CHAPTER XXVI

CHAPTER XXVI

II. 26.]

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.

$7 them, and the Acts of Andrew* and John® and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

And further, the character of the style is at

variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.* Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected * writings, but are all of them to be cast those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted.

And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted," from those others which, although not canonical but disputed," are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers

— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter," of Thomas," of Matthias," or of any others besides aside as absurd and impious.

Let us now proceed with our history.

CHAPTER XXVI.

note 28), possible also that Ignatius had, but the passage relied on to establish the fact fails to do so (see chap. 36, note 14).

It was probably used by Justin (see Westcott, zdzd. p. 516, and Lipsius, bid. p. 712), undoubtedly by Hegesippus (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22), and was perhaps known to Pantenus (see below, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 8). Clement of Alexandria (Strom.

II. 9) and Origen (2% Fohan. TI. 6 and often) are the first to bear explicit testimony to the existence of such a gospel.

Eusebius also was personally acquainted with it, as may be gathered from his references

Menander the Sorcerer.

MENANDER,! who succeeded Simon Magus,?

showed himself in his conduct another indorf, p. 36 sqq., and an English translation is contained in_the

Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 395-405.

See Lipsius in the Dzct. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 703-705. to it in III. 39 and IV. 22, and from his quotation in (the Syriac version of) his Tkeophany, 1V. 13 (Lee's trans. p. 234), and in the Greek Theophany, § 22 (Migne, VI. 685).

The latter also shows the high respect in which he held the work.

Jerome's testimony in regard to it is very important, but it must be kept in mind that the gospel had undergone extensive alterations and additions before his

36 This gospel is mentioned by Origen (Hom. in Lucam 1.), by Jerome (Pref. 7 Matt.), and by other later writers.

The gospel is no longer extant, though some fragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, e.g. in Strom. II. 9, Strom.

III.

4 (quoted below in chap. 30), and Strom. VII. 13, which show that it had a high moral tone and emphasized asceticism.

We know very little about it, but Lipsius conjectures that it was "identical with the mapadécets MarOiov which were in high esteem in Gnostic cineleé, and especially among the Basilidzans."

See Lipsius, zdzd. p716. time, and as known to him was very different from the original form

(cf. Lipsius, 26d. p. 711), and therefore what he predicates of it cannot be applied to the original without limitation,

Epiphanius has a good deal to say about it, but he evidently had not himself seen it, and his reports of it are very confused and misleading.

The statement of Lipsius, that according to Eusebius the gospel was reckoned by many among the Homologoumena, is incorrect; év Tov31 Eusebius so far as we know is the first writer to refer to these

Acts.

But they are mentioned after him by Epiphanius, Philaster, and Augustine (see Tischendorf's Acta Afost. Apoc. p. xl.).

The Acts of Andrew (Acta Andree) were of Gnostic origin and circulated among that sect in numerous editions.

The oldest extant portions (both in Greek and somewhat fragmentary) are the Acts of Andrew and Matthew (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,

VIII. 517-525) and the Acts of Peter and Andrew (tbid. 526-527).

The Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Andrew (zbzd.

511-516), or the so-called Efzstle of the Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning the Passion of Andrew, is a later work, still extant in a Catholic recension in both Greek and Latin, The fragments of these three are given by Tischendorf in his Acta Ajost.

A poc. p. tog sqqand 132 s 43 and in his Afocal. Afoc. p. 161 sq.

See Lipsius in the Dect. of é hrist. Biog. I. p. 30. tots refers rather to the vé90c among which its earlier acceptance by a large part of the Church, but present uncanonicity, places it by right.

Jrenzeus expressly states that there were but four canonical gospels (Adv. Her. III. 2, 8), so also Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV.

), while Clement of Alexandria cites the gospel with the same 'ormula which he uses for the Scriptures in general, and evidently looked upon it as, if not quite, at least almost, on a par with the other four Gospels.

Origen on the other hand Gs Fohan. Ii. 6, Hom. in Yer. XV. 4, and often) clearly places it upon a footing lower than that of the four canonical Gospels.

Upon the use of the gospel by the Ebionites and upon its relation to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, see chap. 27, note 8.

A The literature upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews is very extensive.

Among recent discussions the most important are by Hilgenfeld, in his Lvangelien nach threr Entstehung (1854); in the Zeztschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1863, P345 Sqq-;_

In his V. 7. extra Canon. rec. (2d ed. 1884); andin his Einlectung z. UW die

Eusebius is likewise, so far as we know, the first writer to refer to these Acts.

But they are afterward mentioned by Epiphanius, Photius, Augustine, Philaster, &c. (see Tischendorf, zdzd. p.

Ixxiil.).

They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few fragments (collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. Yohannis a Leucto Charino conscriptorum, Halle, 1847).

A Catholic extract ee much abridged, but containing clear Gnostic traits, is still extant and is given by Tischendorf, d4cta Afost. Apoc. p. 266 sq, (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,

VIII. 560-564).

The last two works mentioned belong to a collection of apocryphal Acts which were commonly ascribed to Leucius, a fictitious character who stands as the legendary author of the whole of this class of Gnostic literature.

From the fourth century on, frequent reference is made to various Gnostic Acts whose number must have been enormous.

Although no direct references are made to them before the time of Eusebius, yet apparent traces of them are found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, &c., which make it probable that these writers were acquainted with them, and it may

(1875); by Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879) ; and finally, a very thorough discussion of the subject, which bers 44 me after the composition of the above note, by andmann,

Das Hebriier-Evangelium (Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3, Leipzig, 1888).

This work gives the older literature of the subject with great fullness.

Still more recently Resch's Agrapha (7bzd. V. 4, Leipzig, 1889) has come to hand.

It discusses the Gospel on p. 322 sq.

23 ray avTtAcyowevwr, 26 avwuodroynuéevas.

; 27 obk éyduadjKous ev, GAAG Kal avTLAeyouevas, Eusebius, in this clause, refers to the vé@0, which, of course, while distinguished from the canonical Antdlegomena, yet are, like them, disputed, and hence belong as truly as they to the more general class o Antilegomena.

This, of course, explains how, in so many places in his History, he can use the words vd00t and avrdeyoueva interchangeabl at any rate be assumed as established that many of them date from (as e.g. in chap. 31, § 6).

In the present passage the v6@o, as bot uncanonical and disputed, are distinguished from the canonical writings, — including both the universally accepted and the disnuted, — which are here thrown together without distinction.

The point to be emphasized is that he is separating here the uncanonical from the canonical, without regard to the character of the individual writings within the latter class.

28 See chap. 3, note 5.

29 The Gospel of Thomas is of Gnostic origin and thoroughly Docetic.

It was written probably in the second century.

The original Gnostic form is no longer extant, but we have fragmentary Catholic recensions of it in both Latin and Greek, from which heretical traits are expunged with more or less care.

The gospel contained many very fabulous stories about the childhood of Jesus.

It is mentioned frequently by the Fathers from Origen down, but always as an heretical work.

The Greek text is given by Tischenthe third century and some of them even from the second ssntieys

See Salmon's article Lewcius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. UI.

703-707, and Lipsius' article in the same work, I. 28.

53 aiperikav avdomy avatAdouata.

34 ey yobots, 1 Justin, in the passage quoted just below, is the first one to tell us about Menander.

According to him, he was a Samaritan and a disciple of Simon Magus, and, like him, deceived many by the practice of magic arts.

Irenzus (Adv. Her. I. 23) gives a somewhat fuller account of him, very likely based upon Justin's work agairst heresies which the latter mentions in his 4/o/. I. 26, and from which Irenzus quotes in IV. 6. 2 (at least he quotes from a Contra Marctonent, which was in all agape a part of the same work; see

Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22), and perhaps in V. 26,2.

From this account of Irenzus that of Eusebius is drawn, and no new particulars are

THEs CHURCH, HISTORY

OFA EUSEBIUS.

[III. 26.

strument of diabolical power,' not inferior to the former.

He also was a Samaritan and carried his sorceries to no less an extent than his teacher had done, and at the same time reveled in still more marvelous tales than he.

For he said that he was himself the Saviour, who tery of godliness by magic art, and through them to make ridiculous the doctrines of the Church concerning the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead."

But they that have chosen these men as their saviours have fallen away from the true hope. had been sent down from invisible zeons for

the-salvation of men ;* and he taught that no one could gain the mastery over the world-creating angels themselves * unless he had first gone through the magical discipline imparted by him and had received baptism from him.

Those who were deemed worthy of this would partake even in the present life of perpetual immortality, and would never die, but would remain here forever, and without growing old

CHAPTER XXVII.

The Heresy of the Ebionites.

Tue evil demon, however, being unable

to tear certain others from their allegiance 11 Cyril 3 eae (Cat. XVIII. 1) says that the denial of the resurrection of the body was a py Samaritan heresy, and it would seem therefore that the heresy of these Menandrianists was in that direction, i.e. that they taught rather a spiritual immortality and denied a bodily resurrection (as suggested in note 6); evidently, however, this was not Eusebius' idea.

He probably looked upon them as discrediting the Christian doctrine of a resurrection by teaching a physical immortality, which of course was soon proved contrary to truth, and which thus, being confounded by the masses with the doctrines of the Christians, brought the latter also into contempt, and threw discredit upon immortality and resurrection of every kind.

1 The Ebionites were not originally heretics.

Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians, Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the Jaw and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile

Christian to the bitterest insistence upon _the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish

Christians.

With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the Gentiles, the breach only became wider.

In the time of Justin there were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as stil] observed the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians; others confined it to themselves.

Upon the latter Justin looks with charity; but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. become immortal.° These facts can be easily

learned from the works of Irenzus.'?

And Justin, in the passage in which he mentions Simon, gives an account of this man also, in the following words : ® "And we know that a certain

Menander, who was also a Samaritan, from the village of Capparattea,® was a disciple of Simon, and that he also, being driven by the demons, came to Antioch" and deceived. many by his magical art.

And he persuaded his followers that they should not die.

And there are

still some of them that assert this."

And it was indeed an artifice of the devil to endeavor, by means of such sorcerers, who assumed the name of Christians, to defame the great mysTrypho. 47).

For Justin the distinguishing mark of such schismatics is not a doctrinal heresy, but_an anti-Christian principle of life.

But the natural result of these udaizing tendencies and of the involved hostility to the "ews of the Gentiles was the ever more added, Tertullian also mentions Menander (De Anima, 23,

50) and his resurrection doctrine, but evidently knows only what Irenzus has already told; and so the accounts of all the early Fathers rest wholly upon Justin and Irenzeus, and probably ultimatel upon i alone.

See Salmon's article Wenakder in the Dict. of Christ. tog. tenacious clinging to the Jewish idea of the Messiah ; and as the Church, in its strife with snosticism, laid an ever-increasing stress upon Christology, the difference in this respect between itself and these Jewish Chtistions became ever more apparent, until finally, left far behind by the Church in its rapid development, they were looked upon as heretics.

And so in Irenzeus (I. 26. 2) we find a definite heretical sect called Ebionites,,whose Christology is like that of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who reject the apostle Baal, use the Gospel of Matthew only, and still cling to the observance of the Jewish law; but the distinction which Justin draws between the milder and stricter class is no longer drawn: all are classed together in the ranks of heretics, because of their heretical Christology (cf.

'67d. UII. 21.1; IV. 33. 4; V.x.3).

In Tertullian and Hippolytus their deviation from the orthodox Christology is still more clearly emphasized, and their relation to the Jewish law drops still further into the background (cf. Hippolytus, PAz?. VII. 22; X. 18; and Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c.).

So Origen is acquainted with the Ebionites as an heretical sect, but, with a more exact knowledge of them than was possessed by Irenzeus, who lived far away from their chief centre, he distinguishes two classes; but the distinction is made upon Christological lines, and is very different from that drawn x Justin.

This distinction of Ori en's between those Ebionites who accepted and those who denied the supernatural birth of Christ is drawn also by Eusebius (see below, § 3).

Epiphanius (Her. XXIX, sqq.) is the first to make two distinct heretical sects — the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.

It has been the custom of historians to carry this distinction back into apostolic times, and to trace down to the time of Epiphanius the continucus existence of a milder party — the Nazarenes — and of a stricter party

—the Ebionites; but this distinction Nitzsch (Dogmengesch. p.

37 Sq.) has shown to be entirely groundless.

The division which Epiphanius makes is different from that of Justin, as well as from that of Origen and Eusebius; in fact, it is doubtful if he himself had any clear knowledge of a distinction, his teports are so contradictory.

The Ebionites known to him were most * Upon Simon Magus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3.

$ "« Instrument of diabolical power," is an embellishment of Eusebius' own, quite in keeping with his usual treatment of heretics.

It is evident, however, that neither Justin nor Irenzeus looked upon Menander with any greater degree of allowance.

4 Simon (Irenzus, I. 23. 1) taught that he himself was the Supreme Power; but Menander, according to Irenzeus (252d.

5), taught that the Supreme Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself (as Eusebius here says) was sent forth as a saviour for the deliverance of men.

5 He agreed with Simon in teaching that the world was formed by angels who had taken their origin from the Enncea of the SuPowe Power, and that the magical power which he imparted enabled is followers to overcome these creative angels, as Simon had taught of himself before him.

° This baptism (according to Irengus "into his own name''), and the promise of the resurrection, as a result, seem to have been an original addition of Menander's.

The exemption from death taught by Menander was evidently understood by Irenzeus, Tertullian (De Anima, EX and Eusebius. in its physical, literal sense; but the followers of Menander must of course have put a spiritual meaning uponiit, or the sect could not have continued in existence for any length of time.

It is certain that it was flourishing at the time of Justin; how much longer we do not know.

Justin himself does not Sap eres the physical element, and he undoubtedly !

€ immortality taught was spiritual simply. Hegesippus (quoted below, in Bk.

IV, chap. 22) mentions the Menandrianists, but this does not imply that he was himself acquainted with them, for he draws his information largely from Justin Martyr.

? Irenzus, ddv. Her. I. 23, 5.

In III. 4.3 he mentions Menander again, making him the fhe of all the Gnostics.

8 Justin, AZol. I. 26.

® The situation of the village of Capparattea is uncertain.

See Harnack's Ouellen-Kritik des Gnosticismus, p. 84. oo Menander's Antiochene activity is reported only by Justin.

It is probable, therefore, that Tertullian used Irenzeus alone in writing his account of Menander, for it is unlikely that both of them be have omitted the same fact if they drew independently from ae t ( , as two distinct sects.

The wor azarenes " was, in fact, in the beginning a general name given to the Christians of Palestine by the Jews (cf. Acts xxiv. 5), and as such synonymous with " Ebionites,"

Upon the later syncretistic ustin.

III. 27.]

THE EBIONITES.

ee ee to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible | God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside intu in a different direction, and so brought them over | the impiety of the former, especially when they, to his own purposes.

The ancients quite prop-|like them, endeavored to observe strictly the erly called these men Ebionites, because they | bodily worship of the law.6

These men,

held poor and mean opinions concerning | moreover, thought that it was necessary to

Christ?

For they considered him a plain| reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they and common man, who was justified only|called an apostate from the law; 7 and they because of his superior virtue, and who was the|used only the so-called Gospel according to the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary.

In| Hebrews* and made small account of the their opinion the observance of the ceremonial|rest.

The Sabbath and the rest of the dis-

law was altogether necessary, on the ground that| cipline of the Jews they observed just like they could not be saved by faith in Christ| them, but at the same time, like us, they cele-

alone and by a corresponding life.* There| brated the Lord's days as a memorial of the were others, however, besides them, that were

6 There seems to have been no difference between these two classes of the same name,' but avoided the strange and |" si tee to their sect p to the law; the distinction made by Justin

: ef is no longer noticed. absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that} _ 7 This is mentioned by Ireneus (I. 26. 2) and by Origen (Cont. the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Che ed ee a ostoalics ab knowraduh ther' cele keon Spirit.

But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed,"' being the time of Origen on, and but a continuation of the enmity to Paul shown by the Judaizers during his lifetime.

But their relations to Paul and to the Jewish law fell more and more into the background, as remarked above, as their Christological heresy came into greater prominence over against the developed Christology of the Catholic Church (cf. e.g. the accounts of Tertullian and of Hippolytus with that of Irenzeus).

Ebionism, see Bk. VI. chap. 38, note r.

Upon the general subject of Ebionism, see especially Nitzsch, zé7d., and Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 1. p. 226 sqqThe '"'these'' (odro. 52) here would seem to refer only to the second class of Ebionites; but we know from the very nature of the case, as well as from the accounts of others, that this conduct was true as well of the first, and Eusebius, although he may have been referring only to the second, cannot have intended to exclude the first class in making the statement.

2 The word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew WSs, which signifies " poor."

Different explanations more or less fanciful have been given of the reason for the use of the word in this connection.

It occurs first in Irenzus (I. 26. 2), but without a definition of its meaning.

Origen, who uses the term often, gives different explanations, e.g., in Contra Celsum, II. 1, he says that the Jewish converts received their name from the poverty of the law, "' for Ebion signifies oor among the Jews, and those Jews who have received esus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."

In De Prin.

V. 1. 22, and elsewhere, he explains the name as. referring to the poverty of their understanding.

The explanation given by Eusebius tefers to their assertion that Christ was only a common man, born by natural generation, and applied only to the first class of Ebionites, a description of whom follows.

For the same name as applied to the second class (but see note 9) who accepted Christ's supernatural birth, he gives a different reason at the end of the chapter, the same which Origen gives for the application of the name to Ebionites in 8 Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Irenzus (Adv. Her. I. 26. 2, III.

11. 7) says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the fact that he mentions no difference between it and the canonical Matthew shows that, so far as he knew, they were the same.

But according to Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used by the Ehionitest and, as seen above (chap. 25 note 18), this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical

Matthew.

Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in the time of Irenzus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Matthew, was something different from the canonical Matthew, or else the Ebionites had given up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a different gospel (for the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot have been an outgrowth of the canonical Matthew, as has been already seen, chap. 25, note 24). The former is much more probable, and the difficulty may be most simply explained by supposing that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is identical with the so-called Hebrew

Gospel of Matthew (see chap. 24, note 5), or at least that it passed among the general.

The explanation given in this place is so far as we know original with Eusebius (something similar occurs again in Epiphanius, Her. XXX. 17), and he shows considerable ingenuity in thus treating the name differently in the two cases.

The various reasons do not of course account for the existence of the name, for most of them could have become reasons only long after the name was in use.

Tertullian (De Prescr. Her. 33, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c.) and Hippolytus (in his Syntagma,—as can be gathered from Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. Her. chap. 3, and Epiph. Her. XXX.,— and also in his PAzZ. chap. 23, where he mentions Ebion incidentally) are the first to tell us of the existence of a certain Ebion from whom the sect derived its name, and Epiphanius and later writers are well acquainted with the man.

But Bhied is a myth invented simply for the purpose of explaining the origin of Ebionism. The name Ebionite was probably used in Jerusalem as a designation of the Christians there, either applied to them by their enemies as a term of ridicule on account of their poverty in worldly goods, or, what is more probable, assumed by themselves as a term of honor, — earliest Jewish Christians under Matthew's name, and that Irenzus, who was personally acquainted with the sect, simply hearing that they used a Gospel of Matthew, naturally supposed it to be identical with the canonical Gospel.

In the time of Jerome a Hebrew " Gosel according to the Hebrews'' was used by the "' Nazarenes and bionites" as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. 2 Matt. XII. 13; Contra

Pelag. Ul. 2).

Jerome refrains from expressing his own judgment as to its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its existing form identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear from his words in de vir. z//. chap. 3, taken in connection with the fact that he himself translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states in chap. 2.

Epiphanius (Her. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still preserved the original Hebrew Matthew in full, while the Ebionites (XXX.

13) had a Gospel of Matthew "' not complete, but spurious and mutilated ?; and elsewhere (XXX. 3) he says that the Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew and called it the "' Gospel according to the Hebrews."

It is thus evident that he meant to distinguish the Gospel of the Ebionites from that of the Nazarenes, i.e. the Gospel according to the Hebrews from the original Hebrew Matthew.

