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 V.
Introduction.
1. Soter, [1345] bishop of the church of Rome, died after an
episcopate of eight years, and was succeeded by Eleutherus, [1346] the
twelfth from the apostles. In the seventeenth year of the Emperor
Antoninus Verus, [1347] the persecution of our people was rekindled
more fiercely in certain districts on account of an insurrection of
the masses in the cities; and judging by the number in a single
nation, myriads suffered martyrdom throughout the world. A record of
this was written for posterity, and in truth it is worthy of perpetual
remembrance.
2. A full account, containing the most reliable information on the
subject, is given in our Collection of Martyrdoms, [1348] which
constitutes a narrative instructive as well as historical. I will
repeat here such portions of this account as may be needful for the
present purpose.
3. Other writers of history record the victories of war and trophies
won from enemies, the skill of generals, and the manly bravery of
soldiers, defiled with blood and with innumerable slaughters for the
sake of children and country and other possessions.
4. But our narrative of the government of God [1349] will record in
ineffaceable letters the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the
peace of the soul, and will tell of men doing brave deeds for truth
rather than country, and for piety rather than dearest friends. It
will hand down to imperishable remembrance the discipline and the
much-tried fortitude of the athletes of religion, the trophies won
from demons, the victories over invisible enemies, and the crowns
placed upon all their heads.
Footnotes
[1345] On Soter, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 2.
[1346] Eusebius in his Chronicle gives the date of Eleutherus'
accession as the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (177 a.d.), and
puts his death into the reign of Pertinax (192), while in chap. 22 of
the present book he places his death in the tenth year of Commodus
(189). Most of our authorities agree in assigning fifteen years to his
episcopate, and this may be accepted as undoubtedly correct. Most of
them, moreover, agree with chap. 22 of this book, in assigning his
death to the tenth year of Commodus, and this too may be accepted as
accurate. But with these two data we are obliged to push his accession
back into the year 174 (or 175), which is accepted by Lipsius (see his
Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 184 sq.). We must therefore suppose that
he became bishop some two years before the outbreak of the persecution
referred to just below, in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of Marcus
Aurelius. In the Armenian version of the Chron. Eleutherus is called
the thirteenth bishop of Rome (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5),
but this is a mistake, as pointed out in the note referred to.
Eleutherus is mentioned in Bk. IV, chap. 11, in connection with
Hegesippus, and also in Bk. IV. chap. 22, by Hegesippus himself. He is
chiefly interesting because of his connection with Irenæus and the
Gallican martyrs (see chap. 4, below), and his relation to the
Montanistic controversy (see chap. 3). Bede, in his Hist. Eccles.,
chap. 4, connects Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity,
but the tradition is quite groundless. One of the decretals and a
spurious epistle are falsely ascribed to him.
[1347] i.e., the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius,
a.d. 177 (upon Eusebius' confusion of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius
Verus, see below, p. 390, note). In the Chron. the persecution at
Lyons and Vienne is associated with the seventh year of Marcus
Aurelius (167), and consequently some (e.g. Blondellus, Stroth, and
Jachmann), have maintained that the notice in the present passage is
incorrect, and Jachmann has attacked Eusebius very severely for the
supposed error. The truth is, however, that the notice in the Chron.
(in the Armenian, which represents the original form more closely than
Jenner's version does) is not placed opposite the seventh year of
Marcus Aurelius (as the notices in the Chron. commonly are), but is
placed after it, and grouped with the notice of Polycarp's martyrdom,
which occurred, not in 167, but in 155 or 156 (see above, Bk. IV.
chap. 15, note 2). It would seem, as remarked by Lightfoot (Ignatius,
I. p. 630), that Eusebius simply connected together the martyrdoms
which he supposed occurred about this time, without intending to imply
that they all took place in the same year. Similar groupings of
kindred events which occurred at various times during the reign of an
emperor are quite common in the Chron. (cf. the notices of martyrdoms
under Trajan and of apologies and rescripts under Hadrian). Over
against the distinct statement of the history, therefore, in the
present instance, the notice in the Chron. is of no weight. Moreover,
it is clear from the present passage that Eusebius had strong grounds
for putting the persecution into the time of Eleutherus, and the
letter sent by the confessors to Eleutherus (as recorded below in
chap. 4) gives us also good reason for putting the persecution into
the time of his episcopate. But Eleutherus cannot have become bishop
before 174 (see Lipsius' Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 184 sq., and
note 2, above). There is no reason, therefore, for doubting the date
given here by Eusebius.
[1348] All the mss. read marturon, but I have followed Valesius (in
his notes) and Heinichen in reading marturion, which is supported by
the version of Rufinus (de singulorum martyriis), and which is the
word used by Eusebius in all his other references to the work (Bk. IV.
chap. 15 and Bk. V. chaps. 4 and 21), and is in fact the proper word
to be employed after sunagoge, "collection." We speak correctly of a
"collection of martyrdoms," not of a "collection of martyrs," and I
cannot believe that Eusebius, in referring to a work of his own, used
the wrong word in the present case. Upon the work itself, see the
Prolegomena, p. 30, of this volume.
[1349] tou kata theon politeumatos, with the majority of the mss.
supported by Rufinus. Some mss., followed by Stroth, Burton, and
Schwegler, read kath' hemas instead of kata theon (see Heinichen's
note in loco). Christophorsonus translates divinam vivendi rationem,
which is approved by Heinichen. But the contrast drawn seems to be
rather between earthly kingdoms, or governments, and the kingdom, or
government, of God; and I have, therefore, preferred to give politeuma
its ordinary meaning, as is done by Valesius (divinæ reipublicæ),
Stroth (Republik Gottes), and Closs (Staates Gottes).
Chapter I.--The Number of those who fought for Religion in Gaul Under
Verus and the Nature of their Conflicts.
1. The country in which the arena was prepared for them was Gaul, of
which Lyons and Vienne [1350] are the principal and most celebrated
cities. The Rhone passes through both of them, flowing in a broad
stream through the entire region.
2. The most celebrated churches in that country sent an account of the
witnesses [1351] to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, relating in the
following manner what was done among them.
I will give their own words. [1352]
3. "The servants of Christ residing at Vienne and Lyons, in Gaul, to
the brethren through out Asia and Phrygia, who hold the same faith and
hope of redemption, peace and grace and glory from God the Father and
Christ Jesus our Lord."
4. Then, having related some other matters, they begin their account
in this manner: "The greatness of the tribulation in this region, and
the fury of the heathen against the saints, and the sufferings of the
blessed witnesses, we cannot recount accurately, nor indeed could they
possibly be recorded.
5. For with all his might the adversary fell upon us, giving us a
foretaste of his unbridled activity at his future coming. He
endeavored in every manner to practice and exercise his servants
against the servants of God, not only shutting us out from houses and
baths and markets, but forbidding any of us to be seen in any place
whatever.
6. But the grace of God led the conflict against him, and delivered
the weak, and set them as firm pillars, able through patience to
endure all the wrath of the Evil One. And they joined battle with him,
undergoing all kinds of shame and injury; and regarding their great
sufferings as little, they hastened to Christ, manifesting truly that
`the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared
with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.' [1353]
7. First of all, they endured nobly the injuries heaped upon them by
the populace; clamors and blows and draggings and robberies and
stonings and imprisonments, [1354] and all things which an infuriated
mob delight in inflicting on enemies and adversaries.
8. Then, being taken to the forum by the chiliarch [1355] and the
authorities of the city, they were examined in the presence of the
whole multitude, and having confessed, they were imprisoned until the
arrival of the governor.
9. When, afterwards, they were brought before him, and he treated us
with the utmost cruelty, Vettius Epagathus, [1356] one of the
brethren, and a man filled with love for God and his neighbor,
interfered. His life was so consistent that, although young, he had
attained a reputation equal to that of the elder Zacharias: for he
`walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,'
[1357] and was untiring in every good work for his neighbor, zealous
for God and fervent in spirit. Such being his character, he could not
endure the unreasonable judgment against us, but was filled with
indignation, and asked to be permitted to testify in behalf of his
brethren, that there is among us nothing ungodly or impious.
10. But those about the judgment seat cried out against him, for he
was a man of distinction; and the governor refused to grant his just
request, and merely asked if he also were a Christian. And he,
confessing this with a loud voice, was himself taken into the order
[1358] of the witnesses, being called the Advocate of the Christians,
but having the Advocate [1359] in himself, the Spirit [1360] more
abundantly than Zacharias. [1361] He showed this by the fullness of
his love, being well pleased even to lay down his life [1362] in
defense of the brethren. For he was and is a true disciple of Christ,
`following the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.' [1363]
11. "Then the others were divided, [1364] and the proto-witnesses were
manifestly ready, and finished their confession with all eagerness.
But some appeared unprepared and untrained, weak as yet, and unable to
endure so great a conflict. About ten of these proved abortions,
[1365] causing us great grief and sorrow beyond measure, and impairing
the zeal of the others who had not yet been seized, but who, though
suffering all kinds of affliction, continued constantly with the
witnesses and did not forsake them.
12. Then all of us feared greatly on account of uncertainty as to
their confession; not because we dreaded the sufferings to be endured,
but because we looked to the end, and were afraid that some of them
might fall away.
13. But those who were worthy were seized day by day, filling up their
number, so that all the zealous persons, and those through whom
especially our affairs had been established, were collected together
out of the two churches.
14. And some of our heathen servants also were seized, as the governor
had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being
ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they
beheld the saints endure, [1366] and being also urged on by the
soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyestean banquets and OEdipodean
intercourse, [1367] and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to
speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by
men.
15. When these accusations were reported, all the people raged like
wild beasts against us, so that even if any had before been moderate
on account of friendship, they were now exceedingly furious and
gnashed their teeth against us. And that which was spoken by our Lord
was fulfilled: `The time will come when whosoever killeth you will
think that he doeth God service.' [1368]
16. Then finally the holy witnesses endured sufferings beyond
description, Satan striving earnestly that some of the slanders might
be uttered by them also. [1369]
17. "But the whole wrath of the populace, and governor, and soldiers
was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne,
[1370] and Maturus, a late convert, yet a noble combatant, and against
Attalus, a native of Pergamos [1371] where he had always been a pillar
and foundation, and Blandina, through whom Christ showed that things
which appear mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of
great glory, [1372] through love toward him manifested in power, and
not boasting in appearance.
18. For while we all trembled, and her earthly mistress, who was
herself also one of the witnesses, feared that on account of the
weakness of her body, she would be unable to make bold confession,
Blandina was filled with such power as to be delivered and raised
above those who were torturing her by turns from morning till evening
in every manner, so that they acknowledged that they were conquered,
and could do nothing more to her. And they were astonished at her
endurance, as her entire body was mangled and broken; and they
testified that one of these forms of torture was sufficient to destroy
life, not to speak of so many and so great sufferings.
19. But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength
in her confession; and her comfort and recreation and relief from the
pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, `I am a Christian, and there
is nothing vile done by us.'
20. "But Sanctus also endured marvelously and superhumanly [1373] all
the outrages which he suffered. While the wicked men hoped, by the
continuance and severity of his tortures to wring something from him
which he ought not to say, he girded himself against them with such
firmness that he would not even tell his name, or the nation or city
to which he belonged, or whether he was bond or free, but answered in
the Roman tongue to all their questions, `I am a Christian.' He
confessed this instead of name and city and race and everything
besides, and the people heard from him no other word.
21. There arose therefore on the part of the governor and his
tormentors a great desire to conquer him; but having nothing more that
they could do to him, they finally fastened red-hot brazen plates to
the most tender parts of his body.
22. And these indeed were burned, but he continued unbending and
unyielding, firm in his confession, and refreshed and strengthened by
the heavenly fountain of the water of life, flowing from the bowels of
Christ.
23. And his body was a witness of his sufferings, being one complete
wound and bruise, drawn out of shape, and altogether unlike a human
form. Christ, suffering in him, manifested his glory, delivering him
from his adversary, and making him an ensample for the others, showing
that nothing is fearful where the love of the Father is, and nothing
painful where there is the glory of Christ.
24. For when the wicked men tortured him a second time after some
days, supposing that with his body swollen and inflamed to such a
degree that he could not bear the touch of a hand, if they should
again apply the same instruments, they would overcome him, or at least
by his death under his sufferings others would be made afraid, not
only did not this occur, but, contrary to all human expectation, his
body arose and stood erect in the midst of the subsequent torments,
and resumed its original appearance and the use of its limbs, so that,
through the grace of Christ, these second sufferings became to him,
not torture, but healing.
25. "But the devil, thinking that he had already consumed Biblias, who
was one of those who had denied Christ, desiring to increase her
condemnation through the utterance of blasphemy, [1374] brought her
again to the torture, to compel her, as already feeble and weak, to
report impious things concerning us.
26. But she recovered herself under the suffering, and as if awaking
from a deep sleep, and reminded by the present anguish of the eternal
punishment in hell, she contradicted the blasphemers. `How,' she said,
`could those eat children who do not think it lawful to taste the
blood even of irrational animals?' And thenceforward she confessed
herself a Christian, and was given a place in the order of the
witnesses.
