Writings of Eusebius - The Church History of Eusebius
Advanced Information
Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1890 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book IV.
Chapter I.--The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of
Trajan. [968]
1. About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned
bishop of the parish of Alexandria [969] died, and Primus, [970] the
fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.
2. At that time also Alexander, [971] the fifth in the line of
succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after
Evarestus had held the office eight years. [972]
Footnotes
[968] We still have lists of bishops as old as the end of the second
century. The most ancient is that of the Roman bishops given by
Irenæus (III. 3. 3); but this has no dates. The list is probably the
official catalogue as it had been handed down to the time of
Eleutherus; but it is not authentic, as there was no monarchical
episcopate in Rome at the time of Clement, nor even in the time of
Hermas. For other churches the oldest lists date from the end of the
third century. According to one interpretation of a passage from
Hegesippus, quoted in Chapter 22, below, Hegesippus drew up a list of
Roman bishops down to the time of Anicetus; and Bishop Lightfoot
thinks he has discovered this lost catalogue in Epiphanius, Hær.
XXVII. 6 (see his article in the Academy for May 27, 1887). If
Lightfoot is right, we have recovered the oldest Papal catalogue; but
it is very doubtful whether Hegesippus composed such a catalogue (see
note on chap. 22), and even if he did, it is uncertain whether the
list which Epiphanius gives is identical with it. See the writer's
notice of Lightfoot's article in the Theologische Literatur-Zeitung,
1887; No. 18, Col. 435 sqq. The list of Roman bishops which Eusebius
gives is the same as that of Irenæus; but it has dates, while Irenæus'
has none. From what source Eusebius took his dates we do not know. His
Chronicle contains different dates. It is possible that the difference
is owing, in part, to defective transcriptions or translations; but it
is more probable that Eusebius himself discovered another source,
before writing his History, which he considered more authentic, and
therefore substituted for the one he has used in his Chronicle.
Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, p. 145) says, "We may
assume that the oldest catalogue extended as far as Eleutherus, but
rested upon historical knowledge only from Xystus, or, at the
farthest, from Alexander down." On the chronology of the Roman bishops
in general, see especially the important work of Lipsius just referred
to.
[969] Cerdon, mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 21.
[970] The Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian) makes Primus succeed to the
bishopric of Alexandria in the eleventh year of Trajan; the version of
Jerome, in the ninth. According to chap. 4, below, he held office
twelve years. No reliance can be placed upon any of the figures. The
Alexandrian church is shrouded in darkness until the latter part of
the second century, and all extant traditions in regard to its history
before that time are about equally worthless. Of Primus himself we
have no authentic knowledge, though he figures somewhat in later
tradition. See Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography, in loco.
[971] According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian), Alexander
became bishop of Rome in the eighth year of Trajan; according to
Jerome's version, in the twelfth year. He is said, in chap. 4, below,
to have died in the third year of Hadrian, after holding office ten
years. On the reliability of these dates, see note 1, above. Of
Alexander's life and character we know nothing.
[972] On Evarestus, see Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
Chapter II.--The Calamities of the Jews during Trajan's Reign.
1. The teaching and the Church of our Saviour flourished greatly and
made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews
increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils. In the
eighteenth year of Trajan's reign [973] there was another disturbance
of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished. [974]
2. For in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, and also in Cyrene,
[975] as if incited by some terrible and factious spirit, they rushed
into seditious measures against their fellow-inhabitants, the Greeks.
The insurrection increased greatly, and in the following year, while
Lupus was governor of all Egypt, [976] it developed into a war of no
mean magnitude.
3. In the first attack it happened that they were victorious over the
Greeks, who fled to Alexandria and imprisoned and slew the Jews that
were in the city. But the Jews of Cyrene, although deprived of their
aid, continued to plunder the land of Egypt and to devastate its
districts, [977] under the leadership of Lucuas. [978] Against them
the emperor sent Marcius Turbo [979] with a foot and naval force and
also with a force of cavalry.
4. He carried on the war against them for a long time and fought many
battles, and slew many thousands of Jews, not only of those of Cyrene,
but also of those who dwelt in Egypt and had come to the assistance of
their king Lucuas.
5. But the emperor, fearing that the Jews in Mesopotamia would also
make an attack upon the inhabitants of that country, commanded Lucius
Quintus [980] to clear the province of them. And he having marched
against them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt there; and in
consequence of his success he was made governor of Judea by the
emperor. These events are recorded also in these very words by the
Greek historians that have written accounts of those times. [981]
Footnotes
[973] 115 a.d.
[974] Closs says: "According to Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 32, they slew in
Cyrene 220,000 persons with terrible cruelty. At the same time there
arose in Cyprus a disturbance of the Jews, who were very numerous in
that island. According to Dion, 240,000 of the inhabitants were slain
there. Their leader was Artemion." Compare Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom.
LXVIII. 32, and LXIX. 12 sq. The Jews and the Greeks that dwelt
together in different cities were constantly getting into trouble. The
Greeks scorned the Jews, and the Jews in return hated the Greeks and
stirred up many bloody commotions against them. See Jost's Geschichte
der Israeliten, chap. III. p. 181 sq. The word "another" in this
passage is used apparently with reference to the Jewish war under
Vespasian, of which Eusebius has spoken at length in the early part of
the third Book.
[975] The Jews were very numerous both in Egypt and in Cyrene, which
lay directly west of Egypt. The Jews of Cyrene had a synagogue at
Jerusalem, according to Acts vi. 9.
[976] Lupus is, to me at least, an otherwise unknown character.
[977] nomoi. See Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10.
[978] Lucuas is called by Dion Cassius (LXVIII. 32) Andreas. Münter
suggests that he may have borne a double name, a Jewish and a Roman,
as did many of the Jews of that time.
[979] Marcius Turbo was one of the most distinguished of the Roman
generals under Trajan and Hadrian, and finally became prætorian
prefect under Hadrian. See Dion Cassius, LXIX. 18, and Spartian, Hadr.
4-9, 15.
[980] Lucius Quintus was an independent Moorish chief, who served
voluntarily in the Roman army and became one of Trajan's favorite
generals. He was made governor of Judea by Trajan, and was afterward
raised to the consulship. According to Themistius (Orat. XVI.), Trajan
at one time intended to make him his successor. See Dion Cassius,
LXVIII. 8, 22, 30, 32; LXIX. 2; Spartian, Hadr. 5, 7, and cf.
Valesius' note on this passage.
[981] The language of Eusebius might imply that he had other sources
than the Greek writers, but this does not seem to have been the case.
He apparently followed Dion Cassius for the most part, but evidently
had some other source (the same which Orosius afterward followed), for
he differs from Dion in the name of the Jewish leader, calling him
Lucuas instead of Andreas. The only extant accounts of these affairs
by Greek historians are those of Dion Cassius and Orosius, but there
were evidently others in Eusebius' time.
Chapter III.--The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the Faith during
the Reign of Adrian.
1. After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years [982] Ælius
Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed
a discourse containing an apology for our religion, [983] because
certain wicked men [984] had attempted to trouble the Christians. The
work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in
our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of
his apostolic orthodoxy. [985]
2. He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the
following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present,
[986] for they were genuine:--those that were healed, and those that
were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were
healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and
not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death,
they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to
our day." [987] Such then was Quadratus.
3. Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left,
like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. [988]
His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great
many persons.
Footnotes
[982] Trajan reigned from Jan. 27, 98, to Aug. 7 or 8, 117.
[983] The importance of Quadratus' Apology in the mind of Eusebius is
shown by his beginning the events of Hadrian's reign with it, as well
as by the fact that he gives it also in his Chronicle, year 2041 of
Abraham (124 to 125 a.d.), where he calls Quadratus "Auditor
Apostolorum." Eusebius gives few events in his Chronicle, and
therefore the reference to this is all the more significant. We find
no mention of Quadratus and Aristides before Eusebius, and of the
Apology of Quadratus we have only the few lines which are given in
this Chapter. In the Chronicle Eusebius says that Quadratus and
Aristides addressed apologies to Hadrian during his stay in Athens.
One ms. of the Chronicle gives the date as 125 a.d. (2141 Abr.), and
this is correct; for, according to Dürr (Die Reisen des Kaisers
Hadrian, Wien, 1881, p. 42 to 44, and 70 to 71), Hadrian was in Athens
from the fall of 125 to the summer of 126 and from the spring of 129
to the spring of 130. Eusebius adds in his Chronicle (but omits here)
that these apologies were the cause of a favorable edict from Hadrian,
but this is incorrect. Eusebius (IV. 12) makes a similar statement in
regard to the Apology of Justin, making a favorable edict (which has
been proved to be unauthentic) of the Emperor Antoninus the result of
it. (See Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, I. 108
sq., 139.) Quadratus and Aristides are the oldest apologists known to
us. Eusebius does not mention them again. This Quadratus must not be
confounded with Quadratus, bishop of Athens in the time of Marcus
Aurelius, who is mentioned in chap. 23; for the apologist Quadratus
who belonged to the time of the apostles can hardly have been a bishop
during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Nor is there any decisive ground
to identify him with the prophet mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 37 and
Bk. V. chap. 7, for Quadratus was a very common name, and the prophet
and the apologist seem to have belonged to different countries (see
Harnack, Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol. p. 103). Many scholars,
however, identify the prophet and the apologist, and it must be said
that Eusebius' mention of the prophet in III. 37, and of the apologist
in IV. 3, without any qualifying phrases, looks as if one well-known
Quadratus were referred to. The matter must remain undecided. Jerome
speaks of Quadratus and Aristides once in the Chronicle, year 2142,
and in de vir. ill. chap. 19 and 20. In chap. 19 he identifies
Quadratus, the apologist, and Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, but he
evidently had no other source than Eusebius (as was usually the case,
so that he can very rarely be accepted as an independent witness), and
his statements here are the result simply of a combination of his own.
