Writings of Eusebius - The Church History of Eusebius
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.
Chapter I.--The Persecution under Severus.
When Severus began to persecute the churches,  glorious
testimonies were given everywhere by the athletes of religion. This
was especially the case in Alexandria, to which city, as to a most
prominent theater, athletes of God were brought from Egypt and all
Thebais according to their merit, and won crowns from God through
their great patience under many tortures and every mode of death.
Among these was Leonides, who was called the father of Origen, 
and who was beheaded while his son was still young. How remarkable the
predilection of this son was for the Divine Word, in consequence of
his father's instruction, it will not be amiss to state briefly, as
his fame has been very greatly celebrated by many.
 During the early years of the reign of Septimius Severus the
Christians enjoyed comparative peace, and Severus himself showed them
considerable favor. Early in the third century a change set in, and in
202 the emperor issued an edict forbidding conversions to Christianity
and to Judaism (Spartianus, in Severo, c. 16; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des
Emp. III. p. 58). The cause of this radical change of conduct we do
not know, but it is possible that the excesses of the Montanists
produced a reaction in the emperor's mind against the Christians, or
that the rapidity with which Christianity was spreading caused him to
fear that the old Roman institutions would be overturned, and hence
produced a reaction against it. Why the Jews, too, should have been
attacked, it is hard to say,--possibly because of a new attempt on
their part to throw off the Roman yoke (see Spartianus, in Severo, c.
16); or perhaps there underlay the whole movement a reaction in the
emperor's mind toward the old Roman paganism (he was always
superstitious), and Judaism and Christianity being looked upon as
alike opposed to it, were alike to be held in check. The edict was
aimed, not against those already Christians, but only against new
converts, the idea being to prevent the further spread of
Christianity. But the change in the emperor's attitude, thus published
abroad, at once intensified all the elements which were hostile to
Christianity; and the popular disfavor, which continued widespread and
was continually venting itself in local persecutions, now allowed
itself freer rein, and the result was that severe persecutions broke
out, which were confined, however, almost wholly to Egypt and North
Africa. Our principal authorities for these persecutions (which went
on intermittently, during the rest of Severus' reign) are the first
twelve Chapters of this book of Eusebius' History, and a number of
Tertullian's works, especially his De corona milites, Ad Scap., and De
fuga in persecutione.
 We know very little about Origen's father. The fame of the son
overshadowed that of the father, even though the latter was a martyr.
The phrase used in this passage to describe him has caused some
trouble. Leonides ho legomenos 'Origenous pater. Taken in its usual
sense, the expression means "said to be the father of Origen," or the
"so-called father of Origen," both of which appear strange, for there
can have been no doubt as to his identity. It seems better, with
Westcott, to understand that Eusebius means that Origen's fame had so
eclipsed his father's that the latter was distinguished as "Leonides,
the father of Origen," and hence says here, "Leonides, who was known
as the father of Origen." The name Leonides is Greek, and that he was
of Greek nationality is further confirmed by the words of Porphyry
(quoted in chap. 19, below), who calls Origen "a Greek, and educated
in Greek literature." Porphyry may simply have concluded from his
knowledge of Greek letters that he was a Greek by birth, and hence his
statement taken alone has little weight; but taken in conjunction with
Leonides' name, it makes it probable that the latter was at least of
Greek descent; whether a native of Greece or not we do not know. A
late tradition makes him a bishop, but there is no foundation for such
a report. From the next Chapter we learn that Leonides' martyrdom took
place in the tenth year of Severus (201-202 a.d.), which is stated
also by the Chron.
Chapter II.--The Training of Origen from Childhood. 
1. Many things might be said in attempting to describe the life of the
man while in school; but this subject alone would require a separate
treatise. Nevertheless, for the present, abridging most things, we
shall state a few facts concerning him as briefly as possible,
gathering them from certain letters, and from the statement of persons
still living who were acquainted with him.
2. What they report of Origen seems to me worthy of mention, even, so
to speak, from his swathing-bands.
It was the tenth year of the reign of Severus, while Lætus  was
governor of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius  had
lately received the episcopate of the parishes there, as successor of
3. As the flame of persecution had been kindled greatly,  and
multitudes had gained the crown of martyrdom, such desire for
martyrdom seized the soul of Origen, although yet a boy, that he went
close to danger, springing forward and rushing to the conflict in his
4. And truly the termination of his life had been very near had not
the divine and heavenly Providence, for the benefit of many, prevented
his desire through the agency of his mother.
5. For, at first, entreating him, she begged him to have compassion on
her motherly feelings toward him; but finding, that when he had
learned that his father had been seized and imprisoned, he was set the
more resolutely, and completely carried away with his zeal for
martyrdom, she hid all his clothing, and thus compelled him to remain
6. But, as there was nothing else that he could do, and his zeal
beyond his age would not suffer him to be quiet, he sent to his father
an encouraging letter on martyrdom,  in which he exhorted him,
saying, "Take heed not to change your mind on our account." This may
be recorded as the first evidence of Origen's youthful wisdom and of
his genuine love for piety.
7. For even then he had stored up no small resources in the words of
the faith, having been trained in the Divine Scriptures from
childhood. And he had not studied them with indifference, for his
father, besides giving him the usual liberal education,  had
made them a matter of no secondary importance.
8. First of all, before inducting him into the Greek sciences, he
drilled him in sacred studies, requiring him to learn and recite every
9. Nor was this irksome to the boy, but he was eager and diligent in
these studies. And he was not satisfied with learning what was simple
and obvious in the sacred words, but sought for something more, and
even at that age busied himself with deeper speculations. So that he
puzzled his father with inquiries for the true meaning of the inspired
10. And his father rebuked him seemingly to his face, telling him not
to search beyond his age, or further than the manifest meaning. But by
himself he rejoiced greatly and thanked God, the author of all good,
that he had deemed him worthy to be the father of such a child.
11. And they say that often, standing by the boy when asleep, he
uncovered his breast as if the Divine Spirit were enshrined within it,
and kissed it reverently; considering himself blessed in his goodly
offspring. These and other things like them are related of Origen when
12. But when his father ended his life in martyrdom, he was left with
his mother and six younger brothers when he was not quite seventeen
years old. 
13. And the property of his father being confiscated to the royal
treasury, he and his family were in want of the necessaries of life.
But he was deemed worthy of Divine care. And he found welcome and rest
with a woman of great wealth, and distinguished in her manner of life
and in other respects. She was treating with great honor a famous
heretic then in Alexandria;  who, however, was born in Antioch.
He was with her as an adopted son, and she treated him with the
14. But although Origen was under the necessity of associating with
him, he nevertheless gave from this time on strong evidences of his
orthodoxy in the faith. For when on account of the apparent skill in
argument  of Paul,--for this was the man's name,--a great
multitude came to him, not only of heretics but also of our people,
Origen could never be induced to join with him in prayer;  for
he held, although a boy, the rule of the Church,  and
abominated, as he somewhere expresses it, heretical teachings. 
Having been instructed in the sciences of the Greeks by his father, he
devoted him after his death more assiduously and exclusively to the
study of literature, so that he obtained considerable preparation in
philology  and was able not long after the death of his father,
by devoting himself to that subject, to earn a compensation amply
sufficient for his needs at his age. 
 This sixth book of Eusebius' History is our chief source for a
knowledge of Origen's life. His own writings give us little
information of a personal nature; but Eusebius was in a position to
learn a great deal about him. He had the advantage of personal
converse with surviving friends of Origen, as he tells us in this
connection; he had also a large collection of Origen's epistles (he
had himself made a collection of more than one hundred of them, as he
tells us in chap. 36); and he had access besides to official
documents, and to works of Origen's contemporaries which contained
references to him (see chap. 33). As a result, he was in a position to
write a full and accurate account of his life, and in fact, in
connection with Pamphilus, he did write a Defense of Origen in six
books, which contained both an exposition of his theology with a
refutation of charges brought against him, and a full account of his
life. Of this work only the first book is extant, and that in the
translation of Rufinus. It deals solely with theological matters. It
is greatly to be regretted that the remaining books are lost, for they
must have contained much of the greatest interest in connection with
Origen's life, especially that period of it about which we are most
poorly informed, his residence in Cæsarea after his retirement from
Alexandria (see chap. 23). In the present book Eusebius gives numerous
details of Origen's life, frequently referring to the Defense for
fuller particulars. His account is very desultory, being interspersed
with numerous notices of other men and events, introduced apparently
without any method, though undoubtedly the design was to preserve in
general the chronological order. There is no part of Eusebius' work
which reveals more clearly the viciousness of the purely chronological
method breaking up as it does the account of a single person or
movement into numerous detached pieces, and thus utterly destroying
all historical continuity. It may be well, therefore, to sum up in
brief outline the chief events of Origen's life, most of which are
scattered through the following pages. This summary will be found
below, on p. 391 sq. In addition to the notices contained in this
book, we have a few additional details from the Defense, which have
been preserved by Jerome, Rufinus, and Photius, none of whom seems to
have had much, if any, independent knowledge of Origen's life.
Epiphanius (Hær. LXIII, and LXIV.) relates some anecdotes of doubtful
credibility. The Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus is valuable as a
description of Origen's method of teaching, and of the wonderful
influence which he possessed over his pupils. (For outline of Origen's
life, see below, p. 391 sq.)
 This Lætus is to be distinguished from Q. Æmilius Lætus,
prætorian prefect under Commodus, who was put to death by the Emperor
Didius Julianus, in 193; and from Julius Lætus, minister of Severus,
who was executed in 199 (see Dion Cassius, Bk. LXXIII. chap. 16, and
LXXV. chap. 10; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des emp. III. p. 21, 55, and 58).
The dates of Lætus' rule in Egypt are unknown to us.
 On the dates of Demetrius' episcopacy, see Bk. V. chap. 22,
 On Julian, see Bk. V. chap. 9, note 2.
 On the persecution, see more particularly chap. 1, note 1.
 This epistle which was apparently extant in the time of
Eusebius, and may have been contained in the collection made by him
(see chap. 36), is now lost, and we possess only this sentence from
 te ton enkuklion paidei. According to Liddell and Scott,
enk. paideia in later Greek meant "the circle of those arts and
sciences which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go
through before applying to any professional studies; school learning,
as opposed to the business of life." So Valesius says that the Greeks
understood by enk. mathemata the branches in which the youth were
instructed; i.e. mathematics, grammar, and rhetoric philosophy not
being included (see Valesius' note in loco).
 On the date of Origen's birth, see note 1.
 Of this Antiochene heretic Paul we know only what Eusebius
tells us here. His patroness seems to have been a Christian, and in
good standing in the Alexandrian church, or Origen would hardly have
made his home with her.
 dia to dokoun hikanon en logo.
 Redepenning (p. 189) refers to Origen's In Matt. Comment.
Series, sec. 89, where it is said, melius est cum nullo orare, quam
cum malis orare.
 phulEURtton exeti paidos kanona [two mss. kanonas] ekklesias.
Compare the words of the Apostolic Constitutions, VIII. 34: "Let not
one of the faithful pray with a catechumen, no, not in the house; for
it is not reasonable that he who is admitted should be polluted with
one not admitted. Let not one of the godly pray with an heretic, no,
not in the house. For `what fellowship hath light with darkness?'"
Compare also the Apostolic Canons, 11, 12, and 45. The last reads:
"Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who only prays with heretics,
be suspended; but if he also permit them to perform any part of the
office of a clergyman, let him be deprived." Hefele (Conciliengesch.
I. p. 815) considers this canon only a "consistent application of
apostolic principles to particular cases,--an application which was
made from the first century on, and therefore very old."
 Redepenning (p. 190) refers to the remarks of Origen upon the
nature and destructiveness of heresy collected by Pamphilus (Fragm.
Apol. Pamph. Opp. Origen, IV. 694 [ed. Delarue]).
 epi ta grammatikEUR
 See below, p. 392.
Chapter III.--While still very Young, he taught diligently the Word of
1. But while he was lecturing in the school, as he tells us himself,
and there was no one at Alexandria to give instruction in the faith,
as all were driven away by the threat of persecution, some of the
heathen came to him to hear the word of God.
2. The first of them, he says, was Plutarch,  who after living
well, was honored with divine martyrdom. The second was Heraclas,
 a brother of Plutarch; who after he too had given with him
abundant evidence of a philosophic and ascetic life, was esteemed
worthy to succeed Demetrius in the bishopric of Alexandria.
3. He was in his eighteenth year when he took charge of the
catechetical school.  He was prominent also at this time, during
the persecution under Aquila,  the governor of Alexandria, when
his name became celebrated among the leaders in the faith, through the
kindness and goodwill which he manifested toward all the holy martyrs,
whether known to him or strangers.
4. For not only was he with them while in bonds, and until their final
condemnation, but when the holy martyrs were led to death, he was very
bold and went with them into danger. So that as he acted bravely, and
with great boldness saluted the martyrs with a kiss, oftentimes the
heathen multitude round about them became infuriated, and were on the
point of rushing upon him.
5. But through the helping hand of God, he escaped absolutely and
marvelously. And this same divine and heavenly power, again and again,
it is impossible to say how often, on account of his great zeal and
boldness for the words of Christ, guarded him when thus endangered.
 So great was the enmity of the unbelievers toward him, on
account of the multitude that were instructed by him in the sacred
faith, that they placed bands of soldiers around the house where he
6. Thus day by day the persecution burned against him, so that the
whole city could no longer contain him; but he removed from house to
house and was driven in every direction because of the multitude who
attended upon the divine instruction which he gave. For his life also
exhibited right and admirable conduct according to the practice of
7. For they say that his manner of life was as his doctrine, and his
doctrine as his life.  Therefore, by the divine Power working
with him he aroused a great many to his own zeal.
8. But when he saw yet more coming to him for instruction, and the
catechetical school had been entrusted to him alone by Demetrius, who
presided over the church, he considered the teaching of grammatical
science inconsistent with training in divine subjects,  and
forthwith he gave up his grammatical school as unprofitable and a
hindrance to sacred learning.
9. Then, with becoming consideration, that he might not need aid from
others, he disposed of whatever valuable books of ancient literature
he possessed, being satisfied with receiving from the purchaser four
oboli a day.  For many years he lived philosophically  in
this manner, putting away all the incentives of youthful desires.
Through the entire day he endured no small amount of discipline; and
for the greater part of the night he gave himself to the study of the
Divine Scriptures. He restrained himself as much as possible by a most
philosophic life; sometimes by the discipline of fasting, again by
limited time for sleep. And in his zeal he never lay upon a bed, but
upon the ground.
10. Most of all, he thought that the words of the Saviour in the
Gospel should be observed, in which he exhorts not to have two coats
nor to use shoes  nor to occupy oneself with cares for the
11. With a zeal beyond his age he continued in cold and nakedness;
and, going to the very extreme of poverty, he greatly astonished those
about him. And indeed he grieved many of his friends who desired to
share their possessions with him, on account of the wearisome toil
which they saw him enduring in the teaching of divine things.
12. But he did not relax his perseverance. He is said to have walked
for a number of years never wearing a shoe, and, for a great many
years, to have abstained from the use of wine, and of all other things
beyond his necessary food; so that he was in danger of breaking down
and destroying his constitution. 
13. By giving such evidences of a philosophic life to those who saw
him, he aroused many of his pupils to similar zeal; so that prominent
men even of the unbelieving heathen and men that followed learning and
philosophy were led to his instruction. Some of them having received
from him into the depth of their souls faith in the Divine Word,
became prominent in the persecution then prevailing; and some of them
were seized and suffered martyrdom.
 Of this Plutarch we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and
in chap. 4, where he says that he was the first of Origen's pupils to
suffer martyrdom. (On the date of the persecution in which he
suffered, see note 4).
 Heraclas, brother of Plutarch, proved himself so good a pupil
that, when Origen later found the work of teaching too great for him
to manage alone, he made him his assistant, and committed the
elementary instruction to him (chap. 15). From chap. 19 we learn that
he was for years a diligent student of Greek philosophy (chap. 15
implies his proficiency in it), and that he even went so far as to
wear the philosopher's cloak all the time, although he was a presbyter
in the Alexandrian church. His reputation for learning became so
great, as we learn from chap. 31, that Julius Africanus went to
Alexandria to see him. In 231, when Origen took his departure from
Alexandria, he left the catechetical school in the charge of Heraclas
(chap. 26), and in 231 or 232, upon the death of Demetrius (see Bk. V.
chap. 22, note 4), Heraclas became the latter's successor as bishop of
Alexandria (chaps. 26 and 29), and was succeeded in the presidency of
the catechetical school by Dionysius (chap. 29). According to chap. 35
he was bishop for sixteen years and with this both versions of the
Chron. agree, though Jerome puts his accession two years too
early--into the ninth year of Alexander Severus instead of the
eleventh--while giving at the same time, quite inconsistently, the
proper date for his death. Heraclas' later relations to Origen are not
quite clear. He was evidently, in earlier years, one of his best
friends, and there is no adequate ground for the assumption, which is
quite common, that he was one of those who united with Bishop
Demetrius in condemning him. It is true, no attempt seems to have been
made after he became bishop to reverse the sentence against Origen,
and to invite him back to Alexandria; but this does not prove that
Heraclas did not remain friendly to him; for even when Dionysius (who
kept up his relations with Origen, as we know from chap. 46) became
bishop (a.d. 248), no such attempt seems to have been made, although
Origen was still alive and at the height of his power. The fact that
the greater part of the clergy of Alexandria and Egypt were
unfavorable to Origen, as shown by their condemnation of him, does not
imply that Heraclas could not have been elected unless he too showed
hostility to Origen; for Dionysius, who we know was not hostile, was
appointed at that time head of the catechetical school, and sixteen
years later bishop. It is true that Heraclas may not have sympathized
with all of Origen's views, and may have thought some of them
heretical (his strict judgment of heretics is seen from Bk. VII. chap.
7), but many even of the best of Origen's friends and followers did
likewise, so that among his most devoted adherents were some of the
most orthodox Fathers of the Church (e.g. the two Gregories and
Basil). That Heraclas did not agree with Origen in all his opinions
(if he did not, he may not have cared to press his return to
Alexandria) does not prove therefore that he took part in the
condemnatory action of the synod, and that he was himself in later
life hostile to Origen.
 See below, p. 392.
 It is not clear from Eusebius' language whether Aquila was
successor of Lætus as viceroy of Egypt (as Redepenning assumes
apparently quite without misgiving), or simply governor of Alexandria.
He calls Lætus (in chap. 2) governor of Alexandria and of all Egypt,
while Aquila is called simply governor of Alexandria. If this
difference were insisted on as marking a real distinction, then Aquila
would have to be regarded as the chief officer of Alexandria only, and
hence subordinate in dignity to the viceroy of Egypt. The term used to
describe his position (hegoumenon) is not, however the technical one
for the chief officer of Alexandria (see Mommsen, Provinces of the
Roman Empire; Scribner's ed., II. p. 267 ff.), and hence his position
cannot be decided with certainty. In any case, whether he succeeded
Lætus, or was his subordinate, the dates of his accession to and
retirement from office are unknown, and hence the time at which the
persecutions mentioned took place cannot be determined with exactness.
We simply know that they occurred after 203 (for Origen had already
taken charge of the catechetical school, and some of his pupils
perished in the persecutions) and before 211, the date of Severus'
 How it happened that Origen escaped the persecution, when,
according to Eusebius, he exposed himself so continually, and was so
hated by the heathen populace, we cannot tell. Eusebius ascribes it
solely to the grace of God here, and in chap. 4.
 hoios ho logos toios ho bios was a Greek proverb. Compare the
words of Seneca, in Ep. 114 ad Lucilium, "Apud Græcos in proverbium
cessit talis hominibus fuit oratio, qualis vita" (quoted by
Redepenning, p. 196).
 This does not mean that he considered the study of grammar and
literature injurious to the Christian, or detrimental to his
theological studies. His opinion on that subject is clear enough from
all his writings and from his conduct as pictured in chaps. 18 and 19.
Nor does it on the other hand imply, as Crusè supposes, that up to
this time he had been teaching secular branches exclusively; but it
means simply that the demands upon him for instruction in the faith
were so great, now that the catechetical school had been officially
entrusted to him by Demetrius, that he felt that he could no longer
continue to teach secular literature as he had been doing, but must
give up that part of his work, and devote himself exclusively to
instruction in sacred things.
 The obolus was a small Greek coin, equivalent to about three
and a half cents of our money. Four oboli a day could have been
sufficient, even in that age, only for the barest necessities of life.
But with his ascetic tendencies, these were all that Origen wished.
 It was very common from the fourth century on (the writer knows
of no instances earlier than Eusebius) to call an ascetic mode of life
"philosophical," or "the life of a philosopher" (see §2 of this
Chapter, and compare Chrysostom's works, where the word occurs very
frequently in this sense). Origen, in his ascetic practices, was quite
in accord with the prevailing Christian sentiment of his own and
subsequent centuries, which looked upon bodily discipline of an
ascetic kind, not indeed as required, but as commended by Christ. The
growing sentiment had its roots partly in the prevailing ideas of
contemporary philosophy, which instinctively emphasized strongly the
dualism of spirit and matter, and the necessity of subduing the latter
to the former, and partly in the increasing moral corruptness of
society, which caused those who wished to lead holy lives to feel that
only by eschewing the things of sense could the soul attain purity.
Under pressure from without and within, it became very easy to
misinterpret various sayings of Christ, and thus to find in the
Gospels ringing exhortations to a life of the most rigid asceticism.
Clement of Alexandria was almost the only one of the great Christian
writers after the middle of the second century who distinguished
between the true and the false in this matter. Compare his admirable
tract, Quis dives salvetur, and contrast the position taken there with
the foolish extreme pursued by Origen, as recorded in this Chapter.
 See Matt. x. 10
 See Matt. vi. 34
 Greek: thorax, properly "chest." Rufinus and Christophorsonus
translate stomachum, and Valesius approves; but there is no authority
for such a use of the term thorax, so far as I can ascertain. The
proper Greek term for stomach is stomachos, which is uniformly
employed by Galen and other medical writers.
Chapter IV.--The pupils of Origen that became Martyrs.
1. The first of these was Plutarch, who was mentioned just above.
 As he was led to death, the man of whom we are speaking being
with him at the end of his life, came near being slain by his
fellow-citizens, as if he were the cause of his death. But the
providence of God preserved him at this time also.
2. After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was
Serenus,  who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he
3. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides,  and
after him the fourth was Hero.  The former of these was as yet a
catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of
them were beheaded. After them, the fifth from the same school
proclaimed as an athlete of piety was another Serenus, who, it is
reported, was beheaded, after a long endurance of tortures. And of
women, Herais  died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by
fire, as Origen himself somewhere says.
 See the previous Chapter, §2. The martyrdom of these disciples
of Origen took place under Aquila, and hence the date depends on the
date of his rule, which cannot be fixed with exactness, as remarked in
note 4 on the previous Chapter.
 These two persons named Serenus, the first of whom was burned,
the second beheaded, are known to us only from this Chapter.
 Of this Heraclides, we know only what is told us in this
Chapter. He, with the other martyrs mentioned in this connection, is
commemorated in the mediæval martyrologies, but our authentic
information is limited to what Eusebius tells us here.
 Our authentic information of Hero is likewise limited to this
account of Eusebius.
 Herais likewise is known to us from this Chapter alone. It is
interesting to note that Origen's pupils were not confined to the male
sex. His association with female catechumens, which his office of
instructor entailed upon him, formed one reason for the act of
self-mutilation which he committed (see chap. 8, §2).
Chapter V.--Potamiæna. 
1. Basilides  may be counted the seventh of these. He led to
martyrdom the celebrated Potamiæna, who is still famous among the
people of the country for the many things which she endured for the
preservation of her chastity and virginity. For she was blooming in
the perfection of her mind and her physical graces. Having suffered
much for the faith of Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and
terrible to speak of, she with her mother, Marcella,  was put to
death by fire.
2. They say that the judge, Aquila by name, having inflicted severe
tortures upon her entire body, at last threatened to hand her over to
the gladiators for bodily abuse. After a little consideration, being
asked for her decision, she made a reply which was regarded as
3. Thereupon she received sentence immediately, and Basilides, one of
the officers of the army, led her to death. But as the people
attempted to annoy and insult her with abusive words, he drove back
her insulters, showing her much pity and kindness. And perceiving the
man's sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be of good courage, for
she would supplicate her Lord for him after her departure, and he
would soon receive a reward for the kindness he had shown her.
4. Having said this, she nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch
being poured little by little, over various parts of her body, from
the sole of her feet to the crown of her head. Such was the conflict
endured by this famous maiden.
5. Not long after this Basilides, being asked by his fellow-soldiers
to swear for a certain reason, declared that it was not lawful for him
to swear at all, for he was a Christian, and he confessed this openly.
At first they thought that he was jesting, but when he continued to
affirm it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowledging his conviction
before him, he was imprisoned. But the brethren in God coming to him
and inquiring the reason of this sudden and remarkable resolution, he
is reported to have said that Potamiæna, for three days after her
martyrdom, stood beside him by night and placed a crown on his head
and said that she had besought the Lord for him and had obtained what
she asked, and that soon she would take him with her.
6. Thereupon the brethren gave him the seal  of the Lord; and on
the next day, after giving glorious testimony for the Lord, he was
beheaded. And many others in Alexandria are recorded to have accepted
speedily the word of Christ in those times.
7. For Potamiæna appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them.
But let this suffice in regard to this matter.
 Potamiæna, one of the most celebrated of the martyrs that
suffered under Severus, is made by Rufinus a disciple of Origen, but
Eusebius does not say that she was, and indeed, in making Basilides
the seventh of Origen's disciples to suffer, he evidently excludes
Potamiæna from the number. Quite a full account of her martyrdom is
given by Palladius in his Historia Lausiaca, chap. 3 (Migne's Patr.
Gr. XXXIV. 1014), which contains some characteristic details not
mentioned by Eusebius. It appears from that account that she was a
slave, and that her master, not being able to induce her to yield to
his passion, accused her before the judge as a Christian, bribing him,
if possible, to break her resolution by tortures and then return her
to him, or, if that was not possible, to put her to death as a
Christian. We cannot judge as to the exact truth of this and other
details related by Palladius, but his history (which was written early
in the fifth century) is, in the main at least, reliable, except where
it deals with miracles and prodigies (cf. the article on Palladius of
Helenopolis, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
 Basilides is clearly reckoned here among the disciples of
Origen. The correctness of Eusebius' statement has been doubted, but
there is no ground for such doubt, for there is no reason to suppose
that all of Origen's pupils became converted under his instruction.
 Of Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the more
celebrated Potamiæna, and suffered martyrdom by fire.
 The word sphragis, "seal," was very commonly used by the
Fathers to signify baptism (see Suicer's Thesaurus).
Chapter VI.--Clement of Alexandria.
Clement  having succeeded Pantænus,  had charge at that
time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen
also, while still a boy,  was one of his pupils. In the first
book of the work called Stromata, which Clement wrote, he gives a
chronological table,  bringing events down to the death of
Commodus. So it is evident that that work was written during the reign
of Severus, whose times we are now recording.
 This Chapter has no connection with the preceding, and its
insertion at this point has no good ground, for Clement has been
already handled in the fifth book; and if Eusebius wished to refer to
him again in connection with Origen, he should have done so in chap.
3, where Origen's appointment as head of the catechetical school is
mentioned. (Redepenning, however, approves the present order; vol. I.
p. 431 sqq.) Rufinus felt the inconsistency, and hence inserted chaps.
6 and 7 in the middle of chap. 3, where the account of Origen's
appointment by Demetrius is given. Valesius considers the occurrence
of this mention of Clement at this point a sign that Eusebius did not
give his work a final revision. Chap. 13 is inserted in the same
abrupt way, quite out of harmony with the context. Upon the life of
Clement of Alexandria, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. The catechetical
school was vacant, as we learn from chap. 2, in the year 203, and was
then taken in charge by Origen, so that the "that time" referred to by
Eusebius in this sentence must be carried back of the events related
in the previous Chapters. The cause of Clement's leaving the school
was probably the persecution begun by Severus in 202 ("all were driven
away by the threatening aspect of persecution," according to chap. 3,
§1); for since Origen was one of his pupils he can hardly have left
long before that time. That it was not unworthy cowardice which led
Clement to take his departure is clear enough from the words of
Alexander in chaps. 11 and 14, from the high reputation which he
continued to enjoy throughout the Church, and from his own utterances
on the subject of martyrdom scattered through his works.
 On Pantænus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2.
 Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen,
following two important mss. and the translation of Rufinus, omit the
words paida onta "while a boy." But the words are found in all the
other codices (the chief witnesses of two of the three great families
of mss. being for them) and in Nicephorus. The manuscript authority is
therefore overwhelmingly in favor of the words, and they are adopted
by Valesius, Zimmermann, and Crusè. Rufinus is a strong witness
against the words but, as Redepenning justly remarks, having inserted
this Chapter, as he did, in the midst of the description of Origen's
early years (see note 1), the words paida onta would be quite
superfluous and even out of place, and hence he would naturally omit
them. So far as the probabilities of the insertion or omission of the
words in the present passage are concerned, it seems to me more
natural to suppose that a copyist, finding the words at this late
stage in the account of Origen's life, would be inclined to omit them,
than that not finding them there he should, upon historical grounds
(which he could have reached only after some reflection), think that
they ought to be inserted. The latter would be not only a more
difficult but also a much graver step than the former. There seems,
then, to be no good warrant for omitting these words. We learn from
chap. 3 that he took charge of the catechetical school when he was in
his eighteenth year, within a year therefore after the death of his
father. And we learn that before he took charge of the school, all who
had given instruction there had been driven away by the persecution.
Clement, therefore, must have left before Origen's eighteenth year,
and hence the latter must have studied with him before the persecution
had broken up the school, and in all probability before the death of
Leonides. In any case, therefore, he was still a boy when under
Clement, and even if we omit the words--"while a boy"--here, we shall
not be warranted in putting his student days into the period of his
maturity, as some would do. Upon this subject, see Redepenning, I. p.
431 sqq., who adduces still other arguments for the position taken in
this note which it is not necessary to repeat here.
 In Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21. On this and the other works of
Clement, see chap. 13.
Chapter VII.--The Writer, Judas. 
At this time another writer, Judas, discoursing about the seventy
weeks in Daniel, brings down the chronology to the tenth year of the
reign of Severus. He thought that the coming of Antichrist, which was
much talked about, was then near.  So greatly did the agitation
caused by the persecution of our people at this time disturb the minds
 The mention of the writer Judas at this point seems, at first
sight, as illogical as the reference to Clement in the preceding
Chapter. But it does not violate chronology as that did; and hence, if
the account of Origen's life was to be broken anywhere for such an
insertion, there was perhaps no better place. We cannot conclude,
therefore, that Eusebius, had he revised his work, would have changed
the position of this Chapter, as Valesius suggests (see the previous
Chapter, note 1). Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 52) repeats Eusebius' notice
of Judas, but adds nothing to it, and we know no more about him. Since
he believed that the appearance of Antichrist was at hand, he must
have written before the persecutions had given place again to peace,
and hence not long after 202, the date to which he extended his
chronology. Whether the work mentioned by Eusebius was a commentary or
a work on chronology is not clear. It was possibly an historical
demonstration of the truth of Daniel's prophecies, and an
interpretation of those yet unfulfilled, in which case it combined
history and exegesis.
 It was the common belief in the Church, from the time of the
apostles until the time of Constantine, that the second coming of
Christ would very speedily take place. This belief was especially
pronounced among the Montanists, Montanus having proclaimed that the
parousia would occur before his death, and even having gone so far as
to attempt to collect all the faithful (Montanists) in one place in
Phrygia, where they were to await that event and where the new
Jerusalem was to be set up (see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 6). There
is nothing surprising in Judas' idea that this severe persecution must
be the beginning of the end, for all through the earlier centuries of
the Church (and even to some extent in later centuries) there were
never wanting those who interpreted similar catastrophes in the same
way; although after the third century the belief that the end was at
hand grew constantly weaker.
Chapter VIII.--Origen's Daring Deed.
1. At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction
at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and
youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith
and continence.  For he took the words, "There are eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," 
in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the
Saviour's word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers
all opportunity for scandal,--for, although young, he met for the
study of divine things with women as well as men,--he carried out in
action the word of the Saviour.
2. He thought that this would not be known by many of his
acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do
so, to keep such an action secret.
3. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of
this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he
perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately
exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work
of catechetical instruction.
4. Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was
prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the
same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most
foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of
Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished
among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the
highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. 
5. Thereupon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned
everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom.
But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save
this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly,  and dared to
include with him in these accusations those who had raised him to the
6. These things, however, took place a little later. But at this time
Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at
Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him; devoting his
entire leisure without cessation to divine studies and to his pupils.
7. Severus, having held the government for eighteen years, was
succeeded by his son, Antoninus.  Among those who had endured
courageously the persecution of that time, and had been preserved by
the Providence of God through the conflicts of confession, was
Alexander, of whom we have spoken already  as bishop of the
church in Jerusalem. On account of his pre-eminence in the confession
of Christ he was thought worthy of that bishopric, while Narcissus,
 his predecessor, was still living.
 This act of Origen's has been greatly discussed, and some have
even gone so far as to believe that he never committed the act, but
that the report of it arose from a misunderstanding of certain
figurative expressions used by him (so, e.g., Boehringer, Schnitzer,
and Baur). There is no reason, however, to doubt the report, for which
we have unimpeachable testimony, and which is in itself not at all
surprising (see the arguments of Redepenning, I. p. 444 sqq.). The act
was contrary to the civil law (see Suetonius, Domitian, c. 7; and cf.
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 29), and yet was a very common one; the
existence of the law itself would alone prove what we know from many
sources to have been the fact. Nor was Origen alone among the
Christians (cf. e.g. Origen, In Matt., XV. 1, the passage of Justin
Martyr referred to above, and also the first canon of the Council of
Nicæa, the very existence of which proves the necessity of it). It was
natural that Christians, seeking purity of life, and strongly ascetic
in their tendencies, should be influenced by the actions of those
about them, who sought thus to be freed from the domination of the
passions, and should interpret certain passages of the Bible as
commending the act. Knowing it to be so common, and knowing Origen's
character, as revealed to us in chap. 3, above (to say nothing of his
own writings), we can hardly be surprised that he performed the act.
His chief motive was undoubtedly the same as that which actuated him
in all his ascetic practices, the attainment of higher holiness
through the subjugation of his passions, and the desire to sacrifice
everything fleshly for the sake of Christ. Of course this could not
have led him to perform the act he did, unless he had entirely
misunderstood, as Eusebius says he did, the words of Christ quoted
below. But he was by no means the only one to misunderstand them (see
Suicer's Thesaurus, I. 1255 sq.). Eusebius says that the requirements
of his position also had something to do with his resolve. He was
obliged to teach both men and women, and both day and night (as we
learn from §7), and Eusebius thinks he would naturally desire to avoid
scandal. At the same time, this motive can hardly have weighed very
heavily, if at all, with him; for had his giving instruction in this
way been in danger of causing serious scandal, other easier methods of
avoiding such scandal might have been devised, and undoubtedly would
have been, by the bishop. And the fact is, he seems to have wished to
conceal the act, which is inconsistent with the idea that he performed
it for the sake of avoiding scandal. It is quite likely that his
intimate association with women may have had considerable to do with
his resolve, because he may have found that such association aroused
his unsubdued passions, and therefore felt that they must be
eradicated, if he was to go about his duties with a pure and single
heart. That he afterward repented his youthful act, and judged the
words of Christ more wisely, is clear from what he says in his
Comment. in Matt. XV. 1. And yet he never outgrew his false notions of
the superior virtue of an ascetic life. His act seems to have caused a
reaction in his mind which led him into doubt and despondency for a
time; for Demetrius found it necessary to exhort him to cherish
confidence, and to urge him to continue his work of instruction.
Eusebius, while not approving Origen's act, yet evidently admired him
the more for the boldness and for the spirit of self-sacrifice shown
in its performance.
 Matt. xix. 12.
 See chap. 23.
 On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see
below, p. 394.
 Septimius Severus died on February 4, 211, after a reign of a
little more than seventeen years and eight months, and was succeeded
by his two sons, Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus (commonly
known by his nickname Caracalla, which, however, was never used in
official documents or inscriptions), and Lucius, or Publius, Septimius
Geta. Eusebius mentions here only the former, giving him his official
 Eusebius makes a slip here, as this is the first time he has
mentioned Alexander in his Church History. He was very likely under
the impression that he had mentioned him just above, where he referred
to the bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem. He does refer to him in his
Chron., putting his appointment as assistant bishop into the second
year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth year), and calling him the
thirty-fifth bishop of Jerusalem (Armen. thirty-sixth). In Bk. V.
chap. 12 of the History (also in the Chron.) we are told that
Narcissus was the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem. The number
thirty-five for Alexander (the number thirty-six of the Armen. is a
mistake, and is set right in connection with Alexander's successor,
who is also called the thirty-sixth) is made out by counting the three
bishops mentioned in chap. 10, and then reckoning the second
episcopate of Narcissus (see the same Chapter) as the thirty-fourth.