So, likewise, Eusebius' treatment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that he considered them two different gospels (cf. ~ his mention of the former

"« the poor in spirit," —or (as Epiphanius, XXX. 17, says the Ebionites of his day claimed) on account of their besser» taking poverty upon themselves by laying their goods at the feet of the apostles.

But, however the name originated, it became soon, as Christianity spread outside of Palestine, the special designation of Jewish Christians as such, and thus when they began to be looked upon as heretical, it became the name Of the sect.

3 ws py dv dea povys THs Ets TY XoLOTOY MicTEws Kai TOD kat' avrnv Biov cwOyncouévors.

The addition of the last clause reveals the difference between the doctrine of Eusebius' time and the doctrine of Paul.

Not until the Reformation was Paul understood and the true formula, 6:4 novys THs eis TOV xoLoTOY TiaTEWS, restored. in chap. 25 and in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his mention of the latter in chap. 24, and in Bk. IV. chap. ro).

Of course he knew that the former was not identical with the canonical Matthew, and hence, naturally supposing that the Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, he could not do otherwise than make a distinction between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Hebrew Matthew, and he must therefore make the change which he did in Irenzus' statement in mentioning the Gospel used by the Ebionites, as he knew them.

Moreover, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 17, the Ebionite Symmachus had written against the Gospel of Matthew (of 4 Eusebius clearly knew of no distinction in name between these two classes of Ebionites such as is commonly made between Nazarenes and Ebionites, —nor did Origen, whom he follows (see note 1, above). z 5 That there were two different views among the Ebionites as to the birth of Christ is stated frequently by Origen (cf. e.g. Contra

Cels, V. 61), but there was unanimity in the denial of his preexistence and essential divinity, and this constituted the essence of the heresy in the eyes of the Fathers from Irenzeus on.

Irenzus, as remarked above (note 1), knows of no such difference as Eusebius here mentions; and that the denial of the supernatural birth even in the time of Origen was in fact ordinarily attributed to the Ebionites in general, without a distinction of the two classes, is seen by Origen's words in his Hom. zx Luc. XVII. course the canonical Gospel), and this fact would only confirm Eusebius in his opinion that Irenzeus was mistaken, and that the Ebionites did not use the Gospel of Matthew.

But none of these facts militate against the assumption that the Gospel of the Hebrews in its original form was identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or at least passed originally under his

THE .CHURGHE -HISTORY* OR EUSEBIUS.

fiId. 29:

Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received

resurrection of the Saviour.® made his appearance.

Caius, whose words we quoted above,' in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this man: "But Cerinthus also, by means

of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels ; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures.

And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to bea period of a thousand years* for marriage festivals."* And Dionysius,' who

was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from tradition, mentions this same man in the following words:*® "But (they say that) Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name.

For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding.

For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews."

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Cerinthus the Heresiarch.

WE have understood that at this time Cerinthus,' the author of another heresy, name among Jewish Christians.

For it is by no means certain that the original Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, and, therefore, lack of resemblance between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the canonical Matthew is no argument against its identity with the Hebrew Matthew.

Moreover, it is quite conceivable that, in the course of time, the original Gospel according to the Hebrews underwent alterations, especially since it was in the hands of a sect which was growing constantly more heretical, and that, taerefore, its resemblance to the canonical Matthew may have been even less in the time of Eusebius and Jerome than at the beginning.

It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew, which Jerome claims to have seen in the library at Cau (de vir. zl. chap. 3), may have been an earlier, and hence less corrupt, copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,

Since the writing of this note, Handmann's work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Das Hebriier-Evangelium, von Rudolf Handmann.

Von Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3) has come into my hands, and I find that e denies that that Gospel is to be in any way identified with the traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it bore the name of Matthew.

The reasons which he gives, however, are practically the same as those referred to in this note, and, as already shown, do not prove that the two were not originally identical.

Handmann holds that the Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called simply " the Gospel," or some general name of the kind, and that it received from others the name " Gospel according to the Hebrews,'' because it was used by them.

This may well be, but does not militate at all ainst the existence of a tradition among eax, yr Christians that atthew was the author of their only gospel.

Handmann makes the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels, alongside of the " Ur-Marcus,"

(a theory which, if accepted, would go far to establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew), and even goes so far as to suggest that it is to be identified with the Asya of Papias (cf. the writer's notice of Handmann's book, in the Presbyterian Review, July, 1889).

For the literature on this Gospel, see chap. 25, note 24.

I fad that Resch in his Agrapsha emphasizes the apocryphal character of the Gospel in its original form, and makes it later than and in part depenlent upon our Matthew, but I am unable to agree with him,

Hippolytus, VII. 21 and X. r7) says nothing of his-chiliastic views, but these are mentioned by Caius in the present paragraph, by Dionysius (quoted by Eusebius, VII. 25, Kelas), by Theodoret (Her. Fab, II. 3), and by Augustine (De Her. 1. 8), from which accounts we can see that those views were very sensual.

The fullest description which we have of Cerinthus and his followers is that of Epiphanius (Her. XXVIII.), who records a great many traditions as to his life (e.g. that he was one of the false apostles who opposed Paul, and one of the circumcision who rebuked Peter for eating with Cornelius, &c.), and also many details as to his system, some of which are quite contradictory. tt is clear, however, that he was Jewish in his training and s pathies, while at the same time possessed of Gnostic tendencies. He represents a position of transition from Judaistic Ebionism to Gnosticism, and may be regarded as the earliest Judaizing Gnostic.

Of his death tradition tells us nothing, and as to his dates we can say only that he lived about the end of the first century.

Irenzeus (III. 2. 1) supposed John to have written his gospel and epistle in opposition to Cerinthus.

On the other hand, Cerinthus himself was regarded by some as the author of the Apocalypse (see Bk. VII. chap. 2s, below), and most absurdly as the author of the Fourth Gospel also (see above, chap.

24, note r).

2 See Bk. If. chap. 25, § 7. Upon Caius, see the note given there.

The Dzsfutation is the same that is quoted in that passage.

5 Cf. Rev. xx. 4.

On chiliasm in the early Church, see below, chap. 39, note 19.

® The question again arises whether Eusebius to the second class of Ebionites only, duct in regard to Sabbath observance with that of the first class, or whether he refers to all Ebionites, and contrasts them with the Jews.

The subject remains the same as in the previous sentence; but the persons referred to are contrasted with éxetvor, whom they resemble in their observance of the Jewish Sabbath, but from whom they differ in their observance of the Lord's day.

The most natural interpretation of the Greek is that which makes the obror 6€ refer to the second class of Ebionites, and the éxecvor to the first; and yet we hear from no one else of two sharply defined classes separated by religious customs, in addition to doctrinal opinions, and it is not likely that they existed.

If this interpretation, however, seems necessary, we may conclude that some of them observed the Lord's day, while others did not, and that Eusebius naturally identified the former with the more, and the latter with the less, orthodox class, without any especial information upon the subject.

It is easier, too, to explain Eusebius' suggestion of a second derivation for the name of Ebionite, if we assume that he is distinguishing here between the two classes.

Having given above a reason for calling the first class by that name, he now gives the reason for calling the second class by the same.

is referring here and is contrasting their cont 1s a commonly accepted opinion founded

c upon this passage that Caius rejected the a e ( r ostolic authorship of the Apocalypse and considered it a work of Cerinthus.

But the quotation by no means implies this.

Had he believed that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse commonly ascribed to John, he would certainly have said so plainly, and Eusebius would just as certainly have quoted his o inion, prejudiced as he was himself against the Apocalypse.

Caius simply means that Cerinthus abused and misinte reted the vision of the Apocalypse for his own sensual purposes. "That this is the meaning is plain from the words "' being an enemy to the Divine Scriptures," and especially from the fact that in the Johuadine Apocalypse itsel occur no such sensual visions as Caius mentions here.

The sensuality was evidently superimposed by the interpretation of Cerinthus.

Cf. Weiss' V. 7. Einleitung, p. 82.

10 See note 2, 1 The earliest account which we have Trenzus (Adv. Her. I. 26. "3

5 Upon Dionysius and his writings, see below, Bk. VI, chap. 40, note r. of Cerinthus is that of 1; cf. IIT. 3. 4, quoted at the end of this chapter, and rr. 1), according to which Cerinthus, a man educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a certain power distinct from him.

He denied the supernatural birth of Jesus, making him the son of Joseph and Mary, and distinguishing him from Christ, who descended upon him at baptism and left him again at his crucifixion.

He was thus Ebionitic in his Christology, but Gnostic in his doctrine of the creation.

He claimed no supernatural power for himself as did Simon Magus and Menander, but pretended to angelic revelations, as recorded by Caius in this paragraph.

Irenzus (who is followed by ° The same passage is quoted with its context in Bk. VII. chap.

25, below.

The verbs in the portion of the Passage quoted here are all in the infinitive, and we see, from Bk. VII. chap. 25, that they depend upon an indefinite Aéyovewr, * they say"; so that Eusebius

1s quite nght here in saying that Dionysius is drawing from tradition in making the remarks which he does.

Inasmuch as the verbs are not independent, and the statement is not, therefore, Dionysius' own, have inserted, at the beginning of the quotation, the words "' they say that,"? which really govern all the verbs of the passage,

Dionysius himself rejected the theory of Cerinthus' authorship of the Apocalypse, as may be seen from Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 7.

III. 30.]

THE NICOLAITANS.

ee eS eee") the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor.? Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following things concerning him "They say that he had

a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave

earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appepermission to any one that wished to marry her.

For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh.

And those that have followed his heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, commit fornication without shame.

But I understand that Nicolaus had to do

with no other woman than her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters continuedin a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt.

If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his passion ; and when he used the expression, 'to abuse the flesh,' he was inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the Lord.* But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge."® So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely extinct. tites with a better grace."

These are the

words of Dionysius.

But Irenzeus, in the first book of his work Against Heresies,' gives some more abominable false doctrines of the same man; and in the third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded.

He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe ; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him.

And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, " Let us flee, lest the bath fall ; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." °

CHAPTER XXIX.

Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.

At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted for a very short time.

Mention is made of it in the Apocalypse of John.'

They boasted that 7 Irenzus, Adv. Her. I. 26. 18 See 267d. il. 3. 4.

This story is repeated by Eusebius, in Bk.

IV. chap. 14.

There is nothing impossible in it. The occurrence fits well the character of John as a "' son of thunder," and shows the same spirit exhibited by Polycarp in his encounter with Marcion

(see below, Bk. IV. chap. 14).

But the story is not very well authenticated, as Irenzeus did not himself hear it from Polycarp, but only from others to whom Polycarp had told it.

The unreliability of such second-hand tradition is illustrated abundantly in the case of Trenzus himself, who gives some reports, very far from true, upon the authority of certain presbyters (e.g. that Christ lived fifty years;

Il. 22.5).

This same story, with much more fullness of detail, is repeated by Epiphente (Her. XXX. 24), but of Ebion (who never existed), instead of Cerinthus.

This shows that the sony was a very common one, while, at the same time, so vague in its etails as to admit of an application to any heretic who suited the purpose.

That somebody met somebody in a bath seems quite probable, and there is nothing to prevent our accepting the story as it stands in Irenzeus, if we choose to do so.

One thing, at least, is certain, — that Cerinthus is a historical character, who in all probability was, for at least a part of his life, contemporary with John, and thus associated with him in tradition, whether or not he ever came into personal contact with him. f ; f 1 Rey, ii.6,15.

Salmon, in his article NVicolattans, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., states, as I think, quite correctly, that ' there really is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of a sect so called after the death of the apostle John"'; and in this he is in agreement with many modern scholars.

An examination of extant accounts of this sect seems to show that nothing more was known of the Nicolaitans by any of the Fathers than what is told in the Apocalypse.

Justin, whose lost work against heretics Irenzus follows in his description of heresies, seems to have made no mention of the Nicolaitans, for they are dragged in by Irenzus at the close of the text, quite out of their chronological place.

Irenzus (I. 26. 3; III.

11. 1) seems to have made up his account from the Apocalypse, and to have been the sole source for later writers upon this subject.

That the sect was licentious is told us by the Apocalypse. hat Nicolas, one of the Seven, was their founder is stated by Irenzus (I.

26. 3), Hippolytus (VII. 24), Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. omnes Her. chap. 1), and Epiphanius (Her. 25), the last two undoubtedly drawing their account from Eeppoly uss and he in turn from Irenzus.

Jerome and the writers of his time and later accept this view, believing that Nicolas became licentious and fell into the greatest

CHAPTER XXX.

The Apostles that were married.

CLEMENT, indeed, whose words we have lL just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives." ie reg nee etme wickedness.

Whether the sect really claimed Nicolas as their founder, or whether the combination was made by Irenzus in con- ' sequence of the identity of his name with the name of a sect mentioned in the Apocalypse, we cannot tell; nor have we any idea, in the latter case, where the sect got the name which they bore.

Clement of Alexandria, in the passage quoted just below, gives us quite a different account of the character of Nicolas; and as he is a more reliable writer than the ones above quoted, and as his statement explains excellently the appeal of the sect to Nicolas' authority, without impeaching his character, which certainly his position among the Seven would lead us to expect was good, and good angugh to warrant permanence, we feel safe in accepting his account as the true one, and denying that Nicolas himself ee the character which marked the sect of the Nicolaitans; though the latter may, as Clement says, have arisen from abusing a saying of Nicolas which had been uttered with a good motive.

2 See Acts vi.

3 Stromata, III. 4.

4 Compare Matt. vi. 24.

5 This teaching was found in the Gospel of Matthias, or the mapaddécets Mar@iov, mentioned in chap. 25 (see note 30 on that chapter).

1 A chapter intervenes between the quotation given by. Eusebius

THE CHURCH. HISTORY

OFS EUSERIUS

(GluEiso; "Or will they," says he,? "reject even the apostles?_ For Peter® and Philip* begat children ; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage.

And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife," whom he did not take about have been already shown by us.1

Thetime

of John's death has also been given in a general way," but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates* (who was bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor,* bishop of Rome.

In this epistle he mentions him together with the apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words :* "F orin

Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles,® who sleeps in Hierapolis,' and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus ;*® and with him, that he might not be inconven2 _ ienced in his ministry." And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as foljows :° "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Oh thou, remember the Lord.'

Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them." This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place. truth cannot be proved, there is nothing intrinsically improbable in it.

1 See Bk. II. chap. 25, §§ 5 sqq.

2 See chap. 23, §§ 3, 4.

5 Upon Polycrates, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 9.

4 Upon Victor, see z4zd. note I. dee ° This epistle is the only writing of Polycrates which is preserved to us.

This passage, with sae pige more of the same epistle, is quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 24.

From that chapter we see that the epistle was written in connection with the Quarto-deciman controversy, and after saying, '' We therefore observe the genuine day," Polycrates goes on in the words quoted here to mention the " great lights of Asia" as confirming his own practice.

(See the nctes upon the epistle in Bk. V. chap. 24.) The citation here of this incidental passage from a letter upon a wholly different subject illustrates Eusebius' great diligence in searching out all historical notices which could in any way contribute to his history.

° Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist are here confounded.

That they were really two different men is clear enough from Luke's account in the Acts (cf. Acts vi. 2-5, Vili. 14-17, and xxi. 8).

That it was the evangelist, and not the apostle, that was buried in Hierapolis may be assumed upon the following grounds:

CHAPTER XXXI.

The Death of John and Philip.

THE time and the manner of the death of Paul and Peter as well as their burial places, just above and the one which follows.

In it Clement had referred to two classes of heretics, — without giving their names, —one of which encouraged all sorts of license, while the other taught celibacy.

Having in that place refuted the former class, he devotes the chapter from which the following quotation is taken to a refutation of the (x) The evangelist (according to Acts xxi. 8) had four daughters, who were virgins and prophetesses.

Polycrates speaks here of three daughters, at least two of whom were virgins, and Proclus, just below, speaks of four daughters who were prophetesses.

(2) Eusebius, just below, expressly identifies the apostle and evangelist, showing that in his time there was no separate tradition of the two men.

Lightfoot (Colossians, p. 45) maintains that Polycrates is Correct, and that it was the apostle, not the evangelist, that was buried in Hierapolis; but the reasons which he gives are trivial and will hardly convince scholars in general.

Certainly we need strong grounds to justify the separation of two men so remarkably similar so far as their families are concerned.

But the truth is, there is nothing more natural than that later generations should identify the evangelist with the apostle of the same name, and should assume the presence of the latter wherever the former was known to have been.

This identification would in itself be a welcome one to the inhabitants of Hierapolis, and hence it would be assumed there more readily than anywhere else.

Of course it is not impossible that Philip the apostle also had daughters who were virgins and prophetesses, but it is far more probable that Polycrates (and posnitly

Clement too; see the previous chapter) eakinanded him with the evangelist, — as every one may have done for some generations before them.

Eusebius at any rate, historian though he was, saw no difficulty in making the identification, and certainly it was just as easy for Polycrates and Clement to do the same. ightfoot makes something of the fact that Polycrates mentions only three daughters, instead of four.

But the latter's words by no means imply that there had not been a fourth daughter (see note 8, below), latter, deducing against them the fact that some of the apostles were married.

Clement here, as in his Quzs dives salvetur (quoted in chap. 23), shows his good common sense which led him to avoid the extreme of asceticism as well as that of license.

He was in this an exception to most of the Fathers of his own and subsequent ages, who in their reaction from the licentiousness of the times advised and often encouraged by their own example the most rigid asceti- -cism, and thus laid the foundation for monasticism.

2 Strom. IL. 6.

3 Peter was married, as we know from Matt. viii. 14 (cf. x Cor. ix. 5).

'Tradition also tells us of a daughter, St. Petronilla.

She is first called St. Peter's daughter in the Apocryphal cts of SS.

Nereus and Achilles, which give a legendary account of her life and death.

In the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla was buried an Aurelia Petronilla Jilia dulcissima, and Petronilla being taken as a diminutive of Petrus, she was assumed to have been a daughter of Peter.

It is probable that this was the origin of the popular tradition.

Petronilla is not, however, a diminutive of Petrus, and it is probable that this woman was one of the Aurelian gens and a relative of Flavia Domitilla.

Compare the article Petyonilla in the Dict. of Christ. Big.

Petronilla has played a prominent role in art.

The immense painting by Guercino in the Palace of the Conservators in Rome attracts the attention of all visitors.

4 It is probable that Clement here confounds Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle.

See the next chapter, note 6.

Philip the evangelist, according to Acts xxi. 9, had four daughters who were virgins.

Clement (assuming that he is speaking of the same Philip) is the only one to tell us that they afterward married, and he tells us nothing about their husbands,

Polycrates in the next chapter states that two of them at least remained virgins.

If so, Clement's statement can apply at most only to the other two.

Whether his report is correct as respects them we cannot tell.

7 Hierapolis was a prominent city in Proconsular Asia, about five miles north of Laodicea, in connection with which city it Is mentioned in Col. iv. 13.

The ruins of this city are quite extensive, and its site is occupied by a village called Pambouk

Kelessj.

8 The fact that only three of Philip's daughters are mentioned here, when from the Acts we know he had four, shows that the fourth had died elsewhere; and therefore it would have been aside from Polycrates' purpose to mention her, since, as we see from Bk. V. chap. 24, he was citing only those who had lived in Asia (the proyince), and had ar as to the date of the Passover.

The separate | (oeFhe passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes in this connection is 1 Cor. ix, 5;,but this by no means Proves that Paul was married, and r Cor. vii. 8 seems to imply the opposite though the words might be used if he were a widower.

The words of Phil. iv. 3 are often quoted as addressed to his wife, but there is no authority for such a reference.

Clement is the only Father who reports that Paul was married; many of them expressly deny it; e.g. Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, &c,

The authority of these later Fathers is of course of little account.

But Clement's conclusion is based solely upon exegetical grounds, and therefore is no argument for the truth of the report.

€ ird daughter by Polycrates has been supposed to arise from the fact that she was married, while the mained virgins.

— This is, however, not at all implied, as the fact that she was buried in a different place would be enough to cause the separate mention of her.

