NPNF2-01 Eusebius 450

42 (@1P 1,1 1P 1@,

43 (Ph 2,25;Philem. 2.

44 Barnabas (Ac 9,27, and often); Jn Mc (xii. 25;xiii. 13;xv. 37,39); Silas (xv. 40); Timothy (xvi. 1 sqq. and often); Aquila and Priscilla (xviii).; Erastus (xix. 22); Gaius of Macedonia (xix. 29); Aristarchus (xix. 29; 20,4; 27,2); Sopater,Secundus, Gaius of Derbe (perhaps the same as the Gaius of Macedonia?), and Tychichus (xx. 4); Trophimus (xx. 4; 21,29).

45 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 istoreitai, 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 He 13,23 (the date of which we do not know) we learn that he had just been released from some imprisonment, apparently in Italy, but whither he afterward went is quite uncertain. Eusebius’ report that he was bishop of Ephesus is the customary but unwarranted carrying back into the first century of the monarchical episcopate which was not known until the second. According to the Apost. Const. VII. 46 both Timothy and Jn were bishops of Ephesus, the former appointed by Paul, the latter by himself. Timothy is a saint in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 24.

46 Cf. Tt 1,5. Titus is commonly connected by tradition with Crete, of which he is supposed to have been the first bishop,—the later institution being again pushed back into the first century. In the fragment de Vita et Actis Titi, by the lawyer Zenas (in Fabric). Cod. Apoc. N.T. II. 831 sqq., according to Howson, in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible), he is said to have been bishop of Gortyna, a city of Crete (where still stand the ruins of a church which bears his name), and of a royal Cretan family by birth. This tradition is late, and, of course, of little authority, but at the same time, accords very well with all that we know of Titus; and consequently there is no reason for denying it in toto. According to 2Tm 4,10, he went, or was sent, into Dalmatia; but universal tradition ascribes his later life and his death to Crete. Candia, the modern capital, claims the honor of being his burial place (see (Cave’s Apostolici, ed. 1677, p. 63). Titus is a saint, in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 4.

47 Of Lc personally we know very little. He is not mentioned in the Acts, and only three times in Paul’s epistles (Col 4,14 Philem. 24;2Tm Col 4,11), from which passages we learn that he was a physician, was one of Paul’s fellow-workers who was very dear to him, and was with him during his last imprisonment. Irenaeus, who is the first to ascribe the third Gospel and the Ac to this Luke, seems to know nothing more about him personally. Eusebius is the first to record that he was born at Antioch; but the tradition must have been universally accepted in his day, as he states it without any misgivings and with no qualifying phrase. Jerome (de vir. ill. 7) and many later writers follow Eusebius in this statement. There is no intrinsic improbability in the tradition, which seems, in fact, to be favored by certain minor notices in the Ac (see (Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. 651). Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 25) says that he labored in Achaia, and in Orat. 4 he calls him a martyr. Jerome () says that he was buried in Constantinople. According to Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43) and later writers, Lc was a painter of great skill; but this late tradition, of which the earlier Fathers know nothing, is quite worthless. Epiphanius (Haer. II. 11) makes him one of the Seventy, which does not accord with Luke’s own words at the beginning of his Gospel, where he certainly implies that he himself was not an eye-witness of the events which he records. In the same connection, Epiphanius says that he labored in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, and Macedonia,—a tradition which has about as much worth as most such traditions in regard to the fields of labor of the various apostles and their followers. Theophylact (On Lc 24,13–24) records that some supposed that he was one of the disciples with whom Christ walked to Emmaus, and this ingenious but unfounded guess has gained some modern supporters (e.g. Lange). He is a saint in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated October 18.

48 See Col 4,14.

49 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 (Ac xxi)., when he met James at least, and possibly others of the Twelve. It is not at all improbable that in the course of his life he became acquainted with several of the apostles.

50 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 as first distinctly ascribed to Lc by Irenõus (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 Mc 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 Lc in particular, p. 648 sqq.

51 (Lc I. 2.Lc I. 3.

451 52 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, Manichean’s, &c. The Muratorian Fragment and Irenaeus (III. 14) are the first to mention Lc 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. Quoest. 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 Ac with the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the date of its composition. Irenaeus (III. I. I) seems (one cannot speak with certainty, as some have done) to put it after the death of Peter and Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the Ac 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 Tubingen School saw in the Ac 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 Ac is now admitted by all parties. See the various Commentaries and New Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of the Acts, compare especially Weizsacker’s Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182 sqq., and Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 569 sq).

53 (Rm 2,16Rm 16,25;2Tm ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression fasi, “they say,” which seems to imply that the interpretation was a common one in his day. Schaff (Ch. Hist.
1P 649) says that Origen also thus interpreted the passages in Romans and Timothy referred to, but he gives no references, and I have not been able to find in Origen’s works anything to confirm the statement. Indeed, in commenting upon the passages in the Epistle to the Romans he takes the words “my Gospel” to refer to the gospel preached by Paul, not to the Gospel written by Luke. It is true, however, that in the passage from his Commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen does suppose Paul to refer to Lc and his Gospel in 2Co viii. 18. The interpretation of the words “according to my Gospel,” which Eusebius represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. Paul never uses the word euaggelion in such a sense, nor is it used by any New Testament writer to designate the gospel record, or any one of the written Gospels. It is used always in the general sense of “glad tidings,” or to denote the scheme of salvation, or the substance of the gospel revelation. Eusebius is not the first to connect Luke’s Gospel with Paul. The Muratorian Fragment speaks of Luke’s connection with Paul, and Irenaeus (III. 1. 1, quoted below in V. 8. §2) says directly that Lc recorded the Gospel preached by Paul. Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. IV. 5) tells us that Luke’s form of the Gospel is usually ascribed to Paul, and in the same work, IV. 2, he lays down the principle that the preaching of the disciples of the apostles needs the authority of the apostles themselves, and it is in accord with this principle that so much stress was laid by the early Church upon the connection of Mc with Peter and of Lc with Paul. In chap. 24 Eusebius refers again to Luke’s relation to Paul in connection with his Gospel, and so, too, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 25. The Pauline nature of the Gospel has always been emphasized, and still is by the majority of scholars. This must not be carried so far, however, as to imply that Luke drew his materials from Paul; for Paul himself was not an eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in his preface the causes which induced him to write, and the sources from which he derived his material. The influence of Paul is seen in Luke’s standpoint, and in his general spirit—his Gospel is the Gospel of universal salvation.

54 (2Tm 4,10, where the Greek word used is eporeuqh, which means simply “went” or “is gone.” That Paul had sent him as Eusebius states (using the word steilameno") is not implied in the epistle. Instead of ei" ta" Gallia" (or thn Gallian) most of the ancient mss. of the New Testament have ei" Galatian, which is the reading of the Textus Receptus, of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort and others. Some mss., however (including the Sinaitic), have Gallian, which Tischendorf adopts; and some of the mss. of Eusebius also have this form, though the majority read ta" Gallia". Christophorsonus in his edition of Eusebius reads epi thn Galatian, but entirely without ms. authority. Epiphanius (Hoer. LI. 11) contends that in 2Tm 4,10 should be read Gallia and not Galatia: on gar en th Galatia w" planhqenth" nomisonsin, alla en th Gallia. Theodoret (in 2Tm IV. 10) reads Galatian, but interprets it as meaning ta" Gallia": outw gar ekalounto palai.

55 (2Tm 4,21 2Tm 4,

56 See chap. 2, note 1, above.

57 Clement is mentioned in Ph 4,3, but is not called a “fellow-soldier.” Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul’s references to Epaphroditus (Ph 2,25) and to Archippus (Philem. 2,) whom he calls his fellow-soldiers. The Clement to whom Eusebius here refers was a very important personage in the early Roman church, being known to tradition as one of its first three bishops. He has played a prominent part in Church history on account of the numerous writings which have passed under his name. We know nothing certain about his life. Eusebius identifies him with the Philippian Clement mentioned by Paul,—an identification apparently made first by Origen, and after him repeated by a great many writers. But the identification is, to say the least, very doubtful, and resting as it does upon an agreement in a very common name deserves little consideration. It was quite customary in the early Church to find Paul’s companions, whenever possible, in responsible and influential positions during the latter part of the first century. A more plausible theory, which, if true, would throw an interesting light upon Clement and the Roman church of his day, is that which identifies him with the consul Flavius Clement, a relative of the emperor Domitian (see (below, chap. 18, note 6). Some good reasons for the identification might be urged, and his rank would then explain well Clement’s influential position in the Church. But as pointed out in chap. 18, note 6, it is extremely improbable that the consul Flavius Clement was a Christian; and in any case a fatal objection to the identification (which is nevertheless adopted by Hilgenfeld and others) is the fact that Clement is nowhere spoken of as a martyr until the time of Rufinus, and also that no ancient writer identifies him or connects him in any way with the consul, although Eusebius’ mention of the latter in chap. 23 shows that he was a well-known person. When we remember the tendency of the early Church to make all its heroes martyrs, and to ascribe high birth to them, the omission in this case renders the identification, we may say, virtually impossible. More probable is the conjecture of Lightfoot, that he was a freedman belonging to the family of the consul Clement, whose name he bore. This is simply conjecture, however, and is supported by no testimony. Whoever Clement was, he occupied a very prominent position in the early Roman church, and wrote an epistle to the Corinthians which is still extant (see (below, chap. 16; and upon the works falsely ascribed to him, see chap. 38). In regard to his place in the succession of Roman bishops, see chap. 2, note 1, above. or a full account of Clement, see especially Harnack’s Prolegomena to his edition of Clement’s Epistle (Patrum Apost. Opera, Vol. 1)., Salmon’s article, Clemens Romanus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. 636 sq., and Donaldson’s Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, I. p. 90 sq.

58 (Ac 17,34 Ac 17, Dionysius has played an important part in Church history, as the pretended author of series of very remarkable writings, which pass under the name of Dionysius, the Areopagite, but which in reality date from the fifth or sixth century and probably owe their origin to the influence of Neo-Platonism. The first mention of these writings is in the records of the Council of Constantinople (532 a.d.); but from that time on they were constantly used and unanimously ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, until, in the seventeenth century, their claims to so great antiquity were disputed. They are still defended, however, in the face of the most positive evidence, by many Roman Catholic writers. The influence of these works upon the theology of the Middle Ages was prodigious. Scholasticism may said to based upon them, for Thomas Aquinas used them, perhaps, more than any other source; so much so, that he has been said “to have drawn his whole theological system from Dionysius.”

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 partin 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).

59 Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.

60 Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d.

452 61 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.

62 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at Alexandria, July I, 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.

63 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.

64 SeeAc 7,8 sqq.

65 SeeAc 12,2.

66 See Bk. II. chap. 23.

67 See chap. 1, note 1.

68 SeeMt 28,19.

69 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. I8, and Josephus, B. F. III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15) also records this flight of the Christians to Pella.

70 (
Da 9,27 Da 9,

71 Josephus, B. F. Bks. V. and VI.

453 72 B. F. 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 articleFerusalem, in Smith’sBible 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).

73 Josephus, B. J. Bk. V. chap. 10, §§2 and 3.

74 Ibid. chap. 12, §§3 and 4.

75 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).

76 Ibid. chap. 13, §6.

77 Ibid. Bk. VI. chap. 3, §§3 and 4.

78 AEAttikwn tessarwn; the word dracmwn 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.

79 bagezwr. Some mss. have baqecwr, and the mss. of Josephus have bhqezwb, which Whiston translates Bethezub).

80 “In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death” (Stroth).

81 hdh. All the mss. of Eusebius read umwn. Some of the mss. of Josephus read hdh, 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 hmisu, 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.

82 (Mt 24,19–21.

454 83 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.

84 Ibid. §2.

85 ei" ta kat` sAigupton erga. 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.

86 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.

87 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).

88 (Lc 19,42–44.

89 Ibid. xxi. 23, 21,24.

90 Ibid. verse 20).

91 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 Lc 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 Lc 21,20, the armies encompassing Jerusalem are mentioned, while in parallel passages in the other Gospels (
Mt 24,15 and Mc 13,14) not armies, but “the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place” is spoken of as the sign. Compare the various commentaries upon these passages.

92 Compare Ac 3,14, and see Matt. xvii. 20, Mc 15,11, Lc 22,18.

93 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

455 94 Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 5, §3.

95 katayeudomenoi tou qeou. 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.

96 The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek name of the month used here is xanqiko", 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.

97 Artemisio". According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan and Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth Attic month (elafhboliwn), 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.

98 The majority of the mss. of Eusebius read metabainomen, “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 metabainwmen, “let us go hence,” and I have followed Stephanus, Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in adopting that reading.

99 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.

100 That is, the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, and continued seven days.

101 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 I.

102 See Josephus, B. J. VI. 5.4, and cf. ibid. III. 8. 9.

103 (
Ps 2,8 Ps 2,

104 (Ps 19,4 Ps 19,

456 105 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 Caesar; 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.

106 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.

107 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.

108 AEIondaikh AEArcailogia, Antiquitates Judaicoe. 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.

109  JIstoria, AEIoudaikou prolemou pro"  JRwmaiou", 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)).

110 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.

111 The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavius Josephus on the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (peri arcaisthto" AEIoudaiwn kata AEApiwno", De Antiquitate Judaeorum 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 Seleucidae (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.

112 wsan.

113 Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since the first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of
Esd 14,44 sq). is that Esd was the compiler of the Old Testament canon. This, however, is a mistake, for the canon was certainly not completed before the time of Judas Maccabaeus. Josephus is the earliest writer to give us a summary of the books of the Old Testament; and he evidently gives not merely his own private opinion but the commonly accepted canon of his day. He does not name the separate books, but he tells us that they were twenty-two in number (the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the three divisions, so that we are able to ascertain his canon in detail. It was doubtless as follows:—

1–5.  Books of Moses.

6.   Joshua.

457 7.   Judges and Ruth.

8.   Samuel.

9.   Kings.

10. Chronicles.

11. Esd 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.

458 The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books is that of Melito (given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:—


Books of Moses





Joshua Nave.



Four of Kings.





Song of Songs.




459 Twelve Minor Prophets.




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 Est 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. Esd I. and II.

12. Psalms.

13. Proverbs.

14. Ecclesiastes.

15. Song of Songs.

460 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 (Baruch vi). did not stand in the Hebrew canon, and can have been inclnded by Origen here only because be had been used to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in his copy of the LXX. (for in ancient mss. of the LXX., which probably represent the original arrangement, it is given not as a part of Baruch, but as an appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in this book without thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon. Origen adds the Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from the twenty-two books (see (Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile the Talmud and the Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books, and this was probably the original Jewish division. The number twenty-two was gained by adding Rt to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. The number thus obtained agreed with the number of letters in the alphabet, and was therefore accepted as the number sanctioned by divine authority, and the division was commonly adopted by the early Fathers. This is Strack’s view, and seems better than the opposite opinion, which is advocated by many, that the number twenty-two was the original. It is easier to see how twenty-four might be changed to twenty-two than how the reverse should happen. So, for instance, Jerome in his preface to the translation of Samuel and Kings, makes the number twenty-two, and gives a list which agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the three general divisions, which are differently composed. It will be seen that these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen, which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah and appends the Maccabees) include only the books of our canon. But the LXX. prints with the Old Testament a number of Books which we call Apocrypha and exclude from the canon. It has been commonly supposed, therefore, that there was a regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Palestinian. But this is not likely. An examination of Philo’s use of the Old Testament shows us that his canon agreed with that of Josephus, comprising no apocryphal books. It is probable in fact that the LXX. included in their translation these other books which were held in high esteem, without intending to deliver any utterance as to the extent of the canon or to alter the common Jewish canon by declaring these a part of it. But however that was, the use of the LXX., which was much wider than that of the Hebrew, brought these books into general use, and thus we see them gradually acquiring canonical authority and used as a part of the canon by Augustine and later Fathers. Jerome was the only one in the West to utter a protest against such use of them. Both Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah; but opinion in the Orient was mostly against making any books not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and from the fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less. They were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by numerous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most anthorita-rive standard of the Graeco-Russian Church, expressly excluded them. The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them a part of the official canon. See Strack’s article in Herzog, translated in Schaff-Herzog; also Harman’s Introduction to the Holy Scripture, p. 33 sqq. The subject is discussed in all Old Testament introductions.

114 Literally, “the tradition respecting the origin of man (anqrwpogonia") 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.”

115 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.

461 116 These thirteen books were:—

1.   Joshua.

2.   Judges and Ruth.

3.   Samuel.

4.   Kings.

5.   Chronicles.

6.   Esd and Nehemiah.

7.   Esther.

8.   Isaiah.

9.   Jeremiah and Lamentations.

10. Ezekiel.

11. Daniel.

462 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, Est (nine books). The division which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome’s only in transferring Rt 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.

117 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Esd 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.

118 ei" Makkabaiou" logo" h peri autokratoro" logismou: De Maccabaeis, 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.

119 Makkabaikon.

120 Ant. XX. 11. 3. See the previous chapter, note 7.

121 See the same note.

463 122 See the same note.

123 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.

124 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, basilei" AEIoudaioi oi en toi" stemmasi. 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).

125 Vita, §65.

126 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.

127 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.

128 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.”

129 61 or 62 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23.

130 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.

131 logo" katecei. 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 logo" katecei, 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.

132 This Symeon is to be distinguished from the apostle Simon, the Canaanite, and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned in
Mt 13,55 and Mc 6,3). It is noticeable that Hegesippus nowhere calls him the “brother of the Lord,” though he does give James that title in Bk. II. chap. 23. Clopas is mentioned in Jn 19,25, as the husband of Mary, who is without doubt identical with Mary the mother of James (the little) and of Joses; mentioned in Mt 27,56, Mc 15,40, &c. If Hegesippus’ account be accepted as trustworthy (and there is no reason for doubting it), Symeon was the son of Clopas and Mary, and therefore brother of James the Little and Joses. If, then, Alphaeus and Clopas be the same, as many claim, James the Little is to be identified with James the son of Alphaaeus, the apostle, and hence the latter was the brother of Symeon. This identification, however, is entirely arbitrary, and linguistically difficult, and we shall do better therefore to keep the men separate, as Renan does (see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14). Upon the martyrdom of Symeon, see below, chap. 32.

464 133 In Jn 19,25.

134 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 Jn 19,25 it is at any rate plain that their wives cannot have been own sisters, as was formerly maintained by so many commentators. With the remaining possibilities of relationship we do not need to concern ourselves.

