Writings of Eusebius - The Church History of Eusebius
Advanced Information
Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1890 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book V.
Introduction.
1. Soter, [1345] bishop of the church of Rome, died after an
episcopate of eight years, and was succeeded by Eleutherus, [1346] the
twelfth from the apostles. In the seventeenth year of the Emperor
Antoninus Verus, [1347] the persecution of our people was rekindled
more fiercely in certain districts on account of an insurrection of
the masses in the cities; and judging by the number in a single
nation, myriads suffered martyrdom throughout the world. A record of
this was written for posterity, and in truth it is worthy of perpetual
remembrance.
2. A full account, containing the most reliable information on the
subject, is given in our Collection of Martyrdoms, [1348] which
constitutes a narrative instructive as well as historical. I will
repeat here such portions of this account as may be needful for the
present purpose.
3. Other writers of history record the victories of war and trophies
won from enemies, the skill of generals, and the manly bravery of
soldiers, defiled with blood and with innumerable slaughters for the
sake of children and country and other possessions.
4. But our narrative of the government of God [1349] will record in
ineffaceable letters the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the
peace of the soul, and will tell of men doing brave deeds for truth
rather than country, and for piety rather than dearest friends. It
will hand down to imperishable remembrance the discipline and the
much-tried fortitude of the athletes of religion, the trophies won
from demons, the victories over invisible enemies, and the crowns
placed upon all their heads.
Footnotes
[1345] On Soter, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 2.
[1346] Eusebius in his Chronicle gives the date of Eleutherus'
accession as the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (177 a.d.), and
puts his death into the reign of Pertinax (192), while in chap. 22 of
the present book he places his death in the tenth year of Commodus
(189). Most of our authorities agree in assigning fifteen years to his
episcopate, and this may be accepted as undoubtedly correct. Most of
them, moreover, agree with chap. 22 of this book, in assigning his
death to the tenth year of Commodus, and this too may be accepted as
accurate. But with these two data we are obliged to push his accession
back into the year 174 (or 175), which is accepted by Lipsius (see his
Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 184 sq.). We must therefore suppose that
he became bishop some two years before the outbreak of the persecution
referred to just below, in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of Marcus
Aurelius. In the Armenian version of the Chron. Eleutherus is called
the thirteenth bishop of Rome (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5),
but this is a mistake, as pointed out in the note referred to.
Eleutherus is mentioned in Bk. IV, chap. 11, in connection with
Hegesippus, and also in Bk. IV. chap. 22, by Hegesippus himself. He is
chiefly interesting because of his connection with Irenĉus and the
Gallican martyrs (see chap. 4, below), and his relation to the
Montanistic controversy (see chap. 3). Bede, in his Hist. Eccles.,
chap. 4, connects Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity,
but the tradition is quite groundless. One of the decretals and a
spurious epistle are falsely ascribed to him.
[1347] i.e., the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius,
a.d. 177 (upon Eusebius' confusion of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius
Verus, see below, p. 390, note). In the Chron. the persecution at
Lyons and Vienne is associated with the seventh year of Marcus
Aurelius (167), and consequently some (e.g. Blondellus, Stroth, and
Jachmann), have maintained that the notice in the present passage is
incorrect, and Jachmann has attacked Eusebius very severely for the
supposed error. The truth is, however, that the notice in the Chron.
(in the Armenian, which represents the original form more closely than
Jenner's version does) is not placed opposite the seventh year of
Marcus Aurelius (as the notices in the Chron. commonly are), but is
placed after it, and grouped with the notice of Polycarp's martyrdom,
which occurred, not in 167, but in 155 or 156 (see above, Bk. IV.
chap. 15, note 2). It would seem, as remarked by Lightfoot (Ignatius,
I. p. 630), that Eusebius simply connected together the martyrdoms
which he supposed occurred about this time, without intending to imply
that they all took place in the same year. Similar groupings of
kindred events which occurred at various times during the reign of an
emperor are quite common in the Chron. (cf. the notices of martyrdoms
under Trajan and of apologies and rescripts under Hadrian). Over
against the distinct statement of the history, therefore, in the
present instance, the notice in the Chron. is of no weight. Moreover,
it is clear from the present passage that Eusebius had strong grounds
for putting the persecution into the time of Eleutherus, and the
letter sent by the confessors to Eleutherus (as recorded below in
chap. 4) gives us also good reason for putting the persecution into
the time of his episcopate. But Eleutherus cannot have become bishop
before 174 (see Lipsius' Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 184 sq., and
note 2, above). There is no reason, therefore, for doubting the date
given here by Eusebius.
[1348] All the mss. read marturon, but I have followed Valesius (in
his notes) and Heinichen in reading marturion, which is supported by
the version of Rufinus (de singulorum martyriis), and which is the
word used by Eusebius in all his other references to the work (Bk. IV.
chap. 15 and Bk. V. chaps. 4 and 21), and is in fact the proper word
to be employed after sunagoge, "collection." We speak correctly of a
"collection of martyrdoms," not of a "collection of martyrs," and I
cannot believe that Eusebius, in referring to a work of his own, used
the wrong word in the present case. Upon the work itself, see the
Prolegomena, p. 30, of this volume.
[1349] tou kata theon politeumatos, with the majority of the mss.
supported by Rufinus. Some mss., followed by Stroth, Burton, and
Schwegler, read kath' hemas instead of kata theon (see Heinichen's
note in loco). Christophorsonus translates divinam vivendi rationem,
which is approved by Heinichen. But the contrast drawn seems to be
rather between earthly kingdoms, or governments, and the kingdom, or
government, of God; and I have, therefore, preferred to give politeuma
its ordinary meaning, as is done by Valesius (divinĉ reipublicĉ),
Stroth (Republik Gottes), and Closs (Staates Gottes).
Chapter I.--The Number of those who fought for Religion in Gaul Under
Verus and the Nature of their Conflicts.
1. The country in which the arena was prepared for them was Gaul, of
which Lyons and Vienne [1350] are the principal and most celebrated
cities. The Rhone passes through both of them, flowing in a broad
stream through the entire region.
2. The most celebrated churches in that country sent an account of the
witnesses [1351] to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, relating in the
following manner what was done among them.
I will give their own words. [1352]
3. "The servants of Christ residing at Vienne and Lyons, in Gaul, to
the brethren through out Asia and Phrygia, who hold the same faith and
hope of redemption, peace and grace and glory from God the Father and
Christ Jesus our Lord."
4. Then, having related some other matters, they begin their account
in this manner: "The greatness of the tribulation in this region, and
the fury of the heathen against the saints, and the sufferings of the
blessed witnesses, we cannot recount accurately, nor indeed could they
possibly be recorded.
5. For with all his might the adversary fell upon us, giving us a
foretaste of his unbridled activity at his future coming. He
endeavored in every manner to practice and exercise his servants
against the servants of God, not only shutting us out from houses and
baths and markets, but forbidding any of us to be seen in any place
whatever.
6. But the grace of God led the conflict against him, and delivered
the weak, and set them as firm pillars, able through patience to
endure all the wrath of the Evil One. And they joined battle with him,
undergoing all kinds of shame and injury; and regarding their great
sufferings as little, they hastened to Christ, manifesting truly that
`the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared
with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.' [1353]
7. First of all, they endured nobly the injuries heaped upon them by
the populace; clamors and blows and draggings and robberies and
stonings and imprisonments, [1354] and all things which an infuriated
mob delight in inflicting on enemies and adversaries.
8. Then, being taken to the forum by the chiliarch [1355] and the
authorities of the city, they were examined in the presence of the
whole multitude, and having confessed, they were imprisoned until the
arrival of the governor.
9. When, afterwards, they were brought before him, and he treated us
with the utmost cruelty, Vettius Epagathus, [1356] one of the
brethren, and a man filled with love for God and his neighbor,
interfered. His life was so consistent that, although young, he had
attained a reputation equal to that of the elder Zacharias: for he
`walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,'
[1357] and was untiring in every good work for his neighbor, zealous
for God and fervent in spirit. Such being his character, he could not
endure the unreasonable judgment against us, but was filled with
indignation, and asked to be permitted to testify in behalf of his
brethren, that there is among us nothing ungodly or impious.
10. But those about the judgment seat cried out against him, for he
was a man of distinction; and the governor refused to grant his just
request, and merely asked if he also were a Christian. And he,
confessing this with a loud voice, was himself taken into the order
[1358] of the witnesses, being called the Advocate of the Christians,
but having the Advocate [1359] in himself, the Spirit [1360] more
abundantly than Zacharias. [1361] He showed this by the fullness of
his love, being well pleased even to lay down his life [1362] in
defense of the brethren. For he was and is a true disciple of Christ,
`following the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.' [1363]
11. "Then the others were divided, [1364] and the proto-witnesses were
manifestly ready, and finished their confession with all eagerness.
But some appeared unprepared and untrained, weak as yet, and unable to
endure so great a conflict. About ten of these proved abortions,
[1365] causing us great grief and sorrow beyond measure, and impairing
the zeal of the others who had not yet been seized, but who, though
suffering all kinds of affliction, continued constantly with the
witnesses and did not forsake them.
12. Then all of us feared greatly on account of uncertainty as to
their confession; not because we dreaded the sufferings to be endured,
but because we looked to the end, and were afraid that some of them
might fall away.
13. But those who were worthy were seized day by day, filling up their
number, so that all the zealous persons, and those through whom
especially our affairs had been established, were collected together
out of the two churches.
14. And some of our heathen servants also were seized, as the governor
had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being
ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they
beheld the saints endure, [1366] and being also urged on by the
soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyestean banquets and OEdipodean
intercourse, [1367] and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to
speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by
men.
15. When these accusations were reported, all the people raged like
wild beasts against us, so that even if any had before been moderate
on account of friendship, they were now exceedingly furious and
gnashed their teeth against us. And that which was spoken by our Lord
was fulfilled: `The time will come when whosoever killeth you will
think that he doeth God service.' [1368]
16. Then finally the holy witnesses endured sufferings beyond
description, Satan striving earnestly that some of the slanders might
be uttered by them also. [1369]
17. "But the whole wrath of the populace, and governor, and soldiers
was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne,
[1370] and Maturus, a late convert, yet a noble combatant, and against
Attalus, a native of Pergamos [1371] where he had always been a pillar
and foundation, and Blandina, through whom Christ showed that things
which appear mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of
great glory, [1372] through love toward him manifested in power, and
not boasting in appearance.
18. For while we all trembled, and her earthly mistress, who was
herself also one of the witnesses, feared that on account of the
weakness of her body, she would be unable to make bold confession,
Blandina was filled with such power as to be delivered and raised
above those who were torturing her by turns from morning till evening
in every manner, so that they acknowledged that they were conquered,
and could do nothing more to her. And they were astonished at her
endurance, as her entire body was mangled and broken; and they
testified that one of these forms of torture was sufficient to destroy
life, not to speak of so many and so great sufferings.
19. But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength
in her confession; and her comfort and recreation and relief from the
pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, `I am a Christian, and there
is nothing vile done by us.'
20. "But Sanctus also endured marvelously and superhumanly [1373] all
the outrages which he suffered. While the wicked men hoped, by the
continuance and severity of his tortures to wring something from him
which he ought not to say, he girded himself against them with such
firmness that he would not even tell his name, or the nation or city
to which he belonged, or whether he was bond or free, but answered in
the Roman tongue to all their questions, `I am a Christian.' He
confessed this instead of name and city and race and everything
besides, and the people heard from him no other word.
21. There arose therefore on the part of the governor and his
tormentors a great desire to conquer him; but having nothing more that
they could do to him, they finally fastened red-hot brazen plates to
the most tender parts of his body.
22. And these indeed were burned, but he continued unbending and
unyielding, firm in his confession, and refreshed and strengthened by
the heavenly fountain of the water of life, flowing from the bowels of
Christ.
23. And his body was a witness of his sufferings, being one complete
wound and bruise, drawn out of shape, and altogether unlike a human
form. Christ, suffering in him, manifested his glory, delivering him
from his adversary, and making him an ensample for the others, showing
that nothing is fearful where the love of the Father is, and nothing
painful where there is the glory of Christ.
24. For when the wicked men tortured him a second time after some
days, supposing that with his body swollen and inflamed to such a
degree that he could not bear the touch of a hand, if they should
again apply the same instruments, they would overcome him, or at least
by his death under his sufferings others would be made afraid, not
only did not this occur, but, contrary to all human expectation, his
body arose and stood erect in the midst of the subsequent torments,
and resumed its original appearance and the use of its limbs, so that,
through the grace of Christ, these second sufferings became to him,
not torture, but healing.
25. "But the devil, thinking that he had already consumed Biblias, who
was one of those who had denied Christ, desiring to increase her
condemnation through the utterance of blasphemy, [1374] brought her
again to the torture, to compel her, as already feeble and weak, to
report impious things concerning us.
26. But she recovered herself under the suffering, and as if awaking
from a deep sleep, and reminded by the present anguish of the eternal
punishment in hell, she contradicted the blasphemers. `How,' she said,
`could those eat children who do not think it lawful to taste the
blood even of irrational animals?' And thenceforward she confessed
herself a Christian, and was given a place in the order of the
witnesses.
27. "But as the tyrannical tortures were made by Christ of none effect
through the patience of the blessed, the devil invented other
contrivances,--confinement in the dark and most loathsome parts of the
prison, stretching of the feet to the fifth hole in the stocks, [1375]
and the other outrages which his servants are accustomed to inflict
upon the prisoners when furious and filled with the devil. A great
many were suffocated in prison, being chosen by the Lord for this
manner of death, that he might manifest in them his glory.
28. For some, though they had been tortured so cruelly that it seemed
impossible that they could live, even with the most careful nursing,
yet, destitute of human attention, remained in the prison, being
strengthened by the Lord, and invigorated both in body and soul; and
they exhorted and encouraged the rest. But such as were young, and
arrested recently, so that their bodies had not become accustomed to
torture, were unable to endure the severity of their confinement, and
died in prison.
29. "The blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the bishopric
of Lyons, was dragged to the judgment seat. He was more than ninety
years of age, and very infirm, scarcely indeed able to breathe because
of physical weakness; but he was strengthened by spiritual zeal
through his earnest desire for martyrdom. Though his body was worn out
by old age and disease, his life was preserved that Christ might
triumph in it.
30. When he was brought by the soldiers to the tribunal, accompanied
by the civil magistrates and a multitude who shouted against him in
every manner as if he were Christ himself, he bore noble witness.
31. Being asked by the governor, Who was the God of the Christians, he
replied, `If thou art worthy, thou shalt know.' Then he was dragged
away harshly, and received blows of every kind. Those near him struck
him with their hands and feet, regardless of his age; and those at a
distance hurled at him whatever they could seize; all of them thinking
that they would be guilty of great wickedness and impiety if any
possible abuse were omitted. For thus they thought to avenge their own
deities. Scarcely able to breathe, he was cast into prison and died
after two days.
32. "Then a certain great dispensation of God occurred, and the
compassion of Jesus appeared beyond measure, [1376] in a manner rarely
seen among the brotherhood, but not beyond the power of Christ.
33. For those who had recanted at their first arrest were imprisoned
with the others, and endured terrible sufferings, so that their denial
was of no profit to them even for the present. But those who confessed
what they were were imprisoned as Christians, no other accusation
being brought against them. But the first were treated afterwards as
murderers and defiled, and were punished twice as severely as the
others.
34. For the joy of martyrdom, and the hope of the promises, and love
for Christ, and the Spirit of the Father supported the latter; but
their consciences so greatly distressed the former that they were
easily distinguishable from all the rest by their very countenances
when they were led forth.
35. For the first went out rejoicing, glory and grace being blended in
their faces, so that even their bonds seemed like beautiful ornaments,
as those of a bride adorned with variegated golden fringes; and they
were perfumed with the sweet savor of Christ, [1377] so that some
supposed they had been anointed with earthly ointment. But the others
were downcast and humble and dejected and filled with every kind of
disgrace, and they were reproached by the heathen as ignoble and weak,
bearing the accusation of murderers, and having lost the one honorable
and glorious and life-giving Name. The rest, beholding this, were
strengthened, and when apprehended, they confessed without hesitation,
paying no attention to the persuasions of the devil."
36. After certain other words they continue:
"After these things, finally, their martyrdoms were divided into every
form. [1378] For plaiting a crown of various colors and of all kinds
of flowers, they presented it to the Father. It was proper therefore
that the noble athletes, having endured a manifold strife, and
conquered grandly, should receive the crown, great and incorruptible.
37. "Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus and Blandina and Attalus were led
to the amphitheater to be exposed to the wild beasts, and to give to
the heathen public a spectacle of cruelty, a day for fighting with
wild beasts being specially appointed on account of our people.
38. Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again through every torment in the
amphitheater, as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather, as
if, having already conquered their antagonist in many contests, [1379]
they were now striving for the crown itself. They endured again the
customary running of the gauntlet [1380] and the violence of the wild
beasts, and everything which the furious people called for or desired,
and at last, the iron chair in which their bodies being roasted,
tormented them with the fumes.
39. And not with this did the persecutors cease, but were yet more mad
against them, determined to overcome their patience. But even thus
they did not hear a word from Sanctus except the confession which he
had uttered from the beginning.
40. These, then, after their life had continued for a long time
through the great conflict, were at last sacrificed, having been made
throughout that day a spectacle to the world, in place of the usual
variety of combats.
41. "But Blandina was suspended on a stake, and exposed to be devoured
by the wild beasts who should attack her. [1381] And because she
appeared as if hanging on a cross, and because of her earnest prayers,
she inspired the combatants with great zeal. For they looked on her in
her conflict, and beheld with their outward eyes, in the form of their
sister, him who was crucified for them, that he might persuade those
who believe on him, that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ
has fellowship always with the living God.
42. As none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken
down from the stake, and cast again into prison. She was preserved
thus for another contest, that, being victorious in more conflicts,
she might make the punishment of the crooked serpent irrevocable;
[1382] and, though small and weak and despised, yet clothed with
Christ the mighty and conquering Athlete, she might arouse the zeal of
the brethren, and, having overcome the adversary many times might
receive, through her conflict, the crown incorruptible.
43. "But Attalus was called for loudly by the people, because he was a
person of distinction. He entered the contest readily on account of a
good conscience and his genuine practice in Christian discipline, and
as he had always been a witness for the truth among us.
44. He was led around the amphitheater, a tablet being carried before
him on which was written in the Roman language `This is Attalus the
Christian,' and the people were filled with indignation against him.
But when the governor learned that he was a Roman, he commanded him to
be taken back with the rest of those who were in prison concerning
whom he had written to Cĉsar, and whose answer he was awaiting.
45. "But the intervening time was not wasted nor fruitless to them;
for by their patience the measureless compassion of Christ was
manifested. For through their continued life the dead were made alive,
and the witnesses showed favor to those who had failed to witness. And
the virgin mother had much joy in receiving alive those whom she had
brought forth as dead. [1383]
46. For through their influence many who had denied were restored, and
re-begotten, and rekindled with life, and learned to confess. And
being made alive and strengthened, they went to the judgment seat to
be again interrogated by the governor; God, who desires not the death
of the sinner, [1384] but mercifully invites to repentance, treating
them with kindness.
47. For Cĉsar commanded that they should be put to death, [1385] but
that any who might deny should be set free. Therefore, at the
beginning of the public festival [1386] which took place there, and
which was attended by crowds of men from all nations, the governor
brought the blessed ones to the judgment seat, to make of them a show
and spectacle for the multitude. Wherefore also he examined them
again, and beheaded those who appeared to possess Roman citizenship,
but he sent the others to the wild beasts.
48. "And Christ was glorified greatly in those who had formerly denied
him, for, contrary to the expectation of the heathen, they confessed.
For they were examined by themselves, as about to be set free; but
confessing, they were added to the order of the witnesses. But some
continued without, who had never possessed a trace of faith, nor any
apprehension of the wedding garment, [1387] nor an understanding of
the fear of God; but, as sons of perdition, they blasphemed the Way
through their apostasy.
49. But all the others were added to the Church. While these were
being examined, a certain Alexander, a Phrygian by birth, and
physician by profession, who had resided in Gaul for many years, and
was well known to all on account of his love to God and boldness of
speech (for he was not without a share of apostolic grace), standing
before the judgment seat, and by signs encouraging them to confess,
appeared to those standing by as if in travail.
50. But the people being enraged because those who formerly denied now
confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of
this. Then the governor summoned him and inquired who he was. And when
he answered that he was a Christian, being very angry he condemned him
to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered along with Attalus.
For to please the people, the governor had ordered Attalus again to
the wild beasts.
51. And they were tortured in the amphitheater with all the
instruments contrived for that purpose, and having endured a very
great conflict, were at last sacrificed. Alexander neither groaned nor
murmured in any manner, but communed in his heart with God.
52. But when Attalus was placed in the iron seat, and the fumes arose
from his burning body, he said to the people in the Roman language:
`Lo! this which ye do is devouring men; but we do not devour men; nor
do any other wicked thing.' And being asked, what name God has, he
replied, `God has not a name as man has.'
53. "After all these, on the last day of the contests, Blandina was
again brought in, with Ponticus, a boy about fifteen years old. They
had been brought every day to witness the sufferings of the others,
and had been pressed to swear by the idols. But because they remained
steadfast and despised them, the multitude became furious, so that
they had no compassion for the youth of the boy nor respect for the
sex of the woman.
54. Therefore they exposed them to all the terrible sufferings and
took them through the entire round of torture, repeatedly urging them
to swear, but being unable to effect this; for Ponticus, encouraged by
his sister so that even the heathen could see that she was confirming
and strengthening him, having nobly endured every torture, gave up the
ghost.
55. But the blessed Blandina, last of all, having, as a noble mother,
encouraged her children and sent them before her victorious to the
King, endured herself all their conflicts and hastened after them,
glad and rejoicing in her departure as if called to a marriage supper,
rather than cast to wild beasts.
56. And, after the scourging, after the wild beasts, after the
roasting seat, [1388] she was finally enclosed in a net, and thrown
before a bull. And having been tossed about by the animal, but feeling
none of the things which were happening to her, on account of her hope
and firm hold upon what had been entrusted to her, and her communion
with Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen themselves
confessed that never among them had a woman endured so many and such
terrible tortures.
57. "But not even thus was their madness and cruelty toward the saints
satisfied. For, incited by the Wild Beast, wild and barbarous tribes
were not easily appeased, and their violence found another peculiar
opportunity in the dead bodies. [1389]
58. For, through their lack of manly reason, the fact that they had
been conquered did not put them to shame, but rather the more
enkindled their wrath as that of a wild beast, and aroused alike the
hatred of governor and people to treat us unjustly; that the Scripture
might be fulfilled: `He that is lawless, let him be lawless still, and
he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.' [1390]
59. For they cast to the dogs those who had died of suffocation in the
prison, carefully guarding them by night and day, lest any one should
be buried by us. And they exposed the remains left by the wild beasts
and by fire, mangled and charred, and placed the heads of the others
by their bodies, and guarded them in like manner from burial by a
watch of soldiers for many days.
60. And some raged and gnashed their teeth against them, desiring to
execute more severe vengeance upon them; but others laughed and mocked
at them, magnifying their own idols, and imputed to them the
punishment of the Christians. Even the more reasonable, and those who
had seemed to sympathize somewhat, reproached them often, saying,
`Where is their God, and what has their religion, which they have
chosen rather than life, profited them?'
61. So various was their conduct toward us; but we were in deep
affliction because we could not bury the bodies. For neither did night
avail us for this purpose, nor did money persuade, nor entreaty move
to compassion; but they kept watch in every way, as if the prevention
of the burial would be of some great advantage to them."
In addition, they say after other things:
62 . "The bodies of the martyrs, having thus in every manner been
exhibited and exposed for six days, were afterward burned and reduced
to ashes, and swept into the Rhone by the wicked men, so that no trace
of them might appear on the earth.
63. And this they did, as if able to conquer God, and prevent their
new birth; `that,' as they said, `they may have no hope of a
resurrection, [1391] through trust in which they bring to us this
foreign and new religion, and despise terrible things, and are ready
even to go to death with joy. Now let us see if they will rise again,
and if their God is able to help them, and to deliver them out of our
hands.'"
Footnotes
[1350] Lougdounos kai Bienna, the ancient Lugdunum and Vienna, the
modern Lyons and Vienne in southeastern France.
[1351] marturon. This word is used in this and the following Chapters
of all those that suffered in the persecution, whether they lost their
lives or not, and therefore in a broader sense than our word "martyr."
In order, therefore, to avoid all ambiguity I have translated the word
in every case "witness," its original significance. Upon the use of
the words mEURrtur and mEURrtus in the early Church, see Bk. III.
chap. 32, note 15.
[1352] The fragments of this epistle, preserved by Eusebius in this
and the next Chapter, are printed with a commentary by Routh, in his
Rel. Sacrĉ. I. p. 285 sq., and an English translation is given in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 778 sq. There can be no doubt as to the
early date and reliability of the epistle. It bears no traces of a
later age, and contains little of the marvelous, which entered so
largely into the spurious martyrologies of a later day. Its
genuineness is in fact questioned by no one so far as I am aware. It
is one of the most beautiful works of the kind which we have, and well
deserves the place in his History which Eusebius has accorded it. We
may assume that we have the greater part of the epistle in so far as
it related to the martyrdoms. Ado, in his Mart., asserts that
forty-eight suffered martyrdom, and even gives a list of their names.
It is possible that he gained his information from the epistle itself,
as given in its complete form in Eusebius' Collection of Martyrdoms;
but I am inclined to think rather that Eusebius has mentioned if not
all, at least the majority of the martyrs referred to in the epistle,
and that therefore Ado's list is largely imaginary. Eusebius'
statement, that a "multitude" suffered signifies nothing, for muria
was a very indefinite word, and might be used of a dozen or fifteen as
easily as of forty-eight. To speak of the persecution as "wholesale,"
so that it was not safe for any Christian to appear out of doors
(Lightfoot, Ignatius, Vol. I. p. 499), is rather overstating the case.
The persecution must, of course, whatever its extent, appear terrible
to the Christians of the region; but a critical examination of the
epistle itself will hardly justify the extravagant statements which
are commonly made in regard to the magnitude and severity of the
persecution. It may have been worse than any single persecution that
had preceded it, but sinks into insignificance when compared with
those which took place under Decius and Diocletian. It is interesting
to notice that this epistle was especially addressed to the Christians
of Asia and Phrygia. We know that Southern Gaul contained a great many
Asia Minor people, and that the intercourse between the two districts
was very close. Irenĉus, and other prominent Christians of Gaul, in
the second and following centuries, were either natives of Asia Minor,
or had pursued their studies there; and so the Church of the country
always bore a peculiarly Greek character, and was for some centuries
in sympathy and in constant communication with the Eastern Church.
Witness, for instance, the rise and spread of semi-Pelagianism there
in the fifth century,--a simple reproduction in its main features of
the anthropology of the Eastern Church. Doubtless, at the time this
epistle was written, there were many Christians in Lyons and Vienne,
who had friends and relations in the East, and hence it was very
natural that an epistle should be sent to what might be called, in a
sense, the mother churches. Valesius expressed the opinion that
Irenĉus was the author of this epistle; and he has been followed by
many other scholars. It is possible that he was, but there are no
grounds upon which to base the opinion, except the fact that Irenĉus
lived in Lyons, and was, or afterward became, a writer. On the other
hand, it is significant that no tradition has connected the letter
with Irenĉus' name, and that even Eusebius has no thought of such a
connection. In fact, Valesius' opinion seems to me in the highest
degree improbable.
[1353] Rom. viii. 18.
[1354] Of course official imprisonment cannot be referred to here. It
may be that the mob did actually shut Christians up in one or another
place, or it may mean simply that their treatment was such that the
Christians were obliged to avoid places of public resort and were
perhaps even compelled to remain somewhat closely at home, and were
thus in a sense "imprisoned."
[1355] chiliarches, strictly the commander of a thousand men, but
commonly used also to translate the Latin Tribunus militum.
[1356] Of the various witnesses mentioned in this Chapter (Vettius
Epagathus, Sanctus, Attalus, Blandina, Biblias, Pothinus, Maturus,
Alexander, Ponticus) we know only what this epistle tells us. The
question has arisen whether Vettius Epagathus really was a martyr.
Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 307) thinks that he was not even arrested, but
that the words "taken into the number of martyrs" (§10, below) imply
simply that he enjoyed all the merit of martyrdom without actually
undergoing any suffering. He bases his opinion upon the fact that
Vettius is not mentioned again among the martyrs whose sufferings are
recorded, and also upon the use of the words, "He was and is a true
disciple" (§10, below). It is quite possible, however, that Vettius,
who is said to have been a man of high station, was simply beheaded as
a Roman citizen, and therefore there was no reason for giving a
description of his death; and still further the words, "taken into the
order of witnesses," and also the words used in §10, "being well
pleased to lay down his life," while they do not prove that he
suffered martyrdom, yet seem very strongly to imply that he did, and
the quotation from the Apocalypse in the same paragraph would seem to
indicate that he was dead, not alive, at the time the epistle was
written. On the whole, it may be regarded as probable, though not
certain, that Vettius was one of the martyrs. Valesius refers to
Gregory of Tours (H. E. chaps. 29, 31) as mentioning a certain senator
who was "of the lineage of Vettius Epagathus, who suffered for the
name of Christ at Lyons." Gregory's authority is not very great, and
he may in this case have known no more about the death of Vettius than
is told in the fragment which we still possess, so that his statement
can hardly be urged as proof that Vettius did suffer martyrdom. But it
may be used as indicating that the latter was of a noble family, a
fact which is confirmed in §10, below, where he is spoken of as a man
of distinction.
[1357] Luke i. 6.
[1358] kleron, employed in the sense of "order," "class," "category."
Upon the significance of the word kleros in early Christian
literature, see Ritschl's exhaustive discussion in his Entstehung der
altkatholischen Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq.
[1359] parEURkleton; cf. John xiv. 16.
[1360] pneuma is omitted by three important mss. followed by Laemmer
and Heinichen. Burton retains the word in his text, but rejects it in
a note. They are possibly correct, but I have preferred to follow the
majority of the codices, thinking it quite natural that Eusebius
should introduce the pneuma in connection with Zacharias, who is said
to have been filled with the "Spirit," not with the "Advocate," and
thinking the omission of the word by a copyist, to whom it might seem
quite superfluous after parEURkleton, much easier than its insertion.
[1361] See Luke i. 67
[1362] Compare John xv. 13.
[1363] Rev. xiv. 4.
[1364] diekrinonto. Valesius finds in this word a figure taken from
the athletic combats; for before the contests began the combatants
were examined, and those found eligible were admitted (eiskrinesthai),
while the others were rejected (ekkrinesthai).
[1365] exetrosan, with Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Burton, and
Heinichen. exepeson has perhaps a little stronger ms. support, and was
read by Rufinus, but the former word, as Valesius remarks, being more
unusual than the latter, could much more easily be changed into the
latter by a copyist than the latter into the former.
[1366] Gieseler (Ecclesiastical History, Harper's edition, I. p. 127)
speaks of this as a violation of the ancient law that slaves could not
be compelled to testify against their masters; but it is to be noticed
that it is not said in the present case that they were called upon to
testify against their masters, but only that through fear of what
might come upon them they yielded to the solicitation of the soldiers
and uttered falsehoods against their masters. It is not implied
therefore that any illegal methods were employed in this respect by
the officials in connection with the trials.
[1367] i.e. of cannibalism and incest; for according to classic legend
Thyestes had unwittingly eaten his own sons served to him at a banquet
by an enemy, and OEdipus had unknowingly married his own mother. Upon
the terrible accusations brought against the Christians by their
heathen enemies, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 20.
