CHAPTER IX

CHAPTER IX

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 8.

PRR ee ee eg te ee ne eee ee speaking the truth in this matter also. And

this is the copy."

After these words the author referred to gives the rescript in Latin, which we have translated into Greek as accurately as we could."

It reads as follows :

CHAPTER X.

The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of Antoninus.

AprIAN having died after a reign of twentyone years,' was succeeded in the government of the Romans by Antoninus, called the Pious.

In the first year of his reign Telesphorus' died in the eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hyginus became bishop of Rome.'® Irenzus records that Telesphorus' death was made glorious by martyrdom,* and in the same connection he states that in the time of the abovementioned Roman bishop Hyginus, Valentinus, the founder of a sect of his own, and Cerdon, the author of Marcion's error, were both well known at Rome.'

He writes as follows : ®

CHAPTER IX.

The Epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should not be punished without a Trial.

"To Minucius Fundanus, I have received an epistle,' written to me by Serennius Granianus, a most illustrious man, whom you have succeeded.

It does not seem right to me that the matter should be passed by without examination, lest the men? be harassed and opportunity be given to the informers for

'practicing villainy.

If, therefore, the inhabitants of the province can clearly sustain this petition against the Christians so as to give answer in a court of law, let them pursue this course alone, but let them not have resort to men's petitions and outcries.

For it is far more proper, if any one wishes to make an accu-

CHAPTER XI.

The Heresiarchs of that Age.

"For Valentinus came to Rome under

Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus.1

Cerdon? also, Marsation, that you should examine into it.

If any one therefore accuses them and shows that they are doing anything contrary to the laws, do you pass judgment according to the heinousness of the crime.'

But, by Hercules! if any one bring an accusation through mere calumny, decide in regard to his criminality,* and see to it that you inflict punishment." ®

The latter command would be' subversive of all justice, and brands itself as a counterfeit on its very face; but in the present case the injunction to enforce the law forbidding slander against those who should slanderously accuse the Christians is not inconsistent with the principles of Trsias and Hadrian, and hence not of itself alone an evidence of ungenuineness.

5 Greek, é7ws Gv éxduxjoetas; Latin, supplicizs severioribus vindices.

1 Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July ro, 138 A.p.

_? On Telesphorus, see above, chap. 5, note 13.

The date given here by Eusebius (138-139 A.D.) is probably (as remarked there) at least a year too late,

We know very little about Hyginus.

His dates can be fixed with tolerable certainty as 137-141, the duration of his episcopate being four years, as Eusebius states in the next chapter.

See Lipsius' Chron. d. rim. Bischéfe, p. 169 and 263.

The Roman martyrologies make him a martyr, but this means nothing, as the early bishops of Rome almost without exception are called martyrs by these documents.

The forged decretals ascribe to him the introduction of a number of ecclesiastical rites.

Such are the contents of Adrian's rescript.

1 We cannot judge as to the faithfulness of the Greek translation which follows, because we are not absolutely sure whether the Latin of Rufinus is its original, or itself a translation of it,

Eusebius and Rufinus, however, agree very well, and if the Latin of Rufinus is the original of Eusebius' translation, the latter has succeeded much better than the Greek translator of the Apology of Tertullian referred to in Bk. II. chap. 2, above.

We should expect, however, that much greater pains would be taken with the translation of a brief official document of this kind than with such a work as Tertullian's A fology, and Eusebius' translation of the rescript does not by any means prove that he was a fluent

Latin scholar.

As remarked above (Bk. II. chap. 2, note g), he probably had comparatively little acquaintance with the Latin, but enough to enable him to translate brief passages for himself in cases of necessity.

*Inhis Adv. Her. Ill. 3. 3.

_The testimony of Irenzus rests upon Roman tradition at this point, and is undoubtedly reliable.

Telesphorus is the first Roman bishop whom we know to have suffered et although the Roman Catholic Church celebrates as martyrs all the so-called popes down to the fourth century.

5 On Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next chapter.

6 Ireneus, Adv. Her. Ill.

3 Valentinus is the best known of the Gnostics.

According to Epiphanius (Her. XXXI. 2) he was born on the coast of Egypt, and studied Greek literature and science at Alexandria.

The same writer, on the authority of the lost 5 yntagma of Hippolytus, informs us that he taught in Cyprus, and this must have been before he went to Rome, The direct statement of Irenzeus as to the date of his activity there is confirmed by Tertullian, and ethaps by Clement of Alexandria, and is not to be doubted.

Since yginus hela office in all probability from 137-141, and Anicetus from 154 or 155 to 166 or 167, Valentinus must have been in Rome at least thirteen years.

His chronological position between Basilides and Marcion (as given by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VII. 17) makes it probable that he came to: Rome early in Antoninus' reign, and remained there during all or the most of that reign, but not longer.

Valentinus' followers divided into two schools, an Oriental and an Italian, and constituted by far the most numerous and influential Gnostic sect.

1 Greek, émurroAjv; Latin, Litteras.

2 Greek, of dvOpwro.; Latin, zxnoxit.

8 This is the only really suspicious sentence in the edict, That Hadrian should desire to protect his Christian subjects as well as others from tumultuous and illegal proceedings, and from unfounded accusations, would be of course quite natural, and quite in accord with the spirit shown by Trajan in his rescript.

But in this one sentence he implies that the Christians are to be condemned only for actual crimes, and that the mere profession of Christianity is not in itself a punishable offense.

Much, therefore, as we might otherwise be cays to accept the edict as genuine, — natural as the style is and the position taken in the other portions of it, — this one sentence, considered in the light of all that we know of the attitude of Hadrian's predecessors and successors toward the Christians, and of all that we can gather of his own views, must, as I believe, condemn it as a forgery.

4 Compare this sentence with the closing words of the forged edict of Antoninus Pius quoted by Eusebius in chap. 13.

Not only are the Christians to be released, but their accusers are to be punished.

Still there is a difference between the two commands in that here only an accusation made with the purpose of slander is to be punished, while there the accuser is to be unconditionally held as guilty, if actual crimes are not proved against the accused Christian,

1s system is the most profound and artistic of the Gnostic systems, and reveals great depth and power of mind.

For an excellent account of Valentinus and Valentinianism, see Lipsius' article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol, IV.

Valentinus occupies a prominent place in all works on Gnosticism.

? Cerdon is best known as the teacher of Marcion.

(Her. XLI.) and Philaster (Her. ppiphanins XLIV.) call him a native of Syria.

IV. 11.]

VALENTINUS, CERDON AND MARCION.

cion's*® predecessor, entered the Church in the time of Hyginus, the ninth' bishop, and made confession, and continued in this way, now teaching in secret, now making confession again, and now denounced for corrupt doctrine and withdrawing' from the assembly of the brethren." known ; and the former was just, but the latter good.§ Marcion of Pontus succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless blasphemies."

The same Ireneus un-

folds with the greatest vigor the unfathomable abyss of Valentinus' errors in regard to matter, and reveals his wickedness, secret and _ hidden like a serpent lurking in its nest.

And in addition to these men he says that there was also another that lived in that age, Mafcus by name,' who was remarkably skilled in magic arts.

And he describes also their unholy initiations and their abominable mysteries in the following words: " "For some of them pre-

pare a nuptial couch and perform a mystic rite with certain forms of expression addressed to those who are being initiated, and they say that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the marriages above. But others lead them to water, and while they baptize them they repeat the following words:

Into the name of the unknown father of the universe, into truth, the mother of all things, into the one that descended upon Jesus." Others repeat Hebrew names" in order the better to confound those who are being initiated."

These words are found in the third book of

the work Against Heresies.

And again in the first book he speaks as follows concerning Cerdon : ® " A certain Cerdon, who had taken his system from the followers of Simon, and had come to Rome under Hyginus, the ninth in the episcopal succession from the apostles,' taught that the God proclaimed by the law and prophets was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the former was known, but the latter un-

Epiphanius speaks of a sect of Cerdonians, but there seems never to have been such a sect, and his disciples probably early became followers of Marcion, who joined Cerdon soon after reaching Rome.

It is not possible to distinguish his teachings from those of his pupil, Marcion.

Hippolytus (X. 15) treats Cerdon and Marcion together, making no attempt to distinguish their doctrines.

Irenzus, in the assage quoted, and the lost Syztagma of Hippolytus (represented ie Pseudo-Tertullian's Adv.

Her. and by pene" distinguish the two, treating Cerdon separately but ve riefly.

The doctrines 'of Cerdon, however, given by them, are identical with or at least yery similar to the known views of Marcion.

If they were really Cerdon's positions before Marcion came to him, then his influence over Marcion was most decided.

3 On Marcion, see below, note 24.

4 The Latin text of Irenzus here reads "eighth" instead of "ninth."

See below, note 7.

5 épiordmevos.

This is commonly taken to mean that Cerdon was excommunicated.

But as Valesius remarks, the participle is strictly middle, not passive.

The distinction, however, cannot be insisted upon in the present case, and therefore we cannot determine decisively whether Cerdon was excluded by the congregation or excluded himself.

But Hyginus ® having died at the close

of the fourth year of his episcopate, Pius * 8 Marcion' drew this same distinction between the strictly just

God of the Old Testament and the good or merciful God of the New, and the distinction was a fundamental one in his system.

It is noticeable that Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. Omnes Har. chap. 6) says that Cerdon taught two Gods, one good, the other cruel Gana the good being the superior God, — the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the world.

6 Jrenzeus, Adv. Her. I. ae 1-2. i ee, 7 Hyginus is here called the ninth bishop, and the reading is confirmed by a passage in Cyprian's epistle to Pompey (Zf. LX XIII.

2 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers), and also by Epiphanius (Her.

LXI. 1).

In the passage quoted just above, however, from the third book of Irenzeus, althou h Eusebius calls Hyginus the " ninth," the Latin text of Irenzus makes him the " eighth," and according to Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.:

'The MS. ia sie? is decisive that Irenzeus here [in the passage quoted above from III.

4.3] describes Hyginus as the eighth bishop, and this agrees with the list of Roman bishops given in the preceding chapter (Adv.

Her. X11. 3. 3), and with the description of Anicetus as the tenth bishop a couple of chapters further on.

Lipsius hence infers that Irenzeus drew his account of Cerdon from two sources in which Hyginus was differently described, but this inference is very precarious.

In the interval Baneeed the composition of the first and third books, Irenzeus may have been led to alter his way of counting by investigations concerning the succession of the Roman bishops, which 2 had in the meantime either made himself, or adopted from Hegesippus.

As for the numeration 'ninth,' we do not venture to pronounce whether it indicates a list in which Peter was counted first bishop, or one in which Cletus and Anacletus were reckoned as distinct."

According to Eusebius' own reckoning up to the present chapter, Hyginus was the eighth, not the ninth, from the apostles, for in chap.

5, above, he calls ope (Hyginus' predecessor) the seventh, in chap. 1, Alexander (the predecessor of Xystus, who preceded Telesphorus) the fifth, and soon.

Why, in the passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter, he should change his reckoning, and call Hyginus the ninth if the original list of Irenzeus from which he drew said eighth is difficult to see.

It is possible that he made the change under the influence of the "' ninth," in the present passage, which certainly stood in the original text.

It would be easier to think this if the order in which the passages are quoted were reversed, but it may be that Eusebius had the present quotation in mind when making the first, or that he went back afterward and corrected that to correspond.

If he ventured to change the text of Irenzeus in that passage, he must have done it in all good faith, assuming a mistake in transcription, where the contradiction was so glaring.

It still remains to me inexplicable, however, why he did not change the "ninth" of the second passage to "' eighth" instead of the "eighth"? of the first passage to '' ninth.'"?

He would thus have gotten rid of all contradictions, and have remained consistent with himself.

I am tempted, in fact, to believe that Eusebius found "ninth"? in the original of both passages quoted, and copied just what he found.

At the same time, I do not feel disposed in the face of what Lipsius and Salmon say as to the original text of Irenzus to claim that Irenzeus himself wrote '' ninth"? at that point.

9 Irenzeus gives an account of Marcus and the Marcosians in

I, 13-21.

He was a Gnostic of the sect of Valentinus.

Jerome calls him a Basilidian (£4. LX XV. 3), but he was mistaken.

Hippolytus and Epiphanius (Her. 34) copy their accounts from Irenzus, and probably had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus, or of his sect. Clentent of Alexandria, however, knew and used his writings.

It is probable that Asia Minor was the scene of his labors.

He is spoken of in the present tense by Irenzeus, and hence seems to have been alive when he wrote; that is, in the latter part of the second century.

His additions to Valentinianism lay chiefly, perhaps solely, in the introduction of worthless magic rites.

He seems to have lowered greatly the tone of the philosophical Gnosticism of Valentinus.

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

10 Treneus, Adv. Her. I, 21. 3.

1l eis Tov KaTeABOvTa eis tev "Incovv, Taking the Greek simply as it stands, we should naturally put a comma before the second eis, and translate '' into the one that descended, into Jesus," identifying the '' one that descended" with Jesus.

' But the Gnostics in general taught that Jesus was only a man, upon whom descended one of the zons, or higher spiritual powers, and hence it is pine that in the present case the '"'one that descended upon [or literally pie

Jesus" is referred to here as the third person of the baptisma Trinity. ed The Greek and Latin texts of Irenzus add at this point widely variant lists of these words, but in both lists the words are quite meaningless.

13 On Hyginus, see the previous chapter, note 3.

14 Eusebius states, just below, that Pius held office fifteen years, and in his Chvonicle he gives the same figure.

In that work (Armen, version) he places his accession in the first year of Antoninus

Pius, though the version of Jerome assigns it to the fifth year, and with this Eusebius agrees in his H7story, for in the previous chapter he puts the accession of Hyginus in the first year of Antoninus Fius, and here tells us that Hyginus held office four years.

Lipsius assigns Pius' episcopate to the years 139-154, as the earliest possible termini; the years 141-156 as the latest.

But since we learn from chapter 14, below, that Polycarp was in Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus, and from other sources (see chapter 15, note 2) that he was martyred in Asia Minor in 155 or 156, we may assume it as certain that Pius cannot have held office as late as 156.

The earlier date for his death (154) may therefore be accepted as more prcbable.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 11.

= a nh ss elie Sole ae eee cme as ears eR Se those days.

In the guise of a philosopher" he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings.

He wrote also a work against Marcion," in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote. He

speaks as follows:™ "And there is a certain Marcion*! of Pontus," who is even now succeeded him in the government of the church of Rome.

In Alexandria Marcus" was appointed pastor, after Eumenes * had filled the office thirteen years in all.

And Marcus having died after holding office ten years was succeeded by Celadion" in the government of the

church of Alexandria.

And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus® assumed the leadership of the Christians there.

Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleunot have been far from the beginning of the second century.

He was born in Flavia Neapolis, a Roman town built close by the ruins of the ancient Sychem, in Samaria.

He was of heathen parentage, and received a vhovoug lity Greek education.

He became an earnest student of philosophy, and after turning to many different systems in his search for truth, he was at last converted to Christianity, where he found that for which he had been searching; and his whole conception of Christianity shows the influence of the manner in which he accepted it. The date of his conversion is unknown, but it seems

(from Dzal. I, 1) to have taken place at least before the close of the Barcochba war (135 A.D.).

He died as a martyr at Rome.

The date of his death is difficult to determine, but it probably took place under Marcus Aurelius, in 163+.

Upon his death, see below, chap.

16, note 4.

Upon Justin, see Semich's Fustzx der Martyrer, Otto's edition of the Greek Apologists, von Engelhardt's article in Herzog, 2d ed., Holland's article in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog., and finally Schaff's Ch. Hist. I. P: IIo aoe where the most important literature is mentioned.

Upon his theology, see especially von Engelhardt's masterly monograph, Das Christenthum ¥ustins des Martyrers (Exlangen, 1878).

A recent and interesting discussion of Tustia's testimony to early Christianity is found in Purves' work on that subject (New York, 1889). therus."?

But Justin" was especially prominent in 'The Liberian and Felician Catalogues put Anicetus between Hyginus and Pius; but that is certainly incorrect, for, in support of the order given here by Eusebius, we have the testimony both of Hegesippus, pee below, in chap, 22, and of Irenzus (III. 3). Pius is commonly regarded as the first monarchical bishop in the strict sense, the so-called bishops before his time having been simply leading presbyters or presbyter bishops of the Roman church (see'chap. x1, note 14).

According to the Muratorian Fragment and the Liberian Catalogue, Pius was the brother of Hermas, the author of the Shepherd.

Upon this alleged relationship, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23.

21 éy cxypare pidoaddov.

The reference here is to the distinctive cloak or mantle of the Greek philosophers, which was called the 16 ot Marcus we know only what Eusebius tells us here: that he succeeded Eumenes, after the latter had held office thirteen years, and that he continued in office ten-years. If Eumenes became bishop in 132 or 133 (see above, chap. 5, note 16), then Marcus must have succeeded him in 145 or 146, and this agrees with the Armenian

Chron. of Eusebius, which, while it does not mention the accession of Marcus, yet puts the accession of his successor Celadin in the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius, which would make the beginning of his own episcopate the eighth year of the same ruler.

Jerome's version of the Ckvon., however, puts it in the sixth year.

Little reliance is to be placed upon any of the dates of the Alexandrian bishops during the first two centuries. allium, and to which Justin refers in his Dzal.c. Trypho, § 1. he wearing of the mantle was an advantage to the philosophers, inasmuch as it gave them peculiar opportunities to engage in philosophic discourse in the street or market, or other public laces, which they could not otherwise so easily have enjoyed.

Perhaps it was this fact which led Justin to continue wearing the cloak, and we see from the introduction to his Dialogue that it was the wearing of it which was the immediate occasion of his conversation with Trypho and his friends.

Heraclas, the friend of Origen, also contiaged to wear the philosopher's cloak after his conversion, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 19.

16 On Eumenes, see above, chap.

5, note 14.

17 Of Celadion we know only wis t Eusebius tells us here, and in chap. 19, where he gives fourteen years as the duration of his episcopate.

As mentioned in the previous note, the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius puts his accession in the eighteenth year of Antoninus

Pius, i.e.

155 or 156, while the version of Jerome puts it in the sixteenth year.

22 This work against Marcion is also mentioned by Irenzeus, who quotes from it in his Adv. Her. IV. 16. 2 (see below, chap. 18), and by Photius, Cod. 125.

The work is lost, and we have only the single brief fragment preserved by Irenzeus.

It is possible that it formed a part of the larger Syutagma contra omnes Hereses, mentioned by Justin in his 4Zo/. I. 26 (see below), and it has been urged in support of this possibility that Irenzeus nowhere mentions a work of Justin's A gazust all Heresies, although it is highly probable that he made use of such a work (see Lipsius' Ouellen der altesten Ketzergesch. and Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus).

It would seem that Irenzus is referring to this work when he mentions the Syntagma contra Marcionem.

On the other hand, Photius mentions the work against Marcion and the one against all heresies as two separate works.

He does not seem, however, to have had a personal knowledge of them, and is possibly only repeating Eusebius (Harnack says he is certainly doing so, Ueberiieferung d. griech. Apol. 2 at but in view of the fact that he omits two works mentioned by Eusebius, this seems to me somewhat doubtful) ; and if this is so, no reliance is to be placed upon his report, for it is evident that Eusebius himself knew neither of the two works, and hence the fact that he distinguishes them has no significance.

Although, therefore, it cannot be determined whether Justin wrote te separate works against heretics, it is quite probable that he did not.

18 Anicetus, according to the Armenian Chvoz. of Eusebius, succeeded Pius in the fifteenth year of Antoninus Pius; according to Jerome's version, in the eighteenth year (i.e. 155 or 156), which is more nearly correct.

Lipsius puts his accession between 154 and 156 (see note 14, above).

According to chap. 19, below, with which both versions of the Chron. agree, Anicetus held office eleven years; i.e. until 165 to 167, when he was succeeded by Soter.

Irenzus (as quoted by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24) informs us that Polycarp was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and endeavored to induce him to adopt the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter; but that, while the two remained perfectly friendly to one another, Anicetus would not change the custom of the Roman church (see the notes on the chapter referred to).

As stated in note 13, the Liberian and Felician Catalogues incorrectly insert the name of Anicetus between those of Hyginus and Pius.

1 Eusebius evidently makes a mistake here.

That Hegesippus remained so long in Rome (Anicetus ruled from 154-168 (?), and Eleutherus from 177-190) is upon the face of it very improbable.

And in this case we can see clearly how Eusebius made his mistake, In chap. 22 he quotes a passage tom Hegesippus in regard to his stay in Rome, and it was in all probability this passage from which Eusebius drew his conclusion.

But Hegesippus says there that he "' remained in Rome until the time of Anicetus," &c.

It is probable, therefore, that he returned to the East during Anicetus' episcopacy.

He does not express himself as one who had remained in Rome until the reign of Eleutherus; but Eusebius, from\a hasty reading, might easily have gathered that idea.

According to Hegesippus' account in chap. 22, he must, then, have come to Rome defore Anicetus, i.e. during the reign of Pius, and this Eusebius does not here contradict, though he is said to do so by Reading, who translates the Greek words, émdypjoat 77 "Pwmp, "came to the city" (so, also, Closs,

Stigloher, and Cruse), But the words properly mean "to be in Rome," not "to come to Rome," which would require, rather, émeyehogs eis Thy 'Pwyuny, as in § 2, above, where the words are used of Cerdon.

Jerome, to be sure (de vir. zi]. 22), says that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus; but his account rests solely upon Eusebius, whom he mistranslated.

The tradition, therefore, that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus has no foundation; he was already there, as he himself informs us, in chap.

22, below.

Cf. the note on this passage, in chap. 22.

20 Eusebius here puts Justin in his proper place, in the time of Antoninus Pius.

The date of his birth is unknown, though it canThe conduct of Eusebius in this connection is very peculiar,

After mentioning the work against Marcion, he at once gives a quotation in such a way as to convey the impression that the quotation is taken from this work, but it is really taken from the first 4 [pology.

This makes it very probable that he had not seen this work against Marcion, a conclusion which is confirmed by its omission from the list of Justin's writings given in chap. 18.

It is claimed by many that Eusebius practices a little deception here, wishing to convey the impression that he knew a book which he did not know.

This is not in accord with his usual conduct (as he seldom hesitates to confess his ignorance of any matter), and his general character for candor' and honesty must be taken into account in deciding the case.

He does not state directly that the quotation is taken from the work against Marcion, and it is possible that the seeming reference of it to that source was an oversight on his part.

But it must be acknowledged, if that be the case, that he was ve1 y careless in making the quotation.

23 Justin, Afol. I. 26.

24 Marcion cannot be called a Gnostic in the strict sense of the term.

He was rather an anti-Jewish reformer.

He had much in common with the Gnostics, but laid stress upon belief rather than upon knowledge.

He developed no complete system as did the other Gnostics, but aimed at a practical reform in the interest of an extreme and perverted Paulinism, considering Paul the only true ous and rejecting the others as Judaizing teachers.

He cut the ospel away from its historical connections, repudiating the Old

JUSTIN'S APOLOGY.

LVS L244 still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the creator.

And by the aid of the demons* he has persuaded many of every race of men" to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator.

And all who followed them are, as we have said," called Christians, just as the name of philosophy

But this same Justin contended most suc-

cessfully against the Greeks, and addressed discourses containing an apology for our faith to the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman senate."

For he lived at Rome.

But who and whence he was he shows in his Apology in the following words.* is given to philosophers, although they

may have no doctrines in common."

To this he adds: ® " And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed," which we will give you if you wish to read ba CHAPTER XII.

The Apology of Fustin addressed to Antoninus.

"To the Emperor Titus #lius Adrian Antoninus Pius Cesar Augustus,! and to Verissimus his son,? the philosopher, and to Lucius the philosopher,' own son of Ceesar and adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred senate and to the whole Roman people, I, Justin, son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius,* of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, Syria, present this address and petition in behalf of those men of every nation who are unjustly hated and persecuted, I myself being one of them."

And the same emperor having learned also from other brethren in Asia of the injuries of all kinds which they were suffering from the inhabitants of the province, thought it proper to address the following ordinance to the Common Assembly ® of Asia.

Testament and all of the New except a mutilated Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, and denying the identity of the God of the Old Testament with the Supreme God, and the identity of Jesus with the promised Jewish Messiah, He magnified the mercy of God in redemption at the expense of creation, which he attributed to the demiurge, and in which he saw noe good. He was an extreme anti-metaphysician, and the first Biblical critic.

He was born in Pontus, was the son of a bishop, went to Rome about 135 A.D., and endeavored to carry out his reforms there, but was unsuccessful, and very soon broke with the Church.

He traveled extensively and disseminated his doctrines very widely.

The sect existed well on into the Middle Ages, and some of his opinions have never been completely eradicated.

In Rome the Gnostic Cerdon exercised great influence over him, and to him are doubtless due many of Marcion's Gnostic traits.

The dualism which he held in common with the Gnostics arose rather from practical than speculative considerations; but his followers in the fourth and fifth centuries, when they had lost his practical religious spirit and yet retained his dualism, passed over quite naturally into Manicheeism. He was attacked

Justin, Irenzus, Tertullian, and all the anti-heretical writers of the early Church, and was considered one of the most dangerous of heretics.

A complete monograph upon Marcion is still a desideratum, but he is discussed in all the general accounts of Gnosticism; see especially the brief but excellent account by Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Y,

197-214.

— ; , .

25 Pontus was a province in Northeastern Asia Minor, bordering upon the Black Sea.

' gore

28 Justin here agrees with Eusebius in his transcendental theory of heresy, looking upon it not as a natural growth from within, but as an infliction upon the Church from without, through the agency of demons.

Indeed, this was the prevailing notion of the early Church.

32 On Justin's Afology and his work Agazust the Greeks, see below, chap. 18, notes 3 and 4.

As shown in note 3 of that chapter, he really wrote only one AZology.

Justin, Afo/. I. 1.

1 On the titles of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, see Otto's notes a a edition of Justin's works (Corpus Afol. Christianorum, ol.

I. p. 2 sq.).

2 That is, Marcus Aurelius, whose original name was Marcus Annius Verus, but who, after his adoption by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, was styled Marcus Atlius Aurelius Verus Cesar.

Asa tribute to his sincerity and truthfulness, he was quite commonly called, instead of Verus, Verzssimus.

27 The extent of Marcion's influence referred to here is very significant.

Gnosticism was not intended for common people; and never spread among the masses, but on the contrary was confined to philosophers and speculative thinkers.

In this respect, Marcion, whose sect included multitudes of all classes, was distinguished most sharply from them, and it was because of the popularity of his sect that his heresy appeared so dangerous to the early Church.

5 The MSS, are divided here between the forms ¢tAocddw and pidogépov.

If the former reading be adopted, we must translate as we have done, ''to Lucius, the philosopher, own son of Czsar."

If the latter reading be followed, we must translate, 'to Lucius, own son of Czsar the philosopher."

The MSS. are about equally divided, and the latter reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius,

Stroth, and Burton, But our MSS. of Justin support the former reading, which is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and which, as the latter remarks, is far more natural than the other reading, for Justin had greater reason for giving the appellation of " philosoher" to a' Casar who was still living, even though he may not have een noted for his philosophical tastes, than to a Caesar who was already dead, and whose uikpaces certainly entitled him to the appellation no more than, if as much as, his son.

See Heinichen's note z# /oco, and Otto's note.in his edition of Justin's works, Vol. I. p. 3 ff.

The Lucius addressed here was Lucius Ceionius Commodus, whose father, bearing the same name, had been adopted as Czsar by Hadrian.

The younger Lucius was adopted as Cesar along with Marcus by Antoninus Pius, and later became Marcus' colleague in the empire, when he added to his own name the name

Verus, which Marcus had formerly borne.

He is therefore commonly known in history as Lucius Verus (see the respective articles in Smith's Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog.).

28 GAdov 6€ TLva ws, OvTa peiCova Tapa TOVTOY OmoAoyetY TETOLyxévat, The sentence as it thus stands is very difficult to construe, for we are compelled to take the last verb without an object, in the sense of create.

Our MSS. of Justin Martyr insert after the ws évra weigova the words ra petgova, and the sentence then reads,

"some other one, greater than he, has done greater works."

It is lain that this was the original form of the sentence, and that the en construction found in Eusebius is a result of defective transcription.

It was very easy for a copyist to drop out the second metCova, 29 Justin refers here to Aol. I. 7.

He wishes to have it clear that not all that call themselves Christians are really such;

From chaps. 26-29, we see that in Justin's time the Christians were accused of great immoralities, and in this same chapter (chap. 26) he is rather inclined to throw the guilt upon heretics, although he does not expressly accuse them of it ("' whether they perpetrate these shameful deeds — we know not").

See above, chap. 7, note 20.

His mention of philosophers here in his appeal to the philosophical emperors is very shrewd.

30 [bzd. I. 26.

81 This work is not mentioned by Eusebius in the list of Justin's works which he gives in chap. 18.

He had, therefore, undoubtedl: never seen it.

Irenzus nowhere mentions it under this title, thoug he seems to have made extensive use of it, and he does mention a work, Agazust Marcion, which is very likely to be identified with the work referred to here (see Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des

+ Of Justin's father and grandiether we know nothing except their names.

On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note 20.

5 This '' Assembly of Asia" (7d kowvov ths "Agtas) was one of the regular provincial diets which Augustus had called into being as fixed institutions, It was an annual assembly of the civic deputies of the province, and served as a general organ of the province, especially in bringing the wishes of the people to the knowledge of the governor, and through him to the emperor, and decrees of the emperor were often addressed to it, and legates chosen by it were sent to the emperor whenever occasion required.

See Marquardt, Roz.

Staatsverwaltung, 1. p. 366 sq.

Guosticismus).

The work, which is now lost, is mentioned by Photius (Cod. 125), but he evidently had never seen it, and is simply copying some earlier list, perhaps that of Eusebius.

His testimony to the work, therefore, amounts to little, Compare note 22, -above,

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[EVs 13Pine Se ee a a ee fident in God, while you, during the whole time, neglect, in apparent ignorance, the other gods and the worship of the Immortal, and oppress and persecute even unto death the Christians who worship him.'

But in re-

gard to these persons, many of the governors of the provinces wrote also to our most divine father, to whom he wrote in reply that they should not trouble these people unless it should appear that they were attempting something affecting the Roman government.

And to me also many have sent communications concerning these men, but I have replied to them in the same way that my father did.

But if any one still persists in bringing accusations against any of these peoplé as such, the person who is accused shall be acquitted of the charge, even if it appear that he is one of them, but the accuser shall be punished.'

Published in Ephesus in the Common Assembly of Asia."

To these things Melito,? bishop of the

church of Sardis, and a man well known at that time, is a witness,® as is clear from his words in the Apology which he addressed to the Emperor Verus in behalf of our doctrine.

CHAPTER XIII.

The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia in Regard to our Doctrine}

"Tye Emperor Cesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus,? Armenicus, Pontifex Maximus, for the fifteenth time Tribune, for the third time Consul, to the Common Assembly of Asia, Greeting. I know that the gods also take care that such persons do not escape detection.

For they would much rather punish those who will not worship them

than you would.

But you throw them into confusion, and while you accuse them of atheism you only confirm them in the opinion which they hold.

It would indeed be more desirable for them, when accused, to appear to die for their God, than to live. Wherefore also they come off victorious when they give up their lives

rather than yield obedience to your com-

mands.

And in regard to the earthquakes which have been and are still taking place,° it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare your conduct with theirs. They indeed become the more con- '¢ But as to those earthquakes which have taken place and still continue, it is not out of place to admonish you who are cast down whenever these happen, that you compare your own deportment with theirs.'?

Most of the older translators and, among the moderns, Stigloher, have translated in the same way; but the Greek of the last clause will not warrant this construction.

The original runs as follows: ... vUmouyyjcae advmodvTas mév Stay TEP' Hat, mapa8addAovtas 52 Ta UmEeTEpa mpods Ta exeivwy.

Stroth inserts ny before a@vuovvtas, and translates, '' Was die Erdbeben betrift, die sich ereignet haben, und noch ereignen, halte ich nicht fiir undienlich euch zu erinnern dass ihr den vorkommenden Fall den Muth nicht sinken lasst, sondern euer Betragen einmal mit jener ihrem vergleicht.""

The insertion, however, is quite unwarranted and must be rejected.

Valesius renders: Caeterum de terrae motibus, gut vel fact? sunt vel etiamnum fiunt, non absurdum videtur vos commonere, qui et animos abjicitis, quoties hujusmodt casus conake ae et vestra cum tllorum institutis comparatis; which makes excellent sense and might be accepted, were it not for the fact that it fails to bring out adequately the force of wév and éé.

