CHAPTER V
POTAMIAENA AND BASILIDES.
VI. 6.] prisoned.
But the brethren in God com-
ing to him and inquiring the reason of this sudden and remarkable resolution, he is reported to have said that Potamizna, for three days after her martyrdom, stood beside him by night and placed a crown on his head, and said that she had besought the Lord for him and had obtained what she asked, and that soon she would take him with her.
Thereupon the brethren gave him the seal* of the Lord; and on the next day, after giving glorious testimony for the Lord, he was beheaded.
And many others
in Alexandria are recorded to have accepted speedily the word of Christ in those times.
For Potamizna appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them.
But let this suffice in regard to this matter.
CHAPTER V.
Potamiena. b BASILIDES? may be counted the seventh of these.
He led to martyrdom the celebrated Potamizna, who is still famous among the people of the country for the many things which she endured for the preservation of her chastity and virginity.
For she was blooming in the perfection of her mind and her physical graces.
Having suffered much for the faith of Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and terrible to speak of, she with her mother, Mar-
cella,' was put to death by fire.
They say that the judge, Aquila by name, having inflicted severe tortures upon her entire body, at last threatened to hand her over to the gladiators for bodily abuse.
After a little consideration, being asked for her decision, she made
CHAPTER VI.
a reply which was regarded as impious.
Thereupon she received sentence immediClement of Alexandria. ately, and Basilides, one of the officers of Ciement! having succeeded Pantzenus,' had charge at that time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen also, while still a boy,? was one of his pupils.
In the first the army, led her to death.
But as the people attempted to annoy and insult her with abusive words, he drove back her insulters, showing her much pity and kindness.
And perceiving the man's sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be of good courage, for she would supplicate her
Lord for him after her departure, and he would 4 The word odopayis, "seal," was very commonly used by the Fathers to signify baptism (see Suicer's Thesaurus).
1 This chapter has no connection with the preceding, and its insertion at this point has no good ground, for Clement has been already handled in the fifth book; and if Eusebius wished to refer to him again in connection with Origen, he should have done so in chap. 3, where Origen's appointment as head of the catechetical school is mentioned.
(Redepenning, however, approves the present order; vol. I. p. 431 sqq-) ufinus felt the inconsistency, cit kanes inserted chaps. 6 and 7 in the middle of chap. 3, where the account of Origen's appointment by Demetrius is given.
Valesius considers the occurrence of this mention of Clement at this point a sign that Eusebius did not give his work a final revision.
Chap. 13 is inserted in the same abrupt way, quite out of harmony with the context.
Sie the life of Clement of Alexandria, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1.
The catechetical school was vacant, as we learn from chap. 2, in the year 203, and was then taken in charge by Origen, so that the '' that time" referred to by Eusebius in this sentence must be carried back of the events related in the previous chapters, The cause of Clement's leaving the school was probably the persecution begun by Severus in 202 ('all were driven away by the threatening aspect of persecution," according to chap. 3, § 1); for since Origen was one of his pupils he can hardly have left long before that time.
That it was not unworthy cowardice which led Clement to take his departure is clear enough from the words of Alexander in chaps. 11 and 14, from the high reputation which he continued to enjoy throughout the Church, and from his own utterances on the subject of martyrdom scattered through his works. soon receive a reward for the kindness he had shown her.
Having said this, she nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch being poured little by little, over various parts
of her body, from the sole of her feet to the crown of her head.
Such was the conflict endured by this famous maiden.
Not long after this Basilides, being asked by his fellow-soldiers to swear for a certain reason, declared that it was not lawful for him to swear at all, for he was a Christian, and he confessed this openly. At first they thought that he was jesting, but when he continued to affirm it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowledging his conviction before him, he was im2 On Pantznus, see Bk. V. chap. ro, note 2.
3 Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen, following two important MSS. and the translation of Rufinus, omit the words maida ovra " while a boy."
But the words are found in all the other codices. (the chief witnesses of two of the three great families of MSS. being for them) and in Nicephorus. The manuscript authority is therefore overwhelmingly im favor of the words, and they are adopted by Valesius, Zimmermann, and Crusé. Rufinus is a strong witness against the words, but, as Redepenning justly remarks, having inserted this chapter, as he did, in the midst of the description of Origen's early years (see note 1), the ords maida ovra would be quite superfluous and even out of place, an hence he would naturally omit them.
So far as the probabilities of the insertion or omission of the words in the present passage are concerned, it seems to me more natural to suppose that a copyist, finding the words at this late stage in the account of Origen's life, wou d be inclined to omit them, than that, not finding them there he should, upon historical grounds (which he could have reached only after some reflection), think that they ought to be inserted.
The latter would be not only a more difficult but also a much graver step than the former, There seems, then, to be no good warrant for omitting these words.
We learn from chap. 3 that he took charge of the catechetical school when he was in his eighteenth year, within a year therefore after the death of his father.
And we learn that 1 Potamizena, one of the most celebrated of the martyrs that suffered under Severus, is made by Rufinus a disciple of Origen, but Eusebius does not say that she was, and indeed, in making Basilides the seventh of Origen's disciples to suffer, he evidently excludes
Potamizena from the number.
Quite a full account of her martyrdom is given by Palladius in his Hzstorza Laustaca, chap. 3 ( igne's
Patr. Gr. XXXIV. 1014), which contains some characteristic details not mentioned by Eusebius.
It appears from that account that she was a slave, and that her master, not being able to induce her to yield to his passion, accused her before the judge as a Christian, bribing him, if possible, to break her resolution by tortures, and then return her to him, or, if that was not possible, to put her to death as a Christian.
We cannot judge as to the exact truth of this and other details related by Palladius, but his history (which was written early in the fifth century) is, in the main at least, reliable, except where it deals with miracles and prodigies (cf. the article on Palladius of Helenopolis, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
2 Basilides is clearly reckoned here among the disciples of Origen.
The correctness of Eusebius' statement has been doubted, but there is no ground for such doubt, for there is no reason to suppose that all of Origen's pupils became converted under his instruction.
3 Of Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the more celebrated Potamizna, and suffered martyrdom by fire.
THE CHURCH /HISTORYOF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 6. a nencée.| For he took the words, "There
are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," * in too literal and extreme a sense.
And in order to fulfill the Saviour's word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal, — for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men,—he carried out in action the word of the Saviour.
He thought that this. would not be known by many of his acquaintances.
But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret. book of the work called Stromata, which Clement wrote, he gives a chronological table,* bringing events down to the death of Commodus.
So it is evident that that work was written during the reign of Severus, whose times we are now recording.
CHAPTER VII.
The Writer, Judass AT this time another writer, Judas, discoursing about the seventy weeks in Daniel, brings down the chronology to the tenth year of the reign of Severus.
He thought that the coming of Antichrist, which was much talked about, was then near.'
So greatly did the agitation caused by the persecution of our people at this time disturb the minds of many.
When Demetrius, who presided over that
parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechetical instruction.
Such washe at
that time.
But soon afterward, seeing that he was prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed
CHAPTER VIII.