135 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  JHghsippo" istorei, the last words of the preceding chapter, than to supply any other phrase, such as logo" katecei, 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).

136 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.

137 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.

138 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.

139 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.

140 85 a.d.; on Annianus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

141 AEAbilio". According to one tradition Abilius was ordained presbyter with his successor Cerdon by Mc 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.

142 On Anencletus, see chap. 13, note 3.

143 (
Ph 4,3 Ph 4, an account of Clement, see above, chap. Ph 4, note Ph 19 and upon the order of succession of the Roman bishops, see chap. Ph 2, note Ph 1
465 144 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. Unanimons 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.

145 megalh te kai qaumasia.

146 See the epistle itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3. It was these seditions in the church at Corinth which occasioned the epistle.

147 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.

148 Hegesippus’ testimony upon this point is no longer extant.

149 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).

150 The fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasianis 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).

151 Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenaaeus (V. 30. 3, quoted just below, and again in Eusebius V. 8) assigns the banishment of Jn 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 Jn 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.

152 (
Ap 13,18 Ap 13, will noticed that Eusebius is careful not to commit himself here on the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse. See below, chap. Is 24, note Is 20
153 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 30. 3; quoted also below, in Bk. V. chap. 8.

154 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.

466 155 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.

156 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 contemtissimae inertiae, and Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) of atheism (aqethto"). 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 (Ac 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.

157 palaio" katecei logo". 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.

158 This Jude was the brother of James, “the brother of the Lord,” who is mentioned in Jude 1, and is to be distinguished from Jude (Thaddeus-Lebbaeus), one of the Twelve, whose name appears in the catalogues of Lc (
Lc 6,14 and Ac 1,13) as the son of James (not his brother, as the A.V. translates: the Greek words are AEIouda" AEIakwbou). For a discussion of the relationship of these men to Christ, see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14. Of the son of Jude and father of the young men mentioned in this chapter we know nothing.

159 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.

160 A denarius was a Roman silver coin, in value about sixteen, or, according to others, about nineteen, cents.

161 “Taxes or tributes were paid commonly in the products of the land” (Val)..

162 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 epideiknunai 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.

163 martura". On the use of this word, see chap. 32, note 15.

164 Compare Renan’s Les Evangiles, p. 466.

467 165 Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5.

166 ti sunesew". Lat). sed qua et homo.

167 Domitian reigned from Dec. 13, 81 a.d., to Sept. 18, 96.

168 See Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 1 sq., and Suetonius’ Domitian, chap. 23.

169 Literally, “the word of the ancients among us” (o twn par hmin arcaiwn logo")). On the tradition itself, see chap. 1, note 6.

170 From Sept. 18, 96, to Jan. 27, 98 a.d.

171 On Abilius, see chap. 14, note 2, above.

172 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.

173 On Annianus, see Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

174 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).

175 On Ignatius’ life, writings, and martyrdom, see below, chap. 36.

468 176 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 Ignatuis, and cf. Salmon’s article Evodius, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.

177 On Symeon, see above, chap. 11, note 4).

178 See chap. 1, note 6, and chap. 18, note 1.

179 That is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan.

180 The test of a man’s trustworthiness in Eusebius’ mind—and not in his alone—was his orthodoxy. Iren‘us 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.

181 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. II. 22. 5.

182 It is in this immediate connection that Iren‘us makes the extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who were with Jn 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). Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus) and upon a mistaken interpretation of Jn 8,56, Jn 8,57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the testimony (which itself may have been only the result of a subjective opinion) is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view already adopted. Such a fact as John’s own presence in Ephesus at a certain period could hardly be subject to such uncertainty and to the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. It is significant of Eusebius’ method that he omits entirely Irenaeus’ statement as to the length of Christ’s ministry, with which he did not agree (as shown by his account in Bk. I. chap. 10), while extracting from his statement the single fact which he wishes here to establish. The falsity of the context he must have recognized, and yet, in his respect for Irenaeus, the great maintainer of sound doctrine, he nowhere refers to it. The information which Jn is said, in this passage, to have conveyed to the “presbyters of Asia” is that Christ lived to old age. The whole passage affords an instance of how much of error may be contained in what, to all appearances, should be a very trustworthy tradition. Internal evidence must come to the support of external, and with all its alleged uncertainty and subjectivity, must play a great part in the determination of the truth of history.

183 Adv. Haer. III. 3, 4.

184 ti" o swzomeno" plousio": 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 ()., 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.

185 (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 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.

186 Quis Dives salvetur, chap. 42.

469 187 muqon ou muqon, alla onta logon. 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.”

188 See note 8.

189 klhrw ena ge tina klhrwswn. Compare the note of Heinichen in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. I. p. 122. Upon the use of the word klhro" 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 klhro" 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 yon einer Mehrzahl von episkopoi 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 wrde. Es ist vielmehr zu erkl„ren, dass Johannes an einzelnen Orten mehrere Beamte zugleich eingesetzt, an andetch Orten wo schon ein Collegium bestand, dem Beamtenstande je ein Mitglied eingereiht habe.”

190 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.

191 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 presbutero" was originally employed in the most general sense to indicate any church officer, thus practically equivalent to the hgoumeno" of He 13,17, and the poimhn of Ep iv. 11. The terms episkopo" and diakono", on the other hand, were employed to designate specific church officers charged with the performance of specific duties. If this were so, we should expect the general term to be used before the particular designations, and this is just what we find in the New Testament. We should expect further that the general term and the specific terms might be used by the same person in the same context, according as he thought of the officers in general or of a particular division of the officers; on the other hand the general term and one of the specific terms could never be coordinated (we could never find “presbyter and bishop,” “presbyter and deacon”), but we should expect to find the specific terms thus coordinated (“bishops and deacons”). An examination of the Epistle to the Philippians, of the Pastoral Epistles, of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and of the Didache will show that our expectations are fully realized. This theory explains the fact that so frequently presbyters and bishops seem to be identical (the general and the specific term might of course in many cases be used interchangeably), and also the fact that so frequently they seem to be quite distinct. It explains still further the remarkable fact that while in the first century we never find a distinction in official rank between bishops and presbyters, that distinction appears early in the second. In many churches it must early have become necessary to appoint some of the officers as a special committee to take charge of the economic affairs of the congregation. The members of such a committee might very naturally be given the special name episkopoi (see (Hatch’s discussion of the use of this word in his work already referred to). In some churches the duties might be of such a character that the bishops would need assistants (to whom it would be natural to give the name diakono"), and such assistants would of course be closely associated with the bishops, as we find them actually associated with them in the second and following centuries (a fact which Hatch has emphasized). Of course where the bishops constituted a special and smaller committee of the general body, entrusted with such important duties, they would naturally acquire especial influence and power, and thus the chairman of the committee—the chairman of the bishops as such, not of the presbyters, though he might be that also—would in time, as a central authority was more and more felt to be necessary, gradually assume the supremacy, retaining his original name episkopo". As the power was thus concentrated in his hands, the committee of bishops as such would cease to be necessary, and he would require only the deacons, who should carry out his directions in economic matters, as we find them doing in the second century. The elevation of the bishop would of course separate him from the other officers in such a way that although still a presbyter (i.e. an officer), he would cease to be called longer by the general name. In the same way the deacons obliged to devote themselves to their specific duties, would cease to have much to do with the more general functions of the other officers, to whom finally the name presbyter—originally a general term—would be confined, and thus become a distinctive name for part of the officers. In their hands would remain the general disciplinary functions which had belonged from the beginning to the entire body of officers as such, and their rank would naturally be second only to that of the bishop, for the deacons as assistants only, not independent officers, could not outrank them (though they struggled hard in the third and fourth centuries to do so). It is of course likely that in a great many churches the simple undivided office would long remain, and that bishops and deacons as specific officers distinguished from the general body would not exist. But after the distinction between the three orders had been sharply drawn in one part of Christendom, it must soon spread throughout the Church and become established even in places where it had not been produced by a natural process of evolution. The Church organization of the second century is thus complete, and its further development need not concern us here, for it is not matter of controversy. Nor is this the place to show how the local church officers gradually assumed the spiritual functions which belonged originally to apostles, prophets, and teachers. The Didache is the document which has shed most light upon that process, and Hernack in his edition of it has done most to make the matter clear.

192 efwtise: literally, “enlightened him.” The verb fwtizw 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.

193 thn sfragida kuriou. The word sfragi" 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).

194 Literally, “greatness of his nature” (megeqo" fusew")).

195 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 Johanninc 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 Irenaeus (III. 11. 1) even supposed Jn 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 Jn (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 Esd 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.

196 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.

197 See 2Co 12,2–4.

470 198 The majority of the mss., followed by Burton, Schwegler, and Laemmer, read diatribwn instead of maqhtwn; and Burton therefore translates, sed tamen ex his omnibus sole Matthaeus et Joannes nobis reliquerunt commentarios de vita et sermonibus Domini, “but of all these only Matthew and Jn have left us commentaries on the life and conversations of the Lord.” Two important mss., however, read maqhtwn, and this is confirmed by Rufinus and adopted by Heinichen, Closs, and Crusè.

199 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 Irenaeus (III. 1. 1, quoted below, V. 8, §2),—whether independently of Papias or not, we cannot say,—by Pantaenus (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 Caesarea,—and by Epiphanius (Haer. 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 Mt 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.”

200 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.

201 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 (
Jn 20,31) sqq).,—and he chose his materials accordingly. The Muratorian Fragment says, “The Fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, ‘Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to us.0’ On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that Jn should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.” Irenaeus (III. 11. 1) supposes Jn to have written his Gospel as a polemic against Cerinthus. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 14), says that Jn wrote a spiritual Gospel, as a supplement to the other Gospels, which had sufficiently described the external facts. The opinion of Eusebius is very superficial. Upon examination of the Gospels it will be seen that, of the events which Jn relates independently of the synoptists, but a small portion occurred before the imprisonment of John the Baptist. John’s Gospel certainly does incidentally supplement the Synoptists in a remarkable manner, but not in any such intentional and artificial way as Eusebius supposes. Compare Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 602 sqq., and Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 680 sqq.

202 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 Jn 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 Jn and the Synoptists, as to the events recorded, is therefore rather that of place than of time: but the distinction is not absolute.

203 (Mt 4,12 Mt 4,

204 (Mc 1,14 Mc 1,

205 (Lc 3,20 Lc 3,

206 (Jn 2,11 Jn 2, arguments of Eusebius, whether original or borrowed from his predecessors, are certainly very ingenious, and he makes out apparently quite strong case for his opinion; but careful harmony of the four Gospels shows that it is untenable.

207 (Jn 3,23 Jn 3,

471 208 Ibid. verse 24.

209 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.

210 See Bk. II. chap. 15).

211 See Lc 1,1–4. Eusebius puts the case more strongly than Lc himself. Lc does not say that others had rashly undertaken the composition of their narratives, nor does he say that he himself writes in order to free his readers from the uncertain suppositions of others; but at the same time the interpretation which Eusebius gives is though not an exact, yet certainly a natural one, and we have no right to accuse him, as has been done, of intentional falsification of the text of the Gospel. Eusebius also augments Luke’s statement by the mention of the source from which the latter gained his knowledge viz., “from his intimacy and stay with Paul, and from his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.” If Eusebius intended to convey the impression that Lc said this, he is of course inexcusable, but we have no reason to suppose this to be the case. It is simply the explanation on the part of Eusebius of an indefinite statement of Luke’s by a fact which was universally assumed as true. That he was adding to Luke’s own account probably never occurred to him. He does not pretend to quote Luke’s exact words.

212 The testimony to the first Epistle of Jn 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 Gespel (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 Tbingen 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 protera instead of prwth, see p. 388, note).

213 The Muratorian Fragment expressly ascribes two epistles to John. Citations from the second Epistle appear first in Irenaeus, though he does not distinguish it from the first. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 15) quotes from 1Jn 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 2Jn 1, and 3Jn 1, and some modern critics (among them Reuss and Wieseler) have done the same. Eusebius himself in the next chapter implies that such an opinion existed in his day, though he does not express his own view on the matter. He placed them, however, among the Antilegomena. (On the presbyter John, see below chap. 39, note 4). That the two epistles fell originally into the class of Antilegomena was due doubtless to the peculiar self-designation mentioned, which seemed to distinguish the author from the apostle, and also to their private and doctrinally unimportant character. But in spite of the slight external testimony to the epistles the conclusion of Weiss seems correct, that “inasmuch as the second and third clearly betray the same author, and inasmuch as the second is related to the first in such a manner that they must either be by the same author or the former be regarded as an entirely aimless imitation of the latter, so everything favors the ascription of them both to the author of the first, viz. to the apostle.” (ibid. p. 469).

214 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 except on 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 Jn 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 anthoritative 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 Jn 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 grafh (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 grafh. 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 noqoi. It legitimately belonged among the Homologoumena, but Donysius’ 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 Tbingen 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.

215 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), Irenaeus (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.

216 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 noqoi and the anaplasmata airetikwn andrwn). But the noqoi 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 noqoi to each other, as Eusebius classifies them? The crucial point is the relation of the noqoi to the antilegomena. 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 noqoi also; that is, the term Antilegomena is ordinarily used, not as identical with noqoi, but as inclusive of it. This, however, establishes nothing as to Eusebius’ technical use of the words in the present passage, where be is endeavoring to draw close distinctions. Various views have been taken since Lcke’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 noqoi were works which, although they had been used by the Fathers and were quoted as grafh 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 noqoi, 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 tendecies, and judged accordingly. He saw tbat the authority of the Antilegomena was on the increase, that of the noqoi 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 eige faneih, and then among the noqoi with an ei faneih. No one, so far as I know, has explained why it should be put among the noqoi 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 dis-puled but were becoming more and more widely accepted as canonical. The Apocalypse could not trader 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 noqoi, for then it would hold the same position as the other works of that class. As an historian, Eusebius sees the tendency and un-doubtely 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 noqoi, 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.

472 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 noqoi with the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as Easebius’ 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 noqoi, 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 anaplasmata airetikwn andrwn are neither canonical nor orthodox, while the noqoi 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 Lucke 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.

217 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.

218 See above, chap. 4, note 14.

219 See chap. 3, note 16. Ensebius 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).

220 See the previous chapter, note 18.

221 See chap. 3, note 1.

222 kurwteon.

473 223 See the previous chapter, note 20. Upon Eusebius’ treatment in this chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note 1, above.

224 Compare the previous chapter, note 21.

225 en omologoumenoi".

226 twn antilegomenwn.

227 gnwrimwn.

228 See Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46.

229 See ibid. note 47.

230 See above, chap. 3, note 4.

231 See the previous chapter, note 19.

232 en toi" noqoi".

233 See above, chap. 3, note 20.

474 234 Ibid. note 23.

235 Ibid. note 9.

236 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 noqoi 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 Aelia 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.

237 twn apostolwn ai legomenai didacai). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Didach twn dwdeka apostolwn, 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 Geseh. 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 (grafh), but no other writer before the time of Eusebius treats it in the same way, and yet Eusebius’ mention of it among the nofoi 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 noqoi. Upon Eusebius’ use of the plural didacai, see the writer’s article in the Andover Review, April, 1886, p. 439 sq.

238 afetousin. See the previous chapter, note 20.

239 toi" omologoumenoi". See note 1, above.

240 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 Lc 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 Pantaenus (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; ev toutoi" refers rather to the noqoi among which its earlier acceptance by a large part of the Church, but present uncanonicity, places it by right. Irenaeus expressly states that there were but four canonical gospels (Adv. Haer. 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.

241 twn antilegomenwn.

242 anwmologhmena".

243 ouk endiafhkouz men, alla kai antilegomena". Eusebius, in this clause, refers to the noqoi, which, of course, while distinguishedfrom 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 noqoi and antilegomena interchangeably (as e.g. in chap. 31, §6). In the present passage the noqoi, 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.

475 244 See chap. 3, note 5.

245 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 gosvel 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.

246 This gospel is mentioned by Origen (Hom. in Lucam I.), by Jerome (Praaef. in ), and by other later writers. The gospel is no longer extant, though some gragments 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 paradosei" Matqiou which were in high esteem in Gnostic circles, and especially among the Basilidaeans.” See Lipsius, ibid. p. 716.

247 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 Ac of Andrew (Acta Andraeae) were of Gnostic origin and circulated among that sect in numerous editions. The oldest extant portions (both in Greek and somewhat fragmentary) are the (Ac of Andrew and Matthew (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 517–525) and the Acts of Peter and Andrew (ibid. 526–527). The (Ac 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.

248 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 (Tichendrof, ibid. p. lxxiii).. They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few fragments (collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. Johannis a Lencio 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 Ac 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 Ac 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.

249 airetikwn andrwn anaplasmata.

250 en nofoi".

251 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. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaes has already told; and so the accounts of all the early Fathers rest wholly upon Justin and Irenaeus, and probably ultimately upon Justin alone. See Salmon’s article Menander in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

252 Upon Simon Magus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3.

253 “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 Irenaeus looked upon Menander with any greater degree of allowance.

476 254 Simon (Irenaeus, I. 23. 1) taught that he himself was the Supreme Power; but Menander, according to Irenaeus (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.

255 (He agreed with Simon in teaching that the world was formed by angels who had taken their origin from the Ennoea of the Supreme Power, and that the magical power which he imparted enabled is followers to overcome these creative angels, as Simon had taught of himself before him.

256 This baptism (according to Irenaeus “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 Irenaeus, 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.

257 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 23. 5. In III. 4. 3 he mentions Menander again, making him the father of all the Gnostics.

258 Justin, Apol. I. 26.

259 The situation of the village of Capparattea is uncertain. See Harnack’s Quellen-Kritik des Gnosticismus, p. 84.

260 Menander’s Antiochene activity is reported only by Justin. It is probable, therefore, that Tertullian used Irenaeus 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.

261 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.

262 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 Irenaeus (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 Irenaeus 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 (Haer. 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. Ac xxiv. 5), and as such synonymous with “Ebionites.” Upon the later syncretistic Ebionism, see Bk. VI. chap. 38, note 1. Upon the general subject of Ebionism, see especially Nitzsch, ibid., and Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 226 sqq.

263 The word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew wyba

, 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 Irenaeus (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, Haer. 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 Praescr. Haer. 33, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c). and Hippolytus (in his Syntagma,—as can be gathered from Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. Haer. chap. 3, and Epiph). Haer. 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.

477 264 w" mh an dia monh" th" ei" tdn coiston pistew" kai tou kat authn biou swfhsomenoi". 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, dia monh" th" ei" ton criston pistew", restored.

