Chapter Xviii

Chapter Xviii

Writs]

APOLLONIUS ON MONTANISM.

small towns in Phrygia, Jerusalem, wishing to gather people to them from all directions ; who appointed collectors of money ;' who contrived the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings ; who provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching might prevail through gluttony." ®

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Manner in which Apollonius refuted the Phrygians, and the Persons' whom he mentions. a As the so-called Phrygian heresy ? was still flourishing in Phrygia in his time, Apollonius * also, an ecclesiastical writer, undertook its refutation, and wrote a special work against it, correcting in detail the false prophecies current among them and reproving the life of the founders of the heresy.

But hear his own words respecting Montanus :

"' His actions and his teaching show who this new teacher is.

This is he who taught the dissolution of marriage ;* who made laws for fasting ;* who named Pepuza and Tymion,°

He writes thus concerning Montanus;

and a little farther on he writes as follows concerning his prophetesses:

'' We show that these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their husbands.

How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca a virgin." ® Afterwards he says: " Does not allScrip-

ture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money?"

When therefore I see the prophetess receiving gold and silver and costly garments, how can I avoid reproving her?"

1 Or events (Tivwv).

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

3 Of this Apollonius we know little more than what Eusebius tells us in this chapter.

The author of Predestinatus (in the fifth century) calls him bishop of Ephesus, but his authority is of no weight.

Jerome devotes chap. 40 of his de wzr. 7/7. to Apollonius, but it is clear that he derives his knowledge almost exclusively from Eusebius.

He adds the notice, however, that Tertullian replied And again a little farther on he speaks

thus concerning one of their confessors :

"So also Themiso," who was clothed with plausible covetousness, could not endure the sign of confession, but threw aside bonds for an abundance of possessions.

Yet, though he should have been humble on this account, he dared to boast as a martyr, and in imitation of the apostle, he wrote a certain catholic " epistle, to Apollonius' work in the seventh book of his own work, de Ecstast

(now lost).

The character of Apollonius' work may be gathered from the fragments preserved by Eusebius in this chapter.

It was of the same nature as the work of the anonymous writer quoted in chap. 16, very bitter in tone and not over-scrupulous in its statements.

Apollonius states (see in § 12, below) that he wrote the work forty years after the rise of Montanism.

If we accepted the Eusebian date for its beginning (172), this would bring us down to -212, but (as remarked above, in chap. 16, note 12) Montanism had robably begun in a quiet way sometime before this, and so Apollead forty years are perhaps to be reckoned from a somewhat earlier date. his mention of "the prophetess"' as still living (in § 6, below) might lead us to think that Maximilla was still alive when he wrote; but when the anonymous wrote she was already dead, and the reasons for assigning the latter to a date as early as neighborhood.

Pepuza was early made, and long continued, the chief center — the Tounteas of the sect, and even gave its name to the sect in many quarters.

Harnack has rightly emphasized the significance of this statement of Apollonius, and has called attention to the fact that Montanus' original idea must have been the gathering of the chosen people from all the world into one region, that they might form one fold, and freed from _all the political and social relations in which they had hitherto lived might await the coming of the Lord, who would speedily descend, and set up his kingdom in this new Jerusalem.

Only after this idea had been proved impracticable did Montanism adapt itself to circumstances and proceed to establish itself in the midst of society as it existed in the outside world.

That Montanus built upon the Gospel of John, and especially upon chaps. x. and xvii., in this original attempt of his, is perfectly plain (cf. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 319 and 323.

With this passage from Apollonius, compare also Epiphanius, Her.

XLVIII. 14 and XLIX. 1, and Jerome £/. ad Marcellam).

192 are too strong to be set aside.

We must therefore suppose Apollonius to be referring to some other prophetess well known in his time.

That there were many such prophetesses in the early art of the third century is clear from the works of Tertullian.

Jerome (zbzd.) states that an account of the death of Montanus and is prophetesses by hanging was contained in Apollonius' work, but it has been justly suspected that he is confusing the work of the anonymous, quoted in chap. 16, above, with the work of Apollonius, quoted in this chapter.

The fragments of Apollonius' work, preserved by Eusebius, are given, with a commentary, in Routh's Fel.

Sac. I. p. 467 sq-, and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VUI. p. 775 sa.

, 4 We are not to gather from this that the Montanists forbade marriage. They were, to be sure, decidedly ascetic in their tendencies, and they did teach the unlawfulness of second marriages,

— which had long been looked upon with disfavor in many quarters, but whose lawfulness the Church had never denied, — and magnified the blessedness of the single state; but beyond this they did not go, so far as we are able to judge.

Our chief sources for the Montanistic view of marriage are Tertullian's works ad Uxorem, de Pudicit., de Monogamia, de Exhort. ad castitat., and Epiphanius' Her.

XLVIII. 9.

5 One great point of dispute between the Montanists and the Catholics was the subject of fasts (cf. Hippolytus, VIII. 12, X. 21, who makes it almost the only ground of complaint against the Montanists).

The Montanist prophetesses ordained two new fasts of a week each in addition to the annual paschal fast of the Church; and the regulations for these two weeks were made very severe,

Still further they extended the duration of the regular weekly (Wednes- -day and Friday) fasts, makin them cover the whole instead of only a part of the day.

The Catholics very strenuously opposed these ordinances, not because they were opposed to fasting (many of them indulged extensively in the practice), but because they objected to the imposition of such extra fasts as binding upon the Church.

They were satisfied with the traditional customs in this matter, and did not care to have heavier burdens imposed upon the Christians in general than their fathers had borne.

Our principal sources fora knowledge of the dispute between the Montanists and Catholics on this subject are Tertullian's de ¥ejunz7s; Epiphanius, Her. XLVIII.8; Jerome,

1 This appointment of economic officers and the formation of a compact organization were a part of the one general plan, referred to in the pirais note, and must have marked the earliest years of the sect, Later, when it was endeavoring to adapt itself to the catholic

Church, and to compromise matters in such a way as still to secure recognition from the Church, this organization must have been looked upon as a matter of less importance, and indeed probably never went far beyond the confines of Phrygia.

That it continued long in that region, however, is clear from Jerome's words in his Epistle to Marcella already referred to.

Compare also chap 16, note 25.

8 There can be little doubt that the Church teachers and other officers were still supported by voluntary contributions, and hence

Apollonius was really scandalized at what he considered making merchandise of spiritual things (cf. the Didache, chaps. XI. and XII.; but even in the Dzdache we find already a sort of stated salary provided for the prophets; cf. chap. XII.).

For him to conclude, however, from the practice instituted by the Montanists in accordance with their other provisions for the formation of a compact organization, that they were avaricious and gluttonous, is quite unjustifiable, just as much so as if our salaried clergy to-day should be accused, as a class, of such sins.

® See chap. 16, note 18.

10 See note 8.

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

12 KaOodArxyv émotoAyv.

Catholic in the sense in which the word is used of the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; that is, general, addressed to no particular church.

The epistle is no longer extant..

Its '' blasphemy '' against the Lord and his apostles lay undoubtedly in its statement of the fundamental doctrine of the Montanists, that the age of revelation had not ceased, but that through the promised Paraclete revelations were still given, which supplemented or superseded those granted the apostles by Christ.

Ep. ad Marcellam (Migne, Ep. XLI. 3), Comment. in Matt. c.

9, vers. 15; and Theodoret, Her. Fad. Ill. 2.

6 Pepuza was an obscure town in the western part of Phrygia; 'Tymion, otherwise unknown, was probably situated in the same

THE CHURCH: HISTORY ' OF )EUSEBIUS.

[V. 18. a a aascmmaee own parish, from which he came, did not receive him, because he was a robber."

'Those who wish to learn about him have the public records" of Asia.

And yet the prophet with whom he spent many years knows nothing about him !*% Exposing him, through him we expose also the pretense * of the prophet. We could show the same thing of many others.

But if they are confident, let them endure the test." to instruct those whose faith was better than his own, contending for words of empty sound, and blaspheming against the Lord and the apostles and the holy Church."

And again concerning others of those honored among them as martyrs, he writes as follows :

10:

"Not to speak of many, let the prophetess herself tell us of Alexander," who called himself a martyr, with whom she is in the habit of banqueting, and who is worshiped** by many.

We need not mention his robberies and other daring Again, in another part of his work he

speaks as follows of the prophets of whom they boast :

"If they deny that their prophets have received gifts, let them acknowledge this: that if they are convicted of receiving them, they are not prophets.

And we will bring a multitude of proofs of this.

But it is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined.

Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair?® Does. a prophet stain his eyelids?

Does a prophet delight in adornment?

Does a prophet play with tables and dice?

Does a prophet lend on usury?

Let them confess whether these things are lawful or not; but I will show that they have been done by them."" deeds for which he was punished, but the

archives contain them.

Which of these forgives the sins of the other?

Does the prophet the robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the covetousness of the prophet?

For although the Lord said, ' Provide neither gold, nor silver, neither two coats,'" these men, in complete opposition, transgress in respect to the possession of the forbidden things.

For we will show that those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather their gain not only from rich men, but also from the poor, and orphans,

and widows.

But if they are confident, let them stand up and discuss these matters, that if convicted they may hereafter cease transgressing.

For the fruits of the prophet must be tried ; 'for the tree is known by its fruit.'

But that those who wish may know concerning Alexander, he was tried by A'milius Frontinus," proconsul at Ephesus ; not on account of the Name,! but for the robberies which he had committed, being already an apostate."

Afterwards, having falsely declared for the name of the Lord, he was released, having deceived the faithful that were there."

And his This same Apollonius states in the same

work that, at the time of his writing, it was the fortieth year since Montanus had begun his pretended prophecy.% And he says

also that Zoticus, who was mentioned by the former writer," when Maximilla was pretending to prophesy in Pepuza, resisted her and endeavored to refute the spirit that was working in her; but was prevented by those who agreed with her. He mentions also a certain Thraseas® among the martyrs of that time.

He speaks, moreover, of a tradition that the Saviour commanded his apostles not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years."

He uses testimonies also from the Revelation of John," and 18 This fragment gives us our only information in regard to this

Alexander.

That there may be some truth in the story told by Apollonius cannot be denied.

It is possible that Alexander was a bad man, and that the Montanists had been deceived in him, as often happens in all religious bodies.

Such a thing might much more easily happen after the sect had been for a number of years in a flourishing condition than in its earlier years; and the exactness of the account, and the challenge to disprove it, would seem to lend it some weight.

At the same time Apollonius is clearly as unprincipled and dishonest a writer as the anonymous, and hence little reliance can be placed upon any of his reports to the discredit of thé

Montanists.

If the anonymous made so many accusations out of whole cloth, Apollonius may have done the same in the present instance; and the fact that many still '' worshiped" him would seem to show that Apollonius' accusations, if they possessed any foundation, were at any rate not proven.

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

22 Syudorov apxeiov.

F 3 dv o mpodytns guvdvTa TodAots ETETLY ayvoet, as is read by all the MSS., followed by the majority of the editors.

Heinichen reads @ 6 mpod7jtys gvvaV ToAAas ETegLY ayvoet, but the emendation is quite unnecessary,

The ayvoei implies ignorance of the man's true character; although with him so many years, he Axows nothing about him, ts ignorant of his true character ! The sentence is evidently ironical.

24 Thy UmdoTacu.

25 Bamrerat, 26 ottBigerar, 21 Knowing what we do of the asceticism and the severe morality of the Montanists, we can look upon the implications of this passage as nothing better than baseless slanders.

