CHAPTER III

CHAPTER III

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.

Fabricius (762. Gr. VI. 104) reports that the following works are extant in MS.: Fragmentum de Mensuris ac Ponderibus (MSS. Is. Vossii, n. 179); De Morte Herodis (MS. in Bibl.

Basil.) ; Prefatio ad Canticum Mosis in Exodo (Lambec. III. p. 35).

CHAPTER III.

EusEsius' CuurcH HIsTory.

§ 1.

Date of its Composition.

Tue work with which we are especially concerned at this time is the Church History, the original Greek of which is still extant in numerous MSS.

It consists of ten books, to which is added in most of the MSS. the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine (see above, p. 29).

The date. of the work can be determined with considerable exactness.

It closes with a eulogy of Constantine and his son Crispus; and since the latter was put to death by his father in the summer of 326, the Aisfory must have been completed before that time.

On the other hand, in the same chapter Eusebius refers to the defeat of Licinius, which took place in the year

323 A.D.

This gives a fixed terminus a quo.

It is not quite certain from Eusebius' words whether the death of Licinius had already taken place at the time he wrote, but it seems probable that it had, and if so, the completion of the work must be put as late as the summer of 324.

On the other hand, not the slightest reference is made to the Council of Niczea,'which met in the summer of 325; and still further the tenth book is dedicated to Paulinus, at one time bishop of Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. 1. 4, and Philost. #. £. III.

15), who was already dead in the summer of 325: for at the Nicene Council, Zeno appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius as bishop of Antioch (see for further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322).

We are thus led to place the completion of the A/szory in the year 324, or, to give the widest possible limits, between the latter part of 323 and the early part of 325 A.D.

But the question has been raised whether the earlier books may not have been composed some years before this.

Lightfoot (following Westcott) supposes that the first nine books were completed not long after the edict of Milan and before the outbreak of the quarrel between Constantine and Licinius in 314.

There is considerable to be said in favor of this theory.

The language used in the dedication of the tenth book seems to imply that the nine books had been completed some time before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of postscript.

The close of the ninth book strengthens that conclusion.

Moreover, it would seem from the last sentences of that book that Constantine and Licinius were in perfect harmony at the time it was written, a state of affairs which did not exist after 314.

On the other hand, it must be noticed that in Book IX. chap. 9 Licinius' " madness" is twice referred to as having "not yet" seized him (in § 1 ovrw pavértos Tore, and in § 12 ovrw rére éd' Hv Vorepov Exrértoxe paviay, Ti Sidvolav éxtpareis).

It is necessary either to interpret both these clauses as later insertions (possibly by Eusebius' own hand at the time when he added the tenth book ; cf. also p. 30, above), or to throw the composition of the ninth book down to the year 319 or later.

It is difficult to decide between these alternatives, but I am inclined on the whole to think that Westcott's theory is probably correct, and that the two clauses can best be interpreted as later insertions.

The very nature of his History would at any rate lead us to think that Eusebius spent some years in the composition of it, and that the earlier books, if not published, were at least completed long before the issue of the ten books as a whole.

The Chronicle is referred to as already written in I. 1; the Ecloge Proph. (? see below, p. 85) in I. 2 and 6; the Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15,

V. preface, 4, and 22; the Defense of Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36; the Life of Pamphilus in VI. 32, VII. 32, and VIII. 13.

In VIII. 13 Eusebius speaks also of his intention of relating the sufferings of the martyrs in another work (but see above, p. 30).

PROLEGOMENA.

ne § 2.

Zhe Author's Design.

That the composition of a history of the Church was Eusebius' own idea, and was not due tc any suggestion from without, seems clear, both from the absence of reference to any one else as prompting it, and from the lack of a dedication at the beginning of the work.

The reasons which led him to undertake its composition seem to have been both scientific and apologetic.

He lived, and he must have realized the fact, at the opening of a new age in the history of the Church.

He believed, as he frequently tells us, that the period of struggle had come to an end, and that the Church was now about entering upon a new era of prosperity.

He must have seen that it was a peculiarly fitting time to put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had taken place within the Church during the generations that were past, to sum up in one narrative all the trials and triumphs which had now emerged in this final and greatest triumph, which he was witnessing.

He wrote, as any historian of the present day would write, for the information and instruction of his contemporaries and of those who should come after, and yet there was.in his mind all the time the apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the history of Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy.

The plan which he proposed to himself is stated at the very beginning of his work: "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate how many and how important events are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

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

It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our

Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour afforded them all."

It will be seen that Eusebius had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of the Church should comprise, and that he was fully alive to its importance.

§ 3.

Eusebius as a Historian.

The Merits and Defects of his History.

The whole Christian world has reason to be thankful that there lived at the opening of the fourth century a man who, with his life spanning one of the greatest epochs that has occurred in the history of the Church, with an intimate experimental knowledge of the old and of the new condition of things, was able to conceive so grand a plan and possessed the means and the ability to carry it out.

Had he written nothing else, Eusebius' Church History would have made him immortal ; for if immortality be a fitting reward for large and lasting services, few possess a clearer title to it than the author of that work.

The value of the A/séory to us lies not in its literary merit, but in the wealth of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early Church.

How many prominent figures of the first three centuries are known to us only from the pages of Eusebius ; how many fragments, priceless on account of the light which they shed upon movements of momentous and far-reaching consequence, have been preserved by him alone ; how often a hint dropped, a casual statement made in passing, or the mention of some apparently trifling event, gives the clue which enables us to unravel some perplexing labyrinth, or to fit into one whole various disconnected and apparently unrelated elements, and thus to trace the steps in the development of some important historical movement whose rise 'and whose bearing must

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.

otherwise remain an unsolved riddle.

The work reveals no sympathy with Ebionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism, and little appreciation of their real nature, and yet our knowledge of their true significance and of their place in history is due in considerable part to facts respecting the movements or their leaders which Eusebius alone has recorded or preserved.

To understand the development of the Logos Christology we must comprehend the significance of the teaching of Paul of Samosata, and how inadequate would. our knowledge of the nature of that teaching be without the epistle quoted in Book VII. chap. 30.

How momentous were the consequences of the paschal controversies, and how dark would they be were it not for the light shed upon them by our author.

How important, in spite of their tantalizing brevity and obscurity; the fragments of Papias' writings ; how interesting the extracts from the memoirs of Hegesippus ; how suggestive the meager notices from Dionysius of Corinth, from Victor of Rome, from Melito, from Caius ; how instructive the long and numerous quotations from the epistles of Dionysius of Alexandria !

He may often fail to appreciate the significance of the events which he records, he may in many cases draw unwarranted conclusions from the premises which he states, he may sometimes misinterpret his documents and misunderstand men and movements, but in the majority of cases he presents us with the material upon which to form our own judgments, and if we differ with him we must at the same time thank him for the data which have enabled us independently to reach other results.

But the value of Eusebius' Church History does not lie solely in the fact that it contains so many original sources which would be otherwise unknown to us.

It is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in the truest sense, and it possesses an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its quotations from other works.

Eusebius. possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible to us.

His Aszory contains the results of his extended perusal of many works which are now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance with the current traditions of his day, of his familiar intercourse with many of the chief men of the age.

If we cut out all the documents which he quotes, there still remains an extensive history whose loss would leave an irreparable blank in our knowledge of the early Church.

How invaluable, for instance, to mention but one matter, are the researches of our author in regard to the circulation of the books of the New

Testament: his testimony to the condition of the canon in his own time, and to the more or less widespread use of particular writings by the Fathers of preceding centuries.

Great as is the value of the sources which Eusebius quotes, those that he does not give are still more extensive, and it is the knowledge gained from them which he has transmitted to us.

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

A glance at the list of his authorities given in the index, reveals at once the immense range of his materials.

The number of books which he either quotes or refers to as read is enormous.

When to these are added the works employed by him in the composition of his Prep. Evang., as well as the great number which he must have perused, but does not mention, we are amazed at the extent of his reading.

He must have been a voracious reader frcm his earliest years, and he must have possessed extraordinary acquisitive powers.

It is safe to say that there was among the Fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, no more learned man than he.

He thus possessed one of the primary qualifications of the historian.

And yet even in this respect he had his limitations.

He seems to have taken no pains to acquaint himself with the works of heretics, but to have been content to take his knowledge of them at second hand.

And still further, he was sadly ignorant of Latin literature and of the Latin Church in general (see below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to glean from his "story a very thorough or extended knowledge of western Christendom.

But his sources were not confined to literary productions.

He had a wide acquaintance with the world, and he was enabled to pick up much from his intercourse with other men and with different peoples that he could not have found upon the shelves of the Cesarean or of any other

PROLEGOMENA.

ane a library.

Moreover, he had access to the archives of state, and gathered from them much information quite inaccessible to most men.

He was thus peculiarly fitted, both by nature and by circumstances, for the task of acquiring material, the first task of the genuine historian.

But the value of his work must depend in the second place upon the wisdom and honesty with which he used his sources, and upon the faithfulness and accuracy with which he reproduced the results thus reached.

We are therefore led to enquire as to his qualifications for this part of his work.

| We notice, in the first place, that he was very diligent in the use of his sources.

Nothing seems to have escaped him that might in any way bear upon the particular subject in hand.

When he informs us that a certain author nowhere mentions a book or an event, he is, so far as I am aware, never mistaken.

When we realize how many works he read entirely through for the sake of securing a single historical notice, and how many more he must have read without finding anything to his purpose, we are impressed with his untiring diligence.

To-day, with our convenient indexes, and with the references at hand which have been made by many other men who have studied the writings of the ancients, we hardly comprehend what an amount of labor the production of a History like Eusebius' must have cost him, a pioneer in that kind of work.

© In the second place, we are compelled to admire the sagacity which our author displays in the selection of his materials.

He possessed the true instinct of the historian, which enabled him to pick out the salient points and to present to the reader just that information which he most desires.

We shall be surprised upon examining his work to see how little it contains which it is not of the utmost importance for the student of early Church history to know, and how shrewdly the author has anticipated most of the questions which such a student must ask.

He saw what it was in the history of the first three centuries of the Church which posterity would most desire to know, and he told them.

His wisdom in this respect is all the more remarkable when compared with the unwisdom of most of his successors, who filled their works with legends of saints and martyrs, which, however fascinating they may have been to the readers of that age, possess little either of interest or of value for us. When he wishes to give us a glimpse of the persecutions of those early days, his historical and literary instinct leads him to dwell especially upon two thoroughly representative cases, — the martyrdom of Polycarp and the sufferings of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, —and to preserve for posterity two of the noblest specimens of martyrological literature which the ancient Church produced.

It is true that he sometimes erred in his judgment as to the wants of fiiture readers; we could wish that he had been somewhat fuller and clearer on many points, and that he had not so entirely neglected some others ; but on the whole

I am of the opinion that few historical works, ancient or modern, have in the same compass better fulfilled their mission in this respect.

" In the third place, we can hardly fail to be impressed by the wisdom with which Eusebius discriminated between reliable and unreliable sources.

Judged by the modern standard he may fall short as a literary critic, but judged by the standard of antiquity he must be given a very high rank.

Few indeed are the historians of ancient times, secular or ecclesiastical, who can compare with Eusebius for sound judgment in this matter.

The general freedom of his work from the fables and prodigies, and other improbable or impossible tales which disfigure the pages of the great majority even of the soberest of ancient historians, is one of its most marked features.

He shows himself uncommonly particular in demanding good evidence for the circumstances which he records, and uncommonly shrewd in detecting spurious and unreliable sources. When we remember the great number of pseudonymous works which were current in his day we are compelled to admire his care and his discrimination.

Not that he always succeeded in detecting / the false.

More than once he was sadly at fault (as for instance in regard to the Abgarus correspondence and Josephus' testimony to Christ), and has in consequence been severely denounced or held up to unsparing ridicule by many modern writers.

But the wonder certainly is not that he erred as often as he did, but that he did not err oftener ; not that he was sometimes careless in

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.

ge SEES FESR Te LRP Se a RS ED See Teer Eee regard to the reliability of his sources, but that he was ever as careful as, in the majority of cases, he has proved himself to be.

In fact, comparing him with other writers of antiquity, we cannot commend too highly the care and the skill with which he usually discriminated between the true and the false.

.. In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for his constant sincerity and unfailing honesty.

I believe that emphasis should be laid upon this point for the reason that Eusebius' reputation has often suffered sadly in consequence of the unjust imputations, and the violent accusations, which it was for a long time the fashion to make against him, and which lead many still to treat his statements with distrust, and his character with contempt.

Gibbon's estimate of his honesty is well known and has been unquestioningly accepted in many quarters, but it is none the less unjust, and in its implications quite untrue to the facts.

Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness upon the virtues than upon the vices of the early Church, upon its glory than upon its shame, and he tells us directly that it is his intention so to do (#. Z. VIII. 2), but he never undertakes to conceal the sins of the Christians, and the chapter immediately preceding contains a denunciation of their corruptness and wickedness uttered in no faint terms.

In fact, in the face of these and other candid passages in his work, it is the sheerest injustice to charge him with dishonesty and unfairness because he prefers, as almost any Christian historian must, to dwell with greater fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the dark side of the picture.

Scientific, Eusebius' method, in this respect, doubtless is not ; but dishonest, no one has a right to call it.

The most severe attack which has been made upon Eusebius in recent years is found in an article by Jachmann (see below, p. 55).

The evident animus which runs through his entire paper is very unpleasant ; the conclusions which he draws are, to say the least, strained.

I cannot enter here into a consideration of his positions ; most of them are examined below in the notes upon the various passages which he discusses.

The whole article, like most similar attacks, proceeds upon the supposition that our author is guilty, and then undertakes simply to find evidence of that which is already presupposed.

I submit that few writers could endure such an ordeal.

If Eusebius is tried according to the principles of common justice, and of sound literary criticism, I am convinced, after long and careful study, that his sincerity and honesty of purpose cannot be impeached.

The particular instances which have been urged as proving his dishonesty will be discussed below in the notes upon the respective passages, and to those the reader is referred (compare especially pp. 88, 98, 100, III, 112, 114, 127, 194).

Eusebius' critics are wont to condemn him severely for what they are pleased to call the dishonesty displayed by him in his Via Constantini.

Such critics forget, apparently, that that work pretends to be, not a history, but a panegyric.

Judging it as such, I am unable to find anything in it which leads me to entertain for a moment a suspicion of the author's honesty.

It is true that Eusebius emphasizes the Emperor's good qualities, and fails to mention the darker spots in his character; but so far as I am aware he misstates no facts, and does only what those who eulogize deceased friends are accustomed to do the world over.

For a discussion of this matter the reader is referred to the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, pp. 467 sq. of this volume.

I am pleased to learn from him that his study of the Vita has shown him nothing which justifies the charge of dishonesty brought against Eusebius.

One of the most decisive marks of veracity upon the part of our author is the frankness with which he confesses his lack of knowledge upon any subject (cf. IV. 5), and the care with which he distinguishes between the different kinds of evidence upon which he bases his statements.

How frequently the phrases Adyos éxet, Paci, éyerat, &c., occur in connection with accounts which a less scrupulous historian would not hesitate to record as undoubted fact.

How particular he is to mention his sources for any unusual or startling event.

If the authorities seem to him quite inadequate, he simply omits all reference to an occurrence which most of his con- ~ temporaries and successors would have related with the greatest gusto; if the testimony seems to him strong, he records the circumstance and expressly mentions his authority, whether oral

PROLEGOMENA.

a tradition, the testimony of eye-witnesses, or written accounts, and we are thus furnished the material from which to form our own judgments.

He is often blamed by modern writers for what they are pleased to call his excessive credulity.

Those who accuse him thus seem to forget that he lived in the fourth, not in the nineteenth century.

That he believed many things which we now declare to be incredible is perfectly true, but that he believed things that other Christians of his day pronounced incredible is not true.

Judged, in fact, according to the standard of his age—and indeed of eleven succeeding centuries — he must be pronounced remarkably free from the fault of over-credulity, in truth uncommonly skeptical in his attitude toward the marvelous.

Not that he denies the occurrence of prodigies and wonders in his own and other ages, but that he always demands the strongest testimony before he allows himself to be convinced of their truth.

Compare, e.g., the care with which he gives his authorities for the anecdote in regard to the Thundering Legion

(V. 5), and his final suspension of judgment in the matter; compare also the emphasis which he lays upon the personal testimony of the Emperor in the matter of the appearance of the sign of the cross in the sky'( Vita Cons¢. I. 28 sq.), a phenomenon which he himself tells us that he would have believed upon no ordinary evidence.

His conduct in this matter is a sign rather of a skepticism uncommon in his age than of an excessive and unusual credulity.

Gibbon himself gives our author due credit in this respect, when he speaks of his character as "less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries" (Dechine and Fall, chap. XVI.).

On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had many very grave faults which it is not my wish in the least to palliate or conceal.

One of the most noticeable of these is his complete lack of any conception of historiography as a fine art.

His work is interesting and instructive because of the facts which it records, but that interest is seldom if ever enhanced by his mode of presentation.

There is little effective grouping, almost no sense of perspective, utter ignorance of the art of suggesting by a single line or phrase a finished picture of a man or of a movement.

He was not, in other words, a Thucydides or a Tacitus; but the world has seen not many such as they.

A second and still more serious fault is our author's want of depth, if I may so express myself, his failure to look beneath the surface and to grasp the real significance of things, to trace the _ influence of opinions and events.

We feel this defect upon every page. We read the annals, but we are conscious of no masterful mind behind them, digesting and comprehending them into one organic and imposing whole.

This radical weakness in our author's method is revealed perhaps most clearly in his superficial and transcendental treatment of heretics and heresies, his failure to appreciate their origin and their bearing upon the progress of Christian thought.

Of a development in theology, in fact, he knows nothing, and hence his work lacks utterly that which we now look upon as the most instructive part of Church history, —the history of doctrine.

In the third place, severe censure must be passed upon our author for his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of chronology.

We should expect that one who had produced the most extensive chronological work that had ever been given to the world, would be thoroughly at home in that province, but in truth his chronology is the most defective feature of his work.

The difficulty is chiefly due to his inexcusable carelessness, we might almost say slovenliness, in the use of different and often contradictory sources of information.

Instead of applying himself to the discrepancies, and endeavoring to reach the truth by carefully weighing the respective merits of the sources, or by testing their conclusions in so far as tests are possible, he adopts in many cases the results of both, apparently quite unsuspicious of the confusion consequent upon such a course.

In fact, the critical spirit which actuates him in dealing with many other matters seems to leave him entirely when he is concerned with chronology ; and instead of proceeding with the care and circumspection of an historian, he accepts what he finds with the unquestioning faith .

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.

ee RR of achild.

There is no case in which he can be convicted of disingenuousness, but at times his obtuseness is almost beyond belief.

An identity of names, or a resemblance between events recorded by different authors, will often be enough to lead him all unconsciously to himself into the most absurd and contradictory conclusions.

Instances of this may be seen in Book I. chap. s,and in II. 11.

His confusion in regard to the various Antonines (see especially the note on the preface to Book V.) is not at all unusual among the writers of his day, and in view of the frequent and perplexing use of the same names by the different emperors, might be quite excusable in a less scholarly man than Eusebius, but in his case it is evidence of unpardonable want of care.

This serious defect in our author's method is not peculiar to him.

Many historians, critical almost to a fault in most matters, accept the received chronology without question, and build upon it as if it were the surest of foundations.

Such a consideration does not excuse Eusebius ; it relieves him, however, of the stigma of peculiarity.

Finally, the character of the History is greatly impaired by our author's desultory method.

This is a characteristic of his literary work in general, ande was referred to in the previous chapter.

All his works are marred by it, but few suffer more noticeably than the Aistory.

The author does not confine himself as strictly as he should to the logical limits of the subject which he is treating, but allows himself to be led away from the main point by the suggestions

> y that pour in upon him from all sides.

As Lightfoot remarks, " We have not unfrequently to pick out from various parts of his work the notices bearing on one definite and limited subject.

He relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season, according as it is recalled to his memory by some accidental connexion."

This unfortunate habit of Eusebius' is one into which men of wide learning are very apt to fall.

The richness of their acquisitions embarrasses them, and the immense number of facts in their possession renders a comprehension of them all into one logical whole very difficult ; and yet unless the facts be thus comprehended, unless they be thoroughly digested and arranged, the result is confusion and obscurity.

To exclude is as necessary as to include, if one would write history with the highest measure of success ; to exclude rigidly at one time what it is just as necessary to include at another.

To men like Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult than this.

Only a mind as intensive as it is extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is wide, can accomplish it, and few are the minds that are blessed with both qualities.

Few are the writers whose histories stand upon our shelves that fail not sadly in the one or in the other; and in few perhaps does the failure seem more marked than in our author.

And yet, though it is apparent that the value of Eusebius' work is greatly impaired by its desultory method of treatment, I am confident that the defect is commonly exaggerated.

The paragraph which Lightfoot quotes from Westcott on this subject leaves a false impression.

Altogether too often our author introduces irrelevant matters, and repeats himself when repetition

"mars the symmetry of his work" ; and yet on the whole he follows a fairly well ordered plan with fairly good success.

He endeavors to preserve a strictly chronological sequence in his arrangement of the books, and he adheres for the most part to his purpose.

Though there may be disorder and confusion within the various periods, for instance within the apostolic age, the age of Trajan, of Hadrian, of the Antonines, &c., yet the periods themselves are kept reasonably distinct from one another, and having finished his account of one of them the author seldom returns to it.

Even in his treatment of the New Testament canon, which is especially desultory, he says most of what he has to say about it in connection with the apostles themselves, and before passing on to the second century.

I would not overlook the exceeding flagrancy of his desultoriness and repetitiousness in his accounts of the writings of many of the Fathers, especially of the two Clements, and yet I would emphasize the fact that he certainly had an outline plan which he designed to follow, and for which due credit should be given him.

He compares favorably in this respect with at least most of the writers of antiquity.

Only with our modern method of dividing history into periods, separated by natural boundary lines, and of handling it

PROLEGOMENA.

paren em eee SS under clearly defined rubrics, have we become able wholly to avoid the confused and illogical treatment of Eusebius and of others like him.

§ 4.

Editions and Versions.

The original Greek of Eusebius' //s/ory has been published in many editions.

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

2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first edition of the Greek text, with a new Latin translation and with copious critical and explanatory notes, at Paris in 1659.

His edition was reprinted at Mainz in 1672, but the reprint is full of errors.

In 1677, after Valesius' death, a revised edition was issued at Paris, which in 1695 was reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam.

In 1720 Valesius' edition of Eusebius, together with his edition of Socrates, Sozomen, and the other Greek historians, was republished at Cambridge by William Reading, in three folio volumes.

This is the best edition of Valesius, the commentary being supplemented by MS. notes which he had left among his papers, and increased by large additions from other writers under the head of Variorum.

A reprint of Reading's edition was issued in 1746-1 748, but according to Heinichen 'it is not as accurate as that of 1720.

For the elucidation of Eusebius' Aiszory we owe more to Valesius than to any other man.

His edition of the text was an immense advance upon that of Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all subsequent editions, while his notes are a perfect storehouse of information from which all annotators of Eusebius have extensively drawn.

Migne's edition ( Ogera, II. 45-906) is a reprint of Valesius' edition of 1659.

3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779).

A new edition of the Greek text, of which, however, only the first volume appeared, comprising Books I.-VII.

4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822).

A new edition of the Greek text, containing also the Latin translation of Valesius, and a few critical notes. s. F. A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828).

An edition of the Greek text in three volumes, with a reprint of the entire commentary of Valesius, and with the addition of Varzorum notes.

The critical apparatus, printed in the third volume, is very meager.

A few valuable excursuses close the work.

Forty years later Heinichen published a second edition of the story in his Zusebit

Pamphili Scripta Historica (Lips. 1868-1870, 3 vols.).

The first volume contains the Greek text of the History, with valuable prolegomena, copious critical apparatus and very useful indices ; the second volume contains the Vita Constantini, the Panegyricus or De laudibus Constantini, and Constantine's Orato ad Sanctorum coetum, also accompanied with critical apparatus and indices ; the third volume contains an extensive commentary upon the works included in the first two volumes, together with twenty-nine valuable excursuses.

This entirely supersedes the first, and is on the whole the most complete and useful edition of the Mis/ory which we have... The editor made diligent use of the labors of his predecessors, especially of Laemmer's.

He did no independent work, however, in the way of collecting material for the criticism of the text, and was deficient in critical judgment.

As a consequence his text has often to be amended on the basis of the variant readings, which he gives with great fullness.

His commentary is made up largely of quotations from Valesius and other writers, and is valuable forthe material it thus contains as well as for its references to other works.

It labors under the same incompleteness, however, that mars Valesius' commentary, and, moreover, contains almost nothing of independent value.

6. E. Burton (Oxford, 1838). The Greek text in two volumes, with the translation of Valesius and with critical apparatus; and again in 1845, with the critical apparatus omitted, but with the notes of Valesius, Heinichen and others added.

Burton made large contributions to the criticism of the text, and had he lived to superintend the issue of the second edition, would perhaps have succeeded in giving us a better text than any which we now possess, for he was a far more

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.

sagacious critic than Heinichen.

As it is, his edition is marred by numerous imperfections, largely caused by the inaccuracy of those who collated MSS. for him.

His text, with the translation, notes, and critical apparatus omitted, was reprinted by Bright at Oxford in 1872, and again in 1881, in a single volume.

This is a very handy edition, and for school use is unsurpassed.

The typography is superb, and the admirable plan is followed of discarding quotation marks and printing all citations in smaller type, thus making plain to the eye at a glance what is Eusebius' own and what is another's.

The text is preceded by a very interesting and graphic life of the historian.

7. Schwegler (Tiibingen, 1852, in one volume), The Greek text with critical apparatus, but without translation and notes.

An accurate and useful edition.

8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859-1862).

The Greek text in one volume, with extensive critical apparatus, but without explanatory notes.

Laemmer had unusual opportunities for collecting material, and has made larger additions to the critical apparatus than any one else.

His edition was issued, however, in a most slovenly manner, and swarms with mistakes.

Great care should therefore be exercised in the use of it.

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

There are few writings of the Fathers which more sadly need and more richly deserve a new critical edition than the A/zstory of Eusebins.

The material for the formation of a reliable text is extensive and accessible, but editors have contented themselves too much in the past with the results of their predecessors' labors, and unfortunately those labors have not always been accurate and thorough.

As a consequence a new and more careful collation of most of the MSS. of the original, together with those of Rufinus' translation, must lie at the foundation of any new work which is to be done in this line.

The publication of the Syriac version will doubtless furnish much valuable material which the next editor of the Azs/ory will be able to use to advantage.

Anything less than such a thorough work as I have indicated will be of little worth.

Unless the new edition be based upon extensive and independent labors, it will be little if any improvement upon that of Heinichen.

It is to be hoped that a critical text, up to the standard of those of some other patristic works which we already possess, may yet be issued, which shall give us this, one of the noblest productions of the ancient Church, in a fitting and satisfactory form.

Translations of Eusebius' s/ory are very numerous.

Probably the earliest of all is the ancient Syriac version which is preserved in great part in two MSS., one of which is at St. Petersburg and contains the entire Aistory with the exception of Book VI. and large portions of Books V. and VII.

The MS. is dated 462 a.p. (see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue of the Syriac

MSS. in the British Museum acquired since the year 1838, Part III. p. xv. sq.).

The second MS. is in the British Museum, and contains Books I.-V., with some mutilations at the beginning of the first book.

The MS. dates from the sixth century (see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue, p. 1039). From these MSS. Wright was engaged in preparing an edition of the Syriac, which remained unfinished at the time of his death.

Whether he left his work in such shape that it can soon be issued by some one else I have not yet learned.

The version was probably made at a very early date, possibly within the lifetime of Eusebius himself, though of that we can have no assurance.

I understand that it confirms in the main the Greek text as now printed in our best editions.

The original Latin version was made by Rufinus in the early years of the fifth century.

He translated only nine books, and added to them two of his own, in which he brought the history down to the death of Theodosius the Great.

He allowed himself his customary license in translating, and yet, although his version is by no means exact, it is one of our best sources for a knowledge of the true text of Eusebius, for it is possible, in many doubtful cases where our MSS. are hopelessly divided, to ascertain from his rendering what stood in the original Greek.

PROLEGOMENA.

The version of Rufinus had a large circulation, and became in the Western Church a substitute for the original throughout the Middle Ages.

It was first printed, according to Fabricius (2d. p. 59), in 1476 at Rome, afterward a great many times there and elsewhere.

The first critical edition, which still remains the best, is that of Cacciari (Rome, 1740), which has become rare, and is very difficult to find.

A new edition is a great desideratum.

An important work upon Rufinus' version is Kimmel's De Rufino Eusebit Interprete, Gere, 1838.

A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was published in Basle, in 1549, and again in 1557, 1562, and 1611, according to Fabricius (Bib/. Gr. VI. p. 60).

I have myself seen only the edition of 1562.

Still another Latin version, from the hand of Christophorsonus, was published at Louvain in 1570.

This is the only edition of Christophorsonus which I have seen, but I have notices of Cologne editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of a Paris edition of 1571.

According to Fabricius the Paris edition, and according to Brunnet the Cologne edition of 1581, contain the notes of Suffridus Petrus.

A revision of Christophorsonus' version is said by Crusé to have been published by Curterius, but I have not seen it, nor am I aware of its date.

Another translation, by Grynzeus, was published at Basle in 1611.

This is the only edition of Grynzeus' version which I have seen, and I find in it no reference to an earlier one.

I have been informed, however, that an edition appeared in 1591.

Hanmer seems to imply, in his preface, that Grynzeus' version is only a revision of that of Musculus, and if that were so we should have to identify the 1611 edition with the 1611 edition of Musculus mentioned by Fabricius (see above).

Iam able, however, to find no hint in Grynzus' edition itself that his Version is a revision of that of Musculus.

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

The first German translation was published by Caspar Hedio.

The date of publication is given by Fabricius as 1545, but the copy which I have seen is dated 1582, and contains no reference to an earlier edition.

It comprises only nine books of Eusebius, supplemented by the two of Rufinus.

The title runs as follows: Chronica, das ist: wahrhafige Beschreibunge aller alten

Christlichen Kirchen; zam ersten, die hist. eccles. Eusebii Pamphili Cesariensis, Eilff Biicher ; zum ander, die hist, eccles. tripartita Sozomeni, Socratis und Theodoreti, Zwolff Biicher ; zum dritten die Ais¢. eccles. sampt andern treffenlichen Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutscher Sprache wenig gelesen sind, auch Zwélff Biicher.

Von der Zeit an da die his¢. eccles. tripartita aufhoret : das ist, von der jarzal an, vierhundert nach Christi geburt, biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch

D. Caspar Hedion zu Strassburg verteutscht und zusamen getragen.

Getruckt zu. Franckfurt am Mayn, im jar 1582.

A second German translation of the entire History (with the exception of the Martyrs of Palestine, and the Oration on the Building of the Churches, X. 4), together with the Life of Constantine, was published by F. A. Stroth in Quedlinburg in 1777, in two volumes.

Stroth prefaced the translation with a very valuable Life of Eusebius, and added a number of excellent notes of his own.

The translation is reasonably accurate.

A much more elegant German version (including the Oration, but omitting the Martyrs of Palestine) was published by Closs in Stuttgart in 1839, in one volume.

This is in my opinion the best translation of the History that exists.

Its style is admirable, but pure German idiom is sometimes secured at the expense of faithfulness.

In fact the author has aimed to produce a free, rather than a literal translation, and has occasionally allowed himself to depart too far from the original.

A few brief notes, most of them taken from Valesius or Stroth, accompany the translation.

More recently a German translation has been published by Stigloher (Kempten, 1880) in the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenviter.

It purports to be a new translation, but is practically

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS.

nothing more than a poorly revised edition of Closs' version, The changes which are made are seldom improvements.

Fabricius mentions a French translation by Claudius Seysselius, but does not give the date of it, and I have not myself seen it.

Dr. Richardson, however, informs me that he has a copy of this translation (which is from the Latin, not from the Greek) bearing the following title: Z'Aistoire ecclesiastique translate de Latin au Frangais, par

M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille, et depuis archevesque de Thurin,

Paris, 1532 [or '33], f°.

He informs me also that there exist editions of the years 1537 and 1567.

More than a century later appeared a new French translation by Louis Cousin, bearing the following title: Histoire de l'Eglise écrité par Euséebe de Césarée, Socrate, Sozoméne, Theodoret et Evagre, avec l'abrégé de Philostorge par Photius, et de Théodore par Nicephore Calljste.

Paris, 1675+1676.

4 vol.

4°.

Another edition appeared in Holland in 1686, 5 vol.

12°.

The first English translation was made by Hanmer, and was issued in 1584, and, according to Crusé, passed through five editions.

The fourth edition, which lies before me, was published in London in 1636.

The volume contains the Histories of Eusebius, of Socrates, and of Evagrius ; Dorotheus' Lives, and Eusebius' Life of Constantine.

Another translation is said by Crusé to have been published about a century later by T. Shorting, and to be a decided improvement upon that of Hanmer.

I have seen no copy bearing Shorting's name, but have examined an anonymous translation which bears the following title :

The Ecclesiastical History of Husebius Pamphilus in ten books.

Made into English from that edition set forth by Valesius, and printed at Paris in the year 1659; together with Valesius' notes on the said historian, which are done into English and set at their proper place in the margin.

Hereto also is annexed an account of the life and writings of the aforesaid historian, collected by Valesius and rendered into English.

Cambridge: John Hayes, 1683.

This is evidently the translation of Shorting referred to by Crusé, for it answers perfectly the description which he gives of it.

An abridgment of this version, made by Parker, is mentioned both by Fabricius (7. p. 62) and by Crusé, but I have not myself seen it.

Fabricius gives its date as 1703, and Dr. Richardson informs me that he has seen an edition bearing the date 1729, and that he has a note of another published in 1703 or 1720.

The latest English translation was made by the Rev. C. F. Crusé, an American Episcopalian of German descent, and was published first in Philadelphia in 1833, with a translation, by Parker, of Valesius' Life of Eusebius prefixed.

It has been reprinted a great many times both in England and America, and is included in Bohn's Ecclesiastical

Library.

In Bohn's edition are printed a few scattered notes from Valesius' commentary, and in some other editions an historical account of the Council of Nicza, by isaac Boyle, is added.