265 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).

266 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 Irenaeus on. Irenaeus, 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.

267 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.

268 This is mentioned by Irenaeus (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 Irenaeus).

The “these” (onroi de) 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.

269 Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenaeus (Adv. Hae. 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 Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus, who was personally acquainted with the sect, simply hearing that they used a Gospel of Matthew, naturally supposed it to he 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 (Haer. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still preserved the original Hebrew Matthew m 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, ie. 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 Irenaeus’ 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 Irenaeus 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 Caesarea (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 Untersuchugen, 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 logia 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.

270 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 ekeinoi, 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 outoi de refer to the second class of Ebionites, and the ekeinoi 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.

271 See note 2.

478 272 The earliest account which we have of Cerinthus is that of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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. Irenaeus (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 (Haer. Fab. II. 3), and by Augustine (De Haer. 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 (Haer. 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. Irenaeus (III. 2. 1) supposed Jn 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).

273 See Bk. II. chap. 25, §7. Upon Caius, see the note given there. The Disputation is the same that is quoted in that passage.

274 Cf. Ap 20,4. On chiliasm in the early Church, see below, chap. 39, note 19.

275 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.

276 Upon Dionysius and his writings, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

277 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 legousin, “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).

278 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 26. 1.

279 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 Jn 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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 (Haer. 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 Irenaeus, 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.

280 (Ap 2,6,
Ap 2,15 Ap 2, in his article Nicolaitans, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., states, as I think, quite correctly, that “there really is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of sect so called after the death of the apostle John”; and in this he is in agreement with many modern scholars. An examination of extant accounts of this sect seems to show that nothing more was known of the Nicolaitans by any of the Fathers than what is told in the Apocalypse. Justin, whose lost work against heretics Irenaeus follows in his description of heresies, seems to have made no mention of the Nicolaitans, for they are dragged in by Irenaeus at the close of the text, quite out of their chronological place. Irenaeus (I. 26. 3; III. 11. 1) seems to have made up his account from the Apocalypse, and to have been the sole source for later writers upon this subject. That the sect was licentious is told us by the Apocalypse. That Nicolas, one of the Seven, was their founder is stated by Irenaeus (I. 26. 3), Hippolytus (VII. 24), Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. omnes Haer. chap. 1), and Epiphanius (Haer. 25), the last two undoubtedly drawing their account from Hippolytus, and he in turn from Irenaeus. Jerome and the writers of his time and later accept this view, believing that Nicolas became licentious and fell into the greatest wickedness. Whether the sect really claimed Nicolas as their founder, or whether the combination was made by Irenaeus in consequence of the identity of his name with the name of sect mentioned in the Apocalypse, we cannot tell; nor have we any idea, in the latter case, where the sect got the name which they bore. Clement of Alexandria, in the passage quoted just below, gives us quite different account of the character of Nicolas; and as is more reliable writer than the ones above quoted, and as his statement explains excellently the appeal of the sect to Nicolas’ authority, without impeaching his character, which certainly his position among the Seven would lead us to expect was good, and good enough to warrant permanence, we feel safe in accepting his account as the true one, and denying that Nicolas himself bore the character which marked the sect of the Nicolaitans; though the latter may, as Clement says, have arisen from abusing saying of Nicolas which had been uttered with good motive.

281 See Ac vi.

282 Stromata, III. 4.

479 283 Compare Mt 6,24.

284 This teaching was found in the Gospel of Matthias, or the paradosei" Matqiou, mentioned in chap. 25 (see (note 30 on that chapter).

285 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.

286 Strom. III. 6.

287 Peter was married, as we know from Mt 8,14 (
1Co 9,5). Tradition also tells us of a daughter, St. Petronilla. She is first called St. Peter’s daughter in the Apocryphal Acts of SS. Nereus and Achilles, which give a legendary account of her life and death. In the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla was buried an Aurelia Petronilla filia dulcissima, and Petronilla being taken as a diminutive of Petrus, she was assumed to have been a daughter of Peter. It is probable that this was the origin of the popular tradition. Petronilla is not, however, a diminutive of Petrus, and it is probable that this woman was one of the Aurelian gens and a relative of Flavia Domitilla. Compare the article Petronilla in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Petronilla has played a prominent rôle in art. The immense painting by Guercino in the Palace of the Conservators in Rome attracts the attention of all visitors.

288 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 Ac 21,9, had four daughters who were virgins. Clement (assuming that he is speaking of the same Philip) is the only one to tell us that they afterward married, and he tells us nothing about their husbands. Polycrates in the next chapter states that two of them at least remained virgins. If so, Clement’s statement can apply at most only to the other two. Whether his report is correct as respects them we cannot tell.

289 The passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes in this connection is 1Co 9,5; but this by no means proves that Paul was married, and 1Co 7,8 seems to imply the opposite, though the words might be used if he were a widower. The words of Ph 4,3 are often quoted as addressed to his wife, but there is no authority for such a reference. Clement is the only Father who reports that Paul was married; many of them expressly deny it; e.g. Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, &c. The authority of these later Fathers is of course of little account. But Clement’s conclusion is based solely upon exegetical grounds, and therefore is no argument for the truth of the report.

290 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.

291 See Bk. II. chap. 25, §§5 sqq.

292 See chap. 23, §§3, 4.

480 293 Upon Polycrates, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 9.

294 Upon Victor, see ibid. note 1.

295 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.

296 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 Ac (cf. Ac 6,2–5, Ac viii. 14–17, and
Ac 21,8). That it was the evangelist, and not the apostle, that was buried in Hierapolis may be assumed upon the following grounds: (1) The evangelist (according to Ac 21,8) had four daughters, who were virgins and prophetesses. Polycrates speaks here of three daughters, at least two of whom were virgins, and Proclus, just below, speaks of four daughters who were prophetesses. (2) Eusebius, just below, expressly identifies the apostle and evangelist, showing that in his time there was no separate tradition of the two men. Lightfoot (Colossians, p. 45) maintains that Polycrates is correct, and that it was the apostle, not the evangelist, that was buried in Hierapolis; but the reasons which he gives are trivial and will hardly convince scbolars in general. Certainly we need strong grounds to justify the separation of two men so remarkably similar so far as their families are concerned. But the truth is, there is nothing more natural than that later generations should identify the evangelist with the apostle of the same name, and should assume the presence of the latter wherever the former was known to have been. This identification would in itself be a welcome one to the inhabitants of Hierapolis, and hence it would be assumed there more readily than anywhere else. Of course it is not impossible that Philip the apostle also had daughters who were virgins and prophetesses, but it is far more probable that Polycrates (and possibly Clement too; see the previous chapter) confounded him with the evangelist,—as every one may have done for some generations before them. Eusebius at any rate, historian though he was, saw no difficulty in making the identification, and certainly it was just as easy for Polycrates and Clement to do the same. Lightfoot makes something of the fact that Polycrates mentions only three daughters, instead of four. But the latter’s words by no means imply that there had not been a fourth daughter (see (note 8, below).

297 Hierapolis was a prominent city in Proconsular Asia, about five miles north of Laodicea, in connection with which city it is mentioned in Col 4,13. The ruins of this city are quite extensive, and its site is occupied by a village called Pambouk Kelessi.

298 The fact that only three of Philip’s daughters are mentioned here, when from the Ac 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.

299 martu"; see chap. 32, note 15.

300 The Greek word is petagon, which occurs in the LXX. as the technical term for the plate or diadem of the high priest (cr. Ex 28,36, &c).. What is meant by the word in the present connection is uncertain. Epiphanius (Haer. LXXVII. 14) says the same thing of James, the brother of the Lord. But neither James nor Jn was a Jewish priest, and therefore the words can be taken literally in neither case. Valesius and others have thought that Jn and James, and perhaps others of the apostles, actually wore sotnething resembling the diadem of the high priest; but this is not at all probable. The words are either to be taken in a purely figurative sense, as meaning that Jn bore the character of a priest,—i.e. the high priest of Christ as his most beloved disciple,—or, as Hefele suggests, the report is to be regarded as a mythical tradition which arose after the second Jewish war. See Kraus’ Real-Encyclopaedie der christlichen Alterthümer, Band II. p. 212 sq.

301 Upon John’s Ephesian activity and his death there, see Bk. III. chap. 1, note 6.

302 Bk. II. chap. 25, §6, and Bk. III. chap. 28, §1. Upon Caius and his dialogue with Proclus, see the former passage, note 8.

303 Upon Proclus, a Montanistic leader, see Bk. II chap. 25, note 12.

481 304 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 Polyerates 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.

305 I read meta touton with the majority of the mss., with Burton, Routh, Schwegler, Heinichen, &c., instead of meta touto, which occurs in some mss. and in Rufinus, and is adopted by Valesius, Crusèe, and others. As Burton says, the copyists of Eusebius, not knowing to whom Proclus here referred, changed touton to touto; 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, touton is the harder reading, and could therefore have more easily been changed into touto than the latter into touton.

306 (Ac 21,8,
Ac 21,9 Ac 21, clearly enough considers Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist identical. Upon this identification, see note Ac 6, above.

307 ierwn grammatwn, kai twn antilegomenwn men, omw" …dedhmosieumenwn. 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 antilegomena and noqoi, but uses the former word in its general sense, and includes under it both the particular classes (Antilegomena and noqoi) of chap. 25 (see (note 27 on that chapter).

308 Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 a.d.

309 Upon the state of the Christians under Trajan, see the next chapter, with the notes.

310 See chap. 11.

311 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.

312 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.

313 That is, by crucifixion, as stated in §6.

482 314 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.

315 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 Caesaren, 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.

316 epi Traianou kaisaro" kai upatikou AEAttikou. 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,
1P 59).

The word upatiko" 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).

317 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 wsan 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.

318 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.

319 Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned in Jn 19,25.

320 See above, chap. 11.

321 See above, chap. 20.

322 See p. 389, note.

323 marture". 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 omologhth", “confessor,” gradually came into use as the technical term for those who bad borne testimony in the midst of persecution, but had not suffered death. As early as the first century (Ac 22,20 and Ap 2,13) martu" was used of martyrs, but not as distinguishing them from other witnesses to the truth. See the remarks of Lightfoot, in his edition of Clement of Rome, p. 46.

483 324 This part of the quotation has already been given in Eusebius’ own words in chap. 20, §8. See note 5 on that chapter.

325 epi tw autw logw, 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.

326 epi AEAttikou tou upatikou. See above, note 9.

327 On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.

328 thn yeudonumon gnwsin; 1Tm 6,20. A few mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Closs, and Crusè, add the words (in substance): “Such is the statement of Hegesippus. But let us proced with the course of our history.” The majority of the mss., however, endorsed by Valesius in his notes, and followed by Burton, Heinichen, and most of the editors, omit the words, which are clearly an interpolation).

329 Plinius Caecilius 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 (ministrae), 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.”

330 ama th ew diegeiromenou". See note 9, below.

331 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.

332 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.

333 Apol. chap. 2.

484 334 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 iilicita, 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.

335 katakrina" cristianou" tina" kai th" axia" ekbalwn. 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 th" axia", 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.

336 Greek: exw tou mh boulesqai autou" eidwlolatrein. Latin original: praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi. The eidwlolatrein 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.

337 Greek: anistasqai ewqen. Latin original: caetus 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).

338 Greek: pro" to thn episthmhn autwn diafulassein. Latin original: ad confaederandum disciplinam. The Greek translation is again somewhat inaccurate). episthmh (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.

339 The Emperor Trajan.

340 On Clement of Rome, see chap. 4, note 19.

341 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.

342 See above, chap. 32.

343 Of this Justus we know no more than Eusebius tells us here. Epiphanius (Haer. LXVI. 20) calls him Judas.

344 On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.

485 345 Of the life of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, we know very little. He is mentioned by Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 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 Ph 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.

346 Four mss. insert at this point the words anhr ta panta oti malista logiwtato" kai th" grafh" eidhmwn (“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 Papins 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.

347 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 Ac 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 Phil. 9, 13; Irenaeus’ Adv. Haer. V. 18. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in Cant., and Hom. VI. in ). 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. Irenaeus 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 diffculties 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 Epistulae, 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 ()., 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.

348 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 Jn 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. 12,343, 381).

349 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, Traillians, 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.

350 Of this Onesimus, and of Damas and Polybius mentioned just below, we know nothing more.

486 351 Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. chap. 5.

352 lepardoi". 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.

353 Compare 1Co 4,4.

354 Compare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. I, §42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7.

355 The translation of this sentence is Lightfoot’s, who prefers with Rufinus and the Syriac to read the optative zhlwsai instead of the infinitive zhlwsai, 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.

356 That Troas was the place from which Ignatius wrote to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnaeans, 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.

357 See Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.

358 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 Hebraeorum lectitant Nazaraei). But in Origen de prin. praef. 8, the phrase is quoted as taken from the Teaching of Peterqui 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.

359 daimonion aswmaton.

360 Compare Lc 24,39.

361 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 28. 4.

487 362 On Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.

363 Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9.

364 Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.

365 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).

366 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.

367 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.

368 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.

369 That is, an ascetic mode of life. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

370 See Mt 19,21. Eusebius agrees with nearly all the Fathers, and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young man.

371 In chap. 36, above.

372 See above, chap. 16.

488 373 On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.

374 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 Lighffoot’s edition of Clement (1877), which contains the full text, notes, and an English translation. English translation also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ()., 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.

375 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. Graec. Vols. I. and II.

376 In chap. 36, above.

377 logiwn kuriakwn exhghsei". This work is no longer extant, but a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenaeus, 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. Sacrae, I. p. 3–16. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ()., 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 logia, see below, note 26. As remarked there, logia 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 fur wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, I879. See also p. 389, note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.

378 w" monwn autw grafentwn. Irenaeus does not expressly say that these were the only works written by Papias. He simply says “For five books have been written by him” (esti gar autw pente biblia suntetagmena). Eusebius’ interpretation of Irenaeus’ words is not, however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenaeus’ meaning.

379 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 33. 4.

380 The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenaeus, 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 Jn 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 Irenaeus, a whole generation later, knowing that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and finding constant mention of a Jn in Papias’ works, should simply take for granted that the same Jn was meant; for by his time the lesser Jn 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 Jn 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 Irenaeus was mistaken in saying that he was a hearer of the apostle John; for Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ 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 Jn the apostle.

381 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 words tai" ermhneiai" 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.

382 As Lightfoot points out (Contemp. Ap 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 presbutero" is used in connection with the second Jn (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.

489 383 paraginomenoi", instead of paraginomena", agreeing with entola". 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.

384 That is, “to those that believe, to those that are possessed of faith.”

385 Of this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this mention of him by Papias.

386 See above, note 6.

387 ek twn bibliwn. 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 twn bibliwn, 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.

388 See above, note 4.

389 The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of Jn 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 Jn 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 Jn was buried there.

390 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 Jn 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 Jn was, but thinks it must have been some Jn 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.

391 In chap. 31, above. On the confusion of the evangelist with the apostle Philip, see that chapter, note 6.

392 That is, in the time of Philip.

393 (
Ac 1,23 Ac 1,

490 394 Compare the extract from Papias given by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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.

395 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 Ap 20,1–6, and the fact that this book was appealed to so constantly by chiliasts in support of their views was the reason why Dionysius, Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its apostolic authorship. Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene age were the author of the epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; while the principal opponents of the doctrine were Caius, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. After the time of Constantine, chiliasm was more and more widely regarded as a heresy, and received its worst blow from Augustine, who framed in its stead the doctrine, which from his time on was commonly accepted in the Church, that the millennium is the present reign of Christ, which began with his resurrection. See Schaff’s Church History, II. p. 613 sq., for the history of the doctrine in the ante-Nicene Church and for the literature of the subject.

396 sfodra smikroz ton noun. Eusebius’ judgment of Papias may have been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strongchiliasm of he latter; and yet a perusal of the extant fagments of Papias’ writings wiil 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.

397 See above, note 19.

398 We cannot, in the abscence of the context, say with certainty that the presbyter here refered to is the “presbyter John,” of whom Papias has so much to say, and who ia mentioned in the previous paragraph, and yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiffenbach’s Die Papias Fragmente über Marcus und Mattaeus, p. 26 sq.

399 Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mc wih Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by tshose who came after him (see (above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). The relation of this Gospel of Mc to our canonical ospel 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 Mc as the interpreter of Peter. Of course it does not follow from this that it was actually our second Gospel which Mc 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 ermhneuth" 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” (ou mentoi taxei) 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 Mc 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 Light-foot, 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.

1 On Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3.

2 Telesphorus was a martyr, according to Irenaeus, 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.

3 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.

4 His predecessor was Justus. See the previous chapter.

5 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 Aelia 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 Füdischer Krieg.

6 (He abbwb rb

491 , Bar-Cochba, which signifies “Son of a star” (Nb 24,17). After his defeat the Jews gave him the name abywwb rb

, Bar-Coziba, which means “Son of a lie.”

7 I.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135.

8 Biqqhra, 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, astrongly fortified place, and that it was situated somewhere in Judea.

9 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. , 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 Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, 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 dialogue between 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 found no good reason for doubting the accuracy of Maximus’ statement; and if it accepted, we must conclude that the writer whom Eusebius mentions here was the author of the dialogue referred to. If this 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 place in dialogue between two Hebrews. It is possible, of course, that Aristo wrote some othe 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 toward such Jewish Christian work (and at the same time, such a ‘simple0’ 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. Is 115 sq.; and for discussion of the nature of the dialogue (which is no longer extant), see his Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani (Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 3), p. Is 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 Christian and Jew (AEAntibolh Papiskou kai filwno" AEIoudaiwn pro" monaxon tina), p. Is 33
The town of Pella lay east of the Jordan, in Perea. See Bk. III. chap. 5, note 10, above).

10 Of this Marcus we know nothing more. Upon the Gentile bishops of Jerusalem, see Bk. V. chap. 12.

11 yeudwnumou gnwsew". Compare 1Tm 6,20.

12 This statement is of course an exaggeration. See above, Bk. II. chap. 3, note 1.

13 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.

14 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.

492 15 See Bk. III. chap. 26.

16 Saturninus is called Saturnilus by Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, and his followers Saturnilians by Hegesippus, quoted in chap. 22, below. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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. Irenaeus was possibly Eusebius’ sole authority, although Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus gives. In the same way Eusebius may have needed no authority for his still more exact statement.

17 Basilides was one of the greatest and most famous of the Gnostics. Irenaeus (I. 24) and the early Compendium of Hippolytus (now lost, but used together with Irenaeus’ 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 Irenaeus 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. Irenaeus 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 (Ac 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.

