Church History
by Eusebius Pamphilius

Book 1 · Book 2 · Book 3 · Book 4 · Book 5 · Book 6 · Book 7 · Book 8 · Book 9 · Book 10 · Preface

---

Book 6

Chapter 1

The Persecution under Severus.

When Severus began to persecute the churches, [1765] glorious
testimonies were given everywhere by the athletes of religion. This was
especially the case in Alexandria, to which city, as to a most
prominent theater, athletes of God were brought from Egypt and all
Thebais according to their merit, and won crowns from God through their
great patience under many tortures and every mode of death. Among these
was Leonides, who was called the father of Origen, [1766] and who was
beheaded while his son was still young. How remarkable the predilection
of this son was for the Divine Word, in consequence of his father's
instruction, it will not be amiss to state briefly, as his fame has
been very greatly celebrated by many.
__________________________________________________________________

[1765] During the early years of the reign of Septimius Severus the
Christians enjoyed comparative peace, and Severus himself showed them
considerable favor. Early in the third century a change set in, and in
202 the emperor issued an edict forbidding conversions to Christianity
and to Judaism (Spartianus, in Severo, c. 16; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des
Emp. III. p. 58). The cause of this radical change of conduct we do not
know, but it is possible that the excesses of the Montanists produced a
reaction in the emperor's mind against the Christians, or that the
rapidity with which Christianity was spreading caused him to fear that
the old Roman institutions would be overturned, and hence produced a
reaction against it. Why the Jews, too, should have been attacked, it
is hard to say,--possibly because of a new attempt on their part to
throw off the Roman yoke (see Spartianus, in Severo, c. 16); or perhaps
there underlay the whole movement a reaction in the emperor's mind
toward the old Roman paganism (he was always superstitious), and
Judaism and Christianity being looked upon as alike opposed to it, were
alike to be held in check. The edict was aimed, not against those
already Christians, but only against new converts, the idea being to
prevent the further spread of Christianity. But the change in the
emperor's attitude, thus published abroad, at once intensified all the
elements which were hostile to Christianity; and the popular disfavor,
which continued widespread and was continually venting itself in local
persecutions, now allowed itself freer rein, and the result was that
severe persecutions broke out, which were confined, however, almost
wholly to Egypt and North Africa. Our principal authorities for these
persecutions (which went on intermittently, during the rest of Severus'
reign) are the first twelve chapters of this book of Eusebius' History,
and a number of Tertullian's works, especially his De corona milites,
Ad Scap., and De fuga in persecutione.

[1766] We know very little about Origen's father. The fame of the son
overshadowed that of the father, even though the latter was a martyr.
The phrase used in this passage to describe him has caused some
trouble. Leonides ho legomenos 'Origenous pater. Taken in its usual
sense, the expression means "said to be the father of Origen," or the
"so-called father of Origen," both of which appear strange, for there
can have been no doubt as to his identity. It seems better, with
Westcott, to understand that Eusebius means that Origen's fame had so
eclipsed his father's that the latter was distinguished as "Leonides,
the father of Origen," and hence says here, "Leonides, who was known as
the father of Origen." The name Leonides is Greek, and that he was of
Greek nationality is further confirmed by the words of Porphyry (quoted
in chap. 19, below), who calls Origen "a Greek, and educated in Greek
literature." Porphyry may simply have concluded from his knowledge of
Greek letters that he was a Greek by birth, and hence his statement
taken alone has little weight; but taken in conjunction with Leonides'
name, it makes it probable that the latter was at least of Greek
descent; whether a native of Greece or not we do not know. A late
tradition makes him a bishop, but there is no foundation for such a
report. From the next chapter we learn that Leonides' martyrdom took
place in the tenth year of Severus (201-202 a.d.), which is stated also
by the Chron.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 2

The Training of Origen from Childhood. [1767]

1. Many things might be said in attempting to describe the life of the
man while in school; but this subject alone would require a separate
treatise. Nevertheless, for the present, abridging most things, we
shall state a few facts concerning him as briefly as possible,
gathering them from certain letters, and from the statement of persons
still living who were acquainted with him.

2. What they report of Origen seems to me worthy of mention, even, so
to speak, from his swathing-bands.

It was the tenth year of the reign of Severus, while Laetus [1768] was
governor of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius [1769] had
lately received the episcopate of the parishes there, as successor of
Julian. [1770]

3. As the flame of persecution had been kindled greatly, [1771] and
multitudes had gained the crown of martyrdom, such desire for martyrdom
seized the soul of Origen, although yet a boy, that he went close to
danger, springing forward and rushing to the conflict in his eagerness.

4. And truly the termination of his life had been very near had not the
divine and heavenly Providence, for the benefit of many, prevented his
desire through the agency of his mother.

5. For, at first, entreating him, she begged him to have compassion on
her motherly feelings toward him; but finding, that when he had learned
that his father had been seized and imprisoned, he was set the more
resolutely, and completely carried away with his zeal for martyrdom,
she hid all his clothing, and thus compelled him to remain at home.

6. But, as there was nothing else that he could do, and his zeal beyond
his age would not suffer him to be quiet, he sent to his father an
encouraging letter on martyrdom, [1772] in which he exhorted him,
saying, "Take heed not to change your mind on our account." This may be
recorded as the first evidence of Origen's youthful wisdom and of his
genuine love for piety.

7. For even then he had stored up no small resources in the words of
the faith, having been trained in the Divine Scriptures from childhood.
And he had not studied them with indifference, for his father, besides
giving him the usual liberal education, [1773] had made them a matter
of no secondary importance.

8. First of all, before inducting him into the Greek sciences, he
drilled him in sacred studies, requiring him to learn and recite every
day.

9. Nor was this irksome to the boy, but he was eager and diligent in
these studies. And he was not satisfied with learning what was simple
and obvious in the sacred words, but sought for something more, and
even at that age busied himself with deeper speculations. So that he
puzzled his father with inquiries for the true meaning of the inspired
Scriptures.

10. And his father rebuked him seemingly to his face, telling him not
to search beyond his age, or further than the manifest meaning. But by
himself he rejoiced greatly and thanked God, the author of all good,
that he had deemed him worthy to be the father of such a child.

11. And they say that often, standing by the boy when asleep, he
uncovered his breast as if the Divine Spirit were enshrined within it,
and kissed it reverently; considering himself blessed in his goodly
offspring. These and other things like them are related of Origen when
a boy.

12. But when his father ended his life in martyrdom, he was left with
his mother and six younger brothers when he was not quite seventeen
years old. [1774]

13. And the property of his father being confiscated to the royal
treasury, he and his family were in want of the necessaries of life.
But he was deemed worthy of Divine care. And he found welcome and rest
with a woman of great wealth, and distinguished in her manner of life
and in other respects. She was treating with great honor a famous
heretic then in Alexandria; [1775] who, however, was born in Antioch.
He was with her as an adopted son, and she treated him with the
greatest kindness.

14. But although Origen was under the necessity of associating with
him, he nevertheless gave from this time on strong evidences of his
orthodoxy in the faith. For when on account of the apparent skill in
argument [1776] of Paul,--for this was the man's name,--a great
multitude came to him, not only of heretics but also of our people,
Origen could never be induced to join with him in prayer; [1777] for he
held, although a boy, the rule of the Church, [1778] and abominated, as
he somewhere expresses it, heretical teachings. [1779] Having been
instructed in the sciences of the Greeks by his father, he devoted him
after his death more assiduously and exclusively to the study of
literature, so that he obtained considerable preparation in philology
[1780] and was able not long after the death of his father, by devoting
himself to that subject, to earn a compensation amply sufficient for
his needs at his age. [1781]
__________________________________________________________________

[1767] This sixth book of Eusebius' History is our chief source for a
knowledge of Origen's life. His own writings give us little information
of a personal nature; but Eusebius was in a position to learn a great
deal about him. He had the advantage of personal converse with
surviving friends of Origen, as he tells us in this connection; he had
also a large collection of Origen's epistles (he had himself made a
collection of more than one hundred of them, as he tells us in chap.
36); and he had access besides to official documents, and to works of
Origen's contemporaries which contained references to him (see chap.
33). As a result, he was in a position to write a full and accurate
account of his life, and in fact, in connection with Pamphilus, he did
write a Defense of Origen in six books, which contained both an
exposition of his theology with a refutation of charges brought against
him, and a full account of his life. Of this work only the first book
is extant, and that in the translation of Rufinus. It deals solely with
theological matters. It is greatly to be regretted that the remaining
books are lost, for they must have contained much of the greatest
interest in connection with Origen's life, especially that period of it
about which we are most poorly informed, his residence in Caesarea
after his retirement from Alexandria (see chap. 23). In the present
book Eusebius gives numerous details of Origen's life, frequently
referring to the Defense for fuller particulars. His account is very
desultory, being interspersed with numerous notices of other men and
events, introduced apparently without any method, though undoubtedly
the design was to preserve in general the chronological order. There is
no part of Eusebius' work which reveals more clearly the viciousness of
the purely chronological method breaking up as it does the account of a
single person or movement into numerous detached pieces, and thus
utterly destroying all historical continuity. It may be well,
therefore, to sum up in brief outline the chief events of Origen's
life, most of which are scattered through the following pages. This
summary will be found below, on p. 391 sq. In addition to the notices
contained in this book, we have a few additional details from the
Defense, which have been preserved by Jerome, Rufinus, and Photius,
none of whom seems to have had much, if any, independent knowledge of
Origen's life. Epiphanius (Haer. LXIII, and LXIV.) relates some
anecdotes of doubtful credibility. The Panegyric of Gregory
Thaumaturgus is valuable as a description of Origen's method of
teaching, and of the wonderful influence which he possessed over his
pupils. (For outline of Origen's life, see below, p. 391 sq.)

[1768] This Laetus is to be distinguished from Q. AEmilius Laetus,
praetorian prefect under Commodus, who was put to death by the Emperor
Didius Julianus, in 193; and from Julius Laetus, minister of Severus,
who was executed in 199 (see Dion Cassius, Bk. LXXIII. chap. 16, and
LXXV. chap. 10; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des emp. III. p. 21, 55, and 58).
The dates of Laetus' rule in Egypt are unknown to us.

[1769] On the dates of Demetrius' episcopacy, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note
4.

[1770] On Julian, see Bk. V. chap. 9, note 2.

[1771] On the persecution, see more particularly chap. 1, note 1.

[1772] This epistle which was apparently extant in the time of
Eusebius, and may have been contained in the collection made by him
(see chap. 36), is now lost, and we possess only this sentence from it.

[1773] te ton enkuklion paidei& 139;. According to Liddell and Scott,
enk. paideia in later Greek meant "the circle of those arts and
sciences which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go
through before applying to any professional studies; school learning,
as opposed to the business of life." So Valesius says that the Greeks
understood by enk. mathemata the branches in which the youth were
instructed; i.e. mathematics, grammar, and rhetoric philosophy not
being included (see Valesius' note in loco).

[1774] On the date of Origen's birth, see note 1.

[1775] Of this Antiochene heretic Paul we know only what Eusebius tells
us here. His patroness seems to have been a Christian, and in good
standing in the Alexandrian church, or Origen would hardly have made
his home with her.

[1776] dia to dokoun hikanon en logo.

[1777] Redepenning (p. 189) refers to Origen's In Matt. Comment.
Series, sec. 89, where it is said, melius est cum nullo orare, quam cum
malis orare.

[1778] phulEURtton exeti paidos kanona [two mss. kanonas] ekklesias.
Compare the words of the Apostolic Constitutions, VIII. 34: "Let not
one of the faithful pray with a catechumen, no, not in the house; for
it is not reasonable that he who is admitted should be polluted with
one not admitted. Let not one of the godly pray with an heretic, no,
not in the house. For `what fellowship hath light with darkness?'"
Compare also the Apostolic Canons, 11, 12, and 45. The last reads: "Let
a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who only prays with heretics, be
suspended; but if he also permit them to perform any part of the office
of a clergyman, let him be deprived." Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p.
815) considers this canon only a "consistent application of apostolic
principles to particular cases,--an application which was made from the
first century on, and therefore very old."

[1779] Redepenning (p. 190) refers to the remarks of Origen upon the
nature and destructiveness of heresy collected by Pamphilus (Fragm.
Apol. Pamph. Opp. Origen, IV. 694 [ed. Delarue]).

[1780] epi ta grammatikEUR

[1781] See below, p. 392.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 3

While still very Young, he taught diligently the Word of
Christ.

1. But while he was lecturing in the school, as he tells us himself,
and there was no one at Alexandria to give instruction in the faith, as
all were driven away by the threat of persecution, some of the heathen
came to him to hear the word of God.

2. The first of them, he says, was Plutarch, [1782] who after living
well, was honored with divine martyrdom. The second was Heraclas,
[1783] a brother of Plutarch; who after he too had given with him
abundant evidence of a philosophic and ascetic life, was esteemed
worthy to succeed Demetrius in the bishopric of Alexandria.

3. He was in his eighteenth year when he took charge of the
catechetical school. [1784] He was prominent also at this time, during
the persecution under Aquila, [1785] the governor of Alexandria, when
his name became celebrated among the leaders in the faith, through the
kindness and goodwill which he manifested toward all the holy martyrs,
whether known to him or strangers.

4. For not only was he with them while in bonds, and until their final
condemnation, but when the holy martyrs were led to death, he was very
bold and went with them into danger. So that as he acted bravely, and
with great boldness saluted the martyrs with a kiss, oftentimes the
heathen multitude round about them became infuriated, and were on the
point of rushing upon him.

5. But through the helping hand of God, he escaped absolutely and
marvelously. And this same divine and heavenly power, again and again,
it is impossible to say how often, on account of his great zeal and
boldness for the words of Christ, guarded him when thus endangered.
[1786] So great was the enmity of the unbelievers toward him, on
account of the multitude that were instructed by him in the sacred
faith, that they placed bands of soldiers around the house where he
abode.

6. Thus day by day the persecution burned against him, so that the
whole city could no longer contain him; but he removed from house to
house and was driven in every direction because of the multitude who
attended upon the divine instruction which he gave. For his life also
exhibited right and admirable conduct according to the practice of
genuine philosophy.

7. For they say that his manner of life was as his doctrine, and his
doctrine as his life. [1787] Therefore, by the divine Power working
with him he aroused a great many to his own zeal.

8. But when he saw yet more coming to him for instruction, and the
catechetical school had been entrusted to him alone by Demetrius, who
presided over the church, he considered the teaching of grammatical
science inconsistent with training in divine subjects, [1788] and
forthwith he gave up his grammatical school as unprofitable and a
hindrance to sacred learning.

9. Then, with becoming consideration, that he might not need aid from
others, he disposed of whatever valuable books of ancient literature he
possessed, being satisfied with receiving from the purchaser four oboli
a day. [1789] For many years he lived philosophically [1790] in this
manner, putting away all the incentives of youthful desires. Through
the entire day he endured no small amount of discipline; and for the
greater part of the night he gave himself to the study of the Divine
Scriptures. He restrained himself as much as possible by a most
philosophic life; sometimes by the discipline of fasting, again by
limited time for sleep. And in his zeal he never lay upon a bed, but
upon the ground.

10. Most of all, he thought that the words of the Saviour in the Gospel
should be observed, in which he exhorts not to have two coats nor to
use shoes [1791] nor to occupy oneself with cares for the future.
[1792]

11. With a zeal beyond his age he continued in cold and nakedness; and,
going to the very extreme of poverty, he greatly astonished those about
him. And indeed he grieved many of his friends who desired to share
their possessions with him, on account of the wearisome toil which they
saw him enduring in the teaching of divine things.

12. But he did not relax his perseverance. He is said to have walked
for a number of years never wearing a shoe, and, for a great many
years, to have abstained from the use of wine, and of all other things
beyond his necessary food; so that he was in danger of breaking down
and destroying his constitution. [1793]

13. By giving such evidences of a philosophic life to those who saw
him, he aroused many of his pupils to similar zeal; so that prominent
men even of the unbelieving heathen and men that followed learning and
philosophy were led to his instruction. Some of them having received
from him into the depth of their souls faith in the Divine Word, became
prominent in the persecution then prevailing; and some of them were
seized and suffered martyrdom.
__________________________________________________________________

[1782] Of this Plutarch we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and
in chap. 4, where he says that he was the first of Origen's pupils to
suffer martyrdom. (On the date of the persecution in which he suffered,
see note 4).

[1783] Heraclas, brother of Plutarch, proved himself so good a pupil
that, when Origen later found the work of teaching too great for him to
manage alone, he made him his assistant, and committed the elementary
instruction to him (chap. 15). From chap. 19 we learn that he was for
years a diligent student of Greek philosophy (chap. 15 implies his
proficiency in it), and that he even went so far as to wear the
philosopher's cloak all the time, although he was a presbyter in the
Alexandrian church. His reputation for learning became so great, as we
learn from chap. 31, that Julius Africanus went to Alexandria to see
him. In 231, when Origen took his departure from Alexandria, he left
the catechetical school in the charge of Heraclas (chap. 26), and in
231 or 232, upon the death of Demetrius (see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4),
Heraclas became the latter's successor as bishop of Alexandria (chaps.
26 and 29), and was succeeded in the presidency of the catechetical
school by Dionysius (chap. 29). According to chap. 35 he was bishop for
sixteen years and with this both versions of the Chron. agree, though
Jerome puts his accession two years too early--into the ninth year of
Alexander Severus instead of the eleventh--while giving at the same
time, quite inconsistently, the proper date for his death. Heraclas'
later relations to Origen are not quite clear. He was evidently, in
earlier years, one of his best friends, and there is no adequate ground
for the assumption, which is quite common, that he was one of those who
united with Bishop Demetrius in condemning him. It is true, no attempt
seems to have been made after he became bishop to reverse the sentence
against Origen, and to invite him back to Alexandria; but this does not
prove that Heraclas did not remain friendly to him; for even when
Dionysius (who kept up his relations with Origen, as we know from chap.
46) became bishop (a.d. 248), no such attempt seems to have been made,
although Origen was still alive and at the height of his power. The
fact that the greater part of the clergy of Alexandria and Egypt were
unfavorable to Origen, as shown by their condemnation of him, does not
imply that Heraclas could not have been elected unless he too showed
hostility to Origen; for Dionysius, who we know was not hostile, was
appointed at that time head of the catechetical school, and sixteen
years later bishop. It is true that Heraclas may not have sympathized
with all of Origen's views, and may have thought some of them heretical
(his strict judgment of heretics is seen from Bk. VII. chap. 7), but
many even of the best of Origen's friends and followers did likewise,
so that among his most devoted adherents were some of the most orthodox
Fathers of the Church (e.g. the two Gregories and Basil). That Heraclas
did not agree with Origen in all his opinions (if he did not, he may
not have cared to press his return to Alexandria) does not prove
therefore that he took part in the condemnatory action of the synod,
and that he was himself in later life hostile to Origen.

[1784] See below, p. 392.

[1785] It is not clear from Eusebius' language whether Aquila was
successor of Laetus as viceroy of Egypt (as Redepenning assumes
apparently quite without misgiving), or simply governor of Alexandria.
He calls Laetus (in chap. 2) governor of Alexandria and of all Egypt,
while Aquila is called simply governor of Alexandria. If this
difference were insisted on as marking a real distinction, then Aquila
would have to be regarded as the chief officer of Alexandria only, and
hence subordinate in dignity to the viceroy of Egypt. The term used to
describe his position (hegoumenon) is not, however the technical one
for the chief officer of Alexandria (see Mommsen, Provinces of the
Roman Empire; Scribner's ed., II. p. 267 ff.), and hence his position
cannot be decided with certainty. In any case, whether he succeeded
Laetus, or was his subordinate, the dates of his accession to and
retirement from office are unknown, and hence the time at which the
persecutions mentioned took place cannot be determined with exactness.
We simply know that they occurred after 203 (for Origen had already
taken charge of the catechetical school, and some of his pupils
perished in the persecutions) and before 211, the date of Severus'
death.

[1786] How it happened that Origen escaped the persecution, when,
according to Eusebius, he exposed himself so continually, and was so
hated by the heathen populace, we cannot tell. Eusebius ascribes it
solely to the grace of God here, and in chap. 4.

[1787] hoios ho logos toios ho bios was a Greek proverb. Compare the
words of Seneca, in Ep. 114 ad Lucilium, "Apud Graecos in proverbium
cessit talis hominibus fuit oratio, qualis vita" (quoted by
Redepenning, p. 196).

[1788] This does not mean that he considered the study of grammar and
literature injurious to the Christian, or detrimental to his
theological studies. His opinion on that subject is clear enough from
all his writings and from his conduct as pictured in chaps. 18 and 19.
Nor does it on the other hand imply, as Cruse supposes, that up to this
time he had been teaching secular branches exclusively; but it means
simply that the demands upon him for instruction in the faith were so
great, now that the catechetical school had been officially entrusted
to him by Demetrius, that he felt that he could no longer continue to
teach secular literature as he had been doing, but must give up that
part of his work, and devote himself exclusively to instruction in
sacred things.

[1789] The obolus was a small Greek coin, equivalent to about three and
a half cents of our money. Four oboli a day could have been sufficient,
even in that age, only for the barest necessities of life. But with his
ascetic tendencies, these were all that Origen wished.

[1790] It was very common from the fourth century on (the writer knows
of no instances earlier than Eusebius) to call an ascetic mode of life
"philosophical," or "the life of a philosopher" (see S:2 of this
chapter, and compare Chrysostom's works, where the word occurs very
frequently in this sense). Origen, in his ascetic practices, was quite
in accord with the prevailing Christian sentiment of his own and
subsequent centuries, which looked upon bodily discipline of an ascetic
kind, not indeed as required, but as commended by Christ. The growing
sentiment had its roots partly in the prevailing ideas of contemporary
philosophy, which instinctively emphasized strongly the dualism of
spirit and matter, and the necessity of subduing the latter to the
former, and partly in the increasing moral corruptness of society,
which caused those who wished to lead holy lives to feel that only by
eschewing the things of sense could the soul attain purity. Under
pressure from without and within, it became very easy to misinterpret
various sayings of Christ, and thus to find in the Gospels ringing
exhortations to a life of the most rigid asceticism. Clement of
Alexandria was almost the only one of the great Christian writers after
the middle of the second century who distinguished between the true and
the false in this matter. Compare his admirable tract, Quis dives
salvetur, and contrast the position taken there with the foolish
extreme pursued by Origen, as recorded in this chapter.

[1791] See Matt. x. 10

[1792] See Matt. vi. 34

[1793] Greek: thorax, properly "chest." Rufinus and Christophorsonus
translate stomachum, and Valesius approves; but there is no authority
for such a use of the term thorax, so far as I can ascertain. The
proper Greek term for stomach is stomachos, which is uniformly employed
by Galen and other medical writers.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 4

The pupils of Origen that became Martyrs.

1. The first of these was Plutarch, who was mentioned just above.
[1794] As he was led to death, the man of whom we are speaking being
with him at the end of his life, came near being slain by his
fellow-citizens, as if he were the cause of his death. But the
providence of God preserved him at this time also.

2. After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was
Serenus, [1795] who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he had
received.

3. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides, [1796] and
after him the fourth was Hero. [1797] The former of these was as yet a
catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of them
were beheaded. After them, the fifth from the same school proclaimed as
an athlete of piety was another Serenus, who, it is reported, was
beheaded, after a long endurance of tortures. And of women, Herais
[1798] died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as
Origen himself somewhere says.
__________________________________________________________________

[1794] See the previous chapter, S:2. The martyrdom of these disciples
of Origen took place under Aquila, and hence the date depends on the
date of his rule, which cannot be fixed with exactness, as remarked in
note 4 on the previous chapter.

[1795] These two persons named Serenus, the first of whom was burned,
the second beheaded, are known to us only from this chapter.

[1796] Of this Heraclides, we know only what is told us in this
chapter. He, with the other martyrs mentioned in this connection, is
commemorated in the mediaeval martyrologies, but our authentic
information is limited to what Eusebius tells us here.

[1797] Our authentic information of Hero is likewise limited to this
account of Eusebius.

[1798] Herais likewise is known to us from this chapter alone. It is
interesting to note that Origen's pupils were not confined to the male
sex. His association with female catechumens, which his office of
instructor entailed upon him, formed one reason for the act of
self-mutilation which he committed (see chap. 8, S:2).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 5

Potamiaena. [1799]

1. Basilides [1800] may be counted the seventh of these. He led to
martyrdom the celebrated Potamiaena, who is still famous among the
people of the country for the many things which she endured for the
preservation of her chastity and virginity. For she was blooming in the
perfection of her mind and her physical graces. Having suffered much
for the faith of Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and terrible
to speak of, she with her mother, Marcella, [1801] was put to death by
fire.

2. They say that the judge, Aquila by name, having inflicted severe
tortures upon her entire body, at last threatened to hand her over to
the gladiators for bodily abuse. After a little consideration, being
asked for her decision, she made a reply which was regarded as impious.

3. Thereupon she received sentence immediately, and Basilides, one of
the officers of the army, led her to death. But as the people attempted
to annoy and insult her with abusive words, he drove back her
insulters, showing her much pity and kindness. And perceiving the man's
sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be of good courage, for she would
supplicate her Lord for him after her departure, and he would soon
receive a reward for the kindness he had shown her.

4. Having said this, she nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch being
poured little by little, over various parts of her body, from the sole
of her feet to the crown of her head. Such was the conflict endured by
this famous maiden.

5. Not long after this Basilides, being asked by his fellow-soldiers to
swear for a certain reason, declared that it was not lawful for him to
swear at all, for he was a Christian, and he confessed this openly. At
first they thought that he was jesting, but when he continued to affirm
it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowledging his conviction before
him, he was imprisoned. But the brethren in God coming to him and
inquiring the reason of this sudden and remarkable resolution, he is
reported to have said that Potamiaena, for three days after her
martyrdom, stood beside him by night and placed a crown on his head and
said that she had besought the Lord for him and had obtained what she
asked, and that soon she would take him with her.

