Eusebius Pamphilius:

Church History, Life of Constantine,

Oration in Praise of Constantine

_______________________

Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor)
McGiffert, Rev. Arthur Cushman, Ph.D. (Translator)
Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890
Rights: Public Domain
CCEL Subjects: All; Proofed; Early Church;
LC Call no: BR60
LC Subjects: Christianity
Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc.

VOLUME I

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS:

CHURCH HISTORY

LIFE OF CONSTANTINE

ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE.

T&T CLARK

EDINBURGH

__________________________________________________

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
__________________________________________________________________

Preface.

------------------------

The First Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Library of the Christian
Fathers, containing, in fourteen volumes, the principal works of St.
Augustin and St. Chrysostom, has been completed in less than four
years, according to the Prospectus of the Publisher issued in 1886.

I am happy to state that the Second Series, containing the chief works
of the Fathers from Eusebius to John of Damascus, and from Ambrose to
Gregory the Great, will be issued on the same liberal terms, as
announced by the Publisher.

The present volume opens the Second Series with a new translation and
critical commentary of the historical works of Eusebius, by my friends,
Dr. Arthur C. McGiffert and Dr. Ernest C. Richardson, who have bestowed
a vast amount of labor of love on their tasks for several years past. I
desired them to make these works a reliable and tolerably complete
Church History of the first three centuries for the English reader. I
think they have succeeded. Every scholar will at once see the great
value and superiority of this over every other previous edition of
Eusebius.

The next two volumes will contain the Church Histories of Socrates,
Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius. For further details the reader is
referred to the Publisher's announcement at the end of this volume.

PHILIP SCHAFF

New York, March, 1890.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

the church history of eusebius.

------------------------

Translated with prolegomena and notes

by

The rev. arthur cushman mcgiffert, Ph.d.

professor of church history in lane theological seminary, cincinnati
__________________________________________________________________

Preface.

------------------------

The present translation of the Church History of Eusebius has been made
from Heinichen's second edition of the Greek text, but variant readings
have been adopted without hesitation whenever they have approved
themselves to my judgment. In all such cases the variation from
Heinichen's text has been indicated in the notes. A simple revision of
Cruse's English version was originally proposed, but a brief
examination of it was sufficient to convince me that a satisfactory
revision would be an almost hopeless task, and that nothing short of a
new and independent translation ought to be undertaken. In the
preparation of that translation, invaluable assistance has been
rendered by my father, the Rev. Joseph N. McGiffert, D.D., for whose
help and counsel I desire thus publicly to give expression to my
profound gratitude. The entire translation has been examined by him and
owes much to his timely suggestions and criticisms; while the
translation itself of a considerable portion of the work (Bks. V.-VIII.
and the Martyrs of Palestine) is from his hand. The part thus rendered
by him I have carefully revised for the purpose of securing uniformity
in style and expression throughout the entire work, and I therefore
hold myself alone responsible for it as well as for the earlier and
later books. As to the principle upon which the translation has been
made, little need be said. The constant endeavor has been to reproduce
as nearly as possible, both the substance and form of the original, and
in view of the peculiar need of accuracy in such a work as the present,
it has seemed better in doubtful cases to run the risk of erring in the
direction of over-literalness rather than in that of undue license.

A word of explanation in regard to the notes which accompany the text
may not be out of place. In view of the popular character of the series
of which the present volume forms a part, it seemed important that the
notes should contain much supplementary information in regard to
persons, places, and events mentioned in the text which might be quite
superfluous to the professional historian as well as to the student
enjoying access to libraries rich in historical and bibliographical
material, and I have therefore not felt justified in confining myself
to such questions as might interest only the critical scholar.
Requested by the general editor to make the work in some sense a
general history of, or historical commentary upon, the first three
centuries of the Christian Church, I have ventured to devote
considerable space to a fuller presentation of various subjects but
briefly touched upon or merely referred to by Eusebius. At the same
time my chief endeavor has been, by a careful study of difficult and
disputed points, to do all that I could for their elucidation, and thus
to perform as faithfully as possible the paramount duty of a
commentator. The number and fulness of the notes needed in such a work
must of course be matter of dispute, but annoyed as I have repeatedly
been by the fragmentary character of the annotations in the existing
editions of the work, I have been anxious to avoid that defect, and
have therefore passed by no passage which seemed to me to need
discussion, nor consciously evaded any difficulty. Working with
historical students constantly in mind I have felt it due to them to
fortify all my statements by references to the authorities upon which
they have been based, and to indicate at the same time with sufficient
fullness the sources whose examination a fuller investigation of the
subject on their part might render necessary. The modern works which
have been most helpful are mentioned in the notes, but I cannot in
justice refrain from making especial reference at this point to Smith
and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography which has been constantly
at my side, and to the first and second volumes of Schaff's Church
History, whose bibliographies have been especially serviceable. Many of
Valesius' notes have been found very suggestive and must always remain
valuable in spite of the great advance made in historical knowledge
since his day. For the commentary of Heinichen less can be said.
Richardson's Bibliographical Synopsis, published as a supplement to the
Ante-Nicene Library, did not come into my hands until the greater part
of the work was completed. In the preparation of the notes upon the
latter portion it proved helpful, and its existence has enabled me
throughout the work to omit extended lists of books which it would
otherwise have been necessary to give.

It was my privilege some three years ago to study portions of the
fourth and fifth books of Eusebius' Church History with Professor Adolf
Harnack in his Seminar at Marburg. Especial thanks are due for the help
and inspiration gained from that eminent scholar, and for the light
thrown by him upon many difficult passages in those portions of the
work.

It gives me pleasure also to express my obligation to Dr. Isaac G.
Hall, of New York, and to Dr. E. C. Richardson, of Hartford, for
information furnished by them in regard to certain editions of the
History, also to the Rev. Charles R. Gillett, Librarian of Union
Theological Seminary, and to the Rev. J. H. Dulles, Librarian of
Princeton Theological Seminary, for their kindness in granting me the
privileges of the libraries under their charge, and for their unfailing
courtesy shown me in many ways. To Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville,
Ky., my thanks are due for his translation of the Testimonies for and
against Eusebius, printed at the close of the Prolegomena, and to Mr.
F. E. Moore, of New Albany, Ind., for assistance rendered in connection
with the preparation of the indexes.

Arthur Cushman McGiffert.

Lane Theological Seminary,

April 15, 1890.
__________________________________________________________________

Prolegomena.

__________

The Life and writings of

Eusebius of Caesarea.

__________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter I

The Life of Eusebius.

S: 1. Sources and Literature

Acacius, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in the bishopric of
Caesarea, wrote a life of the latter (Socr. H. E. II. 4) which is
unfortunately lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E. III. 2, IV.
23) and had exceptional opportunities for producing a full and accurate
account of Eusebius' life; the disappearance of his work is therefore
deeply to be regretted.

Numerous notices of Eusebius are found in the works of Socrates,
Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, Jerome, and other writers of his own
and subsequent ages, to many of which references will be made in the
following pages. A collection of these notices, made by Valesius, is
found in English translation on p. 57 sq. of this volume. The chief
source for a knowledge of Eusebius' life and character is to be found
in his own works. These will be discussed below, on p. 26 sq. Of the
numerous modern works which treat at greater or less length of the life
of Eusebius I shall mention here only those which I have found most
valuable.

Valesius: De vita scriptisque Eusebii Diatribe (in his edition of
Eusebius' Historia Eccles.; English version in Cruse's translation of
the same work).

Cave: Lives of the Fathers, II. 95-144 (ed. H. Cary, Oxf. 1840).

Tillemont: Hist. Eccles. VII. pp. 39-75 (compare also his account of
the Arians in vol. VI.).

Stroth: Leben und Schriften des Eusebius (in his German translation of
the Hist. Eccles.).

Closs: Leben und Schriften des Eusebius (in his translation of the same
work).

Danz: De Eusebio Caesariensi, Historiae Eccles. Scriptore, ejusque fide
historica recte aestimanda, Cap. II.: de rebus ad Eusebii vitam
pertinentibus (pp. 33-75).

Stein: Eusebius Bischof von Caesarea. Nach seinem Leben, seinen
Schriften, und seinem dogmatischen Charakter dargestellt (Wuerzburg,
1859; full and valuable).

Bright, in the introduction to his edition of Burton's text of the
Hist. Eccles. (excellent).

Lightfoot (Bishop of Durham): Eusebius of Caesarea, in Smith and Wace's
Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. II. pp. 308-348. Lightfoot's
article is a magnificent monument of patristic scholarship and contains
the best and most exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of
Eusebius that has been written.

The student may be referred finally to all the larger histories of the
Church (e.g. Schaff, vol. III. 871 sqq. and 1034 sq.), which contain
more or less extended accounts of Eusebius.
__________________________________________________________________

S:2. Eusebius' Birth and Training. His Life in Caesarea until the
Outbreak of the Persecution.

Our author was commonly known among the ancients as Eusebius of
Caesarea or Eusebius Pamphili. The former designation arose from the
fact that he was bishop of the church in Caesarea for many years; the
latter from the fact that he was the intimate friend and devoted
admirer of Pamphilus, a presbyter of Caesarea and a martyr. Some such
specific appellation was necessary to distinguish him from others of
the same name. Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography
mentions 137 men of the first eight centuries who bore the name
Eusebius, and of these at least forty were contemporaries of our
author. The best known among them were Eusebius of Nicomedia (called by
Arius the brother of Eusebius of Caesarea), Eusebius of Emesa, and
Eusebius of Samosata.

The exact date of our author's birth is unknown to us, but his
Ecclesiastical History contains notices which enable us to fix it
approximately. In H. E. V. 28 he reports that Paul of Samosata
attempted to revive again in his day (kath' hemas) the heresy of
Artemon. But Paul of Samosata was deposed from the episcopate of
Antioch in 272, and was condemned as a heretic at least as early as
268, so that Eusebius must have been born before the latter date, if
his words are to be strictly interpreted. Again, according to H. E.
III. 28, Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria in Eusebius' time (kath'
hemas). But Dionysius was bishop from 247 or 248 to 265, and therefore
if Eusebius' words are to be interpreted strictly here as in the former
case, he must have been born before 265. On the other hand, inasmuch as
his death occurred about 340, we cannot throw his birth much earlier
than 260. It is true that the references to Paul and to Dionysius do
not prove conclusively that Eusebius was alive in their day, for his
words may have been used in a loose sense. But in H. E. VII. 26, just
before proceeding to give an account of Paul of Samosata, he draws the
line between his own and the preceding generation, declaring that he is
now about to relate the events of his own age (ten kath' hemas). This
still further confirms the other indications, and we shall consequently
be safe in concluding that Eusebius was born not far from the year 260
a.d. His birthplace cannot be determined with certainty. The fact that
he is called "Eusebius the Palestinian" by Marcellus (Euseb. lib. adv.
Marcell. I. 4), Basil (Lib. ad. Amphil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 29), and
others, does not prove that he was a Palestinian by birth; for the
epithet may be used to indicate merely his place of residence (he was
bishop of Caesarea in Palestine for many years). Moreover, the argument
urged by Stein and Lightfoot in support of his Palestinian birth,
namely, that it was customary to elect to the episcopate of any church
a native of the city in preference to a native of some other place,
does not count for much. All that seems to have been demanded was that
a man should have been already a member of the particular church over
which he was to be made bishop, and even this rule was not universal
(see Bingham's Antiquities, II. 10, 2 and 3). The fact that he was
bishop of Caesarea therefore would at most warrant us in concluding
only that he had made his residence in Caesarea for some time previous
to his election to that office. Nevertheless, although neither of these
arguments proves his Palestinian birth, it is very probable that he was
a native of that country, or at least of that section. He was
acquainted with Syriac as well as with Greek, which circumstance taken
in connection with his ignorance of Latin (see below, p. 47) points to
the region of Syria as his birthplace. Moreover, we learn from his own
testimony that he was in Caesarea while still a youth (Vita
Constantini, I. 19), and in his epistle to the church of Caesarea (see
below, p. 16) he says that he was taught the creed of the Caesarean
church in his childhood (or at least at the beginning of his Christian
life: en te katechesei), and that he accepted it at baptism. It would
seem therefore that he must have lived while still a child either in
Caesarea itself, or in the neighborhood, where its creed was in use.
Although no one therefore (except Theodorus Metochita of the fourteenth
century, in his Cap. Miscell. 17; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLIV. 949)
directly states that Eusebius was a Palestinian by birth, we have every
reason to suppose him such.

His parents are entirely unknown. Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37)
reports that his mother was a sister of Pamphilus. He does not mention
his authority for this statement, and it is extremely unlikely, in the
face of the silence of Eusebius himself and of all other writers, that
it is true. It is far more probable that the relationship was later
assumed to account for the close intimacy of the two men. Arius, in an
epistle addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (contained in Theodoret's
Hist. Eccles. I. 5), calls Eusebius of Caesarea the latter's brother.
It is objected to this that Eusebius of Nicomedia refers to Eusebius of
Caesarea on one occasion as his "master" (tou despotou mou, in his
epistle to Paulinus contained in Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 6), and
that on the other hand Eusebius of Caesarea calls Eusebius of
Nicomedia, "the great Eusebius" (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), both
of which expressions seem inconsistent with brotherhood. Lightfoot
justly remarks that neither the argument itself nor the objections
carry much weight. The term adelphos may well have been used to
indicate merely theological or ecclesiastical association, while on the
other hand, brotherhood would not exclude the form of expression
employed by each in speaking of the other. Of more weight is the fact
that neither Eusebius himself nor any historian of that period refers
to such a relationship, and also the unlikelihood that two members of
one family should bear the same name.

From Eusebius' works we gather that he must have received an extensive
education both in secular philosophy and in Biblical and theological
science. Although his immense erudition was doubtless the result of
wide and varied reading continued throughout life, it is highly
probable that he acquired the taste for such reading in his youth. Who
his early instructors were we do not know, and therefore cannot
estimate the degree of their influence over him. As he was a man,
however, who cherished deep admiration for those whom he regarded as
great and good men, and as he possessed an unusually acquisitive mind
and a pliant disposition, we should naturally suppose that his
instructors must have possessed considerable influence over him, and
that his methods of study in later years must have been largely molded
by their example and precept. We see this exemplified in a remarkable
degree in the influence exerted over him by Pamphilus, his dearest
friend, and at the same time the preceptor, as it were, of his early
manhood. Certainly this great bibliopholist must have done much to
strengthen Eusebius' natural taste for omnivorous reading, and the
opportunities afforded by his grand library for the cultivation of such
a taste were not lost. To the influence of Pamphilus, the devoted
admirer and enthusiastic champion of Origen, was doubtless due also in
large measure the deep respect which Eusebius showed for that
illustrious Father, a respect to which we owe one of the most
delightful sections of his Church History, his long account of Origen
in the sixth book, and to which in part antiquity was indebted for the
elaborate Defense of Origen, composed by Pamphilus and himself, but
unfortunately no longer extant. Eusebius certainly owed much to the
companionship of that eager student and noble Christian hero, and he
always recognized with deep gratitude his indebtedness to him. (Compare
the account of Pamphilus given below in Bk. VII. chap. 32, S:25 sq.)
The names of his earlier instructors, who were eminently successful, at
least in fostering his thirst for knowledge, are quite unknown to us.
His abiding admiration for Plato, whom he always placed at the head of
all philosophers (see Stein, p. 6), would lead us to think that he
received at least a part of his secular training from some ardent
Platonist, while his intense interest in apologetics, which lasted
throughout his life, and which affected all his works, seems to
indicate the peculiar bent of his early Christian education. Trithemius
concluded from a passage in his History (VII. 32) that Eusebius was a
pupil of the learned Dorotheus of Antioch, and Valesius, Lightfoot and
others are apparently inclined to accept his conclusion. But, as Stroth
remarks (Eusebii Kirchengeschichte, p. xix), all that Eusebius says is
that he had heard Dorotheus expound the Scriptures in the church
(toutou metrios tas graphas epi tes ekklesias diegoumenou
katekousamen), that is, that he had heard him preach. To conclude from
this statement that he was a pupil of Dorotheus is certainly quite
unwarranted.

Stroth's suggestion that he probably enjoyed the instruction of
Meletius for seven years during the persecution rests upon no good
ground, for the passage which he relies upon to sustain his opinion (H.
E. VII. 32. 28) says only that Eusebius "observed Meletius well"
(katenoesamen) during those seven years.

In Caesarea Eusebius was at one time a presbyter of the church, as we
may gather from his words in the epistle to that church already
referred to, where, in speaking of the creed, he says, "As we believed
and taught in the presbytery and in the episcopate itself." But the
attempt to fix the date of his ordination to that office is quite vain.
It is commonly assumed that he became presbyter while Agapius was
bishop of Caesarea, and this is not unlikely, though we possess no
proof of it (upon Agapius see below, H. E. VII. 32, note 39). In his
Vita Constantini, I. 19, Eusebius reports that he saw Constantine for
the first time in Caesarea in the train of the Emperor Diocletian. In
his Chron. Eusebius reports that Diocletian made an expedition against
Egypt, which had risen in rebellion in the year 296 a.d., and
Theophanes, in his Chron., says that Constantine accompanied him. It is
probable therefore that it was at this time that Eusebius first saw
Constantine in Caesarea, when he was either on his way to Egypt, or on
his way back (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp., IV. p. 34).

During these years of quiet, before the great persecution of
Diocletian, which broke out in 303 a.d., Eusebius' life must have been
a very pleasant one. Pamphilus' house seems to have been a sort of
rendezvous for Christian scholars, perhaps a regular divinity school;
for we learn from Eusebius' Martyrs in Palestine (Cureton's edition,
pp. 13 and 14) that he and a number of others, including the martyr
Apphianus, were living together in one house at the time of the
persecution, and that the latter was instructed in the Scriptures by
Pamphilus and acquired from him virtuous habits and conduct. The great
library of Pamphilus would make his house a natural center for
theological study, and the immense amount of work which was done by
him, or under his direction, in the reproduction of copies of the Holy
Scriptures, of Origen's works (see Jerome's de vir. ill. 75 and 81, and
contra Ruf. I. 9), and in other literary employments of the same kind,
makes it probable that he had gathered about him a large circle of
friends and students who assisted him in his labors and profited by his
counsel and instruction. Amidst these associations Eusebius passed his
early manhood, and the intellectual stimulus thus given him doubtless
had much to do with his future career. He was above all a literary man,
and remained such to the end of his life. The pleasant companionships
of these days, and the mutual interest and sympathy which must have
bound those fellow-students and fellow-disciples of Pamphilus very
close together, perhaps had much to do with that broad-minded spirit of
sympathy and tolerance which so characterized Eusebius in later years.
He was always as far as possible from the character of a recluse. He
seems ever to have been bound by very strong ties to the world itself
and to his fellow-men. Had his earlier days been filled with trials and
hardships, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes and unfulfilled
ambitions, with harsh experiences of others' selfishness and treachery,
who shall say that the whole course of his life might not have been
changed, and his writings have exhibited an entirely different spirit
from that which is now one of their greatest charms? Certainly he had
during these early years in Caesarea large opportunities for
cultivating that natural trait of admiration for other men, which was
often so strong as to blind him even to their faults, and that natural
kindness which led him to see good wherever it existed in his Christian
brethren. At the same time these associations must have had
considerable influence in fostering the apologetic temper. The pursuits
of the little circle were apparently exclusively Christian, and in that
day when Christianity stood always on its defense, it would naturally
become to them a sacred duty to contribute to that defense and to
employ all their energies in the task. It has been remarked that the
apologetic temper is very noticeable in Eusebius' writings. It is more
than that; we may say indeed in general terms that everything he wrote
was an apology for the faith. His History was written avowedly with an
apologetic purpose, his Chronicle was composed with the same end in
view. Even when pronouncing a eulogy upon a deceased emperor he seized
every possible opportunity to draw from that emperor's career, and from
the circumstances of his reign, arguments for the truth and grandeur of
the Christian religion. His natural temper of mind and his early
training may have had much to do with this habit of thought, but
certainly those years with Pamphilus and his friends in Caesarea must
have emphasized and developed it.

Another characteristic which Pamphilus and the circle that surrounded
him doubtless did something to develop in our author was a certain
superiority to the trammels of mere traditionalism, or we might perhaps
better say that they in some measure checked the opposite tendency of
slavishness to the traditional which seems to have been natural to him.
Pamphilus' deep reverence for Origen proclaims him at once superior to
that kind of narrow conservatism which led many men as learned and
doubtless as conscientious as himself to pass severe and unconditional
condemnation upon Origen and all his teaching. The effect of
championing his cause must have fostered in this little circle, which
was a very hotbed of Origenism, a contempt for the narrow and unfair
judgments of mere traditionalists, and must have led them to seek in
some degree the truth solely for its own sake, and to become in a
measure careless of its relation to the views of any school or church.
It could hardly be otherwise than that the free and fearless spirit of
Origen should leave its impress through his writings upon a circle of
followers so devoted to him as were these Caesarean students. Upon the
impressionable Eusebius these influences necessarily operated. And yet
he brought to them no keen speculative powers, no deep originality such
as Origen himself possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a
productive mind, and hence it was out of the question that he should
become a second Origen. It was quite certain that Origen's influence
over him would weaken somewhat his confidence in the traditional as
such,--a confidence which is naturally great in such minds as his,--but
at the same time would do little to lessen the real power of the past
over him. He continued to get his truth from others, from the great men
of the past with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he had
feasted. All that he believed he had drawn from them; he produced
nothing new for himself, and his creed was a traditional creed. And yet
he had at the same time imbibed from his surroundings the habit of
questioning and even criticising the past, and, in spite of his abiding
respect for it, had learned to feel that the voice of the many is not
always the voice of truth, and that the widely and anciently accepted
is sometimes to be corrected by the clearer sight of a single man.
Though he therefore depended for all he believed so completely upon the
past, his associations had helped to free him from a slavish adherence
to all that a particular school had accepted, and had made him in some
small measure an eclectic in his relations to doctrines and opinions of
earlier generations. A notable instance of this eclecticism on his part
is seen in his treatment of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force
of an almost universal tradition in favor of its apostolic origin, and
yet in the face of that he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius, and
could be led by his example, in a case where his own dissatisfaction
with the book acted as an incentive, almost, if not quite, to reject it
and to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a similar mode of
conduct on his part are quite numerous. While he is always a staunch
apologist for Christianity, he seldom, if ever, degenerates into a mere
partisan of any particular school or sect.

One thing in fact which is particularly noticeable in Eusebius' works
is the comparatively small amount of time and space which he devotes to
heretics. With his wide and varied learning and his extensive
acquaintance with the past, he had opportunities for successful heresy
hunting such as few possessed, and yet he never was a heresy hunter in
any sense. This is surprising when we remember what a fascination this
employment had for so many scholars of his own age, and when we realize
that his historical tastes and talents would seem to mark him out as
just the man for that kind of work. May it not be that the lofty spirit
of Origen, animating that Caesarean school, had something to do with
the happy fact that he became an apologist instead of a mere polemic,
that he chose the honorable task of writing a history of the Church
instead of anticipating Epiphanius' Panarium?

It was not that he was not alive to the evils of heresy. He shared with
nearly all good church-men of his age an intense aversion for those
who, as he believed, had corrupted the true Gospel of Christ. Like them
he ascribed heresy to the agency of the evil one, and was no more able
than they to see any good in a man whom he looked upon as a real
heretic, or to do justice in any degree to the error which he taught.
His condemnations of heretics in his Church History are most severe.
Language is hardly strong enough to express his aversion for them. And
yet, although he is thus most thoroughly the child of his age, the
difference between him and most of his contemporaries is very apparent.
He mentions these heretics only to dismiss them with disapproval or
condemnation. He seldom, if ever, discusses and refutes their views.
His interests lie evidently in other directions; he is concerned with
higher things. A still more strongly marked difference between himself
and many churchmen of his age lies in his large liberality towards
those of his own day who differed with him in minor points of faith,
and his comparative indifference to the divergence of views between the
various parties in the Church. In all this we believe is to be seen not
simply the inherent nature of the man, but that nature as trained in
the school of Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen.
__________________________________________________________________

S:3. The Persecution of Diocletian.

In this delightful circle and engaged in such congenial tasks, the time
must have passed very happily for Eusebius, until, in 303, the terrible
persecution of Diocletian broke upon the Church almost like a
thunderbolt out of a clear sky. The causes of the sudden change of
policy on Diocletian's part, and the terrible havoc wrought in the
Church, it is not my intention to discuss here (see below, Bk. VIII.
chap. 2, note 3 sq.). We are concerned with the persecution only in so
far as it bears upon the present subject. In the first year of the
persecution Procopius, the first martyr of Palestine, was put to death
at Caesarea (Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton's ed. p. 4), and
from that time on that city, which was an important Christian center,
was the scene of a tempest which raged with greater or less violence,
and with occasional cessations, for seven years. Eusebius himself was
an eyewitness of many martyrdoms there, of which he gives us an account
in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle which surrounded
Pamphilus did not escape. In the third year of the persecution (Mart.
of Pal. p. 12 sq.) a youth named Apphianus, or Epiphanius (the former
is given in the Greek text, the latter in the Syriac), who "resided in
the same house with us, confirming himself in godly doctrine, and being
instructed by that perfect martyr, Pamphilus" (as Eusebius says),
committed an act of fanatical daring which caused his arrest and
martyrdom. It seems that without the knowledge of his friends,
concealing his design even from those who dwelt in the same house with
him, he laid hold of the hand of the governor, Arbanus, who was upon
the point of sacrificing, and endeavored to dissuade him from offering
to "lifeless idols and wicked devils." His arrest was of course the
natural consequence, and he had the glory of witnessing a good
profession and suffering a triumphant death. Although Eusebius speaks
with such admiration of his conduct, it is quite significant of the
attitude of himself, and of most of the circle of which he was one,
that Apphianus felt obliged to conceal his purpose from them. He
doubtless feared that they would not permit him to perform the rash act
which he meditated, and we may conclude from that, that the circle in
the main was governed by the precepts of good common sense, and avoided
that fanaticism which so frequently led men, as in the present case it
led Apphianus, to expose themselves needlessly, and even to court
martyrdom. It is plain enough from what we know of Eusebius' general
character that he himself was too sensible to act in that way. It is
true that he speaks with admiration of Apphianus' conduct, and in H. E.
VIII. 5, of the equally rash procedure of a Nicomedian Christian; but
that does not imply that he considered their course the wisest one, and
that he would not rather recommend the employment of all proper and
honorable precautions for the preservation of life. Indeed, in H. E.
IV. 15, he speaks with evident approval of the prudent course pursued
by Polycarp in preserving his life so long as he could without
violating his Christian profession, and with manifest disapproval of
the rash act of the Phrygian Quintus, who presumptuously courted
martyrdom, only to fail when the test itself came. Pamphilus also
possessed too much sound Christian sense to advocate any such
fanaticism, or to practice it himself, as is plain enough from the fact
that he was not arrested until the fifth year of the persecution. This
unhealthy temper of mind in the midst of persecution was indeed almost
universally condemned by the wisest men of the Church, and yet the
boldness and the very rashness of those who thus voluntarily and
needlessly threw their lives away excited widespread admiration and too
often a degree of commendation which served only to promote a wider
growth of the same unhealthy sentiment.

In the fifth year of the persecution Pamphilus was arrested and thrown
into prison, where he remained for two years, when he finally, in the
seventh year of the persecution, suffered martyrdom with eleven others,
some of whom were his disciples and members of his own household. (Pal.
Mart. Cureton's ed. p. 36 sq.; H. E. App. chap. 11.) During the two
years of Pamphilus' imprisonment Eusebius spent a great deal of time
with him, and the two together composed five books of an Apology for
Origen, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth (see below, p. 36).
Danz (p. 37) assumes that Eusebius was imprisoned with Pamphilus, which
is not an unnatural supposition when we consider how much they must
have been together to compose the Apology as they did. There is,
however, no other evidence that he was thus imprisoned, and in the face
of Eusebius' own silence it is safer perhaps to assume (with most
historians) that he simply visited Pamphilus in his prison. How it
happened that Pamphilus and so many of his followers were imprisoned
and martyred, while Eusebius escaped, we cannot tell. In his Martyrs of
Palestine, chap. 11, he states that Pamphilus was the only one of the
company of twelve martyrs that was a presbyter of the Caesarean church;
and from the fact that he nowhere mentions the martyrdom of others of
the presbyters, we may conclude that they all escaped. It is not
surprising, therefore, that Eusebius should have done the same.
Nevertheless, it is somewhat difficult to understand how he could come
and go so frequently without being arrested and condemned to a like
fate with the others. It is possible that he possessed friends among
the authorities whose influence procured his safety. This supposition
finds some support in the fact that he had made the acquaintance of
Constantine (the Greek in Vita Const. I. 19 has zgnomen, which implies,
as Danz remarks, that he not only saw, but that he became acquainted
with Constantine) some years before in Caesarea. He could hardly have
made his acquaintance unless he had some friend among the high
officials of the city. Influential family connections may account in
part also for the position of prominence which he later acquired at the
imperial court of Constantine. If he had friends in authority in
Caesarea during the persecution his exemption from arrest is
satisfactorily accounted for. It has been supposed by some that
Eusebius denied the faith during the terrible persecution, or that he
committed some other questionable and compromising act of concession,
and thus escaped martyrdom. In support of this is urged the fact that
in 335, at the council of Tyre, Potamo, bishop of Heraclea, in Egypt,
addressed Eusebius in the following words: "Dost thou sit as judge, O
Eusebius; and is Athanasius, innocent as he is, judged by thee? Who can
bear such things? Pray tell me, wast thou not with me in prison during
the persecution? And I lost an eye in behalf of the truth, but thou
appearest to have received no bodily injury, neither hast thou suffered
martyrdom, but thou hast remained alive with no mutilation. How wast
thou released from prison unless thou didst promise those that put upon
us the pressure of persecution to do that which is unlawful, or didst
actually do it?" Eusebius, it seems, did not deny the charge, but
simply rose in anger and dismissed the council with the words, "If ye
come hither and make such accusations against us, then do your accusers
speak the truth. For if ye tyrannize here, much more do ye in your own
country" (Epiphan. Haer. LXVIII. 8). It must be noticed, however, that
Potamo does not directly charge Eusebius with dishonorable conduct, he
simply conjectures that he must have acted dishonorably in order to
escape punishment; as if every one who was imprisoned with Potamo must
have suffered as he did! As Stroth suggests, it is quite possible that
his peculiarly excitable and violent temperament was one of the causes
of his own loss. He evidently in any case had no knowledge of unworthy
conduct on Eusebius' part, nor had any one else so far as we can judge.
For in that age of bitter controversy, when men's characters were drawn
by their opponents in the blackest lines, Eusebius must have suffered
at the hands of the Athanasian party if it had been known that he had
acted a cowardly part in the persecution. Athanasius himself refers to
this incident (Contra Arian. VIII. 1), but he only says that Eusebius
was "accused of sacrificing," he does not venture to affirm that he did
sacrifice; and thus it is evident that he knew nothing of such an act.
Moreover, he never calls Eusebius "the sacrificer," as he does
Asterius, and as he would have been sure to do had he possessed
evidence which warranted him in making the accusation (cf. Lightfoot,
p. 311). Still further, Eusebius' subsequent election to the episcopate
of Caesarea, where his character and his conduct during the persecution
must have been well known, and his appointment in later life to the
important see of Antioch, forbid the supposition that he had ever acted
a cowardly part in time of persecution. And finally, it is
psychologically impossible that Eusebius could have written works so
full of comfort for, and sympathy with, the suffering confessors, and
could have spoken so openly and in such strong terms of condemnation of
the numerous defections that occurred during the persecution, if he was
conscious of his own guilt. It is quite possible, as remarked above,
that influential friends protected him without any act of compromise on
his part; or, supposing him to have been imprisoned with Potamo, it may
be, as Lightfoot suggests, that the close of the persecution brought
him his release as it did so many others. For it would seem natural to
refer that imprisonment to the latter part of the persecution, when in
all probability he visited Egypt, which was the home of Potamo. We must
in any case vindicate Eusebius from the unfounded charge of cowardice
and apostasy; and we ask, with Cave, "If every accusation against any
man at any time were to be believed, who would be guiltless?"

From his History and his Martyrs in Palestine we learn that Eusebius
was for much of the time in the very thick of the fight, and was an
eyewitness of numerous martyrdoms not only in Palestine, but also in
Tyre and in Egypt.

The date of his visits to the latter places (H. E. VIII. 7, 9) cannot
be determined with exactness. They are described in connection with
what seem to be the earlier events of the persecution, and yet it is by
no means certain that chronological order has been observed in the
narratives. The mutilation of prisoners--such as Potamo suffered--seems
to have become common only in the year 308 and thereafter (see Mason's
Persecution of Diocletian, p. 281), and hence if Eusebius was
imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, as seems most
probable, there would be some reason for assigning that visit to the
later years of the persecution. In confirmation of this might be urged
the improbability that he would leave Caesarea while Pamphilus was
still alive, either before or after the latter's imprisonment, and
still further his own statement in H. E. VII. 32, that he had observed
Meletius escaping the fury of the persecution for seven years in
Palestine. It is therefore likely that Eusebius did not make his
journey to Egypt, which must have occupied some time, until toward the
very end of the persecution, when it raged there with exceeding
fierceness during the brief outburst of the infamous Maximin.
__________________________________________________________________

S:4. Eusebius' Accession to the Bishopric of Caesarea.

Not long after the close of the persecution, Eusebius became bishop of
Caesarea in Palestine, his own home, and held the position until his
death. The exact date of his accession cannot be ascertained, indeed we
cannot say that it did not take place even before the close of the
persecution, but that is hardly probable; in fact, we know of no
historian who places it earlier than 313. His immediate predecessor in
the episcopate was Agapius, whom he mentions in terms of praise in H.
E. VII. 32. Some writers have interpolated a bishop Agricolaus between
Agapius and Eusebius (see e.g. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles. VII. 42), on
the ground that his name appears in one of the lists of those present
at the Council of Ancyra (c. 314), as bishop of Caesarea in Palestine
(see Labbei et Cossartii Conc. I. 1475). But, as Hefele shows
(Conciliengesch. I. 220), this list is of late date and not to be
relied upon. On the other hand, as Lightfoot points out, in the
Libellus Synodicus (Conc. I. 1480), where Agricolaus is said to have
been present at the Council of Ancyra, he is called bishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia; and this statement is confirmed by a Syriac list given
in Cowper's Miscellanies, p. 41. Though perhaps no great reliance is to
be placed upon the correctness of any of these lists, the last two may
at any rate be set over against the first, and we may conclude that
there exists no ground for assuming that Agapius, who is the last
Caesarean bishop mentioned by Eusebius, was not the latter's immediate
predecessor. At what time Agapius died we do not know. That he suffered
martyrdom is hardly likely, in view of Eusebius' silence on the
subject. It would seem more likely that he outlived the persecution.
However that may be, Eusebius was already bishop at the time of the
dedication of a new and elegant Church at Tyre under the direction of
his friend Paulinus, bishop of that city. Upon this occasion he
delivered an address of considerable length, which he has inserted in
his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. X. chap. 4. He does not name himself as
its author, but the way in which he introduces it, and the very fact
that he records the whole speech without giving the name of the man who
delivered it, make its origin perfectly plain. Moreover, the last
sentence of the preceding chapter makes it evident that the speaker was
a bishop: "Every one of the rulers (archonton) present delivered
panegyric discourses." The date of the dedication of this church is a
matter of dispute, though it is commonly put in the year 315. It is
plain from Eusebius' speech that it was uttered before Licinius had
begun to persecute the Christians, and also, as Goerres remarks, at a
time when Constantine and Licinius were at least outwardly at peace
with each other. In the year 314 the two emperors went to war, and
consequently, if the persecution of Licinius began soon after that
event, as it is commonly supposed to have done, the address must have
been delivered before hostilities opened; that is, at least as early as
314, and this is the year in which Goerres places it (Kritische
Untersuchungen ueber die licinianische Christenverfolgung, p. 8). But
if Goerres' date (319 a.d.) for the commencement of the persecution be
accepted (and though he can hardly be said to have proved it, he has
urged some strong grounds in support of it), then the address may have
been delivered at almost any time between 315 and 319, for, as Goerres
himself shows, Licinius and Constantine were outwardly at peace during
the greater part of that time (ib. p. 14, sq.). There is nothing in the
speech itself which prevents this later date, nor is it intrinsically
improbable that the great basilica reached completion only in 315 or
later. In fact, it must be admitted that Eusebius may have become
bishop at any time between about 311 and 318.

The persecution of Licinius, which continued until his defeat by
Constantine, in 323, was but local, and seems never to have been very
severe. Indeed, it did not bear the character of a bloody persecution,
though a few bishops appear to have met their death on one ground or
another. Palestine and Egypt seem not to have suffered to any great
extent (see Goerres, ib. p. 32 sq.).
__________________________________________________________________

S:5. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.

About the year 318, while Alexander was bishop of Alexandria, the Arian
controversy broke out in that city, and the whole Eastern Church was
soon involved in the strife. We cannot enter here into a discussion of
Arius' views; but in order to understand the rapidity with which the
Arian party grew, and the strong hold which it possessed from the very
start in Syria and Asia Minor, we must remember that Arius was not
himself the author of that system which we know as Arianism, but that
he learned the essentials of it from his instructor Lucian. The latter
was one of the most learned men of his age in the Oriental Church, and
founded an exegetico-theological school in Antioch, which for a number
of years stood outside of the communion of the orthodox Church in that
city, but shortly before the martyrdom of Lucian himself (which took
place in 311 or 312) made its peace with the Church, and was recognized
by it. He was held in the highest reverence by his disciples, and
exerted a great influence over them even after his death. Among them
were such men as Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Asterius, and others who
were afterward known as staunch Arianists. According to Harnack the
chief points in the system of Lucian and his disciples were the
creation of the Son, the denial of his co-eternity with the Father, and
his immutability acquired by persistent progress and steadfastness. His
doctrine, which differed from that of Paul of Samosata chiefly in the
fact that it was not a man but a created heavenly being who became
"Lord," was evidently the result of a combination of the teaching of
Paul and of Origen. It will be seen that we have here, at least in
germ, all the essential elements of Arianism proper: the creation of
the Son out of nothing, and consequently the conclusion that there was
a time when he was not; the distinction of his essence from that of the
Father, but at the same time the emphasis upon the fact that he "was
not created as the other creatures," and is therefore to be sharply
distinguished from them. There was little for Arius to do but to
combine the elements given by Lucian in a more complete and
well-ordered system, and then to bring that system forward clearly and
publicly, and endeavor to make it the faith of the Church at large. His
christology was essentially opposed to the Alexandrian, and it was
natural that he should soon come into conflict with that church, of
which he was a presbyter (upon Lucian's teaching and its relation to
Arianism, see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, II. p. 183 sq.).

Socrates (H. E. I. 5 sq.), Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) and Theodoret (H. E.
I. 2 sq.), all of whom give accounts of the rise of Arianism, differ as
to the immediate occasion of the controversy, but agree that Arius was
excommunicated by a council convened at Alexandria, and that both he
and the bishop Alexander sent letters to other churches, the latter
defending his own course, the former complaining of his harsh
treatment, and endeavoring to secure adherents to his doctrine.
Eusebius of Nicomedia at once became his firm supporter, and was one of
the leading figures on the Arian side throughout the entire
controversy. His influential position as bishop of Nicomedia, the
imperial residence, and later of Constantinople, was of great advantage
to the Arian cause, especially toward the close of Constantine's reign.
From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to Paulinus of Tyre
(Theodoret, H. E. I. 6) we learn that Eusebius of Caesarea was quite
zealous in behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date of the letter we
do not know, but it must have been written at an early stage of the
controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of
Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), claims Eusebius of Caesarea among
others as accepting at least one of his fundamental doctrines ("And
since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus,
and Athanasius, and Gregory, and AEtius, and all the bishops of the
East say that God existed before the Son, they have been condemned,"
etc.). More than this, Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) informs us that Eusebius
of Caesarea and two other bishops, having been appealed to by Arius for
"permission for himself and his adherents, as he had already attained
the rank of presbyter, to form the people who were with them into a
church," concurred with others "who were assembled in Palestine," in
granting the petition of Arius, and permitting him to assemble the
people as before; but they "enjoined submission to Alexander, and
commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to peace and
communion with him." The addition of the last sentence is noticeable,
as showing that they did not care to support a presbyter in open and
persistent rebellion against his bishop. A fragment of a letter written
by our Eusebius to Alexander is still extant, and is preserved in the
proceedings of the Second Council of Nicaea, Act. VI. Tom. V. (Labbei
et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). In this epistle Eusebius strongly
remonstrates with Alexander for having misrepresented the views of
Arius. Still further, in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople,
Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, H. E. I. 4) complains of three
Syrian bishops "who side with them [i.e. the Arians] and excite them to
plunge deeper and deeper into iniquity." The reference here is commonly
supposed to be to Eusebius of Caesarea, and his two friends Paulinus of
Tyre and Theodotus of Laodicea, who are known to have shown favor to
Arius. It is probable, though not certain, that our Eusebius is one of
the persons meant. Finally, many of the Fathers (above all Jerome and
Photius), and in addition to them the Second Council of Nicaea,
directly accuse Eusebius of holding the Arian heresy, as may be seen by
examining the testimonies quoted below on p. 67 sq. In agreement with
these early Fathers, many modern historians have attacked Eusebius with
great severity, and have endeavored to show that the opinion that he
was an Arian is supported by his own writings. Among those who have
judged him most harshly are Baronius (ad ann. 340, c. 38 sq.), Petavius
(Dogm. Theol. de Trin. I. c. 11 sq.), Scaliger (In Elencho Trihaeresii,
c. 27, and De emendatione temporum, Bk. VI. c. 1), Mosheim
(Ecclesiastical History, Murdock's translation, I. p. 287 sq.),
Montfaucon (Praelim. in Comment. ad Psalm. c. VI.), and Tillemont (H.
E. VII. p. 67 sq. 2d ed.).

On the other hand, as may be seen from the testimonies in Eusebius'
favor, quoted below on p. 57 sq., many of the Fathers, who were
themselves orthodox, looked upon Eusebius as likewise sound on the
subject of the Trinity. He has been defended in modern times against
the charge of Arianism by a great many prominent scholars; among others
by Valesius in his Life of Eusebius, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 20,
III. 9. 3, 11), Cave (Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 sq.), Fabricius
(Bibl. Graec. VI. p. 32 sq.), Dupin (Bibl. Eccles. II. p. 7 sq.), and
most fully and carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition of
Eusebius' Theophania, p. xxiv. sq. Lightfoot also defends him against
the charge of heresy, as do a great many other writers whom it is not
necessary to mention here. Confronted with such diversity of opinion,
both ancient and modern, what are we to conclude? It is useless to
endeavor, as Lee does, to clear Eusebius of all sympathy with and
leaning toward Arianism. It is impossible to explain such widespread
and continued condemnation of him by acknowledging only that there are
many expressions in his works which are in themselves perfectly
orthodox but capable of being wrested in such a way as to produce a
suspicion of possible Arianistic tendencies, for there are such
expressions in the works of multitudes of ancient writers whose
orthodoxy has never been questioned. Nor can the widespread belief that
he was an Arian be explained by admitting that he was for a time the
personal friend of Arius, but denying that he accepted, or in any way
sympathized with his views (cf. Newman's Arians, p. 262). There are in
fact certain fragments of epistles extant, which are, to say the least,
decidedly Arianistic in their modes of expression, and these must be
reckoned with in forming an opinion of Eusebius' views; for there is no
reason to deny, as Lee does, that they are from Eusebius' own hand. On
the other hand, to maintain, with some of the Fathers and many of the
moderns, that Eusebius was and continued through life a genuine Arian,
will not do in the face of the facts that contemporary and later
Fathers were divided as to his orthodoxy, that he was honored highly by
the Church of subsequent centuries, except at certain periods, and was
even canonized (see Lightfoot's article, p. 348), that he solemnly
signed the Nicene Creed, which contained an express condemnation of the
distinctive doctrines of Arius, and finally that at least in his later
works he is thoroughly orthodox in his expressions, and is explicit in
his rejection of the two main theses of the Arians,--that there was a
time when the Son of God was not, and that he was produced out of
nothing. It is impossible to enter here into a detailed discussion of
such passages in Eusebius' works as bear upon the subject under
dispute. Lee has considered many of them at great length, and the
reader may be referred to him for further information.

A careful examination of them will, I believe, serve to convince the
candid student that there is a distinction to be drawn between those
works written before the rise of Arius, those written between that time
and the Council of Nicaea, and those written after the latter. It has
been very common to draw a distinction between those works written
before and those written after the Council, but no one, so far as I
know, has distinguished those productions of Eusebius' pen which
appeared between 318 and 325, and which were caused by the controversy
itself, from all his other writings. And yet such a distinction seems
to furnish the key to the problem. Eusebius' opponents have drawn their
strongest arguments from the epistles which Eusebius wrote to Alexander
and to Euphration; his defenders have drawn their arguments chiefly
from the works which he produced subsequent to the year 325; while the
exact bearing of the expressions used in his works produced before the
controversy broke out has always been a matter of sharp dispute. Lee
has abundantly shown his Contra Marcel., his De Eccl. Theol., his
Thephania (which was written after the Council of Nicaea, and not, as
Lee supposes, before it), and other later works, to be thoroughly
orthodox and to contain nothing which a trinitarian might not have
written. In his Hist. Eccl., Praeparatio Evang., Demonstratio Evang.,
and other earlier works, although we find some expressions employed
which it would not have been possible for an orthodox trinitarian to
use after the Council of Nicaea, at least without careful limitation to
guard against misapprehension, there is nothing even in these works
which requires us to believe that he accepted the doctrines of Arius'
predecessor, Lucian of Antioch; that is, there is nothing distinctly
and positively Arianistic about them, although there are occasional
expressions which might lead the reader to expect that the writer would
become an Arian if he ever learned of Arius' doctrines. But if there is
seen to be a lack of emphasis upon the divinity of the Son, or rather a
lack of clearness in the conception of the nature of that divinity, it
must be remembered that there was at this time no especial reason for
emphasizing and defining it, but there was on the contrary very good
reason for laying particular stress upon the subordination of the Son
over against Sabellianism, which was so widely prevalent during the
third century, and which was exerting an influence even over many
orthodox theologians who did not consciously accept Sabellianistic
tenets. That Eusebius was a decided subordinationist must be plain to
every one that reads his works with care, especially his earlier ones.
It would be surprising if he had not been, for he was born at a time
when Sabellianism (monarchianism) was felt to be the greatest danger to
which orthodox christology was exposed, and he was trained under the
influence of the followers of Origen, who had made it one of his chief
aims to emphasize the subordination of the Son over against that very
monarchianism. [1] The same subordinationism may be clearly seen in the
writings of Dionysius of Alexandria and of Gregory Thaumaturgus, two of
Origen's greatest disciples. It must not be forgotten that at the
beginning of the fourth century the problem of how to preserve the
Godhood of Christ and at the same time his subordination to the Father
(in opposition to the monarchianists) had not been solved. Eusebius in
his earlier writings shows that he holds both (he cannot be convicted
of denying Christ's divinity), but that he is as far from a solution of
the problem, and is just as uncertain in regard to the exact relation
of Father and Son, as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, and
Gregory Thaumaturgus were; is just as inconsistent in his modes of
expression as they, and yet no more so (see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte,
I. pp. 628 sq. and 634 sq., for an exposition of the opinions of these
other Fathers on the subject). Eusebius, with the same immature and
undeveloped views which were held all through the third century, wrote
those earlier works which have given rise to so much dispute between
those who accuse him of Arianism and those who defend him against the
charge. When he wrote them he was neither Arian nor Athanasian, and for
that reason passages may be found in them which if written after the
Council of Nicaea might prove him an Arian, and other passages which
might as truly prove him an Athanasian, just as in the writings of
Origen were found by both parties passages to support their views, and
in Gregory Thaumaturgus passages apparently teaching Arianism, and
others teaching its opposite, Sabellianism (see Harnack, ib. p. 646).

Let us suppose now that Eusebius, holding fast to the divinity of
Christ, and yet convinced just as firmly of his subordination to the
Father, becomes acquainted through Arius, or other like-minded
disciples of Lucian of Antioch, with a doctrine which seems to preserve
the Godhood, while at the same time emphasizing strongly the
subordination of the Son, and which formulates the relation of Father
and Son in a clear and rational manner. That he should accept such a
doctrine eagerly is just what we should expect, and just what we find
him doing. In his epistles to Alexander and Euphration, he shows
himself an Arian, and Arius and his followers were quite right in
claiming him as a supporter. There is that in the epistles which is to
be found nowhere in his previous writings, and which distinctly
separates him from the orthodox party. How then are we to explain the
fact that a few years later he signed the Nicene creed and
anathematized the doctrines of Arius? Before we can understand his
conduct, it is necessary to examine carefully the two epistles in
question. Such an examination will show us that what Eusebius is
defending in them is not genuine Arianism. He evidently thinks that it
is, evidently supposes that he and Arius are in complete agreement upon
the subjects under discussion; but he is mistaken. The extant fragments
of the two epistles are given below on p. 70. It will be seen that
Eusebius in them defends the Arian doctrine that there was a time when
the Son of God was not. It will be seen also that he finds fault with
Alexander for representing the Arians as teaching that the "Son of God
was made out of nothing, like all creatures," and contends that Arius
teaches that the Son of God was begotten, and that he was not produced
like all creatures. We know that the Arians very commonly applied the
word "begotten" to Christ, using it in such cases as synonymous with
"created," and thus not implying, as the Athanasians did when they used
the word, that he was of one substance with the Father (compare, for
instance, the explanation of the meaning of the term given by Eusebius
of Nicomedia in his epistle to Paulinus; Theod. H. E. I. 6). It is
evident that the use of this word had deceived our Eusebius, and that
he was led by it to think that they taught that the Son was of the
Father in a peculiar sense, and did in reality partake in some way of
essential Godhood. And indeed it is not at all surprising that the
words of Arius, in his epistle to Alexander of Alexandria (see Athan.
Ep. de conc. Arim. et Seleuc., chap. II. S:3; Oxford edition of
Athanasius' Tracts against Arianism, p. 97), quoted by Eusebius in his
epistle to the same Alexander, should give Eusebius that impression.
The words are as follows: "The God of the law, and of the prophets, and
of the New Testament before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son,
through whom also He made the ages and the universe. And He begat him
not in appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will,
unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one
of the creatures." Arius' use here of the word "begat," and his
qualification of the word "creature" by the adjective "perfect," and by
the statement that he was "not as one of the creatures" naturally
tended to make Eusebius think that Arius acknowledged a real divinity
of the Son, and that appeared to him to be all that was necessary.
Meanwhile Alexander in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople
(Theod. H. E. I. 4) had, as Eusebius says, misstated Arius' opinion, or
at least had attributed to him the belief that Christ was "made like
all other men that have ever been born," whereas Arius expressly
disclaims such a belief. Alexander undoubtedly thought that that was
the legitimate result to which the other views of Arius must lead; but
Eusebius did not think so, and felt himself called upon to remonstrate
with Alexander for what seemed to him the latter's unfairness in the
matter.

When we examine the Caesarean creed [2] which Eusebius presented to the
Council as a fair statement of his belief, we find nothing in it
inconsistent with the acceptance of the kind of Arianism which he
defends in his epistle to Alexander, and which he evidently supposed to
be practically the Arianism of Arius himself. In his epistle to
Euphration, however, Eusebius seems at first glance to go further and
to give up the real divinity of the Son. His words are, "Since the Son
is himself God, but not true God." But we have no right to interpret
these words, torn as they are from the context which might make their
meaning perfectly plain, without due regard to Eusebius' belief
expressed elsewhere in this epistle, and in his epistle to Alexander
which was evidently written about the same time. In the epistle to
Alexander he clearly reveals a belief in the real divinity of the Son,
while in the other fragment of his epistle to Euphration he dwells upon
the subordination of the Son and approves the Arian opinion, which he
had defended also in the other epistle, that the "Father was before the
Son." The expression, "not true God" (a very common Arian expression;
see Athan. Orat. c. Arian. I. 6) seems therefore to have been used by
Eusebius to express a belief, not that the Son did not possess real
divinity (as the genuine Arians used it), but that he was not equal to
the Father, who, to Eusebius' thought, was "true God." He indeed
expressly calls the Son theos, which shows--when the sense in which he
elsewhere uses the word is considered--that he certainly did believe
him to partake of Godhood, though, in some mysterious way, in a smaller
degree, or in a less complete manner than the Father. That Eusebius
misunderstood Arius, and did not perceive that he actually denied all
real deity to the Son, was due doubtless in part to his lack of
theological insight (Eusebius was never a great theologian), in part to
his habitual dread of Sabellianism (of which Arius had accused
Alexander, and toward which Eusebius evidently thought that the latter
was tending), which led him to look with great favor upon the
pronounced subordinationism of Arius, and thus to overlook the
dangerous extreme to which Arius carried that subordinationism.

We are now, the writer hopes, prepared to admit that Eusebius, after
the breaking out of the Arian controversy, became an Arian, as he
understood Arianism, and supported that party with considerable vigor;
and that not as a result of mere personal friendship, but of
theological conviction. At the same time, he was then, as always, a
peace-loving man, and while lending Arius his approval and support, he
united with other Palestinian bishops in enjoining upon him submission
to his bishop (Sozomen, H. E. I. 15). As an Arian, then, and yet
possessed with the desire of securing, if it were possible, peace and
harmony between the two factions, Eusebius appeared at the Council of
Nicaea, and there signed a creed containing Athanasian doctrine and
anathematizing the chief tenets of Arius. How are we to explain his
conduct? We shall, perhaps, do best to let him explain his own conduct.
In his letter to the church of Caesarea (preserved by Socrates, H. E.
I. 8, as well as by other authors), he writes as follows:--

"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great
Council assembled at Nicaea you have probably learned, Beloved, from
other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of
what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case
have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you,
first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves; and next, the
second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions to our words.
Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious
Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:--

"`As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our
first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have
learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in
the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the
time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:--

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God,
God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten,
first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the
Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was
made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third
day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge
quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each
of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly
Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending
forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and
so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith
unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have
ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect
ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our
Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to
convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and
preaching.'

"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for
contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one
else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He
confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments; and he advised
all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent
to them, with the insertion of the single word, `One in substance'
(homoousios), which, moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of
the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father,
in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial and
intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any
corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things
in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks
of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to
the addition of `One in substance,' drew up the following formula:--

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible:-- And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of
the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God,
begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all
things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us
men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man,
suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and
cometh to judge quick and dead.

"`And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He was not," and
"Before His generation He was not," and "He came to be from nothing,"
or those who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other subsistence or
substance," or "created," or "alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic
Church anathematizes.'

"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without
inquiry in what sense they introduced `of the substance of the Father,'
and `one in substance with the Father.' Accordingly questions and
explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the
scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase `of the
substance' was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father,
yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we
thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine,
teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not, however, a
part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense
ourselves, without declining even the term `One in substance,' peace
being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the
orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted `begotten, not made';
since the Council alleged that `made' was an appellative common to the
other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had
no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He was not a work resembling the
things which through Him came to be, but was of a substance which is
too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles teach
to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being
inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on
examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is `one in
substance' with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal
beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance;
no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's
substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate nature of the
Father is alien), but because `one in substance with the Father'
suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated
creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He in every
way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and
substance, but from the Father.

"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent;
since we were aware that, even among the ancients, some learned and
illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term `one in substance'
in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son. So much,
then, be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of
us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified
senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and
justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the
anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost
all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no
divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, `out of nothing' and
`once He was not,' and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground
for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
Moreover, to anathematize `Before His generation He was not' did not
seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all that the Son of God
was before the generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most
religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in
being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages,
since even before he was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the
Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always and
Saviour always, having all things in virtue, and being always in the
same respects and in the same way. This we have been forced to transmit
to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry
and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, as
long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but
received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a
candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to
coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we
have already published." [3]

It will be seen that while the expressions "of the substance of the
Father," "begotten not made," and "One in substance," or
"consubstantial with the Father," are all explicitly anti-Arianistic,
yet none of them contradicts the doctrines held by Eusebius before the
Council, so far as we can learn them from his epistles to Alexander and
Euphration and from the Caesarean creed. His own explanation of those
expressions, which it is to be observed was the explanation given by
the Council itself, and which therefore he was fully warranted in
accepting,--even though it may not have been so rigid as to satisfy an
Athanasius,--shows us how this is. He had believed before that the Son
partook of the Godhood in very truth, that He was "begotten," and
therefore "not made," if "made" implied something different from
"begotten," as the Nicene Fathers held that it did; and he had believed
before that the "Son of God has no resemblance to created' things, but
is in every respect like the Father only who begat him, and that He is
of no other substance or essence than the Father," and therefore if
that was what the word "Consubstantial" (homoousios) meant he could not
do otherwise than accept that too.

It is clear that the dread of Sabellianism was still before the eyes of
Eusebius, and was the cause of his hesitation in assenting to the
various changes, especially to the use of the word homoousios, which
had been a Sabellian word and had been rejected on that account by the
Synod of Antioch, at which Paul of Samosata had been condemned some
sixty years before.

It still remains to explain Eusebius' sanction of the anathemas
attached to the creed which expressly condemn at least one of the
beliefs which he had himself formerly held, viz.: that the "Father was
before the Son," or as he puts it elsewhere, that "He who is begat him
who was not." The knot might of course be simply cut by supposing an
act of hypocrisy on his part, but the writer is convinced that such a
conclusion does violence to all that we know of Eusebius and of his
subsequent treatment of the questions involved in this discussion. It
is quite possible to suppose that a real change of opinion on his part
took place during the sessions of the Council. Indeed when we realize
how imperfect and incorrect a conception of Arianism he had before the
Council began, and how clearly its true bearing was there brought out
by its enemies, we can see that he could not do otherwise than change;
that he must have become either an out-and-out Arian, or an opponent of
Arianism as he did. When he learned, and learned for the first time,
that Arianism meant the denial of all essential divinity to Christ, and
when he saw that it involved the ascription of mutability and of other
finite attributes to him, he must either change entirely his views on
those points or he must leave the Arian party. To him who with all his
subordinationism had laid in all his writings so much stress on the
divinity of the Word (even though he had not realized exactly what that
divinity involved) it would have been a revolution in his Christian
life and faith to have admitted what he now learned that Arianism
involved. Sabellianism had been his dread, but now this new fear, which
had aroused so large a portion of the Church, seized him too, and he
felt that stand must be made against this too great separation of
Father and Son, which was leading to dangerous results. Under the
pressure of this fear it is not surprising that he should become
convinced that the Arian formula--"there was a time when the Son was
not"--involved serious consequences, and that Alexander and his
followers should have succeeded in pointing out to him its untruth,
because it led necessarily to a false conclusion. It is not surprising,
moreover, that they should have succeeded in explaining to him at least
partially their belief, which, as his epistle to Alexander shows, had
before been absolutely incomprehensible, that the Son was generated
from all eternity, and that therefore the Father did not exist before
him in a temporal sense.

He says toward the close of his epistle to the Caesarean church that he
had not been accustomed to use such expressions as "There was a time
when he was not," "He came to be from nothing," etc. And there is no
reason to doubt that he speaks the truth. Even in his epistles to
Alexander and Euphration he does not use those phrases (though he does
defend the doctrine taught by the first of them), nor does Arius
himself, in the epistle to Alexander upon which Eusebius apparently
based his knowledge of the system, use those expressions, although he
too teaches the same doctrine. The fact is that in that epistle Arius
studiously avoids such favorite Arian phrases as might emphasize the
differences between himself and Alexander, and Eusebius seems to have
avoided them for the same reason. We conclude then that Eusebius was
not an Arian (nor an adherent of Lucian) before 318, that soon after
that date he became an Arian in the sense in which he understood
Arianism, but that during the Council of Nicaea he ceased to be one in
any sense. His writings in later years confirm the course of doctrinal
development which we have supposed went on in his mind. He never again
defends Arian doctrines in his works, and yet he never becomes an
Athanasian in his emphasis upon the homoousion. In fact he represents a
mild orthodoxy, which is always orthodox--when measured by the Nicene
creed as interpreted by the Nicene Council--and yet is always mild.
Moreover, he never acquired an affection for the word homoousios, which
to his mind was bound up with too many evil associations ever to have a
pleasant sound to him. He therefore studiously avoided it in his own
writings, although clearly showing that he believed fully in what the
Nicene Council had explained it to mean. It must be remembered that
during many years of his later life he was engaged in controversy with
Marcellus, a thorough-going Sabellian, who had been at the time of the
Council one of the strongest of Athanasius' colleagues. In his contest
with him it was again anti-Sabellianistic polemics which absorbed him
and increased his distaste for homoousion and minimized his emphasis
upon the distinctively anti-Arianistic doctrines formulated at Nicaea.
For any except the very wisest minds it was a matter of enormous
difficulty to steer between the two extremes in those times of strife;
and while combating Sabellianism not to fall into Arianism, and while
combating the latter not to be engulfed in the former. That Eusebius
under the constant pressure of the one fell into the other at one time,
and was in occasional danger of falling into it again in later years,
can hardly be cited as an evidence either of wrong heart or of weak
head. An Athanasius he was not, but neither was he an unsteady
weather-cock, or an hypocritical time-server.
__________________________________________________________________

[1] It is interesting to notice that the creed of the Caesarean church
which Eusebius presented at the Council of Nice contains a clause which
certainly looks as if it had been composed in opposition to the
familiar formula of the Sabellians: "The same one is the Father, the
same one the Son, the same one the Holy Spirit" (ton auton einai
patera, ton auton einai hui& 232;n, ton auton einai hagion pneuma; see
Epiphan. Haer. LXII. 1; and compare the statement made in the same
section, that the Sabellians taught that God acts in three forms: in
the form of the Father, as creator and lawgiver; in the form of the
Son, as redeemer; and in the form of the Spirit, as life-giver, etc.).
The clause of the Caesarean creed referred to runs as follows: "That
the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit
truly Holy Spirit" (patera alethos patera, kai hui& 232;n alethos hui&
232;n, kai pneuma hagion alethos hagion). It is significant that in the
revised creed adopted by the Council these words are omitted, evidently
because the occasion for them no longer existed, since not Sabellianism
but Arianism was the heresy combated; and because, more than that, the
use of them would but weaken the emphasis which the Council wished to
put upon the essential divinity of all three persons.

[2] For a translation of the creed see below, p. 16, where it is given
as a part of Eusebius' epistle to the Church of Caesarea.

[3] The translation is that of Newman, as given in the Oxford edition
of Athanasius' Select Treatises against Arianism, p. 59 sq.
__________________________________________________________________

S:6. The Council of Nicaea.

At the Council of Nicaea, which met pursuant to an imperial summons in
the year 325 A.D., Eusebius played a very prominent part. A description
of the opening scenes of the Council is given in his Vita Constantini,
III. 10 sq. After the Emperor had entered in pomp and had taken his
seat, a bishop who sat next to him upon his right arose and delivered
in his honor the opening oration, to which the Emperor replied in a
brief Latin address. There can be no doubt that this bishop was our
Eusebius. Sozomen (H. E. I. 19) states it directly; and Eusebius,
although he does not name the speaker, yet refers to him, as he had
referred to the orator at the dedication of Paulinus' church at Tyre,
in such a way as to make it clear that it was himself; and moreover in
his Vita Constantini, I. 1, he mentions the fact that he had in the
midst of an assembly of the servants of God addressed an oration to the
Emperor on the occasion of the latter's vicennalia, i.e. in 325 a.d. On
the other hand, however, Theodoret (H. E. I. 7) states that this
opening oration was delivered by Eustathius, bishop of Antioch; while
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Philostorgius (according to Nicetas
Choniates, Thes. de orthod. fid. V. 7) assign it to Alexander of
Alexandria. As Lightfoot suggests, it is possible to explain the
discrepancy in the reports by supposing that Eustathius and Alexander,
the two great patriarchs, first addressed a few words to the Emperor
and that then Eusebius delivered the regular oration. This supposition
is not at all unlikely, for it would be quite proper for the two
highest ecclesiastics present to welcome the Emperor formally in behalf
of the assembled prelates, before the regular oration was delivered by
Eusebius. At the same time, the supposition that one or the other of
the two great patriarchs must have delivered the opening address was
such a natural one that it may have been adopted by Theodoret and the
other writers referred to without any historical basis. It is in any
case certain that the regular oration was delivered by Eusebius himself
(see the convincing arguments adduced by Stroth, p. xxvii. sq.). This
oration is no longer extant, but an idea of its character may be formed
from the address delivered by Eusebius at the Emperor's tricennalia
(which is still extant under the title De laudibus Constantini; see
below, p. 43) and from the general tone of his Life of Constantine. It
was avowedly a panegyric, and undoubtedly as fulsome as it was possible
to make it, and his powers in that direction were by no means slight.

That Eusebius, instead of the bishop of some more prominent church,
should have been selected to deliver the opening address, may have been
in part owing to his recognized standing as the most learned man and
the most famous writer in the Church, in part to the fact that he was
not as pronounced a partisan as some of his distinguished brethren; for
instance, Alexander of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Nicomedia; and
finally in some measure to his intimate relations with the Emperor. How
and when his intimacy with the latter grew up we do not know. As
already remarked, he seems to have become personally acquainted with
him many years before, when Constantine passed through Caesarea in the
train of Diocletian, and it may be that a mutual friendship, which was
so marked in later years, began at that time. However that may be,
Eusebius seems to have possessed special advantages of one kind or
another, enabling him to come into personal contact with official
circles, and once introduced to imperial notice, his wide learning,
sound common sense, genial temper and broad charity would insure him
the friendship of the Emperor himself, or of any other worthy officer
of state. We have no record of an intimacy between Constantine and
Eusebius before the Council of Nicaea, but many clear intimations of it
after that time. In fact, it is evident that during the last decade at
least of the Emperor's life, few, if any, bishops stood higher in his
esteem or enjoyed a larger measure of his confidence. Compare for
instance the records of their conversations (contained in the Vita
Constantini, I. 28 and II. 9), of their correspondence (ib. II. 46,
III. 61, IV. 35 and 36), and the words of Constantine himself (ib. III.
60). The marked attention paid by him to the speeches delivered by
Eusebius in his presence (ib. IV. 33 and 46) is also to be noticed.
Eusebius' intimacy with the imperial family is shown likewise in the
tone of the letter which he wrote to Constantia, the sister of
Constantine and wife of Licinius, in regard to a likeness of Christ
which she had asked him to send her. The frankness and freedom with
which he remonstrates with her for what he considers mistaken zeal on
her part, reveal a degree of familiarity which could have come only
from long and cordial relations between himself and his royal
correspondent. Whatever other reasons therefore may have combined to
indicate Eusebius as the most fitting person to deliver the oration in
honor of the Emperor at the Council of Nicaea, there can be little
doubt that Constantine's personal friendship for him had much to do
with his selection. The action of the Council on the subject of
Arianism, and Eusebius' conduct in the matter, have already been
discussed. Of the bishops assembled at the Council, not far from three
hundred in number (the reports of eye-witnesses vary from two hundred
and fifty to three hundred and eighteen), all but two signed the Nicene
creed as adopted by the Council. These two, both of them Egyptians,
were banished with Arius to Illyria, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
Theognis of Nicaea, who subscribed the creed itself but refused to
assent to its anathemas, were also banished for a time, but soon
yielded, and were restored to their churches.

Into the other purposes for which the Nicene Council was called,--the
settlement of the dispute respecting the time of observing Easter and
the healing of the Meletian schism,--it is not necessary to enter here.
We have no record of the part which Eusebius took in these
transactions. Lightfoot has abundantly shown (p. 313 sq.) that the
common supposition that Eusebius was the author of the paschal cycle of
nineteen years is false, and that there is no reason to suppose that he
had anything particular to do with the decision of the paschal question
at this Council.
__________________________________________________________________

S:7. Continuance of the Arian Controversy. Eusebius' Relations to the
Two Parties.

The Council of Nicaea did not bring the Arian controversy to an end.
The orthodox party was victorious, it is true, but the Arians were
still determined, and could not give up their enmity against the
opponents of Arius, and their hope that they might in the end turn the
tables on their antagonists. Meanwhile, within a few years after the
Council, a quarrel broke out between our Eusebius and Eustathius,
bishop of Antioch, a resolute supporter of Nicene orthodoxy. According
to Socrates (H. E. I. 23) and Sozomen (H. E. II. 18) Eustathius accused
Eusebius of perverting the Nicene doctrines, while Eusebius denied the
charge, and in turn taxed Eustathius with Sabellianism. The quarrel
finally became so serious that it was deemed necessary to summon a
Council for the investigation of Eustathius' orthodoxy and the
settlement of the dispute. This Council met in Antioch in 330 a.d. (see
Tillemont, VII. p. 651 sq., for a discussion of the date), and was made
up chiefly of bishops of Arian or semi-Arian tendencies. This fact,
however, brings no discredit upon Eusebius. The Council was held in
another province, and he can have had nothing to do with its
composition. In fact, convened, as it was, in Eustathius' own city, it
must have been legally organized; and indeed Eustathius himself
acknowledged its jurisdiction by appearing before it to answer the
charges made against him. Theodoret's absurd account of the origin of
the synod and of the accusations brought against Eustathius (H. E. I.
21) bears upon its face the stamp of falsehood, and is, as Hefele has
shown (Conciliengeschichte, I. 451), hopelessly in error in its
chronology. It is therefore to be rejected as quite worthless. The
decision of the Council doubtless fairly represented the views of the
majority of the bishops of that section, for we know that Arianism had
a very strong hold there. To think of a packed Council and of illegal
methods of procedure in procuring the verdict against Eustathius is
both unnecessary and unwarrantable. The result of the Council was the
deposition of Eustathius from his bishopric and his banishment by the
Emperor to Illyria, where he afterward died. There is a division of
opinion among our sources in regard to the immediate successor of
Eustathius. All of them agree that Eusebius was asked to become bishop
of Antioch, but that he refused the honor, and that Euphronius was
chosen in his stead. Socrates and Sozomen, however, inform us that the
election of Eusebius took place immediately after the deposition of
Eustathius, while Theodoret (H. E. I. 22) names Eulalius as Eustathius'
immediate successor, and states that he lived but a short time, and
that Eusebius was then asked to succeed him. Theodoret is supported by
Jerome (Chron., year of Abr. 2345) and by Philostorgius (H. E. III.
15), both of whom insert a bishop Eulalius between Eustathius and
Euphronius. It is easier to suppose that Socrates and Sozomen may have
omitted so unimportant a name at this point than that the other three
witnesses inserted it without warrant. Socrates indeed implies in the
same chapter that his knowledge of these affairs is limited, and it is
not surprising that Eusebius' election, which caused a great stir,
should have been connected in the mind of later writers immediately
with Eustathius' deposition, and the intermediate steps forgotten. It
seems probable, therefore, that immediately after the condemnation of
Eustathius, Eulalius was appointed in his place, perhaps by the same
Council, and that after his death, a few months later, Eusebius, who
had meanwhile gone back to Caesarea, was elected in due order by
another Council of neighboring bishops summoned for the purpose, and
that he was supported by a large party of citizens. It is noticeable
that the letter written by the Emperor to the Council, which wished to
transfer Eusebius to Antioch (see Vita Const. III. 62), mentions in its
salutation the names of five bishops, but among them is only one
(Theodotus) who is elsewhere named as present at the Council which
deposed Eustathius, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of
Nicaea, as well as others whom we know to have been on hand on that
occasion, are not referred to by the Emperor. This fact certainly seems
to point to a different council.

It is greatly to Eusebius' credit that he refused the call extended to
him. Had he been governed simply by selfish ambition he would certainly
have accepted it, for the patriarchate of Antioch stood at that time
next to Alexandria in point of honor in the Eastern Church. The Emperor
commended him very highly for his decision, in his epistles to the
people of Antioch and to the Council (Vita Const. III. 60, 62), and in
that to Eusebius himself (ib. III. 61). He saw in it a desire on
Eusebius' part to observe the ancient canon of the Church, which
forbade the transfer of a bishop from one see to another. But that in
itself can hardly have been sufficient to deter the latter from
accepting the high honor offered him, for it was broken without scruple
on all sides. It is more probable that he saw that the schism of the
Antiochenes would be embittered by the induction into the bishopric of
that church of Eustathius' chief opponent, and that he did not feel
that he had a right so to divide the Church of God. Eusebius' general
character, as known to us, justifies us in supposing that this high
motive had much to do with his decision. We may suppose also that so
difficult a place can have had no very great attractions for a man of
his age and of his peace-loving disposition and scholarly tastes. In
Caesarea he had spent his life; there he had the great library of
Pamphilus at his disposal, and leisure to pursue his literary work. In
Antioch he would have found himself compelled to plunge into the midst
of quarrels and seditions of all kinds, and would have been obliged to
devote his entire attention to the performance of his official duties.
His own tastes therefore must have conspired with his sense of duty to
lead him to reject the proffered call and to remain in the somewhat
humbler station which he already occupied.

Not long after the deposition of Eustathius, the Arians and their
sympathizers began to work more energetically to accomplish the ruin of
Athanasius, their greatest foe. He had become Alexander's successor as
bishop of Alexandria in the year 326, and was the acknowledged head of
the orthodox party. If he could be brought into discredit, there might
be hopes of restoring Arius to his position in Alexandria, and of
securing for Arianism a recognition, and finally a dominating influence
in the church at large. To the overthrow of Athanasius therefore all
good Arians bent their energies. They found ready accomplices in the
schismatical Meletians of Egypt, who were bitter enemies of the
orthodox church of Alexandria. It was useless to accuse Athanasius of
heterodoxy; he was too widely known as the pillar of the orthodox
faith. Charges must be framed of another sort, and of a sort to stir up
the anger of the Emperor against him. The Arians therefore and the
Meletians began to spread the most vile and at the same time absurd
stories about Athanasius (see especially the latter's Apol. c. Arian.
S:59 sq.). These at last became so notorious that the Emperor summoned
Athanasius to appear and make his defense before a council of bishops
to be held in Caesarea (Sozomen, H. E. II. 25; Theodoret, H. E. I. 28).
Athanasius, however, fearing that the Council would be composed wholly
of his enemies, and that it would therefore be impossible to secure
fair play, excused himself and remained away. But in the following year
(see Sozomen, H. E. II. 25) he received from the Emperor a summons to
appear before a council at Tyre. The summons was too peremptory to
admit of a refusal, and Athanasius therefore attended, accompanied by
many of his devoted adherents (see Sozomen, ib.; Theodoret, H. E. I.
30; Socrates, H. E. I. 28; Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. S:71 sq.;
Eusebius, Vita Const. IV. 41 sq., and Epiphanius, Haer. LXVIII. 8).
After a time, perceiving that he had no chance of receiving fair play,
he suddenly withdrew from the Council and proceeded directly to
Constantinople, in order to lay his case before the Emperor himself,
and to induce the latter to allow him to meet his accusers in his
presence, and plead his cause before him. There was nothing for the
Synod to do after his flight but to sustain the charges brought against
him, some of which he had not stayed to refute, and to pass
condemnation upon him. Besides various immoral and sacrilegious deeds
of which he was accused, his refusal to appear before the Council of
Caesarea the previous year was made an important item of the
prosecution. It was during this Council that Potamo flung at Eusebius
the taunt of cowardice, to which reference was made above, and which
doubtless did much to confirm Eusebius' distrust of and hostility to
the Athanasian party. Whether Eusebius of Caesarea, as is commonly
supposed, or Eusebius of Nicomedia, or some other bishop, presided at
this Council we are not able to determine. The account of Epiphanius
seems to imply that the former was presiding at the time that Potamo
made his untimely accusation. Our sources are, most of them, silent on
the matter, but according to Valesius, Eusebius of Nicomedia is named
by some of them, but which they are I have not been able to discover.
We learn from Socrates (H. E. I. 28), as well as from other sources,
that this Synod of Tyre was held in the thirtieth year of Constantine's
reign, that is, between July, 334, and July, 335. As the Council was
closed only in time for the bishops to reach Jerusalem by July, 335, it
is probable that it was convened in 335 rather than in 334. From
Sozomen (H. E. II. 25) we learn also that the Synod of Caesarea had
been held the preceding year, therefore in 333 or 334 (the latter being
the date commonly given by historians). While the Council of Tyre was
still in session, the bishops were commanded by Constantine to proceed
immediately to Jerusalem to take part in the approaching festival to be
held there on the occasion of his tricennalia. The scene was one of
great splendor. Bishops were present from all parts of the world, and
the occasion was marked by the dedication of the new and magnificent
basilica which Constantine had erected upon the site of Calvary
(Theodoret, I. 31; Socrates, I. 28 and 33; Sozomen, II. 26; Eusebius,
Vita Const. IV. 41 and 43). The bishops gathered in Jerusalem at this
time held another synod before separating. In this they completed the
work begun at Tyre, by re-admitting Arius and his adherents to the
communion of the Church (see Socrates, I. 33, and Sozomen, II. 27).
According to Sozomen the Emperor, having been induced to recall Arius
from banishment in order to reconsider his case, was presented by the
latter with a confession of faith, which was so worded as to convince
Constantine of his orthodoxy. He therefore sent Arius and his companion
Euzoius to the bishops assembled in Jerusalem with the request that
they would examine the confession, and if they were satisfied with its
orthodoxy would re-admit them to communion. The Council, which was
composed largely of Arius' friends and sympathizers, was only too glad
to accede to the Emperor's request.

Meanwhile Athanasius had induced Constantine, out of a sense of
justice, to summon the bishops that had condemned him at Tyre to give
an account of their proceedings before the Emperor himself at
Constantinople. This unexpected, and, doubtless, not altogether welcome
summons came while the bishops were at Jerusalem, and the majority of
them at once returned home in alarm, while only a few answered the call
and repaired to Constantinople. Among these were Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Theognis of Nicaea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and other prominent
Arians, and with them our Eusebius (Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. S:S:86
and 87; Socrates, I. 33-35; Sozomen, II. 28). The accusers of
Athanasius said nothing on this occasion in regard to his alleged
immoralities, for which he had been condemned at Tyre, but made another
equally trivial accusation against him, and the result was his
banishment to Gaul. Whether Constantine banished him because he
believed the charge brought against him, or because he wished to
preserve him from the machinations of his enemies (as asserted by his
son Constantine, and apparently believed by Athanasius himself; see his
Apol. c. Arian. S:87), or because he thought that Athanasius' absence
would allay the troubles in the Alexandrian church we do not know. The
latter supposition seems most probable. In any case he was not recalled
from banishment until after Constantine's death. Our Eusebius has been
severely condemned by many historians for the part taken by him in the
Eustathian controversy and especially in the war against Athanasius. In
justice to him a word or two must be spoken in his defense. So far as
his relations to Eustathius are concerned, it is to be noticed that the
latter commenced the controversy by accusing Eusebius of heterodoxy.
Eusebius himself did not begin the quarrel, and very likely had no
desire to engage in any such doctrinal strife; but he was compelled to
defend himself, and in doing so he could not do otherwise than accuse
Eustathius of Sabellianism; for if the latter was not satisfied with
Eusebius' orthodoxy, which Eusebius himself believed to be truly
Nicene, then he must be leaning too far toward the other extreme; that
is, toward Sabellianism. There is no reason to doubt that Eusebius was
perfectly straightforward and honorable throughout the whole
controversy, and at the Council of Antioch itself. That he was not
actuated by unworthy motives, or by a desire for revenge, is evinced by
his rejection of the proffered call to Antioch, the acceptance of which
would have given him so good an opportunity to triumph over his fallen
enemy. It must be admitted, in fact, that Eusebius comes out of this
controversy without a stain of any kind upon his character. He honestly
believed Eustathius to be a Sabellian, and he acted accordingly.

Eusebius has been blamed still more severely for his treatment of
Athanasius. But again the facts must be looked at impartially. It is
necessary always to remember that Sabellianism was in the beginning and
remained throughout his life the heresy which he most dreaded, and
which he had perhaps most reason to dread. He must, even at the Council
of Nicaea, have suspected Athanasius, who laid so much stress upon the
unity of essence on the part of Father and Son, of a leaning toward
Sabellianistic principles; and this suspicion must have been increased
when he discovered, as he believed, that Athanasius' most staunch
supporter, Eustathius, was a genuine Sabellian. Moreover, on the other
side, it is to be remembered that Eusebius of Nicomedia, and all the
other leading Arians, had signed the Nicene creed and had proclaimed
themselves thoroughly in sympathy with its teaching. Our Eusebius,
knowing the change that had taken place in his own mind upon the
controverted points, may well have believed that their views had
undergone even a greater change, and that they were perfectly honest in
their protestations of orthodoxy. And finally, when Arius himself
presented a confession of faith which led the Emperor, who had had a
personal interview with him, to believe that he had altered his views
and was in complete harmony with the Nicene faith, it is not surprising
that our Eusebius, who was naturally unsuspicious, conciliatory and
peace-loving, should think the same thing, and be glad to receive Arius
back into communion, while at the same time remaining perfectly loyal
to the orthodoxy of the Nicene creed which he had subscribed. Meanwhile
his suspicions of the Arian party being in large measure allayed, and
his distrust of the orthodoxy of Athanasius and of his adherents being
increased by the course of events, it was only natural that he should
lend more or less credence to the calumnies which were so industriously
circulated against Athanasius. To charge him with dishonesty for being
influenced by these reports, which seem to us so absurd and palpably
calumnious, is quite unwarranted. Constantine, who was, if not a
theologian, at least a clear-headed and sharp-sighted man, believed
them, and why should Eusebius not have done the same? The incident
which took place at the Council of Tyre in connection with Potamo and
himself was important; for whatever doubts he may have had up to that
time as to the truth of the accusations made against Athanasius and his
adherents, Potamo's conduct convinced him that the charges of tyranny
and high-handed dealing brought against the whole party were quite
true. It could not be otherwise than that he should believe that the
good of the Alexandrian church, and therefore of the Church at large,
demanded the deposition of the seditious and tyrannous archbishop, who
was at the same time quite probably Sabellianistic in his tendencies.
It must in justice be noted that there is not the slightest reason to
suppose that our Eusebius had anything to do with the dishonorable
intrigues of the Arian party throughout this controversy. Athanasius,
who cannot say enough in condemnation of the tactics of Eusebius of
Nicomedia and his supporters, never mentions Eusebius of Caesarea in a
tone of bitterness. He refers to him occasionally as a member of the
opposite party, but he has no complaints to utter against him, as he
has against the others. This is very significant, and should put an end
to all suspicions of unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part. It is to be
observed that the latter, though having good cause as he believed to
condemn Athanasius and his adherents, never acted as a leader in the
war against them. His name, if mentioned at all, occurs always toward
the end of the list as one of the minor combatants, although his
position and his learning would have entitled him to take the most
prominent position in the whole affair, if he had cared to. He was but
true to his general character in shrinking from such a controversy, and
in taking part in it only in so far as his conscience compelled him to.
We may suspect indeed that he would not have made one of the small
party that repaired to Constantinople in response to the Emperor's
imperious summons had it not been for the celebration of Constantine's
tricennalia, which was taking place there at the time, and at which he
delivered, on the special invitation of the Emperor and in his
presence, one of his greatest orations. Certain it is, from the account
which he gives in his Vita Constantini, that both in Constantinople and
in Jerusalem the festival of the tricennalia, with its attendant
ceremonies, interested him much more than did the condemnation of
Athanasius.
__________________________________________________________________

S:8. Eusebius and Marcellus.

It was during this visit to Constantinople that another synod was held,
at which Eusebius was present, and the result of which was the
condemnation and deposition of the bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (see
Socrates, I. 36; Sozomen, II. 33; Eusebius, Contra Marc. II. 4). The
attitude of our Eusebius toward Marcellus is again significant of his
theological tendencies. Marcellus had written a book against Asterius,
a prominent Arian, in which, in his zeal for the Nicene orthodoxy, he
had laid himself open to the charge of Sabellianism. On this account he
was deposed by the Constantinopolitan Synod, and our Eusebius was urged
to write a work exposing his errors and defending the action of the
Council. As a consequence he composed his two works against Marcellus
which will be described later. That Eusebius, if not in the case of
Athanasius and possibly not in that of Eustathius, had at least in the
present case good ground for the belief that Marcellus was a Sabellian,
or Sabellianistic in tendency, is abundantly proved by the citations
which he makes from Marcellus' own works; and, moreover, his judgment
and that of the Synod was later confirmed even by Athanasius himself.
Though not suspecting Marcellus for some time, Athanasius finally
became convinced that he had deviated from the path of orthodoxy, and,
as Newman has shown (in his introduction to Athanasius' fourth
discourse against the Arians, Oxford Library of the Fathers, vol. 19,
p. 503 sq.), directed that discourse against his errors and those of
his followers.

The controversy with Marcellus seems to have been the last in which
Eusebius was engaged, and it was opposition to the dreaded heresy of
Sabellius which moved him here as in all the other cases. It is
important to emphasize, however, what is often overlooked, that though
Eusebius during these years was so continuously engaged in controversy
with one or another of the members of the anti-Arian party, there is no
evidence that he ever deviated from the doctrinal position which he
took at the Council of Nicaea. After that date it was never Arianism
which he consciously supported; it was never the Nicene orthodoxy which
he opposed. He supported those members of the old Arian party who had
signed the Nicene creed and protested that they accepted its teaching,
against those members of the opposite party whom he believed to be
drifting toward Sabellianism, or acting tyrannously and unjustly toward
their opponents. The anti-Sabellianistic interest influenced him all
the time, but his post-Nicene writings contain no evidence that he had
fallen back into the Arianizing position which he had held before 325.
They reveal, on the contrary, a fair type of orthodoxy, colored only by
its decidedly anti-Sabellian emphasis.
__________________________________________________________________

S:9. The Death of Eusebius.

In less than two years after the celebration of his tricennalia, on May
22, 337 a.d., the great Constantine breathed his last, in Nicomedia,
his former Capital. Eusebius, already an old man, produced a lasting
testimonial of his own unbounded affection and admiration for the first
Christian emperor, in his Life of Constantine. Soon afterward he
followed his imperial friend at the advanced age of nearly, if not
quite, eighty years. The exact date of his death is unknown, but it can
be fixed approximately. We know from Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) that in the
summer of 341, when a council was held at Antioch (on the date of the
Council, which we are able to fix with great exactness, see Hefele,
Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 sq.) Acacius, Eusebius' successor, was
already bishop of Caesarea. Socrates (H. E. II. 4) and Sozomen (H. E.
III. 2) both mention the death of Eusebius and place it shortly before
the death of Constantine the younger, which took place early in 340
(see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp. IV. p. 327 sq.), and after the
intrigues had begun which resulted in Athanasius' second banishment. We
are thus led to place Eusebius' death late in the year 339, or early in
the year 340 (cf. Lightfoot's article, p. 318).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter II

The Writings of Eusebius.

S:1. Eusebius as a Writer

Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his
labors covered almost every field of theological learning. In the words
of Lightfoot he was "historian, apologist, topographer, exegete,
critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn." It is as an historian that
he is best known, but the importance of his historical writings should
not cause us to overlook, as modern scholars have been prone to do, his
invaluable productions in other departments. Lightfoot passes a very
just judgment upon the importance of his works in the following words:
"If the permanent utility of an author's labors may be taken as a test
of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold a very high place indeed.
The Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique and indispensable. The
Chronicle is the vast storehouse of information relating to the ancient
monarchies of the world. The Preparation and Demonstration are the most
important contributions to theology in their own province. Even the
minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine, the Life of Constantine,
the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to Marinus, and others, would
leave an irreparable blank, if they were obliterated. And the same
permanent value attaches also to his more technical treatises. The
Canons and Sections have never yet been superseded for their particular
purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the most important contribution
to our knowledge in its own department. In short, no ancient
ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under heavier obligations."

If we look in Eusebius' works for evidences of brilliant genius we
shall be disappointed. He did not possess a great creative mind like
Origen's or Augustine's. His claim to greatness rests upon his vast
erudition and his sterling sense. His powers of acquisition were
remarkable and his diligence in study unwearied. He had at his command
undoubtedly more acquired material than any man of his age, and he
possessed that true literary and historical instinct which enabled him
to select from his vast stores of knowledge those things which it was
most worth his while to tell to the world. His writings therefore
remain valuable while the works of many others, perhaps no less richly
equipped than himself for the mission of adding to the sum of human
knowledge, are entirely forgotten. He thus had the ability to do more
than acquire; he had the ability to impart to others the very best of
that which he acquired, and to make it useful to them. There is not in
his writings the brilliancy which we find in some others, there is not
the same sparkle and freshness of new and suggestive thought, there is
not the same impress of an overmastering individuality which transforms
everything it touches. There is, however, a true and solid merit which
marks his works almost without exception, and raises them above the
commonplace. His exegesis is superior to that of most of his
contemporaries, and his apologetics is marked by fairness of statement,
breadth of treatment, and instinctive appreciation of the difference
between the important and the unimportant points under discussion,
which give to his apologetic works a permanent value. His wide
acquaintance, too, with other systems than his own, and with the
products of Pagan as well as Christian thought, enabled him to see
things in their proper relations and to furnish a treatment of the
great themes of Christianity adapted to the wants of those who had
looked beyond the confines of a single school. At the same time it must
be acknowledged that he was not always equal to the grand opportunities
which his acquaintance with the works and lives of other men and other
peoples opened before him. He does not always reveal the possession of
that high quality of genius which is able to interpret the most various
forces and to discover the higher principles of unity which alone make
them intelligible; indeed, he often loses himself completely in a
wilderness of thoughts and notions which have come to him from other
men and other ages, and the result is dire confusion.

We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the works of Eusebius for
evidences of a refined literary taste, or for any of the charms which
attach to the writings of a great master of composition. His style is,
as a rule, involved and obscure, often painfully rambling and
incoherent. This quality is due in large part to the desultoriness of
his thinking. He did not often enough clearly define and draw the
boundaries of his subject before beginning to write upon it. He
apparently did much of his thinking after he had taken pen in hand, and
did not subject what he had thus produced to a sufficiently careful
revision, if to any revision at all. Thoughts and suggestions poured in
upon him while he was writing; and he was not always able to resist the
temptation to insert them as they came, often to the utter perversion
of his train of thought, and to the ruin of the coherency and
perspicuity of his style. It must be acknowledged, too, that his
literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly vicious. Whenever a flight
of eloquence is attempted by him, as it is altogether too often, his
style becomes hopelessly turgid and pretentious. At such times his
skill in mixing metaphors is something astounding (compare, for
instance, H. E. II. 14). On the other hand, his works contain not a few
passages of real beauty. This is especially true of his Martyrs of
Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for and deep sympathy with
the heroes of the faith cause him often to forget himself and to
describe their sufferings in language of genuine fire or pathos. At
times, too, when he has a sharply defined and absorbing aim in mind,
and when the subject with which he is dealing does not seem to him to
demand rhetorical adornment, he is simple and direct enough in his
language, showing in such cases that his commonly defective style is
not so much the consequence of an inadequate command of the Greek
tongue as of desultory thinking and vicious literary taste.

But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius' writings, we ought not
to fail to give him due credit for the conscientiousness and
faithfulness with which he did his work. He wrote often, it is true,
too rapidly for the good of his style, and he did not always revise his
works as carefully as he should have done; but we seldom detect undue
haste in the collection of materials or carelessness and negligence in
the use of them. He seems to have felt constantly the responsibilities
which rested upon him as a scholar and writer, and to have done his
best to meet those responsibilities. It is impossible to avoid
contrasting him in this respect with the most learned man of the
ancient Latin Church, St. Jerome. The haste and carelessness with which
the latter composed his De Viris Illustribus, and with which he
translated and continued Eusebius' Chronicle, remain an everlasting
disgrace to him. An examination of those and of some others of Jerome's
works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly in our esteem. He was at
least conscientious and honest in his work, and never allowed himself
to palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive his readers by
sophistries, misstatements, and pure inventions. He aimed to put the
reader into possession of the knowledge which he had himself acquired,
but was always conscientious enough to stop there, and not attempt to
make fancy play the role of fact.

One other point, which was mentioned some pages back, and to which
Lightfoot calls particular attention, should be referred to here,
because of its bearing upon the character of Eusebius' writings. He
was, above all things, an apologist; and the apologetic aim governed
both the selection of his subjects and method of his treatment. He
composed none of his works with a purely scientific aim. He thought
always of the practical result to be attained, and his selection of
material and his choice of method were governed by that. And yet we
must recognize the fact that this aim was never narrowing in its
effects. He took a broad view of apologetics, and in his lofty
conception of the Christian religion he believed that every field of
knowledge might be laid under tribute to it. He was bold enough to be
confident that history, philosophy, and science all contribute to our
understanding and appreciation of divine truth; and so history and
philosophy and science were studied and handled by him freely and
fearlessly. He did not feel the need of distorting truth of any kind
because it might work injury to the religion which he professed. On the
contrary, he had a sublime faith which led him to believe that all
truth must have its place and its mission, and that the cause of
Christianity will be benefited by its discovery and diffusion. As an
apologist, therefore, all fields of knowledge had an interest for him;
and he was saved that pettiness of mind and narrowness of outlook which
are sometimes characteristic of those who write with a purely practical
motive.
__________________________________________________________________

S:2. Catalogue of his Works.

There is no absolutely complete edition of Eusebius' extant works. The
only one which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of
Migne: Eusebii Pamphili, Caesareae Palestinae Episcopi, Opera omnia
quae extant, curis variorum, nempe: Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri,
Bernardi Montfauconii, Card. Angelo Maii edita; collegit et denuo
recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. 1857. 6 vols. (tom. XIX.-XXIV. of Migne's
Patrologia Graeca). This edition omits the works which are extant only
in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some brief but important Greek
fragments (among them the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The
edition, however, is invaluable and cannot be dispensed with.
References to it (under the simple title Opera) will be given below in
connection with those works which it contains. Many of Eusebius'
writings, especially the historical, have been published separately.
Such editions will be mentioned in their proper place in the Catalogue.

More or less incomplete lists of our author's writings are given by
Jerome (De vir. ill. 87); by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37); by
Ebedjesu (in Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18 sq.); by Photius
(Bibl. 9-13, 27, 39, 127); and by Suidas (who simply copies the Greek
version of Jerome). Among modern works all the lives of Eusebius
referred to in the previous chapter give more or less extended
catalogues of his writings. In addition to the works mentioned there,
valuable lists are also found in Lardner's Credibility, Part II chap.
72, and especially in Fabricius' Bibl. Graeca (ed. 1714), vol. VI. p.
30 sq.

The writings of Eusebius that are known to us, extant and non-extant,
may be classified for convenience' sake under the following heads: I.
Historical. II. Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV. Dogmatic. V. Critical and
Exegetical. VI. Biblical Dictionaries. VII. Orations. VIII. Epistles.
IX. Spurious or doubtful works. The classification is necessarily
somewhat artificial, and claims to be neither exhaustive nor exclusive.
[4]

I. Historical Works.

Life of Pamphilus (he tou Pamphilou biou anagraphe; see H. E. VI. 32).
Eusebius himself refers to this work in four passages (H. E. VI. 32,
VII. 32, VIII. 13, and Mart. Pal. c. 11). In the last he informs us
that it consisted of three books. The work is mentioned also more than
once by Jerome (De vir. ill. 81; Ep. ad Marcellam, Migne's ed. Ep. 34;
Contra Ruf. I. 9), who speaks of it in terms of praise, and in the last
passage gives a brief extract from the third book, which is, so far as
known, the only extant fragment of the work. The date of its
composition can be fixed within comparatively narrow limits. It must of
course have been written before the shorter recension of the Martyrs of
Palestine, which contains a reference to it (on its relation to the
longer recension, which does not mention it, see below, p. 30), and
also before the History, (i.e. as early as 313 a.d. (?), see below, p.
45). On the other hand, it was written after Pamphilus' death (see H.
E. VII. 32, 25), which occurred in 310.

Martyrs of Palestine (peri ton en Palaistine marturesEURnton). This
work is extant in two recensions, a longer and a shorter. The longer
has been preserved entire only in a Syriac version, which was
published, with English translation and notes, by Cureton in 1861. A
fragment of the original Greek of this work as preserved by Simon
Metaphrastes had previously been published by Papebroch in the Acta
Sanctorum (June, tom. I. p. 64; reprinted by Fabricius, Hippolytus, II.
p. 217), but had been erroneously regarded as an extract from Eusebius'
Life of Pamphilus. Cureton's publication of the Syriac version of the
Martyrs of Palestine showed that it was a part of the original of that
work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts of St. Procopius, which
were published by Valesius (in his edition of Eusebius' Hist. Eccles.
in a note on the first chapter of the Mart. Pal.; reprinted by Cureton,
Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). Moreover, according to Cureton, Assemani's Acta
SS. Martyrum Orient. et Occidentalium, part II. p. 169 sq. (Romae,
1748) contains another Syriac version of considerable portions of this
same work. The Syriac version published by Cureton was made within less
than a century after the composition of the original work (the
manuscript of it dates from 411 a.d.; see Cureton, ib., preface, p.
i.), perhaps within a few years after it, and there is every reason to
suppose that it represents that original with considerable exactness.
That Eusebius himself was the author of the original cannot be doubted.
In addition to this longer recension there is extant in Greek a shorter
form of the same work which is found attached to the Ecclesiastical
History in most mss. of the latter. In some of them it is placed
between the eighth and ninth books, in others at the close of the tenth
book, while one ms. inserts it in the middle of VIII. 13. In some of
the most important mss. it is wanting entirely, as likewise in the
translation of Rufinus, and, according to Lightfoot, in the Syriac
version of the History. Most editions of Eusebius' History print it at
the close of the eighth book. Migne gives it separately in Opera, II.
1457 sq. In the present volume the translation of it is given as an
appendix to the eighth book, on p. 342 sq.

There can be no doubt that the shorter form is younger than the longer.
The mention of the Life of Pamphilus which is contained in the shorter,
but is not found in the corresponding passage of the longer form would
seem to indicate that the former was a remodeling of the latter rather
than the latter of the former (see below, p. 30). Moreover, as Cureton
and Lightfoot both point out, the difference between the two works both
in substance and in method is such as to make it clear that the shorter
form is a revised abridgment of the longer. That Eusebius himself was
the author of the shorter as well as of the longer form is shown by the
fact that not only in the passages common to both recensions, but also
in those peculiar to the shorter one, the author speaks in the same
person and as an eye-witness of many of the events which he records.
And still further, in Chap. 11 he speaks of having himself written the
Life of Pamphilus in three books, a notice which is wanting in the
longer form and therefore must emanate from the hand of the author of
the shorter. It is interesting to inquire after Eusebius' motive in
publishing an abridged edition of this work. Cureton supposes that he
condensed it simply for the purpose of inserting it in the second
edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the other hand, suggests that it
may have formed "part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the
martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors," and he is
inclined to see in the brief appendix to the eighth book of the History
(translated below on p. 340) "a fragment of the second part of the
treatise of which the Martyrs of Palestine in the shorter recension
formed the first." The suggestion is, to say the least, very plausible.
If it be true, the attachment of the shorter form of the Martyrs of
Palestine to the Ecclesiastical History was probably the work, not of
Eusebius himself, but of some copyist or copyists, and the disagreement
among the various mss. as to its position in the History is more easily
explained on this supposition than on Cureton's theory that it was
attached to a later edition of the latter work by Eusebius himself.

The date at which the Martyrs of Palestine was composed cannot be
determined with certainty. It was at any rate not published until after
the first nine books of the Ecclesiastical History (i.e. not before
313, see below, p. 45), for it is referred to as a projected work in H.
E. VIII. 13. 7. On the other hand, the accounts contained in the longer
recension bear many marks of having been composed on the spot, while
the impressions left by the martyrdoms witnessed by the author were
still fresh upon him. Moreover, it is noticeable that in connection
with the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom, given in the shorter
recension, reference is made to the Life of Pamphilus as a book already
published, while in the corresponding account in the longer recension
no such book is referred to. This would seem to indicate that the Life
of Pamphilus was written after the longer, but before the shorter
recension of the Martyrs. But on the other hand the Life was written
before the Ecclesiastical History (see above, p. 29), and consequently
before the publication of either recension of the Martyrs. May it not
be that the accounts of the various martyrdoms were written, at least
some of them, during the persecution, but that they were not arranged,
completed, and published until 313, or later? If this be admitted we
may suppose that the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom was written soon
after his death and before the Life was begun. When it was later
embodied with the other accounts in the one work On the Martyrs of
Palestine it may have been left just as it was, and it may not have
occurred to the author to insert a reference to the Life of Pamphilus
which had meanwhile been published. But when he came to abridge and in
part rewrite for a new edition the accounts of the various martyrdoms
contained in the work On Martyrs he would quite naturally refer the
reader to the Life for fuller particulars.

If we then suppose that the greater part of the longer recension of the
Martyrs was already complete before the end of the persecution, it is
natural to conclude that the whole work was published at an early date,
probably as soon as possible after the first edition of the History.
How much later the abridgment was made we cannot tell. [5]

The differences between the two recensions lie chiefly in the greater
fullness of detail on the part of the longer one. The arrangement and
general mode of treatment is the same in both. They contain accounts of
the Martyrs that suffered in Palestine during the years 303-310, most
of whom Eusebius himself saw.

Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms (archaion marturion sunagoge). This
work is mentioned by Eusebius in his H. E. IV. 15, V. praef., 4, 21.
These notices indicate that it was not an original composition, but
simply a compilation; a collection of extant accounts of martyrdoms
which had taken place before Eusebius' day. The work is no longer
extant, but the accounts of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and others at
Smyrna, of the persecution in Lyons and Vienne, and of the defense of
Apollonius in Rome, which Eusebius inserts in his Ecclesiastical
History (IV. 15, V. 1, V. 21), are taken, as he informs us, from this
collection. As to the time of compilation, we can say only that it
antedates the composition of the earlier books of the History (on whose
date, see below, p. 45).

Chronicle (chronikoi kanones). Eusebius refers to this work in his
Church History (I. 1), in his Praeparatio Evang. X. 9, and at the
beginning of his Eclogae propheticae. It is divided into two books, the
first of which consists of an epitome of universal history drawn from
various sources, the second of chronological tables, which "exhibit in
parallel columns the succession of the rulers of different nations in
such a way that the reader can see at a glance with whom any given
monarch was contemporary." The tables "are accompanied by notes,
marking the years of some of the more remarkable historical events,
these notes also constituting an epitome of history." Eusebius was not
the first Christian writer to compose a work on universal chronology.
Julius Africanus had published a similar work early in the third
century, and from that Eusebius drew his model and a large part of the
material for his own work. At the same time his Chronicle is more than
a simple revision of Africanus' work, and contains the result of much
independent investigation on his own part. The work of Africanus is no
longer extant, and that of Eusebius was likewise lost for a great many
centuries, being superseded by a revised Latin edition, issued by
Jerome. Jerome's edition, which comprises only the second book of
Eusebius' Chronicle, is a translation of the original work, enlarged by
notices taken from various writers concerning human history, and
containing a continuation of the chronology down to his own time. This,
together with numerous Greek fragments preserved by various ancient
writers, constituted our only source for a knowledge of the original
work, until late in the last century an Armenian translation of the
whole work was discovered and published in two volumes by J. B. Aucher:
Venice, 1818. The Armenian translation contains a great many errors and
not a few lacunae, but it is our most valuable source for a knowledge
of the original work.

The aim of the Chronicle was, above all, apologetic, the author wishing
to prove by means of it that the Jewish religion, of which the
Christian was the legitimate continuation, was older than the oldest of
heathen cults, and thus deprive pagan opponents of their taunt of
novelty, so commonly hurled against Christianity. As early as the
second century, the Christian apologists had emphasized the antiquity
of Judaism; but Julius Africanus was the first to devote to the matter
scientific study, and it was with the same idea that Eusebius followed
in his footsteps. The Chronology, in spite of its errors, is invaluable
for the light it throws on many otherwise dark periods of history, and
for the numerous extracts it contains from works no longer extant.

There are good and sufficient reasons (as is pointed out by Salmon in
his article in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography) for
supposing that two editions of the Chronicle were published by
Eusebius. But two of these reasons need be stated here: first, the
chronology of the Armenian version differs from that of Jerome's
edition in many important particulars, divergencies which can be
satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a difference in
the sources from which they respectively drew; secondly, Jerome states
directly that the work was brought down to the vicennalia of
Constantine,--that is, to the year 325,--but the Chronicle is referred
to as an already published work in the Eclogae propheticae (I. 1), and
in the Praeparatio Evang. (X. 9), both of which were written before
313. We may conclude, then, that a first edition of the work was
published during, or more probably before, the great persecution, and
that a second and revised edition was issued probably in 325, or soon
thereafter.

For further particulars in regard to the Chronicle see especially the
article of Salmon already referred to. The work has been issued
separately a great many times. We may refer here to the edition of
Scaliger, which was published in 1606 (2d ed. 1658), in which he
attempted to restore the Greek text from the fragments of Syncellus and
other ancient writers, and to the new edition of Mai, which was printed
in 1833 in his Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, Tom. VIII., and
reprinted by Migne, Eusebii Opera, I. 99-598. The best and most recent
edition, however, and the one which supersedes all earlier editions, is
that of Alfred Schoene, in two volumes: Berlin, 1875 and 1866.

Ecclesiastical History (ekklesiastike historia). For a discussion of
this work see below, p. 45 sq.

Life of Constantine (eis ton bion tou makariou Konstantinou tou
basileos). For particulars in regard to this work, see the prolegomena
of Dr. Richardson, on pp. 466-469 sq., of this volume.

II. Apologetic Works.

Against Hierocles (pros tous huper 'Apolloniou tou tuaneos ;;Ierokleous
logous, as Photius calls it in his Bibl. 39). Hierocles was governor of
Bithynia during the early years of the Diocletian persecution, and
afterwards governor of Egypt. In both places he treated the Christians
with great severity, carrying out the edicts of the emperors to the
fullest extent, and even making use of the most terrible and loathsome
forms of persecution (see Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 16, and Eusebius,
Mart. Pal. 5, Cureton's ed. p. 18). He was at the same time a
Neo-Platonic philosopher, exceedingly well versed in the Scriptures and
doctrines of the Christians. In a work against the Christians entitled
logos philalethes pros tous christianous, he brought forward many
scriptural difficulties and alleged contradictions, and also instituted
a comparison between Christ and Apollonius of Tyana, with the intention
of disparaging the former. Eusebius feels called upon to answer the
work, but confines himself entirely to that part of it which concerned
Christ and Apollonius, leaving to some future time a refutation of the
remainder of the work, which indeed, he says, as a mere reproduction of
the arguments of Celsus, had been already virtually answered by Origen
(see chap. 1). Eusebius admits that Apollonius was a good man, but
refuses to concede that he was anything more, or that he can be
compared with Christ. He endeavors to show that the account of
Apollonius given by Philostratus is full of contradictions and does not
rest upon trustworthy evidence. The tone of the book is mild, and the
arguments in the main sound and well presented. It is impossible to fix
the date of the work with any degree of certainty. Valesius assigns it
to the later years of the persecution, when Eusebius visited Egypt;
Stein says that it may have been written about 312 or 313, or even
earlier; while Lightfoot simply remarks, "it was probably one of the
earliest works of Eusebius." There is no ground for putting it at one
time rather than another except the intrinsic probability that it was
written soon after the work to which it was intended to be a reply. In
fact, had a number of years elapsed after the publication of Hierocles'
attack, Eusebius would doubtless, if writing against it at all, have
given a fuller and more complete refutation of it, such as he suggests
in the first chapter that he may yet give. The work of Hierocles,
meanwhile, must have been written at any rate some time before the end
of the persecution, for it is mentioned in Lactantius' Div. Inst. V. 2.