Still, inasmuch as Clement (see the preceding chapter) reports that Philip's daughters were married, and inasmuch as Polycrates expressly states that two of them were virgins, it 1s quite possible that she (as well as the fourth daughter, not mentioned here) may have been a married woman, which would, perhaps, account for her living in Ephesus and being buried there,

8 Strom. VII. x1.

Clement, so far as we know, is the t only one to relate this story, but he bases a it upon tradition, and although its

TN 3 25]

MARTYRDOM OF SYMEON OF JERUSALEM.

a ak es eee abode with him. Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." moreover John, who was both a witness® and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal

We have thus set forth in these pages

what has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles themselves and the apostolic age, and concerning the sacred writings which they have left us, as well as concerning those which are disputed, but nevertheless have' been publicly used by many in a great number of churches," and moreover, concerning those that are altogether rejected and are out of harmony with apostolic orthodoxy.

Having done this, let us now proceed with our history. plate."

He also sleeps at Ephesus."

much concerning their death.

And in the Dialogue of Caius which we mentioned a little above," Proclus,'® against whom he directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted, speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters:

" After him" there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia.

Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father." Such is his state-

ment.

But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions the daughters of Philip who were at that time at Cesarea in Judea with their father, and were honored with the gift of prophecy. His words are as follows : "We came unto

Czesarea ; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we

CHAPTER XXXII.

Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Martyrdom.

Iris reported that aftertheageofNeroand

Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording,! a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising." In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son .of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem,' suffered martyrdom.

Hegesippus, whose words we have

already quoted in various places,' is a witness to this fact also.

Speaking of certain heretics® he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time ; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.°

But there is nothing like hearing the histo-

rian himself, who writes as follows:

" Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David' and a Christian ; instead of with her father and sister in Hierapolis.

It is noticeable that while two of the daughters are expressly called virgins, the third is not.

9 waptus; see chap. 32, note 15.

10 The Greek word is réradov, which occurs in the LXX. as the technical term for the plate or diadem of the high priest (cf. Ex. xxviii. 36, &c.).

What is meant by the word in the present connection is uncertain.

Epiphanius (We@7.

LX XVII. 14) says the same thing of James, the brother of the Lord.

But neither James nor John was a Jewish priest, and therefore the words can be taken literally in neither case.

Valesius and others have thought that John and James, and perhaps others of the apostles, actually wore something resembling the diadem of the high priest; but this is not at all probable.

The words are either to be taken in a purely figurative sense, as meaning that John bore the character of a priest, — ie. the high priest of Christ as his most beloved disciple, — or, as Hefele suggests, the report is to be regarded as a mythical tradition which arose after the second Jewish war.

See Kraus' Real-Encyclopedie der christlichen Alterthiimer, Band Il. p. 212 sq.

11 Upon John's Ephesian activity and his death there, see Bk.

III. chap. 1, note 6.

12 Bk. Il. chap. 25, § 6, and Bk. III. chap. 28, § 1.

Upon Caius and his dialogue with Proclus, see the former passage, note 8.

18 Upon Proclus, a Montanistic leader, see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 12.

14 The agreement of the two accounts is not perfect, as Polycrates reports that two daughters were buried at Hierapolis and one at Ephesus, while Proclus puts them all four at Hierapolis.

But the report of Polycrates deserves our credence rather than that of Proclus, because, in the first place, 2olycrates was earlier than Proclus; in the second place, his report is more exact, and it is hard to imagine how, if all four were really buried in one place, the more detailed report of Polycrates could have arisen, while on the other hand it is quite easy to explain the rise of the more general but inexact account of Proclus; for with the general tradition that Philip and his daughters lived and died in Hierapolis needed only to be combined the fact that he had four daughters, and Proclus' version was com16 Acts xxi. 8,9.

Eusebius clearly enough considers Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist identical. aes this identification, see note 6, above. plete.

In the third place, Polycrates' report bears the stamp of truth as contrasted with mere legend, because it accounts for only three daughters, while universal tradition speaks of four.

How Eusebius could have overlooked the contradiction it is more difficult to explain.

He can hardly have failed to notice it, but was undoubtedly unable to account for the difference, and probably considered it too small a matter to concern himself about.

He was quite prone to accept earlier accounts just as they stood, whether contradictory or not.

The fact that they had been recorded was usually enough for him, if they contained no improbable or fabulous stories.

He cannot be accused of intentional deception at this point, for he gives the true accounts side by side, so that every reader might judge of the agreement for himself.

Upon the confusion of the apostle and evangelist, see above, note 6.

M7 iepov ypaumatwr, Kal TOY avTLAcyouevwy MEV, Ouws ..

. Sebypootevyévwv.

The classification here is not inconsistent with that given in chap. 25, but is less complete than it, inasmuch as here

Eusebius draws no distinction between avtiAcyoueva and vd@or, but uses the former word in its general sense, and includes under it both the particular classes (Axtzlegomena and v6001) of chap. 25 (see note 27 on that chapter).

1 Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 A.D.

2 Upon the state of the Christians under Trajan, see the next chapter, with the notes.

3 See chap. 11.

4 Quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 20, and mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 11.

Upon his life and writings, see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 1.

5 In the passage quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, § 4, Hegesippus speaks of various heretics, and it looks as if the passage quoted there directly preceded the present one in the work of Hegesippus.

15 | read wera TovTOv with the majority of the MSS., with Burton, Routh, Schwegler, Heinichen, &c., instead of wera tovTo, which occurs in some MSS. and in Rufinus, and is adopted by Valesius,

Crusé, and others.

As Burton says, the copyists of Eusebius, no knowing to whom Proclus here referred, changed to¥tov to tovTo; but if we had the preceding context we should find that Proclus had been referring to some prophetic man such as the Montanists were | fond of appealing to in support of their position.

Schwegler suggests that it may have been the Quadratus mentioned in chap. 37, but this isa mere guess.

As the sentence stands isolated from its connection, TovTov is the harder reading, and could therefore have more easily been changed into rodro than the latter into rovror.

6 That is, by crucifixion, as stated in § 6.

7 It is noticeable that Symeon was not sought out by the imperial authorities. but was accused to them as a descendant of David and asa Christian.

The former accusation shows with what suspicion all members of the Jewish royal family were still viewed, as possible instigators of a revolution (cf. chap, 20, note 2); the latter shows that in the eyes of the State Christianity was in itself a crime (see the next chapter, note 6).

Inthe next paragraph it is stated that search was made by the officials for members of the Jewish royal

THE CHURCH: HISTORY

OF} EUSEBIUS,

[III. 32.

and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years,' while Trajan of every church ™ as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan," and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause " before the governor Atticus.¥8 And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much.

And orders were given that he should be crucified."

In addition to these things the same

man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.

But when the sacred college of

apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers," who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the ' knowledge which is falsely so-called.'™ was emperor and Atticus governor.''® And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family." And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord," judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas," who was

the father of Symeon, as has been already

shown." The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded," in behalf of faith in Christ, lived

until the same reign. He writes as follows:

"They came, therefore, and took the lead family.

This was quite natural, after the attention of the government had been officially drawn to the family by the arrest of Symeon.

8 The date of the martyrdom of Symeon is quite uncertain.

It has been commonly ascribed (together with the martyrdom of Ignatius) to the year 106 or 107, upon the authority of Eusebius' Chron., which is supposed to connect these events with the ninth or tenth year of Trajan's reign.

But an examination of the passage in the Chron., where Eusebius groups together these two events and the Persecutions in Bithynia, shows that he did not pretend to know the exact date of any of them, and simply put them together as three similar events known to have occurred during the reign of Trajan

(cf. Lightfoot's Zenatius, II. p. 447sqq.).

The year of Atticus' roconsulship we unfortunately do not know, although Wieseler, in Eis Christen-Verfolgungen der Cesaren, Pp. 126, cites Waddington as his authority for the statement that Herodes Atticus was proconsul of Palestine from ros to 107; but all that Waddington says

- (Fastes des prov. Asiat., p.720) is, that since the proconsul for the years ros to 107 is not known, and Eusebius puts the death of Symeon in the ninth or tenth year of Trajan, we may assume that this was the date of Atticus' proconsulship.

This, of course, furnishes no support for the common opinion.

Lightfoot, on account of the fact that Symeon was the son of Clopas, wishes to put the martyrdom earlier in Trajan's reign, and it is robable that it occurred earlier rather than later; more cannot said.

The great age of Symeon and his martyrdom under Trajan are too well authenticated to admit of doubt; at the same ti: e, the figure 120 may well be an exaggeration, as Lightfoot thinks.'

Renan (Les Evangiles, 1s 466) considers it very improbable that Symeon could have had so ong a life and episcopate, and therefore invents a second Symeon, a great-grandson of Clopas, as fourth bishop of Jerusalem, and makes him the cards fl mentioned here.

But there is nothin improbable in the survival of a contemporary of Jesus to the time of Trajan, and there is no warrant for rejecting the tradition, which is unanimous in calling Symeon the son of lopas, and also in emphasizing his great age.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.

So great a persecution was at that time

opened against us in many places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for SSS SE eee eee émi Tpaiavod caigapos kai vmarixod 'Arrixod.

The nouns being without the article, the phrase is to be translated, " while Trajan was emperor, and Atticus governor."

In § 6, below, where the article is used, we must translate, "before Atticus the governor"' (see

15 wdptupes.

The word is evidently used here in its earlier sense of '' witnesses," referring to those who testified to Christ even if they did not seal their testimony with death.

This was the original use of the word, and continued very common during the first two centuries, after which it became the technical term i persons actually martyred and was confined to them, while Ouodroyntys, " confessor,"

Lightfoot's /gnatz'us, I. p. 59).

_ The word brarixds is an adjective signifying " consular, pertaining to a consul."

It ''came to be used in the second century especially of provincial governors who had held the consulship, and at a later date of such governors even though they might not have been consuls" (Lightfoot, p. s9, who refers to Marquardt, Rémische

Staatsverwaltung, I. 409). scraps came into use as the technical term for those who had orne testimony in the midst of persecution, but had not suffered death.

As early as the first century (cf. Acts xxii. 20 and Rev. ii.

13) Kaprus was used of martyrs, but not as distinguishing them from other witnesses to the truth.

See the remarks of Lightfoot, in his edition of Clement of Rome, p. 46.

10 This is a peculiar statement.

Members of the house of David would hardly have ventured to accuse Symeon on the ground that he belonged to that house.

The Statement is, however, quite indefinite.

We are not told what happened to these accusers, nor indeed that 16 This part of the quotation has already been given in Eusebius' own words in chap. 20, § 8.

See note 5 on that chapter.

11 éxito abté Adyw, that is, was accused for the same reason that the grandsons of Judas (whom Hegesippus had mentioned just before) were; namely, because he belonged to the line of David.

See chap. 20; but compare also the ena: made in note ro, above.

David's line, although the wav with which Eusebius introduces the charge does not impl any doubt in his own mind, as ek quite rightly remarks. Tt is possible that some who were of the line of David may have accused Symeon, not of being a member of that family, but only of being a Christian, and that the re ort of the occurrence may have become afterward confused.

18 emi "Arrtixov tov bmatixov.

See above, note o.

19 On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.

20 rhv pevddvumov yvaou; x Tim. vi. 20.

A few MSS., followed by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Closs, and Crusé, add the words (in substance) :

" Such is the statement of Hegesippus.

But let us proceed with the course of our history."

The majority of the

This is certainly a reasonable supposition, and the unanimous election of Symeon as successor of James at a time when there must ae been many living who had seen the Lord, confirms the conclusion.

12 Mary, the wife of Clopas 13 Sek aborel chap. 11. ar 34 See above, chap. 20. is mentioned in John xix. 25.

+, however, endorsed by Valesius in his notes, and followed Burton, Heinichen, and most of the editors, omit the words, taal are clearly an interpolation.

14 See p. 389, note.

III. 33.]

CORRESPONDENCE OF TRAJAN AND PLINY.

nal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the laws.

In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished.

On account of this the persecution which had threatened to be a most terrible one was to a certain degree checked, but there were still left plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us harm.

Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in various places, would lay plots against us, so that, although no great persecutions took place, local persecutions were nevertheless going on in particular provinces,® and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various forms.

We have taken our account from the

Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.* The translation runs as follows :°

" And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden.® For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity,' he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice,* he had found no impiety in them.

And he reported this also, that the Christians arose® early in the their faith.

At the same time, he informed him in his communication that he had.not heard of their doing anything profane or contrary to the laws, except that they arose at dawn? and sang hymns to Christ as a God; but that they renounced adultery and murder and like crimi-

1 Plinius Czcilius Secundus, commonly called "' Pliny the younger'' to distinguish him from his uncle, Plinius Secundus the elder, was aman of great literary attainments and an intimate friend of the Emperor Trajan.

Of his literary remains the most important are his epistles, collected in ten books.

The epistle of which Eusebius speaks in this chapter is No, 96 (97), and the reply of Trajan No.

97 (98) of the tenth book.

The epistle was written from Bithynia, probably within a year after Pliny became governor there, which was inirooriiz.

It readsas follows:

'' It is my custom, my Lord, to refer to thee all questions concerning which [ am in doubt; for who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance?

I have never been present at judicial examinations of the Christians; therefore I am ignorant how and to what extent it is customary to punish or to search for them.

And I have hesitated greatly as to whether any distinction should be made on the ground of age, or whether the weak should be treated in the same way as the strong; whether pardon should be granted to the penitent, or he who hhas ever been a Christian gain nothing by renouncing it; whether the mere name, if unaccompanied with crimes, or crimes associated with the name, should be punished.

Meanwhile, with those who have been brought before me as Christians I have pursued the following course.

I have asked them if they were Christians, and if they have confessed, I have asked them a second and third time, threatening them with punishment; if they have persisted, I have commanded them to be led away to punishment.

For I did not doubt that whatever that might be which they confessed, at any rate rtinacious and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished.

There ave been others afflicted with like insanity who as Roman citizens I have decided should be sent to Rome.

In the course of the proceedings, as commonly happens, the crime was extended, and many varieties of cases appeared.

An anonymous document was published, containing the names of many persons.

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians I thought ought to be released, when they had followed my example in invoking the gods and offering incense and wine to thine image,

— which I had for that purpose ordered brought with the images of the gods, —and when be had

'besides cursed Christ—things which they say that those who are truly Christians cannot be compelled to do.

Dihers, accused by an informer, first said that they were Christians and afterwards denied it, saying that they had indeed been Christians, but had ceased to be, some three years, some several years, and one even twenty years

3 This is a very good statement of the case.

There was nothing approaching a universal persecution, — that is a persecution simuleects carried on in all parts of the empire, until the time of ecius.

_ 4 Mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 2.

On the translation of Tertullian's Apology employed by Eusebius, see note 9 on that chapter.

The present passuy is rendered, on the whole, with considerable fidelity; much more accurately than in the two cases noticed in the previous book.

5 Adol. chap.

6 The view which Tertullian here takes of Trajan's rescript is that it was, on the whole, favorable, — that the Christians stood after it in a better state in relation to the law than before,

— and this interpretation of the edict was adopted by all the early Fathers, and is, as we can see, accepted likewise by Eusebius (and so he entitles this chapter, not '' Trajan commands the Christians to be punished, if they persist in their Christianity,'' but '' Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after,'' thus implying that the rescript is favorable).

But this interpretation is a decided mistake.

Trajan's rescript expressly made Christianity a redigzo zi/zcita, and from that time on it was a crime in the sight of the law to be a Christian; whereas, before that time, the matter had not been finally determined, and it had been left for each ruler to act just as he pleased.

Trajan, it is true, advises moderation in the execution of the law; but that does not alter the fact that his rescript is an unfavorable one, which makes the profession of Christianity

— what it had not been before—a direct violation of an established law.

Compare, further, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 14. before.

All adored thine image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

Moreover, they affirmed that this was the sum of their guilt or error; that they had been accustomed to come together on a fixed day before daylight and to sing responsively a song unto

Christ as God; and to bind themselves with an oath, not witha view to the commission of some crime, but, on the contrary, that they would not commit theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, that they would not break faith, nor refuse to restore a deposit when asked for it.

When they had done these things, their custom was to separate and to sssentile again to partake of a meal, common yet harmless (which is not the characteristic of a nefarious superstition); but this they had ceased to do after my edict, in which according to thy demands

I had prohibited fraternities.

I therefore considered it the more necessary to examine, even with the use of torture, two female slaves who were called deaconesses (wzuistr@), in order to ascertain the truth.

But I found nothing except a superstition depraved and immoderate ; and therefore, postponing further inquiry, I have turned to thee for advice.

For the matter seems to me worth consulting about, especially on account of the number of persons involved.

For many of every age and of every rank and of both sexes have been already and will be brought to trial.

For the contagion of this superstition has permeated not only the cities, but also the villages and even the country districts.

Yet it can apparently be arrested and corrected.

At any rate, it is certainly a fact that the temples, which were almost deserted, are now beginning to be frequented, and the sacred rites, which were for a long time interrupted, to be resumed, and fodder for the victims to sold, for which previously hardly a purchaser was to be found.

From which it is easy to gather how great a multitude of men may be reformed if there is given a chance for repentance."

1 xaraxpivas xpiotiavo's Tivas Kal THs afias exBadwr.

The Latin original reads: dasmnatis gutbusdam christianis, guibusdam gradu pulsts. The Greek translator loses entirely the antithesis of guzbusdam ..

. guibusdam (some he condemned, others he deprived of their dignity).

He renders gradu by rijs agias, which is quite allowable; but Thelwall, in his English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, renders the second phrase, "' and driven some from their steadfastness,'' in which the other sense of gradus is adopted.

Greek: ¢£w Tod uy BovAerOar avtovs eidwAoAatpetvy.

Latin original: preter obstinationem non sacrificandt.

The «idwdodarpewv is quite indefinite, and might refer to any kind of idolatry; but the Latin sacrzficana? is definite, referring clearly to the sacrifices which the accused Christians were required to offer in the presence of the governor, if they wished to save their lives.

I have, therefore, translated the Greek word in the light of the Latin word which it is employed to reproduce.

The reply of Trajan— commonly called '' Trajan's Rescript " — reads as follows:

"' Thou hast followed the right course, my Secundus, in treating the cases of those who have been brought before thee as Christians.

For no fixed rule can be laid down which shall be epplicable to all cases.

They are not to be searched for; if they are accused and convicted, they are to be punished; nevertheless, with the proviso that he who denies that he is a Christian, and proves it by his act (ve z/sa),—i.e. by making supplication to our gods, — although suspected in regard to the past, may by repentance obtain pardon.

Anonymous accusations ought not to be admitted in any proceedings; for they are of most evil precedent, and are not in accord with our age."

9 Greek: avicrac@a. éwOev.

Latin original: cetus antelucanos.

The Latin speaks of "' assemblies"? (which is justified by the ante lucem convenire of Pliny's epistle), while the Greek (both here and in § 1, above) speaks only of '' arising," and thus fails to reproduce the full sense of the original.

2 Gua TH ew dveyerpomevovs.

See note g, below.

THE 'CHURGH *HISTORY "GF*BUSEBIUS:

[aalA33. morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline® forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished."

Such were the events which took place at that time. the parish of Hierapolis,> became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.* e of accuracy.

A notice in the C hron. Paschale, which makes im a martyr and connects his death with that of Polycarp, assigning both to the year 164 a.p., has been shown by Lightfoot (Contemp. Review, 1875, II. p.

381) to rest upon a confusion of names, and to be, therefore, eaniely untrustworthy.

We learn, however, from chap. 39, below, that Papias was acquainted with personal followers of the Lord (e.g. with Aristion and the " presbyter John''), and also with the daughters of Philip.

He must, therefore, have reached years of maturity before the end of the first century.

On the other hand, the five books of his Exposttions cannot have been written very long before the middle of the second century, for some of the extant fragments seem to show traces of the existence of Gnosticism in a somewhat advanced form at the time he wrote.

With these data we shall not be far wrong i saying that he was born in the neighborhood of 70 a.p., and died before the middle of the second century.

He was a pronounced chiliast (see chap. 39, note 19), and according to Eusebius, a man of limited understanding (see chat 39, note 20); but the claim of the Tiibingen school that he was an 'bionite is not supported oy extant evidence (see Lightfoot, zé¢d. p. 384).

On the writings of Papias, see below, chap. 39, note 1.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

Lvarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of Rome.