Origen's Daring Deed.
Z AT this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and conti1 This act of Origen's has been greatly discussed, and some have even gone so far as to believe that he never committed the act, but that the report of it arose from a misunderstanding of certain figurative expressions used by him (so, e.g., Boehringer, Schnitzer, and Baur).
There is no reason, however, to doubt the report, for which we have unimpeachable testimony, and which is in itself not at all surprising (see the arguments of Redepenning, I. p. 444 sqq.). The act was cont! to the civil law (see Suetonius, Domitian, c. 7; and cf. Justin art Afol. I. 29), and yet was a very common one; the existence of the law itself would alone prove what we know from many sources to have been the fact.
Nor was Origen alone among the Christians (cf. e.g. Origen, / Matt., XV. 1, the passage of Justin Martyr referred to above, and also the first canon of the Council of Niczea, the very existence of which proves the necessity of it).
It was natural that Christians, seeking purity of life, and strongly ascetic in their tendencies, should be influenced by the actions of those about them, who sought thus to be freed from the domination of the passions, and should interpret certain passages of the Bible as commending the act.
Knowing it to be so common, and knowing Origen's character, as revealed to us in chap. 3, above before he took charge of the school, all who had given instruction there had been driven away by the persecution.
Clement, therefore, must have left before Origen's eighteenth year, and hence the latter must have studied with him before the persecution had broken up the school, and in all probability before the death of Leonides.
In any case, therefore, he was still a boy when under Clement, and even if we omit the words — '' while a boy ''— here, we shall not be warranted in putting his student days into the period of his maturity, as some would do. Wich this subject, see Redepenning,
I. p. 431 sqq., who adduces still other arguments for the position taken in this note which it is not necessary to repeat here.
(to say nothing of his own writings), we can hardly be surprised that he performed the act.
His chief motive was undoubtedly the same as that which actuated him in all his ascetic practices, the attainment of higher holiness through the subjugation of his passions, and the desire to sacrifice everything fleshly for the sake of Christ.
Of course this could not have led him to perform the act he did, unless he had entirely misunderstood, as Eusebius says he did, the words of Christ quoted below.
But he was by no means the only one to misunderstand them (see Suicer's Thesaurus, 1.
1255 sq.).
Eusebius says that the requirements of his position also had something to do ath his resolve.
He was obliged to teach both men and women, and both day and night (as we learn from § 7), and Eusebius thinks he would naturally desire to avoid scandal.
At the same time, this motive can hardly Bags weighed very heavily, if at all, with him; for had his giving instruction in this way been in danger of causing serious scandal, other easier methods of avoiding such scandal might have been devised, and undoubtedly would have been, by the bishop.
And the fact is, he seems to have wished to conceal the act, which is inconsistent with the idea that he performed it for the sake of avoiding scandal.
It is quite likely that his intimate association with women may have had considerable to do with his resolve, because he may have found that such association aroused his unsubdued passipns, and therefore felt that they must be eradicated, if he was to go about his duties with a pure and single heart.
That he afterward repented his youthful act, and judged the words of Christ more wisely, is clear from what he says in his Comment. in Matt. XV.1.
And yet he never outgrew his false notions of the superior virtue of an ascetic life,
His act seems to have caused a reaction in his mind which led him into doubt and despondency for a time; for Demetrius found it necessary to exhort him to cherish confidence, and to urge him to continue his work of instruction.
Eusebius, while not approving Origen's act, yet evidently admired him the more for the boldness and for the spirit of self-sacrifice shown in its performance.
4 In Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21.
On this and the other works of Clement, see chap, 13.
1 The mention of the writer Judas at this point seems, at first sight, as illogical as the reference to Clement in the preceding chapter.
But it does not violate chronology as that did; and hence, if the account of Origen's life was to be broken anywhere for such an insertion, there was perhaps no better place.
We cannot conclude, therefore, that Eusebius, had he revised his work, would have changed the position of this chapter, as Valesius suggests (see the previous chapter, note 1).
Jerome (de vzr. zil. c. 52) repeats Eusebius' notice of Judas, but adds nothing to it, and we know no more about him.
Since he believed that the appearance of Antichrist was at hand, he must have written before the persecutions had given place again to peace, and hence not long after 202, the date to which he extended his chronology.
Whether the work mentioned by Eusebius was a commentary or a work on chronology is not clear.
It was possibly an historical demonstration of the truth of Daniel's prophecies, and an interpretation of those yet unfulfilled, in which case it combined history and exegesis.
2 eas the common belief in the Church, from the time of the apostles until the time of Constantine, that the second coming of Christ would very speedily take place.
This belief was especially pronounced among the Montanists, Montanus having proclaimed that the Jarousia would occur before his death, and even having gone so far as to attempt to collect all the faithful (Montanists) in one place in Phrygia, where they were to await that event and where the new Jerusalem was to be set up (see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 6).
There is nothing surprising in Judas' idea that this severe persecution must be the beginning of the end, for all through the earlier centuries of the Church (and even to some extent in later centuries) there were never wanting those who interpreted similar catastrophes in the same way; although after the third century the belief that the end was at hand grew constantly weaker.
2 Matt. xix. 12,
VI. 9.]
THE MIRACLES OF NARCISSUS.
Oe ee el of the church in Jerusalem.
On account of his pre-eminence in the confession of Christ he was thought worthy of that bishopric, while Narcissus,' his predecessor, was still living. as most foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and' distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering
Origen worthy in the highest degree of the
honor, ordained him a presbyter.
Thereupon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom.
But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly, and dared to include with him in these accusations those
CHAPTER IX.
The Miracles of Narcissus.
TuE citizens of that parish mention many
other miracles of Narcissus, on the tradition of the brethren who succeeded him ; among which they relate the following wonder as performed by him. They say that the oil
once failed while the deacons were watching through the night at the great paschal vigil.
Thereupon the whole multitude being dismayed, who had raised him to the presbyterate.
These things, however, took place a little later.
But at this time Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him ; devoting his entire leisure without cessaNarcissus directed those who attended to the lights, to draw water and bring it to him.
This being immediately done he prayed
over the water, and with firm faith in the Lord, commanded them to pour it into the lamps. And when they had done so, contrary to all expectation by a wonderful and divine power, the nature of the water was changed into that of oil.
A small portion of it has been preserved even to our day by many of the brethren there as a memento of the wonder." tion to divine studies and to his pupils. di Severus, having held the government for eighteen years, was succeeded by his son,
Antoninus Among those who had endured courageously the persecution of that time, and had been preserved by the Providence of God through the conflicts of confession, was Alexander, of whom we have spoken already ° as bishop Tats De Te a See 3 See chap. 23.
4 On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see below, p. 394They tell many other things worthy to be
noted of the life of this man, among which is this.
Certain base men being unable to endure the strength and firmness of his life, and fearing punishment for the many evil deeds of which they were conscious, sought by plotting to anticipate him, and circulated a terrible slander against him.