18 See Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 24.

19 ekklhsiastikwn andrwn.

20 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.

21 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 thetitle, has entirely disappeared.

22 ei" euaggelion biblia. 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)., and seems to be Jerome’s authority for the enumeration of a Gospel of Basilides among the Apocryphal Gospels in his Comment in Matt., praef. 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 Jn 9,(although Lipsius, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. 715, suggests
Lc 21,12). Meanwhile, in the Acta Archelai, chap. 55 (see (Gallandii Bibl. PP. III. 608), is a quotation from “the thirteenth book of the treatises (tractatuum) of Basilides,” which is an exposition of the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi).. If this is the same work, it would seem that the Exegetica must have included at least Lc and John, possibly Matthew also, for we know that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Jn were all used by the Basiltitans. The respective positions in the work of the expositions of the passages from Luke and Jn (the former in the thirteenth, the latter in the twenty-third, book) would seem, however, to exclude Matthew, if the books were at all of equal length. If Lipsius were correct in regarding the latter passage as an exposition of Lc 21,12, there would be no evidence that the Commentary covered more than a single Gospel.

23 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 af 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.

24 This was not a doctrine of Basilides himself, but of his followers (compare the accounts of Irenaeus and Hippolytus). If Agrippa Castor represented Basilides’ position thus, as Eusebius says he did (though Eusebius may be only following Irenaeus), 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)..

25 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 wotdd 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.

493 26 See Irenaeeus, Adv. Haer. I. 25.

27 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 heresics, 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,
1P 162 sq).. It must be remembered in reading the Fathers’ accounts of Gnosticism that they took minor and ummportant 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 Irenaeus expressly says that they called themselves Gnostics (adv. Haer. 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 Saturnthus 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 Irenaeus (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 Haer. 3), Epiphanius (Haer. 27), and Philaster (c. 35). Of these only Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus, lies Justin Martyr’s lost Syntagma; though it is very likely that Irenaeus knew the sect personally, and made additions of his own. Compare Harnack’s Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 41 sq.

28 ekeino", referring back to Basilides.

29 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 Irenaeus. 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)).

30 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. 1. 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 officer, that these and similar accusations were true. The Christians corn monly 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). Irenaeus also (I. 25, 3), whom Eusebius substantially follows in this passage, and Philaster (c. 57), pursue the same course.

31 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.

32 See above, note 10.

33 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.

34 Already quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 32.

494 35 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 Vale. sius, who cites Pausanias as his authority.

36 Hadrian rebuilt the city of Bess in the Thebais, in whose neighborhood Antinos was drowned, and called it Antinoüpolis.

37 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.

38 Justin, Apol. I. 29).

39 Justin, Apol. I. 31.

40 cristianou" monou". “This ‘alone0’ 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).

41 epithn qeosbeian.

42 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 47, below. For a discussion of this matter, see chap. 18, note 3.

43 The best mss. of Eusebius write the name Serennio" Graniano", but one ms., supported by Syncellus, writes the first word “Serenio”. 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.

44 grammata. The plural is often used like the Latin literae 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 epistolh, as Eusebius calls it.

45 antigrayai.

495 46 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 (ti para tou" nomou") determine thus according to the heinousness of the crime” (kata thn dunamin tou amarthmato"). 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 andof 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 Plus 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 Plus. This method probably arose from a misunderstandings 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.

47 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 dean 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.

48 Justin, Apol. I. 68).

49 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. 5, 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.

50 Greek, epistolhn; Latin, litteras.

51 Greek, oi anqrwpoi; Latin, innoxii.

52 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 qutte 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.

53 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 he 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.

54 Greek, opw" an ekdikhseia"; Latin, suppliciis severioribus vindices.

55 Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July to, 138 a.d.

496 56 On Telesphorns, 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.

57 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.

58 In his Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3. The testimony of Irenaeus 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.

59 On Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next chapter.

60 Irenaes, Adv. Haer. III. 4. 3.

61 Valentinus is the best known of the Gnostics. According to Epiphanius (Haer. 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 Irenaeus 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 numerons 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.

62 Cerdon is best known as the teacher of Marcion. Epiphanius (Haer. XLI). and Philaster (Haer. 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 Cordon and Marcion together, making no attempt to distinguish their doctrines. Irenaeus, in the passage quoted, and the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus (represented by Pseudo-Tertullian’s Adv. Haer. 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.

63 Of Germanicus we know only what is told us in this epistle.

64 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.

65 Compare Justin Martyr’s Apol. I. 6; Tertullian’s Apol. 10, &c.; and see chap. 7, note 20, above.

66 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 Smyrnaeans condemn Quintus’ hasty and ill-considered action, and that Eusebius echoes their judgment (see (above, p. 8).

497 67 Sabbaton megalou. “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” (to mega Sabbaton), 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)..

68 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).

69 eirhnarco" (see (Lightfoot, ibid. p. 955).

70 Compare Joshua 1,6, Joshua 1,7, Joshua 1,9, and Dt 1,7, Dt 1,23.

71 thn Kaisaro" tuchn. This oath was invented under Julius Caesar, 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).

72 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.

73 See Rm 13,1 sq., 1P 2,13 sq.

74 timhn …thn mh blaptousan hma". Compare Pseudo-Ignatius, ad Antioch. 11, and Mart. Ignat. Rom. 6 (in both of which are found the words en oi" akinduno" h uupotagh).

75 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.

76 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.

77 “The Asiarch was the head of the Commune Asiae, the confederation of the principal cities of the Roman province of Asia. As such, he was the ‘chief priest0’ 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.

498 78 The Greek reads simply proshloun auton.

79 paido" not uiou). pai" 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.

80 Compare Jn 5,29.

81 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.

82 Komfektora. 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.

83 Before the words “a quantity of blood” are found in all the Greek mss. of the epistle the words peristera kai, “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.

84 See above, note 6. That the word kaqolikh" 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 agia" instead of kagolikh" 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.

85 All, or nearly all, the mss. of Eusebius read Dalkh", 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 Alkh" (or Alkh", Elkei", 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 Eusehius (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.

86 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.

87 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).

88 The majority of the mss. read dwdeka tou en Emurnh marturhsanto", which, however, is quite ungrammatical as it stands in the sentence, and cannot be accepted Heinichen reads dwdeka ton en k.t.l., 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 dwdekato" Em. marturhsa", 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), dwdekaton en Em. marturhsanta, 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 dwdeka for the dwdekato", 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.

499 89 grafh. These other accounts were not given in the epistle of the Smyrnaeans, 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 h auth peoiodo" tou coonou (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 trine. 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, 1P 626 sqq)..

90 This is an excellent summary of Pionius’ sufferings, as recorded in the extant Acts referred to in the previous note.

91 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).

92 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 Archavalogique (Dec., p. 348 sq). a shorter form of the Ac of these martyrs, which he had discovered in a Greek ms. in the Paris Library. There is no reason to doubt that these Ac are genuine and, in the main, quite trustworthy. The longer Ac 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 (1P 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 Ac 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 Ac 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 Smyrnaeans but in that epistle such conduct is condemned.

93 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).

94 In chap. 11.

95 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.

96 That Justin died a martyr’s death is the universal tradition of antiquity, which is crystallized in his name. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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 ome, 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 trader 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.

97 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).

98 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 en th dedhlwmenh apologia to chap. 13 sq., where the apology is quoted repeatedly.

500 99 Justin, Apol. II. 3.

100 kagw oun. 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.

101 xulw entinaghnai. Compare Ac 17,24, and see Otto’s note on this passage, in his edition of Justin’s Apology (Corpus Apol. Christ.
1P 204). He says: xulin erat truncus foramina habens, quibus pedes captivorum immit/bantur, ut securius in carcere servarentur aut tormentis vexarentur (“a xulon 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”).

102 This accusation was very commonly made against the Christians in the second century. See above, chap. 7, note 20.

103 In §3, above.

104 This saying of Socrates is given by Justin as follows: all outi ge pro th" alhqeia" timhteo" anhr, “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.

105 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 Graecos, 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 megalw for the words kai eme w"; 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 kai eme w" 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 kai eme w", but in the substitution for them of the word megalw. 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 paints 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 mrgalw instead of kai eme w". It happens, indeed, to be a fact that our three mss. of Tatian all present variations at this very point (one reads kai eme w", another, kai eme oion, another, kai eme ou"), 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 gounds 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 Justin met his death in consequence of the plots of Crescens; and finding no mention of such a fact in the Ac 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 be 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 kai eme w", 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 how 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.

501 106 Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos, 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.

107 Ibid. chap. 19.

108 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.

109 Justin, Apol. II. 2.

110 Our authorities are divided between hmin and umin, 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.

111 Of this Ptolemaeus 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 Ptolemaeus 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 (cqez de kai prwhn, “yesterday and the day before”).

112 AEOurbikio", as all the mss. of Eusebius give the name. In Justin the form AEOurbiko" occurs, which is a direct transcription of the Latin Urbicus.

113 Of this Lucius we know only what is told us here).

114 Marcus Aurelius. See above, chap. 12, note 2.

115 In chap. 16, §3.

116 Justin, Apol. II. 3. These words, in Justin’s Apology, follow immediately the long accotrot quoted just above.

502 117 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.

118 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.

119 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 Athenagores 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.

120 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 Graecos) and Hortatory Address to the Greeks (Cohortatio ad Graecos), 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).

121 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.

122 This work and the following have entirely disappeared, but were genuine productions of Justin, for all that we know to the contrary.

123 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.

124 See Dial. chap. 2 sq).

125 ibid. chap. 17.

126 ibid. chap. 82.

503 127 ibid. chap. 81.

128 ibid. chap. 71.

129 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 Irenaeus,—see just below,—and the Syntagma Contra omnes Haer.), are the productions of later writers.

130 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV. 6. 2.

131 Irenaeus, V. 26. 2. Irenaeus 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.

132 Epiphanius expresses the same thought in his Haer. XXXIX. 9.

133 The reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus mentioned at the end of chap. 14.

134 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, andthis 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 Praedestinatus (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 spurions epistles and several decretals have been falsely ascribed to him.

135 On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18.

136 On Celadion, see above, chap. 11, note 17.

137 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 ecclesiae 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 ecclesiae instead of Alexandrinae ecclesiae, 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.

504 138 On Theophilus and his writings, see chap. 24.

139 Of the life and character of Cornelius and Eros we know nothing. The Chron. of Eusebius puts the accession of Cornelins 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.

140 On Hero, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 23.

141 On Eros, see note 2.

142 On Hegesippus’ life and writings, see the next chapter. He has been already mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 23; Bk. III. chaps. II, 16, 20, 32; and Bk. IV. chap. 8.

143 On the life and writings of Dionysius, see below, chap. 23.

144 On Pinytus, see below, chap, 23, note 14).

145 On Philip, see below, chap. 25.

146 On Apotinarius, see below, chap. 27.

147 On Melito, see chap. 26.

148 On Musanus, see chap. 28.

505 149 On Modestus, see chap. 25.

150 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ letter to Florinus, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 20). The Moscow ms. of the Martyrium Polycarpi states that Irenaeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom (155 or 156 a.d.), and appeals for its authority to a statement in Irenaeus’ 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. praef. note 3, and chap. 1, §29), Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus was still a presbyter after the close of the persecution in which he met his death, he cannot have succeeded immediately. Since Irenaeus, 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, Irenaeus 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 Iren‘us 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 Iren‘us 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.

Irenaeus 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 Elegco" kai anarroph th" yeuownumou gnwsew", which is commonly cited under the brief title pro" airesei", or Adversus Haereses (“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 compostion more exactly. The author’s primary object was to refute Valentinianism (cf. Bk. I). praef., and Bk. III). praef.), 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 Iren‘us, many of which Eusebius refers to, only fragments or bare titles have been preserved. Whether he ever carried out his intention (stated in Adv. Haer. 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 Irenaeus among the authors who had written against Marcion. But we hear nothing of the existence of the work from Irenaeus’ successors, and it is possible that Eusebius is thinking in chap. 25 only of the great work Adv. Haer. For a notice of Irenaeus’ 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 Irenaeus (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 Irenaeus. Some of them are undoubtedly genuine, others not. Upon these fragments and the works to which they belong, see Harvey’s edition of Irenaeus’ works, II. p. 431 sq., and Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. article Irenaeus, p. 265 sqq.

The best edition of Irenaeus’ works is that of Harvey (Cambridge, 1857, in 2 vols).. In connection with this edition, see Loof’s important article on Irenaeushandschriften, in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, p. 1–93 (Leipzig, 1888). The literature on Irenaeus 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.

151 wn kai ei" hma" th" apostolikh" paradosew", h th" ugiou" pistew" eggrafo" kathlqrn orqodoxia. Compare chap. 14, §4.

152 The five books of Hegesippus, upomnhmata 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).

153 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 Plus 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.

154 The interpretation of this sentence is greatly disputed. The Greek reads in all the mss. genomeno" de en AERwmh diadochn epoihsamn mecri" AEAnikhtou, 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 diadochn epoihsamhn, “I composed a catalogue of bishops,” for diadoch nowhere else, so far as I am aware, means “catalogue,” and nowhere else does the expression diadochn poieisqai 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 Irenaens’ 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 diadochn epoihsamhn, 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 diadochn the word diatribhn, 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 diatribhn in the text. Val. retains diadochn in his text, but accepts diatribhn 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 diagwghn, which, while not so common as diatribhn, is yet used with poieisqai in the same sense, and its very uncommonness would account more easily for the change to the much commoner diadochn, which is epigraphically so like it.

The word mecri 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 mecri 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.

155 See Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.

506 156 Dia touto. Valesius proposes to read mecri toutou, 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 dia touto, 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.

157 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).

158 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.

159 Simon Magus (see (Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3).

160 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.).

161 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 Essenest existing from before our Lord’s time, and that the stories connecting their founder with Simon Magus and with Jn 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).

162 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.

163 The name Masbotheus us 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 Masbwqaioi or Masbwqeoi. Just below, Hefessippus 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.”

164 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 Basilidaeans, chap. 7, note 7; on the Saturnilians, chap. 7, note 6.

165 There is some dispute about this word. The Greek is Markianisyyai, which Harnack regards as equivalent to Markiwnisttai, 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).).

166 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, Genistae, Meristae, Galileans, Hellenianians, Pharisees, Baptists). Epiphanius (Vol.
1P 230, Dindorf’s ed.,—Samaritan sects 4: Gorothenes, Sebouaioi, Essenes, Dositheans; Jewish 7: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists, AEOssaioi, Nazarenes, Herodians). See Jess, in the Zeitschr. für hist. Theol. 1865, p. 45. sq.

507 167 The exact meaning of this sentence is very difficult to determine. The Greek reads:ek te tou kaq AEEbraiou" euaggeliou kai tou Suriakou kai idiw" ek th" AEEbraido" dialektou tina tiqhsin. It is grammatically necessary to supply euaggeliou after Suriakou, and this gives us a Syriac gospelin 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 Chaldaeo syroque scriptum evangelium secundum Hebraeos, which Jerome mentions, is referred to, and that the first-named euaggelion kaq AEEbraiou" is a Greek translation, while the to Suriakon 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 to Suriakon euaggelion 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 antend the text, with Eichhorn, Nicholson, and Handmann, by striking out the first kai. The tou Suriakou then becomes a description of the euaggelion kaq AEEbraiou", “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 (ek th" AEEbraido" dialektou), 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 sefise of the passage seems to demand it, and I have consequently omitted the kai 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.

168 Eusebius had abundant opportunity to learn from Hegesippusj works whether or not he was a Hebrew Christian, and hence we cannot doubt that his conclusion in regard to Hegesippusj 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.

169 This phrase (panareto" sofia) was very frequently employed among the Fathers as a title of the Book of Proverbs. Clement of Rome (1Co lvii). is, so far as I know, the first so to use it. The word panareto" is applied also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, by Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. §4) and others. Among the Fathers the Book of Sirach, the Solomonic Apocrypha, and the Book of Proverbs all bore the common title sofia, “Wisdom,” which well defines the character of each of them; and this simple title is commoner than the compound phrase which occurs in this passage (cf. e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dial. c. 129, and Melito, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 26, below). For further particulars, see especially Lightfoot’s edition of the epistles of Clement of Rome, p. 164.

170 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).

171 This is, so far as I am aware, the earliest mention of a church at Lacedaemon 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 Ac of the Sixth and Eighth General Synods, according to Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church (London ed. p. 134 and 466).

172 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.

173 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.

174 On Dionysius the Areopagite, see Bk. III. chap. 4, note 20).

175 See Ac 17,34.

176 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.

508 177 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.

178 Of this Philip, bishop of Gortyna, and a contemporary of Dionysius, we know only what Eusebius tells us here and in chap. 25.

179 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 Ac of Councils during the next few centuries (see (also note 12, below).

180 This Bacchylides is perhaps identical with the Bacchylus who was afterward bishop of Corinth (Bk. V. chap. 22). Elpistus is another,vise unknown personage.

181 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.

182 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 advo-cated 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 correct-ness 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 Callixtusf principle is looked upon by Terttulian 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.

183 Cnossus, or Cnos, was the capital city of Crete.

This epistle is no longer extant, nor do we know anythong 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 Ruffnus, 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.

184 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.

185 On Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, see Bk. III. chap. 16.

509 186 See above, note 1.

187 Compare Ap 22,18).

188 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.

189 ou toiautai".

190 Chrysophora is an otherwise unknown person.

191 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 Evengelium et in Praverbia Salomonis Commentarios qui mihi cum superiorum volumnum 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 unumopus dicta campingens), 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. Bellage 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 Mediaeval 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 tne other hand, that he refers to some other unknown Theophilus (see (Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 291).

192 In chap. 20, above.

193 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.

510 194 These catechetical works (tina kathchtika biblia), 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 aedificationem Ecclesiae perti-nentes as extant in his time. We know nothing more of their nature than is thus told us by Jerome.

195 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. Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus’ work, and also on account of the nature of the resemblances between the parallel passages, thinks it improbable that Iren‘us used the ad Autol., and concludes that hew as acquainted rather with Theophilus’ work against Marcion, a conclusion which accords best with the facts known to us.

196 Here, and in Bk. V. chap. 19, §1, Eusebius gives this hishop’s name as Maximinus. In the Chron. we find Maximo", 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).

197 See above, chap. 23, §5.

198 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 praeclarum for Eusebius’ dpondaiotaton.