Eusebius' work has been published by Gaisford: Eusebii Pamph. contra
Hieroclem et Marcellum libri, Oxon. 1852; and also in various editions
of the works of Philostratus. Migne, Opera IV. 795 sq., reprints it
from Olearius' edition of Philostratus' works (Lips. 1709).

Against Porphyry (kata Porphurion). Porphyry, the celebrated
Neo-Platonic philosopher, regarded by the early Fathers as the
bitterest and most dangerous enemy of the Church, wrote toward the end
of the third century a work against Christianity in fifteen books,
which was looked upon as the most powerful attack that had ever been
made, and which called forth refutations from some of the greatest
Fathers of the age: from Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea, and
Apollinaris of Laodicea; and even as late as the end of the fourth or
beginning of the fifth century the historian Philostorgius thought it
necessary to write another reply to it (see his H. E. X. 10).
Porphyry's work is no longer extant, but the fragments of it which
remain show us that it was both learned and skillful. He made much of
the alleged contradictions in the Gospel records, and suggested
difficulties which are still favorite weapons in the hands of skeptics.
Like the work of Porphyry, and all the other refutations of it, the
Apology of Eusebius has entirely perished. It is mentioned by Jerome
(de vir. ill. 81 and Ep. ad Magnum, S:3, Migne's ed. Ep. 70), by
Socrates (H. E. III. 23), and by Philostorgius (H. E. VIII. 14). There
is some dispute as to the number of books it contained. In his Ep. ad
Magn. Jerome says that "Eusebius et Apollinaris viginti quinque, et
triginta volumina condiderunt," which implies that it was composed of
twenty-five books; while in his de ver. ill. 81, he speaks of thirty
books, of which he had seen only twenty. Vallarsi says, however, that
all his mss. agree in reading "twenty-five" instead of "thirty" in the
latter passage, so that it would seem that the vulgar text is
incorrect.

It is impossible to form an accurate notion of the nature and quality
of Eusebius' refutation. Socrates speaks of it in terms of moderate
praise ("which [i.e. the work of Porphyry] has been ably answered by
Eusebius"), and Jerome does the same in his Ep. ad Magnum ("Alteri
[i.e. Porphyry] Methodius, Eusebius, et Apollinaris fortissime
responderunt"). At the same time the fact that Apollinaris and others
still thought it necessary to write against Porphyry would seem to show
that Eusebius' refutation was not entirely satisfactory. In truth,
Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, S:2, Migne's ed. Ep. 84) appears
to rank the work of Apollinaris above that of Eusebius, and
Philostorgius expressly states that the former far surpassed the latter
(epi polu kratein egonismenon 'Eusebi& 251; kat' autou). The date of
Eusebius' work cannot be determined. The fact that he never refers to
it, although he mentions the work of Porphyry a number of times, has
been urged by Valesius and others as proof that he did not write it
until after 325 a.d.; but it is quite possible to explain his silence,
as Lardner does, by supposing that his work was written in his earlier
years, and that afterward he felt its inferiority and did not care to
mention it. It seems, in fact, not unlikely that he wrote it as early,
or even earlier than his work against Hierocles, at any rate before his
attention was occupied with the Arian controversy and questions
connected with it.

On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients (peri tes ton palaion andron
polupaidias). This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his Praep. Evang.
VII. 8. 20 (Migne, Opera, III. 525), but by no one else, unless it be
the book to which Basil refers in his De Spir. Sancto, 29, as
Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. The work is no
longer extant, but we can gather from the connection in which it is
mentioned in the Praeparatio, that it aimed at accounting for the
polygamy of the Patriarchs and reconciling it with the ascetic ideal of
the Christian life which prevailed in the Church of Eusebius' lifetime.
It would therefore seem to have been written with an apologetic
purpose.

Praeparatio Evangelica (proparaskeue euangelike) and Demonstratio
Evangelica ('Euangelike apodeixis). These two treatises together
constitute Eusebius' greatest apologetic work. The former is directed
against heathen, and aims to show that the Christians are justified in
accepting the sacred books of the Hebrews and in rejecting the religion
and philosophy of the Greeks. The latter endeavors to prove from the
sacred books of the Hebrews themselves that the Christians do right in
going beyond the Jews, in accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and in
adopting another mode of life. The former is therefore in a way a
preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a defense
of Christianity against all the world, Jews as well as heathen. In
grandeur of conception, in comprehensiveness of treatment, and in
breadth of learning, this apology undoubtedly surpasses all other
apologetic works of antiquity. Lightfoot justly says, "This great
apologetic work exhibits the same merits and defects which we find
elsewhere in Eusebius. There is the same greatness of conception marred
by the same inadequacy of execution, the same profusion of learning
combined with the same inability to control his materials, which we
have seen in his History. The divisions are not kept distinct; the
topics start up unexpectedly and out of season. But with all its faults
this is probably the most important apologetic work of the early
Church. It necessarily lacks the historical interest of the apologetic
writings of the second century; it falls far short of the
thoughtfulness and penetration which give a permanent value to Origen's
treatise against Celsus as a defense of the faith; it lags behind the
Latin apologists in rhetorical vigor and expression. But the forcible
and true conceptions which it exhibits from time to time, more
especially bearing on the theme which may be briefly designated `God in
history,' arrest our attention now, and must have impressed his
contemporaries still more strongly; while in learning and
comprehensiveness it is without a rival." The wide acquaintance with
classical literature exhibited by Eusebius in the Praeparatio is very
remarkable. Many writers are referred to whose names are known to us
from no other source, and many extracts are given which constitute our
only fragments of works otherwise totally lost. The Praeparatio thus
does for classical much what the History does for Christian literature.

A very satisfactory summary of the contents of the Praeparatio is given
at the beginning of the fifteenth book. In the first, second, and third
books, the author exposes the absurdities of heathen mythology, and
attacks the allegorical theology of the Neo-Platonists; in the fourth
and fifth books he discusses the heathen oracles; in the sixth he
refutes the doctrine of fate; in the seventh he passes over to the
Hebrews, devoting the next seven books to an exposition of the
excellence of their system, and to a demonstration of the proposition
that Moses and the prophets lived before the greatest Greek writers,
and that the latter drew their knowledge from the former; in the
fourteenth and fifteenth books he exposes the contradictions among
Greek philosophers and the vital errors in their systems, especially in
that of the Peripatetics. The Praeparatio is complete in fifteen books,
all of which are still extant.

The Demonstratio consisted originally of twenty books (see Jerome's de
vir. ill. 81, and Photius' Bibl. 10). Of these only ten are extant, and
even in the time of Nicephores Callistus no more were known, for he
gives the number of the books as ten (H. E. VI. 37). There exists also
a fragment of the fifteenth book, which was discovered and printed by
Mai (Script. vet. nova coll. I. 2, p. 173). In the first book, which is
introductory, Eusebius shows why the Christians pursue a mode of life
different from that of the Jews, drawing a distinction between
Hebraism, the religion of all pious men from the beginning, and
Judaism, the special system of the Jews, and pointing out that
Christianity is a continuation of the former, but a rejection of the
latter, which as temporary has passed away. In the second book he shows
that the calling of the Gentiles and the repudiation of the Jews are
foretold in Scripture. In books three to nine he discusses the
humanity, divinity, incarnation, and earthly life of the Saviour,
showing that all were revealed in the prophets. In the remainder of the
work we may assume that the same general plan was followed, and that
Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, and the spread of his
Church, were the subjects discussed in this as in nearly all works of
the kind.

There is much dispute as to the date of these two works. Stroth and
Cave place them after the Council of Nicaea, while Valesius, Lightfoot,
and others, assign them to the ante-Nicene period. In two passages in
the History Eusebius has been commonly supposed to refer to the
Demonstratio (H. E. I. 2 and 6), but it is probable that the first, and
quite likely the second also, refers to the Eclogae Proph. We can,
therefore, base no argument upon those passages. But in Praep. Evang.
XII. 10 (Opera, III. 969) there is a reference to the persecution,
which seems clearly to imply that it was still continuing; and in the
Demonstratio (III. 5 and IV. 6; Opera, IV. 213 and 307), which was
written after the Praeparatio, are still more distinct indications of
the continuance of the persecution. On the other hand, in V. 3 and VI.
20 (Opera, IV. 364 and 474) there are passages which imply that the
persecution has come to an end. It seems necessary then to conclude,
with Lightfoot, that the Demonstratio was begun during the persecution,
but not completed until peace had been established. The Praeparatio,
which was completed before the Demonstratio was begun (see the
prooemium to the latter), must have been finished during the
persecution. It contains in X. 9 (Opera, III. 807) a reference to the
Chronicle as an already published work (see above, p. 31).

The Praeparatio and Demonstratio are found in Migne's edition of the
Opera, III. and IV. 9 sq. A more recent text is that of Dindorf in
Teubner's series, 1867. The Praeparatio has been published separately
by Heinichen, 2 vols., Lips. 1842, and by Gaisford, 4 vols., Oxon.
1843. The latter contains a full critical apparatus with Latin
translation and notes, and is the most useful edition which we have.
Seguier in 1846 published a French translation with notes. The latter
are printed in Latin in Migne's edition of the Opera, III. 1457 sq. The
French translation I have not seen.

The Demonstratio was also published by Gaisford in 2 vols., Oxon. 1852,
with critical apparatus and Latin translation. Haenell has made the two
works the subject of a monograph entitled De Eusebio Caesariensi
religionis Christianae Defensore (Gottingae, 1843) which I know only
from the mention of it by Stein and Lightfoot.

Praeparatio Ecclesiastica ('Ekklesiastike Proparaskeue), and
Demonstratio Ecclesiastica ('Ekklesiastike 'Apodeixis). These two works
are no longer extant. We know of the former only from Photius'
reference to it in Bibl. 11, of the latter from his mention of it in
Bibl. 12.

Lightfoot says that the latter is referred to also in the Jus
Graeco-Romanum (lib. IV. p. 295; ed. Leunclav.). We know nothing about
the works (except that the first according to Photius contained
extracts), and should be tempted to think them identical with the
Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evang. were it not that Photius expressly
mentions the two latter in another part of his catalogue (Bibl. 10).
Lightfoot supposes that the two lost works did for the society what the
Praep. and Dem. Evang. do for the doctrines of which the society is the
depositary, and he suggests that those portions of the Theophania (Book
IV.) which relate to the foundation of the Church may have been adopted
from the Dem. Ecclesiastica, as other portions of the work (Book V.)
are adopted from the Dem. Evang.

If there is a reference in the Praep. Evang. I. 3 (Opera, III. 33) to
the Demonstratio Eccles., as Lightfoot thinks there may be, and as is
quite possible, the latter work, and consequently in all probability
the Praep. Eccles. also, must have been written before 313 a.d.

Two Books of Objection and Defense ('Elenchou kai 'Apologias logoi
duo). These are no longer extant, but are mentioned by Photius in his
Bibl. 13. We gather from Photius' language that two editions of the
work were extant in his time. The books, as Photius clearly indicates,
contained an apology for Christianity against the attacks of the
heathen, and not, as Cave supposed, a defense of the author against the
charge of Arianism. The tract mentioned by Gelasius of Cyzicus (see
below, p. 64) is therefore not to be identified with this work, as Cave
imagined that it might be.

Theophaniaor Divine Manifestation (theophEURneia). A Syriac version of
this work is extant in the same ms. which contains the Martyrs of
Palestine, and was first published by Lee in 1842. In 1843 the same
editor issued an English translation with notes and extended
prolegomena (Cambridge, 1 vol.). The original work is no longer extant
in its entirety, but numerous Greek fragments were collected and
published by Mai in 1831 and 1833 (Script. vet. nov. coll. I. and
VIII.), and again with additions in 1847 (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 110
and 310; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 607-690. Migne does not give
the Syriac version). The manuscript which contains the Syriac version
was written in 411, and Lee thinks that the translation itself may have
been made even during the lifetime of Eusebius. At any rate it is very
old and, so far as it is possible to judge, seems to have reproduced
the sense of the original with comparative accuracy. The subject of the
work is the manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word. It
aims to give, with an apologetic purpose, a brief exposition of the
divine authority and influence of Christianity. It is divided into five
books which handle successively the subject and the recipients of the
revelation, that is, the Logos on the one hand, and man on the other;
the necessity of the revelation; the proof of it drawn from its
effects; the proof of it drawn from its fulfillment of prophecy;
finally, the common objections brought by the heathen against Christ's
character and wonderful works. Lee says of the work: "As a brief
exposition of Christianity, particularly of its Divine authority, and
amazing influence, it has perhaps never been surpassed." "When we
consider the very extensive range of inquiry occupied by our author,
the great variety both of argument and information which it contains,
and the small space which it occupies; we cannot, I think, avoid coming
to the conclusion, that it is a very extraordinary work, and one which
is as suitable to our own times as it was to those for which it was
written. Its chief excellency is, that it is argumentative, and that
its arguments are well grounded, and logically conducted."

The Theophania contains much that is found also in other works of
Eusebius. Large portions of the first, second, and third books are
contained in the Oratio de Laudibus Constantini, nearly the whole of
the fifth book is given in the Dem. Evang., while many passages occur
in the Praep. Evang.

These coincidences assist us in determining the date of the work. That
it was written after persecution had ceased and peace was restored to
the Church, is clear from II. 76, III. 20, 79, V. 52. Lee decided that
it was composed very soon after the close of the Diocletian
persecution, but Lightfoot has shown conclusively (p. 333) from the
nature of the parallels between it and other writings of Eusebius, that
it must have been written toward the end of his life, certainly later
than the De Laud. Const. (335 a.d.), and indeed it is not improbable
that it remained unfinished at the time of his death.

III. Polemic Works.

Defense of Origen ('Apologia huper 'Origenous). This was the joint work
of Eusebius and Pamphilus, as is distinctly stated by Eusebius himself
in his H. E. VI. 33, by Socrates, H. E. III. 7, by the anonymous
collector of the Synodical Epistles (Ep. 198), and by Photius, Bibl.
118. The last writer informs us that the work consisted of six books,
the first five of which were written by Eusebius and Pamphilus while
the latter was in prison, the last book being added by the former after
Pamphilus' death (see above, p. 9). There is no reason to doubt the
statement of Photius, and we may therefore assign the first five books
to the years 307-309, and assume that the sixth was written soon
afterward. The Defense has perished, with the exception of the first
book, which was translated by Rufinus (Rufin. ad Hieron. I. 582), and
is still extant in his Latin version. Rufinus ascribed this book
expressly to Pamphilus, and Pamphilus' name alone appears in the
translation. Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 8; II. 15, 23; III. 12) maintains
that the whole work was written by Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, and
accuses Rufinus of having deliberately substituted the name of the
martyr Pamphilus for that of the Arianizing Eusebius in his translation
of the work, in order to secure more favorable acceptance for the
teachings of Origen. Jerome's unfairness and dishonesty in this matter
have been pointed out by Lightfoot (p. 340). In spite of his endeavor
to saddle the whole work upon Eusebius, it is certain that Pamphilus
was a joint author of it, and it is quite probable that Rufinus was
true to his original in ascribing to Pamphilus all the explanations
which introduce and connect the extracts from Origen, which latter
constitute the greater part of the book. Eusebius may have done most of
his work in connection with the later books.

The work was intended as a defense of Origen against the attacks of his
opponents (see Eusebius' H. E. VI. 33, and the Preface to the Defense
itself). According to Socrates (H. E. VI. 13), Methodius, Eustathius,
Apollinaris, and Theophilus all wrote against Origen. Of these only
Methodius had written before the composition of the Defense, and he was
expressly attacked in the sixth book of that work, according to Jerome
(Contra Ruf. I. 11). The wide opposition aroused against Origen was
chiefly in consequence not of his personal character, but of his
theological views. The Apology, therefore, seems to have been devoted
in the main to a defense of those views over against the attacks of the
men that held and taught opposite opinions, and may thus be regarded as
in some sense a regular polemic. The extant book is devoted principally
to a discussion of Origen's views on the Trinity and the Incarnation.
It is not printed in Migne's edition of Eusebius' Opera, but is
published in the various editions of Origen's works (in Lommatzsch's
edition, XXIV. 289-412). For further particulars in regard to the work,
see Delarue's introduction to it (Lommatzsch, XXIV. 263 sq.), and
Lightfoot's article on Eusebius, pp. 340 and 341.

Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (kata Markellou tou 'Ankuras
episkopou). The occasion of this work has been already described (see
p. 25), and is explained by Eusebius himself in Book II. chap. 4. The
work must have been written soon after the Council at which Marcellus
was condemned. It aims simply to expose his errors, exegetical as well
as theological. The work consists of two books, and is still extant
(Opera, VI. 707-824).

On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of Marcellus (hoi pros
MEURrkellon zlenchoi peri tes ekklesiastikes Theologias). The occasion
of this work is stated in the first chapter. In the previous work
Eusebius had aimed merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, but in
this he devotes himself to their refutation, fearing that some might be
led astray by their length and plausibility. The work, which consists
of three books, is still extant, and is given by Migne in the Opera,
VI. 825-1046. Both it and the preceding are published with the Contra
Hieroclem in Gaisford's Euseb. Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum,
Oxon. 1852. Zahn has written a valuable monograph entitled Marcellus
von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867).

Against the Manicheans. Epiphanius (Haer. LXVI. 21) mentions, among
other refutations of the Manicheans, one by our Eusebius. The work is
referred to nowhere else, and it is possible that Epiphanius was
mistaken in his reference, or that the refutation he has in mind formed
only a part of some other work, but we are hardly justified in
asserting, as Lightfoot does, that the work cannot have existed.

IV. Dogmatic Works.

General Elementary Introduction (;;E katholou stoicheiodes eisagoge).
This work consisted of ten books, as we learn from a reference to it in
the Eclogae Propheticae, IV. 35. It was apparently a general
introduction to the study of theology, and covered a great variety of
subjects. Five brief fragments have been preserved, all of them
apparently from the first book, which must have dealt largely with
general principles of ethics. The fragments were published by Mai
(Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316), and are reprinted by Migne (Opera, IV.
1271 sq.). In addition to these fragments, the sixth, seventh, eighth,
and ninth books of the work are extant under the title:

Prophetical Extracts (Prophetikai 'Eklogai). Although this formed a
part of the larger work, it is complete in itself, and circulated
independently of the rest of the Introduction. It contains extracts of
prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and
work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. It is divided into
four books, the first containing extracts from the historical
Scriptures, the second from the Psalms, the third from the other
poetical books and from the prophets, the fourth from Isaiah alone. The
personality of the Logos is the main topic of the work, which is thus
essentially dogmatic, rather than apologetic, as it might at first
glance seem to be. It was composed during the persecution, which is
clearly referred to in Book I. chap. 8 as still raging; it must have
been written therefore between 303 and 313. The date of these books, of
course, fixes the date of the General Introduction, of which they
formed a part. The Eclogae are referred to in the History, I. 2. On the
other hand, they mention the Chronicle as a work already written (I. 1:
Opera, p. 1023); a reference which goes to prove that there were two
editions of the Chronicle (see above, p. 31). The four books of the
Prophetical Extracts were first published by Gaisford in 1842 (Oxford)
from a Vienna ms. The ms. is mutilated in many places, and the
beginning, including the title of the work, is wanting. Migne has
reprinted Gaisford's edition in the Opera, IV. 1017 sq.

On the Paschal Festival (peri tes tou pEURscha he& 231;rtes). This
work, as Eusebius informs us in his Vita Const. IV. 34, was addressed
to the Emperor Constantine, who commends it very highly in an epistle
to Eusebius preserved in the Vita Const. IV. 35. From this epistle we
learn, moreover, that the work had been translated into Latin. It is no
longer extant in its entirety, but a considerable fragment of it was
discovered by Mai in Nicetas' Catena on Luke, and published by him in
his Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. p. 208 sq. The extant portion of it contains
twelve chapters, devoted partly to a discussion of the nature of the
Passover and its typical significance, partly to an account of the
settlement of the paschal question at the Council of Nicaea, and partly
to an argument against the necessity of celebrating the paschal feast
at the time of the Jewish Passover, based on the ground that Christ
himself did not keep the Passover on the same day as the Jews.

Jerome, although he does not mention this work in his catalogue of
Eusebius' writings (de vir. ill. 81), elsewhere (ib. 61) states that
Eusebius composed a paschal canon with a cycle of nineteen years. This
cycle may have been published (as Lightfoot remarks) as a part of the
writing under discussion. The date of the work cannot be determined
with exactness. It was written after the Council of Nicaea, and, as
would seem from the connection in which it is mentioned in the Vita
Constantini, before the Emperor's tricennalia (335 a.d.), but not very
long before. The extant fragment, as published by Mai, is reprinted by
Migne in the Opera, VI. 693-706.

V. Critical and Exegetical Works.

Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Praef. in librum Paralip.) that
Eusebius and Pamphilus published a number of copies of Origen's edition
of the LXX., that is, of the fifth column of the Hexapla. A colophon
found in a Vatican ms., and given in facsimile in Migne's Opera, IV.
875, contains the following account of their labors (the translation is
Lightfoot's): "It was transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla, and
was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which also had been
corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting; whence I,
Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected [this
copy]." Compare also Field's Hexapla, I. p. xcix.

Taylor, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, III. p. 21, says:
"The whole work [i.e. the Hexapla] was too massive for multiplication;
but many copies of its fifth column alone were issued from Caesarea
under the direction of Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius, and this
recension of the LXX. came into common use. Some of the copies issued
contained also marginal scholia, which gave inter alia a selection of
readings from the remaining versions in the Hexapla. The oldest extant
ms. of this recension is the Leiden Codex Sarravianus of the fourth or
fifth century." These editions of the LXX. must have been issued before
the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, and in all probability
before 307, when he was imprisoned (see Lardner's Credibility, Part II.
chap. 72.

In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the publication of
copies of the Scriptures. According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the
Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare fifty sumptuous copies
of the Scriptures for use in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The
commission was carefully executed, and the mss. prepared at great cost.
It has been thought that among our extant mss. may be some of these
copies which were produced under Eusebius' supervision, but this is
extremely improbable (see Lightfoot, p. 334).

Ten Evangelical Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus prefixed (kanones
deka; Canones decem harmoniae evangeliorum praemissa ad Carpianum
epistola). Ammonius of Alexandria early in the third century had
constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in which, taking Matthew as the
standard, he placed alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages from
the three others. Eusebius' work was suggested by this Harmony, as he
tells us in his epistle to Carpianus. An inconvenient feature of
Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel of Matthew could be read
continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels being broken in order
to bring their parallel sections into the order followed by Matthew.
Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect, constructed his work on a
different principle. He made a table of ten canons, each containing a
list of passages as follows: Canon I. passages common to all four
Gospels; II. those common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; III. those common
to Matt., Luke, and John; IV. those common to Matt., Mark, and John; V.
those common to Matthew and Luke; VI. those common to Matt. and Mark;
VII. those common to Matt. and John; VIII. those common to Luke and
Mark; IX. those common to Luke and John; X. those peculiar to each
Gospel: first to Matthew, second to Mark, third to Luke, and fourth to
John.

Each Gospel was then divided into sections, which were numbered
continuously. The length of the section was determined, not by the
sense, but by the table of canons, each section comprising a passage
common to four, to three, to two Gospels, or peculiar to itself, as the
case might be. A single section therefore might comprise even less than
a verse, or it might cover more than a chapter. The sections were
numbered in black, and below each number was placed a second figure in
red, indicating the canon to which the section belonged. Upon glancing
at that canon the reader would find at once the numbers of the parallel
sections in the other Gospels, and could turn to them readily. The
following is a specimen of a few lines of the first canon:--

MT.

MP.

L.

IO.

e

b

z

i

ia

d

i

s

ia

d

i

ib

ia

d

i

id

Thus, opposite a certain passage in John, the reader finds ib (12)
written, and beneath it, A (1). He therefore turns to the first canon
(A) and finds that sections ia(11) in Matthew, d (4) in Mark, and i(10)
in Luke are parallel with ib in John. The advantage and convenience of
such a system are obvious, and the invention of it shows great
ingenuity. It has indeed never been superseded, and the sections and
canons are still indicated in the margins of many of our best Greek
Testaments (e.g., in those of Tregelles and of Tischendorf). The date
of the construction of these canons it is quite impossible to
determine. For further particulars in regard to them, see Lightfoot's
article on Eusebius, p. 334 sq., and Scrivener's Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament, 2d ed. p. 54 sq. The canons, with the
letter to Carpianus prefixed, are given by Migne, Opera, IV. 1275-1292.

Gospel Questions and Solutions. This work consists of two parts, or of
two separate works combined. The first bears the title Gospel Questions
and Solutions addressed to Stephanus (pros Stephanon peri ton en
euangeliois zetemEURton kai luseon), and is referred to by Eusebius in
his Dem. Evang. VII. 3, as Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of
our Saviour (ton eis ten genealogian tou soteros hemon zetemEURton kai
luseon). The second part is entitled Gospel Questions and Solutions
addressed to Marinus (pros Marinon). The first work consisted of two
books, we learn from the opening of the second work. In that passage,
referring to the previous work, Eusebius says that having discussed
there the difficulties which beset the beginning of the Gospels, he
will now proceed to consider questions concerning the latter part of
them, the intermediate portions being omitted. He thus seems to regard
the two works as in a sense forming parts of one whole. In his de vir
ill. 81, Jerome mentions among the writings of Eusebius one On the
Discrepancy of the Gospels (De Evangeliorum Diaphonia), and in his
Comm. in Matt. chap. I. vers. 16, he refers to Eusebius' libri
diaphonias euangelion. Ebedjesu also remarks, "Eusebius Caesariensis
composuit librum solutionis contradictionum evangelii." In the
sixteenth century there were found in Sicily, according to the
announcement of Latino Latini, "libri tres Eusebii Caesariensis de
Evangeliorum diaphonia," but nothing more has been heard or seen of
this Sicilian ms. There can be no doubt that the work referred to under
the title De Evangeliorum Diaphonia is identical with the Gospel
Questions and Solutions, for the discrepancies in the Gospels occupy a
considerable space in the Questions and Solutions as we have it, and
the word diaphonia occurs frequently. The three books mentioned by
Latino Latini were therefore the two books addressed to Stephanus which
Eusebius himself refers to, and the one book addressed to Marinus. The
complete work is no longer extant, but an epitome of it was discovered
and published by Mai, together with numerous fragments of the
unabridged work, two of them in Syriac (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 217 sq.;
reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 879-1016). In the epitome the work
addressed to Stephanus consists of sixteen chapters, and the division
into two books is not retained. The work addressed to Marinus consists
of only four chapters.

The work purports to have been written in answer to questions and
difficulties suggested by Stephanus and Marinus, who are addressed by
Eusebius in terms of affection and respect. The first work is devoted
chiefly to a discussion of the genealogies of Christ, as given by
Matthew and Luke; the second work deals with the apparent discrepancies
between the accounts of the resurrection as given by the different
evangelists. Eusebius does not always reach a solution of the
difficulties, but his work is suggestive and interesting. The question
as to the date of the work is complicated by the fact that there is in
the Dem. Evang. VII. 3 a reference to the Questions and Solutions
addressed to Stephanus, while in the epitome of the latter work
(Quaest. VII. S:7) there is a distinct reference to the Demonstratio
Evang. This can be satisfactorily explained only by supposing, with
Lightfoot, that the Epitome was made at a later date than the original
work, and that then Eusebius inserted this reference to the
Demonstratio. We are thus led to assume two editions of this work, as
of the others of Eusebius' writings, the second edition being a revised
abridgement of the first. The first edition, at least of the
Quaestiones ad Stephanum, must have been published before the
Demonstratio Evangelica. We cannot fix the date of the epitome, nor of
the Quaestiones ad Marinum.

Commentary on the Psalms (eis tous psalmous). This commentary is extant
entire as far as the 118th psalm, but from that point to the end only
fragments of it have been preserved. It was first published in 1707, by
Montfaucon, who, however, knew nothing of the fragments of the latter
part of the work. These were discovered and published by Mai, in 1847
(Bibl. Nov. Patrum, IV. 65 sq.), and the entire extant work, including
these fragments, is printed by Migne, Opera, V. and VI. 9-76. According
to Lightfoot, notices of extant Syriac extracts from it are found in
Wright's Catal. Syr. mss. Brit. Mus. pp. 35 sq. and 125. Jerome (de
vir. ill. 96 and Ep. ad Vigilantium, S:2; Migne's ed. Ep. 61) informs
us that Eusebius of Vercellae translated this commentary into Latin,
omitting the heretical passages. This version is no longer extant. The
commentary had a high reputation among the Fathers, and justly so. It
is distinguished for its learning, industry, and critical acumen. The
Hexapla is used with great diligence, and the author frequently
corrects the received LXX. text of his day upon the authority of one of
the other versions. The work betrays an acquaintance with Hebrew,
uncommon among the Fathers, but by no means extensive or exact.
Eusebius devotes considerable attention to the historical relations of
the Psalms, and exhibits an unusual degree of good judgment in their
treatment, but the allegorical method of the school of Origen is
conspicuous, and leads him into the mystical extravagances so common to
patristic exegesis.

The work must have been written after the close of the persecution and
the death of the persecutors (in Psal. XXXVI. 12). In another passage
(in Psal. LXXXVII. 11) there seems to be a reference to the discovery
of the site of the Holy Sepulchre and the erection of Constantine's
basilica upon it (see Vita Const. III. 28, 30, &c.). The basilica was
dedicated in the year 335 (see above, p. 24), and the site of the
sepulchre was not discovered until the year 326, or later (see
Lightfoot, p. 336). The commentary must have been written apparently
after the basilica was begun, and probably after its completion. If so,
it is to be placed among the very latest of Eusebius' works.

Commentary on Isaiah (hupomnemata eis ;;Esaian). This work is also
extant almost entire, and was first published in 1706, by Montfaucon
(Coll. Nova Patrum et Script. Graec. II.; reprinted by Migne, Opera,
VI. 77-526). In his de vir. ill. 81 Jerome refers to it as containing
ten books (in Isaiam libri decem), but in the preface to his Comment.
in Isaiam he speaks of it as composed of fifteen (Eusebius quoque
Pamphili juxta historicam explanationem quindecim edidit volumina). In
its present form there is no trace of a division into books. The
commentary is marked by the same characteristics which were noticed in
connection with the one on the Psalms, though it does not seem to have
acquired among the ancients so great a reputation as that work. It must
have been written after the close of the persecution (in Is. XLIV. 5),
and apparently after the accession of Constantine to sole power (in Is.
XLIX. 23 compared with Vita Const. IV. 28). If the commentary on the
Psalms was written toward the close of Eusebius' life, as assumed
above, it is natural to conclude that the present work preceded that.

Commentary on Luke (eis to kata Loukan euallelion). This work is no
longer extant, but considerable fragments of it exist and have been
published by Mai (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 159 sq.; reprinted by Migne,
Opera, VI. 529-606). Although the fragments are all drawn from Catenae
on Luke, there are many passages which seem to have been taken from a
commentary on Matthew (see the notes of the editor). A number of
extracts from the work are found in Eusebius' Theophania (see Mai's
introduction to his fragments of the latter work).

The date of the commentary cannot be fixed with certainty, but I am
inclined to place it before the persecution of Diocletian, for the
reason that there appears in the work, so far as I have discovered, no
hint of a persecution, although the passages expounded offer many
opportunities for such a reference, which it is difficult to see how
the author could have avoided making if a persecution were in progress
while he was writing; and further, because in discussing Christ's
prophecies of victory and dominion over the whole world, no reference
is made to the triumph gained by the Church in the victories of
Constantine. A confirmation of this early date may be found in the
extreme simplicity of the exegesis, which displays neither the wide
learning, nor the profound study that mark the commentaries on the
Psalms and on Isaiah.

Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This work is no
longer extant, and we know of it only from a reference in Jerome's Ep.
ad Pammachium, S:3 (Migne's ed. Ep. 49): "Origenes, Dionysius, Pierius,
Eusebius Caesariensis, Didymus, Apollinaris latissime hanc Epistolam
interpretati sunt."

Exegetical Fragments. Mai has published brief fragments containing
expositions of passages from Proverbs (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316;
reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 75-78), from Daniel (ib. p. 314; Migne,
VI. 525-528), and from the Epistle to the Hebrews (ib. p. 207; Migne,
VI. 605). Fabricius mentions also fragments from a commentary on the
Song of Songs as published by Meursius, and says that other
commentaries are referred to by Montfaucon in his Epistola de
Therapeutis, p. 151. We have no references in the works of the ancients
to any such commentaries, so far as I am aware, and it is quite
possible that the various fragments given by Mai, as well as those
referred to by Fabricius may have been taken not from continuous
commentaries, but from Eusebius' General Elementary Introduction, or
others of his lost works. According to Migne (VI. 527) some Greek
Catenae published by Cramer in Oxford in the year 1884 contain
extensive fragments on Matthew and John, which, however, have been
taken from Eusebius' Quaest. Evang. Other fragments in Catenae on the
same Evangelists and on Mark, have been taken, according to Migne, from
the Quaestiones ad Stephanum, or from the Commentary on Luke.

It is, however, quite possible, as it seems to me, that Eusebius wrote
a commentary on Daniel. At any rate, the exegetical fragments which we
have, taken with the extended discussions of certain passages found in
the Dem. Evang. VIII. 2 and in the Eclogae Proph. III. 40 sq., show
that he expounded at one time or another a considerable portion of the
book.

VI. Biblical Dictionaries.

Interpretation of the Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures. This
work is no longer extant, but is known to us from Eusebius' reference
to it in the preface to his work On the Names of Places, where he
writes as follows: ton ana ten oikoumenen ethnon epi ten hellEURda
phonen metabalon tas en te thei& 139; graphe keimenas hebraiois onomasi
prosreseis. Jerome, in the preface to his Latin version of the same
work, also refers to it in the following words: "...diversarum vocabula
nationum, quae quomodo olim apud Hebraeos dicta sint, et nunc dicantur,
exposuit." No other ancient authority mentions the work so far as I am
aware.

Chorography of Ancient Judea with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes.
This work too is lost, but is referred to by Eusebius in the same
preface in the following words: tes pEURlai 'Ioudaias apo pEURses
Biblou katagraphen pepoiemenos kai tas en aute ton dodeka phulon
diairon klerous. Jerome (ib.) says: "...Chorographiam terrae Judaeae,
et distinctas tribuum sortes ...laboravit."

It is remarked by Fabricius that this work is evidently intended by
Ebedjesu in his catalogue, where he mentions among the writings of
Eusebius a Librum de Figura Mundi (cf. Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p.
18, note 7).

A Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple, accompanied with Memoirs
relating to the Various Localities. This too is lost, but is referred
to by Eusebius (ib.) in the following words: hos en graphes tupo tes
pEURlai diaboetou metropoleos autes (lego de ten ;;Ierousalem) tou te
en aute hierou ten eikona diacharEURxas meta paratheseos ton eis tous
tupous hupomnemEURton. Jerome (ib.) says: "ipsius quoque Jerusalem
templique in ea cum brevissima expositione picturam, ad extremum in hoc
opusculo laboravit."

On the Names of Places in Holy Scripture (peri ton topikon onomEURton
ton en te thei& 139; graphe). In Jerome's version this work bears the
title Liber de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum, but in his de
vir. ill. 81, he refers to it as topikon, liber unus, and so it is
commonly called simply Topica. It is still extant, both in the original
Greek and in a revised and partly independent Latin version by Jerome.
Both are published by Vallarsi in Hieronymi Opera, III. 122 sq. Migne,
in his edition of Eusebius' works, omits the Topica and refers to his
edition of Jerome's works, where, however, he gives only Jerome's
version, not the original Greek (III. 859-928). The best editions of
the Greek text are by Larsow and Parthey (Euseb. Pamph. Episc. Caes.
Onomasticon, &c., Berolini, 1862), and by Lagarde (Onomastica Sacra, I.
207-304, Gottingae, 1870). The work aims to give, in the original
language, in alphabetical order, the names of the cities, villages,
mountains, rivers, &c., mentioned in the Scriptures, together with
their modern designations and brief descriptions of each. The work is
thus of the same character as a modern dictionary or Biblical
geography. The other three works were narrower than this one in their
scope, but seem also to have been arranged somewhat on the dictionary
plan. The work is dedicated to Paulinus, a fact which leads us to place
its composition before 325 a.d., when Paulinus was already dead (see
below, p. 369). Jerome, in the preface to his version, says that
Eusebius wrote the work after his History and Chronicle. We are to
conclude, then, either that the work was published in 324 or early in
325, within a very few months after the History, or, what is more
probable, that Jerome is mistaken in his statement. He is proverbially
careless and inaccurate, and Eusebius, neither in his preface--from
which Jerome largely quotes in his own--nor in the work itself, gives
any hint of the fact that his History and Chronicle were already
written.

On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets (peri tes tou bibliou
ton propheton onomasias kai apo merous ti periechei hekastos). This
work contains brief accounts of the several prophets and notes the
subjects of their prophecies. It is thus, so far as it goes, a sort of
biographical dictionary. It was first published by Curterius in his
Procopii Sophistae Christinae variarum in Isaiam Prophetam
commentationum epitome (Paris, 1850, under the title De vitis
Prophetarum, by which it is commonly known. We have no means of
determining the date of its composition. Curterius' text has been
reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 1261-1272.

VII. Orations.

Panegyric on the Building of the Churches, addressed to Paulinus,
Bishop of Tyre (Panegurikos epi te ton ekklesion oikodome, Paulino
Turion episkopo prospephonemenos). This oration was delivered at the
dedication of Paulinus' new church in Tyre, to which reference has
already been made (see above, p. 11). It has been preserved in
Eusebius' History, Book X. chap. 4 (see below, p. 370. sq.).

Oration delivered at the Vicennalia of Constantine. Eusebius refers to
this in the Preface to his Vita Constantini as eikosaeterikoi humnoi.
It is to be identified with the oration delivered at the opening of the
Council of Nicaea (Vita Const. III. 11), as stated above, on p. 19. It
is unfortunately no longer extant.

Oration on the Sepulchre of the Saviour. In his Vita Const. IV. 33
Eusebius informs us that he delivered an oration on this subject (amphi
tou soteriou mnematos logos) in the presence of the Emperor at
Constantinople. In the same work, IV. 46, he says that he wrote a
description of the church of the Saviour and of his sepulchre, as well
as of the splendid presents given by the Emperor for their adornment.
This description he gave in a special work which he addressed to the
Emperor (en oikei& 251; sungrEURmmati paradontes, auto basilei
prosephonesamen). If these two are identical, as has always been
assumed, the Oration on the Sepulchre must have been delivered in 335,
when Eusebius went to Constantinople, just after the dedication of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (see above, p. 23), and just
before the Oratio deo laudibus Constantini (see ib. IV. 46). That the
two are identical has always been assumed, and seems most probable. At
the same time it is worthy of notice that in IV. 33 Eusebius speaks as
if he returned to Caesarea immediately after delivering his oration,
and gives no hint of the delivery of his De laud. Const. at that time.
It is noticeable also that he speaks in IV. 46 of a work (sungramma)
not of an oration (logos), and that in IV. 45 he mentions the fact that
he has described the splendid edifice and gifts of the Emperor in
writing (dia grEURmmatos), which would seem to imply something else
than an address. Finally, it is to be observed that, whereas, in IV.
46, he expressly refers to the church erected by Constantine and to his
rich gifts in connection with its construction, in IV. 33 he refers
only to the sepulchre. It appears to me, in fact, quite possible that
Eusebius may be referring to two entirely different compositions, the
one an oration delivered after the discovery of the sepulchre and
before the Emperor had built the church (perhaps containing the
suggestion of such a building), the other a descriptive work written
after the completion of that edifice. I present this only as a
possibility, for I realize that against it may be urged the
unlikelihood that two separate works should have been composed by
Eusebius upon subjects so nearly, if not quite, identical, and also the
probability that, if there were two, both, and not one only, would have
been attached to the end of the Vita Const. with the De laud Const.
(see IV. 46). Neither the Oration on the Sepulchre of the Saviour nor
the Work on the Church and the Sepulchre (whether the two are the same
or not) is now extant.

Oration delivered at the Tricennalia of Constantine (eis Konstantinon
ton basilea triakontaeterikos), commonly known under the title Oratio
de laudibus Constantini. In his Vita Const. IV. 46, Eusebius promised
to append this oration, together with the writing On the Church and the
Sepulchre, to that work. The de laudibus is still found at the end of
the mss. of the Vita, while the other writing is lost. It was delivered
in Constantinople in 335 on the occasion of the Emperor's tricennalia,
very soon after the dedication of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem (see above, p. 25). It is highly panegyrical, but contains a
great deal of theology, especially in regard to the person and work of
the Logos. Large portions of it were afterward incorporated into the
Vita Constantini and the Theophania. The oration is published in most,
if not all, editions of the Vita Constantini; in Migne, Opera, II.
1315-1440.

Oration in Praise of the Martyrs. This oration is mentioned in the
catalogue of Ebedjesu (et orationem de laudibus eorum [i.e. Martyrum
Occidentalium]; see Assemani, Bibl. Orient. III. p. 19), and, according
to Lightfoot, is still extant in a Syriac version, which has been
published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, N. S., Vol. V. p. 403
sq., with an English translation by B. H. Cowper, ib. VI. p. 129 sq.
Lightfoot finds in it an indication that it was delivered at Antioch,
but pronounces it of little value or importance.

On the Failure of Rain. This is no longer extant, and is known to us
only from a reference in the catalogue of Ebedjesu (et orationem de
defectu pluviae; see Assemani, ib.).

VIII. Epistles.

To Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. The purpose and the character of
this epistle have been already discussed (see above). A fragment of it
has been preserved in the Proceedings of the Second Council of Nicaea,
Act VI., Tom. V. (Labbei et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). For a
translation of the epistle, see below. This and the following epistle
were written after the outbreak of the Arian controversy, but before
the Nicene Council.

To Euphration, bishop of Balaneae in Syria, likewise a strong opponent
of the Arians (see Athan. de Fuga, 3; Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 5). Athanasius
states that this epistle declared plainly that Christ is not God
(Athan. de Synod. 17). A brief fragment of it has been preserved in the
Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (l.c.), which probably contains
the very passage to which Athanasius refers. Upon the interpretation
and significance of the fragment, see above.

To Constantia Augusta, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius.
Constantia had written to Eusebius requesting him to send her a certain
likeness of Christ of which she had heard. Eusebius, in this epistle,
rebukes her, and speaks strongly against the use of such
representations, on the ground that it tends toward idolatry. The tone
of the letter is admirable. Numerous fragments of it have been
discovered, so that we have it now almost entire. It is printed in
Migne, Opera, II. 1545-1550. We have no means of ascertaining the date
at which it was written.

To the Church of Caesarea. This epistle was written from Nicaea in 325
a.d., during or immediately after the Council. Its purpose and
character have been discussed above on p. 16 sq., where a translation
of it is given. The epistle is preserved by Athanasius (de Decret. Syn.
Nic. app.); by Socrates, H. E. I. 8; by Theodoret, H. E. I. 11, and
others. It is printed by Migne, Opera, II. 1535-1544.

In the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (l.c.) we find a mention of
"all the epistles" of Eusebius, as if many were at that time extant. We
know, however, only of those which have been mentioned above.

IX. Spurious or Doubtful Works.

Fourteen Latin opuscula were discovered and published by Sirmond in
1643, and have been frequently reprinted (Migne, Opera, VI. 1047-1208).
They are of a theological character, and bear the following titles:--

De fide adv. Sabellium, libri duo.

De Resurrectione, libri duo.

De Incorporali et invisibili Deo.

De Incorporali.

De Incorporali Anima.

De Spiritali Cogitatu hominis.

De eo quod Deus Pater incorporalis est, libri duo.

De eo quod ait Dominus, Non veni pacem, etc.

De Mandato Domini, Quod ait, Quod dico vobis in aure, etc.

De operibus bonis et malis.

De operibus bonis, ex epist. II. ad Corinth.

Their authenticity is a matter of dispute. Some of them may be genuine,
but Lardner is doubtless right in denying the genuineness of the two
Against Sabellius, which are the most important of all (see Lardner's
Credibility, Part II. chap. 72).

Lightfoot states that a treatise, On the Star which appeared to the
Magi, was published by Wright in the Journal of Sacred Literature
(1866) from a Syriac ms. It is ascribed to Eusebius, but its
genuineness has been disputed, and good reasons have been given for
supposing that it was written originally in Syriac (see Lightfoot, p.
345).

Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI. 104) reports that the following works are
extant in ms.: Fragmentum de Mensuris ac Ponderibus (mss. Is. Vossii,
n. 179); De Morte Herodis (ms. in Bibl. Basil.); Praefatio ad Canticum
Mosis in Exodo (Lambec. III. p. 35).
__________________________________________________________________

[4] In the preparation of the following Catalogue of Eusebius' writings
Stein, and especially Lightfoot, have been found most helpful.

[5] Since the above section was written, another possibility has
suggested itself to me. As remarked below, on p. 45, it is possible
that Eusebius issued a second edition of his History in the year 324 or
325, with a tenth book added, and that he inserted at that time two
remarks not contained in the first edition of the first nine books. It
is possible, therefore to suppose that the references to the Vita
Pamphili, as an already published book, found in H. E. VI. 32 and VII.
32, may have been added at the same time. Turning to the latter passage
we find our author saying, "It would be no small matter to show what
sort of man he [Pamphilus] was, and whence he came. But we have
described in a separate work devoted to him all the particulars of his
life, and of the school which he established, and the trials which he
endured in many confessions during the persecution, and the crown of
martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of all who were there
he was the most admirable" (all' houtos men ton tede thaumasiotatos).
The alla, but, seems very unnatural after the paragraph in regard to
the work which Eusebius had already written. In fact, to give the word
its proper adversative force after what precedes is quite impossible,
and it is therefore commonly rendered (as in the translation of the
passage on p. 321, below) simply "indeed." If we suppose the passage in
regard to the Biography of Pamphilus to be a later insertion, the use
of the alla becomes quite explicable. "It would be no small matter to
show what sort of man he was and whence he came. But (this much I can
say here) he was the most admirable of all who were there." Certainly
the reference at this point to the Vita Pamphili thus has something of
the look of a later insertion. In VI. 32, the reference to that work
might be struck out without in the least impairing the continuity of
thought. Still further, in VIII. 13, where the Vita is mentioned,
although the majority of the mss. followed by most of the modern
editions have the past tense anegrEURpsamen "we have written," three of
the best mss. read anagrEURpsomen "we shall write." Might not this
confusion have arisen from the fact that Eusebius, in revising the
History, instead of rewriting this whole passage simply substituted in
the copy which he had before him the word anegrEURpsamen for the
earlier anagrEURpsomen, and that some copyist, or copyists, finding the
earlier form still legible, preferred that to the substituted form,
thinking the latter to be an insertion by some unauthorized person? If
we were then to suppose that the Vita Pamphili was written after the
first edition of the History, but before the issue of the complete work
in its revised form, we should place its composition later than the
longer recension of the Martyrs, but earlier than the shorter
recension, and thus explain quite simply the lack of any reference to
the Vita in the former. Against the theory stated in this note might be
urged the serious objection that the reference to the Martyrs of
Palestine in VIII. 13 is allowed to remain in the future tense even in
the revised edition of the History, a fact which of course argues
against the change of anagrEURpsomen to anegrEURpsamen in the reference
to the Vita in the same chapter. Indeed, I do not which to be
understood as maintaining this theory, or as considering it more
probable than the one stated in the text. I suggest it simply as an
alternative possibility.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III

Eusebius' Church History.

S:1. Date of its Composition

The work with which we are especially concerned at this time is the
Church History, the original Greek of which is still extant in numerous
mss. It consists of ten books, to which is added in most of the mss.
the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine (see above, p. 29). The
date of the work can be determined with considerable exactness. It
closes with a eulogy of Constantine and his son Crispus; and since the
latter was put to death by his father in the summer of 326, the History
must have been completed before that time. On the other hand, in the
same chapter Eusebius refers to the defeat of Licinius, which took
place in the year 323 a.d. This gives a fixed terminus a quo. It is not
quite certain from Eusebius' words whether the death of Licinius had
already taken place at the time he wrote, but it seems probable that it
had, and if so, the completion of the work must be put as late as the
summer of 324. On the other hand, not the slightest reference is made
to the Council of Nicaea, which met in the summer of 325; and still
further the tenth book is dedicated to Paulinus, at one time bishop of
Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. I. 4, and
Philost. H. E. III. 15), who was already dead in the summer of 325: for
at the Nicene Council, Zeno appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius
as bishop of Antioch (see for further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322).
We are thus led to place the completion of the History in the year 324,
or, to give the widest possible limits, between the latter part of 323
and the early part of 325 a.d.

But the question has been raised whether the earlier books may not have
been composed some years before this. Lightfoot (following Westcott)
supposes that the first nine books were completed not long after the
edict of Milan and before the outbreak of the quarrel between
Constantine and Licinius in 314. There is considerable to be said in
favor of this theory. The language used in the dedication of the tenth
book seems to imply that the nine books had been completed some time
before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of postscript. The close
of the ninth book strengthens that conclusion. Moreover, it would seem
from the last sentences of that book that Constantine and Licinius were
in perfect harmony at the time it was written, a state of affairs which
did not exist after 314. On the other hand, it must be noticed that in
Book IX. chap. 9 Licinius' "madness" is twice referred to as having
"not yet" seized him (in S:1 oupo manentos tote, and in S:12 oupo tote
eph' hen husteron ekpeptoke manian, ten diEURnoian ektrapeis). It is
necessary either to interpret both these clauses as later insertions
(possibly by Eusebius' own hand at the time when he added the tenth
book; cf. also p. 30, above), or to throw the composition of the ninth
book down to the year 319 or later. It is difficult to decide between
these alternatives, but I am inclined on the whole to think that
Westcott's theory is probably correct, and that the two clauses can
best be interpreted as later insertions. The very nature of his History
would at any rate lead us to think that Eusebius spent some years in
the composition of it, and that the earlier books, if not published,
were at least completed long before the issue of the ten books as a
whole. The Chronicle is referred to as already written in I. 1; the
Eclogae Proph. (? see below, p. 85) in I. 2 and 6; the Collection of
Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15, V. preface, 4, and 22; the Defense of
Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36; the Life of Pamphilus in VI. 32, VII. 32,
and VIII. 13. In VIII. 13 Eusebius speaks also of his intention of
relating the sufferings of the martyrs in another work (but see above,
p. 30).
__________________________________________________________________

S:2. The Author's Design.

That the composition of a history of the Church was Eusebius' own idea,
and was not due to any suggestion from without, seems clear, both from
the absence of reference to any one else as prompting it, and from the
lack of a dedication at the beginning of the work. The reasons which
led him to undertake its composition seem to have been both scientific
and apologetic. He lived, and he must have realized the fact, at the
opening of a new age in the history of the Church. He believed, as he
frequently tells us, that the period of struggle had come to an end,
and that the Church was now about entering upon a new era of
prosperity. He must have seen that it was a peculiarly fitting time to
put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had
taken place within the Church during the generations that were past, to
sum up in one narrative all the trials and triumphs which had now
emerged in this final and greatest triumph, which he was witnessing. He
wrote, as any historian of the present day would write, for the
information and instruction of his contemporaries and of those who
should come after, and yet there was in his mind all the time the
apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the history of
Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. The plan
which he proposed to himself is stated at the very beginning of his
work: "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the
holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days
of our Saviour to our own; and to relate how many and how important
events are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to
mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the
most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have
proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my
purpose also to give the names and the number and the times of those
who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and
proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so-called,
have, like fierce wolves, unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.
It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which
immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their
plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in
which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to
describe the character of those who at various periods have contended
for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions
which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and
kindly succour which our Saviour afforded them all." It will be seen
that Eusebius had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of the
Church should comprise, and that he was fully alive to its importance.
__________________________________________________________________

S:3. Eusebius as a Historian. The Merits and Defects of his History.

The whole Christian world has reason to be thankful that there lived at
the opening of the fourth century a man who, with his life spanning one
of the greatest epochs that has occurred in the history of the Church,
with an intimate experimental knowledge of the old and of the new
condition of things, was able to conceive so grand a plan and possessed
the means and the ability to carry it out. Had he written nothing else,
Eusebius' Church History would have made him immortal; for if
immortality be a fitting reward for large and lasting services, few
possess a clearer title to it than the author of that work. The value
of the History to us lies not in its literary merit, but in the wealth
of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early
Church. How many prominent figures of the first three centuries are
known to us only from the pages of Eusebius; how many fragments,
priceless on account of the light which they shed upon movements of
momentous and far-reaching consequence, have been preserved by him
alone; how often a hint dropped, a casual statement made in passing, or
the mention of some apparently trifling event, gives the clue which
enables us to unravel some perplexing labyrinth, or to fit into one
whole various disconnected and apparently unrelated elements, and thus
to trace the steps in the development of some important historical
movement whose rise and whose bearing must otherwise remain an unsolved
riddle. The work reveals no sympathy with Ebionism, Gnosticism, and
Montanism, and little appreciation of their real nature, and yet our
knowledge of their true significance and of their place in history is
due in considerable part to facts respecting the movements or their
leaders which Eusebius alone has recorded or preserved. To understand
the development of the Logos Christology we must comprehend the
significance of the teaching of Paul of Samosata, and how inadequate
would our knowledge of the nature of that teaching be without the
epistle quoted in Book VII. chap. 30. How momentous were the
consequences of the paschal controversies, and how dark would they be
were it not for the light shed upon them by our author. How important,
in spite of their tantalizing brevity and obscurity, the fragments of
Papias' writings; how interesting the extracts from the memoirs of
Hegesippus; how suggestive the meager notices from Dionysius of
Corinth, from Victor of Rome, from Melito, from Caius; how instructive
the long and numerous quotations from the epistles of Dionysius of
Alexandria! He may often fail to appreciate the significance of the
events which he records, he may in many cases draw unwarranted
conclusions from the premises which he states, he may sometimes
misinterpret his documents and misunderstand men and movements, but in
the majority of cases he presents us with the material upon which to
form our own judgments, and if we differ with him we must at the same
time thank him for the data which have enabled us independently to
reach other results.

But the value of Eusebius' Church History does not lie solely in the
fact that it contains so many original sources which would be otherwise
unknown to us. It is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in the
truest sense, and it possesses an intrinsic value of its own,
independent of its quotations from other works. Eusebius possessed
extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible to us. His History
contains the results of his extended perusal of many works which are
now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance with the current
traditions of his day, of his familiar intercourse with many of the
chief men of the age. If we cut out all the documents which he quotes,
there still remains an extensive history whose loss would leave an
irreparable blank in our knowledge of the early Church. How invaluable,
for instance, to mention but one matter, are the researches of our
author in regard to the circulation of the books of the New Testament:
his testimony to the condition of the canon in his own time, and to the
more or less widespread use of particular writings by the Fathers of
preceding centuries. Great as is the value of the sources which
Eusebius quotes, those that he does not give are still more extensive,
and it is the knowledge gained from them which he has transmitted to
us.

The worth of these portions of his History must depend in the first
place upon the extent and reliability of his sources, and in the second
place upon the use which he made of them.

A glance at the list of his authorities given in the index, reveals at
once the immense range of his materials. The number of books which he
either quotes or refers to as read is enormous. When to these are added
the works employed by him in the composition of his Praep. Evang., as
well as the great number which he must have perused, but does not
mention, we are amazed at the extent of his reading. He must have been
a voracious reader from his earliest years, and he must have possessed
extraordinary acquisitive powers. It is safe to say that there was
among the Fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, no more
learned man than he. He thus possessed one of the primary
qualifications of the historian. And yet even in this respect he had
his limitations. He seems to have taken no pains to acquaint himself
with the works of heretics, but to have been content to take his
knowledge of them at second hand. And still further, he was sadly
ignorant of Latin literature and of the Latin Church in general (see
below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to glean from his History a
very thorough or extended knowledge of western Christendom.

But his sources were not confined to literary productions. He had a
wide acquaintance with the world, and he was enabled to pick up much
from his intercourse with other men and with different peoples that he
could not have found upon the shelves of the Caesarean or of any other
library. Moreover, he had access to the archives of state and gathered
from them much information quite inaccessible to most men. He was thus
peculiarly fitted, both by nature and by circumstances, for the task of
acquiring material, the first task of the genuine historian.

But the value of his work must depend in the second place upon the
wisdom and honesty with which he used his sources, and upon the
faithfulness and accuracy with which he reproduced the results thus
reached. We are therefore led to enquire as to his qualifications for
this part of his work.

We notice, in the first place, that he was very diligent in the use of
his sources. Nothing seems to have escaped him that might in any way
bear upon the particular subject in hand. When he informs us that a
certain author nowhere mentions a book or an event, he is, so far as I
am aware, never mistaken. When we realize how many works he read
entirely through for the sake of securing a single historical notice,
and how many more he must have read without finding anything to his
purpose, we are impressed with his untiring diligence. To-day, with our
convenient indexes, and with the references at hand which have been
made by many other men who have studied the writings of the ancients,
we hardly comprehend what an amount of labor the production of a
History like Eusebius' must have cost him, a pioneer in that kind of
work.

In the second place, we are compelled to admire the sagacity which our
author displays in the selection of his materials. He possessed the
true instinct of the historian, which enabled him to pick out the
salient points and to present to the reader just that information which
he most desires. We shall be surprised upon examining his work to see
how little it contains which it is not of the utmost importance for the
student of early Church history to know, and how shrewdly the author
has anticipated most of the questions which such a student must ask. He
saw what it was in the history of the first three centuries of the
Church which posterity would most desire to know, and he told them. His
wisdom in this respect is all the more remarkable when compared with
the unwisdom of most of his successors, who filled their works with
legends of saints and martyrs, which, however fascinating they may have
been to the readers of that age, possess little either of interest or
of value for us. When he wishes to give us a glimpse of the
persecutions of those early days, his historical and literary instinct
leads him to dwell especially upon two thoroughly representative
cases,--the martyrdom of Polycarp and the sufferings of the churches of
Lyons and Vienne,--and to preserve for posterity two of the noblest
specimens of martyrological literature which the ancient Church
produced. It is true that he sometimes erred in his judgment as to the
wants of future readers; we could wish that he had been somewhat fuller
and clearer on many points, and that he had not so entirely neglected
some others; but on the whole I am of the opinion that few historical
works, ancient or modern, have in the same compass better fulfilled
their mission in this respect.

In the third place, we can hardly fail to be impressed by the wisdom
with which Eusebius discriminated between reliable and unreliable
sources. Judged by the modern standard he may fall short as a literary
critic, but judged by the standard of antiquity he must be given a very
high rank. Few indeed are the historians of ancient times, secular or
ecclesiastical, who can compare with Eusebius for sound judgment in
this matter. The general freedom of his work from the fables and
prodigies, and other improbable or impossible tales which disfigure the
pages of the great majority even of the soberest of ancient historians,
is one of its most marked features. He shows himself uncommonly
particular in demanding good evidence for the circumstances which he
records, and uncommonly shrewd in detecting spurious and unreliable
sources. When we remember the great number of pseudonymous works which
were current in his day we are compelled to admire his care and his
discrimination. Not that he always succeeded in detecting the false.
More than once he was sadly at fault (as for instance in regard to the
Abgarus correspondence and Josephus' testimony to Christ), and has in
consequence been severely denounced or held up to unsparing ridicule by
many modern writers. But the wonder certainly is not that he erred as
often as he did, but that he did not err oftener; not that he was
sometimes careless in regard to the reliability of his sources, but
that he was ever as careful as, in the majority of cases, he has proved
himself to be. In fact, comparing him with other writers of antiquity,
we cannot commend too highly the care and the skill with which he
usually discriminated between the true and the false.

In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for his constant sincerity
and unfailing honesty. I believe that emphasis should be laid upon this
point for the reason that Eusebius' reputation has often suffered sadly
in consequence of the unjust imputations, and the violent accusations,
which it was for a long time the fashion to make against him, and which
lead many still to treat his statements with distrust, and his
character with contempt. Gibbon's estimate of his honesty is well known
and has been unquestioningly accepted in many quarters, but it is none
the less unjust, and in its implications quite untrue to the facts.
Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness upon the virtues than upon
the vices of the early Church, upon its glory than upon its shame, and
he tells us directly that it is his intention so to do (H. E. VIII. 2),
but he never undertakes to conceal the sins of the Christians, and the
chapter immediately preceding contains a denunciation of their
corruptness and wickedness uttered in no faint terms. In fact, in the
face of these and other candid passages in his work, it is the sheerest
injustice to charge him with dishonesty and unfairness because he
prefers, as almost any Christian historian must, to dwell with greater
fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the dark side of the
picture. Scientific, Eusebius' method, in this respect, doubtless is
not; but dishonest, no one has a right to call it. The most severe
attack which has been made upon Eusebius in recent years is found in an
article by Jachmann (see below, p. 55). The evident animus which runs
through his entire paper is very unpleasant; the conclusions which he
draws are, to say the least, strained. I cannot enter here into a
consideration of his positions; most of them are examined below in the
notes upon the various passages which he discusses. The whole article,
like most similar attacks, proceeds upon the supposition that our
author is guilty, and then undertakes simply to find evidence of that
which is already presupposed. I submit that few writers could endure
such an ordeal. If Eusebius is tried according to the principles of
common justice, and of sound literary criticism, I am convinced, after
long and careful study, that his sincerity and honesty of purpose
cannot be impeached. The particular instances which have been urged as
proving his dishonesty will be discussed below in the notes upon the
respective passages, and to those the reader is referred (compare
especially pp. 88, 98, 100, 111, 112, 114, 127, 194).

Eusebius' critics are wont to condemn him severely for what they are
pleased to call the dishonesty displayed by him in his Vita
Constantini. Such critics forget, apparently, that that work pretends
to be, not a history, but a panegyric. Judging it as such, I am unable
to find anything in it which leads me to entertain for a moment a
suspicion of the author's honesty. It is true that Eusebius emphasizes
the Emperor's good qualities, and fails to mention the darker spots in
his character; but so far as I am aware he misstates no facts, and does
only what those who eulogize deceased friends are accustomed to do the
world over. For a discussion of this matter the reader is referred to
the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, pp. 467 sq. of this volume. I am
pleased to learn from him that his study of the Vita has shown him
nothing which justifies the charge of dishonesty brought against
Eusebius.

One of the most decisive marks of veracity upon the part of our author
is the frankness with which he confesses his lack of knowledge upon any
subject (cf. IV. 5), and the care with which he distinguishes between
the different kinds of evidence upon which he bases his statements. How
frequently the phrases logos zchei, phasi, legetai, &c., occur in
connection with accounts which a less scrupulous historian would not
hesitate to record as undoubted fact. How particular he is to mention
his sources for any unusual or startling event. If the authorities seem
to him quite inadequate, he simply omits all reference to an occurrence
which most of his contemporaries and successors would have related with
the greatest gusto; if the testimony seems to him strong, he records
the circumstance and expressly mentions his authority, whether oral
tradition, the testimony of eye-witnesses, or written accounts, and we
are thus furnished the material from which to form our own judgments.

He is often blamed by modern writers for what they are pleased to call
his excessive credulity. Those who accuse him thus seem to forget that
he lived in the fourth, not in the nineteenth century. That he believed
many things which we now declare to be incredible is perfectly true,
but that he believed things that other Christians of his day pronounced
incredible is not true. Judged, in fact, according to the standard of
his age--and indeed of eleven succeeding centuries--he must be
pronounced remarkably free from the fault of over-credulity, in truth
uncommonly skeptical in his attitude toward the marvelous. Not that he
denies the occurrence of prodigies and wonders in his own and other
ages, but that he always demands the strongest testimony before he
allows himself to be convinced of their truth. Compare, e.g., the care
with which he gives his authorities for the anecdote in regard to the
Thundering Legion (V. 5), and his final suspension of judgment in the
matter; compare also the emphasis which he lays upon the personal
testimony of the Emperor in the matter of the appearance of the sign of
the cross in the sky (Vita Const. I. 28 sq.), a phenomenon which he
himself tells us that he would have believed upon no ordinary evidence.
His conduct in this matter is a sign rather of a skepticism uncommon in
his age than of an excessive and unusual credulity. Gibbon himself
gives our author due credit in this respect, when he speaks of his
character as "less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the
arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries" (Decline
and Fall, chap. XVI.).

On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had many very grave faults
which it is not my wish in the least to palliate or conceal. One of the
most noticeable of these is his complete lack of any conception of
historiography as a fine art. His work is interesting and instructive
because of the facts which it records, but that interest is seldom if
ever enhanced by his mode of presentation. There is little effective
grouping, almost no sense of perspective, utter ignorance of the art of
suggesting by a single line or phrase a finished picture of a man or of
a movement. He was not, in other words, a Thucydides or a Tacitus; but
the world has seen not many such as they.

A second and still more serious fault is our author's want of depth, if
I may so express myself, his failure to look beneath the surface and to
grasp the real significance of things, to trace the influence of
opinions and events. We feel this defect upon every page. We read the
annals, but we are conscious of no masterful mind behind them,
digesting and comprehending them into one organic and imposing whole.
This radical weakness in our author's method is revealed perhaps most
clearly in his superficial and transcendental treatment of heretics and
heresies, his failure to appreciate their origin and their bearing upon
the progress of Christian thought. Of a development in theology, in
fact, he knows nothing, and hence his work lacks utterly that which we
now look upon as the most instructive part of Church history,--the
history of doctrine.

In the third place, severe censure must be passed upon our author for
his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of chronology. We should
expect that one who had produced the most extensive chronological work
that had ever been given to the world, would be thoroughly at home in
that province, but in truth his chronology is the most defective
feature of his work. The difficulty is chiefly due to his inexcusable
carelessness, we might almost say slovenliness, in the use of different
and often contradictory sources of information. Instead of applying
himself to the discrepancies, and endeavoring to reach the truth by
carefully weighing the respective merits of the sources, or by testing
their conclusions in so far as tests are possible, he adopts in many
cases the results of both, apparently quite unsuspicious of the
confusion consequent upon such a course. In fact, the critical spirit
which actuates him in dealing with many other matters seems to leave
him entirely when he is concerned with chronology; and instead of
proceeding with the care and circumspection of an historian, he accepts
what he finds with the unquestioning faith of a child. There is no case
in which he can be convicted of disingenuousness, but at times his
obtuseness is almost beyond belief. An identity of names, or a
resemblance between events recorded by different authors, will often be
enough to lead him all unconsciously to himself into the most absurd
and contradictory conclusions. Instances of this may be seen in Book I.
chap. 5, and in II. 11. His confusion in regard to the various
Antonines (see especially the note on the preface to Book V.) is not at
all unusual among the writers of his day, and in view of the frequent
and perplexing use of the same names by the different emperors, might
be quite excusable in a less scholarly man than Eusebius, but in his
case it is evidence of unpardonable want of care. This serious defect
in our author's method is not peculiar to him. Many historians,
critical almost to a fault in most matters, accept the received
chronology without question, and build upon it as if it were the surest
of foundations. Such a consideration does not excuse Eusebius; it
relieves him, however, of the stigma of peculiarity.

Finally, the character of the History is greatly impaired by our
author's desultory method. This is a characteristic of his literary
work in general, and was referred to in the previous chapter. All his
works are marred by it, but few suffer more noticeably than the
History. The author does not confine himself as strictly as he should
to the logical limits of the subject which he is treating, but allows
himself to be led away from the main point by the suggestions that pour
in upon him from all sides. As Lightfoot remarks, "We have not
unfrequently to pick out from various parts of his work the notices
bearing on one definite and limited subject. He relates a fact, or
quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season,
according as it is recalled to his memory by some accidental
connexion." This unfortunate habit of Eusebius' is one into which men
of wide learning are very apt to fall. The richness of their
acquisitions embarrasses them, and the immense number of facts in their
possession renders a comprehension of them all into one logical whole
very difficult; and yet unless the facts be thus comprehended, unless
they be thoroughly digested and arranged, the result is confusion and
obscurity. To exclude is as necessary as to include, if one would write
history with the highest measure of success; to exclude rigidly at one
time what it is just as necessary to include at another. To men like
Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult than this. Only a mind
as intensive as it is extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is
wide, can accomplish it, and few are the minds that are blessed with
both qualities. Few are the writers whose histories stand upon our
shelves that fail not sadly in the one or in the other; and in few
perhaps does the failure seem more marked than in our author.

And yet, though it is apparent that the value of Eusebius' work is
greatly impaired by its desultory method of treatment, I am confident
that the defect is commonly exaggerated. The paragraph which Lightfoot
quotes from Westcott on this subject leaves a false impression.
Altogether too often our author introduces irrelevant matters, and
repeats himself when repetition "mars the symmetry of his work"; and
yet on the whole he follows a fairly well ordered plan with fairly good
success. He endeavors to preserve a strictly chronological sequence in
his arrangement of the books, and he adheres for the most part to his
purpose. Though there may be disorder and confusion within the various
periods, for instance within the apostolic age, the age of Trajan, of
Hadrian, of the Antonines, &c., yet the periods themselves are kept
reasonably distinct from one another, and having finished his account
of one of them the author seldom returns to it. Even in his treatment
of the New Testament canon, which is especially desultory, he says most
of what he has to say about it in connection with the apostles
themselves, and before passing on to the second century. I would not
overlook the exceeding flagrancy of his desultoriness and
repetitiousness in his accounts of the writings of many of the Fathers,
especially of the two Clements, and yet I would emphasize the fact that
he certainly had an outline plan which he designed to follow, and for
which due credit should be given him. He compares favorably in this
respect with at least most of the writers of antiquity. Only with our
modern method of dividing history into periods, separated by natural
boundary lines, and of handling it under clearly defined rubrics, have
we become able wholly to avoid the confused and illogical treatment of
Eusebius and of others like him.
__________________________________________________________________

S:4. Editions and Versions.

The original Greek of Eusebius' History has been published in many
editions.

1. The editio princeps is that of Robert Stephanus, which appeared at
Paris in 1544, and again, with a few changes, and with the Latin
translation of Christophorsonus and the notes of Suffridus Petrus, at
Geneva in 1612.

2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first edition of the Greek
text, with a new Latin translation and with copious critical and
explanatory notes, at Paris in 1659. His edition was reprinted at Mainz
in 1672, but the reprint is full of errors. In 1677, after Valesius'
death, a revised edition was issued at Paris, which in 1695 was
reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam. In 1720 Valesius' edition
of Eusebius, together with his edition of Socrates, Sozomen, and the
other Greek historians, was republished at Cambridge by William
Reading, in three folio volumes. This is the best edition of Valesius,
the commentary being supplemented by ms. notes which he had left among
his papers, and increased by large additions from other writers under
the head of Variorum. A reprint of Reading's edition was issued in
1746-1748, but according to Heinichen it is not as accurate as that of
1720. For the elucidation of Eusebius' History we owe more to Valesius
than to any other man. His edition of the text was an immense advance
upon that of Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all subsequent
editions, while his notes are a perfect storehouse of information from
which all annotators of Eusebius have extensively drawn. Migne's
edition (Opera, II. 45-906) is a reprint of Valesius' edition of 1659.

3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779). A new edition of the Greek text, of
which, however, only the first volume appeared, comprising Books
I.-VII.

4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822). A new edition of the
Greek text, containing also the Latin translation of Valesius, and a
few critical notes.

5. F. A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828). An edition of the Greek
text in three volumes, with a reprint of the entire commentary of
Valesius, and with the addition of Variorum notes. The critical
apparatus, printed in the third volume, is very meager. A few valuable
excursuses close the work. Forty years later Heinichen published a
second edition of the History in his Eusebii Pamphili Scripta Historica
(Lips. 1868-1870, 3 vols.). The first volume contains the Greek text of
the History, with valuable prolegomena, copious critical apparatus and
very useful indices; the second volume contains the Vita Constantini,
the Panegyricus or De laudibus Constantini, and Constantine's Oratio ad
Sanctorum coetum, also accompanied with critical apparatus and indices;
the third volume contains an extensive commentary upon the works
included in the first two volumes, together with twenty-nine valuable
excursuses. This entirely supersedes the first, and is on the whole the
most complete and useful edition of the History which we have. The
editor made diligent use of the labors of his predecessors, especially
of Laemmer's. He did no independent work, however, in the way of
collecting material for the criticism of the text, and was deficient in
critical judgment. As a consequence his text has often to be amended on
the basis of the variant readings, which he gives with great fullness.
His commentary is made up largely of quotations from Valesius and other
writers, and is valuable for the material it thus contains as well as
for its references to other works. It labors under the same
incompleteness, however, that mars Valesius' commentary, and, moreover,
contains almost nothing of independent value.

6. E. Burton (Oxford, 1838). The Greek text in two volumes, with the
translation of Valesius and with critical apparatus; and again in 1845,
with the critical apparatus omitted, but with the notes of Valesius,
Heinichen and others added. Burton made large contributions to the
criticism of the text, and had he lived to superintend the issue of the
second edition, would perhaps have succeeded in giving us a better text
than any which we now possess, for he was a far more sagacious critic
than Heinichen. As it is, his edition is marred by numerous
imperfections, largely caused by the inaccuracy of those who collated
mss. for him. His text, with the translation, notes, and critical
apparatus omitted, was reprinted by Bright at Oxford in 1872, and again
in 1881, in a single volume. This is a very handy edition, and for
school use is unsurpassed. The typography is superb, and the admirable
plan is followed of discarding quotation marks and printing all
citations in smaller type, thus making plain to the eye at a glance
what is Eusebius' own and what is another's. The text is preceded by a
very interesting and graphic life of the historian.

7. Schwegler (Tuebingen, 1852, in one volume). The Greek text with
critical apparatus, but without translation and notes. An accurate and
useful edition.

8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859-1862). The Greek text in one volume,
with extensive critical apparatus, but without explanatory notes.
Laemmer had unusual opportunities for collecting material, and has made
larger additions to the critical apparatus than any one else. His
edition was issued, however, in a most slovenly manner, and swarms with
mistakes. Great care should therefore be exercised in the use of it.

9. Finally must be mentioned the text of Dindorf (Lips. 1871), which is
published in the Teubner series, and like most of the volumes of that
series is handy and convenient, but of little value to the critical
student.

There are few writings of the Fathers which more sadly need and more
richly deserve a new critical edition than the History of Eusebius. The
material for the formation of a reliable text is extensive and
accessible, but editors have contented themselves too much in the past
with the results of their predecessors' labors, and unfortunately those
labors have not always been accurate and thorough. As a consequence a
new and more careful collation of most of the mss. of the original,
together with those of Rufinus' translation, must lie at the foundation
of any new work which is to be done in this line. The publication of
the Syriac version will doubtless furnish much valuable material which
the next editor of the History will be able to use to advantage.
Anything less than such a thorough work as I have indicated will be of
little worth. Unless the new edition be based upon extensive and
independent labors, it will be little if any improvement upon that of
Heinichen. It is to be hoped that a critical text, up to the standard
of those of some other patristic works which we already possess, may
yet be issued, which shall give us this, one of the noblest productions
of the ancient Church, in a fitting and satisfactory form.

Translations of Eusebius' History are very numerous. Probably the
earliest of all is the ancient Syriac version which is preserved in
great part in two mss., one of which is at St. Petersburg and contains
the entire History with the exception of Book VI. and large portions of
Books V. and VII. The ms. is dated 462 a.d. (see Wright's description
of it in his Catalogue of the Syriac mss. in the British Museum
acquired since the year 1838, Part III. p. xv. sq.). The second ms. is
in the British Museum, and contains Books I.-V., with some mutilations
at the beginning of the first book. The ms. dates from the sixth
century (see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue, p. 1039).
From these mss. Wright was engaged in preparing an edition of the
Syriac, which remained unfinished at the time of his death. Whether he
left his work in such shape that it can soon be issued by some one else
I have not yet learned. The version was probably made at a very early
date, possibly within the lifetime of Eusebius himself, though of that
we can have no assurance. I understand that it confirms in the main the
Greek text as now printed in our best editions.

The original Latin version was made by Rufinus in the early years of
the fifth century. He translated only nine books, and added to them two
of his own, in which he brought the history down to the death of
Theodosius the Great. He allowed himself his customary license in
translating, and yet, although his version is by no means exact, it is
one of our best sources for a knowledge of the true text of Eusebius,
for it is possible, in many doubtful cases where our mss. are
hopelessly divided, to ascertain from his rendering what stood in the
original Greek. The version of Rufinus had a large circulation, and
became in the Western Church a substitute for the original throughout
the Middle Ages. It was first printed, according to Fabricius (ib. p.
59), in 1476 at Rome, afterward a great many times there and elsewhere.
The first critical edition, which still remains the best, is that of
Cacciari (Rome, 1740), which has become rare, and is very difficult to
find. A new edition is a great desideratum. An important work upon
Rufinus' version is Kimmel's De Rufino Eusebii Interprete, Gerae, 1838.

A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was published in Basle,
in 1549, and again in 1557, 1562, and 1611, according to Fabricius
(Bibl. Gr. VI. p. 60). I have myself seen only the edition of 1562.

Still another Latin version, from the hand of Christophorsonus, was
published at Louvain in 1570. This is the only edition of
Christophorsonus which I have seen, but I have notices of Cologne
editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of a Paris edition of 1571.
According to Fabricius the Paris edition, and according to Brunnet the
Cologne edition of 1581, contain the notes of Suffridus Petrus. A
revision of Christophorsonus' version is said by Cruse to have been
published by Curterius, but I have not seen it, nor am I aware of its
date.

Another translation, by Grynaeus, was published at Basle in 1611. This
is the only edition of Grynaeus' version which I have seen, and I find
in it no reference to an earlier one. I have been informed, however,
that an edition appeared in 1591. Hanmer seems to imply, in his
preface, that Grynaeus' version is only a revision of that of Musculus,
and if that were so we should have to identify the 1611 edition with
the 1611 edition of Musculus mentioned by Fabricius (see above). I am
able, however, to find no hint in Grynaeus' edition itself that his
version is a revision of that of Musculus.

The translation of Valesius, which was first published in 1659 (see
above), was a great improvement upon all that had preceded it, and has
been many times reprinted in other editions of Eusebius, as well as in
his own.

The first German translation was published by Caspar Hedio. The date of
publication is given by Fabricius as 1545, but the copy which I have
seen is dated 1582, and contains no reference to an earlier edition. It
comprises only nine books of Eusebius, supplemented by the two of
Rufinus. The title runs as follows: Chronica, das ist: wahrhaftige
Beschreibunge aller alten Christlichen Kirchen; zum ersten, die hist.
eccles. Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis, Eilff Buecher; zum andern, die
hist. eccles. tripartita Sozomeni, Socratis und Theodoreti, Zwoelff
Buecher; zum dritten die hist. eccles. sampt andern treffenlichen
Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutschef Sprache wenig gelesen sind, auch
Zwoelff Buecher. Von der Zeit an da die hist. eccles. tripartita
aufhoeret: das ist, von der jarzal an, vierhundert nach Christi geburt,
biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch D. Caspar Hedion zu Strassburg
verteutscht und zusamen getragen. Getruckt zu Franckfurt am Mayn, im
jar 1582.

A second German translation of the entire History (with the exception
of the Martyrs of Palestine, and the Oration on the Building of the
Churches, X. 4), together with the Life of Constantine, was published
by F. A. Stroth in Quedlinburg in 1777, in two volumes. Stroth prefaced
the translation with a very valuable Life of Eusebius, and added a
number of excellent notes of his own. The translation is reasonably
accurate.

A much more elegant German version (including the Oration, but omitting
the Martyrs of Palestine) was published by Closs in Stuttgart in 1839,
in one volume. This is in my opinion the best translation of the
History that exists. Its style is admirable, but pure German idiom is
sometimes secured at the expense of faithfulness. In fact the author
has aimed to produce a free, rather than a literal translation, and has
occasionally allowed himself to depart too far from the original. A few
brief notes, most of them taken from Valesius or Stroth, accompany the
translation.

More recently a German translation has been published by Stigloher
(Kempten, 1880) in the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenvaeter. It
purports to be a new translation, but is practically nothing more than
a poorly revised edition of Closs' version. The changes which are made
are seldom improvements.

Fabricius mentions a French translation by Claudius Seysselius, but
does not give the date of it, and I have not myself seen it. Dr.
Richardson, however, informs me that he has a copy of this translation
(which is from the Latin, not from the Greek) bearing the following
title: L'Histoire ecclesiastique translatie de Latin au Franc,ais, par
M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille, et depuis archevesque
de Thurin. Paris, 1532 [or '33], f-o. He informs me also that there
exist editions of the years 1537 and 1567.

More than a century later appeared a new French translation by Louis
Cousin, bearing the following title: Histoire de l'Eglise ecrite par
Eusebe Cesaree, Socrate, Sozomene, Theodoret et Evagre, avec l'abrege
de Philostorge par Photius, et de Theodore par Nicephore Calliste.
Paris, 1675-1676. 4 vol. 4-o. Another edition appeared in Holland in
1686, 5 vol. 12-o.

The first English translation was made by Hanmer, and was issued in
1584, and, according to Cruse, passed through five editions. The fourth
edition, which lies before me, was published in London in 1636. The
volume contains the Histories of Eusebius, of Socrates, and of
Evagrius; Dorotheus' Lives, and Eusebius' Life of Constantine.

Another translation is said by Cruse to have been published about a
century later by T. Shorting, and to be a decided improvement upon that
of Hanmer. I have seen no copy bearing Shorting's name, but have
examined an anonymous translation which bears the following title: The
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus in ten books. Made into
English from that edition set forth by Valesius, and printed at Paris
in the year 1659; together with Valesius' notes on the said historian,
which are done into English and set at their proper place in the
margin. Hereto also is annexed an account of the life and writings of
the aforesaid historian, collected by Valesius and rendered into
English. Cambridge: John Hayes, 1683. This is evidently the translation
of Shorting referred to by Cruse, for it answers perfectly the
description which he gives of it.

An abridgment of this version, made by Parker, is mentioned both by
Fabricius (ib. p. 62) and by Cruse, but I have not myself seen it.
Fabricius gives its date as 1703, and Dr. Richardson informs me that he
has seen an edition bearing the date 1729, and that he has a note of
another published in 1703 or 1720.

The latest English translation was made by the Rev. C. F. Cruse, an
American Episcopalian of German descent, and was published first in
Philadelphia in 1833, with a translation, by Parker, of Valesius' Life
of Eusebius prefixed. It has been reprinted a great many times both in
England and America, and is included in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library.
In Bohn's edition are printed a few scattered notes from Valesius'
commentary, and in some other editions an historical account of the
Council of Nicaea, by Isaac Boyle, is added. The translation is an
improvement upon its predecessors, but is nevertheless very faulty and
unsatisfactory. The translator is not thoroughly at home in the
English, and, moreover, his version is marred by many serious omissions
and interpolations which reveal an inexcusable degree of carelessness
on his part.
__________________________________________________________________

S:5. Literature.

The literature upon Eusebius' History is very extensive. Many of the
editions already mentioned discuss, in their prolegomena, the History
itself and Eusebius' character as a historian, as do also all the lives
of Eusebius referred to above, and all the larger histories of the
Church. In addition to these we have numerous important monographs and
essays, of which the following may be mentioned here: Moeller, de Fide
Eusebii in rebus christianis enarrandis, Havn. 1813; Danz, de Eusebio
Caesariensi Hist. Ecclesiasticae Scriptore, Jenae, 1815. This was
mentioned in Chapter I. as containing a valuable discussion of the life
of Eusebius. Its chief importance lies in its treatment of the sources
of the Church History, to which the author devotes the whole of Chap.
III. which bears the title, de fontibus, quibus usus, historiam
ecclesiasticam conscripsit Eusebius, pp. 76-144. Kestner, de Eusebii
Historiae Eccles. conditoris auctoritate, et fide diplomatica, sive de
ejus Fontibus et Ratione qua eis usus est, Gottingae, 1816; and by the
same author, Ueber die Einseitigkeit und Partheiligkeit des Eusebius
als Geschichtschreibers, Jenae, 1819; Reuterdahl, de Fontibus Historiae
Eccles. Eusebianae, Londini Gothorum, 1826; Reinstra, de Fontibus, ex
quibus Historiae Eccles. opus hausit Eusebius Pamphili, et de Ratione,
qua iis usus est, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1833; F. C. Baur, Comparatur
Eusebius Historiae Eccles. Parens cum Parente Historiae Herodoto, Tueb.
1834; and pp. 9-26 of the same author's Epochen der kirchlichen
Geschichtschreibung, Tueb. 1852; Dowling, Introduction to the Critical
Study of Eccles. History, London, 1838, pp. 11-18; Hely, Eusebe de
Cesaree, premier Historien de l'Eglise, Paris, 1877; J. Burckhardt,
Zeit Constantins, 2d ed. 1880, pp. 307 sq. Burckhardt depreciates
Eusebius' value and questions his veracity. The review articles that
have been written on Eusebius' History are legion. I shall mention only
Engelhardt's Eusebius als Kirchengeschichtschreiber, in the Zeitschrift
fuer hist. Theol. 1852, pp. 652-657; and Jachmann's Bemerkungen ueber
die Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius, ib. 1839, II. pp. 10-60. The latter
contains one of the most unsparing attacks upon Eusebius' honesty that
has ever been made (see above, p. 49).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Testimonies of the Ancients in Favor of Eusebius. [6]

__________

From Constantine's Letter to the Antiochians (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book III. chap. 60).

"I confess, then, that on reading your records I perceived, by the
highly eulogistic testimony which they bear to Eusebius, bishop of
Caesarea (whom I have myself long well known and esteemed for his
learning and moderation), that you are strongly attached to him and
desire to appropriate him as your own prelate. What thoughts then do
you suppose that I entertain on this subject, desirous as I am to seek
for and act on the strict principles of right? What anxiety do you
imagine this desire of yours has caused me? O holy faith, who givest us
in our Saviour's words and precepts a model, as it were, of what our
life should be, how hardly wouldst thou thyself resist the course of
sin were it not that thou refusest to subserve the purposes of gain! In
my own judgment, he whose first object is the maintenance of peace
seems to be superior to Victory herself; and where a right and
honorable course lies open to one's choice, surely no one would
hesitate to adopt it. I ask then, brethren, why do we so decide as to
inflict an injury on others by our choice? Why do we covet those
objects which will destroy the credit of our own character? I myself
highly esteem the individual whom ye judge worthy of your respect and
affection; notwithstanding, it cannot be right that those principles
should be entirely disregarded which should be authoritative and
binding on all alike; for example, that each should be content with the
limits assigned them, and that all should enjoy their proper
privileges; nor can it be right in considering the claims of rival
candidates to suppose but that not one only, but many, may appear
worthy of comparison with this person. For as long as no violence or
harshness are suffered to disturb the dignities of the Church, they
continue to be on an equal footing, and worthy of the same
consideration everywhere. Nor is it reasonable that an enquiry into the
qualifications of one person should be made to the detriment of others;
since the judgment of all churches, whether reckoned of greater
importance in themselves, is equally capable of receiving and
maintaining the divine ordinances, so that one is in no way inferior to
another (if we will but boldly declare the truth), in regard to that
standard of practice which is common to all. If this be so, we must say
that you will be chargeable, not with retaining this prelate, but with
wrongfully removing him; your conduct will be characterized rather by
violence than justice; and whatever may be generally thought by others,
I dare clearly and boldly affirm that this measure will furnish ground
of accusation against you, and will provoke factious disturbances of
the most mischievous kind; for even timid flocks can show the use and
power of their teeth when the watchful care of their shepherd declines,
and they find themselves bereft of his accustomed guidance. If this
then be really so, if I am not deceived in my judgment, let this,
brethren, be your first consideration (for many and important
considerations will immediately present themselves, if you adopt my
advice), whether, should you persist in your intention, that mutual
kindly feeling and affection which should subsist among you will suffer
no diminution? In the next place remember that Eusebius, who came among
you for the purpose of offering disinterested counsel, now enjoys the
reward which is due to him in the judgment of heaven; for he has
received no ordinary recompense in the high testimony you have borne to
his equitable conduct. Lastly, in accordance with your usual sound
judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming diligence in selecting the person of
whom you stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and tumultuous
clamor: for such clamor is always wrong, and from the collision of
discordant elements both sparks and flame will arise."

From the Emperor's Letter to Eusebius(in Eusebius' Life of Constantine,
Book III. chap. 61).

"I have most carefully perused your letter, and perceive that you have
strictly conformed to the rule enjoined by the discipline of the
Church. Now to abide by that which appears at the same time pleasing to
God, and accordant with apostolic tradition, is a proof of true piety:
and you have reason to deem yourself happy on this behalf, that you are
counted worthy, in the judgment, I may say, of all the world, to have
the oversight of the whole Church. For the desire which all feel to
claim you for their own, undoubtedly enhances your enviable fortune in
this respect. Notwithstanding, your Prudence, whose resolve it is to
observe the ordinances of God and the apostolic rule of the Church, has
done excellently well in declining the bishopric of the Church at
Antioch, and desiring to continue in that Church of which you first
received the oversight by the will of God."

From Constantine's Letter to the Council (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book III. chap. 62).

"I have perused the letters written by your Prudences, and highly
approve of the wise resolution of your colleague in the ministry,
Eusebius. Having, moreover, been informed of the circumstances of the
case, partly by your letters, partly by those of our illustrious
friends Acacius and Strategius, after sufficient investigation I have
written to the people at Antioch, suggesting the course which will be
at once pleasing to God and advantageous for the Church. A copy of this
I have ordered to be subjoined to this present letter, in order that ye
yourselves may know what I thought fit, as an advocate of the cause of
justice, to write to that people: since I find in your letter this
proposal, that, in consonance with the choice of the people, sanctioned
by your own desire, Eusebius the holy bishop of Caesarea should preside
over and take the charge of the Church at Antioch. Now the letters of
Eusebius himself on this subject appeared to be strictly accordant with
the order prescribed by the Church."

From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book IV. chap. 35).

"It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the power of language itself,
worthily to treat of the mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a
fitting manner the controversy respecting the feast of Easter, its
origin as well as its precious and toilsome accomplishment. For it is
not in the power even of those who are able to apprehend them,
adequately to describe the things of God. I am, notwithstanding, filled
with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself
read your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to
your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere followers of
our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we receive favors
of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more
frequently with those compositions, to the practice of which, indeed,
you confess yourself to have been trained from an early period, so that
I am urging a willing man (as they say), in exhorting you to your
customary pursuits. And certainly the high and confident judgment we
entertain is a proof that the person who has translated your writings
into the Latin tongue is in no respect incompetent to the task,
impossible though it be that such version should fully equal the
excellence of the works themselves."

From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book IV. chap. 36).

"It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that
great numbers have united themselves to the most holy Church in the
city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite,
since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other
respects, that the number of Churches should also be increased. Do you,
therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf.
I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty
copies of the sacred scriptures (the provision and use of which you
know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church) to be
written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a commodious
and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.
The procurator of the diocese has also received instructions by letter
from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the
preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care
that they be completed with as little delay as possible. You have
authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public
carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when
fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal
inspection; and one of the deacons of your Church may be intrusted with
this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality.
God preserve you, beloved brother!"

From the Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre
(given by Theodoret in his Eccles. Hist. I. 6).

"Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning the truth, nor thy
silence in this matter been unknown, but has reached even us. And, as
was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced on account of my lord
Eusebius; but on the other, we are grieved on thy account, since we
look upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our cause."

From the Book of Basil, to Amphilochius, on the Holy Spirit (chap. 29).

"If to any one Eusebius of Palestine seem trustworthy on account of his
great experience, we give his own words in the Difficulties concerning
the Polygamy of the Ancients."

From the Book of Questions on the Old and New Testaments, which is
published among the Works of Augustine (chap. 125).

"We remember to have read in a certain pamphlet of Eusebius, a man
formerly distinguished among the rest of men, that not even the Holy
Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and
I wonder that a man of so great learning should have imposed this
stigma upon the Holy Spirit."

From Jerome's Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 65).

"Apollinarius wrote the very strongest books against Porphyry; Eusebius
has excellently composed his Ecclesiastical History. Of these men, one
taught an incomplete human nature in Christ; the other was a most open
defender of the heresy of Arius."

From the Apology of Jerome against Rufinus (Book I. chap. 8).

"As I have already said, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, formerly leader
of the Arian party, has written six books in defense of Origen--a very
extensive and elaborate work; with much evidence he has proved that
Origen was, from his point of view, a Catholic, that is, from ours, an
Arian."

From the same book (chap. 9).

"For Eusebius himself, a friend, eulogist and companion of Pamphilus,
has written three very elegant books comprising a life of Pamphilus. In
these, after extolling other things with wondrous praises and exalting
his humility to the skies, he also adds this in the third book," &c.

And a little farther on in the same book (chap. 11).

"I have praised Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, in his
Chronological Canons, in his Description of the Holy Land; and turning
these same little works into Latin I have given them to those of my own
tongue. Am I therefore an Arian, because Eusebius who wrote these books
is an Arian?"

From Jerome's second book against Rufinus (chap. 16).

"Eusebius, a very learned man (I have said learned, not Catholic; lest
after the usual manner, even in this thing, thou heap calumny upon me),
in six volumes does nothing else than show Origen to be of his own
faith; that is, of the Arian heresy."

From the Preface of Jerome's Book on Hebrew Topography.

"Eusebius, who took his surname from the blessed martyr Pamphilus,
after the ten books of his Ecclesiastical History, after his
Chronological Canons, which we have published in the Latin tongue,
after his Names of Various Nations, in which he showed how these were
formerly, and are now, called among the Hebrews; after his Topography
of the Land of Judea, with the inheritances of the tribes; after his
Jerusalem, also, and his Plan of the Temple, with a very brief
explanation,--after all these he has finally in this little work
labored that he might collect for us from Holy Scripture the names of
almost all the cities, mountains, rivers, villages, and divers places,
which either remain the same, or have since been changed, or else have
become corrupted from some source, wherefore we also, following the
zeal of this admirable man," &c.

From Jerome's Book on Ecclesiastical Writers (chap. 61).

"Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (I have not indeed been able to
find out the name of the city), wrote a reckoning of Easter, and
chronological tables up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander, and
hit upon a cycle of sixteen years which the Greeks call
hekkaidekaeterida; and gave an occasion to Eusebius, who also composed
an Easter canon, with a cycle of nineteen years, that is
enneadekaeterida."

From the same book (chap. 81).

"Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man most studious in the
sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent
investigator of sacred literature, has edited an infinite number of
volumes, some of which are these: of the Demonstratio Evangelica,
twenty books; of the Praeparatio Evangelica, fifteen books; of the
Theophania, five books; of the Ecclesiastical History, ten books; a
General History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome of them; also,
On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; On Isaiah, ten books; and Against
Porphyry (who at the same time was writing in Sicily, as some think),
thirty books, of which only twenty have come to my notice; of his
Topica, one book; of the Apologia, in defense of Origen, six books; On
the Life of Pamphilus, three books; Concerning the Martyrs, other small
works; also very learned commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms,
and many other writings. He flourished chiefly under the emperors
Constantine and Constantius; and on account of his friendship with
Pamphilus the martyr, he took from him his surname."

From the same book (chap. 96).

"Eusebius, by nation a Sardinian, and, after being reader in Rome,
bishop of Vercellae, on account of his confession of the faith banished
by the Prince Constantius to Scythopolis, and thence to Cappadocia,
under Julian the emperor sent back to the Church, has published the
Commentaries on the Psalms of Eusebius of Caesarea, which he had
translated from Greek into Latin."

Jerome in the Preface to his Commentaries on Daniel.

"Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote a twelfth volume, denying
that that book was composed by him with whose name it is inscribed, &c.
To him Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, has replied very skillfully in
three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX. Apollinarius
also in one large volume, that is, in the twenty-sixth volume, and
before these, in part, Methodius."

Jerome on the Twenty-fourth Chapter of Matthew.

"Concerning this place, that is, concerning the abomination of
desolation which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the
holy place, Porphyry has uttered many blasphemies against us in the
thirteenth volume of his work. To whom Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea,
has replied in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and
XX."

The same, in his Epistle to Magnus (Ep. 84).

"Celsus and Porphyry have written against us. To the former Origen, to
the latter Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have very vigorously
replied. Of whom Origen wrote eight books, Methodius proceeded as far
as ten thousand lines, Eusebius and Apollinarius composed twenty-five
and thirty volumes respectively."

The same, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 65).

"What more skillful, more learned, more eloquent men can be found than
Eusebius and Didymus, the advocates of Origen? The former of whom, in
the six volumes of his Apologia, proves that he [Origen] was of the
same opinion as himself."

Jerome, in the Preface to his Commentaries on Isaiah.

"Eusebius Pamphili also has published an historical commentary in
fifteen volumes."

The same, in the Preface to the Fifth Book of his Commentaries on
Isaiah.

"Shall I take upon myself a work at which the most learned men have
labored hard? I speak of Origen and Eusebius Pamphili. Of these the
former wanders afar in the free spaces of allegory, and his genius so
interprets single names as to make out of them the sacred things of the
Church. The latter, while promising in his title an historical
exposition, meanwhile forgets his purpose, and yields himself up to the
tenets of Origen."

The same, in the fifth book of his Commentaries on Isaiah.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, while promising in his title an historical
exposition, strays off in divers notions: while reading his books I
found much else than what he gave promise of in his title. For wherever
history has failed him, he has crossed over into allegory; and in such
a manner does he unite things that are distinct, that I wonder at his
joining together by a new art of discourse stone and iron into one
body."

Jerome on the first chapter of Matthew.

"This [chapter] also Africanus, a writer of chronology, and Eusebius of
Caesarea, in his books on the Discrepancies of the Gospels, have
discussed more fully."

Rufinus in his Epistle to the Bishop Chromatius.

"You charge me to translate into Latin the Ecclesiastical History,
which the very learned Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in the Greek tongue."

Augustine, in his Book on Heresies (chap. 83).

"When I had searched through the History of Eusebius, to which Rufinus,
after having himself translated it into the Latin tongue, has also
added two books of subsequent history, I did not find any heresy which
I had not read among these very ones, except that one which Eusebius
inserts in his sixth book, stating that it had existed in Arabia.
Therefore these heretics, since he assigns them no founder, we may call
Arabians, who declared that the soul dies and is destroyed along with
the body, and that at the end of the world both are raised again. But
he states that they were very quickly corrected, these by the
disputation of Origen in person, and those by his exhortation."

Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius of
Caesarea's Apology for Origen.

"Since now this man was very learned, having searched out and traced
back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers, and having
set forth the opinions of almost all of them, and having left behind
very many writings, some of which are worthy of all acceptation, making
use of such an estimation as this of the man, they attempt to lead away
some, saying, that Eusebius would not have chosen to take this view,
unless he had accurately ascertained that all the opinions of the
ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very
learned, and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his
knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was
enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter."

From the First Book of Extracts from the Ecclesiastical History of
Philostorgius.

"Philostorgius, while praising Eusebius Pamphili both as to whatever of
worth belongs to his histories and as to other things, yet declares
that with regard to religion he has fallen into great error; and that
he impiously sets forth this error of his in detail, holding that the
Deity is unknowable and incomprehensible. Moreover, he holds that he
has also gone astray on other such things. But he unites with others in
attesting that he brought his History down to the accession of the sons
of Constantine the Great."

Socrates in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).

"Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus (i.e. universally beloved), has composed
a History of the Church in ten books, brought down to the time of the
Emperor Constantine, when the persecution ceased which Diocletian had
commenced against the Christians. But, in writing the life of
Constantine, this author has very slightly treated of the Arian
controversy, being evidently more intent on a highly wrought eulogium
of the emperor than an accurate statement of facts."

The same Socrates in the Eighth Chapter of the same Book, speaking of
Sabinus, Bishop of Macedonia, who had written a History of the Synod,
says:--

"Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a witness worthy of credit, and
praises the Emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines; but he
still brands the faith which was declared at Nice as having been set
forth by ignorant men, and such as had no intelligence in the matter.
Thus he voluntarily contemns the testimony of a man whom he himself
pronounces a wise and true witness; for Eusebius declares that of the
ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod, some were
eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their
life; and that the Emperor himself being present, leading all into
unanimity, established unity of judgment, and conformity of opinion
among them."

The same Socrates, in Book II. chap. 21.

"But since some have attempted to stigmatize Eusebius Pamphilus as
having favored the Arian views in his works, it may not be irrelevant
here to make a few remarks respecting him. In the first place, then, he
was present at the council of Nice, and gave his assent to what was
there determined in reference to the consubstantiality of the Son with
the Father, and in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he thus
expressed himself: `The Emperor incited all to unanimity, until he had
rendered them united in judgment on those points on which they were
previously at variance: so that they were quite agreed at Nice in
matters of faith.' Since, therefore, Eusebius, in mentioning the Nicene
Synod, says that all differences were composed, and that unanimity of
sentiment prevailed, what ground is there for assuming that he was
himself an Arian? The Arians are certainly deceived in supposing him to
be a favorer of their tenets. But some one will perhaps say that in his
discourses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because of
his frequently saying by Christ. Our answer is that ecclesiastical
writers often use this mode of expression, and others of a similar kind
denoting the economy of our Saviour's humanity: and that before all
these the apostle made use of such expressions without ever being
accounted a teacher of false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has
dared to say that the Son is a creature, as one of the others, observe
what Eusebius says on this subject in his first book against Marcellus:

"`He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, and is the
only-begotten Son of God; whence any one would justly censure those who
have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing, like the
rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son? and how could he
be God's only-begotten, were he assigned the same nature as the other
creatures, and were he one of the many created things, seeing that he,
like them, would in that case be partaker of a creation from nothing?
The sacred Scriptures do not thus instruct us concerning these things.'
He again adds a little afterwards: `Whoever then determines that the
Son is made of things that are not, and that he is a creature produced
from nothing pre-existing, forgets that while he concedes the name of
Son, he denies him to be so in reality. For he that is made of nothing
cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than the other things which
have been made: but the true Son of God, forasmuch as he is begotten of
the Father, is properly denominated the only-begotten and beloved of
the Father. For this reason also, he himself is God: for what can the
offspring of God be but the perfect resemblance of him who begat him? A
sovereign, indeed, builds a city, but does not beget it; and is said to
beget a son, not to build one. An artificer may be called the framer,
but not the father of his work; while he could by no means be styled
the framer of him whom he had begotten. So also the God of the Universe
is the father of the Son; but would be fitly termed the Framer and
Maker of the world. And although it is once said in Scripture, The Lord
created me the beginning of his ways on account of his works, yet it
becomes us to consider the import of this phrase, which I shall
hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus has done, from a single
passage to subvert one of the most important doctrines of the Church.'

"These and many other such expressions are found in the first book of
Eusebius Pamphilus against Marcellus; and in his third book, declaring
in what sense the term creature is to be taken, he says: `Accordingly
these things being established, it follows that in the same sense as
that which preceded, these words also are to be understood, The Lord
created me in the beginning of his ways on account of his works. For
although he says that he was created, it is not as if he should say
that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor that he himself
also was made of nothing like the rest of the creatures, which some
have erroneously supposed: but as subsisting, living, pre-existing, and
being before the constitution of the whole world; and having been
appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and Father: the word created
being here used instead of ordained or constituted. Certainly the
apostle expressly called the rulers and governors among men creature,
when he said, Submit yourselves to every human creature for the Lord's
sake; whether to the king as supreme, or to governors as those sent by
him. The prophet also does not use the word zktisencreated in the sense
of made of that which had no previous existence, when he says, Prepare,
Israel, to invoke thy God. For behold he who confirms the thunder,
creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ unto men. For God did not
then create the Spirit when he declared his Christ to all men, since
There is nothing new under the sun; but the Spirit was, and subsisted
before: but he was sent at what time the apostles were gathered
together, when like thunder, There came a sound from heaven as of a
rushing mighty wind: and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. And
thus they declared unto all men the Christ of God in accordance with
that prophecy which says, Behold he who confirms the thunder, creates
the spirit, and announces his Christ unto men: the word creates being
used instead of sends down, or appoints; and thunder in a similar way
implying the preaching of the Gospel. Again he that says, Create in me
a clean heart, O God, said not this as if he had no heart; but prayed
that his mind might be purified. Thus also it is said, That he might
create the two into one new man, instead of unite. Consider also
whether this passage is not of the same kind, Clothe yourselves with
the new man, which is created according to God; and this, if,
therefore, any one be in Christ, he is a new creature, and Whatever
other expressions of a similar nature any one may find who shall
carefully search the divinely-inspired Scripture. Wherefore one should
not be surprised if in this passage, The Lord created me the beginning
of his ways, the term created is used metaphorically, instead of
appointed, or constituted.'

"These quotations from the books of Eusebius against Marcellus have
been adduced to confute those who have slanderously attempted to
traduce and criminate him. Neither can they prove that Eusebius
attributes a beginning of subsistence to the Son of God, although they
may find him often using the expressions of dispensation: and
especially so, because he was an emulator and admirer of the works of
Origen, in which those who are able to comprehend that author's
writings, will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son was
begotten of the Father. These remarks have been made in passing, in
order to refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius."

Sozomen in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1.).

"I at first felt strongly inclined to trace the course of events from
the very commencement; but on reflecting that similar records of the
past, up to their own time, had been compiled by the learned Clemens
and Hegesippus, successors of the apostles, by Africanus the historian
and Eusebius surnamed Pamphilus, a man intimately acquainted with the
sacred Scriptures and the writings of the Greek poets and historians, I
merely drew up an epitome in two books of all that is recorded to have
happened to the churches, from the ascension of Christ to the
deposition of Licinius."

Victorius in the Paschal Canon.