Heinichen discusses the passage at length (in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III. pp.

670-674), and translates as follows:

Mon alienum videtur vos admonere (corripere) de terre motibus qui vel fuerunt vel adhuc sunt, vos qui estis quidem animo abjecto, guoties illt evenitunt, nihilo autem minus vestram agend? rattoeg hadi soletis cunt tllorunt.

Overbeck follows Heinichen in his German translation of the edict (zzd. p. 127 sqq.), and the Maracas of Closs is similar.

It seems to be the only rendering which the Greek will properly admit, and I have therefore felt compelled to adopt it, though I should have preferred to interpret as Valesius does, had the original permitted.

_> An orthodox worshiper of the Roman gods, like Antoninus Pius, can hardly have called the God of the Christians '*' The Immortal," in distinction from the gods of the Romans.

1 This edict is undoubtedly spurious.

It contradicts all that we know in regard to the relation of Christianity to the State during this century, and both the language and the sentiments make it impossible to call it genuine.

It is probably a forgery of the second century.

It is found in our two (or more properly one, as one is simply a Eavich copy of the other) MSS. of Justin; but this is simply accidental, as it does not belong there, but was appended to the edict of Hadrian by some late copyist.

The edict is now almost universally acknowledged to be a forgery; compare Overbeck, Studien zur

Gesch. der alt. Kirche, p. 93 sqqWieseler contends for its genuineness, but no good critic follows him.

2 Eusebius gives this as an edict of Antoninus Pius, and yet its inscription assigns it to Marcus Aurelius.

Overbeck concludes that Eusebius was led by internal evidence to assign the rescript to Antoninus Pius, but that he did not venture to change the inscription of the original which lay before him.

This seems the only possible explanation, and as Eusebius at any rate was badly confused in regard to the names of the Antonines, the glaring discrepancy may not have meant very much to him.

In our MSS. of Justin Martyr, where this edict is appended to the first Apology, the superscription and text are quite different from the form given by Eusebius.

The rescript is in fact assigned there by its superscription to Antoninus Pius, instead of to Marcus Aurelius.

But if that was its original form, we cannot understand the later change to Marcus Aurelius, for certainly his authorship is precluded on the very face of the document; but it is easier to see how it could hava: bese later assigned to Antoninus Pius under the influence of Eusebius' direct statement.

We have no knowledge of the original Latin of this pretended edict.

Rufinus evidently did not know it, for he translates the document from the Greek of Eusebius.

The text of the edict as given by Eusebius differs considerably at many points from the text found in the MSS. of Justin, and the variations are such as can hardly be explained as due merely to copyists' errors or alterations.

At the same time the two texts are plainly not independent of each other, and cannot be looked upon as independent translations of one Latin original.

We may perhaps suppose that one text represents the original translation, the other a revision of it. Whether the revision was made by a comparison with the original, and thus more accurately represents it, wecannot tell.

If, then, one is a revision of the other, the form given in the MSS. of Justin is evidently the later, for its statements in more places than one are an improvement upon those of the other text in point of clearness and decisiveness.

Moreover, as remarked just above, the ascription of the edict to Antoninus Pius must be later than its ascription to Marcus Aurelius.

© Among these epistles the writer of this edict undoubtedly meant to include the rescript ostensibly addressed by Hadrian to Minucius

Fundanus.

See chap. 9, above.

7 This is the climax of the whole.

Not only is the accused to be set free, but the accuser is to be held as guilty!

This really goes further than Constantine.

See above, chap.-g, note 4.

8 On Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note 1.

® Eusebius evidently draws this conclusion from the passage from Melito's Afology, quoted below, in chap. 26, where Melito refers to edicts of Antoninus Pius; for had Eusebius referred to another passage, he would undoubtedly have quoted it.

But according to Melito, the edicts of Antoninus were to prevent any new methods of procedure against the Christians, i.e. tumultuous proceedings in opposition to the custom established by Trajan.

The edicts of which he speaks were intended, then, to perpetuate the principles of Trajan, which had been, since his time, the silent law of the empire upon the subject.

The edicts cannot have been edicts of toleration (even Melito himself does not regard them so), but edicts against illegal, tumultuous proceedings, and the accusations of informers, and therefore quite in the spirit of Trajan.

But as the significance of Trajan's rescript was entirely misunderstood in the 3 Numerous earthquakes took place in Asia Minor and in Rhodes during the reign of Antoninus Pius, and these, as well as famines and other occurrences of the kind which were uncomfortably frequent at this time, were always made the signal for renewed attacks upon the Christians, who were held by the people in general responsible for these misfortunes.

See Julius Capitolinus' Vita Antonine Pii, chap, 9.

+ This sentence has caused great difficulty.

Crusé translates , | early Church (see above, Bk, III. chap. 33, note 6), so it was the

IV. 14.]

IRENASUS°"ON POLYCARP,

by apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna.

We too saw him in our early youth ; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr's death,' having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true.

To these things

all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp,? who was a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than

Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics."

He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus " and caused many to turn away from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church.

And there are those that heard from him

that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, 'Let us flee, lest even the bath fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.'

And Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him ® and said, ' Knowest' thou us?' replied, 'I know the first born of Satan.'

Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as Paul also said, 'A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition,

CHAPTER XIV.

The Circumstances related of Polycarp, a Friend

of the Apostles. ab Ar this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome,' Irenzus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome,? and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the paschal feast.2

And the same writer gives another account of Polycarp which I feel constrained to add to that which has been already related in regard to him.

The ac- 'count is taken from the third book of Irenzus'

work Against Heresies, and is as follows : *

"But Polycarp® also was not only instructed. common opinion that the attitude of the State toward the Church was at bottom friendly to Christianity, and therefore all edicts forbidding the introduction of new methods were regarded as favorable edicts, as in the present case by Eusebius.

Again, had Melito known of such a favorable edict as this of Antoninus, he would certainly have called special and particular attention to it.

Melito's testimony, therefore, instead of being in favor of the genuineness of this edict, is really against it.

He was bishop prob1 On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. ably from 154 to 165 A.D.

2 yéverOar éwi 'Pwuns.

It is quite commonly said that Polyca came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus; but our authorities say only that he was in Rome at that time, and do not specify the date at which he arrived there.

Neither these words, nor the words of Irenzeus in § 5 below (émdnurjoas TH 'Pdpun), are to be translated ''came to Rome," as is often done (e.g. by Crusé, by Roberts and Rambaut, in their translation of Irenzeus, and by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Bioz.), but "was at Rome" (as Closs,

Stigloher, Lightfoot, &c., correctly render the words).

Inasmuch as Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 155 or 156 A.D. (see below, chap.

15, note 2), he must have left Rome soon after Anticetus' accession (which took place probably in 154); and though of course he may have come thither sometime before that event, still the fact that his

'stay, there is connected with Anicetus' episcopate, and his alone, implies that he went thither either immediately after, or shortly before Anicetus became bishop.

3 Oa the paschal controversies of the early Church, see below, Bk. V. chap. 23, note 1.

We learn from Bk. V. chap. 24, that though Polycarp and, Anicetus did not reach an agreement on the subject, they nevertheless remained good friends, and that Polycarp celebrated ie eucharist in Rome at the request of Anicetus. century was as a channel of apostolic tradition.

He does not compare with Ignatius for vigor and originality of thought, and_yet he was one of the most deeply venerated characters of the early Church, his noble piety, his relation to John and other disciples of the Lord, and finally his glorious martyrdom, contributing to make him such.

Upon. Polycarp, see especially Lightfoot's edition of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the article of Salmon, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog.

4 Treneus, Adv. Her. Ill. 3. 4.

5 Eusebius takes his account of Polycarp solely from Irenzus, and from the epistle of the church of and th given in the next chapter.

He is mentioned by Irenzus again in his Adv. Har, V.

334 (quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap.

39), and in his epistle to Florinus and to Victor.

From the epistle to Florinus (quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 20), where quite an account of Polycarp is given, we learn that the latter was Irenzus' teacher.

He was one of the most celebrated men of the time, not beccuse of his ability or scholarship, but because he had been a personal friend of some of the disciples of the Lord, and lived to a great age, when few if any were still alive that had known the first generation of Chris6 The church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of the ''seven churches of Asia," and is mentioned in Rey. i. 11; ii, 8-11.

7 On his age and the date of his death, see chap. 15, note 2, A full account of his martyrdom is given in the epistle of the church of Smyrna, quoted in the next chapter.

8 Trenzeus emphasizes here, as was his wont, the importance of tradition in determining true doctrine.

Compare also Eusebius' words in chap. 21. tians.

He suffered martyrdom about 155 a.D. (see below, chap. 15, note 2); and as he was at least eighty-six years old at the time of his death (see the next chap., § 20), he must have been born as early as oa.D.

He was a personal disciple of John the apostle, as we learn from Irenzus' epistle to Florinus, and was acquainted also with others that had seen the Lord.

That he was at the head of the church of Smyrna cannot be doubted (cf. Ignatius' epistle to him),

9 Of these successors of Polycarp we know nothing.

10 Kakoyvwmovwr.

11 See above, note 2.

12 See above, Bk. III. chap. 28, where the same story is related.

13 Marcion came to Rome about 135 A.D., but how long he remained there we do not know.

Polycarp's words show the great abhorrence in which he was held by the Church.

He was considered by many the most dangerous of all the heretics, for he propagated his errors and secured many followers among all classes.

_Marcion's conduct in this case is very significant when compared with that of the Gnostics.

He tried everywhere to gain support and to make friends with the Church, that he might introduce his reforms within it; while the genuine Gnostics, on the contrary, held themselves aloof from the Church, in pride and ina feeling of superiority.

Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 7, shows the same severity toward false teachers, and even uses the same expression,

"first born of Satan," perhaps referring to Marcion himself; but see below, note 16. but Irenzeus' statement that he was appointed bishop of Smyrna by apostles is probably to be looked upon as a combination of his own. e reasoned that bishops were the successors of the apostles; Polycarp was a bishop, and lived in the time of the apostles; and therefore he must have been appointed by them,

The only known writing of Polycarp's is his epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant (see below, note 16).

His character is plainly revealed in that epistle as well as in the accounts given us by Irenzeus and by the church of Smyrna in their epistle.

He was a devoutly pious and simple-minded Christian, burning with intense personal love for his Master, and yet not at all fanatical like his contemporary Ignatius.

The instances related in this chapter show his intense horror of heretics, of those whom he believed to be corrupting the doctrine of Christ, and yet he does not seem to have had the taste or talent to 14 émvytvadaxers, which is the reading of the great majority of the MSS., and is adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, Harnack, Lightfoot, and others.

Three MSS., supported by Nicephorus, Rufinus, and the Latin version of Irenzeus, read émuyuvwoxe, and this is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Stroth, Closs, and Crusé. refute their errors.

He simply wished to avoid them as instruments of Satan.

He was pre-eminently a man that lived in the past.

His epistle is full of reminiscences of New Testament thought and language, and his chief significance to the Christians of the second

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 14-

life by martyrdom.

But I consider it most important that his death, a written account of which is still extant, should be recorded in this history.

There is a letter, written in

the name of the church over which he himself presided,' to the parishes in Pontus,* which. relates the events that befell him, in the following words: "The church of God which 3. dwelleth at Smyrna to the church of God which dwelleth in Philomelium,' and to all the parishes of the holy catholic Church ® in every place ; mercy and peace and love from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied.

We write' unto you, brethren, an account of what happened to those that suffered martyrdom and to the blessed Polycarp, who put an end to the persecution, having, as it were, sealed it reject ; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.' "

There is also a very powerful epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians," from which those that wish to do so, and that are concerned for their own salvation, may learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the

truth." Such is the account of Irenzeus. But Polycarp, in his above-mentioned epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant, has made use of certain testimonies drawn from the First

Epistle of Peter."

And when Antoninus, called Pius, had completed the twenty-second year of his reign,® Marcus Aurelius Verus, his son, who was also called Antoninus, succeeded him, together with his brother Lucius."

the wrong emperor we do not know, but knowing Eusebius' common confusion of the various emperors that bore the name of Antonine, we are not surprised at his error at this point.

For the best and most recent discussion of this whole subject, see Lightfoot's /enatzus, I. p. 629 4: Since Waddington published his researches,

Wieseler (inhis Christenverfolgungen, 1878, p. 34-87) and Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878, p. 92-133) have ventured to dispute his conclusions and to advocate the old date (167), but their

'arguments are worthless, and have been completely refuted by

CHAPTER XV.

Under Verus,' Polycarp with Others suffered Martyrdom at Smyrna.

Lightfoot (zdzd. p. 655 sq.). i AT this time,? when the greatest persecutions were exciting Asia, Polycarp ended his

3 Le. the church of Sera This letter (the greater part of which Eusebius gives in this chapter) is still extant in four Greek

MSS., and also in a poor Latin version which is preserved in numerous MSS.

The letter has been published a number of times, most recently by Zahn (in Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patrum Ap. opera, Il. p.

132 sq.), and by Lightfoot (in his Apostolic Fathers, Part 2 St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, p. 947 sq.).

Lightfoot gives the Greek text with full notes and an English translation, and to his edition the reader is referred for fuller particulars. on the whole subject.

15 Titus iii. 10, rr.

16 Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians is still extant, and is the only work of Polycarp which we have.

(The Greek text is given in all editions of the apostolic Fathers, and with especially valuable notes and discussions in Zahn's /gnatius von Antiochien, and in Lightfoot's /gnatzus and Polycarp, Il. p. 897 sqq.; an English translation is contained in the latter edition, and also in the 4 xZeNicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 31-36.) The date of its composition it is very difficult to determine.

It must have been written after the death of Ignatius (chap. 9), and yet soon after, as Polycarp does not seem to know all the circumstances attending that event (see chap. 13).

Its date therefore depends upon the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, which is a very difficult question, not yet fully decided.

The attack upon false teachers reminds us of Marcion, and contains traits which seem to imply that Polycarp had Marcion in his mind at the time of writing. it this be so, the epistle was written as late as 135 A.D., which puts the date of Ignatius' death much later than the traditional date (on the date of Ignatius' death, see above, Bk, III. chap. 36, note 4). The genuineness of Polycarp's epistle has been sharply disputed — chiefly on account of its testimony to the Ignatian epistles in chap. 13.

Others, while acknowledging its genuineness as a whole, have regarded chap. 13 as an interpolation.

But the external testimony for its genuineness is very strong, beginning with Irenzus, a'. the epistle itself is just what we should expect from such a man as Polycarp.

There is no good reason therefore to doubt its genuineness nor the genuineness of chap. 13, the rejection of which is quite arbitrary.

The genuineness of the whole has been ably defended both by Zahn and by Lightfoot, and may be regarded as definitely established.

' Pontus was the northeast province of Asia Minor, bordering on the Black Sea.

What Jed Husebiua to suppose that this epistle was addressed to the church in Pontus, we do not know.

The letter: is addressed to the church in Philomalium, and that city was not in Pontus (according to Lightfoot, z4zd@. II. p. 948).

Valesine suggests that we should read ravra rémov instead of Idvtor, but the latter reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac as well as by all the Greek MSS.

I am inclined to think that Eusebius may have read hastily and erroneously in the heading of the letter Tlovrov instead of mayra rozov, and, not knowing that Philomelium was not in Pontus, never thought that his reading was incorrect.

Such careless mistakes are by no means uncommon, even in these days, and, having once written Pontus, it is easy enough to suppose that nothing would occur to call his attention to his mis— take, and of course no copyist would think of making a correction.

5 Philomelium, according to Lightfoot (zd. p. 47), Was an important city in Phrygia Paroreios, not far from Pieidien Antioch,

8 ris aylas KaBoAtKHs exxAnoias, The phrase' Catholic Church" occurs first in Ignatius' Zf. ad Smyr., chap. 8, and there the word.

"catholic" evidently has the common and early meaning, " universal" (see Lightfoot's Jexgeass I. p. 398 sqq.).

In later usage (so in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Fragment) it has the meaning " orthodox," as opposed to heretical and schismatical bodies. In the present epistle it occurs four times (§§ 3, 15,

39, below, and in a passage not quoted in this chapter), and at least the first three times with the later meaning, and consequently, in all probability, it has the same meaning the fourth time also.

(Lightfoot, it is true, contends that it has the earlier meaning, '' universal," in the first, second and fourth cases; but in at least the first two that: sense of the word produces most decided tautology, and is therefore to be rejected.) The occurrence of the word in the later sense has. caused some critics to deny the genuineness of the epistle; but its genuineness is too well established to admit of doubt, and it must be granted that it is by no means impossible that a word which was used at the end of the second century (in Alexandria, in Rome and in Carthage) with a certain meaning may have been employed in the same sense a generation earlier.

On the other hand it is pos-sible, as suggested by some, that the word '' Catholic" itself is an interpolation; for it is just such a word that would most easily slipinto a document, through the inadvertency of copyists, at a later time, when the phrase '" Catholic Church" had become current.

Lightfoot (262d. p. 605 sq.) maintains the genuineness of the word (taking it in its earlier sense) in all but the third instance, where he substitutes aytas upon what seem to me insufficient grounds.

17 Polycarp in his gees makes constant use of the First Epistle of Peter, with which he was evidently very familiar, though it is remarkable that he nowhere mentions Peter as its author (cf. Bk.

III. chap. 3, note x).

18 Antoninus Pius reigned from July 2, 138, to March 7, 161.

1° Both were adopted sons of Antoninus Pius.

See above, chap.

12, note 3.

1 Marcus Aurelius Verus.

See below, p. 390, note.

2 Polycarp's martyrdom occurred in Smyrna, not during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, as Eusebius says, but during the reign of Antoninus Pius, between 154 and 156 (probably in1ss).

This has been proved by Waddington in his Memozre sur la Cl roxolagis de la vie du rheteur Ablius Aristide (in Mem. de l'acad. des oe et belles lettres, Tom, XXVI., part II., 1867, p. 232 Sq.; see, also, his Fastes des provinces Astatiques, 1872, p. 219 sq.), and the date is now almost universally accepted (for example, by Renan, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Lightfoot, Harnack, &c.).

But the Chron. of Eusebius seems to put the martyrdom in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius (166-167 a.D.), and this is the date given by Jerome and others, who based their chronology upon Eusebius, and was 'commonly accepted until Waddington proved it false.

Lightfoot, however, shows that Eusebius did not mean to assign Polycarp's death to the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, but that he meant only to place it in the reign of that emperor, and did not pretend to fix the year, How he made the mistake of assigning it to 7 éypdysaper, the epistolary aorist, referring, not to another epis— tle, but to the one which follows, the writer putting himself in thought in the position of those who are reading the letter.

See:

Lightfoot's note on Gal. vi, 11 in his Commentary on that epistle.

IV. 15.]

THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.

he went out to a farm not far distant from the city and abode there with a few companions, night and day doing nothing but wrestle with the Lord in prayer, beseeching and imploring, and asking peace for the churches throughout the whole world.

For this was always his custom.

And three days before his arrest, while he was praying, he saw ina vision at night the pillow under his head sud-

by his martyrdom."

After these words, before giving the account of Polycarp, they record the events which befell the rest of the martyrs, and describe the great firmness which they exhibited in the midst of their pains.

For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden fnward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view ; and then laid upon sea-shells and certain pointed spits, and subjected to every species of punishment and of torture, and

finally thrown as food to wild beasts.

And they record that the most noble Germanicus 8 especially distinguished himself, overcoming by the grace of God the fear of bodily death implanted by nature.

When indeed the proconsul® wished to persuade him, and urged his youth, and besought him, as he was very young and vigorous, to take compassion on himself, he did not hesitate, but eagerly lured the beast toward himself, all but compelling and irritating him, in

denly seized by fire and consumed ; and upon this awakening he immediately interpreted the vision to those that were present, almost foretelling that which was about to happen, and declaring plainly to those that were with him that it would be necessary for him for Christ's sake to die by fire.

Then, as those who were seeking him

pushed the search with vigor, they say that he was again constrained by the solicitude and love of the brethren to go to another farm.

Thither his pursuers came after no long time, and seized two of the servants there, and tortured one of them for the purpose of learning from him Polycarp's hiding-place.

And coming

late in the evening, they found him lying in an upper room, whence he might have gone to another house, but he would not, saying,

"The will of God be done."

And when

he learned that they were present, as the account says, he went down and spoke to them with a very cheerful and gentle countenance, so that those who did not already know the man thought that they beheld a miracle when they observed his advanced age and the gravity and firmness of his bearing, and they marveled that so much effort should be made to capture a man like him. order that he might the sooner be freed

from their unrighteous and lawless life. Af ter his glorious death the whole multitude, marveling at the bravery of the God-beloved martyr and at the fortitude of the whole race of Christians, began to cry out suddenly, " Away with the atheists ; 1 let Polycarp be sought."

And when a very great tumult arose in consequence of the cries, a certain Phrygian,

Quintus" by name, who was newly come from Phrygia, seeing the beasts and the additional tortures, was smitten with cowardice 'and

gave up the attainment of salvation.

But the above-mentioned epistle shows that he, too hastily and without proper discretion, had rushed forward with others to the tribunal, but when seized had furnished a clear proof to all, that it is not right for such persons rashly and recklessly to expose themselves to danger.

Thus did matters turn out in connection with But he did not hesitate, but immediately

gave orders that a table should be spread for them.

'Then he invited them to partake of a bounteous meal, and asked of them one hour that he might pray undisturbed. And when they had given permission, he stood up and prayed, being full of the grace of the Lord, so that those who were present and heard him praying were amazed, and many of them now repented that such a venerable and godly old man was about to be put to death.

In addition to

these things the narrative concerning him contains the following account:

" But when at length he had brought his prayer to an end, after remembering all that had ever come into contact with him, small and great, famous and obscure, and the whole catholic Church throughout the world, the hour of departure being come, they put him upon an ass and brought him to the city, it being a great Sabbath."

And he was met by them.

But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard of these things, continued undisturbed, preserved a quiet and unshaken mind, and determined to remain in the city.

But being persuaded by his friends who entreated and exhorted him to retire secretly, TO eee Dee ee ee 8 Of Germanicus we know only what is told us in this epistle.

9 This proconsul was Statius Quadratus, as we are told in the latter part of this epistle, in a passage which Eusebius does not quote.

Upon his dates, see the discussions of the date of Polycarp's martyrdom mentioned in note 2, above. i 10 Compare Justin Martyr's Afo/. I. 6; Tertullian's AZo/. 10,

&c.; and see chap. 7, note 20, above. | thd i ets ; 11 Of Quintus we know only what is told us in this epistle.

It is significant that he was a Phrygian, for the Phrygians were proverbiiily excitable and fanatical, and it was among them that Montanism took its rise.

The conduct of Polycarp, who avoided death as long as he could without dishonor, was in great contrast to this; and it is noticeable that the Smyrnzans condemn Quintus' hasty and illconsidered action, and that Eusebius echoes their judgment (see above, p. 8).

12 SaBBarov peyddov.

''The great Sabbath" in the Christian Church, at least from the time of Chrysostom on, was the Saturday between Good-Friday and Easter.

But so far as we know, there are no examples of that use of the phrase earlier than Chrysostom's

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[1V. 15

Se — C~ rr rrr>s cvoOo» Herod, the captain of police,* and by his father Nicetes, who took him into their carriage, and sitting beside him endeavored to persuade him, saying, ' For what harm is there in saying, feigning to be ignorant who I am, hear plainly :

I am a Christian.

But if thou desirest to learn the doctrine of Christianity, assign a day and hear.'

The proconsul said, ' Persuade the people.'

But Polycarp said, 'As for thee, I thought thee worthy of an explanation; for we have been taught to render to princes and authorities ordained by God the honor that is due,'* so long as it does not injure us ;? but as for these, I do not esteem them the proper persons to whom to make my defense.'"

But the proconsul said,'I have

wild beasts ; I will throw thee to them unless thou repent.'

But he said, ' Call them ; for repentance from better to worse is a change we cannot make.

But it is a noble thing to turn from wickedness to righteousness.' But

he again said to him, 'If thou despisest the wild beasts, I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, unless thou repent.'

But Polycarp said, 'Thou threatenest a fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is quenched ; for thou knowest not the fire of the future judgment and of the eternal punishment which is reserved for the impious.

But why dost thou delay?

Do what thou wilt.'

Saying these and

other words besides, he was filled with courage and joy, and his face was suffused with grace, so that not only was he not terrified and dismayed by the words that were spoken to him, but, on the contrary, the proconsul was amazed, and sent his herald to proclaim three times in the midst of the stadium:

' Polycarp hath confessed that he is a Christian.' And when

this was proclaimed by the herald, the whole multitude, both of Gentiles and of Jews,2! who dwelt in Smyrna, cried out with ungovernable wrath and with a great shout, 'This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the overthrower of our gods, who teacheth many not to sacrifice nor to worship.' When they

had said this, they cried out and asked the Asiarch Philip to let a lion loose upon Polycarp.

But he said that it was not lawful for

Lord Ceesar, and sacrificing and saving your

life?' He at first did not answer ; but when they persisted, he said, 'I am not going to, do what you advise me.' And when they failed to persuade him, they uttered dreadful words, and thrust him down with violence, so that as he descended from the carriage he lacerated his shin.

But without turning round, he went on his way promptly and rapidly, as if nothing had happened to him, and was taken to the stadium.

But there was such a tumult in the stadium that not many heard a voice from heaven, which came to Polycarp as he was entering the place: 'Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man.'"

And no one saw the speaker, but many of our people heard the voice.

And when he was led forward, there was a great tumult, as they heard that Polycarp was taken.

Finally, when he came up, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, he endeavored to persuade him to deny, saying, 'Have regard for

thine age,' and other like things, which it is

their custom to say: 'Swear by the genius of Cesar ;'° repent and say, Away with the Atheists.'

But Polycarp, looking with dignified countenance upon the whole crowd that was gathered in the stadium, waved his hand to them, and groaned, and raising his eyes toward

heaven, said, ' Away with the Atheists.'

But when the magistrate pressed him, and said, 'Swear, and I will release thee; revile Christ,'

Polycarp said, '

Fourscore and six years" have I been serving him, and he hath done me no wrong ; how then can I blaspheme my king who saved me?'

" But when he again persisted, and said, "Swear by the genius of Cesar,' Polycarp replied, 'If thou vainly supposest that I will swear by the genius of Czesar, as thou sayest, time.

Lightfoot points out that, in the present instance, it is not "The great Sabbath" (79 wéya 248Barov), but only "4 great Sabbath''; and therefore, in the present instance, any great Sabbath might be meant, — that is, any Sabbath which coincided with a festival or other marked day in the Jewish calendar.

Lightfoot gives strong reasons for assuming that the traditional day of Polycarp's death (Feb. 23) is correct, and that the Sabbath referred to here was a great Sabbath because it coincided with the Feast of Purim (see

Lightfoot, 252d, I. p. 660 sqq. and 690 sqq.). clined to think that he is reckoning from the time of his conversion or baptism, which may well be if we suppose him to have been baptized in early boyhood.

38 See Rom. xiii. 1 sq., 1 Pet. ii, 13 sq.

_ YP tumnv...rhv wy BAdmroveay Has.

Compare Pseudo-Ignatius, ad Antioch. 11, and Mart. Ignat. Rom. 6 (in both of which are foynd the words év ols axivduvos 4 UTotayn).

20 The proconsul made quite a concession here.

He would have been glad to have Polycarp quiet the multitude if he could.

Poly18 Of Herod and Nicetes we know only what is told us in this epistle.

The latter was not an uncommon name in Smyrna, as we learn from inscriptions (see Lightfoot, 22d. II. p. 958).

Carp was not reckless and foolish in refusing to make the attempt for he knew it would fail, and he preferred to retain his dignity and not compromise himself by appearing to ask for mercy

14 eipyvapxos (see Lightfoot, 257d. P955).

15 Compare Joshua i. 6, 7, 9, and Deut. i. a hyisa 16 rhv Katicapos tixnv.

This oath was invented under Julius Czsar, and continued under his successors. ated by the Christians, who regarded the " as a false God, and therefore the taking of the oath a species of idolatry.

It was consequently employed very commonly by the magistrates as a test in times of persecution (cf. Tertullian, 4 o/.

32; Origen, Contra Cels. VIII. 6s, and many other passages), 17 See above, chap. 14, note 5.

Whether the eighty-six years are to be reckoned from Polycarp's Birk or from the time of his conversion or baptism, we cannot tell.

At the same time, inasmuch as he speaks of serving Chrvst, for eighty-six years, not God, I am in21 The Jews appear ge frequently as leading spirits in the peseceirios of Christians.

The persecution under Nero was doubtess due to their instigation (see Bk. IT. chap. 25, note 4). Comee also Tertullian, Scorp. 10, and Eusebius, H. E.V.16.

That the €ws were numerous in Smyrna has been shown by Lightfoot, 32d.

- 966, The oath was repudigenius " of the emperor 20Se The Asiarch was the head of the Commune Asiz, the confederation of the Principal cities of the Roman province of Asia,

As such, he was the 'chief priest' of Asia, and president of the games"

(Lightfoot, 252d, P. 967; on p. 987 ff. of the same volume, Lightfoot discusses the Asiarchate at considerable length).

The Asiarch hilip mentioned here was a Trallian, as we learn from a statement' toward the close of the epistle, which Eusebius does not quote;

EV S35:

THEE

MARTY ROOM, OFS

POLY CARP.

IQI him, since he had closed the games.

Then they thought fit to cry out with one accord that

Polycarp should be burned alive.

For it was necessary that the vision should be fulfilled which had been shown him concerning his pillow, when he saw it burning while he was praying, and turned and said prophetically to and as a great flame blazed out, we, to whom it was given to. see, saw a wonder, and we were preserved that we might relate what happened to the others.

For the fire presented

the appearance of a vault, like the sail of a vessel filled by the wind, and made a wall about the body of the martyr," and it was in the midst not like flesh burning, but like gold and silver refined in a furnace.

For we perceived such a fragrant odor, as of the fumes of frankincense or of some other precious spices. So

at length the lawless men, when they saw that the body could not be consumed by the fire, commanded an executioner™ to approach and pierce him with the sword. And

when he had done this there came forth a quantity of blood* so that it extinguished the fire ; and the whole crowd marveled that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this man also was one, the most wonderful teacher in our times, apostolic and prophetic, who was bishop of the catholic Church" in Smyrna.

For every word which came from his mouth was accomplished and will be accomplished.

But the

jealous and envious Evil One, the adversary the faithful that were with him, 'I must

needs be burned alive.'

These things were done with great speed, — more quickly than they were said, —the crowds immediately collecting from the workshops and baths timber and fagots, the Jews being especially zeal-

ous in the work, as is their wont.

But when the pile was ready, taking off all his upper garments, and loosing his girdle, he attempted also to remove his shoes, although he had never before done this, because of the effort which each of the faithful always made to touch his skin first ; for he had been treated with all honor on account of his virtuous life even before his

gray hairs came.

Forthwith then the materials prepared for the pile were placed about him ; and as they were also about to nail him to the stake,* he said, 'Leave me thus; for he who hath given me strength to endure the fire, will also grant me strength to remain in the fire of the race of the righteous, when he saw the greatness of his martyrdom, and his blameless life from the beginning, and when he saw him crowned with the crown of immortality and bearing off an incontestable prize, took care that not even his body should be taken away by us, although many desired to do it and to have communion with his holy flesh.

Accordingly certain ones secretly suggested to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce,® that he should plead with the magistrate unmoved without being secured by you with nails.'

So they did not nail him, but bound

him.

And he, with his hands behind him, and bound like a noble ram taken from a great flock, an acceptable burnt-offering unto

God omnipotent, said, 'Father of thy beloved and blessed Son™ Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and of powers and of the whole creation and of the entire race of the righteous who live in thy presence, I bless thee that thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a portion in the number of the martyrs, in the cup of Christ, unto resurrection of eternal life," both of soul and of body,

4] 26 It is not necessary to dispute the truthfulness of the report in this and the next sentences on the around that the events recorded are miraculous in their nature, and therefore cannot have happened.

Natural causes may easily have produced some such phenomena as the writers describe, and which they of course regarded as miraculous.

Lightfoot refers to a number of similar cases, Vol. I. p. 598 ff.

Loupe also Harnack in the Zeztschrift fiir Kirchengesch. Xl. p. 291 ff.

27 Kowdéxtopa, It was the common business of the Confectores to dispatch such wild beasts as had not been killed outright during the combat in the arena, See Lightfoot, p. 974.