The translation is an improvement upon its predecessors, but is nevertheless very faulty and unsatisfactory.

The translator is not thoroughly at home in the English, and, moreover, his version is marred by many serious omissions and interpolations which reveal an inexcusable degree of carelessness on his part.

§ 5.

Literature.

The literature upon Eusebius' /7is/ory is very extensive.

Many of the editions already mentioned discuss, in their prolegomena, the /s/ory itself and Eusebius' character as a historian, as do also all the lives of Eusebius referred to above, and all the larger histories of the Church.

In addition to these we have numerous important monographs and essays, of which the following may be mentioned here: Moller, de Fide Eusebit in rebus christianis enarrandis, Havn. 1813 ;

Danz, de Eusebio Cesariensi Hist. Ecclesiastce Scriptore, Jene, 1815.

This was mentioned in Chapter I. as containing a valuable discussion of the life of Eusebius.

Its chief importance lies in its treatment of the sources of the Church History, to which the author devotes the whole of

PROLEGOMENA.

Chap. III. which bears the title, de fontibus, quibus usus, historiam ecclesiasticam conscripsit

Eusebius, pp. 76-144.

Kestner, de Eusebii Historia Eccles. conditoris auctoritate, et fide diplomatica, sive de gus Fontibus et Ratione qua eis usus est, Gottinge, 1816; and by the same author, Ueber die Einsettigheit und Partheiligheit des Eusebius als Geschichtschreibers, Jenz, 1819 ;

Reuterdahl, ae Fontibus Historie Eccles. Eusebiane, Londini Gothorum, 1826; Reinstra, de

Fontibus, ex quibus Historia Eccles. opus hausit Eusebius Pamphili, et de Ratone, qua tis usUus est, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1833; F. C. Baur, Comparatur Eusebius Historia Eccles. Parens cum

Parente Historie Herodoto, Tiib. 1834; and pp. 9-26 of the same author's Epochen der hirchlichen Geschichtschreibung, Tiib. 1852 ; Dowling, Jntroduction to the Critical Study of Eccles. History, London, 1838, pp. 11-18; Hély, Husébe de Césarée, premier Historien de

Z'Fglise, Paris, 1877; J. Burckhardt, Zeit Constantins, 2d ed. 1880, pp307 Sd.

Burckhardt depreciates Eusebius' value and questions his veracity.

The review articles that have been written on Eusebius' Hiszory are legion. I shall mention only Engelhardt's Eusebius als Kirchengeschichtschreiber, in the Zeitschrift fiir hist.

Theol.

1852, pp. 65 2-657; and Jachmann's Bemerkungen iiber die Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius, 1b. 1839, II. pp. ro-60.

The latter contains one of the most unsparing attacks upon Eusebius' honesty that has ever been made (see above, p. 49).

TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS

IN FAVOR OF

PU Saba) 5,5 From Constantine's Letter to the Antiochians (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 60).

"T confess, then, that on reading your records I perceived, by the highly eulogistic testimony which they bear to Eusebius, bishop of Czsarea (whom I have myself long well known and esteemed for his learning and moderation), that you are strongly attached to him and desire to appropriate him as your own prelate.

What thoughts then do you suppose that I entertain on this subject, desirous as I am to seek for and act on the strict principles of right?

What anxiety do you imagine this desire of yours has caused me? O holy faith, who givest us in our Saviour's words and precepts a model, as it were, of what our life should be, how hardly wouldst thou thyself resist the course of sin were it not that thou refusest to subserve the purposes of gain!

In my own judgment, he whose first object is the maintenance of peace seems to be superior to Victory herself; and where a right and honorable course lies open to one's choice, surely no one would hesitate to adopt it.

I ask then, brethren, why do we so decide as to inflict an injury on others by our choice?

Why,do we covet those objects which will destroy the credit of our own character?

I myself highly esteem the individual whom ye judge worthy of your respect and affection ; notwithstanding, it cannot be right that those principles should be entirely disregarded which should be authoritative and binding on all alike ; for example, that each should be content with the limits assigned them, and that all should enjoy their proper privileges ; nor can it be right in considering the claims of rival candidates to suppose but that not one only, but many, may appear worthy of comparison with this person.

For as long as no violence or harshness are suffered to disturb the dignities of the Church, they continue to be on an equal footing, and worthy of the same consideration everywhere.

Nor is it reasonable that an enquiry into the qualifications of one person should be made to the detriment of others; since the judgment of all churches, whether reckoned of greater importance in themselves, is equally capable of receiving and maintaining the divine ordinances, so that one is in no way inferior to another (if we will but boldly declare the truth), in regard to that standard of practice which is common to all.

If this be so, we must say that you will be chargeable, not with retaining this prelate, but with wrongfully removing him ; your conduct will be characterized rather by violence than justice ; and whatever may be generally thought by others, I dare clearly and boldly affirm that this measure will furnish ground of accusation against you, and will provoke factious disturbances of the most mischievous kind ; for even timid flocks can show the use and power of their teeth when the watchful care of their shepherd declines, and they find themselves bereft of his accustomed guidance.

If this then be really so, if I am not deceived in my judgment, let this, brethren, be your first consideration (for many and important considerations will immediately present themselves, if you adopt my advice), whether, should you persist in your intention, that mutual kindly feeling and affection which should subsist among you will suffer no diminution?

In the next place remember that Eusebius, who came among you for the purpose of offering disinterested counsel, now enjoys the reward which is due to him in the judgment of heaven; for he has received no ordinary recompense in the high testimony you have borne to his equitable conduct.

Lastly, in accordance with your usual sound judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming diligence in selecting the person of whom you stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and tumultuous clamor: for such clamor is always wrong, and from the collision of discordant elements both sparks and flame will arise."

1 The following Testzmontes of the Ancients were collected by Valesius, and are printed in the original languages in his edition of Eusebius' Azstorza Eccleszastica, at the close of his Vita Eusebit.

The order of Valesius has been preserved in the following pages, but occasionally a passage, for the sake of greater clearness, has been given more fully oon by him.

A few extracts have been omitted (as noted below), and one or two, overlooked by him, have been added.

The extracts have all been translated from the original for this edition, with the exception of the quotations from the Life of Constantine, and from the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, — crates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius,

— which have been copied, with a few necessary corrections, from the version found in Bagster's edition of the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians.

The translation has been made at my request by Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville, Ky., a member of the senior class (1890) of Lane

Theological Seminary.

PROLEGOMENA.

ile MLE Oe none el en Temes ae Mb From the Emperor's Letter to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 61).

"] have most carefully perused your letter, and perceive that you have strictly conformed to the rule enjoined by the discipline of the Church.

Now to abide by that which appears at the same time pleasing to God, and accordant with apostolic tradition, is a proof of true piety: and you have reason to deem yourself happy on this behalf, that you are counted worthy, in the judgment, I may say, of all the world, to have the oversight of the whole Church.

For the desire which all feel to claim you for their own, undoubtedly enhances your enviable fortune in this respect.

Notwithstanding, your Prudence, whose resolve it is to observe the ordinances of God and the apostolic rule of the Church, has done excellently well in declining the bishopric of the Church at Antioch, and desiring to continue in that Church of which you first received the oversight by the will of God."

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

"JT have perused the letters written by your Prudences, and highly approve of the wise resolution of your colleague in the ministry, Eusebius.

Having, moreover, been informed of the circumstances of the case, partly by your letters, partly by those of our illustrious friends Acacius and Strategius, after sufficient investigation I have written to the people at Antioch, suggesting the course which will be at once pleasing to God and advantageous for the Church. A copy of this I have ordered to be subjoined to this present letter, in order that ye yourselves may know what

I thought fit, as an advocate of the cause of justice, to write to that people: since I find in your letter this proposal, that, in consonance with the choice of the people, sanctioned by your own desire, Eusebius the holy bishop of Czsarea should preside over and take the charge of the Church at Antioch.

Now the letters of Eusebius himself on this subject appeared to be strictly accordant with the order prescribed by the Church."

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

"Tt is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the power of language itself, worthily to treat of the mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a fitting manner the controversy respecting the feast of Easter, its origin as well as its precious and toilsome accomplishment.

For it is not in the power even of those who are able to apprehend them, adequately to describe the things of God.

Iam, notwithstanding, filled with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself read your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere followers of our holy religion.

Seeing, then, with what pleasure we receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more frequently with those compositions, to the practice of which, indeed, you confess yourself to have been trained from an early period, so that I am urging a willing man (as they say), in exhorting you to your customary pursuits.

And certainly the high and confident judgment we entertain is a proof that the person who has translated your writings into the Latin tongue is in no respect incompetent to uh sie impossible though it be that such version should fully equal the excellence of the works themselves."

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

"Tt happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy Church in the city which is called by my name.

It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of Churches should also be increased.

Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf.

I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures (the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church) to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a commodious and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.

The procurator of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies ; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible.

You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your Church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality.

God preserve you, beloved brother!"

TESTIMONIES

IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS.

From the Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre (given by Theodoret in his Zccles. Hist. 1. 6).

"' Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning the truth, nor thy silence in this matter been unknown, but has reached even us.

And, as was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced on account of my lord Eusebius ; but on the other, we are grieved on thy account, since we look upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our cause."

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

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

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

«We remember to have read in a certain pamphlet of Eusebius, a man formerly distinguished among the rest of men, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of our

Lord Jesus Christ ; and I wonder that a man of so great learning should have imposed this stigma upon the Holy Spirit."

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

" Apollinarius wrote the very strongest books against Porphyry; Eusebius has excellently composed his Zeclesiastical History.

Of these men, one taught an incomplete human nature in Christ ; the other was a most open defender of the heresy of Arius."

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

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

From the same book (chap. 9).

"For Eusebius himself, a friend, eulogist and companion of Pamphilus, has written three very elegant books comprising a life of Pamphilus.

In these, after extolling other things with wondrous praises and exalting his humility to the skies, he also adds this in the third book," &c.

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

"T have praised Eusebius in his Ecclestastical History, in his Chronological Canons, in his

Description of the Holy Land; and turning these same little works into Latin I have given them to those of my own tongue.

Am I therefore an Arian, because Eusebius who wrote these books is an Arian?"

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

" Eusebius, a very learned man (I have said learned, not Catholic ; lest after the usual manner, even in this thing, thou heap calumny upon me), in six volumes does nothing else than show

Origen to be of his own faith ; that is, of the Arian heresy."

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

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

PROLEGOMENA.

i Senne ss os Oe) a From Jerome's Book on Ecclesiastical Writers (chap. 61).

« Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (I have not indeed been able to find out the name of the city), wrote a reckoning of Easter, and chronological tables up to the first year of the Emperor

Alexander, and hit upon a cycle of sixteen years which the Greeks call éxxatdexaeTnpida ; and gave an occasion to Eusebius, whc also composed an Easter canon, with a cycle of nineteen years, that is évveadexaernpioa.."

From the same book (chap. 81).

"Eusebius, bishop of Czsarea in Palestine, a man most studious in the sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent investigator of sacred literature, has edited an infinite number of volumes, some of which are these: of the Demonstratio Evangelica, twenty books; of the Preparatio Evangelica, fifteen books; of the Zheophania, five books ; of the Ecclesiastical History, ten books; a General History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome of them; also, On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; On Isaiah, ten books ; and Against Porphyry

(who at the same time was writing in Sicily, as some think), thirty books, of which only twenty have come to my notice; of his Zofica, one book; of the Afologia, in defense of Origen, six books; On the Life of Pamphilus, three books; Concerning the Martyrs, other small works ; also very learned commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms, and many other writings.

He flourished chiefly under the emperors Constantine and Constantius ; and on account of his friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, he took from him his surname."

From the same book (chap. 96).

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

Jerome in the Preface to his Commentaries on Daniel.

" Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote a twelfth volume, denying that that book was composed by him with whose name it is inscribed, &c.

To him Eusebius, bishop of Czsarea, has replied very skillfully in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX.

ApolSone also in one large volume, that is, in the twenty-sixth volume, and before these, in part,

Methodius."

Jerome on the Twenty-fourth Chapter of Matthew.

"Concerning this place, that is, concerning the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place, Porphyry has uttered many blasphemies against us in the thirteenth volume of his work.

To whom Eusebius, bishop of Czesarea, has replied in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX."

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

"'Celsus and Porphyry have written against us.

To the former Origen, to the latter Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have very vigorously replied.

Of whom Origen wrote eight books, Methodius proceeded as far as ten thousand lines, Eusebius and Apollinarius composed twenty-five and thirty volumes respectively."

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

_ "What more skillful, more learned, more eloquent men can be found than Eusebius and Didymus, the advocates of Origen?

The former of whom, in the six volumes of his Afologia, proves that he [Origen] was of the same opinion as himself."

Jerome, in the Preface to his Commentaries on Isaiah.

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

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

"Shall I take upon myself a work at which the most learned men have labored hard? I speak of Origen and Eusebius Pamphili.

Of these the former wanders afar in the free spaces of alle-

TESTIMONIES IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS.

gory, and his genius so interprets single names as to make out of them the sacred things of the Church.

The latter, while promising in his title an historical exposition, meanwhile forgets his purpose, and yields himself up to the tenets of Origen."

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

" Eusebius of Czsarea, while promising in his title an historical exposition, strays off in divers notions: while reading his books*I found much else than what he gave promise of in his title.

For wherever history has failed him, he has crossed over into allegory; and in such a manner does he unite things that are distinct, that I wonder at his joining together by a new art of discourse stone and iron into one body."

Ferome on the first chapter of Matthew.

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

Rufinus in his Epistle to the Bishop Chromatius.

"You charge me to translate into Latin the Ecclesiastical History, which the very learned

Eusebius of Czsarea wrote in the Greek tongue."'

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

" When I had searched through the Aiséory of Eusebius, to which Rufinus, after having himself translated it into the Latin tongue, has also added two books of subsequent history, I did not find any heresy which I had not read among these very ones, except that one which Eusebius inserts in his sixth book, stating that it had existed in Arabia.

Therefore these heretics, since he assigns them no founder, we may call Arabians, who declared that the soul dies and is destroyed along with the body, and that at the end of the world both are raised again.

But he states that they were very quickly corrected, these by the disputation of Origen in person, and those by his exhortation."'

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

"Since now this man was very learned, having searched out and traced back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers, and having set forth the opinions of almost all of them, and having left behind very many writings, some of which are worthy of all acceptation, making use of such an estimation as this of the man, they attempt to lead away some, saying, that Eusebius would not have chosen to take this view, unless he had accurately ascertained that all the opinions of the ancients required it.

I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very learned, and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his knowledge ; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter."

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

" Philostorgius, while praising Eusebius Pamphili both as to whatever of worth belongs to his histories and as to other things, yet declares that with regard to religion he has fallen into great error; and that he impiously sets forth this error of his in detail, holding that the Deity is unknowable and incomprehensible.

Moreover, he holds that he has also gone astray on other such things.

But he unites with others in attesting that he brought his Ais¢ory down to the accession of the sons of Constantine the Great."

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

«" Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus (i.e. universally beloved), has composed a History of the Church in ten books, brought down to the time of the Emperor Constantine, when the persecution ceased which Diocletian had commenced against the Christians.

But, in writing the life of Constantine, this author has very slightly treated of the Arian controversy, being evidently more intent on a highly wrought eulogium of the emperor than an accurate statement of facts."

PROLEGOMENA.

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

"Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as.a witness worthy of credit, and praises the Emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines ; but he still brands the faith which was declared at Nice as having been set forth by ignorant men, and such as had no intelligence in the matter.

Thus he voluntarily contemns the testimony of a man whom he himself pronounces a wise and true witness ; for Eusebius declares that of the ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod, some were eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their life; and that the Emperor himself being present, leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and conformity of opinion among them."

The same Socrates, in Book Il. chap. 21. | " But since some have attempted to stigmatize Eusebius Pamphilus as having favored the Arian views in his works, it may not be irrelevant here to make a few remarks respecting him.

In the first place, then, he was present at the council of Nice, and gave his assent to what was there determined in reference to the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he thus expressed himself:

' Zhe Emperor incited all to unanimity, until he had rendered them united in judgment on those points on which they were previously at variance: so that they were quite agreed at Nice in matters of faith.'

Since, therefore, Eusebius, in mentioning the Nicene Synod, says that all differences were composed, and that unanimity of sentiment prevailed, what ground is there for assuming that he was himself an Arian?

'The Arians are certainly deceived in supposing him to be a favorer of their tenets.

But some one will perhaps say that in his discourses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because of his frequently saying 4y Christ.

Our answer is that ecclesiastical writers often use this mode of expression, and others of a similar kind denoting the economy of our Saviour's humanity: and that before all these the apostle made use of such expressions without ever being accounted a teacher of false doctrine.

Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has dared to say that the Son is a creature, as one of the others, observe what Eusebius says on this subject in his first book against Marcellus:

"<¢ He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, and is the only-begotten Son of God ; whence any one would justly censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing, like the rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son? and how could he be

God's only-begotten, were he assigned the same nature as the other creatures, and were he one of the many created things, seeing that he, like them, would in that case be partaker of a creation

Jrom. nothing?

The sacred Scriptures do not thus instruct us concerning these things.

He again adds a little afterwards:

' Whoever then determines that the Son is made of things that are not, and that he ts a creature produced from nothing pre-existing, forgets that while he concedes the name of Son, he denies him to be so in reality.

For he that is made of nothing cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than the other things which have been made: but the true Son of God, forasmuch,as he is begotten of the Father, is properly denominated the only-begotten and beloved of the Father.

For this reason also, he himself is God: for what can the offspring of God be but the perfect resemblance of him who begat him?

A sovereign, indeed, builds a city, but does not beget it; and is said to beget a son, not to build one.

-An artificer may be called the framer, but not the father of his work; while he could by no means be styled the framer of him whom he had begotten.

So also the God of the Universe is the father of the Son; but would be fitly termed the Framer and Maker of the world.

And although it ts once said in Scripture, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways on account of his works, yet 7¢ becomes us to consider the import of this phrase, which I shall hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus has done, from a single passage to subvert one of the most important doctrines of the Church,

"These and many other such expressions are found in the first book of Eusebius Pamphilus against Marcellus ; and in his third book, declaring in what sense the term creature is to be taken, he says: ' Accordingly these things being established, it follows that in the same sense as that which preceded, these words also are to be understood, The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways on account of his works. or although he says that he was created, it is not as if he should say that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor that he himself also was made of nothing like the rest of the creatures, which some have erroneously supposed: but as subsisting, living, pre-existing, and being before the constitution of the whole world; and having been appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and Father: the word created being here used instead of ordained or constituted.

Certainly the apostle expressly called the rulers and governors among men creature, when he said, Submit yourselves to every human creazure for the Lord's sake;

TESTIMONIES IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS.

whether to the king as supreme, or to governors as those sent by him.

Zhe prophet also does not use the word éxriev created in the sense of made of that which had no previous existence, when he says, Prepare, Israel, to invoke thy God.

For behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ unto men.

For God did not then create the Spirit when he declared his Christ to all men, since There is nothing new under the sun ; but the Spirit was, and subsisted before: but he was sent at what time the apostles were gathered together, when like thunder, There came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind: and they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Amd thus they declared unto all men the Christ of God in accordance with that prophecy which says, Behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the spirit, and announces his Christ unto men:

"ke word creates being used instead of sends down, or appoints; and thunder ix a similar way implying the preaching of the Gospel.

Again he that says, Create in me a clean heart, O God, said not this as if he had no heart; but prayed that his mind might be purified.

Thus also it is said, That he might create the two into one new man, instead of unite.

Consider also whether this passage is not of the same kind, Clothe yourselves with the new man, which is created according to God; and ¢his, If, therefore, any one be in Christ, he is a new creature, and whatever other expressions of a similar nature any one may find who shall carefully search the divinely-inspired Scripture.

Wherefore one should not be surprised if in this passage, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, the term created is used metaphorically, instead of appointed, or constituted.'

"These quotations from the books of Eusebius against Marcellus have been adduced to confute those who have slanderously attempted to traduce and criminate him.

Neither can they prove that Eusebius attributes a beginning of subsistence to the Son of God, although they may find him often using the expressions of dispensation: and especially so, because he was an emulator and admirer of the works of Origen, in which those who are able to comprehend that author's writings, will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son was begotten of the Father.

These remarks have been made in passing, in order to refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius."

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

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

Victorius in the Paschal Canon.

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

Chronicles by Jerome of sacred memory."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Chromatus and Heliodorus, proixed to the Martyrology which bears

Jerome's Name.

"Tt is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ obtains triumphs at every martyrdom of his saints, whose sufferings we find described by the saintly Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea.

For when Constantine Augustus came to Czsarea and told the celebrated bishop to ask some favors which should benefit the church at Cesarea, it is said that Eusebius answered: That a church enriched by its own resources was under no necessity of asking favors, yet that he himself had an unalterable desire, that whatever had been done in the Roman republic against God's saints by successive judges in the whole Roman world they should search out by a careful examination of the public records ; and that they should draw from the archives themselves and send to Eusebius himself, by royal command, the names of the martyrs: under what judge, in what province or city, upon what day, and with what steadfastness, they had obtained the reward ot their suffering.

Whence it has come about that, being an able narrator and a diligent historiographer, he has both composed an Ecclesiastical History and has set forth the triumphs of nearly all of the martyrs of all the Roman provinces."

PROLEGOMENA.

i een nn Nn ie ee ne i ee Pope Gelasius in his Decree concerning the Apocryphal Books.

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

The same in his book On the Two Natures.

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

And a little farther on.

"From the exposition of the seventh psalm, by Eusebius, bishop in Palestine, by surname

Pamphili, etc.

Likewise from his Preparatio Evangelica, Book VII."

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

" For, indeed, among heresiarchs who can be found worse than Origen, and among historiographers who more honorable than Eusebius?

And who of us does not know with how great praises Eusebius extols Origen in his books?

But because the holy Church deals more kindly with the hearts of her faithful ones than she does severely with their words, neither could the testimony of Eusebius remove him from his proper place among heretics, nor on the other hand has she condemned Eusebius for the fault of praising Origen."

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

" Eusebius Pamphili— an especially able writer, to the extent, in particular, of inducing his readers to embrace our religion, though failing to perfect them in the faith — and Sozomen, Theodoret, and Socrates have produced a most excellent record of the advent of our compassionate

God, and his ascension into heaven, and of all that has been achieved in the endurance of the divine Apostles, as well as of the other martyrs," etc.

Gregory the Greatin his Epistle to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.

"'T have now become one of the number of hearers, to whom your Holiness has taken the pains to write, that we ought to transmit the deeds of all the martyrs which have been collected by Eusebius of Czesarea in the age of Constantine of holy memory.

But I was not aware before receiving your Holiness' letter whether these things had been collected or not.

I therefore am thankful that being informed by the writings of your most holy learning, I have begun to know what I did not know before.

For excepting these things which are contained in the books of this same Eusebius Ox the deeds of the holy martyrs, I have met with nothing else in the archives of this our church, nor in the libraries of Rome, except some few collected in a single volume."

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

" Let us hear now what says this the most illustrious husbandman in ecclesiastical farming the most truth-loving Eusebius, surnamed after the celebrated Pamphilus.

Licinius, indeed, he says, having followed the same path of impiety with the ungodly tyrants, has justly been brought to the same precipice with them, etc. (which may be found at the end of the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History).

As to Eusebius Pamphili, the most trustworthy of ancient ecclesiastical historians, who has investigated and set forth so many struggles, having made a choice from among his simply written works, we say that in all ten books of his ecclesiastical History he has left behind an accurately written work.

Beginning with the advent of our Lord he has, not without much labor, proceeded as far as those times.

For how else could it be with him who took so great care to preserve for us the harmony of this collection?

But as I have just said, he brought to bear upon it much study and an untold amount of labor.

But let no one suppose, from those things which have been alleged with regard to him, that this man ever adopted the heresy of Arius ; but let him be sure, that even if he did speak somewhat of, and did write briefly concerning the conjectures of Arius, he certainly did not do it on account of his entertaining the impious notion of that man, but from artless simplicity, as indeed he himself fully assures us in his Apology. which he distributed generally among orthodox bishops."

TESTIMONIES

IN FAVOR OF EUSEBIUS.

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

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

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

"Upon whose authority also we know of the divine Pamphilus as both living the life of a philosopher and wearing the dignity of presbyter in that place.

His life and every event in it, also his establishing in that place the study of sacred and profane philosophy, also his confession of his religion in divers persecutions, his struggles, and at last his wearing the martyr's crown, Eusebius his nephew, who had such a regard for him as to take from him his surname, has comprehended in detail in one separate book ; to this we refer those who may wish to find out accurately concerning him.

This Eusebius, indeed, although having prosecuted many studies, especially excels in the study of sacred literature.

His life extended until the time of Constantius.

Being, a man pre-eminently Christian, and endowed with great zeal for Christ, he has written the Preparatio Evangetica in fifteen books, and in ten more the Demonstratio Evangelica.

He was also the first one to take in hand this subject, having been the first to call his book an Ecclesiastical

History ; this work is contained in ten volumes.

There is also another book of his extant which he entitled Cazons, in which he accurately investigates chronological matters. He has also composed five books On the Life of Constantine, and another addressed to him which he calls rpraxovraeryptxov. To Stephanus he also dedicates another concerning those things in the sacred Gospels which have been called in question ; and he has also left behind divers other works which are of great. benefit to the Church.

Apart from being such a man as this, he in many ways seems to uphold the opinions of Arius,"' etc.

From the MS. Acts of Pope Silvester.

"Eusebius Pamphili, in writing his Acclestastical History, has in every case omitted to mention those things which he has pointed out in other works ; for he has put into eleven books the sufferings of the martyrs, bishops, and confessors, who have suffered in almost all the provinces.

But indeed as to the sufferings of women and maidens, such as with manly fortitude suffered for the sake of Christ the Lord, he records nothing.

He is, moreover, the only one who has set forth in their order the sufferings of the bishops, from the Apostle Peter down.

Moreover, he drew up for the benefit of the public a catalogue of the pontiffs of those cities and apostolic seats ; that is, of the great city of Rome, and the cities of Alexandria and Antioch.

Of the number then of those of whom, up to his own times, the above-mentioned author wrote in the Greek tongue, this man's life he was unable to paraphrase ; that is, the life of the saint Silvester," etc.

An ancient author in the Passion of the Holy Valerian.

"The glorious struggles of the most blessed martyrs, for the honor of Christ the Lord and of our

God, are celebrated by perpetual services and an annual solemnity, that while our faithful people know the faith of the martyrs, they may also rejoice in their triumphs, and may rest assured that it is by the protection of these that they themselves are to be protected.

For it is held in repute that Eusebius the historian, of sacred memory, bishop of the city of Caesarea, a most blessed priest of excellent life, very learned also in ecclesiastical matters, and to be venerated for his extraordinary carefulness, set forth for every city, in so far as the truth was able to be ascertained, the Holy

Spirit announcing the deeds that had been done, — inasmuch as the cities of single provinces and localities or towns have merited being made famous by the heavenly triumphs of martyrs,

— set forth, I say, in the time of what rulers the innumerable persecutions were inflicted at the command of officials.

Who, although he has not described entire the sufferings of individual martyrs, yet has truly intimated why they ought to be described or celebrated by faithful and devoted

Christians.

Thus this faithful husbandman has cultivated the grace of God, which has been scattered abroad in all the earth, while, as it were, from a single grain of wheat, plenteous harvests are produced on account of the fertility of the field, and go on in multiplied abundance.

' So through the narration of the above-mentioned man, diffused from the fountain of a single book, with the ever-spreading writings of the faithful, the celebrating of the sufferings of the martyrs has watered all the earth."

Usuardus in his Martyrology.

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

PROLEGOMENA.

BO mm ee Rae Notker in his Martyrology.

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

Manecharius in his Epistle to Cerauntus, Bishop of Paris.

" Unceasing in thy continual efforts to equal in merit the very excellent persons of the most blessed bishops in all the conversation of the priesthood, zealous to adorn thyself every day with holy religion, by thy zeal for reading thou hast searched through the whole of the doctrines of the sacred Scriptures.

Now as an addition to thy praiseworthiness thou dost faithfully purpose, in the city of Paris, to gather together for the love of religion, the deeds of the holy martyrs.

Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in zeal with Eusebius of Czesarea, and art worthy of being remembered perpetually with an equal share of glory."

From an old Manuscript Breviary of the Lemovicensian Church.

"Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.

"Lesson 1.

Eusebius, bishop of Czesarea in Palestine, on account of his friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, took from him the surname of Pamphili ; inasmuch as along with this same

Pamphilus he was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature.

The man indeed is very worthy of being remembered in these times, both for his skill in many things, and for his wonderful genius, and by both Gentiles and Christians he was held distinguished and most noble among philosophers.

This man, after having for a time labored in behalf of the Arian heresy, coming to the council of Nicza, inspired by the Holy Spirit, followed the decision of the Fathers, and thereafter up to the time of his death lived in a most holy manner in the orthodox faith.

«Lesson 2.

He was, moreover, very zealous in the study of the sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature.

At the same time he has written many things, but especially the following books: The Preparato Evangelica, the Ecclesiastical History, Against Porphyry, a very bitter enemy of the Christians ; he has also composed Six Apologies in Behalf of Origen, a Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on account of friendship he took his surname, in three books; likewise very learned Commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms.

"Lesson 3.

Moreover, as we read, after 'having ascertained the sufferings of many holy martyrs in all the provinces, and the lives of confessors and virgins, he has written concerning these saints twenty books ; while on account of these books therefore, and especially on account of his

Preparatio Evangelica, he was held most distinguished among the Gentiles, because of his love of truth he contemned the ancestral worship of the gods.

He has written also a Chronicle, extending from the first year of Abraham up to the year 300 A.D., which the divine Hieronymus has continued.

Finally this Eusebius, after the conversion of Constantine the Great, was united to him by strong friendship as long as he lived."

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

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

From the book On the Lights of the Church.

" Eusebius of Czesarea, the key of the Scriptures and custodian of the New Testament, is proved by the Greeks to be greater than many in his treatises.

There are three celebrated works of his which truly testify to this: the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical History, and the Chronicon, that is, a chronological summary.

We have never found any one who has been able to follow in all his foot-prints."

From the Miscellanies of Theodore Metochita (chap. 19). xt Eusebius Pamphili was also a Palestinian by birth, but as he himself says, he sojourned for quite a long time in Egypt.

He was a very learned man, and it is evident indeed that he published many books, and that he used language thus." oa a woe oon bees eet oe oa ae Ee ee Oe 1 Valesius adds brief extracts from other missals of the same church, which it is not necessary to quote here.

TESTIMONIES AGAINST EUSEBIUS.

ea ae ta aa ee nascent eee

TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS AGAINST EUSEBIUS.

From the Epistle of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia (in Theodoret's Eccles. Hist. I. g}e

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

From the Book of Marcellus of Ancyra against the Arians.

" Having happened upon a letter of Narcissus, bishop of Neronias, which he wrote to one

Chrestus and to Euphronius and to Eusebius, in which it seems that Hosius, the bishop, had asked him whether or not like Eusebius of Palestine he believed in the existence of two essences,

I read in the writing that he answered that he believed in the existence of three essences."

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

" For what sort of a council of bishops was that?

What sort of an assembly having truth for its aim?

Who out of the great majority of them was not our enemy?

Did not the followers of Eusebius rise up against us on account of the Arian madness?

Did not they bring forward the others who held the same opinions as themselves?

Were we not continually writing against them as against those who held the opinions of Arius?

Was not Eusebius of Czsarea in Palestine accused by our confessors of sacrificing?"

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

"The emperor upon hearing these things becomes very angry and orders that a synod be convoked in Phcenicia in the city of Tyre ; he also gave orders that Eusebius and some others should act as judges: these persons moreover had leaned somewhat too far toward the vulgarity of the Arians.

There were also sunimoned the bishops of the Catholic Church in Egypt, also certain men subject to Athanasius, who were likewise great and who kept their lives transparent before God, among whom was the great Potamo of blessed memory, bishop and confessor of Heraclea.

But there were also present Meletians, the chief accusers of Athanasius.

Being zealous for truth and for orthodoxy, the above-mentioned Potamo of blessed memory, a free-spoken man, who regarded the person of no man, — for he had been deprived of an eye in the persecution for the truth, — seeing

Eusebius sitting down and acting as judge, and Athanasius standing up, overcome by grief and weeping, as is the wont with true men, he addressed Eusebius in a loud voice, saying, ' Dost thou sit down, Eusebius, and is Athanasius, an innocent man, judged by thee?

Who could bear such things?

Do thou tell me, wert thou not in confinement with me at the time of the persecution?

I have parted with an eye for the sake of the truth, but thou neither seemest to be maimed at all in body, nor hast thou suffered martyrdom, but art alive, and in no part mutilated.

How didst thou escape from the confinement unless that thou didst promise those who have inflicted upon us the violence of persecution to perform the ungodly act, or didst actually perform it?'"

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

"For ye also know, as we have said before, that they are our enemies, and ye know why

Eusebius of Czesarea has become our enemy since last year."

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

"The strange thing is that Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied on one day, but on the next day had subscribed, sent to his church, saying that this is the faith of the Church, eee —

ee—COCOC™SC"'#ENNTTT

eg eT 1 This extract is not given by Valesius.

PROLEGOMENA.

a ne ae and that this is the tradition of the Fathers.

He plainly showed to all that before they had been in error, and had been vainly striving after the truth ; for although he was then ashamed to write in just these terms, and excused himself to the Church as he himself wished, yet he plainly wishes to imply this in his Epistle, by his not denying the ' Homodusion,' 'one in substance,' and ' of the substance.'

He got into serious difficulty, for in defending himself, he went on to accuse the Arians, because, having written that 'the Son did not exist before that he was begotten,' they thereby denied that he existed before his birth in the flesh."

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

"Most of all, what would Acacius say to Eusebius his own teacher? who not only signed in the synod at Nicza, but also made it known by letter to the people under him that that was the true faith, which had been agreed upon at the council of Nicaa; for although he defended himself as he pleased through the letter, yet he did not deny the grounds taken.

But he also accused the Arians, since, in saying that 'the Son did not exist before that he was begotten,' they also deny that he existed before Mary."