And to persuade
those who heard of it, they confirmed their accusations with oaths: one invoked upon himself destruction by fire; another the wasting of his body by a foul disease ; the third the loss of oe Se oe 5 Septimius Severus died on February 4, 2rr, after a reign of a little more than seventeen years and eight months, and was succeeded by his two sons, Marcus Aurelius
Severus Antoninus Bassianus (commonly known by his nickname Caracalla, which, however, was never used in official documents or inscriptions), and Lucius, or Publius, Septimius Geta.
Eusebius mentions here only the former, giving him his official name, Antoninus.
® Busebius makes a slip here, as this is the first time he has mentioned Alexander in his Church History.
He was very likely under the impression that he had mentioned him just above, where he referred to the bishops of Czsarea and Jerusalem.
He does refer to him in his Chron., putting his appointment as assistant bishop into the second year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth year), and calling him the thirty-fifth bishop of Jerusalem (Armen. thirty-sixth).
In Bk.
V. chap. 12 of the Hzstory (also in the Chron.) we are told that Narcissus was the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem.
The number thirtyfive for Alexander (the number thirty-six of the Armen. is a mistake, and is set right in connection with Alexander's successor, who is also called the thirty-sixth) is made out by counting the three bishops mentioned in chap. 10, and then reckoning the second episcopate of Narcissus (see the same chapter) as the thirty-fourth.
We learn from chap. 14 that Alexander was an early friend of Origen's, and a fellow-pupil in the school of Clement, 'e know him next as bishop of some church in Cappadocia (chap. 11; see note 2 on that chapter), whence he was called to be assistant bishop of Jerusalem (see the same chapter).
From this passage, compared with chap. 11, we learn that Alexander was imprisoned during the persecutions, and the Chron. gives the year of his "' confession" as 203 A.D.
But from chap. 11 we learn that he wrote while still in prison to the church of Antioch on occasion of the appointment of Asclepiades to the episcocution which elevated him to the see of Jerusalem (according to this passage), and it is apparently that perse ution which he is enduring when Asclepiades becomes bishop.
'e find no reason, then, for correcting the date of his translation to Jerusalem given by the Chron.
At any rate, he was bishop of Jerusalem when Origen visited Palestine in 216 (see chap. 19, § 17).
In 231 he assisted at the ordination of Origen (see chap. 23, note 6), and finally perished in prison during the Decian perscution (see chaps.
39 and 46).
His friendship for Origen was warm and steadfast (ck; Besides the other passages referred to, chap. 27). The latter commemorates the loveliness and gentleness of his character in his first Homily on 1 Samuel,§1.
He collected a valuable library in Jerusalem, which Eusebius made use of in the composition of his Hzstory (see chap.
20).
This act shows the literary tastes of the man.
Of his epistles only the five fragments preserved by Eusebius (chaps. 11, 14, and 19) are now extant.
Jerome (de vir. zll. 62) says that other epistles were extant in his day; and he relates, on the authority of an epistle written pro Origene contra Demetrium, that Alexander had ordained Origen juxta testimonium Demetri.
This epistle is not mentioned by Eusebius, but in spite of Jerome's usual dependence upon the latter, there is no good reason to doubt the truth of his statement in this case (see below, p. 396). ate there.
According to the Chzon. Asclepiades did not become Fiston until 2x1; and though this may not be the exact date, yet it cannot be far out of the way (see chap. 11, note 6); and hence, if.
Alexander was a confessor in 203, he must have remained in prison a number of years, or else have undergone a second persecution.
It is probable either that the date 203 is quite wrong, or else that he suffered a second time toward the close of Severus' reign; for the persecution, so far as we know, was not so continuous during that rei as to keep one man confined for eight years.
Our knowledge of the persecutions in Asia Minor at this time is ee limited, but they do not seem to have been of great severity or of long duration,
The date of Alexander's episcopate in Cappadocia it is impossible to determine, though as he was a fellow-pupil of Origen's in Alexandria, jt cannot have begun much, if any, before 202.
The date of his translation to the see of Jerusalem is likewise uncertain.
The Chron. gives the second year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth).
'The connection in which Eusebius mentions it in chap. 11 makes it look as if it took place before Asclepiades' accession to the see of Antioch; but this is hardly possible, for it was his firmness under perse7 On Narcissus, see the next three chapters, and also Bk. V. chap. 12, note r. é 1 This miracle is related by Eusebius upon the testimony, not of documents, but of those who had shown im the oil, which was preserved in Jerusalem down to that time; ol ris mapoixias moAtrac
. tetopover, he says.
His travels had evidently not taught him to disbelieve every wonderful tale that was told him,
THE: CHURCH"HISTORY OF "EUSEBLUs.
[VI. 9. his eyes.
But though they swore in this manner, they could not affect the mind of the believers; because the continence and virtuous life of Narcissus were well known to all.
But he could not in any wise endure the wickedness of these men; and as he had followed a philosophic? life for a long time, he fled from the whole body of the Church, and
CHAPTER XI.
Alexander.
Bur as on account of his great age Nar-
cissus was no longer able to perform his official duties,! the Providence of God called to the office with him, by a revelation given him in a night vision, the above-mentioned Alexander, who was then bishop of another parish.? hid himself in desert and secret places, and
remained there many years.'
But the great eye of judgment was not unmoved by these things, but soon looked down upon these impious men, and brought on them the curses with which they had bound themselves.
The residence of the first, from nothing but a little spark falling upon it, was entirely consumed by night, and he perished with all his family.
The second was speedily covered with the disease which 1 The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says that Narcissus is already in his 116th year.
The translation of Alexander to fhe must have taken place about 212 (see chap.
8, note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than 110 years old.
The appointment of Alexander as Narcissus' assistant involved two acts which were even at that time not common, and which were later forbidden by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see to another, and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop, which made two bishops in one city.
The Agost. Canons (No. 14) ordain that '' a bishop ought not to leave his own parish and leap to another, although the multitude should compel him, unless there be some good reason forcing him to do this, as that he can contribute much greater profit to the people of the new parish by the word of piety; Lae this is not to be settled by himself, but by the judgment of many bishops and very great supplication."
It has been disputed whether this canon is older or younger than the fifteenth canon of Nicza, which forbids unconditionally the practice of translation from one see to another, Whichever may be the older, it is certain that even the Council of Nicaea considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain cases, for it translated Eustathius from Berea to Antioch (see Sozomen,.
H. £. 1.2).
The truth is, the rule was established — whether before or for the first time at the Council of Niczea— chiefly in order to guard against the ambition of aspirin men who might wish to go from a smaller to a greater parish, an to prevent, as the Nicene Canon says, the many disorders and quarrels which the custom of translation caused; and a rule formed on such grounds of expediency was of course liable to exception whenever the good of the Church seemed to demand it, and therefore, whether the fourteenth Apostolic Canon is more ancient than the Nicene Council or not, it certainly embodies a principle which must long have been in force, and Ses we find in fact acted upon in the present case; for the translation of Alexander takes place "' with the common consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches," or, as Jerome puts it, cunctis in Palestina episcopis in unum congregatis, which is quite in accord with the provision of the Apostolic he had imprecated upon himself, from the
sole of his feet to his head.