In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above,! Clement? committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus,' and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.

8 Four MSS. insert at this point the words avnp Ta wavra bre MaAtora Aoytwdtaros Kal THs ypadys eidypwy ('a man of the greatest learning in all lines and well versed in the Scriptures "), which are accepted by Heinichen, Closs, and Crusé.

The ay majority of the best MSS., however, supported by Rufinus, and followed by Valesius (in his notes), Stroth: Laemmer, Burton, and the German translator, Stigloher, omit the words, which are undoubtedly to be regarded as an interpolation, intended perhaps to offset the derogatory words used by Eusebius in respect to Papias in chap. 39, § 13

In discussing the genuineness of these words, critics (among them Heinichen) have concerned themselves too much with the question whether the opinion of Papias expressed here contradicts that expressed in chap. 39, and therefore, whether Eusebius can have written these words. Tiven if it be possible to reconcile the two passages and to show that Papias may have been a learned man, while at the same time he was of "limited judgment," as Eusebius informs us, the fact nevertheless remains that the weight of MS, authority is heavily against the genuineness of the words, and that it is much easier to understand the interpolation than the omission of such an expression in praise of one of the apostolic Fathers, especially when the lack of any commendation here and in chap. 39 must be unpleasantly noticeable.

CHAPTER, XOGx Ve Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem, Bur when Symeon also had died in the manner described,' a certain Jew by the name of Justus? succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem.

He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.

* Eusebius follows what was undoubtedly the oldest tradition in making Evodius the first bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius the second

(see above, chap. 22, note 2).

Granting the genuineness of the shorter Greek recension of the Ignatian epistles (to be mentioned below), the fact that Ignatius was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria is established by Ef. ad*Rom, 9, compared with ad Smyr. trand ad Polycarp. 7. If the genuineness of the epistles be denied, these passages seem to prove at least his connection with the church of Antioch and his influential position in it, for otherwise the forgery of the epistles under his name would be inconceivable.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Ignatius and his Epistles,

Ar that time Polycarp,! a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the There are few more prominent figures in early Church history than Ignatius, and yet there are few about whom we have less unquestioned knowledge.

He is known in history pre-eminently as a martyr.

The greater part of his life is buried in complete obscurity.

It is only as a man condemned to death for his profession of Christi. anity that he comes out into the light, and it is with him in this character and with the martyrdom which followed that tradition has busied itself.

There are extant various Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius which contain detailed accounts of his death, but these belong to the fourth and subsequent centuries, are quite contradictory in their statements, and have been conclusively proved to Lord.

And at the same time Papias,? bishop of oe a 10 Greek: apis 7d Thy emiotHUny avtay dtadvadeoe,

Latin original: ad confederandum disciplinam.

The Greek translation is again somewhat inaccurate. éma7iun (literally, ** experience,"' *' knowledge '') expresses certain meanings of the word dysczplina, but does not strictly reproduce the sense in which the latter word is used in this passage; namely, in the sense of moral discifour notices of Ignatius (Polycarp's £4. ad Phil. o, x ; Irenzus'

Adv. Her. V. 28. 3, quoted below; Origen, Proj. oN eee ay Hom, VI. in Luc.)._ These furnish us with very little information.

If the notice in Polycarp's epistle be genuine (and though it line.

I have again translated the Greek version in the light of its tin original.

1 The Emperor Trajan.

? On Clement of Rome, see chap. 4, note 19.

3 In Bk. IV. chap. 1, Eusebius gives eight years as the duration of Evarestus' €piscopate; but in his Chron. he gives seven.

Other catalogues differ widely, both as to the time of his accession and the duration of his episcopate.

The truth is, as the monarchical episcopate was not yet existing in Rome, it is useless to attempt to fix his dates, or those of any of the other so-called bishops who lived before the second quarter of the second century.

A a are chap. 32. nzus does not name Ignatius, but he testifies to the exi the Epistle to the Romans which bears his name, and to ape thg dom of the author of that epistle.

Origen informs us that Ignatius, the author of certain epistles, was second bishop of the church of Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome.

Eusebius, in the present chapter, is the first one to give us an extended account of Ignatius, and his account contains no information beyond what he might have drawn from the Ignatian epistles themselves as they lay before him, except the statements, already made b Origen, that Ignatius was the second bishop of rina | and suffered martyrdom at Rome.

: this Justus we know no more than Eusebius tells :

Epiphanius (Her. LXVI. 20) calls him Judas. whe * On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.

? Of the life of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, we know very little.

He is en by Irenzus, Adv. Her. V. 33. i 'rms us that he was a companion of Polyca and a apostle John.

The latter Statesient is adr pineal (see chap. 39, note 4); but there is no reason t of the former.

Papias' dates we cannot ascertai e former statement must have rested on a tradition at least in part, independent of the epistles (for they imply only "the fact of his Antiochian episcopacy, without specif ing the time); the latter might have arisen from the epistles themictocs (in which it is clearly

Stated that the writer is on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom),

III. 36.]

IGNATIUS AND HIS EPISTLES.

a account of his testimony to Christ.» And

as he made the journey through Asia under the strictest military surveillance, he fortified the parishes in the various cities where he stopped by oral homilies and exhortations, and warned them above all to be especially on their guard against the heresies that were then beginning to prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the tradition of the apostles.

Moreover, he thought it necessary to attest that tradition in writing, and to give it a fixed form for the sake of greater security.

So when he came to 5:

Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he wrote an epistle to the church of Ephesus,' in which he

Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food for wild beasts on for of course it would be natural to assume that his expectation was realized.

The connection in which Eusebius records the martyrdom imlies that he believed that it took place in the reign of Trajan, and in his Chronicle he gives precise dates for the be; inning of his episcopate (the 212th Olympiad, i.e. 69-72 A.D.) and for his martyrdom (the tenth year of Trajan, i.e. 107 A.D.).

Subsequent notices of Ignatius are either quite worthless or are based solely upon the epistles themselves or upon the statements of Eusebius.

The information, independent oF the epistles, which has reached us from the time of Eusebius or earlier, consequently narrows itself down to the report that Ignatius was second bishop of Antioch, and that he was bishop from about 70 to 107 A.D.

The former date may be regarded as entirely unreliable.

Even were it granted that there could have been a bishop at the head of the Antiochian church at so early a date ee there is no warrant for such a supposition), it would nevertheless be impossible to nee any reliance upon the date given by Eusebius, as it is impossible to place any reliance upon the dates given for the so-called bishops of other cities during the first century was, at the time of their composition, on his way to Rome to suffer death in the arena.

His character and opinions, however, are very clearly exhibited in his writings.

To quote from Schaff, '' Ignatius. stands out in history as the ideal of a Catholic martyr, and as the earliest advocate of the hierarchical principle in both its good and its evil points.

Asa writer, he is remarkable for originality, freshness, -and force of ideas, and for terse, sparkling, and sententious style; but in Speen simplicity and soundness, he is inferior to Clement and Polycarp, and presents a stronger contrast to the epistles of the New

Testament.

Clement shows the calmness, dignity, and governmental wisdom of the Roman character.

Ignatius glows with the fire and impetuosity of the Greek and Syrian temper which carries him beyond the bounds of sobriety.

He was a very uncommon man, and made a powerful impression upon his age.

He is the incarnation, as it were, of the three closely connected ideas: the glory of ook free the omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred of heresy and schism.

Hierarchical pride and humility, Christian pushed and churchly exclusiveness, are typically represented in (see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 1).

But the date of Ignatius' martyrdom given by Eusebius seems at first sight to rest upon a more reliable tradition, and has been accepted by many scholars as correct.

Its accuracy, however, has been impugned, especially by Zahn and Lightfoot, who leave the date of Ignatius' death uncertain, claiming simply that he died under Trajan; and b Harnack, who puts his death into the reign of Hadrian.

We shall refer to this again further on.

Meanwhile, since the information which we have of Ignatius, independent of the Ignatian epistles, is so small in amount, we are obliged to turn to those epistles for our chief knowledge of his life and character.

But at this point a difficulty confronts us.

There are extant three different recensions of epistles ascribed to Ignatius.

Are any of them genuine, and if so, which?

The first, or longer Greek recension, as it is called, consists of fifteen epistles, which were first published in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Of these fifteen, eight are clearly spurious, and seven are at least largely interpolated.

The genuineness of the former and the integrity of the latter now find no defenders among scholars.

The second, or shorter Greek recension, contains seven of the fifteen epistles of the longer recension, in a much shorter form.

Their titles are the same that are given by Eusebius in this chapter.

They were first discovered and published in the seventeenth century.

The thifd, or Syriac recension, contains three of these seven epistles (to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans), in a still shorter form, and was discovered in the present century.

Since its discovery, opinions have been divided between it and the shorter Greek recension; but the defense of the gnatius.

The literature on Ignatius and the Ignatian controversy is very extensive.

The principal editions to be consulted are Cureton's The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to St.

Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, with English translation and notes (the edztio princeps of the Syriac version), London and Berlin, 1845; Zahn's Ignatit et Polycarpi Epistule, Martyria

Sragmenta, Lips. 1876 (Patrum Afpostolicorum Opera, ed. Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Vol. II.); Bishop Lightfoot's Sz. Jgzatius and St. Polycarp (The Apostolic Fathers, Part II.), London,

1885.

This edition ies two volumes) is the most complete and exhaustive edition of Ignatius' epistles which has yet appeared, and contains a very full and able discussion of all questions connected with Ignatius and his writings.

It contains the text of the longer Greek recension and of the Syriac version, in addition to that of the seven genuine epistles, and practically supersedes all earlier editions.

An English translation of all the epistles of Ignatius (Syriac and Greek, in both recensions) is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers enuineness of the latter by Zahn and Lightfoot may be regarded as ally settling the matter, and establishing the originality of the shorter Greek recension as over against that represented by the Syriac version.

The former, therefore, alone comes into consideration in discussing the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles.

Their enuineness is still stoutly denied by some; but the evidence in their favor, external and internal, is too strong to be set aside; and since the appearance of Lightfoot's great work, candid scholars almost unanimously admit that the question is settled, and their genuineness triumphantly established.

The great difficulties which have stood in the way of the acceptance of the epistles are, first and a the highly developed form of church government which they reveal; and secondly, the attacks upon heresy contained in them.

Both of these characteristics seem to necessitate a date later than the reign of Trajan, the traditional time of Ignatius' martyrdom. Harnack regards these two difficulties as very serious, if not absolutely fatal to the supposition that the epistles were written during the reign of Trajan; but in a very keen tract, entitled Dze Zezt de> Ignatius (Leipzig,

1878), he has endeavored to show that the common tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is worthless, and he therefore brings the martyrdom down into the reign of Hadrian, and thus does away with most of the internal difficulties which beset the acceptance of the epistles.

Whether or not Harnack's explanation of Eusebius' chronology of the Antiochian bishops be accepted as correct (and the number of its adherents is not great), he has, at least, shown that the tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is not as strong as it has been commonly supposed to be, and that it is possible to question seriously its reliability.

Lightfoot, who discusses Harnack's theory at considerable length (II. p. 450-469), rejects it, and maintains that Ignatius died sometime during the reign of Trajan, though, with Zahn and Harnack, he gives up the traditional date of 107 A-D., which is found in the C, 'hrontcle of Eusebius, and has been very commonly accepted as reliable.

Lightfoot, however, remarks that the genuineness of the epistles is much more certain than the chronology of Ignatius, and that, therefore, if it is a question between the rejection of the epistles and the relegation of Ignatius' death to the reign of Hadrian (which he, however, denies), the latter alternative must be chosen without hesitation.

A final decision upon this knotty point has not yet been, and perhaps never will be, reached; but Harnack's theory that the epistles were written during the reign of Hadrian deserves even more careful consideration than it has yet received.

(Am. ed.), Vol. I. pp. 45-126.

The principal discussions which it is necessary to refer to here are those of Lightfoot in his edition of the Ignatian epistles just referred to; Zahn's Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873 (very full and able); Harnack's Die Zeit des

Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878; and the reviews of Lightfoot's edition contributed by Maseck to the Exfosttor, December, 1885, January and March, 1886.

For a more extended list of works on the subject, and for a brief review of the whole matter, see Schaff's Church History, Vol. II. p. 651-664.

6' That Ignatius was on his way from Syria to Rome, under condemnation for his testimony to Christ, and that he was expecting to be cast to the wild beasts upon reaching Rome, appears from many passages of the epistles themselves.

Whether the tradition, as Eusebius calls it, that he actually did suffer martyrdom at Rome was independent of the epistles, or simply grew out of the statements made in them, we cannot tell.

WVaicheret is the case, we may regard the tradition as reliable.

That he suffered martyrdom somewhere is too well attested to be doubted for a moment; and there exists no tradition in favor of any other city as the place of his martyrdom, except a late one reported by John Malalas, which names

Antioch as the place.

This is accepted by Volkmar and by the author of Supernatural Religion, but its falsity has been conclusively shown by Zahn (see his edition of the Ignatian epistles, p. xii, 343, 381). b :

® The seven genuine epistles of Ignatius (all of which are mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter) fall into two groups, four having been written from one place and three from another.

The first four —to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans — were written from Smyrna, while Ignatius was on his way to Rome, as we can learn from notices in the epistles thdmselves, and as is stated below by Eusebius, who probably took his information from the statements of the epistles, as we take ours.

Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles lay to the south of Smyrna, on one of the great highways of Asia Minor.

But Ignatius was taken b i. road which lay further north, passing through Philadelphia and Sa dis (see Lightfoot, I. 33 sq.), and thus did not visit the three cities to which he now sends epistles from Smyrna.

The four epistles written from Smyrna conGranting the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, we are still in possession of no great amount of information in regard to his life.

We know from them only that he was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria, and had been condemned to martyrdom, and that he

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[III. 36.

mentions Onesimus, its pastor ;7 and another to the church of Magnesia, situated upon the Meander, in which he makes mention again of a bishop Damas ; and finally one to the church of diligently for it* And the same man, ll writing to the Smyrnzans, used the following words concerning Christ, taken I know not whence :¥ " But I know and believe that he was in the flesh after the resurrection.

And when he came to Peter and his companions he said to them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.

And immediately they touched him and believed."

Ire-

nzeus also knew of his martyrdom and mentions his epistles in the following words :¥ "As one of our people said, when he was condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony unto

God, Iam God's wheat, and by the teeth of wild beasts am I ground, that I may be found pure bread."

Polycarp also mentions these

letters in the epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him."

His words are as follows :® "T exhort all of you, therefore, to be obedient and to practice all patience such as ye saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed

Ignatius and Rufus and Zosimus,' but also in others from among yourselves as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles ; being persuaded that all these ran not in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are gone to their rightful place beside the Lord, with whom also they suffered.

For they loved not the present world, but him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us." And afterwards

he adds:

"You have written to me, both you and Ignatius, that if any one go to Syria he may Carry with him the letters from you.

And this I will do if I have a suitable opportunity, either I myself or one whom I send to be an ambassador for you also.

The epistles of Ignatius which were sent to us by him and the others which we had with us we sent to you as you gave charge.

They are appended to this epistle, and from them you will be able aS eee Tralles, whose bishop, he states, was at that

time Polybius.

In addition to these he wrote also to the church of Rome, entreating them not to secure his release from martyrdom, and thus rob him of his earnest hope.

In confirmation of what has been said it is proper to quote briefly from this epistle.

He writes

as follows :® " From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and by sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards,' that is, a company of soldiers who only become worse when they are well treated.

In the midst of their wrongdoings, however, I am more fully learning discipleship, but I

am not thereby justified."

May I have joy of the beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray that I may find them ready ; I will even coax them to devour me quickly that they may not treat me as they have some whom they have refused to touch through fear" And if they are unwilling, I will compel them.

Forgive me.

I know what is expedient forme. NowdoI begin to bea disciple. May naught of things visible and things invisible envy me ; " that I may attain unto Jesus Christ.

Let fire and cross and attacks of wild beasts, let wrenching of bones, cutting of limbs, crushing of the whole body, tortures of the devil, —let all these come upon me if only I may attain unto Jesus Christ."

These things he wrote from the abovementioned city to the churches referred to.

And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from Troas® to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church.

And since he knew him well as an apostolic man, he commended to him, like a true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care

14 See Ef. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.

1 Ep. ad Smyr. chap. 3. Jerome, quoting this Passage from Ignatius in his de wir. 2/7. 16, refers it to the gospel which had lately been translated by him (according to de wr. zi, 3), Viz.: the Gospel of the Nazarenes (or the Corea according to the Hebrews).

In his Comment. in fsatam, Bk. XVIII. introd., Jerome quotes the same passage again, referring it to the same eas quod Hebreorum lectitant Nazarez). tain no indication of the chronological order in which they were written, and whether Eusebius in his enumeration followed the manuscript of the epistles which he used (our present MSS, give an entirely different order, which is not at all chronological and does not even keep the two groups distinct), or whether he exercised his own judgment, we do not know. ospel ut in quoted as taken from the t doctrina apellatur"'), Eusebius' various references to the Gospel according to the Hebrews show that he was personally acquainted with it (see above, chap. 25, note 24), and knowing his great thoroughness in going through the books which he had access to, it is impossible to supi sastage quoted from Ignatius were in the Gospel according to the Hebrews he should not have known it. seem then to be driven to the conclusion that the passage did not originally stand in the Gospel according to the op eat, but was later incorporated either from the Teaching of Peter, in which Origen found it, or from some common source or oral tradition.

Sarudviov dowparov.

Compare Luke xxiv. 3918 Trenzus, Adv. Her. V. 28. 4.

Qn Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap.

14, note 16, 20 Polycarp, Zp. ad Phil. chap. 9.

21 Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.

2 Polycarp, Ef. ad Phil, chap. 13.

The genuineness of this panies bert as sus gk to the Ignatian epistles, ¢n questioned by some scholars ut without u:

° See below, Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16, mig PS 7 Of this Onesimus, and of Damas and Polybius mentioned just below, we know nothing more. rigen de prin. pref. 8, the phrase is Teaching of Peter ("gui Petri § Ignatius, Zp. ad Rom. chap. 5.

» Aeomdpdors.

This is the earliest use of this word in any extant writing, and an argument has been drawn from this fact against the authenticity of the epistle.

For a careful discussion of the matter, see Lightfoot's edition, Vol. II. p. ar2. a mapas ik lv. 4.

; ompare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius j :

V. chap. 1, § 42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7. ny Heasessahiia Be . 2? The translation of this sentence is Lightfoot's, who prefers with Rufinus and the Syriac to read the optative CnAdoar instead of the infinitive ¢nA@cat, which is found in most of the MSS. and is given by Heinichen and the majority of the other editors.

The sense seems to require, as Lightfoot asserts, the optative rather than oe shee peak

That Troas was the place from which Ignati Philadelphians, to the Smyrnzans, and to Balecate Me ane wane indications in the epistles themselves.

The chronological order in which the three were written is uncertain.

He had visited both churches upon his journey to Troas and had : i pees j y

ad seen: Polycarp in

Il. 38.]

THE WRITINGS OF CLEMENT OF ROME.

ee eee God.

For a great many wonderful works were done through them by the power of the divine

Spirit, so that at the first hearing whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced the religion of the Creator of the universe.

But since

it is impossible for us to enumerate the names of all that became shepherds or evangelists in the churches throughout the world in the age immediately succeeding the apostles, we have recorded, as was fitting, the names of those only who have transmitted the apostolic doctrine to us in writings still extant. to derive great advantage.

For they comprise faith and patience, and every kind of edification that pertaineth to our Lord." So much concerning Ignatius.

But he was succeeded by Heros® in the episcopate of the church of Antioch.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

The Evangelists that were still Eminent at that Time.

Amonc those that were celebrated at that time was Quadratus,' who, report says, was renowned along with the daughters of Philip for his prophetical gifts.

And there were many others besides these who were known in those days, and who occupied the first place among the successors of the apostles.

And they also, being illustrious disciples of such great men, built up the foundations of the churches which had been laid by the apostles in every place, and preached the Gospel more and more widely and scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

The Epistle of Clement and the Writings falsely ascribed to him.

Tuus Ignatius has done in the epistles

which we have mentioned,! and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth.

