however, of the enemy, unable to resist the emperor’s
first assault, threw down their arms, and prostrated themselves at his
feet. All these he spared, rejoicing to save human life. But there were
others who still continued in arms, and engaged in battle. These the
emperor endeavored to conciliate by friendly
Chapter XI.—Flight, and Magic Arts of Licinius.
In these circumstances their commander, finding himself bereft of the
aid of his followers, “Slaves,” a word which has frequently been used by
Eusebius in this literal sense. This idiom here is nearly the English, “followed on the
heels” of any one.
Chapter XII.—How Constantine, after praying in his Tabernacle, obtained the Victory.
But while Licinius, giving himself up to these impieties, rushed
blindly towards the gulf of destruction, the emperor on the other hand,
when he saw that he must meet his enemies in a second battle, devoted
the intervening time to his Saviour. He pitched the tabernacle of the
cross [This tabernacle, which Constantine always carried with him in his
military expeditions, is described by Sozomen, Bk. 1, c. 8: see English
translation.—Bag.] [Alluding to
Chapter XIII.—His Humane Treatment of Prisoners.
Thus the emperor and his army had long been accustomed to act, whenever there was a prospect of an engagement; for his God was ever present to his thoughts, and he desired to do everything according to his will, and conscientiously to avoid any wanton sacrifice of human life. He was anxious thus for the preservation not only of his own subjects, but even of his enemies. Accordingly he directed his victorious troops to spare the lives of their prisoners, admonishing them, as human beings, not to forget the claims of their common nature. And whenever he saw the passions of his soldiery excited beyond control, he repressed their fury by a largess of money, rewarding every man who saved the life of an enemy with a certain weight of gold. And the emperor’s own sagacity led him to discover this inducement to spare human life, so that great numbers even of the barbarians were thus saved, and owed their lives to the emperor’s gold.
Chapter XIV.—A Farther Mention of his Prayers in the Tabernacle.
Now these, and a thousand such acts as these, were familiarly and
habitually done by the emperor. And on the present occasion he retired,
as his custom was before battle, to the privacy of his tabernacle, and
there employed his time in prayer to God. Meanwhile he strictly
ab
Chapter XV.—Treacherous Friendship, and Idolatrous Practices of Licinius.
And inasmuch as he who had lately fled before him now dissembled his
real sentiments, and again petitioned for a renewal of friendship and
alliance, the emperor thought fit, on certain conditions, to grant his
request, [“He consented to leave his rival, or, as he again styled
Licinius, his friend and brother, in the possession of Thrace, Asia
Minor, Syria, and Egypt; but the provinces of Pannonia, Dalmatia,
Dacia, Macedonia, and Greece, were yielded to the Western empire, and
the dominions of Constantine now extended from the confines of
Caledonia to the extremity of Peloponnesus.”—Gibbon,
Decline and Fall, chap. XIV.—Bag.] [Gibbon (chap. XIV.) says that the reconciliation of Constantine
and Licinius maintained, above eight years, the tranquillity of
the Roman world. If this be true, it may be regarded as one proof that
our author’s work is rather to be considered as a general sketch
of Constantine’s life and character than as a minutely correct
historical document.—Bag.] There is either a strange lack
of perspective in this account, or else Eusebius omits all account of
the first wars with Licinius (314) which resulted in the division of
territory mentioned in the above note. This latter view is plausible on
comparison with the account in the Church History. In this view
the conditions referred to above relate to the terms on which Licinius
was spared on Constantia’s request, and what follows is the
explanation of the alleged oath-breaking of Constantine in putting
Licinius to death.
Chapter XVI.—How Licinius counseled his Soldiers not to attack the Standard of the Cross.
Having now learned by experience the Divine and mysterious power which resided in the salutary trophy, by means of which Constantine’s army had become habituated to victory, he admonished his soldiers never to direct their attack against this standard, nor even incautiously to allow their eyes to rest upon it; assuring them that it possessed a terrible power, and was especially hostile to him; so that they would do well carefully to avoid any collision with it. And now, having given these directions, he prepared for a decisive conflict with him whose humanity prompted him still to hesitate, and to postpone the fate which he foresaw awaited his adversary. The enemy, however, confident in the aid of a multitude of gods, advanced to the attack with a powerful array of military force, preceded by certain images of the dead, and lifeless statues, as their defense. On the other side, the emperor, secure in the armor of godliness, opposed to the numbers of the enemy the salutary and life-giving sign, as at once a terror to the foe, and a protection from every harm. And for a while he paused, and preserved at first the attitude of forbearance, from respect to the treaty of peace to which he had given his sanction, that he might not be the first to commence the contest.
Chapter XVII.—Constantine’s Victory.
But as
soon as he perceived that his adversaries persisted in their
resolution, and were already drawing their swords, he gave free scope
to his indignation, and by a single charge “With one shout and charge.” This does not agree with
the account of the final struggle by which Licinius came into
Constantine’s power, as generally given, and lends some
probability to the view that after he had been captured he again
revolted.
Chapter XVIII.—Death of Licinius, and Celebration of the Event.
He then proceeded to deal with this adversary of God and his followers according to the laws of war, and consign them to fitting punishment. Accordingly the tyrant himself, and they whose counsels had supported him in his impiety, were together subjected to the just punishment of death. After this, those who had so lately been deceived by their vain confidence in false deities, acknowledged with unfeigned sincerity the God of Constantine, and openly professed their belief in him as the true and only God.
And now, the impious being thus removed, the sun once more shone
brightly after the gloomy cloud of tyrannic power. Each separate
portion of the Roman dominion became blended with the rest; the Eastern
nations united with those of the West, and the whole body of the Roman
empire was graced as it were by its head in the person of a single and
supreme ruler, whose sole authority pervaded the whole. Now too the
bright rays of the light of godliness gladdened the days of those who
had heretofore been sitting in darkness and the shadow of death. Past
sorrows were no more remembered, for all united in celebrating the
praises of the victorious prince, and avowed their recognition of his
preserver as the only true God. Thus he whose character shone with all
the virtues of piety, the emperor Victor, for
he had himself adopted this name as a most fitting appellation to
express the victory which God had granted him over all who hated or
opposed him, Like very many other things which Eusebius tells of Constantine,
that which was entirely customary with other emperors as well as
Constantine has the appearance of being peculiar to him. Victor is a
common title of various emperors.
Chapter XX.—Constantine’s Enactments in Favor of the Confessors.
Moreover, the emperor’s edicts, permeated with his humane spirit,
were published among us also, as they had been among the inhabitants of
the other division of the empire; and his laws, which breathed a spirit
of piety toward God, gave promise of manifold blessings, since they
secured many advantages to his provincial subjects in every nation, and
at the same time prescribed measures suited to the exigencies of the
churches of God. For first of all they recalled those who, in
consequence of their refusal to join in idol worship, had been driven
to exile, or ejected from their homes by the governors of their
respective provinces. In the next place, they relieved from their
burdens those who for the same reason had been adjudged to serve in the
civil courts, and ordained restitution to be made to any who had been
deprived of property. They too, who in the time of trial had signalized
themselves by fortitude of soul in the cause of God, and had therefore
been condemned to the painful labor of the mines, or consigned to the
solitude of islands, or compelled to toil in the public works, all
received an immediate release from these burdens; while others, whose
religious constancy had cost them the forfeiture of their military
rank, were vindicated by the emperor’s generosity from this
dishonor: for he granted them the alternative either of resuming their
rank, and enjoying their former privileges, or, in the event of their
preferring a more settled life, of perpetual exemption from all
service. Lastly, all who had been compelled by way of disgrace and
insult to serve in the employments of women, [In the gynæcia (γυναικεῖα), or places where women, and subsequently slaves of both
sexes, were employed in spinning and weaving for the emperor. Vide
infra, ch. 34.—Bag.] See note on ch. 34.
Chapter XXI.—His Laws concerning Martyrs, and concerning Ecclesiastical Property.
Such were the benefits secured by the emperor’s written mandates to the persons of those who had thus suffered for the faith, and his laws made ample provision for their property also.
With regard to those holy martyrs of God who had laid down their lives in the confession of His name, he directed that their estates should be enjoyed by their nearest kindred; and, in default of any of these, that the right of inheritance should be vested in the churches. Farther, whatever property had been consigned to other parties from the treasury, whether in the way of sale or gift, together with that retained in the treasury itself, the generous mandate of the emperor directed should be restored to the original owners. Such benefits did his bounty, thus widely diffused, confer on the Church of God.
But his munificence bestowed still further and more numerous favors on the heathen peoples and the other nations of his empire. So that the inhabitants of our [Eastern] regions, who had heard of the privileges experienced in the opposite portion of the empire, and had blessed the fortunate recipients of them, and longed for the enjoyment of a similar lot for themselves, now with one consent proclaimed their own happiness, when they saw themselves in possession of all these blessings; and confessed that the appearance of such a monarch to the human race was indeed a marvelous event, and such as the world’s history had never yet recorded. Such were their sentiments.
Chapter XXIII.—That he declared God to be the Author of his Prosperity: and concerning his Rescripts.
And now
that, through the powerful aid of God his Saviour, all nations owned
their subjection to the emperor’s authority, he openly proclaimed
to all the name of Him to whose bounty he owed all his blessings, and
declared that He, and not himself, was the author of his past
victories. This declaration, written both in the Latin and Greek
languages, he caused to be transmitted through every province of the
empire. Now the excellence of his style of expression “The value of our narrative” is the rendering of
Molzberger. “The powerfulness of his
language.”—1709.
Chapter XXIV.—Law of
Constantine respecting Piety towards God, and the Christian
Religion. Compare Epitome in Sozomen, 1. 8.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the inhabitants of the province of Palestine.
“To all who entertain just and sound sentiments respecting the character of the Supreme Being, it has long been most clearly evident, and beyond the possibility of doubt, how vast a difference there has ever been between those who maintain a careful observance of the hallowed duties of the Christian religion, and those who treat this religion with hostility or contempt. But at this present time, we may see by still more manifest proofs, and still more decisive instances, both how unreasonable it were to question this truth, and how mighty is the power of the Supreme God: since it appears that they who faithfully observe His holy laws, and shrink from the transgression of His commandments, are rewarded with abundant blessings, and are endued with well-grounded hope as well as ample power for the accomplishment of their undertakings. On the other hand, they who have cherished impious sentiments have experienced results corresponding to their evil choice. For how is it to be expected that any blessing would be obtained by one who neither desired to acknowledge nor duly to worship that God who is the source of all blessing? Indeed, facts themselves are a confirmation of what I say.
Chapter XXV.—An Illustration from Ancient Times.
“For certainly any one who will mentally retrace the course
of events from the earliest period down to the present time, and will
reflect on what has occurred in past ages, will find that all who have
made justice and probity the basis of their conduct, have not only
carried their undertakings to a successful issue, but have gathered, as
it were, a store of sweet fruit as the produce of this pleasant root.
Again, whoever observes the career of those who have been bold in the
practice of oppression or injustice; who have either directed their
senseless fury against God himself, or have conceived no kindly
feelings towards their fellow-men, but have dared to afflict them with
exile, disgrace, confiscation, massacre, or other miseries of the like
kind, and all this without any sense of compunction, or wish to direct
thoughts to a better course, will find that such men have received a
recompense proportioned to their crimes. And these are results which
might naturally and reasonably be expected to ensue. There is a curious unanimity of effort on the part of theological
amateurs, ancient and modern, to prove that those upon whom the tower
in Siloam fell were guiltier than others. This was the spirit of
Lactantius and it is not to be wondered at that Constantine should
adopt such a peculiarly self-satisfying doctrine.
“For whoever have addressed themselves with integrity of purpose to any course of action, keeping the fear of God continually before their thoughts, and preserving an unwavering faith in him, without allowing present fears or dangers to outweigh their hope of future blessings—such persons, though for a season they may have experienced painful trials, have borne their afflictions lightly, being supported by the belief of greater rewards in store for them; and their character has acquired a brighter luster in proportion to the severity of their past sufferings. With regard, on the other hand, to those who have either dishonorably slighted the principles of justice, or refused to acknowledge the Supreme God themselves, and yet have dared to subject others who have faithfully maintained his worship to the most cruel insults and punishments; who have failed equally to recognize their own wretchedness in oppressing others on such grounds, and the happiness and blessing of those who preserved their devotion to God even in the midst of such sufferings: with regard, I say, to such men, many a time have their armies been slaughtered, many a time have they been put to flight; and their warlike preparations have ended in total ruin and defeat.
Chapter XXVII.—How the Persecution became the Occasion of Calamities to the Aggressors.
“From the causes I have described, grievous wars arose, and
destructive devastations. Hence followed a scarcity of the common
necessaries of life, and a crowd of consequent miseries: hence, too,
the authors of these impieties have either met a disastrous death of
extreme suffering, or have dragged out an ignominious existence, and
confessed it to be worse than death itself, thus receiving as it were a
measure of punishment proportioned to the heinousness of their
crimes. Compare Lactantius, On the deaths of the persecutors (De M.
P.), and the Church History of Eusebius. Literally “beneath the earth,” referring of course to
the Græco-Roman conception of Hades.
Chapter XXVIII.—That God chose Constantine to be the Minister of Blessing.
“And now, with such a mass of impiety oppressing the human race, and the commonwealth in danger of being utterly destroyed, as if by the agency of some pestilential disease, and therefore needing powerful and effectual aid; what was the relief, and what the remedy which the Divinity devised for these evils? (And by Divinity is meant the one who is alone and truly God, the possessor of almighty and eternal power: and surely it cannot be deemed arrogance in one who has received benefits from God, to acknowledge them in the loftiest terms of praise.) I myself, then, was the instrument whose services He chose, and esteemed suited for the accomplishment of his will. Accordingly, beginning at the remote Britannic ocean, and the regions where, according to the law of nature, the sun sinks beneath the horizon, through the aid of divine power I banished and utterly removed every form of evil which prevailed, in the hope that the human race, enlightened through my instrumentality, might be recalled to a due observance of the holy laws of God, and at the same time our most blessed faith might prosper under the guidance of his almighty hand.
Chapter XXIX.—Constantine’s Expressions of Piety towards God; and Praise of the Confessors.
“I said, [“I said, under the guidance,” &c. It seems
necessary to supply some expression of this kind, in order to preserve
the sense, which is otherwise interrupted by the division (in this
instance, at least, manifestly improper) into
chapters.—Bag.]
Chapter XXX.—A Law granting Release from Exile, from Service in the Courts, and from the Confiscation of Property.
“Let all therefore who have exchanged their country for a foreign land, because they would not abandon that reverence and faith toward God to which they had devoted themselves with their whole hearts, and have in consequence at different times been subject to the cruel sentence of the courts; together with any who have been enrolled in the registers of the public courts though in time past exempt from such office; let these, I say, now render thanks to God the Liberator of all, in that they are restored to their hereditary property, and their wonted tranquility. Let those also who have been despoiled of their goods, and have hitherto passed a wretched existence, mourning under the loss of all that they possessed, once more be restored to their former homes, their families, and estates, and receive with joy the bountiful kindness of God.
Chapter XXXI.—Release likewise granted to Exiles in the Islands.
“Furthermore, it is our command that all those who have been detained in the islands against their will should receive the benefit of this present provision; in order that they who till now have been surrounded by rugged mountains and the encircling barrier of the ocean, being now set free from that gloomy and desolate solitude, may fulfill their fondest wish by revisiting their dearest friends. Those, too, who have prolonged a miserable life in the midst of abject and wretched squalor, welcoming their restoration as an unlooked-for gain, and discarding henceforth all anxious thoughts, may pass their lives with us in freedom from all fear. For that any one could live in a state of fear under our government, when we boast and believe ourselves to be the servants of God, would surely be a thing most extraordinary even to hear of, and quite incredible; and our mission is to rectify the errors of the others.
Chapter XXXII.—And to those ignominiously employed in the Mines and Public Works.
“Again, with regard to those who have been condemned either
to the grievous labor of the mines, or to service in the public works,
let them enjoy the sweets of leisure in place of these long-continued
toils, and henceforth lead a far easier life, and more accordant with
the wishes of their hearts, exchanging the incessant hardships of their
tasks for quiet relaxation. And if any have forfeited the common
privilege of liberty, or have unhappily suffered dishonor, Glossed by Molzberger as “political
dishonor.”
Chapter XXXIII.—Concerning those Confessors engaged in Military Service.
“Once more, with respect to those who had previously been preferred to any military distinction, of which they were afterwards deprived, for the cruel and unjust reason that they chose rather to acknowledge their allegiance to God than to retain the rank they held; we leave them perfect liberty of choice, either to occupy their former stations, should they be content again to engage in military service, or after an honorable discharge, to live in undisturbed tranquillity. For it is fair and consistent that men who have displayed such magnanimity and fortitude in meeting the perils to which they have been exposed, should be allowed the choice either of enjoying peaceful leisure, or resuming their former rank.
Chapter XXXIV.—The Liberation of Free Persons condemned to labor in the Women’s Apartments, or to Servitude.
“Lastly, if any have wrongfully been deprived of the
privileges of noble lineage, and subjected to a judicial sentence which
has consigned them In the Greek houses there were separate suites for men and women.
Compare article Domus, in Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom.
Antiq. [That is, the free subject of inferior rank, accustomed to labor
for his subsistence, but not to the degradation of slavery.]
Chapter XXXV.—Of the Inheritance of the Property of Martyrs and Confessors, also of those who had suffered Banishment or Confiscation of Property.
“Nor must we omit to notice those estates of which individuals have been deprived on various pretenses. For if any of those who have engaged with dauntless and resolute determination in the noble and divine conflict of martyrdom have also been stripped of their fortunes; or if the same has been the lot of the confessors, who have won for themselves the hope of eternal treasures; or if the loss of property has befallen those who were driven from their native land because they would not yield to the persecutors, and betray their faith; lastly, if any who have escaped the sentence of death have yet been despoiled of their worldly goods; we ordain that the inheritances of all such persons be transferred to their nearest kindred. And whereas the laws expressly assign this right to those most nearly related, it will be easy to ascertain to whom these inheritances severally belong. And it is evidently reasonable that the succession in these cases should belong to those who would have stood in the place of nearest affinity, had the deceased experienced a natural death.
Chapter XXXVI.—The Church is declared Heir of those who leave no Kindred; and the Free Gifts of such Persons Confirmed.
“But should there be no surviving relation to succeed in due course to the property of those above-mentioned, I mean the martyrs, or confessors, or those who for some such cause have been banished from their native land; in such cases we ordain that the church locally nearest in each instance shall succeed to the inheritance. And surely it will be no wrong to the departed that that church should be their heir, for whose sake they have endured every extremity of suffering. We think it necessary to add this also, that in case any of the above-mentioned persons have donated any part of their property in the way of free gift, possession of such property shall be assured, as is reasonable, to those who have thus received it.
Chapter XXXVII —Lands, Gardens, or Houses, but not Actual Produce from them, are to be given back.
“And that there may be no obscurity in this our ordinance, but every one may readily apprehend its requirements, let all men hereby know that if they are now maintaining themselves in possession of a piece of land, or a house, or garden, or anything else which had appertained to the before-mentioned persons, it will be good and advantageous for them to acknowledge the fact, and make restitution with the least possible delay. On the other hand, although it should appear that some individuals have reaped abundant profits from this unjust possession, we do not consider that justice demands the restitution of such profits. They must, however, declare explicitly what amount of benefit they have thus derived, and from what sources, and entreat our pardon for this offense; in order that their past covetousness may in some measure be atoned for, and that the Supreme God may accept this compensation as a token of contrition, and be pleased graciously to pardon the sin.
Chapter XXXVIII.—In what Manner Requests should be made for these.
“But it is possible that those who have become masters of
such property (if it be right or possible to allow them such a title)
will assure us by way of apology for their conduct, that it was not in
their power to abstain from this appropriation at a time when a
spectacle of misery in all its forms everywhere met the view; when men
were cruelly driven from their homes, slaughtered without mercy, thrust
forth without remorse: when the confiscation of the property of
innocent persons was a common thing, and
Chapter XXXIX.—The Treasury must restore Lands, Gardens, and Houses to the Churches.
“Nor shall the treasury itself, should it have any of the things we have spoken of, be permitted to keep them; but, without venturing as it were to raise its voice against the holy churches, it shall justly relinquish in their favor what it has for a time unjustly retained. We ordain, therefore, that all things whatsoever which shall appear righteously to belong to the churches, whether the property consist of houses or fields and gardens, or whatever the nature of it may be, shall be restored in their full value and integrity, and with undiminished right of possession.
Chapter XL.—The Tombs of Martyrs and the Cemeteries to be transferred to the Possession of the Churches.
“Again, with respect to those places which are honored in being the depositories of the remains of martyrs, and continue to be memorials of their glorious departure; how can we doubt that they rightly belong to the churches, or refrain from issuing our injunction to that effect? For surely there can be no better liberality, no labor more pleasing or profitable, than to be thus employed under the guidance of the Divine Spirit, in order that those things which have been appropriated on false pretenses by unjust and wicked men, may be restored, as justice demands, and once more secured to the holy churches.
Chapter XLI.—Those who have purchased Property belonging to the Church, or received it as a Gift, are to restore it.
“And since it would be wrong in a provision intended to include all cases, to pass over those who have either procured any such property by right of purchase from the treasury, or have retained it when conveyed to them in the form of a gift; let all who have thus rashly indulged their insatiable thirst of gain be assured that, although by daring to make such purchases they have done all in their power to alienate our clemency from themselves, they shall nevertheless not fail of obtaining it, so far as is possible and consistent with propriety in each case. So much then is determined.
Chapter XLII.—An Earnest Exhortation to worship God.
“And now, since it appears by the clearest and most convincing evidence, that the miseries which erewhile oppressed the entire human race are now banished from every part of the world, through the power of Almighty God, and at the same time the counsel and aid which he is pleased on many occasions to administer through our agency; it remains for all, both individually and unitedly, to observe and seriously consider how great this power and how efficacious this grace are, which have annihilated and utterly destroyed this generation, as I may call them, of most wicked and evil men; have restored joy to the good, and diffused it over all countries; and now guarantee the fullest authority both to honor the Divine law as it should be honored, with all reverence, and pay due observance to those who have dedicated themselves to the service of that law. These rising as from some dark abyss and, with an enlightened knowledge of the present course of events, will henceforward render to its precepts that becoming reverence and honor which are consistent with their pious character.
Let this ordinance be published
in our Eastern provinces.” [This seems to be the subscription or signature in the
emperor’s own handwriting, which is referred to at the end of ch.
23.—Bag.]
Chapter XLIII.—How the Enactments of Constantine were carried into Effect.
Such were the injunctions contained in the first letter which the emperor addressed to us. And the provisions of this enactment were speedily carried into effect, everything being conducted in a manner quite different from the atrocities which had but lately been daringly perpetrated during the cruel ascendancy of the tyrants. Those persons also who were legally entitled to it, received the benefit of the emperor’s liberality.
After this the emperor continued to address himself to matters of high
importance, and first he sent governors to the several provinces,
mostly such as were devoted to the saving faith; and if any appeared
inclined to adhere to Gentile worship, he forbade them to offer
sacrifice. This law applied also to those who surpassed the provincial
governors in rank and dignity, [That is, the proconsuls, the vicars (or vice-præfects), and
counts, or provincial generals.—Bag.] [The power of the four Prætorian Præfects in the time of
Constantine is thus described by Gibbon: “1. The Præfect of
the East stretched his ample jurisdiction into the three parts of the
globe which were subject to the Romans, from the cataracts of the Nile
to the banks of the Phasis, and from the mountains of Thrace to the
frontiers of Persia. 2. The important provinces of Pannonia, Dacia,
Macedonia, and Greece once acknowledged the authority of the
Præfect of Illyricum. 3. The power of the Præfect of Italy
was not confined to the country from whence he derived his title; it
extended over the additional territory of Rhætia as far as the
banks of the Danube, over the dependent islands of the Mediterranean,
and over that part of the continent of Africa which lies between the
confines of Cyrene and those of Tingitania. 4. The Præfect of the
Gauls comprehended under that plural denomination the kindred provinces
of Britain and Spain, and his authority was obeyed from the wall of
Antoninus to the fort of Mount Atlas.”—Decline and
Fall, chap. 17.— Bag.]
Chapter XLV.—Statutes which forbade Sacrifice, and enjoined the Building of Churches.
Soon after this, two laws were promulgated about the same time; one of
which was intended to restrain the idolatrous abominations which in
time past had been practiced in every city and country; and it provided
that no one should erect images, or practice divination and other false
and foolish arts, or offer sacrifice in any way. [That is, private sacrifices: for it appears that the idolatrous
temples were allowed to be open for public
worship.—Bag.]
Chapter XLVI.—Constantine’s Letter to Eusebius and Other Bishops, respecting the Building of Churches, with Instructions to repair the Old, and erect New Ones on a Larger Scale, with the Aid of the Provincial Governors.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius.
“Forasmuch as the unholy and willful rule of tyranny has persecuted the servants of our Saviour until this present time, I believe and have fully satisfied myself, best beloved brother, that the buildings belonging to all the churches have either become ruinous through actual neglect, or have received inadequate attention from the dread of the violent spirit of the times.
“But now, that liberty is
restored, and that serpent [Licinius, thus designated for the subtlety of his
character.—Bag.] More probably for his wickedness, and
perhaps with thought of the “dragon” of the Book of
Revelation. The word is δρ€κων,
not ὄφις. It is the latter
which is used in the LXX, where the English version speaks of the
serpent as the “subtlest.” For historical and symbolical
use of the words, compare Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship
(Lond., 1874), and Conway, Demonology and Devil Lore (N.Y.,
1879, 2 v.).
“We also empower you, and the others through you, to demand what is needful for the work, both from the provincial governors and from the Prætorian Præfect. For they have received instructions to be most diligent in obedience to your Holiness’s orders. God preserve you, beloved brother.” A copy of this charge was transmitted throughout all the provinces to the bishops of the several churches: the provincial governors received directions accordingly, and the imperial statute was speedily carried into effect.
Moreover, the emperor, who continually made progress in piety towards God, dispatched an admonitory letter to the inhabitants of every province, respecting the error of idolatry into which his predecessors in power had fallen, in which he eloquently exhorts his subjects to acknowledge the Supreme God, and openly to profess their allegiance to his Christ as their Saviour. This letter also, which is in his own handwriting, I have judged it necessary to translate from the Latin for the present work, in order that we may hear, as it were, the voice the emperor himself uttering these sentiments in the audience of all mankind.
Chapter XLVIII.—Constantine’s Edict to the People of the Provinces concerning the Error of Polytheism, commencing with Some General Remarks on Virtue and Vice.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the people of the Eastern provinces.
“Whatever is comprehended
under the sovereign Or “fixed,” “appointed.” By
a conjectural reading Stroth makes this “fools,” instead of
“useless,” and renders, “For fools would not
otherwise recognize the charm of virtue.”
“And now I will endeavor
to lay before you all as explicitly as possible, the nature of my own
hopes of future happiness. [The remark of Valesius in reference to the difficulty of this
chapter appears probable; viz. that it is partly to be attributed to
Constantine’s own want of clearness, and partly to his
translator, who has rendered obscure Latin into still more obscure
Greek.—Bag.]
Chapter XLIX.—Concerning Constantine’s Pious Father, and the Persecutors Diocletian and Maximian.
“The former emperors I have been accustomed to regard as
those with whom I could have no sympathy, The word means “having no share with,” and sometimes
“disinherited.” It may perhaps mean, “I have been
accustomed to think of the former emperors as having been deprived of
their possessions on account,” &c. [The persecution of the Christians, with its attendant horrors,
being the act, not of foreign enemies, but of their countrymen and
fellow-citizens.—Bag.]
Chapter L.—That the Persecution originated on Account of the Oracle of Apollo, who, it was said, could not give Oracles because of “the Righteous Men.”
“About that time it is said that Apollo spoke from a deep
and gloomy cavern, and through the medium of no human voice, and
declared that the righteous men on earth were a bar to his
speaking the truth, and accordingly that the oracles from the tripod
were fallacious. Hence it was that he suffered his tresses to droop in
token of grief, This is translated by Molzberger, “Therefore the priests let
their hair hang down,” &c.
Chapter LI.—That Constantine, when a Youth, heard from him who wrote the Persecution Edict that “the Righteous Men” were the Christians.
“I
call now on thee, most high God, to witness that, when young, I
heard him who at that time was chief among the Roman emperors, unhappy,
truly unhappy as he was, and laboring under mental delusion, make
earnest enquiry of his attendants as to who these righteous ones on
earth were, and that one of the Pagan priests then
Chapter LII.—The Manifold Forms of Torture and Punishment practiced against the Christians.
“Then, indeed, one might see with what arrogance those
venerable worshipers of God were daily exposed, with continued and
relentless cruelty, to outrages of the most grievous kind, and how that
modesty of character σωφροσύνη
Chapter LIII.—That the Barbarians kindly received the Christians.
“But what is the consequence of this? Why, the barbarians themselves may boast now of the contrast their conduct presents to these creel deeds; for they received and kept in gentlest captivity those who then fled from amongst us, and secured to them not merely safety from danger, but also the free exercise of their holy religion. And now the Roman people bear that lasting stain which the Christians, at that time driven from the Roman world, and taking refuge with the barbarians, have branded on them.
Chapter LIV.—What Vengeance overtook those who on Account of the Oracle raised the Persecution.
“But why need I longer dwell on these lamentable events,
and the general sorrow which in consequence pervaded the world? The
perpetrators of this dreadful guilt are now no more: they have
experienced a miserable end, and are consigned to unceasing punishment
in the depths of the lower world. They encountered each other in civil
strife, and have left neither name nor race behind. And surely this
calamity would never have befallen them, had not that impious
deliverance of the Pythian oracle exercised a delusive power over
them. Compare, on all this, the Church History and notes, and
also the Prolegomena to this work.
Chapter LV.—Constantine gives Glory to God, makes Grateful Acknowledgment of the Sign of the Cross, and prays for the Churches and People.
And now I beseech thee, most mighty God, to be merciful and gracious to thine Eastern nations, to thy people in these provinces, worn as they are by protracted miseries; and grant them healing through thy servant. Not without cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to thee, the Lord of all. Under thy guidance have I devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessings: preceded by thy sacred sign I have led thy armies to victory: and still, on each occasion of public danger, I follow the same symbol of thy perfections while advancing to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicated to thy service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For thy name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which thou hast given abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith. I hasten, then, to devote all my powers to the restoration of thy most holy dwelling-place, which those profane and impious men have defiled by the contamination of violence.
Chapter LVI.—He prays that All may be Christians, but compels None.
“My own desire is, for the common good of the world and the
advantage of all mankind, that thy people should enjoy a life of peace
and undisturbed concord. Let those, therefore, who still delight in
error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquillity
which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of
equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight
path. Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul
desires. Only let men of sound judgment be assured of this, that those
only can live a life of holiness and purity, whom thou callest to a
reli Or
“groves.” [῎Ονπερ κατὰ
φύσιν
δέδωκας.
The clause is thus rendered by Valesius: “Nos splendidissimam
domum veritatis tuæ, quam nascentibus nobis donasti,
retinemus.” This seems almost as unintelligible as the original.
The translation above attempted yields, perhaps, a sense not
inconsistent with the general scope of the passage.—Bag.]
1709 renders “according to nature.” Molzberger has
“through no merit on our part.” Stroth renders
“characteristically” or “as our own natural
possession” (i.e. eigenthümlich), and is confirmed by
Heinichen, while Christophorson has “natura” and Portesius
“a natura.” The last is the best translation
“by nature.” As a matter of interpretation Bagster
is probably wrong and Stroth substantially right. Whether Constantine
had the Epistle to the Romans in mind or not, he had the same thought
as Paul that men “by nature” have the “truth of
God,” but exchange this for a lie (
Chapter LVII.—He gives Glory to God, who has given Light by his Son to those who were in Error.
“And truly our worship is no new or recent thing, but one which thou hast ordained for thine own due honor, from the time when, as we believe, this system of the universe was first established. And, although mankind have deeply fallen, and have been seduced by manifold errors, yet hast thou revealed a pure light in the person of thy Son, that the power of evil should not utterly prevail, and hast thus given testimony to all men concerning thyself.
Chapter LVIII.—He glorifies him again for his Government of the Universe.
The truth of this is assured to us by thy works. It is thy power which
removes our guilt, and makes us faithful. The sun and the moon have
their settled course. The stars move in no uncertain orbits round this
terrestrial globe. The revolution of the seasons recurs according to
unerring laws. The solid fabric of the earth was established by thy
word: the winds receive their impulse at appointed times; and the
course of the waters continues with ceaseless flow, Probably meaning rains.
“Were it not so, were not
all regulated by the determination of thy will, so great a diversity,
so manifold a division of power, would unquestionably have brought ruin
on the whole race and its affairs. For those agencies which have
maintained a mutual strife [Constantine seems here to allude to the Gentile deities as powers
of evil, capable, if unrestrained by a superior power, of working
universal ruin.—Bag.]
Chapter LIX.—He gives Glory to God, as the Constant Teacher of Good.
“Abundant thanks, most mighty God, and Lord of all, be rendered to thee, that, by so much as our nature becomes known from the diversified pursuits of man, by so much the more are the precepts of thy divine doctrine confirmed to those whose thoughts are directed aright, and who are sincerely devoted to true virtue. As for those who will not allow themselves to be cured of their error, let them not attribute this to any but themselves. For that remedy which is of sovereign and healing virtue is openly placed within the reach of all. Only let not any one inflict an injury on that religion which experience itself testifies to be pure and undefiled. Henceforward, therefore, let us all enjoy in common the privilege placed within our reach, I mean the blessing of peace, endeavoring to keep our conscience pure from all that is contrary.
Chapter LX.—An Admonition at the Close of the Edict, that No One should trouble his Neighbor.
“Once more, let none use that to the detriment of another which he may himself have received on conviction of its truth; but let every one, if it be possible, apply what he has understood and known to the benefit of his neighbor; if otherwise, let him relinquish the attempt. For it is one thing voluntarily to undertake the conflict for immortality, another to compel others to do so from the fear of punishment.
“These are our words; and
we have enlarged on these topics more than our ordinary clemency would
have dictated, because we were unwilling to dissemble or be false to
the true faith; and the more so, since we understand there are some who
say that the rites of the heathen temples, and the power of darkness,
have been entirely removed. We should indeed have earnestly
The editorial “we” used by Bag. throughout
these edicts has been retained, although the first person singular is
employed throughout in the original.
Chapter LXI.—How
Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to
Arius. For literature relating to Arianism, compare Literature at
the end of article by Schaff, in Smith and Wace, Dict. 1 (1877),
159, and in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia, 1, p.
137.
In this
manner the emperor, like a powerful herald of God, addressed himself by
his own letter to all the provinces, at the same time warning his
subjects against superstitious “Demoniacal.” 1709 renders
“diabolical.” It
was at Alexandria that the controversy with Arius arose. He was called
to account by Alexander of Alexandria who summoned one council and then
another, at which Arius and his followers were
excommunicated.
Chapter
LXII.—Concerning the Same Arius, and
the Melitians. [The Melitians, or Meletians, an obscure Egyptian sect, of whom
little satisfactory is recorded.—Bag.] Compare Blunt,
Dict. of Sects, Heresies, &c. (1874),
305–308.
Some thus at Alexandria maintained an obstinate conflict on the highest questions. Others throughout Egypt and the Upper Thebaid, were at variance on account of an earlier controversy: so that the churches were everywhere distracted by divisions. The body therefore being thus diseased, the whole of Libya caught the contagion; and the rest of the remoter provinces became affected with the same disorder. For the disputants at Alexandria sent emissaries to the bishops of the several provinces, who accordingly ranged themselves as partisans on either side, and shared in the same spirit of discord.
Chapter LXIII.—How Constantine sent a Messenger and a Letter concerning Peace.
As soon
as the emperor was informed of these facts, which he heard with much
sorrow of heart, considering them in the light of a calamity personally
affecting himself, he forthwith selected from the Christians in his
train one whom he well knew to be approved for the sobriety and
genuineness of his faith, [Hosius, bishop of Cordova.—Bag.] Hosius had already
been for some time a trusted adviser, having acted for Constantine also
in the Donatist matters. Compare on Hosius the full article of Morse in
Smith and Wace. By “acting as umpire.”
Chapter LXIV.—Constantine’s Letter to Alexander the Bishop, and Arius the Presbyter.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Alexander and Arius.
“I call that God to witness, as well I may, who is the helper of my endeavors, and the Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold reason for undertaking that duty which I have now performed.
“My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the system of the world, then suffering under the malignant power of a grievous distemper. Keeping these objects in view, I sought to accomplish the one by the secret eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.
Chapter LXVI.—That he also adjusted the Controversies which had arisen in Africa.
“Finding, then, that the whole of Africa was pervaded by an
intolerable spirit of mad folly, through the influence of those who
with heedless frivolity had presumed to rend the religion of the people
into diverse sects; I was anxious to check this disorder, and could
discover no other remedy equal to the occasion, except in sending some
of yourselves to aid in restoring mutual harmony among the disputants,
after I had removed that common enemy [Licinius, whose prohibition of synods is referred to in Bk. 1,
ch. 51. The disputes here mentioned are those between the Catholic
Christians and the Donatists, a very violent sect which sprung up in
Africa after the persecution by
Diocletian.—Bag.]
Chapter LXVII.—That Religion began in the East.
“For since the power of Divine light, and the law of sacred worship, which, proceeding in the first instance, through the favor of God, from the bosom, as it were, of the East, have illumined the world, by their sacred radiance, I naturally believed that you would be the first to promote the salvation of other nations, and resolved with all energy of thought and diligence of enquiry to seek your aid. As soon, therefore, as I had secured my decisive victory and unquestionable triumph over my enemies, my first enquiry was concerning that object which I felt to be of paramount interest and importance.
Chapter LXVIII.—Being grieved by the Dissension, he counsels Peace.
“But, O glorious Providence of God! how deep a wound did
not my ears only, but my very heart receive in the report that
divisions existed among yourselves more grievous still than those which
continued in that country! [Africa: alluding to the schism of the
Donatists.—Bag.] Or
“mutual.”
Chapter LXIX.—Origin of the Controversy between Alexander and Arius, and that these Questions ought not to have been discussed.
I understand, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When
you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally
maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, [The word νόμος seems to
be commonly used by Eusebius as a general term for Divine revelation;
as we employ the word
“Scripture.”—Bag.] The plain English “stuck to” represents the idea of
Heinichen (animo infixisses infixumque teneres) followed by
Molz (mit unkluger Hartnäckigkeit festhieltest).
Bag. had “gave utterance to,” and with this
Vales., 1709, and Str. correspond. Bag.,“The meeting of the synod
was prohibited.” On “forgiveness.”
Chapter LXX.—An Exhortation to Unanimity.
“Let therefore both the unguarded question and the
inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. Rendered “forbearance” above. [The emperor seems at this time to have had a very imperfect
knowledge of the errors of the Arian heresy. After the Council of Nice,
at which he heard them fully explained, he wrote of them in terms of
decisive condemnation in his letter to the Alexandrian church. Vide
Socrates’ Eccles. Hist., Bk. 1, ch. 9.—Bag.]
Neither at this time nor at any time does Constantine seem to have
entered very fully into an appreciation of doctrinal niceties. Later he
was more than tolerant of semi-Arianism. He seems to have depended a
good deal on the “explanations” of others, and to have been
led in a somewhat devious path in trying to follow all.
Chapter LXXI.—There should be no Contention in Matters which are in themselves of Little Moment.
“For as long as you continue to contend about these small
and very insignificant questions, it is not fitting that so large a
portion of God’s people should be under the direction of your
judgment, since you are thus divided between yourselves. I believe it
indeed to be not merely unbecoming, but positively evil, that such
should be the case. But I will refresh your minds by a little
illustration, as follows. You know that philosophers, though they all
adhere to one system, are yet frequently at issue on certain points,
and differ, perhaps, in their degree of knowledge: yet they are
recalled to harmony of sentiment by the uniting power of their common
doctrines. If this be true, is it not far more reasonable that you, who
are the ministers of the Supreme God, should be of one mind respecting
the profession of the same religion? But let us still more thoughtfully
and with closer attention examine what I have said, and see whether it
be right that, on the ground of some trifling and foolish verbal
difference between ourselves, brethren should assume towards each other
the attitude of enemies, and the august meeting of the Synod be rent by
profane disunion, because of you who wrangle together on points so
trivial and altogether unessential? This is vulgar, and rather
characteristic of childish ignorance, than consistent with the wisdom
of priests and men of sense. Let us withdraw ourselves with a good will
from these temptations of the devil. Our great God and common Saviour
of all has granted the same light to us all. Permit me, who am his
servant, to bring my task to a successful issue, under the direction of
his Providence, that I may be enabled, through my exhortations, and
diligence, and earnest admonition, to recall his people to communion
and fellowship. For since you have, as I said, but one faith, and one
sentiment respecting our religion, and since the Divine commandment in
all its parts enjoins on us all the duty of maintaining a spirit of
concord, let not the circumstance which has led to a slight difference
between you, since it does not affect the validity of the whole, cause
any division or schism among you. And this I say without in any way
desiring to force you to entire unity of judgment in regard to this
truly idle question, whatever its real nature may be. For the dignity
of your synod may be preserved, and the communion of your whole body
maintained unbroken, however wide a difference may exist among you as
to unimportant matters. For we are not all of us like-minded on every
subject,
Chapter LXXII.—The Excess of his Pious Concern caused him to shed Tears; and his Intended Journey to the East was postponed because of These Things.
“Restore me then my quiet days, and untroubled nights, that the joy of undimmed light, the delight of a tranquil life, may henceforth be my portion. Else must I needs mourn, with constant tears, nor shall I be able to pass the residue of my days in peace. For while the people of God, whose fellow-servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquillity of mind? And I will give you a proof how great my sorrow has been on this behalf. Not long since I had visited Nicomedia, and intended forthwith to proceed from that city to the East. It was while I was hastening towards you, and had already accomplished the greater part of the distance, that the news of this matter reversed my plan, that I might not be compelled to see with my own eyes that which I felt myself scarcely able even to hear. Open then for me henceforward by your unity of judgment that road to the regions of the East which your dissensions have closed against me, and permit me speedily to see yourselves and all other peoples rejoicing together, and render due acknowledgment to God in the language of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of general concord and liberty to all.”
Chapter LXXIII.—The Controversy continues without Abatement, even after the Receipt of This Letter.
In this
manner the pious emperor endeavored by means of the foregoing letter to
promote the peace of the Church of God. And the excellent man [Hosius of Cordova, mentioned above, ch.
63.—Bag.]
Chapter I.—A Comparison of Constantine’s Piety with the Wickedness of the Persecutors.
In this
manner that spirit who is the hater of good, actuated by envy at the
blessing enjoyed by the Church, continued to raise against her the
stormy troubles of intestine discord, in the midst of a period of peace
and joy. Meanwhile, however, the divinely-favored emperor did not
slight the duties befitting him, but exhibited in his whole conduct a
direct contrast to those atrocities of which the cruel tyrants had been
lately guilty, Compare contrast with the other emperors in Prolegomena, under
Life. Eusebius expressly states that Constantine’s words had
little result in conversion. It is meant here that the success of one
who relied on God itself proved the vanity of idols. This may perhaps mean “ordered to be inscribed” or
“wrote it to be his safeguard.” This form of Bag. is
a satisfactory paraphrase. Their bindings were adorned with precious stones according to
Cedrenus. Compare Prolegomena, Character,
Magnificence. [Πολιτευτῶν
ἀνδρῶν, here,
apparently, the Decurions, who formed the corporations of the
cities, and were subject to responsible and burdensome offices. Vide
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. 17.—Bag.] So
Valesius maintains, and has been generally if not universally followed.
Though it might be overventuresome to change the translation therefore,
it befits the sense better and suits the words admirably to apply to
the different classes, Peregrini and Cives. This distinction did not
fully pass away until the time of Justinian (Long, art. Civitas,
in Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant.), and it seems certain that
Eusebius meant this. This above is a sort of resumé of the life of Constantine.
For illustration of the various facts mentioned, compare the latter
part of the Church History and the various acts and documents in
this Life. Compare also Prolegomena, under Life, and especially
under Character. It seems now and then to be like a little
homily on the glory of having the shoe on the other foot—the
glory of having done to others what others had done to them.
Chapter II.—Farther Remarks on Constantine’s Piety, and his Open Testimony to the Sign of the Cross.
And when we consider that their iniquities were without example, and
the atrocities which they dared to perpetrate against the Church such
as had never been heard of in any age of the world, well might God
himself bring before us something entirely new, and work thereby
effects such as had hitherto been never either recorded or observed.
And what miracle was ever more marvelous than the virtues of this our
emperor, whom the wisdom of God has vouchsafed as a gift to the human
race? For truly he maintained a continual testimony to the Christ of
God with all boldness, and before all men; and so far was he from
shrinking from an open profession of the Christian name, that he rather
desired to make it manifest to all that he regarded this as his highest
honor, now impressing on his face the salutary sign, and now glorying
in it as the trophy which led him on to victory. Note the explicit testimony of Eusebius here, and compare
Prolegomena, under Religious Characteristics.
Chapter III.—Of his Picture surmounted by a Cross and having beneath it a Dragon.
And besides this, he caused to be painted on a lofty tablet, and set
up in the front of the portico of his palace, so as to be visible to
all, a representation of the salutary sign placed above his head, and
below it that hateful and savage adversary of mankind, who by means of
the tyranny of the ungodly had wasted the Church of God, falling
headlong, under the form of a dragon, to the abyss of destruction. For
the sacred oracles in the books of God’s prophets have described
him as a dragon and a crooked serpent; Especially the book of Revelation, and Isaiah as quoted
below. [Literally, by encaustic painting. See Bk. 1, ch. 3,
note.—Bag.]
In this manner he intended to
represent the secret adversary of the human race, and to indicate that
he was consigned to the gulf of perdition by virtue of the salutary
trophy placed above his head. This allegory, then, was thus conveyed by
means of the colors of a picture: and I am filled with wonder at the
intellectual greatness of the emperor, who as if by divine inspiration
thus expressed what the prophets had foretold concerning this monster,
saying that “God would bring his great and strong and terrible
sword against the dragon, the flying serpent; and would destroy the
dragon that was in the sea.”
Chapter IV.—A Farther Notice of the Controversies raised in Egypt by Arius.
In such
occupations as these he employed himself with pleasure: but the effects
of that envious spirit which so troubled the peace of the churches of
God in Alexandria, together with the Theban and Egyptian schism,
continued to cause him no little disturbance of mind. For in fact, in
every city bishops were engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops, and
people rising against people; and almost like the fabled Symplegades, The famous rocks in the Euxine which were wont to close against
one another and crush all passing ships, and by which the Argo was said
(Od. 12. 69) to be the only ship which ever passed in
safety.