"Reviewing therefore the trustworthy histories of the ancients, namely
the Chronicles and prologue of the blessed Eusebius, bishop of
Caesarea, a city in Palestine, a man pre-eminently accomplished and
learned; and likewise those things which have been added to these same
Chronicles by Jerome of sacred memory."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Chromatius and Heliodorus, prefixed to the
Martyrology which bears Jerome's Name.

"It is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ obtains triumphs at every
martyrdom of his saints, whose sufferings we find described by the
saintly Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. For when Constantine Augustus
came to Caesarea and told the celebrated bishop to ask some favors
which should benefit the church at Caesarea, it is said that Eusebius
answered: That a church enriched by its own resources was under no
necessity of asking favors, yet that he himself had an unalterable
desire, that whatever had been done in the Roman republic against God's
saints by successive judges in the whole Roman world they should search
out by a careful examination of the public records; and that they
should draw from the archives themselves and send to Eusebius himself,
by royal command, the names of the martyrs: under what judge, in what
province or city, upon what day, and with what steadfastness, they had
obtained the reward of their suffering. Whence it has come about that,
being an able narrator and a diligent historiographer, he has both
composed an Ecclesiastical History and has set forth the triumphs of
nearly all of the martyrs of all the Roman provinces."

Pope Gelasius in his Decree concerning the Apocryphal Books.

"Likewise as to the Chronicles of Eusebius and the books of his
Ecclesiastical History, although in the first book of his narration he
has grown cold, and has afterwards written one book in praise and in
defense of Origen the schismatic, yet on account of his singular
knowledge of things which pertain to instruction, we do not say that
they ought to be rejected."

The same in his book On the Two Natures.

"That saying the same thing with one heart and one mouth we may also
believe what we have received from our forefathers, and, God giving
them to us, that we may hand them down to posterity to be believed in,
with which things the adduced testimony of the Catholic masters, being
summed up, bear witness that a united faith in a gracious God endures."

And a little farther on.

"From the exposition of the seventh psalm, by Eusebius, bishop in
Palestine, by surname Pamphili, etc. Likewise from his Praeparatio
Evangelica, Book VII."

Pope Pelagius II. in his Third Epistle to Elias of Aquileia and other
Bishops of Istria.

"For, indeed, among haeresiarchs who can be found worse than Origen,
and among historiographers who more honorable than Eusebius? And who of
us does not know with how great praises Eusebius extols Origen in his
books? But because the holy Church deals more kindly with the hearts of
her faithful ones than she does severely with their words, neither
could the testimony of Eusebius remove him from his proper place among
heretics, nor on the other hand has she condemned Eusebius for the
fault of praising Origen."

Evagrius, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).

"Eusebius Pamphili--an especially able writer, to the extent, in
particular, of inducing his readers to embrace our religion, though
failing to perfect them in the faith--and Sozomen, Theodoret, and
Socrates have produced a most excellent record of the advent of our
compassionate God, and his ascension into heaven, and of all that has
been achieved in the endurance of the divine Apostles, as well as of
the other martyrs," etc.

Gregory the Great in his Epistle to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.

"I have now become one of the number of hearers, to whom your Holiness
has taken the pains to write, that we ought to transmit the deeds of
all the martyrs which have been collected by Eusebius of Caesarea in
the age of Constantine of holy memory. But I was not aware before
receiving your Holiness' letter whether these things had been collected
or not. I therefore am thankful that being informed by the writings of
your most holy learning, I have begun to know what I did not know
before. For excepting these things which are contained in the books of
this same Eusebius On the deeds of the holy martyrs, I have met with
nothing else in the archives of this our church, nor in the libraries
of Rome, except some few collected in a single volume."

Gelasius of Cyzicus in his Second Book On the Council of Nicaea (chap.
1).

"Let us hear now what says this the most illustrious husbandman in
ecclesiastical farming, the most truth-loving Eusebius, surnamed after
the celebrated Pamphilus. Licinius, indeed, he says, having followed
the same path of impiety with the ungodly tyrants, has justly been
brought to the same precipice with them, etc. (which may be found at
the end of the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History). As to
Eusebius Pamphili, the most trustworthy of ancient ecclesiastical
historians, who has investigated and set forth so many struggles,
having made a choice from among his simply written works, we say that
in all ten books of his Ecclesiastical History he has left behind an
accurately written work. Beginning with the advent of our Lord he has,
not without much labor, proceeded as far as those times. For how else
could it be with him who took so great care to preserve for us the
harmony of this collection? But as I have just said, he brought to bear
upon it much study and an untold amount of labor. But let no one
suppose, from those things which have been alleged with regard to him,
that this man ever adopted the heresy of Arius; but let him be sure,
that even if he did speak somewhat of, and did write briefly concerning
the conjectures of Arius, he certainly did not do it on account of his
entertaining the impious notion of that man, but from artless
simplicity, as indeed he himself fully assures us in his Apology, which
he distributed generally among orthodox bishops."

The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle (p. 582).

"The very learned Eusebius Pamphili has written thus: As the Jews
crucified Christ at the feast, so they all perished at their own
feast."

Nicephorus in the Sixth Book of his History (chap. 37).

"Upon whose authority also we know of the divine Pamphilus as both
living the life of a philosopher and wearing the dignity of presbyter
in that place. His life and every event in it, also his establishing in
that place the study of sacred and profane philosophy, also his
confession of his religion in divers persecutions, his struggles, and
at last his wearing the martyr's crown, Eusebius his nephew, who had
such a regard for him as to take from him his surname, has comprehended
in detail in one separate book; to this we refer those who may wish to
find out accurately concerning him. This Eusebius, indeed, although
having prosecuted many studies, especially excels in the study of
sacred literature. His life extended until the time of Constantius.
Being a man pre-eminently Christian, and endowed with great zeal for
Christ, he has written the Praeparatio Evangelica in fifteen books, and
in ten more the Demonstratio Evangelica. He was also the first one to
take in hand this subject, having been the first to call his book an
Ecclesiastical History; this work is contained in ten volumes. There is
also another book of his extant which he entitled Canons, in which he
accurately investigates chronological matters. He has also composed
five books On the Life of Constantine, and another addressed to him
which he calls triakontaeterikon. To Stephanus he also dedicates
another concerning those things in the sacred Gospels which have been
called in question; and he has also left behind divers other works
which are of great benefit to the Church. Apart from being such a man
as this, he in many ways seems to uphold the opinions of Arius," etc.

From the ms. Acts of Pope Silvester.

"Eusebius Pamphili, in writing his Ecclesiastical History, has in every
case omitted to mention those things which he has pointed out in other
works; for he has put into eleven books the sufferings of the martyrs,
bishops, and confessors, who have suffered in almost all the provinces.
But indeed as to the sufferings of women and maidens, such as with
manly fortitude suffered for the sake of Christ the Lord, he records
nothing. He is, moreover, the only one who has set forth in their order
the sufferings of the bishops, from the Apostle Peter down. Moreover,
he drew up for the benefit of the public a catalogue of the pontiffs of
those cities and apostolic seats; that is, of the great city of Rome,
and the cities of Alexandria and Antioch. Of the number then of those
of whom, up to his own times, the above-mentioned author wrote in the
Greek tongue, this man's life he was unable to paraphrase; that is, the
life of the saint Silvester," etc.

An ancient author in the Passion of the Holy Valerian.

"The glorious struggles of the most blessed martyrs, for the honor of
Christ the Lord and of our God, are celebrated by perpetual services
and an annual solemnity, that while our faithful people know the faith
of the martyrs, they may also rejoice in their triumphs, and may rest
assured that it is by the protection of these that they themselves are
to be protected. For it is held in repute that Eusebius the historian,
of sacred memory, bishop of the city of Caesarea, a most blessed priest
of excellent life, very learned also in ecclesiastical matters, and to
be venerated for his extraordinary carefulness, set forth for every
city, in so far as the truth was able to be ascertained, the Holy
Spirit announcing the deeds that had been done,--inasmuch as the cities
of single provinces and localities or towns have merited being made
famous by the heavenly triumphs of martyrs,--set forth, I say, in the
time of what rulers the innumerable persecutions were inflicted at the
command of officials. Who, although he has not described entire the
sufferings of individual martyrs, yet has truly intimated why they
ought to be described or celebrated by faithful and devoted Christians.
Thus this faithful husbandman has cultivated the grace of God, which
has been scattered abroad in all the earth, while, as it were, from a
single grain of wheat, plenteous harvests are produced on account of
the fertility of the field, and go on in multiplied abundance. So
through the narration of the above-mentioned man, diffused from the
fountain of a single book, with the ever-spreading writings of the
faithful, the celebrating of the sufferings of the martyrs has watered
all the earth."

Usuardus in his Martyrology.

"On the twenty-first day of June, in Palestine, the holy Eusebius,
bishop and confessor, a man of most excellent genius, and a
historiographer."

Notker in his Martyrology.

"On the twenty-first day of June, the deposition in Caesarea of the
holy bishop Eusebius."

Manecharius in his Epistle to Ceraunius, Bishop of Paris.

"Unceasing in thy continual efforts to equal in merit the very
excellent persons of the most blessed bishops in all the conversation
of the priesthood, zealous to adorn thyself every day with holy
religion, by thy zeal for reading thou hast searched through the whole
of the doctrines of the sacred Scriptures. Now as an addition to thy
praiseworthiness thou dost faithfully purpose, in the city of Paris, to
gather together for the love of religion, the deeds of the holy
martyrs. Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in zeal with
Eusebius of Caesarea, and art worthy of being remembered perpetually
with an equal share of glory."

From an old Manuscript Breviary of the Lemovicensian Church.

"Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.

"Lesson 1. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, on account of his
friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, took from him the surname of
Pamphili; inasmuch as along with this same Pamphilus he was a most
diligent investigator of sacred literature. The man indeed is very
worthy of being remembered in these times, both for his skill in many
things, and for his wonderful genius, and by both Gentiles and
Christians he was held distinguished and most noble among philosophers.
This man, after having for a time labored in behalf of the Arian
heresy, coming to the council of Nicaea, inspired by the Holy Spirit,
followed the decision of the Fathers, and thereafter up to the time of
his death lived in a most holy manner in the orthodox faith.

"Lesson 2. He was, moreover, very zealous in the study of the sacred
Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr was a most diligent
investigator of sacred literature. At the same time he has written many
things, but especially the following books: The Praeparatio Evangelica,
the Ecclesiastical History, Against Porphyry, a very bitter enemy of
the Christians; he has also composed Six Apologies in Behalf of Origen,
a Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on account of friendship he
took his surname, in three books; likewise very learned Commentaries on
the hundred and fifty Psalms.

"Lesson 3. Moreover, as we read, after having ascertained the
sufferings of many holy martyrs in all the provinces, and the lives of
confessors and virgins, he has written concerning these saints twenty
books; while on account of these books therefore, and especially on
account of his Praeparatio Evangelica, he was held most distinguished
among the Gentiles, because of his love of truth he contemned the
ancestral worship of the gods. He has written also a Chronicle,
extending from the first year of Abraham up to the year 300 a.d., which
the divine Hieronymus has continued. Finally this Eusebius, after the
conversion of Constantine the Great, was united to him by strong
friendship as long as he lived."

In the Breviary of the same church, June twenty-first.

"Omnipotent, eternal God, who dost permit us to take part in the
festivities in honor of Eusebius, thy holy confessor and priest, bring
us, we pray thee, through his prayers, into the society of heavenly
joys, through our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. [7]

From the book On the Lights of the Church.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, the key of the Scriptures and custodian of the
New Testament, is proved by the Greeks to be greater than many in his
treatises. There are three celebrated works of his which truly testify
to this: the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the
New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical History, and the Chronicon,
that is, a chronological summary. We have never found any one who has
been able to follow in all his foot-prints."

From the Miscellanies of Theodore Metochita (chap. 19)

"Eusebius Pamphili was also a Palestinian by birth, but as he himself
says, he sojourned for quite a long time in Egypt. He was a very
learned man, and it is evident indeed that he published many books, and
that he used language thus."
__________________________________________________________________

[6] The following Testimonies of the Ancients were collected by
Valesius, and are printed in the original languages in his edition of
Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, at the close of his Vita Eusebii. The
order of Valesius has been preserved in the following pages, but
occasionally a passage, for the sake of greater clearness, has been
given more fully than by him. A few extracts have been omitted (as
noted below), and one or two, overlooked by him, have been added. The
extracts have all been translated from the original for this edition,
with the exception of the quotations from the Life of Constantine, and
from the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians,--Socrates, Sozomen,
Theodoret, and Evagrius,--which have been copied, with a few necessary
corrections, from the version found in Bagster's edition of the Greek
Ecclesiastical Historians. The translation has been made at my request
by Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville, Ky., a member of the senior
class (1890) of Lane Theological Seminary.

[7] Valesius adds brief extracts from other missals of the same church,
which it is not necessary to quote here.
__________________________________________________________________

Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius.

__________

From the Epistle of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia (in
Theodoret's Eccles. Hist. I. 5). [8]

"Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotius, Paulinus,
Athanasius, Gregory, AEtius, and all the bishops of the East, have been
condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of
his Son."

From the Book of Marcellus of Ancyra against the Arians.

"Having happened upon a letter of Narcissus, bishop of Neronias, which
he wrote to one Chrestus and to Euphronius and to Eusebius, in which it
seems that Hosius, the bishop, had asked him whether or not like
Eusebius of Palestine he believed in the existence of two essences, I
read in the writing that he answered that he believed in the existence
of three essences."

From the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt, met in the City of
Alexandria, to All the Bishops of the Catholic Church (which Athanasius
gives in his second apology against the Arians).

"For what sort of a council of bishops was that? What sort of an
assembly having truth for its aim? Who out of the great majority of
them was not our enemy? Did not the followers of Eusebius rise up
against us on account of the Arian madness? Did not they bring forward
the others who held the same opinions as themselves? Were we not
continually writing against them as against those who held the opinions
of Arius? Was not Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine accused by our
confessors of sacrificing?"

Epiphanius in the Heresy of the Meletians (Haer. LXVIII.).

"The emperor upon hearing these things becomes very angry and orders
that a synod be convoked in Phoenicia in the city of Tyre; he also gave
orders that Eusebius and some others should act as judges: these
persons moreover had leaned somewhat too far toward the vulgarity of
the Arians. There were also summoned the bishops of the Catholic Church
in Egypt, also certain men subject to Athanasius, who were likewise
great and who kept their lives transparent before God, among whom was
the great Potamo of blessed memory, bishop and confessor of Heraclea.
But there were also present Meletians, the chief accusers of
Athanasius. Being zealous for truth and for orthodoxy, the
above-mentioned Potamo of blessed memory, a free-spoken man, who
regarded the person of no man,--for he had been deprived of an eye in
the persecution for the truth,--seeing Eusebius sitting down and acting
as judge, and Athanasius standing up, overcome by grief and weeping, as
is the wont with true men, he addressed Eusebius in a loud voice,
saying, `Dost thou sit down, Eusebius, and is Athanasius, an innocent
man, judged by thee? Who could bear such things? Do thou tell me, wert
thou not in confinement with me at the time of the persecution? I have
parted with an eye for the sake of the truth, but thou neither seemest
to be maimed at all in body, nor hast thou suffered martyrdom, but art
alive, and in no part mutilated. How didst thou escape from the
confinement unless that thou didst promise those who have inflicted
upon us the violence of persecution to perform the ungodly act, or
didst actually perform it?'"

From the Epistle of the Catholic Bishops of Egypt to the Synod of Tyre
(which Athanasius gives in the above-mentioned Apology).

"For ye also know, as we have said before, that they are our enemies,
and ye know why Eusebius of Caesarea has become our enemy since last
year."

Athanasius in his Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea.

"The strange thing is that Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had
denied on one day, but on the next day had subscribed, sent to his
church, saying that this is the faith of the Church, and that this is
the tradition of the Fathers. He plainly showed to all that before they
had been in error, and had been vainly striving after the truth; for
although he was then ashamed to write in just these terms, and excused
himself to the Church as he himself wished, yet he plainly wishes to
imply this in his Epistle, by his not denying the `Homooeusion,' `one
in substance,' and `of the substance.' He got into serious difficulty,
for in defending himself, he went on to accuse the Arians, because,
having written that `the Son did not exist before that he was
begotten,' they thereby denied that he existed before his birth in the
flesh."

The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.

"Most of all, what would Acacius say to Eusebius his own teacher? who
not only signed in the synod at Nicaea, but also made it known by
letter to the people under him that that was the true faith, which had
been agreed upon at the council of Nicaea; for although he defended
himself as he pleased through the letter, yet he did not deny the
grounds taken. But he also accused the Arians, since, in saying that
`the Son did not exist before that he was begotten,' they also deny
that he existed before Mary."

The same, in his Epistle to the Bishops of Africa.

"This also was known all the while to Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea,
who, at first identifying himself with the Arian heresy, and having
afterwards signed at the self-same synod of Nicaea, wrote to his own
particular friends, firmly maintaining that, `We have known of certain
learned and renowned bishops and writers among the ancients who have
used the term homoousios in reference to the divinity of the Father and
Son.'"

The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.

"Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop,
did not fear to say openly that Christ is not true God."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians.

"He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might
designate with the name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six
books in defense of Origen which were written by Eusebius of Caesarea,
whom every one knows to have been an Arian."

The same, in his Second Book against Rufinus.

"As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting
from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be
the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians)," etc.

The same, in his First Book against Rufinus.

"Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, of whom I have made mention above, in
the sixth book of his Apology in behalf of Origen, lays this same
charge against Methodius the bishop and martyr, which you lay against
me in my praises [of him]; he says: `How did Methodius dare to write
against Origen after having said this and that concerning his
opinions?' This is no place to speak in behalf of a martyr, for not all
things ought to be discussed in all places. Now let it suffice to have
barely touched upon the matter, that this same thing was charged
against a most renowned and most eloquent martyr by an Arian, which you
as a friend praise in me, and, being offended, censure me for."

The same, in his Epistle to Minervius and Alexander.

"I both in manhood and in extreme old age am of the same opinion, that
Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea were indeed very learned men, but went
astray in the truth of their opinions."

Socrates, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 23).

"Eusebius Pamphilus says that immediately after the Synod Egypt became
agitated by intestine divisions; but as he does not assign the reason
for this, some have accused him of disingenuousness, and have even
attributed his failure to specify the causes of these dissensions to a
determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings
at Nice."

Again, in the same chapter.

"Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of
perverting the Nicene Creed; but Eusebius denies that he violates that
exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that Eustathius was a
defender of the opinion of Sabellius. In consequence of these
misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending against
adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of
God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that
there is one God in a Trinity of Persons; yet, from what cause I am
unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore
were never at peace."

Theodoritus, in his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the
Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes as follows:

"If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it at least behooves
them to believe Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call the chief
advocate of their own doctrines."

Nicetas, in his Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith, Book V. Chap. 7.

"Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that there were only nine
persons out of all whom the decrees of the Synod did not please, and
that their names are as follows: Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of
Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Caesarea in
Palestine, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called
Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of
Ptolemais, which borders upon Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica." [9]

Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius'
Apology for Origen.

"I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the
doctrines; wherefore he ought to be given place to so far as regards
his great learning, but as regards his knowledge of doctrine he ought
not. But, moreover, we know him to have been altogether lacking in such
accurate knowledge."

And a little farther on.

"So now, that we may not seem to be trampling upon the man,--concerning
whom it is not our purpose for the present to speak,--examining into
the accuracy of his Apology, we may go on to show that both were
heretics, both he who composed the Apology, and he in whose behalf it
was composed."

And farther on.

"For as to your attempting to show that others as well as he [Origen]
have spoken of the subordination of the Son to the Father, we may not
at first wonder at it, for such is your opinion and that of your
followers; wherefore we say nothing concerning this matter for the
present, since it was long ago submitted and condemned at the general
Council."

From the Acts of the Seventh OEcumenical Council.

"For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who of those who have
obtained a knowledge of true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius
Pamphili has given himself over to false ways of thinking, and has
become of the same opinion and of the same mind with those who follow
after the opinions of Arius? In all his historical books he calls the
Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to be adored as second
in rank. But if any speaking in his defense say that he subscribed in
the council, we may admit that that is true; but while with his lips he
has respected the truth, in his heart he is far from it, as all his
writings and epistles go to show. But if from time to time, on account
of circumstances or from different causes, he has become confused or
has changed around, sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines
of Arius, and at other times feigning the truth, he shows himself to
be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a double-minded man,
unstable in all his ways; and let him not think that he shall receive
anything of the Lord. For if with the heart he had believed unto
righteousness, and with the mouth had confessed the truth unto
salvation, he would have asked forgiveness for his writings, at the
same time correcting them. But this he has by no means done, for he
remained like AEthiops with his skin unchanged. In interpreting the
verse `I said to the Lord, Thou art my Lord,' he has strayed far away
from the true sense, for this is what he says: `By the laws of nature
every son's father must be his lord; wherefore God who begat him must
be at the same time God, Lord, and Father of the only-begotten Son of
God.' So also in his epistle to the holy Alexander, the teacher of the
great Athanasius, which begins thus: `With what anxiety and with what
care have I set about writing this letter,' in most open blasphemy he
speaks as follows concerning Arius and his followers: `Thy letter
accuses them of saying that the Son was made out of nothing, like all
men. But they have produced their own epistle which they wrote to thee,
in which they give an account of their faith, and expressly confess
that "the God of the law and of the prophets and of the New Testament,
before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son, through whom also he
made the ages and the universe; and that he begat him not in
appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will,
unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one
of the creatures." If, therefore, the letter received from them tells
the truth, they wholly contradict thee, in that they confess that the
Son of God who existed before eternal ages, and through whom he made
the world, is unchangeable and a perfect creature of God, but not as
one of the creatures. But thy epistle accuses them of saying that the
Son was made as one of the creatures. They do not say this, but clearly
declare that he was not as one of the creatures. See if cause is not
immediately given them again to attack and to misrepresent whatever
they please. Again thou findest fault with them for saying that He who
is begat him who was not. I wonder if any one is able to say anything
else than that. For if He who is is one, it is plain that everything
has been made by Him and after Him. But if He who is is not the only
one, but there was also a Son existing, how did He who is beget him who
was existing? For thus those existing would be two.' These things then
Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander; but there are also other
epistles of his directed to the same holy man, in which are found
various blasphemies in defense of the followers of Arius. So also, in
writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most openly; his letter
begins thus: `I return to my Lord all thanks'; and farther on: `For we
do not say that the Son was with the Father, but that the Father was
before the Son. But the Son of God himself, knowing well that he was
greater than all, and knowing that he was other than the Father, and
less than and subject to Him, very piously teaches this to us also when
he says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."' And farther on:
`Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.' So then from
these writings of his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of Arius
and his followers. And with this rebellious heresy of theirs the
inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in hypostatic union,
and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body without soul, in his
scheme of redemption, affirming that the divine nature supplied the
purposes and movements of the soul: that, as Gregory the Divine says,
they may ascribe suffering to the Deity; and it is evident that those
who ascribe suffering to the Deity are Patripassians. Those who share
in this heresy do not allow images, as the impious Severus did not, and
Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, and all their followers,
the many-headed yet headless hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to
this faction, as has been shown from his epistles and historical
writings, as a Patripassian rejected the image of Christ," etc. [10]

Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine.

"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was
carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling
repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses to his
infirmity; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not
repented. For he cannot show, by means of those writings in which he
would seem to be defending himself, that he has withdrawn from his
former heretical doctrines, nor can he show that he agreed with the
holy and OEcumenical Synod. But he speaks of it as a marvel that the
upholders of the Homoousion should concur with him in sentiment and
agree with him in opinion: and this fact both many other things and the
epistle written by him to his own people at Caesarea accurately
confirm. But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian
doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he did not cease
following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many
sources; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely,
the error with regard to the common resurrection of us all, is to most
persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou
shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly
disease than he was by the Arian madness."

Photius, in his Bibliotheca (chap. 13).

"Of the Objection and Defense of Eusebius two books have been read;
also other two, which although differing in some respects from the
former two, are in other respects the same with regard to both diction
and thought. But he presents certain difficulties with regard to our
blameless religion as having originated with the Greeks. These he
correctly solves, although not in all cases. But as regards his
diction, it is by no means either pleasing or brilliant. The man is
indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and
firmness of character, as well as accuracy in doctrine, he is
deficient. For also in many places in these books it is plain to be
seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause,
and general-in-chief, and other terms which have had their origin in
the Arian madness. It seems that he flourished in the time of
Constantine the Great. He was also an ardent admirer of the excellences
of the holy martyr Pamphilus, for which cause some say that he took
from him the surname Pamphili."

Photius, in the Same Work (chap. 127).

"There has been read the work of Eusebius Pamphili In praise of the
great emperor Constantine, consisting of four books. In this is
contained the whole life of the man, starting with his very boyhood,
also whatever deeds of his belong to ecclesiastical history, until he
departed from life at the age of sixty-four. Eusebius is, however, even
in this work, like himself in diction, except that his discourse has
risen to a somewhat more than usual brilliancy, and that sometimes he
has made use of more flowery expressions than he is wont. However, of
pleasantness and beauty of expression there is little, as indeed is the
case in his other works. He inserts, moreover, in this work of his in
four books very many passages from the whole decalogue of his
Ecclesiastical History. He says that Constantine the Great himself also
was baptized in Nicomedia, he having put off his baptism until then,
because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan. Who baptized him he
does not clearly show. However, as to the heresy of Arius, he does not
definitely state whether he holds that opinion, or whether he has
changed; or even whether Arius held correct or incorrect views,
although he ought to have made mention of these things, because the
synod occupied an important place among the deeds of Constantine the
Great, and it again demands a detailed account of them. But he does
state that a `controversy' arose between Arius and Alexander (this is
the name he cunningly gives to the heresy), and that the God-fearing
prince was very much grieved at this controversy, and strove by
epistles and through Hosius, who was then bishop of Cordova, to bring
back the dissenting parties into peace and concord, they having laid
aside the strife existing between them with regard to such questions;
and that when he could not persuade them to do this he convoked a synod
from all quarters, and that it dissolved into peace the strife that had
arisen. These things, however, are not described accurately or clearly;
it would seem then that he is ashamed, as it were, and does not wish to
make public the vote cast against Arius in the Synod, and the just
retribution of those who were his companions in impiety and who were
cast out together with him. Finally, he does not even mention the
terrible fate which was inflicted by God upon Arius in the sight of
all. None of these things he brings to the light, nor has he drawn up
an account of the Synod and the things that were done in it. Whence,
also, when about to write a narrative concerning the divine Eustathius,
he does not even mention his name, nor what things were threatened and
executed against him; but referring these things also to sedition and
tumult, he again speaks of the calmness of the bishops, who having been
convened in Antioch by the zeal and cooperation of the Emperor, changed
the sedition and tumult into peace. Likewise as to what things were
maliciously contrived against the ever-conquering Athanasius, when he
set about making his history cover these things, he says that
Alexandria again was filled with sedition and tumult, and that this was
calmed by the coming of the bishops, who had the imperial aid. But he
by no means makes it clear who was the leader of the sedition, what
sort of sedition it was, or by what means the strife was settled. He
also keeps up almost the same mode of dissimulating in his account of
the contentions existing among bishops with respect to doctrines, and
their disagreements on other matters."

Joannes Zonaras, in his Third Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of
Constantine

"Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was at that
time one of those who upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have
afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of Arius, and to have become of
like mind with those who hold that the Son is coequal and of the same
nature with the Father, and to have been received into communion by the
holy Fathers. Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to
have defended the faithful. These things are found thus narrated by
some; but he makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which he
is seen to have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in many
places in the above-mentioned work he seems to be following after
Arius. In the very beginning of his book, where he quotes David as
saying, `He spake and they were made, he commanded and they were
established,' he says that the Father and Maker is to be considered as
maker and universal ruler, governing by a kingly nod, and that the
second after him in authority, the divine Word, is subject to the
commands of the Father. And farther on he says, that he, as being the
power and wisdom of the Father, is entrusted with the second place in
the kingdom and rule over all. And again, a little farther on, that
there is also a certain essence, living and subsisting before the
world, which ministers to the God and Father of the universe for the
creation of things that are created. Also Solomon, in the person of the
wisdom of God, says, `The Lord created me in the beginning of his
ways,' etc., and farther on he says: And besides all this, as the
pre-existent word of God, who also preexisted before all ages created,
he received divine honor from the Father, and is worshipped as God.
These and other things show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines,
unless some one say that they were written before his conversion."

Suidas, under the word Diodoros

"Diodorus, a monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, in the times of
Julian and Valens, wrote divers works, as Theodorus Lector states in
his Ecclesiastical History. These are as follows: A Chronicle, which
corrects the error of Eusebius Pamphilus with regard to chronology,"
etc.

The same Suidas, from Sophronius.

"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Caesarea
in Palestine, a man zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and
along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful investigator of sacred
literature, has published many books, among which are the following."
[11]
__________________________________________________________________

[8] This extract is not given by Valesius.

[9] Valesius inserts after this extract a brief and unimportant
quotation from Eulogius of Alexandria, which, however, is so
obscure,--severed as it is from its context, which is not accessible to
me,--that no translation of it has been attempted.

[10] This extract is translated from the original Greek of the Acts of
the Second Nicene Council, Act VI. Tom. V. (as given by Labbe and
Cossartius in their Concilia, Tom. VII. p. 495 sq.). Valesius gives
only a Latin translation, and that in a fragmentary form.

[11] The remainder of this extract from Sophronius is a translation of
the chapter of Jerome's de viris illustribus, which is quoted above, on
p. 60, and is therefore omitted at this point. Valesius adds some
extracts from Baronius and Scaliger; but inasmuch as they are to be
classed with modern rather than with ancient writers, it has seemed
best to omit the quotations from their works.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

The Church History of Eusebius.

------------------------

Book I.

Chapter I.--The Plan of the Work.

1. It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy
apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of
our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which
are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention
those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most
prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed
the divine word either orally or in writing.

2. It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of
those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors,
and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called
[12] have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of
Christ.

3. It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which
immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their
plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in
which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to
describe the character of those who at various periods have contended
for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions
which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and
kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all. Since I propose
to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the
beginning of the dispensation [13] of our Saviour and Lord Jesus
Christ. [14]

4. But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the
wise, [15] for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a
perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon
the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and
untrodden path. [16] I pray that I may have God as my guide and the
power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare
footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief
fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have
transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.
From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as
from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to
walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.

5. Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there
by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having
plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from
ancient writers, [17] we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an
historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the
successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet
of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most
noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

6. This work seems to me of especial importance because I know of no
ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this subject; and I
hope that it will appear most useful to those who are fond of
historical research.

7. I have already given an epitome of these things in the Chronological
Canons [18] which I have composed, but notwithstanding that, I have
undertaken in the present work to write as full an account of them as I
am able.

8. My work will begin, as I have said, with the dispensation [19] of
the Saviour Christ,--which is loftier and greater than human
conception,--and with a discussion of his divinity [20] ;

9. for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from
Christ, for one who proposes to write a history of the Church to begin
with the very origin of Christ's dispensation, a dispensation more
divine than many think.
__________________________________________________________________

[12] Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20.

[13] Greek oikonomia. Suicer (Thesaurus Eccles.) points out four uses
of this word among ecclesiastical writers: (1) Ministerium Evangelii.
(2) Providentia et numen (i.e. of God). (3) Naturae humanae assumtio.
(4) Totius redemptionis mysterium et passionis Christi sacramentum.
Valesius says, "The ancient Greeks use the word to denote whatever
Christ did in the world to proclaim salvation for the human race, and
thus the first oikonomia tou christou is the incarnation, as the last
oikonomia is the passion." The word in the present case is used in its
wide sense to denote not simply the act of incarnation, but the whole
economy or dispensation of Christ upon earth. See the notes of
Heinichen upon this passage, Vol. III. p. 4 sq., and of Valesius, Vol.
I. p. 2.

[14] Five mss., followed by nearly all the editors of the Greek text
and by the translators Stigloher and Cruse, read tou theou after
christon. The words, however, are omitted by the majority of the best
mss. and by Rufinus, followed by Heinichen and Closs. (See the note of
Heinichen, Vol. I. p. 4).

[15] All the mss. followed by the majority of the editors read
eugnomonon, which must agree with logos. Heinichen, however, followed
by Burton, Schwegler, Closs, and Stigloher, read eugnomonon, which I
have also accepted. Closs translates die Nachsicht der Kenner;
Stigloher, wohlwollende Nachsicht. Cruse avoids the difficulty by
omitting the word; an omission which is quite unwarranted.

[16] Eusebius is rightly called the "Father of Church History." He had
no predecessors who wrote, as he did, with a comprehensive historical
plan in view; and yet, as he tells us, much had been written of which
he made good use in his History. The one who approached nearest to the
idea of a Church historian was Hegesippus (see Bk. IV. chap. 22, note
1), but his writings were little more than fragmentary memoirs, or
collections of disconnected reminiscences. For instance, Eusebius, in
Bk. II. chap 23, quotes from his fifth and last book the account of the
martyrdom of James the Just, which shows that his work lacked at least
all chronological arrangement. Julius Africanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 31,
note 1) also furnished Eusebius with much material in the line of
chronology, and in his Chronicle Eusebius made free use of him. These
are the only two who can in any sense be said to have preceded Eusebius
in his province, and neither one can rob him of his right to be called
the "Father of Church History."

[17] One of the greatest values of Eusebius' History lies in the
quotations which it contains from earlier ecclesiastical writers. The
works of many of them are lost, and are known to us only through the
extracts made by Eusebius. This fact alone is enough to make his
History of inestimable worth.

[18] On Eusebius' Chronicle, see the Prolegomena, p. 31, above.

[19] oikonomia. See above, note 2.

[20] theologia. Suicer gives four meanings for this word: (1) Doctrina
de Deo. (2) Doctrina de SS. Trinitate. (3) Divina Christi natura, seu
doctrina de ea. (4) Scriptura sacra utriusque Testamenti. The word is
used here in its third signification (cf. also chap. 2, S:3, and Bk. V.
chap. 28, S:5). It occurs very frequently in the works of the Fathers
with this meaning, especially in connection with oikonomia, which is
then quite commonly used to denote the "human nature" of Christ. In the
present chapter oikonomia keeps throughout its more general
signification of "the Dispensation of Christ," and is not confined to
the mere act of incarnation, nor to his "human nature."
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.--Summary View of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Our
Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.

1. Since in Christ there is a twofold nature, and the one--in so far as
he is thought of as God--resembles the head of the body, while the
other may be compared with the feet,--in so far as he, for the sake of
our salvation, put on human nature with the same passions as our
own,--the following work will be complete only if we begin with the
chief and lordliest events of all his history. In this way will the
antiquity and divinity of Christianity be shown to those who suppose it
of recent and foreign origin, [21] and imagine that it appeared only
yesterday. [22]

2. No language is sufficient to express the origin and the worth, the
being and the nature of Christ. Wherefore also the divine Spirit says
in the prophecies, "Who shall declare his generation?" [23] For none
knoweth the Father except the Son, neither can any one know the Son
adequately except the Father alone who hath begotten him. [24]

3. For who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light which
was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom which
existed before the ages, the living Word which was in the beginning
with the Father and which was God, the first and only begotten of God
which was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the
commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the
messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father's unspoken
will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of
the universe after the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God,
the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has
received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and
honor from the Father; as it is said in regard to him in the mystical
passages of Scripture which speak of his divinity: "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [25]
"All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made."
[26]

4. This, too, the great Moses teaches, when, as the most ancient of all
the prophets, he describes under the influence of the divine Spirit the
creation and arrangement of the universe. He declares that the maker of
the world and the creator of all things yielded to Christ himself, and
to none other than his own clearly divine and first-born Word, the
making of inferior things, and communed with him respecting the
creation of man. "For," says he, "God said, Let us make man in our
image and in our likeness." [27]

5. And another of the prophets confirms this, speaking of God in his
hymns as follows: "He spake and they were made; he commanded and they
were created." [28] He here introduces the Father and Maker as Ruler of
all, commanding with a kingly nod, and second to him the divine Word,
none other than the one who is proclaimed by us, as carrying out the
Father's commands.

6. All that are said to have excelled in righteousness and piety since
the creation of man, the great servant Moses and before him in the
first place Abraham and his children, and as many righteous men and
prophets as afterward appeared, have contemplated him with the pure
eyes of the mind, and have recognized him and offered to him the
worship which is due him as Son of God.

7. But he, by no means neglectful of the reverence due to the Father,
was appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to them all. For
instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a common man to Abraham
while he was sitting at the oak of Mambre. [29] And he, immediately
falling down, although he saw a man with his eyes, nevertheless
worshiped him as God, and sacrificed to him as Lord, and confessed that
he was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered the words, "Lord,
the judge of all the earth, wilt thou not execute righteous judgment?"
[30]

8. For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the unbegotten and
immutable essence of the almighty God was changed into the form of man
or that it deceived the eyes of the beholders with the appearance of
some created thing, and if it is unreasonable to suppose, on the other
hand, that the Scripture should falsely invent such things, when the
God and Lord who judgeth all the earth and executeth judgment is seen
in the form of a man, who else can be called, if it be not lawful to
call him the first cause of all things, than his only pre-existent
Word? [31] Concerning whom it is said in the Psalms, "He sent his Word
and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions." [32]

9. Moses most clearly proclaims him second Lord after the Father, when
he says, "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire
from the Lord." [33] The divine Scripture also calls him God, when he
appeared again to Jacob in the form of a man, and said to Jacob, "Thy
name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name,
because thou hast prevailed with God." [34] Wherefore also Jacob called
the name of that place "Vision of God," [35] saying, "For I have seen
God face to face, and my life is preserved." [36]

10. Nor is it admissible to suppose that the theophanies recorded were
appearances of subordinate angels and ministers of God, for whenever
any of these appeared to men, the Scripture does not conceal the fact,
but calls them by name not God nor Lord, but angels, as it is easy to
prove by numberless testimonies.

11. Joshua, also, the successor of Moses, calls him, as leader of the
heavenly angels and archangels and of the supramundane powers, and as
lieutenant of the Father, [37] entrusted with the second rank of
sovereignty and rule over all, "captain of the host of the Lord,"
although he saw him not otherwise than again in the form and appearance
of a man. For it is written:

12. "And it came to pass when Joshua was at Jericho [38] that he looked
and saw a man standing over against him with his sword drawn in his
hand, and Joshua went unto him and said, Art thou for us or for our
adversaries? And he said unto him, As captain of the host of the Lord
am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and said unto
him, Lord, what dost thou command thy servant? and the captain of the
Lord said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the place
whereon thou standest is holy." [39]

13. You will perceive also from the same words that this was no other
than he who talked with Moses. [40] For the Scripture says in the same
words and with reference to the same one, "When the Lord saw that he
drew near to see, the Lord called to him out of the bush and said,
Moses, Moses. And he said, What is it? And he said, Draw not nigh
hither; loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou
standest is holy ground. And he said unto him, I am the God of thy
fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob." [41]

14. And that there is a certain substance which lived and subsisted
[42] before the world, and which ministered unto the Father and God of
the universe for the formation of all created things, and which is
called the Word of God and Wisdom, we may learn, to quote other proofs
in addition to those already cited, from the mouth of Wisdom herself,
who reveals most clearly through Solomon the following mysteries
concerning herself: "I, Wisdom, have dwelt with prudence and knowledge,
and I have invoked understanding. Through me kings reign, and princes
ordain righteousness. Through me the great are magnified, and through
me sovereigns rule the earth." [43]

15. To which she adds: "The Lord created me in the beginning of his
ways, for his works; before the world he established me, in the
beginning, before he made the earth, before he made the depths, before
the mountains were settled, before all hills he begat me. When he
prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he established
the fountains of the region under heaven [44] I was with him,
disposing. I was the one in whom he delighted; daily I rejoiced before
him at all times when he was rejoicing at having completed the world."
[45]

16. That the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed and appeared to some,
if not to all, has thus been briefly shown by us.

17. But why the Gospel was not preached in ancient times to all men and
to all nations, as it is now, will appear from the following
considerations. [46] The life of the ancients was not of such a kind as
to permit them to receive the all-wise and all-virtuous teaching of
Christ.

18. For immediately in the beginning, after his original life of
blessedness, the first man despised the command of God, and fell into
this mortal and perishable state, and exchanged his former divinely
inspired luxury for this curse-laden earth. His descendants having
filled our earth, showed themselves much worse, with the exception of
one here and there, and entered upon a certain brutal and insupportable
mode of life.

19. They thought neither of city nor state, neither of arts nor
sciences. They were ignorant even of the name of laws and of justice,
of virtue and of philosophy. As nomads, they passed their lives in
deserts, like wild and fierce beasts, destroying, by an excess of
voluntary wickedness, the natural reason of man, and the seeds of
thought and of culture implanted in the human soul. They gave
themselves wholly over to all kinds of profanity, now seducing one
another, now slaying one another, now eating human flesh, and now
daring to wage war with the Gods and to undertake those battles of the
giants celebrated by all; now planning to fortify earth against heaven,
and in the madness of ungoverned pride to prepare an attack upon the
very God of all. [47]

20. On account of these things, when they conducted themselves thus,
the all-seeing God sent down upon them floods and conflagrations as
upon a wild forest spread over the whole earth. He cut them down with
continuous famines and plagues, with wars, and with thunderbolts from
heaven, as if to check some terrible and obstinate disease of souls
with more severe punishments.

21. Then, when the excess of wickedness had overwhelmed nearly all the
race, like a deep fit of drunkenness, beclouding and darkening the
minds of men, the first-born and first-created wisdom of God, the
pre-existent Word himself, induced by his exceeding love for man,
appeared to his servants, now in the form of angels, and again to one
and another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of God, in his own
person as the saving power of God, not otherwise, however, than in the
shape of man, because it was impossible to appear in any other way.

22. And as by them the seeds of piety were sown among a multitude of
men and the whole nation, descended from the Hebrews, devoted
themselves persistently to the worship of God, he imparted to them
through the prophet Moses, as to multitudes still corrupted by their
ancient practices, images and symbols of a certain mystic Sabbath and
of circumcision, and elements of other spiritual principles, but he did
not grant them a complete knowledge of the mysteries themselves.

23. But when their law became celebrated, and, like a sweet odor, was
diffused among all men, as a result of their influence the dispositions
of the majority of the heathen were softened by the lawgivers and
philosophers who arose on every side, and their wild and savage
brutality was changed into mildness, so that they enjoyed deep peace,
friendship, and social intercourse. [48] Then, finally, at the time of
the origin of the Roman Empire, there appeared again to all men and
nations throughout the world, who had been, as it were, previously
assisted, and were now fitted to receive the knowledge of the Father,
that same teacher of virtue, the minister of the Father in all good
things, the divine and heavenly Word of God, in a human body not at all
differing in substance from our own. He did and suffered the things
which had been prophesied. For it had been foretold that one who was at
the same time man and God should come and dwell in the world, should
perform wonderful works, and should show himself a teacher to all
nations of the piety of the Father. The marvelous nature of his birth,
and his new teaching, and his wonderful works had also been foretold;
so likewise the manner of his death, his resurrection from the dead,
and, finally, his divine ascension into heaven.

24. For instance, Daniel the prophet, under the influence of the divine
Spirit, seeing his kingdom at the end of time, [49] was inspired thus
to describe the divine vision in language fitted to human
comprehension: "For I beheld," he says, "until thrones were placed, and
the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow and the
hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was a flame of fire and his
wheels burning fire. A river of fire flowed before him. Thousand
thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before him. He appointed judgment, and the books were opened."
[50]

25. And again, "I saw," says he, "and behold, one like the Son of man
came with the clouds of heaven, and he hastened unto the Ancient of
Days and was brought into his presence, and there was given him the
dominion and the glory and the kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and
tongues serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall
not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed." [51]

26. It is clear that these words can refer to no one else than to our
Saviour, the God Word who was in the beginning with God, and who was
called the Son of man because of his final appearance in the flesh.

27. But since we have collected in separate books [52] the selections
from the prophets which relate to our Saviour Jesus Christ, and have
arranged in a more logical form those things which have been revealed
concerning him, what has been said will suffice for the present.
__________________________________________________________________

[21] nean auten kai ektetopismenen

[22] This was one of the principal objections raised against
Christianity. Antiquity was considered a prime requisite in a religion
which claimed to be true, and no reproach was greater than the reproach
of novelty. Hence the apologists laid great stress upon the antiquity
of Christianity, and this was one reason why they appropriated the Old
Testament as a Christian book. Compare, for instance, the apologies of
Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian and Minucius
Felix, and the works of Clement of Alexandria. See Engelhardt's article
on Eusebius, in the Zeitschrift fuer die hist. Theologie, 1852, p. 652
sq.; Schaff's Church History, Vol. II. p. 110; and Tzschirner's
Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 99 sq.

[23] Isa. liii. 8.

[24] Cf. Matt. xi. 27

[25] John i. 1.

[26] John i. 3.

[27] Gen. i. 26.

[28] Ps. xxxiii. 9. There is really nothing in this passage to imply
that the Psalmist thinks, as Eusebius supposes, of the Son as the
Father's agent in creation, who is here addressed by the Father. As
Stroth remarks, "According to Eusebius, `He spake' is equivalent to `He
said to the Son, Create'; and `They were created' means, according to
him, not `They arose immediately upon this command of God,' but `The
Son was immediately obedient to the command of the Father and produced
them.' For Eusebius connects this verse with the sixth, `By the word of
the Lord were the heavens made,' where he understands Christ to be
referred to. Perhaps this verse has been omitted in the Greek through
an oversight, for it is found in Rufinus."

[29] See Gen. xviii. 1 sq.

[30] Gen. xviii. 25.

[31] Eusebius accepts the common view of the early Church, that the
theophanies of the Old Testament were Christophanies; that is,
appearances of the second person of the Trinity. Augustine seems to
have been the first of the Fathers to take a different view,
maintaining that such Christophanies were not consistent with the
identity of essence between Father and Son, and that the Scriptures
themselves teach that it was not the Logos, but an angel, that appeared
to the Old Testament worthies on various occasions (cf. De Trin. III.
11). Augustine's opinion was widely adopted, but in modern times the
earlier view, which Eusebius represents, has been the prevailing one
(see Hodge, Systematic Theology, I. p. 490, and Lange's article
Theophany in Herzog).

[32] Ps. cvii. 20.

[33] Gen. xix. 24.

[34] Gen. xxxii. 28.

[35] eidos theou.

[36] Gen. xxxii. 30.

[37] The mss. differ greatly at this point. A number of them followed
by Valesius, Closs, and Cruse, read, hosanei tou patros hupEURrchonta
dunamin kai sophian. Schwegler, Laemmer, Burton, and Heinichen adopt
another reading which has some ms. support, and which we have followed
in our translation: hosanei tou patros huparchon. See Heinichen's
edition, Vol. 1. p. 10, note 41.

[38] en ;;Iericho.

[39] Josh. v. 13-15

[40] Eusebius agrees with other earlier Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr,
Origen, and Cyprian) in identifying the one that appeared to Joshua
with him that had appeared to Moses, on the ground that the same words
were used in both cases (cf. especially Justin's Dial. c. Trypho, chap.
62). Many later Fathers (e.g. Theodoret) regard the person that
appeared to Joshua as the archangel Michael, who is described by Daniel
(x. 21 and xii. 1) as fighting for the people of God. See Keil's
Commentary on Joshua, chap. 5, vv. 13-15.

[41] Ex. iii. 4-6. Cf. Justin's Dial., chap. 63.

[42] ousia tis prokosmios zosa kai huphestosa.

[43] Prov. viii. 12, 15, 16.

[44] tes hup' ouranon, with all the mss. and the LXX., followed by
Schwegler, Burton, Heinichen, and others. Some editors, in agreement
with the version of Rufinus (fontes sub coelo), read tas hup' ouranon.
Closs, Stigloher, and Cruse translate in the same way.

[45] Prov. viii. 22-25, 27, 28, 30, 31

[46] Eusebius pursues much the same line of argument in his Dem.
Evang., Proem. Bk. VIII.; and compare also Gregory of Nyssa's Third
Oration on the birth of the Lord (at the beginning). The objection
which Eusebius undertakes to answer here was an old one, and had been
considered by Justin Martyr, by Origen in his work against Celsus, and
by others (see Tzschirner's Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 25 ff.).

[47] The reference here seems to be to the building of the tower of
Babel (Gen. xi. 1-9), although Valesius thinks otherwise. The fact that
Eusebius refers to the battles of the giants, which were celebrated in
heathen song, does not militate against a reference in this passage to
the narrative recounted in Genesis. He illustrates the presumption of
the human race by instances familiar to his readers whether drawn from
Christian or from Pagan sources. Compare the Praep. Evang. ix. 14.

[48] It was the opinion of Eusebius, in common with most of the
Fathers, that the Greek philosophers, lawgivers, and poets had obtained
their wisdom from the ancient Hebrews, and this point was pressed very
strongly by many of the apologists in their effort to prove the
antiquity of Christianity. The assertion was made especially in the
case of Plato and Pythagoras, who were said to have become acquainted
with the books of the Hebrews upon their journey to Egypt. Compare
among other passages Justin's Apol. I. 59 ff.; Clement of Alexandria's
Cohort. ad Gentes, chap. 6; and Tertullian's Apol. chap. 47. Compare
also Eusebius' Praep. Evang., Bks. IX. and X.

[49] The Greek has only epi telei, which can refer, however, only to
the end of time or to the end of the world.

[50] Dan. vii. 9, 10.

[51] Dan. vii. 13, 14.

[52] Eusebius refers here probably to his Eclogae propheticae, or
Prophetical Extracts, possibly to his Dem. Evang.; upon these works see
the Prolegomena, p. 34 and. 37, above.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.--The Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were known from
the Beginning, and were honored by the Inspired Prophets.

1. It is now the proper place to show that the very name Jesus and also
the name Christ were honored by the ancient prophets beloved of God.
[53]

2. Moses was the first to make known the name of Christ as a name
especially august and glorious. When he delivered types and symbols of
heavenly things, and mysterious images, in accordance with the oracle
which said to him, "Look that thou make all things according to the
pattern which was shown thee in the mount," [54] he consecrated a man
high priest of God, in so far as that was possible, and him he called
Christ. [55] And thus to this dignity of the high priesthood, which in
his opinion surpassed the most honorable position among men, he
attached for the sake of honor and glory the name of Christ.

3. He knew so well that in Christ was something divine. And the same
one foreseeing, under the influence of the divine Spirit, the name
Jesus, dignified it also with a certain distinguished privilege. For
the name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among men before the
time of Moses, he applied first and only to the one who he knew would
receive after his death, again as a type and symbol, the supreme
command.

4. His successor, therefore, who had not hitherto borne the name Jesus,
but had been called by another name, Auses, [56] which had been given
him by his parents, he now called Jesus, bestowing the name upon him as
a gift of honor, far greater than any kingly diadem. For Jesus himself,
the son of Nave, bore a resemblance to our Saviour in the fact that he
alone, after Moses and after the completion of the symbolical worship
which had been transmitted by him, succeeded to the government of the
true and pure religion.

5. Thus Moses bestowed the name of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, as a mark
of the highest honor, upon the two men who in his time surpassed all
the rest of the people in virtue and glory; namely, upon the high
priest and upon his own successor in the government.

6. And the prophets that came after also clearly foretold Christ by
name, predicting at the same time the plots which the Jewish people
would form against him, and the calling of the nations through him.
Jeremiah, for instance, speaks as follows: "The Spirit before our face,
Christ the Lord, was taken in their destructions; of whom we said,
under his shadow we shall live among the nations." [57] And David, in
perplexity, says, "Why did the nations rage and the people imagine vain
things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers
were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ"; [58]
to which he adds, in the person of Christ himself, "The Lord said unto
me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I
will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for thy possession." [59]

7. And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and
who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared
oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also
the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine
Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs. For they
also bore in their own persons types of the royal and sovereign power
of the true and only Christ, the divine Word who ruleth over all.

8. And we have been told also that certain of the prophets themselves
became, by the act of anointing, Christs in type, so that all these
have reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired and heavenly
Word, who is the only high priest of all, and the only King of every
creature, and the Father's only supreme prophet of prophets.

9. And a proof of this is that no one of those who were of old
symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets,
possessed so great a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our
Saviour and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.

10. None of them at least, however superior in dignity and honor they
may have been for many generations among their own people, ever gave to
their followers the name of Christians from their own typical name of
Christ. Neither was divine honor ever rendered to any one of them by
their subjects; nor after their death was the disposition of their
followers such that they were ready to die for the one whom they
honored. And never did so great a commotion arise among all the nations
of the earth in respect to any one of that age; for the mere symbol
could not act with such power among them as the truth itself which was
exhibited by our Saviour.

11. He, although he received no symbols and types of high priesthood
from any one, although he was not born of a race of priests, although
he was not elevated to a kingdom by military guards, although he was
not a prophet like those of old, although he obtained no honor nor
pre-eminence among the Jews, nevertheless was adorned by the Father
with all, if not with the symbols, yet with the truth itself.

12. And therefore, although he did not possess like honors with those
whom we have mentioned, he is called Christ more than all of them. And
as himself the true and only Christ of God, he has filled the whole
earth with the truly august and sacred name of Christians, committing
to his followers no longer types and images, but the uncovered virtues
themselves, and a heavenly life in the very doctrines of truth.

13. And he was not anointed with oil prepared from material substances,
but, as befits divinity, with the divine Spirit himself, by
participation in the unbegotten deity of the Father. And this is taught
also again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as if in the person of Christ
himself, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore hath he anointed
me. He hath sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim
deliverance to captives, and recovery of sight to the blind." [60]

14. And not only Isaiah, but also David addresses him, saying, "Thy
throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of equity is the scepter
of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hast hated iniquity.
Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows." [61] Here the Scripture calls him God in the first
verse, in the second it honors him with a royal scepter.

15. Then a little farther on, after the divine and royal power, it
represents him in the third place as having become Christ, being
anointed not with oil made of material substances, but with the divine
oil of gladness. It thus indicates his especial honor, far superior to
and different from that of those who, as types, were of old anointed in
a more material way.

16. And elsewhere the same writer speaks of him as follows: "The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies
thy footstool"; [62] and, "Out of the womb, before the morning star,
have I begotten thee. The Lord hath sworn and he will not repent. Thou
art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec." [63]

17. But this Melchizedec is introduced in the Holy Scriptures as a
priest of the most high God, [64] not consecrated by any anointing oil,
especially prepared, and not even belonging by descent to the
priesthood of the Jews. Wherefore after his order, but not after the
order of the others, who received symbols and types, was our Saviour
proclaimed, with an appeal to an oath, Christ and priest.

18. History, therefore, does not relate that he was anointed
corporeally by the Jews, nor that he belonged to the lineage of
priests, but that he came into existence from God himself before the
morning star, that is before the organization of the world, and that he
obtained an immortal and undecaying priesthood for eternal ages.

19. But it is a great and convincing proof of his incorporeal and
divine unction that he alone of all those who have ever existed is even
to the present day called Christ by all men throughout the world, and
is confessed and witnessed to under this name, and is commemorated both
by Greeks and Barbarians and even to this day is honored as a King by
his followers throughout the world, and is admired as more than a
prophet, and is glorified as the true and only high priest of God. [65]
And besides all this, as the pre-existent Word of God, called into
being before all ages, he has received august honor from the Father,
and is worshiped as God.

20. But most wonderful of all is the fact that we who have consecrated
ourselves to him, honor him not only with our voices and with the sound
of words, but also with complete elevation of soul, so that we choose
to give testimony unto him rather than to preserve our own lives.

21. I have of necessity prefaced my history with these matters in order
that no one, judging from the date of his incarnation, may think that
our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ, has but recently come into
being.
__________________________________________________________________

[53] Compare the Dem. Evang. iv. 17.

[54] Ex. xxv. 40.

[55] "Eusebius here has in mind the passages Lev. iv. 5, 16, and Lev.
vi. 22, where the LXX. reads ho hiereus ho christos: The priest, the
anointed one" (Closs). The Authorized Version reads, The priest that
was anointed; the Revised Version, The anointed priest.

[56] A few mss., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, read here Naue, but
the best mss. followed by the majority of editors read 'Ause, which is
a corruption of the name Oshea, which means "Salvation," and which
Joshua bore before his name was changed, by the addition of a syllable,
to Jehoshua=Joshua=Jesus, meaning "God's salvation" (Num. xiii. 16).
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. I.) speaks of this corruption as existing in
Greek and Latin mss. of the Scriptures, and as having no sense, and
contends that Osee is the proper form, Osee meaning "Salvator." The
same corruption (Auses) occurs also in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iii. 16,
and Adv. Jud. 9 (where the English translator, as Cruse also does in
the present passage, in both cases departs from the original, and
renders `Oshea,' Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. III. p. 334, 335, and
163), and in Lactantius, Institutes, iv. 17.

[57] Lam. iv. 20.

[58] Ps. ii. 1, 2.

[59] Ps. ii. 7, 8.

[60] Isa. lxi. 1. Eusebius as usual follows the LXX., which in this
case differs somewhat from the Hebrew, and hence the translation
differs from the English version. The LXX., however, contains an extra
clause which Eusebius omits. See Heinichen's edition, Vol. I. p. 21,
note 49.

[61] Ps. xlv. 6, 7.

[62] Ps. cx. 1.

[63] Ps. cx. 4.

[64] See Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; viii.

[65] Eusebius, in this chapter and in the Dem. Evang. IV. 15, is the
first of the Fathers to mention the three offices of Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.--The Religion Proclaimed by Him to All Nations Was Neither
New Nor Strange.

1. But that no one may suppose that his doctrine is new and strange, as
if it were framed by a man of recent origin, differing in no respect
from other men, let us now briefly consider this point also.

2. It is admitted that when in recent times the appearance of our
Saviour Jesus Christ had become known to all men there immediately made
its appearance a new nation; a nation confessedly not small, and not
dwelling in some corner of the earth, but the most numerous and pious
of all nations, [66] indestructible and unconquerable, because it
always receives assistance from God. This nation, thus suddenly
appearing at the time appointed by the inscrutable counsel of God, is
the one which has been honored by all with the name of Christ.

3. One of the prophets, when he saw beforehand with the eye of the
Divine Spirit that which was to be, was so astonished at it that he
cried out, "Who hath heard of such things, and who hath spoken thus?
Hath the earth brought forth in one day, and hath a nation been born at
once?" [67] And the same prophet gives a hint also of the name by which
the nation was to be called, when he says, "Those that serve me shall
be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon the earth." [68]

4. But although it is clear that we are new and that this new name of
Christians has really but recently been known among all nations,
nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion,
have not been lately invented by us, but from the first creation of
man, so to speak, have been established by the natural understanding of
divinely favored men of old. That this is so we shall show in the
following way.

5. That the Hebrew nation is not new, but is universally honored on
account of its antiquity, is known to all. The books and writings of
this people contain accounts of ancient men, rare indeed and few in
number, but nevertheless distinguished for piety and righteousness and
every other virtue. Of these, some excellent men lived before the
flood, others of the sons and descendants of Noah lived after it, among
them Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as their own founder and
forefather.

6. If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the
testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man,
were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the
truth. [69]

7. For that which the name indicates, that the Christian man, through
the knowledge and the teaching of Christ, is distinguished for
temperance and righteousness, for patience in life and manly virtue,
and for a profession of piety toward the one and only God over all--all
that was zealously practiced by them not less than by us.

8. They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we.
They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not
avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other
distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be
observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such
things. But they also clearly knew the very Christ of God; for it has
already been shown that he appeared unto Abraham, that he imparted
revelations to Isaac, that he talked with Jacob, that he held converse
with Moses and with the prophets that came after.

9. Hence you will find those divinely favored men honored with the name
of Christ, according to the passage which says of them, "Touch not my
Christs, and do my prophets no harm." [70]

10. So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which
has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ,
the first and most ancient of all religions, and the one discovered by
those divinely favored men in the age of Abraham.

11. If it is said that Abraham, a long time afterward, was given the
command of circumcision, we reply that nevertheless before this it was
declared that he had received the testimony of righteousness through
faith; as the divine word says, "Abraham believed in God, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness." [71]

12. And indeed unto Abraham, who was thus before his circumcision a
justified man, there was given by God, who revealed himself unto him
(but this was Christ himself, the word of God), a prophecy in regard to
those who in coming ages should be justified in the same way as he. The
prophecy was in the following words: "And in thee shall all the tribes
of the earth be blessed." [72] And again, "He shall become a nation
great and numerous; and in him shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed." [73]

13. It is permissible to understand this as fulfilled in us. For he,
having renounced the superstition of his fathers, and the former error
of his life, and having confessed the one God over all, and having
worshiped him with deeds of virtue, and not with the service of the law
which was afterward given by Moses, was justified by faith in Christ,
the Word of God, who appeared unto him. To him, then, who was a man of
this character, it was said that all the tribes and all the nations of
the earth should be blessed in him.

14. But that very religion of Abraham has reappeared at the present
time, practiced in deeds, more efficacious than words, by Christians
alone throughout the world.

15. What then should prevent the confession that we who are of Christ
practice one and the same mode of life and have one and the same
religion as those divinely favored men of old? Whence it is evident
that the perfect religion committed to us by the teaching of Christ is
not new and strange, but, if the truth must be spoken, it is the first
and the true religion. This may suffice for this subject.
__________________________________________________________________

[66] Cf. Tertullian, Apol. XXXVII. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol.
III. p. 45).

[67] Isa. lxvi. 8.

[68] Isa. lxv. 15, 16.

[69] Compare Justin Martyr's Apol. I. 46.

[70] 1 Chron. xvi. 22, and Ps. cv. 15.

[71] Gen. xv. 6.

[72] Gen. xii. 3.

[73] Gen. xviii. 18.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.--The Time of his Appearance among Men.

1. And now, after this necessary introduction to our proposed history
of the Church, we can enter, so to speak, upon our journey, beginning
with the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh. And we invoke God, the
Father of the Word, and him, of whom we have been speaking, Jesus
Christ himself our Saviour and Lord, the heavenly Word of God, as our
aid and fellow-laborer in the narration of the truth.

2. It was in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus [74] and
the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of
Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt
came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was born in
Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies which had been uttered
concerning him. [75] His birth took place during the first census,
while Cyrenius was governor of Syria. [76]

3. Flavius Josephus, the most celebrated of Hebrew historians, also
mentions this census, [77] which was taken during Cyrenius' term of
office. In the same connection he gives an account of the uprising of
the Galileans, which took place at that time, of which also Luke, among
our writers, has made mention in the Acts, in the following words:
"After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and
drew away a multitude [78] after him: he also perished; and all, even
as many as obeyed him, were dispersed." [79]

4. The above-mentioned author, in the eighteenth book of his
Antiquities, in agreement with these words, adds the following, which
we quote exactly: "Cyrenius, a member of the senate, one who had held
other offices and had passed through them all to the consulship, a man
also of great dignity in other respects, came to Syria with a small
retinue, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of the nation and to make
an assessment of their property." [80]

5. And after a little [81] he says: "But Judas, [82] a Gaulonite, from
a city called Gamala, taking with him Sadduchus, [83] a Pharisee, urged
the people to revolt, both of them saying that the taxation meant
nothing else than downright slavery, and exhorting the nation to defend
their liberty."

6. And in the second book of his History of the Jewish War, he writes
as follows concerning the same man: "At this time a certain Galilean,
whose name was Judas, persuaded his countrymen to revolt, declaring
that they were cowards if they submitted to pay tribute to the Romans,
and if they endured, besides God, masters who were mortal." [84] These
things are recorded by Josephus.
__________________________________________________________________

[74] Eusebius here makes the reign of Augustus begin with the death of
Julius Caesar (as Josephus does in chap. 9, S:1, below), and he puts
the birth of Christ therefore into the year 752 U.C. (2 b.c.), which
agrees with Clement of Alexandria's Strom. I. (who gives the
twenty-eighth year after the conquest of Egypt as the birth-year of
Christ), with Epiphanius, Haer. LI. 22, and Orosius, Hist. I. 1.
Eusebius gives the same date also in his Chron. (ed. Schoene, II. p.
144). Irenaeus, III. 25, and Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8, on the other
hand, give the forty-first year of Augustus, 751 U.C. (3 b.c.). But all
these dates are certainly too late. The true year of Christ's birth has
always been a matter of dispute. But it must have occurred before the
death of Herod, which took place in the spring of 750 U.C. (4 b.c.).
The most widely accepted opinion is that Christ was born late in the
year 5, or early in the year 4 b.c., though some scholars put the date
back as far as 7 b.c. The time of the year is also uncertain, the date
commonly accepted in the occident (Dec. 25th) having nothing older than
a fourth century tradition in its favor. The date accepted by the Greek
Church (Jan. 6th) rests upon a somewhat older tradition, but neither
day has any claim to reliability. For a full and excellent discussion
of this subject, see the essay of Andrews in his Life of our Lord, pp.
1-22. See, also, Schaff's Church Hist. I. p. 98 sq.

[75] Micah v. 2.

[76] Cf. Luke ii. 2 Quirinius is the original Latin form of the name of
which Luke gives the Greek form kurenios or Cyrenius (which is the form
given also by Eusebius). The statement of Luke presents a chronological
difficulty which has not yet been completely solved. Quirinius we know
to have been made governor of Syria in a.d. 6; and under him occurred a
census or enrollment mentioned by Josephus, Ant. XVII. 13. 5, and
XVIII. 1. 1. This is undoubtedly the same as that referred to in Acts
v. 37. But this took place some ten years after the birth of Christ,
and cannot therefore be connected with that event. Many explanations
have been offered to account for the difficulty, but since the
discovery of Zumpt, the problem has been much simplified. He, as also
Mommsen, has proved that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, the
first time from b.c. 4 (autumn) to b.c. 1. But as Christ must have been
born before the spring of b.c. 4, the governorship of Quirinius is
still a little too late. A solution of the question is thus approached,
however, though not all the difficulties are yet removed. Upon this
question, see especially A. M. Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig,
1869), and compare Schaff's Church Hist., I. 121-125, for a condensed
but excellent account of the whole matter, and for the literature of
the subject.

[77] Eusebius here identifies the census mentioned by Josephus (Ant.
XVIII. 1. 1) and referred to in Acts v. 37, with the one mentioned in
Luke ii. 2; but this is an obvious error, as an interval of ten years
separated the two. Valesius considers it all one census, and hence
regards Eusebius as correct in his statement; but this is very
improbable. Jachmann (in Illgen's Zeitschrift f. hist. Theologie, 1839,
II. p. 35 sq.), according to his custom, charges Eusebius with willful
deception and perversion of the facts. But such a charge is utterly
without warrant. Eusebius, in cases where we can control his
statements, can be shown to have been always conscientious. Moreover,
in his Chron. (ed. Schoene II. p. 144) he identifies the two censuses
in the same way. But his Chronicles were written some years before his
History, and he cannot have had any object to deceive in them such as
Jachmann assumes that he had in his History. It is plain that Eusebius
has simply made a blunder, a thing not at all surprising when we
remember how frequent his chronological errors are. He is guilty of an
inexcusable piece of carelessness, but nothing worse. It was natural to
connect the two censuses mentioned as taking place under the same
governor, though a little closer attention to the facts would have
shown him the discrepancy in date, which he simply overlooked.

[78] The New Testament (Textus Rec.) reads laon hikanon, with which
Laemmer agrees in his edition of Eusebius. Two mss., followed by
Stephanus and Valesius, and by the English and German translators, read
laon polun. All the other mss., and editors, as well as Rufinus, read
laon alone.

[79] Acts v. 37.

[80] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 1. 1. Upon Josephus and his works, see
below, Bk. III. c. 9.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Judas the Gaulonite. In Acts v. 37, and in Josephus, B. J. II. 8.
1 (quoted just below), and 17.8, and in Ant. XVIII. 1. 6 and XX. 5. 2,
he is called Judas of Galilee. But in the present section Josephus
gives the fullest and most accurate account of him. Gaulonitis lay east
of the Jordan, opposite Galilee. Judas of Galilee was probably his
common designation, given to him either because his revolt took rise in
Galilee, or because Galilee was used as a general term for the north
country. He was evidently a man of position and great personal
influence, and drew vast numbers to his standard, denouncing, in the
name of religion, the payment of tribute to Rome and all submission to
a foreign yoke. The revolt spread very rapidly, and the whole country
was thrown into excitement and disorder; but the Romans proved too
strong for him, and he soon perished, and his followers were dispersed,
though many of them continued active until the final destruction of the
city. The influence of Judas was so great and lasted so long that
Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 1. 1 and 6) calls the tendency represented by him
the "fourth philosophy of the Jews," ranking it with Pharisaism,
Sadduceeism, and Essenism. The distinguishing characteristic of this
"fourth philosophy" or sect was its love of freedom. For an excellent
account of Judas and his revolt, see Ewald's Geshichte des Volkes
Israel, V. p. 16 sq.

[83] Greek, SEURddochon; Rufinus, Sadduchum. He, too, must have been a
man of influence and position. Later in the same paragraph he is made
by Josephus a joint founder with Judas of the "fourth philosophy," but
in S:6 of the same chapter, where the author of it is referred to,
Judas alone is mentioned.

[84] Josephus, B. J. II. 8. 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.--About the Time of Christ, in accordance with Prophecy, the
Rulers who had governed the Jewish Nation in Regular Succession from
the Days of Antiquity came to an End, and Herod, the First Foreigner,
Became King.

1. When Herod, [85] the first ruler of foreign blood, became King, the
prophecy of Moses received its fulfillment, according to which there
should "not be wanting a prince of Judah, nor a ruler from his loins,
until he come for whom it is reserved." [86] The latter, he also shows,
was to be the expectation of the nations. [87]

2. This prediction remained unfulfilled so long as it was permitted
them to live under rulers from their own nation, that is, from the time
of Moses to the reign of Augustus. Under the latter, Herod, the first
foreigner, was given the Kingdom of the Jews by the Romans. As Josephus
relates, [88] he was an Idumean [89] on his father's side and an
Arabian on his mother's. But Africanus, [90] who was also no common
writer, says that they who were more accurately informed about him
report that he was a son of Antipater, and that the latter was the son
of a certain Herod of Ascalon, [91] one of the so-called servants [92]
of the temple of Apollo.

3. This Antipater, having been taken a prisoner while a boy by Idumean
robbers, lived with them, because his father, being a poor man, was
unable to pay a ransom for him. Growing up in their practices he was
afterward befriended by Hyrcanus, [93] the high priest of the Jews. A
son of his was that Herod who lived in the times of our Saviour. [94]

4. When the Kingdom of the Jews had devolved upon such a man the
expectation of the nations was, according to prophecy, already at the
door. For with him their princes and governors, who had ruled in
regular succession from the time of Moses came to an end.

5. Before their captivity and their transportation to Babylon they were
ruled by Saul first and then by David, and before the kings leaders
governed them who were called Judges, and who came after Moses and his
successor Jesus.

6. After their return from Babylon they continued to have without
interruption an aristocratic form of government, with an oligarchy. For
the priests had the direction of affairs until Pompey, the Roman
general, took Jerusalem by force, and defiled the holy places by
entering the very innermost sanctuary of the temple. [95] Aristobulus,
[96] who, by the right of ancient succession, had been up to that time
both king and high priest, he sent with his children in chains to Rome;
and gave to Hyrcanus, brother of Aristobulus, the high priesthood,
while the whole nation of the Jews was made tributary to the Romans
from that time. [97]

7. But Hyrcanus, who was the last of the regular line of high priests,
was very soon afterward taken prisoner by the Parthians, [98] and
Herod, the first foreigner, as I have already said, was made King of
the Jewish nation by the Roman senate and by Augustus.

8. Under him Christ appeared in bodily shape, and the expected
Salvation of the nations and their calling followed in accordance with
prophecy. [99] From this time the princes and rulers of Judah, I mean
of the Jewish nation, came to an end, and as a natural consequence the
order of the high priesthood, which from ancient times had proceeded
regularly in closest succession from generation to generation, was
immediately thrown into confusion. [100]

9. Of these things Josephus is also a witness, [101] who shows that
when Herod was made King by the Romans he no longer appointed the high
priests from the ancient line, but gave the honor to certain obscure
persons. A course similar to that of Herod in the appointment of the
priests was pursued by his son Archelaus, [102] and after him by the
Romans, who took the government into their own hands. [103]

10. The same writer shows [104] that Herod was the first that locked up
the sacred garment of the high priest under his own seal and refused to
permit the high priests to keep it for themselves. The same course was
followed by Archelaus after him, and after Archelaus by the Romans.

11. These things have been recorded by us in order to show that another
prophecy has been fulfilled in the appearance of our Saviour Jesus
Christ. For the Scripture, in the book of Daniel, [105] having
expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of
Christ, of which we have treated in other books, [106] most clearly
prophesies, that after the completion of those weeks the unction among
the Jews should totally perish. And this, it has been clearly shown,
was fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
This has been necessarily premised by us as a proof of the correctness
of the time.
__________________________________________________________________

[85] Herod the Great, son of Antipater, an Idumean, who had been
appointed procurator of Judea by Caesar in b.c. 47. Herod was made
governor of Galilee at the same time, and king of Judea by the Roman
Senate in b.c. 40.

[86] Gen. xlix. 10. The LXX., which Eusebius quotes here, according to
his custom, is in the present instance somewhat different from the
Hebrew.

[87] Ibid.

[88] Eusebius refers here to Ant. XIV. 1. 3 and 7. 3. According to
Josephus, Herod's father was Antipater, and his mother Cypros, an
Arabian woman of noble birth.

[89] The Idumeans or Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and
inhabited the Sinaitic peninsula south of the Dead Sea. Their principal
city and stronghold was the famous rock city, Petra. They were constant
enemies of the Jews, refused them free passage through their land (Num.
xx. 20); were conquered by Saul and David, but again regained their
independence, until they were finally completely subjugated by John
Hyrcanus, who left them in possession of their land, but compelled them
to undergo circumcision, and adopt the Jewish law. Compare Josephus,
Ant. XIII. 9. 1; XV. 7. 9; B. J. IV. 5. 5.

[90] On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. This account is given by
Africanus in his epistle to Aristides, quoted by Eusebius in the next
chapter. Africanus states there (S:11) that the account, as he gives
it, was handed down by the relatives of the Lord. But the tradition,
whether much older than Africanus or not, is certainly incorrect. We
learn from Josephus (Ant. XIV. 2), who is the best witness upon this
subject, that Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, was the son of
another Antipater, or Antipas, an Idumean who had been made governor of
Idumea by the Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus (of the Maccabaean
family). In Ant. XVI. 11 Josephus informs us that a report had been
invented by friends and flatterers of Herod that he was descended from
Jewish ancestors. The report originated with Nicolai Damasceni, a
writer of the time of the Herods. The tradition preserved here by
Africanus had its origin, evidently, in a desire to degrade Herod by
representing him as descended from a slave.

[91] Ascalon, one of the five cities of the Philistines (mentioned
frequently in the Old Testament), lay upon the Mediterranean Sea,
between Gaza and Joppa. It was beautified by Herod (although not
belonging to his dominions), and after his death became the residence
of his sister Salome. It was a prominent place in the Middle Ages, but
is now in ruins. Of this Herod of Ascalon nothing is known. Possibly no
such man existed.

[92] hierodoulos, "a temple-slave."

[93] Hyrcanus II., eldest son of the King Alexander Jannaeus of the
Maccabaean family, became high priest upon the death of his father, in
78 b.c.; and upon the death of his mother, in 69 b.c., ascended the
throne. He gave up his kingdom afterward (66 b.c.) to his younger
brother, Aristobulus; but under the influence of Antipater the Idumean
endeavored to regain it, and after a long war with his brother, was
re-established in power by Pompey, in 63 b.c., but merely as high
priest and governor, not with the title of king. He retained his
position until 40 b.c., when he was driven out by his nephew Antigonus.
He was murdered in 30 b.c., by command of Herod the Great, who had
married his grand-daughter Mariamne. He was throughout a weak man, and
while in power was completely under the influence of his minister,
Antipater.

[94] Herod the Great.

[95] In 63 b.c., when Pompey's curiosity led him to penetrate into the
Holy of Holies. He was much impressed, however, by its simplicity, and
went away without disturbing its treasures, wondering at a religion
which had no visible God.

[96] Aristobulus II., younger brother of Hyrcanus, a much abler and
more energetic man, assumed the kingdom by an arrangement with his
brother in 66 b.c. (see note 9, above). In 63 b.c. he was deposed, and
carried to Rome by Pompey. He died about 48 b.c. Eusebius is hardly
correct in saying that Aristobulus was king and high priest by regular
succession, as his elder brother Hyrcanus was the true heir, and he had
assumed the power only because of his superior ability.

[97] The real independence of the Jews practically ceased at this time.
For three years only, from 40 to 37 b.c., while Antigonus, son of
Aristobulus and nephew of Hyrcanus, was in power, Jerusalem was
independent of Rome, but was soon retaken by Herod the Great and
remained from that time on in more or less complete subjection, either
as a dependent kingdom or as a province.

[98] 40 b.c., when Antigonus, by the aid of the Parthians took
Jerusalem and established himself as king there, until conquered by
Herod in 37 b.c. Hyrcanus returned to Jerusalem in 36 b.c., but was no
longer high priest.

[99] Compare Isa. ix. 2; xlii. 6; xlix. 6, etc.

[100] Eusebius' statement is perfectly correct. The high priestly
lineage had been kept with great scrupulousness until Hyrcanus II., the
last of the regular succession. (His grandson Aristobulus, however, was
high priest for a year under Herod, but was then slain by him.)
Afterward the high priest was appointed and changed at pleasure by the
secular ruler. Herod the Great first established the practice of
removing a high priest during his lifetime; and under him there were no
less than six different ones.

[101] Josephus, Ant. XX. 8.

[102] Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a Samaritan
woman, and younger brother of Herod Antipas. Upon the death of his
father, b.c. 4, he succeeded to the government of Idumea, Samaria, and
Judea, with the title of Ethnarch.

[103] After the death of Archelaus (a.d. 7), Judea was made a Roman
province, and ruled by procurators until Herod Agrippa I. came into
power in 37 a.d. (see below, Bk. II. chap. 4, note 3). The changes in
the high priesthood during the most of this time were very rapid, one
after another being appointed and removed according to the fancy of the
procurator, or of the governor of Syria, who held the power of
appointment most of the time. There were no fewer than nineteen high
priests between the death of Archelaus and the fall of Jerusalem.

[104] Josephus, Ant. XV. 11. 4.

[105] Dan. ix. 26.

[106] It is commonly assumed that Eusebius refers here to the Dem.
Evang. VIII. 2 sq., where the prophecies of Daniel are discussed at
length. But, as Lightfoot remarks, the reference is just as well
satisfied by the Eclogae Proph. III. 45. We cannot, in fact, decide
which work is meant.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.--The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the
Genealogy of Christ.

1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of
Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one
another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the
truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall
harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the
matter which has come down to us, [107] and which is given by
Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to
Aristides, [108] where he discusses the harmony of the gospel
genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and
deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition
[109] in these words:

2. "For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel
either according to nature or according to law;--according to nature by
the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever
another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless;
[110] for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they
had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal
resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be
perpetuated;--

3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical
table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while
others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another,
mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of
those who were so only in name.

4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature,
the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from
Nathan [111] were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising
up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same
persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another
time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at
another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly
true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet
quite accurately.

5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain
the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from
David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan,
who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them
from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is
Melchi, [112] whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was
the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.

6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown
how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who
derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan;
first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then
how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different
families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman,
begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit
a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from
marrying another.

8. By Estha [113] then (for this was the woman's name according to
tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And
when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan,
being of the same tribe [114] but of another family, [115] married her
as before said, and begat a son Eli.

9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to
different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one,
Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife
and begat by her a son [116] Joseph, his own son by nature [117] and in
accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: `Jacob begat
Joseph.' [118] But according to law [119] he was the son of Eli, for
Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

10. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void,
which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: `Jacob
begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: `Who was the son, as
was supposed' [120] (for this he also adds), `of Joseph, the son of
Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the
generation according to law. And the expression `he begat' he has
omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy
back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable
of proof nor is it an idle conjecture. [121]

11. For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with
the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either
case truly, have handed down the following account: [122] Some Idumean
robbers, [123] having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried
away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to
other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And
since the priest [124] was not able to pay the ransom for his son,
Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward
was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.

12. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and
having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his
brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of
Palestine. [125] But Antipater having been slain by those who were
envious of his great good fortune [126] was succeeded by his son Herod,
who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews
[127] under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other
tetrarchs. [128] These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
[129]

13. But as there had been kept in the archives [130] up to that time
the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their
lineage back to proselytes, [131] such as Achior [132] the Ammonite and
Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites
and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the
Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was
goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all
the genealogical records, [133] thinking that he might appear of noble
origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace
back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled
with them, who were called Georae. [134]

14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of
their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some
other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory
of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned,
called Desposyni, [135] on account of their connection with the family
of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, [136] villages of
Judea, [137] into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid
genealogy from memory [138] and from the book of daily records [139] as
faithfully as possible.

15. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer
explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid
person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony
in its support, [140] we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any
case the Gospel states the truth." And at the end of the same epistle
he adds these words: "Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat
Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan
begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers.
Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting
Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph
was the son of both."

17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced,
Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since,
according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes
were not permitted. [141] For the command is to marry one of the same
family [142] and lineage, [143] so that the inheritance may not pass
from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.
__________________________________________________________________

[107] "Over against the various opinions of uninstructed apologists for
the Gospel history, Eusebius introduces this account of Africanus with
the words, ten peri touton katelthousan eis hemas historian." (Spitta.)

[108] On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. Of this Aristides to whom the
epistle is addressed we know nothing. He must not be confounded with
the apologist Aristides, who lived in the reign of Trajan (see below,
Bk. IV. c. 3). Photius (Bibl. 34) mentions this epistle, but tells us
nothing about Aristides himself. The epistle exists in numerous
fragments, from which Spitta (Der Brief des Julius Africanus an
Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt, Halle, 1877) attempts to
reconstruct the original epistle. His work is the best and most
complete upon the subject. Compare Routh, Rel. Sacrae, II. pp. 228-237
and pp. 329-356, where two fragments are given and discussed at length.
The epistle (as given by Mai) is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Am. ed. VI. p. 125 ff. The attempt of Africanus is, so far as we know,
the first critical attempt to harmonize the two genealogies of Christ.
The question had been the subject merely of guesses and suppositions
until his time. He approaches the matter in a free critical spirit
(such as seems always to have characterized him), and his
investigations therefore deserve attention. He holds that both
genealogies are those of Joseph, and this was the unanimous opinion of
antiquity, though, as he says, the discrepancies were reconciled in
various ways. Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law
of Levirate marriages, and his view is advocated by Mill (On the
Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.); but of this
interpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, "There is neither
reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all." Upon the
supposition that both genealogies relate to Joseph the best explanation
is that Matthew's table represents the royal line of legal successors
to the throne of David, while Luke's gives the line of actual descent.
This view is ably advocated by Hervey in Smith's Bible Dictionary
(article Genealogy of Jesus). Another opinion which has prevailed
widely since the Reformation is that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.
The view is defended very ingeniously by Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 205, 2d
edition). For further particulars see, besides the works already
mentioned, the various commentaries upon Matthew and Luke and the
various lives of Christ, especially Andrews', p. 55 sq.

[109] Eusebius makes a mistake in saying that Africanus had received
the explanation which follows from tradition. For Africanus himself
says expressly (S:15, below) that his interpretation is not supported
by testimony. Eusebius' error has been repeated by most writers upon
the subject, but is exposed by Spitta, ibid. p. 63.

[110] The law is stated in Deut. xxv. 5 sq.

[111] Nathan was a son of David and Bathsheba, and therefore own
brother of Solomon.

[112] Melchi, who is here given as the third from the end, is in our
present texts of Luke the fifth (Luke iii. 24), Matthat and Levi
standing between Melchi and Eli. It is highly probable that the text
which Africanus followed omitted the two names Matthat and Levi (see
Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Appendix, p. 57). It is impossible
to suppose that Africanus in such an investigation as this could have
overlooked two names by mistake if they had stood in his text of the
Gospels.

[113] We know nothing more of Estha. Africanus probably refers to the
tradition handed down by the relatives of Christ, who had, as he says,
preserved genealogies which agreed with those of the Gospels. He
distinguishes here what he gives on tradition from his own
interpretation of the Gospel discrepancy upon which he is engaged.

[114] phule.

[115] genos. "In this place genos is used to denote family. Matthan and
Melchi were of different families, but both belonged to the same
Davidic race which was divided into two families, that of Solomon and
that of Nathan" (Valesius).

[116] All the mss., and editions of Eusebius read triton instead of
huion here. But it is very difficult to make any sense out of the word
triton in this connection. We therefore prefer to follow Spitta (see
ibid. pp. 87 sqq.) in reading huion instead of triton, an emendation
which he has ventured to make upon the authority of Rufinus, who
translates "genuit Joseph filium suum," showing no trace of a triton.
The word triton is wanting also in three late Catenae which contain the
fragments of Africanus' Epistle (compare Spitta, ibid. p. 117, note
12).

[117] kata logon. These words have caused translators and commentators
great difficulty, and most of them seem to have missed their
significance entirely. Spitta proposes to alter by reading katEURlogon,
but the emendation is unnecessary. The remarks which he makes (p. 89
sqq.) upon the relation between this sentence and the next are,
however, excellent. It was necessary to Africanus' theory that Joseph
should be allowed to trace his lineage through Jacob, his father "by
nature," as well as through Eli, his father "by law," and hence the
words kata logon are added and emphasized. He was his son by nature and
therefore "rightfully to be reckoned as his son." This explains the
Biblical quotation which follows: "Wherefore"--because he was Jacob's
son by nature and could rightfully be reckoned in his line, and not
only in the line of Eli--"it is written," &c.

[118] Matt. i. 6.

[119] See Rev. John Lightfoot's remarks on Luke iii. 23, in his Hebrew
and Talmudical Exercitations on St. Luke.

[120] This passage has caused much trouble. Valesius remarks,
"Africanus wishes to refer the words hos enomizeto (`as was supposed')
not only to the words huios 'Ioseph, but also to the words tou ;;Eli,
which follow, which although it is acute is nevertheless improper and
foolish; for if Luke indicates that legal generation or adoption by the
words hos enomizeto, as Africanus claims, it would follow that Christ
was the son of Joseph by legal adoption in the same way that Joseph was
the son of Eli. And thus it would be said that Mary, after the death of
Joseph, married his brother, and that Christ was begotten by him, which
is impious and absurd. And besides, if these words, hos enomizeto, are
extended to the words tou ;;Eli, in the same way they can be extended
to all which follow. For there is no reason why they should be supplied
in the second grade and not in the others." But against Valesius,
Stroth says that Africanus seeks nothing in the words hos enomizeto,
but in the fact that Luke says "he was the son of," while Matthew says
"he begat." Stroth's interpretation is followed by Closs, Heinichen,
and others, but Routh follows Valesius. Spitta discusses the matter
carefully (p. 91 sq.), agreeing with Valesius that Africanus lays the
emphasis upon the words hos enomizeto, but by an emendation
(introducing a second hos enomizeto, and reading "who was the son, as
was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was himself also the
son, as was supposed,--for this he also adds,--of Eli, the son of
Melchi") he applies the hos enomizeto only to the first and second
members, and takes it in a more general sense to cover both cases, thus
escaping Valesius' conclusions expressed above. The conjecture is
ingenious, but is unwarranted and unnecessary. The words which occur in
the next sentence, "and the expression, `he begat' he has omitted,"
show that Africanus, as Stroth contends, lays the emphasis upon the
difference of form in the two genealogies, "Son of" and "he begat." The
best explanation seems to me to be that Africanus supposes Luke to have
implied the legal generation in the words "the Son of," used in
distinction from the definite expression "he begat," and that the words
hos enomizeto, which "he also adds," simply emphasize this difference
of expression by introducing a still greater ambiguity into Luke's mode
of statement. He not only uses the words, the "Son of," which have a
wide latitude, admitting any kind of sonship, but "he also adds," "as
was supposed," showing, in Africanus' opinion, still more clearly that
the list which follows is far from being a closely defined table of
descent by "natural generation."

[121] This seems the best possible rendering of the Greek, which reads
ten anaphoran poiesEURmenos he& 240;s tou 'Adam, tou theou kat'
anEURlusin. oude men anapodeikton k.t.l., which is very dark,
punctuated thus, and it is difficult to understand what is meant by
kat' anEURlusin in connection with the preceding words. (Cruse
translates, "having traced it back as far as Adam, `who was the son of
God,' he resolves the whole series by referring back to God. Neither is
this incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.") The objections
which Spitta brings against the sentence in this form are well founded.
He contends (p. 63 sqq.), and that rightly, that Africanus could not
have written the sentence thus. In restoring the original epistle of
Africanus, therefore, he throws the words kat' anEURlusin into the next
sentence, which disposes of the difficulty, and makes good sense. We
should then read, "having traced it back as far as Adam, the Son of
God. This interpretation (more literally, `as an interpretation,' or
`by way of interpretation') is neither incapable of proof, nor is it an
idle conjecture." That Africanus wrote thus I am convinced. But as
Spitta shows, Eusebius must have divided the sentences as they now
stand, for, according to his idea, that Africanus' account was one
which he had received by tradition, the other mode of reading would be
incomprehensible, though he probably did not understand much better the
meaning of kat' anEURlusin as he placed it. In translating Africanus'
epistle here, I have felt justified in rendering it as Africanus
probably wrote it, instead of following Eusebius' incorrect
reproduction of it.

[122] The Greek reads: paredosan kai touto, "have handed down also."
The kai occurs in all the mss. and versions of Eusebius, and was
undoubtedly written by him, but Spitta supposes it an addition of
Eusebius, caused, like the change in the previous sentence, by his
erroneous conception of the nature of Africanus' interpretation. The
kai is certainly troublesome if we suppose that all that precedes is
Africanus' own interpretation of the Biblical lists, and not a
traditional account handed down by the "relatives of our Lord"; and
this, in spite of Eusebius' belief, we must certainly insist upon. We
may therefore assume with Spitta that the kai did not stand in the
original epistle as Africanus wrote it. The question arises, if what
precedes is not given upon the authority of the "relatives of our
Lord," why then is this account introduced upon their testimony, as if
confirming the preceding? We may simply refer again to Africanus' words
at the end of the extract (S:15 below) to prove that his interpretation
did not rest upon testimony, and then we may answer with Spitta that
their testimony, which is appealed to in S:14 below, was to the
genealogies themselves, and in this Africanus wishes it to be known
that they confirmed the Gospel lists.

[123] See above, chap. VI. notes 5 and 6.

[124] We should expect the word "temple-servant" again instead of
"priest"; but, as Valesius remarks, "It was possible for the same
person to be both priest and servant, if for instance it was a
condition of priesthood that only captives should be made priests." And
this was really the case in many places.

[125] Appointed by Julius Caesar in 47 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1,
above).

[126] He was poisoned by Malichus in 42 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XIV.
11. 4).

[127] Appointed king in 40 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above).

[128] The ethnarch Archelaus (see chap. VI. note 18) and the tetrarchs
Herod Antipas and Herod Philip II.

[129] Cf. Dion Cassius, XXXVII. 15 sqq. and Strabo, XVI. 2. 46.

[130] It was the custom of the Jews, to whom tribal and family descent
meant so much, to keep copies of the genealogical records of the people
in the public archives. Cf. e.g. Josephus, De Vita, S:1, where he draws
his own lineage from the public archives; and cf. Contra Apion. I. 7.

[131] achri proseluton. Heinichen and Burton read archiproseluton,
"ancient proselytes." The two readings are about equally supported by
ms. authority, but the same persons are meant here as at the end of the
paragraph, where proselutous, not archiproselutous, occurs (cf. Spitta,
pp. 97 sq., and Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae II. p. 347 sq., 2d ed.).

[132] Achior was a general of the Ammonites in the army of Holofernes,
who, according to the Book of Judith, was a general of Nebuchadnezzar,
king of the Assyrians, and was slain by the Jewish heroine, Judith.
Achior is reported to have become afterward a Jewish proselyte.

[133] The Greek reads enepresen auton tas anagraphas ton genon, but,
with Spitta, I venture, against all the Greek mss. to insert pEURsas
before tas anagraphas upon the authority of Rufinus and the author of
the Syriac version, both of whom reproduce the word (cf. Spitta, p. 99
sq.). Africanus certainly supposed that Herod destroyed all the
genealogical records, and not simply those of the true Jews. This
account of the burning of the records given by Africanus is
contradicted by history, for we learn from Josephus, De Vita, S:1, that
he drew his own lineage from the public records, which were therefore
still in existence more than half a century after the time at which
Herod is said to have utterly destroyed them. It is significant that
Rufinus translates omnes Hebraeorum generationes descriptae in Archivis
templi secretioribus habebantur. How old this tradition was we do not
know; Africanus is the sole extant witness of it.

[134] tous te kaloumenous geioras. The word geioras occurs in the LXX.
of Ex. xii. 19, where it translates the Hebrew G+uR+ The A.V. reads
stranger, the R.V., sojourner, and Liddell and Scott give the latter
meaning for the Greek word. See Valesius' note in loco, and Routh (II.
p. 349 sq.), who makes some strictures upon Valesius' note. Africanus
refers here to all those that came out from Egypt with the Israelites,
whether native Egyptians, or foreigners resident in Egypt. Ex. xii. 38
tells us that a "mixed multitude" went out with the children of Israel
(epimiktos polus), and Africanus just above speaks of them in the same
way (epimikton).

[135] desposunoi: the persons called above (S:11) the relatives of the
Saviour according to the flesh (hoi kata sEURrka sungeneis). The Greek
word signifies "belonging to a master."

[136] Cochaba, according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 2 and 16), was a
village in Basanitide near Decapolis. It is noticeable that this region
was the seat of Ebionism. There may therefore be significance in the
care with which these Desposyni preserved the genealogy of Joseph, for
the Ebionites believed that Christ was the real son of Joseph, and
therefore Joseph's lineage was his.

[137] "Judea" is here used in the wider sense of Palestine as a whole,
including the country both east and west of the Jordan. The word is
occasionally used in this sense in Josephus; and so in Matt. xix. 1,
and Mark x. 1, we read of "the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan." Ptolemy,
Dion Cassius, and Strabo habitually employ the word in the wide sense.

[138] ek mnemes. These words are not found in any extant mss., but I
have followed Stroth and others in supplying them for the following
reasons. The Greek, as we have it, runs: kai ten prokeimenen
genealogian zk te tes biblou ton hemeron k.t.l. The particle te
indicates plainly that some phrase has fallen out. Rufinus translates
ordinem supra dictae generationis partim memoriter partim etiam ex
dierum libris in quantum erat perdocebant. The words partim memoriter
find no equivalent in the Greek as we have it, but the particle te,
which still remains, shows that words which Rufinus translated thus
must have stood originally in the Greek. The Syriac version also
confirms the conclusion that something stood in the original which has
since disappeared, though the rendering which it gives rests evidently
upon a corrupt text (cf. Spitta, p. 101). Valesius suggests the
insertion of apo mnemes, though he does not place the phrase in his
text. Heinichen supplies mnemoneusantes, and is followed by Closs in
his translation. Stroth, Migne, Routh, and Spitta read ek mnemes. The
sense is essentially the same in each case.

[139] It has been the custom since Valesius, to consider this "Book of
daily records" (biblos ton hemeron) the same as the "private records"
(idiotikas apographEURs) mentioned just above. But this opinion has
been combated by Spitta, and that with perfect right. The sentence is,
in fact, an exact parallel to the sentence just above, where it is said
that a few of the careful, either by means of their memory or by means
of copies, were able to have "private records of their own." In the
present sentence it is said that "they drew the aforesaid genealogy
(viz., `the private records of their own') from memory, or from the
Book of daily records" (which corresponds to the copies referred to
above). This book of daily records is clearly, therefore, something
other than the idiotikas apographas, but exactly what we are to
understand by it is not so easy to say. It cannot denote the regular
public records (called the archives above), for these were completed,
and would not need to be supplemented by memory; and apparently,
according to Africanus' opinion, these private records were made after
the destruction of the regular public ones. The "Book of daily records"
referred to must have been at any rate an incomplete genealogical
source needing to be supplemented by the memory. Private family record
books, if such existed previous to the supposed destruction of the
public records, of which we have no evidence, would in all probability
have been complete for each family. Spitta maintains (p. 101 sq.) that
the Book of Chronicles is meant: the Hebrew D+uiB+R+J+ H+aJ+uoM+iJ+M% ,
words or records of the days. This is a very attractive suggestion, as
the book exactly corresponds to the book described: the genealogies
which it gives are incomplete and require supplementing, and it is a
book which was accessible to all; public, therefore, and yet not
involved in the supposed destruction. The difficulty lies in the name
given. It is true that Jerome calls the Books of Chronicles Verba
Dierum and Hilary Sermones Dierum, &c.; but we should expect Africanus
to use here the technical LXX. designation, Paraleipomenon. But
whatever this "Book of daily records" was, it cannot have been the
"private records" which were formed "from memory and from copies," but
was one of the sources from which those "private records" were drawn.

[140] Compare note 3, above. Africanus' direct statement shows clearly
enough that he does not rest his interpretation of the genealogies (an
interpretation which is purely a result of Biblical study) upon the
testimony of the relatives of the Saviour. Their testimony is invoked
with quite a different purpose, namely, in confirmation of the
genealogies themselves, and the long story (upon the supposition that
their testimony is invoked in support of Africanus' interpretation,
introduced absolutely without sense and reason) thus has its proper
place, in showing how the "relatives of the Saviour" were in a position
to be competent witnesses upon this question of fact (not
interpretation), in spite of the burning of the public records by
Herod.

[141] The law to which Eusebius refers is recorded in Num. xxxvi. 6, 7.
But the prohibition given there was not an absolute and universal one,
but a prohibition which concerned only heiresses, who were not to marry
out of their own tribe upon penalty of forfeiting their inheritance
(cf. Josephus, Ant. IV. 7. 5). It is an instance of the limited nature
of the law that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, although Joseph and
Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah, and Zacharias, at least, was a
Levite. This example lay so near at hand that Eusebius should not have
overlooked it in making his assertion. His argument, therefore in proof
of the fact that Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah has no force, but
the fact itself is abundantly established both by the unanimous
tradition of antiquity (independent of Luke's genealogy, which was
universally supposed to be that of Joseph), and by such passages as Ps.
cxxxii. 11, Acts ii. 30, xiii. 23, Rom. i. 3.

[142] demou.

[143] patrias
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.--The Cruelty of Herod toward the Infants, and the Manner
of his Death.

1. When Christ was born, according to the prophecies, in Bethlehem of
Judea, at the time indicated, Herod was not a little disturbed by the
enquiry of the magi who came from the east, asking where he who was
born King of the Jews was to be found,--for they had seen his star, and
this was their reason for taking so long a journey; for they earnestly
desired to worship the infant as God, [144] --for he imagined that his
kingdom might be endangered; and he enquired therefore of the doctors
of the law, who belonged to the Jewish nation, where they expected
Christ to be born. When he learned that the prophecy of Micah [145]
announced that Bethlehem was to be his birthplace he commanded, in a
single edict, all the male infants in Bethlehem, and all its borders,
that were two years of age or less, according to the time which he had
accurately ascertained from the magi, to be slain, supposing that
Jesus, as was indeed likely, would share the same fate as the others of
his own age.

2. But the child anticipated the snare, being carried into Egypt by his
parents, who had learned from an angel that appeared unto them what was
about to happen. These things are recorded by the Holy Scriptures in
the Gospel. [146]

3. It is worth while, in addition to this, to observe the reward which
Herod received for his daring crime against Christ and those of the
same age. For immediately, without the least delay, the divine
vengeance overtook him while he was still alive, and gave him a
foretaste of what he was to receive after death.

4. It is not possible to relate here how he tarnished the supposed
felicity of his reign by successive calamities in his family, by the
murder of wife and children, and others of his nearest relatives and
dearest friends. [147] The account, which casts every other tragic
drama into the shade, is detailed at length in the histories of
Josephus. [148]

5. How, immediately after his crime against our Saviour and the other
infants, the punishment sent by God drove him on to his death, we can
best learn from the words of that historian who, in the seventeenth
book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writes as follows concerning his
end: [149]

6. "But the disease of Herod grew more severe, God inflicting
punishment for his crimes. For a slow fire burned in him which was not
so apparent to those who touched him, but augmented his internal
distress; for he had a terrible desire for food which it was not
possible to resist. He was affected also with ulceration of the
intestines, and with especially severe pains in the colon, while a
watery and transparent humor settled about his feet.

7. He suffered also from a similar trouble in his abdomen. Nay more,
his privy member was putrefied and produced worms. He found also
excessive difficulty in breathing, and it was particularly disagreeable
because of the offensiveness of the odor and the rapidity of
respiration.

8. He had convulsions also in every limb, which gave him uncontrollable
strength. It was said, indeed, by those who possessed the power of
divination and wisdom to explain such events, that God had inflicted
this punishment upon the King on account of his great impiety."

9. The writer mentioned above recounts these things in the work
referred to. And in the second book of his History he gives a similar
account of the same Herod, which runs as follows: [150] "The disease
then seized upon his whole body and distracted it by various torments.
For he had a slow fever, and the itching of the skin of his whole body
was insupportable. He suffered also from continuous pains in his colon,
and there were swellings on his feet like those of a person suffering
from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his privy member so
putrefied as to produce worms. Besides this he could breathe only in an
upright posture, and then only with difficulty, and he had convulsions
in all his limbs, so that the diviners said that his diseases were a
punishment. [151]

10. But he, although wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung
to life and hoped for safety, and devised methods of cure. For
instance, crossing over Jordan he used the warm baths at Callirhoe,
[152] which flow into the Lake Asphaltites, [153] but are themselves
sweet enough to drink.

11. His physicians here thought that they could warm his whole body
again by means of heated oil. But when they had let him down into a tub
filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the eyes of a
dead person. But when his attendants raised an outcry, he recovered at
the noise; but finally, despairing of a cure, he commanded about fifty
drachms to be distributed among the soldiers, and great sums to be
given to his generals and friends.

12. Then returning he came to Jericho, where, being seized with
melancholy, he planned to commit an impious deed, as if challenging
death itself. For, collecting from every town the most illustrious men
of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the so-called
hippodrome.

13. And having summoned Salome, [154] his sister, and her husband,
Alexander, [155] he said: `I know that the Jews will rejoice at my
death. But I may be lamented by others and have a splendid funeral if
you are willing to perform my commands. When I shall expire surround
these men, who are now under guard, as quickly as possible with
soldiers, and slay them, in order that all Judea and every house may
weep for me even against their will.'" [156]

14. And after a little Josephus says, "And again he was so tortured by
want of food and by a convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains, he
planned to anticipate his fate. Taking an apple he asked also for a
knife, for he was accustomed to cut apples and eat them. Then looking
round to see that there was no one to hinder, he raised his right hand
as if to stab himself." [157]

15. In addition to these things the same writer records that he slew
another of his own sons [158] before his death, the third one slain by
his command, and that immediately afterward he breathed his last, not
without excessive pain.

16. Such was the end of Herod, who suffered a just punishment for his
slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, [159] which was the result of
his plots against our Saviour.

17. After this an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and
commanded him to go to Judea with the child and its mother, revealing
to him that those who had sought the life of the child were dead. [160]
To this the evangelist adds, "But when he heard that Archelaus did
reign in the room of his father Herod he was afraid to go thither;
notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream he turned aside into the
parts of Galilee." [161]
__________________________________________________________________

[144] hoia theo proskunesai. Eusebius adds the words hoia theo, which
are not found in Matt. ii. 2 and 11, where proskunesai is used.

[145] Mic. v. 2.

[146] Matt. ii.

[147] Herod's reign was very successful and prosperous, and for most of
the time entirely undisturbed by external troubles; but his domestic
life was embittered by a constant succession of tragedies resulting
from the mutual jealousies of his wives (of whom he had ten) and of
their children. Early in his reign he slew Hyrcanus, the grandfather of
his best-loved wife Mariamne, upon suspicion of treason; a little
later, Mariamne herself was put to death; in 6 b.c. her sons, Alexander
and Aristobulus, were condemned and executed; and in 4 b.c., but a few
days before his death, Antipater, his eldest son, who had been
instrumental in the condemnation of Alexander and Aristobulus, was also
slain by his orders. These murders were accompanied by many others of
friends and kindred, who were constantly falling under suspicion of
treason.

[148] In the later books of the Antiquities and in the first book of
the Jewish war.

[149] Josephus, Ant. XVII. 6. 5.

[150] B. J. I. 33. 5 and 6.

[151] poinen einai ta nosemata legein. Josephus, according to the text
of Hudson, reads poinen einai ton sophiston ta nosemata legein, which
is translated by Traill, "pronounced his maladies a judgment for his
treatment of the Sophists." Nicephorus (H. E. I. 15) agrees with
Eusebius in omitting the words ton sophiston, but he is not an
independent witness. Whether Hudson's text is supported at this point
by strong ms. authority I do not know. If the words stood in the
original of Josephus, we may suppose that they were accidentally
omitted by Eusebius himself or by one of his copyists, or that they
were thrown out in order to make Josephus' statement better correspond
with his own words in Ant. XVII. 6, quoted just above, where his
disease is said to have been a result of his impiety in general, not of
any particular exhibition of it. On the other hand, the omission of the
words in Ant. XVII. 6 casts at least a suspicion on their genuineness,
and if we were to assume that the words did not occur in the original
text of Josephus, it would be very easy to understand their insertion
by some copyist, for in the previous paragraph the historian has been
speaking of the Sophists, and of Herod's cruel treatment of them.

[152] Callirhoe was a town just east of the Dead Sea.

[153] ten 'Asphaltitin limnen. This is the name by which Josephus
commonly designates the Dead Sea. The same name occurs also in Diodorus
Siculus (II. 48, XIX. 98).

[154] Salome was own sister of Herod the Great, and wife in succession
of Joseph, Costabarus, and Alexas. She possessed all the cruelty of
Herod himself and was the cause, through her jealousy and envy, of most
of the terrible tragedies in his family.

[155] Alexander, the third husband of Salome, is always called Alexas
by Josephus.

[156] B. J.I. 13. 6 (cf. Ant. XVII. 6. 5). This terrible story rests
upon the authority of Josephus alone, but is so in keeping with Herod's
character that we have no reason to doubt its truth. The commands of
Herod, however, were not carried out, the condemned men being released
after his death by Salome (see ibid. S:8).

[157] B. J.I. 33. 7 (cf. Ant. XVII. 7). Herod's suicide was prevented
by his cousin Achiabus, as Josephus informs us in the same connection.

[158] B. J.I. 33. 7 and 8 (cf. Ant. XVII. 7). Antipater, son of Herod
and his first wife Doris, was intended by his father to be his
successor in the kingdom. He was beheaded five days before the death of
Herod, for plotting against his father. He richly deserved his fate.