199 On Irenaeus, see above, chap. 21, note 9.

200 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 yeudografa repundiantur). Neither these nor the genuine works are now extant, so far as we know.

201 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 Athenagores, by Tertullian, by Clement of Alexandria, by Cassianus (whose work on continence bore the title peri egkrateia", h peri eunoucia"), 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 el declamatorium ingenium Tertullianus in septem libris, quos scripsit adversus ecclesiam pro Montano, cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque nos- trorum 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 at); 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 Caesarea, 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 viae c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled ei" to paqo" and peri sarkwdew" cristou (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 peri yuch" kai swmato", which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius. The second purports to be taken from a work, peri staurou, 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 peri pistew", mentioned by Eusebius (as Otto regards it); but the same fragment is four times ascribed to Irenaeus by other early authorities, and an analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of Irenaeus is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack mentions a work, peri pistew", which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Iren‘us, 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, peri paqtou", 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 Mariae and de passione S. Joannis Evangelistae, and also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Apocalypse, and a Clavis Scripturae 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.

511 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.

202 On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.

203 Marcus Aurelius.

204 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.

205 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 Wad-dington 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.

206 The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a number of mss. to peri politeia" kai profhtwn, making but one work, On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets. Many mss. followed by Valesius, Heinichen, and Burton, read ta instead of to, 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 kai peri politeia" kai peri profhtwn. 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 twn profhtwn instead of kai profhtwn. But this is supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted.

No fragments of this work are extant.

207 o peri ekklhsia". Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.

208 o peri kuriakh" logo". Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.

209 Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the mss., read peri fusew" anqrwpou, On the Nature of Man. Four important mss., however, read peri pistew" anqrwpou, 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 peri pistew" anqrwpou. The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage pistew" is better supported by tradition than fusew", and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.

210 o peri plasew". Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.

512 211 All the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading o peri upakoh" pistew" aisqhthriwn: “On the subjection (or obedience)of the senses to faith.” This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads o peri upakoh" pistew", kai o peri aisqhthriwn, 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 untranstated, and reads only de sensibus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words o peri upakoh" (or akoh") pistew", omitting the second clause. Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read o peri upakoh" pistew", o peri aisqhthriwn, concluding that the words o peri after pistew" have fallen out of the Greek text. I have adopted this reading in my translation.

212 A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek mss. read o peri yuch" kai swmato" h noo", while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the h noo" entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read hn en oi", which is evidently simply a corruption of h noo", so that the Greek mss. are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crusè, and Salmon read kai noo", but there is no authority for kai instead of h, and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of h to kai will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words h noo" did not stand in the original, but that the word noo", (either alone or preceded by h or kai) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to yuch", perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after yuch" and swmato", 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 noo", the impossibility of explaining the h before noo" in the original text, the fact that in the Greek mss., in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words kai peri yuch" kai swmato" are repeated further down in the list,—a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting noo" 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 noo", follows instead of precedes the swmato", and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.

213 o peri loutrou; Jerome, de baptismate.

214 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. Melitos work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character, as suggested by Salmon.

215 Six mss., with Nicephorus, read ktisew", “creation,” but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read pistew". 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 ktisi" 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 pistew" instead of ktisew", and like Rufinus divides the one work of Ensebius into two.

216 All the Greek mss. read kai logo" autou peri profhteia", 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 peri logou tn" profhteia" autou. All three therefore connect the autou with the profhteia" instead of with the logo", which of course is much more natural, since the autou with the logo" seems quite unnecessary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require peri profhteia" autou or peri th" autou profhteia", and there is no sign that the autou originally stood in such connection with the profhteia". We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.

217 peri filoxenia". After this title a few of the mss., with Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words kai peri yuch" kai swmato", a repetition of a title already given (see (above, note 12).

218 h klei"; 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 (cr. 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 Sanctae Scripturae 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 klei" 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 medi‘val dictionary of allegorical interpolations of Scripture, compiled from the Latin Fathers. There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito’s Key.

219 All the Greek mss. read kai ta peri tou diabolou, kai tn" apokaluyew" AEIwannou, 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).

220 o peri enswmatou qeou. Jerome does not translate this phrase, but simply gives the Greek. Rufinus renders de cleo 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 peri enswmatwew" feou, or rather logou. 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 peri tou enswmaton einai ton qeon. 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.

221 epi pasi kai to pro" AEAntwninon biblision). biblision (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 conuected 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 Cornmodus 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 Cornmodus 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).

513 222 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 empesonto" kata kairon have unnecessarily caused Salmon considerable trouble. The words kata kairon mean no more than “properly, regularly, according to appointment or rule,” and do not render ekeinai" tai" hmerai" superfluous, as he thinks. The clause kai egrafh tauta (“and these were written”) expresses result,—it was in consequence of the passover strife that Melito wrote this work.

223 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).

224 This statement of Melito’s is a very remarkable one. See chap. 8, note 14.

225 The resemblance between this extract from Melito’s Apology and the fifth chapter of Tertullian’s Apology is close enough to tie 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.

226 euktaio".

227 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).

228 af wn kai to th" sukofantia" alogw sunhqeia peri tou" toioutou" ruhnai sumbebhke yeudo". 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.

229 ellrafw": i.e. in edicts or rescripts.

230 This epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon its genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.

231 On these epistles of Antoninus Pius, see chap. 13, note 9. These ordinances to the Larisseans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and all the Greeks, are no longer extant. What their character must have been is explained in the note just referred to.

232 peri toutwn.

514 233 en dh tai" grafeisai" autw eklogai". Jerome speaks of this work as Eklogwn, 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 Eclogae 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 AEAntibolh Papisou kai filwno", New York, 1889).

On the canon which Melito gives, see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.

234 This Onesimus is an otherwse unknown person.

235 Some mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the best mss., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order.

236 yalmwn Dabid. Literally, “of the Psalms of David” [one book].

237 h kai Sofia: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see (above, p. 200).

238 Literally, “in one book” (twn dwdeka en monobiblw).

239 AEEsdra": the Greek form of the Hebrew name arzÒMelito refers here to the canonical Book of Ezra, which, among the Jews, commonly included our Esd and Nehemiah (see (Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1).

240 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”; makariwtato"), 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 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Serapion as holding that the incarnate Christ had a human soul (emyucon ton enanmqrwphsanta). Jerome, in his de vir. ill. chap. 18, mentions an Apolinarius in connection with Irenaeus as a chiliast. But in his Comment. in Ezech. Bk. XI. chap. 36, he speaks of Irenaeus 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 Apelinerius (see (note 6 on Bk. V. chap. 16). It is impossible to determine the exact date of Apolinarins’ 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 see, 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 Anrelius; 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 (peri tou pasca), 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: pro" Ellhna", peri eusebeia", and peri alhqeia". 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 peri eusebeia" 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 (Haer. 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 Apolmarius in his Anti-Montanistic work, bad 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 (kai pro" AEIoudaiou" prwton kai deuteron). The words are found in manyof 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.

241 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 logo" uper th" mistew". This has given rise to the idea that the peri eusebeia" 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.

242 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).

515 243 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.

244 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 kai a meta tauta sunegraye. Serapion (in Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 19) calls them grammata, which Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 41) translates litteras. These grammata are taken as “letters” by Valesius, Stroth, Danz, and Salmon; but Otto contends that the word grammata, 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.

245 kainotomqeish".

246 Of this Musanus, we know only what Eusebius tells us here, for Jerome (de vir. ill. 31) and Theodoret (Haer. 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, Irenaeus, &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 nostrae filosofiae scriptor agnoscitur; while Syncellus, under the year of Abr. 2231 (fourth year of Caracalla) has Mousiano" ekklhsiastiko" suggrafeu" egnwrizeto. 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.

247 On Tattan and the Encratites, see the next chapter.

248 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 Tartan 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 Irenaeus, 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 Haer. 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 conseqnence 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 haeretics agnoscitur, a quo Encratitae. 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 Tation, 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 Graecos; 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 Tation 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 thai 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 Tation had written. Of this, too, all traces have perished. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 12) mentions an heretical work of Tatian’s, entitled peri tou kata ton swthra katartismou, 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 satd 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.

249 In chap. 16.

250 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 28. 1.

251 AEEgkratei", 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 egkratitai; by Clement of Alexandria (Paed. II. 2, Strom. I. 15, &c)., who calls them egkrathtai; by Epiphanius (Haer. 47), who agrees with Hippolytus in the form of the name, and by others. The Encratites whom Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus and the others are not referring to the same men. So Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 21, speaks of the Severian Encratites; but the Severians, as we learn from this chapter of Eusebius and from Epiphanius (Haer. XLV)., were Ebionitic and anti-Pauline in their tendencies—the exact opposites, therefore, of the Encratites referred to by Irenaeus. That there was a distinct sect of Encratites of the character described by Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus describes, the statement made by Eusebius at the close of the preceding chapter is incorrect, if we are to accept Irenaeus’ 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.

252 On Saturninus and on Marcion, see chap. 7, note 6, and 11, note 15. On their asceticism, see especially Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 24.

516 253 twn legomenwn emyucwn: i.e. animal food in general.

254 Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 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 Tation a very repugnant thought. He seems, moreover, to have based his opinion, as Donaldson remarks, npon exegetical grounds interpreting the passage in regard to Adam (
1Co 15,22) as meaning that Adam is and remains the principle of death, and as such, of course, cannot himself enjoy life (see (Irenaeus, ). This is quite in accord with the distinction between the psychical and physical man which he draws in his Oratio. It is quite possible that he was moved in part also by the same motive which led Marcion to deny the salvation of Abraham and the other patriarchs (see (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 27 and IV. 8), namely, the opposition between the God of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament, which led him to assert that those who depended on the former were lost. We learn from Clement (Strom. III. 12) and from Origen (de Orat. chap. 24) that among Tatian’s heretical works was one in which he discussed the early chapters of Genesis and perhaps it was in this work that he developed his peculiar views’ in regard to Adam.

255 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 Irenaeus, 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 Aeons, 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 ia his speculations).

256 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 Haer. XLV., also Theodoret’s Haer. Fab. I. 21, who says that Apolinarius wrote against the Severinn 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 Tattan 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 Severtans. 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 anyof the earlier anti-heretical works. Ensebius 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 Tartan and the Encratites,—a connection which can be justified on no other ground.

257 ouk oid opw". 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.

258 to dia tessarwn. 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 Haer. XLVI. 1 incorrectly identifies it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, evidently knowing it only by hearsay. Theodoret (Haer. 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 1P 90 sq).. Meanwhile we learn from the preface to Dionysius bar Salibi’s Commentary on Mc (see (Assemani, Bibl. Or. I. 57), that Ephraem wrote a commentary upon the Diatessaron of Tatian (Tatianus Justini Philosophic ac Martyris Discipulus, ex quator Evangeliis unumdigessit, quod Diatessaron nuncupavil. 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 Moesinger). 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 Tatinn 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 Tatinn 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 Irenaeus) 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.

259 i.e. of Paul, who was quite commonly called simply o apostolo". This seems to imply that Tartan wrote a work on Paul’s epistles (see (note 1, above).

260 logo" o pro" Ellhna": Oratio ad Graecos. 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 Tattan 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 5,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.

261 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. Africanns 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.

262 i.e. Mesopotamia: epi th" mesh" twn potamwn.

517 263 Bardesanes or Bardaisan (Greek, Bardhsanh"), 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 Barhebraeus 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 tanght a system of aeons like the Gnostics, but he does seem to have leaned toward docetism, and also to have denied the proper resurrection of the body. Ephraem accnses 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 Barhebraeus (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, Epiphanins, 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 (Haer. Fab. I. 22) and by Barhebraeus. Epiphanius (who apparently had some independent knowledge of the man and his followers) mentions (Haer. LVI). an Apology “in which he resisted Apollonius, the companion of Antoninus, when urged to deny that hewas 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 Aurelms, 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’ Praep. 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).

264 gnwrimoi.

265 See note 2.

266 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.

267 See note 2.

268 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.

269 On Soter, see chap. 19 note 2).

518 1 On Soter, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 2.

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 röom. 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 Irenaeus 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.

3 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,
1P 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.

4 All the mss. read marturwn, but I have followed Valesius (in his notes) and Heinichen in reading marturiwn, 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 sunagwgh, “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.

5 tou kata qeon politeumato", with the majority of the mss. supported by Rufinus. Some mss., followed by Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read kaq` hma" instead of kata qeon (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 politeuma its ordinary meaning, as is done by Valesius (divinae reipublicae), Stroth (Republik Gottes), and Closs (Staates Gottes).

6 Lougdouno" kai Bienna, the ancient Lugdunum and Vienna, the modern Lyons and Vienne in southeastern France).

7 marturwn. 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 martur and martu" in the early Church, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15.

8 The fragments of this epistle, preserved by Eusebius in this and the next chapter, are printed with a commentary by Routh, in his Rel. Sacrae. 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 muria 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. 1P 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. Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ name, and that even Eusebius has no thought of such a connection. In fact, Valesius’ opinion seems to me in the highest degree improbable.

9 (Rm 8,18 Rm 8,

10 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.”

519 11 ciliarch", strictly the commander of a thousand men, but commonly used also to translate the Latin Tribunus militum.

12 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.

13 (
Lc 1,6).

14 klhron, employed in the sense of “order,” “class,” “category.” Upon the significance of the word klhro" in early Christian literature, see Ritschl’s exhaustive discussion in his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq.

15 paraklhton; cf. Jn 14,16.

16 pneuma 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 pneuma 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 paraklhton, much easier than its insertion.

17 See Lc 1,67.

18 Compare Jn 15,13.

19 (Ap 14,4 Ap 14,

20 diekrinonto. 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 (eiskrinesqai), while the others were rejected (ekkrinesqai).

21 exetrwsan, with Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Burton, and Heinichen). exepeson 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.

520 22 Gieseler (Ecclesiastical History, Harper’s edition, 1P 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.

23 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 Oedipus 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.

24 (Jn 16,2 Jn 16,

25 kai di ekeinwn rhqhnai ti twn blasfhmwn. The word blasfhmwn 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 kai di ekeinwn, “by them also.”

26 Valesius maintains that Sanctus was a deacon of the church of Lyons, and that the words apo Biennh" 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.

27 Pergamos in Asia Minor (mentioned in Ap 2,12, and the seat of a Christian church for a number of centuries) is apparently meant here. As already remarked, the connection between the inhabitants of Gaul and of Asia Minor was very close.

28 Cf. 1Co 1,27, 1Co 1,28).

29 uper panta anqrwpon.

30 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).

31 See Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9).

32 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).

521 33 Cf. 2Co ii, 15. Cf. also Bk. IV. chap. 15, §37, above.

34 meta tauta dh loipon ei" pan eido" dihreito ta marturia th" exodou autwn.

35 dia pleionwn klhrwn; undoubtedly a reference to the athletic combats (see (Valesius’ note in loco).

36 ta" diexodou" twn mastigwn ta" ekeise eiqismena". 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.

37 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.

38 Compare Is 27,1, which is possibly referred to here).

39 w" nekrou" exetrwse. Compare §11, above.

40 (
Ez 33,11 Ez 33,

41 apotumpanisqhnai. 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.

42 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.

43 as Cf. Mt 22,11).

522 44 thganon: 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.

45 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).

46 (
Ap 22,11 Ap 22, citation of the Apocalypse at this date as Scripture (ina h grafh plhrwqh) is noteworthy.

47 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.

48 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.

49 (Ph 2,6).

50 (Ap 3,14 Ap 3,

51 (Ap 1,5 Ap 1,

52 archgw th" zwh" tou qeou. Cf. Ap 3,14.

53 omologoi. The regular technical term for “confessor,” which later came into general use, was omologhth".

54 teleiwqhnai; i.e be made perfect by martyrdom. For this use of teleiow, see below, Bk. V1. chap. 3, §13, and chap. 5, §1; also Bk. VII. chap. 15, §5, and see Suicer’s Thesaurus, s.v.

523 55 pro" tou" adelfou".

56 Compare 1P 5,6.

57 pasi men apologounto. Rufinus translates placabant omnes; Musculus, omnibus rationem fidei suae 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 pasi apologounto ought strictly to mean “apologized to all” rather than “for all,” the latter being commonly expressed by the use of uper with the genitive (see (the lexicons s.v. apologeomai). At the same time, though it may not be possible to produce any other examples of the use of the dative, instead of uper with the genitive, after apologeomai, it is clear from the context that it must be accepted in the present case.

58 The question of the readmission of the lapsed had not yet become a burning one. The conduct of the martyrs here in absolving (eluon) 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.

59 (
Ac 7,60 Ac 7,

60 hmin, 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 aei.

61 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).

62 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.

63 On Montanus and the Montanists, see below, chap. 16 sq.

64 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 Miltiadhn, 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).

65 Of the Montanist Theodotus we know only what is told us here and in chap. 16, below (see (that chapter, note 25)).

524 66 On Eleutherus, see above, Bk. V. Introd. note 2.

67 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 Irenaeus to Rome at the end of 177 or the beginning of 178. The hypothesis here made relieves us from the necessity of supposing this presbeia to have been unsuccessful, while it fully accounts for the necessity of sending it.”

68 On Irenaeus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

69 omologhtwn. Eusebius here uses the common technical term for confessors; i.e. for those who had beefi faithful and had suffered in persecution, but had not lost their lives. In the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, the word omologoi is used to denote the same persons (see (above, chap. 2, note 6).

70 Cf. §2 of the Introduction to this book (Bk. V).. On Eusebius’ Collection of Martyrdoms, see above, p. 30.

71 i.e. Antoninus Verus, whom Eusebius expressly distinguishes from Marcus Aurelius at the beginning of the next chapter. See below, p. 390, note.

72 The expression logo" ecei, 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 logo" ecei, 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.

73 toutou de adelfon: the toutou 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.

74 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.

75 This legion was called the Melitene from the place where it was regularly stationed,—Melitene, a city in Eastern Cappadocia, or Armenia.

525 76 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. 551 sqq.

77 logo" ecei. See above, note 1.

78 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.

79 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 øf 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.

80 In Bk. II. chap. 2, §4, and Bk. III. chap. 33, §3 (quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 20, §9).

81 Apol. chap. 5.

82 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.

83 The epistle says that the accuser is to be burned alive (zwnta kaiesqai). 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, qanato".

84 Apol. ibid.

85 See Bk. III. chap. 12, note 1.

86 Upon Trajan’s rescript, and the universal misunderstanding of it in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 33 (notes).

526 87 Upon Hadrian’s treatment of the Christians, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 9.