[1368] John xvi. 2.
[1369] kai di' ekeinon rhethenai ti ton blasphemon. The word
blasphemon evidently refers here to the slanderous reports against the
Christians such as had been uttered by those mentioned just above.
This is made clear, as Valesius remarks, by the kai di' ekeinon, "by
them also."
[1370] Valesius maintains that Sanctus was a deacon of the church of
Lyons, and that the words apo Biennes signify only that he was a
native of Vienne, but it is certainly more natural to understand the
words as implying that he was a deacon of the church of Vienne, and it
is not at all difficult to account for his presence in Lyons and his
martyrdom there. Indeed, it is evident that the church of Vienne was
personally involved in the persecution as well as that of Lyons. Cf.
§13, above.
[1371] Pergamos in Asia Minor (mentioned in Rev. ii. 12, and the seat
of a Christian church for a number of centuries) is apparently meant
here. As already remarked, the connection between the inhabitants of
Gaul and of Asia Minor was very close.
[1372] Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.
[1373] huper pEURnta anthropon.
[1374] Blasphemy against Christianity, not against God or Christ; that
is, slanders against the Christians (cf. §14, above), as is indicated
by the words that follow (so Valesius also).
[1375] See Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9.
[1376] The compassion of Jesus appeared not in the fact that those who
denied suffered such terrible punishments, but that the difference
between their misery in their sufferings and the joy of the faithful
in theirs became a means of strength and encouragement to the other
Christians. Compare the note of Heinichen (III. p. 180).
[1377] Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 15. Cf. also Bk. IV. chap. 15, §37, above.
[1378] meta tauta de loipon eis pan eidos diereito ta marturia tes
exodou auton.
[1379] dia pleionon kleron; undoubtedly a reference to the athletic
combats (see Valesius' note in loco).
[1380] tas diexodous ton mastigon tas ekeise eithismenas. It was the
custom to compel the bestiarii before fighting with wild beasts to run
the gauntlet. Compare Shorting's and Valesius' notes in loco, and
Tertullian's ad Nationes, 18, and ad Martyras, 5, to which the latter
refers.
[1381] Among the Romans crucifixion was the mode of punishment
commonly inflicted upon slaves and the worst criminals. Roman citizens
were exempt from this indignity. See Lipsius' De Cruce and the various
commentaries upon the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Christ.
[1382] Compare Isa. xxvii. 1, which is possibly referred to here.
[1383] hos nekrous exetrose. Compare §11, above.
[1384] Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
[1385] apotumpanisthenai. The word means literally "beaten to death,"
but it is plain that it is used in a general sense here, from the fact
that some were beheaded and some sent to the wild beasts, as we are
told just below.
[1386] Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 329) identifies this with the meeting of
the general assembly of the Gallic nations, which took place annually
in the month of August for the celebration of the worship of Augustus,
and was attended with imposing ceremonies, games, contests, &c. The
identification is not at all improbable.
[1387] Cf. Matt. xxii. 11.
[1388] teganon: literally, "frying-pan," by which, however, is
evidently meant the instrument of torture spoken of already more than
once in this Chapter as an iron seat or chair.
[1389] The Christians were very solicitous about the bodies of the
martyrs, and were especially anxious to give them decent burial, and
to preserve the memory of their graves as places of peculiar religious
interest and sanctity. They sometimes went even to the length of
bribing the officials to give them the dead bodies (cf. §61, below).
[1390] Rev. xxii. 11. The citation of the Apocalypse at this date as
Scripture (hina he graphe plerothe) is noteworthy.
[1391] These words show us how much emphasis the Christians of that
day must have laid upon the resurrection of the body (an emphasis
which is abundantly evident from other sources), and in what a
sensuous and material way they must have taught the doctrine, or at
least how unguarded their teaching must have been, which could lead
the heathen to think that they could in the slightest impede the
resurrection by such methods as they pursued. The Christians, in so
far as they laid so much emphasis as they did upon the material side
of the doctrine, and were so solicitous about the burial of their
brethren, undoubtedly were in large part responsible for this gross
misunderstanding on the part of the heathen.
Chapter II.--The Martyrs, beloved of God, kindly ministered unto those
who fell in the Persecution.
1. Such things happened to the churches of Christ under the
above-mentioned emperor, [1392] from which we may reasonably
conjecture the occurrences in the other provinces. It is proper to add
other selections from the same letter, in which the moderation and
compassion of these witnesses is recorded in the following words:
2. "They were also so zealous in their imitation of Christ,--`who,
being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality
with God,' [1393] --that, though they had attained such honor, and had
borne witness, not once or twice, but many times,--having been brought
back to prison from the wild beasts, covered with burns and scars and
wounds,--yet they did not proclaim themselves witnesses, nor did they
suffer us to address them by this name. If any one of us, in letter or
conversation, spoke of them as witnesses, they rebuked him sharply.
3. For they conceded cheerfully the appellation of Witness to Christ
`the faithful and true Witness,' [1394] and `firstborn of the dead,'
[1395] and prince of the life of God; [1396] and they reminded us of
the witnesses who had already departed, and said, `They are already
witnesses whom Christ has deemed worthy to be taken up in their
confession, having sealed their testimony by their departure; but we
are lowly and humble confessors.' [1397] And they besought the
brethren with tears that earnest prayers should be offered that they
might be made perfect. [1398]
4. They showed in their deeds the power of `testimony,' manifesting
great boldness toward all the brethren, and they made plain their
nobility through patience and fearlessness and courage, but they
refused the title of Witnesses as distinguishing them from their
brethren, [1399] being filled with the fear of God."
5. A little further on they say: "They humbled themselves under the
mighty hand, by which they are now greatly exalted. [1400] They
defended all, [1401] but accused none. They absolved all, but bound
none. [1402] And they prayed for those who had inflicted cruelties
upon them, even as Stephen, the perfect witness, `Lord, lay not this
sin to their charge.' [1403] But if he prayed for those who stoned
him, how much more for the brethren!"
6. And again after mentioning other matters, they say:
"For, through the genuineness of their love, their greatest contest
with him was that the Beast, being choked, might cast out alive those
whom he supposed he had swallowed. For they did not boast over the
fallen, but helped them in their need with those things in which they
themselves abounded, having the compassion of a mother, and shedding
many tears on their account before the Father.
7. They asked for life, and he gave it to them, and they shared it
with their neighbors. Victorious over everything, they departed to
God. Having always loved peace, and having commended peace to us
[1404] they went in peace to God, leaving no sorrow to their mother,
nor division or strife to the brethren, but joy and peace and concord
and love."
8. This record of the affection of those blessed ones toward the
brethren that had fallen may be profitably added on account of the
inhuman and unmerciful disposition of those who, after these events,
acted unsparingly toward the members of Christ. [1405]
Footnotes
[1392] Namely, Antoninus Verus (in reality Marcus Aurelius, but
wrongly distinguished by Eusebius from him), mentioned above in the
Introduction. Upon Eusebius' separation of Marcus Aurelius and
Antoninus Verus, see below, p. 390, note.
[1393] Phil. ii. 6.
[1394] Rev. iii. 14.
[1395] Rev. i. 5.
[1396] archego tes zoes tou theou. Cf. Rev. iii. 14.
[1397] homologoi. The regular technical term for "confessor," which
later came into general use, was homologetes
[1398] teleiothenai; i.e. be made perfect by martyrdom. For this use
of teleioo, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 3, §13, and chap. 5, §1; also Bk.
VII. chap. 15, §5, and see Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v.
[1399] pros tous adelphous.
[1400] Compare 1 Pet. v. 6.
[1401] pasi men apologounto. Rufinus translates placabant omnes;
Musculus, omnibus rationem fidei suĉ reddebant; Valesius, omnium
defensionem suscipiebant, though he maintains in a note that the
rendering of Musculus, or the translation omnibus se excusabant, is
more correct. It is true that pasi apologounto ought strictly to mean
"apologized to all" rather than "for all," the latter being commonly
expressed by the use of huper with the genitive (see the lexicons s.v.
apologeomai). At the same time, though it may not be possible to
produce any other examples of the use of the dative, instead of huper
with the genitive, after apologeomai, it is clear from the context
that it must be accepted in the present case.
[1402] The question of the readmission of the lapsed had not yet
become a burning one. The conduct of the martyrs here in absolving
(zluon) those who had shown weakness under persecution is similar to
that which caused so much dispute in the Church during and after the
persecution of Decius. See below, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1.
[1403] Acts vii. 60.
[1404] hemin, which is found in four important mss. and in Nicephorus,
and is supported by Rufinus and adopted by Stephanus, Stroth, Burton,
and Zimmermann. The majority of the mss., followed by all the other
editors, including Heinichen, read aei.
[1405] Eusebius refers here to the Novatians, who were so severe in
their treatment of the lapsed, and who in his day were spread very
widely and formed an aggressive and compact organization (see below,
Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1).
Chapter III.--The Vision which appeared in a Dream to the Witness
Attalus.
1. The same letter of the above-mentioned witnesses contains another
account worthy of remembrance. No one will object to our bringing it
to the knowledge of our readers.
2. It runs as follows: "For a certain Alcibiades, [1406] who was one
of them, led a very austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but
bread and water. When he endeavored to continue this same sort of life
in prison, it was revealed to Attalus after his first conflict in the
amphitheater that Alcibiades was not doing well in refusing the
creatures of God and placing a stumbling-block before others.
3. And Alcibiades obeyed, and partook of all things without restraint,
giving thanks to God. For they were not deprived of the grace of God,
but the Holy Ghost was their counselor." Let this suffice for these
matters.
4. The followers of Montanus, [1407] Alcibiades [1408] and Theodotus
[1409] in Phrygia were now first giving wide circulation to their
assumption in regard to prophecy,--for the many other miracles that,
through the gift of God, were still wrought in the different churches
caused their prophesying to be readily credited by many,--and as
dissension arose concerning them, the brethren in Gaul set forth their
own prudent and most orthodox judgment in the matter, and published
also several epistles from the witnesses that had been put to death
among them. These they sent, while they were still in prison, to the
brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, [1410]
who was then bishop of Rome, negotiating for the peace of the
churches. [1411]
Footnotes
[1406] Of this Alcibiades we know only what is told us in this
connection. Doubtless Eusebius found this extract very much to his
taste, for we know that he was not inclined to asceticism. The
enthusiastic spirit of the Lyons Christians comes out strongly in the
extract, and considerable light is thrown by it upon the state of the
Church there. Imprisoned confessors were never permitted to suffer for
want of food and the other comforts of life so long as their brethren
were allowed access to them. Compare e.g. Lucian's Peregrinus Proteus.
[1407] On Montanus and the Montanists, see below, chap. 16 sq.
[1408] Of this Montanist Alcibiades we know nothing. He is, of course,
to be distinguished from the confessor mentioned just above. The
majority of the editors of Eusebius substitute his name for that of
Miltiades in chap. 16, below, but the mss. all read MiltiEURden, and
the emendation is unwarranted (see chap. 16, note 7). Salmon suggests
that we should read Miltiades instead of Alcibiades in the present
passage, supposing that the latter may have crept in through a
copyist's error, under the influence of the name Alcibiades mentioned
just above. Such an error is possible, but not probable (see chap. 16,
note 7).
[1409] Of the Montanist Theodotus we know only what is told us here
and in chap. 16, below (see that Chapter, note 25).
[1410] On Eleutherus, see above, Bk. V. Introd. note 2.
[1411] It is commonly assumed that the Gallic martyrs favored the
Montanists and exhorted Eleutherus to be mild in his judgment of them,
and to preserve the peace of the Church by permitting them to remain
within it and enjoy fellowship with other Christians. But Salmon (in
the Dict. of Christian Biog. III. p. 937) has shown, in my opinion
conclusively, that the Gallic confessors took the opposite side, and
exhorted Eleutherus to confirm the Eastern Church in its condemnation
of the Montanists, representing to him that he would threaten the
peace of the Church by refusing to recognize the justice of the
decision of the bishops of the East and by setting himself in
opposition to them. Certainly, with their close connection with Asia
Minor, we should expect the Gallic Christians to be early informed of
the state of affairs in the East, and it is not difficult to think
that they may have formed the same opinion in regard to the new
prophecy which the majority of their brethren there had formed. The
decisive argument for Salmon's opinion is the fact that Eusebius calls
the letter of the Lyons confessors to Eleutherus "pious and most
orthodox." Certainly, looking upon Montanism as one of the most
execrable of heresies and as the work of Satan himself (cf. his words
in chap. 16, below), it is very difficult to suppose that he can have
spoken of a letter written expressly in favor of the Montanists in any
such terms of respect. Salmon says: "It is monstrous to imagine that
Eusebius, thinking thus of Montanism, could praise as pious or
orthodox the opinion of men who, ignorant of Satan's devices, should
take the devil's work for God's. The way in which we ourselves read
the history is that the Montanists had appealed to Rome; that the
Church party solicited the good offices of their countrymen settled in
Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing the disturbance to the
peace of the churches (a phrase probably preserved by Eusebius from
the letter itself) which would ensue if the Roman Church should
approve what the Church on the spot had condemned....To avert, then,
the possibility of the calamity of a breach between the Eastern and
Western churches, the Gallic churches, it would appear, not only
wrote, but sent Irenĉus to Rome at the end of 177 or the beginning of
178. The hypothesis here made relieves us from the necessity of
supposing this presbeia to have been unsuccessful, while it fully
accounts for the necessity of sending it."
Chapter IV.--Irenĉus commended by the Witnesses in a Letter.
1. The same witnesses also recommended Irenĉus, [1412] who was already
at that time a presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the
above-mentioned bishop of Rome, saying many favorable things in regard
to him, as the following extract shows:
2. "We pray, father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in God in all
things and always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenĉus
to carry this letter to you, and we ask you to hold him in esteem, as
zealous for the covenant of Christ. For if we thought that office
could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among
the first as a presbyter of the church, which is his position."
3. Why should we transcribe the catalogue of the witnesses given in
the letter already mentioned, of whom some were beheaded, others cast
to the wild beasts, and others fell asleep in prison, or give the
number of confessors [1413] still surviving at that time? For whoever
desires can readily find the full account by consulting the letter
itself, which, as I have said, is recorded in our Collection of
Martyrdoms. [1414] Such were the events which happened under
Antoninus. [1415]
Footnotes
[1412] On Irenĉus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1413] homologeton. Eusebius here uses the common technical term for
confessors; i.e. for those who had been faithful and had suffered in
persecution, but had not lost their lives. In the epistle of the
churches of Lyons and Vienne, the word homologoi is used to denote the
same persons (see above, chap. 2, note 6).
[1414] Cf. §2 of the Introduction to this book (Bk. V.). On Eusebius'
Collection of Martyrdoms, see above, p. 30.
[1415] i.e. Antoninus Verus, whom Eusebius expressly distinguishes
from Marcus Aurelius at the beginning of the next Chapter. See below,
p. 390, note.
Chapter V.--God sent Rain from Heaven for Marcus Aurelius Cĉsar in
Answer to the Prayers of our People.
1. It is reported [1416] that Marcus Aurelius Cĉsar, brother of
Antoninus, [1417] being about to engage in battle with the Germans and
Sarmatians, was in great trouble on account of his army suffering from
thirst. [1418] But the soldiers of the so-called Melitene legion,
[1419] through the faith which has given strength from that time to
the present, when they were drawn up before the enemy, kneeled on the
ground, as is our custom in prayer, [1420] and engaged in
supplications to God.
2. This was indeed a strange sight to the enemy, but it is reported
[1421] that a stranger thing immediately followed. The lightning drove
the enemy to flight and destruction, but a shower refreshed the army
of those who had called on God, all of whom had been on the point of
perishing with thirst.
3. This story is related by non-Christian writers who have been
pleased to treat the times referred to, and it has also been recorded
by our own people. [1422] By those historians who were strangers to
the faith, the marvel is mentioned, but it is not acknowledged as an
answer to our prayers. But by our own people, as friends of the truth,
the occurrence is related in a simple and artless manner.
4. Among these is Apolinarius, [1423] who says that from that time the
legion through whose prayers the wonder took place received from the
emperor a title appropriate to the event, being called in the language
of the Romans the Thundering Legion.
5. Tertullian is a trustworthy witness of these things. In the Apology
for the Faith, which he addressed to the Roman Senate, and which work
we have already mentioned, [1424] he confirms the history with greater
and stronger proofs.
6. He writes [1425] that there are still extant letters [1426] of the
most intelligent Emperor Marcus in which he testifies that his army,
being on the point of perishing with thirst in Germany, was saved by
the prayers of the Christians. And he says also that this emperor
threatened death [1427] to those who brought accusation against us.
7. He adds further: [1428]
"What kind of laws are those which impious, unjust, and cruel persons
use against us alone? which Vespasian, though he had conquered the
Jews, did not regard; [1429] which Trajan partially annulled,
forbidding Christians to be sought after; [1430] which neither Adrian,
[1431] though inquisitive in all matters, nor he who was called Pius
[1432] sanctioned." But let any one treat these things as he chooses;
[1433] we must pass on to what followed.
8. Pothinus having died with the other martyrs in Gaul at ninety years
of age, [1434] Irenĉus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church
at Lyons. [1435] We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer
of Polycarp. [1436]
9. In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a
list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus
(whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work.
He writes as follows: [1437]
Footnotes
[1416] The expression logos zchei, employed here by Eusebius, is
ordinarily used by him to denote that the account which he subjoins
rests simply upon verbal testimony. But in the present instance he has
written authority, which he mentions below. He seems, therefore, in
the indefinite phrase logos zchei, to express doubts which he himself
feels as to the trustworthiness of the account which he is about to
give. The story was widely known in his time, and the Christians'
version of it undoubtedly accepted by the Christians themselves with
little misgiving, and yet he is too well informed upon this subject to
be ignorant of the fact that the common version rests upon a rather
slender foundation. He may have known of the coins and monuments upon
which the emperor had commemorated his own view of the matter,--at any
rate he was familiar with the fact that all the heathen historians
contradicted the claims of the Christians, and hence he could not but
consider it a questionable matter. At the same time, the Christian
version of the story was supported by strong names and was widely
accepted, and he, as a good Christian, of course wished to accept it,
if possible, and to report it for the edification of posterity.
[1417] toutou de adelphon: the toutou referring to the Antoninus
mentioned at the close of the previous Chapter. Upon Eusebius'
confusion of the successors of Antoninus Pius, see below, p. 390,
note.
[1418] It is an historical fact that, in 174 a.d., the Roman army in
Hungary was relieved from a very dangerous predicament by the sudden
occurrence of a thunder-storm, which quenched their thirst and
frightened the barbarians, and thus gave the Romans the victory. By
heathen writers this event (quite naturally considered miraculous) was
held to have taken place in answer to prayer, but by no means in
answer to the prayers of the Christians. Dion Cassius (LXXI. 8)
ascribes the supposed miracle to the conjurations of the Egyptian
magician Arnuphis; Capitolinus (Vita Marc. Aurelii, chap. 24, and Vita
Heliogabali, chap. 9), to the prayer of Marcus Aurelius. The emperor
himself expresses his view upon a coin which represents Jupiter as
hurling lightning against the barbarians (see Eckhel. Numism. III.
61). As early as the time of Marcus Aurelius himself the Christians
ascribed the merit of the supposed miracle to their own prayers (e.g.
Apolinarius, mentioned just below), and this became the common belief
among them (cf. Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5, quoted just below, and ad
Scap. chap. 4, and the forged edict of Marcus Aurelius, appended to
Justin Martyr's first Apology). It is probable that the whole legion
prayed for deliverance to their respective deities, and thus quite
naturally each party claimed the victory for its particular gods. That
there were some Christians in the army of Marcus Aurelius there is, of
course, no reason to doubt, but that a legion at that time was wholly
composed of Christians, as Eusebius implies, is inconceivable.
[1419] This legion was called the Melitene from the place where it was
regularly stationed,--Melitene, a city in Eastern Cappadocia, or
Armenia.
[1420] Kneeling was the common posture of offering prayer in the early
Church, but the standing posture was by no means uncommon, especially
in the offering of thanksgiving. Upon Sunday and during the whole
period from Easter to Pentecost all prayers were regularly offered in
a standing position, as a symbolical expression of joy (cf.
Tertullian, de Corona, chap. 3; de Oratione, chap. 23, &c.). The
practice, however, was not universal, and was therefore decreed by the
Nicene Council in its twentieth canon (Hefele, Conciliengesch. I.
430). See Kraus' Real-Encyclopädie der Christlichen Alterthümer, Bd.
I. p. 557 sqq.
[1421] logos zchei. See above, note 1.
[1422] Dion Cassius and Capitolinus record the occurrence (as
mentioned above, note 2). It is recorded also by other writers after
Eusebius' time, such as Claudian and Zonaras. None of them, however,
attribute the occurrence to the prayers of the Christians, but all
claim it for the heathen gods. The only pre-Eusebian Christian
accounts of this event still extant are those contained in the forged
edict of Marcus Aurelius and in the Apology of Tertullian, quoted just
below (cf. also his de Orat. 29). Cyprian also probably refers to the
same event in his Tractat. ad Demetriadem, 20. Eusebius, in referring
to Apolinarius and Tertullian, very likely mentions all the accounts
with which he was acquainted. Gregory Nyssa, Jerome, and other later
Christian writers refer to the event.
[1423] i.e. Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis. Upon him and
his writings, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1. This reference is
in all probability to the Apology of Apolinarius, as this is the only
work known to us which would have been likely to contain an account of
such an event. The fact that in the reign of the very emperor under
whom the occurrence took place, and in an Apology addressed to him,
the Christians could be indicated as the source of the miracle, shows
the firmness of this belief among the Christians themselves, and also
proves that they must have been so numerous in the army as to justify
them in setting up a counter-claim over against the heathen soldiers.
Apolinarius is very far from the truth in his statement as to the name
of the legion. From Dion Cassius, LV. 23, it would seem that the
legion bore this name even in the time of Augustus; but if this be
uncertain, at any rate it bore it as early as the time of Nero (as we
learn from an inscription of his eleventh year, Corp. Ins. Lat. III.
30). Neander thinks it improbable that Apolinarius, a contemporary who
lived in the neighborhood of the legion's winter quarters, could have
committed such a mistake. He prefers to think that the error is
Eusebius', and resulted from a too rapid perusal of the passage in
Apolinarius, where there must have stood some such words as, "Now the
emperor could with right call the legion the Thundering Legion." His
opinion is at least plausible. Tertullian certainly knew nothing of
the naming of the legion at this time, or if he had heard the report,
rejected it.
[1424] In Bk. II. chap. 2, §4, and Bk. III. chap. 33, §3 (quoted also
in Bk. III. chap. 20, §9).
[1425] Apol.chap. 5.
[1426] A pretended epistle of Marcus Aurelius, addressed to the
Senate, in which he describes the miraculous deliverance of his army
through the prayers of the Christians, is still extant, and stands at
the close of Justin Martyr's first Apology. It is manifestly the work
of a Christian, and no one now thinks of accepting it as genuine. It
is in all probability the same epistle to which Tertullian refers, and
therefore must have been forged before the end of the second century,
although its exact date cannot be determined. See Overbeck, Studien
zur Gesch. d. alten Kirche, I.
[1427] The epistle says that the accuser is to be burned alive (zonta
kaiesthai). Tertullian simply says that he is to be punished with a
"condemnation of greater severity" (damnatione et quidem tetriore).
Eusebius therefore expresses himself more definitely than Tertullian,
though it is very likely that the poor Greek translation which he used
had already made of damnatio tetrior the simpler and more telling
expression, thanatos.
[1428] Apol. ibid.
[1429] See Bk. III. chap. 12, note 1.
[1430] Upon Trajan's rescript, and the universal misunderstanding of
it in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 33 (notes).
[1431] Upon Hadrian's treatment of the Christians, see above, Bk. IV.
chap. 9.
[1432] Upon Antoninus Pius' relation to them, see above, Bk. IV. chap.
13.
[1433] Whether Eusebius refers in this remark only to the report of
Tertullian, or to the entire account of the miracle, we do not know.
The remark certainly has reference at least to the words of
Tertullian. Eusebius had apparently not himself seen the epistle of
Marcus Aurelius; for in the first place, he does not cite it;
secondly, he does not rest his account upon it, but upon Apolinarius
and Tertullian; and thirdly, in his Chron. both the Armenian and Greek
say, "it is said that there are epistles of Marcus Aurelius extant,"
while Jerome says directly, "there are letters extant."
[1434] See above, chap. 1, §29.
[1435] Upon Irenĉus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1436] Cf. Adv. Hĉr. II. 3. 4, &c., and Eusebius, chap. 20, below.
[1437] Adv. Hĉr. III. 3. 3.
Chapter VI.--Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.
1. "The blessed apostles [1438] having founded and established the
church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. [1439] Paul
speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. [1440]
2. Anencletus [1441] succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third
place from the apostles, Clement [1442] received the episcopate. He
had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, [1443] and their
preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was
still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been
taught by the apostles yet survived.
3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among
the brethren in Corinth, [1444] the church of Rome sent a most
suitable letter to the Corinthians, [1445] reconciling them in peace,
renewing their faith, and proclaiming [1446] the doctrine lately
received from the apostles." [1447]
4. A little farther on he says: [1448]
"Evarestus [1449] succeeded Clement, and Alexander, [1450] Evarestus.
Then Xystus, [1451] the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After
him Telesphorus, [1452] who suffered martyrdom gloriously; then
Hyginus; [1453] then Pius; [1454] and after him Anicetus; [1455] Soter
[1456] succeeded Anicetus; and now, in the twelfth place from the
apostles, Eleutherus [1457] holds the office of bishop.
5. In the same order and succession [1458] the tradition in the Church
and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto
us."
Footnotes
[1438] Namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the Roman
church. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
[1439] On Linus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 2, note 1; and for the
succession of the early Roman bishops, see the same note.
[1440] 2 Tim. iv. 21.
[1441] On Anencletus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3.
[1442] On Clement, see above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.
[1443] Although the identification of this Clement with the one
mentioned in Phil. iv. 3 is more than doubtful, yet there is no reason
to doubt that, living as he did in the first century at Rome, he was
personally acquainted at least with the apostles Peter and Paul.
[1444] See the Epistle of Clement itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3.
[1445] Upon the epistle, see above, Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.
[1446] aneousa ten pistin auton kai hen neosti apo ton apostolon
parEURdosin eilephei. The last word being in the singular, the
tradition must be that received by the Roman, not by the Corinthian
church (as it is commonly understood), and hence it is necessary to
supply some verb which shall govern parEURdosin, for it is at least
very harsh to say that the Roman church, in its epistle to the
Corinthians "renewed" the faith which it had received. The truth is,
that both in Rufinus and in Irenĉus an extra participle is found (in
the former exprimens, in the latter annuntians), and Stroth has in
consequence ventured to insert the word katangelousa in his text. I
have likewise, for the sake of the sense, inserted the word
proclaiming, not thereby intending to imply, however, the belief that
katangelousa stood in the original text of Eusebius.
[1447] It is interesting to notice how strictly Eusebius carries out
his principle of taking historical matter wherever he can find it, but
of omitting all doctrinal statements and discussions. The few
sentences which follow in Irenĉus are of a doctrinal nature, and in
the form of a brief polemic against Gnosticism.
[1448] Ibid.
[1449] Upon Evarestus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
[1450] Upon Alexander, see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 4.
[1451] Upon Xystus, see IV. 4, note 3.
[1452] Upon Telesphorus, see IV. 5, note 13.
[1453] Upon Hyginus, see IV. 10, note 3.
[1454] Upon Pius, see IV. 11, note 14.
[1455] Upon Anicetus, see IV. 11, note 18.
[1456] Upon Soter, see IV. 19, note 2.
[1457] Upon Eleutherus, see Introd. to this book, note 2.
[1458] diadoche, which is confirmed by the ancient Latin version of
Irenĉus (successione), and which is adopted by Zimmermann, Heinichen,
and Valesius (in his notes). All the mss. of Eusebius, followed by the
majority of the editors, read didache, which, however, makes no sense
in this place, and can hardly have been the original reading (see
Heinichen's note in loco).
Chapter VII.--Even down to those Times Miracles were performed by the
Faithful.
1. These things Irenĉus, in agreement with the accounts already given
by us, [1459] records in the work which comprises five books, and to
which he gave the title Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge
Falsely So-called. [1460] In the second book of the same treatise he
shows that manifestations of divine and miraculous power continued to
his time in some of the churches.
2. He says: [1461]
"But so far do they come short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised
them, and the apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the
brotherhood, when, on account of some necessity, our entire Church has
besought with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead
has returned, [1462] and the man has been restored through the prayers
of the saints."
3. And again, after other remarks, he says: [1463]
"If they will say that even the Lord did these things in mere
appearance, we will refer them to the prophetic writings, and show
from them that all things were beforehand spoken of him in this
manner, and were strictly fulfilled; and that he alone is the Son of
God. Wherefore his true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform
such works in his Name for the benefit of other men, as each has
received the gift from him.
4. For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that
those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and
unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events,
and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by
the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have
said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many
years.
5. But why should we say more? It is not possible to recount the
number of gifts which the Church, throughout all the world, has
received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under
Pontius Pilate, and exercises every day for the benefit of the
heathen, never deceiving any nor doing it for money. For as she has
received freely from God, freely also does she minister." [1464]
6. And in another place the same author writes: [1465]
"As also we hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic
gifts, and speak, through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and
bring to light the secret things of men for their good, and declare
the mysteries of God."
So much in regard to the fact that various gifts remained among those
who were worthy even until that time.
Footnotes
[1459] In the various passages referred to in the notes on the
previous Chapter.
[1460] elenchou kai anatropes tes pseudonumou gnoseos (cf. 1 Tim. vi.
20). This work of Irenĉus, which is commonly known under its Latin
title, Adversus Hĉreses (Against Heresies), is still extant in a
barbarous Latin version, of which we possess three mss. The original
Greek is lost, though a great part of the first book can be recovered
by means of extensive quotations made from it by Hippolytus and
Epiphanius. The work is directed against the various Gnostic systems,
among which that of Valentinus is chiefly attacked. The first book is
devoted to a statement of their doctrines, the second to a refutation
of them, and the remaining three to a presentation of the true
doctrines of Christianity as opposed to the false positions of the
Gnostics. The best edition of the original is that of Harvey: S.
Irenĉi libros quinque adv. Hĉreses., Cambr. 1857, 2 vols.; English
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 309 ff. For the
literature of the subject, see Schaff, II. p. 746 ff. On Irenĉus
himself, see Book IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1461] Adv. Hĉr. II. 31. 2. The sentence as it stands in Eusebius is
incomplete. Irenĉus is refuting the pretended miracles of Simon and
Carpocrates. The passage runs as follows: "So far are they [i.e. Simon
and Carpocrates] from being able to raise the dead as the Lord raised
them and as the apostles did by means of prayer, and as has been
frequently done in the brotherhood on account of some necessity--the
entire Church in that locality entreating with much fasting and prayer
[so that] the spirit of the dead man has returned, and he has been
bestowed in answer to the prayer of the saints--that they do not even
believe this can possibly be done, [and hold] that the resurrection
from the dead is simply an acquaintance with that truth which they
proclaim." This resurrection of the dead recorded by Irenĉus is very
difficult to explain, as he is a truth-loving man, and we can hardly
conceive of his uttering a direct falsehood. Even Augustine, "the iron
man of truth," records such miracles, and so the early centuries are
full of accounts of them. The Protestant method of drawing a line
between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages in this matter of
miracles is arbitrary, and based upon dogmatic, not historical
grounds. The truth is, that no one can fix the point of time at which
miracles ceased; at the same time it is easy to appreciate the
difference between the apostolic age and the third, fourth, and
following centuries in this regard. That they did cease at an early
date in the history of the Church is clear enough. Upon post-apostolic
miracles, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 116 ff., J. H. Newman's Two
Essays on Biblical and Eccles. Miracles, and J. B. Mozley's Bampton
lectures On Miracles.