[159] Eusebius gives here the traditional Christian interpretation of
the cause of Herod's sufferings. Josephus nowhere mentions the
slaughter of the innocents; whether through ignorance, or because of
the insignificance of the tragedy when compared with the other bloody
acts of Herod's reign, we do not know.

[160] See Matt. ii. 19, 20.

[161] Matt. ii. 22.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.--The Times of Pilate.

1. The historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard
to the fact that Archelaus [162] succeeded to the government after
Herod. He records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the
Jews by the will of his father Herod and by the decree of Caesar
Augustus, and how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom,
and his brothers Philip [163] and Herod the younger, [164] with
Lysanias, [165] still ruled their own tetrarchies. The same writer, in
the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, [166] says that about the
twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, [167] who had succeeded to the
empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, [168] Pontius Pilate
was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there
ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

2. Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to
acts against our Saviour [169] is clearly proved. For the very date
given in them [170] shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion
of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which
occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain
that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus
is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work [171]
that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth
year of his reign.
__________________________________________________________________

[162] Archelaus was a son of Herod the Great, and own brother of the
Tetrarch Herod Antipas, with whom he was educated at Rome. Immediately
after the death of Antipater he was designated by his father as his
successor in the kingdom, and Augustus ratified the will, but gave him
only the title of ethnarch. The title of King he never really received,
although he is spoken of as king in Matt. ii. 22, the word being used
in a loose sense. His dominion consisted of Idumea, Judea, Samaria, and
the cities on the coast, comprising a half of his father's kingdom. The
other half was divided between Herod Antipas and Philip. He was very
cruel, and was warmly hated by most of his subjects. In the tenth year
of his reign (according to Josephus, Ant. XVII. 13. 2), or in the ninth
(according to B. J. II. 7. 3), he was complained against by his
brothers and subjects on the ground of cruelty, and was banished to
Vienne in Gaul, where he probably died, although Jerome says that he
was shown his tomb near Bethlehem. Jerome's report, however, is too
late to be of any value. The exact length of his reign it is impossible
to say, as Josephus is not consistent in his reports. The difference
may be due to the fact that Josephus reckoned from different
starting-points in the two cases. He probably ruled a little more than
nine years. His condemnation took place in the consulship of M.
AEmilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius (i.e. in 6 a.d.) according to Dion
Cassius, LV. 27. After the deposition of Archelaus Judea was made a
Roman province and attached to Syria, and Coponius was sent as the
first procurator. On Archelaus, see Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8, 9, 11 sq.,
and B. J. I. 33. 8 sq.; II. 6 sq.

[163] Philip, a son of Herod the Great by his wife Cleopatra, was
Tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurinitis, &c., from b.c. 4 to a.d.
34. He was distinguished for his justice and moderation. He is
mentioned only once in the New Testament, Luke iii. 1. On Philip, see
Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8. 1; 11. 4; XVIII. 4. 6.

[164] Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great by his wife Malthace, was
Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from b.c. 4 to a.d. 39. In 39 a.d. he
went to Rome to sue for the title of King, which his nephew Herod
Agrippa had already secured. But accusations against him were sent to
the emperor by Agrippa, and he thereby lost his tetrarchy and was
banished to Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul, and died (according to Josephus,
B. J. II. 9. 6) in Spain. It was he who beheaded John the Baptist, and
to him Jesus was sent by Pilate. His character is plain enough from the
New Testament account. For further particulars of his life, see
Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8. 1; 11. 4; XVIII. 2. 1; 5 and 7; B. J. II. 9.

[165] The Lysanias referred to here is mentioned in Luke iii. 1 as
Tetrarch of Abilene. Eusebius, in speaking of Lysanias here, follows
the account of Luke, not that of Josephus, for the latter nowhere says
that Lysanias continued to rule his tetrarchy after the exile of
Archelaus. Indeed he nowhere states that Lysanias ruled a tetrarchy at
this period. He only refers (Ant. XVIII. 6. 10; XIX. 5. 1; XX. 7. 1;
and B. J. II. 12. 8) to "the tetrarchy of Lysanias," which he says was
given to Agrippa I. and II. by Caligula and Claudius. Eusebius thus
reads more into Josephus than he has any right to do, and yet we cannot
assume that he is guilty of willful deception, for he may quite
innocently have interpreted Josephus in the light of Luke's account,
without realizing that Josephus' statement is of itself entirely
indefinite. That there is no real contradiction between the statements
of Josephus and Luke has been abundantly demonstrated by Davidson,
Introduction to the New Testament, I. p. 215 sq.

[166] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. 2 and 4. 2.

[167] Josephus reckons here from the death of Augustus (14 a.d.), when
Tiberius became sole emperor. Pilate was appointed procurator in 26
a.d. and was recalled in 36.

[168] Josephus dates the beginning of Augustus' reign at the time of
the death of Julius Caesar (as Eusebius also does in chap. 5, S:2), and
calls him the second emperor. But Augustus did not actually become
emperor until 31 b.c., after the battle of Actium.

[169] Eusebius refers here, not to the acts of Pilate written by
Christians, of which so many are still extant (cf. Bk. II. chap. 2,
note 1), but to those forged by their enemies with the approval of the
emperor Maximinus (see below, Bk. IX. chap. 5).

[170] ho tes parasemeioseos chronos. "In this place paras. is the
superscription or the designation of the time which was customarily
prefixed to acts. For judicial acts were thus drawn up: Consulatu
Tiberii Augusti Septimo, inducto in judicium Jesu, &c." (Val.)

[171] Ant.XVIII. 2. 2. Compare S:1, above.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter X.--The High Priests of the Jews under whom Christ taught.

1. It was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, [172]
according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship
of Pontius Pilate, [173] while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were
ruling the rest of Judea, [174] that our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the
Christ of God, being about thirty years of age, [175] came to John for
baptism and began the promulgation of the Gospel.

2. The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the entire time
of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, [176]
showing that in the time which belonged to the priesthood of those two
men the whole period of his teaching was completed. Since he began his
work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held
the office, the entire time does not comprise quite four years.

3. For the rites of the law having been already abolished since that
time, the customary usages in connection with the worship of God,
according to which the high priest acquired his office by hereditary
descent and held it for life, were also annulled and there were
appointed to the high priesthood by the Roman governors now one and now
another person who continued in office not more than one year. [177]

4. Josephus relates that there were four high priests in succession
from Annas to Caiaphas. Thus in the same book of the Antiquities [178]
he writes as follows: "Valerius Gratus [179] having put an end to the
priesthood of Ananus [180] appoints Ishmael, [181] the son of Fabi,
high priest. And having removed him after a little he appoints Eleazer,
[182] the son of Ananus the high priest, to the same office. And having
removed him also at the end of a year he gives the high priesthood to
Simon, [183] the son of Camithus. But he likewise held the honor no
more than a year, when Josephus, called also Caiaphas, [184] succeeded
him." Accordingly the whole time of our Saviour's ministry is shown to
have been not quite four full years, four high priests, from Annas to
the accession of Caiaphas, having held office a year each. The Gospel
therefore has rightly indicated Caiaphas as the high priest under whom
the Saviour suffered. From which also we can see that the time of our
Saviour's ministry does not disagree with the foregoing investigation.

5. Our Saviour and Lord, not long after the beginning of his ministry,
called the twelve apostles, [185] and these alone of all his disciples
he named apostles, as an especial honor. And again he appointed seventy
others whom he sent out two by two before his face into every place and
city whither he himself was about to come. [186]
__________________________________________________________________

[172] Luke iii. 1. Eusebius reckons the fifteenth year of Tiberius from
14 a.d., that is, from the time when he became sole emperor. There is a
difference of opinion among commentators as to whether Luke began to
reckon from the colleagueship of Tiberius (11 or 12 a.d.), or from the
beginning of his reign as sole emperor. Either mode of reckoning is
allowable, but as Luke says that Christ "began to be about thirty years
of age" at this time, and as he was born probably about 4 b.c., the
former seems to have been Luke's mode. Compare Andrew's Life of our
Lord, p. 28.

[173] Luke says simply, "while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea,"
and does not mention the year, as Eusebius does.

[174] See the previous chapter.

[175] Eusebius' reckoning would make Christ's birthday synchronize with
the beginning of our Christian era, which is at least three years out
of the way.

[176] Luke iii. 2 compared with John xi. 49 and 51, and xviii. 13.
Stroth remarks: "Had I not feared acting contrary to the duty of a
translator, I should gladly, for the sake of Eusebius' honor, have left
out this entire chapter, which is full of historical inaccuracies and
contradictions. Eusebius deduces from Josephus himself that the
Procurator Gratus, whom Pilate succeeded, appointed Caiaphas high
priest. Therefore Caiaphas became high priest before the twelfth year
of Tiberius, for in that year Pilate became procurator. In the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ began his work when Caiaphas had
already been high priest three years and according to the false account
of our author he became high priest for the first time in the
nineteenth year of Tiberius. The whole structure of this chapter,
therefore, falls to the ground. It is almost inconceivable how so
prudent a man could have committed so great a mistake of the same sort
as that which he had denounced a little before in connection with the
Acts of Pilate." The whole confusion is due to Eusebius' mistaken
interpretation of the Gospel account, which he gives in this sentence.
It is now universally assumed that Annas is named by the evangelists as
ex-high-priest, but Eusebius, not understanding this, supposed that a
part of Christ's ministry must have fallen during the active
administration of Annas, a part during that of Caiaphas, and therefore
his ministry must have run from the one to the other, embracing the
intermediate administrations of Ishmael, Eleazer, and Simon, and
covering less than four years. In order to make this out he interprets
the "not long after" in connection with Ishmael as meaning "one year,"
which is incorrect, as shown below in note 9. How Eusebius could have
overlooked the plain fact that all this occurred under Valerius Gratus
instead of Pilate, and therefore many years too early (when he himself
states the fact), is almost incomprehensible. Absorbed in making out
his interpretation, he must have thoughtlessly confounded the names of
Gratus and Pilate while reading the account. He cannot have acted
knowingly, with the intention to deceive, for he must have seen that
anybody reading his account would discover the glaring discrepancy at
once.

[177] It is true that under the Roman governors the high priests were
frequently changed (cf. above, chap. 6, note 19), but there was no
regularly prescribed interval, and some continued in office for many
years; for instance, Caiaphas was high priest for more than ten years,
during the whole of Pilate's administration, having been appointed by
Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, and his successor being
appointed by the Proconsul Vitellius in 37 a.d. (vid. Josephus, Ant.
XVIII. 2. 2 and 4. 3).

[178] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2.2.

[179] This Valerius Gratus was made procurator by Tiberius, soon after
his accession, and ruled about eleven years, when he was succeeded by
Pilate in 26 a.d.

[180] Ananus (or Annas) was appointed high priest by Quirinius,
governor of Syria, in 6 or 7 a.d. (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. 1), and
remained in office until a.d. 14 or 15, when he was deposed by Valerius
Gratus (ib. S:2). This forms another instance, therefore, of a term of
office more than one year in length. Annas is a familiar personage from
his connection with the Gospel history; but the exact position which he
occupied during Christ's ministry is difficult to determine (cf.
Wieseler's Chronology of the Life of Christ).

[181] Either this Ishmael must have held the office eight or ten years,
or else Caiaphas that long before Pilate's time, for otherwise Gratus'
period is not filled up. Josephus' statement is indefinite in regard to
Ishmael, and Eusebius is wrong in confining his term of office to one
year.

[182] According to Josephus, Ant. XX. 9. 1, five of the sons of Annas
became high priests.

[183] This Simon is an otherwise unknown personage.

[184] Joseph Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, is well known from his
connection with the Gospel history.

[185] See Matt. x. 1-4; Mark iii. 14-19; Luke vi. 13-16

[186] See Luke x. 1
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI.--Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ.

1. Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger
Herod, [187] as is stated in the Gospels. [188] Josephus also records
the same fact, [189] making mention of Herodias [190] by name, and
stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her
his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the
daughter of Aretas, [191] king of Petra, and separating Herodias from
her husband while he was still alive.

2. It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged war with
Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the
latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle,
Herod's entire army was destroyed, [192] and that he suffered this
calamity on account of his crime against John.

3. The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist
was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things
written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his
kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into
banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul. [193]

4. He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities,
where he writes of John in the following words: [194] "It seemed to
some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most
justly avenged John called the Baptist.

5. For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come
and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness
toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable
unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins,
but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already
purified in righteousness.

6. And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in
listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might
lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might
advise. He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing
should be done under John's influence, to anticipate it by slaying him,
than to repent after revolution had come, and when he found himself in
the midst of difficulties. [195] On account of Herod's suspicion John
was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machaera, [196] and
there slain."

7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our
Saviour in the same work, in the following words: [197] "And there
lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call
him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such
men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many
of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him
to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease
loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the
divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things
concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him,
continues down to the present day."

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has
recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our
Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being
destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? [198]
But let this suffice here.
__________________________________________________________________

[187] Herod Antipas.

[188] Matt. xiv. 1-12; Mark vi. 17 sq.

[189] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 5. 2.

[190] Herodias, a daughter of Aristobulus and grand-daughter of Herod
the Great, first married Herod Philip (whom Josephus calls Herod, and
whom the Gospels call Philip), a son of Herod the Great, and therefore
her uncle, who seems to have occupied a private station. Afterwards,
leaving him during his lifetime, she married another uncle, Herod
Antipas the Tetrarch. When her husband, Antipas, was banished to Gaul
she voluntarily shared his banishment and died there. Her character is
familiar from the accounts of the New Testament.

[191] Aretas AEneas is identical with the Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor.
xi. 32, in connection with Paul's flight from Jerusalem (cf. Wieseler,
Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 142 and 167 sq.). He was king of Arabia
Nabataea, whose capital was the famous rock city, Petra, which gave its
name to the whole country, which was in consequence commonly called
Arabia Petraea.

[192] In this emergency Herod appealed to Tiberius, with whom he was a
favorite, and the emperor commanded Vitellius, the governor of Syria,
to proceed against Aretas. The death of Tiberius interrupted
operations, and under Caligula friendship existed between Aretas and
the Romans.

[193] Josephus gives the account of Herod's banishment in his
Antiquities XVIII. 7. 2, but names Lyons instead of Vienne as the place
of his exile. Eusebius here confounds the fate of Herod with that of
Archelaus, who was banished to Vienne (see above, chap. 9, note 1).

[194] Ant.XVIII. 5. 2. This passage upon John the Baptist is referred
to by Origen in his Contra Cels. I. 47, and is found in all our mss. of
Josephus. It is almost universally admitted to be genuine, and there is
no good reason to doubt that it is, for such a dispassionate and
strictly impartial account of John could hardly have been written by a
Christian interpolator.

[195] Josephus differs with the Evangelists as to the reason for John's
imprisonment, but the accounts of the latter bear throughout the stamp
of more direct and accurate knowledge than that of Josephus. Ewald
remarks with truth, "When Josephus, however, gives as the cause of
John's execution only the Tetrarch's general fear of popular outbreaks,
one can see that he no longer had perfect recollection of the matter.
The account of Mark is far more exact and instructive."

[196] Machaera was an important fortress lying east of the northern end
of the Dead Sea. It was the same fortress to which the daughter of
Aretas had retired when Herod formed the design of marrying Herodias;
and the word "aforesaid" refers to Josephus' mention of it in that
connection in the previous paragraph.

[197] Ant.XVIII. 3. 3. This account occurs before that of John the
Baptist, not after it. It is found in all our mss. of Josephus, and was
considered genuine until the sixteenth century, but since then has been
constantly disputed. Four opinions are held in regard to it; (1) It is
entirely genuine. This view has at present few supporters, and is
absolutely untenable. A Christian hand is unmistakably apparent,--if
not throughout, certainly in many parts; and the silence in regard to
it of all Christian writers until the time of Eusebius is fatal to its
existence in the original text. Origen, for instance, who mentions
Josephus' testimony to John the Baptist in Contra Cels. I. 47, betrays
no knowledge of this passage in regard to Christ. (2) It is entirely
spurious. Such writers as Hase, Keim, and Schuerer adopt this view. (3)
It is partly genuine and partly interpolated. This opinion has,
perhaps, the most defenders, among them Gieseler, Weizsaecker, Renan,
Edersheim, and Schaff. (4) It has been changed from a bitter Jewish
calumny of Christ to a Christian eulogy of him. This is Ewald's view.
The second opinion seems to me the correct one. The third I regard as
untenable, for the reason that after the obviously Christian passages
are omitted there remains almost nothing; and it seems inconceivable
that Josephus should have given so colorless a report of one whom the
Jews regarded with such enmity, if he mentioned him at all. The fourth
view might be possible, and is more natural than the third; but it
seems as if some trace of the original calumny would have survived
somewhere, had it ever existed. To me, however, the decisive argument
is the decided break which the passage makes in the context; S:2 gives
the account of a sedition of the Jews, and S:4 opens with the words,
"About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
disorder"; while S:3, containing the account of Christ, gives no hint
of sedition or disorder among the Jews. It has been suggested that
Eusebius himself, who is the first one to quote this passage,
introduced it into the text of Josephus. This is possible, but there is
no reason to suppose it true, for it is contrary to Eusebius' general
reputation for honesty, and the manner in which he introduces the
quotation both here and in his Dem. Evang. III. 5 certainly bears every
mark of innocence; and he would scarcely have dared to insert so
important an account in his History had it not existed in at least some
mss. of Josephus. We may be confident that the interpolation must have
been made in the mss. of Josephus before it appeared in the History.
For a brief summary of the various views upon the subject, see Schaff's
Church History, Vol. I. p. 9 sq., and Edersheim's article on Josephus
in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography. Compare also
Heinichen's Excursus upon the passage in his edition of Eusebius, Vol.
III. p. 623-654.

[198] See chap. 9, note 8, above.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XII.--The Disciples of our Saviour.

1. The names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to every one from
the Gospels. [199] But there exists no catalogue of the seventy
disciples. [200] Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of them, of
whom the Acts of the apostles makes mention in various places, [201]
and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. [202]

2. They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with
Paul, was one of them. [203] This is the account of Clement [204] in
the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas
was one of the seventy disciples, [205] a man who bore the same name as
the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, "When Cephas
came to Antioch I withstood him to his face." [206]

3. Matthias, [207] also, who was numbered with the apostles in the
place of Judas, and the one who was honored by being made a candidate
with him, [208] are likewise said to have been deemed worthy of the
same calling with the seventy. They say that Thaddeus [209] also was
one of them, concerning whom I shall presently relate an account which
has come down to us. [210] And upon examination you will find that our
Saviour had more than seventy disciples, according to the testimony of
Paul, who says that after his resurrection from the dead he appeared
first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to above five
hundred brethren at once, of whom some had fallen asleep; [211] but the
majority were still living at the time he wrote.

4. Afterwards he says he appeared unto James, who was one of the
so-called brethren of the Saviour. [212] But, since in addition to
these, there were many others who were called apostles, in imitation of
the Twelve, as was Paul himself, he adds: "Afterward he appeared to all
the apostles." [213] So much in regard to these persons. But the story
concerning Thaddeus is as follows.
__________________________________________________________________

[199] See Matt. x. 2-4; Luke vi. 13-16; Mark iii. 14-19

[200] See Luke x. 1-20.

[201] See Acts iv. 36, xiii. 1 et passim. Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
II. 20) calls Barnabas one of the Seventy. This tradition is not in
itself improbable, but we can trace it back no further than Clement.
The Clementine Recognitions and Homilies frequently mention Barnabas as
an apostle active in Alexandria and in Rome. One tradition sends him to
Milan and makes him the first bishop of the church there, but the
silence of Ambrose in regard to it is a sufficient proof of its
groundlessness. There is extant an apocryphal work, probably of the
fifth century, entitled Acta et Passio Barnabae in Cypro, which relates
his death by martyrdom in Cyprus. The tradition may be true, but its
existence has no weight. Barnabas came from Cyprus and labored there
for at least a time. It would be natural, therefore, to assign his
death (which was necessarily martyrdom, for no Christian writer of the
early centuries could have admitted that he died a natural death) to
that place.

[202] Gal. ii. 1, 9, and 13.

[203] Sosthenes is mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 1. From what source Eusebius
drew this report in regard to him I cannot tell. He is the first to
mention it, so far as I know. A later tradition reports that he became
Bishop of Colophon, a city in Ionia. A Sosthenes is mentioned also in
Acts xviii. 17, as ruler of the Jewish synagogue in Corinth. Some wish
to identify the two, supposing the latter to have been afterward
converted, but in this case of course he cannot have been one of the
Seventy. Eusebius' tradition is one in regard to whose value we can
form no opinion.

[204] On Clement and his works see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1, and Bk. VI.
chap. 13.

[205] Clement is, so far as I know, the first to make this distinction
between Peter the Apostle, and Cephas, one of the Seventy. The reason
for the invention of a second Peter in the post-apostolic age is easy
to understand as resulting from the desire to do away with the conflict
between two apostles. This Cephas appears frequently in later
traditions and is commemorated in the Menology of Basil on December 9,
and in the Armenian calendar on September 25. In the Ecclesiastical
Canons he is made one of the twelve apostles, and distinguished from
Peter.

[206] Gal. ii. 11.

[207] We learn from Acts i. 21 sqq. that Matthias was a follower of
Christ throughout his ministry and therefore the tradition, which
Eusebius is, so far as we know, the first to record, is not at all
improbable. Epiphanius (at the close of the first book of his Haer.,
Dindorf's ed. I. p. 337) a half-century later records the same
tradition. Nicephorus Callistus (II. 40) says that he labored and
suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia (probably meaning Caucasian Ethiopia,
east of the Black Sea). Upon the Gospel of Matthias see below, III. 25,
note 30.

[208] Joseph Barsabas, surnamed Justus. He, too, had been with Christ
from the beginning, and therefore may well have been one of the
Seventy, as Eusebius reports. Papias (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39,
below) calls him Justus Barsabas, and relates that he drank a deadly
poison without experiencing any injury.

[209] From a comparison of the different lists of apostles given by
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Thaddeus is seen to be one of the Twelve,
apparently identical with Jude and Lebbaeus (compare Jerome, In Matt.
X.). Eusebius here sunders him from the apostles and makes him one of
the Seventy, committing an error similar to that which arose in the
case of Peter and Cephas. He perhaps records only an oral tradition, as
he uses the word phasi. He is, so far as is known, the first to mention
the tradition.

[210] See the next chapter.

[211] See 1 Cor. xv. 5-7.

[212] The relationship of James and Jesus has always been a disputed
matter. Three theories have been advanced, and are all widely
represented. The first is the full-brother hypothesis, according to
which the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of both Joseph
and Mary. This was advocated strongly by the heretic Helvidius in Rome
in 380, and is widely accepted in the Protestant Church. The only
serious objection to it is the committal of Mary to the care of John by
Christ upon the cross. But John was at any rate an own cousin of Jesus,
and the objection loses its weight when we realize the spiritual
sympathy which existed between Jesus and John, and the lack of belief
exhibited by his own brothers. The second is the half-brother
hypothesis which regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus as children
of Joseph by a former wife. This has the oldest tradition in its favor
(though the tradition for none of the theories is old or universal
enough to be of great weight), the apocryphal Gospel of James, chap.
ix., recording that Joseph was a widower and had children before
marrying Mary. It is still the established theory in the Greek Church.
The greatest objection to it is that if it be true, Christ as a younger
son of Joseph, could not have been regarded as the heir to the throne
of David. That the objection is absolutely fatal cannot be asserted for
it is nowhere clearly stated that he was the heir-apparent to the
throne; it is said only that he was of the line of David. Both of these
theories agree in distinguishing James, the brother of the Lord, from
James, the son of Alphaeus, the apostle, and thus assume at least three
Jameses in the New Testament. Over against both of them is to be
mentioned a third, which assumes only two Jameses, regarding the
brethren of the Lord as his cousins, and identifying them with the sons
of Alphaeus. This theory originated with Jerome in 383 a.d. with the
confessedly dogmatic object of preserving the virginity both of Mary
and of Joseph in opposition to Helvidius. Since his time it has been
the established theory in the Latin Church, and is advocated also by
many Protestant scholars. The original and common form of the theory
makes Jesus and James maternal cousins: finding only three women in
John xix. 25, and regarding Mary, the wife of Clopas, as the sister of
the Virgin Mary. But this is in itself improbable and rests upon poor
exegesis. It is far better to assume that four women are mentioned in
this passage. A second form of the cousin theory, which regards Jesus
and James as paternal cousins--making Alphaeus (Clopas) the brother of
Joseph--originated with Lange. It is very ingenious, and urges in its
support the authority of Hegesippus, who, according to Eusebius (H. E.
III. 11), says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph and the father of
Simeon, which would make the latter the brother of James, and thus just
as truly the brother of the Lord as he. But Hegesippus plainly thinks
of James and of Simeon as standing in different relations to
Christ,--the former his brother, the latter his cousin,--and therefore
his testimony is against, rather than for Lange's hypothesis. The
statement of Hegesippus, indeed, expresses the cousinship of Christ
with James the Little, the son of Clopas (if Alphaeus and Clopas be
identified), but does not identify this cousin with James the brother
of the Lord. Eusebius also is claimed by Lange as a witness to his
theory, but his exegesis of the passage to which he appeals is poor
(see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22 note 4). Against both forms of the cousin
theory may be urged the natural meaning of the word adelphos, and also
the statement of John vii. 5, "Neither did his brethren believe in
him," which makes it impossible to suppose that his brothers were
apostles. From this fatal objection both of the brother hypotheses are
free, and either of them is possible, but the former rests upon a more
natural interpretation of the various passages involved, and would
perhaps have been universally accepted had it not been for the dogmatic
interest felt by the early Church in preserving the virginity of Mary.
Renan's complicated theory (see his Les Evangiles, p. 537 sqq.) does
not help matters at all, and need not be discussed here. There is much
to be said, however, in favor of the separation of Alphaeus and Clopas,
upon which he insists and which involves the existence of four Jameses
instead of only three. For a fuller discussion of this whole subject,
see Andrews (Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116), Schaff (Church Hist. I.
272-275), and Weiss (Einleitung in das N. T. p. 388 sqq.), all of whom
defend the natural brother hypothesis; Lightfoot (Excursus upon "The
Brethren of the Lord" in his Commentary on Galatians, 2d ed. p.
247-282), who is the strongest advocate of the half-brother theory;
Mill (The Accounts of our Lord's Brethren in the N. T. vindicated,
Cambridge, 1843), who maintains the maternal cousin theory; and Lange
(in Herzog), who presents the paternal cousin hypothesis. Compare
finally Holtzmann's article in the Zeitschrift fuer Wiss. Theologie,
1880, p. 198 sqq.

[213] 1 Cor. xv. 7.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIII.--Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessenes.

1. The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being noised
abroad among all men on account of his wonder-working power, he
attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from
Judea, who had the hope of being cured of their diseases and of all
kinds of sufferings.

2. For instance the King Abgarus, [214] who ruled with great glory the
nations beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease
which it was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of
the name of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with
one accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him to heal
his disease.

3. But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed
him worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one
of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised
salvation to himself and all his house.

4. Not long afterward his promise was fulfilled. For after his
resurrection from the dead and his ascent into heaven, Thomas, [215]
one of the twelve apostles, under divine impulse sent Thaddeus, who was
also numbered among the seventy disciples of Christ, [216] to Edessa,
[217] as a preacher and evangelist of the teaching of Christ.

5. And all that our Saviour had promised received through him its
fulfillment. You have written evidence of these things taken from the
archives of Edessa, [218] which was at that time a royal city. For in
the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and
the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the
present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles
themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally
translated from the Syriac language [219] in the following manner.

Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to
him at Jerusalem by Ananias [220] the swift courier.

6. "Abgarus, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the excellent Saviour who has
appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting. I have heard the
reports of thee and of thy cures as performed by thee without medicines
or herbs. For it is said that thou makest the blind to see and the lame
to walk, that thou cleansest lepers and castest out impure spirits and
demons, and that thou healest those afflicted with lingering disease,
and raisest the dead.

7. And having heard all these things concerning thee, I have concluded
that one of two things must be true: either thou art God, and having
come down from heaven thou doest these things, or else thou, who doest
these things, art the Son of God. [221]

8. I have therefore written to thee to ask thee that thou wouldest take
the trouble to come to me and heal the disease which I have. For I have
heard that the Jews are murmuring against thee and are plotting to
injure thee. But I have a very small yet noble city which is great
enough for us both."

The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the courier Ananias.

9. "Blessed art thou who hast believed in me without having seen me.
[222] For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will
not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and
be saved. [223] But in regard to what thou hast written me, that I
should come to thee, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here
for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be
taken up again to him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I
will send to thee one of my disciples, that he may heal thy disease and
give life to thee and thine."

10. To these epistles there was added the following account in the
Syriac language. "After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, [224] who was
also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle, [225] one of the
Seventy. When he was come he lodged with Tobias, [226] the son of
Tobias. When the report of him got abroad, it was told Abgarus that an
apostle of Jesus was come, as he had written him.

11. Thaddeus began then in the power of God to heal every disease and
infirmity, insomuch that all wondered. And when Abgarus heard of the
great and wonderful things which he did and of the cures which he
performed, he began to suspect that he was the one of whom Jesus had
written him, saying, `After I have been taken up I will send to thee
one of my disciples who will heal thee.'

12. Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom Thaddeus lodged, he said, I
have heard that a certain man of power has come and is lodging in thy
house. Bring him to me. And Tobias coming to Thaddeus said to him, The
ruler Abgarus summoned me and told me to bring thee to him that thou
mightest heal him. And Thaddeus said, I will go, for I have been sent
to him with power.

13. Tobias therefore arose early on the following day, and taking
Thaddeus came to Abgarus. And when he came, the nobles were present and
stood about Abgarus. And immediately upon his entrance a great vision
appeared to Abgarus in the countenance of the apostle Thaddeus. When
Abgarus saw it he prostrated himself before Thaddeus, while all those
who stood about were astonished; for they did not see the vision, which
appeared to Abgarus alone.

14. He then asked Thaddeus if he were in truth a disciple of Jesus the
Son of God, who had said to him, `I will send thee one of my disciples,
who shall heal thee and give thee life.' And Thaddeus said, Because
thou hast mightily believed in him that sent me, therefore have I been
sent unto thee. And still further, if thou believest in him, the
petitions of thy heart shall be granted thee as thou believest.

15. And Abgarus said to him, So much have I believed in him that I
wished to take an army and destroy those Jews who crucified him, had I
not been deterred from it by reason of the dominion of the Romans. And
Thaddeus said, Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father, and
having fulfilled it has been taken up to his Father. And Abgarus said
to him, I too have believed in him and in his Father.

16. And Thaddeus said to him, Therefore I place my hand upon thee in
his name. And when he had done it, immediately Abgarus was cured of the
disease and of the suffering which he had.

17. And Abgarus marvelled, that as he had heard concerning Jesus, so he
had received in very deed through his disciple Thaddeus, who healed him
without medicines and herbs, and not only him, but also Abdus [227] the
son of Abdus, who was afflicted with the gout; for he too came to him
and fell at his feet, and having received a benediction by the
imposition of his hands, he was healed. The same Thaddeus cured also
many other inhabitants of the city, and did wonders and marvelous
works, and preached the word of God.

18. And afterward Abgarus said, Thou, O Thaddeus, doest these things
with the power of God, and we marvel. But, in addition to these things,
I pray thee to inform me in regard to the coming of Jesus, how he was
born; and in regard to his power, by what power he performed those
deeds of which I have heard.

19. And Thaddeus said, Now indeed will I keep silence, since I have
been sent to proclaim the word publicly. But tomorrow assemble for me
all thy citizens, and I will preach in their presence and sow among
them the word of God, concerning the coming of Jesus, how he was born;
and concerning his mission, for what purpose he was sent by the Father;
and concerning the power of his works, and the mysteries which he
proclaimed in the world, and by what power he did these things; and
concerning his new preaching, and his abasement and humiliation, and
how he humbled himself, and died and debased his divinity and was
crucified, and descended into Hades, [228] and burst the bars which
from eternity had not been broken, [229] and raised the dead; for he
descended alone, but rose with many, and thus ascended to his Father.
[230]

20. Abgarus therefore commanded the citizens to assemble early in the
morning to hear the preaching of Thaddeus, and afterward he ordered
gold and silver to be given him. But he refused to take it, saying, If
we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take that which
is another's? These things were done in the three hundred and fortieth
year." [231]

I have inserted them here in their proper place, translated from the
Syriac [232] literally, and I hope to good purpose.
__________________________________________________________________

[214] Abgarus was the name of several kings of Edessa, who reigned at
various periods from b.c. 99 to a.d. 217. The Abgar contemporary with
Christ was called Abgar Ucomo, or "the Black." He was the fifteenth
king, and reigned, according to Gutschmid, from a.d. 13 to a.d. 50. A
great many ecclesiastical fictions have grown up around his name, the
story, contained in its simplest form in the present chapter, being
embellished with many marvelous additions. A starting-point for this
tradition of the correspondence with Christ,--from which in turn grew
all the later legends,--may be found in the fact that in the latter
part of the second century there was a Christian Abgar, King of Edessa,
at whose court Bardesanes, the Syrian Gnostic, enjoyed high favor, and
it is certain that Christianity had found a foothold in this region at
a much earlier period. Soon after the time of this Abgar the pretended
correspondence was very likely forged, and foisted back upon the Abgar
who was contemporary with Christ. Compare Cureton's Anc. Syriac
Documents relative go the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in
Edessa, London, 1864.

[215] On the traditions in regard to Thomas, see Bk. III. chap 1.

[216] See chap. 12, note 11.

[217] Edessa, the capital of Abgar's dominions, was a city of Northern
Mesopotamia, near the river Euphrates. History knows nothing of the
city before the time of the Seleucidae, though tradition puts its
origin back into distant antiquity, and some even identify it with
Abraham's original home, Ur of the Chaldees. In the history of the
Christian Church it played an important part as a centre of Syrian
learning. Ephraem, the Syrian, founded a seminary there in the fourth
century, which after his death fell into the hands of the Arians.

[218] We have no reason to doubt that Eusebius, who is the first to
mention these apocryphal epistles, really found them in the public
archives at Edessa. Moses Chorenensis, the celebrated Armenian
historian of the fifth century, who studied a long time in Edessa, is
an independent witness to their existence in the Edessene archives.
Eusebius has been accused of forging this correspondence himself; but
this unworthy suspicion has been refuted by the discovery and
publication of the original Syriac (The Doct. of Addai the Apostle,
with an English Translation and Notes, by G. Phillips, London, 1876;
compare also Contemp. Rev., May, 1877, p. 1137). The epistles were
forged probably long before his day, and were supposed by him to be
genuine. His critical insight, but not his honesty, was at fault. The
apocryphal character of these letters is no longer a matter of dispute,
though Cave and Grabe defended their genuineness (so that Eusebius is
in good company), and even in the present century Rinck (Ueber die
Echtheit des Briefwechsels des Koenigs Abgars mit Jesu, Zeitschrift
fuer Hist. Theol., 1843, II. p. 326) has had the hardihood to enter the
lists in their defense; but we know of no one else who values his
critical reputation so little as to venture upon the task.

[219] Eusebius does not say directly that he translated these documents
himself, but this seems to be the natural conclusion to be drawn from
his words. ;;Emin is used only with analephtheison, and not with
metabletheison. It is impossible, therefore, to decide with certainty;
but the documents must have been in Syriac in the Edessene archives,
and Eusebius' words imply that, if he did not translate them himself,
he at least employed some one else to do it. At the end of this chapter
he again uses an indefinite expression, where perhaps it might be
expected that he would tell us directly if he had himself translated
the documents.

[220] In the greatly embellished narrative of Cedrenus (Hist.
Compendium, p. 176; according to Wright, in his article on Abgar in the
Dict. of Christian Biog.) this Ananias is represented as an artist who
endeavored to take the portrait of Christ, but was dazzled by the
splendor of his countenance; whereupon Christ, having washed his face,
wiped it with a towel, which miraculously retained an image of his
features. The picture thus secured was carried back to Edessa, and
acted as a charm for the preservation of the city against its enemies.
The marvelous fortunes of the miraculous picture are traced by Cedrenus
through some centuries (see also Evagrius, H. E. IV. 27).

[221] The expression "Son of God" could not be used by a heathen prince
as it is used here.

[222] Compare John xx. 29.

[223] gegraptai, as used by Christ and his disciples, always referred
to the Old Testament. The passage quoted here does not occur in the Old
Testament; but compare Isa. vi. 9, Jer. v. 21, and Ezek. xii. 2; and
also Matt. xiii. 14, Mark iv. 12, and especially Acts xxviii. 26-28 and
Rom. xi. 7 sq.

[224] Thomas is not commonly known by the name of Judas, and it is
possible that Eusebius, or the translator of the document, made a
mistake, and applied to Thomas a name which in the original was given
to Thaddeus. But Thomas is called Judas Thomas in the Apocryphal Acts
of Thomas, and in the Syriac Doctrina Apostolorum, published by
Cureton.

[225] The word "apostle" is by no means confined to the twelve apostles
of Christ. The term was used very commonly in a much wider sense, and
yet the combination, "the apostle, one of the Seventy," in this
passage, does not seem natural, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that
the original author of this account did not thus describe Thaddeus. The
designation, "one of the Seventy," carries the mind back to Christ's
own appointment of them, recorded by Luke, and the term "apostle," used
in the same connection, would naturally denote one of the Twelve
appointed by Christ,--that is, an apostle in the narrow sense. It might
be suggested as possible that the original Syriac connected the word
"apostle" with Thomas, reading, "Thomas the apostle sent Judas, who is
also called Thaddeus, one of the Seventy," &c. Such a happy confusion
is not beyond the power of an ancient translator, for most of whom
little can be said in the way of praise. That this can have been the
case in the present instance, however, is rendered extremely improbable
by the fact that throughout this account Thaddeus is called an apostle,
and we should therefore expect the designation upon the first mention
of him. It seems to me much more probable that the words, "one of the
Seventy," are an addition of Eusebius, who has already, in two places
(S:4, above, and chap. 12, S:3), told us that Thaddeus was one of them.
It is probable that the original Syriac preserved the correct tradition
of Thaddeus as one of the Twelve; while Eusebius, with his false
tradition of him as one of the Seventy, takes pains to characterize him
as such, when he is first introduced, but allows the word "apostle," so
common in its wider sense, to stand throughout. He does not intend to
correct the Syriac original; he simply defines Thaddeus, as he
understands him, more closely.

[226] Tobias was very likely a Jew, or of Jewish extraction, the name
being a familiar one among the Hebrews. This might have been the reason
that Thaddeus (if he went to Edessa at all) made his home with him.

[227] Moses Chorenensis reads instead (according to Rinck), "Potagrus,
the son of Abdas." Rinck thinks it probable that Eusebius or the
translator made a mistake, confusing the Syrian name Potagrus with the
Greek word podEURgra, "a sort of gout," and then inserting a second
Abdas. The word "Podagra" is Greek and could not have occurred in the
Armenian original, and therefore Eusebius is to be corrected at this
point by Moses Chorenensis (Rinck, ibid. p. 18). The Greek reads
,'Abdon ton tou ,'Abdou podEURgran zchonta.

[228] This is probably the earliest distinct and formal statement of
the descent into Hades; but no special stress is laid upon it as a new
doctrine, and it is stated so much as a matter of course as to show
that it was commonly accepted at Edessa at the time of the writing of
these records, that is certainly as early as the third century. Justin,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, &c., all witness
to the belief of the Church in this doctrine, though it did not form an
article in any of the older creeds, and appeared in the East first in
certain Arian confessions at about 360 a.d. In the West it appeared
first in the Aquileian creed, from which it was transferred to the
Apostles' creed in the fifth century or later. The doctrine is stated
in a very fantastic shape in the Gospel of Nicodemus, part II.
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 435 sq.), which is based upon an
apocryphal gospel of the second century, according to Tischendorf. In
it the descent of Christ into Hades and his ascent with a great
multitude are dwelt upon at length. Compare Pearson, On the Creed, p.
340 sq.; Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, I. p. 46; and especially,
Plumptre's Spirits in Prison, p. 77 sq.

[229] Compare the Gospel of Nicodemus, II. 5.

[230] katabas gar monos sunegeiren pollous, eith' houtos anebe pros ton
patera autou. Other mss. read katebe monos, anebe de meta pollou ochlou
pros ton patera autou. Rufinus translates Qui descendit quidem solus,
ascendit autem cum grandi multitudine ad patrem suum. Compare the words
of Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. IV. 11): katelthen eis ta katachthonia,
hina kakeithen lutrosetai tous dikaious, "He descended into the depths,
that he might ransom thence the just."

[231] According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (ed. Schoene, II. p. 116)
the Edessenes dated their era from the year of Abraham 1706 (b.c. 310),
which corresponded with the second year of the one hundred and
seventeenth Olympiad (or, according to the Armenian, to the third year
of the same Olympiad), the time when Seleucus Nicanor began to rule in
Syria. According to this reckoning the 340th year of the Edessenes
would correspond with the year of Abraham 2046, the reign of Tiberius
16 (a.d. 30); that is, the second year of the two hundred and second
Olympiad (or, according to the Armenian, the third year of the same).
According to the Chronicle of Eusebius, Jesus was crucified in the
nineteenth year of Tiberius (year of Abraham 2048 = a.d. 32), according
to Jerome's version in the eighteenth year (year of Abraham 2047 = a.d.
31). Thus, as compared with these authorities, the 340th year of the
Edessenes falls too early. But Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustine, and
others put Christ's death in 783 U.C., that is in 30 a.d., and this
corresponds with the Edessene reckoning as given by Eusebius.

[232] See note 6.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Book II.

Introduction.

1. We have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in
ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of
introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were
the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines
which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by
Christians, together with the events which have taken place in
connection with Christ's recent appearance, and in connection with his
passion and with the choice of the apostles.

2. In the present book let us examine the events which took place after
his ascension, confirming some of them from the divine Scriptures, and
others from such writings as we shall refer to from time to time.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter I.--The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of
Christ.

1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, [233]
who, as has been shown [234] was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to
the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, [235] for
the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the
hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen
was one. [236] He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the
time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been
promoted for this very purpose. [237] And thus he was the first to
receive the crown, corresponding to his name, [238] which belongs to
the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just [239] on account of
the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be
made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the
brother of the Lord [240] because he was known as a son of Joseph,
[241] and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the
Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost
before they came together," [242] as the account of the holy Gospels
shows.

3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes [243] writes thus:
"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our
Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but
chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." [244]

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates
also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his
resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and
Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest
of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. [245] But
there were two Jameses: [246] one called the Just, who was thrown from
the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a
fuller, [247] and another who was beheaded." [248] Paul also makes
mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the
apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [249]

5. At that time also the promise of our Saviour to the king of the
Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent
Thaddeus to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the religion of
Christ, as we have shown a little above from the document found there.
[250]

7. When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ;
and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind
by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ,
he made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching. And from that time
down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to
the name of Christ, [251] offering no common proof of the beneficence
of our Saviour toward them also.

8. These things have been drawn from ancient accounts; but let us now
turn again to the divine Scripture. When the first and greatest
persecution was instigated by the Jews against the church of Jerusalem
in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, and when all the
disciples, except the Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and
Samaria, [252] some, as the divine Scripture says, went as far as
Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, but could not yet venture to impart
the word of faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to the Jews
alone. [253]

9. During this time Paul was still persecuting the church, and entering
the houses of believers was dragging men and women away and committing
them to prison. [254]

10. Philip also, one of those who with Stephen had been entrusted with
the diaconate, being among those who were scattered abroad, went down
to Samaria, [255] and being filled with the divine power, he first
preached the word to the inhabitants of that country. And divine grace
worked so mightily with him that even Simon Magus with many others was
attracted by his words. [256]

11. Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired, by his
jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him, that he
was thought to be the great power of God. [257] But at this time, being
amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the divine
power, he feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far
as to receive baptism. [258]

12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by
those who follow his most impure heresy. [259] For they, after the
manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a
pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they
are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in
themselves. [260] The most of these have been expelled as soon as they
have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected
by Peter, received the merited punishment. [261]

13. But as the preaching of the Saviour's Gospel was daily advancing, a
certain providence led from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of
the queen of that country, [262] for Ethiopia even to the present day
is ruled, according to ancestral custom, by a woman. He, first among
the Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the divine word from Philip
in consequence of a revelation, and having become the first-fruits of
believers throughout the world, he is said to have been the first on
returning to his country to proclaim the knowledge of the God of the
universe and the life-giving sojourn of our Saviour among men; [263] so
that through him in truth the prophecy obtained its fulfillment, which
declares that "Ethiopia stretcheth out her hand unto God." [264]

14. In addition to these, Paul, that "chosen vessel," [265] "not of men
neither through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and
of God the Father who raised him from the dead," [266] was appointed an
apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by a voice which
was uttered in a revelation from heaven. [267]
__________________________________________________________________

[233] See Acts i. 23-26.

[234] Bk. I. chap. 12, S:2.

[235] The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenaeus
(adv. Haer. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. I), then in Cyprian (Ep. 64.
3), and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman Church in the
third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters, they had only
seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has been ever since
almost universally accepted. In favor of the identification are urged
this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity of the duties
assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the use of the words
diakonia and diakonein in connection with the "Seven" in Acts vi. It
must be remarked, however, that ancient tradition is not unanimously in
favor of the identification, for Chrysostom (Homily XIV. on Acts)
denies it; still further, the functions of the Seven and of later
deacons were not identical, for the former were put in charge of the
financial affairs of the Jerusalem church, while the latter acted
simply as bishops' assistants. In fact, it was the bishop of the second
century, not the deacon, that had charge of the church finances. And
finally, no weight can be laid upon the use of the terms diakonein and
diakonia in connection with the Seven, for these words are used always
in a general, never in an official sense in other parts of the Acts and
of the New Testament, and, what is still more decisive, the same word
(diakonia) is used in the same passage in connection with the apostles;
the Seven are "to serve tables" (diakonein tais trapezais,) the
apostles are to give themselves to "the service of the word" (diakonia
tou logou.) There is just as much reason, therefore, on linguistic
grounds, for calling the apostles "deacons" as for giving that name to
the Seven. On the other hand, against the opinion that the Seven were
deacons, are to be urged the facts that they are never called "deacons"
by Luke or by any other New Testament writer; that we are nowhere told,
in the New Testament or out of it, that there were deacons in the
Jerusalem church, although Luke had many opportunities to call the
Seven "deacons" if he had considered them such; and finally, that
according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 18), the Ebionitic churches of
Palestine in his time had only presbyters and Archisynagogi (chiefs of
the synagogue). These Ebionites were the Jewish Christian reactionaries
who refused to advance with the Church catholic in its normal
development; it is therefore at least significant that there were no
deacons among them in the fourth century. In view of these
considerations I feel compelled to doubt the traditional
identification, although it is accepted without dissent by almost all
scholars (cf. e.g. Lightfoot's article on The Christian Ministry in his
Commentary on Philippians). There remain but two possibilities: either
the Seven constituted a merely temporary committee (as held by
Chrysostom, and in modern times, among others, by Vitringa, in his
celebrated work on the Synagogue, and by Stanley in his Essays on the
Apostolic Age); or they were the originals of permanent officers in the
Church, other than deacons. The former alternative is possible, but the
emphasis which Luke lays upon the appointment is against it, as also
the fact that the very duties which these men were chosen to perform
were such as would increase rather than diminish with the growth of the
Church, and such as would therefore demand the creation of a new and
similar committee if the old were not continued. In favor of the second
alternative there is, it seems to me, much to be said. The limits of
this note forbid a full discussion of the subject. But it may be urged:
First, that we find in the Acts frequent mention of a body of men in
the Jerusalem church known as "elders." Of the appointment of these
elders we have no account, and yet it is clear that they cannot have
been in existence when the apostles proposed the appointment of the
Seven. Secondly, although the Seven were such prominent and influential
men, they are not once mentioned as a body in the subsequent chapters
of the Acts, while, whenever we should expect to find them referred to
with the apostles, it is always the "elders" that are mentioned.
Finally, when the elders appear for the first time (Acts xi. 30), we
find them entrusted with the same duties which the Seven were
originally appointed to perform: they receive the alms sent by the
church of Antioch. It is certainly, to say the least, a very natural
conclusion that these "elders" occupy the office of whose institution
we read in Acts vi. Against this identification of the Seven with the
elders of the Jerusalem church it might be urged: First, that Luke does
not call them elders. But it is quite possible that they were not
called by that name at first, and yet later acquired it; and in that
case, in referring to them in later times, people would naturally call
the first appointed "the Seven," to distinguish them from their
successors, "the elders,"--the well-known and frequently mentioned
officers whose number may well have been increased as the church grew.
It is thus easier to account for Luke's omission of the name "elder,"
than it would be to account for his omission of the name "deacon," if
they were deacons. In the second place, it might be objected that the
duties which the Seven were appointed to perform were not commensurate
with those which fell to the lot of the elders as known to us. This
objection, however, loses its weight when we realize that the same kind
of a development went on in connection with the bishop, as has been
most clearly pointed out by Hatch in his Organization of the Early
Christian Churches, and by Harnack in his translation of that work and
in his edition of the Teaching of the Apostles. Moreover, in the case
of the Seven, who were evidently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem
church after the apostles, and at the same time were "full of the
Spirit," it was very natural that, as the apostles gradually scattered,
the successors of these Seven should have committed to them other
duties besides the purely financial ones. The theory presented in this
note is not a novel one. It was suggested first by Boehmer (in his
Diss. Juris eccles.), who was followed by Ritschl (in his Entstehung
der alt-kath. Kirche), and has been accepted in a somewhat modified
form by Lange (in his Apostolisches Zeitalter), and by Lechler (in his
Apost. und Nachapost. Zeitalter). Before learning that the theory had
been proposed by others, I had myself adapted it and had embodied it in
a more elaborate form in a paper read before a ministerial association
in the spring of 1888. My confidence in its validity has of course been
increased by the knowledge that it has been maintained by the eminent
scholars referred to above.

[236] See Acts vi. 1-6.

[237] See Acts vii

[238] stephanos, "a crown."

[239] James is not called the "Just" in the New Testament, but
Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23) says that he was called thus
by all from the time of Christ, on account of his great piety, and it
is by this name that he is known throughout history.

[240] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13.

[241] Eusebius testimony is in favor of the half-brother theory; for
had he considered James the son of Mary, he could not have spoken in
this way.

[242] Matt. i. 18.

[243] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. On
Clement's life and writings, see Bk. V. chap. 11.

[244] all' 'IEURkobon ton dikaion episkopon ton ;;Ierosolumon
helesthai, as the majority of the mss. and editions read. Laemmer,
followed by Heinichen, substitutes genesthai for helesthaion the
authority of two important codices. The other reading, however, is as
well, if not better, supported. How soon after the ascension of Christ,
James the Just assumed a leading position in the church of Jerusalem,
we do not know. He undoubtedly became prominent very soon, as Paul in
37 (or 40) a.d. sees him in addition to Peter on visiting Jerusalem.
But we do not know of his having a position of leadership until the
Jerusalem Council in 51 (Acts xv. and Gal. ii.), where he is one of the
three pillars, standing at least upon an equality in influence with
Peter and John. But this very expression "three pillars of the Church"
excludes the supposition that he was bishop of the Church in the modern
sense of the term--he was only one of the rulers of the Church. Indeed,
we have abundant evidence from other sources that the monarchical
episcopacy was nowhere known at that early age. It was the custom of
all writers of the second century and later to throw back into the
apostolic age their own church organization, and hence we hear of
bishops appointed by the apostles in various churches where we know
that the episcopacy was a second century growth.

[245] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 3.

[246] Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with
James, the son of Alphaeus (compare the words just above: "These
delivered it to the rest of the apostles," in which the word
"apostles," on account of the "Seventy" just following, seems to be
used in a narrow sense, and therefore this James to be one of the
Twelve), and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis
(see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13). Papias, too, in a fragment given
by Routh (Rel. Sac. I. p. 16) identifies the two. But Hegesippus
(quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many
of this name, and that he was therefore called James the Just to
distinguish him from others. Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement
with apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in
regard to the relationship of James to Christ. The contradiction,
indeed, appears only upon careful examination.

[247] Josephus (Ant. XX. 9. 1) says he was stoned to death. The account
of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius in chap.
23, below, which see.

[248] James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I.,
44 a.d. See Acts xii. 2, and Bk. II. chap. 9 below.

[249] Gal. i. 19.

[250] See above, Bk. I. chap. 13.

[251] The date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not
known (see above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes 1 and 3) but it was the seat
of a bishop in the third century, and in Eusebius' time was filled with
magnificent churches and monasteries.

[252] See Acts viii. 1

[253] See Acts xi. 19

[254] See Acts viii. 3

[255] See Acts viii. 5

[256] See Acts viii. 9 sqq. Upon Simon, see chap. 13, note 3.

[257] ten megEURlen dunamin tou theou. Compare Acts viii. 10, which has
he dunamis tou theou he kaloumene. According to Irenaeus (I. 23. 1) he
was called "the loftiest of all powers, i.e. the one who is father over
all things" (sublissimam virtutem, hoc est, eum qui sit nuper omnia
Pater); according to Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 (see below, chap. 13),
ton proton theon; according to the Clementine Homilies (II. 22) he
wished to be called "a certain supreme power of God" (anotEURte tis
dunamis.) According to the Clementine Recognitions (II. 7) he was
called the "Standing one" (hinc ergo Stans appellatur).

[258] Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church,
which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the
founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back
into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward
distinguished in Church history. The account of the Acts does not say
that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it be
implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring to
purchase the gift of God with money.

[259] Eusebius may refer here to the Simonians, an heretical sect
(mentioned by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others),
which recognized him as its founder and leader (though they originated
probably at a later date), and even looked upon him as a God. They were
exceedingly licentious and immoral. Their teachings gradually assumed a
decidedly Gnostic character, and Simon came to be looked upon as the
father of all Gnostics (compare Irenaeus, I. 27. 4), and hence of
heretics in general, and as himself the arch-heretic. Eusebius,
therefore, perhaps refers in this place simply to the Gnostics, or to
the heretics in general.

[260] Another instance of the external and artificial conception of
heresy which Eusebius held in common with his age.

[261] Acts viii. tells of no punishment which befell Simon further than
the rebuke of Peter which Hippolytus (Phil. vi. 15) calls a curse, and
which as such may have been regarded by Eusebius as a deserved
punishment, its effect clinging to him, and finally bringing him to
destruction (see below, chap. 14, note 8).

[262] Acts viii. 26 sqq. This queen was Candace, according to the
Biblical account; but Candace was the name, not of an individual, but
of a dynasty of queens who ruled in Meroe, an island formed by two
branches of the Nile, south of Egypt. See Pliny, H. N. VI. 35 (Delphin
edition); Dion Cassius, LIV. 5; and Strabo, XVII. 1. 54 (Mueller's
edit., Paris, 1877).

[263] Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 12. 8) says that this Eunuch returned
to Ethiopia and preached there. But by no one else, so far as I know,
is the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to him. The first
certain knowledge we have of the introduction of Christianity into
Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumentius and AEdesius, of
whom Rufinus, I. 9, gives the original account; and yet it is probable
that Christianity existed there long before this time. Compare
Neander's Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 46. See also H. R. Reynolds' article
upon the "Ethiopian Church" in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian
Biography, II. 232 sqq.

[264] Psa. xviii. 31.

[265] Acts ix. 15.

[266] Gal. i. 1.

[267] See Acts ix. 3 sqq.; xxii. 6 sqq.; xxvi. 12 sqq.; Gal. i. 16; 1
Cor. xv. 8-10
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.--How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate
concerning Christ.

1. And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour
were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which
prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the
emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that
nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius [268] of the
reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the
resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.

2. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of
him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now
believed by many to be a God. [269] They say that Tiberius referred the
matter to the Senate, [270] but that they rejected it, ostensibly
because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law
prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a
vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving
teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and
recommendation of men.

3. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made
in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he
had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.
[271]

4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, [272] a man well versed in
the laws of the Romans, [273] and in other respects of high repute, and
one of those especially distinguished in Rome. [274] In his apology for
the Christians, [275] which was written by him in the Latin language,
and has been translated into Greek, [276] he writes as follows: [277]

5. "But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their
origin, it was an ancient decree [278] that no one should be
consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its
approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus.
[279] And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, [280] that among
you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not
please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it
is necessary for man to be gracious to God.

6. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry
into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine,
where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to
them that he was pleased with the doctrine. [281] But the Senate, since
it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius
continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers
of the Christians." [282] Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this
into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at
its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world.
__________________________________________________________________

[268] That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by
Tertullian (Apol. 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin Martyr
(Apol. I. 35 and Apol. I. 48) mentions certain Acts of Pilate as well
known in his day, but the so-called Acts of Pilate which are still
extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later
period. They are very fanciful and curious. The most important of these
Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the Gospel of
Nicodemus. There are also extant numerous spurious epistles of Pilate
addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c. The extant Acts and
Epistles are collected in Tischendorf's Evang. Apoc., and most of them
are translated by Cowper in his Apocryphal Gospels. See also the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VIII. p. 416 sqq. Compare the excellent
article of Lipsius upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf, p. lxii
sqq.

[269] The existing Report of Pilate (translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, ibid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius' description,
containing as it does a detailed account of Christ's miracles and of
his resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its
present form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely
based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by
interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf
referred to in the previous note.

[270] See below, note 12.

[271] That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but
this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and
not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.

[272] Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second
century. The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius
pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some even
into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst
Noeldechen in the Zeitschrift fuer wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1886,
Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150 and lived until about
230. Tertullian's father was a Roman centurion, and he himself became a
lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He was converted to Christianity
probably between 180 and 190, and according to Jerome, became a
presbyter and continued as such until middle life (whether in Rome or
in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in the latter, for he certainly
spent the later years of his life, while he was a Montanist, in
Carthage, and also a considerable part of his earlier life, as his
writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism (probably about 200
a.d.), and died at an advanced age (220+). That he was a presbyter
rests only upon the authority of Jerome (de vir. ill. 53), and is
denied by some Roman Catholic historians in the interest of clerical
celibacy, for Tertullian was a married man. He wrote a great number of
works,--apologetic, polemic, and practical--a few in Greek, but most of
them in Latin,--and many of the Latin ones are still extant. The best
edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes. Vol.
III. contains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of
Tertullian by various writers. An English translation of his works is
given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. III. and IV. 1-125. Our main
sources for a knowledge of his life are his own writings, and Jerome's
de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller account of Tertullian, see any of
the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by A.
Hauck, Tertullian's Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. For the
literature, see Schaff's Church Hist. II. p. 818.

[273] His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not very
conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that as a
lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of
resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne out by his
own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have
been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the
acquirement of extensive and accurate learning.

[274] Kai ton mEURlista epi ;;Romes lampron. Rufinus translates inter
nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and Valesius inter Latinos Scriptores
celeberrimus, taking epi ;;Romes to mean the Latin language. But this
is not the literal translation of the words of Eusebius. He says
expressly, one of the especially distinguished men in Rome. From his
work de cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent
some time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would
imply a residence of some duration there. He very likely practiced law
and rhetoric in Rome until his conversion.

[275] Tertullian's Apology ranks first among his extant works, and is
"one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the Church"
(Schaff). The date of its composition is greatly disputed, though it
must have been written during the reign of Septimius Severus, and
almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it to the years 197-204.
Since the investigations of Bonwetsch (Die Schriften Tertullian's,
Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte,
1878, p. 572 sqq.), and of Noeldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte
und Untersuchungen, Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning its
composition to the latter part (summer or fall) of the year 197, its
date may be accepted as practically established.

[276] Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage
from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from
an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language
appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance
with it, for he translates Hadrian's rescript to Fundanus from Latin
into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of
so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound
knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding
that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the only work of
Tertullian's which he quotes is his Apology, and he uses only a Greek
translation of that. It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of
Tertullian's works, or at least the most of them, were not translated,
and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read
them in the original with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion
in regard to his knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small
acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general.
In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of
the important Latin works which had been produced before his time,
except such as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen's note
in his edition of Eusebius' History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The
translation of Tertullian's Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as
may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted
in Bk. II. chap. 25, S:4. For the mistakes, however, of course not
Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held
responsible.

[277] Tertullian's Apology, chap. 5.

[278] Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian's Apology, p. 56)
that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero's De Legibus in
the words: Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas
nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto.

[279] MEURrkos 'Aimilios houtos peri tinos eidolou pepoieken
'Albournou. Latin: Scit M. AEmilius de deo suo Alburno. In Adv.
Marcionem, I. 18, Tertullian says, Alioquin si sic homo Deum
commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et
Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus
Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non
regem, nec imperatorem. I cannot discover that this eidolos or Deus
Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than Tertullian, nor do I
find a reference to him in any dictionary accessible to me.

[280] Literally, "This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake of)
our doctrine" (kai touto huper tou hemon logou pepoietai); but the
freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense.
The original Latin reads: facit et hoc ad causam nostram.

[281] This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and
cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine. Tertullian was probably,
as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated documents
from some Christian source. He cannot have secured his knowledge from
original state records. The falsification took place, probably, long
after the time of Tiberius. Tertullian is the first writer to mention
these circumstances, and Tertullian was not by any means a critical
historian. Compare Neander's remarks in his Church History, Vol. I. p.
93 sqq. (Torrey's Translation).

[282] Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan's rescript and all
subsequent imperial action upon the subject would become inexplicable.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.--The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout All the
World.

1. Thus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine
co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun,
quickly illumined the whole world; [283] and straightway, in accordance
with the divine Scriptures, [284] the voice of the inspired evangelists
and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their words to the
end of the world.

2. In every city and village, churches were quickly established, filled
with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor. And those
whose minds, in consequence of errors which had descended to them from
their forefathers, were fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous
superstition, were, by the power of Christ operating through the
teaching and the wonderful works of his disciples, set free, as it
were, from terrible masters, and found a release from the most cruel
bondage. They renounced with abhorrence every species of demoniacal
polytheism, and confessed that there was only one God, the creator of
all things, and him they honored with the rites of true piety, through
the inspired and rational worship which has been planted by our Saviour
among men.

3. But the divine grace being now poured out upon the rest of the
nations, Cornelius, of Caesarea in Palestine, with his whole house,
through a divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first received
faith in Christ; [285] and after him a multitude of other Greeks in
Antioch, [286] to whom those who were scattered by the persecution of
Stephen had preached the Gospel. When the church of Antioch was now
increasing and abounding, and a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem
were on the ground, [287] among them Barnabas and Paul and in addition
many other brethren, the name of Christians first sprang up there,
[288] as from a fresh and life-giving fountain. [289]

4. And Agabus, one of the prophets who was with them, uttered a
prophecy concerning the famine which was about to take place, [290] and
Paul and Barnabas were sent to relieve the necessities of the brethren.
[291]
__________________________________________________________________

[283] Compare Col. i. 6. That Christianity had already spread over the
whole world at this time is, of course, an exaggeration; but the
statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it was believed as a
historical fact. This conception arose originally out of the idea that
the second coming of Christ was near, and the whole world must know of
him before his coming. The tradition that the apostles preached in all
parts of the world is to be traced back to the same cause.

[284] Ps. xix. 4.

[285] See Acts x. 1 sq.

[286] See Acts xi. 20. The Textus Receptus of the New Testament reads
at this point ;;EllenistEURs, a reading which is strongly supported by
external testimony and adopted by Westcott and Hort. But the internal
evidence seems to demand ;'Ellenas, and this reading is found in some
of the oldest versions and in a few mss., and is adopted by most modern
critics, including Tischendorf. Eusebius is a witness for the latter
reading. He takes the word ;'Ellenas in a broad sense to indicate all
that are not Jews, as is clear from his insertion of the allon, "other
Greeks," after speaking of Cornelius, who was not a Greek, but a Roman.
Closs accordingly translates Nichtjuden, and Stigloher Heiden.

[287] See Acts xi. 22 sqq.

[288] See Acts xi. 26. This name was first given to the disciples by
the heathen of Antioch, not by the Jews, to whom the word "Christ"
meant too much; nor by the disciples themselves, for the word seldom
appears in the New Testament, and nowhere in the mouth of a disciple.
The word christianos has a Latin termination, but this does not prove
that it was invented by Romans, for Latinisms were common in the Greek
of that day. It was probably originally given as a term of contempt,
but accepted by the disciples as a term of the highest honor.

[289] ap' euthalous kai gonimou peges. Two mss., followed by Stephanus,
Valesius, Closs, and Cruse, read ges; but all the other mss., together
with Rufinus, support the reading peges, which is adopted by the
majority of editors.

[290] See Acts xi. 28. Agabus is known to us only from this and one
other passage of the Acts (xxi. 10), where he foretells the
imprisonment of Paul. The famine here referred to took place in the
reign of Claudius, where Eusebius puts it when he mentions it again in
chap. 8. He cannot therefore be accused, as many accuse him, of putting
the famine itself into the reign of Tiberius, and hence of committing a
chronological error. He is following the account of the Acts, and
mentions the prominent fact of the famine in that connection, without
thinking of chronological order. His method is, to be sure, loose, as
he does not inform his readers that he is anticipating by a number of
years, but leaves them to discover it for themselves when they find the
same subject taken up again after a digression of four chapters. Upon
the famine itself, see below, chap. 8.

[291] See Acts xi. 29, 30.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.--After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa King
of the Jews, having punished Herod with Perpetual Exile.

1. Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two years, [292]
and Caius succeeded him in the empire. [293] He immediately gave the
government of the Jews to Agrippa, [294] making him king over the
tetrarchies of Philip and of Lysanias; in addition to which he bestowed
upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod, [295] having
punished Herod (the one under whom the Saviour suffered [296] ) and his
wife Herodias with perpetual exile [297] on account of numerous crimes.
Josephus is a witness to these facts. [298]

2. Under this emperor, Philo [299] became known; a man most celebrated
not only among many of our own, but also among many scholars without
the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior to none of those
who held high dignities in Alexandria. How exceedingly he labored in
the Scriptures and in the studies of his nation is plain to all from
the work which he has done. How familiar he was with philosophy and
with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not necessary to
say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in
the study of Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, to which he
particularly devoted his attention. [300]
__________________________________________________________________

[292] From Aug. 29, a.d. 14, to March 16, a.d. 37.

[293] Caius ruled from the death of Tiberius until Jan. 24, a.d. 41.

[294] Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grandson of
Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and gained high favor with
Caius, and upon the latter's accession to the throne received the
tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in a.d. 39 the tetrarchy of
Galilee and Perea, which had belonged to Herod Antipas. After the death
of Caius, his successor, Claudius, appointed him also king over the
province of Judea and Samaria, which made him ruler of all Palestine, a
dominion as extensive as that of Herod the Great. He was a strict
observer of the Jewish law, and courted the favor of the Jews with
success. It was by him that James the Elder was beheaded, and Peter
imprisoned (Acts xii.). He died of a terrible disease in a.d. 44. See
below, chap. 10.

[295] Herod Antipas.

[296] See Luke xxiii. 7-11.

[297] He was banished in a.d. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul (according to
Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according to his B. J. II. 9.
6), and died in Spain (according to B. J. II. 9. 6).

[298] See Ant. XVIII. 6 and 7, and B. J. II. 9.

[299] Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born
probably about 20-10 b.c. (in his Legat. ad Cajum, he calls himself an
old man). Very little is known about his life, and the time of his
death is uncertain. The only fixed date which we have is the embassy to
Caligula (a.d. 40), and he lived for at least some time after this. He
is mentioned by Jerome (de vir. ill. 11), who says he was born of a
priestly family; but Eusebius knows nothing of this, and there is
probably no truth in the statement. He is mentioned also by Josephus in
his Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. He was a Jewish philosopher, thoroughly imbued
with the Greek spirit, who strove to unite Jewish beliefs with Greek
culture, and exerted immense influence upon the thought of subsequent
ages, especially upon Christian theology. His works (Biblical,
historical, philosophical, practical, &c.) are very numerous, and
probably the majority of them are still extant. For particulars, see
chap. 18, below. For an excellent account of Philo, see Schuerer,
Geschichte des Juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi; zweite
Auflage, Bd. II. p. 831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1886), where the chief
literature upon the subject is given.

[300] Philo was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its
departments, and shows great familiarity with it in his works. The
influence of Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his
philosophical system, but also upon his language; and all the Greek
philosophers were studied and honored by him. He may, indeed, himself
be called one of them. His system is eclectic, and contains not only
Platonic, but also Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements. Upon his
doctrinal system, see especially Schuerer, ibid. p. 836 sq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.--Philo's Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews.

1. Philo has given us an account, in five books, of the misfortunes of
the Jews under Caius. [301] He recounts at the same time the madness of
Caius: how he called himself a god, and performed as emperor
innumerable acts of tyranny; and he describes further the miseries of
the Jews under him, and gives a report of the embassy upon which he
himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in
Alexandria; [302] how when he appeared before Caius in behalf of the
laws of his fathers he received nothing but laughter and ridicule, and
almost incurred the risk of his life.

2. Josephus also makes mention of these things in the eighteenth book
of his Antiquities, in the following words: [303] "A sedition having
arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks,
[304] three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius.

3. One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion, [305] who uttered many
slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they
neglected the honors due to Caesar. For while all other subjects of
Rome erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects
treated him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it
disgraceful to honor him with statues and to swear by his name.

4. And when Apion had uttered many severe charges by which he hoped
that Caius would be aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of
the Jewish embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of
Alexander the Alabarch, [306] and not unskilled in philosophy, was
prepared to enter upon a defense in reply to his accusations.

5. But Caius prevented him and ordered him to leave, and being very
angry, it was plain that he meditated some severe measure against them.
And Philo departed covered with insult and told the Jews that were with
him to be of good courage; for while Caius was raging against them he
was in fact already contending with God."

6. Thus far Josephus. And Philo himself, in the work On the Embassy
[307] which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail the things
which were done by him at that time. But I shall omit the most of them
and record only those things which will make clearly evident to the
reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them not long after
their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the same.

7. And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of
Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the
emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly; [308]
and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour
were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in
respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in
Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults. [309]
__________________________________________________________________

[301] Upon this work, see Schuerer, p. 855 sqq. According to him, the
whole work embraced five books, and probably bore the title peri areton
kai presbeias pros GEURion. Eusebius cites what seems to be the same
work under these two different titles in this and in the next chapter;
and the conclusion that they were but one work is confirmed by the fact
that Eusebius (in chap. 18) mentions the work under the title On the
Virtues, which he says that Philo humorously prefixed to his work,
describing the impiety of Caius. The omission of the title he presbeia
in so complete a catalogue of Philo's works makes its identification
with peri areton very probable. Of the five, only the third and fourth
are extant,--eis PhlEURkkon, Adversus Flaccum, and peri presbeias pros
GEURion, de legatione ad Cajum (found in Mangey's ed. Vol. II. p.
517-600). Book I., which is lost, contained, probably, a general
introduction; Book II., which is also lost, contained an account of the
oppression of the Jews during the time of Tiberius, by Sejanus in Rome,
and by Pilate in Judea (see below, note 9); Book III., Adversus Flaccum
(still extant), contains an account of the persecution of the Jews of
Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Caius; Book IV., Legatio ad
Cajum (still extant), describes the sufferings which came upon the Jews
as a result of Caius' command that divine honors should everywhere be
paid him; Book V., the palinodia (which is lost), contained an account
of the change for the better in the Jews' condition through the death
of Caius, and the edict of toleration published by Claudius. Upon the
other works of Philo, see chap. 18, below.

[302] The occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which had
arisen between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had continued
with occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much blood had been
shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse. All efforts to secure
peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 a.d., the Greeks dispatched an
embassy to the emperor, hoping to secure from him an edict for the
extermination of the Jews. The Jews, on their side, followed the
example of the Greeks, sending an embassy for their own defense, with
Philo at its head. The result was as Eusebius relates, and the Jews
were left in a worse condition than before, from which, however, they
were speedily relieved by the death of Caius. Claudius, who succeeded
Caius, restored to them for a time religious freedom and all the rights
which they had hitherto enjoyed.

[303] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 8. 1.

[304] This sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 a.d., soon after the
accession of Caius. The Jews, since the time of Alexander the Great,
when they had come in great numbers to the newly founded city,
Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions high favor there,
and were among the most influential inhabitants. They possessed all the
rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality with their neighbors
in all respects. When Alexandria fell into the hands of the Romans, all
the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks, were compelled to take a
position subordinate to the conquerors, but their condition was not
worse than that of their neighbors. They had always, however, been
hated more or less by their fellow-citizens on account of their
prosperity, which was the result of superior education and industry.
This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when the financial condition
of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants felt themselves unusually
burdened by the Roman demands. The old hatred for their more prosperous
neighbors broke out afresh, and the terrible disturbance mentioned was
the result. The refusal of the Jews to worship Caius as a God was made
a pretext for attacking them, and it was this refusal which gained for
them the hatred of Caius himself.

[305] Apion, chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of
Alexandria who had won great fame as a writer and Greek scholar. He
seems to have been very unscrupulous and profligate, and was a bitter
and persistent enemy of the Jews, whom he attacked very severely in at
least two of his works--the Egyptian History and a special work Against
the Jews, neither of which is extant. He was very unscrupulous in his
attacks, inventing the most absurd and malicious falsehoods, which were
quite generally believed, and were the means of spreading still more
widely the common hatred of the Jews. Against him Josephus wrote his
celebrated work, Contra Apionem (more fully de antiquitate Judaeorum
contra Apionem), which is still extant, and in the second book of which
he exposes the ignorance and mendacity of Apion. In the
Pseudo-Clementines he plays an important (but of course fictitious)
role as an antagonist of the Gospel. The extant fragments of Apion's
works are given, according to Lightfoot, in Mueller's Fragm. Hist.
Graec. II. 506 sq., and in Fabricius' Bibl. Graec. I. 503, and VII. 50.
Compare Lightfoot's article in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[306] The Alabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexandria.
Alexander was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely known and
held in high esteem. His son Tiberius Alexander was appointed
procurator of Judea in 46 a.d., as successor of Cuspius Fadus. Philo
thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family. The accuracy of
Josephus' statement that Philo was the brother of the Alabarch
Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald. Gesch. des Juedischen
Volkes, Vol. VI. p. 235), and the Alabarch has been assumed to have
been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient ground (compare
Schuerer, ibid. p. 832, note 5).

[307] See note 1, above. The work is cited here under the title he
presbeia (Legatio).

[308] The Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had
increased greatly in numbers and influence there. They were first
disturbed by Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose
notice all the worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their
enemies, especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the
emperor, and was moreover a deadly enemy of the Jews. The Jews were
driven out of Rome, and suffered many acts of violence. After the death
of Sejanus, which took place in 31 a.d., they were allowed to return,
and their former rights were restored.

[309] Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical and was very
obnoxious to the Jews, offending them greatly at different times during
his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as no
procurator before him had ventured to do. Soon after his accession he
changed his quarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the
Roman standard into the Holy City. The result was a great tumult, and
Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns
(Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2; see the next chapter). At another time he
offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields inscribed with
the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon an express
order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, chap. 38). Again, he appropriated a
part of the treasure of the temple to the construction of an aqueduct,
which caused another terrible tumult which was quelled only after much
bloodshed (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4; see the next chapter). For further
particulars about Pilate, see chap. 7, below.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.--The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their
Presumption against Christ.

1. After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and, besides
innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he greatly
afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews. [310] These things
we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as follows:
[311]

2. "So great was the caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and
especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly
hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the
other cities, [312] and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with
images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them
he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city, which had
hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an inviolable
asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that it
might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger Caius."
[313]

3. Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which
came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor,
are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the
title, On the Virtues. [314] With him agrees also Josephus, who
likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with
the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Saviour.
[315]

4. Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he
writes as follows: [316] "Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by
Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called
ensigns, [317] to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the
greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were
confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled
under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city."

5. Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you
will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty
for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when
they cried out that they had no other king than Caesar. [318]

6. The same writer further records that after this another calamity
overtook them. He writes as follows: [319] "After this he stirred up
another tumult by making use of the holy treasure, which is called
Corban, [320] in the construction of an aqueduct three hundred stadia
in length. [321]

7. The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in
Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud
complaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through
the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen's clothing, forbidding
them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those
who should make an outcry. To them he now gave the preconcerted signal
from the tribunal. And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in
consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot by
their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives. But
the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who were slain, held their
peace."

8. In addition to these the same author records [322] many other
tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from
that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other
in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea
until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine
vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit
against Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

[310] Caius' hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as mentioned
above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors,
which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects. His
demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and in
Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his worship,
the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the yielding of the
emperor, who was induced to give up his demands by the request of
Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor with him. Whether the
Jews suffered in the same way in Rome we do not know, but it is
probable that the emperor endeavored to carry out the same plan there
as elsewhere.

[311] Philo, Legat. ad Caium, 43.

[312] en tais allais polesi. The reason for the use of the word "other"
is not quite clear, though Philo perhaps means all the cities except
Jerusalem, which he mentions a little below.

[313] "`Caius the younger,' to distinguish him from Julius Caesar who
bore the name Caius, and who was also deified" (Valesius).

[314] This work is probably the same as that mentioned in the beginning
of chap. 5. (See chap. 5, note 1.) The work seems to have borne two
titles he presbeia and peri areton. See Schuerer, ibid. p. 859, who
considers the deutero here the addition of a copyist, who could not
reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius.

[315] This is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of Eusebius,
as Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities of the
nation were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour.

[316] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2.

[317] semaiai kalountai

[318] John xix. 15.

[319] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4.

[320] Heb. Q+oR+B+uoN%; Greek korban and korbanas. The word denoted
originally any offering to God, especially an offering in fulfillment
of a vow. The form korbanas, which Josephus has employed here, was used
to denote the sacred treasure or the treasury itself. In Matt. xxvii.
6, the only place where this form of the word occurs in the New
Testament, it is used with the latter meaning. Upon this act of
Pilate's, see above, chap. 5, note 9.

[321] Josephus, in Ant. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was 200
stadia long. In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number given is
400, according to the Greek mss. of Josephus, though the old Latin
translation agrees with Eusebius in reading 300. The situation of the
aqueduct we do not know, though the remains of an ancient aqueduct have
been found to the south of Jerusalem, and it is thought that this may
have been the same. It is possible that Pilate did not construct a new
aqueduct, but simply restored one that had been built in the time of
Solomon. Schultz (Jerusalem, Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 40,
supposing that the aqueduct began at Bethlehem, which is 40 stadia from
Jerusalem.

[322] See B. J. II. 10, 12 sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.--Pilate's Suicide.

It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time
of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under
Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his
own murderer and executioner; [323] and thus divine vengeance, as it
seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek
historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the
respective events which have taken place in each period. [324]
__________________________________________________________________

[323] Pilate's downfall occurred in the following manner. A leader of
the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures which
Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the
Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters. Pilate,
supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops
against them and defeated them with great slaughter. The Samaritans
complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome (36
a.d.) to answer the charges brought against him. Upon reaching Rome he
found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the throne. He was unsuccessful in
his attempt to defend himself, and, according to tradition, was
banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a monument is still shown as Pilate's
tomb. According to another tradition he committed suicide upon the
mountain near Lake Lucerne, which bears his name.

[324] Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this
case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known to
us. We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the
trustworthiness of the account.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.--The Famine which took Place in the Reign of Claudius.

1. Caius had held the power not quite four years, [325] when he was
succeeded by the emperor Claudius. Under him the world was visited with
a famine, [326] which writers that are entire strangers to our religion
have recorded in their histories. [327] And thus the prediction of
Agabus recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, [328] according to which
the whole world was to be visited by a famine, received its
fulfillment.

2. And Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time of
Claudius, and stating that the brethren of Antioch, each according to
his ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and
Barnabas, [329] adds the following account.
__________________________________________________________________

[325] Caius ruled from March 16, a.d. 37, to Jan. 24, a.d. 41, and was
succeeded by his uncle Claudius.

[326] Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion
Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Annal. XII. 13, and Eusebius, Chron., year of
Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but no universal famine is
recorded such as Eusebius speaks of. According to Josephus (Ant. XX.
2.5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place in Judea while Cuspius Fadus
and Tiberius Alexander were successively procurators. Fadus was sent
into Judea upon the death of Agrippa (44 a.d.), and Alexander was
succeeded by Cumanus in 48 a.d. The exact date of Alexander's accession
we do not know, but it took place probably about 45 or 46. This famine
is without doubt the one referred to by Agabus in Acts xi. 28. The
exact meaning of the word oikoumene, in that passage, is a matter of
dispute. Whether it refers simply to Palestine, or is used to indicate
a succession of famines in different parts of the world, or is employed
only in a rhetorical sense, it is impossible to say. Eusebius
understands the word in its widest sense, and therefore assumes a
universal famine; but he is mistaken in his assumption.

[327] The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record a
famine during the reign of Claudius, are Dion Cassius and Tacitus, who
mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the famine in
Judea (see the previous note for the references). Eusebius, in his
Chron., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome during this reign,
but upon what authority we do not know. As already remarked, we have no
extant account of a general famine at this time.

[328] Acts xi. 28.

[329] Acts xi. 29, 30.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.--The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.

1. " [330] Now about that time" (it is clear that he means the time of
Claudius) "Herod the King [331] stretched forth his hands to vex
certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the
sword."

2. And concerning this James, Clement, in the seventh book of his
Hypotyposes, [332] relates a story which is worthy of mention; telling
it as he received it from those who had lived before him. He says that
the one who led James to the judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing his
testimony, was moved, and confessed that he was himself also a
Christian.

3. They were both therefore, he says, led away together; and on the way
he begged James to forgive him. And he, after considering a little,
said, "Peace be with thee," and kissed him. And thus they were both
beheaded at the same time.

4. And then, as the divine Scripture says, [333] Herod, upon the death
of James, seeing that the deed pleased the Jews, attacked Peter also
and committed him to prison, and would have slain him if he had not, by
the divine appearance of an angel who came to him by night, been
wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus liberated for the service
of the Gospel. Such was the providence of God in respect to Peter.
__________________________________________________________________

[330] Acts xii. 1, 2.

[331] Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.

[332] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3.
This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account was probably
received by Clement from oral tradition. He had a great store of such
traditions of the apostles and their immediate followers,--in how far
true or false it is impossible to say; compare the story which he tells
of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. chap. 23, below. This story of
James is not intrinsically improbable. It may have been true, though
external testimony for it is, of course, weak. The Latin legends
concerning James' later labors in Spain and his burial in Compostella
are entirely worthless. Epiphanius reports that he was unmarried, and
lived the life of a Nazarite; but he gives no authority for his
statement and it is not improbable that the report originated through a
confusion of this James with James the Just.

[333] Acts xii. 3sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter X.--Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the
Apostles, immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance.

1. The consequences of the king's undertaking against the apostles were
not long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice overtook
him immediately after his plots against them, as the Book of Acts
records. [334] For when he had journeyed to Caesarea, on a notable
feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he delivered an
address to the people from a lofty throne in front of the tribunal. And
when all the multitude applauded the speech, as if it were the voice of
a god and not of a man, the Scripture relates that an angel of the Lord
smote him, and being eaten of worms he gave up the ghost. [335]

2. We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the
divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he clearly
bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities,
where he relates the wonder in the following words: [336]

3. "He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea [337]
when he came to Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower.
[338] There he held games in honor of Caesar, learning that this was a
festival observed in behalf of Caesar's safety. [339] At this festival
was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men
in the province.

4. And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the theater at
break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful
texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection of the
sun's earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly as to
produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him.

5. And immediately his flatterers, some from one place, others from
another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for his good,
calling him a god, and saying, `Be thou merciful; if up to this time we
have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art superior
to the nature of mortals.'

6. The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their impious
flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above
his head. [340] And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of
evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune, [341] and he was
smitten with a heart-piercing pain.

7. And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest violence,
seized his bowels. And looking upon his friends he said, `I, your god,
am now commanded to depart this life; and fate thus on the spot
disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me. He who
has been called immortal by you is now led away to die; but our destiny
must be accepted as God has determined it. For we have passed our life
by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor which is pronounced
happiness.' [342]

8. And when he had said this he labored with an increase of pain. He
was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the report spread
among all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But the multitude,
with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth after the custom of
their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and every place was
filled with lamentation and tears. [343] And the king as he lay in a
lofty chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, could
not refrain from weeping himself.

9. And after suffering continually for five days with pain in the
bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and
in the seventh year of his reign. [344] Four years he ruled under the
Emperor Caius--three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to which was
added in the fourth year that of Herod [345] --and three years during
the reign of the Emperor Claudius."

10. I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these things as well as in
others, so fully agrees with the divine Scriptures. But if there should
seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect to the name of the
king, the time at least and the events show that the same person is
meant, whether the change of name has been caused by the error of a
copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so many, bore two names.
[346]
__________________________________________________________________

[334] See Acts xii. 19 sqq.

[335] Acts xii. 23.

[336] Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8. 2.

[337] 44 a.d. Agrippa began to reign over the whole kingdom in 41 a.d.
See above, chap. 4, note 3.

[338] Caesarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusalem.
In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this point,
called "Strato's Tower"; but about 10 b.c. Herod the Great built the
city of Caesarea, which soon became the principal Roman city of
Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence. It became, later, the
seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a part in
Church history. Eusebius himself was Bishop of Caesarea. It was a city
of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of
utter desolation.

[339] The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have considered
it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival
in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of these
suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival mentioned
was the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of
Augustus in 12 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XV. 8. 1; B. J. I. 21. 8), and
celebrated regularly every five years. See Wieseler's Chronologie des
ap. Zeitalters, p. 131 sqq., where this question is carefully discussed
in connection with the date of Agrippa's death which is fixed by
Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 a.d.

[340] The passage in Josephus reads: "But as he presently afterward
looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and
immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil
tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him."
This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in
Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made the
gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion of
the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation of
the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of, but
in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks
serious, but so severe an accusation--an accusation which impeaches the
honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner--should not be made
except upon unanswerable grounds. Eusebius elsewhere shows himself to
be a writer who, though not always critical, is at least honest in the
use he makes of his materials. In this case, therefore, his general
conduct ought to be taken into consideration, and he ought to be given
the benefit of the doubt. Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an
explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says:
"Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod
Agrippa's death was already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in
which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where
we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this
unjust charge." And in a note he adds: "It is not the substitution of
an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result
is produced mainly by the omission of some words in the text of
Josephus, which runs thus: anakupsas d' oun met' oligon[ton boubona]
tes heautou kephales huper kathezomenon eiden[epi schoiniou tinos]
angelon[te] touton euthus enoese kakon einai, ton kai pote ton agathon
genomenon. The words bracketed are omitted, and aition is added after
einai, so that the sentence runs, eiden angelon touton euthus enoese
kakon einai aition k.t.l. This being so, I do not feel at all sure that
the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by any disingenuous
motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble over ton
boubona, which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have
been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to
extract some sense out of it. In the previous mention of the bird (Ant.
XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator, gives it as a Latin name:
boubona de hoi ;;Romaioi ton ornin touton kalousi. Moeller (quoted by
Bright, p. XLV.) calls this `the one case' in which, so far as he
recollects, `a sinceritatis via paululum deflexit noster'; and even
here the indictment cannot be made good. The severe strictures against
Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts xii. 21, are altogether
unjustifiable" (Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biog. II. p. 325).
The Greek word boubon means, according to Liddell and Scott, (1) the
groin, (2) a swelling in the groin. The Latin word Bubo signifies "an
owl," and the word is here directly transferred by Josephus from the
Latin into Greek without any explanation. A scribe unacquainted with
Latin might easily stumble at the word, as Lightfoot suggests. In Ant.
XVIII. 6, 7 where the bird is mentioned, the name is, to be sure,
explained; but the alteration at this point was made apparently by a
copyist of Eusebius, not of Josephus, and therefore by one who had
probably never seen that explanation. Whiston in his translation of
Josephus inserts a note to the following effect: "We have a mighty cry
made here by some writers, as if the great Eusebius had on purpose
falsified this account of Josephus, so as to make it agree with the
parallel account in the Acts of the Apostles, because the present
copies of his citation of it, Hist. Eccles. Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the
words boubona ...epi schoiniou, tinos, i.e. `an owl ...on a certain
rope,' which Josephus' present copies retain, and only have the
explanatory word angelon, or `angel,' as if he meant that `angel of the
Lord' which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not
that owl, which Josephus called `an angel or messenger, formerly of
good but now of bad news,' to Agrippa. This accusation is a somewhat
strange one in the case of the great Eusebius, who is known to have so
accurately and faithfully produced a vast number of other ancient
records and particularly not a few out of our Josephus also, without
any suspicion of prevarication. Now, not to allege how uncertain we
are, whether Josephus' and Eusebius' copies of the fourth century were
just like the present in this clause, which we have no distinct
evidence of, the following words preserved still in Eusebius will not
admit of any such exposition. `This [bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa
presently perceived to be the cause of ill fortune, as it was once of
good fortune'; which can belong only to that bird the `owl,' which, as
it had formerly foreboded his happy deliverance from imprisonment, Ant.
XVIII. 6. 7, so was it then foretold to prove afterward the unhappy
forewarner of his death in five days' time. If the improper word
aition, or `cause,' be changed for Josephus' proper word angelon,
`angel,' or `messenger,' and the foregoing words, boubona epi schoiniou
tinos, be inserted, Eusebius' text will truly represent that in
Josephus."

[341] Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was in
chains--having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius--an owl made
its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. A fellow-prisoner
interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying that Agrippa would
soon be released from his bonds and become king, but that the same bird
would appear to him again five days before his death. Tiberius died in
the following year, and the events prophesied came to pass. The story
was apparently implicitly believed by Josephus, who relates it in good
faith.

[342] The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the mss. of
Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read epi
tes makarizomenes lamprotetos, which I have adopted in preference to
the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good mss. in substituting
makari& 231;tetos for lamprotetos

[343] This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the favor
of the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death from that
exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.

[344] He was born in 10 b.c., and began to reign as successor of Philip
and Lysanias in 37 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.

[345] Herod Antipas.

[346] Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name,
while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is known to us
under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange that Eusebius
should not have known that he bore the two names, Herod Agrippa,
instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does. In the heading
of the chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that he
entertained any uncertainty in the matter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI.--The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.

1. Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the
consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time
referred to, [347] "rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody;
who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered." [348]
Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He
records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances:
[349]

2. "While Fadus was procurator of Judea [350] a certain impostor called
Theudas [351] persuaded a very great multitude to take their
possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he was
a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and
afford them an easy passage.

3. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them
to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who
fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others
alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head
and carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he also makes mention of the
famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following
words.
__________________________________________________________________

[347] kata ton deloumenon chronon, i.e. about the time of Agrippa's
death. But Luke writes pro gar touton ton hemeron, "Before these days."

[348] Acts v. 36.

[349] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1.

[350] About 44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2.

[351] There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this
Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by
Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by
Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that. Various
solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost any
one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the
alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare
Wieseler's Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1; Ewald's Gesch.
des Juedischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost's Gesch. der Israeliten,
Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts in
loco. A question of more importance for us, in the present instance, is
as to Eusebius' conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke
with the Theudas of Josephus,--an identification which is impossible,
if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently
been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of
promoting the credibility of Luke's accounts. But a protest must again
be entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius.
A man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not
have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a
glaring anachronism--an anachronism which every reader had the means of
exposing--for the sake of making a point in confirmation of the
narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would
certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would
not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover
in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible
reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius'
anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many
blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology.
He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar
character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without
a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the
passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting
that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of
the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XII.--Helen, the Queen of the Osrhoenians.

1. [352] "And at this time [353] it came to pass that the great famine
[354] took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen, [355] having
purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the
needy."

2. You will find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the
Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, "each
according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren
that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by
the hands of Barnabas and Paul." [356]

3. But splendid monuments [357] of this Helen, of whom the historian
has made mention, are still shown in the suburbs of the city which is
now called AElia. [358] But she is said to have been queen of the
Adiabeni. [359]
__________________________________________________________________

[352] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2.

[353] In the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius
Alexander.

[354] Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of
his Ant., chap. 2, S:5.

[355] Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son
Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king Monabazus of
Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor. Both Izates and
Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening to come to
Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to relieve the
distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by her son. After their
death the bones of both mother and son were brought to Jerusalem and
buried just outside of the walls, where Helen had erected three
pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).

[356] Acts xi. 29, 30. The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul.
But the change made by Eusebius is a very natural one.

[357] "Pausanias (in Arcadicis) speaks of these great monuments of
Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome, too, testifies
that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a palace in
Jerusalem" (Stroth).

[358] AElia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by
Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6).

[359] Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris,
Lycus, and the Gordiaean Mountains (see Dion Cassius, LXVIII.), but
before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith's Dict. of Greek
and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense to indicate
Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N. VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus,
XXIII. 6). Izates was king of Adiabene in the narrower sense.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIII.--Simon Magus. [360]

1. But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been
diffused among all men, [361] the enemy of man's salvation contrived a
plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither
the above-mentioned Simon, [362] aided him in his deceitful arts, led
many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his
own power.

2. This is stated by Justin, [363] one of our distinguished writers who
lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall
speak in the proper place. [364] Take and read the work of this man,
who in the first Apology [365] which he addressed to Antonine in behalf
of our religion writes as follows: [366]

3. "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put
forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only
allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of
honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,
[367] who in the reign of Claudius Caesar [368] performed in your
imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating
in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with
a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber, [369] between the two
bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo
Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God. [370]

4. And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations
confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with
him at that time a certain Helena [371] who had formerly been a
prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that
proceeded from him." [372]

5. Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in
the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account
of the man [373] and of his profane and impure teaching. It would be
superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for those who
wish to know the origin and the lives and the false doctrines of each
of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well as the customs
practiced by them all, to find them treated at length in the
above-mentioned work of Irenaeus.

6. We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. [374]
From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy
have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is
celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they
nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they
seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images
of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him;
and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and
libations.

7. But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard
to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished,
and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be
confounded, [375] are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness
and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to
commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with
the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness. [376]

8. For whatever could be conceived of, viler than the vilest thing--all
that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed
of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally
overwhelmed with all kinds of vices. [377]
__________________________________________________________________

[360] It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Eusebius'
History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which relate to
heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age than to the
author. A right understanding of heresies and an appreciation of any
truth which they might contain was utterly impossible to men who looked
upon heresy as the work of the devil, and all heretics as his chosen
tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some, because he gives his
information about heretics only from second hand, and quotes none of
them directly; but it must be remembered that this method was by no
means peculiar to Eusebius, and, moreover, it is highly probable that
he did not have access to any of their works. The accounts of the
heretics given by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others would of course be
preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves would be piously
excluded as completely as possible from all Christian libraries, and
the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the Church. The
sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for a knowledge
of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know them almost
solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in the same way
and very likely for the same reason.

[361] See chap. 3, note 1.

[362] Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts viii. 9 sqq.
(quoted above, in chap. 1), played a very prominent role in early
Church history. His life has been so greatly embellished with legends
that it is very difficult to extract a trustworthy account of him.
Indeed the Tuebingen school, as well as some other modern critics, have
denied altogether the existence of such a personage, and have resolved
the account of him into a Jewish Christian fiction produced in
hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon was attacked
as the real heretic. But this identification of Paul and Simon rests
upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can be adduced in
which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed the thought of
identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have occurred to the writer
of the Recognitions. The most that can be said is that the author of
the Homilies gives, and without doubt purposely, some Pauline traits to
his picture of Simon, but this does not imply that he makes Simon no
more than a mask for Paul (cf. the words of Salmon in his article,
Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. I. p. 576).
The original of Simon then is not to be found in Paul. The third
century fiction is based upon a real historic person whose actual
existence must be assumed to account for the early notices of him in
the Acts and in Justin Martyr, as well as the common tradition of him
among all parties in the Church. Salmon considers Simon of Gitton--the
basis of the account of Justin Martyr and of all the later Simon
legends--a second century Gnostic distinct from the Simon mentioned in
the Acts (see his excellent article Simon Magus, in the Dict. of
Christ. Biog. IV. p. 681 sqq.). In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is
represented as traveling widely and spreading his errors in all
directions, while Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing his
impostures, and refutes him repeatedly in public disputations, until at
length he conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his life by
suicide. His death, as well as his life, is recorded in various
conflicting and fabulous traditions (see note 9, below). For ancient
accounts of Simon, see Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 and 56 and Dial. c.
Trypho. CXX.; the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions;
Irenaeus, I. 23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; Tertullian's Apology, On
Idolatry, On the Soul, etc.; Apost. Constitutions, VII. 7 sq.;
Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, II. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and
Paul (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq.); Epiphanius,
Haer. XXI.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 1. See also Lipsius, article
in Schinkel's Bibel-Lexicon, Vol. V.

[363] In his Apology, I. 26, 56.

[364] In Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16-18.

[365] On Justin's Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note 2.

[366] Justin's Apology, I. 26.

[367] Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapolis (the modern
Nablus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village of
Kuryet Jit (see Robinson's Biblical Researches, III. p. 144, note).
Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin's report, for the reason that
Josephus (Ant. XXII. 7. 2) mentions a magician named Simon, of about
the same date, who was born in Cyprus. There was a town called Kition
in Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this
place for the Samaritan Gitton. But even if we assume the identity of
the two Simons as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a
native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own
country, than that Josephus was. Simon's activity may have extended to
Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken his
birthplace.

[368] Justin here assigns Simon's visit to Rome to the reign of
Claudius (41-54 a.d.), as Irenaeus also does. Other accounts assign it
to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his death;
suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, voluntary
burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c., are
reported in different traditions. All, however, agree that he visited
Rome at some time or another.

[369] That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a
short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name Isola
Tiberiana, or di S. Sebastiano.

[370] In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco deo fidio,
&c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but this statue
was erected to the Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is therefore highly
probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue of Simon Magus.
This is now the commonly accepted view, though the translator of Justin
Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to dispute it (see the Am.
ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given a second time by Justin
in his Apol. 56, and also by Irenaeus, I. 23. 1 (who, however, simply
says "It is said," and may have drawn his knowledge only from Justin
Martyr) and by Tertullian, Apol. chap. 13. The last named is in general
a poor authority even if he be independent of Justin at this point,
which is not probable. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us
an account of the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing
about the statue and his silence is a strong argument against it.

[371] A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenaeus, I. 23; by
Hippolytus, VI. 15 (who adds some important particulars); by
Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Haer. 21; and by Theodoret,
Haer. Fab. I. 1; compare also Origen, Contra Celsum, V. 62. Simon
taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind, the mother
of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence, &c. The
Simonians, according to Irenaeus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus (VI. 15;
see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom they honored
as Jupiter and Minerva. Simon's doctrines and practice, as recorded by
these Fathers, show some of the general conceptions common to all the
Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and undeveloped form of
Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II.
p. 880 sq., and all the works upon Simon Magus.

[372] This conception of the idea (znnoia) is thoroughly Gnostic, and
plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems. Most of these
systems had a dualistic element recognizing the dunamis and the
znnoiaas the original principles from whose union all beings emanated.
These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the
different systems.

[373] Irenaeus adv. Haer. I. 23.

[374] See note 3, above.

[375] thambothesesthai

[376] This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom
picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the
purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of them as
an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense. This
thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism has been
perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject. Neander was
the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treatment of it (in his
Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost. Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and since
that time the subject has been treated intelligently and
discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius, Lightfoot, Salmon
and especially Harnack who has grasped the true principle of Gnosticism
perhaps more fully than any one else. See his Dogmengeschichte, I. p.
158 sqq.

[377] This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and
licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the
Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see
below, IV. 11, note 24), Saturninus, Tatian, &c., went to the opposite
extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying both of
these extremes we perceive the same principle--a dualism of matter and
spirit, therefore of body and mind--the former considered as the work
of the devil, and therefore to be despised and abused: the latter as
divine, and therefore to be honored above all else. The abhorrence of
the body, and of matter and nature in general, logically led to one of
the two opposite results, asceticism or antinomianism, according to the
character and instincts of the person himself. See Schaff, Church Hist.
II. p. 457 sqq. The Fathers, in their hatred of all forms of heresy,
naturally saw no good in any of them, and heretics were therefore
indiscriminately accused of immorality and licentiousness in their
worst forms.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIV.--The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

1. The evil power, [378] who hates all that is good and plots against
the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and
author of such wickedness, [379] as if to make him a mighty antagonist
of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.

2. For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its
ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the
kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every
high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God." [380]

3. Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the
others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those
apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the
splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but
lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then
flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.

4. Immediately [381] the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the
eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil
deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in
Judea, [382] he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the
East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to
his mind.

5. And coming to the city of Rome, [383] by the mighty co-operation of
that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so
successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as
a god by the erection of a statue. [384]

6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of
Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all
things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the
one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to
Rome [385] against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble
commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise
of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in
the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings
salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven. [386]
__________________________________________________________________

[378] See the previous chapter, note 1.

[379] See chap. 1, note 25.

[380] 2 Cor. x. 5.

[381] The significance of the word "immediately" as employed here is
somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding context
with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that Eusebius may
have been using at this point some unknown source and that the word
"immediately" refers to an encounter which Simon had had with Peter
(perhaps his Caesarean discussion, mentioned in the Clementines), of
which an account was given in the document employed by Eusebius. The
figure employed here is most remarkable.

[382] Acts viii. 9 sqq. This occurred in Samaria, not in Judea proper,
but Eusebius evidently uses the word "Judea" in a wide sense, to
indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Samaria. It
is not impossible, especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a
written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is
referred to. Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic
Constitutions, VI. 8.

[383] Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics.
They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism
which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his
transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial
seat of the devil.

[384] See above, chap. 13, note 11.

[385] Upon the historic truth of Peter's visit to Rome, see below,
chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did
visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that
he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition
that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost
universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent
years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so
long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubtedly took
its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous
chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits
of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier
date for Simon's arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also the same
date for Peter's arrival there, although Justin does not mention Peter
in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius quotes. The
assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during the reign of
Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter's later life from the
New Testament and from other early writers. In 44 a.d. he was in
Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in 51 he was again there
(according to Acts xv.); and a little later in Antioch (according to
Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in
various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle,
and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see
chap. 15, note 7). At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul
wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made
of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent. Nor can he have
been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to
63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the
extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap. 25, note 7) that
he met his death there. We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome
at any rate until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the
summer of 64 a.d. As most of the accounts put Simon Magus' visit to
Rome in the reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make
him follow Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing
and attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius
follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon's visit to Rome;
but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter,
which neither Justin nor Irenaeus mentions. The earlier date for
Simon's visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition.
Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the
reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the
presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon's meeting with
Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by
Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap.
Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the Acts of the
Apostles Peter and Paul. It is impossible to tell from what source
Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Irenaeus, nor Tertullian
mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too much,
as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow. As
to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so
conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet
recording the meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could
hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and
Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines
were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the
source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs. It is highly
probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenaeus as far as
they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact
commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no written
authority; or it is possible that he had another source, unknown to us,
as suggested above (note 4).

[386] A most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an
excellent illustration of Eusebius' rhetorical style.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XV.--The Gospel according to Mark.

1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, [387]
the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together
with the man himself. [388] And so greatly did the splendor of piety
illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with
hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of
the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,
[389] a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he
would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been
orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had
prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written
Gospel which bears the name of Mark. [390]

2. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of
the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of
the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for
the purpose of being used in the churches. [391] Clement in the eighth
book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the
bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. [392] And Peter makes mention of
Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself,
as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon,
as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon,
elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
[393]
__________________________________________________________________

[387] The origin of the Church at Rome is shrouded in mystery. Eusebius
gives the tradition which rules in the Catholic Church, viz.: that
Christianity was introduced into Rome by Peter, who went there during
the reign of Claudius. But this tradition is sufficiently disproved by
history. The origin of the Church was due to unknown persons, though it
is possible we may obtain a hint of them in the Andronicus and Junta of
Romans xvi. 7, who are mentioned as apostles, and who were therefore,
according to the usage of the word in Paul's writings, persons that
introduced Christianity into a new place--missionaries proper, who did
not work on others' ground.

[388] See chap. 12, note 9, and chap. 14, note 8.

[389] John Mark, son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), a sister of Barnabas (Col.
iv. 10), was a companion of Paul and Barnabas in their missionary
journeys, and afterward a companion of Barnabas alone (Acts xv. 39),
and still later was with Paul again in Rome (Col. iv. 10 and Philemon
24), and with Peter when he wrote his first epistle (1 Pet. v. 13). For
the later traditions concerning Mark, see the next chapter, note 1.

[390] That Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of Peter,
or as a record of what he had heard from him, is the universal
tradition of antiquity. Papias, in the famous and much-disputed passage
(quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first to record the
tradition. Justin Martyr refers to Mark's Gospel under the name
"Memoirs (apomnemoneumata) of Peter" (Dial. c. Tryph. 106; the
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. I. p. 252, which
refers the autou to Christ, is incorrect; compare Weiss, N. T.
Einleitung, p. 44, note 4). Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 11. 1, quoted
below, V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV. 5), and Origen (quoted
below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which is repeated over and over
again by the Fathers. The question as to the real authorship of our
second Gospel, or rather as to its composition and its relation to
Matthew and Luke, is a very difficult one. The relationship of the
three synoptical Gospels was first discussed by Augustine (De Consensu
Evangelistarum), who defended the traditional order, but made Mark
dependent upon Matthew. This view prevailed until the beginning of the
present century, when the problem was attacked anew, and since then it
has been the crux of the literary criticism of the Bible. The three
have been held to be dependent upon each other, and every possible
order has found its advocates; a common source has been assumed for the
three: the Hebrew Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see Bk.
III. chap. 25, note 24), our canonical Gospel of Mark, or an original
Mark, resembling the present one; a number of fragmentary documents
have been assumed; while others, finally, have admitted only oral
tradition as the basis. According to Baur's tendency theory, Matthew
(polemically Jewish-Christian) came first, followed by an original Luke
(polemically Pauline-Christian), then by our Mark, which was based upon
both and written in the interest of neutrality, and lastly by our
present Luke, designed as a final irenicum. This view now finds few
advocates. The whole matter is still unsettled, but criticism seems to
be gradually converging toward a common ground type (or rather two
independent types) for all three while at the same time maintaining the
relative independence of the three, one toward the other. What these
ground types were, is a matter of still sharper dispute, although
criticism is gradually drawing their larger features with more and more
certainty and clearness. (The latest discussion upon the subject by
Handmann, das Hebraeer-Evangelium, makes the two types the "Ur-Marcus"
and the Gospel of the Hebrews.) That in the last analysis, however,
some space must still be left for floating tradition, or for documents
irreducible to the one or two types, seems absolutely certain. For
further information as to the state of discussion upon this intricate
problem, see among recent works, especially Weiss, Einleitung, p. 473
sqq., Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 328 sqq., and Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. 575
sqq., where the literature down to 1882 is given with great fullness.
Conservative opinion puts the composition of all the synoptic Gospels
before the destruction of Jerusalem (for the date of Luke, see III. 4,
note 12); but the critical school, while throwing the original type
back of that date, considers the composition of our present Gospels to
have been the gradual work of years, assuming that they were not
finally crystallized into the form in which we have them before the
second century.