Chapter V.—Of the Disagreement respecting the Celebration of Easter.
But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and
long afflicted the For endless literature of the Paschal controversy, compare
articles in all the religious encyclopædias, especially perhaps
Steitz, in the Schaff-Herzog; and for history and discussion of the
question itself, see Hensley’s art. Easter, in Smith and
Cheetham, Dict.
Accordingly, the people being
thus in every place divided in respect of this, By some this phrase is joined to the preceding
paragraph,—strangers…“in this as in other
respects,” and so Bag. translates, but the division
followed here is that of Hein.
Chapter VI.—How he ordered a Council to be held at Nicæa.
Then as
if to bring a divine array against this enemy, he convoked a general
council, and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all
quarters, in letters expressive of the honorable estimation in which he
held them. Nor was this merely the issuing of a bare command but the
emperor’s good will contributed much to its being carried into
effect: for he allowed some the use of the public means of conveyance,
while he afforded to others an ample supply of horses “Beasts of burden.” The probably apocryphal version of the summoning letter given by
Cowper (Syr. Misc.) from the Syriac gives the reason of the
choice of Nicæa, “the excellent temperature of the
air” there.
Chapter VII.—Of the
General Council, at which Bishops from all Nations were Present. The standard work on councils is Hefele,
Conciliengeschichte, available to the English reader in the
translation of Clark, Oxenham, &c. (Edinb. 1872 sq.), a work so
thoroughly fundamental that a general reference to it will serve as one
continuous note to matters relating to the councils held under
Constantine.
In effect, the most distinguished of God’s ministers from all
the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia, = Africa. It
is noted that this evidence of the presence of foreign
bishops—“missionary bishops,” so to speak—is
confirmed by Gelasius and also by the roll of the members. [Hosius of Cordova.—Bag.] [It has been doubted whether Rome or Constantinople is here
intended. The authority of Sozomen and others is in favor of the
former. See English translation, published as one volume of this
series.—Bag.] Also in this series.
For it
is said The number present is given variously as three hundred (Socrates),
three hundred and eighteen (Athanasius, &c.), two hundred and
seventy (Theodoret), or even two thousand (cf. Hefele). It has been
conjectured that the variation came from the omission of names of the
Arians (cf. note of Heinichen, Vol. 3, p. 506–507), or that it
varied during the two months and more.
Chapter IX.—Of the Virtue and Age of the Two Hundred and Fifty Bishops.
Of these ministers of God, some were distinguished by wisdom and
eloquence, others by the gravity of their lives, and by patient
fortitude of character, while others again united in themselves all
these graces. This is the way it is interpreted by Sozomen, 1, 17. The phrase,
which is literally “of middling character,” is translated
by Molz. and others as if it meant “mild” or
“modest,” as if it referred in some way to the doctrine of
the mean.
Chapter X.—Council in the Palace. Constantine, entering, took his Seat in the Assembly.
Now when the appointed day arrived on which the council met for the
final solution of the questions in dispute, each member was present for
this in the central building of the palace, [Hence it seems probable that this was the last day of the
Council; the entire session of which occupied more than two months, and
which was originally held in a church.—Bag.] The exact
dates of the Council are controverted, but it seems that it ended
August 25, having probably begun June 14. Compare Prolegomena, under Physical and Mental
Characteristics.
Chapter XI.—Silence of the Council, after Some Words by the Bishop Eusebius.
The bishop who occupied the chief place in the right division of the
assembly [The authority of Sozomen and other writers seems to decide that
this was Eusebius himself.—Bag.]
The earnest desire of Constantine to promote peace in the church
makes one judge with leniency the rather arbitrary and very mechanical
method he often took to secure it. As over against the unity of form or
the unity of compromise, there is one only real unity—a unity in
the truth, being one in the Truth. The secret of peace is reason
with right.
“It was once my chief desire, dearest friends, to enjoy the spectacle of your united presence; and now that this desire is fulfilled, I feel myself bound to render thanks to God the universal King, because, in addition to all his other benefits, he has granted me a blessing higher than all the rest, in permitting me to see you not only all assembled together, but all united in a common harmony of sentiment. I pray therefore that no malignant adversary may henceforth interfere to mar our happy state; I pray that, now the impious hostility of the tyrants has been forever removed by the power of God our Saviour, that spirit who delights in evil may devise no other means for exposing the divine law to blasphemous calumny; for, in my judgment, intestine strife within the Church of God, is far more evil and dangerous than any kind of war or conflict; and these our differences appear to me more grievous than any outward trouble. Accordingly, when, by the will and with the co-operation of God, I had been victorious over my enemies, I thought that nothing more remained but to render thanks to him, and sympathize in the joy of those whom he had restored to freedom through my instrumentality; as soon as I heard that intelligence which I had least expected to receive, I mean the news of your dissension, I judged it to be of no secondary importance, but with the earnest desire that a remedy for this evil also might be found through my means, I immediately sent to require your presence. And now I rejoice in beholding your assembly; but I feel that my desires will be most completely fulfilled when I can see you all united in one judgment, and that common spirit of peace and concord prevailing amongst you all, which it becomes you, as consecrated to the service of God, to commend to others. Delay not, then, dear friends: delay not, ye ministers of God, and faithful servants of him who is our common Lord and Saviour: begin from this moment to discard the causes of that disunion which has existed among you, and remove the perplexities of controversy by embracing the principles of peace. For by such conduct you will at the same time be acting in a manner most pleasing to the supreme God, and you will confer an exceeding favor on me who am your fellow-servant.”
Chapter XIII.—How he led the Dissentient Bishops to Harmony of Sentiment.
As soon as the emperor had spoken these words in the Latin tongue, which another interpreted, he gave permission to those who presided in the council to deliver their opinions. On this some began to accuse their neighbors, who defended themselves, and recriminated in their turn. In this manner numberless assertions were put forth by each party, and a violent controversy arose at the very commencement. Notwithstanding this, the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by the affability of his address to all, and his use of the Greek language, with which he was not altogether unacquainted, he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question.
Chapter XIV.—Unanimous Declaration of the Council concerning Faith, and the Celebration of Easter.
The result was that they were not only united as concerning the faith,
but that the time for the celebration of the salutary feast of Easter
was agreed on by all. Those points also which were sanctioned by the
resolution of the whole body were committed to writing, and received
the signature of each several member. The
extant signatures are of doubtful authenticity. Compare Hefele, p.
269.
Chapter XV.—How Constantine entertained the Bishops on the Occasion of His Vicennalia.
About this time he completed the twentieth year of his reign. Compare Prolegomena, Life. At the risk of seeming trivial in sober and professedly condensed
annotation, one cannot help noting that the human nature of ancient and
modern councils is the same,—much controversy and more or less
absenteeism, but all present at dinner. For notice of these couches, see Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom.
Ant., article Lectica.
Chapter XVI.—Presents to the Bishops, and Letters to the People generally.
After the celebration of this brilliant festival, the emperor courteously received all his guests, and generously added to the favors he had already bestowed by personally presenting gifts to each individual according to his rank. He also gave information of the proceedings of the synod to those who had not been present, by a letter in his own hand-writing. And this letter also I will inscribe as it were on some monument by inserting it in this my narrative of his life. It was as follows:
Chapter XVII.—Constantine’s Letter to the Churches respecting the Council at Nicæa.
“Constantinus Augustus, to the Churches.
“Having had full proof, in the general prosperity of the empire, how great the favor of God has been towards us, I have judged that it ought to be the first object of my endeavors, that unity of faith, sincerity of love, and community of feeling in regard to the worship of Almighty God, might be preserved among the highly favored multitude who compose the Catholic Church. And, inasmuch as this object could not be effectually and certainly secured, unless all, or at least the greater number of the bishops were to meet together, and a discussion of all particulars relating to our most holy religion to take place; for this reason as numerous an assembly as possible has been convened, at which I myself was present, as one among yourselves (and far be it from me to deny that which is my greatest joy, that I am your fellow-servant), and every question received due and full examination, until that judgment which God, who sees all things, could approve, and which tended to unity and concord, was brought to light, so that no room was left for further discussion or controversy in relation to the faith.
Chapter XVIII.—He speaks of their Unanimity respecting the Feast of Easter, and against the Practice of the Jews.
“At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day
of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of
all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place
on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to
us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality,
should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one
ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an
unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we
should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled
their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted
with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon
their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future
ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of
the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common
with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour
a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to
our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt
this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their
baseness. [The idea seems to be (as explained by Valesius) that if they
joined the Jews in celebrating this feast they would seem to consent to
their crime in crucifying the Lord.—Bag.] He carried out
his reprobation of the Jews in his actions in discriminating laws at
least, and perhaps in actual persecution. [᾽Αγχίνοια. This word is one of a class of expressions frequently used
by Eusebius, and which, being intended as titles of honor, like
“Excellency,” &c., should, where possible, be thus
rendered. In the present instance it is applied to the heads of the
churches collectively.—Bag.] More probably in this case it
is not the title, but means “your sagacity.”
Chapter XIX.—Exhortation to follow the Example of the Greater Part of the World.
“Since, therefore, it was needful that this matter should
be rectified, so that we might have nothing in common with that nation
of parricides who slew their Lord: and since that arrangement is
consistent with propriety which is observed by all the churches of the
western, southern, and northern parts of the world, and by some of the
eastern also: for these reasons all are unanimous on this present
occasion in thinking it worthy of adoption. And I myself have
undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your
Sagacities, Rather “sagacity” and “wisdom.” Rather “sagacity” and “wisdom.” [Valesius explains this as referring to the conduct of the Jews in
professing to acknowledge God as their king, and yet denying him by
saying, “We have no king but
Cæsar.”—Bag.]
Chapter XX.—Exhortation to obey the Decrees of the Council.
“Receive, then, with all willingness this truly Divine injunction, and regard it as in truth the gift of God. For whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops is to be regarded as indicative of the Divine will. As soon, therefore, as you have communicated these proceedings to all our beloved brethren, you are bound from that time forward to adopt for yourselves, and to enjoin on others the arrangement above mentioned, and the due observance of this most sacred day; that whenever I come into the presence of your love, which I have long desired, I may have it in my power to celebrate the holy feast with you on the same day, and may rejoice with you on all accounts, when I behold the cruel power of Satan removed by Divine aid through the agency of our endeavors, while your faith, and peace, and concord everywhere flourish. God preserve you, beloved brethren!”
The emperor transmitted a
faithful copy This Hein. regards as the correct meaning, although
“equally valid,” or “authoritative,” has been
regarded as possible.
Chapter XXI.—Recommendation to the Bishops, on their Departure, to Preserve Harmony.
And now, when the council was on the point of being finally dissolved,
he summoned all the bishops to meet him on an appointed day, and on
their arrival addressed them in a farewell Or
“such were the injunctions which the emperor laid especially on
their consciences.”
Chapter XXII.—How he dismissed Some, and wrote Letters to Others; also his Presents.
Full of joy therefore at this success, the emperor presented as it were pleasant fruits in the way of letters to those who had not been present at the council. He commanded also that ample gifts of money should be bestowed on all the people, both in the country and the cities, being pleased thus to honor the festive occasion of the twentieth anniversary of his reign.
Chapter XXIII.—How he wrote to the Egyptians, exhorting them to Peace.
And now, when all else were at peace, among the Egyptians alone an
implacable contention still raged, Continuation of the Arian controversy.
Chapter XXIV.—How he wrote Frequent Letters of a Religious Character to the Bishops and People.
But besides these, his writings are very numerous on kindred subjects, and he was the author of a multitude of letters, some to the bishops, in which he laid injunctions on them tending to the advantage of the churches of God; and sometimes the thrice blessed one addressed the people of the churches generally, calling them his own brethren and fellow-servants. But perhaps we may hereafter find leisure to collect these despatches in a separate form, in order that the integrity of our present history may not be impaired by their insertion.
Chapter XXV.—How he ordered the Erection of a Church at Jerusalem, in the Holy Place of our Saviour’s Resurrection.
After these things, the pious emperor addressed himself to another work
truly worthy of record, in the province of Palestine. What
Chapter XXVI.—That the Holy Sepulchre had been covered with Rubbish and with Idols by the Ungodly.
For it had been in time past the endeavor of impious men (or rather let me say of the whole race of evil spirits through their means), to consign to the darkness of oblivion that divine monument of immortality to which the radiant angel had descended from heaven, and rolled away the stone for those who still had stony hearts, and who supposed that the living One still lay among the dead; and had declared glad tidings to the women also, and removed their stony-hearted unbelief by the conviction that he whom they sought was alive. This sacred cave, then, certain impious and godless persons had thought to remove entirely from the eyes of men, supposing in their folly that thus they should be able effectually to obscure the truth. Accordingly they brought a quantity of earth from a distance with much labor, and covered the entire spot; then, having raised this to a moderate height, they paved it with stone, concealing the holy cave beneath this massive mound. Then, as though their purpose had been effectually accomplished, they prepare on this foundation a truly dreadful sepulchre of souls, by building a gloomy shrine of lifeless idols to the impure spirit whom they call Venus, and offering detestable oblations therein on profane and accursed altars. For they supposed that their object could not otherwise be fully attained, than by thus burying the sacred cave beneath these foul pollutions. Unhappy men! they were unable to comprehend how impossible it was that their attempt should remain unknown to him who had been crowned with victory over death, any more than the blazing sun, when he rises above the earth, and holds his wonted course through the midst of heaven, is unseen by the whole race of mankind. Indeed, his saving power, shining with still greater brightness, and illumining, not the bodies, but the souls of men, was already filling the world with the effulgence of its own light. Nevertheless, these devices of impious and wicked men against the truth had prevailed for a long time, nor had any one of the governors, or military commanders, or even of the emperors themselves ever yet appeared, with ability to abolish these daring impieties, save only that one who enjoyed the favor of the King of kings. And now, acting as he did under the guidance of the divine Spirit, he could not consent to see the sacred spot of which we have spoken, thus buried, through the devices of the adversaries, under every kind of impurity, and abandoned to forgetfulness and neglect; nor would he yield to the malice of those who had contracted this guilt, but calling on the divine aid, gave orders that the place should be thoroughly purified, thinking that the parts which had been most polluted by the enemy ought to receive special tokens, through his means, of the greatness of the divine favor. As soon, then, as his commands were issued, these engines of deceit were cast down from their proud eminence to the very ground, and the dwelling-places of error, with the statues and the evil spirits which they represented, were overthrown and utterly destroyed.
Chapter XXVII.—How Constantine commanded the Materials of the Idol Temple, and the Soil itself, to be removed at a Distance.
Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.
Chapter
XXVIII.—Discovery of the Most Holy
Sepulchre. On the site of the sepulchre, compare Besant, Sepulchre, the
Holy, in Smith and Cheetham, 2 (1880), 1881–1888. He
discusses (a) Is the present site that fixed upon by the
officers of Constantine? and (b) Was that site certainly or even
probably the true spot where our Lord was buried? Compare also reports
of the Palestine Exploration Fund Survey, Jerusalem, 1884, p.
429–435 (Conder).
This also was accomplished without delay. But as soon as the original
surface of the ground, beneath the covering of earth, appeared,
immediately, and contrary to all expectation, the venerable and
hollowed monument of our Saviour’s resurrection was discovered.
Then indeed did this most holy cave present a faithful
simili
Chapter XXIX.—How he wrote concerning the Erection of a Church, both to the Governors of the Provinces, and to the Bishop Macarius.
Immediately after the transactions I have recorded, the emperor sent forth injunctions which breathed a truly pious spirit, at the same time granting ample supplies of money, and commanding that a house of prayer worthy of the worship of God should be erected near the Saviour’s tomb on a scale of rich and royal greatness. This object he had indeed for some time kept in view, and had foreseen, as if by the aid of a superior intelligence, that which should afterwards come to pass. He laid his commands, therefore, on the governors of the Eastern provinces, that by an abundant and unsparing expenditure they should secure the completion of the work on a scale of noble and ample magnificence. He also despatched the following letter to the bishop who at that time presided over the church at Jerusalem, in which he clearly asserted the saving doctrine of the faith, writing in these terms.
Chapter XXX.—Constantine’s Letter to Macarius respecting the Building of the Church of our Saviour.
“Victor Constantius, Maximus Augustus, to Macarius.
“Such is our
Saviour’s grace, that no power of language seems adequate to
describe the wondrous circumstance to which I am about to refer. For,
that the monument of his most holy Passion, so long ago buried beneath
the ground, should have remained unknown for so long a series of years,
until its reappearance to his servants now set free through the removal
of him [Licinius appears to be meant, whose death had occurred a.d. 326, in which year the alleged discovery of the
Lord’s sepulchre took place.—Bag.]
Chapter XXXI.—That the Building should surpass all the Churches in the World in the Beauty of its Walls, its Columns, and Marbles.
“It will be well, therefore, for your sagacity to make such arrangements and provision of all things needful for the work, that not only the church itself as a whole may surpass all others whatsoever in beauty, but that the details of the building may be of such a kind that the fairest structures in any city of the empire may be excelled by this. And with respect to the erection and decoration of the walls, this is to inform you that our friend Dracilianus, the deputy of the Prætorian Præfects, and the governor of the province, have received a charge from us. For our pious directions to them are to the effect that artificers and laborers, and whatever they shall understand from your sagacity to be needful for the advancement of the work, shall forthwith be furnished by their care. And as to the columns and marbles, whatever you shall judge, after actual inspection of the plan, to be especially precious and serviceable, be diligent to send information to us in writing, in order that whatever quantity or sort of materials we shall esteem from your letter to be needful, may be procured from every quarter, as required, for it is fitting that the most marvelous place in the world should be worthily decorated.
Chapter XXXII.—That he instructed the Governors concerning the Beautifying of the Roof; also concerning Workmen, and Materials.
“With respect to the ceiling The word used is the technical “camera,” meaning
properly a certain style of vaulted ceiling, but here it is perhaps the
generic ceiling if the specific word below means panel
ceiling. This is the word for the Lacunaria or panel ceilings, a style of
ceiling where “planks were placed across these beams at certain
intervals leaving hollow spaces” “which were frequently
covered with gold and ivory and sometimes with paintings.”
Compare article Domus, in Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant.
The passage may mean either “with respect to the
ceiling…whether…wainscoted” or “with respect to
the Camera…whether panel ceiled.”
Chapter XXXIII.—How the Church of our Saviour, the New Jerusalem prophesied of in Scripture, was built.
This was the emperor’s letter; and his directions were at once
carried into effect. Accordingly, on the very spot which witnessed the
Saviour’s sufferings, a new Jerusalem was constructed, over
against the one so celebrated of old, which, since the foul stain of
guilt brought on it by the murder of the Lord, had experienced the last
extremity of desolation, the effect of Divine judgment on its impious
people. It was opposite this city that the emperor now began to rear a
monument to the Saviour’s victory over death, with rich and
lavish magnificence. And it may be that this was that second and new
Jerusalem spoken of in the predictions of the prophets, [Apparently referring (says Valesius) to
First of all, then, he adorned the sacred cave itself, as the chief part of the whole work, and the hallowed monument at which the angel radiant with light had once declared to all that regeneration which was first manifested in the Saviour’s person.
Chapter XXXIV.—Description of the Structure of the Holy Sepulchre.
This monument, therefore, first of all, as the chief part of the whole, the emperor’s zealous magnificence beautified with rare columns, and profusely enriched with the most splendid decorations of every kind.
Chapter XXXV.—Description of the Atrium and Porticos.
The next object of his attention was a space of ground of great extent, and open to the pure air of heaven. This he adorned with a pavement of finely polished stone, and enclosed it on three sides with porticos of great length.
Chapter XXXVI.—Description of the Walls, Roof, Decoration, and Gilding of the Body of the Church.
For at
the side opposite to the cave, which was the eastern side, the church
itself was erected; a noble work rising to a vast height, and of great
extent both in length and breadth. The interior of this structure was
floored with marble slabs of various colors; while the external surface
of the walls, which shone with polished stones exactly fitted together,
exhibited a degree of splendor in no respect inferior to that of
marble. With regard to the roof, it was covered on the outside with
lead, as a protection against the rains of winter. But the inner part
of the roof, which was finished with sculptured panel work, extended in
a series of connected compartments, like a vast sea, over the whole
church; It would seem from this description that the paneling was like
that of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome, a horizontal surface rather than
the pointed roof paneled.
Chapter XXXVII.—Description of the Double Porticos on Either Side, and of the Three Eastern Gates.
Besides this were two porticos on each side, with upper and lower ranges
of pillars, Whether this means two series, one underground and one above
(Molz. and many), or not, is fully discussed by Heinichen in a
separate note (Eusebius, vol. 3, p. 520–521). [These inner porticos seem to have rested on massy piles, because
they adjoined the sides of the church, and had to bear its roof, which
was loftier than any of the rest.—Bag.] Translated by
Molz. “Quadrangular supports.” “In
Architecture a cubic mass of building, to serve for
bearings.”—Liddell and Scott.
Chapter XXXVIII.—Description of the Hemisphere, the Twelve Columns, and their Bowls.
Opposite these gates the crowning part of the whole was the hemisphere, [Apparently the altar, which was of a hemispherical, or rather
hemicylindrical form—Bag.] Also a much-discussed question.
Compare Heinichen, vol. 3, p. 521–522.
Chapter XXXIX.—Description of the Inner Court, the Arcades and Porches.
In the
next place he enclosed the atrium which occupied the space leading to
the entrances in front of the church. This comprehended, first the
court, then the porticos on each side, and lastly the gates of the
court. After these, in the midst of the open market-place, [In front of the larger churches there was generally a street, or
open space, where a market was held on the festival of the Martyr to
whom the church was dedicated. Regard was also had, in this
arrangement, to architectural effect, the object being that nothing
should interfere with the view of the front of the church. Vide
Valesius in loc.—Bag.]
Chapter XL.—Of the Number of his Offerings.
This temple, then, the emperor erected as a conspicuous monument of the
Saviour’s resurrection, and embellished it throughout on an
imperial scale of magnificence. He further enriched it with numberless
offerings of inexpressible beauty and various materials,—gold,
silver, and precious stones, the skillful and elaborate arrangement of
which, in regard to their magnitude, number, and variety, we have not
leisure at present to describe particularly. Some idea of various features of this building may be gathered
from the cuts and descriptions of other basilicas in Fergusson,
History of Architecture, 1 (1874), 400 sq.; Lübke,
Geschichte der Architektur, 1 (Lpg. 1875), 229 sq.;
Langl.’s series of Bilder zur Geschichte,
&c.
Chapter XLI.—Of the Erection of Churches in Bethlehem, and on the Mount of Olives.
In the
same country he discovered other places, venerable as being the
localities of two sacred caves: and these also he adorned with lavish
magnificence. In the one case, he rendered due honor to that which had
been the scene of the first manifestation of our Saviour’s divine
presence, when he submitted to be born in mortal flesh; while in the
case of the second cavern he hallowed the remembrance of his ascension
to heaven from the mountain top. And while he thus nobly testified his
reverence for these places, he at the same time eternized the memory of
his mother, Compare Prolegomena, p. 411.
Chapter XLII.—That the Empress
Helena, Compare Wordsworth, Helena, in Smith and Wace, Dict.
2 (1880), 881 sq. That she was made empress is shown also by the coins.
Cf. coins in Eckhel.
For she, having resolved to discharge the duties of pious devotion to
the God, the King of kings, and feeling it incumbent on her to render
thanksgivings with prayers on behalf both of her own son, now so mighty
an emperor, and of his sons, her own grandchildren, the divinely
favored Cæsars, though now advanced in years, yet gifted with no
common degree of wisdom, had hastened with youthful alacrity to survey
this venerable land; and at the same time to visit the eastern
provinces, cities, and people, with a truly imperial solicitude. As
soon, then, as she had rendered due reverence to the ground which the
Saviour’s feet had trodden, according to the prophetic word which
says [
Chapter XLIII.—A Farther Notice of the Churches at Bethlehem.
For without delay she dedicated two churches to the God whom she
adored, one at the grotto which had been the scene of the
Saviour’s birth; the other on the mount of his ascension.
For [Literally, beneath the earth. It seems to have been
characteristic of the age of Eusebius to invest the more prominent
circumstances connected with the Lord’s life on earth with a
degree of romance and mystery equally inconsistent with Scripture and
with probability. It is obvious that Scripture furnishes no authority
for the caves either of the nativity or ascension. See ch. 41,
supra.—Bag.] Compare discussion by Andrews, Cave
of the Nativity in his Life of our Lord (N.Y.),
77–83. [Alluding probably, to the discourse in
Chapter XLIV.—Of Helena’s Generosity and Beneficent Acts.
For on the occasion of a circuit which she made of the eastern provinces, in the splendor of imperial authority, she bestowed abundant proofs of her liberality as well on the inhabitants of the several cities collectively, as on individuals who approached her, at the same time that she scattered largesses among the soldiery with a liberal hand. But especially abundant were the gifts she bestowed on the naked and unprotected poor. To some she gave money, to others an ample supply of clothing: she liberated some from imprisonment, or from the bitter servitude of the mines; others she delivered from unjust oppression, and others again, she restored from exile.
Chapter XLV.—Helena’s Pious Conduct in the Churches.
While,
however, her character derived luster from such deeds as I have
described, she was far from neglecting personal piety toward God. According to some apocryphal accounts Constantine owed his
conversion to his mother (compare the apocryphal letters mentioned
under Writings, in the Prolegomena), but Eusebius, below (ch.
47), seems to reverse the fact.
Chapter XLVI.—How she made her Will, and died at the Age of Eighty Years.
And when at length at the close of a long life, she was called to
inherit a happier lot, having arrived at the eightieth year of her age,
and being very near the time of her departure, she prepared and
executed her last will in favor of her only son, the emperor and sole
monarch of the world, and her grandchildren, the Cæsars his sons,
to whom severally she bequeathed whatever property she possessed in any
part of the world. Having thus made her will, this thrice blessed woman
died in the presence of her illustrious son, who was in attendance at
her side, caring for her and held her hands: so that, to those who
rightly discerned the truth, the thrice blessed one seemed not to die,
but to experience a real change and transition from an earthly to a
heavenly existence, since her soul, remoulded as it were into an
incorruptible and angelic essence, [These words seem to savor of Origen’s doctrine, to which
Eusebius was much addicted. Origen believed that, in the resurrection,
bodies would be changed into souls, and souls into angels, according to
the testimony of Jerome. See Valesius in
loc.—Bag.] The date of Helena’s death is usually placed in 327 or 328.
Compare Wordsworth, l.c. Since she was eighty years old at the time of
her death she must have been about twenty-five when Constantine was
born.
Her body, too, was honored with special tokens of respect, being
escorted on its way to the imperial city by a vast train of guards, and
there deposited in a royal tomb. Such were the last days of our
emperor’s mother, a person worthy of being had in perpetual
remembrance, both for her own practical piety, and because she had
given birth to so extraordinary and admirable an offspring. And well
may his character be styled blessed, for his filial piety as well as on
other grounds. He rendered her through his influence so devout a
worshiper of God, (though she had not previously been such,) that she
seemed to have been instructed from the first by the Saviour of
mankind: and besides this, he had honored her so fully with imperial
dignities, that in every province, and in the very ranks of the
soldiery, she was spoken of under the titles of Augusta and empress,
and her likeness was impressed on golden coins. Compare note above. It is said (Wordsworth) that while silver and
copper coins have been found with her name, none of gold have yet come
to light.
Chapter XLVIII.—How he built Churches in Honor of Martyrs, and abolished Idolatry at Constantinople.
And being fully resolved to distinguish the city which bore his name with especial honor, he embellished it with numerous sacred edifices, both memorials of martyrs on the largest scale, and other buildings of the most splendid kind, not only within the city itself, but in its vicinity: and thus at the same time he rendered honor to the memory of the martyrs, and consecrated his city to the martyrs’ God. Being filled, too, with Divine wisdom, he determined to purge the city which was to be distinguished by his own name from idolatry of every kind, that henceforth no statues might be worshiped there in the temples of those falsely reputed to be gods, nor any altars defiled by the pollution of blood: that there might be no sacrifices consumed by fire, no demon festivals, nor any of the other ceremonies usually observed by the superstitious.
Chapter XLIX.—Representation of the Cross in the Palace, and of Daniel at the Public Fountains.
On the
other hand one might see the fountains in the midst of the market place
graced with figures representing the good Shepherd, well known to those
who study the sacred oracles, and that of Daniel also with the lions,
forged in brass, and resplendent with plates of gold. Indeed, so large
a measure of Divine love possessed the emperor’s soul, that in
the principal apartment of the imperial palace itself, on a vast
tablet Perhaps the largest “panel.” The restored church of
St. Paul, outside the walls at Rome, has a paneled ceiling with a very
large central panel.
Chapter L.—That he erected Churches in Nicomedia, and in Other Cities.
Having thus embellished the city which bore his name, he next
distinguished the capital of Bithynia [Nicomedia, where Constantine had besieged Licinius, and compelled
him to surrender; in memory of which event he built this
church.—Bag.]
Chapter LI.—That he ordered a Church to be built at Mambre.
Such was the principal sacred edifices erected by the emperor’s
command. But having heard that the self-same Saviour who erewhile had
appeared on earth This doctrine, which appears again and again in Eusebius and in
Constantine, has a curiously interesting bearing at present theological
controversies in America, and England for that matter. It may be called
the doctrine of the “eternal Christ,” as over against the
doctrine of the “essential Christ,” or that which seems to
make his existence begin with his incarnation—the
“historical Christ.” He had historical existence from the
beginning, both as the indwelling and as the objective, and one might
venture to think that advocates of these two views could find a
meeting-ground, or solution of difficulty at least, in this phrase
which represents him who was in the beginning with God and is and ever
shall be, who has made all things which have been made, and is in all
parts of the universe and the world, among Jews and
Gentiles. [The English version in this passage (
Chapter LII.—Constantine’s Letter to Eusebius concerning Mambre.
“Victor
Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Macarius, and the rest of the
bishops in Palestine. The writer of this history says the letter was addressed to him,
while it is really to Macarius. On this ground the Eusebian authorship
of the book has been challenged, but of course Eusebius is among
“the rest of the bishops.”
“One benefit, and that of
no ordinary importance, has been conferred on us by my truly pious
mother-in-law, [Eutropia, mother of his empress
Fausta.—Bag.]
Chapter LIII.—That the Saviour appeared in this Place to Abraham.
“She assures me, then, that the place which takes its name
from the oak of Mambre, where we find that Abraham dwelt, is defiled by
certain of the slaves of superstition in every possible way. She
declares that idols [These objects of idolatrous worship were probably figures
intended to represent the angels who had appeared to
Abraham.—Bag.] More probably they were some form of images
obscenely worshiped. Better “Reverences,” and so throughout.
Chapter LIV.—Destruction of Idol Temples and Images everywhere.
All these things the emperor diligently performed to the praise of the saving power of Christ, and thus made it his constant aim to glorify his Saviour God. On the other hand he used every means to rebuke the superstitious errors of the heathen. Hence the entrances of their temples in the several cities were left exposed to the weather, being stripped of their doors at his command; the tiling of others was removed, and their roofs destroyed. From others again the venerable statues of brass, of which the superstition of antiquity had boasted for a long series of years, were exposed to view in all the public places of the imperial city: so that here a Pythian, there a Sminthian Apollo, excited the contempt of the beholder: while the Delphic tripods were deposited in the hippodrome and the Muses of Helicon in the palace itself. In short, the city which bore his name was everywhere filled with brazen statues of the most exquisite workmanship, which had been dedicated in every province, and which the deluded victims of superstition had long vainly honored as gods with numberless victims and burnt sacrifices, though now at length they learnt to renounce their error, when the emperor held up the very objects of their worship to be the ridicule and sport of all beholders. With regard to those images which were of gold, he dealt with them in a different manner. For as soon as he understood that the ignorant multitudes were inspired with a vain and childish dread of these bugbears of error, wrought in gold and silver, he judged it right to remove these also, like stumbling-stones thrown in the way of men walking in the dark, and henceforward to open a royal road, plain and unobstructed to all. Having formed this resolution, he considered no soldiers or military force of any sort needful for the suppression of the evil: a few of his own friends sufficed for this service, and these he sent by a simple expression of his will to visit each several province. Accordingly, sustained by confidence in the emperor’s pious intentions and their own personal devotion to God, they passed through the midst of numberless tribes and nations, abolishing this ancient error in every city and country. They ordered the priests themselves, amidst general laughter and scorn, to bring their gods from their dark recesses to the light of day: they then stripped them of their ornaments, and exhibited to the gaze of all the unsightly reality which had been hidden beneath a painted exterior. Lastly, whatever part of the material appeared valuable they scraped off and melted in the fire to prove its worth, after which they secured and set apart whatever they judged needful for their purpose, leaving to the superstitious worshipers that which was altogether useless, as a memorial of their shame. Meanwhile our admirable prince was himself engaged in a work similar to what we have described. For at the same time that these costly images of the dead were stripped, as we have said, of their precious materials, he also attacked those composed of brass; causing those to be dragged from their places with ropes and as it were carried away captive, whom the dotage of mythology had esteemed as gods.
Chapter LV.—Overthrow of an Idol Temple, and Abolition of Licentious Practices, at Aphaca in Phœnicia.
The emperor’s next care was to kindle, as it were, a brilliant
torch, by the light of which he directed his imperial gaze around, to
see if any hidden vestiges of error might still exist. And as the
keen-sighted eagle in its heavenward flight is able to descry from its
lofty height the most distant objects on the earth, so did he, while
residing in the imperial palace of his own fair city, discover as from
a watch-tower a hidden and fatal snare of souls in the province of
Phœnicia. This was a grove and temple, not situated in the midst
of any city, nor in any public place, as for splendor of effect is
generally the case, but apart from the beaten and frequented road, at
Aphaca, on part of the summit of Mount Lebanon, and dedicated to the
foul demon known by the name of Venus. It was a school of wickedness
for all the votaries of impurity, and such as destroyed their bodies
with effeminacy. Here men undeserving of the name forgot the dignity of
their sex, and propitiated the demon by their effeminate conduct; here
too unlawful commerce of women and adulterous intercourse, with other
horrible and infamous practices, were
Chapter LVI.—Destruction of the
Temple of Æsculapius at Ægæ. [On the coast of Cilicia, near
Issus.—Bag.]
For since a wide-spread error of these pretenders to wisdom concerned
the demon worshiped in Cilicia, whom thousands regarded with reverence
as the possessor of saving and healing power, who sometimes appeared to
those who passed the night in his temple, sometimes restored the
diseased to health, though on the contrary he was a destroyer of souls,
who drew his easily deluded worshipers from the true Saviour to involve
them in impious error, the emperor, consistently with his practice, and
desire to advance the worship of him who is at once a jealous God and
the true Saviour, gave directions that this temple also should be razed
to the ground. In prompt obedience to this command, a band of soldiers
laid this building, the admiration of noble philosophers, prostrate in
the dust, together with its unseen inmate, neither demon nor god, but
rather a deceiver of souls, who had seduced mankind for so long a time
through various ages. And thus he who had promised to others
deliverance from misfortune and distress, could find no means for his
own security, any more than when, as is told in myth, he was scorched
by the lightning’s stroke. [By Jupiter, for restoring Hippolytus to life, at Diana’s
request.—Bag.]
Chapter LVII.—How the Gentiles abandoned Idol Worship, and turned to the Knowledge of God.
Hence it was that, of those who had been the slaves of superstition,
when they saw with their own eyes the exposure of their delusion, and
beheld the actual ruin of the temples and images in every place, some
applied themselves to the saving doctrine of Christ; while others,
though they declined to take this step, yet reprobated the folly which
they had received from their fathers, and laughed to scorn what they
had so long been accustomed to regard as gods. Indeed, what other
feelings could possess their minds, when they witnessed the thorough
uncleanness concealed beneath the fair exterior of the objects of their
worship? Beneath this were found either the bones of dead men or dry
skulls, fraudulently adorned by the arts of magicians, Through another reading translated by Val., 1709, Bag.,
“stolen by impostors.” Stroth has “impiously employed
for magicians arts.”
Chapter LVIII.—How he destroyed the Temple of Venus at Heliopolis, and built the First Church in that City.
Such actions as I have described may well be reckoned among the
emperor’s noblest achievements, as also the wise arrangements
which he made respecting each particular province. We may instance the
Phœnician city Heliopolis, in which those who dignify licentious
pleasure with a distinguishing title of honor, had permitted their
wives and daughters to commit shameless fornication. But now a new
statute, breathing the very spirit of modesty, proceeded from the
emperor, which peremptorily forbade the con
Chapter LIX.—Of the Disturbance at Antioch by Eustathius.
In the
midst, however, of the general happiness occasioned by these events,
and while the Church of God was every where and every way flourishing
throughout the empire, once more that spirit of envy, who ever watches
for the ruin of the good, prepared himself to combat the greatness of
our prosperity, in the expectation, perhaps, that the emperor himself,
provoked by our tumults and disorders, might eventually become
estranged from us. Accordingly, he kindled a furious controversy at
Antioch, and thereby involved the church in that place in a series of
tragic calamities, which had well-nigh occasioned the total overthrow
of the city. The members of the Church were divided into two opposite
parties; while the people, including even the magistrates and soldiery,
were roused to such a pitch, that the contest would have been decided
by the sword, had not the watchful providence of God, as well as dread
of the emperor’s displeasure, controlled the fury of the
multitude. On this occasion, too, the emperor, acting the part of a
preserver and physician of souls, applied with much forbearance the
remedy of persuasion to those who needed it. He gently pleaded, as it
were by an embassy, with his people, sending among them one of the best
approved and most faithful of those who were honored with the dignity
of Count; “Believed to have been Strategus Musonius”
(Venables). [Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, whose deposition, on the ground of
a charge of immorality, by the partisans of Eusebius of Nicomedia, had
occasioned the disturbances alluded to in the text.—Bag.]
There is a view that this whole trouble was the result of an intrigue
of Eusebius to get the better of Eustathius, who was in a sense a
rival. Compare for very vigorous expression of this view, Venables,
Eustathius of Antioch, in Smith and Wace,
Dict. This is rather literal, and the paraphrase of Molz. may be
better, “no foreign bishops.”
Chapter LX.—Constantine’s Letter to the Antiochians, directing them not to withdraw Eusebius from Cæsarea, but to seek some one else.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the people of Antioch.
“How pleasing to the wise
and intelligent portion of mankind is the concord which exists among
you! And I myself, brethren, am disposed to love you with an enduring
affection, inspired both by religion, and by your own manner of life
and zeal on my behalf. It is by the exercise of right understanding and
sound discretion, that we are enabled really to enjoy our blessings.
And what can become you so well as this discretion? No wonder, then, if
I affirm that your maintenance of the truth has tended rather to
promote your security than to draw on you the hatred of others. Indeed,
amongst brethren, whom the selfsame disposition to walk To the various and controverted translations of this passage it
may be ventured to add one, “we ourselves desire your judgment to
be fortified by good counsels.” The other point of view has been alluded to. It seems on the face
of it, in this unanimous endorsement by the church, as if Eusebius had
had the right of it in his quarrel with Eustathius; but on the other
hand, it is to be remembered that this wonderful harmony in the church
had come about from the fact that Eustathius and all who sympathized
with him had withdrawn, and only the party of Eusebius was left. It
would be like a “unanimous” vote in Parliament with all the
opposition benches empty. The endorsement of his own party does not
count for much. [Alluding to the deposition of Eustathius, who had been charged
with the crime of seduction. The reader who consults the original of
this chapter, especially the latter part of it, may judge of the
difficulty of eliciting any tolerable sense from an obscure, and
possibly corrupted, text.—Bag.] The translator
(Bag.) shows ingenuity in this extracting of the general sense
from the involved Greek of the writing of Constantine or the
translation as it supposably is. But the very fact of the obscurity
shown in this and in his oration alike is conclusive against any
thought that the literary work ascribed to Constantine was written by
Eusebius.
Chapter LXI.—The Emperor’s Letter to Eusebius praising him for refusing the Bishopric of Antioch.
The Emperor’s Letter to me on my refusing the Bishopric of Antioch.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius.
“I have most carefully
perused your letter, and perceive that you have strictly conformed to
the rule enjoined by the discipline of the Church. Now to abide by that
which appears at the same time pleasing to God, and accordant with
apostolical tradition, is a proof of true piety. You have reason to
deem yourself happy on this behalf, that you are counted worthy, in the
judgment, I may say, of all the world, to have the oversight of any
church. For the desire which all feel to claim you for their own,
undoubtedly enhances your enviable fortune in this respect.
Notwithstanding, your Prudence whose resolve it is to observe the
ordinances of God and the apostolic canon of the Church, Canon 15 (or 14) of the “Apostolical Canons.” Cf. ed.
Bruns. 1 (Berol. 1839), 3.
Chapter LXII.—Constantine’s Letter to the Council, depreciating the Removal of Eusebius from Cæsarea.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Theodotus, Theodorus, Narcissus, Aëtius, Alpheus, and the rest of the bishops who are at Antioch.
“I have perused the
letters written by your Prudences, and highly approve of the wise
resolution of your colleague in the ministry, Eusebius. Having,
moreover, been informed of the circumstances of the case, partly by
your letters, partly by those of our illustrious counts, The word has thus generally been rendered by Bag., and does
probably refer to their official title, although in this case and
occasionally he translates “friends.” [George (afterwards bishop of Laodicea) appears to have been
degraded from the office of presbyter on the ground of impiety, by the
same bishop who had ordained him. Both George and Euphronius were of
the Arian party, of which fact it is possible that Constantine was
ignorant.—Bag.] Georgius was at one time or another Arian,
semi-Arian, and Anomoean, and is said to have been called by Athanasius
“the most wicked of all the Arians” (Venables in Smith and
Wace, Dict. 2. 637). He was constantly pitted against
Eustathius, which accounts for his appearance at this time. Euphronius
was the one chosen at this time. Compare Bennett, Euphronius, in
Smith and Wace, Dict. 2. 297.
Chapter LXIII.—How he displayed his Zeal for the Extirpation of Heresies.
Such were the exhortations to do all things to the honor of the divine
religion which the emperor addressed to the rulers of the churches.
Having by these means banished dissension, and [
Chapter LXIV.—Constantine’s Edict against the Heretics.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the heretics.
“Understand now, by this
present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye
who are called Cataphrygians, Sufficiently good general accounts of these various heresies may
be found in Blunt. Dict. of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties,
and Schools of Religious Thought, Lond. 1874, p. 382–389,
Novatians; p. 612–614, Valentinians; p. 296–298,
Marcionites; p. 515–517, Samosatenes (Paulians); p.
336–341, Montanists (Cataphrygians). Or see standard
Encyclopædias.
Chapter LXV.—The Heretics are deprived of their Meeting Places.
“Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with
your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that
none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. There is throughout this Life a curious repetition in the details
of action against heretics of precisely the same things which
Christians complained of as having been done to them. The idea of
toleration then seems to have been much as it was in pre-reformation
times, or, not to judge other times when there is a beam in our own
eye, as it is in America and England to-day,—the largest
toleration for every one who thinks as we do, and for the others a
temporary suspension of the rule to “judge not,” with an
amended prayer, “Lord, condemn them, for they know not what they
do,” and a vigorous attempt to force the divine
judgment.
Chapter LXVI.—How on the Discovery of Prohibited Books among the Heretics, Many of them return to the Catholic Church.
Thus were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the
emperor’s command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean
the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of
those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor’s
threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the
Church. For since the law directed that search should be made for their
books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were
detected, and these were ready to secure their own safety by
dissimulation of every kind. Here again it is worth noting, for history and for edification,
that books were prohibited and heretics treated just as the Christians
did not like to “be done by,” by the heathen. This famous “church unity,” for which Constantine has
been blessed or execrated, as the case might be, in all the ages since,
was hardly more complete than modern unified churches where all the
members held different pet doctrines and are prepared to fight for them
to the bitter end.
Chapter I.—How he honored Many by Presents and Promotions.
While thus variously engaged in promoting the extension and glory of the
church of God, and striving by every measure to commend the
Saviour’s doctrine, the emperor was far from neglecting secular
affairs; but in this respect also he was unwearied in bestowing
benefits of every kind and in quick succession on the people of every
province. On the one hand he manifested a paternal anxiety for the
general welfare of his subjects; on the other he would distinguish
individuals of his own acquaintance with various marks of honor;
conferring his benefits in every instance in a truly noble spirit. No
one could request a favor from the emperor, and fail of obtaining what
he sought: no one expected a boon from him, and found that expectation
vain. Compare Prolegomena, under Character, for the criticism of
this conduct from those who viewed it from another point of
view.
Chapter II.—Remission of a Fourth Part of the Taxes.
The extent to which he studied the general happiness and prosperity
may be understood from a single instance most beneficial and universal
in its application, and still gratefully remembered. He remitted a
fourth part of the yearly tribute paid for land, and bestowed it on the
owners of the soil; so that if we compute this yearly reduction, we
shall find that the cultivators enjoyed their produce free of tribute
every fourth year. For directly contrary account of his taxations, compare
Prolegomena, under Character.
Chapter III.—Equalization of the More Oppressive Taxes.
And whereas some persons found fault with the surveys of land which had been made under former emperors, and complained that their property was unduly burdened; acting in this case also on the principles of justice, he sent commissioners to equalize the tribute, and to secure immunity to those who had made this appeal.
Chapter IV.—His Liberality, from His Private Resources, to the Losers in Suits of a Pecuniary Nature.
In cases of judicial arbitration, in order that the loser by his
decision might not quit his presence less contented than the victorious
litigant, he himself bestowed, and from his own private means, in some
cases lands, in other money, on the defeated party. In this manner he
took care that the loser, as having appeared in his presence, should be
as well satisfied as the gainer of the cause; for he considered that no
one ought in any case to retire dejected and sorrowful from an
interview with such a prince. In
reality it may have been less childish than Eusebius makes it appear,
for it probably refers to cases where it was a matter of just
equalization of claims, where each party thought his claim
just.
Chapter V.—Conquest of the Scythians defeated through the Sign of Our Saviour.
And why
should I relate even briefly and incidentally, how he subjected
barbarous nations to the Roman power; how he was the first who
[Probably the Goths are meant, as in Socrates’ Eccles.
Hist. Bk. I. ch. 18.—Bag.] Compare for his Gothic
wars, references in Prolegomena, under Life.
Chapter VI.—Conquest of the Sarmatians, consequent on the Rebellion of their Slaves.