[1462] See the previous note.
[1463] Adv. Hĉr. II. 32. 4.
[1464] Cf. Matt. x. 8
[1465] Adv. Hĉr. V. 6. 1.
Chapter VIII.--The Statements of Irenĉus in regard to the Divine
Scriptures.
1. Since, in the beginning of this work, [1466] we promised to give,
when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the
Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down
to them concerning the canonical books, and since Irenĉus was one of
them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the
sacred Gospels: [1467]
2. "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own
language, [1468] while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the
church in Rome. [1469]
3. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had
preached; [1470] and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book
the Gospel which Paul had declared. [1471]
4. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his
bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia." [1472]
5. He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned
work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse
of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist: [1473]
"As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved
and ancient copies, [1474] and those who saw John face to face confirm
it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast,
according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its
letters...." [1475]
6. And farther on he says concerning the same: [1476]
"We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of
Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared
clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who
saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our
generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian." [1477]
7. He states these things concerning the Apocalypse [1478] in the work
referred to. He also mentions the first Epistle of John, [1479] taking
many proofs from it, and likewise the first Epistle of Peter. [1480]
And he not only knows, but also receives, The Shepherd, [1481] writing
as follows: [1482]
"Well did the Scripture [1483] speak, saying, [1484] `First of all
believe that God is one, who has created and completed all things,'"
&c.
8. And he uses almost the precise words of the Wisdom of Solomon,
saying: [1485] "The vision of God produces immortality, but
immortality renders us near to God." He mentions also the memoirs
[1486] of a certain apostolic presbyter, [1487] whose name he passes
by in silence, and gives his expositions of the sacred Scriptures.
9. And he refers to Justin the Martyr, [1488] and to Ignatius, [1489]
using testimonies also from their writings. Moreover, he promises to
refute Marcion from his own writings, in a special work. [1490]
10. Concerning the translation of the inspired [1491] Scriptures by
the Seventy, hear the very words which he writes: [1492]
"God in truth became man, and the Lord himself saved us, giving the
sign of the virgin; but not as some say, who now venture to translate
the Scripture, `Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a
son,' [1493] as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, [1494]
both of them Jewish proselytes, interpreted; following whom, the
Ebionites say [1495] that he was begotten by Joseph."
11. Shortly after he adds:
"For before the Romans had established their empire, while the
Macedonians were still holding Asia, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, [1496]
being desirous of adorning the library which he had founded in
Alexandria with the meritorious writings of all men, requested the
people of Jerusalem to have their Scriptures translated into the Greek
language.
12. But, as they were then subject to the Macedonians, they sent to
Ptolemy seventy elders, who were the most skilled among them in the
Scriptures and in both languages. Thus God accomplished his purpose.
[1497]
13. But wishing to try them individually, as he feared lest, by taking
counsel together, they might conceal the truth of the Scriptures by
their interpretation, he separated them from one another, and
commanded all of them to write the same translation. [1498] He did
this for all the books.
14. But when they came together in the presence of Ptolemy, and
compared their several translations, God was glorified, and the
Scriptures were recognized as truly divine. For all of them had
rendered the same things in the same words and with the same names
from beginning to end, so that the heathen perceived that the
Scriptures had been translated by the inspiration [1499] of God.
15. And this was nothing wonderful for God to do, who, in the
captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, when the Scriptures had
been destroyed, and the Jews had returned to their own country after
seventy years, afterwards, in the time of Artaxerxes, king of the
Persians, inspired Ezra the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to relate
all the words of the former prophets, and to restore to the people the
legislation of Moses." [1500]
Such are the words of Irenĉus.
Footnotes
[1466] Eusebius is apparently thinking of the preface to his work
contained in Bk. I. chap. 1, but there he makes no such promise as he
refers to here. He speaks only of his general purpose to mention those
men who preached the divine word either orally or in writing. In Bk.
III. chap. 3, however, he distinctly promises to do what he here
speaks of doing, and perhaps remembered only that he had made such a
promise without recalling where he had made it.
[1467] Adv. Hĉr. III. 1. 1.
[1468] See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5. Irenĉus, in this Chapter
traces the four Gospels back to the apostles themselves, but he is
unable to say that Matthew translated his Gospel into Greek, which is
of course bad for his theory, as the Matthew Gospel which the Church
of his time had was in Greek, not in Hebrew. He puts the Hebrew
Gospel, however, upon a par with the three Greek ones, and thus,
although he does not say it directly, endeavors to convey the
impression that the apostolicity of the Hebrew Matthew is a guarantee
for the Greek Matthew also. Of Papias' statement, "Each one translated
the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as he was able," he could of course make
no use even if he was acquainted with it. Whether his account was
dependent upon Papias' or not we cannot tell.
[1469] See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
[1470] See above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
[1471] See above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 15.
[1472] See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1.
[1473] Irenĉus, Adv. Hĉr. V. 30. 1.
[1474] Rev. xiii. 18. Already in Irenĉus' time there was a variation
in the copies of the Apocalypse. This is interesting as showing the
existence of old copies of the Apocalypse even in his time, and also
as showing how early works became corrupted in the course of
transmission. We learn from his words, too, that textual criticism had
already begun.
[1475] The sentence as Eusebius quotes it here is incomplete; he
repeats only so much of it as suits his purpose. Irenĉus completes his
sentence, after a few more dependent clauses, by saying, "I do not
know how it is that some have erred, following the ordinary mode of
speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name," &c. This
shows that even in Irenĉus' time there was as much controversy about
the interpretation of the Apocalypse as there has always been, and
that at that day exegetes were as a rule in no better position than we
are. Irenĉus refers in this sentence to the fact that the Greek
numerals were indicated by the letters of the alphabet: Alpha, "one,"
Beta, "two," &c.
[1476] i.e. concerning the Beast or Antichrist. Irenĉus, Adv. Hĉr. V.
30. 3; quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 18, above.
[1477] See above, Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1.
[1478] Upon the Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.
[1479] In Adv. Hĉr. III. 16. 5, 8. Irenĉus also quotes from the second
Epistle of John, without distinguishing it from the first, in III. 16.
8, and I. 16. 3. Upon John's epistles, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 18
and 19.
[1480] In Adv. Hĉr. IV. 9. 2. In IV. 16. 5 and V. 7. 2 he quotes from
the first Epistle of Peter, with the formula "Peter says." He is the
first one to connect the epistle with Peter. See above, Bk. III. chap.
3, note 1.
[1481] i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas; see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note
23.
[1482] Adv. Hĉr. IV. 20. 2.
[1483] he graphe, the regular word used in quoting Scripture. Many of
the Fathers of the second and third centuries used this word in
referring to Clement, Hermas, Barnabas, and other works of the kind
(compare especially Clement of Alexandria's use of the word).
[1484] The Shepherd of Hermas, II. 1.
[1485] Adv. Hĉr. IV. 38. 3. Irenĉus in this passage quotes freely from
the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, VI. 19, without mentioning the source
of his quotation, and indeed without in any way indicating the fact
that he is quoting.
[1486] apomnemoneumEURton. Written memoirs are hardly referred to
here, but rather oral comments, expositions, or accounts of the
interpretations of the apostles and others of the first generation of
Christians.
[1487] Adv. Hĉr. IV. 27. 1, where Irenĉus mentions a "certain
presbyter who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles," &c.
Who this presbyter was cannot be determined. Polycarp, Papias, and
others have been suggested, but we have no grounds upon which to base
a decision, though we may perhaps safely conclude that so prominent a
man as Polycarp would hardly have been referred to in such an
indefinite way; and Papias seems ruled out by the fact that the
presbyter is here not made a hearer of the apostles themselves, while
in V. 33. 4 Papias is expressly stated to have been a hearer of
John,--undoubtedly in Irenĉus' mind the evangelist John (see above,
Bk. III. chap. 39, note 4). Other anonymous authorities under the
titles, "One superior to us," "One before us," &c., are quoted by
Irenĉus in Prĉf. §2, I. 13. 3, III. 17. 4, etc. See Routh, Rel. Sacrĉ,
I. 45-68.
[1488] In Adv. Hĉr. IV. 6. 2, where he mentions Justin Martyr and
quotes from his work Against Marcion (see Eusebius, Bk. IV. chap. 18),
and also in Adv. Hĉr. V. 26. 2, where he mentions him again by name
and quotes from some unknown work (but see above, ibid. note 15).
[1489] Irenĉus nowhere mentions Ignatius by name, but in V. 28. 4 he
quotes from his epistle to the Romans, chap. 4, under the formula, "A
certain one of our people said, when he was condemned to the wild
beasts." It is interesting to note how diligently Eusebius had read
the works of Irenĉus, and extracted from them all that could
contribute to his History. Upon Ignatius, see above, III. 36.
[1490] Adv. Hĉr. I. 27. 4, III. 12. 12. This promise was apparently
never fulfilled, as we hear nothing of the work from any of Irenĉus'
successors. But in Bk. IV. chap. 25 Eusebius speaks of Irenĉus as one
of those who had written against Marcion, whether in this referring to
his special work promised here, or only to his general work Adv. Hĉr.,
we cannot tell.
[1491] theopneuston
[1492] Adv. Hĉr. III. 21. 1.
[1493] Isa. vii. 14. The original Hebrew has E+aL+°M+oH+, which means
simply a "young woman," not distinctively a "virgin." The LXX,
followed by Matt. i. 23, wrongly translated by parthenos, "virgin"
(cf. Toy's Quotations in the New Testament, p. 1 sqq., and the various
commentaries on Matthew). Theodotion and Aquila translated the Hebrew
word by neanis, which is the correct rendering, in spite of what
Irenĉus says. The complete dependence of the Fathers upon the LXX, and
their consequent errors as to the meaning of the original, are well
illustrated in this case (cf. also Justin's Dial. chap. 71).
[1494] This is the earliest direct reference to the translations of
Aquila and Theodotion, though Hermas used the version of the latter,
as pointed out by Hort (see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23). Upon
the two versions, see Bk. VI. chap. 16, notes 3 and 5.
[1495] Upon the Ebionites and their doctrines, see Bk. III. chap. 27.
[1496] Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, or Ptolemy Soter (the Preserver),
was king of Egypt from 323-285 (283) b.c. The following story in
regard to the origin of the LXX is first told in a spurious letter
(probably dating from the first century b.c.), which professes to have
been written by Aristeas, a high officer at the court of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285 [283]-247 b.c.). This epistle puts the origin of the
LXX in the reign of the latter monarch instead of in that of his
father, Ptolemy Soter, and is followed in this by Philo, Josephus,
Tertullian, and most of the other ancient writers (Justin Martyr calls
the king simply Ptolemy, while Clement of Alex. says that some connect
the event with the one monarch, others with the other). The account
given in the letter (which is printed by Gallandius, Bibl. Patr. II.
771, as well as in many other editions) is repeated over and over
again, with greater or less variations, by early Jewish and Christian
writers (e.g. by Philo, Vit. Mos. 2; by Josephus, Ant. XII. 2; by
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 31; by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 22; by
Tertullian, Apol. 18, and others; see the article Aristeas in Smith's
Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog.). It gives the number of the elders as
seventy-two,--six from each tribe. That this marvelous tale is a
fiction is clear enough, but whether it is based upon a groundwork of
fact is disputed (see Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi, II. p. 697 sqq.). It is at any rate certain that the
Pentateuch (the original account applies only to the Pentateuch, but
later it was extended to the entire Old Testament) was translated into
Greek in Alexandria as early as the third century b.c.; whether under
Ptolemy Philadelphus, and at his desire, we cannot tell. The
translation of the remainder of the Old Testament followed during the
second century b.c., the books being translated at various times by
unknown authors, but all or most of them probably in Egypt (see
Schürer, ibid.). It was, of course, to the interest of the Christians
to maintain the miraculous origin of the LXX, for otherwise they would
have to yield to the attacks of the Jews, who often taunted them with
having only a translation of the Scriptures. Accepting the miraculous
origin of the LXX, the Christians, on the other hand, could accuse the
Jews of falsifying their Hebrew copies wherever they differed from the
LXX, making the latter the only authoritative standard (cf. Justin
Martyr's Dial. chap. 71, and many other passages in the work). Upon
the attitude of the Christians, and the earlier and later attitude of
the Jews toward the LXX, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 16, note 8.
[1497] poiesantos tou theou hoper hebouleto. This is quite different
from the text of Irenĉus, which reads facturos hoc quod ipse voluisset
(implying that the original Greek was poiesontas touto hoper
ebouleto), "to carry out what he [viz. Ptolemy] had desired."
Heinichen modifies the text of Eusebius somewhat, substituting
poiesontas ta for poiesantos tou, but there can be little doubt that
Eusebius originally wrote the sentence in the form given at the
beginning of this note. That Irenĉus wrote it in that form, however,
is uncertain, though, in view of the fact that Clement of Alex.
(Strom. I. 22) confirms the reading of Eusebius (reading theou gar en
boulema), I am inclined to think that the text of Eusebius represents
the original more closely than the text of the Latin translation of
Irenĉus does. Most of the editors, however, both of Eusebius and of
Irenĉus, take the other view (cf. Harvey's note in his edition of
Irenĉus, Vol. II. p. 113).
[1498] ten auten hermeneian grEURphein, as the majority of the mss.,
followed by Burton and most other editors, read. Stroth Zimmermann,
and Heinichen, on the authority of Rufinus and of the Latin version of
Irenĉus, read, ten auten hermeneuein graphen.
[1499] kat' epipnoian
[1500] This tradition, which was commonly accepted until the time of
the Reformation, dates from the first Christian century, for it is
found in the fourth book of Ezra (xiv. 44): It is there said that Ezra
was inspired to dictate to five men, during forty days, ninety-four
books, of which twenty-four (the canonical books) were to be
published. The tradition is repeated quite frequently by the Fathers,
but that Ezra formed the Old Testament canon is impossible, for some
of the books were not written until after his day. The truth is, it
was a gradual growth and was not completed until the second century
b.c. See above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.
Chapter IX.--The Bishops under Commodus.
1. After Antoninus [1501] had been emperor for nineteen years,
Commodus received the government. [1502] In his first year Julian
[1503] became bishop of the Alexandrian churches, after Agrippinus
[1504] had held the office for twelve years.
Footnotes
[1501] i.e. Marcus Aurelius. See below, p. 390, note.
[1502] March 17, 180 a.d.
[1503] Of this Julian we know nothing except what is told us by
Eusebius here and in chap. 22, below, where he is said to have held
office ten years. In the Chron. he is also said to have been bishop
for ten years, but his accession is put in the nineteenth year of
Marcus Aurelius (by Jerome), or in the second year of Commodus (by the
Armenian version).
[1504] Upon Agrippinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5.
Chapter X.--Pantĉnus the Philosopher.
1. About that time, Pantĉnus, [1505] a man highly distinguished for
his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.
[1506] A school of sacred learning, which continues to our day, was
established there in ancient times, [1507] and as we have been
informed, [1508] was managed by men of great ability and zeal for
divine things. Among these it is reported [1509] that Pantĉnus was at
that time especially conspicuous, as he had been educated in the
philosophical system of those called Stoics.
2. They say that he displayed such zeal for the divine Word, that he
was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of Christ to the nations in
the East, and was sent as far as India. [1510] For indeed [1511] there
were still many evangelists of the Word who sought earnestly to use
their inspired zeal, after the examples of the apostles, for the
increase and building up of the Divine Word.
3. Pantĉnus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is
reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the
Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival.
For Bartholomew, [1512] one of the apostles, had preached to them, and
left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, [1513]
which they had preserved till that time.
4. After many good deeds, Pantĉnus finally became the head of the
school at Alexandria, [1514] and expounded the treasures of divine
doctrine both orally and in writing. [1515]
Footnotes
[1505] Pantĉnus is the first teacher of the Alexandrian school that is
known to us, and even his life is involved in obscurity. His chief
significance for us lies in the fact that he was the teacher of
Clement, with whom the Alexandrian school first steps out into the
full light of history, and makes itself felt as a power in
Christendom. Another prominent pupil of Pantĉnus was Alexander, bishop
of Jerusalem (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14). Pantĉnus was originally a
Stoic philosopher, and must have discussed philosophy in his school in
connection with theology, for Origen appeals to him as his example in
this respect (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 19). His abilities are
testified to by Clement (in his Hypotyposes; see the next Chapter,
§4), who speaks of him always in terms of the deepest respect and
affection. Of his birth and death we know nothing. Clement, Strom. I.
1, calls him a "Sicilian bee," which may, perhaps, have reference to
his birthplace. The statement of Philip of Side, that he was an
Athenian, is worthless. We do not know when he began his work in
Alexandria, nor when he finished it. But from Bk. VI. chap. 6 we learn
that Clement had succeeded Pantĉnus, and was in charge of the school
in the time of Septimius Severus. This probably means not merely that
Pantĉnus had left Egypt, but that he was already dead; and if that be
the case, the statement of Jerome (de vir. ill. 36), that Pantĉnus was
in charge of the school during the reigns of Septimius Severus and
Caracalla, is erroneous (Jerome himself expressly says, in ibid. chap.
38, that Clement succeeded Pantĉnus upon the death of the latter).
Jerome's statement, however, that Pantĉnus was sent to India by
Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, is not necessarily in conflict with
the indefinite account of Eusebius, who gives no dates. What authority
Jerome has for his account we do not know. If his statement be
correct, the journey must have taken place after 190; and thus after,
or in the midst or, his Alexandrian activity. Eusebius apparently
accepted the latter opinion, though his statement at the end of this
Chapter is dark, and evidently implies that he was very uncertain in
regard to the matter. His whole account rests simply on hearsay, and
therefore too much weight must not be laid upon its accuracy. After
Clement comes upon the scene (which was at least some years before the
outbreak of the persecution of Severus, 200 a.d.--when he left the
city) we hear nothing more of Pantĉnus. Some have put his journey to
India in this later period; but this is contrary to the report of
Eusebius, and there is no authority for the opinion. Photius (Cod.
118) records a tradition that Pantĉnus had himself heard some of the
apostles; but this is impossible, and is asserted by no one else.
According to Jerome, numerous commentaries of Pantĉnus were extant in
his time. Eusebius, at the close of this Chapter, speaks of his
expounding the Scriptures "both orally and in writing," but he does
not enumerate his works, and apparently had never seen them. No traces
of them are now extant, unless some brief reminiscences of his
teaching, which we have, are supposed to be drawn from his works, and
not merely from his lectures or conversations (see Routh, Rel. Sac. I.
p. 375-383).
[1506] The origin of this school of the faithful, or "catechetical
school," in Alexandria is involved in obscurity. Philip of Side names
Athenagoras as the founder of the school, but his account is full of
inconsistencies and contradictions, and deserves no credence. The
school first comes out into the light of history at this time with
Pantĉnus at its head, and plays a prominent part in Church history
under Clement, Origen, Heraclas, Dionysius, Didymus, &c., until the
end of the fourth century, when it sinks out of sight in the midst of
the dissensions of the Alexandrian church, and its end like its
beginning is involved in obscurity. It probably owed its origin to no
particular individual, but arose naturally as an outgrowth from the
practice which flourished in the early Church of instructing
catechumens in the elements of Christianity before admitting them to
baptism. In such a philosophical metropolis as Alexandria, a school,
though intended only for catechumens, would very naturally soon assume
a learned character, and it had already in the time of Pantĉnus at
least become a regular theological school for the preparation
especially of teachers and preachers. It exercised a great influence
upon theological science, and numbered among its pupils many
celebrated theologians and bishops. See the article by Redepenning in
Herzog, 2d ed. I. 290-292, and Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 777-781, where
the literature of the subject is given.
[1507] Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 36) states that there had always been
ecclesiastical teachers in Alexandria from the time of Mark. He is
evidently, however, giving no independent tradition, but merely draws
his conclusion from the words of Eusebius who simply says "from
ancient times." The date of the origin of the school is in fact
entirely unknown, though there is nothing improbable in the statement
of Jerome that ecclesiastical teachers were always there. It must,
however, have been some years before a school could be developed or
the need of it be felt.
[1508] pareilephamen
[1509] logos zchei.
[1510] Jerome (de vir. ill. 36) says that he was sent to India by the
bishop Demetrius at the request of the Indians themselves,--a
statement more exact than that of Eusebius, whether resting upon
tradition merely, or upon more accurate information, or whether it is
simply a combination of Jerome's, we do not know. It is at any rate
not at all improbable (see above, note 1). A little farther on
Eusebius indicates that Pantĉnus preached in the same country in which
the apostle Bartholomew had done missionary work. But according to
Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 22) Bartholomew's traditional
field of labor was the region of the Bosphorus. He follows Gutschmid
therefore in claiming that the Indians here are confounded with the
Sindians, over whom the Bosphorian kings of the house of Polemo ruled.
Jerome (Ep. ad Magnum; Migne, Ep. 70) evidently regards the India
where Pantĉnus preached as India proper (Pantĉnus Stoicĉ sectĉ
philosophus, ob pracipue eruditionis gloriam, a Demetrio Alexandriĉ
episcopo missus est in Indiam, ut Christum apud Brachmanas, et illius
gentis philosophos prĉdicaret). Whether the original tradition was
that Pantĉnus went to India, and his connection with Bartholomew (who
was wrongly supposed to have preached to the Indians) was a later
combination, or whether, on the other hand, the tradition that he
preached in Bartholomew's field of labor was the original and the
mission to India a later combination, we cannot tell. It is probable
that Eusebius meant India proper, as Jerome certainly did, but both of
them may have been mistaken.
[1511] esan gar, esan eiseti. Eusebius seems to think it a remarkable
fact that there should still have been preaching evangelists.
Evidently they were no longer common in his day. It is interesting to
notice that he calls them "evangelists." In earlier times they were
called "apostles" (e.g. in the Didache), but the latter had long
before Eusebius' time become a narrower, technical term.
[1512] See note 6.
[1513] If the truth of this account be accepted, Pantĉnus is a witness
to the existence of a Hebrew Matthew. See above, Bk. III. chap. 24,
note 5. It has been assumed by some that this Gospel was the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24). This is
possible; but even if Pantĉnus really did find a Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew as Eusebius says (and which, according to Jerome, de vir. ill.
36, he brought back to Alexandria with him), we have no grounds upon
which to base a conclusion as to its nature, or its relation to our
Greek Matthew.
[1514] Eusebius apparently puts the journey of Pantĉnus in the middle
of his Alexandrian activity, and makes him return again and teach
there until his death. Jerome also agrees in putting the journey in
the middle and not at the beginning or close of his Alexandrian
activity. It must be confessed, however, that Eusebius' language is
very vague, and of such a nature as perhaps to imply that he really
had no idea when the mission took place.
[1515] See above, note 1.
Chapter XI.--Clement of Alexandria.
1. At this time Clement, [1516] being trained with him [1517] in the
divine Scriptures at Alexandria, became well known. He had the same
name as the one who anciently was at the head of the Roman church, and
who was a disciple of the apostles. [1518]
2. In his Hypotyposes [1519] he speaks of Pantĉnus by name as his
teacher. It seems to me that he alludes to the same person also in the
first book of his Stromata, when, referring to the more conspicuous of
the successors of the apostles whom he had met, [1520] he says: [1521]
3. "This work [1522] is not a writing artfully constructed for
display; but my notes are stored up for old age, as a remedy against
forgetfulness; an image without art, and a rough sketch of those
powerful and animated words which it was my privilege to hear, as well
as of blessed and truly remarkable men.
4. Of these the one--the Ionian [1523] --was in Greece, the other in
Magna Grĉcia; [1524] the one of them was from Coele-Syria, [1525] the
other from Egypt. There were others in the East, one of them an
Assyrian, [1526] the other a Hebrew in Palestine. [1527] But when I
met with the last, [1528] --in ability truly he was first,--having
hunted him out in his concealment in Egypt, I found rest.
5. These men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed doctrine,
directly from the holy apostles, Peter and James and John and Paul,
the son receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers),
have come by God's will even to us to deposit those ancestral and
apostolic seeds." [1529]
Footnotes
[1516] Of the place and time of Titus Flavius Clement's birth we have
no certain knowledge, though it is probable that he was an Athenian by
training at least, if not by birth, and he must have been born about
the middle of the second century. He received a very extensive
education, and became a Christian in adult years, after he had tried
various systems of philosophy, much as Justin Martyr had. He had a
great thirst for knowledge, and names six different teachers under
whom he studied Christianity (see below, §4). Finally he became a
pupil of Pantĉnus in Alexandria, whom he afterward succeeded as the
head of the catechetical school there. It is at this time (about 190
a.d.) that he comes out clearly into the light of history, and to this
period (190-202) belongs his greatest literary activity. He was at the
head of the school probably until 202, when the persecution of Severus
having broken out, he left Alexandria, and we nave no notice that he
ever returned. That he did not leave Alexandria dishonorably, through
fear, may be gathered from his presence with Alexander during his
imprisonment, and from the letters of the latter (see below, Bk. VI.
chaps. 11 and 14, and cf. Bk. VI. chap. 6, notes). This is the last
notice that we have of him (a.d. 212); and of the place and time of
his death we know nothing, though he cannot have lived many years
after this. He was never a bishop, but was a presbyter of the
Alexandrian church, and was in ancient times commemorated as a saint,
but his name was dropped from the roll by Clement VIII. on account of
suspected heterodoxy. He lived in an age of transition, and his great
importance lies in the fact that he completed the bond between
Hellenism and Christianity, and as a follower of the apologists
established Christianity as a philosophy, and yet not as they had done
in an apologetic sense. He was the teacher of Origen, and the real
father of Greek theology. He published no system, as did Origen; his
works were rather desultory and fragmentary, but full of wide and
varied learning, and exhibit a truly broad and catholic spirit. Upon
his works, see Bk. VI. chap. 13. Upon Clement, see especially
Westcott's article in Smith and Wace, I. 559-567, and Schaff, II.
781-785, where the literature is given with considerable fullness. For
an able and popular presentation of his theology, see Allen's
Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 38-70.
[1517] sunaskoumenos
[1518] Upon Clement of Rome and his relation to the apostles, see Bk.
III. chap. 4, note 19.
[1519] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. The
passage in which he mentions Pantĉnus by name has not been preserved.
Eusebius repeats the same statement in Bk. VI. chap. 13, §1.
[1520] tous emphanesterous hes kateilephen apostolikes diadoches
episemainomenos. Rufinus reads apostolicĉ prĉdicationis instead of
successionis. And so Christophorsonus and Valesius adopt didaches
instead of diadoches, and translate doctrinĉ. But diadoches is too
well supported by ms. authority to be rejected; and though the use of
the abstract "succession," instead of the concrete "successors," seems
harsh, it is employed elsewhere in the same sense by Eusebius (see Bk.
I. chap. 1, §1).
[1521] Strom.I. 1.
[1522] i.e. his Stromata.
[1523] This is hardly a proper name, although many have so considered
it, for Clement gives no other proper name in this connection, and it
is much more natural to translate "the Ionian." Various conjectures
have been made as to who these teachers were, but none are more than
mere guesses. Philip of Side tells us that Athenagoras was a teacher
of Clement, but, as we have seen, no confidence can be placed in his
statement. It has been conjectured also that Melito may be the person
referred to as "the Ionian," for Clement mentions his works, and wrote
a book on the paschal question in reply to Melito's work on the same
subject (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 23). This too, however, is
mere conjecture.
[1524] The lower part of the peninsula of Italy was called Magna
Grĉcia, because it contained so many Greek colonies.
[1525] Coele-Syria was the valley lying between the eastern and
western ranges of Lebanon.
[1526] This has been conjectured to be Tatian. But in the first place,
Clement, in Strom. III. 12, calls Tatian a Syrian instead of an
Assyrian (the terms are indeed often used interchangeably, but we
should nevertheless hardly expect Clement to call his own teacher in
one place a Syrian, in another an Assyrian). And again, in II. 12, he
speaks very harshly of Tatian, and could hardly have referred to him
in this place in such terms of respect and affection.
[1527] Various conjectures have been made as to the identity of this
teacher,--for instance, Theophilus of Cĉsarea (who, however, was never
called a Hebrew, according to Valesius), and Theodotus (so Valesius).
[1528] Pantĉnus. There can be no doubt as to his identity, for Clement
says that he remained with him and sought no further. Eusebius omits a
sentence here in which Clement calls Pantĉnus the "Sicilian bee," from
which it is generally concluded that he was a native of Sicily (see
the previous Chapter, note 1).
[1529] This entire passage is very important, as showing not only the
extensiveness of Clement's own acquaintance with Christians, but also
the close intercourse of Christians in general, both East and West.
Clement's statement in regard to the directness with which he received
apostolic tradition is not definite, and he by no means asserts that
his teachers were hearers of the apostles (which in itself would not
be impossible, but Clement would certainly have spoken more clearly
had it been a fact), nor indeed that they were hearers of disciples of
the apostles. But among so many teachers, so widely scattered, he
could hardly have failed to meet with some who had at least known
those who had known the apostles. In any case he considers his
teachers very near the apostles as regards the accuracy of their
traditions. The passage is also interesting, as showing the uniformity
of doctrine in different parts of Christendom, according to Clement's
view, though this does not prove much, as Clement himself was so
liberal and so much of an eclectic. It is also interesting, as showing
how much weight Clement laid upon tradition, how completely he rested
upon it for the truth, although at the same time he was so free and
broad in his speculation.
Chapter XII.--The Bishops in Jerusalem.
1. At this time Narcissus [1530] was the bishop of the church at
Jerusalem, and he is celebrated by many to this day. He was the
fifteenth in succession from the siege of the Jews under Adrian. We
have shown that from that time first the church in Jerusalem was
composed of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and that Marcus
was the first Gentile bishop that presided over them. [1531]
2. After him the succession in the episcopate was: first Cassianus;
after him Publius; then Maximus; [1532] following them Julian; then
Gaius; [1533] after him Symmachus and another Gaius, and again another
Julian; after these Capito [1534] and Valens and Dolichianus; and
after all of them Narcissus, the thirtieth in regular succession from
the apostles.
Footnotes
[1530] The date of Narcissus' accession to the see of Jerusalem is not
known to us. The Chron. affords us no assistance; for although it
connects him among other bishops with the first (Armen.) or third
(Jerome) year of Severus, it does not pretend to give the date of
accession, and in one place says expressly that the dates of the
Jerusalem bishops are not known (non potuimus discernere tempora
singulorum). But from chap. 22 we learn that he was already bishop in
the tenth year of Commodus (189 a.d.); from chap. 23, that he was one
of those that presided at a Palestinian council, called in the time of
Bishop Victor, of Rome, to discuss the paschal question (see chap. 23,
§2); from Bk. VI. chap. 8, that he was alive at the time of the
persecution of Severus (202 sq.); and from the fragment of one of
Alexander's epistles given in Bk. VI. chap. 11, that he was still
alive in his 116th year, sometime after 212 a.d. (see Bk. VI. chap.