88 Upon Antoninus Pius’ relation to them, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 13.

89 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.”

90 See above, chap. 1, §29.

91 Upon Irenaeus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

92 Cf). Adv. Haer. II. 3. 4, &c., and Eusebius, chap. 20, below.

93 Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3).

94 Namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the Roman church. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.

95 On Linus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 2, note 1; and for the succession of the early Roman bishops, see the same note.

96 (
2Tm 4,21 2Tm 4,

97 On Anencletus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3.

527 98 On Clement, see above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.

99 Although the identification of this Clement with the one mentioned in Ph 4,3 is more than doubtful, yet there is no reason to doubt that, living as he did in the first century at Rome, he was personally acquainted at least with the apostles Peter and Paul.

100 See the Epistle of Clement itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3.

101 Upon the epistle, see above, Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.

102 aneousa thn pistin autwn kai hn newsti apo twn apostolwn paradotin eilhfei. 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 paradosin, 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 Irenaeus an extra participle is found (in the former exprimens, in the latter annuntians), and Stroth has in consequence ventured to insert the word kataggelousa 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 kataggelousa stood in the original text of Eusebius.

103 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 Irenaeus are of a doctrinal nature, and in the form of a brief polemic against Gnosticism.

104 Ibid.

105 Upon Evarestus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.

106 Upon Alexander, see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 4.

107 Upon Xystus, see IV. 4, note 3.

108 Upon Telesphorus, see IV. 5, note 13.

528 109 Upon Hyginus, see IV. 10, note 3.

110 Upon Pius, see IV. 11, note 14.

111 Upon Anicetus, see IV. 11, note 18.

112 Upon Soter, see IV. 19, note 2.

113 Upon Eleutherus, see Introd. to this book, note 2.

114 diadoch, which is confirmed by the ancient Latin version of Irenaeus (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 didach, which, however, makes no sense in this place, and can hardly have been the original reading (see (Heinichen’s note in loco).

115 In the various passages referred to in the notes on the previous chapter.

116 elegcou kai anatroph" th" yeudwnumou gnwsew" (
1Tm 6,20). This work of Irenaeus, which is commonly known under its Latin title, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), is still extant in a barbarous Latin version, of which we possess three mss. The original Greek is lost, though a great part of the first book can be recovered by means of extensive quotations made from it by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The work is directed against the various Gnostic systems, among which that of Valentinus is chiefly attacked. The first book is devoted to a statement of their doctrines, the second to a refutation of them, and the remaining three to a presentation of the true doctrines of Christianity as opposed to the false positions of the Gnostics. The best edition of the original is that of Harvey: S. Irenaei libros quinque adv. Haereses., Cambr. 1857, 2 vols.; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 309 ff. For the literature of the subject, see Schaff, II. p. 746 ff. On Irenaeus himself, see Book IV. chap. 21, note 9.

117 Adv. Haer. II. 31. 2. The sentence as it stands in Eusebius is incomplete. Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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 Qo Miracles, and J. B. Mozley’s Bampton lectures On Miracles.

118 See the previous note.

119 Adv. Haer. II. 32. 4).

529 120 Cf. Mt 10,8.

121 Adv. Haer. V. 6. 1.

122 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.

123 Adv. Haer. III. 1. 1.

124 See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5. Irenaeus, 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.

125 See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.

126 See above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

127 See above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 15.

128 See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1.

129 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 30. 1.

130 (
Ap 13,18 Ap 13, in Irenaeus’ time there was variation in the copies of the Apocalypse. This is interesting as showing the existence of old copies of the Apocalypse even in his time, and also as showing how early works became corrupted in the course of transmission. We learn from his words, too, that textual criticism had already begun.

530 131 The sentence as Eusebius quotes it here is incomplete; he repeats only so much of it as suits his purpose. Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ 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. Irenaeus refers in this sentence to the fact that the Greek numerals were indicated by the letters of the alphabet: Alpha, “one,” Beta, “two,” &c.

132 i.e. concerning the Beast or Antichrist. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 30. 3; quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 18, above.

133 See above, Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1.

134 Upon the Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.

135 In Adv. Haer. III. 16. 5, 8. Irenaeus 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.

136 In Adv. Haer. 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.

137 i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas; see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23.

138 Adv. Haer. IV. 20. 2.

139 h grafh, 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).

140 The Shepherd of Hermas, II. 1.

141 Adv. Haer. IV. 38. 3. Irenaeus 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.

531 142 apomnhmoneumatwn. 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.

143 Adv. Haer. IV. 27. 1, where Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ mind the evangelist Jn (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 Irenaeus in Praef. ç2, I. 13. 3, III. 17. 4, etc. See Routh, Rel. Sacrae, I. 45–68.

144 In Adv. Haer. 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. Haer. V. 26. 2, where he mentions him again by name and quotes from some unknown work (but see above, ibid. note 15).

145 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus, and extracted from them all that could contribute to his History.Upon Ignatius, see above, III. 36.

146 Adv. Haer. I. 27. 4, III. 12. 12. This promise was apparently never fulfilled, as we hear nothing of the work from any of Irenaeus’ successors. But in Bk. IV. chap. 25 Eusebius speaks of Irenaeus 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. Haer., we cannot tell.

147 qeopneustwn.

148 Adv. Haer. III. 21. 1.

149 (
Is 7,14 Is 7, original Hebrew has hmlÕÕ

 which means simply a “young woman,” not distinctively a “virgin.” The LXX, followed by Mt 1,23, wrongly translated by parqeno", “virgin” (cf. Toy’s Quotations in the New Testament, p. 1 sqq., and the various commentaries on Matthew). Theodotion and Aquila translated the Hebrew word by neani",, which is the correct rendering, in spite of what Irenaeus says. The complete dependence of the Fathers upon the LXX, and their consequent errors as to the meaning of the original, are well illustrated in this case (cf. also Justin’s Dial. chap. 71).

150 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.

151 Upon the Ebionites and their doctrines, see Bk. III. chap. 27.

532 152 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 (Schüurer, 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 (Schüurer, ). 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.

153 poihsanto" tou qeou oper hbouleto. This is quite different from the text of Irenaeus, which readsfacturos hoc quod ipse voluisset (implying that the original Greek was poihsonta" touto oper hbouleto), “to carry out what he [viz. Ptolemy] had desired.” Heinichen modifies the text of Eusebius somewhat, substituting poihsonta" ta for poihsanto" tou, but there can be little doubt that Eusebius originally wrote the sentence in the form given at the beginning of this note. That Irenaeus 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 qeou gar hn boulhma), I am inclined to think that the text of Eusebius represents the original more closely than the text of the Latin translation of Irenaeus does. Most of the editors, however, both of Eusebius and of Irenaeus, take the other view (cf. Harvey’s note in his edition of Irenaeus, Vol. II. p. 113).

154 thn authn ermhneian grafein, 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 Irenaeus, read, thn authhn ermhneuein grafhn.

155 kat epipnoian.

156 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 Esd (xiv. 44): It is there said that Esd 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 Esd 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.

157 i.e. Marcus Aurelius. See below, p. 390, note.

158 March 17, 180a.d.

159 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 theChron. 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).

160 Upon Agrippinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5.

161 Pantaenus 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 Pantaenus was Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem (see (below, Bk. VI. chap. 14). Pantaenus 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 Pantaenus, and was in charge of the school in the time of Septimius Severus. This probably means not merely that Pantaenus had left Egypt, but that he was already dead; and if that be the case, the statement of Jerome (de vir. ill. 36), that Pantaenus 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 Pantaenus upon the death of the latter). Jerome’s statement, however, that Pantaenus 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, 200a.d.—when he left the city) we hear nothing more of Pantaenus. 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 Pantaenus had himself heard some of the apostles; but this is impossible, and is asserted by no one else. According to Jerome, numerous commentaries of Pantaenus 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).

533 162 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 Pantaenus 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 Pantaenus 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.

163 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).

164 pareilhfamen.

165 logo" ecei.

166 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 Pantaenus preached in the same country in which the apostle Bartholomew had done missionary work. But according to Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog.
1P 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 ( Magnum; Migne, Ep 70) evidently regards the India where Pantaenus preached as India proper (Pantaenus Stoicae sectae philosophus, ob pracipue eruditionis gloriam, a Demetrio Alexandriae episcopo missus est in Indiam, ut Christum apud Brachmanas, et illius gentis philosophos praedicaret). Whether the original tradition was that Pantaenus 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.

167 hsan gar, hsan eiseti. 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.

168 See note 6.

169 If the truth of this account be accepted, Pantaenus 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 Pantaenus 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.

170 Eusebius apparently puts the journey of Pantaenus 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.

171 See above, note 1.

172 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 Pantaenus 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.

534 173 sunaskoumeno".

174 Upon Clement of Rome and his relation to the apostles, see Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.

175 On Clement’s Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. The passage in which he mentions Pantaenus by name has not been preserved. Eusebius repeats the same statement in Bk. VI. chap. 13, §1.

176 tou" emfanesterou" h" kateilhfen apostolikh" diadoch" epishmainomeno". Rufinus reads apostolicae praedicationis instead of successionis. And so Christophorsonus and Valesius adopt didach" instead of diadoch", and translate doctrinae. Butdiadoch" 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).

177 Strom. I. 1.

178 i.e. his Stromata.

179 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.

180 The lower part of the peninsula of Italy was called Magna Graecia, because it contained so many Greek colonies.

181 Coele-Syria was the valley lying between the eastern and western ranges of Lebanon.

182 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.

183 Various conjectures have been made as to the identity of this teacher,—for instance, Theophilus of Caesarea (who, however, was never called a Hebrew, according to Valesius), and Theodotus (so Valesius).

535 184 Pantaenus. 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 Pantaenus the “Sicilian bee,” from which it is generally concluded that he was a native of Sicily (see (the previous chapter, note 1).

185 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.

186 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 (Haer. 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 tomight 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.

187 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 Aelia 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 (Haer. 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.

188 Called Maximinus by the Armenian Chron., but all our other authorities call him Maximus.

189 The name is given Gaio" in this chapter, and by Syncellus; but Jerome and the Armenian give Gaianus, and Epiphanius Gaiano". All the authorities agree upon the name of the next Gaius (who is, however, omitted by Rufinus).

190 Eusebius has Kapitwn, so also Epiphanius, with whom Jerome agrees, writing Capito. The Armenian, however, has Apion, and Syncellus says Apiwn, oi de Kapitwn).

191 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.

536 192 See Bk. IV. chap. 29.

193 Upon Marcion and Marcionism, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22.

194 It is noticeable that Rhodo says gnwma", 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.

195 These fragments of Rhodo are collected and discussed by Routh in his Rel. Sacrae, I. 437–446.

196 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.

197 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 Praescriptione, 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.

198 The participle (semnunomeno") 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.

199 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.

200 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.

201 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 Praescriptione, 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 (
Ph 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 (Ac 21,9 Eusebius, III. Ac 31), also the (Qo Canons, chap. 21, where it is directed that three widows shall be appointed, of whom two shall give themselves to prayer, waiting for revelations in regard to any question which may arise in the Church, and the third shall devote herself to nursing the sick. Tertullian also appeals for proof of the materiality of the soul to a vision enjoyed by a Christian sister (de Anima, 9). So Montanus had his prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla (see (the next chapter).

202 Of these two men we know only what is told us here. They are not mentioned elsewhere.

203 See note 9.

537 204 o nauth". 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 Praescript. 30). There is, therefore, no reason to doubt that he was a “ship-master,” as Tertullian calls him.

205 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.

206 See note 9.

207 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).

208 didaskalion, which is the reading of the majority of the mss., and is adopted by Heinichen. Burton and Schwegler read didaskaleion, on the authority of two mss.

209 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.

210 ton logon.

211 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.”

212 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.

213 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.

538 214 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).

215 Upon Tatian, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.

216 Upon this work (problhmatwn biblion) see ibid.

217 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.

218 ei" thn exahmeron upomnhma. This work of Rhodo’s, on the Hexaemeron (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.

219 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 Gn 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.

220 Cf. Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 3.

221 On Montanus and the Montanists, see chap. 16.

222 The separation of chaps. 14 and 15 is unfortunate. They are closely connected (oi men in chap. 14 and oi de 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.

223 On Florinus and Blastus, see chap. 20.

224 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.

539 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 fount in the writings of Tertullian. See, also, Epiphanius, Haer. 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. 197nd;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.

225 thn legomenhn kata Fruga" airesin. 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 pneumatikoi (spiritual), and the adherents of the Church yucicoi (carnal).

226 In Bk. IV. chaps. 21, 26 and 27, and in Bk. V. chap. 5. See especially Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.

227 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.

228 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.

229 Aouirkie, as most of the mss. read. Others have Auirkie or ABirkie; Nicephorus, Aberkie. 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 Ac for Abercius’ visit to Rome be accepted (163 a.d.), at least thirty years. On Abercius and Avercius, see the exhaustive note of Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers, Part II. (Ignatius and Polycarp), Vol. I. p. 477–485.

230 ei" thn twn kata Miltiadhn legomenwn airesin. 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 Alkibiadhn (who is mentioned in chap. 3 as a prominent Montanist) for Miltiadhn. The mss., however, are unanimous in reading Miltiadhn; and it is impossible to see how, if Alkibiadhn had originally stood in the text, Miltiadhn 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.

231 Ancyra was the metropolis and one of the three principal cities of Galatia. Quite an important town, Angora, now occupies its site.

232 Kata topon, 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 kata Ponton, 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, kata topon, in the next paragraph, it seems best to read thus in the present case as well.

540 233 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 Nicaea (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 sumpresbutero"), 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).

234 en th kata thn Frugian Musia. 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.

235 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 (Haer. 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.

236 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.

237 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 (en pneumati, 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).

238 i.e. between true and false prophets.

239 Cf. Mt 7,15.

240 w" agiw pneumati kai profhtikw carismati.

241 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).

242 i.e. Montanus).

541 243 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. 1P 83 sq)., who accepts the report of the Libellus Synodicus as trustworthy.

244 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.

245 Cf.Mt 23,34.

246 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 man 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).

247 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.

248 epitropo": 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 ( Marcellam; Migne, Ep. XLI. 3) the Montanists at Pepuza had three classes of officers: first, Patriarchs; second, Cenonae; third, Bishops (Habent enim primos de Pepusa Phrygiae 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 oikonomoi (“administrators”), or whether it is a Latin word connected with caena, in either case the officers designated by it were economic officers, and thus performed the same class of duties as this epitropo", 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.

249 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.

250 Of this Asterius Urbanus we know only what we can gather from this reference to him. Valesius, Tillemont, and others supposed that the words en tw autw logw tw kata Asterion Ourbanon 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 bad written a work in defense of that sect.

251 Cf. note 21, above).

252 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 (Komanh", according to most of the mss. and editors; Koumanh", 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.

253 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 Maeander. 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 Maeander, inasmuch as it is spoken of without any qualifying phrase, as if there could be no doubt about its identity.

542 254 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.

255 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.

256 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).

257 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.

258 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.

259 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 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, Irenaeus, 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.

260 Alkibiadou, 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 Miltiadou. See the previous note.

261 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).

262 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.

263 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 I, above.

543 264 On Agabus, see Ac 11,28, Acts xxi. 10.

265 On Judas, see Ac 15,22, Ac xv. 27, Ac 15,32.

266 On Silas, see Ac xv.-Ac 18,passim; also 2Co 1,19, 1Th 1,1, 2Th 1,1, and 1P 5,12, where Silvanus (who is probably the same man) is mentioned.

267 On the daughters of Philip, see Ac 21,9; also Bk. III. chap. 31, note 8, above.

268 On the date of Maximilla’s death, see the previous chapter, note 32. To what utterance of “the apostle” o “apostolo”, 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).

269 peri ta qeia logia. 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.

270 en te oi" pro" Ellhna" sunetaxe logoi", kai toi" pro" Ioudaiou". Eusebius is the only one to mention these works, and no fragments of either of them are now extant. See above, note 1.

271 ekateraidiw" upoqesei en dusin upanthsa" suggrammasin.

272 Or, “to the rulers of the world” (pro" tou" kosmikou" arconta"). 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).

273 Or events (tinwn).

274 On the name, see chap. 16, note 2.

544 275 Of this Apollonius we know little more than what Eusebius tells us in this chapter. The author of Praedestinatus (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 () 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.

276 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’ Haer. XLVIII. 9.

277 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, Haer.XLVIII. 8; Jerome, Ep. ad Marcellam (Migne, Ep. XLI. 3), Comment. in Matt. c. 9, vers. 15; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab. III. 2.

278 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. 10,and xvii., in this original attempt of his, is perfectly plain (cf. Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte,
1P 319 and 323. With this passage from Apollonius, compare also Epiphanius, Haer. XLVIII. 14 and XLIX. I., and Jerome Marcellam).

279 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.

280 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.

281 See chap. 16, note 18.

282 See note 8.

283 On Themiso, see chap. 16, note 31.

284 kaqoloikhn epistolhn. 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).

285 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.

545 286 A very common accusation brought against various sects. Upon the significance of it, see Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 82, note 2.

287 opisqodomo", originally the back chamber of the old temple of Athenae 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 dhmosion arceion, in referring to the same thing.

288 (Mt 10,9,
Mt 10,10 Mt 10,

289 (Mt 12,33 Mt 12,

290 We know, unfortunately, nothing about this proconsul, and hence have no means of fixing the date of this occurrence.

291 i.e. of Christ.

292 parabath".

293 eita epiyeusameno" tw onomati tou kuriou apolelutai planhsa" tou" ekei pistou". 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.

294 We have no means of controlling the truth of this statement.

295 dhmosion arceion.

296 on o profhth" sunonta polloi" etesin agnoei, as is read by all the mss., followed by the majority of the editors. Heinichen reads w o profhth" sunwn polloi" etesin agnoei, but the emendation is quite unnecessary. The agnoei 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.

546 297 phn upostasin.

298 baptetai.

299 stibsetai.

300 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.

301 On the date of Apollonius’ work, see above, note 3.

302 See chap. 16, §17.

303 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.

304 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.

305 Compare Eusebius’ promise in Bk. III. chap. 24, §18, and see note 21 on that chapter).

306 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.

307 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 camposuit), or epistle (the Greek of Eusebius reads simply ta, 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)..

547 308 On Maximinus, see Bk. IV. chap. 24, note 6.

309 See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.

310 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, ekklhsiastikou" andra". They are otherwise unknown personages. In that chapter the plural article ta is used of the writing, or writings, addressed to Caricus and Pontius, implying that upomnhmata 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 upomnhmata was often used in a sort of collective sense to signify a collection of notes, memoranda, &c.