But the third, perceiving what had happened to the others, and fearing the inevitable judgment of God, the ruler of all, confessed publicly what they had plotted together.
And in his repentance he became so wasted by his great lamentations, | and continued weeping to such an extent, that both his eyes were destroyed.
Such were the punishments which these men received for their falsehood.
CHAPTER X.
Canons.
There were some in the early Church who thought it absolutely unlawful under any circumstances for a bishop to be translated (cf, Jerome's £4. ad
Oceanum; Migne, Ep. 69, § 5), but this was not the common view, as Bingham (Axézg. VI. 4. 6) well observes, and instances of translation from one see to another were during all these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. £. VII. 36), although always of course exceptional, and considered lawful onl when made for good and sufficient reasons.
To say, therefore, wi Valesius that these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church in translating Alexander is too strong.
They were evidently unconscious of anything uncanonical, or even irregular in their action, though it is clear that they regarded the step as too important to be taken without the approval on all the bishops of the neighborhood.
In regard to assistant bishops, Valesius correctly remarks that this is the first instance of the kind known to us, but it is by no means the only one, for the following centuries furnish numerous examples; e.g. Theotecnus and Anatolius in Czsarea (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 32), Maximus and Macarius in Jerusalem (see Sozomen, H. £.
II. 20); and so in Africa Valerius of Hippo had Augustine as his coadjutor (Possidius, Vrta.
Aug. chap. 8; see Bingham's Antig. I.
13. 4 for other instances and for a discussion of the whole subject).
The principle was in force from as early as the third century (see Cyenes to Cornelius, ZZ. 40, al. 44 and to Antonianus, ZZ. 51, ai. 55) that there should be only one bishop in a city, and we see from the works of various Fatvers that this rule was universal] accepted at an early date.
The eighth canon of Nicza refers to this principle in passing as if it were already firmly established, and the council evidently did not think it necessary to promulgate a special canon on the subject.
Because of this principle, Augustine hesitated to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop of Hippo; and although his scruples were overcome at the time, he afterward, upon learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice of having a coadjutor illegal and refused to ordaia one for Pimeelf But, as the instances referred to above and many others show, not all the Church interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and hence under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the tule, and were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful.
"The existence of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for the sake of healing a schism, formed one common exception to the general principle (see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of Coadjutors, as in the present case, formed another.
The Bishops of Jerusalem.
Narcissus having departed, and no one knowing where he was, those presiding over the neighboring churches thought it best to ordain another bishop.
His name was Dius.!_ He presided but a short time, and Germanio succeeded him.
He was followed by Gordius,? in whose time Narcissus appeared again, as if raised from the dead.
And immediately the brethren besought him to take the episcopate, as all admired him the more on account of his retirement and _philosophy, and especially because of the punishment with which God had avenged him.
2 See above, chap. 3, note 9.
8 The date of Narcissus' retirement we have no means of ascerBinle:
1 Of these three bishops, Dius, Germanio, and Gordius, we know nothing more than is told us here.
Syncellus assigns eight years to Dius, four to Germanio, and five to Sardianus, whom he names instead of Gordius.
Epiphanius reports that Dius was bishop until Severus (193 A.D.), ent Cardia until Antonine (i.e. Caracalla, 211
A.D.).
But no reliance is to be placed upon these figures or dates, as remarked above, Bk. V. chap. 12, note 2.
? Eusebius and Epiphanius give Tép8os, and Jerome, Gordius; but the Armenian has GoMiania! and Syncellus, Zapéuaves.
What became of Gordius when Narcissus reappeared we do not know.
He must have died very speedily, or some compromise would have been made, as it seems, which would have rendered the appointment of Alexander as assistant bishop unnecessary.
2 Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not told by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities.
Valesius ® Literally, 'as if from a resurrection" (domep e¢ avaBuocews).
VI. 12.]
ALEXANDER, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM.
rR been himself distinguished among the confessors" during the persecution, succeeded to the episcopate of the church at Antioch.
Alexander alludes to his appointment, writing thus to the church at Antioch :
Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he journeyed from the land of Cappadocia, where he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in consequence of a vow and for the sake of information in regard to its places.2
They received him there with great cordiality, and would not permit him to return, because of another revelation seen by them at night, which uttered the clearest message to the most zealous among them.
For it made known that if they would go outside the gates, they would receive the bishop foreordained for them by God.
And having done this, with the unanimous consent " Alexander, a servant and prisonerof Je-
sus Christ, to the blessed church of Antioch, greeting in the Lord.
The Lord hath made my bonds during the time of my imprisonment light and easy, since I learned that, by the Divine Providence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the bishopric of your holy church at Antioch."
He indicates that he sent this epistle by
Clement,' writing toward its close as follows : of the bishops of the neighboring churches,
they constrained him to remain.
Alexander, himself, in private letters to the Antinoites,* which are still preserved among us, mentions the joint episcopate of Narcissus and himself, writing in these words at the end of the " My honored brethren,' I have sent this letter to you by Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye yourselves also know and will recognize.
Being here, in the providence and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the Church of the Lord." epistle :
"' Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate here before me, and is now associated with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen years of age; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be of one mind."
CHAPTER XII.
Serapion and his Extant Works.
These things took place in this manner.
But, on the death of Serapion,' Asclepiades,* who had nL ee (note on this pases) and Tillemont (Hist. eccles. III. p. 415) give Flaviopolis or Flaviadis as the name of the city (upon the authority of Basilicon, Sur. Greco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, according to Tillemont).
But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence Tillemont Conjectures that it had once been taken from Cappadocia and attached to Cilicia, and that its inhabitants retained the memory of Alexander, their early bishop.
The report seems to rest upon a very slender foundation; but not having access to the authority cited, I am unable to form an opinion as to the worth of the tradition.
Ir is probable that others have preserved
other memorials of Serapion's? literary industry,? but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship ;* and those addressed i ES Ee ee eee ee into the time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Asclepiades did not become bishop until after the latter became emperor, so that it is not necessary to correct the date of the Chron.
It is impossible to determine with ry ame the length of Asclepiades' episcopate (see chap. 21, note 6).
Of Asclepiades himself we know no more than is told us in this chapter.
He seems to have been a man of most excellent character, to judge from Alexander's epistle.
That epistle, of course, was written immediately after Asclepiades' appointment, 8 exis Kal Tov Tomwy ioTopias EveKer.
4*Ayriwéeca (Antinoé or Antinodpolis) was a city of Egypt founded oy Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk.
IV. chap.
8, note 3).
'This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops were present at more than one council in later centuries (see Wiltsch's CS lie and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473).
This letter must have been written between 212, at about i oe time Alexander became Narcissus' coadjutor fice chap. 8, note 6), and 216, when Origen visited Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23).
For at the time of that visit Alexander is said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and no mention is made of Narcissus, who must therefore have been already dead (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1). The fragments of Alexander's epistles quoted in this chapter are given in Routh's Rel. Sacre, i. p. 161 sq., and in English in the AxteNicene Fathers, Vi. p. 154.