11, note 1). Epiphanius (Hĉr. LXVI. 20) reports that he lived until
the reign of Alexander Severus (222 a.d.), and this in itself would
not be impossible; for the epistle of Alexander referred to might have
been written as late as 222. But Epiphanius is a writer of no
authority; and the fact is, that in connection with Origen's visit in
Palestine, in 216 (see Bk. VI. chap. 19), Alexander is mentioned as
bishop of Jerusalem; and Narcissus is not referred to. We must,
therefore, conclude that Narcissus was dead before 216. We learn from
Bk. VI. chap. 9 that Narcissus had the reputation of being a great
miracle-worker, and he was a man of such great piety and sanctity as
to excite the hatred of a number of evil-doers, who conspired against
him to blacken his character. In consequence of this he left
Jerusalem, and disappeared entirely from the haunts of men, so that it
became necessary to appoint another bishop in his place. Afterward,
his slanderers having suffered the curses imprecated upon themselves
in their oaths against him, Narcissus returned, and was again made
bishop, and was given an assistant, Alexander (see Bk. VI. chaps. 10
and 11). A late tradition makes Narcissus a martyr (see Nicephorus, H.
E. IV. 19), but there is no authority for the report.
[1531] Upon the so-called bishops of Jerusalem down to the destruction
of the city under Hadrian, see Bk. IV. chap. 5. Upon the destruction
of Jerusalem under Hadrian, and the founding of the Gentile Church in
Ĉlia Capitolina, and upon Marcus the first Gentile bishop, see Bk. IV.
chap. 6. The list given here by Eusebius purports to contain fifteen
names, Marcus being the sixteenth, and Narcissus being the thirtieth;
but only thirteen names are given. In the Chron., however, and in
Epiphanius (Hĉr. LXVI. 20) the list is complete, a second Maximus and
a Valentinus being inserted, as 26th and 27th, between Capito and
Valens. The omission here is undoubtedly due simply to the mistake of
some scribe. The Chron. puts the accession of Cassianus into the 23d
year of Antoninus Pius (160 a.d.), and the accession of the second
Maximus into the sixth year of Commodus (185 a.d.), but it is said in
the Chron. itself that the dates of the various bishops are not known,
and hence no reliance can be placed upon these figures. Epiphanius
puts the accession of the first Gaius into the tenth year of Antoninus
Pius, which is thirteen years earlier than the date of the Chron. for
the fourth bishop preceding. He also puts the death of the second
Gaius in the eighth year of Marcus Aurelius (168 a.d.) and the death
of the second Maximus in the sixteenth year of the same reign, thus
showing a variation from the Chron. of more than nine years. The
episcopate of Dolichianus is brought down by him to the reign of
Commodus (180 a.d.). As shown in note 1, however, the date given by
him for Narcissus is quite wrong, and there is no reason for bestowing
any greater credence upon his other dates. Syncellus assigns five
years to Cassianus, five to Publius, four to Maximus, two to Julian,
three to the first Gaius, two to Symmachus, three to the second Gaius,
four to the second Julian, two to an Elias who is not named by our
other authorities, four to Capito, four to the second Maximus, five to
Antoninus, three to Valens, four to Narcissus the first time, and ten
the second time. His list, however, is considerably
confused,--Dolichianus being thrown after Narcissus with an episcopate
of twelve years,--and at any rate no reliance can be placed upon the
figures given. We must conclude that we have no means of ascertaining
the dates of these various bishops until we reach Narcissus. We know
nothing about any of them (Narcissus excepted) beyond the fact that
they were bishops.
[1532] Called Maximinus by the Armenian Chron., but all our other
authorities call him Maximus.
[1533] The name is given GEURios in this Chapter, and by Syncellus;
but Jerome and the Armenian give Gaianus, and Epiphanius Gaianos. All
the authorities agree upon the name of the next Gaius (who is,
however, omitted by Rufinus).
[1534] Eusebius has Kapiton, so also Epiphanius, with whom Jerome
agrees, writing Capito. The Armenian, however, has Apion, and
Syncellus says 'Apion, hoi de Kapiton.
Chapter XIII.--Rhodo and his Account of the Dissension of Marcion.
1. At this time Rhodo, [1535] a native of Asia, who had been
instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already
become acquainted, [1536] having written several books, published
among the rest one against the heresy of Marcion. [1537] He says that
this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; [1538] and
while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes
accurately the falsehoods devised by each of them.
2. But hear what he writes: [1539]
"Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an
inconsistent opinion. [1540] For Apelles, [1541] one of the herd,
priding himself on his manner of life [1542] and his age, acknowledges
one principle, [1543] but says that the prophecies [1544] are from an
opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden
by name Philumene, [1545] who was possessed by a demon.
3. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, [1546] hold to
two principles, [1547] as does the mariner [1548] Marcion himself.
4. These following the wolf [1549] of Pontus, and, like him, unable to
fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any
proof asserted two principles. Others, again, drifting into a worse
error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. [1550]
Of these, Syneros [1551] is the leader and chief, as those who defend
his teaching [1552] say."
5. The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with
Apelles. He speaks as follows:
"For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, [1553] was refuted
in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was
not at all necessary to examine one's doctrine, [1554] but that each
one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that
those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were
found doing good works. [1555] But as we have said before, his opinion
concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one
principle, as also our doctrine does."
6. Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds:
"When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how can you assert
that there is one principle, he replied that the prophecies refuted
themselves, because they have said nothing true; [1556] for they are
inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one
principle he said that he did not know, but that he was thus
persuaded.
7. As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so
when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but
that he believed it. Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because,
though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how to confirm what he
taught." [1557]
8. In the same work, addressing Callistio, [1558] the same writer
acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. [1559] And
he says that a book of Problems [1560] had been prepared by Tatian, in
which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the
divine Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own
solutions of Tatian's problems. [1561] There is also extant a
Commentary of his on the Hexĉmeron. [1562]
9. But this Apelles wrote many things, in an impious manner, of the
law of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in many of his works,
being, as it seemed, very zealous for their refutation and overthrow.
[1563]
So much concerning these.
Footnotes
[1535] We know nothing of Rhodo except what is contained in this
Chapter. Jerome gives a very brief account of him in his de vir. ill.
37, but it rests solely upon this Chapter, with the single addition of
the statement that Rhodo wrote a work Against the Phrygians. It is
plain enough, however, that he had for his account no independent
source, and that he in this statement simply attributed to Rhodo the
work quoted by Eusebius as an anonymous work in chap. 16. Jerome
permits himself such unwarranted combinations very frequently, and we
need not be at all surprised at it. With him a guess is often as good
as knowledge, and in this case he doubtless considered his guess a
very shrewd one. There is no warrant for supposing that he himself saw
the work mentioned by Eusebius, and thus learned its authorship. What
Eusebius did not learn from it he certainly could not, and his whole
account betrays the most slavish and complete dependence upon Eusebius
as his only source. In chap. 39 Jerome mentions Rhodo again as
referring, in a book which he wrote against Montanus, Prisca, and
Maximilla, to Miltiades, who also wrote against the same heretics.
This report is plainly enough taken directly from Eusebius, chap. 17,
where Eusebius quotes from the same anonymous work. Jerome's utterly
baseless combination is very interesting, and significant of his
general method. Rhodo's works are no longer extant, and the only
fragments we have are those preserved by Eusebius in this Chapter.
[1536] See Bk. IV. chap. 29.
[1537] Upon Marcion and Marcionism, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22.
[1538] It is noticeable that Rhodo says gnomas, opinions, not parties.
Although the different Marcionites held various theoretical beliefs,
which gave rise to different schools, yet they did not split up into
sects, but remained one church, and retained the one general name of
Marcionites, and it is by this general name alone that they are always
referred to by the Fathers. The fact that they could hold such variant
beliefs (e.g. one, two, or three principles; see below, note 9)
without splitting up into sects, shows that doctrines were but a side
issue with them, and that the religious spirit was the matter upon
which they laid the chief emphasis. This shows the fundamental
difference between Marcion and the Gnostics.
[1539] These fragments of Rhodo are collected and discussed by Routh
in his Rel. Sacrĉ, I. 437-446.
[1540] The Fathers entirely misunderstood Marcion, and mistook the
significance of his movement. They regarded it, like Gnosticism in
general, solely as a speculative system, and entirely overlooked its
practical aim. The speculative and theological was not the chief thing
with Marcion, but it is the only thing which receives any attention
from his opponents. His positions, all of which were held only with a
practical interest, were not treated by him in a speculative manner,
nor were they handled logically and systematically. As a consequence,
many contradictions occur in them. These contradictions were felt by
his followers, who laid more and more emphasis upon the speculative
over against the practical; and hence, as Rhodo reports, they fell
into disagreement, and, in their effort to remove the inconsistencies,
formed various schools, differing among themselves according to the
element upon which the greatest weight was laid. There is thus some
justification for the conduct of the Fathers, who naturally carried
back and attributed to Marcion the principles of his followers. But it
is our duty to distinguish the man from his followers, and to
recognize his greatness in spite of their littleness. Not all of them,
however, fell completely away from his practical religious spirit.
Apelles, as we shall see below, was in many respects a worthy follower
of his master.
[1541] Apelles was the greatest and most famous of Marcion's
disciples. Tertullian wrote a special work against him, which is
unfortunately lost, but from his own quotations, and from those of
Pseudo-Tertullian and Hippolytus, it can be in part restored (cf.
Harnack's De Apellis Gnosis Monarchia, p. 11 sqq.). As he was an old
man (see §5, below) when Rhodo conversed with him, he must have been
born early in the second century. We know nothing definite either as
to his birth or death. The picture which we have of him in this
Chapter is a very pleasing one. He was a man evidently of deep
religious spirit and moral life, who laid weight upon "trust in the
crucified Christ" (see §5, below), and upon holiness in life in
distinction from doctrinal beliefs; a man who was thus thoroughly
Marcionitic in his principles, although he differed so widely with
Marcion in some of his doctrinal positions that he was said to have
founded a new sect (so Origen, Hom. in Gen. II. 2). The slightest
difference, however, between his teaching and Marcion's would have
been sufficient to make him the founder of a separate Gnostic sect in
the eyes of the Fathers, and therefore this statement must be taken
with allowance (see note 4, above). The account which Hippolytus
(Phil. X. 16) gives of the doctrinal positions of Apelles is somewhat
different from that of Rhodo, but ambiguous and less exact. The
scandal in regard to him, reported by Tertullian in his De
Prĉscriptione, 30, is quite in accord with Tertullian's usual conduct
towards heretics, and may be set aside as not having the slightest
foundation in fact, and as absolutely contradicting what we know of
Apelles from this report of his contemporary, Rhodo. His moral
character was certainly above reproach, and the same may be said of
his master, Marcion. Upon Apelles, see especially Harnack's De Apellis
Gnosis Monarchia, Lips. 1874.
[1542] The participle (semnunomenos) carries with it the implication
that Apelles' character was affected or assumed. The implication,
however, does not lessen the value of Rhodo's testimony to his
character. He could not deny its purity, though he insinuated that it
was not sincere.
[1543] This means that Apelles accepted only one God, and made the
creator but an angel who was completely under the power of the Supreme
God. Marcion, on the contrary, held, as said below, two principles,
teaching that the world-creator was himself a God, eternal, uncreated,
and independent of the good God of the Christians. It is true that
Marcion represented the world-creator as limited in power and
knowledge, and taught that the Christian God would finally be supreme,
and the world-creator become subject to him; but this, while it
involves Marcion in self-contradiction as soon as the matter is looked
at theoretically, yet does not relieve him from the charge of actual
dualism. His followers were more consistent, and either accepted one
principle, subordinating the world-creator completely to the good God,
as did Apelles, or else carried out Marcion's dualism to its logical
result and asserted the continued independence of the Old Testament
God and the world-creator, who was thus very early identified with
Satan and made the enemy of the Christian God. (Marcion's
world-creator was not the bad God, but the righteous in distinction
from the good God.) Still others held three principles: the good God
of the Christians, the righteous God or world-creator, and the bad
God, Satan. The varying doctrines of these schools explain the
discrepant and often contradictory reports of the Fathers in regard to
the doctrines of Marcion. Apelles' doctrine was a decided advance upon
that of Marcion, as he rejected the dualism of the latter, which was
the destructive element in his system, and thus approached the Church,
whose foundation must be one God who rules the world for good. His
position is very significant, as remarked by Harnack, because it shows
that one could hold Marcion's fundamental principle without becoming a
dualist.
[1544] i.e. the Old Testament prophecies. Apelles in his Syllogisms
(see below, note 28) exhibited the supposed contradictions of the Old
Testament in syllogistic form, tracing them to two adverse angels, of
whom the one spoke falsely, contradicting the truth spoken by the
other. Marcion, on the other hand (in his Antitheses), referred all
things to the same God, the world-creator, and from the contradictions
of the book endeavored to show his vacillating and inconsistent
character. He, however, accepted the Old Testament as in the main a
trustworthy book, but referred the prophecies to the Jewish Messiah in
distinction from the Christ of the New Testament. But Apelles, looking
upon two adverse angels as the authors of the book, regarded it as in
great part false. Marcion and Apelles were one, however, in looking
upon it as an anti-Christian book.
[1545] This virgin, Philumene, is connected with Apelles in all the
reports which we have of him (e.g. in Hippolytus, Tertullian, Jerome,
&c.), and is reported to have been looked upon by Apelles as a
prophetess who received revelations from an angel, and who worked
miracles. Tertullian, De Prĉscriptione, 6, evidently accepts these
miracles as facts, but attributes them to the agency of a demon. They
all unite in considering her influence the cause of Apelles' heretical
opinions. Tertullian (ibid. 30, &c.) calls her a prostitute, but the
silence of Rhodo and Hippolytus is sufficient refutation of such a
charge, and it may be rejected as a baseless slander, like the report
of Apelles' immorality mentioned in note 7. There is nothing strange
in the fact that Apelles should follow the prophecies of a virgin, and
the Fathers who mention it evidently do not consider it as anything
peculiar or reprehensible in itself. It was very common in the early
Church to appeal to the relatives of virgins and widows. Cf. e.g. the
virgin daughters of Philip who prophesied (Acts xxi. 9; Eusebius, III.
31), also the Eccles. Canons, chap. 21, where it is directed that
three widows shall be appointed, of whom two shall give themselves to
prayer, waiting for revelations in regard to any question which may
arise in the Church, and the third shall devote herself to nursing the
sick. Tertullian also appeals for proof of the materiality of the soul
to a vision enjoyed by a Christian sister (de Anima, 9). So Montanus
had his prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla (see the next Chapter).
[1546] Of these two men we know only what is told us here. They are
not mentioned elsewhere.
[1547] See note 9.
[1548] ho nautes. This word is omitted by many mss., but is found in
the best ones and in Rufinus, and is accepted by most of the editors
of Eusebius. Tertullian calls Marcion a ship-master (Adv. Marc. III.
6, and IV. 9, &c.) and a pilot (ibid. I. 18), and makes many plays
upon his profession (e.g. ibid. V. 1), and there is no reason to take
the word in a figurative sense (as has been done) and suppose that he
is called a mariner simply because of his nationality. We know that he
traveled extensively, and that he was a rich man (for he gave 200,000
sesterces at one time to the church of Rome, which was a large sum for
those days; see Tertullian, de Prĉscript. 30). There is, therefore, no
reason to doubt that he was a "ship-master," as Tertullian calls him.
[1549] It was the custom of the Fathers to call the heretics hard
names, and Marcion received his full share of them from his opponents,
especially from Tertullian. He is compared to a wolf by Justin also,
Apol. I. 58, on account of his "carrying away" so many "lambs" from
the truth.
[1550] See note 9.
[1551] Of Syneros we know only what is told us here. He is not
mentioned elsewhere. Had the Marcionites split into various sects,
these leaders must have been well known among the Fathers, and their
names must have been frequently referred to. As it was, they all
remained Marcionites, in spite of their differences of opinion (see
above, note 4).
[1552] didaskEURlion, which is the reading of the majority of the
mss., and is adopted by Heinichen. Burton and Schwegler read
didaskaleion, on the authority of two mss.
[1553] Apelles was evidently like Marcion in his desire to keep within
the Church as much as possible, and to associate with Church people.
He had no esoteric doctrines to conceal from the multitude, and in
this he shows the great difference between himself and the Gnostics.
Marcion did not leave the Church until he was obliged to, and he
founded his own church only under compulsion, upon being driven out of
the Catholic community.
[1554] ton logon.
[1555] This is a truly Christian sentiment, and Apelles should be
honored for the expression of it. It reveals clearly the religious
character of Marcionism in distinction from the speculative and
theological character of the Gnostics, and indeed of many of the
Fathers. With Marcion and Apelles we are in a world of sensitive moral
principle and of deep religious feeling like that in which Paul and
Augustine lived, but few others in the early Church. Rhodo, in spite
of his orthodoxy, shows himself the real Gnostic over against the
sincere believer, though the latter was in the eyes of the Church a
"blasphemous heretic." Apelles' noble words do honor to the
movement--however heretical it was--which in that barren age of
theology could give them birth. The latter clause, taken as it stands,
would seem to indicate an elevation of good works to the level of
faith; but though it is possible that Apelles may have intended to
express himself thus, it is more probable, when we remember the
emphasis which Marcion laid upon Paul's doctrine of salvation by the
grace of God alone, that he meant to do no more than emphasize good
works as a natural result of true faith, as we do to-day. The apparent
co-ordination of the two may perhaps lie simply in Rhodo's
reproduction of Apelles' words. He, at least, did not comprehend
Paul's grand doctrine of Christian liberty, nor did any of his
orthodox contemporaries. The difference between the common conception
of Christ's relation to the law, and the conception of Paul as grasped
by Marcion and perhaps by Apelles, is well illustrated by a passage in
Tertullian, in which he expresses astonishment that the Marcionites do
not sin freely, so long as they do not expect to be punished, and
exclaims (to his own dishonor), "I would sin without scruple, if I
believed as you do."
[1556] Rhodo had probably brought forward against Apelles proof from
prophecy which led to the discussion of the Old Testament prophecies
in general. Although Apelles had rejected Marcion's dualism, and
accepted the "one principle," he still rejected the Old Testament.
This is quite peculiar, and yet perfectly comprehensible; for while
Marcion was indeed the only one of that age that understood Paul, yet
as Harnack well says, even he misunderstood him; and neither himself
nor his followers were able to rise to Paul's noble conception of the
Old Testament law as a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," and thus
a part of the good God's general plan of salvation. It took, perhaps,
a born Jew, as Paul was, to reach that high conception of the law in
those days. To Marcion and his followers the law seemed to stand in
irreconcilable conflict with the Gospel,--Jewish law on the one side,
Gospel liberty on the other,--they could not reconcile them; they
must, therefore, reject the former as from another being, and not from
the God of the Gospel. There was in that age no historical
interpretation of the Old Testament. It must either be interpreted
allegorically, and made a completely Christian book, or else it must
be rejected as opposed to Christianity. Marcion and his followers, in
their conception of law and Gospel as necessarily opposed, could
follow only the latter course. Marcion, in his rejection of the Old
Testament, proceeded simply upon dogmatic presumptions. Apelles,
although his rejection of it undoubtedly originated in the same
presumptions, yet subjected it to a criticism which satisfied him of
the correctness of his position, and gave him a fair basis of attack.
His procedure was, therefore, more truly historical than that of
Marcion, and anticipated modern methods of higher criticism.
[1557] A true Gnostic sentiment, over against which the pious
"agnosticism" of Apelles is not altogether unrefreshing. The Church
did not fully conquer Gnosticism,--Gnosticism in some degree conquered
the Church, and the anti-Gnostics, like Apelles, were called heretics.
It was the vicious error of Gnosticism that it looked upon
Christianity as knowledge, that it completely identified the two, and
our existing systems of theology, some of them, testify to the fact
that there are still Gnostics among us.
[1558] Of this Callistio we know nothing; but, as has been remarked by
another, he must have been a well-known man, or Eusebius would
probably have said "a certain Callistio" (see Salmon's article in
Smith and Wace).
[1559] Upon Tatian, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.
[1560] Upon this work (problemEURton biblion) see ibid.
[1561] Whether Rhodo fulfilled this promise we do not know. The work
is mentioned by no one else, and Eusebius evidently had no knowledge
of its existence, or he would have said so.
[1562] eis ten hexaemeron hupomnema. This work of Rhodo's, on the
Hexĉmeron (or six days' work), is mentioned by no one else, and no
fragments of it are known to us. For a notice of other works on the
same subject, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 22, note 3.
[1563] Hippolytus (X. 16) also mentions works of Apelles against the
law and the prophets. We know of but one work of his, viz. the
Syllogisms, which was devoted to the criticism of the Old Testament,
and in which he worked out the antitheses of Marcion in a syllogistic
form. The work is cited only by Origen (in Gen. II. 2) and by Ambrose
(De Parad. V. 28), and they have preserved but a few brief fragments.
It must have been an extensive work, as Ambrose quotes from the 38th
book. From these fragments we can see that Apelles' criticism of the
Old Testament was very keen and sagacious. For the difference between
himself and Marcion in the treatment of the Old Testament, see above,
note 9. The words of Eusebius, "as it seemed," show that he had not
himself seen the book, as might indeed be gathered from his general
account of Apelles, for which he depended solely upon secondary
sources.
Chapter XIV.--The False Prophets of the Phrygians.
The enemy of God's Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a
lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was
again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the
Church. [1564] For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over
Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that
the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were
prophetesses of Montanus. [1565]
Footnotes
[1564] Cf. Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 3.
[1565] On Montanus and the Montanists, see chap. 16.
Chapter XV.--The Schism of Blastus at Rome. [1566]
Others, of whom Florinus [1567] was chief, flourished at Rome. He fell
from the presbyterate of the Church, and Blastus was involved in a
similar fall. They also drew away many of the Church to their opinion,
each striving to introduce his own innovations in respect to the
truth.
Footnotes
[1566] The separation of chaps. 14 and 15 is unfortunate. They are
closely connected (hoi men in chap. 14 and hoi de in chap. 15), and
constitute together a general introduction to the following Chapters,
Montanism being treated in chaps. 16 to 19, and the schism of Florinus
and Blastus in chap. 20.
[1567] On Florinus and Blastus, see chap. 20.
Chapter XVI.--The Circumstances related of Montanus and his False
Prophets. [1568]
1. Against the so-called Phrygian [1569] heresy, the power which
always contends for the truth raised up a strong and invincible
weapon, Apolinarius of Hierapolis, whom we have mentioned before,
[1570] and with him many other men of ability, by whom abundant
material for our history has been left.
2. A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them,
[1571] first intimates that he had contended with them in oral
controversies.
3. He commences his work in this manner: [1572]
"Having for a very long and sufficient time, O beloved Avircius
Marcellus, [1573] been urged by you to write a treatise against the
heresy of those who are called after Miltiades, [1574] I have
hesitated till the present time, not through lack of ability to refute
the falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and
apprehension that I might seem to some to be making additions to the
doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New Testament, which it is
impossible for one who has chosen to live according to the Gospel,
either to increase or to diminish.
4. But being recently in Ancyra [1575] in Galatia, I found the church
there [1576] greatly agitated by this novelty, not prophecy, as they
call it, but rather false prophecy, as will be shown. Therefore, to
the best of our ability, with the Lord's help, we disputed in the
church many days concerning these and other matters separately brought
forward by them, so that the church rejoiced and was strengthened in
the truth, and those of the opposite side were for the time
confounded, and the adversaries were grieved.
5. The presbyters in the place, our fellow-presbyter Zoticus [1577] of
Otrous also being present, requested us to leave a record of what had
been said against the opposers of the truth. We did not do this, but
we promised to write it out as soon as the Lord permitted us, and to
send it to them speedily."
6. Having said this with other things, in the beginning of his work,
he proceeds to state the cause of the above-mentioned heresy as
follows:
"Their opposition and their recent heresy which has separated them
from the Church arose on the following account.
7. There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part
of Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. [1578] There first, they say,
when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, [1579] a recent convert, Montanus
by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, [1580] gave
the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself,
and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and
began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner
contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition
from the beginning. [1581]
8. Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were
indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that
was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit,
and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk,
remembering the distinction [1582] drawn by the Lord and his warning
to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets. [1583] But
others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a
prophetic gift, [1584] were elated and not a little puffed up; and
forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and
insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him.
In consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to
keep silence.
9. Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the
devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily
honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings
which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred
up besides two women, [1585] and filled them with the false spirit, so
that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the
person already mentioned. [1586] And the spirit pronounced them
blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the
magnitude of his promises. But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a
wise and faithful manner, that he might seem to be a reprover. But
those of the Phrygians that were deceived were few in number.
"And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal
Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received
neither honor from it nor entrance into it.
10. For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia
to consider this matter, [1587] and examined the novel utterances and
pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, and thus these
persons were expelled from the Church and debarred from communion."
11. Having related these things at the outset, and continued the
refutation of their delusion through his entire work, in the second
book he speaks as follows of their end:
12. "Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets [1588]
because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say,
are those that the Lord promised to send to the people, [1589] let
them answer as in God's presence: Who is there, O friends, of these
who began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was
persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of
them been seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of
these women ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or
stoned? No; never anywhere. [1590]
13. But by another kind of death Montanus and Maximilla are said to
have died. For the report is that, incited by the spirit of frenzy,
they both hung themselves; [1591] not at the same time, but at the
time which common report gives for the death of each. And thus they
died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.
14. So also, as general report says, that remarkable person, the first
steward, [1592] as it were, of their so-called prophecy, one
Theodotus--who, as if at sometime taken up and received into heaven,
fell into trances, and entrusted himself to the deceitful spirit--was
pitched like a quoit, and died miserably. [1593]
15. They say that these things happened in this manner. But as we did
not see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know. Perhaps in such a
manner, perhaps not, Montanus and Theodotus and the above-mentioned
woman died."
16. He says again in the same book that the holy bishops of that time
attempted to refute the spirit in Maximilla, but were prevented by
others who plainly co-operated with the spirit.
17. He writes as follows:
"And let not the spirit, in the same work of Asterius Urbanus, [1594]
say through Maximilla, `I am driven away from the sheep like a wolf.
[1595] I am not a wolf. I am word and spirit and power.' But let him
show clearly and prove the power in the spirit. And by the spirit let
him compel those to confess him who were then present for the purpose
of proving and reasoning with the talkative spirit,--those eminent men
and bishops, Zoticus, [1596] from the village Comana, and Julian,
[1597] from Apamea, whose mouths the followers of Themiso [1598]
muzzled, refusing to permit the false and seductive spirit to be
refuted by them."
18. Again in the same work, after saying other things in refutation of
the false prophecies of Maximilla, he indicates the time when he wrote
these accounts, and mentions her predictions in which she prophesied
wars and anarchy. Their falsehood he censures in the following manner:
19. "And has not this been shown clearly to be false? For it is to-day
more than thirteen years since the woman died, and there has been
neither a partial nor general war in the world; but rather, through
the mercy of God, continued peace even to the Christians." [1599]
These things are taken from the second book.
20. I will add also short extracts from the third book, in which he
speaks thus against their boasts that many of them had suffered
martyrdom:
"When therefore they are at a loss, being refuted in all that they
say, they try to take refuge in their martyrs, alleging that they have
many martyrs, and that this is sure evidence of the power of the
so-called prophetic spirit that is with them. But this, as it appears,
is entirely fallacious. [1600]
21. For some of the heresies have a great many martyrs; but surely we
shall not on that account agree with them or confess that they hold
the truth. And first, indeed, those called Marcionites, from the
heresy of Marcion, say that they have a multitude of martyrs for
Christ; yet they do not confess Christ himself in truth."
A little farther on he continues:
22. "When those called to martyrdom from the Church for the truth of
the faith have met with any of the so-called martyrs of the Phrygian
heresy, they have separated from them, and died without any fellowship
with them, [1601] because they did not wish to give their assent to
the spirit of Montanus and the women. And that this is true and took
place in our own time in Apamea on the Mĉander, [1602] among those who
suffered martyrdom with Gaius and Alexander of Eumenia, is well
known."
Footnotes
[1568] Montanism must not be looked upon as a heresy in the ordinary
sense of the term. The movement lay in the sphere of life and
discipline rather than in that of theology. Its fundamental
proposition was the continuance of divine revelation which was begun
under the old Dispensation, was carried on in the time of Christ and
his apostles, and reached its highest development under the
dispensation of the Paraclete, which opened with the activity of
Montanus. This Montanus was a Phrygian, who, in the latter part of the
second century, began to fall into states of ecstasy and to have
visions, and believed himself a divinely inspired prophet, through
whom the promised Paraclete spoke, and with whom therefore the
dispensation of that Paraclete began. Two noble ladies (Priscilla and
Maximilla) attached themselves to Montanus, and had visions and
prophesied in the same way. These constituted the three original
prophets of the sect, and all that they taught was claimed to be of
binding authority on all. They were quite orthodox, accepted fully the
doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church, and did not pretend to
alter in any way the revelation given by Christ and his apostles. But
they claimed that some things had not been revealed by them, because
at that early stage the Church was not able to bear them; but that
such additional revelations were now given, because the fullness of
time had come which was to precede the second coming of Christ. These
revelations had to do not at all with theology, but wholly with
matters of life and discipline. They taught a rigid asceticism over
against the growing worldliness of the Church, severe discipline over
against its laxer methods, and finally the universal priesthood of
believers (even female), and their right to perform all the functions
of church officers, over against the growing sacerdotalism of the
Church. They were thus in a sense reformers, or perhaps reactionaries
is a better term, who wished to bring back, or to preserve against
corruption, the original principles and methods of the Church. They
aimed at a puritanic reaction against worldliness, and of a democratic
reaction against growing aristocracy in the Church. They insisted that
ministers were made by God alone, by the direct endowment of his
Spirit in distinction from human ordination. They looked upon their
prophets--supernaturally called and endowed by the Spirit--as supreme
in the Church. They claimed that all gross offenders should be
excommunicated, and that neither they nor the lax should ever be
re-admitted to the Church. They encouraged celibacy, increased the
number and severity of fasts, eschewed worldly amusements, &c. This
rigid asceticism was enjoined by the revelation of the Spirit through
their prophets, and was promoted by their belief in the speedy coming
of Christ to set up his kingdom on earth, which was likewise
prophesied. They were thus pre-Millenarians or Chiliasts. The movement
spread rapidly in Asia Minor and in North Africa, and for a time in
Rome itself. It appealed very powerfully to the sterner moralists,
stricter disciplinarians, and more deeply pious minds among the
Christians. All the puritanically inclined schisms of this period
attracted many of the better class of Christians, and this one had the
additional advantage of claiming the authority of divine revelation
for its strict principles. The greatest convert was Tertullian, who,
in 201 or 202, attracted by the asceticism and disciplinary rigor of
the sect, attached himself to it, and remained until his death its
most powerful advocate. He seems to have stood at the head of a
separatist congregation of Montanists in Carthage, and yet never to
have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Montanism made so
much stir in Asia Minor that synods were called before the end of the
second century to consider the matter, and finally, though not without
hesitation, the whole movement was officially condemned. Later, the
condemnation was ratified in Rome and also in North Africa, and
Montanism gradually degenerated, and finally, after two or three
centuries, entirely disappeared. But although it failed and passed
away, Montanism had a marked influence on the development of the
Church. In the first place, it aroused a general distrust of prophecy,
and the result was that the Church soon came to the conviction that
prophecy had entirely ceased. In the second place, the Church was led
to see the necessity of emphasizing the historical Christ and
historical Christianity over against the Montanistic claims of a
constantly developing revelation, and thus to put great emphasis upon
the Scripture canon. In the third place, the Church had to lay
increased stress upon the organization--upon its appointed and
ordained officers--over against the claims of irregular prophets who
might at any time arise as organs of the Spirit. The development of
Christianity into a religion of the book and of the organization was
thus greatly advanced, and the line began to be sharply drawn between
the age of the apostles, in which there had been direct supernatural
revelations, and the later age, in which such revelations had
disappeared. We are, undoubtedly, to date from this time that exalted
conception of the glory of the apostolic age, and of its absolute
separation from all subsequent ages, which marks so strongly the
Church of succeeding centuries, and which led men to endeavor to gain
apostolic authority for every advance in the constitution, in the
customs, and in the doctrine of the Church. There had been little of
this feeling before, but now it became universal, and it explains the
great number of pseudo-apostolic works of the third and following
centuries. In the fourth place, the Chiliastic ideas of Montanism
produced a reaction in the Church which caused the final rejection of
all grossly physical Premillenarian beliefs which up to this time had
been very common. For further particulars in regard to Montanism, see
the notes on this and the following Chapters. Our chief sources for a
knowledge of Montanism are to be found in the writings of Tertullian.