That there might have been an individual here and there whose conduct justified this attack cannot be denied, but to bring such accusations against the Montanists in general was both unwarranted and absurd, and Apollonius. cannot but have been aware of the fact.

His language is rather that ofa a or braggadocio who knows the untruthfulness of his statements, than of a man conscious of his own honesty and of the relia-bility of his account,

134 A very common accusation brought against various sects.

Upon the significance of it, see Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p82, note 2.

14 oricOdSom0s, originally the back chamber of the old temple of Athenz on the Acropolis at Athens, where the public treasure was kept.

It then came to be used of the inner chamber of any temple where the public treasure was kept, and in the present instance is used of the apartment which contained the public records or archives.

Just below, Apollonius uses the phrase Syudcvov apxeior, in referring to the same thing.

$ 15 Matt. x. 9, 10.

16 Matt. xii.

33.

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

28 On the date of Apollonius' work, see above, note 3.

29 See chap. 16, § 17.

80 This Thraseas is undoubtedly to be identified with Thraseas "bishop and martyr of Eumenia,'"' mentioned by Polycrates, as. quoted in chap. 24, below.

We know no more about him than is. told us there.

18 j,e. of Christ.

19 rapafarns.

20 elra émupevodpmevos TH dvduart To Kupiov amoAdAuTat TAaYTgas Tovs éxet muctovs.

The meaning seems to be that while in prison he pretended to be a Christian, and thus obtained the favor of the brethren, who procured his release by using their influence with the judge.

._ 51 Clement (Strom. VI. 5) records the same tradition, quoting it from the Preaching of Peter, upon which work, see Bk. III. chap.

3, note 8; above.

82 Compare Eusebius' promise in Bk. III. chap. 24, § 18, and see note 21 on that chapter.

V. 20;

SERAPION ON MONTANISM.

e279 hood throughout the world, I have sent you writings ® of the most blessed Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia." he relates that a dead man had, through the Divine power, been raised by John himself in Ephesus.* He also adds other things by which he fully and abundantly exposes the error of the heresy of which we have been speaking.

These are the matters recorded by Apollonius.

In the same letter of Serapion the signa-

tures of several bishops are found,' one of whom subscribes himself as follows :

"T, Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness,® pray for your health."

CHAPTER XIX.

And another in this manner :

" Flius Publius Julius,? bishop of Debeltum, a colony of Thrace.

As God liveth in the heavens, the blessed Sotas in Anchialus desired to cast the demon out of Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not permit him."'"

Serapion on the Heresy of the Phrygians.

SERAPION,! who, as report says, succeeded Maximinus" at that time as bishop of the church of Antioch, mentions the works of Apolinarius* against the above-mentioned heresy.

And he alludes to him in a private letter to Caricus and Pontius,t in which he himself exposes the same heresy, and adds the following

And the autograph signatures of many

other bishops who agreed with them are contained in the same letter.

So much for these persons. words :*

"That you may see that the doings of this lying band of the new prophecy, so called, are an abomination to all the brother-

CHAPTER XX.

The Writings of Ireneus against the Schismatics at Rome.

383 No one else, so far as I am aware, records this tradition, but it is of a piece with many others in regard to John which were afloat in the early Church.

IRENZUS? wrote several letters against

those who were disturbing the sound ordinance of the Church at Rome.

One of them was to Blastus On Schism ;" another to Florinus 1 Both versions of the Ckvon. agree in putting the accession of Serapion into the eleventh year of Commodus (190 A.D.), and that of his successor Asclepiades into the first year of Caracalla, which would give Serapion an episcopate of twenty-one years (Syncellus says twenty-five hase although giving the same dates of accession for both bishops that the other versions give).

Serapion was a wellknown person, and it is not too much to think that the dates' given by the Chron. in connection with him may be more reliable than most of its dates.

The truth is, that from the present chapter we learn that he was already bishop before the end of Commodus' reign,

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

7 Valesius justly remarks that Eusebius does not say that these bishops seat Serapion's epistle, but only that their signatures or notes (vrogjmetwoets) were contained in the epistle.

He thinks it is by no means probable that a bishop of Thrace (the nationality of the other bishops we do not know) should have signed this epistle of Serapion's, and he therefore concludes that Serapion simply copies from another epistle sent originally from Thrace.

This is possible; but at the end of the chapter Eusebius says that other Litane put in their signatures or notes with their own hands (avréypagot onuewwcoers), which precludes the idea that Serapion simply copies their testimony from another source, and if they signed thus it is poets that the Thracian bishop did likewise.

It may be that erapion took pains to compose a semi-official communication which should have the endorsement of as many anti-Montanistic bishops as i.e. before the end of 192 A.D.

Were the statement of Eutychius, — that Demetrius of Alexandria wrote at the same time to Maximus of Antioch and Victor of Rome, —to be relied upon, we could fix his accession between 189 and 192 (see Harnack's Zest des Ignatius, p. 45).

But the truth is little weight can be attached to his report. hile we cannot therefore reach certainty in the matter, there is no reason for doubting the approximate accuracy of the date given by the Chron.

As to the time of his death, we can fix the date of Asclepiades' accession approximately in the year 2rr (see

Bk. VI. chap. 11, note 6), and from the fragment of Alexander's epistle to the Antiochenes, quoted in that chapter, it seems probable that there had been a vacancy in the see of Antioch for some time.

But from the mention of Serapion's epistles to Domninus (Bk. VI. chap. 12) we may gather that he lived until after the great persecuossible, and that, in order to secure their signatures he sent it about rom one to the other before forwarding it to Caricus and Pontius,

8 Of this Aurelius Cyrenius we know nothing.

It is possible that he means to call himself simply a witness (uaptvs) to the facts recorded by Serapion in his epistle, but more probable that he uses the word to indicate that he has "' witnessed for Christ"? under persecution. tion of Severus (A.D. 202 sq.). From Bk, VI. chap. 12, we learn that Serapion was quite a writer; and he is commemorated also by Jerome (de vtr. 7ll. c. 4t) and by Socrates (1. £. III. 7).

In addition to the epistle quoted here, he addressed to Domninus, according to Bk. VI. chap. 12, a treatise (Jerome, ad Domninum... volumen composuit), or epistle (the Greek of Eusebius reads simly ta, but uses the same article to describe the epistle or epistles to 9 fElius Publius Sexine is also an otherwise unknown personage.

Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western shore of the Black Sea.

10 Lightfoot (/guatius, II, rrr) suggests that this Sotas (2wras) may be identical with the Zoticus (Zwrixés) mentioned in the preceding chapter, the interchange of the initial % and Z being very common, But we learn from chap. 16 that Zoticus was. bishop of Comings, so that he can hardly be identified with Sotas, bishop of Anchialus.

'aricus and Pontius, so that the nature of the writing is uncertain), as well as some other epistles, and a work on the Gospel of Peter.

These were the only writings of his which Eusebius had seen, but he reports that there were probably other works extant. | There are preserved to us only the two fragments quoted by Eusebius in these twochapters.

Serapion also played a prominent r6le in the tradition of the asians church, as we Sesunt from Zahn's Doctrina A ddat

1 On Irenzus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

2 Eusebius, in chap. 15, informs us that both Blastus and Florinus drew many away from the church of Rome by their heretical innovations.

¢ does not tell us either there or here the nature of the opinions which Blastus held, but from Pseudo-Tertullian's Adv. omnes Her. chap. 8, we learn that Blastus was a Quartodeciman.

(Gott. Gel. Anz. 1877, St. 6, p173, 179, according to Harnack's Zeit des Ignatius, p. 46 sqq-)- 2 On Maximinus, see Bk. IV. chap. 24, note 6.

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

4 Caricus and Pontius (called Ponticus in this passage by most of the MSS. of Eusebius, but Pontius by one of the best of them, by Nicephorus, Jerome, and Eusebius himself in Bk. VI. chap. 12, which authorities are followed by Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen) are called in Bk. VI. chap. 12, éxxAnovacrixods avépas.

They are otherwise unknown personages.

In that chapter the plural article té is used of the writing, or writings, addressed to Caricus and Pontius, implying that vrouvjpara is to be supplied.

This seems to imply more than one writing, but it is not necessary to conclude that more than the single epistle mentioned here is meant, for the plural jrouvyara was often used ina sort of collective sense to signify a collection of notes, memoranda, &c.

: t 5 This fragment is given by Routh, Re/. Sacre, and, in English, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775.

('In addition to all these, there is likewise Blastus, who would latently introduce Judaism.

For he says the passover is not to be kept otherwise than according to the law of Moses, on the fourteenth of the month."?) From Pacianus' Epzstola ad Sympronian. de catholico nomine, chap. 2, we learn that he was a Montanist; and since the Montanists of Asia Minor were, like the other Christians of that region, Quartodecimans, it is not surprising that Blastus should be at the same time a Montanist and a Quartodeciman.

Florinus, as will be shown in the next note, taught his heresies while Victor was bishop of Rome (189-198 or 199); and since Eusebius connects Blastus so closely with him, we may conclude that Blastus flourished at about the same time.

Irenzus' epistle to Blastus, On Schism, is no longer extant.

A Syriac fragment of an epistle of Irenzeus, addressed to "an Alexandrian," on the paschal

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

EVie2o: that he himself had been acquainted with the first successors of the apostles.5

Atthe

close of the treatise we have found a most beautiful note which we are constrained to insert in this work.'

It runs as follows:

""T adjure thee who mayest copy this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the dead, to compare what thou shalt write, and correct it carefully by this manuscript, and also to write this adjuration, and place it in the copy."

On Monarchy,' or That God is not the Author of Evil.

For Florinus seemed to be defending this opinion.

And because he was being drawn away by the error of Valentinus, Irenzeus wrote his work On the Ogdoad,' in which he shows question (Fragment 27 in Harvey's edition) is Possibly, 8 part of this lost epistle.

Ifthe one referred to in this fragment be Blastus, he was an Alexandrian, and in that case must have adopted the Quartodeciman position under the influence of the Asiatic Montanists, for the paschal calendar of the Alexandrian church was the same as that of Rome (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 264). If Blastus was a Montanist, as stated by Pacianus, his heresy was quite different from that of Florinus (who was a Gnostic); and the fact that they were leaders of different heresies is confirmed by the words of Eusebius in chap. 15, above:

'' Each one striving to introduce Azs own innovations in respect to the truth.'"?

Whether Blastus, like Florinus, was a presbyter, and like him was deposed from his office, we do not know, but the words of Eusebius in chap. 15 seem to favor this supposition.

These things may be profitably read in

his work, and related by us, that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best example of painstaking carefulness.

8 Florinus, as we learn from chap. 15, was for a time a presbyter of the Roman Church, but lost his office on account of heresy.

From the fragment of this epistle of Irenzeus to Florinus quoted by Eusebius just below, we learn that Florinus was somewhat older than Irenzus, but like him a disciple of Polycarp.

The title of this epistle shows that Florinus was already a Gnostic, or at least inclined toward Gnostic views.

Eusebius evidently had no direct knowledge of the opinions of Florinus on the origin of evil, for he says that he appeared to maintain (éd0ce. mpoagmigery) the opinion that.God was the author of evil.

Eusebius' conclusion is accepted by most ancient ajd modern writers, but it is suggested by Salmon (Dict. of Christ.

Biog. 11. 544) that Eusebius was perhaps mistaken, "' for, since the characteristic of dualism is not to make

God the author of evil, but to clear him from the charge by ascribing evil to an independent origin, the title would lead us to think that the letter was directed, not against one who had himself held

God to be the author of evil, but against one who had charged the doctrine of a single first principle with necessarily leading to this conclusion.