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

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

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

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

Ferome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians.

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

The same, in his Second Book against Rufinus.

"As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground.

For, quoting from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians)," etc.

The same, in his First Book against Rufinus.

"' Eusebius, bishop of Czesarea, of whom I have made mention above, in the sixth book of his

Apology in behalf of Origen, lays this same charge against Methodius the bishop and martyr, which you lay against me in my praises [of him]; he says:

'How did Methodius dare to write against Origen after having said this and that concerning his opinions?' This is no place to speak in behalf of a martyr, for not all things ought to be discussed in all places.

Now let it suffice to have barely touched upon the matter, that this same thing was charged against a most renowned and most re ets martyr by an Arian, which you as a friend praise in me, and, being offended, censure me for."

The same, in his Epistle to Minervius and Alexander.

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

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

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

TESTIMONIES AGAINST EUSEBIUS.

Again, in the same chapter.

" Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed ; but Eusebius denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius.

In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of Persons ; yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace."

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

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

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

" Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that there were only nine persons out of all whom the decrees of the Synod did not please, and that their names are as follows: Theognis of Niczea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Czsarea in Palestine,

Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemais, which borders upon Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica." .

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

"T deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the doctrines ; wherefore he ought to be given place to so far as regards his great learning, but as regards his knowledge of doctrine he ought not.

But, moreover, we know him to have been altogether lacking in such accurate knowledge."

And a little farther on.

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

And farther on.

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

From the Acts of the Seventh Cécumenical Council.

" For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who of those who have obtained a knowledge of true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius Pamphili has given himself over to false ways of thinking, and has become of the same opinion and of the same mind with those who follow after the opinions of Arius?

In all his historical books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to be adored as second in rank.

But if any speaking in his defense say that he subscribed in the council, we may admit that that is true ; but while with his lips he has respected the truth, in his heart he is far from it, as all his writings and epistles go to show.

But if from time to time, on account of circumstances or from different causes, he has become confused or has changed around, sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines of Arius, and at other times feigning the truth, he shows himself to be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways ; and let him not think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.

For if with the heart he had believed unto righteousness, and with the mouth had confessed the truth unto salvation, he would have asked forgiveness for his writings, at the same time correcting them.

But this he has by no means done, for he remained like A'thiops with his skin unchanged. In interpreting the verse 'I said to the Lord, Thou art my Lord,' he has strayed far away from the true sense, for this is what he says:

' By the laws of nature every son's father 1 Valesius inserts after this extract a brief and unimportant quo- |

— severed as it is from its context, which is not accessible to me, — tation from Eulogius of Alexandria, which, however, is so obscure, | that no translation of it has been attempted,

PROLEGOMENA.

must be his lord ; wherefore God who begat him must be at the same time God, Lord, and Father of the only-begotten Son of God.'

So also in his epistle to the holy Alexander, the teacher of the great Athanasius, which begins thus: 'With what anxiety and with what care have I set about writing this letter,' in most open blasphemy he speaks as follows concerning Arius and his followers: 'Thy letter accuses them of saying that the Son was made out of nothing, like all men.

But they have produced their own epistle which they wrote to thee, in which they give an account of their faith, and expressly confess that "the God of the law and of the prophets and of the New

Testament, before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son, through whom also he made the ages and the universe ; and that he begat him not in appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will, unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures."

If, therefore, the letter received from them tells the truth, they wholly contradict thee, in that they confess that the Son of God who existed before eternal ages, and through whom he made the world, is unchangeable and a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures.

But thy epistle accuses them of saying that the Son was made as one of the creatures.

They do not say this, but clearly declare that he was not as one of the creatures.

See if cause is not immediately given them again to attack and to misrepresent whatever they please.

Again thou findest fault with them for saying that He who is begat him who was not.

I wonder if any one is able to say anything else than that.

For if He who is is one, it is plain that everything has been made by Him and after Him. But if He who is is not the only one, but there was also a Son existing, how did He who is beget him who was existing?

For thus those existing would be two.'

These things then Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander ; but there are also other epistles of his directed to the same holy man, in which are found various blasphemies in defense of the followers of Arius.

So also, in writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most openly ; his letter begins thus:

'JT return to my Lord all thanks'; and farther on:

' For we do not say that the Son was with the Father, but that the Father was before the Son.

But the Son of God himself, knowing well that he was greater than all, and knowing that he was other than the Father, and less than and subject to Him, very piously teaches this to us also when he says, " The Father who sent me is greater than I."' And farther on: 'Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.'

So then from these writings of his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of Arius and his followers.

And with this rebellious heresy of theirs the inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in hypostatic union, and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body without soul, in his scheme of redemption, affirming that the divine nature supplied the purposes and movements of the soul: that, as Gregory the Divine says, they may ascribe suffering to the Deity; and it is evident that those who ascribe suffering to the Deity are Patripassians.

Those who share in this heresy do not allow images, as the impious Severus did not, and Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, and all their followers, the many-headed yet headless hydra.

So then Eusebius, who belongs to this faction, as has been shown from his epistles and historical writings, as a Patripassian rejected the image of Christ," etc.'

Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine.

"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim.

And he, feeling repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses to his infirmity ; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not repented.

For he cannot show, by means of those writings in which he would seem to be defending himself, that he has withdrawn from his former heretical doctrines, nor can he show that he agreed with the holy and Ecumenical Synod.

But he speaks of it as a marvel that the upholders of the Homoousion should concur with him in sentiment and agree with him in opinion: and this fact both many other things and the epistle written by him to his own people at Czesarea accurately confirm.

But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he did not cease following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many sources ; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, the error with regard to the common resurrection of us all, is to most persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly disease than he was by the Arian madness."

Photius, in his Bibliotheca (chap. 13).

"Of the Oljection and Defense of Eusebius two books have been read ; also other two, which although differing in some respects from the former two, are in other respects the same with regard

NS he

TR TEE he ES TEE NL

eS a eect 1 This extract is translated from the original Greek of the Acts of | and Cossartius in their Coxczlza, T Vv i the Second Nicene Council, Act VI. Tom. V. (as given by Labbe | gives only a Latin translation, ce) ge eg eae pd plesina

TESTIMONIES AGAINST EUSEBIUS.

to both diction and thought.

But he presents certain difficulties with regard to our blameless religion as having originated with the Greeks.

These he correctly solves, although not in all cases.

But as regards his diction; it is by no means either pleasing or brilliant.

The man is indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and firmness of character, as well as accuracy in doctrine, he is deficient.

For also in many places in these books it is plain to be seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause, and general-in-chief, and other terms which have had their origin in the Arian madness.

It seems that he flourished in the time of Constantine the Great.

He was also an ardent admirer of the excellences of the holy martyr Pamphilus, for which cause some say that he took from him the surname Pamphili."

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

"There has been read the work of Eusebius Pamphili Jn praise of the great emperor Constantine, consisting of four books.

In this is contained the whole life of the man, starting with his very boyhood, also whatever deeds of his belong to ecclesiastical history, until he departed from life at the age of sixty-four.

Eusebius is, however, even in this work, like himself in diction, except that his discourse has risen to a somewhat more than usual brilliancy, and that sometimes he has made use of more flowery expressions than he is wont.

However, of pleasantness and beauty of expression there is little, as indeed is the case in his other works.

He inserts, moreover, in this work of his in four books very many passages from the whole decalogue of his

Ecclesiastical History.

He says that Constantine the Great himself also was baptized in Nicomedia, he having put off his baptism until then, because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan.

Who baptized him he does not clearly show.

However, as to the heresy of Arius, he does not definitely state whether he holds that opinion, or whether he has changed; or even whether Arius held correct or incorrect views, although he ought to have made mention of these things, because the synod occupied an important place among the deeds of Constantine the Great, and it again demands a detailed account of them.

But he does state that a ' controversy ' arose between Arius and Alexander (this is the name he cunningly gives to the heresy), and that the God-fearing prince was very much grieved at this controversy, and strove by epistles and through Hosius, who was then bishop of Cordova, to bring back the dissenting parties into peace and concord, they having laid aside the strife existing between them with regard to such questions ; and that when he could not persuade them to do this he convoked a synod from all quarters, and that it dissolved into peace the strife that had arisen.

These things, however, are not described accurately or clearly ; it would seem then that he is ashamed, as it were, and does not wish to make public the vote cast against Arius in the Synod, and the just retribution of those who were his companions in impiety and who were cast out together with him.

Finally, he does not even mention the terrible fate which was inflicted by God upon Arius in the sight of all.

None of these things he brings to the light, nor has he drawn up an account of the Synod and the things that were done in it.

Whence, also, when about to write a narrative concerning the divine Eustathius, he does not even mention his name, nor what things were threatened and executed against him; but referring these things also to sedition and tumult, he again speaks of the calmness of the bishops, who having been convened in Antioch by the zeal and cooperation of the Emperor, changed the sedition and tumult into peace.

Likewise as to what things were maliciously contrived against the ever-conquering Athanasius, when he set about making his history cover these things, he says that Alexandria again was filled with sedition and tumult, and that this was calmed by the coming of the bishops, who had the imperial aid.

But he by no means makes it clear who was the leader of the sedition, what sort of sedition it was, or by what means the strife was settled.

He also keeps up almost the same mode of dissimulating in his account of the contentions existing among bishops with respect to doctrines, and their disagreements on other matters."

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

"yen Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Czsarea in Palestine, was at that time one of those who upheld the doctrines of Arius.

He is said to have afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of Arius, and to have become of like mind with those who hold that the Son is coéqual and of the same nature with the Father, and to have been received into communion by the holy Fathers.

Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to have defended the faithful.

These things are found thus narrated by some ; but he makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which he is seen to have written in his Acclesiastical History.

For in many places in the abovementioned work he seems to be following after Arius.

In the very beginning of his book, where he quotes David as saying, ' He spake and they were made, he commanded and they were estab-

PROLEGOMENA.

ee. eee eet lished,' he says that the Father and Maker is to be considered as maker and universal ruler, governing by a kingly nod, and that the second after him in authority, the divine Word, is subject to the commands of the Father.

And farther on he says, that he, as being the power and wisdom of the Father, is entrusted with the second place in the kingdom and rule over all.

And again, a little farther on, that there is also a certain essence, living and subsisting before the world, which ministers to the God and Father of the universe for the creation of things that are created.

Also Solomon, in the person of the wisdom of God, says, 'The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways,' etc., and farther on he says: And besides all this, as the preexistent word of God, who also preéxisted before all ages created, he received divine honor from the Father, and is worshipped as God.

These and other things show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines, unless some one say that they were written before his conversion."

Suidas, under the word A.d8upos. ss Diodorus, a monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, in the times of Julian and Valens, wrote divers works, as Theodorus Lector states in his Ecclesiastical History.

These are as follows: A Chronicle, which corrects the error of Eusebius Pamphilus with regard to chronology," etc.

The same Suidas, from Sophrontus.

"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Czsarea in Palestine, a man zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful investigator of sacred literature, has published many books, among which are the following." A 1 The remainder of this extract from Sophronius is a translation | adds some extracts from Baronius and Scaliger; but inasmuch as of the chapter of Jerome's de viris cllustribus, which is quoted | they are to be classed with modern rather than with ancient writers, above, on p. 60, and is therefore omitted at this point.

Valesius | it has seemed best to omit the quotations from their works.

CONTENTS

OF. THE.CHURCH..HISTORY,

BOOK I PAGE RS tra UDO MIAN OL (NE WOLK s ass0 a5 wiaa's gto so Sys 9isi905s Syarsais ini v.noih cies ayaVorerouspeutoMicicle) o aioe «pialee sisigarnoiags

Cuap. II.—Summary view of the pre-existence and divinity of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. <.......

Cuap. III.—The name Jesus and also the name Christ were known from the beginning, and were honored ystMewnspired Prophets Lae ve jaic)sh sila syol6 56 a 70:14 ais Vorwies acs Bio ors «$e aise #19)8 8a Sid ens}als 81. ge Siglaaalgeteme stelgals

Cuap. IV. —The religion proclaimed by him to all nations was neither new nor strange. ae BECO DMOR ORAS

rAPa Vo—— Lhe time Of his appearance among, Mend gpteiow «eisai sie -/e S lela' ate iatkisaee s)egd «es Seles al ered

Cuap. VI.— About the time of Christ, in accordance with prophecy, the rulers who had governed the Jewish nation in regular succession from the days of antiquity came to an end, and Herod, the first foreigner, eRe NTIS eiaaa alain ia 651 oisin'ple'ia1%) © tis Rave a se. 0'4 os wit.

5 40 SRM eate ae ote rete POTN Seat eed ae let

Cuap. VII. —The alleged discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the genealogy of Christ. M.............. gt Cuap. VIII. —The cruelty of Herod toward the infants, and the manner of his death ...............-000-

REEPAP Nae NE CES OF, PILALC s o5.5c.c: ape. 0j0 ayn! pio ais inisip gi Whe ies noun +ienee »nsisebee bets elses reads Boe era he es

Cuap. X.— The high priests of the Jews under whom Christ taught............

0... ese e eee eee eee eens

Cuap. XI.— Testimonies in regard to John the Baptist and Christ ............

00. ccc ee cece sees seen nes

HAP! XL, —— he aiseiples Of Our; Saviour, wisi seve bile spleialsehian Ha cuek \-Pemitis adie Raita wa orsic cel

Cuap. XIII.

— Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessenes. .......sccescccccacseeeeccecessesenes

BOOK Ii.

AEN ER OWS

ON garaiaiets cs aieloinlio ss! ols les 6 iri 809 8/4, ite yl <6, plnan inlnsann steis Clete tavath.» ene nketeedee aietohats ahele aitts Pitletres ale aretetets

Cuap. I, — The course pursued by the apostles after the ascension of Christ...........

0.0 eeeceeeeeeeuee

Cuap. II. — How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate concerning Christ....................0-.

Cuap. III.

— The doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout all the world ............

0... cee cece ee euee

Cuap. IV. — After the death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa king of the Jews, having punished Herod

SSVI ELMS DEK PICE Oa le CMTE tenet cr atets aie iwiate) Wi apm oil fala nis: oyofsAha 'syprmsoio(silyeie.o 0 SaMshgaltts tele! « cig ANG SIT On etetehe: a dette

iSWAP.V.— ehilo's embassy to Caius in behalfofithe Jews si.'. 315%, Why. (eve hs Peete, als Mevatelere Be ME Rd are ard teeie

Cuap. VI.— The misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their presumption against Christ...........

DEER DAN he mem Ate Go BULCICLE charm as coors, cit a ois eta, Sass, oe: ene Selecta atte te Canara « Miaeele SECO bie TE bane eel

SS Miah

Cuap. VIII, —The famine which took place in the reign of Claudius. ............

0 cee ce cece e eee ecees IIo HAP. Ls —— Lhe martyrdom of -Jameésithecapostleniist fork ar eae teil. wine MMe Mo eilels Mev htohe Sid ae Clin Ethane IIo Cuap. X.— Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the apostles, immediately experienced the Di WIVES CANCE Siemis eisisie eles a6) ciais ais\se heals ala ce v ese Am misiietietee hs avers sles eater eels Oetits cle' ibe ¥ ater

III Guar, XI.— The impostor Theudas.and his followers «ooo 606.0 06s ox uM teiaiciaicies oiole's leaie slelelen ole

« slare cies er

era. X1l.— Helen, the queen of, the Osrhoenians.

.. 5... jje .leats stellate ofelcle wale «ln'eie ole olele'e tee co seine vin Fi3 AP CEL SIMON PMA SUS Ire crs emycine eieieis nie ais Sh

Seine ts wo ujuinis siete te esao aie wise oiaie ale a eistaisle apes slr eurts

Guay X1V.— The preaching of. the apostle: Peter in Romie ....0..0(o 0 ei iclste Sev cle oe waleclele Sean eaeaduies

Cuap. XV.— The Gospel according to Mark ...... a SSBC. Daun ich wiotia ACs RODEO acd nee eee

Cuap. XVI. — Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the inhabitants of Egypt ............eeeeeeeenees Frevre

ETO

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

PAGE Cuap: XVII. — Philo's'account of therascetics of Egypt . «r+. -oeaqeressomders mer =nssosmncrias yupays « 16" 117

TO oe coda oda t 119 Cuap. XVIII. —The works of Philo that have come down to US..--+++++rerrrrreererece

Cuap. XIX.— The calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of the Passover......-.+-+++--

Cuap, XX.—The events which took place in Jerusalem during the reign of Nero.....--+--sseeeeeereeeee

Cuap. XXI.— The Egyptian who is mentioned also in the Acts of the Apostles. ......--.+eessesseeerees

Cuap. XXII.

— Paul, having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, made his defense, and was acquitted of

EVELYTCUAT

BE « Sala cee OE A ae aR Satchel hm RS lee sa «NGS emmy Fh aT RRR ERRS SE

Cuap. XXIII.

— The martyrdom of James, who was called the brother of the Lord ........-+ee cece eeeees

Cuap, XXIV. — Annianus, the first bishop of the church of Alexandria after Mark....---esse eee ee cere

Cuap. XXV.— The persecution under Nero, in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with martyrdom

WEDALELOE religion b.aaries nas seisieos ances ged naa e's a oisaugs Wares eects A nies sae sim eis ee a sae

Cuap. XXVI.—The Jews, afflicted with innumerable evils, commenced the last war against the Romans

BOOK III.

Cuap. I.—The parts of the world in which the apostles preached Christ.........+--seseeserereeeeeecees

Cuap. II. —The first ruler of the church of Rome .......-. eee eeereer seer eerseceees wi dee dne a Rerns oa

Cuap, I1]j—=:Thetepistlessof "the apostles. 9..05 S02. sian Fue

6 A Gn oe oh alate FERRY cleeiele Siew mie sg eee

Cuap. IV.—The first successors of the apostles. ......6...es sete reece rere eeseeseecsceceesecesceccccs 136:

Cuap. V.—The last siege of the Jews after Christ ......... 000s b eect esse seer ese ecenereseueesccseres

Cuap. VI.— The famine which oppressed them, .........-eee cece teeter e reece eter eer see seer eesces

Cuap. VII.— The-predictions of Christ. ....0ssssssssssesuscowccecensaecea selves stu aailes oivies sans

Cuap. VIII. — The signs which preceded the war ......--.. seers cere eer eee ster esses nesereeecs

@ aver ABAD Cuap. IX. — Josephus and the works which he has Lett. a.

I PS So IRR aha Mat etetaToteatat ahs ae: ern

Cuap, X.—The manner in which Josephus mentions the divine books. .......-+-+++eeereerreereeereess

ROAD ARG SRLS Dts ches

Cuap. XI.— Simeon rules the church of Jerusalem after James.......-...+-++++ Cuap. XII.— Vespasian commands the descendants of David to be sought...........ee eee r ese e ee eees

Cuap. XIII.

— Anencletus, the second bishop of Rome........ sees eee sence cree eee e cere e eters cece cess

CuHap. XIV. — Abilius, the second bishop of Alexandria ©... 1... sees eee e ee eee eee tect este eet r eee

Cuap. XV.—Clement, the third bishop of Rome......-sees cece eee e eet e ener reece terse ee ee es ereees

Cuap, XVI.—The epistle of Clement ...... Ma aeilerestonn acid erdlae eebimiacne okt. Sis SoRaer

Bieeteatc Bis = caret

Cuap. XVII. — The persecution under Domitian........

0.0. e bee e ee cece eee eee tere teen ete eee ees

Cuap. XVIII.

— The apostle John and the Apocalypse. .... 1-6-1 sees sere reece eee ee ee eee eee eee en es

Cuap. XIX.— Domitian commands the descendants of David to be slain.

......+. sees esse ee dee eee eens

Cuap. XX. —The relatives of our Saviour........eeee eect cece cee tec e eee e eee n ec ee sect eee she nees

Cuap. XXI.—Cerdon becomes the third ruler of the church of Alexandria.......+cess esse sees ee ee eeee

Cuap. XXII.— Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch. ....... esse esse cece cece tence ete ee tener eee eees

Cuap, XXIII.

— Narrative concerning John the apostle. ... 1... eee cece ee cece eee tenet e ee ee ee eee een es

Cuap. XXIV.— The order of the Gospels. oid... ccc e ee cee cen eee ee eee eee e renee eet etree en eees

Cuap. XXV.— The divine Scriptures that are accepted, and those that are not .....-+++seeeeeeeeeeee cee

Cuap. XXVI.— Menander, the Sorcerer......... Suton, aatrad. Semis: edt rs ORs Sie GRA Ss ee aes

Cuap. XXVII.— The heresy of the Ebionites........... esse e eee e cece e eee eee eee terete cence eee es

Cuap, XXVIII. —Cerinthus, the heresiarch.....

0... cee cece cere eee erence etter eee e ete e een e ences

Cuap. XXIX.— Nicolaus, and the sect named after him........

0... eee cece e cece tree eee e ence eee eeeees

Cuap. XXX.—The apostles that were married.....-.-. ee see e eee cece eee e eee e renee teen ence eee ecenes

Cuap. XXXI.— The death of John and Philip. ....... 0. eee e cence eee eee cece eee eee nee e cena nee e ees

Cuap. XXXII. — Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, suffers martyrdom. ......++++seeseeeeeee ee eee eee eeeces

Cuap. XXXIII.— Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.......ssssereeeseeeeereee creer ecnees

CONTENTS.

PAGE Cuap. XXXIV. — Evarestus, the fourth bishop of the church of Rome.....-.-++++e+ereereeeersrcesrees

Cuar, XXXV.— Justus, the third bishop of Jerusalem ....... sss eeseereereeeeene rr seeseeee ene serceses

Cuar, XXXVI. —Ignatius and his epistles...

... 2... 02-eeseegeeererernserscee rece eseensenemessceers

Cuar, XXXVII.— The evangelists that were still eminent at that time....-.-++.+++eereeeeeeeteesesse ss 169

Cuap. XXXVIII.

— The epistles of Clement, and the writings falsely ascribed to him........++++++eeee00>

Cuap. XXXIX.—The writings of Papias..........sseeeeeeeeeee eee eeesteeeseeserenessnsce ces salar

BOOK IV.

Cuap. I.—The bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the reign of Trajan...... cess eee e eee ee eee eens

Cuap. II. —The calamities of the Jews during Trajan's reign....-.

1 ++. esse sees eee snes eres esses eee eess

Cuap. III. —The Apologists that wrote in defense of the faith during the reign of Adrian. .. Oh oe LIM

Cuap. IV.—The bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under the same emperor ......---. esse wens 2 A

Cuap. V.—The bishops of Jerusalem, from the age of our Saviour to the period under consideration .......

Cuap. VI. — The last siege of the Jews under Adrian .... 2... se ee sees eee e eee eee er ece erste seen cr cers

Cuap. VII.—The persons that became at that time leaders of knowledge falsely so-called. ..+......+++++++

Cuap. VIII. — Ecclesiastical. writers...

2.0.0 ceseceeeeeee beeen ee tens sulnd eee eneesereseeneeesseceees

Cuar. IX.— The epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should not be punished without a trial ........-....-

Cuap. X.—The bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the reign of Antoninus............+0++e+ eee

Cuar. XI.—The heresiarchs of that age.

2.2... 0c cece cece ee rece eet e ese caine ca uslslen stan seeeeenees

Cuap. XII.— The apology of Justin, addressed to AntoninuS.........0.cceeeceeee cece reeeces setneeees

Cuap. XIII.— The epistle of Antoninus to the common assembly of Asia, in regard to our doctrine. . ae Rs

Cuap. XIV.—The circumstances related of Polycarp, a friend of the apostles...........e eee e eee eee eens

Cuap. XV.— Under Verus, Polycarp, with others, suffered martyrdom at Smyrna.....-.-...-see sere reese

Cuap. XVI.— Justin, the philosopher, preaches the word of Christ in Rome, and suffers martyrdom.........

Cuap. XVII. —The martyrs whom Justin mentions in his own WOLKs steic'afevatetate tet oteettity stele Wels laren etatetetetnte

+> fos Cuap. XVII. —The works of Justin that have come down to us...-++++seeeerrereeeesscese cere sseecees

Cuap. XIX.—The rulers of the churches of Rome and Alexandria during the reign of Verus..........-++-

Cuap. XX.—The rulers of the church of Antioch........-.-+secesscesesserenscercesseerncsscmess ce 197 Cuap. XXI.— The ecclesiastical writers that flourished in those GAYS ps cieie'ss che 44 cgig't "00's 5 sicieln < olshee spins 197

Cuap, XXII. — Hegesippus, and the events which he MENON sinajc umes ob sae tues oc «Ses wlea a ale xe se teameae

Cuap. XXIII. — Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and the epistles which he wrote ....-+2+-seeeeeeeeeereeeee

Cuap. XXIV.

— Theophilus, bishop of Antioch.....+.+++sesseeecseeereereneeer err teeessscscssscseess

Cuap. XXV.— Philip and Modestus.......Peale 6 bac tajas.s.ean ce sia.cs Weegee Rais Waco cctisieens. asl aiaiels

Cuar. XXVI.— Melito, and the circumstances which he records...

1... eeeesseeeeeesneeeeeeeeceeeereces

Cuap, XXVII. — Apolinarius, bishop of the church of Hierapolis ........0eeee cesses es cette trees cee 206 Cuar. XXVIII.

— Musanus and his writings........ssseeseeeeseeeeecresererensecsssecssecseces sees

Cuap. XXIX.— The heresy of Tatian...40s.ccceeseeeeeeeteneneeneneeeens er ae ee

Cuap. XXX. — Bardesanes, the Syrian, and his extant WOrkS ...... eee ccc eee eee eee e nett eer eeee teers

BOOK V

PURODUCTION,

Pie as Face ome y Det emly Mieke oakale Oar ieee WEE ONES Mea Ee dlp bgiee esp ars ug tsete eet RNS S

Cuap. I. — The number of those who fought for religion in Gaul under Verus, and the nature of their conGea

CET I Ae. IONE Sas coins sede Sas eer sawen genrnegonde gecsinicgn yates TOMS

Cuap, I].

— The witnesses, beloved of God, kindly ministered to those who fell in the persecution......-.--

Cuap, III.— The vision which appeared in a dream to the witness Attalus.........:eeeeeee eee e eer eeeees

Cuap. IV. —Irenzeus commended by the witnesses in a letter. ...-.++++ssseererrrereeceeers esse sess sees 219

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

em PAGE Cuap. V.— God sent rain from heaven for Marcus Aurelius Czsar, in answer to the prayers of our people...

Cuap. VI.— Catalogue of the bishops of Rome. .... 2... .sceeees eee cent eect cect ere reece een erec cess

Cuap. VII. — Even down to those times miracles were. performed by the faithful..... .........---+e+-0--

Cuap. VIII.—The statements of Irenzeus in regard to the Divine Scriptures... .........-+-+ sees eeereeeeee

Cuap. IX.—The bishops under Commodus ......... cece cece et eee e eet cece cece cent ener eee e ener eres

Cuap. X.— Panteenus, the philosopher.........-+ sce ee cece cree cece eens cece eces Ban

Bio oo Sou aN tion

Cuap, XI. — Clement of Alexandria ........... ccc cece cece reece cress cnet ccc cccnscnns ener ecsecess

Cuap. XII. —The bishops in Jerusalem. ......... cece cece cece eee e eter cece cent e ee cee nent nese eeseenes

Cuap. XIII.— Rhodo, and his account of the dissension of Marcion...i0.....-+--cece e cere eee eee wees

CuHap. XIV.—The false prophets of the Phrygians... 3.2...

2... eee cee cece eee cet cee e ee cece eee ee eens

CuHap. XV.— The schism of Blastus at Rome..... WE. sites a's Aetela VLE «Pita hene RNs, Seales Dea tctaneintes Satetebere ah

Cuap. XVI.—The circumstances related of Montanus and his false prophets..........e.eseeeessereeeees

Cap. XVII.— Miltiades and his Works... sce cs enc cee cece cc eee ees ewes cece aseeeesesresoees

Cuap. XVIII. — The manner in which Apollonius refuted the Phrygians, and the persons whom he mentions V2 35

GHap. XIX.— Serapion on the heresy of the Phrygianss ...\ig sce 0. cl saa olaleis le celal s wis nielasle slate thle» vie wiclclers

Cuap. XX.— The writings of Irenzeus against the schismatics at Rome -........

2. cece e cece e tenet ee eees

Cuap. XXI.— How Apollonius suffered martyrdom at Rome............ce cee cee cece cece ec eer cer eeeces

CuHap, XXII. — The bishops that were well known at this time ............

0.0 c cece cece e ccc cccseerenecs

Cuap. XXIII. —The question then agitated concerning the Passover. 0.2... 0. cece eee cece een et eeee

Cuap. XXIV.— The disagreement in Asia .....- 16. esse cece cece cece e ee eee cect e cence ee seeeeeseaees

Cuap. XXV.— How all came to an agreement respecting the Passover. Sottelbes is Ses ae ee ee 244 Cuap. XXVI.— The elegant works of Irenzeus which have come down to US .........

2.00 eee eceeecences

Cuap. XXVII.— The works of others that flourished at that time........

02... cece eee cece cece ee eee

Cuap. XXVIII. — Those who first advanced the heresy of Artemon; their manner of life, and how they dared to corrupt the sacred Scriptures. ... BAM. SURGE as Senin alt WR. 20! Ldn SAE ee coos

BOOK VI.

CHAP TL, ne PETSeCULON UNAEr, SEVELUS «.a.< gronausisiala\<ls =:<t> « Kielethiare <.<-ai<_s\s"e,«. «seve ene eyarersiare eer ence eaters

Ciara LY, —-'Lnetraining of Origen' from Childhood <i.s:1)sc cas sitc alae eee cis rales eee eleeietel ieeieerereieters

Cuap. III.— While still very young, he taught diligently the word of Christ.............0.ccceeececceees

Crap) LV,— Phe pupiis of Origen that became martyrsi.s s.- «1. ic a © cetera: 6 cieieteiele| ae erie see ee ee

CHAP Vises b OUALINGONA, 5's 5, o5:0,.9 51614) a wisi. ahn,ein n'ejaskalicece Citta gb eleiees "laste place orale emere Ste re Re

RPC ee

CHAP AV Lea ielement Of AlEXQM Gra 0i01s,-'a5. 4.5 0.010, 4.eavsole siehaye sie sje eta ag ake ie

@ ares ai eran eter Ree eee ete

CHAPIN UL Ue WILE, UCAS. 5 1a « sin 'aia oi Rulaieis 0' ovwie = crs sie a/e0relcioilentt ete clove avers) Sern oul ets Teeter EERE eee

REAP ee LLB Origen Sarin ge. Cees o.-40-:0 16.5 6:

9 1s os eisisyainlescte ape Tales suileeis «ess ee al crete eee eee ee

CHAPS EX —— Ne MNTACLES OF INALCISSUS, 2,5 7+. iss asiaseisyniis eux soe 8/ei ee asere sree =, ein eieve aetna ie (rae

CHAP cn ne DIShOps Of JECUSAleM so ajc 5 crs) x/eica, aieisim ie aussie essen cle ol cere ate eet ore tee ere ee

ROETA Py os —— NICKANG Chica d Astaie) 6:0 Seo: onus. 01 a's oles cin Mase ote a sieve Sere eenta oer se TTA ARTE OT eer ERR

GAAP SLL. Serapioniand his extant Works, «ssi, sieyane cSt bpp cseasinielcin eaclcere cre ae ie ete eae eee ae ee

CHAP NIL —-'The writings of Clements: s2 >: + cae sapiadab-s oe 1a ieee ode cee ee

CHAP, SIV. = The Reriptures mentioned. by Harty vs ae <.<:0 <:.<4/m a pinkflsaly aie ce Attlee eR ee ae

CHAP. XV <= Heraclas: £¢5/0% sous cise tol nes cnet b e.Sk Feb hh eben CERIO Lee Re An ee

Cup, "x VI Origen's' earnest study of the Divir ¥ Scriptures. ..° Sn. ee eee

CHAP, XVIL. <The 'translator Symmachus 35 3..5.557254 254 4254450000 a beet bee Gene ORE

Le eee

GHAR, XVELL, —-/AMIDTOSE.,

Te acne sv Pes apie secs ons ce tet ene eee Mee te ene a em eR

Cia, XIX. — Circumstances related of 'Ongena = 25. VU, Sie 38) Peas ee A ede

CHAP.

CONTENTS.

CuHap, XXI.— The bishops that were well known at that time......... ee ceee cece cece cree e reece eeereees "268

CuHap. XXII.— The works of Hippolytus which have reached us........seeeeeesee cece cecrerereveseces

Cuap. XXIII.— Origen's zeal and his elevation to the PLeBDytETALE... adlelelsie wie deletes sialaleelereiaicials Borrcrae

Cuap. XXIV.— The commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria. .......... cece cece cers cece cece a. ip!

Cuap. XXV.— His review of the canonical scriptures. .......sceeeececceerreccercesccresers op oO slele.gis

"Cuap. XXVI.— Heraclas becomes bishop of Alexandria........ceeesececen cece ccseees sole Seer a shetaid'> SETA Cap. XXVII.— How the bishops regarded Origen ......--ccceeeeeere ree seen cee enenccetence Lit sted ZT A Cuap. XXVIII.— The persecution under Maximinus. .........+- J ave cta:a 5 MiteUa ate McNeal

Rioio: w otater atahetie

Cuap, XXIX.— Fabianus, who was wonderfully designated bishop of Rome by God......+.+s:eeeeeeeeee

Cuap. XXX.—The pupils of Origen...

.... cece ee cece cere e center eet e eet ees cnet ae ee etebeneaee J2 e275 @HAP, XX XT. — Africanus .< «sve cee ieitiars.. ie selnid Sele TRIN aE. Te Stole shale AlAElS ww ANSI INT « Jele Eel BT wise # fore's

Cuap. XXXII. —The commentaries which Origen composed in Caesarea in Palestine. .......-.++sees eee:

Cuap. XXXIII.— The error of Beryllus...