We learn from chap. 14 that Alexander was an early friend of Origen's,
and a fellow-pupil in the school of Clement. We know him next as
bishop of some church in Cappadocia (chap. 11; see note 2 on that
Chapter), whence he was called to be assistant bishop of Jerusalem
(see the same Chapter). From this passage, compared with chap. 11, we
learn that Alexander was imprisoned during the persecutions, and the
Chron. gives the year of his "confession" as 203 a.d. But from chap.
11 we learn that he wrote while still in prison to the church of
Antioch on occasion of the appointment of Asclepiades to the
episcopate there. According to the Chron. Asclepiades did not become
bishop until 211; and though this may not be the exact date, yet it
cannot be far out of the way (see chap. 11, note 6); and hence, if
Alexander was a confessor in 203, he must have remained in prison a
number of years, or else have undergone a second persecution. It is
probable either that the date 203 is quite wrong, or else that he
suffered a second time toward the close of Severus' reign; for the
persecution, so far as we know, was not so continuous during that
reign as to keep one man confined for eight years. Our knowledge of
the persecutions in Asia Minor at this time is very limited, but they
do not seem to have been of great severity or of long duration. The
date of Alexander's episcopate in Cappadocia it is impossible to
determine, though as he was a fellow-pupil of Origen's in Alexandria,
it cannot have begun much, if any, before 202. The date of his
translation to the see of Jerusalem is likewise uncertain. The Chron.
gives the second year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth). The connection in
which Eusebius mentions it in chap. 11 makes it look as if it took
place before Asclepiades' accession to the see of Antioch; but this is
hardly possible, for it was his firmness under persecution which
elevated him to the see of Jerusalem (according to this passage), and
it is apparently that persecution which he is enduring when
Asclepiades becomes bishop. We find no reason, then, for correcting
the date of his translation to Jerusalem given by the Chron. At any
rate, he was bishop of Jerusalem when Origen visited Palestine in 216
(see chap. 19, §17). In 231 he assisted at the ordination of Origen
(see chap. 23, note 6), and finally perished in prison during the
Decian persecution (see chaps. 39 and 46). His friendship for Origen
was warm and steadfast (cf., besides the other passages referred to,
chap. 27). The latter commemorates the loveliness and gentleness of
his character in his first Homily on 1 Samuel, §1. He collected a
valuable library in Jerusalem, which Eusebius made use of in the
composition of his History (see chap. 20). This act shows the literary
tastes of the man. Of his epistles only the five fragments preserved
by Eusebius (chaps. 11, 14, and 19) are now extant. Jerome (de vir.
ill. 62) says that other epistles were extant in his day; and he
relates, on the authority of an epistle written pro Origene contra
Demetrium, that Alexander had ordained Origen juxta testimonium
Demetri. This epistle is not mentioned by Eusebius, but in spite of
Jerome's usual dependence upon the latter, there is no good reason to
doubt the truth of his statement in this case (see below, p. 396).
 On Narcissus, see the next three Chapters, and also Bk. V.
chap. 12, note 1.
Chapter IX.--The Miracles of Narcissus.
1. The citizens of that parish mention many other miracles of
Narcissus, on the tradition of the brethren who succeeded him; among
which they relate the following wonder as performed by him.
2. They say that the oil once failed while the deacons were watching
through the night at the great paschal vigil. Thereupon the whole
multitude being dismayed, Narcissus directed those who attended to the
lights, to draw water and bring it to him.
3. This being immediately done he prayed over the water, and with firm
faith in the Lord, commanded them to pour it into the lamps. And when
they had done so, contrary to all expectation by a wonderful and
divine power, the nature of the water was changed into that of oil. A
small portion of it has been preserved even to our day by many of the
brethren there as a memento of the wonder. 
4. They tell many other things worthy to be noted of the life of this
man, among which is this. Certain base men being unable to endure the
strength and firmness of his life, and fearing punishment for the many
evil deeds of which they were conscious, sought by plotting to
anticipate him, and circulated a terrible slander against him.
5. And to persuade those who heard of it, they confirmed their
accusations with oaths: one invoked upon himself destruction by fire;
another the wasting of his body by a foul disease; the third the loss
of his eyes. But though they swore in this manner, they could not
affect the mind of the believers; because the continence and virtuous
life of Narcissus were well known to all.
6. But he could not in any wise endure the wickedness of these men;
and as he had followed a philosophic  life for a long time, he
fled from the whole body of the Church, and hid himself in desert and
secret places, and remained there many years. 
7. But the great eye of judgment was not unmoved by these things, but
soon looked down upon these impious men, and brought on them the
curses with which they had bound themselves. The residence of the
first, from nothing but a little spark falling upon it, was entirely
consumed by night, and he perished with all his family. The second was
speedily covered with the disease which he had imprecated upon
himself, from the sole of his feet to his head.
8. But the third, perceiving what had happened to the others, and
fearing the inevitable judgment of God, the ruler of all, confessed
publicly what they had plotted together. And in his repentance he
became so wasted by his great lamentations, and continued weeping to
such an extent, that both his eyes were destroyed. Such were the
punishments which these men received for their falsehood.
 This miracle is related by Eusebius upon the testimony, not of
documents, but of those who had shown him the oil, which was preserved
in Jerusalem down to that time; hoi tes paroikias
politai...historousi, he says. His travels had evidently not taught
him to disbelieve every wonderful tale that was told him.
 See above, chap. 3, note 9.
 The date of Narcissus' retirement we have no means of
Chapter X.--The Bishops of Jerusalem.
Narcissus having departed, and no one knowing where he was, those
presiding over the neighboring churches thought it best to ordain
another bishop. His name was Dius.  He presided but a short
time, and Germanio succeeded him. He was followed by Gordius, 
in whose time Narcissus appeared again, as if raised from the dead.
 And immediately the brethren besought him to take the
episcopate, as all admired him the more on account of his retirement
and philosophy, and especially because of the punishment with which
God had avenged him.
 Of these three bishops, Dius, Germanio, and Gordius, we know
nothing more than is told us here. Syncellus assigns eight years to
Dius, four to Germanio, and five to Sardianus, whom he names instead
of Gordius. Epiphanius reports that Dius was bishop until Severus (193
a.d.), and Gordius until Antonine (i.e. Caracalla, 211 a.d.). But no
reliance is to be placed upon these figures or dates, as remarked
above, Bk. V. chap. 12, note 2.
 Eusebius and Epiphanius give Tordios, and Jerome, Gordius; but
the Armenian has Gordianus, and Syncellus, Sardianos. What became of
Gordius when Narcissus reappeared we do not know. He must have died
very speedily, or some compromise would have been made, as it seems,
which would have rendered the appointment of Alexander as assistant
 Literally, "as if from a resurrection" (hosper ex anabioseos).
1. But as on account of his great age Narcissus was no longer able to
perform his official duties,  the Providence of God called to
the office with him, by a revelation given him in a night vision, the
above-mentioned Alexander, who was then bishop of another parish.
2. Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he journeyed from the land of
Cappadocia, where he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in
consequence of a vow and for the sake of information in regard to its
places.  They received him there with great cordiality, and
would not permit him to return, because of another revelation seen by
them at night, which uttered the clearest message to the most zealous
among them. For it made known that if they would go outside the gates,
they would receive the bishop foreordained for them by God. And having
done this, with the unanimous consent of the bishops of the
neighboring churches, they constrained him to remain.
3. Alexander, himself, in private letters to the Antinoites, 
which are still preserved among us, mentions the joint episcopate of
Narcissus and himself, writing in these words at the end of the
4. "Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate here before me, and
is now associated with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen
years of age; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be of one mind."
These things took place in this manner. But, on the death of Serapion,
 Asclepiades,  who had been himself distinguished among
the confessors  during the persecution, succeeded to the
episcopate of the church at Antioch. Alexander alludes to his
appointment, writing thus to the church at Antioch:
5. "Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed
church of Antioch, greeting in the Lord. The Lord hath made my bonds
during the time of my imprisonment light and easy, since I learned
that, by the Divine Providence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true
faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the bishopric of your
holy church at Antioch."
6. He indicates that he sent this epistle by Clement,  writing
toward its close as follows:
"My honored brethren,  I have sent this letter to you by
Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye
yourselves also know and will recognize. Being here, in the providence
and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the
Church of the Lord."
 The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the
fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says
that Narcissus is already in his 116th year. The translation of
Alexander to Jerusalem must have taken place about 212 (see chap. 8,
note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than 110 years old. The
appointment of Alexander as Narcissus' assistant involved two acts
which were even at that time not common, and which were later
forbidden by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see to
another, and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop, which
made two bishops in one city. The Apost. Canons (No. 14) ordain that
"a bishop ought not to leave his own parish and leap to another,
although the multitude should compel him, unless there be some good
reason forcing him to do this, as that he can contribute much greater
profit to the people of the new parish by the word of piety; but this
is not to be settled by himself, but by the judgment of many bishops
and very great supplication." It has been disputed whether this canon
is older or younger than the fifteenth canon of Nicæa, which forbids
unconditionally the practice of translation from one see to another.
Whichever may be the older, it is certain that even the Council of
Nicæa considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain
cases, for it translated Eustathius from Beræa to Antioch (see
Sozomen, H. E. I. 2). The truth is, the rule was established--whether
before or for the first time at the Council of Nicæa--chiefly in order
to guard against the ambition of aspiring men who might wish to go
from a smaller to a greater parish, and to prevent, as the Nicene
Canon says, the many disorders and quarrels which the custom of
translation caused; and a rule formed on such grounds of expediency
was of course liable to exception whenever the good of the Church
seemed to demand it, and therefore, whether the fourteenth Apostolic
Canon is more ancient than the Nicene Council or not, it certainly
embodies a principle which must long have been in force, and which we
find in fact acted upon in the present case; for the translation of
Alexander takes place "with the common consent of the bishops of the
neighboring churches," or, as Jerome puts it, cunctis in Palestina
episcopis in unum congregatis, which is quite in accord with the
provision of the Apostolic Canons. There were some in the early Church
who thought it absolutely unlawful under any circumstances for a
bishop to be translated (cf. Jerome's Ep. ad Oceanum; Migne, Ep. 69,
§5), but this was not the common view, as Bingham (Antiq. VI. 4. 6)
well observes, and instances of translation from one see to another
were during all these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. E. VII.
36), although always of course exceptional, and considered lawful only
when made for good and sufficient reasons. To say, therefore, with
Valesius that these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church
in translating Alexander is too strong. They were evidently
unconscious of anything uncanonical, or even irregular in their
action, though it is clear that they regarded the step as too
important to be taken without the approval of all the bishops of the
neighborhood. In regard to assistant bishops, Valesius correctly
remarks that this is the first instance of the kind known to us, but
it is by no means the only one, for the following centuries furnish
numerous examples; e.g. Theotecnus and Anatolius in Cæsarea (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 32), Maximus and Macarius in Jerusalem (see
Sozomen, H. E. II. 20); and so in Africa Valerius of Hippo had
Augustine as his coadjutor (Possidius, Vita. Aug. chap. 8; see
Bingham's Antiq. II. 13. 4 for other instances and for a discussion of
the whole subject). The principle was in force from as early as the
third century (see Cyprian to Cornelius, Ep. 40, al. 44 and to
Antonianus, Ep. 51, al. 55) that there should be only one bishop in a
city, and we see from the works of various Fathers that this rule was
universally accepted at an early date. The eighth canon of Nicæa
refers to this principle in passing as if it were already firmly
established, and the council evidently did not think it necessary to
promulgate a special canon on the subject. Because of this principle,
Augustine hesitated to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop
of Hippo; and although his scruples were overcome at the time, he
afterward, upon learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice
of having a coadjutor illegal and refused to ordain one for himself.
But, as the instances referred to above and many others show, not all
the Church interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and
hence under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the rule,
and were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful. The
existence of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for
the sake of healing a schism, formed one common exception to the
general principle (see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of
coadjutors, as in the present case, formed another.
 Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not told
by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities. Valesius (note on
this passage) and Tillemont (Hist. eccles. III. p. 415) give
Flaviopolis or Flaviadis as the name of the city (upon the authority
of Basilicon, Jur. Græco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, according to Tillemont).
But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence Tillemont conjectures
that it had once been taken from Cappadocia and attached to Cilicia,
and that its inhabitants retained the memory of Alexander, their early
bishop. The report seems to rest upon a very slender foundation; but
not having access to the authority cited, I am unable to form an
opinion as to the worth of the tradition.
 euches kai ton topon historias heneken.
 'Antinoeia (Antinoë or Antinoöpolis) was a city of Egypt
founded by Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 3).
This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops were
present at more than one council in later centuries (see Wiltsch's
Geography and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473). This letter must have been
written between 212, at about which time Alexander became Narcissus'
coadjutor (see chap. 8, note 6), and 216, when Origen visited
Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23). For at the time of that visit
Alexander is said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and no mention is
made of Narcissus, who must therefore have been already dead (see Bk.
V. chap. 12, note 1). The fragments of Alexander's epistles quoted in
this Chapter are given in Routh's Rel. Sacræ, II. p. 161 sq., and in
English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 154.
 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
 The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year
of Caracalla (211 a.d.). Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 47) believes
that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices of most
of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author departs
from the artificial scheme which he follows in the main. But Harnack
contends that the date is not quite correct, because Alexander, who
suffered under Severus, was still in prison when Asclepiades became
bishop, and therefore the latter's accession must be put back into
Severus' reign. He would fix, therefore, upon about 209 as the date of
it, rightly perceiving that there is good reason for thinking the
Chron. at least nearly correct in its report, and that in any case his
accession cannot be carried back much beyond that, because it is quite
probable (from the congratulations which Alexander extends to the
church of Antioch) that there had been a vacancy in that church for
some time after the death of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in
the midst of the persecutions of the time), while Serapion was still
alive as late as 203 (see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1). But it seems to me
that there is no good ground for making any alteration in the date
given by the Chron., for we know that at the very end of Severus'
reign the persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and
that it continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla's
accession (see Tertullian's ad Scap.). The general amnesty issued by
Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion
Cassius, LXXVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the
persecutions. There is therefore no ground for confining Alexander's
imprisonment to the reign of Severus. It may well have run into the
time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Asclepiades did
not become bishop until after the latter became emperor, so that it is
not necessary to correct the date of the Chron. It is impossible to
determine with certainty the length of Asclepiades' episcopate (see
chap. 21, note 6). Of Asclepiades himself we know no more than is told
us in this Chapter. He seems to have been a man of most excellent
character, to judge from Alexander's epistle. That epistle, of course,
was written immediately after Asclepiades' appointment.
 Literally "confessions" (homologiais).
 On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.
 kurioi mou adelphoi.
Chapter XII.--Serapion and his Extant Works.
1. It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of
Serapion's  literary industry,  but there have reached us
only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of
persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish
will-worship;  and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus,
 ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and
still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter.
2. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel
contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus  who had
been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give
some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He
writes as follows:
3. "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as
Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to
them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith,
and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name
of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute
among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been
told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to
come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.
5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you,
that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus,  and
that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.
6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it
diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it,
whom we call Docetæ  (for most of their opinions are connected
with the teaching of that school  ) we have been able to read it
through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine
of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have
pointed out for you farther on." So much in regard to Serapion.
 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
 The Greek reads: tou de Sarapionos tes peri logous askeseos kai
alla men eikos sozesthai par' eterois hupomnemata
 Of this Domninus we know only what is told us here. It is
suggested by Daniell (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 630) that this
shows that the prohibition uttered by Severus against the Jews "must
have been soon relaxed, if it ever was enforced." But in regard to
this it must be said, in the first place, that Severus' decree was not
levelled against the Jews, but only against conversion to
Judaism,--against the fieri, not the esse, Judæos. The object of the
edict was not to disturb the Jews in the exercise of their national
faith, but to prevent their proselyting among the non-Jewish residents
of the empire. If Domninus, therefore, fell from Christianity into
Judaism on account of the persecution, it seems highly probable that
he was simply a converted Jew, who gave up now, in order to avoid
persecution, his new faith, and again practised the religion of his
fathers. Nothing, therefore, can be concluded from Domninus' case as
to the strictness with which Severus' law was carried out, even if we
suppose Domninus to have fallen from Christianity into Judaism. But it
must be remarked, in the second place, that it is by no means certain
that Eusebius means to say that Domninus fell into Judaism, or became
a Jew. He is said to have fallen into "Jewish will-worship"
(ekpeptokota epi ten 'Ioudaiken ethelothreskeian). The word
ethelothreskeia occurs for the first time in Col. ii. 23, and means
there an "arbitrary, self-imposed worship" (Ellicott), or a worship
which one "affects" (Cremer). The word is used there in connection
with the Oriental theosophic and Judaistic errors which were creeping
into the churches of Asia Minor at the time the epistle was written,
and it is quite possible that the word may be used in the present case
in reference to the same class of errors. We know that these
theosophizing and Judaizing tendencies continued to exert considerable
influence in Asia Minor and Syria during the early centuries, and that
the Ebionites and the Elcesaites were not the only ones affected by
them (see Harnack, Dogmengesch. I. 218 sq.). The lapse of any one into
Ebionism, or into a Judaizing Gnosticism, or similar form of heresy--a
lapse which cannot have been at all uncommon among the fanatical
Phrygians and other peoples of that section--might well be called a
lapse into "Jewish will-worship." We do not know where Domninus lived,
but it is not improbable that Asia Minor was his home, and that he may
have fallen under the influence of Montanism as well as of Ebionism
and Judaizing Gnosticism. I suggest the possibility that his lapse was
into heresy rather than into Judaism pure and simple, for the reason
that it is easier, on that ground, to explain the fact that Serapion
addressed a work to him. He is known to us only as an opponent of
heresy, and it may be that Domninus' lapse gave him an opportunity to
attack the heretical notions of these Ebionites, or other Judaizing
heretics, as he had attacked the Montanists. It seems to the writer,
also, that it is thus easier to explain the complex phrase used, which
seems to imply something different from Judaism pure and simple.
 See Bk. V. chap. 19, note 4.
 On the so-called "Gospel of Peter," see Bk. III. chap. 3, note
 Rhossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Gulf of
Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.
 This Marcianus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless we are
to identify him, as Salmon suggests is possible, with Marcion. The
suggestion is attractive, and the reference to Docetæ gives it a show
of probability. But there are serious objections to be urged against
it. In the first place, the form of the name, Markianos instead of
Markion. The two names are by no means identical. Still, according to
Harnack, we have more than once Markianoi and Markianistai for
Markionistai (see his Quellenkritik d. Gesch. d. Gnosticismus, p. 31
sqq.). But again, how can Marcion have used, or his name been in any
way connected with, a Gospel of Peter? Finally, the impression left by
this passage is that "Marcianus" was a man still living, or at any
rate alive shortly before Serapion wrote, for the latter seems only
recently to have learned what his doctrines were. He certainly cannot
have been so ignorant of the teachings of the great "heresiarch"
Marcion. We must, in fact, regard the identification as improbable.
 By Docetism we understand the doctrine that Christ had no true
body, but only an apparent one. The word is derived from dokeo, "to
seem or appear." The belief is as old as the first century (cf. 1 John
iv. 2; 2 John 7), and was a favorite one with most of the Gnostic
sects. The name Docetæ, however, as a general appellation for all
those holding this opinion, seems to have been used first by Theodoret
(Ep. 82). But the term was employed to designate a particular sect
before the end of the second century; thus Clement of Alexandria
speaks of them in Strom. VII. 17, and Hippolytus (Phil. VIII. 8. 4,
and X. 12; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed.), and it is evidently this
particular sect to which Serapion refers here. An examination of
Hippolytus' account shows that these Docetæ did not hold what we call
Docetic ideas of Christ's body; in fact, Hippolytus says expressly
that they taught that Christ was born, and had a true body from the
Virgin (see Phil. VIII. 3). How the sect came to adopt the name of
Docetæ we cannot tell. They seem to have disappeared entirely before
the fourth century, for no mention of them is found in Epiphanius and
other later heresiologists. As was remarked above, Theodoret uses the
term in a general sense and not as the appellation of a particular
sect, and this became the common usage, and is still. Whether there
was anything in the teaching of the sect to suggest the belief that
Christ had only an apparent body, and thus to lead to the use of their
specific name for all who held that view, or whether the general use
of the name Docetæ arose quite independently of the sect name, we do
not know. The latter seems more probable. The Docetæ referred to by
Hippolytus being a purely Gnostic sect with a belief in the reality of
Christ's body, we have no reason to conclude that the "Gospel of
Peter" contained what we call Docetic teaching. The description which
Serapion gives of the gospel fits quite well a work containing some
such Gnostic speculations as Hippolytus describes, and thus adding to
the Gospel narrative rather than denying the truth of it in any part.
He could hardly have spoken as he did of a work which denied the
reality of Christ's body. See, on the general subject, Salmon's
articles Docetæ and Docetism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
 The interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with
difficulty. The Greek reads toutesti para ton diadochon ton
katarxamenon autou, ohus Doketas kaloumen, (ta gar phronemata ta
pleiona ekeinon esti tes didaskalias), k.t.l. The words ton
katarxamenon autou are usually translated "who preceded him," or "who
led the way before him"; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this
interpretation, and moreover the autou seems to refer not to
Marcianus, whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel which
has just been mentioned. There is a difficulty also in regard to the
reference of the ekeinon, which is commonly connected with the words
tes didaskalias, but which seems to belong rather with the phronemata
and to refer to the diadochon ton katarxamenon. It thus seems
necessary to define the tes didaskalias more closely, and we therefore
venture, with Closs, to insert the words "of that school," referring
to the Docetæ just mentioned.
Chapter XIII.--The Writings of Clement. 
1. All the eight Stromata of Clement are preserved among us, and have
been given by him the following title: "Titus Flavius Clement's
Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Philosophy." 
2. The books entitled Hypotyposes  are of the same number. In
them he mentions Pantænus  by name as his teacher, and gives his
opinions and traditions.
3. Besides these there is his Hortatory Discourse addressed to the
Greeks;  three books of a work entitled the Instructor; 
another with the title What Rich Man is Saved?  the work on the
Passover;  discussions on Fasting and on Evil Speaking; 
the Hortatory Discourse on Patience, or To Those Recently Baptized;
 and the one bearing the title Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against
the Judaizers,  which he dedicated to Alexander, the bishop
4. In the Stromata, he has not only treated extensively  of the
Divine Scripture, but he also quotes from the Greek writers whenever
anything that they have said seems to him profitable.
5. He elucidates the opinions of many, both Greeks and barbarians. He
also refutes the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides this,
reviews a large portion of history, giving us specimens of very
various learning; with all the rest he mingles the views of
philosophers. It is likely that on this account he gave his work the
appropriate title of Stromata. 
6. He makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed
Scriptures,  the so-called Wisdom of Solomon,  and of
Jesus, the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews,  and
those of Barnabas,  and Clement  and Jude. 
7. He mentions also Tatian's  Discourse to the Greeks, and
speaks of Cassianus  as the author of a chronological work. He
refers to the Jewish authors Philo,  Aristobulus, 
Josephus,  Demetrius,  and Eupolemus,  as showing,
all of them, in their works, that Moses and the Jewish race existed
before the earliest origin of the Greeks.
8. These books abound also in much other learning. In the first of
them  the author speaks of himself as next after the successors
of the apostles.
9. In them he promises also to write a commentary on Genesis. 
In his book on the Passover  he acknowledges that he had been
urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the
traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the
same work he mentions Melito and Irenæus, and certain others, and
gives extracts from their writings.
 On the life of Clement, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. He was a
very prolific writer, as we can gather from the list of works
mentioned in this Chapter. The list is repeated by Jerome (de vir.
ill. c. 38) and by Photius (Cod. 109-111), the former of whom merely
copies from Eusebius, with some mistakes, while the latter copies from
Jerome, as is clear from the similar variations in the titles given by
the last two from those given by Eusebius, and also by the omission in
both their lists of one work named by Eusebius (see below, note 10).
Eusebius names ten works in this Chapter. In addition to these there
are extant two quotations from a work of Clement entitled peri
pronoias. There are also extant two fragments of a work peri psuches.
In the Instructor, Bk. II. chap. 10, Clement refers to a work On
Continence (ho peri enkrateias) as already written by himself, and
there is no reason to doubt that this was a separate work, for the
third book of the Stromata (to which Fabricius thinks he refers),
which treats of the same subject, was not yet written. The work is no
longer extant. In the Instructor, Bk. III. chap. 8, Clement speaks of
a work which he had written On Marriage (ho gamikos logos). It has
been thought possible that he may have referred here to his discussion
of the same subject in Bk. II. chap. 10 of the same work (see the
Bishop of Lincoln's work on Clement, p. 7), but it seems more probable
that he referred to a separate work now lost. Potter, p. 1022, gives a
fragment which is possibly from this work. In addition to these works,
referred to as already written, Clement promises to write on First
Principles (peri archon; Strom. III. 3, IV. 1, 13, V. 14, et al.); on
Prophecy (Strom. I. 24, IV. 13, V. 13); on Angels (Strom. VI. 13); on
the Origin of the World (Strom. VI. 18),--perhaps a part of the
proposed work on First Principles, and perhaps to be identified with
the commentary on Genesis, referred to below by Eusebius (see note
28),--Against Heresies (Strom. IV. 13), on the Resurrection
(Instructor, I. 6, II. 10). It is quite possible that Clement regarded
his promises as fulfilled by the discussions which he gives in various
parts of the Stromata themselves, or that he gave up his original
 Clement's three principal works, the Exhortation to the Greeks
(see below, note 5), the Instructor (note 6), and the Stromata, form a
connected series of works, related to one another (as Schaff says)
very much as apologetics, ethics, and dogmatics. The three works were
composed in the order named. The Stromata (Stromateis) or Miscellanies
(said by Eusebius in this passage to bear the title ton kata ten
alethe philosophian gnostikon hupomnemEURton stromateis) are said by
Eusebius and by Photius (Cod. 109) to consist of eight books. Only
seven are now extant, although there exists a fragment purporting to
be a part of the eighth book, but which is in reality a portion of a
treatise on logic, while in the time of Photius some reckoned the
tract Quis dives salvetur as the eighth book (Photius, Cod. 111).
There thus exists no uniform tradition as to the character of the lost
book, and the suggestion of Westcott seems plausible, that at an early
date the logical introduction to the Hypotyposes was separated from
the remainder of the work, and added to some mss. of the Stromata as
an eighth book. If this be true, the Stromata consisted originally of
only seven books, and hence we now have the whole work (with the
exception of a fragment lost at the beginning). The name Stromateis,
"patchwork," sufficiently indicates the character of the work. It is
without methodical arrangement, containing a heterogeneous mixture of
science, philosophy, poetry, and theology, and yet is animated by one
idea throughout,--that Christianity satisfies the highest intellectual
desires of man,--and hence the work is intended in some sense as a
guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, the knowledge to be
sought after by the "true Gnostic." It is full of rich thoughts
mingled with worthless crudities, and, like nearly all of Clement's
works, abounds in wide and varied learning, not always fully digested.
The date at which the work was composed may be gathered from a passage
in Bk. I. chap. 21, where a list of the Roman emperors is closed with
a mention of Commodus, the exact length of whose reign is given,
showing that he was already dead, but also showing apparently that his
successor was still living. This would lead us to put the composition
at least of the first book in the first quarter of the year 193. It
might of course be said that Pertinax and Didius Julianus are omitted
in this list because of the brevity of their reigns, and this is
possible, since in his own list he gives the reigns of the emperors
simply by years, omitting Otho and Vitellius. The other list which he
quotes, however, gives every emperor, with the number of years,
months, and even days of each reign, so that there is no reason, at
least in that list, for the omission of Pertinax and Didius Julianus.
It seems probable that, under the influence of that exact list, and of
the recentness of the reigns of the two emperors named, Clement can
hardly have omitted them if they had already ruled. We can say with
absolute certainty, however, only that the work was written after 192.
Clement left Alexandria in 202, or before, and this, as well as the
rest of his works, was written in all probability before that time at
the latest. The standard edition of Clement's works is that of Potter,
Oxford, 1715, in two vols. (reprinted in Migne's Patr. Gr., Vols.
VIII. and IX.). Complete English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Amer. ed., Vol. II. On his writings, see especially
Westcott's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. and for the
literature on the subject Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 781.
 The Hypotyposes (hupotuposeis), or Outlines (Eusebius calls
them hoi epigegrammenoi hupotuposeon autou logoi), are no longer
extant, though fragments have been preserved. The work (which was in
eight books, according to this passage) is referred to by Eusebius, in
Bk. I. chap. 12 (the fifth book), in Bk. II. chap. 1 (the sixth and
seventh books), in Bk. II. chaps. 9 and 23 (the seventh book), chap.
15 (the sixth book), in Bk. V. chap. 11, and in Bk. VI. chap. 14 (the
book not specified). Most of these extracts are of a historical
character, but have to do (most of them, not all) with the apostolic
age, or the New Testament. We are told in chap. 14 that the work
contained abridged accounts of all the Scriptures, but Photius (Cod.
109) says that it seems to have dealt only with Genesis, Exodus, the
Psalms, Ecclesiastes, the epistles of Paul, and the Catholic epistles
(ho de holos skopos hosanei hermeneiai tunchEURnousi tes Gegeseos
k.t.l.). Besides the detached quotations there are extant three series
of extracts which are supposed to have been taken from the
Hypotyposes. These are The Summaries from Theodotus, The Prophetic
Selections, and the Outlines on the Catholic Epistles. On these
fragments, which are very corrupt and desultory, see Westcott in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. They discuss all sorts of doctrines, and
contain the interpretations of the most various schools, and it is not
always clearly stated whether Clement himself adopts the opinion
given, or whether he is simply quoting from another for the purpose of
refuting him. Photius condemns parts of the Hypotyposes severely, but
it seems, from these extracts which we have, that he may have read the
work, full as it was of the heretical opinions of other men and
schools, without distinguishing Clement's own opinions from those of
others, and that thus he may carelessly have attributed to him all the
wild notions which he mentions. These extracts as well as the various
references of Eusebius show that the work, like most of the others
which Clement wrote, covered a great deal of ground, and included
discussions of a great many collateral subjects. It does not seem, in
fact, to have been much more systematic than the Instructor or even
the Stromata. It seems to have been intended as a part of the great
series, of which the Exhortation, Instructor, and Stromata were the
first three. If so, it followed them. We have no means of ascertaining
its date more exactly.
 Pantænus, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.
 The Exhortation to the Greeks (ho logos protreptikos pros
;'Ellenas), the first of the series of three works mentioned in note
2, is still extant in its entirety. It is called by Jerome (de vir.
ill. chap. 38) Adversus Gentes, liber unus, but, as Westcott remarks,
it was addressed not to the Gentiles in general, but to the Greeks, as
its title and its contents alike indicate. The general aim of the book
is to "prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and
philosophies of heathendom," and thus to lead the unbeliever to accept
it. It is full of Greek mythology and speculation, and exhibits, as
Schaff says, almost a waste of learning. It was written before the
Instructor, as we learn from a reference to it in the latter (chap.
1). It is stated above (Bk. V. chap. 28, §4), by the anonymous writer
against the Artemonites, that Clement wrote (at least some of his
works) before the time of Victor of Rome (i.e. before 192 a.d.), and
hence Westcott concludes that this work was written about 190, which
cannot be far out of the way.
 The Instructor (ho paidagogos, or, as Eusebius calls it here,
treis te oi tou epigegrammenou paidagogou), is likewise extant, in
three books. The work is chiefly of a moral and practical character,
designed to furnish the new convert with rules for the proper conduct
of his life over against the prevailing immoralities of the heathen.
Its date is approximately fixed by the fact that it was written after
the Exhortation to which it refers, and before the Stromata, which
refers to it (see Strom. VI. 1).
 The Quis Dives Salvetur? as it is called (tis ho sozomenos
plousios), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in Mark x.
17 sqq. It is still extant, and contains the beautiful story of John
and the robber, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 23. It is an
eloquent and able work; and when compared with the prevailing notions
of the Church of his day, its teaching is remarkably wise and
temperate. It is moderately ascetic, but goes to no extremes, and in
this furnishes a pleasing contrast to the writings of most of the
Fathers of Clement's time.
 to peri tou pEURscha sungramma. This work is no longer extant,
nor had Photius seen it, although he reports that he had heard of it.
Two fragments of it are found in the Chronicon Paschale, and are given
by Potter. The work was composed, according to §9, below, at the
instigation of friends, who urged him to commit to writing the
traditions which he had received from the ancient presbyters. From Bk.
IV. chap. 26, we learn that it was written in reply to Melito's work
on the same subject (see notes 5 and 23 on that Chapter); and hence we
may conclude that it was undertaken at the solicitation of friends who
desired to see the arguments presented by Melito, as a representative
of the Quartodeciman practice, refined. The date of the work we have
no means of ascertaining, for Melito's work was written early in the
sixties (see ibid.).
 dialexeis peri nesteias kai peri katalalias. Photius knew both
these works by report (the second under the title peri kakologias),
but had not seen them. Jerome calls the first de jejunio disceptatio,
the second de obtrectatione liber unus. Neither of them is now extant;
but fragments of the second have been preserved, and are given by
 ho protreptikos eis hupomonen e pros tous neosti
bebaptismenous. This work is mentioned neither by Jerome nor by
Photius, nor has any vestige of it been preserved, so far as we know.
 ho epigegrammenos kanon ekklesiastikos, e pros tous
'Ioudaizontas. Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversum eos,
qui Judæorum sequuntur errorum. Photius mentions the work; calling it
peri kanonon ekklesiastikon, but he had not himself seen it. It is no
longer extant, but a few fragments have been preserved, and are given
by Potter. Danz (De Eusebio, p. 90) refers to Clement's Stromata, lib.
VI. p. 803, ed. Potter, where he says that "the ecclesiastical canon
is the agreement or disagreement of the law and the prophets with the
testament given at the coming of Christ." Danz concludes accordingly
that in this work Clement wished to show to those who believed that
the teaching of the law and the prophets was not only different from,
but superior to the teachings of the Christian faith,--that is, to the
Judaizers,--that the writers of the Old and New Testaments were in
full harmony. This might do, were it not for the fact that the work is
directed not against Jews, but against Judaizers, i.e. Judaizing
Christians. A work to prove the Old and New Testament in harmony with
each other could hardly have been addressed to such persons, who must
have believed them in harmony before they became Christians. The truth
is, the phrase kanon ekklesiastikos is used by the Fathers with a
great variety of meanings, and the fact that Clement used it in one
sense in one of his works by no means proves that he always used it in
the same sense. It is more probable that the work was devoted to a
discussion of certain practices or modes of living in which the
Judaizers differed from the rest of the Church Catholic, perhaps in
respect to feasts (might a reference to the Quartodeciman practice
have been perhaps included?), fasts and other ascetic practices,
observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, &c. This use of the word in the
sense of regula was very common (see Suicer's Thesaurus). The work was
dedicated, according to Eusebius, to the bishop Alexander, mentioned
above in chap. 8 and elsewhere. This is sufficient evidence that it
was written considerably later than the three great works already
referred to. Alexander was a student of Clement's; and since he was
likewise a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8, note 6), his student
days under Clement must have extended at least nearly to the time when
Clement left Alexandria (i.e. in or before 202. a.d.). But Clement of
course cannot have dedicated a work to him while he was still his
pupil, and in fact we shall be safe in saying that Alexander must have
gained some prominence before Clement would be led to dedicate a work
to him. We think naturally of the period which Clement spent with him
while he was in prison and before he became bishop of Jerusalem (see
chap. 11). It is quite possible that Clement's residence in Cappadocia
with Alexander had given him such an acquaintance with Judaizing
heresies and practices that he felt constrained to write against them,
and at the same time had given him such an affection for Alexander
that he dedicated his work to him.
 Literally, "made a spreading" (katEURstrosin pepoietai).
Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work (Stromateis).
 See note 2.
 antilegomenon graphon. On the Antilegomena, see Bk. III. chap
25, note 1.
 The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach were two Old
Testament apocryphal books. The Church of the first three centuries
made, on the whole, no essential difference between the books of the
Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha. We find the Fathers, almost without
exception, quoting from both indiscriminately. It is true that
catalogues were made by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, and others, which
separated the Apocrypha from the books of the Hebrew canon; but this
represented theory simply, not practice, and did not prevent even
themselves from using both classes as Scripture. Augustine went so far
as to obliterate completely all distinction between the two, in theory
as well as in practice. The only one of the early Fathers to make a
decided stand against the Apocrypha was Jerome; but he was not able to
change the common view, and the Church continued (as the Catholic
Church continues still) to use them all (with a few minor exceptions)
as Holy Scripture.
 On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
 On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
 The Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.
 On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note 47.
 On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.
 This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement: once in Strom. I.
21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the purpose of
showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that of the
Greeks, and refers to Cassian's Exegetica and Tatian's Address to the
Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject; again in Strom.
III. 13 sqq., where he is said to have been the founder of the sect of
the Docetæ, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate
(peri enkrateias e peri eunouchias), in which he condemned marriage.
Here, too, he is associated with Tatian. He seems from these
references to have been, like Tatian, an apologist for Christianity,
and also like him to have gone off into an extreme asceticism, which
the Church pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 4).