See, also, Epiphanius, Hĉr. XLVIII. and XLIX., and Jerome's Epistle to
Marcella (Migne, Ep. 41). The fragments from the anonymous
anti-Montanistic writer quoted by Eusebius in this and the following
Chapter, and the fragments of Apollonius' work, quoted in chap. 18,
are of the greatest importance. It is to be regretted that Eusebius
has preserved for us no fragments of the anti-Montanistic writings of
Apolinarius and Melito, who might have given us still earlier and more
trustworthy accounts of the sect. It is probable that their works were
not decided enough in their opposition to Montanism to suit Eusebius,
who, therefore, chose to take his account from somewhat later, but
certainly bitter enough antagonists. The works of the Montanists
themselves (except those of Tertullian) have entirely perished, but a
few "Oracles," or prophetic utterances, of Montanus, Priscilla, and
Maximilla, have been preserved by Tertullian and other writers, and
are printed by Bonwetsch, p. 197-200. The literature upon Montanism is
very extensive. We may mention here C. W. F. Walch's Ketzerhistorie,
I. p. 611-666, A. Schwegler's Der Montanismus und die christliche
Kirche des zweiten Jahrh. (Tübingen, 1841), and especially G. N.
Bonwetzsch's Die Geschichte des Montanismus (Erlangen, 1881), which is
the best work on the subject, and indispensable to the student.
Compare, also, Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p. 415 sq., where the literature
is given with great fullness, Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog., and especially Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 319 sq.
[1569] ten legomenen kata Phrugas hairesin. The heresy of Montanus was
commonly called the Phrygian heresy because it took its rise in
Phrygia. The Latins, by a solecism, called it the Cataphrygian heresy.
Its followers received other names also, e.g. Priscillianists (from
the prophetess Priscilla), and Pepuziani (from Pepuza, their
headquarters). They called themselves pneumatikoi (spiritual), and the
adherents of the Church psuchichoi (carnal).
[1570] In Bk. IV. chaps. 21, 26 and 27, and in Bk. V. chap. 5. See
especially Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.
[1571] The author of this work is unknown. Jerome (de vir. ill. 37)
ascribes it to Rhodo (but see above, chap. 13, note 1). It is
sometimes ascribed to Asterius Urbanus, mentioned by Eusebius in §17
below, but he was certainly not its author (see below, note 27). Upon
the date of the work, see below, note 32.
[1572] The fragments of this anonymous work are given by Routh, Rel.
Sac. Vol. II. p. 183 sqq., and in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. VII. p. 335 sqq.
[1573] 'Aouirkie, as most of the mss. read. Others have 'Auirkie or
'Abirkie; Nicephorus, 'Aberkie. The name is quite commonly written
Abercius in English, and the person mentioned here is identified by
many scholars (among them Lightfoot) with Abercius, a prominent bishop
of Hieropolis (not Hierapolis, as was formerly supposed). A spurious
Life of S. Abercius is given by Simeon Metaphrastes (in Migne's Patr.
Gr. CXV. 1211 sq.), which, although of a decidedly legendary
character, rests upon a groundwork of fact as proved by the discovery,
in recent years of an epitaph from Abercius' tomb. This Abercius was
bishop in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and therefore must have held
office at least twelve or fifteen years (on the date of this anonymous
treatise, see below, note 32), or, if the date given by the spurious
Acts for Abercius' visit to Rome be accepted (163 a.d.), at least
thirty years. On Abercius and Avercius, see the exhaustive note of
Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers, Part II. (Ignatius and Polycarp),
Vol. I. p. 477-485.
[1574] eis ten ton kata MiltiEURden legomenon hairesin. The occurrence
of the name Miltiades, in this connection, is very puzzling, for we
nowhere else hear of a Montanist Miltiades, while the man referred to
here must have held a very prominent place among them. It is true that
it is commonly supposed that the Muratorian Canon refers to some
heretic Miltiades, but since Harnack's discussion of the matter (see
especially his Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 1, p. 216, note) it is
more than doubtful whether a Miltiades is mentioned at all in that
document. In any case the prominent position given him here is
surprising, and, as a consequence, Valesius (in his notes), Stroth,
Zimmermann, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen substitute 'AlkibiEURden
(who is mentioned in chap. 3 as a prominent Montanist) for
MiltiEURden. The mss., however, are unanimous in reading MiltiEURden;
and it is impossible to see how, if 'AlkibiEURden had originally stood
in the text, MiltiEURden could have been substituted for it. It is not
impossible that instead of Alcibiades in chap. 3 we should read, as
Salmon suggests, Miltiades. The occurrence of the name Alcibiades in
the previous sentence might explain its substitution for Miltiades
immediately afterward. It is at least easier to account for that
change than for the change of Alcibiades to Miltiades in the present
Chapter. Were Salmon's suggestion accepted, the difficulty in this
case would be obviated, for we should then have a Montanist Miltiades
of sufficient prominence to justify the naming of the sect after him
in some quarters. The suggestion, however, rests upon mere conjecture,
and it is safer to retain the reading of our mss. in both cases. Until
we get more light from some quarter we must be content to let the
matter rest, leaving the reason for the use of Miltiades' name in this
connection unexplained. There is, of course, nothing strange in the
existence of a Montanist named Miltiades; it is only the great
prominence given him here which puzzles us. Upon the ecclesiastical
writer, Miltiades, and Eusebius' confusion of him with Alcibiades, see
chap. 17, note 1.
[1575] Ancyra was the metropolis and one of the three principal cities
of Galatia. Quite an important town, Angora, now occupies its site.
[1576] kata topon, which is the reading of two of the mss. and
Nicephorus, and is adopted by Burton and Heinichen. The phrase seems
harsh, but occurs again in the next paragraph. The majority of the
mss. read kata Ponton, which is adopted by Valesius, Schwegler,
Laemmer, and Crusè. It is grammatically the easier reading, but the
reference to Pontus is unnatural in this connection, and in view of
the occurrence of the same phrase, kata topon, in the next paragraph,
it seems best to read thus in the present case as well.
[1577] Of this Zoticus we know only what is told us here. He is to be
distinguished, of course, from Zoticus of Comana, mentioned in §17,
below, and in chap. 18, §13. Otrous (or Otrys, as it is sometimes
written) was a small Phrygian town about two miles from Hieropolis
(see W. H. Ramsay's paper, entitled Trois Villes Phrygiennes, in the
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Juillet, 1882). Its bishop was
present at the Council of Chalcedon, and also at the second Council of
Nicĉa (see Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church). We may
gather from this passage that the anonymous author of this
anti-Montanistic work was a presbyter (he calls Zoticus
sumpresbuteros), but we have no hint of his own city, though the fact
that Avircius Marcellus, to whom the work was addressed, was from
Hieropolis (see note 6), and that the anonymous companion Zoticus was
from Otrous, would lead us to look in that neighborhood for the home
of our author, though hardly to either of those towns (the mention of
the name of the town in connection with Zoticus' name would seem to
shut out the latter, and the opening sentences of the treatise would
seem to exclude the former).
[1578] en te kata ten Phrugian Musi‹. It is not said here that
Montanus was born in Ardabau, but it is natural to conclude that he
was, and so that village is commonly given as his birthplace. As we
learn from this passage, Ardabau was not in Phrygia, as is often said,
but in Mysia. The boundary line between the two districts was a very
indefinite one, however, and the two were often confounded by the
ancients themselves; but we cannot doubt in the present instance that
the very exact statement of the anonymous writer is correct. Of the
village of Ardabau itself we know nothing.
[1579] The exact date of the rise of Montanism cannot be determined.
The reports which we have of the movement vary greatly in their
chronology. We have no means of fixing the date of the proconsulship
of the Gratus referred to here, and thus the most exact and reliable
statement which we have does not help us. In his Chron. Eusebius fixes
the rise of the movement in the year 172, and it is possible that this
statement was based upon a knowledge of the time of Gratus'
proconsulship. If so, it possesses considerable weight. The first
notice we have of a knowledge of the movement in the West is in
connection with the martyrs of Lyons, who in the year 177 (see Introd.
to this book, note 3) were solicited to use their influence with the
bishop of Rome in favor of the Montanists (see above, chap. 3, note
6). This goes to confirm the approximate accuracy of the date given by
Eusebius, for we should expect that the movement cannot have attracted
public notice in the East very many years before it was heard of in
Gaul, the home of many Christians from Asia Minor. Epiphanius (Hĉr.
XLVIII.) gives the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius (156-157) as the
date of its beginning, but Epiphanius' figures are very confused and
contradictory, and little reliance can be placed upon them in this
connection. At the same time Montanus must have begun his prophesying
some years before his teaching spread over Asia Minor and began to
agitate the churches and alarm the bishops, and therefore it is
probable that Montanism had a beginning some years before the date
given by Eusebius; in fact, it is not impossible that Montanus may
have begun his work before the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius.
[1580] Ambition was almost universally looked upon by the Church
Fathers as the occasion of the various heresies and schisms. Novatian,
Donatus, and many others were accused of it by their orthodox
opponents. That heretics or schismatics could be actuated by high and
noble motives was to them inconceivable. We are thus furnished another
illustration of their utter misconception of the nature of heresy so
often referred to in these notes.
[1581] The fault found by the Church with Montanus' prophecy was
rather because of its form than because of its substance. It was
admitted that the prophecies contained much that was true, but the
soberer sense of the Church at large objected decidedly to the
frenzied ecstasy in which they were delivered. That a change had come
over the Church in this respect since the apostolic age is perfectly
clear. In Paul's time the speaking with tongues, which involved a
similar kind of ecstasy, was very common; so, too, at the time the
Didache was written the prophets spoke in an ecstasy (en pneumati,
which can mean nothing else; cf. Harnack's edition, p. 122 sq.). But
the early enthusiasm of the Church had largely passed away by the
middle of the second century; and though there were still prophets
(Justin, for instance, and even Clement of Alexandria knew of them),
they were not in general characterized by the same ecstatic and
frenzied utterance that marked their predecessors. To say that there
were none such at this time would be rash; but it is plain that they
had become so decidedly the exception that the revival by the
Montanists of the old method on a large scale and in its extremest
form could appear to the Church at large only a decided innovation.
Prophecy in itself was nothing strange to them, but prophecy in this
form they were not accustomed to, and did not realize that it was but
a revival of the ancient form (cf. the words of our author, who is
evidently quite ignorant of that form). That they should be shocked at
it is not to be wondered at, and that they should, in that age, when
all such manifestations were looked upon as supernatural in their
origin, regard these prophets as under the influence of Satan, is no
more surprising. There was no other alternative in their minds. Either
the prophecies were from God or from Satan; not their content mainly,
but the manner in which they were delivered aroused the suspicion of
the bishops and other leaders of the Church. Add to that the fact that
these prophets claimed supremacy over the constituted Church
authorities, claimed that the Church must be guided by the revelations
vouchsafed to women and apparently half-crazy enthusiasts and
fanatics, and it will be seen at once that there was nothing left for
the leaders of the Church but to condemn the movement, and pronounce
its prophecy a fraud and a work of the Evil One. That all prophecy
should, as a consequence, fall into discredit was natural. Clement
(Strom. I. 17) gives the speaking in an ecstasy as one of the marks of
a false prophet,--Montanism had evidently brought the Church to
distinct consciousness on that point,--while Origen, some decades
later, is no longer acquainted with prophets, and denies that they
existed even in the time of Celsus (see Contra Cels. VII. 11).
[1582] i.e. between true and false prophets.
[1583] Cf. Matt. vii. 15.
[1584] hos hagiû pneumati kai prophetiko charismati
[1585] Maximilla and Priscilla, or Prisca (mentioned in chap. 14).
They were married women, who left their husbands to become disciples
of Montanus, were given the rank of virgins in his church, and with
him were the greatest prophets of the sect. They were regarded with
the most profound reverence by all Montanists, who in many quarters
were called after the name of the latter, Priscillianists. It was a
characteristic of the Montanists that they insisted upon the religious
equality of men and women; that they accorded just as high honor to
the women as to the men, and listened to their prophecies with the
same reverence. The human person was but an instrument of the Spirit,
according to their view, and hence a woman might be chosen by the
Spirit as his instrument just as well as a man, the ignorant just as
well as the learned. Tertullian, for instance, cites, in support of
his doctrine of the materiality of the soul, a vision seen by one of
the female members of his church, whom he believed to be in the habit
of receiving revelations from God (de anima, 9).
[1586] i.e. Montanus.
[1587] That synods should early be held to consider the subject
Montanism is not at all surprising. Doubtless our author is quite
correct in asserting that many such met during these years. They were
probably all of them small, and only local in their character. We do
not know the places or the dates of any of these synods, although the
Libellus Synodicus states that one was held at Hierapolis under
Apolinarius, with twenty-six bishops in attendance, and another at
Anchialus under Sotas, with twelve bishops present. The authority for
these synods is too late to be of much weight, and the report is just
such as we should expect to have arisen upon the basis of the account
of Montanism given in this Chapter. It is possible, therefore, that
synods were held in those two cities, but more than that cannot be
said. Upon these synods, see Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 83 sq.),
who accepts the report of the Libellus Synodicus as trustworthy.
[1588] Cf. the complaint of Maximilla, quoted in §17, below. The words
are employed, of course, only in the figurative sense to indicate the
hostility of the Church toward the Montanists. The Church, of course,
had at that time no power to put heretics to death, even if it had
wished to do so. The first instance of the punishment of heresy by
death occurred in 385, when the Spanish bishop Priscillian and six
companions were executed at Trêves.
[1589] Cf. Matt. xxiii. 34.
[1590] There is a flat contradiction between this passage and §21,
below, where it is admitted by this same author that the Montanists
have had their martyrs. The sweeping statements here, considered in
the light of the admission made in the other passage, furnish us with
a criterion of the trustworthiness and honesty of the reports of our
anonymous author. It is plain that, in his hostility to Montanism, he
has no regard whatever for the truth; that his aim is to paint the
heretics as black as possible, even if he is obliged to misrepresent
the facts. We might, from the general tone of the fragment which
Eusebius has preserved, imagine this to be so: the present passage
proves it. We know, indeed, that the Montanists had many martyrs and
that their principles were such as to lead them to martyrdom, even
when the Catholics avoided it (cf. Tertullian's De fuga in
persecutione).
[1591] Whether this story is an invention of our author's, or whether
it was already in circulation, as he says, we cannot tell. Its utter
worthlessness needs no demonstration. Even our anonymous author does
not venture to call it certain.
[1592] epitropos: a steward, or administrator of funds. The existence
of such an officer shows that the Montanists formed a compact
organization at an early date, and that much stress was laid upon it
(cf. chap. 18, §2). According to Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam; Migne, Ep.
XLI. 3) the Montanists at Pepuza had three classes of officers: first,
Patriarchs; second, Cenonĉ; third, Bishops (Habent enim primos de
Pepusa Phrygiĉ Patriarchas: secundos, quos appellant Cenonas: atque
ita in tertium, id est, pene ultimum locum Episcopi devolvuntur). The
peculiar word Cenonas occurs nowhere else, so far as I am aware, but
its meaning is plain enough. Whether it is merely a reproduction of
the Greek oikonomoi ("administrators"), or whether it is a Latin word
connected with coena, in either case the officers designated by it
were economic officers, and thus performed the same class of duties as
this epitropos, Theodotus. The reliability of Jerome's report is
confirmed by its agreement in this point with the account of the
Anonymous. Of Theodotus himself (to be distinguished, of course, from
the two Theodoti mentioned in chap. 28) we know only what is told us
in this Chapter and in chap. 3, above. It is plain that he was a
prominent man among the early Montanists.
[1593] The reference here seems to be to a death like that recorded by
a common tradition of Simon Magus, who by the help of demons undertook
to fly up to heaven, but when in mid air fell and was killed. Whether
the report in regard to Theodotus was in any way connected with the
tradition of Simon's death we cannot tell, though our author can
hardly have thought of it, or he would certainly have likened
Theodotus' fate to that of the arch-heretic Simon, as he likened the
fate of Montanus and Maximilla to that of Judas. Whatever the exact
form of death referred to, there is of course no more confidence to be
placed in this report than in the preceding one.
[1594] Of this Asterius Urbanus we know only what we can gather from
this reference to him. Valesius, Tillemont, and others supposed that
the words en to auto logo to kata 'Asterion Ourbanon were a scholium
written on the margin of his copy by Eusebius himself or some ancient
commentator to indicate the authorship of the anonymous work from
which the fragments in this Chapter are taken (and so in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII., these fragments are given as from the
work of Asterius Urbanus). But Eusebius himself evidently did not know
the author, and it is at any rate much easier to suppose the words a
part of the text, and the work of Asterius a work which our anonymous
author has been discussing and from which he quotes the words of
Maximilla, just below. Accepting this most natural interpretation of
the words, we learn that Asterius Urbanus was a Montanist who had
written a work in defense of that sect.
[1595] Cf. note 21, above.
[1596] Of this Bishop Zoticus we know only what is told us here and in
chap. 18, §13. On the proposed identification of Zoticus and Sotas,
bishop of Anchialus, see chap. 19, note 10. Comana (KomEURnes,
according to most of the mss. and editors; KoumEURnes, according to a
few of the mss. followed by Laemmer and Heinichen) was a village of
Pamphylia, and is to be distinguished from Comana in Pontus and from
Comana in Cappadocia (Armenia), both of which were populous and
important cities.
[1597] Of this Julian we know nothing more. His city was Apamea
Cibotus or Ciboti, which, according to Wiltsch, was a small town on
Mount Signia in Pisidia, to be distinguished from the important
Phrygian Apamea Cibotus on the Mĉander. Whether Wiltsch has good
grounds for this distinction I am unable to say. It would certainly
seem natural to think in the present case of Apamea on the Mĉander,
inasmuch as it is spoken of without any qualifying phrase, as if there
could be no doubt about its identity.
[1598] Themiso is mentioned again in chap. 18 as a confessor, and as
the author of a catholic epistle. It is plain that he was a prominent
man among the Montanists in the time of our anonymous author, that is,
after the death of Montanus himself; and it is quite likely that he
was, as Salmon suggests, the head of the sect.
[1599] This gives us a clear indication of the date of the composition
of this anonymous work. The thirteen years must fall either before the
wars which began in the reign of Septimius Severus, or after their
completion. The earliest possible date in the latter case is 232, and
this is certainly much too late for the composition of this work,
which speaks of Montanism more than once as a recent thing, and which
it seems clear from other indications belongs rather to the earlier
period of the movement. If we put its composition before those wars,
we cannot place it later than 192, the close of the reign of Commodus.
This would push the date of Maximilla's death back to 179, which
though it seems rather early, is not at all impossible. The period
from about 179 to 192 might very well be called a time of peace by the
Christians; for no serious wars occurred during that interval, and we
know that the Christians were left comparatively undisturbed
throughout the reign of Commodus.
[1600] Our author tacitly admits in this paragraph, what he has denied
in §12, above, that the Montanists had martyrs among their number; and
having admitted it, he endeavors to explain away its force. In the
previous paragraph he had claimed that the lack of martyrs among them
proved that they were heretics; here he claims that the existence of
such martyrs does not in any way argue for their orthodoxy. The
inconsistency is glaringly apparent (cf. the remarks made in note 23,
above).
[1601] This shows the bitterness of the hostility of the Catholics
toward the Montanists. That even when suffering together for the one
Lord they could not recognize these brethren seems very sad, and it is
not to be wondered at that the Montanists felt themselves badly used,
and looked upon the Catholics as "slayers of the prophets," &c. More
uncompromising enmity than this we can hardly imagine. That the
Catholics, however, were sincere in their treatment of the Montanists,
we cannot doubt. It is clear that they firmly believed that
association with them meant association with the devil, and hence the
deeper their devotion to Christ, the deeper must be their abhorrence
of these instruments of Satan. Compare, for instance, Polycarp's words
to Marcion, quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 14, above. The attitude of these
Catholic martyrs is but of a piece with that of nearly all the
orthodox Fathers toward heresy. It only shows itself here in its
extremest form.
[1602] Apamea Cibotus in Eastern Phrygia, a large and important
commercial center. Of the two martyrs, Gaius and Alexander, we know
only what is told us here. They were apparently both of them from
Eumenia, a Phrygian town lying a short distance north of Apamea. We
have no means of fixing the date of the martyrdoms referred to here,
but it seems natural to assign them to the reign of Marcus Aurelius,
after Montanism had become somewhat widespread, and when martyrdoms
were a common thing both in the East and West. Thraseas, bishop of
Eumenia, is referred to as a martyr by Polycrates in chap. 24, but he
can hardly have suffered with the ones referred to here, or his name
would have been mentioned instead of the more obscure names of Gaius
and Alexander.
Chapter XVII.--Miltiades and His Works.
1. In this work he mentions a writer, Miltiades, [1603] stating that
he also wrote a certain book against the above-mentioned heresy. After
quoting some of their words, he adds:
"Having found these things in a certain work of theirs in opposition
to the work of the brother Alcibiades, [1604] in which he shows that a
prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, [1605] I made an abridgment."
2. A little further on in the same work he gives a list of those who
prophesied under the new covenant, among whom he enumerates a certain
Ammia [1606] and Quadratus, [1607] saying:
"But the false prophet falls into an ecstasy, in which he is without
shame or fear. Beginning with purposed ignorance, he passes on, as has
been stated, to involuntary madness of soul.
3. They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was
thus carried away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Agabus, [1608]
or Judas, [1609] or Silas, [1610] or the daughters of Philip, [1611]
or Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus, or any others not belonging to
them."
4. And again after a little he says: "For if after Quadratus and Ammia
in Philadelphia, as they assert, the women with Montanus received the
prophetic gift, let them show who among them received it from Montanus
and the women. For the apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic
gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming. But
they cannot show it, though this is the fourteenth year since the
death of Maximilla." [1612]
5. He writes thus. But the Miltiades to whom he refers has left other
monuments of his own zeal for the Divine Scriptures, [1613] in the
discourses which he composed against the Greeks and against the Jews,
[1614] answering each of them separately in two books. [1615] And in
addition he addresses an apology to the earthly rulers, [1616] in
behalf of the philosophy which he embraced.
Footnotes
[1603] This Miltiades is known to us from three sources: from the
present Chapter, from the Roman work quoted by Eusebius in chap. 28,
and from Tertullian (adv. Val. chap. 5). Jerome also mentions him in
two places (de vir. ill. 39 and Ep. ad Magnum; Migne's ed. Ep. 70,
§3), but it is evident that he derived his knowledge solely from
Eusebius. That Miltiades was widely known at the end of the second
century is clear from the notices of him by an Asiatic, a Roman, and a
Carthaginian writer. The position in which he is mentioned by
Tertullian and by the anonymous Roman writer would seem to indicate
that he flourished during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. His Apology
was addressed to the emperors, as we learn from §5, below, by which
might be meant either Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161-169), or
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (177-180). Jerome states that he
flourished during the reign of Commodus (Floruit autem M. Antonini
Commodi temporibus; Vallarsi adds a que after Commodi, thus making him
flourish in the times of M. Antoninus and Commodus, but there is no
authority for such an addition). It is quite possible that he was
still alive in the time of Commodus (though Jerome's statement is of
no weight, for it rests upon no independent authority), but he must at
any rate have written his Apology before the death of Marcus Aurelius.
The only works of Miltiades named by our authorities are the
anti-Montanistic work referred to here, and the three mentioned by
Eusebius at the close of this Chapter (two books Against the Greeks,
two books Against the Jews, and an Apology). Tertullian speaks of him
as an anti-Gnostic writer, so that it is clear that he must have
written another work not mentioned by Eusebius, and it was perhaps
that work that won for him the commendation of the anonymous writer
quoted in chap. 28, who ranks him with Justin, Tatian, Irenĉus,
Melito, and Clement as one who had asserted the divinity of Christ.
Eusebius appears to have seen the three works which he mentions at the
close of this Chapter, but he does not quote from them, and no
fragments of any of Miltiades' writings have been preserved to us; he
seems indeed to have passed early out of the memory of the Church. A
very perplexing question is his relation to Montanism. According to
Eusebius, he was the author of an anti-Montanistic work, but this
report is beset with serious difficulties. The extract which Eusebius
quotes just below as his authority has "Alcibiades," not "Miltiades,"
according to the unanimous testimony of the mss. and versions. It is
very difficult to understand how Miltiades, if it stood originally in
the text, could have been changed to Alcibiades. Nevertheless, most
editors have thought it necessary to make the change in the present
case, and most historians (including even Harnack) accept the
alteration, and regard Miltiades as the author of a lost
anti-Montanistic work. I confess that, imperative as this charge at
first sight seems to be, I am unable to believe that we are justified
in making it. I should be inclined to think rather that Eusebius had
misread his authority, and that, finding Miltiades referred to in the
immediate context (perhaps the Montanist Miltiades mentioned in chap.
16), he had, in a hasty perusal of the work, overlooked the less
familiar name Alcibiades, and had confounded Miltiades with the author
of the anti-Montanistic work referred to here by our Anonymous. He
would then naturally identify him at once with the Miltiades known to
him through other works. If we suppose, as Salmon suggests, that
Eusebius did not copy his own extracts, but employed a scribe to do
that work (as we should expect so busy a man to do), it may well be
that he simply marked this extract in regard to the anti-Montanistic
work without noticing his blunder, and that the scribe, copying the
sentence just as it stood, correctly wrote Alcibiades instead of
Miltiades. In confirmation of the supposition that Eusebius was
mistaken in making Miltiades the author of an anti-Montanistic work
may be urged the fact that Tertullian speaks of Miltiades with
respect, and ranks him with the greatest Fathers of the second
century. It is true that the term by which he describes him
(ecclesiarum sophista) may not (as Harnack maintains) imply as much
praise as is given to Proculus in the same connection; nevertheless
Tertullian does treat Miltiades with respect, and does accord him a
high position among ecclesiastical writers. But it is certainly
difficult to suppose that Tertullian can thus have honored a man who
was known to have written against Montanism. Still further, it must be
noticed that Eusebius himself had not seen Miltiades' anti-Montanistic
work; he knew it only from the supposed mention of it in this
anonymous work from which he was quoting. Certainly it is not, on the
whole, difficult to suppose him mistaken and our mss. and versions
correct. I therefore prefer to retain the traditional reading
Alcibiades, and have so translated. Of the Alcibiades who wrote the
anti-Montanistic treatise referred to, we know nothing. Upon
Miltiades, see especially Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, I. I, p.
278 sqq., Otto's Corpus Apol. Christ. IX. 364 sqq., and Salmon's
article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 916.
[1604] ,'AlkibiEURdou, with all the mss. and versions, followed by
Valesius (in his text), by Burton, Laemmer, and Crusè; Nicephorus,
followed by Valesius in his notes, and by all the other editors, and
by the translations of Stroth, Closs, and Stigloher, read MiltiEURdou.
See the previous note.
[1605] This was the first work, so far as we know, to denounce the
practice of prophesying in ecstasy. The practice, which had doubtless
fallen almost wholly into disuse, was brought into decided disrepute
on account of the excesses of the Montanists, and the position taken
by this Alcibiades became very soon the position of the whole Church
(see the previous Chapter, note 14).
[1606] Of this prophetess Ammia of Philadelphia, we know only what we
can gather from this Chapter. She would seem to have lived early in
the second century, possibly in the latter part of the first, and to
have been a prophetess of considerable prominence. That the Montanists
had good ground for appealing to her, as well as to the other prophets
mentioned as their models, cannot be denied. These early prophets were
doubtless in their enthusiasm far more like the Montanistic prophets
than like those whom the Church of the latter part of the second
century alone wished to recognize.
[1607] This Quadratus is to be identified with the Quadratus mentioned
in Bk. III. chap. 37, and was evidently a man of prominence in the
East. He seems to have been a contemporary of Ammia, or to have
belonged at any rate to the succession of the earliest prophets. He is
to be distinguished from the bishop of Athens, mentioned in Bk. IV.
chap. 23, and also in all probability from the apologist, mentioned in
Bk. IV. chap. 3. Cf. Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. I. p. 102 and 104;
and see Bk. III. chap. 37, note 1, above.
[1608] On Agabus, see Acts xi. 28, xxi. 10.
[1609] On Judas, see Acts xv. 22, 27, 32.
[1610] On Silas, see Acts xv.-xviii. passim; also 2 Cor. i. 19, 1
Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1, and 1 Pet. v. 12, where Silvanus (who is
probably the same man) is mentioned.
[1611] On the daughters of Philip, see Acts xxi. 9; also Bk. III.
chap. 31, note 8, above.
[1612] On the date of Maximilla's death, see the previous Chapter,
note 32. To what utterance of "the apostle" (hoapostolos, which
commonly means Paul) our author is referring, I am not able to
discover. I can find nothing in his writings, nor indeed in the New
Testament, which would seem to have suggested the idea which he here
attributes to the apostle. The argument is a little obscure, but the
writer apparently means to prove that the Montanists are not a part of
the true Church, because the gift of prophecy is a mark of that
Church, and the Montanists no longer possess that gift. This seems a
strange accusation to bring against the Montanists,--we might expect
them to use such an argument against the Catholics. In fact, we know
that the accusation is not true, at least not entirely so; for we know
that there were Montanistic prophetesses in Tertullian's church in
Carthage later than this time, and also that there was still a
prophetess at the time Apollonius wrote (see chap. 18, §6), which was
some years later than this (see chap. 18, note 3).
[1613] peri ta theia logia. These words are used to indicate the
Scriptures in Bk. VI. chap. 23, §2, IX. 9. 7, X. 4. 28, and in the
Martyrs of Palestine, XI. 2.
[1614] zn te hois pros ;'Ellenas sunetaxe logois, kai tois pros
'Ioudaious. Eusebius is the only one to mention these works, and no
fragments of either of them are now extant. See above, note 1.
[1615] hekatera¸dios hupothesei en dusin hupantesas
sungrEURmmasin
[1616] Or, "to the rulers of the world" (pros tous kosmikous
archontas.) Valesius supposed these words to refer to the provincial
governors, but it is far more natural to refer them to the reigning
emperors, both on account of the form of the phrase itself and also
because of the fact that it was customary with all the apologists to
address their apologies to the emperors themselves. In regard to the
particular emperors addressed, see above, note 1.
Chapter XVIII.--The Manner in which Apollonius refuted the Phrygians,
and the Persons [1617] whom he Mentions.