And we should have supposed that the object of Irenzus was to show that it was possible to assert God to be the sole origin and ruler of the universe, without holding evil to be his work."

Since Eusebius had seen the epistle of Irenzeus to Florinus, it is difficult to understand how he can have misconceived Florinus' position.

At the same time, he does not state it with positiveness; and the fact that Florinus, if not already, certainly was soon afterward a Valentinian, and hence a dualist, makes Salmon's supposition very plausible.

Florinus is not mentioned in Irenzus' great work against heresies, nor by Tertullian, Pseudo-Tertullian, Hippolytus, or Epiphanius.

Itis probable, therefore, that he was not named in Hippolytus' earlier work, nor in the lectures of Irenzeus which formed the groundwork (see Salmon, /.c.).

The silence of Irenzus is easily explained by supposing Florinus' fall into heresy to have taken place after the composition of his lectures against heresies and of his great work; and the silence of the later writers is probably due to the fact that Irenzeus' work makes no mention of him, and that, whatever his influence may haye been during his lifetime, it did not last, and hence his name attracted no particular attention after his death.

In the letter to Florinus, of which we

have spoken,' Irenzeus mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying :

"These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment.

These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them.

These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish.

These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to thee.

"For when I was a boy, I sawtheein

lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court,' and endeavoring to gain his approbation.

I remember the

events of that time more clearly than those of recent years.

For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it ; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manIt has been maintained by some (e.g. Lightfoot, in the Contemporary Review, 1875, p. 834) that this epistle to Florinus was one of the earliest of Irenzeus' writings but Lipsius (Dzct. of Christ. Biog.

III. 263) has given other and satisfactory reasons for thinking that Florinus' heresy, and therefore Irenzus' epistle and his work On the Ogdoad, belonged to the time of Victor, and hence were later than the work Agazust Heresies.

A Syriac fragment of an epistle concerning Florinus, addressed by Irenzeus to Victor (Harvey's edition, Fragm, 28), is extant, and supports Lipsius' conclusion.

It would seem that Irenzus, subsequent to the writing of his great work, learning that Florinus was holding heretical opinions on the origin of evil, addressed him the epistle mentioned in this chapter,

That afterward, Florinus having embraced Valentinianism, and haying written '' an abominable book" (as the fragment just referred to says), Irenzeus wrote his work On the Ogdoad, and subsequently addressed his epistle to Victor, calling upon him to take decisive measures against Florinus, now seen to be a regular heretic.

What was the result of Irenzus' epistles and book we do not know; we hear nothing more about the matter, nor do we know anything more about Florinus (for Augustine's mention of Florinus as the founder of a sect of Floriniani is a mistake; see Salmon, /.c.). doad was not used by all the Gnostics in the same sense.

It was quite commonly employed to denote the supercelestial region which lay above the seven planetary spheres (or Hebdomad), and hence above the control of the seven angels who severally presided over these spheres.

In the Valentinian system a higher sphere, the Pleroma, the abode of the zons, was added, and the supercelestial sphere, the Ogdoad of the other systems, was commonly called the Mesotes, or middle region.

For further particulars in regard to the Ogdoad, see Salmon's articles Heddomad and Ogdoad in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

5 Literally, '' in which he shows that he himself had seized upon (xaretAngevat) the first succession (dtadox7v) of the apostles."

In order to emphasize the fact that he 'was teaching true doctrine, he pointed out, as he did so often elsewhere, the circumstance that he was personally acquainted with disciples of the apostles.

6 It was not at all uncommon for copyists, both by accident and by design, to make changes, often serious, in copying books.

We have an instance of intentional alterations mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23.

It is not at all strange, therefore, that such an adjuration should be attached to a work which its author considered especially liable to corruption, or whose accurate transcription be regarded as peculiarly important.

Compare the warning given in Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

The fragments from Irenzeus' works preserved in this chapter are translated in the A xte-Nicene Fathers, \. p. 568 sq.

4 This treatise, On the Ogdoad, is no longer extant, though it is probable that we have a few fragments of it (see Harvey, I. clxvi.).

The importance which Irenzus attached to this work is seen from the solemn adjuration with which he closed it.

It must have been largely identical in substance with the portions of his Adv. Her. which deal with the zons of the Valentinians.

It may have been little more than an enlargement of those portiors of the earlier work.

The Ogdoad (Greek, oydoas, a word signifying primarily a thing in eight parts) occupied a prominent place in the speculations of the Gnostics.

Valentinus taught eight primary zons, in four pairs, as the root and origin of the other zons and of all beings.

These eight he called the first or primary Ogdoad; and hence a work upon the Ogdoad, written against a Valentinian, must, of course, be a general discussion of the Valentinian doctrine of the zons.

The word Og7 The epistle Ox Monarchy mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. ev 7H BactAtky avAy.

This expression is a little puzzling, as the word BacudcKny implies the imperial court, and could ot mopeds be used of the provincial court of the proconsul.

No sojourn of an emperor in Asia Minor is known which will meet the chronology of the case; and hence Lightfoot (Contempora ry Review, May, 1875, rm 834) has offered the plausible suggestion that the words may have een loosely employed to denote the court of Titus Aurelius Fulvus, who was proconsul of Asia about 136 A.D and n ; -D, afterward became the emperor Antoninus Pius, :

V. 21.]

THE MARTYRDOM OF APOLLONIUS AT ROME.

SS SS the city of Rome, a man renowned among the faithful for learning and philosophy, having stirred up one of his servants, who was well fitted for such a purpose, to accuse him.'

But this wretched man made the charge unseasonably, because by a royal decree it was unlawful that informers of such things should live.

And his legs were broken immediately, 'Perennius the judge having pronounced this sentence upon him.*

But the martyr, highly beloved of God, being earner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.

And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word

of life,' Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart.

And continually, through God's grace, I recall them faithfully.

These things

defended himself before the Senate; and this possibility might seem to be strengthened by the fact that Eusebius does not call him a senator here, as we should expect him to do if he knew him to be one.

On the other hand, it is highly probable (as shown in the next note) that Jerome had read the fuller account of Apollonius' martyrdom included by Eusebius in his Collectzon of Martyrdoms, and hence it seems likely that that account contained the statement that Apollonius was a senator.

Jerome makes Apollonius the author of an zusigne volumen, which he read in the Senate in defense of his faith; but there seems to be no foundation for such a report.

It is apparently the result simply of a misunderstanding of the words of Eusebius, who states that Apollonius delivered before the Senate a most eloquent defense of the faith, but does not imply that he wrote an apology.

The words that Eusebius uses at the close of this chapter imply rather that the defense made by Apollonius was recorded after its delivery, and that it is this report of it which can be read in his Collection Zi Martyrdoms.

8 Jerome, followed by Sophronius, reports that the accusation against Apollonius was brought by aslave.

Jerome gives the slave's name as Severus (a servo Severo proditus); while Sophronius makes Severus the name of the judge (mapa tod SovAov mapa XeBipw mpoSobeis xpiatiavds elvar).

The latter is impossible, however, as the name of the judge was Perennius according to Eusebius.

Vallarsi states that some MSS, of Jerome read sub Commodo princite ac Severo proditus, and supposes that ac Severo is a corruption for the words @ servo (which he thinks may have stood alone in the original text), and that some student, perceiving the error, wrote upon the margin of his copy the words @ servo, and that subsequently the note crept into the text, while the word Severo was still retained, thus producing our present reading a servo Severo.

This is an ingenious suggestion, but the fact is overlooked that Sophronius undoubtedly read in the original translated by him the words @ serxvo

Severo, for we can explain his rendering only by supposing, that he read thus, but understood the word Severo as the dative of the indirect object after podztus, instead of the ablative in apposition with servo.

In the face of Sophronius' testimony to the original form of the text, no alteration of the common reading can be accepted.

As to the source of Jerome's Severus, since have is nothing in the present chapter of Eusebius to suggest such an addition, and no reason can be imagined for the independent insertion of the name, the only legitimate conclusion seems to be, that the name occurred in the account of Apollonius' martyrdom referred to by Eusebius just below, and that Jerome took it thence.

If this be so, then that martyrolo must have been the authority also for Jerome's statement that Agee lonius was accused 'by a slave; and hence the statement may be accepted as true, and not as the result of a misinterpretation of the reference of Eusebius' words (€va yé twa Tay eis Tadta émitndetwy avr®@), as supposed by some.

Since it is thus almost certain that Jerome had himself examined the fuller account of Apollonius' martyrdom referred to by Eusebius, a favorable light is thrown back upon his report that Apollonius was a senator, and it becomes probable that he obtained this statement from the same source (see the previous note).

And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times hast thou spared me that I should endure these things?

And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard

such words." plainly from the letters" which he sent, either to the neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to some of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them."

And this can be shown Thus far Irenzus.

CHAPTER XXI.

How Apollonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome.

Axout the same time, in the reign of Commodus, our condition became more favorable, and through the grace of God the churches throughout the entire world enjoyed peace,' and the word of salvation was leading every soul from every race of man to the devout worship of the God of the universe.

So that now at Rome many who were highly distinguished for wealth and family turned with all their household and relatives unto their salvation.

But the demon who hates what is good, being malignant in his nature, could not endure this, but prepared himself again for conflict, contriving many devices against us.

And

4M. de Mandajors, in his H¢storre de 1' Acad. des Inscript. tom.

18, p. 226 (according to Gieseler's Ch. Hist., Harper's edition, I.

. 127), "' thinks that the slave was put to death as the betrayer of Kis master, according to an old law renewed by Trajan; but that the occurrence had been misunderstood by the Christians, and had given rise to the tradition, which is found in Tertullian and in the Edictum ad Comm. Aste, that an emperor at this period had decreed the punishment of death for denouncing a Christian."

Such a law against the denunciation of masters by slaves was passed under Nerva; but Gieseler remarks that, in accordance with the principles of the laws upon this subject, " either Apollonius only, or his slave only, could have been put to death, but in no case both.

Jerome does not say either that Severus was the slave of Apollonius, or that he was executed; and since Eusebius grounds this execution expressly on a supposititious law, it may have belonged only to the Oriental tradition, which may have adduced this instance in support of the alleged law.""

It is possible that Gieseler is right in this conclusion; but it is also quite possible that Eusebius' statement that the slave was executed is correct.

The ground of the execution was, of course, not, as Eusebius thinks, the fact that he brought an accusation against a Christian, but, as remarked by de Mandajors, the fact that, being a slave, he betrayed his master.

Had the informant been executed because he brought an accusation against a Christian, the subsequent execution of the latter would be inexplicable,

But he brought to the judgment seat Apollonius," of 9 x Johni. x.

10 This would have been quite like aiathen ts: who appears to have had a special horror of heretics.

Compare his words to Marcion, quoted above, in Bk. IV. chap. 14.

He seems to have inherited this horror from John the apostle, if Irenzus' account is to be believed; see Adu. Her. III. 3, 4, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28, and in Bk. IV. chap. 14. that to the Philip11 We know of only one epistle by Polycarp, th: pians, which is still extant.

Upon his life and epistle, see Bk.

IV. chap. 14, notes 5 and 16.

) 1 Marcia, concubine of Commodus, and possessed of great influence over him, favored the Christians (according to Dion Cassius,

LXII. 4), and as a consequence they enjoyed comparative peace during his reign.

2 Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 42, and Epzst.ad Magnum, 4) calls Apolionius a Roman senator.

It is possible that this is only a natconclusion drawn by Jerome from Eusebius' statement that he ural

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[Ve2t. held the episcopate for thirteen years.