6. Thereupon the brethren gave him the seal [1802] of the Lord; and on
the next day, after giving glorious testimony for the Lord, he was
beheaded. And many others in Alexandria are recorded to have accepted
speedily the word of Christ in those times.

7. For Potamiaena appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them.
But let this suffice in regard to this matter.
__________________________________________________________________

[1799] Potamiaena, one of the most celebrated of the martyrs that
suffered under Severus, is made by Rufinus a disciple of Origen, but
Eusebius does not say that she was, and indeed, in making Basilides the
seventh of Origen's disciples to suffer, he evidently excludes
Potamiaena from the number. Quite a full account of her martyrdom is
given by Palladius in his Historia Lausiaca, chap. 3 (Migne's Patr. Gr.
XXXIV. 1014), which contains some characteristic details not mentioned
by Eusebius. It appears from that account that she was a slave, and
that her master, not being able to induce her to yield to his passion,
accused her before the judge as a Christian, bribing him, if possible,
to break her resolution by tortures and then return her to him, or, if
that was not possible, to put her to death as a Christian. We cannot
judge as to the exact truth of this and other details related by
Palladius, but his history (which was written early in the fifth
century) is, in the main at least, reliable, except where it deals with
miracles and prodigies (cf. the article on Palladius of Helenopolis, in
the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).

[1800] Basilides is clearly reckoned here among the disciples of
Origen. The correctness of Eusebius' statement has been doubted, but
there is no ground for such doubt, for there is no reason to suppose
that all of Origen's pupils became converted under his instruction.

[1801] Of Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the more
celebrated Potamiaena, and suffered martyrdom by fire.

[1802] The word sphragis, "seal," was very commonly used by the Fathers
to signify baptism (see Suicer's Thesaurus).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 6

Clement of Alexandria.

Clement [1803] having succeeded Pantaenus, [1804] had charge at that
time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen
also, while still a boy, [1805] was one of his pupils. In the first
book of the work called Stromata, which Clement wrote, he gives a
chronological table, [1806] bringing events down to the death of
Commodus. So it is evident that that work was written during the reign
of Severus, whose times we are now recording.
__________________________________________________________________

[1803] This chapter has no connection with the preceding, and its
insertion at this point has no good ground, for Clement has been
already handled in the fifth book; and if Eusebius wished to refer to
him again in connection with Origen, he should have done so in chap. 3,
where Origen's appointment as head of the catechetical school is
mentioned. (Redepenning, however, approves the present order; vol. I.
p. 431 sqq.) Rufinus felt the inconsistency, and hence inserted chaps.
6 and 7 in the middle of chap. 3, where the account of Origen's
appointment by Demetrius is given. Valesius considers the occurrence of
this mention of Clement at this point a sign that Eusebius did not give
his work a final revision. Chap. 13 is inserted in the same abrupt way,
quite out of harmony with the context. Upon the life of Clement of
Alexandria, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. The catechetical school was
vacant, as we learn from chap. 2, in the year 203, and was then taken
in charge by Origen, so that the "that time" referred to by Eusebius in
this sentence must be carried back of the events related in the
previous chapters. The cause of Clement's leaving the school was
probably the persecution begun by Severus in 202 ("all were driven away
by the threatening aspect of persecution," according to chap. 3, S:1);
for since Origen was one of his pupils he can hardly have left long
before that time. That it was not unworthy cowardice which led Clement
to take his departure is clear enough from the words of Alexander in
chaps. 11 and 14, from the high reputation which he continued to enjoy
throughout the Church, and from his own utterances on the subject of
martyrdom scattered through his works.

[1804] On Pantaenus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2.

[1805] Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen,
following two important mss. and the translation of Rufinus, omit the
words paida onta "while a boy." But the words are found in all the
other codices (the chief witnesses of two of the three great families
of mss. being for them) and in Nicephorus. The manuscript authority is
therefore overwhelmingly in favor of the words, and they are adopted by
Valesius, Zimmermann, and Cruse. Rufinus is a strong witness against
the words but, as Redepenning justly remarks, having inserted this
chapter, as he did, in the midst of the description of Origen's early
years (see note 1), the words paida onta would be quite superfluous and
even out of place, and hence he would naturally omit them. So far as
the probabilities of the insertion or omission of the words in the
present passage are concerned, it seems to me more natural to suppose
that a copyist, finding the words at this late stage in the account of
Origen's life, would be inclined to omit them, than that not finding
them there he should, upon historical grounds (which he could have
reached only after some reflection), think that they ought to be
inserted. The latter would be not only a more difficult but also a much
graver step than the former. There seems, then, to be no good warrant
for omitting these words. We learn from chap. 3 that he took charge of
the catechetical school when he was in his eighteenth year, within a
year therefore after the death of his father. And we learn that before
he took charge of the school, all who had given instruction there had
been driven away by the persecution. Clement, therefore, must have left
before Origen's eighteenth year, and hence the latter must have studied
with him before the persecution had broken up the school, and in all
probability before the death of Leonides. In any case, therefore, he
was still a boy when under Clement, and even if we omit the
words--"while a boy"--here, we shall not be warranted in putting his
student days into the period of his maturity, as some would do. Upon
this subject, see Redepenning, I. p. 431 sqq., who adduces still other
arguments for the position taken in this note which it is not necessary
to repeat here.

[1806] In Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21. On this and the other works of
Clement, see chap. 13.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 7

The Writer, Judas. [1807]

At this time another writer, Judas, discoursing about the seventy weeks
in Daniel, brings down the chronology to the tenth year of the reign of
Severus. He thought that the coming of Antichrist, which was much
talked about, was then near. [1808] So greatly did the agitation caused
by the persecution of our people at this time disturb the minds of
many.
__________________________________________________________________

[1807] The mention of the writer Judas at this point seems, at first
sight, as illogical as the reference to Clement in the preceding
chapter. But it does not violate chronology as that did; and hence, if
the account of Origen's life was to be broken anywhere for such an
insertion, there was perhaps no better place. We cannot conclude,
therefore, that Eusebius, had he revised his work, would have changed
the position of this chapter, as Valesius suggests (see the previous
chapter, note 1). Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 52) repeats Eusebius' notice
of Judas, but adds nothing to it, and we know no more about him. Since
he believed that the appearance of Antichrist was at hand, he must have
written before the persecutions had given place again to peace, and
hence not long after 202, the date to which he extended his chronology.
Whether the work mentioned by Eusebius was a commentary or a work on
chronology is not clear. It was possibly an historical demonstration of
the truth of Daniel's prophecies, and an interpretation of those yet
unfulfilled, in which case it combined history and exegesis.

[1808] It was the common belief in the Church, from the time of the
apostles until the time of Constantine, that the second coming of
Christ would very speedily take place. This belief was especially
pronounced among the Montanists, Montanus having proclaimed that the
parousia would occur before his death, and even having gone so far as
to attempt to collect all the faithful (Montanists) in one place in
Phrygia, where they were to await that event and where the new
Jerusalem was to be set up (see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 6). There
is nothing surprising in Judas' idea that this severe persecution must
be the beginning of the end, for all through the earlier centuries of
the Church (and even to some extent in later centuries) there were
never wanting those who interpreted similar catastrophes in the same
way; although after the third century the belief that the end was at
hand grew constantly weaker.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 8

Origen's Daring Deed.

1. At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at
Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and
youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and
continence. [1809] For he took the words, "There are eunuchs who have
made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," [1810] in
too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Saviour's
word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all
opportunity for scandal,--for, although young, he met for the study of
divine things with women as well as men,--he carried out in action the
word of the Saviour.

2. He thought that this would not be known by many of his
acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so,
to keep such an action secret.

3. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of
this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he
perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately
exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of
catechetical instruction.

4. Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was
prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the
same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most
foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of Cesarea
and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the
bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree
of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. [1811]

5. Thereupon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned
everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom.
But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save
this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly, [1812] and dared to
include with him in these accusations those who had raised him to the
presbyterate.

6. These things, however, took place a little later. But at this time
Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at
Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him; devoting his entire
leisure without cessation to divine studies and to his pupils.

7. Severus, having held the government for eighteen years, was
succeeded by his son, Antoninus. [1813] Among those who had endured
courageously the persecution of that time, and had been preserved by
the Providence of God through the conflicts of confession, was
Alexander, of whom we have spoken already [1814] as bishop of the
church in Jerusalem. On account of his pre-eminence in the confession
of Christ he was thought worthy of that bishopric, while Narcissus,
[1815] his predecessor, was still living.
__________________________________________________________________

[1809] This act of Origen's has been greatly discussed, and some have
even gone so far as to believe that he never committed the act, but
that the report of it arose from a misunderstanding of certain
figurative expressions used by him (so, e.g., Boehringer, Schnitzer,
and Baur). There is no reason, however, to doubt the report, for which
we have unimpeachable testimony, and which is in itself not at all
surprising (see the arguments of Redepenning, I. p. 444 sqq.). The act
was contrary to the civil law (see Suetonius, Domitian, c. 7; and cf.
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 29), and yet was a very common one; the
existence of the law itself would alone prove what we know from many
sources to have been the fact. Nor was Origen alone among the
Christians (cf. e.g. Origen, In Matt., XV. 1, the passage of Justin
Martyr referred to above, and also the first canon of the Council of
Nicaea, the very existence of which proves the necessity of it). It was
natural that Christians, seeking purity of life, and strongly ascetic
in their tendencies, should be influenced by the actions of those about
them, who sought thus to be freed from the domination of the passions,
and should interpret certain passages of the Bible as commending the
act. Knowing it to be so common, and knowing Origen's character, as
revealed to us in chap. 3, above (to say nothing of his own writings),
we can hardly be surprised that he performed the act. His chief motive
was undoubtedly the same as that which actuated him in all his ascetic
practices, the attainment of higher holiness through the subjugation of
his passions, and the desire to sacrifice everything fleshly for the
sake of Christ. Of course this could not have led him to perform the
act he did, unless he had entirely misunderstood, as Eusebius says he
did, the words of Christ quoted below. But he was by no means the only
one to misunderstand them (see Suicer's Thesaurus, I. 1255 sq.).
Eusebius says that the requirements of his position also had something
to do with his resolve. He was obliged to teach both men and women, and
both day and night (as we learn from S:7), and Eusebius thinks he would
naturally desire to avoid scandal. At the same time, this motive can
hardly have weighed very heavily, if at all, with him; for had his
giving instruction in this way been in danger of causing serious
scandal, other easier methods of avoiding such scandal might have been
devised, and undoubtedly would have been, by the bishop. And the fact
is, he seems to have wished to conceal the act, which is inconsistent
with the idea that he performed it for the sake of avoiding scandal. It
is quite likely that his intimate association with women may have had
considerable to do with his resolve, because he may have found that
such association aroused his unsubdued passions, and therefore felt
that they must be eradicated, if he was to go about his duties with a
pure and single heart. That he afterward repented his youthful act, and
judged the words of Christ more wisely, is clear from what he says in
his Comment. in Matt. XV. 1. And yet he never outgrew his false notions
of the superior virtue of an ascetic life. His act seems to have caused
a reaction in his mind which led him into doubt and despondency for a
time; for Demetrius found it necessary to exhort him to cherish
confidence, and to urge him to continue his work of instruction.
Eusebius, while not approving Origen's act, yet evidently admired him
the more for the boldness and for the spirit of self-sacrifice shown in
its performance.

[1810] Matt. xix. 12.

[1811] See chap. 23.

[1812] On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see
below, p. 394.

[1813] Septimius Severus died on February 4, 211, after a reign of a
little more than seventeen years and eight months, and was succeeded by
his two sons, Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus (commonly
known by his nickname Caracalla, which, however, was never used in
official documents or inscriptions), and Lucius, or Publius, Septimius
Geta. Eusebius mentions here only the former, giving him his official
name, Antoninus.

[1814] Eusebius makes a slip here, as this is the first time he has
mentioned Alexander in his Church History. He was very likely under the
impression that he had mentioned him just above, where he referred to
the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem. He does refer to him in his
Chron., putting his appointment as assistant bishop into the second
year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth year), and calling him the
thirty-fifth bishop of Jerusalem (Armen. thirty-sixth). In Bk. V. chap.
12 of the History (also in the Chron.) we are told that Narcissus was
the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem. The number thirty-five for Alexander
(the number thirty-six of the Armen. is a mistake, and is set right in
connection with Alexander's successor, who is also called the
thirty-sixth) is made out by counting the three bishops mentioned in
chap. 10, and then reckoning the second episcopate of Narcissus (see
the same chapter) as the thirty-fourth. We learn from chap. 14 that
Alexander was an early friend of Origen's, and a fellow-pupil in the
school of Clement. We know him next as bishop of some church in
Cappadocia (chap. 11; see note 2 on that chapter), whence he was called
to be assistant bishop of Jerusalem (see the same chapter). From this
passage, compared with chap. 11, we learn that Alexander was imprisoned
during the persecutions, and the Chron. gives the year of his
"confession" as 203 a.d. But from chap. 11 we learn that he wrote while
still in prison to the church of Antioch on occasion of the appointment
of Asclepiades to the episcopate there. According to the Chron.
Asclepiades did not become bishop until 211; and though this may not be
the exact date, yet it cannot be far out of the way (see chap. 11, note
6); and hence, if Alexander was a confessor in 203, he must have
remained in prison a number of years, or else have undergone a second
persecution. It is probable either that the date 203 is quite wrong, or
else that he suffered a second time toward the close of Severus' reign;
for the persecution, so far as we know, was not so continuous during
that reign as to keep one man confined for eight years. Our knowledge
of the persecutions in Asia Minor at this time is very limited, but
they do not seem to have been of great severity or of long duration.
The date of Alexander's episcopate in Cappadocia it is impossible to
determine, though as he was a fellow-pupil of Origen's in Alexandria,
it cannot have begun much, if any, before 202. The date of his
translation to the see of Jerusalem is likewise uncertain. The Chron.
gives the second year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth). The connection in
which Eusebius mentions it in chap. 11 makes it look as if it took
place before Asclepiades' accession to the see of Antioch; but this is
hardly possible, for it was his firmness under persecution which
elevated him to the see of Jerusalem (according to this passage), and
it is apparently that persecution which he is enduring when Asclepiades
becomes bishop. We find no reason, then, for correcting the date of his
translation to Jerusalem given by the Chron. At any rate, he was bishop
of Jerusalem when Origen visited Palestine in 216 (see chap. 19, S:17).
In 231 he assisted at the ordination of Origen (see chap. 23, note 6),
and finally perished in prison during the Decian persecution (see
chaps. 39 and 46). His friendship for Origen was warm and steadfast
(cf., besides the other passages referred to, chap. 27). The latter
commemorates the loveliness and gentleness of his character in his
first Homily on 1 Samuel, S:1. He collected a valuable library in
Jerusalem, which Eusebius made use of in the composition of his History
(see chap. 20). This act shows the literary tastes of the man. Of his
epistles only the five fragments preserved by Eusebius (chaps. 11, 14,
and 19) are now extant. Jerome (de vir. ill. 62) says that other
epistles were extant in his day; and he relates, on the authority of an
epistle written pro Origene contra Demetrium, that Alexander had
ordained Origen juxta testimonium Demetri. This epistle is not
mentioned by Eusebius, but in spite of Jerome's usual dependence upon
the latter, there is no good reason to doubt the truth of his statement
in this case (see below, p. 396).

[1815] On Narcissus, see the next three chapters, and also Bk. V. chap.
12, note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 9

The Miracles of Narcissus.

1. The citizens of that parish mention many other miracles of
Narcissus, on the tradition of the brethren who succeeded him; among
which they relate the following wonder as performed by him.

2. They say that the oil once failed while the deacons were watching
through the night at the great paschal vigil. Thereupon the whole
multitude being dismayed, Narcissus directed those who attended to the
lights, to draw water and bring it to him.

3. This being immediately done he prayed over the water, and with firm
faith in the Lord, commanded them to pour it into the lamps. And when
they had done so, contrary to all expectation by a wonderful and divine
power, the nature of the water was changed into that of oil. A small
portion of it has been preserved even to our day by many of the
brethren there as a memento of the wonder. [1816]

4. They tell many other things worthy to be noted of the life of this
man, among which is this. Certain base men being unable to endure the
strength and firmness of his life, and fearing punishment for the many
evil deeds of which they were conscious, sought by plotting to
anticipate him, and circulated a terrible slander against him.

5. And to persuade those who heard of it, they confirmed their
accusations with oaths: one invoked upon himself destruction by fire;
another the wasting of his body by a foul disease; the third the loss
of his eyes. But though they swore in this manner, they could not
affect the mind of the believers; because the continence and virtuous
life of Narcissus were well known to all.

6. But he could not in any wise endure the wickedness of these men; and
as he had followed a philosophic [1817] life for a long time, he fled
from the whole body of the Church, and hid himself in desert and secret
places, and remained there many years. [1818]

7. But the great eye of judgment was not unmoved by these things, but
soon looked down upon these impious men, and brought on them the curses
with which they had bound themselves. The residence of the first, from
nothing but a little spark falling upon it, was entirely consumed by
night, and he perished with all his family. The second was speedily
covered with the disease which he had imprecated upon himself, from the
sole of his feet to his head.

8. But the third, perceiving what had happened to the others, and
fearing the inevitable judgment of God, the ruler of all, confessed
publicly what they had plotted together. And in his repentance he
became so wasted by his great lamentations, and continued weeping to
such an extent, that both his eyes were destroyed. Such were the
punishments which these men received for their falsehood.
__________________________________________________________________

[1816] This miracle is related by Eusebius upon the testimony, not of
documents, but of those who had shown him the oil, which was preserved
in Jerusalem down to that time; hoi tes paroikias politai...historousi,
he says. His travels had evidently not taught him to disbelieve every
wonderful tale that was told him.

[1817] See above, chap. 3, note 9.

[1818] The date of Narcissus' retirement we have no means of
ascertaining.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 10

The Bishops of Jerusalem.

Narcissus having departed, and no one knowing where he was, those
presiding over the neighboring churches thought it best to ordain
another bishop. His name was Dius. [1819] He presided but a short time,
and Germanio succeeded him. He was followed by Gordius, [1820] in whose
time Narcissus appeared again, as if raised from the dead. [1821] And
immediately the brethren besought him to take the episcopate, as all
admired him the more on account of his retirement and philosophy, and
especially because of the punishment with which God had avenged him.
__________________________________________________________________

[1819] Of these three bishops, Dius, Germanio, and Gordius, we know
nothing more than is told us here. Syncellus assigns eight years to
Dius, four to Germanio, and five to Sardianus, whom he names instead of
Gordius. Epiphanius reports that Dius was bishop until Severus (193
a.d.), and Gordius until Antonine (i.e. Caracalla, 211 a.d.). But no
reliance is to be placed upon these figures or dates, as remarked
above, Bk. V. chap. 12, note 2.

[1820] Eusebius and Epiphanius give Tordios, and Jerome, Gordius; but
the Armenian has Gordianus, and Syncellus, Sardianos. What became of
Gordius when Narcissus reappeared we do not know. He must have died
very speedily, or some compromise would have been made, as it seems,
which would have rendered the appointment of Alexander as assistant
bishop unnecessary.

[1821] Literally, "as if from a resurrection" (hosper ex anabioseos).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 11

Alexander.

1. But as on account of his great age Narcissus was no longer able to
perform his official duties, [1822] the Providence of God called to the
office with him, by a revelation given him in a night vision, the
above-mentioned Alexander, who was then bishop of another parish.
[1823]

2. Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he journeyed from the land of
Cappadocia, where he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in
consequence of a vow and for the sake of information in regard to its
places. [1824] They received him there with great cordiality, and would
not permit him to return, because of another revelation seen by them at
night, which uttered the clearest message to the most zealous among
them. For it made known that if they would go outside the gates, they
would receive the bishop foreordained for them by God. And having done
this, with the unanimous consent of the bishops of the neighboring
churches, they constrained him to remain.

3. Alexander, himself, in private letters to the Antinoites, [1825]
which are still preserved among us, mentions the joint episcopate of
Narcissus and himself, writing in these words at the end of the
epistle:

4. "Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate here before me, and
is now associated with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen
years of age; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be of one mind."

These things took place in this manner. But, on the death of Serapion,
[1826] Asclepiades, [1827] who had been himself distinguished among the
confessors [1828] during the persecution, succeeded to the episcopate
of the church at Antioch. Alexander alludes to his appointment, writing
thus to the church at Antioch:

5. "Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed
church of Antioch, greeting in the Lord. The Lord hath made my bonds
during the time of my imprisonment light and easy, since I learned
that, by the Divine Providence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true
faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the bishopric of your holy
church at Antioch."

6. He indicates that he sent this epistle by Clement, [1829] writing
toward its close as follows:

"My honored brethren, [1830] I have sent this letter to you by Clement,
the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye yourselves
also know and will recognize. Being here, in the providence and
oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the Church of
the Lord."
__________________________________________________________________

[1822] The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the
fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says
that Narcissus is already in his 116th year. The translation of
Alexander to Jerusalem must have taken place about 212 (see chap. 8,
note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than 110 years old. The
appointment of Alexander as Narcissus' assistant involved two acts
which were even at that time not common, and which were later forbidden
by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see to another,
and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop, which made two
bishops in one city. The Apost. Canons (No. 14) ordain that "a bishop
ought not to leave his own parish and leap to another, although the
multitude should compel him, unless there be some good reason forcing
him to do this, as that he can contribute much greater profit to the
people of the new parish by the word of piety; but this is not to be
settled by himself, but by the judgment of many bishops and very great
supplication." It has been disputed whether this canon is older or
younger than the fifteenth canon of Nicaea, which forbids
unconditionally the practice of translation from one see to another.
Whichever may be the older, it is certain that even the Council of
Nicaea considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain
cases, for it translated Eustathius from Beraea to Antioch (see
Sozomen, H. E. I. 2). The truth is, the rule was established--whether
before or for the first time at the Council of Nicaea--chiefly in order
to guard against the ambition of aspiring men who might wish to go from
a smaller to a greater parish, and to prevent, as the Nicene Canon
says, the many disorders and quarrels which the custom of translation
caused; and a rule formed on such grounds of expediency was of course
liable to exception whenever the good of the Church seemed to demand
it, and therefore, whether the fourteenth Apostolic Canon is more
ancient than the Nicene Council or not, it certainly embodies a
principle which must long have been in force, and which we find in fact
acted upon in the present case; for the translation of Alexander takes
place "with the common consent of the bishops of the neighboring
churches," or, as Jerome puts it, cunctis in Palestina episcopis in
unum congregatis, which is quite in accord with the provision of the
Apostolic Canons. There were some in the early Church who thought it
absolutely unlawful under any circumstances for a bishop to be
translated (cf. Jerome's Ep. ad Oceanum; Migne, Ep. 69, S:5), but this
was not the common view, as Bingham (Antiq. VI. 4. 6) well observes,
and instances of translation from one see to another were during all
these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. E. VII. 36), although
always of course exceptional, and considered lawful only when made for
good and sufficient reasons. To say, therefore, with Valesius that
these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church in translating
Alexander is too strong. They were evidently unconscious of anything
uncanonical, or even irregular in their action, though it is clear that
they regarded the step as too important to be taken without the
approval of all the bishops of the neighborhood. In regard to assistant
bishops, Valesius correctly remarks that this is the first instance of
the kind known to us, but it is by no means the only one, for the
following centuries furnish numerous examples; e.g. Theotecnus and
Anatolius in Caesarea (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 32), Maximus and
Macarius in Jerusalem (see Sozomen, H. E. II. 20); and so in Africa
Valerius of Hippo had Augustine as his coadjutor (Possidius, Vita. Aug.
chap. 8; see Bingham's Antiq. II. 13. 4 for other instances and for a
discussion of the whole subject). The principle was in force from as
early as the third century (see Cyprian to Cornelius, Ep. 40, al. 44
and to Antonianus, Ep. 51, al. 55) that there should be only one bishop
in a city, and we see from the works of various Fathers that this rule
was universally accepted at an early date. The eighth canon of Nicaea
refers to this principle in passing as if it were already firmly
established, and the council evidently did not think it necessary to
promulgate a special canon on the subject. Because of this principle,
Augustine hesitated to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop of
Hippo; and although his scruples were overcome at the time, he
afterward, upon learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice
of having a coadjutor illegal and refused to ordain one for himself.
But, as the instances referred to above and many others show, not all
the Church interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and
hence under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the rule, and
were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful. The existence
of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for the sake of
healing a schism, formed one common exception to the general principle
(see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of coadjutors, as in the
present case, formed another.

[1823] Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not told
by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities. Valesius (note on
this passage) and Tillemont (Hist. eccles. III. p. 415) give
Flaviopolis or Flaviadis as the name of the city (upon the authority of
Basilicon, Jur. Graeco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, according to Tillemont).
But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence Tillemont conjectures
that it had once been taken from Cappadocia and attached to Cilicia,
and that its inhabitants retained the memory of Alexander, their early
bishop. The report seems to rest upon a very slender foundation; but
not having access to the authority cited, I am unable to form an
opinion as to the worth of the tradition.

[1824] euches kai ton topon historias heneken.

[1825] 'Antinoeia (Antinoe or Antinooepolis) was a city of Egypt
founded by Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 3).
This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops were
present at more than one council in later centuries (see Wiltsch's
Geography and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473). This letter must have been
written between 212, at about which time Alexander became Narcissus'
coadjutor (see chap. 8, note 6), and 216, when Origen visited Palestine
(see chap. 19, note 23). For at the time of that visit Alexander is
said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and no mention is made of
Narcissus, who must therefore have been already dead (see Bk. V. chap.
12, note 1). The fragments of Alexander's epistles quoted in this
chapter are given in Routh's Rel. Sacrae, II. p. 161 sq., and in
English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 154.