27. "But as the tyrannical tortures were made by Christ of none effect
through the patience of the blessed, the devil invented other
contrivances,--confinement in the dark and most loathsome parts of the
prison, stretching of the feet to the fifth hole in the stocks, [1375]
and the other outrages which his servants are accustomed to inflict
upon the prisoners when furious and filled with the devil. A great
many were suffocated in prison, being chosen by the Lord for this
manner of death, that he might manifest in them his glory.
28. For some, though they had been tortured so cruelly that it seemed
impossible that they could live, even with the most careful nursing,
yet, destitute of human attention, remained in the prison, being
strengthened by the Lord, and invigorated both in body and soul; and
they exhorted and encouraged the rest. But such as were young, and
arrested recently, so that their bodies had not become accustomed to
torture, were unable to endure the severity of their confinement, and
died in prison.
29. "The blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the bishopric
of Lyons, was dragged to the judgment seat. He was more than ninety
years of age, and very infirm, scarcely indeed able to breathe because
of physical weakness; but he was strengthened by spiritual zeal
through his earnest desire for martyrdom. Though his body was worn out
by old age and disease, his life was preserved that Christ might
triumph in it.
30. When he was brought by the soldiers to the tribunal, accompanied
by the civil magistrates and a multitude who shouted against him in
every manner as if he were Christ himself, he bore noble witness.
31. Being asked by the governor, Who was the God of the Christians, he
replied, `If thou art worthy, thou shalt know.' Then he was dragged
away harshly, and received blows of every kind. Those near him struck
him with their hands and feet, regardless of his age; and those at a
distance hurled at him whatever they could seize; all of them thinking
that they would be guilty of great wickedness and impiety if any
possible abuse were omitted. For thus they thought to avenge their own
deities. Scarcely able to breathe, he was cast into prison and died
after two days.
32. "Then a certain great dispensation of God occurred, and the
compassion of Jesus appeared beyond measure, [1376] in a manner rarely
seen among the brotherhood, but not beyond the power of Christ.
33. For those who had recanted at their first arrest were imprisoned
with the others, and endured terrible sufferings, so that their denial
was of no profit to them even for the present. But those who confessed
what they were were imprisoned as Christians, no other accusation
being brought against them. But the first were treated afterwards as
murderers and defiled, and were punished twice as severely as the
others.
34. For the joy of martyrdom, and the hope of the promises, and love
for Christ, and the Spirit of the Father supported the latter; but
their consciences so greatly distressed the former that they were
easily distinguishable from all the rest by their very countenances
when they were led forth.
35. For the first went out rejoicing, glory and grace being blended in
their faces, so that even their bonds seemed like beautiful ornaments,
as those of a bride adorned with variegated golden fringes; and they
were perfumed with the sweet savor of Christ, [1377] so that some
supposed they had been anointed with earthly ointment. But the others
were downcast and humble and dejected and filled with every kind of
disgrace, and they were reproached by the heathen as ignoble and weak,
bearing the accusation of murderers, and having lost the one honorable
and glorious and life-giving Name. The rest, beholding this, were
strengthened, and when apprehended, they confessed without hesitation,
paying no attention to the persuasions of the devil."
36. After certain other words they continue:
"After these things, finally, their martyrdoms were divided into every
form. [1378] For plaiting a crown of various colors and of all kinds
of flowers, they presented it to the Father. It was proper therefore
that the noble athletes, having endured a manifold strife, and
conquered grandly, should receive the crown, great and incorruptible.
37. "Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus and Blandina and Attalus were led
to the amphitheater to be exposed to the wild beasts, and to give to
the heathen public a spectacle of cruelty, a day for fighting with
wild beasts being specially appointed on account of our people.
38. Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again through every torment in the
amphitheater, as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather, as
if, having already conquered their antagonist in many contests, [1379]
they were now striving for the crown itself. They endured again the
customary running of the gauntlet [1380] and the violence of the wild
beasts, and everything which the furious people called for or desired,
and at last, the iron chair in which their bodies being roasted,
tormented them with the fumes.
39. And not with this did the persecutors cease, but were yet more mad
against them, determined to overcome their patience. But even thus
they did not hear a word from Sanctus except the confession which he
had uttered from the beginning.
40. These, then, after their life had continued for a long time
through the great conflict, were at last sacrificed, having been made
throughout that day a spectacle to the world, in place of the usual
variety of combats.
41. "But Blandina was suspended on a stake, and exposed to be devoured
by the wild beasts who should attack her. [1381] And because she
appeared as if hanging on a cross, and because of her earnest prayers,
she inspired the combatants with great zeal. For they looked on her in
her conflict, and beheld with their outward eyes, in the form of their
sister, him who was crucified for them, that he might persuade those
who believe on him, that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ
has fellowship always with the living God.
42. As none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken
down from the stake, and cast again into prison. She was preserved
thus for another contest, that, being victorious in more conflicts,
she might make the punishment of the crooked serpent irrevocable;
[1382] and, though small and weak and despised, yet clothed with
Christ the mighty and conquering Athlete, she might arouse the zeal of
the brethren, and, having overcome the adversary many times might
receive, through her conflict, the crown incorruptible.
43. "But Attalus was called for loudly by the people, because he was a
person of distinction. He entered the contest readily on account of a
good conscience and his genuine practice in Christian discipline, and
as he had always been a witness for the truth among us.
44. He was led around the amphitheater, a tablet being carried before
him on which was written in the Roman language `This is Attalus the
Christian,' and the people were filled with indignation against him.
But when the governor learned that he was a Roman, he commanded him to
be taken back with the rest of those who were in prison concerning
whom he had written to Cæsar, and whose answer he was awaiting.
45. "But the intervening time was not wasted nor fruitless to them;
for by their patience the measureless compassion of Christ was
manifested. For through their continued life the dead were made alive,
and the witnesses showed favor to those who had failed to witness. And
the virgin mother had much joy in receiving alive those whom she had
brought forth as dead. [1383]
46. For through their influence many who had denied were restored, and
re-begotten, and rekindled with life, and learned to confess. And
being made alive and strengthened, they went to the judgment seat to
be again interrogated by the governor; God, who desires not the death
of the sinner, [1384] but mercifully invites to repentance, treating
them with kindness.
47. For Cæsar commanded that they should be put to death, [1385] but
that any who might deny should be set free. Therefore, at the
beginning of the public festival [1386] which took place there, and
which was attended by crowds of men from all nations, the governor
brought the blessed ones to the judgment seat, to make of them a show
and spectacle for the multitude. Wherefore also he examined them
again, and beheaded those who appeared to possess Roman citizenship,
but he sent the others to the wild beasts.
48. "And Christ was glorified greatly in those who had formerly denied
him, for, contrary to the expectation of the heathen, they confessed.
For they were examined by themselves, as about to be set free; but
confessing, they were added to the order of the witnesses. But some
continued without, who had never possessed a trace of faith, nor any
apprehension of the wedding garment, [1387] nor an understanding of
the fear of God; but, as sons of perdition, they blasphemed the Way
through their apostasy.
49. But all the others were added to the Church. While these were
being examined, a certain Alexander, a Phrygian by birth, and
physician by profession, who had resided in Gaul for many years, and
was well known to all on account of his love to God and boldness of
speech (for he was not without a share of apostolic grace), standing
before the judgment seat, and by signs encouraging them to confess,
appeared to those standing by as if in travail.
50. But the people being enraged because those who formerly denied now
confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of
this. Then the governor summoned him and inquired who he was. And when
he answered that he was a Christian, being very angry he condemned him
to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered along with Attalus.
For to please the people, the governor had ordered Attalus again to
the wild beasts.
51. And they were tortured in the amphitheater with all the
instruments contrived for that purpose, and having endured a very
great conflict, were at last sacrificed. Alexander neither groaned nor
murmured in any manner, but communed in his heart with God.
52. But when Attalus was placed in the iron seat, and the fumes arose
from his burning body, he said to the people in the Roman language:
`Lo! this which ye do is devouring men; but we do not devour men; nor
do any other wicked thing.' And being asked, what name God has, he
replied, `God has not a name as man has.'
53. "After all these, on the last day of the contests, Blandina was
again brought in, with Ponticus, a boy about fifteen years old. They
had been brought every day to witness the sufferings of the others,
and had been pressed to swear by the idols. But because they remained
steadfast and despised them, the multitude became furious, so that
they had no compassion for the youth of the boy nor respect for the
sex of the woman.
54. Therefore they exposed them to all the terrible sufferings and
took them through the entire round of torture, repeatedly urging them
to swear, but being unable to effect this; for Ponticus, encouraged by
his sister so that even the heathen could see that she was confirming
and strengthening him, having nobly endured every torture, gave up the
ghost.
55. But the blessed Blandina, last of all, having, as a noble mother,
encouraged her children and sent them before her victorious to the
King, endured herself all their conflicts and hastened after them,
glad and rejoicing in her departure as if called to a marriage supper,
rather than cast to wild beasts.
56. And, after the scourging, after the wild beasts, after the
roasting seat, [1388] she was finally enclosed in a net, and thrown
before a bull. And having been tossed about by the animal, but feeling
none of the things which were happening to her, on account of her hope
and firm hold upon what had been entrusted to her, and her communion
with Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen themselves
confessed that never among them had a woman endured so many and such
terrible tortures.
57. "But not even thus was their madness and cruelty toward the saints
satisfied. For, incited by the Wild Beast, wild and barbarous tribes
were not easily appeased, and their violence found another peculiar
opportunity in the dead bodies. [1389]
58. For, through their lack of manly reason, the fact that they had
been conquered did not put them to shame, but rather the more
enkindled their wrath as that of a wild beast, and aroused alike the
hatred of governor and people to treat us unjustly; that the Scripture
might be fulfilled: `He that is lawless, let him be lawless still, and
he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.' [1390]
59. For they cast to the dogs those who had died of suffocation in the
prison, carefully guarding them by night and day, lest any one should
be buried by us. And they exposed the remains left by the wild beasts
and by fire, mangled and charred, and placed the heads of the others
by their bodies, and guarded them in like manner from burial by a
watch of soldiers for many days.
60. And some raged and gnashed their teeth against them, desiring to
execute more severe vengeance upon them; but others laughed and mocked
at them, magnifying their own idols, and imputed to them the
punishment of the Christians. Even the more reasonable, and those who
had seemed to sympathize somewhat, reproached them often, saying,
`Where is their God, and what has their religion, which they have
chosen rather than life, profited them?'
61. So various was their conduct toward us; but we were in deep
affliction because we could not bury the bodies. For neither did night
avail us for this purpose, nor did money persuade, nor entreaty move
to compassion; but they kept watch in every way, as if the prevention
of the burial would be of some great advantage to them."
In addition, they say after other things:
62 . "The bodies of the martyrs, having thus in every manner been
exhibited and exposed for six days, were afterward burned and reduced
to ashes, and swept into the Rhone by the wicked men, so that no trace
of them might appear on the earth.
63. And this they did, as if able to conquer God, and prevent their
new birth; `that,' as they said, `they may have no hope of a
resurrection, [1391] through trust in which they bring to us this
foreign and new religion, and despise terrible things, and are ready
even to go to death with joy. Now let us see if they will rise again,
and if their God is able to help them, and to deliver them out of our
hands.'"
Footnotes
[1350] Lougdounos kai Bienna, the ancient Lugdunum and Vienna, the
modern Lyons and Vienne in southeastern France.
[1351] marturon. This word is used in this and the following Chapters
of all those that suffered in the persecution, whether they lost their
lives or not, and therefore in a broader sense than our word "martyr."
In order, therefore, to avoid all ambiguity I have translated the word
in every case "witness," its original significance. Upon the use of
the words mEURrtur and mEURrtus in the early Church, see Bk. III.
chap. 32, note 15.
[1352] The fragments of this epistle, preserved by Eusebius in this
and the next Chapter, are printed with a commentary by Routh, in his
Rel. Sacræ. I. p. 285 sq., and an English translation is given in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 778 sq. There can be no doubt as to the
early date and reliability of the epistle. It bears no traces of a
later age, and contains little of the marvelous, which entered so
largely into the spurious martyrologies of a later day. Its
genuineness is in fact questioned by no one so far as I am aware. It
is one of the most beautiful works of the kind which we have, and well
deserves the place in his History which Eusebius has accorded it. We
may assume that we have the greater part of the epistle in so far as
it related to the martyrdoms. Ado, in his Mart., asserts that
forty-eight suffered martyrdom, and even gives a list of their names.
It is possible that he gained his information from the epistle itself,
as given in its complete form in Eusebius' Collection of Martyrdoms;
but I am inclined to think rather that Eusebius has mentioned if not
all, at least the majority of the martyrs referred to in the epistle,
and that therefore Ado's list is largely imaginary. Eusebius'
statement, that a "multitude" suffered signifies nothing, for muria
was a very indefinite word, and might be used of a dozen or fifteen as
easily as of forty-eight. To speak of the persecution as "wholesale,"
so that it was not safe for any Christian to appear out of doors
(Lightfoot, Ignatius, Vol. I. p. 499), is rather overstating the case.