311 This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sacrae, and, in English, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775.

312 See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 5.

313 Valesius justly remarks that Eusebius does not say that these bishops signed Serapion’s epistle, but only that their signatures or notes (uposhmeiwsei") 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 (autografoi shmeiwsei"), 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.

314 Of this Aurelius Cyrenius we know nothing. It is possible that he means to call himself simply a witness (martu") 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.

315 Aelius Publius Julius is also an otherwise unknown personage. Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western shore of the Black Sea.

316 Lightfoot (Ignatius, II. 111) suggests that this Sotas (Swta") may be identical with the Zoticus (Zwtiko") mentioned in the preceding chapter, the interchange of the initial S and Z 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.

317 On Irenaeus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

318 Eusebius, in chap. 15, informs us that both Blastus and Florinus drew manyaway 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 Haer. chap. 8, we learn that Blastus was a Quartodeciman. (“In addition to all these, there is likewise Blastus, who would la-tently 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. Irenaeus’ epistle to Blas-tus, On Schism, is no longer extant. A Syriac fragment of an epistle of Irenaeus, 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 Quarto-deciman 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.

548 319 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 Irenaeus to Florinus quoted by Eusebius just below, we learn that Florinus was somewhat older than Irenaeus, 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 (edokei proaspisein) 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. af 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ 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 Irenaeus which formed the groundwork (see (Salmon, l.c.). The silence of Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ 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 Irenaeus’ writings but Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 263) has given other and satisfactory reasons for thinking that Florinus’ heresy, and therefore Irenaeus’ 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 Irenaeus to Victor (Harvey’s edition, Fragm. 28), is extant, and supports Lipsius’ conclusion. It would seem that Irenaeeus, 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), Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus’ 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 mistake; see Salmon, l.c.).

320 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 Irenaeus 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. Haer. which deal with the aeons of the Valentinians. It may have been little more than an enlargement of those portions of the earlier work. The Ogdoad (Greek, ogdoa", a word signifying primarily a thing in eight parts) occupied a prominent place in the speculations of the Gnostics. Valentinus taught eight primary aeons, in four pairs, as the root and origin of the other aeons 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 aeons. 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 aeons, 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.

321 Literally, “in which he shows that he himself had seized upon (kateilhfenai) the first succession diadochn) 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.

322 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 Ap 22,18, Ap 22,19. The fragments from Irenaeus’ works preserved in this chapter are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 568 sq.

323 The epistle On Monarchy mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.

324 en pn basilikh aulh. This expression is a little puzzling, as the word bosilikh 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).

325 (
1Jn 1,1 1Jn 1,

326 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 Jn the apostle, if Irenaeus’ account is to be believed; see Adv. Haer. III. 3, 4, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28, and in Bk. IV. chap. 14.

327 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.

328 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.

549 329 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.

330 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 (para tou doulou para Sebhrw prodofei" cristiano" einai). 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 (ena ge tina ui" tauta epithdeiwn), 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).

331 M. de Mandajors, in his Histoire de l’Acad. des Inscript. tom. 18, p. 226 (according to Gieseler’s Ch. Hist., Harper’s edition,
1P 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. A siae, 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 wsan apo dogmato" sugklhtou, inserting the particle wsan, “as if”; i.e. “as if by decree of the Senate.”

332 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.

333 On Eusebius’ great Collection of Martyrdoms, which is now lost, see above, p. 30.

334 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 berian 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 quaestione Paschae, et alia quaedam 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)..

335 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.

336 On Julian, bishop of Alexandria, see chap. 9, note 2.

337 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).

338 On Serapion, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 19.

339 Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea, 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.

550 340 On Narcissus, see above, chap. 12.

341 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.

342 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, Haec 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.

343 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, Jn 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. Irenaeus 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 Nicaea (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 alien Kirche nach seiner Bedeutung fur die Kirchengesch. u. s. w.; and Schürer’s Die Paschastreitigkeiten des zweiten Fahrhunderts, 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.

344 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 Caesarea, 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 Irenaeus; one in Osrhoëne in Mesopotamia; and one in Asia Minor, under Polycrates. Hefele (Conciliengesch.
1P 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 line 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.

345 On Theophilus and Narcissus, see the preceding chapter, notes 6 and 7.

346 episkopon biktora dhlousa. 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” (twn epi Rwmh"), which seems to imply a council, as in the other cases. The grammatical construction naturally leads us to supply with the twn the word used with it in the previous sentence, sugkekrothmenwn,—“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.

347 Palmas, bishop of Amastris, in Pontus, mentioned by Dionysius, in Bk. IV. chap. 23, above.

348 Osrhoëne was a region of country in northwestern Mesopotamia.

349 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.

551 350 Namely, against the observance of the fourteenth day.

351 For a general account of the paschal controversy, see the preceding chapter, note 1. On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9.

352 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.

353 On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.

354 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 martu" as, e.g., in connection with Jn just above, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15. We know nothing more about this bishop Thraseas.

355 On Sagaris, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 22.

356 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.

357 On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.

358 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 Jn 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.
1P 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.

359 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 (Ex 12,6 et passim). It was on the fourteenth of Nisan, therefore, that the Jews “threw away” the leaven, and until the evening of the twenty-first, when the seven days’ feast of unleavened bread closed, they used no leaven.

360 (Ac 5,29 Ac 5,

552 361 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).

362 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 akoinwnhtou" panta" ardhn tou" ekeise anakhrutitn adelfou". This seems to me decisive.

363 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 Quaestiones et responsa ad orthodoxos occurs a quotation from Irenaeus’ work On Easter (peri tou pasca), which is doubtless to be identified with this epistle to Victor (ed. Harvey, Graec. fragm. 7; Eng. translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers,
1P 569). Maximus of Turin, also, in his Sermo VII. de Eleemos., gives a brief quotation from “The epistle to Victor” (Harvey, Graec. 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 Irenaeus 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.

364 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 Irenaeus, 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).

365 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 Irenaeus, 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 Fejunio, 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 Irenaeus’ 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 tessarakosth (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 Irenaeus 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.

366 i.e. the fourteenth day.

367 The Greek reads: kai toi mallon enantion hn to threin toi" mh yjrousi. 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.

368 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 Irenaeus, pursued the same practice. But in regard to the statement made here by Irenaeus, 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 oi pro sou presbuteroi toi" apo twn paroiklwn throusin epeuton eucaristia. 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 Irenaeus 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.

369 epidhmh" th Rwmh. 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. Haer., where he mentions this visit (as quoted in chap. 14), Irenaeus 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.

370 The meaning of this passage has been disputed. The Greek reads: kai en th ekklhsia parecwrhsen o Anikhto" thn eucaristian tw Polukarpw kat entrophn dhlonoti. Valesius understands Irenaeus’ 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 parecwrhsen thn eucaristian cannot refer to the administration of the sacrament, and hence concludes that Irenaeus 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” (ekoinwnhsan eautoi"). 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. Irenaeus 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 parecwrhsen 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 parecwrhsen better than Heinichen’s interpretation.

553 371 The Greek form of the name is Eirhnaio", from Eirhnaio", which means “peace.”

372 None of these epistles are extant; but it is possible that some of the fragments commonly assigned to Irenaeus’ 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.

373 In chaps. 22 and 23. For particulars in regard to them, see chap. 22, notes 6 and 7.

374 Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men.

375 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.

376 This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, Rel. Sac. II. p. 3 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 774.

377 These epistles, like all the rest written at this time on the paschal question, are now lost (see (chap. 23, note 4).

378 For a general summary of the works of Irenaeus mentioned by Eusebius, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

379 pro" Ellhna" logo" …peri episthmh". 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 Irenaeus’ 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 allo" te. 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 peri episthmh" 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.

380 ei" epideixin tou apostolikou khrugmato". 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.

381 biblion ti dialexewn diaforwn. 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).).

554 382 Commodus was strangled on the 31st of December, 192, and Pertinax, who immediately succeeded him, was murdered, on March 28, 193, by the Praetorian 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.

383 The Greek reads kai ta Maximou peri rou poluqrulhtou para toi" airesiwtai" zhthmato", tou poqwn h kakia, kai peri tou genhthn uparcein thn ulhn. The plural ta (sc. upomnhmata) might lead us to suppose Eusebius refers here to separate works, were it not for the fact that in his Praep. Evang. VII. 22 is found a long extract from a work of Maximus On Matter (peri th" ulh") 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 quaestionem 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 Praep. 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 Praep. Evang. Eusebius speaks of Maximus as th" cristou diatribh" ouk ashmo" anhr, 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 Praep. 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.

384 ei" thn exahmeron (sc. kosmopoiian or dhmiourgian). The adjective exahmero" 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 ta 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 omilia" for tractatus, but this of course is of no authority.

385 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.

386 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.

387 Nothing more is known of this Arabianus, and Eusebius doesnot 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 logo" ecei, 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 •ne 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,—allh ti" upoqesi",—but Jerome (chap. 51) mentions quaedam 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, be 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 (quaedam opuscula for ti" upoqesi") 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.

388 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, wn dia to mhdemian ecein aformhn ouc oion te oute tou" cronou" paradounai grafh, ouq` istoria" hnhmhn uposhmhnasqai, 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 muriwn allwn 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 Cornmodus, 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.

389 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.

390 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 (Haer. 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 (yilo" anqrwpo"), 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 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, §), 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.

391 On Paul of Samosata, see below, Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4.

555 392 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.

393 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).

394 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 Zephyrthus was completely under the influence of Callistus, as Hippolytus states. We learn from the latter that Zephyrthus 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.

395 On Justin Martyr, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 20.

396 On Miltiades, see above, chap. 17, note 1.

397 On Tattan, see Bk. III. chap. 29. The fact that Tartan 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.

398 On Clement of Alexandria, see above, chap. 11, note 1.

399 qeologeitai o cristo". 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.

400 On Irenaeus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

401 On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.

402 Irenaeus’ utterances on this subject were epoch-making in the history of doctrine. No one before him bad 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”).

556 403 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.

404 ton skutea: “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.
1P 583).

405 See above, note 5.

406 Of Natalius, we know only what is told us in this passage. The suggestion of Valesius that he might be identified with C‘cilius Natalis, the heathen who is represented as converted by Octavius, in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, is quite baseless.

407 AEAsklhpiodotou, according to all the mss. except one, which reads AEAsklhpiadou, 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 AEAsklhpiadou. Of this man we know only what is told us in this chapter. Theodoret (Haer. 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.

408 On this second Theodotus, a money-changer or banker (trapezith",) who is distinguished from the first Theodotus by both our sources (Hippolytus and the Little Labyrinth quoted here), see above, note 1.

409 The Greek contains a play of words at this point: epi tauthth fronhsei, mallon de afrosunh.

410 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).

411 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 reit guten starken Knochen und Nerven gewesen sein.”

412 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 earl day, is clear enough from the words of Irenaeus (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.

413 The author makes a play here upon the word earth, which cannot be reproduced in a translation). gewmetrian (literally, “earth-measure”) epithdeuousiv, wsan ek th" gh" onte" kai ek th" gh" lalounte".

557 414 AEEukleidh" …gewmtreitai: literally, Euclid is geometrized.

415 All the mss. read AEAsklhpiadou, which is adopted by most of the editors. Rufinus and Nicephorus, however, followed by a few editors, among them Heinichen, read AEAsklhpiodotou (see (above, note 18).

416 katwrqwmena, toutestin hfanismena.

417 Of this Hermophilus we know nothing more.

418 AEApollwnidou, 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 AEApollwniou, while a few read AEApollwniadou.

419 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, Dogmeschicte, p. 579 and p. 488 sqq).

1 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.

2 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). Lewnidm" o legomeno" Wrigenou" pathr. 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.

3 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 Pamphi-lus, 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 Caesarea 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 (Haer. 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)).

4 This Laetus is to be distinguished from Q. Aemilius Laetus, praetorian prefect under Commodus, who was put to death by the Emperor Didius Julianus, in 193; and from Julius Laetus, 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 Laetus’ rule in Egypt are unknown to us.

5 On the dates of Demetrius’ episcopacy, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.

558 6 On Julian, see Bk. V. chap. 9, note 2.

7 On the persecution, see more particularly chap. 1, note 1.

8 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.

9 th twn egkuklliwn paideia. According to Liddell and Scott, egk. paideia 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 egk. maqhmata the branches in which the youth were instructed; i.e. mathematics, grammar, and rhetoric philosophy not being included (see (Valesius’ note in loco).

10 On the date of Origen’s birth, see note 1.

11 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.

12 dia to dokoun ikanon en logw.

13 Redepenning (p. 189) refers to Origen’s In Mt Comment. Series, sec. 89, where it is said, melius est cunt nullo orare, quart cum malis orare.

14 fulattwn exeti paido" kanona [two mss. kanona"] ekklhsia". 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?0’” 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 (Conciliengsch.
1P 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.”

15 Redepenning (p. 190) refers to the remarks of Origen upon the nature and destructivenes of heresy collected by Pamphilus (Fragm. Apol. Parmph. Opp. Origen, IV. 694 [ed. Delarue])).

16 epi ta grammataika.

559 17 See below, p. 392.

18 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’pupils to suffer martyrdom. (On the date of the persecution in which he suffered, see note 4).

19 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.

20 See below, p. 392.

21 It is not clear from Eusebius’ language whether Aquila was successor of Laetus as viceroy of Egypt (as Redepenning assumes apparently quite without misgiving), or simply governor of Alexandria. He calls Laetus (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 (hgoumenov) 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 Laetus, 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.

22 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.

23 oio" o logo" toio" o bio" was a Greek proverb. Compare the words of Seneca, in Ep. 114 ad Lucilium, “Apud Graecos in proverbium cessit talis hominibus fuit oratio, qualis vita” (quoted by Redepenning, p. 196)).

24 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 Cruseè 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.

25 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.

26 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.

27 See Mt 10,11.

28 See Mt 6,34.

560 29 Greek: qwrax, properly “chest.” Rufinus and Christophorsonus translate stomachum, and Valesius approves; but there is no authority for such a use of the term qwrax, so far as I can ascertain. The proper Greek term for stomach is stomaco", which is uniformly employed by Galen and other medical writers.

30 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.

31 These two persons named Serenus, the first of whom was burned, the second beheaded, are known to us only from this chapter.

32 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 medivael martyrologies, but our authentic information is limited to what Eusebius tells us here.

33 Our authentic information of Hero is likewise limited to this account of Eusebius.

34 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)).

35 Potamiaena, 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 Potamiaena 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.).

36 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.

37 Of Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the more celebrated Potamiaena, and suffered martyrdom by fire.

38 The word sfragi", “seal,” was very commonly used by the Fathers to signify baptism (see (Suicer’s Thesaurus).

39 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.
1P 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.

561 40 On Pantaenus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2.

41 Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen, following two important mss. and the translation of Rufinus, omit the words paida onta “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 paida onta would be quite superfluous and even out of place, and hence he would natnrally 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.

42 In Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21. On this and the other works of Clement, see chap. 13.

43 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 he 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 combinedand exegesis.

44 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.

45 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,
1P 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 Nicaea, 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.

46 (Mt 19,12).

47 See chap. 23.

48 On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see below, p. 394.

49 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.

562 50 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 Caesarea 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. 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 perscution (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).

51 On Narcissus, see the next three chapters, and also Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1.

52 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; oi th" paroikia" politai …istoronsi, he says. His travels had evidently not taught him to disbelieve every wonderful tale that was told him).

53 See above, chap. 3, note 9.

54 The date of Narcissus’ retirement we have no means of ascertaining.

55 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.

56 Eusebius and Epiphanius give Tordian", and Jerome, Gordius; but the Armenian has Gordianus, and Syncellus, Sardian". 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.

57 Literally, “as if from a resurrection” (wsper ex anabiwsew").

58 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 Nicaea, 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 Nicaea considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain cases, for it translated Eustathius from Beraea 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 Nicaea—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 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 Caesarea (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 Nicaea 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.

59 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, Fur. Graeco-Rm Tom. 1P 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.

60 euch kai twn topwn istoria eneken.

563 61 AEAntinoeia (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. Sacrae, II. p. 161 sq., and in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 154.

62 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.

63 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.

64 Literally “confessions” (omolgiai).

65 On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.

66 kurioi mou adelfoi.

67 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.

68 The Greek reads: tou de Sarpiwno th" peri logou" askhsew" kai alla men eiko" swzesqai par eteroi" upomnhmata.

69 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, Fudaeos. 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 “ewish will-worship” (ekpeptwkota epi todaikhn efelofrhskeian). The word efelofrhskeia occurs fox the first time in Col 2,23, and means there an “arbitrary, self-imposed worship” (Ellicott), or a worship which one “affects” (Cremer). The word is used there in connection with the Oriental theosophic and Judaistic errors which were creeping into the churches of Asia Minor at the time the epistle was written, and it is quite possible that the word may be used in the present case in reference to the same classy of errors. We know that these theosophizing and Judaizing tendencies continued to exert considerable influence in Asia Minor and Syria during the early centuries, and that the Ebionites and the Elcesaites were not the only ones affected by them (see (Harnack, Dogmengesch. I. 218 sq).. The lapse of any one into Ebionism, or into a Judaizing Gnosticism, or similar form of heresy—a lapse which cannot have been at all uncommon among the fanatical Phrygians and other peoples of that section—might well be called a lapse into “Jewish will-worship.” We do not know where Domninus lived, but it is not improbable that Asia Minor was his home, and that he may have fallen under the influence of Montanism as well as of Ebionism and Judaizing Gnosticism. I suggest the possibility that his lapse was into heresy rather than into Judaism pure and simple, for the reason that it is easier, on that ground, to explain the fact that Serapion addressed a work to him. He is known to us only as an opponent of heresy, and it may be that Domninus’ lapse gave him an opportunity to attack the heretical notions of these Ebionites, or other Judaizing heretics, as he had attacked the Montanists. It seems to the writer, also, that it is thus easier to explain the complex phrase used, which seems to imply something different from Judaism pure and simple.

70 See Bk. V. chap. 19, note 4.

71 On the so-called “Gospel of Peter,” see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 7.

564 72 Rhossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Gulf of Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.

73 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 Docetae 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, Markianoi instead of Markiwn. The two names are by no means identical Still, according to Harnack, we have more than once Markianoi and Markianistai for Makiwn (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.