1 Literally *€ confessions " (QuoAoyiats).
8 On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.
9 kvproi pov adeAdor.
1 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
2 The Greek reads: rov 5¢ Sapamiwvos tis wept Adyous aoKygews Kal GAA pev eixds THeaOat map' éTépots VTOMYHMaTa.
8 Of this Domninus we know only what is told us here.
It is suggested ed Daniell (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 630) that 5 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note r.
€ The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year of Caracalla (21x A.D.).
Harnack (Zezt des Ignatius, p. 47) believes that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices of most of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author departs from the artificial scheme which he follows in the main.
But Harnack contends that the date is not quite correct, because Alexander, who suffered under Severus, was still in prison when Asclepiades became bishop, and therefore the latter's accession must be put back into Severus' reign.
He would fix, therefore, upon about 209 as the date of it, rightly perceiving that there is good reason for thinking the Chron. at least nearly correct in its report, and that in any case his accession cannot carried back much beyond that, because it is quite probable (from the congratulations which Alexander extends to the church of Antioch) that there had been a vacancy in that church for some time after the death of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in the midst of the persecutions of the ine': while Serapion was still alive as late as 203 this shows that the prohibition uttered by Severus against the Jews 'must have been soon relaxed, if it ever was enforced."
But in regard to this it must be said, in the first place, that Severus' decree was not levelled against the Jews, but only against conversion to Judaism, — against the /fev7, not the esse, fuda@os.
The object of the edict was not to disturb the Jews in the exercise of their national faith, but to prevent their proseiyting among the non-Jewish residents of the empire.
If Domninus, t erefore, fell from Christianity into Judaism on account of the persecution, it seems highly probable that he was simply a converted Jew, who gave up now, in order to avoid persecution, his new faith, and again practised the religion of his fathers.
Nothing, therefore, can be concluded from Domninus' case as to the strictness with which Severus' law was carried out, even if we suppose Domninus to have fallen from Christianity into poetry, But it must be remarked, in the second place, that it is. y no means certain that Eusebius means to sa that Domninus fell into Judaism, or became a Jew.
He is said to have fallen into '© Jewish will-worship " (€xmemtwxdta emt THY "lovdaixhy €8eA08p7noxeiav),
The word é@cAo@pyoxeta occurs for the first time in Col. ii.
23, and means there an "arbitrary, self-imposed worship" (Ellicott), or a worship which one "affects" (Cremer).
'The word is used there in connection with the Oriental theosophic and Judaistic errors which were creeping into the churches of Asia Minor at the time the epistle was written, and it is quite possible that the word may be used in the present case in reference to the same class of errors. We know that these theosophizing and Judaizing tenden- (see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1).
But it seems to me that there is no good ground for making any alteration in the date given by the Cia. for we know thatvat the very end of Severus' reign the persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and that it continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla's accession (see Tertullian's ad Scaf.).
The general amnesty issued by Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion
Cassius, LX XVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the persecutions.
There is therefore no ground for confining Alexander's imprisonment to the reign of Severus,
It may well have run
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 12.
A a ee connected with the teaching of that school®), we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on." to Pontius and Caricus,* ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter.'
He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus® who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions.
It may be well to give some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion
So much in regard to Serapion. of the book.
He writes as follows :
"For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed
CHAPTER XIII.
The Writings of Clement. to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, 'If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read.'
But now having learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again.
Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.
But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus,' and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.
For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetz® (for most of their opinions are
ALL the eight Stromata of Clement are
preserved among us, and have been given by
Soxéw, 'to seem or appear."
The belief is as old as the first century (cf. x John iv. 2; 2 John 7), and was a favorite one with most of the Gnostic sects.
The name Docete, however, as a general appellation for all those holding this opinion, seems to have been used first by Theodorgt (Z/. 82).
But the term was employed to designate a particular sect before the end of the second century; thus
Clement of Alexandria speaks of them in Strom. VII. ih and Hippolytus (PAzZ. VIII. 8. 4, and X.12; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed.), and it is evidently this particular sect to which Serapion refers here.
An examination of Hippolytus' account shows that these Docet@ did not hold what we call Docetic ideas of Christ's body; in fact, Hippolytus says ceereseiy Oe they taught that Christ was born, and had a true body from the Virgin (see PAz/. VIII. 3). How the sect came to adopt the name of Docete we cannot tell.
They seem to have disappeared entirely before the fourth century, for no mention of.them is found in Epiphanius and other later heresiologists. As was remarked above, Theodoret uses the term in a general sense and not as the appellation of a particular sect, and this became the common usage, and is still.
Whether there was anything in the teaching of the sect to suggest the belief-that Christ had only an apparent bod and thus to lead to the use of their speoific name for all who he that view, or whether the general use of the name Docete arose quite independently of the sect name, we do not know.
The latter seems more probable. The Docet@ referred to by Hippolytus being a purely Gnostic sect with a belief in the reality of Christ's body, we have no reason to conclude that the '' Gospel of Peter" contained what we call Docetic teaching.
The description which Serapion ives of the pees fits quite well a work containing some such
§ cies continued to exert considerable influence in Asia Minor and Syria during the early centuries, and that the Ebionites and the Elcesaites were not the cal one affected by them (see Harnack, Dogmengesch. 1, 218 sq.).
'The lapse of any one into Ebionism, or into a Judaizing Gnosticism, or similar form of heresy
—a lapse which cannot have been at all uncommon among the fanatical Phrygians and other peoples of that section— might well be called a lapse into " Jewish will-worship."
We do not kuow where Domninus lived, but it is not improbable that Asia Minor was his home, and that he may have fallen under the influence of Montanism as well as of Ebionism and Judaizing Gnosticism.
I suggest the possibility that his lapse was into heresy rather than into Judaism pure and simple, for the reason that it is easier, on that ground, to explain the fact that Serapion addressed a work to him. He is known to us only as an opponent of heresy, and it may be that Domninus' lapse gave him an opportunity to attack the heretical notions of these Ebionites, or other Judaizing heretics, as he had attacked the Montanists.
It seems to the writer, also, that it is thus easier to explain the complex phrase used, which seems to imply something different from Judaism pure and simple. nostic speculations as Hippolytus describes, and thus adding to the Gospel narrative rather than denying the truth of it in any part, He could hardly have spoken as he did of a work which denied the eal of Christ's body.
See, on the general subject, Salmon's articles Docete and Docetism in the Dict. At Christ. Biog.
® The interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with difficulty.
The Greek reads tovréor: mapa Tay diaddxwv Tov Kataptapévwv avtod, ods Aoxyntas Kadovmev, (Ta yap Ppovnpara Ta TAciova éxeivor éoti THs SudacKadtias), K.T.A. 'The words Tov Kataptapnévwy avrov are usually translated "' who preceded him," or " who led the way before him"; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this interpretation, and moreover the avtod seems to refer not to Marcianus, whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel which has just been mentioned.
