PROLEGOMENA.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF
EUSEBIUS OF C'SAREA.
CHAPTER I.
THE LIFE OF EUSEBIUS.
§ 1. Sources and Literature.
Accents, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in the
bishopric of C'sarea, wrote a life of the latter (Socr. H. E. II. 4)
which is unfortunately lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E.
III. 2, IV. 23) and had exceptional opportunities for producing a full
and accurate account of Eusebius' life; the disappearance of his work
is therefore deeply to be regretted.
Numerous notices of Eusebius are found in the works
of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, Jerome, and other writers
of his own and subsequent ages, to many of which references will be
made in the following pages. A collection of these notices, made by
Valesius, is found in English translation on p. 57 sq. of this volume.
The chief source for a knowledge of Eusebius' life and character is to
be found in his own works. These will be discussed below, on p. 26 sq.
Of the numerous modern works which treat at greater or less length of
the life of Eusebius I shall mention here only those which I have found
most valuable.
VALESIUS: De vita scriptisque Eusebii Diatribe (in
his edition of Eusebius' Histaria Eccles.; English version in Cruse's
translation of the same work). CAVE: Lives of the Fathers, II. 95-144
(ed. H. Cary, Oxf. 1840).
TILLEMONT: Hist. Eccles. VII. pp. 39-75 (compare also his account of
the Arians in vol, VI.). STROTH: Leben and Schriften des Eusebius (in
his German translation of the Hist. Eccles.). CLOSS: Leben and
Schriflen des Eusebius (in his translation of the same work).
DANZ: De Eusebio C'sariensi, Historion of the sam'
Eccles. Scriptore, ejusque fide historica recte rians in vol, VI.).and
most val'stimanda, Cap. II.: de rebus ad Eusebii vitam pertinentibus
(pp. 33-75).
STEIN: Eusebius Bischof von C'sarea. Nach seinem
Leben, seinen Schriften, and seinem dogmatischen Charakter dargestellt
(Wurzburg, 1859; full and valuable). BRIGHT, in the introduction to his
edition of Burton's text of the Hist. Eccles. (excellent).
LIGHTFOOT (Bishop of Durham): Eusebius of Cesarea,
in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. II. pp.
308-348. Lightfoot's article is a magnificent monument of patristic
scholarship and contains the best and most exhaustive treatment of the
life and writings of Eusebius that has been written.
The student may be referred finally to all the
larger histories of the Church (e.g. Schaff, vol. III. 871 sqq. and
1034 sq.), which contain more or less extended accounts of Eusebius.
§ 2. Eusebius' Birth and Training. His Life in Ca'sarea until the
Outbreak of the Persecution.
Our author was commonly known among the ancients as
Eusebius of C'sarea or Eusebius Pamphili. The former designation arose
from the fact that he was bishop of the church in C'sarea for many
years; the latter from the fact that he was the intimate friend and
devoted admirer of Pamphilus, a presbyter of C'sarea and a martyr. Some
such specific appellation was
4
necessary to distinguish him from others of the same name. Smith and
Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography mentions 137 men of the first
eight centuries who bore the name Eusebius, and of these at least forty
were contemporaries of our author. The best known among them were
Eusebius of Nicomedia (called by Arius the brother of Eusebius of
C'sarea), Eusebius of Emesa, and Eusebius of Samosata.
The exact date of our author's birth is unknown to
us, but his Ecclesiastical History contains notices which enable us to
fix it approximately. In H. E. V. 28 he reports that Paul of Samosata
attempted to revive again in his day (<greek>kaq</greek>
<greek>hmas</greek>) the heresy of Artemon. But Paul
of Samosata was deposed from the episcopate of Antioch in 272, and was
condemned as a heretic at least as early as 268, so that Eusebius must
have been born before the latter date, if his words are to be strictly
interpreted. Again, according to H. E. III. 28, Dionysius was bishop of
Alexandria in Eusebius' time (<greek>kaq</greek>
<greek>hmas</greek>). But Dionysius was bishop from 247 or
248 to 265, and therefore if Eusebius' words are to be interpreted
strictly here as in the former case, he must have been born before 265.
On the other hand, inasmuch as his death occurred about 340, we cannot
throw his birth much earlier than 260. It is true that the references
to Paul and to Dionysius do not prove conclusively that Eusebius was
alive in their day, for his words may have been used in a loose sense.
But in H. E. VII. 26, just before proceeding to give an account of Paul
of Samosata, he draws the line between his own and the preceding
generation, declaring that he is now about to relate the events of his
own age (<greek>thn</greek> <greek>kaq</greek>
<greek>hmas</greek>). This still further confirms the other
indications, and we shall consequently be safe in concluding that
Eusebius was born not far from the year 260 A.D. His birthplace cannot
be determined with certainty. The fact that he is called "Eusebius the
Palestinian" by Marcellus (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), Bash (Lib.
ad. Amphil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 29), and others, does not prove that he
was a Palestinian by birth; for the epithet may be used to indicate
merely his place of residence (he was bishop of C'sarea in Palestine
for many years). Moreover, the argument urged by Stein and Lightfoot in
support of his Palestinian birth, namely, that it was customary to
elect to the episcopate of any church a native of the city in
preference to a native of some other place, does not count for much.
All that seems to have been demanded was that a man should have been
already a member of the particular church over which he was to be made
bishop, and even this rule was not universal (see Bingham's
Antiquities, II 10, 2 and 3). The fact that he was bishop of C'sarea
therefore would at most warrant us in concluding only that he had made
his residence in C'sarea for some time previous to his election to that
office. Nevertheless, although neither of these arguments proves his
Palestinian birth, it is very probable that he was a native of that
country, or at least of that section. He was acquainted with Syriac as
well as with Greek, which circumstance taken in connection with his
ignorance of Latin (see below, p. 47) points to the region of Syria as
his birthplace. Moreover, we learn from his own testimony that he was
in C'sarea while still a youth (Vita Canstantini, I. 19), and in his
epistle to the church of C'sarea (see below, p. 16) he says that he was
taught the creed of the C'sarean church in his childhood (or at least
at the beginning of his Christian life: <greek>en</greek>
<greek>th</greek> <greek>kathkhsei</greek>),
and that he accepted it at baptism. It would seem therefore that he
must have lived while still a child either in C'sarea itself, or in the
neighborhood, where its creed was in use. Although no one therefore
(except Theodorus Metochita of the fourteenth century, in his Cap.
Miscell. 17; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLTV. 949) directly states that
Eusebius was a Palestinian by birth, we have every reason to suppose
him such. His parents are entirely unknown. Nicephorus Callistus (H. E.
VI. 37) reports that his mother was a sister of Pamphilus. He does not
mention his authority for this statement, and it is extremely unlikely,
in the face of the silence of Eusebius himself and of all other
writers, that it is true. It is far more probable that the relationship
was later assumed to account for the close intimacy of the two men.
Arius, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (contained in
Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 5), calls Eusebius of C'sarea the latter's
brother. It is objected to this that Eusebius of Nicomedia refers to
Eusebius of C'sarea on one occasion as his
5
"master" (<greek>tou</greek>
<greek>despotou</greek>, in his epistle to Paulinus
contained in Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 6), and that on the other
hand Eusebius of C'sarea calls Eusebius of Nicomedia, "the great
Eusebius" (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), both of which expressions
seem inconsistent with brotherhood. Lightfoot justly remarks that
neither the argument itself nor the objections carry much weight. The
term <greek>adelFos</greek> may well have been used to
indicate merely theological or ecclesiastical association, while on the
other hand, brotherhood would not exclude the form of expression
employed by each in speaking of the other. Of more weight is the fact
that neither Eusebius himself nor any historian of that period refers
to such a relationship, and also the unlikelihood that two members of
one family should bear the same name.
From Eusebius' works we gather that he must have
received an extensive education both in secular philosophy and in
Biblical and theological science. Although his immense erudition was
doubtless the result of wide and varied reading continued throughout
life, it is highly probable that he acquired the taste for such reading
in his youth. Who his early instructors were we do not know, and
therefore cannot estimate the degree of their influence over him. As he
was a man, however, who cherished deep admiration for those whom he
regarded as great and good men, and as he possessed an unusually
acquisitive mind and a pliant disposition, we should naturally suppose
that his instructors must have possessed considerable influence over
him, and that his methods of study in later years must have been
largely molded by their example and precept. We see this exemplified in
a remarkable degree in the influence exerted over him by Pamphilus, his
dearest friend, and at the same time the preceptor, as it were, of his
early manhood. Certainly this great bibliopholist must have done much
to strengthen Eusebius' natural taste for omnivorous reading, and the
opportunities afforded by his grand library for the cultivation of such
a taste were not lost. To the influence of Pamphilus, the devoted
admirer and enthusiastic champion of Origen, was doubtless due also in
large measure the deep respect which Eusebius showed for that
illustrious Father, a respect to which we owe one of the most
delightful sections of his Church History, his long account of Origen
in the sixth book, and to which in part antiquity was indebted for the
elaborate Defense of Origen, composed by Pamphilus and himself, but
unfortunately no longer extant. Eusebius certainly owed much to the
companionship of that eager student and noble Christian hero, and he
always recognized with deep gratitude his indebtedness to him. (Compare
the account of Pamphilus given below in Bk. VII. chap. 32, § 25
sq.) The names of his earlier instructors, who were eminently
successful, at least in fostering his thirst for knowledge, are quite
unknown to us. His abiding admiration for Plato, whom he always placed
at the head of all philosophers (see Stein, p. 6), would lead us to
think that he received at least a part of his secular training from
some ardent Platonist, while his intense interest in apologetics, which
lasted throughout his life, and which affected all his works, seems to
indicate the peculiar bent of his early Christian education. Trithemius
concluded from a passage in his History (VII. 32) that Eusebius was a
pupil of the learned Dorotheus of Antioch, and Valesius, Lightfoot and
others are apparently inclined to accept his conclusion. But, as Stroth
remarks (Eusebii Kirchengeschichte, p. xix), all that Eusebius says is
that he had heard Dorotheus expound the Scriptures in the church
(<greek>toutou</greek> <greek>metriws</greek>
<greek>tas</greek> <greek>UraFas</greek>
<greek>eps</greek> <greek>epi</greek>
<greek>ths</greek> <greek>ekklhsias</greek>
<greek>dihUoumenou</greek>
<greek>kathkousamen</greek>), that is, that he had heard
him preach. To conclude from this statement that he was a pupil of
Dorotheus is certainly quite unwarranted.
Stroth's suggestion that he probably enjoyed the
instruction of Meletius for seven years during the persecution rests
upon no good ground, for the passage which he relies upon to sustain
his opinion (E. E. VII. 32. 28) says only that Eusebius "observed
Meletius well" (<greek>katenohsamen</greek>) during those
seven years.
In C'sarea Eusebius was at one time a presbyter of
the church, as we may gather from his words in the epistle to that
church already referred to, where, in speaking of the creed, he says,
"As we believed and taught in the presbytery and in the episcopate
itself." But the attempt to fix the date of his ordination to that
office is quite vain. It is commonly assumed that he
6
became presbyter while Agapius was bishop of C'sarea, and this is not
unlikely, though we possess no proof of it (upon Agapius see below, H.
E. VII. 32, note 39). In his Vita Constantini, I. 19, Eusebius reports
that he saw Constantine for the first time in C'sarea in the train of
the Emperor Diocletian. In his Chron. Eusebius reports that Diocletian
made an expedition against Egypt, which had risen in rebellion in the
year 296 A.D., and Theophanes, in his Chron., says that Constantine
accompanied him. It is probable therefore that it was at this time that
Eusebius first saw Constantine in C'sarea, when he was either on his
way to Egypt, or on his way back (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp., IV.
p. 34).
During these years of quiet, before the great
persecution of Diocletian, which broke out in 303 A.D., Eusebius' life
must have been a very pleasant one. Pamphilus' house seems to have been
a sort of rendezvous for Christian scholars, perhaps a regular divinity
school; for we learn from Eusebius' Martyrs in Palestine (Cureton's
edition, pp. 13 and 14) that he and a number of others, including the
martyr Apphianus, were living together in one house at the time of the
persecution, and that the latter was instructed in the Scriptures by
Pamphilus and acquired from him virtuous habits and conduct. The great
library of Pamphilus would make his house a natural center for
theological study, and the immense amount of work which was done by
him, or under his direction, in the reproduction of copies of the Holy
Scriptures, of Origen's works (see Jerome's de vir. ill. 75 and 8r, and
contra Ruf. I. 9), and in other literary employments of the same kind,
makes it probable that he had gathered about him a large circle of
friends and students who assisted him in his labors and profited by his
counsel and instruction. Amidst these associations Eusebius passed his
early manhood, and the intellectual stimulus thus given him doubtless
had much to do with his future career. He was above all a literary man,
and remained such to the end of his life. The pleasant companionships
of these days, and the mutual interest and sympathy which must have
bound those fellow-students and fellow-disciples of Pamphilus very
close together, perhaps had much to do with that broad-minded spirit of
sympathy and tolerance which so characterized Eusebius in later years.
He was always as far as possible from the character of a recluse. He
seems ever to have been bound by very strong ties to the world itself
and to his fellow-men. Had his earlier days been filled with trials and
hardships, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes and unfulfilled
ambitions, with harsh experiences of others' selfishness and treachery,
who shall say that the whole course of his life might not have been
changed, and his writings have exhibited au entirely different spirit
from that which is now one of their greatest charms? Certainly he had
during these early years in C'sarea large opportunities for cultivating
that natural trait of admiration for other men, which was often so
strong as to blind him even to their faults, and that natural kindness
which led him to see good wherever it existed in his Christian
brethren. At the same time these associations must have had
considerable influence in fostering the apologetic temper. The pursuits
of the little circle were apparently exclusively Christian, and in that
day when Christianity stood always on its defense, it would naturally
become to them a sacred duty to contribute to that defense and to
employ all their energies in the task. It has been remarked that the
apologetic temper is very noticeable in Eusebius' writings. It is more
than that; we may say indeed in general terms that everything he wrote
was an apology for the faith. His History was written avowedly with an
apologetic purpose, his Chronicle was composed with the same end in
view. Even when pronouncing a eulogy upon a deceased emperor he seized
ever), possible opportunity to draw from that emperor's career, and
from the circumstances of his reign, arguments for the truth and
grandeur of the Christian religion. His natural temper of mind and his
early training may have had much to do with this habit of thought, but
certainly those years with Pamphilus and his friends in C'sarea must
have emphasized and developed it.
Another characteristic which Pamphilus and the
circle that surrounded him doubtless did something to develop in our
author was a certain superiority to the trammels of mere
traditionalism, or we might perhaps better say that they in some
measure checked the opposite tendency of
7
slavishness to the traditional which seems to have been natural to him.
Pamphilus' deep reverence for Origen proclaims him at once superior to
that kind of narrow conservatism which led many men as learned and
doubtless as conscientious as himself to pass severe and unconditional
condemnation upon Origen and all his teaching. The effect of
championing his cause must have fostered in this little circle, which
was a very hotbed of Origenism, a contempt for the narrow and unfair
judgments of mere traditionalists, and must have led them to seek in
some degree the truth solely for its own sake, and to become in a
measure careless of its relation to the views of any school or church.
It could hardly be otherwise than that the free and fearless spirit of
Origen should leave its impress through his writings upon a circle of
followers so devoted to him as were these C'sarean students. Upon the
impressionable Eusebius these influences necessarily operated. And yet
he brought to them no keen speculative powers, no deep originality such
as Origen himself possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a
productive mind, and hence it was out of the question that he should
become a second Origen. It was quite certain that Origen's influence
over him would weaken somewhat his confidence in the traditional as
such,-a confidence which is naturally great in such minds as his,-- but
at the same time would do little to lessen the real power of the past
over him. He continued to get his truth from others, from the great men
of the past with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he had
feasted. All that he believed he had drawn from them; he produced
nothing new for himself, and his creed was a traditional creed. And yet
he had at the same time imbibed from his surroundings the habit of
questioning and even criticising the past, and, in spite of his abiding
respect for it, had learned to feel that the voice of the many is not
always the voice of truth, and that the widely and anciently accepted
is sometimes to be corrected by the clearer sight of a single man.
Though he therefore depended for all he believed so completely upon the
past, his associations had helped to free him from a slavish adherence
to all that a particular school had accepted, and had made him in some
small measure an eclectic in his relations to doctrines and opinions of
earlier generations. A notable instance of this eclecticism on his part
is seen in his treatment of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force
of an almost universal tradition in favor of its apostolic origin, and
yet in the face of that he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius, and
could be led by his example, in a case where his own dissatisfaction
with the book acted as an incentive, almost, if not quite, to reject it
and to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a similar mode of
conduct on his part are quite numerous. While he is always a staunch
apologist for Christianity, he seldom, if ever, degenerates into a mere
partisan of any particular school or sect.
One thing in fact which is particularly noticeable
in Eusebius' works is the comparatively small amount of time and space
which he devotes to heretics. With his wide and varied learning and his
extensive acquaintance with the past, he had opportunities for
successful heresy hunting such as few possessed, and yet he never was a
heresy hunter in any sense. This is surprising when we remember what a
fascination this employment had for so many scholars of his own age,
and when we realize that his historical tastes and talents would seem
to mark him out as just the man for that kind of work. May it not be
that the lofty spirit of Origen, animating that C'sarean school, had
something to do with the happy fact that he became an apologist instead
of a mere polemic, that he chose the honorable task of writing a
history of the Church. instead of anticipating Epiphanius' Panarium?
It was not that he was not alive to the evils of
heresy. He shared with nearly all good church-men of his age an intense
aversion for those who, as he believed, had corrupted the true Gospel
of Christ. Like them he ascribed heresy to the agency of the evil one,
and was no more able than they to see any good in a man whom he looked
upon as a real heretic, or to do justice in any degree to the error
which he taught. His condemnations of heretics in his Church History
are most severe. Language is hardly strong enough to express his
aversion for them. And yet, although he is thus most thoroughly the
child of his age, the difference between him and most of his
contemporaries is very apparent. He mentions these heretics only to
dismiss them with dis-
8
approval or condemnation. He seldom, if ever, discusses and refutes
their views. His interests lie evidently in other directions; he is
concerned with higher things. A still more strongly marked difference
between himself and many churchmen of his age lies in his large
liberality towards those of his own day who differed with him in minor
points of faith, and his comparative indifference to the divergence of
views between the various parties in the Church. In all this we believe
is to be seen not simply the inherent nature of the man, but that
nature as trained in the school of Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen.
§ 3. The Persecution of Diocletian.
In this delightful circle and engaged in such
congenial tasks, the time must have passed very happily for Eusebius,
until, in 303, the terrible persecution of Diocletian broke upon the
Church almost like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. The causes of the
sudden change of policy on Diocletian's part, and the terrible havoc
wrought in the Church, it is not my intention to discuss here (see
below, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3 sq.). We are concerned with the
persecution only in so far as it bears upon the present subject. In the
first year of the persecution Procopius, the first martyr of Palestine,
was put to death at C'sarea (Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton's
ed. p. 4), and from that time on that city, which was an important
Christian center, was the scene of a tempest which raged with greater
or less violence, and with occasional cessations, for seven years.
Eusebius himself was an eyewitness of many martyrdoms there, of which
he gives us an account in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle
which surrounded Pamphilus did not escape. In the third year of the
persecution (Mart. of Pal. p. 12 sq.) a youth named Apphianus, or
Epiphanius (the former is given in the Greek text, the latter in the
Syriac), who "resided in the same house with us, confirming himself in
godly doctrine, and being instructed by that perfect martyr, Pamphilus"
(as Eusebius says), committed an act of fanatical daring which caused
his arrest and martyrdom. It seems that without the knowledge of his
friends, concealing his design even from those who dwelt in the same
house with him, he laid hold of the hand of the governor, Arbanus, who
was upon the point of sacrificing, and endeavored to dissuade him from
offering to "lifeless idols and wicked devils." His arrest was of
course the natural consequence, and he had the glory of witnessing a
good profession and suffering a triumphant death. Although Eusebius
speaks with such admiration of his conduct, it is quite significant of
the attitude of himself, and of most of the circle of which he was one,
that Apphianus felt obliged to conceal his purpose from them. He
doubtless feared that they would not permit him to perform the rash act
which he meditated, and we may conclude from that, that the circle in
the main was governed by the precepts of good common sense, and avoided
that fanaticism which so frequently led men, as in the present case it
led Apphianus, to expose themselves needlessly, and even to court
martyrdom. It is plain enough from what we know of Eusebius' general
character that he himself was too sensible to act in that way. It is
true that he speaks with admiration of Apphianus' conduct, and in H. E.
VIII. 5, of the equally rash procedure of a Nicomedian Christian; but
that does not imply that he considered their course the wisest one, and
that he would not rather recommend the employment of all proper and
honorable precautions for the preservation of life. Indeed, in H. E.
IV. 15, he speaks with evident approval of the prudent course pursued
by Polycarp in preserving his life so long as he could without
violating his Christian profession, and with manifest disapproval of
the rash act of the Phrygian Quintus, who presumptuously courted
martyrdom, only to fail when the test itself came. Pamphilus also
possessed too much sound Christian sense to advocate any such
fanaticism, or to practice it himself, as is plain enough from the fact
that he was not arrested until the fifth year of the persecution. This
unhealthy temper of mind in the midst of persecution was indeed almost
universally condemned by the wisest men of the Church, and yet the
boldness and the very rashness of those who thus voluntarily and
needlessly threw their lives away excited widespread admiration and too
often a degree
9
of commendation which served only to promote a wider growth of the same
unhealthy sentiment.
In the fifth year of the persecution Pamphilus was
arrested and thrown into prison, where he remained for two years, when
he finally, in the seventh year of the persecution, suffered martyrdom
with eleven others, some of whom were his disciples and members of his
own household. (Pal. Mart. Cureton's ed. p. 36 sq.; H. E. App. chap.
11.) During the two years of Pamphilus' imprisonment Eusebius spent a
great deal of time with him, and the two together composed five books
of an Apology for Origen, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth
(see below, p. 36). Danz (p. 37) assumes that Eusebius was imprisoned
with Pamphilus, which is not an unnatural supposition when we consider
how much they must have been together to compose the Apology as they
did. There is, however, no other evidence that he was thus imprisoned,
and in the face of Eusebius' own silence it is safer perhaps to assume
(with most historians) that he simply visited Pamphilus in his prison.
How it happened that Pamphilus and so many of his followers were
imprisoned and martyred, while Eusebius escaped, we cannot tell. In his
Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11, he states that Pamphilus was the only
one of the company of twelve martyrs that was a presbyter of the
C'sarean church; and from the fact that he nowhere mentions the
martyrdom of others of the presbyters, we may conclude that they all
escaped. It is not surprising, therefore, that Eusebius should have
done the same. Nevertheless, it is somewhat difficult to understand how
he could come and go so frequently without being arrested and condemned
to a like fate with the others. It is possible that he possessed
friends among the authorities whose influence procured his safety. This
supposition finds some support in the fact that he had made the
acquaintance of Constantine (the Greek in Vita Const. I. 19 has
<greek>egnwmen</greek>, which implies, as Danz remarks,
that he not only saw, but that he became acquainted with Constantine)
some years before in C'sarea. He could hardly have made his
acquaintance unless he had some friend among the high officials of the
city. Influential family connections may account in part also for the
position of prominence which he later acquired at the imperial court of
Constantine. If he had friends in authority in C'sarea during the
persecution his exemption from arrest is satisfactorily accounted for.
It has been supposed by some that Eusebius denied the faith during the
terrible persecution, or that he committed some other questionable and
compromising act of concession, and thus escaped martyrdom. In support
of this is urged the fact that in 335, at the council of Tyre, Potamo,
bishop of Heraclea, in Egypt, addressed Eusebius in the following
words: "Dost thou sit as judge, O Eusebius; and is Athanasius, innocent
as he is, judged by thee? Who can bear such things? Pray tell me, wast
thou not with me in prison during the persecution? And I lost an eye in
behalf of the truth, but thou appearest to have received no bodily
injury, neither hast thou suffered martyrdom, but thou hast remained
alive with no mutilation. How wast thou released from prison unless
thou didst promise those that put upon us the pressure of persecution
to do that which is unlawful, or didst actually do it?" Eusebius, it
seems, did not deny the charge, but simply rose in anger and dismissed
the council with the words, "If ye come hither and make such
accusations against us, then do your accusers speak the truth. For if
ye tyrannize here, much more do ye in your own country" (Epiphan. Har.
LXVIII. 8). It must be noticed, however, that Potamo does not directly
charge Eusebius with dishonorable conduct, he simply conjectures that
he must have acted dishonorably in order to escape punishment; as if
every one who was imprisoned with Potamo must have suffered as he did!
As Stroth suggests, it is quite possible that his peculiarly excitable
and violent temperament was one of the causes of his own loss. He
evidently in any case had no knowledge of unworthy conduct on Eusebius'
part, nor had any one else so far as we can judge. For in that age of
bitter controversy, when men's characters were drawn by their opponents
in the blackest lines, Eusebius must have suffered at the hands of the
Athanasian party if it had been known that he had acted a cowardly part
in the persecution. Athanasius himself refers to this incident (Contra
Arian. VIII. 1), but he only says that Eusebius was "accused of
sacrificing," he does
10
not venture to affirm that he did sacrifice; and thus it is evident
that he knew nothing of such an act. Moreover, he never calls Eusebius
"the sacrificer," as he does Asterius, and as he would have been sure
to do had he possessed evidence which warranted him in making the
accusation (cf. Lightfoot, p. 311). Still further, Eusebius' subsequent
election to the episcopate of C'sarea, where his character and his
conduct during the persecution must have been well known, and his
appointment in later life to the important see of Antioch, forbid the
supposition that he had ever acted a cowardly part in time of
persecution. And finally, it is psychologically impossible that
Eusebius could have written works so full of comfort for, and sympathy
with, the suffering confessors, and could have spoken so openly and in
such strong terms of condemnation of the numerous defections that
occurred during the persecution, if he. was conscious of his own guilt.
It is quite possible, as remarked above, that influential friends.
protected him without any act of compromise on his part; or, supposing
him to have been imprisoned with Potamo, it may be, as Lightfoot
suggests, that the close of the persecution brought him his release as
it did so many others. For it would seem natural to refer that
imprisonment to the latter part of the persecution, when in all
probability he visited Egypt, which was the home of Potamo. We must in
any case vindicate Eusebius from the unfounded charge of cowardice and
apostasy; and we ask, with Cave, "If every accusation against any man
at any time were to be believed, who would be guiltless?"
From his History and his Martyrs in Palestine we
learn that Eusebius was for much of the time in the very thick of the
fight, and was an eyewitness of numerous martyrdoms not only in
Palestine, but also in Tyre and in Egypt.
The date of his visits to the latter places (H. E.
VIII. 7, 9) cannot be determined with exactness. They are described in
connection with what seem to be the earlier events of the persecution,
and yet it is by no means certain that chronological order has been
observed in the narratives. The mutilation of prisoners--such as Potamo
suffered--seems to have become common only in the year 308 and
thereafter (see Mason's Persecution of Diocletian, p. 281), and hence
if Eusebius was imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, as
seems most probable, there would be some reason for assigning that
visit to the later years of the persecution. In confirmation of this
might be urged the improbability that he would leave C'sarea while
Pamphilus was still alive, either before or after the latter's
imprisonment, and still further his own statement in H. E. VII. 32,
that he had observed Meletius escaping the fury of the persecution for
seven years in Palestine. It is therefore likely that Eusebius did not
make his journey to Egypt, which must have occupied some time, until
toward the very end of the persecution, when it raged there with
exceeding fierceness during the brief outburst of the infamous Maximin.
§ 4.
Eusebius' Accession to the Bishopric of C'sarea.
Not long after the close of the persecution,
Eusebius became bishop of C'sarea in Palestine, his own home, and held
the position until his death. The exact date of his accession cannot be
ascertained, indeed we cannot say that it did not take place even
before the close of the persecution, but that is hardly probable; in
fact, we know of no historian who places it earlier than 313. His
immediate predecessor in the episcopate was Agapius, whom he mentions
in terms of praise in H. E. VII. 32. Some writers have interpolated a
bishop Agricolaus between Agopins and Eusebius (see e.g. Tillemont,
Hist. Ecceles. VII. 42), on the ground that his name appears in one of
the lists of those present at the Council of Ancyra (c. 314), as bishop
of C'sarea in Palestine (see Labbei el Cossartii Conc. I. 1475). But,
as Hefele shows (Conciliengesch. I. 220), this list is of late date and
not to be relied upon. On the other hand, as Lightfoot points out, in
the Zibellus Synadicus (Conc. I. 1480), where Agricolaus is said to
have been present at the Council of Ancyra, he is called bishop of
C'sarea in Cappadocia; and this statement is confirmed by a Syriac list
given in Cowper's Miscellanies, p. 41. Though perhaps no great reliance
is to be
11
placed upon the correctness of any of these lists, the last two may at
any rate be set over against the first, and we may conclude that there
exists no ground for assuming that Agapius, who is the last C'sarean
bishop mentioned by Eusebius, was not the latter's immediate
predecessor. At what time Agapius died we do not know. That he suffered
martyrdom is hardly likely, in view of Eusebius' silence on the
subject. It would seem more likely that he outlived the persecution.
However that may be, Eusebius was already bishop at the time of the
dedication of a new and elegant Church at Tyre under the direction of
his friend Paulinus, bishop of that city. Upon this occasion he
delivered an address of considerable length, which he has inserted in
his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. X. chap. 4. He does not name himself as
its author, but the way in which he introduces it, and the very fact
that he records the whole speech without giving the name of the man who
delivered it, make its origin perfectly plain. Moreover, the last
sentence of the preceding chapter makes it evident that the speaker was
a bishop: "Every one of the rulers
(<greek>arkontwn</greek>) present delivered panegyric
discourses." The date of the dedication of this church is a matter of
dispute, though it is commonly put in the year 315. It is plain from
Eusebius' speech that it was uttered before Licinius had begun to
persecute the Christians, and also, as G"rres remarks, at a lime when
Constantine and Licinius were at least outwardly at peace with each
other. In the year 314 the two emperors went to war, and consequently,
if the persecution of Licinius began soon after that event, as it is
commonly supposed to have done, the address must have been delivered
before hostilities opened; that is, at least as early as 314, and this
is the year in which G"rres places it (Kritische Untersuchungen ueber
die licinianische Christenverfolgung, p. 8). But if G"rres' date (319
A.D.) for the commencement of the persecution be accepted (and though
he can hardly be said to have proved it, he has urged some strong
grounds in support of it), then the address may have been delivered at
almost any time between 315 and 319, for, as G"rres himself shows,
Licinius and Constantine were outwardly at peace during the greater
part of that time (ib. p. 14, sq.). There is nothing in the speech
itself which prevents this later date, nor is it intrinsically
improbable that the great basilica reached completion only in 315 or
later. In fact, it must be admitted that Eusebius may have become
bishop at any time between about 311 and 318.
The persecution of Licinius, which continued until
his defeat by Constantine, in 323, was but local, and seems never to
have been very severe. Indeed, it did not bear the character of a
bloody persecution, though a few bishops appear to have met their death
on one ground or another. Palestine and Egypt seem not to have suffered
to any great extent (see G"rres, ib. p. 32 sq.).
§ 5. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of
Eusebius.
About the year 318, while Alexander was bishop of
Alexandria, the Arian controversy broke out in that city, and the whole
Eastern Church was soon involved in the strife. We cannot enter here
into a discussion of Arius' views; but in order to understand the
rapidity with which the Arian party grew, and the strong hold which it
possessed from the very start in Syria and Asia Minor, we must remember
that Arius was not himself the author of that system which we know as
Arianism, but that he learned the essentials of it from his instructor
Lucian. The latter was one of the most learned men of his age in the
Oriental Church, and rounded an exegetico-theological school in
Antioch, which for a number of years stood outside of the communion of
the orthodox Church in that city, but shortly before the martyrdom of
Lucian himself (which took place in 311 or 312) made its peace with the
Church, and was recognized by it. He was held in the highest reverence
by his disciples, and exerted a great influence over them even after
his death. Among them were such men as Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Asterius, and others who were afterward known as staunch Arianists.
According to Harnack the chief points in the system of Lucian and his
disciples were the creation of the Son, the denial of his co-eternity
with the Father, and his immutability acquired by persistent progress
and steadfastness. His doctrine, which differed
12
from that of Paul of Samosata chiefly in the fact that it was not a man
but a created heavenly being who became "Lord," was evidently the
result of a combination of the teaching of Paul and of Origen. It will
be seen that we have here, at least in germ, all the essential elements
of Arianism proper: the creation of the Son out of nothing, and
consequently the conclusion that there was a time when he was not; the
distinction of his essence from that of the Father, but at the same
time the emphasis upon the fact that he "was not created as the other
creatures," and is therefore to be sharply distinguished from them.
There was little for Arius to do but to combine the elements given by
Lucian in a more complete and well-ordered system, and then to bring
that system forward clearly and publicly, and endeavor to make it the
faith of the Church at large. His christology was essentially opposed
to the Alexandrian, and it was natural that he should soon come into
conflict with that church, of which he was a presbyter (upon Lucian's
teaching and its relation to Arianism, see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte,
II. p. 183 sq.).
Socrates (H. E. I. 5 sq.), Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) and
Theodoret (H. E. I. 2 sq.), all of whom give accounts of the rise of
Arianism, differ as to the immediate occasion of the controversy, but
agree that Arius was excommunicated by a council convened at
Alexandria, and that both he and the bishop Alexander sent letters to
other churches, the latter defending his own course, the former
complaining of his harsh treatment, and endeavoring to secure adherents
to his doctrine. Eusebius of Nicomedia at once became his firm
supporter, and was one of the leading figures on the Arian side
throughout the entire controversy. His influential position as bishop
of Nicomedia, the imperial residence, and later of Constantinople, was
of great advantage to the Arian cause, especially toward the close of
Constantine's reign. From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to
Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, H. E. I. 6) we learn that Eusebius of
C'sarea was quite zealous in behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date
of the letter we do not know, but it must have been written at an early
stage of the controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle addressed to
Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), claims Eusebius of
C'sarea among others as accepting at least one of his fundamental
doctrines ("And since Eusebius, your brother in C'sarea, and Theodotus,
and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and 'tius, and all the
bishops of the East say that God existed before the Son, they have been
condemned," etc.). More than this, Sozomen (H. E. I. 15 ) informs us
that Eusebius of C'sarea and two other bishops, having been appealed to
by Arius for "permission for himself and his adherents, as he had
already attained the rank of presbyter, to form the people who were
with them into a church," concurred with others "who were assembled in
Palestine," in granting the petition of Arius, and permitting him to
assemble the people as before; but they "enjoined submission to
Alexander, and commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to
peace and communion with him." The addition of the last sentence is
noticeable, as showing that they did not care to support a presbyter in
open and persistent rebellion against his bishop. A fragment of a
letter written by our Eusebius to Alexander is still extant, and is
preserved in the proceedings of the Second Council of Nic'a, Act. VI.
Tom. V. (Labbei et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). In this epistle
Eusebius strongly remonstrates with Alexander for having misrepresented
the views of Arius. Still further, in his epistle to Alexander of
Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, H. E. I. 4)
complains of three Syrian bishops "who side with them [i.e. the Arians]
and excite them to plunge deeper and deeper into iniquity." The
reference here is commonly supposed to be to Eusebius of C'sarean, and
his two friends Paulinus of Tyre and Theodotus of Laodicea, who are
known to have shown favor to Arius. It is probable, though not certain,
that our Eusebius is one of the persons meant. Finally, many of the
Fathers (above all Jerome and Photius), and in addition to them the
Second Council of Nic'a, directly accuse Eusebius of holding the Arian
heresy, as may be seen by examining the testimonies quoted below on p.
67 sq. In agreement with these early Fathers, many modern historians
have attacked Eusebius with great severity, and have endeavored to show
that the opinion that he was an Arian is supported by his own writings.
Among those who have judged him most harshly are Baronins (ad ann. 340,
c. 38 sq.), Petavius
13
(Dogm. Theol. de Trin. I. c. 11 sq.), Scaliger (In Elencho Trih'resii,
c. 27, and De emendatione temporum, Bk. VI. c. 1), Mosheim
(Ecclesiastical History, Murdock's translation, I. p. 287 sq.),
Montfaucon (Pr'lim. in Comment. ad Psalm. c. VI.), and Tillemont (H. E.
VII. p. 67 sq. 2d ed.).
On the other hand, as may be seen from the testimonies in Eusebius'
favor, quoted below on, p. 57 sq., many of the Fathers, who were
themselves orthodox, looked upon Eusebius as likewise sound on the
subject of the Trinity. He has been defended in modern times against
the charge of Arianism by a great many prominent scholars; among others
by Valesius in his Life Eusebius, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 20,
III. 9. 3, 11), Cave (Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 sq.), Fabricius
(Bibl. Gr'c. VI. p. 32 sq.), Dupin (Bibl. Eccles. IL p. 7 sq.), and
most fully and carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition of
Eusebius' Theaphania, p. xxiv. sq. Lightfoot also defends him against
the charge of heresy, as do a great many other writers whom it is not
necessary to mention here. Confronted with such diversity of opinion,
both ancient and modern, what are we to conclude? It is useless to
endeavor, as Lee does, to clear Eusebius of all sympathy with and
leaning toward Arianism. It is impossible to explain such widespread
and continued condemnation of him by acknowledging only that there are
many expressions in his works which are in themselves perfectly
orthodox but capable of being wrested in such a way as to produce a
suspicion of possible Arianistic tendencies, for there are such
expressions in the works of multitudes of ancient writers whose
orthodoxy has never been questioned. Nor can the widespread belief that
he was an Arian be explained by admitting that he was for a time the
personal friend of Arius, but denying that he accepted, or in any way
sympathized with his views (cf. Newman's Arians, p. 262). There are in
fact certain fragments of epistles extant, which are, to say the least,
decidedly Arianistic in their modes of expression, and these must be
reckoned with in forming an opinion of Eusebius' views; for there is no
reason to deny, as Lee does, that they are from Eusebius' own hand. On
the other hand, to maintain, with some of the Fathers and many of the
moderns, that Eusebius was and continued through life a genuine Arian,
will not do in the face of the facts that contemporary and later
Fathers were divided as to his orthodoxy, that he was honored highly by
the Church of subsequent centuries, except at certain periods, and was
even canonized (see Lightfoot's article, p. 348), that he solemnly
signed the Nicene Creed, which contained an express condemnation of the
distinctive doctrines of Arius, and finally that at least in his later
works he is thoroughly orthodox in his expressions, and is explicit in
his rejection of the two main theses of the Arians,--that there was a
time when the Son of God was not, and that he was produced out of
nothing. It is impossible to enter here into a detailed discussion of
such passages in Eusebius' works as bear upon the subject under
dispute. Lee has considered many of them at great length, and the
reader may be referred to him for further information.
A careful examination of them will, I believe, serve
to convince the candid student that there is a distinction to be drawn
between those works written before the rise of Arius, those written
between that time and the Council of Nic'a, and those written after the
latter. It has been very common to draw a distinction between those
works written before and those written after the Council, but no one,
so far as I know, has distinguished those productions of Eusebius' pen
which appeared between 318 and 325, and which were caused by the
controversy itself, from all his other writings. And yet such a
distinction seems to furnish the key to the problem. Eusebius'
opponents have drawn their strongest arguments from the epistles which
Eusebius wrote to Alexander and to Euphration; his defenders have drawn
their arguments chiefly from the works which he produced subsequent to
the year 325; while the exact bearing of the expressions used in his
works produced before the controversy broke out has always been a
matter of sharp dispute. Lee has abundantly shown his Contra Marcel.,
his De Eccl. Theol., his Thephania (which was written after the Council
of Nic'a, and not, as Lee supposes, before it), and other later works,
to be thoroughly orthodox and to contain nothing which a trinitarian
might not have written. In his Hist. Eccl., Pr'paratio Evang.,
Demanstratio Evang., and other earlier works,
14
although we find some expressions employed which it would not have been
possible for an orthodox trinitarian to use after the Council of Nic'a,
at least without careful limitation to guard against misapprehension,
there is nothing even in these works which requires us to believe that
he accepted the doctrines of Arius' predecessor, Lucian of Antioch;
that is, there is nothing distinctly and positively Arianistic about
them, although there are occasional expressions which might lead the
reader to expect that the writer would become an Arian if he ever
learned of Arius' doctrines. But if there is seen to be a lack of
emphasis upon the divinity of the Son, or rather a lack of clearness in
the conception of the nature of that divinity, it must be remembered
that there was at this time no especial reason for emphasizing and
defining it, but there was on the contrary very good reason for laying
particular stress upon the subordination of the Son over against
Sabellianism, which was so widely prevalent during the third century,
and which was exerting an influence even over many orthodox theologians
who did not consciously accept Sabellianistic tenets. That Eusebius was
a decided subordinationist must be plain to every one that reads his
works with care, especially his earlier ones. It would be surprising if
he had not been, for he was born at a time when Sabellianism
(monarchianism) was felt to be the greatest danger to which orthodox
christology was exposed, and he was trained under the influence of the
followers of Origen, who had made it one of his chief aims to emphasize
the subordination of the Son over against that very monarchianism. [1]
The same subordinationism may be clearly seen in the writings of
Dionysius of Alexandria and of Gregory Thaumaturgus, two of Origen's
greatest disciples. It must not be forgotten that at the beginning of
the fourth century the problem of how to preserve the Godhood of Christ
and at the same time his subordination to the Father (in opposition to
the monarchianists) had not been solved. Eusebius in his earlier
writings shows that he holds both (he cannot be convicted of denying
Christ's divinity), but that he is as far from a solution of the
problem, and is just as uncertain in regard to the exact relation of
Father and Son, as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, and
Gregory Thaumaturgus were; is just as inconsistent in his modes of
expression as they, and yet no more so (see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte,
I. pp. 628 sq. and 634 sq., for an exposition of the opinions of these
other Fathers on the subject). Eusebius, with the same immature and
undeveloped views which were held all through the third century, wrote
those earlier works which have given rise to so much dispute between
those who accuse him of Arianism and those who defend him against the
charge. When he wrote them he was neither Arian nor Athanasian, and for
that reason passages may be found in them which if written after the
Council of Nicaea might prove him an Arian, and other passages which
might as truly prove him an Athanasian, just as in the writings of
Origen were found by both parties passages to support their views, and
in Gregory Thaumaturgus passages apparently teaching Arianism, and
others teaching its opposite, Sabellianism (see Harnack, ib. p. 646).