[1826] On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.

[1827] The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year
of Caracalla (211 a.d.). Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 47) believes
that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices of most
of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author departs from
the artificial scheme which he follows in the main. But Harnack
contends that the date is not quite correct, because Alexander, who
suffered under Severus, was still in prison when Asclepiades became
bishop, and therefore the latter's accession must be put back into
Severus' reign. He would fix, therefore, upon about 209 as the date of
it, rightly perceiving that there is good reason for thinking the
Chron. at least nearly correct in its report, and that in any case his
accession cannot be carried back much beyond that, because it is quite
probable (from the congratulations which Alexander extends to the
church of Antioch) that there had been a vacancy in that church for
some time after the death of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in
the midst of the persecutions of the time), while Serapion was still
alive as late as 203 (see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1). But it seems to me
that there is no good ground for making any alteration in the date
given by the Chron., for we know that at the very end of Severus' reign
the persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and that it
continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla's
accession (see Tertullian's ad Scap.). The general amnesty issued by
Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion
Cassius, LXXVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the
persecutions. There is therefore no ground for confining Alexander's
imprisonment to the reign of Severus. It may well have run into the
time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Asclepiades did
not become bishop until after the latter became emperor, so that it is
not necessary to correct the date of the Chron. It is impossible to
determine with certainty the length of Asclepiades' episcopate (see
chap. 21, note 6). Of Asclepiades himself we know no more than is told
us in this chapter. He seems to have been a man of most excellent
character, to judge from Alexander's epistle. That epistle, of course,
was written immediately after Asclepiades' appointment.

[1828] Literally "confessions" (homologiais).

[1829] On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.

[1830] kurioi mou adelphoi.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 12

Serapion and his Extant Works.

1. It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of
Serapion's [1831] literary industry, [1832] but there have reached us
only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of
persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship;
[1833] and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, [1834]
ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still
another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter. [1835]

2. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel
contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus [1836] who had
been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give
some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He
writes as follows:

3. "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as
Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to
them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.

4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith,
and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name
of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute
among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been
told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to
come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.

5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you,
that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, [1837] and
that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.

6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it
diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it,
whom we call Docetae [1838] (for most of their opinions are connected
with the teaching of that school [1839] ) we have been able to read it
through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine
of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have
pointed out for you farther on." So much in regard to Serapion.
__________________________________________________________________

[1831] On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.

[1832] The Greek reads: tou de Sarapionos tes peri logous askeseos kai
alla men eikos sozesthai par' eterois hupomnemata

[1833] Of this Domninus we know only what is told us here. It is
suggested by Daniell (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 630) that this
shows that the prohibition uttered by Severus against the Jews "must
have been soon relaxed, if it ever was enforced." But in regard to this
it must be said, in the first place, that Severus' decree was not
levelled against the Jews, but only against conversion to
Judaism,--against the fieri, not the esse, Judaeos. The object of the
edict was not to disturb the Jews in the exercise of their national
faith, but to prevent their proselyting among the non-Jewish residents
of the empire. If Domninus, therefore, fell from Christianity into
Judaism on account of the persecution, it seems highly probable that he
was simply a converted Jew, who gave up now, in order to avoid
persecution, his new faith, and again practised the religion of his
fathers. Nothing, therefore, can be concluded from Domninus' case as to
the strictness with which Severus' law was carried out, even if we
suppose Domninus to have fallen from Christianity into Judaism. But it
must be remarked, in the second place, that it is by no means certain
that Eusebius means to say that Domninus fell into Judaism, or became a
Jew. He is said to have fallen into "Jewish will-worship" (ekpeptokota
epi ten 'Ioudaiken ethelothreskeian). The word ethelothreskeia occurs
for the first time in Col. ii. 23, and means there an "arbitrary,
self-imposed worship" (Ellicott), or a worship which one "affects"
(Cremer). The word is used there in connection with the Oriental
theosophic and Judaistic errors which were creeping into the churches
of Asia Minor at the time the epistle was written, and it is quite
possible that the word may be used in the present case in reference to
the same class of errors. We know that these theosophizing and
Judaizing tendencies continued to exert considerable influence in Asia
Minor and Syria during the early centuries, and that the Ebionites and
the Elcesaites were not the only ones affected by them (see Harnack,
Dogmengesch. I. 218 sq.). The lapse of any one into Ebionism, or into a
Judaizing Gnosticism, or similar form of heresy--a lapse which cannot
have been at all uncommon among the fanatical Phrygians and other
peoples of that section--might well be called a lapse into "Jewish
will-worship." We do not know where Domninus lived, but it is not
improbable that Asia Minor was his home, and that he may have fallen
under the influence of Montanism as well as of Ebionism and Judaizing
Gnosticism. I suggest the possibility that his lapse was into heresy
rather than into Judaism pure and simple, for the reason that it is
easier, on that ground, to explain the fact that Serapion addressed a
work to him. He is known to us only as an opponent of heresy, and it
may be that Domninus' lapse gave him an opportunity to attack the
heretical notions of these Ebionites, or other Judaizing heretics, as
he had attacked the Montanists. It seems to the writer, also, that it
is thus easier to explain the complex phrase used, which seems to imply
something different from Judaism pure and simple.

[1834] See Bk. V. chap. 19, note 4.

[1835] On the so-called "Gospel of Peter," see Bk. III. chap. 3, note
7.

[1836] Rhossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Gulf of
Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.

[1837] This Marcianus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless we are
to identify him, as Salmon suggests is possible, with Marcion. The
suggestion is attractive, and the reference to Docetae gives it a show
of probability. But there are serious objections to be urged against
it. In the first place, the form of the name, Markianos instead of
Markion. The two names are by no means identical. Still, according to
Harnack, we have more than once Markianoi and Markianistai for
Markionistai (see his Quellenkritik d. Gesch. d. Gnosticismus, p. 31
sqq.). But again, how can Marcion have used, or his name been in any
way connected with, a Gospel of Peter? Finally, the impression left by
this passage is that "Marcianus" was a man still living, or at any rate
alive shortly before Serapion wrote, for the latter seems only recently
to have learned what his doctrines were. He certainly cannot have been
so ignorant of the teachings of the great "heresiarch" Marcion. We
must, in fact, regard the identification as improbable.

[1838] By Docetism we understand the doctrine that Christ had no true
body, but only an apparent one. The word is derived from dokeo, "to
seem or appear." The belief is as old as the first century (cf. 1 John
iv. 2; 2 John 7), and was a favorite one with most of the Gnostic
sects. The name Docetae, however, as a general appellation for all
those holding this opinion, seems to have been used first by Theodoret
(Ep. 82). But the term was employed to designate a particular sect
before the end of the second century; thus Clement of Alexandria speaks
of them in Strom. VII. 17, and Hippolytus (Phil. VIII. 8. 4, and X. 12;
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed.), and it is evidently this particular
sect to which Serapion refers here. An examination of Hippolytus'
account shows that these Docetae did not hold what we call Docetic
ideas of Christ's body; in fact, Hippolytus says expressly that they
taught that Christ was born, and had a true body from the Virgin (see
Phil. VIII. 3). How the sect came to adopt the name of Docetae we
cannot tell. They seem to have disappeared entirely before the fourth
century, for no mention of them is found in Epiphanius and other later
heresiologists. As was remarked above, Theodoret uses the term in a
general sense and not as the appellation of a particular sect, and this
became the common usage, and is still. Whether there was anything in
the teaching of the sect to suggest the belief that Christ had only an
apparent body, and thus to lead to the use of their specific name for
all who held that view, or whether the general use of the name Docetae
arose quite independently of the sect name, we do not know. The latter
seems more probable. The Docetae referred to by Hippolytus being a
purely Gnostic sect with a belief in the reality of Christ's body, we
have no reason to conclude that the "Gospel of Peter" contained what we
call Docetic teaching. The description which Serapion gives of the
gospel fits quite well a work containing some such Gnostic speculations
as Hippolytus describes, and thus adding to the Gospel narrative rather
than denying the truth of it in any part. He could hardly have spoken
as he did of a work which denied the reality of Christ's body. See, on
the general subject, Salmon's articles Docetae and Docetism in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[1839] The interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with
difficulty. The Greek reads toutesti para ton diadochon ton
katarxamenon autou, ohus Doketas kaloumen, (ta gar phronemata ta
pleiona ekeinon esti tes didaskalias), k.t.l. The words ton
katarxamenon autou are usually translated "who preceded him," or "who
led the way before him"; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this
interpretation, and moreover the autou seems to refer not to Marcianus,
whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel which has just
been mentioned. There is a difficulty also in regard to the reference
of the ekeinon, which is commonly connected with the words tes
didaskalias, but which seems to belong rather with the phronemata and
to refer to the diadochon ton katarxamenon. It thus seems necessary to
define the tes didaskalias more closely, and we therefore venture, with
Closs, to insert the words "of that school," referring to the Docetae
just mentioned.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 13

The Writings of Clement. [1840]

1. All the eight Stromata of Clement are preserved among us, and have
been given by him the following title: "Titus Flavius Clement's
Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Philosophy." [1841]

2. The books entitled Hypotyposes [1842] are of the same number. In
them he mentions Pantaenus [1843] by name as his teacher, and gives his
opinions and traditions.

3. Besides these there is his Hortatory Discourse addressed to the
Greeks; [1844] three books of a work entitled the Instructor; [1845]
another with the title What Rich Man is Saved? [1846] the work on the
Passover; [1847] discussions on Fasting and on Evil Speaking; [1848]
the Hortatory Discourse on Patience, or To Those Recently Baptized;
[1849] and the one bearing the title Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against
the Judaizers, [1850] which he dedicated to Alexander, the bishop
mentioned above.

4. In the Stromata, he has not only treated extensively [1851] of the
Divine Scripture, but he also quotes from the Greek writers whenever
anything that they have said seems to him profitable.

5. He elucidates the opinions of many, both Greeks and barbarians. He
also refutes the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides this,
reviews a large portion of history, giving us specimens of very various
learning; with all the rest he mingles the views of philosophers. It is
likely that on this account he gave his work the appropriate title of
Stromata. [1852]

6. He makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed
Scriptures, [1853] the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, [1854] and of
Jesus, the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, [1855] and
those of Barnabas, [1856] and Clement [1857] and Jude. [1858]

7. He mentions also Tatian's [1859] Discourse to the Greeks, and speaks
of Cassianus [1860] as the author of a chronological work. He refers to
the Jewish authors Philo, [1861] Aristobulus, [1862] Josephus, [1863]
Demetrius, [1864] and Eupolemus, [1865] as showing, all of them, in
their works, that Moses and the Jewish race existed before the earliest
origin of the Greeks.

8. These books abound also in much other learning. In the first of them
[1866] the author speaks of himself as next after the successors of the
apostles.

9. In them he promises also to write a commentary on Genesis. [1867] In
his book on the Passover [1868] he acknowledges that he had been urged
by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions
which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the same work he
mentions Melito and Irenaeus, and certain others, and gives extracts
from their writings.
__________________________________________________________________

[1840] On the life of Clement, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. He was a
very prolific writer, as we can gather from the list of works mentioned
in this chapter. The list is repeated by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 38)
and by Photius (Cod. 109-111), the former of whom merely copies from
Eusebius, with some mistakes, while the latter copies from Jerome, as
is clear from the similar variations in the titles given by the last
two from those given by Eusebius, and also by the omission in both
their lists of one work named by Eusebius (see below, note 10).
Eusebius names ten works in this chapter. In addition to these there
are extant two quotations from a work of Clement entitled peri
pronoias. There are also extant two fragments of a work peri psuches.
In the Instructor, Bk. II. chap. 10, Clement refers to a work On
Continence (ho peri enkrateias) as already written by himself, and
there is no reason to doubt that this was a separate work, for the
third book of the Stromata (to which Fabricius thinks he refers), which
treats of the same subject, was not yet written. The work is no longer
extant. In the Instructor, Bk. III. chap. 8, Clement speaks of a work
which he had written On Marriage (ho gamikos logos). It has been
thought possible that he may have referred here to his discussion of
the same subject in Bk. II. chap. 10 of the same work (see the Bishop
of Lincoln's work on Clement, p. 7), but it seems more probable that he
referred to a separate work now lost. Potter, p. 1022, gives a fragment
which is possibly from this work. In addition to these works, referred
to as already written, Clement promises to write on First Principles
(peri archon; Strom. III. 3, IV. 1, 13, V. 14, et al.); on Prophecy
(Strom. I. 24, IV. 13, V. 13); on Angels (Strom. VI. 13); on the Origin
of the World (Strom. VI. 18),--perhaps a part of the proposed work on
First Principles, and perhaps to be identified with the commentary on
Genesis, referred to below by Eusebius (see note 28),--Against Heresies
(Strom. IV. 13), on the Resurrection (Instructor, I. 6, II. 10). It is
quite possible that Clement regarded his promises as fulfilled by the
discussions which he gives in various parts of the Stromata themselves,
or that he gave up his original purpose.

[1841] Clement's three principal works, the Exhortation to the Greeks
(see below, note 5), the Instructor (note 6), and the Stromata, form a
connected series of works, related to one another (as Schaff says) very
much as apologetics, ethics, and dogmatics. The three works were
composed in the order named. The Stromata (Stromateis) or Miscellanies
(said by Eusebius in this passage to bear the title ton kata ten alethe
philosophian gnostikon hupomnemEURton stromateis) are said by Eusebius
and by Photius (Cod. 109) to consist of eight books. Only seven are now
extant, although there exists a fragment purporting to be a part of the
eighth book, but which is in reality a portion of a treatise on logic,
while in the time of Photius some reckoned the tract Quis dives
salvetur as the eighth book (Photius, Cod. 111). There thus exists no
uniform tradition as to the character of the lost book, and the
suggestion of Westcott seems plausible, that at an early date the
logical introduction to the Hypotyposes was separated from the
remainder of the work, and added to some mss. of the Stromata as an
eighth book. If this be true, the Stromata consisted originally of only
seven books, and hence we now have the whole work (with the exception
of a fragment lost at the beginning). The name Stromateis, "patchwork,"
sufficiently indicates the character of the work. It is without
methodical arrangement, containing a heterogeneous mixture of science,
philosophy, poetry, and theology, and yet is animated by one idea
throughout,--that Christianity satisfies the highest intellectual
desires of man,--and hence the work is intended in some sense as a
guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, the knowledge to be
sought after by the "true Gnostic." It is full of rich thoughts mingled
with worthless crudities, and, like nearly all of Clement's works,
abounds in wide and varied learning, not always fully digested. The
date at which the work was composed may be gathered from a passage in
Bk. I. chap. 21, where a list of the Roman emperors is closed with a
mention of Commodus, the exact length of whose reign is given, showing
that he was already dead, but also showing apparently that his
successor was still living. This would lead us to put the composition
at least of the first book in the first quarter of the year 193. It
might of course be said that Pertinax and Didius Julianus are omitted
in this list because of the brevity of their reigns, and this is
possible, since in his own list he gives the reigns of the emperors
simply by years, omitting Otho and Vitellius. The other list which he
quotes, however, gives every emperor, with the number of years, months,
and even days of each reign, so that there is no reason, at least in
that list, for the omission of Pertinax and Didius Julianus. It seems
probable that, under the influence of that exact list, and of the
recentness of the reigns of the two emperors named, Clement can hardly
have omitted them if they had already ruled. We can say with absolute
certainty, however, only that the work was written after 192. Clement
left Alexandria in 202, or before, and this, as well as the rest of his
works, was written in all probability before that time at the latest.
The standard edition of Clement's works is that of Potter, Oxford,
1715, in two vols. (reprinted in Migne's Patr. Gr., Vols. VIII. and
IX.). Complete English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer.
ed., Vol. II. On his writings, see especially Westcott's article in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. and for the literature on the subject Schaff's
Ch. Hist. II. 781.

[1842] The Hypotyposes (hupotuposeis), or Outlines (Eusebius calls them
hoi epigegrammenoi hupotuposeon autou logoi), are no longer extant,
though fragments have been preserved. The work (which was in eight
books, according to this passage) is referred to by Eusebius, in Bk. I.
chap. 12 (the fifth book), in Bk. II. chap. 1 (the sixth and seventh
books), in Bk. II. chaps. 9 and 23 (the seventh book), chap. 15 (the
sixth book), in Bk. V. chap. 11, and in Bk. VI. chap. 14 (the book not
specified). Most of these extracts are of a historical character, but
have to do (most of them, not all) with the apostolic age, or the New
Testament. We are told in chap. 14 that the work contained abridged
accounts of all the Scriptures, but Photius (Cod. 109) says that it
seems to have dealt only with Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms,
Ecclesiastes, the epistles of Paul, and the Catholic epistles (ho de
holos skopos hosanei hermeneiai tunchEURnousi tes Gegeseos k.t.l.).
Besides the detached quotations there are extant three series of
extracts which are supposed to have been taken from the Hypotyposes.
These are The Summaries from Theodotus, The Prophetic Selections, and
the Outlines on the Catholic Epistles. On these fragments, which are
very corrupt and desultory, see Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
They discuss all sorts of doctrines, and contain the interpretations of
the most various schools, and it is not always clearly stated whether
Clement himself adopts the opinion given, or whether he is simply
quoting from another for the purpose of refuting him. Photius condemns
parts of the Hypotyposes severely, but it seems, from these extracts
which we have, that he may have read the work, full as it was of the
heretical opinions of other men and schools, without distinguishing
Clement's own opinions from those of others, and that thus he may
carelessly have attributed to him all the wild notions which he
mentions. These extracts as well as the various references of Eusebius
show that the work, like most of the others which Clement wrote,
covered a great deal of ground, and included discussions of a great
many collateral subjects. It does not seem, in fact, to have been much
more systematic than the Instructor or even the Stromata. It seems to
have been intended as a part of the great series, of which the
Exhortation, Instructor, and Stromata were the first three. If so, it
followed them. We have no means of ascertaining its date more exactly.

[1843] Pantaenus, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.

[1844] The Exhortation to the Greeks (ho logos protreptikos pros
;'Ellenas), the first of the series of three works mentioned in note 2,
is still extant in its entirety. It is called by Jerome (de vir. ill.
chap. 38) Adversus Gentes, liber unus, but, as Westcott remarks, it was
addressed not to the Gentiles in general, but to the Greeks, as its
title and its contents alike indicate. The general aim of the book is
to "prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and
philosophies of heathendom," and thus to lead the unbeliever to accept
it. It is full of Greek mythology and speculation, and exhibits, as
Schaff says, almost a waste of learning. It was written before the
Instructor, as we learn from a reference to it in the latter (chap. 1).
It is stated above (Bk. V. chap. 28, S:4), by the anonymous writer
against the Artemonites, that Clement wrote (at least some of his
works) before the time of Victor of Rome (i.e. before 192 a.d.), and
hence Westcott concludes that this work was written about 190, which
cannot be far out of the way.

[1845] The Instructor (ho paidagogos, or, as Eusebius calls it here,
treis te oi tou epigegrammenou paidagogou), is likewise extant, in
three books. The work is chiefly of a moral and practical character,
designed to furnish the new convert with rules for the proper conduct
of his life over against the prevailing immoralities of the heathen.
Its date is approximately fixed by the fact that it was written after
the Exhortation to which it refers, and before the Stromata, which
refers to it (see Strom. VI. 1).

[1846] The Quis Dives Salvetur? as it is called (tis ho sozomenos
plousios), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in Mark x.
17 sqq. It is still extant, and contains the beautiful story of John
and the robber, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 23. It is an
eloquent and able work; and when compared with the prevailing notions
of the Church of his day, its teaching is remarkably wise and
temperate. It is moderately ascetic, but goes to no extremes, and in
this furnishes a pleasing contrast to the writings of most of the
Fathers of Clement's time.

[1847] to peri tou pEURscha sungramma. This work is no longer extant,
nor had Photius seen it, although he reports that he had heard of it.
Two fragments of it are found in the Chronicon Paschale, and are given
by Potter. The work was composed, according to S:9, below, at the
instigation of friends, who urged him to commit to writing the
traditions which he had received from the ancient presbyters. From Bk.
IV. chap. 26, we learn that it was written in reply to Melito's work on
the same subject (see notes 5 and 23 on that chapter); and hence we may
conclude that it was undertaken at the solicitation of friends who
desired to see the arguments presented by Melito, as a representative
of the Quartodeciman practice, refined. The date of the work we have no
means of ascertaining, for Melito's work was written early in the
sixties (see ibid.).

[1848] dialexeis peri nesteias kai peri katalalias. Photius knew both
these works by report (the second under the title peri kakologias), but
had not seen them. Jerome calls the first de jejunio disceptatio, the
second de obtrectatione liber unus. Neither of them is now extant; but
fragments of the second have been preserved, and are given by Potter.

[1849] ho protreptikos eis hupomonen e pros tous neosti bebaptismenous.
This work is mentioned neither by Jerome nor by Photius, nor has any
vestige of it been preserved, so far as we know.

[1850] ho epigegrammenos kanon ekklesiastikos, e pros tous
'Ioudaizontas. Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversum eos,
qui Judaeorum sequuntur errorum. Photius mentions the work; calling it
peri kanonon ekklesiastikon, but he had not himself seen it. It is no
longer extant, but a few fragments have been preserved, and are given
by Potter. Danz (De Eusebio, p. 90) refers to Clement's Stromata, lib.
VI. p. 803, ed. Potter, where he says that "the ecclesiastical canon is
the agreement or disagreement of the law and the prophets with the
testament given at the coming of Christ." Danz concludes accordingly
that in this work Clement wished to show to those who believed that the
teaching of the law and the prophets was not only different from, but
superior to the teachings of the Christian faith,--that is, to the
Judaizers,--that the writers of the Old and New Testaments were in full
harmony. This might do, were it not for the fact that the work is
directed not against Jews, but against Judaizers, i.e. Judaizing
Christians. A work to prove the Old and New Testament in harmony with
each other could hardly have been addressed to such persons, who must
have believed them in harmony before they became Christians. The truth
is, the phrase kanon ekklesiastikos is used by the Fathers with a great
variety of meanings, and the fact that Clement used it in one sense in
one of his works by no means proves that he always used it in the same
sense. It is more probable that the work was devoted to a discussion of
certain practices or modes of living in which the Judaizers differed
from the rest of the Church Catholic, perhaps in respect to feasts
(might a reference to the Quartodeciman practice have been perhaps
included?), fasts and other ascetic practices, observance of the Jewish
Sabbaths, &c. This use of the word in the sense of regula was very
common (see Suicer's Thesaurus). The work was dedicated, according to
Eusebius, to the bishop Alexander, mentioned above in chap. 8 and
elsewhere. This is sufficient evidence that it was written considerably
later than the three great works already referred to. Alexander was a
student of Clement's; and since he was likewise a fellow-pupil of
Origen's (see chap. 8, note 6), his student days under Clement must
have extended at least nearly to the time when Clement left Alexandria
(i.e. in or before 202. a.d.). But Clement of course cannot have
dedicated a work to him while he was still his pupil, and in fact we
shall be safe in saying that Alexander must have gained some prominence
before Clement would be led to dedicate a work to him. We think
naturally of the period which Clement spent with him while he was in
prison and before he became bishop of Jerusalem (see chap. 11). It is
quite possible that Clement's residence in Cappadocia with Alexander
had given him such an acquaintance with Judaizing heresies and
practices that he felt constrained to write against them, and at the
same time had given him such an affection for Alexander that he
dedicated his work to him.

[1851] Literally, "made a spreading" (katEURstrosin pepoietai).
Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work (Stromateis).

[1852] See note 2.

[1853] antilegomenon graphon. On the Antilegomena, see Bk. III. chap
25, note 1.

[1854] The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach were two Old
Testament apocryphal books. The Church of the first three centuries
made, on the whole, no essential difference between the books of the
Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha. We find the Fathers, almost without
exception, quoting from both indiscriminately. It is true that
catalogues were made by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, and others, which
separated the Apocrypha from the books of the Hebrew canon; but this
represented theory simply, not practice, and did not prevent even
themselves from using both classes as Scripture. Augustine went so far
as to obliterate completely all distinction between the two, in theory
as well as in practice. The only one of the early Fathers to make a
decided stand against the Apocrypha was Jerome; but he was not able to
change the common view, and the Church continued (as the Catholic
Church continues still) to use them all (with a few minor exceptions)
as Holy Scripture.

[1855] On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.

[1856] On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.

[1857] The Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.

[1858] On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note 47.

[1859] On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.

[1860] This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement: once in Strom. I.
21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the purpose of
showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that of the
Greeks, and refers to Cassian's Exegetica and Tatian's Address to the
Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject; again in Strom.
III. 13 sqq., where he is said to have been the founder of the sect of
the Docetae, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate
(peri enkrateias e peri eunouchias), in which he condemned marriage.
Here, too, he is associated with Tatian. He seems from these references
to have been, like Tatian, an apologist for Christianity, and also like
him to have gone off into an extreme asceticism, which the Church
pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 4). Whether he was
personally connected with Tatian, or is mentioned with him by Clement
simply because his views were similar, we do not know, nor can we fix
the date at which he lived. Neither of his works referred to by Clement
is now extant. Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 38) mentions the work which
Eusebius speaks of here, but says that he had not been able to find a
copy of it. It is called by Clement, in the passage referred to here by
Eusebius, 'Exegetikoi, and so Eusebius calls it in his Praef. Evang. X.
12, where he quotes from Clement. But here he speaks of it as a
chronographia, and Jerome transcribes the word without translating it.
We can gather from Clement's words (Strom. I. 21) that the work of
Cassianus dealt largely with chronology, and hence Eusebius' reference
to it under the name chronographia is quite legitimate.