Whether he was personally connected with Tatian, or is mentioned with
him by Clement simply because his views were similar, we do not know,
nor can we fix the date at which he lived. Neither of his works
referred to by Clement is now extant. Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 38)
mentions the work which Eusebius speaks of here, but says that he had
not been able to find a copy of it. It is called by Clement, in the
passage referred to here by Eusebius, 'Exegetikoi, and so Eusebius
calls it in his Præf. Evang. X. 12, where he quotes from Clement. But
here he speaks of it as a chronographia, and Jerome transcribes the
word without translating it. We can gather from Clement's words
(Strom. I. 21) that the work of Cassianus dealt largely with
chronology, and hence Eusebius' reference to it under the name
chronographia is quite legitimate.
 On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.
 The Aristobulus referred to here was an Alexandrian Jew and
Peripatetic philosopher (see the passages in Clement and Eusebius
referred to below), who lived in the second century b.c., and was the
author of Commentaries upon the Mosaic Law, the chief object of which
was to prove that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the books of
Moses (see Clement, Strom. V. 14, who refers only to Peripatetic
philosophy, which is too narrow). The work is referred to by Clement
of Alexandria (in his Stromata, I. 15; V. 14; VI. 3, &c.), by Eusebius
(in his Præp. Evang. VII. 14; VIII. 9, 10; XIII. 12, &c.), by
Anatolius (as quoted by Eusebius below, in Bk. VII. chap. 32), and by
other Fathers. The work is no longer extant, but Eusebius gives two
considerable fragments of it in his Præp. Evang. VIII. 10, and XIII.
12. See Schürer's Gesch. d. jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p.
760 sq. Schürer maintains the authenticity of the work against the
attacks of many modern critics.
 On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.
 Demetrius was a Grecian Jew, who wrote, toward the close of the
third century b.c., a History of Israel, based upon the Scripture
records, and with especial reference to chronology. Demetrius is
mentioned by Josephus (who, however, wrongly makes him a heathen;
contra Apionem, I. 23), by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius. His
work is no longer extant, but fragments of it are preserved by Clement
(Strom. I. 21) and by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX. 21 and 29). See
Schürer, ibid. p. 730 sq.
 Eupolymus was also a Jewish historian, who wrote about the
middle of the second century b.c., and is possibly to be identified
with the Eupolymus mentioned in 1 Macc. viii. 17. He wrote a History
of the Jews, which is referred to under various titles by those that
mention it, and which has consequently been resolvent into three
separate works by many scholars, but without warrant, as Schürer has
shown. The work, like that of Aristobulus, was clearly designed to
show the dependence of Greek philosophy upon Hebrew wisdom (see
Clement's Strom. I. 23). It is no longer extant, but fragments have
been preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. 21, which gives us
data for reckoning the time at which Eupolymus wrote, and I. 23) and
by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX. 17, 26, 30-34, and probably 39). See
Schürer ibid. p. 732 sq.
 Eusebius is apparently still referring to Clement's Stromata.
In saying that Clement hon en to proto peri heautou deloi hos zngista
tes ton apostolon genomenou diadoches, he was perhaps thinking of the
passage in Strom. I. 1, where Clement says, "They [i.e. his teachers],
preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine, derived directly
from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons
receiving it from the fathers (but few were like the fathers), came by
God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds."
Clement in this passage does not mean to assert that his teachers were
immediate disciples of the apostles, but only that they received the
traditions of the apostles in direct descent from their immediate
disciples. Eusebius' words are a little ambiguous, but they seem to
imply that he thought that Clement was a pupil of immediate disciples
of the apostles, which Clement does not assert in this passage, and
can hardly have asserted in any passage, for he was in all probability
born too late to converse with those who had seen any of the apostles.
 In his Stromata (VI. 18) Clement refers to a work on the origin
of the world, which was probably to form a part of his work On
Principles. This is perhaps the reference of which Eusebius is
thinking when he says that Clement in the Stromata promises eis ten
Genesin hupomnematieisthein. If so, Eusebius' words, which imply that
Clement promised to write a commentary on Genesis, are misleading.
 On this work, see note 8.
Chapter XIV.--The Scriptures mentioned by Him.
1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes  abridged
accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books,
 --I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas
 and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter. 
2. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews  is the work of Paul,
and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but
that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and
hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the
3. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not
prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced
and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the
very beginning by giving his name.
4. Farther on he says: "But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since
the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews,
Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not
subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the
Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote
to the Hebrews out of his superabundance."
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the
earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written
first. The Gospel according to Mark  had this occasion. As Peter
had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the
Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed
him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor
encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external
 facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his
friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."
 This is the account of Clement.
8. Again the above-mentioned Alexander,  in a certain letter to
Origen, refers to Clement, and at the same time to Pantænus, as being
among his familiar acquaintances. He writes as follows:
"For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the ancestral
friendship existing between us should remain unshaken; nay, rather
should be warmer and stronger.
9. For we know well those blessed fathers who have trodden the way
before us, with whom we shall soon be;  Pantænus, the truly
blessed man and master, and the holy Clement, my master and
benefactor, and if there is any other like them, through whom I became
acquainted with thee, the best in everything, my master and brother."
10. So much for these matters. But Adamantius,  --for this also
was a name of Origen,--when Zephyrinus  was bishop of Rome,
visited Rome, "desiring," as he himself somewhere says, "to see the
most ancient church of Rome."
11. After a short stay there he returned to Alexandria. And he
performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great
zeal; Demetrius, who was bishop there at that time, urging and even
entreating him to work diligently for the benefit of the brethren.
 See the previous Chapter, note 3.
 On the Antilegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament canon
in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.
 On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
 On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.
 On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 3,
 On the composition of the Gospel of Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15,
note 4, and with this statement of Clement as to Peter's attitude
toward its composition, compare the words of Eusebius in §2 of that
Chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).
 ta somatikEUR.
 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.
 Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.
 We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of
this epistle both Pantænus and Clement were dead. The latter was still
alive when Alexander wrote to the Antiochenes (see chap. 11), i.e.
about the year 211 (see note 5 on that Chapter). How much longer he
lived we cannot tell. The epistle referred to here must of course have
been written at any rate subsequent to the year 211, and hence while
Alexander was bishop of Jerusalem. The expression "with whom we shall
soon be" (pros hous met' oligon esometha) seems to imply that the
epistle was written when Alexander and Origen were advanced in life,
but this cannot be pressed.
 It is from this passage that we gather that Alexander was a
student of Clement's and a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8, note
6, and chap. 2, note 1). The epistle does not state this directly, but
the conclusion seems sufficiently obvious.
 The name Adamantius ('AdamEURntios from adEURmas
unconquerable,hence hard, adamantine) is said by Jerome (Ep. ad
Paulam, §3; Migne's ed. Ep. XXXIII.) to have been given him on account
of his untiring industry, by Photius (Cod. 118) on account of the
invincible force of his arguments, and by Epiphanius (Hær. LXIV. 74)
to have been vainly adopted by himself. But Eusebius' simple statement
at this point looks rather as if Adamantius was a second name which
belonged to Origen from the beginning, and had no reference to his
character. We know that two names were very common in that age. This
opinion is adopted by Tillemont, Redepenning, Westcott, and others,
although many still hold the opposite view. Another name,
Chalcenterus, given to him by Jerome in the epistle already referred
to, was undoubtedly, as we can see from the context, applied to him by
Jerome, because of his resemblance to Didymus of Alexandria (who bore
that surname) in his immense industry as an author.
 On Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5. He
was bishop from about 198, or 199, to 217. This gives considerable
range for the date of Origen's visit to Rome, which we have no means
of fixing with exactness. There is no reason for supposing that
Eusebius is incorrect in putting it among the events occurring during
Caracalla's reign (211-217). On the other hand, it must have taken
place before the year 216, for in that year Origen went to Palestine
(see chap. 19, note 23) and remained there some time. Whether Origen's
visit was undertaken simply from the desire to see the church of Rome,
as Eusebius says, or in connection with matters of business, we cannot
 On Demetrius' relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.
Chapter XV.--Heraclas. 
1. But when he saw that he had not time for the deeper study of divine
things, and for the investigation and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures, and also for the instruction of those who came to
him,--for coming, one after another, from morning till evening to be
taught by him, they scarcely gave him time to breathe,--he divided the
multitude. And from those whom he knew well, he selected Heraclas, who
was a zealous student of divine things, and in other respects a very
learned man, not ignorant of philosophy, and made him his associate in
the work of instruction. He entrusted to him the elementary training
of beginners, but reserved for himself the teaching of those who were
 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
Chapter XVI.--Origen's Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.
1. So earnest and assiduous was Origen's research into the divine
words that he learned the Hebrew language,  and procured as his
own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the
Jews. He investigated also the works of other translators of the
Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy.  And in addition to the
well-known translations of Aquila,  Symmachus,  and
Theodotion,  he discovered certain others which had been
concealed from remote times,--in what out-of-the-way corners I know
not,--and by his search he brought them to light. 
2. Since he did not know the authors, he simply stated that he had
found this one in Nicopolis near Actium  and that one in some
3. In the Hexapla  of the Psalms, after the four prominent
translations, he adds not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh.
 He states of one of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho
in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.
4. Having collected all of these, he divided them into sections, and
placed them opposite each other, with the Hebrew text itself. He thus
left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla. He arranged also
separately an edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the
Septuagint, in the Tetrapla. 
 Origen's study of the Hebrew, which, according to Jerome (de
vir. ill. chap. 54), was "contrary to the custom of his day and race,"
is not at all surprising. He felt that he needed some knowledge of it
as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devoted
himself, and also as a means of comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts
of the Old Testament, a labor which he regarded as very important for
polemical purposes. As to his familiarity with the Hebrew it is now
universally conceded that it was by no means so great as was formerly
supposed. He seems to have learned only about enough to enable him to
identify the Hebrew which corresponded with the Greek texts which he
used, and even in this he often makes mistakes. He sometimes confesses
openly his lack of critical and independent knowledge of the Hebrew
(e.g. Hom. in Num. XIV. 1; XVI. 4). He often makes blunders which seem
absurd, and yet in many cases he shows considerable knowledge in
regard to peculiar forms and idioms. His Hebrew learning was clearly
fragmentary and acquired from various sources. Cf. Redepenning, I. p.
 On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.
 Aquila is first mentioned by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1,
quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 8, above), who calls him a Jewish
proselyte of Pontus; Epiphanius says of Sinope in Pontus. Tradition is
uniform that he was a Jewish proselyte, and that he lived in the time
of Hadrian, or in the early part of the second century according to
Rabbinic tradition. He produced a Greek translation of the Old
Testament, which was very slavish in its adherence to the original,
sacrificing the Greek idiom to the Hebrew without mercy, and even
violating the grammatical structure of the former for the sake of
reproducing the exact form of the latter. Because of its faithfulness
to the original, it was highly prized by the Rabbinic authorities, and
became more popular among the Jews in general than the LXX. (On the
causes of the waning popularity of the latter, see note 8, below.)
Neither Aquila's version, nor the two following, are now extant; but
numerous fragments have been preserved by those Fathers who saw and
used Origen's Hexapla.
 Symmachus is said by Eusebius, in the next Chapter, to have
been an Ebionite; and Jerome agrees with him (Comment. in Hab., lib.
II. c. 3), though the testimony of the latter is weakened by the fact
that he wrongly makes Theodotion also an Ebionite (see next note). It
has been claimed that Symmachus was a Jew, not a Christian; but
Eusebius' direct statement is too strong to be set aside, and is
corroborated by certain indications in the version itself, e.g. in
Dan. ix. 26, where the word christos, which Aquila avoids, is used.
The composition of his version is assigned by Epiphanius and the
Chron. paschale to the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211); and
although not much reliance is to be placed upon their statements,
still they must be about right in this case, for that Symmachus'
version is younger than Irenæus is rendered highly probable by the
latter's omission of it where he refers to those of Theodotion and
Aquila; and, on the other hand, it must of course have been composed
before Origen began his Hexapla. Symmachus' version is distinguished
from Aquila's by the purity of its Greek and its freedom from
Hebraisms. The author's effort was not slavishly to reproduce the
original, but to make an elegant and idiomatic Greek translation, and
in this he succeeded very well, being excellently versed in both
languages, though he sometimes sacrificed the exact sense of the
Hebrew, and occasionally altered it under the influence of dogmatic
prepossessions. The version is spoken very highly of by Jerome, and
was used freely by him in the composition of the Vulgate. For further
particulars in regard to Symmachus' version, see the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. III. p. 19 sq.
 It has been disputed whether Theodotion was a Jew or a
Christian. Jerome (de vir. ill. 54, and elsewhere) calls him an
Ebionite; in his Ep. ad Augustin. c. 19 (Migne's ed. Ep. 112), a Jew;
while in the preface to his commentary on Daniel he says that some
called him an Ebionite, qui altero genere Judæus est. Irenæus (Adv.
Hær. III. 21. 1) and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 17) say that he was
a Jewish proselyte, which is probably true. The reports in regard to
his nationality are conflicting. The time at which he lived is
disputed. The Chron. paschale assigns him to the reign of Commodus,
and Epiphanius may also be urged in support of that date, though he
commits a serious blunder in making a second Commodus, and is thus led
into great confusion. But Theodotion, as well as Aquila, is mentioned
by Irenæus, and hence must be pushed back well into the second
century. It has been discovered, too, that Hermas used his version
(see Hort's article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular,
December, 1884), which obliges us to throw it back still further, and
Schürer has adduced some very strong reasons for believing it older
than Aquila's version (see Schürer's Gesch. d. Juden im Zeitalter
Jesu, II. p. 709). Theodotion's version, like Aquila's, was intended
to reproduce the Hebrew more exactly than the LXX did. It is based
upon the LXX, however, which it corrects by the Hebrew, and therefore
resembles the former much more closely than Theodotion's does. We have
no notices of the use of this version by the Jews. Aquila's version
(supposing it younger than Theodotion's) seems to have superseded it
entirely. Theodotion's translation of Daniel, however, was accepted by
the Christians, instead of the LXX Daniel, and replacing the latter in
all the mss. of the LXX, has been preserved entire. Aside from this we
have only such fragments as have been preserved by the Fathers that
saw and used the Hexapla. It will be seen that the order in which
Eusebius mentions the three versions here is not chronological. He
simply follows the order in which they stand in Origen's Hexapla (see
below, note 8). Epiphanius is led by that order to make Theodotion's
version later than the other, which is quite a mistake, as has been
seen. For further particulars in regard to the versions of Aquila and
Theodotion, and for the literature of the subject, see Schürer, ibid.
p. 704 sq.
 We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of the
Old Testament. Eusebius' words ("which had been concealed from remote
times," ton pEURlai lanthanousas chronon) would lead us to think them
older than the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. One of
them, Eusebius tells us, was found at Nicopolis near Actium, another
in a jar at Jericho, but where the third was discovered he did not
know. Jerome (in his Prologus in expos. Cant. Cant. sec. Originem;
Origen's works, ed. Lommatzsch, XIV. 235) reports that the "fifth
edition" (quinta editio) was found in Actio litore; but Epiphanius,
who seems to be speaking with more exact knowledge than Jerome, says
that the "fifth" was discovered at Jericho and the "sixth" in
Nicopolis, near Actium (De mens. et pond. 18). Jerome calls the
authors of the "fifth" and "sixth" Judaïcos translatores, which
according to his own usage might mean either Jews or Jewish Christians
(see Redepenning, p. 165), and at any rate the author of the "sixth"
was a Christian, as is clear from his rendering of Heb. iii. 13:
exelthes tou sosai ton laon sou dia 'Iesou tou christou. The "fifth"
is quoted by Origen on the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor
prophets, Kings, &c.; the "sixth," on the Psalms, Song of Songs, and
Habakkuk, according to Field, the latest editor of the Hexapla.
Whether these versions were fragmentary, or were used only in these
particular passages for special reasons, we do not know. Of the
"seventh" no clear traces can be discovered, but it must have been
used for the Psalms at any rate, as we see from this Chapter. As to
the time when these versions were found we are doubtless to assign the
discovery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit made by
Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 396). Epiphanius, who in the
present case seems to be speaking with more than customary accuracy,
puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander (222-235).
The other one, which Epiphanius calls the "fifth," was found,
according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla's reign (217) "in
jars at Jericho." We know that at this time Origen was in Palestine
(see chap. 19, note 23), and hence Epiphanius' report may well be
correct. If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the
"fifth," and the former the "sixth." The place and time of the
discovery of the "seventh" are alike unknown. For further particulars
in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field's edition of
the Hexapla, the article Hexapla in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and
Redepenning, II. 164 sq.
 Nicopolis near Actium, so designated to distinguish it from a
number of other cities bearing the same name, was a city of Epirus,
lying on the northern shore of the Ambracian gulf, opposite the
promontory of Actium.
 Origen's Hexapla (ta hexapla, to hexaploun, to hexaselidon, the
first form being used by Eusebius in this Chapter) was a polyglot Old
Testament containing the Hebrew text, a transliteration of it in Greek
letters (important because the Hebrew text was unpointed), the
versions of Aquila, of Symmachus, of the LXX, and of Theodotion,
arranged in six columns in the order named, with the addition in
certain places of a fifth, sixth, and even seventh Greek version (see
Jerome's description of it, in his Commentary on Titus, chap. 3, ver.
9). The parts which contained these latter versions were sometimes
called Octapla (they seem never to have borne the name nonapla.) The
order of the columns was determined by the fact that Aquila's version
most closely resembled the Hebrew, and hence was put next to it,
followed by Symmachus' version, which was based directly upon the
Hebrew, but was not so closely conformed to it; while Theodotion's
version, which was based not upon the Hebrew, but upon the LXX,
naturally followed the latter. Origen's object in undertaking this
great work was not scientific, but polemic; it was not for the sake of
securing a correct Hebrew text, but for the purpose of furnishing
adequate means for the reconstruction of the original text of the LXX,
which in his day was exceedingly corrupt. It was Origen's belief, and
he was not alone in his opinion (cf. Justin Martyr's Dial. with
Trypho, chap. 71), that the Hebrew Old Testament had been seriously
altered by the Jews, and that the LXX (an inspired translation, as it
was commonly held to be by the Christians) alone represented the true
form of Scripture. For two centuries before and more than a century
after Christ the LXX stood in high repute among the Jews, even in
Palestine, and outside of Palestine had almost completely taken the
place of the original Hebrew. Under the influence of its universal use
among the Jews the Christians adopted it, and looked upon it as
inspired Scripture just as truly as if it had been in the original
tongue. Early in the second century (as Schürer points out) various
causes were at work to lessen its reputation among the Jews. Chief
among these were first, the growing conservative reaction against all
non-Hebraic culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic
schools of the second century; and second, the ever-increasing
hostility to Christianity. The latter cause tended to bring the LXX
into disfavor with the Jews, because it was universally employed by
the Christians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many
cases where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less
support to the particular doctrine defended. It was under the
influence of this reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began
even before the second century, that the various versions already
mentioned took their rise. Aquila especially aimed to keep the Hebrew
text as pure as possible, while making it accessible to the
Greek-speaking Jews, who had hitherto been obliged to rely upon the
LXX. It will be seen that the Christians and the Jews, who originally
accepted the same Scriptures, would gradually draw apart, the one
party still holding to the LXX, the other going back to the original;
and the natural consequence of this was that the Jews taunted the
Christians with using only a translation which did not agree with the
original, and therefore was of no authority, while the Christians, on
the other hand, accused the Jews of falsifyng their Scriptures, which
should agree with the more pure and accurate LXX. Under these
circumstances, Origen conceived the idea that it would be of great
advantage to the Christians, in their polemics against the Jews, to
know more accurately than they did the true form of the LXX text, and
the extent and nature of its variations from the Hebrew. As the matter
stood everything was indefinite, for no one knew to exactly what
extent the two differed, and no one knew, in the face of the numerous
variant texts, the precise form of the LXX itself (cf. Redepenning,
II. p. 156 sq.). The Hebrew text given by Origen seems to have been
the vulgar text, and to have differed little from that in use to-day.
With the LXX it was different. Here Origen made a special effort to
ascertain the most correct text, and did not content himself with
giving simply one of the numerous texts extant, for he well knew that
all were more or less corrupt. But his method was not to throw out of
the text all passages not well supported by the various witnesses, but
rather to enrich the text from all available sources, thus making it
as full as possible. Wherever, therefore, the Hebrew contained a
passage omitted in the LXX, he inserted in the latter the translation
of the passage, taken from one of the other versions, marking the
addition with "obeli"; and wherever, on the other hand, the fullest
LXX text which he had contained more than the Hebrew and the other
versions combined, he allowed the redundant passage to stand, but
marked it with asterisks. The Hexapla as a whole seems never to have
been reproduced, but the LXX text as contained in the fifth column was
multiplied many times, especially under the direction of Pamphilus and
Eusebius (who had the original ms. at Cæsarea), and this recension
came into common use. It will be seen that Origen's process must have
wrought great confusion in the text of the LXX; for future copyists,
in reproducing the text given by Origen, would be prone to neglect the
critical signs, and give the whole as the correct form of the LXX; and
critical editors to-day find it very difficult to reach even the form
of the LXX text used by Origen. The Hexapla is no longer extant. When
the Cæsarean ms. of it perished we do not know. Jerome saw it, and
made large use of it, but after his time we have no further trace of
it, and it probably perished with the rest of the Cæsarean library
before the end of the seventh century, perhaps considerably earlier.
Numerous editions have been published of the fragments of the Hexapla,
taken from the works of the Fathers, from Scholia in mss. of the LXX,
and from a Syriac version of the Hexaplar LXX, which is still in large
part extant. The best edition is that of Field, in two vols., Oxford,
1875. His prolegomena contain the fullest and most accurate
information in regard to the Hexapla. Comp. also Taylor's article in
the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq. Origen
seems to have commenced his great work in Alexandria. This is implied
by the account of Eusebius, and is stated directly by Epiphanius (Hær.
LXIV. 3), who says that this was the first work which he undertook at
the solicitation of Ambrose (see chap. 18). We may accept this as in
itself quite probable, for there could be no better foundation for his
exegetical labors than just such a piece of critical work, and the
numerous scribes furnished him by Ambrose (see chap. 18) may well have
devoted themselves largely to this very work, as Redepenning remarks.
But the work was by no means completed at once. The time of his
discovery of the other versions of the Old Testament (see above, note
6) in itself shows that he continued his labor upon the great edition
for many years (the late discovery of these versions may perhaps
explain the fact that he did not use them in connection with all the
books of the Old Testament?); and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 18)
says that he was engaged upon it for twenty-eight years, and completed
it at Tyre. This is quite likely, and will explain the fact that the
ms. of the work remained in the Cæsarean library. Field, however,
maintains that our sources do not permit us to fix the time or place
either of the commencement or of the completion of the work with any
degree of accuracy (see p. xlviii. sq.).
 Valesius remarks that there is an inconsistency here, and that
it should be said "not only a fifth and sixth, but also a seventh."
All the mss. and versions, however, support the reading of the text,
and we must therefore suppose the inconsistency (if there is one,
which is doubtful) to be Eusebius' own, not that of a scribe.
 Greek: en tois tetraplois epikataskeuEURsas. The last word
indicates that the Tetrapla was prepared after, not before, the
Hexapla (cf. Valesius in hoc loco), and Redepenning (p. 175 sq.) gives
other satisfactory reasons for this conclusion. The design seems to
have been simply to furnish a convenient abridgment of larger work,
fitted for those who did not read Hebrew; that is, for the great
majority of Christians, even scholars.
Chapter XVII.--The Translator Symmachus. 
As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an
Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts
that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere
man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we
have seen already in this history.  Commentaries of Symmachus
are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by
attacking the Gospel of Matthew.  Origen states that he obtained
these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a
certain Juliana,  who, he says, received the books by
inheritance from Symmachus himself.
 On Symmachus, see the previous Chapter, note 4.
 In Bk. III. chap. 27. For a discussion of Ebionism, see the
notes on that Chapter.
 On the attitude of the Ebionites toward the Canonical Gospel of
Matthew (to which of course Eusebius here refers), see ibid. note 8.
All traces of this work and of Symmachus' "other interpretations of
Scripture" (allon eis tas graphas hermeneion), mentioned just below,
have vanished. We must not include Symmachus' translation of the Old
Testament in these other works (as has been done by Huet and others),
for there is no hint either in this passage or in that of Palladius
(see next note) of a reference to that version, which was, like those
of Aquila and Theodotion, well known in Origen's time (see the
 This Juliana is known to us only from this passage and from
Palladius, Hist. Laus. 147. Palladius reports, on the authority of an
entry written by Origen himself, which he says he found in an ancient
book (en palaiotEURto bibliû stichero), that Juliana was a virgin
of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and that she gave refuge to Origen in the
time of some persecution. If this account is to be relied upon,
Origen's sojourn in the lady's house is doubtless to be assigned, with
Huet, to the persecution of Maximinus (235-238; see below, chap. 28,
note 2). It must be confessed, however, that in the face of the
absolute silence of Eusebius and others, the story has a suspicious
1. About this time Ambrose,  who held the heresy of Valentinus,
 was convinced by Origen's presentation of the truth, and, as if
his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of
2. Many others also, drawn by the fame of Origen's learning, which
resounded everywhere, came to him to make trial of his skill in sacred
literature. And a great many heretics, and not a few of the most
distinguished philosophers, studied under him diligently, receiving
instruction from him not only in divine things, but also in secular
3. For when he perceived that any persons had superior intelligence he
instructed them also in philosophic branches--in geometry, arithmetic,
and other preparatory studies--and then advanced to the systems 
of the philosophers and explained their writings. And he made
observations and comments upon each of them, so that he became
celebrated as a great philosopher even among the Greeks themselves.
4. And he instructed many of the less learned in the common school
branches,  saying that these would be no small help to them in
the study and understanding of the Divine Scriptures. On this account
he considered it especially necessary for himself to be skilled in
secular and philosophic learning. 
 Of the early life of Ambrose, the friend of Origen, we know
nothing. We learn from Origen's Exhortatio ad Martyr. c. 14, and
Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 56, that he was of a wealthy and noble family
(cf. chap. 23 of this book), and from the Exhort. ad Mart. c. 36, that
he probably held some high official position. Eusebius says here that
he was for some time a Valentinian, Jerome that he was a Marcionite,
others give still different reports. However that was, the authorities
all agree that he was converted to the orthodox faith by Origen, and
that he remained devoted to him for the rest of his life. From chap.
23 we learn that he urged Origen to undertake the composition of
commentaries on the Scriptures, and that he furnished ample pecuniary
means for the prosecution of the work. He was also himself a diligent
student, as we gather from that Chapter (cf. also Jerome, de vir. ill.
c. 56). From chap. 28 we learn that he was a confessor in the
persecution of Maximinus (Jerome calls him also a deacon), and it
seems to have been in Cæsarea or its neighborhood that he suffered,
whither he had gone undoubtedly on account of his affection for
Origen, who was at that time there (cf. the Exhort. c. 41). He is
mentioned for the last time in the dedication and conclusion of
Origen's Contra Celsum, which was written between 246 and 250 (see
chap. 36, below). Jerome (l.c.) states that he died before Origen, so
that he cannot have lived long after this. He left no writings, except
some epistles which are no longer extant. Jerome, however, in his Ep.
ad Marcellam, §1 (Migne's ed., Ep. 43), attributes to Ambrose an
epistle, a fragment of which is extant under the name of Origen (to
whom it doubtless belongs) and which is printed in Lommatzsch's
edition of Origen's works, Vol. XVII. p. 5. Origen speaks of him
frequently as a man of education and of literary tastes and devoted to
the study of the Scriptures, and Jerome says of himnon inelegantis
ingenii fuit, sicut ejus ad Origenen epistolæ indicio sunt (l.c.). The
affection which Origen felt for him is evinced by many notices in his
works and by the fact that he dedicated to him the Exhortatio ad
Martyr., on the occasion of his suffering under Maximinus. It was also
at Ambrose's solicitation that he wrote his great work against Celsus,
which he likewise dedicated to him.
 On Valentinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 1.
 Greek, aireseis
 enkuklia grEURmmata; "the circle of those arts and sciences
which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go through before
applying to any professional studies" (Liddell and Scott, defining
 On Origen's education, see p. 392, below.
Chapter XIX.--Circumstances Related of Origen.
1. The Greek philosophers of his age are witnesses to his proficiency
in these subjects. We find frequent mention of him in their writings.
Sometimes they dedicated their own works to him; again, they submitted
their labors to him as a teacher for his judgment.
2. Why need we say these things when even Porphyry,  who lived
in Sicily in our own times and wrote books against us, attempting to
traduce the Divine Scriptures by them, mentions those who have
interpreted them; and being unable in any way to find a base
accusation against the doctrines, for lack of arguments turns to
reviling and calumniating their interpreters, attempting especially to
slander Origen, whom he says he knew in his youth.
3. But truly, without knowing it, he commends the man; telling the
truth about him in some cases where he could not do otherwise; but
uttering falsehoods where he thinks he will not be detected. Sometimes
he accuses him as a Christian; again he describes his proficiency in
philosophic learning. But hear his own words:
4. "Some persons, desiring to find a solution of the baseness of the
Jewish Scriptures rather than abandon them, have had recourse to
explanations inconsistent and incongruous with the words written,
which explanations, instead of supplying a defense of the foreigners,
contain rather approval and praise of themselves. For they boast that
the plain words of Moses are enigmas, and regard them as oracles full
of hidden mysteries; and having bewildered the mental judgment by
folly, they make their explanations." Farther on he says:
5. "As an example of this absurdity take a man whom I met when I was
young, and who was then greatly celebrated and still is, on account of
the writings which he has left. I refer to Origen, who is highly
honored by the teachers of these doctrines.
6. For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius,  who had
attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day,
derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the
sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course
opposite to his.
7. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian
parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway
conformed to the life required by the laws. But Origen, having been
educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian
recklessness.  And carrying over the learning which he had
obtained, he hawked it about, in his life conducting himself as a
Christian and contrary to the laws, but in his opinions of material
things and of the Deity being like a Greek, and mingling Grecian
teachings with foreign fables. 
8. For he was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with
the writings of Numenius  and Cronius,  Apollophanes,
 Longinus,  Moderatus,  and Nicomachus,  and
those famous among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chæremon
 the Stoic, and of Cornutus.  Becoming acquainted through
them with the figurative interpretation of the Grecian mysteries, he
applied it to the Jewish Scriptures." 
9. These things are said by Porphyry in the third book of his work
against the Christians.  He speaks truly of the industry and
learning of the man, but plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not
an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that he went over from the
Greeks,  and that Ammonius fell from a life of piety into
10. For the doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents, as
we have shown above. And Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken
and unadulterated to the end of his life.  His works yet extant
show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he
has left. For example, the work entitled The Harmony of Moses and
Jesus, and such others as are in the possession of the learned.
11. These things are sufficient to evince the slander of the false
accuser, and also the proficiency of Origen in Grecian learning. He
defends his diligence in this direction against some who blamed him
for it, in a certain epistle,  where he writes as follows:
12. "When I devoted myself to the word, and the fame of my proficiency
went abroad, and when heretics and persons conversant with Grecian
learning, and particularly with philosophy, came to me, it seemed
necessary that I should examine the doctrines of the heretics, and
what the philosophers say concerning the truth.
13. And in this we have followed Pantænus,  who benefited many
before our time by his thorough preparation in such things, and also
Heraclas,  who is now a member of the presbytery of Alexandria.
I found him with the teacher of philosophic learning, with whom he had
already continued five years before I began to hear lectures on those
14. And though he had formerly worn the common dress, he laid it aside
and assumed and still wears the philosopher's garment;  and he
continues the earnest investigation of Greek works."
He says these things in defending himself for his study of Grecian
15. About this time, while he was still at Alexandria, a soldier came
and delivered a letter from the governor of Arabia  to
Demetrius, bishop of the parish, and to the prefect of Egypt who was
in office at that time, requesting that they would with all speed send
Origen to him for an interview. Being sent by them, he went to Arabia.
And having in a short time accomplished the object of his visit, he
returned to Alexandria.
16. But sometime after a considerable war broke out in the city,
 and he departed from Alexandria. And thinking that it would be
unsafe for him to remain in Egypt, he went to Palestine and abode in
Cæsarea. While there the bishops of the church in that country 
requested him to preach and expound the Scriptures publicly, although
he had not yet been ordained as presbyter. 
17. This is evident from what Alexander,  bishop of Jerusalem
and Theoctistus  of Cæsarea, wrote to Demetrius  in regard
to the matter, defending themselves thus:
"He has stated in his letter that such a thing was never heard of
before, neither has hitherto taken place, that laymen should preach in
the presence of bishops. I know not how he comes to say what is
18. For whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are found, they
are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people. Thus in
Laranda, Euelpis by Neon; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus; and in
Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed brethren.  And
probably this has been done in other places unknown to us."
He was honored in this manner while yet a young man, not only by his
countrymen, but also by foreign bishops. 
19. But Demetrius sent for him by letter, and urged him through
members and deacons of the church to return to Alexandria. So he
returned and resumed his accustomed duties.
 Porphyry, one of the most distinguished of the Neo-Platonists,
disciple, biographer, and expounder of Plotinus, was born in 232 or
233 in the Orient (perhaps at Tyre), and at the age of thirty went to
Rome, where he came into connection with Plotinus, and spent a large
part of his life. He was a man of wide and varied learning; and though
not an original thinker, he was a clear and vigorous writer and
expounder of the philosophy of Plotinus. It may be well, at this
point, to say a word about that remarkable school or system of
philosophy, of which Plotinus was the greatest master and Porphyry the
chief expounder. Neo-Platonism was the most prominent phenomenon of
the age in the philosophic world. The object of the Neo-Platonists was
both speculative and practical: on the one side to elaborate an
eclectic system of philosophy which should reconcile Platonism and
Aristotelianism, and at the same time do justice to elements of truth
in other schools of thought; on the other side, to revivify and
strengthen the old paganism by idealizing and purifying it for the
sake of the philosophers, and at the same time by giving it a firmer
philosophic basis than it had hitherto possessed. Neo-Platonism, taken
as a whole, has therefore both a philosophic and a religious motive.
It may be defined in the briefest terms, in its philosophic aspect, as
an eclectic revival of Greek metaphysics (especially
Platonic-Aristotelian), modified by the influence of Oriental
philosophy and of Christianity; in its religious aspect, as an attempt
to restore and regenerate paganism by means of philosophy. In its
earlier and better days, the philosophic element greatly
predominated,--in fact, the religious element may be said to have
been, in large part, a later growth; but gradually the latter came
more and more into the foreground, until, under Jamblichus (d. 330
a.d.), the chief master of the Syrian school, Neo-Platonism
degenerated into a system of religious mysteries, in which theurgic
practices played a prominent part. Under Proclus (d. 485), the great
master of the Athenian school, the philosophic element was again
emphasized; but Aristotelianism now gained the predominance, and the
system became a sort of scholastic art, and gradually degenerated into
pure formalism, until it finally lost all influence. The extent of the
influence which Christianity exerted upon Neo-Platonism is a greatly
disputed point. We shall, perhaps, come nearest the truth if we say
that its influence was in the main not direct, but that it was
nevertheless real, inasmuch as it had introduced problems up to that
time undiscussed, with which Neo-Platonism busied itself; in fact, it
may almost be said that Neo-Platonism was at first little more than
(Aristotelian-) Platonism busying itself with the new problems of
salvation and redemption which Christianity had thrown into the world
of thought. It was un-Christian at first (it became under Porphyry and
later Neo-Platonists anti-Christian), because it solved these problems
in a way different from the Christian way. This will explain the fact
that all through, whether in the more strictly philosophic system of
Plotinus, or in the more markedly religious and theurgic system of
Jamblichus, there ran a vein of mysticism, the conception of an
intimate union with the supreme God as the highest state to which man
can attain. Porphyry, with whom we are at present concerned, was
eminently practical in his thinking. The end of philosophy with him
was not knowledge, but holiness, the salvation of the soul. He
recommended a moderate asceticism as a chief means of freeing the soul
from the bonds of matter, and thus permitting it to rise to union with
God. At the same time, he did not advise the neglect of the customary
religious rites of Paganism, which might aid in the elevation of the
spirit of man toward the deity. It was with Porphyry that
Neo-Platonism first came into direct conflict with Christianity, and
its enmity against the latter goes far to explain the increasing
emphasis which he and the Neo-Platonists who followed him laid upon
religious rites and practices. Its philosophy, its solution of the
great problems of the age, was essentially and radically different
from that of Christianity; and although at first they might run
alongside one another as independent schools, without much thought of
conflict, it was inevitable that in time the rivalry, and then the
active hostility, should come. Neo-Platonism, like Christianity, had a
solution of the great problem of living to offer to the world,--in an
age of unexampled corruption, when thoughtful men were all seeking for
a solution,--and each was essentially exclusive of the other. The
attack, therefore, could not be long delayed. Porphyry seems to have
begun it in his famous work in fifteen books, now lost, which was
answered in extenso by Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius, and Apolinarius of
Laodicea. The answers, too, have perished; but from extant fragments
we are able to see that Porphyry's attack was very learned and able.