In the same year, after Julian® had completed his tenth year, Demetrius * received the charge of the parishes at Alexandria.

At this time the abovementioned Serapion,' the eighth from the apostles, was still well known as bishop of the church at Antioch.

Theophilus® presided at Czsarea in Palestine; and Narcissus,' whom we have mentioned before, still had charge of the church at Jerusalem.

Bacchylus® at the same time was bishop of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates® of nestly entreated and requested by the judge to give an account of himself before the Senate, made in the presence of all an eloquent defense of the faith for which he was witnessing.

And as if by decree of the Senate he was put to death by decapitation ; an ancient law requiring that those who were brought to the judgment seat and refused to recant should not be liber-

ated.'

Whoever desires to know his arguments before the judge and his answers to the questions of Perennius, and his entire defense before the Senate will find them in the records of the ancient martyrdoms which we have collected.® the part of Eusebius of a trustworthy tradition that he died in the tenth year of Commodus, which, since he incorrectly put his accession into the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (or Antoninus

Verus, as he calls him), made it necessary for him to draw the false conclusion that he held office only thirteen years.

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

4 The date of the accession of Demetrius, the eleventh bishop of Alexandria, as given here and in the Chron., was 189 A.D.

According to Bk. VI. chap. 26, below, confirmed by the Chron., he held office forty-three years.

There is no reason for doubting the aproximate accuracy of these dates.

Demetrius is known to us chiefly because of his relations to Origen, which were at first friendly, but finally became hostile. He seems to have been a man of great energy, renowned as an administrator rather than as a. literary character.

He was greatly interested in the catechetical school at Alexandria, but does not seem to have taught in it, and he left no writings, so far as we know.

His relations with Origen will come ov frequently in the Sixth Book, where he is mentioned a number of times (see especially chap. 8, note 4).

CHAPTER XXII.

The Bishops that were well known at this Time.

In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Victor' succeeded Eleutherus,' the latter having it is conceivable that the prefect Perennius may have sentenced the informant to death, in accordance with the old law mentioned by de

Mandajors, and that then, Apollonius being a senator, he may have requested him to appeal before that body, and make his defense to them, in order that he might pass judgment upon him in accordance with the decision of the Senate.

It is quite conceivable that, the emperor being inclined to favor the Christians, Perennius may not have cared to pass judgment against Apollonius until he had learned the opinion of the Senate on the matter (cf. what Neander has to say on the subject, in his Ch. Hzst.).

As remarked by Valesius, the Senate was not a judicial court, and hence could not itself sentence

Apollonius; but it could, of course, communicate to the prefect its opinion, and he could then pass judgment accordingly.

It is significant that the Greek reads wav ard b6ymaTos cuyKAyrov, inserting the particle wrav, "as if"; i.e. 'as zf by decree of the Senate."

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

6 Theophilus, bishop of Czsarea, has gained prominence chiefl on account of his connection with the paschal controversy. He presided with Narcissus over the council mentioned in the next chapter, which was called to consider the paschal question, and in conjunction with the other bishops present composed an epistie, which was still extant in Eusebius' time (according to the next chapter), and of which he gives a fragment in chap. 25.

Jerome, in his de vir. zl. c. 43, speaks very highly of this epistle (synodicam valde utilem composuit epistolam); but it seems to have been no longer extant in his time, for in mentioning it and the epistle of Bacchylus of Corinth and others in his Chron., he says that the memory of them still endured (quarum memoria ad nos usque perdurat).

The dates of Theophilus' accession to office and of his death are not known to us.

5 Valesius thinks the reference here is to Pliny's rescript to Trajan (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33),

This is possible, though the language of Eusebius seems to imply a more general reference to all kinds of cases, not simply to the cases of Christians.

7 On Narcissus, see above, chap. 12.

8 This Bacchylus is possibly identical with the Bacchylides who is mentioned in Bk. IV. chap, 23 as one of those who had urged Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, to write a certain epistle.

Bacchylus also is prominent solely on account of his connection with the paschal controversy.

According to the next chapter, he was himself the author of an epistle on the subject, which he wrote, according to Jerome (de vir. 27. c. 44), in the name of all the bishops of Achaia

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

1 The dates assigned to Victor's episcopate by the ancient authorities vary greatly.

Eusebius here puts his accession in the tenth year of Commodus (i.e, 189 A.D.), and this is accepted by Lipsius as the correct date.

Jerome's version of the Chron. puts his accession in the reign of Pertinax, or the first year of Septimius Severus (i.e.

193), while the Armenian yersion puts it in the seventh year of Commodus (186).

Eusebius, in his Hzstory, does not state directly the duration of his episcopate, but in chap. 28 he says that Zephyrinus succeeded him about the ninth year of Severus, i.e. according to his erroneous reckoning (see Bk.

VI. chap. 21, note 3) about 200, which would give Victor an episcopate of about eleven years.

Jerome, in his version of the Chron. and in his de v7r. 7/2., assigns him ten (ex omnium gut in Achaia erant episcoporum persona).

But the words of Hoses seem to imply that the epistle was an individual, not a synodical one, for he does not say, "an epistle of those in," &c., as he does in every other case.

We must conclude, therefore, that Jerome, who had not seen the epistle, was mistaken in making it a synodical letter.

Jerome characterizes it as an elegant composition (elegantem librum) ; but, like the epistle of Theophilus, mentioned in the preceding. note, it seems not to have been extant in one: time, The dates of Bacchylus' accession to office and of is death are not known to us. ears; the Armenian version of the Chron. twelve years.

The iberian Catalogue makes his episcopate something over nine years long; the Felician Catalogue something over ten.

Lipsius, considering Victor in connection with his successors, concludes that he held office between nine and ten years, and therefore gives as his dates 189-198 or 199 (see p.

172 sq.).

According to an anonymous writer quoted in chap. 28, Victor excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for teaching that Christ was a mere man.

He is best known, however, on account of his action in connection with the great Quartodeciman controversy (see chap. 24).

Jerome, in his version of the Chrown., says of him cujus mediocria de religione ettant volumina, and in his de vir. z7/. chap. 34, he tells us that he wrote upon the passover, and also some other works (sxzfcr uaestione Pasche, et alia quedam scribens opuscula), ae ack believes that he has discovered one of these works (all of which have been supposed lost) in the Pseudo-Cyprianic de Aleatortbus.

In his Texte und Unters. Bd. V. Heft 1, he has discussed the subject in a very learned and ingenious manner.

The theo has much to commend it, but there are difficulties in its way whic have not yet been removed; and I am inclined to think it a product of the first half of the third century, rather than of the last quarter of the second (see the writer's review of Harnack's discussion in the Presbyterian Review, Jan., 1889, p. 143 sqq.).

® Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, is one of the most noted men connected with the paschal controversy, for the reason that he was the leader of the bishops of the province of Asia, in which province alone the Quartodeciman practice was uniformly observed.

He was thus the leading opponent of Bishop Victor of home His relation to the paschal controversy is brought out more fully in chap. 24.

The dates of Polycrates' aqcession to office and of his death are not known to us; though, of course, with Theo hilus, Narcissus,

Bacchylus, and the other bishops concerned in the paschal controversy, he flourished during the reign of Septimius Severus, while

Victor was bishop of Rome.

The only writing of Polycrates of which we know is his epistleto Victor, a portion of which is quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. ITI. chap. 32, and a still larger portion in chap.

24 of this book.

Jerome, in his de vir. 217. c. 45) speaks in terms of the highest praise of Polycrates, and quotes from Eusebius the larger fragment, given in chap. 24, adding, Hec propterea posut, ut ingentum et auctoritatem virt ex parvo opusculo demonstrarem,.

The fact that he quotes only the passages given by Eusebius would be enough to show that he quoted rom Eusebius, and not directly from Polycrates, even were it not plain from the statement in his C hron., referred to in note 6, that Polycrates' epistle was, so far as Jerome knew, no longer extant.

Polycrates himself informs us, in the second fragment given in Sipe 24, that he wrote his epistle with the consent and approval of all the bishops present at the council sum2 On Eleutherus, see the Introduction to this book, note 2.

As remarked there, Eleutherus, according to the testimony of most of our sources, held office fifteen years.

The '' thirteen years"? of this chapter are therefore an etror, clearly caused by the possession on

therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be.

But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour. the parish of Ephesus.

And besides these a multitude of others, as is likely, were then prominent.

But we have given the names of those alone, the soundness of whose faith has come down to us in writing.

CHAPTER XXIII.

Synods and assemblies of bishops were

The Question then agitated concerning the Passover. held on this account,' and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew.

A QUESTION of no small importance arose | up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only.

There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in at that time.

For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover.'

It was bay ing Weed eS) SS eS Palestine, over whom Theophilus,' bishop of Czsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided.

And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor ;' also of the bishops in moned by him to discuss the paschal question.

The fact that both Eusebius and Jerome praise Polycrates so highly, and testify to his orthodoxy, shows how completely the paschal question had been buried before their time, and how little the Quartodeciman practice was feared.

1 The great question of dispute between the church of Asia Minor and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal com- -munion should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the Sunday of the resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chronology.

The Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of the apostles, John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the Church, celebrated the Christian passover always on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, by a solemn fast, and closed the day with the communion in commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ.

The Roman church, on the other hand, followed o all the rest of Christendom, celebrated the death of Christ always on Friday, and his resurrection on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and continued their paschal fast until the latter day.

It thus happened that the fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating, as it did, with the fourteenth of Nisan, often closed some days before the fast of the other churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned great scandal.

As Schaff says:

'' The gist of the paschal controversy was, whether the Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the Christian Sunday

Should control the idea and time of the entire festival."

The former practice emphasized Christ's death; the latter his resurrection.

The first discussion of the question took place between Polycarp and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, when the former was on a visit to that city, between 150 and 155.

Irenzus ives an account of this, which is quoted by Eusebius in chap. * olycarp clung to the Asiatic practice of observing the 14th of Nisan, but could not persuade Anicetus to do the same, nor could Anicetus persuade him not to observe that day.

They nevertheless communed together in Rome, and separated in peace.

About 170 A.D. the controversy broke out again in Laodicea, the chief disputants being Melito of Sardis and Apolinarius of Hierapolis (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note r, and chap. 27, note 1).

In this controversy Melito advocated the traditional Asiatic custom of observing the fourteenth day, while Apolinarius opposed it. To distinguish two parties of Quartodecimans,

—a Judaizing and a more orthodox, — as must be done if Apolinarius is regarded, as he is by many, as a Quartodeciman, is, as Schaff shows, entirely 'unwarranted.

We know only of the one party, and 'Apolinarius did not belong to it. The third stage of the controversy, hich took place while Victor was bishop of Rome, in the last decade of the second century, was much more bitter and important.

The leaders of the two sides were Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, bishop of Rome, — the latter an overbearing man, who believed that he, as Bishop of Rome, had a right to demand of all other churches conformity to the practices of his own church.

The controversy came to an open rupture between the churches of Asia and that of Rome, but other churches did not sympathize with the severe measures of Victor, and the breach was gradually healed,

—just how and when we do not know; but the Roman practice cannot be discussed here, but the reader is referred, for a brief statement of the case, to Schaff's Ch. Hzst. II. 219.

The Johannine controversy has given rise to an extensive literature on these paschal disputes.

Among tht most important' works are Hilgenfeld's Dex Paschastreit der alten Kirche nach seiner Bedeutung fur die

Kirchengesch. u.s.w.; and Schiirer's Die Paschastrettighetten des zweiten Yahrhunderts, in the Z pede 4 fiir hist. Theologie, 1870, p. 182-284, —the latter perhaps the ablest extended discussion of the subject extant.