There is a difficulty also in regard to the reference of the éxe(ywy, which is commonly connected with the words tis S:Sacxadias, but which seems to belong rather with the povyjuara and to refer to the dvudoxav Tay katapfapévwv.
It thus seems necessary to define the ris SidagKaAias more closely, and we therefore venture, with Closs, to insert the words "' of that school," referring to the Docete just mentioned.
'9, note 4.
4 See Bk. V. chap. x 5 On the so-called note % s
Rhossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Guif of Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.
"Gospel of Peter," see Bk. III. chap. 3, 1 On the life of Clement, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1.
He wasa very prolific writer, as we can gather from the list of works mentioned in this chapter.
The list is repeated by Jerome (de wer. zl. c, 38) and bye poues (Cod. xog-111), the former of whom merely copies from Eusebius, with some mistakes, while the latter copies from Jerome, as is clear from the similar variations in the titles given by the last two from those given by Eusebius, and also by the omission in both their lists of one work named by Eusebius (see below, note 10).
Eusebius names ten works in this chapter.
In addition to these there are extant two quotations from a work of Clement entitled mepi mpovotas.
There are also extant two fragments of a work epi Wuyxijs.
In the Instructor, Bk, II. chap. 10, Clement refers to a work On Continence (6 mepi €yxpateias) as already written by himself, and there is no reason to doubt that this was a separate work, for the third book of the Stromata (to which Fabricius thinks he refers), which treats of the same subject, was not yet written.
The work is no longer extant.
In the /nstructor, Bk. III. chap.
8, Clement speaks of a work which he had written Ox Marriage (0 yaptkds Adyos). It has been thought possible that he may have referred here to his discussion of the same subject in Bk.
II. chap. ro of the same work (see the Bishop of Lincoln's work on Clement, p. 7), but it seems more probable that he referred to a sep7 This Marcianus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless we are to identify him, as Salmon suggests is possible, with Marcion.
The suggestion is attractive, and the reference to Docete gives it a show of probability.
But there are serious objections to be urged against it. In the first place, the form of the name, Mapx.ayvds instead of Mapxitwy.
The two names are by no means identical.
Still, according to Harnack, we have more than once Mapxvavoi and Mapxtaviotai for Mapxiwviorai (see his Oxellenkritik d. Gesch. d.
Guosticismus, Pp. 31 sqq-).
But again, how can Marcion have used, or his name been in any way connected with, a Gospel of Peter ? Finally, the impression left by this passage is that '' Marcianus"' was a man still living, or at any rate alive shortly before Serapion wrote, for the latter seems only recently to have learned what his doctrines were.
He certainly cannot have been so ignorant of the teachings of the great "' heresiarch" Marcion.
We must in fact, regard the identification as improbable.
8 By Docetism we understand the doctrine that Christ had no true body, but only an apparent one.
The word is derived from
VI. 13.]
THE WRITINGS OF CLEMENT.
are of the same number.
In them he mentions Pantzenus' by name as his teacher, and gives his opinions and traditions.
Besides these there is his Hortatory Discourse addressed to the Greeks ;° three books of a work entitled the Instructor ;* another with the title What Rich Man is Saved?' the work on the Passover ;® discussions on Fasting and on Evil Speaking ;? the Hortatory Discourse on Patience, or To Those Recently Baptized ;" and the one bearing the title Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against the Judaizers," which he dedicated him the following title : "Titus Flavius Clement's
Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Phi-
losophy."? The books entitled Hypotyposes®
arate work now lost.
Potter, p. 1022, gives a fragment which is possibly from this work.
In addition to these works, referred to as already written, Clement promises to write on First Principles (epi apxov; Strom,
III. 3, IV. 1, 13, V. 14, e¢ al.) ; on Prophecy (Strom,
1, 24, IV. 13,
V. 13); on Angels (Strom. VI. 13); on the Origin of the World (Strom. V1, 18),— perhaps a part of the proposed work on First
Principles, and perhaps to be identified with the commentary on Genesis, referred to below by Eusebius (see note 28),— Agazust
Heresies (Strom. IV. 13), on the Resurrection (Instructor, I. 6, II. 10).
Itis quite possible that Clement regarded his promises as fulfilled by the discussions which he gives in various parts of the Stromata themselves, or that he gave up his original purpose.
ES ee adopts the opinion given, or whether he is simply quoting from another for the purpose of refuting him.
Photius condemns parts of the Hypotyposes severely, but it seems, from these extracts which we have, that he may have read the work, full as it was of the heretical opinions of other men and schools, without distinguishing Clement's own opinions from those of others, and that thus he may carelessly have attributed to him all the wild notions which he mentions.
These extracts as well as the various references of Eusebius show that the work, like most of the others which Clement wrote, covered a great deal of ground, and included discussions of a great man collateral subjects.
It does not seem, in fact, to have been muc more systematic than the Jzstvuctor or even the Stromata.
It seems to have been intended as a part of the great series, of which the Exkhortation, Instructor, and Stromata were the first three.
If so, it followed them.
We have no means of ascertaining its date more exactly.
2 Clement's three principal works, the Axhortation to the Greeks (see below, note 5), the Jxstructor (note 6), and the Stromata, form a connected series of works, related to one another (as Schaff says) very much as apologetics, ethics, and dogmatics.
The three works were composed in the order named, The Stromata (Zrpwmarets) or Miscellanies (said by Eusebius in this passage to bear the title trav xara Thy aAnOq didogodiay yrwoTttkav UTomYYwaTwv oTpw.ateis) are said by Eusebius and by Photius (Cod. 109) to consist of eight books.
Only seven are now extant, although there exists a fragment purporting to be a part of the eighth book, but which is in reality a portion of a treatise on logic, while in the time of Photius some reckoned the tract Quzs dives salvetur as the eighth book (Photius, Cod. 111).
There thus exists no uniform tradition as to the character of the lost book, and the suggestion of Westcott seems plausible, that at an early date the logical introduction to the Hyfotyfoses was separated from the remainder of the work, and added to some MSS. of the Stvomata as an eighth book.
If this be true, the Svomata consisted originally of only seven books, and hence we now have the whole work (with the exception of a fragment lost at the beginning).
The name Xzpwmareis, " patchwork," sufficiently -indicates the character of the work.
It is without methodical arrangement, containing a heterogeneous mixture of science, philosophy, poetry, and theology, and yet is animated b one idea throughout, —that Christianity satisfies the highest intellectual desires of man, — and hence the work is intended in some sense as a guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, the knowledge to be sought after by the "' true Gnostic."
It is full of rich thoughts mingled with worthless crudities, and, like nearly all of Clement's works, abounds in wide and varied learning, not always fully digested.
The date at which the work was composed may be gathered from a passage in Bk. I. chap. 21, where a list of the Roman emperors is closed with a mention of Commodus, the exact length of whose reign is given, showing that he was already dead, but also showing Sapereathy that his successor was still living.
This would lead us to put the composition at least of the first book in the first quarter of the year 193.