He endeavored to point out the inconsistencies in the sacred
narrative, in order to discredit its divine origin. At the same time,
he treated Christ with the greatest respect, and ranked him very high
as a sage (though only human), and found much that was good in his
teaching. Augustine (De consensu Evang. I. 15) says that the
Neo-Platonists praised Christ, but railed at his disciples (cf.
Eusebius' words in this Chapter). Porphyry was a very prolific writer;
but only a few of his works are now extant, chief among them the
aphormai pros ta noetEUR, or Sententiæ, a brief but comprehensive
exposition of his philosophic system. We learn from this Chapter that
he had met Origen when very young (he was but about twenty when Origen
died); where, we do not know. He lived to be at least sixty-eight
years old (see his Vita Plot. 23), and Suidas says that he died under
Diocletian, i.e. before 305 a.d. On Porphyry and Neo-Platonism in
general, see the great works of Vacherot (Hist. critique de l'Ecole
d'Alexandrie) and Simon (Hist. de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie); also Zeller's
Philosophie der Griechen, and especially Erdmann's History of
Philosophy (Engl. trans., London, 1889).
 Of the life of Ammonius Saccas, the "father of Neo-Platonism"
very little is known. He is said by Suidas (s. v. Origenes) and by
Ammianus Marcellinus to have been a porter in his youth and to have
gained his second name from his occupation. That he was of Christian
parents and afterward embraced paganism is stated in this passage by
Porphyry, though Eusebius (§10, below) and Jerome assert that he
remained a Christian. From all that we know of the teachings of
Ammonius Saccas as reported to us by Plotinus and other
Neo-Platonists, we cannot imagine him to have remained a Christian.
The only solution of the difficulty then is to suppose Eusebius (whom
Jerome follows) to have confounded him with a Christian of the same
name who wrote the works which Eusebius mentions (see note 16).
Ammonius was an Alexandrian by birth and residence, and died in 243.
His teaching was of a lofty and noble character, to judge from
Plotinus' descriptions, and as a teacher he was wonderfully
fascinating. He numbered among his pupils Herennius, Longinus, the
pagan Origen, and Plotinus. The Christian Origen also studied under
him for a time, according to this passage. He wrote nothing (according
to the Vita Plot, c. 20), and hence we have to rely solely upon the
reports of his disciples and successors for our knowledge of his
system. It is difficult in the absence of all direct testimony to
ascertain his teaching with exactness. Plotinus claims to give only
what he learned from Ammonius, but it is evident, from his
disagreement in many points with others of Ammonius' disciples, that
the system taught by him was largely modified by his own thinking. It
is clear that Ammonius, who undoubtedly took much from his great
master, Numenius, endeavored to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, thus
laying the basis for the speculative eclecticism of Neo-Platonism,
while at the same time there must have been already in his teaching
the same religious and mystical element which was present to some
extent in all his disciples, and which played so large a part in
 to bEURrbaron tolmema. Porphyry means to say that Origen was
originally a heathen, and was afterward converted to Christianity; but
this is refuted by the universal tradition of antiquity, and is
clearly a mistake, as Eusebius (who calls it a "falsehood") remarks
below. Porphyry's supposition, in the absence of definite knowledge,
is not at all surprising, for Origen's attainments in secular learning
were such as apparently only a pagan youth could or would have
 On Origen's Greek culture, see p. 392, and also his own words
quoted below in §12 sq.
 Numenius was a philosopher of Syria, who lived about the middle
of the second century, and who exerted great influence over Plotinus
and others of the Neo-Platonists. He was, perhaps, the earliest of the
Orientalizing Greek philosophers whose thinking was affected by the
influence of Christian ideas, and as such occupies an important place
in the development of philosophy, which prepared the way for
Neo-Platonism. His object seems to have been to reconcile Pythagoras
and Plato by tracing the doctrines of the latter back to the former,
and also to exhibit their agreement with Jewish and other Oriental
forms of thought. It is significant that he was called by the Church
Fathers a Pythagorean, and that he himself called Plato a
Greek-speaking Moses (cf. Erdmann's Hist. of Phil. I. p. 236). He was
a prolific writer, but only fragments of his works are extant.
Numerous extracts from the chief of them (peri tagathou) have been
preserved by Eusebius in his Præp. Evang. (see Heinichen's ed. Index
 Of Cronius, a celebrated Pythagorean philosopher, apparently a
contemporary of Numenius, and closely related to him in his thinking,
we know very little. A brief account of him is given by Porphyry in
his Vita Plot. 20.
 The Apollophanes referred to here was a Stoic philosopher of
Antioch who lived in the third century b.c., and was a disciple of
Ariston of Chios. None of his writings are extant.
 Longinus was a celebrated philosopher and rhetorician of
Athens, who was born about 213 and died in 273 a.d. He traveled widely
in his youth, and was for a time a pupil of Ammonius Saccas at
Alexandria; but he remained a genuine Platonist, and seems not to have
been influenced by the eclecticism of the Neo-Platonists. He was a man
of marked ability, of the broadest culture, and a thorough master of
Greek style. Of his numerous writings we possess a large part of one
beautiful work entitled peri hupsous (often published), and fragments
of some others (e.g. in Eusebius' Præp. Evang. XV. 21). Longinus was
the teacher of Porphyry before the latter went to Rome to study under
Plotinus. Porphyry has made a mistake in classing Longinus with those
other philosophers whose works Origen studied. He was a younger
contemporary of Origen, and cannot even have studied with Ammonius
until after Origen had left Alexandria. It is possible, of course,
that Origen in later life read some of his works; but Porphyry
evidently means that the works of all the philosophers, Longinus among
them, had an influence upon Origen's intellectual development.
Heinichen reads 'Albinou instead of Longinou in his text, on the
assumption that Porphyry cannot possibly have written Longinou; but
the latter word has the support of all the mss. and versions, and
there is no warrant for making the change. We must simply conclude
that Porphyry, who, of course, is not pretending to give an exact list
of all the philosophical works which Origen had read, classes
Longinus, the celebrated philosopher, along with the rest, as one
whose works such a student of Greek philosophy as Origen must have
read, without thinking of the serious anachronism involved.
 Moderatus was a distinguished Pythagorean philosopher of the
first century after Christ, whose works (no longer extant) were not
without influence over some of the Neo-Platonists.
 Nicomachus was a Pythagorean of the first (or second?) century
after Christ, who gained great fame as a mathematician and exerted
considerable influence upon European studies in the fifteenth century.
Two of his works, one on arithmetic and the other on music, are
extant, and have been published.
 Chæremon was a Stoic philosopher and historian of Alexandria
who lived during the first century after Christ. He was for a time
librarian at the Serapeum in Alexandria, and afterward went to Rome to
become a tutor of Nero. His chief writings were a history of Egypt, a
work on Hieroglyphics, and another on Comets (mentioned by Origen in
his Contra Cels. I. 59). He also wrote on grammatical subjects. His
works, with the exception of a fragment of the first, are no longer
extant. Cf. Eusebius' Præf. Evang. V. 10, and Suidas,s.v. 'Origenes.
 Cornutus a distinguished Stoic philosopher, lived and taught in
Rome during the reign of Nero, and numbered among his pupils and
friends the poet Persius. Most of his numerous works have perished,
but one on the Nature of the Gods is still extant in a mutilated form
(see Gall's Opuscula). See Suidas (s.v. Kornoutos) and Dion Cassius,
 Origen was not the first to interpret the Scriptures
allegorically. The method began among the Alexandrian Jews some time
before the Christian era, the effort being made to reconcile the
Mosaic revelation with Greek philosophy, and to find in the former the
teachings of the latter. This effort appears in many of the apocryphal
books, but the great exponent of the method was the Alexandrian Philo.
It was natural that the early Christians, especially in Alexandria,
should be influenced by this already existing method of
interpretation, which enabled them to make of the Old Testament a
Christian book, and to find in it all the teachings of the Gospel.
Undoubtedly the Old Testament owes partly to this principle of
interpretation its adoption by the Christian Church. Had it been
looked upon as the Jewish Scriptures only, containing Jewish national
history, and in large part Jewish national prophecy, it could never
have retained its hold upon the early Church, which was so bitterly
hostile to all that savored of Judaism. The early Gentile Christians
were taught from the beginning by Jewish Christians who could not do
otherwise than look upon their national Scriptures as divine, that
those Scriptures contained prophecies of Jesus Christ, and hence those
Gentile Christians accepted them as divine. But it must be remembered
that they could of course have no meaning to these Gentile Christians
except as they did prophesy of Christian things or contain Christian
teaching. They could not be content to find Christian prophecy in one
part and only Jewish history or Jewish prophecy in another part. It
must all be Christian if it was to have any meaning to them. In this
emergency the allegorical method of interpretation, already practiced
upon the Old Testament by the Alexandrian Jews, came to their
assistance and was eagerly adopted. The so-called epistle of Barnabus
is an early and most significant instance of its use. With Clement of
Alexandria the matter first took scientific shape. He taught that two
senses are everywhere to be assumed; that the verbal sense is only for
babes in the faith, and that the allegorical sense alone leads to true
spiritual knowledge. With Origen allegorical interpretation reached
its height. He taught a threefold sense of Scripture, corresponding to
body, soul, and spirit. Many voices were raised against his
interpretation, but they were directed against his particular
explanations of the meaning of passages, seldom against his method. In
the early centuries Alexandria remained the chief center of this kind
of exegesis, while Antioch became in the fifth century the seat of a
school of exegetes who emphasized rather the grammatical and
historical interpretation of Scripture over against the extremes of
the Alexandrian teachers. And yet even they were not entirely free
from the vicious methods of the age, and, moreover, errors of various
kinds crept in to lessen their influence, and the allegorical method
finally prevailed almost universally; and it has not even yet fully
lost its hold. This method of Scripture interpretation has, as
Porphyry says, its analogy in the methods of the Greek philosophers
during the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. It
became early the custom for philosophers, scandalized by the
licentious stories of their gods, to interpret the current myths
allegorically and refer them to the processes of nature. Homer and
others of the ancient poets were thus made by these later philosophers
to teach philosophies of nature of which they had never dreamed. With
the Neo-Platonists this method reached its highest perfection, and
while the Christian teachers were allegorizing the Old Testament
Scriptures, these philosophers were transforming the popular myths
into records of the profoundest physical and spiritual processes.
Porphyry saw that the method of pagans and Christians was the same in
this respect, and he may be correct in assigning some influence to
these writings in the shaping of Origen's thinking, but the latter was
an allegorist before he studied the philosophers to whom Porphyry
refers (cf. chap. 2, §9, above), and would have been an allegorist had
he never studied them. Allegory was in that age in the atmosphere of
the Church as well as of the philosophical school.
 On this great work of Porphyry, see note 1.
 See note 3.
 This is certainly a mistake on Eusebius' part (see above, note
2), in which he is followed by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 55). Against
the identification of the Christian Ammonius, whose works are
mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, with Ammonius Saccas, may be urged
first the fact that the teaching of Ammonius Saccas, as known to us
from Porphyry's Vita Plotini and from other Neo-Platonic sources, is
not such as could have emanated from a Christian; and, in the second
place, the fact that the Christian Ammonius, according to Eusebius,
was the author of more than one important work, while Longinus (as
quoted by Porphyry in the Vita Plot. c. 20) says explicitly that
Ammonius Saccas wrote nothing. It is clear from Eusebius' words that
his sole reason for supposing that Ammonius Saccas remained a
Christian is the existence of the writings to which he refers; and it
is quite natural that he and others should erroneously attribute the
works of an unknown Christian of Alexandria, named Ammonius, to the
celebrated Alexandrian philosopher of the same name, especially since
it was known that the latter had been a Christian in his youth, and
that he had been Origen's teacher in his mature years. We know nothing
about the life of the Christian Ammonius, unless he be identified with
the presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria, who is said by Eusebius to have
perished in the persecution of Diocletian. The identification is
possible; but even if it be accepted, we are helped very little, for
is only the death, not the life, of the presbyter Ammonius with which
Eusebius acquaints us. Ammonius' writings, whoever he may have been,
were well known in the Church. Eusebius mentions here his work On the
Harmony of Moses and Jesus (peri tes Mouseos kai 'Iesou sumphonias),
and in an epistle addressed to Carpianus (see above, p. 38 sq.) speaks
of a Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels (to dia tessEURron
euangelion), composed by Ammonius. Jerome mentions both these works
(de vir. ill. 55), the latter under the title Evangelici Canones. He
refers to these Canones again in his preface to the Four Gospels
(Migne's ed., Vol. X. 528); and so does Victor of Capua. The former
work is no longer extant, nor have we any trace of it. But there is
extant a Latin translation of a Diatessaron which was made by Victor
of Capua, and which was formerly, and is still, by many scholars
supposed to be a version of this work of Ammonius. By others it is
thought to be a translation of Tatian's Diatessaron. For further
particulars, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 11.
 The names of the persons to whom this epistle was addressed we
do not know, nor can we ascertain the exact time when it was composed,
though it must have been written before Heraclas became bishop of
Alexandria, and indeed, we may assume, while Origen was in Alexandria,
and still engaged in the study which he defends in the epistle, i.e.,
if Eusebius is correct in the order of events, before 216 a.d. (see
 On Pantænus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.
 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
 ekeinon ton logon.
 See above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 21.
 The words used to designate the official who sent for Origen
(ho tes 'Arabias hegoumenos) lead us to think him a Roman, and
governor of the Roman province of Arabia, which was formed by the
Emperor Trajan in the year 106, and which comprised only the northern
part of the peninsula. We know no particulars of this visit of Origen
to that province, but that he was remembered and held in honor by the
people is proved by chaps. 33 and 37, which record that he was
summoned thither twice to assist in settling doctrinal difficulties.
 In the sixth year of his reign (216 a.d.) Caracalla visited
Alexandria, and improved the occasion to take bloody vengeance upon
the inhabitants of the city, from whom had emanated a number of
satirical and cutting comments upon the murder of his brother Geta. He
instituted a horrible butchery, in which young and old, guilty and
innocent, perished, and in which scholars were objects of especial
fury. (See Herodian, IV. 8, 9, and Dion Cassius, LXXVII. 22-24, and
cf. Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 115 sq.) This was undoubtedly
the occasion, referred to here, which caused Origen to flee from the
city and retire to Palestine.
 hoi tede episkopoi. The tede must refer to Palestine, not to
Cæsarea, for "bishops" are spoken of, not "bishop."
 In the apostolic age, and the generations immediately
succeeding, it was the privilege of every Christian to take part in
the public meetings of the Church in the way of teaching or
prophesying, the only condition being the consciousness of guidance by
the Spirit (see 1 Cor. xiii.). We cannot call this teaching and
prophesying preaching in our sense of the term. The services seem
rather to have resembled our "open prayer-meetings." Gradually, as the
services became more formal and stereotyped, a stated address by the
"president" (as Justin calls him) became a regular part of the service
(see Justin's Apol. I. 67), and we may assume that the liberty of
teaching or prophesying in the public meetings did not now belong to
all the members as it had in the beginning. The sermon, in our sense
of the word, seems to have been a slow growth, but a direct
development from this exhortation of the president mentioned by
Justin. The confinement of the speaking (or preaching) to a single
individual,--the leader,--which we see in Justin, is what we find in
subsequent generations quite generally established. It becomes, in
time, the prerogative of the bishop to preach, and this prerogative he
confers upon his presbyters also (not universally, but in most cases),
while deacons and laymen are almost everywhere excluded from the
right. We see from the present Chapter, however, that the custom was
not the same in all parts of the Church in the time of Origen. The
principle had evidently before this become firmly established in
Alexandria that only bishops and presbyters should preach. But in
Palestine no such rule was recognized as binding. At the same time, it
is clear enough that it was exceptional even there for laymen to
preach (in the presence of their bishops), for Alexander in his
epistle, instead of saying that laymen preach everywhere and of right,
cites particular instances of their preaching, and says that where
they are qualified they are especially requested by the bishops to use
their gifts; so that the theory that the prerogative belonged of right
to the bishop existed there just as truly as in Alexandria. Origen of
course knew that he was acting contrary to the custom (if not the
canon) of his own church in thus preaching publicly, and yet
undoubtedly he took it for granted that he was perfectly right in
doing what these bishops requested him to do in their own dioceses.
They were supreme in their own churches, and he knew of nothing,
apparently, which should hinder him from doing what they approved of,
while in those churches. Demetrius, however, thought otherwise, and
considered the public preaching of an unordained man irregular, in any
place and at any time. Whether jealousy of Origen's growing power had
anything to do with his action it is difficult to say with certainty.
He seems to have treated Origen in a perfectly friendly way after his
return; and yet it is possible that the difference of opinion on this
point, and the reproof given by Demetrius, may not have been wholly
without influence upon their subsequent relations, which became in the
end so painful (see chap. 8, note 4).
 On Alexander, see chap. 8, note 6.
 Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea, seems to have been one of the
most influential bishops of the East in his day, and played a
prominent part in the controversy which arose in regard to Novatus, as
we learn from chap. 46 of this book and from chap. 5 of the next. He
was also a firm friend of Origen's for many years (see chap. 27),
probably until the latter's death. We do not know the dates of his
accession and of his death, but we find him already bishop in the year
216, and still bishop at the time of the episcopate of Stephen of Rome
(254-257; see Bk. VII. chap. 5), but already succeeded by Domnus, when
Xystus was bishop of Rome (257-258; see Bk. VII. chap. 14). We must,
therefore, put his death between 255 and 258.
 Eusebius is apparently mistaken in stating that this epistle
was addressed to Demetrius, for the latter is spoken of throughout the
epistle in the third person. It seems probable that Eusebius has made
a slip and said "to Demetrius" when he meant to say "concerning
 Of the persons mentioned here by the Palestinian bishops in
support of their conduct, Neon, bishop of Laranda in Lycaonia, Celsus,
bishop of Iconium, and Atticus, bishop of Synada in Phrygia, together
with the laymen Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodore, we know only the
 ou pros monon ton sunethon, alla kai ton epi xenes episkopon.
sunethon seems here to have the sense of "countrymen" or (bishops) "of
his own country" over against the epi xenes, rather than the meaning
"friends" or "acquaintances," which is more common.
Chapter XX.--The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age.
1. There flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose
letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible.
They have been kept until our time in the library at Ælia, 
which was established by Alexander, who at that time presided over
that church. We have been able to gather from that library material
for our present work.
2. Among these Beryllus  has left us, besides letters and
treatises, various elegant works. He was bishop of Bostra in Arabia.
Likewise also Hippolytus,  who presided over another church, has
3. There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius,  a very
learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus,  with
Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the
rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new
Scriptures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle,
not counting that to the Hebrews  with the others. And unto our
day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of
 Ælia, the city built by Hadrian upon the site of Jerusalem (see
Bk. IV. chap. 6). We do not know the subsequent history of this
library of Alexander, but it had already been in existence nearly a
hundred years when Eusebius examined it.
 On Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, see chap. 33.
 On Hippolytus, see chap. 22.
 On Caius and his discussion with Proclus, see Bk. II. chap. 25,
notes 7 and 8.
 Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome from 198 or 199 to 217. See Bk.
V. chap. 28, note 5.
 On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the opinions of the early
Church in regard to its authorship, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
Chapter XXI.--The Bishops that were well known at that Time.
1. After Antoninus  had reigned seven years and six months,
Macrinus succeeded him. He held the government but a year, and was
succeeded by another Antoninus. During his first year the Roman
bishop, Zephyrinus,  having held his office for eighteen years,
died, and Callistus  received the episcopate.
2. He continued for five years, and was succeeded by Urbanus. 
After this, Alexander became Roman emperor, Antoninus having reigned
but four years.  At this time Philetus  also succeeded
Asclepiades  in the church of Antioch.
3. The mother of the emperor, Mammæa  by name, was a most pious
woman, if there ever was one, and of religious life. When the fame of
Origen had extended everywhere and had come even to her ears, she
desired greatly to see the man, and above all things to make trial of
his celebrated understanding of divine things.
4. Staying for a time in Antioch, she sent for him with a military
escort. Having remained with her a while and shown her many things
which were for the glory of the Lord and of the excellence of the
divine teaching, he hastened back to his accustomed work.
 i.e. Caracalla, who was slain on the 8th of April, 217. Four
days later, Marcus Opilius Macrinus, prefect of the prætorians, was
proclaimed emperor. After a reign of fourteen months, he was defeated
and succeeded by Varius Avitus Bassianus, a cousin of Caracalla, and
priest of the Phoenician Sun-god, from which fact is derived the name
by which he is commonly known,--Elagabalus, or Heliogabalus. Upon his
accession to the imperial power, he took the name Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus, which became his official designation.
 On Zephyrinus, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
 As shown in the next note, a comparison of our best sources
leads us to the year 222 as the date of the accession of Urban, and
consequently of the death of Callistus. A careful comparison of the
various sources, which differ in regard to the years of the several
episcopates of Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, but agree as to the
sum of the three, leads to the result that Callistus was bishop for
five years, and therefore his accession is to be put into the year
217, and the reign of Macrinus (see Lipsius, Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe,
p. 171 sq.). This agrees, so far as the years of our era are
concerned, with the statement of Eusebius in this Chapter; but he
wrongly puts Callistus' accession into the first year of Alexander,
which is a result of an error of a year in his reckoning of the dates
of the emperors, which runs back to Pertinax (see Lipsius, p. 7 sq.).
He does not assign Callistus' accession to the first year of
Heliogabalus because of a tradition connecting the two, but simply
because his reckoning of the lengths of the various episcopates, which
were given in the source used by him, led him to the year 217 for
Callistus' accession, and this, according to his erroneous table of
the reigns of the emperors, was the first year of Heliogabalus. We
thus see that Eusebius is in real, though not in apparent, agreement
with the Liberian catalogue in regard to the date of Callistus'
accession, which may, therefore, be accepted as certain. Nothing was
known about the character and life of Callistus until the discovery of
Hippolytus' Philosophumena, or Refutation of All Heresies (see the
next Chapter, note 1). In Bk. IX. of that work is given a detailed
description of him, from the pen of a very bitter opponent. At the
same time, it can hardly be doubted that at least the groundwork of
the account is true. According to Hippolytus, he was a slave; a
dishonest banker, who was punished for his dishonesty; the author of a
riot in a Jewish synagogue, who was sent as a criminal to the mines;
finally, after various other adventures, the right-hand man of the
bishop Zephyrinus, and after his death, his successor. According to
Hippolytus, he was a Patripassian, and he introduced much laxer
methods of church discipline than had hitherto been in vogue; so lax
as greatly to scandalize Hippolytus, who was a very rigid
disciplinarian. Whatever truth there may be in this highly sensational
account (and we cannot doubt that it is greatly overdrawn), it is at
least certain that Callistus took the liberal view of Christian morals
and church discipline, over against the stricter view represented by
Hippolytus and his party. It was, perhaps, owing to his popularity on
this account that, after the death of Zephyrinus, he secured the
episcopacy of Rome, for which Hippolytus was also a candidate. The
latter tells us also that Zephyrinus "set him over the cemetery,"--a
most interesting notice, as the largest catacomb in Rome bears the
name of St. Callistus, and may be the very one of which Zephyrinus
made him the superintendent.
 Lipsius, in his Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 170 sq., shows that
the only fixed point for a calculation of the dates of Urban and the
three bishops preceding him, is the banishment by the Emperor
Maximinus of Pontianus to Sardinia, which took place, according to the
Liberian catalogue, while Severus and Quintinus were consuls; that is,
in the year 235. The duration of Pontianus' episcopate is shown by a
comparison of the best sources to have been a little over five years
(see chap. 23, note 3). This brings us to the year 230 as the date of
Urban's death. According to chap. 23, Urban was bishop eight years,
and with this the Liberian catalogue agrees, so that this figure is
far better supported than the figure nine given by the Chron.
Accepting eight years as the duration of Urban's episcopate, we are
brought back to 222 as the date of his accession, which agrees with
Eusebius' statement in this Chapter (see the previous note). There are
extant Acta S. Urbani, which are accepted as genuine by the
Bollandists, and assigned to the second century, but they cannot have
been written before the fifth, and are historically quite worthless.
For a good discussion of his supposed connection with St. Cecilia,
which has played such an important part in ecclesiastical legend, see
the article Urbanus in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. We have no certain
knowledge of his life and character.
 Elagabalus was slain in March, 222, after a reign of three
years and nine months, and was succeeded by his cousin, Alexianus
Bassianus, who assumed the names Marcus Aurelius Alexander Severus, by
the last two of which he is commonly known.
 Philetus, according to the Chron. (Armenian), became bishop in
the sixth year of Caracalla (216), and was succeeded by Zebinus in the
sixth year of Alexander Severus (227). Jerome puts his accession into
the reign of Macrinus (217-218), and the accession of Zebinus into the
seventh year of Alexander (228). The accession of Zebinus must have
taken place at least as early as 231 (see chap. 23, note 4), and there
remains therefore no reason to doubt the approximate accuracy of the
latter dates. If the dates given for Philetus' accession (216-218) be
approximately correct, we must understand the words "at this time" of
the present Chapter, to refer back to the reign of Macrinus, or the
accession of Alexander Severus, mentioned at the beginning of this
Chapter. This does not seem natural, but we cannot say it is
impossible. Knowing the unreliability of the dates given in the
Chron., we are compelled to leave the matter undecided. He is called
by the Armen. Philip, by Syncellus philetos e philippos. The latter
assigns him an episcopate of eight years, which agrees with none of
the figures given by the two versions of the Chronicle or by the
History. We know nothing about the person or the life of Philetus.
 On Asclepiades, see chap. 11, note 6.
 Julia Mamæa or Mammæa (Eusebius, Mammaia) was the niece of
Septimius Severus' wife Julia Domna, the aunt of the Emperor
Elagabalus, and the mother of the Emperor Alexander Severus, by the
Syrian Gessius Marcianus. She accompanied Elagabalus to Rome, and had
strength of character enough to protect her son from the jealousy of
the latter, and to keep him comparatively pure from the vice and
debauchery of the court. During the reign of her son she exerted great
influence, which was in the main highly beneficial; but her pride and
avarice finally proved fatal, both to her son and to herself. Her
character seems to have been in the main pure and elevated; and she
was apparently inclined to the same sort of religious syncretism which
led her son to adopt many Christian principles of action, and to put
the busts of Abraham and of Christ, with those of Orpheus, Apollonius
of Tyana, and the best of the Roman emperors, in his private chapel
(see Lampridius, Vita Sev. c. 29, 43). Eusebius calls Mammæa
theosebestEURte and eulabes, and Jerome calls her a religiosa femina
(de vir. ill. c. 54); but there is no evidence that she was a
Christian. The date of Origen's interview with her has been greatly
disputed. Huet and Redepenning, accepting the order of events recorded
in this Chapter as chronological, put the interview in the early years
of Alexander Severus, Redepenning assuming an otherwise unrecorded
visit of Mammæa to Antioch, Huet connecting her visit there with the
Persian expedition of Alexander. Huet assumes, upon the authority of
Jerome's Chron., that the Persian expedition took place in the early
part of Alexander's reign; but this is against all other ancient
authorities, and must be incorrect (see Tillemont, Mem. III. 763 sq.).
The only occasions known to us, on which Mammæa can have been in
Antioch, were this expedition of her son (between 230 and 233) and the
visit of her nephew Elagabalus to Antioch, after his victory over
Macrinus in 218. At both these times Origen was quite probably in
Cæsarea (see chap. 19, note 23, and p. 392, below), whence it is more
natural to suppose him summoned than from Alexandria. If we put the
interview in 218, we must suppose (as Tillemont suggests) that
Eusebius is led by his mention of Alexander to give this account of
his mother, and that he does not intend to imply that the interview
took place after Alexander's accession. There is nothing at all
improbable in this. In fact, it seems more likely that he would
mention the interview in connection with Alexander than in connection
with Elagabalus, in spite of chronology. On the other hand, it is not
impossible that the interview took place subsequently to the year 231,
for Origen's fame was certainly by that time much greater in Syria
than fifteen years previous. At the same time, to accept this date
disarranges seriously the chronological order of the account of
Eusebius, for in chap. 24 we are told of those works which Origen
wrote while yet in Alexandria; that is, before 231. Moreover, there is
not the same reason for inserting this account of Mammæa at this
point, if it occurred later in Alexander's reign, that there is if it
occurred in the reign of Elagabalus. We shall, therefore, do best to
accept the earlier date with Tillemont, Westcott, and others.
Chapter XXII.--The Works of Hippolytus which have reached us.
1. At that time Hippolytus,  besides many other treatises, wrote
a work on the passover.  He gives in this a chronological table,
and presents a certain paschal canon of sixteen years, bringing the
time down to the first year of the Emperor Alexander.
2. Of his other writings the following have reached us: On the
Hexæmeron,  On the Works after the Hexæmeron,  Against
Marcion,  On the Song of Songs,  On Portions of Ezekiel,
 On the Passover,  Against All the Heresies;  and
you can find many other works preserved by many.
 Hippolytus (mentioned above in chap. 20) was one of the most
learned men and celebrated writers of his age, and yet his personal
history is involved in the deepest obscurity. The earliest mention of
him is by Eusebius in this passage and in chap. 20, above. But
Eusebius tells us there only that he was a bishop of "some other
church" (heteras pou ekklesias), and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 61) says
that he was a bishop of some church whose name he did not know
(Hippolytus, cujusdam Ecclesiæ episcopus, nomen quippe urbis scire non
potui). In the East, from the fourth century on, Hippolytus was
commonly called bishop of Rome, but the Western tradition makes him
simply a presbyter. The late tradition that he was bishop of Portus
Romanus is quite worthless. We learn from his Philosophumena, or
Refutation of Heresies, that he was active in Rome in the time of
Zephyrinus and Callistus; but what is significant is the fact that he
never recognizes Callistus as bishop of Rome, but always treats him as
the head of a school opposed to the orthodox Church. This has given
scholars the clue for reconciling the conflicting traditions about his
position and his church. It seems probable that he was a presbyter of
the church of Rome, and was at the head of a party which did not
recognize Callistus as lawful bishop, but set Hippolytus up as
opposition bishop. This explains why Hippolytus calls himself a
bishop, and at the same time recognizes neither Callistus nor any one
else as bishop of Rome. The Western Church therefore preserved the
tradition of Hippolytus only as a presbyter, while in the Orient,
where Hippolytus was known only through his works, the tradition that
he was a bishop (a fact directly stated in those works; see the
preface to his Philosophumena) always prevailed; and since he was
known to have resided in Rome, that city was made by tradition his
see. The schism, which has left no trace in the writings either of the
Western or Eastern Church, cannot have been a serious one. Doubtless
Callistus had the support of by far the larger part of the Church, and
the opposition of Hippolytus never amounted to more than talk, and was
never strong enough to enlist, or perhaps even attempt to enlist, the
support of foreign bishops. Callistus and the body of the Church could
afford to leave it unnoticed; and after Callistus' death Hippolytus
undoubtedly returned to the Church and was gladly received, and the
memory of his brief schism entirely effaced, while the knowledge of
his orthodoxy, and of his great services to the Church as a theologian
and a writer, kept his name in high repute with subsequent
generations. A Latin translation of a Chronicle written by Hippolytus
is extant, and the last event recorded in it is the death of the
Emperor Alexander, which took place early in the year 235. The
Liberian catalogue, in an entry which Lipsius (Chron. d. röm.
Bischöfe, p. 194) pronounces critically indisputable, records that, in
the year 235, the bishop Pontianus and the presbyter Hippolytus were
transported as exiles to the island of Sardinia. There is little doubt
that this is the Hippolytus with whom we are concerned, and it is
highly probable that both he and Pontianus died in the mines there,
and thus gained the title of martyrs; for not only is the account of
Hippolytus' martyrdom given by Prudentius in the fifth century not
reliable, but also in the depositio martyrum of the Liberian catalogue
the bodies of Pontianus and Hippolytus are said to have been buried in
Rome on the same day; and it is therefore natural to think that
Hippolytus' body was brought from Sardinia, as we know Pontianus' was.
The character of Hippolytus, as revealed to us in the Philosophumena,
is that of a strictly, even rigidly, moral man, of a puritanic
disposition, who believed in drawing the reins very tight, and
allowing to the members of the Christian Church no license. He was in
this directly opposed to Callistus, who was a lax disciplinarian, and
favored the readmission to the Church even of the worst offenders upon
evidence of repentance and suitable penance (see the previous Chapter,
note 3). We are reminded greatly of Tertullian and of Novatian in
studying Hippolytus' character. He was, moreover, strictly orthodox
and bitterly opposed to what he considered the patripassianism of
Zephyrinus and of Callistus. He must be admired as a thoroughly
independent, sternly moral, and rigidly orthodox man; while at the
same time it must be recognized that he was irascible, bitter, and in
some respects narrow and bigoted. He is known to have been a very
prolific writer, composing all his works in Greek. Eusebius mentions
but eight works in this Chapter, but says that many others were extant
in his day. Jerome, who in the present instance has other sources of
information than Eusebius' History, mentions some nineteen works (de
vir. ill. c. 61), including all of those named by Eusebius, except the
commentary on portions of Ezekiel and the work on the Events which
followed the Hexæmeron (but see note 4, below). In the year 1551 a
statue representing a venerable man sitting in a chair, and with an
inscription upon it enumerating the writings of the person
commemorated, was found near the church of San Lorenzo, just outside
of Rome. The statue, though it bears no name, has been shown to be
that of Hippolytus; and with the help of the list given upon it (which
contains some thirteen works), together with some extant fragments of
writings which seem to have been composed by him, the titles known to
us have been increased to about forty, the greater part of which are
entirely lost. We cannot discuss these works here. For the most
complete list of Hippolytus' writings the reader is referred to
Caspari's Taufsymbol und Glaubensregel, III. 377 sq., or to the more
accessible article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. In 1842 was
discovered the greater part of a work in ten books directed against
heresies, the first book of which had been long before published by
the Benedictines among Origen's works with the title of
Philosophumena. This discovery caused great discussion, but it has
been proved to the complete satisfaction of almost every scholar that
it is a work of Hippolytus (cf., among other discussions, Döllinger's
Hippolytus und Callistus, translated by Plummer, and the article in
the Dict. of Christ. Biog. already referred to). The work was
published at Oxford in 1851 by Miller (who, however, wrongly ascribed
it to Origen), and at Göttingen, in 1859, by Duncker and Schneidewin.
It is given also by Migne; and an English translation is found in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Amer. ed.), Vol. V., under the title the
Refutation of All Heresies.
 This chronological work on the passover, which contained a
cycle for the purpose of determining the date of the festival, is
mentioned also by Jerome, and is given in the list on the statue, on
which the cycle itself is also engraved. Jerome says that this work
was the occasion of Eusebius' work upon the same subject in which a
nineteen-year cycle was substituted for that of Hippolytus. The latter
was a sixteen-year cycle and was formed by putting together two of the
eight-year cycles of the Greek astronomers,--according to whose
calculation the full moon fell on the same day of the month once in
eight years,--in order to exhibit also the day of the week on which it
fell; for he noticed that after sixteen years the full moon moved one
day backward (if on Saturday at the beginning of the cycle, it fell on
Friday after the sixteen years were past). He therefore put together
seven sixteen-year cycles, assuming that after they had passed the
full moon would return again to the same day of the week, as well as
month. This cycle is astronomically incorrect, the fact being that
after sixteen years the full moon falls not on the same day of the
week, but three days later. Hippolytus, however, was not aware of
this, and published his cycle in perfect good faith. The work referred
to seems to have contained an explanation of the cycle, together with
a computation by means of it of the dates of the Old and New Testament
passovers. It is no longer extant, but the cycle itself, which was the
chief thing, is preserved on the statue, evidently in the form in
which it was drawn up by Hippolytus himself.
 This treatise on the Hexæmeron, or six days' work, is mentioned
also by Jerome, but is not in the list on the statue. It is no longer
extant; but according to Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, c. 7;
Migne's ed. Ep. 84), was used by Ambrose in the composition of his own
work upon the same subject, which is still preserved (cf. also Bk. V.
chap. 27, note 3, above).
 Greek, eis ta meta ten exaemeron. This work is not given in the
list on the statue. It is mentioned in some of the mss. of Jerome
under the form et post Hexæmeron; but the best mss. omit these words,
and substitute for them et in Exodum, a work which is not mentioned by
any other authority. Jerome mentions also a commentary in Genesim,
which we hear of from no other source, and which may be identical with
this work mentioned by Eusebius. If the two be identical (which is
quite possible), the nature of the work is plain enough. Otherwise we
are left wholly to conjecture. No fragments of the work have been
 This work is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list
on the statue. The last work, however, mentioned in that list bears
the title peri tagathou kai pothen to kakon, which, it has been
conjectured, may be identical with Eusebius and Jerome's Contra
Marcionem. No fragments are extant.
 Eusebius has simply to asma (The Song), which is the title
given to the book in the LXX. This commentary on the Song of Songs is
mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the statue list. Four
fragments of it are given by Lagarde, in his edition of the works of
 This commentary on portions of Ezekiel is mentioned by no one
else. A supposed fragment of it is given by Lagarde, Anal. Syr., p.
 Jerome agrees with Eusebius in mentioning a work On the
Passover, in addition to the chronological one already referred to.