28 Before the words "fa quantity of blood" are found in all the Greek MSS. of the epistle the words meptotepa Kai, 'a dove and."

It seems probable that these words did not belong to the original text, but that they were, as many critics believe, an unintentional corruption of some other phrase, or that they were, as Lightfoot thinks, a deliberate interpolation by a late editor (see Lightfoot, II.

974 ff. and I. 627 ff.). o argument, therefore, against the honesty of Eusebius can be drawn from his omission of the words. in the immortality of the Holy Spirit.

Among these may I be received before thee this day, in a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as thou, the faithful and true God, hast beforehand prepared and revealed, and

hast fulfilled.

Wherefore I praise thee also for everything ; I bless thee, I glorify thee, through the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, through whom, with him, in the 29 See above, note 6, That the word xaOoAtxjs is used here in the later sense of "' orthodox," as opposed to heretical and schismatical bodies, can be questioned by no one.

Lightfoot, however, reads at this point ayas instead of xa@oAtxys in his edition of the epistle.

It is true that he has some MS. support, but the MSS, and versions of Eusebius are unanimous in favor of the latter word, and Lightfoot's grounds for making the change seem to be quite insufficient.

If any change is to be made, the word should be dropped out entirely, as suggested by the note already refetred to.

Holy Spirit, be glory unto thee, both now and for the ages to come, Amen.'

When he had offered up his Amen and had finished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire ;

30 All, or nearly all, the MSS. of Eusebius read AadAxns, and that reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius

(in his text), eres' ler, Laemmer, Heinichen, and Crusé.

On the other hand, the MSS. of the epistle itself all support the form "AA«ns (or "AAxjjs, "EAxets, as it appears respectively in two MSS.), and Lightfoot accepts this unhesitatingly as the original form of the word, and it is adopted by many editors of Eusebius (Valesius, in his notes, Stroth, ZimmerLightfoot identifies him with a person named in various Trallian inscriptions.

23 The Greek reads simply mpoonAody avrov.

24 rads not viod. mais commonly conveys the meaning of servant rather than son, although in this passage it is evidently used in the latter sense.

Its use in connection with Christ was in later times dropped as Arianisticinitstendency,

2° Compare John v. 29.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 15. ee a lat i hs te et a ile ik eo Se SS ee SS from Philadelphia. This one man is remembered more than the others by all, so that even by the heathen he is talked about in every place." not to give up his body, 'lest,' it was said, ' they should abandon the crucified One and begin to worship this man.'*'

They said these things at the suggestion and impulse of the Jews, who also watched as we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that we shall never be able either to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved, or to worship any other.

For we worship him who is the Son of God, but the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of the Lord, we love as they deserve on account of their matchless affection for their own king and Of such an end was the admirable and

apostolic Polycarp deemed worthy, as recorded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna in their epistle which we have mentioned.

In the same volume * concerning him are subjoined also other martyrdoms which took place in the same city, Smyrna, about the same period of time with Polycarp's martyrdom.

Among them also Metrodorus, who appears to have been a proselyte of the Marcionitic sect, suffered death by fire. A celebrated martyr of those times was

a certain man named Pionius.

Those. who desire to know his several confessions, and the boldness of his speech, and his apologies in behalf of the faith before the people and the rulers, and his instructive addresses, and, moreover, his greetings to those who had yielded to temptation in the persecution, and the words of encouragement which he addressed to the brethren who came to visit him in prison, and the tortures which he endured in addition, and besides these the sufferings and the nailings, and his firmness on the pile, and his death after all the extraordinary trials,°— those we refer to that epistle which has been given in the Martyrdoms of the Ancients,® collected by us, and which contains a very full account of him.

And there are also records extant of others that suffered martyrdom in Pergamus, a city

teacher.

May we also be made partakers and fellow-disciples with them.

'The centurion, therefore, when he saw the contentiousness exhibited by the Jews, placed him in the midst and burned him, as was their custom.

And so we afterwards gathered up his bones, which were more valuable than precious stones

and more to be esteemed than gold, and laid them in a suitable place.

There the Lord will permit us to come together as we are able, in gladness and joy to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom," for the commemoration of those who have already fought and for

the training and preparation of those who shall hereafter do the same.

Such are the events that befell the blessed Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom in Smyrna with the eleven ®

mann, Burton, and Closs).

Dalce is an otherwise unknown name, while Alce, though rare, is a good Greek name, and is once connected with Smyrna in an inscription.

Moreover, we learn from Ignatius, ad Smyr. 13, and ad Polyc. VIII., that Alce was a wellknown Christian in Smyrna at the time Ignatius wrote his epistles.

The use of the name at this point shows that its possessor was or had been a prominent character in the church of Smyrna, and the identification of the two seems to me beyond all reasonable doubt pale FE ST RS a ee a ER the dwéSéxaros, but the variations and inconsistencies in the MSS. at this abe make it more probable that the change crept in later, and that Eusebius agreed with his original in making Polycarp the twelfth martyr, not the thirteenth.

Of these eleven only Germanicus is mentioned in this epistle, and who the others were we do not know.

They cannot have been persons of prominence, or Polycarp's martyrdom would not so completely have overshadowed theirs.

(see, also, Lightfoot, I. 353; II. 325 and 978).

That Eusebius, however, wrote Alce is not so certain.

In fact, in view of the external testimony, it might be regarded as quite as likely that he, by a mistake, wrote Dalce, as that some copyist afterwards committed the error.

Still, the name Alce must have been to Eusebius, with his remarkable memory, familiar from Ignatius' epistles, and hence his mistaking it for another word seems a little strange.

But whether Eusebius himself wrote Dalce or Alce, believing the latter to be the correct form, the form which he should have written, I have ventured to adopt it in my translation.

84 ypaby.

These other accounts were not given in the epistle of the Smyrnzans, but were doubtless appended to that epistle in the MS, which Eusebius used.

The accounts referred to are not found in any of our MSS. of the epistle, but there is published in Ruinart's

Acta Martyrum Sincera, p188 sq., a narrative in Latin of the martyrdom of a certain Piontus and of a certain Marcionist Metrodorus, as well as of others, which appears to be substantially the same as the document which Eusebius knew in the original Greek, and which he refers to here.

The account bears all the marks of genuineness, and may be regarded as trustworthy, at least in the main points.

But Eusebius has fallen into a serious chronological blunder in making these other martyrs contemporaries of Polycarp.

We learn from a notice in the document given by Ruinart that Pionius, Metrodorus, and the others were put to death during the persecution of Decius, in 250 a.p., and this date is confirmed by external evidence.

The document which Eusebius used ma: not have contained the distinct chronological notice which is now ee in it, or Eusebius may have overlooked it, and finding the narrative given in his MS. in close connection with the account of Polycarp's martyrdom, he may have jumped hastily to the conclusion that both accounts relate to the same period of time.

Or, as Lightfoot suggests, in the heading of the document there may have stood the words avTn meptodos Tov xpdvov (a peculiar phrase, which Eusebius repeats) indicating (as the words might indicate) that the events took place at the same season of the year, while Eusebius interpreted them to mean the same period of time.

Upon these Acts, and upon Metrodorus and Pionius, see Lightfoot, I. P. 622 sqq.

The Life of Polycarp, which purports to have been written by Pionius, is manifestly spurious and entirely untrustworthy, and belongs to the latter part of the fourth century. The true Pionius, therefore, who suffered under Decius, and the Pseudo-Pionius who wrote that Life are to be sharply distinguished (see Lightfoot, I. P626 sqq.).

81 This shows that the martyrs were highly venerated even at this early date, as was indeed most natural, and as is acknowledged by the writers themselves just below.

But it does not show that the Christians already worshiped or venerated their relics as they did in later centuries.

The heathen: in their own paganism, might easily conclude from the Christians' tender care of and reverence for the martyrs' relics that they also worshiped them.

82 This is, so far as I am aware, the earliest notice of the annual celebration of the day of a martyr's death, a practice which early became so common in the Church.

The next reference to the custom is in Tertullian's de Corona, 3 (cf. also Scorf. 15).

So natural a practice, however, and one which was soon afterward universal, need not surprise us at this early date (see Ducange, Natalts, and Bingham, Azt. XIII.

9. 5, XX. 7. 2).

33 The majority of the MSS. read S58exa rod év Suvpyn maprvpyjzavros, which, however, is quite ungrammatical as it stands in the sentence, and cannot be accepted.

Heinichen reads badexa Tov év k.7.A,, changing the genitive of the majority of the MSS. to an accusative, but like them, as also like Rufinus, making twelve martyrs besides Polycarp.

But the MSS, of the epistle itself read dwSékatos ev Su. waptupycas, thus making only eleven martyrs in addition to Polycarp, and it cannot be doubted that this idiomatic Greek construction is the original.

In view of that fact, I am constrained to read with Valesius, Schwegler, and Zahn (in his note on this passage in his edition of the epistle), SwSécatov év Su. Maptupyicayvra translating literally, 'suffered martyrdom with those from Philadelphia, the twelfth"; or, as I have rendered it freely in the text

"suffered martyrdom with the eleven from Philadelphia."

It is, of course, possible that Eusebius himself substityted the uSexa for 85 This is an excellent summary of Pionius' sufferings, as recorded in the extant Acts referred to in the previous note.

36 This is the Collection of Ancient Mart vdomts, which is no longer extant, but which is referred to by Eusebius more than once in his Hzstory.

For particulars in tegard to it, see above, p. 30 sq,

IV. 16.]

THE MARTYRDOM OF JUSTIN.

of Asia, — of Carpus and Papylus, and a woman named Agathonice, who, after many and illustrious testimonies, gloriously ended their lives." who emulated the life and manners of the Cynics, whose name he bore.

After Justin had frequently refuted him in public discussions he won by his martyrdom the prize of victory, dying in behalf of the truth which he preached.

And he himself, a man most learned inthe

truth, in his Apology already referred to ® clearly predicts how this was about to happen to him, although it had not yet occurred.

His words are as follows:' "I, too,' there-

fore, expect to. be plotted against and put in the stocks? by some one of those whom I have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that unphilosophical and vainglorious man.

For the man is not worthy to be called a philosopher who publicly bears witness against those concerning whom he knows nothing, declaring, for the sake of captivating and pleasing the multitude, that the Christians are atheistical and impious."

Doing this he errs greatly.

For if he assails us without having read the teachings of

CHAPTER XVI.

Justin the Philosopher preaches the Word of Christin Rome and suffers Martyrdom.

AxsoutT this time? Justin, who was mentioned by us just above," after he had addressed a second work in behalf of our doctrines to the rulers already named,' was crowned with divine martyrdom,' in consequence of a plot laid against him by Crescens,> a philosopher

37 A detailed account of the martyrdoms of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice is extant in numerous MSS., and has been published more than once.

It has, however, long been recognized as spurious and entirely untrustworthy.

But in 188r Aubé published in the Revue Archeologique (Dec., p. 348 sq.) a shorter form of the Acts of these martyrs. which he had discovered in a Greek MS. in the Paris Library.

There is no reason to doubt that these Acts are genuine and, in the main, quite trustworthy.

The longer Acts assign the death of these martyrs to the reign of Decius, and they have always been regarded as suffering during that persecution.

Aubé, in publishing his newly discovered document, still accepted the old date; but Zahn, upon the basis of the document which he had also seen, remarked in his Tatian's Diatessaron (p. 279) that Eusebius was correct in assigning these martyrdoms to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and Lightfoot (I. p. 625) stated his belief that they are to be assigned either to that reign or to the reign of Septimius Severus.

In 1888 Harnack (Texte und Unters. I11. 4) published a new edition of the Acts from the same MS. which Aubé had used, accompanying the text with valuable notes and with a careful discussion of the age of the document.

He has proved beyond all doubt that these martyrs were put to death during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and that the shorter document which we have contains a genuine account related by an eye-witness.

These are evidently the Acts which Eusebius had before him.

In the spurious account Carpus is called a bishop, and Papylus a deacon, But in the shorter account they are simply Christians, and Papylus informs the judge that he is a citizen of Thyatira.

Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and is much worse than the illiterate, who often guard against discussing and bearing false witness about matters which they do not understand.

And if he has read them and does not understand the majesty that is in them, or, understanding it, does these things in order that he may not be suspected of being an adherent, he is far more base and totally depraved, being enslaved to vulgar applause and irrational fear.

ForI

would have you know that when I proposed certain questions of the sort and asked him in regard to them, I learned and proved that he indeed knows nothing.

And to show that I speak the truth I am ready, if these disputations have not been reported to you, to discuss the questions again in your presence.

And this indeed would be an act worthy of an emperor.

But if my questions and his

Eusebius apparently did not include the account of these martyrs in his collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, and Harnack concludes from that that he found in it something that did not please him, viz. the fanaticism of Agathonice, who rashly and needlessly rushes to niartyrdom, and the approval of her conduct expressed by the author of the Acts. We are reminded of the conduct of the hog cor Quintus mentioned in the epistle of the Smyrnzans but in that epistle such conduct is condemned.

1 That is, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius VeTus, 161-169 A.D.

Inasmuch as Eusebius is. certainly in error in ascribing the death of Polycarp, recorded in the previous chapter, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (see note 2 on that chapter), the fact that he here connects Justin's death with that reign furnishes no evidence that it really occurred then; but we have other good reasons for supposing that it did (see below, note 4). connection with the death of Justin, — an omission which is hardl to be explained, except upon the supposition of historical truthfulness.

Eusebius' report here seems to rest solely upon the testimon of Tatian (see §§ 8 and 9, below), but the passage of Tatian whic he cites does not prove his point; it simply proves that Crescens plotted against Justin; whether his plotting was successful is not sare and the contrary seems rather to be implied (see note 13,

2 In chap. 11.

3 Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, whom he mentioned at the close of chap. 14, and the events of whose reign he is now ostensibly recording.

But in regard to this supposed second apology addressed to them, see chap. 18, note 3.

} x 4 That Justin died a martyr's death is the universal tradition of antiquity, which is crystallized in his namz.

Irenzus (Adv, Her.

I. 28. r) is the first to mention it, but does so casually, as a fact well known.

The only account of his martyrdom which we have is contained in the Acta Martyrit F¥ustin' Philosoph? (Galland. I.

707 sq-), which, although belonging to a later age (probably the third century), yet bear every evidence of containing a comparatively truthful account of Justin's death.

According to these Acts, Justin, with six companions, was brought before Rusticus, prefect of Rome, and by him condemned to death, upon his refusal to sacrifice to the gods.

The date of his martyrdom is very difficult to determine.

There are two lines of tradition, one of which puts his death under Antoninus Pius, the other under Marcus Aurelius. The latter has the most in its favor; and if we are to accept the report of the Acta Fustinz (which can be doubted least of all at this point), his death took place under Rusticus, who, as we know, became prefect.of Rome in 163.

Upon the date of Justin's death, see especially Holland, in Smith and Wace, III. p. 562 sq. elow).

6 Harnack thinks that Eusebius at this point wishes to convey the false impression that he quotes from the second apology, whereas he really quotes from what was to him the first, as can be seen from chap. 17.

But such conduct upon the part of Eusebius would be quite inexplicable (at the beginning of the very next chapter, e.g., he refers to this same apology as the first), and it is far better to refer the words év +7 SedyAwmevy *AmodAoyia to chap. 13 sq., where the apology is quoted repeatedly.

7 yustes, Afol. Il. 3.

8 kayw obv.

In the previous chapter (quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter) Justin has been speaking of the martyrdom of various

Christians, and now goes on to express his expectation that he, too, will soon suffer death.

9 E¥Aw évtwvayjvar.

Compare Acts xvii. 24, and see Otto's note on this passage, in his edition of Justin's Apology (Corpus A pol.

Christ. 1. p. 204).

He says: évAov erat truncus foramina habens, quibus pedes captivorum immitebantur, ut securtus mn carcere servarentur aut tormentis vexarentur ('a €vAov was a block, with holes in which the feet of captives were put, in order that they might be kept more securely in prison, or might be afflicted with tortures').

5 Of this cynic philosopher Crescens we know only what is told us by Justin and Tatian, and they paint his character in the blackest colors.

Doubtless there was sufficient ground for their accusations; but we must remember that we have his portrait only from the pen of his bitterest enemies.

In the Acta Crescens is not mentioned in 10 This accusation was very commonly made against the Christians in the second century.

See above, chap. 7, note 20.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 16.

Wr answers have been made known to you, it is obvious to you that he knows nothing about the sciences of the Greeks and won no little fame in them, and who has left a great many our affairs; or if he knows, but does not dare to speak because of those who hear him, he shows himself to be, as I have already said," figments of his own brain, — when, in fact, no such instances can be found elsewhere, although, writing in the age he did, and for the public for whom he did, he might have invented so many stories without fear of detection, as his successors during the ancient and middle ages were seldom loath to do, — when all this is taken into consideration, we should hesitate long before we accuse Eusebius of such deceptive conduct as is implied in the intentional alteration of Tatian's account at this point. It has been quite the custom to accuse

Eusebius of intentional deviations from the truth here and there, but it must be remembered that he was either honest or dishonest, and if he ever deliberately and intentionally deviated from the truth, his general character for truthfulness is gone, unless the deviation were only in some exceptional case, where the pressure to misrepresentation was unusually strong, under which circumstances his reputation for veracity in general might not be seriously impaired.

But the resent instance is not such an one, and if he was false here on so Fale provocation, why should we think his character such as to guarantee truthfulness in any place where falsehood might be more desirable? not a philosopher, but a vainglorious man, who indeed does not even regard that most admirable saying of Socrates.'""

These are the words of Justin.

And that he met his death as he had predicted that he would, in consequence of the machinations of Crescens, is stated by Tatian," a man who early in life lectured upon 11 In § 3, above. a2 : ats 12 This saying of Socrates is given by Justin as follows: aA ovr yé mpd THS aAnOeias TYLnTéos avyp, 'a man must not be honored before the truth" (from Plato's Republic, Bk. X.).

It is hard to say why Eusebius should have omitted it.

Perhaps it was so well known that he did not think it necessary to repeat it, taking for granted that the connection would suggest the same to every reader,

The fact is, however, that the grounds upon which the accusation against Eusebius is based are very slender.

Nothing but the strongest evidence should lead us to conclude that such a writer as he practiced such wilful deception for reasons absolutely trivial.

But when we realize how little is known of the actual state of the text of Tatian's Oratio at the time Eusebius wrote, we must acknowledge that to base an accusation on a difference between the text of the Hzstory and the extant MSS. of the Oraizo is at least a little hasty.

An examination of the latest critical edition of Tatian's Oratio (that of Schwartz, in Gebhardt, and Harnack's Texte und

Untersuch.

IV. 1) shows us that in a number of instances the testimony of the MSS. of Eusebius is accepted over against that of the few extant MSS. of Tatian.

The MS. of Tatian which Eusebius used was therefore admittedly different at a number of points from all our existing MSS. of Tatian.

It is consequently not at all impossible that the MS. which he used read meyaAw instead of Kat éué ws:

It happens, indeed, to be a fact that our three MSS. of Tatian all present variations at this very point (one reads cai ene

@s, another, xai é4é olov, another, cai éué ods), showing that the archetype, whatever it was, either offered difficulties to the copyisis, or else was partially illegible, and hence required conjectural emendations or additions.

It will be noticed that the closing verb of this sentence is in the singular, so that the mention of both Justin and Tatian in the beginning of the sentence may well have seemed to some copyist quite incongruous, and it is not difficult to suppose that under such circumstahces, the text at this point being in any case obscure or mutilated, such a copyist permitted ficnsel to make an alteration which was very clever and at the same time did away with all the trouble.

Textual critics will certainly find no difficulty in such an assumption.

The MSS. of Tatian are undoubtedly nearer the original form at this point than those of Eusebius, but we have no good grounds for supposing that Eusebius did not follow the MS. which lay before him. or it is possible that the omission is the fault of a copyist, not of Eusebius himself.

13 On Tatian and his writings, see below, chap. 29.

Eusebius has been accused by Dembowski, Zahn, Harnack, and others of practicing deception at this point.

The passage from Tatian's Orato ad Grecos, which Eusebius appeals to for testimony in regard to Justin's death, and which he quotes just below, is not given by him exactly as it stands in the extant text of the Orazzo.

In the latter we read, ''

He who taught that death should be despised was himself so greatly in fear of it, that he endeavored to inflict death as if it were an evil upon Justin, axd zndeed on me also, because when preaching he had proved that the philosophers were gluttons and impostors."

The difference between the two texts consists in the substitution of the word peydA@ for the words Kai éué ws; and it is claimed that this alteration was intentionally made by Eusebius.

As the text stands in Tatian, the passage is far from proving that Juans death was caused by the machinations of Crescens, for atian puts himself on a level with Justin as the object of these machinations, and of course since they did not succeed in his case, there is no reason to suppose that they succeeded in Justin's case.

It is claimed, therefore, that Justin, "realizing this, struck out the kal €ué ws in order to permit the reader to gather from the passage that Tatian meant to imply that the plots of Crescens were successful, and resulted in Justin's death,

Before accepting this conclusion, however, it may be well to realize exactly what is involved in it.

The change does not consist merely in the omission of the words kai €ué ws, but in the substitution for them of the word peyddw.

It cannot, therefore, be said that Eusebius only omitted some words, Satisfying his conscience that there was no great harm in that; whoever made the change, if he did it intentionally, directly falsified the text, and substituted the other word for the sake of covering up his alteration; that is, he committed an act of deceit of the worst kind, and deliberately took steps to conceal his act.

Certainly such conduct is not in accord with Eusebius' general character, so far as we can ascertain it from his writings.

Even Zahn and Harnack, who accuse him of intentional deception here, yet speak of his general conscientiousness, and treat this alteration as one which Eusebius allowed himself to make while, at the same time, his "' conscientiousness did not permit him even this time to change truth com letely into untruth,"

But if he could allow himself to make so deliberate an alteration, and then cover the change by inserting another word there is little cause to speak of '' conscientiousness" in connection with the matter; if he could do that, his conscience would certainly ase him to make any false quotations, however great, so long as e thought he could escape detection.

But few would care to accuse Eusebius of possessing such a character.

Certainly if he possessed it, we should find clearer traces of it than we do in his History where we have the opportunity to control a large portion of his statements on an immense variety of subjects.

Moreover, for such a grave act of deception as Eusebius is supposed to have committed, some adequate ground must have existed.

But what ground was there?

'The only motive suggested is that he desired to appear to possess The question as to Eusebius' interpretation of the passage as he found it is quite a different one.

It contains no direct statement that Justin met his death in consequence of the plots of Crescens; and finding no mention of such a fact in the Acts of Martyrdom of gosta, we may dismiss it as unhistorical and refuse to accept Euseius' interpretation of Tatian's words.

To say, however, that Eusebius intentionally misinterpreted those words is quite unwarranted.

He found in Justin's work an expressed expectation that he would meet his death in this way, and he found in Tatian's work the direct statement that Crescens did plot Justin's death as the latter had predicted he would.

There was nothing more natural than to conclude that Tatian meant to imply that Crescens had succeeded, for why did he otherwise mention the matter at all, Eusebius might well say, looking at the matter from his point of view, as an historian interested at that moment in the fact of Justin's death.

He does undoubtedly show carelessness and lack of penetration in interpreting the passage as he does; but if he had been aware of the defect in the evidence he presents, and had yet wished deceitfully to assert the fact as a fact, he would certainly have omitted the passage altogether, or he would have bolstered it up with the statement that other writers confirmed his conclusion, —a statement which only a thoroughly and genuinely honest man would have scrupled to make.

Finally, to return to the original charge of falsification of the sources, if he realized that the text of Tatian, with the cai éué ws, did not establish Justin's death at the instigation of Crescens, he must have realized at the same time that his altered text, while it might imply it, certainly did not shroliely pore it, and hence he would not have left his conclusion, which he stated as a demonstrated fact, to rest upon so slender a basis, when he might so easily have adduced any number of oral traditions in confirmation of it.

If he were dishonest enough to alter the text, he would not have hesitated to state in general terms that the fact is '' a/so supported by tradition.""

We conclude, finally, that he read the Passage' as we now find it in the MSS. of his Hzstory, and that his interpretation of the passage, while false, was not intentionally so. specific knowledge about the manner of Justin's death, when in fact he did not possess it. It is not maintained that he had any larger motive, such as reconciling apparent contradictions in sacred records or shedding an added luster upon the Christian religion, for neither of these purposes has any relation to the statement in regard to Crescens' connection with Justin's death.

Solely then for the sake of producing the impression that he knew more about Justin's death than he did, he must have made the change.

But certainly when we realize how frequently Eusebius directly avows his ignorance on p»ints far more important (to his mind) than this (e.g., the dates of the Jerusalem bishops, which he might so easily have invented), and when we consider how sober his history is in comparison with the accounts of the majority of his contemporaries, both Pagan and Christian, how few fables he introduces, how seldom he embellishes the narratives which he finds related in his sources with imaginary

The attacks upon Eusebius which have been already referred to are to be found in Dembowski's Ouellen der christlichen Apologetth, I. p. 60; Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron, P275 Sq-, and the nack's Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten, p.t4t sq.

Semisch (Fustin der Miértyrer, 1. 53) takes for granted that Eusebius fol-

MARTYRS MENTIONED BY JUSTIN.

IV. 17.] — in order that she might not, by continuing in wedlock, and by sharing his board and bed, become a partaker in his lawlessness and impiety

— gave him what we® call a bill of divorce and left him.

But her noble and excellent husband, — instead of rejoicing, as he ought to have done, that she had given up those actions which she had formerly recklessly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she delighted in drunkenness and in every vice, and that she desired him likewise to give them up, —when she had gone from him contrary to his wish, brought an accusation concerning her, declaring that she was a Christian. And

she petitioned you, the emperor, that she might be permitted first to set her affairs in order, and afterwards, after the settlement of her affairs, to make her defense against the accusation.

And this you granted.

But

he who had once been her husband, being no longer able to prosecute her, directed his attacks against a certain Ptolemzeus,* who had been her teacher in the doctrines of Christianity, and whom Urbicius® had punished.

Against him he proceeded in the following manner : monuments of himself in his writings.

He records this fact in his work against the Greeks, where he writes as follows:

" And that most admirable Justin declared with truth that

the aforesaid persons were like robbers."

Then, after making some remarks about the philosophers, he continues as follows : *

"Crescens, indeed, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all in his unnatural lust, and was wholly devoted to the love of money.

And he who taught that death should be despised, was himself so greatly in fear of it that he endeavored to inflict death, as if it were a great evil, upon Justin, because the latter, when preaching the truth, had proved that the philosophers were gluttons and impostors."

And such was the cause of Justin's martyrdom.

CHAPTER XVII.

The Martyrs whom Fustin mentions in his Own Work.

THE same man, before his conflict, mentions in his first Apology' others that suffered martyrdom before him, and most fittingly records

"He persuaded a centurion who was his

friend to cast Ptolemzeus into prison, and to take him and ask him this only: whether he were a Christian?

And when Ptolemzus, who was a lover of truth, and not of a deceitful and false disposition, confessed that he was a Christian, the centurion bound him and punished him for a long time in the prison. And finally, when the man was brought before Urbicius he was likewise asked this question only: whether he were a Christian?

And again, conscious of the benefits which he enjoyed through the teaching of Christ, he confessed his schooling in divine virtue.

For whoever denies that he is a Christian, either denies because he despises Christianity, or he avoids confession because he is conscious that he is unworthy and an alien to it; neither of which is the case with the true Christian.

And when

Urbicius commanded that he be led away to punishment, a certain Lucius,® who was also a Christian, seeing judgment so unjustly passed, the following events.

He writes thus:?

"A certain woman lived with a dissolute husband ; she herself, too, having formerly been of the same character.

But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ, she became temperate, and endeavored to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, repeating the teachings, and declaring the. punishment in eternal fire which shall come upon those who do not live temperately

and conformably to right reason.

But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife by his conduct.

For she finally, thinking it wrong to live as a' wife with a man who, contrary to the law of nature and right, sought

ll every possible means of pleasure, desired to be divorced from him.

And when she was earnestly entreated by her friends, who counseled her still to remain with him, on the ground that her husband might some time give

hope of amendment, she did violence to

herself and remained.

But when her husband had gone to Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself still worse, she os 3 Our authorities are divided between yuty and vcr, but I have followed Heinichen in adopting the former, which has much stronger

MS. support, and which is in itself at least as natural as the latter.

# Of this Ptolemzeus we know only what is told us here.

Tillemont, Ruinart, and others have fixed the date of his martyrdom as 166, or thereabouts.

But inasmuch as the second Apology is now commonly regarded as an appendix to, or as a part of, the first, and was at any rate written during the reign of Antoninus Pius, the maren of Ptolemzeus must have taken place considerably earlier than the date indicated, in fact in all probability as early as 152 (at about which time the Afology was probably written).

We learn from the opening of the second Afology that the martyrdoms which are recorded in the second chapter, and the account of which Eusebius here quotes, happened very shortly before the composition of the Apology (x9és 5 kai mpdny, "yesterday and the day before"). lowed the text of Tatian which lay before him, but does not attempt to prove it.

; 14 Tatian, Oratio ad Grecos, c. 18.

It is quite probable that Tatian is here'appealing, not to a written work of Justin's, but to a statement which he had himself heard him make.

See Harnack's Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten, p. 130.

Harnack is undoubtedly correct in maintaining that Tatian's Ovazzo is quite independent of Justin's Aology and other writings.

15 Jbzd. chap. 19.

'1 Eusebius in this chapter quotes what we now know as Justin's second Apology, calling it his first.

It is plain that the two were but one to him.

See chap. 18, note 3.

2 Justin, AZo/. II. 2.

5 'OvpBixtos, as all the MSS. of Eusebius give the name.

In Justin,the form 'Ovp8cxos occurs, which is a direct transcription of the Latin Urdzcus.

; 6 Of this Lucius we know only what is told us here.

THE: CHURCH .HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[EVE fered to him who was the successor of the emperor mentioned and who bore the same name,

Antoninus Verus, the one whose times we are now recording.

Also another work

against the Greeks,* in which he discourses at length upon most of the questions at issue between us and the Greek philosophers, and discusses the nature of demons.

It is not necessary for me to add any of these things here.

And still another work of his against the

Greeks has come down to us, to which he gave the title Refutation.

And besides these another, On the Sovereignty of God,' which he establishes not only from our Scriptures, but also from the books of the Greeks.

Still

further, a work entitled Psaltes,® and another disputation On the Soul, in which, after propounding various questions concerning the problem under discussion, he gives the opinions of the Greek philosophers, promising to refute it, and to present his own view in another work. He composed also a dialogue against

the Jews,' which he held in the city of Ephesus with Trypho, a most distinguished man among the Hebrews of that day.

In it he shows how the divine grace urged him on to the doctrine of the faith, and with what earnestness he had formerly pursued philosophical studies, and how ardent a search he had made for the truth. And he records of the

Jews in the same work, that they were plotting against the teaching of Christ, asserting the Tes Dice esis Meeoea G5) CN) PSM eee) Be ee said to Urbicius, 'Why have you punished this man who is not an adulterer, nor a fornicator, nor a murderer, nor a thief, nor a robber, nor has been convicted of committing any crime at all, but has confessed that he bears the name of Christian?

You do not judge, O Urbicius, in a manner befitting the Emperor Pius, or the philosophical son' of Czesar, or the sacred senate.'

And without making any other reply, he said to Lucius, 'Thou also seemest to me to be such an one.' And when Lucius said, 'Certainly,' he again commanded that he

too should be led away to punishment.

But he professed his thanks, for he was liberated, he added, from such wicked rulers and was going to the good Father and King, God.

And still a third having come forward was condemned to be punished."

To this, Justin fittingly and consistently adds the words which we quoted above,? saying, "I, too, therefore expect to be plotted against by some one of those whom I have named," &c.°

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Works of Justin which have come down to us.

THis writer has left us a great many monuments of a mind educated and practiced in divine things, which are replete with profitable matter of every kind.

To them we shall refer the studious, noting as we proceed those

that have come to our knowledge.!

There is a certain discourse? of his in defense of our doctrine addressed to Antoninus surnamed the Pious, and to his sons, and to the Roman senate.

Another work contains his second Apology® in behalf of our faith, which he of-

RES SS BOE RR SU OD aa

given by Harnack (p. 171 ff.) seems the most probable one.

According to his theory, the Apology of Athenagoras (of whom none of the Fathers, except Methodius and Philip of Side, seem to have had any knowledge) was attributed to Justin by a copyist of the third century, — who altered the address so as to throw it into Justin's time, — and as such it came into the hands of Eusebius, who mentions it arhong the works of Justin.