It might of course be said that Pertinax and Didius Julianus are omitted in this list because of the brevity of their reigns, and this is possible, since in his own list he gives the reigns of the emperors simply by years, omitting Otho and Vitellius.
The other list which he quotes, however, gives every emperor, with the number of years, months, and even days of each reign, so that there is no reason, at least in that list, for the omission of Pertinax and Didius Julianus.
It seems probable that, under the influence of that exact list, and of the recentness of the reigns of the two emperors named, Clement can hardly have omitted them if they had already ruled.
We can say with absolute certainty, however, only that the work was written after 192.
Clement left Alexandria in 202, or before, and this, as well as the rest of his works, was written in all probability before that time at the latest.
4 On Pantenus, see above, Bk. V. chap. ro, note 1.
5 The Exhortation to the Greeks (6 Adyos mpotpemtixds, Tpds "EAAnvas), the first of the series of three works mentioned in note 2, is still extant in its entirety.
It is called by Jerome (de vzr. z//. chap. 38) Adversus Gentes, liber unus, but, as Westcott_remarks, it was addressed not to the Gentiles in general, but to the Greeks, as its title and its contents alike indicate.
The general aim of the book is to '' prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and philosophies of heathendom,"? and thus to lead the unbeliever to accept it. It is full of Greek mythology and speculation, and exhibits, as Schaff says, almost a waste of learning.
It was written before the /zstructor, as we learn from a reference to it in the latter
(chap. 1), It is stated above (Bk. V. chap. 28, § 4), by the anonymous writer against the Artemonites, that Clement wrote (at least some of his works) before the time of Victor of Rome (i.e. before 192 A. D.), and hence Westcott concludes that this work was written about 190, which cannot be far out of the way.
6 The Instructor (0 watdaywyés, or, as Eusebius calls it here, Tpels Te ot TOD émcyeypaumévov madaywyov), is likewise extant, in three books.
The work is chiefly of a moral and practical character, designed to furnish the new convert with rules for the proper conduct of his life over against the prevailing immoralities of the heathen.
Its date is approximately fixed by the fact that it was written after the Exhortation to which it refers, and before the Stromata, which refers to it (see Strom. VI. 1).
7 The Quis Dives Salvetur ? as it is called (ris 6 cwgdpmevos mAovatos), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in Mark x.
17sqqIt is still extant, and contains the beautiful story of John and the robber, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 23.
It is an eloquent and able work; and when compared with the prevailin notions of the Church of his day, its teaching is remarkably wise a temperate.
It is moderately ascetic, but goes to no extremes, and in this furnishes a pleasing contrast to the writings of most of the Fathers of Clement's time.
The standard edition of Clement's works is that of Potter, Oxford, 1715, in two vols. (reprinted in Migne's Paty. Gr., Vols. VIII. and 1x3. Complete English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Amer. ed., Vol. II. On his writings, see especially. Westcott's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. and for the literature on the subject,
Schaff's Ch. AH7zst. II. 781.
; 8 The Hyfotyposes (vnotrvméces), or Outlines (Eusebius calls them of émcyeypauppévor trorumadcewv avTod Adyot), are no longer extant, though fragments have been preserved.
The work (which was in eight books, according to this passage) is referred to by Eusebius, in Bk. I. chap. 12 (the fifth book), in Bk. II. chap. x (the sixth and seventh books), in Bk. II. chaps. 9 and 23 (the seventh book), chap. 15 (the sixth book), in Bk.
V. chap. 11, and in Bk. VI. chap. 14 (the book not specified).
Most of these extracts are of a historical character, but have to do (most of them, not all) with the apostolic age, or the New Testament.
We are told in chap. 14 that the work contained abridged accounts of all the Scriptures, but Photius (Cod. so) says that it seems to have dealt only with Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, the epistles of Paul, and the Catholic epistles (0 58 GAos cxomds doavel Epunvetar TvyxXavovar THS
Teyéaews x.7.A.).
Besides the detached quotations there are extant three series of extracts which are supposed to have been taken from the Hypotyposes.
These are The Summaries from Theodotus, The Prophetic Selections, and the Outlines on the Catholic Epistles.
On these fragments, which are very corrupt and desultory, see Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
They discuss all sorts of doctrines, and contain the interpretations of the most various schools, and it is not always clearly stated whether Clement himself
8 7d mepi ToD macxa ovyypauma, This work is no longer extant, nor had Photius seen it, although he reports that he had heard of it.
Two fragments of it are found in the Chronicon Paschale, and are given by Potter.
The work was composed, according to § 9, below, at the instigation of friends, who urged him to commit to writing the traditions which he had received from the ancient presbyters.
From Bk. IV. chap. 26, we learn that it was written in reply to Melito's work on the same subject (see notes 5 and 23 on that chapter); and hence we may conclude that it was undertaken at the solicitation of friends who desired to see the arguments presented b
Melito, as a representative of the Quartodeciman practice, refuted.
The date of the work we have no means of ascertaining, for Melito's work was written early in the sixties (see zb7d.).
9 Suadébers mepi vynorteias kai rept kataAadtas.
Photius knew both these works by report (the second under the title epi xaxodoyias), but had not seen them,
Jerome calls the first de zejunzo disceptatio, the second de obtrectatione liber unus.
Neither of them is now extant; but fragments of the second have been preserved, and are given by Potter.
10 6 mpotpemtikds cis UromoVHY H Mpds TOUS veworTt BeBarTicyevous.
This work is mentioned neither by Jerome nor by Photius, nor has any vestige of it been preserved, so far as we know.
11 6 émyeypammevos Kavav éxxAnovagTiKds, 7} mpds Tovs lovdaiGovras.
Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversum eos, qui ¥udzorum sequuntur errorum.
Photius mentions the work, calling it wept kavdvwy éxxAnovagtixay, but he had not himself seen
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 13. a esac ee ee and Jude."
He mentions also Tatian's®
Discourse to the Greeks, and speaks of Cassianus" as the author of a chronological work.
He refers to the Jewish authors Philo," Aristobulus," Josephus,* Demetrius," and Eupolemus," as showing, all of them, in their works, that Moses and the Jéwish race existed before the earliest origin of the Greeks.
These
books abound also in much other learning.
In the first of them™ the author speaks of himto Alexander, the bishop mentioned above.
In the Stromata, he has not only treated extensively " of the Divine Scripture, but he also quotes from the Greek writers whenever anything that they have said seems.to him profitable.
He elucidates the opinions of many, both Greeks and barbarians.
He also refutes the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides this, reviews a large portion of history, giving us specimens of very various learning ; with all the rest he mingles the views of philosophers.
It is likely that on this account he gave his work the
18 On the Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.
19 On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note 20 On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.
21 This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement; once in Strom.
I. 21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the purpose of showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that of the Greeks, and refers to Cassian's Exegetica and Tatian's Address to the Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject; again in Strom. III. 13 sqq., where he is said to have been the founder of the sect of the Docete, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate (mepi éyxpateias % mepi evvovxias), in which he condemned marriage.
Here, too, he 1s associated with Tatian.