00... cece cece cece ee ene e eect eens eer eee cece tees

APS SOK),

—— PHI (Coesar oi6 ac ac ot ci cea ein cls ein nlsie:« Ritm ofeltinislade clcreletersit HaSaleh

PUI eh eles bat orale te 278 Cuap. XX XV.— Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the episcopate ......--. eee e eee cece eee eee eeee stones

Cuap, XXXVI.— Other works of Origen. ........ cee cece eee eee cere eee e cree cnet eee eee reece reese

Cuap. XX XVII.— The dissension of the Arabians . A reesei ae dala sks bse eS aes

Cuap. XX XVIII. —The heresy of the Elkesites.

. 0.00... ees cece eee eee en eer cence er eee reer ereres

Cuap, XXXIX.— The persecution under Decius and the sufferings of Origen......-.

+++. s+sseee-seeeeee

Cuapr. XL.— The events which happened to Dionysius. .....-. 2... 0s. se ee eee e cee cece tere erence es eee

Cuap. XLI.— The martyrs in Alexandria ........-- eee e eee et eect tee eee er ee eee eee tent ee en eens

Cuap. XLII. — Others of whom Dionysius gives am account. ......-..s sees cece eee e cece cece eee teen reese

Cuap. XLIII.

— Novatus, his manner of life and his heresy. Wr sce sdetails GOs Sometiog seen wegen ole

Cuap. XLIV.

— Dionysius's account of Serapion.....

2+... eee ee eee e cece cect eer een ence rene eect aces

Cuap. XLV.— An epistle of Dionysius to Novatus.......

+... sees eect reece tence neers eee e eee ee renee es

Cuap. XLVI.

— Other epistles of Dionysius, .....-1.ceeseeee cece eect enters tere eect reese reseeee cans

BOOK VII.

ET COEVINCLYONN circle ee tetn ie ee ors iste cro avervinns ceils ciavclip Sisie a p(6e oe aieiel sia a Wlen'e WA ne! aidlsfe/e/e'W Gi sralaisc'Wisial(sieieialslore

Cuap, I.—The wickedness of Decius and Gallus...

0.... eee ee cree cece terete eee nee e te er eee cee

Cuap. II. —The bishops of Rome in those times ...- 6.6.5. eee e cere cere e sence eee eee e teen ene eee sees

Cuap. III. — Cyprian, and the bishops with him, first taught that it was necessary to purify by baptism those converted from heresy «ss. eee eee ee ees Conds jeri ers raticde tect cite Tio hah aaron iy aid

Cuap. IV.— The epistles which Dionysius wrote on this subject....-.-.+++eese eeee seer ere eee cee eeece

Cuap. V.— The peace following the persecution ......-+-ee+seeeeeeeeeeceees Sitio ictal cemacinic i 23.38

Cuap. VI.— The heresy of Sabellius 02... .. ce cee cece cece eee eee ene e cee e cree eect ees c es nees

Cuap. VII. —The abominable error of the heretics; the Divine vision of Dionysius, and the ecclesiastical aren ai icky He FOLCIVed Serta s The Re tn lnd EONS TERNS ical ater eect ete e beset cee Peccesacgawna sens

Cuap. VIII.— The heterodoxy of Novatus........ccceees cece cece cette eect eee e eee n esse tee ee nets

Cuap. 1X.—The ungodly baptism of the heretics........

0.6.2 cesses eect eee cee eee eee e eee e teen eees

Cuap. X.— Valerian, and the persecution under him........-..ses eee ee cece eect eee r eect eee teen wees

Cuap. XI.

— The events which happened at this time to Dionysius and those in Egypt...........+2+esee0-

Cuap. XIJ.— The martyrs in Ceesarea in Palestine......--..-. esses eee cee cette e tere teen eter eens

Cap. XIII. —The peace under Gallienus. .......-.eeeee cece cece eee eee e ene eens e ence eee ee eer eees

Cuap. XIV. —The bishops that flourished at that time...........seeeeeee cece e rene t cette eee eter anes

Cuap. XV.—The martyrdom of Marinus at Caesarea ..... 6. eee eee eer cece teen eee ree teen neta eens

Cuap. XVI.—Story in regard to Astyrius......

0... eseee eer ee eee eeeeeeee B ievanxtap essed. f a at ovave 0 Sars sre aver

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

PAGE Cuar. XVII. —The signs at Paneas of the great might of our Saviour......-+-+++++s sees eeetereereeees

Cuap. XVIII. —The statue which the woman with an issue of blood erected.......-++-++++++eessereeeee

Cuap. XIX. — The episcopal chair of James.....-.-. sees cece reece cence teen ener cece cece esc seec cece

Cuap. XX.—The festal epistles of Dionysius, in which he also gives a paschal canon.....+--+++++++++ees

Cuap. XXI.—The occurrences at Alexandria........++++++++- SPT NSIS INT. EIA aD Siok Sie na) tom

Cuap. XXII. — The pestilence which came upon them........-.+ sees cece reese teeter eres eer eererenes

Cuap. XXIII.

— The reign of Gallienus.........sees cess eee teen eee cee eee e neers SOT chro dtY Ame

Cuap. XXIV.—Nepos, and his schism. ...... ss. esses ee eee e sense en ence tees cnet rect e cece eee enes he.

ZO8 Cuap. XXV.— The apocalypse of John. ........seeee eee cece eee tence cece ence seer ced eece cece cons

Cuar. XXVI.—The epistles of Dionysius....

1... -.-+ sees eee cece eee tent ee eee n eee e eee ees Tread heen USE T Cuap. XXVII. — Paul of Samosata, and the heresy introduced by him at Antioch 1. ......----seseeeeeees

Cuap. XXVIII.

— The illustrious bishops of that time....

2... 6... eee cece eee eee eee eee eee t eee eens

Cuap. XXIX.— Paul, having been refuted by Malchion, a presbyter from the Sophists, was excommunicated.

Cuap. XXX.— The epistle of the bishops against Paul. ......--. se sees eect cent eet eter teen t ee eee ee EVE:

Cuap. XXXI.— The perversive heresy of the Manichzans, which began at this time..........--+-+.+-+++-

Cuap. XXXII.— The distinguished ecclesiastics of our day, and which of them survived until the destruction

Of the Churches:

¢.<is.aic eters ais'e!s «010 ie inioiaiojare « ayhhs alalniaiainie o Delapolelelel aiclblals sia) ethialaielvielelelelelee alale Mtelslers aves

PSL

BOOK VIII.

TENERODUCTION? is snc 5 si aveleie w 0.3 wists. a 41s oa wlsials seeelotelel orale a naa Wie ciewsiciaigs dees Seas so decaclnwece wane nen cise SP Cuap. I. — The events which preceded the persecution in our times ..........-. eee eee e ter cree eee eee:

Cuap. II.

— The destruction of the churches...

... 0.0... cc cece cece erect ere eee ee eee ees seer eeseeees

Cuap. III.

— The nature of the conflicts endured in the persecution ............eeeeseeeeeeeeee cite

Ma tete

Cuap. IV.— The famous martyrs of God, who filled every place with their memory, and won various crowns invbehal&of religions:c90 024 006% eaetnae bonne an ates sgn ee em ae ateece teeta eeitp emtetele ht tates Beato katcie

CHADS N=) HOSE MNUNICOMeEL ais <x a) ofs)<.c:nla reer cin ole! iieiel aici eid 8m ccs #7sl Gm ain ajeveseusvareleleie ia ate etatete = tatetetareee nae

Gide VileaeP hose-in the palace'i.i2. spic.ciscie scam Seema» eee alate Wie Senc'n gue aio cialaahane area etalalerst ee rerereeara a

CHAP) Vil. —The Epyptians: in Phoenicia) sac. sarchetots of theres cic niae'e oc 0 cle slaneisiaieleieie sieicieis OAR oe

CHAP VILL),

=r hose In) MP ypt lies cists «a ons sie afeis aise TTeaiguass 54) «ieeivleaes eis ore ss wil Deieh lem tells eae

Cuapr. IX. — Those in Thebais............ Oe aC nO OLS htc Gono ing Setter tabo cola ogee aS

CuHar. X.— The writings of Phileas the martyr, describing the occurrences at Alexandria .................

CHAP Mle HOSE WIT WP TY

GIA sola A iste alsnate ove sis ah qibel "prfaceiens ievase ln a caetoe preeahelah: alate Sepsis iets bam as ete 331 Cuap. XII. — Many others, both men and women, who suffered in various WayS..........sseeeeee cers eeee

Cuapr. XIII. — The bishops of the church, that evinced by their blood the genuineness of the religion which CINE YADLEACHE \cemicciesy..2 sci t ole o'saie ead Sieyeth o/ Res wihis\s Vso SinieNawes oeggnelily uch patents Meee cae ae

GAP) XLV,,—"Lhe character of the enemies of religions <<... 60

«sisters seieieeyeeces eit Mele Namanest axctetecciege ale

CHAP, XV.— The events which happened to) the heathen...

6c. si.2)s.sueyae.cke ie) - dry siniegere «mfalaraihelats/ehe «nig Ulan hoes

(CHAP, OW Lj—— Dhe change of atiairs for the betters.

6 ve sisjes sc = ais 3 oie ein sisi sielene era's lenge etatalel wale atta rae

CuAP wv 1iy— The revocation of the. rulers. ciel ci ss e.cenans shies sls ¢ elareiegree al, <lomele dinate ease Sah

ABPENDIX oo o4 <usigie lee oi9, 6.0.5 800-4 buns wisieisyeisis ¥)8erid om 6 a.s)eeicie « ono vi tpsbhnateld opis Snjehelaleteuaistols phetereteyt Silesia

MARTYRS OF PALESTINE.

MGEBAD Tiere greiy nios ese eins alesitnye <ieys."2\0i' elavntopacebvh ners) «16144 6" s\gtpo.e/ ol eve Piph v/s) wie sim hae tenets ene ae eat ee Ane eee ae

CHAR, Tease «orgs a.aiais dee © 0 5.bce3' Felon 8 SG winln gralfeue.loetm oar oto MMaNe TUMRE I Petar TONER RT Ae ene RE mat lt

CHAR. TET a

acct 45:50:00, anars savcie dae ajeyar esha rmanabckac & « ix arariatas ole io HORTA er TTC Pee rat Ae ne A

Cuap. IV

CONTENTS.

PAGE SEED D Vic eteeteere aintntateonre Tie isc oO cicrelaaereiciaia ohiais sie ral ias.alevotere mere 4.6 O's wdc dl ecole Wines ee-ace eel era's lacclbratbren Sige

SEEN Ease eo ctefarerer oe efaten ter alate eveterate'sts\ scot ef etreNiaiaiiar a stoternyertohat eqs) etbrajitoxesmllevisini (elu wievel-e' oi viey'= oi a) 4\p\2 16(e issn #\=ieVShnie|s ia, chao 347

RC EDAD ANE

Bite terete ited pars auella.e arabe te Me c-erat oe Cte EASA BIC CCH TOI ae ICRU OE EER ER Ee eC

BE LEAD MVE

L Seterapataiereeate tavern aicteik. cstahate ciara ait uimiws sneters/a(cve eh sleuth Sisia'elislavei oie uals. avcis alod s.e\simcdeel assum salate eig ime we

CUNEO

ORS OCHS GAG

ib MRE One 0 eto StS on Gillies Fen CGSB OE Scio OSE OM OOD ie eo Gs Gear eciac ico. Rana

CUED, SS coerce cl Coane ORR boner aairesinge Ur ten Cinienisrace Jolo Rua eran anes Ros Otacri

AE ee ge si BY evs n ces avn g Soe Nh ved Wa esahe Soa ws «Rdg Conn deena re SEE OMS: OS UL: She iocuO ods Go Code: Gh GNNe b CGUer DOO OU OOOO 8 Cr nO OU Ce MUcr Ene Ob. ROG ICRC On cRIOR yor

BEEN IERCLD

Uetreicrcrerteyarere isis Sa siete cua ei Oeis ele ee niin ccc iasecunte oig; Welevelemletee wie myer sigie aie ates) <lele Que else stots aisiaiahe

BOOK IX errAPy be —— be pretended relaxation: ./:.0'<cresrsela wisn sims viethinineiiiis vielele sinew niece Ne aside afeieminle sete ain afslaie

SEPA Pook b= PDE SUDSEQUCNE FEVETSE 16,5 1a < oo alsiera ovis cls ait ie eet s i eleie) s eiucolsiecstereikiele(e tie Wiclace: siels e1sie mi cesti aha siviete

rap. IIL —The newly erected statue at Antioch. «0.06.6... 00sec sce c ccc cess cee c ens cdesessesesccene

SAP AV Cheninemorials aPainsty Us 2 cpisiasio.cise Sele sais «)a)o oie eayeusis. Ki ajeis ole aia lataualo«s Fanies) sibel apc leioyaaidhais

MEAD Ve TNE LOT LEC TA CES cies ve seo clase atsle sfc © 5 sinit\s Wallets, eo v0. safe atersietiaig' wie sfeelals v1 sia/ers«/uisiphn ciaia Stole «

@rHAr. VI.— Those who suffered martyrdom at this time. . $000 ..0cc.« icie celine « sislele aisisivleige cle olslelal ste bicieielst JOO Cuap. VII. — The decrees against us which were engraved on pillars........... cece cece ceceeeeeneceeees

Cuap. VIII. — The misfortunes which happened in connection with these things, in famine, pestilence, and war

Cuap. IX.— The victory of the God-beloved emperors. ........ sce eee eee ee cece cere creer ecet eect eees

Cuap. X.— The overthrow of the tyrants, and the words which they uttered before their deatte REEL APES OF cit

Cuap, XI.— The final destruction of the enemies of religion... .......-.eeee ieee cece eee cece crete reese 367 BOOK X.

Cuap, I.— The peace granted us by God. ......5seer cece cece cece erect e erect nents enone eeeeeneees

Cuap. II.

— The restoration of the churcheS........

20. ccc cece cence cscs senses eee seeseccseenens

Cuap, III.

— The dedications in every place...... ccc cees cece cece seen e nee r ee ener eeeteeseeeen sees

Cuap. IV. — Panegyric on the splendor of affairs........

0... cece cece eee eee cect e eet e eee tent eeeecees

Cuap. V.— Copies of imperial laws. ......:. cece eee cece eee cece nent e rece e tence ee ee tee eea seas eee

Cuap. VI. —Copy of an imperial epistle in which money is granted to the churches..........-ss+eeeeeee>

Cuap. VII.—The exemption of the clergy: Copy of an epistle in which the emperor commands that the rulers of the churches be exempted from all political duties........

0... .e ee eeee cece e ee tener eee ees

Cuap. VIII. — The subsequent wickedness of Licinius, and his death. .........ssceeseeeeceer ee en eee e eens

Cuap. IX. —The victory of Constantine, and the blessings which under him accrued to the subjects of the Roman Empire 2... 0.01 ccc ccc cece cece ce ee cece cen e cece ene tte e ener een een eens eeesestresensaes

ad, a ha Pe ; vee 9 be ww o-~ mmareszcs yes pay as Ua Se AR wae a Ree walk & rik. oa p Sete:

Pw bh ia a habaesees wy. =.

Py PRY tat Se 2 hee ay ORRIN rvnceheneey 9 orn ie sapawdoe 227 + depoh, se ertets | ome shew. oat at A viral ree IR bairoRErH oft a Aa Ply cen rad tog oe ad Hi bam benbud ay fae ewott! rn sai eens bite w nnisge emeed ot) = SEF ag ni homeggad 4 ine wastiiatat sol ~ 80 90 a a erated ts papbar on os son 'bios 505 Gae trades 08) +e Sealine! ro ta optatvd wid? bd odds waite Se 'See oro ' spot " ov $ tebe ahiei wt "6 soiteseney we dn. aed tee efi mtd As f et rex ene wn yen fea are eles ul aires ea " ot aie '

+ * ' tu

* _-.

, . wow toeks, leotties Le PE eg .

.» .teab, cei hue rcabse f Sx hts devi egnieetd oft Gem a0 Pe ey at) 4,

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

BOOK I.

But at the outset I must crave for my

work the indulgence of the wise,' for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.> I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.

From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.

Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned

here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers,' we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of -CHAPTER I.

The Plan of the Work.

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

It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through

love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoyerers of knowledge falsely so-called,' have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in conse-

quence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all.

Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation? of our Saviour and Lord Jesus

Christ.' and by the translators Stigloher and Crusé, read tov @cov after xpiozév.

The words, however, are omitted by the majority of the best MSS. and by Rufinus, followed by Heinichen and Closs.

(See the note of Heinichen, Vol. I. p. 4).

4 All the MSS. followed by the majority of the editors read evyvwnoveav, which must agree with Adyos.

Heinichen, however, followed by Burton, Schwegler, Closs, and Stigloher, read evyvwpovwv, which I have also accepted.

Closs translates die Nachsicht der Kenner s Stigloher, wohlwollende Nachsicht, Crusé avoids the difficulty by omitting the word; an omission which is quite nena

5 Eusebius is rightly called the "' Father of Church History."

He had no predecessors who wrote, as he did, with a comprehensive Poncslpiad in view; and yet, as he tells us, much had been written of which he made good use in his History.

The one who approached nearest to the idea of a Church historian was Hegesippus (see Bk. IV. chap. 22, note 1), but his writings were little more than fragmentary memoirs, or collections of disconnected reminiscences.

For instance, Eusebius, in Bk. II. chap 23, quotes from his fifth and last book the account of the martyrdom of James the Just, which shows that his work lacked at least all chronological arrangement.

1 Cf. x Tim. vi. 20.

2 Greek oixovomia.

Suicer (Thesaurus Eccles.) points out four uses of this word among ecclesiastical writers: (1) Mzndsterium Evangelit.

(2) Providentia et numen (i.e. of God).

(3) Mature humane assumtio.

(4) Totius redemptionis mystorium et passtonis Christi sacramentum.

Valesius says, ''

The ancient Greeks use the word to denote whatever Christ did in the world to proclaim salvation for the human race, and thus the first oixovouia Tod xptorod is the incarnation, as the last oicovopia is the passion."

The word in the present case is used in its wide sense to denote not simply the act of incarnation, but the whole economy or dispensation of Christ upon earth.

See the notes of Heinichen upon this passage, Vol. I1I. p. 4 sq., and of Valesius,

Vol. I. p. 2.

3 Five MSS., followed by nearly all the editors of the Greek text opr Africanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 31, note r) also furnished Euseius with much material in the line of chronology, and in his Chronicle Eusebius made free use of him.

These are the only two who can in any sense be said to have preceded Eusebius in his province, and neither one can rob him of his right to be called the ''

Father of Church History."

6 One of the greatest values of Eusebius' History lies in the quotations which it contains from earlier ecclesiastical writers.

The works of many of them are lost, and are known to us only Girougs the extracts made by Eusebius.

This fact alone is enough to make his History of inestimable worth.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

RES: a ee the origin and the worth, the being and the nature of Christ.

Wherefore also the divine Spirit says in the prophecies, " Who shall declare his generation?" For none knoweth the Father except the Son, neither can any one know the Son adequately except the Father alone who hath begotten him.* For who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light

which was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom which existed before the ages, the living Word which was in the beginning with the Father and which was God, the first and only begotten. of God which was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father's unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father ; as it is said in regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his divinity: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'"> "All things were made by him ; and without him was not anything made.''® This, too, the great Moses teaches, when, as the most ancient of all the prophets, he describes under the influence of the divine Spirit the creation and arrangement of the universe.

He declares that the maker of the world and the creator of all things yielded to Christ himself, and to none other than his own clearly divine and first-born Word, the making of inferior things, and communed with him respecting the creation of man.

"For," says he, "God said, Let us make man in our image and in our likeness." And another ofthe prophets

confirms this, speaking of God in his hymns as follows : "' He spake and they were made ; he commanded and they were created."*® He here introduces the Father and Maker as Ruler of all, commanding with a kingly nod, and second to him the divine Word, none other than the one who is proclaimed by us, as carrying out the successions of the apostles of our Saviour ; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

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

those who are fond of historical research.

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

My work will begin, as I have said, with the x

dispensation ® of the Saviour Christ, — which is loftier and greater than human conception,

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

CHAPTER II.

Summary View of the Pre-existence and Divin-

ity of Our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.

SINCE in Christ there is a twofold nature, and the one —in so far as he is thought of as God — resembles the head of the body, while the other may be compared with the feet, —in so far as he, for the sake of our salvation, put on human nature with the same passions as our own,

—the following work will be complete only if we begin with the chief and lordliest events of all his history.

In this way will the antiquity and divinity of Christianity be shown to those who suppose it of recent and foreign origin,' and imagine that it appeared only yester-

day.

No language is sufficient to express 7 On Eusebius' Chronicle, see the Prolegomena, p. 31, above.

8 oixovopia.

See above, note 2.

9 @eodoyia.

Suicer gives four meanings for this word: (1) Doctrina de Deo.

(2) Doctrina de SS. Trinttate.

(3) Divina Christi natura, seu doctrina de ea.

(4) Scriptura sacra utrtusque Testamentt.

The word is used here in its third signification (cf. also chap. 2, § 3, and Bk. V. chap. 28,§5).

It occurs very frequently in the works of the Fathers with this meaning, especially

Church History, Vol. Il. p. 110; and Tzschirner's Geschichte der A pologetik, p. 99 8qin connection with oixovouia, which is then quite commonly used to denote the 'human nature'? of Christ.

In the present chapter oixovonia keeps throughout its more general signification of '* the Dispensation of Christ," and is not confined to the mere act of incarnation, nor to his '' human nature."

3 Isa, liii. 8.

'ae ise 4 Cf. Matt. xi. 27.

Gen. i. 26.

5 os oe

Ps. xxxiii.

There is really nothing in this passage to imply that the Psalmist thinks, as Eusebius supposes, of the Son as the 1 péav avtiv Kal éxtetomigmevynv.

.Father's agent in creation, who is here addressed b the Father.

As Stroth remarks, '' According to Eusebius, ' He spake' is equivalent to 'He said to the Son, Create'; and 'They were created' means, according to him, not ' They arose immediately upon this command of God,' but 'The Son was immediately obedient to the command of the Father and produced them.'

For Eusebius connects this verse with the sixth, ' By the word of the Lord were the heavens made,' where he understands Christ to be referred to.

Perhaps this verse has been omitted in the Greek through an oversight, for it is found in Rufinus."

_ 2?

This was one of the principal objections raised against Christianity.

Antiquity was considered a prime requisite in a religion which claimed to"be true, and no reproach was greater than the reproach of novelty.

Hence the apologists laid great stress upon the antiquity of Christianity, and this was one reason why they appropriated the Old Testament as a Christian book.

Compare, for instance, the apologies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian and Minucius Felix, and the works of Clement of Alexandria.

See Engelhardt's article on Eusebius, in the Zettschrift fiir die hist. Theologie, 1852, Pp. 652 sq.; Schaff's

E 2]

PRE-EXISTENCE AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

Se ee a a ee ee EERE appearances of subordinate angels and ministers of God, for whenever any of these appeared to men, the Scripture does not conceal the fact, but calls them by name not God nor Lord, but angels, as it is easy to prove by numberless testimonies.

Joshua, also, the suc-

cessor of Moses, calls him, as leader of the heavenly angels and archangels and of the supramundane powers, and as lieutenant of the Father,' entrusted with the second rank of sovereignty and rule over all, "captain of the host of the Lord," although he saw him not otherwise than again in the form and appearance of aman.

For it is written: "And it came to pass when Joshua was at Jericho*

that he looked and saw a man standing over against him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went unto him and said, Art thou for us or for our adversaries?

And he said unto him, As captain of the host of the Lord am I now come.

And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and said unto him, Lord, what dost thou command thy servant? and the captain of the Lord said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy."

You will perceive also from the

same words that this was no other than he who talked with Moses."

For the Scripture says in the same words and with reference to the same one, "When the Lord saw that he drew near to see, the Lord called to him out of the bush and said, Moses, Moses.

And he said, What is it? And he said, Draw not nigh hither ; loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

And he said unto him, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.""" at And that there is a certain substance

which lived and subsisted" before the world, and which ministered unto the Father and God of the universe for the formation of all created things, and which, is called the Word of God and Wisdom, we may learn, to quote other proofs in addition to those already cited, from the mouth of Wisdom herself, who reveals most clearly through Solomon the following mysteries concerning herself: "I, Wisdom, have dwelt

the Father's commands.

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

But he, by no means neglectful of the reverence due to the Father, was appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to them all.

For instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a common man to Abraham while he was sitting at the oak of Mambre.® And he, immediately falling down, although he saw a man with his eyes, nevertheless worshiped him as God, and sacrificed to him as Lord, and confessed that he was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered the words, "Lord, the judge of all the earth, wilt thou not execute righteous judgment?"

For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the unbegotten and immutable essence of the almighty God was changed into the form of man, or that it deceived the eyes of the beholders with the appearance of some created thing, and if it is unreasonable to suppose, on the other hand, that the Scripture should falsely invent such things, when the God and Lord who judgeth all the earth and executeth judgment is seen in the form of a man, who else can be called, if it be not lawful to call him the first cause of all things, than his only pre-existent Word?"

Concerning whom it is said in the Psalms, " He sent his Word and healed them, and delivered them

from their destructions.""

Moses most clearly proclaims him second Lord after the Father, when he says, "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord." 8 The divine Scripture also calls him

God, when he appeared again to Jacob in the form of a man, and said to Jacob, "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, because thou hast prevailed with God."* Wherefore also Jacob called the name of that place " Vision of God,"" saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is

preserved."* Nor is it admissible to suppose that the theophanies recorded were nna 17 The MSS. differ greatly at this point.

A number of them, followed by Valesius, Closs, and Crusé, read, cavel Tou marTpos dmdpxovta S¥vauiv Kai godiav.

Schwegler, Laemmer, Burton, and Rveichen adopt another reading which has some MS. support, and which we have followed in our translation: @cavei Tod matpds

Umapxov.

See Heinichen's edition, Vol. I. p. ro, note 4r.

18 év 'leprxm.

19 Josh. v. 13-1520 Eusebius agrees with other earlier Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr,

Origen, and Cyprian) in identifying the one that appeared to Joshua with him that had appeared to Moses, on the qeouee that the same words were used in both cases (cf. especially Justin's Dzal. c.

Trypho, chap. 62), Many later Fathers (e.g. Theodoret) regard the person that appeared to Joshua as the archangel Michael, who is described b Daniel (x. 2 and xii. x) as fighting for the people of God.

See Keil's Commentary on Foshua, chap. 5, VV. 13-15+ 9 See Gen. xviii. x sq.

10 Gen. xviii. 25.

11 Eusebius accepts the common view of the early Church, that the theophanies of the Old Testament were Christophanies; that is, appearances of the second person of the Trinity.

Augustine seems to have been the first of the Fathers to take a different view, maintaining that such Christophanies were not consistent with the identity of essence between Father and Son, and that the Scriptures themselves teach that it was not the Logos, but an angel, that appeared to the Old Testament worthies on various occasions (cf. De

Trin. III. 11).

Augustine's opinion was widely adopted, but in modern times the earlier view, which Eusebius represents, has been the prevailing one (see Hodge, Systematic Theology, I. p. 490, and Lange's article Theophany in Herzog).

12 Ps, cvii. 20.

18 Gen. xix. 24.

15 elSos Oeov.

14 Gen, xxxii. 28.

16 Gen. xxxii. 30.

21 Ex. iii. 4-6.

Cf. Justin's Dzal., chap. 63.

22 ovgia Tis MpoKOTMLOS Gaga Kai VperTaca,

THE: 'CHURCH*' HISTORY: OF \EUSEBIUS:

[EEx2: governed pride to prepare an attack upon the very God of all." with prudence and knowledge, and I have invoked understanding. Through me kings reign, and princes ordain righteousness.

Through me the great are magnified, and through me sovereigns rule the earth.""* To which she adds: 'The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways, for his works; before the world he established me, in the beginning, before he made the earth, before he made the depths, before the mountains were settled, before all hills he begat me.

When he prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he established the fountains of the region under heaven™ I was with him, disposing.

I was the one in whom he delighted ; daily I rejoiced beOn account of these things, when they

conducted themselves thus, the all-seeing God sent down upon them floods and conflagrations as upon a wild forest spread over the whole earth.

He cut them down with continuous famines and plagues, with wars, and with thunderbolts from heaven, as if to check some terrible and obstinate disease of souls with more severe punishments.

Then, when the

excess of wickedness had overwhelmed nearly all the race, like a deep fit of drunkenness, beclouding and darkening the minds of men,

| the first-born and_first-created wisdom of God," the pre-existent Word himself, induced by his exceeding love for man, appeared to his servants, now in the form of angels, and again to one and another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of God, in his own person as the saying power of God, not otherwise, however, than in the shape of man, because it was impossible to appear in any other way.

And

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

But when their law 23 ~ became celebrated, and, like a sweet odor, was diffused among all men, as a result of their influence the dispositions of the majority of the heathen were softened by the lawgivers and philosophers who arose on every side, and their wild and savage brutality was changed into mildness, so that they enjoyed deep peace, friendship, and social intercourse.*

Then, finally, at the time of the origin of the Roman Empire, there appeared again to all men and nations throughout the world, who had been, as it were, previously assisted, and were now fitted to receive the knowledge of the Father, that same teacher

fore him at all times when he was rejoicing at having completed the world."* That the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed, and appeared to some, if not to all, has thus

been briefly shown by us.

But why the Gospel was not preached in ancient times to all men and to all nations, as it is now, will appear from the following considerations."

The life of the ancients was not of such a kind as to permit them to

receive the all-wise and all-virtuous teaching of Christ.

For immediately in the beginning, after his original life of blessedness, the first man despised the command of God, and fell into this mortal and perishable state, and exchanged his former divinely inspired luxury for this curse-laden earth.

His descendants having filled our earth, showed themselves much worse, with the exception of one here and there, and entered upon a certain brutal and

insupportable mode of life.

They thought neither of city nor state, neither of arts nor sciences.

They were ignorant even of the name of laws and of justice, of virtue and of philosophy. As nomads, they passed their lives in deserts, like wild and fierce beasts, destroying, by an excess of voluntary wickedness, the natural reason of man, and the seeds of thought and of culture implanted in the human soul.

They gave themselves wholly over to all kinds of profanity, now seducing one another, now slaying one another, now eating human flesh, and now daring to wage war with the Gods and to undertake those battles of the giants celebrated by all; now planning to fortify earth against heaven, and in the madness of un-

27 The reference here seems to be to the building of the tower of Babel (Gen. xi. 1-9), although Valesius thinks otherwise.

The fact that Eusebius fee to the battles of the giants, which were celebrated in heathen song, does not militate against a reference in this passage to the narrative recounted in Genesis.

He illustrates the presumption of the human race by instances familiar to his readers whether drawn from Christian or from Pagan sources, Compare the Prep. Evang. ix. 14.

28 It was the opinion of Eusebius, in common with most of the Fathers, that the Greek philosophers, lawgivers, and poets had obtained their wisdom from the ancient Hebrews, and this point was pressed very strongly by many of the apologists in their effort to prove the antiquity of Christianity.

The assertion was made especially in the case of Plato and Pythagoras, who were said to have become acquainted with the books of the Hebrews upon their journey to Egypt.

Compare among other passages Justin's Afol. i 59 ff.; Clement of Alexandria's Cohort. ad Gentes, chap. 6: and Tertullia A es chap. 47.

Compare also Eusebius' Prep. Evang., Bks.

.and X, 23 Prov. viii. 12, 15, 16.

24 ris Um' ovpavér, with all the MSS. and the LXX.., followed by Schwegler, Burton, Heinichen, and others.

Some editors, in agreement with the version of Rufinus (/fontes sub celo), read tas vn' ovpavov.

Closs, Stigloher, and Crusé translate in the same way.

2 Prov. viii. 22-25, 27, 28, 30, 31.

26 Eusebius pursues much the same line of argument in his Dewz.

Evang., Prem. Bk. VIII.; and compare also Gregory of Nyssa's Third Oration on the birth of the Lord (at the beginning).

The objection which Eusebius undertakes to answer here was an old one, and had been considered by Justin Martyr, by Origen in his work against Celsus, and by others (see Tzschirner's Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 25 ff.).

i= 3%]

THE NAMES JESUS AND CHRIST IN SCRIPTURE.

Christ were honored by the ancient prophets beloved of God.!

Moses was the first

to make known the name of Christ as a name especially august and glorious.

When he delivered types and symbols of heavenly things, and mysterious images, in accordance with the oracle which said to him, "' Look that thou make all things according to the pattern which was ° shown thee in the mount,'? he consecrated a man high priest of God, in so far as that was possible, and him he called Christ.

And thus\~ to this dignity of the high priesthood, which in his opinion surpassed the most honorable position among men, he attached for the sake of honor and glory the name of Christ.

knew so well that in Christ was something divine. And the same one foreseeing, under the influence of the divine Spirit, the name Jesus, dignified it also with a certain distinguished privilege.

For the name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among men before the time of Moses, he applied first and only to the one who he knew would receive after his death, again as a type and symbol, the supreme command.

His successor, therefore, who had not hitherto borne the name Jesus, but had been called by another name, Auses,* which had been given him by his parents, he now called Jesus, bestowing the name upon him as a gift of honor, far greater than any kingly diadem.

For Jesus himself, the son of Nave, bore a resemblance to our Saviour in the fact that he alone, after Moses and after the completion of the symbolical worship which had been transmitted by him, succeeded to the government of the true and pure religion.

Thus Moses bestowed

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

And the prophets that

came after also clearly foretold Christ by name, predicting at the same time the plots which the Jewish people would form against him, and the calling of the nations through him.

Jeremiah, for instance, speaks as follows: "The of virtue, the minister of the Father in all good things, the divine and heavenly Word of God, ina human body not at all differing in substance from ourown.

He did and suffered the things which had been prophesied.

For it had been foretold that one who was at the same time man and God should come and dwell in the world, should perform wonderful works, and should show himself a teacher to all nations of the piety of the Father.

The marvelous nature of his birth, and his new teaching, and his wonderful works had also been foretold; so likewise the manner of his death, his resurrection from the dead, and, finally, his divine ascension into heaven.

For instance, Daniel the prophet, under the influence of the divine Spirit, seeing his kingdom at the end of time," was inspired thus to describe the divine vision in language fitted to human comprehension: " For I beheld," he says, "until thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow and the hair of his head like pure wool ; his throne was a flame of fire and his wheels burning fire. A river of fire flowed before him.

Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before

him.

He appointed judgment, and the

books were opened.'