That he does not quote from it may be due to the fact that it contained nothing suited to his purpose, or it is possible that he had some suspicions about it; the last, however, is not probable, as he nowhere hints at them.

That some uncertainty, however, seemed to hang about the work is evident.

The erasure of the name of Athenagoras and the substitution of Justin's name accounts for the almost total disappearance of the former from history.

This Apology and his treatise on the resurrection first appear again under his name in the eleventh century, and exist now in seventeen MSS. (see Schaff, II. 731).

The traditional second Apology of Justin having thus after the eleventh century disappeared, his one genuine Apology was divided by later copyists, so that we still have apparently two separate apologies.

7 Marcus Aurelius.

See above, chap. 12, note 2.

8 In chap. 16, § 3.

9 Justin, AZol. ii.

These words, in Justin's Afology, follow immediately the long account quoted just above.

1 Eusebius apparently cites here only the works which he had himself seen, which accounts for his omission of the work against Marcion mentioned above, in chap. rr.

' This and the following were possibly genuine works of Justin; but, as they are no longer extant, it is impossible to speak with certainty.

The two extant works, Discourse to the Greeks (Oratio ad Grecos) and Hortatory Address to the Greeks (Cohortatio ad Grecos), which are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1.

P271-289, are to be regarded as the productions of later writers, and are not to be identified with the two mentioned here (although

Otto defends them both, and Semisch defends the latter).

2 This A ology is the genuine work of Justin, and is still extant in two late and very faulty MSS., in which it is. divided into two, and the parts are commonly known as Justin's First and Second

Apologies, though they were originally one.

The best edition of the original is that of Otto in his Corpus Apologetarum Christranorum , English translation in the 4xte-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p163 ff.

Eusebius, in his Chronzcle, places the date of its composition as 141, but most critics are now agreed in putting it ten or more years later; it must, however, have been written before the death of Antoninus Pius (161).

See Schaff, Ch. Hest. IT, p716.

3 Eusebius here, as in chap. 16 above, ascribes to Justin a second Apology, from which, however, he nowhere quotes.

From Eusebius the tradition has come down through history that Justin wrote two apologies, and the tradition seems to be confirmed y the existing MSS. of Justin, which give two.

But Eusebius' two cannot have corresponded to the Present two; for, from chap. 8, §§ 16 and 17, it is plain that to Eusebius our two formed one complete work.

And it is plain, too, from internal evidence (as is now very generally admitted; Wieseler's arguments against this, in his Christenverfolsungen, p. 104 ff., are not sound), that the two were originally one,

5 We have no reason to think that this work was not genuine, but it is no longer extant, and therefore certainty in the matter is impossible.

It is not to be identified with the extant work upon the same subject (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1. p. 290-293), which is the production of a later writer.

8 This work and the following have entirely disappeared, but mene genuine productions of Justin, for all that we know to the conrary.

_ 1 This is a genuine work of Justin, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1. p.

194-270).

Its exact date is uncertain, but it was written after the Apology (to which it refers in chap. 120), and during the reign of Antoninus Pius (137-161). and is still extant (translated Of Trypho, whom Eusebius characterizes as "'a most distinguished man among the Hebrews," we know nothing beyond what we can gather from the dialogue itself. our second forming simply a supplement to the first.

What, then, has become of the second Apology mentioned by Eusebius?

There 1s much difference of opinion upon this point.

"But the explanation 8 See Dial. chap, 2 sq.

IV. 21.]

THE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN.

the church of Rome, after the latter had held office eleven years in all.

But when Celadion* had presided over the church of Alexandria for fourteen years he was succeeded by Agrippinus.' same things against Trypho: " Not only did you not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but you selected at that time chosen men, and you sent them out from Jerusalem through all the land, to announce that the godless heresy of the Christians had made its appearance, and to accuse them of those things which all that are ignorant of us say against us, so that you become the causes not only of your

CHAPTER XX.

The Rulers of the Church of Antioch. own injustice, but also of all other men's." ®

He writes also that even down to his time prophetic gifts shone in the Church." And he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying distinctly that it was the apostle's." He also refers to certain prophetic declarations, and accuses

Trypho on the ground that the Jews had cut them out of the Scripture." A great many other

At that time also in the church of Antioch, Theophilus! was well known as the sixth from the apostles.

For Cornelius,? who succeeded Hero,* was the fourth, and after him Eros,* the fifth in order, had held the office of bishop.

CHAPTER XXI.

works of his are still in the hands of many

of the brethren.

And the discourses of the man were thought so worthy of study even by the ancients, that Irenzeus quotes his words: for instance, in the fourth book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows ; * " And Justin well says in his work against Marcion, that he would not have believed the Lord himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator' ; and again in the fifth book of.the same work he says:

" And Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord Satan never dared to blaspheme God," because he

The Ecclesiastical Writers that flourished in Those Days.

Ar that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before,! and Dionysius,' bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete,' and besides have been reading on the Lord's day an epistle written to them by Soter.

It was during his episcopate that Montanus labored in Asia.

Minor, and the anonymous author of the work called Predestinatus (written in the middle of the fifth century) states that Soter wrote a treatise against him which was answered by Tertullian, but there seems to be no foundation for the tradition.

Two spurious epistles and several decretals have been falsely ascribed to him.

3 On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18.

4 On Celadion, see above, chap. 11, note 17.

5 Of Agrippinus we know only what Bustin tells us here and in Bk. V. chap. 9, where he says that he held office twelve years.

Jerome's version of the Chroz. agrees as to the duration of his episcopate, but puts his accession in the sixth year of Marcus Aurelius.

In the Armenian version a curious mistake occurs in connection with his name.

Under the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius are found the words, Romanorum eccleste XII. episcopus constitutus est Agrippinus annts [X., and then Eleutherus (under the thirteenth year of the same ruler) is made the thirteenth bishop, while

Victor, his successor, is not numbered, and Zephyrinus, the successor of the latter, is made number fourteen.

It is of course plain enough that the transcriber by an oversight read Komanorum ecclesia instead of Alexandrine ecclest@, and then having given

Soter just phowe! a the eleventh bishop, he felt compelled to make Agrippinus the twelfth, and hence reversed the two numbers, nine and twelve, given in connection with Agrippinus, and made him the twelfth bishop, ruling nine years, instead of the ninth bishop, ruling twelve years.

He then found himself obliged to make Eleutherus the thirteenth, but brought the list back into proper shape again by omitting to number Victor as the fourteenth.

It is hard to understand how a copyist could commit such a flagrant error and not discover it-when he found himself subsequently led into difficulty by it.

It simply shows with what carelessness the work of translation or of transcription was done.

As a result of the mistake no ninth bishop of Alexandria is mentioned, though the proper interval of twelve years remains between the death of Celadion and the accession of Julian. did not yet know his condemnation."

These things I have deemed it necessary to say for the sake of stimulating the studious to peruse his works with diligence. So much concerning him.

CHAPTER XIX.

The Rulers of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria during the Reign of Verus.

In the eighth year of the above-mentioned reign! Soter" succeeded Anicetus* as bishop of 9 7b¢d,. chap. 1711 7hzd. chap. 81.

10 741d. chap. 82.

12 76z¢d, chap. 71.

18 Of the many extant and non-extant works attributed to Justin by tradition, all, or the most of them (except the seven mentioned by Eusebius, and the work Agaznst Marcion, quoted by Irenzus,

—see just below, —and the Syntagma Contra omnes Her.), are the productions of later writers.

1 On Theophilus and his writings, see chap. 24.

2 Of the life and character of Cornelius and Eros we know nothing.

The Chron. of Eusebius puts the accession of Cornelius into the twelfth year of Trajan (128 a.D.), and-the accession of his successor Eros into the fifth year of Antoninus Pius (142).

These dates, however, are quite unreliable, and we have no means of correcting them (see Harnack's Zezt des Ignatius, p.12sqq.).

Theophilus, the successor of Eros, we have reason to think became bishop about the middle of Marcus Aurelius' reign, and hence the 14 Treneus, Adv. Her. IV. 6. 2. f 15 Trenzus, V. 26.2.

Irenzus does not name the work which he quotes here, and the quotation occurs in none of Justin's extant works, but the context and the sense of the quotation itself seem to point to thesame work, Agazust Marcion.

| 16 Epiphanius expresses the same thought in his Her. XXXIX. 9.

1 The reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus mentioned at the end of chap. 14.

2 As was remarked in chap. 11, note 18, Anicetus held office until 165 or 167, i.e. possibly until the seventh year. of Marcus

Aurelius.

The date therefore given here for the accession of Soter is at least ayear out of the way.

The Armenian Chron. puts his accession in the 236th Olympiad, i.e. the fourth to the seventh year of this reign, while the version of Jerome puts it in the ninth year.

Chron., which puts his accession into the ninth year of that reign, (169 A.D.) cannot be far out of the way.

This gives us the approximate date for the death of Eros.

3 On Hero, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 23.

4 On Eros, see note 2.

1 On Hegesippus' life and writings, see the next chapter.

He has been already mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 23; Bk. III. chaps. rz, 16, 20, 32; and Bk. IV. chap. 8.

2 On the life and writings of Dionysius, see below, chap. 23.

3 On Pinytus, see below, chap. 23, note 14.

From Bk. V. chap. x we learn that he held office eight years, and this is the figure given by both versions of the Chron.

In chap.

23 Eusebius quotes from a letter of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, addressed to Soter, in which he remarks that the Corinthian church

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

ON Gest From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from apostolic tradition." these, Philip,t and Apolinarius,' and Melito,' and Musanus,' and Modestus,' and finally, Irenzeus.?

* On Philip, see below, chap. 25.

5 On Apolinarius, see below, chap. 27.

6 On Melito, see chap: 26.

7 On Musanus, see chap. 28.

8 On Modestus, see chap. 25.

9 Trenzeus was born in Asia Minor, probably between the years 120 and 130.

There is great uncertainty as to the date of his birth, some bringing it down almost to the middle of the second century, while Dodwell carried it back to the year 97 or ae But these extremes are wild; and a careful examination of all the sources which can throw any light on the subject leads to the conclusion adopted by Lipsius, and stated above.

In Asia Minor he was a pupil of Polycarp (cf. the fragment of Irenzus' letter to Florinus, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 20), The Moscow MS. of the Martyrzum Polycarpz states that Irenzeus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's martyrdom (155 or 156 A.D.), and appeals for its authority to a statement in Irenzus' own writings, which does not exist in any extant work, but may have been taken from an authentic work now lost

CHAPTER - XXII.

Hegestppus and the Events which he mentions.

Hecesippus in the five books of Memoirs'

which have come down to us kas left a most complete record of his own views.

In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all.

It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

His words are as follows: "And the church

of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus? was bishop in Corinth.

I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.

And when I had come to Rome I remained

there until Anicetus,? whose deacon was (cf. Gebhardt, in the Zestschrift fiir dze hist. Theologie, 1875, p. 362 sqq-)- But whatever truth there may be in the report, we find him, at the time of the great persecution of Lyons and Vienne (described in the next book, chap. 1), a presbyter of the church at Lyons, and carrying a letter from the confessors of that church to the bishop

Eleutherus of Rome (see Bk. V. chap. 4).

After the death of Pothinus, which took place in 177 (see Bk. V. Jr@ef. note 3, and chap. 1, § 29), Irenzeus became bishop of Lyons, according to Bk. V. chap. 5.

The exact date of his accession we do not know; but as Pothinus died during the persecution, and Irenzus was still a presbyter after the close of the persecution in which he met his death, he cannot have succeeded immediately.

Since Irenzeus, however, was, according to Eusebius, Pothinus' next successor, no great length of time can have elapsed between the death of the latter and the accession of the former.

At the time of the paschal controversy, while Victor was bishop of Rome, Irenzeus was still bishop (according to Bk. V. chap. 23).

This was toward the close of the second century.

His death ts ordirfarily put in the year 202 or 203, on the assumption that he suffered martyrdom under Septimius Severus.

Jerome is the first to call him a martyr, and that not in his de v7. 7//., but in his Comment. in Esaiam (chap. 64), which was written some years later.

It is quite pect that he confounded the Irenzus in question with another of the same name, who met his death in the persecution of Diocletian.

Gregory of Tours first gives us a detailed account of the martyrdom, and in the Middle Ages Irenzeus always figured asa martyr.

But all this has no weight at all, when measured against the ieee of Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and all the earlier Fathers.

Their silence must be accepted as conclusive evidence that he was not a martyr; and if he was not, there is no reason for assigning his death to the year 202 or 203.

As we have no trace of him, however, subsequent to the time of the paschal controversy, it is probable that he died, at the latest, soon after the beginning of the third century. see below, Bk. V. chap. 24, note 13.

Other epistles upon the same subject are referred to by Eusebius at the close of the same chapter

(see note 2t on that chapter).

In Bk. V. chap. 26, Eusebius mentions four other works of Irenzeus (see notes on that chapter).

In addition to the works referred to by Eusebius, there are extant a number of fragments which purport to be from other works of Irenzus.

Some of them are undoubtedly genuine, others not.

Upon these fragments and the works to which they belong, see Harvey's edition Gf ieeascust works, II. p. 431 sq-, and Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. article Jreneus, p. 265 sqq.

The best edition of Irenzeus' works is that of Harvey (Cambridge, 1857, in 2 vols.).

In connection with this edition, see Loof's important article on Jreneushandschriften, in Kirchengeschichtliche

Studien, p. 1-93 (Leipziz, 1888).

The literature on Irenzus is very extensive (for a valuable list, see Schaff's Ch. Azsé. II. 746), but a {ull and complete biography is greatly to be desired.

Lipsius' article, referred to just above, is especially valuable.

_ Irenzus was the most important of the polemical writers of antiquity, and his works formed a storehouse from which all subsequent herestographers drew. He is quoted very frequently by Eusebius as an authority for events which happened during the second century, and is treated by him with the most profound respect as one of the greatest writers of the early Church.

Jerome devotes an unusually long chapter of his de wzr. z7/. to him (chap. 35), but tells us nothing that is not found in Eusebius' Hzstory.

His greatest work, and the only one now extant, is hisEAeyyos kal avatpom) THS Wevdwvdnov yvwoews, which is commonly cited under the brief title mpods 'Acpégets, or Adversus Hereses ("' Against Heresies").

It consists of five books, and is extant only in a very ancient and literal Latin translation; though the numerous extracts made from it by later writers have preserved for us the original Greek of nearly the whole of the first book and many fragments of the others.

There are also extant numerous fragments of an ancient Syriac version of the work.

It was written — or at least the third book was — while Eleutherus was bishop of Rome, i.e. between 174 and 189 (see Bk. III. chap. 3, § 3, of the-work itself).

We are not able to fix the date of its composition more exactly.

The author's primary object was to refute Valentinianism (cf. Bk. I. bref, and Bk. IIT. Aref), but in connection with that subject he takes occasion to say considerable about other related heresies.

The sources of this great work have been carefully discussed by Lipsius, in his' Quellenkritik des EptPhanios, and in his Quellen der dltesten Ketzergeschichte, and by Harnack in his Quellenkrittk der Geschichte des Gnosticrsmus (see also the article by Lipsius mentioned below).

Of the other works of Irenzus, many of which Eusebius refers to, only fragments or bare titles have been preserved.

Whether he ever carried out his intention (stated in Adv. Her. I. 27. 4, and III.

12. 12) of writing a special work against Marcion, we cannot tell Eusebius mentions this intention in Bk. V. chap. 20; and in Bk. IV. chap. 25 he classes Irenzeus among the authors who had written eck Marcion.

But we hear nothing of the existence of the work from Irenzeus' successors, and it is possible that Eusebius is think. ing in chap.

25 only of the great work Adv. Her.

For a notice of Irenzeus' epistle On Schism, addressed to Blastus, and the one O»

Sovereignty, addressed to Florinus, see Bk. V. chap. 20, notes 3 and 3; and on his treatise On the Ogdoad, see the same chapter note 4, On his epistle to Victor in regard to the paschal dispute,

10 by Kai cls nuas THS amogTOALKAS mapaddcems, 7 THs VyLovs migtews eyypahos KaTnAGev dpAodogia, Compare chap, 14, § 4.

1 The five books of Hegesippus, vropuv7jmarta or Memoirs, are unfortunately lost; but a few fragments are preserved by Eusebius, and one by Photius, which have been collected by Routh, Rel. Sac.

I. 205-219, and by Grabe, Spiczlegtumnzt, 11. 203-214. This work has procured for him from some sources the title of the "Father of Church History," but the title is misplaced, for the work appears to have been nothing more than a collection of reminiscences covering the apostolic and post-apostolic ages, and drawn partly from written, partly from oral sources, and in part from his own observation, and quite without chronological order and historical completeness.

We know of no other works of his.

Of Hegesippus himself we know very little.

He apparently wrote his work during the episcopate of Eleutherus (175-189 a.D.), for he does not name his successor. How old he was at that time we do not know, but he was very likely a man past middle life, and hence was probably born early in the second centu:

With this, his own statement in the passage quoted by Eusebius, in chap. 8, that the deification of Antinoiis took place in his own day is quite consistent.

The words of Jerome (de vir. zl. 22), who calls him a wécznus apostolicorum temporum, are too indefinite to give us any light, even if they rest upon any authority, as they probably do not. The journey which is mentioned in this chapter shows that his home must have been somewhere in the East, and there is no reason to doubt that he was a Hebrew

Christian (see below, note 16).

* Of this Primus we know only what Hegesippus tells us here, We do not know the exact date of his episcopate, but it must have been at least in part synchronous with the episcopate of Pius of Rome (see chap. rr, note 14), for it was while Hegesippus was on his way to Rome that he saw Primus: and since he remained in Rome until the accession of Anicetus, he must have arrived there while Pius, Anicetus' predecessor, was bishop, for having gone to Rome on a visit, he can hardly have remained there a number of years.

8 The interpretation of this sentence is greatly di Greek reads in all the MSS. yevduevos 82 ty Pus ee "Aa

Taunv MexXpis *Avixyrou, and this reading is confirmed by the Syriac

IV.22,9

HEGESIPPUS.

He also was sprung from the seven sects ® among the people, like Simon,' from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius,® from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus,® from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthzeus," from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus," from whom came the Masbotheans.

From them sprang the Menandrianists," and Marcionists," and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians.

Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion.

From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his

Christ.'""

The same writer also records the

ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: 'There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel.

The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ:

Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobapmade bishop, began to corrupt it.

Eleutherus.

And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus.

In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord."

ginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words:

'' And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas,* was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

The same author also describes the be- "Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain dis-

courses.

But Thebuthis,® because he was not version (according to Lightfoot).

If these words be accepted as authentic, the only possible rendering seems to be the one which has been adopted by many scholars:

"' Being in Rome, I composed a catalogue of bishops down to Anicetus." This rendering is adopted also by Lightfoot, who holds that the list of Hegesippus is reproduced by Epiphanius in his Panarium XXVII. 6 (see his essay in The Academy, May 27, 1887, where this theory is broached, and compare the writer's notice of it in Harnack's Theol. Lit. Zertung 1887, No. 18). But against this rendering it must be said, first, that it is very difficult to translate the words diadoxhv éexornoduny, "1 composed a catalogue of bishops," for 6a50x7 nowhere else, so far as t am aware, means "catalogue," and nowhere else does the expression dtadoyyv movetcGar occur.

Just below, the same word signifies " succession,"' and this is its common meaning.

Certainly, 6 The seven sects are mentioned by Hegesippus just below.

Harnack maintains that Hegesippus in his treatment of heresies used two sources, one of them being the lost Sy#tagma of Justin

(see his Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 37 sqq.).

_Lipsius, who in his Ouelien der Ketzergesch. combats many of Harnack's positions, thinks it possible that Hegesippus say have had Justin's Syntagma before him. if Hegesippus wished to say that he had composed a catalogue of bishops, he could not have expressed himself more obscurely.

In the second place, if Hegesippus had really composed a catalogue of bishops and referred to it here, how does it happen that Eusebius, who is so concerned to ascertain the succession of bishops in all the leading sees nowhere gives that catalogue, and nowhere even refers

7 Simon Magus (see Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3).

8 Cleobius is occasionally mentioned as a heretic by ecclesiastical writers, but none of them seems to know anything more about him than is told here by Hegesippus (see the article C/eodzxs in the eee Christ. Biog.). to it.

He does give Irenzus' catalogue of the Roman bishops in Bk. V. chap. 6, but gives no hint there that he knows anything of a similar list composed by Hegesippus.

In fact, it is very difficult to think that Hegesippus, in this passage, can have meant to say that he had composed a catalogue of bishops, and it is practically impos-

Trustworthy 'piston in regard to Dositheus is very scanty, but it is probable that he was one of the numerous Samaritan false messiahs, and lived at about the time of, or possibly before, Christ.

"It seems likely that the Dositheans were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic sect, something akin to the Essenes, existing from before our Lord's time, and that the stories connecting their founder with Simon Magus and with John the Baptist [see the Clementine Recognitions, Il. 8 and Homilzes, II. 24], may be dismissed as merely mythical" (Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. art, Dositheus). sible to believe that Eusebius can have understood him to mean that.

But the words dvadoxhnv éexcernoduny, if they can be made to mean anything at all, can certainly be made to mean nothing else than the composition of a catalogue, and hence it seems necessary to make some correction in the text.

It is significant that Rufinus at this point reads Jermansi 2b, which shows that he at least did not understand Hegesippus to be speaking of a list of bishops.

Rufinus' rendering gives us a hint of what must have stood in the original from which he drew, and so Savilius, upon the margin of his.MS., substituted for dvaSoxhv the word dvarpiByv, probably simply as a conjecture, but possibly upon the authority of some other MS. now

10 Epiphanius and Theodoret also mention the Goratheni, but apparently knew no more about them than Hegesippus tells us here,

Epiphanius classing them among the Samaritans, and Theodoret deriving them from Simon Magus.

The name Masbotheus is supported by no MS. authority, but is iven by Rufinus and by Nicephorus, and is adopted by most editors.

The majority of the MSS. read simply MacBw@ator. or MacBu@ecor, Just below, Hegesippus gives the Masbotheans as one of the seven

Jewish sects, while here he says they were derived from them.

This contradiction Harnack explains by Hegesippus' use of two different sources, an unknown oral or written one, and Justin's Syxtagma.

The list of heresies given here he maintains stood in jonas Syntagma, but the derivation of them from the seven Jewish sects cannot have been Justin's work, nor can the list of the seven sects have been made by Justin, for he gives quite a different list in his Dzalogue, chap. 80. Lipsius, p. 25, thinks the repetition of the ''

Masbotheans " is more easily explained as a mere oversight or accident.

The Apostolic Const. V1. 6 name the Masbotheans among Jewish sects, describing them as follows: ''The Basmotheans, who deny providence, and say that the world is ruled by spontaneous motion, and take away the immortality of the soul."

From what source this description was taken we do not know, and cannot decide as to its reliability.

Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ. Brog.) remarks that "our real knowledge is limited to the occurrence of the name in Hegesippus, and there is no reason to think that any of those who have undertaken to explain it knew any more about the matter than ourselves." lost.

He has been followed by some editors, including Heinichen, who prints the word é:arp.Byy in the text.

Val. retains dvadoxHv in his text, but accepts d:arpiByy as the true reading, and so translates, This reading is now very widely adopted; and it, or some other word with the same meaning, in all probability stood in the original text.

In my notice of Lightfoot's article, I suggested the word diaywyyv, which, while not so common as dcatpiByv, is yet used with moveco@a: in the same sense, and its very uncommonness would account more easily for the change to the much commoner d.adoxnv, which is epigraphically so like it.

'The word méxpt is incorrectly translated apud by Valesius, who reads, manst apud Anicetum.

He is followed by Crusé, who translates "'I made my stay with Anicetus"; but wexp+ can mean only ''until." Hegesippus therefore, according to his own statement, came to Rome before the accession of Anicetus and remained there until the latter became bishop.

See chap. rz, note 19, for the relation of this statement to that of Eusebius.

For particulars in regard to Anicetus, see chap. 11, note 18; on Soter, see chap. 19, note 2, and on Eleutherus, Bk. V. Preface, note 2.

4 See Bk. III. chap. x1, note 4.

4s Aca todro.

Valesius proposes to read méxpt TovTov, which certainly makes better sense and. which finds some support in the statement made by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 32, § 7But all the MSS, have 51a vovr0, and, as Stroth remarks, the illogical use of "' therefore" at this point need not greatly surprise us in view of the general looseness of Hegesippus' style.

The phrase is perhaps used proleptically, with a reference to what follows.

122 On Menander and the Menandrianists, see Bk. II. chap, 26; on the Carpocratians, chap. 7, note 17; on the Valentinians, see chap. 11, note 1; on the Basilidzans, chap. 7, note 7; on the Saturnilians, chap. 7, note 6.

13 There is some dispute about this word.

The Greek is Mapxtavigrat, which Harnack regards as equivalent to Mapxiwriotat, or "followers of Marcion," but which Lipsius takes to mean "' followers of Marcus."

The latter is clearly epigraphically more correct, but the reasons for reading in this place Marcionites, or followers of Marcion, are strong enough to outweigh other considerations (see

Harnack, p. 31 ff. and Lipsius, p. 29 ff.).

5 Of Thebuthis we know only what is told us here.

The statement that he became a heretic eee he was not chosen bishop has about as much foundation as most reports of the kind.

It was uite common for the Fathers to trace back the origin of schisms to this cause (compare e.g. Tertullian's Adv. Vad. 4, and De Baft.17).

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[EV. 22. tists, Masbothzeans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Phar-

CHAPTER XXIII.

isees." 4

And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places.

And from the Syriac Gospel according to the| Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue," showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, and the Epistles which he wrote.

AND first we must speak of Dionysius,

who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he wrote to the churches.

Among these is

the one addressed to the Lacedzmonians,? containing instruction in the orthodox faith and an admonition to peace and unity ; the one also addressed to the Athenians, exciting them to faith and to the life prescribed by the Gospel, which he accuses them of esteeming lightly, as if they had almost apostatized from the faith since the martyrdom of their ruler Publius,' which had taken place during the persecutions of those days.

He mentions Quadra-

tus* also, stating that he was appointed their bishop after the martyrdom of Publius, and testifying that through his zeal they were brought together again and their faith revived.

He records, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite,® as taken from the unwritten tradition of the

Jews. And not only he, but also Irenzeus and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom." And when speaking of the books called

Apocrypha, he records that some of them were composed in his day by certain heretics.

But let us now pass on to another.

14 These are the seven Jewish heresies mentioned above by Hegesippus.

Justin (Dra/. chap. 80) and Epiphanius (Anaceph.) also name seven Jewish sects, but they are not the same as those mentioned here (those of Justin: Sadducees, Genistz, Meriste,

Galileans, Hellenianians, Pharisees, Baptists).

Epiphanius (Vol. I.

. 230, Dindorf's ed., —Samaritan sects 4: Gorothenes, ZeBovaior, Essenes, Dositheans; Jewish 7: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists, "Ocgato., Nazarenes, Herodians).

See Jess, in the Zeztschr. fiir hist. Theol. 1865, p. 45 sq15 The exact meaning of this sentence is very difficult to determine.

The Greek reads: éx Te Tod Kad' 'EBpaiovs evayyeAiov Kat TOV Zupraxod Kal tdiws ex THs 'EBpaidos dtadékrov tiva TiOnow.

It vis grammatically necessary to supply evayyeAiov after Zupraxod, -and this gives us a Syriac gospel in addition to the Hebrew.

Some have concluded that Tatian's Diatessaron is meant by it, but this will not do; for, as Handmann remarks, the fact that Hegesippus

'quotes from the work or works referred to is cited as evidence that he was a Hebrew.

Hilgenfeld supposes that the Chaldao syroque -scriptum evangelium secundum Hebr@os, which Jerome mensage (cf. e.g. Justin Martyr's D7a/. c. 129, and Melito, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 26, below).

For further particulars, see especially Lightfoot's edition of the epistles of Clement of Rome, p. 164. tions, is referred to, and that the first-named evayyéAvov Kad'

"E8paious is a Greek translation, while the ro Supiaxdy represents -the original; so that Hegesippus is said to have used both the original and the translation.

Eusebius, however, could not have made "the discovery that he used both, unless the original and the transla1 Eusebius speaks, in this chapter, of seven Catholic epistles, and of one addressed to an individual.

None of these epistles are now extant, though Eusebius here, and in Bk. II. chap. 25, gives us four brief but interesting fragments from the Epistle to the Romans.

We know of the other epistles only what Eusebius tells us in this chapter, That Dionysius was held in high esteem as a writer of epistles to the churches is clear, not only from Eusebius' statement, but also from the fact that heretics thought it worth while to circulate interpolated and mutilated copies of them, as stated below. The fact that he wrote epistles to churches so widely scattered shows that he possessed an extended reputation. tion differed in their contents, of which we have no hint, and which in itself is quite improbable.

As the Greek reads, however, there is no other explanation possible, unless the 7d Zvpiaxdy evayyéArov be taken to represent some other unknown Hebrew gospel, in which case the following clause refers to the citations from both of the gospels.

That such a gospel existed, however, and was referred to by usebius so casually, as if it were a well-known work, is not conceiyable. The only resource left, sp far a's the writer can discover, is to amend the text, with Eichhorn, Nicholson, and Handmann, by striking out the first kai.

The tod Supraxod then becomes a description of the evayyeAtov xa6' 'EBpaious, " The Syriac:Gospel according to the Hebrews."

By the Syriac we are to understand, of course, the vulgar dialect, which had: before the time of Christ taken the place of the Hebrew, and which is ordinarily called Aramaic.

Eusebius then, on this interpretation, first qualifies the Gospel of the Hebrews more exactly, and then adds that Hegesippus quotes from the Hebrew original of it (é« ts 'EBpaiSos Stadéxrov), and not from a translation; e.g. from the Greek translation, which we know existed early.

There is, to be sure, no MS. authority for the alteration of the text, and yet the sense of the passage seems to demand it, and I have consequently omitted the «ai in my translation. Upon the interpretation of the passage, see Handmann's Hebriier-Evangelium, p.

32 ff., and upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see above, Bk, III. chap. 25, note 24, and chap, 27, note 8.

Of the himself (who is, without foundation, called.a martyr by the Greek Chutch, and a confessor by the Latin Church) we know only what we are told by Eusebius, A 27) adds nothing to the account given in this chapter. usebius mentions Dionysius in connection wit of Marcus Aurelius. According to Eusebius' statement in this same chapter, Dionysius' Epistle to the Romans was addressed to the bishop Soter, and as Eusebius had the epistle before him, there is no reason for doubting his report.

Soter was bishop from about 167 to 175 (see above, chap. 19, note 4), and therefore the statements of the Chron. and the History are in accord.

When Dionysius died we do not know, but he was no longer living in 199, for Bacchylus was bishop of Corinth at that time (see Bk. V. chap. 22).

It is commonly said that Dionysius was the immediate successor of Primus, bishop of Corinth.

This may be true, but we have no ground for the assumption.

We know only that Primus' episcopate was synchronous, at least in part, with that of Pius of Rome (see the previous chapter, note 2; who was bishop from about 139 or 141 to 154 or x56, and that Dionysius' episcopate was synchronous at least in part with that of Soter of Rome (about 167 to 175). xr Jerome (de v7r. zl.

In his Chron. the eleventh year 16 Eusebius had abundant opportunity to learn from Hegesippus' works whether or not he was a Hebrew Christian, and hence we cannot doubt that his conclusion in regard to Hegesippus' nationality

(whether based merely upon the premises given here, or partly upon other facts unknown to us) is correct.

His nationality explains the fact that he deduces the Christian heresies from Jewish, and not, like other writers, from heathen roots.

There is, however, no reason, with Baur and others, to suppose that Hegesippus was a Judaizer.

In fact, Eusebius' respectful treatment of him is in itself conclusive proof that his writings cannot have revealed heretical notions.

2 This is, so far as I am aware, the earliest mention of a church at Lacedzmon or Sparta.

The bishop of Sparta is mentioned in the synodical letter of the province of Hellas to the emperor Leo

(457-477 A-D.), and also still later in the Acts of the Sixth and Eighth General Synods, according to Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church (London ed. p. 134 and 466).

3 Of this Publius we know only what Musebiis tells us here.

What particular persecution is referred to we cannot tell, but Publius' martyrdom seems to have occurred in the reign of Antoninus

Pius or Marcus Aurelius; for he was the immediate predecessor of aeons who was apparently bishop at the time ionysius was writing.