The reader is also referred to the article Easter, in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Ant.; to Hefele's Conczliengesch.

I. p. 86-101; and especially to the chapter on the paschal controversies in Schaff's Ch. Hist. Vol. Il. p. 209-220.

This chapter of Schaff's is the clearest, and, in the opinion of the writer, b far the most satisfactory, brief statement of the whole subject whic! we have.

2 Although other synods are mentioned by the Libellus synodtcus (of the ninth century), the only ones which we have good reason for accepting are those mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter and the next; viz. one in Palestine (the Libellus synodicus gives two: one at Jerusalem, presided over Narcissus, and another at Cesarea, presided over by Theophilus, but the report is too late to be of authority); one in Pontus, under the presidency of Palmas; one in Gaul, under Irenzeus; one in Osrhoéne in Mesopotamia; and one in Asia Minor, under Polycrates.

Hefele (Conciltengesch. I. p. ror) adds one in Rome under Victor; and although Eusebius does not distinctly mention such a synod, we are undoubtedly to conclude: that the epistle written by Victor was a synodical epistle, and hence

Hiefele is, in all probability, correct in assuming that some kind of a synod, whether municipal or provincial, took he there at this time (see note 4).

From the words of Eusebius, at the close of the chapter, we may gather that still other synods than those mentioned by him were held on this subject.

The date of all of these councils 1s. commonly given as 198 A.D., but there is no particular authority for that year.

Jerome's version of the Chron. assigns the composition of the various epistles to the fourth year of Septimius Severus (196—

197); but it is clear that he is giving only an approximate date. We can say only that the synods took place sometime during Victor's. episcopate, All the councils, as we learn from this chapter, except the one under Polycrates in Asia Minor, decided against the Quer todeciman practice.

Athanasius, however (de Syn. c. 5), speaks of Christians of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia as celebrating the paschal feast on the fourteenth day; and Jerome (de vir. zl. c.3 says that many bishops of Asia and of the Orient kept u this ab servance.

It is possible that the practice was from the eginning more widely spread than Eusebius supposed, or, what is more probable, that the words of Athanasius and Jerome refer to individual churches and bishops, whose observance of the fourteenth day was not general enough to invalidate what Eusebius says of the common consent of the whole Church, outside of Asia

Minor, against the Quartodeciman practice, and that this individual observance, not being officially recognized by any synod, did not seem to him to require mention.

< Sle Theophilus and Narcissus, see the preceding chapter, notes adually prevailed over the Asiatic, and finally, at the Council of iceea (325), Was declared binding upon the whole Church, while the old Asiatic practice was condemned.

This decision was acquiesced in by the bishops of Asia, as well as by the rest of the world, and only scattered churches continued to cling to the practice of the earlier Asiatics, and they were branded as heretics, and called

Quartodecimanians (from guarta dectma), a name which we carry ack and apply to ull who observed the fourteenth day, even those of the second and third centuries.

This brief summary will enable us better to understand the accounts of Eusebius, who is our chief authority on the subject.

The paschal controversy has had an important bearing upon the question of the authenticity of the fourth

Gospel, the Tubingen critics having drawn, from this controversy one of their strongest arguments against its genuineness.

This subject and 7.

4 se Bixropa SyAovca.

This and the following epistles are no longer extant, nor have we any fragments of them.

They seem to have disappeared, even before Jerome's time; at least, he speaks only of the memory of them as remaining to his day (see

THE CHURCH? HISTORY*@GH EUSEBIUS.

[[Vst23: who fell asleep in Smyrna.

Why need I

mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris® who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius,® or Melito,' the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

Allthese observed the

fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.

And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed.

For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth.

And my relatives always observed the day when the people ® put away the leaven.

I, therefore, brethren,

who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words.

For those greater than I have said ' We ought to obey God rather than man.'""

He then

writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did.

His words are as follows :

Pontus over whom Palmas,' as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenzeus was bishop, and of those in

Osrhoéne® and the cities there ; and a personal letter of Bacchylus,' bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.°

CHAPTER XXIV.

The Disagreement in Asta.

But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them.!

He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him :?

"We observe the exact day ; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints.

Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep*in Hierapolis ; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another

"T could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire ; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude.

And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus." daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and

nowrests at Ephesus ; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

He fell asleep at Ephesus.

And Polycarp?® in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr ; and Thraseas,* bishop and martyr from Eumenia,

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the

church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox ; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommuni-

chap. 22, note 6), Heinichen is certainly wrong in making this epistle an individual letter from Victor alone, for Eusebius expressly says that the epistle was from "those at Rome"? (ray émi 'Puuys), which seems to imply a council, as in the other cases.

The grammatical construction naturally leads us to supply with the trav the word used with it in the previous sentence, ovyxexpornucvwv, —

"'those who were assembled."

Valesius, Hefele, and others are, therefore, quite justified in assuming that, according to Eusebius, a synod met at Rome, also, at this time.

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

§ Polycrates does not call Papirius a bishop or a martyr, and we know nothing about him, Simeon Metaphrastes, upon whose reports little reliance can be placed, in his life of Polycarp (according rs Valesius), makes Papirius a successor of Polycarp, as bishop of myrna.

5 Palmas, bishop of Amastris, in Pontus, sius, in Bk. IV, chap. 23, above. mentioned by DionyOn Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.

8 A careful exegesis of the passages in John's Gospel, which are supposed by some to contradict the synoptic account, and to put

Christ's death on the fourteenth day of Nisan instead of on the fifteenth, shows that John agrees with the Synoptists in putting the passover meal on the fourteenth and the death of Christ on the fifteenth (see

Schaff's Ch. H7st. Vol .I. p. 133 ff., and the authorities referred to by him). The Asiatic churches, in observing the fourteenth of Nisan, were commemorating the last passover feast and the death of the paschal

Lamb.

Their practice did not imply that they believed that Christ died on the fourteenth (as can be seen from fragments of Apolinarius' work quoted in the Chyon. Paschale, aan referred to above; see, also, Schaff, Vol. II. p. 214).

They were in full agreement with all four Gospels in putting his death on the fifteenth.

But the paschal controversy did not hinge on the day of the month on which Christ died, —in regard to which there was no widespread disagreement,—but on the question as to whether a particular day of the week or of the month was to be celebrated.

® i.e, the Jews.

The passover feast among the Jews took place on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and was eaten with unleavened bread (Ex. xii. 6 e¢ Jasstm).

It was on the fourteenth of Nisan, therefore, that the Jews 'threw away" the leayen, and until the evening of the twenty-first, when the seven days' feast of unleavened bread closed, they used no leaven.

® Osrhoéne was a region of country in northwestern Mesopotamia.

7 This epistle of Bacchylus is distinguished from the preceding ones by the fact that it is not a synodical or collective epistle, but the independent production of one man, if Eusebius' report is correct

(see the preceding chapter, note 8). The epistles "' of many others," mentioned in the next sentence, may have been of the same kind, 8 Namely, against the observance of the fourteenth day.

1 For a general account of the paschal controversy, see the preceding chapter, note x.

On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9.

2 A part of this passage from Polycrates' epistle is quoted in Bk.

III. chap. 31.

The extract given there begins with the second sentence of the fragment (''For in Asia great lights," &c.), and extends to the report of John's burial at Ephesus.

For comments upon this portion of the fragment, see the notes given there.

On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note s.

4 This Thraseas, said by Polycrates to have been bishop of Eumenia (a city in the southern part of Phrygia), was mentioned also by Apollonius in his work against the Montanists (according to Eusebius, chap. 18, § 13, of this book).

He is called by Polycrates a martyr, and by Eusebius, in reference to Apollonius' mention of him, ''one of the martyrs of that time."

There is no reason to doubt that he was a martyr, in the full sense, as Polycarp was; but upon the more general use of the word paptus as, e.g., in connection with John just above, see Bk. III. chap, 32, note15.

We know nothing more about this bishop Thraseas.

10 Acts v. 29.

4 According to this, the Asiatic Council was summoned at the request of Victor of Rome, and in all probability this was the case with all the councils referred to in the last chapter,

EPISTLE OF IRENAZUS TO VICTOR.

VWit24.] strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode.

Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another ; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith."

cate.2

But this did not please all the bishops.

And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love.

Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenzus, ll who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, main-

He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert : tained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day.

He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom, and after many other words he proceeds as " Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest.

We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus.

They neither observed it! themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so.

And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed ; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it." But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.8

And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome" in the time of Anicetus, follows :"

" For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast.

For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more ;

some, moreover, count their day as consist-

ing of forty hours day and night.* And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors.'

It is likely that they did not hold to

12 There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do so.

Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them, but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it.

For my part, I cannot understand that Eusebius' words mean anything else than that he did actually cut off communion with them,

The Greek reads axowwv7jrous mavras apony Tovs Exeioe avaknpvTtwv adedhovs.

This seems to me decisive.

_ i 13 This epistle is no longer extant, but in addition to the fragments given in this chapter by Eusebius, a few other extracts from it are found in other writers; thus, in the Pseudo-Justinian Ouestrones et responsa ad orthodoxos occurs a quote" from Irenzus' work On Easter (mepi Tov maaxa), whic is doubtless to be identified with this epistle to Victor (ed. Harvey, Grec. fragm.

7; Eng. translation in Axte-Nicene Fathers, \. p. 569). Maximus of Turin, also, in his Sermo VII. de Eleemos., gives a brief quotation from 'The epistle to Victor" (Harvey, Grec. fragm. s, trans. zizd.).

Itis ossible that some other unnamed fragments iven by Harvey are from this epistle.

From Eusebius' words we eatn that Irenzus agreed with Victor as to the proper time of keeping the feast, and yet he did not agree with him in his desire to excommunicate those who followed the other practice.

14 The punctuation of this sentence is a disputed matter.

Some editors omit the semicolon after the words "' yet others more," translating, '' For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more, and some forty; and they count, the hours of the day and night together as their day." The sense is thus materially changed, but the Greek seems to necessitate rather the punctuation which I have followed in my translation, and so that punctuation is adopted by Valesius,

Zimmermann, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, Heinichen, Closs, Crusé, and others. We should expect, moreover, that the forty hours' fast should be mentioned in this connection by Irenzeus, as we learn from Tertullian that it was very common; whereas we have no other trace of the forty days' fast at so early a date (cf. the next note).

The fast preceding the celebration of the paschal supper, which has grown gradually into our Lent of forty days preceing Easter, is, we are told here by Irenzeus, much older than his day.

It is thus carried back at least close to apostolic times, and there is no reason to think that it was not observed about as soon as the celebration of the paschal supper itself was established.

Tertullian also mentions the fast, which continued, according to him (de $efunzio, chap. 2), during the period "' in which the bridegroom was taken away," i.e. in which Jesus was under the power of death. | i We learn from this passage of Irenzeus' epistle that the duration of the fast varied ofeaty) from Socrates (H. E. V. 22) and Sozomen (H. Z. VII. 19) we learn that the variation was as great in their time.

Some fasted three, some six, some seven weeks, and so on.

Socrates (/.c.) informs us that the fast, whatever its duration, was always called tercapaxoorty (quadrigesina). _ He does not know why this is, but says that various reasons are given by others.

The time between Jesus' death and his resurrection was very early computed as forty hours in length, — from noon of Friday to four o'clock Sunday morning.

This may have lain at the basis of the number forty, which was so persistently used to designate the fast, for Tertullian tells us that the fast was intended to cover the period during which Jesus was dead.