The list on the statue, however, mentions but one work on the
passover, and that the one containing the paschal cycle. Fragments are
extant of Hippolytus' work On the Passover,--one from his exegesis eis
to pEURscha (see Lagarde's edition of Hippolytus p. 213), and another
from "the first book of the treatise on the holy paschal feast" (tou
peri tou hagiou pEURscha sungrEURmmatos, Lagarde, p. 92). These
fragments are of a dogmatic character, and can hardly have occurred in
the chronological work, except in a separate section or book; but the
last is taken from "the first book" of the treatise, and hence we are
safe in concluding that Eusebius and Jerome are correct in enumerating
two separate works upon the same subject,--the one chronological, the
other dogmatic, or polemical.
 This work, Against All the Heresies, is mentioned both by
Eusebius (pros hapEURsas tas haireseis) Jerome (adv. omnes hæreses),
but is not given in the list on the statue. Quite a full account of it
is given from personal knowledge by Photius (Cod. 121), who calls it a
small book (biblidEURrion) directed against thirty-two heresies,
beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus, and says that it
purported to be an abstract of lectures delivered by Irenæus. The work
is no longer extant (it must not be confounded with the
Philosophumena, or Refutatio, mentioned in note 1), but it has been in
part restored by Lipsius (in his Quellenkritik des Epiphanius) from
the anti-heretical works of Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and
Philaster. There is in existence also a fragment of considerable
length, bearing in the ms. the title Homily of Hippolytus against the
Heresy of one Noetus. It is apparently not a homily, but the
conclusion of a treatise against a number of heresies. It was
suggested by Fabricius (who first published the original Greek) that
it constituted the closing Chapter of the work against the thirty-two
heresies. The chief objection to this is that if this fragment forms
but one of thirty-two Chapters, the entire work can hardly have been
called a "little book" by Photius. Lipsius suggests that the little
book of which Photius speaks was not the complete work of Hippolytus,
but only an abbreviated summary of its contents, and this is quite
possible. At any rate it seems probable, in spite of the objections
which have been urged by some critics, that this constituted a part of
the larger work, and hence we have one Chapter of that work preserved.
The work seems to have been composed in Rome and during the episcopate
of Victor (as Lipsius holds), or, as is more probable, in the early
part of the episcopate of Zephyrinus (as is maintained by Harnack).
This conclusion is drawn from the dates of the heretics mentioned in
the work, some of whom were as late as Victor, but none of them later
than the early years of Zephyrinus. It must, too, have been composed
some years before the Philosophumena, which (in the preface) refers to
a work against heresies, written by its author a "long time before"
(pEURlai). Upon this work and its relation to the lost Syntagma of
Justin Martyr, which Lipsius supposes it to have made use of, see his
work already referred to and also his Quellen der ältesten
Ketzergeschichte together with Harnack's Quellenkritik der Gesch. des
Gnosticismus, and his article in the Zeitschrift für historische
Theologie, 1874, p. 143-226.
Chapter XXIII.--Origen's Zeal and his Elevation to the Presbyterate.
1. At that time Origen began his commentaries on the Divine
Scriptures, being urged thereto by Ambrose,  who employed
innumerable incentives, not only exhorting him by word, but also
furnishing abundant means.
2. For he dictated to more than seven amanuenses, who relieved each
other at appointed times. And he employed no fewer copyists, besides
girls who were skilled in elegant writing. For all these Ambrose
furnished the necessary expense in abundance, manifesting himself an
inexpressible earnestness in diligence and zeal for the divine
oracles, by which he especially pressed him on to the preparation of
3. While these things were in progress, Urbanus,  who had been
for eight years bishop of the Roman church, was succeeded by
Pontianus,  and Zebinus  succeeded Philetus  in
4. At this time Origen was sent to Greece on account of a pressing
necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs,  and went
through Palestine, and was ordained as presbyter in Cæsarea by the
bishops of that country. The matters that were agitated concerning him
on this account, and the decisions on these matters by those who
presided over the churches, besides the other works concerning the
divine word which he published while in his prime, demand a separate
treatise. We have written of them to some extent in the second book of
the Defense which we have composed in his behalf. 
 On Ambrose and his relation to Origen, see chap. 18, note 1.
 On Urbanus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 21, note 4.
 For the dates of the first group of Roman bishops, from Peter
to Urbanus, the best source we have is Eusebius'Church History; but
for the second group, from Pontianus to Liberius, the notices of the
History are very unreliable, while the Liberian catalogue rests upon
very trustworthy data (see Lipsius, Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 39 and
p. 142 sq.). We must therefore turn to the latter for the most
accurate information in regard to the remaining Roman bishops
mentioned by Eusebius, although an occasional mistake in the catalogue
must be corrected by our other sources, as Lipsius points out. The
notice of Eusebius at this point would throw the accession of
Pontianus into the year 231, but this is a year too late, as seen in
chap. 21, note 4. According to chap. 29, he was bishop six years, and
was succeeded by Anteros at about the same time that Gordian became
emperor; that is, in 238. But this is wide of the truth. The Liberian
catalogue, which is supported by the best of the other sources, gives
a little over five years for his episcopate, and puts his banishment
to Sardinia, with which his episcopate ended, on the 28th of
September, 235. According to the Felician catalogue, which may be
trusted at this point, he was brought to Rome and buried there during
the episcopate of Fabian, which began in 236 (see also the preceding
Chapter, note 1). We know nothing about the life and character of
 The notices of the Chronicle in connection with Zebinus are
especially unreliable. The Armen. puts his accession into the sixth
(227), Jerome into the seventh year of Alexander (228). Jerome makes
no attempt to fix the date of his death, while the Armen. puts it in
the first year of Gallus (251-252). Syncellus assigns him but six
years. In the midst of such confusion we are obliged to rely solely
upon the History. The only reliable data we have are Origen's
ordination to the priesthood, which took place in 231 (see below, p.
392) and apparently, according to this Chapter, while Zebinus was
bishop of Antioch. If Eusebius is correct in this synchronization,
Zebinus became bishop before 231, and therefore the statements of the
Chron. as to his accession may be approximately correct. As to the
time of his death, we know that his successor, Babylas, died in the
Decian persecution (see chap. 39), and hence Zebinus must have died
some years before that. In chap. 29, Eusebius puts his death in the
reign of Gordian (238-244), and this may be accepted as at least
approximately correct, for we have reason to think that Babylas was
already bishop in the time of Philip (see chap. 29, note 8). This
proves the utter incorrectness of the notice of the Armen. We know
nothing about the person and life of Zebinus. Harnack concludes from
his name that he was a Syrian by birth. Most of the mss. of Eusebius
give his name as Zebinos; one ms. and Nicephorus, as Zebenos;
Syncellus as Zebennos; Rufinus, Jerome, and the Armen. as Zebennus.
 On Philetus, see chap. 21, note 6.
 See the note on p. 395, below.
 Eusebius refers here to the Defense of Origen, composed by
himself and Pamphilus, which is unfortunately now lost (see above,
chap. 2, note 1, and the Prolegomena, p. 36 sq.).
Chapter XXIV.--The Commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria.
1. It may be well to add that in the sixth book of his exposition of
the Gospel of John  he states that he prepared the first five
while in Alexandria. Of his work on the entire Gospel only twenty-two
volumes have come down to us.
2. In the ninth of those on Genesis,  of which there are twelve
in all, he states that not only the preceding eight had been composed
at Alexandria, but also those on the first twenty-five Psalms 
and on Lamentations.  Of these last five volumes have reached
3. In them he mentions also his books On the Resurrection,  of
which there are two. He wrote also the books De Principiis 
before leaving Alexandria; and the discourses entitled Stromata,
 ten in number, he composed in the same city during the reign of
Alexander, as the notes by his own hand preceding the volumes
 Origen's commentary upon the Gospel of John was the "first
fruits of his labors at Alexandria," as he informs us in Tom. I. §4.
It must have been commenced, therefore, soon after he formed the
connection with Ambrose mentioned in the previous Chapter, and that it
was one of the fruits of this connection is proved by the way in which
Ambrose is addressed in the commentary itself (Tom. I. §3). The date
at which the work was begun cannot be determined; but if Eusebius
follows the chronological order of events, it cannot have been before
218 (see chap. 21, note 8). Eusebius speaks as if Origen had expounded
the entire Gospel (tes d' eis to pan euangelion auto de touto
pragmateias), but Jerome, in his catalogue of Origen's works given in
his epistle to Paula (in a fragmentary form in Migne's ed., Ep. 33,
complete in the Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol. 1851, p. 75 sq.), reports
that the commentary consisted of thirty-two books and some notes (cf.
his prologue to his translation of Origen's homilies on Luke, Migne's
ed., VII. 219), and Rufinus likewise (Apol. II. 22) speaks of
thirty-two books only. But in the thirty-second book, which is still
extant, Origen discusses the thirteenth Chapter of John, and does not
promise to continue the commentary, as he does at the close of some of
the other books. We may therefore conclude that Eusebius' rather
indefinite statement (which was probably not based upon personal
knowledge, for he says that he had seen only twenty-two books), is
incorrect, and that the commentary extended no further than the
thirteenth Chapter. We learn from the preface to the sixth book that
the first five were composed while the author was still in Alexandria,
the remaining books after his removal to Cæsarea, and at least part of
them after the persecution of Maximinus (235-238), to which reference
was made in the twenty-second book, according to Eusebius, chap. 28,
below. There are still extant Books I., II., VI., X., XIII., XX.,
XXVIII., XXXII., small fragments of IV. and V., and the greater part
of XIX. (printed in Lommatzsch's ed., Vols. I and II.). The production
of this commentary marked an epoch in the history of theological
thought, and it remains in many respects the most important of
Origen's exegetical works. It is full of original and suggestive
thought, and reveals Origen's genius perhaps in the clearest and best
light, though the exegesis is everywhere marred by the allegorizing
method and by neglect of the grammatical and historical sense.
 Of the commentary on Genesis, only some fragments from the
first and third books are extant, together with some extracts
(eklogai), and seventeen homilies (nearly complete) in the Latin
translation of Rufinus (see Lommatzsch's ed., Vol. VIII.). Eight of
the books, Eusebius tells us, were written in Alexandria, and they
must, of course, have been begun after the commencement of the
commentary on John. Jerome (according to Rufinus, Apol. II. 20) gave
the number of the book as thirteen (though in his catalogue mentioned
in the previous note, he speaks of fourteen), and said that the
thirteenth discussed Gen. iv. 15; and in his Contra Cels. VI. 49
Origen speaks of his work upon Genesis "from the beginning of the book
up to" V. 1. We may therefore conclude that the commentary covered
only the early Chapters of Genesis. The homilies, however, discuss
brief passages taken from various parts of the book.
 Origen's writings on the Psalms comprised a complete commentary
(cf. Jerome's Ep. ad Augustinum, §20; Migne's ed.; Ep. 112), brief
notes ("quod Enchiridion ille vocabat," see Migne's edition of
Jerome's works, Vol. VIII. 821, and compare the entire Breviarium in
Psalmos which follows, and which doubtless contains much of Origen's
work; see Smith and Wace, IV. p. 108) and homilies. Of these there are
still extant numerous fragments in Greek, and nine complete homilies
in the Latin version of Rufinus (printed by Lommatzsch in Vols.
XI.-XIII.). The catalogue of Jerome mentions forty-six books of notes
on the Psalms and 118 homilies. The commentary on the 26th and
following Psalms seem to have been written after leaving Alexandria
(to judge from Eusebius' statement here).
 There are extant some extracts (eklogai) of Origen's
expositions of the book of Lamentations, which are printed by
Lommatzsch, XIII. 167-218. They are probably from the commentary which
Eusebius tells us was written before Origen left Alexandria, and five
books of which were extant in his time. The catalogue of Jerome also
mentions five books.
 Jerome (in the catalogue and in the passage quoted by Rufinus,
Apol. II. 20) mentions two books and two dialogues on the Resurrection
(De Resurrectione libros duos. Et alios de Resurrectione dialogos
duos). Whether the dialogues formed an independent work we do not
know. We hear of them from no other source. The work was bitterly
attacked by Methodius, but there are no traces of heresy in the extant
 Of Origen's De Principiis (peri archon), which was written
before he left Alexandria, there are still extant some fragments in
Greek, together with brief portions of a translation by Jerome (in his
epistle to Avitus; Migne's ed.; Ep. 124), and a complete but greatly
altered translation by Rufinus. The latter, together with the extant
fragments, is printed by Lommatzsch, Vol. XXI.; and also separately by
Redepenning (Lips. 1836); Engl. trans. by Crombie, in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers. The work is the most important of all Origen's writings, and
from it we gather our fullest knowledge as to his opinions,
philosophical and theological; though unfortunately Rufinus'
alterations have made it doubtful in many cases what Origen's original
meaning was. The work constitutes the first attempt to form a system
of Christian doctrine. It contains a great many peculiar, often
startling errors, and was the chief source of the attacks made upon
Origen for heterodoxy; and yet the author's object was only to set
forth the doctrines accepted by the Church, and to show how they could
be systematized by the aid of Scripture or of reason. He did not
intend to bring forward doctrines inconsistent with the received faith
of the Church. The work consists of four books. To quote from
Westcott: "The composition is not strictly methodical. Digressions and
repetitions interfere with the symmetry of the plan. But to speak
generally, the first book deals with God and creation (religious
statics); the second and third books with creation and providence,
with man and redemption (religious dynamics); and the fourth book with
Holy Scripture." Intellectually the work is of a very high order,
abounding in deep and original thought as well as in grand and lofty
 In his catalogue, Jerome gives among the commentaries on the
Old Testament the simple title Stromatum, without any description of
the work. But in his Ep. ad Magnum, §4 (Migne's ed., Ep. 70), he says
that Origen wrote ten books of Stromata in imitation of Clement's
work, and in it compared the opinions of Christians and philosophers,
and confirmed the dogmas of Christianity by appeals to Plato and other
Greek philosophers (Hunc imitatus Origines, decem scripsit Stromateas,
Christianorum et philosophorum inter se sententias comparans: et omnia
nostræ religionis dogmata de Platone et Aristotele, Numenio,
Cornutoque confirmans). Only three brief fragments of a Latin
translation of the work are now extant (printed in Lommatzsch's ed.,
XVII. 69-78). These fragments are sufficient to show us that the work
was exegetical as well as doctrinal, and discussed topics of various
kinds in the light of Scripture as well as in the light of philosophy.
Chapter XXV.--His Review of the Canonical Scriptures.
1. When expounding the first Psalm,  he gives a catalogue of the
sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament  as follows:
"It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have
handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of
their letters." Farther on he says:
2. "The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which
is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the
book, Bresith,  which means, `In the beginning'; Exodus,
Welesmoth,  that is, `These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra,
`And he called`; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim,
`These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges
and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of
Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, `The called of God'; the
Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, `The
kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one,
Dabreïamein, that is, `Records of days'; Esdras,  First and
Second in one, Ezra, that is, `An assistant'; the book of Psalms,
Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth;
the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir
Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle
in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther,
Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled
Sarbeth Sabanaiel."  He gives these in the above-mentioned work.
3. In his first book on Matthew's Gospel,  maintaining the Canon
of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing
4. "Among the four Gospels,  which are the only indisputable
ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition
that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but
afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the
converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. 
5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the
instructions of Peter,  who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges
him as a son, saying, `The church that is at Babylon elected together
with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' 
6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul,  and
composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John." 
7. In the fifth book of his Expositions of John's Gospel, he speaks
thus concerning the epistles of the apostles:  "But he who was
`made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the
letter, but of the Spirit,'  that is, Paul, who `fully preached
the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,' 
did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those
to which he wrote he sent but few lines. 
8. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, `against which
the gates of hell shall not prevail,'  has left one acknowledged
epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. 
9. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus,
 John, who has left us one Gospel,  though he confessed
that he might write so many that the world could not contain them?
 And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep
silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. 
10. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a
second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they
do not contain hundred lines."
11. In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the
Epistle to the Hebrews  in his Homilies upon it: "That the
verbal style of the epistle entitled `To the Hebrews,' is not rude
like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself `rude in
speech'  that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer
Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology
12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not
inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully
examines the apostolic text  will admit.'
13. Farther on he adds: "If I gave my opinion, I should say that the
thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are
those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote
down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if
any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for
this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as
14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of
some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans,
wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel
and the Acts, wrote it." But let this suffice on these matters.
 On Origen's commentary on Psalms, see the previous Chapter,
note 3. The first fragment given here by Eusebius is found also in the
Philocalia, chap. 3, where it forms part of a somewhat longer extract.
The second fragment is extant only in this Chapter of Eusebius'
 On the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, see Bk. III. chap.
10, note 1. Upon Origen's omission of the twelve minor prophets and
the insertion of the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah, see the same
 I have reproduced Origen's Greek transliteration of this and
the following Hebrew words letter by letter. It will be seen by a
comparison of the words with the Hebrew titles of the books, as we now
have them, that Origen's pronunciation of Hebrew, even after making
all due allowance for a difference in the pronunciation of the Greek
and for changes in the Hebrew text, must have been, in many respects,
quite different from ours.
 Ouelesmoth. I represent the diphthong ou at the beginning of a
word by "w."
 The first and second books of Esdras here referred to are not
the apocryphal books known by that name, but Ezra and Nehemiah, which
in the Hebrew canon formed but one book, as Origen says here, but
which in the LXX were separated (see above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note
4). Esdras is simply the form which the word Ezra assumes in Greek.
 Whether this sentence closed Origen's discussion of the Hebrew
canon, or whether he went on to mention the other apocryphal books, we
cannot tell. The latter seems intrinsically much more probable, for it
is difficult to understand the insertion of the Maccabees in this
connection, and the omission of all the others; for the Maccabees, as
is clear from the words zxo de touton esti ta MakkabaikEUR, are not
reckoned by Origen among the twenty-two books as a part of the Hebrew
canon. At the same time, it is hardly conceivable that Eusebius should
have broken off thus, in the midst of a passage, without any
explanation; though it is, of course, not impossible that he gives
only the first sentence of the new paragraph on the books of the LXX,
in order to show that the discussion of the Hebrew canon closes, and a
new subject is introduced at this point. But, however that may be, it
must be regarded as certain that Origen did not reckon the books of
the Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon, and on the other hand,
that he did reckon those books, as well as others (if not all) of the
books given in the LXX, as inspired Scripture. This latter fact is
proved by his use of these books indiscriminately with those of the
Hebrew canon as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and also by his
express citation of at least some of them as Scripture (cf. on this
subject, Redepenning, p. 235 sq.). We must conclude, therefore, that
Origen did not adopt the Hebrew canon as his own, but that he states
it as clearly as he does in this place, in order to bring concretely
before the minds of his readers the difference between the canon of
the Jews and the canon of the Christians, who looked upon the LXX as
the more authoritative form of the Old Testament. Perhaps he had in
view the same purpose that led him to compare the Hebrew text and the
LXX in his Hexapla (see chap. 16, note 8).
 On Origen's Commentary on Matthew, see chap. 36, note 4. The
fragment given here by Eusebius is all that is extant of the first
book of the commentary.
 Compare Origen's Hom. I. in Lucam: Ecclesia quatuor habet
evangelia, hæresea plurima; and multi conati sunt scribere, sed et
multi conati sunt ordinare: quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, &c.
Compare also Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 11, 8, where the attempt is made
to show that it is impossible for the Gospels to be either more or
fewer in number than four; and the Muratorian Fragment where the four
Gospels are named, but the number four is not represented as in itself
the necessary number; also Tertullian's Adv. Marc. IV. 2, and
 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5.
 See Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
 1 Pet. v. 13.
 See Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Origen refers here to 2
Cor. viii. 18, where, however, it is clear that the reference is not
to any specific Gospel any more than in the passages referred to
above, III. 4, note 15.
 See Bk. III. chap. 24.
 This fragment from the fifth book of Origen's commentary on
John is extant only in this Chapter. The context is not preserved.
 2 Cor. iii. 6.
 Rom. xv. 19.
 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 2.
 Matt. xvi. 18.
 On the first and second Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap.
3, notes 1 and 4.
 See John xiii. 23.
 On John's Gospel, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1; on the
Apocalypse, note 20; and on the epistles, notes 18 and 19 of the same
 See John xxi. 25
 See Rev. x. 4
 Upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Origen's treatment of it,
see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The two extracts given here by Eusebius
are the only fragments of Origen's Homilies on the Epistle to the
Hebrews now extant. Four brief Latin fragments of his commentary upon
that epistle are preserved in the first book of Pamphilus' Defense of
Origen, and are printed by Lommatzsch in Vol. V. p. 297 sq. The
commentaries (or "books," as they are called) are mentioned only in
that Defense. The catalogue of Jerome speaks only of "eighteen
homilies." We know nothing about the extent or the date of composition
of these homilies and commentaries.
 2 Cor. xi. 6.
 prosechon, te anagnosei te apostolik nEURgnosis meant
originally the act of reading, then also that which is read. It thus
came to be used (like anEURgnosma) of the pericope or text or section
of the Scripture read in church, and in the plural to designate the
church lectionaries, or service books. In the present case it is used
evidently in a wider sense of the text of Paul's writings as a whole.
This use of the two words to indicate, not simply the selection read
in church, but the text of a book or books as a whole, was not at all
uncommon, as may be seen from the examples given by Suicer, although
he does not mention this wider signification among the uses of the
word. See his Thesaurus, s.v.
Chapter XXVI.--Heraclas becomes Bishop of Alexandria.
It was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen
removed from Alexandria to Cæsarea,  leaving the charge of the
catechetical school in that city to Heraclas. Not long afterward
Demetrius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, died, having held the
office for forty-three full years,  and Heraclas succeeded him.
At this time Firmilianus,  bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, was
 The tenth year of Alexander Severus, 231 a.d. On Origen's
departure from Alexandria at this time, see below, p. 396. On
Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
 On the episcopacy of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
Forty-three years, beginning with 189 a.d., bring us down to 232 as
the date of his death, and this agrees excellently with the statements
of this Chapter.
 Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea, the capital of Cappadocia (to be
distinguished from Cæsarea in Palestine), was one of the most famous
prelates of his day in the Eastern Church. He was a friend of Origen,
as we learn from the next Chapter, and took part in a council called
on account of the schism of Novatian (see chap. 46), and also in
councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII.
chaps. 28 and 30). He was one of the bishops whom Stephen
excommunicated because they rebaptized heretics (see Bk. VII. chap. 2,
note 3, and chap. 5, note 4), and he wrote an epistle upon this
subject to Cyprian, which is extant in a Latin translation made by
Cyprian himself (Ep. 74, al. 75, in the collection of Cyprian's
epistles. See Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. 751, note). Basil (de Spiritu
Sancto, 29) refers to works (logoi) left by Firmilian, but none of
them are extant except the single epistle mentioned, nor do we hear
from any other source that he was a writer. Jerome does not mention
him in his De vir. ill. The exact date of his accession is unknown to
us, as it very likely was to Eusebius also. He was a bishop already in
the tenth year of Alexander (231 a.d.), or very soon afterward, and
from Bk. VII. chap. 30, we learn that he died at Tarsus on his way to
Antioch to attend a council which had been summoned to deal with Paul
of Samosata. This synod was held about 265 a.d. (not in 272 as is
commonly supposed; see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1), and it is at this
time, therefore, that we must put the death of Firmilian; so that he
was bishop of Cæsarea at least some thirty-four years.
Chapter XXVII.--How the Bishops regarded Origen.
He was so earnestly affected toward Origen, that he urged him to come
to that country for the benefit of the churches, and moreover he
visited him in Judea, remaining with him for some time, for the sake
of improvement in divine things. And Alexander,  bishop of
Jerusalem, and Theoctistus,  bishop of Cæsarea, attended on him
constantly,  as their only teacher, and allowed  him to
expound the Divine Scriptures, and to perform the other duties
pertaining to ecclesiastical discourse. 
 On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
 On Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, see chap. 19,
 A number of mss., followed by Heinichen and some others, insert
at this point hos zpos eipein ("so to speak").
 The presbyter derived his authority to preach and teach only
from the bishop, and hence these bishops extended to Origen, whom they
had ordained a presbyter, full liberty to preach and teach within
 ta loipa tou ekklesiastikou logou.
Chapter XXVIII.--The Persecution under Maximinus.
The Roman emperor, Alexander, having finished his reign in thirteen
years, was succeeded by Maximinus Cæsar.  On account of his
hatred toward the household of Alexander,  which contained many
believers, he began a persecution, commanding that only the rulers of
the churches should be put to death, as responsible for the Gospel
teaching. Thereupon Origen composed his work On Martyrdom,  and
dedicated it to Ambrose and Protoctetus,  a presbyter of the
parish of Cæsarea, because in the persecution there had come upon them
both unusual hardships, in which it is reported that they were eminent
in confession during the reign of Maximinus, which lasted but three
years. Origen has noted this as the time of the persecution in the
twenty-second book of his Commentaries on John, and in several
 Alexander Severus was murdered early in the year 235, and was
succeeded at once by his commanding general, the Thracian Maximinus,
or Caius Julius Verus Maximinus, as he called himself.
 The reference here is not to the immediate family of Alexander,
but to the court as a whole, his family in the widest sense including
court officials, servants, &c. The favor which Alexander had shown to
the Christians (see chap. 21, note 8) is clearly seen in the fact that
there were so many Christians at court, as Eusebius informs us here.
This persecution was at first directed, Eusebius tells us, solely
against the heads of the churches (tous ton ekklesion archontas), i.e.
the bishops; and we might imagine only those bishops who had stood
nearest Alexander and had been most favored by him to be meant
(Pontianus and Hippolytus of Rome were exiled, for instance, at the
very beginning of Maximinus' reign, in the year 235; see chap. 22,
note 1); for Maximinus' hostility to the Christians seems to have been
caused, not by religious motives, but by mere hatred of his
predecessor, and of every cause to which he had shown favor. But the
persecution was not confined to such persons, as we learn from this
Chapter, which tells us of the sufferings of Ambrose and Protoctetus,
neither of whom was a bishop. It seems probable that most of the
persecuting was not the result of positive efforts on the part of
Maximinus, but rather of the superstitious hatred of the common
people, whose fears had been recently aroused by earthquakes and who
always attributed such calamities to the existence of the Christians.
Of course under Maximinus they had free rein, and could persecute
whenever they or the provincial authorities felt inclined (cf.
Firmilian's epistle to Cyprian, and Origen's Exhort. ad Mart.).
Eusebius tells us nothing of Origen's whereabouts at this time; but in
Palladius' Hist. Laus. 147, it is said that Origen was given refuge by
Juliana in Cæsarea in Cappadocia during some persecution, undoubtedly
this one, if the report is true (see chap. 17, note 4).
 This work on martyrdom (eis marturion protreptikos logos,
Exhortatio ad Martyrium) is still extant, and is printed by Lommatzsch
in Vol. XX., p. 231-316. It is a most beautiful and inspiring
 On Ambrose, see chap. 18, note 1. Protoctetus, a presbyter of
the church of Cæsarea (apparently Palestinian Cæsarea), is known to us
only from this passage.
 On Origen's Commentary on John's Gospel, see chap. 24, note 1.
No fragments of the twenty-second book are extant, nor any of the
epistles in which reference is made to this persecution.
Chapter XXIX.--Fabianus, who was wonderfully designated Bishop of Rome
1. Gordianus succeeded Maximinus as Roman emperor;  and
Pontianus,  who had been bishop of the church at Rome for six
years, was succeeded by Anteros.  After he had held the office
for a month, Fabianus  succeeded him.
2. They say  that Fabianus having come, after the death of
Anteros, with others from the country, was staying at Rome, and that
while there he was chosen to the office through a most wonderful
manifestation of divine and heavenly grace.
3. For when all the brethren had assembled to select by vote him who
should succeed to the episcopate of the church, several renowned and
honorable men were in the minds of many, but Fabianus, although
present, was in the mind of none. But they relate that suddenly a dove
flying down lighted on his head, resembling the descent of the Holy
Spirit on the Saviour in the form of a dove.
4. Thereupon all the people, as if moved by one Divine Spirit, with
all eagerness and unanimity cried out that he was worthy, and without
delay they took him and placed him upon the episcopal seat. 
5. About that time Zebinus,  bishop of Antioch died, and Babylas
 succeeded him. And in Alexandria Heraclas,  having
received the episcopal office after Demetrius,  was succeeded in
the charge of the catechetical school by Dionysius,  who had
also been one of Origen's pupils.
 Gordianus the younger, grandson of Gordianus I., and nephew (or
son?) of Gordianus II., became emperor after the murder of Balbinus
and Pupienus, in July, 238, at the age of fifteen years, and reigned
until early in the year 244, when he was murdered by the soldiers and
succeeded by Philip. He is made by Eusebius (both here and in the
Chron.) the direct successor of Maximinus, simply because only two or
three months elapsed between the death of the latter and his own
 On Pontianus, see chap. 23, note 3.
 Both here and in the Chron. the accession of Anteros is
synchronized with the accession of Gordianus, but as seen in chap. 23,
note 3, Pontianus was succeeded by Anteros in the first year of
Maximinus, i.e. in 235,--three years earlier, therefore, than the date
given by Eusebius. All the authorities agree in assigning only one
month and a few days to the episcopate of Anteros, and this is to be
accepted as correct. Of the life and character of Anteros we know
 Greek Phabianos, though some mss. read Phlabianos. The Armenian
and Hieronymian Chron. call him Fabianus; the Liberian catalogue,
Fabius; Eutychius and the Alex. cat., Flabianus. According to chap.
39, he suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Decius (250-251). Both
versions of the Chron. assign thirteen years to his episcopate, and
this agrees fairly well with the notices here and in chap. 39
(accession in 238 and death in 250 or 251). But, as already seen,
Eusebius is quite wrong in the dates which he gives for the accession
of these three bishops, and the statements of the Liberian catalogue
are to be accepted, which put Fabian's accession in January, 236, and
his death in January, 250, after an episcopate of fourteen years and
ten days. The martyrdom of Fabian rests upon good authority (cf. chap.
39, and Jerome's de vir. ill. chap. 54, and especially Cyprian's
Epistles, 3, al. 9, and 30). From these epistles we learn that he was
a man of ability and virtue. He stands out more clearly in the light
of history than most of the early Roman bishops, but tradition has
handed down a great many unfounded stories in regard to him (see the
article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
 phasi. Eusebius is our only authority for the following story.
Rufinus (VI. 21) tells a similar tale in connection with Zephyrinus.
 ton thronon tes episkopes
 On Zebinus, see chap. 23, note 4.
 Babylas occupies an illustrious place in the list of ancient
martyrs (cf. Tillemont, Mem. III. 400-409). Chrysostom devoted a
festal oration to his memory (In sanctum Babylam contra Julianum et
contra Gentiles); while Jerome, Epiphanius, Sozomen, Theodoret, and
others make honorable mention of him. There are extant the Acta Babylæ
(spurious), which, however, confound him with a martyr who suffered
under Numerian. The legends in regard to Babylas and to the miracles
performed by his bones are very numerous (see Tillemont, l.c.). He is
identified by Chrysostom and others with the bishop mentioned by
Eusebius in chap. 34, and there is no good reason to doubt the
identification (see Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 48). The fact of
his martyrdom under Decius (see chap. 39) is too well attested to
admit of doubt; though upon the manner of it, not all the traditions
are agreed, Eusebius reporting that he died in prison, Chrysostom that
he died by violence. The account of Eusebius seems the most reliable.
The date of his accession is unknown, but there is no reason to doubt
that it took place during the reign of Gordian (238-244), as Eusebius
here seems to imply; though it is true that he connects it closely
with the death of Demetrius, which certainly took place not later than
232 (see above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4). There is no warrant for
carrying the accession of Babylas back so far as that.
 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
 On the episcopate of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
 On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
Chapter XXX.--The Pupils of Origen.
While Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Cæsarea, many
pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other
countries. Among these Theodorus, the same that was distinguished
among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory,  and his
brother Athenodorus,  we know to have been especially
celebrated. Finding them deeply interested in Greek and Roman
learning, he infused into them a love of philosophy, and led them to
exchange their old zeal for the study of divinity. Remaining with him
five years, they made such progress in divine things, that although
they were still young, both of them were honored with a bishopric in
the churches of Pontus.
 Our sources for a knowledge of the life of Gregory, who is
known as Gregory Thaumaturgus ("wonder-worker"), are numerous, but not
all of them reliable. He is mentioned by Eusebius here and in Bk. VII.
chaps. 14 and 28, and a brief account of his life and writings is
given by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 65), who adds some particulars not
mentioned by Eusebius. There is also extant Gregory's Panegyrical
Oration in praise of Origen, which contains an outline of the earlier
years of his life. Gregory of Nyssa about a century later wrote a life
of Gregory Thaumaturgus, which is still extant, but which is full of
marvelous stories, and contains little that is trustworthy. Gregory's
fame was very great among his contemporaries and succeeding
generations, and many of the Fathers have left brief accounts of him,
or references to him which it is not necessary to mention here. He was
a native of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus (according to Gregory Nyssa), the
same city of which he was afterward bishop, was of wealthy parentage,
and began the study of law when quite young (see his own Orat. Paneg.
chap. 5). Coming to Cæsarea, in Palestine, on his way to Berytus,
where he and his brother Athenodorus were to attend a school of law,
he met Origen, and was so attracted by him that he and his brother
remained in Cæsarea five years (according to Eusebius and Jerome) and
studied logic, physics, mathematics, ethics, Greek philosophy, and
theology with him (see his Orat). At the end of this time the brothers
returned to Pontus, and afterwards were made bishops, Gregory of
Neo-Cæsarea, his native place; Athenodorus of some unknown city
(Eusebius here and in VII. 14 and 28 says only that they were both
bishops of churches in Pontus). Of the remarkable events connected
with the ordination of Gregory, which are told by Gregory of Nyssa, it
is not necessary to speak here. He was a prominent scholar and writer,
and a man universally beloved and respected for his deep piety and his
commanding ability, but his fame rested chiefly upon the reports of
his miracle-working, which were widespread. The prodigies told of him
are numerous and marvelous. Eusebius is silent about this side of his
career (whether because of ignorance or incredulity we cannot tell,
but the latter seems most probable), but Jerome refers to his fame as
a miracle-worker, Gregory of Nyssa's Vita, is full of it, and Basil
and other later writers dwell upon it. What the foundation for all
these traditions was we do not know. He was a famous missionary, and
seems to have been remarkably successful in converting the pagans of
his diocese, which was almost wholly heathen when he became bishop.
This great missionary success may have given rise to the tales of
supernatural power, some cause above the ordinary being assumed by the
common people as necessary to account for such results. Miracles and
other supernatural phenomena were quite commonly assumed in those days
as causes of conversions--especially if the conversions themselves
were in any way remarkable (cf. e.g. the close of the anonymous
Dialogue with Herbanus, a Jew). Not only the miracles, but also many
other events reported in Gregory of Nyssa's Vita, must be regarded as
unfounded; e.g. the account of a long period of study in Alexandria of
which our more reliable sources contain no trace. The veneration in
which Gregory held Origen is clear enough from his panegyric, and the
great regard which Origen cherished for Gregory is revealed in his
epistle to the latter, written soon after Gregory's arrival in
Neo-Cæsarea, and still preserved in the Philocalia, chap. 13. The
works of Gregory known to us are his Panegyrical Oration in praise of
Origen, delivered in the presence of the latter and of a great
multitude before Gregory's departure from Cæsarea, and still extant; a
paraphrase of the book of Ecclesiastes, mentioned by Jerome (l.c.),
and likewise extant; several epistles referred to by Jerome (l.c.),
only one of which, his so-called Canonical Epistle, addressed to an
anonymous bishop of Pontus, is still preserved; and finally a
trinitarian creed, or confession of faith, which is given by Gregory
of Nyssa in his Vita, and whose genuineness has been warmly disputed
(e.g. by Lardner, Works, II. p. 634 sq.); but since Caspari's defense
of it in his Gesch. d. Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, its
authenticity may be regarded as established. These four writings,
together with some works falsely ascribed to Gregory, are translated
in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., Vol. VI. p. 1-80. Original Greek
in Migne's Patr. Gr. X. 983-1343. See also Ryssel's Gregorius
Thaumaturgus. Sein Leben und seine Schriften; Leipzig, 1880. Ryssel
gives (p. 65-79) a German translation of two hitherto unknown Syriac
writings of Gregory, one on the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit,
and the other on the passibility and impassibility of God. Gregory's
dates cannot be fixed with exactness; but as he cannot have seen
Origen in Cæsarea until after 231, and was very young when he met him
there, he must have been born as late as the second decade of the
third century. As he was with Origen at least five years, he can
hardly have taken his farewell of him until after the persecution of
Maximinus (i.e. after 238), for we cannot suppose that he pronounced
his panegyrical oration during that persecution. He speaks in the
first Chapter of that oration of not having delivered an oration for
eight years, and this is commonly supposed to imply that it was eight
years since he had begun to study with Origen, in which case the
oration must be put as late as 239, and it must be assumed, if
Eusebius' five years are accepted as accurate, that he was absent for
some three years during that period (perhaps while the persecution was
going on). But the eight years cannot be pressed in this connection,
for it is quite possible that they may have been reckoned from an
earlier time, perhaps from the time when he began the study of law,
which was before he met Origin (see Panegyr. chaps. 1 and 5). If we
were to suppose the order followed by Eusebius strictly chronological,
we should have to put Gregory's acquaintance with Origen into the
reign of Gordian (238-244). The truth is, the matter cannot be
decided. He is said by Gregory of Nyssa to have retired into
concealment during the persecution of Decius, and to have returned to
his charge again after its close. He was present with his brother
Athenodorus at one of the councils called to consider the case of Paul
of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chap. 28), but was not present at the final
one at which Paul was condemned (see ibid. chaps. 29 and 30, and note
2 on the latter Chapter). This one was held about 265 (see ibid. chap.