The later scattering traditions in regard to Quadratus and Aristides
(chiefly in the Martyrologies) rest probably only upon the accounts of
Eusebius and Jerome, and whatever enlargement they offer is
untrustworthy. The Apology of Quadratus was perhaps extant at the
beginning of the seventh century; see Photius, Cod. 162. One later
tradition made Quadratus the angel of Philadelphia, addressed in the
Apocalypse; another located him in Magnesia (this Otto accepts).
Either tradition might be true, but one is worth no more than the
other. Compare Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., and
Otto, Corpus Apol. Christ. IX. p. 333 sq.
[984] This phrase is very significant, as showing the idea of Eusebius
that the persecutions did not proceed from the emperors themselves,
but were the result of the machinations of the enemies of the
Christians.
[985] orthotomia. Compare the use of orthomounta in 2 Tim. ii. 15.
[986] The fragment begins tou de soteros hemon ta zrga aei paren. The
de seems to introduce a contrast, and allows us to assume with some
measure of assurance that an exposure of the pretended wonders of
heathen magicians, who were numerous at that time, preceded this
ocular proof of the genuineness of Christ's miracles.
[987] Quadratus had evidently seen none of these persons himself; he
had simply heard of them through others. We have no record elsewhere
of the fact that any of those raised by Christ lived to a later age.
[988] Aristides of Athens, a contemporary of Quadratus, is called by
Eusebius in his Chronicle "a philosopher" (nostri dogmatis philosophus
Atheniensis). Eusebius does not quote his work, perhaps because he did
not himself possess a copy, perhaps because it contained no historical
matter suitable to his purpose. He does not mention him again (the
Aristides, the friend of Africanus, of Bk. I. chap. 7 and of Bk. VI.
chap. 31, lived a century later), and his Apology is quoted by none of
the Fathers, so far as is known. Vague and worthless traditions of the
Middle Ages still kept his name alive, as in the case of Quadratus,
but the Apology itself disappeared long ago, until in 1878 a fragment
of an Apology, bearing the name of "Aristides, the Philosopher of
Athens," was published by the Mechitarists from a codex of the year
981. It is a fragment of an Armenian translation of the fifth century;
and although its genuineness has been denied, it is accepted by most
critics, and seems to be an authentic fragment from the age of
Hadrian. See especially Harnack, ibid. p. 109 sq., and again in
Herzog, 2d ed., Supplement Vol. p. 675-681; also Schaff, Ch. Hist. II.
p. 709.
Chapter IV.--The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under the Same
Emperor. [989]
In the third year of the same reign, Alexander, [990] bishop of Rome,
died after holding office ten years. His successor was Xystus. [991]
About the same time Primus, bishop of Alexandria, died in the twelfth
year of his episcopate, [992] and was succeeded by Justus. [993]
Footnotes
[989] I.e. the emperor Hadrian.
[990] On Alexander, see above, chap. 1, note 4.
[991] Known as Sixtus I. (Sixtus, or Sistus, being the Latin form of
the name) in the list of Roman bishops. He was supposed to be the
author of a collection of religious and moral maxims, which were
widely read in the ancient Church and are mentioned by many of the
Fathers. His authorship was disputed by Jerome and others, and the
work from that time on was commonly assigned to a heathen author,
until recently some voices have again been heard in favor of the
authorship of Bishop Sixtus (notably de Lagarde and Ewald). See
Schaff's Church Hist. II. p. 703 sq. He is, according to Lipsius, the
first Roman bishop whose dates we have any means of ascertaining, and
it may be assumed that he was the first one that occupied an episcopal
position in Rome; and yet, even in his time, the monarchical
episcopate can hardly have been established in its full sense. In the
next Chapter we are told that he held office ten years; and this
figure, which is supported by most of the ancient catalogues, may be
accepted as approximately correct. The date of his accession given
here by Eusebius cannot, however, be correct; for, as Lipsius has
shown (Chron. de röm. Bischöfe, p. 183 sq.) he must have died at least
as early as 126 a.d. (possibly as early as 124), so that his accession
took place not later than 116; that is, before the death of Trajan.
Like most of the other early Roman bishops he is celebrated as a
martyr in the martyrologies, but the fact of his martyrdom rests upon
a very late and worthless tradition.
[992] On Primus, see chap. 1, note 4. Eusebius contradicts his own
dates here. For in chap. 1 he says that Alexander of Rome and Primus
of Alexandria became bishops at the same time; but according to this
Chapter, Alexander died at the close of the tenth year of his
episcopate, and Primus in the twelfth year of his. Eusebius may have
used the word "about" advisedly, to cover considerable ground, and may
have grouped the two bishops together simply for convenience' sake. No
reliance is to be placed upon the dates in any case.
[993] We know nothing about Justus except that he ruled eleven years,
according to the next Chapter. If Primus died in the twelfth year of
his episcopate, as Eusebius says in this Chapter, and entered upon his
office in the twelfth year of Trajan, as he says in Chapter 1, Justus
must have become bishop about 120 a.d., in the third or fourth year of
Hadrian. It must be remembered, however, that all of these dates are
historically worthless.
Chapter V.--The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to
the Period under Consideration
1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found
preserved in writing; [994] for tradition says that they were all
short lived.
2. But I have learned this much from writings, [995] that until the
siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, [996] there were
fifteen bishops in succession there, [997] all of whom are said to
have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of
Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to
judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For
their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued
from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this
time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the
Romans, were conquered after severe battles.
3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it
is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The
first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; [998] the
second, Symeon; [999] the third, Justus; [1000] the fourth, Zacchæus;
[1001] the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the
eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; [1002] the
eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; [1003]
the fourteenth, Joseph; [1004] and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of
the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the
circumcision.
5. In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, Xystus, having
completed the tenth year of his episcopate, [1005] was succeeded by
Telesphorus, [1006] the seventh in succession from the apostles. In
the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes,
[1007] the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of the
Alexandrian church, his predecessor having held office eleven years.
[1008]
Footnotes
[994] In his Chron. Eusebius also gives the names of these bishops of
Jerusalem, without assigning dates to more than two or three of them.
But in Nicephorus Callisti the dates are given. From what source
Nicephorus drew we do not know. He is, at any rate, too late to be of
any worth as an authority on such a subject. In fact, these men were
not regular monarchical bishops, holding office in succession (see
note 4), and hence Eusebius is quite excusable for his ignorance in
regard to their dates. See Ritschl's Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche,
p. 246 sq.
[995] Reuterdahl (De Fontibus Hist. eccles. Euseb., p. 55) conjectures
that these "writings" were found in the church of Jerusalem itself,
and compares a passage in the Dem. Evang. III. 5: "The first bishops
that presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have been Jews,
and their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the country." Had
Hegesippus or any other known author been the source of his
information, he would probably have mentioned his name.
[996] In 135 a.d. See below, chap. 7.
[997] From Hegesippus (see above, Bk. III. chap. 32) we learn that
Symeon, the successor of James, was martyred during Trajan's reign. As
was seen in note 6 of the Chapter referred to, the martyrdom probably
occurred early in that reign. Eusebius, in his Chron., refers the
martyrdom and the accession of Justus to the tenth year of Trajan (107
a.d.). This leaves thirteen bishops to be inserted between 107 (or, if
this date is not reliable, 98+) and 135 a.d., which is, to say the
least, very suspicious. The true explanation appears to be that, after
the death of Symeon, the last prominent relative of Christ, the
presbyters took the lead, and that they were afterward made by
tradition into successive monarchical bishops. Closs and Gieseler
suppose that there were bishops of a number of churches in Palestine
at the same time, whom tradition made successive bishops of Jerusalem.
But the fact is, that the episcopate is of Greek, not of Jewish,
origin, and in the strictly Jewish Christian churches of Palestine no
such person as a bishop can have existed. Only after the church there
came under the influence of the Gentile church, and lost its
prevailingly Jewish character, was it possible for a bishop, in the
general sense of the term, to exist there. The Jewish Christians
assumed for their church government the form of the Jewish Sanhedrim,
though while James and Symeon were alive, they were naturally leaders
(according to the common Oriental custom, which exalted the relatives
of the founder of a religion). The Jewish character of the Jerusalem
congregation was very marked until the destruction of the city under
Hadrian (note that all but two of the fifteen bishops have Jewish
names), after which all circumcised Jews--Christians as well as
unbelievers--were excluded, and a heathen Christian congregation took
its place (see the next Chapter). According to Stroth, followed by
Closs, Stigloher, and Heinichen, the church of Jerusalem remained in
Pella after 70 a.d., and was called the church of Jerusalem because it
was made up of Christians from Jerusalem. This is possible; but
Eusebius evidently did not understand it so (compare, too, his Dem.