He seems from these references to have been, like Tatian, an apologist for iacagger and also like him to have gone off into an extreme asceticism, which the Church pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 4). Whether he was personally connected with Tatian, or is mentioned with him by Clement simply because his views were similar, we do not'know, nor can we fix the date at which he lived.
Neither of his works referred to Py.
Clement is now extant.
Jerome (de vir. zi. chap.
38) mentions the work which Eusebius speaks of here, but says that he had not been able to find a copy of it.
It is called by Clement, in the passage referred to here by Eusebius, *Eényntexol, and so Eusebius calls it in his Pref. Evang. X. 12, where he quotes from Clement.
But here he speaks of it as a xpovoypadia, and Jerome transcribes the word without translating it.
We can gather from Clement's words (Strom. 1. 21) that the work of Cassianus dealt largely with chronology, and hence Eusebius' reference to it under the name xpovoypatia is quite legitimate. appropriate title of Stromata."
He makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures,* the so-called Wisdom of Solomon," and of Jesus, the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of Barnabas," and Clement *
it.
It is no longer extant, but a few fragments have been preserved, and are given by Potter.
Danz (De Exusebio, p. 90) refers to Clement's Stromazta, lib. VI. p. 803, ed. Potter, where he says that "' the ecclesiastical canon is the agreement or disagreement of the law and the prophets with the testament given at the coming of Christ."
Danz concludes accordingly that in this work Clement wished to show to those who believed that the teaching of the law and the prophets was not only different from, but superior to the teachings of the Christian faith,
—that is, to the Judaizers, — that the writers of the Old and New Testaments were in full harmony.
This might do, were it not for the fact that the work is directed not against Jews, but against Judaizers, i.e. Judaizing Christians.
A work to prove the Old and New Testament in harmony with each other could hardly have been addressed to such persons, ho must have believed them in harmony before they became Christians.
The truth is, the phrase xavov éxxAnovaotixds is used by the Fathers with a great variety of meanings, and the fact that Clement used it in one sense in one of his works by no means proves that he always used it in the same sense,
2 On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.
38 The Aristobulus referred to here was an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic philosopher (see the passages in Clement and Eusebius referred to below), who lived in the second century B.c., and was the author of Commentaries upon the Mosatc Law, the chief object of which was to prove that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the books of Moses (see Clement, Strom. Y: 14, who refers only to Peripatetic philosophy, which is too narrow).
The work is referred to by Clement of Alexandria (in his Stromata, I. 15; V.
14; VI.
3, &c.), by Eusebius (in his Prep. Evang. VII. 14; Vit.
9, 10; XIII. 12, &c.), by Anatolius (as quoted by Eusebius below, in Bk. VII. chap. 32), and by other Fathers.
The work is no longer extant, but Eusebius gives two considerable fragments of it in his Prep. Evang. VIII. 10, and XIII, 12.
See Schiirer's Gesch. d.
Sitdischén Volkes im Zettalter Fesu, Il. p. 760 sq.
Schiirer maintains the authenticity of the work against the attacks of many modern critics.
It is more probable that the work was devoted to a discussion of certain practices or modes of living in which the Judaizers differed from the rest of the Church Catholic, perhaps in respect to feasts
(might a reference to the Quartodeciman practice have been perhaps included?), fasts and other ascetic practices, observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, &c.
This use of the word in the sense of regula was very common (see Suicer's Thesaurus).
The work was dedicated, according to Eusebius, to the bishop Alexander, mentioned above in chap. 8 and elsewhere.
This is sufficient evidence that it was written considerably later than the three great works already referred to.
Alexander was a student of Clement's; and since he was likewise a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap.
8, note 6), his student days under Clement must have extended at least nearly to the time when Clement left Alexandria (i.e. in or before 202 A.p.).
But Clement of course cannot have dedicated a work to.him while he was still his pupil, and in fact we shall be safe in saying that Alexander must
34 On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.
%5 Demetrius was a Grecian Jew, who wrote, toward the close of the third century B.c., a History of Israel, based upon the Scripture records, and with especial reference to chronology.
Demetrius is mentioned by Josephus (who, however, wrongly makes him a heathen; contra Apionem, 1. 23), by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius.
His work is no longer extant, but fragments of it are preserved by Clement (Strom.
I. 21) and by Eusebius (Prep.
Evang. 1X. 21 and 29).
See Schiirer, 252d. p. 730 sq.
_*6 Eupolymus was also a Jewish historian, xb 8 wrote about the middle of the second century B.¢., and is possibly to be identified with the Eupolymus mentioned in 1. Macc. viii. 17,
He wrote a History of the Fews, which is referred to under various titles by those that mention it, and which has consequently been resolved into three separate works by aany scholars, but without warrant, as Schiirer has shown.
The work, like that of Aristobulus, was clearly designed to show the dependence of Greek 'philosophy upon Hebrew wisdom (see Clement's Stvom. I. 23).
It is no longer extant, but fragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Stvom.
I. 21, which gives us data for reckoning the time at which Eupolymus wrote, andI. 23) and by Eusebius (Prep. Evang.
IX. 17, 26, 30-34, and probably ; 9) See Schiirer, 257d. p. 732 sq. ave gained some prominence before Clement would be led to dedicate a work to him.
We think naturally of the period which Clement spent with him while he was in prison and before he became bishop of Jerusalem (see chap. 11).
It is quite possible that Clement's residence in Cappadocia with Alexander had given him such an acquaintance with Fadigag heresies and practices that he felt constrained to write against them, and at the same time had given him such an affection for Alexander that he dedicated his work to im.
12 Literally, "made a spreading" (xatdéotpwow ' memoinrac).
Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work (27pwpareis), 13 See note 2.
14 GvTiAeyonévwy ypapav, On the Axtzlegomena, see Bk. III. bss a5) note 1.
The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach were two Old Testament apocryphal books.
The Church of the first three centuries made, on the whole, no essential difference between the books of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha. We find the Fathers, almost without exception, quoting from both indiscriminately.
It is true that catalogues were made by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, and others, which separated the Apocrypha from the books of the Hebrew canon; but this represented theory simply, not practice, and did not prevent even themselves from using both classes as Scripture.
Augustine went so far as to obliterate completely all distinction between the two, in theory as well as in practice.
The only one of the early Fathers to make a decided stand against the Apocrypha bebe hae but he was not able to change the common view, and 31 Kusebius is apparently still referring to Clement's Stromata.
In saying that Clement dy év 16 mpuity mepi éavtod SnAot ws éyysora.
THS TOY aTogToAwy yevouévov diadoxys, he was perhaps thinking of the passage in Stvom. I. 1, where Clement says, '' They [i.e. his teachers], preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine, derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the fathers (but few were like the fathers), came by God s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds.
Clement in this passage does not mean to assert that his teachers were immediate disciples of the apostles, but only that they received the traditions of the apostles in direct descent from the Church continued (as the Catholic Church continues still) to use them all (with a few minor exceptions) as Holy
Scripture.
16 On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk.
III. chap. 3, note 17.
17 On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk, III. chap, 25, note 20,