1. As the so-called Phrygian heresy [1618] was still flourishing in
Phrygia in his time, Apollonius [1619] also, an ecclesiastical writer,
undertook its refutation, and wrote a special work against it,
correcting in detail the false prophecies current among them and
reproving the life of the founders of the heresy. But hear his own
words respecting Montanus:
2. "His actions and his teaching show who this new teacher is. This is
he who taught the dissolution of marriage; [1620] who made laws for
fasting; [1621] who named Pepuza and Tymion, [1622] small towns in
Phrygia, Jerusalem, wishing to gather people to them from all
directions; who appointed collectors of money; [1623] who contrived
the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings; who provided
salaries for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching might
prevail through gluttony." [1624]
3. He writes thus concerning Montanus; and a little farther on he
writes as follows concerning his prophetesses: "We show that these
first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the
Spirit, abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who
call Prisca a virgin." [1625]
4. Afterwards he says: "Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a
prophet to receive gifts and money? [1626] When therefore I see the
prophetess receiving gold and silver and costly garments, how can I
avoid reproving her?"
5. And again a little farther on he speaks thus concerning one of
their confessors:
"So also Themiso, [1627] who was clothed with plausible covetousness,
could not endure the sign of confession, but threw aside bonds for an
abundance of possessions. Yet, though he should have been humble on
this account, he dared to boast as a martyr, and in imitation of the
apostle, he wrote a certain catholic [1628] epistle, to instruct those
whose faith was better than his own, contending for words of empty
sound, and blaspheming against the Lord and the apostles and the holy
Church."
6. And again concerning others of those honored among them as martyrs,
he writes as follows:
"Not to speak of many, let the prophetess herself tell us of
Alexander, [1629] who called himself a martyr, with whom she is in the
habit of banqueting, and who is worshiped [1630] by many. We need not
mention his robberies and other daring deeds for which he was
punished, but the archives [1631] contain them.
7. Which of these forgives the sins of the other? Does the prophet the
robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the covetousness of the
prophet? For although the Lord said, `Provide neither gold, nor
silver, neither two coats,' [1632] these men, in complete opposition,
transgress in respect to the possession of the forbidden things. For
we will show that those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather
their gain not only from rich men, but also from the poor, and
orphans, and widows.
8. But if they are confident, let them stand up and discuss these
matters, that if convicted they may hereafter cease transgressing. For
the fruits of the prophet must be tried; `for the tree is known by its
fruit.' [1633]
9. But that those who wish may know concerning Alexander, he was tried
by Ĉmilius Frontinus, [1634] proconsul at Ephesus; not on account of
the Name, [1635] but for the robberies which he had committed, being
already an apostate. [1636] Afterwards, having falsely declared for
the name of the Lord, he was released, having deceived the faithful
that were there. [1637] And his own parish, from which he came, did
not receive him, because he was a robber. [1638] Those who wish to
learn about him have the public records [1639] of Asia. And yet the
prophet with whom he spent many years knows nothing about him! [1640]
10. Exposing him, through him we expose also the pretense [1641] of
the prophet. We could show the same thing of many others. But if they
are confident, let them endure the test."
11. Again, in another part of his work he speaks as follows of the
prophets of whom they boast:
"If they deny that their prophets have received gifts, let them
acknowledge this: that if they are convicted of receiving them, they
are not prophets. And we will bring a multitude of proofs of this. But
it is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined.
Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? [1642] Does a prophet stain his
eyelids? [1643] Does a prophet delight in adornment? Does a prophet
play with tables and dice? Does a prophet lend on usury? Let them
confess whether these things are lawful or not; but I will show that
they have been done by them." [1644]
12. This same Apollonius states in the same work that, at the time of
his writing, it was the fortieth year since Montanus had begun his
pretended prophecy. [1645]
13. And he says also that Zoticus, who was mentioned by the former
writer, [1646] when Maximilla was pretending to prophesy in Pepuza,
resisted her and endeavored to refute the spirit that was working in
her; but was prevented by those who agreed with her. He mentions also
a certain Thraseas [1647] among the martyrs of that time.
He speaks, moreover, of a tradition that the Saviour commanded his
apostles not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years. [1648] He uses
testimonies also from the Revelation of John, [1649] and he relates
that a dead man had, through the Divine power, been raised by John
himself in Ephesus. [1650] He also adds other things by which he fully
and abundantly exposes the error of the heresy of which we have been
speaking. These are the matters recorded by Apollonius.
Footnotes
[1617] Or events (tinon).
[1618] On the name, see chap. 16, note 2.
[1619] Of this Apollonius we know little more than what Eusebius tells
us in this Chapter. The author of Prĉdestinatus (in the fifth century)
calls him bishop of Ephesus, but his authority is of no weight. Jerome
devotes chap. 40 of his de vir. ill. to Apollonius, but it is clear
that he derives his knowledge almost exclusively from Eusebius. He
adds the notice, however, that Tertullian replied to Apollonius' work
in the seventh book of his own work, de Ecstasi (now lost). The
character of Apollonius' work may be gathered from the fragments
preserved by Eusebius in this Chapter. It was of the same nature as
the work of the anonymous writer quoted in chap. 16, very bitter in
tone and not over-scrupulous in its statements. Apollonius states (see
in §12, below) that he wrote the work forty years after the rise of
Montanism. If we accepted the Eusebian date for its beginning (172),
this would bring us down to 212, but (as remarked above, in chap. 16,
note 12) Montanism had probably begun in a quiet way sometime before
this, and so Apollonius' forty years are perhaps to be reckoned from a
somewhat earlier date. His mention of "the prophetess" as still living
(in §6, below) might lead us to think that Maximilia was still alive
when he wrote; but when the anonymous wrote she was already dead, and
the reasons for assigning the latter to a date as early as 192 are too
strong to be set aside. We must therefore suppose Apollonius to be
referring to some other prophetess well known in his time. That there
were many such prophetesses in the early part of the third century is
clear from the works of Tertullian. Jerome (ibid.) states that an
account of the death of Montanus and his prophetesses by hanging was
contained in Apollonius' work, but it has been justly suspected that
he is confusing the work of the anonymous, quoted in chap. 16, above,
with the work of Apollonius, quoted in this Chapter. The fragments of
Apollonius' work, preserved by Eusebius, are given, with a commentary,
in Routh's Rel. Sac. I. p. 467 sq., and an English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775 sq.
[1620] We are not to gather from this that the Montanists forbade
marriage. They were, to be sure, decidedly ascetic in their
tendencies, and they did teach the unlawfulness of second
marriages,--which had long been looked upon with disfavor in many
quarters, but whose lawfulness the Church had never denied,--and
magnified the blessedness of the single state; but beyond this they
did not go, so far as we are able to judge. Our chief sources for the
Montanistic view of marriage are Tertullian's works ad Uxorem, de
Pudicit., de Monogamia, de Exhort. ad castitat., and Epiphanius' Hĉr.
XLVIII. 9.
[1621] One great point of dispute between the Montanists and the
Catholics was the subject of fasts (cf. Hippolytus, VIII. 12, X. 21,
who makes it almost the only ground of complaint against the
Montanists). The Montanist prophetesses ordained two new fasts of a
week each in addition to the annual paschal fast of the Church; and
the regulations for these two weeks were made very severe. Still
further they extended the duration of the regular weekly (Wednesday
and Friday) fasts, making them cover the whole instead of only a part
of the day. The Catholics very strenuously opposed these ordinances,
not because they were opposed to fasting (many of them indulged
extensively in the practice), but because they objected to the
imposition of such extra fasts as binding upon the Church. They were
satisfied with the traditional customs in this matter, and did not
care to have heavier burdens imposed upon the Christians in general
than their fathers had borne. Our principal sources for a knowledge of
the dispute between the Montanists and Catholics on this subject are
Tertullian's de Jejuniis; Epiphanius, Hĉr. XLVIII. 8; Jerome, Ep. ad
Marcellam (Migne, Ep. XLI. 3), Comment. in Matt. c. 9, vers. 15; and
Theodoret, Hĉr. Fab. III. 2.
[1622] Pepuza was an obscure town in the western part of Phrygia;
Tymion, otherwise unknown, was probably situated in the same
neighborhood. Pepuza was early made, and long continued, the chief
center--the Jerusalem--of the sect, and even gave its name to the sect
in many quarters. Harnack has rightly emphasized the significance of
this statement of Apollonius, and has called attention to the fact
that Montanus' original idea must have been the gathering of the
chosen people from all the world into one region, that they might form
one fold, and freed from all the political and social relations in
which they had hitherto lived might await the coming of the Lord, who
would speedily descend, and set up his kingdom in this new Jerusalem.
Only after this idea had been proved impracticable did Montanism adapt
itself to circumstances and proceed to establish itself in the midst
of society as it existed in the outside world. That Montanus built
upon the Gospel of John, and especially upon chaps. x. and xvii., in
this original attempt of his, is perfectly plain (cf. Harnack's
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 319 and 323. With this passage from
Apollonius, compare also Epiphanius, Hĉr. XLVIII. 14 and XLIX. 1., and
Jerome Ep. ad Marcellam).
[1623] This appointment of economic officers and the formation of a
compact organization were a part of the one general plan, referred to
in the previous note, and must have marked the earliest years of the
sect. Later, when it was endeavoring to adapt itself to the catholic
Church, and to compromise matters in such a way as still to secure
recognition from the Church, this organization must have been looked
upon as a matter of less importance, and indeed probably never went
far beyond the confines of Phrygia. That it continued long in that
region, however, is clear from Jerome's words in his Epistle to
Marcella already referred to. Compare also chap 16, note 25.
[1624] There can be little doubt that the Church teachers and other
officers were still supported by voluntary contributions, and hence
Apollonius was really scandalized at what he considered making
merchandise of spiritual things (cf. the Didache, chaps. XI. and XII.;
but even in the Didache we find already a sort of stated salary
provided for the prophets; cf. chap. XII.). For him to conclude,
however, from the practice instituted by the Montanists in accordance
with their other provisions for the formation of a compact
organization, that they were avaricious and gluttonous, is quite
unjustifiable, just as much so as if our salaried clergy to-day should
be accused, as a class, of such sins.
[1625] See chap. 16, note 18.
[1626] See note 8.
[1627] On Themiso, see chap. 16, note 31.
[1628] katholiken epistolen. Catholic in the sense in which the word
is used of the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; that is,
general, addressed to no particular church. The epistle is no longer
extant. Its "blasphemy" against the Lord and his apostles lay
undoubtedly in its statement of the fundamental doctrine of the
Montanists, that the age of revelation had not ceased, but that
through the promised Paraclete revelations were still given, which
supplemented or superseded those granted the apostles by Christ.
[1629] This fragment gives us our only information in regard to this
Alexander. That there may be some truth in the story told by
Apollonius cannot be denied. It is possible that Alexander was a bad
man, and that the Montanists had been deceived in him, as often
happens in all religious bodies. Such a thing might much more easily
happen after the sect had been for a number of years in a flourishing
condition than in its earlier years; and the exactness of the account,
and the challenge to disprove it, would seem to lend it some weight.
At the same time Apollonius is clearly as unprincipled and dishonest a
writer as the anonymous, and hence little reliance can be placed upon
any of his reports to the discredit of the Montanists. If the
anonymous made so many accusations out of whole cloth, Apollonius may
have done the same in the present instance; and the fact that many
still "worshiped" him would seem to show that Apollonius' accusations,
if they possessed any foundation, were at any rate not proven.
[1630] A very common accusation brought against various sects. Upon
the significance of it, see Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 82, note
2.
[1631] opisthodomos, originally the back chamber of the old temple of
Athenĉ on the Acropolis at Athens, where the public treasure was kept.
It then came to be used of the inner chamber of any temple where the
public treasure was kept, and in the present instance is used of the
apartment which contained the public records or archives. Just below,
Apollonius uses the phrase demosion archeion, in referring to the same
thing.
[1632] Matt. x. 9, 10.
[1633] Matt. xii. 33.
[1634] We know, unfortunately, nothing about this proconsul, and hence
have no means of fixing the date of this occurrence.
[1635] i.e. of Christ.
[1636] parabEURtes
[1637] eita epipseusEURmenos to onomati tou kuriou apolelutai planesas
tous ekei pistous. The meaning seems to be that while in prison he
pretended to be a Christian, and thus obtained the favor of the
brethren, who procured his release by using their influence with the
judge.
[1638] We have no means of controlling the truth of this statement.
[1639] demosion archeion.
[1640] hon ho prophetes sunonta pollois ztesin agnoei, as is read by
all the mss., followed by the majority of the editors. Heinichen reads
ho ho prophetes sunon pollois ztesin agnoei, but the emendation is
quite unnecessary. The agnoei implies ignorance of the man's true
character; although with him so many years, he knows nothing about
him, is ignorant of his true character! The sentence is evidently
ironical.
[1641] ten hupostasin
[1642] bEURptetai
[1643] stibizetai
[1644] Knowing what we do of the asceticism and the severe morality of
the Montanists, we can look upon the implications of this passage as
nothing better than baseless slanders. That there might have been an
individual here and there whose conduct justified this attack cannot
be denied, but to bring such accusations against the Montanists in
general was both unwarranted and absurd, and Apollonius cannot but
have been aware of the fact. His language is rather that of a bully or
braggadocio who knows the untruthfulness of his statements, than of a
man conscious of his own honesty and of the reliability of his
account.
[1645] On the date of Apollonius' work, see above, note 3.
[1646] See chap. 16, §17.
[1647] This Thraseas is undoubtedly to be identified with Thraseas,
"bishop and martyr of Eumenia," mentioned by Polycrates, as quoted in
chap. 24, below. We know no more about him than is told us there.
[1648] Clement (Strom. VI. 5) records the same tradition, quoting it
from the Preaching of Peter, upon which work, see Bk. III. chap. 3,
note 8, above.
[1649] Compare Eusebius' promise in Bk. III. chap. 24, §18, and see
note 21 on that Chapter.
[1650] No one else, so far as I am aware, records this tradition, but
it is of a piece with many others in regard to John which were afloat
in the early Church.
Chapter XIX.--Serapion on the Heresy of the Phrygians.
1. Serapion, [1651] who, as report says, succeeded Maximinus [1652] at
that time as bishop of the church of Antioch, mentions the works of
Apolinarius [1653] against the above-mentioned heresy. And he alludes
to him in a private letter to Caricus and Pontius, [1654] in which he
himself exposes the same heresy, and adds the following words: [1655]
2. "That you may see that the doings of this lying band of the new
prophecy, so called, are an abomination to all the brotherhood
throughout the world, I have sent you writings [1656] of the most
blessed Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia."
3. In the same letter of Serapion the signatures of several bishops
are found, [1657] one of whom subscribes himself as follows:
"I, Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness, [1658] pray for your health."
And another in this manner:
"Ĉlius Publius Julius, [1659] bishop of Debeltum, a colony of Thrace.
As God liveth in the heavens, the blessed Sotas in Anchialus desired
to cast the demon out of Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not permit
him." [1660]
4. And the autograph signatures of many other bishops who agreed with
them are contained in the same letter.
So much for these persons.
Footnotes
[1651] Both versions of the Chron. agree in putting the accession of
Serapion into the eleventh year of Commodus (190 a.d.), and that of
his successor Asclepiades into the first year of Caracalla, which
would give Serapion an episcopate of twenty-one years (Syncellus says
twenty-five years, although giving the same dates of accession for
both bishops that the other versions give). Serapion was a well-known
person, and it is not too much to think that the dates given by the
Chron. in connection with him may be more reliable than most of its
dates. The truth is, that from the present Chapter we learn that he
was already bishop before the end of Commodus' reign, i.e. before the
end of 192 a.d. Were the statement of Eutychius,--that Demetrius of
Alexandria wrote at the same time to Maximus of Antioch and Victor of
Rome,--to be relied upon, we could fix his accession between 189 and
192 (see Harnack's Zeit des Ignatius, p. 45). But the truth is little
weight can be attached to his report. While we cannot therefore reach
certainty in the matter, there is no reason for doubting the
approximate accuracy of the date given by the Chron. As to the time of
his death, we can fix the date of Asclepiades' accession approximately
in the year 211 (see Bk. VI. chap. II, note 6), and from the fragment
of Alexander's epistle to the Antiochenes, quoted in that Chapter, it
seems probable that there had been a vacancy in the see of Antioch for
some time. But from the mention of Serapion's epistles to Domninus
(Bk. VI. chap. 12) we may gather that he lived until after the great
persecution of Severus (a.d. 202 sq.). From Bk. VI. chap. 12, we learn
that Serapion was quite a writer; and he is commemorated also by
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 41) and by Socrates (H. E. III. 7). In
addition to the epistle quoted here, he addressed to Domninus,
according to Bk. VI. chap. 12, a treatise (Jerome, ad
Domninum...volumen composuit), or epistle (the Greek of Eusebius reads
simply ta, but uses the same article to describe the epistle or
epistles to Caricus and Pontius, so that the nature of the writing is
uncertain), as well as some other epistles, and a work on the Gospel
of Peter. These were the only writings of his which Eusebius had seen,
but he reports that there were probably other works extant. There are
preserved to us only the two fragments quoted by Eusebius in these two
Chapters. Serapion also played a prominent rôle in the tradition of
the Edessene church, as we learn from Zahn's Doctrina Addai (Gött.
Gel. Anz. 1877, St. 6, p. 173, 179, according to Harnack's Zeit des
Ignatius, p. 46 sqq.).
[1652] On Maximinus, see Bk. IV. chap. 24, note 6.
[1653] See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.
[1654] Caricus and Pontius (called Ponticus in this passage by most of
the mss. of Eusebius, but Pontius by one of the best of them, by
Nicephorus, Jerome, and Eusebius himself in Bk. VI. chap. 12, which
authorities are followed by Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen)
are called in Bk. VI. chap. 12, ekklesiastikous andras. They are
otherwise unknown personages. In that Chapter the plural article tEUR
is used of the writing, or writings, addressed to Caricus and Pontius,
implying that hupomnemata is to be supplied. This seems to imply more
than one writing, but it is not necessary to conclude that more than
the single epistle mentioned here is meant, for the plural hupomnemata
was often used in a sort of collective sense to signify a collection
of notes, memoranda, &c.
[1655] This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sacrĉ, and, in English,
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775.
[1656] See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 5.
[1657] Valesius justly remarks that Eusebius does not say that these
bishops signed Serapion's epistle, but only that their signatures or
notes (huposemeioseis) were contained in the epistle. He thinks it is
by no means probable that a bishop of Thrace (the nationality of the
other bishops we do not know) should have signed this epistle of
Serapion's, and he therefore concludes that Serapion simply copies
from another epistle sent originally from Thrace. This is possible;
but at the end of the Chapter Eusebius says that other bishops put in
their signatures or notes with their own hands (autographoi
semeioseis), which precludes the idea that Serapion simply copies
their testimony from another source, and if they signed thus it is
possible that the Thracian bishop did likewise. It may be that
Serapion took pains to compose a semi-official communication which
should have the endorsement of as many anti-Montanistic bishops as
possible, and that, in order to secure their signatures he sent it
about from one to the other before forwarding it to Caricus and
Pontius.
[1658] Of this Aurelius Cyrenius we know nothing. It is possible that
he means to call himself simply a witness (martus) to the facts
recorded by Serapion in his epistle, but more probable that he uses
the word to indicate that he has "witnessed for Christ" under
persecution.
[1659] Ĉlius Publius Julius is also an otherwise unknown personage.
Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western shore of
the Black Sea.
[1660] Lightfoot (Ignatius, II. 111) suggests that this Sotas (Sotas)
may be identical with the Zoticus (Zotikos) mentioned in the preceding
Chapter, the interchange of the initial S and Z being very common. But
we learn from chap. 16 that Zoticus was bishop of Comana, so that he
can hardly be identified with Sotas, bishop of Anchialus.
Chapter XX.--The Writings of Irenĉus against the Schismatics at Rome.
1. Irenĉus [1661] wrote several letters against those who were
disturbing the sound ordinance of the Church at Rome. One of them was
to Blastus On Schism; [1662] another to Florinus On Monarchy, [1663]
or That God is not the Author of Evil. For Florinus seemed to be
defending this opinion. And because he was being drawn away by the
error of Valentinus, Irenĉus wrote his work On the Ogdoad, [1664] in
which he shows that he himself had been acquainted with the first
successors of the apostles. [1665]
2. At the close of the treatise we have found a most beautiful note
which we are constrained to insert in this work. [1666] It runs as
follows:
"I adjure thee who mayest copy this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by his glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the
dead, to compare what thou shalt write, and correct it carefully by
this manuscript, and also to write this adjuration, and place it in
the copy."
3. These things may be profitably read in his work, and related by us,
that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best example
of painstaking carefulness.
4. In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, [1667] Irenĉus
mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying:
"These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound
judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the
greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the
heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These
doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions
of the apostles, did not deliver to thee.
5. "For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp,
moving in splendor in the royal court, [1668] and endeavoring to gain
his approbation.
6. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of
recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes
joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which
the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his
comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance,
and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of
his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.
And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them
concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching,
having received them from eyewitnesses of the `Word of life,' [1669]
Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.
7. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them
attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And
continually, through God's grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am
able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic
presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and
stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good
God, unto what times hast thou spared me that I should endure these
things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or
standing, he had heard such words. [1670]
8. And this can be shown plainly from the letters [1671] which he
sent, either to the neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to
some of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them." Thus far
Irenĉus.
Footnotes
[1661] On Irenĉus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1662] Eusebius, in chap. 15, informs us that both Blastus and
Florinus drew many away from the church of Rome by their heretical
innovations. He does not tell us either there or here the nature of
the opinions which Blastus held, but from Pseudo-Tertullian's Adv.
omnes Hĉr. chap. 8, we learn that Blastus was a Quartodeciman. ("In
addition to all these, there is likewise Blastus, who would latently
introduce Judaism. For he says the passover is not to be kept
otherwise than according to the law of Moses, on the fourteenth of the
month.") From Pacianus' Epistola ad Sympronian. de catholico nomine,
chap. 2, we learn that he was a Montanist; and since the Montanists of
Asia Minor were, like the other Christians of that region,
Quartodecimans, it is not surprising that Blastus should be at the
same time a Montanist and a Quartodeciman. Florinus, as will be shown
in the next note, taught his heresies while Victor was bishop of Rome
(189-198 or 199); and since Eusebius connects Blastus so closely with
him, we may conclude that Blastus flourished at about the same time.
Irenĉus' epistle to Blastus, On Schism, is no longer extant. A Syriac
fragment of an epistle of Irenĉus, addressed to "an Alexandrian," on
the paschal question (Fragment 27 in Harvey's edition) is possibly a
part of this lost epistle. If the one referred to in this fragment be
Blastus, he was an Alexandrian, and in that case must have adopted the
Quartodeciman position under the influence of the Asiatic Montanists,
for the paschal calendar of the Alexandrian church was the same as
that of Rome (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 264). If Blastus
was a Montanist, as stated by Pacianus, his heresy was quite different
from that of Florinus (who was a Gnostic); and the fact that they were
leaders of different heresies is confirmed by the words of Eusebius in
chap. 15, above: "Each one striving to introduce his own innovations
in respect to the truth." Whether Blastus, like Florinus, was a
presbyter, and like him was deposed from his office, we do not know,
but the words of Eusebius in chap. 15 seem to favor this supposition.
[1663] Florinus, as we learn from chap. 15, was for a time a presbyter
of the Roman Church, but lost his office on account of heresy. From
the fragment of this epistle of Irenĉus to Florinus quoted by Eusebius
just below, we learn that Florinus was somewhat older than Irenĉus,
but like him a disciple of Polycarp. The title of this epistle shows
that Florinus was already a Gnostic, or at least inclined toward
Gnostic views. Eusebius evidently had no direct knowledge of the
opinions of Florinus on the origin of evil, for he says that he
appeared to maintain (edokei proaspizein) the opinion that God was the
author of evil. Eusebius' conclusion is accepted by most ancient and
modern writers, but it is suggested by Salmon (Dict. of Christ. Biog.
II. 544) that Eusebius was perhaps mistaken, "for, since the
characteristic of dualism is not to make God the author of evil, but
to clear him from the charge by ascribing evil to an independent
origin, the title would lead us to think that the letter was directed,
not against one who had himself held God to be the author of evil, but
against one who had charged the doctrine of a single first principle
with necessarily leading to this conclusion. And we should have
supposed that the object of Irenĉus was to show that it was possible
to assert God to be the sole origin and ruler of the universe, without
holding evil to be his work." Since Eusebius had seen the epistle of
Irenĉus to Florinus, it is difficult to understand how he can have
misconceived Florinus' position. At the same time, he does not state
it with positiveness; and the fact that Florinus, if not already,
certainly was soon afterward a Valentinian, and hence a dualist, makes
Salmon's supposition very plausible. Florinus is not mentioned in
Irenĉus' great work against heresies, nor by Tertullian,
Pseudo-Tertullian, Hippolytus, or Epiphanius. It is probable,
therefore, that he was not named in Hippolytus' earlier work, nor in
the lectures of Irenĉus which formed the groundwork (see Salmon,
l.c.). The silence of Irenĉus is easily explained by supposing
Florinus' fall into heresy to have taken place after the composition
of his lectures against heresies and of his great work; and the
silence of the later writers is probably due to the fact that Irenĉus'
work makes no mention of him and that, whatever his influence may have
been during his lifetime, it did not last, and hence his name
attracted no particular attention after his death. It has been
maintained by some (e.g. Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, 1875,
p. 834) that this epistle to Florinus was one of the earliest of
Irenĉus' writings but Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 263) has
given other and satisfactory reasons for thinking that Florinus'
heresy, and therefore Irenĉus' epistle and his work On the Ogdoad,
belonged to the time of Victor, and hence were later than the work
Against Heresies. A Syriac fragment of an epistle concerning Florinus,
addressed by Irenĉus to Victor (Harvey's edition, Fragm. 28), is
extant, and supports Lipsius' conclusion. It would seem that Irenĉus,
subsequent to the writing of his great work, learning that Florinus
was holding heretical opinions on the origin of evil, addressed him
the epistle mentioned in this Chapter. That afterward, Florinus having
embraced Valentinianism, and having written "an abominable book" (as
the fragment just referred to says), Irenĉus wrote his work On the
Ogdoad, and subsequently addressed his epistle to Victor, calling upon
him to take decisive measures against Florinus, now seen to be a
regular heretic. What was the result of Irenĉus' epistles and book we
do not know; we hear nothing more about the matter, nor do we know
anything more about Florinus (for Augustine's mention of Florinus as
the founder of a sect of Floriniani is a mistake; see Salmon, l.c.).
[1664] This treatise, On the Ogdoad, is no longer extant, though it is
probable that we have a few fragments of it (see Harvey, I. clxvi.).
The importance which Irenĉus attached to this work is seen from the
solemn adjuration with which he closed it. It must have been largely
identical in substance with the portions of his Adv. Hĉr. which deal
with the ĉons of the Valentinians. It may have been little more than
an enlargement of those portions of the earlier work. The Ogdoad
(Greek, ogdoas, a word signifying primarily a thing in eight parts)
occupied a prominent place in the speculations of the Gnostics.
Valentinus taught eight primary ĉons, in four pairs, as the root and
origin of the other ĉons and of all beings. These eight he called the
first or primary Ogdoad; and hence a work upon the Ogdoad, written
against a Valentinian, must, of course, be a general discussion of the
Valentinian doctrine of the ĉons. The word Ogdoad was not used by all
the Gnostics in the same sense. It was quite commonly employed to
denote the supercelestial region which lay above the seven planetary
spheres (or Hebdomad), and hence above the control of the seven angels
who severally presided over these spheres. In the Valentinian system a
higher sphere, the Pleroma, the abode of the ĉons, was added, and the
supercelestial sphere, the Ogdoad of the other systems, was commonly
called the Mesotes. or middle region. For further particulars in
regard to the Ogdoad, see Salmon's articles Hebdomad and Ogdoad in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog.
[1665] Literally, "in which he shows that he himself had seized upon
(kateilephenai) the first succession (diadochen) of the apostles." In
order to emphasize the fact that he was teaching true doctrine, he
pointed out, as he did so often elsewhere, the circumstance that he
was personally acquainted with disciples of the apostles.
[1666] It was not at all uncommon for copyists, both by accident and
by design, to make changes, often serious, in copying books. We have
an instance of intentional alterations mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23.
It is not at all strange, therefore, that such an adjuration should be
attached to a work which its author considered especially liable to
corruption, or whose accurate transcription be regarded as peculiarly
important. Compare the warning given in Rev. xxii. 18, 19. The
fragments from Irenĉus' works preserved in this Chapter are translated
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 568 sq.
[1667] The epistle On Monarchy mentioned at the beginning of this
Chapter.
[1668] en te basilike aule. This expression is a little puzzling, as
the word basilike implies the imperial court, and could not properly
be used of the provincial court of the proconsul. No sojourn of an
emperor in Asia Minor is known which will meet the chronology of the
case; and hence Lightfoot (Contemporary Review May, 1875, p. 834) has
offered the plausible suggestion that the words may have been loosely
employed to denote the court of Titus Aurelius Fulvus, who was
proconsul of Asia about 136 a.d., and afterward became the emperor
Antoninus Pius.
[1669] 1 John i. 1.
[1670] This would have been quite like Polycarp, who appears to have
had a special horror of heretics. Compare his words to Marcion, quoted
above, in Bk. IV. chap. 14. He seems to have inherited this horror
from John the apostle, if Irenĉus' account is to be believed; see Adv.
Hĉr. III. 3, 4, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28, and in Bk.
IV. chap. 14.
[1671] We know of only one epistle by Polycarp, that to the
Philippians, which is still extant. Upon his life and epistle, see Bk.
IV. chap. 14, notes 5 and 16.
Chapter XXI.--How Appolonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome.
1. About the same time, in the reign of Commodus, our condition became
more favorable, and through the grace of God the churches throughout
the entire world enjoyed peace, [1672] and the word of salvation was
leading every soul, from every race of man to the devout worship of
the God of the universe. So that now at Rome many who were highly
distinguished for wealth and family turned with all their household
and relatives unto their salvation.
2. But the demon who hates what is good, being malignant in his
nature, could not endure this, but prepared himself again for
conflict, contriving many devices against us. And he brought to the
judgment seat Apollonius, [1673] of the city of Rome, a man renowned
among the faithful for learning and philosophy, having stirred up one
of his servants, who was well fitted for such a purpose, to accuse
him. [1674]
3. But this wretched man made the charge unseasonably, because by a
royal decree it was unlawful that informers of such things should
live. And his legs were broken immediately, Perennius the judge having
pronounced this sentence upon him. [1675]
4. But the martyr, highly beloved of God, being earnestly entreated
and requested by the judge to give an account of himself before the
Senate, made in the presence of all an eloquent defense of the faith
for which he was witnessing. And as if by decree of the Senate he was
put to death by decapitation; an ancient law requiring that those who
were brought to the judgment seat and refused to recant should not be
liberated. [1676] Whoever desires to know his arguments before the
judge and his answers to the questions of Perennius, and his entire
defense before the Senate will find them in the records of the ancient
martyrdoms which we have collected. [1677]
Footnotes
[1672] Marcia, concubine of Commodus, and possessed of great influence
over him, favored the Christians (according to Dion Cassius, LXII. 4),
and as a consequence they enjoyed comparative peace during his reign.