[1861] On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.

[1862] The Aristobulus referred to here was an Alexandrian Jew and
Peripatetic philosopher (see the passages in Clement and Eusebius
referred to below), who lived in the second century b.c., and was the
author of Commentaries upon the Mosaic Law, the chief object of which
was to prove that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the books of Moses
(see Clement, Strom. V. 14, who refers only to Peripatetic philosophy,
which is too narrow). The work is referred to by Clement of Alexandria
(in his Stromata, I. 15; V. 14; VI. 3, &c.), by Eusebius (in his Praep.
Evang. VII. 14; VIII. 9, 10; XIII. 12, &c.), by Anatolius (as quoted by
Eusebius below, in Bk. VII. chap. 32), and by other Fathers. The work
is no longer extant, but Eusebius gives two considerable fragments of
it in his Praep. Evang. VIII. 10, and XIII. 12. See Schuerer's Gesch.
d. juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p. 760 sq. Schuerer
maintains the authenticity of the work against the attacks of many
modern critics.

[1863] On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.

[1864] Demetrius was a Grecian Jew, who wrote, toward the close of the
third century b.c., a History of Israel, based upon the Scripture
records, and with especial reference to chronology. Demetrius is
mentioned by Josephus (who, however, wrongly makes him a heathen;
contra Apionem, I. 23), by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius. His
work is no longer extant, but fragments of it are preserved by Clement
(Strom. I. 21) and by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. IX. 21 and 29). See
Schuerer, ibid. p. 730 sq.

[1865] Eupolymus was also a Jewish historian, who wrote about the
middle of the second century b.c., and is possibly to be identified
with the Eupolymus mentioned in 1 Macc. viii. 17. He wrote a History of
the Jews, which is referred to under various titles by those that
mention it, and which has consequently been resolvent into three
separate works by many scholars, but without warrant, as Schuerer has
shown. The work, like that of Aristobulus, was clearly designed to show
the dependence of Greek philosophy upon Hebrew wisdom (see Clement's
Strom. I. 23). It is no longer extant, but fragments have been
preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. 21, which gives us data
for reckoning the time at which Eupolymus wrote, and I. 23) and by
Eusebius (Praep. Evang. IX. 17, 26, 30-34, and probably 39). See
Schuerer ibid. p. 732 sq.

[1866] Eusebius is apparently still referring to Clement's Stromata. In
saying that Clement hon en to proto peri heautou deloi hos zngista tes
ton apostolon genomenou diadoches, he was perhaps thinking of the
passage in Strom. I. 1, where Clement says, "They [i.e. his teachers],
preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine, derived directly from
the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it
from the fathers (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to
us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds." Clement in
this passage does not mean to assert that his teachers were immediate
disciples of the apostles, but only that they received the traditions
of the apostles in direct descent from their immediate disciples.
Eusebius' words are a little ambiguous, but they seem to imply that he
thought that Clement was a pupil of immediate disciples of the
apostles, which Clement does not assert in this passage, and can hardly
have asserted in any passage, for he was in all probability born too
late to converse with those who had seen any of the apostles.

[1867] In his Stromata (VI. 18) Clement refers to a work on the origin
of the world, which was probably to form a part of his work On
Principles. This is perhaps the reference of which Eusebius is thinking
when he says that Clement in the Stromata promises eis ten Genesin
hupomnematieisthein. If so, Eusebius' words, which imply that Clement
promised to write a commentary on Genesis, are misleading.

[1868] On this work, see note 8.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 14

The Scriptures mentioned by Him.

1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes [1869] abridged
accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books,
[1870] --I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas
[1871] and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter. [1872]

2. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews [1873] is the work of Paul,
and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that
Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence
the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

3. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not
prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced
and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very
beginning by giving his name.

4. Farther on he says: "But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since
the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews,
Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not
subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the
Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote
to the Hebrews out of his superabundance."

5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the
earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following
manner:

6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first.
The Gospel according to Mark [1874] had this occasion. As Peter had
preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the
Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him
for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And
having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor
encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external
[1875] facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his
friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."
[1876] This is the account of Clement.

8. Again the above-mentioned Alexander, [1877] in a certain letter to
Origen, refers to Clement, and at the same time to Pantaenus, as being
among his familiar acquaintances. He writes as follows:

"For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the ancestral
friendship existing between us should remain unshaken; nay, rather
should be warmer and stronger.

9. For we know well those blessed fathers who have trodden the way
before us, with whom we shall soon be; [1878] Pantaenus, the truly
blessed man and master, and the holy Clement, my master and benefactor,
and if there is any other like them, through whom I became acquainted
with thee, the best in everything, my master and brother." [1879]

10. So much for these matters. But Adamantius, [1880] --for this also
was a name of Origen,--when Zephyrinus [1881] was bishop of Rome,
visited Rome, "desiring," as he himself somewhere says, "to see the
most ancient church of Rome."

11. After a short stay there he returned to Alexandria. And he
performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great zeal;
Demetrius, who was bishop there at that time, urging and even
entreating him to work diligently for the benefit of the brethren.
[1882]
__________________________________________________________________

[1869] See the previous chapter, note 3.

[1870] On the Antilegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament canon
in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.

[1871] On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.

[1872] On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.

[1873] On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note
17.

[1874] On the composition of the Gospel of Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15,
note 4, and with this statement of Clement as to Peter's attitude
toward its composition, compare the words of Eusebius in S:2 of that
chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).

[1875] ta somatikEUR.

[1876] See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.

[1877] Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.

[1878] We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of
this epistle both Pantaenus and Clement were dead. The latter was still
alive when Alexander wrote to the Antiochenes (see chap. 11), i.e.
about the year 211 (see note 5 on that chapter). How much longer he
lived we cannot tell. The epistle referred to here must of course have
been written at any rate subsequent to the year 211, and hence while
Alexander was bishop of Jerusalem. The expression "with whom we shall
soon be" (pros hous met' oligon esometha) seems to imply that the
epistle was written when Alexander and Origen were advanced in life,
but this cannot be pressed.

[1879] It is from this passage that we gather that Alexander was a
student of Clement's and a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8, note
6, and chap. 2, note 1). The epistle does not state this directly, but
the conclusion seems sufficiently obvious.

[1880] The name Adamantius ('AdamEURntios from adEURmas
unconquerable,hence hard, adamantine) is said by Jerome (Ep. ad Paulam,
S:3; Migne's ed. Ep. XXXIII.) to have been given him on account of his
untiring industry, by Photius (Cod. 118) on account of the invincible
force of his arguments, and by Epiphanius (Haer. LXIV. 74) to have been
vainly adopted by himself. But Eusebius' simple statement at this point
looks rather as if Adamantius was a second name which belonged to
Origen from the beginning, and had no reference to his character. We
know that two names were very common in that age. This opinion is
adopted by Tillemont, Redepenning, Westcott, and others, although many
still hold the opposite view. Another name, Chalcenterus, given to him
by Jerome in the epistle already referred to, was undoubtedly, as we
can see from the context, applied to him by Jerome, because of his
resemblance to Didymus of Alexandria (who bore that surname) in his
immense industry as an author.

[1881] On Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5. He
was bishop from about 198, or 199, to 217. This gives considerable
range for the date of Origen's visit to Rome, which we have no means of
fixing with exactness. There is no reason for supposing that Eusebius
is incorrect in putting it among the events occurring during
Caracalla's reign (211-217). On the other hand, it must have taken
place before the year 216, for in that year Origen went to Palestine
(see chap. 19, note 23) and remained there some time. Whether Origen's
visit was undertaken simply from the desire to see the church of Rome,
as Eusebius says, or in connection with matters of business, we cannot
tell.

[1882] On Demetrius' relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 15

Heraclas. [1883]

1. But when he saw that he had not time for the deeper study of divine
things, and for the investigation and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures, and also for the instruction of those who came to him,--for
coming, one after another, from morning till evening to be taught by
him, they scarcely gave him time to breathe,--he divided the multitude.
And from those whom he knew well, he selected Heraclas, who was a
zealous student of divine things, and in other respects a very learned
man, not ignorant of philosophy, and made him his associate in the work
of instruction. He entrusted to him the elementary training of
beginners, but reserved for himself the teaching of those who were
farther advanced.
__________________________________________________________________

[1883] On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 16

Origen's Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.

1. So earnest and assiduous was Origen's research into the divine words
that he learned the Hebrew language, [1884] and procured as his own the
original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the Jews. He
investigated also the works of other translators of the Sacred
Scriptures besides the Seventy. [1885] And in addition to the
well-known translations of Aquila, [1886] Symmachus, [1887] and
Theodotion, [1888] he discovered certain others which had been
concealed from remote times,--in what out-of-the-way corners I know
not,--and by his search he brought them to light. [1889]

2. Since he did not know the authors, he simply stated that he had
found this one in Nicopolis near Actium [1890] and that one in some
other place.

3. In the Hexapla [1891] of the Psalms, after the four prominent
translations, he adds not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh.
[1892] He states of one of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho
in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.

4. Having collected all of these, he divided them into sections, and
placed them opposite each other, with the Hebrew text itself. He thus
left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla. He arranged also
separately an edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the
Septuagint, in the Tetrapla. [1893]
__________________________________________________________________

[1884] Origen's study of the Hebrew, which, according to Jerome (de
vir. ill. chap. 54), was "contrary to the custom of his day and race,"
is not at all surprising. He felt that he needed some knowledge of it
as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devoted
himself, and also as a means of comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts of
the Old Testament, a labor which he regarded as very important for
polemical purposes. As to his familiarity with the Hebrew it is now
universally conceded that it was by no means so great as was formerly
supposed. He seems to have learned only about enough to enable him to
identify the Hebrew which corresponded with the Greek texts which he
used, and even in this he often makes mistakes. He sometimes confesses
openly his lack of critical and independent knowledge of the Hebrew
(e.g. Hom. in Num. XIV. 1; XVI. 4). He often makes blunders which seem
absurd, and yet in many cases he shows considerable knowledge in regard
to peculiar forms and idioms. His Hebrew learning was clearly
fragmentary and acquired from various sources. Cf. Redepenning, I. p.
365 sq.

[1885] On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.

[1886] Aquila is first mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 21. 1,
quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 8, above), who calls him a Jewish
proselyte of Pontus; Epiphanius says of Sinope in Pontus. Tradition is
uniform that he was a Jewish proselyte, and that he lived in the time
of Hadrian, or in the early part of the second century according to
Rabbinic tradition. He produced a Greek translation of the Old
Testament, which was very slavish in its adherence to the original,
sacrificing the Greek idiom to the Hebrew without mercy, and even
violating the grammatical structure of the former for the sake of
reproducing the exact form of the latter. Because of its faithfulness
to the original, it was highly prized by the Rabbinic authorities, and
became more popular among the Jews in general than the LXX. (On the
causes of the waning popularity of the latter, see note 8, below.)
Neither Aquila's version, nor the two following, are now extant; but
numerous fragments have been preserved by those Fathers who saw and
used Origen's Hexapla.

[1887] Symmachus is said by Eusebius, in the next chapter, to have been
an Ebionite; and Jerome agrees with him (Comment. in Hab., lib. II. c.
3), though the testimony of the latter is weakened by the fact that he
wrongly makes Theodotion also an Ebionite (see next note). It has been
claimed that Symmachus was a Jew, not a Christian; but Eusebius' direct
statement is too strong to be set aside, and is corroborated by certain
indications in the version itself, e.g. in Dan. ix. 26, where the word
christos, which Aquila avoids, is used. The composition of his version
is assigned by Epiphanius and the Chron. paschale to the reign of
Septimius Severus (193-211); and although not much reliance is to be
placed upon their statements, still they must be about right in this
case, for that Symmachus' version is younger than Irenaeus is rendered
highly probable by the latter's omission of it where he refers to those
of Theodotion and Aquila; and, on the other hand, it must of course
have been composed before Origen began his Hexapla. Symmachus' version
is distinguished from Aquila's by the purity of its Greek and its
freedom from Hebraisms. The author's effort was not slavishly to
reproduce the original, but to make an elegant and idiomatic Greek
translation, and in this he succeeded very well, being excellently
versed in both languages, though he sometimes sacrificed the exact
sense of the Hebrew, and occasionally altered it under the influence of
dogmatic prepossessions. The version is spoken very highly of by
Jerome, and was used freely by him in the composition of the Vulgate.
For further particulars in regard to Symmachus' version, see the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. III. p. 19 sq.

[1888] It has been disputed whether Theodotion was a Jew or a
Christian. Jerome (de vir. ill. 54, and elsewhere) calls him an
Ebionite; in his Ep. ad Augustin. c. 19 (Migne's ed. Ep. 112), a Jew;
while in the preface to his commentary on Daniel he says that some
called him an Ebionite, qui altero genere Judaeus est. Irenaeus (Adv.
Haer. III. 21. 1) and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 17) say that he was
a Jewish proselyte, which is probably true. The reports in regard to
his nationality are conflicting. The time at which he lived is
disputed. The Chron. paschale assigns him to the reign of Commodus, and
Epiphanius may also be urged in support of that date, though he commits
a serious blunder in making a second Commodus, and is thus led into
great confusion. But Theodotion, as well as Aquila, is mentioned by
Irenaeus, and hence must be pushed back well into the second century.
It has been discovered, too, that Hermas used his version (see Hort's
article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884),
which obliges us to throw it back still further, and Schuerer has
adduced some very strong reasons for believing it older than Aquila's
version (see Schuerer's Gesch. d. Juden im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p. 709).
Theodotion's version, like Aquila's, was intended to reproduce the
Hebrew more exactly than the LXX did. It is based upon the LXX,
however, which it corrects by the Hebrew, and therefore resembles the
former much more closely than Theodotion's does. We have no notices of
the use of this version by the Jews. Aquila's version (supposing it
younger than Theodotion's) seems to have superseded it entirely.
Theodotion's translation of Daniel, however, was accepted by the
Christians, instead of the LXX Daniel, and replacing the latter in all
the mss. of the LXX, has been preserved entire. Aside from this we have
only such fragments as have been preserved by the Fathers that saw and
used the Hexapla. It will be seen that the order in which Eusebius
mentions the three versions here is not chronological. He simply
follows the order in which they stand in Origen's Hexapla (see below,
note 8). Epiphanius is led by that order to make Theodotion's version
later than the other, which is quite a mistake, as has been seen. For
further particulars in regard to the versions of Aquila and Theodotion,
and for the literature of the subject, see Schuerer, ibid. p. 704 sq.

[1889] We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of the
Old Testament. Eusebius' words ("which had been concealed from remote
times," ton pEURlai lanthanousas chronon) would lead us to think them
older than the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. One of
them, Eusebius tells us, was found at Nicopolis near Actium, another in
a jar at Jericho, but where the third was discovered he did not know.
Jerome (in his Prologus in expos. Cant. Cant. sec. Originem; Origen's
works, ed. Lommatzsch, XIV. 235) reports that the "fifth edition"
(quinta editio) was found in Actio litore; but Epiphanius, who seems to
be speaking with more exact knowledge than Jerome, says that the
"fifth" was discovered at Jericho and the "sixth" in Nicopolis, near
Actium (De mens. et pond. 18). Jerome calls the authors of the "fifth"
and "sixth" Judaicos translatores, which according to his own usage
might mean either Jews or Jewish Christians (see Redepenning, p. 165),
and at any rate the author of the "sixth" was a Christian, as is clear
from his rendering of Heb. iii. 13: exelthes tou sosai ton laon sou dia
'Iesou tou christou. The "fifth" is quoted by Origen on the Psalms,
Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor prophets, Kings, &c.; the "sixth," on
the Psalms, Song of Songs, and Habakkuk, according to Field, the latest
editor of the Hexapla. Whether these versions were fragmentary, or were
used only in these particular passages for special reasons, we do not
know. Of the "seventh" no clear traces can be discovered, but it must
have been used for the Psalms at any rate, as we see from this chapter.
As to the time when these versions were found we are doubtless to
assign the discovery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit
made by Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 396). Epiphanius, who in
the present case seems to be speaking with more than customary
accuracy, puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander
(222-235). The other one, which Epiphanius calls the "fifth," was
found, according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla's reign (217)
"in jars at Jericho." We know that at this time Origen was in Palestine
(see chap. 19, note 23), and hence Epiphanius' report may well be
correct. If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the
"fifth," and the former the "sixth." The place and time of the
discovery of the "seventh" are alike unknown. For further particulars
in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field's edition of
the Hexapla, the article Hexapla in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and
Redepenning, II. 164 sq.

[1890] Nicopolis near Actium, so designated to distinguish it from a
number of other cities bearing the same name, was a city of Epirus,
lying on the northern shore of the Ambracian gulf, opposite the
promontory of Actium.

[1891] Origen's Hexapla (ta hexapla, to hexaploun, to hexaselidon, the
first form being used by Eusebius in this chapter) was a polyglot Old
Testament containing the Hebrew text, a transliteration of it in Greek
letters (important because the Hebrew text was unpointed), the versions
of Aquila, of Symmachus, of the LXX, and of Theodotion, arranged in six
columns in the order named, with the addition in certain places of a
fifth, sixth, and even seventh Greek version (see Jerome's description
of it, in his Commentary on Titus, chap. 3, ver. 9). The parts which
contained these latter versions were sometimes called Octapla (they
seem never to have borne the name nonapla.) The order of the columns
was determined by the fact that Aquila's version most closely resembled
the Hebrew, and hence was put next to it, followed by Symmachus'
version, which was based directly upon the Hebrew, but was not so
closely conformed to it; while Theodotion's version, which was based
not upon the Hebrew, but upon the LXX, naturally followed the latter.
Origen's object in undertaking this great work was not scientific, but
polemic; it was not for the sake of securing a correct Hebrew text, but
for the purpose of furnishing adequate means for the reconstruction of
the original text of the LXX, which in his day was exceedingly corrupt.
It was Origen's belief, and he was not alone in his opinion (cf. Justin
Martyr's Dial. with Trypho, chap. 71), that the Hebrew Old Testament
had been seriously altered by the Jews, and that the LXX (an inspired
translation, as it was commonly held to be by the Christians) alone
represented the true form of Scripture. For two centuries before and
more than a century after Christ the LXX stood in high repute among the
Jews, even in Palestine, and outside of Palestine had almost completely
taken the place of the original Hebrew. Under the influence of its
universal use among the Jews the Christians adopted it, and looked upon
it as inspired Scripture just as truly as if it had been in the
original tongue. Early in the second century (as Schuerer points out)
various causes were at work to lessen its reputation among the Jews.
Chief among these were first, the growing conservative reaction against
all non-Hebraic culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic
schools of the second century; and second, the ever-increasing
hostility to Christianity. The latter cause tended to bring the LXX
into disfavor with the Jews, because it was universally employed by the
Christians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many cases
where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less support to
the particular doctrine defended. It was under the influence of this
reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began even before the
second century, that the various versions already mentioned took their
rise. Aquila especially aimed to keep the Hebrew text as pure as
possible, while making it accessible to the Greek-speaking Jews, who
had hitherto been obliged to rely upon the LXX. It will be seen that
the Christians and the Jews, who originally accepted the same
Scriptures, would gradually draw apart, the one party still holding to
the LXX, the other going back to the original; and the natural
consequence of this was that the Jews taunted the Christians with using
only a translation which did not agree with the original, and therefore
was of no authority, while the Christians, on the other hand, accused
the Jews of falsifyng their Scriptures, which should agree with the
more pure and accurate LXX. Under these circumstances, Origen conceived
the idea that it would be of great advantage to the Christians, in
their polemics against the Jews, to know more accurately than they did
the true form of the LXX text, and the extent and nature of its
variations from the Hebrew. As the matter stood everything was
indefinite, for no one knew to exactly what extent the two differed,
and no one knew, in the face of the numerous variant texts, the precise
form of the LXX itself (cf. Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq.). The Hebrew
text given by Origen seems to have been the vulgar text, and to have
differed little from that in use to-day. With the LXX it was different.
Here Origen made a special effort to ascertain the most correct text,
and did not content himself with giving simply one of the numerous
texts extant, for he well knew that all were more or less corrupt. But
his method was not to throw out of the text all passages not well
supported by the various witnesses, but rather to enrich the text from
all available sources, thus making it as full as possible. Wherever,
therefore, the Hebrew contained a passage omitted in the LXX, he
inserted in the latter the translation of the passage, taken from one
of the other versions, marking the addition with "obeli"; and wherever,
on the other hand, the fullest LXX text which he had contained more
than the Hebrew and the other versions combined, he allowed the
redundant passage to stand, but marked it with asterisks. The Hexapla
as a whole seems never to have been reproduced, but the LXX text as
contained in the fifth column was multiplied many times, especially
under the direction of Pamphilus and Eusebius (who had the original ms.
at Caesarea), and this recension came into common use. It will be seen
that Origen's process must have wrought great confusion in the text of
the LXX; for future copyists, in reproducing the text given by Origen,
would be prone to neglect the critical signs, and give the whole as the
correct form of the LXX; and critical editors to-day find it very
difficult to reach even the form of the LXX text used by Origen. The
Hexapla is no longer extant. When the Caesarean ms. of it perished we
do not know. Jerome saw it, and made large use of it, but after his
time we have no further trace of it, and it probably perished with the
rest of the Caesarean library before the end of the seventh century,
perhaps considerably earlier. Numerous editions have been published of
the fragments of the Hexapla, taken from the works of the Fathers, from
Scholia in mss. of the LXX, and from a Syriac version of the Hexaplar
LXX, which is still in large part extant. The best edition is that of
Field, in two vols., Oxford, 1875. His prolegomena contain the fullest
and most accurate information in regard to the Hexapla. Comp. also
Taylor's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, II. p.
156 sq. Origen seems to have commenced his great work in Alexandria.
This is implied by the account of Eusebius, and is stated directly by
Epiphanius (Haer. LXIV. 3), who says that this was the first work which
he undertook at the solicitation of Ambrose (see chap. 18). We may
accept this as in itself quite probable, for there could be no better
foundation for his exegetical labors than just such a piece of critical
work, and the numerous scribes furnished him by Ambrose (see chap. 18)
may well have devoted themselves largely to this very work, as
Redepenning remarks. But the work was by no means completed at once.
The time of his discovery of the other versions of the Old Testament
(see above, note 6) in itself shows that he continued his labor upon
the great edition for many years (the late discovery of these versions
may perhaps explain the fact that he did not use them in connection
with all the books of the Old Testament?); and Epiphanius (de mens. et
pond. 18) says that he was engaged upon it for twenty-eight years, and
completed it at Tyre. This is quite likely, and will explain the fact
that the ms. of the work remained in the Caesarean library. Field,
however, maintains that our sources do not permit us to fix the time or
place either of the commencement or of the completion of the work with
any degree of accuracy (see p. xlviii. sq.).

[1892] Valesius remarks that there is an inconsistency here, and that
it should be said "not only a fifth and sixth, but also a seventh." All
the mss. and versions, however, support the reading of the text, and we
must therefore suppose the inconsistency (if there is one, which is
doubtful) to be Eusebius' own, not that of a scribe.

[1893] Greek: en tois tetraplois epikataskeuEURsas. The last word
indicates that the Tetrapla was prepared after, not before, the Hexapla
(cf. Valesius in hoc loco), and Redepenning (p. 175 sq.) gives other
satisfactory reasons for this conclusion. The design seems to have been
simply to furnish a convenient abridgment of larger work, fitted for
those who did not read Hebrew; that is, for the great majority of
Christians, even scholars.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 17

The Translator Symmachus. [1894]

As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an
Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts
that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man,
and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have
seen already in this history. [1895] Commentaries of Symmachus are
still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking
the Gospel of Matthew. [1896] Origen states that he obtained these and
other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain
Juliana, [1897] who, he says, received the books by inheritance from
Symmachus himself.
__________________________________________________________________

[1894] On Symmachus, see the previous chapter, note 4.

[1895] In Bk. III. chap. 27. For a discussion of Ebionism, see the
notes on that chapter.

[1896] On the attitude of the Ebionites toward the Canonical Gospel of
Matthew (to which of course Eusebius here refers), see ibid. note 8.
All traces of this work and of Symmachus' "other interpretations of
Scripture" (allon eis tas graphas hermeneion), mentioned just below,
have vanished. We must not include Symmachus' translation of the Old
Testament in these other works (as has been done by Huet and others),
for there is no hint either in this passage or in that of Palladius
(see next note) of a reference to that version, which was, like those
of Aquila and Theodotion, well known in Origen's time (see the previous
chapter).

[1897] This Juliana is known to us only from this passage and from
Palladius, Hist. Laus. 147. Palladius reports, on the authority of an
entry written by Origen himself, which he says he found in an ancient
book (en palaiotEURto bibli& 251; stichero), that Juliana was a virgin
of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and that she gave refuge to Origen in the
time of some persecution. If this account is to be relied upon,
Origen's sojourn in the lady's house is doubtless to be assigned, with
Huet, to the persecution of Maximinus (235-238; see below, chap. 28,
note 2). It must be confessed, however, that in the face of the
absolute silence of Eusebius and others, the story has a suspicious
look.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 18

Ambrose.

1. About this time Ambrose, [1898] who held the heresy of Valentinus,
[1899] was convinced by Origen's presentation of the truth, and, as if
his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of
the Church.

2. Many others also, drawn by the fame of Origen's learning, which
resounded everywhere, came to him to make trial of his skill in sacred
literature. And a great many heretics, and not a few of the most
distinguished philosophers, studied under him diligently, receiving
instruction from him not only in divine things, but also in secular
philosophy.

3. For when he perceived that any persons had superior intelligence he
instructed them also in philosophic branches--in geometry, arithmetic,
and other preparatory studies--and then advanced to the systems [1900]
of the philosophers and explained their writings. And he made
observations and comments upon each of them, so that he became
celebrated as a great philosopher even among the Greeks themselves.