29, note 1), and hence it is likely that Gregory was dead before that
 Athenodorus is known to us only as the brother of Gregory and
bishop of some church or churches in Pontus (see Bk. VII. chaps. 14
1. At this time also Africanus,  the writer of the books
entitled Cesti, was well known. There is extant an epistle of his to
Origen, expressing doubts  of the story of Susannah in Daniel,
as being spurious and fictitious. Origen answered this very fully.
2. Other works of the same Africanus which have reached us are his
five books on Chronology, a work accurately and laboriously prepared.
He says in this that he went to Alexandria on account of the great
fame of Heraclas,  who excelled especially in philosophic
studies and other Greek learning, and whose appointment to the
bishopric of the church there we have already mentioned.
3. There is extant also another epistle from the same Africanus to
Aristides on the supposed discrepancy between Matthew and Luke in the
Genealogies of Christ. In this he shows clearly the agreement of the
evangelists, from an account which had come down to him, which we have
already given in its proper place in the first book of this work.
 Julius Africanus (as he is called by Jerome) was one of the
most learned men of the Ante-Nicene age. Not much is known of his
life, though he seems to have resided, at least for a time, in Emmaus,
a town of Palestine, something over twenty miles from Jerusalem (not
the Emmaus of Luke xxiv. 13, which was but seven or eight miles from
the city), for we hear in the Chron., and in Jerome's de vir. ill. c.
63, of his going on an embassy to the Emperor Heliogabalus, and
securing the rebuilding of the ruined city Emmaus under the name of
Nicopolis, which it henceforth bore. He does not appear to have been a
clergyman, or at any rate not a bishop; for he is spoken of as such by
no early authority, and he is addressed by Origen in an extant
epistle, which must have been written toward the close of his life,
simply as "brother." His dates cannot be fixed with any exactness. He
must have been already a prominent man when he went on an embassy to
the emperor (between 218 and 222). He must have been considerably
older than Origen, for in his epistle to him he calls him "son," and
that although Origen was at the time beyond middle life himself.
Unless Eusebius is mistaken, he was still alive and active in the time
of Gordian (238-244). But if he was enough older than Origen to
address him as "son," he can hardly have lived much beyond that reign.
He seems to have been a Christian philosopher and scholar rather than
an ecclesiastic, and took no such part in the church affairs of the
time as to leave mention of his name in the accounts of the synods of
his day. He was quite a traveler, as we learn from his own writings,
and had the well-deserved reputation of being one of the greatest
scholars of the age. Eusebius mentions four works left by him, the
Cesti, the Chronicon, and the epistles to Origen and to Aristides.
Jerome (l.c.) mentions only the last three, but Photius (Cod. 34)
refers to all four. The Cesti (kestoi "embroidered girdles") seems to
have derived its name from the miscellaneous character of its
contents, which included notes on geography, the art of war, medicine,
agriculture, &c. It is said by Syncellus to have been composed of nine
books: Photius mentions fourteen, Suidas twenty-four. It is no longer
extant, but numerous scattered fragments have been preserved. Its
authenticity has been doubted, chiefly because of its purely secular
character, and the nature of some of the notes, which do not seem
worthy of the clear-headed and at the same time Christian scholar. But
the external evidence, which is not unsupported by the internal, is
too strong to be set aside, and we must conclude that the work is
genuine. The extant fragments of it are given in various works on
mathematics, agriculture, etc. (see Richardson's Bibliographical
Synopsis, p. 68). The epistle of Africanus to Origen is the only one
of his writings preserved in a complete form. It seems that Origen, in
a discussion with a certain Bassus (see Origen's epistle to Africanus,
§2), at which Africanus was present, had quoted from that part of the
Book of Daniel which contains the apocryphal story of Susannah.
Africanus afterward wrote a brief epistle to Origen, in which he
contended that the story is not authentic, urging among other
arguments differences in style between it and the rest of the book,
and the fact that the story is not found in Hebrew, and that certain
phrases show that it was composed originally in Greek. Origen replied
at considerable length, maintaining the authenticity of the passage,
and thereby showing himself inferior to Africanus in critical
judgment. Origen's reply was written from Nicomedia (see §1), where he
was staying with Ambrose (see §15). It seems probable that this visit
to Nicomedia was made on his way to or from his second visit to Athens
(see next Chapter, note 4). Africanus' greatest work, and the one
which brought him most fame, was his Chronicon, in five books. The
work is no longer extant, but considerable fragments of it have been
preserved (e.g. in Eusebius' Præp. Evang. X. 10, and Dem. Evang.
VIII., and especially in the Chronographia of Syncellus), and the
Chronicon of Eusebius which is really based upon it, so that we are
enabled to gain a very fair idea of its original form. As described by
Photius, it was concise, but omitted nothing worthy of mention,
beginning with the creation and coming down to the reign of Macrinus.
It actually extended to the fourth year of Heliogabalus (221), as we
see from a quotation made by Syncellus. The work seems to have been
caused by the common desire of the Christians (exhibited by Tatian,
Clement of Alexander, and others) to prove in their defense of
Christianity the antiquity of the Jewish religion, and thus take away
the accusation of novelty brought against Christianity by its
opponents. Africanus apparently aimed to produce a universal chronicle
and history which should exhibit the synchronism of events in the
history of the leading nations of the world, and thus furnish solid
ground for Christian apologists to build upon. It was the first
attempt of the kind, and became the foundation of Christian chronicles
for many centuries. The time at which it was written is determined
with sufficient accuracy by the date at which the chronological table
closes. Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) remarks that it must
have been completed early in the year 221, for it did not contain the
names of the victors in the Olympic games of the 250th Olympiad, which
took place in that year (as we learn from the list of victors copied
by Eusebius from Africanus). It is said by Eusebius, just below, that
Africanus reports in this work that he had visited Alexandria on
account of the great celebrity of Heraclas. This is very surprising,
for we should hardly have expected Heraclas' fame to have attracted
such a man to Alexandria until after Origen had left, and he had
himself become the head of the school. On the fourth writing mentioned
by Eusebius, the epistle to Aristides, see above, Bk. I. chap. 7, note
2. The fragments of Africanus' works, with the exception of the Cesti,
have been printed, with copious and valuable notes, by Routh, Rel.
Sac. II. 221-509; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am.
ed. VI. 125-140.
 aporountos. A very mild way of putting his complete rejection
of the story!
 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
 In Bk. I. chap. 7.
Chapter XXXII.--The Commentaries which Origen composed in Cæsarea in
1. About this time Origen prepared his Commentaries on Isaiah 
and on Ezekiel.  Of the former there have come down to us thirty
books, as far as the third part of Isaiah, to the vision of the beasts
in the desert;  on Ezekiel twenty-five books, which are all that
he wrote on the whole prophet.
2. Being at that time in Athens,  he finished his work on
Ezekiel and commenced his Commentaries on the Song of Songs, 
which he carried forward to the fifth book. After his return to
Cæsarea, he completed these also, ten books in number.
3. But why should we give in this history an accurate catalogue of the
man's works, which would require a separate treatise?  we have
furnished this also in our narrative of the life of Pamphilus, 
a holy martyr of our own time. After showing how great the diligence
of Pamphilus was in divine things, we give in that a catalogue of the
library which he collected of the works of Origen and of other
ecclesiastical writers. Whoever desires may learn readily from this
which of Origen's works have reached us. But we must proceed now with
 "About this time" refers us still to the reign of Gordian
(238-244). Eusebius mentions only the commentaries on Isaiah, but
Jerome refers also to homilies and notes. The thirty books which were
extant in Eusebius' time extended to XXX. 6, as we are informed here.
Whether the commentary originally went beyond this point we do not
know. There are extant only two brief Latin fragments from the first
and eighth books of the commentary, and nine homilies (the last
incomplete) in a Latin version by Jerome; printed by Lommatzsch, XIII.
 Eusebius records that Origen wrote only twenty-five books of a
commentary on Ezekiel. The form of expression would seem to imply that
these did not cover the whole of Ezekiel, but a fragment of the
twentieth book, extant in the eleventh Chapter of the Philocalia,
deals with the thirty-fourth Chapter of the prophecy, so that the
twenty-five books must have covered at any rate most of the ground.
The catalogue of Jerome mentions twenty-nine books and twelve
homilies, but the former number must be a mistake, for Eusebius'
explicit statement that Origen wrote but twenty-five books can hardly
be doubted. There are extant only the Greek fragment of the twentieth
book referred to above, fourteen homilies in the Latin version of
Jerome, and a few extracts; all printed by Lommatzsch, XIV. 1-232.
 i.e. to Isa. xxx. 6, where the LXX reads he orasis ton
tetrapodon ton en te eremo, which are the exact words used by
Eusebius. Our English versions, both the authorized and revised, read,
"The burden of the beasts of the South." The Hebrew will bear either
 The cause of this second visit to Athens we do not know, nor
the date of it; although if Eusebius is to be relied upon, it took
place during the reign of Gordian (238-244). He must have remained
some time in Athens and have had leisure for study, for he finished
his commentary on Ezekiel and wrote five books of his commentary on
Canticles. This visit to Athens is to be distinguished from the one
referred to in chap. 23, because it is probable that Origen found the
Nicopolis copy of the Old Testament (mentioned in chap. 16) on the
occasion of a visit to Achaia, and this visit is apparently too late,
for he seems to have finished his Hexapla before this time; and still
further, the epistle in which he refers to spurious accounts of his
disputation at Athens (see Jerome's Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 18) complains
also of Demetrius and of his own excommunication, which, as
Redepenning remarks, points to a date soon after that excommunication
took place, and not a number of years later, when Demetrius had been
 From the seventh Chapter of the Philocalia we learn that
Origen, in his youth, wrote a small book (mikros tomos) upon
Canticles, of which a single brief fragment is preserved in that
Chapter. The catalogue of Jerome mentions ten books, two books written
early, and two homilies. Eusebius mentions only the commentary, of
which, he says, five books were written in Athens, and five more in
Cæsarea. The prologue and four books are extant in a Latin translation
by Rufinus, and two homilies in a translation by Jerome; besides
these, some Greek extracts made by Procopius,--all printed by
Lommatzsch, XIV. 233; XV. 108.
 idias deomenon scholes.
 On Pamphilus, see Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40. On Eusebius' Life
of Pamphilus, see the Prolegomena, p. 28, above.
Chapter XXXIII.--The Error of Beryllus.
1. Beryllus,  whom we mentioned recently as bishop of Bostra in
Arabia, turned aside from the ecclesiastical standard  and
attempted to introduce ideas foreign to the faith. He dared to assert
that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of
being of his own  before his abode among men, and that he does
not possess a divinity of his own,  but only that of the Father
dwelling in him.
2. Many bishops carried on investigations and discussions with him on
this matter, and Origen having been invited with the others, went down
at first for a conference with him to ascertain his real opinion. But
when he understood his views, and perceived that they were erroneous,
having persuaded him by argument, and convinced him by demonstration,
he brought him back to the true doctrine, and restored him to his
former sound opinion.
3. There are still extant writings of Beryllus and of the synod held
on his account, which contain the questions put to him by Origen, and
the discussions which were carried on in his parish, as well as all
the things done at that time.
4. The elder brethren among us  have handed down many other
facts respecting Origen which I think proper to omit, as not
pertaining to this work. But whatever it has seemed necessary to
record about him can be found in the Apology in his behalf written by
us and Pamphilus, the holy martyr of our day. We prepared this
carefully and did the work jointly on account of faultfinders. 
 Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia (mentioned above, in chap.
20) is chiefly noted on account of the heresy into which he fell, and
from which Origen won him back, by convincing him of his error.
According to chap. 20, he was a learned and cultured man, and Jerome
(de vir. ill. c. 60) says of him, gloriose rexisset ecclesiam. We do
not know his dates, but we may gather from this Chapter that the synod
which was called on his account convened during the reign of Gordian
(238-244), and apparently toward the close of the reign. Our sources
for a knowledge of the heresy of Beryllus are very meager. We have
only the brief passage in this Chapter; a fragment of Origen's
commentary on Titus (Lommatzsch, V. 287), which undoubtedly refers to
Beryllus' error, though he is not mentioned by name; and finally, a
single sentence in Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 60 (Christum ante
incarnationem regat), which, however, is apparently no more than his
own interpretation of Eusebius' words. Our sources have been
interpreted very differently, some holding Beryllus to have been a
Patripassian, others classing him with the Artemonites (see above, Bk.
V. chap. 28). He was, at any rate, a Monarchion, and his position, not
to enter here into details, seems to have been that our Lord did not
pre-exist as an independent being; but that, with the incarnation, he,
who had previously been identified with the patrike theotes, became a
distinct being, possessed of an independent existence (see Dorner's
Person of Christ, Div. I. Vol. II. p. 35 sq., Edinburgh edition).
According to this Chapter and chap. 20, Beryllus was the author of
numerous treatises and epistles, which were extant in Eusebius' time.
According to Jerome (l.c.), he wrote, varia opuscula et maxime
epistolas, in quibus Origeni gratias agit. Jerome reports, also, that
there were extant in his time epistles of Origen, addressed to
Beryllus, and a dialogue between Origen and Beryllus. All traces of
these epistles and other works have perished.
 ton ekklesiastikon kanona: i.e. the rule of faith.
 me prouphestEURnai kat' idian ousias perigraphen
 theoteta idian.
 ton kath' hemas oi presbuteroi. It seems necessary here to take
the word presbuteros in an unofficial sense, which is, to say the
least, exceptional at this late date.
 On this Defense of Origen, written jointly by Pamphilus and
Eusebius, see above, p. 36.
Chapter XXXIV.--Philip Cæsar.
Gordianus had been Roman emperor for six years when Philip, with his
son Philip, succeeded him.  It is reported that he, being a
Christian, desired, on the day of the last paschal vigil, to share
with the multitude in the prayers of the Church,  but that he
was not permitted to enter, by him who then presided,  until he
had made confession and had numbered himself among those who were
reckoned as transgressors and who occupied the place of penance.
 For if he had not done this, he would never have been received
by him, on account of the many crimes which he had committed. It is
said that he obeyed readily, manifesting in his conduct a genuine and
pious fear of God.
 The younger Gordian reigned from the summer of 238 until early
in the year 244, when he was murdered by the soldiers, and succeeded
by his prætorian prefect, Philip of Arabia, who took the name Marcus
Julius Philippus, and reigned until 249, when he was conquered and
succeeded by Decius. His son Philip, who was seven years old at the
time of his father's accession, was immediately proclaimed Cæsar and
afterward given the title of Augustus. He bore the name Marcus Julius
Philippus Severus, and was slain at the time of his father's death.
 There has been much dispute as to Philip's relation to
Christianity. Eusebius is the first one known to us to represent him
as a Christian, and he gives the report only upon the authority of
oral tradition (touton katechei logos christianon onta). Jerome (de
vir. ill. 54) states explicitly that Philip was the first Christian
emperor (qui primus de regibus Romanis christianus fuit), and this
became common tradition in the Church. At the same time it must be
noticed that Eusebius does not himself state that Philip was a
Christian,--he simply records a tradition to that effect; and in his
Vita Const. I. 3 he calls Constantine the first Christian emperor.
Little reliance can be placed upon Jerome's explicit statement, for he
seems only to be repeating as certain what Eusebius reported as
possible. The only things known to us which can or could have been
urged in support of the alleged fact that Philip was a Christian are
his act recorded in this Chapter and the letter written to him by
Origen, as recorded in chap. 36. Moreover, it happens to be the fact
that no heathen writer hints that he was a Christian, and we know that
he celebrated games in Rome with pagan rites and great pomp. It seems,
on the whole, probable that Philip showed himself favorable to
Christianity, and perhaps superstitiously desired to gain the favor of
the Christians' God, and hence went through some such process as
Eusebius describes in this Chapter, looking upon it merely as a sort
of sacrifice to be offered to this God as he would offer other
sacrifices to other gods. It is quite conceivable that he may have
done this much, and this would be quite enough to start the report,
after his death, that he had been a Christian secretly, if not openly;
and from this to the tradition that he was unconditionally the first
Christian emperor is but a step. Some ground for the common tradition
must be assumed, but our sources do not warrant us in believing more
than has been thus suggested as possible. For a full discussion of the
question, see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 494 sq.
 Chrysostom (De St. Bab. c. Gentes. Tom. I.) and Leontius of
Antioch (quoted in the Chron. pasch.) identify the bishop referred to
here with Babylas, bishop of Antioch (see above, chap. 29, note 8).
Eusebius' silence as to the name of the bishop looks as if he were
ignorant on the matter, but there is nothing inherently improbable in
the identification, which may therefore be looked upon as very likely
 That is, the place assigned to penitents: metanoias choran.
Christians who had committed flagrant transgressions were excluded
from communion and required to go through a course of penance, more or
less severe according to their offense, before they could be received
again into the Church. In some cases they were excluded entirely from
the services for a certain length of time; in other cases they were
allowed to attend a part of the services, but in no case could they
partake of the communion. In the fourth century a regular system of
discipline grew up, and the penitents (poenitentes) were divided into
various classes,--mourners, hearers, and kneelers; the first of whom
were excluded entirely from the church, while the last two were
admitted during a part of the service. The statement in the present
case is of the most general character. Whether the place which he was
obliged to take was without or within the church is not indicated.
Upon the whole subject of ancient church discipline, see Bingham's
Antiquities, Bk. XVI., and the article Penitence in Smith's Dict. of
Chapter XXXV.--Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the Episcopate.
In the third year of this emperor, Heraclas  died, having held
his office for sixteen years, and Dionysius  received the
episcopate of the churches of Alexandria.
 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2. The third year of Philip's
reign extended from the summer of 246 to the summer of 247, so that if
Heraclas became bishop in 232, he cannot have held office fully
sixteen years. The agreement, however, is so close as to occasion no
 On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
Chapter XXXVI.--Other Works of Origen.
1. At this time, as the faith extended and our doctrine was proclaimed
boldly before all,  Origen, being, as they say, over sixty years
old,  and having gained great facility by his long practice,
very properly permitted his public discourses to be taken down by
stenographers, a thing which he had never before allowed.
2. He also at this time composed a work of eight books in answer to
that entitled True Discourse, which had been written against us by
Celsus  the Epicurean, and the twenty-five books on the Gospel
of Matthew,  besides those on the Twelve Prophets, of which we
have found only twenty-five. 
3. There is extant also an epistle  of his to the Emperor
Philip, and another to Severa his wife, with several others to
different persons. We have arranged in distinct books to the number of
one hundred, so that they might be no longer scattered, as many of
these as we have been able to collect,  which have been
preserved here and there by different persons.
4. He wrote also to Fabianus,  bishop of Rome, and to many other
rulers of the churches concerning his orthodoxy. You have examples of
these in the eighth book of the Apology  which we have written
in his behalf.
 tou kath' hemas para pasi logou
 Since Origen was born in the year 185 or 186, this must have
been as late as 245. Most if not all of the homilies of Origen, which
are now preserved, were probably delivered after this time, and
reported, as Eusebius says, by stenographers. The increasing boldness
of the Christians referred to here was apparently due to their
uncommonly comfortable condition under Philip.
 Of the personal history of Celsus, the first great literary
opponent of Christianity, we know nothing with certainty, nor did
Origen know any more. He had heard that there were two persons of the
same name, the one living in the time of Nero, the other, whom he
identifies with his opponent, in the time of Hadrian and later, and
both of them Epicurean philosophers (see contra Cels. I. 8). The work
of Celsus, however, was clearly the work, not of an Epicurean, but of
a Platonist, or at least of an eclectic philosopher, with a strong
leaning toward Platonism. The author wrote about the middle of the
second century, probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Keim fixes
the date of the work at 178 a.d.). The True Discourse (alethes logos)
is no longer extant, but it can be reconstructed in great part from
Origen's reply to it. It is seen to have been one of the ablest and
most philosophical attacks of ancient times, and to have anticipated a
great many arguments urged against Christianity by modern unbelievers.
Celsus was well acquainted with Christianity in its various forms and
with its literature, and he set himself to work with all his learning
and skill to compose a complete refutation of the whole thing. He
writes apparently less from a religious than from a political motive.
He was an ardent patriot, and considered paganism essential to the
life of the State, and Christianity its necessary antagonist. He
undertakes first to show that Christianity is historically untenable,
and then that it is false from the standpoint of philosophy and
ethics. It is noticeable that it is not his desire to exterminate
Christianity completely, but to make peace with it; to induce the
Christians to give up their claim to possess the only true religion,
and, with all their high ethics and lofty ideals, to join hands with
the upholders of the ancient religion in elevating the religious ideas
of the people, and thus benefiting the state. When we look at his work
in this light (and much misunderstanding has been caused by a failure
to do this), we must admire his ability, and respect his motives. He
was, however, by no means free from the superstitions and prejudices
of his age. The most important book upon the work of Celsus is Keim's
Celsus' Wahres Wort, Zürich, 1873, which reconstructs, from Origen's
reply, Celsus' work, and translates and explains it. Origen's reply is
philosophical and in parts very able, but it must be acknowledged that
in many places he does not succeed in answering his opponent. His
honesty, however, must be admired in letting his adversary always
speak for himself. He attempts to answer every argument urged by
Celsus, and gives the argument usually in Celsus' own words. The
result is that the work is quite desultory in its treatment, and often
weighted with unimportant details and tiresome repetitions. At the
same time, it is full of rich and suggestive thought, well worthy of
Origen's genius, and shows a deep appreciation of the true spiritual
nature of Christianity. The entire work of eight books is extant in
the original Greek, and is printed in all editions of Origen's works
(Lommatzsch, Vol. XX. p. 1-226), and is translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Am. ed. Vol. IV. 395-669. It was one of Origen's latest
works, as we are told here by Eusebius, and was composed (as we learn
from its preface) at the urgent request of Ambrose, to whom also it
 The commentary on Matthew was written toward the close of
Origen's life, as Eusebius informs us here, a fact which is confirmed
by references in the work itself to many of his earlier commentaries.
There are extant a single fragment from the first book (quoted in
chap. 25, above), one from the second book (quoted in the Philocalia,
chap. 6), and Books X.-XVII. entire in the original Greek, covering
Matt. xiii. 36-xxii. 33. There are also extant numerous notes, which
may have been taken, some of them from the commentary, and others from
the homilies; and a Latin version of the commentary covering Matt.
xvi. 13-xxvii. (See Lommatzsch, Vols. III.-V.). The catalogue of
Jerome mentions twenty-five books and twenty-five homilies, and in the
preface to his commentary on Matthew, Jerome states that he had read
the twenty-five books, but elsewhere (in the prologue to his
translation of Origen's homilies on Luke; Migne, VII. 219) he speaks
of thirty-six (or twenty-six) books of the commentary, but this is
doubtless a mistake (and so Vallarsi reads viginti quinque in the
text). There is no reason to think that Origen wrote more than
twenty-five books, which must have covered the whole Gospel (to judge
from the portions extant). The books which are preserved contain much
that is interesting and suggestive.
 Jerome also mentions twenty-five books upon the twelve prophets
(in duodecim Prophetas viginti quinque exegeseon Origenis volumina),
of which he had found a copy in the library of Cæsarea, transcribed by
the hand of Pamphilus (de vir. ill. 75). The catalogue of Jerome
enumerates two books on Hosea, two on Joel, six on Amos, one on Jonah,
two on Micah, two on Mahum, three on Habakkuk, two on Zephaniah, one
on Haggai, two on Zechariah, two on Malachi; but in the preface to his
commentary on Malachi, Jerome mentions three books on that prophecy.
Of all these books only one fragment of the commentary on Hosea is
extant, being preserved in the Philocalia, c. 8.
 These epistles to Philip and his wife Severa are no longer
extant, nor can we form an accurate idea of their contents. We are
reminded of Origen's interview with Mammæa, the mother of Alexander
Severus, mentioned in chap. 21. Whether he wrote in response to a
request from Philip is uncertain, but is not likely in view of the
silence of Eusebius. It is possible that the favor shown by the
emperor and his wife had led Origen to believe that they might be won
for the faith, and there is nothing surprising in his addressing
epistles to them with this idea. On Philip's relations to
Christianity, see chap. 34, note 2.
 This collection of Origen's epistles made by Eusebius is no
longer extant. The catalogue of Jerome mentions "eleven books of
letters in all; two books in defense of his works." Only two epistles
are preserved entire,--the one to Julius Africanus (see chap. 31, note
1); the other to Gregory Thaumaturgus, written, apparently, soon after
the departure of the latter from Cæsarea (see chap. 30, note 1), for
Gregory was, at the time it was written, still undecided as to the
profession which he should follow. In addition to these two complete
epistles, there are extant a sentence from a letter to his father
(quoted in chap. 2); also a fragment of an epistle to some unknown
person, describing the great zeal of his friend Ambrose (see chap. 18
note 1. The fragment is preserved by Suidas s. v. 'Origenes); also a
fragment defending his study of heathen philosophy (quoted in chap.
19, above); and two fragments in Latin, from a letter addressed to
some Alexandrian friends, complaining of the alterations made by
certain persons in the reports of disputations which he had held with
them (see chap. 32, note 4. The one fragment is preserved by Jerome,
in his Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 18; the other by Rufinus, in his apology
for Origen). Of his epistles to Fabian and others no trace remains.
 On Fabian, see chap. 29, note 4. We do not know when this
letter to Fabian was written; but it cannot have been written in
consequence of Origen's condemnation by the Alexandrian synods called
by Demetrius, for they were held in 231 or 232, and Fabian did not
become bishop until 236. There must have been some later
cause,--perhaps a condemnation by a later synod of Alexandria, perhaps
only the prevalence of a report that Origen was heterodox, which was
causing serious suspicions in Rome and elsewhere. We know that the
controversies which raged so fiercely about his memory began even
before his death.
 On this Defense, see above, p. 36.
Chapter XXXVII.--The Dissension of the Arabians. 
About the same time others arose in Arabia, putting forward a doctrine
foreign to the truth. They said that during the present time the human
soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the
resurrection they will be renewed together. And at that time also a
synod of considerable size assembled, and Origen, being again invited
thither, spoke publicly on the question with such effect that the
opinions of those who had formerly fallen were changed.
 The exact nature of the heresy which is here described by
Eusebius is somewhat difficult to determine. It is disputed whether
these heretics are to be reckoned with the thnetopsuchitai (whom John
of Damascus mentions in his de Hæres. c. 90, and to whom Augustine
refers, under the name of Arabici, in his de Hæres, c. 83), that is,
those who taught the death of the soul with the body, or with the
hupnopsuchitai, who taught that the soul slept between the death and
the resurrection of the body. Redepenning, in a very thorough
discussion of the matter (II. 105 sq.), concludes that the heresy to
which Eusebius refers grew up under Jewish influence, which was very
strong in Arabia, and that it did not teach the death (as Eusebius
asserts), but only the slumber of the soul. He reckons them therefore
with the second, not the first, class mentioned. But it seems to me
that Redepenning is almost hypercritical in maintaining that it is
impossible that these heretics can have taught that the soul died and
afterward was raised again; for it is no more impossible that they
should have taught it than that Eusebius and others should have
supposed that they did. In fact, there does not seem to be adequate
ground for correcting Eusebius' statement, which describes heretics
who must distinctly be classed with the thnetopsuchitai mentioned
later by John of Damascus. We do not know the date at which the synod
referred to in this Chapter was held. We only know that it was
subsequent to the one which dealt with Beryllus, and therefore it must
have been toward the close of Philip's reign.
Chapter XXXVIII.--The Heresy of the Elkesites.
Another error also arose at this time, called the heresy of the
Elkesites,  which was extinguished in the very beginning. Origen
speaks of it in this manner in a public homily on the eighty-second
"A certain man  came just now, puffed up greatly with his own
ability, proclaiming that godless and impious opinion which has
appeared lately in the churches, styled `of the Elkesites.' I will
show you what evil things that opinion teaches, that you may not be
carried away by it. It rejects certain parts of every scripture. Again
it uses portions of the Old Testament and the Gospel, but rejects the
apostle  altogether. It says that to deny Christ is an
indifferent matter, and that he who understands will, under necessity,
deny with his mouth, but not in his heart. They produce a certain book
which they say fell from heaven. They hold that whoever hears and
believes  this shall receive remission of sins, another
remission than that which Jesus Christ has given." Such is the account
of these persons.
 The Elkesites (;;Elkesaitai) were not a distinct sect, but "a
school scattered among all parties of the Judæo-Christian Church."
They are described by Hippolytus (Phil. IX. 8-12) and by Epiphanius
(in chap. 19 among the Essenes, in 30 among the Ebionites, and in 53
among the Sampsæans). We learn from Hippolytus that, in the time of
Callistus or soon afterward, a certain Alcibiades, a native of Apameia
in Syria, brought to Rome a book bearing the name of Elkesai
('Elchasai), which purported to contain a revelation, made in the time
of Trajan, by the Son of God and the Holy Spirit in the form of
angels, and teaching the forgiveness of all sins, even the grossest,
by means of belief in the doctrines of the book and baptism performed
with certain peculiar rites. The controversy in regard to the
forgiveness of gross sins committed after baptism was raging high at
this time in Rome, and Hippolytus, who took the strict side, naturally
opposed this new system of indulgence with the greatest vigor. Among
other doctrines taught in the book, was the lawfulness of denying the
faith in time of persecution, as told us by Origen in this Chapter,
and by Epiphanius in chap. 19. The book was strongly Ebionitic in its
teaching, and bore striking resemblances to the Clementine Homilies
and Recognitions. Its exact relation to those writings has been
disputed; but Uhlhorn (Homilien und Recognition des Clemens Romanus)
has shown conclusively that it is older than the latter, and that it
represents a type of Ebionitic Christianity less modified than the
latter by the influence of Christianity. In agreement with the
Ebionites, the Elkesites (as all those were called who accepted the
teachings of the book, to whatever party they might belong) taught
that Christ was a created being; and they also repudiated sacrifices,
which compelled them to reject certain portions of the Old Testament
(cf. Origen's statement just below). They likewise refused recognition
to the apostle Paul, and ordained the observance of the Jewish law;
but they went beyond the Clementines in teaching the necessity of
circumcision and the repetition of baptism as a means to the
forgiveness of sins. The origin of the name Elkesai has also been
disputed. Hippolytus says it was the name of the man who was claimed
to have received the revelation, and Epiphanius calls Elkesai a false
prophet; but some critics have thought them mistaken, and have
supposed that Elkesai must have been the name of the book, or of the
angel that gave the revelation. It is more probable, however, as
Salmon concludes, that it was the name of a man whom the book
represented as receiving the revelation, but that the man was only an
imaginary person, and not the real founder of the school, as
Epiphanius supposed. The book cannot well be put back of the beginning
of the third century, when it first began to be heard of in the
Catholic Church. It claimed to have been for a century in secret
circulation, but the claim is quite unfounded. Eusebius speaks of the
heresy as extinguished in the very beginning, and it seems, in fact,
to have played no prominent part in history; and yet it apparently
lingered on for a long time in the East, for we hear of a sect in
Arabia, as late as the tenth century, who counted El-Chasaiach as
their founder (see Salmon's article, p. 98). See the work of Uhlhorn
already mentioned; also Ritschl's Entstehung d. alt. Katholischen
Kirche, p. 234 sq. (Ritschl holds that the Clementines are older than
the book of Elkesai), and Hilgenfeld's Nov. Test. extra Can. rec. III.
153, where the extant fragments of the book are collected. See also
Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 95 sq.
 On Origen's writings on the Psalms, see chap. 24, note 3. This
fragment is the only portion of his homily on the eighty-second Psalm
 Alciabades, according to Hippolytus (see above, note 1).
 The apostle Paul (see note 1).
 Origen does not mention the baptism of the Elkesites, which is
described at length by Hippolytus. It seems that both belief in the
teachings of the book and baptism were necessary. It may be that in
Origen's opinion the receiving of the book itself involved the
peculiar baptism which it taught, and that, therefore, he thought it
unnecessary to mention the latter.
Chapter XXXIX.--The Persecution under Decius, and the Sufferings of
1. After a reign of seven years Philip was succeeded by Decius. 
On account of his hatred of Philip, he commenced a persecution of the
churches, in which Fabianus  suffered martyrdom at Rome, and
Cornelius succeeded him in the episcopate. 
2. In Palestine, Alexander,  bishop of the church of Jerusalem,
was brought again on Christ's account before the governor's judgment
seat in Cæsarea, and having acquitted himself nobly in a second
confession was cast into prison, crowned with the hoary locks of
3. And after his honorable and illustrious confession at the tribunal
of the governor, he fell asleep in prison, and Mazabanes  became
his successor in the bishopric of Jerusalem.
4. Babylas  in Antioch, having like Alexander passed away in
prison after his confession, was succeeded by Fabius  in the
episcopate of that church.
5. But how many and how great things came upon Origen in the
persecution, and what was their final result,--as the demon of evil
marshaled all his forces, and fought against the man with his utmost
craft and power, assaulting him beyond all others against whom he
contended at that time,--and what and how many things he endured for
the word of Christ, bonds and bodily tortures and torments under the
iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet
stretched four spaces in the stocks  he bore patiently the
threats of fire and whatever other things were inflicted by his
enemies; and how his sufferings terminated, as his judge strove
eagerly with all his might not to end his life; and what words he left
after these things, full of comfort to those needing aid, a great many
of his epistles show with truth and accuracy. 
 Philip was defeated and slain near Verona, on June 17, 249 by
the Pannonian legions who had compelled Decius, the envoy sent by
Philip to quell a mutiny among them, to accept the title of Augustus.
Philip's death made Decius emperor; and he reigned for a little over
two years, when he perished in a campaign against the Goths. The cause
given by Eusebius for the terrible persecution of Decius is quite
incorrect. The emperor, who before his elevation was one of the most
highly respected senators, seems to have been a man of noble character
and of high aims. He was a thorough-going patriot and a staunch
believer in the religion and laws of Rome. He saw the terrible state
of corruption and decay into which the empire had fallen; and he made
up his mind that it could be arrested only by restoring the ancient
Roman customs, and by strengthening the ancient religion. He therefore
revived the old censorship, hoping that the moral and social habits of
the people might be improved under its influence; and he endeavored to
exterminate the Christians, believing that thus the ancient purity of
the state religion might be restored. It was no low motive of personal
revenge or of caprice which prompted the persecution. We must
recognize the fact that Decius was one of the best and noblest of the
Roman emperors, and that he persecuted as a patriot and a believer in
the religion of his fathers. He was the first one that aimed at the
complete extermination of the Christians. He went systematically to
work to put the religion out of existence; and the persecution was
consequently both universal and of terrible severity, far more
terrible than any that had preceded it. The edicts published by Decius
early in the year 250 are no longer extant; but we can gather from the
notices, especially of Cyprian and Dionysius, that the effort was
first made to induce Christians throughout the empire to deny their
faith and return to the religion of the state, and only when large
numbers of them remained obstinate did the persecution itself begin.
 On Fabianus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 29, note 4.
 After the martyrdom of Fabianus the church of Rome was without
a bishop for about fourteen months. The bishopric of that church was
naturally under Decius a place of the greatest danger. Cornelius
became bishop in 251, probably in March, while Decius was away from
the city. After the emperor's death, which took place in the following
winter, Gallus renewed the persecution, and Cornelius with a large
part of the church fled to Cività Vecchia, where he died in the summer
of 253, according to Lipsius (the Liberian catalogue says 252, which
is the commonly accepted date, but is clearly incorrect, as Lipsius
has shown). Both versions of the Chron. are greatly confused at this
point, and their statements are very faulty (Jerome's version
assigning a reign of only fifteen months to Decius and two years and
four months to Gallus). Eusebius, in Bk. VII. chap. 2, says that
Cornelius held office "about three years," which is reasonably
accurate, for he was actually bishop nearly two years and a half. It
was during the episcopate of Cornelius that the Novatian schism took
place (see chap. 43). Eight epistles from Cyprian to Cornelius are
extant, and two from Cornelius to Cyprian. In chap. 43 Eusebius makes
extended quotations from an epistle written by Cornelius to Fabius of
Antioch, and mentions still others which are not preserved. In chap.
46 he refers to one against Novatian addressed to Dionysius of
Alexandria, which is likewise lost.
 On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
 The time of Mazabanes' accession is fixed approximately by the
fact that Alexander's death took place in the persecution of Decius.
His death is put by Eusebius (Bk. VII. chap. 14) in the reign of
Gallienus (260-268), and with this the notice in the Chron. agrees,
which assigns it to the year 265. Since his successor, Hymenæus, was
present at the council of Antioch, in which the case of Paul of
Samosata was considered (see below, Bk. VII. chaps. 29 and 30), it
will not do to put Mazabanes' death later than 265.