It is this idea which undoubtedly underlay the fast of forty hours which Irenzus mentions.

The fasts of Moses, of Elijah, and of Jesus in the desert would also of course have great influence in determining the length of this, the most important fast of the year.

Already before the end of the third century the fast had extended itself in many quarters to cover a number of weeks, and in the time of Eusebius the forty days' fast had already become a common thing (see his de Pasch. chap.

5), and even Origen refers to it (Hom. in Lev. X. 2).

The present Sation of the fast —forty days exclusive of Sundays—was fixed in the seventh or eighth century.

Cf, Sinker's article on Lent in Smith's Dzcé. of Christ. Ant. and Krieg's article, Feste, in Kraus' Excyclop. der

Christ. Alterthiimer, 1. p. 489.

16 i.e, the fourteenth day.

17 The Greek reads: kat Tow waddAov évavtiov hy Td Typely ToLs u% tnpovor.

The meaning is, that the observance of the fourteenth day by these strangers in Rome itself, among those who did not observe that day, would be noticeable and more distasteful than the mere report that the day was so observed in Asia could be.

If Victor's predecessor, therefore, allowed such persons to observe that day even in Rome, how much more should he allow the Asiatics to observe it in their own land.

18 Valesius, followed by others, interprets this sentence as meaning that the presbyters of Rome sent the eucharist to other arishes where the paschal festival was observed on the fourteenth of the month, The council of Laodicea (Can. 14) forbade the sending of the eucharist to other parishes, which shows that the custom must have been widespread Trane the end of the fourth century, and it is therefore quite possible that the bishops of Rome, even as early as the time of Irenzeus, pursued the same practice.

But in regard to the statement made here by Irenzus, it must be said that, so far as we are able to ascertain, only the churches of Asia Minor observed the fourteenth day at that early date, and it is difficult to imagine that the presbyters of Rome before Victor's time had been in the habit of sending the eucharist all the way from Rome to Asia Minor.

Moreover, this is the only passage in el ea we have notice, before the fourth century, of the existence of the general practice condemned by the council of Laodicea.

The Greek reads ot mpd cod moeaBvTepor Tois amd THY TapoLKL@Y THPOvOLY EmEeMmoV evxapiotiav.

These words taken by themselves can as well, if not better, be understood of persons (whether presbyters or others is not in any case distinctly stated) who had come to Rome from other parishes, and who continued to observe the fourteenth day.

This transmission of the eucharist to communicants who were kept away from the service by illness or other adequate cause was a very old custom, being mentioned by Justin Martyr in his 4o/. I. 65.

It is true that it is difficult to understand why Irenzus should speak in the present case of sending the eucharist to those persons who observed the fourteenth day, instead of merely mentioning the fact that the Roman church communed with them, In the face of the difficulties on both sides it must be admitted that neither of the interpretations mentioned can be insisted upon.

On the practice of sending the eucharistic bread to persons not present at the service, or to other parishes, see the article Ezlogia, in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Ant.

19 ériSnuncavros TH 'Poun.

Upon the significance of this phrase, see Bk, IV. chap. 11, note 19.

On the date of Polycarp's visit to Rome, see zézd., chap. 14, note 2.

In his Adv. Her., where he mentions this visit (as quoted in chap. 14), Irenzeus does

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[V. 24. nega meen ain me ere cmt vn Ye eS Se A them Cassius,? bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them,' having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words : * and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter.

For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated ; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs

"Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls.

We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do.

For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day."* of the presbyters that had preceded him.

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect."

And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."

CHAPTER XXVI.

Thus Irenzeus, who truly was well named," became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches.

And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other tulers of the churches."

The Elegant Works of Irenaeus which have come down to us.

BesipeEs the works and letters of Irenzeus which we have mentioned,! a certain book of his On Knowledge, written against the Greeks,' very concise and remarkably forcible, is extant; and another, which he dedicated to a brother Marcian,

In Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching ;* and a volume containing various Dissertations,* in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, making

CHAPTER XXV.

How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.

THOsE in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus,! and with 2 Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men..

8 i.e, in the Palestinian council mentioned in chap. 23.

Upon this and the other councils held at the same period, see chap. 23, note 2. not speak of the affair of the passover which he refers to here.

The omission, however, has no significance, as he is discussing Gnosticism there, and refers to Polycarp's visit to Rome only because his attitude toward Marcion was revealed in connection with it.

+ 20 The meaning of this passage has been disputed.

The Greek reads: Kal év TH éxxAnola mapexwpyoerv 6 "Avixyntos Thy evxaptoTiay 7 TloAvxdpty Kat' evtpomnv dSnAovérr, Valesius understands Irenzus' meaning to be that Anicctus invited Polycarp to administer the eucharist in Rome; and this is the common interpretation of the passage.

Heinichen objects, however, that rapexupnoev thy edxawotiav cannot tefer to the administration of the sacrament, and ence concludes that Irenzus means simply to say that Anicetus permitted Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in his church, thereb pecenne ublicly their fraternal fellowship, in spite of their dif4 This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, Re/. Sac.

II. p. 3 sq.

English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII.

P+ 77 4s 5 These epistles, like all the rest written at this time on the paschal question, are now lost (see chap. 23, note 4).

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

2 mpds" EAAnvas Adyos ... Tepi emioryuns.

Jerome (de wir. zl.

35) makes two works out of this: one Agaznst the Gentiles, and another On Knowledge (et contra Gentes volumen breve, et de disciflina aliud). arvey (I. p. clxvi.) states that one of the Syriac fragments of Irenzeus' works mentions the work of Eusebius

On Knowledge,and specifies that it was directed against the Valentinians.

In that case it would be necessary to make two separate works, as Jerome does, and so Harvey thinks that the text of Eusebius must be amended by the insertion of an aAAos te.

Unfortunately, Harvey did not name the Syriac fragment which contains erences on the pian question.

The common interpretation, however, seems to the writer better than Heinichen's; for if the latter be adopted, the sentence in question says no more than the one which recedes it,—'' they communed with each other' (éxotvwvnoav eavtots).

And moreover, as Valesius remarks, Anicetus would in that case have shown Polycarp no more honor than any other Christian pilgrim who might happen to be in Rome.

Irenzus seems to intend to say that Anicetus showed Polycarp especial honor, and that in spite of their difference of opinion on the paschal question, But simply to have allowed Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in the church would certainly have been no honor, and, on the other hand, not to invite him to assist in the administration of the sacrament might have seemed a sign of disrespect, and have emphasized their differences.

The old interpretation, therefore, must be followed, and so far as the Greek is concerned, there is no difficulty

. the statement referred to, and it is not to be found among those collected in his edition (Venables, in Smith and Wace, states that he could find no such fragment, and I have also searched in vain for it).

Evidently some blunder has been committed, and it looks as if Harvey's statement were unverifiable.

Meanwhile, Jerome's testimony alone is certainly not enough to warrant an emendation of the text in opposition to all the MSS. and versions.

We must therefore conclude, with our present light, that the treatise wept émuatyuns was directed against the Greeks, as Eusebius says.

The work has entirely perished, with the possible exception of a single brief fragment (the first of the Pfaffian fragments;

G7. Frag. XXXV. in Harvey's edition), which Harvey refers to it. about the construction.

In the wapexwpnoev resides the idea of «' yielding," "' giving place to"'; and so Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the eucharist, or gave place to him in the matter of the eucharist,

This in fact brings out the force of the mapexwpyoev better than 3 ets ewidecérv Tod amogToALKoy Kypvyuatos.

This work, too, has perished, though possibly a few of the fragments published by Harvey are to be referred to it (see Harvey, I. p. clxvil.).

Harvey conjectures that the work discussed the articles of the early Rule of faith, which is quite possible, Of the '' brother Marcian " to whom it was addressed, we know nothing.

Heinichen's interpretation.

21 The Greek form of the name is Eipyvaios, from eipyjvn, which means '' peace.""

22 None of these epistles are extant; but it is possible that some of the fragments commonly assigned to Irenzus' epistle to Victor may belong to one or more of them (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

III. p. 265).

We do not know to what bishops or churches these epistles were sent.

Jerome does not mention them.

1 In chaps. 22 and 23.

For particulars in regard to them, see chap. 22, notes 6 and 7.

4 BiBAtov te dvadcfewv Svapdpwy.

This work (no longer extant) was probably, as Harvey remarks, " a collection of sermons and expositions of various texts and passages of Scripture."

To it are undoubtedly to be referred a great many of the fragments in which passages of Scripture are discussed (see Harvey, I. p, clxvii.)

Vi 27.)

VARIOUS ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS.

of Apion' on the same subject; likewise of Sextus*® on the Resurrection, and another treatise of Arabianus,® and writings of a multitude of others, in regard to whom, because we have no data, it is impossible to state in our work when they lived, or to give any account of their history.'

And works of many others have come quotations from them.

These are the works of Irenzeus which have come to our knowledge.

Commodus having ended his reign after thirteen years, Severus became emperor in less than six months after his death, Pertinax having reigned during the intervening time.®

CHAPTER XXVII.

article, implying a noun understood, and referring to the six days' work of creation (see Suicer's Thesaurus).

The subject was quite a favorite one with the Fathers.

Hippolytus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, and others wrote upon it, as did also the Apion mentioned in the next sentence.

The work of Candidus is no longer extant, nor do we know anything more about it and its author than

Eusebius tells us here.

The plural ta occurs again, and Jerome supplies ¢ractatus.

Whether the word fitly describes the work, or works, or whether they were rather of the nature of homilies, like

Basil's, we do not know.

Sophronius, in translating Jerome, puts optaias for tractatus, but this of course is of no authority.

The Works of Others that flourished at that Time.

Numerous memorials of the faithful zeal of the ancient ecclesiastical men of that time are still preserved by many.

Of these we would note particularly the writings of Heraclitus* On the Apostle, and those of Maximus on the question so much discussed among heretics, the Origin of Evil, and on the Creation of Matter?

Also those of Candidus on the Hexzmeron,' and 4 Apion's work is mentioned also by Jerome (de vzr. z//. chap. 4), but nothing is added to the statement of Eusebius.

We know nothing more about him or his work.

5 Sextus also is mentioned by Jerome, in his de vz. 7/7. chap. po but we know nothing about him or his work, except what Euseius tells us here.

6 Nothing more is known of this Arabianus, and Eusebius does not even tell us the name of his work.

His silence is difficult to explain.

We can hardly imagine that the title was intentionally omitted; for had there been a reason for such a course, there must have been as much reason for omitting the writer's name also.

It does not seem probable that he had never known the title of the book, for he was not in the habit of mentioning works which he had not seen, except with the formula Adyos éxet, or something of the kind, to indicate that he makes his statement only on the authority of others.

It is possible that he had seen this, with the other works mentioned (perhaps all bound in bne volume), at sometime in the 5 Commodus was strangled on the 31st of December, 192, and Pertinax, who immediately succeeded him, was murdered, on March 28, 193, by the Praetorian guard, which then sold the imperial power to Didius Julianus, who, at the approach of Septimius

Severus, who had been Rrorigined emperor by the Pannonian legions, was declared a public enemy by the Senate, and beheaded after a reign of only sixty-six days. f 1 This Heraclitus is mentioned only by Eusebius and by Jerome tats vir. ill, chap. 46), who, in his description of him and in the five ast, but that the title of Arabianus' work had escaped him, and ence he simply mentioned the work along with the others, without considering the title a matter of great importance.

He speaks of but a single work, —aAAy Tis t7d8ec1s,— but Jerome (chap. 51) mentions gue@dam opuscula ad christianum dogma bata a His description is not specific enough to lead us to think that he had personal knowledge of Arabianus' writings.