With respect to the Sarmatians, God himself brought them beneath the
rule of Constantine, and subdued a nation swelling with barbaric pride
in the following manner. Being attacked by the Scythians, they had
entrusted their slaves with arms, in order to repel the enemy. These
slaves first overcame the invaders and then, turning their weapons
against their masters, drove them all from their native land. The
expelled Sarmatians found that their only hope of safety was in
Constantine’s protection: and he, whose familiar habit it was to
save men’s lives, received them all within the confines of the
Roman empire. To the number of 300,000, according to Anonymus Valesianus.
This was in the year 334.
Chapter VII.—Ambassadors from Different Barbarous Nations receive Presents from the Emperor.
Indeed,
ambassadors were continually arriving from all nations, bringing for
his acceptance their most precious gifts. So that I myself have
sometimes stood near the entrance of the imperial palace, and observed
a noticeable array of barbarians in attendance, differing from each
other in costume and decorations, and equally unlike in the fashion of
their hair and beard. Their aspect truculent and terrible, their bodily
stature prodigious: some of a red complexion, others white as snow,
others again of an intermediate color. For in the number of those I
have referred to might be seen specimens of the Blemmyan tribes, of the
Indians, and the Ethiopians, [Αἰφίοπας,
τοὶ διχθὰ
δεδαίαται,
žσχατοι
ἀνδρῶν, Οἱ
μὲν
δυσομένου
ὑπερίονος, οἱ
δ᾽
ἀνιόντος. —Odyss. 1.
23, 24.—Bag.]
Chapter VIII.—That he wrote also to the King of Persia, Sapor II. (310–381) called the Great, one of the
Sassanidæ and afterwards the persistent enemy of the sons of
Constantine. He was at various times a bitter persecutor of the
Christians, and it is said (Plate) that “no Persian king had ever
caused such terror to Rome as this monarch.” Compare article by
Plate on the Sassanidæ in Smith, Dict. of Gr. and R. Biog. and
Mythol.
The king of the Persians also having testified a desire to form an alliance with Constantine, by sending an embassy and presents as assurances of peace and friendship, the emperor, in negotiating this treaty, far surpassed the monarch who had first done him honor, in the magnificence with which he acknowledged his gifts. Having heard, too, that there were many churches of God in Persia, and that large numbers there were gathered into the fold of Christ, full of joy at this intelligence, he resolved to extend his anxiety for the general welfare to that country also, as one whose aim it was to care for all alike in every nation.
Copy of his Letter to the King of Persia.
“By keeping the Divine faith, I am made a partaker of the light of truth: guided by the light of truth, I advance in the knowledge of the Divine faith. Hence it is that, as my actions themselves evince, I profess the most holy religion; and this worship I declare to be that which teaches me deeper acquaintance with the most holy God; aided by whose Divine power, beginning from the very borders of the ocean, I have aroused each nation of the world in succession to a well-grounded hope of security; so that those which, groaning in servitude to the most cruel tyrants and yielding to the pressure of their daily sufferings, had well nigh been utterly destroyed, have been restored through my agency to a far happier state. This God I confess that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in the height of his glory.
Chapter X.—The Writer denounces Idols, and glorifies God.
“This God I invoke with bended knees, and recoil with
horror from the blood of sacrifices, from their foul and detestable
odors, and from every earth-born magic fire: [Referring to the luminous appearances produced by the Pagan
priests in the celebration of their
mysteries.—Bag.]
Chapter XI.—Against the Tyrants and Persecutors; and on the Captivity of Valerian.
“I
cannot, then, my brother believe that I err in acknowledging
this one God, the author and parent of all things: whom many of my
predecessors in power, led astray by the madness of error, have
ventured to deny, but who were all visited with a retribution so
terrible and so destructive, that all succeeding generations have held
up their calamities as the most effectual warning to any who desire to
follow in their steps. Of the number of these I believe him [Valerian, who had been a persecutor of the Christians, and whose
expedition against the Persians had terminated in his own captivity,
and subjection to every kind of insult and cruelty from the
conquerors.—Bag.]
Chapter XII.—He declares that, having witnessed the Fall of the Persecutors, he now rejoices at the Peace enjoyed by the Christians.
“And it is surely a happy circumstance that the punishment of such persons as I have described should have been publicly manifested in our own times. For I myself have witnessed the end of those who lately harassed the worshipers of God by their impious edict. And for this abundant thanksgivings are due to God that through his excellent Providence all men who observe his holy laws are gladdened by the renewed enjoyment of peace. Hence I am fully persuaded that everything is in the best and safest posture, since God is vouchsafing, through the influence of their pure and faithful religious service, and their unity of judgment respecting his Divine character, to gather all men to himself.
Chapter XIII.—He bespeaks his Affectionate Interest for the Christians in his Country.
“Imagine, then, with what joy I heard tidings so accordant
with my desire, that the fairest districts of Persia are filled with
those men on whose behalf alone I am at present speaking, I
[The sense given above of this passage (which in the text is
corrupt), is founded on the reading restored by Valesius from
Theodoritus and Nicephorus.—Bag.] Stroth translates
(Hein.), “So I desire for you the greatest prosperity; and
for them, too, I wish that it may prosper as with
you.”
Chapter XIV.—How the Zealous Prayers of Constantine procured Peace to the Christians.
Thus, the nations of the world being everywhere guided in their course as it were by the skill of a single pilot, and acquiescing in the administration of him who governed as the servant of God, the peace of the Roman empire continued undisturbed, and all classes of his subjects enjoyed a life of tranquillity and repose. At the same time the emperor, who was convinced that the prayers of godly men contributed powerfully to the maintenance of the public welfare, felt himself constrained zealously to seek such prayers and not only himself implored the help and favor of God, but charged the prelates of the churches to offer supplications on his behalf.
Chapter XV.—He causes himself to be represented on his Coins, and in his Portraits, in the Attitude of Prayer.
How deeply his soul was impressed by the power of divine faith may be understood from the circumstance that he directed his likeness to be stamped on the golden coin of the empire with the eyes uplifted as in the posture of prayer to God: and this money became current throughout the Roman world. His portrait also at full length was placed over the entrance gates of the palaces in some cities, the eyes upraised to heaven, and the hands outspread as if in prayer.
Chapter XVI.—He forbids by Law the Placing his Likeness in Idol Temples.
In this manner he represented himself, even through the medium of painting, as habitually engaged in prayer to God. At the same time he forbade, by an express enactment, the setting up of any resemblance of himself in any idol temple, that not even the mere lineaments of his person might receive contamination from the error of forbidden superstition.
Chapter XVII.—Of his Prayers in the Palace, and his Reading the Holy Scriptures.
Still nobler proofs of his piety might be discerned by those who marked how he modeled as it were his very palace into a church of God, and himself afforded a pattern of zeal to those assembled therein: how he took the sacred scriptures into his hands, and devoted himself to the study of those divinely inspired oracles; after which he would offer up regular prayers with all the members of his imperial court.
Chapter XVIII.—He enjoins the General Observance of the Lord’s Day, and the Day of Preparation.
He ordained, too, that one day should be regarded as a special
occasion for prayer: I mean that which is truly the first and chief of
all, the day of our Lord and Saviour. The entire care of his household
was entrusted to deacons and other ministers consecrated to the service
of God, and distinguished by gravity of life and every other virtue:
while his trusty body guard, strong in affection and fidelity to his
person, found in their emperor an instructor in the practice of piety,
and like him held the Lord’s salutary day in honor and performed
on that day the devotions which he loved. The same observance was
recommended by this blessed prince to all classes of his subjects: his
earnest desire being gradually to lead all mankind to the worship of
God. Accordingly he enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman empire to
observe the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and also to honor the
day which precedes the Sabbath; in memory, I suppose, of what the
Saviour of mankind is recorded to have achieved on that day. [That is, Friday. The passage is not very intelligible. Does it
mean that Constantine ordered this day to be distinguished in some way
from others, as the day of the Lord’s
crucifixion?—Bag.] [The decree of Constantine for the general observance of Sunday
appears to have been issued a.d. 321, before
which time both “the old and new sabbath” were observed by
Christians. “Constantine (says
Gibbon, ch. 20, note 8) styles the Lord’s day Dies solis,
a name which could not offend the ears of his Pagan
subjects.”—Bag.] This has been urged as ground for
saying that Constantine did not commit himself to Christianity until
the end of life, but it only shows his tact and care in treating the
diverse elements of his empire.
Chapter XIX.—That he directed even his Pagan Soldiers to pray on the Lord’s Day.
With regard to those who were as yet ignorant of divine truth, he provided by a second statute that they should appear on each Lord’s day on an open plain near the city, and there, at a given signal, offer to God with one accord a prayer which they had previously learnt. He admonished them that their confidence should not rest in their spears, or armor, or bodily strength, but that they should acknowledge the supreme God as the giver of every good, and of victory itself; to whom they were bound to offer their prayers with due regularity, uplifting their hands toward heaven, and raising their mental vision higher still to the king of heaven, on whom they should call as the Author of victory, their Preserver, Guardian, and Helper. The emperor himself prescribed the prayer to be used by all his troops, commanding them, to pronounce the following words in the Latin tongue:
Chapter XX.—The Form of Prayer given by Constantine to his Soldiers.
“We acknowledge thee the only God: we own thee, as our King and implore thy succor. By thy favor have we gotten the victory: through thee are we mightier than our enemies. We render thanks for thy past benefits, and trust thee for future blessings. Together we pray to thee, and beseech thee long to preserve to us, safe and triumphant, our emperor Constantine and his pious sons.” Such was the duty to be performed on Sunday by his troops, and such the prayer they were instructed to offer up to God.
Chapter XXI.—He orders the Sign of the Saviour’s Cross to be engraven on his Soldiers’ Shields.
And not
only so, but he also caused the sign of the salutary trophy to be
impressed on the very shields of his soldiers; and commanded that his
embattled forces should be preceded in their march, not by golden
images, as heretofore, Compare for these, Yates, article Signa Militaria in Smith,
Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant., where there is given cut of the arch of
Constantine showing such standards.
Chapter XXII.—Of his Zeal in Prayer, and the Honor he paid to the Feast of Easter.
The emperor himself, as a sharer in the holy mysteries of our
religion, would seclude himself daily at a stated hour in the innermost
chambers of his palace; and there in solitary converse with his God,
would kneel in humble supplication, and entreat the blessings of which
he stood in need. But especially at the salutary feast of Easter, his
religious diligence was redoubled; he fulfilled as it were the duties
of a hierophant with every energy of his mind and body, and outvied all
others in the zealous celebration of this feast. He changed, too, the
holy night vigil into a brightness like that of day, by causing waxen
tapers of great length to be lighted throughout the city: besides
which, torches everywhere diffused their light, so as to impart to this
mystic vigil a brilliant splendor beyond that of day. Compare Venables, Easter, Ceremonies of, in Smith and
Cheetham, Dict., for account of the customs of the
day.
Chapter XXIII.—How he forbade Idolatrous Worship, but honored Martyrs and the Church Festivals.
Such were his sacred ministrations in the service of his God. At the
same time, his subjects, both civil and military, throughout the
empire, found a barrier everywhere opposed against idol worship, and
every kind of sacrifice forbidden. [This prohibition must be limited to private sacrifices. See Bk.
II., ch. 45, note.—Bag.] “Str. rightly translates ‘and honored the
festal days by public gatherings,’ while Val. [and
Bag.] falsely renders ‘duly honored the festival seasons
of the church.’”—Hein.
Hence it was not without reason that once, on the occasion of his
entertaining a company of bishops, he let fall the expression,
“that he himself too was a bishop,” addressing them in my
hearing in the following words: “You are bishops whose
jurisdiction is within the Church: I also am a bishop, ordained by God
to overlook whatever is external to the Church.” This saying of Constantine has occasioned a deal of exegesis and
conjecture. Compare monograph of Walch mentioned under
Literature in the Prolegomena for discussion and references to
other older literature.
Chapter XXV.—Prohibition of Sacrifices, of Mystic Rites, Combats of Gladiators, also the Licentious Worship of the Nile.
Consistently with this zeal he issued successive laws and ordinances,
forbidding any to offer sacrifice to idols, to consult diviners, to
erect images, or to pollute the cities with the sanguinary combats of
gladiators. The most accessible reference for getting a glimpse of the
legislation of Constantine in these and similar regards is the section,
The alteration in general and penal legislation in
Wordsworth’s Constantinus I., in Smith and Wace, Dict. 1
(1877). This section is on p. 636–7. Compare also the laws
themselves as gathered in Migne, Patrol. lat. vol. 8. Compare
also Prolegomena for general statement of the value of his legislation
and his reputation as legislator.
Chapter XXVI.—Amendment of the Law in Force respecting Childless Persons, and of the Law of Wills.
So numerous, indeed, were the benefits of this kind conferred by the
emperor on every province, as to afford ample materials to any who
might desire to record them. Among these may be instanced those laws
which he entirely remodelled, and established on a more equitable
basis: the nature of which reform may be briefly and easily explained.
The childless were punished under the old law with the forfeiture of
their hereditary property, a merciless statute, which dealt with them
as positive criminals. The emperor annulled this, and decreed that
those so circumstanced should inherit. He regulated the question on the
principles of equity and justice, arguing willful transgressors should
be chastised with the penalties their crimes deserve. But nature
herself denies children to many, who long, perhaps, for a numerous
offspring, but are disappointed of their hope by bodily infirmity.
Others continue childless, not from any dislike of posterity, but
because their ardent love of philosophy [The word “philosophy,” here and in the 28th chapter,
plainly indicates that virginity which was so highly honored in the
earlier ages of Christianity, and the undue exaltation of which was
productive, necessarily, of evils which it is scarcely possible to
estimate at their full extent.—Bag.] On the growing
prevalence of the practice of virginity compare Hatch, Virgins,
in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. But this note belongs rather to the
paragraph below; for the author does not refer to Christian virginity
but primarily to philosophical celibacy in this instance. The
Neo-Platonic philosophy of the times, through its doctrine of the
purification of the soul by its liberation from the body or sensuous
things, taught celibacy and ascetic practices generally. So Plotinus
(d. 270 a.d.) practiced and taught to a
degree, and Porphyry (d. 301+) more explicitly. Compare rich literature
on Neo-Platonism, and conveniently Zeller, Outlines of Gr.
Philos. Lond., 1886, p. 326–43, passim.
Chapter XXVII.—Among Other Enactments, he decrees that no Christian shall slave to a Jew, and affirms the Validity of the Decisions of Councils.
He also passed a law to the effect that no Christian should remain in servitude to a Jewish master, on the ground that it could not be right that those whom the Saviour had ransomed should be subjected to the yoke of slavery by a people who had slain the prophets and the Lord himself. If any were found hereafter in these circumstances, the slave was to be set at liberty, and the master punished by a fine.
He likewise added the sanction of his authority to the decisions of bishops passed at their synods, and forbade the provincial governors to annul any of their decrees: for he rated the priests of God at a higher value than any judge whatever. These and a thousand similar provisions did he enact for the benefit of his subjects; but there is not time now to give a special description of them, such as might convey an accurate idea of his imperial wisdom in these respects: nor need I now relate at length, how, as a devoted servant of the Supreme God, he employed himself from morning until night in seeking objects for his beneficence, and how equally and universally kind he was to all.
Chapter XXVIII.—His Gifts to the Churches, and Bounties to Virgins and to the Poor.
His liberality, however, was most especially exercised on behalf of the churches of God. In some cases he granted lands, in others he issued supplies of food for the support of the poor, of orphan children, and widows; besides which, he evinced much care and forethought in fully providing the naked and destitute with clothing. He distinguished, however, with most special honor those who had devoted their lives to the practice of Divine philosophy. Hence his respect, little short of veneration, for God’s most holy and ever virgin choir: for he felt assured that the God to whom such persons devoted themselves was himself an inmate of their souls.
Chapter
XXIX.—Of Constantine’s
Discourses and Declamations. Compare Prolegomena, under Character and
Writings.
For himself, he sometimes passed sleepless nights in furnishing his
mind with Divine knowledge: and much of his time was spent in composing
discourses, many of which he delivered in public; for he conceived it
to be incumbent on him to govern his subjects by appealing to their
reason, and to secure in all respects a rational obedience to his
authority. Hence he would sometimes himself evoke an assembly, on which
occasions vast multitudes attended, in the hope of hearing an emperor
sustain the part of a philosopher. And if in the course of his speech
any occasion offered of touching on sacred topics, he immediately stood
erect, and with a grave aspect and subdued tone of voice seemed
reverently to be initiating his auditors in the mysteries of the Divine
doctrine: and when they greeted him with shouts of acclamation, he
would direct them by his gestures to raise their eyes to heaven, and
reserve their admiration for the Supreme King alone, and honor him with
adoration and praise. He usually divided the subjects of his address,
first thoroughly exposing the error of polytheism, and proving the
superstition of the Gentiles to be mere fraud, and a cloak for impiety.
He then would assert the sole sovereignty of God: passing thence to his
Providence, both general and particular. Proceeding next to the
dispensation of salvation, he would demonstrate its necessity, and
adaptation to the nature of the case; entering next in order on the
doctrine of the Divine judgment. Compare Prolegomena, and the Oration appended to this
work.
Chapter XXX.—That he marked out before a Covetous Man the Measure of a Grave, and so put him to Shame.
On one
occasion he thus personally addressed one of his courtiers: “How
far, my friend, are we to carry our inordinate desires?” Then
drawing the dimensions of a human figure with a lance which he happened
to have in his hand, he continued: “Though thou couldst obtain
the whole wealth of this world, yea, the whole world itself, thou wilt
carry with thee at last no more than this little spot which I have
marked out, if indeed even that be thine.” [Since it is uncertain whether thou wilt be buried in the ground,
or consumed by fire, or drowned in the sea, or devoured by wild beasts
(Valesius in loc.).—Bag.]
Chapter
XXXI.—That he was derided because of
his Excessive Clemency. Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
Meantime, since there was no fear of capital punishment to deter from the commission of crime, for the emperor himself was uniformly inclined to clemency, and none of the provincial governors visited offenses with their proper penalties, this state of things drew with it no small degree of blame on the general administration of the empire; whether justly or not, let every one form his own judgment: for myself, I only ask permission to record the fact.
Chapter XXXII.—Of
Constantine’s Oration which he wrote to the Assembly of the
Saints. Compare the Oration itself following this work.
The emperor was in the habit of composing his orations in the Latin tongue, from which they were translated into Greek by interpreters appointed for this special service. One of the discourses thus translated I intend to annex, by way of specimen, to this present work, that one, I mean, which he inscribed “To the assembly of the saints,” and dedicated to the Church of God, that no one may have ground for deeming my testimony on this head mere empty praise.
Chapter XXXIII.—How he listened standing to Eusebius’ Declamation in Honor of our Saviour’s Sepulchre.
One act, however, I must by no means omit to record, which this admirable prince performed in my own presence. On one occasion, emboldened by the confident assurance I entertained of his piety, I had begged permission to pronounce a discourse on the subject of our Saviour’s sepulchre in his hearing. With this request he most readily complied, and in the midst of a large number of auditors, in the interior of the palace itself, he stood and listened with the rest. I entreated him, but in vain, to seat himself on the imperial throne which stood near: he continued with fixed attention to weigh the topics of my discourse, and gave his own testimony to the truth of the theological doctrines it contained. After some time had passed, the oration being of considerable length, I was myself desirous of concluding; but this he would not permit, and exhorted me to proceed to the very end. On my again entreating him to sit, he in his turn was displeased and said that it was not right to listen in a careless manner to the discussion of doctrines relating to God; and again, that this posture was good and profitable to himself, since it was reverent to stand while listening to sacred truths. Having, therefore, concluded my discourse, I returned home, and resumed my usual occupations.
Chapter XXXIV.—That he wrote to Eusebius respecting Easter, and respecting Copies of the Holy Scriptures.
Ever careful for the welfare of the churches of God, the emperor addressed me personally in a letter on the means of providing copies of the inspired oracles, and also on the subject of the most holy feast of Easter. For I had myself dedicated to him an exposition of the mystical import of that feast; and the manner in which he honored me with a reply may be understood by any one who reads the following letter.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius.
“It is indeed an arduous
task, and beyond the power of language itself, worthily to treat of the
mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a fitting manner the controversy
respecting the feast of Easter, its origin as well as its precious and
toilsome accomplishment. [i.e. through the sufferings and resurrection of
Christ.—Bag.]
Chapter XXXVI.—Constantine’s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius.
“It happens, through the
favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united
themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my
name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly
advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of
churches should also be increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all
readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient
to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred
Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful
for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment
in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by
professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. Molz.in a note regards these as
lectionaries, but they are usually thought to have been regular copies
of the Scriptures in Greek—Septuagint and N.T., and the Codex
Sinaiticus has been thought to be one of them. It dates from not
earlier than the time of Eusebius, as it contains the Eusebian Canons,
but yet from the fourth century. Altogether it is not impossible that
it was one of these, and at all events a description of it, extracted
from Scriveners (Introduction, 1883, p. 88 sq.), will be a fair
illustration. “13½ inches in length by 14-7/8 inches
high.” “Beautiful vellum.” “Each page comprises
four columns, with 48 lines in each column.” “Continuous
noble uncials.” “Arranged in quires of four or three
sheets.” It is evident from comparison of several quotations of
Eusebius that the copy of the New Testament which he himself used was
not closely related with the Sinaitic text, unless the various readings
headed by this ms. are all mistakes
originating with it. Compare allusions in the notes to such different
readings. The last clause, although in the text of Heinichen, is of
doubtful authority. This word is a transcription, rendered “Procurator” by
Bag., and is perhaps corresponding to that official (cf. Long.
article Fiscus, in Smith, Dict. Gr. and R. Ant.). But
this transcription is recognized (cf. Ffoulkes, Catholicus, in
Smith and Cheetham, Dict.). The fact that the Sinaiticus exhibits two or three hands suggests
that it was prepared with rapidity, and the having various scribes was
a way to speed.
Chapter XXXVII.—How the Copies were provided.
Such were the emperor’s commands, which were followed by the
immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in
magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold
form. [The parchment copies were usually arranged in quaternions, i.e.
four leaves made up together, as the ternions consisted of three
leaves. The quaternions each contained sixteen pages, the ternions
twelve (Valesius in loc.).—Bag.] So probably, although the
three-columned form of the Sinaiticus and the four of the Vaticanus
suggest a possible other meaning.
For in fact the place now called Constantia, in the province of Palestine, having embraced the saving religion, was distinguished both by the favor of God, and by special honor from the emperor, being now for the first time raised to the rank of a city, and receiving the more honored name of his pious sister in exchange for its former appellation.
Chapter XXXIX.—That a Place in Phœnicia also was made a City, and in Other Cities Idolatry was abolished, and Churches built.
A similar change was effected in several other cities; for instance, in that town of Phœnicia which received its name from that of the emperor, and the inhabitants of which committed their innumerable idols to the flames, and adopted in their stead the principles of the saving faith. Numbers, too, in the other provinces, both in the cities and the country, became willing inquirers after the saving knowledge of God; destroyed as worthless things the images of every kind which they had heretofore held most sacred; voluntarily demolished the lofty temples and shrines which contained them; and, renouncing their former sentiments, or rather errors, commenced and completed entirely new churches. But since it is not so much my province to give a circumstantial detail of the actions of this pious prince, as it is theirs who have been privileged to enjoy his society at all times, I shall content myself with briefly recording such facts as have come to my own personal knowledge, before I proceed to notice the last days of his life.
Chapter XL.—That having conferred the Dignity of Cæsars on his Three Sons at the Three Decennial Periods of his Reign, he dedicated the Church at Jerusalem.
By this
time the thirtieth year of his reign was completed. In the course of
this period, his three sons had been admitted at different times as his
colleagues in the empire. The first, Constantinus, who bore his
father’s name, obtained this distinction about the tenth year of
his reign. Constantius, the second son, so called from his grandfather,
was proclaimed Cæsar about the twentieth, while Constans, the
third, whose name expresses the firmness and stability of his
character, was advanced to the same dignity at the thirtieth
anniversary of his father’s reign. These are general dates; “about” the tenth, etc.,
would have been more exact. Compare Prolegomena, under
Life. [Γρι€δος
λόγῳ. Well may the old
English Translator remark on this, “An odd expression.” We
may go further, and denounce it as an instance of the senseless and
profane adulation to which our author, perhaps in the spirit of his
age, seems to have been but too much
inclined.—Bag.]
Chapter XLI.—That in the meantime he ordered a Council to be convened at Tyre, because of Controversies raised in Egypt.
Meanwhile that spirit of envy which is the enemy of all good, like a dark cloud intercepting the sun’s brightest rays, endeavored to mar the joy of this festivity, by again raising contentions to disturb the tranquillity of the Egyptian churches. Our divinely favored emperor, however, once more convened a synod composed of many bishops, and set them as it were in armed array, like the host of God, against this malignant spirit, having commanded their presence from the whole of Egypt and Libya, from Asia, and from Europe, in order, first, to decide the questions in dispute, and afterwards to perform the dedication of the sacred edifice above mentioned. He enjoined them, by the way, to adjust their differences at the capital city of Phœnicia, reminding them that they had no right, while harboring feelings of mutual animosity, to engage in the service of God, since his law expressly forbids those who are at variance to offer their gift until they have first become reconciled and mutually disposed to peace. Such were the salutary precepts which the emperor continually kept vividly before his own mind, and in accordance with which he admonished them to undertake their present duties in a spirit of perfect unanimity and concord, in a letter to the following purport.
Chapter XLII.—Constantine’s Letter to the Council at Tyre.
“Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the holy Council at Tyre.
Compare on the Synod of Tyre (held 335 a.d.), Hefele, Hist. of Councils, 2 (1876),
17–26.
Chapter XLIII.—Bishops from all the Provinces attended the Dedication of the Church at Jerusalem.
No sooner had these injunctions been carried into effect, than
another emissary arrived with despatches from the emperor, and an
urgent admonition to the Council to hasten their journey to Jerusalem
without delay. Compare Hefele, 2. 26–7. [Alexander, bishop of Thessalonica. By the Pannonian and
Mœsian bishops are meant Ursacius and Valens, leaders of the Arian
party; by the Bithynian and Thracian, Theogonius of Nicæa, and
Theodorus of Perinthus (Valesius).—Bag.] “The emperor showed himself very attentive to
them.”—Molz.
Chapter XLIV.—Of their Reception by the Notary Marianus; the Distribution of Money to the Poor; and Offerings to the Church.
The director and chief of these officers was a most useful servant of
the emperor, a man eminent for faith and piety, and thoroughly
acquainted with the Divine word, who had been honorably conspicuous by
his profession of godliness during the time of the tyrants’
power, and therefore was deservedly entrusted with the arrangement of
the present proceedings. Accordingly, in faithful obedience to the
emperor’s commands, he received the assembly with courteous
hospitality, and entertained them with
Chapter XLV.—Various Discourses by the Assembled Bishops; also by Eusebius, the Writer of this History.
Meantime the festival derived additional luster both from the prayers and
discourses of the ministers of God, some of whom extolled the pious
emperor’s willing devotion to the Saviour of mankind, and dilated
on the magnificence of the edifice which he had raised to his memory.
Others afforded, as it were, an intellectual feast to the ears of all
present, by public disquisitions on the sacred doctrines of our
religion. Others interpreted passages of holy Scripture, and unfolded
their hidden meaning; while such as were unequal to these efforts
presented a bloodless sacrifice and mystical service to God in the
prayers which they offered for general peace, for the Church of God,
for the emperor himself as the instrumental cause of so many blessings,
and for his pious sons. I myself too, unworthy as I was of such a
privilege, pronounced various public orations in honor of this
solemnity, wherein I partly explained by a written description the
details of the imperial edifice, and partly endeavored to gather from
the prophetic visions apt illustrations of the symbols it displayed. [Eusebius gives us no example of his application of Scripture in
this case. His commentator Valesius refers to
Chapter XLVI.—That Eusebius afterwards delivered his Description of the Church of the Saviour, and a Tricennial Oration before Constantine himself.
The structure of the church of our Saviour, the form of his sacred
cave, the splendor of the work itself, and the numberless offerings in
gold, and silver, and precious stones, I have described to the best of
my ability, and dedicated to the emperor in a separate treatise, which
on a fitting opportunity I shall append to this present work. I shall
add to it also that oration on his Tricennalia which shortly
afterwards, having traveled to the city which bears his name, I
delivered in the emperor’s own presence. The Oration is appended to this work.
Chapter XLVII.—That the Council at Nicæa was held in the Twentieth, the Dedication of the Church at Jerusalem in the Thirtieth, Year of Constantine’s Reign.
This second synod the emperor convened at Jerusalem, being the greatest
of which we have any knowledge, next to the first which he had summoned
at the famous Bithynian city. That indeed was a triumphal assembly,
held in the twentieth year of his reign, an occasion of thanksgiving
for victory over his enemies in the very city which bears the name of
victory. Nicæa.
Chapter XLVIII.—That Constantine was displeased with one who praised him excessively.
And now
that all these ceremonies were completed, and the divine qualities of
the emperor’s character continued to be the theme of universal
praise, one of God’s ministers presumed so far as in his own
presence to pronounce him blessed, as having been counted worthy to
hold absolute and universal empire in this life, and as being destined
to share the empire of the Son of God in the world to come. These
words, however, Constantine heard with indignation, and forbade the
speaker to hold such language, exhorting him rather to pray earnestly
on his behalf, that whether in this life or in that which is to come,
he might be found worthy to be a servant of God. Yet Eusebius himself in his Oration uses language almost as
obnoxious, and records that Constantine was much pleased with it. The
difference was probably one of gracefulness.
On the
completion of the thirtieth year of his reign he solemnized the
marriage of his second son, His second son by Fausta. Crispus seems now to be counted out.
This was not the famous Eusebia who was his second wife.
Chapter L.—Embassy and Presents from the Indians.
About this time ambassadors from the Indians, who inhabit the distant regions of the East, arrived with presents consisting of many varieties of brilliant precious stones, and animals differing in species from those known to us. These offerings they presented to the emperor, thus allowing that his sovereignty extended even to the Indian Ocean, and that the princes of their country, who rendered homage to him both by paintings and statues, acknowledged his imperial and paramount authority. Thus the Eastern Indians now submitted to his sway, as the Britons of the Western Ocean had done at the commencement of his reign.
Chapter LI.—That Constantine divided the Empire between his Three Sons, whom he had instructed in Politics and Religion.
Having thus established his power in the opposite extremities of the
world, he divided the whole extent of his dominions, as though he were
allotting a patrimonial inheritance to the dearest objects of his
regard, among his three sons. To the eldest he assigned his
grandfather’s portion; to the second, the empire of the East; to
the third, the countries which lie between these two divisions. [“The younger Constantine was appointed to hold his court in
Gaul; and his brother Constantius exchanged that department, the
ancient patrimony of their father, for the more opulent, but less
martial, countries of the East. Italy, the Western Illyricum, and
Africa, were accustomed to revere Constans, the third of his sons, as
the representative of the great Constantine” (Gibbon, Decline
and Fall, ch. 18).—Bag.] Compare Prolegomena, under
Life. Centurions, generals, tribunes.
Chapter LII.—That after they had reached Man’s Estate he was their Guide in Piety.
As long
as the Cæsars were of tender years, they were aided by suitable
advisers in the management of public affairs; but on their arrival at
the age of manhood their father’s instructions alone sufficed.
When present he proposed to them his own example, and admonished them
to follow his pious course: in their absence he furnished them by
letter with rules of conduct suited to their imperial station, the
first and greatest of which was an exhortation to value the knowledge
and worship of the Sovereign Lord of all more than wealth, nay, more
than empire itself. At length he permitted them to direct the public
administration of the empire without control, making it his first
request that they would care for the interests of the Church of God,
and boldly profess themselves disciples of Christ. Thus trained, and
excited to obedience not so much by precept as by their own voluntary
desire for virtue, his sons more than fulfilled the admonitions of
their father, devoting their earnest attention to the service of God,
and observing the ordinances of the Church even in the palace itself,
with all the members of their households. The expression is over strong. Constantius, e.g., was not baptized
until just before his death.
Chapter LIII.—Having reigned about Thirty-Two Years, and lived above Sixty, he still had a Sound Body.
He completed the time of his reign in two and thirty years, wanting a
few months and days, [In his Chronicon, Eusebius gives the more correct period
of thirty years and ten months. Constantine’s reign began a.d. 306, and his death took place a.d. 337.—Bag.] Compare Prolegomena, also
Clinton, Fasti Rom. an. 337. Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
Chapter LIV.—Of those who abused His Extreme Benevolence for Avarice and Hypocrisy.
In like
manner his mental “Psychical qualities”—including more than
intellectual. Compare Prolegomena, Character. There is a striking touch
of naturalness in this passage which tells for the historical
trustworthiness of the biographer, and though exposing the fault of the
emperor yet gives a rather pleasing glimpse of his
character.
Chapter LV.—Constantine employed himself in Composition of Various Kinds to the Close of his Life.
These offenders, however, were soon over-taken by divine chastisement.
To return to our emperor. He had so thoroughly trained his mind in the
art of reasoning that he continued to the last to compose discourses on
various subjects, to deliver frequent orations in public, and to
instruct his hearers in the sacred doctrines of religion. He was also
habitually engaged in legislating both on political and military
questions; Compare remarks in Prolegomena, under Writings and
Character.
Chapter LVI.—How he took Bishops with him on an Expedition against the Persians, and took with him a Tent in the Form of a Church.
It is
also worthy of record that about the time of which I am at present
writing, the emperor, having heard of an insurrection of some
barbarians in the East, observed that the conquest of this enemy was
still in store for him, and resolved on an expedition against the
Persians. Accordingly he proceeded at once to put his forces in motion,
at the same time communicating his intended march to the bishops who
happened to be at his court, some of whom he judged it right to take
with him as compan From this point to the end of the first sentence in ch. 58 is
bracketed by Heinichen.
Chapter LVII.—How he received an Embassy from the Persians and kept the Night Vigil with others at the Feast of Easter.
In the meanwhile the Persians, hearing of the emperor’s warlike preparations, and not a little terrified at the prospect of an engagement with his forces, dispatched an embassy to pray for conditions of peace. These overtures the emperor, himself a sincere lover of peace, at once accepted, and readily entered on friendly relations with that people. At this time, the great festival of Easter was at hand; on which occasion he rendered the tribute of his prayers to God, and passed the night in watching with the rest.
Chapter LVIII.—Concerning the Building of a Church in Honor of the Apostles at Constantinople.
After this he proceeded to erect a church in memory of the apostles, in the city which bears his name. This building he carried to a vast height, and brilliantly decorated by encasing it from the foundation to the roof with marble slabs of various colors. He also formed the inner roof of finely fretted work, and overlaid it throughout with gold. The external covering, which protected the building from the rain, was of brass instead of tiles; and this too was splendidly and profusely adorned with gold, and reflected the sun’s rays with a brilliancy which dazzled the distant beholder. The dome was entirely encompassed by a finely carved tracery, wrought in brass and gold.
Chapter LIX.—Farther Description of the same Church.
Such was the magnificence with which the emperor was pleased to beautify this church. The building was surrounded by an open area of great extent, the four sides of which were terminated by porticos which enclosed the area and the church itself. Adjoining these porticos were ranges of stately chambers, with baths and promenades, and besides many apartments adapted to the use of those who had charge of the place.
Chapter LX.—He also erected his own Sepulchral Monument in this Church.
All these edifices the emperor consecrated with the desire of perpetuating the memory of the apostles of our Saviour. He had, however, another object in erecting this building: an object at first unknown, but which afterwards became evident to all. He had in fact made choice of this spot in the prospect of his own death, anticipating with extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves, and that he should thus even after death become the subject, with them, of the devotions which should be performed to their honor in this place. He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, like sacred pillars in honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the center of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it. Thus, as I said, he had provided with prudent foresight an honorable resting-place for his body after death, and, having long before secretly formed this resolution, he now consecrated this church to the apostles, believing that this tribute to their memory would be of no small advantage to his own soul. Nor did God disappoint him of that which he so ardently expected and desired. For after he had completed the first services of the feast of Easter, and had passed this sacred day of our Lord in a manner which made it an occasion of joy and gladness to himself and to all; the God through whose aid he performed all these acts, and whose zealous servant he continued to be even to the end of life, was pleased at a happy time to translate him to a better life.
Chapter LXI.—His Sickness at Helenopolis, and Prayers respecting his Baptism.
At first he experienced some slight bodily indisposition, which was
soon followed by positive disease. In consequence of this he visited
the hot baths of his own city; and thence proceeded to that which bore
the name of his mother. Here he passed some time in the church of
the Literally “salutary word of cleansing,” but the
paraphrase of Bag. will stand well whichever of the readings,
“salutary cleansing,” or “salutary word of
cleansing,” is adopted. [These words seem to prove that the emperor now first became a
catechumen. His postponement of baptism until his last illness (after
having stood forward so long as the public advocate and protector of
the Christian religion), and the superstitious reliance which he was
encouraged to place on the late performance of this
“mysterious” rite, afford an evidence of the melancholy
obscuration of Christian truth at the very time when Christianity was
ostensibly becoming the religion of the Roman Empire. There is probably
too much truth in the following remarks of Gibbon: “The pride of
Constantine, who refused the privileges of a catechumen, cannot easily
be explained or excused: but the delay of his baptism maybe justified
by the maxims and practice of ecclesiastical antiquity. The sacrament
of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of
sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and
entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of
Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a
salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an
inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered,” &c.
(Decline and Fall, ch. 20).—Bag.] On the forms of
admission to the catechumenate, compare Marriott, Baptism, in
Smith and Cheetham, Dict.
Chapter LXII.—Constantine’s Appeal to the Bishops, requesting them to confer upon him the Rite of Baptism.
“The time is arrived which I have long hoped for, with an
earnest desire and prayer that I might obtain the salvation of God. The
hour is come in which I too may have the blessing of that seal which
confers immortality; the hour in which I may receive the seal of
salvation. I had thought to do this in the waters of the river Jordan,
wherein our Saviour, for our example, is recorded to have been
baptized: but God, who knows what is expedient for us, is pleased that
I should receive this blessing here. Be it so, then, without delay: Or “no hesitation.” On this clause a deal of
controversy has hinged. “No hesitation shall longer
prevail” is the rendering of Molz., and Keim (Uebertritt
C. p. 1) similarly gives “let all duplicity be banished.”
In the view of this translation, Constantine had been hedging all his
life, trying to be Christian to Christians and heathen to heathen. The
basis of the hypothesis is too slight for it to have any weight in view
of the overwhelming documentary evidence of the frequent public
professions of Christianity by Constantine, for which see Prolegomena,
under Character. Discussion of various points relating to his
baptism will be found under Literature, under the names
Busæus, Castelli, Dalhus, Frimelius Fuhrmann, Guidi, Halloix,
Hynitzsch, Jacobus of Sarug, Nicolai, Polus, Schelstrate, Scultetus,
Tentzel, Walther, Withof. [It was customary for neophytes to wear white garments, which they
laid aside on the eighth day from their
baptism.—Bag.]
Chapter LXIII.—How after his Baptism he rendered Thanks to God.
He then
lifted his voice and poured forth a strain of thanksgiving to God;
after which he added these words. “Now I know that I am truly
blessed: now I feel assured that I am accounted worthy of immortality,
and am made a partaker of Divine light.” He further expressed his
compassion for the unhappy condition of those who were strangers to
such blessings as he enjoyed: and when the tribunes and generals of his
army appeared in his presence with lamentations and tears at the
prospect of their bereavement, and with prayers that his days might yet
be prolonged, he assured them in reply that he was now in possession of
true life; that none but himself could know the value of the blessings
he had received; so that he was anxious rather to hasten than to defer
his departure to God. He then proceeded to complete the needful
arrangement of his affairs, bequeathing an annual donation to the Roman
inhabitants of his imperial city; apportioning the inheritance of the
empire, like a patrimonial estate, among his own children; in short,
making every disposition according to his own pleasure. The idea of ownership in empire which seems so strange in these
days of republics, and is disallowed even by theoretical monarchists,
seems to have been a most matter-of-course one in the mind of
Constantine, and Eusebius was a true imperialist regarding
“tyranies” and “republics” as in the same
category. Whether it was by “divine right” or
“natural right” they were quite sure it was a
“right,” and one to be freely exercised.
All these events occurred during a most important festival, I mean the
august and holy solemnity of Pentecost, which is distinguished by a
period of seven weeks, and sealed with that one day on which the holy
Scriptures attest, the ascension of our common Saviour into heaven, and
the descent of the Holy Spirit among men. In the course of this feast
the emperor received the privileges I have described; and on the last
day of all, which one might justly call the feast of feasts, he was
removed about mid-day to the presence of his God, leaving his mortal
remains to his fellow mortals, and carrying into fellowship with God
that part of his being which was capable of understanding and loving
him. Compare Prolegomena, Life, Last Years; also for age at time
of death, Prolegomena, p. 411, note.
Chapter LXV.—Lamentations of the Soldiery and their Officers.
Immediately the assembled spearmen and body-guard rent their garments, and prostrated themselves on the ground, striking their heads, and uttering lamentations and cries of sorrow, calling on their imperial lord and master, or rather, like true children, on their father, while their tribunes and centurions addressed him as their preserver, protector, and benefactor. The rest of the soldiery also came in respectful order to mourn as a flock the removal of their good shepherd. The people meanwhile ran wildly throughout the city, some expressing the inward sorrow of their hearts by loud cries, others appearing confounded with grief: each mourning the event as a calamity which had befallen himself, and bewailing his death as though they felt themselves bereft of a blessing common alike to all.
Chapter LXVI.—Removal of the Body from Nicomedia to the Palace at Constantinople.
After this the soldiers lifted the body from its couch, and laid it in a golden coffin, which they enveloped in a covering of purple, and removed to the city which was called by his own name. Here it was placed in an elevated position in the principal chamber of the imperial palace, and surrounded by candles burning in candlesticks of gold, presenting a marvelous spectacle, and such as no one under the light of the sun had ever seen on earth since the world itself began. For in the central apartment of the imperial palace, the body of the emperor lay in its elevated resting-place, arrayed in the symbols of sovereignty, the diadem and purple robe, and encircled by a numerous retinue of attendants, who watched around it incessantly night and day.
Chapter LXVII.—He received the same Honors from the Counts and other Officers as before his Death.
The military officers, too, of the highest rank, the counts, and the whole order of magistrates, who had been accustomed to do obeisance to their emperor before, continued to fulfill this duty without any change, even after his death entering the chamber at the appointed times, and saluting their coffined sovereign with bended knee, as though he were still alive. After them the senators appeared, and all who had been distinguished by any honorable office, and rendered the same homage. These were followed by multitudes of every rank, who came with their wives and children to witness the spectacle. These honors continued to be rendered for a considerable time, the soldiers having resolved thus to guard the body until his sons should arrive, and take on themselves the conduct of their father’s funeral. No mortal had ever, like this blessed prince, continued to reign even after death, and to receive the same homage as during his life: he only, of all who have ever lived, obtained this reward from God: a suitable reward, since he alone of all sovereigns had in all his actions honored the Supreme God and his Christ, and God himself accordingly was pleased that even his mortal remains should still retain imperial authority among men; thus indicating to all who were not utterly devoid of understanding the immortal and endless empire which his soul was destined to enjoy. This was the course of events here.
Chapter LXVIII.—Resolution of the Army to confer thence-forward the Title of Augustus on his Sons.
Meanwhile the tribunes selected from the troops under their command those
officers whose fidelity and zeal had long been known to the emperor,
and dispatched them to the Cæsars
Chapter LXIX.—Mourning for Constantine at Rome; and the Honor paid him there through Paintings after his Death.
On the arrival of the news of the emperor’s death in the imperial city, the Roman senate and people felt the announcement as the heaviest and most afflictive of all calamities, and gave themselves up to an excess of grief. The baths and markets were closed, the public spectacles, and all other recreations in which men of leisure are accustomed to indulge, were interrupted. Those who had erewhile lived in luxurious ease, now walked the streets in gloomy sadness, while all united in blessing the name of the deceased, as the one who was dear to God, and truly worthy of the imperial dignity. Nor was their sorrow expressed only in words: they proceeded also to honor him, by the dedication of paintings to his memory, with the same respect as before his death. The design of these pictures embodied a representation of heaven itself, and depicted the emperor reposing in an ethereal mansion above the celestial vault. They too declared his sons alone to be emperors and Augusti, and begged with earnest entreaty that they might be permitted to receive the body of their emperor, and perform his obsequies in the imperial city.
Chapter LXX.—His Burial by his Son Constantius at Constantinople.
Thus did they there testify their respect for the memory of him who had been honored by God. The second of his sons, however, who had by this time arrived, proceeded to celebrate his father’s funeral in the city which bears his name, himself heading the procession, which was preceded by detachments of soldiers in military array, and followed by vast multitudes, the body itself being surrounded by companies of spearmen and heavy armed infantry. On the arrival of the procession at the church dedicated to the apostles of our Saviour, the coffin was there entombed. Such honor did the youthful emperor Constantius render to his deceased parent, both by his presence, and by the due performance of this sacred ceremony.
Chapter LXXI.—Sacred Service in the Church of the Apostles on the Occasion of Constantine’s Funeral.
As soon
as [Constantius] had withdrawn himself with the military train, the
ministers of God came forward, with the multitude and the whole
congregation of the faithful, and performed the rites of Divine worship
with prayer. At the same time the tribute of their praises was given to
the character of this blessed prince, whose body rested on a lofty and
conspicuous monument, and the whole multitude united with the priests
of God in offering prayers for his soul, not without tears,—nay,
rather with much weeping; thus performing an office consonant with the
desires of the pious deceased. [Alluding to his desire of being buried in the church of the
apostles, and sharing their honors, as noticed in ch.
60.—Bag.] [It appears that an interregnum of about three months took place,
during which all the laws and edicts continued to be issued in the name
of Constantine, as before his death.—Bag.]
Chapter LXXII.—Of the Phœnix.
We cannot compare him with that bird of Egypt, the only one, as they
say, of its kind, which dies,
Chapter LXXIII.—How Constantine is represented on Coins in the Act of ascending to Heaven.
A coinage was also struck which bore the following device. On one side appeared the figure of our blessed prince, with the head closely veiled: the reverse exhibited him sitting as a charioteer, drawn by four horses, with a hand stretched downward from above to receive him up to heaven.
Chapter LXXIV.—The God whom he had honored deservedly honored him in Return.
Such are the proofs by which the Supreme God has made it manifest to us, in the person of Constantine, who alone of all sovereigns had openly professed the Christian faith, how great a difference he perceives between those whose privilege it is to worship him and his Christ, and those who have chosen the contrary part, who provoked his enmity by daring to assail his Church, and whose calamitous end, in every instance, afforded tokens of his displeasure, as manifestly as the death of Constantine conveyed to all men an evident assurance of his Divine love.