[1673] Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 42, and Epist. ad Magnum, 4) calls
Apollonius a Roman senator. It is possible that this is only a natural
conclusion drawn by Jerome from Eusebius' statement that he defended
himself before the Senate; and this possibility might seem to be
strengthened by the fact that Eusebius does not call him a senator
here, as we should expect him to do if he knew him to be one. On the
other hand, it is highly probable (as shown in the next note) that
Jerome had read the fuller account of Apollonius' martyrdom included
by Eusebius in his Collection of Martyrdoms, and hence it seems likely
that that account contained the statement that Apollonius was a
senator. Jerome makes Apollonius the author of an insigne volumen,
which he read in the Senate in defense of his faith; but there seems
to be no foundation for such a report. It is apparently the result
simply of a misunderstanding of the words of Eusebius, who states that
Apollonius delivered before the Senate a most eloquent defense of the
faith, but does not imply that he wrote an apology. The words that
Eusebius uses at the close of this Chapter imply rather that the
defense made by Apollonius was recorded after its delivery, and that
it is this report of it which can be read in his Collection of
Martyrdoms.
[1674] Jerome, followed by Sophronius, reports that the accusation
against Apollonius was brought by a slave. Jerome gives the slave's
name as Severus (a servo Severo proditus); while Sophronius makes
Severus the name of the judge (para tou doulou para Sebero prodotheis
christianos einai). The latter is impossible, however, as the name of
the judge was Perennius according to Eusebius. Vallarsi states that
some mss. of Jerome read sub Commodo principe ac Severo proditus, and
supposes that ac Severo is a corruption for the words a servo (which
he thinks may have stood alone in the original text), and that some
student, perceiving the error, wrote upon the margin of his copy the
words a servo, and that subsequently the note crept into the text,
while the word Severo was still retained, thus producing our present
reading a servo Severo. This is an ingenious suggestion, but the fact
is overlooked that Sophronius undoubtedly read in the original
translated by him the words a servo Severo, for we can explain his
rendering only by supposing that he read thus, but understood the word
Severo as the dative of the indirect object after proditus, instead of
the ablative in apposition with servo. In the face of Sophronius'
testimony to the original form of the text, no alteration of the
common reading can be accepted. As to the source of Jerome's Severus,
since there is nothing in the present Chapter of Eusebius to suggest
such an addition, and no reason can be imagined for the independent
insertion of the name, the only legitimate conclusion seems to be,
that the name occurred in the account of Apollonius' martyrdom
referred to by Eusebius just below, and that Jerome took it thence. If
this be so, then that martyrology must have been the authority also
for Jerome's statement that Apollonius was accused by a slave; and
hence the statement may be accepted as true, and not as the result of
a misinterpretation of the reference of Eusebius' words (hena ge tina
ton eis tauta epitedeion auto), as supposed by some. Since it is thus
almost certain that Jerome had himself examined the fuller account of
Apollonius' martyrdom referred to by Eusebius, a favorable light is
thrown back upon his report that Apollonius was a senator, and it
becomes probable that he obtained this statement from the same source
(see the previous note).
[1675] M. de Mandajors, in his Histoire de l'Acad. des Inscript. tom.
18, p. 226 (according to Gieseler's Ch. Hist., Harper's edition, I. p.
127), "thinks that the slave was put to death as the betrayer of his
master, according to an old law renewed by Trajan; but that the
occurrence had been misunderstood by the Christians, and had given
rise to the tradition, which is found in Tertullian and in the Edictum
ad Comm. Asiĉ, that an emperor at this period had decreed the
punishment of death for denouncing a Christian." Such a law against
the denunciation of masters by slaves was passed under Nerva; but
Gieseler remarks that, in accordance with the principles of the laws
upon this subject, "either Apollonius only, or his slave only, could
have been put to death, but in no case both. Jerome does not say
either that Severus was the slave of Apollonius, or that he was
executed; and since Eusebius grounds this execution expressly on a
supposititious law, it may have belonged only to the Oriental
tradition, which may have adduced this instance in support of the
alleged law." It is possible that Gieseler is right in this
conclusion; but it is also quite possible that Eusebius' statement
that the slave was executed is correct. The ground of the execution
was, of course, not, as Eusebius thinks, the fact that he brought an
accusation against a Christian, but, as remarked by de Mandajors, the
fact that, being a slave, he betrayed his master. Had the informant
been executed because he brought an accusation against a Christian,
the subsequent execution of the latter would be inexplicable. But it
is conceivable that the prefect Perennius may have sentenced the
informant to death, in accordance with the old law mentioned by de
Mandajors, and that then, Apollonius being a senator, he may have
requested him to appear before that body, and make his defense to
them, in order that he might pass judgment upon him in accordance with
the decision of the Senate. It is quite conceivable that, the emperor
being inclined to favor the Christians, Perennius may not have cared
to pass judgment against Apollonius until he had learned the opinion
of the Senate on the matter (cf. what Neander has to say on the
subject, in his Ch. Hist.). As remarked by Valesius, the Senate was
not a judicial court, and hence could not itself sentence Apollonius;
but it could, of course, communicate to the prefect its opinion, and
he could then pass judgment accordingly. It is significant that the
Greek reads hosan apo dogmatos sunkletou, inserting the particle
hosEURn, "as if"; i.e. "as if by decree of the Senate."
[1676] Valesius thinks the reference here is to Pliny's rescript to
Trajan (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33). This is possible, though the
language of Eusebius seems to imply a more general reference to all
kinds of cases, not simply to the cases of Christians.
[1677] On Eusebius' great Collection of Martyrdoms, which is now lost,
see above, p. 30.
Chapter XXII.--The Bishops that were well known at this Time.
In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Victor [1678] succeeded
Eleutherus, [1679] the latter having held the episcopate for thirteen
years. In the same year, after Julian [1680] had completed his tenth
year, Demetrius [1681] received the charge of the parishes at
Alexandria. At this time the above-mentioned Serapion, [1682] the
eighth from the apostles, was still well known as bishop of the church
at Antioch. Theophilus [1683] presided at Cĉsarea in Palestine; and
Narcissus, [1684] whom we have mentioned before, still had charge of
the church at Jerusalem. Bacchylus [1685] at the same time was bishop
of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates [1686] of the parish of Ephesus.
And besides these a multitude of others, as is likely, were then
prominent. But we have given the names of those alone, the soundness
of whose faith has come down to us in writing.
Footnotes
[1678] The dates assigned to Victor's episcopate by the ancient
authorities vary greatly. Eusebius here puts his accession in the
tenth year of Commodus (i.e. 189 a.d.), and this is accepted by
Lipsius as the correct date. Jerome's version of the Chron. puts his
accession in the reign of Pertinax, or the first year of Septimius
Severus (i.e. 193), while the Armenian version puts it in the seventh
year of Commodus (186). Eusebius, in his History, does not state
directly the duration of his episcopate, but in chap. 28 he says that
Zephyrinus succeded him about the ninth year of Severus, i.e.
according to his erroneous reckoning (see Bk. VI. chap. 21, note 3)
about 200, which would give Victor an episcopate of about eleven
years. Jerome, in his version of the Chron. and in his de vir. ill.,
assigns him ten years; the Armenian version of the Chron. twelve
years. The Liberian Catalogue makes his episcopate something over nine
years long; the Felician Catalogue something over ten. Lipsius,
considering Victor in connection with his successors, concludes that
he held office between nine and ten years, and therefore gives as his
dates 189-198 or 199 (see p. 172 sq.). According to an anonymous
writer quoted in chap. 28, Victor excommunicated Theodotus of
Byzantium for teaching that Christ was a mere man. He is best known,
however, on account of his action in connection with the great
Quartodeciman controversy (see chap. 24). Jerome, in his version of
the Chron., says of him cujus mediocria de religione extant volumina,
and in his de vir. ill. chap. 34, he tells us that he wrote upon the
passover, and also some other works (super quĉstione Paschĉ, et alia
quĉdam scribens opuscula). Harnack believes that he has discovered one
of these works (all of which have been supposed lost) in the
Pseudo-Cyprianic de Aleatoribus. In his Texte und Unters. Bd. V. Heft
1, he has discussed the subject in a very learned and ingenious
manner. The theory has much to commend it, but there are difficulties
in its way which have not yet been removed; and I am inclined to think
it a product of the first half of the third century, rather than of
the last quarter of the second (see the writer's review of Harnack's
discussion in the Presbyterian Review, Jan., 1889, p. 143 sqq.).
[1679] On Eleutherus, see the Introduction to this book, note 2. As
remarked there, Eleutherus, according to the testimony of most of our
sources, held office fifteen years. The "thirteen years" of this
Chapter are therefore an error, clearly caused by the possession on
the part of Eusebius of a trustworthy tradition that he died in the
tenth year of Commodus, which, since he incorrectly put his accession
into the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (or Antoninus Verus, as
he calls him), made it necessary for him to draw the false conclusion
that he held office only thirteen years.
[1680] On Julian, bishop of Alexandria, see chap. 9, note 2.
[1681] The date of the accession of Demetrius, the eleventh bishop of
Alexandria, as given here and in the Chron., was 189 a.d. According to
Bk. VI. chap. 26, below, confirmed by the Chron., he held office
forty-three years. There is no reason for doubting the approximate
accuracy of these dates. Demetrius is known to us chiefly because of
his relations to Origen, which were at first friendly, but finally
became hostile. He seems to have been a man of great energy, renowned
as an administrator rather than as a literary character. He was
greatly interested in the catechetical school at Alexandria, but does
not seem to have taught in it, and he left no writings, so far as we
know. His relations with Origen will come up frequently in the Sixth
Book, where he is mentioned a number of times (see especially chap. 8,
note 4).
[1682] On Serapion, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 19.
[1683] Theophilus, bishop of Cĉsarea, has gained prominence chiefly on
account of his connection with the paschal controversy. He presided
with Narcissus over the council mentioned in the next Chapter, which
was called to consider the paschal question, and in conjunction with
the other bishops present composed an epistle, which was still extant
in Eusebius' time (according to the next Chapter), and of which he
gives a fragment in chap. 25. Jerome, in his de vir. ill. c. 43,
speaks very highly of this epistle (synodicam valde utilem composuit
epistolam); but it seems to have been no longer extant in his time,
for in mentioning it and the epistle of Bacchylus of Corinth and
others in his Chron., he says that the memory of them still endured
(quarum memoria ad nos usque perdurat). The dates of Theophilus'
accession to office and of his death are not known to us.
[1684] On Narcissus, see above, chap. 12.
[1685] This Bacchylus is possibly identical with the Bacchylides who
is mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23 as one of those who had urged
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, to write a certain epistle. Bacchylus
also is prominent solely on account of his connection with the paschal
controversy. According to the next Chapter, he was himself the author
of an epistle on the subject, which he wrote, according to Jerome (de
vir. ill. c. 44), in the name of all the bishops of Achaia (ex omnium
qui in Achaia erant episcoporum persona). But the words of Eusebius
seem to imply that the epistle was an individual, not a synodical one,
for he does not say, "an epistle of those in," &c., as he does in
every other case. We must conclude, therefore, that Jerome, who had
not seen the epistle, was mistaken in making it a synodical letter.
Jerome characterizes it as an elegant composition (elegantem librum);
but, like the epistle of Theophilus, mentioned in the preceding note,
it seems not to have been extant in Jerome's time. The dates of
Bacchylus' accession to office and of his death are not known to us.
[1686] Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, is one of the most noted men
connected with the paschal controversy, for the reason that he was the
leader of the bishops of the province of Asia, in which province alone
the Quartodeciman practice was uniformly observed. He was thus the
leading opponent of Bishop Victor of Rome. His relation to the paschal
controversy is brought out more fully in chap. 24. The dates of
Polycrates' accession to office and of his death are not known to us;
though, of course, with Theophilus, Narcissus, Bacchylus, and the
other bishops concerned in the paschal controversy, he flourished
during the reign of Septimius Severus, while Victor was bishop of
Rome. The only writing of Polycrates of which we know is his epistle
to Victor, a portion of which is quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. III. chap.
31, and a still larger portion in chap. 24 of this book. Jerome, in
his de vir. ill. c. 45 speaks in terms of the highest praise of
Polycrates, and quotes from Eusebius the larger fragment, given in
chap. 24, adding, Hĉc propterea posui, ut ingenium et auctoritatem
viri ex parvo opusculo demonstrarem. The fact that he quotes only the
passages given by Eusebius would be enough to show that he quoted from
Eusebius, and not directly from Polycrates, even were it not plain
from the statement in his Chron., referred to in note 6, that
Polycrates' epistle was, so far as Jerome knew, no longer extant.
Polycrates himself informs us, in the second fragment given in chap.
24, that he wrote his epistle with the consent and approval of all the
bishops present at the council summoned by him to discuss the paschal
question. The fact that both Eusebius and Jerome praise Polycrates so
highly, and testify to his orthodoxy, shows how completely the paschal
question had been buried before their time, and how little the
Quartodeciman practice was feared.
Chapter XXIII.--The Question then agitated concerning the Passover.
1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the
parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the
fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to
sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's
passover. [1687] It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that
day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not
the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this
time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition,
has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other
day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.
2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, [1688]
and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an
ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the
Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we
should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There
is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in
Palestine, over whom Theophilus, [1689] bishop of Cĉsarea, and
Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another
writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the
same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; [1690] also of
the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, [1691] as the oldest,
presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenĉus was bishop, and
of those in Osrhoëne [1692] and the cities there; and a personal
letter of Bacchylus, [1693] bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a
great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast
the same vote.
3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.
[1694]
Footnotes
[1687] The great question of dispute between the church of Asia Minor
and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal communion should
be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the Sunday of the
resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chronology. The
Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of the apostles,
John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the Church, celebrated
the Christian passover always on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day
of the week that might be, by a solemn fast, and closed the day with
the communion in commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ.
The Roman church, on the other hand, followed by all the rest of
Christendom, celebrated the death of Christ always on Friday, and his
resurrection on the Sunday following the first full moon after the
vernal equinox, and continued their paschal fast until the latter day.
It thus happened that the fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating,
as it did, with the fourteenth of Nisan, often closed some days before
the fast of the other churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned
great scandal. As Schaff says: "The gist of the paschal controversy
was whether the Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the
Christian Sunday should control the idea and time of the entire
festival." The former practice emphasized Christ's death; the latter
his resurrection. The first discussion of the question took place
between Polycarp and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, when the former was on
a visit to that city, between 150 and 155. Irenĉus gives an account of
this which is quoted by Eusebius in chap. 25. Polycarp clung to the
Asiatic practice of observing the 14th of Nisan, but could not
persuade Anicetus to do the same, nor could Anicetus persuade him not
to observe that day. They nevertheless communed together in Rome, and
separated in peace. About 170 a.d. the controversy broke out again in
Laodicea, the chief disputants being Melito of Sardis and Apolinarius
of Hierapolis (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1, and chap. 27, note
1). In this controversy Melito advocated the traditional Asiatic
custom of observing the fourteenth day, while Apolinarius opposed it.
To distinguish two parties of Quartodecimans,--a Judaizing and a more
orthodox,--as must be done if Apolinarius is regarded, as he is by
many, as a Quartodeciman, is, as Schaff shows entirely unwarranted. We
know only of the one party, and Apolinarius did not belong to it. The
third stage of the controversy, which took place while Victor was
bishop of Rome, in the last decade of the second century, was much
more bitter and important. The leaders of the two sides were
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, bishop of Rome,--the latter
an overbearing man, who believed that he, as Bishop of Rome, had a
right to demand of all other churches conformity to the practices of
his own church. The controversy came to an open rupture between the
churches of Asia and that of Rome, but other churches did not
sympathize with the severe measures of Victor, and the breach was
gradually healed--just how and when we do not know; but the Roman
practice gradually prevailed over the Asiatic, and finally, at the
Council of Nicĉa (325), was declared binding upon the whole Church,
while the old Asiatic practice was condemned. This decision was
acquiesced in by the bishops of Asia, as well as by the rest of the
world, and only scattered churches continued to cling to the practice
of the earlier Asiatics, and they were branded as heretics, and called
Quartodecimanians (from quarta decima), a name which we carry back and
apply to all who observed the fourteenth day, even those of the second
and third centuries. This brief summary will enable us better to
understand the accounts of Eusebius, who is our chief authority on the
subject. The paschal controversy has had an important bearing upon the
question of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, the Tübingen
critics having drawn from this controversy one of their strongest
arguments against its genuineness. This subject cannot be discussed
here, but the reader is referred, for a brief statement of the case,
to Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 219. The Johannine controversy has given
rise to an extensive literature on these paschal disputes. Among the
most important' works are Hilgenfeld's Der Paschastreit der alten
Kirche nach seiner Bedeutung fur die Kirchengesch. u. s. w.; and
Schürer's Die Paschastreitigkeiten des zweiten Jahrhunderts, in the
Zeitschrift für hist. Theologie, 1870, p. 182-284,--the latter perhaps
the ablest extended discussion of the subject extant. The reader is
also referred to the article Easter, in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Ant.;
to Hefele's Conciliengesch. I. p. 86-101; and especially to the
Chapter on the paschal controversies in Schaff's Ch. Hist. Vol. II. p.
209-220. This Chapter of Schaff's is the clearest, and, in the opinion
of the writer, by far the most satisfactory, brief statement of the
whole subject which we have.
[1688] Although other synods are mentioned by the Libellus synodicus
(of the ninth century), the only ones which we have good reason for
accepting are those mentioned by Eusebius in this Chapter and the
next; viz. one in Palestine (the Libellus synodicus gives two: one at
Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and another at Cĉsarea,
presided over by Theophilus, but the report is too late to be of
authority); one in Pontus, under the presidency of Palmas; one in
Gaul, under Irenĉus; one in Osrhoëne in Mesopotamia; and one in Asia
Minor, under Polycrates. Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 101) adds one
in Rome under Victor; and although Eusebius does not distinctly
mention such a synod, we are undoubtedly to conclude that the epistle
written by Victor was a synodical epistle and hence Hefele is, in all
probability, correct in assuming that some kind of a synod, whether
municipal or provincial, took place there at this time (see note 4).
From the words of Eusebius at the close of the Chapter, we may gather
that still other synods than those mentioned by him were held on this
subject. The date of all of these councils is commonly given as 198
a.d., but there is no particular authority for that year. Jerome's
version of the Chron. assigns the composition of the various epistles
to the fourth year of Septimius Severus (196-197); but it is clear
that he is giving only an approximate date. We can say only that the
synods took place sometime during Victor's episcopate. All the
councils, as we learn from this Chapter, except the one under
Polycrates in Asia Minor, decided against the Quartodeciman practice.
Athanasius, however (de Syn. c. 5), speaks of Christians of Syria,
Cilicia, and Mesopotamia as celebrating the paschal feast on the
fourteenth day; and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 35) says that many bishops
of Asia and of the Orient kept up this observance. It is possible that
the practice was from the beginning more widely spread than Eusebius
supposed, or, what is more probable, that the words of Athanasius and
Jerome refer to individual churches and bishops, whose observance of
the fourteenth day was not general enough to invalidate what Eusebius
says of the common consent of the whole Church, outside of Asia Minor,
against the Quartodeciman practice, and that this individual
observance, not being officially recognized by any synod, did not seem
to him to require mention.
[1689] On Theophilus and Narcissus, see the preceding Chapter, notes 6
and 7.
[1690] episkopon biktora delousa. This and the following epistles are
no longer extant, nor have we any fragments of them. They seem to have
disappeared, even before Jerome's time; at least, he speaks only of
the memory of them as remaining to his day (see chap. 22, note 6).
Heinichen is certainly wrong in making this epistle an individual
letter from Victor alone, for Eusebius expressly says that the epistle
was from "those at Rome" (ton epi ;;Romes), which seems to imply a
council, as in the other cases. The grammatical construction naturally
leads us to supply with the ton the word used with it in the previous
sentence, sunkekrotemenon,--"those who were assembled." Valesius,
Hefele, and others are, therefore, quite justified in assuming that,
according to Eusebius, a synod met at Rome, also, at this time.
[1691] Palmas, bishop of Amastris, in Pontus, mentioned by Dionysius,
in Bk. IV. chap. 23, above.
[1692] Osrhoëne was a region of country in northwestern Mesopotamia.
[1693] This epistle of Bacchylus is distinguished from the preceding
ones by the fact that it is not a synodical or collective epistle but
the independent production of one man, if Eusebius' report is correct
(see the preceding Chapter, note 8). The epistles "of many others,"
mentioned in the next sentence, may have been of the same kind.
[1694] Namely, against the observance of the fourteenth day.
Chapter XXIV.--The Disagreement in Asia.
1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the
old custom handed down to them. [1695] He himself, in a letter which
he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the
following words the tradition which had come down to him: [1696]
2. "We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in
Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on
the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from
heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one
of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two
aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy
Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a
witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and,
being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.
4. And Polycarp [1697] in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and
Thraseas, [1698] bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in
Smyrna.
5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris [1699] who fell
asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, [1700] or Melito, [1701]
the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in
Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from
the dead?
6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to
the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.
[1702] And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to
the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed.
For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my
relatives always observed the day when the people [1703] put away the
leaven.
7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the
Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have
gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying
words. For those greater than I have said `We ought to obey God rather
than man.'" [1704]
8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and
thought as he did. His words are as follows:
"I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your
desire; [1705] whose names, should I write them, would constitute a
great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent
to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but
had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."
9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately
attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia,
with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote
letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
[1706]
10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to
consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words
of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
11. Among them was Irenĉus, who, sending letters in the name of the
brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of
the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's
day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole
churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and
after many other words he proceeds as follows: [1707]
12. "For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also
concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they
should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover,
count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. [1708]
13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time;
but long before in that of our ancestors. [1709] It is likely that
they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for
their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode.
Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in
peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast
confirms the agreement in the faith."
14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly
insert:
"Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the
church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus,
and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it [1710]
themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet
though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those
who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although
this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.
[1711]
15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the
presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to
those of other parishes who observed it. [1712]
16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome [1713] in the time of
Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they
immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over
this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to
observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our
Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither
could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he
ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and
Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to
Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. [1714] And they parted from
each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not,
maintaining the peace of the whole church."
18. Thus Irenĉus, who truly was well named, [1715] became a peacemaker
in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the
peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted
question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers
of the churches. [1716]
Footnotes
[1695] For a general account of the paschal controversy, see the
preceding Chapter, note 1. On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9.
[1696] A part of this passage from Polycrates' epistle is quoted in
Bk. III. chap. 31. The extract given there begins with the second
sentence of the fragment ("For in Asia great lights," &c.), and
extends to the report of John's burial at Ephesus. For comments upon
this portion of the fragment, see the notes given there.
[1697] On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.
[1698] This Thraseas, said by Polycrates to have been bishop of
Eumenia (a city in the southern part of Phrygia), was mentioned also
by Apollonius in his work against the Montanists (according to
Eusebius, chap. 18, §13, of this book). He is called by Polycrates a
martyr, and by Eusebius, in reference to Apollonius' mention of him,
"one of the martyrs of that time." There is no reason to doubt that he
was a martyr, in the full sense, as Polycarp was; but upon the more
general use of the word mEURrtus as, e.g., in connection with John
just above, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15. We know nothing more about
this bishop Thraseas.
[1699] On Sagaris, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 22.
[1700] Polycrates does not call Papirius a bishop or a martyr, and we
know nothing about him. Simeon Metaphrastes, upon whose reports little
reliance can be placed, in his life of Polycarp (according to
Valesius), makes Papirius a successor of Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna.
[1701] On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.
[1702] A careful exegesis of the passages in John's Gospel, which are
supposed by some to contradict the synoptic account, and to put
Christ's death on the fourteenth day of Nisan instead of on the
fifteenth, shows that John agrees with the Synoptists in putting the
passover meal on the fourteenth and the death of Christ on the
fifteenth (see Schaff's Ch. Hist. Vol. I. p. 133 ff., and the
authorities referred to by him). The Asiatic churches, in observing
the fourteenth of Nisan, were commemorating the last passover feast
and the death of the paschal Lamb. Their practice did not imply that
they believed that Christ died on the fourteenth (as can be seen from
fragments of Apolinarius' work quoted in the Chron. Paschale, and
referred to above; see, also, Schaff, Vol. II. p. 214). They were in
full agreement with all four Gospels in putting his death on the
fifteenth. But the paschal controversy did not hinge on the day of the
month on which Christ died,--in regard to which there was no
widespread disagreement,--but on the question as to whether a
particular day of the week or of the month was to be celebrated.
[1703] i.e. the Jews. The passover feast among the Jews took place on
the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and was eaten with unleavened
bread (Ex. xii. 6 et passim). It was on the fourteenth of Nisan,
therefore, that the Jews "threw away" the leaven, and until the
evening of the twenty-first, when the seven days' feast of unleavened
bread closed, they used no leaven.
[1704] Acts v. 29.
[1705] According to this, the Asiatic Council was summoned at the
request of Victor of Rome, and in all probability this was the case
with all the councils referred to in the last Chapter.
[1706] There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor
actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do
so. Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them,
but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it. For my part, I
cannot understand that Eusebius' words mean anything else than that he
did actually cut off communion with them. The Greek reads akoinonetous
pEURntas arden tous ekeise anakerutton adelphous. This seems to me
decisive.
[1707] This epistle is no longer extant, but in addition to the
fragments given in this Chapter by Eusebius, a few other extracts from
it are found in other writers; thus, in the Pseudo-Justinian
Quĉstiones et responsa ad orthodoxos occurs a quotation from Irenĉus'
work On Easter (peri tou pEURscha), which is doubtless to be
identified with this epistle to Victor (ed. Harvey, Grĉc. fragm. 7;
Eng. translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 569). Maximus of Turin,
also, in his Sermo VII. de Eleemos., gives a brief quotation from "The
epistle to Victor" (Harvey, Grĉc. fragm. 5, trans. ibid.). It is
possible that some other unnamed fragments given by Harvey are from
this epistle. From Eusebius' words we learn that Irenĉus agreed with
Victor as to the proper time of keeping the feast, and yet he did not
agree with him in his desire to excommunicate those who followed the
other practice.
[1708] The punctuation of this sentence is a disputed matter. Some
editors omit the semicolon after the words "yet others more,"
translating, "For some think that they should fast one day, others
two, yet others more, and some forty; and they count the hours of the
day and night together as their day." The sense is thus materially
changed, but the Greek seems to necessitate rather the punctuation
which I have followed in my translation, and so that punctuation is
adopted by Valesius, Zimmermann, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer,
Heinichen, Closs, Crusè, and others. We should expect, moreover, that
the forty hours' fast should be mentioned in this connection by
Irenĉus, as we learn from Tertullian that it was very common; whereas
we have no other trace of the forty days' fast at so early a date (cf.
the next note).
[1709] The fast preceding the celebration of the paschal supper, which
has grown gradually into our Lent of forty days preceding Easter, is,
we are told here by Irenĉus, much older than his day. It is thus
carried back at least close to apostolic times, and there is no reason
to think that it was not observed about as soon as the celebration of
the paschal supper itself was established. Tertullian also mentions
the fast, which continued, according to him (de Jejunio, chap. 2),
during the period "in which the bridegroom was taken away," i.e. in
which Jesus was under the power of death. We learn from this passage
of Irenĉus' epistle that the duration of the fast varied greatly. From
Socrates (H. E. V. 22) and Sozomen (H. E. VII. 19) we learn that the
variation was as great in their time. Some fasted three, some six,
some seven weeks, and so on. Socrates (l.c.) informs us that the fast,
whatever its duration, was always called tessarakoste (quadrigesima).
He does not know why this is, but says that various reasons are given
by others. The time between Jesus' death and his resurrection was very
early computed as forty hours in length,--from noon of Friday to four
o'clock Sunday morning. This may have lain at the basis of the number
forty, which was so persistently used to designate the fast, for
Tertullian tells us that the fast was intended to cover the period
during which Jesus was dead. It is this idea which undoubtedly
underlay the fast of forty hours which Irenĉus mentions. The fasts of
Moses, of Elijah, and of Jesus in the desert would also of course have
great influence in determining the length of this, the most important
fast of the year. Already before the end of the third century the fast
had extended itself in many quarters to cover a number of weeks, and
in the time of Eusebius the forty days' fast had already become a
common thing (see his de Pasch. chap. 5), and even Origen refers to it
(Hom. in Lev. X. 2). The present duration of the fast--forty days
exclusive of Sundays--was fixed in the seventh or eighth century. Cf.
Sinker's article on Lent in Smith's Dict. of Christ. Ant. and Krieg's
article, Feste, in Kraus' Encyclop. der Christ. Alterthümer, I. p.
489.
[1710] i.e. the fourteenth day.
[1711] The Greek reads: kai toi mallon enantion en to terein tois me
terousi. The meaning is, that the observance of the fourteenth day by
these strangers in Rome itself, among those who did not observe that
day, would be noticeable and more distasteful than the mere report
that the day was so observed in Asia could be. If Victor's
predecessor, therefore, allowed such persons to observe that day even
in Rome, how much more should he allow the Asiatics to observe it in
their own land.
[1712] Valesius, followed by others, interprets this sentence as
meaning that the presbyters of Rome sent the eucharist to other
parishes where the paschal festival was observed on the fourteenth of
the month. The council of Laodicea (Can. 14) forbade the sending of
the eucharist to other parishes, which shows that the custom must have
been widespread before the end of the fourth century, and it is
therefore quite possible that the bishops of Rome, even as early as
the time of Irenĉus, pursued the same practice. But in regard to the
statement made here by Irenĉus, it must be said that, so far as we are
able to ascertain, only the churches of Asia Minor observed the
fourteenth day at that early date, and it is difficult to imagine that
the presbyters of Rome before Victor's time had been in the habit of
sending the eucharist all the way from Rome to Asia Minor. Moreover,
this is the only passage in which we have notice, before the fourth
century, of the existence of the general practice condemned by the
council of Laodicea. The Greek reads hoi pro sou presbuteroi tois apo
ton paroikion terousin zpempon eucharistian. These words taken by
themselves can as well, if not better, be understood of persons
(whether presbyters or others is not in any case distinctly stated)
who had come to Rome from other parishes, and who continued to observe
the fourteenth day. This transmission of the eucharist to communicants
who were kept away from the service by illness or other adequate cause
was a very old custom, being mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apol.
I. 65. It is true that it is difficult to understand why Irenĉus
should speak in the present case of sending the eucharist to those
persons who observed the fourteenth day, instead of merely mentioning
the fact that the Roman church communed with them. In the face of the
difficulties on both sides it must be admitted that neither of the
interpretations mentioned can be insisted upon. On the practice of
sending the eucharistic bread to persons not present at the service or
to other parishes, see the article Eulogia, in Smith's Dict. of
Christ. Ant.
[1713] epidemesantos te ;;Rome. Upon the significance of this phrase,
see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 19. On the date of Polycarp's visit to
Rome, see ibid., chap. 14, note 2. In his Adv. Hĉr., where he mentions
this visit (as quoted in chap. 14), Irenĉus does not speak of the
affair of the passover which he refers to here. The omission, however,
has no significance, as he is discussing Gnosticism there, and refers
to Polycarp's visit to Rome only because his attitude toward Marcion
was revealed in connection with it.