Evang. III. 5), and Epiphanius (de Mensa et Pond. chap 15) says
expressly that, after the destruction of the city by Titus, the church
returned again to Jerusalem, and there is no good reason to doubt the
report.
[998] On James, see above, Bk. II chap. 1.
[999] On Symeon, see above, Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.
[1000] Of Justus and the following named bishops we know nothing more.
Justus is called Judas by Epiphanius, Hær. LXVI. 20.
[1001] Zacchæus is called Zacharias by Epiphanius. According to
Jerome's version of Eusebius' Chron. he became bishop in the fifteenth
year of Trajan; according to the Armenian version, in the twelfth
year. Dates are given by the Chron. for this bishop and for Seneca,
but no confidence is to be reposed in the dates, nor in those given by
Epiphanius and Eutychius. The former, when he gives dates at all, is
hopelessly at sea. The latter gives exact dates for every bishop, but
quite without the support of ancient tradition.
[1002] The name Seneca is Latin, the only Latin name in the list. But
there is nothing particularly surprising in a Jew's bearing a Latin
name. It was quite common even for native Jews to bear both a Latin,
or Greek, and a Hebrew name, and often the former was used to the
exclusion of the latter. The name therefore does not disprove Seneca's
Hebrew origin.
[1003] 'Ephres. Epiphanius calls him 'OuEURphris. The Armenian version
of the Chron. calls him Ephrem; Jerome's version, Ephres. Syncellus
calls him 'Ephraim, which is the Hebrew form of the name.
[1004] 'Ioseph. He is called 'Iosis by Epiphanius, and Joses by
Jerome.
[1005] On Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3.
[1006] Telesphorus was a martyr, according to Irenæus, III. 3. 3
(compare below, chap. 10, and Bk. V. chap. 6), and the tradition is
too old to be doubted. Eusebius here agrees with Jerome's version of
the Chron. in putting the date of Telesphorus' accession in the year
128 a.d., but the Armenian version puts it in 124; and Lipsius, with
whom Overbeck agrees, puts it between 124 and 126. Since he held
office eleven years (according to Eusebius, chap. 10, below, and other
ancient catalogues), he must have died, according to Lipsius and
Overbeck, between 135 and 137 a.d. (the latter being probably the
correct date), and not in the first year of Antoninus Pius (138 a.d.),
as Eusebius states in chap. 10, below. Tradition says that he fought
against Marcion and Valentinus (which is quite possible), and that he
was very strict in regard to fasts, sharpening them and increasing
their number, which may or may not be true.
[1007] We know nothing more about Eumenes. He is said in chap. 11 to
have held office thirteen years, and this brings the date of his death
into agreement with the date given by the Armenian version of the
Chron., which differs by two years from the date given by Jerome.
[1008] His predecessor was Justus. See the previous Chapter.
Chapter VI.--The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian.
1. As the rebellion of the Jews at this time grew much more serious,
[1009] Rufus, governor of Judea, after an auxiliary force had been
sent him by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, proceeded
against them without mercy, and destroyed indiscriminately thousands
of men and women and children, and in accordance with the laws of war
reduced their country to a state of complete subjection.
2. The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of
Barcocheba [1010] (which signifies a star), who possessed the
character of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon
his name, boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed
wonderful powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come
down to them out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their
misfortunes.
3. The war raged most fiercely in the eighteenth year of Adrian,
[1011] at the city of Bithara, [1012] which was a very secure
fortress, situated not far from Jerusalem. When the siege had lasted a
long time, and the rebels had been driven to the last extremity by
hunger and thirst, and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered
his just punishment, the whole nation was prohibited from this time on
by a decree, and by the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the
country about Jerusalem. For the emperor gave orders that they should
not even see from a distance the land of their fathers. Such is the
account of Aristo of Pella. [1013]
4. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and
had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was
colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently
arose changed its name and was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor
Ælius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles,
the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the
circumcision was Marcus. [1014]
Footnotes
[1009] The rebellions of the Jews which had broken out in Cyrene and
elsewhere during the reign of Trajan only increased the cruelty of the
Romans toward them, and in Palestine, as well as elsewhere in the
East, their position was growing constantly worse. Already during the
reign of Trajan Palestine itself was the scene of many minor
disturbances and of much bitter persecution. Hadrian regarded them as
a troublesome people, and showed in the beginning of his reign that he
was not very favorably disposed toward them. Indeed, it seems that he
even went so far as to determine to build upon the site of Jerusalem a
purely heathen city. It was at about this time, when all the Jews were
longing for the Messiah, that a man appeared (his original name we do
not know, but his coins make it probable that it was Simon), claiming
to be the Messiah, and promising to free the Jews from the Roman yoke.
He took the name Bar-Cochba, "Son of a star," and was enthusiastically
supported by Rabbi Akiba and other leading men among the Jews, who
believed him to be the promised Messiah. He soon gathered a large
force, and war finally broke out between him and Rufus, the governor
of Judea, about the year 132. Rufus was not strong enough to put down
the rebellion, and Julius Severus, Hadrian's greatest general, was
therefore summoned from Britain with a strong force. Bar-Cochba and
his followers shut themselves up in Bethar, a strong fortification,
and after a long siege the place was taken in 135 a.d., in the fourth
year of the war, and Bar-Cochba was put to death. The Romans took
severe revenge upon the Jews. Hadrian built upon the site of Jerusalem
a new city, which he named Ælia Capitolina, and upon the site of the
temple a new temple to the Capitoline Jupiter, and passed a law that
no Jew should henceforth enter the place. Under Bar-Cochba the
Christians, who refused to join him in his rebellion, were very
cruelly treated (cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 31, quoted in chap. 8,
below). Upon this last war of the Jews, see Dion Cassius, LXIX. 12-14,
and compare Jost's Gesch. der Israeliten, III. p. 227 sq., and
Münter's Jüdischer Krieg.
[1010] Heb. B+R+ K+W+K+B+#, Bar-Cochba, which signifies "Son of a
star" (cf. Num. xxiv. 17). After his defeat the Jews gave him the name
B+R+ K+W+Z+J+B+#, Bar-Coziba, which means "Son of a lie."
[1011] I.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135.
[1012] Biththera, Rufinus Bethara. The exact situation of this place
cannot be determined, although various localities have been suggested
by travelers (see Robinson's Bibl. Researches, III. p. 267 sqq.). We
may conclude at any rate that it was, as Eusebius says, a strongly
fortified place, and that it was situated somewhere in Judea.
[1013] Whether the whole of the previous account, or only the close of
it, was taken by Eusebius from Aristo of Pella, we do not know. Of
Aristo of Pella himself we know very little. Eusebius is the first
writer to mention him, and he and Maximus Confessor (in his notes on
the work De mystica Theol. cap. I. p. 17, ed. Corderii) are the only
ones to give us any information about him (for the notices in Moses
Chorenensis and in the Chron. Paschale--the only other places in which
Aristo is mentioned--are entirely unreliable). Maximus informs us that
Aristo was the author of a Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, a work
mentioned by many of the Fathers, but connected by none of them with
Aristo. The dialogue, according to Maximus, was known to Clement of
Alexandria and therefore must have been written as early as, or very
soon after, the middle of the second century; and the fact that it
recorded a dialogue between a Hebrew Christian and an Alexandrian Jew
(as we learn from the epistle of Celsus, De Judaica Incredulitate,
printed with the works of Cyprian, in Hartel's edition, III. p.
119-132) would lead us to expect an early date for the work. There can
be found no good reason for doubting the accuracy of Maximus'
statement; and if it be accepted, we must conclude that the writer
whom Eusebius mentions here was the author of the dialogue referred
to. If this be so, it is quite possible that it was from this dialogue
that Eusebius drew the account which he here ascribes to Aristo; for
such an account might well find a place in a dialogue between two
Hebrews. It is possible, of course, that Aristo wrote some other work
in which he discussed this subject; but if it had been an historical
work, we should expect Eusebius, according to his custom, to give its
title. Harnack is quite correct in assuming that Eusebius' silence in
regard to the work itself is significant. Doubtless the work did not
please him, and hence he neither mentions it, nor gives an account of
its author. This is just what we should expect Eusebius' attitude to
be toward such a Jewish Christian work (and at the same time, such a
`simple' work, as Origen calls it in Contra Cels. IV. 52) as we know
the dialogue to have been. We are, of course, left largely to
conjecture in this matter; but the above conclusions seem at least
probable. Compare Harnack's Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., p. 115
sq.; and for a discussion of the nature of the dialogue (which is no
longer extant), see his Altercatio Simonis Judæi et Theophili
Christiani (Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 3), p. 115 sq. (Harnack looks
upon this Latin altercatio as, in part at least, a free reproduction
of the lost dialogue). See, also, the writer's Dialogue between a
Christian and a Jew ('Antibole Papiskou kai philonos 'Ioudaion pros
monachon tina), p. 33. The town of Pella lay east of the Jordan, in
Perea. See Bk. III. chap. 5, note 10, above.
[1014] Of this Marcus we know nothing more. Upon the Gentile bishops
of Jerusalem, see Bk. V. chap. 12.
Chapter VII.--The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of
Knowledge falsely so-called. [1015]
1. As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most
brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was
flourishing among the whole human race, [1016] the demon who hates
everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most
bitterly opposed to the salvation of man, turned all his arts against
the Church. [1017] In the beginning he armed himself against it with
external persecutions.