Chapter LXXV.—He surpassed all Preceding Emperors in Devotion to God.
Standing, as he did, alone and pre-eminent among the Roman emperors as a
worshiper of God; alone as the bold proclaimer to all men of the
doctrine of Christ; having alone rendered honor, as none before him had
ever done, to his Church; having alone abolished utterly the error of
polytheism, and discountenanced idolatry in every form: so, alone among
them both during life and after death, was he accounted worthy of such
honors as none can say have been attained to by any other; so that no
one, whether Greek or Barbarian, nay, of the ancient Romans themselves,
has ever been presented to us as worthy of comparison with him. The sharp sarcasms of Julian’s Cæsars seem
almost to have taken their text from this challenge. He marshals the
great emperors before the gods, where each presents his claim to
greatness. Constantine is greatly ridiculed, and yet to choose between
Julian and Eusebius, if regard is had to Constantine’s real
effect on world history, Eusebius is the truer judge, and is at least
not so far wrong that his superlative enthusiasm for his imperial
friend cannot be readily pardoned.
The Oration
of
the emperor constantine,
which he addressed
“to the assembly of the saints.”
————————————
Chapter I.—Preliminary Remarks on the Feast of Easter: and how the Word of God, having conferred Manifold Benefits on Mankind, was betrayed by his Beneficiaries.
That light which far outshines the day and sun, first pledge of
resurrection, and renovation of bodies long since dissolved, Or “once suffering.” ἕρμαιου,
“gift of Hermes”; i.e. providential good-fortune. Valesius
wrongly conjectures ἕρμα,
“foundation” of promise. Valesius, followed by various translators, substitutes
“God” for “Nature.” But all ms. authority, and the context as well, is
against. 1709, Molz., Vales., Cous., render
“substitute in place thereof their own
superstition.”
Hear then, thou master [The bishop who is thus metaphorically addressed as the guide and
controller of the Church.—Bag.] Some mss. read πόμα,
“draught.” “I read αὐτῆ
φρ€σει…but
regarding φρ€σει as
derived not from the verb φρ€ζειν, but from the noun φρ€σις.”—Hein. “Ought not to shrink or to be neglectful.” Valesius, followed by 1709 and substantially by
Bag., omitting πρός, renders
“enter upon the head and principal matter of our design.”
Hein. retains πρός, and like
Molz. renders “proceed, as well as I may, to my
theme.” He means rather that having God’s help he will not
fear to “essay great things.”
Chapter III.—That God is the Father of the Word, and the Creator of all Things; and that Material Objects could not continue to exist, were their Causes Various.
God,
who is ever above all existence, and the good which all things desire,
has no origin, and therefore no beginning, being himself the
originator “Beginning.” Presiding “overseer,” “president,” or
“ruler.” It is the one who has charge of games or ships or
public works, &c. Cf. Molz.renders “und die
Organe, mit Hilfe derer das Wahrgenommene innerlich zur Idee erhoben
wird.” Chr.substantially “natural and
artificial”; Molz. “lifeless and live”;
perhaps “inorganic and organic” is meant. [Alluding to the fabulous division of the world between the
brothers Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. Valesius in
loc.—Bag.] Or rather Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. Zeus
had the heavens, Poseidon the sea, and Hades the underworld, while the
earth remained “with high Olympus, common to us
all”—a fruitful source of dissension. Cf. Homer, Il.
XV. 184–195, ed. Doederlein, 2 (1864), p. 64–65; tr.
Bryant, XV. ll. 227–245. A possible reading here is ἐξαιρετως, i.e. take as the chief object, &c.—Vales.
and Hein. Valesius remarks that many instances are recorded where the oracle
of Apollo replied to those who consulted him that Bacchus or Saturn
must be placated in order to their liberation.
Chapter IV.—On the Error of Idolatrous Worship.
Whatever has had a beginning, has also an end. Now that which is a
beginning in respect of time, is called a generation: and whatever is
by generation is subject to corruption, and its beauty “Form.” A favorite theme of the Christian apologists. Cf. long list given
in the Clementine Recognitions, X. 22.
Chapter V.—That Christ, the Son of God, created All Things, and has appointed to Every Thing the Term of its Existence.
But why
do I defile my tongue with unhallowed words, when my object is to sound
the praises of the true God? Rather let me cleanse myself, as it were,
from this bitter draught by the pure stream which flows from the
everlasting fountain of the virtue Or “perfections.” “To be referred not to the preceding ‘Christ’
but…the supreme God.”—Hein. (?). [Constantine seems to have supposed the Paradise of our first
parents to be somewhere apart from this earth. In this fanciful idea,
which is obviously indefensible from Scripture he is countenanced by
the opinions of Tertullian, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Valentinian, and Jerome, some of whom placed it in or above the third
heaven, others in the fourth, others again in a world superior to the
present, &c. See the note of Valesius, who quotes from some of
these Fathers. In reference to what follows, we may ask, Was
Constantine acquainted with, or does he avoid noticing, the
circumstances of the fall?—Bag.] Ans. Constantine
like many another to our own day seems to regard the “fall”
as a fall upwards—that complacent optimism which ignores
Scripture and Schopenhauer alike. Without the λόγος, i.e.
inarticulate or (as here) irrational.
Chapter VI.—The Falsity of the General Opinion respecting
Fate For a full discussion of various definitions and usage of the word
Fate (ἡ εἰριαρμένη) in Greek philosophy, compare Zeller, Stoics,
Epicureans, and Sceptics (Lond. 1880), p. 170–171,
notes.
The great majority, however, in their folly, ascribe the regulation of
the universe to nature, while some imagine fate, or accident, αὐτόματον. The usual word for chance or accident is τύχη.
These may be here, as is often the case, simple synonyms, but both
words are used in the same phrase later in such way as to suggest
that τύχη
is parallel with “fate” rather than
“chance” in the author’s mind. αὐτόματον
seems to be used of
“self-originating,” τύχη of originating
from some unknown cause or without any cause. The former is the modern,
self-energized, “lift-yourselves-by-your-own-boot-straps”
evolution. The latter is a form of agnosticism. Aristotle
(Metaph. 10. 8) defines chance (τύχη) as a
“cause by accident” (συμβέβηκος), or more literally “coincidence,” which is
substantially what Janet (Final Causes, 1878, p. 19) means by
defining chance as the coincidence of causes. At the end of the same
chapter Aristotle uses αὐτόματον
in contrast with τύχη—“τύχη or even
αὐτόματον,” which has been rendered (M’Mahon)
“chance or even spontaneity.” In modern phrase those who
hold these three various views of the universe might be characterized
as “material evolutionists,” “transcendental
idealists,” and “philosophical (or perhaps
‘agnostic’) evolutionists.” i.e. “plan.” δικαιοσύνη, better “righteousness,” “correctness of
thinking, feeling, and acting” (Thayer, Lex. p. 149). So
its opposite mentioned below (ἀδικία) is better
“unrighteousness,” as generally in the revised English
version of the N.T., “mammon of unrighteousness”
( σωφροσύνη, temperance, vs. ἀκολασία, intemperance, below; soundness of mind vs. insanity (cf.
use in τὶ
δίκαιον,
not δικαιοσύνη This is very free, and follows translation of Valesius and
1709 text. 1709 marg. translates more literally,
“But either crimes, or, on the other hand, brave performances,
which are [the property] of a good and right purpose of mind, if they
happen sometimes one way, at others another,” and Molz.
somewhat similarly. It is possible that it should read: “Granted
that either evil actions proceeding from a good and upright will, or
contrariwise, good actions [from an evil will] which issue directly
contrary [to their own nature or to just expectation] may be ascribed
to chance or fate, how can the right,” &c. δικαιοσύνη τύχη. αὐτόματον νόος was not
narrowed to the mere intellectual functions. “Intellectual”
is not to be taken of brain function only, but of brain and
heart,—real knowing, as against the “intellectuation”
which men nowadays try to force the word “know” to
mean. “Quire of the stars,” 1709. The
“λόγος
ἐνδι€θετος” of Philo, frequent in Alexandrian theologians. It
is the unuttered thought vs. the expressed word. Fore-ordination, or plan. αὐτόματον
Chapter VII.—In regard to Things above our Comprehension, we should glorify the Creator’s Wisdom, and attribute their Causes to him alone, and not to Chance.
In fact, this word “chance” is the expression of men who
think in haphazard and illogical fashion; who are unable to understand
the causes of these things, and who, owing to the feebleness of their
own apprehensions, conceive that those things for which they cannot
assign a reason, are ordered without reason. There are, unquestionably,
some things which possess wonderful natural properties, and the full
apprehension of which is very difficult: for example, the nature of hot
springs. For no one can easily explain the cause of so powerful a fire;
and it is indeed surprising that though surrounded on all sides by a
body of cold water, it loses none of its native heat. These phenomena
appear to be of rare occurrence throughout the world, being intended, I
am persuaded, to afford to mankind convincing evidence of the power of
that Providence which ordains that two directly opposite natures, heat
and cold, should thus proceed from the self-same source. Many indeed,
yea, numberless, are the gifts which God has bestowed for the comfort
and enjoyment of man; and of these the fruit of the olive-tree and the
vine deserve especial notice; the one for its power of renovating and
cheering the soul, ψυχῆς =
“soul.” In the absence of a proper Biblical psychology the
word has been most sadly abused in translations. The only way back to a
proper conception of the words “spirit” and
“soul” and “life,” &c., is to re-establish
a uniform rendering for them. It is as bad as the rendering of our
English version, where nephesk (= ψυχή) is rendered
“life.”
Let what has been said suffice to prove that nothing exists without reason and intelligence, and that reason itself and providence are of God. It is he who has also distributed the metals, as gold, silver, copper, and the rest, in due proportion; ordaining an abundant supply of those which would be most needed and generally employed, while he dispensed those which serve the purposes merely of pleasure in adornment of luxury with a liberal and yet a sparing hand, holding a mean between parsimony and profusion. For the searchers for metals, were those which are employed for ornament procured in equal abundance with the rest, would be impelled by avarice to despise and neglect to gather those which, like iron or copper, are serviceable for husbandry, or house-building, or the equipment of ships; and would care for those only which conduce to luxury and a superfluous excess of wealth. Hence it is, as they say, that the search for gold and silver is far more difficult and laborious than that for any other metals, the violence of the toil thus acting as a counterpoise to the violence of the desire. And how many instances might still further be enumerated of the workings of that Divine Providence which, in all the gifts which it has so unsparingly conferred upon us, plainly urges us to the practice of self-control and all other virtues, and leads us away from unbefitting covetousness! To trace the secret reasons of all these things is indeed a task which exceeds the power of human faculties. For how can the intellect of a frail and perishable being arrive at the knowledge of perfect truth, or apprehend in its purity the counsel of God from the beginning?
Chapter IX.—Of the Philosophers, who fell into Mistaken Notions, and Some of them into Danger, by their Desire of Universal Knowledge.—Also of the Doctrines of Plato.
We ought, therefore, to aim at objects which are within our power,
and exceed not the capacities of our nature. For the persuasive
influence of argument has a tendency to draw most of us away from the
truth of things, which has happened to many philosophers, who have
employed themselves in reasoning, and the study of natural science, and
who, as often as the magnitude of the subject surpasses their powers of
investigation, adopt various devices for obscuring the truth. Hence
their diversities of judgment, and contentious opposition to each
others’ doctrines, and this notwithstanding their pretensions to
wisdom. Hence, too, popular commotions have arisen, and severe
sentences, passed by those in power, apprehensive of the overthrow of
hereditary institutions, have proved destructive to many of the
disputants themselves. Socrates, for example, elated by his skill in
argumentation, indulging his power of making the worse appear the
better reason, This is almost identically the form of what Socrates (Apol.
c. 2) declared to be the falsehood circulated by his enemies to his
prejudice. “But far more dangerous are those who began when you
were children and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods,
telling of one Socrates, a wise man who…made the worse appear the
better cause” (λόγον,
“reason”), Tr. Jowett, 1 (1874), 316. This example does
peculiar discredit either to the learning or the mental honesty of the
author. Rather “deriving existence from,” “proceeding
from,” gives strict idea, but may be confounded with the
technical “proceeding from” of the “filioque”
controversy, which is quite another phrase. “Spirit.” “The one simple” is not in the text, but is a
conjectural addition of Valesius, followed by most translators.
“Consisting of bodily structure” seems possibly to be an
epexegetical phrase relating to the “all things” which he
divides into intellectual and sensible, making the intellectual as well
as the sensible to have bodily (somatic) structure. “All
things,” or “the universe,” a plural technical term,
is regarded as his mind passes to the explanation as “the
all.” This psychological probability appears a simpler solution
than the various textual conjectures. Heinichen suspects that there has been an inversion of words here,
and that it should have been, “He further teaches the admirable
and profitable doctrine,” and “a doctrine not merely to be
admired” omitted.
Chapter X.—Of those who reject the Doctrines of Philosophers, as well as those of Scripture: and that we ought to believe the Poets in All Things, or disbelieve them in All.
There are, however, some persons so infatuated, that when they meet with
such sentiments as these, they are neither converted or alarmed: nay,
they even treat them with contempt and scorn, as if they listened to
the inventions of fable; applauding, perhaps, the beauty of the
eloquence, but abhorring the severity of the precepts. And yet they
give credence to the fictions of the poets, and make both civilized and
barbarous “All the Greek-speaking world, and foreign lands as
well.” Rhadamanthus was a son of Jove (or Vulcan) and Europa. Cf. Hom.
Il. 14. 322; Od. 4. 564, 7. 323. [There can be no doubt (though the fact is not immediately
apparent from the wording of the text), that the spirit of this passage
is ironical.—Bag.] Rather “cheat,” or “delude.” Mr. Charles
Dudley Warner, essayist and novelist, says in an interesting essay on
the relation of fiction to life, that the object of fiction is to
produce illusions, and the test of its art is its power to produce such
illusion. There is a temptation here to adopt the translation of
Molz. “Truth lies in the fiction, however, when what is
told corresponds to reality.” Mr. Warner, in his lecture, goes on
to say that the object of fiction is to reveal what is,—not the
base and sordid things only or peculiarly, but the best possibilities,
and gives an exquisite exposition of the fact that the idealism of true
fiction is simply the realism of the nobler characteristics and truths.
The truth is, that the object of fiction or poetry as art is to produce
the image,—fill the whole personality with a picture. This is
only gained in its highest form when every detail exactly corresponds
to truth or reality. The function of fiction is not illusion, but
realization. Its object is the reproduction of truth. Molz.
makes Constantine say that fiction is true when it corresponds to
reality, though the forms be not historical or actual. This is a true
observation, but not what Constantine says. He says in substance, with
Mr. Warner, that the object is to produce illusion or deceive, while
the idea of truth is just the reverse.
One ms. adds, “and concerning those
who did not know this mystery.” In another the chapter is
divided, and this is the heading of the second part.
Whoever, then, has pursued a course unworthy of a life of virtue, and is
conscious of having lived an irregular and disorderly life, let him
repent, and turn with enlightened spiritual vision to God; and let him
abandon his past career of wickedness, content if he attain to wisdom
even in his declining years. We, however, have received no aid from
human instruction; nay, whatever graces of character are esteemed of
good report by those who have understanding, are entirely the gift of
God. And I am able to oppose no feeble buckler against the deadly
weapons of Satan’s armory; I mean the knowledge I possess of
those things which are pleasing to him: and of these I will select such
as are appropriate to my present design, while I proceed to sing the
praises of the Father of all. But do thou, O Christ, Saviour of
mankind, be present to aid me in my hallowed task! Direct the words
which celebrate thy virtues, Or “this discourse concerning virtue.” [Alluding to the apostles, who are called in the beginning of ch.
15, “the best men of their age.” Were it our province to
criticise, we might notice the contrariety of such expressions as these
to the account which Scripture gives us of those “unlearned and
ignorant men,” the feeble, and, in themselves, fallible
instruments, whom God selected to further his wondrous designs of mercy
to a ruined world.—Bag.] Were it in our province to
criticise the critic, we might notice that the fear of the Lord is the
beginning of wisdom, and refer to the whole Book of Proverbs. Any just
conception of wisdom or true learning says the same thing. The man who
knows that God and not φύσις or
τύχη manages the universe, is more learned than the wisest of
those learned in things which are not so. Christophorson extends ch. 10 to this point, and here introduces
ch. 11, with the heading “On the coming of Our Lord in the flesh;
its nature and cause.” Preserved, preserver, and preservation = saved, saviour, and
salvation. This represents the N.T. idea better than the popular
conception which confuses Christ our Saviour with Christ our Redeemer.
Redemption was a necessary part of his effort for our salvation, but
the salvation itself was a saving, in literal English preserving. We
have been redeemed; we are being saved. Bag.follows here Valesius’
translation and note where he makes the word “preservation”
a conjectural emendation of Scaliger, inconsistent with the meaning of
the passage, and omits translating “the cause of all things that
exist.” But Hein. does not even hint such reading, and his
text (followed also by Molz.), so far from tending to disturb
the whole meaning, gives much the more intelligent conception. Christ
is the preserver (saviour) of things. Preservation of things is the
effect of that cause, just as the Father is the cause of the Son, and
the Son the effect of that cause. Therefore the preserver precedes
created things as a cause precedes its effect. Valesius expresses a preference for the reading καθόδου
(advent) here instead of καθόλου (universal), but the latter is the reading of Heinichen, and
undoubtedly correct. Bag. has followed Valesius. “New mode” is a paraphrase supported by only one ms. The real meaning of νόθην is
well expressed by Chr., “alienam quandam a communi hominum
natura nascendi rationem sibi excogitavit.” Its usual meaning is
“illegitimate.” This is supposed to refer to Various suggestions have been made regarding the dove which
according to the literal rendering “flew from the ark of
Noah.” Christophorson (according to Valesius) supposes it to be
that dove which Noah formerly sent out of the ark, this dove being a
figure of the Holy Spirit which was afterward to come in the Virgin.
Jerome, Ep. ad Oc., also regards the Noachic dove as a symbol of
the Holy Spirit. Vales., followed by 1711 and Bag.,
prefer to translate as if it were “like that,” &c. This
form of the story, according to which the Holy Spirit descends in the
form of a dove, is according to Valesius from the Apocrypha; perhaps,
he suggests, from the “Gospel to the Hebrews.” In later art
the dove is the constant symbol of the Holy Spirit, and is often found
in pictures of the annunciation, e.g. in pictures by Simeone Memmi,
Dürer, Andrea del Sarto, and many others. It is found in six of
the pictures of the annunciation given by Mrs. Jameson (Legends of
the Madonna, p. 165 sq.). The author seems to have here a reference to the Aristotelian
distinction between prudence and wisdom (cf. Ethics, 6. 3; 7. 8,
&c.). It reminds of that passage (vi. 7, ed. Grant ad. ii.
165–166), where the two are distinguished and defined, wisdom
being “concerned with the immutable, and prudence with the
variable”; and a little farther along wisdom is distinguished
from “statesmanship,” i.e. the “social” of
Bag., which is a form of “prudence” (tr. Williams,
p. 160), and indeed (vi. 8. 1) generically identical with prudence. So
again (1, 2) “political art” is identified with
ethics. Social virtues or “political” virtues. Cf. the
“political art” or “statesmanship” of
Aristotle. [Πολλοῦ
χρόνου,
“for a considerable time.” This seems to be a rhetorical
addition to the circumstances of the miracle, scarcely to be justified
by the terms of the inspired narrative.—Bag.] At this point Christophorson begins his chapter xii., “of
those who did not know the mystery,” &c. The translator takes most extraordinary liberties with the word
“philanthropy”; now it is “loving-kindness,”
now “love of their fellow-men,” and so on in picturesque
variety, and yet as appropriate as it is lacking in
uniformity. Cf. [The text, in the last clause of this passage, is undoubtedly
corrupt. The above is an attempt to supply a probable
sense.—Bag.] This is omitted by Hein. from his
text. i.e. healing the paralytics. This paraphrased passage reads more
literally, “bidding those bereft of sense [i.e. sensation,
feeling] to feel again.” Still it may be that Molz. is
right in thinking it refers to the senses—seeing, hearing,
&c.—as well as feeling, though his translation will hardly
stand; “and to such as lacked any of the senses he granted the
full use of all their senses again.”
Chapter
XII.—Of those who are Ignorant of this
Mystery; and that their Ignorance is Voluntary. The Blessings which
await those who know it, especially such as die in the Confession of
the Faith. Literally and better, “through the confession.” It
refers to those who are technically known as confessors. Although in
general the distinction prevails by which those who have suffered, but
not unto death, are called “confessors,” while those who
lost their lives are called “martyrs” (cf. Pseud-Cypr.
de dupl. Mart. c. 31), yet its use for martyrs is not uncommon
(cf. Ambrose, ad Gratian, c. 2). Later the term was used of all,
especially faithful professors of Christ.
But it
will be said by some, who love to blaspheme, that it was in the power
of God to ameliorate and soften the natural will of man. What better
way, I ask, what better method could be devised, what more effectual
effort put forth for reclaiming evil man, than converse with God
himself? Was not he visibly present to teach them the principles of
virtuous conduct? And if the personal instructions of God were without
effect, how much more, had he continued absent and unheard? What, then,
had power to hinder this most blessed doctrine? The perverse folly of
man. For the clearness of our perceptions is at once obscured, as often
as we receive with angry impatience those precepts which are given for
our blessing and advantage. In truth, it was the very choice of men to
disregard these precepts, and to turn a deaf ear to the commandments so
distasteful to them; though had they listened, they would have gained a
reward well worthy such attention, and that not for the present only,
but the future life, which is indeed the only true life. For the reward
of obedience to God is imperishable and everlasting life, to which they
may aspire who know him, Cf. This translation “to whom” accords with the reading of
Valesius, followed by 1611, Molz.,
“Zimmermann,” Cous. (“whose cause he
has sustained”), but Hein. adopts the reading
“who,” preceded by Chr., who translates “who
himself bravely endured martyrdom.” [Alluding to the tapers, &c., lighted at the tombs of martyrs
on the anniversary of their death.—Bag.] Compare
Scudamore, Lights, The Ceremonial Use of, in Smith and Cheetham,
Dict. 1 (1880), 993 sq. “Vulgar.”
Chapter XIII.—That there is a Necessary Difference between Created Things. That the Propensity to Good and Evil depends on the Will of Man; and that, consequently, Judgment is a Necessary and Reasonable Thing.
There are, indeed, some who venture with childish presumption to find
fault with God in respect of this also, and ask why it is that he has
not created one and the same natural disposition for all, but rather
has ordained the existence of many things different, nay, contrary in
their nature, whence arises the dissimilarity of our moral conduct and
character. Would it not (say they) have been better, both as regards
obedience to the commands of God, and a just apprehension of himself,
and for the confirmation of individual faith, that all mankind should
be of the same moral character? It is indeed ridiculous to expect that
this could be the case, and to forget that the constitution of the
world is different from that of the things that are in the world; that
physical and moral objects are not identical in their nature, nor the
affections of the body the same as those of the soul. [For the immortal
soul far exceeds the material world in dignity, and is more blessed
than the perishable and terrestrial creation, in proportion as it is
noble and more allied to God. [The text of this passage is defective. The conjectural
restoration of Valesius, which seems probable, is chiefly
followed.—Bag.] Heinichen, like Christophorson and Savil
before him, “does not hesitate,” with one of the mss., to omit this passage.
Chapter XIV.—That Created Nature differs infinitely from Uncreated Being; to which Man makes the Nearest Approach by a Life of Virtue.
Surely it must be the very height of folly to compare created with
eternal things, which latter have neither beginning nor end, while the
former, having been originated and called into being, and having
received a commencement of their existence at some definite time, must
consequently, of necessity have an end. How then can things which have
thus been made, bear comparison with him who has ordained their being?
Were this the case, This is following with Heinichen, and meets the conjecture of
Valesius as over against the mss. and other
conjectures, which, substituting μανία for
ὅμοια, read “for
if it be madness to liken these things to him,”
&c. Or
“sensible”; i.e. world of sense or perception. This is the word often rendered by Bag. as
“spiritual.” This is supposed to refer to
Chapter XV.—Of the Saviour’s Doctrines and Miracles; and the Benefits he confers on those who own Subjection to him.
The Son
of God invites all men to the practice of virtue, and presents himself
to all who have understanding hearts, as the teacher of his saving
precepts. This accords with the “margin of the Geneva Edition,”
and mentioned by Valesius, who gives also “in the Saviour’s
commands” and “in the Father’s commands,” which
latter is adopted by Heinichen. Val. prefers πρὸς (“besides”) to παρὰ (“likewise, at the same time”), and is followed by
Bag.
Chapter XVI.—The Coming of Christ was predicted by the Prophets; and was ordained to be the Overthrow of Idols and Idolatrous Cities.
Long since had his passion, as well as his advent in the flesh, been
predicted by the prophets. The time, too, of his incarnation had been
foretold, and the manner in which the fruits of iniquity and
profligacy, so ruinous to the works and ways of righteousness, should
be destroyed, and the whole world partake of the virtues of wisdom and
sound discretion, through the almost universal prevalence of those
principles of conduct which the Saviour should promulgate, over the
minds of men; whereby the worship of God should be confirmed, and the
rites of superstition utterly abolished. By these not the slaughter of
animals alone, but the sacrifice of human victims, and the pollutions
of an accursed worship, had been devised: as, for example, by the laws
of Assyria and Egypt, the lives of innocent men were offered up in
images of brass or earth. Therefore have these nations received a
recompense worthy so foul a worship. Memphis and Babylon [it was
declared] Not in text. This parenthesis is the least obnoxious of various
proposed paraphrases. Probably refers to its destruction by Diocletian, whom Constantine
accompanied. See Prolegomena, Life, Early Years. The text of this passage is most dubious. Bag., following
Valesius, translates: “And an actual witness of the wretched fate
which has befallen these cities. Memphis lies desolate; that city which
was the pride of the once mighty Pharaoh whose power Moses crushed at
the Divine command.” This has been changed to accord with the
text and punctuation of Heinichen. The change makes Constantine declare
himself an eye-witness of the fate of Memphis alone, which is thought
to accord with the facts; for while he was in fact in Egypt with
Diocletian there is no evidence that he ever saw Babylon. And yet it is
possible he did.
Chapter XVII.—Of the Wisdom of Moses, which was an Object of Imitation to the Wise among Heathen Nations. Also concerning Daniel, and the Three Children.
No nation has ever been more highly blessed than that which Moses
led: none would have continued to enjoy higher blessings, had they not
willingly withdrawn themselves from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But who can worthily describe the praises of Moses himself; who, after
reducing to order an unruly nation, and disciplining their minds “Souls.” “Souls.” The sage commentators on this passage have thought it incumbent to
explain and, as it were, apologize for the apparent tautology,
“wise men or philosophers,—whichever you choose to call
them” (Val. and Hein.). Colloquially speaking,
there is a vast difference between being a philosopher and being a wise
man. Probably this is no slip of style nor gracious option of language
such as the editors impute, but some more or less clear distinction of
technical terms. “Spirit exhibited by these brethren in suffering
martyrdom.” Molz.remarks that to get any
intelligent meaning out of this mass of sounding words, the translator
often has to guess and translate very freely. [᾽Αναιρεθείσης
κεραυνῶν
βολαῖς. This
must be regarded as a rhetorical rather than historical
allusion to the extinction of the Assyrian Empire. The critical reader
will not fail to mark occasional instances of inaccuracy and looseness
of statement in this chapter, and generally in the course of the
oration.—Bag.] Valesius objects to this passage as follows
in the language of 1711: “Neither do I well understand
that. For Men, Towns, and Cities may be destroyed by
Thunder-bolts,…But, truly I can’t see how a kingdom could
be ruined by Thunder.” Constantine evidently believed in an eternal Christ. “He adjudged to perish by the self-same sentence, and shut
them up in the lions’ den,” is bracketed by Valesius and
the second clause omitted by Bag. “Eliminated them all.” Valesius calls attention to the
characteristic slight inaccuracies of our author! e.g. in the Biblical
account (1) it was not the magi; (2) it was not Cambyses.
Chapter XVIII.—Of the Erythræan Sibyl, who pointed in a Prophetic Acrostic at our Lord and his Passion. The Acrostic is “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross.”
My desire, however, is to derive even from foreign sources a
testimony to the Divine nature of Christ. For on such testimony it is
evident that even those who blaspheme his name must acknowledge that he
is God, and the Son of God if indeed they will accredit the words of
those whose sentiments coincided with their own. “Of their own selves.” [Daughter of Tiresias, and priestess at Delphi. She was called
Sibyl, on account of the wildness of her looks and expressions when she
delivered oracles (Lempriere in voc.).—Bag.]
Judgment! Earth’s oozing
pores [ ῾Ιδρώσει
γὰρ χθὼν,
κ.τ.λ.—Bag.]
Earth’s heavenly king his glories shall display:
Sovereign of all, exalted on his throne,
Unnumbered multitudes their God shall own;
Shall see their Judge, with mingled joy and fear,
Crowned with his saints, in human form appear.
How vain, while desolate earth’s glories lie,
Riches, and pomp, and man’s idolatry!
In that dread hour, when Nature’s fiery doom
Startles the slumb’ring tenants of the tomb,
Trembling all flesh shall stand; each secret wile,
Sins long forgotten, thoughts of guilt and guile,
Open beneath God’s searching light shall lie:
No refuge then, but hopeless agony.
O’er heaven’s expanse shall gathering shades of night
From earth, sun, stars, and moon, withdraw their light;
God’s arm shall crush each mountain’s towering pride;
On ocean’s plain no more shall navies ride.
Dried at the source, no river’s rushing sound
Shall soothe, no fountain slake the parched ground.
Around, afar, shall roll the trumpet’s blast,
Voice of wrath long delayed, revealed at last.
In speechless awe, while earth’s foundations groan,
On judgment’s seat earth’s kings their God shall own.
Radiant with light, behold Salvation’s Sign!
Cross of that Lord, who, once for sinners given,
Reviled by man, now owned by earth and heaven,
O’er every land extends his iron sway.
Such is the name these mystic lines display;
Saviour, eternal king, who
bears our sins away. [It can scarcely be necessary to observe that the acrostic, the
general sense of which has been aimed at in the above translation, must
be regarded as the pious fiction of some writer, whose object was to
recommend the truth of Christianity to heathens by an appeal to the
authority of an (alleged) ancient heathen prophecy.—Bag.]
The quotation is found in the edition of Alexandre, Bk. VIII. ch.
219–250. (Cf. translation in Augustin, “When the Great Day of
Judgment shall appear, The melting Earth shall then
dissolve with fear; A King Immortal shall from
Heav’n descend, At whose Tribunal the whole
world attend. Both Just and Wicked shall,
when Time grows old, Their mighty God in flesh
array’d behold; Armies of Saints on His Right
hand shall come, Whilst Humane Souls expect
their final doom. Th’ Universe shall be a
dry, Barren Strand, And Thorns shall flourish on
the scorched land; Men shall with indignation cast
away Their Wealth and Idols in that
dreadful day. The parching Earth, and Heaven
in flames shall fry, And searching fire drain the
Ocean dry: All flesh which in the Grave
imprison’d lay, Shake off their Fetters, and
return to Day. Fire ’twixt Good and Bad
shall diff’rence make, And filthy Dross from purer
Metal take. Man’s secret Deeds shall
all be open lay’d, And th’ obscure Mazes of
their Hearts displayed; Gnashing their Teeth, they
shall their Fate bewail: The stars harmonious dance, and
th’ Sun shall fail. The Orbs roll’d up,
shrink into darkest night, The Labouring Moon shall lose
her borrowed light. Mountains with Plains on the
same Level lye; Vallies shall gape no more, nor
Hills be high. On the proud Billows Ships
shall ride no more: And Lightning the Earth’s
Face shall shrivel sore. The crackling Rivers with
fierce Fire shall burn, Which shall their streams to
solid Crystal turn. The Heav’nly Trump shall
blow a doleful sound, And th’ world’s
destruction, and its sin resound. The yawning Earth Hell’s
vast Abyss shall shew; All Kings before God’s
just Tribunal go. Then Liquid Sulphur from the
Sky shall stream, God shall pour down Rivers of
vengeful flame; All men shall then the Glorious
Cross descry, That wished-for sign unto a
faithful eye: The Life of pious Souls, their
chief delight; To Sinners an Offence, a dismal
sight! Enlightening the called with
its beams, When cleansed from sin in twice
six limpid streams. His Empire shall be boundless,
and that God Shall Rule the Wicked with an
Iron Rod; This God, Immortal King,
describ’d in Verse, Our Saviour, dying,
shall man’s doom Reverse.”
It is evident that the virgin uttered these verses under the influence of Divine inspiration. And I cannot but esteem her blessed, whom the Saviour thus selected to unfold his gracious purpose towards us.
Chapter XIX.—That this Prophecy respecting our Saviour was not the Fiction of any Member of the Christian Church, but the Testimony of the Erythræan Sibyl, whose Books were translated into Latin by Cicero before the coming of Christ. Also that Virgil makes mention of the same, and of the Birth of the Virgin’s Child: though he spoke obscurely of this Mystery from Fear of the Ruling Powers.
Many,
however, who admit that the Erythræan Sibyl was really a
prophetess, yet refuse to credit this prediction, and imagine that some
one professing our faith, and not unacquainted with the poetic art, was
the composer of these verses. They hold, in short, that they are a
forgery, and alleged to be the prophecies of the Sibyl on the ground of
their containing useful moral sentiments, tending to restrain
licentiousness, and to lead man to a life of sobriety and decorum.
Truth, however, in this case is evident, since the diligence of our
countrymen “Our men,” i.e. Christians rather than
“countrymen.” [The passage in Cicero (De Divinatione, Bk. II. ch. 54)
clearly does not refer to this acrostic, and contains in itself
a plain denial of prophetic truth in the Sibylline prediction (whatever
it was) which the writer had in view. “Non esse autem illud
carmen furentis, cum ipsum poema declaret (est enim magis artis et
diligentiæ, quam incitationis et motus), tum verò ea,
quæ ἀκροστιχὶς
dicitur, cum deinceps ex primis versuum litteris
aliquid connectitur, ut in quibusdam Cumanis, id certe magis est
attenti animi, quam furentis,”
&c.—Bag.]
Behold, a new, a heaven-born
race appears. This and following quotations are found in the fourth eclogue of
Virgil—the Pollio. The version of Bag. is allowed
to stand. If farther variety of rendering and interpretation is
desired, it can be found in charming profusion in the various English
translations of Virgil of which the few at hand give ample promise.
Those at hand are Ogilby, Lond., 1675, p. 41–49; Warton, Lond.,
1763, p. 76–82; Trapp, Lond., 1755, p. 37–46; Kennedy,
Lond., 1849, p. 25–29; Wilstach, Bost., 1884, p. 154–161;
Bowen, Lond., 1887, p. 24–28. Compare Henley, Observations on
the Subject of the Fourth Eclogue, etc., Lond., 1788.
8vo.
And again, in another passage of the Bucolics:
Sicilian Muses, sound a loftier strain.
What can be clearer than this? For he adds,
The voice of Cuma’s
oracle is heard again. Here is variety indeed. 1711 renders, “Last times are
come Cumæa’s prophecy,”—whatever that may mean.
Molz. has “Now the voice of the famed oracle of Cumæ
is dumb.”
Evidently referring to the Cumæan Sibyl. Nor was even this enough: the poet goes further, as if irresistibly impelled to bear his testimony. What then does he say?
Behold! the circling years new blessings bring:
The virgin comes, with her the
long-desired king. Constantine takes large liberty with the poet here in order to
make him say what he would like to have had him say. The latest
translation at hand (Bowen) renders: “Now is the world’s
grand cycle begun once more from of old; Justice the Virgin
comes, and the Saturn Kingdom again.”
Thou, chaste Lucina, greet the new-born child,
Beneath whose reign the iron offspring ends,
A golden progeny from heaven descends;
His kingdom banished virtue shall restore,
And crime shall threat the guilty world no more.
We perceive that these words are
spoken plainly and at the same time darkly, by way of allegory. Those
who search deeply for the import of the words, are able to discern the
Divinity of Christ. But lest any of the powerful in the imperial city
might be able to accuse the poet of writing anything contrary to the
laws of the country, and subverting the religious sentiments which had
prevailed from ancient times, he intentionally obscures the truth. For
he was acquainted, as I believe, with that blessed mystery which gave
to our Lord the name of Saviour: “The blessed and salutary mystery of our
Saviour.”—1709. “Mystery of
salvation.”—Molz.
Chapter XX.—A Farther Quotation from Virgilius Maro respecting Christ, with its Interpretation, showing that the Mystery was indicated therein darkly, as might be expected from a Poet.
A life immortal he shall lead, and be
By heroes seen, himself shall heroes see;
evidently meaning the righteous.
The jarring nations he in peace shall bind,
And with paternal virtues rule mankind.
Unbidden earth her earliest fruits shall bring,
And fragrant herbs, to greet her infant king.
Well indeed was this admirably wise and accomplished man acquainted with the cruel character of the times. He proceeds:
The goats, uncall’d, full udders home shall bear;
The lowing herds no more fierce lions fear.
Truly said: for faith will not stand in awe of the mighty in the imperial palace.
His cradle shall with rising flowers be crown’d:
The serpent’s brood shall die; the sacred ground
Shall weeds and poisonous plants refuse to bear;
Each common bush th’
Assyrian rose [Amomum.—Bag.] “Assyrian cinnamon,”
Kennedy, p. 28; “the cardamon’s spice shall grow, That from
Assyria’s gardens,” Wilstach, 1, p. 157; “Syrian
spices,” Trapp, 1, p. 92; “Assyria’s rich
perfume,” Warton, 1, p. 78; “Assyrian roses,” Ogilby,
p. 42.
Nothing could be said more true or
more consistent with the Saviour’s excellency than this. For the
power of the Divine Spirit presents the very cradle of God, like
fragrant flowers, to the new-born race. [i.e. the Christians.—Bag.] Self-control. “Might not experience,” according to some,
including Heinichen, who rejects in first, but accepts in text of his
second edition.
Then indeed could the Saviour
bid his followers be of good cheer, and, remembering his adorable and
glorious resurrection, expect the like for themselves. Truly, then, the
poisonous race may be said to be extinct. Death himself is extinct, and
the truth of the resurrection sealed. Again, the Assyrian race is gone,
which first led the way to faith in God. [Referring, apparently, to Abraham. This passage is founded on a
misconstruction of Virgil’s line by Constantine. which is
followed by the Greek verse itself according to one
edition.—Bag.] [By a kind of play on the word amomum, he alludes to the
Christians as ἄμωμοι, or blameless persons.—Bag.]
But when heroic worth his youth shall hear,
And learn his father’s virtues to revere.
By the praises of heroes, he
indicates the works of righteous men: by the virtues of his Father he
speaks of the creation and everlasting structure of the world: and, it
may be, of those laws by which God’s beloved Church is guided,
and ordered in a course of righteousness and virtue. Admirable, again,
is the advance to higher
Unlabored harvests shall the
fields adorn, “The fields shall mellow wax with golden
grain.”
that is, the fruit of the Divine law springs up for the service of men.
And clustered gropes shall blush on every thorn.
Far otherwise has it been during the corrupt and lawless period of human life.
The knotted oaks shall showers
of honey weep. Bag.adds: “And through the matted
grass the liquid gold shall creep.” 1709translates: “And th’ hardened
oaks with dewy honey sweat.” While Molz. has “Forth from the hard oak
stems the lovely honey flows.” These all approach Virgil
closer than they do Constantine. With all allowance for poetic license,
“pine” should hardly be translated
“oak.”
He here describes the folly and obduracy of the men of that age; and perhaps he also intimates that they who suffer hardships in the cause of God, shall reap sweet fruits of their own endurance.
Yet, of old fraud some footsteps shall remain;
The merchant still shall plough the deep for gain:
Great cities shall with walls be compassed round,
And sharpened shares shall vex the fruitful ground:
Another Tiphys shall new seas explore;
Another Argo land the chiefs upon the Iberian shore;
Another Helen other wars create,
And great Achilles urge the Trojan fate.
Well said, wisest of bards! Thou
hast carried the license of a poet precisely to the proper point. For
it was not thy purpose to assume the functions of a prophet, to which
thou hadst no claim. I suppose also he was restrained by a sense of the
danger which threatened one who should assail the credit of ancient
religious practice. Cautiously, therefore, and securely, as far as
possible, he presents the truth to those who have faculties to
understand it; and while he denounces the munitions and conflicts of
war Literally, “times and
wars.”—1709. This, bad as it is, is hardly worse than the subjective
interpretation of scripture by modern allegorizers, and certainly no
worse than some of the Scripture interpretations of
Eusebius.
But when to ripen’d manhood he shall grow,
that is, when, having arrived at the age of manhood, he shall utterly remove the evils which encompass the path of human life, and tranquilize the world by the blessings of peace:
The greedy sailor shall the seas forego;
No keel shall cut the waves for foreign ware,
For every soil shall every product bear.
The laboring hind his oxen shall disjoin;
No plough shall hurt the glebe, no pruning-hook the vine;
Nor wool shall in dissembled colors shine:
But the luxurious father of the fold,
With native purple, and unborrow’d gold,
Beneath his pompous fleece shall proudly sweat;
And under Tyrian robes the lamb shall bleat.
Mature in years, to ready honors move,
O of celestial seed, O foster son of Jove!
See, laboring nature calls thee to sustain
The nodding flame of heaven, and earth, and main!
See to their base restored, earth, seas, and air;
And joyful ages, from behind, in crowing ranks appear.
To sing thy praise, would heaven my breath prolong.
Infusing spirits worthy such a song,
Not Thracian Orpheus should transcend my lays,
Nor Linus, crown’d with never-fading bays;
Though each his heavenly parent should inspire;
The Muse instruct the voice, and Phœbus tune the lyre.
Should Pan contend in verse, and thou my theme,
Arcadian judges should their
God condemn. [The reader will perceive that the foregoing verses, with but
little exception, and very slight alteration, are taken from
Dryden’s translation of the fourth eclogue of
Virgil.—Bag.]
Behold (says he) how the mighty world and the elements together manifest their joy.
Chapter XXI.—That these Things cannot have been spoken of a Mere Man: and that Unbelievers, owing to their Ignorance of Religion, know not even the Origin of their own Existence.
It may be some will foolishly suppose that these words were spoken of the birth of a mere ordinary mortal. But if this were all, what reason could there be that the earth should need neither seed nor plough, that the vine should require no pruning-hook, or other means of culture? How can we suppose these things to be spoken of a mere mortal’s birth? For nature is the minister of the Divine will, not an instrument obedient to the command of man. Indeed, the very joy of the elements indicates the advent of God, not the conception of a human being. The prayer, too, of the poet that his life might be prolonged is a proof of the Divinity of him whom he invoked; for we desire life and preservation from God, and not from man. Indeed, the Erythræan Sibyl thus appeals to God: “Why, O Lord, dost thou compel me still to foretell the future, and not rather remove me from this earth to await the blessed day of thy coming?” And Maro adds to what he had said before:
Who ten long months did with thy burden go.
No mortal parents smiled upon thy birth:
No nuptial joy thou know’st, no feast of earth.
How could his parents have smiled on
him? For his Father “Father” is emendation of Valesius embodied in his
translation (1659), but not his text (1659). It is bracketed by
Molz. “His God [and Father].” “Pure force.” In this form it sounds much like Pantheism, but in translation of
Molz. this reads, “but determinable through the bounds of
other [existences].” So Valesius conjectures it should read, but the text of
Val. and Hein. read, “We needy ones owe,”
&c.
Chapter XXII.—The Emperor thankfully ascribes his Victories and all other Blessings to Christ; and condemns the Conduct of the Tyrant Maximin, the Violence of whose Persecution had enhanced the Glory of Religion.
To thee, Piety, I ascribe the cause of my own prosperity, and of all
that I now possess. To this truth the happy issue of all my endeavors
bears testimony: brave deeds, victories in war, and triumphs over
conquered foes. This truth the great city itself allows with joy and
praise. The people, too, of that much-loved city accord in the same
sentiment, though once, deceived by ill-grounded hopes, they chose a
ruler unworthy of themselves, [Maxentius (W. Lowth in loc.).—Bag.] This passage clearly refers to the voluntary sufferings of the
martyrs. See the note of Valesius. “At a loss to invent fresh cruelties,” Bag.;
“And perplexed at the labor and trouble they met with,”
1709; “And reluctantly pursuing their terrible
work,” Molz. Alluding to Maximin, the most bitter persecutor of the Christians,
as appears from the title of this chapter.
Chapter XXIII.—Of Christian Conduct. That God is pleased with those who lead a Life of Virtue: and that we must expect a Judgment and Future Retribution.
Compare our religion with your own. Is
Chapter XXIV.—Of Decius, Valerian, and Aurelian, who experienced a Miserable End in consequence of their Persecution of the Church.
To thee, Decius, [Vide Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Bk. VI. ch. 39. Gibbon
(ch. 16) notices very leniently the persecution of
Decius.—Bag.]
Chapter XXV.—Of
Diocletian, who ignobly abdicated Cf. Prolegomena, Life.
Diocletian, however, after the display of relentless cruelty as a
persecutor, evinced a consciousness of his own guilt and owing to the
affliction of a disordered mind, endured the confinement of a mean and
separate dwelling. [The derangement of Diocletian appears to have been temporary
only. The causes of his abdication are not very clearly ascertained;
but he seems to have meditated the step a considerable time previously.
See Gibbon, ch. 13, and the note of
Valesius.—Bag.] Valesius and Hein., in his
first edition, and Bag. read this transposed thus,
“…severe damage to the state, and an effusion of blood;
which, if shed,” etc. But Val. suggests, and Heinichen
adopts in his second edition, that the whole sentence should be
transposed as above. [“He means Maxentius, as appears from what follows. How
Diocletian’s army came under the command of Maxentius, it is not
difficult to understand. After Diocletian’s abdication, Galerius
Maximian took the command of his forces, giving part to Severus
Cæsar for the defence of Italy. Shortly afterwards, Maxentius
having usurped the Imperial power at Rome, Galerius sent Severus
against him with his forces. Maxentius, however, fraudulently and by
promises corrupted and drew to his own side Severus’s army. After
this, Galerius, having marched against Maxentius with a more numerous
force, was himself in like manner deserted by his troops. Thus the army
of Diocletian came under the power of Maxentius” (Valesius ad
loc.).—Bag.]