[1714] The meaning of this passage has been disputed. The Greek reads:
kai en te ekklesi‹ parechoresen ho 'Aniketos ten eucharistian to
PolukEURrpo kat' entropen delonoti. Valesius understands Irenĉus'
meaning to be that Anicetus invited Polycarp to administer the
eucharist in Rome; and this is the common interpretation of the
passage. Heinichen objects, however, that parechoresen ten
eucharistian cannot refer to the administration of the sacrament, and
hence concludes that Irenĉus means simply to say that Anicetus
permitted Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in his church, thereby
proclaiming publicly their fraternal fellowship, in spite of their
differences on the paschal question. The common interpretation,
however, seems to the writer better than Heinichen's; for if the
latter be adopted, the sentence in question says no more than the one
which precedes it,--"they communed with each other" (ekoinonesan
heautois). And moreover, as Valesius remarks, Anicetus would in that
case have shown Polycarp no more honor than any other Christian
pilgrim who might happen to be in Rome. Irenĉus seems to intend to say
that Anicetus showed Polycarp especial honor, and that in spite of
their difference of opinion on the paschal question. But simply to
have allowed Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in the church would
certainly have been no honor, and, on the other hand, not to invite
him to assist in the administration of the sacrament might have seemed
a sign of disrespect, and have emphasized their differences. The old
interpretation, therefore, must be followed, and so far as the Greek
is concerned, there is no difficulty about the construction. In the
parechoresen resides the idea of "yielding," "giving place to"; and so
Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the eucharist, or gave place to him in
the matter of the eucharist. This in fact brings out the force of the
parechoresen better than Heinichen's interpretation.
[1715] The Greek form of the name is Eirenaios, from eirene, which
means "peace."
[1716] None of these epistles are extant; but it is possible that some
of the fragments commonly assigned to Irenĉus' epistle to Victor may
belong to one or more of them (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p.
265). We do not know to what bishops or churches these epistles were
sent. Jerome does not mention them.
Chapter XXV.--How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.
1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and
Theophilus, [1717] and with them Cassius, [1718] bishop of the church
of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with
them, [1719] having stated many things respecting the tradition
concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the
apostles, at the close of their writing add these words: [1720]
2. "Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may
not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show
you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that
we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so
that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day."
[1721]
Footnotes
[1717] In chaps. 22 and 23. For particulars in regard to them, see
chap. 22, notes 6 and 7.
[1718] Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men.
[1719] i.e. in the Palestinian council mentioned in chap. 23. Upon
this and the other councils held at the same period, see chap. 23,
note 2.
[1720] This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, Rel. Sac.
II. p. 3 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p.
774.
[1721] These epistles, like all the rest written at this time on the
paschal question, are now lost (see chap. 23, note 4).
Chapter XXVI.--The Elegant Works of Irenĉus which have come down to
us.
Besides the works and letters of Irenĉus which we have mentioned,
[1722] a certain book of his On Knowledge, written against the Greeks,
[1723] very concise and remarkably forcible, is extant; and another,
which he dedicated to a brother Marcian, In Demonstration of the
Apostolic Preaching; [1724] and a volume containing various
Dissertations, [1725] in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews
and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, making quotations from them.
These are the works of Irenĉus which have come to our knowledge.
Commodus having ended his reign after thirteen years, Severus became
emperor in less than six months after his death, Pertinax having
reigned during the intervening time. [1726]
Footnotes
[1722] For a general summary of the works of Irenĉus mentioned by
Eusebius, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1723] pros ;'Ellenas logos...peri epistemes. Jerome (de vir. ill. 35)
makes two works out of this: one Against the Gentiles, and another On
Knowledge (et contra Gentes volumen breve, et de disciplina aliud).
Harvey (I. p. clxvi.) states that one of the Syriac fragments of
Irenĉus' works mentions the work of Eusebius On Knowledge, and
specifies that it was directed against the Valentinians. In that case
it would be necessary to make two separate works, as Jerome does, and
so Harvey thinks that the text of Eusebius must be amended by the
insertion of an allos te. Unfortunately, Harvey did not name the
Syriac fragment which contains the statement referred to, and it is
not to be found among those collected in his edition (Venables, in
Smith and Wace, states that he could find no such fragment, and I have
also searched in vain for it). Evidently some blunder has been
committed, and it looks as if Harvey's statement were unverifiable.
Meanwhile, Jerome's testimony alone is certainly not enough to warrant
an emendation of the text in opposition to all the mss. and versions.
We must therefore conclude, with our present light, that the treatise
peri epistemes was directed against the Greeks, as Eusebius says. The
work has entirely perished, with the possible exception of a single
brief fragment (the first of the Pfaffian fragments; Gr. Frag. XXXV.
in Harvey's edition), which Harvey refers to it.
[1724] eis epideixin tou apostolikou kerugmatos. This work, too, has
perished, though possibly a few of the fragments published by Harvey
are to be referred to it (see Harvey, I. p. clxvii.). Harvey
conjectures that the work discussed the articles of the early Rule of
faith, which is quite possible. Of the "brother Marcian" to whom it
was addressed, we know nothing.
[1725] biblion ti dialexeon diaphoron. This work (no longer extant)
was probably, as Harvey remarks, "a collection of sermons and
expositions of various texts and passages of Scripture." To it are
undoubtedly to be referred a great many of the fragments in which
passages of Scripture are discussed (see Harvey, I. p. clxvii.).
[1726] Commodus was strangled on the 31st of December, 192, and
Pertinax, who immediately succeeded him, was murdered, on March 28,
193, by the Prĉtorian guard, which then sold the imperial power to
Didius Julianus, who, at the approach of Septimius Severus, who had
been proclaimed emperor by the Pannonian legions, was declared a
public enemy by the Senate, and beheaded after a reign of only
sixty-six days.
Chapter XXVII.--The Works of Others that flourished at that Time.
Numerous memorials of the faithful zeal of the ancient ecclesiastical
men of that time are still preserved by many. Of these we would note
particularly the writings of Heraclitus [1727] On the Apostle, and
those of Maximus on the question so much discussed among heretics, the
Origin of Evil, and on the Creation of Matter. [1728] Also those of
Candidus on the Hexĉmeron, [1729] and of Apion [1730] on the same
subject; likewise of Sextus [1731] on the Resurrection, and another
treatise of Arabianus, [1732] and writings of a multitude of others,
in regard to whom, because we have no data, it is impossible to state
in our work when they lived, or to give any account of their history.
[1733] And works of many others have come down to us whose names we
are unable to give, orthodox and ecclesiastical, as their
interpretations of the Divine Scriptures show, but unknown to us,
because their names are not stated in their writings. [1734]
Footnotes
[1727] This Heraclitus is mentioned only by Eusebius and by Jerome (de
vir. ill. chap. 46), who, in his description of him and in the five
following Chapters (on Maximus, Candidus, Apion, Sextus, and
Arabianus), does nothing more than repeat the words of Eusebius in
this Chapter. The work which Eusebius calls ta ;;Erakleitou eis ton
apostolon is called by Jerome in apostolum Commentarios. The word
apostolos was quite commonly used among the Fathers to denote the
epistles of Paul (see Suicer's Thesaurus), and hence Eusebius seems
here to refer to commentaries (the plural article ta is used) on the
Pauline epistles. These commentaries are no longer extant, and we know
nothing of their nature.
[1728] The Greek reads kai ta Maximou peri tou poluthruletou para tois
hairesiotais zetematos, tou pothen he kakia, kai peri tou geneten
hupEURrchein ten hulen. The plural ta (sc. hupomnemata) might lead us
to suppose Eusebius refers here to separate works, were it not for the
fact that in his Prĉp. Evang. VII. 22 is found a long extract from a
work of Maximus On Matter (peri tes hules) in which the subject of the
origin of evil is discussed in connection with the origin and nature
of matter. In that age one could hardly discuss the origin of evil
without at the same time discussing matter, to which the origin of
evil was referred by the great majority of the ancients. We are to
suppose, then, that the work of Maximus bore the double title given by
Eusebius in this Chapter. Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 47, says:
Maximus...famosam quĉstionem insigni volumine ventilavit, unde malum,
et quod materia a Deo facta sit. As remarked above, a long extract,
which must have been taken from this work, is given by Eusebius in his
Prĉp. Evang. It appears from this extract that the work was written in
the form of a dialogue between three speakers,--two inquirers, and one
orthodox Christian. The same fragment of Maximus' work is found also
in the twenty-fourth Chapter of the Philocalia of Origen, and is said
by the editors, Gregory and Basil, to have been copied by them from
Eusebius' work. The Dialogue on Free Will, ascribed to Methodius (of
the early part of the fourth century), made large use of this work of
Maximus; and the same is to be said of the Pseudo-Origenistic Dialogue
against the Marcionites, though according to Routh (Rel. Sac. II. p.
79) the latter drew his quotations from Methodius and not directly
from Maximus. The work of Methodius undoubtedly contains much more of
Maximus' work than is given here by Eusebius; but it is difficult to
ascertain what is his own and what belongs to Maximus, and Routh, in
publishing the fragments of Maximus' work (ibid. p. 87-107), gives
only the extract quoted by Eusebius. In his Prĉp. Evang. Eusebius
speaks of Maximus as tes christou diatribes ouk asemos aner, but we
know no more about him than has been already indicated. Gallandius
suggests that he may be identical with Maximus, the twenty-sixth
bishop of Jerusalem (see above, chap. 12), who, it is quite probable,
lived about this time (cf. Eusebius' Chron., year of Abr. 2202). But
Eusebius, neither in this Chapter nor in his Prĉp. Evang., calls
Maximus a bishop, and it seems proper to conclude that he at least did
not know that he was a bishop; and hence Gallandius' conjecture, which
rests only upon agreement in a very common name, must be pronounced
quite baseless.
[1729] eis ten hexaemeron (sc. kosmopoiian or demiourgian). The
adjective hexaemeros was commonly used in this way, with the feminine
article, implying a noun understood, and referring to the six days'
work of creation (see Suicer's Thesaurus). The subject was quite a
favorite one with the Fathers. Hippolytus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa,
Ambrose, and others wrote upon it, as did also the Apion mentioned in
the next sentence. The work of Candidus is no longer extant, nor do we
know anything more about it and its author than Eusebius tells us
here. The plural ta occurs again, and Jerome supplies tractatus.
Whether the word fitly describes the work, or works, or whether they
were rather of the nature of homilies, like Basil's, we do not know.
Sophronius, in translating Jerome, puts homilias for tractatus, but
this of course is of no authority.
[1730] Apion's work is mentioned also by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap.
4), but nothing is added to the statement of Eusebius. We know nothing
more about him or his work.
[1731] Sextus also is mentioned by Jerome, in his de vir. ill. chap.
50, but we know nothing about him or his work, except what Eusebius
tells us here.
[1732] Nothing more is known of this Arabianus, and Eusebius does not
even tell us the name of his work. His silence is difficult to
explain. We can hardly imagine that the title was intentionally
omitted; for had there been a reason for such a course, there must
have been as much reason for omitting the writer's name also. It does
not seem probable that he had never known the title of the book, for
he was not in the habit of mentioning works which he had not seen,
except with the formula logos zchei, or something of the kind, to
indicate that he makes his statement only on the authority of others.
It is possible that he had seen this, with the other works mentioned
(perhaps all bound in one volume), at sometime in the past, but that
the title of Arabianus' work had escaped him, and hence he simply
mentioned the work along with the others, without considering the
title a matter of great importance. He speaks of but a single
work,--alle tis hupothesis,--but Jerome (chap. 51) mentions quĉdam
opuscula ad christianum dogma pertinentia. His description is not
specific enough to lead us to think that he had personal knowledge of
Arabianus' writings. It must rather be concluded that he allowed
himself some license, and that, not satisfied to speak of a writer
without naming his works, and, at the same time, knowing nothing
definite about them, he simply calls them, in the most general terms,
ad christianum dogma pertinentia; for if they were Christian works, he
was pretty safe in concluding that they had to do, in some way at
least, with Christian doctrine. The substitution of the plural for the
singular (quĉdam opuscula for tis hupothesis) can hardly have been an
accident. It is, perhaps safe to say, knowing Jerome's methods, that
he permitted himself to make the change in order to conceal his own
ignorance of the writings of Arabianus; for to mention a single book,
and say no more about it than that it had to do with Christian
doctrine, would be a betrayal of entire ignorance in regard to it; but
to sum up a number of writings under the general head ad christianum
dogma pertinentia, instead of giving all the titles in detail, would
be, of course, quite consistent with an exact acquaintance with all of
them. If our supposition be correct, we have simply another instance
of Jerome's common sin, and an instance which, in this case, reveals a
sharp contrast between his character and that of Eusebius, who never
hesitated to confess his ignorance.
[1733] Eusebius does not imply, in this sentence, that he is not
acquainted with these works to which he refers. As the words are
commonly translated, we might imagine that he was not familiar with
them, for all the translators make him speak of not being able to draw
any extracts from them for his own history. Thus Valesius: nec
narrationem ullam libris nostris intexere possumus; Stroth: "noch
etwas darauserzählen kann"; Closs: "noch etwas daraus anführen
können"; Crusè: "we can neither insert the time nor any extracts in
our History." The Greek of the whole sentence reads, hon dia to
medemian zchein aphormen ouch hoiçn te oute tous chronous
paradounai graphe, outh' historias mnemen huposemenasthai, which seems
to mean simply that their works contain no information which enables
him to give the dates of the authors, or to recount anything about
their lives; that is, they contain no personal allusions. This is
quite different from saying that he was not acquainted with the works;
in fact, had he not been quite familiar with them, he could not have
made such a broad statement. He seems to have searched them for
personal notices, and to have failed in the search. Whether these
words of Eusebius apply to all the works already mentioned, or only to
the murion allon just referred to, cannot be certainly determined. The
latter seems most natural; but even if the reference be only to those
last mentioned, there is every reason to think that the words are just
as true of the writings of Heraclitus, Maximus, and the others, for he
tells us nothing about their lives, nor the time in which they lived,
but introduces them in the most general terms, as "ancient
ecclesiastical men." There seems, therefore, no good reason for
connecting these writers with the reign of Commodus, rather than with
any other reign of the late second or of the third century. It must be
noticed that Eusebius does not say that "these men lived at this
time"; he simply mentions them in this connection because it is a
convenient place, and perhaps because there were indications which led
him to think they could not have lived early in the second or late in
the third century. It is quite possible, as suggested in the previous
note, that the works of the writers whose names are mentioned in this
Chapter were collected in a single volume, and that thus Eusebius was
led to class them all together, although the subjects of their works
were by no means the same, and their dates may have been widely
different.
[1734] Eusebius mentioned first those works whose authors' names were
known to him, but now adds that he is acquainted with many other
writings which bear the name of no author. He claims, however, that
the works testify to their authors' orthodoxy, and he seems to imply,
by this statement, that he has convinced himself of their orthodoxy by
a personal examination of them.
Chapter XXVIII.--Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their
Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.
1. In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of
Artemon, [1735] which Paul of Samosata [1736] attempted to revive
again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which
we are now examining.
2. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy
which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were
attempting to magnify it as ancient. [1737] Having given in his work
many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he
adds the following words:
3. "For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received
and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was
preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of
Rome from Peter, [1738] but that from his successor, Zephyrinus,
[1739] the truth had been corrupted.
4. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine
Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain
brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of
the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed
in their day. I refer to Justin [1740] and Miltiades [1741] and Tatian
[1742] and Clement [1743] and many others, in all of whose works
Christ is spoken of as God. [1744]
5. For who does not know the works of Irenĉus [1745] and of Melito
[1746] and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? [1747]
And how many psalms and hymns, [1748] written by the faithful brethren
from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him
as Divine.
6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for
so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm,
until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to
speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from
communion Theodotus, the cobbler, [1749] the leader and father of this
God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere
man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander
affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this
heresy?"
7. So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and
Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the
reign of Severus. [1750] The author of the above-mentioned book,
concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which
occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:
8. "I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in
our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved
a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, [1751] not
long ago, but in our own day.
9. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus [1752] and
another Theodotus, [1753] a money-changer. Both of them were disciples
of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person
excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this
sentiment, or rather senselessness. [1754]
10. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen
bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one
hundred and fifty denarii a month. [1755]
11. When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned
oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and
our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own
sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish.
12. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was
ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful
covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy
angels, and punished severely through the entire night. [1756]
Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered
himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before
Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy,
but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate
Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication,
and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet
scarcely was he taken back into communion."
13. We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning
them, which run as follows: [1757]
"They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear.
They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have
not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures
declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may
be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them
a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or
disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.
14. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as
ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings
of God to devote themselves to geometry. [1758] Euclid is laboriously
measured [1759] by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are
admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.
15. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical
opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by
the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there
to say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine
Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.
16. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever
wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies,
and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ
greatly.
17. Those of Asclepiades, [1760] for example, do not agree with those
of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their
disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them,
that is the corruptions, [1761] of each of them. Again, those of
Hermophilus [1762] do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides
[1763] are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those
prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted
later, and you will find them widely different.
18. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they
themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the
Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are
unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit,
and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot
deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written
by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from
their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they
were transcribed.
19. But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them,
but simply deny the law and the prophets, [1764] and thus through
their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk
to the lowest depths of perdition."
Let this suffice for these things.
Footnotes
[1735] This anonymous work against the heresy of Artemon is no longer
extant, and the only fragments of it which we have are those preserved
by Eusebius in this Chapter. Theodoret (Hĉr. Fab. II. 5) mentions the
work, and says that it was directed against the heresies of Theodotus
and Artemon, and that it bore the name Little Labyrinth. It is plain,
from the fragments which Eusebius gives, that it was written in Rome
some little time before the middle of the third century, probably not
far from 230 or 240 a.d. The work is commonly ascribed to Hippolytus,
in favor of which may be urged both the time and the place of its
composition as well as some internal resemblance between it and the
Philosophumena. On the other hand, Photius (Cod. 48) ascribes to Caius
of Rome a work against Artemon, which may well be identical with the
anonymous work quoted in the present Chapter. It is therefore
contended by some (e.g. by Salmon) that Caius was the author of the
work. It must be noted, however, that in the same connection Photius
ascribes another work to Caius which we know to have been written by
Hippolytus, and hence his testimony is rather in favor of Hippolytus
than Caius as the author of the work. On the other hand several
objections have been urged by Salmon against the Hippolytine
authorship, which, while not decisive, yet make it extremely doubtful.
In view of these facts, we must conclude that it is possible, but very
improbable, that Hippolytus wrote the work; that it is not impossible,
though we are quite without evidence for the supposition, that Caius
wrote it; that it is more likely that a work which even to Eusebius
was anonymous, was written by an unknown man, who must remain unknown
to us also. The extant fragments of the work are given, with notes, by
Routh in his Rel. Sac., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. V. p. 601 sq., among the works of Caius. Although the
work is said by Eusebius to have been directed against the heresy of
Artemon, he has preserved only extracts relating to the Theodoti and
their heresy. They are described also by Hippolytus, both in his lost
Syntagma (as we can learn from Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and
Philaster) and in his Philosophumena (VII. 23-24, and X. 19). Other
ancient writers that mention him know only what our anonymous author
or Hippolytus reports. It seems that the older Theodotus, a native of
Byzantium, came to Rome in the time of Eleutherus or Victor, and
taught a species of adoptionism, which reminds us somewhat of the Asia
Minor Alogi, in whose circle he may have been trained. Hippolytus
informs us that he was orthodox in his theology and cosmology, but
that he was heretical in his Christology. He did not deny Christ's
birth from a virgin (as the Ebionites had done), but he did deny his
divinity, teaching that he was a mere man (psilos anthropos), upon
whom the Holy Spirit descended at the time of his baptism, in
consequence of which he became the Christ, received power to fulfill
his special mission and by his righteousness was raised above all
other men. The descent of the Holy Spirit, however, although raising
him to a very exalted position, did not make him divine; some of
Theodotus' followers denying that he ever acquired divinity, others
believing that he acquired it by his resurrection. Theodotus was
excommunicated by Victor on account of his heretical Christology, but
gained a number of followers, and after his excommunication founded a
schismatical sect, which had a bishop Natalius, to whom a regular
salary was paid (see below, §10), and which continued under the
leadership of another Theodotus, a banker, and a certain
Asclepiodotus, both of them disciples of the first Theodotus, during
the episcopate of Zephyrinus, but seems soon to have disappeared, and
to have exerted comparatively little influence during its brief
existence. Theodotus, the banker, appears to have agreed substantially
with the older Theodotus, but to have indulged himself in speculations
concerning Melchizedek, pronouncing him to be a heavenly power still
higher than Christ. Epiphanius makes the second Theodotus the founder
of a second party, and gives his school the name of Melchizedekians,
which appears in later works on heresy, but there is no reason to
suppose that there were two separate parties. A few years later
another attempt was made in Rome to revive the old adoptionist
Christology (essentially the same as that represented by Hermas early
in the second century), by a certain Artemon, against whom the Little
Labyrinth, quoted in this Chapter, was directed. It is common to
connect Artemon and his followers with the Theodotians; but, as
Harnack remarks, it is plain that they did not look upon themselves as
the followers of the Theodoti (see below, note 15). We cannot tell,
however, in what respect their Christology differed from that of the
latter, for we know very little about them. They at any rate agreed
with the Theodotians in denying the divinity of Christ. From the
epistle of the synod of Antioch (quoted below, in Bk. VII. chap. 30)
we learn that Artemon was still living in the year 268, or
thereabouts. He seems, however to have accomplished little in Rome,
and to have dropped into comparative obscurity some time before this;
at least, we hear nothing of him during all these years. In the
controversy with Paul of Samosata he was called the father of the
latter (see below Bk. VII. chap. 30, §16), and thus acquired
considerable celebrity in the East, where his name became permanently
connected with that of Paul as one of the leading heretics. Whether
Paul really learned his Christology from Artemon we do not know, but
that it closely resembled that of the latter there can be no doubt. He
really reproduced the old adoptionist Christology of Hermas (as both
the Theodotians and Artemon had done), but modified it under the
influence partly of Origen's teachings, partly of the Aristotelian
method. For further particulars in regard to the Theodoti and Artemon,
see the remaining notes on this Chapter. For an admirable discussion
of the whole subject, see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 573 sq. On
the Little Labyrinth, see especially the Dict. of Christian Biog. III.
p. 98.
[1736] On Paul of Samosata, see below, Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4.
[1737] The Artemonites were certainly correct in maintaining that the
adoptionism which they held was, at least in its essential principles,
an ancient thing, and their opponents were wrong in trying to deny it.
It is the Christology which Hermas represents, and early in the second
century it was undoubtedly a widespread popular belief. No one thought
of questioning the orthodoxy of Hermas. The Christology of the
Theodotians and of Artemon was an innovation, however, in so far as it
attempted to formulate in scientific terms and to treat
philosophically what had hitherto been only a popular belief. So soon
as the logical conclusions were drawn, and its consequences to the
divinity of the Son were perceived, it began to be felt as heresy, but
not until then.
[1738] On Victor, see above, chap. 22, note 1. Victor is the
thirteenth bishop if Cletus and Anencletus be reckoned as one,
otherwise the fourteenth. This is used by Salmon as an argument
against the Hippolytine authorship of the Little Labyrinth, for
Hippolytus reckoned Cletus and Anencletus as two bishops, and
therefore made Victor the fourteenth (see above, Bk. III. chap. 13,
note 3).
[1739] The dates of Zephyrinus' episcopate are to be gained by
reckoning backward from that of Callistus, which is shown in Bk. VI.
chap. 21, note 3, to have begun in the year 217. A comparison of the
various sources shows that Zephyrinus was bishop eighteen or nineteen
years, which brings us back to the year 198 or 199 as the date of his
accession. Eusebius says "about the ninth year of the reign of
Severus," which according to the correct reckoning would be the year
201, but according to his erroneous reckoning of the dates of the
emperors' reigns (see the note already referred to) gives the year
200, so that the agreement is reasonably close (see Lipsius' Chron.
der röm. Bischöfe, p. 172 sq., and see above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note
1). In Bk. IX. of his great work Hippolytus gives quite an account of
Zephyrinus and his successor, Callistus. The former is described as
ignorant and illiterate, a taker of bribes, an uninformed and
shamefully corrupt man, &c. How much of this is true and how much is
due to prejudice, we cannot tell. But it seems at least to be a fact
that Zephyrinus was completely under the influence of Callistus, as
Hippolytus states. We learn from the latter that Zephyrinus at least
countenanced the heresy of Patripassianism (at the opposite extreme
from that of the Theodotians and Artemon), if he did not directly
teach it.
[1740] On Justin Martyr, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 20.
[1741] On Miltiades, see above, chap. 17, note 1.
[1742] On Tatian, see Bk. III. chap. 29. The fact that Tatian is here
spoken of with respect is urged by Salmon as an argument against the
Hippolytine authorship of this work, for Hippolytus devotes two
Chapters of his Philosophumena (VIII. 9, X. 14) to the heresy of
Tatian.
[1743] On Clement of Alexandria, see above, chap. 11, note 1.
[1744] theologeitai ho christos. Our author is quite correct in making
this statement. The apologists are agreed in their acceptance of the
Logos Christology of which they are the earliest patristic exponents,
and in the time of Clement of Alexandria it had become, as yet in an
undeveloped form, the commonly accepted doctrine of the orthodox
Church.
[1745] On Irenĉus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
[1746] On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.
[1747] Irenĉus' utterances on this subject were epoch-making in the
history of doctrine. No one before him had emphasized so energetically
and brought out so clearly the God-manhood of Christ. His great
significance in Christology is the emphasis which he laid upon the
unity of God and man in Christ,--a unity in which the integrity both
of the divine and of the human was preserved. Our author is also
doubtless correct in saying that Melito called Christ God and man. If
the two fragments from the Discourse on the Soul and Body, and from
the Discourse on the Cross (printed from the Syriac by Cureton, in his
Spic. Syr. p. 52 sq.), be genuine, as is quite probable (see above,
Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1), we have clear indications that Melito
taught both the humanity and the deity of Christ ("when He was become
incarnate through the womb of the Virgin, and was born man." "Inasmuch
as He was man, He needed food; still, inasmuch as He was God, He
ceased not to feed the universe").
[1748] This passage is sometimes interpreted as indicating that hymns
written by the Christians themselves were sung in the church of Rome
at this time. But this is by no means implied. So far as we are able
to gather from our sources, nothing, except the Psalms and New
Testament hymns (such as the "Gloria in Excelsis," the "Magnificat,"
the "Nunc Dimittis," &c.), was as a rule, sung in public worship
before the fourth century (the practice which had sprung up in the
church of Antioch seems to have been exceptional; see Kraus, p. 673).
Before the end of that century, however, the practice of singing other
hymns in the service of the Church had become common, both in the East
and West. On the other hand, the private use of hymns among the
Christians began very early. We need refer here only to Pliny's
epistle to Trajan (translated above, in Bk. III. chap. 33, note 1);
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VII. 7; Tertullian, ad Uxor. II. 8;
Origen, Contra Cels. VIII. 67; the epistle of Dionysius quoted below,
in Bk. VII. chap. 24, &c. Compare the article Hymnen in Kraus'
Real-Encyclopädie der Christl. Alterthümer, and the article Hymns in
Smith and Cheetham's Dict. of Christ. Antiquities.
[1749] ton skutea: "cobbler," or "worker in leather." On Theodotus,
see above, note 1. As Harnack remarks, the Artemonites must have known
that Victor had excommunicated Theodotus, and therefore, if they
regarded themselves as his followers, it would have been impossible to
claim that all the Roman bishops, including Victor, held their
opinions. When to this is added the apparent effort of our author to
identify the Artemonites with the Theodotians, it becomes clear that
they must themselves have denied their connection with them, though in
what points they differed with them, we do not know (see above, note
1; and cf. Harnack's Dogmengesch. I. p. 583).
[1750] See above, note 5.
[1751] Of Natalius, we know only what is told us in this passage. The
suggestion of Valesius that he might be identified with Cĉcilius
Natalis, the heathen who is represented as converted by Octavius, in
the Octavius of Minucius Felix, is quite baseless.
[1752] 'Asklepiodotou, according to all the mss. except one, which
reads 'AsklepiEURdou, and with which Nicephorus and Theodoret agree.
He is undoubtedly the same man that is referred to in §17, below,
where all the mss. unite in reading 'AsklepiEURdou. Of this man we
know only what is told us in this Chapter. Theodoret (Hĉr. Fab. II. 5)
mentions him, but adds nothing new, while Hippolytus in his
Philosophumena, and apparently in his lost Syntagma, passes him by
without notice.
[1753] On this second Theodotus, a money-changer or banker
(trapezites,) who is distinguished from the first Theodotus by both
our sources (Hippolytus and the Little Labyrinth quoted here), see
above, note 1.
[1754] The Greek contains a play of words at this point: epi taute te
phronesei, mallon de aphrosune.
[1755] This is the earliest instance we have of a salaried clergyman.
The practice of paying salaries was followed also by the Montanists,
and brought great reproach upon them (see above, chap. 18, note 8). A
Roman denarius was equal to about seventeen cents, so that Natalius'
monthly salary was a little over twenty-five dollars.
[1756] It is not necessary to doubt the truth of this report, if we
substitute "muscular Christians" for "holy angels." As Stroth dryly
remarks: "Eben kein löblich Geschäft für die heiligen Engel; es werden
aber ohne zweifel Engel mit guten starken Knochen und Nerven gewesen
sein."
[1757] The information which is given us here in regard to the methods
of the Theodotians is very interesting. What is said in regard to
their philosophical principles makes it evident that they used the
grammatical and critical mode of exegesis as opposed to the prevalent
allegorical mode. Nothing could seem more irreverent and irreligious
to the Church of that age than such a method of interpretation, the
method which we now recognize as the only true one. They were,
moreover, textual critics. They may have been rash in their methods,
but it is not necessary to suppose them dishonest in their purposes.
They seem to have looked upon the Scriptures as inspired as truly as
their opponents did, but they believed that radical criticism was
needed if the true reading of the originals was to be reached, while
their opponents were shocked at anything of the kind. That textual
criticism was necessary, even at that early day, is clear enough from
the words of Irenĉus (quoted in chap. 20, above), and from the words
of Dionysius (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 23), as well as from many other
sources. Finally, these men seem to have offended their opponents by
the use of dialectical methods in their treatment of theology. This is
very significant at that early date. It is indeed the earliest
instance known to us of that method which seemed entirely irreligious
to the author of the Little Labyrinth, but which less than a century
later prevailed in the Antiochian school, and for a large part of the
Middle Ages ruled the whole Church.
[1758] The author makes a play here upon the word earth, which cannot
be reproduced in a translation. geometrian (literally,
"earth-measure") epitedeuousin, hosan ek tes ges ontes kai ek tes ges
lalountes
[1759] 'Eukleides...geometreitai: literally, Euclid is geometrized.
[1760] All the mss. read 'AsklepiEURdou, which is adopted by most of
the editors. Rufinus and Nicephorus, however, followed by a few
editors, among them Heinichen, read 'Asklepiodotou (see above, note
18).
[1761] katorthomena, toutestin ephanismena
[1762] Of this Hermophilus we know nothing more.
[1763] 'Apollonidou, which is the reading of one ancient ms., of
Rufinus, Theodoret, and Nicephorus, and which is adopted by Stroth,
Burton, Heinichen, and Closs. The majority of the mss. read
'Apolloniou, while a few read 'ApolloniEURdou
[1764] These persons can hardly have rejected the Law and the Prophets
utterly,--at least, no hint is given us that they maintained a
fundamental difference between the God of the Old and the God of the
New Testament, as Marcion did,--nor would such wholesale rejection be
natural for critics such as they were. It is more likely that they
simply, as many of the Gnostics did, emphasized the merely relative
authority of the Old Testament, and that they applied historical
criticism to it, distinguishing between its various parts in the
matter of authority. Such action is just what we should expect from
members of a critical school like that of Theodotus, and such
criticism in its extremest form would naturally seem to an orthodox
Catholic the same as throwing over the whole book. Cf. Harnack,
Dogmengeschicte, p. 579 and p. 488 sqq.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/earlychv.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE1@mb-soft.com
The main BELIEVE web-page (and index to subjects) is at:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/