The persecution must, of course, whatever its extent, appear terrible
to the Christians of the region; but a critical examination of the
epistle itself will hardly justify the extravagant statements which
are commonly made in regard to the magnitude and severity of the
persecution. It may have been worse than any single persecution that
had preceded it, but sinks into insignificance when compared with
those which took place under Decius and Diocletian. It is interesting
to notice that this epistle was especially addressed to the Christians
of Asia and Phrygia. We know that Southern Gaul contained a great many
Asia Minor people, and that the intercourse between the two districts
was very close. Irenæus, and other prominent Christians of Gaul, in
the second and following centuries, were either natives of Asia Minor,
or had pursued their studies there; and so the Church of the country
always bore a peculiarly Greek character, and was for some centuries
in sympathy and in constant communication with the Eastern Church.
Witness, for instance, the rise and spread of semi-Pelagianism there
in the fifth century,--a simple reproduction in its main features of
the anthropology of the Eastern Church. Doubtless, at the time this
epistle was written, there were many Christians in Lyons and Vienne,
who had friends and relations in the East, and hence it was very
natural that an epistle should be sent to what might be called, in a
sense, the mother churches. Valesius expressed the opinion that
Irenæus was the author of this epistle; and he has been followed by
many other scholars. It is possible that he was, but there are no
grounds upon which to base the opinion, except the fact that Irenæus
lived in Lyons, and was, or afterward became, a writer. On the other
hand, it is significant that no tradition has connected the letter
with Irenæus' name, and that even Eusebius has no thought of such a
connection. In fact, Valesius' opinion seems to me in the highest
degree improbable.
[1353] Rom. viii. 18.
[1354] Of course official imprisonment cannot be referred to here. It
may be that the mob did actually shut Christians up in one or another
place, or it may mean simply that their treatment was such that the
Christians were obliged to avoid places of public resort and were
perhaps even compelled to remain somewhat closely at home, and were
thus in a sense "imprisoned."
[1355] chiliarches, strictly the commander of a thousand men, but
commonly used also to translate the Latin Tribunus militum.
[1356] Of the various witnesses mentioned in this Chapter (Vettius
Epagathus, Sanctus, Attalus, Blandina, Biblias, Pothinus, Maturus,
Alexander, Ponticus) we know only what this epistle tells us. The
question has arisen whether Vettius Epagathus really was a martyr.
Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 307) thinks that he was not even arrested, but
that the words "taken into the number of martyrs" (§10, below) imply
simply that he enjoyed all the merit of martyrdom without actually
undergoing any suffering. He bases his opinion upon the fact that
Vettius is not mentioned again among the martyrs whose sufferings are
recorded, and also upon the use of the words, "He was and is a true
disciple" (§10, below). It is quite possible, however, that Vettius,
who is said to have been a man of high station, was simply beheaded as
a Roman citizen, and therefore there was no reason for giving a
description of his death; and still further the words, "taken into the
order of witnesses," and also the words used in §10, "being well
pleased to lay down his life," while they do not prove that he
suffered martyrdom, yet seem very strongly to imply that he did, and
the quotation from the Apocalypse in the same paragraph would seem to
indicate that he was dead, not alive, at the time the epistle was
written. On the whole, it may be regarded as probable, though not
certain, that Vettius was one of the martyrs. Valesius refers to
Gregory of Tours (H. E. chaps. 29, 31) as mentioning a certain senator
who was "of the lineage of Vettius Epagathus, who suffered for the
name of Christ at Lyons." Gregory's authority is not very great, and
he may in this case have known no more about the death of Vettius than
is told in the fragment which we still possess, so that his statement
can hardly be urged as proof that Vettius did suffer martyrdom. But it
may be used as indicating that the latter was of a noble family, a
fact which is confirmed in §10, below, where he is spoken of as a man
of distinction.
[1357] Luke i. 6.
[1358] kleron, employed in the sense of "order," "class," "category."
Upon the significance of the word kleros in early Christian
literature, see Ritschl's exhaustive discussion in his Entstehung der
altkatholischen Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq.
[1359] parEURkleton; cf. John xiv. 16.
[1360] pneuma is omitted by three important mss. followed by Laemmer
and Heinichen. Burton retains the word in his text, but rejects it in
a note. They are possibly correct, but I have preferred to follow the
majority of the codices, thinking it quite natural that Eusebius
should introduce the pneuma in connection with Zacharias, who is said
to have been filled with the "Spirit," not with the "Advocate," and
thinking the omission of the word by a copyist, to whom it might seem
quite superfluous after parEURkleton, much easier than its insertion.
[1361] See Luke i. 67
[1362] Compare John xv. 13.
[1363] Rev. xiv. 4.
[1364] diekrinonto. Valesius finds in this word a figure taken from
the athletic combats; for before the contests began the combatants
were examined, and those found eligible were admitted (eiskrinesthai),
while the others were rejected (ekkrinesthai).
[1365] exetrosan, with Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Burton, and
Heinichen. exepeson has perhaps a little stronger ms. support, and was
read by Rufinus, but the former word, as Valesius remarks, being more
unusual than the latter, could much more easily be changed into the
latter by a copyist than the latter into the former.
[1366] Gieseler (Ecclesiastical History, Harper's edition, I. p. 127)
speaks of this as a violation of the ancient law that slaves could not
be compelled to testify against their masters; but it is to be noticed
that it is not said in the present case that they were called upon to
testify against their masters, but only that through fear of what
might come upon them they yielded to the solicitation of the soldiers
and uttered falsehoods against their masters. It is not implied
therefore that any illegal methods were employed in this respect by
the officials in connection with the trials.
[1367] i.e. of cannibalism and incest; for according to classic legend
Thyestes had unwittingly eaten his own sons served to him at a banquet
by an enemy, and OEdipus had unknowingly married his own mother. Upon
the terrible accusations brought against the Christians by their
heathen enemies, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 20.
[1368] John xvi. 2.
[1369] kai di' ekeinon rhethenai ti ton blasphemon. The word
blasphemon evidently refers here to the slanderous reports against the
Christians such as had been uttered by those mentioned just above.
This is made clear, as Valesius remarks, by the kai di' ekeinon, "by
them also."
[1370] Valesius maintains that Sanctus was a deacon of the church of
Lyons, and that the words apo Biennes signify only that he was a
native of Vienne, but it is certainly more natural to understand the
words as implying that he was a deacon of the church of Vienne, and it
is not at all difficult to account for his presence in Lyons and his
martyrdom there. Indeed, it is evident that the church of Vienne was
personally involved in the persecution as well as that of Lyons. Cf.
§13, above.
[1371] Pergamos in Asia Minor (mentioned in Rev. ii. 12, and the seat
of a Christian church for a number of centuries) is apparently meant
here. As already remarked, the connection between the inhabitants of
Gaul and of Asia Minor was very close.
[1372] Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.
[1373] huper pEURnta anthropon.
[1374] Blasphemy against Christianity, not against God or Christ; that
is, slanders against the Christians (cf. §14, above), as is indicated
by the words that follow (so Valesius also).
[1375] See Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9.
[1376] The compassion of Jesus appeared not in the fact that those who
denied suffered such terrible punishments, but that the difference
between their misery in their sufferings and the joy of the faithful
in theirs became a means of strength and encouragement to the other
Christians. Compare the note of Heinichen (III. p. 180).
[1377] Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 15. Cf. also Bk. IV. chap. 15, §37, above.
[1378] meta tauta de loipon eis pan eidos diereito ta marturia tes
exodou auton.
[1379] dia pleionon kleron; undoubtedly a reference to the athletic
combats (see Valesius' note in loco).
[1380] tas diexodous ton mastigon tas ekeise eithismenas. It was the
custom to compel the bestiarii before fighting with wild beasts to run
the gauntlet. Compare Shorting's and Valesius' notes in loco, and
Tertullian's ad Nationes, 18, and ad Martyras, 5, to which the latter
refers.
[1381] Among the Romans crucifixion was the mode of punishment
commonly inflicted upon slaves and the worst criminals. Roman citizens
were exempt from this indignity. See Lipsius' De Cruce and the various
commentaries upon the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Christ.
[1382] Compare Isa. xxvii. 1, which is possibly referred to here.
[1383] hos nekrous exetrose. Compare §11, above.
[1384] Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
[1385] apotumpanisthenai. The word means literally "beaten to death,"
but it is plain that it is used in a general sense here, from the fact
that some were beheaded and some sent to the wild beasts, as we are
told just below.
[1386] Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 329) identifies this with the meeting of
the general assembly of the Gallic nations, which took place annually
in the month of August for the celebration of the worship of Augustus,
and was attended with imposing ceremonies, games, contests, &c. The
identification is not at all improbable.
[1387] Cf. Matt. xxii. 11.
[1388] teganon: literally, "frying-pan," by which, however, is
evidently meant the instrument of torture spoken of already more than
once in this Chapter as an iron seat or chair.
[1389] The Christians were very solicitous about the bodies of the
martyrs, and were especially anxious to give them decent burial, and
to preserve the memory of their graves as places of peculiar religious
interest and sanctity. They sometimes went even to the length of
bribing the officials to give them the dead bodies (cf. §61, below).
[1390] Rev. xxii. 11. The citation of the Apocalypse at this date as
Scripture (hina he graphe plerothe) is noteworthy.
[1391] These words show us how much emphasis the Christians of that
day must have laid upon the resurrection of the body (an emphasis
which is abundantly evident from other sources), and in what a
sensuous and material way they must have taught the doctrine, or at
least how unguarded their teaching must have been, which could lead
the heathen to think that they could in the slightest impede the
resurrection by such methods as they pursued. The Christians, in so
far as they laid so much emphasis as they did upon the material side
of the doctrine, and were so solicitous about the burial of their
brethren, undoubtedly were in large part responsible for this gross
misunderstanding on the part of the heathen.
Chapter II.--The Martyrs, beloved of God, kindly ministered unto those
who fell in the Persecution.
1. Such things happened to the churches of Christ under the
above-mentioned emperor, [1392] from which we may reasonably
conjecture the occurrences in the other provinces. It is proper to add
other selections from the same letter, in which the moderation and
compassion of these witnesses is recorded in the following words:
2. "They were also so zealous in their imitation of Christ,--`who,
being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality
with God,' [1393] --that, though they had attained such honor, and had
borne witness, not once or twice, but many times,--having been brought
back to prison from the wild beasts, covered with burns and scars and
wounds,--yet they did not proclaim themselves witnesses, nor did they
suffer us to address them by this name. If any one of us, in letter or
conversation, spoke of them as witnesses, they rebuked him sharply.
3. For they conceded cheerfully the appellation of Witness to Christ
`the faithful and true Witness,' [1394] and `firstborn of the dead,'
[1395] and prince of the life of God; [1396] and they reminded us of
the witnesses who had already departed, and said, `They are already
witnesses whom Christ has deemed worthy to be taken up in their
confession, having sealed their testimony by their departure; but we
are lowly and humble confessors.' [1397] And they besought the
brethren with tears that earnest prayers should be offered that they
might be made perfect. [1398]
4. They showed in their deeds the power of `testimony,' manifesting
great boldness toward all the brethren, and they made plain their
nobility through patience and fearlessness and courage, but they
refused the title of Witnesses as distinguishing them from their
brethren, [1399] being filled with the fear of God."
5. A little further on they say: "They humbled themselves under the
mighty hand, by which they are now greatly exalted. [1400] They
defended all, [1401] but accused none. They absolved all, but bound
none. [1402] And they prayed for those who had inflicted cruelties
upon them, even as Stephen, the perfect witness, `Lord, lay not this
sin to their charge.' [1403] But if he prayed for those who stoned
him, how much more for the brethren!"
6. And again after mentioning other matters, they say:
"For, through the genuineness of their love, their greatest contest
with him was that the Beast, being choked, might cast out alive those
whom he supposed he had swallowed. For they did not boast over the
fallen, but helped them in their need with those things in which they
themselves abounded, having the compassion of a mother, and shedding
many tears on their account before the Father.
7. They asked for life, and he gave it to them, and they shared it
with their neighbors. Victorious over everything, they departed to
God. Having always loved peace, and having commended peace to us
[1404] they went in peace to God, leaving no sorrow to their mother,
nor division or strife to the brethren, but joy and peace and concord
and love."
8. This record of the affection of those blessed ones toward the
brethren that had fallen may be profitably added on account of the
inhuman and unmerciful disposition of those who, after these events,
acted unsparingly toward the members of Christ. [1405]
Footnotes
[1392] Namely, Antoninus Verus (in reality Marcus Aurelius, but
wrongly distinguished by Eusebius from him), mentioned above in the
Introduction. Upon Eusebius' separation of Marcus Aurelius and
Antoninus Verus, see below, p. 390, note.