 On Babylas, see chap. 29, note 8.
 Eusebius gives the name of this bishop as BEURbios, Jerome as
Fabianus, and Syncellus as phlabianos. The time of his accession is
fixed by the death of Babylas in the persecution of Decius. He was
bishop of Antioch while Cornelius was bishop of Rome, as we learn from
the latter's epistle to him, quoted in chap. 43, below. From an
epistle written by Dionysius of Alexandria to Cornelius of Rome
(referred to in chap. 46), we learn that Fabius died while the latter
was still bishop, i.e. before the summer of 253 (see note 3, above).
The Chron. pasch. assigns three years to the episcopate of Fabius; and
though we cannot place much reliance upon the figure, yet it leads us
to think that he must have been bishop for some time,--at least more
than a year,--and so we are inclined to put his death as late as
possible. The Chron. puts the accession of his Successor Demetrianus
in the year 254, which is too late, at least for the death of Fabius.
We may conclude that the latter died probably in the year 253, or not
long before. Harnack decides for the time between the fall of 252 and
the spring of 253. Fabius, as we learn from the epistles addressed to
him by Cornelius and Dionysius (see chaps. 43 and 44), was inclined to
indorse Novatian and the rigoristic discipline favored by him. We know
nothing more of the life or character of Fabius.
 tous podas hupo tessara tou kolasteriou xulou paratetheis
diastemata. Otto, in his edition of Justin's Apology (Corp. Apol.
Christ. I. p. 204), says: xulon erat truncus foramina habens, quibus
pedes captivorum immitebantur, ut securius in carcere servarentur aut
tormentis vexarentur ("a xulon was a block, with holes in which the
feet of captives were put, in order that they might be kept more
securely in prison, or might be afflicted with tortures"). The farther
apart the feet were stretched, the greater of course was the torture.
Four spaces seems to have been the outside limit. Compare Bk. VIII.
chap. 10, §8.
 A tradition arose in later centuries that Origen died in the
persecution of Decius (see Photius, Cod. 118); but this is certainly
an error, for Eusebius cannot have been mistaken when he cites
Origen's own letters as describing his sufferings during the
persecution. The epistles referred to here are no longer extant. On
Origen's epistles in general, see chap. 36, note 7.
Chapter XL.--The Events which happened to Dionysius. 
1. I shall quote from the epistle of Dionysius to Germanus  an
account of what befell the former. Speaking of himself, he writes as
follows: "I speak before God, and he knows that I do not lie. I did
not flee on my own impulse nor without divine direction.
2. But even before this, at the very hour when the Decian persecution
was commanded, Sabinus  sent a frumentarius  to search for
me, and I remained at home four days awaiting his arrival.
3. But he went about examining all places,--roads, rivers, and
fields,--where he thought I might be concealed or on the way. But he
was smitten with blindness, and did not find the house,  for he
did not suppose, that being pursued, I would remain at home. And after
the fourth day God commanded me to depart, and made a way for me in a
wonderful manner; and I and my attendants  and many of the
brethren went away together. And that this occurred through the
providence of God was made manifest by what followed, in which perhaps
we were useful to some."
4. Farther on he relates in this manner what happened to him after his
"For about sunset, having been seized with those that were with me, I
was taken by the soldiers to Taposiris,  but in the providence
of God, Timothy  was not present and was not captured. But
coming later, he found the house deserted and guarded by soldiers, and
ourselves reduced to slavery." 
5. After a little he says:
"And what was the manner of his admirable management? for the truth
shall be told. One of the country people met Timothy fleeing and
disturbed, and inquired the cause of his haste. And he told him the
6. And when the man heard it (he was on his way to a marriage feast,
for it was customary to spend the entire night in such gatherings), he
entered and announced it to those at the table. And they, as if on a
preconcerted signal, arose with one impulse, and rushed out quickly
and came and burst in upon us with a shout. Immediately the soldiers
who were guarding us fled, and they came to us lying as we were upon
the bare couches.
7. But I, God knows, thought at first that they were robbers who had
come for spoil and plunder. So I remained upon the bed on which I was,
clothed only in a linen garment, and offered them the rest of my
clothing which was lying beside me. But they directed me to rise and
come away quickly.
8. Then I understood why they were come, and I cried out, beseeching
and entreating them to depart and leave us alone. And I requested
them, if they desired to benefit me in any way, to anticipate those
who were carrying me off, and cut off my head themselves. And when I
had cried out in this manner, as my companions and partners in
everything know, they raised me by force. But I threw myself on my
back on the ground; and they seized me by the hands and feet and
dragged me away.
9. And the witnesses of all these occurrences followed: Gaius,
Faustus, Peter, and Paul.  But they who had seized me carried me
out of the village hastily, and placing me on an ass without a saddle,
bore me away." 
Dionysius relates these things respecting himself.
 Dionysius the Great (Eusebius in the preface to Bk. VII. calls
him ho megas 'Alexandreon episkopos) was born toward the close of the
second century (he was an aged man, between 260 and 265, as we learn
from Bk. VII. chap 27), studied under Origen, and succeeded Heraclas
as principal of the catechetical school in Alexandria (see above,
chap. 29) in the year 231 or 231 (see chap. 3, note 2). In the third
year of Philip's reign (246-247) he succeeded Heraclas as bishop of
Alexandria, according to chap. 35, above. Whether he continued to
preside over the catechetical school after he became bishop we do not
know. Dittrich (p. 4 sq.) gives reasons for thinking that he did,
which render it at least probable. He was still living when the
earlier synods, in which the case of Paul of Samosata was considered,
were held (i.e. between 260 and 264; see Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4),
but he was dead before the last one met, i.e. before 265 a.d. (see Bk.
VII. chap. 29, note 1). Dionysius is one of the most prominent, and at
the same time pleasing, figures of his age. He seems to have been
interested less in speculative than in practical questions, and yet he
wrote an important work On Nature, which shows that he possessed
philosophical ability, and one of his epistles contains a discussion
of the authorship of the Apocalypse, which is unsurpassed in the early
centuries as an example of keen and yet judicious and well-balanced
literary criticism (see Bk. VII. chap. 25). His intellectual abilities
must, therefore, not be underrated, but it is as a practical
theologian that he is best known. He took an active part in all the
controversies of his time, in the Novatian difficulty in which the
re-admission of the lapsed was the burning question; in the
controversy as to the re-baptism of heretics; and in the case of Paul
of Samosata. In all he played a prominent part, and in all he seems to
have acted with great wisdom and moderation (see chaps. 44 sq., Bk.
VII. chaps. 5, 7 sq., chap. 27). He was taken prisoner during the
persecution of Decius, but made his escape (see the present Chapter).
In the persecution of Valerian he was banished (see Bk. VII. chap.
11), but returned to Alexandria after the accession of Gallienus (see
Bk. VII. chap. 21). His conduct during the persecutions exposed him to
adverse criticism, and he defended himself warmly against the
accusations of a bishop Germanus, in an epistle, portions of which are
quoted in this Chapter and in Bk. VII. chap. 11. The writings of
Dionysius were chiefly in the form of epistles, written for some
practical purpose. Of such epistles he wrote a great many, and
numerous fragments are extant, preserved chiefly by Eusebius. Being
called forth by particular circumstances, they contain much
information in regard to contemporary events, and are thus an
important historical source, as Eusebius wisely perceived. Such
epistles are quoted, or mentioned, in chaps. 41, 44, 45, and 46 of
this book, and in Bk. VII. chaps. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21,
22, 23, 26. For particulars in regard to them, see the notes on those
Chapters. In addition to his epistles a work, On Promises, is referred
to by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 28, and in Bk. VII. chaps. 24 and 25,
where extracts from it are quoted (see Bk. VII. chap. 24, note 1);
also a commentary on the beginning of Ecclesiastes in Bk. VII. chap.
26, and in the same Chapter a work in four books against Sabellius,
addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, in which he defends himself
against the charge of tritheism, brought by some Sabellian
adversaries. He was able to clear himself of all suspicion of heresy
in the matter, though it is quite clear that he had carried the
subordinationism of Origen to a dangerous extreme. The attack upon him
led him to be more careful in his statements, some of which were such
as in part to justify the suspicions of his adversaries. Athanasius
defended his orthodoxy in a special work, De Sententiis Dionysii, and
there can be no doubt that Dionysius was honestly concerned to
preserve the divinity of the Son; but as in the case of Eusebius of
Cæsarea, and of all those who were called upon to face Sabellianism,
his tendency was to lay an over-emphasis upon the subordination of the
Son (see above, p. 11 sq.). For further particulars in regard to this
work, see the Chapter referred to, note 4. Upon Dionysius' views of
the Trinity, see Dittrich, p. 91 sq. Besides the writings referred to,
or quoted by Eusebius, there should be mentioned an important
canonical epistle addressed to Basilides, in which the exact time of
the expiration of the lenten fast is the chief subject of discussion
(still extant, and printed by Pitra, Routh, and others, and translated
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers; see Dittrich, p. 46 sq.). There are yet a
few other fragments of Dionysius' writings, extant in various mss.,
which it is not necessary to mention here. See Dittrich, p. 130. The
most complete collection of the extant fragments of his writings is
that of Migne, Patr. Gr. X. 1233 sq., to which must be added Pitra's
Spic. Solesm. I. 15 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VI. p. 87-120. The most complete work upon Dionysius is the
monograph of Dietrich, Dionysius der Grosse, Freiburg, i. Br. 1867.
 This Germanus, as we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, was a bishop
of some see, unknown to us, who had accused Dionysius of cowardice in
the face of persecution. In the present instance Dionysius undertakes
to refute his calumnies, by recounting accurately his conduct during
the persecutions. It must be remembered that the letter is a defense
against accusations actually made, or we shall misunderstand it, and
misinterpret Dionysius' motives in dwelling at such length upon the
details of his own sufferings. The epistle, a part of which is quoted
in this Chapter, and a part in Bk. VII. chap. 11, was written, as we
learn from the latter Chapter, §18, while the persecution of Valerian
was still in progress, and recounts his experiences during the
persecutions of Decius and of Valerian. The fragment quoted in the
present Chapter is devoted to the persecution of Decius, the other
fragment to the persecution of Valerian. The letter is said to have
been written pros Germanon. This might be translated either to or
against Germanus. Analogy would lead us to think the former
translation correct, for all the epistles mentioned are said to have
been written pros one or another person, and it is natural, of course,
to expect the name of the person addressed to be given. I have
therefore translated the word thus, as is done in all the versions. At
the same time it must be noticed that Germanus is spoken of in the
epistle (especially in §18 sq. of the other Chapter) not as if he were
the person addressed, but as he were the person complained of to
others; and, moreover, a letter of defense sent to him alone would
probably have little effect, and would fail to put an end to the
calumnies which must have found many ready ears. It seems, in fact,
quite probable that the epistle was rather a public than a private
one, and that while it was nominally addressed to Germanus, it was yet
intended for a larger public, and was written with that public in
view. This will explain the peculiar manner in which Germanus is
referred to. Certainly it is hard to think he would have been thus
mentioned in a personal letter.
 Sabinus, an otherwise unknown personage, seems to have been
prefect of Egypt at this time, as Æmilianus was during the persecution
of Valerian, according to Bk. VII. chap. 11.
 One of the frumentarii milites, or military commissaries, who
were employed for various kinds of business, and under the emperors
especially as detectives or secret spies.
 me heuriskon. It is not meant that the frumentarius could not
find the house, but that he did not think to go to the house at all,
through an error of judgment ("being smitten with blindness"),
supposing that Dionysius would certainly be elsewhere.
 hoi paides. This is taken by many scholars to mean "children,"
and the conclusion is drawn by them that Dionysius was a married man.
Dittrich translates it "pupils," supposing that Dionysius was still at
the head of the catechetical school, and that some of his scholars
lived with him, as was quite common. Others translate "servants," or
"domestics." I have used the indefinite word" attendants" simply,
because the paides may well have included children, scholars,
servants, and others who made up his family and constituted, any or
all of them, his attendants. As shown in note 8, the word at any rate
cannot be confined in the present case to servants.
 Strabo (Bk. XVII. chap. 1) mentions a small town called
Taposiris, situated in the neighborhood of Alexandria.
 We know nothing about this Timothy, except that Dionysius
addressed to him his work On Nature, as reported by Eusebius in VII.
26. He is there called Timotheos ho pais. Dionysius can hardly have
addressed a book to one of his servants, and hence we may conclude
that Timothy was either Dionysius' son (as Westcott holds) or scholar
(as Dittrich believes). It is reasonable to think him one of the
paides, with others of whom Dionysius was arrested, as recorded just
above. It is in that case of course necessary to give the word as used
there some other, or at least some broader sense than "servants."
 Greek exendrapodismenous, meaning literally "reduced to
slavery." The context, however, does not seem to justify such a
rendering, for the reference is apparently only to the fact that they
were captured. Their capture, had they not been released, would have
resulted probably in death rather than in slavery.
 These four men are known to us only as companions of Dionysius
during the persecution of Decius, as recorded here and in Bk. VII.
chap. 11. From that Chapter, §23, we learn that Caius and Peter were
alone with Dionysius in a desert place in Libya, after being carried
away by the rescuing party mentioned here. From §3 of the same Chapter
we learn that Faustus was a deacon, and that he was with Dionysius
also during the persecution of Valerian, and from §26 that he suffered
martyrdom at a great age in the Diocletian persecution. See also Bk.
VIII. chap. 13, note 11.
 As we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, §23, this rescuing party
carried Dionysius to a desert place in Libya, where he was left with
only two companions until the persecution ceased.
Chapter XLI.--The Martyrs in Alexandria.
1. The same writer, in an epistle to Fabius,  bishop of Antioch,
relates as follows the sufferings of the martyrs in Alexandria under
"The persecution among us did not begin with the royal decree, but
preceded it an entire year.  The prophet and author of evils
 to this city, whoever he was, previously moved and aroused
against us the masses of the heathen, rekindling among them the
superstition of their country.
2. And being thus excited by him and finding full opportunity for any
wickedness, they considered this the only pious service of their
demons, that they should slay us.
3. "They seized first an old man named Metras,  and commanded
him to utter impious words. But as he would not obey, they beat him
with clubs, and tore his face and eyes with sharp sticks, and dragged
him out of the city and stoned him.
4. Then they carried to their idol temple a faithful woman, named
Quinta, that they might force her to worship. And as she turned away
in detestation, they bound her feet and dragged her through the entire
city over the stone-paved streets, and dashed her against the
millstones, and at the same time scourged her; then, taking her to the
same place, they stoned her to death.
5. Then all with one impulse rushed to the homes of the pious, and
they dragged forth whomsoever any one knew as a neighbor, and
despoiled and plundered them. They took for themselves the more
valuable property; but the poorer articles and those made of wood they
scattered about and burned in the streets, so that the city appeared
as if taken by an enemy.
6. But the brethren withdrew and went away, and `took joyfully the
spoiling of their goods,'  like those to whom Paul bore witness.
I know of no one unless possibly some one who fell into their hands,
who, up to this time, denied the Lord.
7. Then they seized also that most admirable virgin, Apollonia, an old
woman, and, smiting her on the jaws, broke out all her teeth. And they
made a fire outside the city and threatened to burn her alive if she
would not join with them in their impious cries. And she, supplicating
a little, was released, when she leaped eagerly into the fire and was
8. Then they seized Serapion in his own house, and tortured him with
harsh cruelties, and having broken all his limbs, they threw him
headlong from an upper story. And there was no street, nor public
road, nor lane open to us, by night or day; for always and everywhere,
all of them cried out that if any one would not repeat their impious
words, he should immediately be dragged away and burned.
9. And matters continued thus for a considerable time. But a sedition
and civil war came upon the wretched people and turned their cruelty
toward us against one another.  So we breathed for a little
while as they ceased from their rage against us. But presently the
change from that milder reign was announced to us,  and great
fear of what was threatened seized us.
10. For the decree arrived, almost like unto that most terrible time
foretold by our Lord, which if it were possible would offend even the
11. All truly were affrighted. And many of the more eminent in their
fear came forward immediately;  others who were in the public
service were drawn on by their official duties;  others were
urged on by their acquaintances. And as their names were called they
approached the impure and impious sacrifices. Some of them were pale
and trembled as if they were not about to sacrifice, but to be
themselves sacrifices and offerings to the idols; so that they were
jeered at by the multitude who stood around, as it was plain to every
one that they were afraid either to die or to sacrifice.
12. But some advanced to the altars more readily, declaring boldly
that they had never been Christians. Of these the prediction of our
Lord is most true that they shall `hardly'  be saved. Of the
rest some followed the one, others the other of these classes, some
fled and some were seized.
13. And of the latter some continued faithful until bonds and
imprisonment, and some who had even been imprisoned for many days yet
abjured the faith before they were brought to trial. Others having for
a time endured great tortures finally retracted.
14. But the firm and blessed pillars of the Lord being strengthened by
him, and having received vigor and might suitable and appropriate to
the strong faith which they possessed, became admirable witnesses of
15. The first of these was Julian, a man who suffered so much with the
gout that he was unable to stand or walk. They brought him forward
with two others who carried him. One of these immediately denied. But
the other, whose name was Cronion, and whose surname was Eunus, and
the old man Julian himself, both of them having confessed the Lord,
were carried on camels through the entire city, which, as you know, is
a very large one, and in this elevated position were beaten and
finally burned in a fierce fire,  surrounded by all the
16. But a soldier, named Besas, who stood by them as they were led
away rebuked those who insulted them. And they cried out against him,
and this most manly warrior of God was arraigned, and having done
nobly in the great contest for piety, was beheaded.
17. A certain other one, a Libyan by birth, but in name and
blessedness a true Macar,  was strongly urged by the judge to
recant; but as he would not yield he was burned alive. After them
Epimachus and Alexander, having remained in bonds for a long time, and
endured countless agonies from scrapers  and scourges, were also
consumed in a fierce fire. 
18. And with them there were four women. Ammonarium, a holy virgin,
the judge tortured relentlessly and excessively, because she declared
from the first that she would utter none of those things which he
commanded; and having kept her promise truly, she was dragged away.
The others were Mercuria, a very remarkable old woman, and Dionysia,
the mother of many children, who did not love her own children above
the Lord.  As the governor was ashamed of torturing thus
ineffectually, and being always defeated by women, they were put to
death by the sword, without the trial of tortures. For the champion,
Ammonarium, endured these in behalf of all.
19. The Egyptians, Heron and Ater and Isidorus, and with them
Dioscorus,  a boy about fifteen years old, were delivered up. At
first the judge attempted to deceive the lad by fair words, as if he
could be brought over easily, and then to force him by tortures, as
one who would readily yield. But Dioscorus was neither persuaded nor
20. As the others remained firm, he scourged them cruelly and then
delivered them to the fire. But admiring the manner in which Dioscorus
had distinguished himself publicly, and his wise answers to his
persuasions, he dismissed him, saying that on account of his youth he
would give him time for repentance. And this most godly Dioscorus is
among us now, awaiting a longer conflict and more severe contest.
21. But a certain Nemesion, who also was an Egyptian, was accused as
an associate of robbers; but when he had cleared himself before the
centurion of this charge most foreign to the truth, he was informed
against as a Christian, and taken in bonds before the governor. And
the most unrighteous magistrate inflicted on him tortures and
scourgings double those which he executed on the robbers, and then
burned him between the robbers, thus honoring the blessed man by the
likeness to Christ.
22. A band of soldiers, Ammon and Zeno and Ptolemy and Ingenes, and
with them an old man, Theophilus, were standing close together before
the tribunal. And as a certain person who was being tried as a
Christian, seemed inclined to deny, they standing by gnashed their
teeth, and made signs with their faces and stretched out their hands,
and gestured with their bodies. And when the attention of all was
turned to them, before any one else could seize them, they rushed up
to the tribunal saying that they were Christians, so that the governor
and his council were affrighted. And those who were on trial appeared
most courageous in prospect of their sufferings, while their judges
trembled. And they went exultingly from the tribunal rejoicing in
their testimony;  God himself having caused them to triumph
 I read phEURbion with the majority of the mss., and with
Valesius, Stroth, Burton, Closs, and Crusè, preferring to adopt the
same spelling here that is used in the other passages in which the
same bishop is mentioned. A number of mss. read phabianon, which is
supported by Rufinus, and adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, and
Heinichen. On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see chap. 39, note 7. The
time of his episcopate stated in that note fixes the date of this
epistle within narrow limits, viz. between 250 and the spring of 253.
The whole tone of the letter and the discussion of the readmission of
the lapsed would lead us to think that the epistle was written after
the close of the persecution, but in §20, Dioscorus is said to be
still among them, waiting for "a longer and more severe conflict,"
which seems to imply that the persecution, if not raging at the time,
was at least expected to break out again soon. This would lead us to
think of the closing months of Decius' reign, i.e. late in the year
251, and this date finds confirmation in the consideration that the
epistle (as we learn from chap. 44) was written after the breaking out
of the Novatian schism, and apparently after the election of Novatian
as opposition bishop, for Fabius can hardly have sided with him
against his bishop, so long as he was only a presbyter. Doubtless
Novatian's official letter, announcing his election, had influenced
Fabius. But Novation was elected bishop in 251, probably in the summer
or early fall; at least, some months after Cornelius' accession which
took place in February, 251. It seems, from chap. 44, that Fabius was
inclined to side with Novatian, and to favor his rigoristic
principles. This epistle was written (as we learn from chap. 42, §6)
with the express purpose of leading him to change his position and to
adopt more lenient principles in his treatment of the lapsed. It is
with this end in view that Dionysius details at such length in this
Chapter the sufferings of the martyrs. He wishes to impress upon
Fabius their piety and steadfastness, in order to beget greater
respect for their opinions. Having done this, he states that they who
best understood the temptations to which the persecuted were exposed,
had received the lapsed, when repentant, into fellowship as before
(see chap. 42, note 6). Dionysius' own position in the matter comes
out very clearly in this epistle. He was in full sympathy with the
milder treatment of the lapsed advocated in Rome and in Carthage by
Cornelius and Cyprian.
 The edict of Decius was published early in the year 250, and
therefore the persecution in Alexandria, according to Dionysius, began
in 249, while Philip was still emperor. Although the latter showed the
Christians favor, yet it is not at all surprising that this local
persecution should break out during his reign. The peace which the
Christians were enjoying naturally fostered the growth of the Church,
and the more patriotic and pious of the heathen citizens of the empire
must necessarily have felt great solicitude at its constant increase,
and the same spirit which led Decius to persecute would lead many such
persons to desire to persecute when the opportunity offered itself;
and the closing months of Philip's reign were so troubled with
rebellions and revolutions that he had little time, and perhaps less
inclination, to interfere in such a minor matter as a local
persecution of Christians. The common people of Alexandria were of an
excitable and riotous disposition, and it was always easy there to
stir up a tumult at short notice and upon slight pretexts.
 ho kakon te polei taute mEURntis kai poietes. The last word is
rendered "poet" by most translators, and the rendering is quite
possible; but it is difficult to understand why Dionysius should speak
of this person's being a poet, which could have no possible connection
with the matter in hand. It seems better to take poietes in its common
sense of "maker," or "author," and to suppose Dionysius to be thinking
of this man, not simply as the prophet of evils to the city, but also
as their author, in that he "moved and aroused against us the masses
of the heathen."
 Of the various martyrs and confessors mentioned in this
Chapter, we know only what is told us by Dionysius in this epistle.
 Heb. x. 34. Upon the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17; and upon Eusebius' opinion in the
matter, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.
 We know that the closing months of Philip's reign were troubled
with seditions in various quarters; but Dionysius is our only
authority for this particular one, unless it be connected, as some
think, with the revolt which Zosimus describes as aroused in the
Orient by the bad government of Philip's brother, who was governor
there, and by excessive taxation (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III.
 This refers to the death of Philip and the accession of Decius.
The hostile edicts of the latter seem not to have been published until
some months after his accession, i.e. early in 250. But his hostility
to Christianity might have been known from the start, and it might
have been understood that he would persecute as soon as he had
attended to the other more important matters connected with his
 Matt. xxiv. 24. Eusebius reads skandalisai; Matthew, planathai
 i.e. to sacrifice.
 hoi de demosieuontes hupo ton prEURxeon egonto. Every officer
of the government under the imperial regimen was obliged to sacrifice
to the Gods upon taking office, and also to sacrifice at stated times
during his term of office, and upon special occasions, or in
connection with the performance of important official duties. He might
thus be called upon in his official capacity frequently to offer
sacrifices, and a failure to perform this part of his duties was
looked upon as sacrilege and punished as a crime against the state.
Christian officials, therefore, were always in danger of suffering for
their religion unless they were allowed as a special favor, to omit
the sacrifices, as was often the case under those emperors who were
more favorably inclined toward Christianity. A private citizen was
never obliged to sacrifice except in times of persecution, when he
might be ordered to do so as a test. But an official could not carry
out fully all the duties of his position without sacrificing. This is
one reason why many of the Christians avoided public office, and thus
drew upon themselves the accusation of a lack of patriotism (cf.
Origen, Contra Cels. VI. 5 sq., and Tertullian's Apol. c. 42); and it
is also one reason why such Christians as happened to be in office
were always the first to suffer under a hostile emperor.
 Cf. Matt. xix. 23. This sentence shows that Dionysius did not
consider it impossible even for those to be saved who denied Christ
before enduring any suffering at all. He was clearly willing to leave
a possibility of salvation even to the worst offenders, and in this
agreed perfectly with Cornelius, Cyprian, and the body of the Roman
and Carthaginian churches.
 asbesto puri.
 The Greek word mEURkar means "blessed."
 xusteras. "The instrument of torture here mentioned was an iron
scraper, calculated to wound and tear the flesh as it passed over it"
 puri asbesto.
 Rufinus adds at this point the words et alia Ammonaria ("and
another Ammonaria"). Valesius therefore conjectures that the words kai
'AmmonEURrion hetera must have stood in the original text, and he is
followed by Stroth and Heinichen. The mss., however, are unanimous in
their omission of the words, and the second sentence below, which
speaks of only a single Ammonarium, as if there were no other,
certainly argues against their insertion. It is possible that Rufinus,
finding only three women mentioned after Dionysius had referred to
four, ventured to insert the "other Ammonaria."
 It has been suggested (by Birks in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.)
that this Dioscorus may be identical with the presbyter of the same
name mentioned in Bk. VII. chap. 11, §24. But this is quite
impossible, for Dioscorus, as we learn from this passage, was but
fifteen years old at the time of the Decian persecution, and Dionysius
is still speaking of the same persecution when he mentions the
presbyter Dioscorus in the Chapter referred to (see note 31 on that
 marturi. It is difficult to ascertain from Dionysius'
language whether these five soldiers suffered martyrdom or whether
they were released. The language admits either interpretation, and
some have supposed that the magistrate was so alarmed at what he
feared might be a general defection among the troops that he dismissed
these men without punishing them. At the same time it seems as if
Dionysius would have stated this directly if it were a fact. There is
nothing in the narrative to imply that their fate was different from
that of the others; and moreover, it hardly seems probable that the
defection of five soldiers should so terrify the judge as to cause him
to cease executing the imperial decree, and of course if he did not
execute it in the case of the soldiers, he could hardly do it in the
case of others.
Chapter XLII.--Others of whom Dionysius gives an Account.
1. "Many others, in cities and villages, were torn asunder by the
heathen, of whom I will mention one as an illustration. Ischyrion
 was employed as a steward by one of the rulers. His employer
commanded him to sacrifice, and on his refusal insulted him, and as he
remained firm, abused him. And as he still held out he seized a long
staff and thrust it through his bowels  and slew him.
2. "Why need I speak of the multitude that wandered in the deserts and
mountains, and perished by hunger, and thirst, and cold, and sickness,
and robbers, and wild beasts? Those of them who survived are witnesses
of their election and victory.
3. But I will relate one occurrence as an example. Chæremon, 
who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with
his wife  to the Arabian mountain  and did not return. And
though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either
them or their bodies.
4. And many who fled to the same Arabian mountain were carried into
slavery by the barbarian Saracens. Some of them were ransomed with
difficulty and at a large price; others have not been to the present
time. I have related these things, my brother, not without an object,
but that you may understand how many and great distresses came upon
us. Those indeed will understand them the best who have had the
largest experience of them."
5. A little further on he adds: "These divine martyrs among us, who
now are seated with Christ, and are sharers in his kingdom, partakers
of his judgment and judges with him, received some of the brethren who
had fallen away and become chargeable with the guilt of sacrificing.
When they perceived that their conversion and repentance were
sufficient to be acceptable with him who by no means desires the death
of the sinner, but his repentance, having proved them they received
them back and brought them together, and met with them and had
fellowship with them in prayers and feasts. 
6. What counsel then, brethren, do you give us concerning such
persons? What should we do? Shall we have the same judgment and rule
as theirs, and observe their decision and charity, and show mercy to
those whom they pitied? Or, shall we declare their decision
unrighteous, and set ourselves as judges of their opinion, and grieve
mercy and overturn order?"  These words Dionysius very properly
added when making mention of those who had been weak in the time of
 Ischyrion is known to us only from this passage.
 enteron kai splEURnchnon
 Of the bishop Chæremon of Nilus we know only what is told us
here. The city Nilus or Nilopolis was situated on an island in the
Nile, in middle Egypt, some distance south of Memphis.
 te sumbiû heautou. The word sumbios, which means a
"companion" or "partner," can signify nothing else than "wife" as used
here in the feminine.
 to 'ArEURbion oros. The name Arabicus mons, to 'ArEURbion
ouros, was given by Herodotus to the range of mountains which
separated that part of Arabia lying west of the Arabian Gulf from the
Nile valley (see Smith's Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geography).
 eisedexanto kai sunegagon kai sunestesan kai proseuchon autois
kai hestiEURseon ekoinonesan. It will be observed that nothing is said
here about joining with these persons in celebrating the eucharist, or
about admitting them to that service, and hence Valesius is quite
right in distinguishing the kind of communion spoken of here from
official communion in the church, around the Lord's table. Dionysius
does not imply that these confessors had the power given them to
receive the lapsed back again into the Church, and to dispense the
eucharist to them. That was the prerogative of the bishop, and
evidently Dionysius has no thought of its being otherwise. The
communion of which he speaks was private fellowship merely, and
implied a recognition on the part of these confessors that the persons
in question had truly repented of their sin, and could be recommended
for readmission into the Church. As we see from chap. 44, §2, the
recommendation of these persons or of the people in general was quite
necessary, before the bishop would consent to absolve the fallen
person and receive him back again into the Church. And Dionysius'
words in this passage show that he felt that the judgment of these
confessors in regard to the fitness of the lapsed for readmission
ought to be received with consideration, and have influence upon the
final decision. Dionysius thus shows great respect to the confessors,
but does not accord them the privileges which they claimed in some
places (as we learn from Tertullian's de Pudicitia, 22, and from a
number of Cyprian's Epistles) of themselves absolving the lapsed and
readmitting them to church communion. In this he showed again his
agreement with Cyprian and with the principles finally adopted in the
Roman and Carthaginian churches (cf. e.g. Cyprian's Epistles, 9 sq.,
al. 15; see also Dittrich, p. 51 sq.).
 The object of the letter is clearly revealed in these sentences
(see chap. 41, note 1).
Chapter XLIII.--Novatus,  his Manner of Life and his Heresy.
1. After this, Novatus, a presbyter of the church at Rome, being
lifted up with arrogance against these persons, as if there was no
longer for them a hope of salvation, not even if they should do all
things pertaining to a genuine and pure conversion, became leader of
the heresy of those who, in the pride of their imagination, call
themselves Cathari. 
2. There upon a very large synod assembled at Rome,  of bishops
in number sixty, and a great many more presbyters and deacons; while
the pastors of the remaining provinces deliberated in their places
privately concerning what ought to be done. A decree was confirmed by
all, that Novatus and those who joined with him, and those who adopted
his brother-hating and inhuman opinion, should be considered by the
church as strangers; but that they should heal such of the brethren as
had fallen into misfortune,  and should minister to them with
the medicines of repentance.
3. There have reached us epistles  of Cornelius, bishop of Rome,
to Fabius, of the church at Antioch, which show what was done at the
synod at Rome, and what seemed best to all those in Italy and Africa
and the regions thereabout.  Also other epistles, written in the
Latin language, of Cyprian and those with him in Africa,  which
show that they agreed as to the necessity of succoring those who had
been tempted, and of cutting off from the Catholic Church the leader
of the heresy and all that joined with him.
4. Another epistle of Cornelius, concerning the resolutions of the
synod, is attached to these; and yet others,  on the conduct of
Novatus, from which it is proper for us to make selections, that any
one who sees this work may know about him.
5. Cornelius informs Fabius what sort of a man Novatus was, in the
"But that you may know that a long time ago this remarkable man
desired the episcopate, but kept this ambitious desire to himself and
concealed it,--using as a cloak for his rebellion those confessors who
had adhered to him from the beginning,--I desire to speak.
6. Maximus,  one of our presbyters, and Urbanus,  who
twice gained the highest honor by confession, with Sidonius, 
and Celerinus,  a man who by the grace of God most heroically
endured all kinds of torture, and by the strength of his faith
overcame the weakness of the flesh, and mightily conquered the
adversary,--these men found him out and detected his craft and
duplicity, his perjuries and falsehoods, his unsociability and cruel
friendship. And they returned to the holy church and proclaimed in the
presence of many, both bishops and presbyters and a large number of
the laity, all his craft and wickedness, which for a long time he had
concealed. And this they did with lamentations and repentance, because
through the persuasions of the crafty and malicious beast they had
left the church for the time." A little farther on he says:
7. "How remarkable, beloved brother, the change and transformation
which we have seen take place in him in a short time. For this most
illustrious man, who bound himself with terrible oaths in nowise to
seek the bishopric,  suddenly appears a bishop as if thrown
among us by some machine. 
8. For this dogmatist, this defender of the doctrine of the Church,
 attempting to grasp and seize the episcopate, which had not
been given him from above, chose two of his companions who had given
up their own salvation. And he sent them to a small and insignificant
corner of Italy, that there by some counterfeit argument he might
deceive three bishops, who were rustic and very simple men. And they
asserted positively and strongly that it was necessary that they
should come quickly to Rome, in order that all the dissension which
had arisen there might be appeased through their mediation, jointly
with other bishops.
9. When they had come, being, as we have stated, very simple in the
craft and artifice of the wicked, they were shut up with certain
selected men like himself. And by the tenth hour, when they had become
drunk and sick, he compelled them by force to confer on him the
episcopate through a counterfeit and vain imposition of hands. Because
it had not come to him, he avenged himself by craft and treachery.
10. One of these bishops shortly after came back to the church,
lamenting and confessing his transgression. And we communed with him
as with a layman, all the people present interceding for him. And we
ordained successors of the other bishops, and sent them to the places
where they were.
11. This avenger of the Gospel  then did not know that there
should be one bishop in a catholic church;  yet he was not
ignorant (for how could he be?) that in it there were forty-six
presbyters, seven  deacons, seven sub-deacons,  forty-two
acolyths,  fifty-two exorcists,  readers,  and
janitors,  and over fifteen hundred widows and persons in
distress, all of whom the grace and kindness of the Master nourish.
12. But not even this great multitude, so necessary in the church, nor
those who, through God's providence, were rich and full, together with
the very many, even innumerable people, could turn him from such
desperation and presumption and recall him to the Church."
13. Again, farther on, he adds these words: "Permit us to say further:
On account of what works or conduct had he the assurance to contend
for the episcopate? Was it that he had been brought up in the Church
from the beginning, and had endured many conflicts in her behalf, and
had passed through many and great dangers for religion? Truly this is
not the fact.
14. But Satan, who entered and dwelt in him for a long time, became
the occasion of his believing. Being delivered by the exorcists, he
fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he
received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay;  if
indeed we can say that such a one did receive it.
15. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the
other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of
the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop.  And as he did
not receive this,  how could he receive the Holy Spirit?"
16. Shortly after he says again:
"In the time of persecution, through cowardice and love of life, he
denied that he was a presbyter. For when he was requested and
entreated by the deacons to come out of the chamber in which he had
imprisoned himself and give aid to the brethren as far as was lawful
and possible for a presbyter to assist those of the brethren who were
in danger and needed help, he paid so little respect to the entreaties
of the deacons that he went away and departed in anger. For he said
that he no longer desired to be a presbyter, as he was an admirer of
another philosophy." 
17. Passing by a few things, he adds the following:
"For this illustrious man forsook the Church of God, in which, when he
believed, he was judged worthy of the presbyterate through the favor
of the bishop who ordained him to the presbyterial office. This had
been resisted by all the clergy and many of the laity; because it was
unlawful that one who had been affused on his bed on account of
sickness as he had been should enter into any clerical office; 
but the bishop requested that he might be permitted to ordain this one
18. He adds to these yet another, the worst of all the man's offenses,
"For when he has made the offerings, and distributed a part to each
man, as he gives it he compels the wretched man to swear in place of
the blessing. Holding his hands in both of his own, he will not
release him until he has sworn in this manner (for I will give his own
`Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you
will never forsake me and turn to Cornelius.'