2. But now, being shut off from the use of such means, [1018] he
devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict
with the Church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the
ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him,
impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to
the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at
the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away
from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were
ignorant of the faith.
3. Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander, whom we have
already mentioned as the successor of Simon, [1019] a certain
serpent-like power, double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the
leaders of two different heresies, Saturninus, an Antiochian by birth,
[1020] and Basilides, an Alexandrian. [1021] The former of these
established schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in
Alexandria.
4. Irenæus states [1022] that the false teaching of Saturninus agreed
in most respects with that of Menander, but that Basilides, under the
pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented monstrous fables, and
carried the fictions of his impious heresy quite beyond bounds.
5. But as there were at that time a great many members of the Church
[1023] who were fighting for the truth and defending apostolic and
ecclesiastical doctrine with uncommon eloquence, so there were some
also that furnished posterity through their writings with means of
defense against the heresies to which we have referred. [1024]
6. Of these there has come down to us a most powerful refutation of
Basilides by Agrippa Castor, [1025] one of the most renowned writers
of that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man.
7. While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote
twenty-four books upon the Gospel, [1026] and that he invented
prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, [1027] and others
that had no existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order
to amaze those who marvel at such things; that he taught also that the
eating of meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the
faith in times of persecution were matters of indifference; [1028] and
that he enjoined upon his followers, like Pythagoras, a silence of
five years. [1029]
8. Other similar things the above-mentioned writer has recorded
concerning Basilides, and has ably exposed the error of his heresy.
9. Irenæus also writes [1030] that Carpocrates was a contemporary of
these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the
heresy of the Gnostics, [1031] who did not wish to transmit any longer
the magic arts of Simon, as that one [1032] had done, in secret, but
openly. [1033] For they boasted--as of something great--of love
potions that were carefully prepared by them, and of certain demons
that sent them dreams and lent them their protection, and of other
similar agencies; and in accordance with these things they taught that
it was necessary for those who wished to enter fully into their
mysteries, or rather into their abominations, to practice all the
worst kinds of wickedness, on the ground that they could escape the
cosmic powers, as they called them, in no other way than by
discharging their obligations to them all by infamous conduct.
10. Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these
ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led
astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he
furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for
slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men
brought infamy upon the whole race of Christians.
11. In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread
abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous
and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with
mothers and sisters, and enjoyed impious feasts. [1034]
12. He did not, however, long succeed in these artifices, as the truth
established itself and in time shone with great brilliancy.
13. For the machinations of its enemies were refuted by its power and
speedily vanished. One new heresy arose after another, and the former
ones always passed away, and now at one time, now at another, now in
one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various kinds and
various forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church,
which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected
its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of
its inspired life and philosophy to every nation both of Greeks and of
Barbarians.
14. At the same time the slanderous accusations which had been brought
against the whole Church [1035] also vanished, and there remained our
teaching alone, which has prevailed over all, and which is
acknowledged to be superior to all in dignity and temperance, and in
divine and philosophical doctrines. So that none of them now ventures
to affix a base calumny upon our faith, or any such slander as our
ancient enemies formerly delighted to utter.
15. Nevertheless, in those times the truth again called forth many
champions who fought in its defense against the godless heresies,
refuting them not only with oral, but also with written arguments.
[1036]
Footnotes
[1015] pseudonumou gnoseos. Compare 1 Tim. vi. 20.
[1016] This statement is of course an exaggeration. See above, Bk. II.
chap. 3, note 1.
[1017] These two paragraphs furnish an excellent illustration of
Eusebius' dualistic and transcendental conception of history. In his
opinion, heresy was not a natural growth from within, but an external
evil brought upon the Church by the devil, when he could no longer
persecute. According to this conception the Church conquers this
external enemy, heresy, and then goes on as before, unaffected by it.
In agreement with this is his conception of heretics themselves, whom
he, in common with most other Christians of that age, considered
without exception wicked and abandoned characters.
[1018] Eusebius' belief that persecution had ceased at the time of
Hadrian is an illusion (see below, chap. 8, note 14) which falls in
with his general conceptions upon this subject--conceptions which
ruled among Christian writers until the end of the fourth century.
[1019] See Bk. III. chap. 26.
[1020] Saturninus is called Saturnilus by Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and
Theodoret, and his followers Saturnilians by Hegesippus, quoted in
chap. 22, below. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 24) and Hippolytus (VII. 16)
give accounts of the man and his doctrine which are evidently taken
from the same source, probably the lost Syntagma of Justin Martyr.
Neither of them seems to have had any independent information, nor do
any other writers know more about him than was contained in that
original source. Irenæus was possibly Eusebius' sole authority,
although Irenæus assigns Saturninus only to Syria, while Eusebius
makes him a native of Antioch. Hippolytus says that he "spent his time
in Antioch of Syria," which may have been the statement of the
original, or may have been a mere deduction from a more general
statement such as Irenæus gives. In the same way Eusebius may have
needed no authority for his still more exact statement.
[1021] Basilides was one of the greatest and most famous of the
Gnostics. Irenæus (I. 24) and the early Compendium of Hippolytus (now
lost, but used together with Irenæus' work by Epiphanius in his
treatise against heresies) described a form of Basilidianism which was
not the original, but a later corruption of the system. On the other
hand, Clement of Alexandria surely, and Hippolytus, in the fuller
account in his Philosoph. (VII. 2 sq.), probably drew their knowledge
of the system directly from Basilides' own work, the Exegetica, and
hence represent the form of doctrine taught by Basilides himself,--a
form differing greatly from the later corruptions of it which Irenæus
discusses. This system was very profound, and bore in many respects a
lofty character. Basilides had apparently few followers (his son
Isidore is the only prominent one known to us); and though his system
created a great impression at the start,--so much so that his name
always remained one of the most famous of Gnostic names,--it had
little vitality, and soon died out or was corrupted beyond
recognition. He was mentioned of course in all the general works
against heresies written by the Fathers, but no one seems to have
composed an especial refutation of his system except Agrippa Castor,
to whom Eusebius refers. Irenæus informs us that he taught at
Alexandria, Hippolytus (VII. 15) mentions simply Egypt, while
Epiphanius (XXI. 1) names various Egyptian cities in which he labored,
but it is evident that he is only enumerating places in which there
were Basilidians in his time. It is not certain whether he is to be
identified with the Basilides who is mentioned in the Acts of
Archelaus as preaching in Persia. For an excellent account of
Basilides and his system, see the article by Hort in the Dict. of
Christ. Biog.; and in addition to the works of Neander, Baur, and
Lipsius on Gnosticism in general, see especially Uhlhorn's Das
Basilidianische System, Göttingen, 1855.
[1022] See Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 24.
[1023] ekklesiastikon andron.
[1024] The only one of these--"that furnished posterity with means of
defense against heresies"--whom Eusebius mentions is Agrippa Castor,
and it is evident that he knew of no others. Moreover, it is more than
doubtful whether Agrippa Castor belonged to that time. We do not know
when he wrote, but it is hardly possible that the Church had at that
period any one capable of answering such a work as the Commentary of
Basilides, or any one who would wish to if he could. The activity of
the Church was at this early period devoted chiefly if not wholly to
the production of apologies for the defense of the Church against the
attacks of enemies from the outside, and to the composition of
apocalypses. Eusebius in the next Chapter mentions Hegesippus as
another of these "writers of the time." But the passage which he
quotes to prove that Hegesippus wrote then only proves that the events
mentioned took place during his lifetime, and not necessarily within
forty or fifty years of the time at which he was writing. The fact is,
that Hegesippus really wrote about 175 a.d. (later therefore than
Justin Martyr), and in chap. 21 of this book Eusebius restores him to
his proper chronological place. The general statement made here by
Eusebius in regard to the writers against heresy during the reign of
Hadrian rest upon his preconceived idea of what must have been the
case. If the devil raised up enemies against the truth, the Church
must certainly have had at the same time defenders to meet them. It is
a simple example of well-meaning subjective reconstruction. He had the
work of Agrippa Castor before him, and undoubtedly believed that he
lived at the time stated (which indeed we cannot absolutely deny), and
believed, moreover, that other similar writers, whose names he did not
know, lived at the same time.
[1025] Of Agrippa Castor we know only what Eusebius tells us here.
Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 21) adds nothing new, and Theodoret's
statement (Fab. I. 4), that Agrippa wrote against Basilides' son,
Isidore, as well as against Basilides himself, is simply an expansion
of Eusebius' account, and does not imply the existence of another
work. Agrippa's production, of which we do not know even the title,
has entirely disappeared.
[1026] eis to euangelion biblia. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV. 12)
quotes from the twenty-third book of the Exegetica of Basilides.