[391] This mention of the "pleasure" of Peter, and the "authority"
given by him to the work of Mark, contradicts the account of Clement to
which Eusebius here appeals as his authority. In Bk. VI. chap. 14 he
quotes from the Hypotyposes of Clement, a passage which must be
identical with the one referred to in this place, for it is from the
same work and the general account is the same; but there Clement says
expressly, "which when Peter understood he neither directly hindered
nor encouraged it."

[392] The passage from Papias is quoted below in Bk. III. chap. 39.
Papias is a witness to the general fact that Mark wrote down what he
had heard from Peter, but not (so far as he is extant) to the details
of the account as given by Eusebius. Upon Papias himself, see Bk. III.
chap. 39.

[393] 1 Pet. v. 13. Commentators are divided as to the place in which
Peter wrote this epistle (compare Schaff's Church Hist. I. p. 744
sqq.). The interpretation given by Eusebius is the patristic and Roman
Catholic opinion, and is maintained by many Protestant commentators.
But on the other hand the literal use of the word "Babylon" is defended
by a great number of the leading scholars of the present day. Compare
Weiss, N. T. Einleitung, p. 433, note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVI.--Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of
Egypt.

1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt,
and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first
established churches in Alexandria. [394]

2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were
collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most
philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo
thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings,
their entertainments, and their whole manner of life." [395]
__________________________________________________________________

[394] That Mark labored in Egypt is stated also by Epiphanius (Haer.
LI. 6), by Jerome (de vir. ill. 8), by Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43), and
by the Acta Barnabae, p. 26 (Tischendorf's Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 74),
which were written probably in the third century. Eusebius gained his
knowledge apparently from oral tradition, for he uses the formula,
"they say" (phasin). In chap. 24, below, he says that Annianus
succeeded Mark as a leader of the Alexandrian Church in the eighth year
of Nero (62 a.d.), thus implying that Mark died in that year; and
Jerome gives the same date for his death. But if the tradition that he
wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter (or after Peter's death, as the
best tradition puts it, so e.g. Irenaeus) be correct, then this date is
hopelessly wrong. The varying traditions are at best very uncertain,
and the whole career of Mark, so far as it is not recorded in the New
Testament, is involved in obscurity.

[395] See the next chapter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVII.--Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt.

1. It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became
acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. [396] Nor
is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and
which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those
rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us.

2. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our
ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved,
while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who
were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the
manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients.

3. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or
on Suppliants, [397] after affirming in the first place that he will
add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to
truth or of his own invention, [398] he says that these men were called
Therapeutae and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. [399] He
then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that
they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them,
by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact
that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity.

4. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well
suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really
called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was
not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here.

5. He bears witness, however, that first of all they renounce their
property. When they begin the philosophical [400] mode of life, he
says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then, renouncing
all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and dwell in
lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people of
a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did this at
that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a spirited and
ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets' mode of life.

6. For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as
authentic, [401] it is recorded that all the companions of the apostles
sold their possessions and their property and distributed to all
according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them was
in want. "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses," as the
account says, "sold them and brought the prices of the things that were
sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, so that distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need." [402]

7. Philo bears witness to facts very much like those here described and
then adds the following account: [403] "Everywhere in the world is this
race [404] found. For it was fitting that both Greek [405] and
Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race
particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes, [406]
and especially about Alexandria.

8. The best men from every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the
Therapeutae's fatherland, [407] to a certain very suitable spot which
lies above the lake Maria [408] upon a low hill excellently situated on
account of its security and the mildness of the atmosphere."

9. And then a little further on, after describing the kind of houses
which they had, he speaks as follows concerning their churches, which
were scattered about here and there: [409] "In each house there is a
sacred apartment which is called a sanctuary and monastery, [410]
where, quite alone, they perform the mysteries of the religious life.
They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor any of the
other things which contribute to the necessities of the body, but only
the laws, and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such
other things as augment and make perfect their knowledge and piety."

10. And after some other matters he says: [411]

"The whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of
exercise. For they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy
of their fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the written words
as symbols of hidden truth which is communicated in obscure figures.

11. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of
their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method.
These they use as models, and imitate their principles."

12. These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them
expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the
works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the
writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient
prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in
many others of Paul's Epistles.

13. Then again he writes as follows concerning the new psalms which
they composed: [412] "So that they not only spend their time in
meditation, but they also compose songs and hymns to God in every
variety of metre and melody, though they divide them, of course, into
measures of more than common solemnity."

14. The same book contains an account of many other things, but it
seemed necessary to select those facts which exhibit the
characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode of life.

15. But if any one thinks that what has been said is not peculiar to
the Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to others besides those
mentioned, let him be convinced by the subsequent words of the same
author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undisputed
testimony on this subject. Philo's words are as follows: [413]

16. "Having laid down temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul,
they build upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or
drink before sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy
of the light, but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in
the darkness, and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the
latter a small portion of the night.

17. But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to
take food for three days; and some are so delighted and feast so
luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly and without
stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and are
accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food." These
statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to
those of our communion.

18. But if after these things any one still obstinately persists in
denying the reference, let him renounce his incredulity and be
convinced by yet more striking examples, which are to be found nowhere
else than in the evangelical religion of the Christians. [414]

19. For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are
speaking, and that the most of them were aged virgins [415] who had
preserved their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of the
priestesses among the Greeks, [416] but rather by their own choice,
through zeal and a desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire
to live with it as their companion they paid no attention to the
pleasures of the body, seeking not mortal but immortal progeny, which
only the pious soul is able to bear of itself.

20. Then after a little he adds still more emphatically: [417] "They
expound the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of allegories. For
the whole law seems to these men to resemble a living organism, of
which the spoken words constitute the body, while the hidden sense
stored up within the words constitutes the soul. This hidden meaning
has first been particularly studied by this sect, which sees, revealed
as in a mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the thoughts."

21. Why is it necessary to add to these things their meetings and the
respective occupations of the men and of the women during those
meetings, and the practices which are even to the present day
habitually observed by us, especially such as we are accustomed to
observe at the feast of the Saviour's passion, with fasting and night
watching and study of the divine Word.

22. These things the above-mentioned author has related in his own
work, indicating a mode of life which has been preserved to the present
time by us alone, recording especially the vigils kept in connection
with the great festival, and the exercises performed during those
vigils, and the hymns customarily recited by us, and describing how,
while one sings regularly in time, the others listen in silence, and
join in chanting only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days
referred to they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and to use his
own words, [418] "taste no wine at all, nor any flesh, but water is
their only drink, and the reish with their bread is salt and hyssop."

23. In addition to this Philo describes the order of dignities which
exists among those who carry on the services of the church, mentioning
the diaconate, and the office of bishop, which takes the precedence
over all the others. [419] But whosoever desires a more accurate
knowledge of these matters may get it from the history already cited.

24. But that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in view the first
heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by
the apostles, is clear to every one.
__________________________________________________________________

[396] This tradition that Philo met Peter in Rome and formed an
acquaintance with him is repeated by Jerome (de vir ill. 11), and by
Photius (Cod. 105), who even goes further, and says directly that Philo
became a Christian. The tradition, however, must be regarded as quite
worthless. It is absolutely certain from Philo's own works, and from
the otherwise numerous traditions of antiquity that he never was a
Christian, and aside from the report of Eusebius (for Jerome and
Photius do not represent an independent tradition) there exists no hint
of such a meeting between Peter and Philo; and when we realize that
Philo was already an old man in the time of Caius (see above, chap. 4,
note 8), and that Peter certainly did not reach Rome before the later
years of Nero's reign, we may say that such a meeting as Eusebius
records (only upon tradition, logos zchei) is certainly not historical.
Where Eusebius got the tradition we do not know. It may have been
manufactured in the interest of the Philonic authorship of the De vita
contemplativa, or it may have been a natural outgrowth of the
ascription of that work to him, some such explanation suggesting itself
to the reader of that work as necessary to explain Philo's supposed
praise of Christian monks. Philo's visit to Rome during the reign of
Caligula being a well-known historic fact, and Peter's visit to Rome
during the reign of Claudius being assumed as likewise historic (see
above, chap. 14, note 8), it was not difficult to suppose a meeting
between them (the great Christian apostle and the great Jewish
philosopher), and to invent for the purpose a second visit of Philo to
Rome. It seems probable that the ascription of the work De vita
contemplativa to Philo came before the tradition of his acquaintance
with Peter in Rome (which is first mentioned by Eusebius); but in any
case the two were mutually corroborative.

[397] peri biou theoretikou e hiketon; De Vita Contemplativa. This work
is still extant, and is given by Mangey, II. 471-486. Eusebius is the
first writer to mention it, and he identifies the Therapeutae described
in it with the Christian monks, and assumes in consequence that
monasticism in the form in which he knew it existed in the apostolic
age, and was known and praised by Philo. This opinion was generally
adopted by the Fathers (with the single exception of Photius, Cod. 105,
who looked upon the Therapeutae as a Jewish sect) and prevailed
unquestioned until the Reformation, when in the Protestant reaction
against monasticism it was denied that monks existed in the apostolic
age, and that the Therapeutae were Christians at all. Various opinions
as to their identity have been held since that time, the commonest
being that they were a Jewish sect or school, parallel with the
Palestinian Essenes, or that they were an outgrowth of Alexandrian
Neo-Pythagoreanism. The former opinion may be said to have been the
prevailing one among Christian scholars until Lucius, in his work
entitled Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Gesch. der Askese
(Strassburg, 1879), proved (what had been asserted already by Graetz
and Jost) that the Therapeutae are really to be identified with
Christian monks, and that the work De Vita Contemplativa is not a
genuine work of Philo's. If the former proposition is proved, the
latter follows of necessity, for it is absolutely impossible to suppose
that monasticism can have existed in so developed a form (or indeed in
any form) in the time of Philo. On the other hand it may be proved that
the work is not Philonic, and yet it may not follow that the
Therapeutae are to be identified with Christian monks. And so some
scholars reject the Philonic authorship while still maintaining the
Jewish character of the Therapeutae (e.g. Nicolas, Kuenen, and
Weingarten; see Schuerer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,
p. 863). In the opinion of the writer, who agrees therein with the
great majority of scholars, Lucius has conclusively demonstrated both
his propositions, and has shown that the work De Vita Contemplativa is
the production of some Christian of the latter part of the third
century, who aimed to produce an apology for and a panegyric of
monasticism as it existed in his day, and thus to secure for it wider
recognition and acceptance. Lucius concludes with the following words:
"Wir haben es demnach in D.V.C. mit einer Tendenzschrift zu thun,
welche, da sie eine weit ausgebildete und in zahlreichen Laendern
verbreitete Askese, so wie Zustaende voraussetzt, genau wie dieselben
nur im Christenthum des dritten Jahrhunderts vorhanden waren, kaum
anders aufgefasst werden kann, als eine, etwa am Ende des dritten
Jahrhunderts, unter dem Namen Philo's, zu Gunsten der Christlichen
Askese, verfasste Apologie, als erstes Glied eines an derartigen
Producte ueberaus reichen Litteratur-zweige der alten Kirche." Compare
with Lucius' work the reviews of it by Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschrift
fuer wiss. Theol., 1880, pp. 423-440, and by Schuerer in the
Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1880, No. 5. The latter especially has
added some important considerations with reference to the reasons for
the composition of this work under the name of Philo. Assuming then the
correctness of Lucius' conclusions, we see that Eusebius was quite
right in identifying the Therapeutae with the Christian monks as he
knew them in his day, but that he was quite wrong in accepting the
Philonic authorship of the work in question, and in concluding that the
institution of monasticism as he knew it existed already in the
apostolic age (compare note 19, below).

[398] It may fairly be doubted whether the work does not really contain
considerable that is not in strict accordance with the facts observed
by the author, whether his account is not to an extent idealized, and
whether, in his endeavor to emphasize the Jewish character of the
Therapeutae, with the design of establishing the antiquity of
monasticism (compare the review of Schuerer referred to above), he has
not allowed himself to introduce some imaginative elements. The strong
asseveration which he makes of the truthfulness of his account would
rather increase than allay this suspicion, and the account itself at
certain points seems to bear it out. On the whole, however, it may be
regarded as a reasonably accurate sketch. Were it not such, Eusebius
would not have accepted it, so unreservedly as he does, as an account
of Christian monks. Lucius' exhibition of the points of similarity
between the practices of the Therapeutae, as described here, and of
early Christian monks, as known from other sources, is very interesting
(see p. 158 sq.).

[399] therapeutai and therapeutrides, "worshipers" or "physicians";
from therapeuo, which means either to do service to the gods, or to
tend the sick.

[400] See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

[401] See Bk. III. chap. 4, note 14.

[402] Acts ii. 45.

[403] De Vita Contemplativa, S:3.

[404] Namely, the Therapeutae.

[405] Heinichen omits, without explanation, the words kai ten ;;Ellada,
which are found in all the other editions that I have examined.
Inasmuch as Heinichen gives no hint of an alternate reading at this
point, I can conclude only that the words were accidentally omitted by
him.

[406] Egypt, exclusive of the cities Alexandria and Ptolemais, was
divided into land districts, originally 36 in number, which were called
nomoi (see Mommsen's Provinces of the Roman Empire, Scribner's ed. I.
p. 255 sq.).

[407] patrida. This word, as Schuerer points out (Theol.
Literaturzeitung, 1880, no. 5), is not a noun, as it is commonly
regarded (and hence translated "fatherland"), but an adjective (and
hence to be translated "eine vaterlaendische Colonie," "a colony of the
fatherland"); the oikoumene, mentioned in the previous paragraph, being
the fatherland of the Therapeutae.

[408] huper limnes Marias. In Strabo the name is given as he Mareotis
or Mareia limne. The Lake Mareotis (as it is most commonly called) lies
in the northern part of the Delta, just south of Alexandria. It was in
ancient times much more of a lake than it is now, and the description
of the climate as given here is quite accurate.

[409] Ibid.

[410] semneion kai monasterion

[411] Ibid.

[412] Ibid.

[413] Ibid.S:4.

[414] See Ibid. S:8.

[415] How Eusebius, who knew that Philo lived and wrote during the
reign of Claudius, could have overlooked the fact that Christianity had
not at that time been long enough established to admit of virgins
growing old within the Church, is almost inexplicable. It is but
another example of his carelessness in regard to chronology which comes
out so often in his history. Compare Stroth's words: "In der That ein
wichtiger Beweis, der gerade der irrigen Meinung des Eusebius am
meisten entgegen ist. Denn sie haetten alt zum Christenthum kommen
muessen, sonst konnten sie ja zu Philo's Zeiten unmoeglich im
Christenthum alt geworden sein, dessen Schrift Eusebius selbst in die
Regierung des Claudius setzt. Es ist beinahe unbegreiflich, wie ein so
guter Kopf, wie Eusebius ist, in so grobe Irrthuemer fallen konnte."

[416] For a description of the religious cults among the Greeks and
Romans, that demanded virginity in their priests or priestesses, see
Doellinger's Heidenthum und Judenthum, p. 182 and 521 sq.

[417] De Vita Contemplativa, S:10.

[418] Ibid.S:9.

[419] Ibid.S:S:8-10. The author of the D. V. C. mentions young men that
serve at table (diakonountes) and a president (proedros) who leads in
the exposition of the Scriptures. Eusebius is quite right in finding in
these persons deacons and bishops. The similarity is too close to be
merely accidental, and the comment of Stroth upon this passage is quite
unwarranted: "Was einer doch alles in einer Stelle finden kann, wenn er
es darin finden will! Philo sagt, dass bei ihren gemeinschaftlichen
Gastmaehlern einige bei Tische dienten (diakonountes), hieraus macht
Eusebius Diakonate; und dass bei ihren Untersuchungen ueber die Bibel
einer (proedros) den Vorsitz habe; hieraus macht Eusebius die
bischoefliche wuerde (episkopes proedrian)."
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVIII.--The Works of Philo [420] that have come down to us.

1. Copious in language, comprehensive in thought, sublime and elevated
in his views of divine Scripture, Philo has produced manifold and
various expositions of the sacred books. On the one hand, he expounds
in order the events recorded in Genesis in the books to which he gives
the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws; [421] on the other hand, he
makes successive divisions of the chapters in the Scriptures which are
the subject of investigation, and gives objections and solutions, in
the books which he quite suitably calls Questions and Answers on
Genesis and Exodus. [422]

2. There are, besides these, treatises expressly worked out by him on
certain subjects, such as the two books On Agriculture, [423] and the
same number On Drunkenness; [424] and some others distinguished by
different titles corresponding to the contents of each; for instance,
Concerning the things which the Sober Mind desires and execrates, [425]
On the Confusion of Tongues, [426] On Flight and Discovery, [427] On
Assembly for the sake of Instruction, [428] On the question, `Who is
heir to things divine?' or On the division of things into equal and
unequal, [429] and still further the work On the three Virtues which
with others have been described by Moses. [430]

3. In addition to these is the work On those whose Names have been
changed and why they have been changed, [431] in which he says that he
had written also two books On Covenants. [432]

4. And there is also a work of his On Emigration, [433] and one On the
life of a Wise Man made perfect in Righteousness, or On unwritten Laws;
[434] and still further the work On Giants or On the Immutability of
God, [435] and a first, second, third, fourth and fifth book On the
proposition, that Dreams according to Moses are sent by God. [436]
These are the books on Genesis that have come down to us.

5. But on Exodus we are acquainted with the first, second, third,
fourth and fifth books of Questions and Answers; [437] also with that
On the Tabernacle, [438] and that On the Ten Commandments, [439] and
the four books On the laws which refer especially to the principal
divisions of the ten Commandments, [440] and another On animals
intended for sacrifice and On the kinds of sacrifice, [441] and another
On the rewards fixed in the law for the good, and on the punishments
and curses fixed for the wicked. [442]

6. In addition to all these there are extant also some single-volumed
works of his; as for instance, the work On Providence, [443] and the
book composed by him On the Jews, [444] and The Statesman; [445] and
still further, Alexander, or On the possession of reason by the
irrational animals. [446] Besides these there is a work On the
proposition that every wicked man is a slave, to which is subjoined the
work On the proposition that every goad man is free. [447]

7. After these was composed by him the work On the contemplative life,
or On suppliants, [448] from which we have drawn the facts concerning
the life of the apostolic men; and still further, the Interpretation of
the Hebrew names in the law and in the prophets are said to be the
result of his industry. [449]

8. And he is said to have read in the presence of the whole Roman
Senate during the reign of Claudius [450] the work which he had
written, when he came to Rome under Caius, concerning Caius' hatred of
the gods, and to which, with ironical reference to its character, he
had given the title On the Virtues. [451] And his discourses were so
much admired as to be deemed worthy of a place in the libraries.

9. At this time, while Paul was completing his journey "from Jerusalem
and round about unto Illyricum," [452] Claudius drove the Jews out of
Rome; and Aquila and Priscilla, leaving Rome with the other Jews, came
to Asia, and there abode with the apostle Paul, who was confirming the
churches of that region whose foundations he had newly laid. The sacred
book of the Acts informs us also of these things. [453]
__________________________________________________________________

[420] On Philo's works, see Schuerer, Gesch. des jued. Volkes, II. p.
831 sqq. The best (though it leaves much to be desired) complete
edition of Philo's works is that of Mangey: 2 vols., folio, London,
1742; English translation of Philo's works by Yonge, 4 vols., London,
1854-55. Upon Philo's life, see chaps. 4-6, above. Eusebius, in his
Praep. Evang., quotes extensively from Philo's works and preserves some
fragments of which we should otherwise be ignorant.

[421] nomon hieron allegoriai. This work is still extant, and,
according to Schuerer, includes all the works contained in the first
volume of Mangey's edition (except the De Opificio Mundi, upon which
see Schuerer, p. 846 sqq. and note 11, below), comprising 16 different
titles. The work forms the second great group of writings upon the
Pentateuch, and is a very full and allegorical commentary upon Genesis,
beginning with the second chapter and following it verse by verse
through the fourth chapter; but from that point on certain passages are
selected and treated at length under special titles, and under those
titles, in Schuerer's opinion, were published by Philo as separate
works, though really forming a part of one complete whole. From this
much confusion has resulted. Eusebius embraces all of the works as far
as the end of chap. 4 (including five titles in Mangey) under the one
general title, but from that point on he too quotes separate works
under special titles, but at the end (S:5, below) he unites them all as
the "extant works on Genesis." Many portions of the commentary are now
missing. Compare Schuerer, ibid. pp. 838-846.

[422] zetemata kai luseis: Quaestiones et solutiones. According to
Schuerer (ibid. p. 836 sq.), a comparatively brief catechetical
interpretation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions and answers,
embracing probably six books on Genesis and five on Exodus, and forming
the first great group of writings upon the Pentateuch. So far as
Eusebius seems to have known, they covered only Genesis and Exodus, and
this is all that we are sure of, though some think that they included
also the remainder of the Pentateuch. About half of his work (four
books on Genesis and two on Exodus) is extant in an Armenian version
(published by Aucher in 2 vols., Venet. 1822 and '26, and in Latin by
Ritter, vols. 6 and 7 of his edition of Philo's works); and numerous
Latin and Greek fragments still exist (see Schuerer, p. 837 sqq.).

[423] peri georgias duo: De Agricultura duo (so Jerome, de vir. ill.
11). Upon Genesis ix. 20, forming a part (as do all the works mentioned
in S:S:2-4 except On the Three Virtues, and On the Unwritten Laws,
which belong to the third group of writings on the Pentateuch) of the
large commentary, nomon hieron allegoriai, mentioned above (note 2).
This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 300-356, as two
works with distinct titles: peri georgias and peri phutourgias Noe to
deuteron (Schuerer, p. 843).

[424] peri methes tosauta: De ebrietate duo (so Jerome, ibid.). Upon
Gen. ix. 21. Only the second book is extant (Mangey, I. 357-391), but
from its beginning it is plain that another book originally preceded it
(Schuerer, p. 843).

[425] peri hon nepsas ho nous euchetai kai kataratai. Jerome, de vir.
ill. 11, de his quae sensu precamur et detestamur. Upon Gen. ix. 24.
Still extant, and given by Mangey (I. 392-403), who, however, prints
the work under the title peri tou exenepse Noe: De Sobrietate; though
in two of the best mss. (according to Mangey, I. 392, note) the title
agrees closely with that given by Eusebius (Schuerer, p. 843).

[426] peri sunkuseos ton dialekton. Upon Gen. xi. 1-9. Still extant,
and given by Mangey, I. 404-435 (Schuerer, p. 844).

[427] peri phuges kai heureseos. The same title is found in Johannes
Monachus (Mangey, I. 546, note), and it is probably correct, as the
work treats of the flight and the discovery of Hagar (Gen. xvi. 6-14).
It is still extant and is given by Mangey (I. 546-577) under the title
peri phugEURdon, `On Fugitives.' The text of Eusebius in this place has
been very much corrupted. The reading which I give is supported by good
ms. authority, and is adopted by Valesius, Stroth, and Laemmer. But
Nicephorus reads peri phuges kai haireseos kai ho peri phuseos kai
heureseos, which is also supported by ms. authority, and is adopted by
Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen. But upon comparing the title of the
work, as given by Johannes Monachus and as found in the various mss. of
Philo, with the contents of the work itself, there can be little doubt
of the correctness of the shorter reading. Of the second work, which
the longer reading introduces into the text of Eusebius, we have no
knowledge, and Philo can hardly have written it. Schuerer, who adopts
the shorter reading, expresses himself very strongly (p. 845, note 34).

[428] peri tes pros ta paideumata sunodou, "On Assembly for the sake of
instruction." Upon Gen. xvi. 1-6, which is interpreted to mean that one
must make himself acquainted with the lower branches of knowledge
(Hagar) before he can go on to the higher (Sarah), and from them obtain
the fruit, viz.: virtue (Isaac). Still extant, and given by Mangey, I.
519-545 (Schuerer, 844 sqq.).

[429] peri te tou, tis ho ton theion esti kleronomos, e peri tes eis ta
isa kai enantia tomes. From this double title Jerome (de vir. ill. 11)
wrongly makes two works. The writing is still extant, and is given by
Mangey (I. 473-518) under the title peri tou tis ho ton theion
pragmEURton kleronomos (Schuerer, 844).

[430] peri ton trion areton, has sun allais anegrapse Mouses. This work
is still extant, and is given by Mangey under the title peri trion
areton etoi peri andreias kai philanthropias kai metanoias: peri
andreias, II. 375-383; peri philanthropias, II. 383-405; peri
metanoias, II. 405-407. Jerome gives the simple title De tribus
virtutibus liber unus. According to Schuerer (p. 852 sqq.) it forms an
appendix to the third great group of works upon the Pentateuch,
containing those laws which do not belong to any one of the ten
commandments in particular, but fall under the head of general cardinal
virtues. The third group, as Schuerer describes it (p. 846), aims to
give for non-Jews a complete view of the Mosaic legislation, and
embraces, first, the work upon the Creation (which in the mss. and
editions of Philo is wrongly placed at the beginning in connection with
the great Allegorical Commentary, and is thus included in that by
Eusebius in his list of Philo's works, so that he does not make special
mention of it); second, the lives of great and good men, the living
unwritten law; and third, the Mosaic legislation proper (1. The ten
commandments; 2. The special laws connected with each of these); and
finally an appendix treating of certain cardinal virtues, and of reward
and punishments. This group is more historic and less allegoric than
the two others, which are rather esoteric and scientific.

[431] peri ton metonomazomenon kai hon heneka metonomEURzontai, De
Mutatione nominum. Upon Gen. xvii. 1-22. This work is still extant, and
is given by Mangey, I. 578-619. See Schuerer, p. 485.

[432] en ho phesi suntetachenai kai peri diathekon proton kai deuteron.
Nearly all the mss., followed by some of the editors, read protes kai
deuteras, instead of proton kai deuteron, thus making Eusebius mention
a work "On the first and second covenants," instead of a first and
second book "On the covenants." It is plain from Philo's own reference
to the work (on p. 586 in Mangey's ed.) that he wrote two books "On
covenants," and not a work "On the two covenants." I have therefore
felt warranted in reading with Heinichen and some other editors proton
kai deuteron, a reading which is more natural in view of the absence of
an article with diathekon, and which is confirmed by Nicephorus
Callistus. This reading must be correct unless we are to suppose that
Eusebius misread Philo. Fabricius suggests that Eusebius probably wrote
a kai b', which the copyists wrongly referred to the "covenants"
instead of to the number of the books, and hence gave the feminine
instead of the neuter form. This work "On covenants," or "On the whole
discussion concerning covenants" (as Philo gives it), is now lost, as
it was already in the time of Eusebius; at least he knew of it only
from Philo's reference to it. See Schuerer, p. 845.

[433] peri apoikias: De Migratione Abrahami. Upon Gen. xii. 1-6. The
work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 436-472. See Schuerer,
p. 844.

[434] biou sophou tou kata dikaiosunen teleiothentos, e nomon
agrEURphon. (According to Schuerer, dikaiosunen here is a mistake for
didaskalian, which is the true reading in the original title.) This
work, which is still extant, is given by Mangey, II. 1-40, under the
same title (didaskalian, however, instead of dikaiosunen), with the
addition, ho esti peri 'AbraEURm: De Abrahamo. It opens the second
division of the third great group of writings on the Pentateuch (see
note 11, above): the biographical division, mentioning Enos, Enoch and
Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but dealing chiefly with Abraham. The
biographies of Isaac and Jacob probably followed, but they are lost,
and we have no trace of them, so that the life of Joseph (see below,
note 26) in the mss. follows directly upon that of Abraham (Schuerer,
p. 848 sqq.).

[435] peri gigEURnton, e peri tou me trepesthai to theion. Upon Gen.
vi. 1-4 and 4-12. The two parts of this work, both of which are still
extant, form really but one book; for instance, Johannes Monachus
(ineditus) quotes from the latter part under the title peri gigEURnton
(according to Mangey, I. 262, note, and 272, note). But the two are
divided in Mangey's edition, where the first is given under the title
peri gigEURnton (I. 262-272), the second under the title hoti atrepton
(I. 272-299). See Schuerer, p. 843. The title is found in the form
given at the beginning of this note in all the mss. of Eusebius except
two, which have kai instead of e, thus making two separate works. This
reading is adopted by Heinichen and by Closs, but is poorly supported
by ms. authority, and since the two titles cover only one work, as
already mentioned, the e is more natural than the kai.

[436] peri te tou kata Mousea theopemptous einai tous oneirous proton,
deuteron, k.t.l. Two books are extant, the first upon Gen. xxviii. 12
sqq. and Gen. xxxi. 11 sqq. (given by Mangey, I. 620-658), the second
upon Gen. xxxvii. and xl.-xli. (given by Mangey, I. 659-699). Jerome
(de vir. ill. 11) follows Eusebius in mentioning five books, and there
is no occasion to doubt the report. Schuerer thinks that the two extant
books are the second and third of the original five (Schuerer, 845
sqq.).

[437] zetemata kai luseis; see above, note 3. Eusebius knew only five
books upon Exodus, and there is no reason to think there were any more.

[438] Philo wrote a work entitled peri biou Moseos: Vita Mosis, which
is still extant, but is not mentioned in the catalogue of Eusebius. It
contains a long description of the tabernacle, and consequently
Schuerer concludes that the work mentioned here by Eusebius (peri tes
skenes) represents that portion of the larger work. If this be the
case, it is possible that the section in the mss. used by Eusebius was
detached from the rest of the work and constituted an independent book.
The omission of the title of the larger work is doubtless due, as
Schuerer remarks, to the imperfect transmission of the text of
Eusebius' catalogue. See Schuerer, p. 855.

[439] peri ton deka logion: De Decalogo. Still extant, and given by
Mangey, II. 180-209. Jerome has the condensed title de tabernaculo et
decalogo libri quattuor, and this introduces the third division of the
third general group of works upon the Pentateuch (see note 11, above),
and, according to Schuerer, should be joined directly to the bios
politikos, or Life of Joseph, and not separated from it by the
insertion of the Life of Moses (as is done by Mangey), which does not
belong to this group (Schuerer, p. 849 sqq.).

[440] ta peri ton anapheromenon en eidei nomon eis ta sunteinonta
kephEURlaia ton deka logon, a'b'g'd': De specialibus legibus. A part of
the third division of the third general group of works (see note 11,
above). It is still extant in four books, each with a special title,
and each containing many subdivisions. They are given by Mangey: first
book, II. 210-269, in seven parts: de circumcisione, de monarchia Liber
I., de monarchia Liber II., de praemiis sacerdotum, de victimis, de
sacrificantibus, or de victimis offerentibus, de mercede meretricis non
accipienda in sacrarium; second book, 270-298, incomplete in Mangey,
but entire in Tischendorf's Philonea, p. 1-83; third book, 299-334;
fourth book, 335-374: made up like the first of a number of tracts on
special subjects. Philo, in this work, attempts to bring all the Mosaic
laws into a system under the ten rubrics of the decalogue: for
instance, under the first two commandments, the laws in regard to
priests and sacrifices; under the fourth, the laws in regard to the
Sabbath, &c. See Schuerer, p. 850 sqq.

[441] peri ton eis tas hierourgias zoon, kai tina ta ton thusion eide.
This is really only a portion of the first book of the work just
mentioned, given in Mangey under the title de victimis (II. 237-250).
It is possible that these various sections of books--or at least this
one--circulated separately, and that thus Eusebius took it for an
independent work. See Schuerer, p. 851.

[442] peri ton prokeimenon en to nomo tois men agathois athlon, tois de
ponerois epitimion kai aron, still extant and given by Mangey
(incorrectly as two separate works) under the titles peri athlon kai
epitimion, de praemiis et poenis (II. 408-428), and peri aron, de
execrationibus (II. 429-437). The writing forms a sort of epilogue to
the work upon the Mosaic legislation. Schuerer, p. 854.

[443] to peri pronoias, De providentia. This work is extant only in an
Armenian version, and is published with a Latin translation by Aucher,
Vol. I. p. 1-121 (see above, note 3), and in Latin by Ritter (Vol.
VIII.). Two Greek fragments, one of considerable extent, are preserved
by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evang. VII. 21, and VIII. 14. In the
Armenian the work consists of two books, but the first is of doubtful
genuineness, and Eusebius seems to have known only one, for both
quotations in the Praep. Evang. are from the present second book, and
the work is cited in the singular, as also in the present passage,
where to is to be read instead of ta, though some mss. have the latter.
The work (which is not found in Mangey's ed.) is one of Philo's
separate works which does not fall under any of the three groups upon
the Pentateuch.

[444] peri 'Ioudaion, which is doubtless to be identified with the he
huper 'Ioudaion apologia, which is no longer extant, but which Eusebius
mentions, and from which he quotes in his Praep. Evang. VIII. 2. The
fragment given by Eusebius is printed by Mangey in Vol. II. p. 632-634,
and in Daehne's opinion (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1883, p. 990) the
two preceding fragments given by Mangey (p. 626 sqq.) also belong to
this Apology. The work entitled de nobilitate (Mangey, II. 437-444)
possibly formed a part of the Apology. This is Daehne's opinion (see
ibid. p. 990, 1037), with whom Schuerer agrees. The genuineness of the
Apology is generally admitted, though it has been disputed on
insufficient grounds by Graetz (Gesch. der Juden, III. p. 680, third
ed.), who is followed by Hilgenfeld (in the Zeitschrift fuer wiss.
Theologie, 1832, p. 275 sq. and in his Ketzergesch. des
Urchristenthums, p. 87 sq.). This too, like the preceding, was one of
the separate works of Philo. See Schuerer, p. 861 sq.

[445] ho politikos. Still extant, and given by Mangey (II. 41-79) under
the title bios politikos hoper esti peri 'Ioseph: De Josepho. Photius,
Bib. Cod. 103, gives the title peri biou politikou. This forms a part
of the second division of the third great group upon the Pentateuch
(see above, note 11), and follows directly the Life of Abraham, the
Lives of Isaac and Jacob probably having fallen out (compare note 15,
above). The work is intended to show how the wise man should conduct
himself in affairs of state or political life. See Schuerer, p. 849.

[446] ho 'Alexandros e peri tou logou zchein ta aloga zoa, De Alexandro
et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant, as the title is given
by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 11). The work is extant only in Armenian,
and is given by Aucher, I. p. 123-172, and in Latin by Ritter, Vol.
VII. Two short Greek fragments are also found in the Florilegium of
Leontius and Johannes, according to Schuerer. This book is also one of
the separate works of Philo, and belongs to his later writings. See
Schuerer, p. 860 sqq.

[447] ho peri tou doulon einai pEURnta phaulon, ho exes estin ho peri
tou pEURnta spoudaion eleutheron einai. These two works formed
originally the two halves of a single work, in which the subject was
treated from its two sides,--the slavery of the wicked man and the
freedom of the good man. The first half is lost; but the second half is
extant, and is given by Mangey (II. 445-470). A long fragment of the
extant second half is given also by Eusebius, in his Praep. Evang.
VIII. 12. The genuineness of the work has been disputed by some, but is
defended with success by Lucius, Der Essenismus, p. 13-23, Strasburg,
1881 (Schuerer, p. 85).

[448] See the preceding chapter; and on the work, see note 2 on that
chapter.

[449] ton en nomo de kai prophetais 'Ebraikon onomEURton hai
hermeneiai. The way in which Eusebius speaks of this work (tou autou
spoudai einai legontai) shows that it lay before him as an anonymous
work, which, however, was "said to be the result of Philo's industry."
Jerome, too, in speaking of the same work (at the beginning of his own
work, De nominibus Hebraicis), says that, according to the testimony of
Origen, it was the work of Philo. For Jerome, too, therefore, it was an
anonymous work. This testimony of Origen cannot, according to Schuerer,
be found in his extant works, but in his Comment. in Joann. II. 27 (ed.
Lommatzsch, I. 50) he speaks of a work upon the same subject, the
author of which he does not know. The book therefore in view of the
existing state of the tradition in regard to it, is usually thought to
be the work of some other writer than Philo. In its original form it is
no longer extant (and in the absence of this original it is impossible
to decide the question of authorship), though there exist a number of
works upon the same subject which are probably based upon this lost
original. Jerome, e.g., informs us that his Liber de Nominibus
Hebraicis (Migne, III. 771) is a revision of it. See Schuerer, p. 865
sq.

[450] "This report is very improbable, for a work full of hatred to the
Romans and of derogatory references to the emperor Caligula could not
have been read before the Roman Senate, especially when the author was
a Jew" (Closs). It is in fact quite unlikely that Philo was in Rome
during the reign of Claudius (see above, chap. 17, note 1). The report
given here by Eusebius owes its origin perhaps to the imagination of
some man who supposed that Philo was in Rome during the reign of
Claudius (on the ground of the other tradition already referred to),
and whose fancy led him to picture Philo as obtaining at that time his
revenge upon the emperor Caligula in this dramatic way. It was not
difficult to imagine that this bitterly sarcastic and vivid work might
have been intended for public reading, and it was an attractive
suggestion that the Senate might have constituted the audience.

[451] See above, chap. 5, note 1.

[452] Romans xv. 19.

[453] See Acts xviii. 2, 18, 19 sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIX.--The Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the
Day of the Passover.

1. While Claudius was still emperor, it happened that so great a tumult
and disturbance took place in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover,
that thirty thousand of those Jews alone who were forcibly crowded
together at the gate of the temple perished, [454] being trampled under
foot by one another. Thus the festival became a season of mourning for
all the nation, and there was weeping in every house. These things are
related literally [455] by Josephus.

2. But Claudius appointed Agrippa, [456] son of Agrippa, king of the
Jews, having sent Felix [457] as procurator of the whole country of
Samaria and Galilee, and of the land called Perea. [458] And after he
had reigned thirteen years and eight months [459] he died, and left
Nero as his successor in the empire.
__________________________________________________________________

[454] This disturbance (described by Jos. B. J. II. 12. 1, and Ant. XX.
5. 3) took place in 48 a.d. while Cumanus was procurator of Judea.
During the Passover feast the procurator, as was the custom, brought
extra troops to Jerusalem to guard against any uproar which might arise
among the great mass of people. One of the soldiers, with the view of
insulting the Jews, conducted himself indecently in their presence,
whereupon so great an uproar arose that the procurator felt obliged to
collect his troops upon the temple hill, but the appearance of the
soldiers so greatly alarmed the multitude assembled there that they
fled in all directions and crushed each other to death in their
eagerness to escape. Josephus, in his Jewish War, gives the number of
the slain as ten thousand, and in the Antiquities as twenty thousand.
The latter work was written last, but knowing Josephus' fondness for
exaggerating numbers, we shall perhaps not accept the correction as any
nearer the truth. That Eusebius gives thirty thousand need not arouse
suspicion as to his honesty,--he could have had no object for changing
"twenty" to "thirty," when the former was certainly great enough,--we
need simply remember how easily numbers become altered in
transcription. Valesius says that this disturbance took place under
Quadratus in 52 a.d. (quoting Pearson's Ann. Paull. p. 11 sqq., and
Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54). But Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the eighth
year of Claudius (48 a.d.), and Orosius, VII. 4, gives the seventh
year. Jost and Ewald agree with Eusebius in regard to the date.

[455] Eusebius simply sums up in the one sentence what fills half a
page in Josephus.

[456] Herod Agrippa II., son of Herod Agrippa I. At the time of his
father's death (44 a.d.) he was but seventeen years of age, and his
youth deterred Claudius from giving him the kingdom of his father,
which was therefore again converted into a Roman province, and Fadus
was sent as procurator. In 49 a.d. Agrippa was given the kingdom of
Chalcis which had belonged to his uncle Herod (a brother of Agrippa
I.), and in 53 a.d. he was transferred to the tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanias with the title of King. He was never king of the Jews in the
same sense in which his father was, as Judea remained a Roman province
throughout his reign, while his dominion comprised only the
northeastern part of Palestine. He enjoyed, however, the right of
appointing and removing the high priests, and under Nero his domain was
somewhat increased by the addition of several cities of Galilee, and
Perea. He sided with the Romans in the Jewish war, and afterwards went
to Rome, where he died in 100 a.d., the last prince of the Herodian
line. It was before this Agrippa that Paul made his defense recorded in
Acts xxvi.

[457] Felix, a freedman of Claudius, succeeded Cumanus as procurator of
Judea in 52 (or, according to Wieseler, 53) a.d. The territory over
which he ruled included Samaria and the greater part of Galilee and
Perea, to which Judea was added by Nero, according to Josephus, B. J.
II. 13. 2. Ewald, in the attempt to reconcile Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54,
and Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2-7. 1,--the former of whom makes Cumanus and
Felix contemporary procurators, each over a part of the province, while
the latter makes Felix the successor of Cumanus,--concludes that Felix
was sent to Judea as the assistant of Cumanus, and became procurator
upon the banishment of the latter. This is not impossible, though we
have no testimony to support it. Compare Wieseler, p. 67, note. Between
59 and 61 (according to Wieseler, in 60; see chap. 22, note 1, below)
he was succeeded by Porcius Festus. For the relations of these two
procurators to the apostle Paul, see Acts xx. sqq. Eusebius, in his
Chron., puts the accession of Felix in the eleventh year of Claudius
(51 a.d.), and the accession of Festus in the fourteenth year (54
a.d.), but both of these dates are clearly incorrect (cf. Wieseler, p.
68, note).

[458] Eusebius evidently supposed the Roman province at this time to
have been limited to Samaria, Galilee, and Perea; but in this he was
wrong, for it included also Judea (see preceding note), Agrippa II.
having under him only the tetrarchies mentioned above (note 3) and a
few cities of Galilee and Perea. He had, however, the authority over
the temple and the power of appointing the high priests (see Jos. Ant.
XX. 8. 11 and 9. 1, 4, 6, 7), which had been given by Claudius to his
uncle, the king of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. XX. 1. 3).

[459] Claudius ruled from Jan. 24, 41 a.d., to Oct. 13, 54.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XX.--The Events which took Place in Jerusalem during the Reign
of Nero.

1. Josephus again, in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, relates
the quarrel which arose among the priests during the reign of Nero,
while Felix was procurator of Judea.

2. His words are as follows [460] : "There arose a quarrel between the
high priests on the one hand and the priests and leaders of the people
of Jerusalem on the other. [461] And each of them collected a body of
the boldest and most restless men, and put himself at their head, and
whenever they met they hurled invectives and stones at each other. And
there was no one that would interpose; but these things were done at
will as if in a city destitute of a ruler.

3. And so great was the shamelessness and audacity of the high priests
that they dared to send their servants to the threshing-floors to seize
the tithes due to the priests; and thus those of the priests that were
poor were seen to be perishing of want. In this way did the violence of
the factions prevail over all justice."

4. And the same author again relates that about the same time there
sprang up in Jerusalem a certain kind of robbers, [462] "who by day,"
as he says, "and in the middle of the city slew those who met them."

5. For, especially at the feasts, they mingled with the multitude, and
with short swords, which they concealed under their garments, they
stabbed the most distinguished men. And when they fell, the murderers
themselves were among those who expressed their indignation. And thus
on account of the confidence which was reposed in them by all, they
remained undiscovered.

6. The first that was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest; [463]
and after him many were killed every day, until the fear became worse
than the evil itself, each one, as in battle, hourly expecting death.
__________________________________________________________________

[460] Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 8. Felix showed himself throughout very mean and
cruel, and his procuratorship was marked with continual disturbances.

[461] This disturbance arose toward the end of Felix's term, under the
high priest Ishmael, who had been appointed by Agrippa but a short time
before. No cause is given by Josephus for the quarrel.

[462] B. J.II. 13. 3. These open robberies and murders, which took
place in Jerusalem at this period, were in part a result of the conduct
of Felix himself in the murder of Jonathan (see the next note). At
least his conduct in this case started the practice, which was kept up
with zeal by the ruffians who were so numerous at that time.

[463] This high priest, Jonathan, had used his influence in procuring
the appointment of Felix as procurator, and was therefore upon intimate
terms with him, and took the liberty of advising and rebuking him at
pleasure; until at last he became so burdensome to Felix that he bribed
a trusted friend of Jonathan to bring about his murder. The friend
accomplished it by introducing a number of robbers into the city, who,
being unknown, mingled freely with the people and slew Jonathan and
many others with him, in order to turn away suspicion as to the object
of the crime. See Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 5. Josephus has omitted to mention
Jonathan's appointment to the high priesthood, and this has led
Valesius to conclude that he was not really a high priest, but simply
one of the upper class of priests. But this conclusion is unwarranted,
as Josephus expressly calls him the high priest in the passage referred
to (cf. also the remarks of Reland, quoted in Havercamp's ed. of
Josephus, p. 912). Wieseler (p. 77, note) thinks that Jonathan was not
high priest at this time, but that he had been high priest and was
called so on that account. He makes Ananias high priest from 48 to 57,
quoting Anger, De temporum in Act. Ap. ratione.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXI.--The Egyptian, who is mentioned also in the Acts of the
Apostles.

1. After other matters he proceeds as follows: [464] "But the Jews were
afflicted with a greater plague than these by the Egyptian false
prophet. [465] For there appeared in the land an impostor who aroused
faith in himself as a prophet, and collected about thirty thousand of
those whom he had deceived, and led them from the desert to the
so-called Mount of Olives whence he was prepared to enter Jerusalem by
force and to overpower the Roman garrison and seize the government of
the people, using those who made the attack with him as body guards.

2. But Felix anticipated his attack, and went out to meet him with the
Roman legionaries, and all the people joined in the defense, so that
when the battle was fought the Egyptian fled with a few followers, but
the most of them were destroyed or taken captive."

3. Josephus relates these events in the second book of his History.
[466] But it is worth while comparing the account of the Egyptian given
here with that contained in the Acts of the Apostles. In the time of
Felix it was said to Paul by the centurion in Jerusalem, when the
multitude of the Jews raised a disturbance against the apostle, "Art
not thou he who before these days made an uproar, and led out into the
wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?" [467] These are the
events which took place in the time of Felix. [468]
__________________________________________________________________

[464] Jos. B. J. II. 13. 5.

[465] An Egyptian Jew; one of the numerous magicians and false prophets
that arose during this century. He prophesied that Jerusalem, which had
made itself a heathen city, would be destroyed by God, who would throw
down the walls as he had the walls of Jericho, and then he and his
followers, as the true Israel and the army of God, would gain the
victory over the oppressors and rule the world. For this purpose he
collected his followers upon the Mount of Olives, from whence they were
to witness the falling of the walls and begin their attack.

[466] Josephus gives two different accounts of this event. In the B. J.
he says that this Egyptian led thirty thousand men out of the desert to
the Mount of Olives, but that Felix attacked them, and the Egyptian
"escaped with a few," while most of his followers were either destroyed
or captured. In Ant. XX. 8. 6, which was written later, he states that
the Egyptian led a multitude "out from Jerusalem" to the Mount of
Olives, and that when they were attacked by Felix, four hundred were
slain and two hundred taken captive. There seems to be here a glaring
contradiction, but we are able to reconcile the two accounts by
supposing the Egyptian to have brought a large following of robbers
from the desert, which was augmented by a great rabble from Jerusalem,
until the number reached thirty thousand, and that when attacked the
rabble dispersed, but that Felix slew or took captive the six hundred
robbers, against whom his attack had been directed, while the Egyptian
escaped with a small number (i.e. small in comparison with the thirty
thousand), who may well have been the four thousand mentioned by the
author of the Acts in the passage quoted below by Eusebius. It is no
more difficult therefore to reconcile the Acts and Josephus in this
case than to reconcile Josephus with himself, and we have no reason to
assume a mistake upon the part of either one, though as already
remarked, numbers are so treacherous in transcription that the
difference may really have been originally less than it is. Whenever
the main elements of two accounts are in substantial agreement, little
stress can be laid upon a difference in figures. Cf. Tholuck,
Glaubwuerdigkeit, p. 169 (quoted by Hackett, Com. on Acts, p. 254).

[467] Acts xxi. 38.

[468] Valesius and Heinichen assert that Eusebius is incorrect in
assigning this uproar, caused by the Egyptian, to the reign of Nero, as
he seems to do. But their assertion is quite groundless, for Josephus
in both of his accounts relates the uproar among events which he
expressly assigns to Nero's reign, and there is no reason to suppose
that the order of events given by him is incorrect. Valesius and
Heinichen proceed on the erroneous assumption that Festus succeeded
Felix in the second year of Nero, and that therefore, since Paul was
two years in Caesarea before the recall of Felix, the uprising of the
Egyptian, which was referred to at the time of Paul's arrest and just
before he was carried to Caesarea, must have taken place before the end
of the reign of Claudius. But it happens to be a fact that Felix was
succeeded by Festus at the earliest not before the sixth year of Nero
(see chap. 22, note 2, below). There is, therefore, no ground for
accusing either Josephus or Eusebius of a blunder in the present case.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXII.--Paul having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, made his
Defense, and was acquitted of every Charge.

1. Festus [469] was sent by Nero to be Felix's successor. Under him
Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome. [470]
Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite
naturally calls his fellow-prisoner. [471] And Luke, who wrote the Acts
of the Apostles, [472] brought his history to a close at this point,
after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at
large, and preached the word of God without restraint. [473]

2. Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the apostle was
sent again upon the ministry of preaching, [474] and that upon coming
to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom. [475] In this
imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy, [476] in which he
mentions his first defense and his impending death.

3. But hear his testimony on these matters: "At my first answer," he
says, "no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it
may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with
me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known,
and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the
mouth of the lion." [477]

4. He plainly indicates in these words that on the former occasion, in
order that the preaching might be fulfilled by him, he was rescued from
the mouth of the lion, referring, in this expression, to Nero, as is
probable on account of the latter's cruelty. He did not therefore
afterward add the similar statement, "He will rescue me from the mouth
of the lion"; for he saw in the spirit that his end would not be long
delayed.

5. Wherefore he adds to the words, "And he delivered me from the mouth
of the lion," this sentence: "The Lord shall deliver me from every evil
work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom," [478] indicating
his speedy martyrdom; which he also foretells still more clearly in the
same epistle, when he writes, "For I am now ready to be offered, and
the time of my departure is at hand." [479]

6. In his second epistle to Timothy, moreover, he indicates that Luke
was with him when he wrote, [480] but at his first defense not even he.
[481] Whence it is probable that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles at
that time, continuing his history down to the period when he was with
Paul. [482]

7. But these things have been adduced by us to show that Paul's
martyrdom did not take place at the time of that Roman sojourn which
Luke records.

8. It is probable indeed that as Nero was more disposed to mildness in
the beginning, Paul's defense of his doctrine was more easily received;
but that when he had advanced to the commission of lawless deeds of
daring, he made the apostles as well as others the subjects of his
attacks. [483]
__________________________________________________________________

[469] The exact year of the accession of Festus is not known, but it is
known that his death occurred before the summer of 62 a.d.; for at that
time his successor, Albinus, was already procurator, as we can see from
Josephus, B. J. VI. 5. 3. But from the events recorded by Josephus as
happening during his term of office, we know he must have been
procurator at least a year; his accession, therefore, took place
certainly as early as 61 a.d., and probably at least a year earlier,
i.e. in 60 a.d., the date fixed by Wieseler. The widest possible margin
for his accession is from 59-61. Upon this whole question, see
Wieseler, p. 66 sqq. Festus died while in office. He seems to have been
a just and capable governor,--in this quite a contrast to his
predecessor.

[470] Acts xxv. sqq. The determination of the year in which Paul was
sent as a prisoner to Rome depends in part upon the determination of
the year of Festus' accession. He was in Rome (which he reached in the
spring) at least two years before the Neronic persecution (June, 64
a.d.), therefore as early as 62 a.d. He was sent from Caesarea the
previous autumn, therefore as early as the autumn of 61. If Festus
became procurator in 61, this must have been the date. But if, as is
probable, Festus became procurator in 60, then Paul was sent to Rome in
the autumn of the same year, and reached Rome in the spring of 61. This
is now the commonly accepted date; but the year 62 cannot be shut out
(cf. Wieseler, ibid.). Wieseler shows conclusively that Festus cannot
have become procurator before 60 a.d., and hence Paul cannot have been
taken to Rome before the fall of that year.

[471] Col. iv. 10.

[472] See below, Bk. III. chap. 4.

[473] See Acts xxviii. 30.

[474] Eusebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a
first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He
introduces the statement with the formula logos zchei, which indicates
probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority, and his
efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show how weak the
tradition was. Many maintain that Eusebius follows no tradition here,
but records simply his own conclusion formed from a study of the
Pastoral Epistles, which apparently necessitate a second imprisonment.
But were this the case, he would hardly have used the formula logos
zchei. The report may have arisen solely upon exegetical grounds, but
it can hardly have originated with Eusebius himself. In accordance with
this tradition, Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the date of Paul's death
as 67 a.d. Jerome (de vir. ill. 5) and other later writers follow
Eusebius (though Jerome gives the date as 68 instead of 67), and the
tradition soon became firmly established (see below, chap. 25, note 5).
Scholars are greatly divided as to the fact of a second imprisonment.
Nearly all that defend the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles assume
a second imprisonment, though some (e.g. Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and
others) defend the epistles while assuming only one imprisonment; but
this is very difficult. On the other hand, most opponents of the
epistles (e.g. the Tuebingen critics and the majority of the new
critical school) deny the second imprisonment. As to the place where
Paul spent the interval--supposing him to have been released--there is
again a difference of opinion. The Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be
genuine, seem to necessitate another visit to the Orient. But for such
a visit there is no ancient tradition, although Paul himself, in the
Epistle to the Philippians, expresses his expectation of making such a
visit. On the other hand, there is an old tradition that he visited
Spain (which must of course have been during this interval, as he did
not reach it before the first imprisonment). The Muratorian Fragment
(from the end of the second century) records this tradition in a way to
imply that it was universally known. Clement of Rome (Epistle to the
Corinthians, c. 5.) is also claimed as a witness for such a visit, but
the interpretation of his words is doubtful, so that little weight can
be laid upon his statement. In later times the tradition of this visit
to Spain dropped out of the Church. The strongest argument against the
visit is the absence of any trace of it in Spain itself. If any church
there could have claimed the great apostle to the Gentiles as its
founder, it seems that it must have asserted its claim and the
tradition have been preserved at least in that church. This appears to
the writer a fatal argument against a journey to Spain. On the other
hand, the absence of all tradition of another journey to the Orient
does not militate against such a visit, for tradition at any place
might easily preserve the fact of a visit of the apostle, without
preserving an accurate account of the number of his visits if more than
one were made. Of the defenders of the Pastoral Epistles, that accept a
second imprisonment, some assume simply a journey to the Orient, others
assume also the journey to Spain. Between the spring of 63 a.d., the
time when he was probably released, if released, and the date of his
death (at the earliest the summer of 64), there is time enough, but
barely so, for both journeys. If the date of Paul's death be put later
with Eusebius and Jerome (as many modern critics put it), the time is
of course quite sufficient. Compare the various Lives of Paul,
Commentaries, etc., and especially, among recent works, Schaff's Church
Hist. I. p. 231 sqq.; Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T. p. 283 sqq.;
Holtzmann's Einleitung, p. 295 sqq.; and Weizsaecker's Apostolisches
Zeitalter, p. 453 sqq.

[475] See below, chap. 25, note 6.

[476] Eusebius looked upon the Pastoral Epistles as undoubtedly
genuine, and placed them among the Homologumena, or undisputed writings
(compare Bk. III. chaps. 3 and 25). The external testimony for them is
very strong, but their genuineness has, during the present century,
been quite widely denied upon internal grounds. The advanced critical
scholars of Germany treat their non-Pauline authorship as completely
established, and many otherwise conservative scholars follow their
lead. It is impossible here to give the various arguments for or
against their genuineness; we may refer the reader particularly to
Holtzmann's Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt
(1880), and to his Einleitung (1886), for the most complete
presentation of the case against the genuineness; and to Weiss'
Einleitung in das N. T. (1886), p. 286 sqq., and to his Commentary on
the Pastoral Epistles, in the fifth edition of the Meyer Series, for a
defense of their genuineness, and also to Woodruff's article in the
Andover Review, October, 1886, for a brief and somewhat popular
discussion of the subject. The second epistle must have been written
latest of all Paul's epistles, just before his death,--at the
termination of his second captivity, or of his first, if his second be
denied.

[477] 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17.

[478] 2 Tim. iv. 18.

[479] Ibid. iv. 6.

[480] See 2 Tim. iv. 11.

[481] See 2 Tim. iv. 16.

[482] This is a very commonly accepted opinion among conservative
commentators, who thus explain the lack of mention of the persecution
of Nero and of the death of Paul. On the other hand, some who accept
Luke's authorship of the Acts, put the composition into the latter part
of the century and explain the omission of the persecution and the
death of Paul from the object of the work, e.g. Weiss, who dates the
Gospel of Luke between 70 and 80, and thus brings the Acts down to a
still later date (see his Einleitung, p. 585 sqq.). It is now becoming
quite generally admitted that Luke's Gospel was written after the
destruction of Jerusalem, and if this be so, the Acts must have been
written still later. There is in fact no reason for supposing the book
to have been written at the point of time at which its account of Paul
ceases. The design of the book (its text is found in the eighth verse
of the first chapter) was to give an account of the progress of the
Church from Jerusalem to Rome, not to write the life of Paul. The
record of Paul's death at the close of the book would have been quite
out of harmony with this design, and would have formed a decided
anti-climax, as the author was wise enough to understand. He was
writing, not a life of Paul, nor of any apostle or group of apostles,
but a history of the planting of the Church of Christ. The advanced
critics, who deny that the Acts were written by a pupil of Paul, of
course put its composition much later,--some into the time of Domitian,
most into the second century. But even such critics admit the
genuineness of certain portions of the book (the celebrated "We"
passages), and the old Tuebingen theory of intentional
misrepresentation on the part of the author is finding less favor even
among the most radical critics.

[483] Whether Eusebius' conclusion be correct or not, it is a fact that
Nero became much more cruel and tyrannical in the latter part of his
reign. The famous "first five years," however exaggerated the reports
about them, must at least have been of a very different character from
the remainder of his reign. But those five years of clemency and
justice were past before Paul reached Rome.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIII.--The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of
the Lord.

1. But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Caesar, had been
sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of
entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned
against James, the brother of the Lord, [484] to whom the episcopal
seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. [485] The
following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.

2. Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should
renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But,
contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater
boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole
multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of
God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who,
on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue [486] and of piety which
he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men,
and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence
was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact
that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province
was thus without a governor and head. [487]

3. The manner of James' death has been already indicated by the
above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the
pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. [488] But
Hegesippus, [489] who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the
most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. [490] He writes
as follows:

4. "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the
Church in conjunction with the apostles. [491] He has been called the
Just [492] by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for
there were many that bore the name of James.

5. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong
drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not
anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.

6. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not
woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone
into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging
forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of
a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship
of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. [493]

7. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and
Oblias, [494] which signifies in Greek, `Bulwark of the people' and
`Justice,' [495] in accordance with what the prophets declare
concerning him. [496]

8. Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and
which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, [497] asked him, `What
is the gate of Jesus?' [498] and he replied that he was the Saviour.

9. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ.
But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection
or in one's coming to give to every man according to his works. [499]
But as many as believed did so on account of James.

10. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a
commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there
was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the
Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, `We entreat
thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus,
as if he were the Christ. [500] We entreat thee to persuade all that
have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all
have confidence in thee. For we bear thee witness, as do all the
people, that thou art just, and dost not respect persons. [501]

11. Do thou therefore persuade the multitude not to be led astray
concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have
confidence in thee. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple,
[502] that from that high position thou mayest be clearly seen, and
that thy words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the
tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the
Passover.'

12. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the
pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: `Thou just one,
in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are
led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the
gate of Jesus.' [503]

13. And he answered with a loud voice, `Why do ye ask me concerning
Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand
of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.'
[504]

14. And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of
James, and said, `Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and
Pharisees said again to one another, `We have done badly in supplying
such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order
that they may be afraid to believe him.'

15. And they cried out, saying, `Oh! oh! the just man is also in
error.' And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, [505] `Let
us take away [506] the just man, because he is troublesome to us:
therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.'

16. So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each
other, `Let us stone James the Just.' And they began to stone him, for
he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said,
`I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, [507] forgive them, for they know
not what they do.' [508]

17. And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons
of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, [509] who are mentioned by
Jeremiah the prophet, [510] cried out, saying, `Cease, what do ye? The
just one prayeth for you.' [511]

18. And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat
out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered
martyrdom. [512] And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and
his monument still remains by the temple. [513] He became a true
witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And
immediately Vespasian besieged them." [514]

19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in
agreement with Clement. [515] James was so admirable a man and so
celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of
the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of
Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for
no other reason than their daring act against him.

20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his
writings, where he says, [516] "These things happened to the Jews to
avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the
Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man."

21. And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of
his Antiquities in the following words: [517] "But the emperor, when he
learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus [518] to be procurator of
Judea. But the younger Ananus, [519] who, as we have already said,
[520] had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and
reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the
Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of
judgment, as we have already shown. [521]

22. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he
had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was
dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim,
and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ,
James by name, together with some others, [522] and accused them of
violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned. [523]

23. But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the
law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, [524]
requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had
not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to
meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that
it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his
knowledge. [525]

24. And Albinus, being persuaded by their representations, wrote in
anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king,
Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him of the high priesthood, [526]
which he had held three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of
Damnaeus." [527]

25. These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the
author of the first of the so-called catholic [528] epistles. But it is
to be observed that it is disputed; [529] at least, not many of the
ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle
that bears the name of Jude, [530] which is also one of the seven
so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also,
[531] with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.
[532]
__________________________________________________________________

[484] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

[485] See above, chap. 1, note 11.

[486] philosophias. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

[487] See the preceding chapter, note 1, and below, note 40.

[488] See chap. 1, above.

[489] On Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.

[490] As the Memoirs of Hegesippus consisted of but five books, this
account of James occurred in the last book, and this shows how entirely
lacking the work was in all chronological arrangement (cf. Book IV.
chap. 22). This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 208 sqq.,
with a valuable discussion on p. 228 sqq.

[491] meta ton apostolon, "with the apostles"; as Rufinus rightly
translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post
apostolos, "after the apostles," as if the Greek were meta tous
apostolous. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a leader
of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we see from
Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as Eusebius does
just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 1, S:3) does,
that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles. See chap. 1,
note 11.

[492] See chap. 1, note 6.

[493] "The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an overdrawn
picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing
traits which may have been derived from the Ascents of James, and other
Apocryphal sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest and Nazarite
saint (cf. his advice to Paul, Acts xxi. 23, 24), who drank no wine,
ate no flesh, never shaved nor took a bath, and wore only linen. But
the Biblical James is Pharisaic and legalistic, rather than Essenic and
ascetic" (Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. p. 268). For Peter's asceticism, see the
Clementine Recognitions, VII. 6; and for Matthew's, see Clement of
Alexandria's Paedagogus, II. 1.

[494] 'Oblias: probably a corruption of the Heb. #P+L+ E+aM%, which
signifies "bulwark of the people." The same name is given to James by
Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others. See Suicer,
Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, s.v.

[495] perioche tou laou kai dikaiosune

[496] To what Hegesippus refers I do not know, as there is no passage
in the prophets which can be interpreted in this way. He may have been
thinking of the passage from Isaiah quoted in S:15, below, but the
reference is certainly very much strained.

[497] See Bk. IV. chap. 22.

[498] For a discussion of this very difficult question, whose
interpretation has puzzled all commentators, see Routh Rel. Sac. I. p.
434 sq., and Heinichen's Mel. IV., in his edition of Eusebius, Vol.
III., p. 654 sqq. The explanation given by Grabe (in his Spic. PP. p.
254), seems to me the best. According to him, the Jews wish to
ascertain James' opinion in regard to Christ, whether he considers him
a true guide or an impostor, and therefore they ask, "What (of what
sort) is the gate (or the way) of Christ? Is it a gate which opens into
life (or a way which leads to life); or is it a gate which opens upon
death (or a way which leads to death)?" Cf. Matt. vii. 13, 14, where
the two ways and the two gates are compared. The Jews had undoubtedly
often heard Christ called "the Way," and thus they might naturally use
the expression in asking James' opinion about Jesus, "Is he the true or
the false way?" or, "Is this way true or false?" The answer of James
which follows is then perfectly consistent: "He is the Saviour," in
which words he expresses as decidedly as he can his belief that the way
or the gate of Christ led to salvation. And so below, in S:12, where he
gives a second answer to the question, expressing his belief in Christ
still more emphatically. This is somewhat similar to the explanation of
Heinichen (ibid. p. 659 sq.), who construes the genitive 'Iesou as in
virtual apposition to thura: "What is this way, Jesus?" But Grabe seems
to bring out most clearly the true meaning of the question.

[499] Rufinus translates non crediderunt neque surrexisse eum, &c., and
he is followed by Fabricius (Cod. Apoc. N. T. II. p. 603). This
rendering suits the context excellently, and seems to be the only
rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence. And yet,
as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus, as both
anEURstasin and erchomenon are left entirely indefinite. The Greek
runs, ouk episteuon anEURstasin, oute erchomenon apodounai, k.t.l. Cf.
the notes of Valesius and of Heinichen on this passage. Of these seven
sects, so far as we know, only one, the Sadducees, disbelieved in the
resurrection from the dead. If Hegesippus' words, therefore, be
understood of a general resurrection, he is certainly in error.

[500] This sentence sufficiently reveals the legendary character of
Hegesippus' account. James' position as a Christian must have been well
enough known to prevent such a request being made to him in good faith
(and there is no sign that it was made in any other spirit); and at any
rate, after his reply to them already recorded, such a repetition of
the question in public is absurd. Fabricius, who does not think the
account is true, says that, if it is, the Jews seem to have asked him a
second time, thinking that they could either flatter or frighten him
into denying Christ.

[501] Cf. Matt. xxii. 16.

[502] epi to pterunion tou naou. Some mss. read tou hierou, and in the
preceding paragraph that phrase occurs, which is identical with the
phrase used in Matt. iv. 5, where the devil places Christ on a pinnacle
of the temple. hieros is the general name for the temple buildings as a
whole, while naos is a specific name for the temple proper.

[503] Some mss., with Rufinus and the editions of Valesius and
Heinichen, add staurothentos, "who was crucified," and Stroth, Closs,
and Cruse follow this reading in their translations. But many of the
best mss. omit the words, as do also Nicephorus, Burton, Routh,
Schwegler, Laemmer, and Stigloher, and I prefer to follow their
example, as the words seem to be an addition from the previous line.

[504] Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62

[505] Isa. iii. 10. Jess (p. 50) says, "Auch darin ist Hegesipp nur ein
Kind seiner Zeit, dass er in ausgedehntem Masse im Alten Testamente
Weissagungen auffindet. Aber mit Bezug darauf darf man nicht
vergessen,--dass dergleichen mehr oratorische Benutzung als exegetische
Erklaerungen sein sollen." Cf. the writer's Dialogue between a
Christian and a Jew (Papiscus and Philo), chap. 1.

[506] aromen. The LXX, as we have it to-day, reads desomen, but Justin
Martyr's Dial., chap. 136, reads aromen (though in chaps. 17 and 133 it
reads desomen). Tertullian also in his Adv. Marc. Bk. III. chap. 22,
shows that he read aromen, for he translates auferamus.

[507] Kurie thee pEURter.

[508] Luke xxiii. 34.

[509] ;;Rachabeim, which is simply the reproduction in Greek letters of
the Hebrew plural, and is equivalent to "the Rechabites." But
Hegesippus uses it without any article as if it were the name of an
individual, just as he uses the name ;;RechEURb which immediately
precedes. The Rechabites were a tribe who took their origin from
Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, who appears from 1 Chron. ii. 55 to have
belonged to a branch of the Kenites, the Arabian tribe which came into
Palestine with the Israelites. Jehonadab enjoined upon his descendants
a nomadic and ascetic mode of life, which they observed with great
strictness for centuries, and received a blessing from God on account
of their steadfastness (Jer. xxxv. 19). That a Rechabite, who did not
belong to the tribe of Judah, nor even to the genuine people of Israel,
should have been a priest seems at first sight inexplicable. Different
solutions have been offered. Some think that Hegesippus was
mistaken,--the source from which he took his account having confounded
this ascetic Rechabite with a priest,--but this is hardly probable.
Plumptre, in Smith's Bib. Dict. art. Rechabites (which see for a full
account of the tribe), thinks that the blessing pronounced upon them by
God (Jer. xxxv. 19) included their solemn adoption among the people of
Israel, and their incorporation into the tribe of Levi, and therefore
into the number of the priests. Others (e.g. Tillemont, H. E. I. p.
633) have supposed that many Jews, including also priests, embraced the
practices and the institutions of the Rechabites and were therefore
identified with them. The language here, however, seems to imply a
native Rechabite, and it is probable that Hegesippus at least believed
this person to be such, whether his belief was correct or not. See
Routh, I. p. 243 sq.

[510] See Jer. xxxv

[511] In Epiphanius, Haer. LXXVIII. 14, these words are put into the
mouth of Simeon, the son of Clopas; from which some have concluded that
Simeon had joined the order of the Rechabites; but there is no ground
for such an assumption. The Simeon of Epiphanius and the Rechabite of
Hegesippus are not necessarily identical. They represent simply
varieties of the original account, and Epiphanius', as the more exact,
was undoubtedly the later tradition, and an intentional improvement
upon the vagueness of the original.

[512] Clement (in chap. 5, S:4, above), who undoubtedly used the
account of Hegesippus as his source, describes the death of James as
taking place in the same way, but omits the stoning which preceded.
Josephus, on the other hand (quoted below), mentions only the stoning.
But Hegesippus' account, which is the fullest that we have gives us the
means of reconciling the briefer accounts of Clement and of Josephus,
and we have no reason to think either account incorrect.

[513] Valesius remarks that the monument (stele) could not have stood
through the destruction of Jerusalem until the time of Hegesippus, nor
could James have been buried near the temple, as the Jews always buried
their dead without the city walls. Tillemont attempted to meet the
difficulty by supposing that James was thrown from a pinnacle of the
temple overlooking the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore fell
without the walls, where he was stoned and buried, and where his
monument could remain undisturbed. Tillemont however, afterward
withdrew his explanation, which was beset with difficulties. Others
have supposed that the monument mentioned by Hegesippus was erected
after the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Jerome, de vir. ill. 2), while
his body was buried in another place. This is quite possible, as
Hegesippus must have seen some monument of James which was reported to
have been the original one but which must certainly have been of later
date. A monument, which is now commonly known as the tomb of St. James,
is shown upon the east side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore
at a considerable distance from the temple. See Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p.
246 sqq.

[514] See below, note 40.

[515] See above, chap. I. S:4. His agreement with Clement is not very
surprising, inasmuch as the latter probably drew his knowledge from the
account of the former.

[516] This passage is not found in our existing mss. of Josephus, but
is given by Origen (Contra Celsum, I. 47), which shows at any rate that
Eusebius did not invent the words. It is probable therefore, that the
copies of Josephus used by Origen and Eusebius contained this
interpolation, while the copies from which our existing mss. drew were
without it. It is of course possible, especially since he does not
mention the reference in Josephus, that Eusebius quoted these words
from Origen. But this does not help matters any, as it still remains as
difficult to account for the occurrence of the words in Origen, and
even if Eusebius did take the passage from Origen instead of from
Josephus himself, we still have no right with Jachmann (ib. p. 40) to
accuse him of wilful deception. For with his great confidence in
Origen, and his unbounded admiration for him, and with his naturally
uncritical spirit, he would readily accept as true in all good faith a
quotation given by Origen and purporting to be taken from Josephus,
even though he could not find it in his own copy of the latter's works.

[517] Ant.XX. 9. 1.

[518] Albinus succeeded Festus in 61 or 62 a.d. He was a very corrupt
governor and was in turn succeeded by Gessius Florus in 64 a.d. See
Wieseler, Chron. d. Ap. Zeitalters, p. 89.

[519] Ananus was the fifth son of the high priest Annas mentioned in
the N.T. His father and his four brothers had been high priests before
him, as Josephus tells us in this same paragraph. He was appointed high
priest by Agrippa II. in 61 or 62 a.d., and held the office but three
months.

[520] Ananus' accession is recorded by Josephus in a sentence
immediately preceding, which Eusebius, who abridges Josephus' account
somewhat, has omitted in this quotation.

[521] I can find no previous mention in Josephus of the hardness of the
Sadducees; but see Reland's note upon this passage in Josephus. It may
be that we have lost a part of the account of the Sadducees and
Pharisees.

[522] kai paragagon eis auto [ton adelphon 'Iesou tou christou
legomenou, 'IEURkobos onoma auto, kai] tinas [heterous], k.t.l. Some
critics regard the bracketed words as spurious, but Neander, Gesch. der
Pflanzung und Leitung der Christlichen Kirche, 5th ed., p. 445, note,
contends for their genuineness, and this is now the common opinion of
critics. It is in fact very difficult to suppose that a Christian in
interpolating the passage, would have referred to James as the brother
of the "so-called Christ." On the other hand, as the words stand there
is no good reason to doubt their genuineness.

[523] The date of the martyrdom of James, given here by Josephus, is 61
or 62 a.d. (at the time of the Passover, according to Hegesippus, S:10,
above). There is no reason for doubting this date which is given with
such exactness by Josephus, and it is further confirmed by Eusebius in
his Chron., who puts James's martyrdom in the seventh year of Nero,
i.e. 61 a.d., while Jerome puts it in the eighth year of Nero. The
Clementines and the Chronicon Paschale, which state that James survived
Peter, and are therefore cited in support of a later date, are too late
to be of any weight over against such an exact statement as that of
Josephus, especially since Peter and James died at such a distance from
one another. Hegesippus has been cited over and over again by
historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 a.d., and as
thus being in direct conflict with Josephus; as a consequence some
follow his supposed date, others that of Josephus. But I can find no
reason for asserting that Hegesippus assigns the martyrdom to 69.
Certainly his words in this chapter, which are referred to, by no means
necessitate such an assumption. He concludes his account with the words
kai euthus Ouespasianos poliorkei autous. The poliorkei autous is
certainly to be referred to the commencement of the war (not to the
siege of the city of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Titus, not by
Vespasian), i.e. to the year 67 a.d., and in such an account as this,
in which the overthrow of the Jews is designedly presented in
connection with the death of James, it is hyper-criticism to insist
that the word euthus must indicate a space of time of only a few
months' duration. It is a very indefinite word, and the most we can
draw from Hegesippus' account is that not long before Vespasian's
invasion of Judea, James was slain. The same may be said in regard to
Eusebius' report in Bk. III. chap. 11, S:1, which certainly is not
definite enough to be cited as a contradiction of his express statement
in his Chronicle. But however it may be with this report and that of
Hegesippus, the date given by Josephus is undoubtedly to be accepted as
correct.

[524] Agrippa II.

[525] hos ouk exon en 'AnEURno choris tes autou gnomes kathisai
sunedrion. Jost reads ekeinou (referring to Agrippa) instead of autou
(referring to Albinus), and consequently draws the conclusion that the
Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of Agrippa, and that
therefore Ananus had acted contrary to the rights of Agrippa, but not
contrary to the rights of Albinus. But the reading autou is supported
by overwhelming ms. authority and must be regarded as undoubtedly
correct. Jost's conclusion, therefore, which his acceptance of the
ekeinou forced upon him, is quite incorrect. The passage appears to
imply that the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of the
procurator, and it has been so interpreted; but as Schuerer points out
(Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, p. 169 sq.) this
conclusion is incorrect and all that the passage implies is that the
Sanhedrim could not hold a sovereign process, that is, could not meet
for the purpose of passing sentence of death and executing the
sentence, during the absence or without the consent of the procurator.
For the transaction of ordinary business the consent of the procurator
was not necessary. Compare the Commentaries on John xviii. 31, and the
remarks of Schuerer in the passage referred to above.

[526] Agrippa, as remarked above, chap. 19, note 4 exercised government
over the temple, and enjoyed the power of appointing and removing the
high priests.

[527] Of Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, nothing further is known. He was
succeeded, while Albinus was still procurator, by Jesus, the son of
Gamaliel (Ant. XX. 9. 4).

[528] This term was applied to all or a part of these seven epistles by
the Alexandrian Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, and since the time of
Eusebius has been the common designation. The word is used in the sense
of "general," to denote that the epistles are encyclical letters
addressed to no particular persons or congregations, though this is not
true of II. and III. John, which, however, are classed with the others
on account of their supposed Johannine authorship, and consequent close
connection with his first epistle. The word was not first used, as some
have held, in the sense of "canonical," to denote the catholic or
general acceptance of the epistle,--a meaning which Eusebius
contradicts in this very passage, and which the history of the epistles
themselves (five of the seven being among the antilegomena)
sufficiently refutes. See Holtzmann's Einleitung, p. 472 sqq., and
Weiss, ibid. p. 89 sqq.

[529] notheuetai. It is common to translate the word nothos, "spurious"
(and the kindred verb, "to be spurious"); but it is plain enough from
this passage, as also from others that Eusebius did not employ the word
in that sense. He commonly used it in fact, in a loose way, to mean
"disputed," in the same sense in which he often employed the word
antilegomenos. Luecke, indeed, maintained that Eusebius always used the
words nothos and antilegomenos as synonymous; but in Bk. III. chap. 25,
as pointed out in note 1 on that chapter, he employed the words as
respective designations of two distinct classes of books. The Epistle
of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the
antilegomena. The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very
few. It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the
second century. Irenaeus seems to have known the epistle (his works
exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly
cites it. The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito
contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences
of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote
commentaries upon "Jude and the other catholic epistles." It is quoted
frequently by Origen, who first connects it with the "Brother of the
Lord," but does not express himself with decision as to its
authenticity. From his time on it was commonly accepted as the work of
"James, the Lord's brother." Eusebius throws it among the antilegomena;
not necessarily because he considered it unauthentic, but because the
early testimonies for it are too few to raise it to the dignity of one
of the homologoumena (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1). Luther rejected
the epistle upon purely dogmatic grounds. The advanced critical school
are unanimous in considering it a post-apostolic work, and many
conservative scholars agree with them. See Holtzmann's Einleitung, p.
475 sqq. and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 396 sqq. The latter defends its
authenticity (i.e. the authorship of James, the brother of the Lord),
and, in agreement with many other scholars of conservative tendencies,
throws its origin back into the early part of the fifties.

[530] The authenticity of the Epistle of Jude (also classed among the
antilegomena by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 25) is about as well
supported as that of the Epistle of James. The Peshito does not contain
it, and the Syrian Church in general rejected it for a number of
centuries. The Muratorian Fragment accepts it, and Tertullian evidently
considered it a work of Jude, the apostle (see De Cultu Fem. I. 3). The
first to quote from it is Clement of Alexandria who wrote a commentary
upon it in connection with the other catholic epistles according to
Eusebius, VI. 14. 1. Origen looked upon it much as he looked upon the
Epistle of James, but did not make the "Jude, the brother of James,"
one of the twelve apostles. Eusebius treats it as he does James, and
Luther, followed by many modern conservative scholars (among them
Neander), rejects it. Its defenders commonly ascribe it to Jude, the
brother of the Lord, in distinction from Jude the apostle, and put its
composition before the destruction of Jerusalem. The advanced critical
school unanimously deny its authenticity, and most of them throw its
composition into the second century, although some put it back into the
latter part of the first. See Holtzmann, p. 501.

[531] On the Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, notes 1 and 2. On
the Epistles of John, see ibid. chap. 44, notes 18 and 19.

[532] en pleistais ekklesiais
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIV.--Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria
after Mark.

1. When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, [533] Annianus [534]
succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of
Alexandria. [535]
__________________________________________________________________

[533] 62 a.d. With this agrees Jerome's version of the Chron., while
the Armenian version gives the seventh year of Nero.

[534] Annianus, according to Bk. III. chap. 14, below, held his office
twenty-two years. In Apost. Const. VII. 46 he is said to have been
ordained by Mark as the first bishop of Alexandria. The Chron. Orient.
89 (according to Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) reports that
he was appointed by Mark after he had performed a miracle upon him. He
is commemorated in the Roman martyrology with St. Mark, on April 25.

[535] Upon Mark's connection with Egypt, see above, chap. 16, note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXV.--The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were
honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion.

1. When the government of Nero was now firmly established, he began to
plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against the
religion of the God of the universe.

2. To describe the greatness of his depravity does not lie within the
plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded
his history in most accurate narratives, [536] every one may at his
pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man's extraordinary
madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the
destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such
blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest relatives and
dearest friends, but destroyed his mother and his brothers and his
wife, [537] with very many others of his own family as he would private
and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths.

3. But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his
crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who
showed himself an enemy of the divine religion.

4. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as
follows: [538] "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was
the first that persecuted this doctrine, [539] particularly then when
after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at
Rome. [540] We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment.
For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero
unless it was something of great excellence."

5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief
enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is,
therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, [541] and
that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. [542] This account of
Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are
preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

6. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, [543] a member of the Church,
[544] who arose [545] under Zephyrinus, [546] bishop of Rome. He, in a
published disputation with Proclus, [547] the leader of the Phrygian
heresy, [548] speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred
corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid:

7. "But [549] I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will
go to the Vatican [550] or to the Ostian way, [551] you will find the
trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church." [552]

8. And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, [553] in his epistle to the Romans, [554]
in the following words: "You have thus by such an admonition bound
together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For
both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. [555] And
they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at
the same time." [556] I have quoted these things in order that the
truth of the history might be still more confirmed.
__________________________________________________________________

[536] Tacitus (Ann. XIII.-XVI.), Suetonius (Nero), and Dion Cassius
(LXI.-LXIII.).

[537] Nero's mother, Agrippina the younger, daughter of Germanicus and
of Agrippina the elder, was assassinated at Nero's command in 60 a.d.
in her villa on Lake Lucrine, after an unsuccessful attempt to drown
her in a boat so constructed as to break to pieces while she was
sailing in it on the lake. His younger brother Britannicus was poisoned
by his order at a banquet in 55 a.d. His first wife Octavia was
divorced in order that he might marry Poppaea, the wife of his friend
Otho, and was afterward put to death. Poppaea herself died from the
effects of a kick given her by Nero while she was with child.

[538] Tertullian, Apol. V.

[539] We learn from Tacitus, Ann. XV. 39, that Nero was suspected to be
the author of the great Roman conflagration, which took place in 64
a.d. (Pliny, H. N. XVII. I, Suetonius, 38, and Dion Cassius, LXII. 18,
state directly that he was the author of it), and that to avert this
suspicion from himself he accused the Christians of the deed, and the
terrible Neronian persecution which Tacitus describes so fully was the
result. Gibbon, and in recent times especially Schiller (Geschichte der
Roemischen Kaiserzeit unter der Regierung des Nero, p. 584 sqq.), have
maintained that Tacitus was mistaken in calling this a persecution of
Christians, which was rather a persecution of the Jews as a whole. But
we have no reason for impeaching Tacitus' accuracy in this case,
especially since we remember that the Jews enjoyed favor with Nero
through his wife Poppaea. What is very significant, Josephus is
entirely silent in regard to a persecution of his countrymen under
Nero. We may assume as probable (with Ewald and Renan) that it was
through the suggestion of the Jews that Nero's attention was drawn to
the Christians, and he was led to throw the guilt upon them, as a
people whose habits would best give countenance to such a suspicion,
and most easily excite the rage of the populace against them. This was
not a persecution of the Christians in the strict sense, that is, it
was not aimed against their religion as such; and yet it assumed such
proportions and was attended with such horrors that it always lived in
the memory of the Church as the first and one of the most awful of a
long line of persecutions instituted against them by imperial Rome, and
it revealed to them the essential conflict which existed between Rome
as it then was and Christianity.

[540] The Greek translator of Tertullian's Apology, whoever he may have
been (certainly not Eusebius himself; see chap. 2, note 9, above),
being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, has made very bad work of
this sentence, and has utterly destroyed the sense of the original,
which runs as follows: illic reperietis primum Neronem in hanc sectam
cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano gladio ferocisse ("There you will
find that Nero was the first to assail with the imperial sword the
Christian sect, which was then especially flourishing in Rome"). The
Greek translation reads: ekei heuresete proton Nerona touto to dogma,
henika mEURlista en ;;Rome ten anatolen pasan hupotEURxas omos en eis
pEURntas, dioxonta, in the rendering of which I have followed Cruse,
who has reproduced the idea of the Greek translator with as much
fidelity as the sentence will allow. The German translators, Stroth and
Closs, render the sentence directly from the original Latin, and thus
preserve the meaning of Tertullian, which is, of course, what the Greek
translator intended to reproduce. I have not, however, felt at liberty
in the present case to follow their example.

[541] This tradition, that Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, is early
and universal, and disputed by no counter-tradition and may be accepted
as the one certain historical fact known about Paul outside of the New
Testament accounts. Clement (Ad. Cor. chap. 5) is the first to mention
the death of Paul, and seems to imply, though he does not directly
state, that his death took place in Rome during the persecution of
Nero. Caius (quoted below, S:7), a writer of the first quarter of the
third century, is another witness to his death in Rome, as is also
Dionysius of Corinth (quoted below, S:8) of the second century. Origen
(quoted by Euseb. III. 1) states that he was martyred in Rome under
Nero. Tertullian (at the end of the second century), in his De
praescriptione Haer. chap. 36, is still more distinct, recording that
Paul was beheaded in Rome. Eusebius and Jerome accept this tradition
unhesitatingly, and we may do likewise. As a Roman citizen, we should
expect him to meet death by the sword.

[542] The tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old and
as universal as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great amount of
falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition by the end of
the second century the whole has been rejected as untrue by some modern
critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter was ever at Rome. (See
especially Lipsius' Die Quellen der roemischen Petrus-Sage, Kiel, 1872;
a summary of his view is given by Jackson in the Presbyterian Quarterly
and Princeton Review, 1876, p. 265 sq. In Lipsius' latest work upon
this subject, Die Acta Pauli und Petri, 1887, he makes important
concessions.) The tradition is, however, too strong to be set aside,
and there is absolutely no trace of any conflicting tradition. We may
therefore assume it as overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome
and suffered martyrdom there. His martyrdom is plainly referred to in
John xxi. 10, though the place of it is not given. The first
extra-biblical witness to it is Clement of Rome. He also leaves the
place of the martyrdom unspecified (Ad Cor. 5), but he evidently
assumes the place as well known, and indeed it is impossible that the
early Church could have known of the death of Peter and Paul without
knowing where they died, and there is in neither case a single opposing
tradition. Ignatius (Ad Rom. chap. 4) connects Paul and Peter in an
especial way with the Roman Church, which seems plainly to imply that
Peter had been in Rome. Phlegon (supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian
writing under the name of a favorite slave) is said by Origen (Contra
Celsum, II. 14) to have confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles.
This is very significant as implying that Peter must have been well
known in Rome. Dionysius, quoted below, distinctly states that Peter
labored in Rome, and Caius is a witness for it. So Irenaeus, Clement,
Tertullian, and later Fathers without a dissenting voice. The first to
mention Peter's death by crucifixion (unless John xxi. 18 be supposed
to imply it) is Tertullian (De Praescrip. Haer. chap. 36), but he
mentions it as a fact already known, and tradition since his time is so
unanimous in regard to it that we may consider it in the highest degree
probable. On the tradition reported by Origen, that Peter was crucified
head downward, see below, Bk. III. chap. 1, where Origen is quoted by
Eusebius.

[543] The history of Caius is veiled in obscurity. All that we know of
him is that he was a very learned ecclesiastical writer, who at the
beginning of the third century held a disputation with Proclus in Rome
(cf. Bk. VI. chap. 20, below). The accounts of him given by Jerome,
Theodoret, and Nicephorus are drawn from Eusebius and furnish us no new
data. Photius, however (Bibl. XLVIII.), reports that Caius was said to
have been a presbyter of the Roman Church during the episcopates of
Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been elected "Bishop of the
Gentiles," and hence he is commonly spoken of as a presbyter of the
Roman Church, though the tradition rests certainly upon a very slender
foundation, as Photius lived some six hundred years after Caius, and is
the first to mention the fact. Photius also, although with hesitation,
ascribes to Caius a work On the Cause of the Universe, and one called
The Labyrinth, and another Against the Heresy of Artemon (see below,
Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1). The first of these (and by some the last
also), is now commonly ascribed to Hippolytus. Though the second may
have been written by Caius it is no longer extant, and hence all that
we have of his writings are the fragments of the Dialogue with Proclus
preserved by Eusebius in this chapter and in Bk. III. chaps. 28, 31.
The absence of any notice of the personal activity of so distinguished
a writer has led some critics (e.g. Salmon in Smith and Wace, I. p.
386, who refers to Lightfoot, Journal of Philology, I. 98, as holding
the same view) to assume the identity of Caius and Hippolytus,
supposing that Hippolytus in the Dialogue with Proclus styled himself
simply by his praenomen Caius and that thus as the book fell into the
hands of strangers the tradition arose of a writer Caius who in reality
never had a separate existence. This theory is ingenious, and in many
respects plausible, and certainly cannot be disproved (owing chiefly to
our lack of knowledge about Caius), and yet in the absence of any proof
that Hippolytus actually bore the praenomen Caius it can be regarded as
no more than a bare hypothesis. The two are distinguished by Eusebius
and by all the writers who mention them. On Caius' attitude toward the
Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 28, note 4; and on his opinion in regard
to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. VI. chap. 20,
and Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The fragments of Caius (including
fragments from the Little Labyrinth, mentioned above) are given with
annotations in Routh's Rel. Sacrae, II. 125-158 and in translation
(with the addition of the Muratorian Fragment, wrongly ascribed to
Caius by its discoverer) in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 599-604. See
also the article of Salmon in Smith and Wace, of Harnack, in Herzog (2d
ed.), and Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p. 775 sqq.

[544] ekklesiastikos anher.

[545] gegonos. Cruse translates "born"; but Eusebius cannot have meant
that, for in Bk. VI. chap. 20 he tells us that Caius' disputation with
Proclus was held during the episcopate of Zephyrinus. He used gegonos,
therefore, as to indicate that at that time he came into public notice,
as we use the word "arose."

[546] On Zephyrinus, see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, S:7.

[547] This Proclus probably introduced Montanism into Rome at the
beginning of the third century. According to Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv.
omnes Haer. chap. 7) he was a leader of one division of the Montanists,
the other division being composed of followers of AEschines. He is
probably to be identified with the Proculus noster, classed by
Tertullian, in Adv. Val. chap. 5, with Justin Martyr, Miltiades, and
Irenaeus as a successful opponent of heresy.

[548] The sect of the Montanists. Called the "Phrygian heresy," from
the fact that it took its rise in Phrygia. Upon Montanism, see below,
Bk. IV. chap. 27, and especially Bk. V. chap. 16 sqq.

[549] The de here makes it probable that Caius, in reply to certain
claims of Proclus, was asserting over against him the ability of the
Roman church to exhibit the true trophies of the greatest of all the
apostles. And what these claims of Proclus were can perhaps be gathered
from his words, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 31, S:4, in which
Philip and his daughters are said to have been buried in Hierapolis.
That these two sentences were closely connected in the original is
quite possible.

[550] According to an ancient tradition, Peter was crucified upon the
hill of Janiculum, near the Vatican, where the Church of San Pietro in
Montorio now stands, and the hole in which his cross stood is still
shown to the trustful visitor. A more probable tradition makes the
scene of execution the Vatican hill, where Nero's circus was, and where
the persecution took place. Baronius makes the whole ridge on the right
bank of the Tiber one hill, and thus reconciles the two traditions. In
the fourth century the remains of Peter were transferred from the
Catacombs of San Sebastiano (where they are said to have been interred
in 258 a.d.) to the Basilica of St. Peter, which occupied the sight of
the present basilica on the Vatican.

[551] Paul was beheaded, according to tradition, on the Ostian way, at
the spot now occupied by the Abbey of the Three Fountains. The
fountains, which are said to have sprung up at the spots where Paul's
head struck the ground three times after the decapitation, are still
shown, as also the pillar to which he is supposed to have been bound!
In the fourth century, at the same time that Peter's remains were
transferred to the Vatican, Paul's remains are said to have been buried
in the Basilica of St. Paul, which occupied the site now marked by the
church of San Paolo fuori le mura. There is nothing improbable in the
traditions as to the spot where Paul and Peter met their death. They
are as old as the second century; and while they cannot be accepted as
indisputably true (since there is always a tendency to fix the
deathplace of a great man even if it is not known), yet on the other
hand if Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, it is hardly possible
that the place of their death and burial could have been forgotten by
the Roman church itself within a century and a half.

[552] Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman church in the strict
sense, for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul
came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have
reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early
fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.

[553] On Dionysius of Corinth, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 23.

[554] Another quotation from this epistle is given in Bk. IV. chap. 23.
The fragments are discussed by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. 179 sq.

[555] Whatever may be the truth of Dionysius' report as to Peter's
martyrdom at Rome, he is almost certainly in error in speaking as he
does of Peter's work in Corinth. It is difficult, to be sure, to
dispose of so direct and early a tradition, but it is still more
difficult to accept it. The statement that Paul and Peter together
planted the Corinthian church is certainly an error, as we know that it
was Paul's own church, founded by him alone. The so-called Cephas
party, mentioned in 1 Cor. i., is perhaps easiest explained by the
previous presence and activity of Peter in Corinth, but this is by no
means necessary, and the absence of any reference to the fact in the
two epistles of Paul renders it almost absolutely impossible. It is
barely possible, though by no means probable, that Peter visited
Corinth on his way to Rome (assuming the Roman journey) and that thus,
although the church had already been founded many years, he became
connected in tradition with its early days, and finally with its
origination. But it is more probable that the tradition is wholly in
error and arose, as Neander suggests, partly from the mention of Peter
in 1 Cor. i., partly from the natural desire to ascribe the origin of
this great apostolic church to the two leading apostles, to whom in
like manner the founding of the Roman church was ascribed. It is
significant that this tradition is recorded only by a Corinthian, who
of course had every inducement to accept such a report, and to repeat
it in comparing his own church with the central church of Christendom.
We find no mention of the tradition in later writers, so far as I am
aware.

[556] kata ton auton kairon. The kata allows some margin in time and
does not necessarily imply the same day. Dionysius is the first one to
connect the deaths of Peter and Paul chronologically, but later it
became quite the custom. One tradition put their deaths on the same
day, one year apart (Augustine and Prudentius, e.g., are said to
support this tradition). Jerome (de vir. ill. 1) is the first to state
explicitly that they suffered on the same day. Eusebius in his Chron.
(Armen.) puts their martyrdom in 67, Jerome in 68. The Roman Catholic
Church celebrates the death of Peter on the 29th and that of Paul on
the 30th of June, but has no fixed tradition as to the year of the
death of either of them.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVI.--The Jews, afflicted with Innumerable Evils, commenced
the Last War Against the Romans.

1. Josephus again, after relating many things in connection with the
calamity which came upon the whole Jewish nation, records, [557] in
addition to many other circumstances, that a great many [558] of the
most honorable among the Jews were scourged in Jerusalem itself and
then crucified by Florus. [559] It happened that he was procurator of
Judea when the war began to be kindled, in the twelfth year of Nero.
[560]

2. Josephus says [561] that at that time a terrible commotion was
stirred up throughout all Syria in consequence of the revolt of the
Jews, and that everywhere the latter were destroyed without mercy, like
enemies, by the inhabitants of the cities, "so that one could see
cities filled with unburied corpses, and the dead bodies of the aged
scattered about with the bodies of infants, and women without even a
covering for their nakedness, and the whole province full of
indescribable calamities, while the dread of those things that were
threatened was greater than the sufferings themselves which they
anywhere endured." [562] Such is the account of Josephus; and such was
the condition of the Jews at that time.
__________________________________________________________________

[557] Josephus, B. J. II. 14. 9. He relates that Florus, in order to
shield himself from the consequences of his misrule and of his
abominable extortions, endeavored to inflame the Jews to rebel against
Rome by acting still more cruelly toward them. As a result many
disturbances broke out, and many bitter things were said against
Florus, in consequence of which he proceeded to the severe measures
referred to here by Eusebius.

[558] murious hosous. Josephus gives the whole number of those that
were destroyed, including women and children, as about thirty-six
hundred (no doubt a gross exaggeration, like most of his figures). He
does not state the number of noble Jews whom Florus whipped and
crucified. The "myriads" of Eusebius is an instance of the exaggerated
use of language which was common to his age, and which almost
invariably marks a period of decline. In many cases "myriads" meant to
Eusebius and his contemporaries twenty, or thirty, or even less. Any
number that seemed large under the circumstances was called a "myriad."

[559] Gessius Florus was a Greek whose wife, Cleopatra, was a friend of
the Empress Poppaea, through whose influence he obtained his
appointment (Jos. Ant. XX. 11. 1). He succeeded Albinus in 64 a.d. (see
above, chap. 23, note 35), and was universally hated as the most
corrupt and unprincipled governor Judea had ever endured. Josephus (B.
J. II. 14. 2 sqq. and Ant. XX. 11. 1) paints him in very black colors.

[560] Josephus (B. J. II. 14. 4) puts the beginning of the war in the
twelfth year of the reign of Nero (i.e. a.d. 66) in the month of
Artemision, corresponding to the month Iyar, the second month of the
Jewish year. According to Josephus (Ant. XX. 11. 1) this was in the
second year of Gessius Florus. The war began at this time by repeated
rebellious outbreaks among the Jews, who had been driven to desperation
by the unprincipled and tyrannical conduct of Florus,--though Vespasian
himself did not appear in Palestine until the spring of 67, when he
began his operations in Galilee.

[561] Jos. B. J. II. 18. 2.

[562] Ibid.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Book III.

Chapter I.--The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached
Christ.

1. Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and
disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. [563]
Parthia, [564] according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his
field of labor, Scythia [565] to Andrew, [566] and Asia [567] to John,
[568] who, after he had lived some time there, [569] died at Ephesus.

2. Peter appears to have preached [570] in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Asia [571] to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last,
having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; [572] for he had
requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say
concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to
Illyricum, [573] and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero?
[574] These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his
Commentary on Genesis. [575]
__________________________________________________________________

[563] According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the
apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that
of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second
century. But this separation was put at various dates by different
traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to twenty-four
years later. A lost book, referred to by the Decretum Gelasii as Liber
qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very likely contained the
original tradition, and an account of the fate of the apostles, and was
probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The efforts to derive from the
varying traditions any trustworthy particulars as to the apostles
themselves is almost wholly vain. The various traditions not only
assign different fields of labor to the different apostles, but also
give different lists of the apostles themselves. See Lipsius' article
on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Smith and Wace's Dict. of
Christ. Biog. I. p. 17 sqq. The extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts,
Apocalypses, &c., are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII.
p. 361 sqq. Lipsius states that, according to the oldest form of the
tradition, the apostles were divided into three groups: first, Peter
and Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew, who were said to have preached in
the region of the Black Sea; second, Thomas, Thaddeus, and Simeon, the
Canaanite, in Parthia; third, John and Philip, in Asia Minor.

[564] Parthia, in the time of the apostles, was an independent kingdom,
extending from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian Sea to the
Persian Gulf. This is the oldest form of the tradition in regard to
Thomas (see preceding note). It is found also in the Clementine
Recognitions, IX. 29, and in Socrates, H. E. I. 19. Rufinus (H. E. II.
5) and Socrates (H. E. IV. 18) speak of Edessa as his burial place.
Later traditions extended his labors eastward as far as India, and made
him suffer martyrdom in that land; and there his remains were exhibited
down to the sixteenth century. According to the Martyrium Romanum,
however, his remains were brought from India to Edessa, and from thence
to Ortona, in Italy, during the Crusades. The Syrian Christians in
India called themselves Thomas-Christians; but the name cannot be
traced beyond the eighth century, and is derived, probably, from a
Nestorian missionary.

[565] The name Scythia was commonly used by the ancients, in a very
loose sense, to denote all the region lying north of the Caspian and
Black Seas. But two Scythias were distinguished in more accurate usage:
a European Scythia, lying north of the Black Sea, between the Danube
and the Tanais, and an Asiatic Scythia, extending eastward from the
Ural. The former is here meant.

[566] The traditions respecting Andrew are very uncertain and
contradictory, though, as remarked above (note 1), the original form,
represented here, assigned as his field the region in the neighborhood
of the Black Sea. His traditional activity in Scythia has made him the
patron saint of Russia. He is also called the patron saint of Greece,
where he is reported to have been crucified; but his activity there
rests upon a late tradition. His body is said to have been carried to
Constantinople in 357 (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. III. 2), and
during the Crusades transferred to Amalpae in Italy, in whose cathedral
the remains are still shown. Andrew is in addition the patron saint of
Scotland; but the tradition of his activity there dates back only to
the eighth century (cf. Skene's Celtic Scotland, II. 221 sq.). Numerous
other regions are claimed, by various traditions, to have been the
scene of his labors.

[567] Proconsular Asia included only a narrow strip of Asia Minor,
lying upon the coast of the Mediterranean and comprising Mysia, Lydia,
and Caria.

[568] The universal testimony of antiquity assigns John's later life to
Ephesus: e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 1. 1 and 3. 4, etc.; Clement of
Alex., Quis Dives Salvetur, c. 42 (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23,
below); Polycrates in his Epistle to Victor (quoted by Eusebius in
chap. 31, below, and in Bk. V. chap. 24); and many others. The
testimony of Irenaeus is especially weighty, for the series: Irenaeus,
the pupil of Polycarp, the pupil of John, forms a complete chain such
as we have in no other case. Such testimony, when its force is broken
by no adverse tradition, ought to be sufficient to establish John's
residence in Ephesus beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it has been
denied by many of the critics who reject the Johannine authorship of
the fourth Gospel (e.g. Keim, Holtzmann, the author of Supernat.
Religion, and others), though the denial is much less positive now than
it was a few years ago. The chief arguments urged against the residence
of John in Ephesus are two, both a silentio: first, Clement in his
first Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the apostles in such a way
as to seem to imply that they were all dead; secondly, in the Ignatian
Epistles, Paul is mentioned, but not John, which is certainly very
remarkable, as one is addressed to Ephesus itself. In reply it may be
said that such an interpretation of Clement's words is not necessary,
and that the omission of John in the epistles of Ignatius becomes
perfectly natural if the Epistles are thrown into the time of Hadrian
or into the latter part of Trajan's reign, as they ought to be (cf.
chap. 36, note 4). In the face of the strong testimony for John's
Ephesian residence these two objections must be overruled. The
traditional view is defended by all conservative critics as well as by
the majority even of those who deny the Johannine authorship of the
fourth Gospel (cf. especially Hilgenfeld in his Einleitung, and
Weizsaecker in his Apostaliches Zeitalter). The silence of Paul's
epistles and of the Acts proves that John cannot have gone to Ephesus
until after Paul had permanently left there, and this we should
naturally expect to be the case. Upon the time of John's banishment to
Patmos, see Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1. Tradition reports that he lived
until the reign of Trajan (98-117). Cf. Irenaeus, II. 22. 5 and III. 3.
4.

[569] Origen in this extract seems to be uncertain how long John
remained in Ephesus and when he died.

[570] The language of Origen (kekeruchenai zoiken, instead of logos
zchei or parEURdosis periechei) seems to imply that he is recording not
a tradition, but a conclusion drawn from the first Epistle of Peter,
which was known to him, and in which these places are mentioned. Such a
tradition did, however, exist quite early. Cf. e.g. the Syriac Doctrina
Apostolorum (ed. Cureton) and the Gnostic Acts of Peter and Andrew. The
former assigns to Peter, Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, in addition to
Galatia and Pontus, and cannot therefore, rest solely upon the first
Epistle of Peter, which does not mention the first three places. All
the places assigned to Peter are portions of the field of Paul, who in
all the traditions of this class is completely crowded out and his
field given to other apostles, showing the Jewish origin of the
traditions. Upon Peter's activity in Rome and his death there, see Bk.
II. chap. 25, note 7.

[571] Five provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1.

[572] Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his
head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common. It is
of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to it by
earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the crucifixion), and
its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly doubtful.

[573] Cf. Rom. xv. 19. Illyricum was a Roman province lying along the
eastern coast of the Adriatic.

[574] See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 5.

[575] This fragment of Origen has been preserved by no one else. It is
impossible to tell where the quotation begins--whether with the words
"Thomas according to tradition received Parthia," as I have given it,
or with the words "Peter appears to have preached," etc., as Bright
gives it.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.--The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.

1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus [576] was the first
to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when
writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the
epistle. [577]
__________________________________________________________________

[576] The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is
a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius,
according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus
gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and
in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations
of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the
difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists,
have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle of
Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed
to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and
Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting
Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note
10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing
that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in the
endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each
successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair. It is at
least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop,
and therefore the question as to the order of these first three
so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to
which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions. The Roman Church
gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus, following
Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single Anencletus
of the original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apocr. p.
xix. sq.). Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus was bishop for
twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen years, while
Jerome says eleven. These dates are about as reliable as the episcopal
succession itself. We have no trustworthy information as to the
personal character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects discussed in
this note see especially Salmon's articles, Clemens Romanus, and Linus,
in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[577] 2 Tim. iv. 21. The same identification is made by Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. III. 3. 3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the Epistle to the Trallians
(longer version), chap. 7.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.--The Epistles of the Apostles.

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as
genuine. [578] And this the ancient elders [579] used freely in their
own writings as an undisputed work. [580] But we have learned that his
extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; [581] yet, as it
has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other
Scriptures. [582]

2. The so-called Acts of Peter, [583] however, and the Gospel [584]
which bears his name, and the Preaching [585] and the Apocalypse, [586]
as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, [587]
because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of
testimonies drawn from them. [588]

3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in
addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have
from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, [589] and what
they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, [590]
as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.

4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which
I know to be genuine [591] and acknowledged by the ancient elders.
[592]

5. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. [593] It is
not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the
Epistle to the Hebrews, [594] saying that it is disputed [595] by the
church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what
has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our
time I shall quote in the proper place. [596] In regard to the
so-called Acts of Paul, [597] I have not found them among the
undisputed writings. [598]

6. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans, [599] has made mention among others of Hermas,
to whom the book called The Shepherd [600] is ascribed, it should be
observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account
cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is
considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need
instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has
been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most
ancient writers used it.