And again, "I saw," says he, "and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he hastened unto the Ancient of Days and was brought into his presence, and there was given him the dominion and the glory and the kingdom ; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues serve him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his

kingdom shall not be destroyed."* It is clear that these words can refer to no one else than to our Saviour, the God Word who was in the beginning with God, and who was called the Son of man because of his final appearance in the flesh.

But since we have collected in separate books® the selections from the prophets which relate to our Saviour

Jesus Christ, and have arranged in a more logi-

cal form those things which have been revealed concerning him, what has been said will suffice for the present.

1 Compare the Dem. Evang. iv. 17.

2 Ex. xxv. 403 " Eusebius here has in mind the passages Lev. iv. 5, 16, and vi.

22, where the LXX. reads 6 iepeds 6 xpiotés:

The priest, the anotnted one"? (Closs).

The Authorized Version reads, The priest that was anointed ; the Revised Version, The anointed priest.

CHAPTER III.

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

4A few MSS., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, read here Nav, but the best MSS. followed by the majority of editors read

*Avoy, which is a corruption of the name Oshea, which means 'Salvation,' and which Joshua bore before his name was changed, by the addition of a syllable, to Jehoshua=Joshua=Jesus, meaning

Ir is now the proper place to show that the very name Jesus and also the name SS "God's salvation" (Num. xiii. 16).

Jerome (de w77. ll. c. 1.) speaks of this corruption as existing in Greek and Latin MSS. of the Scriptures, and as having no sense, and contends that Osee is the proper form, Osee meaning " Salvator.""

The same corruption (Auses) occurs also in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iii. 16, and Adv. ud. 9 (where the English translator, as Crusé also does in the present passage, in both cases departs from _the original, and renders

'Oshea,'? Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed, III. p. 334, 335, and 163), and in Lactantius, /ystitutes, iv. 17.

29 The Greek has only émi réAet, which can refer, however, only to the end of time or to the end of the world.

30 Dan. vii. 9, 10.

31 Dan, vii. 13, 1432 Eusebius refers here probably to his Ecloge prophetice, or Prophetical Extracts, possibly to his Dem. Evang.; upon these works see the Prolegomena, p. 34 and 37, above.

THE CHURCH HISTORY

OF. EUSEBIUS.

{Ie yet with the truth itself.

And therefore,

although he did not possess like honors with those whom we have mentioned, he is called

Christ more than all of them.

And as himself the true and only Christ of God, he has filled the whole earth with the truly august and sacred name of Christians, committing to his followers no longer types and images, but the uncovered virtues themselves, and a heavenly life in the very doctrines of truth. And he wasnot

anointed with oil prepared from material substances, but, as befits divinity, with the divine

Spirit himself, by participation in the unbegotten deity of the Father.

And this is taught also again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as if in the person of Christ himself, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore hath he anointed me.

He hath sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim deliverance to captives, and recovery of sight to the blind."* Andnotonly

Isaiah, but also David addresses him, saying, " Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.

A scepter of equity is the scepter of thy kingdom.

Thou hast loved righteousness and hast hated iniquity.

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."® Here the Scripture calls him God in the first verse, in the second it honors him with a royal scepter.

Then a little farther on, after the divine and royal power, it represents him in the third place as having become

Christ, being anointed not with oil made of material substances, but with the divine oil of gladness.

It thus indicates his especial honor, far superior to and different from that of those who, as types, were of old anointed in a more material way.

And elsewhere the same writer speaks of him as follows: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool" ;'° and, " Out of the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten thee.

The Lord hath sworn and he will not repent.

Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec." But this Melchizedec is introduced

in the Holy Scriptures as a priest of the most high God," not consecrated by any anointing oil, especially prepared, and not even belonging by descent to the priesthood of the Jews.

Wherefore after his order, but not after the order of the others, who received symbols and types, was our Saviour proclaimed, with an appeal to an oath, Christ and priest.

History, therefore, does not relate that he

was anointed corporeally by the Jews, nor Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord, was taken in their destructions ; of whom we said, under his shadow we shall live among the nations."*®

And David, in perplexity, says, '"' Why did the nations rage and the people imagine vain things?

The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ" ;° to which he adds, in the person of Christ himself, 'The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.""

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

divine Word who ruleth over all.

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

the Father's only supreme prophet of proph-

ets.

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

None of them at least, however superior in dignity and honor they may have been for many generations among their own people, ever gave to their followers the name of Christians from their own typical name of Christ.

Neither was divine honor ever rendered to any one of them by their subjects ; nor after their death was the disposition of their followers such that they were ready to die for the one whom they honored.

And never did so great a commotion arise among all the nations of the earth in respect to any one of that age ; for the mere symbol could not act with such

power among them as the truth itself which 1l_ was exhibited by our Saviour. He, although he received no symbols and types of high priesthood from any one, although he was not born of a race of priests, although he was not elevated to a kingdom by military guards, although he was not a prophet like those of old, although he obtained no honor nor pre-eminence among the Jews, nevertheless was adorned by the Father with all, if not with the symbols, tase deer soliewhat fon the Hetoeer ate beeen differs from the English version.

The LXX., however, contains an extra clause which Eusebius omits.

See Heinichen's edition, Vol. I. p. 21, note 49.

9 Ps, xlv. 6, 7.

10 Ps. cx. x.

12 See Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; _21 Ps. cx. 4 viii.

5 Sam. iv. 20.

6 Ps. ii. 1, 2.

Psi. 7; 8.

ial

ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY.

that he belonged to the lineage of priests, but that he came into existence from God himself before the morning star, that is before the organization of the world, and that he obtained that which was to be, was so astonished at it that he cried out, ''Who hath heard of such things, and who hath spoken thus?

Hath the earth brought forth in one day, and hath a nation been born at once?"'?

And the same prophet gives a hint also of the name by which the nation was to be called, when he says, "' Those that serve me shall be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon the earth."* Butalthough

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

'That this is so we shall show in the following way.

That

the Hebrew nation is not new, but is universally honored on account of its antiquity, is known to all.

The books and writings of this people contain accounts of ancient men, rare indeed and few in number, but nevertheless distinguished for piety and righteousness and every other virtue.

Of these, some excellent men lived before the flood, others of the sons and descendants of Noah lived after it, among them

Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as their own founder and forefather.

If any

one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were

Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth.* For that which

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

They did not care about circumcision of

the body, neither do we.

They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we.

They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things.

But they also clearly knew the very Christ of God ; for it has already been shown that he appeared unto Abraham, that he imparted revelations to Isaac, that he talked with Jacob, that he held converse with Moses and with the prophets that came after.

Hence

you will find those divinely favored men honored with the name of Christ, according to the passage which says of them, "Touch not my Christs, and do my prophets no harm.""® an immortal and undecaying priesthood for eternal ages.

But it is a great and convincing proof of his incorporeal and divine unction that he alone of all those who have ever existed is even to the present day called Christ by all men throughout the world, and is confessed and witnessed to under this name, and is commemorated both by Greeks and Barbarians, and even to this day is honored as a King by his followers throughout the world, and is admired as more than a prophet, and is glorified as the true and only high priest of God.'*

And besides all this, as the pre-existent Word of God, called into_being before all ages, he has received august honor from the Father, and is wor-

shiped as God.

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

to preserve our own lives.

I have of necessity prefaced my history with these matters in order that no one, judging from the date of his incarnation, may

think that our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ, has but recently come into being.

CHAPTER IV.

The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations was neither New nor Strange.

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

consider this point also.

It is admitted that when in recent times the appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ had become known to all men there immediately made its appearance a new nation ; a nation confessedly not small, and not dwelling in some corner of the earth, but the most numerous and pious of all nations,' indestructible and unconquerable, because it always receives assistance from God.

This nation, thus suddenly appearing at the time appointed by the inscrutable counsel of God, is the one which has been honored by all with the name of

Christ.

One of the prophets, when he saw beforehand with the eye of the Divine Spirit 13 Husebius, in this chapter and in the Dem. Evang. IV. 15, is the first-of the Fathers to mention the three offices of Christ. ae Tertullian, Afol, XXXVII. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am.

Ed--Vol,II1._ps-45) 0 4 Compare Justin Martyr's AZo/. I. 46.

5 x Chron. xvi. 22, and Ps. cv. 15.

2 Isa. Ixvi. 8.

3 Isa. Ixv. 15, 16.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[I. 4. as we can enter, so to speak, upon our journey, beginning with the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh.

And we invoke God, the Father of the Word, and him, of whom we have been speaking, Jesus Christ himself our Saviour and Lord, the heavenly Word of God, as our aid and fellow-laborer in the narration of the truth.

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

men in the age of Abraham.

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

unto him for righteousness."® And indeed unto Abraham, who was thus before his circumcision a justified man, there was given by God, who revealed himself unto him (but this was Christ himself, the word of God), a prophecy in regard to those who im coming ages should be justified in the same way as he.

The prophecy was in the following words: " And in thee shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed.'""

And again, "He shall become a nation great It was in the forty-second year of the

reign of Augustus? and the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies which had been uttered concerning him?

His birth took place during the. first census, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria® Flavius Josephus, the most cele-

brated of Hebrew historians, also mentions this census,* which was taken during Cyrenius' a 1 Eusebius here makes the reign of Augustus begin with the death of Julius Czsar (as Josephus does in chap. 9, § 1, below), and he puts the birth of Christ therefore into the year 752 U.Cand numerous; and in him shall ail the

nations of the earth be blessed."* It is permissible to understand this as fulfilled jn us.

For he, having renounced the superstition of his fathers, and the former error of his life, and having confessed the one God over all, and having worshiped him with deeds of virtue, and not with the service of the law which was afterward given by Moses, was justified by faith in Christ, the Word of God, who appeared unto

(2 B.c.), which agrees with Clement of Alexandria's Strom. I.

(who gives the twenty-eighth year after the conquest of Egypt as the birth-year of Christ), ii Epiphanius, Her. LI. 22, and Orosius, Hzs?. I. x.

Eusebius gives the same date also in his Chron.

(ed. Schcene, II. p. 144).

Irenzus, III. 25, and Tertullian, Adv.

¥ud. 8, on the other hand, give the forty-first year of Augustus,

751 U.C. (3 B.C.).

But all these dates are certainly too late.

The true year of Christ's birth has always been a matter of dispute.

But it must have occurred before the death of Herod, which took place in the ans of 750 U.c. (4 B.C.).

The most widely accepted opinion is that Extss was born fate in the year 5, or early in the year 4 B.c., though some scholars put the date ee: as far as 7 B.C.

The time of the year is also uncertain, the date commonly accepted in the occident (Dec. 25th) having nothing older than a fourth century tradition in its favor.

The date accepted by the Greek Church (Jan. 6th) rests upon a somewhat older tradition, but neither "pf has any claim to reliability. him.

To him, then, who was a man of this character, it was said that all the tribes and all the nations of the earth should be blessed

inhim.

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

What then should prevent the confession that we who are of Christ practice one and the same mode of life and have one and the same religion as those divinely favored men of old?

Whence it is evident that the perfect religion committed to us by the teaching of Christ is not new and strange, but, if the truth must be spoken, it is the first and the true religion.

This may suffice for this subject.

For a full and excellent discussion of this subject, see the essay of Andrews in his Life of our Lord, pp. 1-22.

See, also, Schaff's Church Hist. 1. p. 98 sq.

3 Micah v. 2.

8 Cf. Luke ii. 2.

Quirinius is the original Latin form of the name of which Luke gives the Greek form xupyvtos or Cyrenius (which is the form given also by Eusebius).

The statement of Luke oo a chronological difficulty which has not yet been completely solved.

Quirinius we know to have been made governor of Syria in a.p, 6; and under him occurred a census or enrollment mentioned by Josephus, Amt. XVII. 13. 5, and XVIII.

1. 1.

This is undoubtedly the same as that referred to in Acts v. 37.

But this took place some ten years after the birth of Christ, and cannot therefore be connected with that event.

Many explanations have been offered to account for the difficulty, but since the discovery of Zumpt, the problem has been much simplified.

- He, as also Mommsen, has proved that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, the first time from B.c. 4 (autumn) to B.c. 1.

But as Christ must have been born before the spring of B.c. 4, the governorship of Quirinius is still a little too late.

A solution of the question is thus approached, however, though not all the difficulties are yet removed.

Upon this question, see especially A. M. Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr_ Christi (Leipzig, 1869), and compare Schaff's Church Hist., 1. 121-125, for a condensed but excellent account of the whole matter, and for the literature of the subject.

CHAPTER V.

4 Eusebius here identifies the census mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XVIII. x. 1) and referred to in Acts vy. 37, with the one mentioned in Luke ii. 2; but this is an obvious error, as an interval of ten years separated the two.

Valesius considers it all one census, and hence regards Eusebius as correct in his statement; but this is very improbable. Jachmann (in Illgen's Zettschrift f. hist. Theologte, 1839, II. p. 35 sq-), according to his custom, charges Eusebius with willful deception and perversion of the facts.

But such a charge is utterly without warrant.

Eusebius, in cases where we can control his statements, can be shown to have been always conscientious.

Moreover, in his Chv-o7. (ed. Schoene II. p. 144) he identifies the two censuses in the same way.

But his Chronicles were written some years before his Azstory, and he cannot have had any object to deThe Time of his Appearance among Men.

AND now, after this necessary introduction to our proposed history of the Church,

6 Gen, xv. 6.

8 Gen, xviii. 18.

7 Gen, xii. 3-

1.6]

THE TIME' OF "CHRIST'S!.NATIVITY:

term of office.

In the same connection he gives an account of the uprising of the Galileans, which took place at that time, of which also Luke, among our writers, has made mention in the Acts, in the following words:

" After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away a multitude' besides God, masters who were mortal.'

These things are recorded by Josephus.

CHAPTER VI.

About the Time of Christ, in accordance with Prophecy, the Rulers who had governed the after him: he also perished ; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed." ®

The above-mentioned author, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in agreement with these words, adds the following, which we quote exactly: 'Cyrenius, a member of the senate, one who had held other offices and had

Fewish Nation in Regular Succession from the Days of Antiquity came to an End, and Herod, the First Foreigner, became King.

& Wuen Herod,' the first ruler of foreign

blood, became King, the prophecy of Moses received its fulfillment, according to which there should "not be wanting a prince of Judah, nor a ruler from his loins, until he come for whom it is reserved." ?

The latter, he also shows, was to be the expectation of the nations.'

This prediction remained unfulfilled so

long as it was permitted them to live under rulers from their own nation, that is, from the time of Moses to the reign of Augustus.

Under the latter, Herod, the first foreigner, was given the Kingdom of the Jews by the Romans.

As Josephus relates,* he was an Idumean® on his passed through them all to the consulship, a man also of great dignity in other respects, came to Syria with a small retinue, being sent by Ceesar to be a judge of the nation and

to make an assessment of their property.''"

And after a little? he says:

" But Judas, a Gaulonite, from a city called Gamala, taking with him Sadduchus," a Pharisee, urged the people to revolt, both of them saying that the taxation meant nothing else than downright slavery, and exhorting the nation to defend their liberty."

And in the second book of his History of the Jewish War, he writes as follows concerning the same man: "At this

father's side and an Arabian on his mother's.

But Africanus,' who was also no common writer, says that they who were more accurately informed about him report that he was a son of Antipater, and that the latter was the son of a certain Herod of Ascalon,' one of the so-called time a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, persuaded his countrymen to revolt, declaring that they were cowards if they submitted to pay tribute to the Romans, and if they endured,

Josephus, 2. ¥. II. 8. x.

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

-ceive in them such as Jachmann assumes that he had in his Hzstory.

It is plain that Eusebius has fimply, made a blunder, a thing not at all surprising when we remember how frequent his chronological 'errors are. e is guilty of an inexcusable piece of carelessness, but nothing worse.

It was natural to connect the two censuses mentioned as taking place under the same governor, though a little

'closer attention to the facts would have shown him the discrepancy 2 Gen. xlix. 10. The LXX., which Eusebius quotes here, according to his custom, is in the present instance somewhat different from the Hebrew.

8 bid.

4 Eusebius refers here to Ant. XIV. 1.3 and 7.3.

According to Josephus, Herod's father was Antipater, and his mother Cypros, an 'Arabian woman of noble birth. in date, which he simply overlooked.

5 The New Testament (7ezxtus Rec.) reads Aadv ixavor, with which Laemmer agrees in his edition of Eusebius.

Two MSS., followed by Stephanus and Valesius, and by the English and German translators, read Aady moAvy.

All the other MSS, and editors, as well as Rufinus, read Aaév alone.

5 The Idumeans or Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and inhabited the Sinaitic peninsula south of the Dead Sea.

Their principal city and stronghold was the famous rock city, Petra.

They were constant enemies of the Jews, refused them free passage through their land (Num. xx. 20); were conquered by Saul and David, but again regained their independence, until they were finally completely subjugated by John Hyrcanus, who left them in possession of their land, but compelled them to undergo circumcision, and adopt the dewish law.

Compare Josephus, Aw#. XIII. 9. ry XVez7.

9} Bui FO IVise 5:

6 On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31.

This account is given by Africanus in his epistle to Aristides, quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter.

Africanus states there (§ 11) that the account, as he gives it, was handed down by the relatives of the Lord.

But the tradition, whether much older than Africanus or not, is certainly incorrect.

We learn from Josephus (Az?. XIV. 2), who is the best witness upon this subject, that Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, was the son of another Antipater, or Antipas, an Idumean who had been made governor of Idumea by the Jewish king Alexander Jannzus (of the Maccabzan family).

In Aw. XVI. 11 Josephus informs us that a report had been invented by friends and flatterers of Herod that he was descended from Jewish ancestors.

The report originated with Nicolai Damasceni, a writer of the time of the Herods.

The tradition preserved here by Africanus had its origin, evidently, in a desire to degrade Herod by representing him as descended from a slave.

6 Acts v. 377 Josephus, Av. XVIII. x. 1.

-see below, Bk. III. c. 9 zd.

9 Judas the Gaulonite.

In Acts v. 37, and in Josephus, 2. ¥. II.

'8.1 (quoted just below), and ae 8, and in Amt. XVIII. 1.6 and XX.

Upon Josephus and his works, 8 [br 5.2, he is called Judas of Galilee.

But in the present section Jose- 'phus gives the fullest and most accurate account of him.

Gaulonitis lay east of the Jordan, opposite Galilee.

Judas of Galilee was probably his common designation, given to him either because his revolt took rise in Galilee, or because Galilee was used as a general term for the north country.

He was evidently a man of position and great personal influence, and drew vast numbers to his standard,

-denouncing, in the name of religion, the payment of tribute to Rome and all submission toa foreign yoke.

The revolt spread very rapidly, and the whole country was thrown into excitement and disorder; -but the Romans proved too strong for him, and he soon perished, and his followers were dispersed, though many of them continued active until the final destruction of the city.

'The influence of Feed was so great and lasted so long that Josehus (Ant. XVIII. x. x and 6) calls the tendency represented by rs the "fourth philosophy of the Jews," ranking it with Pharissaism, Sadduceeism, and Essenism.

The distinguishing characteristic of this '' fourth a ph " or sect was its love of freedom.

For an excellent account of Judas and his revolt, see Ewald's Geshtchte des Volkes Israel, V. p. 16 sq.

10 Greek, ZadSoyov; Rufinus, Sadduchum.

He, too, must have been a man of influence and position.

Later in the same para- 'graph he is made by ee a joint founder with Judas of the "fourth philosophy," but in § 6 of the same chapter, where the _author of it is referred to, Judas alone is mentioned.

7 Ascalon, one of the five cities of the Philistines (mentioned frequently in the Old Testament), lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, between Gaza and Joppa.

It was beautified by Herod (although not belonging to his dominions), and after his death became the residence of his sister Salome.

It was a prominent place in the Middle Ages, but is now in ruins.

Of this Herod of Ascalon nothing is known.

Possibly no such man existed.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[I. 6. already said, was made King of the Jewish nation by the Roman senate and by Augus-

tus.

Under him Christ appeared in bodily shape, and the expected Salvation of the nations. and 'their calling followed in accordance with

servants® of the temple of Apollo.

This Antipater, having been taken a prisoner while a boy by Idumean robbers, lived with them, because his father, being a poor man, was unable to pay a ransom for him.

Growing up in their practices he was afterward befriended by Hyrcanus,® the high priest of the Jews.

A son of his was that Herod who lived in the' times of

our Saviour"

When the Kingdom of the Jews had devolved upon such a man the expectation of the nations was, according to prophecy, already at the door.

For with him their princes and governors, who had ruled in prophecy."

From this time the princes and rulers of Judah, I mean of the Jewish nation,, came to an end, and as a natural consequence the order of the high priesthood, which from ancient times had proceeded regularly in closest. succession from generation to generation, was immediately thrown into confusion." Of

these things Josephus is also a witness," who shows that when Herod was made King by the Romans he no longer appointed the high priests. from the ancient line, but gave the honor to certain obscure persons.

A course similar to that of Herod in the appointment of the priests was pursued by his son Archelaus," and after him by the Romans, who took the government into their own hands.®

The same writer shows " that Herod was the first that locked up the sacred garment of the high priest. regular succession from the time of Moses,

came toanend.

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

and his successor Jesus.

After their return from Babylon they continued to have without interruption an aristocratic form of government, with an oligarchy.

For the priests had the direction of affairs until Pompey, the Roman general, took Jerusalem by force, and defiled the holy places by entering the very innermost sanctuary of the temple."

Aristobulus," who, by the right of ancient succession, had been up to that time both king and high priest, he sent with his children in chains to Rome ; and gave to Hyrcanus, brother of Aristobulus, the high priesthood, while the whole nation of the Jews

10: under his own seal and refused to permit the high priests to keep it for themselves.

The same course was followed by Archelaus after him, and after Archelaus by the Romans.

These things have been recorded by us in order to show that another prophecy has been fulfilled in the appearance of our Saviour

Jesus Christ.

For the Scripture, in the book of Daniel," having expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of Christ, of which we have treated in other books," most clearly prophesies, that after the completion of those weeks the unction among the Jews should. totally perish.

And this, it has been clearly shown, was fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

This has been neceswas made tributary to the Romans from

that time.® But Hyrcanus, who was the last of the regular line of high priests, was very soon afterward taken prisoner by the Parthians," and Herod, the first foreigner, as I have

8 iepddovAos, "a temple-slave."

0 Hy yrcanus II., eldest son of the King Alexander Janne of the Maccabzan family, became high priest upon the death of his father, in 78 B.c.; and upon the death of his mother, in 69 B.C., ascended the throne. his younger brother, Aristobulus; but under the influence of AntiHerod in 37 n.c.

Hyrcanus returned to Jerusalem in 36 B.c., but was no longer high priest.

He gave up his kingdom afterward (66 Bc.) to, 15 Compare Isa. ix. 2; xlii. 6; xlix. 6, etc,

16 Eusebius' statement is perfectly correct.

The high priestly lineage had been kept with great scrupulousness until Hyrcanus II., the last of the regular succession.

(His grandson Aristobulus, how-ever, was. high priest for a year under Herod, but was then slain by him.) Afterward the high priest was appointed and changed at pleasure by the secular ruler. ater the Idumean endeavored to regain it, and after a long war with his brother, was re-established in power by Pompey, in 63 B.c., but merely as high priest and governor, not with the title of king.

He retained his position until 40 B.c., when he was driven aut bs his nephew Antigonus.

Herod the Great, who had married his grand-daughter Mariamne.

He was throughout a weak man, and while in power was completely under the influence of his minister, Antipater.

He was murdered in 30 B.c., by command of _Herod the Great first established the practice of removing a high. priest during his lifetime; and under him there were no less than six different ones.

10 Herod the Great.

11 In 63 B.c., when Pompey's curiosity led him to penetrate into the Holy of Holies.

He was much impressed, however, by its simplicity, and went away without disturbing its treasures, wondering at a religion which had no visible God.

17 Josephus, 4zt. XX, 8.

18 'Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a Samaritan woman, and younger brother of Herod Antipas.

Upon the death of his father, B.c. 4, he succeeded to the government of Idumea, Samaria, and Judea, with the title of Ethnarch.

12 Aristobulus II., younger brother of Hyrcanus, a much abler and more energetic man, assumed the kingdom by an arrangement with his brother in 66 B.c. (see note 9, above). th 63 B.c. he was deposed, and carried to Rome by Pompey.

He died about 48 B.c.

Eusebius is hardly correct in saying that Aristobulus was king and high priest by regular succession, as is elder brother Hyrcanus was the true heir, and he had assumed the power only because of his superior ability.

19 After the death of Archelaus (A.D. 7), Judea was made a Roman province, and ruled by procurators until Herod Agrippa I. came into power in 37 A.D. (see below, Bk. II. chap.

4, note 3). The changes in the high priesthood during the most of this time were very rapid, one after another being appointed and removed according to the fancy of the procurator, or of the governor of Syria, who held the power of appointment most of the time.

There were no fewer than nineteen high priests between the death of Archelaus and the fall of Jerusalem.

18 The peal independence of the Jews practically ceased at this time.

For three years only, from_40 to 37 B.C., while Antigonus, son of Aristobulus and nephew of Hyrcanus, was in Dderee Veruasleas was independent of Rome, but wasjsoon retaken by Herod the Great, and remained from that time on in more or less complete subjection, either as a dependent kingdom or as a province.

Josephus, Ant, XV. 11. 4.

21 Dan. ix. 26.

It is commonly assumed that Eusebius refers here to the Dez.

Evang. VIII. 2 sq., where the prophecies of Daniel are discussed at length.

But, as Lightfoot remarks, the reference is just as well satisfied by the Ecloge Proph. III. 45.

We cannot, in fact, decide which work is meant, 14 40 B.C., when Antigonus, by the aid of the Parthians took Jerusalem and established himself as king there, until conquered by

Dinty all

AFRICANUS ON THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.

OI a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceascd might be perpetuated ; — whereas then some of those who are inserted

in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, sarily premised by us as a proof of the correctness of the time.

CHAPTER VII.

The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both — of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.

Thus

neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law.

For the line. of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan® were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers.

So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.

But in order that what I have

said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations.

If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph.

But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi,® whose son Eli was the father of Joseph.

For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.

Joseph therefore being

the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan ; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers,

Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

Matthan and Melchi having married

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

By Estha' then (for this was the

woman's name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. to the Genealogy of Christ.

Matruew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another.

Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides,? where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies.

After refuting the opinjons of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition® in these words: "For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law, — according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law when-

ever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless ;* for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had

1 "Over against the various opinions of uninstructed apologists for the Gospel history, Eusebius introduces this account of Africanus

'with the words, Thy mept TovTwY KaTeAOovaay cis Nuas iortopiay."

(Spitta.) 2 On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31.

Of this Aristides to whom the epistle is addressed we know nothing.

He must not be confounded with the apologist Aristides, who lived in the reign of Trajan (see below, Bk. IV. c. 3). Photius (27/. 34) mentions this epistle, but tells us nothing about Aristides himself.

The epistle exists in numerous fragments, from which Spitta (Der Brief des Fulius Africanus an Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt, Halle, 1877) attempts to reconstruct the original epistle. is work is the best and most complete upon the subject.

Compare Routh, Rel. Sacra, U1. pp. 228-237 and pp. 329-356, where two fragments are given and discussed at length.

The epistle (as Dhow by Mai) is translated in the Axte-Nicene Fathers, Am, ed. VI. p. 125 ff.

The attempt of Africanus is, so far as we know, the first critical attempt to harmonize the two genealogies of Christ. The question had been the subject merely of guesses and suppositions until his time.

He approaches the matter in a free critical spirit (such as seems always to have characterized him), and his investigations therefore deserve attention.

He holds that both genealogies are those of Joseph, and this was the unanimous opinion of antiquity, though, as he says, the discrepancies were reconciled in various ways.

Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law of Levirate marriages, and his view is advocated by Mill (Ox the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.); but of this interpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, " There is neither reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all."

Upon the supposition that both genealogies relate to Joseph the best explanation is that Matthew's table represents the royal line of I¢gal successors to the throne of David, while Luke's gives the line

5 Nathan was a son of David and Bathsheba, and therefore own brother of Solomon.

8 Melchi, who is here given as the third from the end, is in our present texts of Luke the fifth (Luke iii. 24), Matthat and Levi standing between Melchi and Eli.

It is highly probable that the text which Africanus followed omitted the two names Matthat and Levi (see Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Appendix, p. 57).

It is impossible to suppose that Africanus in such an investigation as this could have overlooked two names by mistake if they had stood in his text of the Gospels.

This view is ably advocated by Hervey in Smith's Bible Dictionary (article Genealogy of ¥esus). Another opinion which has prevailed widely since the Reformation is that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary.

'The view is defended very ingeniously by Weiss (Leben Yesu, I. 205, 2d edition).

For further particulars see, besides the works alread mentioned, the various commentaries \upon Matthew and Luke and the various lives of Christ, especially Andrews', p55 Sq.

; Ph A

3 Eusebius makes a mistake in saying that Africanus had received the explanation which follows from tradition.

For Africanus himself says expressly (§ 15, below) that his interpretation is not supported by testimony.

Eusebius' error has been repeated by most writers upon the subject, but is exposed by Spitta, 202d. p. 63.

\ Af actual descent.

7 We know nothing more of Estha.

Africanus probably refers to the tradition handed down by the relatives of Christ, who had, as he says, preserved genealogies which agreed with those of the Gospels.

He distinguishes here what he gives on tradition from his own interpretation of the Gospel discrepancy upon which he is engaged.

4 The law is stated ia Deut. xxv. 5 sq.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

pln eg his genealogical table up to the end, cies the genealogy back to Adam the son of God.

This interpretation is neither incapable of

proof nor is it an idle conjecture."

For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account :"* Some Idumean robbers," having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod.

And since the priest ¥ was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.

And having, been sent by Hyrcanus on an

embassy to Pompey, and having restored to And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe® but of another family,? married her,

as before said, and begat a son Eli.

'Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother.

Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begat by her a son"

Joseph, his own son by nature" and in accordance with reason.

Wherefore also it is written :

'Jacob begat Joseph.'

But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus:

'Jacob begat Joseph.'

But Luke, on the other hand, says : 'Who was the son, as was supposed '** (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law.

And the expression 'he begat' he has omitted in unnecessary.

The words which occur in the next sentence, ''and the expression ' he begat' he has omitted," show that Africanus, as Stroth contends, lays the emphasis upon the difference of form in the two genealogies, 'Son of"? and '' he begat.""

The best explanation seems to me to be that Africanus supposes Luke to have implied the legal generation in the words '' the Son of," used in distinction from the definite expression '' he begat," and that the words @s évomiero, which "he also adds,'' simply emphasize this difference of ex-pression by introducing a still greater ambiguny into Luke's mode of statement.

He not only uses the words, the ''

Son of," which have: a wide latitude, admitting avy kind of sonship, but "' he also adds,"

"(as was supposed,'? showing,. in Africanus' opinion, still more clearly that ri list which follows is far from being a closely defined. table of descent by "' natural generation."

8 hudAy.

9 yévos.

'In this place yévos is used to denote famzly.

Matthan and Melchi were of different families, but both belonged to the same Davidic race which was divided into two families, that of Solomon and that of Nathan" (Valesius).

10 All the MSS. and editions of Eusebius read zpirov instead of tudv here.

But it is very difficult to make any sense out of the word rpirov in this connection.

We therefore prefer to follow Spitta (see zbid. pp. 87 sqq.) in reading v6y instead of tpirov, an emendation which he has ventured to make upon the authority of Rufinus, who translates "' genuit Joseph filium suum," showing no trace of a tpttov.

The word tpirov is wanting also in three late Catenze which contain the fragments of Africanus' Epistle (compare Spitta, zdzd. p. 117, note 12).

15 This seems the best possible rendering of the Greek, which. reads Tyv avahopav mornaapmevos ews TOD "Adam, TOD Oeod Kat' avaAvowv. ode wHY avardderxTov K.T.A., which is very dark, punctuated thus, and it is difficult to understand what is meant by xa7' avaAvovv in connection with the preceding words. (Crusé translates,.

"having traced it back as far as Adam, ' who was the son of God,' he resolves the whole series by referring back to God.

Neither is this incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.'') The objections which Spitta brings against the sentence in this form are well founded.

He contends (p. 63 sqq.), and that rightly, that Africanus could not have written the sentence thus.

In restoring the original epistle of Africanus, therefore, he throws the words kat' avdAvow into the next sentence, which disposes of the difficulty, and makes. good sense.

We should then read, "' having traced reGeen as far as Adam, the Son of God.

This interpretation (more literally, 'as an interpretation,' or 'by way of interpretation') is neither incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.""

That Africanus wrote thus I am convinced, But as Spitta shows, Eusebius must have divided. the sentences as they now stand, for, according to his idea, that Africanus' account was one which he had received by tradition, the other mode of reading would be incomprehensible, though he probably did not understand much better the meaning of car' avadvow as he placed it.

In translating Africanus' epistle here, I have felt justified in rendering it as Africanus probably wrote it, instead of 11 xata Aédyov.

These words have caused translators and commentators great difficulty, and most of them seem to have missed their significance entirely.

Spitta proposes to alter by reading xaraAoyov, but the emendation is unnecessary.

The remarks which he makes (p. 89 sqq-) upon the relation between this sentence and the next are, however, excellent.

It was necessary to Africanus' theory that Joseph should be allowed to trace his lineage through Jacob, his father '' by nature,'' as well as through Eli, his father "' by law," and hence the words xara Adyov are added and emphasized. e was his son by nature and therefore " rightfully to be reckoned as his son."?

This explains the Biblical quotation which follows:

«' Wherefore "" — because he was Jacob's son by nature and could rightfully be reckoned in his line, and not only in the line of Eli—

"it is written,' &c.

12 Matt. i. 6.

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

14 This passage has caused much trouble.

Valesius remarks, " Africanus wishes to refer the words ws évouigero ('as was supposed') not only to the words vxds "Iwan, but also to the words tov 'HA, which follow, which although it is acute is nevertheless improper and foolish; for if Luke indicates that legal generation or adoption by the words as évouigero, as Africanus claims, it would follow that Christ was the son of Joseph by legal adoption in the same way that Joseph was the son of Eli.