Let us suppose now that Eusebius, holding fast to
the divinity of Christ, and yet convinced just as firmly of his
subordination to the Father, becomes acquainted through Arius, or other
like-minded disciples of Lucian of Antioch, with a doctrine which seems
to preserve the Godhood, while at the same time emphasizing strongly
the subordination of the Son, and which formulates the relation of
Father and Son in a clear and rational manner. That he should accept
such a doctrine eagerly is just what we should expect, and just what we
find him doing. In his epistles to Alexander and Euphration, he shows
himself an Arian, and Arius and his followers were quite
15
right in claiming him as a supporter. There is that in the epistles
which is to be found nowhere in his previous writings, and which
distinctly separates him from the orthodox party. How then are we to
explain the fact that a few years later he signed the Nicene creed and
anathematized the doctrines of Arius? Before we can understand his
conduct, it is necessary to examine carefully the two epistles in
question. Such an examination will show us that what Eusebius is
defending in them is not genuine Arianism. He evidently thinks that it
is, evidently supposes that he and Arius are in complete agreement upon
the subjects under discussion; but he is mistaken. The extant fragments
of the two epistles are given below on p. 70. It will be seen that
Eusebius in them defends the Arian doctrine that there was a time when
the Son of God was not. It will be seen also that he finds fault with
Alexander for representing the Arians as teaching that the "Son of God
was made out of nothing, like all creatures," and contends that Arius
teaches that the Son of God was begotten, and that he was not produced
like all creatures. We know that the Arians very commonly applied the
word "begotten" to Christ, using it in such cases as synonymous with
"created," and thus not implying, as the Athanasians did when they used
the word, that he was of one substance with the Father (compare, for
instance, the explanation of the meaning of the term given by Eusebius
of Nicomedia in his epistle to Paulinns; Theod. H. E. I. 6). It is
evident that the use of this word had deceived our Eusebius, and that
he was led by it to think that they taught that the Son was of the
Father in a peculiar sense, and did in reality partake in some way of
essential Godhood. And indeed it is not at all surprising that the
words of Arius, in his epistle to Alexander of Alexandria (see Athan.
Ep. de conc. Arim. et Seleuc., chap. II. § 3; Oxford edition of
Athanasius' Tracts against Arianism, P. 97), quoted by Eusebius in his
epistle to the same Alexander, should give Eusebius that impression.
The words are as follows: "The God of the law, and of the prophets, and
of the New Testament before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son,
through whom also He made the ages and the universe. And He begat him
not in appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will,
unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one
of the creatures." Arius' use here of the word "begat," and his
qualification of the word "creature" by the adjective "perfect," and by
the statement that he was "not as one of the creatures" naturally
tended to make Eusebius think. that Arius acknowledged a real divinity
of the Son, and that appeared to him to be all that was necessary.
Meanwhile Alexander in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople
(Theod. H. E. I. 4) had, as Eusebius says, misstated Arius' opinion, or
at least had attributed to him the belief that Christ was "made like
all other men that have ever been born," whereas Arius expressly
disclaims such a belief. Alexander undoubtedly thought that that was
the legitimate result to which the other views of Arius must lead; but
Eusebius did not think so, and felt himself called upon to remonstrate
with Alexander for what seemed to him the latter's unfairness in the
matter.
When we examine the C'sarean creed[1] which Eusebius
presented to the Council as a fair statement of his belief, we find
nothing in it inconsistent with the acceptance of the kind of Arianism
which he defends in his epistle to Alexander, and which he evidently
supposed to be practically the Arianism of Arius himself. In his
epistle to Euphration, however, Eusebius seems at first glance to go
further and to give up the real divinity of the Son. His words are,
"Since the Son is himself God, but not true God." But we have no right
to interpret these words, torn as they are from the context which might
make their meaning perfectly plain, without due regard to Eusebius'
belief expressed elsewhere in this epistle, and in his epistle to
Alexander which was evidently written about the same time. In the
epistle to Alexander he clearly reveals a belief in the real divinity
of the Son, while in the other fragment of his epistle to Euphration he
dwells upon the subordination of the Son and approves the Arian
opinion, which he had defended also in the other epistle, that the
"Father was before the Son." The expression, "not true God" (a very
common Arian expression; see Athan. Orat. c. Arian. I. 6) seems
therefore to have been
16
used by Eusebius to express a belief, not that the Son did not possess
real divinity (as the genuine Arians used it), but that he was not
equal to the Father, who, to Eusebius' thought, was "true God." He
indeed expressly calls the Son <greek>qeos</greek>, which
shows -- when the sense in which he elsewhere uses the word is
considered -- that he certainly did believe him to partake of Godhood,
though, in some mysterious way, in a smaller degree, or in a less
complete manner than the Father. That Eusebius misunderstood Arius, and
did not perceive that he actually denied all real deity to the Son, was
due doubtless in part to his lack of theological insight (Eusebius was
never a great theologian), in part to his habitual dread of
Sabellianism (of which Arius had accused Alexander, and toward which
Eusebius evidently thought that the latter was tending), which led him
to look with great favor upon the pronounced subordinationism of Arius,
and thus to overlook the dangerous extreme to which Arius carried that
subordinationism.
We are now, the writer hopes, prepared to admit that
Eusebius, after the breaking out of the Arian controversy, became an
Arian, as he understood Arianism, and supported that party with
considerable vigor; and that not as a result of mere personal
friendship, but of theological conviction. At the same time, he was
then, as always, a peace-loving man, and while lending Arius his
approval and support, he united with other Palestinian bishops in
enjoining upon him submission to his bishop (Sozomen, H. E. I. 15). As
an Arian, then, and yet possessed with the desire of securing, if it
were possible, peace and harmony between the two factions, Eusebius
appeared at the Council of Nic'a, and there signed a creed containing
Athanasian doctrine and anathematizing the chief tenets of Arius. How
are we to explain his conduct? We shall, perhaps, do best to let him
explain his own conduct. In his letter to the church of C'sarea
(preserved by Socrates, H. E. I. 8, as well as by other authors), he
writes as follows:--
"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith
at the Great Council assembled at Nic'a you have probably learned,
Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate
account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of
the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to
you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves; and next, the
second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions to our words.
Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious
Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:--
"'As we have received from the Bishops who preceded
us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Layer,
and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed
and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so
believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it
is this:--
"'We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the
Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus
Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from
Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the
ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who
for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered,
and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come
again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy
Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly
Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as
also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go,
teach all nations, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we
have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect
ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our
Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to
convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and
preaching.'
"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no
room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any
one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He
confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments; and he advised
all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent
to them, with the insertion of the single word, 'One in substance'
(<greek>omoousios</greek>), which, moreover, he interpreted
as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son
subsisted from the Father, in the way of division, or any sever-
17
ance; for that the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal nature
could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became
us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And
such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious
Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of 'One in substance,'
drew up the following formula:--
"'We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker
of all things visible and invisible:-- And in One Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from
the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God
from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by
whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth;
who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was
made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven,
and cometh to judge quick and dead.
"'And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He
was not," and "Before His generation He was not," and "He came to be
from nothing," or those who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other
subsistence or substance," or "created," or "alterable," or "mutable,"
the Catholic Church anathematizes.'
"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it
pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced of the substance of
the Father' and 'one in substance with the Father.' Accordingly
questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words
underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase
'of the substance' was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the
Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this
understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious
doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not,
however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the
sense ourselves, without declining even the term 'One in substance,'
peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the
orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted 'begotten, not made';
since the Council alleged that 'made' was an appellative common to the
other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had
no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He was not a work resembling the
things which through Him came to be, but was of a substance which is
too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles teach
to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being
inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on
examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is 'one in
substance' with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal
beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance;
no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's
substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate nature of the
Father is alien), but because 'one in substance with the Father'
suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated
creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He in every
way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and
substance, but from the Father.
"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared
well to assent; since we were aware that, even among the ancients, some
learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term 'one in
substance' in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son.
So much, then, be said concerning the faith which was published; to
which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the
specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself,
and justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the
anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost
all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no
divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, 'out of nothing' and
'once He was not,' and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground
for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
Moreover, to anathematize 'Before His generation He was not' did not
seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all that the Son of God
was before the generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most
religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in
being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages,
since even before he was generated
18
in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father
being always Father, as King always and Saviour always, having all
things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same
way. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making
clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how
reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, as long as we were
offended at statements which differed from our own, but received
without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid
examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide
with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have
already published."[1]
It will be seen that while the expressions "of the
substance of the Father," "begotten not made," and "One in substance,"
or "consubstantial with the Father," are all explicitly
anti-Arianistic, yet none of them contradicts the doctrines held by
Eusebius before the Council, so far as we can learn them from his
epistles to Alexander and Euphration and from the C'sarean creed. His
own explanation of those expressions, which it is to be observed was
the explanation given by the Council itself, and which therefore he was
fully warranted in accepting,--even though it may not have been so
rigid as to satisfy an Athanasius,--shows us how this is. He had
believed before that the Son partook of the Godhood in very truth, that
He was "begotten," and therefore "not made," if "made" implied
something different from "begotten," as the Nicene Fathers held that it
did; and he had believed before that the "Son of God has no resemblance
to created' things, but is in every respect like the Father only who
begat him, and that He is of no other substance or essence than the
Father," and therefore if that was what the word "Consubstantial"
(<greek>omoousios</greek>) meant he could not do otherwise
than accept that too.
It is clear that the dread of Sabellianism was still
before the eyes of Eusebius, and was the cause of his hesitation in
assenting to the various changes, especially to the use of the word
<greek>ouoousios</greek>, which had been a Sabellian word
and had been rejected on that account by the Synod of Antioch, at which
Paul of Samosata had been condemned some sixty years before.
It still remains to explain Eusebius' sanction of
the anathemas attached to the creed which expressly condemn at least
one of the beliefs which he had himself formerly held, viz.: that the
"Father was before the Son," or as he puts it elsewhere, that "He who
is begat him who was not." The knot might of course be simply cut by
supposing an act of hypocrisy on his part, but the writer is convinced
that such a conclusion does violence to all that we know of Eusebius
and of his subsequent treatment of the questions involved in this
discussion. It is quite possible to suppose that a real change of
opinion on his part took place during the sessions of the Council.
Indeed when we realize how imperfect and incorrect a conception of
Arianism he had before the Council began, and how clearly its true
bearing was there brought out by its enemies, we can see that he could
not do otherwise than change; that he must have become either an out
and-out Arian, or an opponent of Arianism as he did. When he learned,
and learned for the first time, that Arianism meant the denial of all
essential divinity to Christ, and when he saw that it involved the
ascription of mutability and of other finite attributes to him, he must
either change entirely his views on those points or he must leave the
Arian party. To him who with all his subordinationism had laid in all
his writings so much stress on the divinity of the Word (even though he
had not realized exactly what that divinity involved) it would have
been a revolution in his Christian life and faith to have admitted what
he now learned that Arianism involved. Sabellianism had been his dread,
but now this new fear, which had aroused so large a portion of the
Church, seized him too, and he felt that stand must be made against
this too great separation of Father and Son, which was leading to
dangerous results. Under the pressure of this fear it is not surprising
that he should become convinced that the Arian formula--"there was a
time when the Son was not "--involved serious consequences, and that
Alexander and his followers should have succeeded in pointing out to
him its untruth, because it led necessarily to a false conclusion. It
is not surprising, moreover, that they should have succeeded in
explaining to him at least
19
partially their belief, which, as his epistle to Alexander shows, had
before been absolutely incomprehensible, that the Son was generated
from all eternity, and that therefore the Father did not exist before
him in a temporal sense.
He says toward the close of his epistle to the
C'sarean church that he had not been accustomed to use such expressions
as "There was a time when he was not," "He came to be from nothing,"
etc. And there is no reason to doubt that he speaks the truth. Even in
his epistles to Alexander and Euphration he does not use those phrases
(though he does defend the doctrine taught by the first of them), nor
does Arius himself, in the epistle to Alexander upon which Eusebius
apparently based his knowledge of the system, use those expressions,
although he too teaches the same doctrine. The fact is that in that
epistle Arius studiously avoids such favorite Arian phrases as might
emphasize the differences between himself and Alexander, and Eusebius
seems to have avoided them for the same reason. We conclude then that
Eusebius was not an Arian (nor an adherent of Lucian) before 318, that
soon after that date he became an Arian in the sense in which he
understood Arianism, but that during the Council of Nic'a he ceased to
be one in any sense. His writings in later years confirm the course of
doctrinal development which we have supposed went on in his mind. He
never again defends Arian doctrines in his works, and yet he never
becomes an Athanasian in his emphasis upon the
<greek>omoousion</greek>. In fact he represents a mild
orthodoxy, which is always orthodox- when measured by the Nicene creed
as interpreted by the Nicene Council--and yet is always mild. Moreover,
he never acquired an affection for the word
<greek>omoousios</greek>, which to his mind was bound up
with too many evil associations ever to have a pleasant sound to him.
He therefore studiously avoided it in his own writings, although
clearly showing that he believed fully in what the Nicene Council had
explained it to mean. It must be remembered that during many years of
his later life he was engaged in controversy with Marcellus, a
thorough-going Sabellian, who had been at the time of the Council one
of the strongest of Athanasius' colleagues. In his contest with him it
was again anti-Sabellianistic polemics which absorbed him and increased
his distaste for <greek>omoousion</greek> and minimized his
emphasis upon the distinctively anti-Arianistie doctrines formulated at
Nic'a. For any except the very wisest minds it was a matter of enormous
difficulty to steer between the two extremes in those times of strife;
and while combating Sabeilianism not to fall into Arianism, and while
combating the latter not to be engulfed in the former. That Eusebius
under the constant pressure of the one fell into the other at one time,
and was in occasional danger of falling into it again in later years,
can hardly be cited as an evidence either of wrong heart or of weak
head. An Athanasius he was not, but neither was he an unsteady
weather-cock, or an hypocritical time-server.
§ 6. The Council of Niccea.
At the Council of Nic'a, which met pursuant to an
imperial summons in the year 315 Ensebius played a very prominent part.
A description of the opening scenes of the Council is given in his Vita
Constantini, III. 10 sq. After the Emperor had entered in pomp and had
taken his seat, a bishop who sat next to him upon his right arose and
delivered in his honor the opening oration, to which the Emperor
replied in a brief Latin address. There can be no doubt that this
bishop was our Eusebius. Sozomen (H. E. I. 19) states it directly; and
Eusebius, although he does not name the speaker, yet refers to him, as
he had referred to the orator at the dedication of Paulinus' church at
Tyre, in such a way as to make it clear that it was himself; and
moreover in his Fita Constantini, I. 1, he mentions the fact that he
had in the midst of an assembly of the servants of God addressed an
oration to the Emperor on the occasion of the latter's vicennalia, i.e.
in 325 A.D. On the other hand, however, Theodoret (H. E. I. 7) states
that this opening oration was delivered by Eustathius, bishop of
Antioch; while Theodore of Mopsuestia and Philostorgius (according to
Nicetas Choniates, Thes. de arthod. rid. V. 7) assign it to Alexander
of Alexandria. As Lightfoot suggests, it is possible to explain the
discrepancy in the reports by
20
supposing that Eustathius and Alexander, the two great patriarchs,
first addressed a few words to the Emperor and that then Eusebius
delivered the regular oration. This supposition is not at all unlikely,
for it would be quite proper for the two highest ecclesiastics present
to welcome the Emperor formally in behalf of the assembled prelates,
before the regular oration was delivered by Eusebius. At the same time,
the supposition that one or the other of the two great patriarchs must
have delivered the opening address was such a natural one that it may
have been adopted by Theodoret and the other writers referred to
without any historical basis. It is in any case certain that the
regular oration was delivered by Eusebius himself (see the convincing
arguments adduced by Stroth, p. xxvii. sq.). This oration is no longer
extant, but an idea of its character may be formed from the address
delivered by Eusebius at the Emperor's tricennalia (which is still
extant under the title De laudibus Canstantini; see below, p. 43) and
from the general tone of his Life of Constantine. It was avowedly a
panegyric, and undoubtedly as fulsome as it was possible to make it,
and his powers in that direction were by no means slight.
That Eusebius, instead of the bishop of some more
prominent church, should have been selected to deliver the opening
address, may have been in part owing to his recognized standing as the
most learned man and the most famous writer in the Church, in part to
the fact that he was not as pronounced a partisan as some of his
distinguished brethren; for instance, Alexander of Alexandria, and
Eusebius of Nicomedia; and finally in some measure to his intimate
relations with the Emperor. How and when his intimacy with the latter
grew up we do not know. As already remarked, he seems to have become
personally acquainted with him many years before, when Constantine
passed through C'sarea in the train of Diocletian, and it may be that a
mutual friendship, which was so marked in later years, began at that
time. However that may be, Eusebius seems to have possessed special
advantages of one kind or another, enabling him to come into personal
contact with official circles, and once introduced to imperial notice,
his wide learning, sound common sense, genial temper and broad charity
would insure him the friendship of the Emperor himself, or of any other
worthy officer of state. We have no record of an intimacy between
Constantine and Eusebius before the Council of Nic'a, but many clear
intimations of it after that time. In fact, it is evident that during
the last decade at least of the Emperor's life, few, if any, bishops
stood higher in his esteem or enjoyed a larger measure of his
confidence. Compare for instance the records of their conversations
(contained in the Vita Canstantini, I. 28 and II. 9), of their
correspondence (ib. II. 46, III. 61, IV. 35 and 36), and the words of
Constantine himself (ib. III. 60). The marked attention paid by him to
the speeches delivered by Eusebius in his presence (ib. IV. 33 and 46)
is also to be noticed. Eusebius' intimacy with the imperial family is
shown likewise in the tone of the letter which he wrote to Constantia,
the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, in regard to a likeness
of Christ which she had asked him to send her. The frankness and
freedom with which he remonstrates with her for what he considers
mistaken zeal on her part, reveal a degree of familiarity which could
have come only from long and cordial relations between himself and his
royal correspondent. Whatever other reasons therefore may have combined
to indicate Eusebius as the most fitting person to deliver the oration
in honor of the Emperor at the Council of Nic'a, there can be little
doubt that Constantine's personal friendship for him had much to do
with his selection. The action of the Council on the subject of
Arianism, and Eusebius' conduct in the matter, have already been
discussed. Of the bishops assembled at the Council, not far from three
hundred in number (the reports of eye-witnesses vary from two hundred
and fifty to three hundred and eighteen), all but two signed the Nicene
creed as adopted by the Council. These two, both of them Egyptians,
were banished with Arius to Illyria, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
Theognis of Nic'a, who subscribed the creed itself but refused to
assent to its anathemas, were also banished for a time, but soon
yielded, and were restored to their churches.
Into the other purposes for which the Nicene Council
was called,--the settlement of the dispute respecting the time of
observing Easter and the healing of the Meletian schism,--it is not
neces-
21
sary to enter here. We have no record of the part which Eusebius took
in these transactions. Lightfoot has abundantly shown (p. 313 sq.) that
the common supposition that Eusebius was the author of the paschal
cycle of nineteen years is false, and that there is no reason to
suppose that he had anything particular to do with the decision of the
paschal question at this Council. § 7. Continuance of the Arian
Controversy. Eusebius' Relations to the Two Parties.
The Council of Nic'a did not bring the Arian
controversy to an end. The orthodox party was victorious, it is true,
but the Arians were still determined, and could not give up their
enmity against the opponents of Arius, and their hope that they might
in the end turn the tables on their antagonists. Meanwhile, within a
few years after the Council, a quarrel broke out between our Eusebius
and Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, a resolute supporter of Nicene
orthodoxy. According to Socrates (H. E. I. 23) and Sozomen (H. E. II.
18) Eustathius accused Eusebius of perverting the Nicene doctrines,
while Eusebius denied the charge, and in turn taxed Eustathius with
Sabellianism. The quarrel finally became so serious that it was deemed
necessary to summon a Council for the investigation of Eustathius'
orthodoxy and the settlement of the dispute. This Council met in
Antioch in 330 A.D. (see Tillemont, VII. p. 651 sq., for a discussion
of the date), and was made up chiefly of bishops of Arian or semi-Arian
tendencies. This fact, however, brings no discredit upon Eusebius. The
Council was held in another province, and he can have had nothing to do
with its composition. In fact, convened, as it was, in Eustathius' own
city, it must have been legally organized; and indeed Eustathius
himself acknowledged its jurisdiction by appearing before it to answer
the charges made against him. Theodoret's absurd account of the origin
of the synod and of the accusations brought against Eustathius (H. E.
I. 21) bears upon its face the stamp of falsehood, and is, as Hefele
has shown (Canciliengeschichte, I. 451), hopelessly in error in its
chronology. It is therefore to be rejected as quite worthless. The
decision of the Council doubtless fairly represented the views of the
majority of the bishops of that section, for we know that Arianism had
a very strong hold there. To think of a packed Council and of illegal
methods of procedure in procuring the verdict against Eustathius is
both unnecessary and unwarrantable. The result of the Council was the
deposition of Eustathius from his bishopric and his banishment by the
Emperor to Illyria, where he afterward died. There is a division of
opinion among our sources in regard to the immediate successor of
Eustathius. All of them agree that Eusebius was asked to become bishop
of Antioch, but that he refused the honor, and that Euphronius was
chosen in his stead. Socrates and Sozomen, however, inform us that the
election of Eusebius took place immediately after the deposition of
Eustathius, while Theodoret (H. E. I. 22) names Eulalius as Eustathius'
immediate successor, and states that he lived but a short time, and
that Eusebius was then asked to succeed him. Theodoret is Supported by
Jerome (Chron., year of Abr. 2345) and by Philostorgius (H. E. III.
15), both of whom insert a bishop Eulalius between Eustathius and
Euphronius. It is easier to suppose that Socrates and Sozomen may have
omitted so unimportant a name at this point than that the other three
witnesses inserted it without warrant. Socrates indeed implies in the
same chapter that his knowledge of these affairs is limited, and it is
not surprising that Eusebius' election, which caused a great stir,
should have been connected in the mind of later writers immediately
with Eustathius' deposition, and the intermediate steps forgotten. It
seems probable, therefore, that immediately after the condemnation of
Eustathius, Eulalius was appointed in his place, perhaps by the same
Council, and that after his death, a few months later, Eusebius, who
had meanwhile gone back to C'sarea, was elected in due order by another
Council of neighboring bishops summoned for the purpose, and that he
was supported by a large party of citizens. It is noticeable that the
letter written by the Emperor to the Council, which wished to transfer
Eusebius to Antioch (see Vita Const. III. 62), mentions in its
salutation the names of five bishops, but among them is only one
(Theodotus who is elsewhere named as present at the Council which
deposed Eusta-
22
thius, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nic'a, as well as
others whom we know to have been on hand on that occasion, are not
referred to by the Emperor. This fact certainly seems to point to a
different council.
It is greatly to Eusebius' credit that he refused
the call extended to him. Had he been governed simply by selfish
ambition he would certainly have accepted it, for the patriarchate of
Antioch stood at that time next to Alexandria in point of honor in the
Eastern Church. The Emperor commended him very highly for his decision,
in his epistles to the people of Antioch and to the Council (Vita
Const. III. 60, 62 ), and in that to Eusebius himself (ib. III. 61). He
saw in it a desire on Eusebius' part to observe the ancient canon of
the Church, which forbade the transfer of a bishop from one see to
another. But that in itself can hardly have been sufficient to deter
the latter from accepting the high honor offered him, for it was broken
without scruple on all sides. It is more probable that he saw that the
schism of the Antiochenes would be embittered by the induction into the
bishopric of that church of Eustathius' chief opponent, and that he did
not feel that he had a right so to divide the Church of God. Eusebius'
general character, as known to us, justifies us in supposing that this
high motive had much to do with his decision. We may suppose also that
so difficult a place can have had no very great attractions for a man
of his age and of his peace-loving disposition and scholarly tastes. In
C'sarea he had spent his life; there he had the great library of
Pamphilus at his disposal, and leisure to pursue his literary work. In
Antioch he would have found himself compelled to plunge into the midst
of quarrels and seditions of all kinds, and would have been obliged to
devote his entire attention to the performance of his official duties.
His own tastes therefore must have conspired with his sense of duty to
lead him to reject the proffered call and to remain in the somewhat
humbler station which he already occupied.
Not long after the deposition of Eustathius, the
Arians and their sympathizers began to work more energetically to
accomplish the ruin of Athanasius, their greatest foe. He had become
Alexander's successor as bishop of Alexandria in the year 326, and was
the acknowledged head of the orthodox party. If he could be brought
into discredit, there might be hopes of restoring Arius to his position
in Alexandria, and of securing for Arianism a recognition, and finally
a dominating influence in the church at large. To the overthrow of
Athanasius therefore all good Arians bent their energies. They found
ready accomplices in the schismatical Meletians of Egypt, who were
bitter enemies of the orthodox church of Alexandria. It was useless to
accuse Athanasius of heterodoxy; he was too widely known as the pillar
of the orthodox faith. Charges must be framed of another sort, and of a
sort to stir up the anger of the Emperor against him. The Arians
therefore and the Meletians began to spread the most vile and at the
same time absurd stories about Athanasius (see especially the latter's
Apol. c. Arian. § 59 sq.). These at last became so notorious that
the Emperor summoned Athanasius to appear and make his defense before a
council of bishops to be held in C'sarea (Sozomen, H. E. II. 25;
Theodoret, H. E. I. 28). Athanasius, however, fearing that the Council
would be composed wholly of his enemies, and that it would therefore be
impossible to secure fair play, excused himself and remained away. But
in the following year (see Sozomen, H. E. II, 25) he received from the
Emperor a summons to appear before a council at Tyre. The summons was
too peremptory to admit of a refusal, and Athanasius therefore
attended, accompanied by many of his devoted adherents (see Sozomen,
ib.; Theodoret, H. E. I. 30; Socrates, H. E. I. 28; Athanasius, Apol.
c. Arian. § 71 sq.; Eusebius, Vita Const. IV. 41 sq., and
Epiphanius, H'r. LXVIII. 8). After a time, perceiving that he had no
chance of receiving fair play, he suddenly withdrew from the Council
and proceeded directly to Constantinople, in order to lay his case
before the Emperor himself, and to induce the latter to allow him to
meet his accusers in his presence, and plead his cause before him.
There was nothing for the Synod to do after his flight but to sustain
the charges brought against him, some of which he had not stayed to
refute, and to pass condemnation upon him. Besides various immoral and
sacrilegious deeds of which he was accused, his refusal to appear
before the Council of
23
C'sarea the previous year was made an important item of the
prosecution. It was during this Council that Potamo flung at Eusebius
the taunt of cowardice, to which reference was made above, and which
doubtless did much to confirm Eusebius' distrust of and hostility to
the Athanasian party-Whether Eusebius of C'sarea, as is commonly
supposed, or Eusebius of Nicomedia, or some other bishop, presided at
this Council we are not able to determine. The account of Epiphanius
seems to imply that the former was presiding at the time that Potamo
made his untimely accusation. Our sources are, most of them, silent on
the matter, but according to Valesius, Eusebius of Nicomedia is named
by some of them, but which they are I have not been able to discover.
We learn from Socrates (H. E. I. 28), as well as from other sources,
that this Synod of Tyre was held in the thirtieth year of Constantine's
reign, that is, between July, 334, and July, 335. As the Council was
closed only in time for the bishops to reach Jerusalem by July, 335, it
is probable that it was convened in 335 rather than in 334. From
Sozomen (H. E. II. 25) we learn also that the Synod of C'sarea had been
held the preceding year, therefore in 333 or 334 (the latter being the
date commonly given by historians). While the Council of Tyre was still
in session, the bishops were commanded by Constantine to proceed
immediately to Jerusalem to take part in the approaching festival to be
held there on the occasion of his tricennalia. The scene was one of
great splendor. Bishops were present from all parts of the world, and
the occasion was marked by the dedication of the new and magnificent
basilica which Constantine had erected upon the site of Calvary
(Theodoret, I. 31; Socrates, I. 28 and 33; Sozomen, II. 26; Eusebius,
Vita Canst. IV. 41 and 43). The bishops gathered in Jerusalem at this
time held another synod before separating. In this they completed the
work begun at Tyre, by re-admitting Arius and his adherents to the
communion of the Church (see Socrates, 1. 33, and Sozomen, II. 27).
According to Sozomen the Emperor, having been induced to recall Arius
from banishment in order to reconsider his case, was presented by the
latter with a confession of faith, which was so worded as to convince
Constantine of his orthodoxy. He therefore sent Arius and his companion
Euzoius to the bishops assembled in Jerusalem with the request that
they would examine the confession, and if they were satisfied with its
orthodoxy would re-admit them to communion. The Council, which was
composed largely of Arius' friends and sympathizers, was only too glad
to accede to the Emperor's request.
Meanwhile Athanasius had induced Constantine, out of
a sense of justice, to summon the bishops that had condemned him at
Tyre to give an account of their proceedings before the Emperor himself
at Constantinople. This unexpected, and, doubtless, not altogether
welcome summons came while the bishops were at Jerusalem, and the
majority of them at once returned home in alarm, while only a few
answered the call and repaired to Constantinople. Among these were
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nic'a, Patrophilus of Scythopolis,
and other prominent Arians, and with them our Eusebius (Athanasius,
Apol. c. Arian. §§ 86 and 87; Socrates, I. 33-35; Sozomen,
II. 28). The accusers of Athanasius said nothing on this occasion in
regard to his alleged immoralities, for which he had been condemned at
Tyre, but made another equally trivial accusation against him, and the
result was his banishment to Gaul. Whether Constantine banished him
because he believed the charge brought against him, or because he
wished to preserve him from the machinations of his enemies (as
asserted by his son Constantine, and apparently believed by Athanasius
himself; see his Apol. c. Arian. § 87), or because he thought that
Athanasius' absence would allay the troubles in the Alexandrian church
we do not know. The latter supposition seems most probable. In any case
he was not recalled from banishment until after Constantine's death.
Our Eusebius has been severely condemned by many historians for the
part taken by him in the Eustathian controversy and especially in the
war against Athanasius. In justice to him a word or two must be spoken
in his defense. So far as his relations to Eustathius are concerned, it
is to be noticed that the latter commenced the controversy by accusing
Eusebius of heterodoxy. Eusebius himself did not begin the quarrel, and
very likely had no desire to engage in any such doctrinal strife; but
he was compelled to defend him-
24
self, and in doing so he could not do otherwise than accuse Eustathius
of Sabellianism; for if the latter was not satisfied with Eusebius'
orthodoxy, which Eusebius himself believed to be truly Nicene, then he
must be leaning too far toward the other extreme; that is, toward
Sabellianism. There is no reason to doubt that Eusebius was perfectly
straightforward and honorable throughout the whole controversy, and at
the Council of Antioch itself. That he was not actuated by unworthy
motives, or by a desire for revenge, is evinced by his rejection of the
proffered call to Antioch, the acceptance of which would have given him
so good an opportunity to triumph over his fallen enemy. It must be
admitted, in fact, that Eusebius comes out of this controversy without
a stain of any kind upon his character. He honestly believed Eustathius
to be a Sabellian, and he acted accordingly.
Eusebius has been blamed still more severely for his
treatment of Athanasius. But again the facts must be looked at
impartially. It is necessary always to remember that Sabellianism was
in the beginning and remained throughout his life the heresy which he
most dreaded, and which he had perhaps most reason to dread. He must,
even at the Council of Nic'a, have suspected Athanasius, who laid so
much stress upon the unity of essence on the part of Father and Son, of
a leaning toward Sabellianistic principles; and this suspicion must
have been increased when he discovered, as he believed, that
Athanasitis' most staunch supporter, Eustathius, was a genuine
Sabellian. Moreover, on the other side, it is to be remembered that
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and all the other leading Arians, had signed the
Nicene creed and had proclaimed themselves thoroughly in sympathy with
its teaching. Our Eusebius, knowing the change that had taken place in
his own mind upon the controverted points, may well have believed that
their views had undergone even a greater change, and that they were
perfectly honest in their protestations of orthodoxy. And finally, when
Arius himself presented a confession of faith which led the Emperor,
who had had a personal interview with him, to believe that he had
altered his views and was in complete harmony with the Nicene faith, it
is not surprising that our Eusebius, who was naturally unsuspicious,
conciliatory and peace-loving, should think the same thing, and be glad
to receive Arius back into communion, while at the same time remaining
perfectly loyal to the orthodoxy of the Nicene creed which he had
subscribed. Meanwhile his suspicions of the Arian party being in large
measure allayed, and his distrust of the orthodoxy of Athanasius and of
his adherents being increased by the course of events, it was only
natural that he should lend more or less credence to the calumnies
which were so industriously circulated against Athanasius. To charge
him with dishonesty for being influenced by these reports, which seem
to us so absurd and palpably calumnious, is quite unwarranted.
Constantine, who was, if not a theologian, at least a clear-headed and
sharp-sighted man, believed them, and why should Eusebius not have done
the same? The incident which took place at the Council of Tyre in
connection with Potamo and himself was important; for whatever doubts
he may have had up to that time as to the truth of the accusations made
against Athanasius and his adherents, Potamo's conduct convinced him
that the charges of tyranny and high-handed dealing brought against the
whole party were quite true. It could not be otherwise than that he
should believe that the good of the Alexandrian church, and therefore
of the Church at large, demanded the deposition of the seditious and
tyrannous archbishop, who was at the same time quite probably
Sabellianistic in his tendencies. It must in justice be noted that
there is not the slightest reason to suppose that our Eusebius had
anything to do with the dishonorable intrigues of the Arian party
throughout this controversy. Athanasius, who cannot say enough in
condemnation of the tactics of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his
supporters, never mentions Eusebius of C'sarea in a tone of bitterness.
He refers to him occasionally as a member of the opposite party, but he
has no complaints to utter against him, as he has against the others.
This is very significant, and should put an end to all suspicions of
unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part. It is to be observed that the
latter, though having good cause as he believed to condemn Athanasius
and his adherents, never acted as a leader in the war against them. His
name, if mentioned at all, occurs always toward the end of the list as
one of
25
the minor combatants, although his position and his learning would have
entitled him to take the most prominent position in the whole affair,
if he had cared to. He was but true to his general character in
shrinking from such a controversy, and in taking part in it only in so
far as his conscience compelled him to. We may suspect indeed that he
would not have made one of the small party that repaired to
Constantinople in response to the Emperor's imperious summons had it
not been for the celebration of Constantine's tricennalia, which was
taking place there at the time, and at which he delivered, on the
special invitation of the Emperor and in his presence, one of his
greatest orations. Certain it is, from the account which he gives in
his Vita Constantini, that both in Constantinople and in Jerusalem the
festival of the tricennalia, with its attendant ceremonies, interested
him much more than did the condemnation of Athanasius.
§ 8. Eusebius and Marcellus.
It was during this visit to Constantinople that
another synod was held, at which Eusebius was present, and the result
of which was the condemnation and deposition of the bishop Marcellus of
Ancyra (see Socrates, I. 36; Sozomen, II. 33; Eusebius, Contra Marc.
II. 4). The attitude of our Eusebius toward Marcellus is again
significant of his theological tendencies. Marcellus had written a book
against Asterius, a prominent Arian, in which, in his zeal for the
Nicene orthodoxy, he had laid himself open to the charge of
Sabellianism. On this account he was deposed by the Constantinopolitan
Synod, and our Eusebius was urged to write a work exposing his errors
and defending the action of the Council. As a consequence he composed
his two works against Marcelins which will be described later. That
Eusebius, if not in the case of Athanasius and possibly not in that of
Eustathius, had at least in the present case good ground for the belief
that Marcellus was a Sabellian, or Sabellianistic in tendency, is
abundantly proved by the citations which he makes from Marcellus' own
works; and, moreover, his judgment and that of the Synod was later
confirmed even by Athanasius himself. Though not suspecting Marcellus
for some time, Athanasius finally became convinced that he had deviated
from the path of orthodoxy, and, as Newman has shown (in his
introduction to Athanasius' fourth discourse against the Arians, Oxford
Library of the Fathers, vol. 19, p. 503 sq.), directed that discourse
against his errors and those of his followers.
The controversy with Marcellus seems to have been
the last in which Eusebius was engaged, and it was opposition to the
dreaded heresy of Sabellius which moved him here as in all the other
cases. It is important to emphasize, however, what is often overlooked,
that though Eusebius during these years was so continuously engaged in
controversy with one or another of the members of the anti-Arian party,
there is no evidence that he ever deviated from the doctrinal position
which he took at the Council of Nic'a. After that date it was never
Arianism which he consciously supported; it was never the Nicene
orthodoxy which he opposed. He supported those members of the old Arian
party who had signed the Nicene creed and protested that they accepted
its teaching, against those members of the opposite party whom he
believed to be drifting toward Sabellianism, or acting tyrannously and
unjustly toward their opponents. The anti-Sabellianistic interest
influenced him all the time, but his post-Nicene writings contain no
evidence that he had fallen back into the Arianizing position which he
had held before 325. They reveal, on the contrary, a fair type of
orthodoxy, colored only by its decidedly anti-Sabellian emphasis.
§ 9. The Death of Eusebius.
In less than two years after the celebration of his
tricennalia, on May 22, 337 A.D., the great Constantine breathed his
last, in Nicomedia, his former Capital. Eusebius, already an old man,
produced a lasting testimonial of his own unbounded affection and
admiration for the first Christian emperor, in his Life of Constantine.
Soon afterward he followed his imperial friend at the
26
advanced age of nearly, if not quite, eighty years. The exact date of
his death is unknown, but it can be fixed approximately. We know from
Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) that in the summer of 341, when a council was
held at Antioch (on the date of the Council, which we are able to fix
with great exactness, see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 sq.)
Acacius, Eusebius' successor, was already bishop of C'sarea. Socrates
(H. E. II. 4) and Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) both mention the death of
Eusebius and place it shortly before the death of Constantine the
younger, which took place early in 340 (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp.
IV. p. 357 sq.), and after the intrigues had begun which resulted in
Athanasius' second banishment. We are thus led to place Eusebius' death
late in the year 339, or early in the year 340 (cf. Lightfoot's
article, p. 318).
CHAPTER II.
THE WRITINGS OF
EUSEBIUS. § I. Eusebius as a Writer.
EUSEBIUS was one of the most voluminous writers of
antiquity, and his labors covered almost every field of theological
learning. In the words of Lightfoot he was "historian, apologist,
topographer, exegete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn." It
is as an historian that he is best known, but the importance of his
historical writings should not cause us to overlook, as modern scholars
have been prone to do, his invaluable productions in other departments.
Light-foot passes a very just judgment upon the importance of his works
in the following words: "If the permanent utility of an author's labors
may be taken as a test of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold a
very high place indeed. The Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique
and indispensable. The Chronicle is the vast storehouse of information
relating to the ancient monarchies of the world. The Preparation and
Demonstration are the most important contributions to theology in their
own province. Even the minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine,
the Life of Constantine, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to
Marinus, and others, would leave an irreparable blank, if they were
obliterated. And the same permanent value attaches also to his more
technical treatises. The Canons and Sections have never yet been
superseded for their particular purpose. The Topography of Palestine is
the most important contribution to our knowledge in its own department.
In short, no ancient ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under
heavier obligations."
If we look in Eusebius' works for evidences of
brilliant genius we shall be disappointed. He did not possess a great
creative mind like Origen's or Augustine's. His claim to greatness
rests upon his vast erudition and his sterling sense. His powers of
acquisition were remarkable and his diligence in study unwearied. He
had at his command undoubtedly more acquired material than any man of
his age, and he possessed that true literary and historical instinct
which enabled him to select from his vast stores of knowledge those
things which it was most worth his while to tell to the world. His
writings therefore remain valuable while the works of many others,
perhaps no less richly equipped than himself for the mission of adding
to the sum of human knowledge, are entirely forgotten. He thus had the
ability to do more than acquire; he had the ability to impart to others
the very best of that which he acquired, and to make it useful to them.