Chapter XXVI.—The Emperor ascribes his Personal Piety to God; and shows that we are bound to seek Success from God, and attribute it to him; but to consider Mistakes as the Result of our own Negligence.
When men commend my services, which owe their origin to the inspiration
of Heaven, do they not clearly establish the truth that God is the
cause of the exploits I have performed? Assuredly they do: for it
belongs to God to do whatever is best, and to man, to perform the
commands of God. I believe, indeed, the best and noblest course of
action is, when, before an attempt is made, we provide as far as
possible for a secure result: and surely all men know that the holy
service in which these hands have been employed has originated in pure
and genuine faith towards God; that whatever has been done for the
common welfare has been effected by active exertion combined with
supplication and prayer; the consequence of which has been as great an
amount of individual and public benefit as each could venture to hope
for himself and those he holds most dear. They have witnessed battles,
and have been spectators of a war in which the providence of God has
granted victory to this people: i.e. the Roman. So Val. and Hein., but Val.
thinks it may perhaps rather be “to my army.” Better, literally, “slackening faith.” There is
somewhat of loss from the primitive and real conception of faith in the
fixing of the word “wavering” as the conventional
expression for weak. Faith is the steadfast current of personality
towards an object, and poverty of faith is more often the abatement or
slackening of that steady, insistent activity than the wavering of
doubt. There is more unbelief than disbelief.
of
Eusebius Pamphilus,
in praise of
the Emperor Constantine.
Pronounced on the thirtieth anniversary of his reign.
————————————
Prologue to the
Oration. The conventional heading has been retained. Literally it is
“Tricennial oration of Eusebius, addressed to the Emperor
Constantine. Prologue to the praises addressed to
Constantine.” The translation of this
oration shows, even more than that of the Life or
Constantine’s Oration, a sympathy on the part of the
translator with the florid style of Eusebius, and, trying as the style
itself is, the success of Bag. in presenting the spirit of the
original with, on the whole, very considerable accuracy of rendering
has been a constant matter of surprise during the effort to
revise.
1. I come not forward prepared with a fictitious narrative, nor with elegance of language to captivate the ear, desiring to charm my hearers as it were, with a siren’s voice; nor shall I present the draught of pleasure in cups of gold decorated with lovely flowers (I mean the graces of style) to those who are pleased with such things. Rather would I follow the precepts of the wise, and admonish all to avoid and turn aside from the beaten road, and keep themselves from contact with the vulgar crowd.
2. I come, then, prepared to
celebrate our emperor’s praises in a newer strain; and, though
the number be infinite of those who desire to be my companions in my
present task, I am resolved to shun the common track of men, Cf. Hom. Il. 6. 202, tr. Bryant, 6. 263–4,
“shunning every haunt of human-kind.” Eusebius seems to use this phrase much as the modern phrases
“The final philosophy,” “The science of
sciences,” “The queen of sciences,” when applied to
theology.
3. For since our emperor is gifted as well with that sacred wisdom which has immediate reference to God, as with the knowledge which concerns the interests of men; let those who are competent to such a task describe his secular acquirements, great and transcendent as they are, and fraught with advantage to mankind (for all that characterizes the emperor is great and noble), yet still inferior to his diviner qualifies, to those who stand without the sacred precincts.
4. Let those, however, who are within the sanctuary, and have access to its inmost and untrodden recesses, close the doors against every profane ear, and unfold, as it were, the secret mysteries of our emperor’s character to the initiated alone. And let those who have purified their ears in the streams of piety, and raised their thoughts on the soaring wing of the mind itself, join the company which surrounds the Sovereign Lord of all, and learn in silence the divine mysteries.
5. Meanwhile let the sacred
oracles, given, not by the spirit of divination (or rather let me say
of madness and folly), but by the inspiration of Divine truth, “Divine light.”
Chapter I.—The Oration.
1. To-day is the festival of our great emperor: and we his
children rejoice therein, feeling the inspiration of our sacred theme.
He who presides over our solemnity is the Great Sovereign himself; he,
I mean, who is truly great; of whom I affirm (nor will the sovereign
who hears me be offended, but will rather approve of this ascription of
praise to God), that HE is above and beyond all created things, the
Highest, the Greatest, the most Mighty One; whose throne is the arch of
heaven, and the earth the footstool of his feet. Paraphrased from
2. His ministers are the heavenly hosts; his armies the supernal powers, who own allegiance to him as their Master, Lord, and King. The countless multitudes of angels, the companies of archangels, the chorus of holy spirits, draw from and reflect his radiance as from the fountains of everlasting light. Yea every light, and specially those divine and incorporeal intelligences whose place is beyond the heavenly sphere, celebrate this august Sovereign with lofty and sacred strains of praise. The vast expanse of heaven, like an azure veil, is interposed between those without, and those who inhabit his royal mansions: while round this expanse the sun and moon, with the rest of the heavenly luminaries (like torch-bearers around the entrance of the imperial palace), perform, in honor of their sovereign, their appointed courses; holding forth, at the word of his command, an ever-burning light to those whose lot is cast in the darker regions without the pale of heaven.
3. And surely when I remember
that our own victorious emperor renders praises to this Mighty
Sovereign, I do well to follow him, knowing as I do that to him alone
we owe that imperial power under which we live. The pious Cæsars,
instructed by their father’s wisdom, acknowledge him as the
source of every blessing: the soldiery, the entire body of the people,
both in the country and in the cities of the empire, with the governors
of the several provinces, assembling together in accordance with the
precept of their great Saviour and Teacher, worship him. In short, the
whole family of mankind, of every nation, tribe, and tongue, both
collectively and severally, however diverse their opinions on other
subjects, are unanimous in this one confession; and, in obedience to
the reason implanted in them, and the spontaneous and uninstructed
impulse of their own minds, unite in calling on the One and only God. [We must be content here (and probably in other passages of this
Oration) to tolerate as rhetorical embellishment that which,
regarded literally, is in every sense palpably
untrue.—Bag.] The intention of the passage is probably
like that of those who say now that there is no nation where, in some
form, God is not worshiped.
4. Nay, does not the universal frame of earth acknowledge him her Lord, and declare, by the vegetable and animal life which she produces her subjection to the will of a superior Power? The rivers, flowing with abundant stream, and the perennial fountains, springing from hidden and exhaustless depths, ascribe to him the cause of their marvellous source. The mighty waters of the sea, enclosed in chambers of unfathomable depth, and the swelling surges, which lift themselves on high, and menace as it were the earth itself, shrink back when they approach the shore, checked by the power of his Divine law. The duly measured fall of winter’s rain, the rolling thunder, the lightning’s flash, the eddying currents of the winds, and the airy courses of the clouds, all reveal his presence to those to whom his Person is invisible.
5. The all-radiant sun, who
holds his constant career through the lapse of ages, owns him Lord
alone, and obedient to his will, dares not depart from his appointed
path. The inferior splendor of the moon, alternately diminished and
increased at stated periods, is subject to his Divine command. The
beauteous mechanism of the heavens, glittering with the hosts of stars,
moving in harmonious order, and preserving the measure of each several
orbit, proclaims him the giver of all light: yea, all the heavenly
luminaries maintaining at his will and word a grand and perfect unity
of motion, pursue the track of their ethereal career, and complete in
the lapse of revolving ages their distant course. The alternate
recurrence of day and night, the changing seasons, the order and
proportion of the universe, all declare the manifold wisdom of [his
boundless power]. To him the unseen agencies which hold their course
throughout the expanse of space, render the due tribute of praise. To
him this terrestrial globe itself, to him the heavens above, and the
choirs beyond the vault of heaven, give honor as to their mighty
Sovereign: the angelic hosts greet him with ineffable songs of Praise;
and the spirits which draw their being from incorporeal light, adore
him as their Creator. The
6. Lastly, he who is in all,
before, and after all, [Referring possibly to [The
Arianism implied in this passage, if referred to the Word as God,
disappears if we regard it as spoken of Christ as the Word manifested
in human nature. See the note of Valesius ad
loc.—Bag.] Universe. This is directly from
Chapter II.
1. This
only begotten Word of God reigns, from ages which had no beginning, to
infinite and endless ages, the partner of his Father’s kingdom.
And [our emperor] ever beloved by him, who derives the source of
imperial authority from above, and is strong in the power of his sacred
title, [It
is difficult to know precisely what is meant here. Possibly the name of
Christian.—Bag.]
2. Again, that Preserver of the universe orders these heavens and earth, and the celestial kingdom, consistently with his Father’s will. Even so our emperor whom he loves, by bringing those whom he rules on earth to the only begotten Word and Saviour renders them fit subjects of his kingdom.
3. And as he who is the common
Saviour of mankind, by his invisible and Divine power as the good
shepherd, drives far away from his flock, like savage beasts, those
apostate spirits which once flew through the airy tracts above this
earth, and fastened on the souls of men; This
is an allusion to what was afterwards known as Vampireism,—a
belief of unknown antiquity and especially prevalent in various forms
in the East. Rydberg (Magic of the Middle Ages, p. 207)
describes the mediæval form thus: “The vampires, according
to the belief of the Middle Ages, are disembodied souls which clothe
themselves again in their buried bodies, steal at night into houses,
and suck from the nipple of the sleeping all their blood.” (Cf.
Perty, d. myst. Ersch. 1 [1872], 383. 91; Görres’
Chr. myst. Vol. 3, etc.) Similar in nature was that notion of
the spirits who sucked away the breath of sleeping persons, which has
left its trace in the modern superstition that cats suck away the
breath of sleeping children.
4. He who is the pre-existent Word, the Preserver of all things, imparts to his disciples the seeds of true wisdom and salvation, and at once enlightens and gives them understanding in the knowledge of his Father’s kingdom. Our emperor, his friend, acting as interpreter to the Word of God, aims at recalling the whole human race to the knowledge of God; proclaiming clearly in the ears of all, and declaring with powerful voice the laws of truth and godliness to all who dwell on the earth.
5. Once more, the universal Saviour opens the heavenly gates of his Father’s kingdom to those whose course is thitherward from this world. Our emperor, emulous of his Divine example, having purged his earthly dominion from every stain of impious error, invites each holy and pious worshiper within his imperial mansions, earnestly desiring to save with all its crew that mighty vessel of which he is the appointed pilot. And he alone of all who have wielded the imperial power of Rome, being honored by the Supreme Sovereign with a reign of three decennial periods, now celebrates this festival, not, as his ancestors might have done, in honor of infernal demons, or the apparitions of seducing spirits, or of the fraud and deceitful arts of impious men; but as an act of thanksgiving to him by whom he has thus been honored, and in acknowledgment of the blessings he has received at his hands. He does not, in imitation of ancient usage, defile his imperial mansions with blood and gore, nor propitiate the infernal deities with fire and smoke, and sacrificial offerings; but dedicates to the universal Sovereign a pleasant and acceptable sacrifice, even his own imperial soul, and a mind truly fitted for the service of God.
6. For this sacrifice alone is
grateful to him: and this sacrifice our emperor has learned, with
purified mind and thoughts, to present as an offering without the
intervention of fire and blood, while his own piety, strengthened by
the truthful doctrines with which his soul is stored, he sets forth in
magnificent language the praises of God, and
Chapter III.
1. And
gladly does he accept and welcome this sacrifice, and commend the
presenter of so august and noble an offering, by protracting his reign
to a lengthened period of years, giving larger proofs of his
beneficence in proportion to the emperor’s holy services to
himself. Accordingly he permits him to celebrate each successive
festival during great and general prosperity throughout the empire,
advancing one of his sons, at the recurrence of each decennial period,
to a share of his own imperial power. A
general statement, such as Eusebius is fond of making. The elevation of
his sons was about these times, but not on them exactly. Compare
Prolegomena, Life.
2. The eldest, who bears his
father’s name, he received as his partner in the empire about the
close of the first decade of his reign: the second, next in point of
age, at the second; and the third in like manner at the third decennial
period, the occasion of this our present festival. And now that the
fourth period has commenced, and the time of his reign is still further
prolonged, he desires to extend his imperial authority by calling still
more of his kindred to partake his power; and, by the appointment of
the Cæsars, [Dalmatius and Hanniballianus.—Bag.] [
3. And thus the Almighty Sovereign himself accords an increase both of years and of children to our most pious emperor, and renders his sway over the nations of the world still fresh and flourishing, as though it were even now springing up in its earliest vigor. He it is who appoints him this present festival, in that he has made him victorious over every enemy that disturbed his peace: he it is who displays him as an example of true godliness to the human race.
4. And thus our emperor, like
the radiant sun, illuminates the most distant subjects of his empire
through the presence of the Cæsars, as with the far piercing rays
of his own brightness. To us who occupy the eastern regions he has
given a son worthy of himself; [Constantius Cæsar.—Bag.] Compare Prolegomena, under Life.
5. Lastly, invested as he is with a semblance of heavenly sovereignty, he directs his gaze above, and frames his earthly government according to the pattern of that Divine original, feeling strength in its conformity to the monarchy of God. And this conformity is granted by the universal Sovereign to man alone of the creatures of this earth: for he only is the author of sovereign power, who decrees that all should be subject to the rule of one.
6. And surely monarchy far transcends every other constitution and form of government: for that democratic equality of power, which is its opposite, may rather be described as anarchy and disorder. Hence there is one God, and not two, or three, or more: for to assert a plurality of gods is plainly to deny the being of God at all. There is one Sovereign; and his Word and royal Law is one: a Law not expressed in syllables and words, not written or engraved on tablets, and therefore subject to the ravages of time; but the living and self-subsisting Word, who himself is God, and who administers his Father’s kingdom on behalf of all who are after him and subject to his power.
7. His attendants are the heavenly hosts; the myriads of God’s angelic ministers; the super-terrestrial armies, of unnumbered multitude; and those unseen spirits within heaven itself, whose agency is employed in regulating the order of this world. Ruler and chief of all these is the royal Word, acting as Regent of the Supreme Sovereign. To him the names of Captain, and great High Priest, Prophet of the Father, Angel of mighty counsel, Brightness of the Father’s light, Only begotten Son, with a thousand other titles, are ascribed in the oracles of the sacred writers. And the Father, having constituted him the living Word, and Law and Wisdom, the fullness of all blessing, has presented this best and greatest gift to all who are the subjects of his sovereignty.
8. And he himself, who pervades
all things, and is every where present, unfolding his Father’s
bounties to all with unsparing hand, has accorded a specimen of his
sov
Chapter IV.
1. But whence has man this knowledge, and who has ministered these truths to mortal ears? Or whence has a tongue of flesh the power to speak of things so utterly distinct from fleshly or material substance? Who has gazed on the invisible King, and beheld these perfections in him? The bodily sense may comprehend elements and their combinations, of a nature kindred to its own: but no one yet has boasted to have scanned with corporeal eye that unseen kingdom which governs all things nor has mortal nature yet discerned the beauty of perfect wisdom. Who has beheld the face of righteousness through the medium of flesh? And whence came the idea of legitimate sovereignty and imperial power to man? Whence the thought of absolute dominion to a being composed of flesh and blood? Who declared those ideas which are invisible and undefined, and that incorporeal essence which has no external form, to the mortals of this earth?
2. Surely there was but one
interpreter of these things; the all-pervading Word of God. “And no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who
the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to
reveal him.”—
3. And when that Word, who is
the Parent of rational beings, had impressed a character on the mind of
man according to the image and likeness of God, Eusebius, in making it the Word who impresses the image of God on
men, shows good philosophy and good theology.
Chapter V.
1. And in this hope our divinely-favored emperor partakes even in this present life, gifted as he is by God with native virtues, and having received into his soul the out-flowings of his favor. His reason he derives from the great Source of all reason: he is wise, and good, and just, as having fellowship with perfect Wisdom, Goodness, and Righteousness: virtuous, as following the pattern of perfect virtue: valiant, as partaking of heavenly strength.
2. And truly may he deserve the imperial title, who has formed his soul to royal virtues, according to the standard of that celestial kingdom. But he who is a stranger to these blessings, who denies the Sovereign of the universe, and owns no allegiance to the heavenly Father of spirits; who invests not himself with the virtues which become an emperor, but overlays his soul with moral deformity and baseness; who for royal clemency substitutes the fury of a savage beast; for a generous temper, the incurable venom of malicious wickedness; for prudence, folly; for reason and wisdom, that recklessness which is the most odious of all vices, for from it, as from a spring of bitterness, proceed the most pernicious fruits; such as inveterate profligacy of life, covetousness, murder, impiety and defiance of God; surely one abandoned to such vices as these, however he may be deemed powerful through despotic violence, has no true title to the name of Emperor.
3. For how should he whose soul
is impressed with a thousand absurd images of There seems to be a clear hint of Philonism here, or Philonism as
developed by the Neo-Platonists and the Christian Theologians. The
history of the thought seems to begin in the Platonic ideas. These
self-existing forms which impress themselves on the soul naturally
become personalities to which the soul submits, and whose images are
impressed on the soul. These personalized ideas are in the thought of
Philo the thoughts or ideas of God, “powers” who do his
will, like the Valkyr of the Northern mythology,—the personified
thoughts or will of Odin. These objective ideas in organized whole were
the Word. The objectivity of
ideas, placed in relation with “mind reading,”
“thought transference,” and the like, and with the modern
conceptions of the conservation of energy and transmission of force by
vibrations, give an interesting suggestion of a material basis for the
conception. If thought is accompanied by vibration of brain molecules,
it is of course quite conceivable that that vibration be projected
through any medium which can transmit vibration, whether the nerves of
another person or the air. A person of supreme energy of will would
make these vibrations more intense, and an Infinite personality would
make tangible even perhaps to the point of that resistance which we
call matter. The conception of one great central Personality issuing an
organized related system of thoughts in various stages of embodiment,
in one massive, constant forth-streaming of will, is most interesting.
According to it, all will forms of the individual are true as they are
in harmony with these norms. Where, however, the lesser wills project
incongruous will forms, they are in conflict with the greater.
According to it, the human soul is beaten upon by all ideas which have
ever been projected, either in individual or in some combined total of
force, and is formed according to what it submits itself to, whether to
the lesser and mal-organized or to the Great Norm.
4. Let, then, our emperor, on
the testimony of truth itself, be declared alone worthy of the title;
who is dear to the Supreme Sovereign himself; who alone is free, nay,
who is truly lord: above the thirst of wealth, superior to sexual
desire; victorious even over natural pleasures; controlling, not
controlled by, anger and passion. Compare Prolegomena, Character. This peculiar self-control,
it is to be remembered, was characteristic also of his father, and in a
measure the product of the Neo-Platonic philosophy. Literally, the “archetypal idea,”—the same
phrase as that used by Philo, 1. 4 (ed. Lips., 1828, I. p. 7); i.e.
that incorporeal model or image of God on which the corporeal world was
formed.
5. He is indeed an emperor, who calls on and implores in prayer the favor of his heavenly Father night and day, and whose ardent desires are fixed on his celestial kingdom. For he knows that present things, subject as they are to decay and death, flowing on and disappearing like a river’s stream, are not worthy to be compared with him who is sovereign of all; therefore it is that he longs for the incorruptible and incorporeal kingdom of God. And this kingdom he trusts he shall obtain, elevating his mind as he does in sublimity of thought above the vault of heaven, and filled with inexpressible longing for the glories which shine there, in comparison with which he deems the precious things of this present world but darkness. For he sees earthly sovereignty to be but a petty and fleeting dominion over a mortal and temporary life, and rates it not much higher than the goatherd’s, or shepherd’s, or herdsman’s power: nay, as more burdensome than theirs, and exercised over more stubborn subjects. The acclamations of the people, and the voice of flattery, he reckons rather troublesome than pleasing, because of the steady constancy of his character, and genuine discipline of his mind.
6. Again, when he beholds the
military service of his subjects, the vast array of his armies, the
multitudes of horse and foot, entirely devoted to his command, he feels
no astonishment, no pride at the possession of such mighty power; but
turns his thoughts inward on himself, and recognizes the same common
nature there. He smiles at his vesture, embroidered with gold and
flowers, and at the imperial purple and diadem itself, when he sees the
multitude gaze in wonder, like children at a bugbear, on the splendid
spectacle. This may be true; but compare Prolegomena, Character, for
his practice, at least.
7. The wealth which others so much desire, as gold, silver, or precious gems, he regards to be, as they really are, in themselves mere stones and worthless matter, of no avail to preserve or defend from evil. For what power have these things to free from disease, or repel the approach of death? And knowing as he does this truth by personal experience in the use of these things, he regards the splendid attire of his subjects with calm indifference, and smiles at the childishness of those to whom they prove attractive. Lastly, he abstains from all excess in food and wine, and leaves superfluous dainties to gluttons, judging that such indulgences, however suitable to others, are not so to him, and deeply convinced of their pernicious tendency, and their effect in darkening the intellectual powers of the soul.
8. For all these reasons,
Chapter VI.
1. And
God himself, as an earnest of future reward, assigns to him now as it
were tricennial crowns [Alluding (says Valesius) to the crowns of gold which the people
of the several provinces were accustomed to present to the Roman
emperors on such occasions as the present.—Bag.] In his
prologue to the Life, Eusebius calls this very oration a weaving
of tricennial crowns (or garlands). These crowns had their historical
origin in the triumphal crowns under the Roman system. Cf. Rich, in
Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant. p. 361.
2. And while those on earth thus rejoice, crowned as it were with the flowers of divine knowledge, surely, we may not unduly suppose that the heavenly choirs, attracted by a natural sympathy, unite their joy with the joy of those on earth: nay, that the Supreme Sovereign himself, as a gracious father, delights in the worship of duteous children, and for this reason is pleased to honor the author and cause of their obedience through a lengthened period of time; and, far from limiting his reign to three decennial circles of years, he extends it to the remotest period, even to far distant eternity.
3. Now eternity [It is perhaps difficult to find a better word to express the
original αἰ&
240·ν.—Bag.]
4. But it does not refuse to
acknowledge its own Sovereign and Lord, Compare [Days, months, years, seasons, &c., are here intended.
Valesius, ad loc.—Bag.] Hom. Il. 8, 19. [Αἰ&
241·ν, ὥσπερ ἀεὶ
ὤν.—Bag.]
5. For first of all he framed in
it formless matter, as a substance capable of receiving all forms. He
next, by the power of the number two, imparted quality to matter, and
gave beauty to that which before was void of all grace. Again, by means
of the number three, he framed a body compounded of matter and form,
and presenting the three dimensions of breadth, and length, and depth.
Then, from the doubling of the number two, he devised the quaternion of
the elements, earth, water, air, and fire, and ordained them to be
everlasting sources for the supply of this universe. Again, the number
four produces the number ten. For the aggregate of one, and two, and
three, and four, is ten. From what source Eusebius draws this particular application of the
Pythagorean principle is uncertain. This conception of the derivation
of ten from four is found in Philo, de Mund. Opif. ch. 15, and
indeed it is said (Ueberweg) that with the earliest Pythagoreans
four and ten were the especially significant numbers in creation. This
mixture of Neo-Pythagoreanism with Platonism and Philonism was
characteristic of the time.
6. For as the ground is defined
by stated distances for those who run in hope of obtaining the prize;
and as the road of those who travel on a distant journey is marked by
resting-places and measured intervals, that the traveler’s
courage may not fail at the interminable prospect; even so the
Sovereign of the universe, controlling eternity itself within
7. Having ordained this earth to be at once the home, the nurse, and the mother of all the creatures it contains, and watered it both with rain and water-springs, he caused it to abound in plants and flowers of every species, for the enjoyment of life. And when he had formed man in his own likeness, the noblest of earthly creatures, and dearest to himself, a creature gifted with intellect and knowledge, the child of reason and wisdom, he gave him dominion over all other animals which move and live upon the earth. For man was in truth of all earthly creatures the dearest to God: man, I say, to whom, as an indulgent Father, he has subjected the brute creation; for whom he has made the ocean navigable, and crowned the earth with a profusion of plants of every kind; to whom he has granted reasoning faculties for acquiring all science; under whose control he has placed even the creatures of the deep, and the winged inhabitants of the air; to whom he has permitted the contemplation of celestial objects, and revealed the course and changes of the sun and moon, and the periods of the planets and fixed stars. In short, to man alone of earthly beings has he given commandment to acknowledge him as his heavenly Father, and to celebrate his praises as the Supreme Sovereign of eternity itself.
8. But the unchangeable course of eternity the Creator has limited by the four seasons of the year, terminating the winter by the approach of spring, and regulating as with an equal balance that season which commences the annual period. Having thus graced the eternal course of time with the varied productions of spring, he added the summer’s heat; and then granted as it were a relief of toil by the interval of autumn: and lastly, refreshing and cleansing the season by the showers of winter, he brings it, rendered sleek and glossy, like a noble steed, by these abundant rains, once more to the gates of spring.
9. As soon, then, as the Supreme Sovereign had thus connected his own eternity by these cords of wisdom with the annual circle, he committed it to the guidance of a mighty Governor, even his only begotten Word, to whom, as the Preserver of all creation, he yielded the reins of universal power. And he, receiving this inheritance as from a beneficent Father, and uniting all things both above and beneath the circumference of heaven in one harmonious whole, directs their uniform course; providing with perfect justice whatever is expedient for his rational creatures on the earth, appointing its allotted limits to human life, and granting to all alike permission to anticipate even here the commencement of a future existence. For he has taught them that beyond this present world there is a divine and blessed state of being, reserved for those who have been supported here by the hope of heavenly blessings; and that those who have lived a virtuous and godly life will remove hence to a far better habitation; while he adjudges to those who have been guilty and wicked here a place of punishment according to their crimes.
10. Again, as in the distribution of prizes at the public games, he proclaims various crowns to the victors, and invests each with the rewards of different virtues: but for our good emperor, who is clothed in the very robe of piety, he declares that a higher recompense of his toils is prepared; and, as a prelude to this recompense, permits us now to assemble at this festival, which is composed of perfect numbers, of decades thrice, and triads ten times repeated.
11. The first of these, the
triad, is the offspring of the unit, while the unit is the mother of
number itself, and presides over all months, and seasons, and years,
and every period of time. It may, indeed, be justly termed the origin,
foundation, and principle of all number, and derives its name from its
abiding character. [Μονὰς, παρὰ
τὸ μένειν
ὠνομασμένη. The analogies from number in this chapter (which the
reader will probably consider puerile enough) seem to be an imitation
of some of the mystical speculations of
Plato.—Bag.]
12. For the unit is the
originator of every number, since all
13. Kindred to this is the triad; equally indivisible and perfect, the first of those sums which are formed of even and uneven numbers. For the perfect number two, receiving the addition of the unit, forms the triad, the first perfect compound number. And the triad, by explaining what equality is, first taught men justice, having itself an equal beginning, and middle, and end. And it is also an image of the mysterious, most holy, and royal Trinity, which, though itself without beginning or origin, yet contains the germs, the reasons, and causes of the existence of all created things.
14. Thus the power of the triad may justly be regarded as the first cause of all things. Again, the number ten, which contains the end of all numbers, and terminates them in itself, may truly be called a full and perfect number, as comprehending every species and every measure of numbers, proportions, concords, and harmonies. For example, the units by addition form and are terminated by the number ten; and, having this number as their parent, and as it were the limit of their course, they round this as the goal of their career.
15. Then they perform a second circuit, and again a third, and a fourth, until the tenth, and thus by ten decades they complete the hundredth number. Returning thence to the first starting point, they again proceed to the number ten, and having ten times completed the hundredth number, again they recede, and perform round the same barriers their protracted course, proceeding from themselves back to themselves again, with revolving motion.
16. For the unit is the tenth of ten, and ten units make up a decade, which is itself the limit, the settled goal and boundary of units: it is that which terminates the infinity of number; the term and end of units. Again, the triad combined with the decade, and performing a threefold circuit of tens, produces that most natural number, thirty. For as the triad is in respect to units, so is the number thirty in respect to tens.
17. It is also the constant limit to the course of that luminary which is second to the sun in brightness. For the course of the moon from one conjunction with the sun to the next, completes the period of a month; after which, receiving as it were a second birth, it recommences a new light, and other days, being adorned and honored with thirty units, three decades, and ten triads.
18. In the same manner is the universal reign of our victorious emperor distinguished by the giver of all good, and now enters on a new sphere of blessing, accomplishing, at present, this tricennalian festival, but reaching forward beyond this to far more distant intervals of time, and cherishing the hope of future blessings in the celestial kingdom; where, not a single sun, but infinite hosts of light surround the Almighty Sovereign, each surpassing the splendor of the sun, glorious and resplendent with rays derived from the everlasting source of light.
19. There the soul enjoys its existence, surrounded by fair and unfading blessings; there is a life beyond the reach of sorrow; there the enjoyment of pure and holy pleasures, and a time of unmeasured and endless duration, extending into illimitable space; not defined by intervals of days and months, the revolutions of years, or the recurrence of times and seasons, but commensurate with a life which knows no end. And this life needs not the light of the sun, nor the lustre of the moon or the starry host, since it has the great Luminary himself, even God the Word, the only begotten Son of the Almighty Sovereign.
20. Hence it is that the mystic and sacred oracles reveal him to be the Sun of righteousness, and the Light which far transcends all light. We believe that he illumines also the thrice-blessed powers of heaven with the rays of righteousness, and the brightness of wisdom, and that he receives truly pious souls, not within the sphere of heaven alone, but into his own bosom, and confirms indeed the assurances which he himself has given.
21. No mortal eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor can the mind in its vesture of flesh understand what things are prepared for those who have been here adorned with the graces of godliness; blessings which await thee too, most pious emperor, to whom alone since the world began has the Almighty Sovereign of the universe granted power to purify the course of human life: to whom also he has revealed his own symbol of salvation, whereby he overcame the power of death, and triumphed over every enemy. And this victorious trophy, the scourge of evil spirits, thou hast arrayed against the errors of idol worship, and hast obtained the victory not only over all thy impious and savage foes, but over equally barbarous adversaries, the evil spirits themselves.
Chapter VII.
1. For
whereas we are composed of two distinct natures, I mean of body and
spirit, of which the one is visible to all, the other invisible,
against both these natures two kinds of barbarous and savage enemies,
the one invisibly, the other openly, are constantly arrayed.
2. Again, the visible barbarians, like the wild nomad tribes, no better than savage beasts, assail the nations of civilized men, ravage their country, and enslave their cities, rushing on those who inhabit them like ruthless wolves of the desert, and destroying all who fall under their power. But those unseen foes, more cruel far than barbarians, I mean the soul-destroying demons whose course is through the regions of the air, had succeeded, through the snares of vile polytheism, in enslaving the entire human race, insomuch that they no longer recognized the true God, but wandered in the mazes of atheistic error. For they procured, I know not whence, gods who never anywhere existed, and set him aside who is the only and the true God, as though he were not.
3. Accordingly the generation of
bodies was esteemed by them a deity, and so the opposite principle to
this, their dissolution and destruction, was also deified. The first,
as the author of generative power, was honored with rites under the
name of Venus: Or
Aphrodite. [Μέγαν
θεὸν καὶ
πλούσιον,
παρα καὶ
Πλούτωνα, τὸν
θ€νατον
ἀνηγόρευον.—Bag.]
4. Hence animal pleasure became
to them a god; nutrition, and its production, a god; the fruit of
trees, a god; drunken riot, a god; carnal desire and pleasure, a god.
Hence the mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine, the rape of the latter,
and her subsequent restoration, by Pluto: hence the orgies of Bacchus,
and Hercules overcome by drunkenness as by a mightier god: hence the
adulterous rites of Cupid and of Venus: hence Jupiter himself
infatuated with the love of women, and of Ganymede: On these various names, compare Smith, Dict. of Gr. and Rom.
Biog.
5. Such were the weapons of superstition whereby these cruel barbarians and enemies of the Supreme God afflicted, and indeed entirely subdued, the human race; erecting everywhere the monuments of impiety, and rearing in every corner the shrines and temples of their false religion.
6. Nay, so far were the ruling powers of those times enslaved by the force of error, as to appease their gods with the blood of their own countrymen and kindred; to whet their swords against those who stood forward to defend the truth; to maintain a ruthless war and raise unholy hands, not against foreign or barbarian foes, but against men bound to them by the ties of family and affection, against brethren, and kinsmen, and dearest friends, who had resolved, in the practice of virtue and true piety, to honor and worship God.
7. Such was the spirit of madness with which these princes sacrificed to their demon deities men consecrated to the service of the King of kings. On the other hand their victims, as noble martyrs in the cause of true godliness, resolved to welcome a glorious death in preference to life itself, and utterly despised these cruelties. Strengthened, as soldiers of God, with patient fortitude, they mocked at death in all its forms; at fire, and sword, and the torment of crucifixion; at exposure to savage beasts, and drowning in the depths of the sea; at the cutting off and searing of limbs, the digging out of eyes, the mutilation of the whole body; lastly, at famine, the labor of the mines, and captivity: nay, all these sufferings they counted better than any earthly good or pleasure, for the love they bore their heavenly King. In like manner women also evinced a spirit of constancy and courage not inferior to that of men.
8. Some endured the same
conflicts with them, and obtained a like reward of their virtue:
others, forcibly carried off to be the victims of violence and
pollution, welcomed death rather than dishonor; while many, very many
more, endured not even to hear the same threats wherewith they were
assailed by the provincial governors, but boldly sustained every
variety of torture, and sentence of death in every form. For account of the various details of persecution mentioned,
compare the Church History.
9. In these sad circumstances, what course should the God and King of these afflicted ones pursue? Could he be careless of the safety of his dearest friends or abandon his servants in this great extremity? Surely none could deem him a wary pilot, who, without an effort to save his fellow-mariners should suffer his vessel to sink with all her crew: surely no general could be found so reckless as to yield his own allies, without resistance, to the mercy of the foe: nor can a faithful shepherd regard with unconcern the straying of a single sheep from his flock, but will rather leave the rest in safety, and dare all things for the wanderer’s sake, even, if need be, to contend with savage beasts.
10. The zeal, however, of the
great Sovereign of all was for no unconscious “ἀλόγου.”
11. After this he outstretched his arm in judgment on the adversaries, and utterly destroyed them with the stroke of Divine wrath, compelling them, how reluctant soever to confess with their own lips and recant their wickedness, but raising from the ground and exalting gloriously those who had long been oppressed and disclaimed by all.
12. Such were the dealings of the Supreme Sovereign, who ordained an invincible champion to be the minister of his heaven-sent vengeance (for our emperor’s surpassing piety delights in the title of Servant of God), and him he has proved victorious over all that opposed him, having raised him up, an individual against many foes. For they were indeed numberless, being the friends of many evil spirits (though in reality they were nothing, and hence are now no more); but our emperor is one, appointed by, and the representative of, the one Almighty Sovereign. And they, in the very spirit of impiety, destroyed the righteous with cruel slaughter: but he, in imitation of his Saviour, and knowing only how to save men’s lives, has spared and instructed in godliness the impious themselves.
13. And so, as truly worthy the
name of Victor, he has subdued the twofold
race of barbarians; soothing the savage tribes of men by prudent
embassies, compelling them to know and acknowledge their superiors, and
reclaiming them from a lawless and brutal life to the governance of
reason and humanity; at the same time that he proved by the facts
themselves that the fierce and ruthless race of unseen spirits had long
ago been vanquished by a higher power. For he who is the preserver of
the universe had punished these invisible spirits by an invisible
judgment: and our emperor, as the delegate of the Supreme Sovereign,
has followed up the victory, bearing away the spoils of those who have
long since died and mouldered into dust, and distributing the plunder
with lavish hand among the soldiers of his victorious Lord. [That is, stripping the images of those whose temples he
destroyed, and apportioning the spoils among his Christian followers:
See the next chapter, which is mostly a transcript of the 54th and 55th
chapters of the Third Book of the Life of
Constantine.—Bag.]
Chapter VIII.
1. For as soon as he understood that the ignorant multitudes were inspired with a vain and childish dread of these bugbears of error, wrought in gold and silver, he judged it right to remove these also, like stumbling-stones thrown in the path of men walking in the dark, and henceforward to open a royal road, plain and unobstructed, to all.
2. Having formed this resolution, he considered that no soldiers or military force of any sort was needed for the repression of the evil: a few of his own friends sufficed for this service, and these he sent by a simple expression of his will to visit each several province.
3. Accordingly, sustained by confidence in the emperor’s piety and their own personal devotion to God, they passed through the midst of numberless tribes and nations, abolishing this ancient system of error in every city and country. They ordered the priests themselves, in the midst of general laughter and scorn, to bring their gods from their dark recesses to the light of day. They then stripped them of their ornaments, and exhibited to the gaze of all the unsightly reality which had been hidden beneath a painted exterior: and lastly, whatever part of the material appeared to be of value they scraped off and melted in the fire to prove its worth, after which they secured and set apart whatever they judged needful for their purposes, leaving to the superstitious worshipers what was altogether useless, as a memorial of their shame.
4. Meanwhile our admirable
prince was himself engaged in a work similar to that we have described.
For at the same time that these costly images of the dead were
stripped, as we have said, of their precious
5. And as the keen-sighted eagle in its heavenward flight is able to descry from its lofty height the most distant objects on the earth: so did he, whilst residing in the imperial palace of his own fair city, discover, as from a watch-tower, a hidden and fatal snare of souls in the province of Phœnicia. This was a grove and temple, not situated in the midst of any city, or in any public place, as for splendor of effect is generally the case, but apart from the beaten and frequented road, on part of the summit of Mount Lebanon, and dedicated to the foul demon known by the name of Venus.
6. It was a school of wickedness for all the abandoned votaries of impurity and such as destroyed their bodies with effeminacy. Here men undeserving the name forgot the dignity of their sex, and propitiated the demon by their effeminate conduct: here too unlawful commerce of women, and adulterous intercourse, with other horrible and infamous practices, were perpetrated in this temple as in a place beyond the scope and restraint of law.
Meantime these evils remained unchecked by the presence of any observer, since no one of fair character ventured to visit such scenes.
7. These proceedings, however, could not escape the vigilance of our august emperor, who, having himself inspected them with characteristic forethought, and judging that such a temple was unfit for the light of heaven, gave orders that the building with its offerings should be utterly destroyed. Accordingly, in obedience to the imperial edict, these engines of an impure superstition were immediately abolished, and the hand of military force was made instrumental in purging the place. And now those who had heretofore lived without restraint, learned, through the imperial threat of punishment, to practice self-control.
8. Thus did our emperor tear the
mask from this system of delusive wickedness, and expose it to the
public gaze, at the same time proclaiming openly his Saviour’s
name to all. No advocate appeared; neither god nor demon, prophet nor
diviner, could lend his aid to the detected authors of the imposture.
For the souls of men were no longer enveloped in thick darkness: but
enlightened by the rays of true godliness, they deplored the ignorance
and pitied the blindness of their forefathers, rejoicing at the same
time in their own deliverance from such fatal error. “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I
thank thee that I am not as the rest of men.”
9. Thus speedily, according to the counsel of the mighty God, and through our emperor’s agency, was every enemy, whether visible or unseen, utterly removed: and henceforward peace, the happy nurse of youth, extended her reign throughout the world. Wars were no more, for the gods were not: no more did warfare in country or town, no more did the effusion of human blood, distress mankind, as heretofore, when demon-worship and the madness of idolatry prevailed.
Chapter IX.
1. And now we may well compare the present with former things, and review these happy changes in contrast with the evils that are past, and mark the elaborate care with which in ancient times porches and sacred precincts, groves and temples, were prepared in every city for these false deities, and how their shrines were enriched with abundant offerings.
2. The sovereign rulers of those days had indeed a high regard for the worship of the gods. The nations also and people subject to their power honored them with images both in the country and in every city, nay, even in their houses and secret chambers, according to the religious practice of their fathers. The fruit, however, of this devotion, far different from the peaceful concord which now meets our view, appeared in war, in battles, and seditions, which harassed them throughout their lives, and deluged their countries with blood and civil slaughter.
3. Again, the objects of their worship could hold out to these sovereigns with artful flattery the promise of prophecies, and oracles, and the knowledge of futurity: yet could they not predict their own destruction, nor forewarn themselves of the coming ruin: and surely this was the greatest and most convincing proof of their imposture.
4. Not one of those whose words
once were heard with awe and wonder, had announced the glorious advent
of the Saviour of mankind, He seems to disagree with the view of the heathen prophecy which
his imperial hearer maintained in his Oration to the
Saints.
5. What prophet or diviner could
foretell that their rites would vanish at the presence of a new Deity
in the world, and that the knowledge and worship of the Almighty
Sovereign should be freely given to all mankind?
6. Which of the heroes has announced the melting down and conversion of the lifeless statues from their useless forms to the necessary uses of men? Which of the gods have yet had power to speak of their own images thus melted and contemptuously reduced to fragments?
7. Where were the protecting powers, that they should not interpose to save their sacred memorials, thus destroyed by man? Where, I ask, are those who once maintained the strife of war, yet now behold their conquerors abiding securely in the profoundest peace? And where are they who upheld themselves in a blind and foolish confidence, and trusted in these vanities as gods; but who, in the very height of their superstitious error, and while maintaining an implacable war with the champions of the truth, perished by a fate proportioned to their crimes?
8. Where is the giant race whose
arms were turned against heaven itself; the hissings of those serpents
whose tongues were pointed with impious words against the Almighty
King? These adversaries of the Lord of all, confident in the aid of a
multitude of gods, advanced to the attack with a powerful array of
military force, preceded by certain images of the dead, and lifeless
statues, as their defense. On the other side our emperor, secure in the
armor of godliness, opposed to the numbers of the enemy the salutary
and life-giving Sign, as at the same time a terror to the foe, and a
protection against every harm; and returned victorious at once over the
enemy and the demons whom they served. For details respecting the following enumeration, compare the
Life of Constantine, of which this is a résumé. This
sentence and the preceding are taken almost word for word from ch. 16
of Bk. II.
9. Such were the instructions which he gave to his subjects generally; but especially to his soldiers, whom he admonished to repose their confidence, not in their weapons, or armor, or bodily strength, but to acknowledge the Supreme God as the giver of every good, and of victory itself.
10. Thus did the emperor himself, strange and incredible as the fact may seem, become the instructor of his army in their religious exercises, and teach them to offer pious prayers in accordance with the divine ordinances, uplifting their hands towards heaven, and raising their mental vision higher still to the King of heaven, on whom they should call as the Author of victory, their preserver, guardian, and helper. He commanded too, that one day should be regarded as a special occasion for religious worship; I mean that which is truly the first and chief of all, the day of our Lord and Saviour; that day the name of which is connected with light, and life, and immortality, and every good.
11. Prescribing the same pious conduct to himself, he honored his Saviour in the chambers of his palace, performing his devotions according to the Divine commands, and storing his mind with instruction through the hearing of the sacred word. The entire care of his household was intrusted to ministers devoted to the service of God, and distinguished by gravity of life and every other virtue; while his trusty body-guards, strong in affection and fidelity to his person, found in their emperor an instructor in the practice of a godly life.
12. Again, the honor with which he regards the victorious Sign is founded on his actual experience of its divine efficacy. Before this the hosts of his enemies have disappeared: by this the powers of the unseen spirits have been turned to flight: through this the proud boastings of God’s adversaries have come to nought, and the tongues of the profane and blasphemous been put to silence. By this Sign the Barbarian tribes were vanquished: through this the rites of superstitious fraud received a just rebuke: by this our emperor, discharging as it were a sacred debt, has performed the crowning good of all, by erecting triumphant memorials of its value in all parts of the world, raising temples and churches on a scale of royal costliness, and commanding all to unite in constructing the sacred houses of prayer.
13. Accordingly these signal
proofs of our emperor’s magnificence forthwith appeared in the
provinces and cities of the empire, and soon shone conspicuously in
every country; convincing memorials of the rebuke and overthrow of
those impious tyrants who but a little while before had madly dared to
fight against God, and, raging like savage dogs, had vented on
unconscious buildings that fury which they were unable to level against
him; had thrown to the ground and upturned the very foundations of the
houses of prayer, causing them to present the appearance of a city
captured and abandoned to the enemy. Such was the exhibition of that
wicked spirit whereby they sought as it were to assail God himself, but
soon experienced the result of their own madness and folly. But a
little time elapsed, when a single blast of the storm of Heaven’s
displeasure swept
14. Such, then, was the fate which awaited these furious adversaries of God: but he who, armed with the salutary Trophy, had alone opposed them (nay rather, not alone, but aided by the presence and the power of him who is the only Sovereign), has replaced the ruined edifices on a greater scale, and made the second far superior to the first. For example, besides erecting various churches to the honor of God in the city which bears his name, and adorning the Bithynian capital with another on the greatest and most splendid scale, he has distinguished the principal cities of the other provinces by structures of a similar kind.
15. Above all, he has selected
two places in the eastern division of the empire, the one in Palestine
(since from thence the life-giving stream has flowed as from a fountain
for the blessing of all nations), the other in that metropolis of the
East which derives its name from that of Antiochus; in which, as the
head of that portion of the empire, he has consecrated to the service
of God a church of unparalleled size and beauty. The entire building is
encompassed by an enclosure of great extent, within which the church
itself rises to a vast elevation, of an octagonal form, surrounded by
many chambers and courts on every side, and decorated with ornaments of
the richest kind. Almost word for word from the Life, Bk. III. ch.
50.
16. Such was his work here. Again, in the province of Palestine, in that city which was once the seat of Hebrew sovereignty, on the very site of the Lord’s sepulchre, he has raised a church of noble dimensions, and adorned a temple sacred to the salutary Cross with rich and lavish magnificence, honoring that everlasting monument, and the trophies of the Saviour’s victory over the power of death, with a splendor which no language can describe.
17. In the same country he
discovered three places venerable as the localities of three sacred
caves: and these also he adorned with costly structures, paying a
fitting tribute of reverence to the scene of the first manifestation of
the Saviour’s presence; while at the second cavern he hallowed
the remembrance of his final ascension from the mountain top; and
celebrated his mighty conflict, and the victory which crowned it, at
the third. [In the Life of Constantine (vide [Bk. III. ch. 41] supra),
Eusebius mentions two caves only, and speaks of the churches built by
Helena at Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. He here alludes to the
magnificent church erected by Constantine at the Lord’s
sepulchre, and ascribes to him those of Helena also, as having been
raised at the emperor’s expense. Valesius, ad
loc.—Bag.]
18. that Cross which has indeed repaid his pious zeal; through which his house and throne alike have prospered, his reign has been confirmed for a lengthened series of years, and the rewards of virtue bestowed on his noble sons, his kindred, and their descendants.