And thus it would be said that Mary, after the death of Joseph, married his brother, and that Christ was begotten by him, which is impious and absurd,

And besides, if these words, ws évouigero, are extended to the words Tov 'HAi, in the same way they can be extended to all which follow,

For there is no reason why they should be supplied in the second grade and not in the others," following Eusebius' incorrect reproduction of it.

16 The Greek reads: mapéSocav Kai toro, 'have handed down also."

The «ai occurs in all the MSS. and versions of Eusebius, and was undoubtedly written by him, but Spitta supposes it an addition of Eusebius, caused, like the change in the previous sentence, by his erroneous conception of the nature of Africanus' interpretation, The «ai is certainly troublesome if we suppose that all that precedes is Africanus' own interpretation of the Biblical lists, and not a traditional account handed down by the "' relatives of our Lord"; and this, in spite of Eusebius' belief, we must certainly insist upon. We may, therefore assume with Spitta that the xat did not stand in the original epistle as Africanus wrote it. The question arises, if what erat is not given upon the authority of the 'relatives of our

Lord," why then is this account introduced upon their testimony, as if confirming the preceding? .

We may simply refer again to Africanus' words at the end of the extract (§ 15 below) to prove that his interpretation did not rest upon testimony, and then we may answer with Spitta that their testimony, which is appealed to in § 14 below,. was to the genealogies themselves, and in this Africanus wishes it tobe known that they confirmed the Gospel lists.

But against Valesius, Stroth says that Africanus seeks nothing in the words ws évouigero, but in the fact that Luke says "' he was the son of," while Matthew says '' he begat.""

Stroth's interpretation is followed by Closs, Heinichen, and others, but Routh follows Valesius.

Spitta discusses the matter carefully (p. 91 sq.), agreeing with Valesius that Africanus lays the emphasis upon the words ws evouiero, but by an emendation (introducing a second ws évouigero, and reading '' who was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was himself also the son, as was supposed, — for this he also adds, — of Eli, the son of Melchi"') he applies the ws évouicgero only to the first and second members, and takes it in a more general sense to cover both cases, thus escaping Valesius' conclusions expressed above.

The conjecture is ingenious, but is unwarranted and 11 See above, chap. VI. notes 5.and 6. bs a8 W € should expect the word " temple-servant" again instead of priest''; but, as Valesius remarks, ' It was possible for the same person to be both priest and servant, if for instance it was a condition of priesthood that only captives should be made priests.'""

And this was really the case in many places.

AFRICANUS ON THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.

Us yA by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction.

Among these are those already mentioned, 'called Desposyni," on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour.

Coming from Nazara and Cochaba," villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory" and from the book of daily records * as faithfully as possible. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person.

And let this suffice us, him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of FPalestine.'® But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune," was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews™ under Antony and Augustus.

His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs." These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.¥ But as there had been kept in the archives* up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes,% such as Achior * the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Is-

29 Seaméavvor: the persons called above (§ 11) the relatives of the Saviour according to the flesh (oi kara capa cvyyevers).

The Greek word signifies "' belonging to a master." raelites contributed nothing to his advantage,

30 Cochaba, according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 2 and 16), was a village in Basanitide near Decapolis.

It is noticeable that this region was the seat of Ebionism.

There may therefore be significance in the care with which these Desfosynz preserved the genealogy of Joseph, for the Ebionites believed that Christ was the real son of Joseph, and therefore Joseph's lineage was his. d since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records," thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those

31 "« Judea" is here used in the wider sense of Palestine as a whole, including the country both east and west of the Jordan.

The word is occasionally used in this sense in Josephus; and so in Matt. xix. x, and Mark x. 1, we read ef '"' the coasts of Judea beyond

Jordan."

Ptolemy, Dion Cassius, and Strabo habitually employ the word in the wide sense. mingled with them, who were called Georae.® A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either

82 €x uvyjuys.

These words are not found in any extant MSS., but I have followed Stroth and others in supplying them for the following reasons.

The Greek, as we have it, runs: Kat THY mpoKetmevny yeveadoyiav éx Te THs BipAcv THY Hpepav K.T.A.

The particle re indicates plainly that some phrase has fallen out.

Rufinus translates ordinem supra dicte generationis partim memoriter partim etiam ex dierum libris in quantum erat perdocebant.

The words partim memoriter find no equivalent in the Greek as we have it, but the particle re, which still remains, shows that words which Rufiaus translated thus must have stood originally in the Greek.

The Syriac version also confirms the conclusion that something stood in the original which has since disappeared, though the rendering which it gives rests evidently upon a corrupt text (cf. Spitta, p. ror).

Valesius suggests the insertion of avd mvyjyys, though he does not place the

eee 19 Appointed by Julius Cesar in 47 B.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above).

20 He was poisoned by Malichus in 42 B.c. (see Josephus, Azz.

XIV. 11. 4).

; 21 Appointed king in 40 B.c. (see. chap. VI. note r, above).

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

23 Cf, Dion Cassius, XX XVII. 15 sqq. and Strabo, XVI. 2. 46, 24 It was the custom of the Jews, to whom tribal and famil descent meant so much, to keep copies of the genealogical setgaik of the people in the public archives.

Cf. e.g. Josephus, De Vita, § x, where he draws his own lineage from the public archives; and cf. Contra Apion. I. 7. hrase in his text.

Heinichen supplies pryyuovevoarvres, ard is 'ollowed by Closs in his translation.

Stroth, Migne, Routh, and Spitta read é« wvj~ns.

The sense is essentially the same in each case.

38 It has been the custom since Valesius, to consider this '' Book of daily records" (BiBAos Ta nuepwav) the same as the '' private records" (idwrtkas atoypapas) mentioned just above.

But this opinion has been combated by Spitta, and that with perfect right.

The sentence is, in fact, an exact parallel to the sentence just above, where it is said that.a few of the careful, either by means of their memory or by means of copies, were able to have "' private records of their own."

In the present sentence it is said that '' they drew the aforesaid genealogy (viz., 'the private records of their own') from memory, or from the Book of dazly records" (which corresponds to the copzes referred to above).

This book of daily records is clearly, therefore, something other than the iStwrixas amoypagas, but exactly what we are to understand by it is not so easy to say.

It cannot denote the regular public records (called the archives above), for these were completed, and would not need to be supplemented by memory; and apparently, according to Africanus' opinion, these private records were made after the destruction of the regular public ones.

The "' Book of daily records " referred to must have been at any rate an incomplete genealogical source needing to be supplemented by the memory.

Private family record books, if such existed previous to the supposed destruction of the public records, of which we have no evidence, would in all probability have been complete for each family.

Spitta maintains (p. ror sq.) that the Book of Chronicles is meant: the Hebrew hia "34, words or records of the days.

This is a very at25 dype mpoonAvtwy.

Heinichen and Burton read apxumpooyAvnov, "ancient proselytes."

The two readings are about equally supported by MS. authority, but the same persons are meant here as at the end of the paragraph, where mpoonAvtovus, not apximpoonAUtovs, occurs (cf.

Spitta, pp. 97 sq-, and Routh's Religuie Sacre II. p. 347 sq., 2d ed.). asf 26 Achior was a general of the Ammonites in the army of Holofernes, who, according to the Book of Judith, was a general of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, and was slain by the Jewish heroine, Judith.

Achior is reported to have become afterward a Jewish proselyte.

21 The Greek reads évémpycev avtav tas dvaypadas TOY yevav, but, with Spitta, I venture, against all the Greek MSS., to insert méoas before Tas évaypapas upon the authority of Rufinus and the author of the Syriac version, both of whom reproduce the word

(cf. Spitta, p. 99 sq.).

Africanus certainly supposed that Herod destroyed a// the genealogical records, and not simply those of the true Jews.

This account of the burning of the records given by Africanus is contradicted by history, for we learn from Josephus, De Vita, § x, that he drew his own lineage from the public records, which were therefore still in existence more than half a century after the time at which Herod is said to have utterly destroyed them.

It is significant that Rufinus translates omnes Hebreorum generationes descripta in Archivis templi secretiortbus habebantur.

| How old this tradition was we do not know; Africanus is the sole extant witness of it. tractive suggestion, as the book exactly corresponds to the book described: the genealogies which it gives are incomplete and require supplementing, and it is a book which was accessible to all; public, therefore, and yet not involved in the supposed destruction.

The difficulty lies in the name given.

It is true that Jerome calls the Books of Chronicles Verba Dierum and Hilary Sermones Dierum, &c.; but we should expect Africanus to use here the technical LXX. designation, HapaAecrouévwy.

But whatever this '* Book of daily records" was, it cannot have been the " private records" which were formed "' from memory and from copies,"' but was one of the sources from which those " private records" were drawn.

28 rovs Te Kadoumevous 'yewwpas.

The word yewpas occurs in the LXX. of Ex. xii. 19, where it translates the Hebrew "J. The A. V. reads stranger, the R. V., sejourner, and Liddell and Scott give the latter meaning for the Greek word.

See Valesius' note Zu loco, and Routh (II. p. 349 sq.), who makes some strictures upon Valesius' note.

Africanus refers here to all those that came out from Egypt with the Israelites, whether native Egyptians, or foreigners resident in Egypt.

Ex., xii. 38 tells us that a '"' mixed multitude"' went out with the children of Israel (ém(ntxtos moavus), and Africanus just above speaks of them in the same way (éreucxtwr),

THE CHURCH "HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[ez GS that the prophecy of Micah? announced that Bethlehem was to be his birthplace he commanded, in a single edict, all the male infants in Bethlehem, and all its borders, that were two years of age or less, according to the time. which he had accurately ascertained from the magi, to be slain, supposing that Jesus, as was indeed likely, would share the same fate as the others of his own age.

But the child

anticipated the snare, being carried into Egypt by his parents, who had learned from an angel that appeared unto them what was about to happen.

These things are recorded by the Holy Scriptures in the Gospel?

It is

worth while, in addition to this, to observe the reward which Herod received for his daring crime against Christ and those of the same age.

For immediately, without the least delay, the divine vengeance overtook him while he was still alive, and gave him a foretaste of what he was to receive after death.

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

How, immediately after his crime against

our Saviour and the other infants, the punishment sent by God drove him on to his death, we can best learn from the words of that historian who, in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writes as follows concerning his end: ® " But the disease of Herod grew

more severe, God inflicting punishment for his crimes. For a slow fire burned in him which was not so apparent to those who touched him, but augmented his internal distress ; for he had a terrible desire for food which it was not possible to resist.

He was affected also with ulceration of the intestines, and with especially severe pains in the colon, while a watery and transparent humor settled about his feet.

suffered also from a similar trouble in his abdomen.

Nay more, his privy member was putrefied and produced worms.

He found also excessive difficulty in breathing, and it was particularly disagreeable because of the offensivefor, although we can urge no testimony in its support,* we have nothing better or truer to offer.

In any case the Gospel states the truth."

And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words:

'"'Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob.

And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan, begat Eli by the same woman.

Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers.

Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli.

Thus Joseph was the son of

both."

'Thus far Africanus.

And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted.

For the command is to marry one of the same family * and lineage," so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.

CHAPTER VIII.

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

WHEN Christ was born, according: to the prophecies, in Bethlehem of Judea, at the time indicated, Herod was not a little disturbed by the enquiry of the magi who came from the east, asking where he who was born King of the Jews was to be found, — for they had seen his star, and this was their reason for taking so long a journey; for they eurnestly desired to worship.the-infant.as_God,'— for he imagined that his kingdom might be endangered ; and he enquired therefore of the doctors of the law, who belonged to the Jewish nation, where they expected Christ to be born.

When he learned 34 Compare note 3, above.

Africanus' direct statement shows clearly enough that he does not rest his interpretation of the genealogies (an interpretation which is purely a result of Biblical study) upon the testimony of the relatives of the Saviour.

Their testimony is invoked with quite a different purports namely, in confirmation of the genealogies themselves, and the long story (upon-the supposition that their testimony is invoked in support of Africanus' eats Ag 4 zion, introduced abaotutell without sense and reason) thus has its proper place, in showing how the "'relatives of the Saviour " were in a position to be competent witnesses upon this question of fact

(not zxterpretation), in spite of the burning of the public records by Herod.

85 The law to which Eusebius refers is recorded in Num. xxxvi. 6,7.

But the prohibition given there was not an absolute and universal one, but a prohibition which concerned only heiresses, who were not to marry out of their own tribe upon penalty of forfeiting their inheritance (cf. Josephus, Ant, IV. 7. 5).

It is an instance of the limited nature of the law that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, although Joseph and Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah, and Zacharias, at least, was a Levite.

This example lay so near at hand that Eusebius should not have overlooked it in making his assertion.

His argument, therefore, in proof of the fact that Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah has no force, but the fact itself is abundantly established both by the unanimous tradition of antiquity (independent of Luke's genealogy, which was universally supposed to be that of Joseph), and by such passages as Ps. cxxxii.

11, Acts ii. 30, xiii. 23, Rom. i. 3.

86 Syuov.

87 matpias.

1 ola 0€G mpocxuvnoa.

Eusebius adds the words ola @e0, which are not found in Matt. ii, 2 and 11, where tpooxvvjcat is used.

2 Mic. v. 2.

3 Matt. il, 4 Herod's reign was very successful and prosperous, and for most of the time entirely undisturbed by extérnal troubles; but his domestic life was embittered by a constant succession of tragedies resulting from the mutual jealousies of his wives (of whom he had ten) and of their children.

Early in his reign he slew Hyrcanus, the grandfather of his best-loved wife Mariamne, upon suspicion of treason; a little later, Mariamne herself was put to death; in 6 B.c. her sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, were condemned and executed; and in 4 B.c., but a few days before his death, Antipater, his eldest son, who had been instrumental in the condemnation of Alexander and Aristobulus, was also slain by his orders.

These murders were accompanied by many others of fiesae and kindred, who were constantly falling under suspicion of treason.

5 In the later books of the Antzguztzes and in the first book of the Jewish war.

6 Josephus, Anz. XVII. 6. 5.

I. 8.]

DTHECGEND,/

OF) HEROD.

ness of the odor and the rapidity of respiration. choly, he planned to commit an impious deed, as if challenging death itself.

For, collecting from every town the most illustrious men of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the so-called hippodrome.

And having

summoned Salome," his sister, and her husband, Alexander," he said : 'I know that the Jews will rejoice at my death. But I may be lamented by others and have a splendid funeral if you are willing to perform my commands.

When I shall expire surround these men, who are rw under guard, as quickly as possible with scidiers, and slay them, in order that all Judea and every house may weep for me even against their will.'" *

And after a little Josephus says, " And again

he was so tortured by want of food and by a convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains, he planned to anticipate his fate.

Taking an apple he asked also for a knife, for he was accustomed to cut apples and eat them.

Then looking round to see that there was no one to hinder, he raised his right hand as if to stab himself.""*

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

He had convulsions alsé in every limb,

which gave him uncontrollable strength.

It was said, indeed, by those who possessed the power of divination and wisdom to explain such events, that God had inflicted this punishment upon the King on account of his great impiety."

The writer mentioned above recounts these

things in the work referred to.

And in the second book of his History he gives a similar account of the same Herod, which runs as follows :' 'The disease then seized upon his whole body and distracted it by various torments.

For he had a slow fever, and the itching of the skin of his whole body was insupportable.

He suffered also from continuous pains in his colon, and there were swellings on his feet like those of a person suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his privy member so putrefied as to produce worms.

Besides this he could breathe only in an upright posture, and then only with difficulty, and he had convulsions in all his limbs, so that the diviners

said that his diseases were a punishment.®

But he, although wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped for safety, and devised methods of cure.

For instance, crossing over Jordan he used the warm baths at Callirhoé,? which flow into the Lake AsSuch was the end of Herod, who suffered

a just punishment for his slaughter of the children of Bethlehem,** which was the result of his plots against our Saviour.

After this

an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and commanded him to go to Judea with the child and its mother, revealing to him that those who had sought the life of the child were dead."

To this the evangelist adds, "' But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in the room of his father Herod he was afraid to go thither ; notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream he turned aside into the parts of Galilee." phaltites," but are themselves sweet enough to drink.

His physicians here thought that they could warm his whole body again by means of heated oil.

But when they had let him down into a tub filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the eyes of a dead person.

But when his attendants raised an outcry, he recovered at the noise; but finally, despairing of a cure, he commanded about fifty drachms to be distributed among the soldiers, gH and great sums to be given to his generals and friends.

Then returning he came to Jericho, where, being seized with melan-

11 Salome was own sister of Herod the Great, and wife in succession of Joseph, Costabarus, and Alexas.

She possessed all the cruelty of Herod himself and was the cause, through her jealousy and envy, of most of the terrible tragedies in his family.

7 B. F. 1. 33. 5 and 6.

8 rowny elvar Ta voonwata A¢yerv, Josephus, according to the text of Hudson, reads mowvyy elvar Toy copiaTav Ta voorjmara Aéyew, which is translated by Traill, "' pronounced his maladies a judgment for his treatment of the Sophists.""

Nicephorus (H. £. I.

15) agrees with Eusebius in omitting the words trav cofiotwy, but he is not an independent witness. hether Hudson's text is supported at this point by strong MS. authority I do not know.

If the words stood in the original of Josephus, we may suppose that they were accidentally omitted by Eusebius himself or by one of his copyists, or that they were thrown out in order to make Josephus' statement better correspond with his own words in Ant, XVII.6, quoted dust above, where his disease is said to have been a result of his impiety in general, not of any particular exhibition of it.

On the other hand, the omission of thé words in Ant. XVII. 6 casts at least a suspicion on their genuineness, and if we were to assume that the words did not occur in the original text of Josephus, it would be very easy to understand their insertion by some cory it for in the previous paragraph the historian has been speaking of the Sophists, and of Herod's cruel treatment of them,

12 Alexander, the third husband of Salome, is always called Alexas by Josephus.

3 B. ¥. 1. 13. 6 (cf. Ant. XVII.6. 5).

This terrible story rests — the authority of Josephus alone, but is so in keeping with erod's character that we have no reason to doubt its truth.

The commands of Herod, however, were not carried out, the condemned men being released after his death by Salome (see zézd. § 8).

4B. ¥. 1. 33. 7 (cf. Ant. XVII. 7).

Herod's suicide was prevented by his cousin Achiabus, as Josephus informs us in the same connection.

15 B. ¥.1. 33. 7 and 8 (cf. Ant. XVII. 7).

Antipater, son of Herod and his first wife Doris, was intended by his father to be his successor in the kingdom.

He was beheaded five days before the ravi ot Herod, for plotting against his father.

He richly deserved his fate.

16 Eusebius gives here the traditional Christian interpretation of the cause of Herod's sufferings.

Josephus nowhere mentions the slaughter of the innocents; whether through ignorance, or because of the insignificance of the tragedy when compared with the other bloody acts of Herod's reign, we do not know.

9 Callirhoé was a town just east of the Dead Sea.

_ 10 rv Achadriziv Acuvnv.

This is the name by which Josephus commonly designates the Dead Sea.

The same name occurs also in Diodorus Siculus (II. 48, XIX. 98).

11 See Matt. ii. 19, 20.

18 Matt. ii. 22.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[I. 9. ec tius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

'Accordingly the forgery of those who have

recently given currency to acts against our Saviour® is clearly proved.

For the very date given in them® shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

For the things which they have

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

CHAPTER IX.

The Times of Pilate.

Tue historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to the fact that Archelaus! succeeded to the government after Herod.

He records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews by the will of his father Herod and by the decree of Cesar Augustus, and how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers

Philip? and Herod the younger,' with Lysanias,* still ruled their own tetrarchies.

The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities,' says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius,® who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years,' Pon1 Archelaus was a son of Herod the Great, and own brother of the Tetrarch Herod Antipas, with whom he was educated at Rome.

Immediately after the death of Antipater he was designated by his father as his successor in the kingdom, and Augustus ratified the will, but gave him only the title of ethnarch.

The title of King he never really received, although he is spoken of as king in Matt. ii.

22, the word being used in a loose senée.

His dominion consisted of Idumea, Judea, Samaria, and the cities on the coast, comprising a half of his father's kingdom.

The other half was divided between Herod Antipas and Philip.

He was very cruel, and was warmly hated by most of his subjects.

In the tenth year of his reign ('according to Josephus, Az¢. XVII. 13. 2), or in the ninth (according to B. ¥. Il.

7. 3), he was complained against by his brothers and subjects on the ground of cruelty, and was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where he probably died, ahieuet Jerome says that he was shown his tomb near Bethlehem.

Jerome's report, however, is too late to be of any value.

The exact length of his reign it is impossible to say, as Josephus is not consistent in his reports.

"he difference may be due to the fact that Josephus reckoned from different starting-points in the two cases.

He probably ruled a little more than nine years.

His condemnation took place in the consulship of M. Aimilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius (i.e. in 6 A.D.) according to Dion Cassius, LV. 27.

After the deposition of Archelaus Judea was made a Roman province and attached to Syria, and Coponius was sent as the first procurator.

On Archeles see Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8, 9,11 sq., and B. F. I. 33. 8 sq.;

CHAPTER X.

The High Priests of the Jews under whom Christ taught.

Ir was in the fifteenth year of the reign

of Tiberius,' according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate,? while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were ruling the rest of Judea,' that our

Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being about thirty years of age,* came to John for baptism and began the promulgation of the Gospel.

The Divine Scripture says, more-

over, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas,> showing that in the time which be- . 6 sq- :

2 Philip, a son of Herod the Great by his wife Cleopatra, was Tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurinitis, &c., from B.C. 4 to A.D. 34. He was distinguished for his justice and moderation. He i mentioned only once in the New Testament, Luke iii.

1. On Philip, see Josephus, Awt. XVII. 8.1; 11. 4; XVIII. 4. 6.

8 Eusebius refers here, not to the acts of Pilate written by Christians, of which so many are still extant (cf. Bk. II. chap. 2, note

1), but to those forged by their enemies with the approval of the emperor Maximinus (see below, Bk. IX. chap. 5).

3 Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great by his wife Malthace, was Tetrarch of Gali he went to Rome to sue for the title of King, which his nep erod Agrippa had already secured.

But accusations against him were sent to the emperor by Agrippa, and he thereby lost his tetrarch and was banished to Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul, and died (according to Josephus, B. ¥. II. 9. 6) in Coaiat It was he who beheaded John the Baptist, and to him feeus was sent by Pilate.

His character is plain enough from the New Testament account.

For further particulars of his life, see Josephus, Amé. XVII.

8. 1; x1. 43

XVIII. 2.1;

5and7; B. F¥. II. 9.

4 The Lysanias referred to here is mentioned in Luke iii. x as Tetrarch of Abilene.

Eusebius, in speaking of Lysanias here, follows the account of Luke, not that of Josephus, for the latter nowhere says that Lysanias continued to rule his tetrarchy after the exile of Archelaus.

Indeed he nowhere states that Lysanias ruled a eg as this period.

He only refers (Ant. XVIII. 6. 10; XIX.

5.15 XX. 7. 15 and B. ¥. Il. 12. 8) to "the tetrarchy of Lysanias," which he says was given to Agrippa I. and Il. by Caligula and Claudius.

Eusebius thus reads more into Josephus than he has any right to do, and yet we cannot assume that he is guil of willful deception, for he may quite innocently have interpreted Josephus in the light of Luke's account, without realizing that Josephus' statement is of itself entirely indefinite.

That there is no real contradiction between the statements of Josephus and Luke has been abundantly demonstrated by Davidson, /ntroduction to the New

9 6 THs Tapacynmewaews xpovos.

"In this place wapac. is the superscription or the designation of the time which was customarily prefixed to acts.

For judicial acts were thus drawn up: Consulatu Tiberit Augusti Septimo, inducto in judicium Fesu, &c." (Val.)

10 Ant.

XVIII. 2. 2.

Compare § 1, above.

1 Luke iii. 1.

Eusebius reckons the fifteenth year of Tiberius from 14 A.D., that is, from the time when he became sole emperor.

There is a difference of opinion among commentators as to whether Luke began to reckon from the colleagueship of Tiberius (11 or 12 A.D.), or from the beginning of his reign as sole emperor.

Either mode of reckoning is allowable, but as Luke says that Christ '' began to be about thirty years of age" at this time, and as he was born probably about 4 B.c., the former seems to have been Luke's mode.

Compare Andrew's Life of our Lord, p. 28. alilee and Perea from B.C. 4 to A.D. 39.

In 39 A.D.. hea 2 Luke says simply, "while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea," and does not mention the year, as Eusebius does.

8 See the previous chapter.

_ 4 Eusebius' reckoning would make Christ's birthday synchronize with the beginning of our Christian era, which is at least three years out of the way.

5 Luke iii, 2 compared with John xi. 49 and 51, and xviii. 13.

Stroth remarks:

"' Had I not feared acting contrary to the duty of a translator, I should gladly, for the sake of Eusebius' honor, have left out this entire chapter, which is full of historical inaccuracies and contradictions.

Eusebius deduces from Josephus himself that the Procurator Gratus, whom Pilate succeeded, appointed Caiaphas high priest.

Therefore Caiaphas became high priest before the twelfth year of Tiberius, for in that year Pilate became procurator.

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ began his work when Caiaphas had already been high priest three years, and according to the false account of our author he became high priest for the first time in the nineteenth year of Tiberius.

The whole structure of this chapter, therefore, falls to the ground.

It is almost inconceivable how so prudent a man could have committed so great a mistake of the same

Testament, 1. p. 215 sq.

5 eae Ant. XVIII. 2, 2 and 4. 2.

Josephus reckons here from the death of Augustus (14 A.D.), when Tiberius became sole emperor.

Pilate was appointed procurator in 26 A.D. and was recalled in 36.

T Josephus dates the beginning of Augustus' reign at the time of the death of Julius Czsar (as Eusebius also does in chap. 5, § 2), and calls him the second emperor.

But Augustus did not actually become emperor until 31 B.c., after the battle of Actium.

TL}

JOSEPHUS ON JOHN THE BAPTIST AND CHRIST.

ere Se ae eee ee longed to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his teaching was completed.

Since he began his work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held cordingly the whole time of our Saviour's ministry is shown to have been not quite four full years, four high priests, from Annas to the accession of Caiaphas, having held office a year each.

The Gospel therefore has rightly indicated Caiaphas as the high priest under whom the Saviour suffered.

From which also we can see that the time of our Saviour's ministry does not disagree with the foregoing investigation. the office, the entire time does not com-

prise quite four years.

For the rites of the law having been already abolished since that time, the customary usages in connection with the worship of God, according to which the high priest acquired his office by hereditary descent and held it for life, were also annulled, and there were appointed to the high priesthood by the Roman governors now one and now anOur Saviour and Lord, not long after the

beginning of his ministry, called the twelve apostles,"* and these alone of all his disciples he named apostles, as an especial honor.

And again he appointed seventy others whom he sent out two by two before his face into every place and city whither he himself was about to come." other person who continued in office not

more than one year.' Josephus relates that there were four high priests in succession from Annas to Caiaphas.

Thus in the same book of the Antiquities' he writes as follows:

"Valerius Gratus® having put an end to the priesthood of Ananus® appoints Ishmael," the son of Fabi, high priest.

And having removed him after a little he appoints Eleazer," the son of Ananus the high priest, to the same office.

And having removed him also at the end of a year he gives the high priesthood to Simon," the son of Camithus.

But he likewise held the honor no more than a year, when Josephus, called also Caiaphas," succeeded him."

Ac-

CHAPTER XI.

Testimonies in Regard to Fohn the Baptist and Christ.

Nor long after this John the Baptist was

beheaded by the younger Herod,! as is stated in the Gospels.?

Josephus also records the same fact,? making mention of Herodias* by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas,' king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive.

It was on her account also

that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter.

Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod's entire army was destroyed,® and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John. sort as that which he had denounced a little before in connection with the Acts of Pilate."

The whole confusion is due to Eusebius' mistaken interpretation of the Gospel account, which he gives in this sentence. It is now universally assumed that Annas is named by the evangelists as exhigh-priest, but Eusebius, not understanding this, supposed that a part of Christ's ministry must have fallen during the active administration of Annas, a part during that of Caiaphas, and therefore his ministry must have run from the one to the other, embracing the intermediate administrations of Ishmael, Eleazer, and Simon, and covering less than four years.

In order to make this out he interprets the " not long after" in connection with Ishmael as meaning "one ear,'' which is incorrect, as shown below in note 9.

How Eusehoe could have overlooked the plain fact that all this occurred under Valerius Gratus instead of Pilate, and therefore many years too early (when he himself states the fact), is almost incomprehensible.

Absorbed in making out his interpretation, he must have thoughtlessly confounded the names of Gratus and Pilate while reading the account.

He cannot have acted knowingly, with the intention to deceive, for he must have seen that anybody reading his account would discover the glaring discrepancy at once.

The same Josephus confesses in this ac- $3 count that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels.

He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of 6 It is true that under the Roman governors the high priests were frequently changed (cf. above, chap. 6, note 19), but there was no regularly prescribed interval, and some continued in office for many years; for instance, Caiaphas was high priest for more than ten years, during the whole of Pilate's administration, having been appointed by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, and his successor being appointed by the Proconsul

Vitellius in 37 A.p. (wza. Josephus, Azt. XVIII. 2.2 and 4.3).

7 Josephus, At. XVIII. 2. 2.

8 This Valerius Gratus was made procurator by Tiberius, soon after his accession, and ruled about eleven years, ies he was succeeded by Pilate in 26 a.p.

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

16 See Luke x. 1.

1 Herod Antipas.

3 Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 5. 2.

2 Matt. xiv. 1-12; Mark vi. 17 sq.

* Herodias, a daughter of Aristobulus and grand-daughter of Herod the Great, first married Herod Philip (whom Josephus calls

Herod, and whom the Gospels call Philip), a son of Herod the Great, and therefore her uncle, who seems to have occupied a private station.

Afterwards, leaving him during his lifetime, she married another uncle, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch.

When her husband, Antipas, was banished to Gaul, she voluntarily shared his banishment and died there.

Her character is familiar from the accounts of the New Testament.

9 Ananus (or Annas) was appointed high priest fe Quirinius, governor of Syria, in 6 or 7 A.D. (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 2. 1), and remained in office until A.D. 14 or 15, when he was deposed by Valerius Gratus (24. § 2).

This forms another instance, therefore, of a term of office more than one year in length.

Annas is a familiar personage from his connection with the Gospel history; but the exact position which he occupied during Christ's ministry is difficult to determine (cf. Wieseler's Chronology of the Life of Christ).

10 Either this Ishmael must have held the office eight or ten years, or else Caiaphas that long before Pilate's time, for otherwise

Gratus' period is not filled up.

Josephus' statement is indefinite in regard to Ishmael, and Eusebius is wrong in confining his term of office to one year.

5 Aretas Aineas is identical with the Aretas mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 32, in connection with Paul's flight from Jerusalem (cf. Wieseler,

Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 142 and 167 sq.).

He was king of Arabia Nabataza, whose capital was the famous rock city, Petra, which gave its name to the whole country, which was in consequence commonly called Arabia Petrza.

® In this emergency Herod appealed to Tiberius, with whom he was a favorite, and the emperor commanded Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to proceed against Aretas.

The death of Tiberius interrupted operations, and under Caligula friendship existed between Aretas and the Romans.

11 According to Josephus, An¢. XX. g. 1, five of the sons of Annas became 5 eS priests.

12 This Simon is an otherwise unknown personage.

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

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[lsare

Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call the same Herodias, and that he was driven into him a man.

For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness.

And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks.

He was the Christ.

When Pilate,

on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him.

For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him.

Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day."

Since an historian, who is oneofthe

Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them?"

But let this suffice here. banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul"

He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following

words :2 "It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist.

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

ness.

And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise.

He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under John's influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come, and when he

CHAPTER XII.

The Disciples of our Saviour. found himself in the midst of difficulties."

On account of Herod's suspicion John was sent in Tue names of the apostles of our Sa-

viour are known to every one from the bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Macheera," and there slain."

After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words :" " And there lived at that time

Pe SS Se Gospels!

But there exists no catalogue of the seventy disciples.?

Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of them, of whom the Acts of the apostles makes mention in various places,® ee eS there remains almost nothing; and it seems inconceivable that Josephus should have given so colorless a report of one whom the Jews regarded with such enmity, if he mentioned him at all.

The fourth view might be possible, and is more natural than the third; but it seems as if some trace of the original calumny would have survived somewhere, had it ever existed.

To me, however, the decisive argument is the decided break which the passage makes in the context; § 2 gives the account of a sedition of the Jews, and § 4 opens with the words, '"' About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder''; while § 3, containing the account of Christ, gives no hint of sedition or disorder among the Jews.

1 Josephus gives the account of Herod's banishment in his A ntzquities ee 7. 2, but names Lyons instead of Vienne as the place

'of his exile.

Eusebius here confounds the fate of Herod with that of Archelaus, who was banished to Vienne (see above, chap. 9, note 1).

8 Ud. XVIII. 5. 2.

This passage upon John the Baptist is referred to by Origen in his Contra Cels. 1. 47, and is found in all our MSS. of Josephus.

It is almost universally admitted to be genuine, and there 1s no good reason to doubt that it is, for such a dispassionate and sencly impartial account of John could hardly have been written by a Christian interpolator.

It has been suggested that Eusebius himself, who is the first one to quote this passage, introduced it into the text of Josephus.

This is possible, but there is no reason to suppose it true, for it is contrary to Eusebius' general reputation for honesty, and the manner in which he introduces the quotation both here and in his Dev.

Evang. Ill. 5 certainly bears every mark of innocence; and he would scarcely have dared to insert so important an account in his

History had it not existed in at least some MSS. of Josephus.

We may be confident that the interpolation must have been made in the MSS. of Josephus before it appeared in the Hzstory.

For a brief summary of the various views upon the subject, see chaff's Church History, Vol. 1. p.9sq-, and Edersheim's article on Josephusin Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography.

Compare also Heini-. chen's Excursus upon the passage in his edition of Eusebius, Vol.

III. p. 623-654.

9 Josephus differs with the Evangelists as to the reason for John's imprisonment, but the accounts of the latter bear throughout the stamp of more direct and accurate knowledge than that of Josephus.

Ewald remarks with truth, "' When Josephus, however, gives as the cause of John's execution only the Tetrarch's general fear of popuJar outbreaks, one can see that he no longer had perfect recollection of the matter.

The account of Mark is far more exact and instructive."