11 This phrase (mavdpetos copia) was very frequently employed among the Fathers as a title of the Book of Proverbs.

Clement of Rome (1 Cor. lvii.) is, so far as I know, the first so to use it. The word mavaperos is applied also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, be Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. § 4) and others.

Among the Fathers the Book of Sirach, the Solomonic Apocrypha, and the Book of Proverbs all bore the common title gopia,

' Wisdom," which well defines the character of each of them; and this simple title

4s commoner than the compound phrase which occurs in this pas_ 4 We know nothing more about this distinguished from the Quadratus, for he is to be prophet and from the apologist (see chap. 3,

L :

J ds bishop at the time Dionysius was writing. note 2). Eusebius' words seem to imply that he was

5 On Dionysius the Areopagite, see Bk. III. chap. 4, note 20.

EV, 233]

DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH.

the parish, not to lay upon the brethren a grievous and compulsory burden in regard to chastity, but to have regard to the weakness of the multitude.

Pinytus, replying to this epistle, ad-

mires and commends Dionysius, but exhorts him in turn to impart some time more solid food, and to feed the people under him, when he wrote again, with more advanced teaching, that they might not be fed continually on these milky doctrines and imperceptibly grow old under a training calculated for children.

In this epistle also Pinytus' orthodoxy in the faith and his care for the welfare of those placed under him, his learning and his comprehension of divine things, are revealed as in a most perfect image. who was converted to the faith by the apostle

Paul, according to the statement in the Acts of the Apostles,° first obtained the episcopate

of the church at Athens.

And there is extant another epistle of his addressed to the Nicomedians,' in which he attacks the heresy of Marcion, and stands fast by the canon of

thetruth.

Writing also to the church that is in Gortyna,® together with the other parishes in Crete, he commends their bishop Philip,® because of the many acts of fortitude which are testified to as performed by the church under him, and he warns them to be on their guard against the aberrations of the heretics.

And writing to the church that is in Amastris,!° together with those in Pontus, he refers to Bacchylides" and Elpistus, as having urged him to write, and he adds explanations of There is extant also another epistlewritten

by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter,® who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle, in which he commends the practice of the Romans which has been retained down to the persecution in our own days.

His words are as follows: " For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children."

In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians,'* showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. passages of the divine Scriptures, and mentions their bishop Palmas" by name.

He gives them much advice also in regard to marriage and chastity, and commands them to receive those who

come back again after any fall, whether it be

delinquency or heresy."* Among these is inserted also another epistle addressed to the Cnosians," in which he exhorts Pinytus, bishop of 6 See Acts xvii.

341 The extent of Dionysius' influence is shown by his writing an -epistle to so distant a church as that of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and pi oe to the churches of Pontus (see below).

The fact that he considers it necessary to attack Marcionism in this epistle to the Nicomedians is an ideation of the wide and rapid spread of that sect, —

-which indeed is known to us from many sources.

8 Gortyna was an important city in Crete, which was early the seat of a bishop.

Tradition, indeed, makes Titus the first bishop of of the church there.

9 Of this Philip, bishop of Gortyna, and a contempora Dionysius, we know only what Eusebius tells us here and in chap.

25.

: 10 Amastris was a city of Pontus, which is here mentioned for the first time as the seat of a Christian church.

Its bishop is referred to frequently in the Acts of Councils during the next few centuries (see

_also note 12, below). ll 11 This Bacchylides is perhaps identical with the Bacchylus who -was afterward bishop of Corinth (Bk. V. chap. 22).

Elpistus is an otherwise unknown personage.

His words are as follows: "To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle.

From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement."

The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated :

" As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote.

And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others."

For them a woe is reserved.

It is, therefore, not to be wondered 12 This Palmas, bishop of Amastris in Pontus, presided as senior bishop over a council of the bishops of Pontus held toward the close of the century on the paschal question (see Bk. V. chap. 23). Nothing more is known of him.

13 It is quite likely, as Salmon suggests (in the Drc?. of Christ.

Biog.), that Dionysius, who wrote against Marcion in this epistle to the Nicomedians, also had Marcionism in view in writing on life and discipline to the churches of Pontus and Crete.

. It was probably in consequence of reaction against their strict discipline that he advocated the readmission to the Church of excommunicated offenders, in this anticipating the later practice of the Roman church, which was introduced by Cailixtus and soon afterward became eneral, though not without bitter opposition from many quarters. arnack (Dogmengeschichte, p. 332, note 4) throws doubt upon the correctness of this report of Eusebius; but such doubt is unwarranted, for Eusebius had Dionysius' epistle hefore him, and the position which he represents him as taking is quite in accord with the mildness which he recommends to Pinytus, and is therefore just what we should expect.

The fact that Callixtus' principle is looked upon b Tertullian and Hippolytus as an innovation does not militate at all against the possibility that Dionysius in Corinth, or other indiyiduals in other minor churches, held the same principles some time before.

15 On Soter, see chap. 19, note 2.

This practice of the Roman church combined with other causes to secure it that position of influence and prominence which resulted in the primacy of its bishop, and finally in the papacy.

The position of the Roman church, as well as its prosperity and numerical strength, gave it early a feeling that it was called upon in an especial way to exercise oversight and to care for weaker sister churches, and thus its own good offices helped to promote its influence and its

14 Cnossus, or Cnosus, was the capital city of Crete.

This epistle is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about Pinytus himself except what is told us here and in chap. 21, above, where he is mentioned among the ecclesiastical writers of the day. ioe (de vtr. zl. 28) only repeats what Eusebius says, and stating that Pinytus was convinced by the epistle of ufinus, in } v Dionysius and changed his course, seems simply to have misunderstood what Eusebius says c '

Dionysius.

It is evident from the tone of his reply that Pinytus was not led by Dionysius' epistle to agree with him, ower. powie On Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, see Bk. III. chap. 16. about his admiration for and praise of 17 See above, note 1.

18 Compare Rev. xxii. 18.

THE CHURCH. HISTORY OF CEUSEBIUS.

[ive 233 three elementary works addressed to Autolycus are extant; also another writing entitled Against the Heresy of Hermogenes,' in which he makes use of testimonies from the Apocalypse of John, and finally certain other catechetical books.*

And as the heretics, no less then than at

other times, were like tares, destroying the pure harvest of apostolic teaching, the pastors of the churches everywhere hastened to restrain them as wild beasts from the fold of Christ, at one time by admonitions and exhortations to the brethren, at another time by contending more openly against them in oral discussions and refutations, and again by correcting their opinions with most accurate proofs in written works.

And that Theophilus also, with

the others, contended against them, is manifest from a certain discourse of no common merit written by him against Marcion.'

This. work too, with the others of which we have spoken, has been preserved to the present day. at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings also," since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less account.'"'""

There is extant, in addition to these, another epistle of Dionysius, written to Chrysophora," a most faithful sister.

In it he writes what is suitable, and imparts to her also the proper spiritual food.

So much concerning Dionysius.

CHAPTER XXIV.

Theophilus Bishop of Antioch.

Or Theophilus,, whom we have mentioned as bishop of the church of Antioch,?

19 A probable, though not exclusive, reference to Marcion, for he was by no means the only one of that age that interpolated and mutilated the works of the apostles to fit his theories.

Apostolic works —true and false — circulated in great numbers, and were made the basis for the speculations and moral requirements of many of the heretical schools of the second century. ov ToLvavTats.

21 Chrysophora is an otherwise unknown person.

1 Eusebius is the only Eastern writer of the early centuries to mention Theophilus and his writings.

Among the Latin Fathers, Lactantius and Gennadius refer to his work, ad Autolycum ; and Jerome devotes chap. 25 of his de wzr. 2/7. to him. eyond this there is no direct mention of Theophilus, or of his works, during the early centuries (except that of Malalas, which will be referred to below).

Eusebius here calls Theophilus bishop of Antioch, and in chap. 20 makes him the sixth bishop, as does also Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 25.

But in his epistle, ad Algas. (Migne, Ef.

121), Jerome calls him the seventh bishop of Antioch, beginning his reckoning with the apostle Peter.

Eusebius, in his Chroz., puts the accession of Theophilus into the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius

(169); and this may be at least approximately correct.

The accession of his successor Maximus is put into the seventeenth year (177) ; but this date is at least four years too early, for his work, ad A utolycum, quotes from a work in which the death of Marcus Aurelius

Maximinus,' the seventh from the apostles, succeeded him as bishop of the church of Antioch. the falsehood of idolatry and the truth of Christianity.

The author was a learned writer, well acquainted with Greek philosophy; and his literary style is of a high order.

He acknowledges no good in the Greek philosophers, except what they have taken from the Old Testament writers.

The genuineness of the work has been attacked, but without sufficient reason.

From Book II. chap. 30 of his ad Aztol. we learn that Theophilus had written also a work Ox History.

No such work is extant,. nor is it mentioned by Eusebius or any other Father.

Malalas, however, cites a number of times '' The chronologist Theophilus," and it is pow that he used this lost historical work.

It is possible, on the other hand, that he refers to some other unknown Theophilus (see Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. x, p. 292).

(who died in 180) was mentioned, and hence cannot have been written before 18: or 182, We know that his successor, Maximus, became bishop sometime between 189 and 193, and hence Theophilus died between 181 and that time. e have only Eusebius' words (Herome simply repeats Eusebius' statement) for the fact that Theophilus was bishop of Antioch (his extant works do not mention the fact, nor do those who quote from his writings), but there is no good ground for doubting the truth of the report.

We know nothing more about his life.

In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter, Jerome (de vr. ili.) refers to Commentaries upon the Gospel and the book of Proverbs, in the following words:

Legz sub nomine ejus in Evangelium et in Proverbia Salomonts Commentarios gut mtht cum supertorum voluminum elegantia et phrast non videntur congruere.

The commentary upon the Gospel is referred to by Jerome again in the preface to his own commentary on Matthew; and in his epistle, ad Algasiam, he speaks of a harmony of the four

Gospels, by Theophilus (guz guatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens), which may have been identical with the commentary, or may have formed a basis for it.

This commentary is mentioned by none of the Fathers before or after Jerome; and Jerome himself expresses doubts as to its genuineness, or at least he does not think that its style compares with that of the other works ascribed to Theophilus.

Whether the commentary was genuine or not we have no means of deciding, for it is no longer extant.

There is in existence a Latin commentary on the Gaspels in four books, which bears the name of Theophilus, and is published in Otto's

2 In chap. 20, above.

8 This work against Hermogenes is no longer extant.

Harnack (p. 294 ff.) gives strong grounds for supposing that it was the com— mon source from which Tertullian, in his work ad Hermogenem,

Hippolytus, in his PAz?. VIII. ro and X. 24, and Clement of Alex. andria, in his Proph. Selections, 56, all drew.

If this be true, as seems probable, the Hermogenes attacked by these various writers. is one man, and his chief heresy, as we learn from Tertullian and.

Hippolytus, was that God did not create the world out of nothin fe but only formed it out of matter which, like himself, was eiecaaiie existent.

4 These catechetical works (va katyxyntika BrBAia), which were extant in the time of Eusebius, are now lost.

They are mentioned by none of the Fathers except Jerome, who speaks of als? breves elegantesque tractatus ad edificationem Ecclesie erti— nentes as extant in his time.

We know nothing more of their nature than is thus told us by Jerome.

5 This work, which is also now lost, is mentioned b Father except Jerome, who puts it first in his list of writings, but does not characterize it in any way, though he says it was extant in his time.

Irenzeus, in four passages of his great work exhibits striking parallels to Bk. II. chap. 25 of Theophilus' ad

Autol., which have led to the assumption that he knew the latter work.

Harnack, however, on account of the shortness of time which eae between the composition of the ad Axtol, and Irenzus' work, and also on account of the nature of the resemblances between the parallel passages, thinks it improbable that Irenzeus ued oe eae pee oa that he was acquainted rather wi eophilus' work against Marcion i i best with Rene eee ee » a conclusion which accords. no other heophilus'

Corpus Apol. Vol. VIIL. p, 278-324. This was universally regarded as a spurious work until Zahn, in 1883 (in his Forschungen zur

Gesch. des N. T. Canons, Theil II.) made an elaborate effort to rove it a genuine work of Theophilus of Antioch.

Harnack, owever, in his Texte und Unters. I. 4, p. 97-175, has shown conclusively that Zahn is mistaken, and that the extant commentary is nothing better than a Post-Nicene compilation from the works of various Latin Fathers.

Zahn, in his reply to Harnack (forschungen, Theil III. Beilage 3), still maintains that the Commentary is a genuine work of Theophilus, with large interpolations, but there is no adequate ground for such a theory; and it has found few, if any supporters.

We must conclude, then, that if Theophilus did write such a commentary, it is no longer extant. ere, and in Bk. V, chap. 19, § x, Eusebius gives this bi i name as Maximinus.

In the Deas we find eeaaee ry Jerome's version Maximus, though one MS. of the latter gives

Maximinus.

According to the Chron. he became bishop in 177 and was succeeded by Serapion in 190.

As remarked in note 1, above, the former date is incorrect, for Theophilus must have lived at least as late as 181 or 182.

We cannot reach certainty in regard to the date either of his accession or of his death; but if Eusebius'

Statement (in Bk, V. chap. 19), that Serapion was bishop while _ The three books addressed to Autolycus (a heathen friend otherwise unknown to us) are still extant in three Medizval MSS. and have been frequently published both in the original and in translation.

The best edition of the original is that of Otto (Corp. Apol. Vol.

VIII.); English translation by Dods, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. p, 85-121.

The work is an apology, designed to exhibit ommodus was still emperor, is to be believed (see further, Bk. V. which gives us for his episco i pate some part of the period from 181 to.

192, We know no particulars in regard to the life Tf Maximinus.

IV. 26.]

MELITO OF SARDIS.

lw. ne ee eal

CHAPTER XXV.

of Hierapolis, enjoyed great distinction.

Each of them on his own part addressed apologies in behalf of the faith to the above-mentioned emperor® of the Romans who was reigning at that time.

The following, works of these

writers have come to our knowledge.

Of Melito,* the two books On the Passover,' and Philip and Modestus.

Pumie who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius,' was bishop of the parish of Gortyna, likewise wrote a most elaborate work against Marcion,? as did also Irenzus® and Modestus.*

The last named has exposed the error of the -— nSS rise to Montanism and even made Tertullian a Montanist, and yet at the same time he o posed Montanism, and is| therefore spoken of slightingly by Tertullian.

His position, so similar to that of the Montanists, was not in favor with the orthodox theologians of the third century, and this helps to explain why, although he was such a prolific and talented writer, and although he remained orthodox, he nevertheless passed almost entirely out of the memory of the Church of the third and following centuries.

To this is to be added the fact that Melito was a chiliast; and the teachings of the Montaniets brought such disrepute upon chiliasm that the Fathers of the third and following centuries did not show much fondness for those who held or had held these views.

Very few notices of Melito's works are found among the Fathers, and none of those works is to-day extant, Eusebius is the first to give us an idea of the number and variety of his writings, and he does little more than mention the -titles, a fact to be explained only by his lack of sympathy with man more clearly than the rest to the view of all.

There are a number of others also whose works are still preserved by a great many of the brethren.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Melito and the Circumstances which he records.

Melito's views.

The time at which Melito lived is indicated with sufficient exactness by the fact that he wrote his Afology during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but after the death of his rother Lucius, i.e. after 169 (see below, note 21); and that when Polycrates wrote his epistle to Victor of Rome, he had been dead already some years.

It is pee? (as held by Piper, Otto, and others) that his Asology was

In those days also Melito,' bishop of the parish in Sardis, and Apolinarius,' bishop

Peers 6S A Se 1 See above, chap. 23, § 5.

2 Philip's work against Marcion which Eusebius mentions here is no longer extant, and, so far as the writer knows, is mentioned by no other Father except Jerome (de vir. il. 30), who tells us only what Eusebius records here, using, however, the adjective Areclarum for Eusebius' orovéatdtartov. is last work, for Eusebius mentions it last in his list. t the same time, it is quite as possible that Eusebius enumerates Melito's works simply in the order in which he found them arranged in the libra: of Casarea, where he had perhaps seen them.

Of the dates of his episcopacy, and of his predecessors and successors in the see of Sardis, we know nothing.

3 On Irenzus, see above, chap. 21, note 9.

4 Modestus, also, is a writer known to us only from Eusebius (here, and in chap. 21) and from Jerome (de vz7, z//. 32).

According to the latter, the work against Marcion was still extant in his In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius, who does not pretend to give a full list, we find in Anastasius Sinaita's

Hodegos seu dux vie c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled eis Td 7a00s and mepi capxucews xXpeatov (the latter directed against Marcion), which cannot be identified with any mentioned by Eusebius (see Harnack, I. 1, i 254). The Codex Nitriacus Muset

Britannict 12,156 contains four fragments ascribed to Melito, of which the first belongs undoubtedly to his genuine work mepi Wuxys kai gpartos, which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius.

The second purports to be taken from a work, rept otavpod, of which we hear nowhere else, and which may or may not have been by Melito.

The third fragment bears the title Melitonis episcopi de fide, and might be looked upon as an extract from the work epi miaTews, mentioned by Buses (as Otto regards it); but the same fragment is four times ascribed to Irenzus by other early authorities, and an analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of Jrenzus is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack mentions a work, mept migrews, which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Irenezus, and from which the quotation may have been taken (see Harnack, zb2d. p. 266 ff.).

The fourth fragment was taken in all probability from Melito's work, mepi 7a8ovs, mentioned by Anastasius.

An Apology in Syriac, bearing the name of Melito, is extant in another of the Nitrian MSS. in the British Museum day, but he gives us no description of it. He adds, however, that a number of spurious works ascribed to Modestus were in circulation at that time (Feruntur sub nomine ejus et alia syntagmata, sed ab eruditis quast yevddypaea repudiantur).

Neither these nor the genuine works are now extant, so far as we know.

1 The first extant notice of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is found in the letter addressed by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 190202 A:D.) in support of the Quartodeciman practice of the Asia

Minor churches.

A fragment of this letter is given by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24, and_ from it we learn that Melito also favored the Quartodeciman practice, that he was a man whose walk and conversation were altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that he was buried at Sardis.

Polycrates in this fragment calls Melito aeunuch.

Whether the word is to be understood in its literal sense or is to be taken as meaning simply that Melito lived in " virgin continence" is disputed.

In favor of the latter interpretation may be urged the fact that the Greek word and its Latin equivalent were very commonly used by the Fathers in this figurative sense, e.g. by Athenagoras, by Tertullian, by Clement of Alexandria, by Cassianus (whose work on continence bore the title epi éyxparetas,

3 epi evvovxias), by Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 'Gregory Nazianzen, &c. (see Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ.

No. 14,658), and has been published with an English translation by ureton, in his Spzc. Syr. (Pp. arcg2) It has been proved, however, that this Apolo (which we have entire) was not written by Melito, but se sbauly. by 'an inhabitant of Syria, in the latter part of the second, or early part of the third century,

— whether originally in the Greek or Syriac language is unce rtain (see Harnack, p. 261 ff., and Smith and Wace, Vol, III. p. 895).

In addition to the genuine writings, there must be mentioned also some spurious works which are still extant. Two Latin works of the early Middle Ages, entitled de transitu Marta and de passione S. Foannis Evangelista, and also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Bpace ypse, and a Biog., article Melzto, and Suicer's Thesaurus).

On the other hand, such continence cannot have been a rare thing in Asia Minor in the time of Polycrates, and the fact that Melito is called specifically "the eunuch" looks peculiar if nothing more than that is meant by it. The case of Origen, who made himself a eunuch for the sake of preserving his chastity, at once occurs to us in this connection (see Renan, L'égiise chret. p436, and compare Justin Martyr's Apol. 1.29).

The canonical rule that no such eunuch could hhold clerical office came later, and hence the fact that Melito was a bishop cannot be urged against the literal interpretation of the word here.

Polycrates' meaning hardly' admits of an absolute decision, but at least it cannot be looked upon as it is by most historians as certain that he uses the word here in its figurative sense.

Clavis Scripture of the Carlovingian period (see below, note 18), bear in some MSS. the name of Melito.

This fact shows that Melito's name was not entirely forgotten in the Occidental Church of the Middle Ages, though hittle exact knowledge of him seems to have existed, Polycrates says nothing of the fact that Melito was a writer, but we learn from this chapter (§ 4), and from Bk. VI. chap. 13, that Clement of Alexandria, in a lost work, mentioned his writings and even wrote a work in reply to one of his (see below, note 23).

'According to the present chapter he was a very prolific writer, and that he was a man of marked talent is clear from Jerome's words in his de vzr. 7/1. chap. 24 (where he refers to Tertullian's lost work, de Ecstasi): Hujus (i.e. Melitonts| elegans et declamatorium

On Melito and his writings, see Piper's article in the Theol.

Studien und Krittken, 1838, p. 54-154; Salmon's article in Smith and Wace, and especially Harnack's Texte und Unters. Tt; 240-278 The extant fragments of Melito's writings are given in Routh's Rel. Sac. 1. 111-153, and in Otto's Corp. Afpol. 1X. ye

8, and an English translation in the A steNicene Fathers, Vol Ill. p. 750-762.

2 On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.

3 Marcus Aurelius.

4 The following list of Melito's works is at many points very uncertain, owing to the various readings of the MSS. and versions.

We have as authorities for the text, the Greek MSS.' of Eusebius, the History of Nicephorus, the translation of Rufinus, chap. 24 of yen de vir. il., and the Syriac version of this passage of ingentum Tertullianus tn septem libris, guos scripsit adversus ecclesian pro Montano, cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque nostrorum prophetam putari.

In spite of the fact that Tertullian satirized Melito's talent, he nevertheless was greatly influenced by his writings and owed much to them (see the points of contact between the two men given by Harnack, p. 250 sqq.).

The statement that he was regarded by many as a prophet accords well with Polycrates' description of him referred to above.

The indications all point to the fact that Melito was decidedly ascetic in_ his tendencies,

'and that he had a great deal in common with the spirit which gave usebius' Hzstory, which has been printed by Cureton, in his Spzc.

Syr. p. 56 ff.

; maith 5 The quotation from this work given by Eusebius in § 7, per-

THE, CHURGH HISTORY! OF (EUSEBIUS:,

[IV. 26.

On Truth," and On the Creation and Generation of Christ ;* his discourse also On Prophecy, and that On Hospitality ;" still further,

The Key,'* and the books On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John," and the work On the Corporeality of God," and finally the book adone On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets,° the discourse On the Church,' and one On the Lord's Day,' still further one On the Faith of Man,' and one On his Creation," another also

On the Obedience of Faith, and one On the Senses ;" besides these the work On the Soul and Body," and that On Baptism," and the one finally, a fact which seems to me decisive, but which has apparently hitherto escaped notice, that the vods follows instead of precedes the gwa7os, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book. haps enables us to fix approximately the date at which it was written.

Rufinus reads Sergius Paulus, instead of Servilius Paulus, which is found in all the Greek MSS. Sergius Paulus is known to have had his second consulship in 168, and it is inferred by Waddington that he was proconsul about 164 to 166 (see Fastes des provinces Astatiques, chap. 2, § 148).

No Servilius Paulus is known in connection with the province of Asia, and hence it seems probable that Rufinus is correct; and if so, the work onthe Passover was written early in the sixties.

The fragment which Eusebius gives in this chapter is the only part of his work that is extant.

It was undoubtedly in favor of the Quartodeciman practice, for Polycrates, who was a decided Quartodeciman, cites Melito in support of his position. ak P © The exact reading at this point is disputed.

I read, with a number of MSS., 79 mepi modrteias Kai mpopytav, making but one work, On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets. _Many MSS., followed by Valesius, Heinichen, and Burton, read ra instead of 76, thus making either two works (one Oz the Conduct of Life, and the other Ox the Prophets), or one work containing more than one book, Rufinus translates de optinza conversatione liber unus, sed et de prophetis, and the Syriac repeats the preposition, as if it read kal wepi_modttelas Kat mept mpopyt@v.

It is not quite certain whether Rufinus and the Syriac thought of two works in translating thus, or of only one.

Jerome translates, de vita prophetarum icon unune, and in accordance with this translation Otto proposes to na. Tov mpohyToy instead of kai mpodytav.

But this is supported by no MS, authority, and cannot be accepted.

13 6 wept Aovtpov; Jerome, de dbaptismate.

14 Apolinarius (according to chap. 27) also wrote a work Ox Truth, and the place which it holds in that list, between an fee getical work addressed to the Greeks and one addressed to the ews, makes it probable that it too bore an apologetic character, being: perhaps devoted to showing that Christianity is pre-eminently the truth.

Melito's work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character, as suggested by Salmon.

; [ 16 Six MSS., with Nicephorus, read xricews, "creation," but: five MSS., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read miotews.

The latter reading therefore has the strongest external. testimony in its favor, but must be rejected (with troth, Otto,.

Heinichen, Harnack, etc.) as evidently a dogmatic correction of the fourth century, when there was an objection to the use of the word:

«tigts in connection with Christ.

Rufinus divides the one work On the Creation and Generation of Christ into two,— On Faith and On the Generation of Christ and his prophecy, connecting the second with the next-mentioned work. 5 ates omits the first clause entirely at this point, and translates simply de foriraivne

Christ brad unum.

The de fide, however, which he inserts. earlier in his list, where there is no corresponding word in the Greek,, may be the title which he omits here (see above, note 9), displaced, as the title de sexszbus is also displaced.

If this be true, he becomes with Rufinus and the Syriac a witness to the reading micrews instead' of xricews, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.

No fragments of this work are extant.

7 0 mepi éxxAnoias.

Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.

8 © wept Kuptaxns Adyos.

Jerome, de Dia Dominica librum ununi, ; 9 Valésius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the MSS., read epi picews avOpimov, On the Nature of Man.

Four important MSS., however, read mepi ricrews avOpumov, and this reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac; whether b 'fevers also, as claimed by Harnack, is uncertain, for he omits both this work and the one Ox the Obedience of Faith, given just below, and mentions a de fide Librum unum, which does not occur in Eusebius' list, and which may have arisen through mistake from either of the titles given by Eusebius, or, as seems more probable, may have been derived from the title of the work mentioned below, Ox the Creation and Generation of Christ, as remarked in note 15.

If this supposition be correct, Jerome omits all reference to this work mepi mictews avOpirov.

The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage miorews is better supported by tradition than ¢vcews, and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.

16 All the Greek MSS. read kai Adyos abtod mepi mpopnteias, which can rightly mean only "his work on Prophecy"; but Jerome: translates de prophetia sua librum unum, and Rufinus de prophetia ejus, while the Syriac reads as if there stood in the Greek Tept

Adyou THs mpodyteias avtov.

All three therefore connect the avrod with the mpodyreias instead of with the Adyos, which of course is: much more natural, since the avrov with the Adyos seems quite unnec-. essary at this point.

The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require wept rpodyteias avtod or TEpt THS avtod mpopyrteias, and there is no sign that the avrop originally stood in such connection with the mpodyreias.

We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.

7 epi pidogevias.

After this title a few of the MSS., with Ru-. finus and the Syriac, add the words kai Tepl Wuxs Kal cwpmaTos, a repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12),

18 y KAcis; Jerome, et alfum ibrum gut Clavts inscribitur.

The word is omitted in the Syriac version.

The nature of this worle we have no means of determining.

It is possible that it was a key' to the interpretation of the Scriptures, designed to guide the reader in the study especially of the figures of the prophecies (cf. Otto, p.

4or) and of the Apocalypse.

Piper is right, however, in saying that it cannot have been intended to supply the allegorical meaning of Scripture words, like the extant Latin Clavzs of Pseudo-Melito, mentioned just below; for Melito, who like Tertullian taught the corporeality of God, must have been very literal

— not allegorical — in his interpretation of Scripture.

A Latin work bearing the title Melttonts Clavis Sancte Scripture was mentioned by Labbe in 1653 as contained in the library of Clermont College, and after years of search was recovered and published by Pitra in 1855 in his Scr. leg.

.¢ esm. Vols. Il. and III.

He regarded the work as a translation, though with interpolations, of the genuine KAeés of Melito, but this hypothesis has been completely disproved (see the article by Steitz in the Studzen und Kritiken, 1857, p. 184 sqq.), and the work has been shown to be nothing more than a medizval dictionary

10 0 wept wAdcews.

Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.

11 All the Greek MSS. combine these two titles into one, reading 6 mepi VraKofs micTews aic@nrnpiwy: "On the subjection (or obedzence) of the senses to faith."

This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads 6 rept UraKkons migTews, Kal & TepL aig@ntnpiwv, and Rufinus translates, de obed?entia fidet, de senstbus, both of them making two works, as I have done in the text. eros leaves the first part untranslated, and reads only de senstbus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words

© mept UraKxons (or axoys) mioTews, omitting the second clause.

Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read 6 epi raxoys TioTEws, & Tepi aic@nrnpiwy, concluding that the words 6 wepi after ticrews have fallen out of the Geek text.

I have adopted this reading in my translation.

12 A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek MSS. read 6 mept Wuxis Kal cdparos i vods, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the ¥ vods entirely,

Nicephorus and two of the Greek MSS. meanwhile read hv ev ols which is evidently simply a corruption of # vods, so that the Greek

MSS. are unanimous for this reading.

Otto, Crusé, and Salmon read kai vods, but there is no authority for cai instead of 7, and the change cannot be admitted.

The explanation which Otto gives (p376) of the change of 4 to xai will not hold, as Harnack shows on p247, note 346.

It seems to me certain that the words 7 vods did not stand in the original, but that the word vods (either alone or preceded by % or kai) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to Wuxis, perhaps as an addition in the Interest of trighotomy, and was later inserted in the text after Wuyis and THuaros, under the impression that it was an alternative title of the book.

|My reasons for this opinion are the a reement of the Versions in th omission of vods, the impossibility o} explaining the 7 before vods i the original text, the fact that in the Greek MSS. in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words kat mepi Wuyfs Kai oépmaros are repeated fukther down in the list, —a repetition which H thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting vods confirms the omission of it in the pre

Scripture, compiled from the Latin of allegorical interpolations of Fathers.

There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito's Key.

19 All the Greek MSS. read kai ra Tept TOD dtaBOAov, Kal THs amrokahiyrews "Iwdvvov, making but one work, with two or more books, upon the general subject, The Devil and the Apocalypse of Fohn.

The Syriac apparently agrees with the Greek in this respect (see:

Harnack, p. 248, note 350); but Jerome and Rufinus make two works, the latter reading de diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypst

Foannts librum ununt.

Origen, 7 Psalm. III. (ed. Lommatzsch,, I. p. 4rr), says that Melito treated Absalom as a type of the devil warring against the kingdom of Christ.

It has been conjectured that the reference may be to this work of Melito's, and that reference

1s an argument for the supposition that Melito treated the devil and. the Apocalypse in' one work (cf. Harnack, p. 248, and Smith and Wace, Pp. 898).

20 6 mrepi évowpdrou Beod, Jerome does not translate this phrase, but simply gives the Greek.

Rufinus renders de deo cor ore in— auto, thus understanding it to refer to the incarnation of God, and the Syriac agrees with this rendering, But as Harnack rightly remarks, we should expect, if this were the author's meaning, the words mepi evawmarurews Geov, or rather Adyov, Moreover, Origen

IV. 26.]

MELITO'S APOLOGY.

feotd i eae eae aca eee e aaa c cna ass e nil SneRP SRR which, he says, he wrote on occasion of Melito's work.

But in his book addressed

to the emperor he records that the following events happened to us under him:

" For, what never before happened," the race of the pious is now suffering persecution, being driven about in Asia by new decrees.

For the shameless informers and coveters of the property of others, taking occasion from the decrees, openly carry on robbery night and day, despoiling those who are guilty of no wrong."

And a little further on he says: "If these things are done by thy command, well and good.

For a just ruler will never take unjust measures ; and we indeed gladly accept the honor of suchadeath. But

this request alone we present to thee, that thou wouldst thyself first examine the authors of such strife, and justly judge whether they be worthy of death and punishment, or of safety and quiet.

But if, on the other hand, this counsel and this new decree, which is not fit to be executed even against barbarian enemies, be not from thee, much more do we beseech thee not to leave us exposed to such lawless plundering by the populace."

dressed to Antoninus."