Origen (Hom. in Luc. I.) says that Basilides "had even the audacity to
write a Gospel according to Basilides," and this remark is repeated by
Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. I. 1), and seems to be Jerome's authority for
the enumeration of a Gospel of Basilides among the Apocryphal Gospels
in his Comment in Matt., præf. We know nothing more about this Gospel,
and it is quite possible that Origen mistook the Exegetica for a
Gospel. We do not know upon what Gospels Basilides wrote his
Commentary (or Exegetica), but it is hardly probable that he would
have expounded his own Gospel even if such a work existed. The passage
from the Exegetica which Clement quotes looks to me like a part of an
exposition of John ix. (although Lipsius, in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. II. 715, suggests Luke xxi. 12). Meanwhile, in the Acta
Archelai, chap. 55 (see Gallandii Bibl. PP. III. 608), is a quotation
from "the thirteenth book of the treatises (tractatuum) of Basilides,"
which is an exposition of the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke
xvi.). If this is the same work, it would seem that the Exegetica must
have included at least Luke and John, possibly Matthew also, for we
know that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were all used by the
Basilidians. The respective positions in the work of the expositions
of the passages from Luke and John (the former in the thirteenth, the
latter in the twenty-third, book) would seem, however, to exclude
Matthew, if the books were at all of equal length. If Lipsius were
correct in regarding the latter passage as an exposition of Luke xxi.
12, there would be no evidence that the Commentary covered more than a
single Gospel.
[1027] According to Epiphanius, some of the Ophites appealed to a
certain prophet called Barcabbas. What his connection was with the one
mentioned here we do not know. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 6)
speaks of the Expositions of the Prophet Parchor by Isidore, the son
of Basilides. This may be another of Basilides' prophets, but is more
probably identical with the oft-mentioned Barcoph. In the second book
of these Expositions, as quoted by Clement, occurs a reference to the
prophecy of Cham or Ham. Rienstra (De Euseb. Hist. Eccles. p. 29)
thinks that Agrippa Castor was mistaken in saying that Basilides
mentioned these prophets; but there seems to be no good reason to deny
the accuracy of the report, even though we know nothing more about the
prophets mentioned. Hort (Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Barcabbas)
thinks it likely that the prophecies current among the various Gnostic
bodies belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature.
[1028] This was not a doctrine of Basilides himself, but of his
followers (compare the accounts of Irenæus and Hippolytus). If Agrippa
Castor represented Basilides' position thus, as Eusebius says he did
(though Eusebius may be only following Irenæus), it is an evidence
that he did not live at the early date to which Eusebius assigns him,
and this goes to confirm the view stated above, in note 10. Basilides
himself taught at least a moderate asceticism, while his followers
went off into crude dualism and moral license (see the excellent
account of Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. 466 sq.).
[1029] Exactly what is meant by this "five years of silence" is
uncertain. Whether it denoted unquestioning and silent obedience of
all commands, as it meant in the case of the Pythagoreans (if, indeed,
the traditions in regard to the latter have any basis in fact), or
strict secrecy as to the doctrines taught, cannot be decided. The
report in regard to the Basilidians, in so far as it has any truth,
probably arose on the ground of some such prohibition, which may have
been made by some follower of Basilides, if not by the latter himself.
A bond of secrecy would lend an air of mystery to the school, which
would accord well with the character of its later teachings. But we
cannot make Basilides responsible for such proceedings. Agrippa
Castor, as reproduced here by Eusebius, is our sole authority for the
enjoinment of silence by Basilides.
[1030] See Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 25.
[1031] The date of the rise of Gnosticism cannot be fixed. Indeed, all
the requisite conditions existed from the beginning. It was the "acute
Verweltlichung" (as Harnack calls it) of Christianity, the development
of it in connection with the various ethnic philosophies, and it began
as soon as Christianity came in contact with the Greek mind. At first
it was not heretical, simply because there were no standards by which
to try it. There was only the preaching of the Christians; the canon
was not yet formed; episcopacy was not yet established; both arose as
safeguards against heresy. It was in the time of Hadrian, perhaps,
that these speculations began to be regarded as heresies, because they
contradicted certain fundamental truths to which the Christians felt
that they must cling, such as the unity of God, his graciousness, his
goodness, etc.; and therefore the Christians dated Gnosticism from
that time. Gnosticism was ostensibly conquered, but victory was
achieved only as the Church itself became in a certain sense Gnostic.
It followed the course of Gnosticism a century later; that is, it
wrote commentaries, systems of doctrine, &c., philosophizing about
religious things (cf. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 162 sq.). It
must be remembered in reading the Fathers' accounts of Gnosticism that
they took minor and unimportant details and magnified them, and
treated them as the essentials of the system or systems. In this way
far greater variety appears to have existed in Gnosticism than was the
case. The essential principles were largely the same throughout; the
differences were chiefly in regard to details. It is this conduct on
the part of the Fathers that gives us such a distorted and often
ridiculous view of Gnosticism. The Carpocratians are the first of whom
Irenæus expressly says that they called themselves Gnostics (adv. Hær.
I. 25, 6), while Hippolytus first speaks of the name as adopted by the
Naasseni (V. 1). The Carpocratians are mentioned by Hegesippus (quoted
below in chap. 22). The system was more exclusively Greek in its
character than any other of the Gnostic systems. The immorality of the
sect was proverbial; Tertullian (de Anima, c. 35) calls Carpocrates a
magician and a fornicator. He taught the superiority of man over the
powers of the world, the moral indifference of things in themselves,
and hence, whether he himself was immoral or not, his followers
carried out his principles to the extreme, and believed that the true
Gnostic might and even must have experience of everything, and
therefore should practice all sorts of immoralities. Eusebius is
probably right in assigning Carpocrates to this period. The relation
of his system to those of Saturninus and Basilides seems to imply that
he followed them, but at no great interval. Other sources for a
knowledge of Carpocrates and his sect are Irenæus (I. 25 and II.
31-33), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 2), Hippolytus (Phil. VII.
20), Tertullian (de Anima, 23, 35), Pseudo-Tertullian (adv. omnes Hær.
3), Epiphanius (Hær. 27), and Philaster (c. 35). Of these only
Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and the earlier treatise of Hippolytus
(which lies at the base of Pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster) are
independent; and probably, back of Irenæus, lies Justin Martyr's lost
Syntagma; though it is very likely that Irenæus knew the sect
personally, and made additions of his own. Compare Harnack's
Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 41 sq.
[1032] ekeinos, referring back to Basilides.
[1033] Where Eusebius secured the information that the Carpocratians
made the magic rites of Simon public, instead of keeping them secret,
as Basilides had done, I cannot tell. None of our existing sources
mentions this fact, and whether Eusebius took it from some lost
source, or whether it is simply a deduction of his own, I am not
certain. In other respects his account agrees closely with that of
Irenæus. It is possible that he had seen the lost work of Hippolytus
(see below, VI. 22, note 9), and from that had picked up this item
which he states as a fact. But the omission of it in Philaster,
Pseudo-Tertullian, and Epiphanius are against this supposition.
Justin's Syntagma Eusebius probably never saw (see below, chap. 11,
note 31).
[1034] The chief accusations urged against the early Christians by
their antagonists were atheism, cannibalism, and incest. These charges
were made very early. Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 26) mentions them, and
Pliny in his epistle to Trajan speaks of the innocent meals of the
Christians, implying that they had been accused of immorality in
connection with them. (Compare, also, Tertullian's Apol. 7, 8, and Ad
Nationes, 7.) In fact, suspicions arose among the heathen as soon as
their love feasts became secret. The persecution in Lyons is to be
explained only by the belief of the officers that these and similar
accusations were true. The Christians commonly denied all such charges
in toto, and supported their denial by urging the absurdity of such
conduct; but sometimes, as in the present case, they endeavored to
exonerate themselves by attributing the crimes with which they were
charged to heretics. This course, however, helped them little with the
heathen, as the latter did not distinguish between the various parties
of Christians, but treated them all as one class. The statement of
Eusebius in the present case is noteworthy. He thinks that the crimes
were really committed by heretics, and occasioned the accusations of
the heathen, and he thus admits that the charges were founded upon
fact. In this case he acts toward the heretics in the same way that
the heathen acted toward the Christians as a whole. This method of
exonerating themselves appears as early as Justin Martyr (compare his
Apol. I. 26). Irenæus also (I. 25, 3), whom Eusebius substantially
follows in this passage, and Philaster (c. 57), pursue the same
course.
[1035] Eusebius is correct in his statement that such accusations were
no longer made in his day. The Church had, in fact, lived them down
completely. It is noticeable that in the elaborate work of Celsus
against the Christians, no such charges are found. From Origen (Contra
Cels. VI. 27), however, we learn that there were still in his time
some who believed these reports about the Christians, though they were
no longer made the basis of serious attacks. Whether Eusebius'
synchronization of the cessation of these slanderous stories with the
cessation of the heresies of which he has been talking, is correct, is
not so certain, as we know neither exactly when these heresies ran
out, nor precisely the time at which the accusations ceased. At any
rate, we cannot fully agree with Eusebius' explanation of the matter.
The two things were hardly connected as direct cause and effect,
though it cannot be denied that the actual immoralities of some of
these antinomian sects may have had some effect in confirming these
tales, and hence that their extinction may have had some tendency to
hasten the obliteration of the vile reports.
[1036] See above, note 10.
Chapter VIII.--Ecclesiastical Writers.
1. Among these Hegesippus was well known. [1037] We have already
quoted his words a number of times, [1038] relating events which
happened in the time of the apostles according to his account.
2. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine
in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he
flourished when he writes as follows concerning those that first set
up idols: "To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to
the present day. Among whom is also Antinoüs, [1039] a slave of the
Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian
games, which were instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also
founded a city named after Antinoüs, [1040] and appointed prophets."