10 Machzra was an important fortress lying east of the northern end of the Dead Sea, It was the same fortress to which the daughter of Aretas had retired when Herod formed the design of marrying

Herodias; and the word "aforesaid" refers to Josephus' mention of it in that connection in the previous paragraph. tt Ant. XVILI. 3. 3.

This account occurs before that of John the Baptist, not after it.

It is found in all our MSS. of Josephus, and was considered genuine until the sixteenth century, but since then has been constantly disputed.

Four opinions are held in regard to it; (x) Itis entirely genuine.

This view has at present few supporters, and is absolutely untenable.

A Christian hand is unmistakably apparent, —if not throughout, certainly in many parts; and the silence in regard to it of all Christian writers until the time

'of Eusebius is fatal to its existence in the original text.

Origen, for instance, who mentions Josephus' testimony to John the Baptist in 12 See chap. g, note 8, above.

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

2 See Luke x. 1-20.

3 See Acts iv. 36, xiii. x ef passdm.

Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 20) calls Barnabas one of the Seventy.

This tradition is not in itself improbable, but we can trace it back no further than Clement.

The Clementine Recognztions and Homilies frequently mention Barnabas as an apostle active in Alexandria and in Rome.

One tradition sends him to Milan and makes him the first bishop of the church there, but the silence of Ambrose in regard to it is a sufficient proof of its groundlessness.

There is extant an apocryphal work, probably of the fifth century, entitled Acta et Passio Barnabe in Cypro, which relates his death by martyrdom in Cyprus.

The tradition may be true, but its existence has no weight.

Barnabas came from Cyprus and labored therefor at least a time.

It would be natural, therefore, to assign his death (which was necesContra Cels. \. 47, betrays no knowledge of this passage in regard to Christ.

(2) It is entirely spurious.

Stich writers as Hase, Keim, and Schiirer adopt this view.

(3) It is partly genuine and partly interpolated.

This opinion has, perhaps, the most defenders, among them Gieseler, Weizsacker, Renan, Fdersheim, and Schaff.

(4) It has been changed from a bitter Jewish calumny of Christ to a Christian eulogy of him.

This is Ewald's view.

The second ovinion seems to me the correct one.

The third I regard as untenable, for the reason that after the obviously Christian passages are omitted sarily martyrdom, for no Christian writer of the early centuries could have admitted that he died a natural death) to that place.

ees)

THE DISCIPLESOOF! OUR! SAVIOUR

Je] since in addition to these, there were many others who were called apostles, in imitation of the Twelve, as was Paul himself, he adds:

" Afterward he appeared to all the apostles." * So much in regard to these persons.

But the story concerning Thaddeus is as follows. and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians.* They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was. one of them.'

This is the account of Clement® in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples,' a man who bore the same name as the apostle

Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says,

puted matter.

Three theories have been advanced, and are all widely represented.

The first is the full-brother hypothesis, according to which the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of both Joseph and Mary.

This was advocated strongly by the heretic Helvidius in Rome in 380, and is widely accepted in the Protestant Church.

The only serious objection to it is the committal of Mary to the care of John by Christ upon the cross.

But John was at any rate an own cousin of Jesus, and the objection loses its weight when we realize the spiritual sympathy which existed between Jesus and John, and the lack of belief exhibited by his own brothers.

The second is the halfbrother hypothesis, which regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph by a former wife.

This has the oldest tradition in its favor (though the tradition for none of the theories is old or universal enough to be of great weight), the apocryphal Gosfe/ of Yames, chap. ix., recording that Joseph was a widower and had children before marrying Mary.

It is still the established theory in the Greek Church.

'The greatest objection to it is that if it be true, Christ, as a younger son of Joseph, could not have been regarded as the heir to the throne of David.

That the objection is absolutely fatal cannot be asserted, for it is nowhere clearly stated that he was the heir-apparent to the throne; it is said only that he was of the line of David.

Both of these theories agree in distinguishing James, the brother of the Lord, from James, the son of Alphzus, the apostle, and thus assume at least three Jameses in the New Testament.

Over against both of them is to be mentioned a third, which assumes only two Jameses, regarding the brethren of the Lord as his cousins, and identifying them with the sons of Alphzus.

This theory originated with Jerome in 383 A.D. with the confessedly dogmatic object of preserving the virginity both of Mary and of Joseph in opposition to Helvidius.

Since his time it has been the established theory in the Latin Church, and is advocated also by many Protestant scholars.

The original and common form of the theory makes Jesus and James maternal cousins: finding only three women in John xix. 25, and regarding Mary, the wife of Clopas, as the sister of the Virgin Mans But this is in itself improbable and rests upon poor exegesis. It is far better to assume that four women are mentioned in this passage.

A second form of the cousin theory, which regards Jesus and James as paternal cousins

— making Alphzus (Clopas) the brother of Joseph—originated with Lange.

It is very ingenious, and urges in its support the authority of Hegesippus, who, according to Eusebius (4. #. III. rr), says that Clopas was the brother of Joseph and the father of Simeon, which would make the latter the brother of James, and thus just as truly the brother of the Lord as he.

But Hegesippus plainly thinks of James and of Simeon as standing in different relations to Christ, — the former his brother, the latter his cousin,

— and therefore his testimony is against, rather than for Lange's hypothesis.

The statement of Hegesippus, indeed, expresses the cousinship of Christ with James the Little, the son of Clopas (if Alphzus and Clopas be identified), but does not identify this cousin with James the brother of the Lord.

Eusebius also is claimed by Lange as a witness to his theory, but his sragenis of the passage to which he appeals is poor laed alae Bk. IV. chap. 22, note 4).

Against both forms of the cousin theory may be urged the natural meaning of the word adeA0s, and also the statement of John vii. 5, '' Neither did his brethren believe in him," which makes it impossible to suppose that his brothers were apostles.

From this fatal objection both of the brother hypotheses are free, and either of them is possible, but the former rests upon a more natural interpretation of the various passages involved, and would perhaps have been universally accepted had it not been for the dogmatic interest felt by the early Church in pre ving the virginity of Mary.

Renan's complicated theory (see is Les Evangiles, p537 sqq.) does not help matters at all, and need not be discussed here.

There is much to be said, however, in favor of the separation of Alphzus and Clopas, upon which he insists and which involves the existence of four Jameses instead of only three.

Son a fuller discussion of this whole subject, see Andrews (Life v our Lord, pp. 104-116), Schaff (Church Hist. I. 272-275), and "When Cephas came to Antioch I with-

stood him to his face."*® Matthias,' also, who was numbered with the apostles in the place of Judas, and the one who was honored by being made a candidate with him," are likewise said to have been deemed worthy of the same calling with the seventy.

They say that Thaddeus also was one of them, concerning whom I shall presently relate an account which has come down to us."

And upon examination you will find that our Saviour had more than seventy disciples, according to the testimony of Paul, who says that after his resurrection from the dead he appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom some had fallen asleep ; but the majority were still living at the time he wrote.

Afterwards he says he appeared unto James, who was one of the so-called brethren of the Saviour.* But,

4 Gal. ii. 1, 9, and 13.

5 Sosthenes is mentioned in x Cor. i.1.

From what source Eusebius drew this report in regard to him I cannot tell.

He is the first to mention it, so far as I know. A later tradition reports that he became Bishop of Colophon, a city in Ionia.

A Sosthenes is mentioned also in Acts xviii. 17, as ruler of the Jewish synagogue in Corinth.

Some wish to identify the two, supposing the latter to have been afterward converted, but in this case of course he cannot have been one of the Seventy.

Eusebius' tradition is one in regard to whose value we can form no opinion.

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

7 Clement is, so far as I know, the first to make this distinction between Peter the Apostle, and Cephas, one of the Seventy.

The reason for the invention of a second Peter in the post-apostolic age is easy to understand as resulting from the desire to do away with the conflict between two apostles.

This Cephas appears frequently in later traditions and is commemorated in the Menology of Basil on December 9g, and in the Armenian calendar on September 25.

In the Ecclestastical Canons he is made one of the twelve apostles, and distinguished from Peter.

8 Gal. ii. 11.

9 We learn from Acts i. 21 sqq. that Matthias was a follower of Christ throughout his ministry, and therefore the tradition, which Eusebius is, so far as we know, the first to record, is not at all imrobable.

Epiphanius (at the close of the first book of his Her., indorf's ed. I. p. 337) a half-century later records the same tradition.

Nicephorus Callistus (II. 40) says that he labored and suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia (probably meaning Caucasian Ethiopia, east of the Black Sea). Upon the Gospel of Matthias see below, III. 25, note 30.

10 Joseph Barsabas, surnamed Justus.

He, too, had been with Christ from the beginning, and therefore may well have been one of the Seventy, as Eusebius reports.

Papias (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below) calls him Justus Barsabas, and relates that he drank a deadly poison without experiencing any injury. eiss (Einlettung in das N.T. p. 388 sqq.), all of whom defend the natural brother hypothesis; Lightfoot (Excursus upon " The Brethren of the Lord" in his Commentary on Galatians, 2d ed. p.

247-282), who is the strongest advocate of the half-brother theory; Mill (The Accounts of our Lord's Brethren in the N. T. vindicated, Cambridge, 1843), who maintains the maternal cousin theory; and Lange (in Herzog), who presents the paternal cousin hypothesis.

Compare finally Holtzmann's article in the Zeztschrift ur Wiss. Theologie, 1880, p. 198 sqq.

11 From a comparison of the different lists of apostles given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Thaddeus is seen to be one of the welve, apparently identical with Jude and Lebbzeus (compare Jerome, /x Matt. X.).

Eusebius here sunders him from the apostles and makes him one of the Seventy, committing an error similar to that which arose in the case of Peter and Cephas.

He perhaps records only an oral tradition, as he uses the word gaci, He is, so far as is known, the first to mention the tradition.

12 See the next chapter.

13 See 1 Cor. xv. 5-7.

4 The relationship of James and Jesus has always been a dis15 x Cor. xv. 7+

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[ie13: a ee eS SS — ee For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time.

But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language ® in the following manner.

CHAPTER XIII.

Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessenes. a Tue divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being noised abroad among all men on account of his wonder-working power, he attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from Judea, who had the Copy of an episile written by Abgarus the ruler hope of being cured of their diseases and of all kinds of sufferings.

For instance, the King Abgarus,' who ruled with great glory the nations beyond the Euphrates, being to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananias' the swift courter.

" Abgarus, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the

excellent Saviour who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting.

I have heard the reports of thee and of thy cures as performed by thee without medicines or herbs.

For it is said that thou makest the blind to see and the lame to walk, that thou cleansest lepers and castest out impure spirits and demons, and that thou healest those afflicted with lingering disease, and raisest the dead.

And having heard all

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

I have therefore written to thee

to ask thee that thou wouldest take the trouble to come to me and heal the disease which I have.

For I have heard that the Jews are murmuring against thee and are plotting to injure thee.

But I have a very small yet noble city which is great enough for us both." afflicted with a terrible disease which it was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the name of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by all with one accord, sent a message to him by a courier and

begged him to heal his disease.

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

Not long afterward his promise was fulfilled.

For after his resurrection from the dead and his ascent into heaven, Thomas,' one of the twelve apostles, under divine impulse sent Thaddeus, who was also numbered among the seventy disciples of Christ,' to Edessa,* as a preacher and evangelist of the teaching of Christ.

And all that our Saviour had promised received through him its fulfillment.

You have written evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa,> which was at that time a royal city.

i) but this unworthy suspicion has been refuted by the discovery and publication of the original Syriac (The Doct. of Addai the Afostie, with an English Translation and Notes, by G. Phillips, London,

1876; compare also Contemp. Rev., May, 1877, p1137). The epistles were forged probably long before his day, and were supposed by him to be genuine.

His critical insight, but not his honesty, was at fault.

The apocryphal character of these letters is no longer a matter of dispute, though Cave and Grabe defended their genuineness

1 Abgarus was the name of several kings of Edessa, who reigned at various periods from B.C.

99 to A.D. 217.

The Abgar contemporary with Christ was called Abgar Ucomo, or "' the Black."

He was the fifteenth king, and reigned, according to Gutschmid, from A.D. 13 to A.D. 50.

A great many ecclesiastical fictions have grown up around his name, the story, contained in its simplest form in the present chapter, being embellished with many marvelous additions.

A starting-point for this tradition of the correspondence with Christ, (so that Eusebius is in good company), and even in the present century Rinck (Ueber die Echthett des Briefwechsels des Kénigs

Abgars mit Fesu, Zeitschrift fiir Hist. Theol., 1843, U1..p. 326) has had the hardihood to enter the lists in their defense; but we know of no one else who values his critical reputation so little as to venture upon the task.

— from which in turn grew all the later legends, — may be found in the fact that in the latter part of the second century there was a Christian Abgar, King of Edessa, at whose court Bardesanes, the Syrian Gnostic, enjoyed high favor, and it is certain that Christianity had found a foothold in this region at a much earlier period.

Soon after the time of this Abgar the pretended correspondence was very likely forged, and foisted back upon the Abgar who was contemporary with Christ.

Compare Cureton's Anc. Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa, London, 1854.

6 Eusebius does not say directly that he translated these documents himself, but this seems to be the natural conclusion to be drawn from his words.

"Huty is used only with avadnpOecoar, and not with petaBAnfeco@y.

It is impossible, therefore, to decide with certainty; but the documents must have been in Syriac in the Edessene archives, and Eusebius' words imply that, if he did not translate them himself, he at least employed some one else to do it.

At the end of this chapter he again uses an indefinite expression, where perhaps it might be expected that he would tell us directly if he had

2 On the.traditions in regard to Thomas, see Bk. III. chap x.

3 See chap. 12, note rr, 4 Edessa, the capital of Abgar's dominions, was a city of Northern Mesopotamia, near the river Euphrates.

History knows nothing of the city before the time of the Seleucid, though tradition puts its origin back into distant antiquity, and some even identify it with Abraham's original home, Ur of the Chaldees.

In the history of the Christian Church it played an important partas a centre of imself translated the documents.

7 In the greatly embellished narrative of Cedrenus (Hzst. Compendium, p. 176; according to Wright, in his article on Abgar in the Dict. of Christian Brog.) this Ananias is represented as an artist who endeavored to take the portrait of Christ, but was dazzled by the splendor of his countenance; whereupon

Christ, having washed his face, wiped it with a towel, which miraculously retained an image of his features.

The picture thus secured was carried back to Edessa, and acted as a charm for the preservation of the city against its enemies.

The marvelous fortunes of the miraculous _picture are traced by Cedrenus through some centuries (see also Evagrius, H. £.1V. 27).

Syrian learning.

Ephraem, the Syrian, founded a seminary there % the fourth century, which after his death fell into the hands of the rians.

3 We have no reason to doubt that Eusebius, who is the first to mention these apocryphal epistles, really found them in the public archives at Edessa.

Moses Chorenensis, the celebrated Armenian historian of the fifth century, who studied a long time in Edessa, is

8 The expression "' Son of God" could not be used by a heathen prince as it is used here. an independent witnesss to their existence in the Edessene archives.

Eusebius has been accused of forging this correspondence himself;

Karz]

ABGARUS, PRINCE OF EDESSA.

IOI The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the|\' After I have been taken up I will send to thee one of my disciples who will heal thee.'

Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom

Thaddeus lodged, he said, I have heard that a certain man of power has come and is lodging in thy house.

Bring him to me.

And Tobias coming to Thaddeus said to him, The courier Ananias.

" Blessed art thou who hast believed in me without having seen me.'

For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved."

But in regard to what thou hast written me, that I should come to thee, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to him that sent me.

But after I have been taken up I will send to thee one of my disciples, that he may heal thy disease and give ruler Abgarus summoned me and told me to bring thee to him that thou mightst heal him.

And Thaddeus said, I will go, for I have been sent to him with power.

Tobias

therefore arose early on the following day, and taking Thaddeus came to Abgarus.

And when he came, the nobles were present and stood about Abgarus.

And immediately upon his entrance a great vision appeared to Abgarus in the countenance of the apostle Thaddeus.

When Abgarus saw it he prostrated himself before Thaddeus, while all those who stood about were astonished ; for they did not see the vision, which appeared to Abgarus alone. life to thee and thine."

To these epistles there was added the following account in the Syriac language.

" After the ascension of Jesus, Judas," who was also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle," one of the Seventy.

When he was come he lodged with Tobias," the son of Tobias.

When the report of him got abroad, it was told

He then asked Thaddeus if he were in truth a disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who had said to him, 'I will send thee one of my disciples, who shall heal thee and give thee life.'

And Thaddeus said, Because thou hast mightily believed in him that sent me, therefore have I 'been sent unto thee.

And still further, if thou believest in him, the petitions of thy heart shall be granted thee as thou believest. And

Abgarus said to him, So. much have I believed in him that I wished to take an army and destroy those Jews who crucified him, had I not been deterred from it by reason of the dominion of the Romans.

And Thaddeus said, Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father, and having fulfilled it has been taken up to his Father. And Abgarus said to him, I too have believed in him and in his Father. And 'Thaddeus said

to him, Therefore I place my hand upon thee in his name.

And when he had done it, immediately Abgarus was cured of the disease and of the suffering which he had. And Abgarus marvelled, that as he had heard concerning Jesus, so he had received in very deed through his disciple Thaddeus, who healed him without medicines and herbs, and not only him, but also Abdus™ the son of Abdus, who was afflicted with the gout; for he too came to him and fell at his feet, and having received a benediction by the imposition of his hands, he was healed.

The same Thaddeus cured also many other inhabitants of the city, and did wonders and marvelous works, and preached

Abgarus that an apostle of Jesus was come,

as he had written him.

Thaddeus began then in the power of God to heal every disease and infirmity, insomuch that all wondered.

And when Abgarus heard of the great and wonderful things which he did and of the cures which he performed, he began to suspect that he was the one of whom Jesus had written him, saying,

® Compare John xx. 29. i ih Oe 10 yéyparrat, as used by Christ and his disciples, always referred to the Old Testament.

The pass Be quoted here does not occur in the Old Testament; but compare Isa. vi. 9, Jer. v. 21, and Ezek. xii.

2; and also Matt. xiii. 14, Mark iv. 12, and especially Acts xxviii.

26-28 and Rom. xi. 7 sq.

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

12 The word " apostle"? is by no means confined to the twelve apostles of Christ.

The term was used very commonly in a much wider sense, and yet the combination, "the apostle, one of the Seventy," in this passage, does not seem natural, and we cannot avoid the coesuiion that the original author of this account did not thus describe Thaddeus.

The designation, '' one of the Seventy," carries the mind back to Christ's owt appointment of them, recorded by Luke, and the term "apostle," used in the same connection, would naturally denote one of the Twelve ae pointed by Christ, —that is, an apostle in the narrow sense.

It might be suggested as possible that the original Syriac connected the word " apostle'? with Thomas, reading, " Thomas the apostle sent Judas, who is also called Thaddeus, one of the Seventy," &c.

Such' a happy confusion is not beyond the power of an ancient translator, for most of whom little can be said in the way of praise.

That this can have been the case in the present instance, however, is rendered extremely improbable by the fact that throughout this account Thaddeus is called an apostle, and we should therefore expect the designation upon the first mention of him.

It seems to me much more probable that the words, "' one of the Seventy," are an addition of Eusebius, who has already, in two places (§ 4, above, and chap. 12, § 3), told us that Thaddeus was one of them.

It is robable that the original Syriac preserved the correct tradition of Phaddeus as one of the Twelve; while Eusebius, with his false tradition of him as one of the Seventy, takes pains to characterize him as such, when he is first introduced, but allows the word ' apostle," s0 common in its wider sense, to stand throughout.

He does not intend to correct the Syriac original; he simply defines Thaddeus, as he understands him, more closely. f i le.

13 Tobias was very likely a Jew, or of Jewish extraction, the name being a familiar oné amon the Hebrews.

This might have been the reason that Thaddeus (if he went to Edessa at all) made

14 Moses Chorenensis reads instead (according to Rinck), '' Potagrus, the son of Apdas.'"?

Rinck thinks it probable that Eusebius or the translator made a mistake, confusing the Syrian name Potagrus with the Greek word roddypa, "a sort of gout,"' and then inserting a second Abdas.

The word '' Podagra"' ts Greek and could not have occurred in the Armenian original, and therefore Eusebius is to be corrected at this point by Moses Chorenensis (Rinck, zézd. p.18).

The Greek reads "A8Sov rov ro0 "ABSov modaypav éxovra, his home with him.

University of Southern California Library

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[e135 and burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken,'* and raised the dead; for he descended alone, but rose with many, and thus ascended to his Father."

Abgarus

therefore commanded the citizens to assemble early in the morning to hear the preaching of Thaddeus, and afterward he ordered gold and silver to be given him.

But he refused to take it, saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take that which is another's?

These things were done in the three hundred and fortieth year." *

the word of God.

And afterward Abgarus said, Thou, O Thaddeus, doest these things with the power of God, and we marvel.

But, in addition to these things, I pray thee to inform me in regard to the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and in regard to his power, by what power he performed those deeds of which

I have heard.

And Thaddeus said, Now indeed will I keep silence, since I have been sent to proclaim the word publicly.

But to-morrow assemble for me all thy citizens, and I will preach in their presence and sow among them the word of God, concerning the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and concerning his mission, for what purpose he was sent by the Father ; and concerning the power of his works, and the mysteries which he proclaimed in the world, and by what power he did these things ; and concerning his new preaching, and his abasement and humiliation, and how he humbled himself, and died and debased his divinity and was crucified, and descended into Hades,"

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

Creeds of Christendom, 1. p. 46; andespecially, Plumptre's SAzrzts in Prison, Pp. 77 S416 Compare the Gospel of Nicodemus, Il. 5.

17 xataBas yap pdvos ouvyyerpey ToAAOds, €i0 OVTwS avEeBN mpos rov watépa avtov.

Other MSS. read xaréBy pévos, avéByn Sé peta ToAAod OxAOU Tpds Tov TaTépa avTov.

Rufinus translates Our descendit quidem solus, ascendit autem cum grandi multttudine ad patrem suum.

Compare the words of Gal of Jerusalem (Catech. IV. 11): xatmA@ev ers Ta Katax8dua, iva KaKeibev

Avtpwoytas Tovs Stxaious, '' He descended into the depths, that he might ransom thence the just."'

48 According to the Chronicle of .Eusebius (ed. Schoene, II. p. 116) the Edessenes dated their era from the year of Abraham

1706 (B.C. 310), which corresponded with the second year of the one hundred and seventeenth Olympiad (or, according to the Armenian, to the third year of the same Olympiad), the time when Seleucus Nicanor began to rule in Syria.

According to this reckoning the 34oth year of the Edessenes would correspond with the year 0} Abraham

2046, the reign of Tiberius 16 (A.D.

30) ; that is, the second year of the two hundred and second Gime: (or, according to the Armenian, the third year of the same). According to the Chronicle of Eusebius, a was crucified in the nineteenth year of Tiberius (year of Abraam 2048= A.D. 32), according to Jerome's version in the eighteenth year (year of Abraham 2047= A.D. 31).

Thus, as compared with these authorities, the 340th year of the Edessenes falls too early.

But Tertullian, Lactantius, Augustine, and others put Christ's death in 783 U.C., that is in 30 A.D., and this corresponds with the Edessene reckoning as given by Eusebius.

19 See note 6.

15 This is probably the earliest distinct and formal statement of the descent into Hades; but no special stress is laid upon it as a new doctrine, and it is stated so much as a matter of course as to show that it was commonly accepted at Edessa at the time of the writing of these records, that is certainly as early as the third century.

Justin, Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, &c., all witness to the belief of the Church in this doctrine, though it did not form an article in any of the older creeds, and appeared in the East first in certain Arian confessions at about 360 A.D.

In the West it appeared first in the Aquileian creed, from which it was transferred to the Apostles' creed in the fifth century or later.

The doctrine is stated in a very fantastic shape in the Gosfel of Nicodemus, part Il. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p.

435 sq-), which is based upon an apocryphal gospel of the second century, according to Tischendorf.

In it the descent of Christ into Hades and his ascent with a great multitude are dwelt upon at length.

Compare Pearson, Ox the Creed, p. 340 sq.; Schaff's

BOOK CII.

INTRODUCTION.

the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men,

We have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs.

Such were the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by Christians, together with the events which have taken place in connection with Christ's recent appearance, and in conalthough Luke had many opportunities to call the Seven '"deacons" if he had considered them such; and finally, that according to Epiphanius (Her. XXX. 18), the Ebionitic churches of Palestine in his time had only presbyters and Archisynagogi (chzefs of the synagogue).

These Ebionites were the Jewish Christian reactionaries who refused to advance with the Church catholic in its normal development; it is therefore at least significant that there were no deacons among them in the fourth century.

In view of these considerations I feel compelled to doubt the traditional identification, although it is accepted without dissent by almost all scholars (cf. e.g. Lightfoot's article on The Christian Ministry in his Commentary on Philippians).

'There remain but two possibilities: either the Seven constituted a merely temporary committee (as held by Chrysostom, and in modern times, among others, by Vitringa, in his celebrated work on the Synagogue, any & Stanley in his Essays on the Apostolic Age); or they were the originals of permanent officers in the Church, other than deacons.

The former alternative is possible, but the emphasis which Luke lays upon the appointment is against it, as also the fact that the very duties which these men were chosen to perform were such as would increase rather than diminish with the growth of the Church, and such as would therefore demand the creation of a new and similar committee if the old were not continued. nection with his passion and with the choice of the apostles.

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

In favor of the second alternative there is, it seems to me, much to be said.

Thelimits of this note forbid a full discussion of the subject.

But it may be urged: First, that we find in the Acts frequent mention of a body of men in the Jerusalem church known as "' elders."?

Of the appointment of these elders we have no account, and yet it is clear that they cannot have been in existence when the apostles proposed the appointment of the Seven.

Secondly, although the Seven were such prominent and influential men, they are not once mentioned as a body in the subsequent chapters of the Acts, while, whenever we should expect to find them referred to with the apostles, it is always the "elders"? that are mentioned.

Finally, when the elders appear for the first time (Acts xi. 30), we find them entrusted with the same duties which the Seven were originally appointed to perform: ¢/ey receive the alms sent by the church of Antioch, It is certainly, to say the least, a very natural conclusion that these "' elders'? occupy the office of whose institution we read in Acts vi.

GHAPTERzal.

The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ. it First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias,' who, as has been shown,? was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate.

And there were appointed to the diaconate,* for the service of Against this identification of the Seven with the elders of the Jerusalem church it might be urged:

First, that Luke does not call them elders.

But it is quite possible that they were not called by that name at first, and yet later acquired it; and in that case, in referring to them in later times, people would naturally call the first appointed "' the Seven,'' to distinguish them from their successors,

"the elders,"

— the well-known and frequently mentioned officers whose number may well have been increased as the church grew.

It is thus easier to account for Luke's omission of the name " elder,'? than it would be to account for his omission of the name '' deacon," if they were deacons.

In the second place, it might be objected that the duties which the Seven were appointed to perform were not commensurate with those which fell to the lot of the elders as known tous.

This objection, however, loses its weight when we realize that the same kind of a development went on in connection with the bishop, as has been most clearly pointed out by Hatch in his Ovganization of the Early Christian Churches, and by Harnack in 1 See Acts i, 23-26.

2 Bk. I. chap. 12,§ 2.

| 28 The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenzus (adv. Her. I. 26. 3; Il]. 12. 10; IV. 15. x), then in Cyprian

(Zp. 64. 3), and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman Church in the third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters, they had only seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. #3), and has been ever since almost universally accepted.

In favor of the identification are urged this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity of the duties assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the use of the words dcaxovia and dtaxovecy in connection with the "Seven" in Acts vi.

It must be remarked, however, that ancient tradition is not unanimously in favor of the identification, for Chrysostom (Homily XIV. on Acts) denies it; still further, the functions of the Seven and of later deacons were not identical, for the former were put in charge of the financial affairs of the Jerusalem his translation of that work and in his edition of the Teaching of the Apostles.

Moreover, in the case of the Seven, who were evidently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem church after the apostles, and at the same time were "' full of the Spirit,"' it was very natural that, as the apostles gradually scattered, the successors of these Seven should have comnfitted to them other duties besides the purely financial ones. church, while the latter acted simply as bishops' assistants.

In fact, it was the bishop of the second century, not the deacon, that had charge of the church finances.

And finally, no weight can be laid upon the use of the terms écaxovety and dcaxovia in connection with the Seven, for these words are used always in a general, never in an official sense in other parts of the Acts and of the New

Testament, and, what is still more decisive, the same word (dvaxovia) is used in the same passage in connection with the apostles; the Seven are *' to serve tables'? (Suaxoveiy tais tpaméfats), the apostles are to give themselves to '' the service of the word' (d.axovia tod Adyov),

There is just as much reason, therefore, on linguistic grounds, for calling the apostles "deacons" as for giving that name to the Seven.

On the other hand, against the opinion that the Seven were deacons, are to be urged the facts that they are never called "' deacons" by Luke or by any other New Testament writer; that we are nowhere told, in the New Testament or out of it, that there were deacons in the Jerusalem church,

The theory faeia ic in this note is not a novel one.

It was suggested first by Bohmer (in his Diss. ¥urzs eccles.), who was followed by Ritschl (in his Lntstehung der alt-kath. Kirche), and has been accepted in a somewhat modified form by Lange (in his Afostolisches Zeitalter), and by Lechler (in his Apost. und

Nachapost. Zeitalter).

Before learning that the theory had been proposed by others, I had myself adopted it and had embodied it in a more elaborate form in a paper read before a ministerial association in the spring of 1888.

My confidence in its validity has of course been increased by the knowledge that it has been maintained by the eminent scholars referred to above.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

flti23 ts ee eee ie ss from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded."

Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, " Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." "* At that

time also the promise of our Saviour to the king of the Osrhcenians was fulfilled.

For Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent Thaddeus 'to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the seven in number, of whom Stephen was one.®

He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose.t And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name,' which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are

worthy of the meed of victory. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just® on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem.

This James was called the brother of the Lord' because he was known as a son of Joseph,' and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came religion of Christ, as we have shown a little above from the document found there."

When he came to that place he healed

Abgarus by the word of Christ; and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ, he made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching.

And from that time down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to the name of Christ, offering no common proof of the beneficence of our Saviour toward them also.

These things have

been drawn from ancient accounts; but let us now turn again to the divine Scripture.

When the first and greatest persecution was instigated by the Jews against the church of Jerusalem in connection with the martyrdom of together,"® as the account of the holy

Gospels shows.

But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes" writes thus:

" For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jeru-

salem.""™ But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom

Barnabas was one."

But there were two Jameses : ® one called the Just, who was thrown Stephen, and when all the disciples, except the Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria," some, as the divine Scripture says, went as far as Pheenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, but could not yet venture to impart the word of faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to the Jews alone."

During

this time Paul was still persecuting the church, and entering the houses of believers was dragging men and women away and committing them to prison."

Philip also,

one of those who with Stephen had been entrusted with the diaconate, being among those who were scattered abroad, went down to Samaria," and being filled with the divine power, he first preached the word to the inhabitants of that country.

And divine grace worked so mightily with him that even Simon 3 See Acts vi. 1-6.

4 See Acts vii.

5 grépavos, "a crown."

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

1 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13.

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

; 9 Matt, i. 18.

10 On Clement's Hyfotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3.

On Clement's life and writings, see Bk. V. chap. 11.

11 GAN' "LaxwBov Tov Sixavov émicxoroy TaY 'lepotoAVMwy EdrcrOar, as the majority of the MSS. and editions read.

Laemmer, followed by Heinichen, substitutes yevéoOat for ¢AeoOau on the suthorsy of two important codices.

The other reading, however, is as well, if not better, supported.

How soon after the ascension of Christ, James the Just assumed a leading position in the church of Jerusalem, we do not know.

He undoubtedly became prominent very soon, as Paul in 37 (or 40) A.D. sees him in addition to Peter an visiting Jerusalem.

But we do not know of his having a position_ of leadership until the Jerusalen Council in 51 (Acts xv. and Gal. ii.), where he is one of the three pillars, standing at least upon an equality in influence with Peter and John, But this very expression ss ieee pillars of the Church " excludes the supposition that he was bishop of the Church in the modern sense of the term—he was only onze of the rulers of the Church.

Indeed, we have abundant evidence from other sources that the monarchical episcopacy was nowhere known at that early age.

It was the custom of all writers of the second century and later to throw back into the apostolic age their own church organization, and hence we hear of bishops appointed by the apostles in various churches where we know that the episcopacy was a second century growth.

Magus with many others was attracted by his iven by Routh (Rel. Sac.

I. p.. 16) identifies the two.

But egesippus (quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many of this name, and that he was therefore called

James the Just to distinguish him from others.

Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement with apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in regard to the relationship of James to Christ.

The contradiction, indeed, appears only upon careful examination.

14 Josephus (Anz. XX. 9. 1) says he was stoned to death.

The account of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusesebius in chap. 23, below, which see.

15 James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I., 44 a.p.

See Acts xii. 2, and Bk. II. chap. 9, below.

16 Gal. i. 19.

P ; 17 See above, Bk. I. chap. 1312 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 3.

13 Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James, the son of Alphaus (compare the words just above:

"These delivered it to the rest of the apostles,"' in which the word '« apostles," on account of the ' Seventy"? just following, seems to be used in a narrow sense, and therefore this James to be one of the 18 The date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa 1s not known (see above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes r and 3), but it was the seat of a bishop in the third century, and in Eusebius' time was. filled with magnificent churches and monasteries.

19 See Acts viii. 1.

21 See Acts viii. 3.

20 See Acts xi. 19.

22 See Acts viii, 5+ Twelve), and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis

(see above, Bk. I. chap, 12, note 13).

Papias, too, in a fragment

T1y25]

PILATE'S REPORT CONCERNING CHRIST.

giving sojourn of our Saviour among men ;™ so that through him in truth the prophecy obtained its fulfillment, which declares that "Ethiopia stretcheth out her hand unto God.'"'#!

In addition to these, Paul, that " chosen vessel,"

'not of men neither through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and of God the Father who raised him from the dead,' was appointed an apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by a voice which was uttered in a revelation from heaven.** li words.* Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired, by his jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him, that he was thought to be the great power of God.