4. And he instructed many of the less learned in the common school
branches, [1901] saying that these would be no small help to them in
the study and understanding of the Divine Scriptures. On this account
he considered it especially necessary for himself to be skilled in
secular and philosophic learning. [1902]
__________________________________________________________________

[1898] Of the early life of Ambrose, the friend of Origen, we know
nothing. We learn from Origen's Exhortatio ad Martyr. c. 14, and
Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 56, that he was of a wealthy and noble family
(cf. chap. 23 of this book), and from the Exhort. ad Mart. c. 36, that
he probably held some high official position. Eusebius says here that
he was for some time a Valentinian, Jerome that he was a Marcionite,
others give still different reports. However that was, the authorities
all agree that he was converted to the orthodox faith by Origen, and
that he remained devoted to him for the rest of his life. From chap. 23
we learn that he urged Origen to undertake the composition of
commentaries on the Scriptures, and that he furnished ample pecuniary
means for the prosecution of the work. He was also himself a diligent
student, as we gather from that chapter (cf. also Jerome, de vir. ill.
c. 56). From chap. 28 we learn that he was a confessor in the
persecution of Maximinus (Jerome calls him also a deacon), and it seems
to have been in Caesarea or its neighborhood that he suffered, whither
he had gone undoubtedly on account of his affection for Origen, who was
at that time there (cf. the Exhort. c. 41). He is mentioned for the
last time in the dedication and conclusion of Origen's Contra Celsum,
which was written between 246 and 250 (see chap. 36, below). Jerome
(l.c.) states that he died before Origen, so that he cannot have lived
long after this. He left no writings, except some epistles which are no
longer extant. Jerome, however, in his Ep. ad Marcellam, S:1 (Migne's
ed., Ep. 43), attributes to Ambrose an epistle, a fragment of which is
extant under the name of Origen (to whom it doubtless belongs) and
which is printed in Lommatzsch's edition of Origen's works, Vol. XVII.
p. 5. Origen speaks of him frequently as a man of education and of
literary tastes and devoted to the study of the Scriptures, and Jerome
says of himnon inelegantis ingenii fuit, sicut ejus ad Origenen
epistolae indicio sunt (l.c.). The affection which Origen felt for him
is evinced by many notices in his works and by the fact that he
dedicated to him the Exhortatio ad Martyr., on the occasion of his
suffering under Maximinus. It was also at Ambrose's solicitation that
he wrote his great work against Celsus, which he likewise dedicated to
him.

[1899] On Valentinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 1.

[1900] Greek, aireseis

[1901] enkuklia grEURmmata; "the circle of those arts and sciences
which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go through before
applying to any professional studies" (Liddell and Scott, defining enk.
paideia).

[1902] On Origen's education, see p. 392, below.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 19

Circumstances Related of Origen.

1. The Greek philosophers of his age are witnesses to his proficiency
in these subjects. We find frequent mention of him in their writings.
Sometimes they dedicated their own works to him; again, they submitted
their labors to him as a teacher for his judgment.

2. Why need we say these things when even Porphyry, [1903] who lived in
Sicily in our own times and wrote books against us, attempting to
traduce the Divine Scriptures by them, mentions those who have
interpreted them; and being unable in any way to find a base accusation
against the doctrines, for lack of arguments turns to reviling and
calumniating their interpreters, attempting especially to slander
Origen, whom he says he knew in his youth.

3. But truly, without knowing it, he commends the man; telling the
truth about him in some cases where he could not do otherwise; but
uttering falsehoods where he thinks he will not be detected. Sometimes
he accuses him as a Christian; again he describes his proficiency in
philosophic learning. But hear his own words:

4. "Some persons, desiring to find a solution of the baseness of the
Jewish Scriptures rather than abandon them, have had recourse to
explanations inconsistent and incongruous with the words written, which
explanations, instead of supplying a defense of the foreigners, contain
rather approval and praise of themselves. For they boast that the plain
words of Moses are enigmas, and regard them as oracles full of hidden
mysteries; and having bewildered the mental judgment by folly, they
make their explanations." Farther on he says:

5. "As an example of this absurdity take a man whom I met when I was
young, and who was then greatly celebrated and still is, on account of
the writings which he has left. I refer to Origen, who is highly
honored by the teachers of these doctrines.

6. For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius, [1904] who had
attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day,
derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences;
but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to
his.

7. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian
parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway
conformed to the life required by the laws. But Origen, having been
educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian
recklessness. [1905] And carrying over the learning which he had
obtained, he hawked it about, in his life conducting himself as a
Christian and contrary to the laws, but in his opinions of material
things and of the Deity being like a Greek, and mingling Grecian
teachings with foreign fables. [1906]

8. For he was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with
the writings of Numenius [1907] and Cronius, [1908] Apollophanes,
[1909] Longinus, [1910] Moderatus, [1911] and Nicomachus, [1912] and
those famous among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chaeremon
[1913] the Stoic, and of Cornutus. [1914] Becoming acquainted through
them with the figurative interpretation of the Grecian mysteries, he
applied it to the Jewish Scriptures." [1915]

9. These things are said by Porphyry in the third book of his work
against the Christians. [1916] He speaks truly of the industry and
learning of the man, but plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not
an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that he went over from the
Greeks, [1917] and that Ammonius fell from a life of piety into heathen
customs.

10. For the doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents, as
we have shown above. And Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken
and unadulterated to the end of his life. [1918] His works yet extant
show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has
left. For example, the work entitled The Harmony of Moses and Jesus,
and such others as are in the possession of the learned.

11. These things are sufficient to evince the slander of the false
accuser, and also the proficiency of Origen in Grecian learning. He
defends his diligence in this direction against some who blamed him for
it, in a certain epistle, [1919] where he writes as follows:

12. "When I devoted myself to the word, and the fame of my proficiency
went abroad, and when heretics and persons conversant with Grecian
learning, and particularly with philosophy, came to me, it seemed
necessary that I should examine the doctrines of the heretics, and what
the philosophers say concerning the truth.

13. And in this we have followed Pantaenus, [1920] who benefited many
before our time by his thorough preparation in such things, and also
Heraclas, [1921] who is now a member of the presbytery of Alexandria. I
found him with the teacher of philosophic learning, with whom he had
already continued five years before I began to hear lectures on those
subjects. [1922]

14. And though he had formerly worn the common dress, he laid it aside
and assumed and still wears the philosopher's garment; [1923] and he
continues the earnest investigation of Greek works."

He says these things in defending himself for his study of Grecian
literature.

15. About this time, while he was still at Alexandria, a soldier came
and delivered a letter from the governor of Arabia [1924] to Demetrius,
bishop of the parish, and to the prefect of Egypt who was in office at
that time, requesting that they would with all speed send Origen to him
for an interview. Being sent by them, he went to Arabia. And having in
a short time accomplished the object of his visit, he returned to
Alexandria.

16. But sometime after a considerable war broke out in the city, [1925]
and he departed from Alexandria. And thinking that it would be unsafe
for him to remain in Egypt, he went to Palestine and abode in Caesarea.
While there the bishops of the church in that country [1926] requested
him to preach and expound the Scriptures publicly, although he had not
yet been ordained as presbyter. [1927]

17. This is evident from what Alexander, [1928] bishop of Jerusalem and
Theoctistus [1929] of Caesarea, wrote to Demetrius [1930] in regard to
the matter, defending themselves thus:

"He has stated in his letter that such a thing was never heard of
before, neither has hitherto taken place, that laymen should preach in
the presence of bishops. I know not how he comes to say what is plainly
untrue.

18. For whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are found, they
are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people. Thus in
Laranda, Euelpis by Neon; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus; and in
Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed brethren. [1931] And probably
this has been done in other places unknown to us."

He was honored in this manner while yet a young man, not only by his
countrymen, but also by foreign bishops. [1932]

19. But Demetrius sent for him by letter, and urged him through members
and deacons of the church to return to Alexandria. So he returned and
resumed his accustomed duties.
__________________________________________________________________

[1903] Porphyry, one of the most distinguished of the Neo-Platonists,
disciple, biographer, and expounder of Plotinus, was born in 232 or 233
in the Orient (perhaps at Tyre), and at the age of thirty went to Rome,
where he came into connection with Plotinus, and spent a large part of
his life. He was a man of wide and varied learning; and though not an
original thinker, he was a clear and vigorous writer and expounder of
the philosophy of Plotinus. It may be well, at this point, to say a
word about that remarkable school or system of philosophy, of which
Plotinus was the greatest master and Porphyry the chief expounder.
Neo-Platonism was the most prominent phenomenon of the age in the
philosophic world. The object of the Neo-Platonists was both
speculative and practical: on the one side to elaborate an eclectic
system of philosophy which should reconcile Platonism and
Aristotelianism, and at the same time do justice to elements of truth
in other schools of thought; on the other side, to revivify and
strengthen the old paganism by idealizing and purifying it for the sake
of the philosophers, and at the same time by giving it a firmer
philosophic basis than it had hitherto possessed. Neo-Platonism, taken
as a whole, has therefore both a philosophic and a religious motive. It
may be defined in the briefest terms, in its philosophic aspect, as an
eclectic revival of Greek metaphysics (especially
Platonic-Aristotelian), modified by the influence of Oriental
philosophy and of Christianity; in its religious aspect, as an attempt
to restore and regenerate paganism by means of philosophy. In its
earlier and better days, the philosophic element greatly
predominated,--in fact, the religious element may be said to have been,
in large part, a later growth; but gradually the latter came more and
more into the foreground, until, under Jamblichus (d. 330 a.d.), the
chief master of the Syrian school, Neo-Platonism degenerated into a
system of religious mysteries, in which theurgic practices played a
prominent part. Under Proclus (d. 485), the great master of the
Athenian school, the philosophic element was again emphasized; but
Aristotelianism now gained the predominance, and the system became a
sort of scholastic art, and gradually degenerated into pure formalism,
until it finally lost all influence. The extent of the influence which
Christianity exerted upon Neo-Platonism is a greatly disputed point. We
shall, perhaps, come nearest the truth if we say that its influence was
in the main not direct, but that it was nevertheless real, inasmuch as
it had introduced problems up to that time undiscussed, with which
Neo-Platonism busied itself; in fact, it may almost be said that
Neo-Platonism was at first little more than (Aristotelian-) Platonism
busying itself with the new problems of salvation and redemption which
Christianity had thrown into the world of thought. It was un-Christian
at first (it became under Porphyry and later Neo-Platonists
anti-Christian), because it solved these problems in a way different
from the Christian way. This will explain the fact that all through,
whether in the more strictly philosophic system of Plotinus, or in the
more markedly religious and theurgic system of Jamblichus, there ran a
vein of mysticism, the conception of an intimate union with the supreme
God as the highest state to which man can attain. Porphyry, with whom
we are at present concerned, was eminently practical in his thinking.
The end of philosophy with him was not knowledge, but holiness, the
salvation of the soul. He recommended a moderate asceticism as a chief
means of freeing the soul from the bonds of matter, and thus permitting
it to rise to union with God. At the same time, he did not advise the
neglect of the customary religious rites of Paganism, which might aid
in the elevation of the spirit of man toward the deity. It was with
Porphyry that Neo-Platonism first came into direct conflict with
Christianity, and its enmity against the latter goes far to explain the
increasing emphasis which he and the Neo-Platonists who followed him
laid upon religious rites and practices. Its philosophy, its solution
of the great problems of the age, was essentially and radically
different from that of Christianity; and although at first they might
run alongside one another as independent schools, without much thought
of conflict, it was inevitable that in time the rivalry, and then the
active hostility, should come. Neo-Platonism, like Christianity, had a
solution of the great problem of living to offer to the world,--in an
age of unexampled corruption, when thoughtful men were all seeking for
a solution,--and each was essentially exclusive of the other. The
attack, therefore, could not be long delayed. Porphyry seems to have
begun it in his famous work in fifteen books, now lost, which was
answered in extenso by Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius, and Apolinarius of
Laodicea. The answers, too, have perished; but from extant fragments we
are able to see that Porphyry's attack was very learned and able. He
endeavored to point out the inconsistencies in the sacred narrative, in
order to discredit its divine origin. At the same time, he treated
Christ with the greatest respect, and ranked him very high as a sage
(though only human), and found much that was good in his teaching.
Augustine (De consensu Evang. I. 15) says that the Neo-Platonists
praised Christ, but railed at his disciples (cf. Eusebius' words in
this chapter). Porphyry was a very prolific writer; but only a few of
his works are now extant, chief among them the aphormai pros ta
noetEUR, or Sententiae, a brief but comprehensive exposition of his
philosophic system. We learn from this chapter that he had met Origen
when very young (he was but about twenty when Origen died); where, we
do not know. He lived to be at least sixty-eight years old (see his
Vita Plot. 23), and Suidas says that he died under Diocletian, i.e.
before 305 a.d. On Porphyry and Neo-Platonism in general, see the great
works of Vacherot (Hist. critique de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie) and Simon
(Hist. de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie); also Zeller's Philosophie der
Griechen, and especially Erdmann's History of Philosophy (Engl. trans.,
London, 1889).

[1904] Of the life of Ammonius Saccas, the "father of Neo-Platonism"
very little is known. He is said by Suidas (s. v. Origenes) and by
Ammianus Marcellinus to have been a porter in his youth and to have
gained his second name from his occupation. That he was of Christian
parents and afterward embraced paganism is stated in this passage by
Porphyry, though Eusebius (S:10, below) and Jerome assert that he
remained a Christian. From all that we know of the teachings of
Ammonius Saccas as reported to us by Plotinus and other Neo-Platonists,
we cannot imagine him to have remained a Christian. The only solution
of the difficulty then is to suppose Eusebius (whom Jerome follows) to
have confounded him with a Christian of the same name who wrote the
works which Eusebius mentions (see note 16). Ammonius was an
Alexandrian by birth and residence, and died in 243. His teaching was
of a lofty and noble character, to judge from Plotinus' descriptions,
and as a teacher he was wonderfully fascinating. He numbered among his
pupils Herennius, Longinus, the pagan Origen, and Plotinus. The
Christian Origen also studied under him for a time, according to this
passage. He wrote nothing (according to the Vita Plot, c. 20), and
hence we have to rely solely upon the reports of his disciples and
successors for our knowledge of his system. It is difficult in the
absence of all direct testimony to ascertain his teaching with
exactness. Plotinus claims to give only what he learned from Ammonius,
but it is evident, from his disagreement in many points with others of
Ammonius' disciples, that the system taught by him was largely modified
by his own thinking. It is clear that Ammonius, who undoubtedly took
much from his great master, Numenius, endeavored to reconcile Plato and
Aristotle, thus laying the basis for the speculative eclecticism of
Neo-Platonism, while at the same time there must have been already in
his teaching the same religious and mystical element which was present
to some extent in all his disciples, and which played so large a part
in Neo-Platonism.

[1905] to bEURrbaron tolmema. Porphyry means to say that Origen was
originally a heathen, and was afterward converted to Christianity; but
this is refuted by the universal tradition of antiquity, and is clearly
a mistake, as Eusebius (who calls it a "falsehood") remarks below.
Porphyry's supposition, in the absence of definite knowledge, is not at
all surprising, for Origen's attainments in secular learning were such
as apparently only a pagan youth could or would have acquired.

[1906] On Origen's Greek culture, see p. 392, and also his own words
quoted below in S:12 sq.

[1907] Numenius was a philosopher of Syria, who lived about the middle
of the second century, and who exerted great influence over Plotinus
and others of the Neo-Platonists. He was, perhaps, the earliest of the
Orientalizing Greek philosophers whose thinking was affected by the
influence of Christian ideas, and as such occupies an important place
in the development of philosophy, which prepared the way for
Neo-Platonism. His object seems to have been to reconcile Pythagoras
and Plato by tracing the doctrines of the latter back to the former,
and also to exhibit their agreement with Jewish and other Oriental
forms of thought. It is significant that he was called by the Church
Fathers a Pythagorean, and that he himself called Plato a
Greek-speaking Moses (cf. Erdmann's Hist. of Phil. I. p. 236). He was a
prolific writer, but only fragments of his works are extant. Numerous
extracts from the chief of them (peri tagathou) have been preserved by
Eusebius in his Praep. Evang. (see Heinichen's ed. Index I.).

[1908] Of Cronius, a celebrated Pythagorean philosopher, apparently a
contemporary of Numenius, and closely related to him in his thinking,
we know very little. A brief account of him is given by Porphyry in his
Vita Plot. 20.

[1909] The Apollophanes referred to here was a Stoic philosopher of
Antioch who lived in the third century b.c., and was a disciple of
Ariston of Chios. None of his writings are extant.

[1910] Longinus was a celebrated philosopher and rhetorician of Athens,
who was born about 213 and died in 273 a.d. He traveled widely in his
youth, and was for a time a pupil of Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria; but
he remained a genuine Platonist, and seems not to have been influenced
by the eclecticism of the Neo-Platonists. He was a man of marked
ability, of the broadest culture, and a thorough master of Greek style.
Of his numerous writings we possess a large part of one beautiful work
entitled peri hupsous (often published), and fragments of some others
(e.g. in Eusebius' Praep. Evang. XV. 21). Longinus was the teacher of
Porphyry before the latter went to Rome to study under Plotinus.
Porphyry has made a mistake in classing Longinus with those other
philosophers whose works Origen studied. He was a younger contemporary
of Origen, and cannot even have studied with Ammonius until after
Origen had left Alexandria. It is possible, of course, that Origen in
later life read some of his works; but Porphyry evidently means that
the works of all the philosophers, Longinus among them, had an
influence upon Origen's intellectual development. Heinichen reads
'Albinou instead of Longinou in his text, on the assumption that
Porphyry cannot possibly have written Longinou; but the latter word has
the support of all the mss. and versions, and there is no warrant for
making the change. We must simply conclude that Porphyry, who, of
course, is not pretending to give an exact list of all the
philosophical works which Origen had read, classes Longinus, the
celebrated philosopher, along with the rest, as one whose works such a
student of Greek philosophy as Origen must have read, without thinking
of the serious anachronism involved.

[1911] Moderatus was a distinguished Pythagorean philosopher of the
first century after Christ, whose works (no longer extant) were not
without influence over some of the Neo-Platonists.

[1912] Nicomachus was a Pythagorean of the first (or second?) century
after Christ, who gained great fame as a mathematician and exerted
considerable influence upon European studies in the fifteenth century.
Two of his works, one on arithmetic and the other on music, are extant,
and have been published.

[1913] Chaeremon was a Stoic philosopher and historian of Alexandria
who lived during the first century after Christ. He was for a time
librarian at the Serapeum in Alexandria, and afterward went to Rome to
become a tutor of Nero. His chief writings were a history of Egypt, a
work on Hieroglyphics, and another on Comets (mentioned by Origen in
his Contra Cels. I. 59). He also wrote on grammatical subjects. His
works, with the exception of a fragment of the first, are no longer
extant. Cf. Eusebius' Praef. Evang. V. 10, and Suidas,s.v. 'Origenes.

[1914] Cornutus a distinguished Stoic philosopher, lived and taught in
Rome during the reign of Nero, and numbered among his pupils and
friends the poet Persius. Most of his numerous works have perished, but
one on the Nature of the Gods is still extant in a mutilated form (see
Gall's Opuscula). See Suidas (s.v. Kornoutos) and Dion Cassius, XLII.
29.

[1915] Origen was not the first to interpret the Scriptures
allegorically. The method began among the Alexandrian Jews some time
before the Christian era, the effort being made to reconcile the Mosaic
revelation with Greek philosophy, and to find in the former the
teachings of the latter. This effort appears in many of the apocryphal
books, but the great exponent of the method was the Alexandrian Philo.
It was natural that the early Christians, especially in Alexandria,
should be influenced by this already existing method of interpretation,
which enabled them to make of the Old Testament a Christian book, and
to find in it all the teachings of the Gospel. Undoubtedly the Old
Testament owes partly to this principle of interpretation its adoption
by the Christian Church. Had it been looked upon as the Jewish
Scriptures only, containing Jewish national history, and in large part
Jewish national prophecy, it could never have retained its hold upon
the early Church, which was so bitterly hostile to all that savored of
Judaism. The early Gentile Christians were taught from the beginning by
Jewish Christians who could not do otherwise than look upon their
national Scriptures as divine, that those Scriptures contained
prophecies of Jesus Christ, and hence those Gentile Christians accepted
them as divine. But it must be remembered that they could of course
have no meaning to these Gentile Christians except as they did prophesy
of Christian things or contain Christian teaching. They could not be
content to find Christian prophecy in one part and only Jewish history
or Jewish prophecy in another part. It must all be Christian if it was
to have any meaning to them. In this emergency the allegorical method
of interpretation, already practiced upon the Old Testament by the
Alexandrian Jews, came to their assistance and was eagerly adopted. The
so-called epistle of Barnabus is an early and most significant instance
of its use. With Clement of Alexandria the matter first took scientific
shape. He taught that two senses are everywhere to be assumed; that the
verbal sense is only for babes in the faith, and that the allegorical
sense alone leads to true spiritual knowledge. With Origen allegorical
interpretation reached its height. He taught a threefold sense of
Scripture, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit. Many voices were
raised against his interpretation, but they were directed against his
particular explanations of the meaning of passages, seldom against his
method. In the early centuries Alexandria remained the chief center of
this kind of exegesis, while Antioch became in the fifth century the
seat of a school of exegetes who emphasized rather the grammatical and
historical interpretation of Scripture over against the extremes of the
Alexandrian teachers. And yet even they were not entirely free from the
vicious methods of the age, and, moreover, errors of various kinds
crept in to lessen their influence, and the allegorical method finally
prevailed almost universally; and it has not even yet fully lost its
hold. This method of Scripture interpretation has, as Porphyry says,
its analogy in the methods of the Greek philosophers during the
centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. It became early the
custom for philosophers, scandalized by the licentious stories of their
gods, to interpret the current myths allegorically and refer them to
the processes of nature. Homer and others of the ancient poets were
thus made by these later philosophers to teach philosophies of nature
of which they had never dreamed. With the Neo-Platonists this method
reached its highest perfection, and while the Christian teachers were
allegorizing the Old Testament Scriptures, these philosophers were
transforming the popular myths into records of the profoundest physical
and spiritual processes. Porphyry saw that the method of pagans and
Christians was the same in this respect, and he may be correct in
assigning some influence to these writings in the shaping of Origen's
thinking, but the latter was an allegorist before he studied the
philosophers to whom Porphyry refers (cf. chap. 2, S:9, above), and
would have been an allegorist had he never studied them. Allegory was
in that age in the atmosphere of the Church as well as of the
philosophical school.

[1916] On this great work of Porphyry, see note 1.

[1917] See note 3.

[1918] This is certainly a mistake on Eusebius' part (see above, note
2), in which he is followed by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 55). Against the
identification of the Christian Ammonius, whose works are mentioned by
Eusebius and Jerome, with Ammonius Saccas, may be urged first the fact
that the teaching of Ammonius Saccas, as known to us from Porphyry's
Vita Plotini and from other Neo-Platonic sources, is not such as could
have emanated from a Christian; and, in the second place, the fact that
the Christian Ammonius, according to Eusebius, was the author of more
than one important work, while Longinus (as quoted by Porphyry in the
Vita Plot. c. 20) says explicitly that Ammonius Saccas wrote nothing.
It is clear from Eusebius' words that his sole reason for supposing
that Ammonius Saccas remained a Christian is the existence of the
writings to which he refers; and it is quite natural that he and others
should erroneously attribute the works of an unknown Christian of
Alexandria, named Ammonius, to the celebrated Alexandrian philosopher
of the same name, especially since it was known that the latter had
been a Christian in his youth, and that he had been Origen's teacher in
his mature years. We know nothing about the life of the Christian
Ammonius, unless he be identified with the presbyter Ammonius of
Alexandria, who is said by Eusebius to have perished in the persecution
of Diocletian. The identification is possible; but even if it be
accepted, we are helped very little, for is only the death, not the
life, of the presbyter Ammonius with which Eusebius acquaints us.
Ammonius' writings, whoever he may have been, were well known in the
Church. Eusebius mentions here his work On the Harmony of Moses and
Jesus (peri tes Mouseos kai 'Iesou sumphonias), and in an epistle
addressed to Carpianus (see above, p. 38 sq.) speaks of a Diatessaron
or Harmony of the Four Gospels (to dia tessEURron euangelion), composed
by Ammonius. Jerome mentions both these works (de vir. ill. 55), the
latter under the title Evangelici Canones. He refers to these Canones
again in his preface to the Four Gospels (Migne's ed., Vol. X. 528);
and so does Victor of Capua. The former work is no longer extant, nor
have we any trace of it. But there is extant a Latin translation of a
Diatessaron which was made by Victor of Capua, and which was formerly,
and is still, by many scholars supposed to be a version of this work of
Ammonius. By others it is thought to be a translation of Tatian's
Diatessaron. For further particulars, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 29, note
11.

[1919] The names of the persons to whom this epistle was addressed we
do not know, nor can we ascertain the exact time when it was composed,
though it must have been written before Heraclas became bishop of
Alexandria, and indeed, we may assume, while Origen was in Alexandria,
and still engaged in the study which he defends in the epistle, i.e.,
if Eusebius is correct in the order of events, before 216 a.d. (see
note 23).

[1920] On Pantaenus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.

[1921] On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.

[1922] ekeinon ton logon.

[1923] See above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 21.

[1924] The words used to designate the official who sent for Origen (ho
tes 'Arabias hegoumenos) lead us to think him a Roman, and governor of
the Roman province of Arabia, which was formed by the Emperor Trajan in
the year 106, and which comprised only the northern part of the
peninsula. We know no particulars of this visit of Origen to that
province, but that he was remembered and held in honor by the people is
proved by chaps. 33 and 37, which record that he was summoned thither
twice to assist in settling doctrinal difficulties.