19. And surely it is a mighty evidence of the power of that God whom he serves, that he has held the balances of justice with an equal hand, and has apportioned to each party their due reward. With regard to the destroyers of the houses of prayer, the penalty of their impious conduct followed hard upon them: forthwith were they swept away, and left neither race, nor house, nor family behind. On the other hand, he whose pious devotion to his Lord is conspicuous in his every act, who raises royal temples to his honor, and proclaims his name to his subjects by sacred offerings throughout the world, he, I say, has deservedly experienced him to be the preserver and defender of his imperial house and race. Thus clearly have the dealings of God been manifested, and this through the sacred efficacy of the salutary Sign.
Chapter X.
1. Much might indeed be said of this salutary Sign, by those who are skilled in the mysteries of our Divine religion. For it is in very truth the symbol of salvation, wondrous to speak of, more wondrous still to conceive; the appearance of which on earth has thrown the fictions of all false religion from the beginning into the deepest shade, has buried superstitious error in darkness and oblivion, and has revealed to all that spiritual light which enlightens the souls of men, even the knowledge of the only true God.
2. Hence the universal change for the better, which leads men to spurn their lifeless idols, to trample under foot the lawless rites of their demon deities, and laugh to scorn the time-honored follies of their fathers. Hence, too, the establishment in every place of those schools of sacred learning, wherein men are taught the precepts of saving truth, and dread no more those objects of creation which are seen by the natural eye, nor direct a gaze of wonder at the sun, the moon, or stars; but acknowledge him who is above all these, that invisible Being who is the Creator of them all, and learn to worship him alone.
3. Such are the blessings resulting to mankind from this great and wondrous Sign, by virtue of which the evils which once existed are now no more, and virtues heretofore unknown shine everywhere resplendent with the light of true godliness.
4. Discourses, and precepts,
and
5. No more, as in former times, is the babbling of impious men heard in the imperial palace; but priests and pious worshipers of God together celebrate his majesty with royal hymns of praise. The name of the one Supreme Ruler of the universe is proclaimed to all: the gospel of glad tidings connects the human race with its Almighty King, declaring the grace and love of the heavenly Father to his children on the earth.
6. His praise is everywhere sung in triumphant strains: the voice of mortal man is blended with the harmony of the angelic choirs in heaven; and the reasoning soul employs the body which invests it as an instrument for sounding forth a fitting tribute of praise and adoration to his name. The nations of the East and the West are instructed at the same moment in his precepts: the people of the Northern and Southern regions unite with one accord, under the influence of the same principles and laws, in the pursuit of a godly life, in praising the one Supreme God, in acknowledging his only begotten Son their Saviour as the source of every blessing, and our emperor as the one ruler on the earth, together with his pious sons.
7. He himself, as a skillful
pilot, sits on high at the helm of state, and directs the vessel with
unerring course, conducting his people as it were with favoring breeze
to a secure and tranquil haven. Meanwhile God himself, the great
Sovereign, extends the right hand of his power from above for his
protection, giving him victory over every foe, and establishing his
empire by a lengthened period of years: and he will bestow on him yet
higher blessings, and confirm in every deed the truth of his own
promises. But on these we may not at present dwell; but must await the
change to a better world: for it is not given to mortal eyes or ears of
flesh, fully to apprehend the things of God. At this point, according to some (compare Special Prolegomena),
one oration ends and another begins.
Chapter XI.
1. And now, victorious and mighty Constantine, in this discourse, whose noble argument is the glory of the Almighty King, let me lay before thee some of the mysteries of his sacred truth: not as presuming to instruct thee, who art thyself taught of God; nor to disclose to thee those secret wonders which he himself, not through the agency of man, but through our common Saviour, and the frequent light of his Divine presence has long since revealed and unfolded to thy view: but in the hope of leading the unlearned to the light, and displaying before those who know them not the causes and motives of thy pious deeds.
2. True it is that thy noble
efforts for the daily worship and honor of the Supreme God throughout
the habitable world, are the theme of universal praise. But those
records of gratitude to thy Saviour and Preserver which thou hast
dedicated in our own province of Palestine, and in that city from which
as from a fountain-head the Saviour Word Here the author seems to speak doubly of the Word and the
word.
3. Those, indeed, who are enlightened in heavenly knowledge by the power of the Divine Spirit, well understand the cause, and justly admire and bless thee for that counsel and resolution which Heaven itself inspired. On the other hand the ignorant and spiritually blind regard these designs with open mockery and scorn, and deem it a strange and unworthy thing indeed that so mighty a prince should waste his zeal on the graves and monuments of the dead.
4. “Were it not better,” such a one might say, “to cherish those rites which are hallowed by ancient usage; to seek the favor of those gods and heroes whose worship is observed in every province; instead of rejecting and disclaiming them, because subject to the calamities incident to man? Surely they may claim equal honors with him who himself has suffered: or, if they are to be rejected, as not exempt from the sorrows of humanity, the same award would justly be pronounced respecting him.” Thus, with important and contracted brow, might he give utterance in pompous language to his self-imagined wisdom.
5. Filled with compassion for
this ignorance, the gracious Word of our most beneficent Father freely
invites, not such a one alone, but all who are in the path of error, to
receive instruction in Divine knowledge; and has ordained the means of
such instruction throughout the world, in every country and village, in
cultivated and desert lands alike, and in every city: and, as a
gracious Saviour and Physician of the soul, calls on the Greek and the
Barbarian, the wise and the unlearned, the rich
6. Hence it is only for those who are themselves instructed in Divine things and understand the motives of that zeal of which these works are the result, to appreciate the more than human impulse by which our emperor was guided, to admire his piety toward God, and to believe his care for the memorial of our Saviour’s resurrection to be a desire imparted from above, and truly inspired by that Sovereign, to be whose faithful servant and minister for good is his proudest boast.
7. In full persuasion, then, of thy approval, most mighty emperor, I desire at this present time to proclaim to all the reasons and motives of thy pious works. I desire to stand as the interpreter of thy designs, to explain the counsels of a soul devoted to the love of God. I propose to teach all men, what all should know who care to understand the principles on which our Saviour God employs his power, the reasons for which he who was the pre-existent Controller of all things at length descended to us from heaven: the reasons for which he assumed our nature, and submitted even to the power of death. I shall declare the causes of that immortal life which followed, and of his resurrection from the dead. Once more, I shall adduce convincing proofs and arguments, for the sake of those who yet need such testimony:
8. and now let me commence my appointed task.
Those who transfer the worship due to that God who formed and rules the world to the works of his hand; who hold the sun and moon, or other parts of this material system, nay, the elements themselves, earth, water, air, and fire, in equal honor with the Creator of them all; who give the name of gods to things which never would have had existence, or even name, except as obedient to that Word of God who made the world: such persons in my judgment resemble those who overlook the master hand which gives its magnificence to a royal palace; and, while lost in wonder at its roofs and walls, the paintings of varied beauty and coloring which adorn them, and its gilded ceilings and sculptures, ascribe to them the praise of that skill which belongs to the artist whose work they are: whereas they should assign the cause of their wonder, not to these visible objects, but to the architect himself, and confess that the proofs of skill are indeed manifest, but that he alone is the possessor of that skill who has made them what they are.
9. Again, well might we liken those to children, who should admire the seven-stringed lyre, and disregard him who invented or has power to use it: or those who forget the valiant warrior, and adorn his spear and shield with the chaplet of victory: or, lastly, those who hold the squares and streets, the public buildings, temples, and gymnasia of a great and royal city in equal honor with its founder; forgetting that their admiration is due, not to lifeless stones, but to him whose wisdom planned and executed these mighty works.
10. Not less absurd is it for those who regard this universe with the natural eye to ascribe its origin to the sun, or moon, or any other heavenly body. Rather let them confess that these are themselves the works of a higher wisdom, remember the Maker and Framer of them all, and render to him the praise and honor above all created objects. Nay rather, inspired by the sight of these very objects, let them address themselves with full purpose of heart to glorify and worship him who is now invisible to mortal eye, but perceived by the clear and unclouded vision of the soul, the supremely sovereign Word of God. To take the instance of the human body: no one has yet conferred the attribute of wisdom on the eyes, or head, the hands, or feet, or other members, far less on the outward clothing, of a wise and learned man: no one terms the philosopher’s household furniture and utensils, wise: but every rational person admires that invisible and secret power, the mind of the man himself.
11. How much more, then, is our admiration due, not to the visible mechanism of the universe, material as it is, and formed of the selfsame elements; but to that invisible Word who has moulded and arranged it all, who is the only-begotten Son of God, and whom the Maker of all things, who far transcends all being, has begotten of himself, and appointed Lord and Governor of this universe?
12. For since it was impossible
that perishable bodies, or the rational spirits which he had created,
should [This whole passage (which is defended by Valesius) appears, if
rigidly interpreted, to lie under suspicion of a tinge of
Arianism.—Bag.] It savors directly of Philo. His doctrine
was of an ineffable God, above and separate from matter, and defiled by
any contact with it. To bring him into connection with created things
he introduced intermediate beings, or “powers,” the
universal power including all the rest being the Logos. Compare brief
account in Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p.
320–325; Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria (Jena, 1875),
especially p. 199 sq., 219 sq., and p. 362–364, where he treats
very inadequately of Eusebius’ dependence on Philo; also works of
Philo and Eusebius’ Præp. and Demonst. Ev.
There is a chance of viewing the Word thus as created, but if this is
guarded against (as it is by him in the use of “begotten”),
there is nothing intrinsically heterodox in making the Word the Creator
of the world and only Revealer of the Father. The direct Philonian
influence is seen in the phraseology of the following
sentences.
13. The proof of these assertions is evident. For supposing that those component parts of the world which we call elements, as earth, water, air, and fire, the nature of which is manifestly without intelligence, are self-existent; and if they have one common essence, which they who are skilled in natural science call the great receptacle, mother, and nurse of all things; and if this itself be utterly devoid of shape and figure, of soul and reason; whence shall we say it has obtained its present form and beauty? To what shall we ascribe the distinction of the elements, or the union of things contrary in their very nature? Who has commanded the liquid water to sustain the heavy element of earth? Who has turned back the waters from their downward course, and carried them aloft in clouds? Who has bound the force of fire, and caused it to lie latent in wood, and to combine with substances most contrary to itself? Who has mingled the cold air with heat, and thus reconciled the enmity of opposing principles? Who has devised the continuous succession of the human race, and given it as it were an endless term of duration? Who has moulded the male and female form, adapted their mutual relations with perfect harmony, and given one common principle of production to every living creature? Who changes the character of the fluid and corruptible seed, which in itself is void of reason, and gives it its prolific power? Who is at this moment working these and ten thousand effects more wonderful than these, nay, surpassing all wonder, and with invisible influence is daily and hourly perpetuating the production of them all?
14. Surely the wonder-working and truly omnipotent Word of God may well be deemed the efficient cause of all these things: that Word who, diffusing himself through all creation, pervading height and depth with incorporeal energy, and embracing the length and breadth of the universe within his mighty grasp, has compacted and reduced to order this entire system, from whose unreasoned and formless matter he has framed for himself an instrument of perfect harmony, the nicely balanced chords and notes of which he touches with all-wise and unerring skill. He it is who governs the sun, and moon, and the other luminaries of heaven by inexplicable laws, and directs their motions for the service of the universal whole.
15. It is this Word of God who has stooped to the earth on which we live, and created the manifold species of animals, and the fair varieties of the vegetable world. It is this same Word who has penetrated the recesses of the deep, has given their being to the finny race, and produced the countless forms of life which there exist. It is he who fashions the burden of the womb, and informs it in nature’s laboratory with the principle of life. By him the fluid and heavy moisture is raised on high, and then, sweetened by a purifying change, descends in measured quantities to the earth, and at stated seasons in more profuse supply.
16. Like a skillful husbandman,
he fully irrigates the land, tempers the moist and dry in just
proportion, diversifying the whole with brilliant flowers, with aspects
of varied beauty, with pleasant fragrance, with alternating varieties
of fruits, and countless gratifications for the taste of men. But why
do I dare essay a hopeless task, to recount the mighty works of the
Word of God, and describe an energy which surpasses mortal thought? By
some, indeed, he has been termed the Nature of the universe, by others,
the World-Soul, by others, Fate. Others again have declared him to be
the most High God himself, strangely confounding things most widely
different; bringing down to this earth, uniting to a corruptible and
material body, and assigning to that supreme and unbegotten Power who
is Lord of all an intermediate place between [Of this somewhat obscure passage, a translator can do no more
than give as nearly as possible a literal version. The intelligent
reader will not fail to perceive that the author, here and in the
following chapter, has trodden on very dangerous
ground.—Bag.] Compare above notes on the relations of
Eusebius and Philo.
Chapter XII.
1. On
the other hand, the sacred doctrine teaches that he who is the supreme
Source of good, and Cause of all things, is beyond all comprehension,
and therefore inexpressible by word, or speech, or name; surpassing the
power, not of language only, but of thought itself. Uncircumscribed by
place, or body; neither in heaven, nor in ethereal space, nor in any
other part of the universe; but entirely independent of all things
else, he pervades the depths of unexplored and secret wisdom. The
sacred oracles teach us to acknowledge him as the only true God, [Referring, apparently, to [But see, for a refutation of this statement,
2. And he himself dwelling as Sovereign in secret and undiscovered regions of unapproachable light, ordains and disposes all things by the single power of his own will. At his will whatever is, exists; without that will, it cannot be. And his will is in every case for good, since he is essentially Goodness itself. But he through whom are all things, even God the Word, proceeding in an ineffable manner from the Father above, as from an everlasting and exhaustless fountain, flows onward like a river with a full and abundant stream of power for the preservation of the universal whole.
3. And now let us select an illustration from our own experience. The invisible and undiscovered mind within us, the essential nature of which no one has ever known, sits as a monarch in the seclusion of his secret chambers, and alone resolves on our course of action. From this proceeds the only-begotten word from its father’s bosom, begotten in a manner and by a power inexplicable to us; and is the first messenger of its father’s thoughts, declares his secret counsels, and, conveying itself to the ears of others, accomplishes his designs.
4. And thus the advantage of
this faculty is enjoyed by all: yet no one has ever yet beheld that
invisible and hidden mind, which is the parent of the word itself. The author is now speaking especially of the spoken or
“expressed” word. Compare This conception that the Divine Word stands in something the same
relation with the Father that the human word (internal and external)
does to the human spirit has, at least, an interesting suggestion
towards the unraveling of this curious mystery, which, for lack of a
better word, it is the fashion just now to call a human personality,
and which certainly is made in the image and likeness of God. Unless
there lurks in the idea some subtle heresy, one may venture to accept
as an interesting analogy this relation of invisible self, self
expressed to self (internal word), self revealed (external word), and
an expression carried to the point of embodiment
(incarnation). “Logos” again,—here the internal
word.
5. To all these he appoints with perfect equity their limits, places, laws, and inheritance, allotting to each their suited portion according to his sovereign will. To some he assigns the super-terrestrial regions, to others heaven itself as their habitation: others he places in ethereal space, others in air, and others still on earth. He it is who transfers mankind from hence to another sphere, impartially reviews their conduct here, and bestows a recompense according to the life and habits of each. By him provision is made for the life and food, not of rational creatures only, but also of the brute creation, for the service of men;
6. and while to the latter he grants the enjoyment of a perishable and fleeting term of existence, the former he invites to a share in the possession of immortal life. Thus universal is the agency of the Word of God: everywhere present, and pervading all things by the power of his intelligence, he looks upward to his Father, and governs this lower creation, inferior to and consequent upon himself, in accordance with his will, as the common Preserver of all things.
7. Interme
8. Guiding the reigns of the
universe, he holds its onward course in conformity to the
Father’s will and moves, as it were, the helm of this mighty
ship. This glorious Agent, the only-begotten Son of the Supreme God,
begotten by the Father as his perfect Offspring, the Father has given
to this world as the highest of all goods; infusing his word, as spirit
into a lifeless body, into unconscious nature; imparting light and
energy to that which in itself was a rude, inanimate, and formless
mass, through the Divine power. Him therefore it is ours to acknowledge
and regard as everywhere present, and giving life to matter and the
elements of nature: One on the scent for heresy might prick up his ears, and sound the
alarm of “Gnosticism.”
9. The world is indeed divided into many parts; yet let us not therefore suppose that there are many independent Agents: nor, though creation’s works be manifold, let us thence assume the existence of many gods. How grievous the error of those childish and infatuated advocates of polytheistic worship, who deify the constituent parts of the universe, and divide into many that system which is only one!
10. Such conduct resembles
theirs who should abstract the eyes of an individual man, and term them
the man himself, and the ears, another man, and so the head: or again,
by an effort of thought should separate the neck, the breast and
shoulders, the feet and hands, or other members, nay, the very powers
of sense, and thus pronounce an individual to be a multitude of men.
Such folly must surely be rewarded with contempt by men of sense. Yet
such is he who from the component parts of a single world can devise
for himself a multitude of gods, or even deem that world which is the
work of a Creator, and consists of many parts, to be itself a god: A
curious work just issued (anonymous), under the authority of the Bureau
of Education, very complacently evolves the truth of existence out of
the author’s pure, untrammeled consciousness,—for he has
never read any works either on science or on theology,—and
arrives at the condescending conclusion that there is a God; or rather,
in the words of Eusebius, the author comes to “deem that
world…to be itself God.”
11. And hence we are assured by
the clear testimony of the sacred Herald, [Referring (says Valesius) to St. John, whose words Eusebius had
lately cited, “In the beginning was the Word,” &c., and
now explains paraphrastically. The reader will decide for himself on
the merits of the paraphrase.—Bag.]
12. Survey the compass of this
visible world. Seest thou not how the same heaven contains within
itself the countless courses and companies of the stars?
13. Again, there is in man one spirit, and one faculty of reason, which yet is the active cause of numberless effects. The same mind, instructed in many things, will essay to cultivate the earth, to build and guide a ship, and construct houses: nay, the one mind and reason of man is capable of acquiring knowledge in a thousand forms: the same mind shall understand geometry and astronomy, and discourse on the rules of grammar, and rhetoric, and the healing art. Nor will it excel in science only, but in practice too: and yet no one has ever supposed the existence of many minds in one human form, nor expressed his wonder at a plurality of being in man, because he is thus capable of varied knowledge.
14. Suppose one were to find a shapeless mass of clay, to mould it with his hands, and give it the form of a living creature; the head in one figure, the hands and feet in another, the eyes and cheeks in a third, and so to fashion the ears, the mouth and nose, the breast and shoulders, according to the rules of the plastic art. The result, indeed, is a variety of figure, of parts and members in the one body; yet must we not suppose it the work of many hands, but ascribe it entirely to the skill of a single artist, and yield the tribute of our praise to him who by the energy of a single mind has framed it all. The same is true of the universe itself, which is one, though consisting of many parts: yet surely we need not suppose many creative powers, nor invent a plurality of gods. Our duty is to adore the all-wise and all-perfect agency of him who is indeed the Power and the Wisdom of God, whose undivided force and energy pervades and penetrates the universe, creating and giving life to all things, and furnishing to all, collectively and severally, those manifold supplies of which he is himself the source.
15. Even so one and the same impression of the solar rays illumines the air at once, gives light to the eyes, warmth to the touch, fertility to the earth, and growth to plants. The same luminary constitutes the course of time, governs the motions of the stars, performs the circuit of the heavens, imparts beauty to the earth, and displays the power of God to all: and all this he performs by the sole and unaided force of his own nature. In like manner fire has the property of refining gold, and fusing lead, of dissolving wax, of parching clay, and consuming wood; producing these varied effects by one and the same burning power.
16. So also the Supreme Word of
God, pervading all things, everywhere existent, everywhere present in
heaven and earth, governs and directs the visible and invisible
creation, the sun, the heaven, and the universe itself, with an energy
inexplicable in its nature, irresistible in its effects. From him, as
from an everlasting fountain, the sun, the moon, and stars receive
their light: and he forever rules that heaven which he has framed as
the fitting emblem of his own greatness. The angelic and spiritual
powers, the incorporeal and intelligent beings which exist beyond the
sphere of heaven and earth, are filled by him with light and life, with
wisdom and virtue, with all that is great and good, from his own
peculiar treasures. Once more, with one and the same creative skill, he
ceases not to furnish the elements with substance, to regulate the
union and combinations, the forms and figures, and the innumerable
qualities of organized bodies; preserving the varied distinctions of
animal and vegetable life, of the rational and the brute creation; and
supplying all things to all with equal power: thus proving himself the
Author, not indeed of the seven-stringed lyre, [In
reference, singularly enough, to the illustration of the lyre in the
preceding chapter.—Bag.] It
is idle to treat as philosophically or theologically unworthy of
consideration a system of thought so definitely unified, and with such
Scriptural basis as the above. It may not be profound or original, but
is definite and clear.
Chapter XIII.
1. And
now let us proceed to explain the reasons for which this mighty Word of
God descended to dwell with men. Our ignorant and foolish race,
incapable of comprehending him who is the Lord of heaven and earth,
proceeding from his Father’s Deity as from the supreme fountain,
ever present throughout the world, and evincing by the clearest proofs
his providential care for the interests of man; have ascribed the
adorable title of Deity to the sun, and moon, the heaven and the stars
of heaven. Nor did they stop here, but deified the earth itself, its
products, and the various substances by which animal life is sustained,
and devised “Of Demeter, of Cora, of Dionysius.”
2. Nay, they shrank not from
giving the name of gods to the very conceptions of their own minds, and
the speech by which those conceptions are expressed; calling the mind
itself Minerva, and language Mercury, “Athene…Hermes.” The word used here, ἀκρ€τεια, is the opposite of the famous philosophical word for
self-control—ἐγκρ€τεια “Eros, Priapus, Aphrodite.”
3. Nor did they stop even here. Degrading their thoughts of God to this corporeal and mortal life, they deified their fellow-men, conferring the names of gods and heroes on those who had experienced the common lot of all, and vainly imagining that the Divine and imperishable Essence could frequent the tombs and monuments of the dead. Nay, more than this: they paid divine honors to animals of various species, and to the most noxious reptiles: they felled trees, and excavated rocks; they provided themselves with brass, and iron, and other metals, of which they fashioned resemblances of the male and female human form, of beasts, and creeping things; and these they made the objects of their worship.
4. Nor did this suffice. To the evil spirits themselves which lurked within their statues, or lay concealed in secret and dark recesses, eager to drink their libations, and inhale the odor of their sacrifices, they ascribed the same divine honors. Once more, they endeavored to secure the familiar aid of these spirits, and the unseen powers which move through the tracts of air, by charms of forbidden magic, and the compulsion of unhallowed songs and incantations. Again, different nations have adopted different persons as objects of their worship. The Greeks have rendered to Bacchus, Hercules, Æsculapius, Apollo, and others who were mortal men, the titles of gods and heroes. The Egyptians have deified Horus and Isis, Osiris, and other mortals such as these. And thus they who boast of the wondrous skill whereby they have discovered geometry, astronomy, and the science of number, know not, wise as they are in their own conceit, nor understand how to estimate the measure of the power of God, or calculate his exceeding greatness above the nature of irrational and mortal beings.
5. Hence they shrank not from
applying the name of gods to the most hideous of the brute creation, to
venomous reptiles and savage beasts. The Phœnicians deified
Melcatharus, Usorus, It
is probably that “Melkathros” and “Usous”
referred to in the Præp. Evang. 1. 10 (ed. Gaisford, Oxon.
1843, 1. p. 77 and 84). The same passage may be found with English
translation in Cory’s Ancient Fragments, Lond. 1832, p.
6–7, 13. Dusaris was, it is said, equivalent to Bacchus. All the above names, excepting those specially noted, may be found
in Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog. and Mythol.
6. We hear of gods and the sons of gods described by them as heroes and good genii, titles entirely opposed to truth, honors utterly at variance with the qualifies they are intended to exalt. It is as if one who desired to point out the sun and the luminaries of heaven, instead of directing his gaze thitherward, should grope with his hands on the ground, and search for the celestial powers in the mud and mire. Even so mankind, deceived by their own folly and the craft of evil spirits, have believed that the Divine and spiritual Essence which is far above heaven and earth could be compatible with the birth, the affections, and death, of mortal bodies here below. To such a pitch of madness did they proceed, as to sacrifice the dearest objects of their affection to their gods, regardless of all natural ties, and urged by frenzied feeling to slay their only and best beloved children.
7. For what can be a greater
proof of madness, than to offer human sacrifice, to pollute every city,
and even their own houses, with kindred blood? Do not the Greeks
themselves attest this, and is not all history filled with records of
the same impiety? The Phœnicians devoted their best beloved and
only children as an annual sacrifice to Saturn. The Rhodians, on the
sixth day of the month Metageitnion, Corresponding nearly to our August. Key. Calendarium, in
Smith, Dict. Gr. and R. Ant. p. 223. [Leus is said to have offered his three daughters, Phasithea,
Theope, and Eubule; the oracle at Delphi having declared that the
relief of the city from famine could only be effected by the shedding
of the blood of his daughters by one of the
citizens.—Bag.] [Alluding to the sacrifice of his daughter Chthonia by Erechtheus,
son of Pandion; the Athenians having been promised victory, by the
oracle, over the Eleusinians and their Thracian allies, on the
condition of the death of a daughter of
Erechtheus.—Bag.]
8. And these facts are confirmed
by the testimony of the most approved philosophers. Diodorus, the
epitomizer of libraries, Diodorus Siculus, whose work is mentioned elsewhere (Præp.
Evang. 1. 6, ed. Gaisford, p. 40) as a “historical
library.” Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
9. Nor was this the full extent of their misery: they groaned beneath the pressure of other evils equally numerous and irremediable. All nations, whether civilized or barbarous, throughout the world, as if actuated by a demoniac frenzy, were infected with sedition as with some fierce and terrible disease: insomuch that the human family was irreconcilably divided against itself; the great system of society was distracted and torn asunder; and in every corner of the earth men stood opposed to each other, and strove with fierce contention on questions of law and government.
10. Nay, more than this: with passions aroused to fury, they engaged in mutual conflicts, so frequent that their lives were passed as it were in uninterrupted warfare. None could undertake a journey except as prepared to encounter an enemy; in the very country and villages the rustics girded on the sword, provided themselves with armor rather than with the implements of rural labor, and deemed it noble exploit to plunder and enslave any who belonged to a neighboring state.
11. Nay, more than this: from the fables they had themselves devised respecting their own deities, they deduced occasions for a vile and abandoned life, and wrought the ruin of body and soul by licentiousness of every kind. Not content with this, they even overstepped the bounds which nature had defined, and together committed incredible and nameless crimes, “men with men (in the words of the sacred writer) working un-seemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.”
12. Nor did they stop even here; but perverted their natural thoughts of God, and denied that the course of this world was directed by his providential care, ascribing the existence and constitution of all things to the blind operation of chance, or the necessity of fate.
13. Once more: believing that soul and body were alike dissolved by death, they led a brutish life, unworthy of the name: careless of the nature or existence of the soul, they dreaded not the tribunal of Divine justice, expected no reward of virtue, nor thought of chastisement as the penalty of an evil life.
14. Hence it was that whole nations, a prey to wickedness in all its forms, were wasted by the effects of their own brutality: some living in the practice of most vile and lawless incest with mothers, others with sisters, and others again corrupting their own daughters. Some were found who slew their confiding guests; others who fed on human flesh; some strangled, and then feasted on, their aged men; others threw them alive to dogs. The time would fail me were I to attempt to describe the multifarious symptoms of the inveterate malady which had asserted its dominion over the whole human race.
15. Such, and numberless others
like these, were the prevailing evils, on account of which the gracious
Word of God, full of compassion for his human flock, had long since, by
the ministry of his prophets, and earlier still, as well as later, by
that of men distinguished by
16. The causes of his advent I have already described, induced by which he condescended to the society of man; not in his wonted form and manner, for he is incorporeal, and present everywhere throughout the world, proving by his agency both in heaven and earth the greatness of his almighty power, but in a character new and hitherto unknown. Assuming a mortal body, he deigned to associate and converse with men; desiring, through the medium of their own likeness, to save our mortal race.
Chapter XIV.
1. And now let us explain the cause for which the incorporeal Word of God assumed this mortal body as a medium of intercourse with man. How, indeed, else than in human form could that Divine and impalpable, that immaterial and invisible Essence manifest itself to those who sought for God in created and earthly objects, unable or unwilling otherwise to discern the Author and Maker of all things?
2. As a fitting means, therefore, of communication with mankind, he assumed a mortal body, as that with which they were themselves familiar; for like, it is proverbially said, loves its like. To those, then, whose affections were engaged by visible objects, who looked for gods in statues and lifeless images, who imagined the Deity to consist in material and corporeal substance, nay, who conferred on men the title of divinity, the Word of God presented himself in this form.
3. Hence he procured for himself this body as a thrice-hallowed temple, a sensible habitation of an intellectual power; a noble and most holy form, of far higher worth than any lifeless statue. The material and senseless image, fashioned by base mechanic hands, of brass or iron, of gold or ivory, wood or stone, may be a fitting abode for evil spirits: but that Divine form, wrought by the power of heavenly wisdom, was possessed of life and spiritual being; a form animated by every excellence, the dwelling-place of the Word of God, a holy temple of the holy God.
4. Thus the indwelling Word All these various conceptions of the Word are strictly Biblical:
(1) The Word the only revealer of the Father, who otherwise could not
be known; (2) The human body the temple of God; (3) The indwelling
Word.
5. Thus, I say, did our common Saviour prove himself the benefactor and preserver of all, displaying his wisdom through the instrumentality of his human nature, even as a musician uses the lyre to evince his skill. The Grecian myth tells us that Orpheus had power to charm ferocious beasts, and tame their savage spirit, by striking the chords of his instrument with a master hand: and this story is celebrated by the Greeks, and generally believed, that an unconscious instrument could subdue the untamed brute, and draw the trees from their places, in obedience to its melodious power. But he who is the author of perfect harmony, the all-wise Word of God, desiring to apply every remedy to the manifold diseases of the souls of men, employed that human nature which is the workmanship of his own wisdom, as an instrument by the melodious strains of which he soothed, not indeed the brute creation, but savages endued with reason; healing each furious temper, each fierce and angry passion of the soul, both in civilized and barbarous nations, by the remedial power of his Divine doctrine. Like a physician of perfect skill, he met the diseases of their souls who sought for God in nature and in bodies, by a fitting and kindred remedy, and showed them God in human form.
6. And then, with no less care for the body than the soul, he presented before the eyes of men wonders and signs, as proofs of his Divine power, at the same time instilling into their ears of flesh the doctrines which he himself uttered with a corporeal tongue. In short, he performed all his works through the medium of that body which he had assumed for the sake of those who else were incapable of apprehending his Divine nature.
7. In all this he was the
servant of his Father’s will, himself remaining still the same as
when with the Father; unchanged in essence, unimpaired in nature,
unfettered by the trammels of mortal flesh, nor hindered by his abode
in a human body from being elsewhere present. This ought to relieve Eusebius from any charge of Arianism in this
relation, however “dangerous” the ground he has trodden on
may be.
9. Hence his human birth to him brought no defilement; nor could his impassible Essence suffer at the dissolution of his mortal body. For let us suppose a lyre to receive an accidental injury, or its chord to be broken; it does not follow that the performer on it suffers: nor, if a wise man’s body undergo punishment, can we fairly assert that his wisdom, or the soul within him, are maimed or burned.
10. Far less can we affirm that the inherent power of the Word sustained any detriment from his bodily passion, any more than, as in the instance we have already used, the solar rays which are shot from heaven to earth contract defilement, though in contact with mire and pollution of every kind. We may, indeed, assert that these things partake of the radiance of the light, but not that the light is contaminated, or the sun defiled, by this contact with other bodies.
11. And indeed these things are themselves not contrary to nature; but the Saviour, the incorporeal Word of God, being Life and spiritual Light itself, whatever he touches with Divine and incorporeal power must of necessity become endued with the intelligence of light and life. Thus, if he touch a body, it becomes enlightened and sanctified, is at once delivered from all disease, infirmity, and suffering, and that which before was lacking is supplied by a portion of his fullness.
12. And such was the tenor of his life on earth; now proving the sympathies of his human nature with our own, and now revealing himself as the Word of God: wondrous and mighty in his works as God; foretelling the events of the far distant future; declaring in every act, by signs, and wonders, and supernatural powers, that Word whose presence was so little known; and finally, by his Divine teaching, inviting the souls of men to prepare for those mansions which are above the heavens.
Chapter XV.
1. What now remains, but to account for those which are the crowning facts of all; I mean his death, so far and widely known, the manner of his passion, and the mighty miracle of his resurrection after death: and then to establish the truth of these events by the clearest testimonies?
2. For the reasons detailed above he used the instrumentality of a mortal body, as a figure becoming his Divine majesty, and like a mighty sovereign employed it as his interpreter in his intercourse with men, performing all things consistently with his own Divine power. Supposing, then, at the end of his sojourn among men, he had by any other means suddenly withdrawn himself from their sight, and, secretly removing that interpreter of himself, the form which he had assumed, had hastened to flee from death, and afterwards by his own act had consigned his mortal body to corruption and dissolution: doubtless in such a case he would have been deemed a mere phantom by all. Nor would he have acted in a manner worthy of himself, had he who is Life, the Word, and the Power of God, abandoned this interpreter of himself to corruption and death.
3. Nor, again, would his warfare with the spirits of evil have received its consummation by conflict with the power of death. The place of his retirement must have remained unknown; nor would his existence have been believed by those who had not seen him for themselves. No proof would have been given that he was superior to death nor would he have delivered mortality from the law of its natural infirmity. His name had never been heard throughout the world nor could he have inspired his disciples with contempt of death, or encouraged those who embraced his doctrine to hope for the enjoyment of a future life with God. Nor would he have fulfilled the assurances of his own promise, nor have accomplished the predictions of the prophets concerning himself. Nor would he have undergone the last conflict of all; for this was to be the struggle with the power of death.
4. For all these reasons, then,
and inasmuch as it was necessary that the mortal body which had
rendered such service to the Divine Word should meet with an end worthy
its sacred occupant, the manner of his death was ordained accordingly.
For since but two alternatives remained: either to consign his body
entirely to corruption, and so to bring the scene of life to a
dishonored close, or else to prove himself victorious over death, and
render mortality immortal by the act of Divine power; the former of
these alternatives would have contravened his own promise. For as it is
not the property of fire to cool, nor of light to darken, no more is it
compatible with life, to deprive of life, or with Divine intelligence,
to act in a manner contrary to reason. For how would it be consistent,
with reason, that he who had promised
5. The second alternative was therefore needful: I mean, that he should assert his dominion over the power of death. But how? should this be a furtive and secret act, or openly performed and in the sight of all? So mighty an achievement, had it remained unknown and unrevealed, must have failed of its effect as regards the interests of men; whereas the same event, if openly declared and understood, would, from its wondrous character, redound to the common benefit of all. With reason, therefore, since it was needful to prove his body victorious over death, and that not secretly but before the eyes of men, he shrank not from the trial, for this indeed would have argued fear, and a sense of inferiority to the power of death, but maintained that conflict with the enemy which has rendered mortality immortal; a conflict undertaken for the life, the immortality, the salvation of all.
6. Suppose one desired to show
us that a vessel could resist the force of fire; how could he better
prove the fact than by casting it into the furnace and thence
withdrawing it entire and unconsumed? Even thus the Word of God who is
the source of life to all, desiring to prove the triumph of that body
over death which he had assumed for man’s salvation, and to make
this body partake his own life and immortality, pursued a course
consistent with this object. Leaving his body for a little while, [These words (as Valesius observes) need not be too rigidly
interpreted.—Bag.]
7. The reason of this is clear. It was needful that his disciples should receive ocular proof of the certainty of that resurrection on which he had taught them to rest their hopes as a motive for rising superior to the fear of death. It was indeed most needful that they who purposed to pursue a life of godliness should receive a clear impression of this essential truth: more needful still for those who were destined to declare his name in all the world, and to communicate to mankind that knowledge of God which he had before ordained for all nations.
8. For such the strongest conviction of a future life was necessary, that they might be able with fearless and unshrinking zeal to maintain the conflict with Gentile and polytheistic error: a conflict the dangers of which they would never have been prepared to meet, except as habituated to the contempt of death. Accordingly, in arming his disciples against the power of this last enemy, he delivered not his doctrines in mere verbal precepts, nor attempted to prove the soul’s immortality, by persuasive and probable arguments; but displayed to them in his own person a real victory over death.
9. Such was the first and greatest reason of our Saviour’s conflict with the power of death, whereby he proved to his disciples the nothingness of that which is the terror of all mankind, and afforded a visible evidence of the reality of that life which he had promised; presenting as it were a first-fruit of our common hope, of future life and immortality in the presence of God.
10. The second cause of his resurrection was, that the Divine power might be manifested which dwelt in his mortal body. Mankind had heretofore conferred Divine honors on men who had yielded to the power of death, and had given the titles of gods and heroes to mortals like themselves. For this reason, therefore, the Word of God evinced his gracious character, and proved to man his own superiority over death, recalling his mortal body to a second life, displaying an immortal triumph over death in the eyes of all, and teaching them to acknowledge the Author of such a victory to be the only true God, even in death itself.
11. I may allege yet a third cause of the Saviour’s death. He was the victim offered to the Supreme Sovereign of the universe for the whole human race: a victim consecrated for the need of the human race, and for the overthrow of the errors of demon worship. For as soon as the one holy and mighty sacrifice, the sacred body of our Saviour, had been slain for man, to be as a ransom for all nations, heretofore involved in the guilt of impious superstition, thenceforward the power of impure and unholy spirits was utterly abolished, and every earth-born and delusive error was at once weakened and destroyed.
12. Thus, then, this salutary
victim taken from among themselves, I mean the mortal body of the Word,
was offered on behalf of the common race of men. This was that
sacrifice delivered up to death, of which the sacred oracles speak:
“Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world.” [
13. Such were the causes which led to the offering of the human body of the Word of God. But forasmuch as he was the great high priest, consecrated to the Supreme Lord and King, and therefore more than a victim, the Word, the Power, and the Wisdom of God; he soon recalled his body from the grasp of death, presented it to his Father as the first-fruit of our common salvation, and raised this trophy, a proof at once of his victory over death and Satan, and of the abolition of human sacrifices, for the blessing of all mankind.
Chapter XVI.
1. And now the time is come for us to proceed to the demonstration of these things; if indeed such truths require demonstration, and if the aid of testimony be needful to confirm the certainty of palpable facts. Such testimony, however, shall be here given; and let it be received with an attentive and gracious ear.
2. Of old the nations of the
earth, the entire human race, were variously distributed into
provincial, national, and local governments, Eparchies, ethnarchies, and toparchies.
3. The origin of these may justly be ascribed to the delusion of polytheistic error. But when that instrument of our redemption, the thrice holy body of Christ, which proved itself superior to all Satanic fraud, and free from evil both in word and deed, was raised, at once for the abolition of ancient evils, and in token of his victory over the powers of darkness; the energy of these evil spirits was at once destroyed. The manifold forms of government, the tyrannies and republics, the siege of cities, and devastation of countries caused thereby, were now no more, and one God was proclaimed to all mankind.
4. At the same time one universal power, the Roman empire, arose and flourished, while the enduring and implacable hatred of nation against nation was now removed: and as the knowledge of one God, and one way of religion and salvation, even the doctrine of Christ, was made known to all mankind; so at the self-same period, the entire dominion of the Roman empire being vested in a single sovereign, profound peace reigned throughout the world. And thus, by the express appointment of the same God, two roots of blessing, the Roman empire, and the doctrine of Christian piety, sprang up together for the benefit of men.
5. For before this time the various countries of the world, as Syria, Asia, Macedonia, Egypt, and Arabia, had been severally subject to different rulers. The Jewish people, again, had established their dominion in the land of Palestine. And these nations, in every village, city, and district, actuated by some insane spirit, were engaged in incessant and murderous war and conflict. But two mighty powers, starting from the same point, the Roman empire, which henceforth was swayed by a single sovereign, and the Christian religion, subdued and reconciled these contending elements.
6. Our Saviour’s mighty power destroyed at once the many governments and the many gods of the powers of darkness, and proclaimed to all men, both rude and civilized, to the extremities of the earth, the sole sovereignty of God himself. Meantime the Roman empire, the causes of multiplied governments being thus removed, effected an easy conquest of those which yet remained; its object being to unite all nations in one harmonious whole; an object in great measure already secured, and destined to be still more perfectly attained, even to the final conquest of the ends of the habitable world, by means of the salutary doctrine, and through the aid of that Divine power which facilitates and smooths its way.
7. And surely this must appear a
wondrous fact to those who will examine the question in the love of
truth, and desire not to cavil at these blessings. This is a fair appeal, applicable to his present hearers. It at
least was true of Constantine’s reign, that it produced a state
of relative peace and prosperity. [
8. These words, predicted ages
before in the Hebrew tongue, have received in our own day a visible
fulfillment, by which the testimonies of the ancient oracles are
clearly confirmed. And now, if thou still desire more ample proof,
receive it, not in words, but from the facts themselves. Open the eyes
of thine understanding; expand the gates of thought; pause awhile, and
consider; inquire of thyself as though thou wert another, and thus
diligently examine the nature of the case. What king or prince in any
age of the world, what philosopher, legislator, or prophet, in
civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of
excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of
mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the
praises of his name? Surely none save our only Saviour has done this,
when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers,
and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye, and make
disciples of all nations in my name.”
9. How, then, will those who caviled at the commencement of my speech be able to reply to this? For surely the force of ocular testimony is superior to any verbal argument. Who else than he, with an invisible and yet potent hand, has driven from human society like savage beasts that ever noxious and destructive tribe of evil spirits who of old had made all nations their prey, and by the motions of their images had practiced many a delusion among men? Who else, beside our Saviour, by the invocation of his name, and by unfeigned prayer addressed through him to the Supreme God, has given power to banish from the world the remnant of those wicked spirits to those who with genuine and sincere obedience pursue the course of life and conduct which he has himself prescribed? Who else but our Saviour has taught his followers to offer those bloodless and reasonable sacrifices which are performed by prayer and the secret worship of God?
10. Hence is it that throughout the habitable world altars are erected, and churches dedicated, wherein these spiritual and rational sacrifices are offered as a sacred service by every nation to the One Supreme God. Once more, who but he, with invisible and secret power, has suppressed and utterly abolished those bloody sacrifices which were offered with fire and smoke, as well as the cruel and senseless immolation of human victims; a fact which is attested by the heathen historians themselves? For it was not till after the publication of the Saviour’s Divine doctrine, about the time of Hadrian’s reign, that the practice of human sacrifice was universally abandoned.
11. Such and so manifest are the proofs of our Saviour’s power and energy after death. Who then can be found of spirit so obdurate as to withhold his assent to the truth, and refuse to acknowledge his life to be Divine? Such deeds as I have described are done by the living, not the dead; and visible acts are to us as evidence of those which we cannot see. It is as it were an event of yesterday that an impious and godless race disturbed and confounded the peace of human society, and possessed mighty power. But these, as soon as life departed, lay prostrate on the earth, worthless as dung, breathless, motionless, bereft of speech, and have left neither fame nor memorial behind. For such is the condition of the dead; and he who no longer lives is nothing: and how can he who is nothing be capable of any act? But how shall his existence be called in question, whose active power and energy are greater than in those who are still alive? And though he be invisible to the natural eye, yet the discerning faculty is not in outward sense. We do not comprehend the rules of art, or the theories of science, by bodily sensation; nor has any eye yet discerned the mind of man. Far less, then, the power of God: and in such cases our judgment is formed from apparent results.
12. Even thus are we bound to
judge of our Saviour’s invisible power, and decide by its
manifest effects whether we shall acknowledge the mighty operations
which he is even now carrying on to be the works of a living agent; or
whether they shall be ascribed to one who has no existence; or, lastly,
whether the inquiry be not absurd and inconsistent in itself. For with
what reason can we assert the existence of one who is not? Since all
allow that that which has no existence
Chapter XVII.
1. And now the time is come for us to consider the works of our Saviour in our own age, and to contemplate the living operations of the living God. For how shall we describe these mighty works save as living proofs of the power of a living agent, who truly enjoys the life of God? If any one inquire the nature of these works, let him now attend.
2. But recently a class of persons, impelled by furious zeal, and backed by equal power and military force, evinced their enmity against God, by destroying his churches, and overthrowing from their foundations the buildings dedicated to his worship. In short, in every way they directed their attacks against the unseen God, and assailed him with a thousand shafts of impious words. But he who is invisible avenged himself with an invisible hand.
3. By the single fiat of his
will his enemies were utterly destroyed, they who a little while before
had been flourishing in great prosperity, exalted by their fellow men
as worthy of divine honor, and blessed with a continued period of power
and glory, [Referring to Diocletian, and others of the persecuting
emperors.—Bag.]
4. Our Saviour, therefore,
without delay erected trophies of this victory everywhere, and once
more adorned the world with holy temples and consecrated houses of
prayer; in every city and village, nay, throughout all countries, and
even in barbaric wilds, ordaining the erection of churches and sacred
buildings to the honor of the Supreme God and Lord of all. Hence it is
that these hallowed edifices are deemed worthy to bear his name, and
receive not their appellation from men, but from the Lord himself, from
which circumstances they are called churches (or houses of the Lord). [Κυριακῶν
ἠξίωνται τῶν
ἐπωνυμιῶν. The German “Kirche,” the Scotch
“Kirk,” and the English “Church” are said,
probably enough, to derive their origin from this Greek
word.—Bag.]
5. And now let him who will
stand forth and tell us who, after so complete a desolation, has
restored these sacred buildings from foundation to roof? Who, when all
hope appeared extinct, has caused them to rise on a nobler scale than
heretofore? And well may it claim our wonder, that this renovation was
not subsequent to the death of those adversaries of God, but whilst the
destroyers of these edifices were still alive; so that the recantation
of their evil deeds came in their own words and edicts. Compare literature on the edicts of toleration.
6. Who, again, has been able to
retain in obedience to his heavenly precepts, after so many successive
storms of persecution, nay, in the very crisis of danger, so many
persons throughout the world devoted to philosophy, and the service of
God and those holy choirs of virgins who had dedicated themselves to a
life of perpetual chastity and purity? Who taught them cheerfully to
persevere in the exercise of protracted fasting, and to embrace a life
of severe and consistent self-denial? Who has persuaded multitudes of
either sex to devote themselves to the study of sacred things, and
prefer to bodily nutriment that intellectual food which is suited to
the wants of a rational soul? [There is nothing which need surprise us in the praises of
virginity, monkery, and asceticism, in a writer of the fourth century.
The intelligent Christian will surely shrink from the thought of
ascribing, with Eusebius, these fruitful sources of corruption to the
Lord himself.—Bag.]