But at this time, being amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the divine power, he feigned and

counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far as to receive baptism."

And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his most impure heresy."

For they, after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves."

The most of these have been expelled as soon as they have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by

CHAPTER II.

How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate concerning Christ.

Anp when the wonderful resurrectionand

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

He gave an account also of © 2 other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.

They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate,® but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed

Peter, received the merited punishment."

But as the preaching of the Saviour's Gospel was daily advancing, a certain providence led from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of the queen of that country," for Ethiopia even to the present day is ruled, according to ancestral custom, by a woman.

He, first among the Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the divine word from Philip in consequence of a revelation, and having become the first-fruits of believers throughout the world, he is said to have been the first on returning to his country to proclaim the knowledge of the God of the universe and the life-

23 See Acts viii. 9 sqqUpon Simon, see chap, 13, note 3.

24 chy peyaAny Svvau.y Tov Oeov.

Compare Acts viii. 10, which has 7 évvauis Tod Gcov 7 KaAovpzévn Meyadn.

According to Irenzus (I. 23. 1) he was called '' the loftiest of all powers, i.e. the one who is father over all things" (swdléss¢mam virtutem, hoc est, eum qui sit nuper omnia Pater); according to Justin Martyr,

Apol. I. 26 (see below, chap. 13), Tov mpwrov Gedy; according to the Clementine Howzzirs (11. 22) he wished to be called "' a certain supreme power of God" (avwrary Ts dvvauis), According to the Clementine Recognitions (11. 7) he was called the '' Standing one"'

"20 Trenzus (Adv. Her. III. 12. 8) says that this Eunuch returned to Ethiopia and preached there.

But by no one else, so far as I know, is the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to him.

The first certain knowledge we have of the introduction of Christianity into Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumentius and /Edesius, of whom Rufinus, I. 9, gives the original account; and yet it is probable that Christianity existed there long before this time.

Compare Neander's Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 46.

See also H. R. Reynolds' article upon the '' Ethiopian Church" in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, U1. 232 sqq.

(hiuc ergo Stans appellatur).

25 Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church, which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward distinguished in Church history.

The account of the Acts does not say that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it be implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring to purchase the gift of God with money.

$1 Psa, xviii. 31.

52 Acts ix. 15.

33 Gal. 1. x.

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

\ 1 That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by Tertullian (Afo/. 21), and is in itself quite probable.

Justin Martyr (Afol. I. 35 and 48) mentions certain Acts of Pilate as well known in his day, but the so-called Acts of Pilate which are still extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later period.

They are very fanciful and curious.

The most important of these Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the Gospel of Nicodemus.

There are also extant numerous spurious epistles of Pilate addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c.

The extant Acts and Epistles are collected in Tischendorf's Evang.

A foc., and most of them are translated by Cowper in his Afocryphal Gospels.

See also the Axte-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., vill. p416 sqq._ Compare the excellent article of Lipsius-upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. 11. p. 707 sqq-, also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf, p. Ixii sqq.

26 Eusebius may refer here to the Simonians, an heretical sect |\ (mentioned by Justin, Irenzus, Clement of Alexandria, and others), which recognized him as its founder and leader (though they originated probably at a later date), and even looked upon him as a God.

They were exceedingly licentious and immoral.

'Their teachings gradually assumed a decidedly Gnostic character, and Simon came to be looked upon as the father of all Gnostics (compare Irenzus,

I. 27. 4), and hence of heretics in general, and as himself the archheretic.

Eusebius, therefore, perhaps refers in this place simply to the Gnostics, or to the heretics in general.

27 Another instance of the external and artificial conception of heresy which Eusebius held in common with his ae

°8Acts viii. tells of no punishment which befell Simon further than the rebuke of Peter which Hippolytus (P/z2. vi. 15). calls a curse, and which as such may have been regarded by Eusebius as a deserved punishment, its effect clinging to him, and finally bringing him to destruction (see below, chap. 14, note 8). i 29 Acts viii. 26 sqqThis queen was Candace, according to the Biblical account; but Candace was the name, not of an individual, but of a dynasty of queens who ruled in Meroé, an island formed by 2 The existing Report of Pilate (translated in the Ante-Nicene

Fathers, tbid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius' description, containing as it does a detailed account of Christ's miracles and of his resurrection.

According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its present form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by interpolations and additions.

See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf referred to in the previous note.

5 See below, note 12, two branches of the Nile, south of Egypt.

See Pliny, HN. VI. 35

(Delphin edition); Dion Cassius, LIV. 5; and Strabo, XVII. 1. 54

(Miiller's edit., Paris, 1877).

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[pilerz:

lows :" " But in order that we may give an

account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval.

Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus.2

And this is a point in favor of our doctrine," that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree.

If a God does not please a man he is not made a God.

Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God.

Tiberius,

therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine.

But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it.

But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians."?%

Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world. that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men.

But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived

no hostile measures against Christ.

These things are recorded by Tertullian,' a man well versed in the laws of the Romans,' and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome.'

In_ his apology for the Christians,' which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek,® he writes as fol4 That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.

5 Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second century.

The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some even into the forties.

For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst Néldechen in the Zedtschrift fiir wissenschafiliche Theologie, 1886, Heft 2.

He concludes that he was born about 150 and lived until about 230.

Tertullian's father was a Roman centurion, and he himself became a lawyer and rhetorician in Rome.

He was converted to Christianity probably between 180 and 190, and according to Jerome, became a presbyter and continued as such until middle life (whether in Rome or in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in the latter, for he certainly spent the later years of his life, while he was a Montanist, in Carthage, and also a considerable part of his earlier life, as his writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism (probably about 200 A.p.), and died at an advanced age

(220+).

That he was a presbyter rests only upon the authority of eons (de vir. zll. 53), and is denied by some Roman Catholic to Fundanus from Latin into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar.

For instance, the only work of Tertullian's which he quotes is his Afology, and he uses only a Greek translation of that.

It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of Tertullian's works, or at least the most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original with any degree of ease.

Moreover, this conclusion in regard to kis knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general.

In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of the important

Latin works which had been produced before his time, except such as existed in Greek translations.

Compare Heinichen's note in his edition of Eusebius' Hzstory, Vol. II]. p. 128 sqq.

The translation of Tertullian's Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in Bk. II. chap. 25, § 4.

For the mistakes, however, of course not spokes himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held responsible. istorians in the interest of clerical celibacy, for Tertullian was a married man.

He wrote a great number of works, — apologetic, polemic, and practical—a few in Greek, but most of them in Latin,

—and many of the Latin ones are still extant.

The best edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes.

Vol. III. con. tains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of Tertullian by various writers.

An English translation of his works is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. II]. and 1V. 1-125.

Our main sources for a knowledge of his l'fe are his own writings, and Jerome's de vir. iil. chap. 53.

For a fuller account of Tertullian, see any of the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by A. Hauck, Tertullian's Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877.

For the literature, see Schaff's Church Hist.

II. p. 818.

6 His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not very conspicuous in his writings.

His books lead us to think that as a lawyer he must have-been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of resource than for erudition.

And this conclusion is borne out by his own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the acquirement of extensive and accurate learning. 5 Kal wav pdadvora émi 'Pons Aaumpov.

-Rufinus translates inter nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and Valesius zxter Latinos

Scriptores celeberrimus, taking émt 'Pwyns to mean the Latin lan10 Tertullian's Apology, chap. 5.

11 Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian's AZology, p56) that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero's De

Legibus in the words: Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas nist publice adscttos privatim colunto.

12 Mapxos'Atjidcos ovTws mepi Tivos EidWAOU emoinKev 'AABovpvov.

Latin: Sct M. A&mulius de deo suo Alburno..

In Adv.

Marctonem, 1. 18, Tertullian says, Alzoguzn sz stc homo Deum commentabttur, guomodo Romulus Consum, et Tattus Cloactnam, et Hosttlius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, ct qguidam ante hoc tempus Anttnoum,; hoc alits licebtt; nos Marctonem nauclerumt novimus, non regem, nec tmperatorem. uage.

But this is not the literal translation of the words of Euseius.

He says expressly, one of the especially distinguished men zn Rome.

From his work de cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent some time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would imply a residence of some duration there.

He very likely practiced law and rhetoric in Rome until his conversion.

_ I cannot discover that this e:SwAos or Dezs Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than Tertullian, nor do I find a reference to him in any dictionary accessible to me.

18 Literally, '' This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake of) our doctrine "' (<ai Tod70 Umep Tov i;uOv Adyou TemoiyTar); but the freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense.

The original Latin reads: faczt et soc ad causam nostram.

8 Yeriullian's Apology ranks first among his extant works, and is "one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the Church"? (Schaff).

The date of its composition is greatly disputed, though it must have been written during the reign of Septimius

Severus, and almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it to the years 197-204. Since the investigations of Bonwetsch (Die Schriften

14 This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine.

Tertullian was probably, as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated documents from some Christian source.

He cannot have secured his knowledge from original state records.

The falsification took place, probably, long after the time uf Tiberius, Tertullian is the first writer to mention these circumstances, and. Tertullian was not by any means a critical historian.

Compare Neander's remarks in his Church History, Vol. I. p. 93 sqq. (Torrey's Translation).

Tertulltan's, Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the Zeztschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, 1878, p. 572 sqq-), and of Ndldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning its composition to the latter part

(summer or fall) of the year 197, its date may be accepted as practically established.

9 Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from an already existing translation.

His knowledge of the Latin language appears to have been very limited.

He must have had some acquaintance with it, for he translates Hadrian's. rescript

15 Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan's rescript and all subsoasent imperial action upon the subject would become inexplicable,

KING OF THE JEWS.

1O7 II. 4.]

AGRIPPA APPOINTED

a fresh and life-giving fountain."

And

Agabus, one of the prophets who was with them, uttered a prophecy concerning the famine which was about to take place,' and Paul and Barnabas were sent to relieve the necessities of the brethren.'

CHAPTER III.

The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout All the World.

Tuus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun, quickly illumined the whole world ;* and straightway, in accordance with the divine Scriptures," the voice of the inspired evangelists and

CHAPTER IV.

After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa King of the Jews, having punished

Herod with Perpetual Exile. apostles went forth through all the earth, and

their words to the end of the world.

In every city and village, churches were quickly established, filled with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor.

And those whose minds, in consequence of errors which had descended to them from their forefathers, were fettered by the ancient disease of idelatrous superstition, were, by the power of Christ operating through the teaching and the wonderful works of his disciples, set free, as it were, from terrible masters, and found a release from the most cruel bondage. They renounced with abhorrence every species of demoniacal polytheism, and confessed that there was only one God, the creator of all things, and him they honored with the rites of true piety, through the inspired and rational worship

Tiperwws died, after having reigned about

twenty-two years, and Caius succeeded him in the empire He immediately gave the government of the Jews to Agrippa,' making him king ovet the tetrarchies of Philip and of Lysanias ; in addition to which he bestowed upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod,* having punished Herod (the one under whom the Saviour suffered®) and his wife Herodias with perpetual exile® on account of numerous crimes. Josephus is a witness to these facts.'

Under this emperor, Philo' became known;

common in the Greek of that day.

It was probably originally given as a term of contempt, but accepted by the disciples as a term of the highest honor.

7 am' evOadovs Kat yovihov mnyjs.

Two MSS., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Closs, and Crusé, read ys; but all the other MSS., together with Rufinus, support the reading myy%s, which is adopted by the majority of editors. which has been planted by our Saviour

among men.

But the divine grace being now poured out upon the rest of the nations, Cornelius, of Czesarea in Palestine, with his whole house, through a divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first received faith in Christ ;3 and after him a multitude of other

Greeks in Antioch,! to whom those who were scattered by the persecution of Stephen had preached the Gospel.

When the church of Antioch was now increasing and abounding, and a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem were on the ground,? among them Barnabas and Paul, and in addition many other brethren, the name of Christians first sprang up there,° as from 8 See Acts xi. 28.

Agabus is known to us only from this and one other passage of the Acts (xxi. 10), where he foretells the imprisonment of Paul.

The famine here referred to took place in the reign of Claudius, where Eusebius puts it when he mentions it again in chap. 8. He cannot therefore be accused, as many accuse him, of putting the famine itself into the reign of Tiberius, and hence of committing a chronological error.

He is following the account of the Acts, and mentions the prominent fact of the famine in that connection, without thinking of chronological order.

His method is, to be sure, loose, as he does not inform his readers that he is anticipating by a number of years, but leaves them to discover it for themselves when they find the same subject taken up again after a digression of four chapters.

Upon the famine itself, see below, chap. 8.

9 See Acts xi. 29, 30+ 1 From Aug. 29, A.D. 14, to March 16, A.D. 372 Caius ruled from the death of Tiberius until Jan. 24, A.D. 41.

3 Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grandson of Herod the Great.

He was educated in Rome and gained high favor with Caius, and upon the latter's accession to the throne received the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in A.D. 39 the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which had belonged to Herod Anti1 Compare Col. i. 6.

That Christianity had already spread over the whole world at this time is, of course, an exag eration; but the statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it was elieved as a historical fact.

This conception arose originally out of the idea that the second coming of Christ was near, and the whole world must know of him before his coming.

The tradition that the apostles preached in all parts of the world. is to be traced back to the same cause. as, After the death of Caius, his successor, Pinatas, appointed im also king over the province of Judea and Samaria, which made him ruler of all Palestine, a dominion as extensive as that of Herod the Great.

He was a strict observer of the Jewish law, and courted the favor of the Jews with success.

It was by him that James the Elder was beheaded, and Peter imprisoned (Acts xii.).

He died of a terrible disease in A.D. 44.

See iow: chap. 10.

« Herod Antipas.

3 See Luke xxiii. 7-116 He was banished in A.D. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul (according to Josephus, Anz. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according to his B. F.

Il. 9. 6), and died in Spain (according to B. F. II. 9. 6).

2 Ps, xix. 4.

3 See Acts x. 1 sq.

4 See Acts xi. 20.

The Textus Receptus of the New Testament reads at this point 'EAAyvcoTas, a reading which is strongly supported by external testimony and adopted by Westcott and Hort.

But the internal evidence seems to demand "EAAnvas, and this reading is found in some of the oldest versions and in a few MSS., and is adopted by most modern critics, including Tischendorf.

Eusebius is a witness for the latter reading.

He takes the word "EAAnvas in a broad sense to indicate all that are not Jews, as is clear from his insertion of the dAAwy, " other Greeks," after speaking of Cornelius, who was not a Greek, buta Roman.

Closs accordingly translates Nichtjuden, and Stigloher Hezden.

5 See Acts xi. 22 sqq.

6 See Acts xi. 26.

This name was first given to the disciples by the heathen of Antioch, not by the Jews, to whom the word " Christ "" meant too much} nor by the disciples themselves, for the word seldom appears in the New Testament, and nowhere in the mouth of a disciple.

The word xptotiavds has a Latin termination, but this does not prove that it was invented by Romans, for Latinisms were

See Ant. XVIII. 6 and 7, and B. F. Il. 98 Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born probably about 20-10 B.c. (in his Legat. ad Cajum, he calls himself an old man).

Very little is known about his life, and the time of his death is uncertain.

The only fixed date which we have is the embassy to Caligula (A.D. 40), and he lived for at least some time after this.

He is mentioned by Jerome (de wir. zl. 1x), who says he was born of a priestly family; but Eusebius knows nothing of this, and there is probably no truth in the statement.

He is mentioned also by Josephus in his At. XVIII. 8.1.

He was a Jewish philosopher, thorough] imbued with the Greek spirit, who strove to unite Jewish beliefs with Greek culture, and exerted immense influence upon the thought of subsequent ages, especially upon Christian theology.

His works (Biblical, historical, philosophical,

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[II. 4. ae i a a a Caius in behalf of the laws of his fathers he received nothing but laughter and ridicule, and almost incurred the risk of his life.

Jose-

phus also makes mention of these things in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in the following words :* 'A sedition having arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks,' three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius.

One

of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion,' who uttered many slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they neglected the honors due to Cesar.

For while all other subjects of Rome erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects treated him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it disgraceful to honor him with statues and to swear by his name.

And when Apion

had uttered many severe charges by which he hoped that Caius would be aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of the Jewish embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of Alexander the Alabarch,® and not unskilled in philosophy, was prepared to enter a man most celebrated not only among many of our own, but also among many scholars without the Church.

He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior to none of those who held high dignities in Alexandria.

How exceedingly he labored in the Scriptures and in the studies. of his nation is plain to all from the work which he has done. How familiar he was. with philosophy and with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not necessary to say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in the study of Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, to which he particularly devoted his attention.'

CHAPTER V.

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

PHILO has given us an account, in five books, of the misfortunes of the Jews under Caius.! He recounts at the same time the madness of Caius: how he called himself a god, and performed as emperor innumerable acts of tyranny ; and he describes further the miseries of the Jews under him, and gives a report of the embassy upon which he himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in Alexandria ;* how when he appeared before their side, followed the example of the Greeks, sending an embassy for their own defense, with Philo at its head.

The result was as Eusebius relates, and the Jews were left in a worse condition than before, from which, however, they were speedily relieved by the death of Caius.

Claudius, who succeeded Caius, restored to them for a time religious freedom and all the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed.

3 Josephus, Ax#. XVIII. 8. x.

4 This sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 a.D., soon after the accession of Caius.

The Jews, since the time of Alexander the Great, when they had come in great numbers to the newly founded city, Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions high favor there, and were among the most influential inhabitants.

They possessed all the rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality with their neighbors in all respects. hen Alexandria fell into the hands of the Romans, all the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks, were compelled to take a position subordinate to the conquerors, but their condition was not worse than that of their neighbors.

They had always, however, been hated more or less by their fellow-citizens on account of their prosperity, which was the result of superior education and industry.

This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when the financial condition of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants felt themselves unusually burdened by the Roman demands.

The old hatred for their more prosperous neighbors broke out afresh, and the terrible disturbance mentioned was the result.

The refusal of the Jews to worship Caius as a God was made a pretext for attacking them, and it was this refusal which gained for them the hatred of Caius himself. practical, &c.) are very numerous, and probably the majority of them are still extant. For particulars, see chap. 18, below.

Foran excellent account of Philo, see Schiirer, Geschichte des Fiidischen Volkes tm Zettalter Fesu Christi; zweite Auflage, Bd. II. p.

831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1886), where the chief literature upon the aa ject is given.

9 Philo was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its departments, and shows great familiarity with it in his works.

The influence of Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his philosophical system, but also upon his language; and all the Greek hilosophers were studied and honored by him.

He may, indeed, imself be called one of them.

His system is eclectic, and contains not only Platonic, but also Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements,

Upon his doctrinal system, see especially Schiirer, 247d. p. 836 sq.

1 Upon this wack, see Schiirer, p. 855 sqq.

According to him, the whole work embraced five books, and probably bore the title

Tept apeT@v kal mpegBeias mpds Taiov.

Eusebius cites what seems to be the same work under these two different titles in this and in the next chapter; and the conclusion that they were but one work is confirmed by the fact that Eusebius (in chap. 18) mentions the work under the title On the Virtues, which he says that Philo humorously prefixed to his work, describing the impiety of Caius.

The omission of the title 7 mpeoBeta in so complete a catalogue of Philo's works makes its identification with wept apet@v very probable.

Of the five, only the third and fourth are extant, — eis bAdkkov, Adversus Hlaccum, and wept mpeoBetas mpos Taio, de legatione ad Cajum (found in Mangey's ed.

Vol. II. p. 517-600).

Book I., which is lost, contained, probably, a general introduction; Book II., which is also lost, contained an account of the oppression of the Jews during the time of Tiberius, by Sejanus in Rome, and by Pilate in Judea (see below, note 9); Book III., Adversus Flaccum (still extant), contains an account of the persecution of the Jews of Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Caius; Book IV., Legatio ad Cajum (still extant), describes the sufferings which came upon the Jews as a result of Caius' command that divine honors should everywhere be paid him; Book V., the madwwwdia

5 Apion, chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of Alexandria who had won great fame as a writer and Greek scholar.

He seems to have been very unscrupulous and profligate, and was a bitter and persistent enemy of the Jews, whom he attacked very severely in at least two of his works—the Agyptzan History and a special work Agazust the ¥ews, neither of which is extant.

He was very unscrupulous in his attacks, inventing the most absurd and malicious falsehoods, which were quite generally believed, and were the means of spreading still more widely the common hatred of the Jews, Against him Josephus wrote his celebrated work, Contra

Apionem (more fully de antiguitate ¥udeorum contra Apionem), which is still extant, and in the second book of which he exposes the ignorance and mendacity of Apion.

In the Pseudo-Clementines he plays an important (but of course fictitious) role as an antagonist of the Gospel.

The extant fragments of Apion's works are given, according to Lightfoot, in Miiller's Fragm. Hist. Grec. II. 506 sq., and in Fabricius' Bz6/. Grec. I. 503, and VII. 50.

Compare Lightfoot's article in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog.

(which is lost), contained an account of the change for the better in the Jews' condition through the death of Caius, and the edict of toleration published by Claudius.

Upon the other works of Philo, see chap. 18, below.

_° The Alabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexandria. Alexander was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely known and held in high esteem.

His son Tiberius Alexander was appointed procurator of Judea in 46 A.D., as successor of Cuspius

2 The occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which had arisen between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had continued with occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much blood had been shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse.

All efforts to secure peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 A.p., the Greeks dispatched an embassy to the emperor, hoping to secure from him an edict for the extermination of the Jews.

The Jews, on Fadus.

Philo thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family.

The accuracy of Josephus' statement that Philo was the brother of the Alabarch Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald, Gesch. des

Fiidischen Volkes, Vol. V1. p. 235), and the Alabarch has been assumed to have been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient ground (compare Schiirer, 74217, p. 832, note 5).

II. 6.]

MISFORTUNES OF THE JEWS UNDER CAIUS.

upon a defense in reply to his accusations. | the words of Philo, who writes as follows : ?

But Caius prevented him and ordered him| "So great was the caprice of Caius in his

to leave, and being very angry, it was plain that he meditated some severe measure against them.

And Philo departed covered with insult, and told the Jews that were with him to be of good courage ; for while Caius was raging against conduct toward all, and especially toward the nation of the Jews.

The latter he so bitterly hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the other cities,' and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them he really erected them himself).

The temple in the holy city, which had hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an inviolable asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that it might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger

Caius."'* Innumerable other terrible and

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

Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows:' "Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns,° to Jerusalem by night.

The following day this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews.

For those who were near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled under foot.

For they allow no image to be set up in their city."

Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same

Pilate, when they cried out that they had no other king than Cesar.

The same

writer further records that after this another calamity overtook them. He writes as follows :"

"After this he. stirred up another tumult by making use of the holy treasure, which is called

Corban," in the construction of an aqueduct them he was in fact already contending with God."

'Thus far Josephus. And Philo himself, in the work On the Embassy' which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail the things which were done by him at that time.

But I shall omit the most of them, and record only those things which will make clearly evident to the reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them not long

after their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the same. place he relates that at Rome in the reign of Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly ;* and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults.'

And in the first} Ls f &

CHAPTER VI.

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

af Arter the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and, besides innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews.! These things we may learn briefly from 7 See note x, above.

The work is cited here under the title 7 arpecBcia (Legatio).

8 The Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had increased greatly in numbers and influence there.

They were first disturbed by Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose notice all the worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their enemies, especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the emperor, and was moreover a deadly enemy of the Pay The Jews were driven out of Rome, and suffered many acts of violence.

After the death of Sejanus, which took place in 31 A.D., they were allowed to return, and their former rights were restored. ielding of the emperor, who was induced to give up his demands yy the request of Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor with him.

Whether the Jews suffered in the same way in Rome we do not know, but it is probable that the emperor endeavored to carry out the same plan there as elsewhere.

9 Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical, and was very obnoxious to the Jews, offending them greatly at different times during his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as no procurator before him had ventured to do.

Soon after his accession he changed his quarters from Czsarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the Roman stan

and Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns \

wf 2 Philo, Legat. ad Caium, 43.

8 éy tats GAAaus wéAeot.

The reason for the use of the word "other" is not quite clear, though Philo perhaps means all the cities except Jerusalem, which he mentions a little below. rd into-the Holy City. The result was a great tumult,

| (Josephus, B. ¥. Il. 9. 2; see the next chapter), At another time he offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields inscribed with the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon an express order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Cazum, chap.

38).

Again, he _appropriated a part of the treasure of the temple to the construction

4 "Caius the younger,' to distinguish him from Julius Caesar who bore the name Caius, and who was also deified'' (Valesius).

5 This work is probably the same as that mentioned in the beginning of chap. 5.

(See chap. 5, note 1.) The work seems to have borne two titles 7 mpeoBeia and mepi aperwy.

See Schiirer, 757d. p.

859, who considers the devrépw here the addition of a copyist, who could not reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius. ey an aqueduct, which caused another terrible tumult which was uelled only after much bloodshed (Josephus, B. ¥. II. 9. 4; see the next chapter). For further particulars about Pilate, see chap. 7, below.

6 This is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of Eusebius, as Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities of the. nation were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour,

1 Caius' hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as. mentioned above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors, which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects.

His demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and in Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his worship, the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the 7 Josephus, B. ¥. Il. 9. 2.

9 John xix. 15.

8 gnuaiat KadovvTat.

10 Josephus, 2. ¥. II. 9. 4.

11 Heb. 122: Greek xopBay and xopBavas.

The word denoted

IIO

THE GHURGH: HISTORY

"OF sEUSEBIUS:

[II. 6. ne ea ee ere eset Sg a ee by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period.'

three hundred stadia in length." The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud complaints.

But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen's clothing, forbidding them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those who should make an outcry.

To them he now gave the preconcerted signal from the tribunal.

And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot by their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives.

But the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who

were slain, held their peace."

In addition to these the same author records many other tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them.

Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Famine which took Place in the Reign of Claudius.

Caius had held the power not quite four

years,! when he was succeeded by the emperor Claudius.

Under him the world was visited with a famine,' which writers that are entire strangers to our religion have recorded in their histories.2

And thus the prediction of Agabus recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,* according to which the whole world was to be visited by a famine, received its fulfillment.

And

Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time of Claudius, and stating that the brethren of Antioch, each according to his ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and Barnabas, adds the following account.

CHAPTER IX.

The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.

CHAPTER VIiI.

"1 Now about that time" (it is clearthat I he means the time of Claudius) " Herod the King? stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church.

And he killed James the brother of John with the sword."

And

concerning this James, Clement, in the seventh book of his Hypotyposes,* relates a story

Pilate's Suicide.

Ir is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner ;! and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him.

This is stated 2 Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known tous.

We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the trustworthiness of the account.

1 Caius ruled from March 16, A.D. 37, to Jan. 24, A.D. 41, and was succeeded by his uncle Claudius. originally any offering tq God, especially an offering in fulfillment of a vow.

The form xopBavas, which Josephus has employed here, was used to denote the sacred treasure or the treasury itself.

In Matt. xxvii. 6, the only place where this form of the word occurs in the New Testament, it is used with the latter meaning.

Upon this act of Pilate's, see above, chap. 5, note 9.

2 Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Axnal.

XII. 23, and Eusebius, Chvon., year of Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but-no universal famine is recorded such as Eusebius speaks of.

According to Josephus (Azz. XX. 2. 5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place in jan while Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander were successively procurators,

Fadus was sent into Judea upon the death of Agrippa (44 A.D.), and Alexander was succeeded by Cumanus in 48 a.p.

The exact date of Alexander's accession we do not know, but it took place probably about 45 or 46.

This famine is without doubt the one referred to by Agabus in Acts xi. 28.

The exact meaning of the word oicoumévy, in that passage, is a matter of dispute.

Whether it refers simply to Palestine, or is used to indicate a succession of famines in different parts of the world, or is employed only in a rhetorical sense, it is impossible tosay.

Eusebius understands the word in its widest sense, and therefore assumes a universal famine; but he is mistaken in his assumption.

12 Josephus, in Ant. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was 200 stadia long.

In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number given is 400, according to the Greek MSS. of Josephus, though the old Latin translation agrees with Eusebius in reading 300.

The situation of the aqueduct we do not know, though the remains of an ancient aqueduct have been found to the south of Jerusalem, and it is thought that this may have been the same. It is possible that Pilate did not construct a new aqueduct, but simply restored one that had been built in the time of Solomon.

Schultz (¥erusalem, Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 4o, supposing that the aqueduct began at Bethlehem, which is 4o stadia from Jerusalem.

13 See B. F. IL. 10, 12 sqq.

1 Pilate's downfall occurred in the following manner, A leader of the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures which Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters.

Pilate, supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops against them and defeated them with great slaughter.

The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome (36 A.D.) to answer the charges brought against him.

Upon reaching Rome he found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the throne.

He was unsuccessful in his attempt to defend himself, and, according to tradition, was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a monument is still shown as Pilate's tomb.

According to another tradition he committed suicide upon the mountain near Lake Lucerne, which bears his name.

3 The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record a famine during the reign of Claudius, are Dion Cassius and Tacitus, who mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the famine in Judea (see the previous note for the references).

Eusebius, in his Chvo2., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome during this reign, but upon what authority we do not know. As already remarked, we have no extant account of a general famine at this time.

* Acts xi. 28.

5 Acts xi. 29, 30.

1 Acts xii. 1, 2.

2 Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.

3 On Clement's Hyfotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone.

The account was probably received by Clement from oral tradition.

He had a great store of such traditions of the apostles and their immediate fol-

II. 10.] THE VEN

DOF vHE ROD AGRIPPA

| which is worthy of mention ; telling it as he received it from those who had lived before him.

He says that the one who led James to the judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing his testiof Cesar, learning that this was a festival observed in behalf of Ceesar's safety.® At this festival was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men in the province.

And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the theater at break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful texture.

And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection of the sun's earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so_ brightly as to produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him.

And immediately his flatterers, some from one place, others from another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for his good, calling him a god, and saying, 'Be thou merciful; if up to this time we have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art superior to the nature of mortals.'

The king did not re-

buke them, nor did he reject their impious flattery.

But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above his head.''

And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as mony, was moved, and confessed that he

was himself also a Christian.

They were both therefore, he says, led away together ; and on the way he begged James to forgive him.

And he, after considering a little, said, "' Peace be with thee," and kissed him.

And thus they were both beheaded at the same time.

And then, as the divine Scripture says,'

Herod, upon the death of James, seeing that the deed pleased the Jews, attacked Peter also and committed him to prison, and would have slain him if he had not, by the divine appearance of an angel who came to him by night, been wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus liberated for the service of the Gospel.

Such was the providence of God in respect to Peter.

CHAPTER X.

Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having perlem.

In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this point, called "' Strato's Tower ''; but about ro B.c. Herod the Great built the city of Czsarea, which soon became the principal Roman city of Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence.

It became, later, the seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a part in Church history.

Eusebius himself was Bishop of CzesareaIt was a city of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of utter desolation. secuted the Apostles, immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance.

THE consequences of the king's undertaking against the apostles were no' long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice overtook him immediately after his plots

6 The occasion of this festival is uncertain.

Some have considered it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain.

But neither of these suggestions is likely.

It is more probable that the festival mentioned was the Quznxguennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of Augustus in 12 B.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XV.8.1; B. ¥.

I, 21. 8), and celebrated regularly every five years.

See Wieseler's.

Chronologie des ap. Zettalters, p. 131 sqq., where this question is. carefully discussed in connection with the date of Agrippa's death, which is fixed by Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 A.D. against them, as the Book of Acts records.'

For when he had journeyed to Cesarea, on a notable feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he delivered an address to the people from a lofty throne in front of the tribunal.

And when all the multitude applauded the speech, as if it were the voice of a god and not of a man, the Scripture relates that an angel of the Lord

7 The passage in Josephus reads:

'' But as he presently afterward looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him."

This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in Eusebius.

As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made the gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion of the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation of the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of, but in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks. serious, but so severe an accusation — an accusation which impeaches the honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner— should not be made except upon unanswerable grounds.

Eusebius elsewhere shows wangelt be a writer who, though not always critical, is at least honest in the usé he makes of his materials.

In this case, therefore, his general conduct ought to be taken into consideration, and he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory.

He says: 'Doubtless also the omission of the me in the account of Herod Agrippa's death was already in some texts of Josephus.

The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honsmote him, and being eaten of worms he

gave up the ghost.2, We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event ; for he clearly bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the following

words:* "He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea* when he came to Czesarea, which was formerly called

Strato's Tower.'

There he held games in honor '| esty, is a sufficient vindication 'against this unjust charge.'?

And in a note he adds: "It is not the suéstz¢tion of an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated.

The result is produced mainly by the 07zsszoz of some words in the text of Josephus, which runs pd avakiWas & ody met' oAcyov [Tov BovBwva]

THs éavtoD kepadrs Umep Kabecouevoy eldev [emi cxouviov tivds] ayyeddr [re] TovTov cvOis evdnos KakOv civat, Tov Kal ToTe THY ayabay yevdsevov.

The words bracketed are omitted, and airvov is added after elvat, so that the sentence runs, eidev ayyeAov TovTOY evOds evénce kKax@v elvac aitiov K.t.A.

This being so, I do not feel at all sure that the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by any disingenuous motive.

A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble over Tov BovBava, which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to extract some sense out of it.

In the previous mention of the bird (Ax¢. XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator, gives it as a Latin name: BovBora S€ of 'Pwmatoe Tov dpryiv TovTOV KaAovor.

Moller (quoted by Bright, p. XLV.) calls this ' the one case" lowers, —in how far true or false it is impossible to say; compare the story which he tells of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. _—

23, below.

This story of James is not intrinsically improbable.

It may have been true, though external testimony for it is, of course, weak, The Latin legends concerning James' later labors in Spain and his burial in Compostella are entirely worthless.

Epiphanius reports that he was unmarried, and lived the life of a Nazarite; but he gives no authority for his statement, and it is not improbable that the report originated through a confusion of this James with James the Just.

+ Acts xil. 3 sqq.

T See Acts xii. 19 $4.

2 Acts xii. 23.

3 Josephus, Anz.

XIX. 8. 2.

| , t 4 44A.D.

Agrippa began to reign over the whole kingdom in 41 A.D.

See above, chap. 4, note 3.

5 Czsarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusa-

↑ Back to top