[1393] Phil. ii. 6.
[1394] Rev. iii. 14.
[1395] Rev. i. 5.
[1396] archego tes zoes tou theou. Cf. Rev. iii. 14.
[1397] homologoi. The regular technical term for "confessor," which
later came into general use, was homologetes
[1398] teleiothenai; i.e. be made perfect by martyrdom. For this use
of teleioo, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 3, §13, and chap. 5, §1; also Bk.
VII. chap. 15, §5, and see Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v.
[1399] pros tous adelphous.
[1400] Compare 1 Pet. v. 6.
[1401] pasi men apologounto. Rufinus translates placabant omnes;
Musculus, omnibus rationem fidei suæ reddebant; Valesius, omnium
defensionem suscipiebant, though he maintains in a note that the
rendering of Musculus, or the translation omnibus se excusabant, is
more correct. It is true that pasi apologounto ought strictly to mean
"apologized to all" rather than "for all," the latter being commonly
expressed by the use of huper with the genitive (see the lexicons s.v.
apologeomai). At the same time, though it may not be possible to
produce any other examples of the use of the dative, instead of huper
with the genitive, after apologeomai, it is clear from the context
that it must be accepted in the present case.
[1402] The question of the readmission of the lapsed had not yet
become a burning one. The conduct of the martyrs here in absolving
(zluon) those who had shown weakness under persecution is similar to
that which caused so much dispute in the Church during and after the
persecution of Decius. See below, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1.
[1403] Acts vii. 60.
[1404] hemin, which is found in four important mss. and in Nicephorus,
and is supported by Rufinus and adopted by Stephanus, Stroth, Burton,
and Zimmermann. The majority of the mss., followed by all the other
editors, including Heinichen, read aei.
[1405] Eusebius refers here to the Novatians, who were so severe in
their treatment of the lapsed, and who in his day were spread very
widely and formed an aggressive and compact organization (see below,
Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1).
Chapter III.--The Vision which appeared in a Dream to the Witness
Attalus.
1. The same letter of the above-mentioned witnesses contains another
account worthy of remembrance. No one will object to our bringing it
to the knowledge of our readers.
2. It runs as follows: "For a certain Alcibiades, [1406] who was one
of them, led a very austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but
bread and water. When he endeavored to continue this same sort of life
in prison, it was revealed to Attalus after his first conflict in the
amphitheater that Alcibiades was not doing well in refusing the
creatures of God and placing a stumbling-block before others.
3. And Alcibiades obeyed, and partook of all things without restraint,
giving thanks to God. For they were not deprived of the grace of God,
but the Holy Ghost was their counselor." Let this suffice for these
matters.
4. The followers of Montanus, [1407] Alcibiades [1408] and Theodotus
[1409] in Phrygia were now first giving wide circulation to their
assumption in regard to prophecy,--for the many other miracles that,
through the gift of God, were still wrought in the different churches
caused their prophesying to be readily credited by many,--and as
dissension arose concerning them, the brethren in Gaul set forth their
own prudent and most orthodox judgment in the matter, and published
also several epistles from the witnesses that had been put to death
among them. These they sent, while they were still in prison, to the
brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, [1410]
who was then bishop of Rome, negotiating for the peace of the
churches. [1411]
Footnotes
[1406] Of this Alcibiades we know only what is told us in this
connection. Doubtless Eusebius found this extract very much to his
taste, for we know that he was not inclined to asceticism. The
enthusiastic spirit of the Lyons Christians comes out strongly in the
extract, and considerable light is thrown by it upon the state of the
Church there. Imprisoned confessors were never permitted to suffer for
want of food and the other comforts of life so long as their brethren
were allowed access to them. Compare e.g. Lucian's Peregrinus Proteus.
[1407] On Montanus and the Montanists, see below, chap. 16 sq.
[1408] Of this Montanist Alcibiades we know nothing. He is, of course,
to be distinguished from the confessor mentioned just above. The
majority of the editors of Eusebius substitute his name for that of
Miltiades in chap. 16, below, but the mss. all read MiltiEURden, and
the emendation is unwarranted (see chap. 16, note 7). Salmon suggests
that we should read Miltiades instead of Alcibiades in the present
passage, supposing that the latter may have crept in through a
copyist's error, under the influence of the name Alcibiades mentioned
just above. Such an error is possible, but not probable (see chap. 16,
note 7).
[1409] Of the Montanist Theodotus we know only what is told us here
and in chap. 16, below (see that Chapter, note 25).
[1410] On Eleutherus, see above, Bk. V. Introd. note 2.
[1411] It is commonly assumed that the Gallic martyrs favored the
Montanists and exhorted Eleutherus to be mild in his judgment of them,
and to preserve the peace of the Church by permitting them to remain
within it and enjoy fellowship with other Christians. But Salmon (in
the Dict. of Christian Biog. III. p. 937) has shown, in my opinion
conclusively, that the Gallic confessors took the opposite side, and
exhorted Eleutherus to confirm the Eastern Church in its condemnation
of the Montanists, representing to him that he would threaten the
peace of the Church by refusing to recognize the justice of the
decision of the bishops of the East and by setting himself in
opposition to them. Certainly, with their close connection with Asia
Minor, we should expect the Gallic Christians to be early informed of
the state of affairs in the East, and it is not difficult to think
that they may have formed the same opinion in regard to the new
prophecy which the majority of their brethren there had formed. The
decisive argument for Salmon's opinion is the fact that Eusebius calls
the letter of the Lyons confessors to Eleutherus "pious and most
orthodox." Certainly, looking upon Montanism as one of the most
execrable of heresies and as the work of Satan himself (cf. his words
in chap. 16, below), it is very difficult to suppose that he can have
spoken of a letter written expressly in favor of the Montanists in any
such terms of respect. Salmon says: "It is monstrous to imagine that
Eusebius, thinking thus of Montanism, could praise as pious or
orthodox the opinion of men who, ignorant of Satan's devices, should
take the devil's work for God's. The way in which we ourselves read
the history is that the Montanists had appealed to Rome; that the
Church party solicited the good offices of their countrymen settled in
Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing the disturbance to the
peace of the churches (a phrase probably preserved by Eusebius from
the letter itself) which would ensue if the Roman Church should
approve what the Church on the spot had condemned....To avert, then,
the possibility of the calamity of a breach between the Eastern and
Western churches, the Gallic churches, it would appear, not only
wrote, but sent Irenæus to Rome at the end of 177 or the beginning of
178. The hypothesis here made relieves us from the necessity of
supposing this presbeia to have been unsuccessful, while it fully
accounts for the necessity of sending it."
Chapter IV.--Irenæus commended by the Witnesses in a Letter.
1. The same witnesses also recommended Irenæus, [1412] who was already
at that time a presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the
above-mentioned bishop of Rome, saying many favorable things in regard
to him, as the following extract shows:
2. "We pray, father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in God in all
things and always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenæus
to carry this letter to you, and we ask you to hold him in esteem, as
zealous for the covenant of Christ. For if we thought that office
could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among
the first as a presbyter of the church, which is his position."
3. Why should we transcribe the catalogue of the witnesses given in
the letter already mentioned, of whom some were beheaded, others cast
to the wild beasts, and others fell asleep in prison, or give the
number of confessors [1413] still surviving at that time? For whoever
desires can readily find the full account by consulting the letter
itself, which, as I have said, is recorded in our Collection of
Martyrdoms. [1414] Such were the events which happened under
Antoninus. [1415]
Footnotes
[1412] On Irenæus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1413] homologeton. Eusebius here uses the common technical term for
confessors; i.e. for those who had been faithful and had suffered in
persecution, but had not lost their lives. In the epistle of the
churches of Lyons and Vienne, the word homologoi is used to denote the
same persons (see above, chap. 2, note 6).
[1414] Cf. §2 of the Introduction to this book (Bk. V.). On Eusebius'
Collection of Martyrdoms, see above, p. 30.
[1415] i.e. Antoninus Verus, whom Eusebius expressly distinguishes
from Marcus Aurelius at the beginning of the next Chapter. See below,
p. 390, note.
Chapter V.--God sent Rain from Heaven for Marcus Aurelius Cæsar in
Answer to the Prayers of our People.
1. It is reported [1416] that Marcus Aurelius Cæsar, brother of
Antoninus, [1417] being about to engage in battle with the Germans and
Sarmatians, was in great trouble on account of his army suffering from
thirst. [1418] But the soldiers of the so-called Melitene legion,
[1419] through the faith which has given strength from that time to
the present, when they were drawn up before the enemy, kneeled on the
ground, as is our custom in prayer, [1420] and engaged in
supplications to God.
2. This was indeed a strange sight to the enemy, but it is reported
[1421] that a stranger thing immediately followed. The lightning drove
the enemy to flight and destruction, but a shower refreshed the army
of those who had called on God, all of whom had been on the point of
perishing with thirst.
3. This story is related by non-Christian writers who have been
pleased to treat the times referred to, and it has also been recorded
by our own people. [1422] By those historians who were strangers to
the faith, the marvel is mentioned, but it is not acknowledged as an
answer to our prayers. But by our own people, as friends of the truth,
the occurrence is related in a simple and artless manner.
4. Among these is Apolinarius, [1423] who says that from that time the
legion through whose prayers the wonder took place received from the
emperor a title appropriate to the event, being called in the language
of the Romans the Thundering Legion.
5. Tertullian is a trustworthy witness of these things. In the Apology
for the Faith, which he addressed to the Roman Senate, and which work
we have already mentioned, [1424] he confirms the history with greater
and stronger proofs.
6. He writes [1425] that there are still extant letters [1426] of the
most intelligent Emperor Marcus in which he testifies that his army,
being on the point of perishing with thirst in Germany, was saved by
the prayers of the Christians. And he says also that this emperor
threatened death [1427] to those who brought accusation against us.
7. He adds further: [1428]
"What kind of laws are those which impious, unjust, and cruel persons
use against us alone? which Vespasian, though he had conquered the
Jews, did not regard; [1429] which Trajan partially annulled,
forbidding Christians to be sought after; [1430] which neither Adrian,
[1431] though inquisitive in all matters, nor he who was called Pius
[1432] sanctioned." But let any one treat these things as he chooses;
[1433] we must pass on to what followed.
8. Pothinus having died with the other martyrs in Gaul at ninety years
of age, [1434] Irenæus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church
at Lyons. [1435] We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer
of Polycarp. [1436]
9. In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a
list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus
(whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work.
He writes as follows: [1437]
Footnotes
[1416] The expression logos zchei, employed here by Eusebius, is
ordinarily used by him to denote that the account which he subjoins
rests simply upon verbal testimony. But in the present instance he has
written authority, which he mentions below. He seems, therefore, in
the indefinite phrase logos zchei, to express doubts which he himself
feels as to the trustworthiness of the account which he is about to
give. The story was widely known in his time, and the Christians'
version of it undoubtedly accepted by the Christians themselves with
little misgiving, and yet he is too well informed upon this subject to
be ignorant of the fact that the common version rests upon a rather
slender foundation. He may have known of the coins and monuments upon
which the emperor had commemorated his own view of the matter,--at any
rate he was familiar with the fact that all the heathen historians
contradicted the claims of the Christians, and hence he could not but
consider it a questionable matter. At the same time, the Christian
version of the story was supported by strong names and was widely
accepted, and he, as a good Christian, of course wished to accept it,
if possible, and to report it for the edification of posterity.
[1417] toutou de adelphon: the toutou referring to the Antoninus
mentioned at the close of the previous Chapter. Upon Eusebius'
confusion of the successors of Antoninus Pius, see below, p. 390,
note.
[1418] It is an historical fact that, in 174 a.d., the Roman army in
Hungary was relieved from a very dangerous predicament by the sudden
occurrence of a thunder-storm, which quenched their thirst and
frightened the barbarians, and thus gave the Romans the victory. By
heathen writers this event (quite naturally considered miraculous) was
held to have taken place in answer to prayer, but by no means in
answer to the prayers of the Christians. Dion Cassius (LXXI. 8)
ascribes the supposed miracle to the conjurations of the Egyptian
magician Arnuphis; Capitolinus (Vita Marc. Aurelii, chap. 24, and Vita
Heliogabali, chap. 9), to the prayer of Marcus Aurelius. The emperor
himself expresses his view upon a coin which represents Jupiter as
hurling lightning against the barbarians (see Eckhel. Numism. III.
61). As early as the time of Marcus Aurelius himself the Christians
ascribed the merit of the supposed miracle to their own prayers (e.g.
Apolinarius, mentioned just below), and this became the common belief
among them (cf. Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5, quoted just below, and ad
Scap. chap. 4, and the forged edict of Marcus Aurelius, appended to
Justin Martyr's first Apology). It is probable that the whole legion
prayed for deliverance to their respective deities, and thus quite
naturally each party claimed the victory for its particular gods. That
there were some Christians in the army of Marcus Aurelius there is, of
course, no reason to doubt, but that a legion at that time was wholly
composed of Christians, as Eusebius implies, is inconceivable.