7. And now let us pass from
these topics, and endeavor by inquiries such as these that follow to
convince the objector’s obdurate understanding. Come forward,
then, whoever thou art, and speak the words of reason: utter, not the
thoughts of a senseless heart, but those of an intelligent and
enlightened mind: speak, I say, after deep solemn converse with
thyself. Who of the sages whose names have yet been known to fame, has
ever been fore-known and proclaimed from the remotest ages, as our
Saviour was by the prophetic oracles to the once divinely-favored
Hebrew nation? But
8. Again, who so present an
avenger of crimes against himself; so that, as the immediate
consequence of their impiety, the entire Jewish people were scattered
by an unseen power, their royal seat utterly removed, and their very
temple with its holy things levelled with the ground? Who, like our
Saviour, has uttered predictions at once concerning that impious nation
and the establishment of his church throughout the world, and has
equally verified both by the event? Respecting the temple of these
wicked men, our Saviour said: “Your house is left unto you
desolate”:
9. How wondrous, too, must that
power be deemed which summoned obscure and unlettered men from their
fisher’s trade, and made them the legislators and instructors of
the human race! And how clear a demonstration of his deity do we find
in the promise so well performed, that he would make them fishers of
men: in the power and energy which he bestowed, so that they composed
and published writings of such authority that they were translated into
every civilized and barbarous language, The Syriac, Peschito, and possibly the Curetonian, the old Latin
(Itala), probably both the Thebaic and Memphitic Coptic versions, at
least, had been made at this time.
10. How marvelous his predictions of the future, and the testimony whereby his disciples were forewarned that they should be brought before kings and rulers, and should endure the severest punishments, not indeed as criminals, but simply for their confession of his name! Or who shall adequately describe the power with which he prepared them thus to suffer with a willing mind, and enabled them, strong in the armor of godliness, to maintain a constancy of spirit indomitable in the midst of conflict?
11. Or how shall we enough admire that steadfast firmness of soul which strengthened, not merely his immediate followers, but their successors also, even to our present age, in the joyful endurance of every infliction, and every form of torture, in proof of their devotion to the Supreme God? Again, what monarch has prolonged his government through so vast a series of ages? Who else has power to make war after death, to triumph over every enemy, to subjugate each barbarous and civilized nation and city, and to subdue his adversaries with an invisible and secret hand?
12. Lastly, and chief of all,
what slanderous lip shall dare to question that universal peace to
which we have already referred; established by his power throughout the
world? [The peace which Christ, at his birth, bestowed on the Roman world
(Valesius).—Bag.]
13. But why do I speak of men, since of the beings whom all nations have deemed divine, none has appeared on earth with power like to his? If there has, let the fact now be proved. Come forward, ye philosophers, and tell us what god or hero has yet been known to fame, who has delivered the doctrines of eternal life and a heavenly kingdom as he has done who is our Saviour? Who, like him, has persuaded multitudes throughout the world to pursue the principles of Divine wisdom, to fix their hope on heaven itself, and look forward to the mansions there reserved for them that love God? What god or hero in human form has ever held his course from the rising to the setting sun, a course co-extensive as it were with the solar light, and irradiated mankind with the bright and glorious beams of his doctrine, causing each nation of the earth to render united worship to the One true God? What god or hero yet, as he has done, has set aside all gods and heroes among civilized or barbarous nations; has ordained that divine honors should be withheld from all, and claimed obedience to that command: and then, though singly conflicting with the power of all, has utterly destroyed the opposing hosts; victorious over the gods and heroes of every age, and causing himself alone, in every region of the habitable world, to be acknowledged by all people as the only Son of God?
14. Who else has commanded the
nations inhabiting the continents and islands of this mighty globe to
assemble weekly on the Lord’s day, and to observe it as a
festival, not indeed for the pampering of the body, but for the
invigoration of the soul by instruction in Divine truth? What god or
hero, exposed, as our Saviour was, to so sore a conflict, has
raised
But why should we still vainly aim at detailing those Divine proofs of our Saviour’s power which no language can worthily express; which need indeed no words of ours, but themselves appeal in loudest tones to those whose mental ears are open to the truth? Surely it is a strange, a wondrous fact, unparalleled in the annals of human life; that the blessings we have described should be accorded to our mortal race, and that he who is in truth the only, the eternal Son of God, should thus be visible on earth.
Chapter XVIII.
1. These words of ours, however, [gracious] Sovereign, may
well appear superfluous in your ears, convinced as you are, by frequent
and personal experience, of our Saviour’s Deity; yourself also,
in actions still more than words, a herald of the truth to all mankind.
Yourself, it may be, will vouchsafe at a time of leisure to relate to
us the abundant manifestations which your Saviour has accorded you of
his presence, and the oft-repeated visions of himself which have
attended you in the hours of sleep. I speak not of those secret
suggestions which to us are unrevealed: but of those principles which
he has instilled into your own mind, and which are fraught with general
interest and benefit to the human race. You will yourself relate in
worthy terms the visible protection which your Divine shield and
guardian has extended in the hour of battle; the ruin of your open and
secret foes; and his ready aid in time of peril. To him you will
ascribe relief in the midst of perplexity; defence in solitude;
expedients in extremity; foreknowledge of events yet future; your
forethought for the general weal; your power to investigate uncertain
questions; your conduct of most important enterprises; your
administration of civil affairs; Literally, “Your political economies.”
Aaron, 373.
Abdus of Edessa, 101.
Abdus, the father of the preceding, 101.
Abgarus, Prince of Edessa, correspondence of, with Christ, 100, 101; healed by Thaddeus, 101, 104.
Abilius, second bishop of Alexandria, 147, 149.
Achæus, a judge at Cæsarea, 303.
Achillas, presbyter of Alexandria, 321.
Achior, the Ammonite, 93.
Acolyths, 288.
Actium, 263.
Acts, book of, 88, 98, 112, 113, 117, 122, 136, 137, 163, 172, 261, 310; written by Luke during Paul's imprisonment in Rome, 124 (and note 14), 273; rejected by the Severians, 209; part of N. T. Canon, 155.
Adam, 92; salvation of, denied by Tatian, 208.
Adamantius, name given to Origen, 261.
Adiabene, 113.
Adrianus, a martyr, 354.
Advocate (παρακλητου), 213.
Ædesius, introduces Christianity into Ethiopia, 105 (note 30).
Ædesius, a martyr, 347.
Ælia, 113 (note 7), 294, 352; colonized, 177; library of, 268.
Ælianus, 313.
Ælius Adrian. See Hadrian.
Ælius Publius Julius, bishop of Debeltum in Thrace, 237.
Æmilian, Roman emperor, 298 (note 1).
Æmilianus, prefect of Egypt, 299, 301.
Æmilius Frontinus, proconsul at Ephesus, 236.
Africa, 286, 287, 296, 328, 356, 381, 382.
Africanus, Julius, on Herod, 89–90, 93; on the genealogy of Christ, 91–94; life and writings of, 276, 277; his epistle to Origen, 277; goes to Alexandria to see Heraclas, 276; epistle of, to Aristides, 277.
Agabus, the prophet, 107, 110, 234.
Agapius, bishop of Cæsarea, 320.
Agapius, a martyr, 344, 347, 348.
Agapius, a martyr, 345.
Agathobuli, the two, 319.
Agathonice, a martyr, 193.
Agrapha, or extra-canonical sayings of Christ, 296 (note 3).
Agrippa I. See Herod Agrippa I.
Agrippa II. See Herod Agrippa II.
Agrippa, Castor, 178.
Agrippinus, bishop of Alexandria, 197, 224.
Albinus, procurator of Judea, 127, 143 (note 8).
Alburnus, an idol, 106.
Alce, sister of the eirenarch Herod, 191.
Alcibiades, a Montanist, 218.
Alcibiades, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 218.
Alcibiades, opponent of Montanism, 234.
Alexander, husband of Salome, 95.
Alexander, the Alabarch, brother of Philo, 108.
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, 260, 274, 280, 281, 291, 294 (?; see note 2); becomes coadjutor of Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, 255–257, 256 (note 1); quoted, 256, 261, 268.
Alexander, bishop of Rome, 174, 175, 221.
Alexander, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 216.
Alexander, a martyr of Eumenia, 233.
Alexander, a martyr under Decius, 284.
Alexander, a martyr at Cæsarea under Valerian, 302.
Alexander of Egypt, a martyr under Maximin, 345.
Alexander of Gaza, a martyr under Maximin, 345.
Alexander, a Montanist, 236.
Alexander of Tyre, 294 (see note 2).
Alexander Severus, Roman emperor, 269, 270, 272, 274.
Alexandria, 108, 109, 149, 175, 178, 182, 195, 197, 205, 224, 240, 249, 251, 253, 254, 262, 267, 268, 271, 272, 274, 276, 278, 298, 302, 305, 312, 313, 318, 319, 321, 322, 332, 334, 337, 347, 360; church of, founded by Mark, 116; library of, 223; school of, 225; martyrs of, under Decius, 283; sedition in, 205; pestilence in, 306, 307; mutilation of Christians in, during the Diocletian persecution, 332; table of bishops of, 401.
Allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, 266 (note 1).
Allegorists, refuted by Nepos, 308.
Alphaeus, a martyr, 343.
Amaseia, a city of Pontus, 386.
Amastris, 201.
Ambrose, friend of Origen, 264; gives Origen financial aid, 271, 274.
Ammia, a prophetess of Philadelphia, 234.
Ammon, martyr under Decius, 285.
Ammon, of Bernice, addressed by Dionysius, 311.
Ammonarium, martyr under Decius, 284.
Ammonite. See Achior the Ammonite.
Ammonius, the Neo-Platonist, 265, 266.
Ammonius, a Christian writer, 266, 267.
Ammonius, a martyr, 334.
Ananus, high priest, 127, 128.
Anatolius of Alexandria, becomes bishop of Laodicea, 318; conduct of, during the siege of the Pyrucheium, 318; writings of, 319, 320; Paschal canons of, 319; Institutes of, 320; death of, 320.
Anchialus, 237.
Ancient Martyrdoms, Collection of, 190, 211, 219, 240.
Ancyra, in Galatia, 230.
Andrew, the Apostle, 171; labors in Scythia, 132; “Acts of,” 157.
Anea, 351.
Anencletus, second bishop of Rome, 147, 149, 221.
Anicetus, bishop of Rome, 182, 183, 187, 197, 198, 199, 221, 243; concedes the administration of the Eucharist to Polycarp in Rome, 244.
Annas, or Ananus, the high priest, 96, 97.
Annianus, first bishop of Alexandria, 128, 149.
Anteros, bishop of Rome, 275.
Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, 327, 333.
Antichrist, 222.
Antilegomena (άντιλεγδμενα, or άντιλεγέσθαι), 135; meaning of, as used by Eusebius, 155 (note 1).
Antinoites, addressed by Alexander of Jerusalem, 257.
Antinous, slave of Hadrian, 180.
Antioch, 104, 107, 113, 149, 165, 168, 197, 202, 237, 240, 250, 257, 269, 271, 275, 281, 283, 286, 290, 291, 294. 303, 314, 315, 317, 320, 332, 333, 334, 343, 358, 359, 360, 368; heresy of Paul of Samosata introduced at, 312–316; table of bishops of, 402.
Antiquity of Christianity, 82 sq.
Antiquity of the Hebrew nation, 87.
Antoninus (Pius), 114, 180, 182, 185, 188, 196, 220; edict of, to the Common Assembly of Asia, 186; Eusebius’ confusion in regard to the successors of, discussed, 390, 391.
Antoninus (Elagabalus), 268.
Antoninus (Caracalla), 255, 268.
Antoninus, a martyr, 350.
Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, 380, 381, 383.
Apamea, on the Maeander, 233.
Apelles, disciple of Marcion, 227, 229.
Apion, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Apion, an Alexandrian grammarian and enemy of the Jews, 108.
Apocalypse of John, 147, 171; probably written by John the Presbyter, 171; Eusebius’ view of, 155; part of N. T. Canon, 156.
Apocalypse of Peter, 134, 156.
Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis, 198, 203, 230; writings of, 206, 207, 237; narrates the story of the “Thundering Legion,” 220.
Apollonia, a martyr under Decius, 283.
Apollonides, a follower of Theodotus the cobbler, 248.
Apollonius, work of, against the Montanists quoted, 235, 236.
Apollonius, a Roman martyr, 239.
Apollophanes, a Stoic philosopher, 266.
Apologists, during reign of Hadrian, 175.
Apostle, the, referring to Paul, 209.
Apostles, successions of the, 81, 82; appointed by Christ, 98, 99; careers of, after the ascension of Christ, 103–105, 132; epistles of, 133; first successors of, 136; preach to all nations, 138; “Teaching of the Twelve,” placed among the νδθοι, 156; which of them were married, 161, 171.
Apphianus, a martyr, 345, 347.
Aquila, companion of Paul, 121.
Aquila, governor and judge, 251, 253.
Aquila, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 301.
Aquila of Pontus, translator of the Old Testament, 223, 262, 263.
Arabian, 89.
Arabian mountain, 285.
Arabians, dissension of, healed by Origen, 279.
Arabianus, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, 90, 95, 96.
Ardeban, in Mysia, 231.
Areopagite. See Dionysius the Areopagite.
Ares, a martyr, 351.
Aretas, king of Petra, 97.
Aristarchus, Paul’s fellow-prisoner, 123.
Aristides, epistle to, from Africanus, 91, 277.
Aristides, the apologist, 175.
Aristion, 171.
Aristo of Pella, 177.
Aristobulus, king and high priest of the Jews, 90, 93.
Aristobulus, a Jewish writer, 260.
Aristobulus, Hellenistic philosopher of Alexandria, 319.
Aristotelian school, 318.
Aristotle, admired by the Theodotians, 247.
Arithmetic, Anatolius’ Institutes of, 320.
Aries, Synod of, summoned by Constantine, 382.
Armenia, 291; Christianization of, 362 (note 2).
Armenians go to war with Maximin, 362.
Arsinoë, in Egypt, 309.
Artemon, or Artemas, heresy of, 246; relation of, to Paul of Samosata, 315.
Asclepiades, bishop of Antioch, 257, 269.
Asclepiodotus, a disciple of Theodotus the cobbler, 247, 248.
Asclepius, a martyr, 351.
Asia, 132, 136, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 192, 205, 206, 212, 219, 222, 223, 229, 230, 232, 236, 237, 238, 241, 242, 277, 310.
Asphaltites, Lake of, 95.
Asterius Urbanus, 232.
Astyrius, remarkable story in regard to, 304.
Ater, martyr under Dionysius, 284.
Atheists, Christians called, 190.
Athenagoras, author of a lost apology, 196 (note 3).
Athenodorus, brother of Gregory Thaumaturgus, 276, 303, 312.
Attalus, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 213, 215, 216, 218.
Attica, 321.
Atticus, proconsul of Judea, 164.
Atticus, bishop of Synada, 268.
Augustus, emperor of Rome, 88, 89, 90, 93, 96, 205.
Aurelian, becomes emperor, 313; petitioned to adjudicate the case of Paul of Samosata, 316; friendliness toward Christians, 316; plans to persecute Christians, 316; death of, 316.
Aurelius. See Marcus Aurelius.
Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness, 237.
Aurelius Cyrenius, imperial official in Egypt, 302.
Auses (Joshua), 85.
Autolycus, addressed by Theophilus, 202.
Auxentius, a martyr, 348.
Avercius Marcellus, addressed by Apolinarius, 230.
Babylas, bishop of Antioch, 275, 281.
Bacchius, grandfather of Justin, 185.
Bacchylides, 201.
Bacchylus, bishop of Corinth, 240, 241.
Baptism, 151 (note 16); clinical, received by Novatus, 288; called “seal” (σφραγίς), 289; discussion regarding baptism of heretics, 294–297; of the Church, rejected by Novatus, 297.
Baptism of John, 98.
Barabbas, the robber, 347.
Barcabbas, prophet invented by Basilides, 179.
Barcocheba, leader of the Jews, 177, 181.
Barcoph, prophet invented by Basilides, 179.
Bardesanes, the Syrian, works of, 209.
Barnabas, 310; one of the Seventy, 98, 104; called “prophet,” 107, 110, 113; probable author of Epistle to the Hebrews, 134 (note 17); epistle of, 260, 261; epistle of, placed among the νδθοι, 156.
Basilica of Tyre, 375 sq.
Basilicus, a Marcionite, 228.
Basilides, the Gnostic, 178; works of, 179.
Basilides, pupil of Origen, suffers martyrdom, 253.
Basilides, bishop in Pentapolis, addressed by Dionysius, 311.
Basilidians, 199.
Benjamin, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Bernice, church of, 311.
Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Asia, 268; error of, 277; his conception of Christ, 277; brought back to orthodoxy by Origen, 277.
Berytus, now Beirut, 345.
Besas, martyr under Decius, 284.
Biblias, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 214.
Bishop, among the Therapeutæ, 119; relation of, to presbyter in the early church, 150; only one in a city, 287.
Bithara, fortress of, 177.
Blandina, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 213, 215–217.
Blastus, schism of, at Rome, 229, 237.
Bolanus, 313.
Bostra, in Arabia, 268, 277, 312.
Brethren of the Lord, 99 (note 14).
Brucheium. See Pyrucheium.
Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage, 381, 382, 383.
Cæsarea in Cappadocia, 274, 303, 312.
Cæsarea in Palestine, 107, 111, 163, 240, 241, 255, 267, 268, 271, 274, 275, 277, 294, 303, 312, 320, 334, 343, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352, 354.
Cæsarea Philippi, famous wonder at, 304.
Caiaphas, the high priest, 96, 97.
Caius, emperor of Rome, 107, 108; hostility of, toward the Jews, 109; alters temple, 109.
Caius, an ecclesiastical writer, 129; attitude of, towards the Apocalypse, 160 (note 4); dialogue of, 163, 268.
Caius, bishop of Rome, 317.
Callirhoĕ, a town east of the Dead Sea, 95.
Callistio, addressed by Rhodo, 228.
Callistus, bishop of Rome, 268.
Camithus, father of Simon the high priest, 97.
Candidus, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Canon, of N. T. Scriptures. See N. T. Canon. Of Old Testament. See O. T. Canon.
Capito, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Cappadocia, 132, 136, 257, 274, 291, 294, 295, 303, 312, 313, 332, 353, 354.
Caracalla, emperor of Rome, 255, 263, 268.
Caricus, receives letter from Serapion, 237, 258.
Carinus becomes emperor, 316.
Carpocrates, the Gnostic, 179.
Carpocatians, immorality of, 114 (note 18), 199.
Carpus, a martyr, 193.
Carus, emperor of Rome, 316.
Cassianus, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Cassianus, an ecclesiastical writer, 260.
Cassius, bishop of Tyre, 244.
Catechumens, training of, 297 (note 3).
Cathari, followers of Novatus, 286.
Catholic Church, 380, 381, 383.
Celadion, bishop of Alexandria, 184, 197.
Celerinus, a Roman confessor, 287.
Celibacy, preached by the Encratites, 208.
Celsus, the Epicurean, 268; work against, by Origen, 278.
Cemeteries of the Christians, 303, 358.
Cephas, one of the “Seventy,” 99.
Cerdon, third bishop of Alexandria, 149.
Cerdon, the Gnostic, 182, 183.
Cerinthus, the heretic, 160, 161; avoided and denounced by John the Apostle, 187; chiliasm of, 309.
Chæremon, the Stoic, 266.
Chæremon, bishop of Nilus, 285.
Chæremon, a deacon, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 299, 300, 301.
Chiliasm, in the third century, 308 (note 1); of Cerinthus and the Cerinthians, 309.
Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse, 381.
Christ, pre-existence and divinity of, 82–85; the name of, known from the beginning, 85–87; divinity of, 86; types of, 86; time of his appearance among men, 88, 89; birth of, 88; genealogy of, 91–94; beginning of his ministry, 96; testimony of John the Baptist, in regard to, 98; spread of doctrine of, 107; predictions of, 141; family of, 148; age of, 150 (note 5); spoken of as God (θεολογείται), 247; taught to be God and man by Irenæus and Melito, 247; denial of, an indifferent matter according to the Elkesites, 280; body and blood of, 289; worshiped as “Very God,” 372; the bridegroom of the church, 376; dwells in the bishops and presbyters, 378; as high priest receives the sacrifices of his people and bears them to God, 378.
Christianity, antiquity and divinity of, 82 sq.
Christians, origin of name, 107; accusations against, 180; called Atheists, 190; mutilations of, 333; right of holding property guaranteed to them by Constantine and Licinius, 380; property of, restored by Constantine and Licinius, 380.
Chronicle of Eusebius, 82.
Chronological Canons of Eusebius. See Chronicle of Eusebius.
Chrysophora, addressed by Dionysius of Corinth, 202.
Church, the bride of Christ, 376, 377.
Church, Holy Catholic, 188, 189, 191, 299, 313, 315.
Churches, destruction of, under Diocletian, 324; restoration of, after the great persecution, 370; dedication of, 370 sq.
Cilicia, 291, 294, 295, 350, 351, 352.
Circumcision given to Abraham, 88.
Clarus, bishop of Ptolemais, 244.
Claudius I., emperor of Rome, 110, 114; drives Jews out of Rome, 121; death of, 122.
Claudius II., emperor of Rome, 313.
Claudius Apolinarius. See Apolinarius of Hierapolis.
Clement, of Alexandria, 99, 225, 226; Hypotyposes of, quoted, 104, 110, 125, 150, 161, 162; work of, on the Passover, 205; his Stromata, 225, 254; speaks of Christ as God, 247; succeeds Pantaenus as principal of the catechetical school of Alexandria, 253; gives chronological table extending to the reign of Commodus, 254; with Alexander of Jerusalem, 257; writings of, 258–261.
Clement, of Rome, third bishop of Church of Rome, 137, 149, 221; epistle of, 147, 169, 260; death of, 165; traditional translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 169; writings falsely ascribed to, 170; Epistle of, to the Corinthians, 198; read in the Corinthian Church in the time of Dionysius, 201; author of the Epistle to the Hebrews according to some, 273; his relation to the epistle according to Origen, 273.
Clement, consul of Rome. See Flavius Clement.
“Clementines.” See Clement of Rome.
Cleobians. See Cleobius.
Cleobius, a heretic, 199.
Cleopatra, 88.
Clergy, 289; exempted by Constantine from political duties, 383.
Clopas, father of Simeon and brother of Joseph, 146, 163, 164, 199.
Cnosians, inhabitants of Cnosus of Crete, 201.
Cochaba, a village of Judea, 93.
Cœle-Syria, 226.
Colluthion, 300.
Commodus, emperor of Rome, 224, 239, 240, 245, 254.
Confession of faith, attitude of Novatus towards, 297 (note 3).
Confessors, (δμόλογοι), 218; addressed by Novatus, 292.
Conon, bishop of Hermopolis, 291.
Constantine, becomes emperor, 335; conquers Maxentius, 363, 364; enters Rome in triumph, 364; erects a statue in Rome with the cross in its hand, 364; issues in conjunction with Licinius an edict of toleration, 364, 365, 368; edict of toleration, copy of, 378–380; summons a synod at Rome, 381; summons a synod at Aries, 381; grants money to the churches, 382; favors shown by him to Licinius, 384; conquers Licinius, 386; becomes sole emperor and enjoys lasting peace and prosperity, 386, 387.
Constantius, joins Galerius in issuing an edict of toleration, 339; friendliness of, toward Christians, 335, 341; death of, 335, 341.
Coracion, a Chiliast, opposed by Dionysius, 309.
Corinth, church of, founded by Peter and Paul, 130, 138, 169, 197, 198, 200, 221, 242.
Corinthians, addressed by Paul, 199.
Cornelius, bishop of Antioch, 197.
Cornelius, bishop of Rome, 280, 293; epistles of, concerning Novatus, 286–287, 289, 290, 291.
Cornelius, the centurion, conversion of, 107.
Cornutus, a philosopher and rhetorician, 266.
Creed, of the Church, attitude of Novatus toward, 297 (note 3); early existence of, in the Roman Church, 297 (note 3).
Crescens, companion of Paul, 137.
Crescens, an enemy of Justin, 193, 194, 195.
Crispus, son of Constantine, 386.
Cronion Eunus, martyr under Decius, 284.
Cronius, a Pythagorean philosopher, 266.
Culcianus, a favorite of Maximin, 368.
Cumanus, procurator of Judea, 122 (note 1).
Cynics, life and manners of, 193.
Cyprian, epistles of, concerning the Novatian schism, 287; on rebaptism of heretics, 294, 296 (note 6).
Cyrenius, governor of Syria, census under, 88, 89.
Cyril, bishop of Antioch, 317.
Damas, bishop of Magnesia, 168.
Damascus, 359.
Damnæus, father of Jesus the high priest, 128.
Daniel, the prophet, 85, 90, 276, 352.
Deacons, not to be identified with the “Seven,” 103 (note 2a); limited to seven in the Roman Church, 288 (note 18).
Decius, becomes emperor, 280; persecution under, 280–286, 301; slain, 293; wickedness of, 307, 326.
Demetrianus, bishop of Antioch, 303, 312, 315.
Demetrius, a Jewish writer, 260.
Demetrius, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 301.
Demetrius, bishop, addressed by the Emperor Gallienus, 302.
Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, 240, 250, 254, 255, 262, 267, 268, 274, 275, 291, 294; hostility of, to Origen, 255; relations of, with Origen discussed, 394.
Desposyni, or the relatives of Christ, 93.
Diaconal epistle of Dionysius, 291.
Diaconate, 103, 104; among the Therapeutœ, 119.
Diatessaron, of Tatian, 209.
Didymus, addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria, 301, 305.
Diocletian, becomes emperor, 316; persecution of, 316; friendliness of, toward Christians, 323; first edict of, against Christians, 324, 342; second edict of, against Christians, 325, 342; third edict of, against Christians, 325, 328, 342; abdication of, 335, 340, 345; death of, 340; martyrs under, in Palestine, 342; so-called fourth edict of, issued by Maximian, 344 (note 2); so-called fifth edict of, issued by Galerius and Maximinus, 350 (note 1), 364, 366; causes of the persecution of, discussed, 397–400.
Dionysia, martyr under Decius, 284.
Dionysius, the Areopagite, 137; first bishop of Athens, 138, 200.
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, quoted, 160, 281, 283–286, 300; succeeds Heraclas as principal of the catechetical school, 275, 278; epistle of, to Germanus, 281; sufferings of, during the Decian persecution, 282, 301, 302; epistle of, to Fabius, 283–286, 290; attitude of, toward the lapsed, 283 (note 1), 285, 286, 290; his account of Serapion, 290; epistle of, to Novatus, 290, 291; various epistles of, 291, 311, 312; on Repentance, 291; on Martyrdom, 291; against Novatus, 291; epistles of, on the re-baptism of the lapsed, 294, 295, 296, 297; appealed to by Eusebius as an authority, 293, 318; on Sabellius and his heresy, 295, 311; attitude of, toward heretical teachings, 295; on the persecution under Valerian, 298–302; sufferings of, during persecution under Valerian, 299–301; addressed by the Emperor Gallienus, 302; festal epistles of, 305, 307; Paschal canon of, 305; on the Sabbath, 307; to Hermammon, 307; on the Promises, 308; on the Apocalypse of John, 309; to Ammon of Bernice, 311; to Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, 311; on Nature, on Temptations, Exposition of Ecclesiastes, 311; to Dionysius of Rome, to Basilides of Pentapolis, 311; invited to attend synod called against Paul of Samosata, 312; death of, 313, 321.
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, 130, 197, 202; epistles of, 200, 201.
Dionysius of Rome, 295, 296, 311, 312, 313, 316.
Dionysius, a martyr of Palestine, 345.
Dioscorus, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 301.
Dioscorus, confessor under Decius, 284, 285.
Disciples, careers of, after ascension of Christ, 132.
Dispensation (οίκογομία) of Christ, 81, 82.
Dispersion, Hebrews of the, 136.
Dius, bishop of Jerusalem, 256.
Dius, a martyr, 334.
Divinity of Christ (θε ολογία), discussed by Eusebius, 82–86.
Divinity of Christianity, 82 sq.
Docetæ, 258.
Dolichianus, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Domitian, becomes emperor, 147; persecution under, 147, 148, 205, 222; commands that descendants of David be slain, 148, 150, 163, 164.
Domitius, addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria, 301, 305.
Domninus, an apostate, addressed by Serapion, 257.
Domninus, a martyr, 348.
Domnus, bishop of Antioch, 315, 316, 317.
Domnus, bishop of Cæsarea, 303.
Donatist schism, 380 (note 16), 383 (note 12).
Dorotheus, presbyter of Antioch, 317.
Dorotheus, a member of Diocletian’s household, 323, 327.
Dositheans. See Dositheus.
Dositheus, a heretic, 199.
Ebionites, heresy of, 158–160, 223, 264; relation of, to the Elkeites, 280.
Ecclesiastes, commentary on, by Dionysius, 311.
Eden, 306.
Edessa, visit of Thaddeus to, 100–102; Christianity introduced into, 100–102, 104.
Egypt, 88, 93, 94, 95, 174, 175, 226, 249, 250, 267, 291, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 307, 308, 328, 329, 334, 351, 355, 360, 368.
Egyptian false prophet, mentioned in the Acts, sedition of, 123.
Egyptian nation, 305.
Elagabalus, Roman emperor, 268, 269.
Elders, account of appointment of, in
Eleazer, the high priest, 97.
Eleazer of Bathezor, 140.
Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, 184, 199, 211, 219–221, 240.
Eli, son of Melchi, 91, 92, 94.
Elias, a martyr, 351.
Elijah, 352.
Elkesites, heresy of, 280.
Elpistus, of Amastris, 201.
Emesa, 334.
Emesa in Phœnicia, 360.
Ennathas, a martyr, 350.
Enoch, book of. 310.
Ephesus, 162, 163, 167, 171, 186, 187, 196, 222, 223, 236, 237, 241, 242, 310; church of, founded by Paul, 150.
Ephres, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Epimachus, martyr under Decius, 284.
Epistles, of the Apostles, 133; Catholic, 261; thirteen of Paul, 268.
Eros, bishop of Antioch, 197.
Essenes, Jewish sect, 199.
Estha, wife of Matthan and Melchi, 91.
Ethiopia, Christianity introduced into, 105 (note 30), 347.
Ethiopian eunuch, conversion of, 105.
Eubulus, a martyr, 354.
Euclid, studied by the Theodotians, 248.
Euelpis, 268.
Eumenes, bishop of Alexandria, 177, 184.
Eunuchs, eligibility of, to clerical offices, 317 (note 12).
Eunus. See Cronion Eunus.
Euphranor, addressed by Dionysius, 311.
Euphrates river, 100.
Eupolemus, a Jewish writer, 260.
Euporus, addressed by Dionysius, 311.
Eusebius, claim of, to be called the “Father of Church History,” 81 (note 5); Canon of, 155–157.
Eusebius of Alexandria, a deacon and companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 299, 301, 302; becomes bishop of Laodicea, 302, 318; conduct of, during the siege of the Pyrucheium, 319, 320; death of, 320.
Eutychianus, bishop of Rome, 317.
Eutychius, 313.
Evangelists, still eminent in time of Trajan, 169.
Evarestus, bishop of Rome, 165, 174, 221.
Evodius, first bishop of Antioch, 149.
Exodus, the, 319.
Exorcists, 288.
Ezekiel, Origen’s commentary on, 277.
Ezra, the Jewish priest, 224.
Fabi, father of Ishmael the high priest, 97.
Fabianus, miraculously chosen bishop of Rome, 274–275; Origen’s epistle to, 279; suffers martyrdom, 280.
Fabius, bishop of Antioch, 281, 303; epistle of Dionysius to, 283; epistle of Cornelius to, 286–287, 290.
Fadus, procurator of Judea, 112, 113.
False prophets of the Phrygians. See Montanists.
Famine, under Claudius, 110; in Jerusalem, 139–141.
Faustinus, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 301, 334.
Faustus, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 282, 299, 300, 301, 302.
Felix, procurator, 122; subdues Egyptian false prophet, 123.
Felix, bishop of Rome, 316, 317.
Fertur, φέρεται, the use of the word in connection with writings, discussed, 388 sq.
Festus, procurator of Judea, 123, 125.
Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, 274, 291, 294, 295, 303, 312, 313; attitude of, toward Paul of Samosata, 314; death of, 314.
Firmilianus, governor of Palestine, 349, 350, 352, 353, 354.
Flavia Domitilla, 148.
Flavia Neapolis, 185.
Flavianus, governor of Palestine, 342.
Flavius, addressed by Dionysius, 305.
Flavius Clement, consul of Rome, 148.
Flavius Josephus. See Josephus.
Florinus, schism of, at Rome, 229, 237, 238.
Florus. See Gessius Florus.
Frumentius, introduces Christianity into Ethiopia, 105 (note 30).
Fundanus, proconsul and governor of Asia, 206.
Gaius I., Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Gaius II., Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Gaius, martyr of Eumenia, 233.
Gaius, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 282.
Galatians, Epistle of Paul to, 99.
Galba, Roman emperor, 138.
Galen, reverenced by the Theodotians, 248.
Galerius, fatal illness of, 338; his edict of toleration, 339, 340, 356; effect of it upon Christians, 357, 358; original author of the Diocletian persecution, 340; death of, 340; fifth edict of, 350.
Galilean, 89.
Galileans, Jewish sect, 199.
Gallienus, emperor of Rome, 300, 313; peace under, 302, 307.
Gallus, becomes emperor, 293; epistle of Dionysius to, 293; persecutes Christians, 293.
Gamala, a city of Gaulonitis, 89.
Gamaliel, 112.
Gaul, 137, 198, 211, 216, 242, 243, 381.
Gaulonite. See Judas the Gaulonite.
Gaza, 334, 344, 345, 349, 355.
Genealogy of Christ, alleged discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to, 91–94, 277.
Gentiles, divine word attacked by, 81; preached to by Paul, 136.
Geon, one of the rivers of Eden, 306.
Georæ, the strangers that went out of Egypt with the Israelites, 93.
Germanicus, martyr of Smyrna, 189.
Germanio, bishop of Jerusalem, 256.
Germans, the, 219.
Germanus, epistle to, from Dionysius, 281, 299, 301.
Germanus, a martyr, 350.
Germany, 220.
Gessius Florus, Procurator of Judea, 130.
Gitto, a village of Samaria, 114.
Gnosticism, 179; commonly misunderstood, 114 (note 17).
Gomorrah, 83.
Goratheni. See Gorthæus.
Gordianus, emperor of Rome, 274, 278.
Gordius, bishop of Jerusalem, 256.
Gorgonius, a member of Diocletian’s household, 323.
Gorthæus, a heretic, 199.
Gospel, why not preached in ancient times, 84.
Gospels, Irenæus on the, 222; of Matthew, see Matthew; of Mark, see Mark; of Luke, see Luke; of John, see John; order of, 152, 155; of the Nazarenes, see Nazarenes; according to the Hebrews, see Hebrews, Gospel of; of Peter, see Peter; order of the, according to Clement, 261; the four, 273; used by the Elkesites, 280.
Gratus, proconsul of Asia, 231.
Greek learning, 276.
Gregory, “the Illuminator,” the apostle of Armenia, 362 (note 2).
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 275, 303, 312.
Hades, descent of Christ into, 102.
Hadrian becomes Emperor, 175, 176; war of the Jews under, 177, 180, 226; rescript in favor of Christians, 181, 182, 206; friendliness toward the Christians, 220.
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, 222.
Hebrew nation, antiquity of, 87.
Hebrews, 84, 87, 98; of the dispersion, 136.
Hebrews, Epistle to; not included among Paul’s Epistles by Caius, 268; authorship of, 388; according to Origen, 273; referred to as Paul’s, 117, 134; canonicity of, view of Eusebius, 155, 159, 173, 260, 278; placed among the νδθοι, 156, 169; used by Hegesippus, 200; mentioned by Irenæus, 244.
Hebrews, Gospel of, written originally in Hebrew, and translated by Luke, 261.
Hegesippus, memoirs of, used by Eusebius, 81 (note 5); account of death of James, the Lord’s brother, 125–127; visits Rome, 184, 198; quoted, 146, 148, 149, 163, 164, 180, 197, 198, 199.
Helen, Queen of the Osrhœnians, 113.
Helena, companion of Simon Magus, 114; worshiped by his followers, 114.
Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, 291, 295, 312, 313.
Heliodorus, of Laodicea, 294.
Hemerobaptists, Jewish sect, 199.
Heraclas, pupil of Origen, and his successor in the catechetical school of Alexandria, 251, 262, 274; successor of Dementrius as bishop of Alexandria, 251, 274, 275, 297; earnest student of Greek philosophy, 267; removes to Cæsarea, 274; visited by Africanus, 276; dies, 278; opinion of on the re-baptism of heretics, 296.
Heracleides, imperial treasurer under Constantine, 383.
Heraclides, pupil of Origen, martyrdom of, 252.
Heraclitus, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Herais, pupil of Origen, martyrdom of, 252.
Heresy, Phrygian. See Montanism.
Heretics, arise after the death of the apostles, 164, 202; re-baptism of, 294–297.
Hermammon, addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria, 298, 307.
Hermas, Shepherd of, 135, 223; placed among the νδθοι, 156.
Hermogenes, written against by Theophilus, 202.
Hermon, bishop of Jerusalem, 321.
Hermophilus, a follower of Theodotus the cobbler, 248.
Hermopolis, 291.
Hero, bishop of Antioch, 197.
Hero, pupil of Origen, martyrdom of, 252.
Herod the Great, becomes king, 89, 90, 93; lineage of, 93; cruelty toward the infants, 94; death of, 94, 95; succeeded by Archelaus, 96; puts John to death, 98; fears the coming of Christ, 149.
Herod the Younger, or Herod Antipas, 96; exiled with Herodias, 107.
Herod Agrippa I., appointed king of the Jews, 107; kills James, and imprisons Peter, 111; eaten of worms, 111; death of, 112.
Herod Agrippa II., appointed king of the Jews by Claudius, 122; deprives Ananus of the high priesthood, 128; testifies to the truthfulness of Josephus, 146.
Herod, the Eirenarch, 191.
Herodias, wife of Philip and of Herod Antipas, 97, 98.
Heron, martyr under Decius, 284.
Hesychius, Egyptian bishop and martyr, 334.
Hexæmeron, work of Hippolytus on the, 270; works by Candidus and various Fathers on the, 245.
Hexapla, of Origen, 263.
Hierapolis, burial-place of Philip, 162, 163, 165, 172, 206, 230, 237, 242.
Hierax, a bishop in Egypt, addressed by Dionysius, 305, 313.
Hippolytus, a bishop and ecclesiastical writer, 268; writings of, 269, 270; Paschal canon of, 270; work of, on the Hexæmeron, 270; against Marcion, 270; on the Song of Songs, 270; on Ezekiel, 270; on the Passover, 270; against all heresies, 270.
Hippolytus, a messenger by whom Dionysius sends an epistle to Rome, 291.
Homologoumena (δμολογούμενα), meaning of, as used by Eusebius, 155 (note 1).
Hosius of Cordova, 383.
Hyginus, bishop of Rome, 182, 183, 221, 242.
Hymenæus, bishop of Jerusalem, 303, 312, 313, 321.
Hymns, celebrating Christ as God, 247.
Hypotyposes, of Clement. See Clement of Alexandria.
Hyrcanus, high priest of the Jews, 90, 92.
Iconium, 268, 312; synod of, 296.
Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, 149, 165; epistles of, 166–169; martyrdom of, 166–169; quoted, 223.
Illyricum, 121, 132, 136, 273, 356.
Ingenes, martyr under Decius, 285.
Ionian, spoken of by Clement of Alexandria, 225.
Irenæus, 114, 158, 172, 178, 179, 199, 242, 244, 260; life and writings of, 198, 244; writes against Marcion, 203; quoted, 148, 150, 168, 170, 182, 183, 187, 188, 197, 207, 209, 223, 224, 238, 239; recommended by the Gallic confessors, 219; becomes bishop of Lyons, 220; his catalogue of the bishops of Rome, 221; gives an account of post-apostolic miracles, 221; his work against heresies, 221; on the Scriptures, 222–224; writes against Blastus and Florinus, 237; on Monarchy, 238; on the Ogdoad, 238; admonishes Victor not to excommunicate the Asiatic church, 243; teaches that Christ is God and man, 247.
Isaiah, 86, 299, 307, 352; commentary on, by Origen, 277.
Ischyrion, slain by his master for not sacrificing, 285.
Ishmael, the high priest, 97.
Isidorus, martyr under Decius, 284.
Israel, 83, 91, 93, 306, 324, 352.
Jacob, son of Matthan, 91, 92, 94.
James, the son of Zebedee, death of, 104, 110, 111, 138; cited as an authority by Papias, 171; by Clement of Alexandria, 226; brother of John the apostle, 309, 310.
James, the so-called brother of the Lord, 99; called the Just by the ancients, 104; why called brother of the Lord, 104; made first bishop of Jerusalem, 104, 142, 146, 176, 199; death of, 104; martyrdom of, 125–128, 138; epistle of, placed among the Antilegomena, 156; episcopal chair of, preserved until the time of Eusebius, 305.
Jamna, 352.
Janitors, 288.
Jerusalem, 90, 100, 132, 136, 165, 177, 223, 235, 241, 255, 256, 257, 268, 273, 274, 291, 303, 310, 321, 352, 370, 378.
Jerusalem, church of, persecuted, 104, 280, 281, 312; bishops of, belonging to the circumcision, 176; Gentile bishops of, 226, 240; full table of bishops of, down to time of Eusebius, 302.
Jesus, the name of, known from the beginning, 85–87; statue of, erected by the woman with an issue of blood, 304.
Jesus, the high priest, 128.
Jesus, son of Ananias, 142.
Jesus, son of Sirach, “Wisdom of,” 260.
Jews, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 224, 234; misfortunes of, in consequence of plots against Christ, 81; first persecution of, 104; driven out of Rome by Claudius, 121; calamity at feast of Passover under Claudius, 122; disturbances under Nero, 122, 123; last war of, against the Romans, 130, 131; calamities of, under Trajan, 174; war of, under Hadrian, 177, 181; assist in persecuting Christians at Smyrna, 190–192; Justin writes against, 196; mutilate the Scriptures, 197; heresies among, 199.
John the Baptist, 96, 153; testimony of Josephus in regard to, 97, 98.
John, the apostle, 104, 163, 170, 171, 226, 236, 239, 242, 244, 309, 310; receives his revelation in the time of Domitian, 222; labors in Asia, and dies at Ephesus, 132, 138; banished to Patmos, 148; after banishment, resides in Ephesus, 149, 150; narrative of, 150; writings of, 154; speaks against Cerinthus, 161, 187; death and burial place, 162; two monuments of, in Ephesus, 310; same marks in Gospel and epistle of, 311; Gospel of, 152, 222, 261, 273, 309; reason for composition of, 153; commentary on, by Origen, 271;. compared with the Apocalypse by Dionysius, 310; First Epistle of, 173, 222, 309; a part of the N. T. Canon, 156; Second and Third Epistles of, placed among the Antilegomena, 156; discussed by Dionysius, 310; Acts of, 157; Apocalypse of, work on, by Melito, 204; spoken of, by Irenæus, 222; by Apollonius, 236; by Origen, 273; by Nepos, 308; by Dionysius, 309; authorship of, assigned to Cerinthus, 309; author of, 310.
John, surnamed Mark, 310.
John, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
John, the presbyter, friend of Papias, 170 (note 4), 171, 172.
John, a confessor, wonderful memory of, 355.
Jonathan, the high priest, 123.
Joseph, the father of Christ, 91, 92, 94, 95, 104, 146, 223, 264.
Joseph, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Joseph Barsabbas. See Barsabbas.
Josephus, 88, 90, 96, 97, 107; quoted, 89, 94, 95, 98, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 127, 138, 139, 260, 319; testimonies of, in regard to John the Baptist, and Christ, 97, 98; on the death of James the Just, 127, 128; work of, on the Jewish War, 130, 131; life and works of, 143; O. T. Canon of, 144.
Josephus Caiaphas. See Caiaphas.
Joshua, 83.
Judas (Iscariot), 99.
Judas, candidate with Matthias, 103, 172.
Judas, the prophet, 234.
Judas, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Judas, an ecclesiastical writer, 254.
Judas of Galilee, or Judas the Gaulonite, 88, 89.
Judas Thomas. See Thomas.
Jude, brother of the Lord, 148, 164; Epistle of, 128, 260, 261; placed among the Antilegomena, 156.
Judea, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 100, 104, 175.
Julian, bishop of Alexandria, 224, 240, 250.
Julian, bishop of Apamea.
Julian I., Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Julian II., Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Julian, martyr under Decius, 284.
Julian, a Cappadocian martyr, 354.
Juliana, friend of Origen, 264.
Jupiter Philius, 359.
Justin, apology of, quoted, 114, 158, 180, 181, 184, 185, 193, 195, 196, 223; work against Marcion, 184; against heresies, 185; martyrdom of, 193; works of, 196, 197, 208; speaks of Christ as God, 247.
Justus, bishop of Alexandria, 176.
Justus, bishop of Jerusalem, 165, 176.
Justus of Tiberias, 145.
Justus Barsabbas. See Barsabbas.
κλήρογ, used in the sense of “order” or “class,” 213.
Knowledge, “falsely so-called,” 81, 178, 221, 317.
Lacedæmonians, 200.
Lætus, governor of Alexandria, 250.
Laodicea, 205, 242, 291, 294, 318, 319, 320.
Lapsed, the, attitude of Dionysius toward, 283 (note 1), 285 (note 6); attitude of Novatus toward, 286; attitude of Cornelius and the church of Rome toward, 286; controversy concerning, 293 (note 3).
Laranda, 268.
Larissæans, 206.
Latronianus, corrector of Sicily, 382.
Leonides, father of Origen, 249.
Levi, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Levi, tribe of, 224.
Liberty, full religious, granted by Constantine and Licinius, 379.
Licinius, becomes emperor, 335; joins Galerius in issuing an edict of toleration, 339; conquers Maximin, 363, 366; issues in conjunction with Constantine an edict of toleration, 364, 365; puts to death the favorites and the children of Maximin, 386; edict of toleration, text of, 378–380; plots against Constantine, 384; persecutes the Christians, 384–386; extortions and cruel laws of, 385; conquered by Constantine, 386.
Linus, bishop of Rome, 132, 137, 147, 149, 221.
λόγια, of Papias, 170; of Matthew, 173.
Longinus, a philosopher and rhetorician, 266.
Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, 333, 360.
Lucius (Verus), emperor of Rome, 185, 188.
Lucius, bishop of Rome, 293.
Lucius, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 301, 313.
Lucius Quintus, a Roman general, 175.
Lucuas, leader of the Jews, 174, 175.