[1925] In the sixth year of his reign (216 a.d.) Caracalla visited
Alexandria, and improved the occasion to take bloody vengeance upon the
inhabitants of the city, from whom had emanated a number of satirical
and cutting comments upon the murder of his brother Geta. He instituted
a horrible butchery, in which young and old, guilty and innocent,
perished, and in which scholars were objects of especial fury. (See
Herodian, IV. 8, 9, and Dion Cassius, LXXVII. 22-24, and cf. Tillemont,
Hist. des Emp. III. p. 115 sq.) This was undoubtedly the occasion,
referred to here, which caused Origen to flee from the city and retire
to Palestine.

[1926] hoi tede episkopoi. The tede must refer to Palestine, not to
Caesarea, for "bishops" are spoken of, not "bishop."

[1927] In the apostolic age, and the generations immediately
succeeding, it was the privilege of every Christian to take part in the
public meetings of the Church in the way of teaching or prophesying,
the only condition being the consciousness of guidance by the Spirit
(see 1 Cor. xiii.). We cannot call this teaching and prophesying
preaching in our sense of the term. The services seem rather to have
resembled our "open prayer-meetings." Gradually, as the services became
more formal and stereotyped, a stated address by the "president" (as
Justin calls him) became a regular part of the service (see Justin's
Apol. I. 67), and we may assume that the liberty of teaching or
prophesying in the public meetings did not now belong to all the
members as it had in the beginning. The sermon, in our sense of the
word, seems to have been a slow growth, but a direct development from
this exhortation of the president mentioned by Justin. The confinement
of the speaking (or preaching) to a single individual,--the
leader,--which we see in Justin, is what we find in subsequent
generations quite generally established. It becomes, in time, the
prerogative of the bishop to preach, and this prerogative he confers
upon his presbyters also (not universally, but in most cases), while
deacons and laymen are almost everywhere excluded from the right. We
see from the present chapter, however, that the custom was not the same
in all parts of the Church in the time of Origen. The principle had
evidently before this become firmly established in Alexandria that only
bishops and presbyters should preach. But in Palestine no such rule was
recognized as binding. At the same time, it is clear enough that it was
exceptional even there for laymen to preach (in the presence of their
bishops), for Alexander in his epistle, instead of saying that laymen
preach everywhere and of right, cites particular instances of their
preaching, and says that where they are qualified they are especially
requested by the bishops to use their gifts; so that the theory that
the prerogative belonged of right to the bishop existed there just as
truly as in Alexandria. Origen of course knew that he was acting
contrary to the custom (if not the canon) of his own church in thus
preaching publicly, and yet undoubtedly he took it for granted that he
was perfectly right in doing what these bishops requested him to do in
their own dioceses. They were supreme in their own churches, and he
knew of nothing, apparently, which should hinder him from doing what
they approved of, while in those churches. Demetrius, however, thought
otherwise, and considered the public preaching of an unordained man
irregular, in any place and at any time. Whether jealousy of Origen's
growing power had anything to do with his action it is difficult to say
with certainty. He seems to have treated Origen in a perfectly friendly
way after his return; and yet it is possible that the difference of
opinion on this point, and the reproof given by Demetrius, may not have
been wholly without influence upon their subsequent relations, which
became in the end so painful (see chap. 8, note 4).

[1928] On Alexander, see chap. 8, note 6.

[1929] Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea, seems to have been one of the
most influential bishops of the East in his day, and played a prominent
part in the controversy which arose in regard to Novatus, as we learn
from chap. 46 of this book and from chap. 5 of the next. He was also a
firm friend of Origen's for many years (see chap. 27), probably until
the latter's death. We do not know the dates of his accession and of
his death, but we find him already bishop in the year 216, and still
bishop at the time of the episcopate of Stephen of Rome (254-257; see
Bk. VII. chap. 5), but already succeeded by Domnus, when Xystus was
bishop of Rome (257-258; see Bk. VII. chap. 14). We must, therefore,
put his death between 255 and 258.

[1930] Eusebius is apparently mistaken in stating that this epistle was
addressed to Demetrius, for the latter is spoken of throughout the
epistle in the third person. It seems probable that Eusebius has made a
slip and said "to Demetrius" when he meant to say "concerning
Demetrius."

[1931] Of the persons mentioned here by the Palestinian bishops in
support of their conduct, Neon, bishop of Laranda in Lycaonia, Celsus,
bishop of Iconium, and Atticus, bishop of Synada in Phrygia, together
with the laymen Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodore, we know only the
names.

[1932] ou pros monon ton sunethon, alla kai ton epi xenes episkopon.
sunethon seems here to have the sense of "countrymen" or (bishops) "of
his own country" over against the epi xenes, rather than the meaning
"friends" or "acquaintances," which is more common.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 20

The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age.

1. There flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose
letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible.
They have been kept until our time in the library at AElia, [1933]
which was established by Alexander, who at that time presided over that
church. We have been able to gather from that library material for our
present work.

2. Among these Beryllus [1934] has left us, besides letters and
treatises, various elegant works. He was bishop of Bostra in Arabia.
Likewise also Hippolytus, [1935] who presided over another church, has
left writings.

3. There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius, [1936] a very learned
man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus, [1937] with Proclus, who
contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and
boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures. He mentions
only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the
Hebrews [1938] with the others. And unto our day there are some among
the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle.
__________________________________________________________________

[1933] AElia, the city built by Hadrian upon the site of Jerusalem (see
Bk. IV. chap. 6). We do not know the subsequent history of this library
of Alexander, but it had already been in existence nearly a hundred
years when Eusebius examined it.

[1934] On Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, see chap. 33.

[1935] On Hippolytus, see chap. 22.

[1936] On Caius and his discussion with Proclus, see Bk. II. chap. 25,
notes 7 and 8.

[1937] Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome from 198 or 199 to 217. See Bk. V.
chap. 28, note 5.

[1938] On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the opinions of the early
Church in regard to its authorship, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 21

The Bishops that were well known at that Time.

1. After Antoninus [1939] had reigned seven years and six months,
Macrinus succeeded him. He held the government but a year, and was
succeeded by another Antoninus. During his first year the Roman bishop,
Zephyrinus, [1940] having held his office for eighteen years, died, and
Callistus [1941] received the episcopate.

2. He continued for five years, and was succeeded by Urbanus. [1942]
After this, Alexander became Roman emperor, Antoninus having reigned
but four years. [1943] At this time Philetus [1944] also succeeded
Asclepiades [1945] in the church of Antioch.

3. The mother of the emperor, Mammaea [1946] by name, was a most pious
woman, if there ever was one, and of religious life. When the fame of
Origen had extended everywhere and had come even to her ears, she
desired greatly to see the man, and above all things to make trial of
his celebrated understanding of divine things.

4. Staying for a time in Antioch, she sent for him with a military
escort. Having remained with her a while and shown her many things
which were for the glory of the Lord and of the excellence of the
divine teaching, he hastened back to his accustomed work.
__________________________________________________________________

[1939] i.e. Caracalla, who was slain on the 8th of April, 217. Four
days later, Marcus Opilius Macrinus, prefect of the praetorians, was
proclaimed emperor. After a reign of fourteen months, he was defeated
and succeeded by Varius Avitus Bassianus, a cousin of Caracalla, and
priest of the Phoenician Sun-god, from which fact is derived the name
by which he is commonly known,--Elagabalus, or Heliogabalus. Upon his
accession to the imperial power, he took the name Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus, which became his official designation.

[1940] On Zephyrinus, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.

[1941] As shown in the next note, a comparison of our best sources
leads us to the year 222 as the date of the accession of Urban, and
consequently of the death of Callistus. A careful comparison of the
various sources, which differ in regard to the years of the several
episcopates of Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, but agree as to the
sum of the three, leads to the result that Callistus was bishop for
five years, and therefore his accession is to be put into the year 217,
and the reign of Macrinus (see Lipsius, Chron. d. roem. Bischoefe, p.
171 sq.). This agrees, so far as the years of our era are concerned,
with the statement of Eusebius in this chapter; but he wrongly puts
Callistus' accession into the first year of Alexander, which is a
result of an error of a year in his reckoning of the dates of the
emperors, which runs back to Pertinax (see Lipsius, p. 7 sq.). He does
not assign Callistus' accession to the first year of Heliogabalus
because of a tradition connecting the two, but simply because his
reckoning of the lengths of the various episcopates, which were given
in the source used by him, led him to the year 217 for Callistus'
accession, and this, according to his erroneous table of the reigns of
the emperors, was the first year of Heliogabalus. We thus see that
Eusebius is in real, though not in apparent, agreement with the
Liberian catalogue in regard to the date of Callistus' accession, which
may, therefore, be accepted as certain. Nothing was known about the
character and life of Callistus until the discovery of Hippolytus'
Philosophumena, or Refutation of All Heresies (see the next chapter,
note 1). In Bk. IX. of that work is given a detailed description of
him, from the pen of a very bitter opponent. At the same time, it can
hardly be doubted that at least the groundwork of the account is true.
According to Hippolytus, he was a slave; a dishonest banker, who was
punished for his dishonesty; the author of a riot in a Jewish
synagogue, who was sent as a criminal to the mines; finally, after
various other adventures, the right-hand man of the bishop Zephyrinus,
and after his death, his successor. According to Hippolytus, he was a
Patripassian, and he introduced much laxer methods of church discipline
than had hitherto been in vogue; so lax as greatly to scandalize
Hippolytus, who was a very rigid disciplinarian. Whatever truth there
may be in this highly sensational account (and we cannot doubt that it
is greatly overdrawn), it is at least certain that Callistus took the
liberal view of Christian morals and church discipline, over against
the stricter view represented by Hippolytus and his party. It was,
perhaps, owing to his popularity on this account that, after the death
of Zephyrinus, he secured the episcopacy of Rome, for which Hippolytus
was also a candidate. The latter tells us also that Zephyrinus "set him
over the cemetery,"--a most interesting notice, as the largest catacomb
in Rome bears the name of St. Callistus, and may be the very one of
which Zephyrinus made him the superintendent.

[1942] Lipsius, in his Chron. d. roem. Bischoefe, p. 170 sq., shows
that the only fixed point for a calculation of the dates of Urban and
the three bishops preceding him, is the banishment by the Emperor
Maximinus of Pontianus to Sardinia, which took place, according to the
Liberian catalogue, while Severus and Quintinus were consuls; that is,
in the year 235. The duration of Pontianus' episcopate is shown by a
comparison of the best sources to have been a little over five years
(see chap. 23, note 3). This brings us to the year 230 as the date of
Urban's death. According to chap. 23, Urban was bishop eight years, and
with this the Liberian catalogue agrees, so that this figure is far
better supported than the figure nine given by the Chron. Accepting
eight years as the duration of Urban's episcopate, we are brought back
to 222 as the date of his accession, which agrees with Eusebius'
statement in this chapter (see the previous note). There are extant
Acta S. Urbani, which are accepted as genuine by the Bollandists, and
assigned to the second century, but they cannot have been written
before the fifth, and are historically quite worthless. For a good
discussion of his supposed connection with St. Cecilia, which has
played such an important part in ecclesiastical legend, see the article
Urbanus in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. We have no certain knowledge of
his life and character.

[1943] Elagabalus was slain in March, 222, after a reign of three years
and nine months, and was succeeded by his cousin, Alexianus Bassianus,
who assumed the names Marcus Aurelius Alexander Severus, by the last
two of which he is commonly known.

[1944] Philetus, according to the Chron. (Armenian), became bishop in
the sixth year of Caracalla (216), and was succeeded by Zebinus in the
sixth year of Alexander Severus (227). Jerome puts his accession into
the reign of Macrinus (217-218), and the accession of Zebinus into the
seventh year of Alexander (228). The accession of Zebinus must have
taken place at least as early as 231 (see chap. 23, note 4), and there
remains therefore no reason to doubt the approximate accuracy of the
latter dates. If the dates given for Philetus' accession (216-218) be
approximately correct, we must understand the words "at this time" of
the present chapter, to refer back to the reign of Macrinus, or the
accession of Alexander Severus, mentioned at the beginning of this
chapter. This does not seem natural, but we cannot say it is
impossible. Knowing the unreliability of the dates given in the Chron.,
we are compelled to leave the matter undecided. He is called by the
Armen. Philip, by Syncellus philetos e philippos. The latter assigns
him an episcopate of eight years, which agrees with none of the figures
given by the two versions of the Chronicle or by the History. We know
nothing about the person or the life of Philetus.

[1945] On Asclepiades, see chap. 11, note 6.

[1946] Julia Mamaea or Mammaea (Eusebius, Mammaia) was the niece of
Septimius Severus' wife Julia Domna, the aunt of the Emperor
Elagabalus, and the mother of the Emperor Alexander Severus, by the
Syrian Gessius Marcianus. She accompanied Elagabalus to Rome, and had
strength of character enough to protect her son from the jealousy of
the latter, and to keep him comparatively pure from the vice and
debauchery of the court. During the reign of her son she exerted great
influence, which was in the main highly beneficial; but her pride and
avarice finally proved fatal, both to her son and to herself. Her
character seems to have been in the main pure and elevated; and she was
apparently inclined to the same sort of religious syncretism which led
her son to adopt many Christian principles of action, and to put the
busts of Abraham and of Christ, with those of Orpheus, Apollonius of
Tyana, and the best of the Roman emperors, in his private chapel (see
Lampridius, Vita Sev. c. 29, 43). Eusebius calls Mammaea
theosebestEURte and eulabes, and Jerome calls her a religiosa femina
(de vir. ill. c. 54); but there is no evidence that she was a
Christian. The date of Origen's interview with her has been greatly
disputed. Huet and Redepenning, accepting the order of events recorded
in this chapter as chronological, put the interview in the early years
of Alexander Severus, Redepenning assuming an otherwise unrecorded
visit of Mammaea to Antioch, Huet connecting her visit there with the
Persian expedition of Alexander. Huet assumes, upon the authority of
Jerome's Chron., that the Persian expedition took place in the early
part of Alexander's reign; but this is against all other ancient
authorities, and must be incorrect (see Tillemont, Mem. III. 763 sq.).
The only occasions known to us, on which Mammaea can have been in
Antioch, were this expedition of her son (between 230 and 233) and the
visit of her nephew Elagabalus to Antioch, after his victory over
Macrinus in 218. At both these times Origen was quite probably in
Caesarea (see chap. 19, note 23, and p. 392, below), whence it is more
natural to suppose him summoned than from Alexandria. If we put the
interview in 218, we must suppose (as Tillemont suggests) that Eusebius
is led by his mention of Alexander to give this account of his mother,
and that he does not intend to imply that the interview took place
after Alexander's accession. There is nothing at all improbable in
this. In fact, it seems more likely that he would mention the interview
in connection with Alexander than in connection with Elagabalus, in
spite of chronology. On the other hand, it is not impossible that the
interview took place subsequently to the year 231, for Origen's fame
was certainly by that time much greater in Syria than fifteen years
previous. At the same time, to accept this date disarranges seriously
the chronological order of the account of Eusebius, for in chap. 24 we
are told of those works which Origen wrote while yet in Alexandria;
that is, before 231. Moreover, there is not the same reason for
inserting this account of Mammaea at this point, if it occurred later
in Alexander's reign, that there is if it occurred in the reign of
Elagabalus. We shall, therefore, do best to accept the earlier date
with Tillemont, Westcott, and others.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 22

The Works of Hippolytus which have reached us.

1. At that time Hippolytus, [1947] besides many other treatises, wrote
a work on the passover. [1948] He gives in this a chronological table,
and presents a certain paschal canon of sixteen years, bringing the
time down to the first year of the Emperor Alexander.

2. Of his other writings the following have reached us: On the
Hexaemeron, [1949] On the Works after the Hexaemeron, [1950] Against
Marcion, [1951] On the Song of Songs, [1952] On Portions of Ezekiel,
[1953] On the Passover, [1954] Against All the Heresies; [1955] and you
can find many other works preserved by many.
__________________________________________________________________

[1947] Hippolytus (mentioned above in chap. 20) was one of the most
learned men and celebrated writers of his age, and yet his personal
history is involved in the deepest obscurity. The earliest mention of
him is by Eusebius in this passage and in chap. 20, above. But Eusebius
tells us there only that he was a bishop of "some other church"
(heteras pou ekklesias), and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 61) says that he
was a bishop of some church whose name he did not know (Hippolytus,
cujusdam Ecclesiae episcopus, nomen quippe urbis scire non potui). In
the East, from the fourth century on, Hippolytus was commonly called
bishop of Rome, but the Western tradition makes him simply a presbyter.
The late tradition that he was bishop of Portus Romanus is quite
worthless. We learn from his Philosophumena, or Refutation of Heresies,
that he was active in Rome in the time of Zephyrinus and Callistus; but
what is significant is the fact that he never recognizes Callistus as
bishop of Rome, but always treats him as the head of a school opposed
to the orthodox Church. This has given scholars the clue for
reconciling the conflicting traditions about his position and his
church. It seems probable that he was a presbyter of the church of
Rome, and was at the head of a party which did not recognize Callistus
as lawful bishop, but set Hippolytus up as opposition bishop. This
explains why Hippolytus calls himself a bishop, and at the same time
recognizes neither Callistus nor any one else as bishop of Rome. The
Western Church therefore preserved the tradition of Hippolytus only as
a presbyter, while in the Orient, where Hippolytus was known only
through his works, the tradition that he was a bishop (a fact directly
stated in those works; see the preface to his Philosophumena) always
prevailed; and since he was known to have resided in Rome, that city
was made by tradition his see. The schism, which has left no trace in
the writings either of the Western or Eastern Church, cannot have been
a serious one. Doubtless Callistus had the support of by far the larger
part of the Church, and the opposition of Hippolytus never amounted to
more than talk, and was never strong enough to enlist, or perhaps even
attempt to enlist, the support of foreign bishops. Callistus and the
body of the Church could afford to leave it unnoticed; and after
Callistus' death Hippolytus undoubtedly returned to the Church and was
gladly received, and the memory of his brief schism entirely effaced,
while the knowledge of his orthodoxy, and of his great services to the
Church as a theologian and a writer, kept his name in high repute with
subsequent generations. A Latin translation of a Chronicle written by
Hippolytus is extant, and the last event recorded in it is the death of
the Emperor Alexander, which took place early in the year 235. The
Liberian catalogue, in an entry which Lipsius (Chron. d. roem.
Bischoefe, p. 194) pronounces critically indisputable, records that, in
the year 235, the bishop Pontianus and the presbyter Hippolytus were
transported as exiles to the island of Sardinia. There is little doubt
that this is the Hippolytus with whom we are concerned, and it is
highly probable that both he and Pontianus died in the mines there, and
thus gained the title of martyrs; for not only is the account of
Hippolytus' martyrdom given by Prudentius in the fifth century not
reliable, but also in the depositio martyrum of the Liberian catalogue
the bodies of Pontianus and Hippolytus are said to have been buried in
Rome on the same day; and it is therefore natural to think that
Hippolytus' body was brought from Sardinia, as we know Pontianus' was.
The character of Hippolytus, as revealed to us in the Philosophumena,
is that of a strictly, even rigidly, moral man, of a puritanic
disposition, who believed in drawing the reins very tight, and allowing
to the members of the Christian Church no license. He was in this
directly opposed to Callistus, who was a lax disciplinarian, and
favored the readmission to the Church even of the worst offenders upon
evidence of repentance and suitable penance (see the previous chapter,
note 3). We are reminded greatly of Tertullian and of Novatian in
studying Hippolytus' character. He was, moreover, strictly orthodox and
bitterly opposed to what he considered the patripassianism of
Zephyrinus and of Callistus. He must be admired as a thoroughly
independent, sternly moral, and rigidly orthodox man; while at the same
time it must be recognized that he was irascible, bitter, and in some
respects narrow and bigoted. He is known to have been a very prolific
writer, composing all his works in Greek. Eusebius mentions but eight
works in this chapter, but says that many others were extant in his
day. Jerome, who in the present instance has other sources of
information than Eusebius' History, mentions some nineteen works (de
vir. ill. c. 61), including all of those named by Eusebius, except the
commentary on portions of Ezekiel and the work on the Events which
followed the Hexaemeron (but see note 4, below). In the year 1551 a
statue representing a venerable man sitting in a chair, and with an
inscription upon it enumerating the writings of the person
commemorated, was found near the church of San Lorenzo, just outside of
Rome. The statue, though it bears no name, has been shown to be that of
Hippolytus; and with the help of the list given upon it (which contains
some thirteen works), together with some extant fragments of writings
which seem to have been composed by him, the titles known to us have
been increased to about forty, the greater part of which are entirely
lost. We cannot discuss these works here. For the most complete list of
Hippolytus' writings the reader is referred to Caspari's Taufsymbol und
Glaubensregel, III. 377 sq., or to the more accessible article by
Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. In 1842 was discovered the greater
part of a work in ten books directed against heresies, the first book
of which had been long before published by the Benedictines among
Origen's works with the title of Philosophumena. This discovery caused
great discussion, but it has been proved to the complete satisfaction
of almost every scholar that it is a work of Hippolytus (cf., among
other discussions, Doellinger's Hippolytus und Callistus, translated by
Plummer, and the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. already referred
to). The work was published at Oxford in 1851 by Miller (who, however,
wrongly ascribed it to Origen), and at Goettingen, in 1859, by Duncker
and Schneidewin. It is given also by Migne; and an English translation
is found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Amer. ed.), Vol. V., under the
title the Refutation of All Heresies.

[1948] This chronological work on the passover, which contained a cycle
for the purpose of determining the date of the festival, is mentioned
also by Jerome, and is given in the list on the statue, on which the
cycle itself is also engraved. Jerome says that this work was the
occasion of Eusebius' work upon the same subject in which a
nineteen-year cycle was substituted for that of Hippolytus. The latter
was a sixteen-year cycle and was formed by putting together two of the
eight-year cycles of the Greek astronomers,--according to whose
calculation the full moon fell on the same day of the month once in
eight years,--in order to exhibit also the day of the week on which it
fell; for he noticed that after sixteen years the full moon moved one
day backward (if on Saturday at the beginning of the cycle, it fell on
Friday after the sixteen years were past). He therefore put together
seven sixteen-year cycles, assuming that after they had passed the full
moon would return again to the same day of the week, as well as month.
This cycle is astronomically incorrect, the fact being that after
sixteen years the full moon falls not on the same day of the week, but
three days later. Hippolytus, however, was not aware of this, and
published his cycle in perfect good faith. The work referred to seems
to have contained an explanation of the cycle, together with a
computation by means of it of the dates of the Old and New Testament
passovers. It is no longer extant, but the cycle itself, which was the
chief thing, is preserved on the statue, evidently in the form in which
it was drawn up by Hippolytus himself.

[1949] This treatise on the Hexaemeron, or six days' work, is mentioned
also by Jerome, but is not in the list on the statue. It is no longer
extant; but according to Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, c. 7;
Migne's ed. Ep. 84), was used by Ambrose in the composition of his own
work upon the same subject, which is still preserved (cf. also Bk. V.
chap. 27, note 3, above).

[1950] Greek, eis ta meta ten exaemeron. This work is not given in the
list on the statue. It is mentioned in some of the mss. of Jerome under
the form et post Hexaemeron; but the best mss. omit these words, and
substitute for them et in Exodum, a work which is not mentioned by any
other authority. Jerome mentions also a commentary in Genesim, which we
hear of from no other source, and which may be identical with this work
mentioned by Eusebius. If the two be identical (which is quite
possible), the nature of the work is plain enough. Otherwise we are
left wholly to conjecture. No fragments of the work have been
identified.

[1951] This work is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list on
the statue. The last work, however, mentioned in that list bears the
title peri tagathou kai pothen to kakon, which, it has been
conjectured, may be identical with Eusebius and Jerome's Contra
Marcionem. No fragments are extant.

[1952] Eusebius has simply to asma (The Song), which is the title given
to the book in the LXX. This commentary on the Song of Songs is
mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the statue list. Four fragments
of it are given by Lagarde, in his edition of the works of Hippolytus.

[1953] This commentary on portions of Ezekiel is mentioned by no one
else. A supposed fragment of it is given by Lagarde, Anal. Syr., p. 90.

[1954] Jerome agrees with Eusebius in mentioning a work On the
Passover, in addition to the chronological one already referred to. The
list on the statue, however, mentions but one work on the passover, and
that the one containing the paschal cycle. Fragments are extant of
Hippolytus' work On the Passover,--one from his exegesis eis to
pEURscha (see Lagarde's edition of Hippolytus p. 213), and another from
"the first book of the treatise on the holy paschal feast" (tou peri
tou hagiou pEURscha sungrEURmmatos, Lagarde, p. 92). These fragments
are of a dogmatic character, and can hardly have occurred in the
chronological work, except in a separate section or book; but the last
is taken from "the first book" of the treatise, and hence we are safe
in concluding that Eusebius and Jerome are correct in enumerating two
separate works upon the same subject,--the one chronological, the other
dogmatic, or polemical.

[1955] This work, Against All the Heresies, is mentioned both by
Eusebius (pros hapEURsas tas haireseis) Jerome (adv. omnes haereses),
but is not given in the list on the statue. Quite a full account of it
is given from personal knowledge by Photius (Cod. 121), who calls it a
small book (biblidEURrion) directed against thirty-two heresies,
beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus, and says that it
purported to be an abstract of lectures delivered by Irenaeus. The work
is no longer extant (it must not be confounded with the Philosophumena,
or Refutatio, mentioned in note 1), but it has been in part restored by
Lipsius (in his Quellenkritik des Epiphanius) from the anti-heretical
works of Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster. There is in
existence also a fragment of considerable length, bearing in the ms.
the title Homily of Hippolytus against the Heresy of one Noetus. It is
apparently not a homily, but the conclusion of a treatise against a
number of heresies. It was suggested by Fabricius (who first published
the original Greek) that it constituted the closing chapter of the work
against the thirty-two heresies. The chief objection to this is that if
this fragment forms but one of thirty-two chapters, the entire work can
hardly have been called a "little book" by Photius. Lipsius suggests
that the little book of which Photius speaks was not the complete work
of Hippolytus, but only an abbreviated summary of its contents, and
this is quite possible. At any rate it seems probable, in spite of the
objections which have been urged by some critics, that this constituted
a part of the larger work, and hence we have one chapter of that work
preserved. The work seems to have been composed in Rome and during the
episcopate of Victor (as Lipsius holds), or, as is more probable, in
the early part of the episcopate of Zephyrinus (as is maintained by
Harnack). This conclusion is drawn from the dates of the heretics
mentioned in the work, some of whom were as late as Victor, but none of
them later than the early years of Zephyrinus. It must, too, have been
composed some years before the Philosophumena, which (in the preface)
refers to a work against heresies, written by its author a "long time
before" (pEURlai). Upon this work and its relation to the lost Syntagma
of Justin Martyr, which Lipsius supposes it to have made use of, see
his work already referred to and also his Quellen der aeltesten
Ketzergeschichte together with Harnack's Quellenkritik der Gesch. des
Gnosticismus, and his article in the Zeitschrift fuer historische
Theologie, 1874, p. 143-226.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 23

Origen's Zeal and his Elevation to the Presbyterate.

1. At that time Origen began his commentaries on the Divine Scriptures,
being urged thereto by Ambrose, [1956] who employed innumerable
incentives, not only exhorting him by word, but also furnishing
abundant means.

2. For he dictated to more than seven amanuenses, who relieved each
other at appointed times. And he employed no fewer copyists, besides
girls who were skilled in elegant writing. For all these Ambrose
furnished the necessary expense in abundance, manifesting himself an
inexpressible earnestness in diligence and zeal for the divine oracles,
by which he especially pressed him on to the preparation of his
commentaries.

3. While these things were in progress, Urbanus, [1957] who had been
for eight years bishop of the Roman church, was succeeded by Pontianus,
[1958] and Zebinus [1959] succeeded Philetus [1960] in Antioch.

4. At this time Origen was sent to Greece on account of a pressing
necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs, [1961] and went
through Palestine, and was ordained as presbyter in Caesarea by the
bishops of that country. The matters that were agitated concerning him
on this account, and the decisions on these matters by those who
presided over the churches, besides the other works concerning the
divine word which he published while in his prime, demand a separate
treatise. We have written of them to some extent in the second book of
the Defense which we have composed in his behalf. [1962]
__________________________________________________________________

[1956] On Ambrose and his relation to Origen, see chap. 18, note 1.

[1957] On Urbanus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 21, note 4.

[1958] For the dates of the first group of Roman bishops, from Peter to
Urbanus, the best source we have is Eusebius'Church History; but for
the second group, from Pontianus to Liberius, the notices of the
History are very unreliable, while the Liberian catalogue rests upon
very trustworthy data (see Lipsius, Chron. d. roem. Bischoefe, p. 39
and p. 142 sq.). We must therefore turn to the latter for the most
accurate information in regard to the remaining Roman bishops mentioned
by Eusebius, although an occasional mistake in the catalogue must be
corrected by our other sources, as Lipsius points out. The notice of
Eusebius at this point would throw the accession of Pontianus into the
year 231, but this is a year too late, as seen in chap. 21, note 4.
According to chap. 29, he was bishop six years, and was succeeded by
Anteros at about the same time that Gordian became emperor; that is, in
238. But this is wide of the truth. The Liberian catalogue, which is
supported by the best of the other sources, gives a little over five
years for his episcopate, and puts his banishment to Sardinia, with
which his episcopate ended, on the 28th of September, 235. According to
the Felician catalogue, which may be trusted at this point, he was
brought to Rome and buried there during the episcopate of Fabian, which
began in 236 (see also the preceding chapter, note 1). We know nothing
about the life and character of Pontianus.

[1959] The notices of the Chronicle in connection with Zebinus are
especially unreliable. The Armen. puts his accession into the sixth
(227), Jerome into the seventh year of Alexander (228). Jerome makes no
attempt to fix the date of his death, while the Armen. puts it in the
first year of Gallus (251-252). Syncellus assigns him but six years. In
the midst of such confusion we are obliged to rely solely upon the
History. The only reliable data we have are Origen's ordination to the
priesthood, which took place in 231 (see below, p. 392) and apparently,
according to this chapter, while Zebinus was bishop of Antioch. If
Eusebius is correct in this synchronization, Zebinus became bishop
before 231, and therefore the statements of the Chron. as to his
accession may be approximately correct. As to the time of his death, we
know that his successor, Babylas, died in the Decian persecution (see
chap. 39), and hence Zebinus must have died some years before that. In
chap. 29, Eusebius puts his death in the reign of Gordian (238-244),
and this may be accepted as at least approximately correct, for we have
reason to think that Babylas was already bishop in the time of Philip
(see chap. 29, note 8). This proves the utter incorrectness of the
notice of the Armen. We know nothing about the person and life of
Zebinus. Harnack concludes from his name that he was a Syrian by birth.
Most of the mss. of Eusebius give his name as Zebinos; one ms. and
Nicephorus, as Zebenos; Syncellus as Zebennos; Rufinus, Jerome, and the
Armen. as Zebennus.

[1960] On Philetus, see chap. 21, note 6.

[1961] See the note on p. 395, below.

[1962] Eusebius refers here to the Defense of Origen, composed by
himself and Pamphilus, which is unfortunately now lost (see above,
chap. 2, note 1, and the Prolegomena, p. 36 sq.).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 24

The Commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria.

1. It may be well to add that in the sixth book of his exposition of
the Gospel of John [1963] he states that he prepared the first five
while in Alexandria. Of his work on the entire Gospel only twenty-two
volumes have come down to us.

2. In the ninth of those on Genesis, [1964] of which there are twelve
in all, he states that not only the preceding eight had been composed
at Alexandria, but also those on the first twenty-five Psalms [1965]
and on Lamentations. [1966] Of these last five volumes have reached us.

3. In them he mentions also his books On the Resurrection, [1967] of
which there are two. He wrote also the books De Principiis [1968]
before leaving Alexandria; and the discourses entitled Stromata, [1969]
ten in number, he composed in the same city during the reign of
Alexander, as the notes by his own hand preceding the volumes indicate.
__________________________________________________________________

[1963] Origen's commentary upon the Gospel of John was the "first
fruits of his labors at Alexandria," as he informs us in Tom. I. S:4.
It must have been commenced, therefore, soon after he formed the
connection with Ambrose mentioned in the previous chapter, and that it
was one of the fruits of this connection is proved by the way in which
Ambrose is addressed in the commentary itself (Tom. I. S:3). The date
at which the work was begun cannot be determined; but if Eusebius
follows the chronological order of events, it cannot have been before
218 (see chap. 21, note 8). Eusebius speaks as if Origen had expounded
the entire Gospel (tes d' eis to pan euangelion auto de touto
pragmateias), but Jerome, in his catalogue of Origen's works given in
his epistle to Paula (in a fragmentary form in Migne's ed., Ep. 33,
complete in the Zeitschrift fuer Hist. Theol. 1851, p. 75 sq.), reports
that the commentary consisted of thirty-two books and some notes (cf.
his prologue to his translation of Origen's homilies on Luke, Migne's
ed., VII. 219), and Rufinus likewise (Apol. II. 22) speaks of
thirty-two books only. But in the thirty-second book, which is still
extant, Origen discusses the thirteenth chapter of John, and does not
promise to continue the commentary, as he does at the close of some of
the other books. We may therefore conclude that Eusebius' rather
indefinite statement (which was probably not based upon personal
knowledge, for he says that he had seen only twenty-two books), is
incorrect, and that the commentary extended no further than the
thirteenth chapter. We learn from the preface to the sixth book that
the first five were composed while the author was still in Alexandria,
the remaining books after his removal to Caesarea, and at least part of
them after the persecution of Maximinus (235-238), to which reference
was made in the twenty-second book, according to Eusebius, chap. 28,
below. There are still extant Books I., II., VI., X., XIII., XX.,
XXVIII., XXXII., small fragments of IV. and V., and the greater part of
XIX. (printed in Lommatzsch's ed., Vols. I and II.). The production of
this commentary marked an epoch in the history of theological thought,
and it remains in many respects the most important of Origen's
exegetical works. It is full of original and suggestive thought, and
reveals Origen's genius perhaps in the clearest and best light, though
the exegesis is everywhere marred by the allegorizing method and by
neglect of the grammatical and historical sense.

[1964] Of the commentary on Genesis, only some fragments from the first
and third books are extant, together with some extracts (eklogai), and
seventeen homilies (nearly complete) in the Latin translation of
Rufinus (see Lommatzsch's ed., Vol. VIII.). Eight of the books,
Eusebius tells us, were written in Alexandria, and they must, of
course, have been begun after the commencement of the commentary on
John. Jerome (according to Rufinus, Apol. II. 20) gave the number of
the book as thirteen (though in his catalogue mentioned in the previous
note, he speaks of fourteen), and said that the thirteenth discussed
Gen. iv. 15; and in his Contra Cels. VI. 49 Origen speaks of his work
upon Genesis "from the beginning of the book up to" V. 1. We may
therefore conclude that the commentary covered only the early chapters
of Genesis. The homilies, however, discuss brief passages taken from
various parts of the book.

[1965] Origen's writings on the Psalms comprised a complete commentary
(cf. Jerome's Ep. ad Augustinum, S:20; Migne's ed.; Ep. 112), brief
notes ("quod Enchiridion ille vocabat," see Migne's edition of Jerome's
works, Vol. VIII. 821, and compare the entire Breviarium in Psalmos
which follows, and which doubtless contains much of Origen's work; see
Smith and Wace, IV. p. 108) and homilies. Of these there are still
extant numerous fragments in Greek, and nine complete homilies in the
Latin version of Rufinus (printed by Lommatzsch in Vols. XI.-XIII.).
The catalogue of Jerome mentions forty-six books of notes on the Psalms
and 118 homilies. The commentary on the 26th and following Psalms seem
to have been written after leaving Alexandria (to judge from Eusebius'
statement here).

[1966] There are extant some extracts (eklogai) of Origen's expositions
of the book of Lamentations, which are printed by Lommatzsch, XIII.
167-218. They are probably from the commentary which Eusebius tells us
was written before Origen left Alexandria, and five books of which were
extant in his time. The catalogue of Jerome also mentions five books.

[1967] Jerome (in the catalogue and in the passage quoted by Rufinus,
Apol. II. 20) mentions two books and two dialogues on the Resurrection
(De Resurrectione libros duos. Et alios de Resurrectione dialogos
duos). Whether the dialogues formed an independent work we do not know.
We hear of them from no other source. The work was bitterly attacked by
Methodius, but there are no traces of heresy in the extant fragments.

[1968] Of Origen's De Principiis (peri archon), which was written
before he left Alexandria, there are still extant some fragments in
Greek, together with brief portions of a translation by Jerome (in his
epistle to Avitus; Migne's ed.; Ep. 124), and a complete but greatly
altered translation by Rufinus. The latter, together with the extant
fragments, is printed by Lommatzsch, Vol. XXI.; and also separately by
Redepenning (Lips. 1836); Engl. trans. by Crombie, in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers. The work is the most important of all Origen's writings, and
from it we gather our fullest knowledge as to his opinions,
philosophical and theological; though unfortunately Rufinus'
alterations have made it doubtful in many cases what Origen's original
meaning was. The work constitutes the first attempt to form a system of
Christian doctrine. It contains a great many peculiar, often startling
errors, and was the chief source of the attacks made upon Origen for
heterodoxy; and yet the author's object was only to set forth the
doctrines accepted by the Church, and to show how they could be
systematized by the aid of Scripture or of reason. He did not intend to
bring forward doctrines inconsistent with the received faith of the
Church. The work consists of four books. To quote from Westcott: "The
composition is not strictly methodical. Digressions and repetitions
interfere with the symmetry of the plan. But to speak generally, the
first book deals with God and creation (religious statics); the second
and third books with creation and providence, with man and redemption
(religious dynamics); and the fourth book with Holy Scripture."
Intellectually the work is of a very high order, abounding in deep and
original thought as well as in grand and lofty sentiments.

[1969] In his catalogue, Jerome gives among the commentaries on the Old
Testament the simple title Stromatum, without any description of the
work. But in his Ep. ad Magnum, S:4 (Migne's ed., Ep. 70), he says that
Origen wrote ten books of Stromata in imitation of Clement's work, and
in it compared the opinions of Christians and philosophers, and
confirmed the dogmas of Christianity by appeals to Plato and other
Greek philosophers (Hunc imitatus Origines, decem scripsit Stromateas,
Christianorum et philosophorum inter se sententias comparans: et omnia
nostrae religionis dogmata de Platone et Aristotele, Numenio,
Cornutoque confirmans). Only three brief fragments of a Latin
translation of the work are now extant (printed in Lommatzsch's ed.,
XVII. 69-78). These fragments are sufficient to show us that the work
was exegetical as well as doctrinal, and discussed topics of various
kinds in the light of Scripture as well as in the light of philosophy.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 25

His Review of the Canonical Scriptures.

1. When expounding the first Psalm, [1970] he gives a catalogue of the
sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament [1971] as follows:

"It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have
handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of
their letters." Farther on he says:

2. "The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which
is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the
book, Bresith, [1972] which means, `In the beginning'; Exodus,
Welesmoth, [1973] that is, `These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra,
`And he called`; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim,
`These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges
and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of
Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, `The called of God'; the Third
and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, `The kingdom of
David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein,
that is, `Records of days'; Esdras, [1974] First and Second in one,
Ezra, that is, `An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the
Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs
(not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia;
Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel,
Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these
there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel." [1975]
He gives these in the above-mentioned work.

3. In his first book on Matthew's Gospel, [1976] maintaining the Canon
of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as
follows:

4. "Among the four Gospels, [1977] which are the only indisputable ones
in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the
first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards
an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from
Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. [1978]

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions
of Peter, [1979] who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son,
saying, `The church that is at Babylon elected together with you,
saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.' [1980]

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, [1981] and
composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John." [1982]

7. In the fifth book of his Expositions of John's Gospel, he speaks
thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: [1983] "But he who was
`made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the
letter, but of the Spirit,' [1984] that is, Paul, who `fully preached
the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,' [1985]
did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those
to which he wrote he sent but few lines. [1986]

8. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, `against which the
gates of hell shall not prevail,' [1987] has left one acknowledged
epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. [1988]

9. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus,
[1989] John, who has left us one Gospel, [1990] though he confessed
that he might write so many that the world could not contain them?
[1991] And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep
silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. [1992]

10. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a
second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they
do not contain hundred lines."

11. In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the
Epistle to the Hebrews [1993] in his Homilies upon it: "That the verbal
style of the epistle entitled `To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the
language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself `rude in speech'
[1994] that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any
one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will
acknowledge.

12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not
inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully
examines the apostolic text [1995] will admit.'

13. Farther on he adds: "If I gave my opinion, I should say that the
thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are
those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote
down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any
church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for
this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as
Paul's.

14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of
some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans,
wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel
and the Acts, wrote it." But let this suffice on these matters.
__________________________________________________________________

[1970] On Origen's commentary on Psalms, see the previous chapter, note
3. The first fragment given here by Eusebius is found also in the
Philocalia, chap. 3, where it forms part of a somewhat longer extract.
The second fragment is extant only in this chapter of Eusebius'
History.

[1971] On the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, see Bk. III. chap. 10,
note 1. Upon Origen's omission of the twelve minor prophets and the
insertion of the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah, see the same note.

[1972] I have reproduced Origen's Greek transliteration of this and the
following Hebrew words letter by letter. It will be seen by a
comparison of the words with the Hebrew titles of the books, as we now
have them, that Origen's pronunciation of Hebrew, even after making all
due allowance for a difference in the pronunciation of the Greek and
for changes in the Hebrew text, must have been, in many respects, quite
different from ours.

[1973] Ouelesmoth. I represent the diphthong ou at the beginning of a
word by "w."

[1974] The first and second books of Esdras here referred to are not
the apocryphal books known by that name, but Ezra and Nehemiah, which
in the Hebrew canon formed but one book, as Origen says here, but which
in the LXX were separated (see above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note 4).
Esdras is simply the form which the word Ezra assumes in Greek.

[1975] Whether this sentence closed Origen's discussion of the Hebrew
canon, or whether he went on to mention the other apocryphal books, we
cannot tell. The latter seems intrinsically much more probable, for it
is difficult to understand the insertion of the Maccabees in this
connection, and the omission of all the others; for the Maccabees, as
is clear from the words zxo de touton esti ta MakkabaikEUR, are not
reckoned by Origen among the twenty-two books as a part of the Hebrew
canon. At the same time, it is hardly conceivable that Eusebius should
have broken off thus, in the midst of a passage, without any
explanation; though it is, of course, not impossible that he gives only
the first sentence of the new paragraph on the books of the LXX, in
order to show that the discussion of the Hebrew canon closes, and a new
subject is introduced at this point. But, however that may be, it must
be regarded as certain that Origen did not reckon the books of the
Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon, and on the other hand, that he
did reckon those books, as well as others (if not all) of the books
given in the LXX, as inspired Scripture. This latter fact is proved by
his use of these books indiscriminately with those of the Hebrew canon
as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and also by his express citation
of at least some of them as Scripture (cf. on this subject,
Redepenning, p. 235 sq.). We must conclude, therefore, that Origen did
not adopt the Hebrew canon as his own, but that he states it as clearly
as he does in this place, in order to bring concretely before the minds
of his readers the difference between the canon of the Jews and the
canon of the Christians, who looked upon the LXX as the more
authoritative form of the Old Testament. Perhaps he had in view the
same purpose that led him to compare the Hebrew text and the LXX in his
Hexapla (see chap. 16, note 8).

[1976] On Origen's Commentary on Matthew, see chap. 36, note 4. The
fragment given here by Eusebius is all that is extant of the first book
of the commentary.

[1977] Compare Origen's Hom. I. in Lucam: Ecclesia quatuor habet
evangelia, haeresea plurima; and multi conati sunt scribere, sed et
multi conati sunt ordinare: quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, &c.
Compare also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 11, 8, where the attempt is made
to show that it is impossible for the Gospels to be either more or
fewer in number than four; and the Muratorian Fragment where the four
Gospels are named, but the number four is not represented as in itself
the necessary number; also Tertullian's Adv. Marc. IV. 2, and
elsewhere.

[1978] See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5.

[1979] See Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

[1980] 1 Pet. v. 13.

[1981] See Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Origen refers here to 2
Cor. viii. 18, where, however, it is clear that the reference is not to
any specific Gospel any more than in the passages referred to above,
III. 4, note 15.

[1982] See Bk. III. chap. 24.

[1983] This fragment from the fifth book of Origen's commentary on John
is extant only in this chapter. The context is not preserved.

[1984] 2 Cor. iii. 6.

[1985] Rom. xv. 19.

[1986] See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 2.

[1987] Matt. xvi. 18.

[1988] On the first and second Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3,
notes 1 and 4.

[1989] See John xiii. 23.

[1990] On John's Gospel, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1; on the
Apocalypse, note 20; and on the epistles, notes 18 and 19 of the same
chapter.

[1991] See John xxi. 25

[1992] See Rev. x. 4

[1993] Upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Origen's treatment of it,
see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The two extracts given here by Eusebius
are the only fragments of Origen's Homilies on the Epistle to the
Hebrews now extant. Four brief Latin fragments of his commentary upon
that epistle are preserved in the first book of Pamphilus' Defense of
Origen, and are printed by Lommatzsch in Vol. V. p. 297 sq. The
commentaries (or "books," as they are called) are mentioned only in
that Defense. The catalogue of Jerome speaks only of "eighteen
homilies." We know nothing about the extent or the date of composition
of these homilies and commentaries.

[1994] 2 Cor. xi. 6.

[1995] prosechon, te anagnosei te apostolik & 135;nEURgnosis meant
originally the act of reading, then also that which is read. It thus
came to be used (like anEURgnosma) of the pericope or text or section
of the Scripture read in church, and in the plural to designate the
church lectionaries, or service books. In the present case it is used
evidently in a wider sense of the text of Paul's writings as a whole.
This use of the two words to indicate, not simply the selection read in
church, but the text of a book or books as a whole, was not at all
uncommon, as may be seen from the examples given by Suicer, although he
does not mention this wider signification among the uses of the word.
See his Thesaurus, s.v.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 26

Heraclas becomes Bishop of Alexandria.

It was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen
removed from Alexandria to Caesarea, [1996] leaving the charge of the
catechetical school in that city to Heraclas. Not long afterward
Demetrius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, died, having held the
office for forty-three full years, [1997] and Heraclas succeeded him.
At this time Firmilianus, [1998] bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was
conspicuous.
__________________________________________________________________

[1996] The tenth year of Alexander Severus, 231 a.d. On Origen's
departure from Alexandria at this time, see below, p. 396. On Heraclas,
see chap. 3, note 2.

[1997] On the episcopacy of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
Forty-three years, beginning with 189 a.d., bring us down to 232 as the
date of his death, and this agrees excellently with the statements of
this chapter.

[1998] Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, the capital of Cappadocia (to be
distinguished from Caesarea in Palestine), was one of the most famous
prelates of his day in the Eastern Church. He was a friend of Origen,
as we learn from the next chapter, and took part in a council called on
account of the schism of Novatian (see chap. 46), and also in councils
called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28
and 30). He was one of the bishops whom Stephen excommunicated because
they rebaptized heretics (see Bk. VII. chap. 2, note 3, and chap. 5,
note 4), and he wrote an epistle upon this subject to Cyprian, which is
extant in a Latin translation made by Cyprian himself (Ep. 74, al. 75,
in the collection of Cyprian's epistles. See Dict. of Christ. Biog. I.
751, note). Basil (de Spiritu Sancto, 29) refers to works (logoi) left
by Firmilian, but none of them are extant except the single epistle
mentioned, nor do we hear from any other source that he was a writer.
Jerome does not mention him in his De vir. ill. The exact date of his
accession is unknown to us, as it very likely was to Eusebius also. He
was a bishop already in the tenth year of Alexander (231 a.d.), or very
soon afterward, and from Bk. VII. chap. 30, we learn that he died at
Tarsus on his way to Antioch to attend a council which had been
summoned to deal with Paul of Samosata. This synod was held about 265
a.d. (not in 272 as is commonly supposed; see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note
1), and it is at this time, therefore, that we must put the death of
Firmilian; so that he was bishop of Caesarea at least some thirty-four
years.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 27

How the Bishops regarded Origen.

He was so earnestly affected toward Origen, that he urged him to come
to that country for the benefit of the churches, and moreover he
visited him in Judea, remaining with him for some time, for the sake of
improvement in divine things. And Alexander, [1999] bishop of
Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, [2000] bishop of Caesarea, attended on him
constantly, [2001] as their only teacher, and allowed [2002] him to
expound the Divine Scriptures, and to perform the other duties
pertaining to ecclesiastical discourse. [2003]
__________________________________________________________________

[1999] On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.

[2000] On Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, see chap. 19,
note 27.

[2001] A number of mss., followed by Heinichen and some others, insert
at this point hos zpos eipein ("so to speak").

[2002] The presbyter derived his authority to preach and teach only
from the bishop, and hence these bishops extended to Origen, whom they
had ordained a presbyter, full liberty to preach and teach within their
dioceses.

[2003] ta loipa tou ekklesiastikou logou.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 28

The Persecution under Maximinus.

The Roman emperor, Alexander, having finished his reign in thirteen
years, was succeeded by Maximinus Caesar. [2004] On account of his
hatred toward the household of Alexander, [2005] which contained many
believers, he began a persecution, commanding that only the rulers of
the churches should be put to death, as responsible for the Gospel
teaching. Thereupon Origen composed his work On Martyrdom, [2006] and
dedicated it to Ambrose and Protoctetus, [2007] a presbyter of the
parish of Caesarea, because in the persecution there had come upon them
both unusual hardships, in which it is reported that they were eminent
in confession during the reign of Maximinus, which lasted but three
years. Origen has noted this as the time of the persecution in the
twenty-second book of his Commentaries on John, and in several
epistles. [2008]
__________________________________________________________________

[2004] Alexander Severus was murdered early in the year 235, and was
succeeded at once by his commanding general, the Thracian Maximinus, or
Caius Julius Verus Maximinus, as he called himself.

[2005] The reference here is not to the immediate family of Alexander,
but to the court as a whole, his family in the widest sense including
court officials, servants, &c. The favor which Alexander had shown to
the Christians (see chap. 21, note 8) is clearly seen in the fact that
there were so many Christians at court, as Eusebius informs us here.
This persecution was at first directed, Eusebius tells us, solely
against the heads of the churches (tous ton ekklesion archontas), i.e.
the bishops; and we might imagine only those bishops who had stood
nearest Alexander and had been most favored by him to be meant
(Pontianus and Hippolytus of Rome were exiled, for instance, at the
very beginning of Maximinus' reign, in the year 235; see chap. 22, note
1); for Maximinus' hostility to the Christians seems to have been
caused, not by religious motives, but by mere hatred of his
predecessor, and of every cause to which he had shown favor. But the
persecution was not confined to such persons, as we learn from this
chapter, which tells us of the sufferings of Ambrose and Protoctetus,
neither of whom was a bishop. It seems probable that most of the
persecuting was not the result of positive efforts on the part of
Maximinus, but rather of the superstitious hatred of the common people,
whose fears had been recently aroused by earthquakes and who always
attributed such calamities to the existence of the Christians. Of
course under Maximinus they had free rein, and could persecute whenever
they or the provincial authorities felt inclined (cf. Firmilian's
epistle to Cyprian, and Origen's Exhort. ad Mart.). Eusebius tells us
nothing of Origen's whereabouts at this time; but in Palladius' Hist.
Laus. 147, it is said that Origen was given refuge by Juliana in
Caesarea in Cappadocia during some persecution, undoubtedly this one,
if the report is true (see chap. 17, note 4).