In the books On the Passover he indicates the time at which he wrote, beginning with these words:

" While Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there arose in Laodicea a great strife concerning the Passover, which fell according to rule in those

days; and these were written." * And Clement of Alexandria refers to this work in his own discourse On the Passover,"

(Selecta in Gen. I. 26; Lommatzsch, VIII. p. 49) enumerates Melito among those who taught the corporeality of , and says that he had written a work mepi Tod évowparov elvar Tov Gedy,

It is possible, of course, that he may not have seen Melito's work, and that he may have misunderstood its title and have mistaken a work on the incarnation for one on the corporeality of God; but this is not at all likely.

Either he had read the book, and knew it to be upon the subject he states, or else he knew from other sources that Melito believed in the corporeality of God, and hence had no doubt that this work was upon that subject.

There is no reason in any case for doubting the accuracy of Origen's statement, and for hesitating to conclude that the work mentioned by Eusebius was upon the corporeality of God.

The close relationship existing between Melito and Tertullian has already been referred to, and this fact furnishes confirmation for the beliet that Melito held God to be corporeal, for we know Tertullian's views on that subject.

Gennadius (de eccles. dogmat. chap. 4) classes Melito and Tertullian together, as both teaching a corporeality in the Godhead.

What was the source of his statement, and how much dependence is to be put upon it, we cannot say, but it is at least a corroboration 'of the conclusion already reached.

We conclude then that Rufinus and the Syriac were mistaken in their rendering, and that this work ilisciesied the corporeality, not the incarnation, of God.

Again he adds the following :¥ "For our

philosophy formerly flourished among the Barbarians; but having sprung up among the nations under thy rule, during the great reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it became to thine empire especially a blessing of auspicious omen.

For from that time the power of the Romans has grown in greatness and splendor. To this power thou hast succeeded, as the desired possessor," and such shalt thou continue with thy son, if thou guardest the philosophy which grew up with the empire and which came into existence with Augustus ; that philosophy which thy ancestors also honored along with the other religions.

And a most convincing proof that our

doctrine flourished for the good of an empire happily begun, is this — that there has no evil happened since Augustus' reign, but that, on the contrary, all things have been splendid and glorious, in accordance with the prayers of all.

Nero and Domitian, alone, persuaded by certain calumniators, have wished to slander our doctrine, and from them it has come to pass that the falsehood ** has been ation Onc A Si A SS SEI ST rid writings) is no longer extant, but some brief fragments of it have been preserved (see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 8).

21 él wage Kal TO mpos "AvTwvivov BrBAcétov.

BuBAcscov (ZzbelZus) was the technical name for a petition addressed to the emperor, and does not imply that the work was a brief one, as Piper supposes.

The Afolozy is mentioned also in chap.

13, above, and at the beginning of this chapter. Jerome puts it first in his list, with the words:

Melito Asianus, Sardensis episcopus, librum tmperatort M. Antonint Vero, qui Frontonts oratoris discipulus fuit, pro christian dogmate dedit.

This Apology is no longer extant, and we have only the fragments which Euse ius gives in this chapter. .

As remarked in note 1, above, the extant Syriac Afology is not a work of Melito's.

The Afology is mentioned in Jerome's version of the Chron., and is cent to the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius,

120 A.D.

The notice is omitted in the Armenian, which, however, assigns to the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius the Afology of Apolinarius, which is connected with that of Melito in the Ch, fish.

Moreover, a notice of the Afology is given by Syncellus in connection with the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, and also by the Chron.

Pasch., so that it is not improbable that Eusebius himself mentioned it in his Chvoz., and that its omission in the Armenian is a mistake (as Harnack thinks likely).

But though the notice may thus have been made by Eusebius himself, we are nevertheless not at liberty to accept the date given as conclusive.

We learn from the quotations given by Eusebius that the work was addressed to the emperor after the death of Lucius Verus, ie. after the 1 169.

Whether before or after the association of Commodus with his father in the imperial power, which took place in 176, is uncertain; but I am inclined to think that the words quoted in § 7, below, point to a prospective rather than to a present association of Commodus in the empire, and that therefore the work was writtea between 169 and 176.

It must be admitted, however, that we can say with certainty only that the work was written between 169 and 180.

Some would put the work at the beginning of those persecutions which raged in 177, and there is much to be said for this.

But the dates of the local and minor persecutions, which were so frequent during this period, are so uncertain that little can be based upon the fact that we know of persecutions in certain parts of the empire in 177Piper, Otto, and others conclude from the fact that the Apology is mentioned last by Eusebius that it was Melito's latest work; but that, though not at all unlikely, does not necessarily follow (see above, note r).

22 A Sagaris, bishop and martyr, and probably the same man, is mentioned by Polycrates in his epistle to Victor (Euseb. V. 24) as buried in Laodicea.

This is all we know of him.

The date of his martyrdom, and of the composition of the work Ox the Passover, depends upon the date of the proconsulship of Servilius (or % This statement of Melito's is a very remarkable one.

See chap. 8, note 14.

35 The resemblance between this extract from Melito's Apology and the fifth chapter of Tertullian's Apology is close enough to striking, and too close to be accidental.

Tertullian's chapter is quite different from this, so far as its arrangement and language are concerned, but the same thought underlies both: That the emperors in general have protected Christianity ; only Nero and Domitian, the most wicked of them, have persecuted it; and that Christianity has been a blessing to the reigns of all the better emperors,

We cannot doubt that Tertullian was acquainted with Melito's Apology, as well as with others of his works.

26 evxTatos.

26a The reference here seems to be to the common belief that the Christians were responsible for all the evils which at any time happened, such as earthquakes, floods, famines, etc.

Sergius) Paulus (see above, note 2; The words ¢umécovtos Kara xacpov have unnecessarily caused Salmon considerable trouble.

The | words xara kacpdv mean no more than " properly, regularly, according to appointment or rule," and do not render éxetvats Tats Huepars superfluous, as he thinks.

The clause kai éypady tavTa (and these were written') expresses result, — it was in consequence of the passover strife that Melito wrote this work.

% This work of Clement's, On the Passover, which he says he jwrote on occasion of Melito's work, was clearly written in reply to jand therefore against the work of Melito, not as a supplement to it, as Hefele supposes (Conciliengesch. 1. 299): The work of Clement (which is mentioned by Eusebius,

VI. 13, in his list of Clement's

[IV. 26.

THE CHURCH. HISTORY: Ol@EUSEBIUS.

ingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below.

Their names are as follows:

Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges,

Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David," the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,® Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah & Oi the twelve prophets, one book® ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.

From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books."

Such are the words of Melito. handed down, in consequence of an unreasonable practice which prevails of bringing slanderous accusations against the Christians."

But thy pious fathers corrected their ignorance, having frequently rebuked in writing® many who dared to attempt new measures against them.

Among them thy grandfather Adrian appears to have written to many others, and also to Fundanus," the proconsul and governor of Asia.

And thy father, when thou also wast ruling with him, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any new measures against us; among the rest to the Larisszans,

to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and

since thy opinions respecting the Christians *' are the same as theirs, and indeed much more benevolent and philosophic, — we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee."

These words are found in the abovementioned work. to all the Greeks."

And as for thee, —

CHAPTER XXVII.

Apolinarius, Bishop of the Church of Hierapolis.

A NUMBER Of works of Apolinarius? have been preserved by many, and the following have

But in the Extracts* made by him the same writer gives at the beginning of the introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary

54 Some MSS., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the best MSS., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order. f 85 Waduov AaBid.

Literally, "'of the Psalms of David" [one book]. es kat Zopia: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200).

57 Literally, 'in one book" (rav 6aSexa év HovoBiBaw). to quote at this point. He writes as follows :

'"Melito to his brother Onesimus,® greeting : Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God,

38 "Eodpas: the Greek form of the Hebrew name Ny, Ezra.

Melito refers here to the canonical Book of Ezra, which, among the Jews, commonly included our Ezra and Nehemiah (see Bk. III. chap. fo, note r).

1 The first extant notice of Apolinarius is that of Serapion, bishop of Antioch from about 192 to 209 (see Harnack, Zezt des [enatius, p. 46), in the epistle quoted by Eusebius in V. tg.

We learn from this notice that Apolinarius was already dead when Serapion wrote (he calls him '' most blessed bishop"; MakapiwTatos), and that he had been a skillful opponent of Montanism.

His name is not mentioned again, so far as we know, by any Father of the second or third century.

Jerome (de wir. 7/7. 26) simply repeats the account of Eusebius, but in his Epist. ad Magnum, c. 4 (Migne, I. 607), he enumerates Apolinarius among those Christian writers who were acquainted with heathen literature, and made use of it in the refutation of heresies.

Photius (Cod. 14) praises his literary style in high terms.

Socrates (H. Z£. III. 7) names Apolinarius with Irenzus, Clement of Alexandria, and Serapion as holding that the incarnate

Christ had a human soul (Eupuxov tov évavOpwricavta), Jerome, in his de vzr. 7/7. chap. 18, mentions an Apolinarius in connection with Irenzus as achiliast.

But in his Comment. zn Ezech. Bk. X1. chap. Fi he speaks of Irenzeus as the first, and Apolinarius as the last, of the Greek Millenarians, which shows that some other Apolinarius is meant in that place, and therefore without doubt in the former passage also; and in another place (Prooem. in ib.

XVIII.

Comm. in Esaiam) he says that Apolinarius replied to Dionysius of Alexandria on the subject of the Millenium, and we are therefore led to conclude that Apolinarius, bishop of. Laodicea (of the fourth century), is meant (see Routh, Re/. Sac. I. 174).

Of the bishops of Hierapolis, besides Apolinarius, we know only Papias and Abircius

Marcellus (of whom we have a Martyrdom, belonging to the second century; see Pitra, SA7c. Solesm. III. 533), who, if he be identical with the Abircius Marcellus of Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 16 (as Harnack conjectures) must have been bishop after, not before Apolinatius (see note 6 on Bk. V. chap. 16),

It is impossible to determine the exact date of Apolinarius' episcopate, or of his death.

As we see from Serapion's notice of him, he must have been dead at least esteemest these things above all else, strug-

gling to attain eternal salvation.

AccordEe 27 ag' dv Kat Td THs cvKopavtias aAdyw ouvybeia mepi Tos ToLvovTovs pujvar cvu4BéByKe WevSos.

The sentence is a difficult one and has been interpreted in various ways, but the translation given in the text seems to me best to express the writer's meaning.

28 évypahws: i.e, in edrcts or rescripts.

29 This epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above.

Upon its genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.

30 On these epistles of Antoninus Pius, see chap, 13, note 9.

These ordinances to the Larisszans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and all the Greeks, are no longer extant.

What their character must have been is explained in the note just referred to.

31 epi rovTwr, 82 év 6) Tals ypadheloas a'Ta éxAoyats, eens speaks of this work as "ExAoyav, libros sex.

There are no fra ments of it extant except the single one from the preface given here by Eusebius, The nature of the work is clear from the words of Melito himself.

It was a collection of testimonies to Christ and to Christianity, drawn from the Old Testament law and prophets.

It must, therefore, have resembled closely such works as yprian's Test?monta and the Testimonia of seudo-Gregory, and other anti-Jewish works, in which the appeal was made to the Old Testament

— the common ground accepted by both parties — for proof of the truth of Christianity.

Although the Ecloge of Melito were not anti-Jewish in their design, their character feds us to classify them with the general class of anti-Jewish works whose distinguishing mark is the use of Old Testament prophecy in defense of Christianity (cf. the writer's article on Christian Polemics against the Yews, in the Pres. Review, July, 1888, and also the writer's Dialogue between a Christian and a $¥ew, entitled "Avr.Body Uamurcov Kai

®idwvos, New York, 1889). efore 202, And if Abircius Marcellus was bisho after him, and also bishop in the second centu , Apolinarius must have died some years before the year 200, and has about the same time as Melito.

The fact that he is mentioned so commonly in connection with Melito, sometimes before and sometimes after him, confirms this conclusion.

The Chron. mentions him as flourishing in the tenth (Syncellus and Jerome), or the eleventh (Armenian) year of Marcus Aurelius,

His Apology was addressed, as we learn from Eusebius, to Marcus Aurelius; and the fact that only the one emperor is mentioned may perhaps be taken (as some have taken it) as a sign that it was written while

Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor (i.e. between 169 and 176).

In Bk, V. chap. 5, Eusebius speaks of the story of the thundering legion as recorded by Apolinarius, and it has been thought (e.g, by Salmon, in the Drct. of Christ. Biog.) that this circumstance was

On the canon which Melito gives, see Bk, IIT. chap. 10, note x 88 This Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person, s :

IV. 29.]

APOLINARIUS OF HIERAPOLIS.

reached us: the Discourse addressed to the above-mentioned emperor,' five books Against the Greeks,' On Truth, a first and second book,' and those which he subsequently wrote against the heresy of the Phrygians,'? which not long afterwards came out with its innovations,' but at that time was, as it were, in its incipiency, since

Montanus, with his false prophetesses, was then laying the foundations of his error. recorded in the Afology, which cannot then have been written before the year 174. arnack, however, remarks that this venturesome report can hardly have stood in a work addressed to the emperor himself.

But that seems to assume that the story was not fully believed by Apolinarius, which can hardly have been the case.

The truth is, the matter cannot be decided; and no more exact date can be given for the Afology.

Eusebius, in the present chapter, informs us that he has seen four works by Apolinarius, but says that there were many others extant in his day.

In addition to the ones mentioned by Eusebius, we know of a work of his, On the Passover (wept Tov wacyxa), which is mentioned by the Chron. Paschale,

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Musanus and his Writings.

AND as for Musanus,! whom we have mentione among the foregoing writers, a certain very elegant discourse is extant, which was written by him against some brethren that had gone over to the heresy of the so-called Encratites," which had recently sprung up, and which introduced a strange and pernicious error.

It is said that Tatian was the author of this false doctrine. and two brief fragments of which are preserved by it.

These fragments have caused a discussion as to whether Apolinarius was a Quartodeciman or not.

The language of the first fragment would seem to show clearly that he was opposed to the bas aman ecin and this explains the fact that he is never cited by the later Quartodecimans as a witness for their opinions. The tone of the work, however, as gathered from the fragments, shows that it must have been written before the controversy had assumed the bitter tone which it took when Victor became bishop of Rome; i.e. it was written, probably, in the seventies (see, also, Bk. V. chap. 23, note 1).

Photius (Cod. 14) mentions three apologetic works by Apolinarius known to him: mpos" EAAnvas, mepi evoeBetas, and mepi adyOeias. The first and last are mentioned by Eusebius, but the second is a work otherwise unknown tous.

There is no reason to suppose, as some have done, that the wept evoeBeias does not designate a separate work (cf. e.g.,

Donaldson, Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, Vl. 243), is Eusebius expressly says that he mentions only a part of Apolinarius' writings.

Theodoret (Her. Fad. I. 21) mentions Apolinarius, together with Musanus and Clement, as having written against the Severians (see chap. 29, below).

But, as Harnack justly remarks (p. 235), the most we can conclude from this is, that Apolinarius, in his Anti-Montanistic work, had mentioned the Severians with disapproval.

Five MSS. of Eusebius, and the Church Hzst. of Nicephorus, mention just after the work Ox Truth, a work Agaznst the

CHAPTER XXIX.

The Heresy of Tatian.'

HE is the one whose words we quoted

a little above? in regard to that admirable simply cai & pera tadta cvvéypawe.

Serapion (in Eusebius, Bk. V, chap. 19) calls them ypéumara, which Jerome (de vzr. z//. chap. 41) translates Jztteras.

These ypdupata are taken as "letters" by Valesius, Stroth, Danz, and eRe but Otto contends that the word ypaupmara, in the usage of Eusebius (cf. Eusebius, V. 28. 4), properly means "'writings" or "'books"

(scrzpta or lzbrz), not "letters," and so the word is translated by Closs.

The word itself is not absolutely decisive, but it is more natural to translate it

"writings," and the circumstances of the case seem to' favor that rather than the rendering "letters."

I have therefore translated it thus in Bk. VI. chap. 19.

On the life and writings of Apolinarius, see especially Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christ. Bzog. and Harnack's Texte und Untersuch. I. 1, 232-239.

The few extant fragments of his works are published by Routh (I. 151-174), and by Otto (IX. 479-495); English translation in the A xte-icene Fathers,

VIII. 772.

6 catvoronnbetons.

1 Of this Musanus, we know only what Eusebius tells us here, for Jerome (de vir. zl/. 31) and Theodoret (Her. Fad. I. 21) simply repeat the account of Eusebius.

It is clear from Eusebius' language, that he had not himself seen this work of Musanus; he had simply heard of it.

Here, and in chap, 21, Eusebius assigns the activity of Musanus to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, making him a contemporary of Melito, Apolinarius, Irenzus, &c.

But in the Chron. he is put much later.

The Armenian version, under the year of Abr.

2220 (the eleventh year of Septimius), has the entry Musanus noster scriptor cognoscebatur. esome, under the same year (2220 of Abr., but twelfth year of Severus) has Musanus nostre filosofie scriptor agnoscitur ; while Syncellus, under the year of Abr. 2231

(fourth year of Caracalla) has Movovavis éxxAnoraaTixds cuyypapeus éyvwpigeto.

All of them, therefore, speak of Musanus (or Musianus) as a writer, but do not specify any of his works.

The dates in the Chron. (whichever be taken as original) and in the Azstory are not mutually exclusive; at the same time it is clear that Eusebius was not working upon the same information in the two cases.

We have no means of testing the correctness of either statement.

Yews, in two books (kai mpds lovdatous mpa@tov kai Sevtepov). The words are found in many of our editions, but are omitted by the majority of the best Creek MSS., and also by Rufinus and Jerome, and therefore must be regarded as an interpolation; and so they are viewed by Heinichen, Laemmer, Otto, Harnack, and others.

Harnack suggests that they were inserted under the influence of Bk. V. chap. 17, § 5, where the works of Miltiades are given.

We thus have knowledge of six, and only six, distinct works of Apolinarius, though, since no writer has pretended to give a complete list, it is quite probable that he wrote many others.

3 On the approximate date of this Apology, see the previous note.

No fragments of the work are now extant, unless the account of the thundering legion mentioned by Eusebius in Bk, V. chap. 5 belong to it (see the previous note).

Jerome speaks of the work as an zusigne volumen pro fide Christianorum, and in chap.

26, § 1, Eusebius speaks of it as Adyos bmep THs Tigtews.

-This has given rise to the idea that the mepi evoeBeias mentioned by Photius may be identical with this Apology (see the previous note).

But such an important work would certainly not have been mentioned with such an ambiguous title by Photius:

We may conclude, in fact, that Photius had not seen the Apology.

The Chron.

Paschale mentions the Apology in connection with those of <*Melito and many others," as addressed to the Emperor Marcus

Aurelius.

3 No fragments of this work are known to us.

Nicephorus (H. E. lV. 1) says that it was in the form of a eek pie and it is uite possible that he speaks in this case from personal knowledge, ior the work was still extant in the time of Photius, who mentions it in Cod, 14 (see Harnack, p. 236).

4 No fragments of this work are extant, and its nature is unknown to us.

It may have resembled the work of Melito upon the same subject (see the previous chapter),

The work is mentioned by Photius as one of three, which he had himself seen.

2 On Tatian and the Encratites, see the next chapter.

1 From his Oratio (chap. 42) we learn that Tatian was born in Assyria, and that he was early educated in Greek philosophy, from which we may conclude that he was of Greek parentage,

—a conclusion confirmed by the general tone of the Orato (cf. Harnack, 5 Eusebius states here that the works against the Montanists were written later than the other works mentioned.

Where he got this information we do not know; it is possible, as Harnack suggests, that he saw from the writings themselves that Marcus Aurelius was no longer alive when they were composed.

Eusebius speaks very highly of these Anti-Montanistic works, and in Bk. V. chap. 16,

§ 1, he speaks of Apolinarius as a "' powerful weapon and antagonist" of the Montanists.

And yet it is a remarkable fact that he does not take his account.of the Montanists from the works of Apolinarius, but from later writings.

This fact can be explained only as Harnack explains it by supposing that Apolinarius was not decided and clear enough in his opposition to the sect.

The writer from whom Eusebius quotes is certainly strong enough in his denunciations to suit Eusebius or any one else.

Eusebius' statement, that the Montanistic movement was only beginning at the time Apolinatius wrote against it (i.e. according to him between 175 and 180), is far from the truth (see on this subject, Bk. V. chap. 16, note 12).

How many of these works Apolinarius wrote, and whether they were books, or merely letters, we do not know.

Eusebius says Ueberlicferung der Griech, Apol. p. 199 sq-, who refutes Zahn's opinion that Tatian was a,Syrian by race).

We learn from his Oratzo also that he was converted to Christianity in mature life (cf. chap. 29 sq.).

From the passage quoted in the present chapter from Irenzus, we learn that Tatian, after the death of Justin (whose disciple he was; see also chap. 16, above), fell into heresy, and the general fact is confirmed by Tertullian, Hippolytus,

Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others.

Beyond these meager notices we have little information in regard to Tatian's life.

Rhodo (quoted in Bk. V. chap. 13. below) mentions him, and '' confesses '' that he was a pupil of Tatian's in Rome, perhaps implying that this was after Tatian had left the Catholic Church (though inasmuch as the word '' confesses" is Eusebius', not Rhodo's, we can hardly lay the stress that Harnack does upon its use in this connection).

Epi-

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 29.

Saturninus® and Marcion, preached celibacy, setting aside the original arrangement of God and tacitly censuring him who made male and female for the propagation of the human race.

They introduced also abstinence from the things called by them animate,® thus showing ingratitude to the God who made all things.

And they deny the salvation of the first man."

But

this has been only recently discovered by them, a certain Tatian being the first to introduce this blasphemy.

He was a hearer of Justin, and expressed no such opinion while he was with him, but after the martyrdom of the latter he left the Church, and becoming exalted with the thought of being a teacher, and puffed up with the idea that he was superior to others, he established a peculiar type of doctrine of his own, inventing certain invisible zons like the followers of Valentinus,® while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he pronounced marriage to be corruption and forrication.

His argument against the salvation of Adam, however, he devised for man, Justin, and whom we stated to have been a disciple of the martyr.

Irenzeus declares this in the first book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows concerning both

him and his heresy:* "Those who are called Encratites,* and who sprung from phanius gives quite an account of Tatian in his Her. XLVI. 1, but as usual he falls into grave errors (especially in his chronology).

The only trustworthy information that can be gathered from him is that Tatian, after becoming a Christian, returned to Mesopotamia and taught for a while there (see Harnack, zbzd. p. 208 sq.). We learn from his Ova#zo that he was already in middle life at the time when he wrote it, i.e. about 152 A.D. (see note 13, below), and as a consequence it is commonly assumed that he cannot have been born much laterthanr1oA.D.

Eusebius in his Chronz. (XII. year of Marcus Aurelius, 172 A.D.) says, Tatzanus hereticus agnoscitur, a quo

Encratite.

There is no reason to doubt that this represents with reasonable accuracy the date of Tatian's break with the Catholic

Church.

We know at any rate that it did not take place until after Justin's death (165 A.p.).

In possession of these various facts in regard to Tatian, his life has been constructed in various ways by historians, but Harnack seems to have come nearest to the truth in his account of him on p. 212 sq.

He holds that he was converted about 150, but soon afterward left for the Orient, and while there wrote his Oratzo ad Grecos ; that afterward he returned to Rome, and was an honored teacher in the Church for some time, but finally becoming heretical, broke with the Church about the year 172. The arguments which Harnack urges over against Zahn (who maintains that he was but once in Rome, and that he became a heretic in the Orient and spent the remainder of his life there) seem fully to establish his main positions.

Of the date, place, and circumstances of Tatian's death, we know nothing.

Eusebius informs us in this chapter that Tatian left ''a great many writings," but he mentions the titles of only two, the Address to the Greeks and the Dzatessaron (see below, notes 11 and 13).

He seems, however, in § 6, to refer to another work on the Pauline Epistles, — a work of which we have no trace anywhere else, though we learn from Jerome's preface to his Commentary on Titus that Tatian rejected some of Paul's epistles, as Marcion did, but unlike

Marcion accepted the epistle to Titus.

We know the titles of some other works written by Tatian.

He himself, in his Orazzo 15, mentions a work which he had written On Anzmails.

The work is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about it.

Rhodo (as we are told by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 13) mentioned a book of Problems which Tatian had written.

Of this, too, all traces have perished, Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 12) mentions an heretical work of Tatian's, entitled wepi tod kata Tov cwrhpa Kataptichov, On Perfection according to the Saviour, which has likewise perished.

Clement (as also Origen) was evidently acquainted with still other heretical works, especially one on Genesis (see below, note 7), but he mentions the title only of the one referred to.

Rufinus (H. £.

VI. 11) says that Tatian composed a Chronicon, which we hear about from no other writer.

Malalas calls Tatian a chronographer, but he is evidently thinking of the chronological passages in his

Orato, and in the absence of all trustworthy testimony we must reject Rufinus' notice as a mistake.

In his Oratzo, chap. 40, Tatian speaks of a work Agaznst those who have discoursed on Divine

Things, in which he intends to show "' what the learned among the Greeks have said concerning our polity and the history of our bat and how many and what kind of men have written of these things.'?

Whether he ever wrote the work or not we do not know: we find no other notice of it. Upon Tatian, see especially Zahn's Tatzan's Diatessaron and Harnack's Ueberiieferung, &c., p. 196; also Donaldson's Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doct. Il. p. 3 sqq-, and J. M.

Fuller's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. ter is incorrect if we are to accept Irenzus' account.

For the passage quoted in this chapter states that they sprung from Marcion and Saturninus, evidently implying that they were not founded by Tatian, but that he iad: them already in existence when he became heretical.

It is not surprising, however, that his name should become connected with them as their founder— for he was the bestknown man among them.

That the Encratites as such (whether a single sect ora general tendency) should be opposed by the Fathers,

'even by those o ascetic tendencies, was natural.

It was not always easy to distinguish between orthodox and heretical asceticism, and yet there was felt to be a difference.

The fundamental distinction was held by the Church—whenever it came to self-consciousness on the subject —to lie in the fact that the heretics pronounced the things from which they abstained essentially evil in themselves, thus holding a radical dualism, while the orthodox abstained only as a matter of discipline, The distinction, it is true, was not always preserved, but it was this essentially dualistic principle of the Encratites which the early Fathers combated; it is noticeable, however, that they do not ie a as much vigor in combating it as in refuting errors in doctrine.

In fact, they seem themselves to have been somewhat in doubt as to the proper attitude to take toward these extreme ascetics.

5 On Saturninus and on Marcion, see chap. 7, note 6, and rz, note rs. On their asceticism, see especially Irenzus,

Adv. Her. I. 24e 6 Tay Acyouevwr euyvxwv: i.e. animal food in general.

7 Cf. Irenzus, Adv. Her, III. 23, where this opinion of Tatian's is refuted at considerable length. The opinion seems a little peculiar, but was a not unnatural consequence of Tatian's strong dualism, and of his doctrine of a conditional immortality for those who have been reunited with the Holy Spirit, who took his departure at the time of the fall (cf. gapectalty his Oratzo, chap. 15).

That Adam, who, by his fall, brought about this separation, which has been of such direful consequence to the race, should be saved, was naturally to Tatian a very repugnant thought.

He seems, moreover, to have based his opinion, as onaldson remarks, upon exegetical grounds, interpreting the passage in regard to Adam (x Cor. xv. 22) as meaning that Adam is and remains the principle of death, and as such, of course, cannot himself enjoy life (see Irenzeus, zbzd.).

This is quite in accord with the distinction between the psychical and physical man which he draws in his Oratzo.

It is quite possible that he was moved in part also by the same motive which led Marcion to deny the salvation of Abraham and the other patriarchs (see Irenzus,

Adv, Her.\. 27 and IV. 8), namel , the opposition between the God of the Old Testament and the Christ of. the New Testament, which led him to assert that those who depended on the former were lost.

We learn from Clement (Strom. in. 12) and from Origen (de Orat. chap. 24) that among Tatian's heretical works was one in which he discussed the early chapters of Genesis, and perhaps it was in this work that he developed his peculiar views in regard to Adam,

On Valentinus, see chap. 11, noter.

That Tatian was Gnostic in many of his tendencies is plain enough, not only from these words of Irenzus, but also from the notices of him in other writers ci. especially Hippolytus, PAz?, VIII. 9). To what extent he carried his Gnosticism, however, and exactly in what it consisted, we cannot tell.

He can hardly have been a pronounced follower of Valentinus pi a a zealous defender of the doctrine of /Eons, or we should find

< Wee with that school.

He was, in fact, » and a follower of no one school, and doubtless this subject, like many others, occupied b

; . i

Pp' ut a subordinate his speculations, R d place in 2 In chap. 16.

3 Trenzus, Adv. Her. I. 2% 1, 4 'Eykpateis, a word meaning "temperate" or " continent."

These Encratites were heretics who abstained from flesh, from wine, and from marriage, not temporarily but permanentl

, and because of a belief in the essential impurity of those things. hey are mentioned also by Hippolytus (PAz7. VIII. 13), who calls them éykpatira1; by Clement of Alexandria (Pad Vt 2, Strom. J. 15, &c.), who calls them éyxparntai; by Epiphanius (Her, with Hippolytus in the form of the name, and by others.

The Encratites whom Irenzeus describes seem to have constituted a distinct sect, anti-Jewish and Gnostic in its character.

As described by Hippolytus they appear to have been mainly orthodox in doctrine but heretical in their manner of life, and we may perhaps gather the same thing from Clement's references to them.

"It is evident, therefore, that Irenzeus and the others are not referring to the same men.

So Theodoret, Her. Fad. I. 21, speaks of the Severian Encratites; but the Severians, as we learn from this chapter of Eusebius and from Epiphanius (Her. XLV.), were Ebionitic and anti-Pauline in their tendencies — the exact opposites, therefore, of the Encratites referred to by Irenzeus.

That there was a distinct sect of Encratites of the character described by Irenzeus cannot be denied, but we must certainly conclude that the word was used very commonly in a wider sense to denote men of various schools who taught excessive and heretical abstinence, Of course the later writers may have supposed that they all belonged to one compact sect, but it is certain that they did not.

As to the particular sect which Irenzeus describes the statement made by Eusebius at the close cf the preceding chap.

47), who agrees

IV. 30.]

TATIAN AND THE ENCRATITES.

hands of some.

But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle," in order to improve their style.

He T has left a great many writings.

Of these the one most in use among many persons is his celebrated Address to the Greeks, which also appears to be the best and most useful of all his works.

In it he deals with the most ancient times, and shows that Moses and the Hebrew prophets were older than all the celebrated men among the Greeks."

So much in regard to these men. himself."'

Irenzeus at that time wrote thus.

But a little later a certain. man named Severus® put new strength into the aforesaid heresy, and thus brought it about that those who took their origin from it were called,

after him, Severians.

They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures.

And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not

accept even the Acts of the Apostles.

But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how," to which he gave the title Diatessaron and which is still in the

CHAPTER XXX.

Bardesanes the Syrian and his Extant Works.

9 That the Severians, whoever they were, were Encratites in the wide sense, that is, strict abstainers from flesh, wine, and marriage, cannot be denied (compare with this description of Eusebius that of Epiphanius in Her.

XLV., elso Theodoret's Her. Fab. I. 21, who says that Apolinarius wrote against the Severian Encratites,

—a sign that the Severians and the Encratites were in some way connected in tradition even though Theodoret's statement may be unreliable).

But that they were connected with Tatian and the EncraIn the same reign, as heresies were

abounding in the region between the rivers, a certain Bardesanes,' a most able man and a Ueberlicferung der Griech. Afpologeten, p. 213 ff., Fuller's article referred to in note 1, the article by Lightfoot in the Contemporary vag for May, 1877, and those by Wace in the E-xfosztor for 1881 titic sect to which he belonged, as Eusebius states, is quite out of the question. Tatian was a decided Paulinist (almost as much so as Marcion himself).

He cannot, therefore, have had anything to do with and 1882.

Mg 12 i.e. of Paul, who was quite commonly called simply 6 améarodos.

This seems to imply that Tatian wrote a work on Paul's epistles (see note 1, above). this Ebionitic, anti-Pauline sect, known as the Severians.

Whether there was ever such a person as Severus, or whether the name arose later to explain the name of the sect (possibly taken from the Latin severus, "severe," as Salmon suggests), as the name Ebion was invented to explain the term Ebionites, we do not know.

We are ignorant also of the source from which Eusebius took his description 18 Adyos 6 mpds "EAAnvas: Oratio ad Grecos.

This work is. still extant, and is one of the most interesting of the early apologies.