19. And the unhappy man does not taste until he has called down
imprecations on himself; and instead of saying Amen, as he takes the
bread, he says, I will never return to Cornelius." Farther on he says
20. "But know that he has now been made bare and desolate; as the
brethren leave him every day and return to the church. Moses 
also, the blessed martyr, who lately suffered among us a glorious and
admirable martyrdom, while he was yet alive, beholding his boldness
and folly, refused to commune with him and with the five presbyters
who with him had separated themselves from the church."
21. At the close of his letter he gives a list of the bishops who had
come to Rome and condemned the silliness of Novatus, with their names
and the parish over which each of them presided.
22. He mentions also those who did not come to Rome, but who expressed
by letters their agreement with the vote of these bishops, giving
their names and the cities from which they severally sent them."
 Cornelius wrote these things to Fabius, bishop of Antioch.
 Eusebius, and the Greeks in general, write the name NoouEURtos
(though in Bk. VII. chap. 8, below, Dionysius writes NoouatiEURnos).
Socrates has the form NauEURtos, which appears also in some mss. of
Eusebius. Cyprian and the Latins write the name Novatianus. Lardner,
in a note on chap. 47 of his Credibility, argues with great force for
the correctness of the name Novatus, while Heinichen and others
maintain that Novatianus is the right form. The name Novatiani,
Noouatianoi, which was given to his followers, is urged with some
reason by Lardner as an argument for the shorter form of the name. But
even if his opinion is correct, the name Novatian is too long
established to be displaced, and serves to distinguish him from the
Carthaginian presbyter Novatus. The schism of Novatian was only one of
the outcrops of the old strife between lax and strict discipline in
the Church, the strife which had shown itself in connection with
Montanism and also between Callistus and Hippolytus (see above, chap.
21, note 3). But in the present case the immediate cause of the
trouble was the treatment of the lapsed. The terrible Decian
persecution had naturally caused many to deny the faith, but
afterward, when the stress was past, they repented and desired to be
readmitted to the Church. The question became a very serious one, and
opinions were divided, some advocating their acceptance after certain
prescribed penances, others their continued exclusion. The matter
caused a great deal of discussion, especially in Rome and Carthage.
The trouble came to a head in Rome, when Cornelius, who belonged to
the lax party, was chosen bishop in the year 251, after the see had
been vacant for more than a year. The stricter party at once aroused
to action and chose Novatian, the leader of the party, opposition
bishop. He had been made a presbyter by the bishop Fabian, and
occupied a very prominent position in the Roman Church. He seems
originally to have held less rigid notions in regard to the treatment
of the lapsed, but before the end of the persecution he became very
decided in his opposition to their absolution and restoration. His
position, as well as his ability and piety, made him the natural
leader of the party and the rival candidate for the bishopric. He does
not, however, seem to have desired to accept consecration as an
opposition bishop, but his party insisted. He immediately sent the
usual letters announcing the fact to the bishops of the principal
sees, to Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome. Cyprian at once refused to
recognize his appointment. Dionysius wrote to him advising him to
withdraw (see his epistle, quoted in chap. 45). But Fabius of Antioch
was inclined to take his side (see chap. 44, §1). Novatian was
excommunicated by the council mentioned just below, and then founded
an independent church, baptizing all who came over to his side. We
know nothing of his subsequent career (according to the tradition of
his followers, and also Socrates, H. E. IV. 28, he suffered martyrdom
under Valerian), but his sect spread throughout the East and West, and
continued in existence until the sixth century. Novatian was not at
all heretical in doctrine. His work upon the Trinity is both able and
orthodox. His character was austere and of unblemished purity (the
account given by Cornelius below is a gross misrepresentation, from
the pen of an enemy) and his talents were of a high order. But the
tendency of the Church was toward a more merciful treatment of the
lapsed and of other sinners, and the stricter methods advocated by him
fell more and more into disfavor. Novatian was quite a prolific
writer. According to Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 10, he wrote de
Pascha, de Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote, de Oratione, de
Cibis Judaicis, de Instantia, de Attalo Multaque alia, et de Trinitate
grande Volumen. The de Cibis Judaicis and the de Trinitate are still
extant. The best edition of his works is that of Jackson (London,
1728). An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V.
611-650. Novatian was the author also of one of the epistles of the
Roman clergy to Cyprian (Ep. 30). Our contemporaneous sources for a
knowledge of Novatian and his schism are the epistles of Cyprian (some
ten of them), and the epistles of Dionysius and Cornelius, quoted by
Eusebius in this Chapter and in chaps. 44 and 45.
 katharoi, "pure."
 This council is undoubtedly identical with the one mentioned in
Cyprian's epistle to Antonianus (Ep. 51, §6; al. 55). It was held,
according to Cyprian, soon after the Carthaginian synod, in which the
treatment of the lapsi was first discussed, and accepted the decisions
of that council. The Carthaginian synod met in the spring of 251 (see
Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 112). The Roman synod must, therefore,
have been held before the end of the same year; Hefele thinks about
October (ibid. p. 114). Cornelius would not, of course, have waited
long before procuring the official condemnation of the opposition
bishop. We know nothing more about the constitution of the council
than is told us here. It was, of course, only a local synod. The
pastors of the remaining provinces were the other Italian bishops who
could not be present at the council. Cornelius solicits their opinion,
in order that the decree passed by the council may represent as large
a number of bishops as possible.
 tous de te sumphorZ peripeptokotas. The Carthaginian synod had
decided that no offenses are beyond the regular power of the Church to
 Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 66) gives the singular instead of
the plural (epistolam ad Fabium); so also Rufinus; but there is no
reason for doubting the integrity of the Greek text of Eusebius, which
runs, elthon d' oun eis hemas epistolai Korneliou. Valesius, although
translating epistolæ Cornelii, yet follows Jerome and Rufinus in
believing that only one epistle is meant here. Neither Rufinus nor,
apparently, Jerome knew anything about the epistle, except what they
read in Eusebius, and therefore it is more probable that Eusebius was
correct in using the plural than that they were correct in using the
singular. It is easy to understand the change of Eusebius' indefinite
plural into their definite singular. They were evidently written in
Greek; for in speaking of Cyprian's epistles immediately afterward,
Eusebius especially mentions the fact that they were written in Latin.
The epistle from which Eusebius quotes just below was also written in
Greek, for Eusebius would otherwise, as is his custom have mentioned
the fact that he gives only a translation of it. This has been pointed
out by Valesius; but, as Routh remarks, we can certainly go further,
and say that the other epistle mentioned by Eusebius must have been in
Greek, too, since it was written by the same Cornelius, and addressed
to the same Fabius. These epistles are no longer extant.
 Eusebius says, ta peri tes ;;Romaion sunodou kai ta doxanta
pasi tois kata ten 'Italian k.t.l., which Jerome has transformed or
compressed into de Synodo Romana, Italica, Africana, another instance
of the careless way in which his de vir. ill. was composed.
 These epistles from Cyprian and the African bishops Jerome
transforms into a single epistle from Cornelius to Fabius, de
Novatiano, et de his qui lapsi sunt. At least, it seems impossible to
explain this epistle mentioned by Jerome in any other way. Knowing the
slovenly way in which he put his work together, it is not surprising
that he should attribute these epistles to the same person who wrote
the ones mentioned just before and after. Since the first epistles
mentioned are said to have been addressed to Fabius and also the last
one, from which Eusebius quotes, it is reasonable to conclude that all
mentioned in this connection were addressed to him; and it would of
course be quite natural for Cyprian, too, to write to Fabius (who was
known to be inclined to favor Novatian), in order to confirm the
account of Cornelius, and to announce that he agreed with the latter
in regard to the treatment of the lapsed. No epistle, however, of
Cyprian or of other African bishops to Fabius are extant, though the
same subject is discussed in many epistles of Cyprian addressed to the
 Rufinus mentions only two epistles of Cornelius in this
connection, apparently confounding this one on the deeds of the
Novatians with the one mentioned just before on the Decrees of the
Council. Jerome, on the other hand, making Cornelius, as already
mentioned, the author of the epistles of Cyprian and the African
bishops, assigns four epistles to Cornelius. None of the epistles
mentioned in this section are extant, except the long fragment of the
last one quoted just below. As mentioned in the next Chapter, Fabius
inclined to take the side of Novatian over against the laxer party;
and it was on this account that Cornelius wrote him so many epistles
(compare also the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, quoted in chaps.
41 and 42, and see note 1 on the former Chapter), and endeavored to
blacken the character of Novatian as he does in the passages quoted.
 This Maximus was a presbyter, and one of a party of Roman
confessors who played a prominent part in the controversy about the
lapsed. He and his companions were imprisoned at the very beginning of
the Decian persecution (Cyprian, Ep. 24; al. 28), i.e. early in the
year 250, and while in prison they adopted rigoristic views and wrote
to some Carthaginian confessors, urging strict methods in dealing with
the lapsed (see Cyprian, Ep. 22; al. 27). Early in the year 251, after
eleven months in prison, the presbyter Moses, the leading spirit of
the party, died, and Maximus became the chief one among them. Moses
before his death, in spite of his rigoristic principles, refused to
commune with Novatian and his five presbyters (as we learn from §20 of
this Chapter), apparently because he saw that his insistence upon
strict discipline was tending toward schism, and that such discipline
could not be maintained without sacrificing the Church. But Maximus
and those mentioned with him here, together with some others (see
Cyprian, Ep. 45; al. 49), became even stricter than at first, and
finally went over to the party of Novatian (which took its rise after
the election of Cornelius in 251), but were at length reconciled to
Cornelius and the rest of the Church, and received back with rejoicing
(see Cyprian, Ep. 43, 45, 46, 49, 50; al. 46, 49, 51, 53, 54). The
notices of Maximus and Urbanus in Cyprian's epistles, which with the
epistle of Cornelius constitute our only source for a knowledge of
their lives, do not mention a second confession made by these two men,
so that we cannot tell when it took place, but it must of course have
been during the persecution of Decius.
 Urbanus was a confessor only, not a presbyter or deacon as we
learn from the notices of him in Cyprian's epistles, in connection
with the party referred to in the previous note.
 Sidonius likewise was a confessor simply, and is mentioned with
the others in the epistles of Cornelius and Cyprian.
 Celerinus was also one of this party of Roman confessors (as we
learn from Cyprian, Ep. 15, al. 87), who, upon his release from
prison, went to Carthage, and was there ordained a reader by Cyprian
(Ep. 33, al. 39). His release from prison and departure for Carthage
took place before the release of the others and before the death of
Moses (as we learn from Ep. 15), that is, before the end of the year
250. He was still in Rome, however, at Easter of that year, as we
learn from his epistle to Lucian, mentioned below. He came of a family
of martyrs (Ep. 33), and was himself one of the most celebrated
confessors of his time. There is extant an epistle written by him to
Lucian, the Carthaginian confessor (Cyprian, Ep. 21), in which he begs
absolution for his sisters, who had denied the faith. The epistle (as
we learn from its own statements) was written at Easter time and in
the year 250, for there was no bishop of Rome at the time of its
composition. As we learn from this passage, Celerinus went over with
these other Roman confessors to the party of Novatian, and returned
with them to the Church. He is, however, mentioned neither by Cyprian
nor by Cornelius (in his epistle to Cyprian) in connection with the
schism of these confessors. This is very remarkable, especially since
Celerinus was quite a prominent character. It is possible that he was
in Carthage the greater part of the time, and did not return to Rome
until shortly before the confessors returned to the Church. He might
then have thrown in his lot with them, and have returned with them to
the orthodox church; and yet, not having been mentioned by Cornelius'
earlier epistle to Cyprian, announcing the schismatic position of the
confessors, he was omitted also in the later letters announcing their
return (which in fact only mentions the three leaders), and in
Cyprian's reply, which of course would only mention those of whom he
had been told in Cornelius' first epistle. Of the subsequent career of
Celerinus and of these other confessors we know nothing.
 There is no reason to doubt, as Cornelius does, Novatian's
sincerity in declaring that he did not seek the office of bishop. Both
Cornelius and Cyprian make his ambition and his jealousy of Cornelius,
the successful candidate, the cause of his schism. But such an
accusation was made against every schismatic, even when there was not
a shadow of support for it, and there is no reason to suppose it
nearer the truth in this than in other cases. In fact, his own
protestation, as recorded here by Cornelius, and as testified to by
Dionysius in chap. 45, as well as the character of the man as revealed
in his life previous to his episcopal ordination (as certified to even
by his enemies), and in his writings, are entirely opposed to the
supposition that he sought the episcopal office and that his schism
was a result of his defeat. We shall do much better to reject entirely
this exceedingly hostile and slanderous account of his enemy
Cornelius, and to accept his own account of the matter as reported by
Dionysius in chap. 25. He was the natural head of the rigoristic
party, made such by his commanding ability, his deep piety, and his
ascetic principles of living; and when Cornelius, the head of the lax
party, was made bishop (in March, 251), the strict party revolted, and
it could not be otherwise than that Novatian should be elected bishop,
and that even if reluctant he should feel compelled to accept the
office in order to assert the principles which he believed vital, and
to prevent the complete ruin of the Church. Cornelius gives a sad
story of his ordination to the episcopate. But one thing is certain,
he had with him for some time a large portion of the best people in
the Roman church, among them Maximus and others of the most
influential confessors, who seem at length to have returned to the
Church only because they saw that the schism was injuring it.
Certainly if Novatian had been a self-seeker, as Cornelius describes
him, and if his ordination had been of such a nature as Cornelius
reports, he could never have had the support of so many earnest and
prominent men. It is doubtless true, as Cornelius states, that
Novatian was ordained by three Italian bishops, very likely bishops of
rural and comparatively insignificant sees, and it is quite possible
that one of them, as he also records, afterwards repented of his act
as schismatic, and returned to the Church and received absolution. But
all this does not imply that these three bishops were deceived by
false pretenses on the part of Novatian, or that they were intoxicated
when they performed the service. This, in fact, may be looked upon as
baseless calumny. Novatus, the Carthaginian agitator who had caused
Cyprian so much trouble, took a prominent part in the Novatian schism,
though to make him the author of it, as Cyprian does, is undoubtedly
incorrect (see Lardner, Works, III. p. 94 sq.; London ed. 1829). It
was perhaps he (as reported by Eulogius, according to Photius, Cod.
182, and by Theodoret, Hær. Fab. III. 5) that found these three
bishops to ordain Novatian. It is not at all improbable, when so many
prominent men in the Roman church favored the stricter principles and
supported Novatian, that bishops could be found in Italy who held the
same principles and would be glad to ordain Novatian as bishop of
 As Closs remarks, these words are evidently an allusion to
Novatian's work, de Trinitate.
 ekdikethes tou euangeliou. Possibly another sarcastic reference
to Novatian's work in defense of the doctrine of the Church; possibly
only an allusion to the fact that he prided himself on his orthodoxy.
 The principle, that there should be only one bishop in a city,
was not clearly enunciated and forcibly emphasized until the third
century. Cyprian's writings are full of it (cf. his treatise On the
Unity of the Church), and in connection with this Novatian schism,
which showed so plainly the disintegrating effects of a division of
the church under two bishops, the principle was established so firmly
as never again to be questioned. I do not mean to assert here that the
principle so clearly and conclusively established at this time was a
new principle. We find it enunciated even by Ignatius at the beginning
of the second century, and it was the common opinion of Christendom,
or otherwise Cyprian could not have appealed to universal custom as he
does in discussing the matter. I mean simply that the principle had
never before been brought to such a test as to require its formal
enunciation and public recognition by the clergy and the Church at
large. The emergency which now arose compelled such formal statement
of it; and the Council of Nicæa made it canon law (cf. Bingham's
Antiquities, I. p. 160 sq.).
 The limitation of the deacons to seven in number was due to the
fact that the appointment of the Seven by the apostles (Acts vi.) was
commonly looked upon as the institution of the office of the
diaconate. But upon this matter, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 2a.
The practice of limiting the number of the deacons to seven was quite
a common one, and was enacted as a law in the fifteenth canon of the
Council of Neo-Cæsarea (held early in the third century). The
practice, however, was by no means universal, as we are informed by
Sozomen (H. E. VII. 19). Indeed, at least in Alexandria and in
Constantinople, their number was much greater (see Bingham's Ant. I.
 The sub-deacons (the highest of the inferior orders of the
clergy) are first mentioned in this epistle of Cornelius and in
various epistles of Cyprian. At what time they arose we cannot tell,
but they seem to have appeared in the East later than in the West, at
least the first references we have to them in the Orient are in the
fourth century, e.g. in the Apost. Const. VIII. 21. They acted as
deacons' assistants, preparing the sacred vessels for use at the
altar, attended the doors during communion service, and were often
employed by the bishops for the conveyance of letters or messages to
distant churches. See Bingham's Ant. Bk. III. chap. 2.
 The Acolyths (akolouthoi), another of the inferior orders of
the clergy, are likewise first mentioned here and in Cyprian's
epistles. They seem to have been of much later institution in the
East, for we first hear of them there in the time of Justinian
(Justin. Novel. 59). Their duties seem to have been to attend to the
lights of the church and to procure the wine for communion service.
See Bingham, ibid. chap. 3.
 The Exorcists likewise constituted one of the inferior orders
of the clergy; but although we find exorcism very frequently referred
to by the Fathers of the second century, there seems to have been no
such office until the third century, the present being the earliest
distinct reference to it. In the fourth century we find the office in
all parts of the Church East and West. Their duty was to take charge
of those supposed to be possessed of an evil spirit; to pray with
them, care for them, and exorcise the demon when possible. See
Bingham, ibid. chap. 4.
 The Readers, or Lectors (Greek, anagnostai; Latin, Lectores),
constituted still another of the inferior orders, and were already a
distinct office in the time of Tertullian (cf. de Præscrip. chap. 41).
From the third century on the order seems to have been universal.
Their duty was to read the Scriptures in the public services of the
sanctuary. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 5.
 The Janitors, or Doorkeepers (Greek, puloroi or thuroroi;
Latin, ostiarii or janitores), are first mentioned in this passage. In
the fourth century, however, we find them frequently referred to.
Their office seems to have been about the same as that of the modern
janitor or sexton. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 6.
 There is no reason to doubt that Novatian received clinical
baptism, as here stated by Cornelius. This does not imply, as is
commonly supposed, that he was of heathen parentage, for many
Christians postponed baptism as long as possible, in order not to
sacrifice baptismal grace by sins committed after baptism. We do not
know whether his parents were heathen or Christians. Upon the
objection to Novatian's ordination, based upon his irregular baptism,
see below, §17.
 tou te sphragisthenai hupo tou episkopou sphragisthenai here
means confirmation or consignation (as it was commonly called among
the Latins); that is, the imposition of the hands of the bishop which
regularly followed baptism, immediately if the bishop were on the
ground, in other cases at as early a date as possible. The imposition
of hands was for the purpose of conveying the Holy Spirit, who should
supply the newly baptized Christian with the necessary grace to fit
him for the Christian life. Confirmation was thus looked upon as
completing the baptism and as a necessary pre-condition of receiving
the eucharist. At the same time, if a person died after baptism,
before it was possible to receive imposition of hands, the baptism was
not regarded as rendered invalid by the omission, for in the baptism
itself the full remission of sins was supposed to be granted. The
confirmation was not necessary for such remission, but was necessary
for the bestowal of the requisite sustaining grace for the Christian
life. Cornelius in the present paragraph does not intend to imply that
regenerating grace was not given in Novatian's baptism. He means
simply that the Holy Spirit was not given in that full measure in
which it was given by the laying on of hands, and which was necessary
for growth in grace and Christian living. The baptism was looked on in
ordinary cases as in a sense negative,--effecting the washing away of
sin, the laying on of hands as positive, confirming the gift of the
Spirit. The former, therefore, was sufficient to save the man who died
immediately thereafter; the latter was necessary to sustain the man
who still remained in the world. Compare with these words of Cornelius
Tertullian's de Baptism. chap. 6. The earliest extant canon on this
subject is the thirty-eighth of the synod of Elvira (306 a.d.), which
decrees that a sick person may in case of necessity be baptized by a
layman, but that he is afterward, if he recovers, to be taken to the
bishop that the baptism may be perfected by the laying on of hands.
The seventy-seventh canon decrees the same thing for those baptized by
deacons, but expressly declares that if the baptized person die before
the imposition of hands, he is to be regarded as saved in virtue of
the faith which he confessed in his baptism. It is not necessary to
give other references in connection with this matter. For further
particulars, see Bingham, ibid. Bk. XII. On the signification of the
verb sthragizo, see Suicer's Thesaurus. We can hardly believe that
Novatian failed to receive imposition of hands from the bishop, for it
is inconceivable that the latter would have omitted what was regarded
as such an important prerequisite to church communion in the case of
one whom he ordained to the presbyterate. Novatian may not have
received confirmation immediately after his recovery, but he must have
received it before his ordination. As seen in §17, it is not the
omission of confirmation that causes the objections on the part of the
clergy, but the clinical baptism.
 The majority of the mss., followed by Schwegler, Laemmer, and
Heinichen, read touton. But some of the best mss., followed by all the
other editors, read toutou.
 This is certainly a calumny. It is possible, as Neander
suggests, that Novatian, although a presbyter, withdrew somewhat from
active duty and lived the life of an ascetic, and that it is this to
which Cornelius refers in speaking of his admiration for "another
philosophy." But however that may be, Cornelius' interpretation of his
conduct as cowardly or unworthy is quite false. See above, note 1.
 Clinic baptism (so-called from kline, "a bed") was ordinarily
looked upon in the early Church, in which immersion was the common
mode of baptism, as permanently debarring a person from the
presbyterate, and by many persons it was denied that such baptism was
baptism at all. The latter opinion, however, the Church refused to
sustain (cf. Cyprian, Ep. 75; al. 19). The twelfth canon of the
Council of Neo-Cæsarea (held early in the fourth century) says, "If
any man is baptized only in time of sickness, he shall not be ordained
a presbyter; because his faith was not voluntary, but as it were of
constraint; except his subsequent faith and diligence recommend him,
or else the scarcity of men make it necessary to ordain him." It is
clear that this canon meant to apply only to persons whose baptism was
delayed by their own fault. It was common for catechumens to postpone
the rite as long as possible in order not to forfeit baptismal grace
by their post-baptismal sins, and it was to discourage this practice
that such canons as this of Neo-Cæsarea were passed. Even this canon,
however, provided for exceptional cases, and the fact that Novatian
was ordained in spite of his irregular baptism is a proof that he must
have been an exceptionally pious and zealous man.
 On Moses (or Moyses, as he is called by Cyprian), see note 9,
above. Lipsius (Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 202, note) maintains that
Cornelius is referring, at this point, not to Novatian, but to
Novatus, the Carthaginian presbyter, and that Eusebius has confounded
the two men. He bases this opinion upon the mention of the five
presbyters, whom he identifies with those who, with Novatus, separated
from the Carthaginian church in connection with the schism of
Felicissimus (see Cyprian, Ep. 39; al. 43), and also upon the fact
that Moses died before the election of Novatian as opposition bishop.
In regard to the first point, it must be noticed that, in an epistle
to Cyprian upon the schism of Novatian (Cyprian, Ep. 47; al. 50),
Cornelius mentions five presbyters (including Novatus) as connected
with Novatian in his schism. Certainly it is most natural to refer
Cornelius' words in this paragraph to the same five men. Indeed, to
speak of Novatus and the five presbyters with him would be very
peculiar, for Novatus himself was one of the five, and therefore there
were but four with him. As to the second point, it may simply be said
that Moses might well have refused to commune with Novatian, before
the election of the latter, seeing that his position would inevitably
lead to schism. There remains, therefore, no reason for supposing
Eusebius mistaken, and for referring these words to Novatus of
Carthage, instead of Novatian of Rome.
 These lists of the bishops present at the council, and of those
who expressed their agreement with the decision of the synod, are no
Chapter XLIV.--Dionysius' Account of Serapion.
1. To this same Fabius, who seemed to lean somewhat toward this
schism,  Dionysius of Alexandria also wrote an epistle. 
He writes in this many other things concerning repentance, and relates
the conflicts of those who had lately suffered martyrdom at
Alexandria. After the other account he mentions a certain wonderful
fact, which deserves a place in this work. It is as follows:
2. "I will give thee this one example which occurred among us. There
was with us a certain Serapion,  an aged believer who had lived
for a long time blamelessly, but had fallen in the trial. He besought
often, but no one gave heed to him, because he had sacrificed. But he
became sick, and for three successive days continued speechless and
3. Having recovered somewhat on the fourth day he sent for his
daughter's son, and said, How long do you detain me, my child? I
beseech you, make haste, and absolve me speedily. Call one of the
presbyters to me. And when he had said this, he became again
speechless. And the boy ran to the presbyter. But it was night and he
was sick, and therefore unable to come.
4. But as I had commanded that persons at the point of death, if they
requested it, and especially if they had asked for it previously,
should receive remission, that they might depart with a good hope, he
gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist, telling him to soak
 it and let the drops fall into the old man's mouth. 
5. The boy returned with it, and as he drew near, before he entered,
Serapion again arousing, said, `Thou art come, my child, and the
presbyter could not come; but do quickly what he directed, and let me
depart.' Then the boy soaked it and dropped it into his mouth. And
when he had swallowed a little, immediately he gave up the ghost.
6. Is it not evident that he was preserved and his life continued till
he was absolved, and, his sin having been blotted out, he could be
acknowledged  for the many good deeds which he had done?"
Dionysius relates these things.
 See above, chap. 39, note 7.
 This epistle, as we may gather from the description of its
contents in the next sentence, is without doubt the same from which
Eusebius has quoted at such length in chaps. 41 and 42. Upon the date
and purpose of it, see chap. 41, note 1. We possess only the fragments
quoted by Eusebius in these three Chapters.
 Of this Serapion we know only what is told us in this Chapter.
 apobrexai. This is translated by Crusè and by Salmond (in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 101) "soak (or steep) in water"; but the
liquid is not specified in the text, and it has consequently been
thought by others that the bread was dipped in the wine, as was
commonly done in the celebration of the eucharist in the Eastern
Church (see Bingham's Ant. Bk. XV.). But it must be noticed that the
bread was soaked not by the presbyter but by the boy, and that too
after his return home, where there can have been no consecrated wine
for eucharistic use, and there is no hint that wine was given him for
the purpose by the presbyter. It therefore seems probable that the
bread was soaked simply in water, and that the soaking was only in
order that the old man, in his enfeebled state, might be able to
receive the element in a liquid instead of in a solid form.
 kata tou stomatos epistEURxai
 homologethenai. The meaning is apparently "acknowledged or
confessed by Christ," and Valesius is doubtless correct in remarking
that Dionysius was alluding to the words of Matt. x. 32.
Chapter XLV.--An Epistle of Dionysius to Novatus.
1. But let us see how the same man addressed Novatus  when he
was disturbing the Roman brotherhood. As he pretended that some of the
brethren were the occasion of his apostasy and schism, as if he had
been forced by them to proceed as he had,  observe the manner in
which he writes to him:
2. "Dionysius to his brother Novatus, greeting. If, as thou sayest,
thou hast been led on unwillingly, thou wilt prove this if thou
retirest willingly. For it were better to suffer everything, rather
than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of
preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to
worship idols. Nay, to me it seems greater. For in the one case a man
suffers martyrdom for the sake of his own soul; in the other case in
behalf of the entire Church. And now if thou canst persuade or induce
the brethren to come to unanimity, thy righteousness will be greater
than thine error, and this will not be counted, but that will be
praised. But if thou canst not prevail with the disobedient, at least
save thine own soul. I pray that thou mayst fare well, maintaining
peace in the Lord." This he wrote to Novatus.
 This epistle to Novatian was doubtless written in reply to a
letter from him announcing his election to the episcopate of Rome, for
we know that Novatian sent such letters, as was customary, to all the
prominent bishops of the Church. Dionysius' epistle, therefore, must
have been written soon after the election of Novatian, which took
place in the year 251. We have only the fragment quoted in this
 Novatian may well have been urged against his will to permit
himself to be made opposition bishop; but of course, once having taken
the step, so long as he believed in the justice of the cause for which
he was contending, he could not turn back, but must maintain his
position with vigor and firmness. This, of course, would lead his
enemies to believe that he had himself sought the position, as
Dionysius evidently believed that he had.
Chapter XLVI.--Other Epistles of Dionysius.
1. He wrote also an epistle to the brethren in Egypt on Repentance.
 In this he sets forth what seemed proper to him in regard to
those who had fallen, and he describes the classes of transgressions.
2. There is extant also a private letter on Repentance, which he wrote
to Conon,  bishop of the parish of Hermopolis, and another of an
admonitory  character, to his flock at Alexandria. Among them
also is the one written to Origen on Martyrdom  and to the
brethren at Laodicea,  of whom Thelymidres was bishop. He
likewise sent one on Repentance to the brethren in Armenia,  of
whom Merozanes was bishop.
3. Besides all these, he wrote to Cornelius of Rome, when he had
received from him an epistle against Novatus.  He states in this
that he had been invited by Helenus,  bishop of Tarsus, in
Cilicia, and the others who were with him, Firmilianus,  bishop
in Cappadocia, and Theoctistus,  of Palestine, to meet them at
the synod in Antioch, where some persons were endeavoring to establish
the schism of Novatus.
4. Besides this he writes that he had been informed that Fabius 
had fallen asleep, and that Demetrianus  had been appointed his
successor in the episcopate of Antioch. He writes also in these words
concerning the bishop of Jerusalem: "For the blessed Alexander 
having been confined in prison, passed away happily."
5. In addition to this there is extant also a certain other diaconal
epistle of Dionysius, sent to those in Rome through Hippolytus. 
And he wrote another to them on Peace, and likewise on Repentance;
 and yet another to the confessors there who still held to the
opinion of Novatus.  He sent two more to the same persons after
they had returned to the Church. And he communicated with many others
by letters, which he has left behind him as a benefit in various ways
to those who now diligently study his writings. 
 This epistle on the subject of repentance or penance, which was
the burning one just at this time in connection with the lapsed, was
doubtless written at about the same time with those to Fabius and
Novatian, already referred to. No fragments of it have been preserved.
 This work (pros Konona idia tis peri metanoias graphe), which
was probably written at about this same time, is mentioned also by
Jerome (de vir. ill. 69). Eusebius preserves no extract from it, but
extended fragments have been preserved in various mss., and have been
published by Pitra (Spic. Solesm. I. p. 15 sq.), though it is
questionable whether all that he gives are genuine. The translation of
Dionysius' works in the Ante-Nicene Fathers omits all of these
fragments, though they are interesting and valuable. For further
particulars, see Dittrich, p. 62. The general character of the letter
must have been the same as that of the preceding.
 epistreptike; literally, "calculated to turn." Musculus and
Christophorsonus translate hortatoria; Valesius, objurgatoria; Stroth
and Closs, "Ermahnungsschrift"; Crusè, "epistle of reproof." The word
does not necessarily carry the idea of reproof with it, but it is
natural to suppose in the present case that it was written while
Dionysius was absent from Alexandria, during the persecution of
Decius, and if so, may well have contained an admonition to
steadfastness, and at the same time, possibly, an argument against
rigoristic measures which some of the people may have been advocating
in reference to the lapsed. At least, the connection in which Eusebius
mentions it might lead us to think that it had something to do with
that question, though, as the epistle is no longer extant, we can
reach no certainty in the matter.
 This epistle was doubtless written while Origen was suffering
imprisonment in the persecution of Decius (see above, chap. 39, and
below, p. 394), and was for the purpose of comforting and encouraging
him (cf. Origen's own work on martyrdom, referred to in chap. 28,
above). The epistle is no longer extant. Numerous fragments are given
by Gallandi, Migne, and others, which they assign to this work; but
Dittrich has shown (p. 35 sq.) that they are to be ascribed to some
one else, perhaps to another Dionysius who lived much later than the
 This epistle to the Laodiceans, which is no longer extant, very
likely dealt, like so many of the others, with the question of
discipline. Of Thelymidres, bishop of Laodicea, we know nothing.
 We know no more about this epistle to the Armenians than is
told us here. The character of the letter must have been similar to
the two upon the same subject mentioned above. Of the bishop Merozanes
nothing is known.
 On Cornelius, see above, chap. 39, note. 3. His epistle to
Dionysius is no longer extant. Dionysius' epistle to him is likewise
lost, and is known to us only from what Eusebius tells us here. It was
written after the death of Fabius of Antioch (see below, §4), and
therefore probably in 253 (see above, chap. 39, note 7). It has been
questioned whether this synod of Antioch to which, according to
Eusebius, Dionysius referred, was really held, or only projected. The
Libellus Synodicus records it as an actual synod, but its authority is
of no weight. On the other hand, Eusebius' words seem plainly to
indicate that he believed that the council was really held, for he
speaks of it as "the synod at Antioch"; had he thought of it only as
projected, he could hardly have referred to it in such definite terms.
In spite, therefore, of the doubts of Dittrich, Hefele, and others, I
am inclined to believe that Eusebius supposed that the synod had
actually been held in Antioch. Whether the epistle of Dionysius
warranted him in drawing that conclusion is another question, which
cannot be decided. I look upon it, however, as probable that, had the
synod been simply projected and failed to convene, some indication of
that fact would have been given by Dionysius, and would have caused a
modification of Eusebius' statement.
 Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, played a prominent part in the
controversy concerning the re-baptism of heretics, maintaining, like
most of the Oriental bishops, the necessity of re-baptizing them (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 5), and also in the controversy which arose
about Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). From the
latter Chapter we should gather that he presided at the final council
in Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul, Firmilian, who seems
to have presided at the previous councils, having died on his way to
the last one. Of Helenus' dates we know only what we can gather from
the facts here stated. He must have been bishop as early as 252; and
he cannot have died until after 265 (on the date of the Antiochian
synod at which Paul was condemned, see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1).
 On Firmilian, see above, chap. 26, note 3.
 On Theoctistus, see above, chap. 19, note 27.
 On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 39, note 7.
 Demetrianus, the successor of Fabius, and predecessor of Paul
in the bishopric of Antioch, is mentioned also in Bk. VII. chaps. 5,
14, 27, and 30. The date of his accession is uncertain; but as Fabius
died probably in 253 (possibly in 252), we can fix approximately the
beginning of his episcopate. In Bk. VII. chaps. 5 and 14, he is said
to have survived Gallienus' edict of toleration (260 a.d.); but as
Harnack has shown (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51), this notice is quite
unreliable, as are also the notices in the Chronicle. We can only say
that his successor, Paul, became bishop between the years 257 and 260.
 On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see above, chap. 8, note 6.
 The interpretation of this sentence is very difficult. The
Greek runs hexes taute kai hetera tis epistole tois en ;;Rome tou
Dionusiou pheretai diakonike dia ;;Ippolutou. The pheretai, according
to the usage of Eusebius, must mean "is extant," and some participle
(e.g. "written" or "sent") must then be supplied before dia
;;Ippolutou. Whether Eusebius means that the letter was written by
Hippolytus or was carried by him to Rome cannot be determined. The
latter is more probable and is the commonly accepted interpretation.
That Eusebius should name a messenger in this particular case and in
no other seems peculiar, unless it be supposed that Hippolytus was so
prominent a character as to merit especial mention. Who he was we do
not know, for chronology will not permit us (as was formerly done by
some scholars) to identify him with the great writer of the Roman
church (see above, chaps. 20 and 22), and no other Hippolytus of
prominence is known to us. In view of Eusebius' mention of the name at
this point, I am inclined, however, to think that he, knowing so
little about the Roman Hippolytus, fancied that this was the same man.
If he did, he had good reason to mention him. The word "diaconal"
(diakonike) in this sentence has caused much dispute. Rufinus
translates epistola de ministeriis; Valesius, epistola de officio
diaconi, that is, "concerning the office (or duties) of the
diaconate," and it seems out of the question to understand the word in
any other way. Why Dionysius should address an epistle on this subject
to the Roman church it is impossible to say. Magistris supposed that
it was called "diaconal" because it was to be read in church by a
deacon, and concluded that it was an exhortation to peace, since it
was customary for the deacons to offer the eirenikEUR, or prayers for
peace. The supposition is attractive, for it is natural to think that
this epistle, like the others, discussed the Novatian schism and
contained an exhortation to peace. But we cannot without further
evidence adopt Magistris' explanation, nor indeed can we assume that a
diaconal epistle as such (whether the word is a technical one or not,
and though it might seem such we have no other trace of such a use of
it) had to do with the unity or peace of the Church. We must, in fact,
leave the matter quite undetermined. Compare Dittrich, ibid. p. 55.
 Of these two epistles to the Romans we know only the titles, as
given here by Eusebius.
 On these confessors, and their return to the Church, see above,
chap. 43, note 9. Dionysius' epistles to them are known to us only
from Eusebius' reference to them in this passage.
 Besides the epistles mentioned by Eusebius in this and the
previous Chapter we know at least the titles of a number of others. In
Bk. VII. many are referred to, and extracts from some are quoted by
Eusebius. See especially Bk. VII. chap. 26, where another partial list
of them is given. Eusebius does not pretend to mention all of
Dionysius' epistles; indeed, he states that he wrote many besides
those mentioned. For further particulars in regard to all the epistles
known to us, see Dittrich's monograph.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet