CHAPTER XX
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
EVE. 1907
nn — by Alexander, who at that time presided over that church.
We have been able to gather from that library material for our present work.
Among these Beryllus? has left us, besides
letters and treatises, various elegant works.
He was bishop of Bostra in Arabia.
Likewise also Hippolytus,' who presided over another church, has left writings. There hasreached
us also a dialogue of Caius,* a very learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus,? with Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian heresy.
In this he curbs the rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures.
He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the Hebrews *® with the others.
And unto our day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle. dent from what Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem and Theoctistus" of Czesarea, wrote to Demetrius * in regard to the matter, defending themselves thus :
" He has stated in his letter that sucha thing was never heard of before, neither has hitherto taken place, that laymen should preach in the presence of bishops.
I know not how he comes to say what is plainly untrue.
For whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are tound, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people.
Thus in Laranda, Euelpis by Neon; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus ; and in Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed brethren."
And probably this has been done in other places unknown to us."
He was honored in this manner while yet a young man, not only by his countrymen, but
also by foreign bishops."
But Demetrius sent for him by letter, and urged him through members and deacons of the church to return to Alexandria.
So he returned and resumed his accustomed duties.
CHAPTER XXI.
The Bishops that were well known at that Time.
AFTER Antoninus? had reigned seven years
and six months, Macrinus succeeded him.
He held the government but a year, and was succeeded by another Antoninus.
During his first year the Roman bishop, Zephyrinus,' having held his office for eighteen years, died, and Callistus* received the episcopate. Hecon-
tinued for five years, and was succeeded by
CHAPTER XX.
The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age.
THERE flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible.
They have been kept until our time in the library at Aélia,! which was established library of Alexander, but it had already been in existence nearly a hundred years when Eusebius examined it.
2 On Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, see chap. 33.
3 On Hippolytus, see chap. 22.
# On Caius and his discussion with Proclus, see Bk. II. chap. 25, notes J, and 8.
Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome from 198 or 199 to 217.
Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5. do in their own dioceses.
They were supreme in their own churches, and he knew of nothing, apparently, which should hinder him from doing what they approved of, while in those churches.
Demetrius, however, thought otherwise, and considered the public preaching of an 'unordained man irregular, in any place and at any time.
Whether jealousy of Origen's growing power had anything to do with his action it is difficult to say with certainty. He seems to have treated Origen in a perfectly friendly way after his return; and yet it is possible that the difference of opinion on this point, and the reproof given by Demetrius, may not have been wholly without influence upon their subsequent relations, which became in the end so painful (see-chap. 8, note 4).
See 6 On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the opinions of the early Church in regard to its authorship, see Bk. III. chap.
3, note 17.
1 i.e. Caracalla, who was slain on the 8th of April, 217.
Four days later, Marcus Opilius Macrinus, prefect of the preetorians, was. proclaimed emperor.
After a reign of fourteen months, he was defeated and succeeded by Varius Avitus Bassianus, a cousin of Caracalla, and priest of the Phoenician Sun-god, from which fact is derived the name by which he is commonly known, — Elagabalus, or Heliogabalus.
Upon his accession to the imperial power, he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, hich vbenumie his official: designation.
26 On Alexander, see chap. 8, note 6.
27 Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea, seems to have been one of the most influential bishops of the East in his day, and played a prominent part in the controversy which arose in regard to Novatus, as we learn from chap. 46 of this book and from chap. 5 of the next.
He was also a firm friend of Origen's for many years (see chap. 27), probably until the latter's death.
We do not know the dates of his accession and of his death, but we. find him already bishop in the = 216, and still bishop at the time of the episcopate of Stephen of ome (254-257; see Bk. VII. chap.
5), but already succeeded b Domnus, when Xystus was bishop of Reine ((257-258; see Bk. VII. chap. 14). We must, therefore, put his death between 255 and 258.
2 On Zephyrinus, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
8 As shown in the next note, a oe ss ante of our best sources leads us to the year 222 as the date of the accession of Urban, and consequently of the death of Callistus.
A careful comparison of the various sources, which differ in regard to the years of the several histone tts of Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, but agree as to the sum of the three, leads to the result that Callistus was bishop for five years, and therefore his accession is to be put into the year 217, and the reign of Macrinus (see Lipsius, Chron. d. rim.
Bischife, p. 171 sq.).
This agrees, so far as the years of our era are concerned, with the statement of Eusebius in this chapter; but he wrongly puts Callistus' accession into the first year of Alexander, which is a result of an error of a year in his reckoning of the dates of the emperors, which runs back to Pertinax (see Lipsius, p. 7 sq.).
He does not assign Callistus' accession to the first year of Biaicesbalus because of a tradition connecting the two, but simply because: his reckoning of the bik fo of the various episcopates, hia were:
#8 Eusebius is apparently mistaken in stating that this epistle was addressed to Demetrius, for the latter is spoken of throughout the epistle in the third person.
It seems probable that Eusebius has made a slip and said *' to Demetrius'? when he meant to say " concerning
Demetrius." f the persons mentioned here by the Palestinian bishops in support of their conduct, Neon, bishop of Laranda in Lycaonia, Celsus, bishop of Iconium, and Atticus, bishop of Synada in Phrygia, together with the laymen Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodore, we know only the names. iven in the source used by him, led him to the year 217 for Calistus' accession, and this, according to his erroneous table of the reigns of the emperors, was the first year of Heliogabalus.
We thus. see that Eusebius is in real, though not in apparent, agreement with the Liberian catalogue in regard to the date of Callistus' accession, which may, therefore, be accepted as certain.
50 ov mpos povav TaY cuVyOwy, GAAG Ral tov emi Févys émckotwy, ogvv7idwv seems here td have the sense of "' countrymen" or (bishops) '' of his own country " over against the émi &évys, rather' than the meaning " friends" or "acquaintances," which is more
"rt Hilla, the city built by Hadri h f Jerusal la, the city built by Hadrian upon the site of Jerusalem (see Bk. IV. chap. 6). We do not know the subsequent history of this .. Nothing was known about the character and life of Callistus until:the discovery of Hippolytus' Phzlosophumena, or Refutation of
Vilee2i
ORIGEN AND MAMMAEA.
Urbanus.* After this, Alexander became Roman emperor, Antoninus having reigned but four years.
At this time Philetus® also succeeded Asclepiades' in the church of Antioch.
The mother of the emperor, Mammea® by name, was a most pious woman, if there ever was one, and of religious life.
When the fame of Origen had extended everywhere and had come even to her ears, she desired greatly to see the man, and above all things to make trial of his celebrated understanding of divine things.
Staying for a time in Anti-
och, she sent for him with a military escort.
Having remained with her a while and shown her many things which were for the glory of the Lord and of the excellence of the divine teaching, he hastened back to his accustomed work.
All Heresies (see the next chapter, note 1).
In Bk. IX. of that work is given a detailed description of him, from the pen of a very bitter opponent.
At the same time, it can hardly be doubted that at least the groundwork of the account is true.
According to Hiphdres he was a slave; a dishonest banker, who was punished for is dishonesty; the author of a riot in a Jewish synagogue, who was sent as a criminal to the mines; finally, after various other adventures, the right-hand man of the bishop Zephyrinus, and after his death, his successor.
According to Hippolytus, he was a Patripassian, and he introduced much laxer methods of church discipline than had hitherto been in vogue; so lax as greatly to scandalize Hippolytus, who was a very rigid disciplinarian. hatever truth there may be in this highly sensational account (and we canhot doubt that it is greatly overdrawn), it is at least certain that Callistus took the liberal view of Christian morals and church discipline, over against the stricter view represented by Hippolytus and his party.
It was, perhaps, owing to his popularity on this account that, after the death of Zephyrinus, he secured the episcopacy of Rome, for which Hippolytus was also a candidate.
The latter tells us also that Zephyrinus "set him over the cemetery," —a most interesting notice, as the largest catacomb in Rome bears the name of St. Callistus, and may be the very one of which Zephyrinus made him the superintendent.
CHAPTER XXII.
The Works of Hippolytus which have reached us.
At that time Hippolytus,' besides many
other treatises, wrote a work on the pass4 Lipsius, in his Chron. d. rém. Bischéfe, p. 170 sq., shows that the only fixed point for a calculation of the dates of Urban and the three bishops preceding him, is the banishment by the Emperor
Maximinus of Pontianus to Sardinia, which took place, according to the Liberian catalogue, while Severus and Quintinus were consuls; that is, in the year 235.
The duration of Pontianus' episcopate is shown by a comparison of the best sources to have been a little over five years (see chap. 23, note 3).
This brings' us to the year 230 as the date of Urban's death.
According to chap. 23, Urban was bishop eight years, and with this the Liberian catalogue agrees, so that this figure is far better supported than the figure nine given by the Chron.
Accepting eight years as the duration of Urban's episcopate, we are brought back to 222 as the date of his accession, which agrees with Eusebius' statement in this chapter (see the previous note).
There are extant Acta S. Urbant, which are accepted as genuine by the Bollandists, and assigned to the second century, but they cannot have been written before the fifth, and are historically quite worthless.
For a good discussion of his supposed connection with St. Cecilia, which has played such an important part in ecclesiastical legend, see the article Uréanus in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog.
We have no certain knowledge of his life and character.
5 Elagabalus was slain in March, 222, after a reign of three years and nine months, and was succeeded by his cousin, Alexianus Bassianus, who assumed the names Marcus Aurelius Alexander Severus, by the last two of which he is commonly known, accepting the order of events recorded in this chapter as chronological, put the interview in the early years of Alexander Severus,
Redepenning assuming an otherwise unrecorded visit of Mammza to Antioch, Huet connecting her visit there with the Persian expedition of Alexander.
Huet assumes, upon the wea 4 of Jerome's Chron., that the Persian expedition took place in the early part of Alexander's reign; but this is against all other ancient authorities, and must be incorrect (see Tillemont, Mes. III. 763 sq.).
The only occasions known to us, on which Mammza can have been in Antioch, were this expedition of her son (between 230 and 233) and the visit of her nephew Elagabalus to Antioch, after his victory over Macrinus in 218.
At both these times Origen was quite probably in Czsarea (see chap. 19, note 23, and p. 392, below), whence it-is more natural to suppose him summoned than from Alexandria.
If we put the interview in 218, we must a ae (as Tillemont suggests) that Eusebius is led by his mention of Alexander to give this account of his mother, and that he does not intend to imply that the interview took place after Alexander's accession.
There is nothin at all improbable in this.
In fact, it seems more likely that he waite mention the interview in connection with Alexander than in connection with Elagabalus, in spite of chronology.
On the. other hand, it is not impossible that the interview took 4 ae subsequently to the year 231, for Origen's fame was certainly by that time much greater in Syria than fifteen years previous.
At the same time, to accept this date disarranges seriously the chronological order of the account of Eusebius, for in chap. 24 we are told of those works which Origen wrote while yet in Alexandria; that is, before 231.
Moreover, there is not the same reason for inserting this account of Mammea at this point, if it occurred later in Alexander's reign, that there is if it occurred in the reign. of Elagabalus.
We shall, therefore, do best to accept the earlier date with Tillemont, Westcott, and others.
6 Philetus, according to the Chroz. (Armenian), became bishop in the sixth year of Caracalla (216), and was succeeded by Zebinus in the sixth year of Alexander Severus (227).
Jerome puts his accession into the reign of Macrinus (217-218), and the accession of Zebinus into the seventh year of Alexander (228),
The accession of Zebinus must have taken place at least as early as 231 (see chap. 23, note 4), and there remains therefore no reason to doubt the approximate accuracy of the latter dates.
If the dates given for Philetus' accession (216-218) be approximately correct, we must understand the words "at this time" of the present chapter, to refer back to the reign of Macrinus, or the accession of Alexander Severus, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter,
This does not seem natural, but we cannot say it is impossible.
Knowing the unreliability of the dates given in the-C4von., we are compelled to leave the matter undecided.
He is called by the Avmen. Philip, by Syncellus ®éAntos 7 BiAurmos.
The latter assigns him an episcopate of eight years, which agrees with none of the figures given by the two versions of the Chronicle or by the Hzstory. We know nothing about the person or the life of Philetus.
1 Hippolytus (mentioned above in chap, 20) was one of the most learned men and celebrated writers of his age, and yet his personal history is involved in the deepest obscurity.
The earliest mention of him is by Eusebius in this passage and in chap. 20, above.
But Eusebius tells us there only that he was a bishop of 'some other church" (érépas mov éxxAnoias), and Jerome (de wir. 722. c. 61) says that he was a bishop of some church whose name he did not know
(Hippolytus, cujusdam Ecclesia episcopus, nomen quippe urbis scire non potut).
In the East, from the fourth century on, Hippolytus was commonly called bishop of Rome, but the Western tradition makes him simply a presbyter.
The late tradition that he was bishop of Portus Romanus is quite worthless.
We learn from his Philosophumena, or Refutation of Herestes, that he was active in Rome in the time of Zephyrinus and Callistus; but what is significant is the fact that he never recognizes Callistus as bishop of Rome, but always treats him as the head of a school opposed to the orthodox Church.
This has given scholars the clue for reconciling the conflicting traditions about his position and his church.
It seems probable that he was a presbyter of the church of Rome, and was at the head of a party which did not recognize Callistus as lawful bishop, but set Hippolytus up as opposition bishop.
This explains why Hippolytus calls himself a bishop, and at the. same time recognizes neither Callistus nor any one else as bishop of Rome.
The Western Church therefore preserved the tradition of Hippolytus only as a presbyter, while in the Orient, where Hippolytus was known only through his works, the tradition that he was a bishop (a fact directly stated in those works; see the preface to his Philosophumena) always prevailed 3 and since he was known to have resided in Rome, that city was made by tradition his see.
The schism, which has left no trace in the writings either of the Western or Eastern Church, cannot have been a serious one.
Doubtless Callistus had the sup7 On Asclepiades, see chap. 11, note 6.
8 Julia Mamza or Mammza (Eusebius, Mapzpaia) was the niece of Septimius Severus' wife Julia Domna, the aunt of the Emperor
Elagabalus, and the mother of the Emperor Alexander Severus, by the Syrian Gessius Marcianus.
She accompanied Elagabalus to Rome, and had strength of character enough to protect her son from the jealousy of the latter, and to keep him comparatively pure from the vice and debauchery of the court.
During the reign of her son she exerted great influence, which was in the main oy beneficial ; but her pride and avarice finally proved fatal, both to her son and to herself.
Her character seems to -have been in the main pure and elevated; and she was seen d inclined to the same sort of religious syncretism which led her son to adopt many Christian principles of action, and to put the busts of Abraham and of Christ, with those of Orpheus, Neoltasans of Tyana, and the best of the Roman emperors, in his private chapel (see Lampridius, Vita Sev. c. 29,
3).
Eusebius calls Mammza SeoceBeotary and evAa8ys, and erome calls her a veligiosa femina (de vir. zl. c. 54); but there is no evidence that she was a Christian.
The date of Origen's interview with her has been greatly disputed.
Huet and Redepenning,
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 22. ee SSS eS SS us: On the Hexzmeron,? On the Works after the Hexeemeron,* Against Marcion,' On the Song of Songs, On Portions of Ezekiel,' On the Passover,' Against All the Heresies ;° and you can find many other works preserved by many. over.2
He gives in this a chronological table, and presents a certain paschal canon of sixteen years, bringing the time down to the first
year of the Emperor Alexander.
Of his other writings the following have reached day of the week, as well as month.
"his cycle is astronomically incorrect, the fact being that after sixteen years the full moon falls not on the same day of the week, but three days later.
Hippolytus, however, was not aware of this, and published his cycle in perfect good faith, The work referred to seems to have contained an explanation of the cycle, together with a computation by means of it of the dates of the Old and New Testament passovers.
It is no longer extant, but the cycle itself, which was the chief thing, is preserved on the Statue, evidently in the form in which it was drawn up by Hippolytus himself. ort of by far the larger part of the Church, and the opposition of Necoaly cus never amounted to more than talk, and was never strong or perhaps even attempt to enlist, the support of foreign bishops.
Callistus and the body of the Church could afford to leave it unnoticed; and after Cailistus' death Hippolytus undoubtedly returned to the Church and was gladly received, and the memory of his brief schism entirely effaced, while the knowledge of his orthodoxy, and of his great services to the Church as a theologian and a writer, kept his name in hig repute with subsequent generations.
A Latin translation of a Chronicle written by Hippolytus is extant, and the last event recorded in it is the death of the Emperor
Alexander, which took place early in the year 235.
The Liberian catalogue, in an entry which Lipsius (Chroz. d. rim. Bischéfe, Pp. 194) pronounces critically indisputable, records that, in the year
235, the bishop Pontianus and the presbyter Hippolytus were transported as exiles to the island of Sardinia.
There is little doubt that this is the Hippolytus with whom we are concerned, and it is highly probable that both he and Pontianus died' in the mines there, and thus gained the title of martyrs; for not only is the account of Hipenough to enlist,
3°This treatise on the Hexzmeron, or six days' work, is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list on the statue.
It is no longer extant; but according to Jerome (Zf. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, c. 7; Migne's ed. Ep. 84), was used by Ambrose in the composition of his own work upon the same subject, which is still preserved (cf. also Bk. V. chap. 27, note 3, above).
4 Greek, cis Ta pera Thy cEajmepov.
This work is not given in the list on the statue.
It is mentioned in some of the MSS. of Jerome under the form et post Hexemeron; but the best MSS. omit these words, and substitute for them e¢ zz Exodum,a work which is not mentioned by any other authority.
Jerome mentions also a commentary 7 Genesim, which we hear of from no other source, and which may be identical with this work mentioned by Eusebius.
If the two be identical (which is quite possible), the nature of the work is plain enough.
Otherwise we are left wholly to conjecture.
No fragments of the work have been identified.
5 This work is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list on the statue.
The last work, however, mentioned in that list bears the title wept taya0o0v Kai mo0ev Td Kaxov, which, it has been conjectured, may be identical with Eusebius and Jerome's Contra Marolytus' martyrdom given by Prudentius in the fifth century not refiatle, but also in the defositio martyrum of the Liberian catalogue the bodies of Pontianus and Hippolytus are said to have been buried in Rome on the same day; and itis therefore natural to think that Hippolytus' body was brought from Sardinia, as we know Pontianus' was.
The character of Hippolytus, as revealed to us in the Phzlosophumena, is that of a strictly, even rigidly, moral man, of a puritanic disposition, who believed in drawing the reins very tight, and allowing to the members of the Christian Church no license.
He was in this directly opposed to Callistus, who was a lax disciplinarian, and favored the readmission to the Church even of the worst offenders upon evidence of repentance and suitable penance (see the previous chapter, note 3). We are reminded greets ot Tertullian and of Novatian in studying Hippolytus' character.
He was, moreover, strictly orthodox and bitterly opposed to what he considered the patripassianism of Zephyrinus and of Callistus.
He must be admired as a thoroughly independent, ey moral, and nieidly orthodox man; while at the same time it must be recognized that he was irascible, bitter, and in some respects narrow and bigoted.
He is known to have beena very prolific writer, composing all his works in Greek.
Eusebius mentions but eight works in this chapter, but says that many others were extant in his day.
Jerome, who in the present instance has other sources of information than Eusebius' History, mentions some nineteen works (de vir. zl]. c. 61), including all of those named by Eusebius, except the commentary on portions of Ezekiel and the work on the Events which followed the Hexzmeron (but see note 4, below).
In the year 1551 a statue representing a venerable man sitting in a chair, and with an inscription upon it enumerating the writings of the person commemorated, was found near the church of San Lorenzo, just outside of Rome.
The statue, though it bears no name, has been shown to be that of Hippolytus; and with the help of the list given upon it (which contains some thirteen works), together with some extant fragments of writings which seem to have been composed by him, the titles known to us have been increased to about forty, the greater part of which are entirely lost. We cannot discuss these works here.
For the most complete list of Hippolytus' writings the reader is referred to Caspari's Taufsymbol und Glaubensregel, II1. wy sq., or to the more accessible article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
In 1842 was discovered the greater part of a work in ten books directed against heresies, the first book of which had been long before published by the Benedictines among Origen's works with the title of Phzlosophumena.
This discovery caused great discussion, but it has been proved to the complete satisfaction of almost every scholar that it is a work of Hippolytus ctonem.
No fragments are extant.
6 Eusebius has simply 7d daua (The Song), which is the title ee to the book in the LXX.
This commentary on the Song of ongs is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the statue list.
Four fragments of it are given by Lagarde, in his edition of the works of Hippolytus.
7 This commentary on portions of Ezekiel is mentioned by no ene else.
A supposed fragment of it is given by Lagarde, Anal.
T+, Ps GO. aA Jerome agrees with Eusebius in mentioning a work Ox the Passover, in addition to the chronological one already referred to. Thelist on the statue, however, mentions but one work on the passover, and that the one containing the paschal cycle.
Fragments are extant of Hippolytus' work Ox the Passover, — one from his eyynots els TO macxa (see Lagarde's edition of Hippolytus, p. 213), and another from "the first book of the treatise on the holy paschal feast" (Tow epi TOD aylov Tacxa cvyypaumartos, Lagarde, p.
92). These fragments are of a dogmatic character, and can hardly fave occurred in the chronological work, except in a separate section or book; but the last is taken from "' the first book" of the treatise, and hence we are safe in concluding that Eusebius and Jerome are correct in enumerating two separate works upon the same subject, —the one chronological, the other dogmatic, or polemical.
® This work, Against All the Heresies, is mentioned both by Eusebius (pos amaoas tas aipécers) and Jerome (adv. omnes hereses), but is not given in the list on the statue,
Quite a full account of it is given from personal knowledge by Photius (Cod.
121), who calls it a small book (8:8AcSaprov) directed against thirtytwo heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus, and say 5 -at it purported to be an abstract of lectures delivered by Irenzus.
The work is no longer extant (it must not be confounded with the Phzlosophumena, or oh heed mentioned in note 1), but it has been in part restored by Lipsius (in his Cree des Epiphanius) from the anti-heretical works of Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster.
There is in existence also a fragment of considerable length, bearing in the MS. the title Homzly of Hippales againt the Heresy of one Noetus, It is apparently not a omily, but the conclusion of a treatise against a ee be of heresies.
It was suggested by Fabricius (who first published the original Greek) that it constituted the closing chapter of the work against the thirty-two heresies.
The chief objection to this is that if this fragment forms but one of eave chapters, the entire work can hardly have been called a '' little book" & Photius.
Lipsius suggests that the little book of which Photius speaks was not the complete work of Hippolytus, but only an abbreviated summary of its contents, and this is quite possible.
At any rate it seems probable, in spite of the objections which have been urged by some critics, that this constituted a part of the larger work, and hence we have one chapter of that work preserved.
The work seems to have been compees in Rome and during the episcopate of Victor (as Lipsius
(cf., among other discussions, Dollinger's Hippolytus und Callistus, translated by Plummer, and the article in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. already referred to).
The work was published at Oxford in 1851 by Miller (who, however, wrongly ascribed it to Origen), and at Gottingen, in 1859, by Duncker and Schneidewin.
It is given also by Migne; and an English translation is found in the AzteNicene Fathers (Amer. ed.), Vol. V., under the title the Refutation of All Heresies.
This chronological work on the passover, which contained a cycle for the purpose of determining the date of the festival, jis mentioned also by Jerome, and is given in the list on the statue, on which the cycle itself is also engraved.
Jerome says that this work was the occasion of Eusebius' work upon the same subject in which a nineteen-year cycle was substituted for that of Hippolytus.
The latter was a sixteen-year cycle, and was formed by putting together two of the eight-year cycles of the Greek astronomers,
— according to whose calculation the full moon fell on the same day of the month once in eight years, —in order to exhibit also the day of the week on which it fell; for he noticed that after sixteen years the full moon moved one day backward (if on Saturday at the beginning of the cycle, it fell on Friday after the sixteen years were past).
He therefore be together seven sixteen-year cycles, assuming that after they had passed the full moon would return again to the same olds), or, as is more probable, in the early part of the episcopate of Zepbynius (as is maintained by Harnack).
This conclusion is drawn from the dates of the heretics mentioned in the work, some of whom were as late as Victor, but none of them later than the early years of Zephyrinus.
It must} too, have been composed some years before the Phzlosophumena, which (in the preface) refers to a work against heresies, written by its author ''a long time before"
VI. 24.)
ORIGEN'S ORDINATION.
in connection with ecclesiastical affairs,® and went through Palestine, and was ordained as presbyter in Czsarea by the bishops of that
CHAPTER XXIII.
Origen's Zeal and his Elevation to the Presbyrerate. country.
The matters that were agitated concerning him on this account, and the decisions a Ar that time Origen began his commen-|on these matters by those who presided over taries on the Divine Scriptures, being urged thereto by Ambrose,! who employed innumerable the churches, besides the other works concerning the divine word which he published while in his prime, demand a separate treatise. We have written of them to some extent in the second book of the Defense which we have composed in his behalf.' incentives, not only exhorting him by word,
but also furnishing abundant means.
For he dictated to more than seven amanuenses, who relieved each other at appointed times. And he employed no fewer copyists, besides girls who were skilled in elegant writing.
For all these Ambrose furnished the necessary expense in abundance, manifesting himself an inexpressible earnestness in diligence and zeal for the divine oracles, by which he especially pressed him on
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria. to the preparation of his commentaries.
While these things were in progress, Urbanus,? who had been for eight years bishop of the Roman church, was succeeded by PontiIT may be well to add that in the sixth
book of his exposition of the Gospel of John? he states that he prepared the first five while in Alexandria.
Of his work on the entire Gospel only twenty-two volumes have come down to us.
Intheninthofthoseon
Genesis," of which there are twelve in all, he anus,' and Zebinus* succeeded Philetus® in
Antioch.
At this time Origen was sent to Greece on account of a pressing necessity ee eS EE wédat).
Upon this work and its relation to the lost Syntagma of fistn Martyr, which Lipsius supposes it to have made use of, see is work already referred to and also his
Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte together with Harnack's uellenkritik der Gesch. des Gnosticitsmus, and his article in the Zeztschrift fur historische Theologie, 1874, p. 143-226. i.
1 On Ambrose and his relation to Origen, see chap. 18, note x.
2 On Urbanus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 21, note 4.
3 For the dates of the first group of Roman bishops, from Peter to Urbanus, the best source we have is Eusebius' Church History put for the second group, from Pontianus to Liberius, the notices of the History are ey unreliable, while the Liberian catalogue rests upon very trustworthy data (see Lipsius, Chron. d. rim. Bischéfe, p. 39 and p. 142 sq.).
We must therefore turn to the latter for the most accurate information in regard to the remaining Roman bishops
6 See the note on p. 395, below.
7 Eusebius refers here to the Defense of Origen, composed by himself and Pamphilus, which is unfortunately now lost (see above, chap. 2, note 1, and the Prolegomena, p. 36 sq.).
1 Origen's commentary upon the Gospel of John was the "first fruits of his labors at Alexandria," as he informs us in Tom. I. § 4.
It must have been commenced, therefore, soon after he formed the connection with Ambrose mentioned in the previous chapter, and that it was one of the fruits of this connection is proved by the wa in which Ambrose is addressed in the commentary itself (Tom. l.
§ 3). The date at which the work was begun cannot be determined; but if Eusebius follows the chronological order of events, it cannot have been before 218 (see chap. 21, note 8).
Eusebius speaks as if Origen had expounded the entire Gospel (rs 5 eis 7d wav evayyéAcov auto 8 TovTO mpaypuareias), but Jerome, in his catalogue of Origen's works given in his epistle to Paula (in a fragmentary form in Migne's ed., Ep. 33, complete in the Zeztschrift fiir
Hist. Theol. 1851, mentioned by Eusebius, although an occasional mistake in the catalogue must be corrected by our other sources, as Lipsius points out.
The notice of Eusebius at this point would throw the accession of Pontianus into the year 231, but this is a year too late, as seen in chap. 21, note 4.
According to chap. 29, he was bishop six years, and was succeeded by Anteros at about the same time that Gordian became emperor; that is,in238.
But this is wide of the truth.
The Liberian catalogue, which is supported by the best of the other sources, gives a little over five years for his episcopate, and puts his banishment to Sardinia, with which his episcopate ended, on the 28th of September, 235.
According to the elician catalogue, which may be trusted at this point, he was brought tc Rome and buried there during the episcopate of Fabian, which began in 236 (see also the preceding chapter, note 1). We know nothing about the life and character of Pontianus.
: é ; 4 The notices of the Chvonrcle in connection with Zebinus are especially unreliable.
The Avmen. puts his accession into the sixth (227), Jerome into the seventh year of Alexander (228).
Jeyome makes no attempt to fix the date of his death, while the Armen. uts it in the first year of Gallus (251-252).
Syncellus assigns him ut six years.
In the midst of such confusion we are obliged to rely solely upon the History. The only reliable data we have are
Origen's ordination to the priesthood, which took place in 231 (see below, p. 392) and apparently, according to this chapter, while
Zebinus was bishop of Antioch.
If Eusebius is correct in this synchronization, Zebinus became bishop before 231, and therefore the statements of the Chron. as to his accession may be approximately correct. As to the time of his death, we know that his successor, Babylas, died jn the Decian persecution (see chap. 39), and hence Zebinus must have died some years before that.
In chap. 29, Eusebius puts his death in the reign of Gordian (238-244), and this may be accepted as at least approximately correct, for we have reason to think that Babylas was already bishop in the time of Philip (see chap. 29, note 8).
This proves the utter incorrectness of the notice of the Armen.
We know nothing about the person and life of Zebinus.
Harnack concludes from his name that he was a Syrian by birth. Most of the MSS. of Eusebius give his name as ZeBtvos; one MS, and Nicephorus, as ZéBevos; Syncellus as Zé8evvos; Rufinus, Jerome, and the Armen. as Zebennus.
. 75 sq.), reports that the commentary consisted of thirty-two ooks bod "ge notes (cf. his prologue to his translation of Origen's homilies 8n Luke, Migne's ed., VII. 219), and Rufinus likewise
(Aol. II. 22) speaks of thirty-two books only, But in the thirtysecond book, which is still extant, Origen discusses the thirteenth chapter of John, and does not promise to continue the commentary, as he does at the close of some of the other books.
We may therefore conclude that Eusebius' rather indefinite statement (which was robably not based upon personal knowledge, for he says that he
Fad seen only twenty-two books), is incorrect, and that the commentary extended no further than the thirteenth chapter.
We learn from the preface to the sixth book that the first five were composed while the author was still in Alexandria, the remaining books after his removal to Czsarea, and at least part of them after the persecution of Maximinus (235-238), to which reference was made in the twenty-second book, according to Eusebius, chap, 28, below.
There are still extant Books I., If., VI., X., XIII., XX., XXVIII., XXXII., small fragments of IV. and V., and the greater part of XIX. (printed in Lommatzsch's ed., Vols.
I. and II.).
The production of this commentary marked an epoch in the history of theological thought, and it remains in many respects the most important of Origen's exegetical works.
It is full of original and suggestive thought, and reveals Origen's genius perhaps in the clearest and best light, though the exegesis is everywhere marred by the allegorizing method and by neglect of the grammatical and historical sense.
2 Of the commentary on Genesis, only some fragments from the first and third books are extant, together with some extracts (é€kAoyac), and seventeen homilies (nearly complete) in the Latin translation of Rufinus (see Lommatzsch's ed., Vol. VIII.).
Eight of the books, Eusebius tells us, were written in Alexandria, and they must, of course, have been begun after the commencement of the commentary on John.
Jerome (according to Rufinus, Ao/. IT. 20) gave the number of the book as thirteen (though in his catalogue mentioned in the previous note, he speaks of fourteen), and said that the thirteenth discussed Gen. iv. 15; andin his Contra Cels.
VI. 49 Origen speaks of his work upon Genesis '' from the beginning 5 On Philetus, see chap. 21, note 6.
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 24. we states that not only the preceding eight had been composed at Alexandria, but also those on the first twenty-five Psalms* and on Lamentations.'
Of these last five volumes have reached us.
In them he mentions also his books On the 8 _ Resurrection, of which there are two.
He wrote also the books De Principiis® before leaving Alexandria ; and the discourses entitled
Stromata,' ten in number, he composed in the same city during the reign of Alexander, as the notes by his own hand preceding the volumes indicate.
CHAPTER XXV.
His Review of the Canonical Scriptures.
WHEN expounding the first Psalm,' he IL gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament? as follows :
'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two ; corresponding with the number of their letters."
Farther on he says:
"The twenty-two books of the Hebrews
are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith,? which means, ' In the beginning' ; Exodus, Welesmoth,* that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim ; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'
Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book,
Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ' The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one,
Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, ' Records of days'; Esdras,* First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms,
Spharthelleim ; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth ; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs of the book up to" V. 1.
We may therefore conclude that the commentary covered only the early chapters of Genesis.
The homilies, however, discuss brief passages taken from various parts of the book.
3 Origen's writings on the Psalms comprised a complete commentary (cf. Jerome's Ef. ad Augustinum, § 20; Migne's ed.; Ef.
112), brief notes ("' quod Exchiridzon ille vocabat,"' see Migne's edition of Jerome's works, Vol. VIII. 821, and compare the entire
Breviarium in Psalmos which follows, and which doubtless contains much of Origen's work; see Smith and Wace, IV. p. 108) and homilies.
Of these there are still extant numerous fragments in Greek, and nine complete homilies in the Latin version of Rufinus
(printed by Lommatzsch in Vols. XI.-XIII.).
The catalogue of erome mentions forty-six books of notes on the Psalms and 118 omilies. —The commentary on the 26th and following Psalms seem to have been written after leaving Alexandria (to judge from Eusebius' statement here).
4 There are extant some extracts (é€xAoyai) of Origen's expositions of the book of Lamentations, which are printed by Lommatzsch,
XIII. 167-218.
They are probably from the commentary which Eusebius tells us was written before Origen left Alexandria, and five books of which were extant in his time.
The catalogue of Jerome also mentions five books.
5 Jerome (in the catalogue and in the passage quoted by Rufinus, Afol. II. 20) mentions two books and two dialogues on the Resurrection (De Resurrectione libros duos. Et altos de Resurrectione dialogos duos).
Whether the dialogues formed an independent work we do not know. We hear of them from no other source.
The work was bitterly attacked by Methodius, but there are no traces of heresy in the extant fragments.
; 6 Of Origen's De Principits (rept apxev), which was written before he left Alexandria, there are still extant some fragments in Greek, together with brief portions of a translation by Jerome (in his epistle to Avitus; Migne's ed.; Z%. 124), and a complete but greatly altered translation by Rufinus.
The latter, together with the extant fragments, is printed by Lommatzsch, Vol, XXI.; and also separately by Redepenning (Lips. 1836); Engl. trans. by Crombie, in the Azte-Nicene Fathers.
The work is the most important of all Origen's writings, and from it we gather our fullest
(not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel,
Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther.
And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.*
He gives these in the above-mentioned work. nowledge as to his opinions, philosophical and theological; though tnersnaily Rufinus' alterations have made it doubtful in many cases what Origen's original meaning was.
The work constitutes the first attempt to form a system ot Christian doctrine.
It contains a great many peculiar, often startling errors, and was the chief source of the attacks made upon Origen for heterodoxy; and yet the author's object was only to set forth the doctrines accepted by the Church, and to show how they could be systematized by the aid of Scripture or of reason.
He did not intend to bring forward doctrines inconsistent with the received faith of the Church. The work consists of four books.
To quote from Westcott:
'' The composition is not strictly methodical.
Digressions and repetitions interfere with the symmetry of the plan.
But to speak generally, the first book deals with God and creation (religious statics); the second and third books with creation and providence, with man and redemption (religious dynamics); and the fourth book with Holy
Scripture."
1 On Origen's commentary on Psalms, see the previous chapter, note 3.
The first fragment given here by Eusebius is found also in the Phzlocalza, chap. 3, where it forms part of a somewhat longer extract.
The second fragment is extant only in this chapter of Eusebius' History.
2 On the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, see Bk, III. chap.
10, note 1. Upon Origen's omission of the twelve minor prophets and the insertion of the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah, see the same note.
8 I have reproduced Origen's Greek transliteration of this and the following Hebrew words letter by letter.
It will be seen by a comparison of the words with the Hebrew titles of the books, as we now have them, that Origen's pronunciation of Hebrew, even after making all due allowance for a difference in the pronunciation of the Greek and for changes in the Hebrew text, must have been, in many respects, quite different from ours.
84 OveAesnw.
I represent the diphthong ov at the beginning of a word by "'w."
Intellectually the work is of a very high order, abounding in deep and original thought as well as in grand and lofty sentiments.
* The first and second books of Esdras here referred to are not the apasty phal books known by that name, but Ezra and Nehemiah, which in the Hebrew canon formed but one book, as Origen says here, but which in the LXX were separated (see above, Bk. Til. chap. 10, note 4). Esdras is simply the form which the word Ezra assumes in Greek.
5 Whether this sentence closed Origen's discussion of the Hebrew canon, or whether he went on to mention the other a ocryphal books, we cannot tell.
The latter seems intrinsically nck more probable, for it is difficult to understand the insertion of the Maccabees in this connection, and the omission of all the others; for the Maccabees, as is clear from the words é£w 5& rovtwy éoti Ta MaxxaBaixa, are not reckoned by Origen among the twenty-two books as a part of the Hebrew canon.
At the same time, it is hardly conceivable that Eusebius should have broken off thus, in the midst of a passage, without any explanation; though it is, of course, not impossible that he gives only the first sentence of the new paragraph on the books of 7 In his catalogue, Jerome gives among the commentaries on the Old Testament the simple title Stromatum, without any description of the work.
But in his Zp. ad Magnum, § 4 (Migne's ed., £. 70), he says that Origen wrote ten books of Stromata in imitation of Clement's work, and in it compared the opinions of Christians and philosophers, and confirmed the dogmas of Christianity by appeals to Plato and other Greek philosophers (Hunc sittatus
Origines, decem scripsit Stromateas, Christianorum et philosophorum inter se sententias comparans: et omnia nostre religionts dogmata de Platone et Aristotele, Numenio, Cornutogue confirmans).
Only three brief fragments of a Latin translation of the work are now extant (printed in Lommatzsch's ed., XVII.
69-78).
These fragments are sufficient to show us that the work was exegetical as well as doctrinal, and discussed topics of various kinds in the light of Scripture as well as in the light of philosophy.
VI. 25.]
ORIGEN ON THE SCRIPTURES.
CRON a hee a aa
In his first book on Matthew's Gospel,*| is doubtful.* Why need we speak of him
maintaining the Canon of the Church, he|who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus," testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writ- |
John, who has left us one Gospel," though he ing as follows : confessed that he might write so many that the
«¢ Among the four Gospels,' which are the | world could not contain them ?2 And he wrote only indisputable ones in the Church of God | also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to. under heaven, I have learned by tradition that|keep silence and not to write the words the first was written by Matthew, who was once| of the seven thunders"
He has left also
a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus | an epistle of very few lines ; perhaps also Christ, and it was prepared for the converts|a second and third ; but not all consider them from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew| genuine, and together they do not contain a
language.
The second is by Mark, who hundred lines." composed it according to the instructions of}
In addition he makes the following state-
Peter,' who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges | ments in regard to the Epistle to the Hehim as a son, saying, 'The church that is at brews " in his Homilies upon it:
Babylon elected together with you, saluteth| "That the verbal style of the epistle entitled
you, and so doth Marcus, my son.'
And| 'To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the language of the third by Luke, the Gospel commended | the apostle, who acknowledged himself 'rude in by Paul," and composed for Gentile converts. speech,' that is, in expression ; but that its dicLast of all that by John.''" tion is purer Greek, any one who has the power
In the fifth book of his Expositions of| to discern differences of phraseology will acJohn's Gospel, he speaks thus concerning knowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of
the epistles of the apostles :* the epistle are admirable, and not inferior "But he who was 'made sufficient to be a|to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one minister of the New Testament, not of the let- | who carefully examines the apostolic text" ter, but of the Spirit,' that is, Paul, who 'fully | will admit."
Farther on he adds:
preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round| "If I gave my opinion, I should say that about even unto Illyricum,'™ did not write|the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the dicto all the churches which he had instructed ;| tion and phraseology are those of some one who and to those to which he wrote he sent but| remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote
fewlines.® And Peter, on whom the Church | down at his leisure what had been said by his of Christ is built, 'against which the gates | teacher.
Therefore if any church holds that this of hell shall not prevail,'" has left one acknowl- | epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. edged epistle ; perhaps also a second, but this| For not without reason have the ancients pees 2 Mina ets OA wet ET handed it down.as Paul's. ..
Butvwho wrote
the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it."
But let this suffice on these matters. nnn LEE the LXX, in order to show that the discussion of the Hebrew canon closes, and a new subject is introduced at this point.
But, however that may be, it must be regarded as certain that Origen did not reckon the books of the Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon, and on the other hand, that he did reckon those books, as well as others (if not all) of the books given in the LXX, as inspired Scripture,
This latter fact is proved by his use of these books indiscriminately with those of the Hebrew canon as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and also by his express citation of at least some of them as Scripture (cf. on this arg ec Redepenning, p. 235 59-). We must conclude, therefore, that Origen did not adopt the Hebrew canon as his own, but that he states it as clearly as he does in this place, in order to bring concretely before the minds of his readers the difference between the canon of the Jews and the canon of the Christians, who looked upon the LXX as the more authoritative form of the Old Testament.
Perhaps he had in view the same purpose that led him to compare the Hebyen text and the LXX in his Hexap/a (see chap. 16, note 8).
18 On the first and second Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap.
3, notes 1 and 4.
19 See John xiii. 23.
20 On John's Gospel, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1; on the Apocalypse, note 20; and on the epistles, notes 18 and 19 of the same chapter.
21 See aoe xxi, 25.
22 See Rev. x. 4.
23 Upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Origen's treatment of it, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
The two extracts given here by Eusebius are the only fragments of Origen's Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews now extant.
Four brief Latin fragments of his commentary upon that epistle are preserved in the first book of Pamphilus' Defense of Origen, and are printed by Lommatzsch in Vol. V. p. 297 sq.
The commentaries (or "books," as they are called) are mentioned only in that Defense.
The catalogue of Jerome speaks only of " eighteen homilies."
We know nothing about the extent or the date of composition of these homilies and commentaries.
4 2 Cor. xi. 6.
25 mpocéxwv, TH avayvarer TH ages oteon avayvwors meant originally the act of reading, then also that which is read.
It thus came ioe used (like avdyvwoua) of the pericope or text or section of the Scripture read in church, and in the,plural to designate the church lectionaries, or service books.
In the present case it is used evidently in a wider sense of the text of Paul's writings as a whole.
This use of the two words to indicate, not simply the selection read in church, but the text of a book or books as a whole, was not at al} uncommon, as may be seen from the examples given by Suicer, although he does not mention this wider signification among the uses of the word.
See his Thesaurus, S.v.
6 On Origen's Commentary on Matthew, see chap. 36, note 4.
The fragment given here by Eusebius is all that is extant of the first book of the commentary.
7 Compare Origen's Hom. J. in Lucam: Ecclesia guatuor habet evangelia, heresea plurima ; and mult? conat? sunt scribere, sed et mult? conati sunt ordinare: quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, &c.
Compare also Irenzus, Adv. Her. III. 11, 8, where the attempt is made to show that it is impossible for the Gospels to be either more or fewer in number than four; and the Muratorian
Fragment where the four Gospels are named, but the number four is not represented as in itself the necessary number; also Tertullian's
Adv. Marc. IV. 2, and elsewhere.
8 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5.
9 See Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
10 y Pet. v. 13.
11 See Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 andts.
Origen refers here to 2 Cor. viii. 18, where, however, it is clear that the reference is not to any specific Gospel any more than in_the ecg referred to above, III. 4, note 15.
12 See Bk. III. chap. 24.
18 This fragment from the fifth book of Origen's commentary on John is extant only in this chapter.
The context is not preserved.
14 2 Cor. iii. 6.
16 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 2.
15 Rom. xv. 19.
17 Matt. xvi. 18.
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 26.
Eee eee ne: eae me Dal nein neemr mvietne sas 6 2 SS
CHAPTER XXVIII.
CHAPTER XXVI.
The Persecution under Maximinus.
Heraclas becomes Bishop of Alexandria.
Tue Roman emperor, Alexander, having finished his reign in thirteen years, was succeeded by Maximinus Cesar.'
On account of his hatred toward the household of Alexander,' which contained many believers, he began a persecution, commanding that only the rulers of the churches should be put to death, as responsible for the Gospel teaching.
Thereupon Origen composed his work On Martyrdom,' and dedicated it to Ambrose and Protoctetus,* a presbyter of the parish of Czsarea, because in the persecution there had come upon them both unusual hardships, in which it is reported that they were eminent in confession during the reign of Maximinus, which lasted but three years.
Origen has noted this as the time of the persecution in the twenty-second book of his Commentaries on John, and in several epistles.°
Ir was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen removed from Alexandria to Ceesarea,! leaving the charge of the catechetical school in that city to Heraclas.
Not long afterward Demetrius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, died, having held the office for forty-three full years,? and Heraclas succeeded him.
At this time Firmilianus,' bishop of Czesarea in Cappadocia, was conspicuous.
CHAPTER XXVII.
How the Bishops regarded Origen.
HE was so earnestly affected toward Origen, that he urged him to come to that country for the benefit of the churches, and moreover he visited him in Judea, remaining with him for some time, for the sake of improvement in divine things.
And Alexander,' bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus,? bishop of Czsarea, attended on him constantly,' as their only teacher, and allowed' him to expound the Divine Scriptures, and to perform the other duties pertaining to ecclesiastical discourse.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Fabianus, who was wonderfully designated Bishop of Rome by God.
GorRDIANUS succeeded Maximinus as Ro-
man emperor ;! and Pontianus,? who had 1 Alexander Severus was murdered early in the year 235, and was succeeded at once by his commanding general, the Thracian Maximinus, or Caius Julius Verus Maximinus, as he called himself. en's er1 The tenth year of Alexander Severus, 231 a.D.
On Ori, departure from Alexandria at this time, see below, p. 396.
On aclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
2 The reference here is not to the immediate family of Alexander, but to the court as a whole, his family in the widest sense, including court officials, servants, &c.
The favor which Alexander had shown to the Christians (see chap. 21, note 8) is clearly seen in the fact that there were so many Christians at court, as Eusebius informs us here, This persecution was at first directed, Eusebius tells us, solely against the heads of the churches (rovs tov éxxAnotov apxovtas), i.e. the bishops; and we might imagine only those bishops who had stood nearest Alexander and had been most favored by him to be meant (Pontianus and Hippolytus of Rome were exiled, for instance, at the very beginning of Maximinus' reign, in the year 235; see chap. 22, note r) ; for Maximinus' hostility to the Christians seems to have been caused, not by religious motives, but by mere hatred of his predecessor, and of every cause to which he had shown favor. But the persecution was not confined to such persons, as we learn from this chapter, which tells us of the sufferings of Ambrose and Protoctetus, neither of whom was a bishop.
It seems probable that most of the persecuting was not the result of positive efforts on the part of Maximinus, but rather of the superstitious hatred of the common people, whose fears had been recently aroused by earthquakes and who always attributed such calamities to the existence of the Christians.
Of course under Maximinus they had free rein, and could persecute whenever they or the provincial authorities felt inclined
2 On-the episcopacy of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
Forty-three years, beginning with 189 a.p., bring us down to 232 as the date of his death, and this agrees excellently with the statements of this chapter, 8 Firmilian, bishop of Czsarea, the capital of Cappadocia (to be distinguished from Czsarea in Palestine), was one of the most famous prelates of his day in the Eastern Church.
He was a friend of Origen, as we learn from the next chapter, and took part in a council called on account of the schism of Novatian (see chap. 46), and also in councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30).
He was one of the bishops whom tephen excommunicated because they rebaptized heretics (see Bk.
Vit. chap. 2, note 3, and chap. 5, note 4), and he wrote an epistle upon this subject to Rypaas, which is extant in a Latin translation made by Cyprian himself (Z. 74, a/. 75, in the collection of Cyprian's epistles.
See Dict. of Christ. Biog. 1.
751, note).
Basil (de Spiritu Sancto, 29) refers to works (Adyot) left by Firmilian, but none of them are extant except the single epistle mentioned, nor do we hear from any other source that he was a writer.
Jerome does not mention him in his De vir. z/l.
The exact date of his accession is unknown to us, as it very likely was to Eusebius also.
He was a bishop already in the tenth year of Alexander (231 A.D.), r very soon afterward, and from Bk. VII. chap. 30, we learn that he died at Tarsus on his way to Antioch to attend a council which had been summoned to deal with Paul of Samosata.
This synod -was held about 265 A.D. (not in 272 as is commonly supposed; see (cf. Firmilian's epistle to Cyprian, and Origen's E-xhort. ad Mart.).
Eusebius tells us nothing of Origen's whereabouts at this time; but in Palladius' Ast. Laus. 147, it is said that Origen was given refuge by Juliana in Czsarea in Cappadocia during some persecution, undoubtedly this one, if the report is true (see chap. 17, note 4).
Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1), and it is at this time, therefore, that we Must put the death of Firmilian; so that he was bishop of Czsarea at least some thirty-four years.
3 This work on martyrdom (eis paptvptoy mpotpertixos Adyos, Exhortatio ad Martyrium) is still extant, and is printed by Lommatzsch in Vol.
XX., p. 231-316.
It is a most beautiful and inspiring exhortation.
1 On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
2 On Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, see chap. 19, 'note 27.
« O= Ambrose, see chap. 18, note x.
Protoctetus, a presbyter of the church of Czsarea (apparently Palestinian Czsarea), is ba to us only from this passage.
3 A number of MSS., followed by Heinichen and some others, insert at this point ws ésros eimety ('so to speak").
5 On Origen's Commentary on John's Gospel, see chap. 24, note x. No fragments of the twenty-second book are extant, nor any of the epistles in which reference is made to this persecution.
* The presbyter derived his authority to preach and teach only from the bishop, and hence these bishops extended to Origen, whom they had ordained a presbyter, full liberty to preach and teach within their dioceses.
1 Gordianus the younger, grandson of Gordianus I., and nephew (or son?) of Gordianus II., became emperor after the murder of Balbinus and Pupienus, in July, 238, at the age of fifteen years and reigned until early in the year 244, when he was murdered by 5 ra Aowwa Tod éxxAynoLagTiKO Adyou.
VI. 30.]
FABIANUS CHOSEN BISHOP OF ROME.
i And in Alexandria Heraclas,' having received the episcopal office after Demetrius,"° was succeeded in the charge of the catechetical school by Dionysius," who had also been one of Origen's pupils. been bishop of the church at Rome for six years, was succeeded by Anteros.2
After he had held the office for a month, Fabianus* succeeded
him.
They say® that Fabianus having come, after the death of Anteros, with others from the country, was staying at Rome, and that while there he was chosen to the office through
CHAPTER XXX..
a most wonderful manifestation of divine and
heavenly grace.
For when all the brethren had assembled to select by vote him who should succeed to the episcopate of the church, several renowned and honorable men were in the minds of many, but Fabianus, although present, was in the mind of none.
But they relate that suddenly a dove flying down lighted on his: head, resembling the descent of the Holy Spirit
The Pupils of Origen.
Wuite Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Czesarea, many pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other countries.
Among these Theodorus, the same that was distinguished among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory,' and his brother on the Saviour in the form of a dove.
Thereupon all the people, as if moved by one Divine Spirit, with all eagerness and unanimity cried out that he was worthy, and without delay they took him and placed him
above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4). There is no warrant for carrying the accession of Babylas back so far as that.
9 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
10 On the episcopate of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
11 On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
1 Our sources for a knowledge of the life of Gregory, who is known as Gregory Thaumaturgus ('' wonder-worker"'), are numerous, but not all of them reliable.
He is mentioned by Eusebius here and in Bk. VII. chaps. 14 and 28, and a brief account of his life and writings is given by Jerome (de vzr. 217. chap. 65), who adds some particulars not mentioned by Eusebius,
There 1s also extant Gregory's Panegyrical Oration in praise of Origen, which contains an outline of the earlier years of his life.
Gregory of Nyssa about a century later wrote a life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, which is still extant, but which is full of marvelous stories, and contains little that is trustworthy.
Gregory's fame was very great among his contemraries and succeeding generations, and many of the Fathers have left brief accounts of him, or references to him which it is not necessary to mention here.
He was a native of Neo-Czsarea in Pontus (according to Gregory Nyssa), the same city of which he was afterward bishop, was of wealthy parentage, and began the study of law when quite young (see his own Orat. Paneg. chap. 5). Coming to Czesarea, in Palestine, on his way to Berytus, where he and his brother Athenodorus were to attend a school of law, he met Origen, and was so attracted by him that he and his brother remained in Czesarea five years (according to Eusebius and Jerome) and studied logic, physics, mathematics, ethics, Greek philosophy, and theology with him (see his Orat.).
At the end of this time the brothers returned to Pontus, and afterwards were made bishops, Gregory of Neo-Czesarea, his native place; Athenodorus of some unknown ci (Eusebius here and in VII.
14 and 28 says only that they were raid bishops of churches in Pontus). Of the remarkable events connected with the ordination of Gregory, which are told by Gregory of Nyssa, it is not necessary to speak here.
He was a prominent scholar and writer, and a man universally beloved and respected for his deep piety and his commanding ability, but his fame rested chiefly upon the reports of his miracle-working, which were widespread.
'The prodigies told of him are numerous and marvelous.
Eusebius is silent about this side of his career (whether because of ignorance or incredulity we cannot tell, but the latter seems most pro' able), but Jerome refers to his fame .as a miracle-worker, Gregory of Nyssa's upon the episcopal seat.°
About that time Zebinus,' bishop of Antioch died, and Babylas® succeeded him. the soldiers and succeeded by Philip.
He is made by Eusebius (both here and in the Crow.) the direct successor of Maximinus, simply because only two or three months elapsed between the death of the latter and his own accession.
2 On Pontianus, see chap. 23, note 3.
3 Both here and in the Chron. the accession of Anteros is synchronized with the accession of Gordianus, but as seen in chap. 23, note 3, Pontianus was succeeded by Anteros in the first year of Maximinus, i.e. in 235,—three years earlier, therefore, than the date given by Eusebius.
All the authorities agree in assigning only one month and a few days to the episcopate of Anteros, and this is to be pe at as correct.
Of the life and character of Anteros we know nothing.
4 Greek @aBiavés, though some MSS. read @AaBraves.
The Armenian and Hieronymian Chron. call him Fabianus; the Liberian catalogue, Fabius; Eutychius and the Alex. cat., Flabianus.
According to chap. 39, he suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Decius Gers:
Both versions of the Chron. assign thirteen ears to his episcopate, and this agrees fairly well with the notices ere and in chap. 39 (accession in 238 and death in 250 or 251).
But, as already seen, Eusebius is quite wrong in the dates which he gives for the accession of these three bishops, and the statements of the Liberian catalogue are to be panera which put Fabian's accession in | eae he 236, and his death in January, 250, after an episcopate of fourteen years and ten days.
The martyrdom of Fabian rests upon good authority (cf. chap. 39, and Jerome's de vir. ill. chap. 54, and especially Cyprian's Zzstles,
3, al. 9, and 30).
From these epistles we learn that he was a man of ability and Virtue.
He stands out more clearly in the light of history than most of the early Roman bishops, but tradition has handed down a great many unfounded stories in regard to him (see the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
Vita, is full of it, and Basil and other later writers dwell upon it.
What the foundation for all these traditions was we do not know.
He was a famous missionary, and seems to have been remarkably successful in converting the pagans of his diocese, which was almost wholly heathen when he became bishop.
This great missionary success may have given rise to the tales of supernatural power, some cause above the ordinary being assumed by the common people as necessary to account for such results.
Miracles and other supernatural phenomena were quite commonly assumed in those days as causes of conversions — especially if the conversions themselves were in any way remarkable (cf. e.g. the close of the anonymons
Dialogue with Herbanus, a Few). Notonl the miracles, but also many other events reported in Gregory of Nyssa's Vzta, must be regarded as unfounded; e.g. the account of a long period of study in Alexandria of which our more reliable sources contain no trace.
The veneration in which Gregory held Origen is clear enough from his panegyric, and the great regard which Origen cherished for Gregory is revealed in his epistle to the latter, written soon after Gregory's arrival in Neo-Czsarea, and still preserved in the Phz/ocalia, chap. 13.
The works of Gregory known to us are his Panevical Oration in praise of Origen, delivered in the presence of the latter and of a great multitude before Gregory's ba eares from Czesarea, and still extant; a paraphrase of the book of Ecclesiastes, mentioned by Jerome (/.c.), and likewise extant; several epistles referred to by Jerome (/.c.), only one of which, his so-called Canovzcal Epistle, addressed to an anonymous bishop of Pontus, is still preserved; and finally a trinitarian creed, or confession of faith,
5 daci.
Eusebius is our only authority for the following story.
Rufinus (VI. 21) tells a similar tale in connection with Zephyrinus.
6 rov Opdvov Tis émioKoTys.
7 On Zebinus, see chap. 23, note 4.
8 Babylas occupies an illustrious place in the list of ancient martyrs (cf. Tillemont, Mem. III. 400-409).
Chrysostom devoted a festal oration to his memory (/z sanctum Babylam contra Fulianum et contra Gentiles); while Jerome, Epiphanius, Sozomen,
Theodoret, and others make honorable mention of him.
There are extant the Acta Bayle (spurious), which, however, confound him with a martyr who suffered under Numenan.
The legends in regard to Babylas and to the miracles rformed by his bones are very numerous (see Tillemont, Z.c.).
He is identified by Chrysostom and others with the bishop mentioned by Eusebius in chap. 34, and there is no good reason to doubt the identification (see Harnack, Zezt des
Tenatius, p. 48).
The fact of his cok Sars under Decius (see chap. 39) is too well attested to admit o doubt; though upon the manner of it, not all the traditions are agreed, Eusebius reporting |
ison, Chrysostom that he died by violence.
The ius seems the most reliable.
The date of his accesbut there is no reason to doubt that it took place during the reign of Gordian 238-244), as Eusebius here seems to imply; though it is true that he connects it closely with the death of Demetrius, which certainly took place not later than 232 (see that he died in account of Euse sion is unknown,
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 30. a a) ee There is extant an epistle of his to Origen, Athenodorus,? we know to have been especially celebrated.
Finding them deeply interested in Greek and Roman learning, he infused into them a love of philosophy, and led them to exchange their old zeal for the study of divinity.
Remaining with him five years, they made such progress in divine things, that although they were still young, both of them were honored with a bishopric in the churches of Pontus. expressing doubts? of the story of Susannah in Daniel, as being spurious and _ fictitious.
Origen answered this very fully.
Other
works of the same Africanus which have reached us are his five books on Chronology, a work accurately and laboriously prepared.
He says in this that he went to Alexandria on account of the great fame of Heraclas,' who excelled especially in philosophic studies and other Greek learning, and whose appointment to the bishopric of the church there we have
CHAPTER XXXI.
Africanus. quite a traveler, as we learn from his own writings, and had the well-deserved reputation of being one of the greatest scholars of the age.
Eusebius mentions four works left by him, the Ceszz, the Chronicon, and the epistles to Origen and to Aristides.
Jerome (Z.c-) mentions only the last three, but Photius (Cod.
34) refers to all four.
The Cestz (xeorot, ''embroidered girdles") seems to have derived its name from the miscellaneous character of its contents, which included notes on geography, the art of war, medicine, agriculture, &c.
It is said by Syncellus to have been composed of nine books: Photius mentions fourteen, Suidas twenty-four.
It is no longer extant, but numerous scattered fragments have been preserved.
Its authenticity has been doubted, chiefly because of its purely secular character, and the nature of some of the notes, which do not seem worthy of the clear-headed and at the same time Christian scholar.
But the external evidence, which is not unsupported by the internal, is too strong to be set aside, and we must conclude that the work is genuine.
The extant fragments of it are given in various works on mathematics, agriculture, etc. (see Richardson's Bibliographical Synopsis, p. 68).
The epistle of Africanus to Origen is the only one of his writings preserved in a complete form.
It seems that Origen, in a discussion with a certain Bassus (see Origen's epistle to Africanus, § 2), at which Africanus was present, had quoted from that part of the Book of Daniel which contains the apocryphal story of Susannah.
Africanus afterward wrote a brief epistle to Origen, in which he contended that the story is not authentic, urging ro aire arguments differences in style between it and the rest of the book, and the fact that the story is not found in Hebrew, and that certain phrases show that it was composed originally in Greek.
Origen replied at considerable length, maintaining the authenticity of the passage, and thereby showing himself inferior to Africanus in critical judgment.
Origen's repl was written from Nicomedia (see § 1), where he was staying wit Ambrose (see § 15).
It seems probable that this visit to Nicomedia was made on his way to or from his second visit to Athens (see next chapter, note 4).
Africanus' greatest work, and the one which brought him most fame, was his Chronzcon, in five books.
The work is no longer extant, but considerable fragments of it have been preserved (e.g. in Eusebius' Prep. Evang. X. 10, and Dem.
Evang. VIII., and especially in the Chronographia of Syncellus), and the Chronzcon of Eusebius which is really based upon it, so that we are enabled to gain a very fair idea of its original form. As described by Photius, it was concise, but omitted nothing worthy of mention, beginning with the creation and coming down to the reign of Macrinus.
It actually extended to the fourth year of Heliogabalus (221), as we see from a quotation made by Syncellus. The work seems to have been caused by the common desire of the Christians (exhibited by Tatian, Clement of Alexander, and others) to prove in their defense of Christianity the antiquity of the Naan religion, and thus take away the accusation of novelty brought against Christianity by its opponents.
Africanus apparently aimed to produce a universal chronicle and history which should exhibit the synchronism of events in the history of the leading nations of the world, and thus furnish solid ground for Christian apologists to build upon.
It was the first attempt of the kind, and became the foundation of Christian chronicles for many centuries.
The time at which it was written is determined with sufficient accuracy by the date at which the chronological table closes.
Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) remarks that it must have been completed early in the year 221, for it did not contain the names of the victors in the Olympic games of the 2s5oth Olympiad, which took place in that year (as we learn from the list of victors copied by Eusebius from Africanus).
It is said by Eusebius, just below, that Africanus reports in this work that he had visited Alexandria on account of the great celebrity of Heraclas.
This is very surprising, for we should hardly have expected Heraclas' fame to have attracted such a'man to Alexandria until after Origen had left, and he had himself become the head of the school.
On the fourth writing mentioned by Eusebius, the epistle to Aristides, see above, Bk. ]. chap. 7, note 2.
The fragments of Africanus' works, with the exception of the Cestz, have been printed, with copious and valuable notes, by Routh, Re/. Sac.
II. 221-509; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VI. 125-140.
At this time also Africanus,! the writer of the books entitled Cesti, was well known. which is given by Gregory of Nyssa in his Vzta, and whose genuineness has been warmly disputed (e.g. by Lardner, Works, II p. 634 sq.); but since Caspari's defense of it in his Gesch. d. Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, its authenticity may be regarded as established.
These four writings, together with some works falsely ascribed to Se are translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., Vol.
VI. p. 1-80.
Original Greek in Migne's Patr. Gr. X. 983-1343. _ See also Ryssel's Gregorius Thaumaturgus.
Sein Leben und seine Schriften; Leipzig, 1880.
Ryssel ives (p. 65-79) a German translation of two hitherto unknown yriac writings of Gregory, one on the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit, and the other on the passibility and Leg erwrabies & of God.
Gregory's dates cannot be fixed with exactness; but as he cannot have seen Origen in Czsarea until after 231, and was very youn when he met him there, he must have been born as late as the secon decade of the third century.
As he was with Origen at least five years, he can hardly have taken his farewell of him until after the persecution of Maximinus (i.e. after 238), for we cannot suppose that he pronounced his panegyrical oration during that persecution.
He speaks in the first chapter of that oration of not having delivered an oration for eight years, and this is commonly supposed to imply that it was eight years since he had begun to study with Origen, in which case the oration must be put as late as 239, and it must be assumed, if Eusebius' five years are accepted as accurate, that he was absent for some three years during that period (perhaps while the persecution was going on).
But the eight years cannot be ressed in this connection, for it is quite possible that they may ave been reckoned from an earlier time, perhaps from the time when he began the study of law, which was before he met Origin
(see Panegyr. chaps.1 and 5).
If we were to suppose the order followed by Eusebius strictly chronological, we should have to put regony acquaintance with Origen into the reign of Gordian (238244).
'The truth is, the matter cannot be decided.
He is said by Gregory of Nyssa to have retired into concealment during the persecution of Decius, and to have returned to his charge again after its close.
He was present with his brother Athenodorus at one of the councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata (see Bk.
VII. chap. 28), but was not present at the final one at which Paul was condemned (see zézd. chaps. 29 and 30, and note 2 on the latter chapter).
This one was held about 265 (see 27d. chap. 29, note 1), and hence it is likely that Gregory was dead before that date.
2 Athenodorus is known to us only as the brother of Gregory and bile - a church or churches in Pontus (see Bk. VIL chapk
14 and 28).
1 Julius Africanus (as he is called by Jerome) was one of the most learned men of the Ante-Nicene age.
Not much is known of his life, though he seems to have resided, at least for a time, in Emmaus, a town of Palestine, something over twenty miles from Jerusalem (not the Emmaus of Luke xxiv. 13, which was but seven or eight miles from the city), for we hear inthe Ckvon., and in Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 63, of his going on an embassy to the Emperor Heliogabalus, and securing the rebuilding of the ruined city Emmaus under the name of Nicopolis, which it henceforth bore.
He does not appear to have been a clergyman, or at any rate not a bishop; for he is spoken of as such by no early authority, and he is addressed by Origen in an extant epistle, which must have been written toward the close of his life, simply as "brother."
His dates cannot be fixed with any exactness.
He must have been already a prominent man when he went on an embassy to the emperor
(between 218 and 222).
He must have been considerably older than Origen, for in his epistle to him he calls him " son," and that although
Origen was at the time beyond middle life himself.
Unless Eusebius is mistaken, he was still alive and active in the time of Gordian (238-244).
But if he was enough older than Origen to address him as "' son,"' he can hardly have lived much ond that reign.
He seems to have been a Christian philosopher and scholar rather than an ecclesiastic, and took no: such part in the church affairs of the time as to leave mention of his name in the accounts of the synods of hisday,
He was 2 amopovvtos.
A very mild way of putting his complete rejection -of the story!
3 On Herachas, see chap. 3, note 2.
VI. 33-]
THE ERROR OF BERYLLUS:
he completed these also, ten books in number.
But why should we give in this history
an accurate catalogue of the man's works, which would require a separate treatise?® we have furnished this also in our narrative of the life of Pamphilus,' a holy martyr of our own time.
After showing how great the diligence of Pamphilus was in divine things, we give in that a catalogue of the library which he collected of the works of Origen and of other ecclesiastical writers.
Whoever desires may learn readily from this which of Origen's works have reached us.
But we must proceed now with our history.
already mentioned.
There is extant also another epistle from the same Africanus to Aristides on the supposed discrepancy between Matthew and Luke in the Genealogies of Christ.
In this he shows clearly the agreement of the evangelists, from an account which had come down to him, which we have already given in its proper place in the first book of this work.*
CHAPTER XXXII.
The Commentaries which Origen composed tn Caesarea in Palestine.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Ef AsouTt this time Origen prepared his Commentaries on Isaiah! and on Ezekiel.?
Of the former there have come down to us thirty books, as far as the third part of Isaiah, to the vision of the beasts in the desert ;* on Ezekiel
The Error of Beryllus.
BERYLLUs,! whom we mentioned recently
as bishop of Bostra in Arabia, turned aside from the ecclesiastical standard? and attempted to introduce ideas foreign to the faith.
He dared to assert that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of being of his own® before his abode among men, and that he does not possess a divinity of his own,' but only that of the Father dwelling in him.
Many bishops carried on investi-
gations and discussions with him on this matter, and Origen having been invited with the others, went down at first for a conference with him to ascertain his real opinion.
But when he understood his views, and perceived that they were erroneous, having persuaded him by argument, and convinced him by demonstration, he brought him back to the true doctrine, and retwenty-five books, which are all that he
wrote on the whole prophet.
Being at that time in Athens,' he finished his work on Ezekiel and commenced his Commentaries on the Song of Songs,' which he carried forward to the fifth book.
After his return to Cesarea, 4 In Bk. I. chap. 7.
1 " About this time" refers us still to the reign of Gordian (238244).
Eusebius mentions only the commentaries on Isaiah, but Jerome refers also to homilies and notes.
The thirty books which were extant in Eusebius' time extended to XXX. 6, as we are informed here.
Whether the commentary originally went beyond this point we do not know.
There are extant only two brief Latin fragments from the first and eighth books of the commentary, and nine homilies (the last incomplete) in a Latin version by Jerome; printed by Lommatzsch, XIII. 235-301.
2 Eusebius records that Origen wrote only twenty-five books of a commentary on Ezekiel.
The form of expression would seem to imply that these did not cover the whole of Ezekiel, but a fragment of the twentieth book, extant in the eleventh chapter of the PAz/ocalia, deals with the thirty-fourth chapter of the prophecy, so that the twenty-five books must have covered at any rate most of the ground.
'The catalogue of Jerome mentions twenty-nine books and twelve homilies, but the former number must be a mistake, for Eusebius' explicit statement that Origen wrote but twenty-five books can hardly be doubted.
There are extant only the Greek fragment of the twentieth book referred to above, fourteen homilies in the Latin version of Jerome, and a few extracts; all printed by Lommatzsch, XIV. 1-232.
6 idias Seoupevov TXOARs.