In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.

Wherefore it

has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle.

For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this

Clement himself, translated the epistle. The

latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different.' heaven far and near throughout the whole

world? For indeed most of the disciples of that time, animated by the divine word with a more ardent love for philosophy,' had already fulfilled the command of the Saviour, and had distributed their goods to the needy.* Then starting out upon long journeys they performed the office of evangelists, being filled with the desire to preach Christ to those who had not yet heard the word of faith, and to deliver to

them the divine Gospels.

And when they had only laid the foundations of the faith in foreign places, they appointed others as pastors, and entrusted them with the nurture of those that had recently been brought in, while they themselves went on again to other countries and nations, with the grace and the co-operation of But it must be observed also that there is

said to be asecond epistle of Clement.

But we do not know that this is recognized like the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use ofit.4

And certainmen

have lately brought forward other wordy and 23 According to Eusebius' Chronicle Heros became bishop of Antioch in the tenth year of Trajan (107 A.D.), and was succeeded by Cornelius in the twelfth year of Hadrian (128 A.D.).

In the History he is mentioned only once more (Bk. IV. chap. 20), and no dates are given.

The dates fouhd in the Chronicle are entirely unreliable oe on the dates of all the early Antiochian bishops, Harnack's Zei? des Ignatius).

Of Heros himself we have no trustworthy information.

His name appears in the later martyrologies, and one of the spurious Ignatian epistles is addressed to him.

1 In chap. 36, above.

2 See above, chap. 16.

8 On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.

4 Eusebius is the first one to mention the ascription of a second epistle to Clement, but after the fifth century such an epistle (whether the one to which Eusebius here refers we cannot tell) was in common circulation and was quite widely accepted as genuine.

This epistle is still extant, in a mutilated form in the Alexandrian MS., complete in the MS. discovered by Bryennios in Constantinople in 1875.

The publication of the complete work prove what had long been suspected, that it is not an epistle at all, but a Boenity It cannot have been written by the author of the first epistle o Clement, nor can it belong to the first century.

It was probably written in Rome about the middle of the second century (see Harnack's articles in the Zeztschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 264-283 and 329-364), and is the oldest extant omily, and as such possesses conSiderable interest,

It has always gone by the name of the Second Epistle of Clement, and hence continues to be so called although the title is a misnomer, for neither is it an epistle, nor is it by Clement.

It is published in all the editions of the apostolic Fathers, but only those editions that have appeared since the discovery of the complete homily by Bryennios are now of value.

Of these, it is necessary to mention only Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patrum Afpost. Opera, 2d ed., 1876, in which Harnack's prolegomena and notes are especially valuable, and the appendix to Lig tfoot's edi1 This Quadratus had considerable reputation as a prophet, as may be gathered from Eusebius' mention of him here, and also from the reference to him in the en Sein work against the Montanists (see below, Bk. V. chap. 16).

'e know nothing about this Quadratus except what is told us in these two passages, unless we identify him, as many do, with Quadratus the apologist mentioned below in Bk. IV. chap. 3.

This identification is possible, but by no means certain.

See Bk. IV. chap. 3, note 2.

2 This rhetorical flourish arouses the suspicion that Eusebius, although he says there were ' many others "» that were well known in those days, was unacquainted wit the names of such persons as we, too, are unacquainted with them.

None will deny that there may have been some men of Paes in the Church at this time, but Eusebius apparently had no more information to impart in regard to them than 4 gives us in this chapter, and he makes up for his lack of facts in a way which is not at all uncommon,

3 That is, an ascetic mode of life.

See Bk. VI. chap.

3, note 9.

4 See Matt. xix. 21.

Eusebius agrees with nearly al the Fathers, and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young man.

THE: 'CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSESBIUS.

[III. 38.

as the only works written by him,' in the following words:* "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book.

For five books have been written by him."

These are the words of Irenzus.

But Papias himself in the preface to his

discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.*

He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to

put down for you along with my interpretalengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion.'

But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy.

The acknowledged writing of Clement is well known.

We have spoken also of the works of Ignatius and Polycarp.° CHAPTER XXXIX.

The Writings of Papias.

THERE are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord.'

Irenzeus makes mention of these word Adyca, see below, note,26. As remarked there, Adyra cannot be confined to words or discourses only, and therefore the "' oracles" which Papias expounded in his work may well have included, so far as the title is concerned, a complete Gospel or Gospels.

In the absence of the work itself, however, we are left entirely to conjecture, though it must be remarked that in the time of Papias at least some of our Gospels were certainly in existence and already widely accepted.

It is difficult, therefore, to suppose that if written documents lay at the basis of Papias' work, as we have concluded that they did, that they can have been other than one or more of the. commonly accepted Gospels.

But see Lightfoot's article already referred to for a discussion of this question.

The date of the com-position of Papias' work is now commonly fixed at about the middle of the second century, probably nearer 130 than 150A.D.

The books. and articles that have been written upon this work are far too numerous to mention.

Besides the article by Lightfoot in the Contem:— borary Review, which has been already referred to, we should tion of Clement (1877), which contains the full text, notes, and an English translation.

English translation also in the Axte-Nicene fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. VII. p. 509 sq. Compare the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christian Biography and Harnack's articles in the Zettschr. f. Kirchengesch. referred to above. _ is 5 There are extant a number of Pseudo-Clementine writings of the third and following centuries, the chief among which purports to contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle

Peter, and an account of Clement's family history and of his travels with Peter, constituting, in fact, a sort of didactico-historical romance.

This exists now in three forms (the Homzzlzes, Recognitions, and Epitome), all of which are closely related; though whether the first two (the last is simply an abridgment of the first) are drawn from a common original, or whether one of them is the original of the other, is not certain.

The works are more or less Ebionitic in character, and play an important part in the history of early Christian literature.

For a careful discussion of them, see Salmon's article Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christian

Biography; and for the literature of the subject, which is very extensive, see especially Schaff's Church History, II. p. 435 sq. mention also Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christian Biography,

Schleiermacher's essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 735. sq.,—the first critical discussion of Papias' testimony in regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and still valuable,

— dissertations. by Weiffenbach, 1874 and 1878, and by Leimbach, 1875, with reviews of the last two in various periodicals, notably the articles by Hilgenfeld in his Zectschrift fiir wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, 1879.

See also:

Pp. 389, note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth -books of the Homzlies contain extended conversations purporting to have been held between Clement and Apion, the famous antagonist of the Jews (see Bk. IT. chap. s, note 5). [tis quite possible that the '' wordy and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion,"' which Eusebius refers to here may be identical with the Howz/zes, in which case we must suppose

Eusebius' language to be somewhat inexact; for the dialogues in the Homilies are between Clement and Apion, not between Peter and Apion.

It seems more probable, however, when we realize the vast number of works of a similar character which were in circulation during the third and subsequent centuries, that Eusebius refers here to another work, belonging to the same general class, which is now lost.

If such a work existed, it may well have formed a basis for the dialogues between Clement and Apion given in the Homilies.

In the absence of all further evidence of such a work, we must leave the matter quite undecided.

It is not necessary here to enumerate the other Pseudo-Clementine works which are still extant,

Compare Schaff's Church History, 11. 648sq.

Clement's name was a favorite one with pseudographers of the early Church, and works of all kinds were published under his name.

The most complete collection of these spurious works is found in Migne's Patr. Grec. Vols. b and II.

6 In chap. 36, above.

1 Aoytwy Kuptax@v éfnyjoets.

This work is no longer extant, but a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenzeus,

Eusebius, and others, which are published in the various editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especiall:

Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn's edition, Vol. I. Appendix) , and by Routh in his Re/. Sacre, I. Pp: 316, English translation in the Ante-Vicene Fathers (Am, ed.),

Vol. I. p. 15 sq. The exact character of the work has been long and sharply disputed.

Some contend that it was a record of oral traditions in regard to the Lord which Papias had gathered, together with a commentary ye these traditions, others that it was a complete Gospel, others that it was a commentary upon an already existing Gospel or Gospels.

The last is the view which accords best with the language of Eusebius, and it is widely accepted, though there is controversy among those who accept it as to whether the Gospel or Gospels which he used are to be identified with either of our canonical Gospels.

But upon this question we cannot dwell at this point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the base of Papias' work, concludes that the work contained, first, the text; secondly, 'the interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object of the work"; and thirdly, the oral traditions, which "were subordinate to the interpretation"?

(Contemporary Review, 1875, Il. Pp: 389).

This is probably as good a description of the plan of Papias' work as can be given, whatever decision may be reached as to the identity of the text which he used with any one of our Gospels.

Lightfoot has adduced strong arguments for his view, and has discussed at length various other views which it is not necessary to repeat here.

On the significance of the 2 ws povwv aiTe ypapévtwv.

Trenzus does not expressly say that these were the only works written by Papias.

He simply says, 'For five books have been written by him" (ore yap avto mévre BiBAta ouvtetaypnéva), Eusebius' interpretation of Irenzeus' words. is not, however, at all unnatural, and probabl expresses Irenzeus' meaning.

8 Trenzus, Adv. Her. V. 33. 4.

4 The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenzeus, has been questioned by many, who have held that,. in the passage quoted just below from Papias, the same John is. meant in both cases.

See the note of Schaff in his Church History, II. e 97.sqA careful exegesis of the passage from Papias quoted by Eusebius seems, however, to lead necessarily to the conclusion which Eusebius draws, that Papias refers to two different persons. bearing the same name,— John.

In fact, no other conclusion can be reached, unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical: method of writing.

Certainly, if he knew of but one John, there is. no possible excuse for mentioning him twice in the one passage. On the other hand, if we accept Eusebius' interpretation, we are met by a serious difficulty in the fact that we are obliged to assume that there lived in Asia Minor, early in the second century, a man to whom Papias appeals as possessing exceptional authority, but who is men-tioned by no other Father; who is, in fact, otherwise 'an entirely un— known personage.

And still further, no reader of Papias' work, be— fore the time of Eusebius, Fee from that work, so far as we: know, a single hint that the John with whom he was acquainted was any other than the apostle John.

These difficulties are so serious that they have led many to deny that Papias meant to refer to a sec— ond John, in spite of his apparently clear reference to such a person.

Among those who deny this second John's existence are such scholars as Zahn and Salmon.

(Compare, for instance, the latter's. able article on Yoannes the Presbyter, in the Dict. of Christian

Biography.) 1n reply to their arguments, it may be said that the silence of all other early writers does not necessarily disprove the existence of a second John; for it is quite conceivable that all trace: of him should be swallowed up in the reputation of his greater namesake who lived in the same place,

Moreover, it is quite conceivable that Papias, writing for those who were well acquainted with both

Johns, may have had no suspicion that any one would confound the presbyter with the apostle, and would imagine that he was referring to the latter when he was speaking of his personal friend John; and. therefore he would have no reason for stating expressly that there were two Johns, and for express] distinguishing the one from the: other.

It was, then, quite natural that Irenzeus, a whole generation later, knowing that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and finding constant mention of a John in Papias' works, should simply take for granted that the same John was meant; for by his time the: lesser John may easily, in the minds of most people, have become

THE WRITINGS OF PAPIAS.

HII. 39.]

thew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion*® and the presbyter John," the disciples of the Lord, say.

For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books" would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."

It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him."

The first one he mentions in connection with tions® whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders® and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth.

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth ; not in those that relate strange com-

mandments, but in those that deliver' the commandments given by the Lord to faith,® and springing from the truth itself.

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders, —what Andrew or what

Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist ; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

This shows that the statement of those

is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's."

It is important to notice this.

For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John."

And Papias, of whom we are now speak-

ing, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion

Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Mat- 'lost in the tradition of his greater namesake.

In view of these possibilities, it cannot be said that the silence of other Fathers in regard to this John is fatal to his existence; and if this is so, we are hardly justified in doing such violence to Papias' language as is required to identify the two Johns mentioned by him in the passage quoted below.

Among those who accept Eusebius' conclusion, that Papias refers to two different persons, are such scholars as Tischendorf,

Donaldson, Westcott and Lightfoot.

If Eusebius has recovered for sus from the ancient history of the Church an otherwise unknown personage, it will not be the only time that he has corrected an error committed by all his predecessors.

In this case, as in a number of other cases, I believe Eusebius' wide information, sharp-sightedness, and superiority to the trammels of traditionalism receive triumphant

-vindication, and we may accept his conclusion that Papias was personally acquainted with a second John, who was familiarly known as '' the Presbyter," and thus distinguished from the apostle John,

-who could be called a presbyter or elder only in the general sense in -which all the leading men of his generation were elders (see below, note 6), and could not be designated emphatically as '' ¢e presbyter."

In regard to the connection of this " presbyter John" with the Apocalypse, see below, note 14.

But although Papias distinishes, as we may conclude, between two Epa in the passage reerred to, and elsewhere, according to Eusebius, pronounces himself a hearer of the second John, it does not necessarily follow that Ire9 Of this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this mention of him by Papias.

10 See above, note 6.

11 é« tav BiBAtwy.

These words have been interpreted by many critics as implying that Papias considered the written Gospel accounts, which were extant in his time, of small value, and preferred to them the oral traditions which he picked up from 'the elders."

But as Lightfoot has shown (267d. p. 390 sq.), this is not the natural interpretation of Papias' words, and makes him practically stultify and contradict himself.

He cannot have considered the written documents which he laid at the base of his work as of little value, nor can he have regarded the writings of Matthew and Mark, which he refers to in this chapter as extant in his time, and the latter of which he praises for its accuracy, as inferior to the oral traditions, which came to him at best only at second hand.

It is necessary to refer the tov BiBAiwv, as Lightfoot does, to " interpretations" of the Gospel accounts, which had been made by others, and to which Papias prefers the interpretations or expositions which he has received from the disciples of the apostles,

This interpretation of the word alone saves us from difficulties and Papias from selfstultification.

12 See above, note 4.

13 The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John is attested also by Dionysius of Alexandria (quoted in Bk. VII. chap. 25, below) and by Jerome (de vir. zd. c. 9). The latter, however, says that some regard them both as memorials of the one

John, the apostle; and Zahn, in his Acta Foannis, p. cliv. sq., endeavors to prove that a church stood outside of the walls of Ephesus, on the spot where John was buried, and another inside of the walls, on the site of the house in which he had resided, and that thus two

. spots were consecrated to the memory of a single John.

The proof which he brings in support of this may not lead many persons to adopt his conclusions, and yet after reading his discussion of the matter one must admit that the existence of two memorials in Ephesus, such as Dionysius, Eusebius, and Jerome refer to, by no means proves that more than one John was buried there. nzus was mistaken in saying that he was a hearer of the apostle

John; for Irenzeus may have based his statement upon information yeceived from his teacher, Polycarp, the friend of Papias, and not upon the passage quoted by Eusebius, and hence Papias may have been a hearer of both Johns.

At the same time, it must be said that if Papias had been a disciple of the apostle John, he could scarcely have failed to state the fact expressly somewhere in his works; and if he had stated it anywhere, Eusebius could hardly have overlooked it.

The conclusion, therefore, seems most probable that Eusebius is right in correcting Irenzeus' statement, and that the latter based his report upon a misinterpretation of Papias' own words.

In that case, we have no authority for speaking of Papias as a disciple of John the apostle.

5 This sentence gives strong support to the view that oral traditions did not form the basis of Papias' work, but that the basis consisted of written documents, which he interpreted, and to which he then added the oral traditions which he refers to here.

See Cowtemporary Review, 1885, Il. p. 388 sq.

The words Tals épunvetacs have been translated by some scholars, ''the interpretations of them," thus making the book consist only of these oral traditions with interpretations of them.

But this translatiou is not warranted 'by the Greek, and the a/so at the beginning of the sentence shows

'that the work must have contained other matter which preceded these oral traditions and to which the "' interpretations" belong.

6 As Lightfoot points out (Contemp.

Rev. ibid. p. 379 8q.)s 'Papias uses the term "elders" in a general sense to denote the Fathers of the Church in the generations preceding his own.

It 'thus includes both the apostles and their immediate disciples.

The 'term was thus used in a general sense by later Fathers to denote all earlier Fathers of the Church; that is, those leaders of the Church belonging to generations earlier than the writers themselves.

The term, therefore, cannot be confined to the apostles alone, nor can it "be confined, as some have thought (e.g. Weiffenbach in his Das

14 A similar suggestion had been already made by Dionysius in the passage quoted by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 25, and Eusebius was undoubtedly thinking of it when he wrote these words.

The suggestion is a very clever one, and yet it is only a guess, and does not pretend to be more.

Dionysitis concludes that the Apocalypse must have been written by some person named John, because it testifies to that fact itself; but the style, and other internal indications, lead him to think that it cannot have been written by the author of the fourth Gospel, whom he assumes to be John the apostle.

He is therefore led to suppose that the Apocalypse was written by some other John.

He does not pretend to say who that John was, but thinks it must have been some John that resided in Asia; and he then adds that there were said to be two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John, — evidently implying, though he does not say it, that he is inclined to think that this second

John thus commemorated was the author of the Apocalypse.

It is plain from this that he had Papias Fragment), to ecclesiastical officers, presbyters in the official sense.

Where the word mpeoBvrepos is used in connection -with the second John (at the close of this extract from Papias), it is apparently employed in its official sense.

At least we cannot other- -wise easily understand how it could be used as a peculiar designation of this John, which should distinguish him from the other John.

For in the general sense of the word, in which Papias commonly uses it, both Johns were elders.

Compare Lightfoot's words in the -passage referred to above.

; er 7 rapay.vomuévors, instead of mapaywwoudvas, agreeing with evroAds.

The latter is the common reading, but is not so well supported by manuscript authority, and, as the easier reading, is to be rejected in favor of the former.

See the note of Heinichen 2% Zoco.

8 That is, '' to those that believe, to those that are possessed of faith."

THE CHURCH 'HISTORY: OF EUSEBIUS.

[III. 39-

through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

For he appears to have been of very limited

understanding," as one can see from his discourses.

But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenzeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views."

Papias gives also in his

own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John ; to which we refer those who are fond of learning.

But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

It is in the following words:

"This also

the presbyter ™ said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ." and the presbyter John.

At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings.

These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to

have received from tradition.

That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated."

But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip.

For he relates that in his time ® one rose from the dead.

And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no

harm.

The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number.

The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they

prayed and said."

The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange so constantly by chiliasts in support of their views was the reason why Dionysius, Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its apostolic authorship.

Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene age were the author of the epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Marwr, Irenzus, and Tertullian; while the principal opponents of the loctrine were Caius, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius.

After the time of Constantine, chiliasm was more and more widely regarded as a heresy, and received its worst blow from Augustine, who framed in its stead the doctrine, which from his time on was er accepted in the Church, that the millennium is the es reign of Christ, which began with his resurrection.

See chaffs Church History, Il. p. 613 sq., for the history of the doctrine in the ante-Nicene Church and for the literature of the subject. parables and teachings of the Saviour, and

some other more mythical things.* To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth."

I suppose he got these ideas a Se A ie la one tae A Dc 20 ohddpa ouixpos Tov vodv.

Eusebius' judgment of Papias ma' have been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strong chiliasm of the latter; oad yet a perusal of the extant fragments of Papias' writings will lead any one to think that Eusebius was not far wrong in his estimate of the man, On the genuineness of the words in his praise, given by some MSS., in chap. 36, § 2, see note 3 on that chapter.

21 See above, note 109.

22 We cannot, in the absence of the context, sa wilh certainty that the presbyter here referred to is the presbyter John," of whom Papias has so much to say, and who is mentioned in the revious. patsgrnk; and yet this seems quite probable.

Compare Weiffen- — Die Papias Fragmente iiber Marcus un Matthaeus, Pp. 26 sq. no tradition whatever in favor of this theory, that it was solely an hypothesis arising from critical difficulties standing in the way of the ascription of the book to the apostle John.

Eusebius sees in this suggestion a very welcome solution of the difficulties with which he feels the acceptance of the book to be beset, and at once states it as a possibility that this '' presbyter John," whom he has discovered in the writings of Papi may have been the author of the book.

But the authenticity of the Apocalypse was too firml established to be shaken by such critical and theological difficulties as influenced

Dionysius, Eusebius, and a few others, and in consequence nothing came of the suggestion made here by Eusebius.