3. At the same time also Justin, a genuine lover of the true
philosophy, was still continuing to busy himself with Greek
literature. [1041] He indicates this time in the Apology which he
addressed to Antonine, where he writes as follows: [1042] "We do not
think it out of place to mention here Antinoüs also, who lived in our
day, and whom all were driven by fear to worship as a god, although
they knew who he was and whence he came."
4. The same writer, speaking of the Jewish war which took place at
that time, adds the following: [1043] "For in the late Jewish war
Barcocheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, commanded that
Christians alone [1044] should be visited with terrible punishments
unless they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ."
5. And in the same work he shows that his conversion from Greek
philosophy to Christianity [1045] was not without reason, but that it
was the result of deliberation on his part. His words are as follows:
[1046] "For I myself, while I was delighted with the doctrines of
Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw that they were
afraid neither of death nor of anything else ordinarily looked upon as
terrible, concluded that it was impossible that they could be living
in wickedness and pleasure. For what pleasure-loving or intemperate
man, or what man that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could
welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would
not rather strive to continue permanently his present life, and to
escape the notice of the rulers, instead of giving himself up to be
put to death?"
6. The same writer, moreover, relates that Adrian having received from
Serennius Granianus, [1047] a most distinguished governor, a letter
[1048] in behalf of the Christians, in which he stated that it was not
just to slay the Christians without a regular accusation and trial,
merely for the sake of gratifying the outcries of the populace, sent a
rescript [1049] to Minucius Fundanus, [1050] proconsul of Asia,
commanding him to condemn no one without an indictment and a
well-grounded accusation.
7. And he gives a copy of the epistle, preserving the original Latin
in which it was written, [1051] and prefacing it with the following
words: [1052] "Although from the epistle of the greatest and most
illustrious Emperor Adrian, your father, we have good ground to demand
that you order judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we have
asked this not because it was ordered by Adrian, but rather because we
know that what we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy of
Adrian's epistle that you may know that we are speaking the truth in
this matter also. And this is the copy."
8. After these words the author referred to gives the rescript in
Latin, which we have translated into Greek as accurately as we could.
[1053] It reads as follows:
Footnotes
[1037] On the life and writings of Hegesippus, see below, chap. 22,
note 1. Eusebius in this passage puts his literary activity too early
(see above, chap. 7, note 10). Jerome follows Eusebius' chronological
arrangement in his de vir ill., giving an account of Hegesippus in
chap. 22, between his accounts of Agrippa Castor and Justin Martyr.
[1038] Already quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 32.
[1039] Antinoüs, a native of Bithynia, was a beautiful page of the
Emperor Hadrian, and the object of his extravagant affections. He was
probably drowned in the Nile, in 130 a.d. After his death he was
raised to the rank of the gods, and temples were built for his worship
in many parts of the empire, especially in Egypt. In Athens too games
were instituted in his honor, and games were also celebrated every
fifth year at Mantinea, in Arcadia, according to Valesius, who cites
Pausanias as his authority.
[1040] Hadrian rebuilt the city of Besa in the Thebais, in whose
neighborhood Antinoüs was drowned, and called it Antinoöpolis.
[1041] On Justin Martyr, see chap. 16, below. We do not know the date
of his conversion, but as it did not take place until mature years, it
is highly probable that he was still a heathen during the greater part
of Hadrian's reign. There is no reason, however, to suppose that
Eusebius is speaking here with more than approximate accuracy. He may
not have known any better than we the exact time of Justin's
conversion.
[1042] Justin, Apol. I. 29.
[1043] Justin, Apol. I. 31.
[1044] christianous monous. "This `alone' is, as Münter remarks, not
to be understood as implying that Barcocheba did not treat the Greeks
and Romans also with cruelty, but that he persecuted the Christians
especially, from religious hate, if he could not compel them to
apostatize. Moreover, he handled the Christians so roughly because of
their hesitation to take part in the rebellion" (Closs).
[1045] epi ten theosebeian
[1046] Justin, Apol. II. 12. Eusebius here quotes from what is now
known as the Second Apology of Justin, but identifies it with the
first, from which he has quoted just above. This implies that the two
as he knew them formed but one work, and this is confirmed by his
quotations in chaps. 16 and 17, below. For a discussion of this
matter, see chap. 18, note 3.
[1047] The best mss. of Eusebius write the name Serennios Granianos,
but one ms., supported by Syncellus, writes the first word Serenios.
Rufinus writes "Serenius"; Jerome, in his version of Eusebius'
Chronicle, followed by Orosius (VII. 13), writes "Serenius Granius,"
and this, according to Kortholdt (quoted by Heinichen), is shown by an
inscription to have been the correct form (see Heinichen's edition, in
loco). We know no more of this man, except that he was Minucius
Fundanus' predecessor as proconsul of Asia, as we learn from the
opening sentence of the rescript quoted in the next Chapter.
[1048] grEURmmata. The plural is often used like the Latin literæ to
denote a single epistle and we learn from the opening sentence of the
rescript itself (if the Greek of Eusebius is to be relied on) that
Hadrian replies, not to a number of letters, but to a single one,--an
epistole, as Eusebius calls it.
[1049] antigrEURpsai
[1050] This Minucius Fundanus is the same person that is addressed by
Pliny, Ep. I. 9 (see Mommsen's note in Keil's ed. of Pliny's epistles,
p. 419). He is mentioned also by Melito (Eusebius, IV. 26) as
proconsul of Asia, and it is there said that Hadrian wrote to him
concerning the Christians. The authenticity of this rescript is a
disputed point. Keim (Theol. Jahrbücher, 1856, p. 387 sqq.) was the
first to dispute its genuineness. He has been followed by many
scholars, especially Overbeck, who gives a very keen discussion of the
various edicts of the early emperors relating to the Christians in his
Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. p. 93 sqq. The genuineness of
the edict, however, has been defended against Keim's attack by
Wieseler, Renan, Lightfoot, and others. The whole question hinges upon
the interpretation of the rescript. According to Gieseler, Neander,
and some others, it is aimed only against tumultuous proceedings, and,
far from departing from the principle laid down by Trajan, is an
attempt to return to that principle and to substitute orderly judicial
processes for popular attacks. If this be the sense of the edict,
there is no reason to doubt its genuineness, but the next to the last
sentence certainly cannot be interpreted in that way: "if any one
therefore brings an accusation, and shows that they have done
something contrary to the laws (ti para tous nomous) determine thus
according to the heinousness of the crime" (kata ten dunamin tou
hamartematos). These last words are very significant. They certainly
imply various crimes of which the prisoners are supposed to be
accused. According to the heinousness of these crimes the punishment
is to be regulated. In other words, the trial of the Christians was to
be for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were guilty of moral
or political crimes, not whether they merely professed Christianity;
that is, the profession of Christianity, according to this rescript,
is not treated as a crime in and of itself. If the edict then be
genuine, Hadrian reversed completely Trajan's principle of procedure
which was to punish the profession of Christianity in and of itself as
a crime. But in the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius the
rescript of Trajan is seen still to be in full force. For this and
other reasons presented by Keim and Overbeck, I am constrained to
class this edict with those of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius as a
forgery. It can hardly have been composed while Hadrian was still
alive, but must have been forged before Justin wrote his Apology, for
he gives it as a genuine edict, i.e. it must belong to the early part
of the reign of Antoninus Pius. The illusion under which the early
Christian writers labored in regard to the relations of the emperors
to Christianity is very remarkable. Both Melito and Tertullian state
that no emperor had persecuted the Christians except Nero and
Domitian. Christian writers throughout the second century talk in fact
as if the mode of treatment which they were receiving was something
new and strange, and in opposition to the better treatment which
previous emperors had accorded the Christians. In doing this, they
ignore entirely the actual edicts of the emperors, all of which are
now lost and notice only forged edicts which are favorable to the
Christians; when and by whom they were forged we do not know. Thus
Tertullian, in addressing Septimius Severus, speaks of the favors
which his predecessors had granted the Christians and contrasts their
conduct with his; Melito addresses Marcus Aurelius in the same way,
and so Justin addresses Antoninus Pius. This method probably arose
from a misunderstanding of the original edict of Trajan (cf. Bk. III.
chap. 33, note 6), which they all considered favorable, and therefore
presupposed a friendly attitude on the part of the emperors toward the
Christians, which, not finding in their own age, they naturally
transferred to a previous age. This led gradually to the idea--which
Lactantius first gives precise expression to--that only the bad
emperors persecuted Christianity, while the good ones were favorable
to it. But after the empire became Christian, the belief became common
that all the heathen emperors had been persecutors, the good as well
as the bad;--all the Christian emperors were placed upon one level,
and all the heathen on another, the latter being looked upon, like
Nero and Domitian, as wicked tyrants. Compare Overbeck, l.c.
[1051] Our two mss. of Justin have substituted the Greek translation
of Eusebius for the Latin original given by the former. Rufinus,
however, in his version of Eusebius' History, gives a Latin
translation which is very likely the original one. Compare Kimmel's De
Rufino, p. 175 sq., and Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 463 sq., and see
Otto's Corpus Apol. I. p. 190 sq., where the edict is given, both in
the Greek of our mss. of Justin and in the Latin of Rufinus. Keim (Aus
dem Urchristenthum, p. 184 sq.) contends that the Latin of Rufinus is
not the original, but a translation of Eusebius' Greek. His arguments,
however, do not possess any real weight, and the majority of scholars
accept Kimmel's view.