There is not in his writings the brilliancy which we find in some
others, there is not the same sparkle and freshness of new and
suggestive thought, there is not the same impress of an overmastering
individuality which transforms everything it touches. There is,
however, a true and solid merit which marks his works almost without
exception, and raises them above the commonplace. His exegesis is
superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetics is
marked by fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and instinctive
appreciation of the difference between the important and the
unimportant points under discussion, which give to his apologetic works
a
27
permanent value. His wide acquaintance, too, with other systems than
his own, and with the products of Pagan as well as Christian thought,
enabled him to see things in their proper relations and to furnish a
treatment of the great themes of Christianity adapted to the wants of
those who had looked beyond the confines of a single school. At the
same time it must be acknowledged that he was not always equal to the
grand opportunities which his acquaintance with the works and lives of
other men and other peoples opened before him. He does not always
reveal the possession of that high quality of genius which is able to
interpret the most various forces and to discover the higher principles
of unity which alone make them intelligible; indeed, he often loses
himself completely in a wilderness of thoughts and notions which have
come to him from other men and other ages, and the result is dire
confusion.
We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the
works of Eusebius for evidences of a refined literary taste, or for any
of the charms which attach to the writings of a great master of
composition. His style is, as a rule, involved and obscure, often
painfully rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in large part to
the desultoriness of his thinking. He did not often enough clearly
define and draw the boundaries of his subject before beginning to write
upon it. He apparently did much of his thinking after he had taken pen
in hand, and did not subject what he had thus produced to a
sufficiently careful revision, if to any revision at all. Thoughts and
suggestions poured in upon him while he was writing; and he was not
always able to resist the temptation to insert them as they came, often
to the utter perversion of his train of thought, and to the ruin of the
coherency and perspicuity of his style. It must be acknowledged, too,
that his literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly vicious. Whenever
a flight of eloquence is attempted by him, as it is altogether too
often, his style becomes hopelessly turgid and pretentious. At such
times his skill in mixing metaphors is something astounding (compare,
for instance, H. E. II. 14). On the other hand, his works contain not a
few passages of real beauty. This is especially true of his Martyrs of
Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for and deep sympathy with
the heroes of the faith cause him often to forget himself and to
describe their sufferings in language of genuine fire or pathos. At
times, too, when he has a sharply defined and absorbing aim in mind,
and when the subject with which he is dealing does not seem to him to
demand rhetorical adornment, he is simple and direct enough in his
language, showing in such cases that his commonly defective style is
not so much the consequence of an inadequate command of the Greek
tongue as of desultory thinking and vicious literary taste.
But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius'
writings, we ought not to fail to give him due credit for the
conscientiousness and faithfulness with which he did his work. He wrote
often, it is true, too rapidly for the good of his style, and he did
not always revise his works as carefully as he should have done; but we
seldom detect undue haste in the collection of materials or
carelessness and negligence in the use of them. He seems to have felt
constantly the responsibilities which rested upon him as a scholar and
writer, and to have done his best to meet those responsibilities. It is
impossible to avoid contrasting him in this respect with the most
learned man of the ancient Latin Church, St. Jerome. The haste and
carelessness with which the latter composed his De Viris Illustribus,
and with which he translated and continued Eusebius' Chronicle, remain
an everlasting disgrace to him. An examination of those and of some
others of Jerome's works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly in our
esteem. He was at least conscientious and honest in his work, and never
allowed himself to palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive his
readers by sophistries, misstatements, and pure inventions. He aimed to
put the reader into possession of the knowledge which he had himself
acquired, but was always conscientious enough to stop there, and not
attempt to make fancy play the r"le of fact.
One other point, which was mentioned some pages
back, and to which Lightfoot calls particular attention, should be
referred to here, because of its bearing upon the character of
Eusebius' writings. He was, above all things, an apologist; and the
apologetic aim governed both the selection of his subjects and method
of his treatment. He composed none of his works with a
28
purely scientific aim. He thought always of the practical result to be
attained, and his selection of material and his choice of method were
governed by that. And yet we must recognize the fact that this aim was
never narrowing in its effects. He took a broad view of apologetics,
and in his lofty conception of the Christian religion he believed that
every field of knowledge might be laid under tribute to it. He was bold
enough to be confident that history, philosophy, and science all
contribute to our understanding and appreciation of divine truth; and
so history and philosophy and science were studied and handled by him
freely and fearlessly. He did not feel the need of distorting truth of
any kind because it might work injury to the religion which he
professed. On the contrary, he had a sublime faith which led him to
believe that all truth must have its place and its mission, and that
the cause of Christianity will be benefited by its discovery and
diffusion. As an apologist, therefore, all fields of knowledge had an
interest for him; and he was saved that pettiness of mind and
narrowness of outlook which are sometimes characteristic of those who
write with a purely practical motive.
§ 2. Catalogue of his Works.
There is no absolutely complete edition of Eusebius' extant works. The
only one which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of
Migne: Eusebii Pamphili, C'sarea Palestin' Episcopi, Opera omnia qu'
extant, curis variorum, nempe: Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri,
Bernardi Montfauconii, Card. Angelo Maii edita; collegit et denuo
recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. 1857. 6 vols (tom. XIX.-XXIV. of Migne's
Patrologia Gr'ca). This edition omits the works which are extant only
in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some brief but important Greek
fragments (among them the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The
edition, however, is invaluable and cannot be dispensed with.
References to it (under the simple title Opera) will be given below in
connection with those works which it contains. Many of Eusebius'
writings, especially the historical, have been published separately.
Such editions will be mentioned in their proper place in the Catalogue.
More or less incomplete lists of our author's
writings are given by Jerome (De vir. ill. 87); by Nicephorus Callistus
(H. E. VI. 37); by Ebedjesu (in Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18
sq.); by Photius (Bibl. 9-13, 27, 39, 127); and by Suidas (who simply
copies the Greek version of Jerome). Among modern works all the lives
of Eusebius referred to in the previous chapter give more or less
extended catalogues of his writings. In addition to the works mentioned
there, valuable lists are also found in Lardner's Credibility, Part II
chap. 72, and especially in Fabricius' Bibl. Gr'ca (ed. 1714), vol. VI.
p. 30 sq.
The writings of Eusebius that are known to us,
extant and non-extant, may be classified for convenience' sake under
the following heads: I. Historical. II. Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV.
Dogmatic. V. Critical and Exegetical. VI. Biblical Dictionaries. VII.
Orations. VIII. Epistles. IX. Spurious or doubtful works. The
classification is necessarily somewhat artificial, and claims to be
neither exhaustive nor exclusive. [1]
1. HISTORICAL WORKS.
Life of Pamphilus
(<greek>h</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
II<greek>amfilou</greek> <greek>biou</greek>
<greek>analrafh</greek>; see H. E. VI. 32). Eusebius
himself refers to this work in four passages (H. E. VI. 32, VII. 32,
VIII. 13, and Mart. Pal. c. In the last he informs us that it consisted
of three books. The work is mentioned also more than once by Jerome (De
vir. ill. 81; Ep. ad Marcellam, Migne's ed. Ep. 34; Contra Ruf. I. 9),
who speaks of it in terms of praise, and in the last passage gives a
brief extract from the third book, which is, so far as known, the only
extant fragment of the work. The date of its composition can be fixed
within comparatively narrow limits. It must of course have been written
before the shorter recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, which
contains a reference to it (on its relation to the
29
longer recension, which does not mention it, see below, p. 30), and
also before the History (i.e. as early as 313 A.D. (?), see below, p.
45). On the other hand, it was written after Pamphilus' death (see H.
E. VII. 32, 25), which occurred in 310.
Martyrs of Palestine
(<greek>peri</greek> <greek>tpn</greek>
<greek>en</greek> II<greek>alaistanh</greek>
<greek>marturhsantwn</greek>). This work is extant in two
recensions, a longer and a shorter. The longer has been preserved
entire only in a Syriac version, which was published, with English
translation and notes, by Cureton in 1861. A fragment of the original
Greek of this work as preserved by Sirecon Metaphrastes had previously
been published by Papebroch in the Acta Sanctorum (June, tom. I. p. 64;
reprinted by Fabricius, II. p. 217), but had been erroneously regarded
as an extract. from Eusebius' Life Cureton's publication of the Syriac
version of the Martyrs of Palestine showed that it was a part of the
original of that work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts of St.
Procopius, which were published by Valesius (in his edition of
Eusebius' Hist. Eccles. in a note on the first chapter of the Mart.
Pal.; reprinted by Cureton, Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). Moreover, according
to Cureton, Assemani's Acta SS. Martyrum Orient el Occidentalium, part
II. p. 169 sq. (Rom', 1748) contains another Syriac version of
considerable portions of this same work. The Syriac version published
by Cureton was made within less than a century after the composition of
the original work (the manuscript of it dates from 411 A.D.; see
Cureton, ib., preface, p. i.), perhaps within a few years after it, and
there is every reason to suppose that it represents that original with
considerable exactness. That Eusebius himself was the author of the
original cannot be doubted. In addition to this longer recension there
is extant in Greek a shorter form of the same work which is found
attached to the Ecclesiastical History in most MSS. of the latter. In
some of them it is placed between the eighth and ninth books, in others
at the close of the tenth book, while one MS. inserts it in the middle
of VIII. 13. In some of the most important MSS. it is wanting entirely,
as likewise in the translation of Rufinus, and, according to Lightfoot,
in the Syriac version of the History. Most editions of Eusebius'
History print it at the close of the eighth book. Migne gives it
separately in Opera, II. 1457 sq. In the present volume the translation
of it is given as an appendix to the eighth book, on p. 342 sq.
There can be no doubt that the shorter form is
younger than the longer. The mention of the Life of Pamphilus which is
contained in the shorter, but is not found in the corresponding passage
of the longer form would seem to indicate that the former was a
remodeling of the latter rather than the latter of the former (see
below, p. 30). Moreover, as Cureton and Lightfoot both point out, the
difference between the two works both in substance and in method is
such as to make it clear that the shorter form is a revised abridgment
of the longer. That Eusebius himself was the author of the shorter as
well as of the longer form is shown by the fact that not only in the
passages common to both recensions, but also in those peculiar to the
shorter one, the author speaks in the same person and as an eye-witness
of many of the events which he records. And still further, in Chap. 11
he speaks of having himself written the Life of Pamphilus in three
books, a notice which is wanting in the longer form and therefore must
emanate from the hand of the author of the shorter. It is interesting
to inquire after Eusebius' motive in publishing an abridged edition of
this work. Cureton supposes that he condensed it simply for the purpose
of inserting it in the second edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the
other hand, suggests that it may have formed "part of a larger work, in
which the sufferings of the martyrs were set off against the deaths of
the persecutors," and he is inclined to see in the brief appendix to
the eighth book of the History (translated below on p. 340) "a fragment
of the second part of the treatise of which the Martyrs of Palestine in
the shorter recension formed the first." The suggestion is, to say the
least, very plausible. If it be true, the attachment of the shorter
form of the Martyrs of Palestine to the Ecclesiastical History was
probably the work, not of Eusebius himself, but of some copyist or
copyists, and the disagreement among the various MSS. as to its
position in the History is more easily explained on this supposition
than on Cureton's theory that it was attached to a later edition of the
latter work by Eusebius himself.
30
The date at which the Martyrs of Palestine was
composed cannot be determined with certainty. It was at any rate not
published until after the first nine books of the Ecclesiastical
History (i.e. not before 313, see below, p. 45), for it is referred to
as a projected work in H. E. VIII. 13. 7. On the other hand, the
accounts contained in the longer recension bear many marks of having
been composed on the spot, while the impressions left by the martyrdoms
witnessed by the author were still fresh upon him. Moreover, it is
noticeable that in connection with the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom,
given in the shorter recension, reference is made to the Life of
Pamphilus as a book already published, while in the corresponding
account in the longer recension no such book is referred to. This would
seem to indicate that the Life of Pamphilus was written after the
longer, but before the shorter recension of the Martyrs. But on the
other hand the Life was written before the Ecclesiastical History (see
above, p. 29), and consequently before the publication of either
recension of the Martyrs. May it not be that the accounts of the
various martyrdoms were written, at least some of them, during the
persecution, but that they were not arranged, completed, and published
until 313, or later? If this be admitted we may suppose that the
account of Pamphilus' martyrdom was written soon after his death and
before the Life was begun. When it was later embodied with the other
accounts in the one work On the Martyrs of Palestine it may have been
left just as it was, and it may not have occurred to the author to
insert a reference to the Life of Pamphilus which had meanwhile been
published. But when he came to abridge and in part rewrite for a new
edition the accounts of the various martyrdoms contained in the work On
Martyrs he would quite naturally refer the reader to the Life for
fuller particulars.
If we then suppose that the greater part of the
longer recension of the Martyrs was already complete before the end of
the persecution, it is natural to conclude that the whole work was
published at an early date, probably as soon as possible after the
first edition of the History. How much later the abridgment was made we
cannot tell. [1]
The differences between the two recensions lie
chiefly in the greater fullness of detail on the part of the longer
one. The arrangement and general mode of treatment is the same in both.
They contain accounts of the Martyrs that suffered in Palestine during
the years 303-310, most of whom Eusebius himself saw. Collection of
Ancient Martyrdoms (<greek>arkaiwn</greek>
<greek>marturiwn</greek>
<greek>sunagwgh</greek>). This work is mentioned by
Eusebius in his H. E. IV. 15, V. pr'f., 4, 21. These notices indicate
that it was not an original
31
composition, but simply a compilation; a collection of extant accounts
of martyrdoms which had taken place before Eusebius' day. The work is
no longer extant, but the accounts of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and
others at Smyrna, of the persecution in Lyons and Vienne, and of the
defense of Apollonius in Rome, which Eusebius inserts in his
Ecclesiastical History (IV. xS, V. 1, V. 21), are taken, as he informs
us, from this collection. As to the time of compilation, we can say
only that it antedates the composition of the earlier books of the
History (on whose date, see below, p. 45).
Chronicle (<greek>kronikoi</greek>
<greek>kanones</greek>). Eusebius refers to this work in
his Church History (I. 1), in his Pr'paratio Evang. X. 9, and at the
beginning of his Eclog' prophetica'. It is divided into two books, the
first of which consists of an epitome of universal history drawn from
various sources, the second of chronological tables, which "exhibit in
parallel columns the succession of the rulers of different nations in
such a way that the reader can see at a glance with whom any given
monarch was contemporary." The tables "are accompanied by notes,
marking the years of some of the more remarkable historical events,
these notes also constituting an epitome of history." Eusebius was not
the first Christian writer to compose a work on universal chronology.
Julius Africanus had published a similar work early in the third
century, and from that Eusebius drew his model and a large part of the
material for his own work. At the same time his Chronicle is more than
a simple revision of Africanus' work, and contains the result of much
independent investigation on his own part. The work of Africanus is no
longer extant, and that of Eusebius was likewise lost for a great many
centuries, being superseded by a revised Latin edition, issued by
Jerome. Jerome's edition, which comprises only the second book of
Eusebius' Chronicle, is a translation of the original work, enlarged by
notices taken from various writers concerning human history, and
containing a continuation of the chronology down to his own time. This,
together with numerous Greek fragments preserved by various ancient
writers, constituted our only source for a knowledge of the original
work, until late in the last century an Armenian translation of the
whole work was discovered and published in two volumes by J. B. Aucher:
Venice, 1818. The Armenian translation contains a great many errors and
not a few lacun', but it is our most valuable source for a knowledge of
the original work.
The aim of the Chronicle was, above all, apologetic,
the author wishing to prove by means of it that the Jewish religion, of
which the Christian was the legitimate continuation, was older than the
oldest of heathen cults, and thus deprive pagan opponents of their
taunt of novelty, so commonly hurled against Christianity. As early as
the second century, the Christian apologists had emphasized the
antiquity of Judaism; but Julius Africanus was the first to devote to
the matter scientific study, and it was with the same idea that
Eusebius followed in his footsteps. The Chronology, in spite of its
errors, is invaluable for the light it throws on many otherwise dark
periods of history, and for the numerous extracts it contains from
works no longer extant.
There are good and sufficient reasons (as is pointed
out by Salmon in his article in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of
Christian Biography) for supposing that two editions of the Chronicle
were published by Eusebius. But two of these reasons need be stated
here: first, the chronology of the Armenian version differs from that
of Jerome's edition in many important particulars, divergencies which
can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a
difference in the sources from which they respectively drew; secondly,
Jerome states directly that the work was brought down to the vicennalia
of Constantine,--that is, to the year 325,--but the Chronicle is
referred to as an already published work in the Eclog' prophetic' (I.
1), and in the Pr'paratio Evang. (X. 9), both of which were written
before 313. We may conclude, then, that a first edition of the work was
published during, or more probably before, the great persecution, and
that a second and revised edition was issued probably in 325, or soon
thereafter.
For further particulars in regard to the Chronicle
see especially the article of Salmon already referred to. The work has
been issued separately a great many times. We may refer here to the
edition of Scaliger, which was published in 1606 (2d ed. 1658), in
which he attempted
32
to restore the Greek text from the fragments of Syncellus and other
ancient writers, and to the new edition of Mai, which was printed in
1833 in his Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, Tom. VIII., and
reprinted by Migne, Eusebii Opera, I. 99-598. The best and most recent
edition, however, and the one which supersedes all earlier editions, is
that of Alfred Schoene, in two volumes: Berlin, 1875 and 1866.
Ecclesiastical History (<greek>ekklhsiastikh</greek>
<greek>istoria</greek>). For a discussion of this work see
below, p. 45 sq. Life of Constantine (<greek>eis</greek>
<greek>ton</greek> <greek>bion</greek>
<greek>tou</greek> <greek>makarioh</greek>
<greek>kwnstantinou</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>basilews</greek>).For particulars in regard to this
work, see the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, on pp. sq., of this volume.
II. APOLOGETIC WORKS.
Against Hierocles (<greek>pros</greek>
<greek>tous</greek> <greek>uper</greek>
A<greek>pollwniou</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>tuanews</greek>
I<greek>erokleous</greek>
<greek>logous</greek>, as Photius calls it in his Bibl.
39). Hierocles was governor of Bithynia during the early years of the
Diocletian persecution, and afterwards governor of Egypt. In both
places he treated the Christians with great severity, carrying out the
edicts of the emperors to the fullest extent, and even making use of
the most terrible and loathsome forms of persecution (see Lactantius,
De Mort. Pers. 16, and Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 5, Cureton's ed. p. 18). He
was at the same time a Neo-Platonic philosopher, exceedingly well
versed in the Scriptures and doctrines of the Christians. In a work
against the Christians entitled <greek>logos</greek>
<greek>filalhqhs</greek> <greek>nros</greek>
<greek>tous</greek> <greek>kristianous</greek>,
he brought forward many scriptural difficulties and alleged
contradictions, and also instituted a comparison between Christ and
Apollonius of Tyana, with the intention of disparaging the former.
Eusebius feels called upon to answer the work, but confines himself
entirely to that part of it which concerned Christ and Apollonius,
leaving to some future time a refutation of the remainder of the work,
which indeed, he says, as a mere reproduction of the arguments of
Celsus, had been already virtually answered by Origen (see chap. 1).
Eusebius admits that Apollonius was a good man, but refuses to concede
that he was anything more, or that he can be compared with Christ. He
endeavors to show that the account of Apollonius given by Philostratus
is full of contradictions and does not rest upon trustworthy evidence.
The tone of the book is mild, and the arguments in the main sound and
well presented. It is impossible to fix the date of the work with any
degree of certainty. Valesius assigns it to the later years of the
persecution, when Eusebius visited Egypt; Stein says that it may have
been written about 312 or 313, or even earlier; while Lightfoot simply
remarks, "it was probably one of the earliest works of Eusebius." There
is no ground for putting it at one time rather than another except the
intrinsic probability that it was written soon after the work to which
it was intended to be a reply. In fact, had a number of years elapsed
after the publication of Hierocles' attack, Eusebius would doubtless,
if writing against it at all, have given a fuller and more complete
refutation of it, such as he suggests in the first chapter that he may
yet give. The work of Hierocles, meanwhile, must have been written at
any rate some time before the end of the persecution, for it is
mentioned in Lactantius' Div. Inst. V. 2.
Eusebius' work has been published by Gaisford:
Eusebii Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum libri, Oxon. 1852; and
also in various editions of the works of Philostratus. Migne, Opera IV.
795 sq., reprints it from Olearius' edition of Philostratus' works
(Lips. 1709).
Against Porphyry (<greek>kata</greek>
II<greek>orfurion</greek>). Porphyry, the celebrated
Neo-Platonic philosopher, regarded by the early Fathers as the
bitterest and most dangerous enemy of the Church, wrote toward the end
of the third century a work against Christianity in fifteen books,
which was looked upon as the most powerful attack that had ever been
made, and which called forth refutations from some of the greatest
Fathers of the age: from Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of C'sarea, and
Apollinaris of Laodicea; and even as late as the end of the fourth or
beginning of the fifth century the historian Philostorgius thought it
necessary to write another reply to it (see his H. E. X. 10).
Porphyry's work is no longer extant, but the fragments of it which
remain show us that it was both learned and skillful. He made much of
the alleged contra-
33
dictions in the Gospel records, and suggested difficulties which are
still favorite weapons in the hands of skeptics. Like the work of
Porphyry, and all the other refutations of it, the Apology of Eusebius
has entirely perished. It is mentioned by Jerome (de vir. ill. 81 and
Ep. ad Magnum, § 3, Migne's ed. Ep. 70), by Socrates (H. E. III.
23), and by Philostorgius (H. E. VIII. 14). There is some dispute as to
the number of books it contained. In his Ep. ad Magn. Jerome says that
"Eusebius et Apollinaris viginti quinque, et triginta volumina
condiderunt," which implies that it was composed of twenty-five books;
while in his de ver. ill. 81, he speaks of thirty books, of which he
had seen only twenty. Vallarsi says, however, that all his MSS. agree
in reading "twenty-five" instead of "thirty" in the latter passage, so
that it would seem that the vulgar text is incorrect.
It is impossible to form an accurate notion of the
nature and quality of Eusebius' refutation. Socrates speaks of it in
terms of moderate praise ("which [i.e. the work of Porphyry] has been
ably answered by Eusebius"), and Jerome does the same in his Ep. ad
Magnum ("Alteri [i.e. Porphyry] Methodius, Eusebius, et Apollinaris
fortissime responderunt"). At the same time the fact that Apollinaris
and others still thought it necessary to write against Porphyry would
seem to show that Eusebius' refutation was not entirely satisfactory.
In truth, Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, § 2, Migne's ed.
Ep. 84) appears to rank the work of Apollinaris above that of Eusebius,
and Philostorgius expressly states that the former far surpassed the
latter (<greek>epi</greek> <greek>polu</greek>
<greek>kratein</greek>
<greek>hUwnismemn</greek>
E<greek>usebiw</greek> <greek>kat</greek>
<greek>autou</greek>). The date of Eusebius' work cannot be
determined. The fact that he never refers to it, although he mentions
the work of Porphyry a number of times, has been urged by Valesius and
others as proof that he did not write it until after 325 A.D.; but it
is quite possible to explain his silence, as Lardner does, by supposing
that his work was written in his earlier years, and that afterward he
felt its inferiority and did not care to mention it. It seems, in fact,
not unlikely that he wrote it as early, or even earlier than his work
against Hierocles, at any rate before his attention was occupied with
the Arian controversy and questions connected with it.
On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients
(<greek>peri</greek> <greek>ths</greek>
<greek>ppn</greek> <greek>palaipn</greek>
<greek>andrpn</greek>
<greek>polupaidias</greek>). This work is mentioned by
Eusebius in his Praep. Evang. VII. 8. 20 (Migne, Opera, III. 525), but
by no one else, unless it be the book to which Basil refers in his De
Spir. Saneta, 29, as Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the
Ancients. The work is no longer extant, but we can gather from the
connection in which it is mentioned in the Preparatio, that it aimed at
accounting for the polygamy of the Patriarchs and reconciling it with
the ascetic ideal of the Christian life which prevailed in the Church
of Eusebius' lifetime. It would therefore seem to have been written
with an apologetic purpose.
Pr'paratio Evangelica
(<greek>proparaskeuh</greek>) and Demonstratio Evangelica
(E'<greek>uaUUelikh</greek>
<greek>apodeixis</greek>). These two treatises together
constitute Eusebius' greatest apologetic work. The former is directed
against heathen, and aims to show that the Christians are justified in
accepting the sacred books of the Hebrews and in rejecting the religion
and philosophy of the Greeks. The latter endeavors to prove from the
sacred books of the Hebrews themselves that the Christians do right in
going beyond the Jews, in accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and in
adopting another mode of life. The former is therefore in a way a
preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a defense
of Christianity against all the world, Jews as well as heathen. In
grandeur of conception, in comprehensiveness of treatment, and in
breadth of learning, this apology undoubtedly surpasses all other
apologetic works of antiquity. Lightfoot justly says, "This great
apologetic work exhibits the same merits and defects which we find
elsewhere in Eusebius. There is the same greatness of conception marred
by the same inadequacy of execution, the same profusion of learning
combined with the same inability to control his materials, which we
have seen in his History. The divisions are not kept distinct; the
topics start up unexpectedly and out of season. But with all its faults
this is probably the most important apologetic work of the early
Church. It necessarily lacks the historical interest of the apologetic
34
writings of the second century; it falls far short of the
thoughtfulness and penetration which give a permanent value to Origen's
treatise against Celsus as a defense of the faith; it lags behind the
Latin apologists in rhetorical vigor and expression. But the forcible
and true conceptions which it exhibits from time to time, more
especially beating on the theme which may be briefly designated 'God in
history,' arrest our attention now, and must have impressed his
contemporaries still more strongly; while in learning and
comprehensiveness it is without a rival." The wide acquaintance with
classical literature exhibited by Eusebius in the Preparatio is very
remarkable. Many writers are referred to whose names are known to us
from no other source, and many extracts are given which constitute our
only fragments of works otherwise totally lost. The Preparatio thus
does for classical much what the History does for Christian literature.
A very satisfactory summary of the contents of the
Pr'paratio is given at the beginning of the fifteenth book. In the
first, second, and third books, the author exposes the absurdities of
heathen mythology, and attacks the allegorical theology of the
Neo-Platonists; in the fourth and fifth books he discusses the heathen
oracles; in the sixth he refutes the doctrine of fate; in the seventh
he passes over to the Hebrews, devoting the next seven books to an
exposition of the excellence of their system, and to a demonstration of
the proposition that Moses and the prophets lived before the greatest
Greek writers, and that the latter drew their knowledge from the
former; in the fourteenth and fifteenth books he exposes the
contradictions among Greek philosophers and the vital errors in their
systems, especially in that of the Peripatetics. The Pr'paratio is
complete in fifteen books, all of which are still extant.
The Demonstratio consisted originally of twenty
books (see Jerome's de vir. ill. 81, and Photius' Bibl. 10). Of these
only ten are extant, and even in the time of Nicephones Callistus no
more were known, for he gives the number of the books as ten (H. E. VI.
37). There exists also a fragment of the fifteenth book, which was
discovered and printed by Mai (Script. vet. nova call. I. 2, p. 173).
In the first book, which is introductory, Eusebius shows why the
Christians pursue a mode of life different from that of the Jews,
drawing a distinction between Hebraism, the religion of all pious men
from the beginning, and Judaism, the special system of the Jews, and
pointing out that Christianity is a continuation of the former, but a
rejection of the latter, which as temporary has passed away. In the
second book he shows that the calling of the Gentiles and the
repudiation of the Jews are foretold in Scripture. In books three to
nine he discusses the humanity, divinity, incarnation, and earthly life
of the Saviour, showing that all were revealed in the prophets. In the
remainder of the work we may assume that the same general plan was
followed, and that Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, and the
spread of his Church, were the subjects discussed in this as in nearly
all works of the kind.
There is much dispute as to the date of these two
works. Stroth and Cave place them after the Council of Nica'a, while
Valesius, Lightfoot, and others, assign them to the ante-Nicene period.
In two passages in the History Eusebius has been commonly supposed to
refer to the Demonstratio (H. E. I. 2 and 6), but it is probable that
the first, and quite likely the second also, refers to the Eclog'
Proph. We can, therefore, base no argument upon those passages. But in
Pre second a'p. Evang. XII. 10 (Opera, III. 969) there is a reference
to the persecution, which seems clearly to imply that it was still
continuing; and in the Demonstratio (III. 5 and IV. 6; Opera, IV. 213
and 307), which was written after the Preparatio, are still more
distinct indications of the continuance of the persecution. On the
other hand, in V. 3 and VI. 20 (Opera, IV. 364 and 474) there are
passages which imply that the persecution has come to an end. It seems
necessary then to conclude, with Lightfoot, that the Demonstratio was
begun during the persecution, but not completed until peace had been
established. The Pr'paratio, which was completed before the
Demonstratio was begun (see the pro'mium to the latter), must have been
finished during the persecution. It contains in X. 9 (Opera, III. 807)
a reference to the Chronicle as an already published work (see above,
p. 31).
35
The Pr'paratio and Demonstratio are found in Migne's edition of the
Opera, III. and IV. 9 sq. A more recent text is that of Dindorf in
Teubner's series, 1867. The Pr'paratio has been published separately by
Heinichen, 2 vols., Lips. 1842, and by Gaisford, 4 vols., Oxon. 1843.
The latter contains a full critical apparatus with Latin translation
and notes, and is the most useful edition which we have. Seguier in
1846 published a French translation with notes. The latter are printed
in Latin in Migne's edition of the Opera, III. 1457 sq. The French
translation I have not seen. The Demonstratio was also published by
Gaisford in 2 vols., Oxon. 1852, with critical apparatus and Latin
translation. H'nell has made the two works the subject of a monograph
entitled De Eusebio C'sariensi religionis Christianae subject of'e
Defensore (Gotting Christianae subject of a monograph entitled', 1843)
which I know only from the mention of it by Stein and Lightfoot.
Pr'paratio Ecclesiastica
('E<greek>kklhsiastikh</greek>
II<greek>roparaskeuh</greek>), and Demanstratio
Ecclesiastica ('E <greek>kklhQiastikh</greek>
'A<greek>podeixis</greek> ). These two works are no longer
extant. We know of the former only from Photius' reference to it in
Bibl. 11, of the latter from his mention of it in Bibl.
Lightfoot says that the latter is referred to also
in the Fus Gr'co-Romanum (lib. IV. p. 295; ed. Leunclav.). We know
nothing about the works (except that the first according to Photius
contained extracts), and should be tempted to think them identical with
the Pr'paratio and Demonstratio Evang. were it not that Photius
expressly mentions the two latter in another part of his catalogue
(Bibl. 10). Lightfoot supposes that the two lost works did for the
society what the Pr'p. and Dem. Evang. do for the doctrines of which
the society is the depositary, and he suggests that those portions of
the Theophania (Book IV.) which relate to the foundation of the Church
may have been adopted from the Dem. Ecclesiastica, as other portions of
the work (Book V.) are adopted from the Dem. Evang.
If there is a reference in the Pr'p. Evang. I. 3
(Opera, III 33) to the Demanstratio Eccles., as Lightfoot thinks there
may be, and as is quite possible, the latter work, and consequently in
all probability the Pr'p. Eccles, also, must have been written before
313 A.D. Two Books of Objection and Defense
('E<greek>leUkou</greek> <greek>kai</greek>
'A<greek>poloUias</greek> <greek>loUoi</greek>
<greek>duo</greek>). These are no longer extant, but are
mentioned by Photius in his Bibl. 13. We gather from Photius' language
that two editions of the work were extant in his time. The books, as
Photius clearly indicates, contained an apology for Christianity
against the attacks of the heathen, and not, as Cave supposed, a
defense of the author against the charge of Arianism. The tract
mentioned by Gelasius of Cyzicus (see below, p. 64) is therefore not to
be identified with this work, as Cave imagined that it might be.
Theophania or Divine Manifestation
(<greek>qeoFaneia</greek>). A Syriac version of this work
is extant in the same MS. which contains the Martyrs of Palestine, and
was first published by Lee in 1842. In 1843 the same editor issued an
English translation with notes and extended prolegomena (Cambridge, 1
vol.). The original work is no longer extant in its entirety, but
numerous Greek fragments were collected and published by Mai in 1831
and 1833 (Script. vet. nov. call. I. and VIII.), and again with
additions in 1847 (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 110 and 310; reprinted by
Migne, Opera, VI. 607-690. Migne does not give the Syriac version). The
manuscript which contains the Syriac version was written in 411, and
Lee thinks that the translation itself may have been made even during
the lifetime of Eusebius. At any rate it is very old and, so far as it
is possible to judge, seems to have reproduced the sense of the
original with comparative accuracy. The subject of the work is the
manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word. It aims to give,
with an apologetic purpose, a brief exposition of the divine authority
and influence of Christianity. It is divided into five books which
handle successively the subject and the recipients of the revelation,
that is, the Logos on the one hand, and man on the other; the necessity
of the revelation; the proof of it drawn from its effects; the proof of
it drawn from its fulfillment of prophecy; finally, the common
objections brought by the heathen against Christ's character and
wonderful works. Lee says of the work: "As a brief exposition of
Christianity,
36
particularly of its Divine authority, and amazing influence, it has
perhaps never been surpassed." "When we consider the very extensive
range of inquiry occupied by our author, the great variety both of
argument and information which it contains, and the small space which
it occupies; we cannot, I think, avoid coming to the conclusion, that
it is a very extraordinary work, and one which is as suitable to our
own times as it was to those for which it was written. Its chief
excellency is, that it is argumentative, and that its arguments are
well grounded, and logically conducted."
The Theophania contains much that is found also in
other works of Eusebius. Large portions of the first, second, and third
books are contained in the Oratio de Laudibus Constantini, nearly the
whole of the fifth book is given in the Dem. Evang., while many
passages occur in the Pr'p. Evang.
These coincidences assist us in determining the date
of the work. That it was written after persecution had ceased and peace
was restored to the Church, is clear from II. 76, III. 20, 79, V. 52.
Lee decided that it was composed very soon after the close of the
Diocletian persecution, but Lightfoot has shown conclusively (p. 333)
from the nature of the parallels between it and other writings of
Eusebius, that it must have been written toward the end of his life,
certainly later than the De Laud. Canst. (335 A.D.), and indeed it is
not improbable that it remained unfinished at the time of his death.
III Polemic Works.
Defense of Origen
('A<greek>poloUia</greek> <greek>uper</greek>
<greek>Wrisenous</greek>). This was the joint work of
Eusebius and Pamphilus, as is distinctly stated by Eusebius himself in
his H. E. VI. 33, by Socrates, H. E. III. 7, by the anonymous collector
of the Synodical Epistles ( Ep. 198), and by Photius, Bibl. 118. The
last writer informs us that the work consisted of six books, the first
five of which were written by Eusebins and Pamphilus while the latter
was in prison, the last book being added by the former after Pamphilus'
death (see above, p. 9). There is no reason to doubt the statement of
Photius, and we may therefore assign the first five books to the years
307-309, and assume that the sixth was written soon afterward. The
Defense has perished, with the exception of the first book, which was
translated by Rufinus (Rufin. ad Hieron. I. 582 ), and is still extant
in his Latin version. Rufinus ascribed this book expressly to
Pamphilus, and Pamphilus' name alone appears in the translation. Jerome
(Contra Ruf. I. 8; II. 15, 23; III. 12) maintains that the whole work
was written by Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, and accuses Rufinus of
having deliberately substituted the name of the martyr Pamphilus for
that of the Arianizing Eusebius in his translation of the work, in
order to secure more favorable acceptance for the teachings of Origen.
Jerome's unfairness and dishonesty in this matter have been pointed out
by Lightfoot (p. 340). In spite of his endeavor to saddle the whole
work upon Eusebius, it is certain that Pamphilus was a joint author of
it, and it is quite probable that Rufinus was true to his original in
ascribing to Pamphilus all the explanations which introduce and connect
the extracts from Origen, which latter constitute the greater part of
the book. Eusebius may have done most of his work in connection with
the later books.
The work was intended as a defense of Origen against
the attacks of his opponents (see Eusebius' H. E. VI 33, and the
Preface to the Defense itself). According to Socrates (H. E. VI. 13),
Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus all wrote against
Origen. Of these only Methodius had written before the composition of
the Defense, and he was expressly attacked in the sixth book of that
work, according to Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 11). The wide opposition
aroused against Origen was chiefly in consequence not of his personal
character, but of his theological views. The Apology, therefore, seems
to have been devoted in the main to a defense of those views over
against the attacks of the men that held and taught opposite opinions,
and may thus be regarded as in some sense a regular polemic. The extant
book is devoted principally to a discussion of Origen's views on the
Trinity and the Incarnation. It is not printed in Migne's edition of
Eusebius' Opera, but is published in the various editions of
37
Origen's works (in Lommatzsch's edition, XXIV. 289-412). For further
particulars in regard to the work, see Delarue's introduction to it
(Lommatzsch, XXIV. 263 sq.), and Lightfoot's article on Eusebius, pp.
340 and 341.
Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra
(<greek>kata</greek> M<greek>?rkellou</greek>
<greek>tou</greek> 'A<greek>Ukuras</greek>
<greek>episkopou</greek>). The occasion of this work has
been already described (see p. 25), and is explained by Eusebius
himself in Book II. chap, 4. The work must have been written soon after
the Council at which Marcellus was condemned. It aims simply to expose
his errors, exegetical as well as theological. The work consists of two
books, and is still extant (Opera, VI. 707-824).
On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of
Marcellus (<greek>oi</greek>
<greek>pros</greek> M<greek>arkellon</greek>
<greek>eleUkoi</greek> <greek>peri</greek>
<greek>ths</greek>
<greek>ekklhsiastikhs</greek>
<greek>QeoloUias</greek>). The occasion of this work is
stated in the first chapter. In the previous work Eusebius had aimed
merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, but in this he devotes
himself to their refutation, fearing that some might be led astray by
their length and plausibility. The work, which consists of three books,
is still extant, and is given by Migne in the Opera, VI. 825-1046. Both
it and the preceding are published with the Contra Hieroclem in
Gaisford's Euseb. Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum, Oxon. 1852.
Zahn has written a valuable monograph entitled Marcellus von Ancyra
(Gotha, 1867).
Against the Manicheans. Epiphanius (H'r. LXVI. 21)
mentions, among other refutations of the Manicheans, one by our
Eusebius. The work is referred to nowhere else, and it is possible that
Epiphanius was mistaken in his reference, or that the refutation he has
in mind formed only a part of some other work, but we are hardly
justified in asserting, as Lightfoot does, that the work cannot have
existed.
IV. Dogmatic Works.
General Elementary Introduction ('H
<greek>kaqolou</greek>
<greek>stoikeiwdhs</greek>
<greek>eisaUwUh</greek>). This work consisted of ten books,
as we learn from a reference to it in the Eclog' Propheticae, as we
learn from a reference to it in the Eclog', IV. 35. It was apparently a
general introduction to the study of theology, and covered a great
variety of subjects. Five brief fragments have been preserved, all of
them apparently from the first book, which must have dealt largely with
general principles of ethics. The fragments were published by Mai
(Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316), and are reprinted by Migne (Opera, IV.
1271 sq.). In addition to these fragments, the sixth, seventh, eighth,
and ninth books of the work are extant under the title:
Prophetical Extracts
(II<greek>roFhtikai</greek>
'E<greek>kloUai</greek>). Although this formed a part of
the larger work, it is complete in itself, and circulated independently
of the rest of the Introduction. It contains extracts of prophetical
passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and work of
Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. It is divided into four
books, the first containing extracts from the historical Scriptures,
the second from the Psalms, the third from the other poetical books and
from the prophets, the fourth from Isaiah alone. The personality of the
Logos is the main topic of the work, which is thus essentially
dogmatic, rather than apologetic, as it might at first glance seem to
be. It was composed during the persecution, which is clearly referred
to in Book I. chap. 8 as still raging; it must have been written
therefore between 303 and 313. The date of these books, of course,
fixes the date of the General Introduction, of which they formed a
part. The Eclog' are referred to in the History, I. 2. On the other
hand, they mention the Chronicle as a work already written (I. I:
Opera, p. 1023); a reference which goes to prove that there were two
editions of the Chronicle (see above, p. 31). The four books of the
Prophetical Extracts were first published by Gaisford in 1842 (Oxford)
from a Vienna MS. The MS. is mutilated in many places, and the
beginning, including the title of the work, is wanting. Migne has
reprinted Gaisford's edition in the Opera, IV. 1017 sq.
On the Paschal Festival
(<greek>peri</greek> <greek>ths</greek>
<greek>tou</greek> <greek>paska</greek>
<greek>eorths</greek>). This work, as Eusebius informs us
in his Vita Const. IV. 34, was addressed to the Emperor Constantine,
who commends it very highly in an epistle to Eusebius preserved in the
Vita Const. IV. 35. From this epistle we learn, more-
38
over, that the work had been translated into Latin. It is no longer
extant in its entirety, but a considerable fragment of it was
discovered by Mai in Nicetas' Catena on Luke, and published by him in
his Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. p. 208 sq. The extant portion of it contains
twelve chapters, devoted partly to a discussion of the nature of the
Passover and its typical significance, partly to an account of the
settlement of the paschal question at the Council of Nic'a, and partly
to an argument against the necessity of celebrating the paschal feast
at the time of the Jewish Passover, based on the ground that Christ
himself did not keep the Passover on the same day as the Jews.
Jerome, although he does not mention this work in
his catalogue of Eusebius' writings (de vir. ill. 81), elsewhere (ib.
61) states that Eusebius composed a paschal canon with a cycle of
nineteen years. This cycle may have been published (as Lightfoot
remarks) as a part of the writing under discussion. The date of the
work cannot be determined with exactness. It was written after the
Council of Nic'a, and, as would seem from the connection in which it is
mentioned in the Vita Canstantini, before the Emperor's tricennalia
(335 A.D.), but not very long before. The extant fragment, as published
by Mai, is reprinted by Migne in the Opera, VI. 693-706.