[1419] This legion was called the Melitene from the place where it was
regularly stationed,--Melitene, a city in Eastern Cappadocia, or
Armenia.
[1420] Kneeling was the common posture of offering prayer in the early
Church, but the standing posture was by no means uncommon, especially
in the offering of thanksgiving. Upon Sunday and during the whole
period from Easter to Pentecost all prayers were regularly offered in
a standing position, as a symbolical expression of joy (cf.
Tertullian, de Corona, chap. 3; de Oratione, chap. 23, &c.). The
practice, however, was not universal, and was therefore decreed by the
Nicene Council in its twentieth canon (Hefele, Conciliengesch. I.
430). See Kraus' Real-Encyclopädie der Christlichen Alterthümer, Bd.
I. p. 557 sqq.
[1421] logos zchei. See above, note 1.
[1422] Dion Cassius and Capitolinus record the occurrence (as
mentioned above, note 2). It is recorded also by other writers after
Eusebius' time, such as Claudian and Zonaras. None of them, however,
attribute the occurrence to the prayers of the Christians, but all
claim it for the heathen gods. The only pre-Eusebian Christian
accounts of this event still extant are those contained in the forged
edict of Marcus Aurelius and in the Apology of Tertullian, quoted just
below (cf. also his de Orat. 29). Cyprian also probably refers to the
same event in his Tractat. ad Demetriadem, 20. Eusebius, in referring
to Apolinarius and Tertullian, very likely mentions all the accounts
with which he was acquainted. Gregory Nyssa, Jerome, and other later
Christian writers refer to the event.
[1423] i.e. Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis. Upon him and
his writings, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1. This reference is
in all probability to the Apology of Apolinarius, as this is the only
work known to us which would have been likely to contain an account of
such an event. The fact that in the reign of the very emperor under
whom the occurrence took place, and in an Apology addressed to him,
the Christians could be indicated as the source of the miracle, shows
the firmness of this belief among the Christians themselves, and also
proves that they must have been so numerous in the army as to justify
them in setting up a counter-claim over against the heathen soldiers.
Apolinarius is very far from the truth in his statement as to the name
of the legion. From Dion Cassius, LV. 23, it would seem that the
legion bore this name even in the time of Augustus; but if this be
uncertain, at any rate it bore it as early as the time of Nero (as we
learn from an inscription of his eleventh year, Corp. Ins. Lat. III.
30). Neander thinks it improbable that Apolinarius, a contemporary who
lived in the neighborhood of the legion's winter quarters, could have
committed such a mistake. He prefers to think that the error is
Eusebius', and resulted from a too rapid perusal of the passage in
Apolinarius, where there must have stood some such words as, "Now the
emperor could with right call the legion the Thundering Legion." His
opinion is at least plausible. Tertullian certainly knew nothing of
the naming of the legion at this time, or if he had heard the report,
rejected it.
[1424] In Bk. II. chap. 2, §4, and Bk. III. chap. 33, §3 (quoted also
in Bk. III. chap. 20, §9).
[1425] Apol.chap. 5.
[1426] A pretended epistle of Marcus Aurelius, addressed to the
Senate, in which he describes the miraculous deliverance of his army
through the prayers of the Christians, is still extant, and stands at
the close of Justin Martyr's first Apology. It is manifestly the work
of a Christian, and no one now thinks of accepting it as genuine. It
is in all probability the same epistle to which Tertullian refers, and
therefore must have been forged before the end of the second century,
although its exact date cannot be determined. See Overbeck, Studien
zur Gesch. d. alten Kirche, I.
[1427] The epistle says that the accuser is to be burned alive (zonta
kaiesthai). Tertullian simply says that he is to be punished with a
"condemnation of greater severity" (damnatione et quidem tetriore).
Eusebius therefore expresses himself more definitely than Tertullian,
though it is very likely that the poor Greek translation which he used
had already made of damnatio tetrior the simpler and more telling
expression, thanatos.
[1428] Apol. ibid.
[1429] See Bk. III. chap. 12, note 1.
[1430] Upon Trajan's rescript, and the universal misunderstanding of
it in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 33 (notes).
[1431] Upon Hadrian's treatment of the Christians, see above, Bk. IV.
chap. 9.
[1432] Upon Antoninus Pius' relation to them, see above, Bk. IV. chap.
13.
[1433] Whether Eusebius refers in this remark only to the report of
Tertullian, or to the entire account of the miracle, we do not know.
The remark certainly has reference at least to the words of
Tertullian. Eusebius had apparently not himself seen the epistle of
Marcus Aurelius; for in the first place, he does not cite it;
secondly, he does not rest his account upon it, but upon Apolinarius
and Tertullian; and thirdly, in his Chron. both the Armenian and Greek
say, "it is said that there are epistles of Marcus Aurelius extant,"
while Jerome says directly, "there are letters extant."
[1434] See above, chap. 1, §29.
[1435] Upon Irenæus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1436] Cf. Adv. Hær. II. 3. 4, &c., and Eusebius, chap. 20, below.
[1437] Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3.
Chapter VI.--Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.
1. "The blessed apostles [1438] having founded and established the
church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. [1439] Paul
speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. [1440]
2. Anencletus [1441] succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third
place from the apostles, Clement [1442] received the episcopate. He
had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, [1443] and their
preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was
still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been
taught by the apostles yet survived.
3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among
the brethren in Corinth, [1444] the church of Rome sent a most
suitable letter to the Corinthians, [1445] reconciling them in peace,
renewing their faith, and proclaiming [1446] the doctrine lately
received from the apostles." [1447]
4. A little farther on he says: [1448]
"Evarestus [1449] succeeded Clement, and Alexander, [1450] Evarestus.
Then Xystus, [1451] the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After
him Telesphorus, [1452] who suffered martyrdom gloriously; then
Hyginus; [1453] then Pius; [1454] and after him Anicetus; [1455] Soter
[1456] succeeded Anicetus; and now, in the twelfth place from the
apostles, Eleutherus [1457] holds the office of bishop.
5. In the same order and succession [1458] the tradition in the Church
and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto
us."
Footnotes
[1438] Namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the Roman
church. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
[1439] On Linus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 2, note 1; and for the
succession of the early Roman bishops, see the same note.
[1440] 2 Tim. iv. 21.
[1441] On Anencletus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3.
[1442] On Clement, see above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.
[1443] Although the identification of this Clement with the one
mentioned in Phil. iv. 3 is more than doubtful, yet there is no reason
to doubt that, living as he did in the first century at Rome, he was
personally acquainted at least with the apostles Peter and Paul.
[1444] See the Epistle of Clement itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3.
[1445] Upon the epistle, see above, Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.
[1446] aneousa ten pistin auton kai hen neosti apo ton apostolon
parEURdosin eilephei. The last word being in the singular, the
tradition must be that received by the Roman, not by the Corinthian
church (as it is commonly understood), and hence it is necessary to
supply some verb which shall govern parEURdosin, for it is at least
very harsh to say that the Roman church, in its epistle to the
Corinthians "renewed" the faith which it had received. The truth is,
that both in Rufinus and in Irenæus an extra participle is found (in
the former exprimens, in the latter annuntians), and Stroth has in
consequence ventured to insert the word katangelousa in his text. I
have likewise, for the sake of the sense, inserted the word
proclaiming, not thereby intending to imply, however, the belief that
katangelousa stood in the original text of Eusebius.
[1447] It is interesting to notice how strictly Eusebius carries out
his principle of taking historical matter wherever he can find it, but
of omitting all doctrinal statements and discussions. The few
sentences which follow in Irenæus are of a doctrinal nature, and in
the form of a brief polemic against Gnosticism.
[1448] Ibid.
[1449] Upon Evarestus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
[1450] Upon Alexander, see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 4.
[1451] Upon Xystus, see IV. 4, note 3.
[1452] Upon Telesphorus, see IV. 5, note 13.
[1453] Upon Hyginus, see IV. 10, note 3.
[1454] Upon Pius, see IV. 11, note 14.
[1455] Upon Anicetus, see IV. 11, note 18.
[1456] Upon Soter, see IV. 19, note 2.
[1457] Upon Eleutherus, see Introd. to this book, note 2.
[1458] diadoche, which is confirmed by the ancient Latin version of
Irenæus (successione), and which is adopted by Zimmermann, Heinichen,
and Valesius (in his notes). All the mss. of Eusebius, followed by the
majority of the editors, read didache, which, however, makes no sense
in this place, and can hardly have been the original reading (see
Heinichen's note in loco).
Chapter VII.--Even down to those Times Miracles were performed by the
Faithful.
1. These things Irenæus, in agreement with the accounts already given
by us, [1459] records in the work which comprises five books, and to
which he gave the title Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge
Falsely So-called. [1460] In the second book of the same treatise he
shows that manifestations of divine and miraculous power continued to
his time in some of the churches.
2. He says: [1461]
"But so far do they come short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised
them, and the apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the
brotherhood, when, on account of some necessity, our entire Church has
besought with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead
has returned, [1462] and the man has been restored through the prayers
of the saints."
3. And again, after other remarks, he says: [1463]
"If they will say that even the Lord did these things in mere
appearance, we will refer them to the prophetic writings, and show
from them that all things were beforehand spoken of him in this
manner, and were strictly fulfilled; and that he alone is the Son of
God. Wherefore his true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform
such works in his Name for the benefit of other men, as each has
received the gift from him.
4. For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that
those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and
unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events,
and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by
the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have
said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many
years.
5. But why should we say more? It is not possible to recount the
number of gifts which the Church, throughout all the world, has
received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under
Pontius Pilate, and exercises every day for the benefit of the
heathen, never deceiving any nor doing it for money. For as she has
received freely from God, freely also does she minister." [1464]
6. And in another place the same author writes: [1465]
"As also we hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic
gifts, and speak, through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and
bring to light the secret things of men for their good, and declare
the mysteries of God."
So much in regard to the fact that various gifts remained among those
who were worthy even until that time.
Footnotes
[1459] In the various passages referred to in the notes on the
previous Chapter.
[1460] elenchou kai anatropes tes pseudonumou gnoseos (cf. 1 Tim. vi.
20). This work of Irenæus, which is commonly known under its Latin
title, Adversus Hæreses (Against Heresies), is still extant in a
barbarous Latin version, of which we possess three mss. The original
Greek is lost, though a great part of the first book can be recovered
by means of extensive quotations made from it by Hippolytus and
Epiphanius. The work is directed against the various Gnostic systems,
among which that of Valentinus is chiefly attacked. The first book is
devoted to a statement of their doctrines, the second to a refutation
of them, and the remaining three to a presentation of the true
doctrines of Christianity as opposed to the false positions of the
Gnostics. The best edition of the original is that of Harvey: S.
Irenæi libros quinque adv. Hæreses., Cambr. 1857, 2 vols.; English
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 309 ff. For the
literature of the subject, see Schaff, II. p. 746 ff. On Irenæus
himself, see Book IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1461] Adv. Hær. II. 31. 2. The sentence as it stands in Eusebius is
incomplete. Irenæus is refuting the pretended miracles of Simon and
Carpocrates. The passage runs as follows: "So far are they [i.e. Simon
and Carpocrates] from being able to raise the dead as the Lord raised
them and as the apostles did by means of prayer, and as has been
frequently done in the brotherhood on account of some necessity--the
entire Church in that locality entreating with much fasting and prayer
[so that] the spirit of the dead man has returned, and he has been
bestowed in answer to the prayer of the saints--that they do not even
believe this can possibly be done, [and hold] that the resurrection
from the dead is simply an acquaintance with that truth which they
proclaim." This resurrection of the dead recorded by Irenæus is very
difficult to explain, as he is a truth-loving man, and we can hardly
conceive of his uttering a direct falsehood. Even Augustine, "the iron
man of truth," records such miracles, and so the early centuries are
full of accounts of them. The Protestant method of drawing a line
between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages in this matter of
miracles is arbitrary, and based upon dogmatic, not historical
grounds. The truth is, that no one can fix the point of time at which
miracles ceased; at the same time it is easy to appreciate the
difference between the apostolic age and the third, fourth, and
following centuries in this regard. That they did cease at an early
date in the history of the Church is clear enough. Upon post-apostolic
miracles, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 116 ff., J. H. Newman's Two
Essays on Biblical and Eccles. Miracles, and J. B. Mozley's Bampton
lectures On Miracles.
[1462] See the previous note.
[1463] Adv. Hær. II. 32. 4.
[1464] Cf. Matt. x. 8
[1465] Adv. Hær. V. 6. 1.
Chapter VIII.--The Statements of Irenæus in regard to the Divine
Scriptures.