Luke, on the genealogy of Christ, 91, 92, 277; author of the Acts, 112, 136, 137; wrote Acts during Paul’s imprisonment, 124, 273; parentage and profession of, 136; Gospel of, 136, 137, 153, 222, 273; reason for composition of the Gospel, 154, 163; traditional translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 169, 261; author of the Epistle to the Hebrews according to some, 273.
Lupus, governor of Egypt, 174.
Lycia, 345.
Lyons, account of Martyrs of, 211; Epistle of Church of, 212, 220.
Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene, 96, 107.
Macar, a Libyan, martyr under Decius, 284.
Macedonian months, table of, 403.
Macedonians, 223.
Machæra, citadel of, 98.
Macrianus, financial minister of Valerian, 298.
Macrinus, becomes emperor, 268, 307.
Magi, the visit of, to Christ, 94.
Magna Græcia, 226.
Magnesia, 168.
Malchion, a Sophist, opponent of Paul of Samosata, 313.
Malchus, martyr at Cæsarea, under Valerian, 302.
Mambre, oak of, 83.
Mammæa, mother of Emperor Alexander Severus, has an interview with Origen, 269.
Manes, 316; proclaims himself the Paraclete, 317.
Manganea, probably northeast of Palestine, 354.
Manichæans, heresy of, 316, 317.
Marcella, mother of Potamiæna, martyrdom of, 253.
Marcellinus, bishop of Rome, 317.
Marcellus, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 300.
Marcian, a friend of Irenæus, 244.
Marcianus, a heretic, 258.
Marcion, asceticism of, 114 (note 18); heresy of, 182, 183, 233; Justin’s work against, 184, 197; meets Polycarp in Rome, 187, 201; written against by Theophilus, 202; mentioned by Tatian, 208; written against by Bardesanes, 210; work against, promised by Irenæus, 223; written against by Rhodo, 227; holds two principles, 228; a martyr of the sect of, at Cæsarea under Valerian, 302; and in Palestine, 351.
Marcionists, 199.
Marcionites, 233.
Marcius Turbo, a Roman general, 174.
Marcus, bishop of Alexandria, 184.
Marcus, first Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 178, 226.
Marcus, addressed by Constantine, 381.
Marcus, the Gnostic, 183.
Marcus Aurelius, 106, 185, 186, 188, 196, 197, 205, 210, 211, 219, 220, 224; Eusebius’ confusion in regard to, discussed, 390, 391.
Mareotis, lake of, 118.
Maria, lake of. See Mareotis.
Marinus of Aries, 381.
Marinus, a martyr at Cæsarea, 303.
Marinus of Tyre, 294.
Mark, the Evangelist, 128; preaches in Egypt, 116, 310; interpreter of Peter, 172, 173, 222; Gospel of, 115, 153, 261, 273; composition of Gospel of, 116.
Marriage, pronounced fornication by Tatian, 208.
Mars, 360.
Martyrdom, Dionysius of Alexandria on, 291.
Martyrdoms, collection of, 211. See Ancient Martyrdoms.
Martyrdoms of the Ancients. See Ancient Martyrdoms.
Martyrs, in Palestine, under Diocletian, 342–356; in Alexandria, under Decius, 283; in Cæsarea, under Valerian, 302.
Mary, the mother of Christ, 94, 264.
Mary, daughter of Eleazar, 140.
Mary, wife of Clopas, 164.
Masbotheans, Jewish sect, 199.
Masbotheus, a heretic, 199.
Maternus of Cologne, 381.
Mattathias, father of Josephus, 143.
Matthew, the Apostle, 91, 92, 94; wrote a Hebrew Gospel, 152, 173, 222, 225; Gospel of, used by the Ebionites, 159 (note 8), 171; Gospel of, found by Bartholomew in India, 225; Gospel of, written first in Hebrew, 273; commentary on Gospel of, by Origen, 279; on the genealogy of Christ, 91, 92, 277.
Matthias, chosen to the Apostolate, 99, 103, 172; ascetic teaching of, 161; one of the Seventy, 103; Gospel of, excluded from the Canon, 157.
Matthias, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Maturus, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 213, 215.
Maxentius, usurps the imperial purple, 335 (note 21), 336; character of, 336; his treatment of female Christians, 337; defeated by Constantine, 363, 364.
Maximian, treatment of female Christians, 332 (note 2); fourth edict of, against Christians, 332 (note 2), 344 (note 2); abdication of, 335, 340, 345; conspires against Constantine and meets a shameful death, 336, 340, 364, 366.
Maximilla, Montanist prophetess, 229, 231 (note 18), 232, 233, 234, 236.
Maximinus, bishop of Antioch, 202, 237.
Maximinus I., Roman emperor, 274.
Maximinus II., treatment of female Christians, 332 (note 2), 337; seizes the imperial dignity, 336; character of, 336; persecution of, 345–355; fifth edict of. 350; gives verbal orders to relax the persecution, 357; renews the persecution, 358–361; decree of against the Christians engraved on pillars, 360; famine, pestilence, and war, during the reign of, 362; first edict of toleration, 364, 365; defeated by Licinius, 366; second edict of toleration, 366, 367; death of, 367; honors of, revoked after his death by Constantine and Licinius, 368; children of, put to death, 368.
Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, 299, 300, 301, 302, 313, 321.
Maximus, bishop of Bostra, 312.
Maximus, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Maximus, a Roman confessor, 287.
Maxys, a military tribune, 350.
Mazabanes, bishop of Jerusalem, 281, 294, 303.
Melchi, father of Eli, 91, 92, 94.
Meletius, bishop in Pontus, 321; called “honey of Attica,” 320.
Melitene, in Cappadocia, 328.
Melitene legion, the so-called “Thundering Legion,” 219.
Melito, bishop of Sardis, 186; life and writings of, 198, 203–206, 242, 261; teaches Christ is God and man, 247.
Menander, the sorcerer, successor of Simon Magus, 157, 158, 178.
Menandrianists, 199.
Mercuria, martyr under Decius, 284.
Merozanes, bishop of Armenia, 291.
Metras, martyr under Decius, 283.
Metrodorus, Marcionite martyr at Smyrna, 192.
Micah, the prophet, 94.
Miltiades, writings of, 233, 234; writes against Montanists, 234; speaks of Christ as God, 247.
Miltiades, bishop of Rome, addressed by Constantine, 381.
Miltiades, a Montanist, 230.
Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, receives rescript from Hadrian in favor of Christians, 181, 182.
Miracles, of the Post-Apostolic age, 221; of Narcissus of Jerusalem, 255.
Moabitess. See Ruth the Moabitess.
Moderatus, a Pythagorean philosopher, 266.
Modestus, 197; writes against Marcion, 203.
Monarchy, work on, by Irenæus, 238.
Montanism, 103, 207, 229–237, 268.
Montanists, false prophets of, 229.
Montanus, 218, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236.
Months, table showing Roman method of computing the days of, 402; table of Macedonian, 403.
Moses, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 94, 145, 224, 239, 319, 363, 364; shown by Tatian to be older than the most celebrated Greeks, 209, 260; “Harmony of,” 267; murmured against, 305.
Moses, a Roman confessor, 289.
Musæus, 319.
Mysia, 231.
Narcissus, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226, 240, 241, 244, 257; miracles of, 255; goes into retirement, 256; comes out of retirement, 256.
Natalius, bishop of the sect of Theodotus, 247.
Nathan, son of David, 91, 92, 94.
Nature, work on, by Dionysius, 311.
Nave, father of Joshua, 85.
Nazara, a village of Judea, 93.
Nazarenes, Gospel of, 168 (note 15).
Nebuchadnezzar, 224.
Nemesion, an Egyptian, martyr under Decius, 285.
Neon, 268.
Neo-Platonism, 264 (note 1).
Nero, succeeds Claudius, 122; more cruel in his later years, 125 (note 15); persecutions and crimes of, 128, 129, 138, 147, 149, 163, 205.
Nerva, becomes emperor, 149.
New Testament Canon, 133, 155, 273.
Nicetes, father of the Eirenarch Herod, 191.
Nicolaitans. See Nicolaus, sect of.
Nicolaus, sect of, 161.
Nicomachus, a Pythagorean philosopher, 266.
Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, 312, 313.
Nicomedia, 333, 360, 365; persecutions in, under Diocletian, 326, 327, 328; fire in palace of, 327.
Nicomedians, 201.
Nicopolis, near Actium, 263.
Nilus, in Egypt, 285.
Nilus, an Egyptian bishop and martyr, 334, 355.
νόθοδ, Eusebius’ use of, 128 (note 46), 155 (note 1).
Nomes, of Egypt, 118.
Novatian. See Novatus.
Novatus, 294; schism of, 286–290, 296; attitude of, toward the lapsed, 286; Cornelius writes epistles concerning, 286; epistle of Cyprian concerning, 286; character of, according to Cornelius, 287; character of, 287 (note 13); ordination of, to the episcopate, 288, 290; addressed by Dionysius, 290, 291; attitude of, toward Catholic baptism, 297.
Novatus, a presbyter of Carthage, 289 (note 29).
Numenius, a philosopher and rhetorician, 266.
Numerianus, becomes emperor, 316.
Numidia, 382.
Œdipodean intercourse, 213.
Ogdoad, work on, by Irenæus, 238.
οίκογομία. See Dispensation of Christ.
Old Testament Canon, according to Josephus, 144, 155, 206; according to Melito, 206; according to Origen, 272; used by the Elkesites, 280.
Olympiads, 110.
Onesimus, pastor of church of Ephesus, 168.
Onesimus, addressed by Melito, 206.
Ophites, immorality of, 114 (note 18).
Oracles of the Lord. See λόγια.
Oracles of Matthew. See λόγια.
Origen, quoted, 133, 264; training of, 249; eager for martyrdom, 250; proficient in the Scriptures while yet a boy, 250; refuses to join in prayer with heretics, 250; takes charge of the catechetical school of Alexandria, 251; proficiency in secular literature, 251; shows bravery during the persecution, but escapes all harm, 251; asceticism of, 252; pupils of, suffering martyrdom, 252; studies under Clement, 253; makes himself a eunuch, 254; ordained a presbyter, 255, 271; accused by Demetrius, 255; addressed by Alexander, 261; earnest study of the Scriptures, 262; his Hexapla, 263; his Tetrapla, 263; his learning attracts many students, including heretics and philosophers, 264; slandered by Porphyry, 265; allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, 266 (note 1); proficiency in Grecian learning, 267; visits Arabia, 267; preaches in Cæsarea, 267; visits Mammæa, mother of Emperor Alexander Severus, at Antioch, 269; his great zeal in composing commentaries, 271; commentaries prepared by him at Alexandria, 271; visits Greece on ecclesiastical business, 271; passes through Palestine, 271; commentary on the Gospel of John, 271; on Genesis, 271, 272; on the Psalms, 272; on Lamentations, 272; works on the Resurrection, 272; De Principiis, 272; his Old Testament Canon, 272; friendship of Palestinian bishops towards, 274; work on martyrdom, 274; pupils of, in Cæsarea, 275; epistle of, to Africanus, 276; his commentaries, composed in Cæsarea in Palestine, 277; on Isaiah, 277; on Ezekiel, 277; second visit to Athens, 277; on the Song of Songs, 277; brings Beryllus back to the orthodox faith, 277; apology for, by Eusebius and Pamphilus, 271, 278; work of, against Celsus, 278; permits his discourses to be taken by stenographers, 278; commentaries of, on Matthew and the minor prophets, 279; various epistles of, 279; heals dissension of the Arabians, 279; on the Elkesites, 280; sufferings of, in persecution under Decius, 281; addressed by Dionysius on the subject of martyrdom, 291; school of, 303; life and writings of, discussed, 391–394; relations of, with Demetrius, discussed, 394, 395; visit to Greece, cause and date of, discussed, 395–397; final departure of, from Alexandria discussed, 395–397; ordination of, discussed, 397.
Osrhœne, 242.
Osrhœnians, Gospel preached to, 104.
Otho, Roman emperor, 138.
Otrous, or Otrys, in Phrygia, 230.
Pachymius, Egyptian bishop and martyr, 334.
Pæsis, a martyr, 345.
Pagæ, in Lycia, 345.
Palestine, 92, 93, 185, 226, 240, 241, 244, 254, 267, 271, 277, 280, 291, 302, 303, 320, 328, 343, 344, 347, 348, 350, 355; martyrs of, 342–356.
Palmas, bishop of Amastris, 201, 242.
Pamphilus, presbyter of Cæsarea, 320, 334; Eusebius’ Life of, 277; library of, in Cæsarea, 277, 278; tortured, 348; martyrdom of, 351–354.
Pamphylia, 310.
Paneas. See Cæsarea Philippi.
Panegyric of Eusebius on the building of the churches, 370–378.
Panius Mountain, source of the Jordan, 304.
Pantænus, the Philosopher, 224, 225, 253, 259, 261, 267.
Paphos, 310.
Papias, of Hierapolis, 116, 165; writings of, 170; quoted, 172–174; not a hearer of the Apostles, 170; hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John, 171; of limited understanding, 172; a chiliast, 172.
Papirius, a martyr, 242.
Papylus, a martyr, 193.
Paraclete, the, 229; Manes proclaims himself to be the, 317.
Parætonium, 301.
Parthia, 132.
Parthicus, 90.
Paschal Canon, of Hippolytus, 270; of Dionysius, 305; of Anatolius, 319.
Paschal controversy. See Passover.
Passover, work on, by Melito, 205; controversy concerning the, 241–244; agreement in regard to, reached, 244; Clement’s work on, 259, 260.
Patermuthius, a martyr, 355.
Patmos, 310.
Patricius, vicar of the prefects, 383.
Paul, the Apostle, 99, 226, 246, 283, 304, 310; mentions James the Just, 104; persecutor of Christians, 104; appointed an Apostle, 105; called “prophet,” 107, 110, 113; preaches from Jerusalem to Illyricum, 121, 132, 136, 273; sent to Rome as captive, 123; release and second imprisonment, 124; death of, 128, 129, 130, 132; burial place of, 130; with Peter founds churches of Corinth and Rome, 130, 222; fellow-laborers mentioned, 136, 137; mentions Luke’s Gospel, 137, 149, 154, 273; married, 161, 168; rejected by the Severians, 209; rejected by the Elkesites 280; quoted, 352; Epistles of, 134, 152, 168; Epistles of, a part of the N. T. Canon, 155; Epistles to Timothy, 124, 133; not author of Epistle to the Hebrews, 135; writes to Hebrews in his native tongue, 169, 174, 187, 201; author of Epistle to the Hebrews according to the ancients, 273; “Acts of,” 135; “Acts of,” placed among the Antilegomena, 156.
Paul, an Antiochian heretic, 250.
Paul, a martyr of Cæsarea, 349.
Paul, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 282, 301.
Paul of Jamna, a martyr, 352.
Paul of Samosata, 246; character of, 315, 316; heresy of, 312–316, 318; refuted by Malchion, 313; excommunicated, 313; Epistle of the bishops against, 313–315; Synod held against, 320.
Paulinus of Iconium, 268.
Paulinus of Tyre, 369; the tenth book of the Church History inscribed to, 369; Eusebius’ panegyric addressed to, 370; builder of the great church of Tyre, 370 sq.
Peace after the great persecution, 369 sq.; finally assured to the Christians after the defeat of Licinius, 387.
Peleus, Egyptian bishop and martyr, 334, 355.
Pella, a town in Perea, 138, 177.
Penance, rules for, in the early Church, 278.
Pepuza, in Phrygia, named Jerusalem by Montanus, 235, 236.
Perea, 122 b.
Perennius, a Roman judge, 239, 240.
Perga, in Pamphylia, 310.
Persecution under Trajan, 165; under Severus, 249, 251; under Maximinus, 274; under Decius, 280–286; followed by peace, 294; under Valerian, 298–302; under Diocletian, 316, 317, 322, 323–356; under Licinius, 384–386; causes of persecution under Diocletian, discussed, 397–400.
Persia, 317.
Persians, 224.
Pertinax becomes emperor, 245.
Pestilence in Alexandria, 306, 307.
Peter, the Apostle, 99, 104, 226, 258, 261, 304, 310, 311; detects Simon Magus, 105, 115; instructs Cornelius, 107; imprisoned, 111; preaches in Rome, 115, 116; authorizes Mark’s Gospel, 116, 261, 273; meets Philo in Rome, 117; death of, 128, 129, 130, 162; burial-place of, 130, 162; with Paul, founds churches of Rome and Corinth, 130, 222; preaches in Pontus, etc., 132, 136; married, 162; martyrdom of wife of, 162, 165, 168; writings of, 133, 134, 149; First Epistle of, 116, 122, 133, 173, 222, 273; First Epistle of, a part of the N. T. Canon, 156; Second Epistle of, 133, 273; “Acts of,” 133; “Apocalypse of,” 134, 261; Apocalypse of, placed among the νδθοι, 156; “Gospel of,” 133, 258; Gospel of, excluded from the Canon, 157; “Preaching of,” 133; “Teaching of,” 168 (note 15), 171, 172, 173, 174.
Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 322, 334, 360.
Peter, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 282, 301.
Peter, a member of Diocletian's household, 327.
Peter Apselamus, a martyr, 351.
Petra, 97.
Peucetius, a favorite of Maximin, 368.
Pharaoh, 363.
Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, Epistle of, quoted, 330; martyrdom of, 330, 334.
Philemon, a Roman presbyter addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria, 295.
Philetus, bishop of Antioch, 269, 271.
Philip, the Tetrarch, 96, 107.
Philip, the Asiarch, 190.
Philip, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Philip of Gortyna, 198, 201; writes against Marcion, 203.
Philip of Arabia, Roman emperor, reported to have been a Christian and to have done penance, 278; Origen’s Epistle to, 279; slain, 280.
Philip, son of Emperor Philip, 278.
Philip, one of the Twelve, 242; preaches in Samaria, 104; encounters Simon Magus, 105; instructs Ethiopian eunuch, 105; married, 161; confounded with Philip, the Evangelist, 162, 171; burial-place of, 162; daughters of, 162, 169, 172, 234, 242.
Philip, the Evangelist, confounded with Philip, the Apostle, 162, 171; death of, and of his daughters, 163, 242; resided at Hierapolis, 172, 242.
Philippians, 168; Polycarp’s Epistle to, 188.
Philo, of Alexandria, family and culture of, 107; embassy to Rome, 108; on the Embassy, 109; on the Virtues, 109; meets Peter in Rome, 117; describes the Therapeutæ, 117–119; De Vita Contemplativa, 117; writings of, 119–121; reads his “On the Virtues” before Roman Senate, 121; referred to by Clement of Alexandria, 260; by Anatolius, 319.
Philomelium, letter to church of, 188.
Philoromus, a martyr in the persecution under Diocletian, 330.
Philosophical mode of life, in sense of asceticism, 117, 169, 252, 256.
Philosophy, used in sense of asceticism. See the preceding.
Philumene, virgin and companion of Apelles, 227.
Phœnicia, 104, 328, 359, 360, 370; martyrs in, 333, 345.
Phœnicians, 304.
Phrygia, 212, 218, 219, 229, 230, 231, 235; burning of an entire city of, during Diocletian’s persecution, 331, 332.
Phrygian heresy. See Montanism.
Pierius, presbyter of Alexandria, 321, 322.
Pilate, procuratorship of, 96; condemns Christ, 98; reports to Tiberius, 105; tyranny of, 109; stirs up tumult among the Jews, 109, 110; suicide of, 110 (note 1); forged acts of, 96, 359, 360; Christ crucified under, 222.
Pinnas, bishop, addressed by the Emperor Gallienus, 302.
Pinytus, bishop of Crete, 197, 201.
Pionius, a martyr, 162.
Pius, bishop of Rome, 182, 183, 221, 243.
Pius, emperor of Rome. See Antoninus Pius.
Plinius Secundus, governor of Bithynia, writes concerning Christians, 164.
Plutarch, pupil of Origen, 251; martyrdom of, 252.
Polybius, bishop of Tralles, 168.
Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, 161, 165, 167, 168, 170, 187, 188, 220, 238, 239, 242, 243; martyrdom of, 188–192; communes with Anicetus and administers the eucharist in Rome, 244.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, quoted, 162, 240; on the Paschal controversy, 242.
Pompey, the Roman general, 90, 92.
Pontianus, bishop of Rome, 271, 274.
Ponticus, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 216.
Pontius, addressed by Serapion, 237, 258.
Pontius Pilate. See Pilate.
Pontus, 132, 136, 183, 184, 188, 201, 223, 242, 276, 294, 303, 312, 321, 333, 345, 386.
Porphyry, a martyr, 353; his death reported to Pamphilus by Seleucus, 353.
Porphyry, the Neo-Platonist, 264; gives account of Origen, 265; writes against the Christians, 265, 266.
Potamiaena, martyrdom of, 253.
Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, a Gallic witness in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 214, 220.
Potitus, a Marcionite, 228.
Pre-existence of Christ, discussed by Eusebius, 82, 85.
Preparation, day of, 346, 347 (note 8).
Presbyter, nature of office of, in the early church, 150 (note 14); ancient, 261; office mentioned, 223, 243, 286, 287, 290, 301, 305, 313, 320.
πρεσβύτεροδ, used in an unofficial sense, 278 (note 5).
Primus, bishop of Alexandria, 174, 175.
Prisca, wife of Diocletian, friendliness of, toward Christians, 323 (note 2).
Priscilla, 121.
Priscilla, Montanist prophetess, 229, 231 (note 18), 235, 237.
Priscus, father of Justin, 185.
Priscus, martyr at Cæsarea under Valerian, 302.
Probus, Roman emperor, 316.
Probus, a martyr, 351.
Proclus, opponent of Caius, 163.
Proclus, an ecclesiastic, 313.
Proclus, a Montanist, and an opponent of Caius of Rome, 130, 163, 268.
Procopius, a Palestinian martyr, 342.
Prophets, from Jerusalem, 107.
Proselyte, Jewish, 93.
Protoctetus, a presbyter of Cæsarea, 274.
Protogenes, 313.
Proverbs of Solomon, called “All-virtuous Wisdom,” 200.
Psalms, celebrating Christ as God, 247; Hexapla of the, 263.
Ptolemæus, a martyr, 195.
Ptolemais, in Pentapolis, 244, 295.
Ptolemies of Egypt, close of dynasty of, 88.
Ptolemy, martyr under Decius, 285.
Ptolemy Lagus, king of Egypt, 223.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 319.
Publius, bishop of Athens, 200.
Publius, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Pyrucheium, siege of, 318.
Pythagoreans, one of the most famous referred to, 266.
Quadratus, the Apologist, 175.
Quadratus, bishop of Athens, 200.
Quadratus, the prophet, 169, 234.
Quinta, martyr under Decius, 283.
Quintus, a Phrygian, 189.
Rechabites, 126.
Regeneration, 376.
Remission of sins, according to the Elkesites, 280.
Repentance, Dionysius of Alexandria on, 291, 292.
Resurrection, 376.
Retecius of Autun, 381.
Revelation. See Apocalypse of John.
Rhodo of Asia, writes against Marcion, 227; quoted, 227, 228.
Rhone, river, 211.
Rhossus, in Syria, 258.
Roman church, 225, 242, 271, 286, 290, 312, 317.
Roman emperors, table of, 401.
Roman empire, 89, 90, 101, 223.
Roman learning, 276.
Romans, Epistle to, integrity of, 135, 203, 205; relation of the last chapter to the remainder of the epistle, 388.
Romanus, a martyr, 343.
Rome, 106, 167, 168, 169, 183, 186, 197, 198, 210, 219, 220, 228, 239, 241, 243, 246, 261, 262, 381, 382; Peter and Simon Magus in, 115; gathering place of heretics, 115 (note 6); origin of church of, 115 (note 1); church of, founded by Peter and Paul, 130, 222; Linus, first bishop of, 133; church of, disputes epistle to the Hebrews, 135; liberality of church of, 201; list of early bishops of, 174 (note 1), 175; bishops of, during reign of Antoninus Pius, 182; Irenæus’ catalogue of bishops of, 221; table of bishops of, during the first three centuries, 401.
Romulus, a martyr, 345.
Rufus, governor of Judea, 168, 177.
Ruth, the Moabitess, 93.
Sabbath, Dionysius on the, 307.
Sabellius, heresy of, 295; epistles of Dionysius against, 311.
Sabinus, prefect of Egypt under Decius, 282, 301.
Sabinus, an imperial official under Maximin, epistle of, to the provincial governors in regard to the Christians, 357, 358, 364.
Sadducees, most cruel of all the Jews, 127; Jewish sect, 199.
Sadduchus, a Pharisee, 89.
Sagaris, martyrdom of, 205, 242.
Salome, sister of Herod the Great, 95.
Samaria, 104.
Samaritans, Jewish sect, 199.
Samuel, 352.
Sanctus, one of the Gallic witnesses in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, 213, 214, 215.
Saracens, enslave fugitive Christians, 285.
Sarmatians, 219.
Saturnilians, 199.
Saturninus, the Gnostic, 178, 208; asceticism of, 114 (note 18).
Saul, king of Israel, 90.
Scriptures, Irenæus’ account of, 222; allegorical interpretation of, 266 (note 1).
Scythia, 132.
Seal, (σφραγις). See Baptism.
Sects, the seven, among the Jews, 199.
Seleucus, a martyr, 353.
Senate, the Roman, 105.
Seneca, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Septuagint, composition of, 223, 319; Origen’s study of, 262; edited by Origen, 263.
Serapion, bishop of Antioch, writings of, 257; writes against Montanists, 237, 240, 257, 258.
Serapion, martyr under Decius, 283.
Serapion, an aged believer of Alexandria, 290.
Serennius Granianus, proconsul of Asia, 181, 182.
Serenus, pupil of Origen, suffers martyrdom by fire, 252.
Serenus, another pupil of Origen, is beheaded, 252.
Servilius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, 205.
Seven, the, appointment of, 103, 104; not deacons, but elders, 103 (note 2a), 163.
Seventy, the, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 152.
Severa, wife of Emperor Philip, Origen’s epistle to, 279.
Severians. See Severus.
Severus, a heretic, 209.
Severus, Roman emperor, 245, 247, 249, 254, 255, 263.
Sextus, an ecclesiastical writer, 245.
Shepherd of Hermas. See Hermas.
Sidon, 333.
Sidonius, a Roman confessor, 287.
Silas, companion of Paul, 234.
Silvanus, bishop of Emesa, 333, 360.
Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, 334, 348, 355.
Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, 146, 149, 176, 199; martyrdom of, 163, 164; date of martyrdom of, 164, 165.
Simon, the high priest, 97.
Simon Barjona, 310.
Simon Magus, attracted by Philip, 104; reputation of, 105; the “great power of God,” 105; pretends conversion, 105; baptism of, 105; detected and rebuked by Peter, 105, 113; denounced in Justin’s Apology, 114; honored with statue in Rome, 114, 115; author of all heresy, 114; meets Peter at Rome, 115; destroyed, 116, 158, 178, 199.
Simonians, immorality of, 114, 199.
Sion, Mount, 352.
Sixtus. See Xystus.
Smyrna, 165, 167, 168, 187, 188, 192; letter of church of, to the church of Philomelium, 188 sq.
Socrates, the philosopher, quoted, 194.
Socrates, bishop of Laodicea, 318.
Sodom, 83.
Solomon, 91, 94, 370; “Wisdom of,” 223, 244, 260.
Song of Songs, commentary on, by Origen, 277.
Sophists, 313.
Sosthenes, a companion of Paul, 99.
Sotas, bishop of Anchialus, 237.
Soter, bishop of Rome, 197, 190, 201, 210, 211, 221, 243.
Spain, 356.
Statius Quadratus, proconsul of Asia, 189 (note 9).
Statue, erected by the woman with an issue of blood, 304.
Stephen, one of the Seven, 104, 161, 218; martyrdom of, 104, 107, 138.
Stephen, bishop of Laodicea, 320.
Stephen, bishop of Rome, on the re-baptism of the lapsed, 293, 294, 295.
Stocks, the, 193, 214, 281, 331, 343, 344.
Stoics, some famous ones referred to, 266.
Strato’s Tower, 111.
Stromata. See Clement of Alexandria.
Sub-deacons, 288.
Subintroductæ, 315.
Suicide of women, to escape defilement, 332, 337; opinions of the Fathers in regard to, 333 (note 3).
Susannah, story of, fictitious, according to Africanus, 276.
Symeon. See Simeon.
Symmachus, translator of the Old Testament, 262, 263, 264; an Ebionite, 264.
Synada, in Phrygia, 268; synod of, 269.
Syneros, a Marcionite, 228.
Synod, at Rome, in behalf of the unity of the Church on occasion of the Donatist schism, 380, 381; at Arles, summoned by Constantine, 381, 382.
Syracuse, 381.
Syria, 88, 89, 167, 168, 178, 185, 294, 302, 318, 328, 355.
Taposiris, near Alexandria, 282.
Tatian, asceticism of, 114 (note 18); authority for martyrdom of Justin, 194; life and writings of, 207–209; heresy of, 207–209: his Book of Problems, 228, 229; instructor of Rhodo at Rome, 222, 228; speaks of Christ as God, 247; mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, 260.
Teaching of Peter. See Peter.
Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, 177, 182, 221, 242.
Telesphorus, addressed by Dionysius, 311.
Temptations, work on, by Dionysius, 311.
Tertullian, family and culture of, 106; apology for Christians, 105; on Nero, 129; quoted, 149, 165; narrates the story of the Thundering Legion, 220.
Tetrapla, of Origen, 263.
Thaddeus, one of the “Seventy,” 99; in Edessa, 100–102, 104.
Thaumaturgus. See Gregory Thaumaturgus.
Thebais, 249, 328, 329, 334, 349, 350.
Thebuthis, a heretic, 199.
Thelymidres, bishop of Laodicea, 291, 294.
Themisto, a Montanist, 233, 235.
Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, 268, 274, 291, 294, 303.
Theodolus, a martyr, 353.
Theodorus. See Gregory Thaumaturgus.
Theodorus, of Synada, 268.
Theodorus, an ecclesiastic, 313.
Theodorus, Egyptian bishop and martyr, 334.
Theodosia, a martyr, 348.
Theodotion, translator of the Old Testament, 262, 263.
Theodotus of Ephesus, 223.
Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea, 320.
Theodotus, a Montanist, 218, 232.
Theodotus, the elder, the cobbler, 247, 248.
Theodotus, the younger, the banker, 247.
θεολογία. See Divinity of Christ.
Theonas, bishop of Alexandria, 321.
Theophanies, to be regarded as appearances of Christ, 83.
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, 197, 202.
Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, 240, 241, 244, 313.
Theophilus, martyr under Decius, 285.
Theophrastus, admired by the Theodotians, 248.
Theotecnus, bishop of Cæsarea, 303, 312, 313, 320.
Theotecnus, curator of Antioch, 358; death of, 368.
Theraputæ, described by Philo, 117–119.
Thessalonians, 206.
Theudas, the Impostor, 112, 113.
Thomas, the apostle, 100, 101; sends Thaddeus to Edessa, 104; labors in Parthia, 132; Gospel of, excluded from the canon, 156, 171.
Thrace, 237.
Thraseas, bishop and martyr of Eumenia, 236, 242.
“Thundering Legion,” story of, 220.
Thyestean banquets, 213.
Tiberias, 145.
Tiberius, emperor of Rome, 96; reception of Pilate’s report, 105, 106; favors Christianity, 106; death of, 107.
Timæus, bishop of Antioch, 317.
Timolaus, a martyr, 345.
Timotheus, a martyr, 344.
Timothy, Paul’s Epistles to, 124, 133, 137, 221; first bishop of Ephesus, 136.
Timothy, companion of Dionysius of Alexandria, 282, 311.
Titus, first bishop of Crete, 136.
Titus, son of Vespian, conducts war against Jews, 138, 146; becomes emperor, 147.
Tobias, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Tobias of Edessa, 101.
Tobias, the father of the former, 101.
Trajan, Roman emperor, 149, 150, 164, 173, 175, 220; forbids Christians to be sought after, 164–166.
Tralles, 168.
Tripolis, 345.
Troas, 168.
“True Discourse,” Origen’s work against Celsus, 278.
Trypho, the Jew, Dialogue of Justin against, 196, 197.
Twelve (apostles), the 99; scattered abroad, 104.
Twelve Prophets, the, commentary on, by Origen, 279.
Tymium in Phrygia, named Jerusalem by Montanus, 235.
Tyrannion, bishop of Tyre, 333.
Tyrannus, bishop of Antioch, 317.
Tyre, 294, 317, 328, 348, 360; the great church of, 370 sq.; description of the church, 375–378; Eusebius’ panegyric on the building of the churches delivered at, 370 sq.
Ulpianus, a martyr, 347.
Urbanus, bishop of Rome, 269, 271.
Urbanus, a Roman confessor, 287.
Urbanus, governor of Palestine, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349.
Urbicius, a Roman governor, 195, 196.
Ursus, finance mister of Africa, 382.
Valens, Gentile bishop of Jerusalem, 226.
Valentina, a martyr of Cæsarea, 349.
Valentinians, 199.
Valentinus, the Gnostic, 182, 183, 187, 208, 210, 238, 264.
Valeria, daughter of Diocletian, friendliness of, toward Christians, 323 (note 3).
Valerian, Roman emperor, at first friendly to Christians, 298; persecution under, 298–302, 326.
Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea, 97.
Vales, deacon from Ælia, and martyr, 352.
Vatican, 130.
Verissimus (Marcus Aurelius), 185.
Verus, Roman emperor. See Marcus Aurelius.
Vespasian, emperor, 110, 138, 220; besieges the Jews, 127, 131 (note 4), 141, 143; commands to seek descendants of David, 146, 147.
Vettius Epagathus, one of the Gallic witnesses, 212.
Victor, bishop of Rome, letter of Polycrates to, 162; excommunicates church of Asia, 240, 241, 242, 244, 246, 247; admonished by Irenæus and others for his treatment of the Asiatic church, 243.
Vienne, a city of Gaul, 98; account of martyrs of, 211; Epistle of church of, 212.
Volusian, 298 (note 1).
“Wisdom of Solomon.” See Solomon.
Witnesses. See μδρτνς.
Xerxes, 145.
Xystus I., bishop of Rome, 176, 221, 243.
Xystus II., bishop of Rome, 294, 297, 303, 312; receives Epistle on Baptism from Dionysius, 295.
Zacchæus, bishop of Jerusalem, 176.
Zacchæus, a martyr, 343.
Zambdas, bishop of Jerusalem, 321.
Zebedee, father of James and John, 309.
Zebinas, a martyr, 350.
Zeno, martyr under Decius, 285.
Zenobius, presbyter of Sidon, 333.
Zenobius, physician and martyr, 334.
Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, 130, 246, 247, 248, 261, 268.
Zeus. See Jupiter.
Zion, mount of, 378.
Zosimus, 168.
Zoticus, bishop of Comana, 233, 236.
Zoticus, of Otrous, 230.
Note.—The references to prolegomena and notes are in italics.
Ablavius, letter of C. to, 437.
“Aborigines,” 602.
Abraham at Mambre, 533.
Achaian bishops at Nicæa, 521.
Acheron, 567.
Achilles, 577.
Acrostic “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross,” 574.
Adrianople, battle of, 418.
Advent of Christ predicted, 573.
Aegae, 535.
Aelafius = Ablavius.
Aesculapius, 601; Temple of, 535.
Aëtius, letter of C. to, 538.
Africa, controversies in, 516.
Agathangelus (source), 449.
Alexander of Alexandria, letter of C. to, 438; letter of C. to, 515; appoints George of Arethusa, presbyter, 538.
Alexander and Arius, origin of controversy between, 516; continuation of, 518.
Alexander of Thessalonica, 551, note.
Alexander the Great, 483.
Alexandria, Arian, controversies at, 515; worships at, prohibited, 546.
Amasia of Pontus, cruelties at, 500.
Ambrosius of Milan (source), 447.
Ammianus Marcellinus (source), 448.
Amomum, 576.
Amoses, 602.
Amphiaraus, 601.
Anastasia, 417, note.
Anastasius Bibliothecarius (source), 452.
Ancyrona, 420.
Anna Comnena (source), 454.
Anonymous Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander (source), 452.
Anonymous, qui Dionis Cassii historias continuavit (source), 451.
Anonymus Valesianus (source), 449.
Antioch, church built in 532, 594; disturbance at by Eustathius, 536.
Antiochians, letter of C. to, 438.
Antonius, letter to C. and of C. to him, 439.
Antony, 575.
Anulinus, letters of C. to, 437.
Aphaca in Phœnicia, 534.
Apollo, 512, 534, 574, 601, 602.
Apparition of Constantine’s troops, 502.
Arabian bishops at Nicæa, 521; at Jerusalem, 551.
Arborius, 429.
Arethusa, 538.
Argo, 577.
Arius, letters of C. to, 438, 439; controversies concerning, at Alexandria, 515; letter of C. to, 515.
Arius and Alexander, origin of controversy between, 516; continuation of controversy, 518.
Aries, Council of, 417 note.
Asian bishops at Nicæa, 521.
Assyria, laws of, 573.
Assyrian Empire, overthrow of, 574.
Assyrians, 576.
Athanasius, letters of C. to, 439; (source), 446.
Attaliata, Michæl (source), 453.
Augustinus (source), 447.
Augustus, 575.
Aurelian, 579.
Babylon, 573.
Bacchus, Omadian, 602.
Banquet given to bishops at Nicæa, 523, 524.
Baptism (mythical) of C., 439.
Baptism of C, 556.
Bassianus, 417, note.
Bethlehem, erection of church in, 530. 531, 594.
Bindings, elaborate, 549.
“Bishop,” C. as, 546.
Bithynian bishops at Jerusalem, 551.
Brescia, battle of, 416.
Britannic ocean, 507.
Bructeri, 413.
Byzantium, 418; becomes Constantinople, 419.
Cæcilianus, letter of C. to, 437.
Calendarium Romanum Constantine Magni (source), 448.
Calocærus, revolt of, 420.
Cambyses, 574.
Cantacusenus, Joannes (source), 454.
Cappadocian bishops at Nicæa, 521.
Cappadocian bishops at Jerusalem, 551.
Carthagenians, 602.
Cassiodorus (source), 415.
Cataphrygians, 539.
Catholicus, 549.
Cave of the nativity, 530.
Cave of the ascension, 530, 594.
Cedrenus, Georgius (source), 453.
Cemeteries, 510.
Ceres, 590.
Chalcedon, 419.
Chance, 565.
Chastity, esteem among Christians, 492.
Childless persons, law concerning, 546.
Chios, 602.
Chrestus, letter of C. to, 437.
Christ appears to C. in a dream, 490; the Son of God, 563; the creator of all things, 563; coming of in the flesh, 568; is God, and the Son of God, 568; miraculous conception of, 569; the Preserver, 569; doctrines and miracles of, 572; teaching of, 572; coming of, predicted, 573; cares for Daniel, 574; prophesied by the Sibyl, 575; miraculous birth of, 575, 576; divinity of, 576, 577; the author of Constantine’s victories, 578; the Son of God, 578. See under Word.
Christian Conduct, 578.
Christians promoted to office, 511; persecution of, 496, 497; cf. persecution, 512–13; kindly received by barbarians, 513; in Persia, 542; not to be held slaves by Jews, 547; hypocritical Christians, 554.
Chronicon Paschale (source), 451.
Chrysopolis, battle of, 419.
Church, the, appeal to, 562; heir to the property of those dying without kindred, 509.
Church of the Apostles (see Constantinople).
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. See Holy Sepulchre.
Church festivals, honored by C., 545.
Churches built at Constantinople, 532; restoration of property to, 510; building of, 511 et pass.
Cicero, 575.
Cilicia, demon worship in, 535.
Cilician bishops at Nicæa, 521; at Jerusalem, 551.
Codinus (source), 454.
Cole, Old King, mythical grandfather of C., 441.
Confessors, 508; laws in favor of, 505; property of, 509.
Constans, made consul, 419, 420; appointed Cæsar, 550, 584.
Constantia, marriage, 417; asks to have Licinius spared, 419,
Constantin, city of, 549, 550.
Early years, 411 sq.; name, 411 and note; surnamed Great, 411; date of birth, 411 and note; born at Naïssus, 411 and note; son of Constantius Chlorus and Helena, 411; brought up at Drepanum, 411; sent to court of Diocletian, 412; takes part in various campaigns, 412; with Diocletian in Egypt, 412; alliance with Minervina, 412 and note; at Nicomedia, 412; at abdication of Diocletian and Maximinus, 412; physique of, 412; courage of, 412; created tribune of first order, 412; nominated Cæsar by Diocletian, rejected by Galerius, 412; death sought by Galerius, 412; gains permission to go, 412; maims post horses, 412; joins his father at Boulogne, 412; accompanies him to Britain, 412; named as successor by Constantius at York, 412; proclaimed Augustus, 413, 414; supported by Erocus, 413; claims title from Galerius, 413; is given title of Cæsar, 413; war against France, 413; against Bructeri, 413; exposes captives to wild beasts, 413; C. and Maximinus, named “sons of the emperors,” 413; acknowledged emperor by Galerius, 413; marries Fausta, 414; plot of Maximian, 413; capture of Maximian, 413; another plot, 413; saved by Fausta, 413; puts Maximian to death, 413; internal improvements, 413; favors the Christians, 414; writes to Maximinus in their behalf, 414; named Augustus by Maximian, 414; campaign against Maxentius and capture of Rome, 416, 417; returns to Milan, 417; marriage of Constantia, 417; edict of Milan, 417 and note; returns to Gaul, 417; C. and the Donatists, 417 and note; falls out with Licinius, 417 and note; defeats of Licinius at Cibalis and Mardia, and redistribution of territory, 418; Decennalia, 418; at Arles, 418; in Dacia and Pannonia, 418; campaign against Sarmatians, 418; war with Licinius, 418; defeats Licinius, 418, 419; favors the Christians, 419; takes part in Council of Nicæa, 419; Vicennalia, 419; at Aries and Milan, 419; puts Crispus and others to death, 419; tricennalia, 420; at Jerusalem, 420; death, 420; burial, 420; myths concerning, 441; C. and his mother Helena, 441; C. the son of a British princess, 441, 442; leprosy and baptism, 442; donation, 442, 443; dream, 443; voyage of Helena, 443, 444; finding of the cross, 444; sword, 445; remorse of, 445; C. and Tiridates, 445; compared with Cyrus and Alexander the Great, 483, 484; compared with Moses, 585; contrasted with Licinius, 496; contrasted with the persecutors, 519; vicennalia, 481 and note; tricennalia, 481; reigned thirty years and lived above sixty, 489; conquered nearly the whole world, 483; obtains authority over more nations than any who had preceded him, 483; eldest son and successor of Constantius, 487; accompanied Diocletian to Palestine, 487; plots of Diocletian and Galerius against, 488; flight of, to his father, 488; present at death of his father, 487, 488; assumes the purple, 488; proclaimed Augustus by army, 488; resolves to deliver Rome, 489; chooses Christianity, 489; vision of the cross, 489; has standard of the cross made, 490, 491; resolves to worship God and receives instruction, 491; makes ministers his advisers, 491; goes against Maxentius, 491; advances into Italy and thrice defeats forces of Maxentius, 492; defeats Maxentius at the Milvian bridge, 492, 493; enters Rome, 493; acts of grace, 494; honors bishops, 494; builds churches, 494; decennalia, 481, 495; victories over barbarians, 495; aroused in behalf of Christians persecuted by Licinius, 500; prepares for war, 501; victory of C., 502, 503; lets Licinius escape, 503; prayers in tabernacle, 503, 504; victory, 504; puts Licinius to death, 504; surnamed Victor, 505, 591; sends Hosius to Alexandria in the interest of peace, 515; anxiety for peace, 516; adjusts controversies in Africa, 516; presides at Council of Nicæa, 521; address to council, 522, 523; brings council to harmony, 523; entertains the bishops, 523; farewell address to the bishops, 525, 526; honors his mother, 532; subdues Scythians (Goths) and Sarmatians, 541, 542; affirms validity of decrees of councils, 547; listens standing to Eusebius, 548; appoints his sons Cæsars, 550; founds cities, 550; convenes council at Tyre, 550; dedicates church at Jerusalem, 551; divides empire between sons, 553; mourning at Rome, 558; honor paid them, 558; length of reign, 554; age at death, 554; war against Persians, 554; takes bishops with him, 554; also tent in the form of a church, 555; embassy from the Persians, 555; erects sepulchral monument, 555; sickness at Helenopolis, 555; proceeds to Nicomedia, 556; baptism, 556; thanksgiving for baptism, 556; death, 557; removal of body to Constantinople, 557; burial, 558.
Character, 420–435; inherited characteristics, 421; physical characteristics: height, countenance, complexion, hair, beard, nose, eyes, expression, figure, 421; shoulders, neck, strength, vigor, bearing, manners, dress, 422; mental characteristics: education, orations, delivery, literary style, patronage of learning, 422, 423; moral characteristics: energy, determination, rapidity of action, impetuosity, courage and valor, ambition, prudence, patience, perseverance, steadfastness, faithfulness, self-control, chastity, amiability, mildness, mercifulness, and forbearance, kindness, generosity, prodigality, hospitality, justice, righteousness, tact, vanity, magnificence, conceit, humility, arrogance(?), jealousy, suspiciousness, faithlessness; as son, husband, father, friend, as general, legislator, statesman, 423–430; religious characteristics, 430–433; honored by God, 482; the servant of God and conqueror of nations, 483; proclaims name of God in his edicts, 484; emperor by the will of God, 489; liberality to poor, 494; present at synods, 494, 495; divine manifestation to, 495; humane treatment of prisoners, 503; declares God to be the author of his prosperity, 506; chosen by God, 507; exhortation to worship God, 510; prayers of, 513, 544, 555, 556; piety of, 519, 520; orders erection of church at Jerusalem, 526, 528; presents of, at his vicennalia, 526; builds churches at Constantinople, 532; at Nicomedia, 532; abolishes idolatry at Constantinople, 532; destroys idol temples, 534, 535; builds church at Heliopolis, 536; presents by, 541; remission of taxes, 541; forbids idolatrous worship, 545; honors martyrs and church festivals, 545; observance of Easter, 545; requires soldiers to pray on Sunday, 545; form of prayer given, 545; zeal in prayer, 545; calls himself a bishop, 546; prohibits sacrifices, mystic rites, combats of gladiators, and worship of Nile, 546; gifts of, to churches, virgins, and the poor, 547; excessive clemency, 548; rebukes a covetous man, 548; liberality, 551, 552; displeased with excessive praise, 552; instructs his children in politics and religion, 553, 554; benevolence, 554; vigor of body, 554; builds Church of the Apostles, 555; gifts, 556; honor