V. Critical and Exegetical Works.
Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Pr'f. in
librum Paralip.) that Eusebius and Pamphilus published a number of
copies of Origen's edition of the LXX., that is, of the fifth column of
the Hexapla. A colophon found in a Vatican MS., and given in fac-simile
in Migne's Opera, IV. 875, contains the following account of their
labors (the translation is Lightfoot's): "It was transcribed from the
editions of the Hexapla, and was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen
himself, which also had been corrected and furnished with scholia in
his own handwriting; whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus
and Eusebius corrected [this copy]." Compare also Field's Hexapla, I.
p. xcix.
Taylor, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography,
III. p. 21, says: "The whole work [i.e. the Hexapla] was too massive
for multiplication; but many copies of its fifth column alone were
issued from C'sarea under the direction of Pamphilus the martyr and
Eusebius, and this recension of the LXX. came into common use. Some of
the copies issued contained also marginal scholia, which gave inter
alia a selection of readings from the remaining versions in the
Hexapla. The oldest extant MS. of this recension is the Leiden Codex
Sarravianus of the fourth or fifth century." These editions of the LXX.
must have been issued before the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered
martyrdom, and in all probability before 307, when he was imprisoned
(see Lardner's Credibility, Part II. chap. 72.
In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the
publication of copies of the Scriptures. According to the Vita Const.
IV. 36, 37, the Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare fifty
sumptuous copies of the Scriptures for use in his new
Constantinopolitan churches. The commission was carefully executed, and
the MSS. prepared at great cost. It has been thought that among our
extant MSS. may be some of these copies which were produced under
Eusebius' supervision, but this is extremely improbable (see Lightfoot,
p. 334).
Ten Evangelical Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus
prefixed (<greek>kanones</greek>
<greek>deka</greek>; Canones decem harmoniae evangeliorum
pr'missa ad Carpianum epistola). Ammonius of Alexandria early in the
third century had constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in which,
taking Matthew as the standard, he placed alongside of that Gospel the
parallel passages from the three others. Eusebius' work was suggested
by this Harmony, as he tells us in his epistle to Carpianus. An
inconvenient feature of Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel of
Matthew could be read continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels
being broken in order to bring their parallel sections into the order
followed by Matthew. Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect,
constructed his work on a different principle. He made a table of ten
canons, each containing a list of passages as follows: Canon I.
passages common to all four Gospels; II. those common to Matthew, Mark,
and Luke; III. those common to Matt, Luke, and John; IV. those
45
Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI. 104) reports that the
following works are extant in MS.: Fragmentum de Mensuris ac Ponderibus
(MSS. Is. Vossii, n. 179); De Morte Herodis (MS. in Bibl. Basil.);
Pr'fatio ad Canticum Mosis in Exodo (Lambec. III. p. 35).
CHAPTER III.
EUSEBIUS' CHURCH HISTORY.
§ 1. Date of its Composition.
THE work with which we are especially concerned at
this time is the Church History, the original Greek of which is still
extant in numerous MSS. It consists of ten books, to which is added in
most of the MSS. the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine (see
above, p. 29). The date of the work can be determined with considerable
exactness. It closes with a eulogy of Constantine and his son Crispus;
and since the latter was put to death by his father in the summer of
326, the History must have been completed before that time. On the
other hand, in the same chapter Eusebius refers to the defeat of
Licinius, which took place in the year 323 A.D. This gives a fixed
terminus a quo. It is not quite certain from Eusebius' words whether
the death of Licinius had already taken place at the time he wrote, but
it seems probable that it had, and if so, the completion of the work
must be put as late as the Summer of 324. On the other band, not the
slightest reference is made to the Council of Nic'a, which met in the
summer of 325; and still further the tenth book is dedicated to
Paulinus, at one time bishop of Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch
(see Euseb. Contra Marc. I. 4, and Philost. H. E. III 15), who was
already dead in the summer of 325: for at the Nicene Council, Zeno
appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius as bishop of Antioch (see for
further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322). We are thus led to place the
completion of the History in the year 324, or, to give the widest
possible limits, between the latter part of 323 and the early part of
325 A.D.
But the question has been raised whether the earlier
books may not have been composed some years before this. Lightfoot
(following Westcott) supposes that the first nine books were completed
not long after the edict of Milan and before the outbreak of the
quarrel between Constantine and Licinius in 314. There is considerable
to be said in favor of this theory. The language used in the dedication
of the tenth book seems to imply that the nine books had been completed
some time before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of postscript.
The close of the ninth book strengthens that conclusion. Moreover, it
would seem from the last sentences of that book that Constantine and
Licinius were in perfect harmony at the time it was written, a state of
affairs which did not exist after 314. On the other hand, it must be
noticed that in Book IX. chap. 9 Licinius' "madness" is twice referred
to as having "not yet" seized him (in § 1
<greek>oupw</greek> <greek>manentos</greek>
<greek>tote</greek>, and in § 12
<greek>o</greek><?><greek>nw</greek>
<greek>tote</greek> <greek>ef</greek>
<greek>hn</greek> <greek>usteron</greek>
<greek>ekpeptwke</greek> <greek>manian</greek>,
<greek>thn</greek> <greek>dianaian</greek>
<greek>ektrapeis</greek>). It is necessary either to
interpret both these clauses as later insertions (possibly by Eusebius'
own hand at the time when he added the tenth book; cf. also p. 30,
above), or to throw the composition of the ninth book down to the year
319 or later. It is difficult to decide between these alternatives, but
I am inclined on the whole to think that Westcott's theory is probably
correct, and that the two clauses can best be interpreted as later
insertions. The very nature of his History would at any rate lead us to
think that Eusebius spent some years in the composition of it, and that
the earlier books, if not published, were at least completed long
before the issue of the ten books as a whole. The Chronicle is referred
to as already written in I. 1; the Eclogae Proph. (? see below, p. 85)
in I. 2 and 6; the Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15, V.
preface, 4, and 22; the Defense of Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36; the
Life of Pamphilus in VI. 32, VII. 32, and VIII. 13. In VIII. 13
Eusebius speaks also of his intention of relating the sufferings of the
martyrs in another work (but see above, p. 30).
46
§ 5. The Author's Design.
That the composition of a history of the Church was
Eusebius' own idea, and was not due to any suggestion from without,
seems clear, both from the absence of reference to any one else as
prompting it, and from the lack of a dedication at the beginning of the
work. The reasons which led him to undertake its composition seem to
have been both scientific and apologetic. He lived, and he must have
realized the fact, at the opening of a new age in the history of the
Church. He believed, as he frequently tells us, that the period of
struggle had come to an end, and that the Church was now about entering
upon a new era of prosperity. He must have seen that it was a
peculiarly fitting time to put on record for the benefit of posterity
the great events which had taken place within the Church during the
generations that were past, to sum up in one narrative all the trials
and triumphs which had now emerged in this final and greatest triumph,
which he was witnessing. He wrote, as any historian of the present day
would write, for the information and instruction of his contemporaries
and of those who should come after, and yet there was in his mind all
the time the apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the
history of Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy.
The plan which he proposed to himself is stated at the very beginning
of his work: "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions
of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from
the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate how many and how
important events are said to have occurred in the history of the
Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the
Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation
have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my
purpose also to give the names and the number and the times of those
who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and
proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so-called,
have, like fierce wolves, unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.
It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which
immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their
plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in
which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to
describe the character of those who at various periods have contended
for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions
which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and
kindly succour which our Saviour afforded them all." It will be seen
that Eusebius had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of the
Church should comprise, and that he was fully alive to its importance.
§ 3. Eusebius as a Historian. The Merits and Defects of his
History.
The whole Christian world has reason to be thankful
that there lived at the opening of the fourth century a man who, with
his life spanning one of the greatest epochs that has occurred in the
history of the Church, with an intimate experimental knowledge of the
old and of the new condition of things, was able to conceive so grand a
plan and possessed the means and the ability to carry it out. Had he
written nothing else, Eusebius' Church History would have made him
immortal; for if immortality be a fitting reward for large and lasting
services, few possess a clearer title to it than the author of that
work. The value of the History to us lies not in its literary merit,
but in the wealth of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge
of the early Church. How many prominent figures of the first three
centuries are known to us only from the pages of Eusebius; how many
fragments, priceless on account of the light which they shed upon
movements of momentous and far-reaching consequence, have been
preserved by him alone; how often a hint dropped, a casual statement
made in passing, or the mention of some apparently trifling event,
gives the clue which enables us to unravel some perplexing labyrinth,
or to fit into one whole various disconnected and apparently unrelated
elements, and thus to trace the steps in the development of some
important historical movement whose rise and whose bearing must
47
otherwise remain an unsolved riddle. The work reveals no sympathy with
Ebionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism, and little appreciation of their
real nature, and yet our knowledge of their true significance and of
their place in history is due in considerable part to facts respecting
the movements or their leaders which Eusebius alone has recorded or
preserved. To understand the development of the Logos Christology we
must comprehend the significance of the teaching of Paul of Samosata,
and how inadequate would our knowledge of the nature of that teaching
be without the epistle quoted in Book VII. chap. 30. How momentous were
the consequences of the paschal controversies, and how dark would they
be were it not for the light shed upon them by our author. How
important, in spite of their tantalizing brevity and obscurity, the
fragments of Papias' writings; how interesting the extracts from the
memoirs of Hegesippus; how suggestive the meager notices from Dionysius
of Corinth, from Victor of Rome, from Melito, from Caius; how
instructive the long and numerous quotations from the epistles of
Dionysius of Alexandria! He may often fail to appreciate the
significance of the events which he records, he may in many cases draw
unwarranted conclusions from the premises which he states, he may
sometimes misinterpret his documents and misunderstand men and
movements, but in the majority of cases he presents us with the
material upon which to form our own judgments, and if we differ with
him we must at the same time thank him for the data which have enabled
us independently to reach other results.
But the value of Eusebius' Church History does not
lie solely in the fact that it contains so many original sources which
would be otherwise unknown to us. It is not merely a thesaurus, it is a
history in the truest sense, and it possesses an intrinsic value of its
own, independent of its, quotations from other works. Eusebius
possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible to us.
His History contains the results of his extended perusal of many works
which are now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance with the
current traditions of his day, of his familiar intercourse with many of
the chief men of the age. If we cut out all the documents which he
quotes, there still remains an extensive history whose loss would leave
an irreparable blank in our knowledge of the early Church. How
invaluable, for instance, to mention but one matter, are the researches
of our author in regard to the circulation of the books of the New
Testament: his testimony to the condition of the canon in his own time,
and to the more or less widespread use of particular writings by the
Fathers of preceding centuries. Great as is the value of the sources
which Eusebius quotes, those that he does not give are still more
extensive, and it is the knowledge gained from them which he has
transmitted to us.
The worth of these portions of his History must
depend in the first place upon the extent and reliability of his
sources, and in the second place upon the use which he made of them.
A glance at the list of his authorities given in the
index, reveals at once the immense range of his materials. The number
of books which he either quotes or refers to as read is enormous. When
to these are added the works employed by him in the composition of his
Pr'p. Evang., as well as the great number which he must have perused,
but does not mention, we are amazed at the extent of his reading. He
must have been a voracious reader from his earliest years, and he must
have possessed extraordinary acquisitive powers. It is safe to say that
there was among the Fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, no
more learned man than he. He thus possessed one of the primary
qualifications of the historian. And yet even in this respect he had
his limitations. He seems to have taken no pains to acquaint himself
with the works of heretics, but to have been content to take his
knowledge of them at second hand. And still further, he was sadly
ignorant of Latin literature and of the Latin Church in general (see
below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to glean from his History a
very thorough or extended knowledge of western Christendom.
But his sources were not confined to literary
productions. He had a wide acquaintance with the world, and he was
enabled to pick up much from his intercourse with other men and with
different peoples that he could not have found upon the shelves of the
C'sarean or of any other
48
library. Moreover, he had access to the archives of state and gathered
from them much information quite inaccessible to most men. He was thus
peculiarly fitted, both by nature and by circumstances, for the task of
acquiring material, the first task of the genuine historian.
But the value of his work must depend in the second
place upon the wisdom and honesty with which he used his sources, and
upon the faithfulness and accuracy with which he reproduced the results
thus reached. We are therefore led to enquire as to his qualifications
for this part of his work.
We notice, in the first place, that he was very
diligent in the use of his sources. Nothing seems to have escaped him
that might in any way bear upon the particular subject in hand. When he
informs us that a certain author nowhere mentions a book or an event,
he is, so far as I am aware, never mistaken. When we realize how many
works he read entirely through for the sake of securing a single
historical notice, and how many more he must have read without finding
anything to his purpose, we are impressed with his untiring diligence.
To-day, with our convenient indexes, and with the references at hand
which have been made by many other men who have studied the writings of
the ancients, we hardly comprehend what an amount of labor the
production of a History like Eusebius' must have cost him, a pioneer in
that kind of work.
In the second place, we are compelled to admire the
sagacity which our author displays in the selection of his materials.
He possessed the true instinct of the historian, which enabled him to
pick out the salient points and to present to the reader just that
information which he most desires. We shall be surprised upon examining
his work to see how little it contains which it is not of the utmost
importance for the student of early Church history to know, and how
shrewdly the author has anticipated most of the questions which such a
student must ask. He saw what it was in the history of the first three
centuries of the Church which posterity would most desire to know, and
he told them. His wisdom in this respect is all the more remarkable
when compared with the unwisdom of most of his successors, who filled
their works with legends of saints and martyrs, which, however
fascinating they may have been to the readers of that age, possess
little either of interest or of value for us. When he wishes to give us
a glimpse of the persecutions of those early days, his historical and
literary instinct leads him to dwell especially upon two thoroughly
representative cases,--the martyrdom of Polycarp and the sufferings of
the churches of Lyons and Vienne,--and to preserve for posterity two of
the noblest specimens of martyrological literature which the ancient
Church produced. It is true that he sometimes erred in his judgment as
to the wants of future readers; we could wish that he had been somewhat
fuller and clearer on many points, and that he had not so entirely
neglected some others; but on the whole I am of the opinion that few
historical works, ancient or modern, have in the same compass better
fulfilled their mission in this respect.
In the third place, we can hardly fail to be
impressed by the wisdom with which Eusebius discriminated between
reliable and unreliable sources. Judged by the modern standard he may
fall short as a literary critic, but judged by the standard of
antiquity he must be given a very high rank. Few indeed are the
historians of ancient times, secular or ecclesiastical, who can compare
with Eusebius for sound judgment in this matter. The general freedom of
his work from the fables and prodigies, and other improbable or
impossible tales which disfigure the pages of the great majority even
of the soberest of ancient historians, is one of its most marked
features. He shows himself uncommonly particular in demanding good
evidence for the circumstances which he records, and uncommonly shrewd
in detecting spurious and unreliable sources. When we remember the
great number of pseudonymous works which were current in his day we are
compelled to admire his care and his discrimination. Not that he always
succeeded in detecting the false. More than once he was sadly at fault
(as for instance in regard to the Abgarus correspondence and Josephus'
testimony to Christ), and has in consequence been severely denounced or
held up to unsparing ridicule by many modern writers. But the wonder
certainly is not that he erred as often as he did, but that he did not
err oftener; not that he was sometimes careless in
49
regard to the reliability of his sources, but that he was ever as
careful as, in the majority of cases, he has proved himself to be. In
fact, comparing him with other writers of antiquity, we cannot commend
too highly the care and the skill with which he usually discriminated
between the true and the false.
In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for his
constant sincerity and unfailing honesty. I believe that emphasis
should be laid upon this point for the reason that Eusebius' reputation
has often suffered sadly in consequence of the unjust imputations, and
the violent accusations, which it was for a long time the fashion to
make against him, and which lead many still to treat his statements
with distrust, and his character with contempt. Gibbon's estimate of
his honesty is well known and has been unquestioningly accepted in many
quarters, but it is none the less unjust, and in its implications quite
untrue to the facts. Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness upon the
virtues than upon the vices of the early Church, upon its glory than
upon its shame, and he tells us directly that it is his intention so to
do (H. E. VIII. 2), but he never undertakes to conceal the sins of the
Christians, and the chapter immediately preceding contains a
denunciation of their corruptness and wickedness uttered in no faint
terms. In fact, in the face of these and other candid passages in his
work, it is the sheerest injustice to charge him with dishonesty and
unfairness because he prefers, as almost any Christian historian must,
to dwell with greater fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the
dark side of the picture. Scientific, Eusebius' method, in this
respect, doubtless is not; but dishonest, no one has a right to call
it. The most severe attack which has been made upon Eusebius in recent
years is found in an article by Jachmann (see below, p. 55). The
evident animus which runs through his entire paper is very unpleasant;
the conclusions which he draws are, to say the least, strained. I
cannot enter here into a consideration of his positions; most of them
are examined below in the notes upon the various passages which he
discusses. The whole article, like most similar attacks, proceeds upon
the supposition that our author is guilty, and then undertakes simply
to find evidence of that which is already presupposed. I submit that
few writers could endure such an ordeal. If Eusebius is tried according
to the principles of common justice, and of sound literary criticism, I
am convinced, after long and careful study, that his sincerity and
honesty of purpose cannot be impeached. The particular instances which
have been urged as proving his dishonesty will be discussed below in
the notes upon the respective passages, and to those the reader is
referred (compare especially pp. 88, 98, 100, 111, 112, 114, 127, 194).
Eusebius' critics are wont to condemn him severely
for what they are pleased to call the dishonesty displayed by him in
his Vita Constantini. Such critics forget, apparently, that that work
pretends to be, not a history, but a panegyric. Judging it as such, I
am unable to find anything in it which leads me to entertain for a
moment a suspicion of the author's honesty, It is true that Eusebius
emphasizes the Emperor's good qualities, and fails to mention the
darker spots in his character; but so far as I am aware he misstates no
facts, and does only what those who eulogize deceased friends are
accustomed to do the world over. For a discussion of this matter the
reader is referred to the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, pp. 467 sq. of
this volume. I am pleased to learn from him that his study of the Vita
has shown him nothing which justifies the charge of dishonesty brought
against Eusebius.
One of the most decisive marks of veracity upon the
part of our author is the frankness with which he confesses his lack of
knowledge upon any subject (cf. IV. 5), and the care with which he
distinguishes between the different kinds of evidence upon which he
bases his statements. How frequently the phrases
<greek>logos</greek> <greek>ekei</greek>,
<greek>fasi</greek>, <greek>legetai</greek>,
&c., occur in connection with accounts which a less scrupulous
historian would not hesitate to record as undoubted fact. How
particular he is to mention his sources for any unusual or startling
event. If the authorities seem to him quite inadequate, he simply omits
all reference to an occurrence which most of his con-temporaries and
successors would have related with the greatest gusto; if the testimony
seems to him strong, he records the circumstance and expressly mentions
his authority, whether oral
50
tradition, the testimony of eye-witnesses, or written accounts, and we
are thus furnished the material from which to form our own judgments.
He is often blamed by modern writers for what they
are pleased to call his excessive credulity. Those who accuse him thus
seem to forget that he lived in the fourth, not in the nineteenth
century. That he believed many things which we now declare to be
incredible is perfectly true, but that he believed things that other
Christians of his day pronounced incredible is not true. Judged, in
fact, according to the standard of his age--and indeed of eleven
succeeding centuries--he must be pronounced remarkably free from the
fault of over-credulity, in truth uncommonly skeptical in his attitude
toward the marvelous. Not that he denies the occurrence of prodigies
and wonders in his own and other ages, but that he always demands the
strongest testimony before he allows himself to be convinced of their
truth. Compare, e.g., the care with which he gives his authorities for
the anecdote in regard to the Thundering Legion (V. 5), and his final
suspension of judgment in the matter; compare also the emphasis which
he lays upon the personal testimony of the Emperor in the matter of the
appearance of the sign of the cross in the sky( Vita Const. I. 28 sq.),
a phenomenon which he himself tells us that he would have believed upon
,no ordinary evidence. His conduct in this matter is a sign rather of a
skepticism uncommon in his age than of an excessive and unusual
credulity. Gibbon himself gives our author due credit in this respect,
when he speaks of his character as "less tinctured with credulity, and
more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his
contemporaries" (Decline and Fall, chap. XVI.).
On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had many
very grave faults which it is not my wish in the least to palliate or
conceal. One of the most noticeable of these is his complete lack of
any conception of historiography as a fine art. His work is interesting
and instructive because of the facts which it records, but that
interest is seldom if ever enhanced by his mode of presentation. There
is little effective grouping, almost no sense of perspective, utter
ignorance of the art of suggesting by a single line or phrase a
finished picture of a man or of a movement. He was not, in other words,
a Thucydides or a Tacitus; but the world has seen not many such as they.
A second and still more serious fault is our
author's want of depth, if I may so express myself, his failure to look
beneath the surface and to grasp the real significance of things, to
trace the influence of opinions and events. We feel this defect upon
every page. We read the annals, but we are conscious of no masterful
mind behind them, digesting and comprehending them into one organic and
imposing whole. This radical weakness in our author's method is
revealed perhaps most clearly in his superficial and transcendental
treatment of heretics and heresies, his failure to appreciate their
origin and their bearing upon the progress of Christian thought. Of a
development in theology, in fact, he knows nothing, and hence his work
lacks utterly that which we now look upon as the most instructive part
of Church history,--the history of doctrine.
In the third place, severe censure must be passed
upon our author for his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of
chronology. We should expect that one who had produced the most
extensive chronological work that had ever been given to the world,
would be thoroughly at home in that province, but in truth his
chronology is the most defective feature of his work. The difficulty is
chiefly due to his inexcusable carelessness, we might almost say
slovenliness, in the use of different and often contradictory sources
of information. Instead of applying himself to the discrepancies, and
endeavoring to reach the truth by carefully weighing the respective
merits of the sources, or by testing their conclusions in so far as
tests are possible, he adopts in many cases the results of both,
apparently quite unsuspicious of the confusion consequent upon such a
course. In fact, the critical spirit which actuates him in dealing with
many other matters seems to leave him entirely when he is concerned
with chronology; and instead of proceeding with the care and
circumspection of an historian, he accepts what he finds with the
unquestioning faith.
51
of a child. There is no case in which he can be convicted of
disingenuousness, but at times his obtuseness is almost beyond belief.
An identity of names, or a resemblance between events recorded by
different authors, will often be enough to lead him all unconsciously
to himself into the most absurd and contradictory conclusions.
Instances of this may be seen in Book I. chap. 5, and in II. 11. His
confusion in regard to the various Antonines (see especially the note
on the preface to Book V.) is not at all unusual among the writers of
his day, and in view of the frequent and perplexing use of the same
names by the different emperors, might be quite excusable in a less
scholarly man than Eusebius, but in his case it is evidence of
unpardonable want of care. This serious defect in our author's method
is not peculiar to him. Many historians, critical almost to a fault in
most matters, accept the received chronology without question, and
build upon it as if it were the surest of foundations. Such a
consideration does not excuse Eusebius; it relieves him, however, of
the stigma of peculiarity.
Finally, the character of the History is greatly
impaired by our author's desultory method. This is a characteristic of
his literary work in general, and, was referred to in the previous
chapter. All his works are marred by it, but few suffer more noticeably
than the History. The author does not confine himself as strictly as he
should to the logical limits of the subject which he is treating, but
allows himself to be led away from the main point by the suggestions
that pour in upon him from all sides. As Lightfoot remarks, "We have
not unfrequently to pick out from various parts of his work the notices
bearing on one definite and limited subject. He relates a fact, or
quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season,
according as it is recalled to his memory by some accidental
connexion." This unfortunate habit of Eusebius' is one into which men
of wide learning are very apt to fall. The richness of their
acquisitions embarrasses them, and the immense number of facts in their
possession renders a comprehension of them all into one logical whole
very difficult; and yet unless the facts be thus comprehended, unless
they be thoroughly digested and arranged, the result is confusion and
obscurity. To exclude is as necessary as to include, if one would write
history with the highest measure of success; to exclude rigidly at one
time what it is just as necessary to include at another. To men like
Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult than this. Only a mind
as intensive as it is extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is
wide, can accomplish it, and few are the minds that are blessed with
both qualities. Few are the writers whose histories stand upon our
shelves that fail not sadly in the one or in the other; and in few
perhaps does the failure seem more marked than in our author.
And yet, though it is apparent that the value of
Eusebius' work is greatly impaired by its desultory method of
treatment, I am confident that the defect is commonly exaggerated. The
paragraph which Lightfoot quotes from Westcott on this subject leaves a
false impression. Altogether too often our author introduces irrelevant
matters, and repeats himself when repetition "mars the symmetry of his
work"; and yet on the whole he follows a fairly well ordered plan with
fairly good success. He endeavors to preserve a strictly chronological
sequence in his arrangement of the books, and he adheres for the most
part to his purpose. Though there may be disorder and confusion within
the various periods, for instance within the apostolic age, the age of
Trajan, of Hadrian, of the Antonines, &c., yet the periods
themselves are kept reasonably distinct from one another, and having
finished his account of one of them the author seldom returns to it.
Even in his treatment of the New Testament canon, which is especially
desultory, he says most of what he has to say about it in connection
with the apostles themselves, and before passing on to the second
century. I would not overlook the exceeding flagrancy of his
desultoriness and repetitiousness in his accounts of the writings of
many of the Fathers, especially of the two Clements, and yet I would
emphasize the fact that he certainly had an outline plan which he
designed to follow, and for which due credit should be given him. He
compares favorably in this respect with at least most of the writers of
antiquity. Only with our modern method of dividing history into
periods, separated by natural boundary lines, and of handling it
52
under clearly defined rubrics, have we become able wholly to avoid the
confused and illogical treatment of Eusebius and of others like him.
§ 4. Editions and Versions.
The original Greek of Eusebius' History has been published in many
editions.
1. The editio princeps is that of Robert Stephanus,
which appeared at Paris in 1544, and again, with a few changes, and
with the Latin translation of Christophorsonus and the notes of
Suffridus Petrus, at Geneva in 1612.
2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first
edition of the Greek text, with a new Latin translation and with
copious critical and explanatory notes, at Paris in 1659. His edition
was reprinted at Mainz in 1672, but the reprint is full of errors. In
1677, after Valesius' death, a revised edition was issued at Paris,
which in 1695 was reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam. In 1720
Valesius' edition of Eusebius, together with his edition of Socrates,
Sozomen, and the other Greek historians, was republished at Cambridge
by William Reading, in three folio volumes. This is the best edition of
Valesius, the commentary being supplemented by MS. notes which he had
left among his papers, and increased by large additions from other
writers under the head of Variorum. A reprint of Reading's edition was
issued in 1746-1748, but according to Heinichen it is not as accurate
as that of 1720. For the elucidation of Eusebius' History we owe more
to Valesius than to any other man. His edition of the text was an
immense advance upon that of Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all
subsequent editions, while his notes are a perfect storehouse of
information from which all annotators of Eusebius have extensively
drawn. Migne's edition (Opera, IL 45-906) is a reprint of Valesius'
edition of 1659.
3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779). A new edition of the
Greek text, of which, however, only the first volume appeared,
comprising Books I.-VII.
4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822). A
new edition of the Greek text, containing also the Latin translation of
Valesius, and a few critical notes.
5. F.A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828). An
edition of the Greek text in three volumes, with a reprint of the
entire commentary of Valesius, and with the addition of Variorum notes.
The critical apparatus, printed in the third volume, is very meager. A
few valuable excursuses close the work. Forty years later Heinichen
published a second edition of the History in his Eusebii Pamphili
Scripta Historica (Lips. 1868-1870, 3 vols.). The first volume contains
the Greek text of the History, with valuable prolegomena, copious
critical apparatus and very useful indices; the second volume contains
the Vita Constantini, the Panegyricus or De laudibus Constantini, and
Constantine's Oratio ad Sanctorum coetum, also accompanied with
critical apparatus and indices; the third volume contains an extensive
commentary upon the works included in the first two volumes, together
with twenty-nine valuable excursuses. This entirely supersedes the
first, and is on the whole the most complete and useful edition of the
History which we have. The editor made diligent use of the labors of
his predecessors, especially of Laemmer's. He did no independent work,
however, in the way of collecting material for the criticism of the
text, and was deficient in critical judgment. As a consequence his text
has often to be amended on the basis of the variant readings, which he
gives with great fullness. His commentary, is made up largely of
quotations from Valesius and other writers, and is valuable for the
material it thus contains as well as for its references to other works.
It labors under the same incompleteness, however, that mars Valesius'
commentary, and, moreover, contains almost nothing of independent value.
6. E. Burton (Oxford, 1838). The Greek text in two
volumes, with the translation of Valesius and with critical apparatus;
and again in 1845, with the critical apparatus omitted, but with the
notes of Valesius, Heinichen and others added. Burton made large
contributions to the criticism of the text, and had he lived to
superintend the issue of the second edition, would perhaps have
succeeded in giving us a better text than any which we now possess, for
he was a far more
53
sagacious critic than Heinichen. As it is, his edition is marred by
numerous imperfections, largely caused by the inaccuracy of those who
collated MSS. for him. His text, with the translation, notes, and
critical apparatus omitted, was reprinted by Bright at Oxford in 1872,
and again in 1881, in a single volume. This is a very handy edition,
and for school use is unsurpassed. The typography is superb, and the
admirable plan is followed of discarding quotation marks and printing
all citations in smaller type, thus making plain to the eye at a glance
what is Eusebius' own and what is another's. The text is preceded by a
very interesting and graphic life of the historian.
7. Schwegler (Tübingen, 1852, in one volume).
The Greek text with critical apparatus, but without translation and
notes. An accurate and useful edition.
8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859-1862). The Greek text
in one volume, with extensive critical apparatus, but without
explanatory notes. Laemmer had unusual opportunities for collecting
material, and has made larger additions to the critical apparatus than
any one else. His edition was issued, however, in a most slovenly
manner, and swarms with mistakes. Great care should therefore be
exercised in the use of it.
9. Finally must be mentioned the text of Dindorf
(Lips. 1871), which is published in the Teubner series, and like most
of the volumes of that series is handy and convenient, but of little
value to the critical student.
There are few writings of the Fathers which more
sadly need and more richly deserve a new critical edition than the
History of Eusebius. The material for the formation of a reliable text
is extensive and accessible, but editors have contented themselves too
much in the past with the results of their predecessors' labors, and
unfortunately those labors have not always been accurate and thorough.
As a consequence a new and more careful collation of most of the MSS.
of the original, together with those of Rufinus' translation, must lie
at the foundation of any new work which is to be done in this line. The
publication of the Syriac version will doubtless furnish much valuable
material which the next editor of the History, will be able to use to
advantage. Anything less than such a thorough work as I have indicated
will be of little worth. Unless the new edition be based upon extensive
and independent labors, it will be little if any improvement upon that
of Heinichen. It is to be hoped that a critical text, up to the
standard of those of some other patristic works which we already
possess, may yet be issued, which shall give us this, one of the
noblest productions of the ancient Church, in a fitting and
satisfactory form.
Translations of Eusebius' History are very numerous.
Probably the earliest of all is the ancient Syriac version which is
preserved in great part in two MSS., one of which is at St. Petersburg
and contains the entire History with the exception of Book VI. and
large portions of Books V. and VII. The MS. is dated 462 A.D. (see
Wright's description of it in his Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the
British Museum acquired since the year 1838, Part III. p. xv. sq.). The
second MS. is in the British Museum, and contains Books I.-V., with
some mutilations at the beginning of the first book. The MS. dates from
the sixth century (see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue, p.
1039). From these MSS. Wright was engaged in preparing an edition of
the Syriac, which remained unfinished at the time of his death. Whether
he left his work in such shape that it can soon be issued by some one
else I have not yet learned. The version was probably made at a very
early date, possibly within the lifetime of Eusebius himself, though of
that we can have no assurance. I understand that it confirms in the
main the Greek text as now printed in our best editions.
The original Latin version was made by Rufinus in
the early years of the fifth century. He translated only nine books,
and added to them two of his own, in which he brought the history down
to the death of Theodosius the Great. He allowed himself his customary
license in translating, and yet, although his version is by no means
exact, it is one of our best sources for a knowledge of the true text
of Eusebius, for it is possible, in many doubtful cases where our MSS.
are hopelessly divided, to ascertain from his rendering what stood in
the original Greek.
54
The version of Rufinus had a large circulation, and became in the
Western Church a substitute for the original throughout the Middle
Ages. It was first printed, according to Fabricius (ib. p. 59), in 1476
at Rome, afterward a great many times there and elsewhere. The first
critical edition, which still remains the best, is that of Cacciari
(Rome, 1740), which has become rare, and is very difficult to find. A
new edition is a great desideratum. An important work upon Rufinus'
version is Kimmel's De Rufino Eusebii Interprete, Ger', 1838.
A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was
published in Basle, in 1549, and again in 1557, 1562, and 1611,
according to Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI. p. 60). I have myself seen only
the edition of 1562.
Still another Latin version, from the hand of
Christophorsonus, was published at Louvain in 1570. This is the only
edition of Christophorsonus which I have seen, but I have notices of
Cologne editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of a Paris edition of
1571. According to Fabricius the Paris edition, and according to
Brunnet the Cologne edition of 1581, contain the notes of Suffridus
Petrus. A revision of Christophorsonus' version is said by Crusè
to have been published by Curterius, but I have not seen it, nor am I
aware of its date.
Another translation, by Gryn'us, was published at
Basle in 1611. This is the only edition of Gryn'eus' version which I
have seen, and I find in it no reference to an earlier one. I have been
informed, however, that an edition appeared in 1591. Hanmer seems to
imply, in his preface, that Grynseus' version is only a revision of
that of Musculus, and if that were so we should have to identify the
1611 edition with the 1611 edition of Musculus mentioned by Fabricius
(see above). I am able, however, to find no hint in Gryn'us' edition
itself that his version is a revision of that of Musculus.
The translation of Valesius, which was first
published in 1659 (see above), was a great improvement upon all that
had preceded it, and has been many times reprinted in other editions of
Eusebius, as well as in his own.
The first German translation was published by Caspar
Hedio. The date of publication is given by Fabricius as 1545, but the
copy which I have seen is dated 1582, and contains no reference to an
earlier edition. It comprises only nine books of Eusebius, supplemented
by the two of Rufinus. The title runs as follows: Chronica, das
ist: wahrhaftige Beschreibunge aller alten Christlichen Kirchen;
zum ersten, die hist. eccles. Eusebii Pamphili C'sariensis, Eilff
Bücher; zum andern, die hist. eccles. tripartita Sozomeni,
Socratis und Theodoreti, Zw"lff Bucher; zum dritten die hist. eccles.
sampt andern treffenlichen Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutschef Sprache
wenig gelesen sind, ouch Zwolff Bucher. Von der Zeit an da die hist.
eccles. tripartita aufhoret: das ist, yon der jarzal an, vierhundert
nach Christi geburt, biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch D. Caspar Hedion zu
Strassburg verteutscht und zusamen getragen. Getruckt zu. Franckfurt am
Mayn, im jar 1582.
A second German translation of the entire History
(with the exception of the Martyrs of Palestine, and the Oration an the
Building of the Churches, X. 4), together with the Life of Constantine,
was published by F. A. Stroth in Quedlinburg in 1777, in two volumes.
Stroth prefaced the translation with a very valuable Life of Eusebius,
and added a number of excellent notes of his own. The translation is
reasonably accurate.
A much more elegant German version (including the
Oration, but omitting the Martyrs of Palestine) was published by Closs
in Stuttgart in 1839, in one volume. This is in my opinion the best
translation of the History that exists. Its style is admirable, but
pure German idiom is sometimes secured at the expense of faithfulness.
In fact the author has aimed to produce a free, rather than a literal
translation, and has occasionally allowed himself to depart too far
from the original. A few brief notes, most of them taken from Valesius
or Stroth, accompany the translation.
More recently a German translation has been
published by Stigloher (Kempten, 1880) in the Kempten Bibliothek der
Kirchenväter. It purports to be a new translation, but is
practically
55
nothing more than a poorly revised edition of Closs' version. The
changes which are made are seldom improvements.
Fabricius mentions a French translation by Cloudius
Seysselius, but does not give the date of it, and I have not myself
seen it. Dr. Richardson, however, informs me that he has a copy of this
translation (which is from the Latin, not from the Greek) bearing the
following title: L'Histoire ecclesiastique translate de Latin au
Français, par M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille,
et depuis archevesque de Thurin. Paris, 1532 [or 33], f°. He
informs me also that there exist editions of the years 1537 and 1567.
More than a century later appeared a new French
translation by Louis Cousin, bearing the following title: Historic de
l'Eglise écritoric de l'Eglise acrité par Eusebe Cesaree,
Socrate, Sozomene, Theodoret et Evangre, avec l'abrege de Philostorge
par Photius, et de Theodore par Nicephore Calliste. Paris, 1675-1676. 4
vol. 4°. Another edition appeared in Holland in 1686, 5 vol.
12°.
The first English translation was made by Hanmer,
and was issued in 1584, and, according to Crusè, passed through
five editions. The fourth edition, which lies before me, was published
in London in 1636. The volume contains the Histories of Eusebius, of
Socrates, and of Evagrius; Dorotheus' Lives, and Eusebius' Life of
Constantine.
Another translation is said by Crusè to have
been published about a century later by T. Shorting, and to be a
decided improvement upon that of Hanmer. I have seen no copy bearing
Shorting's name, but have examined an anonymous translation which bears
the following title: The Ecclesiastical. History of Eusebius Pamphilus
in ten books. Made into English from that edition set forth by
Valesius, and printed at Paris in the year 1659; together with
Valesius' notes on the said historian, which are done into English and
set at their proper place in the margin. Hereto also is annexed an
account of the life and writings of the aforesaid historian, collected
by Valesius and rendered into English. Cambridge: John Hayes, 1683.
This is evidently the translation of Shorting referred to by
Crusè, for it answers perfectly the description which he gives
of it.
An abridgment of this version, made by Porker, is
mentioned both by Fabricius (ib. p. 62) and by Crusè, but I have
not myself seen it. Fabricius gives its date as 1703, and Dr.
Richardson informs me that he has seen an edition bearing the date
1729, and that he has a note of another published in 1703 or 1720.
The latest English translation was made by the Rev.
C. F. Crusè, an American Episcopalian of German descent, and was
published first in Philadelphia in 1833, with a translation, by Parker,
of Valesius' Life of Eusebius prefixed. It has been reprinted a great
many times both in England and America, and is included in Bohn's
Ecclesiastical Library. In Bohn's edition are printed a few scattered
notes from Valesius' commentary, and in some other editions an
historical account of the Council of Nic'a, by Isaac Boyle, is added.
The translation is an improvement upon its predecessors, but is
nevertheless very faulty and unsatisfactory. The translator is not
thoroughly at home in the English, and, moreover, his version is marred
by many serious omissions and interpolations which reveal an
inexcusable degree of carelessness on his part.
§ 5. Literature.
The literature upon Eusebius' History is very
extensive. Many of the editions already mentioned discuss, in their
prolegomena, the History itself and Eusebius' character as a historian,
as do also all the lives of Eusebius referred to above, and all the
larger histories of the Church. In addition to these we have numerous
important monographs and essays, of which the following may be
mentioned here: M"ller, de Fide Eusebii in rebus christianis
enarrandis, Havn. 1813; Danz, de Eusebio C'sariensi Hist. Ecclesiastiae
Scriptore, Jen', 1815. This was mentioned in Chapter I. as containing a
valuable discussion of the life of Eusebius. Its chief importance lies
in its treatment of the sources of the Church History, to which the
author devotes the whole of
56
Chap. III. which bears the title, de fontibus, quibus usus, historiam
ecclesiasticam conscripsit Eusebius, pp. 76-144. Kestner, de Eusebii
Historiae Eccles. conditoris auctoritate, et fide diplomatica, sive de
ejus Fontibus et Ratione qua eis usus est, Gotting', 1816; and by the
same author, Ueber die Einseitigkeit und Partheiligkeit des Eusebius
als Geschichtschreibers, Jen', 1819; Reuterdahl, de Fontibus Historiae
Eccles. Eusebian', Londini Gothorum, 1826; Reinstra, de Fontibus, ex
quibus Histori' Eccles. opus hausit Eusebius Pamphili, et de Ratione,
qua iis usus est, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1833; F. C. Baur, Comparatur
Eusebius Histori' Eccles. Parens cum Parente Histori' Herodoto,
Tüb. 1834; and pp. 9-26 of the same author's Epochen der
kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung, Tüb. 1852; Dowling, Introduction
to the Critical Study of Eccles. History, London, 1838, pp. 11-18;
Hély, Eusèbe de Césaree, premier Historien de
l'Église, Paris, 1877; J. Burckhardt, Zeit Constantins, 2d ed.
1880, pp. 307 sq. Burckhardt depreciates Eusebius' value and questions
his veracity. The review articles that have been written on Eusebius'
History are legion. I shall mention only Engelhardt's Eusebius als
Kirchengeschichtschreiber, in the Zeitschrift für hist. Theol.
1852, pp. 652-657; and Jachmann's Bermerkungen über die
Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius, ib. 1839, II. pp. 10-60. The latter
contains one of the most unsparing attacks upon Eusebius' honesty that
has ever been made (see above, p. 49).
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS IN FAVOR OF
EUSEBIUS.(1)
From Constantine's Letter to the Antiochians (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book III. chap. 60).