1. Since, in the beginning of this work, [1466] we promised to give,
when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the
Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down
to them concerning the canonical books, and since Irenæus was one of
them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the
sacred Gospels: [1467]
2. "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own
language, [1468] while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the
church in Rome. [1469]
3. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had
preached; [1470] and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book
the Gospel which Paul had declared. [1471]
4. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his
bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia." [1472]
5. He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned
work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse
of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist: [1473]
"As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved
and ancient copies, [1474] and those who saw John face to face confirm
it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast,
according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its
letters...." [1475]
6. And farther on he says concerning the same: [1476]
"We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of
Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared
clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who
saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our
generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian." [1477]
7. He states these things concerning the Apocalypse [1478] in the work
referred to. He also mentions the first Epistle of John, [1479] taking
many proofs from it, and likewise the first Epistle of Peter. [1480]
And he not only knows, but also receives, The Shepherd, [1481] writing
as follows: [1482]
"Well did the Scripture [1483] speak, saying, [1484] `First of all
believe that God is one, who has created and completed all things,'"
&c.
8. And he uses almost the precise words of the Wisdom of Solomon,
saying: [1485] "The vision of God produces immortality, but
immortality renders us near to God." He mentions also the memoirs
[1486] of a certain apostolic presbyter, [1487] whose name he passes
by in silence, and gives his expositions of the sacred Scriptures.
9. And he refers to Justin the Martyr, [1488] and to Ignatius, [1489]
using testimonies also from their writings. Moreover, he promises to
refute Marcion from his own writings, in a special work. [1490]
10. Concerning the translation of the inspired [1491] Scriptures by
the Seventy, hear the very words which he writes: [1492]
"God in truth became man, and the Lord himself saved us, giving the
sign of the virgin; but not as some say, who now venture to translate
the Scripture, `Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a
son,' [1493] as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, [1494]
both of them Jewish proselytes, interpreted; following whom, the
Ebionites say [1495] that he was begotten by Joseph."
11. Shortly after he adds:
"For before the Romans had established their empire, while the
Macedonians were still holding Asia, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, [1496]
being desirous of adorning the library which he had founded in
Alexandria with the meritorious writings of all men, requested the
people of Jerusalem to have their Scriptures translated into the Greek
language.
12. But, as they were then subject to the Macedonians, they sent to
Ptolemy seventy elders, who were the most skilled among them in the
Scriptures and in both languages. Thus God accomplished his purpose.
[1497]
13. But wishing to try them individually, as he feared lest, by taking
counsel together, they might conceal the truth of the Scriptures by
their interpretation, he separated them from one another, and
commanded all of them to write the same translation. [1498] He did
this for all the books.
14. But when they came together in the presence of Ptolemy, and
compared their several translations, God was glorified, and the
Scriptures were recognized as truly divine. For all of them had
rendered the same things in the same words and with the same names
from beginning to end, so that the heathen perceived that the
Scriptures had been translated by the inspiration [1499] of God.
15. And this was nothing wonderful for God to do, who, in the
captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, when the Scriptures had
been destroyed, and the Jews had returned to their own country after
seventy years, afterwards, in the time of Artaxerxes, king of the
Persians, inspired Ezra the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to relate
all the words of the former prophets, and to restore to the people the
legislation of Moses." [1500]
Such are the words of Irenæus.
Footnotes
[1466] Eusebius is apparently thinking of the preface to his work
contained in Bk. I. chap. 1, but there he makes no such promise as he
refers to here. He speaks only of his general purpose to mention those
men who preached the divine word either orally or in writing. In Bk.
III. chap. 3, however, he distinctly promises to do what he here
speaks of doing, and perhaps remembered only that he had made such a
promise without recalling where he had made it.
[1467] Adv. Hær. III. 1. 1.
[1468] See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5. Irenæus, in this Chapter
traces the four Gospels back to the apostles themselves, but he is
unable to say that Matthew translated his Gospel into Greek, which is
of course bad for his theory, as the Matthew Gospel which the Church
of his time had was in Greek, not in Hebrew. He puts the Hebrew
Gospel, however, upon a par with the three Greek ones, and thus,
although he does not say it directly, endeavors to convey the
impression that the apostolicity of the Hebrew Matthew is a guarantee
for the Greek Matthew also. Of Papias' statement, "Each one translated
the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as he was able," he could of course make
no use even if he was acquainted with it. Whether his account was
dependent upon Papias' or not we cannot tell.
[1469] See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
[1470] See above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
[1471] See above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 15.
[1472] See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1.
[1473] Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 30. 1.
[1474] Rev. xiii. 18. Already in Irenæus' time there was a variation
in the copies of the Apocalypse. This is interesting as showing the
existence of old copies of the Apocalypse even in his time, and also
as showing how early works became corrupted in the course of
transmission. We learn from his words, too, that textual criticism had
already begun.
[1475] The sentence as Eusebius quotes it here is incomplete; he
repeats only so much of it as suits his purpose. Irenæus completes his
sentence, after a few more dependent clauses, by saying, "I do not
know how it is that some have erred, following the ordinary mode of
speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name," &c. This
shows that even in Irenæus' time there was as much controversy about
the interpretation of the Apocalypse as there has always been, and
that at that day exegetes were as a rule in no better position than we
are. Irenæus refers in this sentence to the fact that the Greek
numerals were indicated by the letters of the alphabet: Alpha, "one,"
Beta, "two," &c.
[1476] i.e. concerning the Beast or Antichrist. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V.
30. 3; quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 18, above.
[1477] See above, Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1.
[1478] Upon the Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.
[1479] In Adv. Hær. III. 16. 5, 8. Irenæus also quotes from the second
Epistle of John, without distinguishing it from the first, in III. 16.
8, and I. 16. 3. Upon John's epistles, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 18
and 19.
[1480] In Adv. Hær. IV. 9. 2. In IV. 16. 5 and V. 7. 2 he quotes from
the first Epistle of Peter, with the formula "Peter says." He is the
first one to connect the epistle with Peter. See above, Bk. III. chap.
3, note 1.
[1481] i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas; see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note
23.
[1482] Adv. Hær. IV. 20. 2.
[1483] he graphe, the regular word used in quoting Scripture. Many of
the Fathers of the second and third centuries used this word in
referring to Clement, Hermas, Barnabas, and other works of the kind
(compare especially Clement of Alexandria's use of the word).
[1484] The Shepherd of Hermas, II. 1.
[1485] Adv. Hær. IV. 38. 3. Irenæus in this passage quotes freely from
the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, VI. 19, without mentioning the source
of his quotation, and indeed without in any way indicating the fact
that he is quoting.
[1486] apomnemoneumEURton. Written memoirs are hardly referred to
here, but rather oral comments, expositions, or accounts of the
interpretations of the apostles and others of the first generation of
Christians.
[1487] Adv. Hær. IV. 27. 1, where Irenæus mentions a "certain
presbyter who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles," &c.
Who this presbyter was cannot be determined. Polycarp, Papias, and
others have been suggested, but we have no grounds upon which to base
a decision, though we may perhaps safely conclude that so prominent a
man as Polycarp would hardly have been referred to in such an
indefinite way; and Papias seems ruled out by the fact that the
presbyter is here not made a hearer of the apostles themselves, while
in V. 33. 4 Papias is expressly stated to have been a hearer of
John,--undoubtedly in Irenæus' mind the evangelist John (see above,
Bk. III. chap. 39, note 4). Other anonymous authorities under the
titles, "One superior to us," "One before us," &c., are quoted by
Irenæus in Præf. §2, I. 13. 3, III. 17. 4, etc. See Routh, Rel. Sacræ,
I. 45-68.
[1488] In Adv. Hær. IV. 6. 2, where he mentions Justin Martyr and
quotes from his work Against Marcion (see Eusebius, Bk. IV. chap. 18),
and also in Adv. Hær. V. 26. 2, where he mentions him again by name
and quotes from some unknown work (but see above, ibid. note 15).
[1489] Irenæus nowhere mentions Ignatius by name, but in V. 28. 4 he
quotes from his epistle to the Romans, chap. 4, under the formula, "A
certain one of our people said, when he was condemned to the wild
beasts." It is interesting to note how diligently Eusebius had read
the works of Irenæus, and extracted from them all that could
contribute to his History. Upon Ignatius, see above, III. 36.
[1490] Adv. Hær. I. 27. 4, III. 12. 12. This promise was apparently
never fulfilled, as we hear nothing of the work from any of Irenæus'
successors. But in Bk. IV. chap. 25 Eusebius speaks of Irenæus as one
of those who had written against Marcion, whether in this referring to
his special work promised here, or only to his general work Adv. Hær.,
we cannot tell.
[1491] theopneuston
[1492] Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1.
[1493] Isa. vii. 14. The original Hebrew has E+aL+°M+oH+, which means
simply a "young woman," not distinctively a "virgin." The LXX,
followed by Matt. i. 23, wrongly translated by parthenos, "virgin"
(cf. Toy's Quotations in the New Testament, p. 1 sqq., and the various
commentaries on Matthew). Theodotion and Aquila translated the Hebrew
word by neanis, which is the correct rendering, in spite of what
Irenæus says. The complete dependence of the Fathers upon the LXX, and
their consequent errors as to the meaning of the original, are well
illustrated in this case (cf. also Justin's Dial. chap. 71).
[1494] This is the earliest direct reference to the translations of
Aquila and Theodotion, though Hermas used the version of the latter,
as pointed out by Hort (see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23). Upon
the two versions, see Bk. VI. chap. 16, notes 3 and 5.
[1495] Upon the Ebionites and their doctrines, see Bk. III. chap. 27.
[1496] Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, or Ptolemy Soter (the Preserver),
was king of Egypt from 323-285 (283) b.c. The following story in
regard to the origin of the LXX is first told in a spurious letter
(probably dating from the first century b.c.), which professes to have
been written by Aristeas, a high officer at the court of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285 [283]-247 b.c.). This epistle puts the origin of the
LXX in the reign of the latter monarch instead of in that of his
father, Ptolemy Soter, and is followed in this by Philo, Josephus,
Tertullian, and most of the other ancient writers (Justin Martyr calls
the king simply Ptolemy, while Clement of Alex. says that some connect
the event with the one monarch, others with the other). The account
given in the letter (which is printed by Gallandius, Bibl. Patr. II.
771, as well as in many other editions) is repeated over and over
again, with greater or less variations, by early Jewish and Christian
writers (e.g. by Philo, Vit. Mos. 2; by Josephus, Ant. XII. 2; by
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 31; by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 22; by
Tertullian, Apol. 18, and others; see the article Aristeas in Smith's
Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog.). It gives the number of the elders as
seventy-two,--six from each tribe. That this marvelous tale is a
fiction is clear enough, but whether it is based upon a groundwork of
fact is disputed (see Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi, II. p. 697 sqq.). It is at any rate certain that the
Pentateuch (the original account applies only to the Pentateuch, but
later it was extended to the entire Old Testament) was translated into
Greek in Alexandria as early as the third century b.c.; whether under
Ptolemy Philadelphus, and at his desire, we cannot tell. The
translation of the remainder of the Old Testament followed during the
second century b.c., the books being translated at various times by
unknown authors, but all or most of them probably in Egypt (see
Schürer, ibid.). It was, of course, to the interest of the Christians
to maintain the miraculous origin of the LXX, for otherwise they would
have to yield to the attacks of the Jews, who often taunted them with
having only a translation of the Scriptures. Accepting the miraculous
origin of the LXX, the Christians, on the other hand, could accuse the
Jews of falsifying their Hebrew copies wherever they differed from the
LXX, making the latter the only authoritative standard (cf. Justin
Martyr's Dial. chap. 71, and many other passages in the work). Upon
the attitude of the Christians, and the earlier and later attitude of
the Jews toward the LXX, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 16, note 8.
[1497] poiesantos tou theou hoper hebouleto. This is quite different
from the text of Irenæus, which reads facturos hoc quod ipse voluisset
(implying that the original Greek was poiesontas touto hoper
ebouleto), "to carry out what he [viz. Ptolemy] had desired."
Heinichen modifies the text of Eusebius somewhat, substituting
poiesontas ta for poiesantos tou, but there can be little doubt that
Eusebius originally wrote the sentence in the form given at the
beginning of this note. That Irenæus wrote it in that form, however,
is uncertain, though, in view of the fact that Clement of Alex.
(Strom. I. 22) confirms the reading of Eusebius (reading theou gar en
boulema), I am inclined to think that the text of Eusebius represents
the original more closely than the text of the Latin translation of
Irenæus does. Most of the editors, however, both of Eusebius and of
Irenæus, take the other view (cf. Harvey's note in his edition of
Irenæus, Vol. II. p. 113).
[1498] ten auten hermeneian grEURphein, as the majority of the mss.,
followed by Burton and most other editors, read. Stroth Zimmermann,
and Heinichen, on the authority of Rufinus and of the Latin version of
Irenæus, read, ten auten hermeneuein graphen.
[1499] kat' epipnoian
[1500] This tradition, which was commonly accepted until the time of
the Reformation, dates from the first Christian century, for it is
found in the fourth book of Ezra (xiv. 44): It is there said that Ezra
was inspired to dictate to five men, during forty days, ninety-four
books, of which twenty-four (the canonical books) were to be
published. The tradition is repeated quite frequently by the Fathers,
but that Ezra formed the Old Testament canon is impossible, for some
of the books were not written until after his day. The truth is, it
was a gradual growth and was not completed until the second century
b.c. See above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.