In the present century, however, the "presbyter John'? has again played an important part among some critics as the possible author of certain of the Johannine writings, though the authenticity of the Apocalypse has

#3 Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark with Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by those who came after him (see alse, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4).

The relation of this Gospel of Mark to our canonical ospel has been a very sharply disputed point, but there is no good reason for distinguishing the Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel, which corresponds excellently to the description given by Papias.

Compare the remarks of Lightfoot, 247d. p. 393 sq.

We know from other sources (e.g. Justin Martyr's D7za/. c. 106) that our second Gospel was in existence in any case before the middle of the second century, and therefore there is no reason to suppose that Papias was thinking of any other Gospel when he spoke ot the Gospel written by Mark as the interpreter of Peter.

Of course it does not follow from this that it was actually our second Gospel which Mark wrote, and of whose composition Bapias here speaks.

He may have written a Gospel which afterward formed the basis of our present Gospel, or was one of the sources of the synoptic tradition as a whole; that is, he may have written what is commonly known as the *f UrMarcus

(see above, Bk. II. chap. I5, note 4).

As to that, we cannot decide with absolute certainty, but we may say that Papias certainly understood the tradition which he gives to refer to our

Gospel of Mark.

The exact significance of the word épynvevtys as used in this sentence has been much disputed.

It seems best to give it its usual significance, — the significance which we attach to the English word "'interpreter.'"?

See Weiffenbach, 782d. p. 37 sq.

It may be, supposing the report to be correct, that Peter found it advantageous to have some one more familiar than himself with the language of the people among whom he labored to assist him in his

Preaching.

What language it was for which he needed an interpreter we cannot say.

We might think naturally of Latin, but it is (until very recently) been so commonly accepted even by the most negative critics that the "' presbyter John" has not figured at all as the author of it; nor indeed is he likely to in the future.

15 In chap. 31, above.

On the confusion of the evangelist with the apostle Philip, see that chapter, note 6,

36 That is, in the time of Philip.

7 Acts i, 23.

18 Compare the extract from Papias given by Irenzeus (Adv, Her. V. 32), in which is contained a famous parable in regard to the fertility of the millennium, which is exceedingly materialistic in its nature, and evidently apocryphal.

'* The days will come when vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twi s, and in each twig ten thousand shoots and in every one of the shoots ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty measures of wine," &c,

.*° Chiliasm, or millennarianism, — that is, the belief in a visible reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before the generai spiritualized it, and fixed it upon the second, instead of th coming of Christ.

The chief Biblical su port for lie deen found in Rey. xx, 1-6, and the fact that this book was appealed to

OF PAPIAS.

THE WRITINGS

III. 39.]

testimonies from the first Epistle of John" and from that of Peter likewise.¥ And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."

These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses,™ so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them.

For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any assuming that the Gospel of Matthew which Papias was acquainted with was a different Gospel from our own.

This, however, does not prove that the Ady.a which Matthew wrote (supposing Papias' report to be correct) were identical with, or even of the same nature as our Gospel of Matthew.

It is urged by many that the word Adyta could be used only to describe a collection of the words or discourses of the Lord, and hence it is assumed that Matthew wrote a work of this kind, which of course is quite a different thing from our first Gospel.

But Lightfoot has shown (zdzd. p. 399 sq.) that the word Adyza, " oracles,"' is not necessarily confined to a collection of discourses merely, but that it may be used to describe a work containing also a narrative of events.

This being the case, it cannot be said that Matthew's Adya must necessarily have been something different from our present Gospel.

Still our Greek Matthew is certainly not a translation of a Hebrew original, and hence there _ma be a long step between Matthew's Hebrew Adyta and our Gree

Gospel.

But if our Greek Matthew was known to Papias, and if it is not a translation of a Hebrew original, then one of two alternatives follows: either he could not accept the Greek Matthew, which was in current use (that is, our canonical Matthew), or else he was not acquainted with the Hebrew Matthew.

Of the former alternative we have no hint in the fragments preserved to us, while the latter, from the way in which Papias speaks of these Hebrew Adyta, seems highly probable.

It may, therefore, be said to be probable that Papias, the first one that mentions a Hebrew Matthew, speaks not from personal knowledge, but upon the authority of tradition of them falsely."

These things are related

by Papias concerning Mark.

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows:

"So then® Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.""** And the same writer uses not impossible that Greek or that both languages were meant; for Peter, although of course possessed of some acquaintance with Greek, might not have been familiar enough with it to preach in it with perfect ease.

The words '' though not indeed in order"? (od pévtou ra- £er) have also caused considerable controversy.

But they seem to refer chiefly to a lack of chronological arrangement, perhaps to a lack of logical arrangement also.

The implication is that Mark wrote down without regard to order of any kind the words and-deeds of Christ which he remembered.

Lightfoot and most other critics have supposed that this accusation of a "lack of order" implies the existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different order, with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew, as Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as Lightfoot, Zahn, Renan, and others suppose).

This is a natural supposition, but it is quite possible that order is not thinking at all of another written Gospel, but merely of the order of events which he had received from tradition as the true one. apias in speaking of this. lack of | onl hi Since the first Epistle of John and the fourth Gospel are indisputably from the same hand (see above, chap. 24, note 18), Papias' testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, which is what his use of it implies, is indirect testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Gospel also.

24 AdSywr, " discourses,'' or Aoyiwy, " oracles."?

The two words are about equally supported by MS. authority.

The latter is adopted by the majority of the editors; but it is more likely that it arose from Adywy under the influence of the Aoyiwv, which occurred in the title of Papias' work, than that it was changed into Aéywv.

The matter, however, cannot be decided, and the alternative reading must in either case be allowed to stand.

See the notes of Burton and Heinichen, zx doco.

28 On the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above, chap.

3, note 1.

29 it is very likely that the story referred to here is identical with the story of the woman taken in adultery, given in some

MSS., at the close of the eighth ela of John's Gospel.

The story was clearly not contained in the original Gospel of John, but we do not know from what source it crept into that Gospel, possibly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius says the story related by Papias was found.

It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that Papias took the story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but only that it was contained in that Gospel.

We are consequently not justified in claiming this statement of Eusebius as proving that Papias himself was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews

(see above, chap. 25, note 24).

He may have taken it thence, or he may, on the other hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the source whence he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from the lost original Gospel, the ''

Ur-Matthaeus.""

29 Ȏv ovv.

These words show plainly enough that this sentence in regard to Matthew did not in the work of Papias immediately follow the passage in regard to Mark, quoted above.

Both passages are evidently torn out of their context; and the latter apparentl stood at the close of a description of the origin of Matthew's Gospel.

That this statement in regard to Matthew rests upon the authority of '' the presbyter "' we are consequently not at liberty to assert.

26 On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see above, chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was certainly in existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the epistle of Barnabas, which was written not later than the first quarter of the second century.

There is, therefore, no reason for

BOOK™ TV.

CHAPTER Ii.

CHAPTER I.

The Calamities of the Jews during Trajan's The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during Reign. the Reign of Trajan} THE teaching and the Church of our

Saviour flourished greatly and made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils.

In the eighteenth year of Trajan's reign! there was another disturbance of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished.?

For in Alexandria and

in the rest of Egypt, and also in Cyrene,® as if incited by some terrible and factious spirit, they rushed into seditious measures against their fellow-inhabitants, the Greeks.

The insurrection increased greatly, and in the following year, while Lupus was governor of all Egypt,' it developed into a war of no mean magnitude.

In the first attack it happened that they were

victorious over the Greeks, who fled to Alexandria and imprisoned and slew the Jews that were in the city. But the Jews of Cyrene, although deprived of their aid, continued to plunder the land of Egypt and to devastate its districts,' under the leadership of Lucuas.6

Against them the emperor sent Marcius Turbo' with a foot and naval force and also with a force of cavalry.

He carried on the war against them fora

a ee ee ee ee

1 115 A.D.

2 Closs says: "According to Dion Cassius, LKVIII. 32, they slew in Cyrene 220,000 persons with terrible crue ty.

At the same time there arose in Cyprus a disturbance of the Jews, who were very numerous in that island.

According to Dion, 240,000 of the inhabitants were slain there.

Their leader was Artemion.?'

Compare Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom. LXVIII. 32, and LXIX. 12 sq.

The Jews and the Greeks that dwelt together in different cities were constantly getting into trouble.

The Greeks scorned the Jews, and the Jews in return hated the Greeks and stirred up many bloody commotions against them, See Jost's Geschichte der Israeliten, chap. III. p. 18: sq.

The word * another"? in this Passage is used apparently with reference to the Jewish war under Ves asian, of bles Eusebius has spoken at length in the early part of the third 'ook.

L AsouT the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria? died, and Primus,® the fourth in succession from the apostles, was

chosen to the office.

At that time also Alexander,' the fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years.

1 We still have lists of piers as old as the end of the second century.

The most ancient is that of the Roman bishops given by Trenzus (III. 3.3); but this has no dates.

The list is probably the official catalogue as it had been handed down to the time of Sleutherus; but it is not authentic, as there was no monarchical episcoate in Rome at the time of Clement, nor even in the time of Hermas. or other churches the oldest lists date from the end of the third century. fcpording to one interpretation of a passage from Hegesippus, quoted in chapter 22, below, Hegesippus drew up a list of Roman bishops down to the time of Anicetus; and Bishop Lightfoot thinks he has discovered this lost catalogue in Epiphanius, Her.

XXVII. 6 (see his article in the Academy for May 27, 1887).

If Lightfoot is right, we have recovered the oldest Papal catalogue; but it is very doubtful whether Hegesippus composed such a catalogue (see note on chap. 22), and even if he did, it is uncertain' whether the list which Epiphanius gives is identical with it.

See the writer's notice of Lightfoot's article in the Theologische Literatur-Zettung, 1887; No. 18, Col. 435 abe ey The list of Roman bishops which Eusebius gives is the same as that of Irenzeus; but it has dates, while Irenzus' has none.

From what source Eusebius took his dates we do not know.

His Chronzcle contains different dates.

It is possible that the difference is owing, in part, to defective transcriptions or translations; but it is more probable that Eusebius himself discovered another source, before writing his H7zstory, which he considered more authentic, and therefore substituted for the one he had used in his Chronzcle. Lipsius (Chronologie der rimischen Bischéfe, p. 145) says, "' We may assume that the oldest catalogue extended as far as E eutherus, but rested upon historical knowledge only from X stus, or, at the farthest; from Alexander down.'"?

On the chronology of the Roman bishops in general, see especially the important work of Lipsius just referred to.

2 Cerdon, mentioned in Bk, III. chap. 2x.

8 The Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian) makes Primus succeed to the bishopric of Alexandria in the eleventh year of Trajan; the version of enone, in the ninth, According to chap. 4, below, he held office twelve years.

No reliance can be placed upon any of the figures.

The Alexandrian church is sitobded: in darkness until the latter pat of the second century, and all extant traditions in regard to its history before that time are about equally worthless.

Of Primus himself we have no authentic knowledge, though he figures somewhat in later tradition.

See Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography, in loco.

8 The Jews were very numerous both in Egypt and in Cyrene, which lay directly west of Egypt.

The Jews of Cpiae had a synagogue at Jerusalem, according to Acts vi. 9- * Lupus is, to me at least, an otherwise unknown character. vouor.

See Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10, .° Lucuas is called by Dion Cassius (LXVIII.

32) Andreas, Miinter suggests that he may have borne a double name, a Jewish and a Roman, as did many of the Jews of that time.

4 According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian), Alexander became bishop of Rome in the eighth year of Trajan; according to peheeede version, in the twelfth year.

He is said, in chap, 4, beiow, to have died in the third year of Hadrian, after holding office ten years.

On the reliability a these dates, see note 1, above.

Of Alexander's life and character we know nothing.

7 Marcius Turbo was one of the most distinguished of the Roman generals under Trajan and Hadrian, and finally became pretorian prefect under Hadrian.

See Dion Cassius, LXIX. 18, and Spartian, Hadr. 4-9, 15.

5 On Evarestus, see Bk, III. chap, 34, note ep

IV. 4.]

QUADRATUS AND

ARISTIDES.

JO el re aad our religion,? because certain wicked men® had attempted to trouble the Christians.

The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodoxy.* He himself re-

veals the early date at which he lived in the following words: " But the works of our Saviour were always present,' for they were genuine : — long time and fought many battles, and slew many thousands of Jews, not only. of those of Cyrene, but also of those who dwelt in Egypt and had come to the assistance of their king

Lucuas.

But the emperor, fearing that the Jews in Mesopotamia would also make an attack upon the inhabitants of that country, commanded Lucius Quintus® to clear the proyince of them.

And he having marched against them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt there; and in consequence of his success he was made governor of Judea by the emperor.

These events are recorded also in these very words by the Greek historians that have written accounts of those times.' those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."* Such then was Quadratus.

CHAPTER III.

Aristides also, a believer earnestly de-

voted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian.'

His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons.

The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the.

Faith during the Reign of Adrian.

Arrer Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years! A'lius Adrian became his successor in the empire.

To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for Se ah The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under 8 Lucius Quintus was an independent Moorish chief, who served voluntarily in the Roman army and became one of Trajan's favorite generals, He was made governor of Judea by Trajan, and was afterward raised to the consulship.

According to Themistius (Ovat.

XVL.), Trajan at one time intended to make him his successor.

See Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 8, 22, 30, 323 LXIX. 2; Spartian, Hadr. 5, 7, and cf. Valesius' note on this passage.

® The language of Eusebius might imply that he had other sources than the Greek writers, but this does not seem to have been the case.

He apparently followed Dion Cassius for the most part, but evidently had somé other source (the same which Orosius terward followed), for he differs from Dion in the name of the Jewish leader, calling him

Lucuas instead of Andreas.

The only extant accqunts of these affairs by Greek historians are those of Dion Cassius and Orosius, but there were evidently others in Eusebius' time. the Same Emperor.

In the third year of the same reign, Alexander, bishop of Rome, died, after holding office was usually the case, so that he can very rarely be accepted as an independent witness), and his statements here are the result simply of a combination of his own.

The later scattering traditions in regard to Quadratus and Aristides (chiefly in the Martyrologies) rest probably only upon the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome, and whatever enlargement they offer is untrustworthy.

The Apolog of Quadratus was perhaps extant at the beginning of the uk century; see Photius, Cod. 162.

One later tradition made Quadratus the angel of Philadelphia, addressed in the Apocalypse; another located him in Magnesia (this Otto accepts), Either tradition might be true, but one is worth no more than the other.

Compare Harnack, Dze Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., and Otto, Corpus Apol. Christ. IX. p. 333 sq.

1 Trajan reigned from Jan. 27, 98, to Aug. 7 or 8, 117.

2 The importance of Quadratus' Apology in the mind of Eusebius is shown by his beginning the events of Hadrian's reign with it, as well as by the fact that he gives it also in his Chronicle, year

2041 of Abraham (124 to 125 A.D.), where he calls Quadratus '' A #ditor Apostolorum."

Eusebius gives few events in his Chrontcle, and therefore the reference to this is all the more = ee We find no mention of Quadratus and Aristides before Eusebius, and of the Apology of Quadratus we have only the few lines which are given in this chapter.

In the Chronicle Eusebius says that Quadratus and Aristides addressed apologies to Hadrian during his stay in Athens.

One MS. of the Chronicle gives the date as 125 A.D. (2141 Abr.), and this is correct; for, according to Diirr (Dze

Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, Wien, 1881, p. 42 to 44, and 70 to 71), Hadrian was in Athens from the fall of 125 to the summer of 126 and from the spring of 129 to the spring of 130.

Eusebius adds in his Chronicle (but omits here) that these apologies were the cause of a favorable edict from Hadrian, but thisisincorrect.

Eusebius (IV. 12) makes a similar statement in regard to the Apology of Justin, makinga favorable edict (which has been proved to be unauthentic) of the Emperor Antoninus the result of it.

(See Overbeck, Studzen zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, 1. 108 sq, 139.) Quadratus and Aristides are the oldest apologists known to us.

Eusebius does not mention them again, This Quadratus must not be confounded with Quadratus, bishop of Athens in the time of Marcus Aurelius, who is mentioned in chap. 23; for the apologist Quadratus who belonged to the time of the apostles can hardly have been a bishop during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

Nor is there any decisive ground to identify him with the prophet mentioned in Bk. ITI. chap. 37 and Bk.

Y. chap. 7, for Quadratus was a very common name, and the prophet and the apologist seem to have belonged to different countries (see

Harnack, Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol. p. 103).

Many scholars, however, identify the prophet and the apologist, and it must be said that Eusebius' mention of the prophet in III. 37, and of the apologist in IV. 3, without any qualifying phrases, looks as if one well-known Quadratus were referred to, The matter must remain undecided.

Jerome speaks of Quadratus and Aristides once in the Chronicle, year 2142, and in de v7r. zl]. chap. 19 and 20.

In chap.

19 he identifies Quadratus, the apologist, and Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, but he evidently had no other source than Eusebius (as 3 This phrase is very significant, as showing the idea of Eusebius that the persecutions did not proceed from the emperors themselves, but were the result of the machinations of the enemies of the Christians.

4 dp8o0rouia.

Compare the use of dpomodyra in 2 Tim. ii. 15.

5 The fragment begins rod 5& gwrjpos nuav Ta Epya ael Tapyy.

The 6% seems to introduce a contrast, and allows us to assume with some measure of assurance that an exposure of the pretended wonders of heathen magicians, who were numerous at that time, preceded this ocular proof of the genuineness of Christ's miracles.

6 parame had 'evidently seen none of these persons himself; he had simply heard of them through others.

We have no record elsewhere of the fact that any of those raised by Christ lived to a later age.

7 Aristides of Athens, a contemporary of Quadratus, is called by Eusebius in his Chronicle 'a philosopher" (ostrz dogmatzs philosophus Atheniensis).

Eusebius does not quote his work, perhaps because he did not himself possess a copy, tag because it contained no historical matter suitable to his purpose. e does not mention him again (the Aristides, the filed. Br oumtnes nites of Bk. I. chap. 7 and of Bk. VI. chap. 31, lived a century later), and his Apology is quoted by none of the Fathers, so far as is known.

Wague and worthless traditions of the Middle Ages still kept his name alive, as in the case of Quadratus, but the Apology itself disappeared long ago, until in 1878 a fragment of an Apology, bearing the name of "Aristides, the Philosopher of Athens," was published by the Mechitarists from a codex of the ydar 081.

It is a fragment of an Armenian translation of the fifth century; end although its genuineness has been denied, it is accepted by most critics, and seems to be an authentic fragment from the age of Hadrian.

See especially Harnack, zdzdp109 sq., and again in Herzog, 2d ed., Supplement Vol. p. 67568x; also Schaff, Ch. 7st. II. p. 709.

1 J.e. the emperor Hadrian.

2 On Alexander, see above, chap. 1, note 4.

THE*CHURCGHS HISTORY' OF "EUSEBIUS.

PEVeT 4. whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate.

For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time ; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.

But since the bishops of

the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning.

The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord ;° the second, Symeon ;° the third, Justus ;7 the fourth, Zacchzeus ;® the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias ; the ninth,

Philip ; the tenth, Seneca ;® the eleventh, Justus ; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres ;° the fourteenth, Joseph;™ and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

These are the bishops 01

Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision. ten years.

His successor was Xystus.?

About the same time Primus, bishop of Alexandria, died in the twelfth year of his episcopate,* and was succeeded by Justus.?

CHAPTER V.

The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration.

Tue chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing ;} for tradition says that they were

all short lived.

But I have learned this much from writings,' that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian,' there were fifteen bishops in succession there,' all of 3 Known as Sixtus-I. (Sixtus, or Sistus, being the Latin form of the name) in the list of Raman bishops.

He was supposed to be the author ofa collection of religious and moral maxims, which were widely read in the ancient Church and are mentioned by many of the Fathers.

His authorship was disputed by Jerome and others, and the work from that time on was commonly assigned to a heathen author, until recently some voices have again been heard in favor of the authorship of Bishop Sixtus (notably de Lagarde and Ewald).