[1052] Justin, Apol. I. 68.
[1053] 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 Apology,
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 9), he probably had comparatively little acquaintance with the
Latin, but enough to enable him to translate brief passages for
himself in cases of necessity.
Chapter IX.--The Epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should not be
punished without a Trial.
1. "To Minucius Fundanus. I have received an epistle, [1054] 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 [1055] be harassed and
opportunity be given to the informers for practicing villainy.
2. 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 accusation, that you should examine into it.
3. 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. [1056] But, by Hercules! if any one bring an
accusation through mere calumny, decide in regard to his criminality,
[1057] and see to it that you inflict punishment." [1058]
Such are the contents of Adrian's rescript.
Footnotes
[1054] Greek, epistolen; Latin, litteras.
[1055] Greek, hoi anthropoi; Latin, innoxii.
[1056] 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
tempted 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.
[1057] 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. 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 Trajan and Hadrian, and hence not of itself alone an
evidence of ungenuineness.
[1058] Greek, hopos an ekdikeseias; Latin, suppliciis severioribus
vindices.
Chapter X.--The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of
Antoninus.
Adrian having died after a reign of twenty-one years, [1059] was
succeeded in the government of the Romans by Antoninus, called the
Pious. In the first year of his reign Telesphorus [1060] died in the
eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hyginus became bishop of Rome.
[1061] Irenæus records that Telesphorus' death was made glorious by
martyrdom, [1062] and in the same connection he states that in the
time of the above-mentioned 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. [1063] He writes as follows:
[1064]
Footnotes
[1059] Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July 10, 138 a.d.
[1060] 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.
[1061] 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. röm. Bischöfe, 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.
[1062] In his Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3. The testimony of Irenæus rests upon
Roman tradition at this point, and is undoubtedly reliable.
Telesphorus is the first Roman bishop whom we know to have suffered
martyrdom, although the Roman Catholic Church celebrates as martyrs
all the so-called popes down to the fourth century.
[1063] On Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next Chapter.
[1064] Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 4. 3.
Chapter XI.--The Heresiarchs of that Age.
1. "For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, flourished under Pius,
and remained until Anicetus. [1065] Cerdon [1066] also, Marcion's
[1067] predecessor, entered the Church in the time of Hyginus, the
ninth [1068] 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 [1069] from the assembly of the
brethren."
2. 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: [1070] "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, [1071] 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 unknown; and
the former was just, but the latter good. [1072] Marcion of Pontus
succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless
blasphemies."
3. The same Irenæus unfolds 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.
4. And in addition to these men he says that there was also another
that lived in that age, Marcus by name, [1073] who was remarkably
skilled in magic arts. And he describes also their unholy initiations
and their abominable mysteries in the following words: [1074]
5. "For some of them prepare 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. [1075] Others repeat Hebrew names [1076] in order the better to
confound those who are being initiated."
6. But Hyginus [1077] having died at the close of the fourth year of
his episcopate, Pius [1078] succeeded him in the government of the
church of Rome. In Alexandria Marcus [1079] was appointed pastor,
after Eumenes [1080] had filled the office thirteen years in all. And
Marcus having died after holding office ten years was succeeded by
Celadion [1081] in the government of the church of Alexandria.
7. And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and
Anicetus [1082] 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 Eleutherus. [1083]
8. But Justin [1084] was especially prominent in those days. In the
guise of a philosopher [1085] he preached the divine word, and
contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against
Marcion, [1086] in which he states that the latter was alive at the
time he wrote.
9. He speaks as follows: [1087] "And there is a certain Marcion [1088]
of Pontus, [1089] who is even now still teaching his followers to
think that there is some other God greater than the creator. And by
the aid of the demons [1090] he has persuaded many of every race of
men [1091] 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. [1092] And all who followed them
are, as we have said, [1093] called Christians, just as the name of
philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no
doctrines in common."
10. To this he adds: [1094] "And we have also written a work against
all the heresies that have existed, [1095] which we will give you if
you wish to read it."
11. But this same Justin contended most successfully against the
Greeks, and addressed discourses containing an apology for our faith
to the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman senate. [1096]
For he lived at Rome. But who and whence he was he shows in his
Apology in the following words. [1097]
Footnotes
[1065] Valentinus is the best known of the Gnostics. According to
Epiphanius (Hær. 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 Syntagma of Hippolytus, informs us that
he taught in Cyprus, and this must have been before he went to Rome.
The direct statement of Irenæus as to the date of his activity there
is confirmed by Tertullian, and perhaps by Clement of Alexandria, and
is not to be doubted. Since Hyginus held 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. His 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.
[1066] Cerdon is best known as the teacher of Marcion. Epiphanius
(Hær. XLI.) and Philaster (Hær. XLIV.) call him a native of Syria.
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. Irenæus, in the passage
quoted, and the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus (represented by
Pseudo-Tertullian's Adv. Hær. and by Epiphanius) distinguish the two,
treating Cerdon separately but very briefly. The doctrines of Cerdon,
however, given by them, are identical with or at least very 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.
[1067] On Marcion, see below, note 24.
[1068] The Latin text of Irenæus here reads "eighth" instead of
"ninth." See below, note 7.
[1069] ephistEURmenos. 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.
[1070] Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 27. 1-2.
[1071] Hyginus is here called the ninth bishop, and the reading is
confirmed by a passage in Cyprian's epistle to Pompey (Ep. LXXIII. 2
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers), and also by Epiphanius (Hær. LXI. 1). In
the passage quoted just above, however, from the third book of
Irenæus, although Eusebius calls Hyginus the "ninth," the Latin text
of Irenæus makes him the "eighth," and according to Salmon in the Dict
of Christ. Biog.: "The ms. evidence is decisive that Irenæus 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. Hær. III. 3. 3), and with the description
of Anicetus as the tenth bishop a couple of Chapters further on.
Lipsius hence infers that Irenæus drew his account of Cerdon from two
sources in which Hyginus was differently described, but this inference
is very precarious. In the interval between the composition of the
first and third books, Irenæus may have been led to alter his way of
counting by investigations concerning the succession of the Roman
bishops, which he 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 Telesphorus (Hyginus' predecessor) the
seventh, in chap. 1, Alexander (the predecessor of Xystus, who
preceded Telesphorus) the fifth, and so on. 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 Irenæus 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
Irenæus 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 Irenæus to claim that Irenæus
himself wrote "ninth" at that point.
[1072] 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 Hær. chap 6) says that Cerdon
taught two Gods, one good, the other cruel (sævum); the good being the
superior God,--the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the
world.
[1073] Irenæus 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 (Ep. LXXV. 3), but he was mistaken. Hippolytus and
Epiphanius (Hær. 34) copy their accounts from Irenæus, and probably
had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus, or of his sect.
Clement 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 Irenæus, 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.
[1074] Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 21. 3.
[1075] eis ton katelthonta eis ton 'Iesoun. 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 æons, or
higher spiritual powers, and hence it is plain that in the present
case the "one that descended upon [or literally "into"] Jesus" is
referred to here as the third person of the baptismal Trinity.
[1076] The Greek and Latin texts of Irenæus add at this point widely
variant lists of these words, but in both lists the words are quite
meaningless.
[1077] On Hyginus, see the previous Chapter, note 3.
[1078] Eusebius states, just below, that Pius held office fifteen
years, and in his Chronicle 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 History, for in the
previous Chapter he puts the accession of Hyginus in the first year of
Antoninus Pius, 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
probable. 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, quoted below, in chap. 22, and of Irenæus (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.
11, 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.
[1079] Of Marcus we know only what Eusebius tells us here: that he
succeded 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
Chron., 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.
[1080] On Eumenes, see above, chap. 5, note 14.
[1081] Of Celadion we know only what 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.
[1082] Anicetus, according to the Armenian Chron. 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. Irenæus (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.
[1083] 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 from 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 before 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, epidemesai te
;;Rome, "came to the city" (so, also, Closs, Stigloher, and Crusè).
But the words properly mean "to be in Rome," not "to come to Rome,"
which would require, rather, epidemesai eis ten ;;Romen, as in §2,
above, where the words are used of Cerdon. Jerome, to be sure (de vir.
ill. 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.
[1084] Eusebius here puts Justin in his proper place, in the time of
Antoninus Pius. The date of his birth is unknown, though it cannot
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
thoroughly 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 Dial. 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 Justin der Märtyrer, 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. II. p.110 sq., where the most important literature
is mentioned. Upon his theology, see especially von Engelhardt's
masterly monograph, Das Christenthum Justins des Märtyrers (Erlangen,
1878). A recent and interesting discussion of Justin's testimony to
early Christianity is found in Purves' work on that subject (New York,
1889).
[1085] en schemati philosophou. The reference here is to the
distinctive cloak or mantle of the Greek philosophers, which was
called the pallium, and to which Justin refers in his Dial. c. Trypho,
§1. The 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 places,
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 continued to wear
the philosopher's cloak after his conversion, as we learn from Bk. VI.
chap. 19.