"I confess, then, that on reading your records I
perceived, by the highly eulogistic testimony which they bear to
Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea (whom I have myself long well known and
esteemed for his learning and moderation), that you are strongly
attached to him and desire to appropriate him as your own prelate. What
thoughts then do you suppose that I entertain on this subject, desirous
as I am to seek for and act on the strict principles of right? What
anxiety do you imagine this desire of yours has caused me? O holy
faith, who givest us in our Saviour's words and precepts a model, as it
were, of what our life should be, how hardly wouldst thou thyself
resist the course of sin were it not that thou refusest to subserve the
purposes of gain! In my own judgment, he whose first object is the
maintenance of peace seems to be superior to Victory herself; and where
a right and honorable course lies open to one's choice, surely no one
would hesitate to adopt it. I ask then, brethren, why do we so decide
as to inflict an injury on others by our choice? Why do we covet those
objects which will destroy the credit of our own character? I myself
highly esteem the individual whom ye judge worthy of your respect and
affection; notwithstanding, it cannot be right that those principles
should be entirely disregarded which should be authoritative and
binding on all alike; for example, that each should be content with the
limits assigned them, and that all should enjoy their proper
privileges; nor can it be right in considering the claims of rival
candidates to suppose but that not one only, but many, may appear
worthy of comparison with this person. For as long as no violence or
harshness are suffered to disturb the dignities of the Church, they
continue to be on an equal footing, and worthy of the same
consideration everywhere. Nor is it reasonable that an enquiry into the
qualifications of one person should be made to the detriment of others;
since the judgment of all churches, whether reckoned of greater
importance in themselves, is equally capable of receiving and
maintaining the divine ordinances, so that one is in no way inferior to
another (if we will but boldly declare the truth), in regard to that
standard of practice which is common to all. If this be so, we must say
that you will be chargeable, not with retaining this prelate, but with
wrongfully removing him; your conduct will be characterized rather by
violence than justice; and whatever may be generally thought by others,
I dare clearly and boldly affirm that this measure will furnish ground
of accusation against you, and will provoke factious disturbances of
the most mischievous kind; for even timid flocks can show the use and
power of their teeth when the watchful care of their shepherd declines,
and they find themselves bereft of his accustomed guidance. If this
then be really so, if I am not deceived in my judgment, let this,
brethren, be your first consideration (for many and important
considerations will immediately present themselves, if you adopt my
advice), whether, should you persist in your intention, that mutual
kindly feeling and affection which should subsist among you will suffer
no diminution? In the next place remember that Eusebius, who came among
you for the purpose of offering disinterested counsel, now enjoys the
reward which is due to him in the judgment of heaven; for he has
received no ordinary recompense in the high testimony you have borne to
his equitable conduct. Lastly, in accordance with your usual sound
judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming diligence in selecting the person of
whom you stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and tumultuous
clamor: for such clamor is always wrong, and from the collision of
discordant elements both sparks and flame will arise."
58
From the Emperor's Letter to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book III. chap. 61).
"I have most carefully perused your letter, and
perceive that you have strictly conformed to the rule enjoined by the
discipline of the Church. Now to abide by that which appears at the
same time pleasing to God, and accordant with apostolic tradition, is a
proof of true piety: and you have reason to deem yourself happy on this
behalf, that you are counted worthy, in the judgment, I may say, of all
the world, to have the oversight of the whole Church. For the desire
which all feel to claim you for their own, undoubtedly enhances your
enviable fortune in this respect. Notwithstanding, your Prudence, whose
resolve it is to observe the ordinances of God and the apostolic rule
of the Church, has done excellently well in declining the bishopric of
the Church at Antioch, and desiring to continue in that Church of which
you first received the oversight by the will of God." From
Constantine's Letter to the Council (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine,
Book III. chap. 62).
"I have perused the letters written by your
Prudences, and highly approve of the wise resolution of your colleague
in the ministry, Eusebius. Having, moreover, been informed of the
circumstances of the case, partly by your letters, partly by those of
our illustrious friends Acacius and Strategius, after sufficient
investigation I have written to the people at Antioch, suggesting the
course which will be at once pleasing to God and advantageous for the
Church. A copy of this I have ordered to be subjoined to this present
letter, in order that ye yourselves may know what I thought fit, as an
advocate of the cause of justice, to write to that people: since I find
in your letter this proposal, that, in consonance with the choice of
the people, sanctioned by your own desire, Eusebius the holy bishop of
C'sarea should preside over and take the charge of the Church at
Antioch. Now the letters of Eusebius himself on this subject appeared
to be strictly accordant with the order prescribed by the Church." From
a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine,
Book IV. chap. 35).
"It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the power
of language itself, worthily to treat of the mysteries of Christ, and
to explain in a fitting manner the controversy respecting the feast of
Easter, its origin as well as its precious and toilsome accomplishment.
For it is not in the power even of those who are able to apprehend
them, adequately to describe the things of God. I am, notwithstanding,
filled with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only
myself read your work with pleasure, but have given directions,
according to your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere
followers of our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we
receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden
us more frequently with those compositions, to the practice of which,
indeed, you confess yourself to have been trained from an early period,
so that I am urging a willing man (as they say), in exhorting you to
your customary pursuits. And certainly the high and confident judgment
we entertain is a proof that the person who has translated your
writings into the Latin tongue is in no respect incompetent to the
task, impossible though it be that such version should fully equal the
excellence of the works themselves." From a Letter of Constantine to
Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book IV. chap. 36).
"It happens, through the favoring providence of God
our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy
Church in the city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore,
highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in
all other respects, that the number of Churches should also be
increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my
determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct
your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures (the
provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the
instruction of the Church) to be written on prepared parchment in a
legible manner, and in a commodious and portable form, by transcribers
thoroughly practiced in their art. The procurator of the diocese has
also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to
furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it
will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as
little delay as possible. You have authority also, in virtue of this
letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by
which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be
forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your
Church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here,
shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother!"
59
From the Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre
(given by Theodoret in his Eccles. Hist. I. 6).
"Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning
the truth, nor thy silence in this matter been unknown, but has reached
even us. And, as was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced on
account of my lord Eusebius; but on the other, we are grieved on thy
account, since we look upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation
of our cause." From the Book of Basil, to Amphilochius, an the Holy
Spirit (chap. 29).
"If to any one Eusebius of Palestine seem
trustworthy on account of his great experience, we give his own words
in the Difficulties concerning the Polygamy of the Ancients." From the
Book of Questions an the Old and New Testaments, which is published
among the Works of Augustine (chap. 125).
"We remember to have read in a certain pamphlet of
Eusebius, a man formerly distinguished among the rest of men, that not
even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of our Lord
Jesus Christ; and I wonder that a man of so great learning should
have imposed this stigma · upon the Holy Spirit."
From Jerome's Epistle to
Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 65).
"Apollinarius wrote the very strongest books against
Porphyry; Eusebius has excellently composed his Ecclesiastical History.
Of these men, one taught an incomplete human nature in Christ; the
other was a most open defender of the heresy of Arius."
From the Apology of Jerome against
Rufinus (Book I chap. 8).
"As I have already said, Eusebius, bishop of
C'sarea, formerly leader of the Arian party, has written six books in
defense of Origen--a very extensive and elaborate work; with much
evidence he has proved that Origen was, from his point of view, a
Catholic, that is, from ours, an Arian."
From the same book (chap. 9).
"For Eusebius himself, a friend, eulogist and
companion of Pamphilus, has written three very elegant books comprising
a life of Pamphilus. In these, after extolling other things with
wondrous praises and exalting his humility to the skies, he also adds
this in the third book," &c.
And a little
further an in the same book (chap. II). "I have praised Eusebius in his
Ecclesiastical History, in his Chronological Canons, in his Description
of the Holy Land; and turning these same little works into Latin I have
given them to those of my own tongue. Am I therefore an Arian, because
Eusebius who wrote these books is an Arian?"From Jerome's second book
against Rufinus (chap. 16).
"Eusebius, a very learned man (I have said learned,
not Catholic; lest after the usual manner, even in this thing, thou
heap calumny upon me), in six volumes does nothing else than show
Origen to be of his own faith; that is, of the Arian heresy."
From the Preface of
Jerome's Book on Hebrew Topography.
"Eusebius, who took his surname from the blessed
martyr Pamphilus, after the ten books of his Ecclesiastical History,
after his Chronological Canons, which we have published in the Latin
tongue, after his Names of Various Nations, in which he showed how
these were formerly, and are now, called among the Hebrews; after his
Topography of the Land of Judea, with the inheritances of the tribes;
after his Jerusalem, also, and his Plan of the Temple, with a very
brief explanation,--after all these he has finally in this little work
labored that he might collect for us from Holy Scripture the names of
almost all the cities, mountains, rivers, villages, and divers places,
which either remain the same, or have since been changed, or else have
become corrupted from some source, wherefore we also, following the
zeal of this admirable man," &c.
60
From Jerome's Bank on Ecclesiastical Writers (chap. 61).
"Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (I have not
indeed been able to find out the name of the city), wrote a reckoning
of Easter, and chronological tables up to the first year of the Emperor
Alexander, and hit upon a cycle of sixteen years which the Greeks call
<greek>ekkaigekaethriga</greek>; and gave an occasion to
Eusebius, who also composed an Easter canon, with a cycle of nineteen
years, that is <greek>enneagekaethriga</greek>
From the same book (chap. 81).
"Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea in Palestine, a man
most studious in the sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the
martyr a most diligent investigator of sacred literature, has edited an
inflate number of volumes, some of which are these: of the Demonstratio
Evangelica, twenty books; of the Pr'paratio Evangelica, fifteen books;
of the Theophania, five books; of the Ecclesiastical History, ten
books; a General History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome of
them; also, On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; On Isaiah, ten books;
and Against Porphyry (who at the same time was writing in Sicily, as
some think), thirty books, of which only twenty have come to my notice;
of his Topica, one book; of the Apolagia, in defense of Origen, six
books; On the Life of Pamphilus, three books; Concerning the Martyrs,
other small works; also very learned commentaries on the hundred and
fifty Psalms, and many other writings. He flourished chiefly under the
emperors Constantine and Constantius; and on account of his friendship
with Pamphilus the martyr, he took from him his surname."
From the same book (chap. 96).
"Eusebius, by nation a Sardinian, and, after being
reader in Rome, bishop of Vercell', on account of his confession of the
faith banished by the Prince Constantius to Scythopolis, and thence to
Cappadocia, under Julian the emperor sent back to the Church, has
published the Commentaries on the Psalms of Eusebius of C'sarea, which
he had translated from Greek into Latin."
Jerome in the
Preface to his Commentaries an Daniel.
"Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote a twelfth
volume, denying that that book was composed by him with whose name it
is inscribed, &c. To him Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea, has replied
very skillfully in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and
XX. Apollinarius also in one large volume, that is, in the twenty-sixth
volume, and before these, in part, Methodius." Jerome on the
Twenty-fourth Chapter of Matthew.
"Concerning this place, that is, concerning the
abomination of desolation which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel,
standing in the holy place, Porphyry has uttered many blasphemies
against us in the thirteenth volume of his work. To whom Eusebius,
bishop of C'sarea, has replied in three volumes, that is, in volumes
XVIII., XIX., and XX."
The same, in his Epistle to Magnus (Ep. 84).
"Celsus and Porphyry have written against us. To the
former Origen, to the latter Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have
very vigorously replied. Of whom Origen wrote eight books, Methodius
proceeded as far as ten thousand lines, Eusebius and Apollinarius
composed twenty-five and thirty volumes respectively."
The same, in his Epistle to Pammachius
and Oceanus (Ep. 65).
"What more skillful, more learned, more eloquent men
can be found than Eusebius and Didymus, the advocates of Origen? The
former of whom, in the six volumes of his Apologia, proves that he
[Origen] was of the same opinion as himself."
Jerome, in the Preface to his Commentaries an Isaiah.
"Eusebius Pamphili also has published an historical
commentary in fifteen volumes." The same, in the Preface to the Fifth
Book of his Commentaries an Isaiah.
"Shall I take upon myself a work at which the most
learned men have labored hard? I speak of Origen and Eusebius Pomphili.
Of these the former wanders afar in the free spaces of alle-
61
gory, and his genius so interprets single names as to make out of them
the sacred things of the Church. The latter, while promising in his
title an historical exposition, meanwhile forgets his purpose, and
yields himself up to the tenets of Origen."
The same, in the fifth book of his
Commentaries on Isaiah.
"Eusebius of C'sarea, while promising in his title
an historical exposition, strays off in divers notions: while reading
his books I found much else than what he gave promise of in his title.
For wherever history has failed him, he has crossed over into allegory;
and in such a manner does he unite things that are distinct, that I
wonder at his joining together by a new art of discourse stone and iron
into one body."
Ferome an the first chapter of Matthew.
"This [chapter] also Africanus, a writer of
chronology, and Eusebius of C'sarea, in his books on the Discrepancies
of the Gospels, have discussed more fully."
Rufinus in his Epistle to the Bishop Chromatius.
"You charge me to translate into Latin the
Ecclesiastical History, which the very learned Eusebius of C'sarea
wrote in the Greek tongue."
Augustine, in his Book on Heresies (chap. 83).
"When I had searched through the History of
Eusebius, to which Rufinus, after having himself translated it into the
Latin tongue, has also added two books of subsequent history, I did not
find any heresy which I had not read among these very ones, except that
one which Eusebius inserts in his sixth book, stating that it had
existed in Arabia. Therefore these heretics, since he assigns them no
founder, we may call Arabians, who declared that the soul dies and is
destroyed along with the body, and that at the end of the world both
are raised again. But he states that they were very quickly corrected,
these by the disputation of Origen in person, and those by his
exhortation."
Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book
against Eusebius of C'sarea's Apology for Origen.
"Since now, this man was very learned, having
searched out and traced back all the books and writings of the more
ancient writers, and having set forth the opinions of almost all of
them, and having left behind very many writings, some of which are
worthy of all acceptation, making use of such an estimation as this of
the man, they attempt to lead away some, saying, that Eusebius would
not have chosen to take this view, unless he had accurately ascertained
that all the opinions of the ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and
admit that the man was very learned, and that not anything of the more
ancient writings escaped his knowledge; for, taking advantage of the
imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use
material from whatever quarter."
From the First Book of Extracts from the
Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius.
"Philostorgius, while praising Eusebius Pamphili
both as to whatever of worth belongs to his histories and as to other
things, yet declares that with regard to religion he has fallen into
great error; and that he impiously sets forth this error of his in
detail, holding that the Deity is unknowable and incomprehensible.
Moreover, he holds that he has also gone astray on other such things.
But he unites with others in attesting that he brought his History down
to the accession of the sons of Constantine the Great."
Socrates in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History
(chap. 1).
"Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus (i.e. universally
beloved), has composed a History of the Church in ten books, brought
down to the time of the Emperor Constantine, when the persecution
ceased which Diocletian had commenced against the Christians. But, in
writing the life of Constantine, this author has very slightly treated
of the Arian controversy, being evidently more intent on a highly
wrought eulogium of the emperor than an accurate statement of facts."
62
The same Socrates in the Eighth Chapter of the same Book, speaking of
Sabinus, Bishop of Macedonia, who had written a History of the Synod,
says:--
"Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a witness
worthy of credit, and praises the Emperor as capable in stating
Christian doctrines; but he still brands the faith which was declared
at Nice as having been set forth by ignorant men, and such as had no
intelligence in the matter. Thus he voluntarily contemns the testimony
of a man whom he himself pronounces a wise and true witness; for
Eusebius declares that of the ministers of God who were present at the
Nicene Synod, some were eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the
strictness of their life; and that the Emperor himself being present,
leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and
conformity of opinion among them."
The same Socrates, in Book II. chap.
"But since some have attempted to stigmatize
Eusebius Pamphilus as having favored the Arian views in his works, it
may not be irrelevant here to make a few remarks respecting him. In the
first place, then, he was present at the council of Nice, and gave his
assent to what was there determined in reference to the
consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and in the third book of
the Life of Constantine, he thus expressed himself: 'The Emperor
incited all to unanimity, until he had rendered them united in judgment
on those points on which they were previously at variance: so that they
were quite agreed at Nice in matters of faith.' Since, therefore,
Eusebius, in mentioning the Nicene Synod, says that all differences
were composed, and that unanimity of sentiment prevailed, what ground
is there for assuming that he was himself an Arian? The Arians are
certainly deceived in supposing him to be a favorer of their tenets.
But some one will perhaps say that in his discourses he seems to have
adopted the opinions of Arius, because of his frequently saying by
Christ. Our answer is that ecclesiastical writers often use this mode
of expression, and others of a similar kind denoting the economy of our
Saviour's humanity: and that before all these the apostle made use of
such expressions without ever being accounted a teacher of false
doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has dared to say that the Son is
a creature, as one of the others, observe what Eusebius says on this
subject in his first book against Marcellus:
"'He alone, and no other, has been declared to be,
and is the only-begotten Son of God; whence any one would justly
censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of
nothing, like the rest of the creatures; far how then would he be a
Son? and how could he be God's only-begotten, were he assigned the same
nature as the other creatures, and were he one of the many created
things, seeing that he, like them, would in that case be partaker of a
creation from nothing? The sacred Scriptures do not thus instruct us
concerning these things.' He again adds a little afterwards: 'Whoever
then determines that the Son is made of things that are not, and that
he is a creature produced from nothing pre-existing, forgets that while
he concedes the name of Son, he denies him to be so in reality. Far he
that is made of nothing cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than
the other things which have been made: but the true Son of God,
forasmuch as he is begotten of the Father, is properly denominated the
only-begotten and beloved of the Father. Far this reason also, he
himself is God: for what can the offspring of God be but the perfect
resemblance of him who begat him? A sovereign, indeed, builds a city,
but does not beget it; and is said to beget a son, not to build one. An
artificer may be called the framer, but not the father of his work;
while he could by no means be styled the framer of him whom he had
begotten. So also the God of the Universe is the father of the Son; but
would be fitly termed the Framer and Maker of the world. And although
it is once said in Scripture, The Lord created me the beginning of his
ways on account of his works, yet it becomes us to consider the import
of this phrase, which I shall hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus
has done, from a single passage to subvert one of the most important
doctrines of the Church.'
"These and many other such expressions are found in
the first book of Eusebius Pamphilus against Marcellus; and in his
third book, declaring in what sense the term creature is to be taken,
he says: 'Accordingly these things being established, it follows that
in the same sense as that which preceded, these words also are to be
understood, The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways on account
of his works. Far although he says that he was created, it is not as if
he should say that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor
that he himself also was made of nothing like the rest of the
creatures, which some have erroneously supposed: but as subsisting,
living, pre-existing, and being before the constitution of the whale
world; and having been appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and
Father: the word created being here used instead of ordained or
constituted. Certainly the apostle expressly called the rulers and
governors among men creature, when he said, Submit yourselves to every
human creature for the Lord's sake;
63
whether to the king as supreme, or to governors as those sent by him.
The prophet also does not use the word
<greek>ektisen</greek> created in the sense of made of that
which had no previous existence, when he says, Prepare, Israel, to
invoke thy God. For behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the
Spirit, and announces his Christ unto men. For God did not then create
the Spirit when he declared his Christ to all men, since There is
nothing new under the sun; but the Spirit was, and subsisted before:
but he was sent at what time the apostles were gathered together, when
like thunder, There came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty
wind: and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. And thus they declared
unto all men the Christ of God in accordance with that prophecy which
says, Behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the spirit, and
announces his Christ unto men: the word creates being used instead of
sends down, or appoints; and thunder in a similar way implying the
preaching of the Gospel. Again he that says, Create in me a clean
heart, O God, said not this as if he had no heart; but prayed that his
mind might be purified. Thus also it is said, That he might create the
two into one new man, instead of unite. Consider also whether this
passage is not of the same kind, Clothe yourselves with the new man,
which is created according to God; and this, if, therefore, any one be
in Christ, he is a new creature, and Whatever other expressions of a
similar nature any one may find who shall carefully search the
divinely-inspired Scripture. Wherefore one should not be surprised if
in this passage, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, the
term created is used metaphorically, instead of appointed, or
constituted.'
"These quotations from the books of Eusebius against
Marcellus have been adduced to confute those who have slanderously
attempted to traduce and criminate him. Neither can they prove that
Eusebius attributes a beginning of subsistence to the Son of God,
although they may find him often using the expressions of dispensation:
and especially so, because he was an emulator and admirer of the works
of Origen, in which those who are able to comprehend that author's
writings, will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son was
begotten of the Father. These remarks have been made in passing, in
order to refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius."
Sozomen in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History
(chap. 1.).
"I at first felt strongly inclined to trace the
course of events from the very commencement; but on reflecting that
similar records of the past, up to their own time, had been compiled by
the learned Clemens and Hegesippus, successors of the apostles, by
Africanus the historian and Eusebius surnamed Pamphilus, a man
intimately acquainted with the sacred Scriptures and the writings of
the Greek poets and historians, I merely drew up an epitome in two
books of all that is recorded to have happened to the churches, from
the ascension of Christ to the deposition of Licinius."
Victorius in the Paschal Canon.
"Reviewing therefore the trustworthy histories of
the ancients, namely the Chronicles and prologue of the blessed
Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea, a city in Palestine, a man pre-eminently
accomplished and learned; and likewise those things which have been
added to these same Chronicles by Jerome of sacred memory." Jerome, in
his Epistle to Chromatius and Heliodorus, prefixed to the Martyrology
which bears Jerome's Name.
"It is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ obtains
triumphs at every martyrdom of his saints, whose sufferings we find
described by the saintly Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea. For when
Constantine Augustus came to C'sarea and told the celebrated bishop to
ask some favors which should benefit the church at C'sarea, it is said
that Eusebius answered: That a church enriched by its own resources was
under no necessity of asking favors, yet that he himself had an
unalterable desire, that whatever had been done in the Roman republic
against God's saints by successive judges in the whole Roman world they
should search out by a careful examination of the public records; and
that they should draw from the archives themselves and send to Eusebius
himself, by royal command, the names of the martyrs: under what judge,
in what province or city, upon what day, and with what steadfastness,
they had obtained the reward of their suffering. Whence it has come
about that, being an able narrator and a diligent historiographer, he
has both composed an Ecclesiastical History and has set forth the
triumphs of nearly all of the martyrs of all the Roman provinces."
64
Pope Gelasius in his Decree concerning the Apocryphal Books.
"Likewise as to the Chronicles of Eusebius and the
books of his Ecclesiastical History, although in the first book of his
narration he has grown cold, and has afterwards written one book in
praise and in defense of Origen the schismatic, yet on account of his
singular knowledge of things which pertain to instruction, we do not
say that they ought to be rejected." The same in his book On the Two
Natures.
"That saying the same thing with one heart and one
mouth we may also believe what we have received from our forefathers,
and, God giving them to us, that we may hand them down to posterity to
be believed in, with which things the adduced testimony of the Catholic
masters, being summed up, bear witness that a united faith in a
gracious God endures."
And a little farther on.
"From the exposition of the seventh psalm, by
Eusebius, bishop in Palestine, by surname Pomphili, etc. Likewise from
his Pr'paratio Evangelica, Book Pope Pelagius II. in his Third Epistle
to Elias of Aquileia and other Bishops of Istria.
"For, indeed, among h'resiarchs who can be found
worse than Origen, and among historiographers who more honorable than
Eusebius? And who of us does not know with how great praises Eusebius
extols Origen in his books? But because the holy Church deals more
kindly with the hearts of her faithful ones than she does severely with
their words, neither could the testimony of Eusebius remove him from
his proper place among heretics, nor on the other hand has she
condemned Eusebius for the fault of praising Origen." Evagrius, in the
First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).
"Eusebius Pomphili--an especially able writer, to
the extent, in particular, of inducing his readers to embrace our
religion, though failing to perfect them in the faith--and Sozomen,
Theodoret, and Socrates have produced a most excellent record of the
advent of our compassionate God, and his ascension into heaven, and of
all that has been achieved in the endurance of the divine Apostles, as
well as of the other martyrs," etc.
Gregory the Great in his Epistle to Eulogius, Bishop of
Alexandria.
"I have now become one of the number of hearers, to
whom your Holiness has taken the pains to write, that we ought to
transmit the deeds of all the martyrs which have been collected by
Eusebius of C'sarea in the age of Constantine of holy memory. But I was
not aware before receiving your Holiness' letter whether these things
had been collected or not. I therefore am thankful that being informed
by the writings of your most holy learning, I have begun to know what I
did not know before. For excepting these things which are contained in
the books of this same Eusebius On the deeds of the holy martyrs, I
have met with nothing else in the archives of this our church, nor in
the libraries of Rome, except some few collected in a single volume."
Gelasius of Cyzicus in his Second Book On the Council of Nic'a (chap.
1).
"Let us hear now what says this the most illustrious
husbandman in ecclesiastical farming, the most truth-loving Eusebius,
surnamed after the celebrated Pamphilus. Licinius, indeed, he says,
having followed the same path of impiety with the ungodly tyrants, has
justly been brought to the same precipice with them, etc. (which may be
found at the end of the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History). As
to Eusebius Pomphili, the most trustworthy of ancient ecclesiastical
historians, who has investigated and set forth so many struggles,
having made a choice from among his simply written works, we say that
in all ten books of his Ecclesiastical History he has left behind an
accurately written work. Beginning with the advent of our Lord he has,
not without much labor, proceeded as far as those times. For how else
could it be with him who took so great care to preserve for us the
harmony of this collection? But as I have just said, he brought to bear
upon it much study and an untold amount of labor. But let no one
suppose, from those things which have been alleged with regard to him,
that this man ever adopted the heresy of Arius; but let him be sure,
that even if he did speak somewhat of, and did write briefly concerning
the conjectures of Arius, he certainly did not do it on account of his
entertaining the impious notion of that man, but from artless
simplicity, as indeed he himself fully assures us in his Apology, which
he distributed generally among orthodox bishops."
65
The
author of the Alexandrian Chronicle (p. 582).
"The very learned Eusebius Pamphili has written
thus: As the Jews crucified Christ at the feast, so they all perished
at their own feast."
Nicephorus in the
Sixth Book of his History (chap. 37).
"Upon whose authority also we know of the divine
Pamphilus as both living the life of a philosopher and wearing the
dignity of presbyter in that place. His life and every event in it,
also. his establishing in that place the study of sacred and profane
philosophy, also his confession of his religion in divers persecutions,
his struggles, and at last his wearing the martyr's crown, Eusebius his
nephew, who had such a regard for him as to take from him his surname,
has comprehended in detail in one separate book; to this we refer those
who may wish to find out accurately concerning him. This Eusebius,
indeed, although having prosecuted many studies, especially excels in
the study of sacred literature. His life extended until the time of
Constantius. Being a man pre-eminently Christian, and endowed with
great zeal for Christ, he has written the poratio Evangelica in fifteen
books, and in ten more the Demonstratio Evangelica. He was also the
first one to take in hand this subject, having been the first to call
his book an Ecclesiastical History; this work is contained in ten
volumes. There is also another book of his extant which he entitled
Canons, in which he accurately investigates chronological matters. He
has also composed five books On the Life of Constantine, and another
addressed to him which he calls
<greek>triakont?eth</greek>. To Stephanus he also dedicates
another concerning those things in the sacred Gospels which have been
called in question; and he has also left behind divers other works
which are of great benefit to the Church. Apart from being such a man
as this, he in many ways seems to uphold the opinions of Arius," etc.
From the MS. Acts of Pope Silvester.
"Eusebius Pamphili, in writing his Ecclesiastical
History), has in every case omitted to mention those things which he
has pointed out in other works; for he has put into eleven books the
sufferings of the martyrs, bishops, and confessors, who have suffered
in almost all the provinces. But indeed as to the sufferings of women
and maidens, such as with manly fortitude suffered for the sake of
Christ the Lord, he records nothing. He is, moreover, the only one who
has set forth in their order the sufferings of the bishops, from the
Apostle Peter down. Moreover, he drew up for the benefit of the public
a catalogue of the pontiffs of those cities and apostolic seats; that
is, of the great city of Rome, and the cities of Alexandria and
Antioch. Of the number then of those of whom, up to his own times, the
above-mentioned author wrote in the Greek tongue, this man's life he
was unable to paraphrase; that is, the life of the saint Silvester,"
etc.
An ancient author in
the Passion of the Holy Valerian.
"The glorious struggles of the most blessed martyrs,
for the honor of Christ the Lord and of our God, are celebrated by
perpetual services and an annual solemnity, that while our faithful
people know the faith of the martyrs, they may also rejoice in their
triumphs, and may rest assured that it is by the protection of these
that they themselves are to be protected. For it is held in repute that
Eusebius the historian, of sacred memory, bishop of the city of
C'sarea, a most blessed priest of excellent life, very learned also in
ecclesiastical matters, and to be venerated for his extraordinary
carefulness, set forth for every city, in so far as the truth was able
to be ascertained, the Holy Spirit announcing the deeds that had been
done,--inasmuch as the cities of single provinces and localities or
towns have merited being made famous by the heavenly triumphs of
martyrs,--set forth, I say, in the time of what rulers the innumerable
persecutions were inflicted at the command of officials. Who, although
he has not described entire the sufferings of individual martyrs, yet
has truly intimated why they ought to be described or celebrated by
faithful and devoted Christians. Thus this faithful husbandman has
cultivated the grace of God, which has been scattered abroad in all the
earth, while, as it were, from a single grain of wheat, plenteous
harvests are produced on account of the fertility of the field, and go
on in multiplied abundance. So through the narration of the
above-mentioned man, diffused from the fountain of a single book, with
the ever-spreading writings of the faithful, the celebrating of the
sufferings of the martyrs has watered all the earth."
Usuardus in his Martyrology.
"On the twenty-first day of June, in Palestine, the
holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor, a man of most excellent genius,
and a historiographer."
66
Notker in his Martyrology.
"On the twenty-first day of June, the deposition in C'sarea of the holy
bishop Eusebius."
Manecharius in his Epistle
to Ceraunius, Bishop of Paris.
"Unceasing in thy continual efforts to equal in
merit the very excellent persons of the most blessed bishops in all the
conversation of the priesthood, zealous to adorn thyself every day with
holy religion, by thy zeal for reading thou hast searched through the
whole of the doctrines of the sacred Scriptures. Now as an addition to
thy praiseworthiness thou dost faithfully purpose, in the city of
Paris, to gather together for the love of religion, the deeds of the
holy martyrs. Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in zeal with
Eusebius of C'sarea, and art worthy of being remembered perpetually
with an equal share of glory."
From an old Manuscript Breviary of the
Lemovicensian Church.
"Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.
"Lesson 1. Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea in Palestine,
on account of his friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, took from him
the surname of Pamphili; inasmuch as along with this same Pamphilus he
was a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. The man indeed
is very worthy of being remembered in these times, both for his skill
in many things, and for his wonderful genius, and by both Gentiles and
Christians he was held distinguished and most noble among philosophers.
This man, after having for a time labored in behalf of the Arian
heresy, coming to the council of Nic'a, inspired by the Holy Spirit,
followed the decision of the Fathers, and thereafter up to the time of
his death lived in a most holy manner in the orthodox faith.
"Lesson 2. He was, moreover, very zealous in the
study of the sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr was
a most diligent investigator of sacred literature. At the same time he
has written many things, but especially the following books: The
Pr'paratio Evangelica, the Ecclesiastical History, Against Porphyry, a
very bitter enemy of the Christians; he has also composed Six Apologies
in Behalf of Origen, a Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on
account of friendship he took his surname, in three books; likewise
very learned Commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms.
"Lesson 3. Moreover, as we read, after having
ascertained the sufferings of many holy martyrs in all the provinces,
and the lives of confessors and virgins, he has written concerning
these saints twenty books; while on account of these books therefore,
and especially on account of his Pr'paratio Evangelica, he was held
most distinguished among the Gentiles, because of his love of truth he
contemned the ancestral worship of the gods. He has written also a
Chronicle, extending from the first year of Abraham up to the year 300
A.D., which the divine Hieronymus has continued. Finally this Eusebius,
after the conversion of Constantine the Great, was united to him by
strong friendship as long as he lived."
In the Breviary of the
same church, June twenty-first.
"Omnipotent, eternal God, who dost permit us to take
part in the festivities in honor of Eusebius, thy holy confessor and
priest, bring us, we pray thee, through his prayers, into the society
of heavenly joys, through our Lord Jesus Christ," etc.[1]
From the book On the Lights of the Church.
"Eusebius of C'sarea, the key of the Scriptures and
custodian of the New Testament, is proved by the Greeks to be greater
than many in his treatises. There are three celebrated works of his
which truly testify to this: the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set
forth and defend the New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical
History, and the Chronicon, that is, a chronological summary. We have
never found any one who has been able to follow in all his foot-prints."
From the
Miscellanies of Theodore Metochita (chap. 19)
"Eusebius Pamphili was also a Palestinian by birth,
but as he himself says, he sojourner for quite a long time in Egypt. He
was a very learned man, and it is evident indeed that he published many
books, and that he used language thus."
69
Again, in the same chapter.
"Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius
Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed; but Eusebius denies that he
violates that exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that
Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of Sabellius. In consequence
of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending
against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that
the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all
acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of Persons; yet, from
what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among
themselves, and therefore were never at peace." Theodoritus, in his
Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the
Arians, writes as follows:
"If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it
at least behooves them to believe Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call
the chief advocate of their own doctrines." Nicetas, in his Thesaurus
of the Orthodox Faith, Book F. Chap. 7.
"Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that there
were only nine persons out of all whom the decrees of the Synod did not
please, and that their names are as follows: Theognis of Nic'a,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of C'sarea
in Palestine, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called
Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of
Ptolemaïs, which borders upon Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica."[1]
Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius'
Apology for Origen.
"I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate
knowledge of the doctrines; wherefore he ought to be given place
to so far as regards his great learning, but as regards his knowledge
of doctrine he ought not. But, moreover, we know him to have been
altogether lacking in such
accurate knowledge."
And a little farther on.
"So now, that we may not seem to be trampling upon the
man,--concerning whom it is not our purpose for the present to
speak,--examining into the accuracy of his Apology, we may go on to
show that both were heretics, both he who composed the Apology, and he
in whose behalf it was composed."
And farther on.
"For as to your attempting to show that others as
well as he [Origen] have spoken of the subordination of the Son to the
Father, we may not at first wonder at it, for such is your opinion and
that of your followers; wherefore we say nothing concerning this matter
for the present, since it was long ago submitted and condemned at the
general Council."
From
the Acts of the Seventh OEcumenical Council.
"For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who
of those who have obtained a knowledge of true doctrine, does not know
that Eusebius Pamphili has given himself over to false ways of
thinking, and has become of the same opinion and of the same mind with
those who follow after the opinions of Arius? In all his historical
books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to be
adored as second in rank. But if any speaking in his defense say that
he subscribed in the council, we may admit that that is true; but while
with his lips he has respected the truth, in his heart he is far from
it, as all his writings and epistles go to show. But if from time to
time, on account of circumstances or from different causes, he has
become confused or has changed around, sometimes praising those who
hold to the doctrines of Arius, and at other times reigning the truth,
he shows himself to be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a
double-minded man, unstable in all his ways; and let him not think that
he shall receive anything of the Lord. For if with the heart he had
believed unto righteousness, and with the mouth had confessed the truth
unto salvation, he would have asked forgiveness for his writings, at
the same time correcting them. But this he has by no means done, for he
remained like 'thiops with his skin unchanged. In interpreting the
verse 'I said to the Lord, Thou art my Lord,' he has strayed far away
from the true sense, for this is what he says: 'By the laws of nature
every son's father
70
must be his lord; wherefore God who begat him must be at the same time
God, Lord, and Father of the only-begotten Son of God.' So also in his
epistle to the holy Alexander, the teacher of the great Athanasius,
which begins thus: 'With what anxiety and with what care have I set
about writing this letter,' in most open blasphemy he speaks as follows
concerning Arius and his followers: 'Thy letter accuses them of saying
that the Son was made out of nothing, like all men. But they have
produced their own epistle which they wrote to thee, in which they give
an account of their faith, and expressly confess that "the God of the
law and of the prophets and of the New Testament, before eternal ages
begat an only-begotten Son, through whom also he made the ages and the
universe; and that he begat him not in appearance, but in truth, and
subjected him to his own will, unchangeable and immutable, a perfect
creature of God, but not as one of the creatures." If, therefore, the
letter received from them tells the truth, they wholly contradict thee,
in that they confess that the Son of God who existed before eternal
ages, and through whom he made the world, is unchangeable and a perfect
creature of God, but not as one of the creatures. But thy epistle
accuses them of saying that the Son was made as one of the creatures.
They do not say this, but clearly declare that he was not as one of the
creatures. See if cause is not immediately given them again to attack
and to misrepresent whatever they please. Again thou findest fault with
them for saying that He who is begat him who was not. I wonder if any
one is able to say anything else than that. For if He who is is one, it
is plain that everything has been made by Him and after Him. But if He
who is is not the only one, but there was also a Son existing, how did
He who is beget him who was existing? For thus those existing would be
two.' These things then Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander;
but there are also other epistles of his directed to the same holy man,
in which are found various blasphemies in defense of the followers of
Arius. So also, in writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most
openly; his letter begins thus: 'I return to my Lord all thanks'; and
farther on: 'For we do not say that the Son was with the Father, but
that the Father was before the Son. But the Son of God himself, knowing
well that he was greater than all, and knowing that he was other than
the Father, and less than and subject to Him, very piously teaches this
to us also when he says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."'
And farther on: 'Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.'
So then from these writings of his he shows that he holds to the
doctrines of Arius and his followers. And with this rebellious heresy
of theirs the inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in
hypostatic union, and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body
without soul, in his scheme of redemption, affirming that the divine
nature supplied the purposes and movements of the soul: that, as
Gregory the Divine says, they may ascribe suffering to the Deity; and
it is evident that those who ascribe suffering to the Deity are
Patripassians. Those who share in this heresy do not allow images, as
the impious Severus did not, and Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of
Hierapolis, and all their followers, the many-headed yet headless
hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to this faction, as has been shown
from his epistles and historical writings, as a Patripassian rejected
the image of Christ," etc.[1]
Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine.
"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus
I know not) was carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim. And
he, feeling repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses
to his infirmity; although by his repentance he rather shows that he
has not repented. For he cannot show, by means of those writings in
which he would seem to be defending himself, that he has withdrawn from
his former heretical doctrines, nor can he show that he agreed with the
holy and OEcumenical Synod. But he speaks of it as a marvel that the
upholders of the Homoousion should concur with him in sentiment and
agree with him in opinion: and this fact both many other things and the
epistle written by him to his own people at C'sarea accurately confirm.
But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian doctrines,
and that up to the end of his life he did not cease following them,
many know, and it is easy to gather it from many sources; but that he
shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, the error with regard
to the common resurrection of us all, is to most persons unknown. But
if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou shalt see that he was
none the less truly overcome by that deadly disease than he was by the
Arian madness."
Photius, in his Bibliotheca (chap. 13).
"Of the Objection and Defense of Eusebius two books
have been read; also other two, which although differing in some
respects from the former two, are in other respects the same with regard
71
to both diction and thought. But he presents certain difficulties with
regard to our blameless religion as having originated with the Greeks.
These he correctly solves, although not in all cases. But as regards
his diction, it is by no means either pleasing or brilliant. The man is
indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and
firmness of character, as well as accuracy in doctrine, he is
deficient. For also in many places in these books it is plain to be
seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause,
and general-in-chief, and other terms which have had their origin in
the Arian madness. It seems that he flourished in the time of
Constantine the Great. He was also an ardent admirer of the excellences
of the holy martyr Pamphilus, for which cause some say that he took
from him the surname Pamphili."
Photius, in the Same Work (chap. 127).
"There has been read the work of Eusebius Pamphili
In praise of the great emperor Constantine, consisting of four books.
In this is contained the whole life of the man, starting with his very
boyhood, also whatever deeds of his belong to ecclesiastical history,
until he departed from life at the age of sixty-four. Eusebius is,
however, even in this work, like himself in diction, except that his
discourse has risen to a somewhat more than usual brilliancy, and that
sometimes he has made use of more flowery expressions than he is wont.
However, of pleasantness and beauty of expression there is little, as
indeed is the case in his other works. He inserts, moreover, in this
work of his in four books very many passages from the whole decalogue
of his Ecclesiastical History. He says that Constantine the Great
himself also was baptized in Nicomedia, he having put off his baptism
until then, because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan. Who
baptized him he does not clearly show. However, as to the heresy of
Arius, he does not definitely state whether he holds that opinion, or
whether he has changed; or even whether Arius held correct or incorrect
views, although he ought to have made mention of these things, because
the synod occupied an important place among the deeds of Constantine
the Great, and it again demands a detailed account of them. But he does
state that a 'controversy' arose between Arius and Alexander (this is
the name he cunningly gives to the heresy), and that the God-fearing
prince was very much grieved at this controversy, and strove by
epistles and through Hosius, who was then bishop of Cordova, to bring
back the dissenting parties into peace and concord, they having laid
aside the strife existing between them with regard to such questions;
and that when he could not persuade them to do this he convoked a synod
from all quarters, and that it dissolved into peace the strife that had
arisen. These things, however, are not described accurately or clearly;
it would seem then that he is ashamed, as it were, and does not wish to
make public the vote cast against Arius in the Synod, and the just
retribution of those who were his companions in impiety and who were
cast out together with him. Finally, he does not even mention the
terrible fate which was inflicted by God upon Arius in the sight of
all. None of these things he brings to the light, nor has he drawn up
an account of the Synod and the things that were done in it. Whence,
also, when about to write a narrative concerning the divine Eustathius,
he does not even mention his name, nor what things were threatened and
executed against him; but referring these things also to sedition and
tumult, he again speaks of the calmness of the bishops, who having been
convened in Antioch by the zeal and cooperation of the Emperor, changed
the sedition and tumult into peace. Likewise as to what things were
maliciously contrived against the ever-conquering Athanasius, when he
set about making his history cover these things, he says that
Alexandria again was filled with sedition and tumult, and that this was
calmed by the coming of the bishops, who had the imperial aid. But he
by no means makes it clear who was the leader of the sedition, what
sort of sedition it was, or by what means the strife was settled. He
also keeps up almost the same mode of dissimulating in his account of
the contentions existing among bishops with respect to doctrines, and
their disagreements on other matters." Joannes Zonaras, in his Third
Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of Constantine.
"Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of C'sarea in
Palestine, was at that time one of those who upheld the doctrines of
Arius. He is said to have afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of
Arius, and to have become of like mind with those who hold that the Son
is coëqual and of the same nature with the Father, and to have
been received into communion by the holy Fathers. Moreover, in the Acts
of the first Synod, he is found to have defended the faithful. These
things are found thus narrated by some; but he makes them to appear
doubtful by certain things which he is seen to have written in his
Ecclesiastical History. For in many places in the above-mentioned work
he seems to be following after Arius. In the very beginning of his
book, where he quotes David as saying, 'He spake and they were made, he
commanded and they were estab-
72
lished,' he says that the Father and Maker is to be considered as maker
and universal ruler, governing by a kingly nod, and that the second
after him in authority, the divine Word, is subject to the commands of
the Father. And farther on he says, that he, as being the power and
wisdom of the Father, is entrusted with the second place in the kingdom
and rule over all. And again, a little farther on, that there is also a
certain essence, living and subsisting before the world, which
ministers to the God and Father of the universe for the creation of
things that are created. Also Solomon, in the person of the wisdom of
God, says, 'The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways,' etc.,
and farther on he says: And besides all this, as the pre-existent word
of God, who also preëxisted before all ages created, he received
divine honor from the Father, and is worshipped as God. These and other
things show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines, unless some one
say that they were written before his conversion." Suidas, under the
word <greek>Diodwros</greek>.
"Diodorus, a monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in
Cilicia, in the times of Julian and Valens, wrote divers works, as
Theodorus Lector states in his Ecclesiastical History. These are as
follows: A Chronicle, which corrects the error of Eusebius Pamphilus
with regard to chronology," etc.
The same Suidas, from Sophronius.
"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy,
bishop of C'sarea in Palestine, a man zealous in the study of the holy
Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful
investigator of sacred literature, has published many books, among
which are the following."[1]
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
The Plan of the Work.
1 It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the
holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days
of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events
which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to
mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the
most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have
proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.
2 It is my purpose also to give the names and number
and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the
greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge
falsely so-called[1] have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated
the flock of Christ.
3 It is my intention, moreover, to recount the
misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in
consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways
and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the
Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods
have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as
the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the
gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all.
Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work
with the beginning of the dispensation[2] of our Saviour and Lord Jesus
Christ.[3]
4 But at the outset I must crave for my work the
indulgence of the wise,[4] for I confess that it is beyond my power to
produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to
enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely
and untrodden path.[5] I pray that I may have God as my guide and the
power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare
footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief
fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have
transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.
From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as
from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to
walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.
5 Having gathered therefore from the
matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important
for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the
appropriate passages from ancient writers,[6] we shall endeavor to
embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the
memory of
82
the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all,
yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most
noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.
6 This work seems to me of especial importance because I
know of no ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this
subject; and I hope that it will appear most useful to those who are
fond of historical research.
7 I have already given an epitome of these things in the
Chronological Canons[7] which I have composed, but notwithstanding
that, I have undertaken in the present work to write as full an account
of them as I am able.
8 My work will begin, as I have said, with the
dispensation[8] of the Saviour Christ,--which is loftier and greater
than human conception,--
9 and with a discussion of his divinity[9]; 9 for it is
necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from Christ, for one who
proposes to write a history of the Church to begin with the very origin
of Christ's dispensation, a dispensation more divine than many think.
CHAPTER II.
Summary View of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Our Saviour and
Lord.Jesus Christ.
1 Since in Christ there is a twofold nature, and the one--in so
far as he is thought of as God--resembles the head of the body, while
the other may be compared with the feet,--in so far as he, for the sake
of our salvation, put on human nature with the same passions as our
own,--the following work will be complete only if we begin with the
chief and lordliest events of all his history. In this way will the
antiquity and divinity of Christianity be shown to those who suppose it
of recent and foreign origin,[1] and imagine that it appeared only
yesterday[2]
2 No language is sufficient to express the origin and the
worth, the being and the nature of Christ. Wherefore also the divine
Spirit says in the prophecies, "Who shall declare his generation?"[3]
For none knoweth the Father except the Son, neither can any one know
the Son adequately except the Father alone who hath begotten him.[4]
3 For alone who beside the Father could clearly understand
the Light which was before the world, the intellectual and essential
Wisdom which existed before the ages, the living Word which was in the
beginning with the Father and which was God, the first and only
begotten of God which was before every creature and creation visible
and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host
of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the
Father's unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things,
the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and
only-begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created
things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity
itself, and with might and honor from the Father; as it is said in
regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his
divinity: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God."[5]
4 "All things were made by him; and without him was not
anything made."[6] This, too, the great Moses teaches, when, as the
most ancient of all the prophets, he describes under the influence of
the divine Spirit the creation and arrangement of the universe. He
declares that the maker of the world and the creator of all things
yielded to Christ himself, and to none other than his own clearly
divine and first-born Word, the making of inferior things, and communed
with him respecting the creation of man.
5 "For," says he," God said, Let us make man in our image and in
our likeness."[7] And another of the prophets confirms this, speaking
of God in his hymns as follows: "He spake and they were made; he
commanded and they were created."[8] He here introduces the Father and
Maker as Ruler of all, commanding with a kingly nod, and second to him
the divine Word, none other than the one who is proclaimed by us, as
carrying out
83
6 the Father's commands. All that are said to have excelled in
righteousness and piety since the creation of man, the great servant
Moses and before him in the first place Abraham and his children, and
as many righteous men and prophets as afterward appeared, have
contemplated him with the pure eyes of the mind, and have recognized
him and offered to him the worship which is due him as Son of God.
7 But he, by no means neglectful of the reverence due to
the Father, was appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to them
all. For instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a common man
to Abraham while he was sitting at the oak of Mambre.[9] And he,
immediately failing down, although he saw a man with his eyes,
nevertheless worshiped him as God, and sacrificed to him as Lord, and
confessed that he was not ignorant of his identity when he uttered the
words, "Lord, the judge of all the earth, wilt thou not execute
righteous judgment?"[10]
8 For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the unbegotten
and immutable essence of the almighty God was changed into the form of
man or that it deceived the eyes of the beholders with the appearance
of some created thing, and if it is unreasonable to suppose, on the
other hand, that the Scripture should falsely invent such things, when
the God and Lord who judgeth all the earth and executeth judgment is
seen in the form of a man, who else can be called, if it be not lawful
to call him the first cause of all things, than his only pre-existent
Word?[11] Concerning whom it is said in the Psalms, "He sent his Word
and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions."[12]
9 Moses most clearly proclaims him second Lord after the
Father, when he says, "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the Lord."[13] The divine Scripture also calls
him God, when he appeared again to Jacob in the form of a man, and said
to Jacob, "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be
thy name, because thou hast prevailed with God."[14] Wherefore also
Jacob called the name of that place "Vision of God,"[15] saying, "For I
have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."[16]
10 Nor is it admissible to suppose that the theophanies
recorded were appearances of subordinate angels and ministers of God,
for whenever any of these appeared to men, the Scripture does not
conceal the fact, but calls them by name not God nor Lord, but angels,
as it is easy to prove by numberless testimonies.
11 Joshua, also, the successor of Moses, calls him, as
leader of the heavenly angels and archangels and of
the supramundane powers, and as lieutenant of the Father,[17] entrusted
with the second rank of sovereignty and rule over all, "captain of the
host of the Lords" although he saw him not otherwise than again in the
form and appearance of a man. For it is written:
12 "And it came to pass when Joshua was at Jericho[18] that he
looked and saw a man standing over against him with his sword drawn in
his hand, and Joshua went unto him and said, Art thou for us or
for our adversaries? And he said unto him, As captain of the host of
the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and
said unto him, Lord, what dost thou command thy servant? and the
captain of the Lord said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy feet,
for the place whereon thou standest is holy."[19]
13 You will perceive also from the 13 same words that this
was no other than he who talked with Moses[20] For the Scripture says
in the same words and with reference to the same one, "When the Lord
saw that he drew near to see, the Lord called to him out of the bush
and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, What is it? And he said, Draw not
nigh hither; loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the place whereon
thou standest is holy ground. And he said unto him, I am the God of thy
fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob."[21]
14 And that there is a certain substance which lived and
subsisted[22] before the world, and which ministered unto the
Father and God of the universe for the formation of all created things,
and which, is called the Word of God and Wisdom, we may learn, to quote
other proofs in addition to those already cited, from the mouth
of Wisdom herself, who reveals most clearly through Solomon the
following mysteries concerning herself: "I, Wisdom, have dwelt
84
with prudence and knowledge, and I have invoked understanding. Through
me kings reign, and princes ordain righteousness.
15 Through me the great are magnified, and through me
sovereigns rule the earth."[23] To which she adds: "The Lord created me
in the beginning of his ways, for his works; before the world he
established me, in the beginning, before he made the earth, before he
made the depths, before the mountains were settled, before all hills he
begat me. When he prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when
he established the fountains of the region under heaven[24] I was with
him, disposing.
16 I was the one in whom he delighted; daily I rejoiced
before him at all times when he was rejoicing at having completed the
world."[25] That the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed and appeared
to some, if not to all, has thus been briefly shown by us.
17 But why the Gospel was not preached in ancient times to
all men and to all nations, as it is now, will appear from the
following considerations.[26] The life of the ancients was not of such
a kind as to permit them to receive the all-wise and all-virtuous
teaching 18 of Christ.
18 For immediately in the beginning, after his original
life of blessedness, the first man despised the command of God, and
fell into this mortal and perishable state, and exchanged his former
divinely inspired luxury for this curse-laden earth. His descendants
having filled our earth, showed themselves much worse, with the
exception of one here and there, and entered upon a certain brutal and
insupportable mode of life.
19 They thought neither of city nor state, neither of arts
nor sciences. They were ignorant even of the name of laws and of
justice, of virtue and of philosophy. As nomads, they passed their
lives in deserts, like wild and fierce beasts, destroying, by an excess
of voluntary wickedness, the natural reason of man, and the seeds of
thought and of culture implanted in the human soul. They gave
themselves wholly over to all kinds of profanity, now seducing one
another, now slaying one another, now eating human flesh, and now
daring to wage war with the Gods and to undertake those battles of the
giants celebrated by all; now planning to fortify earth against heaven,
and in the madness of ungoverned pride to prepare an attack upon the
very God of all.[27]
20 On account of these things, when they conducted
themselves thus, the all-seeing God sent down upon them floods and
conflagrations as upon a wild forest spread over the whole earth. He
cut them down with continuous famines and plagues, with wars, and with
thunderbolts from heaven, as if to check some terrible and obstinate
disease of souls with more severe punishments.
21 Then, when the excess of wickedness had overwhelmed
nearly all the race, like a deep fit of drunkenness, beclouding and
darkening the minds of men, the first-born and first-created wisdom of
God, the pre-existent Word himself, induced by his exceeding love for
man, appeared to his servants, now in the form of angels, and again to
one and another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of God, in his
own person as the saving power of God, not otherwise, however, than in
the shape of man, because it was impossible to appear in any other way.
22 And as by them the seeds of piety were sown among a
multitude of men and the whole nation, descended from the Hebrews,
devoted themselves persistently to the worship of God, he imparted to
them through the prophet Moses, as to multitudes still corrupted by
their ancient practices, images and symbols of a certain mystic Sabbath
and of circumcision, and elements of other spiritual principles, but he
did not grant them a complete knowledge of the mysteries themselves.
23 But when their law became celebrated, and, like a sweet
odor, was diffused among all men, as a result of their influence the
dispositions of the majority of the heathen were softened by the
lawgivers and philosophers who arose on every side, and their wild and
savage brutality was changed into mildness, so that they enjoyed deep
peace, friendship, and social intercourse.[28] Then, finally, at the
time of the origin of the Roman Empire, there appeared again to all men
and nations throughout the world, who had been, as it were, previously
assisted, and were now fitted to receive the knowledge of the Father,
that same teacher
85
of virtue, the minister of the Father in all good things, the divine
and heavenly Word of God, in a human body not at all differing in
substance from our own. He did and suffered the things which had been
prophesied. For it had been foretold that one who was at the same time
man and God should come and dwell in the world, should perform
wonderful works, and should show himself a teacher to all nations of
the piety of the Father. The marvelous nature of his birth, and his new
teaching, and his wonderful works had also been foretold; so likewise
the manner of his death, his resurrection from the dead, and,finally,
his divine ascension into heaven.
24 For instance, Daniel the prophet, under the influence of
the divine Spirit, seeing his kingdom at the end of time,[29] was
inspired thus to describe the divine vision in language fitted to human
comprehension: "For I beheld," he says, "until thrones were placed, and
the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow and the
hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was a flame of fire and his
wheels burning fire. A river of fire flowed before him. Thousand
thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before him.
25 He appointed judgment, and the books were
opened."[30] And again, "I saw," says he, "and behold, one like the Son
of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he hastened unto the Ancient
of Days and was brought into his presence, and there was given him the
dominion and the glory and the kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and
tongues serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall
not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed."[31]
26 It is clear that these words can refer to no one
else than to our Saviour, the God Word who was in the beginning with
God, and who was called the Son of man because of his final appearance
in the flesh. But since we have collected in separate books as the
selections from the prophets which relate to our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and have arranged in a more logical form those things which have been
revealed concerning him, what has been said will suffice for the
present.
CHAPTER III.
The Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were known from the
Beginning, and were honored by the Inspired Prophets.
1 It is now the proper place to show that the very name
Jesus and also the name Christ were honored by the ancient prophets
beloved of God.[1]
2 Moses was the first 2 to make known the name
of Christ as a name especially august and glorious. When he delivered
types and symbols of heavenly things, and mysterious images, in
accordance with the oracle which said to him, "Look that thou make all
things according to the pattern which was shown thee in the mount,"[2]
he consecrated a man high priest of God, in so far as that was
possible, and him he called Christ.[3] And thus to this dignity of the
high priesthood, which in his opinion surpassed the most honorable
position among men, he attached for the sake of honor and glory the
name of Christ.
3 He knew so well that in Christ was something divine. And
the same one foreseeing, under the influence of the divine Spirit, the
name Jesus, dignified it also with a certain distinguished privilege.
For the name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among men before
the time of Moses, he applied first and only to the one who he knew
would receive after his death, again as a type and symbol, the supreme
command.
4 His successor, therefore, who had not hitherto
borne the name Jesus, but had been called by another name, Auses,[4]
which had been given him by his parents, he now called Jesus, bestowing
the name upon him as a gift of honor, far greater than any kingly
diadem. For Jesus himself, the son of Nave, bore a resemblance to our
Saviour in the fact that he alone, after Moses and after the completion
of the symbolical worship which had been transmitted by him, succeeded
to the government of the true
and pure religion.
5 Thus Moses bestowed the name of our Saviour, Jesus
Christ, as a mark of the highest honor, upon the two men who in his
time surpassed all the rest of the people in virtue and glory; namely,
upon the high priest and upon his own successor in the government.
6 And the prophets that came after also clearly foretold
Christ by
name, predicting at the same time the plots which the Jewish people
would form against him, and the calling of the nations through him.
Jeremiah, for instance, speaks as follows: "The
86
Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord, was taken in their
destructions; of whom we said, under his shadow we shall live among the
nations."[5] And David, in perplexity, says, "Why did the nations rage
and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set
themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together against the
Lord and against his Christ";[6] to which he adds, in the person of
Christ himself, "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have
I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy
possession."[7]
7 And not only those who were honored with the high
priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with
especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the
Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the
influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were,
typical Christs. For they also bore in their own persons types of the
royal and sovereign power of the true and only Christ, the divine Word
who ruleth over all.
8 And we have been told also that certain of the prophets
themselves became, by the act of anointing, Christs in type, so that
all these have reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired and
heavenly Word, who is the only high priest of all, and the only King of
every creature, and the Father's only supreme prophet of prophets.
9 And a proof of this is that no one of those who were of
old symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets,
possessed so great a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our
Saviour and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.
10 None of them at least, however superior in dignity and
honor they may have been for many generations among their own people,
ever gave to their followers the name of Christians from their own
typical name of Christ. Neither was divine honor ever rendered to any
one of them by their subjects; nor after their death was the
disposition of their followers such that they were ready to die for the
one whom they honored. And never did so great a commotion arise among
all the nations of the earth in respect to any one of that age; for the
mere symbol could not act with such power among them as the truth
itself which was exhibited by our Saviour.
11 He, although he received no symbols and types of high
priesthood from any one, although he was not born of a race of priests,
although he was not elevated to a kingdom by military guards, although
he was not a prophet like those of old, although he obtained no honor
nor pre-eminence among the Jews, nevertheless was adorned by the Father
with all, if not with the symbols, yet with the truth itself.
12 And therefore, although he did not possess like honors
with those whom we have mentioned, he is called Christ more than all of
them. And as himself the true and only Christ of God, he has filled the
whole earth with the truly august and sacred name of Christians,
committing to his followers no longer types and images, but the
uncovered virtues themselves, and a heavenly life in the very doctrines
of truth.
13 And he was not anointed with oil prepared from material
substances, but, as befits divinity, with the divine Spirit himself, by
participation in the unbegotten deity of the Father. And this is taught
also again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as if in the person of Christ
himself, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore hath he anointed
me. He hath sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim
deliverance to captives, and recovery of sight to the blind."[8]
14 And not only Isaiah, but also David addresses him,
saying, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of equity is
the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hast
hated iniquity. Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil
of gladness above thy fellows."[9] Here the Scripture calls him God in
the first verse, in the second it honors him with a royal scepter.
15 Then a little farther on, after the divine and
royal power, it represents him in the third place as having become
Christ, being anointed not with oil made of material substances, but
with the divine oil of gladness. It thus indicates his especial honor,
far superior to and different from that of those who, as types, were of
old anointed in a more material way.
16 And elsewhere the same writer speaks of him as
follows: "The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine
enemies thy footstool";[10] and, "Out of the womb, before the morning
star, have I begotten thee. The Lord hath sworn and he will not repent.
Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec."[11]
17 But this Melchizedec is introduced in the Holy
Scriptures as a priest of the most high God,[12] not consecrated by any
anointing oil, especially prepared, and not even belonging by descent
to the priesthood of the Jews. Wherefore after his order, but not after
the order of the others, who received symbols and types, was our
Saviour proclaimed, with
an appeal to an oath, Christ and priest.
18 History, therefore, does not relate that he 18 was
anointed corporeally by the Jews, nor
Please choose an option.87
that he belonged to the lineage of priests, but that he came into
existence from God himself before the morning star, that is before the
organization of the world, and that he obtained an immortal and
undecaying priesthood for eternal ages.
19 But it is a great and convincing proof of his
incorporeal and divine unction that he alone of all those who have ever
existed is even to the present day called Christ by all men throughout
the world, and is confessed and witnessed to under this name, and is
commemorated both by Greeks and Barbarians and even to this day is
honored as a King by his followers throughout the world, and is admired
as more than a prophet, and is glorified as the true and only high
priest of God.[13] And besides all this, as the pre-existent Word of
God, called into being before all ages, he has received august honor
from the Father, and is worshiped as God.
20 But most wonderful of all is the fact that we who have
consecrated ourselves to him, honor him not only with our voices and
with the sound of words, but also with complete elevation of soul, so
that we choose to give testimony unto him rather than to preserve our
own lives.
21 I have of necessity prefaced my history with these matters in
order that no one, judging from the date of his incarnation, may think
that our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ, has but recently come into
being.
CHAFFER IV.
The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations was neither New nor
Strange.
1 But that no one may suppose that his doctrine is new and
strange, as if it were framed by a man of recent origin, differing in
no respect from other men, let us now briefly consider this point also.
2 It is admitted that when in recent times the appearance
of our Saviour Jesus Christ had become known to all men there
immediately made its appearance a new nation; a nation confessedly not
small, and not dwelling in some corner of the earth, but the most
numerous and pious of all nations,[1] indestructible and unconquerable,
because it always receives assistance from God. This nation, thus
suddenly appearing at the time appointed by the inscrutable counsel of
God, is the one which has been honored by all with the name of Christ.
3 One of the prophets, when he saw beforehand with the eye
of the Divine Spirit that which was to be, was so astonished at it that
he cried out, "Who hath heard of such things, and who hath spoken thus?
Hath the earth brought forth in one day, and hath a nation been born at
once?"[2] And the same prophet gives a hint also of the name by which
the nation was to be called, when he says, "Those that serve me shall
be called by a new name, which shall be blessed upon the earth."[3]
4 But although it is clear that we are new and that this
new name of Christians has really but recently been known among all
nations, nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of
religion, have not been lately invented by us, but from the first
creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural
understanding of divinely favored men of old. That this is so we shall
show in the following way.
5 That the Hebrew nation is not new, but is universally
honored on account of its antiquity, is known to all. The books and
writings of this people contain accounts of ancient men, rare indeed
and few in number, but nevertheless distinguished for piety and
righteousness and every other virtue. Of these, some excellent men
lived before the flood, others of the sons and descendants of Noah
lived after it, among them Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as their
own founder and forefather.
6 If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed
the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first
man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the
truth.[4]
7 For that which the name indicates, that the Christian
man, through the knowledge and the teaching of Christ, is distinguished
for temperance and righteousness, for patience in life and manly
virtue, and for a profession of piety toward the one and only God over
all--all that was zealously practiced by them not less than by us.
8 They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither
do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did
not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other
distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be
observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such
things. But they also clearly knew the very Christ of God; for it has
already been shown that he appeared unto Abraham, that he imparted
revelations to Isaac, that he talked with Jacob, that he held converse
with Moses and with the prophets that came after.
9 Hence you will find those divinely favored men honored
with the name of Christ, according to the passage which says of them,
"Touch not my Christs, and do my prophets no harm."[5]
88
10 So that it is clearly necessary to consider that
religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the
teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions, and
the one discovered by those divinely favored men in the age of Abraham.
11 If it is said that Abraham, a long time afterward, was
given the command of circumcision, we reply that nevertheless before
this it was declared that he had received the testimony of
righteousness through faith; as the divine word says, "Abraham believed
in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."[6]
12 And indeed unto Abraham, who was thus before his
circumcision a justified man, there was given by God, who revealed
himself unto him (but this was Christ himself, the word of God), a
prophecy in regard to those who in coming ages should be justified in
the same way as he. The prophecy was in the following words: "And
in thee shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed.''[7] And
again, "He shall become a nation great and numerous; and in him shall
all the nations of the earth be blessed.''[8]
13 It is permissible to understand this as fulfilled in us.
For he, having renounced the superstition of his fathers, and the
former error of his life, and having confessed the one God over all,
and having worshiped him with deeds of virtue, and not with the service
of the law which was afterward given by Moses, was justified by faith
in Christ, the Word of God, who appeared unto him. To him, then, who
was a man of this character, it was said that all the tribes and all
the nations of the earth should be blessed in him.
14 But that very religion of Abraham has reappeared at the
present time, practiced in deeds, more efficacious than words, by
Christians alone throughout the world.
15 What then should prevent the confession that we who are
of Christ practice one and the same mode of life and have one and the
same religion as those divinely favored men of old? Whence it is
evident that the perfect religion committed to us by the teaching of
Christ is not new and strange, but, if the truth must be spoken, it is
the first and the true religion. This may suffice for this subject.
CHAPTER V.
The Time of his Appearance among Men.
1 AND now, after this necessary introduction to our
proposed history of the Church, we can enter, so to speak, upon our
journey, beginning with the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh. And
we invoke God, the Father of the Word, and him, of whom we have been
speaking, Jesus Christ himself our Saviour and Lord, the heavenly Word
of God, as our aid and fellow-laborer in the narration of the truth.
2 It was in the forty-second year of the reign of
Augustus[1] and the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and
the death of Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the
Ptolemies in Egypt came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord Jesus
Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies
which had been uttered concerning him.[2] His birth took place during
the first census, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria.[3]
3 Flavius Josephus, the most celebrated of Hebrew
historians, also mentions this census,[4] which was taken during
Cyrenius'
89
term of office. In the same connection he gives an account of the
uprising of the Galileans, which took place at that time, of which also
Luke, among our writers, has made mention in the Acts, in the following
words: "After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the
taxing, and drew away a multitude[5] after him: he also perished; and
all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."[6]
4 The above-mentioned author, in the eighteenth book of his
Antiquities, in agreement with these words, adds the following, which
we quote exactly: "Cyrenius, a member of the senate, one who had held
other offices and had l passed through them all to the consulship, a
man also of great dignity in other respects, came to Syria with a small
retinue, being sent by C'sar to be a judge of the nation and to make an
assessment of their property."[7]
5 And after a little[8] he says: "But Judas,[9] a
Gaulonite, from a city called Gamala, taking with him Sadduchus,[10] a
Pharisee, urged the people to revolt, both of them saying that the
taxation meant nothing else than downright slavery, and exhorting the
nation to defend their liberty."
6 And in the second book of his History of the Jewish War,
he writes as follows concerning the same man: "At this time a certain
Galilean, whose name was Judas, persuaded his countrymen to revolt,
declaring that they were cowards if they submitted to pay tribute to
the Romans, and if they endured, besides God, masters who were
mortal."[11] These things are recorded by Josephus.
CHAPTER VI.
About the Time of Christ, in accordance with Prophecy, the Rulers who
had governed the Fewish Nation in Regular Succession from the Days of
Antiquity came to an End, and Herod, the First Foreigner, became King.
1 When Herod,[1] the first ruler of foreign blood, became
King, the prophecy of Moses received its fulfillment, according to
which there should "not be wanting a prince of Judah, nor a ruler from
his loins, until he come for whom it is reserved."[2] The latter, he
also shows, was to be the expectation of the nations.[3]
2 This prediction remained unfulfilled so long as it was
permitted them to live under rulers from their own nation, that is,
from the time of Moses to the reign of Augustus. Under the latter,
Herod, the first foreigner, was given the Kingdom of the Jews by the
Romans. As Josephus relates,[4] he was an Idumean[5] on his father's
side and an Arabian on his mother's. But Africanus,[6] who was also no
common writer, says that they who were more accurately informed about
him report that he was a son of Antipater, and that the latter was the
son of a certain Herod of Ascalon,[7] one of the so-called
90
servants[8] of the temple of Apollo.
3 This Antipater, having been taken a prisoner while a boy
by Idumean robbers, lived with them, because his father, being a poor
man, was unable to pay a ransom for him. Growing up in their practices
he was afterward befriended by Hyrcanus,[9] the high priest of the
Jews. A son of his was that Herod who lived in the, times of our
Saviour.[10]
4 When the Kingdom of the Jews had devolved upon such a man
the expectation of the nations was, according to prophecy, already at
the door. For with him their princes and governors, who had ruled in
regular succession from the time of Moses came to an end.
5 Before their captivity and their transportation to
Babylon they were ruled by Saul first and then by David, and before the
kings leaders governed them who were called Judges, and who came after
Moses and his successor Jesus.
6 After their return from Babylon they continued to have
without interruption an aristocratic form of government, with an
oligarchy. For the priests had the direction of affairs until Pompey,
the Roman general, took Jerusalem by force, and defiled the holy places
by entering the very innermost sanctuary of the temple.[11]
Aristobulus,[12] who, by the right of ancient succession, had been up
to that time both king and high priest, he sent with his children in
chains to Rome; and gave to Hyrcanus, brother of Aristobulus, the high
priesthood, while the whole nation of the Jews was made tributary to
the Romans from that time.[13]
7 But Hyrcanus, who was the last of the regular line of
high priests, was, very soon afterward taken prisoner by the
Parthians,[14] and Herod, the first foreigner, as I have already said,
was made King of the Jewish nation by the Roman senate and by Augustus.
8 Under him Christ appeared in bodily shape, and the
expected Salvation of the nations and their calling followed in
accordance with prophecy.[15] From this time the princes and rulers of
Judah, I mean of the Jewish nation, came to an end, and as a natural
consequence the order of the high priesthood, which from ancient times
had proceeded regularly in closest succession from generation to
generation, was immediately thrown into confusion,[16]
9 Of these things Josephus is also a witness,[17] who shows
that when Herod was made King by the Romans he no longer appointed the
high priests from the ancient line, but gave the honor to certain
obscure persons. A course similar to that of Herod in the appointment
of the priests was pursued by his son Archelaus,[18] and after him by
the Romans, who took the government into their own hands.[19]
10 The same writer shows[20] that Herod was the first that locked
up the sacred garment of the high priest. under his own seal and
refused to permit the high priests to keep it for themselves. The same
course was followed by Archelaus after him, and after Archelaus by the
Romans.
11 These things have been recorded by us in order to show that
another prophecy has been fulfilled in the appearance of our Saviour
Jesus Christ. For the Scripture, in the book of Daniel,[21] having
expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of
Christ, of which we have treated in other books,[22] most clearly
prophesies, that after the completion of those weeks the unction among
the Jews should totally perish. And this, it has been clearly shown,
was fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
This has been neces-
91
sarily premised by us as a proof of the correctness of the time.
CHAPTER VII.
The
Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard
to the Genealogy of Christ.
1 Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the
genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at
variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in
ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation
which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the
account of the matter which has come down to us,[1] and which is given
by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to
Aristides,[2] where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies.
After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give
the account which he had received from tradition[3] in these words:
2 "For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned
in Israel either according to nature or according to law;--according to
nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law
whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying
childless;[4] for because a clear hope of resurrection was not
yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of
mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might
be perpetuated;--
3 whereas then some of those who are inserted in this
genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father,
while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to
another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact
and of those who were so only in name.
4 Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons
by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and
that from Nathan[5] were so involved, the one with the other, by the
raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that
the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at
another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers,
at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are
strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy
indeed, yet quite accurately.
5 But in order that what I have said may be made clear I
shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the
generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found
to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke,
we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third
from the end is Melchi,[6] whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For
Joseph was the son of Eli,the son of Melchi.
6 Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must
be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob,
who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from
Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers,
and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of
different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7 Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same
woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not
prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her
husband, from marryinganother.
8 By Estha[7] then (for this was the woman's name according
to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob.
92
And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to
Nathan, being of the same tribe[8] but of another family,[9] married
her as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9 Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although
belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of
these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the
latter's wife and begat by her a son to Joseph, his own son by nature n
and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: 'Jacob
begat Joseph.'[12] But according to law[13] he was the son of Eli, for
Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10 Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be
rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives
thus: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who was
the son, as was supposed'[14] (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the
son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express
the generation according to law. And the expression 'he begat' he has
omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy
back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable
of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.[15]
11 For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh,
whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the
fact, in either case truly, have banded down the following account:[16]
Some Idumean robbers,[17] having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine,
carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in
addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named
Herod. And since the priest[18] was not able to pay the ransom for his
son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and
afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12 And having, been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to
Pompey, and having restored to
93
him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he
had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine.[19] But
Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good
fortune[20] was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a
decree of the senate, made King of the Jews[21] under Antony and
Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs.[22] These
accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.[23]
13 But as there had been kept in the archives[24] up to
that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced
their lineage back to proselytes,[25] such as Achior [26] the Ammonite
and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the
Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the
lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and
since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble
extraction, burned all the genealogical records,[27] thinking that he
might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public
registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes
and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.[28]
14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private
records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting
them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on
preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those
already mentioned, called Desposyni,[29] on account of their connection
with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and
Cochaba,[30] villages of Judea,[31] into other parts of the
world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory[32] and from
the book of daily records[33] as faithfully as possible.
15 Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could
find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of
every candid person. And let this suffice us,
94
for, although we can urge no testimony in its support,[34] we have
nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the
truth." And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words:
"Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan
was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same
woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died
childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son
by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both."
17 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus
traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him,
since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different
tribes were not permitted.[35] For the command is to marry one of the
same family[36] and lineage,[37] so that the inheritance may not pass
from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.
CHAPTER VIII.
The Cruelty of Herod toward the Infants, and
the Manner of his Death.
1 When Christ was born, according to the prophecies, in
Bethlehem of Judea, at the time indicated, Herod was not a little
disturbed by the enquiry of the magi who came from the east, asking
where he who was born King of the Jews was to be found,--for they had
seen his star, and this was their reason for taking so long a journey;
for they earnestly desired to worship the infant as God,[1]-- for he
imagined that his kingdom might be endangered; and he enquired
therefore of the doctors of the law, who belonged to the Jewish nation,
where they expected Christ to be born. When he learned that the
prophecy of Micah[2] announced that Bethlehem was to be his birthplace
he commanded, in a single edict, all the male infants in
Bethlehem, and all its borders, that were two years of age or
less, according to the time which he had accurately ascertained from
the magi, to be slain, supposing that Jesus, as was indeed likely,
would share the same fate as the others of his own age.
2 But the child anticipated the snare, being carried into
Egypt by his parents, who had learned from an angel that appeared unto
them what was about to happen, These things are recorded by the Holy
Scriptures in the Gospel.[3]
3 It is worth while, in addition to this, to observe the
reward which Herod received for his daring crime against Christ and
those of the same age. For immediately, without the least delay, the
divine vengeance overtook him while he was still alive, and gave him a
foretaste of what he was to receive after death.
4 It is not possible to relate here how he tarnished the
supposed felicity of his reign by successive calamities in his family,
by the murder of wife and children, and others of his nearest relatives
and dearest friends.[4] The account, which casts every other tragic
drama into the shade, is detailed at length in the histories of
Josephus.[5] 5 How, immediately after his crime against our
Saviour and the other infants, the punishment sent by God drove him on
to his death, we can best learn from the words of that historian who,
in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writes as
follows concerning his end:[6]"
6 But the disease of Herod grew more severe, God inflicting
punishment for his crimes. For a slow fire burned in him which was not
so apparent to those who touched him, but augmented his internal
distress; for he had a terrible desire for food which it was not
possible to resist. He was affected also with ulceration of the
intestines, and with especially severe pains in the colon, while a
watery and transparent humor settled about his feet.
7 He suffered also from a similar trouble in his abdomen.
Nay more, his privy member was putrefied and produced worms. He found
also excessive difficulty in breathing, and it was particularly
disagreeable because of the offensive-
95
ness of the odor and the rapidity of respiration.
8 He had convulsions also in every limb, which gave him
uncontrollable strength. It was said, indeed, by those who possessed
the power of divination and wisdom to explain such events, that God had
inflicted this punishment upon the King on account of his great
impiety."
9 The writer mentioned above recounts these things in the
work referred to. And in the second book of his History he gives a
similar account of the same Herod, which runs as follows:[7] "The
disease then seized upon his whole body and distracted it by various
torments. For he had a slow fever, and the itching of the skin of his
whole body was insupportable. He suffered also from continuous pains in
his colon, and there were swellings on his feet like those of a person
suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his privy
member so putrefied as to produce worms. Besides this he could breathe
only in an upright posture, and then only with difficulty, and he had
convulsions in all his limbs, so that the diviners said that his
diseases were a punishment.[8] 10 But he, although
wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped
for safety, and devised methods of cure. For instance, crossing over
Jordan he used the warm baths at Callirhoë,[9] which flow into the
Lake Asphaltites,[10] but are themselves sweet enough to drink.
11 His physicians here thought that they could warm his
whole body again by means of heated oil. But when they had let him down
into a tub filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the
eyes of a dead person. But when his attendants raised an outcry, he
recovered at the noise; but finally, despairing of a cure, he commanded
about fifty drachms to be distributed among the soldiers, and great
sums to be given to his generals 12 and friends.
12 Then returning he came to Jericho, where, being seized
with melancholy, he planned to commit an impious deed, as if
challenging death itself. For, collecting from every town the most
illustrious men of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the
so-called hippodrome. 13 And having summoned Salome,[11]
his sister, and her husband, Alexander,[12] he said: 'I know that
the Jews will rejoice at my death. But I may be lamented by others and
have a splendid funeral if you are willing to perform my commands. When
I shall expire surround these men, who are now under guard, as quickly
as possible with soldiers, and slay them, in order that all Judea and
every house may weep for me even against their will.'"[13] And after a
little Josephus says,
14 "And again he was so tortured by want of food and by a
convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains, he planned to
anticipate his fate. Taking an apple he asked also for a knife,
for he was accustomed to cut apples and eat them. Then looking round to
see that there was no one to hinder, he raised his right hand as if to
stab himself."[14]
15 In addition to these things the same writer records that
he slew another of his own sons[13] before his death, the third one
slain by his command, and that immediately afterward he breathed his
last, not without excessive pain.
16 Such was the end of Herod, who suffered a just
punishment for his slaughter of the children of Bethlehem,[16] which
was the result of his plots against our Saviour.
17 After this an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in
Egypt and commanded him to go to Judea with the child and its mother,
revealing to him that those who had sought the life of the child were
dead.[7] To this the evangelist adds, "But when he heard that Archelaus
did reign in the room of his father Herod he was afraid to go thither;
notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream he turned aside into the
parts of Galilee."[18]
96
CHAPTER IX.
The Times of Pilate.
THE historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to
the fact that Archelaus[1] succeeded to the government after Herod. He
records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews by the
will of his father Herod and by the decree of C'sar Augustus, and how,
after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers
Philip[2] and Herod the younger,[3] with Lysanias,[4] still ruled their
own tetrarchies. The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his
Antiquities,[5] says that about the twelfth year of the reign of
Tiberius,[6] who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled
fifty-seven years,[7] Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government
of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the
death of Tiberius.
2 Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given
currency to acts against our Saviour[8] is clearly proved. For the very
date given in them[9] shows the falsehood of their fabricators.
3 For the things which they have dared to say concerning
the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of
Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which
time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the
testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the
above-mentioned work[10] that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by
Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.
CHAPTER, X.
The High Priests of the Jews under whom Christtaught.
1 IT was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,[1]
according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship
of Pontius Pilate,[2] while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were ruling
the rest of Judea,[3] that our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of
God, being about thirty years of age,[4] came to John for baptism and
began the promulgation of the Gospel.
2 The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the
entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and
Caiaphas,[5] showing that in the time which be-
97
longed to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his
teaching was completed. Since he began his work during the high
priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, the
entire time does not comprise quite four years.
3 For the rites of the law having been already abolished
since that time, the customary usages in connection with the worship of
God, according to which the high priest acquired his office by
hereditary descent and held it for life, were also annulled and there
were appointed to the high priesthood by the Roman governors now one
and now another person who continued in office not more than one
year.[6]
4 Josephus relates that there were four high priests in
succession from Annas to Caiaphas. Thus in the same book of the
Antiquities[7] he writes as follows: "Valerius Graters[8] having put an
end to the priesthood of Ananus[9] appoints Ishmael,[10] the son of
Fabi, high priest. And having removed him after a little he appoints
Eleazer,[11] the son of Ananus the high priest, to the same office. And
having removed him also at the end of a year he gives the high
priesthood to Simon,[12] the son of Camithus. But he likewise held the
honor no more than a year, when Josephus, called also Caiaphas,[13]
succeeded him." Accordingly the whole time of our Saviour's ministry is
shown to have been not quite four full years, four high priests, from
Annas to the accession of Caiaphas, having held office a year each. The
Gospel therefore has rightly indicated Caiaphas as the high priest
under whom the Saviour suffered. From which also we can see that the
time of our Saviour's ministry does not disagree with the foregoing
investigation.
5 Our Saviour and Lord, not long after the 5 beginning of
his ministry, called the twelve apostles,[14] and these alone of all
his disciples he named apostles, as an especial honor. And again he
appointed seventy others whom he sent out two by two before his face
into every place and city whither he himself was about to come.[15]
CHAPTER XI.
Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and
Christ.
1 NOT long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the
younger Herod,[1] as is stated in the Gospels.[2] Josephus also records
the same fact,[3] making mention of Herodias[4] by name, and
stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her
his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the
daughter of Aretas,[5] king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her
husband while he was still alive.
2 It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged
war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of
the latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to
battle, Herod's entire army was destroyed,[6] and that he suffered this
calamity on account of his crime against John.
3 The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the
Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the
things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost
his kingdom on account of
98
the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and
condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul.[7]
4 He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the
Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words:[8] "It
seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God,
who most justly avenged John called the Baptist.
5 For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the
Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising
righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would
appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission
of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had
been already purified in righteousness.
6 And when others gathered about him (for they found much
pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great
influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do
whatever he might advise. He therefore considered it much better,
before any new thing should be done under John's influence, to
anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come,
and when he found himself in the midst of difficulties.[9] On account
of Herod's suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned
citadel of Mach'ra,[10] and there slain."
7 After relating these things concerning John, he makes
mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:[11]
"And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper
to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher
of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to
himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the
Christ.
8 When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men,
condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning
did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the
third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other
wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians,
named after him, continues down to the present day."
9 Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves,
has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and
our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being
destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them?[12] But
let this suffice here.
CHAPTER XII.