7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as
well as those that are not universally acknowledged.
__________________________________________________________________

[578] The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of
the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and
was cited under the name of Peter by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship
were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the
homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct
Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely
ungenuine. The Tuebingen School followed, and at the present time the
genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account
of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 428 sqq., who
confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and to the
Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle).
The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine
authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption of
the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was
written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that the
name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents no
fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to find
an author for the anonymous epistle. In support of this is urged the
fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second
century, it is never connected with Peter's name until the time of
Irenaeus. (Cf. Harnack's Lehre der Zwoelf Apostel, p. 106, note, and
his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few
supporters.

[579] hoi pEURlai presbuteroi. On the use of the term "elders" among
the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.

[580] hos anamphilekto

[581] ouk endiEURthekon men einai pareilephamen. The authorship of the
second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The external
testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to
have existed before the third century. Numerous explanations have been
offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still
remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of
the apostle. The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian,
Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to
Cyprian, S:6 (Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian's Epistles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by
Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed.
Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used
it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted into the
Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and
discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by
all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative scholars.
Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of
Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it into the
second century,--some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria
(e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwoelf Apostel, p. 15 and 159, who
assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 495
sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question),
Einleitung, p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the genuineness, see
especially Warfield, in the Southern Pres. Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq., and
Salmon's Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.

[582] Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently
not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth
century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from
the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus,
Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which the
Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.

[583] These prEURxeis (or periodoi, as they are often called) Petrou
were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the
heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the collection
of periodoi ton apostolon, which were ascribed to Lucius Charinus, and,
like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth century, a part of
the Manichean Canon of the New Testament. The work, as a whole, is no
longer extant, but a part of it is preserved, according to Lipsius, in
a late Catholic redaction, under the title Passio Petri. Upon these
Acts of Peter, their original form, and their relation to other works
of the same class, see Lipsius, Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, II. I,
p. 78 sq. Like the heretical Acta Pauli already referred to, this work,
too, was used in the composition of the Catholic Acts of Paul and
Peter, which are still extant, and which assumed their present form in
the fifth century, according to Lipsius. These Catholic Acts of Peter
and Paul have been published by Thilo (Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle,
1837), and by Tischendorf, in his Acta Apost. Apocr., p. 1-39. English
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), VIII. p. 477.

[584] This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of
Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was rejected
by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained. It is
mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as heretical;
also by Origen (in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. 1),
who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work employed by no
early teachers of the Christian Church. Lipsius regards it as probably
a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels. From Serapion's
account of this Gospel (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 12), we see that it
differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their truth, or in
giving a contradictory account of Christ's life, but rather in adding
to the account given by them. This, of course, favors Lipsius'
hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right in denying that
the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin Martyr, and that
it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel of Mark. The Gospel
(as we learn from the same chapter) was used by the Docetae, but that
does not imply that it contained what we call Docetic ideas of Christ's
body (cf. note 8 on that chapter). The Gospel is no longer extant. See
Lipsius, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 712.

[585] This Preaching of Peter (Kerugma Petrou, Praedicatio Petri),
which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost Preaching
of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI. 5, and
Lactantius, Inst. IV. 21). It was mentioned frequently by the early
Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Clement
of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a genuine record of Peter's
teaching. (The fragments are collected by Grabe in his Spic. Patr. I.
55-71, and by Hilgenfeld in his N. T. extra Can. rec., 2d ed., IV. p.
51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by Origen (in Johan. XIII. 17, and De
Princ. Praef. 8), and in the latter place is expressly classed among
spurious works. It was probably, according to Lipsius, closely
connected with the Acts of Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6, above.
Lipsius, however, regards those Acts as a Catholic adaptation of a work
originally Ebionitic, though he says expressly that the Preaching is
not at all of that character, but is a Petro-Pauline production, and is
to be distinguished from the Ebionitic kerugmata. It would seem
therefore that he must put the Preaching later than the original of the
Acts, into a time when the Ebionitic character of the latter had been
done away with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the Preaching is as old as
the middle of the second century and the most ancient of the works
recording Peter's preaching, and hence (if this view be accepted) the
Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to the Acts did not (if it
existed at all) belong to the original form of the record of Peter's
preaching embodied in the Acts and in the Preaching. The latter (if it
included also the Preaching of Paul, as seems almost certain) appears
to have contained an account of some of the events of the life of
Christ, and it may have been used by Justin. Compare the remarks of
Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 28 (Cath. Adaptations of
Ebionitic Acts), and Salmon's article on the Preaching of Peter, ibid.
IV. 329.

[586] The Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early
Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the
apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with
the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted
by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at
that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes
(according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus showing
that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the third
century it was still received in the North African Church (so Harnack,
who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus). The Eclogae
or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it as a genuine
work of Peter (S:S:41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter's ed.), and so
Methodius of Tyre (Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to
Lipsius). After Eusebius' time the work seems to have been universally
regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its
apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the
Canon. It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the
semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches. According to
Sozomen, H. E. VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was
treated with especial respect. Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it
among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of
John. As Lipsius remarks, its "lay-recognition in orthodox circles
proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have
contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians" (see Lipsius,
Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the
work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test.
extra Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic. Patr. I. 71 sqq.

[587] oud' holos en katholikais ismen paradedomena

[588] Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The Apocalypse of Peter
was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn from the
Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in VI. 14)
wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other Antilegomena.

[589] ton antilegomenon

[590] peri ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon

[591] hon monen mian gnesian zgnon.

[592] As above; see note 2.

[593] The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely
undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of
them with the same complete assurance), and were universally accepted
until the present century. The external testimony for all of them is
ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part of
the second century. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and
Galatians have never been disputed (except by an individual here and
there, especially during the last few years in Holland), even the
Tuebingen School accepting them as genuine works of Paul. The other
epistles have not fared so well. The genuineness of Ephesians was first
questioned by Usteri in 1824 and De Wette in 1826, and the Tuebingen
School rejected it. Scholars are at present greatly divided; the
majority of negative critics reject it, while many liberal and all
conservative scholars defend it. Colossians was first attacked by
Mayerhoff in 1838, followed by the whole Tuebingen School. It fares
to-day somewhat better than Ephesians. It is still, however, rejected
by many extreme critics, while others leave the matter in suspense
(e.g. Weizsaecker in his Apostolisches Zeitalter). Since 1872, when the
theory was proposed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that our
present Epistle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul to the Colossians,
of which it is a later revision and expansion. Baur and the Tuebingen
School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole, and it too is
still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it is more widely
accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsaecker and even
Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness). Second Thessalonians was first
attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a number of scholars, until
Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle also. Second
Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by negative critics,
and even by some moderates, while First Thessalonians has regained the
support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld, Weizsaecker, and even
Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by comparatively few critics.
Philemon--which was first attacked by Baur--is quite generally
accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are almost as generally rejected,
except by the regular conservative school (upon the Pastorals, see Bk.
II. chap. 22, note 8, above). For a concise account of the state of
criticism upon each epistle, see Holtzmann's Einleitung. For a defense
of them all, see the Einleitung of Weiss.

[594] tines ethetekasi. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written
by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely
certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship; its
theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external
testimony is strongly against its direct connection with Paul. The
first persons to assign the epistle to Paul are Pantaenus and Clement
of Alexandria (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14), and they evidently find it
necessary to defend its Pauline authorship in the face of the
objections of others. Clement, indeed, assumes a Hebrew original, which
was translated into Greek by Luke. Origen (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 25)
leaves its authorship undecided, but thinks it probable that the
thoughts are Paul's, but the diction that of some one else, who has
recorded what he heard from the apostle. He then remarks that one
tradition assigned it to Clement of Rome, another to Luke. Eusebius
himself, in agreement with the Alexandrians (who, with the exception of
Origen, unanimously accept the Pauline authorship), looks upon it as a
work of Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria's theory that it was
written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that Clement of Rome was its
translator (see chap. 38, below). In the Western Church, where the
epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement of Rome uses it freely), it
is not connected with Paul until the fourth century. Indeed, Tertullian
(de pudicit. 20) states that it bore the name of Barnabas, and
evidently had never heard that it had been ascribed to any one else.
The influence of the Alexandrians, however, finally prevailed, and from
the fifth century on we find it universally accepted, both East and
West, as an epistle of Paul, and not until the Reformation was its
origin again questioned. Since that time its authorship has been
commonly regarded as an insoluble mystery. Numerous guesses have been
made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos, and he has been followed by many),
but it is impossible to prove that any of them are correct. For
Barnabas, however, more can be said than for any of the others.
Tertullian expressly connects the epistle with him; and its contents
are just what we should expect from the pen of a Levite who had been
for a time under Paul's influence, and yet had not received his
Christianity from him; its standpoint, in fact, is Levitic, and
decidedly non-Pauline, and yet reveals in many places the influence of
Pauline ideas. Still further, it is noticeable that in the place where
the Epistle to the Hebrews is first ascribed to Paul, there first
appears an epistle which is ascribed (quite wrongly; see below, chap.
25, note 20) to Barnabas. May it not be (as has been suggested by Weiss
and others) that the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was originally
accepted in Alexandria as the work of Barnabas, but that later it was
ascribed to Paul; and that the tradition that Barnabas had written an
epistle, which must still have remained in the Church, led to the
ascription of another anonymous epistle to him? We seem thus most
easily to explain the false ascription of the one epistle to Paul, and
the false ascription of the other to Barnabas. It may be said that the
claims of both Barnabas and Apollos have many supporters, while still
more attempt no decision. In regard to the canonicity of the epistle
there seems never to have been any serious dispute, and it is this fact
doubtless which did most to foster the belief in its Pauline authorship
from the third century on. For the criterion of canonicity more and
more came to be looked upon as apostolicity, direct or indirect. The
early Church had cared little for such a criterion. In only one place
does Eusebius seem to imply that doubts existed as to its
canonicity,--in Bk. VI. chap. 13, where he classes it with the Book of
Wisdom, and the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude, among the
antilegomena. But in view of his treatment of it elsewhere it must be
concluded that he is thinking in that passage not at all of its
canonicity, but of its Pauline authorship, which he knows is disputed
by some, and in reference to which he uses the same word,
antilegesthai, in the present sentence. Upon the canonicity of the
epistle, see still further chap. 25, note 1. For a discussion of the
epistle, see especially the N. T. Introductions of Weiss and Holtzmann.

[595] antilegesthai

[596] See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.

[597] These prEURxeis are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where they
are classed among the nothoi, implying that they had been originally
accepted as canonical, but were not at the time Eusebius wrote widely
accepted as such. This implies that they were not, like the works which
he mentions later in the chapter, of an heretical character. They were
already known to Origen, who (De Prin. I. 2, 3) refers to them in such
a way as to show that they were in good repute in the Catholic Church.
They are to be distinguished from the Gnostic periodoi or prEURxeis
Paulou, which from the end of the fourth century formed a part of the
Manichean canon of the New Testament, and of which some fragments are
still extant under various forms. The failure to keep these Catholic
and heretical Acta Pauli always distinct has caused considerable
confusion. Both of these Acts, the Catholic and the heretical, formed,
according to Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgeschichten, II. 1, p. 305 sq.) one
of the sources of the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in their
extant form belong to the fifth century. For a discussion of these
Catholic Acts of Paul referred to by Eusebius, see Lipsius, ibid., p.
70 sq.

[598] oude men tas legomenas autou prEURxeis en anamphilektois
pareilepha

[599] See Rom. xvi. 14. The greater part of this last chapter of Romans
is considered by many a separate epistle addressed to Ephesus. This has
been quite a common opinion since 1829, when it was first broached by
David Schulz (Studien und Kritiken, p. 629 sq.), and is accepted even
by many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss), while on the other hand it
is opposed by many of the opposite school. While Aquila and Priscilla,
of verse 3, and Epaenetus, of verse 5, seem to point to Ephesus, and
the fact that so many personal friends are greeted, leads us to look
naturally to the East as Paul's field of labor, where he had formed so
many acquaintances, rather than to Rome, where he had not been; yet on
the other hand such names as Junias, Narcissus, Rufus, Hermas, Nereus,
Aristobulus, and Herodion point strongly to Rome. We must, however, be
content to leave the matter undecided, but may be confident that the
evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis is certainly, in the face of the
Roman names mentioned, and of universal tradition (for which as for
Eusebius the epistle is a unit), not strong enough to establish it.

[600] The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of
the second century, and is quoted by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. IV. 20. 2) as
Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scripture
testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he considered it
not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of Alexandria and
Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the latter expressly
distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting that it is
disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius in chap. 25 places it
among the nothoi or spurious writings in connection with the Acts of
Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. According to the Muratorian Fragment
it was "written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by
Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church
of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made
public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as
their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time."
This shows the very high esteem in which the work was held in that age.
It was very widely employed in private and in public, both in the East
and the West, until about the fourth century, when it gradually passed
out of use. Jerome (de vir. ill. 10) says that it was almost unknown
among the Latins of his time. As to the date and authorship of the
Shepherd opinions vary widely. The only direct testimony of antiquity
is that of the Muratorian Fragment, which says that it was written by
Hermas, the brother of Pius, during the episcopacy of the latter
(139-154 a.d.). This testimony is accepted by the majority of scholars,
most of whom date the book near the middle of the second century, or at
least as late as the reign of Hadrian. This opinion received not long
ago what was supposed to be a strong confirmation from the discovery of
the fact that Hermas in all probability quoted from Theodotion's
version of Daniel (see Hort's article in the Johns Hopkins University
Circular, December, 1884), which has been commonly ascribed to the
second century. But it must now be admitted that no one knows the
terminus a quo for the composition of Theodotian's version, and
therefore the discovery leaves the date of Hermas entirely undetermined
(see Schuerer, Gesch. des juedischen Volkes, II. p. 709). Meanwhile
Eusebius in this connection records the tradition, which he had read,
that the book was written by the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. This
tradition, however, appears to be no older than Origen, with whom it is
no more than a mere guess. While in our absence of any knowledge as to
this Hermas we cannot absolutely disprove his claim (unless we prove
decisively the late date of the book), there is yet no ground for
accepting it other than a mere coincidence in a very common name. In
Vis. II. 4. 3 Hermas is told to give one copy of his book to Clement.
From this it is concluded by many that the author must have been
contemporary with the well-known Roman Clement, the author of the
Epistle to the Corinthians. While this appears very likely, it cannot
be called certain in the face of evidence for a considerably later
date. Internal testimony helps us little, as there is nothing in the
book which may not have been written at the very beginning of the
second century, or, on the other hand, as late as the middle of it.
Zahn dates it between 97 and 100, and assigns it to an unknown Hermas,
a contemporary of the Roman Clement, in which he is followed by Salmon
in a very clear and keen article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Critics
are unanimously agreed that the book was written in Rome. It consists
of three parts, Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, and is of the
nature of an apocalypse, written for the purpose of reforming the life
of the Church, which seemed to the author to have become very corrupt.
The work (especially the last part) is in the form of an allegory, and
has been compared to the Pilgrim's Progress. Opinions are divided as to
whether it is actually founded upon visions and dreams of the author,
or is wholly a fiction. The former opinion seems to be the more
probable. Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas was
known. In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and Dindorf,
being based upon a Mt. Athos ms. discovered shortly before by
Simonides. Of the ten leaves of the ms. the last was lost; three were
sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other six were
transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic Codex has
enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but unfortunately
it contains only the Visions and a small part of the Mandates. All
recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty transcription of
Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six leaves of the Athos
Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and which were known only
through Simonides' transcription, were discovered by Lambros at Mt.
Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of
Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was issued in English translation by J. A.
Robinson, at Cambridge, England. We thus have now a reliable Greek text
of nine-tenths of the Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last
edition (1887) of his Novum Test. Extra Can. Rec., published also a
Greek text of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended
transcription by Simonides from the lost Athos ms. But this has been
conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we
are therefore still without any ms. authority for the Greek text of the
close of the work. Cf. Robinson's introduction to the Collation of
Lambros mentioned above, and Harnack's articles in the Theol.
Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful edition of the original is
that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Opera, Fasc. III. (Lips.
1877). The work is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. The
literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the reader should
examine especially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his edition. Cf.
Zahn's Hirt des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq. Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard
to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.--The First Successors of the Apostles.

1. That Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the
churches "from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum," is evident
both from his own words, [601] and from the account which Luke has
given in the Acts. [602]

2. And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the
doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear from
his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed, [603] in
which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. [604]

3. But the number and the names of those among them that became true
and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend
the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those
mentioned in the writings of Paul.

4. For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or "fellow-soldiers," as he
called them, [605] and most of them were honored by him with an
imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony concerning them
in his own epistles.

5. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and mentions them by
name. [606]

6. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate
of the parish in Ephesus, [607] Titus of the churches in Crete. [608]

7. But Luke, [609] who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by
profession, [610] and who was especially intimate with Paul and well
acquainted with the rest of the apostles, [611] has left us, in two
inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned
from them. One of these books is the Gospel, [612] which he testifies
that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and
ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he
followed accurately from the first. [613] The other book is the Acts of
the Apostles [614] which he composed not from the accounts of others,
but from what he had seen himself.

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as
if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to
my Gospel." [615]

9. As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was
sent to Gaul; [616] but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle
to Timothy [617] as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the
episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. [618]

10. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome,
was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier. [619]

11. Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first
to believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as
recorded by Luke in the Acts) [620] is mentioned by another Dionysius,
an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, [621] as the
first bishop of the church at Athens.

12. But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall
relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our
history.
__________________________________________________________________

[601] Rom. xv. 19.

[602] From Acts ix. on.

[603] In chap. 3, S:1.

[604] 1 Pet. i. 1.

[605] Philip. ii. 25; Philem. 2.

[606] Barnabas (Acts ix. 27, and often); John Mark (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; xx. 4; xxvii. 2); Sopater, Secundus, Gaius
of Derbe (perhaps the same as the Gaius of Macedonia?), and Tychichus
(xx. 4); Trophimus (xx. 4; xxi. 29).

[607] 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 historeitai,
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 Heb. xiii. 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 John 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.

[608] Cf. Tit. i. 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 2 Tim. iv. 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'sApostolici, ed. 1677, p. 63). Titus is a saint,
in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 4.

[609] Of Luke personally we know very little. He is not mentioned in
the Acts, and only three times in Paul's epistles (Col. iv. 14; Philem.
24; 2 Tim. iv. 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 Acts 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 Acts (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 (ibid.) says that he was buried
in Constantinople. According to Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43) and later
writers, Luke 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 Luke xxiv.
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.

[610] See Col. iv. 14

[611] 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 (Acts 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.

[612] The testimony to the existence of our third Gospel, although it
is not so old as that for Matthew and Mark, is still very early. It was
used by Marcion, who based upon it his own mutilated gospel, and is
quoted very frequently by Justin Martyr. The Gospel is first distinctly
ascribed to Luke by Irenaeus (III. 1. 1) and by the Muratorian
Fragment. From that time on tradition was unanimous both as to its
authorship and its authority. The common opinion--still defended by the
great majority of conservative critics--has always been that the third
Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The radical
critics of the present century, however, bring its composition down to
a latter date--ranging all the way from 70 to 140 (the latter is Baur's
date, which is now universally recognized as very wild). Many
conservative critics put its composition after the destruction of
Jerusalem on account of the peculiar form of its eschatological
discourses--e.g. Weiss, who puts it between 70 and 80 (while putting
Matthew and Mark before the destruction of Jerusalem). The traditional
and still prevalent opinion is that Luke's Gospel was written later
than those of Matthew and Mark. See the various commentaries and New
Testament Introductions, and for a clear exhibition of the synoptical
problem in general, see Schaff's Ch. Hist. I. p. 607 sqq. On Luke in
particular, p. 648 sqq.

[613] Luke i. 2, 3.

[614] Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic
Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, and before the end of the second
century the book occupied a place in the Canon undisputed except by
heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. The Muratorian
Fragment and Irenaeus (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke as the
author of the Acts, but from that time on tradition has been unanimous
in ascribing it to him. The only exception occurs in the case of
Photius (ad Amphil. Quaest. 123, ed. Migne), who states that the work
was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barnabas, and by others
to Luke; but it is probable as Weiss remarks that Photius, in this
case, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the date
of its composition. Irenaeus (III. 1. 1) seems (one cannot speak with
certainty, as some have done) to put it after the death of Peter and
Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the Acts still later. The Muratorian
Fragment implies that the work was written at least after the death of
Peter. Later, however, the tradition arose that the work was written
during the lifetime of Paul (so Jerome, de vir. ill. 7), and this has
been the prevailing opinion among conservative scholars ever since,
although many put the composition between the death of Paul and the
destruction of Jerusalem; while some (e.g. Weiss) put it after the
destruction of Jerusalem, though still assigning it to Luke. The
opposite school of critics deny Luke's authorship, throwing the book
into the latter part of the first century (Scholten, Hilgenfeld, &c.),
or into the times of Trajan and Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim, Hausrath,
&c.). The Tuebingen School saw in the Acts a "tendency-writing," in
which the history was intentionally perverted. This theory finds few
supporters at present, even among the most extreme critics, all of
whom, however, consider the book a source of the second rank,
containing much that is legendary and distorted and irreconcilable with
Paul's Epistles, which are looked upon as the only reliable source. The
question turns upon the relation of the author of the "we" sections to
the editor of the whole. Conservative scholars agree with universal
tradition in identifying them (though this is not necessary in order to
maintain the historical accuracy of the work), while the opposite
school denies the identity, considering the "we" sections authentic
historical accounts from the pen of a companion of Paul, which were
afterward incorporated into a larger work by one who was not a pupil of
Paul. The identity of the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is
now admitted by all parties. See the various Commentaries and New
Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of the Acts, compare
especially Weizsaecker's Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182 sqq., and Weiss'
Einleitung, p. 569 sq.

[615] Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression
phasi, "they say," which seems to imply that the interpretation was a
common one in his day. Schaff (Ch. Hist. I. p. 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 Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. 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 euangelion 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. S:2) says directly that
Luke 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 Mark
with Peter and of Luke 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.

[616] 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is eporeuthe, which
means simply "went" or "is gone." That Paul had sent him as Eusebius
states (using the word steilEURmenos) is not implied in the epistle.
Instead of eis tas Gallias (or ten Gallian) most of the ancient mss. of
the New Testament have eis 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 tas Gallias. Christophorsonus in his edition of
Eusebius reads epi ten Galatian, but entirely without ms. authority.
Epiphanius (Haer. LI. 11) contends that in 2 Tim. iv. 10 should be read
Gallia and not Galatia: ou gar en te Galati& 139; hos tines
planethentes nomizousin, alla en te Galli& 139;. Theodoret (in 2 Tim.
iv. 10) reads Galatian, but interprets it as meaning tas Gallias: houto
gar ekalounto pEURlai.

[617] 2 Tim. iv. 21.

[618] See chap. 2, note 1, above.

[619] Clement is mentioned in Phil. iv. 3, but is not called a
"fellow-soldier." Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul's references
to Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 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. For 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.

[620] Acts xvii. 34. This Dionysius has played an important part in
Church history, as the pretended author of a 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 be said
to be 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 part in
the history of the apostolic age, and it is improbable that there was
any organization there until many years after Paul's visit; for even in
the time of Dionysius of Corinth, the church there seems to have been
extremely small and weak (cf. Bk. IV. chap. 23, S: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.

[621] Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.--The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.

1. After Nero had held the power thirteen years, [622] and Galba and
Otho had ruled a year and six months, [623] Vespasian, who had become
distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed
sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies
there. [624] Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted
the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus. [625]

2. For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to
their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could
against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, [626]
and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was
beheaded, [627] and finally James, the first that had obtained the
episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in
the manner already described. [628] But the rest of the apostles, who
had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction,
and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to
preach the Gospel, [629] relying upon the power of Christ, who had said
to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."
[630]

3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a
revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave
the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. [631]
And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem,
then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were
entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook
those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles,
and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

4. But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation
at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea
were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and
children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of
death innumerable,--all these things, as well as the many great sieges
which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive.
sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city
of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as
well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the
abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, [632] stood in
the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now
awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,--all these things any
one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by
Josephus. [633]

5. But it is necessary to state that this writer records that the
multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea at the time of the
Passover, to the number of three million souls, [634] were shut up in
Jerusalem "as in a prison," to use his own words.

6. For it was right that in the very days in which they had inflicted
suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of
God, that in those days, shut up "as in a prison," they should meet
with destruction at the hands of divine justice.

7. But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from
the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it
necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that
those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was
not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against
the Christ of God.
__________________________________________________________________

[622] Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d.

[623] 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.

[624] Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at
Alexandria, July 1, 69, while Vitellius was the acknowledged emperor in
Italy. His choice was immediately ratified by his army in Judea, and
then by all the legions in the East. Vitellius was conquered by
Vespasian's generals, and slain in Italy, Dec. 20, 69, while Vespasian
himself went to Alexandria. The latter was immediately recognized by
the Senate, and reached Italy in the summer of 70. Eusebius is thus
approximately correct, though he is not exact as to details.

[625] 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.

[626] See Acts vii. 8 sqq.

[627] See Acts xii. 2

[628] See Bk. II. chap. 23.

[629] See chap. 1, note 1.

[630] See Matt. xxviii. 19.

[631] Pella was a town situated beyond the Jordan, in the north of
Perea, within the dominions of Herod Agrippa II. The surrounding
population was chiefly Gentile. See Pliny V. 18, and Josephus, B. J.
III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15) also records
this flight of the Christians to Pella.

[632] Dan. ix. 27.

[633] Josephus, B. J. Bks. V. and VI.

[634] B. J.VI. 9, S:S:3 and 4. Eusebius simply gives round numbers.
Josephus in S: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, S:3, Josephus states that when Cestius
Gallus, governor of Syria, came to Jerusalem at the time of the
Passover in 65 a.d., no less than 3,000,000 persons came about him to
enter complaint against the procurator Florus. These numbers are
grossly exaggerated. Tacitus estimates the number in the city at the
time of the siege as 600,000, but this, too, is far above the truth.
The writer of the article Jerusalem, in Smith's Bible Dict., estimates
that the city can never have had a population of more than 50,000
souls, and he concludes that at the time of the siege there cannot have
been more than 60,000 or 70,000 collected within the walls. This is
probably too low an estimate, but shows how far out of the way the
figures of Josephus and Tacitus must be.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.--The Famine which oppressed them.

1. Taking the fifth book of the History of Josephus again in our hands,
let us go through the tragedy of events which then occurred. [635]

2. "For the wealthy," he says, "it was equally dangerous to remain. For
under pretense that they were going to desert men were put to death for
their wealth. The madness of the seditions increased with the famine
and both the miseries were inflamed more and more day by day.

3. Nowhere was food to be seen; but, bursting into the houses men
searched them thoroughly, and whenever they found anything to eat they
tormented the owners on the ground that they had denied that they had
anything; but if they found nothing, they tortured them on the ground
that they had more carefully concealed it.

4. The proof of their having or not having food was found in the bodies
of the poor wretches. Those of them who were still in good condition
they assumed were well supplied with food, while those who were already
wasted away they passed by, for it seemed absurd to slay those who were
on the point of perishing for want.

5. Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for one measure of
wheat, if they belonged to the wealthier class, of barley if they were
poorer. Then shutting themselves up in the innermost parts of their
houses, some ate the grain uncooked on account of their terrible want,
while others baked it according as necessity and fear dictated.

6. Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet uncooked food from
the fire, they tore it in pieces. Wretched was the fare, and a
lamentable spectacle it was to see the more powerful secure an
abundance while the weaker mourned.

7. Of all evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and it destroys nothing
so effectively as shame. For that which under other circumstances is
worthy of respect, in the midst of famine is despised. Thus women
snatched the food from the very mouths of their husbands and children,
from their fathers, and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from
their babes. And while their dearest ones were wasting away in their
arms, they were not ashamed to take away from them the last drops that
supported life.

8. And even while they were eating thus they did not remain
undiscovered. But everywhere the rioters appeared, to rob them even of
these portions of food. For whenever they saw a house shut up, they
regarded it as a sign that those inside were taking food. And
immediately bursting open the doors they rushed in and seized what they
were eating, almost forcing it out of their very throats.

9. Old men who clung to their food were beaten, and if the women
concealed it in their hands, their hair was torn for so doing. There
was pity neither for gray hairs nor for infants, but, taking up the
babes that clung to their morsels of food, they dashed them to the
ground. But to those that anticipated their entrance and swallowed what
they were about to seize, they were still more cruel, just as if they
had been wronged by them.

10. And they devised the most terrible modes of torture to discover
food, stopping up the privy passages of the poor wretches with bitter
herbs, and piercing their seats with sharp rods. And men suffered
things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of compelling them to
confess to the possession of one loaf of bread, or in order that they
might be made to disclose a single drachm of barley which they had
concealed. But the tormentors themselves did not suffer hunger.

11. Their conduct might indeed have seemed less barbarous if they had
been driven to it by necessity; but they did it for the sake of
exercising their madness and of providing sustenance for themselves for
days to come.

12. And when any one crept out of the city by night as far as the
outposts of the Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they went to
meet him; and when he thought he had already escaped the enemy, they
seized what he had brought with him, and even though oftentimes the man
would entreat them, and, calling upon the most awful name of God,
adjure them to give him a portion of what he had obtained at the risk
of his life, they would give him nothing back. Indeed, it was fortunate
if the one that was plundered was not also slain."

13. To this account Josephus, after relating other things, adds the
following: [636] "The possibility of going out of the city being
brought to an end, [637] all hope of safety for the Jews was cut off.
And the famine increased and devoured the people by houses and
families. And the rooms were filled with dead women and children, the
lanes of the city with the corpses of old men.

14. Children and youths, swollen with the famine, wandered about the
market-places like shadows, and fell down wherever the death agony
overtook them. The sick were not strong enough to bury even their own
relatives, and those who had the strength hesitated because of the
multitude of the dead and the uncertainty as to their own fate. Many,
indeed, died while they were burying others, and many betook themselves
to their graves before death came upon them.

15. There was neither weeping nor lamentation under these misfortunes;
but the famine stifled the natural affections. Those that were dying a
lingering death looked with dry eyes upon those that had gone to their
rest before them. Deep silence and death-laden night encircled the
city.

16. But the robbers were more terrible than these miseries; for they
broke open the houses, which were now mere sepulchres, robbed the dead
and stripped the covering from their bodies, and went away with a
laugh. They tried the points of their swords in the dead bodies, and
some that were lying on the ground still alive they thrust through in
order to test their weapons. But those that prayed that they would use
their right hand and their sword upon them, they contemptuously left to
be destroyed by the famine. Every one of these died with eyes fixed
upon the temple; and they left the seditious alive.

17. These at first gave orders that the dead should be buried out of
the public treasury, for they could not endure the stench. But
afterward, when they were not able to do this, they threw the bodies
from the walls into the trenches.

18. And as Titus went around and saw the trenches filled with the dead,
and the thick blood oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned aloud,
and, raising his hands, called God to witness that this was not his
doing."

19. After speaking of some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows:
[638] "I cannot hesitate to declare what my feelings compel me to. I
suppose, if the Romans had longer delayed in coming against these
guilty wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by a chasm, or
overwhelmed with a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as destroyed
Sodom. For it had brought forth a generation of men much more godless
than were those that suffered such punishment. By their madness indeed
was the whole people brought to destruction."

20. And in the sixth book he writes as follows: [639] "Of those that
perished by famine in the city the number was countless, and the
miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if so much as the shadow of
food appeared in any house, there was war, and the dearest friends
engaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and snatched from
each other the most wretched supports of life.

21. Nor would they believe that even the dying were without food; but
the robbers would search them while they were expiring, lest any one
should feign death while concealing food in his bosom. With mouths
gaping for want of food, they stumbled and staggered along like mad
dogs, and beat the doors as if they were drunk, and in their impotence
they would rush into the same houses twice or thrice in one hour.

22. Necessity compelled them to eat anything they could find, and they
gathered and devoured things that were not fit even for the filthiest
of irrational beasts. Finally they did not abstain even from their
girdles and shoes, and they stripped the hides off their shields and
devoured them. Some used even wisps of old hay for food, and others
gathered stubble and sold the smallest weight of it for four Attic
drachmae. [640]

23. "But why should I speak of the shamelessness which was displayed
during the famine toward inanimate things? For I am going to relate a
fact such as is recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians; horrible to
relate, incredible to hear. And indeed I should gladly have omitted
this calamity, that I might not seem to posterity to be a teller of
fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it in my own age.
And besides, I should render my country poor service if I suppressed
the account of the sufferings which she endured.

24. "There was a certain woman named Mary that dwelt beyond Jordan,
whose father was Eleazer, of the village of Bathezor [641] (which
signifies the house of hyssop). She was distinguished for her family
and her wealth, and had fled with the rest of the multitude to
Jerusalem and was shut up there with them during the siege.

25. The tyrants had robbed her of the rest of the property which she
had brought with her into the city from Perea. And the remnants of her
possessions and whatever food was to be seen the guards rushed in daily
and snatched away from her. This made the woman terribly angry, and by
her frequent reproaches and imprecations she aroused the anger of the
rapacious villains against herself.

26. But no one either through anger or pity would slay her; and she
grew weary of finding food for others to eat. The search, too, was
already become everywhere difficult, and the famine was piercing her
bowels and marrow, and resentment was raging more violently than
famine. Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as her counsellors, she
proceeded to do a most unnatural thing.

27. Seizing her child, a boy which was sucking at her breast, she said,
Oh, wretched child, in war, in famine, in sedition, for what do I
preserve thee? Slaves among the Romans we shall be even if we are
allowed to live by them. But even slavery is anticipated by the famine,
and the rioters are more cruel than both. Come, be food for me, a fury
for these rioters, [642] and a bye-word to the world, for this is all
that is wanting to complete the calamities of the Jews.

28. And when she had said this she slew her son; and having roasted
him, she ate one half herself, and covering up the remainder, she kept
it. Very soon the rioters appeared on the scene, and, smelling the
nefarious odor, they threatened to slay her immediately unless she
should show them what she had prepared. She replied that she had saved
an excellent portion for them, and with that she uncovered the remains
of the child.

29. They were immediately seized with horror and amazement and stood
transfixed at the sight. But she said This is my own son, and the deed
is mine. Eat for I too have eaten. Be not more merciful than a woman,
nor more compassionate than a mother. But if you are too pious and
shrink from my sacrifice, I have already [643] eaten of it; let the
rest also remain for me.

30. At these words the men went out trembling, in this one case being
affrighted; yet with difficulty did they yield that food to the mother.
Forthwith the whole city was filled with the awful crime, and as all
pictured the terrible deed before their own eyes, they trembled as if
they had done it themselves.

31. Those that were suffering from the famine now longed for death; and
blessed were they that had died before hearing and seeing miseries like
these."

32. Such was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness
and impiety, against the Christ of God.
__________________________________________________________________

[635] Josephus, B. J. Bk. V. chap. 10, S:S:2 and 3.

[636] Ibid.chap. 12, S:S:3 and 4.

[637] 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.

[638] Ibid.chap. 13, S:6.

[639] Ibid.Bk. VI. chap. 3, S:S:3 and 4.

[640] 'Attikon tessEURron; the word drachmon 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.

[641] bathezor. Some mss. have bathechor, and the mss. of Josephus have
bethezob, which Whiston translates Bethezub.

[642] "In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered
tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death"
(Stroth).

[643] ede. All the mss. of Eusebius read humon. Some of the mss. of
Josephus read ede, 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 hemisu,
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.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.--The Predictions of Christ.

1. It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our
Saviour in which he foretold these very events.

2. His words are as follows: [644] "Woe unto them that are with child,
and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For there shall be
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to
this time, no, nor ever shall be."

3. The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that
eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, [645] and
that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other
after the taking of the city, were slain. [646] But the tallest of the
youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for
the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over
seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of
Egypt, [647] while still more were scattered through the provinces to
meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those
under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves,
and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand. [648]

4. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the
reign of Vespasian, [649] in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if
they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the
statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which he
uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: [650]

5. "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which
belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the
days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and
shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground."

6. And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, [651] "For
there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again:
[652] "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know
that the desolation thereof is nigh."

7. If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts
of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder,
and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour
were truly divine and marvellously strange. [653]

8. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish
nation after the Saviour's passion and after the words which the
multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the
robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be
taken from their midst, [654] it is not necessary to add anything to
the account of the historian.

9. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited
the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their
destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,--during
which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the
first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord,
[655] were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the
surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved itself
long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for
what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in
addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful
signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not
repent.

10. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the
historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for
the benefit of the readers of this work.
__________________________________________________________________

[644] Matt. xxiv. 19-21

[645] Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 9, S: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.

[646] Ibid.S:2.

[647] eis ta kat' ,'Aigupton zrga. 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.

[648] Josephus does not say that the number of those sold as slaves was
upward of 90,000, as Eusebius asserts, but simply (ibid. S: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.

[649] 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. Schuerer, N. T. Zeitgesch.
p. 347.)

[650] Luke xix. 42-44

[651] Ibid. xxi. 23, 24.

[652] Ibid. verse 20.

[653] It is but right to remark that not merely the negative school of
critics, but even many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss) put the
composition of the Gospel of Luke after the year 70, because its
eschatological discourses seem to bear the mark of having been recorded
after the fulfillment of the prediction, differing as they do in many
minor particulars from the accounts of the same discourses in Matthew
and Mark. To cite a single instance: in the passage quoted just above
from Luke xxi. 20, the armies encompassing Jerusalem are mentioned,
while in parallel passages in the other Gospels (Matt. xxiv. 15 and
Mark xiii. 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.

[654] Compare Acts iii. 14, and see Matt. xvii. 20, Mark xv. 11, Luke
xxii. 18.

[655] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.--The Signs which preceded the War.

1. Taking, then, the work of this author, read what he records in the
sixth book of his History. His words are as follows: [656] "Thus were
the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors and false
prophets; [657] but they did not heed nor give credit to the visions
and signs that foretold the approaching desolation. On the contrary, as
if struck by lightning, and as if possessing neither eyes nor
understanding, they slighted the proclamations of God.

2. At one time a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and a
comet, which lasted for a whole year; and again before the revolt and
before the disturbances that led to the war, when the people were
gathered for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month
Xanthicus, [658] at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone
about the altar and the temple that it seemed to be bright day; and
this continued for half an hour. This seemed to the unskillful a good
sign, but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as portending those
events which very soon took place.

3. And at the same feast a cow, led by the high priest to be
sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

4. And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and
very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty
men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the
ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.

5. And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month
Artemisium, [659] a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes
belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those
who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of
such signs. For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed troops
were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the
clouds and encircling the cities.

6. And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests entered
the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the services, they
said that at first they perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward
a voice as of a great multitude, saying, `Let us go hence.' [660]

7. But what follows is still more terrible; for a certain Jesus, the
son of Ananias, a common countryman, four years before the war, [661]
when the city was particularly prosperous and peaceful, came to the
feast, at which it was customary for all to make tents at the temple to
the honor of God, [662] and suddenly began to cry out: `A voice from
the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice
against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice against bridegrooms and
brides, a voice against all the people.' Day and night he went through
all the alleys crying thus.

8. But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the ominous
cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes. But without
uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in particular to
those that were present, he continued to cry out in the same words as
before.

9. And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved by a
higher power, brought him before the Roman governor. [663] And then,
though he was scourged to the bone, he neither made supplication nor
shed tears, but, changing his voice to the most lamentable tone
possible, he answered each stroke with the words, `Woe, woe unto
Jerusalem.'"

10. The same historian records another fact still more wonderful than
this. He says [664] that a certain oracle was found in their sacred
writings which declared that at that time a certain person should go
forth from their country to rule the world. He himself understood that
this was fulfilled in Vespasian.

11. But Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part of
it which was subject to the Romans. With better right could it be
applied to Christ; to whom it was said by the Father, "Ask of me, and I
will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the
earth for thy possession." [665] At that very time, indeed, the voice
of his holy apostles "went throughout all the earth, and their words to
the end of the world." [666]
__________________________________________________________________

[656] Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 5, S:3.

[657] katapseudomenoi tou theou. 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 Cruse does), which is indefinite, and might have various
meanings.

[658] The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek
name of the month used here is xanthikos, 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.

[659] 'Artemisios. According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan
and Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth Attic month
(elaphebolion), 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.

[660] 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
metabainomen, "let us go hence," and I have followed Stephanus,
Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in adopting
that reading.

[661] 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.

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

[663] This was Albinus, as we should know from the date of the event,
and as Josephus directly states in the context. He was procurator from
61 or 62 to 64 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23, note 35, and chap. 22,
note 1.

[664] See Josephus, B. J. VI. 5.4, and cf. ibid. III. 8. 9.

[665] Ps. ii. 8.

[666] Ps. xix. 4.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.--Josephus and the Works which he has left.

1. After all this it is fitting that we should know something in regard
to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so much to
the history in hand. He himself gives us information on this point in
the following words: [667] "Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest
of Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Romans in the beginning
and was compelled to be present at what happened afterward."

2. He was the most noted of all the Jews of that day, not only among
his own people, but also among the Romans, so that he was honored by
the erection of a statue in Rome, [668] and his works were deemed
worthy of a place in the library. [669]

3. He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews [670] in twenty
books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his
time, in seven books. [671] He himself testifies that the latter work
was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by
himself into his native tongue. [672] He is worthy of credit here
because of his truthfulness in other matters.

4. There are extant also two other books of his which are worth
reading. They treat of the antiquity of the Jews, [673] and in them he
replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at that time written a
treatise against the Jews, and also to others who had attempted to
vilify the hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.

5. In the first of these books he gives the number of the canonical
books of the so-called Old Testament. Apparently [674] drawing his
information from ancient tradition, he shows what books were accepted
without dispute among the Hebrews. His words are as follows.
__________________________________________________________________

[667] B. J.,Preface, S: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.

[668] 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.

[669] In S: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, S: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.

[670] 'Ioudaike 'Archaiologia, Antiquitates Judaicae. 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.

[671] ;;Istoria 'Ioudaikou polemou pros ;;Romaious, 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, S:1).

[672] The work, as Josephus informs us (B. J., Preface, S: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.

[673] The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavius Josephus on
the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (peri archaiotetos 'Ioudaion
kata 'Apionos, 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.

[674] hosEURn.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter X.--The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books.

1. [675] "We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and
conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which
contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition
respecting the origin of man, and continue the history [676] down to
his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years. [677]

3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded
Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the
history of their own times in thirteen books. [678] The other four
books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life
of men.

4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been
recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that
we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been
during this time an exact succession of prophets. [679]

5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our
treatment of them. For although so great a period has already passed
by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it
is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the
teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully
to die for them."

These remarks of the historian I have thought might advantageously be
introduced in this connection.

6. Another work of no little merit has been produced by the same
writer, On the Supremacy of Reason, [680] which some have called
Maccabaicum, [681] because it contains an account of the struggles of
those Hebrews who contended manfully for the true religion, as is
related in the books called Maccabees.

7. And at the end of the twentieth book of his Antiquities [682]
Josephus himself intimates that he had purposed to write a work in four
books concerning God and his existence, according to the traditional
opinions of the Jews, and also concerning the laws, why it is that they
permit some things while prohibiting others. [683] And the same writer
also mentions in his own works other books written by himself. [684]

8. In addition to these things it is proper to quote also the words
that are found at the close of his Antiquities, [685] in confirmation
of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts. In that place
he attacks Justus of Tiberias, [686] who, like himself, had attempted
to write a history of contemporary events, on the ground that he had
not written truthfully. Having brought many other accusations against
the man, he continues in these words: [687]

9. "I indeed was not afraid in respect to my writings as you were,
[688] but, on the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors
themselves when the events were almost under men's eyes. For I was
conscious that I had preserved the truth in my account, and hence was
not disappointed in my expectation of obtaining their attestation.

10. And I presented my history also to many others, some of whom were
present at the war, as, for instance, King Agrippa [689] and some of
his relatives.

11. For the Emperor Titus desired so much that the knowledge of the
events should be communicated to men by my history alone, that he
indorsed the books with his own hand and commanded that they should be
published. And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the
truthfulness of my account." Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two.
[690] But this will suffice in regard to him. Let us now proceed with
our history.
__________________________________________________________________

[675] Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since the
first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv. 44
sq.) is that Ezra 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. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9. Kings. 10.
Chronicles. 11. Ezra and Nehemiah. 12. Esther. 13. Isaiah. 14. Jeremiah
and Lamentations. 15. Ezekiel. 16. Daniel. 17. Twelve Minor Prophets.
18. Job. 19. Psalms. 20. Proverbs. 21. Ecclesiastes. 22. Song of Songs.
The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books is that of Melito
(given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:-- Books of Moses
Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua Nave. Judges.
Ruth. Four of Kings. Chronicles. Psalms. Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Song
of Songs. Job. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Twelve Minor Prophets. Daniel.
Ezekiel. Ezra. Melito says nothing of the number twenty-two, and, in
fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers only twenty-one. His list
really differs from Josephus' only in omitting the Book of Esther. This
omission may be accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and
Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is
doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus' canon. His
canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should expect it
to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more probable that
the omission of Esther was only accidental. Origen (in Eusebius, VI.
25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but
his list differs somewhat from that of Josephus. It is as follows:--
1-5. Books of Moses. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9.
Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11. Ezra I. and II. 12. Psalms. 13. Proverbs.
14. Ecclesiastes. 15. Song of Songs. 16. [Twelve Minor Prophets
(Rufinus).] 17. Isaiah. 18. Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Epistle. 19.
Daniel. 20. Ezekiel. 21. Job. 22. Esther. "Besides these also the
Maccabees." The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the
Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah. The
former were certainly looked upon by Origen as sacred books, for he
wrote a commentary upon them (according to Eusebius, VI. 36). There is
no conceivable reason for their omission, and indeed they are needed to
make up the number twenty-two. We must conclude that the omission was
simply an oversight on the part of Eusebius or of some transcriber.
Rufinus gives them as number sixteen, as shown in the list, but the
position there assigned to them is not the ordinary one. We should
expect to find them in connection with the other prophets; but the
various lists are by no means uniform in the order of the books. On the
other hand, the Greek Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch vi.) did not stand in
the Hebrew canon, and can have been included by Origen here only
because he 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 Ruth 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 authoritative 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.

[676] Literally, "the tradition respecting the origin of man
(anthropogonias) 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."

[677] 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.

[678] These thirteen books were:-- 1. Joshua. 2. Judges and Ruth. 3.
Samuel. 4. Kings. 5. Chronicles. 6. Ezra and Nehemiah. 7. Esther. 8.
Isaiah. 9. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 10. Ezekiel. 11. Daniel. 12.
Twelve Minor Prophets. 13. Job. As will be seen, Josephus divided the
canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of Moses); second,
the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the Hagiographa
(Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The division of the
canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time,
his division is quite different from any other division known. Jerome's
is as follows:-- 1. Law: five books of Moses. 2. Prophets: Joshua,
Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations,
Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight books). 3. Hagiographa (Holy
writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Daniel,
Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books). The division which exists in our
Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome's only in transferring Ruth
and Lamentations to the third division, and thus making twenty-four
books. This is held by many to be a later form, as remarked above, but
as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the LXX., which is
followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged, without
reference to the three divisions, solely according to their
subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his
looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to
include in the second division all the books which contained, as he
says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes.

[679] The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who
reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah
carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished.
Malachi--the last of them--uttered his prophecies at the end of
Artaxerxes' or at the beginning of Darius' reign. It was commonly held
among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical
spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as
here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who
followed them.

[680] eis Makkabaious logos he peri autokrEURtoros 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.

[681] Makkabaikon

[682] Ant.XX. 11. 3. See the previous chapter, note 7.

[683] See the same note.

[684] See the same note.

[685] The passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is found in
his Life, S: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.

[686] 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, basileis 'Ioudaioi hoi en tois 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.

[687] Vita,S:65.

[688] 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.

[689] 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.

[690] These two epistles are still extant, and are given by Josephus in
his Vita, immediately after the passage just quoted by Eusebius. The
first of them reads as follows (according to Whiston's translation):
"King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth greeting. I have
read over thy book with great pleasure, and it appears to me that thou
hast done it much more accurately and with greater care than have the
other writers. Send me the rest of these books. Farewell, my dear
friend."
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI.--Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.

1. After the martyrdom of James [691] and the conquest of Jerusalem
which immediately followed, [692] it is said that those of the apostles
and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all
directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the
flesh [693] (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take
counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, [694] the son of
Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; [695] to be worthy of
the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of
the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of
Joseph. [696]
__________________________________________________________________

[691] 61 or 62 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23.

[692] 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.

[693] logos katechei. 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 logos
katechei, 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.

[694] This Symeon is to be distinguished from the apostle Simon, the
Canaanite, and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned in
Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 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 John xix. 25, as
the husband of Mary, who is without doubt identical with Mary the
mother of James (the little) and of Joses; mentioned in Matt. xxvii.
56, Mark xv. 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 Alphaeus, 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.

[695] In John xix. 25

[696] 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 John xix. 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XII.--Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be sought.

He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave
orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought
out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews;
and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over
the Jews. [697]
__________________________________________________________________

[697] 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 ;;Egesippos
historei, the last words of the preceding chapter, than to supply any
other phrase, such as logos katechei, 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIII.--Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.

After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him.
[698] In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of
the church of Rome for twelve years, [699] delivered his office to
Anencletus. [700] But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after
he had reigned two years and the same number of months. [701]
__________________________________________________________________

[698] 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.

[699] 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.

[700] 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.

[701] Titus died Dec. 13, a.d. 81. He therefore reigned two years and
six months, instead of two years and two months as Eusebius states.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIV.--Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.

In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, [702] the first bishop of the
parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and
was succeeded by Abilius, [703] the second bishop.
__________________________________________________________________

[702] 85 a.d.; on Annianus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

[703] 'Abilios. According to one tradition Abilius was ordained
presbyter with his successor Cerdon by Mark himself (see Smith and
Wace). According to another (Ap. Const. VII. 46) he was appointed
bishop by Luke. He held office thirteen years according to chap. 21,
below. Valesius claims that the name should be written Avilius,
regarding it as a Latin name, and citing in support of his opinion the
name of a prefect of Egypt, Avilius Flaccus, mentioned by Philo, and
the fact that the name of Avilius' predecessor, Annianus, is also
Latin.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XV.--Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.

In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus
[704] after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve
years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that
this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: [705]
"With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the
book of life."
__________________________________________________________________

[704] On Anencletus, see chap. 13, note 3.

[705] Phil. iv. 3. For an account of Clement, see above, chap. 4, note
19; and upon the order of succession of the Roman bishops, see chap. 2,
note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVI.--The Epistle of Clement.

There is extant an epistle of this Clement [706] which is acknowledged
to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit.
[707] He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of
Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. [708] We know
that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches
both in former times and in our own. [709] And of the fact that a
sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred
to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. [710]
__________________________________________________________________

[706] This epistle of Clement, which is still extant in two Greek mss.,
and in a Syriac version, consists of fifty-nine chapters, and is found
in all editions of the Apostolic Fathers. It purports to have been
written from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, but bears the
name of no author. Unanimous tradition, however (beginning with
Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, IV. 23), ascribes it to Clement,
Bishop of Rome, and scholars, with hardly an exception, accept it as
his work. It was, in all probability, written immediately after the
persecution of Domitian, in the last years of the first century, and is
one of the earliest, perhaps the very earliest, post-biblical works
which we have. It was held in very high repute in the early Church, and
in the Alexandrian Codex it stands among the canonical books as a part
of the New Testament (though this is exceptional; cf. chap. 3, above,
and chap. 25, below, in both of which this epistle is omitted, though
Eusebius is giving lists of New Testament books, both accepted and
disputed). We have had the epistle complete only since 1875, when
Bryennios discovered a ms. containing it and other valuable works.
Previously a part of the epistle had been wanting. In consequence the
older editions have been superseded by the more recent. See appendix to
Lightfoot's edition (1877), which gives the recovered portions of the
text; so, also, the later editions of Gebhardt and Harnack's, and of
Hilgenfeld's Apostolic Fathers. The epistle is translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 5-21.

[707] megEURle te kai thaumasia.

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

[709] 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.

[710] Hegesippus' testimony upon this point is no longer extant.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVII.--The Persecution under Domitian.

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly
put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and
having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great
many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his
hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up
a persecution against us, [711] although his father Vespasian had
undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. [712]
__________________________________________________________________

[711] 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 Caesaren, 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 roemischen Kaiser gegen die Christen, in his
Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. (1875).

[712] The fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasian is
abundantly confirmed by the absence of any tradition to the opposite
effect. Compare Tertullian's Apol. chap. 5, where the persecutions of
Nero and Domitian are recorded.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVIII.--The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.

1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John,
who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in
consequence of his testimony to the divine word. [713]

2. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he
discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the
so-called Apocalypse of John, [714] speaks as follows concerning him:
[715]

3. "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the
present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the
revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own
generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."

4. To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at
that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did
not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the
martyrdoms which took place during it. [716]

5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded
that in the fifteenth year of Domitian [717] Flavia Domitilla, daughter
of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls
of Rome, [718] was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in
consequence of testimony borne to Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

[713] Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenaeus (V. 30. 3, quoted
just below, and again in Eusebius V. 8) assigns the banishment of John
and the apocalyptic visions to the reign of Domitian. This was formerly
the common opinion, and is still held by some respectable writers, but
strong internal evidence has driven most modern scholars to the
conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been written before the
destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment therefore (upon the assumption
that John wrote the Apocalypse, upon which see chap. 24, note 19)
taking place under Nero instead of Domitian. If we accept this, we have
the remarkable phenomenon of an event taking place at an earlier date
than that assigned it by tradition, an exceptional and inexplicable
thing. We have too the difficulty of accounting for the erroneousness
of so early and unanimous a tradition. The case thus stood for years,
until in 1886 Vischer published his pamphlet Die Offenbarung des
Johannes, eine juedische 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.

[714] Rev. xiii. 18. It will be noticed that Eusebius is careful not to
commit himself here on the question of the authorship of the
Apocalypse. See below, chap. 24, note 20.

[715] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 30. 3; quoted also below, in Bk. V. chap.
8.

[716] 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.

[717] 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.

[718] 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 (atheotetos). These
accusations are just such as heathen writers of that age were fond of
making against the Christians (compare, for instance, Athenagoras' Adv.
Gent. chap. 4, and Tertullian's Apol. chap. 42). Accordingly it has
been very commonly held that both Flavius Clemens and Domitilla were
Christians, and were punished on that account. But early tradition
makes only Domitilla a Christian; and certainly if Clemens also--a man
of such high rank--had been a Christian, an early tradition to that
effect would be somewhere preserved. We must, therefore, conclude that
his offense was something else than Christianity. The very silence of
Christian tradition as to Clement is an argument for the truth of the
tradition in regard to Domitilla, and the heathen historians referred
to confirm its main points, though they differ in minor details. The
Acts of Martyrdom of Nereus and Achilles represent Domitilla as the
niece, not the wife, of Flavius Clemens, and Eusebius does the same.
More than that, while the heathen writers report that Domitilla was
banished to the island Pandeteria, these Acts, as well as Eusebius and
Jerome (Ep. adv. Eustachium, Migne's ed., Ep. CVIII. 7), give the
island of Pontia as the place of banishment. Tillemont and other
writers have therefore assumed that there were two Domitillas,--aunt
and niece,--one banished to one island, the other to another. But this
is very improbable, and it is easier to suppose that there was but one
Domitilla and but one island, and that the discrepancies are due to
carelessness or to the mistakes of transcribers. Pandeteria and Pontia
were two small islands in the Mediterranean, just west of central
Italy, and were very frequently employed by the Roman emperors as
places of exile for prisoners.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIX.--Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain.

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David
should be slain, an ancient tradition says [719] that some of the
heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to
have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the
ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to
Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
__________________________________________________________________

[719] palaios katechei logos. It is noticeable that, although Eusebius
has the written authority of Hegesippus for this account, he still
speaks of it as supported by "ancient tradition." This is different
from his ordinary custom, and serves to make us careful in drawing
conclusions as to the nature of Eusebius' authority for any statement
from the expression used in introducing it.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XX.--The Relatives of our Saviour.

1. "Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren
of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the
flesh. [720]

2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and
they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. [721] For
Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And
he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed
that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how
much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only
nine thousand denarii, [722] half of which belonged to each of them;

4. and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land
which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised
their taxes [723] and supported themselves by their own labor." [724]

5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their
bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil
as evidence of their own labor.

6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what
sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it
was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic
one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in
glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one
according to his works.

7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but,
despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a
stop to the persecution of the Church.

8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they
were witnesses [725] and were also relatives of the Lord. [726] And
peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These
things are related by Hegesippus.

9. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: [727]
"Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once
to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I
suppose, some intelligence, [728] he very soon ceased, and even
recalled those whom he had banished."

10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, [729] and Nerva had
succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers
that record the history of those days, [730] voted that Domitian's
honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly
banished should return to their homes and have their property restored
to them.

11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his
banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to
an ancient Christian tradition. [731]
__________________________________________________________________

[720] 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 Luke (Luke vi. 14 and Acts i. 13) as the son of James
(not his brother, as the A.V. translates: the Greek words are 'Ioudas
'Iakobou). 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.

[721] 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.

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

[723] "Taxes or tributes were paid commonly in the products of the
land" (Val.).

[724] Most editors (including Valesius, Heinichen, Cruse, &c.) regard
the quotation from Hegesippus as extending through S: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 S:8 is
repeated in chap. 32, S:6, and there in the exact language of
Hegesippus, which differs enough from the language of S:8 to show that
the latter is a free reproduction.

[725] mEURrturas. On the use of this word, see chap. 32, note 15.

[726] Compare Renan's Les Evangiles, p. 466.

[727] Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5.

[728] ti suneseos. Lat. sed qua et homo.

[729] Domitian reigned from Dec. 13, 81 a.d., to Sept. 18, 96.

[730] See Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 1 sq., and Suetonius' Domitian, chap.
23.

[731] Literally, "the word of the ancients among us" (ho ton par' hemin
archaion logos). On the tradition itself, see chap. 1, note 6.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXI.--Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church of
Alexandria.

1. After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year [732] he was
succeeded by Trajan. It was during the first year of his reign that
Abilius, [733] who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen
years, was succeeded by Cerdon. [734]

2. He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus,
[735] who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church of
Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul
and Peter.

3. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus. [736]
__________________________________________________________________

[732] From Sept. 18, 96, to Jan. 27, 98 a.d.

[733] On Abilius, see chap. 14, note 2, above.

[734] 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.

[735] On Annianus, see Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

[736] On the order of succession of the early Roman bishops, see above,
chap. 2, note 1. Paul and Peter are here placed together by Eusebius,
as co-bishops of Rome. Compare the association of the two apostles by
Caius, and by Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. II.
chap. 25).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXII.--Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.

At this time Ignatius [737] was known as the second bishop of Antioch,
Evodius having been the first. [738] Symeon [739] likewise was at that
time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our
Saviour having been the first.
__________________________________________________________________

[737] On Ignatius' life, writings, and martyrdom, see below, chap. 36.

[738] We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first
bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion of
his name before the great name of Ignatius. The tendency would be, of
course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apostles, and to make him
the first bishop. This tendency is seen in Athanasius and Chrysostom,
who do not mention Evodius at all; also in the Apost. Const. VII. 46,
where, however, it is said that Evodius was ordained by Peter, and
Ignatius by Paul (as in the parallel case of Clement of Rome). The fact
that the name of Evodius appears here shows that the tradition that he
was the first bishop seemed to the author too old and too strong to be
set aside. Origen (in Luc. Hom. VI.) is an indirect witness to the
episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the second, and not the
first, bishop of Antioch. As to the respective dates of the early
bishops of Antioch, we know nothing certain. On their chronology, see
Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, and cf. Salmon's article Evodius, in
Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[739] On Symeon, see above, chap. 11, note 4.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIII.--Narrative Concerning John the Apostle.

1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus
loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that
region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on
the island. [740]

2. And that he was still alive at that time [741] may be established by
the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have
maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenaeus
and Clement of Alexandria. [742]

3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes
as follows: [743] "And all the elders that associated with John the
disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to
them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan." [744]

4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in
the following words: [745] "But the church in Ephesus also, which was
founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a
faithful witness of the apostolic tradition."

5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved?
[746] indicates the time, [747] and subjoins a narrative which is most
attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and
profitable. Take and read the account which runs as follows: [748]

6. "Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative [749]
concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured
up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, [750] he returned
from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation
to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in
some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere
to choose to the ministry some one [751] of those that were pointed out
by the Spirit.

7. When he had come to one of the cities not far away (the name of
which is given by some [752] ), and had consoled the brethren in other
matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and
seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of
ardent temperament, he said, `This one I commit to thee in all
earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.'
And when the bishop had accepted the charge and had promised all, he
repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and
then departed for Ephesus.

8. But the presbyter [753] taking home the youth committed to him,
reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized [754] him. After this he
relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in
putting upon him the seal of the Lord [755] he had given him a perfect
protection.

9. But some youths of his own age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed
to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus prematurely freed
from restraint. At first they enticed him by costly entertainments;
then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they took him with
them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with them in some
greater crime.

10. He gradually became accustomed to such practices, and on account of
the positiveness of his character, [756] leaving the right path, and
taking the bit in his teeth like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, he
rushed the more violently down into the depths.

11. And finally despairing of salvation in God, he no longer meditated
what was insignificant, but having committed some great crime, since he
was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like fate with the
rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he became
a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, most cruel of them
all.

12. Time passed, and some necessity having arisen, they sent for John.
But he, when he had set in order the other matters on account of which
he had come, said, `Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit which both I
and Christ committed to thee, the church, over which thou presidest,
being witness.'

13. But the bishop was at first confounded, thinking that he was
falsely charged in regard to money which he had not received, and he
could neither believe the accusation respecting what he had not, nor
could he disbelieve John. But when he said, `I demand the young man and
the soul of the brother,' the old man, groaning deeply and at the same
time bursting into tears, said, `He is dead.' `How and what kind of
death?' `He is dead to God,' he said; `for he turned wicked and
abandoned, and at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, he
haunts the mountain with a band like himself.'

14. But the Apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head with great
lamentation, he said, `A fine guard I left for a brother's soul! But
let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.' He rode
away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place, he was
taken prisoner by the robbers' outpost.

15. He, however, neither fled nor made entreaty, but cried out, `For
this did I come; lead me to your captain.'

16. The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was. But when he
recognized John approaching, he turned in shame to flee.

17. But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might,
crying out, `Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thine own father,
unarmed, aged? Pity me, my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of life.
I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly
endure thy death as the Lord suffered death for us. For thee will I
give up my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.'

18. And he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down; then he threw
away his arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And when the old
man approached, he embraced him, making confession with lamentations as
he was able, baptizing himself a second time with tears, and concealing
only his right hand.

19. But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath that he would
find forgiveness with the Saviour, besought him, fell upon his knees,
kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by repentance, and led
him back to the church. And making intercession for him with copious
prayers, and struggling together with him in continual fastings, and
subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not depart, as they
say, until he had restored him to the church, furnishing a great
example of true repentance and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy
of a visible resurrection."
__________________________________________________________________

[740] See chap. 1, note 6, and chap. 18, note 1.

[741] That is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan.

[742] The test of a man's trustworthiness in Eusebius' mind--and not in
his alone--was his orthodoxy. Irenaeus 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.

[743] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. II. 22. 5.

[744] It is in this immediate connection that Irenaeus makes the
extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who
were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty
years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false
report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John's
continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other
passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap. 1, note 6).
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 John viii.
56, 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 John
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.

[745] Adv. Haer. III. 3, 4.

[746] tis ho sozomenos plousios: Quis Dives salvetur. This able and
interesting little treatise upon the proper use of wealth is still
extant, and is found in the various editions of Clement's works;
English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), II. p.
591-604. The sound common sense of the book, and its freedom from undue
asceticism are conspicuous, and furnish a pleasing contrast to most of
the writings of that age.

[747] He indicates the time only by saying "after the tyrant was dead,"
which might refer either to Domitian or to Nero. But the mention of
John a little below as "an aged man" would seem to point to the end of
the century rather than to Nero's time. At any rate, Eusebius
understood Clement as referring to Domitian, and in the presence of
unanimous tradition for Domitian, and in the absence of any
counter-tradition, we can hardly understand him otherwise.

[748] Quis Dives salvetur, chap. 42.

[749] muthon ou muthon, 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."

[750] See note 8.

[751] klero hena ge tina kleroson. Compare the note of Heinichen in his
edition of Eusebius, Vol. I. p. 122. Upon the use of the word kleros 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 kleros 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 fuer
eine Wahl der Gemeindebeamten durch das Loos alle sonstigen Beweisen
fehlen, und da in dem vorliegenden Satze die Einsetzung von einer
Mehrzahl von episkopoi durch den Apostel ohne jede Methode erwaehnt
wird, so faellt jeder Grund hinweg, dass bei der Wahl einzelner Beamten
das Mittel des Loosens angewandt sein sollte, zumal bei dieser Deutung
ein Pleonasmus vorausgesetzt wuerde. Es ist vielmehr zu erklaeren, dass
Johannes an einzelnen Orten mehrere Beamte zugleich eingesetzt, an
anderen Orten wo schon ein Collegium bestand, dem Beamtenstande je ein
Mitglied eingereiht habe."

[752] 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.

[753] 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 presbuteros was originally
employed in the most general sense to indicate any church officer, thus
practically equivalent to the hegoumenos of Heb. xiii. 17, and the
poimen of Eph. iv. 11. The terms episkopos and diEURkonos, 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
diEURkonos), 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 episkopos. 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.

[754] ephotise: literally, "enlightened him." The verb photizo 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.

[755] ten sphragida kuriou. The word sphragis 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. S: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.)

[756] Literally, "greatness of his nature" (megethos phuseos).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIV.--The Order of the Gospels.

1. This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the
history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the
undisputed writings of this apostle.

2. And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the
churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine. [757] That it
has with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place,
after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following
way.

3. Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ,
were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the
soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in
their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted
unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they
attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and
artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine
Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ,
which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the
kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention
to the composition of written works.

4. And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by
one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in
vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no
more than the briefest epistles, [758] although he had innumerable
mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the
sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of
God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there.
[759]

5. And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles,
the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant
of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples [760] of the Lord,
only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they,
tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was
about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his
native tongue, [761] and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to
leave for the loss of his presence.

7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, [762]
they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the
Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The
three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and
into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to
their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of
the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. [763]

8. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three
evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year
after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, [764] and indicated this in
the beginning of their account.

9. For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which
followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: "Now
when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into
Galilee." [765]

10. Mark likewise says: "Now after that John was delivered up Jesus
came into Galilee." [766] And Luke, before commencing his account of
the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod,
"adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in
prison." [767]

11. They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it
for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had
been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the
Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before
the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they
say, in the following words: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus";
[768] and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the
deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in AEnon near Salim; [769] where he
states the matter clearly in the words: "For John was not yet cast into
prison." [770]

12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which
were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other
three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are
at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John
contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of
the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according
to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already
given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity,
which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the
divine Spirit. [771]

14. These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel
of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark
has been already stated by us. [772]

15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself
the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others
had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of
which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the
necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his
own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he
had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay
with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. [773]

16. So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting
place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what
others have said concerning them.

17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the
former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and
in ancient times. [774] But the other two are disputed. [775]

18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still
divided. [776] But at the proper time this question likewise shall be
decided from the testimony of the ancients. [777]
__________________________________________________________________

[757] The testimony of antiquity,--both orthodox and heretical,--to the
authenticity of John's Gospel is universal, with the exception of a
single unimportant sect of the second century, the Alogi, who denied
the Johannine authorship on account of the Logos doctrine, which they
rejected, and very absurdly ascribed the Gospel to the Gnostic
Cerinthus; though its absolute opposition to Cerinthus' views is so
apparent that Irenaeus (III. 11. 1) even supposed John to have written
the Gospel against Cerinthus. The writings of the second century are
full of the spirit of John's Gospel, and exhibit frequent parallels in
language too close to be mistaken; while from the last quarter of the
second century on it is universally and expressly ascribed to John
(Theophilus of Antioch and the Muratorian Fragment being the first to
name him as its author). The Church never entertained a doubt of its
authenticity until the end of the seventeenth century, when it was
first questioned by the English Deists; but its genuineness was
vindicated, and only scattering and occasional attacks were made upon
it until the rise of the Tuebingen school, since which time its
authenticity has been one of the most fiercely contested points in
apostolic history. Its opponents have been obliged gradually to throw
back the date of its origin, until now no sensible critic thinks of
assigning it to a time later than the early part of the second century,
which is a great gain over the position of Baur and his immediate
followers, who threw it into the latter half of the century. See
Schaff's Ch. Hist. I. 701-724 for a full defense of its authenticity
and a comprehensive account of the controversy; also p. 406-411 for the
literature of the subject. For the most complete summary of the
external evidence, see Ezra Abbott's The Authorship of the Fourth
Gospel, 1880. Among recent works, compare Weiss' Leben Jesu, I. 84-124,
and his N. T. Einleitung, 586-620, for a defense of the Gospel, and
upon the other side Holtzmann's Einleitung, 413-460, and Weizsaecker's
Apost. Zeitalter, p. 531-558.

[758] 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.

[759] See 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.

[760] The majority of the mss., followed by Burton, Schwegler, and
Laemmer, read diatribon instead of matheton; 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 John have left us commentaries on the life and
conversations of the Lord." Two important mss., however, read matheton,
and this is confirmed by Rufinus and adopted by Heinichen, Closs, and
Cruse.

[761] 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, S: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 Matt.
Evang., 1887, and Resch, Agrapha, Leipzig, 1889. The very natural
reason which Eusebius gives for the composition of Matthew's
Gospel--viz. that, when on the point of going to other nations, he
committed it to writing, and thus compensated them for the loss of his
presence--occurs in none of the earlier reports of the composition of
the Gospel which we now possess. It was probably a fact which he took
from common tradition, as he remarks in the previous sentence that
tradition says "they undertook it from necessity."

[762] 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.

[763] 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 (John xx. 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.' On the same night it was revealed to
Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his
own name as they called them to mind." Irenaeus (III. 11. 1) supposes
John to have written his Gospel as a polemic against Cerinthus. Clement
of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 14), says
that John 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 John 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.

[764] The Synoptic Gospels certainly give the impression that Christ's
public ministry lasted but a single year; and were it not for the
additional light which John throws upon the subject, the one year
ministry would be universally accepted, as it was by many of the early
Fathers,--e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius,
&c. John, however, expressly mentions three, perhaps four, passovers,
so that Christ's ministry lasted either two or three years. Upon
comparison of the Synoptists with John, it will be seen that the events
which they record are not all comprised within a single year, as
Eusebius thought, but that they are scattered over the whole period of
his ministry, although confined to his work in Galilee up to the time
of his last journey to Judea, six months before his crucifixion. The
distinction between John and the Synoptists, as to the events recorded,
is therefore rather that of place than of time: but the distinction is
not absolute.

[765] Matt. iv. 12.

[766] Mark i. 14.

[767] Luke iii. 20.

[768] John ii. 11. The arguments of Eusebius, whether original or
borrowed from his predecessors, are certainly very ingenious, and he
makes out apparently quite a strong case for his opinion; but a careful
harmony of the four Gospels shows that it is untenable.

[769] John iii. 23.

[770] Ibid. verse 24.

[771] 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.

[772] See Bk. II. chap. 15.

[773] See Luke i. 1-4. Eusebius puts the case more strongly than Luke
himself. Luke 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 Luke 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.

[774] The testimony to the first Epistle of John goes hand in hand with
that to the fourth Gospel (cf. note 1, above). But we can find still
clearer trace of the Epistle in the early part of the second century
than of the Gospel (e.g. in Polycarp's Epistle, where traces of the
Gospel are wanting; and so, too, in Papias, according to chap. 39,
below). The writings of the second century are full of the spirit of
the Epistle as well as of the Gospel and exhibit frequent parallels in
language too close to be mistaken. The first express testimony as to
its authorship occurs in the Muratorian Fragment. The first systematic
attack upon the Epistle was made by Bretschneider, in 1820, in
connection with the attack upon the Gospel. The Tuebingen 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 prote, see p. 388, note.)

[775] 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 1 John under the formula "John says in his larger
Epistle," showing that he knew of a second. The lack of citations from
the second and third Epistles is easily explained by their brevity and
the minor importance of their doctrinal contents. The second and third
Epistles belong to the seven Antilegomena. Origen cites the first
Epistle often, the second and third never, and of the latter he says
"not all agree that they are genuine" (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25), and
apparently he himself did not consider them of apostolic origin (cf.
Weiss' Einleitung, p. 87). Origen's treatment of the Catholic Epistles
was implicitly followed by his pupil Dionysius and by succeeding
generations. Eusebius himself does not express his own judgment in the
matter, but simply records the state of tradition which was a mere
repetition of Origen's position in regard to them. Jerome (de vir. ill.
9 and 18) says that most writers ascribe them to the presbyter John--an
opinion which evidently arose upon the basis of the author's
self-designation in 2 John 1, and 3 John 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.)

[776] The Apocalypse is one of the best authenticated books of the New
Testament. It was used by Papias and others of the earliest Fathers,
and already by Justin Martyr was expressly ascribed to the apostle
John. (Compare also the epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne,
Eusebius, V. 1.) Tradition, so far as we have it, is unanimous (with
the exception of the Alogi, an insignificant heretical sect of the
second century, who attributed the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel to
Cerinthus. Caius is not an exception: see below, chap. 28, note 4) in
ascribing the Apocalypse to the apostle John, until Dionysius of
Alexandria, who subjected the book to severe literary criticism (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 25), and upon the assumption of the genuineness
of the Gospel and the first Epistle, doubted its authenticity on
account of its divergence from these writings both in spirit and in
style. He says (VII. 25, S:2) that some others before him had denied
the Johannine authorship and ascribed the book to Cerinthus, but the
way in which he speaks of them shows that there cannot have been a
ruling tradition to that effect. He may have referred simply to the
Alogi, or he may have included others of whom we do not know. He
himself rejects this hypothesis, and supposes the books to have been
written by some John, not the apostle (by what John he does not
decide), and does not deny the inspiration and prophetic character of
the book. Dionysius was led to exercise criticism upon the Apocalypse
(which was as well supported by tradition as any book of the New
Testament) from dogmatic reasons. The supposed sensuous and
materialistic conceptions of the Apocalypse were offensive to the
spiritualizing tendencies of the Alexandrian school, and the
offensiveness increased with time. Although Dionysius held the work as
inspired and authoritative, yet his position would lead logically to
the exclusion of the Apocalypse from the canon, just as Hermas had been
already excluded, although Origen held it to be inspired and
authoritative in the same sense in which Dionysius held the Apocalypse
to be,--i.e. as composed by an apostle's pupil, not by an apostle.
Apocalyptic literature did not belong properly to the New Testament,
but rather to the prophetic portion of the Old Testament; but the
number of the Old Testament prophets was already complete (according to
the Muratorian Fragment), and therefore no prophetic writing (e.g.
Hermas) could find a place there; nor, on the other hand, could it be
made a part of the New Testament, for it was not apostolic. The same
was true of the Apocalypse of Peter, and the only thing which kept the
Apocalypse of John in the canon was its supposed apostolic authorship.
It was received as a part of the New Testament not because it was
apocalyptic, but because it was apostolic, and thus the criticism of
Dionysius would lead logically to its rejection from the canon. John's
Apocalypse is the only New Testament book cited by Justin as graphe (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 graphe. 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,
S: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 nothoi. It legitimately belonged among the Homologoumena, but
Dionysius' attitude toward it doubtless led Eusebius to think that it
might at some time in the future be thrown out of the canon, and of
course his own objections to its contents and his doubts as to its
apostolicity caused him to contemplate such a possibility not without
pleasure (see the next chapter, note 1). In chapter 18, above, he
speaks of it as the "so-called" Apocalypse of John, but in other places
he repeats many testimonies in favor of its authenticity (see the next
note), and only in chapter 39 does he state clearly his own opinion in
the matter, which even there he does not press as a fixed conviction.
The reason for the doubts of the book's genuineness on the part of
Eusebius and so many others lay evidently most of all in objections to
the contents of the book, which seemed to favor chiliasm, and had been
greatly abused for the advancement of the crassest chiliastic views.
Many, like Dionysius of Alexandria were no doubt influenced also by the
idea that it was impossible that the Gospel and the Apocalypse could be
the works of one author, and they preferred to sacrifice the latter
rather than the former. The book has found objectors in almost every
age of the Church, but has continued to hold its place in the canon
(its position was never disturbed in the Western Church, and only for
some two or three centuries after Eusebius in parts of the Eastern
Church) as an authentic work of the apostle John. The Tuebingen 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.

[777] 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXV.--The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that
are not. [778]

1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the
writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First
then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; [779] following
them the Acts of the Apostles. [780]

2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; [781] next in
order the extant former epistle of John, [782] and likewise the epistle
of Peter, [783] must be maintained. [784] After them is to be placed,
if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, [785] concerning
which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. [786]
These then belong among the accepted writings. [787]

3. Among the disputed writings, [788] which are nevertheless recognized
[789] by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James [790] and that
of Jude, [791] also the second epistle of Peter, [792] and those that
are called the second and third of John, [793] whether they belong to
the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4. Among the rejected writings [794] must be reckoned also the Acts of
Paul, [795] and the so-called Shepherd, [796] and the Apocalypse of
Peter, [797] and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas,
[798] and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; [799] and besides,
as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I
said, reject, [800] but which others class with the accepted books.
[801]

5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, [802] with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted
Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among
the disputed books. [803]

6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these
also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical
tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, [804] from those
others which, although not canonical but disputed, [805] are yet at the
same time known to most ecclesiastical writers--we have felt compelled
to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both
these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of
the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of
Peter, [806] of Thomas, [807] of Matthias, [808] or of any others
besides them, and the Acts of Andrew [809] and John [810] and the other
apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical
writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with
apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things
that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true
orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of
heretics. [811] Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the
rejected [812] writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd
and impious.

Let us now proceed with our history.
__________________________________________________________________

[778] 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 nothoi and the anaplEURsmata airetikon andron). But the nothoi 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 nothoi to each other, as
Eusebius classifies them? The crucial point is the relation of the
nothoi to the antilegomena. Luecke (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 nothoi also; that is, the term Antilegomena is ordinarily used, not
as identical with nothoi, but as inclusive of it. This, however,
establishes nothing as to Eusebius' technical use of the words in the
present passage, where he is endeavoring to draw close distinctions.
Various views have been taken since Luecke'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 nothoi were works which, although
they had been used by the Fathers and were quoted as graphe 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 nothoi, then, in this passage,
must not be taken, as it commonly is, to mean spurious or unauthentic,
but to mean uncanonical. It is in this sense, as against the canonical
Homologoumena and Antilegomena, that Eusebius, as I believe, uses it
here, and his use of it in this sense is perfectly legitimate. In using
it he passes no judgment upon the authenticity of the works referred
to; that, in the present case, is not his concern. As an historian he
observed tendencies, and judged accordingly. He saw that the authority
of the Antilegomena was on the increase, that of the nothoi 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
phaneie, and then among the nothoi with an ei phaneie. No one, so far
as I know, has explained why it should be put among the nothoi as an
alternative to the Homologoumena, instead of among the Antilegomena,
which, on the common interpretation of the relation of the classes,
might be naturally expected. If the view presented is correct, the
reason is clear. The Antilegomena were those works which had been
disputed, but were becoming more and more widely accepted as canonical.
The Apocalypse could not under any circumstances fall into this class,
for the doubts raised against it in the orthodox Church were of recent
date. It occupied, in fact, a peculiar position, for there was no other
work which, while accepted as canonical, was doubted in the present
more than in the past. Eusebius then must either put it into a special
class or put it conditionally into two different classes, as he does.
If the doubts should become so widespread as to destroy its canonicity,
it would fall naturally into the nothoi, for then it would hold the
same position as the other works of that class. As an historian,
Eusebius sees the tendency and undoubtedly has the idea that the
Apocalypse may eventually, like the other Christian works of the same
class (the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), become one of the
nothoi, one of the works which, formerly accepted, is at length
commonly denied to be canonical: and so, as an historian, he presents
the alternative. The Apocalypse was the only work in regard to which
any doubt could exist. Eusebius' failure to mention explicitly in this
passage the Epistle to the Hebrews, has caused considerable
misunderstanding. The explanation, if the view presented be adopted, is
simple. Eusebius included it, I believe, among the epistles of Paul,
and did not especially mention it, simply because there was no dispute
about its canonicity. Its Pauline authorship had been widely disputed
as Eusebius informs us elsewhere, and various theories had been
proposed to account for it; but its canonicity had not been doubted in
the orthodox Church, and therefore doubts as to the authorship of it
did not in the least endanger its place among the Homologoumena, as
used here in a technical sense; and since Eusebius was simply stating
the works of each class, not discussing the nature and origin of those
works, he could, in perfect fairness, include it in Paul's epistles
(where he himself believed it belonged) without entering upon any
discussion of it. Another noticeable omission is that of the Epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians. All efforts to find a satisfactory reason
for this are fruitless. It should have been placed among the nothoi
with the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as Eusebius' treatment of it in
other passages shows. It must be assumed, with Holtzmann, that the
omission of it was nothing more nor less than an oversight. Eusebius,
then, classifies the works mentioned in this chapter upon two
principles: first, in relation to canonicity, into the canonical and
the uncanonical; and secondly, in relation to character, into the
orthodox (Homologoumena, Antilegomena, which are canonical, and nothoi,
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 anaplEURsmata hairetikon andron are neither canonical nor orthodox,
while the nothoi 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 Luecke referred to above, also Westcott's
Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed., p. 414 sq., Harnack's Lehre der
Zwoelf 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.

[779] 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.

[780] See above, chap. 4, note 14.

[781] See chap. 3, note 16. Eusebius evidently means to include the
Epistle to the Hebrews among Paul's epistles at this point, for he
mentions it nowhere else in this chapter (see above, note 1).

[782] See the previous chapter, note 18.

[783] See chap. 3, note 1.

[784] kuroteon

[785] See the previous chapter, note 20. Upon Eusebius' treatment in
this chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note 1, above.

[786] Compare the previous chapter, note 21.

[787] en homologoumenois

[788] ton antilegomenon

[789] gnorimon

[790] See Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46.

[791] See ibid. note 47.

[792] See above, chap. 3, note 4.

[793] See the previous chapter, note 19.

[794] en tois nothois.

[795] See above, chap. 3, note 20.

[796] Ibid.note 23.

[797] Ibid.note 9.

[798] 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 nothoi 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.

[799] ton apostolon ai legomenai didachai. The Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, Didache ton dodeka apostolon, 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 zwoelff Apostel (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der
altchrist. Lit., II. 1 and 2, 1884) is still the standard German work
upon the subject, though it represents many positions in regard to the
origin and history of the work which have since been proved incorrect,
and which he himself has given up. His article in Herzog, 2d ed., XVII.
656 sqq. and his Die Apostel-Lehre und die juedischen 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 (graphe), but no other writer before the time of Eusebius
treats it in the same way, and yet Eusebius' mention of it among the
nothoi 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 nothoi. Upon Eusebius' use of the plural
didachai, see the writer's article in the Andover Review, April, 1886,
p. 439 sq.

[800] athetousin. See the previous chapter, note 20.

[801] tois homologoumenois. See note 1, above.

[802] This Gospel, probably composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), is no longer
extant, but we possess a few fragments of it in Greek and Latin which
are collected by Grabe, Spic. I. 15-31, and by Hilgenfeld, N. T. Extra
Can. rec. II. The existing material upon which to base a judgment as to
the nature of the lost Gospel and as to its relation to our canonical
gospels is very limited. It is certain, however, that it cannot in its
original form have been a working over of our canonical Matthew (as
many have thought); it contains too many little marks of originality
over against our Greek Matthew to admit of such a supposition. That it
was, on the other hand, the original of which our Greek Matthew is the
translation is also impossible; a comparison of its fragments with our
Matthew is sufficient to prove this. That it was the original source
from which Matthew and Luke derived their common matter is
possible--more cannot be said. Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. II.
709-712) and Westcott (Hist. of the Canon, p. 515 sqq.) give the
various quotations which are supposed to have been made from it. How
many of them are actually to be traced back to it as their source is
not certain. It is possible, but not certain, that Papias had seen it
(see chap. 39, note 28), possible also that Ignatius had, but the
passage relied on to establish the fact fails to do so (see chap. 36,
note 14). It was probably used by Justin (see Westcott, ibid. p. 516,
and Lipsius, ibid. p. 712), undoubtedly by Hegesippus (see below, Bk.
IV. chap. 22), and was perhaps known to 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,
S: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; en toutois refers rather to the nothoi 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 Hebraeer-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.

[803] ton antilegomenon

[804] anomologemenas

[805] ouk endiathekous men, alla kai antilegomenas. Eusebius, in this
clause, refers to the nothoi, which, of course, while distinguished
from the canonical Antilegomena, yet are, like them, disputed, and
hence belong as truly as they to the more general class of
Antilegomena. This, of course, explains how, in so many places in his
History, he can use the words nothoi and antilegomena interchangeably
(as e.g. in chap. 31, S:6). In the present passage the nothoi, 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.

[806] See chap. 3, note 5.

[807] The Gospel of Thomas is of Gnostic origin and thoroughly Docetic.
It was written probably in the second century. The original Gnostic
form is no longer extant, but we have fragmentary Catholic recensions
of it in both Latin and Greek, from which heretical traits are expunged
with more or less care. The gospel contained many very fabulous stories
about the childhood of Jesus. It is mentioned frequently by the Fathers
from Origen down, but always as an heretical work. The Greek text is
given by Tischendorf, p. 36 sqq., and an English translation is
contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 395-405. See Lipsius in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 703-705.

[808] This gospel is mentioned by Origen (Hom. in Lucam I.), by Jerome
(Praef. in Matt.), and by other later writers. The gospel is no longer
extant, though some fragments have been preserved by Clement of
Alexandria, e.g. in Strom. II. 9, Strom. III. 4 (quoted below in chap.
30), and Strom. VII. 13, which show that it had a high moral tone and
emphasized asceticism. We know very little about it, but Lipsius
conjectures that it was "identical with the paradoseis Matthiou which
were in high esteem in Gnostic circles, and especially among the
Basilidaeans." See Lipsius, ibid. p. 716.

[809] Eusebius so far as we know is the first writer to refer to these
Acts. But they are mentioned after him by Epiphanius, Philaster, and
Augustine (see Tischendorf's Acta Apost. Apoc. p. xl.). The Acts of
Andrew (Acta 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 Acts of Andrew and Matthew
(translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 517-525) and the Acts of
Peter and Andrew (ibid. 526-527). The Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy
Apostle Andrew (ibid. 511-516), or the so-called Epistle of the
Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning the Passion of Andrew, is a
later work, still extant in a Catholic recension in both Greek and
Latin. The fragments of these three are given by Tischendorf in his
Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 105 sqq. and 132 sqq., and in his Apocal. Apoc. p.
161 sq. See Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 30.

[810] Eusebius is likewise, so far as we know, the first writer to
refer to these Acts. But they are afterward mentioned by Epiphanius,
Photius, Augustine, Philaster, &c. (see Tischendorf, ibid. p. lxxiii.).
They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few fragments
(collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. Johannis a Leucio Charino
conscriptorum, Halle, 1847). A Catholic extract very much abridged, but
containing clear Gnostic traits, is still extant and is given by
Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 266 sq. (translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 560-564). The last two works mentioned
belong to a collection of apocryphal Acts which were commonly ascribed
to Leucius, a fictitious character who stands as the legendary author
of the whole of this class of Gnostic literature. From the fourth
century on, frequent reference is made to various Gnostic Acts whose
number must have been enormous. Although no direct references are made
to them before the time of Eusebius, yet apparent traces of them are
found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, &c., which make it
probable that these writers were acquainted with them, and it may at
any rate be assumed as established that many of them date from the
third century and some of them even from the second century. See
Salmon's article Leucius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 703-707,
and Lipsius' article in the same work, I. 28.

[811] hairetikon andron anaplEURsmata

[812] en nothois.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVI.--Menander the Sorcerer.

1. Menander, [813] who succeeded Simon Magus, [814] showed himself in
his conduct another instrument of diabolical power, [815] not inferior
to the former. He also was a Samaritan and carried his sorceries to no
less an extent than his teacher had done, and at the same time reveled
in still more marvelous tales than he.

2. For he said that he was himself the Saviour, who had been sent down
from invisible aeons for the salvation of men; [816] and he taught that
no one could gain the mastery over the world-creating angels themselves
[817] unless he had first gone through the magical discipline imparted
by him and had received baptism from him. Those who were deemed worthy
of this would partake even in the present life of perpetual
immortality, and would never die, but would remain here forever, and
without growing old become immortal. [818] These facts can be easily
learned from the works of Irenaeus. [819]

3. And Justin, in the passage in which he mentions Simon, gives an
account of this man also, in the following words: [820] "And we know
that a certain Menander, who was also a Samaritan, from the village of
Capparattea, [821] was a disciple of Simon, and that he also, being
driven by the demons, came to Antioch [822] and deceived many by his
magical art. And he persuaded his followers that they should not die.
And there are still some of them that assert this."

4. And it was indeed an artifice of the devil to endeavor, by means of
such sorcerers, who assumed the name of Christians, to defame the great
mystery of godliness by magic art, and through them to make ridiculous
the doctrines of the Church concerning the immortality of the soul and
the resurrection of the dead. [823] But they that have chosen these men
as their saviours have fallen away from the true hope.
__________________________________________________________________

[813] 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 Irenaeus 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.

[814] Upon Simon Magus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3.

[815] "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.

[816] Simon (Irenaeus, I. 23. 1) taught that he himself was the Supreme
Power; but Menander, according to Irenaeus (ibid. S: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.

[817] 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 his followers to
overcome these creative angels, as Simon had taught of himself before
him.

[818] 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.

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

[820] Justin, Apol. I. 26.

[821] The situation of the village of Capparattea is uncertain. See
Harnack's Quellen-Kritik des Gnosticismus, p. 84.

[822] 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.

[823] Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. XVIII. 1) says that the denial of the
resurrection of the body was a peculiarly Samaritan heresy, and it
would seem therefore that the heresy of these Menandrianists was in
that direction, i.e. that they taught rather a spiritual immortality
and denied a bodily resurrection (as suggested in note 6); evidently,
however, this was not Eusebius' idea. He probably looked upon them as
discrediting the Christian doctrine of a resurrection by teaching a
physical immortality, which of course was soon proved contrary to
truth, and which thus, being confounded by the masses with the
doctrines of the Christians, brought the latter also into contempt, and
threw discredit upon immortality and resurrection of every kind.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVII.--The Heresy of the Ebionites. [824]

1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from
their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a
different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The
ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held
poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. [825]

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified
only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the
intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the
ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could
not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.
[826]

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same
name, [827] but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former,
and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy
Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge
that he pre-existed, [828] being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned
aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them,
endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law. [829]

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the
epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law;
[830] and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews
[831] and made small account of the rest.

5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed
just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the
Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour. [832]

6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of
Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this
is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews. [833]
__________________________________________________________________

[824] 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, S: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. Acts 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.

[825] The word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew #B+J+W+N%, 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.

[826] hos me an dia mones tes eis ton christon pisteos kai tou kat'
auten biou sothesomenois. 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 mones tes eis ton christon pisteos, restored.

[827] 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).

[828] 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.

[829] 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.

[830] 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" (houtoi 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.

[831] Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 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 be identical with the canonical Gospel. In the time of Jerome a
Hebrew "Gospel according to the Hebrews" was used by the "Nazarenes and
Ebionites" as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. in Matt. XII. 13; Contra
Pelag. III. 2). Jerome refrains from expressing his own judgment as to
its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its existing form
identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear from his words in
de vir. ill. chap. 3, taken in connection with the fact that he himself
translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states in chap. 2. Epiphanius
(Haer. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still preserved the original
Hebrew Matthew in full, while the Ebionites (XXX. 13) had a Gospel of
Matthew "not complete, but spurious and mutilated"; and elsewhere (XXX.
3) he says that the Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew and called it
the "Gospel according to the Hebrews." It is thus evident that he meant
to distinguish the Gospel of the Ebionites from that of the Nazarenes,
i.e. the Gospel according to the Hebrews from the original Hebrew
Matthew. So, likewise. Eusebius' treatment of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews and of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that
he considered them two different gospels (cf. e.g. his mention of the
former in chap. 25 and in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his mention of the
latter in chap. 24, and in Bk. IV. chap. 10). Of course he knew that
the former was not identical with the canonical Matthew, and hence,
naturally supposing that the Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical
Matthew, he could not do otherwise than make a distinction between the
Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Hebrew Matthew, and he must
therefore make the change which he did in 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 Hebraeer-Evangelium, von Rudolf Handmann. Von Gebhardt and
Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3) has come into my
hands, and I find that he denies that that Gospel is to be in any way
identified with the traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it bore the
name of Matthew. The reasons which he gives, however, are practically
the same as those referred to in this note, and, as already shown, do
not prove that the two were not originally identical. Handmann holds
that the Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called simply "the
Gospel," or some general name of the kind, and that it received from
others the name "Gospel according to the Hebrews," because it was used
by them. This may well be, but does not militate at all against the
existence of a tradition among the Jewish Christians that Matthew was
the author of their only gospel. Handmann makes the Gospel according to
the Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels
alongside of the "Ur-Marcus," (a theory which, if accepted, would go
far to establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew), and even goes
so far as to suggest that it is to be identified with the 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.

[832] 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 houtoi 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.

[833] See note 2.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVIII.--Cerinthus the Heresiarch.

1. We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, [834] the author of
another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted
above, [835] in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as
follows concerning this man:

2. "But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were
written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he
falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the
resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that
the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and
pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts,
with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a
thousand years [836] for marriage festivals." [837]

3. And Dionysius, [838] who was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in
our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says
some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from
tradition, mentions this same man in the following words: [839]

4. "But (they say that) Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was
called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his
fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this:
that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.

5. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and
altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would
consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of
the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking
and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of
victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his
appetites with a better grace."

6. These are the words of Dionysius. But Irenaeus, in the first book of
his work Against Heresies, [840] gives some more abominable false
doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which
deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that
the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, learning that
Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the
door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And
he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, "Let us
flee, lest the bath fall; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is
within." [841]
__________________________________________________________________

[834] 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 John to have written his gospel
and epistle in opposition to Cerinthus. On the other hand, Cerinthus
himself was regarded by some as the author of the Apocalypse (see Bk.
VII. chap. 25, below), and most absurdly as the author of the Fourth
Gospel also (see above, chap. 24, note 1).

[835] See Bk. II. chap. 25, S:7. Upon Caius, see the note given there.
The Disputation is the same that is quoted in that passage.

[836] Cf. Rev. xx. 4. On chiliasm in the early Church, see below, chap.
39, note 19.

[837] 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.

[838] Upon Dionysius and his writings, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 40,
note 1.

[839] 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, S:7.

[840] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 26. 1.

[841] See ibid. III. 3. 4. This story is repeated by Eusebius, in Bk.
IV. chap. 14. There is nothing impossible in it. The occurrence fits
well the character of John as a "son of thunder," and shows the same
spirit exhibited by Polycarp in his encounter with Marcion (see below,
Bk. IV. chap. 14). But the story is not very well authenticated, as
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.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIX.--Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.

1. At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its
appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in
the Apocalypse of John. [842] They boasted that the author of their
sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed
by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. [843]
Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the
following things concerning him. [844]

2. "They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of
the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into
their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry her.
For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one
ought to abuse the flesh. And those that have followed his heresy,
imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, commit
fornication without shame.

3. But I understand that Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than
her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are
concerned, his daughters continued in a state of virginity until old
age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought his
wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was
evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used the expression, `to
abuse the flesh,' he was inculcating self-control in the face of those
pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance
with the command of the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters,
pleasure and the Lord. [845]

4. But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we
ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for
the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge."
[846] So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the truth,
but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely extinct.
__________________________________________________________________

[842] Rev. ii. 6, 15. Salmon, 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 a 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 a 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 a different account of the character of Nicolas; and as he is a
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 a saying of Nicolas which had been uttered with a good
motive.

[843] See Acts vi

[844] Stromata, III. 4.

[845] Compare Matt. vi. 24.

[846] This teaching was found in the Gospel of Matthias, or the
paradoseis Matthiou, mentioned in chap. 25 (see note 30 on that
chapter).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXX.--The Apostles that were Married.

1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the
above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who
rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. [847] "Or will
they," says he, [848] "reject even the apostles? For Peter [849] and
Philip [850] begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in
marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet
his wife, [851] whom he did not take about with him, that he might not
be inconvenienced in his ministry."

2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to
subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is
worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as
follows: [852] "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw
his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her
return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly,
addressing her by name, and saying, `Oh thou, remember the Lord.' Such
was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward
those dearest to them." This account being in keeping with the subject
in hand, I have related here in its proper place.
__________________________________________________________________

[847] 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.

[848] Strom.III. 6.

[849] Peter was married, as we know from Matt. viii. 14 (cf. 1 Cor. ix.
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 role in art. The immense painting by Guercino in the
Palace of the Conservators in Rome attracts the attention of all
visitors.

[850] 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 Acts xxi. 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.

[851] The passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes in
this connection is 1 Cor. ix. 5; but this by no means proves that Paul
was married, and 1 Cor. vii. 8 seems to imply the opposite, though the
words might be used if he were a widower. The words of Philip. iv. 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.

[852] Strom.VII. 11. Clement, so far as we know, is the only one to
relate this story, but he bases it upon tradition, and although its
truth cannot be proved, there is nothing intrinsically improbable in
it.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXI.--The Death of John and Philip.

1. The time and the manner of the death of Paul and Peter as well as
their burial places, have been already shown by us. [853]

2. The time of John's death has also been given in a general way, [854]
but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates [855]
(who was bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor, [856]
bishop of Rome. In this epistle he mentions him together with the
apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words: [857]

3. "For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise
again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come
with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these
are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, [858] who sleeps in Hierapolis,
[859] and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived
in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; [860] and moreover John,
who was both a witness [861] and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom
of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. [862] He
also sleeps at Ephesus." [863]

4. So much concerning their death. And in the Dialogue of Caius which
we mentioned a little above, [864] Proclus, [865] against whom he
directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted, [866]
speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters: "After
him [867] there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at
Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father."
Such is his statement.

5. But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions the daughters of
Philip who were at that time at Caesarea in Judea with their father,
and were honored with the gift of prophecy. His words are as follows:
"We came unto Caesarea; and entering into the house of Philip the
evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. Now this man
had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." [868]

6. We have thus set forth in these pages what has come to our knowledge
concerning the apostles themselves and the apostolic age, and
concerning the sacred writings which they have left us, as well as
concerning those which are disputed, but nevertheless have been
publicly used by many in a great number of churches, [869] and
moreover, concerning those that are altogether rejected and are out of
harmony with apostolic orthodoxy. Having done this, let us now proceed
with our history.
__________________________________________________________________

[853] See Bk. II. chap. 25, S:S:5 sqq.

[854] See chap. 23, S:S:3, 4.

[855] Upon Polycrates, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 9.

[856] Upon Victor, see ibid. note 1.

[857] 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.

[858] Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist are here confounded.
That they were really two different men is clear enough from Luke's
account in the Acts (cf. Acts vi. 2-5, viii. 14-17, and xxi. 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 Acts xxi. 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 scholars 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).

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

[860] The fact that only three of Philip's daughters are mentioned
here, when from the Acts we know he had four, shows that the fourth had
died elsewhere; and therefore it would have been aside from Polycrates'
purpose to mention her, since, as we see from Bk. V. chap. 24, he was
citing only those who had lived in Asia (the province), and had agreed
as to the date of the Passover. The separate mention of this third
daughter by Polycrates has been supposed to arise from the fact that
she was married, while the other two remained virgins. This is,
however, not at all implied, as the fact that she was buried in a
different place would be enough to cause the separate mention of her.
Still, inasmuch as Clement (see the preceding chapter) reports that
Philip's daughters were married, and inasmuch as Polycrates expressly
states that two of them were virgins, it is quite possible that she (as
well as the fourth daughter, not mentioned here) may have been a
married woman, which would, perhaps, account for her living in Ephesus
and being buried there, instead of with her father and sister in
Hierapolis. It is noticeable that while two of the daughters are
expressly called virgins, the third is not.

[861] mEURrtus; see chap. 32, note 15.

[862] 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.
xxviii. 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 John was a Jewish
priest, and therefore the words can be taken literally in neither case.
Valesius and others have thought that John and James, and perhaps
others of the apostles, actually wore something 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 John
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 Alterthuemer, Band
II. p. 212 sq.

[863] Upon John's Ephesian activity and his death there, see Bk. III.
chap. 1, note 6.

[864] Bk. II. chap. 25, S:6, and Bk. III. chap. 28, S:1. Upon Caius and
his dialogue with Proclus, see the former passage, note 8.

[865] Upon Proclus, a Montanistic leader, see Bk. II. chap. 25, note
12.

[866] The agreement of the two accounts is not perfect, as Polycrates
reports that two daughters were buried at Hierapolis and one at
Ephesus, while Proclus puts them all four at Hierapolis. But the report
of Polycrates deserves our credence rather than that of Proclus,
because, in the first place, Polycrates was earlier than Proclus; in
the second place, his report is more exact, and it is hard to imagine
how, if all four were really buried in one place, the more detailed
report of Polycrates could have arisen, while on the other hand it is
quite easy to explain the rise of the more general but inexact account
of Proclus; for with the general tradition that Philip and his
daughters lived and died in Hierapolis needed only to be combined the
fact that he had four daughters, and Proclus' version was complete. In
the third place, Polycrates' report bears the stamp of truth as
contrasted with mere legend, because it accounts for only three
daughters, while universal tradition speaks of four. How Eusebius could
have overlooked the contradiction it is more difficult to explain. He
can hardly have failed to notice it, but was undoubtedly unable to
account for the difference, and probably considered it too small a
matter to concern himself about. He was quite prone to accept earlier
accounts just as they stood, whether contradictory or not. The fact
that they had been recorded was usually enough for him, if they
contained no improbable or fabulous stories. He cannot be accused of
intentional deception at this point, for he gives the true accounts
side by side, so that every reader might judge of the agreement for
himself. Upon the confusion of the apostle and evangelist, see above,
note 6.

[867] 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, Cruse, 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.

[868] Acts xxi. 8, 9. Eusebius clearly enough considers Philip the
apostle and Philip the evangelist identical. Upon this identification,
see note 6, above.

[869] hieron grammEURton, kai ton antilegomenon men,
homos...dedemosieumenon. 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 nothoi, but
uses the former word in its general sense, and includes under it both
the particular classes (Antilegomena and nothoi) of chap. 25 (see note
27 on that chapter).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXII.--Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Martyrdom.

1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the
emperor whose times we are now recording, [870] a persecution was
stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular
uprising. [871] In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the
son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the
church of Jerusalem, [872] suffered martyrdom.

2. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places,
[873] is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics
[874] he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since
it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways
for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants
in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that
of our Lord. [875]

3. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes
as follows: "Certain of these heretics brought accusation against
Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of
David [876] and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age
of one hundred and twenty years, [877] while Trajan was emperor and
Atticus governor." [878]

4. And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was
made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that
family. [879] And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of
those that saw and heard the Lord, [880] judging from the length of his
life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife
of Clopas, [881] who was the father of Symeon, as has been already
shown. [882]

5. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from
one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas,
who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been
already recorded, [883] in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the
same reign.

6. He writes as follows: "They came, therefore, and took the lead of
every church [884] as witnesses [885] and as relatives of the Lord. And
profound peace being established in every church, they remained until
the reign of the Emperor Trajan, [886] and until the above-mentioned
Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by
the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause
[887] before the governor Atticus. [888] And after being tortured for
many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul,
marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could
endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified."

7. In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the
events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had
remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that
attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they
lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.

8. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in
various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy
to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then
the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of
heretical teachers, [889] who, because none of the apostles was still
living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in
opposition to the preaching of the truth, the `knowledge which is
falsely so-called.' [890]
__________________________________________________________________

[870] Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 a.d.

[871] Upon the state of the Christians under Trajan, see the next
chapter, with the notes.

[872] See chap. 11.

[873] 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.

[874] In the passage quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, S: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.

[875] That is, by crucifixion, as stated in S:6.

[876] 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.

[877] 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.

[878] epi Traianou kaisaros kai hupatikou 'Attikou. The nouns being
without the article, the phrase is to be translated, "while Trajan was
emperor, and Atticus governor." In S:6, below, where the article is
used, we must translate, "before Atticus the governor" (see Lightfoot's
Ignatius, I. p. 59). The word hupatikos 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, Roemische
Staatsverwaltung, I. 409).

[879] 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 hosEURn 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.

[880] 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.

[881] Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned in John xix. 25.

[882] See above, chap. 11.

[883] See above, chap. 20.

[884] See p. 389, note.

[885] mEURrtures. 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 homologetes, "confessor," gradually
came into use as the technical term for those who had borne testimony
in the midst of persecution, but had not suffered death. As early as
the first century (cf. Acts xxii. 20 and Rev. ii. 13) mEURrtus 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.

[886] This part of the quotation has already been given in Eusebius'
own words in chap. 20, S:8. See note 5 on that chapter.

[887] epi to auto logo, 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.

[888] epi 'Attikou tou hupatikou. See above, note 9.

[889] On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.

[890] ten pseudonumon gnosin; 1 Tim. vi. 20. A few mss., followed by
Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Closs, and Cruse, add the words (in
substance): "Such is the statement of Hegesippus. But let us proceed
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.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXIII.--Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.

1. So great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many
places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being
disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor
concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for their
faith. [891] At the same time, he informed him in his communication
that he had not heard of their doing anything profane or contrary to
the laws,--except that they arose at dawn [892] and sang hymns to
Christ as a God; but that they renounced adultery and murder and like
criminal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the laws.

2. In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of
Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be
punished. On account of this the persecution which had threatened to be
a most terrible one was to a certain degree checked, but there were
still left plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us harm.
Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in various places, would lay
plots against us, so that, although no great persecutions took place,
local persecutions were nevertheless going on in particular provinces,
[893] and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various forms.

3. We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which
we mentioned above. [894] The translation runs as follows: [895] "And
indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. [896] For
when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned
certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, [897] he was
confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to
pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing
him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, [898] he had
found no impiety in them.

4. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose [899] early in
the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of
preserving their discipline [900] forbade murder, adultery, avarice,
robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of
Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be
punished." Such were the events which took place at that time.
__________________________________________________________________

[891] 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."