[1086] This work against Marcion is also mentioned by Irenæus, who
quotes from it in his Adv. Hær. 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 Irenæus. It is possible that it formed a
part of the larger Syntagma contra omnes Hæreses, mentioned by Justin
in his Apol. I. 26 (see below), and it has been urged in support of
this possibility that Irenæus nowhere mentions a work of Justin's
Against all Heresies, although it is highly probable that he made use
of such a work (see Lipsius' Quellen der ältesten Ketzergesch. and
Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). It would seem that
Irenæus 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, Ueberlieferung d. griech. Apol. p. 150; but in view of the
fact that he omits two works mentioned by Eusebius, this seems to be
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 two separate works against heretics, it is quite probable
that he did not. The 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 Apology. 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 very careless in making
the quotation.
[1087] Justin, Apol. I. 26.
[1088] 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 extreme and
perverted Paulinism, considering Paul the only true apostle and
rejecting the others as Judaizing teachers. He cut the Gospel away
from its historical connections, repudiating the Old 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
nothing 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 by
Justin, Irenæus, 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, I. 197-214.
[1089] Pontus was a province in Northeastern Asia Minor, bordering
upon the Black Sea.
[1090] 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.
[1091] 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.
[1092] allon de tina hos, onta meizona para touton homologein
pepoiekenai. 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 hosonta meizona the words ta meizona, and the sentence then reads,
"some other one, greater than he, has done greater works." It is plain
that this was the original form of the sentence, and that the harsh
construction found in Eusebius is a result of defective transcription.
It was very easy for a copyist to drop out the second meizona.
[1093] Justin refers here to Apol. 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. His mention of philosophers here in
his appeal to the philosophical emperors is very shrewd.
[1094] Ibid. I. 26.
[1095] This work is not mentioned by Eusebius in the list of Justin's
works which he gives in chap. 18. He had, therefore, undoubtedly never
seen it. Irenæus nowhere mentions it under this title, though he seems
to have made extensive use of it, and he does mention a work, Against
Marcion, which is very likely to be identified with the work referred
to here (see Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). 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.
[1096] On Justin's Apology and his work Against the Greeks, see below,
chap. 18, notes 3 and 4. As shown in note 3 of that Chapter, he really
wrote only one Apology.
[1097] Justin, Apol. I. 1.
Chapter XII.--The Apology of Justin addressed to Antoninus.
"To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrian Antoninus Pius Cæsar Augustus,
[1098] and to Verissimus his son, [1099] the philosopher, and to
Lucius the philosopher, [1100] own son of Cæsar 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,
[1101] 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 [1102] of Asia.
Footnotes
[1098] On the titles of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, see Otto's notes
in his edition of Justin's works (Corpus Apol. Christianorum, Vol. I.
p. 2. sq.).
[1099] That is, Marcus Aurelius, whose original name was Marcus Annius
Verus, but who, after his adoption by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, was
styled Marcus Ælius Aurelius Verus Cæsar. As a tribute to his
sincerity and truthfulness, he was quite commonly called, instead of
Verus, Verissimus.
[1100] The mss. are divided here between the forms philosopho and
philosophou. If the former reading be followed, we must translate, "to
Lucius, own son of Cæsar 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 "philosopher" to a Cæsar
who was still living, even though he may not have been noted for his
philosophical tastes, than to a Cæsar who was already dead, and whose
character certainly entitled him to the appellation no more than, if
as much as, his son. See Heinichen's note in loco, 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 Cæsar by Hadrian. The younger Lucius was
adopted as Cæsar 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.).
[1101] Of Justin's father and grandfather we know nothing except their
names. On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note 20.
[1102] This "Assembly of Asia" (to koinon tes 'Asias) 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, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I.
p. 366. sq.
Chapter XIII.--The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia
in Regard to our Doctrine. [1103]
1. The Emperor Cæsar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, [1104]
Armenicus, Pontifex Maximus, for the fifteenth time Tribune, for the
third time Consul, to the Common Assembly of Asia, Greeting.
2. 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.
3. 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 commands.
4. And in regard to the earthquakes which have been and are still
taking place, [1105] it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart
whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare your
conduct with theirs. [1106]
5. They indeed become the more confident 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. [1107]
6. But in regard 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. [1108] 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.
7. But if any one still persists in bringing accusations against any
of these people 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. [1109] Published in Ephesus in the Common
Assembly of Asia."
8. To these things Melito, [1110] bishop of the church of Sardis, and
a man well known at that time, is a witness, [1111] as is clear from
his words in the Apology which he addressed to the Emperor Verus in
behalf of our doctrine.
Footnotes
[1103] 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 slavish 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 sq. Wieseler contends for its genuineness, but no
good critic follows him.
[1104] 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 have been later assigned to Antonius 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, we cannot 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.
[1105] 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 Antonini Pii, chap. 9.
[1106] This sentence has caused great difficulty. Crusè translates,
"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:...hupomnesai athumountas men hotan per' osi, parabEURllontas
de ta humetera pros ta ekeinon. Stroth inserts me before athumountas,
and translates, "Was die Erdbeben betrift, die sich ereignet haben,
und noch ereignen, halte ich nicht für 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:
Cæterum de terræ motibus, qui vel facti sunt vel etiamnum fiunt, non
absurdum videtur vos commonere, qui et animos abjicitis, quoties
hujusmodi casus contingunt, et vestra cum illorum 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
men and de. Heinichen discusses the passage at length (in his edition
of Eusebius, Vol. III. pp. 670-674), and translates as follows: Non
alienum videtur vos admonere (corripere) de terræ motibus qui vel
fuerunt vel adhuc sunt, vos qui estis quidem animo abjecto, quoties
illi eveniunt, nihilo autem minus vestram agendi rationem conferre
soletis cum illorum. Overbeck follows Heinichen in his German
Translation of the edit (ibid. p. 127 sqq.), and the translation 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.
[1107] 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.
[1108] 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.
[1109] 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. 9, note 4.
[1110] On Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note 1.
[1111] Eusebius evidently draws this conclusion from the passage from
Melito's Apology, 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 early Church (see above, Bk. III. chap.
33, note 6), so it was the 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.
Chapter XIV.--The Circumstances related of Polycarp, a Friend of the
Apostles.
1. At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome,
[1112] Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at
Rome, [1113] and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question
concerning the day of the paschal feast. [1114]
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 account is taken from the third book of Irenæus' work Against
Heresies, and is as follows: [1115]
3. "But Polycarp [1116] also was not only instructed by the apostles,
and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed
by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. [1117]
4. 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, [1118] having always taught the things which he had learned
from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone
are true. [1119]
5. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those
who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, [1120] who was
a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than
Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. [1121] He also
was in Rome in the time of Anicetus [1122] 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.
6. 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.'
[1123]
7. And Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him [1124] and said,
`Knowest [1125] 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, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself.' [1126]
8. There is also a very powerful epistle of Polycarp written to the
Philippians, [1127] 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 Irenæus.
9. 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. [1128]
10. And when Antoninus, called Pius, had completed the twenty-second
year of his reign, [1129] Marcus Aurelius Verus, his son, who was also
called Antoninus, succeeded him, together with his brother Lucius.
[1130]
Footnotes
[1112] On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. He was bishop
probably from 154 to 165 a.d.
[1113] genesthai epi ;;Romes. It is quite commonly said that Polycarp
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
Irenæus in §5 below (epideuesas te ;;Rome), are to be translated "came
to Rome," as is often done (e.g. by Crusè, by Roberts and Rambaut, in
their translation of Irenæus, and by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog.), 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.
[1114] On 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 the
eucharist in Rome at the request of Anicetus.
[1115] Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 3. 4.
[1116] Eusebius takes his account of Polycarp solely from Irenæus, and
from the epistle of the church of Smyrna, given in the next Chapter.
He is mentioned by Irenæus again in his Adv. Hær. V. 33. 4 (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 Irenæus' teacher. He was one of the most celebrated men of
the time, not because 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 Christians. 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 70 a.d. He was a personal disciple of John
the apostle, as we learn from Irenæus' 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), but Irenæus' statement that he was appointed bishop of Smyrna
by apostles is probably to be looked upon as a combination of his own.
He 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 Irenæus 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 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 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.
[1117] The church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of the
"seven churches of Asia," and is mentioned in Rev. i. 11; ii. 8-11.
[1118] 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.
[1119] Irenæus emphasizes here, as was his wont, the importance of
tradition in determining true doctrine. Compare also Eusebius' words
in chap. 21.
[1120] Of these successors of Polycarp we know nothing.
[1121] kakognomonon
[1122] See above, note 2.
[1123] See above, Bk. III. chap. 28, where the same story is related.
[1124] 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 in a 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.
[1125] epiginoskeis, 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 Irenæus, read epiginoske, and this is adopted by Valesius,
Heinichen, Stroth, Closs, and Crusè.
[1126] Titus iii. 10, 11.
[1127] 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 Ignatius von Antiochien, and in
Lightfoot's Ignatius and Polycarp, II. p. 897 sqq.; an English
translation is contained in the latter edition, and also in the
Ante-Nicene 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. If 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 Irenæus,
and 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.
[1128] Polycarp in his epistle 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 1).
[1129] Antoninus Pius reigned from July 2, 138, to March 7, 161.
[1130] Both were adopted sons of Antoninus Pius. See above, chap. 12,
note 3.
Chapter XV.--Under Verus, [1131] Polycarp with Others suffered
Martyrdom at Smyrna.
1. At this time, [1132] when the greatest persecutions were exciting
Asia, Polycarp ended his 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.
2. There is a letter, written in the name of the church over which he
himself presided, [1133] to the parishes in Pontus, [1134] which
relates the events that