See Schaff's Church Hest. I1. p. 7°3 sqHe is, according to Lipsius, the first Roman bishop whose dates we have any means of ascertaining, and it may be assumed that he was the first one that occupied an episcopal position in Rome; and In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian,

Xystus, having completed the tenth year of et, even in his time, the monarchical episcopate can hardly have een established in its full sense.

In the next chapter we are told that he held office ten years; and this figure, which is supported by most of the ancient catalogues, may be accepted as approximately correct.

The date of his accession given here by Eusebius cannot, however, be correct; for, as Lipsius has shown (Chron. de rim.

Bischéfe, p. 183 sq.) he must have died at least as early as 126 A.D.

Christ, the presbyters took the lead, and that they were afterward made by tradition into successive monarchical bishops.

Closs and Gieseler suppose that there were bishops of a number of churches in:

Palestine at the same time, whom tradition made successive bishops of Jerusalem. But the fact is, that the episcopate is of Greek, not of Jewish, origin, and in the strictly Jewish Christian churches of Palestine no such person as 3 bishop can have existed.

Onl after the church there came under the influence of the Gentile charekt and lost its prevailingly Jewish character, was it possible for a bishop, in the general sense of the term, to exist there.

The Jewish Christians assumed for their church government the form of the Jewish Sanhedrim, though while James and Symeon were alive, they were naturally leaders (according to the common Oriental custom, which exalted the relatives of the founder of a religion).

The Jewish character of the Jerusalem congregation was very marked until the destruction of the city under Hadrian (note that all but two of the fifteen bishops have pie names), after which all circumcised eh ely ace as well as unbelievers— were excluded, and a eathen Christian congregation took its place (see the next chapter),

According to Stroth, followed by Closs, Stigloher, and Heinichen, the church of Jerusalem remained in Pella after 7° A.D., and was called the church of kbc over because it was made up of Christians from Jerusalem.

This is possible; but Eusebius evidently did not understand it so (compare, too, his Dem. Evang. Ill. 5), and Epiphanius (de Mensa et Pond. chap. 15) says expressly that, after ihe destruction of the city by Titus, the church returned again to Jerusalem, and there is no good reason to doubt the report

(possibly as early as 124), so that his accession took place not later than 116; that is, before the death of Trajan.

Like most of the other early Roman bishops he is celebrated as a martyr in the martyrologies, but the fact,of his martyrdom rests upon a very late and worthless tradition.

* On Primus, see chap. 1, note 4.

Eusebius contradicts his own dates here.

For in chap. x he says that Alexander of Rome and Primus of Alexandria became bishops at the same time; but according to this chapter, Alexander died at the close of the tenth year of his episcopate, and Primus in the twelfth year of his. Eusebius ma have used the word "' about "' advisedly, to cover considerable ground, and may have grouped the two bishops together simply for convenience' sake. as reliance is to be placed upon the dates in any case.

5 We know nothing about Justus except that he ruled eleven years, according to the next chapter.

If Primus died in the twelfth year of his episcopate, as Eusebius says in this chapter, and entered upon his office in the twelfth year of Trajan, as he says in chapter x,

Justis must have become bishop about 120 A.p., in the third or ourth year of Hadrian.

It must be remembered, however, that all of these dates are historically worthless.

1 In his Chron. Eusebius also gives the names of these bishops of Jerusalem, without assigning dates to more than two or three of them.

But in Nicephorus Callisti the dates are given.

From what source Nicephorus drew we do not know.

He is, at any rate, too late to be of any worth as an authority on such a subject.

In fact, these men were not regular monarchical bishops, holdiag office in succession (see note 4), and hence Eusebius is quite excusable for his ignorance in regard to their dates.

See Ritschl's Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche, p. 246 sq.

5'On James, see above, Bk. II. chap. x.

6 On Symeon, see above, Bk. III. chap. rr, note 4.

7 Of Justus and the following named bishops we know nothing more.

Justus is aad dice by Epiphanius, Her. LXVI. 20

8 Zacchzeus is called Zacharias by E iphanius.

According to Jerome's version of Eusebius' Chron. he became bishop in the fifteenth year of Trajan; according to the Armenian version, in the twelfth year.

Dates are given by the Chvon. for this bishop and for Seneca, but no confidence is to be reposed in the dates, nor in those given by Epiphanius and Eutychius.

The former, when he ives dates at all, is hopelessly at sea.

The latter gives exact dates nd every bishop, but quite without the support of ancient tradiion.

2 Reuterdahl (De Fontibus Hist. eccles. Euseb., p. 55) conjectures that these "' writings? were found in the church of Eee itself, and compares a passage in the Dem. Evang. III: 5: "The first bishops that presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have been Jews, and their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the country.""

Had Hegesippus or any other known author been the source of his information, he would probably have mentioned his name.

° The name Seneca is Latin, the only Latin name in the list.

But there 1s nothing particularly sur J 'Ww earing a 'prisin g in a Jew's b g 3 In 135 A.D.

See below, chap.

4 From Hegesippus (see above, Bre. IIT. chap. 32) we learn that Symeon, the successor of James, was martyred during Trajan's reign.

As was seen in note 6 of the chapter referred to, the martyrdom probably occurred early in that reign. Eusebius, in his C hron.,

Hebrew name, and often the forme was used to the exclusion of the latte i : picta ae nas Hebrew origin. a. refers the martyrdom and the accession of Justus to the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.D.).

This leaves thirteen bishops to be inserted between 107 (or, if this date is not reliable, 98+) and 135 A.D., which . p7s.

Epiphanius calls him 'Ovdd ts.

The Armeni es of the Chron. calls him Ephrem; Versaals version, Eahens yncellus calls him E¢patu, which is the Hebrew form of the name,

11 "lwox : aan é fe sarees He is called "Iwais by Epiphanius, and Joses by is, to say the least, very suspicious.

The true explanation appears to be that, after the death of Symeon, the last prominent relative of

IV. 6.]

SIEGE OF THE JEWS UNDER ADRIAN.

ya rere a See ee a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon his name, boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful powers ; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes.

The war raged most fiercely in the eigh-

teenth year of Adrian,' at the city of Bithara,' which was a very secure fortress, situated not far from Jerusalem.

When the siege had lasted a long time, and the rebels had been driven to the last extremity by hunger and thirst, and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered his just punishment, the whole nation was prohibited from this time on by a decree, and by the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the country about Jerusalem.

For the emperor gave orders that they should not even see from a distance the land of their fathers.

Such is the account of Aristo of Pella® And

thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aélia, in honor of the emperor Alius

Adrian.

And as the church there was now comhis episcopate," was succeeded by Telesphorus," the seventh in succession from the apostles.

In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes," the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his predecessor having held office eleven years."

CHAPTER VI.

The Last Siege of the Fews under Adrian.

As the rebellion of the Jews at this time grew much more serious,' Rufus, governor of Judea, after an auxiliary force had been sent him by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, proceeded against them without mercy, and destroyed indiscriminately thousands of men and women and children, and in accordance with the laws of war reduced their country to a state of complete subjection.

The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of Barcocheba? (which signifies a star), who possessed the character of 12 On Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3.

18 Telesphorus was a cay according to Irenes, III. 3. 3

(compare below, chap. 10, and k. V. chap. 6), and the tradition is too old to be doubted.

Eusebius here agrees with Jerome's version of the Chron. in putting the date of Telesphorus' accession in the year 128 A.D., but the Armenian version puts it in 124; and Lipsius, with whom Overbeck agrees, puts it between 124 and 126.

Since he held office eleven years (according to Eusebius, chap. 10, below, and other ancient catalogues), he must have died, according to Lipsius. and Overbeck, between 135 and 137 A.D. (the latter being

3 T.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135.

4 Bi6@npa, Rufinus Bethara.

The exact situation of this place cannot be determined, although various localities have been suggested be savelos (see Robinson's Bzb/. Researches, Ill. p. 267 sqq.)+ e may conclude at any rate that it was, as Eusebius says, a sepa fortified place, and that it was situated somewhere in Judea. robably the correct date), and not in the first year of Antoninus

Five (138 A.D.), as Eusebius states in chap. 10, below.

Tradition says that he fought against Marcion and Valentinus (which is quite possible), and that he was very strict in regard to fasts, sharpening them and increasing their number, which may or may not be true.

14 We know nothing more about Eumenes.

He is said in chap.

11 to have held office thirteen years, and this brings the date of his death into agreement with the date given by the Armenian version of the Chvon., which differs by two years irom the date given by

Whether the whole of the previous account, or only the close of it, was taken by Eusebius from Aristo of Pella, we do not know.

Of Aristo of Pella himself we know very little.

Eusebius is the first writer to mention him, and he and Maximus Confessor (in his notes on the work De mystica Theol. cap. I. p. 17, ed. Corderii) are the only ones to give us any information about iis (for the notices in Moses Chorenensis and in the Chron. Paschale—the only other laces in which Aristo is mentioned— are entirely Guretisbin).

'aximus informs us that Aristo was the author of a Dialogue of Papiscus and Fason, a work mentioned: by many of the Panes, but connected by none of them with Aristo.

The dialogue, according to Maximus, was known to Clement of Alexandria, and therefore must have been written as early as, or very soon after, the middle of the second century; and the fact that it recorded a dialogue between a Hebrew Christian and an Alexandrian Jew (as we learn from the epistle of Celsus, De Fudazca Incredultiate, printed with the works of Cyprian, in Hartel's edition, III. p. 119-132) would lead us to expect an early date for the work.

There can be found no good reason for doubting the accuracy of Maximus' statement; and if it be accepted, we must conclude that the writer whom Eusebius mentions here was the author of the dialogue referred to.

If this be so, it is quite possible that it was from this dialogue that Eusebius drew the account which he here ascribes to Aristo; for such an account might well find a place in a dialogue between two

Hebrews.

It is possible, of course, that Aristo wrote some other work in which he discussed this subject; but if it had been an historical work, we should expect Eusebius, according to his custom, to give its title.

Harnack is quite correct in assuming that Eusebius' silence in regard to the work itself is significant.

Doubtless the work did not please him, and hence he neither mentions it, nor gives an account of its author.

This is just what we should expect Eusebius' attitude to be toward such a Jewish Christian work (and at the same time, such a 'simple' work, as Origen calls it in Contra erome.

J 15 His predecessor was Justus.

See the previous chapter.

1 The rebellions of the Jews which had broken out in Cyrene and elsewhere during the reign of Trajan only increased the cruelty of the Romans toward them, and in Palestine, as well as elsewhere in the East, their position was growing constantly worse.

Already during the reign of Trajan Palestine itself was the scene of many minor disturbances and of much bitter persecution.

Hadrian regarded them as a troublesome people, and showed in the beginning of his reign that he was not very favorably disposed toward them.

Indeed, it seems that he even went so far as to determine to build upon the site of Jerusalem a purely heathen city.

It was at about this time, when all the Jews were longing for the Messiah, that a man appeared (his original name we do not know, but his coins make it probable that it was Simon), claiming to be the Messiah, and promising to free the Jews from the Roman yoke. He took the name Bar-Cochba, '* Son of a star," and was enthusiastically suported by Rabbi Akiba and other leading men among the Jews, who Ealieved him to be the promised Messiah.

He soon athered a large force, and war finally broke out between him and Rufus, the governor of Judea, about the year 132.

Rufus was not strong enough to put down the rebellion, and Julius Severus, Hadrian's greatest eneral, was therefore summoned from Britain with a strong force.

'ar-Cochba and his followers shut themselves up in Bethar, a strong fortification, and after a long siege the place was taken in 135 A.D., in the fourth year of the war, and Bar-Cochba was put to death.

The Romans took severe revenge upon the Jews. adrian built upon the site of Jerusalem a new city, which he named Bia Capitolina, and upon the site of the temple a new temple to the Capitoline

Jupiter, and passed a law that no dee should henceforth enter the Cels. IV.

52) as we know the dialogue to have been.

We are, of course, lek largely to conjecture in this matter; but the above conclusions seem at least probable.

Compare Harnack's Ueberlieferung der griech. Afol., p. 115 S8q+3 and for a discussion of the nature of the dialogue (which is no longer extant), see his A ltercatio Simonis Fudai et Theophilé Christiant (Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 3), P» 115 Sq- (Harnack looks upon this Latin altercatio as, in part at least, a free reproduction of the lost dialogue).

See, also, the writer's Dialogue between a Christian and a Few (AvtiBody Tamicxov Kat Pidwvos *Iovdalwy mpos movaxov

Tiva), P33° pate:

The town of Pella lay east of the Jordan, in Perea.

See Bk.

III. chap, 5, note 10, above. lace.

Under Bar-Cochba the Christians, who refused to join him in his rebellion, were very cruelly treated (cf. Mee Martyr, Afol.

I. 31, quoted in chap. 8, elow).

Upon this last war of the Jews, see Dion Cassius, LXIX. 12-14, and compare Jost's Gesch. der Tsraeliten, X11. p. 227 sq., and Miinter's Fidischer Kr-ve.

2 Heb. NBD 7, Bar-Cochba,which signifies '' Sc »' f a star Gi (cf. Num, xxiv. 1 ). After his defeat the Jews gave him the name sS75 35, Bat-Cosiba, which means "' Son of a lie."

tHE CHURCH HISTORY" OF (EUSEBIUs.

oy 6. posed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.®

Alexandrian.'

The former of these established schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in Alexandria.

Irenzeus states* that the

false teaching of Saturninus agreed in most a respects with that of Menander, but that Basilides, under the pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented monstrous fables, and carried the fictions of his impious heresy quite beyond bounds.

But as there were at that timea

great many members of the Church® who were fighting for the truth and defending apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine with uncommon eloquence, so there were some also that furnished posterity through their writings with means of defense against the heresies to which we have referred.

Of these there

has come down to us a most powerful refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor," one of

CHAPTER VII.

The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of Knowledge falsely so-called) il As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus

Christ was flourishing among the whole human race,' the demon who hates everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most bitterly opposed to the salvation of man, turned all his arts against the Church In the beginning he armed himself against it with

external persecutions.

But now, being shut off from the use of such means,' he devised all'sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict with the Church, using base and 7 Basilides was one of the greatest and most famous of the Gnostics, Irenzeus (I. 24) and the early Compendium of Hippolytus (now lost, but used together with Irenzus' work by Epps: nius in his treatise against heresies) described a form of Basilidianism which was not the original, but a later corruption of the system.

On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria surely, and ippolytus, in the fuller account in his Philosoph.: (VII. 2 sq.), probably drew their knowledge of the system directly from Basilides' own work, the Eregetica, and hence represent the form of doctrine taught by Basilides himself, — a form differing greatly from the later corruptions of it which Irenzeus discusses.

This system was very profound, and bore in many respects a lofty character.

Basilides fad apparently few followers (his son Isidore is the only prominent one known to us) ; and though his system created a great impression at the start, —so much so that his name always remained one of the most famous of Gnostic names, —it had little vitality, and soon died out or was corrupted beyond recognition.

He was mentioned of course in all the general works against heresies written by the Fathers, but no one seems to have composed an especial refutation of his system except Agrippa Castor, to whom Eusebius refers.

Irenzeus informs us that he taught at Alexandria, Hippolytus (VII. 15) mentions simply Egypt, while Epiphanius (XXI.

1) names various Egyptian cities in which he labored, but it is evident that he is only enumerating places in which there were Basilidians in his time.

Tt is not certain whether he is to be identified with the Basilides who is mentioned in the Acts of Archelaus as preaching in Persia, For an excellent account of Basilides and his system, see the article by Hort in the Dic#. of Christ. Biog. ; and in addition to the works of Neander, Baur, and Lipsius on Gnosticism in gcperaly see especially Uhlhorn's Das Basilidianische System,

Ottingen, 1855. deceitful men as instruments for the ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction.

Instigated by him, impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to the depths of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away from the path which leads to the word of salvation those

who were ignorant of the faith.

Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander, whom we have already mentioned as the successor of Simon,' a certain serpent-like power, double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the leaders of two different heresies, Saturninus, an Antiochian by birth,® and Basilides, an ° Of this Marcus we know nothing more.

Upon the Gentile bishops of Jerusalem, see Bk. V. chap. 12.

8 See Irenzus, Adv. Her. I. 24.

9 éxxAncactiKay avdpav.

1 Wevdwrvpou yvdoews.

Compare x Tim, vi. 20.

2 This statement is of course an exaggeration.

See above, Bk.

II, chap. 3, note x.

10 The only one of these — " that furnished posterity with means of defense against heresies'?

— whom Eusebius mentions is Agrippa Castor, and it is evident that he knew of no others.

Moreover, it is more than doubtful whether Agrippa Castor belonged to that time.

We do not know when he wrote, ae it is hardly possible that the Church had at that period any one capable of answering such a work as the Commentary of Basilides, or any oné who would wish to if he could. The activity of the Church was at this early period devoted chiefly if not wholly to the production of apologies fr the defense of the Church against the attacks of enemies from the outside, and to the com osition of re a Eusebius in the next chapter mentions Hegesippus as another of these " writers of the time."

But the passage which he quotes to prove that Hegesippus wrote then only proves that the events mentioned took place dist his lifetime, and not necessarily within forty or fifty years of the time at which he was writing.

The fact is, that Hegesippus really wrote about 175 A.D. (later therefore than Justin Martyr), and in chap,

21 of this book Eusebius restores him to his proper chronological place.

The general statement made here by Buscbive in regard to the writers against heresy during the reign of Hadrian rest upon| his preconceived idea of what must have been the case.

If the devil raised up enemies against the truth, the Church must certainly have had at the same time defenders to meet them.

It is a simple example of well-meaning subjective reconstruction.

He had the work of Agrippa Castor before him, and undoubtedly believed that he lived at the time stated (which indeed we cannot absolutely deny), and believed, moreover, that other similar writers, whose names he did not know, lived at the same time.

8 These two paragraphs furnish an excellent illustration of Eusedius' dualistic and transcendental conception of history,

In his opinion, heresy was not a natural growth from within, but an external evil brought upon the Church by the devil, when he could no longer persecute.

According to this conception the Church conquers this external enemy, heresy, and then goes on as before, unaffected by it.

In agreement with this is his conception of heretics themselves, whom he, in common with most other Christians of that age, considered without exception wicked and abandoned characters.

4 Eusebius' belief that persecution had ceased at the time of Hadrian is an illusion (see below. chap. 8, note 14) which falls in with his general conceptions upon this subject— conceptions which zuled among Christian writers until the end of the fourt century.

5 See Bk. III. chap. 26.

6 Saturninus is called Saturnilus by Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, and his followers Saturnilians b

Hegesippus, quoted in chap, 22, below.

Ireneus (Adv. Her. 134) and Hippolytus (VII. 16) give accounts of the man and his doctrine which are eyidently taken from the same source, probably the lost 5 yntagma of Justin Martyr.

Neither of them seems to have had any independent information, nor do any other writers know more about him than was contained in that original source.

Trenzeus was possibly Eusebius' sole authority, although Trenzus assigns Saturninus only to Syria, while Eusebius makes him a native of Antioch.

Hippolytus says that he 'spent his time in Antioch of Syria," which may have been the statement of the original, or may have been a mere deduction from a more general statement such as Irenzeus gives.

In the same way Eusebius may have needed no authority for his still more €xact statement.

11 Of Agrippa Castor we know only what Eusebius tells us here, Jerome (de wir. 712, wey 21) adds nothing new, and Theodoret's statement (Fad, I, 4), that Agrippa wrote against Basilides' son

Isidore, as well as against Basilides himself, is simply an expansion of Eusebius account, and does not imply the existence of another

EV. gall

BASILIDES AND CARPOCRATES.

nzeus also writes' that Carpocrates was a contemporary of these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the heresy of the Gnostics," who did not wish to transmit any longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one had done, in secret, but openly."

For they boasted — as of something great — of love potions that were carefully prepared by them, and of certain demons that sent them dreams and lent them their protection, and of other similar agencies ; and in accordance with these things they taught that it was necessary for those who wished to enter fully into their mysteries, or rather into their abominations, to practice all the worst kinds of wickedness, on the ground that they could escape the cosmic powers, as they called them, in no other way than by discharging their the most renowned writers of that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man.