The standpoint of the author is quite different from that of Justin, for he treats Greek philosophy with the greatest contempt, and finds nothing good in it, As remarked in note 1, above, the Ovatzo was probably written after Tatian had left Rome for the first time, but not long after his conversion. We may follow Harnack (p. 196) in fixsnp epon 152 to 153 as an approximate date. The work is printed with a Latin translation and commentary in Otto's Corp. Afo/, Vol. VI.

The best critical edition is that of Schwartz, in v. Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, IV. 1 (Leipzig, 1888), though it contains only the Greek text.

An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. p. 59-83. of the Severians, as we do not find them mentioned in any of the earlier anti-heretical works.

Eusebius must have heard, as Tpighe: nius did, that they were extreme ascetics, and this must have led him, in the absence of specific information as to their exact position, to join them with Tatian and the Encratites,—a connection which can be justified on no other ground.

10 ovx 018' Stws.

Eusebius clearly means to imply in these words that he was not acquainted with the Dzatessaron.

Lightfoot, it is true, endeavors to show that these words may mean eeoely disapproval of the work, and not ignorance in regard to it.

But his interpretation is an unnatural one, and has been accepted by few scholars.

14 Tatian devotes a number of chapters to this subject (XXXI.,

XXXV.-XLI.).

Eusebius mentions him, with Clement, Africanus, Josephus, and Justus, in the preface to his Chroz. (Schdne II. p. 4), as a witness to the antiquity of Moses, and it is probable that Julius

Africanus drew from him in the composition of his chronological work (cf, Harnack, zbéd. p. 224).

Clement of Alexandria likewise made large use of his chronological results (see especially his Strom. I. 21), and Origen refers to them in his Contra Cels.

I. 16.

It was largely on account of these chapters on the antiquity of Moses that Tatian's Oratzo was held in such high esteem, while his other works disappeared. li 75 80a Tecodpwv.

Eusebius is the first one to mention this Diatessaron, and he had evidently not seen it himself.

After him it is not referred to again until the time of Epiphanius, who in his Her. XLVI. x incorrectly identifies it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, evidently knowing it only by hearsay.

Theodoret (Her. Faé. 1. 20) informs us that he found a great many copies of it in circulation in his diocese, and that, finding that it omitted the account of our Lord's birth, he replaced it by the four Gospels, fearing the mischief which must result from the use of such a mutilated

Gospel. Inthe Doctrine of Addai (ed. Syr. and Engl. by G. Phillips, 1876), which belongs to the third century, a Diatessaron is mentioned which is without doubt to be identified with the one under consideration (see Zahn I. 3 go sq.)- Meanwhile we learn from the preface to Dionysius bar Salibi's Commentary on Mark (see Assemani, B75. Or. I. 57), that Ephraem wrote a commentary upon the Dzatessaron of Tatian (Tatéanus Fustiné Philosophi ac Martyris Discipulus, ex quatuor Evangeliis unum digessit, quod

Diatessaron nuncupavit. Hune librum Sanctus Ephraem comsmentarits tllustravit).

Ephraem's commentary stil exists in an 'Armenian version (published at Venice in 1836, and in Latin in 1876 by Meesinger).

There exists also a Latin Harmony of the Gospels, which is without doubt a substantial reproduction of Tatian's Diatessaron, and which was known to Victor of Capua (of the sixth century).

From these sources Zahn has attempted to reconstruct the text of the Dzatessaron, and prints the reconstructed text, with a critical commentary, in his Tetéan's Diatessaron.

Zahn maintains that the original work was written in Syriac, and he is followed by Lightfoot, Hilgenfeld, Fuller, and others; but Harnack has given very strong reasons for supposing that it was composed by Tatian in Greek, and that the Syriac which Ephraem_ used was a translation of that original, not the original itself.

Both Zahn and Harnack agree, as do most other scholars, that the work was written before Tatian became a heretic, and with no heretical intent.

Inasmuch as he later became a heretic, however, his work was looked upon with suspicion, and of course in later days, when so much stress was laid (as e.g. by Irenzeus) upon the fourfold Gospel, Christians would be naturally distrustful of a single Gospel proposed as a substitute for them.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the work failed to find acceptance in the Church at large.

For further particulars, see especially Zahn's monograph, which is the most complete and exhaustive discussion of the whole subject.

See also Harnack's 1 i.e. Mesopotamia: emt ris wéons THY ToTapaY.

2 Bardesanes or Bardaisan (Greek, Bapdyodvns), a distinguished.

Syrian scholar, poet, and theologian, who lived at the court of the king of Edessa, is commonly classed among the Gnostics, but, as Hort shows, without sufficient reason, Our reports in regard to him are very conflicting.

Epiphanius and Barhebrzus relate that he was at first a distinguished Christian teacher, but afterward became corrupted by the doctrines of Valentinus.

Eusebius on the other hand says that he was originally a Valentinian, but afterward left that sect and directed his attacks against it. Moses of Chorene gives a similar account.

To Hippolytus he appeared as a member of the Eastern school of Valentinians, while to Ephraem the Syrian he seemed in general one of the most pernicious of heretics, who nevertheless pretended to be orthodox, veiling his errors in ambiguous language, and thus carrying away many of the faithful.

According to Hort, who has given the subject ve careful study, '' there is no reason to suppose that Bardesanes rejected the ordinary faith of the Christians as founded on the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, except on isolated points.

The more startling peculiarities of which we hear belong for the most part to an outer region of speculation, which it may easily have seemed possible to combine with Constante, more especially with the undeveloped Christianity of Syria in the third century.

The local color is everywhere prominent.

In passing over to the new faith Bardaisan could not shake off the ancient glamour of the stars, or abjure the Semitic love of clothing thoughts in mythological forms.'"?

This statement explains clearly enough the reputation for heresy which Bardesanes enjoyed in subsequent generations.

There is no reason to think that he taught a system of zons like the Gnostics, but he does seem to have leaned toward docetism, and also to have denied the proper resurrection of the body.

Ephraem accuses him of teaching Polytheism, in effect if not in words, but this charge seems to have

THE -CHURCH" HISTORYVOF -EUSEBIUS.

[IV. 30. other works.

His pupils,® of whom he had very many (for he was a powerful defender of the faith), translated these productions from the Syriac into Greek.

Among themthere

is also his most able dialogue On Fate,* addressed to Antoninus, and other works which they say he wrote on occasion of the persecution which arose at that time.? most skillful disputant in the Syriac tongue, having composed dialogues against Marcion's followers and against certain others who were authors of various opinions, committed them to writing in his own language, together with many arisen from a misunderstanding of his mythological forms; he apparently maintained always the supremacy of the one Christian God.

There is nothing in his theology itself to imply Valentinian influence, but the traditions to that effect are too strong to be entirely set aside.

It is not improbable that he may, as Eusebius says, have been a Valentinian for a time, and afterward, upon entering the orthodox church, have retained some of the views which he gained under their influence.

This would explain the conflicting reports of his theology.

It is not necessary to say more about his beliefs.

Hort's article in Smith and Wace's Dzct. of Christ. Biog. contains an excellent discussion of the subject, and the student is referred to that.

The followers of Bardesanes seem to have emphasized those points in which he differed with the Church at large, and thus to have departed further from catholic orthodoxy.

Undoubtedly Ephraem (who is our most important authority for a knowledge of Bardesanes) knows him only through his followers, who were very numerous throughout the East in the fourth century, and hence passes a harsher judgment upon him than he might otherwise have done.

Ephraem makes the uprooting of the "' pernicious heresy'? one of his foremost duties.

He indeed was at first a follower of

Valentinus,® but afterward, having rejected his teaching and having refuted most of his fictions, he fancied that he had come over to the more correct opinion.

Nevertheless he did not entirely wash off the filth of the old heresy.'

About this time also Soter,' bishop of the church of Rome, departed this life. wholly or in part with a work entitled Book of the Laws of Countrtes, which is still extant in the original Syriac, and has been published with an English translation by Cureton in his Sfzczleg. Syr.

A fragment of this work is given in Eusebius' Prep. Evang. V1. g-10, and, until the discovery of the Syriac text of the entire work, this was all that we had of it.

This is undoubtedly the work referred to by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other Fathers, but it is no less certain that it was not written by Bardesanes himself.

As Hart remarks, ''the natural impulse to confuse the author with the chief interlocutor in an anonymous dialogue will sufficiently explain the early ascription of the Dialogue to Bardaisan himself by the Greek

Fathers."

It was undoubtedly written by one of Bardesanes' disciples, probably soon after his death, and it is quite likely that it does not depart widely from the spirit of Bardesanes' teaching.

Upon Bardesanes, see, in addition to Hort's article, the monograph of Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa (Halle, 1863), and that of Hilgenfeld,

Bardesanes, der Letzte Gnostiker (Leipz. 1864).

Eusebius in this chapter, followed by Jerome (de wzr. 22. chap.

33), Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others, assigns the activity of Bardesanes to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (so also in the Chroz.).

But Hort says that according to the Chronicle of Edessa (Assemani, Bibl. Or. I. 389) he was born July 11, 155, and according to Barhebrzeus (Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 49) he died in 223 at the age of sixty-eight, which confirms the date of his birth given by the Chronicle of Edessa.

These dates are accepted as correct by Hilgenfeld and Hort, and the error committed by Eusebius and those who followed him is explained by their confusion of the later with the earlier Antonines, a confusion which was very common among the Fathers.

His writings, as stated by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others, were very numerous, and were translated (at least many of them) into Greek.

The dialogues against the Marcionists and other heretics are mentioned also by Theodoret (Her. Fad. I. 22) and by Barhebreus.

Epiphanius (who apparently had some indePoedest knowledge of the man and his followers) mentions (Her.

3 yrepimor.

* See note 2.

5 Hort conjectures that Caracalla, who spent the winter of 216 in Edessa, and threw the Prince Bar-Manu into captivity, may have allied himself with a party which was discontented with the rule of that prince, and which instituted a heathen reaction, and that this was the occasion of the persecution referred to here, in which Bardesanes proved his firmness in the faith as recorded by Epiphanius.

VI.) an Apology "in which he resisted Apollonius, the companion of Antoninus, when urged to deny that he was a Christian."

This was probably one of the many works which Eusebius says he wrote on occasion of the persecution which arose at the time.

The Dialogue on Fate is said by Eusebius, followed by Rufinus and Jerome, to have been addressed to Antoninus.

Epiphanius Says that in this work he "copiously refuted Avidas the astrono6 See note 2.

7 It is undoubtedly quite true, as remarked in note 2, that Bardesanes, after leaving

Valentianism, Still retained views acquired under its influence, and that these colored all his subsequent thinking.

This fact may have been manifest to Eusebius, who had evidently read many of Bardesanes' works, and who speaks here as if from personal knowledge. mer," and it is quite possible that Eusebius' statement rests upon a confusion of the names Avidas and Antoninus, for it is difficult to conceive that the work can have been addressed to an emperor, and in any case it cannot have been addressed to Marcus Aurelius, whom

Eusebius here means.

This Dialogue on Fate is identified either 8 On Soter, see chap, 19, note 2,

BOOK V. account, containing the most reliable information on the subject, is given in our Collection of Martyrdoms,* which constitutes a narrative instructive as well as historical.

I will repeat here such portions of this account as may be needful for the present purpose,

INTRODUCTION.

i SoTER,! bishop of the church of Rome, died after an episcopate of eight years, and was succeeded by Eleutherus,' the twelfth from the apostles.

In the seventeenth year of the Emperor Antoninus Verus,' the persecution of our people was rekindled more fiercely in certain districts on account of an insurrection of the masses in the cities ; and judging by the number in a single nation, myriads suffered martyrdom throughout the world.

A record of this was written for posterity, and in truth it is

worthy of perpetual remembrance. A full nn eee

Other writers of history record the victories of war and trophies won from enemies, the skill of generals, and the manly bravery of soldiers, defiled with blood and with innumerable slaughters for the sake of children and country and other possessions.

But our narrative of the government of God? will record in ineffaceable letters the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the peace of the soul, and will tell of men doing brave deeds for truth rather than country, and for piety rather than

1 On Soter, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 2.

2 Busebius in his Chronicle gives the ace of Eleutherus' accession as the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (177 A.D.), and puts his death into the reign of Pertinax (192), while in chap. 22 0 the present book he places his death in the tenth year of Commodus

It will hand down to imperishable remembrance the discipline and the muchtried fortitude of the athletes of religion, the trophies won from demons, the victories over invisible enemies, and the crowns placed upon all their heads.

¢| dearest friends.

(189).

Most of our authorities agree in assigning fifteen years to his episcopate, and this may be accepted as undoubtedly correct.

Most of them, moreover, agree with chap. 22 of this book, in assigning his death to the tenth, year of Commodus, and this too may be accepted as accurate.

But with these two data we are obliged to ush his accession back into the year 174 (or 175), which is accepted iy Lipsius (see his Chron. der rom. Bischife, p. 184 sq-).

We must therefore suppose that he became bishop some two years before the outbreak of the persecution referred to just below, in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of Marcus Aurelius.

In the Armenian version of the Chron.

Eleutherus is called the thirteenth bishop of Rome (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5), but this is a mistake, as pointed out in the note referred to.

Eleutherus is mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 11, in connection with Hegesippus, and also in Bk.

IV. chap. 22, by Hegesippus himself. e is chiefly interesting because of his connection with Irenzus and the Gallican martyrs

CHAPTER I.

The Number of those who fought for Religion in Gaul under Verus and the Nature of their

(see chap. 4, below), and his relation to the Montanistic controversy (see chap. 3)Bede, in his Hist. Eccles., chap. 4, connects

Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity, but the tradition is quite groundless.

One of the decretals and a spurious epistle are falsely ascribed to him.

: é 3 i.e, the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, A,D.

177 (upon Eusebius' confusion of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius Verus, see below, Pp. 399 note).

In the Chvun. the persecution at Lyons and Vienne is associated with the seventh year of Marcus 'Aurelius (167), and consequently some (e.g. Blondellus, Stroth, and Conflicts.

Tue country in which the arena was pre-

pared for them was Gaul, of which Lyons and Vienne? are the principal and most celebrated cities.

The Rhone passes through both of them, flowing in a broad stream through the entire reachmann), have maintained that the notice in the present passage is incorrect, and Jachmann has attacked Eusebius very severely for the supposed error.

The truth is, hgwever, that the notice in the Chron. (in the Armenian, which represents the original form more closely than Jenner's version does) is not placed opposite the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius (as the notices in the Chron. commonly are), but is placed after it, and grouped with the notice of Polycarp's martyrdom, which occurred, not in 167, but in 155 or 156 (see above,

Bk. IV. chap. 1 note 2).

It would seem, as remarked by Lightfoot (Ignatius, 1. p. 630), that Eusebius simply connected together the martyrdoms which he supposed occurred about this time, without intending to imply that they all took place in the same year.

Similar groupings of kindred events which occurred at various times during the reign of an emperor are quite common in the Chroz.

4 All the MSS. read papripwy, but I have followed Valesius (in his notes) and Heinichen in reading paptupiwy, which is supported by the version of Rufinus (de singulorum martyriis), and which is the word used by Eusebius in all his other references to the work

(Bk. V. chap. 15 and Bk. V. chaps. 4 and 21), and is in fact the proper word to be employed after cvvaywyy,

" collection."

We speak correctly of a "collection of martyrdoms," not of a ** collection of martyrs,'' and I cannot believe that Eusebius, in referring to a work of his own, used the wrong word in the present case.

Upon the work itself, see the Prolegomena, p. 30, of this volume.

5 ro) KaTad Oedv TmoAtTevaTos, with the majority of the MSS. supported by Rufinus.

Some MSS., followed by troth, Burton, and Schwegler, read xa' ds instead of card Oeov (see Heinichen's note zz Zoco).

Christophorsonus translates divinam vivendt rationem, which is approved by Heinichen.

But the contrast drawn seems to be rather between earthly kingdoms, or governments, and the kingdom, or government, of Gods and I have, therefore, preferred to give 7oAirevua. its ordinary meaning, as is done by Valesius ce retpublice), Stroth (Republik Gottes), and Closs (Staates

(cf. the notices of martyrdoms under Trajan and of apologies and rescripts under Hadrian).

Over against the distinct statement of the history, therefore, in the present instance, the notice in the Chron. is of no weight.

Moreover, it is clear from the present assage that Eusebius had strong em for putting the persecutioninto the time of Eleutherus, and the letter sent by the confessors to Eleutherus (as recorded below in chap.

4) gives us also good reason for putting the persecution into the time of his episcopate.

But Eleutherus cannot have become bishop before 174 (see Lipsius' ottes). a eoyaaeees cai Bievva, the ancient Lugdunum and Vienna, the modern Lyons and Vienne in southeastern France.

Chron. der rim. Bischife, p. 184 sq.y and note 2, above).

There is no reason, therefore, for doubting the date given here by Eusebius.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[Vents

gion. The most celebrated churches in that country sent an account of the witnesses? to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, relating in the following manner what was done among them. manner to practice and exercise his servants against the servants of God, not only shutting us out from houses and baths and markets, but forbidding any of us to be seen in any place whatever.

But the grace of God led

the conflict against him, and delivered the weak, and set them as firm pillars, able through patience to endure all the wrath of the Evil One.

And they joined battle with him, undergoing all kinds of shame and injury ; and regarding their great sufferings as little, they hastened to Christ, manifesting truly that 'the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.'* First of all, they endured nobly

the injuries heaped upon them by the populace ; clamors and blows and draggings and robberies and stonings and imprisonments,' and all things which an infuriated mob delight in inflicting on enemies and adversaries. Then,

being taken to the forum by the chiliarch® and the authorities of the city, they were examined in the presence of the whole multitude, and having confessed, they were imprisoned until the arrival of the governor.

When,

afterwards, they were brought before him, and he treated us with the utmost cruelty, Vettius Epagathus,' one of the brethren, and a man filled with love for God and his neighbor, interfered.

His life was so consistent that, although young, he had attained a reputation equal to that of the elder Zacharias: for he

'walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,' ® and was untirSS en i OA eee ie I will give their own words.®

"The servants of Christ residing at Vienne and Lyons, in Gaul, to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, who hold the same faith and hope of redemption, peace and grace and glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our

Lord."

Then, having related some other matters, they begin their account in this manner :

"The greatness of the tribulation in this region, and the fury of the heathen against the saints, and the sufferings of the blessed witnesses, we cannot recount accurately, nor indeed

could they possibly be recorded.

For with all his might the adversary fell upon us, giving us a foretaste of his unbridled activity at his future coming.

He endeavored in every 2 waptvpwv.

This word is used in this and the following chapters of all those that suffered in the persecution, whether they lost their lives or not, and therefore in a broader sense than our word

"martyr."

In order, therefore, to avoid all ambiguity I have translated the word in every case "'witness," its original significance.

Upon the use of the words wdprvp and pdprus in the early Church, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15. ve 8 The fragments of this epistle, preserved by Eusebius in this and the next chapter, are printed with a commentary by Routh, in his Rel. Sacre.

1. p. 285 sq., and an English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 778 sq.

There can be no doubt as to the early date and reliability of the epistle.

It bears no traces of a later age, and contains little of the marvelous, which entered so largely into the spurious martyrologies of a later day. Its enuineness is in fact questioned by no one so far as I am aware. ft is one of the most beautiful works of the kind which we have, and -well deserves the place in his Hzstory which Eusebius has accorded it. We may assume that we have the greater part of the epistle in so far as it related to the martyrdoms.

Ado, in his Mart., asserts that forty-eight suffered martyrdom, and even gives a list of their names. i is possible that he gained his information from the epistle itself, as given in its complete form in Eusebius' Codlection of Martyrdoms ; but I am inclined to think rather that Eusebius has mentioned if not all, at least the majority of the martyrs referred to in the epistle, and that therefore Ado's list is largely imaginary.

Eusebius' statement, that a '' multitude" suffered signifies nothing, for #vpia was a very indefinite word, and might be used of a dozen or fifteen as easily as of forty-eight.

To speak of the persecution as "' wholesale," so that it was not safe for any Christian to appear out of doors (Lightfoot, /gzatzus, Vol. I. p. 499), is rather overstating the case.

'The persecution must, of course, whatever.its extent, appear terrible to the Christians of the region; but a critical examination of the epistle itself will hardly justify the extravagant statements which are commonly made in regard to the magnitude and severity of the persecution.

It may haye been worse than any single persecution that had preceded it, but sinks into insignificance when compared with those which took place under Decius and Diocletian.

* Rom. viii. 18.

5 Of course official imprisonment cannot be referred to here.

It may be that the mob did actually shut Christians up in one or another place, or it may mean simply that their treatment was such that the Christians were obliged to avoid places of public resort and were perhaps even compelled to remain somewhat closely at home, and were thus in a sense " imprisoned."

6 xtAcapxy%s, strictly the commander of a thousand men, but commonly used also to translate the Latin Tribunus militum.

7 Of the various witnesses mentioned in this chapter (Vettius Epagathus, Sanctus, Attalus, Blandina, Biblias, Pothinus, Maturus,

Alexander, Ponticus) we know only what this epistle tells us.

The question has arisen whether Vettius Epagathus really was a martyr, Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 307) thinks that he was not even arrested, but that the words "taken into the number of martyrs "' (§ ro, below) imply simply that he enjoyed all the merit of martyrdom without actually undergoing any suffering.

He bases his opinion upon the fact that Vettius is not mentioned again among the martyrs whose sufferings are recorded, and also upon the use of the words,

"'He was and zs a true disciple" (§ 10, below).

It is quite possible, however, that Vettius, who is said to have been a man of high station, was simply beheaded as a Roman citizen, and therefore there was no reason for giving a description of his death; and still further the words, " taken into the order of witnesses," and also the words used in § ro, " being well pleased to lay down his life," while they do not pore that he suffered martyrdom, yet seem very strongly to imply that he did, and the quotation from the Apocalypse in the same paragraph would seem to indicate that he was dead, not alive, at the time the epistle was written.

On the whole, it may be regarded as probable, though not certain, that Vettius was one of the martyrs.

Valesius refers to Gregory of Tours (H. E. chaps. 29, 31) as mentioning a certain senator who was "' of the lineage of Vettius Epagathus, who suffered for the name of Christ at Lyons."

Gregory's authority 1s Not very great, and he may in this case have known no more about the death of Vettius than is told in the fragment which we still possess, so that his statement can hardly be urged as proof that Vettius did suffer martyrdom.

But it may be used as indicating that the latter was of a noble family, a fact which is confirmed in § 10, Ce _— he is spoken of as a man of distinction. uke i, 6, It is interesting to notice that this epistle was especially addressed to the Christians of Asia and Ph gia.

We know that Southern Gaul contained a great many Asia Minor people, and that the intercourse between the two districts was very close.

Irenzeus, and other prominent Christians of Gaul, in the second and following centuries, were either natives of Asia Minor, or had pursued their studies there; and so the Church of the country always bore a eculiarly Greek character, and was for some centuries in sympathy and in constant communication with the Eastern Church.

Witness, for instance, the rise and spread of semi-Pelagianism there in the fifth century, —a simple reproduction in its main features of the anthropology of the Eastern Church.

Doubtless, at the time this epistle was written, there were many Christians in Lyons and Vienne, who had friends and relations in the East, and hence it was very natural that an epistle should be sent to what might be called, in a sense the mother churches. Valesius expressed the opinion that Irenzeug was the author of this epistle; and he has been followed by many other scholars.

It is possible that he was, but there are no grounds upon which to base the opinion, except the fact that Irenzus lived in Lyons, and was, or afterward became, a writer.

On the other hand, it is significant that no tradition has connected the letter with Irenzus' name, and that even Eusebius has no thought of such a connection.

In fact, Valesius' opinion seems to me in the highest degree improbable,

Vietally -

THE PERSECUTION | ATSLYONS.

ors ee vants also were seized, as the governor had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly.

These, being ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they beheld the saints endure," and being also urged on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyestean banquets and CEdipodean intercourse," and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by men.

When

these accusations were reported, all the people raged like wild beasts against us, so that even if any had before been moderate on account of friendship, they were now exceedingly furious and gnashed their teeth against us.

And ing in every good work for his neighbor, zealous for God and fervent in spirit.

Such being his character, he could not endure the unreasonable judgment against us, but was filled with indignation, and asked to be permitted to testify in behalf of his brethren, that there is among

us nothing ungodly or impious.

But those about the judgment seat cried out against him, for he was a man of distinction ; and the governor refused to grant his just request, and merely asked if he also were a Christian.

And he, confessing this with a loud voice, was himself taken into the order® of the witnesses, being called the Advocate of the Christians, but having the Advocate" in himself, the Spirit' more abundantly than Zacharias."

He showed this by the fullness of his love, being well pleased even to lay down 'his life" in defense of the brethren.

For he was and is a true disciple of Christ, 'following the Lamb whithersoever he that which was spoken by our Lord was fulfilled :

'The time will come when whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.'"

Then finally the holy witnesses endured

sufferings beyond description, Satan striving earnestly that some of the slanders might be uttered by them also." goeth.' # "' Then the others were divided," and the proto-witnesses were manifestly ready, and finished their confession with all eagerness.

But some appeared unprepared and _ untrained, weak as yet, and unable to endure so great a if) "But the whole wrath of the populace,and

governor, and soldiers was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne," and Maturus, a late convert, yet a noble combatant, and against Attalus, a native of Pergamos," where he had always been a pillar and foundation, and Blandina, through whom Christ showed that things which appear mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of great glory," through love toward him manifested in power, and not boasting in appearance.

For while we all trembled, and her earthly

mistress, who was herself also one of the witnesses, feared that on account of the weakness of her body, she would be unable to make bold confession, Blandina was filled with such conflict.

About ten of these proved abortions," causing us great grief and sorrow beyond measure, and impairing the zeal of the others who had not yet been seized, but who, though suffering all kinds of affliction, continued constantly with the witnesses and did not forsake them.

Then all of us feared greatly on account of uncertainty as to their confession ;

not because we dreaded the sufferings to. be endured, but because we looked to the end, and were afraid that some of them might fall away.

But those who were worthy were seized day by day, filling up their number,

so that all the zealous persons, and those through whom especially our affairs had been established,

11 Gieseler (Ecclesiastical History, Harper's edition, I. p. 127) speaks of this as a violation of the ancient law that slaves could not be compelled to testify against their masters; but it is to be noticed that it is not said in the present case that they were called upon to testify against their masters, but only that through fear of what might come upon them they yielded to the solicitation of the soldiers and uttered falsehoods against their masters.

It is not implied therefore that any illegal methods were employed in this respect by the officials in connection with the trials. were collected together out of the two

churches.

And some of our heathen serne 27 66 9 «Ajpov, employed in the sense of '' order," " class," '' category."

Upon the significance of the word KAjpos in early Christian literature, see Ritschl's exhaustive discussibn in his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq.

18 j,e, of cannibalism and incest; for according to classic legend Thyestes had unwittingly eaten his own sons served to him at a banquet by an enemy, and (Edipus had unknowingly married his own mother.

Upon the terrible accusations brought against the Christians by their heathen enemies, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 20.

19 Jolin xvi. 2.

20 cai dv' éxeivwy pynOjval Te TaY BAacpyuwy.

The word BrAacg7juwv evidently refers here to the slanderous reports against the Christians such as had been uttered by those mentioned just above.

This is made clear, as Valesius remarks, by the cai Sv' éxetvwy, "by them a/so."

10 wapaxAntov; cf. John xiv. 16.

11 wveoua is omitted by three important MSS., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen.

Burton retains the word in his text, but rejects it in a note.

They are possibly correct, but I have preferred to follow the majority of the codices, thinking it quite natural that Eusebius should introduce the mvedpa in connection with Zacharias, who is said to have been filled with the "Spirit," not with the 4' Advocate," and thinking the omission of the word by a copyist, to whom it might seem quite superfluous after mapakAyTov, much easier than its insertion.

21 Valesius maintains that Sanctus was a deacon of the church of Lyons, and that the words amd Brévyys signify only that he was a native of Vienne, but it is certainly more natural to understand the words as implying that he was a deacon of the church of Vienne, and it is not at all difficult to account for his presence in Lyons and his martyrdom there. Indeed, it is evident that the church of Vienne was personally involved in the persecution as well as that of Lyons.

Cf. § 13, above.

18 Compare John xv. 13.

12 See Luke i. 67.

14 Rev, xiv. 4.

15 Scexpivovro.

Valesius finds in this word a figure taken from the athletic combats; for before the contests began the combatants were examined, and those found eligible were admitted (eioxpivecx), while the others were rejected (éxxpiver@a).

22 Pergamos in Asia Minor (mentioned in Rev. ii. 12, and the seat of a Christian church for a number of centuries) is apparently meant here.

As already remarked, the connection between the inhabitants of Gaul and of Asia Minor was very close.

16 éférpwoav, with Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Burton, and Heinichen. é£érecov has perhaps a little stronger MS. support, and was read by Rufinus, but the former word, as Valesius remarks, being more unusual than the latter, could much more easily be changed into the latter by a copyist than the latter into the former.

23 Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.

THE*@HURCH" HISTORY +OFEUSEBIUS.

fo Sie power as to be delivered and raised above those who were torturing her by turns from morning till evening in every manner, so that they acknowledged that they were conquered, and could do nothing more to her.

And they were astonished at her endurance, as her entire so that, through the grace of Christ, these second sufferings became to him, not torture, but

healing.

"But the devil, thinking that he had already consumed Biblias, who was one of those who had denied Christ, desiring to increase her condemnation through the utterance of blasphemy," brought her again to the torture, to compel her, as already feeble and weak, to report impious things concerning us.

But

she recovered herself under the suffering, and as if awaking from a deep sleep, and reminded by the present anguish of the eternal punishment in hell, she contradicted the blasphemers.

'How,' she said, 'could those eat children who do not think it lawful to taste the blood even of irrational animals?'

And thenceforward she confessed herself a Christian, and was given a place in the order of the witnesses. body was mangled and broken ; and they testified that one of these forms of torture was sufficient to destroy life, not to speak of so

many and so great sufferings.

But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength in her confession ; and her comfort and recreation and relief from the pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, 'I am a Christian, and there is nothing vile done by us.'

"But Sanctus also endured marvelously and superhumanly* all the outrages which he suffered.

While the wicked men hoped, by the continuance and severity of his tortures to wring something from him which he ought not to say, he girded himself against them with such firmness that he would not even tell his name, or the nation or city to which he belonged, or whether he was bond or free, but answered in the Roman tongue to all their questions, 'I am a Christian.'

He confessed this instead of name and city and "But as the tyrannical tortures were

made by Christ of none effect through the patience of the blessed, the devil invented other contrivances, — confinement in the dark and most loathsome parts of the prison, stretching of the feet to the fifth hole in the stocks," and the other outrages which his servants are accustomed to inflict upon the prisoners when furious and filled with the devil.

A great many were suffocatediin prison, being chosen by the Lord for this manner of death, that he might manifest in them his glory.

For some,

though they had been tortured so cruelly that it seemed impossible that they could live, even with the most careful nursing, yet, destitute of human attention, remained in the prison, being strengthened by the Lord, and invigorated both in body and soul; and they exhorted and encouraged the rest.

But such as were young, and arrested recently, so that their bodies had not become accustomed to torture, were unable to endure the severity of their confinement, and died in prison. race and everything besides, and the people

heard from himno other word.

There arose therefore on the part of the governor and his tormentors a great desire to conquer him ; but having nothing more that they could do to him, they finally fastened red-hot brazen plates to the most tender parts of his body.

22.

And these indeed were burned, but he continued unbending and unyielding, firm in his confession, and refreshed and strengthened by the heavenly fountain of the water of life,

flowing from the bowels of Christ.

And his body was a witness of his sufferings, being one complete wound and bruise, drawn out of shape, and altogether unlike a human form.

Christ, suffering in him, manifested his glory, delivering him from his adversary, and making him an ensample for the others, showing that nothing is fearful where the love of the "The blessed Pothinus, who had been

entrusted with the bishopric of Lyons, was dragged to the judgment seat. He wa$ more than ninety years of age, and very infirm, scarcely indeed able to breathe because of physical weakness ; but he was strengthened by spiritual zeal through his earnest desire for martyrdom. Though his body was worn out by old age and disease, his life was preserved that Christ might triumph init. When he was brought by the soldiers to

the tribunal, accompanied by the civil magistrates and a multitude who shouted against In every manner as if he were Christ himself, he bore noble witness.

Being asked

Father is, and nothing painful where there is the glory of Christ.