Chapter IX.--The Bishops under Commodus.
1. After Antoninus [1501] had been emperor for nineteen years,
Commodus received the government. [1502] In his first year Julian
[1503] became bishop of the Alexandrian churches, after Agrippinus
[1504] had held the office for twelve years.
Footnotes
[1501] i.e. Marcus Aurelius. See below, p. 390, note.
[1502] March 17, 180 a.d.
[1503] Of this Julian we know nothing except what is told us by
Eusebius here and in chap. 22, below, where he is said to have held
office ten years. In the Chron. he is also said to have been bishop
for ten years, but his accession is put in the nineteenth year of
Marcus Aurelius (by Jerome), or in the second year of Commodus (by the
Armenian version).
[1504] Upon Agrippinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5.
Chapter X.--Pantænus the Philosopher.
1. About that time, Pantænus, [1505] a man highly distinguished for
his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.
[1506] A school of sacred learning, which continues to our day, was
established there in ancient times, [1507] and as we have been
informed, [1508] was managed by men of great ability and zeal for
divine things. Among these it is reported [1509] that Pantænus was at
that time especially conspicuous, as he had been educated in the
philosophical system of those called Stoics.
2. They say that he displayed such zeal for the divine Word, that he
was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of Christ to the nations in
the East, and was sent as far as India. [1510] For indeed [1511] there
were still many evangelists of the Word who sought earnestly to use
their inspired zeal, after the examples of the apostles, for the
increase and building up of the Divine Word.
3. Pantænus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is
reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the
Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival.
For Bartholomew, [1512] one of the apostles, had preached to them, and
left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, [1513]
which they had preserved till that time.
4. After many good deeds, Pantænus finally became the head of the
school at Alexandria, [1514] and expounded the treasures of divine
doctrine both orally and in writing. [1515]
Footnotes
[1505] Pantænus is the first teacher of the Alexandrian school that is
known to us, and even his life is involved in obscurity. His chief
significance for us lies in the fact that he was the teacher of
Clement, with whom the Alexandrian school first steps out into the
full light of history, and makes itself felt as a power in
Christendom. Another prominent pupil of Pantænus was Alexander, bishop
of Jerusalem (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14). Pantænus was originally a
Stoic philosopher, and must have discussed philosophy in his school in
connection with theology, for Origen appeals to him as his example in
this respect (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 19). His abilities are
testified to by Clement (in his Hypotyposes; see the next Chapter,
§4), who speaks of him always in terms of the deepest respect and
affection. Of his birth and death we know nothing. Clement, Strom. I.
1, calls him a "Sicilian bee," which may, perhaps, have reference to
his birthplace. The statement of Philip of Side, that he was an
Athenian, is worthless. We do not know when he began his work in
Alexandria, nor when he finished it. But from Bk. VI. chap. 6 we learn
that Clement had succeeded Pantænus, and was in charge of the school
in the time of Septimius Severus. This probably means not merely that
Pantænus had left Egypt, but that he was already dead; and if that be
the case, the statement of Jerome (de vir. ill. 36), that Pantænus was
in charge of the school during the reigns of Septimius Severus and
Caracalla, is erroneous (Jerome himself expressly says, in ibid. chap.
38, that Clement succeeded Pantænus upon the death of the latter).
Jerome's statement, however, that Pantænus was sent to India by
Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, is not necessarily in conflict with
the indefinite account of Eusebius, who gives no dates. What authority
Jerome has for his account we do not know. If his statement be
correct, the journey must have taken place after 190; and thus after,
or in the midst or, his Alexandrian activity. Eusebius apparently
accepted the latter opinion, though his statement at the end of this
Chapter is dark, and evidently implies that he was very uncertain in
regard to the matter. His whole account rests simply on hearsay, and
therefore too much weight must not be laid upon its accuracy. After
Clement comes upon the scene (which was at least some years before the
outbreak of the persecution of Severus, 200 a.d.--when he left the
city) we hear nothing more of Pantænus. Some have put his journey to
India in this later period; but this is contrary to the report of
Eusebius, and there is no authority for the opinion. Photius (Cod.
118) records a tradition that Pantænus had himself heard some of the
apostles; but this is impossible, and is asserted by no one else.
According to Jerome, numerous commentaries of Pantænus were extant in
his time. Eusebius, at the close of this Chapter, speaks of his
expounding the Scriptures "both orally and in writing," but he does
not enumerate his works, and apparently had never seen them. No traces
of them are now extant, unless some brief reminiscences of his
teaching, which we have, are supposed to be drawn from his works, and
not merely from his lectures or conversations (see Routh, Rel. Sac. I.
p. 375-383).
[1506] The origin of this school of the faithful, or "catechetical
school," in Alexandria is involved in obscurity. Philip of Side names
Athenagoras as the founder of the school, but his account is full of
inconsistencies and contradictions, and deserves no credence. The
school first comes out into the light of history at this time with
Pantænus at its head, and plays a prominent part in Church history
under Clement, Origen, Heraclas, Dionysius, Didymus, &c., until the
end of the fourth century, when it sinks out of sight in the midst of
the dissensions of the Alexandrian church, and its end like its
beginning is involved in obscurity. It probably owed its origin to no
particular individual, but arose naturally as an outgrowth from the
practice which flourished in the early Church of instructing
catechumens in the elements of Christianity before admitting them to
baptism. In such a philosophical metropolis as Alexandria, a school,
though intended only for catechumens, would very naturally soon assume
a learned character, and it had already in the time of Pantænus at
least become a regular theological school for the preparation
especially of teachers and preachers. It exercised a great influence
upon theological science, and numbered among its pupils many
celebrated theologians and bishops. See the article by Redepenning in
Herzog, 2d ed. I. 290-292, and Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 777-781, where
the literature of the subject is given.
[1507] Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 36) states that there had always been
ecclesiastical teachers in Alexandria from the time of Mark. He is
evidently, however, giving no independent tradition, but merely draws
his conclusion from the words of Eusebius who simply says "from
ancient times." The date of the origin of the school is in fact
entirely unknown, though there is nothing improbable in the statement
of Jerome that ecclesiastical teachers were always there. It must,
however, have been some years before a school could be developed or
the need of it be felt.
[1508] pareilephamen
[1509] logos zchei.
[1510] Jerome (de vir. ill. 36) says that he was sent to India by the
bishop Demetrius at the request of the Indians themselves,--a
statement more exact than that of Eusebius, whether resting upon
tradition merely, or upon more accurate information, or whether it is
simply a combination of Jerome's, we do not know. It is at any rate
not at all improbable (see above, note 1). A little farther on
Eusebius indicates that Pantænus preached in the same country in which
the apostle Bartholomew had done missionary work. But according to
Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 22) Bartholomew's traditional
field of labor was the region of the Bosphorus. He follows Gutschmid
therefore in claiming that the Indians here are confounded with the
Sindians, over whom the Bosphorian kings of the house of Polemo ruled.
Jerome (Ep. ad Magnum; Migne, Ep. 70) evidently regards the India
where Pantænus preached as India proper (Pantænus Stoicæ sectæ
philosophus, ob pracipue eruditionis gloriam, a Demetrio Alexandriæ
episcopo missus est in Indiam, ut Christum apud Brachmanas, et illius
gentis philosophos prædicaret). Whether the original tradition was
that Pantænus went to India, and his connection with Bartholomew (who
was wrongly supposed to have preached to the Indians) was a later
combination, or whether, on the other hand, the tradition that he
preached in Bartholomew's field of labor was the original and the
mission to India a later combination, we cannot tell. It is probable
that Eusebius meant India proper, as Jerome certainly did, but both of
them may have been mistaken.
[1511] esan gar, esan eiseti. Eusebius seems to think it a remarkable
fact that there should still have been preaching evangelists.
Evidently they were no longer common in his day. It is interesting to
notice that he calls them "evangelists." In earlier times they were
called "apostles" (e.g. in the Didache), but the latter had long
before Eusebius' time become a narrower, technical term.
[1512] See note 6.
[1513] If the truth of this account be accepted, Pantænus is a witness
to the existence of a Hebrew Matthew. See above, Bk. III. chap. 24,
note 5. It has been assumed by some that this Gospel was the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24). This is
possible; but even if Pantænus really did find a Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew as Eusebius says (and which, according to Jerome, de vir. ill.
36, he brought back to Alexandria with him), we have no grounds upon
which to base a conclusion as to its nature, or its relation to our
Greek Matthew.
[1514] Eusebius apparently puts the journey of Pantænus in the middle
of his Alexandrian activity, and makes him return again and teach
there until his death. Jerome also agrees in putting the journey in
the middle and not at the beginning or close of his Alexandrian
activity. It must be confessed, however, that Eusebius' language is
very vague, and of such a nature as perhaps to imply that he really
had no idea when the mission took place.
[1515] See above, note 1.
Chapter XI.--Clement of Alexandria.
1. At this time Clement, [1516] being trained with him [1517] in the
divine Scriptures at Alexandria, became well known. He had the same
name as the one who anciently was at the head of the Roman church, and
who was a disciple of the apostles. [1518]
2. In his Hypotyposes [1519] he speaks of Pantænus by name as his
teacher. It seems to me that he alludes to the same person also in the
first book of his Stromata, when, referring to the more conspicuous of
the successors of the apostles whom he had met, [1520] he says: [1521]
3. "This work [1522] is not a writing artfully constructed for
display; but my notes are stored up for old age, as a remedy against
forgetfulness; an image without art, and a rough sketch of those
powerful and animated words which it was my privilege to hear, as well
as of blessed and truly remarkable men.
4. Of these the one--the Ionian [1523] --was in Greece, the other in
Magna Græcia; [1524] the one of them was from Coele-Syria, [1525] the
other from Egypt. There were others in the East, one of them an
Assyrian, [1526] the other a Hebrew in Palestine. [1527] But when I
met with the last, [1528] --in ability truly he was first,--having
hunted him out in his concealment in Egypt, I found rest.
5. These men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed doctrine,
directly from the holy apostles, Peter and James and John and Paul,
the son receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers),
have come by God's will even to us to deposit those ancestral and
apostolic seeds." [1529]
Footnotes
[1516] Of the place and time of Titus Flavius Clement's birth we have
no certain knowledge, though it is probable that he was an Athenian by
training at least, if not by birth, and he must have been born about
the middle of the second century. He received a very extensive
education, and became a Christian in adult years, after he had tried
various systems of philosophy, much as Justin Martyr had. He had a
great thirst for knowledge, and names six different teachers under
whom he studied Christianity (see below, §4). Finally he became a
pupil of Pantænus in Alexandria, whom he afterward succeeded as the
head of the catechetical school there. It is at this time (about 190
a.d.) that he comes out clearly into the light of history, and to this
period (190-202) belongs his greatest literary activity. He was at the
head of the school probably until 202, when the persecution of Severus
having broken out, he left Alexandria, and we nave no notice that he
ever returned. That he did not leave Alexandria dishonorably, through
fear, may be gathered from his presence with Alexander during his
imprisonment, and from the letters of the latter (see below, Bk. VI.
chaps. 11 and 14, and cf. Bk. VI. chap. 6, notes). This is the last
notice that we have of him (a.d. 212); and of the place and time of
his death we know nothing, though he cannot have lived many years
after this. He was never a bishop, but was a presbyter of the
Alexandrian church, and was in ancient times commemorated as a saint,
but his name was dropped from the roll by Clement VIII. on account of
suspected heterodoxy. He lived in an age of transition, and his great
importance lies in the fact that he completed the bond between
Hellenism and Christianity, and as a follower of the apologists
established Christianity as a philosophy, and yet not as they had done
in an apologetic sense. He was the teacher of Origen, and the real
father of Greek theology. He published no system, as did Origen; his
works were rather desultory and fragmentary, but full of wide and
varied learning, and exhibit a truly broad and catholic spirit. Upon
his works, see Bk. VI. chap. 13. Upon Clement, see especially
Westcott's article in Smith and Wace, I. 559-567, and Schaff, II.
781-785, where the literature is given with considerable fullness. For
an able and popular presentation of his theology, see Allen's
Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 38-70.
[1517] sunaskoumenos
[1518] Upon Clement of Rome and his relation to the apostles, see Bk.
III. chap. 4, note 19.
[1519] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. The
passage in which he mentions Pantænus by name has not been preserved.
Eusebius repeats the same statement in Bk. VI. chap. 13, §1.
[1520] tous emphanesterous hes kateilephen apostolikes diadoches
episemainomenos. Rufinus reads apostolicæ prædicationis instead of
successionis. And so Christophorsonus and Valesius adopt didaches
instead of diadoches, and translate doctrinæ. But diadoches is too
well supported by ms. authority to be rejected; and though the use of
the abstract "succession," instead of the concrete "successors," seems
harsh, it is employed elsewhere in the same sense by Eusebius (see Bk.