[892] hama te zo diegeiromenous. See note 9, below.

[893] 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.

[894] 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.

[895] Apol.chap. 2.

[896] The view which Tertullian here takes of Trajan's rescript is that
it was, on the whole, favorable,--that the Christians stood after it in
a better state in relation to the law than before,--and this
interpretation of the edict was adopted by all the early Fathers, and
is, as we can see, accepted likewise by Eusebius (and so he entitles
this chapter, not "Trajan commands the Christians to be punished, if
they persist in their Christianity," but "Trajan forbids the Christians
to be sought after," thus implying that the rescript is favorable). But
this interpretation is a decided mistake. Trajan's rescript expressly
made Christianity a religio illicita, and from that time on it was a
crime in the sight of the law to be a Christian; whereas, before that
time, the matter had not been finally determined, and it had been left
for each ruler to act just as he pleased. Trajan, it is true, advises
moderation in the execution of the law; but that does not alter the
fact that his rescript is an unfavorable one, which makes the
profession of Christianity--what it had not been before--a direct
violation of an established law. Compare, further, Bk. IV. chap. 8,
note 14.

[897] katakrinas christianous tinas kai tes axias ekbalon. 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 tes axias, 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.

[898] Greek: zxo tou me boulesthai autous eidololatrein. Latin
original: praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi. The eidololatrein 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.

[899] Greek: anistasthai heothen. Latin original: coetus 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 S:1,
above) speaks only of "arising," and thus fails to reproduce the full
sense of the original.

[900] Greek: pros to ten epistemen auton diaphulEURssein. Latin
original: ad confoederandum disciplinam. The Greek translation is again
somewhat inaccurate. episteme (literally, "experience," "knowledge")
expresses certain meanings of the word disciplina, but does not
strictly reproduce the sense in which the latter word is used in this
passage; namely, in the sense of moral discipline. I have again
translated the Greek version in the light of its Latin original.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXIV.--Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of Rome.

1. In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above, [901]
Clement [902] committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome
to Evarestus, [903] and departed this life after he had superintended
the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.
__________________________________________________________________

[901] The Emperor Trajan.

[902] On Clement of Rome, see chap. 4, note 19.

[903] In Bk. IV. chap. 1, Eusebius gives eight years as the duration of
Evarestus' episcopate; but in his Chron. he gives seven. Other
catalogues differ widely, both as to the time of his accession and the
duration of his episcopate. The truth is, as the monarchical episcopate
was not yet existing in Rome, it is useless to attempt to fix his
dates, or those of any of the other so-called bishops who lived before
the second quarter of the second century.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXV.--Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem.

1. But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, [904] a
certain Jew by the name of Justus [905] succeeded to the episcopal
throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the
circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

[904] See above, chap. 32.

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

Chapter XXXVI.--Ignatius and His Epistles.

1. At that time Polycarp, [906] a disciple of the apostles, was a man
of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the
church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord.

2. And at the same time Papias, [907] bishop of the parish of
Hierapolis, [908] became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was
chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame
is still celebrated by a great many. [909]

3. Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food for
wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ. [910]

4. And as he made the journey through Asia under the strictest military
surveillance, he fortified the parishes in the various cities where he
stopped by oral homilies and exhortations, and warned them above all to
be especially on their guard against the heresies that were then
beginning to prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the tradition
of the apostles. Moreover, he thought it necessary to attest that
tradition in writing, and to give it a fixed form for the sake of
greater security.

5. So when he came to Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he wrote an epistle
to the church of Ephesus, [911] in which he mentions Onesimus, its
pastor; [912] and another to the church of Magnesia, situated upon the
Maeander, in which he makes mention again of a bishop Damas; and
finally one to the church of Tralles, whose bishop, he states, was at
that time Polybius.

6. In addition to these he wrote also to the church of Rome, entreating
them not to secure his release from martyrdom, and thus rob him of his
earnest hope. In confirmation of what has been said it is proper to
quote briefly from this epistle.

7. He writes as follows: [913] "From Syria even unto Rome I fight with
wild beasts, by land and by sea, by night and by day, being bound
amidst ten leopards [914] that is, a company of soldiers who only
become worse when they are well treated. In the midst of their
wrongdoings, however, I am more fully learning discipleship, but I am
not thereby justified. [915]

8. May I have joy of the beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray
that I may find them ready; I will even coax them to devour me quickly
that they may not treat me as they have some whom they have refused to
touch through fear. [916] And if they are unwilling, I will compel
them. Forgive me.

9. I know what is expedient for me. Now do I begin to be a disciple.
May naught of things visible and things invisible envy me; [917] that I
may attain unto Jesus Christ. Let fire and cross and attacks of wild
beasts, let wrenching of bones, cutting of limbs, crushing of the whole
body, tortures of the devil,--let all these come upon me if only I may
attain unto Jesus Christ."

10. These things he wrote from the above-mentioned city to the churches
referred to. And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from Troas
[918] to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and
particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church. And
since he knew him well as an apostolic man, he commended to him, like a
true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care
diligently for it. [919]

11. And the same man, writing to the Smyrnaeans, used the following
words concerning Christ, taken I know not whence: [920] "But I know and
believe that he was in the flesh after the resurrection. And when he
came to Peter and his companions he said to them, Take, handle me, and
see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. [921] And immediately they
touched him and believed." [922]

12. Irenaeus also knew of his martyrdom and mentions his epistles in
the following words: [923] "As one of our people said, when he was
condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony unto God, I am
God's wheat, and by the teeth of wild beasts am I ground, that I may be
found pure bread."

13. Polycarp also mentions these letters in the epistle to the
Philippians which is ascribed to him. [924] His words are as follows:
[925] "I exhort all of you, therefore, to be obedient and to practice
all patience such as ye saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed
Ignatius and Rufus and Zosimus, [926] but also in others from among
yourselves as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles;
being persuaded that all these ran not in vain, but in faith and
righteousness, and that they are gone to their rightful place beside
the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not the present
world, but him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us."

14. And afterwards he adds: [927] "You have written to me, both you and
Ignatius, that if any one go to Syria he may carry with him the letters
from you. And this I will do if I have a suitable opportunity, either I
myself or one whom I send to be an ambassador for you also.

15. The epistles of Ignatius which were sent to us by him and the
others which we had with us we sent to you as you gave charge. They are
appended to this epistle, and from them you will be able to derive
great advantage. For they comprise faith and patience, and every kind
of edification that pertaineth to our Lord." So much concerning
Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros [928] in the episcopate of the
church of Antioch.
__________________________________________________________________

[906] On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.

[907] 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 Philip. He must,
therefore, have reached years of maturity before the end of the first
century. On the other hand, the five books of his Expositions cannot
have been written very long before the middle of the second century,
for some of the extant fragments seem to show traces of the existence
of Gnosticism in a somewhat advanced form at the time he wrote. With
these data we shall not be far wrong in saying that he was born in the
neighborhood of 70 a.d., and died before the middle of the second
century. He was a pronounced chiliast (see chap. 39, note 19), and
according to Eusebius, a man of limited understanding (see chap. 39,
note 20); but the claim of the Tuebingen 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.

[908] Four mss. insert at this point the words aner ta pEURnta hoti
mEURlista logiotatos kai tes graphes eidemon ("a man of the greatest
learning in all lines and well versed in the Scriptures"), which are
accepted by Heinichen, Closs, and Cruse. 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, S:13. In discussing the
genuineness of these words, critics (among them Heinichen) have
concerned themselves too much with the question whether the opinion of
Papias expressed here contradicts that expressed in chap. 39, and
therefore, whether Eusebius can have written these words. Even if it be
possible to reconcile the two passages and to show that Papias may have
been a learned man, while at the same time he was of "limited
judgment," as Eusebius informs us, the fact nevertheless remains that
the weight of ms. authority is heavily against the genuineness of the
words, and that it is much easier to understand the interpolation than
the omission of such an expression in praise of one of the apostolic
Fathers, especially when the lack of any commendation here and in chap.
39 must be unpleasantly noticeable.

[909] Eusebius follows what was undoubtedly the oldest tradition in
making Evodius the first bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius the second
(see above, chap. 22, note 2). Granting the genuineness of the shorter
Greek recension of the Ignatian epistles (to be mentioned below), the
fact that Ignatius was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria is
established by Ep. ad Rom. 9, compared with ad Smyr. 11 and ad
Polycarp. 7. If the genuineness of the epistles be denied, these
passages seem to prove at least his connection with the church of
Antioch and his influential position in it, for otherwise the forgery
of the epistles under his name would be inconceivable. There are few
more prominent figures in early Church history than Ignatius, and yet
there are few about whom we have less unquestioned knowledge. He is
known in history pre-eminently as a martyr. The greater part of his
life is buried in complete obscurity. It is only as a man condemned to
death for his profession of Christianity that he comes out into the
light, and it is with him in this character and with the martyrdom
which followed that tradition has busied itself. There are extant
various Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius which contain detailed
accounts of his death, but these belong to the fourth and subsequent
centuries, are quite contradictory in their statements, and have been
conclusively proved to be utterly unreliable and to furnish no
trustworthy information on the subject in hand. From writers before
Eusebius we have but four notices of Ignatius (Polycarp's Ep. ad Phil.
9, 13; Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. V. 18. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in
Cant., and Hom. VI. in Luc.). These furnish us with very little
information. If the notice in Polycarp's epistle be genuine (and though
it has been widely attacked, there is no good reason to doubt it), it
furnishes us with our earliest testimony to the martyrdom of a certain
Ignatius and to the existence of epistles written by him. 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 difficulties which beset the
acceptance of the epistles. Whether or not Harnack's explanation of
Eusebius' chronology of the Antiochian bishops be accepted as correct
(and the number of its adherents is not great), he has, at least, shown
that the tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is not
as strong as it has been commonly supposed to be, and that it is
possible to question seriously its reliability. Lightfoot, who
discusses Harnack's theory at considerable length (II. p. 450-469),
rejects it, and maintains that Ignatius died sometime during the reign
of Trajan, though, with Zahn and Harnack, he gives up the traditional
date of 107 a.d., which is found in the Chronicle of Eusebius, and has
been very commonly accepted as reliable. Lightfoot, however, remarks
that the genuineness of the epistles is much more certain than the
chronology of Ignatius, and that, therefore, if it is a question
between the rejection of the epistles and the relegation of Ignatius'
death to the reign of Hadrian (which he, however, denies), the latter
alternative must be chosen without hesitation. A final decision upon
this knotty point has not yet been, and perhaps never will be, reached;
but Harnack's theory that the epistles were written during the reign of
Hadrian deserves even more careful consideration than it has yet
received. Granting the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, we are
still in possession of no great amount of information in regard to his
life. We know from them only that he was bishop of the church of
Antioch in Syria, and had been condemned to martyrdom, and that he was,
at the time of their composition, on his way to Rome to suffer death in
the arena. His character and opinions, however, are very clearly
exhibited in his writings. To quote from Schaff, "Ignatius stands out
in history as the ideal of a Catholic martyr, and as the earliest
advocate of the hierarchical principle in both its good and its evil
points. As a writer, he is remarkable for originality, freshness, and
force of ideas, and for terse, sparkling, and sententious style; but in
apostolic simplicity and soundness, he is inferior to Clement and
Polycarp, and presents a stronger contrast to the epistles of the New
Testament. Clement shows the calmness, dignity, and governmental wisdom
of the Roman character. Ignatius glows with the fire and impetuosity of
the Greek and Syrian temper which carries him beyond the bounds of
sobriety. He was a very uncommon man, and made a powerful impression
upon his age. He is the incarnation, as it were, of the three closely
connected ideas: the glory of martyrdom, the omnipotence of episcopacy,
and the hatred of heresy and schism. Hierarchical pride and humility,
Christian charity and churchly exclusiveness, are typically represented
in Ignatius." The literature on Ignatius and the Ignatian controversy
is very extensive. The principal editions to be consulted are Cureton's
The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to St.
Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, with English translation and
notes (the editio princeps of the Syriac version), London and Berlin,
1845; Zahn's Ignatii et Polycarpi 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 (Am. ed.), Vol. I. pp. 45-126. The principal
discussions which it is necessary to refer to here are those of
Lightfoot in his edition of the Ignatian epistles just referred to;
Zahn's Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873 (very full and able);
Harnack's Die Zeit des Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878; and the reviews of
Lightfoot's edition contributed by Harnack to the Expositor, December,
1885, January and March, 1886. For a more extended list of works on the
subject, and for a brief review of the whole matter, see Schaff's
Church History, Vol. II. p. 651-664.

[910] That Ignatius was on his way from Syria to Rome, under
condemnation for his testimony to Christ, and that he was expecting to
be cast to the wild beasts upon reaching Rome, appears from many
passages of the epistles themselves. Whether the tradition, as Eusebius
calls it, that he actually did suffer martyrdom at Rome was independent
of the epistles, or simply grew out of the statements made in them, we
cannot tell. Whichever is the case, we may regard the tradition as
reliable. That he suffered martyrdom somewhere is too well attested to
be doubted for a moment; and there exists no tradition in favor of any
other city as the place of his martyrdom, except a late one reported by
John Malalas, which names Antioch as the place. This is accepted by
Volkmar and by the author of Supernatural Religion, but its falsity has
been conclusively shown by Zahn (see his edition of the Ignatian
epistles, p. xii. 343, 381).

[911] The seven genuine epistles of Ignatius (all of which are
mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter) fall into two groups, four
having been written from one place and three from another. The first
four--to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans--were written
from Smyrna, while Ignatius was on his way to Rome, as we can learn
from notices in the epistles themselves, and as is stated below by
Eusebius, who probably took his information from the statements of the
epistles, as we take ours. Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles lay to the
south of Smyrna, on one of the great highways of Asia Minor. But
Ignatius was taken by a road which lay further north, passing through
Philadelphia and Sardis (see Lightfoot, I. 33 sq.). and thus did not
visit the three cities to which he now sends epistles from Smyrna. The
four epistles written from Smyrna contain no indication of the
chronological order in which they were written, and whether Eusebius in
his enumeration followed the manuscript of the epistles which he used
(our present mss. give an entirely different order, which is not at all
chronological and does not even keep the two groups distinct), or
whether he exercised his own judgment, we do not know.

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

[913] Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. chap. 5.

[914] leopEURrdois. 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.

[915] Compare 1 Cor. iv. 4.

[916] Compare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V.
chap. I, S:42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7.

[917] The translation of this sentence is Lightfoot's, who prefers with
Rufinus and the Syriac to read the optative zelosai instead of the
infinitive zelosai, 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.

[918] 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.

[919] See Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.

[920] 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 Peter ("qui Petri doctrina apellatur").
Eusebius' various references to the Gospel according to the Hebrews
show that he was personally acquainted with it (see above, chap. 25,
note 24), and knowing his great thoroughness in going through the books
which he had access to, it is impossible to suppose that if this
passage quoted from Ignatius were in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews he should not have known it. We seem then to be driven to the
conclusion that the passage did not originally stand in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, but was later incorporated either from the
Teaching of Peter, in which Origen found it, or from some common source
or oral tradition.

[921] daimonion asomaton.

[922] Compare Luke xxiv. 39.

[923] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 28. 4.

[924] On Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap. 14,
note 16.

[925] Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9.

[926] Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.

[927] 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.

[928] According to Eusebius' Chronicle Heros became bishop of Antioch
in the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.d.), and was succeeded by Cornelius
in the twelfth year of Hadrian (128 a.d.). In the History he is
mentioned only once more (Bk. IV. chap. 20), and no dates are given.
The dates found in the Chronicle are entirely unreliable (see on the
dates of all the early Antiochian bishops, Harnack's Zeit des
Ignatius). Of Heros himself we have no trustworthy information. His
name appears in the later martyrologies, and one of the spurious
Ignatian epistles is addressed to him.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXVII.--The Evangelists that were still Eminent at that Time.

1. Among those that were celebrated at that time was Quadratus, [929]
who, report says, was renowned along with the daughters of Philip for
his prophetical gifts. And there were many others besides these who
were known in those days, and who occupied the first place among the
successors of the apostles. And they also, being illustrious disciples
of such great men, built up the foundations of the churches which had
been laid by the apostles in every place, and preached the Gospel more
and more widely and scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of heaven
far and near throughout the whole world. [930]

2. For indeed most of the disciples of that time, animated by the
divine word with a more ardent love for philosophy, [931] had already
fulfilled the command of the Saviour, and had distributed their goods
to the needy. [932] Then starting out upon long journeys they performed
the office of evangelists, being filled with the desire to preach
Christ to those who had not yet heard the word of faith, and to deliver
to them the divine Gospels.

3. And when they had only laid the foundations of the faith in foreign
places, they appointed others as pastors, and entrusted them with the
nurture of those that had recently been brought in, while they
themselves went on again to other countries and nations, with the grace
and the co-operation of God. For a great many wonderful works were done
through them by the power of the divine Spirit, so that at the first
hearing whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced the religion of the
Creator of the universe.

4. But since it is impossible for us to enumerate the names of all that
became shepherds or evangelists in the churches throughout the world in
the age immediately succeeding the apostles, we have recorded, as was
fitting, the names of those only who have transmitted the apostolic
doctrine to us in writings still extant.
__________________________________________________________________

[929] 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.

[930] 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.

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

[932] See Matt. xix. 21. Eusebius agrees with nearly all the Fathers,
and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his
misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young man.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXVIII.--The Epistle of Clement and the Writings falsely
ascribed to him.

1. Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned,
[933] and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which he
wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth. [934]
In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing
most plainly that it is not a recent production.

2. Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other
writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his
native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this
Clement himself, translated the epistle.

3. The latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and
that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and
still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not
very different. [935]

4. But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second
epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like the
former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it.
[936]

5. And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy
writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. [937]
But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not
even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy. The acknowledged
writing of Clement is well known. We have spoken also of the works of
Ignatius and Polycarp. [938]
__________________________________________________________________

[933] In chap. 36, above.

[934] See above, chap. 16.

[935] On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to
its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.

[936] 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 fuer Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 264-283 and 329-364),
and is the oldest extant homily, and as such possesses considerable
interest. It has always gone by the name of the Second Epistle of
Clement, and hence continues to be so called although the title is a
misnomer, for neither is it an epistle, nor is it by Clement. It is
published in all the editions of the apostolic Fathers, but only those
editions that have appeared since the discovery of the complete homily
by Bryennios are now of value. Of these, it is necessary to mention
only Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patrum Apost. Opera, 2d ed., 1876,
in which Harnack's prolegomena and notes are especially valuable, and
the appendix to Lightfoot's edition of Clement (1877), which contains
the full text, notes, and an English translation. English translation
also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. VII. p. 509 sq. Compare
the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christian Biography and Harnack's
articles in the Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. referred to above.

[937] 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.

[938] In chap. 36, above.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXXIX.--The Writings of Papias.

1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title
Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. [939] Irenaeus makes mention of
these as the only works written by him, [940] in the following words:
[941] "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a
hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For
five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenaeus.

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means
declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy
apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the
doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. [942]

3. He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along
with my interpretations [943] whatsoever things I have at any time
learned carefully from the elders [944] and carefully remembered,
guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take
pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth;
not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that
deliver [945] the commandments given by the Lord to faith, [946] and
springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I
questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,--what Andrew or
what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James,
or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the
Lord, and what things Aristion [947] and the presbyter John, [948] the
disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be
gotten from the books [949] would profit me as much as what came from
the living and abiding voice."

5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice
enumerated by him. [950] The first one he mentions in connection with
Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly
meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an
interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the
apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a
presbyter.

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there
were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were
two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called
John's. [951] It is important to notice this. For it is probable that
it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first
that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. [952]

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received
the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that
he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he
mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his
writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been
quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other
wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has
been already stated. [953] But it must be noted here that Papias, their
contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of
Philip. For he relates that in his time [954] one rose from the dead.
And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas:
that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord,
suffered no harm.

10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension
of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and
prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill
up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two,
Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and
they prayed and said." [955]

11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him
through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of
the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. [956]

12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some
thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom
of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. [957] I
suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic
accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken
mystically in figures.

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, [958] as
one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of
the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their
own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenaeus and any
one else that may have proclaimed similar views. [959]

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of
the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and
traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer
those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his
which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to
Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. "This also the presbyter [960] said: Mark, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order,
whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. [961]
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I
said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his
hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the
Lord's discourses, [962] so that Mark committed no error while he thus
wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one
thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to
state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias
concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then [963] Matthew
wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted
them as he was able." [964] And the same writer uses testimonies from
the first Epistle of John [965] and from that of Peter likewise. [966]
And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins
before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews. [967] These things we have thought it necessary to observe in
addition to what has been already stated.
__________________________________________________________________

[939] logion kuriakon exegeseis. 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 (Am. ed.), Vol. I. p. 151 sq.
The exact character of the work has been long and sharply disputed.
Some contend that it was a record of oral traditions in regard to the
Lord which Papias had gathered, together with a commentary upon these
traditions, others that it was a complete Gospel, others that it was a
commentary upon an already existing Gospel or Gospels. The last is the
view which accords best with the language of Eusebius, and it is widely
accepted, though there is controversy among those who accept it as to
whether the Gospel or Gospels which he used are to be identified with
either of our canonical Gospels. But upon this question we cannot dwell
at this point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the
base of Papias' work, concludes that the work contained, first, the
text; secondly, "the interpretations which explained the text, and
which were the main object of the work"; and thirdly, the oral
traditions, which "were subordinate to the interpretation"
(Contemporary Review, 1875, II. p. 389). This is probably as good a
description of the plan of Papias' work as can be given, whatever
decision may be reached as to the identity of the text which he used
with any one of our Gospels. Lightfoot has adduced strong arguments for
his view, and has discussed at length various other views which it is
not necessary to repeat here. On the significance of the word 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 fuer wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, 1879. See also p. 389,
note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.

[940] hos monon auto graphenton. 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" (zsti gar auto pente biblia
suntetagmena). Eusebius' interpretation of Irenaeus' words is not,
however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenaeus' meaning.

[941] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 33. 4.

[942] 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 John with whom he was
acquainted was any other than the apostle John. These difficulties are
so serious that they have led many to deny that Papias meant to refer
to a second John, in spite of his apparently clear reference to such a
person. Among those who deny this second John's existence are such
scholars as Zahn and Salmon. (Compare, for instance, the latter's able
article on Joannes the Presbyter, in the Dict. of Christian Biography.)
In reply to their arguments, it may be said that the silence of all
other early writers does not necessarily disprove the existence of a
second John; for it is quite conceivable that all trace of him should
be swallowed up in the reputation of his greater namesake who lived in
the same place. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that Papias, writing
for those who were well acquainted with both Johns, may have had no
suspicion that any one would confound the presbyter with the apostle,
and would imagine that he was referring to the latter when he was
speaking of his personal friend John; and therefore he would have no
reason for stating expressly that there were two Johns, and for
expressly distinguishing the one from the other. It was, then, quite
natural that Irenaeus, a whole generation later, knowing that Polycarp
was a disciple of the apostle John, and finding constant mention of a
John in Papias' works, should simply take for granted that the same
John was meant; for by his time the lesser John may easily, in the
minds of most people, have become lost in the tradition of his greater
namesake. In view of these possibilities, it cannot be said that the
silence of other Fathers in regard to this John is fatal to his
existence; and if this is so, we are hardly justified in doing such
violence to Papias' language as is required to identify the two Johns
mentioned by him in the passage quoted below. Among those who accept
Eusebius' conclusion, that Papias refers to two different persons, are
such scholars as Tischendorf, Donaldson, Westcott and Lightfoot. If
Eusebius has recovered for us from the ancient history of the Church an
otherwise unknown personage, it will not be the only time that he has
corrected an error committed by all his predecessors. In this case, as
in a number of other cases, I believe Eusebius' wide information,
sharp-sightedness, and superiority to the trammels of traditionalism
receive triumphant vindication and we may accept his conclusion that
Papias was personally acquainted with a second John, who was familiarly
known as "the Presbyter," and thus distinguished from the apostle John,
who could be called a presbyter or elder only in the general sense in
which all the leading men of his generation were elders (see below,
note 6), and could not be designated emphatically as "the presbyter."
In regard to the connection of this "presbyter John" with the
Apocalypse, see below, note 14. But although Papias distinguishes, as
we may conclude, between two Johns in the passage referred to, and
elsewhere, according to Eusebius, pronounces himself a hearer of the
second John, it does not necessarily follow that 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 John the apostle.

[943] 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 tais hermeneiais
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.

[944] As Lightfoot points out (Contemp. Rev. ibid. p. 379 sq.), Papias
uses the term "elders" in a general sense to denote the Fathers of the
Church in the generations preceding his own. It thus includes both the
apostles and their immediate disciples. The term was thus used in a
general sense by later Fathers to denote all earlier Fathers of the
Church; that is, those leaders of the Church belonging to generations
earlier than the writers themselves. The term, therefore, cannot be
confined to the apostles alone, nor can it be confined, as some have
thought (e.g. Weiffenbach in his Das Papias Fragment), to
ecclesiastical officers, presbyters in the official sense. Where the
word presbuteros is used in connection with the second John (at the
close of this extract from Papias), it is apparently employed in its
official sense. At least we cannot otherwise easily understand how it
could be used as a peculiar designation of this John, which should
distinguish him from the other John. For in the general sense of the
word, in which Papias commonly uses it, both Johns were elders. Compare
Lightfoot's words in the passage referred to above.

[945] paraginomenois, instead of paraginomenas, agreeing with
entolEURs. 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.

[946] That is, "to those that believe, to those that are possessed of
faith."

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

[948] See above, note 6.

[949] ek ton biblion. 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 ton biblion, 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.

[950] See above, note 4.

[951] The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John is
attested also by Dionysius of Alexandria (quoted in Bk. VII. chap. 25,
below) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 9). The latter, however, says
that some regard them both as memorials of the one John, the apostle;
and Zahn, in his Acta Joannis, p. cliv. sq., endeavors to prove that a
church stood outside of the walls of Ephesus, on the spot where John
was buried, and another inside of the walls, on the site of the house
in which he had resided, and that thus two spots were consecrated to
the memory of a single John. The proof which he brings in support of
this may not lead many persons to adopt his conclusions, and yet after
reading his discussion of the matter one must admit that the existence
of two memorials in Ephesus, such as Dionysius, Eusebius, and Jerome
refer to, by no means proves that more than one John was buried there.

[952] A similar suggestion had been already made by Dionysius in the
passage quoted by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 25, and Eusebius was
undoubtedly thinking of it when he wrote these words. The suggestion is
a very clever one, and yet it is only a guess, and does not pretend to
be more. Dionysius concludes that the Apocalypse must have been written
by some person named John, because it testifies to that fact itself;
but the style, and other internal indications, lead him to think that
it cannot have been written by the author of the fourth Gospel, whom he
assumes to be John the apostle. He is therefore led to suppose that the
Apocalypse was written by some other John. He does not pretend to say
who that John was, but thinks it must have been some John that resided
in Asia; and he then adds that there were said to be two tombs in
Ephesus bearing the name of John,--evidently implying, though he does
not say it, that he is inclined to think that this second John thus
commemorated was the author of the Apocalypse. It is plain from this
that he had no tradition whatever in favor of this theory, that it was
solely an hypothesis arising from critical difficulties standing in the
way of the ascription of the book to the apostle John. Eusebius sees in
this suggestion a very welcome solution of the difficulties with which
he feels the acceptance of the book to be beset, and at once states it
as a possibility that this "presbyter John," whom he has discovered in
the writings of Papias, may have been the author of the book. But the
authenticity of the Apocalypse was too firmly established to be shaken
by such critical and theological difficulties as influenced Dionysius,
Eusebius, and a few others, and in consequence nothing came of the
suggestion made here by Eusebius. In the present century, however, the
"presbyter John" has again played an important part among some critics
as the possible author of certain of the Johannine writings, though the
authenticity of the Apocalypse has (until very recently) been so
commonly accepted even by the most negative critics that the "presbyter
John" has not figured at all as the author of it; nor indeed is he
likely to in the future.

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

[954] That is, in the time of Philip.

[955] Acts i. 23.

[956] 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.

[957] 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 Rev.
xx. 1-6, and the fact that this book was appealed to so constantly by
chiliasts in support of their views was the reason why Dionysius,
Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its apostolic authorship.
Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene age were the author of the
epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, 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.

[958] sphodra smikros ton noun. Eusebius' judgment of Papias may have
been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strong chiliasm of
the latter; and yet a perusal of the extant fragments of Papias'
writings will lead any one to think that Eusebius was not far wrong in
his estimate of the man. On the genuineness of the words in his praise,
given by some mss., in chap. 36, S:2, see note 3 on that chapter.

[959] See above, note 19.

[960] We cannot, in the absence of the context, say with certainty that
the presbyter here referred to is the "presbyter John," of whom Papias
has so much to say, and who is mentioned in the previous paragraph, and
yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiffenbach's Die Papias
Fragmente ueber Marcus und Matthaeus, p. 26 sq.

[961] Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark with Peter,
but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by those who
came after him (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). The relation of
this Gospel of Mark to our canonical gospel has been a very sharply
disputed point, but there is no good reason for distinguishing the
Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel which corresponds
excellently to the description given by Papias. Compare the remarks of
Lightfoot, ibid. p. 393 sq. We know from other sources (e.g. Justin
Martyr's Dial. c. 106) that our second Gospel was in existence in any
case before the middle of the second century, and therefore there is no
reason to suppose that Papias was thinking of any other Gospel when he
spoke of the Gospel written by Mark as the interpreter of Peter. Of
course it does not follow from this that it was actually our second
Gospel which Mark wrote, and of whose composition Papias here speaks.
He may have written a Gospel which afterward formed the basis of our
present Gospel, or was one of the sources of the synoptic tradition as
a whole; that is, he may have written what is commonly known as the
"Ur-Marcus" (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). As to that, we
cannot decide with absolute certainty, but we may say that Papias
certainly understood the tradition which he gives to refer to our
Gospel of Mark. The exact significance of the word hermeneutes 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 tEURxei) have also caused considerable
controversy. But they seem to refer chiefly to a lack of chronological
arrangement, perhaps to a lack of logical arrangement also. The
implication is that Mark wrote down without regard to order of any kind
the words and deeds of Christ which he remembered. Lightfoot and most
other critics have supposed that this accusation of a "lack of order"
implies the existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different
order, with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew,
as Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as
Lightfoot, Zahn, Renan, and others suppose). This is a natural
supposition, but it is quite possible that Papias in speaking of this
lack of order is not thinking at all of another written Gospel, but
merely of the order of events which he had received from tradition as
the true one.

[962] logon, "discourses," or logion, "oracles." The two words are
about equally supported by ms. authority. The latter is adopted by the
majority of the editors; but it is more likely that it arose from logon
under the influence of the logion, which occurred in the title of
Papias' work, than that it was changed into logon. The matter, however,
cannot be decided, and the alternative reading must in either case be
allowed to stand. See the notes of Burton and Heinichen, in loco.

[963] men oun. These words show plainly enough that this sentence in
regard to Matthew did not in the work of Papias immediately follow the
passage in regard to Mark, quoted above. Both passages are evidently
torn out of their context; and the latter apparently stood at the close
of a description of the origin of Matthew's Gospel. That this statement
in regard to Matthew rests upon the authority of "the presbyter" we are
consequently not at liberty to assert.

[964] On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see above,
chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was certainly in
existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the epistle of
Barnabas, which was written not later than the first quarter of the
second century. There is, therefore, no reason for assuming that the
Gospel of Matthew which Papias was acquainted with was a different
Gospel from our own. This, however, does not prove that the logia which
Matthew wrote (supposing Papias' report to be correct) were identical
with, or even of the same nature as our Gospel of Matthew. It is urged
by many that the word logia could be used only to describe a collection
of the words or discourses of the Lord, and hence it is assumed that
Matthew wrote a work of this kind, which of course is quite a different
thing from our first Gospel. But Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 399 sq.)
that the word logia, "oracles," is not necessarily confined to a
collection of discourses merely, but that it may be used to describe a
work containing also a narrative of events. This being the case, it
cannot be said that Matthew's logia must necessarily have been
something different from our present Gospel. Still our Greek Matthew is
certainly not a translation of a Hebrew original, and hence there may
be a long step between Matthew's Hebrew logia and our Greek Gospel. But
if our Greek Matthew was known to Papias, and if it is not a
translation of a Hebrews original, then one of two alternatives
follows: either he could not accept the Greek Matthew, which was in
current use (that is, our canonical Matthew), or else he was not
acquainted with the Hebrew Matthew. Of the former alternative we have
no hint in the fragments preserved to us, while the latter, from the
way in which Papias speaks of these Hebrew logia, seems highly
probable. It may, therefore, be said to be probable that Papias, the
first one that mentions a Hebrew Matthew, speaks not from personal
knowledge, but upon the authority of tradition only.

[965] Since the first Epistle of John and the fourth Gospel are
indisputably from the same hand (see above, chap. 24, note 18), Papias'
testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, which is what his
use of it implies, is indirect testimony to the apostolic authorship of
the Gospel also.

[966] On the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above,
chap. 3, note 1.

[967] It is very likely that the story referred to here is identical
with the story of the woman taken in adultery, given in some mss., at
the close of the eighth chapter of John's Gospel. The story was clearly
not contained in the original Gospel of John, but we do not know from
what source it crept into that Gospel, possibly from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius says the story related by
Papias was found. It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that
Papias took the story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but
only that it was contained in that Gospel. We are consequently not
justified in claiming this statement of Eusebius as proving that Papias
himself was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see
above, chap. 25, note 24). He may have taken it thence, or he may, on
the other hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the source
whence he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from the lost
original Gospel, the "Ur-Matthaeus."
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Book IV.

Chapter I.--The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of
Trajan. [968]

1. About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned
bishop of the parish of Alexandria [969] died, and Primus, [970] the
fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.

2. At that time also Alexander, [971] the fifth in the line of
succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after
Evarestus had held the office eight years. [972]
__________________________________________________________________

[968] We still have lists of bishops as old as the end of the second
century. The most ancient is that of the Roman bishops given by
Irenaeus (III. 3. 3); but this has no dates. The list is probably the
official catalogue as it had been handed down to the time of
Eleutherus; but it is not authentic, as there was no monarchical
episcopate in Rome at the time of Clement, nor even in the time of
Hermas. For other churches the oldest lists date from the end of the
third century. According to one interpretation of a passage from
Hegesippus, quoted in chapter 22, below, Hegesippus drew up a list of
Roman bishops down to the time of Anicetus; and Bishop Lightfoot thinks
he has discovered this lost catalogue in Epiphanius, Haer. XXVII. 6
(see his article in the Academy for May 27, 1887). If Lightfoot is
right, we have recovered the oldest Papal catalogue; but it is very
doubtful whether Hegesippus composed such a catalogue (see note on
chap. 22), and even if he did, it is uncertain whether the list which
Epiphanius gives is identical with it. See the writer's notice of
Lightfoot's article in the Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1887; No.
18, Col. 435 sqq. The list of Roman bishops which Eusebius gives is the
same as that of Irenaeus; but it has dates, while Irenaeus' has none.
From what source Eusebius took his dates we do not know. His Chronicle
contains different dates. It is possible that the difference is owing,
in part, to defective transcriptions or translations; but it is more
probable that Eusebius himself discovered another source, before
writing his History, which he considered more authentic, and therefore
substituted for the one he has used in his Chronicle. Lipsius
(Chronologie der roemischen Bischoefe, p. 145) says, "We may assume
that the oldest catalogue extended as far as Eleutherus, but rested
upon historical knowledge only from Xystus, or, at the farthest, from
Alexander down." On the chronology of the Roman bishops in general, see
especially the important work of Lipsius just referred to.

[969] Cerdon, mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 21.

[970] The Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian) makes Primus succeed to the
bishopric of Alexandria in the eleventh year of Trajan; the version of
Jerome, in the ninth. According to chap. 4, below, he held office
twelve years. No reliance can be placed upon any of the figures. The
Alexandrian church is shrouded in darkness until the latter part of the
second century, and all extant traditions in regard to its history
before that time are about equally worthless. Of Primus himself we have
no authentic knowledge, though he figures somewhat in later tradition.
See Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography, in loco.

[971] According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian), Alexander
became bishop of Rome in the eighth year of Trajan; according to
Jerome's version, in the twelfth year. He is said, in chap. 4, below,
to have died in the third year of Hadrian, after holding office ten
years. On the reliability of these dates, see note 1, above. Of
Alexander's life and character we know nothing.

[972] On Evarestus, see Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.--The Calamities of the Jews during Trajan's Reign.

1. The teaching and the Church of our Saviour flourished greatly and
made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews
increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils. In the
eighteenth year of Trajan's reign [973] there was another disturbance
of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished. [974]

2. For in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, and also in Cyrene,
[975] as if incited by some terrible and factious spirit, they rushed
into seditious measures against their fellow-inhabitants, the Greeks.
The insurrection increased greatly, and in the following year, while
Lupus was governor of all Egypt, [976] it developed into a war of no
mean magnitude.

3. In the first attack it happened that they were victorious over the
Greeks, who fled to Alexandria and imprisoned and slew the Jews that
were in the city. But the Jews of Cyrene, although deprived of their
aid, continued to plunder the land of Egypt and to devastate its
districts, [977] under the leadership of Lucuas. [978] Against them the
emperor sent Marcius Turbo [979] with a foot and naval force and also
with a force of cavalry.

4. He carried on the war against them for a long time and fought many
battles, and slew many thousands of Jews, not only of those of Cyrene,
but also of those who dwelt in Egypt and had come to the assistance of
their king Lucuas.

5. But the emperor, fearing that the Jews in Mesopotamia would also
make an attack upon the inhabitants of that country, commanded Lucius
Quintus [980] to clear the province of them. And he having marched
against them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt there; and in
consequence of his success he was made governor of Judea by the
emperor. These events are recorded also in these very words by the
Greek historians that have written accounts of those times. [981]
__________________________________________________________________

[973] 115 a.d.

[974] Closs says: "According to Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 32, they slew in
Cyrene 220,000 persons with terrible cruelty. At the same time there
arose in Cyprus a disturbance of the Jews, who were very numerous in
that island. According to Dion, 240,000 of the inhabitants were slain
there. Their leader was Artemion." Compare Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom.
LXVIII. 32, and LXIX. 12 sq. The Jews and the Greeks that dwelt
together in different cities were constantly getting into trouble. The
Greeks scorned the Jews, and the Jews in return hated the Greeks and
stirred up many bloody commotions against them. See Jost's Geschichte
der Israeliten, chap. III. p. 181 sq. The word "another" in this
passage is used apparently with reference to the Jewish war under
Vespasian, of which Eusebius has spoken at length in the early part of
the third Book.

[975] The Jews were very numerous both in Egypt and in Cyrene, which
lay directly west of Egypt. The Jews of Cyrene had a synagogue at
Jerusalem, according to Acts vi. 9.

[976] Lupus is, to me at least, an otherwise unknown character.

[977] nomoi. See Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10.

[978] Lucuas is called by Dion Cassius (LXVIII. 32) Andreas. Muenter
suggests that he may have borne a double name, a Jewish and a Roman, as
did many of the Jews of that time.

[979] Marcius Turbo was one of the most distinguished of the Roman
generals under Trajan and Hadrian, and finally became praetorian
prefect under Hadrian. See Dion Cassius, LXIX. 18, and Spartian, Hadr.
4-9, 15.

[980] Lucius Quintus was an independent Moorish chief, who served
voluntarily in the Roman army and became one of Trajan's favorite
generals. He was made governor of Judea by Trajan, and was afterward
raised to the consulship. According to Themistius (Orat. XVI.), Trajan
at one time intended to make him his successor. See Dion Cassius,
LXVIII. 8, 22, 30, 32; LXIX. 2; Spartian, Hadr. 5, 7, and cf. Valesius'
note on this passage.

[981] The language of Eusebius might imply that he had other sources
than the Greek writers, but this does not seem to have been the case.
He apparently followed Dion Cassius for the most part, but evidently
had some other source (the same which Orosius afterward followed), for
he differs from Dion in the name of the Jewish leader, calling him
Lucuas instead of Andreas. The only extant accounts of these affairs by
Greek historians are those of Dion Cassius and Orosius, but there were
evidently others in Eusebius' time.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.--The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the Faith during
the Reign of Adrian.

1. After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years [982] AElius
Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a
discourse containing an apology for our religion, [983] because certain
wicked men [984] had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is
still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own,
and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his
apostolic orthodoxy. [985]

2. He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following
words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, [986] for
they were genuine:--those that were healed, and those that were raised
from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when
they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while
the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for
quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." [987] Such
then was Quadratus.

3. Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left,
like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. [988]
His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great
many persons.
__________________________________________________________________

[982] Trajan reigned from Jan. 27, 98, to Aug. 7 or 8, 117.

[983] The importance of Quadratus' Apology in the mind of Eusebius is
shown by his beginning the events of Hadrian's reign with it, as well
as by the fact that he gives it also in his Chronicle, year 2041 of
Abraham (124 to 125 a.d.), where he calls Quadratus "Auditor
Apostolorum." Eusebius gives few events in his Chronicle, and therefore
the reference to this is all the more significant. We find no mention
of Quadratus and Aristides before Eusebius, and of the Apology of
Quadratus we have only the few lines which are given in this chapter.
In the Chronicle Eusebius says that Quadratus and Aristides addressed
apologies to Hadrian during his stay in Athens. One ms. of the
Chronicle gives the date as 125 a.d. (2141 Abr.), and this is correct;
for, according to Duerr (Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, Wien, 1881, p.
42 to 44, and 70 to 71), Hadrian was in Athens from the fall of 125 to
the summer of 126 and from the spring of 129 to the spring of 130.
Eusebius adds in his Chronicle (but omits here) that these apologies
were the cause of a favorable edict from Hadrian, but this is
incorrect. Eusebius (IV. 12) makes a similar statement in regard to the
Apology of Justin, making a favorable edict (which has been proved to
be unauthentic) of the Emperor Antoninus the result of it. (See
Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, I. 108 sq., 139.)
Quadratus and Aristides are the oldest apologists known to us. Eusebius
does not mention them again. This Quadratus must not be confounded with
Quadratus, bishop of Athens in the time of Marcus Aurelius, who is
mentioned in chap. 23; for the apologist Quadratus who belonged to the
time of the apostles can hardly have been a bishop during the reign of
Marcus Aurelius. Nor is there any decisive ground to identify him with
the prophet mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 37 and Bk. V. chap. 7, for
Quadratus was a very common name, and the prophet and the apologist
seem to have belonged to different countries (see Harnack,
Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol. p. 103). Many scholars, however,
identify the prophet and the apologist, and it must be said that
Eusebius' mention of the prophet in III. 37, and of the apologist in
IV. 3, without any qualifying phrases, looks as if one well-known
Quadratus were referred to. The matter must remain undecided. Jerome
speaks of Quadratus and Aristides once in the Chronicle, year 2142, and
in de vir. ill. chap. 19 and 20. In chap. 19 he identifies Quadratus,
the apologist, and Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, but he evidently
had no other source than Eusebius (as was usually the case, so that he
can very rarely be accepted as an independent witness), and his
statements here are the result simply of a combination of his own. The
later scattering traditions in regard to Quadratus and Aristides
(chiefly in the Martyrologies) rest probably only upon the accounts of
Eusebius and Jerome, and whatever enlargement they offer is
untrustworthy. The Apology of Quadratus was perhaps extant at the
beginning of the seventh century; see Photius, Cod. 162. One later
tradition made Quadratus the angel of Philadelphia, addressed in the
Apocalypse; another located him in Magnesia (this Otto accepts). Either
tradition might be true, but one is worth no more than the other.
Compare Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., and Otto, Corpus
Apol. Christ. IX. p. 333 sq.

[984] This phrase is very significant, as showing the idea of Eusebius
that the persecutions did not proceed from the emperors themselves, but
were the result of the machinations of the enemies of the Christians.

[985] orthotomia. Compare the use of orthomounta in 2 Tim. ii. 15.

[986] The fragment begins tou de soteros hemon ta zrga aei paren. The
de seems to introduce a contrast, and allows us to assume with some
measure of assurance that an exposure of the pretended wonders of
heathen magicians, who were numerous at that time, preceded this ocular
proof of the genuineness of Christ's miracles.

[987] Quadratus had evidently seen none of these persons himself; he
had simply heard of them through others. We have no record elsewhere of
the fact that any of those raised by Christ lived to a later age.

[988] Aristides of Athens, a contemporary of Quadratus, is called by
Eusebius in his Chronicle "a philosopher" (nostri dogmatis philosophus
Atheniensis). Eusebius does not quote his work, perhaps because he did
not himself possess a copy, perhaps because it contained no historical
matter suitable to his purpose. He does not mention him again (the
Aristides, the friend of Africanus, of Bk. I. chap. 7 and of Bk. VI.
chap. 31, lived a century later), and his Apology is quoted by none of
the Fathers, so far as is known. Vague and worthless traditions of the
Middle Ages still kept his name alive, as in the case of Quadratus, but
the Apology itself disappeared long ago, until in 1878 a fragment of an
Apology, bearing the name of "Aristides, the Philosopher of Athens,"
was published by the Mechitarists from a codex of the year 981. It is a
fragment of an Armenian translation of the fifth century; and although
its genuineness has been denied, it is accepted by most critics, and
seems to be an authentic fragment from the age of Hadrian. See
especially Harnack, ibid. p. 109 sq., and again in Herzog, 2d ed.,
Supplement Vol. p. 675-681; also Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 709.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.--The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under the Same
Emperor. [989]

In the third year of the same reign, Alexander, [990] bishop of Rome,
died after holding office ten years. His successor was Xystus. [991]
About the same time Primus, bishop of Alexandria, died in the twelfth
year of his episcopate, [992] and was succeeded by Justus. [993]
__________________________________________________________________

[989] I.e. the emperor Hadrian.

[990] On Alexander, see above, chap. 1, note 4.

[991] Known as Sixtus I. (Sixtus, or Sistus, being the Latin form of
the name) in the list of Roman bishops. He was supposed to be the
author of a collection of religious and moral maxims, which were widely
read in the ancient Church and are mentioned by many of the Fathers.
His authorship was disputed by Jerome and others, and the work from
that time on was commonly assigned to a heathen author, until recently
some voices have again been heard in favor of the authorship of Bishop
Sixtus (notably de Lagarde and Ewald). See Schaff's Church Hist. II. p.
703 sq. He is, according to Lipsius, the first Roman bishop whose dates
we have any means of ascertaining, and it may be assumed that he was
the first one that occupied an episcopal position in Rome; and yet,
even in his time, the monarchical episcopate can hardly have been
established in its full sense. In the next chapter we are told that he
held office ten years; and this figure, which is supported by most of
the ancient catalogues, may be accepted as approximately correct. The
date of his accession given here by Eusebius cannot, however, be
correct; for, as Lipsius has shown (Chron. de roem. Bischoefe, p. 183
sq.) he must have died at least as early as 126 a.d. (possibly as early
as 124), so that his accession took place not later than 116; that is,
before the death of Trajan. Like most of the other early Roman bishops
he is celebrated as a martyr in the martyrologies, but the fact of his
martyrdom rests upon a very late and worthless tradition.

[992] On Primus, see chap. 1, note 4. Eusebius contradicts his own
dates here. For in chap. 1 he says that Alexander of Rome and Primus of
Alexandria became bishops at the same time; but according to this
chapter, Alexander died at the close of the tenth year of his
episcopate, and Primus in the twelfth year of his. Eusebius may have
used the word "about" advisedly, to cover considerable ground, and may
have grouped the two bishops together simply for convenience' sake. No
reliance is to be placed upon the dates in any case.

[993] We know nothing about Justus except that he ruled eleven years,
according to the next chapter. If Primus died in the twelfth year of
his episcopate, as Eusebius says in this chapter, and entered upon his
office in the twelfth year of Trajan, as he says in chapter 1, Justus
must have become bishop about 120 a.d., in the third or fourth year of
Hadrian. It must be remembered, however, that all of these dates are
historically worthless.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.--The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the
Period under Consideration

1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found
preserved in writing; [994] for tradition says that they were all short
lived.

2. But I have learned this much from writings, [995] that until the
siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, [996] there were
fifteen bishops in succession there, [997] all of whom are said to have
been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in
purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of
such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole
church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days
of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which
siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were
conquered after severe battles.

3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is
proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The
first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; [998] the
second, Symeon; [999] the third, Justus; [1000] the fourth, Zacchaeus;
[1001] the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the
eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; [1002] the
eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; [1003] the
fourteenth, Joseph; [1004] and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the
apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the
circumcision.

5. In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, Xystus, having completed
the tenth year of his episcopate, [1005] was succeeded by Telesphorus,
[1006] the seventh in succession from the apostles. In the meantime,
after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes, [1007] the sixth in
order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his
predecessor having held office eleven years. [1008]
__________________________________________________________________

[994] In his Chron. Eusebius also gives the names of these bishops of
Jerusalem, without assigning dates to more than two or three of them.
But in Nicephorus Callisti the dates are given. From what source
Nicephorus drew we do not know. He is, at any rate, too late to be of
any worth as an authority on such a subject. In fact, these men were
not regular monarchical bishops, holding office in succession (see note
4), and hence Eusebius is quite excusable for his ignorance in regard
to their dates. See Ritschl's Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche, p. 246
sq.

[995] Reuterdahl (De Fontibus Hist. eccles. Euseb., p. 55) conjectures
that these "writings" were found in the church of Jerusalem itself, and
compares a passage in the Dem. Evang. III. 5: "The first bishops that
presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have been Jews, and
their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the country." Had
Hegesippus or any other known author been the source of his
information, he would probably have mentioned his name.

[996] In 135 a.d. See below, chap. 7.

[997] From Hegesippus (see above, Bk. III. chap. 32) we learn that
Symeon, the successor of James, was martyred during Trajan's reign. As
was seen in note 6 of the chapter referred to, the martyrdom probably
occurred early in that reign. Eusebius, in his Chron., refers the
martyrdom and the accession of Justus to the tenth year of Trajan (107
a.d.). This leaves thirteen bishops to be inserted between 107 (or, if
this date is not reliable, 98+) and 135 a.d., which is, to say the
least, very suspicious. The true explanation appears to be that, after
the death of Symeon, the last prominent relative of Christ, the
presbyters took the lead, and that they were afterward made by
tradition into successive monarchical bishops. Closs and Gieseler
suppose that there were bishops of a number of churches in Palestine at
the same time, whom tradition made successive bishops of Jerusalem. But
the fact is, that the episcopate is of Greek, not of Jewish, origin,
and in the strictly Jewish Christian churches of Palestine no such
person as a bishop can have existed. Only after the church there came
under the influence of the Gentile church, and lost its prevailingly
Jewish character, was it possible for a bishop, in the general sense of
the term, to exist there. The Jewish Christians assumed for their
church government the form of the Jewish Sanhedrim, though while James
and Symeon were alive, they were naturally leaders (according to the
common Oriental custom, which exalted the relatives of the founder of a
religion). The Jewish character of the Jerusalem congregation was very
marked until the destruction of the city under Hadrian (note that all
but two of the fifteen bishops have Jewish names), after which all
circumcised Jews--Christians as well as unbelievers--were excluded, and
a heathen Christian congregation took its place (see the next chapter).
According to Stroth, followed by Closs, Stigloher, and Heinichen, the
church of Jerusalem remained in Pella after 70 a.d., and was called the
church of Jerusalem because it was made up of Christians from
Jerusalem. This is possible; but Eusebius evidently did not understand
it so (compare, too, his Dem. Evang. III. 5), and Epiphanius (de Mensa
et Pond. chap 15) says expressly that, after the destruction of the
city by Titus, the church returned again to Jerusalem, and there is no
good reason to doubt the report.

[998] On James, see above, Bk. II chap. 1.

[999] On Symeon, see above, Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.

[1000] Of Justus and the following named bishops we know nothing more.
Justus is called Judas by Epiphanius, Haer. LXVI. 20.

[1001] Zacchaeus is called Zacharias by Epiphanius. According to
Jerome's version of Eusebius' Chron. he became bishop in the fifteenth
year of Trajan; according to the Armenian version, in the twelfth year.
Dates are given by the Chron. for this bishop and for Seneca, but no
confidence is to be reposed in the dates, nor in those given by
Epiphanius and Eutychius. The former, when he gives dates at all, is
hopelessly at sea. The latter gives exact dates for every bishop, but
quite without the support of ancient tradition.

[1002] The name Seneca is Latin, the only Latin name in the list. But
there is nothing particularly surprising in a Jew's bearing a Latin
name. It was quite common even for native Jews to bear both a Latin, or
Greek, and a Hebrew name, and often the former was used to the
exclusion of the latter. The name therefore does not disprove Seneca's
Hebrew origin.

[1003] 'Ephres. Epiphanius calls him 'OuEURphris. The Armenian version
of the Chron. calls him Ephrem; Jerome's version, Ephres. Syncellus
calls him 'Ephraim, which is the Hebrew form of the name.

[1004] 'Ioseph. He is called 'Iosis by Epiphanius, and Joses by Jerome.

[1005] On Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3.

[1006] 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.

[1007] 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.

[1008] His predecessor was Justus. See the previous chapter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.--The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian.

1. As the rebellion of the Jews at this time grew much more serious,
[1009] Rufus, governor of Judea, after an auxiliary force had been sent
him by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, proceeded against
them without mercy, and destroyed indiscriminately thousands of men and
women and children, and in accordance with the laws of war reduced
their country to a state of complete subjection.

2. The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of
Barcocheba [1010] (which signifies a star), who possessed the character
of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon his name,
boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful
powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them
out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes.

3. The war raged most fiercely in the eighteenth year of Adrian, [1011]
at the city of Bithara, [1012] which was a very secure fortress,
situated not far from Jerusalem. When the siege had lasted a long time,
and the rebels had been driven to the last extremity by hunger and
thirst, and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered his just
punishment, the whole nation was prohibited from this time on by a
decree, and by the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the
country about Jerusalem. For the emperor gave orders that they should
not even see from a distance the land of their fathers. Such is the
account of Aristo of Pella. [1013]

4. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and
had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was
colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently
arose changed its name and was called AElia, in honor of the emperor
AElius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles,
the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the
circumcision was Marcus. [1014]
__________________________________________________________________

[1009] 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 Muenter's Juedischer Krieg.

[1010] Heb. B+R+ K+W+K+B+#, Bar-Cochba, which signifies "Son of a star"
(cf. Num. xxiv. 17). After his defeat the Jews gave him the name B+R+
K+W+Z+J+B+#, Bar-Coziba, which means "Son of a lie."

[1011] I.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135.

[1012] Biththera, Rufinus Bethara. The exact situation of this place
cannot be determined, although various localities have been suggested
by travelers (see Robinson's Bibl. Researches, III. p. 267 sqq.). We
may conclude at any rate that it was, as Eusebius says, a strongly
fortified place, and that it was situated somewhere in Judea.

[1013] Whether the whole of the previous account, or only the close of
it, was taken by Eusebius from Aristo of Pella, we do not know. Of
Aristo of Pella himself we know very little. Eusebius is the first
writer to mention him, and he and Maximus Confessor (in his notes on
the work De mystica Theol. cap. I. p. 17, ed. Corderii) are the only
ones to give us any information about him (for the notices in Moses
Chorenensis and in the Chron. Paschale--the only other places in which
Aristo is mentioned--are entirely unreliable). Maximus informs us that
Aristo was the author of a Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, a work
mentioned by many of the Fathers, but connected by none of them with
Aristo. The dialogue, according to Maximus, was known to Clement of
Alexandria and therefore must have been written as early as, or very
soon after, the middle of the second century; and the fact that it
recorded a dialogue between a Hebrew Christian and an Alexandrian Jew
(as we learn from the epistle of Celsus, De Judaica Incredulitate,
printed with the works of Cyprian, in Hartel's edition, III. p.
119-132) would lead us to expect an early date for the work. There can
be found no good reason for doubting the accuracy of Maximus'
statement; and if it be accepted, we must conclude that the writer whom
Eusebius mentions here was the author of the dialogue referred to. If
this be so, it is quite possible that it was from this dialogue that
Eusebius drew the account which he here ascribes to Aristo; for such an
account might well find a place in a dialogue between two Hebrews. It
is possible, of course, that Aristo wrote some other work in which he
discussed this subject; but if it had been an historical work, we
should expect Eusebius, according to his custom, to give its title.
Harnack is quite correct in assuming that Eusebius' silence in regard
to the work itself is significant. Doubtless the work did not please
him, and hence he neither mentions it, nor gives an account of its
author. This is just what we should expect Eusebius' attitude to be
toward such a Jewish Christian work (and at the same time, such a
`simple' work, as Origen calls it in Contra Cels. IV. 52) as we know
the dialogue to have been. We are, of course, left largely to
conjecture in this matter; but the above conclusions seem at least
probable. Compare Harnack's Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., p. 115
sq.; and for a discussion of the nature of the dialogue (which is no
longer extant), see his Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili
Christiani (Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 3), p. 115 sq. (Harnack looks
upon this Latin altercatio as, in part at least, a free reproduction of
the lost dialogue). See, also, the writer's Dialogue between a
Christian and a Jew ('Antibole Papiskou kai philonos 'Ioudaion pros
monachon tina), p. 33. The town of Pella lay east of the Jordan, in
Perea. See Bk. III. chap. 5, note 10, above.

[1014] Of this Marcus we know nothing more. Upon the Gentile bishops of
Jerusalem, see Bk. V. chap. 12.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.--The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of Knowledge
falsely so-called. [1015]

1. As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most
brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was
flourishing among the whole human race, [1016] the demon who hates
everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most
bitterly opposed to the salvation of man, turned all his arts against
the Church. [1017] In the beginning he armed himself against it with
external persecutions.

2. But now, being shut off from the use of such means, [1018] he
devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict
with the Church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the
ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him,
impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to
the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at
the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away
from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were
ignorant of the faith.

3. Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander, whom we have already
mentioned as the successor of Simon, [1019] a certain serpent-like
power, double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the leaders of two
different heresies, Saturninus, an Antiochian by birth, [1020] and
Basilides, an Alexandrian. [1021] The former of these established
schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in Alexandria.

4. Irenaeus states [1022] that the false teaching of Saturninus agreed
in most respects with that of Menander, but that Basilides, under the
pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented monstrous fables, and
carried the fictions of his impious heresy quite beyond bounds.

5. But as there were at that time a great many members of the Church
[1023] who were fighting for the truth and defending apostolic and
ecclesiastical doctrine with uncommon eloquence, so there were some
also that furnished posterity through their writings with means of
defense against the heresies to which we have referred. [1024]

6. Of these there has come down to us a most powerful refutation of
Basilides by Agrippa Castor, [1025] one of the most renowned writers of
that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man.

7. While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote
twenty-four books upon the Gospel, [1026] and that he invented prophets
for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, [1027] and others that had no
existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order to amaze
those who marvel at such things; that he taught also that the eating of
meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the faith in
times of persecution were matters of indifference; [1028] and that he
enjoined upon his followers, like Pythagoras, a silence of five years.
[1029]

8. Other similar things the above-mentioned writer has recorded
concerning Basilides, and has ably exposed the error of his heresy.

9. Irenaeus also writes [1030] that Carpocrates was a contemporary of
these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the
heresy of the Gnostics, [1031] who did not wish to transmit any longer
the magic arts of Simon, as that one [1032] had done, in secret, but
openly. [1033] For they boasted--as of something great--of love potions
that were carefully prepared by them, and of certain demons that sent
them dreams and lent them their protection, and of other similar
agencies; and in accordance with these things they taught that it was
necessary for those who wished to enter fully into their mysteries, or
rather into their abominations, to practice all the worst kinds of
wickedness, on the ground that they could escape the cosmic powers, as
they called them, in no other way than by discharging their obligations
to them all by infamous conduct.

10. Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these
ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led
astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he
furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for
slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men
brought infamy upon the whole race of Christians.

11. In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread
abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous
and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with
mothers and sisters, and enjoyed impious feasts. [1034]

12. He did not, however, long succeed in these artifices, as the truth
established itself and in time shone with great brilliancy.

13. For the machinations of its enemies were refuted by its power and
speedily vanished. One new heresy arose after another, and the former
ones always passed away, and now at one time, now at another, now in
one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various kinds and
various forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church,
which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected
its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of its
inspired life and philosophy to every nation both of Greeks and of
Barbarians.

14. At the same time the slanderous accusations which had been brought
against the whole Church [1035] also vanished, and there remained our
teaching alone, which has prevailed over all, and which is acknowledged
to be superior to all in dignity and temperance, and in divine and
philosophical doctrines. So that none of them now ventures to affix a
base calumny upon our faith, or any such slander as our ancient enemies
formerly delighted to utter.

15. Nevertheless, in those times the truth again called forth many
champions who fought in its defense against the godless heresies,
refuting them not only with oral, but also with written arguments.
[1036]
__________________________________________________________________

[1015] pseudonumou gnoseos. Compare 1 Tim. vi. 20.

[1016] This statement is of course an exaggeration. See above, Bk. II.
chap. 3, note 1.

[1017] 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.

[1018] 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.

[1019] See Bk. III. chap. 26.

[1020] 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.

[1021] 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 Acts of Archelaus as preaching in Persia. For an
excellent account of Basilides and his system, see the article by Hort
in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.; and in addition to the works of Neander,
Baur, and Lipsius on Gnosticism in general, see especially Uhlhorn's
Das Basilidianische System, Goettingen, 1855.

[1022] See Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 24.

[1023] ekklesiastikon andron.

[1024] 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.

[1025] Of Agrippa Castor we know only what Eusebius tells us here.
Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 21) adds nothing new, and Theodoret's
statement (Fab. I. 4), that Agrippa wrote against Basilides' son,
Isidore, as well as against Basilides himself, is simply an expansion
of Eusebius' account, and does not imply the existence of another work.
Agrippa's production, of which we do not know even the title, has
entirely disappeared.

[1026] eis to euangelion 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. 1), and seems to be Jerome's authority for the
enumeration of a Gospel of Basilides among the Apocryphal Gospels in
his Comment in Matt., 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 John ix. (although Lipsius, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. 715,
suggests Luke xxi. 12). Meanwhile, in the Acta Archelai, chap. 55 (see
Gallandii Bibl. PP. III. 608), is a quotation from "the thirteenth book
of the treatises (tractatuum) of Basilides," which is an exposition of
the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi.). If this is the same work,
it would seem that the Exegetica must have included at least Luke and
John, possibly Matthew also, for we know that the Gospels of Matthew,
Luke, and John were all used by the Basilidians. The respective
positions in the work of the expositions of the passages from Luke and
John (the former in the thirteenth, the latter in the twenty-third,
book) would seem, however, to exclude Matthew, if the books were at all
of equal length. If Lipsius were correct in regarding the latter
passage as an exposition of Luke xxi. 12, there would be no evidence
that the Commentary covered more than a single Gospel.

[1027] According to Epiphanius, some of the Ophites appealed to a
certain prophet called Barcabbas. What his connection was with the one
mentioned here we do not know. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 6)
speaks of the Expositions of the Prophet Parchor by Isidore, the son of
Basilides. This may be another of Basilides' prophets, but is more
probably identical with the oft-mentioned Barcoph. In the second book
of these Expositions, as quoted by Clement, occurs a reference to the
prophecy of Cham or Ham. Rienstra (De Euseb. Hist. Eccles. p. 29)
thinks that Agrippa Castor was mistaken in saying that Basilides
mentioned these prophets; but there seems to be no good reason to deny
the accuracy of the report, even though we know nothing more about the
prophets mentioned. Hort (Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Barcabbas)
thinks it likely that the prophecies current among the various Gnostic
bodies belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature.

[1028] 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.).

[1029] Exactly what is meant by this "five years of silence" is
uncertain. Whether it denoted unquestioning and silent obedience of all
commands, as it meant in the case of the Pythagoreans (if, indeed, the
traditions in regard to the latter have any basis in fact), or strict
secrecy as to the doctrines taught, cannot be decided. The report in
regard to the Basilidians, in so far as it has any truth, probably
arose on the ground of some such prohibition, which may have been made
by some follower of Basilides, if not by the latter himself. A bond of
secrecy would lend an air of mystery to the school, which would accord
well with the character of its later teachings. But we cannot make
Basilides responsible for such proceedings. Agrippa Castor, as
reproduced here by Eusebius, is our sole authority for the enjoinment
of silence by Basilides.

[1030] See Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 25.

[1031] The date of the rise of Gnosticism cannot be fixed. Indeed, all
the requisite conditions existed from the beginning. It was the "acute
Verweltlichung" (as Harnack calls it) of Christianity, the development
of it in connection with the various ethnic philosophies, and it began
as soon as Christianity came in contact with the Greek mind. At first
it was not heretical, simply because there were no standards by which
to try it. There was only the preaching of the Christians; the canon
was not yet formed; episcopacy was not yet established; both arose as
safeguards against heresy. It was in the time of Hadrian, perhaps, that
these speculations began to be regarded as heresies, because they
contradicted certain fundamental truths to which the Christians felt
that they must cling, such as the unity of God, his graciousness, his
goodness, etc.; and therefore the Christians dated Gnosticism from that
time. Gnosticism was ostensibly conquered, but victory was achieved
only as the Church itself became in a certain sense Gnostic. It
followed the course of Gnosticism a century later; that is, it wrote
commentaries, systems of doctrine, &c., philosophizing about religious
things (cf. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 162 sq.). It must be
remembered in reading the Fathers' accounts of Gnosticism that they
took minor and unimportant details and magnified them, and treated them
as the essentials of the system or systems. In this way far greater
variety appears to have existed in Gnosticism than was the case. The
essential principles were largely the same throughout; the differences
were chiefly in regard to details. It is this conduct on the part of
the Fathers that gives us such a distorted and often ridiculous view of
Gnosticism. The Carpocratians are the first of whom 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
Saturninus and Basilides seems to imply that he followed them, but at
no great interval. Other sources for a knowledge of Carpocrates and his
sect are 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.

[1032] ekeinos, referring back to Basilides.

[1033] 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).

[1034] The chief accusations urged against the early Christians by
their antagonists were atheism, cannibalism, and incest. These charges
were made very early. Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 26) mentions them, and
Pliny in his epistle to Trajan speaks of the innocent meals of the
Christians, implying that they had been accused of immorality in
connection with them. (Compare, also, Tertullian's Apol. 7, 8, and Ad
Nationes, 7.) In fact, suspicions arose among the heathen as soon as
their love feasts became secret. The persecution in Lyons is to be
explained only by the belief of the officers that these and similar
accusations were true. The Christians commonly denied all such charges
in toto, and supported their denial by urging the absurdity of such
conduct; but sometimes, as in the present case, they endeavored to
exonerate themselves by attributing the crimes with which they were
charged to heretics. This course, however, helped them little with the
heathen, as the latter did not distinguish between the various parties
of Christians, but treated them all as one class. The statement of
Eusebius in the present case is noteworthy. He thinks that the crimes
were really committed by heretics, and occasioned the accusations of
the heathen, and he thus admits that the charges were founded upon
fact. In this case he acts toward the heretics in the same way that the
heathen acted toward the Christians as a whole. This method of
exonerating themselves appears as early as Justin Martyr (compare his
Apol. I. 26). Irenaeus also (I. 25, 3), whom Eusebius substantially
follows in this passage, and Philaster (c. 57), pursue the same course.

[1035] 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.

[1036] See above, note 10.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.--Ecclesiastical Writers.

1. Among these Hegesippus was well known. [1037] We have already quoted
his words a number of times, [1038] relating events which happened in
the time of the apostles according to his account.

2. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in
a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished
when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols: "To
whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day.
Among whom is also Antinoues, [1039] a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in
whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were
instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also founded a city named
after Antinoues, [1040] and appointed prophets."

3. At the same time also Justin, a genuine lover of the true
philosophy, was still continuing to busy himself with Greek literature.
[1041] He indicates this time in the Apology which he addressed to
Antonine, where he writes as follows: [1042] "We do not think it out of
place to mention here Antinoues also, who lived in our day, and whom
all were driven by fear to worship as a god, although they knew who he
was and whence he came."

4. The same writer, speaking of the Jewish war which took place at that
time, adds the following: [1043] "For in the late Jewish war
Barcocheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, commanded that
Christians alone [1044] should be visited with terrible punishments
unless they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ."

5. And in the same work he shows that his conversion from Greek
philosophy to Christianity [1045] was not without reason, but that it
was the result of deliberation on his part. His words are as follows:
[1046] "For I myself, while I was delighted with the doctrines of
Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw that they were
afraid neither of death nor of anything else ordinarily looked upon as
terrible, concluded that it was impossible that they could be living in
wickedness and pleasure. For what pleasure-loving or intemperate man,
or what man that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome
death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather
strive to continue permanently his present life, and to escape the
notice of the rulers, instead of giving himself up to be put to death?"

6. The same writer, moreover, relates that Adrian having received from
Serennius Granianus, [1047] a most distinguished governor, a letter
[1048] in behalf of the Christians, in which he stated that it was not
just to slay the Christians without a regular accusation and trial,
merely for the sake of gratifying the outcries of the populace, sent a
rescript [1049] to Minucius Fundanus, [1050] proconsul of Asia,
commanding him to condemn no one without an indictment and a
well-grounded accusation.

7. And he gives a copy of the epistle, preserving the original Latin in
which it was written, [1051] and prefacing it with the following words:
[1052] "Although from the epistle of the greatest and most illustrious
Emperor Adrian, your father, we have good ground to demand that you
order judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we have asked this
not because it was ordered by Adrian, but rather because we know that
what we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy of Adrian's epistle
that you may know that we are speaking the truth in this matter also.
And this is the copy."

8. After these words the author referred to gives the rescript in
Latin, which we have translated into Greek as accurately as we could.
[1053] It reads as follows:
__________________________________________________________________

[1037] 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.

[1038] Already quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 32.

[1039] Antinoues, a native of Bithynia, was a beautiful page of the
Emperor Hadrian, and the object of his extravagant affections. He was
probably drowned in the Nile, in 130 a.d. After his death he was raised
to the rank of the gods, and temples were built for his worship in many
parts of the empire, especially in Egypt. In Athens too games were
instituted in his honor, and games were also celebrated every fifth
year at Mantinea, in Arcadia, according to Valesius, who cites
Pausanias as his authority.

[1040] Hadrian rebuilt the city of Besa in the Thebais, in whose
neighborhood Antinoues was drowned, and called it Antinooepolis.

[1041] 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.

[1042] Justin, Apol. I. 29.

[1043] Justin, Apol. I. 31.

[1044] christianous monous. "This `alone' is, as Muenter 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).

[1045] epi ten theosebeian

[1046] Justin, Apol. II. 12. Eusebius here quotes from what is now
known as the Second Apology of Justin, but identifies it with the
first, from which he has quoted just above. This implies that the two
as he knew them formed but one work, and this is confirmed by his
quotations in chaps. 16 and 17, below. For a discussion of this matter,
see chap. 18, note 3.

[1047] The best mss. of Eusebius write the name Serennios Granianos,
but one ms., supported by Syncellus, writes the first word Serenios.
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.

[1048] grEURmmata. 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
epistole, as Eusebius calls it.

[1049] antigrEURpsai

[1050] 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. Jahrbuecher, 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
tous nomous) determine thus according to the heinousness of the crime"
(kata ten dunamin tou hamartematos). These last words are very
significant. They certainly imply various crimes of which the prisoners
are supposed to be accused. According to the heinousness of these
crimes the punishment is to be regulated. In other words, the trial of
the Christians was to be for the purpose of ascertaining whether they
were guilty of moral or political crimes, not whether they merely
professed Christianity; that is, the profession of Christianity,
according to this rescript, is not treated as a crime in and of itself.
If the edict then be genuine, Hadrian reversed completely Trajan's
principle of procedure which was to punish the profession of
Christianity in and of itself as a crime. But in the time of Antoninus
Pius and Marcus Aurelius the rescript of Trajan is seen still to be in
full force. For this and other reasons presented by Keim and Overbeck,
I am constrained to class this edict with those of Antoninus Pius and
Marcus Aurelius as a forgery. It can hardly have been composed while
Hadrian was still alive, but must have been forged before Justin wrote
his Apology, for he gives it as a genuine edict, i.e. it must belong to
the early part of the reign of Antoninus Pius. The illusion under which
the early Christian writers labored in regard to the relations of the
emperors to Christianity is very remarkable. Both Melito and Tertullian
state that no emperor had persecuted the Christians except Nero and
Domitian. Christian writers throughout the second century talk in fact
as if the mode of treatment which they were receiving was something new
and strange, and in opposition to the better treatment which previous
emperors had accorded the Christians. In doing this, they ignore
entirely the actual edicts of the emperors, all of which are now lost
and notice only forged edicts which are favorable to the Christians;
when and by whom they were forged we do not know. Thus Tertullian, in
addressing Septimius Severus, speaks of the favors which his
predecessors had granted the Christians and contrasts their conduct
with his; Melito addresses Marcus Aurelius in the same way, and so
Justin addresses Antoninus Pius. This method probably arose from a
misunderstanding of the original edict of Trajan (cf. Bk. III. chap.
33, note 6), which they all considered favorable, and therefore
presupposed a friendly attitude on the part of the emperors toward the
Christians, which, not finding in their own age, they naturally
transferred to a previous age. This led gradually to the idea--which
Lactantius first gives precise expression to--that only the bad
emperors persecuted Christianity, while the good ones were favorable to
it. But after the empire became Christian, the belief became common
that all the heathen emperors had been persecutors, the good as well as
the bad;--all the Christian emperors were placed upon one level, and
all the heathen on another, the latter being looked upon, like Nero and
Domitian, as wicked tyrants. Compare Overbeck, l.c.

[1051] Our two mss. of Justin have substituted the Greek translation of
Eusebius for the Latin original given by the former. Rufinus, however,
in his version of Eusebius' History, gives a Latin translation which is
very likely the original one. Compare Kimmel's De Rufino, p. 175 sq.,
and Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 463 sq., and see Otto's Corpus Apol. I.
p. 190 sq., where the edict is given, both in the Greek of our mss. of
Justin and in the Latin of Rufinus. Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum, p.
184 sq.) contends that the Latin of Rufinus is not the original, but a
translation of Eusebius' Greek. His arguments, however, do not possess
any real weight, and the majority of scholars accept Kimmel's view.

[1052] Justin, Apol. I. 68.

[1053] We cannot judge as to the faithfulness of the Greek translation
which follows, because we are not absolutely sure whether the Latin of
Rufinus is its original, or itself a translation of it. Eusebius and
Rufinus, however, agree very well, and if the Latin of Rufinus is the
original of Eusebius' translation, the latter has succeeded much better
than the Greek translator of the Apology of Tertullian referred to in
Bk. II. chap. 2, above. We should expect, however, that much greater
pains would be taken with the translation of a brief official document
of this kind than with such a work as Tertullian's Apology, and
Eusebius' translation of the rescript does not by any means prove that
he was a fluent Latin scholar. As remarked above (Bk. II. chap. 2, note
9), he probably had comparatively little acquaintance with the Latin,
but enough to enable him to translate brief passages for himself in
cases of necessity.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.--The Epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should not be
punished without a Trial.

1. "To Minucius Fundanus. I have received an epistle, [1054] written to
me by Serennius Granianus, a most illustrious man, whom you have
succeeded. It does not seem right to me that the matter should be
passed by without examination, lest the men [1055] be harassed and
opportunity be given to the informers for practicing villainy.

2. If, therefore, the inhabitants of the province can clearly sustain
this petition against the Christians so as to give answer in a court of
law, let them pursue this course alone, but let them not have resort to
men's petitions and outcries. For it is far more proper, if any one
wishes to make an accusation, that you should examine into it.

3. If any one therefore accuses them and shows that they are doing
anything contrary to the laws, do you pass judgment according to the
heinousness of the crime. [1056] But, by Hercules! if any one bring an
accusation through mere calumny, decide in regard to his criminality,
[1057] and see to it that you inflict punishment." [1058]

Such are the contents of Adrian's rescript.
__________________________________________________________________

[1054] Greek, epistolen; Latin, litteras.

[1055] Greek, hoi anthropoi; Latin, innoxii.

[1056] This is the only really suspicious sentence in the edict. That
Hadrian should desire to protect his Christian subjects as well as
others from tumultuous and illegal proceedings, and from unfounded
accusations, would be of course quite natural, and quite in accord with
the spirit shown by Trajan in his rescript. But in this one sentence he
implies that the Christians are to be condemned only for actual crimes,
and that the mere profession of Christianity is not in itself a
punishable offense. Much, therefore, as we might otherwise be tempted
to accept the edict as genuine,--natural as the style is and the
position taken in the other portions of it,--this one sentence,
considered in the light of all that we know of the attitude of
Hadrian's predecessors and successors toward the Christians, and of all
that we can gather of his own views, must, as I believe, condemn it as
a forgery.

[1057] Compare this sentence with the closing words of the forged edict
of Antoninus Pius quoted by Eusebius in chap. 13. Not only are the
Christians to be released, but their accusers are to be punished. Still
there is a difference between the two commands in that here only an
accusation made with the purpose of slander is to be punished, while
there the accuser is to be unconditionally held as guilty, if actual
crimes are not proved against the accused Christian. The latter command
would be subversive of all justice, and brands itself as a counterfeit
on its very face; but in the present case the injunction to enforce the
law forbidding slander against those who should slanderously accuse the
Christians is not inconsistent with the principles of Trajan and
Hadrian, and hence not of itself alone an evidence of ungenuineness.

[1058] Greek, hopos an ekdikeseias; Latin, suppliciis severioribus
vindices.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter X.--The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of
Antoninus.

Adrian having died after a reign of twenty-one years, [1059] was
succeeded in the government of the Romans by Antoninus, called the
Pious. In the first year of his reign Telesphorus [1060] died in the
eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hyginus became bishop of Rome.
[1061] Irenaeus records that Telesphorus' death was made glorious by
martyrdom, [1062] and in the same connection he states that in the time
of the above-mentioned Roman bishop Hyginus, Valentinus, the founder of
a sect of his own, and Cerdon, the author of Marcion's error, were both
well known at Rome. [1063] He writes as follows: [1064]
__________________________________________________________________

[1059] Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July 10, 138 a.d.

[1060] On Telesphorus, see above, chap. 5, note 13. The date given here
by Eusebius (138-139 a.d.) is probably (as remarked there) at least a
year too late.

[1061] 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. roem. Bischoefe, 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.

[1062] 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.

[1063] On Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next chapter.

[1064] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 4. 3.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI.--The Heresiarchs of that Age.

1. "For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, flourished under Pius,
and remained until Anicetus. [1065] Cerdon [1066] also, Marcion's
[1067] predecessor, entered the Church in the time of Hyginus, the
ninth [1068] bishop, and made confession, and continued in this way,
now teaching in secret, now making confession again, and now denounced
for corrupt doctrine and withdrawing [1069] from the assembly of the
brethren."

2. These words are found in the third book of the work Against
Heresies. And again in the first book he speaks as follows concerning
Cerdon: [1070] "A certain Cerdon, who had taken his system from the
followers of Simon, and had come to Rome under Hyginus, the ninth in
the episcopal succession from the apostles, [1071] taught that the God
proclaimed by the law and prophets was not the father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; and the
former was just, but the latter good. [1072] Marcion of Pontus
succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless
blasphemies."

3. The same Irenaeus unfolds with the greatest vigor the unfathomable
abyss of Valentinus' errors in regard to matter, and reveals his
wickedness, secret and hidden like a serpent lurking in its nest.

4. And in addition to these men he says that there was also another
that lived in that age, Marcus by name, [1073] who was remarkably
skilled in magic arts. And he describes also their unholy initiations
and their abominable mysteries in the following words: [1074]

5. "For some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a mystic rite
with certain forms of expression addressed to those who are being
initiated, and they say that it is a spiritual marriage which is
celebrated by them, after the likeness of the marriages above. But
others lead them to water, and while they baptize them they repeat the
following words: Into the name of the unknown father of the universe,
into truth, the mother of all things, into the one that descended upon
Jesus. [1075] Others repeat Hebrew names [1076] in order the better to
confound those who are being initiated."

6. But Hyginus [1077] having died at the close of the fourth year of
his episcopate, Pius [1078] succeeded him in the government of the
church of Rome. In Alexandria Marcus [1079] was appointed pastor, after
Eumenes [1080] had filled the office thirteen years in all. And Marcus
having died after holding office ten years was succeeded by Celadion
[1081] in the government of the church of Alexandria.

7. And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and
Anicetus [1082] assumed the leadership of the Christians there.
Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that
he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus. [1083]

8. But Justin [1084] was especially prominent in those days. In the
guise of a philosopher [1085] he preached the divine word, and
contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against
Marcion, [1086] in which he states that the latter was alive at the
time he wrote.

9. He speaks as follows: [1087] "And there is a certain Marcion [1088]
of Pontus, [1089] who is even now still teaching his followers to think
that there is some other God greater than the creator. And by the aid
of the demons [1090] he has persuaded many of every race of men [1091]
to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the
father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was
the creator. [1092] And all who followed them are, as we have said,
[1093] called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to
philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common."

10. To this he adds: [1094] "And we have also written a work against
all the heresies that have existed, [1095] which we will give you if
you wish to read it."

11. But this same Justin contended most successfully against the
Greeks, and addressed discourses containing an apology for our faith to
the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman senate. [1096] For
he lived at Rome. But who and whence he was he shows in his Apology in
the following words. [1097]
__________________________________________________________________

[1065] 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 numerous
and influential Gnostic sect. His system is the most profound and
artistic of the Gnostic systems, and reveals great depth and power of
mind. For an excellent account of Valentinus and Valentinianism, see
Lipsius' article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. IV. Valentinus
occupies a prominent place in all works on Gnosticism.

[1066] 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 Cerdon 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.

[1067] On Marcion, see below, note 24.

[1068] The Latin text of Irenaeus here reads "eighth" instead of
"ninth." See below, note 7.

[1069] ephistEURmenos. This is commonly taken to mean that Cerdon was
excommunicated. But as Valesius remarks, the participle is strictly
middle, not passive. The distinction, however, cannot be insisted upon
in the present case, and therefore we cannot determine decisively
whether Cerdon was excluded by the congregation or excluded himself.

[1070] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 27. 1-2.

[1071] Hyginus is here called the ninth bishop, and the reading is
confirmed by a passage in Cyprian's epistle to Pompey (Ep. LXXIII. 2 in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers), and also by Epiphanius (Haer. LXI. 1). In the
passage quoted just above, however, from the third book of Irenaeus,
although Eusebius calls Hyginus the "ninth," the Latin text of Irenaeus
makes him the "eighth," and according to Salmon in the Dict of Christ.
Biog.: "The ms. evidence is decisive that Irenaeus here [in the passage
quoted above from III. 4. 3] describes Hyginus as the eighth bishop,
and this agrees with the list of Roman bishops given in the preceding
chapter (Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3), and with the description of Anicetus as
the tenth bishop a couple of chapters further on. Lipsius hence infers
that Irenaeus drew his account of Cerdon from two sources in which
Hyginus was differently described, but this inference is very
precarious. In the interval between the composition of the first and
third books, Irenaeus may have been led to alter his way of counting by
investigations concerning the succession of the Roman bishops, which he
had in the meantime either made himself, or adopted from Hegesippus. As
for the numeration `ninth,' we do not venture to pronounce whether it
indicates a list in which Peter was counted first bishop, or one in
which Cletus and Anacletus were reckoned as distinct." According to
Eusebius' own reckoning up to the present chapter, Hyginus was the
eighth, not the ninth, from the apostles, for in chap. 5, above, he
calls Telesphorus (Hyginus' predecessor) the seventh, in chap. 1,
Alexander (the predecessor of Xystus, who preceded Telesphorus) the
fifth, and so on. Why, in the passage quoted at the beginning of this
chapter, he should change his reckoning, and call Hyginus the ninth if
the original list of Irenaeus from which he drew said eighth is
difficult to see. It is possible that he made the change under the
influence of the "ninth," in the present passage, which certainly stood
in the original text. It would be easier to think this if the order in
which the passages are quoted were reversed, but it may be that
Eusebius had the present quotation in mind when making the first, or
that he went back afterward and corrected that to correspond. If he
ventured to change the text of Irenaeus in that passage, he must have
done it in all good faith, assuming a mistake in transcription, where
the contradiction was so glaring. It still remains to me inexplicable,
however, why he did not change the "ninth" of the second passage to
"eighth" instead of the "eighth" of the first passage to "ninth." He
would thus have gotten rid of all contradictions, and have remained
consistent with himself. I am tempted, in fact, to believe that
Eusebius found "ninth" in the original of both passages quoted, and
copied just what he found. At the same time, I do not feel disposed in
the face of what Lipsius and Salmon say as to the original text of
Irenaeus to claim that Irenaeus himself wrote "ninth" at that point.

[1072] Marcion drew this same distinction between the strictly just God
of the Old Testament and the good or merciful God of the New, and the
distinction was a fundamental one in his system. It is noticeable that
Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. Omnes Haer. chap 6) says that Cerdon taught two
Gods, one good, the other cruel (saevum); the good being the superior
God,--the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the world.

[1073] Irenaeus gives an account of Marcus and the Marcosians in I.
13-21. He was a Gnostic of the sect of Valentinus. Jerome calls him a
Basilidian (Ep. LXXV. 3), but he was mistaken. Hippolytus and
Epiphanius (Haer. 34) copy their accounts from Irenaeus, and probably
had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus, or of his sect. Clement
of Alexandria, however, knew and used his writings. It is probable that
Asia Minor was the scene of his labors. He is spoken of in the present
tense by Irenaeus, and hence seems to have been alive when he wrote;
that is, in the latter part of the second century. His additions to
Valentinianism lay chiefly, perhaps solely, in the introduction of
worthless magic rites. He seems to have lowered greatly the tone of the
philosophical Gnosticism of Valentinus. See Salmon's article in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[1074] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 21. 3.

[1075] eis ton katelthonta eis ton 'Iesoun. Taking the Greek simply as
it stands, we should naturally put a comma before the second eis, and
translate "into the one that descended, into Jesus," identifying the
"one that descended" with Jesus. But the Gnostics in general taught
that Jesus was only a man, upon whom descended one of the aeons, or
higher spiritual powers, and hence it is plain that in the present case
the "one that descended upon [or literally "into"] Jesus" is referred
to here as the third person of the baptismal Trinity.

[1076] The Greek and Latin texts of Irenaeus add at this point widely
variant lists of these words, but in both lists the words are quite
meaningless.

[1077] On Hyginus, see the previous chapter, note 3.

[1078] Eusebius states, just below, that Pius held office fifteen
years, and in his Chronicle he gives the same figure. In that work
(Armen. version) he places his accession in the first year of Antoninus
Pius, though the version of Jerome assigns it to the fifth year, and
with this Eusebius agrees in his History, for in the previous chapter
he puts the accession of Hyginus in the first year of Antoninus Pius,
and here tells us that Hyginus held office four years. Lipsius assigns
Pius' episcopate to the years 139-154, as the earliest possible
termini; the years 141-156 as the latest. But since we learn from
chapter 14, below, that Polycarp was in Rome during the episcopate of
Anicetus, and from other sources (see chapter 15, note 2) that he was
martyred in Asia Minor in 155 or 156, we may assume it as certain that
Pius cannot have held office as late as 156. The earlier date for his
death (154) may therefore be accepted as more probable. The Liberian
and Felician Catalogues put Anicetus between Hyginus and Pius; but that
is certainly incorrect, for, in support of the order given here by
Eusebius, we have the testimony both of Hegesippus, quoted below, in
chap. 22, and of Irenaeus (III. 3). Pius is commonly regarded as the
first monarchical bishop in the strict sense, the so-called bishops
before his time having been simply leading presbyters or presbyter
bishops of the Roman church (see chap. 11, note 14). According to the
Muratorian Fragment and the Liberian Catalogue, Pius was the brother of
Hermas, the author of the Shepherd. Upon this alleged relationship, see
Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23.

[1079] Of Marcus we know only what Eusebius tells us here: that he
succeded Eumenes, after the latter had held office thirteen years, and
that he continued in office ten years. If Eumenes became bishop in 132
or 133 (see above, chap. 5, note 16), then Marcus must have succeeded
him in 145 or 146, and this agrees with the Armenian Chron. of
Eusebius, which, while it does not mention the accession of Marcus, yet
puts the accession of his successor Celadin in the eighteenth year of
Antoninus Pius, which would make the beginning of his own episcopate
the eighth year of the same ruler. Jerome's version of the Chron.,
however, puts it in the sixth year. Little reliance is to be placed
upon any of the dates of the Alexandrian bishops during the first two
centuries.

[1080] On Eumenes, see above, chap. 5, note 14.

[1081] Of Celadion we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and in
chap. 19, where he gives fourteen years as the duration of his
episcopate. As mentioned in the previous note, the Armenian Chron. of
Eusebius puts his accession in the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius,
i.e. 155 or 156, while the version of Jerome puts it in the sixteenth
year.

[1082] Anicetus, according to the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius,
succeeded Pius in the fifteenth year of Antoninus Pius; according to
Jerome's version, in the eighteenth year (i.e. 155 or 156), which is
more nearly correct. Lipsius puts his accession between 154 and 156
(see note 14, above). According to chap. 19, below, with which both
versions of the Chron. agree, Anicetus held office eleven years; i.e.
until 165 to 167, when he was succeeded by Soter. Irenaeus (as quoted
by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24) informs us that Polycarp was in Rome in
the time of Anicetus, and endeavored to induce him to adopt the
Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter; but that, while the two
remained perfectly friendly to one another, Anicetus would not change
the custom of the Roman church (see the notes on the chapter referred
to). As stated in note 13, the Liberian and Felician Catalogues
incorrectly insert the name of Anicetus between those of Hyginus and
Pius.

[1083] Eusebius evidently makes a mistake here. That Hegesippus
remained so long in Rome (Anicetus ruled from 154-168 (?), and
Eleutherus from 177-190) is upon the face of it very improbable. And in
this case we can see clearly how Eusebius made his mistake. In chap. 22
he quotes a passage from Hegesippus in regard to his stay in Rome, and
it was in all probability this passage from which Eusebius drew his
conclusion. But Hegesippus says there that he "remained in Rome until
the time of Anicetus," &c. It is probable, therefore, that he returned
to the East during Anicetus' episcopacy. He does not express himself as
one who had remained in Rome until the reign of Eleutherus; but
Eusebius, from a hasty reading, might easily have gathered that idea.
According to Hegesippus' account in chap. 22, he must, then, have come
to Rome before Anicetus, i.e. during the reign of Pius, and this
Eusebius does not here contradict, though he is said to do so by
Reading, who translates the Greek words, epidemesai te ;;Rome, "came to
the city" (so, also, Closs, Stigloher, and Cruse). But the words
properly mean "to be in Rome," not "to come to Rome," which would
require, rather, epidemesai eis ten ;;Romen, as in S:2, above, where
the words are used of Cerdon. Jerome, to be sure (de vir. ill. 22),
says that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus; but his
account rests solely upon Eusebius, whom he mistranslated. The
tradition, therefore, that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of
Anicetus has no foundation; he was already there, as he himself informs
us, in chap. 22, below. Cf. the note on this passage, in chap. 22.

[1084] Eusebius here puts Justin in his proper place, in the time of
Antoninus Pius. The date of his birth is unknown, though it cannot have
been far from the beginning of the second century. He was born in
Flavia Neapolis, a Roman town built close by the ruins of the ancient
Sychem, in Samaria. He was of heathen parentage, and received a
thoroughly Greek education. He became an earnest student of philosophy,
and after turning to many different systems in his search for truth, he
was at last converted to Christianity, where he found that for which he
had been searching; and his whole conception of Christianity shows the
influence of the manner in which he accepted it. The date of his
conversion is unknown, but it seems (from Dial. I. 1) to have taken
place at least before the close of the Barcochba war (135 a.d.). He
died as a martyr at Rome. The date of his death is difficult to
determine, but it probably took place under Marcus Aurelius, in 163+.
Upon his death, see below, chap. 16, note 4. Upon Justin, see Semich's
Justin der Maertyrer, Otto's edition of the Greek Apologists, von
Engelhardt's article in Herzog, 2d ed., Holland's article in Smith and
Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog., and finally Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p.110
sq., where the most important literature is mentioned. Upon his
theology, see especially von Engelhardt's masterly monograph, Das
Christenthum Justins des Maertyrers (Erlangen, 1878). A recent and
interesting discussion of Justin's testimony to early Christianity is
found in Purves' work on that subject (New York, 1889).

[1085] en schemati philosophou. The reference here is to the
distinctive cloak or mantle of the Greek philosophers, which was called
the pallium, and to which Justin refers in his Dial. c. Trypho, S:1.
The wearing of the mantle was an advantage to the philosophers,
inasmuch as it gave them peculiar opportunities to engage in
philosophic discourse in the street or market, or other public places,
which they could not otherwise so easily have enjoyed. Perhaps it was
this fact which led Justin to continue wearing the cloak, and we see
from the introduction to his Dialogue that it was the wearing of it
which was the immediate occasion of his conversation with Trypho and
his friends. Heraclas, the friend of Origen, also continued to wear the
philosopher's cloak after his conversion, as we learn from Bk. VI.
chap. 19.

[1086] This work against Marcion is also mentioned by Irenaeus, who
quotes from it in his Adv. Haer. IV. 16. 2 (see below, chap. 18), and
by Photius, Cod. 125. The work is lost, and we have only the single
brief fragment preserved by Irenaeus. It is possible that it formed a
part of the larger Syntagma contra omnes Haereses, mentioned by Justin
in his Apol. I. 26 (see below), and it has been urged in support of
this possibility that Irenaeus nowhere mentions a work of Justin's
Against all Heresies, although it is highly probable that he made use
of such a work (see Lipsius' Quellen der aeltesten Ketzergesch. and
Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). It would seem that
Irenaeus is referring to this work when he mentions the Syntagma contra
Marcionem. On the other hand, Photius mentions the work against Marcion
and the one against all heresies as two separate works. He does not
seem, however, to have had a personal knowledge of them, and is
possibly only repeating Eusebius (Harnack says he is certainly doing
so, Ueberlieferung d. griech. Apol. p. 150; but in view of the fact
that he omits two works mentioned by Eusebius, this seems to be
somewhat doubtful); and if this is so, no reliance is to be placed upon
his report, for it is evident that Eusebius himself knew neither of the
two works, and hence the fact that he distinguishes them has no
significance. Although, therefore, it cannot be determined whether
Justin wrote two separate works against heretics, it is quite probable
that he did not. The conduct of Eusebius in this connection is very
peculiar. After mentioning the work against Marcion, he at once gives a
quotation in such a way as to convey the impression that the quotation
is taken from this work, but it is really taken from the first Apology.
This makes it very probable that he had not seen this work against
Marcion, a conclusion which is confirmed by its omission from the list
of Justin's writings given in chap. 18. It is claimed by many that
Eusebius practices a little deception here, wishing to convey the
impression that he knew a book which he did not know. This is not in
accord with his usual conduct (as he seldom hesitates to confess his
ignorance of any matter), and his general character for candor and
honesty must be taken into account in deciding the case. He does not
state directly that the quotation is taken from the work against
Marcion, and it is possible that the seeming reference of it to that
source was an oversight on his part. But it must be acknowledged, if
that be the case, that he was very careless in making the quotation.

[1087] Justin, Apol. I. 26.

[1088] Marcion cannot be called a Gnostic in the strict sense of the
term. He was rather an anti-Jewish reformer. He had much in common with
the Gnostics, but laid stress upon belief rather than upon knowledge.
He developed no complete system as did the extreme and perverted
Paulinism, considering Paul the only true apostle and rejecting the
others as Judaizing teachers. He cut the Gospel away from its
historical connections, repudiating the Old Testament and all of the
New except a mutilated Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, and
denying the identity of the God of the Old Testament with the Supreme
God, and the identity of Jesus with the promised Jewish Messiah. He
magnified the mercy of God in redemption at the expense of creation,
which he attributed to the demiurge, and in which he saw nothing good.
He was an extreme anti-metaphysician, and the first Biblical critic. He
was born in Pontus, was the son of a bishop, went to Rome about 135
a.d., and endeavored to carry out his reforms there, but was
unsuccessful, and very soon broke with the Church. He traveled
extensively and disseminated his doctrines very widely. The sect
existed well on into the Middle Ages, and some of his opinions have
never been completely eradicated. In Rome the Gnostic Cerdon exercised
great influence over him, and to him are doubtless due many of
Marcion's Gnostic traits. The dualism which he held in common with the
Gnostics arose rather from practical than speculative considerations;
but his followers in the fourth and fifth centuries, when they had lost
his practical religious spirit and yet retained his dualism, passed
over quite naturally into Manicheeism. He was attacked by Justin,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and all the anti-heretical writers of the early
Church, and was considered one of the most dangerous of heretics. A
complete monograph upon Marcion is still a desideratum, but he is
discussed in all the general accounts of Gnosticism; see especially the
brief but excellent account by Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. 197-214.

[1089] Pontus was a province in Northeastern Asia Minor, bordering upon
the Black Sea.

[1090] Justin here agrees with Eusebius in his transcendental theory of
heresy, looking upon it not as a natural growth from within, but as an
infliction upon the Church from without, through the agency of demons.
Indeed, this was the prevailing notion of the early Church.

[1091] The extent of Marcion's influence referred to here is very
significant. Gnosticism was not intended for common people, and never
spread among the masses, but on the contrary was confined to
philosophers and speculative thinkers. In this respect, Marcion, whose
sect included multitudes of all classes, was distinguished most sharply
from them, and it was because of the popularity of his sect that his
heresy appeared so dangerous to the early Church.

[1092] allon de tina hos, onta meizona para touton homologein
pepoiekenai. The sentence as it thus stands is very difficult to
construe, for we are compelled to take the last verb without an object,
in the sense of create. Our mss. of Justin Martyr insert after the
hosonta meizona the words ta meizona, and the sentence then reads,
"some other one, greater than he, has done greater works." It is plain
that this was the original form of the sentence, and that the harsh
construction found in Eusebius is a result of defective transcription.
It was very easy for a copyist to drop out the second meizona.

[1093] Justin refers here to Apol. I. 7. He wishes to have it clear
that not all that call themselves Christians are really such. From
chaps. 26-29, we see that in Justin's time the Christians were accused
of great immoralities, and in this same chapter (chap. 26) he is rather
inclined to throw the guilt upon heretics, although he does not
expressly accuse them of it ("whether they perpetrate these shameful
deeds--we know not"). See above. His mention of philosophers here in
his appeal to the philosophical emperors is very shrewd.

[1094] Ibid. I. 26.

[1095] This work is not mentioned by Eusebius in the list of Justin's
works which he gives in chap. 18. He had, therefore, undoubtedly never
seen it. Irenaeus nowhere mentions it under this title, though he seems
to have made extensive use of it, and he does mention a work, Against
Marcion, which is very likely to be identified with the work referred
to here (see Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). The work,
which is now lost, is mentioned by Photius (Cod. 125), but he evidently
had never seen it, and is simply copying some earlier list, perhaps
that of Eusebius. His testimony to the work, therefore, amounts to
little. Compare note 22, above.

[1096] On Justin's Apology and his work Against the Greeks, see below,
chap. 18, notes 3 and 4. As shown in note 3 of that chapter, he really
wrote only one Apology.

[1097] Justin, Apol. I. 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XII.--The Apology of Justin addressed to Antoninus.

"To the Emperor Titus AElius Adrian Antoninus Pius Caesar Augustus,
[1098] and to Verissimus his son, [1099] the philosopher, and to Lucius
the philosopher, [1100] own son of Caesar and adopted son of Pius, a
lover of learning, and to the sacred senate and to the whole Roman
people, I , Justin, son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, [1101] of
Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, Syria, present this address and petition
in behalf of those men of every nation who are unjustly hated and
persecuted, I myself being one of them." And the same emperor having
learned also from other brethren in Asia of the injuries of all kinds
which they were suffering from the inhabitants of the province, thought
it proper to address the following ordinance to the Common Assembly
[1102] of Asia.
__________________________________________________________________

[1098] On the titles of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, see Otto's notes in
his edition of Justin's works (Corpus Apol. Christianorum, Vol. I. p.
2. sq.).

[1099] That is, Marcus Aurelius, whose original name was Marcus Annius
Verus, but who, after his adoption by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, was
styled Marcus AElius Aurelius Verus Caesar. As a tribute to his
sincerity and truthfulness, he was quite commonly called, instead of
Verus, Verissimus.

[1100] The mss. are divided here between the forms philosopho and
philosophou. If the former reading be followed, we must translate, "to
Lucius, own son of Caesar the philosopher." The mss. are about equally
divided, and the latter reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius,
Stroth, and Burton. But our mss. of Justin support the former reading,
which is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and which, as the latter
remarks, is far more natural than the other reading, for Justin had
greater reason for giving the appellation of "philosopher" to a Caesar
who was still living, even though he may not have been noted for his
philosophical tastes, than to a Caesar who was already dead, and whose
character certainly entitled him to the appellation no more than, if as
much as, his son. See Heinichen's note in loco, and Otto's note in his
edition of Justin's works, Vol. I. p. 3. ff. The Lucius addressed here
was Lucius Ceionius Commodus, whose father, bearing the same name, had
been adopted as Caesar by Hadrian. The younger Lucius was adopted as
Caesar along with Marcus by Antoninus Pius, and later became Marcus'
colleague in the empire, when he added to his own name the name Verus,
which Marcus had formerly borne. He is therefore commonly known in
history as Lucius Verus (see the respective articles in Smith's Dict.
of Greek and Roman Biog.).

[1101] Of Justin's father and grandfather we know nothing except their
names. On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note 20.

[1102] This "Assembly of Asia" (to koinon tes 'Asias) was one of the
regular provincial diets which Augustus had called into being as fixed
institutions. It was an annual assembly of the civic deputies of the
province, and served as a general organ of the province, especially in
bringing the wishes of the people to the knowledge of the governor, and
through him to the emperor, and decrees of the emperor were often
addressed to it, and legates chosen by it were sent to the emperor
whenever occasion required. See Marquardt, Roem. Staatsverwaltung, I.
p. 366. sq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIII.--The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia
in Regard to our Doctrine. [1103]

1. The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, [1104]
Armenicus, Pontifex Maximus, for the fifteenth time Tribune, for the
third time Consul, to the Common Assembly of Asia, Greeting.

2. I know that the gods also take care that such persons do not escape
detection. For they would much rather punish those who will not worship
them than you would.

3. But you throw them into confusion, and while you accuse them of
atheism you only confirm them in the opinion which they hold. It would
indeed be more desirable for them, when accused, to appear to die for
their God, than to live. Wherefore also they come off victorious when
they give up their lives rather than yield obedience to your commands.

4. And in regard to the earthquakes which have been and are still
taking place, [1105] it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart
whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare your
conduct with theirs. [1106]

5. They indeed become the more confident in God, while you, during the
whole time, neglect, in apparent ignorance, the other gods and the
worship of the Immortal, and oppress and persecute even unto death the
Christians who worship him. [1107]

6. But in regard to these persons, many of the governors of the
provinces wrote also to our most divine father, to whom he wrote in
reply that they should not trouble these people unless it should appear
that they were attempting something affecting the Roman government.
[1108] And to me also many have sent communications concerning these
men, but I have replied to them in the same way that my father did.

7. But if any one still persists in bringing accusations against any of
these people as such, the person who is accused shall be acquitted of
the charge, even if it appear that he is one of them, but the accuser
shall be punished. [1109] Published in Ephesus in the Common Assembly
of Asia."

8. To these things Melito, [1110] bishop of the church of Sardis, and a
man well known at that time, is a witness, [1111] as is clear from his
words in the Apology which he addressed to the Emperor Verus in behalf
of our doctrine.
__________________________________________________________________

[1103] This edict is undoubtedly spurious. It contradicts all that we
know in regard to the relation of Christianity to the State during this
century, and both the language and the sentiments make it impossible to
call it genuine. It is probably a forgery of the second century. It is
found in our two (or more properly one, as one is simply a slavish copy
of the other) mss. of Justin; but this is simply accidental, as it does
not belong there, but was appended to the edict of Hadrian by some late
copyist. The edict is now almost universally acknowledged to be a
forgery; compare Overbeck, Studien zur Gesch. der alt. Kirche, p. 93
sq. Wieseler contends for its genuineness, but no good critic follows
him.

[1104] Eusebius gives this as an edict of Antoninus Pius, and yet its
inscription assigns it to Marcus Aurelius. Overbeck concludes that
Eusebius was led by internal evidence to assign the rescript to
Antoninus Pius, but that he did not venture to change the inscription
of the original which lay before him. This seems the only possible
explanation, and as Eusebius at any rate was badly confused in regard
to the names of the Antonines, the glaring discrepancy may not have
meant very much to him. In our mss. of Justin Martyr, where this edict
is appended to the first Apology, the superscription and text are quite
different from the form given by Eusebius. The rescript is in fact
assigned there by its superscription to Antoninus Pius, instead of to
Marcus Aurelius. But if that was its original form, we cannot
understand the later change to Marcus Aurelius, for certainly his
authorship is precluded on the very face of the document; but it is
easier to see how it could have been later assigned to Antonius Pius
under the influence of Eusebius' direct statement. We have no knowledge
of the original Latin of this pretended edict. Rufinus evidently did
not know it, for he translates the document from the Greek of Eusebius.
The text of the edict as given by Eusebius differs considerably at many
points from the text found in the mss. of Justin, and the variations
are such as can hardly be explained as due merely to copyists' errors
or alterations. At the same time the two texts are plainly not
independent of each other, and cannot be looked upon as independent
translations of one Latin original. We may perhaps suppose that one
text represents the original translation, the other a revision of it.
Whether the revision was made by a comparison with the original, and
thus more accurately represents it, we cannot tell. If, then, one is a
revision of the other, the form given in the mss. of Justin is
evidently the later, for its statements in more places than one are an
improvement upon those of the other text in point of clearness and
decisiveness. Moreover, as remarked just above, the ascription of the
edict to Antoninus Pius must be later than its ascription to Marcus
Aurelius.

[1105] Numerous earthquakes took place in Asia Minor and in Rhodes
during the reign of Antoninus Pius, and these, as well as famines and
other occurrences of the kind which were uncomfortably frequent at this
time, were always made the signal for renewed attacks upon the
Christians, who were held by the people in general responsible for
these misfortunes. See Julius Capitolinus' Vita Antonini Pii, chap. 9.