While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel,' and that he invented prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph,"* and others that had no existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order to amaze those who marvel at such things; that he taught also that the eating of meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the faith in times of persecution were matters of indifference ;* and that he enjoined upon his followers, like

Pythagoras, a silence of five years.* Other similar things the above-mentioned writer has recorded concerning Basilides, and has

ably exposed the error of his heresy.

Ire16 See Irenzus, Adv. Her. I. 25.

17 The date of the rise of Gnosticism cannot be fixed.

Indeed, all the requisite conditions existed from the beginning.

It was the "acute Verweltlichung" (as Harnack calls it) of Christianity, the development of it in connection with the various ethnic philoso hies, and it began as soon as Christianity came in contact with the Greek mind.

At first it was not heretical, simply because there were no standards by which to try it.

There was only the preaching of the Christians; the canon was not yet formed; episcopacy was not yet established; both arose as safeguards against heresy.

It was in the time of Hadrian, perhaps, that these speculations began to be regarded as heresies, because they contradicted certain fundamental truths to which the Christians felt that they must cling, such as the unity of God, his graciousness, his gi ess, etc.; and therefore the Christians dated Gnosticism from that time.

Gnosticism was ostensibly conquered, but victory was achieved only as the Church itself became in a certain sense Gnostic.

It followed the course of Gnosticism a century later; that is, it wrote commentaries, systems of doctrine, &c., philosophizing about religious things

(cf. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, 1. p. 162 sq.).

It must be remembered in reading the Fathers' accounts of Gnosticism that they took minor and unimportant details and magnified them, and treated them as the essentials of the system or systems.

In this way far greater variety appears to have existed in Gnosticism than was the case.

The essential principles were largely the same throughout; the differences were chiefly in regard to details.

It is this conduct on the part of the Fathers that gives us such a distorted and often ridiculous view of Gnosticism. work.

Agrippa's production, of which we do not know even the title, has entirely disappeared.

12 eis Td evayyéAtov BiBAia. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV.

12) quotes from the twenty-third book of the Exegetzca of Basilides.

Origen (Hom. in Luc. 1.) says that Basilides '' had even the audacity to write a Gospel according to Basilides," and this remark is repeated by Ambrose (Zz. 2 Luc.I.1), and seems to be Jerome's authority for the enumeration of a Gospel of Basilides among the Apocryphal Gospels in his Comment in Matt., pref.

We know nothing more about this Gospel, and it is quite possible that Origen mistook the Z-regetica for a Gospel.

We do not know upon what Gospels Basilides wrote his Commentary (or Z-regetica), but it is hardly probable that he would have expounded his own Gospel even if such a work existed.

The passage from the E.xegetica which Clement quotes looks to me like a part of an exposition of John ix. mete Lipsius, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Il.

715, suggests uke xxi. 12).

Meanwhile, in the Acta Archelaz, chap. 55 (see Gallandiit Bibl. PP. 111. 608), is a quotation from "' the thirteenth book of the treatises (¢r-actatuum) of Basilides," which is an exposition of the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi.).

If this is the same work, it would seem that the Zxegetica must have included at least Luke and John, possibly Matthew also, for we know that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were all used by the Basilidians.

The respective positions in the work of the expositions of the passages from Luke and john (the former in the thirteenth, the latter in te twenty-third, book) would seem, however, to exclude

Matthew, if the books were at all of equal length. If Lipsius were correct in regarding the latter passage as an exposition of Luke xxi.

12, there would be no evidence that the Commentary covered more than a single Gospel.

18 According to Epsphanioss some of the Ophites appealed to a certain prophet called Barcabbas.

What his connection was with the one mentioned here we do not know.

Clement of Alexandria (Strom. V1. 6) speaks of the Expositions of the Prophet Parchor by Isidore, the son of Basilides.

This may be another of. Basilides' prophets, but is more fcr identical with the oft-mentioned Barcoph.

In the second book of these Exfositions, as_quoted by Clement, occurs a reference to the prophecy of Cham or Ham. Rienstra (De Euseb. Hist. Eccles. p. 29) thinks that Agrippa Castor was mistaken in saying that Basilides mentioned these prophets; but there seems to be no good reason to deny the accuracy of the report, even though we know nothing more about the prophets mentioned.

Hort (Dect. of Christ. Biog., article Barcabéas) thinks it likely that the prophecies current ot the various Gnostic bodies belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature.

The Carpocratians are the first of whom Irenzus expressly says that they called themselves Gnostics (adv. Her, I. 25, 6), while

Hippolytus first speaks of the name as adopted by the Naasseni (V.1).

The Carpocratians are mentioned by Hegesippus (quoted below in chap. 22).

The system was more exclusively Greek in its character than any other of the Gnostic systems.

The immorality of the sect was proverbial; Tertullian (de Anzma,c. 35) calls Carpocrates a magician and a fornicator. e taught the superiority of man over the powers of the world, the moral indifference of things in themselves, and hence, whether he himself was immoral or not, his followers carried out his principles to the extreme, and believed that the true Gnostic might and even must have experience of everything, and therefore should practice all sorts of immoralities.

Eusebius is probably right im assigning Ca rates to this riod.

The relates of his system to those of Saturninus and asilides seems to imply that he followed them, but at no at interval.

Other sources for a knowledge of Carpocrates and his sect are Irenzeus (I. 25 and II.

31-33), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 2), tg oa (Pal, VII. 20), Tertullian (de Anima, 23, 35), Pseudo-Tertullian (adv. omnes Her.

3), Epiphanius (Her. 27), and Philaster (c. 35).

Of these only Irenzus, Clement of Alexandria, and the earlier treatise of Hippolytus (which lies at the base of Pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster) are independent; and probably, back of Irenzus, lies Justin Martyr's lost Syutagma; though it is very likely that Irenzeus knew the sect personally, and made additions of his own.

Compare Harnack's Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 41 Sq.

14 This was not a doctrine of Basilides himself, but of his followers (compare the accounts of Irenzus and Hippolytus).

If Agrippa Castor represented Basilides' pecan thus, as Eusebius says he did (though Eusebius may be on following Irenzeus), it is an evidence that he did not live at the early date to which Eusebius assigns him, and this pose to confirm the view stated above, in note to.

Basilides himself taught at least a moderate asceticism, while his followers went off into crude dualism and moral license (see the excellent account of Schaff, Ch. Hzst. II. 466 sq.).

18 éxeivos, referring back to Basilides.

19 Where Eusebius secured the information that the Carpocratians made the magic rites of Simon public, instead of keeping them secret, as Basilides had done, I cannot tell.

None of our existing sources mentions this fact, and whether Eusebius took it from some lost source, or whether it is simply a deduction of his own, I am not certain.

In other respects his account agrees closely with that of Trenzus.

It is possible that he had seen the lost work of Hippolytus (see below, VI. 22, note 9), and from that had picked up this item which he states as a fact.

But the omission of it in Philaster, Pseudo-Tertullian, and Epiphanius are against this supposition.

Justin's Syntagma Eusebius probably never saw (see below, chap.

11, note 31).

15 Exactly what is meant by this "five years of silence" is uncertain.

Whether it denoted unquestioning and silent obedience of all commands, as it meant in the case of the Pythagoreans (if, indeed, the traditions in regard to the latter have any basis in fact), or strict secrecy as to the doctrines taught, cannot be decided.

The report in regard to the Basilidians, in so far as it has any truth, robably arose on the ground of some such prohibition, which may fave been made by some follower of Basilides, if not by the latter himself, A bond of secrecy would lend an air of mystery to the school, which would accord well with the character of its later teachings,

But we cannot make Basilides responsible for such proceedings.

Agrippa Castor, as reproduced here by Eusebius, is our sole authority for the enjoinment of silence by Basilides.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 7. also vanished, and there remained our teaching alone, which has prevailed over all, and which is acknowledged to be superior to all in dignity and temperance, and in divine and philosophical doctrines.

So that none of them now ventures to affix a base calumny upon our faith, or any such slander as our ancient enemies formerly delighted to utter.

Nevertheless,

in those times the truth again called forth many champions who fought in its defense against the godless heresies, refuting them not only with oral, but also with written arguments." obligations to them all by infamous -con-

duct.

Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men brought infamy

upon the whole race of Christians.

In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with mothers and sisters, and

enjoyed impious feasts."

He did not, however, long succeed in these artifices, as the truth established itself and in time shone

with great brilliancy.

For the machinations of its enemies were refuted by its power and speedily vanished.

One new heresy arose after another, and the former ones always passed

CHAPTER VIII.

Ecclesiastical Writers.

Amonc these Hegesippus was well

known.

We have already quoted his words a number of times,' relating events which happened in the time of the apostles according to his account.

He records in five

books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols: "To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day.

Among whom is also Antinoiis,' a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day.

For he [i-e. Adrian] also founded a city named after Antinoiis,* and appointed prophaway, and now at one time, now at another, now in one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various kinds and various forms.

But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church, which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of its inspired life and philosophy to every na-

tion both of Greeks and of Barbarians. At the same time the slanderous accusations which had been brought against the whole Church"

20 The chief accusations urged against the early Christians by their antagonists were atheism, cannibalism, and incest,

These charges were made very early.

Justin Martyr (Aol. I. 26) mentions them, and Pliny in his epistle to Trajan speaks of the innocent meals of the Christians, implying that they had been accused of immorality in connection with them.

(Compare, also, Tertullian's Afol. 7, 8, and Ad Nationes,7.) In fact, suspicions arose among the heathen as soon as their love feasts became secret,

The persecution in Lyons is to be explained only by the belief of the officers that these and similar accusations were true.

The Christians commonly denied all such charges zx oto, and supported their denial by urging the absurdity of such conduct; but sometimes, as in the present case, they endeavored to exonerate themselves by attributing the crimes with which they were charged to heretics,

This course, however, helped them little with the heathen, as the latter did not distinguish etiecn the various parties of Christians, but treated them all as one class.

The statement of Eusebius in the Present case is noteworthy.

He thinks that the crimes were really committed by heretics, and occasioned the accusations of the heathen, and he thus admits that the charges were founded upon fact.

In this case he acts toward the heretics in the same way that the heaets."

Atthe same timealso Justin,agenuinelover

of the true philosophy, was still continuing to busy himself with Greek literature.> He indicates this time in the Apology which he addressed to Antonine, where he writes as follows:* "We do not think it out of place to mention here

Antinoiis also, who lived in our day, and whom all tinction may have had the vile reports. some tendency to hasten the obliteration of 22 See above, note ro.

On the life and writings of Hegesippus, see below, chap. 22, note r.

Eusebius in this passage puts his literary activity too earl (see above, chap, 7, note 10).

Jerome follows Eusebius' chronological arrangement in his de vir 2ll., giving an account of Hegesippus

"4 i! 22, between his accounts of Agrippa Castor and Justin artyr, then acted toward the Christians as a whole.

This method of exonerating themselves appears as early as Justin Martyr (compare his Afol. I. 26).

Irenzeus also (I. 25, 3), whom Eusebius substantially follows in this passage, and Phase. (c. 57), pursue the same course, 2 Already quoted in Bk, IT, chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap.

32.

8 Antinotis, a native of Bithynia, was a beautiful page of the Emperor Hadrian, and the object of his extravagant affections.

He was probably drowned in the Nile, in 130 a.p.

After his death he was raised to the rank of the gods, and temples were built for his worship in many parts of the empire, especially in Egypt.

In Athens too games were instituted in his honor, and games were also celebrated every fifth year at Mantinea, in Arcadia, according to Valesius, who cites Pausanias as his authority.

21 Eusebius is correct in his statement that such accusations were no longer made in his day.

The Church had, in fact, lived them down completely.

It is noticeable that in the elaborate work of Celsus 'against the Christians, no such charges are found.

From Origen (Contra Cels. VI. 27), however, we learn that there were still in his time some who believed these reports about the Christians, though they were no longer made the basis of serious attacks,

Whether Eusebius' synchronization of the cessation of these slanderous stories with the cessation of the heresies of which he has been talking, is correct, is not so certain, as we know neither exactly when these heresies ran out, nor precisely the time at which the accusations ceased.

At any rate, bius' explanation of the matter.

The two things were hardly connected as direct cause and effect, though it cannot be denied that the actual immoralities of some of these antinomian sects may have had some effect in confirming these tales, and hence that their ex- * Hadrian rebuilt the city of Besa in the Thebais, in whose neighborhood Antinoiis was drowned, and called it Antinodpolis,

On Justin Martyr, see chap. 16, below.

We do not know the date of his conversion, but as it did not take place until mature years it is highly probable that he was still a heathen during the greater part of Hadrian's reign.

There is no reason, however, to suppose that Eusebius is Pere here with more than approximate accuwe cannot fully agree with EuseHe may not have known an b ._ #H t etter than i of Justin's conversion,

wy eer ang 6 Justin, Aol. I, 29.

RESCRIPT.

IV. 8.] ADRIAN'S manding him to condemn no one without an indictment and a well-grounded accusation.

And he gives a copy of the epistle, preserv-

ing the original Latin in which it was written, and prefacing it with the following words : *

" Although from the epistle of the greatest and most illustrious Emperor Adrian, your father, we have good ground to demand that you order judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we were driven by fear to worship as a god, although they knew who he was and whence he came."

The same writer, speaking of the Jewish war which took place at that time, adds the following :' ''For in the late Jewish war Barcocheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, commanded that Christians alone ® should be visited with terrible punishments unless they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ." And in

have asked this not because it was ordered by Adrian, but rather because we know that what we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy of Adrian's epistle that you may know that we are

_ the same work he shows that his conversion from Greek philosophy to Christianity® was not without reason, but that it was the result of deliberation on his part.

His words are as follows :" "For I myself, while I was delighted with the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christhe various edicts of the early emperors relating to the Christians in his Studien 2ur Gesch. der alten Kirche, 1.p.93 sqq..

The genuineness of the edict, however, has been defended against Keim's attack by Wieseler, Renan, Lightfoot, and others,

The whole question hinges upon the interpretation of the rescript.

According to Gieseler, Neander, and some others, it is aimed only against tumultuous proceedings, and, far from departing from the principle laid down by Trajan, is an attempt to return to that principle and to substitute orderly judicial processes for popular attacks.

If this be the sense of the edict, there is no reason to doubt its genuineness, but the next to the last sentence certainly cannot be interpreted in that way:

'' if any one therefore brings an accusation, and shows that they have done something contrary to the laws (te mapa tovs vouous) determine thus according to the hetnousness of the crime" (kata Thy

Svvauiv Tov apaptnwatos).

These last words are very significant.

They certainly imply various crimes of which the prisoners are supposed to be accused.

According to the heinousness of these crimes the punishment is to be regulated.

In other words, the trial of the Christians was to be for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were guilty.of moral or political crimes, not whether they merely professed Christianity; that is, the profession of Christianity, according to this rescript, is not treated as a crime in and of itself.

If the edict then be genuine, Hadrian reversed completely Trajan's principle of procedure which was to punish the profession of tians slandered, and saw that they were afraid neither of death nor of anything else ordinarily looked upon as terrible, concluded that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure.

For what pleasure-loving or intemperate man, or what man that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather strive to continue permanently his present life, and to escape the notice of the rulers, instead of giving himself up to be put to death?"

The same writer, moreover, relates that Adrian having received from Serennius Granianus," a most distinguished governor, a letter" in behalf of the Christians, in which he stated that it was not just

Christianity in and of itself as a crime.

But in the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius the rescript of Trajan is seen still to be in full force.

For this and other reasons presented by Keim and Overbeck, I am constrained to class this edict with those of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius as a forgery.

It can hardly have been composed while Hadrian was still alive, but must have been forged before Justin wrote his Apology, for he gives it as a genuine edict, i.e. it must belong to the early part of the reign of Antoninus

Pius. to slay the Christians without a regular accusation and trial, merely for the sake of gratifying the outcries of the populace, sent a rescript * to Minucius Fundanus," proconsul of Asia, comThe illusion under which the early Christian writers labored in regard to the relations of the emperors to Christianity is very remarkable. Both Melito and Tertullian state that no emperor had persecuted the Christians except Nero and Domitian.

Christian writers throughout the second century talk in fact as if the mode of treatment which they were receiving was something new and strange, and in opposition to the better treatment which previous emperors had accorded the Christians.

In doing this, they ignore entirely the actual edicts of the emperors, all of which are now lost, and notice only forged edicts which are favorable to the Christians; when and by whom they were forged we do not know.

Thus Tertullian, in addressin Septimius Severus, speaks of the favors which his predecessors Hee granted the Christians and contrasts their conduct with his; Melito addresses Marcus Aurelius in the same way, and so Justin addresses

Antoninus Pius, This method pokey arose from a misunderi the original edict of Trajan (cf. Bk. IIT. chap. 33, note 6), which they all considered favorable, and therefore presupposed a friendly attitude on the part of the emperors toward the Christians, which, not finding in their own age, they naturally transferred to a previous age.

This led gradually to the idea—which Lactantius first gives precise expression to— that only the bad emperors persecuted

Christianity, while the good ones were favorable to it.

But after the empire became Christian, the belief became common that all the heathen emperors had been persecutors, the good as well as the bad; —all the Christian emperors were placed upon one level, and all the heathen on another, the latter being looked upon, like Nero and Domitian, as wicked tyrants. compare Overbeck, d.c.

7 Justin, Aol. I. 31.

xpiatiavods pdvous.

' This 'alone' is, as Miinter remarks, not She understood as implying that Barcocheba did not treat the Greeks and Romans also with cruelty, but that he persecuted the Christians especially, from religious hate, if he could not compel them to apostatize.

Moreover, he handled the Christians so roughly because of their hesitation to take part in the rebellion" (Closs).

9 émi Thy OeoaeBerav, :

10 Justin, Afo/. II. 12.

Eusebius here quotes from what is now known as the Second Apology of Justin, but identifies it with the first, from which he has quoted just above.

This implies that the two as he knew them formed but one work, and this is confirmed by his quotations in chaps. 16 and 17, below.

Fora discussion of this matter, see chap. 18, note 3.

11 The best MSS. of Eusebius write the name Zepévvros Tparravos, but one MS., supported by Syncellus, 'writes the first word Zepévios.

Rufinus writes "' Serenius"; Jerome, in his version of Eusebius'

Chronicle, followed by Orosius (VII. 13), writes "Serenius Granius," and this, according to Kortholdt (quoted by Heinichen), is shown by an inscription to have been the correct form (see Heinichen's edition, 2% Zoco).

We know no more of this man, except that he was Minucius Fundanus' predecessor as proconsul of Asia, as we learn from the opening sentence of the rescript quoted in the next chapter, , awe 12 ypauyara.

The plural is often used like the Latin Zter@ to denote a single epistle, and we learn from the opening sentence of 15 Our two MSS. of Justin have substituted the Greek translation of Eusebius for the Latin original given by the former. Rufinus, however, in his version of Eusebius' Hzstovy, gives a Latin translation which is very likely the original one.

Compare Kimmel's De Rufino, p. 175 sq., and Lightfoot's /gnatzus, 1. p. 463 sq., and see

Otto's Corpus Afpol. I. p. 190 sq., where the edict is given, both in the Greek of our MSS. of Justin and in the Latin of Rufinus. Keim the rescript itself (if the Greek of Eusebius is to be relied on) that Hadrian replies, not to a number of letters, but to a single one, — an émusToAn, as Eusebius calls it.

13 gytvyoawpar, 14 This Minucius Fundanus is the same person that is addressed by Pliny, Z/. I. e (see Mommsen's note in Keil's ed. of Pliny's epistles, p. 419).

He is mentioned also by Melito (Eusebius, IV. 26) as proconsul of Asia, and it is there said that Hadrian wrote to him concerning the Christians.

The authenticity of this rescript is a disuted point.

Keim (Theol. fahrbicher, 1856, p. 37 sqq.) was the fee to dispute its genuineness.

He has been followed by many scholars, especially Overbeck, who gives a very keen discussion of (Aus dem Urchristenthum, p. 184 sq.) contends that the Latin of Rufinus is nct the original, but a translation of Eusebius' Greek.

His arguments, however, do not possess any real weight, and the majority of scholars accept Kimmel's view.

16 Justin, Afol. I. 68.

↑ Back to top