For when the wicked men tortured him a second time after some days, supposing that with his body swollen and inflamed to such a degree that he could not bear the touch of a hand, if they should again apply the same instruments, they would overcome him, or at least by his death under his sufferings others would be made afraid, not only did not this occur, but, contrary to all human expectation, his body arose and stood erect in the midst of the subsequent torments, and resumed its original appearance and the use of its limbs,

him 25 Blasphemy against Christianit i ist; ; ' anity, not against God or Christ; that is, slanders against the Christians (cf, =. above), as is indicated by the words that follow (so Valesius ADs.

24 Umép TavTa, avOpwmor, 26 See Bk. IV, chap. 16, note Q.

Hit) PERSECUTION,

AT) LYONS:

Viney therefore that the noble athletes, having endured a manifold strife, and conquered grandly, should receive the crown, great and incorruptible. by the governor, Who was the God of the Christians, he replied, 'If thou art worthy, thou shalt know.'

Then he was dragged away harshly, and received blows of every kind.

Those near him struck him with their hands and feet, regardless of his age ; and those at a distance hurled at him whatever they could seize; all of them thinking that they would be guilty of great wickedness and impiety if any possible abuse were omitted.

For thus they thought to avenge their own deities.

Scarcely able to breathe, he was cast into prison and died after two days.

"Then a certain great dispensation of God occurred, and the compassion of Jesus appeared beyond measure," in a manner rarely

"Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus and

Blandina and Attalus were led to the amphitheater to be exposed to the wild beasts, and to give to the heathen public a spectacle of cruelty, a day for fighting with wild beasts being specially appointed on account of our people.

Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again

through every torment in the amphitheater, as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather, as if, having already conquered their antagonist in many contests," they were now striving for the crown itself.

They endured again the customary running of the gauntlet® and the violence of the wild beasts, and everything which the furious people called for or desired, and at last, the iron chair in which their bodies being roasted, tormented them with the fumes.

And not with this did the persecutors cease, but were yet more mad against them, determined to overcome their patience.

But even thus they did not hear a word from Sanctus except the confession which he had uttered from the beginning.

These, then, after their life had continued for a long time through the great conflict, were at last sacrificed, having been made throughout that day a spectacle to the world, in place of the usual variety of combats. seen among the brotherhood, but not be-

yond the power of Christ.

For those who had recanted at their first arrest were imprisoned with the others, and endured terrible sufferings, so that their denial was of no profit to them even for the present.

But those who confessed what they were were imprisoned as Christians, no other accusation being brought against them.

But the first were treated afterwards as murderers and defiled, and were pun-

ished twice as severely as the others.

For the joy of martyrdom, and the hope of the promises, and love for Christ, and the Spirit of the Father supported the latter; but their consciences so greatly distressed the former that they were easily distinguishable from all the

"But Blandina was suspended on a stake, and exposed to be devoured by the wild beasts who should attack her."

And because she appeared as if hanging on a cross, and because of her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great zeal. For they looked on her in her conflict, and beheld with their outward eyes, in the form of their sister, him who was crucified for them, that he might persuade those who believe on him, that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ has fellowship always with the living God.

As none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken down from the stake, and cast again into prison.

She was preserved thus rest by their very countenances when they

were led forth.

For the first went out rejoicing, glory and grace being blended in their faces, so that even their bonds seemed like beautiful ornaments, as those of a bride adorned with variegated golden fringes; and they were perfumed with the sweet savor of Christ," so that some supposed they had been anointed with earthly ointment.

But the others were downcast and humble and dejected and filled with every kind of disgrace, and they were reproached by the heathen as ignokle and weak, bearing the accusation of murderers, and having lost the one honorable and glorious and lifegiving Name.

The rest, beholding this, were strengthened, and when apprehended, they confessed without hesitation, paying no attention to

'for another contest, that, being victorious in more conflicts, she might make the punishment of the crooked serpent irrevocable ;* and, though small and weak and despised, yet clothed with Christ the mighty and conquering Athlete, she the persuasions of the devil."

After certain other words they continue :

" After these things, finally, their martyrdoms were divided into every form."

For plaiting a crown of various colors and of all kinds of flowers, they presented it to the Father.

It was proper

80 81a mAevdvwy KAypwv; undoubtedly a reference to the athletic combats (see Valesius' note 27 doco).

31 ras dteédSous TOV MacTiywy Tas éxeice ci\Oicmévas.

It was the custom to compel the bestiarii before fighting with wild beasts to run the gauntlet.

Compare Shorting's and Valesius' notes 2% doco, and Tertullian's ad Natzones, 18, and ad Martyras,

5, to which the latter refers.

27 The compassion of Jesus appeared not in the fact that those who denied suffered such terrible punishments, but that the difference between their misery in their sufferings and the joy of the faithful in theirs became a means of strength and encouragement to the other Christians.

Compare the note of Heinichen (III. p. 180).

28 Cf. 2 Cor. ii. rs.

Cf. also Bk. IV. chap. 15, § 37, above.

29 pera TavTa dy AouToy cis may Eldos Sinperto TA MapTYpLa THs efddov avTav, 82 Among the Romans crucifixion was the mode of punishment commonly inflicted upon slaves and the worst criminals.

Roman citizens were exempt from this indignity.

See Lipsius' De Cruce -and the various commentaries upon the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Christ.

Compare Isa, xxvii. 1, which is possibly referred to here.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

EVey. ee might arouse the zeal of the brethren, and, having overcome the adversary many times might receive, through her conflict, the crown incoras about to be set free; but confessing, they were added to the order of the witnesses.

But some continued without, who had never possessed a trace of faith, nor any apprehension of the wedding garment,® nor an understanding of the fear of God; but, as sons of perdition, they blasphemed the Way through their apostasy.

But all the others were added to the

Church.

While these were being examined, a certain Alexander, a Phrygian by birth, and physician by profession, who had resided in Gaul for many years, and was well known to all on account of his love to God and boldness of speech (for he was not without a share of apostolic grace), standing before the judgment seat, and by signs encouraging them to confess, appeared to those standing by as if in travail.

But the people being enraged because those who formerly denied now confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of this.

Then the governor summoned him and inquired who he was.

And when he answered that he was a Christian, being very angry he condemned him to the wild beasts.

And on the next day he entered along with Attalus.

For to please the people, the governor had ordered Attalus again to the wild beasts.

And they were tortured in

the amphitheater with all the instruments contrived for that purpose, and having endured a very great conflict, were at last sacrificed.

Alexander neither groaned nor murmured in any manner, but communed in his heart with God.

Butwhen Attalus was placed in

the iron seat, and the fumes arose from his burning body, he said to the people in the Roman language:

'Lo! this which ye do is devouring men; but we do not devour men; nor do any other wicked thing.'

And being asked, what name God has, he replied, 'God has not a name as man has.' ruptible.

"But Attalus was called for loudly by the people, because he was a person of distinction.

He entered the contest readily on account of a good conscience and his genuine practice in Christian discipline, and as he had always been a witness for the truth among

us.

He was led around the amphitheater, a tablet being carried before him on which was written in the Roman language 'This is

Attalus the Christian,' and the people were filled with indignation against him.

But when the governor learned that he was a Roman, he commanded him to be taken back with the rest of those who were in prison concerning whom he had written to Caesar, and whose answer he was

awaiting.

" But the intervening time was not wasted nor fruitless to them ; for by their patience the measureless compassion of Christ was manifested.

For through their continued life the dead were made alive, and the witnesses showed favor to those who had failed to witness.

And the virgin mother had much joy in receiving

alive those whom she had brought forth as

dead."

For through their influence many who had denied were restored, and re-begotten, and rekindled with life, and learned to confess.

And being made alive and strengthened, they went to the judgment seat to be again interrogated by the governor ; God, who desires not the death of the sinner,® but mercifully invites to repentance, treating them

with kindness. For Cesar commanded that they should be put to death,® but that any who might deny should be set free.

Therefore, at the beginning of the public festival" which took place there, and which was attended by crowds of men from all nations, the governor brought the blessed ones to the judgment seat, to make of them a show and spectacle for the multitude.

Wherefore also he examined them again, and beheaded those who appeared to possess Roman citizenship, but he sent the others

" After all these, on the last day of the contests, Blandina was again brought in, with Ponticus, a boy about fifteen years old.

They had been brought every day to witness the sufferings of the others, and had been pressed to swear by the idols.

But because they remained steadfast and despised them, the multitude became furious, so that they had no compassion for the youth of the boy nor respect for the sex of the woman.

Therefore they exposed them

to all the terrible sufferings and took them through the entire round of torture, repeatedly urging them to swear, but being unable to effect this ; for Ponticus, encouraged by his sister so that even the heathen could see that she was confirming and strengthening him, having nobly endured every torture, gave up the ghost.

Seton as peso ee oe Oo cae ee ee to the wild beasts.

" And Christ was glorified greatly in those who had formerly denied him, for, contrary to the expectation of the heathen, they confessed.

For they were examined by themselves, 34 ds vexpovs eférpwoe, Compare § 11, above.

85 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

3 amotuumavig@jvar.

The word means literally "beaten to -death," but it is plain that it is used in a general sense here, from the fact that some were beheaded and some sent to the wild beasts, as we are told just below.

87 Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 329) identifies this with the meeting of the general assembly of the Gallic nations, which took place annually in the month of August for the celebration of the worship of Augustus, and was attended with imposing ceremonies games

<ontests, &c.

The identification is not at all improbable.

, é 88 Cf. Matt, xxii, 12.

THE PERSECUTION AT LYONS.

a7 Ae | not bury the bodies. For neither did night avail us for this purpose, nor did money persuade, nor entreaty move to compassion; but they kept watch in every way, as if the prevention of the burial would be of some great advantage to them."

But the blessed Blandina, last of all, having, as a noble mother, encouraged her children and sent them before her victorious to the King, endured herself all their conflicts and hastened after them, glad and rejoicing in her departure as if called to a marriage supper, rather than cast to wild beasts.

And, after the scourging, after the wild beasts, after the roasting seat,® she was finally enclosed in a net, and thrown before a bull.

And having been tossed about by the animal, but feeling none of the things which were happening to her, on account of her hope and firm hold upon what had been entrusted to her, and her communion with Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen themselves confessed that never among them

In addition, they say after other things :

"The bodies of the martyrs, having thus in every manner been exhibited and exposed for six days, were afterward burned and reduced to ashes, and swept into the Rhone by the wicked men, so that no trace of them might appear on the earth.

And this

they did, as if able to conquer God, and prevent their new birth; 'that,' as they said, 'they may have no hope of a resurrection," through trust in which they bring to us this foreign and new religion, and despise terrible things, and are ready even to go to death with joy.

Now let us see if they will rise again, and if their God is able to help them, and to deliver them out of our hands.' "'

had a woman endured so many and such terrible tortures.

"But not even thus was their madness and cruelty toward the saints satisfied.

For, incited by the Wild Beast, wild and barbarous tribes were not easily appeased, and their violence found another peculiar opportunity in

the dead bodies."

For, through their lack of manly reason, the fact that they had been conquered did not put them to shame, but rather

CHAPTER II.

The Martyrs, beloved of God, kindly ministered the more enkindled their wrath as that of a wild beast, and aroused alike the hatred of governor and people to treat us unjustly ; that the Scripture might be fulfilled: 'He that is lawless, let unto those who fell in the Persecution.

Sucu things happened to the churches

of Christ under the above-mentioned emperor; from which we may reasonably conjecture the occurrences in the other provinces.

It is proper to add other selections from the same letter, in which the moderation and compassion of these witnesses is recorded in the following words : him be lawless still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.'*!

For they cast to the dogs those who had died of suffocation in the prison, carefully guarding them by night and day, lest any one should be buried by us.

And they exposed the remains left by the wild beasts and by fire, mangled and charred, and placed the heads of the others by their bodies, and guarded them in like manner from

" They were also so zealous in theirimi-

tation of Christ, —' who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,' ?— that, though they had attained such honor, and had borne witness, not once or twice, but many times, — having been brought back to prison from the wild beasts, covered with burns and scars and wounds, — yet they did not proclaim themselves witnesses, nor did they suffer us to address them by this. name.

If any one of us, in letter or conversation, spoke of them as witnesses, they rebuked him burial by a watch of soldiers for many days.

And some raged and gnashed their teeth against them, desiring to execute more severe vengeance upon them ; but others laughed and mocked at them, magnifying their own idols, and imputed to them the punishment of the Christians.

Even the more reasonable, and those who had seemed to sympathize somewhat, reproached them often, saying, 'Where is their

God, and what has their religion, which they have chosen rather than life, profited them ?'

So various was their conduct toward us ; but we were in deep affliction because we could

42 These words show us how much emphasis the Christians of that day must have laid upon the resurrection of the body (an emphasis which is abundantly evident from other sources), and in what a sensuous and material way they must have taught the doctrine, or at least how unguarded their teaching must have been, which could lead the heathen to think that they could in the slightest impede the resurrection by such methods as they pursued.

The Christians, in so far'as they a so much emphasis as they did upon the material side of the doctrine, and were so solicitous about the burial of their brethren, undoubtedly were in large part responsible for this gross misunderstanding on the part of the heathen.

39 r#yavov: literally, " frying-pan," by which, however, is evidently meant the instrument of torture spoken of already more than once in this chapter as an iron seat or chair.

40 The Christians were very solicitous about the bodies of the martyrs, and were especially anxious to give them decent burial, and to preserve the memory of their graves as places of peculiar religious interest and sanctity.

They sometimes went even to the length of bribing the officials to give them the dead bodies (cf. § 6r, below).

1 Namely, Antoninus Verus (in reality Marcus Aurelius, but wrongly distinguished by Eusebius from him), mentioned above in the Introduction.

Upon Eusebius' separation of Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus, see below, p. 399, note.

41 He xxii. 1r, The citation of the Apocalypse at this date as Scripture (iva » ypaph mAnpwOy) is noteworthy,

2 Phil. ii. 6.

THE*CHURCH® HISTORY] OF "EUSEBLUS.

Iie25 always loved peace, and having commended peace to us," they went in peace to God, leaving no sorrow to their mother, nor division or strife to the brethren, but joy and peace and concord and love."'

sharply.

For they conceded cheerfully the appellation of Witness to Christ 'the faithful and true Witness,' ® and 'firstborn of the dead,' * and prince of the life of God ;° and they reminded us of the witnesses who had already departed, and said, ' They are already witnesses whom Christ has deemed worthy to be taken up in their confession, having sealed their testimony by their departure ; but we are lowly and humble confessors.'®

And they besought the brethren with tears that earnest prayers should be This record of the affection of those

blessed ones toward the brethren that had fallen may be profitably added on account of the inhuman and unmerciful disposition of those who, after these events, acted unsparingly toward the members of Christ." offered that they might be made perfect.'

They showed in their deeds the power of 'testimony,' manifesting great boldness toward all the brethren, and they made plain their nobility through patience and fearlessness and courage, but they refused the title of Witnesses as distinguishing them from their breth-

CHAPTER III.

The Vision which appeared in a Dream to the Witness Attalus. ren,® being filled with the fear of God."

A little further on they say:

'They humbled themselves under the mighty hand, by which they are now greatly exalted.?

They defended all, but accused none.

They absolved all, but bound none."

And _ they prayed for those who had inflicted cruelties upon them, even as Stephen, the perfect witness,

THE same letter of the above-mentioned

witnesses contains another account worthy of remembrance.

No one will object to our bringing it to the knowledge of our readers, It runs as follows: "For a certain Alci-

biades," who was one of them, led a very austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but bread and water.

When he endeavored to continue this same sort of life in prison, it was revealed to Attalus after his first conflict in the amphitheater that Alcibiades was not doing well in refusing the creatures of God and placing a stumbling-block before others.

And Alci-

biades obeyed; and partook of all things without restraint, giving thanks to God.

For they were not deprived of the grace of God, but the Holy Ghost was their counselor."

Let this suffice for these matters.

' Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.'"

But if he prayed for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren !"

And again after mentioning other matters, they say :

"For, through the genuineness of their love, their greatest contest with him was that the Beast, being choked, might cast out alive those whom he supposed he had swallowed.

For they did not boast over the fallen, but helped them in their need with those things in which they themselves abounded, having the compasThe followers of Montanus,? Alcibiades ® and Theodotus* in Phrygia were now first giving wide circulation to their assumption in regard to prophecy, — for the many other miracles

sion of a mother, and shedding many tears

on their account before the Father.

They asked for life, and he gave it to them, and they shared it with their neighbors.

Victorious over everything, they departed to God.

Having 13 nuiv, which is found in four important MSS. and in Nicephorss, and is supported by Rufinus and adopted by Ste hanus, troth, Burton, and Zimmermann.

The majority of the MSS., followed by all the other editors, including Heinichen, read dei.

8 Rev. iii. 14.

£ Rev, 1. 5.

5 apxny@ THs SwHs Tod Oeod.

Cf. Rev. iii. 14, 6 ouodoyo.

The regular technical term for " confessor," which later came into general use, was ou0AoynTis.

14 Eusebius refers here to the Novatians, who were so severe in their treatment of the lapsed, and who in his day were spread very widely and formed an aggressive and compact organization (see below,

Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1).

7 rehewwOjvat; i.e. be made perfect by martyrdom. use of teActow, see below, Bk. VI. chap. also Bk. VII. chap. 15, § 5, § por For this » § 13, and chap.

and see Baicers Theaards mee ure 8 pds Tovs adeAdous.

» Compare x Pet. v. 6, ,_ 7 Of this Alcibiades we know only what is told us in this connection.

Doubtless Eusebius found this extract very much to his taste, for we know that he was not inclined to asceticism.

The enthusiastic spirit of the Lyons Christians comes out strongly in the extract, and considerable light is thrown by it upon the state of the Church there.

Imprisoned confessors were never permitted to suffer for want of food and the other comforts of life so long as their brethren were allowed access to them. Compare e.g. Lucian's Pere-ges eee

10 acu mév dmoAoyovvro.

Rufinus translates placabant omnes i Musculus, omnzbus rationem fidei sue reddebant ; Valesius, o7nium defensionem suscipiebant, though he maintains in a note that the rendering of Musculus, or the translation omnzbus se excusabant, is more correct.

It is true that mag amoAoyodvro ought strictly to mean "apologized zo all" rather than "for all," the latter Delag commonly expressed by the use of iép with the genitive (see the lexicons s.v. amoAoyéouar).

At the same time, though it may not be possible to produce any other examples of the use of the dative, instead of ¥rép with the genitive, after amodoyéouat, it is clear from the context that it must be accepted in the present case, n Montanus and the Montanists, see below, chap.

16 sa.

3 Of this Montanist Alcibiades we know Sues He' is, of course, to be distinguished from the confessor mentioned just above.

The majority of the editors of Eusebius substitute his name for that of Miltiades in chap. 16, below, but the MSS. all read McA7iddny, and the emendation is unwarranted (see chap. 16, note

7). Salmon suggests that we should read Miltiades instead of Alcibiades in the present passage, supposing that the latter may have crept in through a copyist's error, under the influence of the name Alcibiades men-. tioned just above.

Such an error is possible, but not probable (see chap. 16, note 7), u The question of the readmission of the lapsed had not yet become a burning one.

The conduct of the martyrs here in absolving (cAvov) those who had shown weakness under persecution is similar to that which caused so much dispute in the Church during and after the persecution of Decius.

See below, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1.

22 Acts vii. 60.

* Of the Montanist Theodotus we know only what is told us here and in chap. 16, below (see that chapter, note 25),

STORY OF THE THUNDERING LEGION.

Ve se] that, through the gift of God, were still wrought in the different churches caused their prophesying to be readily credited by many, — and as dissension of the witnesses given in the letter already mentioned, of whom some were beheaded, others cast to the wild beasts, and others fell asleep in prison, or give the number of confessors? still surviving at that time?

For whoever desires can readily find the full account by consulting the letter itself, which, as I have said, is recorded in our Collection of Martyrdoms.?

Such were the events which happened under Antoninus.' arose concerning them, the brethren in Gaul set forth their own prudent and most orthodox judgment in the matter, and published also several epistles from the witnesses that had been put to death among them.

These they sent, while they were still in prison, to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus,® who was then bishop of Rome, negotiating for the peace of the churches.®

CHAPTER V.

God sent Rain from Heaven for Marcus Aurelius Caesar in Answer to the Prayers of our People.

CHAPTER IV.

Irenaeus commended by the Witnesses in a Letter.

Ir is reported' that Marcus Aurelius

Cesar, brother of Antoninus,' being about to engage in battle with the Germans and Sarmatians, was in great trouble on account of his army suffering from thirst.

But the soldiers of the so-called Melitene legion,* through ad THE same witnesses also recommended Irenzus,! who was already at that time a presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the abovementioned bishop of Rome, saying many favorable things in regard to him, as the following extract shows :

2 6uoAoyntov.

Eusebius here uses the common technical term for confessors; i.e) for those who had been faithful and had suffered in persecution, but had not lost their lives.

In the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, the word oudAoyor is used to denote the same persons (see above, chap. 2, note 6).

"We pray, father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in God in all things and always.

We have requested our brother and comrade Trenzus to carry this letter to you, and we ask

Cf. § 2 of the Introduction to this book (Bk. V.).

On Eusebius' Collection of Martyrdoms, see above, p. 30. you to hold him in esteem, as zealous for the covenant of Christ.

For if we thought that office could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among the first as a pres4 i.e. Antoninus Verus, whom Eusebius expressly distinguishes from Marcus Aurelius at the beginning of the next chapter.

See below, p390, note.

1 The expression Adyos éxet, employed here by Eusebius, is ordinarily used by him to denote that the account which he subjoins rests simply upon verbal testimony.

But in the present instance he has written authority, which he mentions below.

He seems, therefore, in the indefinite phrase Adyos éxet, to express doubts which he himself feels as to the trustworthiness of the account which he is about to give.

The story was widely known in his time, and the Christians' version of it undoubtedly accepted by the Christians themselves with little misgiving, and yet he is too well informed upon this subject to be ignorant of the fact that the common version rests upon a rather slender foundation.

He may have known of the coins and monuments upon which the emperor had commemorated his own view of the matter, — at any rate ':e was familiar with the fact that all the heathen historians contradicted the claims of the Christians, and hence he could not but consider it a questionable matter.

At the same time, the Christian version of the story was supported by strong names and was widely accepted, and he, as a good Christian, of course wished to accept it, if possible, and to report it for the edification of posterity. byter of the church, which is his position."

Why should we transcribe the catalogue 5 On Eleutherus, see above, Bk. V. Introd. note 2.

6 It is commonly assumed that the Gallic martyrs favored the Montanists and exhorted Eleutherus to be mild in his judgment of them, and to preserve the peace of the Church by permitting-them

'to remain within it and enjoy fellowship with other Christians.

But Salmon (in the Dect. i Christian Biog. III. p. 937) has shown, in my opinion conclusively, that the Gallic confessors took the opposite side, and exhorted Eleutherus to confirm the Eastern Church in its condemnation of the Montanists, representing to him that he would threaten the peace of the Church by refusing to recognize the justice of the decision of the bishops of the East and by setting

2 rovrov bé adeAdhov: the tovrov referring to the Antoninus mentioned at the close of the previous chapter.

Upon Eusebius' confusion of the successors of Antoninus Pius, see below, p. 390, note. imself in opposition to them.

Certainly, with their close connection with Asia Minor, we should expect the Gallic Christians to be early informed of the state of affairs in the East, and it is not difficult to think that they may have formed the same opinion in regard, to the new prophecy which the majority of their brethren there had formed.

The decisive argument for Salmon's opinion is the fact that Eusebius calls the letter of the Lyons confessors to Eleutherus

"pious and most orthodox.''

Certainly, looking upon Montanism -as one of the most execrable of heresies and as the work of Satan

3 It is an historical fact that,in 174 a.D., the Roman army in Hungary was relieved from a very dangerous predicament by the sudden occurrence of a thunder-storm, which quenched their thirst and frightened the barbarians, and thus gave the Romans the victory.

By heathen writers this event (quite naturally considered miraculous) was held to have taken place in answer to prayer, but by no means in answer to the prayers of the Christians.

Dion Cassius (LX XI.8) ascribes the supposed miracle to the conjurations of the Egyptian magician Arnuphis; Capitolinus (Vzta Marc.

Aureliz, chap. 24, and Vita Helzogabalz, chap.g), to the prayer of Marcus Aurelius.

The emperor himself expresses his view upon a coin which represents Jupiter as hurling lightning against the barbarians (see Eckhel. Vzemezs7z. III. 61). himself (cf. his words in chap. 16, below), it is very difficult to suppose that he can have spoken of a letter written expressly in favor cof the Montanists in any such terms of respect.

Salmon says: "It is monstrous to imagine that Eusebius, thinking thus of Montanism, could praise as pious or orthodox the opinion of men who, ignorant of Satan's devices, should take the devil's work for God's.

The way in which we ourselves read the history is that the Montanzsts had appealed to Rome ; that the Church party solicited the good offices of their countrymen settled in Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing the disturbance to the peace of the churches (a phrase probably preserved by Eusebius from the letter itself) which would enAs early as the time of Marcus Aurelius himself the Christians ascribed the merit of the supposed miracle to their own prayers

(e.g. Apolinarius, mentioned just below), and this became the common belief among them (cf. Tertullian, 4fo/. chap. 5, quoted just below, and ad Scap. chap. 4, and the forged edict of Marcus Aurelius, appended to Justin Martyr's first Apology).

It is probable that the whole legion prayed for deliverance to their respective deities, and thus quite naturally each party claimed the victory for its particular gods.

That there were some Christians in the army of Marcus Aurelius there is, of course, no reason to doubt, but that a legion at that time was wholly composed of Christians, as Eusetbius implies, is inconceivable. sue if the Roman Church should approve what the Church on the spot had condemned.

. To avert, then, the possibility of the calamity of a breach between the Eastern and Western churches, the Gallic churches, it would appear, not only wrote, but sent Irenzus to Rome at the end of 177 or the beginning of 178.

The hypothesis here made relieves us from the necessity of supposing this mpeaBeia to have been unsuccessful, while it fully accounts far the mecessity of sending it."

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

4 This legion was called the Melitene from the place where it was

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[V. 5

Se trustworthy witness of these things.

In the Apology for the Faith, which he addressed to the Roman Senate, and which work we have already mentioned,' he confirms the history with greater and stronger proofs.

writes" that there are still extant letters" of the most intelligent Emperor Marcus in which he testifies that his army, being on the point of perishing with thirst in Germany, was saved by the prayers of the Christians.

And he says also that this emperor threatened death" to those who brought accusation against us.

He adds further : *

"What kind of laws are those which impious, unjust, and cruel persons use against us alone? which Vespasian, though he had conquered the Jews, did not regard

;* which Trajan partially annulled, forbidding Christians to the faith which has given strength from that time to the present, when they were drawn up before the enemy, kneeled on the ground, as is our custom in prayer,> and engaged in sup-

plications to God.

This was indeed a strange sight to the enemy, but it is reported ® that a stranger thing immediately followed.

The lightning drove the enemy to flight and destruction, but a shower refreshed the army of those who had called on God, all of whom had been on the point of perishing with thirst.

This story is related by non-Christian writers who have been pleased to treat the times referred to, and it has also been recorded by our own people.'

By those historians who were strangers to the faith, the marvel is mentioned, but it is not acknowledged as an answer to our prayers.

But by our own people, as friends of the truth, the occurrence is related in a simple and artless manner.

Among these is Apolinarius,* who says that from that time the legion through whose prayers the wonder took place received from the emperor a title appropriate to the event, be sought after ; which neither Adrian," though inquisitive in all matters, nor he who was called

Pius" sanctioned."

But let any one treat these things as he chooses ;* we must pass on to what followed.

Pothinus having died with the other mar-

tyrs in Gaul at ninety years of age,'? Irenzeus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church at Lyons."

We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp." In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work.

He writes as follows :¥ being called in the language of the Romans

the Thundering Legion.

Tertullian is a

regularly stationed, — Melitene, a city in Eastern Cappadocia, or Armenia.

5 Kneeling was the common posture of offering prayer in the early Church, but the standing posture was by no means uncommon, especially in the offering of thanksgiving.

Upon Sunday and during the whole period from Easter to Pentecost all prayers were regularly offered in a standing position, as a symbolical expression of joy (cf. Tertullian, de Corona, chap.3; de

Oratione, chap. 23, &c.).

The practice, however, was not universal, and was therefore decreed by the Nicene Council in its twentieth canon (Hefele, Conczlzengesch. 1. 430).

See Kraus' Real-Encyclopidie der Christlichen Alterthiimer, Bd. I. p. 557 sqq9 In Bk. II. chap. 2, § 4, and Bk. III. chap. 33, § 3 (quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 20, § 9).

10 4 fol. chap. 511 A pretended epistle of Marcus Aurelius, addressed to the Senate, in which he describes the miraculous deliverance of his army through the prayers of the Christians, is still extant, and stands at the close of Justin Martyr's first Apology.

It is manifestly the work of a Christian, and no one now thinks of accepting it as genuine.

It is in all probability the same epistle to which Tertullian refers, and therefore must Tae been forged before the end of the second century, although its exact date cannot be determined.

See Overbeck, Studien zur Gesch. d. alten Kirche, 1 6 Adyos exer, See above, note 1.

7 Dion Cassius and Capitolinus record the occurrence (as mentioned above, note 2).

It is recorded also by other writers after Eusebius' time, such as Claudian and Zonaras.

None of them, however, attribute the occurrence to the prayers of the Christians, but all claim it for the heathen gods. The only pre-Eusebian Christian accounts of this event still extant are those contained in the forged edict of Marcus Aurelius and in the Afology of Tertullian, quoted just below (cf. also his de Orat. 29). _

Cyprian also probably refers to the same event in his Trvactat.ad Demetriadem, 20.

Eusebius, in referring to Apolinarius and Tertullian, very likely mentions all the accounts with which he was acquainted.

Gregory Nyssa, Jerome, and other later Christian writers refer to the event.

12 The epistle says that the accuser is to be burned alive (Cavra xated@ac).

Tertullian simply says that he is to be punished with a "condemnation of greater severity" (damnatione et quidem tetrtore).

Eusebius therefore expresses himself more definitely than @ertullian, though it is very likely that the poor Greek translation which he used had already made of damnatio tetrior the simpler and more telling expression, Qavarés, 8 i.e. Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis.

Upon him and his writings, see above, Bk. lV. chap. 27, note 1.

This reference is in all Pe pebility to the Afology of Apolinarius, as this is the only work known to us which would have been likely to contain an account of such an event.

The fact that in the reign of the very emperor under whom the occurrence took place, and in an Apology addressed to him, the Christians could be indicated as the source of the miracle, shows the firmness of this belief among the Christians themselves, and also proves that they must have been so numerous in the army as to justify them in setting up a counter-claim over against the heathen soldiers.

18 A pol. ibid.

14 See Bk. III. chap. 12, note x.

16 Upon Trajan's rescript, and the universal misunderstanding of it in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 33 (notes).

16 Upon Hadrian's treatment of the Christians, see above, Bk.

IV. chap. 9.

: 17 Upon Antoninus Pius' relation to them, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 13.

Apolinarius is ee far from the truth in his statement as to the name of the legion.

From Dion Cassius, LV. 23, it would seem that the legion bore this name even in the time of Augustus; but if this be uncertain, at any rate it bore it as early as the time of Nero (as we learn from an pecriptien of his eleventh year, Cov. /ns. Lat.

III. 30).

Neander thinks it improbable that Apolinarius, a contemporary who lived in the neighborhood of the legion's winter quarters could have committed such a mistake.

He prefers to think that the error is Eusebius', and resulted from a too rapid perusal of the passage in Apolinarius, where there must have sesod. some such words as, '' Now the emperor could with right call the legion the Thundering Legion."

His opinion is at least plausible.

Tertullian certainly knew nothing of the naming of the legion at this time, or if he had heard the report, rejected it, 18 Whether Eusebius refers in this remark only to the report of Tertullian, or to the entire account of the miracle, we do not know..

The remark certainly has reference at least to the words of Tertullian.

Eusebius had apparently not himself seen the epistle of Marcus Aurelius; for in the first place, he does not cite it; secondly, he does not rest his account upon it, but upon Apolinarius and Tertullian; and thirdly, in his Chron. both the Armenian and Greek say, '' 7 zs sazd that there are epistles of Marcus Aurelius extant,'* while tee says directly, "' there are letters extant."

See above, chap. 1, § 29.

20 Upon Irenzeus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

es 3 te Her Tit 5 sy 4, &c., and Eusebius, chap. 20, below.

↑ Back to top