7 On Pamphilus, see Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.
On Eusebius'
Life of Pamphilus, see the Prolegomena, p. 28, above.
1 Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia (mentioned above, in chap.
20), is chiefly noted on account of the heresy into which he fell, and from which Origen won him back, by convincing him of his error.
According to chap. 20, he was a learned and cultured man, and hee (de vir. tll. c. 60) says of him, glortose rexisset ecclesiam.
3 i.e. to Isa. xxx. 6, where the LXX reads 6pacis Tov teTparodwv Tav év TH épyum, which are the exact words used by Eusebius.
Our English versions, both the authorized and revised, read, '' The burden of the beasts of the South."
The Hebrew will bear either rendering. e do not know his dates, but we may gather from this chapter that the synod which was called on his account convened during the reign of Gordian (238-244), and apparently toward the close of the reign.
Oursources fora knowledge of the heresy of Beryllus are very meager. We have only the brief passage in this,chapter; a fragment of Origen's commentary on Titus (Lommatzsch, V. 287), which undoubtedly refers to Beryllus' error, though he is not mentioned by name; and finally, a single sentence in Jerome's de wvzr. 2/7, c. 60
4 The cause of this second visit to Athens we do not know, nor the date of it; although if Eusebius is to be relied upon, it took place during' the reign of Gordian (238-244).
He must have remained some time in Athens and have had leisure for study, for he finished his commentary on Ezekiel and wrote five books of his commentary on Canticles.
"This visit to Athens is to be distinguished from the one referred to in chap. 23, because it is probable that Origen found the Nicopolis cop' of the Old Testament (mentioned in chap. 16) on the occasion of a visit to Achaia, and this visit is apparently too
Jate, for he seems to have finished his Hexafla before this time; and still further, the epistle in which he refers to spurious accounts of his disputation at Athens (see Jerome's Afo/. adv. Ruf. II. 18), complains also of Demetrius and of his own excommunication, which, as Redepenning remarks, points to a date soon after that excommunication took place, and not a number of years later, when Demetrius had been long dead.
(Christum ante incarnationem regat), which, however, is apparently no more than his own interpretation of Eusebius' words.
Our sources have been interpreted very differently, some holding Beryllus to have been a Patripassian, others classing him with the Artemonites (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28).
He was, at any rate, a Monarchian, and his position, not to enter here into details, seems to have been that our Lord did not pre-exist as an independent being; but that, with the incarnation, he, who had previously been identified with the matpixy @edTys, became a distinct heing, possessed of an independent existence (see Dorner's Person of Christ, Div. I. Vol. II. p. 35 sq., Edinburgh edition).
According to this chapter and chap. 20, Beryllus was the author of numerous treatises and epistles, which were extant in Eusebius' time.
According to Jerome (/.c.), he wrote, warza opuscula et maxime epistolas, tn guibus Origent gratias agit. Ce reports, also, that there were extant in his time epistles of Origen, addressed to Beryllus, and a dialogue between Origen and Beryllus.
All traces of these epistles and other works have perished.
5 From the seventh chapter of the P/zlocalia we learn that Origen, in his youth, wrote a small book (utxpos To~0s) upon Canticles, of which a single brief fragment is preserved in that chapter.
The catalogue of Jerome mentions ten books, two books written early, and two homilies.
Eusebius mentions only the commentary, of which, he says, five books were written in Athens, and five more in Czesarea.
The prologue and four books are extant in a Latin translation by Rufinus, and two homilies in a translation by Jerome; besides these, some Greek extracts made by Procopius, — all printed by 2 tov exkAnotagtiKoy Kavova: i.e. the rule of faith.
3 uy mpovdheotavar Kat' idiav ovalas meprypadyy.
4 Oedrnra idiay, Lommatzsch, XIV. 233; XV. 108.
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[VI. 33. a a confession and had numbered himself among those who were reckoned as transgressors and who occupied the place of penance.* For if he had not done this, he would never have been received by him, on account of the many crimes which he had committed.
It is said that he obeyed readily, manifesting in his conduct a genuine and pious fear of God. stored him to his former sound opinion.
There are still extant writings of Beryllus and of the synod held on his account, which contain the questions put to him by Origen, and the discussions which were carried on in his parish, as well as all the things done at that time.
The elder brethren among us® have handed down many other facts respecting Origen which I think proper to omit, as not pertaining to this work. But whatever it has seemed necessary to record about him can be found in the Apology in his behalf written by us and Pamphilus, the holy martyr of our day.
We prepared this carefully and did the work jointly on account of faultfinders.® a
CHAPTER XXXV.
Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the Episcopate.
In the third year of this emperor, Heraclas? died, having held his office for sixteen years, and Dionysius? received the episcopate of the churches of Alexandria.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Philip Cesar.
Other Works of Origen.
Gorpianus had been Roman emperor for six years when Philip, with his son Philip, succeeded him.!
It is reported that he, being a Chfistian, desired, on the day of the last paschal vigil, to share with the multitude in the prayers of the Church,? but that he was not. permitted to enter, by him who then presided,' until he had made
AT this time, as the faith extended andour
doctrine was proclaimed boldly before all,'
Origen, being, as they say, over sixty years old,' and having gained great facility by his long practice, very properly permitted his public discourses to be taken down by stenographers, a thing which he had never before allowed.
also at this time composed a work of eight books in answer to that entitled True Discourse, which had been written against us by Celsus*
5 ray Kad' Huas oc mpeaBUtepor.
It seems necessary here to take the word mpeoBvrepos in an unofficial sense, which is, to say the least, exceptional at this late date.
6 On this Defense of Origen, written jointly by Pamphilus and Eusebius, see above, p.
36.
1 The younger Gordian reigned from the summer of 238 until early in the year 244, when he was murdered by the soldiers, and succeeded by his preetorian prefect, Philip of Arabia, who took the name Marcus Julius Philippus, and reigned until 249, when he was conquered and succeeded by Decius. His son Philip, who was seven years old at the time of his father's accession, was immediately proclaimed Czsar and afterward given the title of Augustus.
He oe the name Marcus Julius Philippus Severus, and was slain at the time of his father's death. able in the identification, which may therefore be looked upon as very likely correct. e That is, the place assigned to penitents: petavoias xwpav.
Christians who had committed flagrant transgressions were excluded from communion and required to go through a course of penance, more or less severe according to their offense, before they could be received again into the Church.
In some cases they were excluded entirely from the services for a certain length of time; in other cases they were allowed to attend a part of the services, but in no case could they partake of the communion.
In the fourth century a regular system of discipline grew up, and the penitents (f@nztentes) were divided into various classes,
— mourners, hearers, and kneelers; the first of whom were excluded entirely from the church, while the last two were admitted during a part of the service.
The statement in the piesent case is of the most general character.
Whether the place which he was obliged to take was without or within the church is not indicated.
Upon the whole subject of ancient church discipline, see Bingham's Antzguztzes, Bk. XVI., and the article Penztence in Smith's Dict. of Christian Antzg.
2 There has been much dispute as to Philip's relation to Christianity.
Eusebius is the first one known to us to represent him as a Christian, and he gives the report only upon the authority of oral tradition (rovTov Karéxet Adyos xptaTLavoy ovtTa). Jerome (de vir.
71. 54) states explicitly that Philip was the first Christian emperor (qui primus de regibus Romanis christianus fuit), and this became common tradition in the Church.
At the same time it must be noticed that Eusebius does not himself state that Philip was a Christian, —he simply records a tradition to that effect; and in his
Vita Const. 1. 3 he calls Constantine the first Christian emperor.
Little reliance can be placed upon Jerome's explicit statement, for he seems only to be repeating as certain what Eusebius reported as possible.
The only things known to us which can or could have been urged in support of the alleged fact that Philip was a Christian are his act recorded in this chapter and the letter written to him by Origen, as recorded in chap. 36.
Moreover, it happens to be the fact that no heathen writer hints that he was a Christian, and we know that he celebrated games in Rome with pagan rites and great pomp.
It seems, on the whole, probable that Bhilip showed himself favorable to Christianity, and perhaps superstitiously desired to gain the favor of the Christians' God, and hence went through some such process as Eusebius describes in this chapter, looking upon it merely as a sort of sacrifice to be offered to this God as he would offer other sacrifices to other gods.
It is quite conceivable that he may have done this much, and this would be quite enough to start the report, after his death, that he had been a Christian sectetly, if not openly; and from this to the tradition that he was unconditionally the first
Christian emperor is but a step.
Some ground for the common tradition must be assumed, but our sources do not warrant us in believing more than has been thus suggested as possible.
For a full discussion of the question, see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. Il. p.
494 sq. ei Chiysoxton (De St. Bab. c. Gentes, Tom. I.) and Leontius of Antioch (quoted in the CAvoz. yee identify the bishop referred to here with Babylas, bishop of Antioch (see above, chap. 29, note
8).
Eusebius' silence as to the name of the bishop looks as if he were ignorant on the matter, but there is nothing inherently improb1 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
The third year of Philip's reign extended from the summer of 246 to the summer of 247, so that if Heraclas became bishop in 232, he cannot have held office fully sixteen years.
The agreement, however, is so close as to occasion no difficulty.
2 On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
1 tov Kad' Has mapa mace Adyov.
2 Since Origen was born in the year 185 or 186, this must have been as late as 245.
Most if not all of the homilies of Origen, which are now preserved, were probably delivered after this time, and reported, as Eusebius says, by stenographers.
The increasing boldness of the Christians referred to here was apparently due to their uncommonly comfortable condition under Philip.
8 Of the personal history of Celsus, the first great literary opponent of Chery we know nothing with certainty, nor did Origen know any more. He had heard that there were two persons of the same name, the one living in the time of Nero, the other, whom he identifies with his opponent, in the time of Hadrian and later, and both of them Epicurean philosophers (see contra Cels. 1.8).
The work of Celsus, however, was clearly the work, not of an Epicurean, but of a Platonist, or at least of an eclectic philosopher, with a strong leaning toward Platonism.
The author wrote about the middle of the second century, probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Keim fixes the date of the work at 178 a.p.).
The True Discourse (aAnOHs Adyos) is no longer extant, but it can be reconstructed in great part from Origen's reply to it.
It is seen to have been one of