It must rather be concluded that he allowed himself some license, and that, not satisfied to speak of a writer without naming his works, and, at the same time, knowing nothing definite about them, he simply calls them, in the most general terms, ad christianum dogma pertinentia; for if they were Christian works, he was pretty safe in concluding that they had to do, in some way at least, with Christian doctrine.

The substitution of the plural for the singular (guedam opuscula for tis Umdbects) can hardly have been an accident.

It is, perhaps, safe to say, knowing Jerome's methods, that he permitted himself to make the change in order to conceal his own ignorance of the writings of Arabianus; for to mention a single book, and say mo more about it than that it had to do with Christian doctrine, would be a betrayal of entire ignorance in regard to it; but tosum upa number of writings under the general head ad christianum dogma pertinentia, instead of giving all the titles in detail, would be,

'ollowing chapters (on Maximus, Candidus Apion, Sextus, and Arabianus), does nothing more than repeat the words of Eusebius in this chapter.

The work which Eusebius calls 7a "HpaxActrov eis tov amdatodov is called by Jerome 2% afostolum Commentarios.

The word amécroAos was quite commonly used among the Fathers to denote the epistles of Paul (see Suicer's Thesaurus), and hence

Eusebius seems here to refer to commentaries (the plural article Ta is used) on the Pauline epistles.

These commentaries are no longer extant, and we know nothing of their nature.

2 The Greek reads kai ra Mag-pov epi rod moAvOpudArjrov mapa Tols aiperistats SyTHMaTOS, TOU mo0ev 7 Kaxia, Kal mepi TOU yevnthy wrdpxew THy VAnv. The plural ra (sc. Urouvypara) might lead us to suppose Eusebius refers here to separate works, were it not for the fact that in his Pref. Evang. VII. 22 is found a long extract from a work of Maximus On Matter (mepi tis vAns) in which the subject of the origin of evil is discussed in connection with the origin and nature of matter.

In that age one could hardly discuss the origin of evil without at the same time discussing matter, to which the origin of evil was referred by the great majority of the ancients.

We are to suppose, then, that the work of Maximus bore the double title given by Eusebius in this chapter.

Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 47, says: Maximus ..

. famosam questionem insigni volumine ventilavit, unde malum, et guod materia a Deo facta stt. As remarked above, a long extract, which must have beer taken from this work, is ae by Eusebius in his Prep. Lvang.

Tt appears from this extract that the work was written in the form of a dialogue between three speakers, — two inquirers, and one orthodox Christian.

The same fragment of Maximus' work is found also in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Philocalia of Origen, and is of course, quite consistent with an exact acquaintance with all of them.

If our supposition be correct, we have simply another instance of Jerome's common sin, and an instance which, in this case, reveals a sharp contrast between his character and that of Eusebius, who never hesitated to confess his ignorance.

7 Eusebius does not imply, in this sentence, that he is not acquainted with these works to which he refers.

As the words are commonly translated, we might imagine that he was not familiar with them, for all the translators make him speak of not being able to draw any extracts from them for his own history. Thus Valesius: nec narrationem.ullam libris nostris intexere possumus; Stroth:

"noch etwas darauserzahlen kann"; Closs: ''noch etwas daraus anfiihren kiénnen"; Crusé: " we can neither insert the time nor any extracts in our History."

The Greek of the whole sentence reads, by bia Td pydeniav Exery adhoppiyy ovx oldy te ovTE TOUS Xpdvous said by the editors, Gregory and Basil, to have been copied by them from Eusebius' work.

The Dzalogue on Free Wiil, ascribed to Methodius (of the early part of the fourth century), made large use of this work of Maximus; and the same is to be said of the PseudoOrigenistic Dialogue against the Marctonttes, though according to Routh (Rel. Sac. II. p. 79) the latter drew his quotations from Methodius and not directly from Maximus.

The work of Methodius undoubtedly contains much more of Maximus' work than is given here by Eusebius; but it is difficult to ascertain what is his own and what belongs to Maximus, and Routh, in publishing the fragments of Maximus' work (257d. p. 87-107), gives only the extract quoted by Eusebius.

In his Prep. Evang. Eusebius speaks of Maximus as THs xpioTov SuarpiBys ovK aonuos avyp, but we know no more about him than has been already indicated.

Gallandius suggests that he may be identical with Maximus, the twenty-sixth bishop of Jerusalem

(see above, chap. 12), who, it is quite robable, lived about this time (cf. Eusebius' Chron., year of Abr. 2202).

But Eusebius, neither in this chapter nor in his Prep. Evang., calls Maximus a bishop, and it seems proper to conclude that he at least

'did not know that he was a bishop; and hence Gallandius' conjecture, which rests only upon agreement in'a very common name, must be pronounced quite baseless.

, 3 eis Tyv é£arpepov (sc. KompoToLtay OF Syucoupyiav).

The adjective éfa7jmepos was commonly used in this way, with the feminine rapadotvat ypadhi, ov8" igropias pyiunv vroonuyvacbat, which seems to mean simply that their works contain no information which enables him to give the dates of the authors, or to recount anything about their lives; that is, they contain no personal allusions.

This is quite different from saying that he was not acquainted with the works; in fact, had he not been quite familiar with them, he could not have made such a broad statement.

He seems to have searched them for personal notices, and to have failed in the search. Whether these words of Eusebius apply to all the works already mentioned, or only to the uupiwy aAAwy just referred to, cannot be certainly determined.

The latter seems most natural; but even if the reference be only to those last mentioned, there is every reason to think that the words are just as true of the writings of Heraclitus, Maximus, and the others, for he tells us nothing about their lives, nor the time in which they lived, but introduces them in the most general terms, as "ancient ecclesiastical men."? There seems, therefore, no good reason for connecting these writers with the reign of Commodus, rather than with any other reign of the late second or of the third century.

THE CHURCH: HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

LV, 27which Paul of Samosata? attempted to revive down to us whose names we are unable to give, orthodox and ecclesiastical, as their interpretations of the Divine Scriptures show, but unknown to us, because their names are not stated in their writings.® | again in our day, there is an account appropriate

'to the history which we are now examining.

For he criticises, as a late innovation, the

above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient.

Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words :

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.

"For they say that all the early teachers

and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter,* but that from his successor, Zephyrinus,? the truth had been corrupted.

And what

they say might be plausible, if first of all

In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon,'

It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that '' these men lived at this time"; he simply mentions them in this connection because it is a convenient place, and perhaps because there were indications which led him to hist they could not have lived early in the second or late in the third century.

It is quite possible, as suggested in the previous note, that the works of the writers whose names are mentioned in this chapter were collected in a single volume, and that thus

Eusebius was led to class them all together, although the subjects of their works were by no means the same, and their dates may have been widely different. both of them disciples of the first Theodotus, during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, but seems soon to have disappeared, and to have exerted comparatively little influence during its brief existence.

Theodotus, the banker, appears to have agreed substantially with the older Theodotus, but to fave indulged himself in speculations concerning Melchizedek, pronouncing him to be a heavenly power still higher than Christ.

Epiphanius makes the second Theodotus the founder of a second party, and gives his school the name of Melchizedekians, which pppeats in later works on heresy, but there is no reason 'to suppose that there were two separate parties.

8 Eusebius mentioned first those works whose authors' names were known to him, but now adds that he is acquainted with many other writings which bear the name of no author.

He claims, however, that the works testify to their authors' orthodoxy, and he seems to imply, by this statement, that he has convinced himself of their orthodoxy by a personal examination of them.

1 This anonymous work against the heresy of Artemon is no longer extant, and the only fragments of it which we have are those preserved by Eusebius in this chapter.

Theodoret (Her. Fad.

II, 5) mentions the work, and says that it was directed against the heresies of Theodotus and Artemon, and that it bore the name Lz##/e

Labyrinth.

It is plain, from the fragments which Eusebius gives, that it was written in Rome some little time before the middle of the third century, probably not far from 230 or 240 A.D, The work is commonly ascribed to noly tus, in favor of which may be urged both the time and the place of its composition as well as some internal resemblance between it and the Phzlosophumena.

On the other hand, Photius (Cod. 48) ascribes to Caiys of Rome a work against Artemon, which may well be identical with the anonymous work quoted in the present chapter.

It is therefore contended b some (e.g. by Salmon) that Caius was the author of the work.

It must be noted, however, that in the same connection Photius ascribes another work to Caius which we know to have been written by Hippolytus, and hence his testimony is rather in favor of Hippolytus than Caius as the author of the work.

On the other hand, several objections have been urged by Salmon against the Hippolytine authorship, which, while not decisive, yet make it extremely doubtful.

In view of these facts, we must conclude that it is possible, but very improbable, that Hippolytus wrote the work; that it is not impossible, though we are quite without evidence for the supposition, that Caius wrote it; that it is more likely that a work which even to Eusebius was anonymous, was written by an unknown man, who must remain unknown to us also.

The extant fragments of the work are given, with notes, by Routh in his Re/. Sac., and an English translation in the Axte-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V. p. 601 sq., among the works of Caius.

Although the work ts said by Eusebius to have been directed against the heresy of Artemon, he has preserved only extracts relating to the Theodoti and their heresy.

They are described also by Hippolytus, both in his lost Syntagma (as we can learn from Pseudo-Yertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster) and in his Philosophumena (VII. 23-24, and X. 19).

Other ancient writers that mention him know only what our anonymous author or Hippolytus reports.

It seems that the older Theodotus, a native of Byzantium, came to Rome in the time of Eleutherus or Victor, and taught a species of adoptionism, which reminds us somewhat of the Asia Minor Alogi, in whose circle he may have been trained.

Hippolytus informs us that he was orthodox in his theology and cosmology, but that he was heretical in his Christology.

He did not deny Christ's birth from a virgin (as the Ebionites had done), but he did deny his divinity, teaching that he was a mere man (tAds av@pwros), upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at the time of his baptism, in consequence of which he became the Christ, received power to fulfill his special mission, and by his righteousness was raised above all other men.

The descent of the Holy Spirit, however, although raising him to a very exalted position, did not make him divine; some of Theodotus' followers denying that he ever acquired divinity, others believing that he acquired it by his resurrection.

Theodotus was excommunicated by Victor on account of his heretical Christology, but gained a number of followers, and after his excommunication founded a schismatical sect, which had a bishop Natalius, to whom a regular salary was paid (see below, § 10), and which continued under the leadership of another Theodotus, a banker, and a certain Asclepiodotus,

A few years later another attempt was made in Rome to revive the old sdption ict Christology (essentially the same as that represented by Hermas early in the second century), by a certain

Artemon, against whom the Little Labyrinth, quoted in this chapter, was directed.

It is common to connect Artemon and his followers with the Theodotians; but, as Harnack remarks, it is plain that they did not look upon themselves as the followers of the Theodoti

(see below, note 15).

We cannot tell, however, in what respect their Christology differed from that of the latter, for we know very little about them.

They at any rate agreed with the Theodotians in denying the divinity of Christ.

From the epistle of the synod of Antioch (quoted below, in Bk. VII. chap. 30) we learn that Artemon was still living in the year 268, or thereabouts.

He seems, however, to have accomplished little in Rome, and to have dropped into comparative obscurity some time before this; at least, we hear nothin of him during all these years.

In the controversy with Paul o Samosata he was called the father of the latter (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 30,§ ), and thus acquired considerable celebrity in the East, where his name became permanently connected with that of Paul as one of the leading heretics, Whether Paul really learned his Christology from Artemon we do not know, but that it closely resembled that of the latter there can be no doubt.