74 By Docetism we understand the doctrine that Christ had no true body, but only an apparent one. The word is derived from dokew, “to seem or appear.” The belief is as old as the first century (
1Jn 4,2 2Jn 7), and was a favorite one with most of the Gnostic sects. The name Docetae, however, as a general appellation for all those holding this opinion, seems to have been used first by Theodoret (Ep 82). But the term was employed to designate a particular sect before the end of the second century; thus Clement of Alexandria speaks of them in Strom. VII. 17, and Hippolytus (Phil. VIII. 8. 4, and X. 12; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed)., and it is evidently this particular sect to which Serapion refers here. An examination of Hippolytus’ account shows that these Docetae did not hold what we call Docetic ideas of Christ’s body; in fact, Hippolytus says expressly that they taught that Christ was born, and had a true body from the Virgin (see (Phil. VIII. 3). How the sect came to adopt the name of Docetae we cannot tell. They seem to have disappeared entirely before the fourth century, for no mention of them is found in Epiphanius and other later heresiologists. As was remarked above, Theodoret uses the term in a general sense and not as the appellation of a particular sect, and this became the common usage, and is still. Whether there was anything in the teaching of the sect to suggest the belief that Christ had only an apparent body, and thus to lead to the use of their specific name for all who held that view, or whether the general use of the name Docetae arose quite independently of the sect name, we do not know. The latter seems more probable. The Docetae referred to by Hippolytus being a purely Gnostic sect with a belief in the reality of Christ’s body, we have no reason to conclude that the “Gospel of Peter” contained what we call Docetic teaching. The description which Serapion gives of the gospel fits quite well a work containing some such Gnostic speculations as Hippolytus describes, and thus adding to the Gospel narrative rather than denying the truth of it in any part. He could hardly have spoken as he did of a work which denied the reality of Christ’s body. See, on the general subject, Salmon’s articles Docetae and Docetism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

75 The interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with difficulty. The Greek reads twn diadocwn twn kataxamenwn autou, ou" Dokhta" kaloumen, (ta gar fronhmata ta pleiona ekeinwn esti th" didaskalia"), k.t.l. The words twn katarxamenwn autou 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 autou 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 ekeinwn, which is commonly connected with the words th" didaskalia", but which seems to belong rather with the fronhmata and to refer to the diadoxwn tw" katarxamenwn. It thus seems necessary to define the th" didaskalia" more closely, and we therefore venture, with Closs, to insert the words “of that school,” referring to the Docetae just mentioned.

76 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 peri pronia". There are also extant two fragments of a work peri yuch". In the Instructor, Bk. II. chap. 10, Clement refers to a work On Continence (o peri egkrateia") 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 (gamiko" logo"). 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 (peri arcwn; 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.

77 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 (Strwmatei") or Miscellanies (said by Eusebius in this passage to bear the title twn kata thn alhqh filosofian gnwstikwn upomnhmatwn strwmatei") 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 Strwmatei", “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 x93. It might of course be said that Pertinax and Didins 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 me 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.

78 The Hypatyposes (upotupwsei"), or Outlines (Eusebius calls them oi epigegrammenoi), 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 (o de olo" skopo" wsanei ermhneiai tugcanousi th" Tegesew" k.t.l).. 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 Theadotus, 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 be 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.

79 Pantaenus, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.

80 The Exhortation to the Greeks (o logo" portreptiko" ?? Ellhna"), 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 Genies, 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.

565 81 The Instructor (o paisagwgo", or, as Eusebius calls it here, trei" te oi toy epigegrammenou paidagwgou), 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).

82 The Quis Dives Salvetur? as it is called (ti" o swzomeno" plousio"), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in Mc 10,17 sqq. It is still extant, and contains the beautiful story of Jn and the robber, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 23. It is an eloquent and able work; and when compared with the prevailing notions of the Church of his day, its teaching is remarkably wise and temperate. It is moderately ascetic, but goes to no extremes, and in this furnishes a pleasing contrast to the writings of most of the Fathers of Clement’s time.

83 to peri tou pasd" suggramma. 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 ().

84 dialezei" peri nhsteia". Photius knew both these works by report (the second under the title peri kakologia"), 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.

85 o protreptiko" ei" upomonhn h pou" tou" newoti bebaptismenou". This work is mentioned neither by Jerome nor by Photius, nor has any vestige of it been preserved, so far as we know.

86 o epigegrammeno" kanwn ekklhsiastiko", h pro" tou" AEIoudaizonta". Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversum eos, qui Fud¥orum sequuntur errorum. Photius mentions the work; calling it peri kanonwn ekklhsiastikikwn, 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, ho must have believed them in harmony before they became Christians. The truth is, the phrase kanwn ekklhsiastiko" 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 havebeen 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 ave 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.

87 Literally, “made a spreading” (katastrwsin pepoihtai). Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work (Strwmatei").

88 See note 2.

89 antilegomenwn grafwn. On the Antilegomena, see Bk. III. Chap 25, note 1.

90 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 fro.m the books of the He: brew 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.

566 91 On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.

92 On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.

93 The Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.

94 On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note .

95 On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.

96 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 Dacetae, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate (peri egkrateia" h peri eunoucia"), 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, AEExhghtikoi, and so Eusebius calls it in his Praeef. Evang. X. 12, where he quotes from Clement. But here he speaks of it as a cronografia, 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 cronografia is quite legitimate.

97 On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.

98 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 Praep. 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 Praep. 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 modem critics.

99 On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.

100 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 (Praep. Evang. IX. 21 and 29). See Schürer, ibid. p. 730 sq.

101 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 1. Macc. 8,17. He wrote a History of the Jews, which is referred to under various titles by those that mention it, and which has consequently been resolvent into three separate works by many scholars, but without warrant, as Schürer has shown. The work, like that of Aristobulus, was clearly designed to show the dependence of Greek philosophy upon Hebrew wisdom (see (Clement’s Strom. I. 23). It is no longer extant, but fragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. 21, which gives us data for reckoning the time at which Eupolymus wrote, and I. 23) and by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. IX. 17, 26, 30–34, and probably 39). See Schürer ibid. p. 732 sq.

567 102 Eusebius is apparently still referring to Clement’s Stromata. In saying that Clement wn en tw prwtw peri eautou dhloi w" eggista th" twn apostotolwn genomenou diadoxh", 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.

103 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 ei" thn Tenesin upomnmatiesqein. If so, Eusebius’ words, which imply that Clement promised to write a commentary on Genesis, are misleading.

104 On this work, see note 8.

105 See the previous chapter, note 3.

106 On the Antilegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament canon in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.

107 On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.

108 On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.

109 On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above0, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.

110 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 ç2 of that chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).

111 ta swmatika.

112 See Bk. IlI. chap. 24, note 7.

568 113 Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.

114 We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of this epistle both Pantaenus 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” (pro" ou" metAE oligou esomeqa) seems to imply that the epistle was written when Alexander and Origen were advanced in life, but this cannot be pressed.

115 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.

116 The name Adamantius (AEAdamantio" from adama" unconquerable, hence hard, adamantine) is said by Jerome ( 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 (Haer. 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, Rede-penning, 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.

117 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.

118 On Demetrius’ relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.

119 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.

120 Origen’s stndy 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 o it as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devotee 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.

121 On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.

122 Aquila is first mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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. lie 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.

123 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 Dan 9,26, where the word cristo", which Aquila avoids, is used. The composition of his version is assigned by Epiphanius and the Chron. paschale to the reign of Septimius Severus (193–211); and although not much reliance is to be placed upon their statements, still they must be about right in this case, for that Symmachus’ version is younger than Iren‘us is rendered highly probable by the latter’s omission of it where he refers to those of Theodotion and Aquila; and, on the other hand, it must of course have been composed before Origen began his Hexapla. Symmachus’ version is distinguished from Aquila’s by the purity of its Greek and its freedom from Hebraisms. The author’s effort was not slavishly to reproduce the original, but to make an elegant and idiomatic Greek translation, and in this he succeeded very well, being excellently versed in both languages, though he sometimes sacrificed the exact sense of the Hebrew, and occasionally altered it under the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. The version is spoken very highly of by Jerome, and was used freely by him in the composition of the Vulgate. For further particulars in regard to Symmachus’ version, see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 19 sq.

569 124 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 Judaeus est. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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 Irenaeus, 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 Schrer 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.

125 We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of the Old Testament. Eusebius’ words (“which had been concealed from remote times,” ton palai lanqanousa" cronon) 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 ajar at Jericho, but where the third wasdiscovered he did not know. Jerome (in his Prologus in expos. Ct Ct 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 He 3,13: exhlqe" tou swsai ton laon sou dia AEIhsou tou cristou. The “fifth” is quoted by Origen on the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor prophets, Kings, &c.; the “sixth,” on the Psalms, Song of Songs, and Habakkuk, according to Field, the latest editor of the Hexapla. Whether these versions were fragmentary, or were used only in these particular passages for special reasons, we do not know. Of the “seventh” no clear traces can be discovered, but it must have been used for the Psalms at any rate, as we see from this chapter. As to the time when these versions were found we are doubtless to assign the discovery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit made by Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 396). Epiphanius, who in the present case seems to be speaking with more than customary accuracy, puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander (222–235). The other one, which Epiphanius calls the “fifth,” was found, according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla’s reign (217) “in jars at Jericho.” We know that at this time Origen was in Palestine (see (chap. 19, note 23), and hence Epiphanius’ report may well be correct. If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the “fifth,” and the former the “sixth.” The place and time of the discovery of the “seventh” are alike unknown. For further particulars in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field’s edition of the Hexapla, the article Hexapla in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, II. 164 sq.

126 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.

127 Origen’s Hexapla (ta exapla, to exaploun, to exaselidon, 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 falsify/ng 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 Caesarea), 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 Caesarean 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 Caesarean 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 (Haer. 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 Caesarean 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. 48,sq)..

128 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.

129 Greek: en toi" tetraploi" epikataskeuasa". 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.

130 On Symmachus, see the previous chapter, note 4.

131 In Bk. III. chap. 27. For a discussion of Ebionism, see the notes on that chapter.

132 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 thais work and of Symmachus’ “other interpretations of Scripture” (allwn ei` ta` grafa` ermhneiwn), 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).

133 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 (en palaiotatw bibgiw stichrw), that Juliana was a virgin of Caesarea 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.

570 134 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 Caesarea or its neighborhood that he suffered, whither he had gone undoubtedly on account of his affection for Origen, who was at that time there (cr. 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 him non inelegantis ingenti fuit, sicut ejus ad Origenen epistolae indicio aunt (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 tedicated to him.

135 On Valentinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 1.

136 Greek, airesei`.

137 egkuklia grammata; “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 egk. paideia).

138 On Origen’s education, see p. 392, below.

139 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-Platon-ism 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 tanked 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 aformai pro" ta nohta, or Sententiae, 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).

140 Of the life of Ammonius Saccas, the “father of Neo-Platonism” very little is known. He is said by Suidas (s. 5, 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.

141 to barbaron tolmhma. 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.

142 On Origen’s Greek culture, see p. 392, and also his own words quoted below in §12 sq.

571 143 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 (peri tagaqou) have been preserved by Eusebius in his Praep. Evang. (see (Heinichen’s ed. Index I)..

144 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.

145 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.

146 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 peri uyou" (often published), and fragments of some others (c.g. in Eusebius’ Praep. 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 `Albinou instead of Logginou in his text, on the assumption that Porphyry cannot possibly have written Logginou; 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.

147 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.

148 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.

149 Chaeremon 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’ Praef. Evang. V. 10, and Suidas, ".v. Wrigenh".

150 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. Kornouto") and Dion Cassius, XLII. 29.

151 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.

152 On this great work of Porphyry, see note 1.

572 153 See note 3).

154 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 (peri th" Mwusew" kai `Ihsou sumfwnia"), and in an epistle addressed to Carpianus (see (above, p. 38 sq). speaks of a Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels (to dia tessarwv euaggelion), 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.

155 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).

156 On Pantaenus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.

157 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.

158 ekeinwn twn logwn.

159 See above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 21.

160 The words used to designate the official who sent for Origen (o ths `Arabia" hgoumeno") 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.

161 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.

162 oi thde episkopoi. The thde must refer to Palestine, not to Caesarea, for “bishops” are spoken of, not “bishop.”

163 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 (1Co xiii).. We cannot call this teaching and prophesying preaching in our sense of the term. The services seem rather to have resembled our “open prayer-meetings.” Gradually, as the services became more formal and stereotyped, a stated address by the “president” (as Justin calls him) became a regular part of the service (see (Justin’s Apol. I. 67), and we may assume that the liberty of teaching or prophesying in the public meetings did not now belong to all the members as it had in the beginning. The sermon, in our sense of the word, seems to have been a slow growth, but a direct development from this exhortation of the president mentioned by Justin. The confinement of the speaking (or preaching) to a single individual,—the leader,—which we see in Justin, is what we find in subsequent generations quite generally established. It becomes, in time, the prerogative of the bishop to preach, and this prerogative he confers upon his presbyters also (not universally, but in most cases), while deacons and laymen are almost everywhere excluded from the right. We see from the present chapter, however, that the custom was not the same in all parts of the Church in the time of Origen. The principle had evidently before this become firmly established in Alexandria that only bishops and presbyters should preach. But in Palestine no such rule was recognized as binding. At the same time, it is clear enough that it was exceptional even there for laymen to preach (in the presence of their bishops), for Alexander in his epistle, instead of saying that laymen preach everywhere and of right, cites particular instances of their preaching, and says that where they are qualified they are especially requested by the bishops to use their gifts; so that the theory that the prerogative belonged of right to the bishop existed there just as truly as in Alexandria. Origen of course knew that he was acting contrary to the custom (if not the canon) of his own church in thus preaching publicly, and yet undoubtedly he took it for granted that he was perfectly right in doing what these bishops requested him to do in their own dioceses. They were supreme in their own churches, and he knew of nothing, apparently, which should hinder him from doing what they approved of, while in those churches. Demetrius, however, thought otherwise, and considered the public preaching of an unordained man irregular, in any place and at any time. Whether jealousy of Origen’s growing power had anything to do with his action it is difficult to say with certainty. He seems to have treated Origen in a perfectly friendly way after his return; and yet it is possible that the difference of opinion on this point, and the reproof given by Demetrius, may not have been wholly without influence upon their subsequent relations, which became in the end so painful (see (chap. 8, note 4).

573 164 On Alexander, see chap. 8, note 6.

165 Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea, 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.

166 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.”

167 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.

168 ou pro" monwn twn sunhqwn, alla kai twn epi xenh" episkopwn. sunhqwn seems here to have the sense of “countrymen” or (bishops) “of his own country” over against the epi xenh", rather’ than the meaning “friends” or “acquaintances,” which is more common.

169 Aelia, 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.

170 On Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, see chap. 33.

171 On Hippolytus, see chap. 22.

172 On Caius and his discussion with Proclus, see Bk. II. chap. 25, notes 7 and 8.

173 Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome from 198 or 199 to 217. See Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.

174 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.

574 175 i.e. Caracalla, who was slain on the 8th of April, 217. Four days later, Marcus Opilius Macrinus, prefect of the praetorians, 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 Phoenician 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.

176 On Zephyrinus, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.

177 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.

178 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.

179 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.

180 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 filhto" h filippo". 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.

181 On Asclepiades, see chap. 11, note 6.

182 Julia Mamaea or Mammaea (Eusebius, Mammaia) 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, it, his private chapel (see (Lampridius, Vita Sev. c. 29, 43). Eusebius calls Mammaea qeosebestath and eulabh", 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 Mammaea 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 Mammaea 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 Caesarea (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 Mammaea 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.

183 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” (etera" pou ekklhsia"), and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 61) says that he was a bishop of some church whose name he did not know (Hippolytus, cujusdam Ecclesiae 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 Hexaemeron (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.

184 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.

575 185 This treatise on the Hexaemeron, 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 ( 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).

186 Greek, ei" ta meta thn exahmeron. 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 Hexaemeron; 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.

187 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 peri tagaqou kai poqen to kakon, which, it has been conjectured, may be identical with Eusebius and Jerome’s Contra Marcionem. No fragments are extant.

188 Eusebius has simply to asma (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.

189 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.

190 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 exhghsi" ei" to pasca (see (Lagarde’s edition of Hippolytus p. 213), and another from “the first book of the treatise on the holy paschal feast” (tou peri tou agiou pasca suggrammato", 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.

191 This work, Against All the Heresies, is mentioned both by Eusebius (pro" apasa" ta" airesei") Jerome (adv. omnes haereses), 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 (biblidarion) 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 Irenaeus. 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 againt 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” (palai). Upon this work and its relation to the lost Syntagma of Justin Martyr, which Lipsius supposes it to have made use of, see is 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.

192 On Ambrose and his relation to Origen, see chap. 18, note 1.

193 On Urbanus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 21, note 4.

194 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.

195 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 Zebino"; one ms. and Nicephorus, as Zebeno"; Syncellus as Zebenno"; Rufinus, Jerome, and the Armen. as Zebennus.

576 196 On Philetus, see chap. 21, note 6.

197 See the note on p. 395, below.

198 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)..

199 Origen’s commentary upon the Gospel of Jn 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; bnt 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 (th" d` ei" to pan euaggelion auto de touto pragmateia"), 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 Caesarea, 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.

200 Of the commentary on Genesis, only some fragments from the first and third books are extant, together with some extracts (eklogai), 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 Gn 4,15; and in his Contra Cels. VI. 49 Origen speaks of his work upon Genesis “from the beginning of the book up to” V. 1. We may therefore conclude that the commentary covered only the early chapters of Genesis. The homilies, however, discuss brief passages taken from various parts of the book.

201 Origen’s writings on the Psalms comprised a complete commentary (cf. Jerome’s 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).

202 There are extant some extracts (eklogai) 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.

203 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.

204 Of Origen’s De Principiis (peri arcwn), 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 camposition 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.

205 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 philasophorum inter se sententias comparans: et omnia nostrae 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.

206 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.

577 207 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.

208 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.

209 Ouelesmwq. I represent the diphthong ou at the beginning of a word by “w.”

210 The first and second books of Esdras here referred to are not the apocryphal books known by that name, but Esd 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 Esd assumes in Greek.

211 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 exw de toutwn esti ta Makkabaika, 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).

212 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.

213 Compare Origen’s Hom. I. in Lucam: Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, haeresea plurima; and multi conati sunt scribere, sed et multi conati sunt ordinare: quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, &c. Compare also Irenaeeus, Adv. Haer. 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.

214 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5.

215 See Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

NPNF2-01 Eusebius 450