The Disciples of our Saviour.
1 THE names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to
every one from the Gospels.[1] But there exists no catalogue of the
seventy disciples.[2] Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of
them, of whom the Acts of the apostles makes mention in various
places,[3]
99
and especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians.[4]
2 They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the
Corinthians with Paul, was one of them.[5] This is the account of
Clement[6] in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also
says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples,[7] a man who bore
the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul
says, "When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face."[8]
3 Matthias,[9] also, who was numbered with the
apostles in the place of Judas, and the one who was honored by being
made a candidate with him,[10] are like-wise said to have been deemed
worthy of the same calling with the seventy. They say that Thaddeus[11]
also was one of them, concerning whom I shall presently relate an
account which has come down to us.[12] And upon examination you will
find that our Saviour had more than seventy disciples, according to the
testimony of Paul, who says that after his resurrection from the dead
he appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to
above five hundred brethren at once, of whom some had fallen
asleep;[13] but the majority were still living 4 at the time he wrote.
4 Afterwards he says he appeared unto James, who was
one of the so-called brethren of the Saviour.[14] But, since in
addition to these, there were many others who were called apostles, in
imitation of the Twelve, as was Paul himself, he adds: "Afterward he
appeared to all the apostles."[15] So much in regard to these persons.
But the story concerning Thaddeus is as follows.
100
CHAPTER XIII.
Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessences.
1 The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being
noised abroad among all men on account of his wonder-working power, he
attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from
Judea, who had the opening of being cured of their diseases and of all
kinds of sufferings.
2 For instance the King Abgarus,[1] who ruled with
great
glory the nations beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible
disease which it was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he
heard of the name of Jesus, and of his miracles, which were attested by
all with one accord sent a message to him by a courier and begged him
to heal his disease.
3 But he did not at that time comply with his
request; yet he deemed him worthy of a personal letter in which he said
that he would send one of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the
same time promised salvation to himself and all his house.
4 Not long afterward his promise was fulfilled.
For after his resurrection from the dead and his ascent into heaven,
Thomas,[2] one of the twelve apostles, under divine impulse sent
Thaddeus, who was also numbered among the seventy disciples of
Christ,[3] to Edessa,[4] as a preacher and evangelist of the teaching
of Christ.
5 And all that our Saviour had promised received
through him its fulfillment. You have written evidence of these things
taken from the archives of Edessa,[5] which was at that time a royal
city. For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of
ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found
preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to
hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and
have literally translated from the Syriac language[6] in the following
manner. Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, tend
sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananias[7] the swift courier.
6 "Abgarus, ruler Of Edessa, to Jesus the 6 excellent
Saviour who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting. I have
heard the reports of thee and of thy cures as performed by thee without
medicines or herbs. For it is said that thou makest the blind to see
and the lame to walk, that thou cleansest lepers and castest out impure
spirits and demons, and that thou healest those afflicted with
lingering disease, and raisest the dead.
7 And having heard all these things concerning thee,
I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either thou art
God, and having come down from heaven thou doest these things, or else
thou, who doest these things, art the Son of God.[8]
8 I have therefore written to thee to ask thee that thou
wouldest take the trouble to come to me and heal the disease which I
have. For I have heard that the Jews are murmuring against thee and are
plotting to injure thee. But I have a very small yet noble city which
is great enough for us both."
101
The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the
courier Ananias.
9 "Blessed art thou who hast believed in me without having seen
me.[9] For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will
not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and
be saved.[10] But in regard to what thou hast written me, that I should
come to thee, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here for
which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be
taken up again to him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I
will send to thee one of my disciples, that he may heal thy disease and
give life to thee and thine."
10 To these epistles there was added the following account in the
Syriac language. "After the ascension of Jesus, Judas,[11] who was also
called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle,[12] one of the
Seventy. When he was come he lodged with Tobias,[13] the son of Tobias.
When the report of him got abroad, it was told Abgarus that an apostle
of Jesus was come, as he had written him.
11 Thaddeus began then in the power of God to heal every
disease and infirmity, insomuch that all wondered. And when Abgarus
heard of the great and wonderful things which he did and of the cures
which he performed, he began to suspect that he was the one of whom
Jesus had written him, saying, 'After I have been taken up I will send
to thee one of my disciples who will heal thee.'
12 Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom Thaddeus
lodged, he said, I have heard that a certain man of power has come and
is lodging in thy house. Bring him to me. And Tobias coming to Thaddeus
said to him, The ruler Abgarus summoned me and told me to bring thee to
him that thou mightest heal him. And Thaddeus said, I will go, for I
have been sent to him with power.
13 Tobias therefore arose early on the following day, and
taking Thaddeus came to Abgarus. And when he came, the nobles were
present and stood about Abgarus. And immediately upon his entrance a
great vision appeared to Abgarus in the countenance of the apostle
Thaddeus. When Abgarus saw it he prostrated himself before Thaddeus,
while all those who stood about were astonished; for they did not see
the vision, which appeared to Abgarus alone.
14 He then asked Thaddeus if he were in truth a
disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who had said to him, 'I will send
thee one of my disciples, who shall heal thee and give thee life.' And
Thaddeus said, Because thou hast mightily believed in him that sent me,
therefore have I 'been sent unto thee. And still further, if thou
believest in him, the petitions of thy heart shall be granted thee as
thou believest.
15 And Abgarus said to him, So much have I
believed in him that I wished to take an army and destroy those Jews
who crucified him, had I not been deterred from it by reason of the
dominion of the Romans. And Thaddeus said, Our Lord has fulfilled the
will of his Father, and having fulfilled it has been taken up to his
Father. And Abgarus said to him, I too have believed in him and in his
Father.
16 And Thaddeus said to him, Therefore I place my
hand upon thee in his name. And when he had done it, immediately
Abgarus was cured of the disease and of the suffering which he had.
17 And Abgarus marvelled, that as he had heard
concerning Jesus, so he had received in very deed through his disciple
Thaddeus, who healed him without medicines and herbs, and not only him,
but also Abdus[14] the son of Abdus, who was afflicted with the gout;
for he too came to him and fell at his feet, and having received a
benediction by the imposition of his hands, he was healed. The same
Thaddeus cured also many other inhabitants of the city, and did wonders
and marvelous works, and preached
102
18 the word of God. And afterward Abgarus said, Thou, O Thaddeus, doest
these things with the power of God, and we marvel. But, in addition to
these things, I pray thee to inform me in regard to the coming of
Jesus, how he was born; and in regard to his power, by what power he
performed those deeds of which I have heard.
19 And Thaddeus said, Now indeed will I keep silence,
since I have
been sent to proclaim the word publicly. But to-morrow assemble for me
all thy citizens, and I will preach in their presence and sow among
them the word of God, concerning the coming of Jesus, how he was born;
and concerning his mission, for what purpose he was sent by the Father;
and concerning the power of his works, and the mysteries which he
proclaimed in the world, and by what power he did these things; and
concerning his new preaching, and his abasement and humiliation, and
how he humbled himself, and died and debased his divinity and was
crucified, and descended into Hades,[15] and burst the bars which from
eternity had not been broken,[16] and raised the dead; for he descended
alone, but rose with many, and thus ascended to his Father.[17]
20 Abgarus 20 therefore commanded the citizens to assemble
early in the morning to hear the preaching of Thaddeus, and afterward
he ordered gold and silver to be given him. But he refused to take it,
saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take
that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred
and fortieth year."[18]
I have inserted them here in their proper place,
translated from the Syriac[19] literally, and I hope to good purpose.
BOOK II.
INTRODUCTION.
1 WE have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in
ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of
introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were
the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines
which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by
Christians, together with the events which have taken place in
connection with Christ's recent appearance, and in connection with his
passion and with the choice of the apostles.
2 In the present book let us examine the events which
took place after his ascension, confirming some of them from the divine
Scriptures, and others from such writings as we shall refer to from
time to time.
CHAffER I.
The Course pursued by the Apostles after the
Ascension of Christ.
1 First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer,
Matthias,[1] who, as has been shown[2] was also one of the Seventy, was
chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the
diaconate,[2a] for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the
laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men,
104
seven in number, of whom Stephen was one.[3] He first, after the Lord,
was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the
Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose.[4] And thus he
was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name,[5] which
belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of
victory. 2 Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the
Just[6] on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have
been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James
was called the brother of the Lord[7] because he was known as a son of
Joseph,[8] and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because
the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy
Ghost before they came together,"[9] as the account of the holy Gospels
shows.
3 But Clement in the sixth book of his
Hypotyposes[10] writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and
John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our
Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of
Jerusalem."[11]
4 But the same writer, in the seventh book of the
same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord
after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John
and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the
rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.[12] But
there were two Jameses:[13] one called the Just, who was thrown from
the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a
fuller,[14] and another who was beheaded."[15] Paul also makes mention
of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the apostles saw
I none, save James the Lord's brother."[16]
5 At that time also the promise of our Saviour to the
king of the Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For Thomas, under a divine
impulse, sent Thaddeus to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the
religion of Christ, as we have shown a little above from the document
found there?
7 When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the
word of Christ; and after bringing all the people there into the right
attitude of mind by means of his works, and leading them to adore the
power of Christ, he made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching. And
from that time down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has
been devoted to the name of Christ,[18] offering no common proof of the
beneficence of our Saviour
toward them also.
8 These things have been drawn from ancient accounts;
but let us now turn again to the divine Scripture. When the first and
greatest persecution was instigated by the Jews against the church of
Jerusalem in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, and when all the
disciples, except the Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and
Samaria,[19] some, as the divine Scripture says, went as far as
Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, but could not yet venture to impart
the word of faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to the Jews
alone.[20]
9 During this time Paul was still persecuting the
church, and entering the houses of believers was dragging men and women
away and committing them to prison.[21]
10 Philip also, one of those who with Stephen
had been entrusted with the diaconate, being among those who were
scattered abroad, went down to Samaria,[22] and being filled with the
divine power, he first preached the word to the inhabitants of that
country. And divine grace worked so mightily with him that even Simon
Magus with many others was attracted by his
105
11 words.[23] Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired,
by his jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him,
that he was thought to be the great power of God.[24] But at this time,
being amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the
divine power, he reigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going
so far as to receive baptism.[25]
12 And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to
this day by those who follow his most impure heresy.[26] For they,
after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a
pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they
are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in
themselves.[27] The most of these have been expelled as soon as they
have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected
by Peter, received the merited punishment.[28]
13 But as the preaching of the Saviour's Gospel
was daily advancing, a certain providence led from the land of the
Ethiopians an officer of the queen of that country,[29] for Ethiopia
even to the present day is ruled, according to ancestral custom, by a
woman. He, first among the Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the
divine word from Philip in consequence of a revelation, and having
become the first-fruits of believers throughout the world, he is said
to have been the first on returning to his country to proclaim the
knowledge of the God of the universe and the life-giving sojourn of our
Saviour among men;[30] so that through him in truth the prophecy
obtained its fulfillment, which declares that "Ethiopia stretcheth out
her hand unto God."[31]
14 In addition to these, Paul, that "chosen vessel,"[32]
"not of men neither through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ
himself and of God the Father who raised him from the dead,"[33] was
appointed an apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by
a voice which was uttered in a revelation from heaven.[34]
CHAPTER II.
How Tiberius was affected when informed by
Pilate concerning Christ.
1 AND when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our
Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient
custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting
to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order
that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius[1] of
the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning
the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.
2 He gave an account also of other wonders which he
had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the
dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.[2] They say that
Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate,[3] but that they rejected
it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for
an ancient law prevailed
106
that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and
decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of
the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of
men.
3 But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the
proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the
opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures
against Christ.[4] 4 These things are recorded by
Tertullian,[5] a man well versed in the laws of the Romans,[6] and in
other respects of high repute, and one of those especially
distinguished in Rome.[7] In his apology for the Christians,[8] which
was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into
Greek,[9] he writes as follows:[10]
5 "But in order that we may give an account of these
laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree n that no one should
be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its
approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol,
Alburnus.[12] And this is a point in favor of our doctrine,[13] that
among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does
not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom,
it is necessary for man to be gracious to God.
6 Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ
made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him
from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate,
making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine.[14] But
the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But
Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the
accusers of the Christians."[15] Heavenly providence had wisely
instilled this into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel,
unhindered at its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout
the world.
107
CHAPTER III.
The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout
All the World.
1 THUS, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the
divine co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the
sun, quickly illumined the whole world;[1] and straightway, in
accordance with the divine Scriptures,[2] the voice of the inspired
evangelists and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world.
2 In every city and village, churches were quickly
established, filled with multitudes of people like a replenished
threshing-floor. And those whose minds, in consequence of errors which
had descended to them from their forefathers, were fettered by the
ancient disease of idolatrous superstition, were, by the power of
Christ operating through the teaching and the wonderful works of his
disciples, set free, as it were, from terrible masters, and found a
release from the most cruel bondage. They renounced with abhorrence
every species of demoniacal polytheism, and confessed that there was
only one God, the creator of all things, and him they honored with the
rites of true piety, through the inspired and rational worship which
has been planted by our Saviour among men.
3 But the divine grace being now poured out upon the
rest of the nations Cornelius, of C'sarea in Palestine, with his whole
house, through a divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first
received faith in Christ;[3] and after him a multitude of other Greeks
in Antioch,[4] to whom those who were scattered by the persecution of
Stephen had preached the Gospel. When the church of Antioch was now
increasing and abounding, and a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem
were on the ground,[5] among them Barnabas and Paul and in addition
many other brethren, the name of Christians first sprang up there,[6]
as from a fresh and life-giving fountain.[7]And Agabus, one of the
prophets who was with them, uttered a prophecy concerning the famine
which was about to take place,[8] and Paul and Barnabas were sent to
relieve the necessities of the brethren.[9]
CHAPTER IV.
After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed
Agrippa King of the Jews, having punished Herod with Perpetual Exile.
Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two years,[1] and
Caius succeeded him in the empire.[2] He immediately gave the
government of the Jews to Agrippa,[3] making him king over the
tetrarchies of Philip and of Ly-sanias; in addition to which he
bestowed upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod,[4]
having punished Herod (the one under whom the Saviour suffered[5]) and
his wife Herodias with perpetual exile[6] on account of numerous
crimes. Josephus is a witness to these facts.[7] Under this emperor,
Philo[8] became known;
108
a man most celebrated not only among many of our own, but also among
many scholars without the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was
inferior to none of those who held high dignities in Alexandria. How
exceedingly he labored in the Scriptures and in the studies of his
nation is plain to all from the work which he has done. How familiar he
was with philosophy and with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it
is not necessary to say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his
contemporaries in the study of Platonic and Pythagorean. philosophy, to
which he particularly devoted his attention.[9]
CHAPTER V.
Philo's Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews.
1 PHILO has given us an account, in five books, of the
misfortunes of the Jews under Caius.[1] He recounts at the same time
the madness of Caius: how he called himself a god, and performed as
emperor innumerable acts of tyranny; and he describes further the
miseries of the Jews under him, and gives a report of the embassy upon
which he himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in
Alexandria;[2] how when he appeared before Caius in behalf of the laws
of his fathers he received nothing but laughter and ridicule, and
almost incurred the risk of his life. Josephus also makes mention of
these things in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in the
following words: a "A sedition having arisen in Alexandria between the
Jews that dwell there and the Greeks,[4] three deputies were chosen
from each faction and went to Caius.
3 One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion,[5] who uttered
many slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they
neglected the honors due to C'sar. For while all other subjects of Rome
erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects treated
him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it disgraceful to
honor him with statues and to swear by his name. And when Apion 4 had
uttered many severe charges by which he hoped that Caius would be
aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of the Jewish embassy,
a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of Alexander the
Alabarch,[6] and not unskilled in philosophy, was prepared to enter
109
upon a defense in reply to his accusations. But Caius prevented him and
ordered him to leave, and being very angry, it was plain that he
meditated some severe measure against them. And Philo departed covered
with insult and told the Jews that were with him to be of good courage;
for while Caius was raging against them he was in fact already
contending with God." Thus far Josephus. And Philo himself, in the work
On the Embassy[7] which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail
the things which were done by him at that time. But I shall omit the
most of them and record only those things which will make clearly
evident to the reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them
not long after their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the
same. And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of
Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the
emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly;[8] and
that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour were
committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in respect to
the temple, which was at that time still standing in Jerusalem, and
excited them to the greatest tumults.[9]
CHAPTER VI.
The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews
after their Presumption against Christ.
1 After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire,
and, besides innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he
greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews[1] These
things we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as
follows:[2] "So great was the caprice of Caius in his2. conduct toward
all, and especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so
bitterly hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship
in the other cities,[3] and beginning with Alexandria he filled them
with images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect
them he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city,
which had hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an
inviolable asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own,
that it might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger
Caius."[4] Innumerable other terrible and 3 almost indescribable
calamities which came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of
the same emperor, are recorded by the same author in a second work, to
which he gave the title, On the Virtues.[5] With him agrees also
Josephus, who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole
nation began with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes
against the Saviour.[6] Hear what be says in 4 the second book of his
Jewish War, where he writes as follows:[7] "Pilate being sent to Judea
as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the
emperor, called ensigns,[8] to Jerusalem by night. The following day
this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were
near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were,
trampled under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their
city." Comparing 5 these things with the writings of the evangelists,
you will see that it was not long before there came upon them the
penalty for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same
Pilate, when they cried out that they had no other king than C'sar.[9]
The same 6 writer further records that after this another calamity
overtook them. He writes as follows:[10] "After this he. stirred up
another tumult by snaking use of the holy treasure, which is called
Corban,[11] in the construction of an aqueduct
110
7 three hundred stadia in length.[12] The multitude were greatly
displeased at it, and when Pilate was in Jerusalem they surrounded his
tribunal and gave utterance to loud complaints. But he, anticipating
the tumult, had distributed through the crowd armed soldiers disguised
in citizen's clothing, forbidding them to use the sword, but commanding
them to strike with clubs those who should make an outcry. To them he
now gave the preconcerted signal from the tribunal. And the Jews being
beaten, many of them perished in consequence of the blows, while many
others were trampled under foot by their own countrymen in their
flight, and thus lost their lives. But the multitude, overawed by the
fate of those who
8 were slain, held their peace." In addition to these the
same author records[13] many other tumults which were stirred up in
Jerusalem itself, and shows that from that time seditions and wars and
mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never
ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of
Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews
for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ.
CHAPTER VII. Pilate's Suicide.
IT is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was
governor in the time of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into
such misfortunes under Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was
forced to become his own murderer and executioner;[1] and thus divine
vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated
by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together
with the respective events which have taken place in each period.[2]
CHAPTER VIII.
The Famine which took Place in the Reign of
Claudius.
Caius had held the power not quite four 1 years,[1] when he was
succeeded by the emperor Claudius. Under him the world was visited with
a famine,[2] which writers that are entire strangers to our religion
have recorded in their histories.[3] And thus the prediction of Agabus
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,[4] according to which the whole
world was to be visited by a famine, received its fulfillment. And 2
Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time of Claudius,
and stating that the brethren of Antioch, each according to his
ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and
Barnabas,[5] adds the following account.
CHAPTER IX.
The Martyrdom of James the Apostle. "[1] Now about
that time" (it is clear that 1 he means the time of Claudius)
"Herod the King[2] stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the
Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword." And 2
concerning this James, Clement, in the seventh book of his
Hypotyposes,[3] relates a story
111
which is worthy of mention; telling it as he received it from those who
had lived before him. He says that the one who led James to the
judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing his testimony, was moved, and
confessed that he was himself also a Christian.
3 They were both therefore, he says, led away together;
and on the way he begged James to forgive him. And he, after
considering a little, said, "Peace be with thee," and kissed him. And
thus they were both beheaded at the same time.
4 And then, as the divine Scripture says,[4] Herod, upon
the death of James, seeing that the deed pleased the Jews, attacked
Peter also and committed him to prison, and would have slain him if he
had not, by the divine appearance of an angel who came to him by night,
been wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus liberated for the
service of the Gospel. Such was the providence of God in respect to
Peter.
CHAPTER X.
Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the Apostles,
immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance.
1 THE consequences of the king's undertaking against the
apostles were no, long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine
justice overtook him immediately after his plots against them, as the
Book of Acts records.[1] For when he had journeyed to C'sarea, on a
notable feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he
delivered an address to the people from a lofty throne in front of the
tribunal. And when all the multitude applauded the speech, as if it
were the voice of a god and not of a man, the Scripture relates that an
angel of the Lord smote him, and being eaten of worms he gave up the
ghost.[2]
2 We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement
with the divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he
clearly bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his
Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the following words:[3]
3 "He had completed the third year of his reign over all
Judea[4] when he came to C'sarea, which was formerly called
Strato's Tower.[5] There he held games in honor of C'sar, learning that
this was a festival observed in behalf of C'sar's safety.[6] At this
festival was collected a great multitude of the highest and most
honorable men in the province.
4 And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the
theater at break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of
wonderful texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection
of the sun's earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly as
to produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him.
5 And immediately his flatterers, some from one place,
others from another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for
his good, calling him a god, and saying, 'Be thou merciful; if up to
this time we have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou
art superior to the nature of mortals.'
6 The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their
impious
flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above
his head.[7] And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as
112
it had once been the cause of good fortune,[8] and he was smitten with
a heart-piercing pain.
7 And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest
violence, seized his bowels. And looking upon his friends he said, 'I,
your god, am now commanded to depart this life; and fate thus I on the
spot disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me. He
who has been called immortal by you is now led away to die; but our
destiny must be accepted as God has determined it. For we have passed
our life by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor which is
pronounced happiness.'9
8 And when he had said this he labored with an increase of
pain. He was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the
report spread among all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But
the multitude, with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth
after the custom of their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king,
and every place was filled with lamentation and tears.[10] And the king
as he lay in a lofty chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the
ground, could not refrain from weeping himself.
9 And after suffering continually for five days with pain
in the bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his
age, and in the seventh year of his reign.[11] Four years he ruled
under the Emperor Caius--three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to
which was added in the fourth year that of Herod[12] --and three years
during the reign of the Emperor Claudius."
10 I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these things as well as in
others, so fully agrees with the divine Scriptures. But if there should
seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect to the name of the
king, the time at least and the events show that the same person is
meant, whether the change of name has been caused by the error of a
copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so many, bore two
names.[13]
CHAPTER XI.
The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.
1 LUKE, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the
consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time
referred to,[1] "rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody; who
was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered."[2] Let us
therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He records
in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances:[3]
2 "While Fadus was procurator of Judea[4] a certain
impostor called Theudas[5] persuaded
113
a very great multitude to take their possessions and follow him to the
river Jordan. For he said that he was a prophet, and that the river
should be divided at his command, and afford them an easy passage.
3 And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not
permit them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against
them, who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took
many others alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off
his head and carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he also makes
mention of the famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in
the following words.
CHAPTER XII.
Helen, the Queen of the Osrhoenians.
1 [1]"AND at this time" it came to pass that
the great famine a took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen,[4]
having purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to
the needy."
You will find this statement also in agreement with
the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at
Antioch, "each according to his ability, determined to send relief to
the brethren that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to
the elders by 3 the hands of Barnabas and Paul."[5] But splendid
monuments[6] of this Helen, Of whom the historian has made mention, are
still shown in the suburbs of the city which is now called 'lia,[7] But
she is said to have been queen of the Adiabeni.[8]
CHAPTER XIII.
Simon Magus.[1]
But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus 1 Christ having now
been diffused among all men,[2] the enemy of man's salvation contrived
a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither
the above-mentioned Simon,[3] aided him in his deceitful arts, led many
of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own
power. This is 2 stated by Justin,[4] one of our distinguished
writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning
him I shall speak in the proper place.[5] Take and read the work of this
114
man, who in the first Apology[6] which he addressed to
Antonine in behalf of our religion writes 3 as follows:[7] "And
after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put
forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only
allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of
honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,[8]
who in the reign of Claudius C'sar[9] performed in your imperial city
some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and
was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue,
which was erected in the river Tiber,[10] between the two bridges, and
bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sancto, that is,
To Simon the Holy God.[11] And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even
of other nations confess and worship him as the first God. And there
went around with him at that time a certain Helena[12] who had formerly
been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first
idea that proceeded from him."[13] Justin relates these things, and
Iren'us also 5 agrees with him in the first book of his work, Against
Heresies, where he gives an account of the man[14] and of his profane
and impure teaching. It would be superfluous to quote his account here,
for it is possible for those who wish to know the origin and the lives
and the false doctrines of each of the heresiarchs that have followed
him, as well as the customs practiced by them all, to find them treated
at length in the above-mentioned work of Iren'us. We 6 have understood
that Simon was the author of all heresy.[15] From his time down to the
present those who have followed his heresy have reigned the sober
philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account
of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the
superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they
fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the
above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship
them with incense and sacrifices and libations. But those matters which
they keep 7 more secret than these, in regard to which they say that
one upon first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the
written phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded,[16] are in
truth full of amazing things, and of madness and folly, being of such a
sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing, but also
for modest men even to utter them with the lips on account of their
excessive baseness and lewdness.[17] For what 8 ever could be conceived
of, viler than the
vilest thing -- all that has been outdone by this most abominable sect,
which is composed of those who make a sport of those miserable females
that are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices.[18]
CHAPTER XIV.
The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.
1 The evil power,[1] who hates all that is good
and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time
the father and author of such wickedness,[2] as if to make him a mighty
antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour. For that
divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by
their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame
of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every high thing that
exalted itself against the knowledge of God."[3] Wherefore neither the
conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that
period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For
everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and
by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from
heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and
dwelling in the apostles themselves. Immediately[4] the above-mentioned
impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous
flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by
the apostle Peter in Judea,[5] he fled and made a great journey across
the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he
live according to his mind. And coming to the city of Rome,[6] by the
mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was
in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt
there honored him as a god by the 6 erection of a statue.[7] But
this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign
of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over
all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and
the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the
others, to Rome s against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble
commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise
of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in
the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings
salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.[9]
CHAPTER XV.
The Gospel according to Mark.
AND thus when the divine word had made its home
among them,[1] the power of
116
Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man
himself.[2] And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds
of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only,
and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel,
but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,[3] a follower of
Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a
written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to
them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had
thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of
Mark.[4] And they say that Peter when he had 2 learned, through a
revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with
the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his
authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.[5] Clement in
the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him
agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.[6] And Peter makes
mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in
Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a
figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is
at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus
my son."[7]
CHAPTER XVI.
Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the In-
habitants of Egypt.
And they say that this Mark was the first 1 that was sent
to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and
first established churches in Alexandria. 1 And the multitude of
believers, both men 2 and women, that were collected there at the very
outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive
asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe
their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole
manner of life."[2]
CHAPTER XVII.
Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt.
1 It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became
acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there.[1] Nor is
this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which
was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those rules of
the Church which are even to this day observed among us. And since he
describes as accurately as possible the life of our ascetics, it is
clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved, while he
venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it
seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the
Jews, the 3 most of the customs of the ancients. In the work to which
he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants,[2] after
affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he
is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own
invention,[3] he says that these men were called Therapeut' and the
women that were with them Therapeutrides.[4] He then adds the reasons
for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies
and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like
physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and
worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity. Whether Philo himself gave
them this 4 name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of
life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the
beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known,
we need not discuss here. He bears witness, however, that first of all
5 they renounce their property. When they begin the philosophical[5]
mode of life, he says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and
then, renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls
and dwell in lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse
with people of a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They
did this at that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a
spirited and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets' mode
of life. For in the Acts of 6 the Apostles, a work universally
acknowledged as authentic,[6] it is recorded that all the
118
companions of the apostles sold their possessions and their property
and distributed to all according to the necessity of each one, so that
no one among them was in want. "For as many as were possessors of lands
or houses," as the account says, "sold them and brought the prices of
the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, so that
distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."[7]
Philo bears witness to facts very much like those
here described and then adds the following account:[8] "Everywhere in
the world is this race[9] found. For it was fitting that both Greek[9a]
and Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race
particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes,[10] and
especially about Alexandria. The best men from every quarter emigrate,
as if to a colony of the Therapeut''s fatherland,[11] to a
certain very suitable spot which lies above the lake Maria[12] upon a
low hill excellently situated on account of its security and the 9
mildness of the atmosphere" And then a little further
on, after describing the kind of houses which they had, he speaks as
follows concerning their churches, which were scattered about here and
there:[13] "In each house there is a sacred apartment which is
called a sanctuary and monastery,[14] where, quite alone, they perform
the mysteries of the religious life. They bring nothing into it,
neither drink nor food, nor any of the other things which contribute to
the necessities of the body, but only the laws, and the inspired
oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such other things as augment and
makeperfect their knowledge and piety." 10 And after some other
matters he says:[15] "The whole interval, from
morning to evening, is for them a time of exercise. For they read the
holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy of their fathers in an
allegorical manner, regarding the written words as symbols of hidden
truth which is communicated in obscure 11 figures. They have also
writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who
left many monuments of the allegorical method. These they use as
models, and imitate their principles." These things 12 seem to have
been stated by a man who had heard them expounding their sacred
writings. But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients,
which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the
apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such
as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of
Paul's Epistles. Then again he writes as 13 follows concerning the new
psalms which they composed: 16 "So that they not only spend their time
in meditation, but they also compose songs and hymns to God in every
variety of metre and melody, though they divide them, of course, into
measures of more than common solemnity." The same book contains an 14
account of many other things, but it seemed necessary to select those
facts which exhibit the characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode of
life. But if any one thinks that what 15 has been said is not peculiar
to the Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to others besides
those mentioned, let him be convinced by the subsequent words of the
same author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undisputed
testimony on this subject. Philo's words are as follows:[17] "Having
laid down 16 temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul, they build
upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or drink before
sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy of the light,
but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in the darkness,
and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the latter a small
portion of the night. But 17 some, in whom a great desire for knowledge
dwells, forget to take food for three days; and some are so delighted
and feast so luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly
and without stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and
are accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food." These
statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to
those of our communion. But if after these things any one still
obstinately persists in denying the reference, let him renounce his
incredulity and be convinced by yet more striking examples, which are
to be found nowhere else than in the evangelical religion of the
Christians.[18] For they say 19 that there were women also with those
of whom we are speaking, and that the most of them were aged
virgins[19] who had preserved
119
their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of the priestesses among
the Greeks,[20] but rather by their own choice, through zeal and a
desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire to live with it as
their companion they paid no attention to the pleasures of the body,
seeking not mortal but immortal progeny, which only the 20 pious soul
is able to bear of itself. Then after a little he adds still more
emphatically:[21] "They expound the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by
means of allegories. For the whole law seems to these men to resemble a
living organism, of which the spoken words constitute the body, while
the hidden sense stored up within the words constitutes the soul. This
hidden meaning has first been particularly studied by this sect, which
sees, revealed as in a mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the
thoughts." Why is it necessary to add to these things their meetings
and the respective occupations of the men and of the women during those
meetings, and the practices which are even to the present day
habitually observed by us, especially such as we are accustomed to
observe at the feast of the Saviour's passion, with fasting and night
watching and study of the divine Word. These things the above-mentioned
author has related in his own work, indicating a mode of life
which has been preserved to the present time by us alone,
recording especially the vigils kept in connection with the great
festival, and the exercises performed during those vigils, and the
hymns customarily recited by us, and describing how, while one sings
regularly in time, the others listen in silence, and join in chanting
only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days referred to they
sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and to use his own
words,[22] "taste no wine at all, nor any flesh, but water is
their only drink, and therelish with their bread is salt and
hyssop." 23 In addition to this Philo describes the
order of dignities which ists among those who carry
on the services of the church, mentioning the diaconate, and the office
of bishop, which takes the precedence over all the others.[23] But
whosoever desires a more accurate knowledge of these matters may get it
from the history already cited. But that Philo, when he 24 wrote these
things, had in view the first heralds of the Gospel and the customs
handed down from the beginning by the apostles, is clear to every one.
CHAPTER XVIII.
The
Works of Philo[1] that have came down to us.
Copious in language, comprehensive in I thought, sublime and
elevated in his views of divine Scripture, Philo has produced manifold
and various expositions of the sacred books. On the one hand, he
expounds in order the events recorded in Genesis in the books to which
he gives the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws;[2] on the other hand,
he makes successive divisions-of the chapters in the Scriptures which
are the subject of investigation, and gives objections and solutions,
in the books which he quite suitably calls Questions and Answers an
Genesis and Exodus.[3] There are, besides these,[2] treatises expressly
worked out by him on certain subjects, such as the two books On
Agriculture,[4] and the same number On Drunken-
120
ness'[5] and some others distinguished by different titles
corresponding to the contents of each; for instance, Concerning the
things which the Sober Mind desires and execrates,[6] On the Confusion
of Tongues,[7] On Flight and Discovery,[8] On Assembly for the sake of
Instruction,[9] On the question, Who is heir to things divine?' or On
the division of things into equal and unequal,[10] and still further
the work On the three Virtues which 3 with others have been described
by Moses.[11] In addition to these is the work On those
whose Names have been changed and why they have been changed,[12]
in which he says that he had written also two hooks On Covenants?
And there is also a work of his On Emigration,[14] and one On the life
of a Wise Man made perfect in Righteousness, or On unwritten taws;[15]
and still further the work On Giants or On the Immutability of God,[16]
and a first, second, third, fourth and fifth book On the proposition,
that Dreams according to Moses are sent by God.[17] These are the hooks
on Genesis that have come down to us. But on Exodus we are acquainted
with the first, second, third, fourth and fifth books of Questions and
Answers,'[18] also with that On tire Tabernacle,[19] and that On the
ten Commandments,[20] and the four books
121
On the laws which refer especially to the principal divisions of the
ten Commandments,[21] and another On animals intended for sacrifice and
On the kinds of sacrifice,[22] and another On the re--wards fixed in
the law for the good, and on the punishments and curses fixed for the
wicked.[23] 6 In addition to all these there are
extant also some single-volumed works of his; as for
instance, the work On Providence,[24] and the book composed by him On
the Jews,[25] and The Statesman;[26] and still further, Alexander, or
On the possession of reason by the irrational animals?: Besides these
there is a work On the proposition that every wicked man is a slave, to
which is subjoined the work On the proposition that every goad man is
free.[28] After 7 these was composed by him the work On the
contemplative life, or On suppliants,[29] from which we have drawn the
facts concerning the life of the apostolic men; and still further, the
Interpretation of the Hebrew names in the law and in the prophets are
said to be the result of his industry.[30] And he is said to have 8
read in the presence of the whole Roman Senate during the reign of
Claudius[31] the work which he had written, when he came to Rome under
Coins, concerning Coins' hatred of the gods, and to which, with
ironical reference to its character, he had given the title On the
Virtues.[32] And his discourses were so much admired as to be deemed
worthy of a place in the libraries. At this time, while Paul was
completing 9 his journey "from Jerusalem and round about unto
Illyricum,"[33] Claudius drove the Jews out of Rome; and Aquila and
Priscilla, leaving Rome with the other Jews, came to Asia, and there
abode with the apostle Paul, who was confirming the churches of that
region whose
122
foundations he had newly laid. The sacred book of the Acts informs us
also of these things.[34]
CHAPTER XIX.
The Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem
an the Day of the _Passover.
1 While Claudius was still emperor, it
happened that so great a tumult and disturbance took place in Jerusalem
at the feast of the Passover, that thirty thousand of those Jews alone
who were forcibly crowded together at the gate of the temple
perished,[1] being trampled under foot by one another. Thus the
festival became a season of mourning for all the nation, and there was
weeping in every house. These things are related literally[2] by
Josephus.
But Claudius appointed Agrippa,[3] son of Agrippa,
king of the Jews, having sent Felix[4] as procurator of the whole
country of Samaria and Galilee, and of the land called Perea.[5] And
after he had reigned thirteen years and eight months a he died, and
left Nero as his successor in the empire.
CHAPTER XX.
The Events which took _Place in Jerusalem dur-
ing the Reign of Nero.
Josephus again, in the twentieth book of his Antiquities,
relates the quarrel which arose among the priests during the reign of
Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea. His words are as follows[1]:
"There arose a 2 quarrel between the high priests on the one hand and
the priests and leaders of the people of Jerusalem on the other.[2] And
each of them collected a body of the boldest and most restless men, and
put himself at their head, and whenever they met they hurled invectives
and stones at each other. And there was no one that would interpose;
but these things were done at will as if in a city destitute of a
ruler. And so great was the shamelessness and audacity of the high
priests that they dared to send their servants to the threshing-floors
to seize the tithes due to the priests; and thus those of the priests
that were poor were seen to be perishing of want. In this way did the
violence of the factions prevail over all justice." And the same 4
author again relates that about the same time there sprang up in
Jerusalem a certain kind of robbers,[3]" who by day," as he says,
"and in the middle of the city slew those who met them." For,
especially at the feasts, 5 they mingled with the multitude, and with
short swords, which they concealed under their garments, they
stabbed the most distinguished men. And when they fell, the murderers
themselves were among those who expressed their indignation. And thus
on account of the con-
123
fidence which was reposed in them by all, 6 they remained
undiscovered. The first that was slain by them was Jonathan the
high priest;[4] and after him many were killed every day, until the
fear became worse than the evil itself, each one, as in battle, hourly
expecting death.
CHAPTER XXI.
The Egyptian, who is mentioned also in the Acts
of the Apostles.
1 After other matters he proceeds as follows:[1] "But the
Jews were afflicted with a greater plague than these by the Egyptian
false prophet.[2] For there appeared in the land an impostor who
aroused faith in himself as a prophet, and collected about thirty
thousand of those whom he had deceived, and led them from the desert to
the so-called Mount of Olives whence he was prepared to enter Jerusalem
by force and to overpower the Roman garrison and seize the government
of the people, using those who made the attack with him as body
2. guards. But Felix anticipated his attack, and went out to meet
him with the Roman legionaries, and all the people joined in the
defense, so that when the battle was fought the Egyptian fled with a
few followers, but the most of them were destroyed or taken
captive." 8 Josephus relates these events in the
second book of his History.[3] But it is worth while comparing
the account of the Egyptian given here with that contained in the Acts
of the Apostles. In the time of Felix it was said to Paul by the
centurion in Jerusalem, when the multitude of the Jews raised a
disturbance against the apostle, "Art not thou he Who before these days
made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that
were murderers?"[4] These are the events which took place in the time
of Felix.[5]
CHAPTER XXII.
Paul having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, made his Defense, and
was acquitted of every Charge. Festus[1] was sent by Nero
to be Felix's 1 successor. Under him Paul, having made his
defense, was sent bound to Rome[2] Aristarchus was with him, whom he
also somewhere in his epistles quite naturally calls his
fellow-prisoner.[3]
124
And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles,[4] brought his history to
a close at this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at
Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without
restraint.[5] Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the
apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching,[6] and that upon
coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom.[7] In this
imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy,[8] in which he
mentions his first 3 defense and his impending death. But
hear his testimony on these matters: "At my first answer,"
he says, "no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that
it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with
me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known,
and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the
mouth of the lion."[9] He plainly indicates in these words that 4 on
the former occasion, in order that the preaching might be fulfilled by
him, he was rescued from the mouth of the lion, referring, in this
expression, to Nero, as is probable on account of the latter's cruelty.
He did not therefore afterward add the similar statement, "He will
rescue me from the mouth of the lion"; for he saw in the spirit that
his end would not be long delayed. Wherefore he 5 adds to the words,
"And he delivered me from the mouth of the lion," this sentence: "The
Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto
his heavenly kingdom,"[10] indicating his speedy martyrdom; which he
also foretells still more clearly in the same epistle, when he writes,
"For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at
hand."[11] In his second 6 epistle to Timothy, moreover, he indicates
that Luke was with him when he wrote,[12] but at his first
defense not even he.[13] Whence it is probable that Luke wrote the Acts
of the Apostles at that time, continuing his history down to the period
when he was with Paul.[14] But 7 these things have been adduced by us
to show that Paul's martyrdom did not take place at the time of that
Roman sojourn which Luke
125
8 records. It is probable indeed that as Nero was more disposed to
mildness in the beginning, Paul's defense of his doctrine was more
easily received; but that when he had advanced to the commission of
lawless deeds of daring, he made the apostles as well as others the
subjects of his attacks.[15]
CHAPTER XXIII
The Martyrdom of James, who was called the
Brother of the Lord.
1 But after Paul, in consequence of his
appeal to C'sar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being
frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had
laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord,[1] to whom
the episcopal seat at Jerusalem bad been entrusted by the apostles.[2]
The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.
Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should
renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But,
contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater
boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole
multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the
Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of
the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue[3]
and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed
by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him.
Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the
prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had
died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus
without a governor and head.[4] The manner of James' death has been
already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who
records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was
beaten to death with a club.[5] But Hegesippus,[6] who lived
immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account
in the fifth book of his Memoirs.[7] He writes 4 as
follows: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government
of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.[8] He has been called
the Just[9] by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for
there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy 5 from his
mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat
flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil,
and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter 6 into the
holy place ; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in
the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found
upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees
became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly
bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the
people.[10] Because 7 of his exceeding great justice he was called the
Just, and Oblias,[11] which signifies in Greek, Bulwark of the people'
and 'Justice,'[12] in accordance with what the prophets declare
concerning him.[13] Now some of the seven 8 sects, which existed
among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the
Memoirs,[14] asked him, 'What is the gate of Jesus ?[15]
126
and he replied that he was the Saviour. On account of these words some
believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did
not believe either in a resurrection or in one's coming to give to
every man according to his works.[16] But as many as believed did
so on account of James. 10 Therefore when many even of the
rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and
Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole
people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore
in a body to James they said, 'We entreat thee, restrain the people;
for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christy
We entreat thee to persuade all that have come to the feast of the
Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in thee. For we
bear thee witness, as do all the people, that thou art just, and dost
not respect per 11 sons.[18] Do thou therefore persuade the
multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people,
and all of us also, have confidence in thee. Stand therefore upon the
pinnacle of the temple,[19] that from that high position thou mayest be
clearly seen, and that thy words may be readily heard by all the
people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together
on account of the Passover.' The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees
therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out
to him and said: Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have:
confidence, forasmuch as the people are led, astray after Jesus, the
crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.'[20] And
he answered with a loud voice,' Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the
Son of Man ? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the
great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.'[21] And
when many were 14 fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of
James, and said, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and
Pharisees said again to one another,' We have done badly in supplying
such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order
that they may be afraid to believe him.' And 15 they cried out, saying,
'Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the
Scripture written in Isaiah,[22] ' Let us take away [23] the just man,
because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of
their doings.' So they went up and threw down 16 the just man, and said
to each other, 'Let us stone James the Just.' And they began to stone
him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down
and said, 'I entreat thee, Lord God our Father,[24] forgive them, for
they know not what they do.'[25] And 17 while they were thus stoning
him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the
Rechabites,[26] who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet,[27] cried
out, saying, 'Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you[28]
127
18 And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he
beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he
suffered martyrdom.[29] And they buried him on the spot, by the temple,
and his monument still remains by the temple.[30] He became a true
witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And
immediately Vespasian besieged them."[31] 19 These things are
related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement.[32]
James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his
justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion
that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to
them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than
20 their daring act against him. Josephus, at
least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he
says,[33] "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the
Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called theChrist. For the
Jews slew him, although 21 he was a most just man." And the
same writer records his death also in the twentieth
book of his Antiquities in the following words:[34] "But the emperor,
when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus[35] to be
procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus,[36] who, as we have
already said,[37] had obtained the high priesthood, was of an
exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to
the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in
the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.[38] Ananus,22
therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a
favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and
Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim, and
brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James
by name, together with some others,[39] and accused them of violating
the law, and condemned them to be stoned.[40] But those in the city who
23 seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this,
and sent secretly to the king,[41] requesting him to order Ananus to
cease such proceedings. For he had not done right even this first time.
And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from
Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to
summon the Sanhedrim without his knowledge.[42] And Albinus, being 24
128
persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger to Ananus,
threatening him with punishment. And the king, Agrippa, in
consequence, deprived him, of the high priesthood,[43] which he had
held threemonths, and appointed Jesus, the son of 25 Damnaeus."[44]
These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the
author of the first of the so-called catholic[45] epistles. But it is
to be observed that it is disputed;[46] at least, not many of the
ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle
that bears the name of Jude,[47] which is also one of the seven
so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also,[48]
with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.[49]
CHAPTER XXIV.
Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of
Alexandria after Mark.
WHEN Nero was in the eighth year of his reign,[1]
Annianus[2] succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the
parish of Alexandria.[3]
CHAffER XXV.
The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome
with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion. WHEN the government of Nero
was now 1 firmly established, he began to plunge into unholy pursuits,
and armed himself even against the religion of the God of the universe.
To describe the greatness of his depravity2 does not lie within the
plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded
his history in most accurate narratives,[1] every one may at his
pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man's extraordinary
madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the
destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such
blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest relatives and
dearest friends, but destroyed his mother and his brothers and his
wife,[2] with very many others of his own family
129
as he would private and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths.
But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his
crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who
showed himself an enemy of the divine religion. 4 The Roman Tertullian
is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows:[3] "Examine
your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that
persecuted this doctrine,[4] particularly then when after subduing all
the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome.[5] We glory in
having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him
can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was
something 5 of great excellence." Thus publicly announcing himself as
the first among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of
the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome
itself,[6] and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.[7] This
account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names
are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.
It is confirmed likewise by Caius,[8] 6
130
a member of the Church,[9] who arose[10] under Zephyrinus,[11] bishop
of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus,[12] the leader of
the Phrygian heresy,[13] speaks as follows concerning the places where
the sacred corpses 7 of the aforesaid apostles are laid: "But[14] I can
show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the
Vatican[15] or to the Ostian way,[16] you will find the trophies of
those who laid the foundations of this church."[17] 8 And that they
both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop
of Corinth,[18] in his epistle to the Romans,[19] in the
following words: "You have thus by such an admonition bound together
the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them
planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth.[20] And they taught
together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same
time."[21] I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the
history might be still more confirmed.
CHAPTER XXVI.
The Jews, afflicted with Innumerable Evils, commenced the Last War
against the Romans. Josephus again, after relating many things 1
in connection with the calamity which came upon the whole Jewish
nation, records,[1] in addition to many other circumstances, that a
great many[2] of the most honorable among the Jews were scourged in
Jerusalem itself and then crucified by Florus.[3] It happened that he
was procurator of Judea when the war began to be kindled, in the
twelfth year of Nero.[4]
131
2 Josephus says[5] that at that time a terrible commotion was
stirred up throughout all Syria in consequence of the revolt of the
Jews, and that everywhere the latter were destroyed without mercy, like
enemies, by the inhabitants of the cities, "so that one could see
cities filled with unburied corpses, and the dead bodies of the aged
scattered about with the bodies of infants, and women without even a
covering for their nakedness, and the whole province full of
indescribable calamities, while the dread of those things that were
threatened was greater than the sufferings themselves which they
anywhere endured."[6] Such is the account of Josephus; and such was the
condition of the Jews at that time.
BOOK III.
CHAPTER I.
The Parts of the World in which the Apostles
preached Christ.
1 Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy
apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the
world.[1] Parthia,[2] according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as
his field of labor, Scythia[3] to Andrew,[4] and Asia[5] to John,[6]
who, after he had lived some time there,[7] died at Ephesus. Peter
appears to have preached 6 in 2 Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia,
and Asia[9] to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to
Rome, he was crucified head-downwards;[10] for he had requested that he
might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who
preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum,[11] and
afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under
133
Nero?[12] These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his
Commentary on Genesis.[13]
CHAPTER II.
The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.
After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus[1]
was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul
mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at
the end of the epistle.[2]
CHAPTER III.
The Epistles of the Apostles.
One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as
genuine.[1] And this the ancient elders[2] used freely in their own
writings as an undisputed work.[3] But we have learned that his extant
second Epistle does not belong to the canon;[4] yet, as it has appeared
profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.[5] The
so-called Acts 2 of Peter,[6] however, and the Gospel[7] which bears
his name, and the Preaching[8] and the
134
Apocalypse,[9] as they are called, we know have not been universally
accepted,[10] because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has
made use of testimonies drawn from them.[11] 3 But in the course
of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official
succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use
of any of the disputed works,[12] and what they have said in regard to
the canonical and accepted writings,[13] as well as in regard to those
which are not of this class. Such are the writings that bear the name
of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine[14] and acknowledged
by the ancient elders.[15] 5 Paul's fourteen epistles are well
known and undisputed.[16] It is not indeed right to overlook the fact
that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,[17] saying that it
is dis-
Please choose an option.
135
puted[18] by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written
by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who
lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.[19] In regard
to the so-called Acts of Paul,[20] I have not found them among the
undisputed writings.[21]
6 But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of
the Epistle to the Romans,[22] has made mention among others of Hermas,
to whom the book called The Shepherd[23] is ascribed, it should be
observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account
cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is
considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need
instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has
been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the
most ancient writers used it. This will serve to show the divine
writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally
acknowledged.
136
CHAPTER IV.
The First Successors of the Apostles.
1 THAT Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the
foundations of the churches "from Jerusalem round about even unto
Illyricum," is evident both from his own words,[1] and from theaccount
which Luke has given in the Acts.[2]
2 And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and
taught the doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is
clear from his own words in his epistle already mentioned as
undisputed,[3] in which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.[4] But the number and
the names of those among them that became true and zealous followers of
the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend the churches rounded by
them, it is not easy to tell, except those mentioned in the writings of
Paul. For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or "fellow-soldiers," as
he called them,[5] and most of them were honored by him with an
imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony 5 concerning them
in his own epistles. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and
mentions them by name.[6]
6 Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to
receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus,[7] Titus of the
churches in Crete.[8] But Luke,[9] who was of Antiochian parentage and
a physician by 7 profession,[10] and who was especially intimate with
Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles,[11] has left
us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which
he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel,[12] which
he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning
eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of
whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first.[13] The other
book is the Acts of the Apostles[14] which he
137
composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen
himself. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel
wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words,
"according to my Gospel."[15] As to the rest of his followers, Paul
testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul;[16] but Linus, whom he
mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy[17] as his companion at Rome,
was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has
already been shown.[18] Clement also, who was ap 10 pointed third
bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer
and fellow-soldier.[19] Besides these, that Areopa 11 gite, named
Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul's address to the
Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts)[20] is
mentioned by another Dionysius, an
138
ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth,[21] as the first
bishop of the church at 12. Athens. But the events connected with
the apostolic succession we shall relate at the proper time. Meanwhile
let us continue the course of our history.
CHAPTER V.
The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.
AFTER Nero had held the power thirteen years,[1] and
Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months,[2] Vespasian, who had
become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed
sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies
there.[3] Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted
the conduct of the war
2. against the Jews to his son Titus.[4] For the Jews
after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against
him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his
apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them,[5] and after him
James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded,[6] and
finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in
Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner
already described.[7] But the rest of the apostles, who had been
incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had
been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach
the Gospel,[8] relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them,
"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."[9]
But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been
commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the
war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called
Pella.[10] And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from
Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of
Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at
length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ
and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
But the number of calamities which every 4 where fell upon the nation
at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea
were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and
children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of
death innumerable,--all these things, as well as the many great sieges
which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive.
sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city
of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as
well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the
abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets,[11] stood in the
very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now
awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,-- all these things
any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history
written by Josephus.[12]
But it is necessary to state that this writer 5
records that the multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea
at the time of the Passover, to the number of three million souls,[13]
were shut up in Jerusalem "as in a prison," to use his own words. For
it was right 6 that in the very days in which they had inflicted
suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of
God, that in those days, shut up "as in a prison," they should meet
with destruction at the hands of divine justice.
But passing by the particular calamities 7 which
they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by
other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which
the famine caused, that those who read
139
this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in
executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ
of God.
CHAPTER VI.
The Famine which oppressed them.
TAKING the fifth book of the History of
Josephus again in our hands, let us go through the tragedy of events
which then occurred.[1] "For the wealthy," he says, "it was equally
dangerous to remain. For under pretense that they were going to desert
men were put to death for their wealth. The madness of the seditions
increased with the famine and both the miseries were inflamed more and
more day by day. Nowhere was food to be seen; but, bursting into the
houses men searched them thoroughly, and whenever they found anything
to eat they tormented the owners on the ground that they had denied
that they had anything; but if they found nothing, they tortured them
on the ground that they 4 had more carefully
concealed it. The proof of their having or not having food was found in
the bodies of the poor wretches. Those of them who were still in good
condition they assumed were well supplied with food, while those who
were already wasted away they passed by, for it seemed absurd to slay
those who were 5 on the point of perishing for want.
Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for one measure of wheat,
if they belonged to the wealthier class, of barley if they were poorer.
Then shutting themselves up in the innermost parts of their houses,
some ate the grain uncooked on account of their terrible want, while
others baked it according as necessity and 6 fear dictated.
Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet uncooked food from the
fire, they tore it in pieces. Wretched was the fare, and a lamentable
spectacle it was to see the more powerful secure an abundance while the
7 weaker mourned. Of all evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and
it destroys nothing so effectively as shame. For that which under other
circumstances is worthy of respect, in the midst of famine is despised.
Thus women snatched the food from the very mouths of their husbands and
children, from their fathers, and what was most pitiable of all,
mothers from their babes, And while their dearest ones were wasting
away in their arms, they Were not ashamed to take away froth them the
last
8 drops that supported life. And even while they were
eating thus they did not remain undiscovered. But everywhere the
rioters appeared, to rob them even of these portions of food. For
whenever they saw a house shut up, they regarded it as a sign that
those inside were taking food. And immediately bursting open the doors
they rushed in and seized what they were eating, almost forcing it out
of their very throats. Old men who clung to their 9 food were
beaten, and if the women concealed it in their hands, their hair was
torn for so doing. There was pity neither for gray hairs nor for
infants, but, taking up the babes that clung to their morsels of food,
they dashed them to the ground. But to those that anticipated their
entrance and swallowed what they were about to seize, they were still
more cruel, just as if they had been wronged by them. And
10 they, devised the most terrible modes of torture to discover
food, stopping up the privy passages of the poor wretches with bitter
herbs, and piercing their seats with sharp rods. And men suffered
things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of compelling them to
confess to the possession of one loaf of bread, or in order that they
might be made to disclose a single drachm of barley which they had
concealed. But the tormentors themselves did not suffer hunger. Their
conduct might indeed have seemed less barbarous if they had been driven
to it by necessity; but they did it for the sake of exercising their
madness and of providing sustenance for themselves for days to come.
And when any one crept out of the 12 city by night as far
as the outposts of the Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they
went to meet him; and when he thought he had already escaped the enemy,
they seized what he had brought with him, and even though oftentimes
the man would entreat them, and, calling upon the most awful name of
God, adjure them to give him a portion of what he had obtained at the
risk of his life, they would give him nothing back. Indeed, it was
fortunate if the one that was plundered was not also slain."
To this account Josephus, after relating other things,
adds the following:[2] "The 13 possibility of going out of
the city being brought to an end,[3] all hope of safety for the Jews
was cut off. And the famine increased and devoured the people by houses
and families. And the rooms were filled with dead women and children,
the lanes of the city with the corpses of old men. Children and youths,
14 swollen with the famine, wandered about the market-places like
shadows, and fell down wherever the death agony overtook them. The sick
were not strong enough to bury even their own relatives, and those who
had the strength
140
hesitated because of the multitude of the dead and the uncertainty as
to their own fate. Many, indeed, died while they were burying others,
and many betook themselves to their graves
15 before death came upon them. There was neither
weeping nor lamentation under these misfortunes; but the famine stifled
the natural affections. Those that were dying a lingering death looked
with dry eyes upon those that had gone to their rest before them. Deep
silence and death-laden night encircled the city.
16 But the robbers were more terrible than these
miseries; for they broke open the houses, which were now mere
sepulchres, robbed the dead and stripped the covering from their
bodies, and went away with a laugh. They tried the points of their
swords in the dead bodies, and some that were lying on the ground still
alive they thrust through in order to test their weapons. But those
that prayed that they would use their right hand and their sword upon
them, they contemptuously left to be destroyed by the famine. Every one
of these died with eyes fixed upon the temple; and they left the
seditious
17 alive. These at first gave orders that the
dead should be buried out of the public treasury, for they could not
endure the stench. But afterward, when they were not able to do this,
they threw the bodies from the walls 18 into the
trenches. And as Titus went around and saw the trenches filled with the
dead, and the thick blood oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned
aloud, and, raising his hands, called God to witness that this
was 19 not his doing." After speaking of
some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows:[4]
"I cannot hesitate to declare what my feelings compel me to. I suppose,
if the Romans had longer delayed in coming against these guilty
wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by a chasm, or
overwhelmed with a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as destroyed
Sodom. For it had brought forth a generation of men much more godless
than were those that suffered such punishment. By their madness indeed
was the whole people brought to destruction."
20 And in the sixth book he writes as follows:[5] "Of
those that perished by famine in the city the number was countless, and
the miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if so much as the shadow
of food appeared in any house, there was war, and the dearest friends
engaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and snatched from
each other the most wretched supports of life. Nor would they believe
21 that even the dying were without food; but the robbers would search
them while they were expiring, lest any one should feign death while
concealing food in his bosom. With mouths gaping for want of food, they
stumbled and staggered along like mad dogs, and beat the doors as if
they were drunk, and in their impotence they would rush into the same
houses twice or thrice in one hour. Necessity compelled them to eat
anything 22 they could find, and they gathered and devoured
things that were not fit even for the filthiest of irrational beasts.
Finally they did not abstain even from their girdles and shoes, and
they stripped the hides off their shields and devoured them. Some used
even wisps of old hay for food, and others gathered stubble and sold
the smallest weight of it for four Attic drachm'.[6]
"But why should I speak of the shamelessness which
was displayed during the famine toward inanimate things? For I am going
to relate a fact such as is recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians;
horrible to relate, incredible to hear. And indeed I should gladly have
omitted this calamity, that I might not seem to posterity to be a
teller of fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it in
my own age. And besides, I should render my country poor service if I
suppressed the account of the sufferings which she endured.
"There was a certain woman named Mary that dwelt
beyond Jordan, whose father was Eleazer, of the village of Bathezor[7]
(which signifies the house of hyssop). She was distinguished for her
family and her wealth, and had fled with the rest of the multitude to
Jerusalem and was shut up there with them during the siege. The tyrants
had robbed her of the 25 rest of the property which she had
brought with her into the city from Perea. And the remnants of her
possessions and whatever food was to be seen the guards rushed in daily
and snatched away from her. This made the woman terribly angry, and by
her frequent reproaches and imprecations she aroused the anger of the
rapacious villains against herself. But no one either through anger or
pity would slay her; and she grew weary of finding food for others to
eat. The search, too, was already become everywhere difficult, and the
famine was piercing her bowels and marrow, and resentment was raging
more violently than famine. Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as
her counsellors, she proceeded to do a most unnatural thing. Seizing
her child, a boy which was sucking at her breast, she said, Oh,
wretched child, m war, in famine, in sedition, for what do I pre-
141
serve thee? Slaves among the Romans we shall be even if we are allowed
to live by them. But even slavery is anticipated by the famine, and the
rioters are more cruel than both. Come, be food for me, a fury for
these rioters, (8) and a bye-word to the world, for this is all that is
wanting to complete the calamities of the Jews. And when she had said
this she slew her son; 98 and having roasted him, she ate one half
herself, and covering up the remainder, she kept it. Very soon the
rioters appeared on the scene, and, smelling the nefarious odor, they
threatened to slay her 'immediately unless she should show them what
she had prepared. She replied that she had saved an excellent portion
for them, and with that she uncovered the 99 remains of the child. They
were immediately seized with horror and amazement and stood transfixed
at the sight. But she said This is my own son, and the deed is mine.
Eat for I too have eaten. Be not more merciful than a woman, nor more
compassionate than a mother. But if you are too pious and shrinkfrom my
sacrifice, I have already (9) eaten of 80 it; let the rest also remain
for me. At these words the men went out trembling, in this one case
being affrighted; yet with difficulty did they yield that food to the
mother. Forthwith the whole city was filled with the awful crime, and
as all pictured the terrible deed before their own eyes, they trembled
as if they 81 had done it themselves. Those that were
suffering from the famine now longed for death; and blessed were they
that had died before hearing and seeing miseries like these."
32 Such was the reward which the Jews received for their
wickedness and impiety, against the Christ of God.
CHAPTER VII.
The Predictions of Christ.
1It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our
Saviour in which he 2foretold these very events. His words are
as follows: (1) "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that
give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the
winter, neither on the Sabbath day; For there shall be great
tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this
time, no, nor ever shall be." The historian, reckoning the whole number
(3) of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by
famine and sword, (2) and that the rest of the rioters and robbers,
being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain.
(3) But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for
beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude,
those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to
labor in the works of Egypt, (4) while still more were scattered
through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword
and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to
be sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety
thousand. (5) These things 4 took place in this manner in the second
year of the reign of Vespasian, (6) in accordance with the prophecies
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them
beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned
according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very
words which be uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he
said: (7) "If thou hadst 5 known, even thou, in this day, the things
which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For
the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and
shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground." And 6 then, as
if speaking concerning the people, he says, (8) "For there shall be
great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall
fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all
nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again: (9) "When ye shall see
Jerusalem com-
142
passed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."
7 If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other
accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to
wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our
Saviour were 8 truly divine and marvellously strange. (10) Concerning
those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish nation after the
Saviour's passion and after the words which the multitude of the Jews
uttered, when they begged the release of the robber and murderer, but
besought that the Prince of Life should be taken from their midst, (11)
it is not necessary to add anything to the 9 account of the historian.
But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the
graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their
destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,--during
which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the
first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the
Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself,
remained the surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still
proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by
repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and
salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also
furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to
them if they did not repent. 10 Since these matters have been thought
worthy of mention by the historian already cited, we cannot do better
than to recount them for the benefit of the readers of this work.
CHAPTER VIII.
The Signs which preceded the War.
1 Taking, then, the work of this author, read what he
records in the sixth book of his History. His words are as follows: (1)
"Thus were the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors
and false prophets; (2) but they did not heed nor give credit to the
visions and signs that foretold the approaching desolation. On the
contrary, as if struck by lightning, and as if possessing neither eyes
nor understanding, they slighted the proclamations of God. At one time
a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and a comet, which
lasted for a whole year; and again before the revolt and before the
disturbances that led to the war, when the people were gathered for the
feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthicus, (3) at
the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone about the altar and
the temple that it seemed to be bright day; and this continued for half
an hour. This seemed to the unskillful a good sign, but was interpreted
by the sacred scribes as portending those events which very soon took
place. And at the same feast a cow, led 3 by the high priest to be
sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. And the
eastern gate of the inner temple, 4 which was of bronze and very
massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men,
and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground,
was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself. And not many
days after the feast, 5 on the twenty-first of the month
Artemisium, (4) a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes
belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those
who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of
such signs. For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed troops
were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the
clouds and encircling the cities. And at the feast which is called
Pentecost, 6 when the priests entered the temple at night, as was their
custom, to perform the services, they said that at first they perceived
a movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude,
saying, 'Let us go hence.' (5) But what follows is still more 7
terrible; for a certain Jesus, the son of Ananias, a common countryman,
four years before the war, (6) when the city was particularly
143
prosperous and peaceful, came to the feast, at which it was customary
for all to make tents at the temple to the honor of God, (7) and
suddenly began to cry out: 'A voice from the east, a voice from the
west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the
temple, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against all the
people.' Day and night he went 8 through all the alleys crying thus.
But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the ominous
cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes. But without
uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in particular to
those that were present, he continued to cry out in the same words as
before. And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved
by a higher power, brought him before the Roman governor. (8) And then,
though he was scourged to the bone, he neither made supplication nor
shed tears, but, changing his voice to the most lamentable tone
possible, he answered each stroke with the words, 'Woe, woe unto
Jerusalem.'" 10 The same historian records another fact still
more wonderful than this. He says (9) that a certain oracle was found
in their sacred writings which declared that at that time a certain
person should go forth from their country to rule the world. He himself
understood 11 that this was fulfilled in Vespasian. But Vespasian did
not rule the whole world, but only that part of it which was subject to
the Romans. With better right could it be applied to Christ; to whom it
was said by the Father, "Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen
for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."
(10) At that very time, indeed, the voice of his holy apostles "went
throughout all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." (11)
CHAFFER IX.
Josethus and the Works which he has left. AFTER all this it is fitting
that we should know something in regard to the origin and family of
Josephus, who has contributed so much to the history in hand. He
himself gives us information on this point in the following words: (1)
"Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest of Jerusalem, who himself
fought against the Romans in the beginning and was compelled to be
present at what happened afterward." He was the most noted of all the
Jews of that day, not only among his own people, but also among the
Romans, so that he was honored by the erection of a statue in Rome, (2)
and his works were deemed worthy of a place in the library. (3) He
wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews (4) in twenty books, and
a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in
seven books? He himself testifies that the latter work was not only
written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself
144
into his native tongue. (6) He is worthy of credit here because of his
truthfulness in other 4 matters. There are extant also two other
books of his which are worth reading. They treat of the antiquity of
the Jews, (7) and in them he replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had
at that time written a treatise against the Jews, and also to others
who had attempted to vilify the hereditary institutions of the Jewish
people. 5 In the first of these books he gives the number of the
canonical books of the so-called Old Testament. Apparently (8) drawing
his information from ancient tradition, he shows what books were
accepted without dispute among the Hebrews. His words are as follows.
CHAPTER X.
The Manner in which Josephus mentions the
Divine Books.
1 "We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing
and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which
contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine. Of
these, five are by 2 Moses, and contain the laws and the tradi-
145
tion respecting the origin of man, and continue the history (2) down to
his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years. (3)
From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded
Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the
history of their own times in thirteen books. (4) The other four books
contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life of
men. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have
been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence
that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been
during this time an exact 5 succession of prophets. (5) How much we are
attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them.
For although so great a period has already passed by, no one has
ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all
Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and
to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them."
These remarks of the historian I have thought might
advantageously be introduced in this connection. Another work of no
little merit 6 has been produced by the same writer, On the Supremacy
of Reason, (6) which some have called Maccabaicum, (7) because it
contains an account of the struggles of those Hebrews who contended
manfully for the true religion, as is related in the books called
Maccabees. And at the end of the twentieth book of (7) his Antiquities
(8) Josephus himself intimates that he had purposed to write a work in
four books concerning God and his existence, according to the
traditional opinions of the Jews, and also concerning the laws, why it
is that they permit some things while prohibiting others. (9) And the
same writer also mentions in his own works other books written by
himself. (9) In (8) addition to these things it is proper to quote also
the words that are found at the close of his Antiquities, (10) in
confirmation of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts. In
that place he attacks Justus of Tiberias, (11) who, like himself, had
attempted to write a history of contemporary events, on the ground that
he had not written truthfully. Having brought many
146
other accusations against the man, he continues in these words: (12) "I
indeed was not afraid 9 in respect to my writings as you were, (13)
but, on the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors
themselves when the events were almost under men's eyes. For I was
conscious that I had preserved the truth in my account, and hence was
not disappointed in my expectation 10 of obtaining their attestation.
And I presented my history also to many others, some of whom were
present at the war, as, for instance, King Agrippa (14) and some of his
11 relatives. For the Emperor Titus desired so much that the knowledge
of the events should be communicated to men by my history alone, that
he indorsed the books with his own hand and commanded that they should
be published. And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to
the truthfulness of my account." Of these epistles Josephus subjoins
two. (15) But this will suffice in regard to him. Let us now proceed
with our history.
CHAFFER XI.
Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after AFTER the martyrdom of James
(1) and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, (2) it is
said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were
still living came together from all directions with those that were
related to the Lord according to the flesh (3) (for the majority of
them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to
succeed James. They all with one 2 consent pronounced Symeon, (4) the
son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; (5) to be worthy
of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say,
of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of
Joseph. (6)
CHAFFER XII.
Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be He also relates
that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all
that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order
that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in
consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the
Jews. (1)
147
CHAPTER XIII.
Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.
After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his
son, succeeded him. (1) In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had
been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, (2) delivered his
office to Anencletus. (3) But Titus was succeeded by his brother
Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months.
(4)
CHAPTER XIV.
Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.
In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, (1) the
first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office
twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, (2) the second bishop.
CHAPTER XV.
Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.
In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement
succeeded Anencletus (1) after the latter had been bishop of the church
of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians
informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as
follows: (2) "With Clement arid the rest of my fellow-laborers whose
names are in the book of life."
CHAPTER XVI.
The Epistle of Clement.
There is extant an epistle of this Clement (1) which
is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of
remarkable merit. (2) He wrote it in the name of the church of
Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter
church. (3) We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a
great many churches both in former times and in our own. (4) And of the
fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the
time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. (5)
CHAPTER XVII.
The Persecution under Domitian.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many,
and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and
notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated
the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a
successor of Nero in his. hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact
the second that stirred up a persecution against us, (1) although his
father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. (2)
148
CHAPTER XVIII.
The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.
1 It is said that in this persecution the apostle and
evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the
island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.
(1) Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he
discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the
so-called Apocalypse of John, (2) speaks as follows concerning him: a
"If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the
present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the
revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own
generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."
4 To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith
flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our
religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution
and the martyrdoms which took place during it. (4) And they, indeed,
accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth
year of Domitian (5) Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius
Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, (6) was
exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of
testimony borne to Christ.
CHAPTER XIX.
Domitian commands the Descendants of David
to be slain.
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the
descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says (1)
that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of
Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the
flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were
related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the
following words.
CHAPTER XX.
The Relatives of our Saviour.
"Of the family of the Lord there were still 1 living the
grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother
according to the flesh. (1) Information was given that they belonged to
the family of David, and they 2 were brought to the Emperor Domitian by
the Evocatus. (2) For Domitian feared the com-
149
ing of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they
were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he
asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned.
And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, (8)
half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not
consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only
thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes (4) and
supported themselves by their own labor." (5) 5 Then they showed their
hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness
produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own
labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his
kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they,
answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a
heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world,
when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to
give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian
did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no
account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution
of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches
because they were witnesses (6) and were also relatives of the Lord.
(7) And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trojan.
These things are related by Hegesippus.
9 Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words:
(8) "Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted
once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I
suppose, some intelligence, (9) he very soon ceased, and even 10
recalled those whom he had banished." But after Domitian had reigned
fifteen years, (16) and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman
Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days,
(11) voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those
who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have
their property restored to them. It was at this time 11 that the
apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his
abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition. (12)
CHAPTER XXI.
Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church
of Alexandria.
After Nerva had reigned a little more 1 than a year (1) he
was succeeded by Trojan. It was during the first year of his reign that
Abilius, (2) who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen years,
was succeeded by Cerdon. (3) He was the third that presided2 over that
church after Annianus, (4) who was the first. At that time Clement
still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the
episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after
him came 3 Anencletus, (5)
CHAPTER XXII.
Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
AT this time Ignatius (1) was known as the second
bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. (2) Symeon (3)
likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem,
the brother of our Saviour having been the first.
150
CHAPTER XXIII.
Narrative concerning John the Apostle.
1 At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the
one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the
churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian
from his exile on the island. (1) 2 And that he was still alive
at that time (2) may be established by the testimony of two witnesses.
They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the
Church; and such indeed were Irenaeus and Clement 3 of Alexandria. (3)
The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as
follows: (4) "And all the elders that associated with John the disciple
of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he
remained among them until the time of Trajan." (5) And in the third
book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words:
(6) "But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and
where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of
the apostolic tradition." 5 Clement likewise in his book entitled What
Rich Man can be saved? (7) indicates the time, (8) and subjoins a
narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is
beautiful and profitable. Take and read the account which rims as
follows: (9) "Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, 6 but a
narrative (10) concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down
and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, (11) he
returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their
invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint
bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches,
elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one (12) of those that were
pointed out by the Spirit. When he 7 had come to one of the cities not
far away (the name of which is given by some (13)), and had consoled
the brethren in other matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had
been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing
appearance, and of ardent temperament, he said, 'This one I commit to
thee in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ
as witness.' And when the bishop had accepted the Charge and had
promised all, he repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the
same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus. But the presbyter, (14)
8 taking home the youth committed to him,
151
reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized (15) him. After this he
relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in
putting upon him the seal of the Lord (16) he had given him a perfect
protection. But some youths 9 of his own age, idle and dissolute,
and accustomed to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus
prematurely freed from restraint. At first they enticed him by costly
entertainments; then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they
took him with them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with
them in some greater crime. He gradually 10 became accustomed to such
practices, and on account of the positiveness of his character, (17)
leaving the right path, and taking the bit in his teeth like a
hard-mouthed and powerful horse, he rushed the more violently down into
the depths. And finally despairing of salvation in God, he no longer
meditated what was insignificant, but having committed some great
crime, since he was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like
fate with the rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of
robbers, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody,
most cruel of them all. Time passed, and some necessity having arisen,
they sent for John. But he, when he had set in order the other matters
on account of which he had come, said, 'Come, O bishop, restore us the
deposit which both I and Christ committed to thee, the church, over
which thou presidest, being witness. (7) But the bishop was 13 at first
confounded, thinking that he was falsely charged in regard to money
which he had not received, and he could neither believe the accusation
respecting what he had not, nor could he disbelieve John. But when he
said, 'I demand the young man and the soul of the brother,' the old
man, groaning deeply and at the same time bursting into tears, said,
'He is dead.' 'How and what kind of death?' 'He is dead to God,' he
said; 'for he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber. And
now, instead of the church, he haunts the mountain with a band like
himself.' But the 14 Apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head
with great lamentation, he said, 'A fine guard I left for a brother's
soul !But let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.'
He rode away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place,
he was 15 taken prisoner by the robbers' outpost. He, however, neither
fled nor made entreaty,
152
but cried out, 'For this did I come; lead 16 me to
your captain.' The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was. But
when he recognized John approaching, he 17 turned in shame to flee. But
John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might, crying out,
'Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thine own father, unarmed, aged?
Pity me, my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give
account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy
death as the Lord suffered death for us. For thee will I give up my
life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent 18 me.' And he, when he heard,
first stopped and looked down; then he threw away his arms, and then
trembled and wept bitterly. And when the old man approached, he
embraced him, making confession with lamentations as he! was able,
baptizing himself a second time with tears, and concealing only his
right hand, 19 But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath
that he would find forgiveness with the Saviour, besought him, fell
upon his knees, kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by
repentance, and led him back to the church. And making intercession for
him with copious prayers, and struggling together with him in continual
fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not
depart, as they say, until he had restored him to the church,
furnishing a great example of true repentance and a great proof of
regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection."
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Order of the Gospels.
1 This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the
sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point
out the undisputed writings of this apostle. 2 And in the first place
his Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be
acknowledged as genuine. (1) That it has with good reason been put by
the ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be
made evident in the following way. Those great and truly divine men, I
mean 3 the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were
adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech.
They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and
wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but
they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines
of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only
the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the
wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they
published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole
world, paying little attention to the composition of written works. And
this 4 they did because they were assisted in their ministry by
one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in
vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no
more than the briefest epistles, (2) although he had innumerable
mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the
sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of
God, and had been deemed worthy to 'heat unspeakable utterances there.
(3) And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, 5 the twelve
apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not
ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples (4) of the
Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they,
tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.
For Matthew, who had 6 at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was
about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his
native tongue, (5) and thus
153
compensated those whom he was obliged 7 to leave for the loss of his
presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels,
(6) they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming
the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason.
The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all
and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness
to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of
the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. 8 (7) And
this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists
recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the
imprisonment of John the Baptist, (8) and indicated this in the
beginning of their account. For Matthew, after the forty days' 9
fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the
chronology of his work when he says: "Now when he heard that John was
delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.'' (9) Mark likewise
says: "Now after 10 that John was delivered up Jesus came into
Galilee." (10) And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of
Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, "adding to
all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison." (11)
They say, therefore, 11 that the apostle John, being asked to do it for
this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been
omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the
Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before
the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they
say, in the following words: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus ";
(12) and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds
of Jesus, as still baptizing in [?]non near Salim; (13) where he states
the matter clearly in the words: "For John was not yet cast into
prison." (14) John 12 accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of
Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison,
but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after
that time. One who under- 13 stands this can no longer think that the
Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel
according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others
give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of
our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted,
because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with
the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for
him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit. (15) These 14 things may
suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause
which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already
stated by us. (16) But as for Luke, 15 in the beginning of his Gospel,
he states
154
He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose
a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge,
he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain
opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those
events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by
his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with 16 the
rest of the apostles. (17) So much for our own account of these things.
But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from
the ancients, what others have said concerning them. 17 But of
the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his
epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient
times. (18) But the other two 18 are disputed. (19) In regard to the
Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. (20) But at the
proper time this question
155
likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.
CHAPTER XXV.
The Divine Scriptures that are accept and those that are not. (1)
1 Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to
sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already
mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
(2) following them the Acts of the Apostles. (3) After this must2 be
reckoned the epistles of Paul; (4) next in
156
order the extanfinal former epistle of John, (5) and likewise the
epistle of Peter, (6) must be maintained. (6) After them is to be
placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, (7)
concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper
time. (8) These then belong among the accepted writings. (9) Among the
disputed writings, (10) which are nevertheless recognized n by many,
are extant the so-called epistle of James (12) and that of Jude, (13)
also the second epistle of Peter, (14) and those that are called the
second and third of John, (15) whether they belong to the evangelist or
to another person of the same name. Among the rejected 4 writings (16)
must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, (17) and the
so-called Shepherd, (18) and the Apocalypse of Peter, (19) and in
addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, (20) and the
so-called Teachings of the Apostles; (21) and besides, as I said, the
Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject,
(22) but which others class with the accepted books. (23) And 5 among
these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, (24)
with which
157
those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially
delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. (25)
But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these
also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical
tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, (26) from those
others which, although not canonical but disputed, (27) are yet at the
same time known to most ecclesiastical writers--we have felt compelled
to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both
these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of
the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of
Peter, (28) of Thomas, (29) of Matthias, (30) or of any others besides
them, and the Acts of Andrew (81) and John (82) and the other apostles,
which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has
deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of
the style is at 7 variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts
and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so
completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show
themselves to be the fictions of heretics. (33) Wherefore they are not
to be placed even among the rejected (34) writings, but are all of them
to be cast aside as absurd and impious. Let us now proceed with our
history.
CHAPTER XXVI.
Menander the Sorcerer.
Menander, (1) who succeeded Simon Magus, (2) showed himself in
his conduct another in-
158
strument of diabolical power, (3) not inferior to the former. He also
was a Samaritan and carried his sorceries to no less an extent than his
teacher had done, and at the same time reveled in still more marvelous
tales than he. For he said that he was himself the Saviour, who had
been sent down from invisible aeons for 2 the salvation of men;
(4) and he taught that no one could gain the mastery over the
world-creating angels themselves (5) unless he had first gone through
the magical discipline imparted by him and had received baptism from
him. Those who were deemed worthy of this would partake even in the
present life of perpetual immortality, and would never die, but would
remain here forever, and without growing old become immortal. (6) These
facts can be easily 3 learned from the works of Irenaeus. (7) And
Justin, in the passage in which he mentions Simon, gives an account of
this man also, in the following words: (8) "And we know that a certain
Menander, who was also a Samaritan, from the village of Capparattea,
(9) was a disciple of Simon, and that he also, being driven by the
demons, came to Antioch (10) and deceived many by his magical art. And
he persuaded his followers that they should not die. And there are 4
still some of them that assert this." And it was indeed an artifice of
the devil to endeavor, by means of such sorcerers, who assumed the name
of Christians, to defame the great mystery of godliness by magic art,
and through them to make ridiculous the doctrines of the Church
concerning the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the
dead. (11) But they that have chosen these men as their saviours have
fallen away from the true hope.
CHAPTER XXVII.
The Heresy of the Ebionites. (1)
The evil demon, however, being unable to tear
certain others from their allegiance
159
to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different
direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients
quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and
mean opinions concerning Christ. (2) For they considered him a plain
and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue,
and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their
opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary,
on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ 3 alone
and by a corresponding life. (3) There were others, however, besides
them, that were of the same name, (4) but avoided the strange and
absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born
of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they
also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and
Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially
when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship
of the law. (6) These men, 4 moreover, thought that it was necessary to
reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate
from the law; (7) and they used only the so-called Gospel according to
the Hebrews (8) and made small account of the rest. The Sabbath and the
rest of the discipline 5 of the Jews they observed just like them, but
at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a
memorial of the
160
6 resurrection of the Saviour. (9) Wherefore, in consequence of
such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the
poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor
man is called among the Hebrews. (10)
CHAPTER XXVIII. Cerinthus the Heresiarch.
1 We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, (1) the
author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we
quoted above, (2) in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes
as follows concerning this man: "But Cerinthus also, by means 2 of
revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings
before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by
angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ
will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will
again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the
Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that
there is to be a period of a thousand years a for marriage festivals."
(4) And Dionysius, (5) who 3 was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in
our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says
some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from
tradition, mentions this same man in the following words: (6)
"But (they say that) 4 Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was
called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his
fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this:
that the kingdom of Christ will be an
161
5 earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the
body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom
would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights
of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and
drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying
of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his
appetites with a better grace." These are the 6 words of Dionysius. But
Irenaeus, in the first book of his work Against Heresies, (7)
gives some more abominable false doctrines of the same man, and in the
third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded. He says, on
the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to
bathe; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the
place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under
the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do
the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall for Cerinthus, the
enemy of the truth, is within." (8)
CHAPTER XXIX.
Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.
1 At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made
its appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it
in the Apocalypse of John. (1) They boasted that the author of their
sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed
by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. (2) Clement
of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following
things concerning him. (3) "They say that he had 2 a beautiful wife,
and after the ascension of the Saviour, being accused by the apostles
of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one
that wished to marry her. For they say that this was in accord with
that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh. And those that
have followed his heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which
was done and said, commit fornication without shame. But I understand
that Nicolaus had to do 3 with no other woman than her to whom he was
married, and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters
continued in a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained
uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously
loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his
passion; and when he used the expression, 'to abuse the flesh,' he was
inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are
eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of
the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the
Lord. (4) But they 4 say that Matthias also taught in the same manner
that we ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to
it for the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and
knowledge." (5) So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert
the truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became
entirely extinct.
CHAPTER XXX.
The Apostles that were married. Clement, indeed, whose words we
have 1 just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a
statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles
that had wives. (1)
162
"Or will they," says he, (2) "reject even the apostl