He really reproduced the old adoptionist Christology of Hermas (as both the Theodotians and Artemon had done), but modified it under the influence pare of Origen's teachings, partly of the Aristotelian method.

For further particulars in regard to the Theodoti and Artemon, see the remaining notes on this chapter.

For an admirable discussion of the whole subject, see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte,

I. p. 573 sq.

On the Little Labyrinth, see especially the Dict. of Christian Biog. III. p. 98.

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

8 The Artemonites were certainly correct in maintaining that the adoptionism which they held was, at least in its essential principles, an ancient thing, and their opponents were wrong in trying to deny it.

It is the Christology which: Hermas represents, and early in the second century it was undoubtedly a widespread popular elief.

No one thought of questioning the orthodoxy of ermas.

The Christology of the Theodotians and of Artemon was an innovation, however, in so far as it attempted to formulate in scientific terms and to treat philosophically what had hitherto been only a popular belief.

So soon as the logical conclusions were drawn, and its consequences to the divinity of the Son were perceived, it began to be felt as heresy, but not until then.

_ 4 On Victor, see above, chap. 22, note x.

Victor is the thirteenth bishop if Cletus and Anencletus be reckoned as one, otherwise the fourteenth.

This is used by Salmon as an argument against the Hippolytine authorship of the Little Labyrinth, for Hippolytus reckoned Cletus and Anencletus as two bishops, and therefore made

Victor the fourteenth (see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3).

5 The dates of aay nee, episcopate are to be gained by reckoning backward from that of Callistus, which is shown in Bk. VI. chap. 21, note 3, to have begun in the year 217.

A comparison of the various sources shows that Zephyrinus was bishop eighteen or nineteen years, which brings us back to the year 108 or 199 as the date of his accession.

Eusebius says "' about the cine year of the reign

V. 28.]

THEQDOTUS' AND

HIS' FOLLOWERS.

how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler," the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere ian?

For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out

Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?" the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them.

And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day.

I refer to Justin® and Miltiades' and Tatian* and Clement® and many others, in all of whose

works Christ is spoken of as God."

For who does not know the works of Irenzeus and of Melito" and of others which teach that Christ is God and man?® And how many psalms and hymns," written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ

So much in regard to Victor.

His bish-

opric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus.'* The author of the abovementioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words : the Word of God, speaking of him as

Divine.

How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor?

And

"'T will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them.

There was a certain confessor, Natalius," not long ago, but in our own day.

This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus™ and another Theodotus,® a money-changer.

Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness." of Severus," which according to the correct reckoning would be the year 201, but according to his erroneous reckoning of the dates of the emperors' reigns (see the note already referred to) gives the year

200, so that the agreement is sakes 4 close (see Lipsius' Chron. der rim. Bischife, p. 172 sq-, and see above, Bk.

V. chap. 22, noter).

In Bk, IX. of his great work Hippolytus gives quite an account of Zephyrinus and his successor, Callistus.

The former is described as ignorant and illiterate, a taker of bribes, an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man, &c.

How much of this is true and how much is due to prejudice, we cannot tell.

But it seems at least to be a fact that Zepistions was completely under the influence of Callistus, as Hippolytus states.

We learn from the latter that Zephyrinus at least countenanced the heresy of Patripassianism (at the opposite extreme from that of the Theodotians and Artemon), if he did not directly teach it.

Natalius was persuaded by them to allow

himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month.4 When lI he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions.

For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was en6 On Justin Martyr, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 20.

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

8 On Tatian, see Bk. III. chap. 29. The fact that Tatian is here spoken of with respect is urged by Salmon as an argument against the Hippolytine authorship of this work, for Hippolytus devotes two chapters of his Phzlosophumena (VIII. 9, X. 14) to the heresy of Tatian.

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

10 Pcodoyetrat 6 xptords.

Our author is quite correct in making this statement.

The apologists are agreed in their acceptance of the Logos Christology of which they are the earliest patristic exponents, and in the time of Clement of Mecdaw it had become, as yet in an undeveloped form, the commonly accepted doctrine of the orthodox

Church.

11 On Irenzeus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

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

13 [renzus' utterances on this subject were epoch-making in the history of doctrine.

No one before him had emphasized so ener; etically and brought out so clearly the God-manhood of Christ.

His great significance in Christology is the emphasis which he laid upon the unity of God and man in Christ, —a unity in which the integrity both of the divine and of the human was preserved.

Our author is also doubtless correct in saying that Melito called Christ God and man.

If the two fragments from the Discourse on the Soul and Body, and from the Discourse on the Cross (printed from the Syriac by Cureton, in his Sézc. Syr. Pp. 52 Sq.), genuine, as is quite probable (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1), we have clear indications that Melito taught both the humanity and the deity of Christ ("' when He was become incarnate through the womb of the Virgin, and was born man."

" Inasmuch as He was man, He needed food; still, inasmuch as He was God, He ceased not to feed the universe").

15 yoy oxvtéa: "cobbler,'' or '' worker in leather." On Theodotus, see above, note r. As Harnack remarks, the Artemonites must have known that Victor had excommunicated Theodotus, and therefore, if they regarded themselves as his followers, it would have been impossible to claim that all the Roman bishops, including

Victor, held their opinions.

When to this is added the apparent effort of our author to identify the Artemonites with the Theodotians, it becomes clear that they must themselves have denied their connection with them, though in what points they differed with them, we do not know (see above, note 1; and cf. Harnack's Dogmengesch.

I. p. 583).

See above, note 5.

17° Of Natalius, we know only what is told us in this passage.

The suggestion of Valesius that he might be identified with Czciltus Natalis, the heathen who is represented as converted by Octavius, in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, is quite baseless.

18 *AgKAnmeodérov, according to all the MSS. except one, which reads "AcxAnmeddov, and with which Nicephorus and Theodoret agree.

He is undoubtedly the same man that is referred to in § 17, below, where all the MSS. unite in reading "AokAymeddov.

Of this man we know only what is told us in this chapter.

Theodoret (Her. Fab. II. 5) mentions him, but adds nothing new, while Hippolytus in his PAzlosophumena, and apparently in his lost Syztagma, passes him by without notice.

4 This passage is sometimes interpreted as indicating that hymns written by the Christians themselves were sung in the pour of Rome at this time.

But this is by no means implied.

So far as we are able to gather from our sources, ebay except the Psalms and New Testament hymns (such as the "

Gloria in Excelsis," the "Magnificat," the '" Nunc Dimittis," &c.), was as a rule, sung in public worship before the fourth century (the ractice which had sprung up in the church of Antioch seems to have been exceptional; see Kraus, p. 673).

Before the end of that century, however, the practice of singing other hymns in the service of the Church had become common, both in the East and West.

On the other hand, the private use of hymns among the Christians be19 On this second Theodotus, a money-changer or banker (7pame¢itys), who is distinguished from the first Theodotus by both our sources (Hippolytus and the Lzttle Labyrinth quoted here) » see above, note 1.

20 The Greek contains a play of words at this point: émt ravTy TH ppovycer, paddrov SE ahpoovry. an very early.

We need refer here only to Pliny's epistle to Trajan (translated above, in Bk. ITT. chap. 33, note 1); Clement of 21 This is the earliest instance we have of a salaried clergyman.

The practice of paying salaries was followed also by the Montanists, and brought great reproach upon them (see above, chap. 18, note 8).

A Roman denarius was equal to about seventeen cents, so that Natalius' monthly salary was a little over twenty-five dollars,

'Alexandria, Strom. VII. 7; Tertullian, ad Uxor. Il. 8; Origen, Contra Ceis. VII. 67; the epistle of Dionysius quoted below, in Bk.

VII. chap. 24, &c.

Compare the article Hymmnen in Kraus' RealEncyclopédie der Christl. Alterthiimer, and the article Hymns in Smith and Cheetham's Dict. of Christ.

Antiquities,

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[V. 28. ee ee ee eS ES ES who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say?

'Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.

That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn.

For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly.

Those of As-

clepiades," for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus.

And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions," of each of them.

Again, those of Hermophilus* do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides® are not consistent with themselves.

For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, snared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night."

Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity ; and he moved with his tears the compassionate

Church of the merciful Christ.

And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely

was he taken back into communion."

We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows : *

"They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear.

They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known.

They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety.

And if any one brings before them a passage of and you will find them widely different. But

how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant.

For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs?

For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands.

For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.

But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets," and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition."

Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be

made from it.

And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry.* Euclid is laboriously measured * by some of them ; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.

But that those

22 It is not necessary to doubt the truth of this report, if we substitute '' muscular Christians " for '' holy angels."

As Stroth dryly remarks:

''Eben kein léblich Geschaft fiir die heiligen Engel; es werden aber ohne zweifel Engel mit guten starken Knochen und

Nerven gewesen sein."

23 The information which is given us here in regard to the methods of the Theodotians is very interesting.

What is said in regard to their philosophical principles makes it evident that they used the grammatical and critical mode of exegesis as opposed to the prevalent allegorical mode.

Nothing could seem more irreverent and irreligious to the Church of that age than such a method of interpretation, the method which we now recognize as the only true one.

They were, moreover, textual critics.

'They may have been rash in their methods, but it is not necessary to suppose them dishonest in their purposes.

They seem to have looked upon the Scriptures as inspired as truly as their opponents did, but they believed that radical criticism was needed if the true reading of the originals was to be reached, while their opponents were shocked at anything of the kind.

That textual criticism was necessary, even at that early day, is clear enough from the words of Irenzus (quoted in'chap. 20, above), and from the words of Dionysius (quoted in Bk.

IV. chap. 23), as well as from many other sources, Finally, these men seem to have offended their opponents by the use of dialectical methods in their treatment of Geol, This is very significant at that rae date, It is indeed the earliest instance known to us of that method which seemed entirely irreligious to the author of the Little Labyrinth, but which less than a century later prevailed in the Antiochian school, and for a large part of the Middle Ages ruled the whole Church.

Let this suffice for these things.

26 All the MSS. read 'AoxAnmiddov, which is adopted by most of the editors.

Rufinus and Nicephorus, however, followed by a few eps among them Heinichen, read 'AcxAnmoddrov (see above, note 18).

27 xatwp0wuéva, TovTégTiy nhavigméeva.

28 Of this Hermophilus we know nothing more.

29 'AmroAAwvidov, which is the reading of one ancient MS., of Rufinus, Theodoret, and Nicephorus, and which is adopted by Stroth,

Burton, Heinichen, and Closs.

The majority of the MSS. read *AmoAAwviov, while a few read 'AroAAwviddov.

30 These persons can hardly have rejected the Law and the Prophets utterly, — at least, no hint is given us that they maintained a fundamental difference between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament, as Marcion did, — nor would such wholesale rejection be natural for critics such as they were,

It is more likely that they simply, as many of the Gnostics did, emphasized the merely relative authority of the Old Testament, and that they applied historical criticism to it, distinguishing between its various parts in the matter of authority.

Such action is just what we should expect from members of a critical school like that of Theodotus, and such criticism in its extremest form would naturally seem to an orthodox Catholic the same as throwing over the whole book.

Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, p, 579 and p. 488 sqq.

24 The author makes a play here upon the word earth, which cannot be reproduced in a translation.

-yewmerpiar (literally, " earthmeasure") émitndevovary, woav ex THS ys GvTes Kal Ex THS yHs

AadodrTes.

25 'Evxdeidns ... yewmetpecrac: literally, Euclid 7s geometrized.

↑ Back to top