[1106] This sentence has caused great difficulty. Cruse translates,
"But as to those earthquakes which have taken place and still continue,
it is not out of place to admonish you who are cast down whenever these
happen, that you compare your own deportment with theirs." Most of the
older translators and, among the moderns, Stigloher, have translated in
the same way; but the Greek of the last clause will not warrant this
construction. The original runs as follows:...hupomnesai athumountas
men hotan per' osi, parabEURllontas de ta humetera pros ta ekeinon.
Stroth inserts me before athumountas, and translates, "Was die Erdbeben
betrift, die sich ereignet haben, und noch ereignen, halte ich nicht
fuer undienlich euch zu erinnern dass ihr den vorkommenden Fall den
Muth nicht sinken lasst, sondern euer Betragen einmal mit jener ihrem
vergleicht." The insertion, however, is quite unwarranted and must be
rejected. Valesius renders: Caeterum de terrae motibus, qui vel facti
sunt vel etiamnum fiunt, non absurdum videtur vos commonere, qui et
animos abjicitis, quoties hujusmodi casus contingunt, et vestra cum
illorum institutis comparatis; which makes excellent sense and might be
accepted, were it not for the fact that it fails to bring out
adequately the force of men and de. Heinichen discusses the passage at
length (in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III. pp. 670-674), and
translates as follows: Non alienum videtur vos admonere (corripere) de
terrae motibus qui vel fuerunt vel adhuc sunt, vos qui estis quidem
animo abjecto, quoties illi eveniunt, nihilo autem minus vestram agendi
rationem conferre soletis cum illorum. Overbeck follows Heinichen in
his German Translation of the edit (ibid. p. 127 sqq.), and the
translation of Closs is similar. It seems to be the only rendering
which the Greek will properly admit, and I have therefore felt
compelled to adopt it, though I should have preferred to interpret as
Valesius does, had the original permitted.

[1107] An orthodox worshiper of the Roman gods, like Antoninus Pius,
can hardly have called the God of the Christians "The Immortal," in
distinction from the gods of the Romans.

[1108] Among these epistles the writer of this edict undoubtedly meant
to include the rescript ostensibly addressed by Hadrian to Minucius
Fundanus. See chap. 9, above.

[1109] This is the climax of the whole. Not only is the accused to be
set free, but the accuser is to be held as guilty! This really goes
further than Constantine. See above, chap. 9, note 4.

[1110] On Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note 1.

[1111] Eusebius evidently draws this conclusion from the passage from
Melito's Apology, quoted below, in chap. 26, where Melito refers to
edicts of Antoninus Pius; for had Eusebius referred to another passage,
he would undoubtedly have quoted it. But according to Melito, the
edicts of Antoninus were to prevent any new methods of procedure
against the Christians, i.e. tumultuous proceedings in opposition to
the custom established by Trajan. The edicts of which he speaks were
intended, then, to perpetuate the principles of Trajan, which had been,
since his time, the silent law of the empire upon the subject. The
edicts cannot have been edicts of toleration (even Melito himself does
not regard them so), but edicts against illegal, tumultuous
proceedings, and the accusations of informers, and therefore quite in
the spirit of Trajan. But as the significance of Trajan's rescript was
entirely misunderstood in the early Church (see above, Bk. III. chap.
33, note 6), so it was the common opinion that the attitude of the
State toward the Church was at bottom friendly to Christianity, and
therefore all edicts forbidding the introduction of new methods were
regarded as favorable edicts, as in the present case by Eusebius.
Again, had Melito known of such a favorable edict as this of Antoninus,
he would certainly have called special and particular attention to it.
Melito's testimony, therefore, instead of being in favor of the
genuineness of this edict, is really against it.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIV.--The Circumstances related of Polycarp, a Friend of the
Apostles.

1. At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome,
[1112] Irenaeus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at
Rome, [1113] and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question
concerning the day of the paschal feast. [1114]

2. And the same writer gives another account of Polycarp which I feel
constrained to add to that which has been already related in regard to
him. The account is taken from the third book of Irenaeus' work Against
Heresies, and is as follows: [1115]

3. "But Polycarp [1116] also was not only instructed by the apostles,
and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed
by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. [1117]

4. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and
died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr's
death, [1118] having always taught the things which he had learned from
the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are
true. [1119]

5. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those
who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, [1120] who was
a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than
Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. [1121] He also was
in Rome in the time of Anicetus [1122] and caused many to turn away
from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming
that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of
truth which has been transmitted by the Church.

6. And there are those that heard from him that John, the disciple of
the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran
out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, `Let us flee, lest even
the bath fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.'
[1123]

7. And Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him [1124] and said,
`Knowest [1125] thou us?' replied, `I know the first born of Satan.'
Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they
might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as
Paul also said, `A man that is a heretic, after the first and second
admonition, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself.' [1126]

8. There is also a very powerful epistle of Polycarp written to the
Philippians, [1127] from which those that wish to do so, and that are
concerned for their own salvation, may learn the character of his faith
and the preaching of the truth." Such is the account of Irenaeus.

9. But Polycarp, in his above-mentioned epistle to the Philippians,
which is still extant, has made use of certain testimonies drawn from
the First Epistle of Peter. [1128]

10. And when Antoninus, called Pius, had completed the twenty-second
year of his reign, [1129] Marcus Aurelius Verus, his son, who was also
called Antoninus, succeeded him, together with his brother Lucius.
[1130]
__________________________________________________________________

[1112] On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. He was bishop
probably from 154 to 165 a.d.

[1113] genesthai epi ;;Romes. It is quite commonly said that Polycarp
came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus; but our authorities say
only that he was in Rome at that time, and do not specify the date at
which he arrived there. Neither these words, nor the words of Irenaeus
in S:5 below (epideuesas te ;;Rome), are to be translated "came to
Rome," as is often done (e.g. by Cruse, by Roberts and Rambaut, in
their translation of Irenaeus, and by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog.), but "was at Rome" (as Closs, Stigloher, Lightfoot, &c.,
correctly render the words). Inasmuch as Polycarp suffered martyrdom in
155 or 156 a.d.(see below, chap. 15, note 2), he must have left Rome
soon after Anticetus' accession (which took place probably in 154); and
though of course he may have come thither sometime before that event,
still the fact that his stay there is connected with Anicetus'
episcopate, and his alone, implies that he went thither either
immediately after, or shortly before Anicetus became bishop.

[1114] On the paschal controversies of the early Church, see below, Bk.
V. chap. 23, note 1. We learn from Bk. V. chap. 24, that though
Polycarp and Anicetus did not reach an agreement on the subject, they
nevertheless remained good friends, and that Polycarp celebrated the
eucharist in Rome at the request of Anicetus.

[1115] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 3. 4.

[1116] Eusebius takes his account of Polycarp solely from Irenaeus, and
from the epistle of the church of Smyrna, given in the next chapter. He
is mentioned by Irenaeus again in his Adv. Haer. V. 33. 4 (quoted by
Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 39), and in his epistle to Florinus and to
Victor. From the epistle to Florinus (quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 20),
where quite an account of Polycarp is given, we learn that the latter
was Irenaeus' teacher. He was one of the most celebrated men of the
time, not because of his ability or scholarship, but because he had
been a personal friend of some of the disciples of the Lord, and lived
to a great age, when few if any were still alive that had known the
first generation of Christians. He suffered martyrdom about 155 a.d.
(see below, chap. 15, note 2); and as he was at least eighty-six years
old at the time of his death (see the next chap., S:20), he must have
been born as early as 70 a.d. He was a personal disciple of John the
apostle, as we learn from Irenaeus' epistle to Florinus, and was
acquainted also with others that had seen the Lord. That he was at the
head of the church of Smyrna cannot be doubted (cf. Ignatius' epistle
to him), but Irenaeus' statement that he was appointed bishop of Smyrna
by apostles is probably to be looked upon as a combination of his own.
He reasoned that bishops were the successors of the apostles; Polycarp
was a bishop, and lived in the time of the apostles; and therefore he
must have been appointed by them. The only known writing of Polycarp's
is his epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant (see below,
note 16). His character is plainly revealed in that epistle as well as
in the accounts given us by Irenaeus and by the church of Smyrna in
their epistle. He was a devoutly pious and simple-minded Christian,
burning with intense personal love for his Master, and yet not at all
fanatical like his contemporary Ignatius. The instances related in this
chapter show his intense horror of heretics, of those whom he believed
to be corrupting the doctrine of Christ, and yet he does not seem to
have had the taste or talent to refute their errors. He simply wished
to avoid them as instruments of Satan. He was pre-eminently a man that
lived in the past. His epistle is full of reminiscences of New
Testament thought and language, and his chief significance to the
Christians of the second century was as a channel of apostolic
tradition. He does not compare with Ignatius for vigor and originality
of thought, and yet he was one of the most deeply venerated characters
of the early Church, his noble piety, his relation to John and other
disciples of the Lord, and finally his glorious martyrdom, contributing
to make him such. Upon Polycarp, see especially Lightfoot's edition of
Ignatius and Polycarp, and the article of Salmon, in Smith and Wace's
Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[1117] The church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of the
"seven churches of Asia," and is mentioned in Rev. i. 11; ii. 8-11.

[1118] On his age and the date of his death, see chap. 15, note 2. A
full account of his martyrdom is given in the epistle of the church of
Smyrna, quoted in the next chapter.

[1119] Irenaeus emphasizes here, as was his wont, the importance of
tradition in determining true doctrine. Compare also Eusebius' words in
chap. 21.

[1120] Of these successors of Polycarp we know nothing.

[1121] kakognomonon

[1122] See above, note 2.

[1123] See above, Bk. III. chap. 28, where the same story is related.

[1124] Marcion came to Rome about 135 a.d., but how long he remained
there we do not know. Polycarp's words show the great abhorrence in
which he was held by the Church. He was considered by many the most
dangerous of all the heretics, for he propagated his errors and secured
many followers among all classes. Marcion's conduct in this case is
very significant when compared with that of the Gnostics. He tried
everywhere to gain support and to make friends with the Church, that he
might introduce his reforms within it; while the genuine Gnostics, on
the contrary, held themselves aloof from the Church, in pride and in a
feeling of superiority. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians,
chap. 7, shows the same severity toward false teachers, and even uses
the same expression, "first born of Satan," perhaps referring to
Marcion himself; but see below, note 16.

[1125] epiginoskeis, which is the reading of the great majority of the
mss., and is adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, Harnack, Lightfoot, and
others. Three mss., supported by Nicephorus, Rufinus, and the Latin
version of Irenaeus, read epiginoske, and this is adopted by Valesius,
Heinichen, Stroth, Closs, and Cruse.

[1126] Titus iii. 10, 11.

[1127] Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians is still extant, and is
the only work of Polycarp which we have. (The Greek text is given in
all editions of the apostolic Fathers, and with especially valuable
notes and discussions in Zahn's Ignatius von Antiochien, and in
Lightfoot's Ignatius and Polycarp, II. p. 897 sqq.; an English
translation is contained in the latter edition, and also in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 31-36.) The date of its composition it
is very difficult to determine. It must have been written after the
death of Ignatius (chap. 9), and yet soon after, as Polycarp does not
seem to know all the circumstances attending that event (see chap. 13).
Its date therefore depends upon the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius,
which is a very difficult question, not yet fully decided. The attack
upon false teachers reminds us of Marcion, and contains traits which
seem to imply that Polycarp had Marcion in his mind at the time of
writing. If this be so, the epistle was written as late as 135 a.d.,
which puts the date of Ignatius' death much later than the traditional
date (on the date of Ignatius' death, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36,
note 4). The genuineness of Polycarp's epistle has been sharply
disputed--chiefly on account of its testimony to the Ignatian epistles
in chap. 13. Others, while acknowledging its genuineness as a whole,
have regarded chap. 13 as an interpolation. But the external testimony
for its genuineness is very strong, beginning with Irenaeus, and the
epistle itself is just what we should expect from such a man as
Polycarp. There is no good reason therefore to doubt its genuineness
nor the genuineness of chap. 13, the rejection of which is quite
arbitrary. The genuineness of the whole has been ably defended both by
Zahn and by Lightfoot, and may be regarded as definitely established.

[1128] Polycarp in his epistle makes constant use of the First Epistle
of Peter, with which he was evidently very familiar, though it is
remarkable that he nowhere mentions Peter as its author (cf. Bk. III.
chap. 3, note 1).

[1129] Antoninus Pius reigned from July 2, 138, to March 7, 161.

[1130] Both were adopted sons of Antoninus Pius. See above, chap. 12,
note 3.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XV.--Under Verus, [1131] Polycarp with Others suffered
Martyrdom at Smyrna.

1. At this time, [1132] when the greatest persecutions were exciting
Asia, Polycarp ended his life by martyrdom. But I consider it most
important that his death, a written account of which is still extant,
should be recorded in this history.

2. There is a letter, written in the name of the church over which he
himself presided, [1133] to the parishes in Pontus, [1134] which
relates the events that befell him, in the following words:

3. "The church of God which dwelleth in Philomelium, [1135] and to all
the parishes of the holy catholic Church [1136] in every place; mercy
and peace and love from God the Father be multiplied. We write [1137]
unto you, brethren, an account of what happened to those that suffered
martyrdom and to the blessed Polycarp, who put an end to the
persecution, having, as it were, sealed it by his martyrdom."

4. After these words, before giving the account of Polycarp, they
record the events which befell the rest of the martyrs, and describe
the great firmness which they exhibited in the midst of their pains.
For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they
saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and
arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their
bowels and their members, were exposed to view; and then laid upon
sea-shells and certain pointed spits, and subjected to every species of
punishment and of torture, and finally thrown as food to wild beasts.

5. And they record that the most noble Germanicus [1138] especially
distinguished himself, overcoming by the grace of God the fear of
bodily death implanted by nature. When indeed the proconsul [1139]
wished to persuade him, and urged his youth, and besought him, as he
was very young and vigorous, to take compassion on himself, he did not
hesitate, but eagerly lured the beast toward himself, all but
compelling and irritating him, in order that he might the sooner be
freed from their unrighteous and lawless life.

6. After his glorious death the whole multitude, marveling at the
bravery of the God-beloved martyr and at the fortitude of the whole
race of Christians, began to cry out suddenly, "Away with the atheists;
[1140] let Polycarp be sought."

7. And when a very great tumult arose in consequence of the cries, a
certain Phrygian, Quintus [1141] by name, who was newly come from
Phrygia, seeing the beasts and the additional tortures, was smitten
with cowardice and gave up the attainment of salvation.

8. But the above-mentioned epistle shows that he, too hastily and
without proper discretion, had rushed forward with others to the
tribunal, but when seized had furnished a clear proof to all, that it
is not right for such persons rashly and recklessly to expose
themselves to danger. Thus did matters turn out in connection with
them.

9. But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard of these
things, continued undisturbed, preserved a quiet and unshaken mind, and
determined to remain in the city. But being persuaded by his friends
who entreated and exhorted him to retire secretly, he went out to a
farm not far distant from the city and abode there with a few
companions, night and day doing nothing but wrestle with the Lord in
prayer, beseeching and imploring, and asking peace for the churches
throughout the whole world. For this was always his custom.

10. And three days before his arrest, while he was praying, he saw in a
vision at night the pillow under his head suddenly seized by fire and
consumed; and upon this awakening he immediately interpreted the vision
to those that were present, almost foretelling that which was about to
happen, and declaring plainly to those that were with him that it would
be necessary for him for Christ's sake to die by fire.

11. Then, as those who were seeking him pushed the search with vigor,
they say that he was again constrained by the solicitude and love of
the brethren to go to another farm. Thither his pursuers came after no
long time, and seized two of the servants there, and tortured one of
them for the purpose of learning from him Polycarp's hiding-place.

12. And coming late in the evening, they found him lying in an upper
room, whence he might have gone to another house, but he would not,
saying, "The will of God be done."

13. And when he learned that they were present, as the account says, he
went down and spoke to them with a very cheerful and gentle
countenance, so that those who did not already know the man thought
that they beheld a miracle when they observed his advanced age and the
gravity and firmness of his bearing, and they marveled that so much
effort should be made to capture a man like him.

14. But he did not hesitate, but immediately gave orders that a table
should be spread for them. Then he invited them to partake of a
bounteous meal, and asked of them one hour that he might pray
undisturbed. And when they had given permission, he stood up and
prayed, being full of the grace of the Lord, so that those who were
present and heard him praying were amazed, and many of them now
repented that such a venerable and godly old man was about to be put to
death.

15. In addition to these things the narrative concerning him contains
the following account: "But when at length he had brought his prayer to
an end, after remembering all that had ever come into contact with him,
small and great, famous and obscure, and the whole catholic Church
throughout the world, the hour of departure being come, they put him
upon an ass and brought him to the city, it being a great Sabbath.
[1142] And he was met by Herod, [1143] the captain of police, [1144]
and by his father Nicetes, who took him into their carriage, and
sitting beside him endeavored to persuade him, saying, `For what harm
is there in saying, Lord Caesar, and sacrificing and saving your life?'
He at first did not answer; but when they persisted, he said, `I am not
going to do what you advise me.'

16. And when they failed to persuade him, they uttered dreadful words,
and thrust him down with violence, so that as he descended from the
carriage he lacerated his shin. But without turning round, he went on
his way promptly and rapidly, as if nothing had happened to him, and
was taken to the stadium.

17. But there was such a tumult in the stadium that not many heard a
voice from heaven, which came to Polycarp as he was entering the place:
`Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man.' [1145] And no one saw the
speaker, but many of our people heard the voice.

18. And when he was led forward, there was a great tumult, as they
heard that Polycarp was taken. Finally, when he came up, the proconsul
asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, he
endeavored to persuade him to deny, saying, `Have regard for thine
age,' and other like things, which it is their custom to say: `Swear by
the genius of Caesar; [1146] repent and say, Away with the Atheists.'

19. But Polycarp, looking with dignified countenance upon the whole
crowd that was gathered in the stadium, waved his hand to them, and
groaned, and raising his eyes toward heaven, said, `Away with the
Atheists.'

20. But when the magistrate pressed him, and said, `Swear, and I will
release thee; revile Christ,' Polycarp said, `Fourscore and six years
[1147] have I been serving him, and he hath done me no wrong; how then
can I blaspheme my king who saved me?'

21. "But when he again persisted, and said, `Swear by the genius of
Caesar,' Polycarp replied, `If thou vainly supposest that I will swear
by the genius of Caesar, as thou sayest, feigning to be ignorant who I
am, hear plainly: I am a Christian. But if thou desirest to learn the
doctrine of Christianity, assign a day and hear.'

22. The proconsul said, `Persuade the people.' But Polycarp said, `As
for thee, I thought thee worthy of an explanation; for we have been
taught to render to princes and authorities ordained by God the honor
that is due, [1148] so long as it does not injure us; [1149] but as for
these, I do not esteem them the proper persons to whom to make my
defense.' [1150]

23. But the proconsul said, `I have wild beasts; I will throw thee to
them unless thou repent.' But he said, `Call them; for repentance from
better to worse is a change we cannot make. But it is a noble thing to
turn from wickedness to righteousness.'

24. But he again said to him, `If thou despisest the wild beasts, I
will cause thee to be consumed by fire, unless thou repent.' But
Polycarp said, `Thou threatenest a fire which burneth for an hour, and
after a little is quenched; for thou knowest not the fire of the future
judgment and of the eternal punishment which is reserved for the
impious. But why dost thou delay? Do what thou wilt.'

25. Saying these and other words besides, he was filled with courage
and joy, and his face was suffused with grace, so that not only was he
not terrified and dismayed by the words that were spoken to him, but,
on the contrary, the proconsul was amazed, and sent his herald to
proclaim three times in the midst of the stadium: `Polycarp hath
confessed that he is a Christian.'

26. And when this was proclaimed by the herald, the whole multitude,
both of Gentiles and of Jews, [1151] who dwelt in Smyrna, cried out
with ungovernable wrath and with a great shout, `This is the teacher of
Asia, the father of the Christians, the overthrower of our gods, who
teacheth many not to sacrifice nor to worship.'

27. When they had said this, they cried out and asked the Asiarch
Philip [1152] to let a lion loose upon Polycarp. But he said that it
was not lawful for him, since he had closed the games. Then they
thought fit to cry out with one accord that Polycarp should be burned
alive.

28. For it was necessary that the vision should be fulfilled which had
been shown him concerning his pillow, when he saw it burning while he
was praying, and turned and said prophetically to the faithful that
were with him, `I must needs be burned alive.'

29. These things were done with great speed,--more quickly than they
were said,--the crowds immediately collecting from the workshops and
baths timber and fagots, the Jews being especially zealous in the work,
as is their wont.

30. But when the pile was ready, taking off all his upper garments, and
loosing his girdle, he attempted also to remove his shoes, although he
had never before done this, because of the effort which each of the
faithful always made to touch his skin first; for he had been treated
with all honor on account of his virtuous life even before his gray
hairs came.

31. Forthwith then the materials prepared for the pile were placed
about him; and as they were also about to nail him to the stake, [1153]
he said, `Leave me thus; for he who hath given me strength to endure
the fire, will also grant me strength to remain in the fire unmoved
without being secured by you with nails.' So they did not nail him, but
bound him.

32. And he, with his hands behind him, and bound like a noble ram taken
from a great flock, an acceptable burnt-offering unto God omnipotent,
said,

33. `Father of thy beloved and blessed Son [1154] Jesus Christ, through
whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and of
powers and of the whole creation and of the entire race of the
righteous who live in thy presence, I bless thee that thou hast deemed
me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a portion in the
number of the martyrs, in the cup of Christ, unto resurrection of
eternal life, [1155] both of soul and of body, in the immortality of
the Holy Spirit.

34. Among these may I be received before thee this day, in a rich and
acceptable sacrifice, as thou, the faithful and true God, hast
beforehand prepared and revealed, and hast fulfilled.

35. Wherefore I praise thee also for everything; I bless thee, I
glorify thee, through the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, thy
beloved Son, through whom, with him, in the Holy Spirit, be glory unto
thee, both now and for the ages to come, Amen.'

36. When he had offered up his Amen and had finished his prayer, the
firemen lighted the fire and as a great flame blazed out, we, to whom
it was given to see, saw a wonder, and we were preserved that we might
relate what happened to the others.

37. For the fire presented the appearance of a vault, like the sail of
a vessel filled by the wind, and made a wall about the body of the
martyr, [1156] and it was in the midst not like flesh burning, but like
gold and silver refined in a furnace. For we perceived such a fragrant
odor, as of the fumes of frankincense or of some other precious spices.

38. So at length the lawless men, when they saw that the body could not
be consumed by the fire, commanded an executioner [1157] to approach
and pierce him with the sword.

39. And when he had done this there came forth a quantity of blood
[1158] so that it extinguished the fire; and the whole crowd marveled
that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the
elect, of whom this man also was one, the most wonderful teacher in our
times, apostolic and prophetic, who was bishop of the catholic Church
[1159] in Smyrna. For every word which came from his mouth was
accomplished and will be accomplished.

40. But the jealous and envious Evil One, the adversary of the race of
the righteous, when he saw the greatness of his martyrdom, and his
blameless life from the beginning, and when he saw him crowned with the
crown of immortality and bearing off an incontestable prize, took care
that not even his body should be taken away by us, although many
desired to do it and to have communion with his holy flesh.

41. Accordingly certain ones secretly suggested to Nicetes, the father
of Herod and brother of Alce, [1160] that he should plead with the
magistrate not to give up his body, `lest,' it was said, `they should
abandon the crucified One and begin to worship this man.' [1161] They
said these things at the suggestion and impulse of the Jews, who also
watched as we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that we
shall never be able either to forsake Christ, who suffered for the
salvation of the whole world of those that are saved, or to worship any
other.

42. For we worship him who is the Son of God, but the martyrs, as
disciples and imitators of the Lord, we love as they deserve on account
of their matchless affection for their own king and teacher. May we
also be made partakers and fellow-disciples with them.

43. The centurion, therefore, when he saw the contentiousness exhibited
by the Jews, placed him in the midst and burned him, as was their
custom. And so we afterwards gathered up his bones, which were more
valuable than precious stones and more to be esteemed than gold, and
laid them in a suitable place.

44. There the Lord will permit us to come together as we are able, in
gladness and joy to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, [1162] for
the commemoration of those who have already fought and for the training
and preparation of those who shall hereafter do the same.

45. Such are the events that befell the blessed Polycarp, who suffered
martyrdom in Smyrna with the eleven [1163] from Philadelphia. This one
man is remembered more than the others by all, so that even by the
heathen he is talked about in every place."

46. Of such an end was the admirable and apostolic Polycarp deemed
worthy, as recorded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna in their
epistle which we have mentioned. In the same volume [1164] concerning
him are subjoined also other martyrdoms which took place in the same
city, Smyrna, about the same period of time with Polycarp's martyrdom.
Among them also Metrodorus, who appears to have been a proselyte of the
Marcionitic sect, suffered death by fire.

47. A celebrated martyr of those times was a certain man named Pionius.
Those who desire to know his several confessions, and the boldness of
his speech, and his apologies in behalf of the faith before the people
and the rulers, and his instructive addresses and, moreover, his
greetings to those who had yielded to temptation in the persecution,
and the words of encouragement which he addressed to the brethren who
came to visit him in prison, and the tortures which he endured in
addition, and besides these the sufferings and the nailings, and his
firmness on the pile, and his death after all the extraordinary trials,
[1165] --those we refer to that epistle which has been given in the
Martyrdoms of the Ancients, [1166] collected by us, and which contains
a very full account of him.

48. And there are also records extant of others that suffered martyrdom
in Pergamus, a city of Asia,--of Carpus and Papylus, and a woman named
Agathonice, who, after many and illustrious testimonies, gloriously
ended their lives. [1167]
__________________________________________________________________

[1131] Marcus Aurelius Verus. See below, p. 390, note.

[1132] Polycarp's martyrdom occurred in Smyrna, not during the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, as Eusebius says, but during the reign of Antoninus
Pius, between 154 and 156 (probably in 155). This has been proved by
Waddington in his Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur
AElius Aristide (in Mem. de l'acad. des inscript. et belles lettres,
Tom. XXVI., part II., 1867, p. 232 sq.' see, also, his Fastes des
provinces Asiatiques, 1872, p. 219 sq.), and the date is now almost
universally accepted (for example, by Renan, Ewald, Hilgenfeld,
Lightfoot, Harnack, &c.). But the Chron. of Eusebius seems to put the
martyrdom in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius (166-167 a.d.), and
this is the date given by Jerome and others, who based their chronology
upon Eusebius, and was commonly accepted until Waddington proved it
false. Lightfoot, however, shows that Eusebius did not mean to assign
Polycarp's death to the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, but that he
meant only to place it in the reign of that emperor, and did not
pretend to fix the year. How he made the mistake of assigning it to the
wrong emperor we do not know, but knowing Eusebius' common confusion of
the various emperors that bore the name of Antonine, we are not
surprised at his error at this point. For the best and most recent
discussion of this whole subject, see Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 629
sq. Since Waddington published his researches, Wieseler (in his
Christenverfolgungen, 1878, p. 34-87) and Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum,
1878, p. 92-133) have ventured to dispute his conclusions and to
advocate the old date (167), but their arguments are worthless, and
have been completely refuted by Lightfoot (ibid. p. 655 sq.).

[1133] I.e. the church of Smyrna. This letter (the greater part of
which Eusebius gives in this chapter) is still extant in four Greek
mss., and also in a poor Latin version which is preserved in numerous
mss. The letter has been published a number of times, most recently by
Zahn (in Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patrum Ap. opera, II. p. 132.
sq.), and by Lightfoot (in his Apostolic Fathers, Part II.; St.
Ignatius and St. Polycarp, p. 947 sq). Lightfoot gives the Greek text
with full notes and an English translation, and to his edition the
reader is referred for fuller particulars on the whole subject.

[1134] Pontus was the northeast province of Asia Minor, bordering on
the Black Sea. What led Eusebius to suppose that this epistle was
addressed to the church in Pontus, we do not know. The letter is
addressed to the church in Philomalium, and that city was not Pontus
(according to Lightfoot, ibid. II. p. 948). Valesius suggests that we
should read pEURnta topon instead of Ponton, but the latter reading is
confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac as well as by all the Greek
mss. I am inclined to think that Eusebius may have read hastily and
erroneously in the heading of the letter Ponton instead of pEURnta
topon, and, not knowing that Philomelium was not in Pontus, never
thought that his reading was incorrect. Such careless mistakes are by
no means uncommon, even in these days, and, having once written Pontus,
it is easy enough to suppose that nothing would occur to call his
attention to his mistake, and of course no copyist would think of
making a correction.

[1135] Philomelium, according to Lightfoot (ibid. p. 947), was an
important city in Phrygia Paroreios, not far from Pisidian Antioch.

[1136] tes hagias katholikes ekklesias. The phrase "Catholic Church"
occurs first in Ignatius' Ep. ad Smyr., chap. 8, and there the word
"catholic" evidently has the common and early meaning, "universal" (see
Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 398 sqq.). In later usage (so in
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Fragment) it has
the meaning "orthodox," as opposed to heretical and schismatical
bodies. In the present epistle it occurs four times (S:S:3, 15, 39,
below, and in a passage not quoted in this chapter), and at least the
first three times with the later meaning, and consequently, in all
probability, it has the same meaning the fourth time also. (Lightfoot,
it is true, contends that it has the earlier meaning, "universal," in
the first, second and fourth cases; but in at least the first two that
sense of the word produces most decided tautology, and is therefore to
be rejected.) The occurrence of the word in the later sense has caused
some critics to deny the genuineness of the epistle; but its
genuineness is too well established to admit of doubt, and it must be
granted that it is by no means impossible that a word which was used at
the end of the second century (in Alexandra, in Rome, and in Carthage)
with a certain meaning may have been employed in the same sense a
generation earlier. On the other hand it is possible, as suggested by
some, that the word "Catholic" itself is an interpolation; for it is
just such a word that would most easily slip into a document, through
the inadvertency of copyists, at a later time, when the phrase
"Catholic Church" had become current. Lightfoot (ibid. p. 605 sq.)
maintains the genuineness of the word (taking it in its earlier sense)
in all but the third instance, where he substitutes hagias upon what
seem to me insufficient grounds.

[1137] egrEURpsamen, the epistolary aorist, referring, not to another
epistle, but to the one which follows, the writer putting himself in
thought in the position of those who are reading the letter. See
Lightfoot's note on Gal. vi. 11, in his Commentary on that epistle.

[1138] Of Germanicus we know only what is told us in this epistle

[1139] 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.

[1140] Compare Justin Martyr's Apol. I. 6; Tertullian's Apol. 10, &c.;
and see chap. 7, note 20, above.

[1141] 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).

[1142] SabbEURtou megEURlou. "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 SEURbbaton), 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.).

[1143] 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).

[1144] eirenarchos (see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 955).

[1145] Compare Joshua i. 6, 7, 9, and Deut. i. 7, 23.

[1146] ten Kaisaros tuchen. 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).

[1147] 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.

[1148] See Rom. xiii. 1 sq., 1 Pet. ii. 13 sq.

[1149] timen...ten me blEURptousan hemas. Compare Pseudo-Ignatius, ad
Antioch. 11, and Mart. Ignat. Rom. 6 (in both of which are found the
words en hois akindunos he hupotage).

[1150] 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.

[1151] 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.

[1152] "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 priest' of Asia, and president of the games"
(Lightfoot, ibid. p. 967; on p. 987 ff. of the same volume, Lightfoot
discusses the Asiarchate at considerable length). The Asiarch Philip
mentioned here was a Trallian, as we learn from a statement toward the
close of the epistle, which Eusebius does not quote; Lightfoot
identifies him with a person named in various Trallian Inscriptions.

[1153] The Greek reads simply proseloun auton.

[1154] paidos not huiou. pais 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.

[1155] Compare John v. 29.

[1156] 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 fuer Kirchengesch. II. p. 291 ff.

[1157] Komphektora. 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.

[1158] 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.

[1159] See above, note 6. That the word katholikes 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 hagias instead of katholikes 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.

[1160] All, or nearly all, the mss. of Eusebius read DEURlkes, and that
reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Schwegler,
Laemmer, Heinichen, and Cruse. On the other hand, the mss. of the
epistle itself all support the form ,'Alkes (or 'Alkes, ;'Elkeis, as it
appears respectively in two mss.), and Lightfoot accepts this
unhesitatingly as the original form of the word, and it is adopted by
many editors of Eusebius (Valesius, in his notes, Stroth, Zimmermann,
Burton, and Closs). Dalce is an otherwise unknown name, while Alce,
though rare, is a good Greek name, and is once connected with Smyrna in
an inscription. Moreover, we learn from Ignatius, ad Smyr. 13, and ad
Polyc. VIII., that Alce was a well-known Christian in Smyrna at the
time Ignatius wrote his epistles. The use of the name at this point
shows that its possessor was or had been a prominent character in the
church of Smyrna, and the identification of the two seems to me beyond
all reasonable doubt (see, also, Lightfoot, I. 353; II. 325 and 978).
That Eusebius, however, wrote Alce is not so certain. In fact, in view
of the external testimony, it might be regarded as quite as likely that
he, by a mistake, wrote Dalce, as that some copyist afterwards
committed the error. Still, the name Alce must have been to Eusebius,
with his remarkable memory, familiar from Ignatius' epistles, and hence
his mistaking it for another word seems a little strange. But whether
Eusebius himself wrote Dalce or Alce, believing the latter to be the
correct form, the form which he should have written, I have ventured to
adopt it in my translation.

[1161] 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.

[1162] 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).

[1163] The majority of the mss. read dodeka tou en Smurne
marturesantos, which, however, is quite ungrammatical as it stands in
the sentence, and cannot be accepted. Heinichen reads dodeka 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 dodekatos en
Sm. marturesas, 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), dodekaton en Sm. marturesanta, 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 dodeka for the
dodekatos, 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.

[1164] graphe. 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 he aute
periodos tou chronou (a peculiar phrase, which Eusebius repeats)
indicating (as the words might indicate) that the events took place at
the same season of the year, while Eusebius interpreted them to mean
the same period of time. Upon these Acts, and upon Metrodorus and
Pionius, see Lightfoot, I. p. 622 sqq. The Life of Polycarp, which
purports to have been written by Pionius, is manifestly spurious and
entirely untrustworthy, and belongs to the latter part of the fourth
century. The true Pionius, therefore, who suffered under Decius, and
the Pseudo-Pionius who wrote that Life are to be sharply distinguished
(see Lightfoot, I. p. 626 sqq.).

[1165] This is an excellent summary of Pionius' sufferings, as recorded
in the extant Acts referred to in the previous note.

[1166] 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.

[1167] 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 Aube published in the Revue Archaeologique
(Dec., p. 348 sq.) a shorter form of the Acts of these martyrs, which
he had discovered in a Greek ms. in the Paris Library. There is no
reason to doubt that these Acts are genuine and, in the main, quite
trustworthy. The longer Acts assign the death of these martyrs to the
reign of Decius, and they have always been regarded as suffering during
that persecution. Aube, in publishing his newly discovered document,
still accepted the old date; but Zahn, upon the basis of the document
which he had also seen, remarked in his Tatian's Diatessaron (p. 279)
that Eusebius was correct in assigning these martyrdoms to the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, and Lightfoot (I. p. 625) stated his belief that they
are to be assigned either to that reign or to the reign of Septimius
Severus. In 1888 Harnack (Texte und Unters. III. 4) published a new
edition of the Acts from the same ms. which Aube had used, accompanying
the text with valuable notes and with a careful discussion of the age
of the document. He has proved beyond all doubt that these martyrs were
put to death during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and that the shorter
document which we have contains a genuine account related by an
eye-witness. These are evidently the Acts which Eusebius had before
him. In the spurious account Carpus is called a bishop, and Papylus a
deacon. But in the shorter account they are simply Christians, and
Papylus informs the judge that he is a citizen of Thyatira. Eusebius
apparently did not include the account of these martyrs in his
collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, and Harnack concludes from that that
he found in it something that did not please him, viz. the fanaticism
of Agathonice, who rashly and needlessly rushes to martyrdom, and the
approval of her conduct expressed by the author of the Acts. We are
reminded of the conduct of the Phrygian Quintus mentioned in the
epistle of the Smyrnaeans but in that epistle such conduct is
condemned.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVI.--Justin the Philosopher preaches the Word of Christ in
Rome and suffers Martyrdom.

1. About this time [1168] Justin, who was mentioned by us just above,
[1169] after he had addressed a second work in behalf of our doctrines
to the rulers already named, [1170] was crowned with divine martyrdom,
[1171] in consequence of a plot laid against him by Crescens, [1172] a
philosopher who emulated the life and manners of the Cynics, whose name
he bore. After Justin had frequently refuted him in public discussions
he won by his martyrdom the prize of victory, dying in behalf of the
truth which he preached.

2. And he himself, a man most learned in the truth, in his Apology
already referred to [1173] clearly predicts how this was about to
happen to him, although it had not yet occurred.

3. His words are as follows: [1174] "I, too, [1175] therefore, expect
to be plotted against and put in the stocks [1176] by some one of those
whom I have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that unphilosophical and
vainglorious man. For the man is not worthy to be called a philosopher
who publicly bears witness against those concerning whom he knows
nothing, declaring, for the sake of captivating and pleasing the
multitude, that the Christians are atheistical and impious. [1177]

4. Doing this he errs greatly. For if he assails us without having read
the teachings of Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and is much worse
than the illiterate, who often guard against discussing and bearing
false witness about matters which they do not understand. And if he has
read them and does not understand the majesty that is in them, or,
understanding it, does these things in order that he may not be
suspected of being an adherent, he is far more base and totally
depraved, being enslaved to vulgar applause and irrational fear.

5. For I would have you know that when I proposed certain questions of
the sort and asked him in regard to them, I learned and proved that he
indeed knows nothing. And to show that I speak the truth I am ready, if
these disputations have not been reported to you, to discuss the
questions again in your presence. And this indeed would be an act
worthy of an emperor.

6. But if my questions and his answers have been made known to you, it
is obvious to you that he knows nothing about our affairs; or if he
knows, but does not dare to speak because of those who hear him, he
shows himself to be, as I have already said, [1178] not a philosopher,
but a vainglorious man, who indeed does not even regard that most
admirable saying of Socrates." [1179] These are the words of Justin.

7. And that he met his death as he had predicted that he would, in
consequence of the machinations of Crescens, is stated by Tatian,
[1180] a man who early in life lectured upon the sciences of the Greeks
and won no little fame in them, and who has left a great many monuments
of himself in his writings. He records this fact in his work against
the Greeks, where he writes as follows: [1181] "And that most admirable
Justin declared with truth that the aforesaid persons were like
robbers."

8. Then, after making some remarks about the philosophers, he continues
as follows: [1182] "Crescens, indeed, who made his nest in the great
city, surpassed all in his unnatural lust, and was wholly devoted to
the love of money.

9. And he who taught that death should be despised, was himself so
greatly in fear of it that he endeavored to inflict death, as if it
were a great evil, upon Justin, because the latter, when preaching the
truth, had proved that the philosophers were gluttons and impostors."
And such was the cause of Justin's martyrdom.
__________________________________________________________________

[1168] 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).

[1169] In chap. 11.

[1170] 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.

[1171] 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 Rome, and by him condemned to
death, upon his refusal to sacrifice to the gods. The date of his
martyrdom is very difficult to determine. There are two lines of
tradition, one of which puts his death under Antoninus Pius, the other
under Marcus Aurelius. The latter has the most in its favor; and if we
are to accept the report of the Acta Justini (which can be doubted
least of all at this point), his death took place under Rusticus, who,
as we know, became prefect of Rome in 163. Upon the date of Justin's
death, see especially Holland, in Smith and Wace, III. p. 562 sq.

[1172] 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
S:S: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).

[1173] 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 te dedelomene 'Apologi& 139; to chap. 13 sq., where
the apology is quoted repeatedly.

[1174] Justin, Apol. II. 3.

[1175] kago 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.

[1176] xulo entinagenai. Compare Acts xvii. 24, and see Otto's note on
this passage, in his edition of Justin's Apology (Corpus Apol. Christ.
I. p. 204). He says: xulon erat truncus foramina habens, quibus pedes
captivorum immitebantur, 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").

[1177] This accusation was very commonly made against the Christians in
the second century. See above, chap. 7, note 20.

[1178] In S:3, above.

[1179] This saying of Socrates is given by Justin as follows: all' outi
ge pro tes aletheias timeteos aner, "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.

[1180] 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 megEURlo
for the words kai eme hos; 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 hos 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 hos, but in the substitution for them
of the word megEURlo. It cannot, therefore, be said that Eusebius only
omitted some words, satisfying his conscience that there was no great
harm in that; whoever made the change, if he did it intentionally,
directly falsified the text, and substituted the other word for the
sake of covering up his alteration; that is, he committed an act of
deceit of the worst kind, and deliberately took steps to conceal his
act. Certainly such conduct is not in accord with Eusebius' general
character, so far as we can ascertain it from his writings. Even Zahn
and Harnack, who accuse him of intentional deception here, yet speak of
his general conscientiousness, and treat this alteration as one which
Eusebius allowed himself to make while, at the same time, his
"conscientiousness did not permit him even this time to change truth
completely into untruth." But if he could allow himself to make so
deliberate an alteration, and then cover the change by inserting
another word, there is little cause to speak of "conscientiousness" in
connection with the matter; if he could do that, his conscience would
certainly permit him to make any false quotations, however great, so
long as he thought he could escape detection. But few would care to
accuse Eusebius of possessing such a character. Certainly if he
possessed it, we should find clearer traces of it than we do in his
History, where we have the opportunity to control a large portion of
his statements on an immense variety of subjects. Moreover, for such a
grave act of deception as Eusebius is supposed to have committed, some
adequate ground must have existed. But what ground was there? The only
motive suggested is that he desired to appear to possess specific
knowledge about the manner of Justin's death, when in fact he did not
possess it. It is not maintained that he had any larger motive, such as
reconciling apparent contradictions in sacred records, or shedding an
added luster upon the Christian religion, for neither of these purposes
has any relation to the statement in regard to Crescens' connection
with Justin's death. Solely then for the sake of producing the
impression that he knew more about Justin's death than he did, he must
have made the change. But certainly when we realize how frequently
Eusebius directly avows his ignorance on points far more important (to
his mind) than this (e.g., the dates of the Jerusalem bishops, which he
might so easily have invented), and when we consider how sober his
history is in comparison with the accounts of the majority of his
contemporaries, both Pagan and Christian, how few fables he introduces,
how seldom he embellishes the narratives which he finds related in his
sources with imaginary figments of his own brain,--when, in fact, no
such instances can be found elsewhere, although, writing in the age he
did, and for the public for whom he did, he might have invented so many
stories without fear of detection, as his successors during the ancient
and middle ages were seldom loath to do,--when all this is taken into
consideration, we should hesitate long before we accuse Eusebius of
such deceptive conduct as is implied in the intentional alteration of
Tatian's account at this point. It has been quite the custom to accuse
Eusebius of intentional deviations from the truth here and there but it
must be remembered that he was either honest or dishonest, and if he
ever deliberately and intentionally deviated from the truth, his
general character for truthfulness is gone, unless the deviation were
only in some exceptional case, where the pressure to misrepresentation
was unusually strong, under which circumstances his reputation for
veracity in general might not be seriously impaired. But the present
instance is not such an one, and if he was false here on so little
provocation, why should we think his character such as to guarantee
truthfulness in any place where falsehood might be more desirable? The
fact is, however, that the grounds upon which the accusation against
Eusebius is based are very slender. Nothing but the strongest evidence
should lead us to conclude that such a writer as he practiced such
wilful deception for reasons absolutely trivial. But when we realize
how little is known of the actual state of the text of Tatian's Oratio
at the time Eusebius wrote, we must acknowledge that to base an
accusation on a difference between the text of the History and the
extant mss. of the Oratio is at least a little hasty. An examination of
the latest critical edition of Tatian's Oratio (that of Schwartz, in
Gebhardt, and Harnack's Texte und Untersuch. IV. 1) shows us that in a
number of instances the testimony of the mss. of Eusebius is accepted
over against that of the few extant mss. of Tatian. The ms. of Tatian
which Eusebius used was therefore admittedly different at a number of
points from all our existing mss. of Tatian. It is consequently not at
all impossible that the ms. which he used read megEURlo instead of kai
eme hos. It happens, indeed, to be a fact that our three mss. of Tatian
all present variations at this very point (one reads kai eme hos,
another, kai eme hoion, another, kai eme hous), showing that the
archetype, whatever it was, either offered difficulties to the
copyists, or else was partially illegible, and hence required
conjectural emendations or additions. It will be noticed that the
closing verb of this sentence is in the singular, so that the mention
of both Justin and Tatian in the beginning of the sentence may well
have seemed to some copyist quite incongruous, and it is not difficult
to suppose that under such circumstances, the text at this point being
in any case obscure or mutilated, such a copyist permitted himself to
make an alteration which was very clever and at the same time did away
with all the trouble. Textual critics will certainly find no difficulty
in such an assumption. The mss. of Tatian are undoubtedly nearer the
original form at this point than those of Eusebius, but we have no good
grounds for supposing that Eusebius did not follow the ms. which lay
before him. The question as to Eusebius' interpretation of the passage
as he found it is quite a different one. It contains no direct
statement that Justin met his death in consequence of the plots of
Crescens; and finding no mention of such a fact in the Acts of
Martyrdom of Justin, we may dismiss it as unhistorical and refuse to
accept Eusebius' interpretation of Tatian's words. To say, however,
that Eusebius intentionally misinterpreted those words is quite
unwarranted. He found in Justin's work an expressed expectation that he
would meet his death in this way, and he found in Tatian's work the
direct statement that Crescens did plot Justin's death as the latter
had predicted he would. There was nothing more natural than to conclude
that Tatian meant to imply that Crescens had succeeded, for why did he
otherwise mention the matter at all, Eusebius might well say, looking
at the matter from his point of view, as an historian interested at
that moment in the fact of Justin's death. He does undoubtedly show
carelessness and lack of penetration in interpreting the passage as he
does; but if he had been aware of the defect in the evidence he
presents, and had yet wished deceitfully to assert the fact as a fact,
he would certainly have omitted the passage altogether, or he would
have bolstered it up with the statement that other writers confirmed
his conclusion,--a statement which only a thoroughly and genuinely
honest man would have scrupled to make. Finally, to return to the
original charge of falsification of the sources, he realized that the
text of Tatian, with the kai eme hos, did not establish Justin's death
at the instigation of Crescens, he must have realized at the same time
that his altered text, while it might imply it, certainly did not
absolutely prove it, and hence he would not have left his conclusion,
which he stated as a demonstrated fact, to rest upon so slender a
basis, when he might so easily have adduced any number of oral
traditions in confirmation of it. If he were dishonest enough to alter
the text, he would not have hesitated to state in general terms that
the fact is "also supported by tradition." We conclude, finally, that
he read the passage as we now find it in the mss. of his History, and
that his interpretation of the passage, while false, was not
intentionally so. The attacks upon Eusebius which have been already
referred to are to be found in Dembowski's Quellen der christlichen
Apologetik, I. p. 60; Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron, p. 275 sq., and
Harnack's Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten, p. 141 sq. Semisch
(Justin der Maertyrer, I. 53) takes for granted that Eusebius followed
the text of Tatian which lay before him, but does not attempt to prove
it.

[1181] 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.

[1182] Ibid.chap. 19.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVII.--The Martyrs whom Justin mentions in his Own Work.

1. The same man, before his conflict, mentions in his first Apology
[1183] others that suffered martyrdom before him, and most fittingly
records the following events.

2. He writes thus: [1184] "A certain woman lived with a dissolute
husband; she herself, too, having formerly been of the same character.
But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ, she
became temperate, and endeavored to persuade her husband likewise to be
temperate, repeating the teachings, and declaring the punishment in
eternal fire which shall come upon those who do not live temperately
and conformably to right reason.

3. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife by his
conduct. For she finally, thinking it wrong to live as a wife with a
man who, contrary to the law of nature and right, sought every possible
means of pleasure, desired to be divorced from him.

4. And when she was earnestly entreated by her friends, who counseled
her still to remain with him, on the ground that her husband might some
time give hope of amendment, she did violence to herself and remained.

5. But when her husband had gone to Alexandria, and was reported to be
conducting himself still worse, she--in order that she might not, by
continuing in wedlock, and by sharing his board and bed, become a
partaker in his lawlessness and impiety--gave him what we [1185] call a
bill of divorce and left him.

6. But her noble and excellent husband,--instead of rejoicing, as he
ought to have done, that she had given up those actions which she had
formerly recklessly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she
delighted in drunkenness and in every vice, and that she desired him
likewise to give them up,--when she had gone from him contrary to his
wish, brought an accusation concerning her, declaring that she was a
Christian.

7. And she petitioned you, the emperor, that she might be permitted
first to set her affairs in order, and afterwards, after the settlement
of her affairs, to make her defense against the accusation. And this
you granted.

8. But he who had once been her husband, being no longer able to
prosecute her, directed his attacks against a certain Ptolemaeus,
[1186] who had been her teacher in the doctrines of Christianity, and
whom Urbicius [1187] had punished. Against him he proceeded in the
following manner:

9. "He persuaded a centurion who was his friend to cast Ptolemaeus into
prison, and to take him and ask him this only: whether he were a
Christian? And when Ptolemaeus, who was a lover of truth, and not of a
deceitful and false disposition, confessed that he was a Christian, the
centurion bound him and punished him for a long time in the prison.

10. And finally, when the man was brought before Urbicius he was
likewise asked this question only: whether he were a Christian? And
again, conscious of the benefits which he enjoyed through the teaching
of Christ, he confessed his schooling in divine virtue.

11. For whoever denies that he is a Christian, either denies because he
despises Christianity, or he avoids confession because he is conscious
that he is unworthy and an alien to it; neither of which is the case
with the true Christian.

12. And when Urbicius commanded that he be led away to punishment, a
certain Lucius, [1188] who was also a Christian, seeing judgment so
unjustly passed, said to Urbicius, `Why have you punished this man who
is not an adulterer, nor a fornicator, nor a murderer, nor a thief, nor
a robber, nor has been convicted of committing any crime at all, but
has confessed that he bears the name of Christian? You do not judge, O
Urbicius, in a manner befitting the Emperor Pius, or the philosophical
son [1189] of Caesar, or the sacred senate.'

13. And without making any other reply, he said to Lucius, `Thou also
seemest to me to be such an one.' And when Lucius said, `Certainly,' he
again commanded that he too should be led away to punishment. But he
professed his thanks, for he was liberated, he added, from such wicked
rulers and was going to the good Father and King, God. And still a
third having come forward was condemned to be punished."

14. To this, Justin fittingly and consistently adds the words which we
quoted above, [1190] saying, "I, too, therefore expect to be plotted
against by some one of those whom I have named," &c. [1191]
__________________________________________________________________

[1183] 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.

[1184] Justin, Apol. II. 2.

[1185] Our authorities are divided between hemin and humin, 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.

[1186] 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 (chthes de kai proen,
"yesterday and the day before").

[1187] 'Ourbikios, as all the mss. of Eusebius give the name. In Justin
the form 'Ourbikos occurs, which is a direct transcription of the Latin
Urbicus.

[1188] Of this Lucius we know only what is told us here.

[1189] Marcus Aurelius. See above, chap. 12, note 2.

[1190] In chap. 16, S:3.

[1191] Justin, Apol. II. 3. These words, in Justin's Apology, follow
immediately the long account quoted just above.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVIII.--The Works of Justin which have come down to us.

1. This writer has left us a great many monuments of a mind educated
and practiced in divine things, which are replete with profitable
matter of every kind. To them we shall refer the studious, noting as we
proceed those that have come to our knowledge. [1192]

2. There is a certain discourse [1193] of his in defense of our
doctrine addressed to Antoninus surnamed the Pious, and to his sons,
and to the Roman senate. Another work contains his second Apology
[1194] in behalf of our faith, which he offered to him who was the
successor of the emperor mentioned and who bore the same name,
Antoninus Verus, the one whose times we are now recording.

3. Also another work against the Greeks, [1195] in which he discourses
at length upon most of the questions at issue between us and the Greek
philosophers, and discusses the nature of demons. It is not necessary
for me to add any of these things here.

4. And still another work of his against the Greeks has come down to
us, to which he gave the title Refutation. And besides these another,
On the Sovereignty of God, [1196] which he establishes not only from
our Scriptures, but also from the books of the Greeks.

5. Still further, a work entitled Psaltes, [1197] and another
disputation On the Soul, in which, after propounding various questions
concerning the problem under discussion, he gives the opinions of the
Greek philosophers, promising to refute it, and to present his own view
in another work.

6. He composed also a dialogue against the Jews, [1198] which he held
in the city of Ephesus with Trypho, a most distinguished man among the
Hebrews of that day. In it he shows how the divine grace urged him on
to the doctrine of the faith, and with what earnestness he had formerly
pursued philosophical studies, and how ardent a search he had made for
the truth. [1199]

7. And he records of the Jews in the same work, that they were plotting
against the teaching of Christ, asserting the same things against
Trypho: "Not only did you not repent of the wickedness which you had
committed, but you selected at that time chosen men, and you sent them
out from Jerusalem through all the land, to announce that the godless
heresy of the Christians had made its appearance, and to accuse them of
those things which all that are ignorant of us say against us, so that
you become the causes not only of your own injustice, but also of all
other men's." [1200]

8. He writes also that even down to his time prophetic gifts shone in
the Church. [1201] And he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying
distinctly that it was the apostle's. [1202] He also refers to certain
prophetic declarations, and accuses Trypho on the ground that the Jews
had cut them out of the Scripture. [1203] A great many other works of
his are still in the hands of many of the brethren. [1204]

9. And the discourses of the man were thought so worthy of study even
by the ancients, that Irenaeus quotes his words: for instance, in the
fourth book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows:
[1205] "And Justin well says in his work against Marcion, that he would
not have believed the Lord himself if he had preached another God
besides the Creator"; and again in the fifth book of the same work he
says: [1206] "And Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord
Satan never dared to blaspheme God, [1207] because he did not yet know
his condemnation."

10. These things I have deemed it necessary to say for the sake of
stimulating the studious to peruse his works with diligence. So much
concerning him.
__________________________________________________________________

[1192] 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.

[1193] 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.

[1194] 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, S:S:16 and 17, it is plain that
to Eusebius our two formed one complete work. And it is plain, too,
from internal evidence (as is now very generally admitted; Wieseler's
arguments against this, in his Christenverfolgungen, p. 104 ff., are
not sound), that the two were originally one, our second forming simply
a supplement to the first. What, then, has become of the second Apology
mentioned by Eusebius? There is much difference of opinion upon this
point. But the explanation given by Harnack (p. 171 ff.) seems the most
probable one. According to his theory, the Apology of Athenagoras (of
whom none of the Fathers, except Methodius and Philip of Side, seem to
have had any knowledge) was attributed to Justin by a copyist of the
third century,--who altered the address so as to throw it into Justin's
time,--and as such it came into the hands of Eusebius, who mentions it
among the works of Justin. That he does not quote from it may be due to
the fact that it contained nothing suited to his purpose, or it is
possible that he had some suspicions about it; the last, however, is
not probable, as he nowhere hints at them. That some uncertainty,
however, seemed to hang about the work is evident. The erasure of the
name of Athenagoras and the substitution of Justin's name accounts for
the almost total disappearance of the former from history. This Apology
and his treatise on the resurrection first appear again under his name
in the eleventh century, and exist now in seventeen mss. (see Schaff,
II. 731). The traditional second Apology of Justin having thus after
the eleventh century disappeared, his one genuine Apology was divided
by later copyists, so that we still have apparently two separate
apologies.

[1195] 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).

[1196] 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.

[1197] This work and the following have entirely disappeared, but were
genuine productions of Justin, for all that we know to the contrary.

[1198] 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.

[1199] See Dial. chap. 2 sq.

[1200] ibid. chap. 17.

[1201] ibid.chap. 82.

[1202] ibid.chap. 81.

[1203] ibid.chap. 71.

[1204] 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.

[1205] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV. 6. 2.

[1206] 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.

[1207] Epiphanius expresses the same thought in his Haer. XXXIX. 9.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIX.--The Rulers of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria during
the Reign of Verus.

1. In the eighth year of the above-mentioned reign [1208] Soter [1209]
succeeded Anicetus [1210] as bishop of the church of Rome, after the
latter had held office eleven years in all. But when Celadion [1211]
had presided over the church of Alexandria for fourteen years he was
succeeded by Agrippinus. [1212]
__________________________________________________________________

[1208] The reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus mentioned at the
end of chap. 14.

[1209] As was remarked in chap. 11, note 18, Anicetus held office until
165 or 167, i.e. possibly until the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius.
The date therefore given here for the accession of Soter is at least a
year out of the way. The Armenian Chron. puts his accession in the
236th Olympiad, i.e. the fourth to the seventh year of this reign,
while the version of Jerome puts it in the ninth year. From Bk. V.
chap. 1 we learn that he held office eight years, and this is the
figure given by both versions of the Chron. In chap. 23 Eusebius quotes
from a letter of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, addressed to Soter, in
which he remarks that the Corinthian church have been reading on the
Lord's day an epistle written to them by Soter. It was during his
episcopate that Montanus labored in Asia Minor, and the anonymous
author of the work called 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 spurious epistles and several decretals have been
falsely ascribed to him.

[1210] On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18.

[1211] On Celadion, see above, chap. 11, note 17.

[1212] 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XX.--The Rulers of the Church of Antioch.

1. At that time also in the church of Antioch, Theophilus [1213] was
well known as the sixth from the apostles. For Cornelius, [1214] who
succeeded Hero, [1215] was the fourth, and after him Eros, [1216] the
fifth in order, had held the office of bishop.
__________________________________________________________________

[1213] On Theophilus and his writings, see chap. 24.

[1214] Of the life and character of Cornelius and Eros we know nothing.
The Chron. of Eusebius puts the accession of Cornelius into the twelfth
year of Trajan (128 a.d.), and the accession of his successor Eros into
the fifth year of Antoninus Pius (142). These dates, however, are quite
unreliable, and we have no means of correcting them (see Harnack's Zeit
des Ignatius, p. 12 sqq.). Theophilus, the successor of Eros we have
reason to think became bishop about the middle of Marcus Aurelius'
reign and hence the Chron., which puts his accession into the ninth
year of that reign, (169 a.d.) cannot be far out of the way. This gives
us the approximate date for the death of Eros.

[1215] On Hero, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 23.

[1216] On Eros, see note 2.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXI.--The Ecclesiastical Writers that flourished in Those Days.

1. At that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know
from what has gone before, [1217] and Dionysius, [1218] bishop of
Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, [1219] and besides
these, Philip, [1220] and Apolinarius, [1221] and Melito, [1222] and
Musanus, [1223] and Modestus, [1224] and finally, Irenaeus. [1225] From
them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith
received from apostolic tradition. [1226]
__________________________________________________________________

[1217] On Hegesippus' life and writings, see the next chapter. He has
been already mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 23; Bk. III. chaps. 11, 16, 20,
32; and Bk. IV. chap. 8.

[1218] On the life and writings of Dionysius, see below, chap. 23.

[1219] On Pinytus, see below, chap, 23, note 14.

[1220] On Philip, see below, chap. 25.

[1221] On Apolinarius, see below, chap. 27.

[1222] On Melito, see chap. 26.

[1223] On Musanus, see chap. 28.

[1224] On Modestus, see chap. 25.

[1225] 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
fuer 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, S: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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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
,'Elenchos kai anatrope tes pseudonumou gnoseos, which is commonly
cited under the brief title pros ;;Aireseis, 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, S:3, of the work itself). We are not able to fix the
date of its composition more exactly. The author's primary object was
to refute Valentinianism (cf. Bk. I. 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 aeltesten Ketzergeschichte, and by Harnack in
his Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus (see also the article
by Lipsius mentioned below). Of the other works of Irenaeus, 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.

[1226] hon kai eis hemas tes apostolikes paradoseos, he tes hugious
pisteos zngraphos katelthen orthodoxia. Compare chap. 14, S:4.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXII.--Hegesippus and the Events which he mentions.

1. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs [1227] which have come down
to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he
states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that
he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he
says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians.

2. His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in
the true faith until Primus [1228] was bishop in Corinth. I conversed
with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days,
during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.

3. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, [1229]
whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and
he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held
which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord."

4. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which
arose in his time, in the following words: "And after James the Just
had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account,
Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, [1230] was appointed the
next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin
of the Lord.

"Therefore, [1231] they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet
corrupted by vain discourses.

5. But Thebuthis, [1232] because he was not made bishop, began to
corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects [1233] among the
people, like Simon, [1234] from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius,
[1235] from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, [1236] from whom
came the Dositheans, and Gorthaeus, [1237] from whom came the
Goratheni, and Masbotheus, [1238] from whom came the Masbothaeans. From
them sprang the Menandrianists, [1239] and Marcionists, [1240] and
Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians.
Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From
them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided
the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and
against his Christ."

6. The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among
the Jews, in the following words: "There were, moreover, various
opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The
following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the
Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothaeans, Samaritans,
Sadducees, Pharisees." [1241]

7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already
mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And
from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages
in the Hebrew tongue, [1242] showing that he was a convert from the
Hebrews, [1243] and he mentions other matters as taken from the
unwritten tradition of the Jews.

8. And not only he, but also Irenaeus and the whole company of the
ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom. [1244]
And when speaking of the books called Apocrypha, he records that some
of them were composed in his day by certain heretics. But let us now
pass on to another.
__________________________________________________________________

[1227] The five books of Hegesippus, hupomnemata 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
Antinoues 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).

[1228] Of this Primus we know only what Hegesippus tells us here. We do
not know the exact date of his episcopate, but it must have been at
least in part synchronous with the episcopate of Pius of Rome (see
chap. 11, note 14), for it was while Hegesippus was on his way to Rome
that he saw Primus; and since he remained in Rome until the accession
of Anicetus he must have arrived there while Pius, Anicetus'
predecessor, was bishop, for having gone to Rome on a visit, he can
hardly have remained there a number of years.

[1229] The interpretation of this sentence is greatly disputed. The
Greek reads in all the mss. genomenos de en ;;Rome diadochen
epoiesEURmn mechris 'Aniketou, 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 diadochen epoiesEURmen, "I composed a
catalogue of bishops," for diadoche nowhere else, so far as I am aware,
means "catalogue," and nowhere else does the expression diadochen
poieisthai 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 Irenaeus' 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 diadochen epoiesEURmen, 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
diadochen the word diatriben, 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
diatriben in the text. Val. retains diadochen in his text, but accepts
diatriben 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 diagogen, which, while not so
common as diatriben, is yet used with poieisthai in the same sense, and
its very uncommonness would account more easily for the change to the
much commoner diadochen, which is epigraphically so like it. The word
mechri is incorrectly translated apud by Valesius, who reads, mansi
apud Anicetum. He is followed by Cruse, who translates "I made my stay
with Anicetus"; but mechri 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.

[1230] See Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.

[1231] Dia touto. Valesius proposes to read mechri toutou, which
certainly makes better sense and which finds some support in the
statement made by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 32, S: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.

[1232] 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).

[1233] 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.

[1234] Simon Magus (see Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3).

[1235] 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.).

[1236] Trustworthy information in regard to Dositheus is very scanty,
but it is probable that he was one of the numerous Samaritan false
messiahs, and lived at about the time of, or possibly before, Christ.
"It seems likely that the Dositheans were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic
sect, something akin to the Essenes, existing from before our Lord's
time, and that the stories connecting their founder with Simon Magus
and with John the Baptist [see the Clementine Recognitions, II. 8 and
Homilies, II. 24], may be dismissed as merely mythical" (Salmon, in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. art. Dositheus).

[1237] 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.

[1238] The name Masbotheus is supported by no ms. authority, but is
given by Rufinus and by Nicephorus, and is adopted by most editors. The
majority of the mss. read simply Masbothaioi or Masbotheoi. Just below,
Hegesippus gives the Masbotheans as one of the seven Jewish sects,
while here he says they were derived from them. This contradiction
Harnack explains by Hegesippus' use of two different sources, an
unknown oral or written one, and Justin's Syntagma. The list of
heresies given here he maintains stood in Justin's Syntagma, but the
derivation of them from the seven Jewish sects cannot have been
Justin's work, nor can the list of the seven sects have been made by
Justin, for he gives quite a different list in his Dialogue, chap. 80.
Lipsius, p. 25, thinks the repetition of the "Masbotheans" is more
easily explained as a mere oversight or accident. The Apostolic Const.
VI. 6 name the Masbotheans among Jewish sects, describing them as
follows: "The Basmotheans, who deny providence, and say that the world
is ruled by spontaneous motion, and take away the immortality of the
soul." From what source this description was taken we do not know, and
cannot decide as to its reliability. Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog.) remarks that "our real knowledge is limited to the occurrence of
the name in Hegesippus, and there is no reason to think that any of
these who have undertaken to explain it knew any more about the matter
than ourselves."

[1239] 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.

[1240] There is some dispute about this word. The Greek is
Markianistai, which Harnack regards as equivalent to Markionistai, 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.).

[1241] 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. I. p. 230,
Dindorf's ed.,--Samaritan sects 4: Gorothenes, Sebouaioi, Essenes,
Dositheans; Jewish 7: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists,
'Ossaioi, Nazarenes, Herodians). See Jess, in the Zeitschr. fuer hist.
Theol. 1865, p. 45. sq.

[1242] The exact meaning of this sentence is very difficult to
determine. The Greek reads: zk te tou kath' 'Ebraious euangeliou kai
tou Suriakou kai idios ek tes ;;Ebraidos dialektou tina tithesin. It is
grammatically necessary to supply euangeliou after Suriakou, and this
gives us a Syriac gospel in addition to the Hebrew. Some have concluded
that Tatian's Diatessaron is meant by it, but this will not do; for, as
Handmann remarks, the fact that Hegesippus quotes from the work or
works referred to is cited as evidence that he was a Hebrew. Hilgenfeld
supposes that the Chaldaeo syroque scriptum evangelium secundum
Hebraeos, which Jerome mentions, is referred to, and that the
first-named euangelion kath' ;;Ebraious 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 euangelion be taken to represent some other unknown Hebrew
gospel, in which case the following clause refers to the citations from
both of the gospels. That such a gospel existed, however, and was
referred to by Eusebius so casually, as if it were a well-known work,
is not conceivable. The only resource left, so far as the writer can
discover, is to amend the text, with Eichhorn, Nicholson, and Handmann,
by striking out the first kai. The tou Suriakou then becomes a
description of the euangelion kath' ;;Ebraious, "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 tes ;;Ebraidos 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 sense 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 Hebraeer-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.

[1243] Eusebius had abundant opportunity to learn from Hegesippus'
works whether or not he was a Hebrew Christian, and hence we cannot
doubt that his conclusion in regard to Hegesippus' nationality (whether
based merely upon the premises given here, or partly upon other facts
unknown to us) is correct. His nationality explains the fact that he
deduces the Christian heresies from Jewish, and not, like other
writers, from heathen roots. There is, however, no reason, with Baur
and others, to suppose that Hegesippus was a Judaizer. In fact,
Eusebius' respectful treatment of him is in itself conclusive proof
that his writings cannot have revealed heretical notions.

[1244] This phrase (panEURretos sophia) was very frequently employed
among the Fathers as a title of the Book of Proverbs. Clement of Rome
(1 Cor. lvii.) is, so far as I know, the first so to use it. The word
panEURretos is applied also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, by
Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. S:4) and others. Among the Fathers the
Book of Sirach, the Solomonic Apocrypha, and the Book of Proverbs all
bore the common title sophia, "Wisdom," which well defines the
character of each of them; and this simple title is commoner than the
compound phrase which occurs in this passage (cf. e.g. Justin Martyr's
Dial. c. 129, and Melito, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 26, below). For
further particulars, see especially Lightfoot's edition of the epistles
of Clement of Rome, p. 164.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIII.--Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, and the Epistles which he
wrote. [1245]

1. And first we must speak of Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of
the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors
not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and
rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he
wrote to the churches.

2. Among these is the one addressed to the Lacedaemonians, [1246]
containing instruction in the orthodox faith and an admonition to peace
and unity; the one also addressed to the Athenians, exciting them to
faith and to the life prescribed by the Gospel, which he accuses them
of esteeming lightly, as if they had almost apostatized from the faith
since the martyrdom of their ruler Publius, [1247] which had taken
place during the persecutions of those days.

3. He mentions Quadratus [1248] also, stating that he was appointed
their bishop after the martyrdom of Publius, and testifying that
through his zeal they were brought together again and their faith
revived. He records, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite, [1249]
who was converted to the faith by the apostle Paul, according to the
statement in the Acts of the Apostles, [1250] first obtained the
episcopate of the church at Athens.

4. And there is extant another epistle of his addressed to the
Nicomedians, [1251] in which he attacks the heresy of Marcion, and
stands fast by the canon of the truth.

5. Writing also to the church that is in Gortyna, [1252] together with
the other parishes in Crete, he commends their bishop Philip, [1253]
because of the many acts of fortitude which are testified to as
performed by the church under him, and he warns them to be on their
guard against the aberrations of the heretics.

6. And writing to the church that is in Amastris, [1254] together with
those in Pontus, he refers to Bacchylides [1255] and Elpistus, as
having urged him to write, and he adds explanations of passages of the
divine Scriptures, and mentions their bishop Palmas [1256] by name. He
gives them much advice also in regard to marriage and chastity, and
commands them to receive those who come back again after any fall,
whether it be delinquency or heresy. [1257]

7. Among these is inserted also another epistle addressed to the
Cnosians, [1258] in which he exhorts Pinytus, bishop of the parish, not
to lay upon the brethren a grievous and compulsory burden in regard to
chastity, but to have regard to the weakness of the multitude.

8. Pinytus, replying to this epistle, admires and commends Dionysius,
but exhorts him in turn to impart some time more solid food, and to
feed the people under him, when he wrote again, with more advanced
teaching, that they might not be fed continually on these milky
doctrines and imperceptibly grow old under a training calculated for
children. In this epistle also Pinytus' orthodoxy in the faith and his
care for the welfare of those placed under him, his learning and his
comprehension of divine things, are revealed as in a most perfect
image.

9. There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the
Romans, and addressed to Soter, [1259] who was bishop at that time. We
cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle, in
which he commends the practice of the Romans which has been retained
down to the persecution in our own days. His words are as follows:

10. "For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all
the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many
churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and
making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you
have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs
of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained,
but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints,
and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a
loving father his children."

11. In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to
the Corinthians, [1260] showing that it had been the custom from the
beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: "To-day
we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle.
From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice,
as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through
Clement."

12. The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles,
alleging that they had been mutilated: "As the brethren desired me to
write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil
have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others.
[1261] For them a woe is reserved. [1262] It is, therefore, not to be
wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings
also, [1263] since they have formed designs even against writings which
are of less account." [1264]

There is extant, in addition to these, another epistle of Dionysius,
written to Chrysophora, [1265] a most faithful sister. In it he writes
what is suitable, and imparts to her also the proper spiritual food. So
much concerning Dionysius.
__________________________________________________________________

[1245] 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).

[1246] 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 Acts of the Sixth and Eighth General
Synods, according to Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church
(London ed. p. 134 and 466).

[1247] 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.

[1248] 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.

[1249] On Dionysius the Areopagite, see Bk. III. chap. 4, note 20.

[1250] See Acts xvii. 34.

[1251] 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.

[1252] 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.

[1253] Of this Philip, bishop of Gortyna, and a contemporary of
Dionysius, we know only what Eusebius tells us here and in chap. 25.

[1254] Amastris was a city of Pontus, which is here mentioned for the
first time as the seat of a Christian church. Its bishop is referred to
frequently in the Acts of Councils during the next few centuries (see
also note 12, below).

[1255] This Bacchylides is perhaps identical with the Bacchylus who was
afterward bishop of Corinth (Bk. V. chap. 22). Elpistus is an otherwise
unknown personage.

[1256] 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.

[1257] It is quite likely, as Salmon suggests (in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog.), that Dionysius, who wrote against Marcion in this epistle to
the Nicomedians, also had Marcionism in view in writing on life and
discipline to the churches of Pontus and Crete. It was probably in
consequence of reaction against their strict discipline that he
advocated the readmission to the Church of excommunicated offenders, in
this anticipating the later practice of the Roman church, which was
introduced by Callixtus and soon afterward became general, though not
without bitter opposition from many quarters. Harnack
(Dogmengeschichte, p. 332, note 4) throws doubt upon the correctness of
this report of Eusebius; but such doubt is unwarranted, for Eusebius
had Dionysius' epistle before him, and the position which he represents
him as taking is quite in accord with the mildness which he recommends
to Pinytus, and is therefore just what we should expect. The fact that
Callixtus' principle is looked upon by Tertullian and Hippolytus as an
innovation does not militate at all against the possibility that
Dionysius in Corinth, or other individuals in other minor churches,
held the same principles some time before.

[1258] Cnossus, or Cnosus, was the capital city of Crete. This epistle
is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about Pinytus himself
except what is told us here and in chap. 21, above, where he is
mentioned among the ecclesiastical writers of the day. Jerome (de vir.
ill. 28) only repeats what Eusebius says, and Rufinus, in stating that
Pinytus was convinced by the epistle of Dionysius and changed his
course, seems simply to have misunderstood what Eusebius says about his
admiration for and praise of Dionysius. It is evident from the tone of
his reply that Pinytus was not led by Dionysius' epistle to agree with
him.

[1259] 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.

[1260] On Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, see Bk. III. chap. 16.

[1261] See above, note 1.

[1262] Compare Rev. xxii. 18.

[1263] 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.

[1264] ou toiautais

[1265] Chrysophora is an otherwise unknown person.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIV.--Theophilus Bishop of Antioch.

1. Of Theophilus, [1266] whom we have mentioned as bishop of the church
of Antioch, [1267] three elementary works addressed to Autolycus are
extant; also another writing entitled Against the Heresy of Hermogenes,
[1268] in which he makes use of testimonies from the Apocalypse of
John, and finally certain other catechetical books. [1269]

2. And as the heretics, no less then than at other times, were like
tares, destroying the pure harvest of apostolic teaching, the pastors
of the churches everywhere hastened to restrain them as wild beasts
from the fold of Christ, at one time by admonitions and exhortations to
the brethren, at another time by contending more openly against them in
oral discussions and refutations, and again by correcting their
opinions with most accurate proofs in written works.

3. And that Theophilus also, with the others, contended against them,
is manifest from a certain discourse of no common merit written by him
against Marcion. [1270] This work too, with the others of which we have
spoken, has been preserved to the present day.

Maximinus, [1271] the seventh from the apostles, succeeded him as
bishop of the church of Antioch.
__________________________________________________________________

[1266] Eusebius is the only Eastern writer of the early centuries to
mention Theophilus and his writings. Among the Latin Fathers,
Lactantius and Gennadius refer to his work, ad Autolycum; and Jerome
devotes chap. 25 of his de vir. ill. to him. Beyond this there is no
direct mention of Theophilus, or of his works, during the early
centuries (except that of Malalas, which will be referred to below).
Eusebius here calls Theophilus bishop of Antioch, and in chap. 20 makes
him the sixth bishop, as does also Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 25.
But in his epistle, ad Algas. (Migne, Ep. 121), Jerome calls him the
seventh bishop of Antioch, beginning his reckoning with the apostle
Peter. Eusebius, in his Chron., puts the accession of Theophilus into
the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius (169); and this may be at least
approximately correct. The accession of his successor Maximus is put
into the seventeenth year (177); but this date is at least four years
too early, for his work, ad Autolycum, quotes from a work in which the
death of Marcus Aurelius (who died in 180) was mentioned, and hence
cannot have been written before 181 or 182. We know that his successor,
Maximus, became bishop sometime between 189 and 192, and hence
Theophilus died between 181 and that time. We have only Eusebius' words
(Jerome simply repeats Eusebius' statement) for the fact that
Theophilus was bishop of Antioch (his extant works do not mention the
fact, nor do those who quote from his writings), but there is no good
ground for doubting the truth of the report. We know nothing more about
his life. In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter, Jerome
(de vir. ill.) refers to Commentaries upon the Gospel and the book of
Proverbs, in the following words: Legi sub nomine ejus in Evangelium et
in Proverbia Salomonis Commentarios qui mihi cum superiorum voluminum
elegantia et phrasi non videntur congruere. The commentary upon the
Gospel is referred to by Jerome again in the preface to his own
commentary on Matthew; and in his epistle, ad Algasiam, he speaks of a
harmony of the four Gospels, by Theophilus (qui quatuor Evangelistarum
in unum opus dicta compingens), which may have been identical with the
commentary, or may have formed a basis for it. This commentary is
mentioned by none of the Fathers before or after Jerome; and Jerome
himself expresses doubts as to its genuineness, or at least he does not
think that its style compares with that of the other works ascribed to
Theophilus. Whether the commentary was genuine or not we have no means
of deciding, for it is no longer extant. There is in existence a Latin
commentary on the Gospels in four books, which bears the name of
Theophilus, and is published in Otto's Corpus Apol. Vol. VIII. p.
278-324. This was universally regarded as a spurious work until Zahn,
in 1883 (in his Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Canons, Theil II.)
made an elaborate effort to prove it a genuine work of Theophilus of
Antioch. Harnack, however, in his Texte und Unters. I. 4, p. 97-175,
has shown conclusively that Zahn is mistaken, and that the extant
commentary is nothing better than a Post-Nicene compilation from the
works of various Latin Fathers. Zahn, in his reply to Harnack
(Forschungen, Theil III. Beilage 3), still maintains that the
Commentary is a genuine work of Theophilus, with large interpolations,
but there is no adequate ground for such a theory; and it has found
few, if any, supporters. We must conclude, then, that if Theophilus did
write such a commentary, it is no longer extant. The three books
addressed to Autolycus (a heathen friend otherwise unknown to us) are
still extant in three 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 the other hand, that he refers to
some other unknown Theophilus (see Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. 1, p.
291).

[1267] In chap. 20, above.

[1268] 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.

[1269] These catechetical works (tina katechetika 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 pertinentes as
extant in his time. We know nothing more of their nature than is thus
told us by Jerome.

[1270] 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 Irenaeus used the ad Autol., and
concludes that he was acquainted rather with Theophilus' work against
Marcion, a conclusion which accords best with the facts known to us.

[1271] Here, and in Bk. V. chap. 19, S:1, Eusebius gives this bishop's
name as Maximinus. In the Chron. we find MEURximos, and in Jerome's
version Maximus, though one ms. of the latter gives Maximinus.
According to the Chron. he became bishop in 177, and was succeeded by
Serapion in 190. As remarked in note 1, above, the former date is
incorrect, for Theophilus must have lived at least as late as 181 or
182. We cannot reach certainty in regard to the date either of his
accession or of his death; but if Eusebius' statement (in Bk. V. chap.
19), that Serapion was bishop while Commodus was still emperor, is to
be believed (see further, Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1), Maximinus must have
died at least as early as 192, which gives us for his episcopate some
part of the period from 181 to 192. We know no particulars in regard to
the life of Maximinus.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXV.--Philip and Modestus.

Philip who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius, [1272] was bishop
of the parish of Gortyna, likewise wrote a most elaborate work against
Marcion, [1273] as did also Irenaeus [1274] and Modestus. [1275] The
last named has exposed the error of the man more clearly than the rest
to the view of all. There are a number of others also whose works are
still presented by a great many of the brethren.
__________________________________________________________________

[1272] See above, chap. 23, S:5.

[1273] 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' spoudaiotaton

[1274] On Irenaeus, see above, chap. 21, note 9.

[1275] 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
pseudographa repudiantur). Neither these nor the genuine works are now
extant, so far as we know.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVI.--Melito and the Circumstances which he records.

1. In those days also Melito, [1276] bishop of the parish in Sardis,
and Apolinarius, [1277] bishop of Hierapolis, enjoyed great
distinction. Each of them on his own part addressed apologies in behalf
of the faith to the above-mentioned emperor [1278] of the Romans who
was reigning at that time.

2. The following works of these writers have come to our knowledge. Of
Melito, [1279] the two books On the Passover, [1280] and one On the
Conduct of Life and the Prophets, [1281] the discourse On the Church,
[1282] and one On the Lord's Day, [1283] still further one On the Faith
of Man, [1284] and one On his Creation, [1285] another also On the
Obedience of Faith, and one On the Senses; [1286] besides these the
work On the Soul and Body, [1287] and that On Baptism, [1288] and the
one On Truth, [1289] and On the Creation and Generation of Christ;
[1290] his discourse also On Prophecy, [1291] and that On Hospitality;
[1292] still further, The Key, [1293] and the books On the Devil and
the Apocalypse of John, [1294] and the work On the Corporeality of God,
[1295] and finally the book addressed to Antoninus. [1296]

3. In the books On the Passover he indicates the time at which he
wrote, beginning with these words: "While Servilius Paulus was
proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there
arose in Laodicea a great strife concerning the Passover, which fell
according to rule in those days; and these were written." [1297]

4. And Clement of Alexandria refers to this work in his own discourse
On the Passover, [1298] which, he says, he wrote on occasion of
Melito's work.

5. But in his book addressed to the emperor he records that the
following events happened to us under him: "For, what never before
happened, [1299] the race of the pious is now suffering persecution,
being driven about in Asia by new decrees. For the shameless informers
and coveters of the property of others, taking occasion from the
decrees, openly carry on robbery night and day, despoiling those who
are guilty of no wrong." And a little further on he says: "If these
things are done by thy command, well and good. For a just ruler will
never take unjust measures; and we indeed gladly accept the honor of
such a death.

6. But this request alone we present to thee, that thou wouldst thyself
first examine the authors of such strife, and justly judge whether they
be worthy of death and punishment, or of safety and quiet. But if, on
the other hand, this counsel and this new decree, which is not fit to
be executed even against barbarian enemies, be not from thee, much more
do we beseech thee not to leave us exposed to such lawless plundering
by the populace."

7. Again he adds the following: [1300] "For our philosophy formerly
flourished among the Barbarians; but having sprung up among the nations
under thy rule, during the great reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it
became to thine empire especially a blessing of auspicious omen. For
from that time the power of the Romans has grown in greatness and
splendor. To this power thou hast succeeded, as the desired possessor,
[1301] and such shalt thou continue with thy son, if thou guardest the
philosophy which grew up with the empire and which came into existence
with Augustus; that philosophy which thy ancestors also honored along
with the other religions.

8. And a most convincing proof that our doctrine flourished for the
good of an empire happily begun, is this--that there has no evil
happened since Augustus' reign, but that, on the contrary, all things
have been splendid and glorious, in accordance with the prayers of all.

9. Nero and Domitian, alone, persuaded by certain calumniators, have
wished to slander our doctrine, and from them it has come to pass that
the falsehood [1302] has been handed down, in consequence of an
unreasonable practice which prevails of bringing slanderous accusations
against the Christians. [1303]

10. But thy pious fathers corrected their ignorance, having frequently
rebuked in writing [1304] many who dared to attempt new measures
against them. Among them thy grandfather Adrian appears to have written
to many others, and also to Fundanus, [1305] the proconsul and governor
of Asia. And thy father, when thou also wast ruling with him, wrote to
the cities, forbidding them to take any new measures against us; among
the rest to the Larissaeans, to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians,
and to all the Greeks. [1306]

11. And as for thee,--since thy opinions respecting the Christians
[1307] are the same as theirs, and indeed much more benevolent and
philosophic,--we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we
ask of thee." These words are found in the above-mentioned work.

12. But in the Extracts [1308] made by him the same writer gives at the
beginning of the introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged books of
the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He
writes as follows:

13. "Melito to his brother Onesimus, [1309] greeting: Since thou hast
often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made
from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our
entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of
the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have
endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy
desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that
thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else,
struggling to attain eternal salvation.

14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these
things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the
Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are
as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,
[1310] Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of
Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, [1311] the Proverbs of Solomon,
Wisdom also, [1312] Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets,
Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book [1313] ; Daniel,
Ezekiel, Esdras. [1314] From which also I have made the extracts,
dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.
__________________________________________________________________

[1276] The first extant notice of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is found in
the letter addressed by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 190-202
a.d.) in support of the Quartodeciman practice of the Asia Minor
churches. A fragment of this letter is given by Eusebius in Bk. V.
chap. 24, and from it we learn that Melito also favored the
Quartodeciman practice, that he was a man whose walk and conversation
were altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that he was
buried at Sardis. Polycrates in this fragment calls Melito a eunuch.
Whether the word is to be understood in its literal sense or is to be
taken as meaning simply that Melito lived in "virgin continence" is
disputed. In favor of the latter interpretation may be urged the fact
that the Greek word and its Latin equivalent were very commonly used by
the Fathers in this figurative sense, e.g. by Athenagoras, by
Tertullian, by Clement of Alexandria, by Cassianus (whose work on
continence bore the title peri enkrateias, e peri eunouchias), 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 (S:4), and from Bk. VI. chap. 13, that Clement of Alexandria,
in a lost work, mentioned his writings and even wrote a work in reply
to one of his (see below, note 23). According to the present chapter he
was a very prolific writer, and that he was a man of marked talent is
clear from Jerome's words in his de vir. ill. chap. 24 (where he refers
to Tertullian's lost work, de Ecstasi): Hujus [i.e. Melitonis] elegans
et declamatorium ingenium Tertullianus in septem libris, quos scripsit
adversus ecclesiam pro Montano, cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque
nostrorum prophetam putari. In spite of the fact that Tertullian
satirized Melito's talent, he nevertheless was greatly influenced by
his writings and owed much to them (see the points of contact between
the two men given by Harnack, p. 250 sqq.). The statement that he was
regarded by many as a prophet accords well with Polycrates' description
of him referred to above. The indications all point to the fact that
Melito was decidedly ascetic in his tendencies, and that he had a great
deal in common with the spirit which gave rise to Montanism and even
made Tertullian a Montanist, and yet at the same time he opposed
Montanism, and is therefore spoken of slightingly by Tertullian. His
position, so similar to that of the Montanists, was not in favor with
the orthodox theologians of the third century, and this helps to
explain why, although he was such a prolific and talented writer, and
although he remained orthodox, he nevertheless passed almost entirely
out of the memory of the Church of the third and following centuries.
To this is to be added the fact that Melito was a chiliast; and the
teachings of the Montanists brought such disrepute upon chiliasm that
the Fathers of the third and following centuries did not show much
fondness for those who held or had held these views. Very few notices
of Melito's works are found among the Fathers, and none of those works
is to-day extant. Eusebius is the first to give us an idea of the
number and variety of his writings, and he does little more than
mention the titles, a fact to be explained only by his lack of sympathy
with Melito's views. The time at which Melito lived is indicated with
sufficient exactness by the fact that he wrote his Apology during the
reign of Marcus Aurelius, but after the death of his brother Lucius,
i.e. after 169 (see below, note 21); and that when Polycrates wrote his
epistle to Victor of Rome, he had been dead already some years. It is
possible (as held by Piper, Otto, and others) that his Apology was his
last work, for Eusebius mentions it last in his list. At the same time,
it is quite as possible that Eusebius enumerates Melito's works simply
in the order in which he found them arranged in the library of
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 eis to pEURthos and peri sarkoseos christou
(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
psuches kai somatos, 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 pisteos, 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 pisteos, which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Irenaeus, 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 pEURthous, 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. 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.

[1277] On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.

[1278] Marcus Aurelius.

[1279] 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.

[1280] The quotation from this work given by Eusebius in S:7, perhaps
enables us to fix approximately the date at which it was written.
Rufinus reads Sergius Paulus, instead of Servilius Paulus, which is
found in all the Greek mss. Sergius Paulus is known to have had his
second consulship in 168, and it is inferred by Waddington that he was
proconsul about 164 to 166 (see Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, chap.
2, S: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.

[1281] The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a
number of mss. to peri politeias kai propheton, 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 politeias kai peri propheton.
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 ton propheton instead of kai propheton. But this is
supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted. No fragments of
this work are extant.

[1282] ho peri ekklesias. Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.

[1283] ho peri kuriakes logos. Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.

[1284] Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the
majority of the mss., read peri phuseos anthropou, On the Nature of
Man. Four important mss., however, read peri pisteos anthropou, 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 pisteos
anthropou. The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this
point. In the present passage pisteos is better supported by tradition
than phuseos, and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and
hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.

[1285] ho peri plEURseos. Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.

[1286] All the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading ho
peri hupakoes pisteos aistheterion: "On the subjection (or obedience)
of the senses to faith." This reading is adopted by Valesius,
Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads ho peri hupakoes
pisteos, kai ho peri aistheterion, and Rufinus translates, de
obedientia fidei, de sensibus, both of them making two works, as I have
done in the text. Jerome leaves the first part untranslated, and reads
only de sensibus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words ho peri
hupakoes (or akoes) pisteos, omitting the second clause.
Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently
read ho peri hupakoes pisteos, ho peri aistheterion, concluding that
the words ho peri after pisteos have fallen out of the Greek text. I
have adopted this reading in my translation.

[1287] A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from
the fact that most of the Greek mss. read ho peri psuches kai somatos e
noos, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the e noos entirely.
Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read en en hois, which
is evidently simply a corruption of e noos, so that the Greek mss. are
unanimous for this reading. Otto, Cruse, and Salmon read kai noos, but
there is no authority for kai instead of e, and the change cannot be
admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of e
to kai will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to
me certain that the words e noos did not stand in the original, but
that the word noos, (either alone or preceded by e or kai) was written
upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to psuches,
perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later
inserted in the text after psuches and somatos, 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 noos, the
impossibility of explaining the e before noos in the original text, the
fact that in the Greek mss., in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words
kai peri psuches kai somatos are repeated further down in the list,--a
repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius
himself, and which in omitting noos 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 noos, follows
instead of precedes the somatos, and thus breaks the logical order,
which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.

[1288] ho peri loutrou; Jerome, de baptismate.

[1289] Apolinarius (according to chap. 27) also wrote a work On Truth,
and the place which it holds in that list, between an apologetical work
addressed to the Greeks and one addressed to the Jews, makes it
probable that it too bore an apologetic character, being perhaps
devoted to showing that Christianity is pre-eminently the truth.
Melito's work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character,
as suggested by Salmon.

[1290] Six mss., with Nicephorus, read ktiseos, "creation," but five
mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read pisteos.
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 ktisis 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 pisteos instead of
ktiseos, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.

[1291] All the Greek mss. read kai logos autou peri propheteias, 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 tes propheteias
autou. All three therefore connect the autou with the propheteias
instead of with the logos, which of course is much more natural, since
the autou with the logos seems quite unnecessary at this point. The
translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require
peri propheteias autou or peri tes autou propheteias, and there is no
sign that the autou originally stood in such connection with the
propheteias. We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three
versions as incorrect.

[1292] peri philoxenias. After this title a few of the mss., with
Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words kai peri psuches kai somatos, a
repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).

[1293] he kleis; Jerome, et alium librum qui Clavis inscribitur. The
word is omitted in the Syriac version. The nature of this work we have
no means of determining. It is possible that it was a key to the
interpretation of the Scriptures, designed to guide the reader in the
study especially of the figures of the prophecies (cf. Otto, p. 401)
and of the Apocalypse. Piper is right, however, in saying that it
cannot have been intended to supply the allegorical meaning of
Scripture words, like the extant Latin Clavis of Pseudo-Melito,
mentioned just below; for Melito, who like Tertullian taught the
corporeality of God, must have been very literal--not allegorical--in
his interpretation of Scripture. A Latin work bearing the title
Melitonis Clavis 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 kleis 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 mediaeval dictionary of allegorical interpolations of
Scripture, compiled from the Latin Fathers. There is, therefore, no
trace extant of Melito's Key.

[1294] All the Greek mss. read kai ta peri tou diabolou, kai tes
apokalupseos 'IoEURnnou, 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).

[1295] ho peri ensomEURtou theou. Jerome does not translate this
phrase, but simply gives the Greek. Rufinus renders de deo corpore
induto, thus understanding it to refer to the incarnation of God, and
the Syriac agrees with this rendering. But as Harnack rightly remarks,
we should expect, if this were the author's meaning, the words peri
ensomatoseos theou, 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 ensomaton einai ton theon. 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.

[1296] epi pasi kai to pros 'Antoninon biblidion biblidion (libellus)
was the technical name for a petition addressed to the emperor, and
does not imply that the work was a brief one, as Piper supposes. The
Apology is mentioned also in chap. 13, above, and at the beginning of
this chapter. Jerome puts it first in his list, with the words: Melito
Asianus, Sardensis episcopus, librum imperatori M. Antonini Vero, qui
Frontonis oratoris discipulus fuit, pro christiano dogmate dedit. This
Apology is no longer extant, and we have only the fragments which
Eusebius gives in this chapter. As remarked in note 1, above, the
extant Syriac Apology is not a work of Melito's. The Apology is
mentioned in Jerome's version of the Chron., and is assigned to the
tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, 120 a.d. The notice is omitted in the
Armenian, which, however, assigns to the eleventh year of Marcus
Aurelius the Apology of Apolinarius, which is connected with that of
Melito in the Ch. Hist. Moreover, a notice of the Apology is given by
Syncellus in connection with the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, and
also by the Chron. Pasch.; so that it is not improbable that Eusebius
himself mentioned it in his Chron., and that its omission in the
Armenian is a mistake (as Harnack thinks likely). But though the notice
may thus have been made by Eusebius himself, we are nevertheless not at
liberty to accept the date given as conclusive. We learn from the
quotations given by Eusebius that the work was addressed to the emperor
after the death of Lucius Verus, i.e. after the year 169. Whether
before or after the association of Commodus with his father in the
imperial power, which took place in 176, is uncertain; but I am
inclined to think that the words quoted in S:7, below, point to a
prospective rather than to a present association of Commodus in the
empire, and that therefore the work was written between 169 and 176. It
must be admitted, however, that we can say with certainty only that the
work was written between 169 and 180. Some would put the work at the
beginning of those persecutions which raged in 177, and there is much
to be said for this. But the dates of the local and minor persecutions,
which were so frequent during this period, are so uncertain that little
can be based upon the fact that we know of persecutions in certain
parts of the empire in 177. Piper, Otto, and others conclude from the
fact that the Apology is mentioned last by Eusebius that it was
Melito's latest work; but that, though not at all unlikely, does not
necessarily follow (see above, note 1).

[1297] 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 empesontos 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 ekeinais tais hemerais superfluous, as he
thinks. The clause kai egrEURphe tauta ("and these were written")
expresses result,--it was in consequence of the passover strife that
Melito wrote this work.

[1298] 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).

[1299] This statement of Melito's is a very remarkable one. See chap.
8, note 14.

[1300] The resemblance between this extract from Melito's Apology and
the fifth chapter of Tertullian's Apology is close enough to be
striking, and too close to be accidental. Tertullian's chapter is quite
different from this, so far as its arrangement and language are
concerned, but the same thought underlies both: That the emperors in
general have protected Christianity; only Nero and Domitian, the most
wicked of them, have persecuted it; and that Christianity has been a
blessing to the reigns of all the better emperors. We cannot doubt that
Tertullian was acquainted with Melito's Apology, as well as with others
of his works.

[1301] euktaios

[1302] 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.

[1303] aph' hon kai to tes sukophantias alogo sunethei& 139; peri tous
toioutous rhuenai sumbebeke pseudos. 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.

[1304] engrEURphos: i.e. in edicts or rescripts.

[1305] This epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon its
genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.

[1306] On these epistles of Antoninus Pius, see chap. 13, note 9. These
ordinances to the Larissaeans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and all the
Greeks, are no longer extant. What their character must have been is
explained in the note just referred to.

[1307] peri touton.

[1308] en de tais grapheisais auto eklogais. Jerome speaks of this work
as 'Eklogon, 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 'Antibole Papiskou kai philonos, New
York, 1889). On the canon which Melito gives, see Bk. III. chap. 10,
note 1.

[1309] This Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person.

[1310] Some mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the
best mss., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite
order.

[1311] psalmon Dabid. Literally, "of the Psalms of David" [one book].

[1312] he kai Sophia: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200).

[1313] Literally, "in one book" (ton dodeka en monobiblo).

[1314] ,'Esdras: the Greek form of the Hebrew name E+Z+R+o#, Ezra.
Melito refers here to the canonical Book of Ezra, which, among the
Jews, commonly included our Ezra and Nehemiah (see Bk. III. chap. 10,
note 1).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVII.--Apolinarius, Bishop of the Church of Hierapolis.

A number of works of Apolinarius [1315] have been preserved by many,
and the following have reached us: the Discourse addressed to the
above-mentioned emperor, [1316] five books Against the Greeks, [1317]
On Truth, a first and second book, [1318] and those which he
subsequently wrote against the heresy of the Phrygians, [1319] which
not long afterwards came out with its innovations, [1320] but at that
time was, as it were, in its incipiency, since Montanus, with his false
prophetesses, was then laying the foundations of his error.
__________________________________________________________________

[1315] 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"; makariotatos), 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 (zmpsuchon ton
enanthropesanta). 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 Apolinarius (see
note 6 on Bk. V. chap. 16). It is impossible to determine the exact
date of Apolinarius' episcopate, or of his death. As we see from
Serapion's notice of him, he must have been dead at least before 202.
And if Abircius Marcellus was bishop after him, and also bishop in the
second century, Apolinarius must have died some years before the year
200, and thus about the same time as Melito. The fact that he is
mentioned so commonly in connection with Melito, sometimes before and
sometimes after him, confirms this conclusion. The Chron. mentions him
as flourishing in the tenth (Syncellus and Jerome), or the eleventh
(Armenian) year of Marcus Aurelius. His Apology was addressed, as we
learn from Eusebius, to Marcus Aurelius; and the fact that only the one
emperor is mentioned may perhaps be taken (as some have taken it) as a
sign that it was written while Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor (i.e.
between 169 and 176). In Bk. V. chap. 5, Eusebius speaks of the story
of the thundering legion as recorded by Apolinarius, and it has been
thought (e.g. by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) that this
circumstance was recorded in the Apology, which cannot then have been
written before the year 174. Harnack, however, remarks that this
venturesome report can hardly have stood in a work addressed to the
emperor himself. But that seems to assume that the story was not fully
believed by Apolinarius, which can hardly have been the case. The truth
is, the matter cannot be decided; and no more exact date can be given
for the Apology. Eusebius, in the present chapter, informs us that he
has seen four works by Apolinarius, but says that there were many
others extant in his day. In addition to the ones mentioned by
Eusebius, we know of a work of his, On the Passover (peri tou
pEURscha), 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: pros ;'Ellenas, peri eusebeias, and peri
aletheias. 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 eusebeias 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
Apolinarius in his Anti-Montanistic work, had mentioned the Severians
with disapproval. Five mss. of Eusebius, and the Church Hist. of
Nicephorus, mention just after the work On Truth, a work Against the
Jews, in two books (kai pros 'Ioudaious proton kai deuteron). The words
are found in many of our editions, but are omitted by the majority of
the best Greek mss., and also by Rufinus and Jerome, and therefore must
be regarded as an interpolation; and so they are viewed by Heinichen,
Laemmer, Otto, Harnack, and others. Harnack suggests that they were
inserted under the influence of Bk. V. chap. 17, S: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.

[1316] 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, S:1, Eusebius speaks
of it as logos huper tes pisteos. This has given rise to the idea that
the peri eusebeias 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.

[1317] 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).

[1318] 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.

[1319] 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, S: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 ha
meta tauta sunegrapse. Serapion (in Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 19) calls
them grEURmmata, which Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 41) translates
litteras. These grEURmmata are taken as "letters" by Valesius, Stroth,
Danz, and Salmon; but Otto contends that the word grEURmmata, 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.

[1320] kainotometheises
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVIII.--Musanus and His Writings.

And as for Musanus, [1321] whom we have mentioned among the foregoing
writers, a certain very elegant discourse is extant, which was written
by him against some brethren that had gone over to the heresy of the
so-called Encratites, [1322] which had recently sprung up, and which
introduced a strange and pernicious error. It is said that Tatian was
the author of this false doctrine.
__________________________________________________________________

[1321] 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 Mousianos
ekklesiastikos sungrapheus egnorizeto. 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.

[1322] On Tatian and the Encratites, see the next chapter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIX.--The Heresy of Tatian. [1323]

1. He is the one whose words we quoted a little above [1324] in regard
to that admirable man, Justin, and whom we stated to have been a
disciple of the martyr. Irenaeus declares this in the first book of his
work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows concerning both him
and his heresy: [1325]

2. "Those who are called Encratites, [1326] and who sprung from
Saturninus [1327] and Marcion, preached celibacy, setting aside the
original arrangement of God and tacitly censuring him who made male and
female for the propagation of the human race. They introduced also
abstinence from the things called by them animate, [1328] thus showing
ingratitude to the God who made all things. And they deny the salvation
of the first man. [1329]

3. But this has been only recently discovered by them, a certain Tatian
being the first to introduce this blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin,
and expressed no such opinion while he was with him, but after the
martyrdom of the latter he left the Church, and becoming exalted with
the thought of being a teacher, and puffed up with the idea that he was
superior to others, he established a peculiar type of doctrine of his
own, inventing certain invisible aeons like the followers of
Valentinus, [1330] while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he pronounced
marriage to be corruption and fornication. His argument against the
salvation of Adam, however, he devised for himself." Irenaeus at that
time wrote thus.

4. But a little later a certain man named Severus [1331] put new
strength into the aforesaid heresy, and thus brought it about that
those who took their origin from it were called, after him, Severians.

5. They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in
their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse
Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not accept even the
Acts of the Apostles.

6. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and
collection of the Gospels, I know not how, [1332] to which he gave the
title Diatessaron, [1333] and which is still in the hands of some. But
they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle,
[1334] in order to improve their style.

7. He has left a great many writings. Of these the one most in use
among many persons is his celebrated Address to the Greeks, [1335]
which also appears to be the best and most useful of all his works. In
it he deals with the most ancient times, and shows that Moses and the
Hebrew prophets were older than all the celebrated men among the
Greeks. [1336] So much in regard to these men.
__________________________________________________________________

[1323] From his Oratio (chap. 42) we learn that Tatian was born in
Assyria, and that he was early educated in Greek philosophy, from which
we may conclude that he was of Greek parentage,--a conclusion confirmed
by the general tone of the Oratio (cf. Harnack, Ueberlieferung der
Griech. Apol. p. 199 sq., who refutes Zahn's opinion that Tatian was a
Syrian by race). We learn from his Oratio also that he was converted to
Christianity in mature life (cf. chap. 29 sq.). From the passage quoted
in the present chapter from 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 consequence it is commonly assumed
that he cannot have been born much later than 110 a.d. Eusebius in his
Chron. (XII. year of Marcus Aurelius, 172 a.d.) says, Tatianus
haereticus 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 Titian, his life has been constructed
in various ways by historians, but Harnack seems to have come nearest
to the truth in his account of him on p. 212 sq. He holds that he was
converted about 150, but soon afterward left for the Orient, and while
there wrote his Oratio ad 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 Titian left "a
great many writings," but he mentions the titles of only two, the
Address to the Greeks and the Diatessaron (see below, notes 11 and 13).
He seems, however, in S:6, to refer to another work on the Pauline
Epistles,--a work of which we have no trace anywhere else, though we
learn from Jerome's preface to his Commentary on Titus that Tatian
rejected some of Paul's epistles, as Marcion did, but unlike Marcion
accepted the epistle to Titus. We know the titles of some other works
written by Tatian. He himself, in his Oratio 15, mentions a work which
he had written On Animals. The work is no longer extant, nor do we know
anything about it. Rhodo (as we are told by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap.
13) mentioned a book of Problems which Titian had written. Of this,
too, all traces have perished. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 12)
mentions an heretical work of Tatian's, entitled peri tou kata ton
sotera 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 said concerning our
polity and the history of our laws and how many and what kind of men
have written of these things." Whether he ever wrote the work or not we
do not know; we find no other notice of it. Upon Tatian, see especially
Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron and Harnack's Ueberlieferung, &c., p. 196;
also Donaldson's Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doct. II. p. 3 sqq., and J.
M. Fuller's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[1324] In chap. 16.

[1325] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 28. 1.

[1326] 'Enkrateis, 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 enkratitai; by Clement of
Alexandria (Paed. II. 2, Strom. I. 15, &c.), who calls them enkratetai;
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.

[1327] On Saturninus and on Marcion, see chap. 7, note 6, and 11, note
15. On their asceticism, see especially Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 24.

[1328] ton legomenon empsuchon: i.e. animal food in general.

[1329] 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 Titian a
very repugnant thought. He seems, moreover, to have based his opinion,
as Donaldson remarks, upon exegetical grounds interpreting the passage
in regard to Adam (1 Cor. xv. 22) as meaning that Adam is and remains
the principle of death, and as such, of course, cannot himself enjoy
life (see Irenaeus, ibid.). This is quite in accord with the
distinction between the psychical and physical man which he draws in
his Oratio. It is quite possible that he was moved in part also by the
same motive which led Marcion to deny the salvation of Abraham and the
other patriarchs (see 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.

[1330] 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 in his speculations.

[1331] 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 Severian Encratites,--a sign that
the Severians and the Encratites were in some way connected in
tradition even though Theodoret's statement may be unreliable). But
that they were connected with Tatian and the Encratitic sect to which
he belonged, as Eusebius states, is quite out of the question. Tatian
was a decided Paulinist (almost as much so as Marcion himself). He
cannot, therefore, have had anything to do with this Ebionitic,
anti-Pauline sect, known as the Severians. Whether there was ever such
a person as Severus, or whether the name arose later to explain the
name of the sect (possibly taken from the Latin severus, "severe," as
Salmon suggests), as the name Ebion was invented to explain the term
Ebionites, we do not know. We are ignorant also of the source from
which Eusebius took his description of the Severians, as we do not find
them mentioned in any of the earlier anti-heretical works. Eusebius
must have heard, as Epiphanius did, that they were extreme ascetics,
and this must have led him, in the absence of specific information as
to their exact position, to join them with Tatian and the
Encratites,--a connection which can be justified on no other ground.

[1332] ouk oid' hopos. 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.

[1333] to dia tessEURron. 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 I. p. 90 sq.). Meanwhile we learn from the preface to Dionysius
bar Salibi's Commentary on Mark (see Assemani, Bibl. Or. I. 57), that
Ephraem wrote a commentary upon the Diatessaron of Tatian (Tatianus
Justini Philosophi ac Martyris Discipulus, ex quator Evangeliis unum
digessit, quod Diatessaron nuncupavit. Hunc librum Sanctus Ephraem
commentariis illustravit). Ephraem's commentary still exists in an
Armenian version (published at Venice in 1836, and in Latin in 1876 by
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 Tatian in Greek, and that the Syriac which Ephraem used
was a translation of that original, not the original itself. Both Zahn
and Harnack agree, as do most other scholars, that the work was written
before Tatian became a heretic, and with no heretical intent. Inasmuch
as he later became a heretic, however, his work was lo