I. chap. 1, §1).
[1521] Strom.I. 1.
[1522] i.e. his Stromata.
[1523] This is hardly a proper name, although many have so considered
it, for Clement gives no other proper name in this connection, and it
is much more natural to translate "the Ionian." Various conjectures
have been made as to who these teachers were, but none are more than
mere guesses. Philip of Side tells us that Athenagoras was a teacher
of Clement, but, as we have seen, no confidence can be placed in his
statement. It has been conjectured also that Melito may be the person
referred to as "the Ionian," for Clement mentions his works, and wrote
a book on the paschal question in reply to Melito's work on the same
subject (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 23). This too, however, is
mere conjecture.
[1524] The lower part of the peninsula of Italy was called Magna
Græcia, because it contained so many Greek colonies.
[1525] Coele-Syria was the valley lying between the eastern and
western ranges of Lebanon.
[1526] This has been conjectured to be Tatian. But in the first place,
Clement, in Strom. III. 12, calls Tatian a Syrian instead of an
Assyrian (the terms are indeed often used interchangeably, but we
should nevertheless hardly expect Clement to call his own teacher in
one place a Syrian, in another an Assyrian). And again, in II. 12, he
speaks very harshly of Tatian, and could hardly have referred to him
in this place in such terms of respect and affection.
[1527] Various conjectures have been made as to the identity of this
teacher,--for instance, Theophilus of Cæsarea (who, however, was never
called a Hebrew, according to Valesius), and Theodotus (so Valesius).
[1528] Pantænus. There can be no doubt as to his identity, for Clement
says that he remained with him and sought no further. Eusebius omits a
sentence here in which Clement calls Pantænus the "Sicilian bee," from
which it is generally concluded that he was a native of Sicily (see
the previous Chapter, note 1).
[1529] This entire passage is very important, as showing not only the
extensiveness of Clement's own acquaintance with Christians, but also
the close intercourse of Christians in general, both East and West.
Clement's statement in regard to the directness with which he received
apostolic tradition is not definite, and he by no means asserts that
his teachers were hearers of the apostles (which in itself would not
be impossible, but Clement would certainly have spoken more clearly
had it been a fact), nor indeed that they were hearers of disciples of
the apostles. But among so many teachers, so widely scattered, he
could hardly have failed to meet with some who had at least known
those who had known the apostles. In any case he considers his
teachers very near the apostles as regards the accuracy of their
traditions. The passage is also interesting, as showing the uniformity
of doctrine in different parts of Christendom, according to Clement's
view, though this does not prove much, as Clement himself was so
liberal and so much of an eclectic. It is also interesting, as showing
how much weight Clement laid upon tradition, how completely he rested
upon it for the truth, although at the same time he was so free and
broad in his speculation.
Chapter XII.--The Bishops in Jerusalem.
1. At this time Narcissus [1530] was the bishop of the church at
Jerusalem, and he is celebrated by many to this day. He was the
fifteenth in succession from the siege of the Jews under Adrian. We
have shown that from that time first the church in Jerusalem was
composed of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and that Marcus
was the first Gentile bishop that presided over them. [1531]
2. After him the succession in the episcopate was: first Cassianus;
after him Publius; then Maximus; [1532] following them Julian; then
Gaius; [1533] after him Symmachus and another Gaius, and again another
Julian; after these Capito [1534] and Valens and Dolichianus; and
after all of them Narcissus, the thirtieth in regular succession from
the apostles.
Footnotes
[1530] The date of Narcissus' accession to the see of Jerusalem is not
known to us. The Chron. affords us no assistance; for although it
connects him among other bishops with the first (Armen.) or third
(Jerome) year of Severus, it does not pretend to give the date of
accession, and in one place says expressly that the dates of the
Jerusalem bishops are not known (non potuimus discernere tempora
singulorum). But from chap. 22 we learn that he was already bishop in
the tenth year of Commodus (189 a.d.); from chap. 23, that he was one
of those that presided at a Palestinian council, called in the time of
Bishop Victor, of Rome, to discuss the paschal question (see chap. 23,
§2); from Bk. VI. chap. 8, that he was alive at the time of the
persecution of Severus (202 sq.); and from the fragment of one of
Alexander's epistles given in Bk. VI. chap. 11, that he was still
alive in his 116th year, sometime after 212 a.d. (see Bk. VI. chap.
11, note 1). Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 20) reports that he lived until
the reign of Alexander Severus (222 a.d.), and this in itself would
not be impossible; for the epistle of Alexander referred to might have
been written as late as 222. But Epiphanius is a writer of no
authority; and the fact is, that in connection with Origen's visit in
Palestine, in 216 (see Bk. VI. chap. 19), Alexander is mentioned as
bishop of Jerusalem; and Narcissus is not referred to. We must,
therefore, conclude that Narcissus was dead before 216. We learn from
Bk. VI. chap. 9 that Narcissus had the reputation of being a great
miracle-worker, and he was a man of such great piety and sanctity as
to excite the hatred of a number of evil-doers, who conspired against
him to blacken his character. In consequence of this he left
Jerusalem, and disappeared entirely from the haunts of men, so that it
became necessary to appoint another bishop in his place. Afterward,
his slanderers having suffered the curses imprecated upon themselves
in their oaths against him, Narcissus returned, and was again made
bishop, and was given an assistant, Alexander (see Bk. VI. chaps. 10
and 11). A late tradition makes Narcissus a martyr (see Nicephorus, H.
E. IV. 19), but there is no authority for the report.
[1531] Upon the so-called bishops of Jerusalem down to the destruction
of the city under Hadrian, see Bk. IV. chap. 5. Upon the destruction
of Jerusalem under Hadrian, and the founding of the Gentile Church in
Ælia Capitolina, and upon Marcus the first Gentile bishop, see Bk. IV.
chap. 6. The list given here by Eusebius purports to contain fifteen
names, Marcus being the sixteenth, and Narcissus being the thirtieth;
but only thirteen names are given. In the Chron., however, and in
Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 20) the list is complete, a second Maximus and
a Valentinus being inserted, as 26th and 27th, between Capito and
Valens. The omission here is undoubtedly due simply to the mistake of
some scribe. The Chron. puts the accession of Cassianus into the 23d
year of Antoninus Pius (160 a.d.), and the accession of the second
Maximus into the sixth year of Commodus (185 a.d.), but it is said in
the Chron. itself that the dates of the various bishops are not known,
and hence no reliance can be placed upon these figures. Epiphanius
puts the accession of the first Gaius into the tenth year of Antoninus
Pius, which is thirteen years earlier than the date of the Chron. for
the fourth bishop preceding. He also puts the death of the second
Gaius in the eighth year of Marcus Aurelius (168 a.d.) and the death
of the second Maximus in the sixteenth year of the same reign, thus
showing a variation from the Chron. of more than nine years. The
episcopate of Dolichianus is brought down by him to the reign of
Commodus (180 a.d.). As shown in note 1, however, the date given by
him for Narcissus is quite wrong, and there is no reason for bestowing
any greater credence upon his other dates. Syncellus assigns five
years to Cassianus, five to Publius, four to Maximus, two to Julian,
three to the first Gaius, two to Symmachus, three to the second Gaius,
four to the second Julian, two to an Elias who is not named by our
other authorities, four to Capito, four to the second Maximus, five to
Antoninus, three to Valens, four to Narcissus the first time, and ten
the second time. His list, however, is considerably
confused,--Dolichianus being thrown after Narcissus with an episcopate
of twelve years,--and at any rate no reliance can be placed upon the
figures given. We must conclude that we have no means of ascertaining
the dates of these various bishops until we reach Narcissus. We know
nothing about any of them (Narcissus excepted) beyond the fact that
they were bishops.
[1532] Called Maximinus by the Armenian Chron., but all our other
authorities call him Maximus.
[1533] The name is given GEURios in this Chapter, and by Syncellus;
but Jerome and the Armenian give Gaianus, and Epiphanius Gaianos. All
the authorities agree upon the name of the next Gaius (who is,
however, omitted by Rufinus).
[1534] Eusebius has Kapiton, so also Epiphanius, with whom Jerome
agrees, writing Capito. The Armenian, however, has Apion, and
Syncellus says 'Apion, hoi de Kapiton.
Chapter XIII.--Rhodo and his Account of the Dissension of Marcion.
1. At this time Rhodo, [1535] a native of Asia, who had been
instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already
become acquainted, [1536] having written several books, published
among the rest one against the heresy of Marcion. [1537] He says that
this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; [1538] and
while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes
accurately the falsehoods devised by each of them.
2. But hear what he writes: [1539]
"Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an
inconsistent opinion. [1540] For Apelles, [1541] one of the herd,
priding himself on his manner of life [1542] and his age, acknowledges
one principle, [1543] but says that the prophecies [1544] are from an
opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden
by name Philumene, [1545] who was possessed by a demon.
3. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, [1546] hold to
two principles, [1547] as does the mariner [1548] Marcion himself.
4. These following the wolf [1549] of Pontus, and, like him, unable to
fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any
proof asserted two principles. Others, again, drifting into a worse
error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. [1550]
Of these, Syneros [1551] is the leader and chief, as those who defend
his teaching [1552] say."
5. The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with
Apelles. He speaks as follows:
"For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, [1553] was refuted
in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was
not at all necessary to examine one's doctrine, [1554] but that each
one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that
those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were
found doing good works. [1555] But as we have said before, his opinion
concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one
principle, as also our doctrine does."
6. Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds:
"When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how can you assert
that there is one principle, he replied that the prophecies refuted
themselves, because they have said nothing true; [1556] for they are
inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one
principle he said that he did not know, but that he was thus
persuaded.
7. As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so
when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but
that he believed it. Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because,
though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how to confirm what he
taught." [1557]
8. In the same work, addressing Callistio, [1558] the same writer
acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. [1559] And
he says that a book of Problems [1560] had been prepared by Tatian, in
which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the
divine Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own
solutions of Tatian's problems. [1561] There is also extant a
Commentary of his on the Hexæmeron. [1562]
9. But this Apelles wrote many things, in an impious manner, of the
law of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in many of his works,
being, as it seemed, very zealous for their refutation and overthrow.
[1563]
So much concerning these.
Footnotes
[1535] We know nothing of Rhodo except what is contained in this
Chapter. Jerome gives a very brief account of him in his de vir. ill.
37, but it rests solely upon this Chapter, with the single addition of
the statement that Rhodo wrote a work Against the Phrygians. It is
plain enough, however, that he had for his account no independent
source, and that he in this statement simply attributed to Rhodo the
work quoted by Eusebius as an anonymous work in chap. 16. Jerome
permits himself such unwarranted combinations very frequently, and we
need not be at all surprised at it. With him a guess is often as good
as knowledge, and in this case he doubtless considered his guess a
very shrewd one. There is no warrant for supposing that he himself saw
the work mentioned by Eusebius, and thus learned its authorship. What
Eusebius did not learn from it he certainly could not, and his whole
account betrays the most slavish and complete dependence upon Eusebius
as his only source. In chap. 39 Jerome mentions Rhodo again as
referring, in a book which he wrote against Montanus, Prisca, and
Maximilla, to Miltiades, who also wrote against the same heretics.
This report is plainly enough taken directly from Eusebius, chap. 17,
where Eusebius quotes from the same anonymous work. Jerome's utterly
baseless combination is very interesting, and significant of his
general method. Rhodo's works are no longer extant, and the only
fragments we have are those preserved by Eusebius in this Chapter.
[1536] See Bk. IV. chap. 29.
[1537] Upon Marcion and Marcionism, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22.
[1538] It is noticeable that Rhodo says gnomas, opinions, not parties.
Although the different Marcionites held various theoretical beliefs,
which gave rise to different schools, yet they did not split up into
sects, but remained one church, and retained the one general name of
Marcionites, and it is by this general name alone that they are always
referred to by the Fathers. The fact that they could hold such variant
beliefs (e.g. one, two, or three principles; see below, note 9)
without splitting up into sects, shows that doctrines were but a side
issue with them, and that the religious spirit was the matter upon
which they laid the chief emphasis. This shows the fundamental
difference between Marcion and the Gnostics.
[1539] These fragments of Rhodo are collected and discussed by Routh
in his Rel. Sacræ, I. 437-446.
[1540] The Fathers entirely misunderstood Marcion, and mistook the
significance of his movement. They regarded it, like Gnosticism in
general, solely as a speculative system, and entirely overlooked its
practical aim. The speculative and theological was not the chief thing
with Marcion, but it is the only thing which receives any attention
from his opponents. His positions, all of which were held only with a
practical interest, were not treated by him in a speculative manner,
nor were they handled logically and systematically. As a consequence,
many contradictions occur in them. These contradictions were felt by
his followers, who laid more and more emphasis upon the speculative
over against the practical; and hence, as Rhodo reports, they fell
into disagreement, and, in their effort to remove the inconsistencies,
formed various schools, differing among themselves according to the
element upon which the greatest weight was laid. There is thus some
justification for the con