[2006] This work on martyrdom (eis marturion protreptikos logos,
Exhortatio ad Martyrium) is still extant, and is printed by Lommatzsch
in Vol. XX., p. 231-316. It is a most beautiful and inspiring
exhortation.

[2007] On Ambrose, see chap. 18, note 1. Protoctetus, a presbyter of
the church of Caesarea (apparently Palestinian Caesarea), is known to
us only from this passage.

[2008] On Origen's Commentary on John's Gospel, see chap. 24, note 1.
No fragments of the twenty-second book are extant, nor any of the
epistles in which reference is made to this persecution.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 29

Fabianus, who was wonderfully designated Bishop of Rome
by God.

1. Gordianus succeeded Maximinus as Roman emperor; [2009] and
Pontianus, [2010] who had been bishop of the church at Rome for six
years, was succeeded by Anteros. [2011] After he had held the office
for a month, Fabianus [2012] succeeded him.

2. They say [2013] that Fabianus having come, after the death of
Anteros, with others from the country, was staying at Rome, and that
while there he was chosen to the office through a most wonderful
manifestation of divine and heavenly grace.

3. For when all the brethren had assembled to select by vote him who
should succeed to the episcopate of the church, several renowned and
honorable men were in the minds of many, but Fabianus, although
present, was in the mind of none. But they relate that suddenly a dove
flying down lighted on his head, resembling the descent of the Holy
Spirit on the Saviour in the form of a dove.

4. Thereupon all the people, as if moved by one Divine Spirit, with all
eagerness and unanimity cried out that he was worthy, and without delay
they took him and placed him upon the episcopal seat. [2014]

5. About that time Zebinus, [2015] bishop of Antioch died, and Babylas
[2016] succeeded him. And in Alexandria Heraclas, [2017] having
received the episcopal office after Demetrius, [2018] was succeeded in
the charge of the catechetical school by Dionysius, [2019] who had also
been one of Origen's pupils.
__________________________________________________________________

[2009] Gordianus the younger, grandson of Gordianus I., and nephew (or
son?) of Gordianus II., became emperor after the murder of Balbinus and
Pupienus, in July, 238, at the age of fifteen years, and reigned until
early in the year 244, when he was murdered by the soldiers and
succeeded by Philip. He is made by Eusebius (both here and in the
Chron.) the direct successor of Maximinus, simply because only two or
three months elapsed between the death of the latter and his own
accession.

[2010] On Pontianus, see chap. 23, note 3.

[2011] Both here and in the Chron. the accession of Anteros is
synchronized with the accession of Gordianus, but as seen in chap. 23,
note 3, Pontianus was succeeded by Anteros in the first year of
Maximinus, i.e. in 235,--three years earlier, therefore, than the date
given by Eusebius. All the authorities agree in assigning only one
month and a few days to the episcopate of Anteros, and this is to be
accepted as correct. Of the life and character of Anteros we know
nothing.

[2012] Greek Phabianos, though some mss. read Phlabianos. The Armenian
and Hieronymian Chron. call him Fabianus; the Liberian catalogue,
Fabius; Eutychius and the Alex. cat., Flabianus. According to chap. 39,
he suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Decius (250-251). Both
versions of the Chron. assign thirteen years to his episcopate, and
this agrees fairly well with the notices here and in chap. 39
(accession in 238 and death in 250 or 251). But, as already seen,
Eusebius is quite wrong in the dates which he gives for the accession
of these three bishops, and the statements of the Liberian catalogue
are to be accepted, which put Fabian's accession in January, 236, and
his death in January, 250, after an episcopate of fourteen years and
ten days. The martyrdom of Fabian rests upon good authority (cf. chap.
39, and Jerome's de vir. ill. chap. 54, and especially Cyprian's
Epistles, 3, al. 9, and 30). From these epistles we learn that he was a
man of ability and virtue. He stands out more clearly in the light of
history than most of the early Roman bishops, but tradition has handed
down a great many unfounded stories in regard to him (see the article
in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).

[2013] phasi. Eusebius is our only authority for the following story.
Rufinus (VI. 21) tells a similar tale in connection with Zephyrinus.

[2014] ton thronon tes episkopes

[2015] On Zebinus, see chap. 23, note 4.

[2016] Babylas occupies an illustrious place in the list of ancient
martyrs (cf. Tillemont, Mem. III. 400-409). Chrysostom devoted a festal
oration to his memory (In sanctum Babylam contra Julianum et contra
Gentiles); while Jerome, Epiphanius, Sozomen, Theodoret, and others
make honorable mention of him. There are extant the Acta Babylae
(spurious), which, however, confound him with a martyr who suffered
under Numerian. The legends in regard to Babylas and to the miracles
performed by his bones are very numerous (see Tillemont, l.c.). He is
identified by Chrysostom and others with the bishop mentioned by
Eusebius in chap. 34, and there is no good reason to doubt the
identification (see Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 48). The fact of his
martyrdom under Decius (see chap. 39) is too well attested to admit of
doubt; though upon the manner of it, not all the traditions are agreed,
Eusebius reporting that he died in prison, Chrysostom that he died by
violence. The account of Eusebius seems the most reliable. The date of
his accession is unknown, but there is no reason to doubt that it took
place during the reign of Gordian (238-244), as Eusebius here seems to
imply; though it is true that he connects it closely with the death of
Demetrius, which certainly took place not later than 232 (see above,
Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4). There is no warrant for carrying the
accession of Babylas back so far as that.

[2017] On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.

[2018] On the episcopate of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.

[2019] On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 30

The Pupils of Origen.

While Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Caesarea, many
pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other
countries. Among these Theodorus, the same that was distinguished among
the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory, [2020] and his
brother Athenodorus, [2021] we know to have been especially celebrated.
Finding them deeply interested in Greek and Roman learning, he infused
into them a love of philosophy, and led them to exchange their old zeal
for the study of divinity. Remaining with him five years, they made
such progress in divine things, that although they were still young,
both of them were honored with a bishopric in the churches of Pontus.
__________________________________________________________________

[2020] Our sources for a knowledge of the life of Gregory, who is known
as Gregory Thaumaturgus ("wonder-worker"), are numerous, but not all of
them reliable. He is mentioned by Eusebius here and in Bk. VII. chaps.
14 and 28, and a brief account of his life and writings is given by
Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 65), who adds some particulars not mentioned
by Eusebius. There is also extant Gregory's Panegyrical Oration in
praise of Origen, which contains an outline of the earlier years of his
life. Gregory of Nyssa about a century later wrote a life of Gregory
Thaumaturgus, which is still extant, but which is full of marvelous
stories, and contains little that is trustworthy. Gregory's fame was
very great among his contemporaries and succeeding generations, and
many of the Fathers have left brief accounts of him, or references to
him which it is not necessary to mention here. He was a native of
Neo-Caesarea in Pontus (according to Gregory Nyssa), the same city of
which he was afterward bishop, was of wealthy parentage, and began the
study of law when quite young (see his own Orat. Paneg. chap. 5).
Coming to Caesarea, in Palestine, on his way to Berytus, where he and
his brother Athenodorus were to attend a school of law, he met Origen,
and was so attracted by him that he and his brother remained in
Caesarea five years (according to Eusebius and Jerome) and studied
logic, physics, mathematics, ethics, Greek philosophy, and theology
with him (see his Orat). At the end of this time the brothers returned
to Pontus, and afterwards were made bishops, Gregory of Neo-Caesarea,
his native place; Athenodorus of some unknown city (Eusebius here and
in VII. 14 and 28 says only that they were both bishops of churches in
Pontus). Of the remarkable events connected with the ordination of
Gregory, which are told by Gregory of Nyssa, it is not necessary to
speak here. He was a prominent scholar and writer, and a man
universally beloved and respected for his deep piety and his commanding
ability, but his fame rested chiefly upon the reports of his
miracle-working, which were widespread. The prodigies told of him are
numerous and marvelous. Eusebius is silent about this side of his
career (whether because of ignorance or incredulity we cannot tell, but
the latter seems most probable), but Jerome refers to his fame as a
miracle-worker, Gregory of Nyssa's Vita, is full of it, and Basil and
other later writers dwell upon it. What the foundation for all these
traditions was we do not know. He was a famous missionary, and seems to
have been remarkably successful in converting the pagans of his
diocese, which was almost wholly heathen when he became bishop. This
great missionary success may have given rise to the tales of
supernatural power, some cause above the ordinary being assumed by the
common people as necessary to account for such results. Miracles and
other supernatural phenomena were quite commonly assumed in those days
as causes of conversions--especially if the conversions themselves were
in any way remarkable (cf. e.g. the close of the anonymous Dialogue
with Herbanus, a Jew). Not only the miracles, but also many other
events reported in Gregory of Nyssa's Vita, must be regarded as
unfounded; e.g. the account of a long period of study in Alexandria of
which our more reliable sources contain no trace. The veneration in
which Gregory held Origen is clear enough from his panegyric, and the
great regard which Origen cherished for Gregory is revealed in his
epistle to the latter, written soon after Gregory's arrival in
Neo-Caesarea, and still preserved in the Philocalia, chap. 13. The
works of Gregory known to us are his Panegyrical Oration in praise of
Origen, delivered in the presence of the latter and of a great
multitude before Gregory's departure from Caesarea, and still extant; a
paraphrase of the book of Ecclesiastes, mentioned by Jerome (l.c.), and
likewise extant; several epistles referred to by Jerome (l.c.), only
one of which, his so-called Canonical Epistle, addressed to an
anonymous bishop of Pontus, is still preserved; and finally a
trinitarian creed, or confession of faith, which is given by Gregory of
Nyssa in his Vita, and whose genuineness has been warmly disputed (e.g.
by Lardner, Works, II. p. 634 sq.); but since Caspari's defense of it
in his Gesch. d. Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, its authenticity
may be regarded as established. These four writings, together with some
works falsely ascribed to Gregory, are translated in The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Am. ed., Vol. VI. p. 1-80. Original Greek in Migne's Patr. Gr.
X. 983-1343. See also Ryssel's Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Sein Leben und
seine Schriften; Leipzig, 1880. Ryssel gives (p. 65-79) a German
translation of two hitherto unknown Syriac writings of Gregory, one on
the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit, and the other on the
passibility and impassibility of God. Gregory's dates cannot be fixed
with exactness; but as he cannot have seen Origen in Caesarea until
after 231, and was very young when he met him there, he must have been
born as late as the second decade of the third century. As he was with
Origen at least five years, he can hardly have taken his farewell of
him until after the persecution of Maximinus (i.e. after 238), for we
cannot suppose that he pronounced his panegyrical oration during that
persecution. He speaks in the first chapter of that oration of not
having delivered an oration for eight years, and this is commonly
supposed to imply that it was eight years since he had begun to study
with Origen, in which case the oration must be put as late as 239, and
it must be assumed, if Eusebius' five years are accepted as accurate,
that he was absent for some three years during that period (perhaps
while the persecution was going on). But the eight years cannot be
pressed in this connection, for it is quite possible that they may have
been reckoned from an earlier time, perhaps from the time when he began
the study of law, which was before he met Origin (see Panegyr. chaps. 1
and 5). If we were to suppose the order followed by Eusebius strictly
chronological, we should have to put Gregory's acquaintance with Origen
into the reign of Gordian (238-244). The truth is, the matter cannot be
decided. He is said by Gregory of Nyssa to have retired into
concealment during the persecution of Decius, and to have returned to
his charge again after its close. He was present with his brother
Athenodorus at one of the councils called to consider the case of Paul
of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chap. 28), but was not present at the final
one at which Paul was condemned (see ibid. chaps. 29 and 30, and note 2
on the latter chapter). This one was held about 265 (see ibid. chap.
29, note 1), and hence it is likely that Gregory was dead before that
date.

[2021] Athenodorus is known to us only as the brother of Gregory and
bishop of some church or churches in Pontus (see Bk. VII. chaps. 14 and
28).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 31

Africanus.

1. At this time also Africanus, [2022] the writer of the books entitled
Cesti, was well known. There is extant an epistle of his to Origen,
expressing doubts [2023] of the story of Susannah in Daniel, as being
spurious and fictitious. Origen answered this very fully.

2. Other works of the same Africanus which have reached us are his five
books on Chronology, a work accurately and laboriously prepared. He
says in this that he went to Alexandria on account of the great fame of
Heraclas, [2024] who excelled especially in philosophic studies and
other Greek learning, and whose appointment to the bishopric of the
church there we have already mentioned.

3. There is extant also another epistle from the same Africanus to
Aristides on the supposed discrepancy between Matthew and Luke in the
Genealogies of Christ. In this he shows clearly the agreement of the
evangelists, from an account which had come down to him, which we have
already given in its proper place in the first book of this work.
[2025]
__________________________________________________________________

[2022] Julius Africanus (as he is called by Jerome) was one of the most
learned men of the Ante-Nicene age. Not much is known of his life,
though he seems to have resided, at least for a time, in Emmaus, a town
of Palestine, something over twenty miles from Jerusalem (not the
Emmaus of Luke xxiv. 13, which was but seven or eight miles from the
city), for we hear in the Chron., and in Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 63,
of his going on an embassy to the Emperor Heliogabalus, and securing
the rebuilding of the ruined city Emmaus under the name of Nicopolis,
which it henceforth bore. He does not appear to have been a clergyman,
or at any rate not a bishop; for he is spoken of as such by no early
authority, and he is addressed by Origen in an extant epistle, which
must have been written toward the close of his life, simply as
"brother." His dates cannot be fixed with any exactness. He must have
been already a prominent man when he went on an embassy to the emperor
(between 218 and 222). He must have been considerably older than
Origen, for in his epistle to him he calls him "son," and that although
Origen was at the time beyond middle life himself. Unless Eusebius is
mistaken, he was still alive and active in the time of Gordian
(238-244). But if he was enough older than Origen to address him as
"son," he can hardly have lived much beyond that reign. He seems to
have been a Christian philosopher and scholar rather than an
ecclesiastic, and took no such part in the church affairs of the time
as to leave mention of his name in the accounts of the synods of his
day. He was quite a traveler, as we learn from his own writings, and
had the well-deserved reputation of being one of the greatest scholars
of the age. Eusebius mentions four works left by him, the Cesti, the
Chronicon, and the epistles to Origen and to Aristides. Jerome (l.c.)
mentions only the last three, but Photius (Cod. 34) refers to all four.
The Cesti (kestoi "embroidered girdles") seems to have derived its name
from the miscellaneous character of its contents, which included notes
on geography, the art of war, medicine, agriculture, &c. It is said by
Syncellus to have been composed of nine books: Photius mentions
fourteen, Suidas twenty-four. It is no longer extant, but numerous
scattered fragments have been preserved. Its authenticity has been
doubted, chiefly because of its purely secular character, and the
nature of some of the notes, which do not seem worthy of the
clear-headed and at the same time Christian scholar. But the external
evidence, which is not unsupported by the internal, is too strong to be
set aside, and we must conclude that the work is genuine. The extant
fragments of it are given in various works on mathematics, agriculture,
etc. (see Richardson's Bibliographical Synopsis, p. 68). The epistle of
Africanus to Origen is the only one of his writings preserved in a
complete form. It seems that Origen, in a discussion with a certain
Bassus (see Origen's epistle to Africanus, S:2), at which Africanus was
present, had quoted from that part of the Book of Daniel which contains
the apocryphal story of Susannah. Africanus afterward wrote a brief
epistle to Origen, in which he contended that the story is not
authentic, urging among other arguments differences in style between it
and the rest of the book, and the fact that the story is not found in
Hebrew, and that certain phrases show that it was composed originally
in Greek. Origen replied at considerable length, maintaining the
authenticity of the passage, and thereby showing himself inferior to
Africanus in critical judgment. Origen's reply was written from
Nicomedia (see S:1), where he was staying with Ambrose (see S:15). It
seems probable that this visit to Nicomedia was made on his way to or
from his second visit to Athens (see next chapter, note 4). Africanus'
greatest work, and the one which brought him most fame, was his
Chronicon, in five books. The work is no longer extant, but
considerable fragments of it have been preserved (e.g. in Eusebius'
Praep. Evang. X. 10, and Dem. Evang. VIII., and especially in the
Chronographia of Syncellus), and the Chronicon of Eusebius which is
really based upon it, so that we are enabled to gain a very fair idea
of its original form. As described by Photius, it was concise, but
omitted nothing worthy of mention, beginning with the creation and
coming down to the reign of Macrinus. It actually extended to the
fourth year of Heliogabalus (221), as we see from a quotation made by
Syncellus. The work seems to have been caused by the common desire of
the Christians (exhibited by Tatian, Clement of Alexander, and others)
to prove in their defense of Christianity the antiquity of the Jewish
religion, and thus take away the accusation of novelty brought against
Christianity by its opponents. Africanus apparently aimed to produce a
universal chronicle and history which should exhibit the synchronism of
events in the history of the leading nations of the world, and thus
furnish solid ground for Christian apologists to build upon. It was the
first attempt of the kind, and became the foundation of Christian
chronicles for many centuries. The time at which it was written is
determined with sufficient accuracy by the date at which the
chronological table closes. Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.)
remarks that it must have been completed early in the year 221, for it
did not contain the names of the victors in the Olympic games of the
250th Olympiad, which took place in that year (as we learn from the
list of victors copied by Eusebius from Africanus). It is said by
Eusebius, just below, that Africanus reports in this work that he had
visited Alexandria on account of the great celebrity of Heraclas. This
is very surprising, for we should hardly have expected Heraclas' fame
to have attracted such a man to Alexandria until after Origen had left,
and he had himself become the head of the school. On the fourth writing
mentioned by Eusebius, the epistle to Aristides, see above, Bk. I.
chap. 7, note 2. The fragments of Africanus' works, with the exception
of the Cesti, have been printed, with copious and valuable notes, by
Routh, Rel. Sac. II. 221-509; English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Am. ed. VI. 125-140.

[2023] aporountos. A very mild way of putting his complete rejection of
the story!

[2024] On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.

[2025] In Bk. I. chap. 7.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 32

The Commentaries which Origen composed in Caesarea in
Palestine.

1. About this time Origen prepared his Commentaries on Isaiah [2026]
and on Ezekiel. [2027] Of the former there have come down to us thirty
books, as far as the third part of Isaiah, to the vision of the beasts
in the desert; [2028] on Ezekiel twenty-five books, which are all that
he wrote on the whole prophet.

2. Being at that time in Athens, [2029] he finished his work on Ezekiel
and commenced his Commentaries on the Song of Songs, [2030] which he
carried forward to the fifth book. After his return to Caesarea, he
completed these also, ten books in number.

3. But why should we give in this history an accurate catalogue of the
man's works, which would require a separate treatise? [2031] we have
furnished this also in our narrative of the life of Pamphilus, [2032] a
holy martyr of our own time. After showing how great the diligence of
Pamphilus was in divine things, we give in that a catalogue of the
library which he collected of the works of Origen and of other
ecclesiastical writers. Whoever desires may learn readily from this
which of Origen's works have reached us. But we must proceed now with
our history.
__________________________________________________________________

[2026] "About this time" refers us still to the reign of Gordian
(238-244). Eusebius mentions only the commentaries on Isaiah, but
Jerome refers also to homilies and notes. The thirty books which were
extant in Eusebius' time extended to XXX. 6, as we are informed here.
Whether the commentary originally went beyond this point we do not
know. There are extant only two brief Latin fragments from the first
and eighth books of the commentary, and nine homilies (the last
incomplete) in a Latin version by Jerome; printed by Lommatzsch, XIII.
235-301.

[2027] Eusebius records that Origen wrote only twenty-five books of a
commentary on Ezekiel. The form of expression would seem to imply that
these did not cover the whole of Ezekiel, but a fragment of the
twentieth book, extant in the eleventh chapter of the Philocalia, deals
with the thirty-fourth chapter of the prophecy, so that the twenty-five
books must have covered at any rate most of the ground. The catalogue
of Jerome mentions twenty-nine books and twelve homilies, but the
former number must be a mistake, for Eusebius' explicit statement that
Origen wrote but twenty-five books can hardly be doubted. There are
extant only the Greek fragment of the twentieth book referred to above,
fourteen homilies in the Latin version of Jerome, and a few extracts;
all printed by Lommatzsch, XIV. 1-232.

[2028] i.e. to Isa. xxx. 6, where the LXX reads he orasis ton
tetrapodon ton en te eremo, which are the exact words used by Eusebius.
Our English versions, both the authorized and revised, read, "The
burden of the beasts of the South." The Hebrew will bear either
rendering.

[2029] The cause of this second visit to Athens we do not know, nor the
date of it; although if Eusebius is to be relied upon, it took place
during the reign of Gordian (238-244). He must have remained some time
in Athens and have had leisure for study, for he finished his
commentary on Ezekiel and wrote five books of his commentary on
Canticles. This visit to Athens is to be distinguished from the one
referred to in chap. 23, because it is probable that Origen found the
Nicopolis copy of the Old Testament (mentioned in chap. 16) on the
occasion of a visit to Achaia, and this visit is apparently too late,
for he seems to have finished his Hexapla before this time; and still
further, the epistle in which he refers to spurious accounts of his
disputation at Athens (see Jerome's Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 18) complains
also of Demetrius and of his own excommunication, which, as Redepenning
remarks, points to a date soon after that excommunication took place,
and not a number of years later, when Demetrius had been long dead.

[2030] From the seventh chapter of the Philocalia we learn that Origen,
in his youth, wrote a small book (mikros tomos) upon Canticles, of
which a single brief fragment is preserved in that chapter. The
catalogue of Jerome mentions ten books, two books written early, and
two homilies. Eusebius mentions only the commentary, of which, he says,
five books were written in Athens, and five more in Caesarea. The
prologue and four books are extant in a Latin translation by Rufinus,
and two homilies in a translation by Jerome; besides these, some Greek
extracts made by Procopius,--all printed by Lommatzsch, XIV. 233; XV.
108.

[2031] idias deomenon scholes.

[2032] On Pamphilus, see Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40. On Eusebius' Life
of Pamphilus, see the Prolegomena, p. 28, above.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 33

The Error of Beryllus.

1. Beryllus, [2033] whom we mentioned recently as bishop of Bostra in
Arabia, turned aside from the ecclesiastical standard [2034] and
attempted to introduce ideas foreign to the faith. He dared to assert
that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of being
of his own [2035] before his abode among men, and that he does not
possess a divinity of his own, [2036] but only that of the Father
dwelling in him.

2. Many bishops carried on investigations and discussions with him on
this matter, and Origen having been invited with the others, went down
at first for a conference with him to ascertain his real opinion. But
when he understood his views, and perceived that they were erroneous,
having persuaded him by argument, and convinced him by demonstration,
he brought him back to the true doctrine, and restored him to his
former sound opinion.

3. There are still extant writings of Beryllus and of the synod held on
his account, which contain the questions put to him by Origen, and the
discussions which were carried on in his parish, as well as all the
things done at that time.

4. The elder brethren among us [2037] have handed down many other facts
respecting Origen which I think proper to omit, as not pertaining to
this work. But whatever it has seemed necessary to record about him can
be found in the Apology in his behalf written by us and Pamphilus, the
holy martyr of our day. We prepared this carefully and did the work
jointly on account of faultfinders. [2038]
__________________________________________________________________

[2033] Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia (mentioned above, in chap.
20) is chiefly noted on account of the heresy into which he fell, and
from which Origen won him back, by convincing him of his error.
According to chap. 20, he was a learned and cultured man, and Jerome
(de vir. ill. c. 60) says of him, gloriose rexisset ecclesiam. We do
not know his dates, but we may gather from this chapter that the synod
which was called on his account convened during the reign of Gordian
(238-244), and apparently toward the close of the reign. Our sources
for a knowledge of the heresy of Beryllus are very meager. We have only
the brief passage in this chapter; a fragment of Origen's commentary on
Titus (Lommatzsch, V. 287), which undoubtedly refers to Beryllus'
error, though he is not mentioned by name; and finally, a single
sentence in Jerome's de vir. ill. c. 60 (Christum ante incarnationem
regat), which, however, is apparently no more than his own
interpretation of Eusebius' words. Our sources have been interpreted
very differently, some holding Beryllus to have been a Patripassian,
others classing him with the Artemonites (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28).
He was, at any rate, a Monarchion, and his position, not to enter here
into details, seems to have been that our Lord did not pre-exist as an
independent being; but that, with the incarnation, he, who had
previously been identified with the patrike theotes, became a distinct
being, possessed of an independent existence (see Dorner's Person of
Christ, Div. I. Vol. II. p. 35 sq., Edinburgh edition). According to
this chapter and chap. 20, Beryllus was the author of numerous
treatises and epistles, which were extant in Eusebius' time. According
to Jerome (l.c.), he wrote, varia opuscula et maxime epistolas, in
quibus Origeni gratias agit. Jerome reports, also, that there were
extant in his time epistles of Origen, addressed to Beryllus, and a
dialogue between Origen and Beryllus. All traces of these epistles and
other works have perished.

[2034] ton ekklesiastikon kanona: i.e. the rule of faith.

[2035] me prouphestEURnai kat' idian ousias perigraphen

[2036] theoteta idian.

[2037] ton kath' hemas oi presbuteroi. It seems necessary here to take
the word presbuteros in an unofficial sense, which is, to say the
least, exceptional at this late date.

[2038] On this Defense of Origen, written jointly by Pamphilus and
Eusebius, see above, p. 36.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 34

Philip Caesar.

Gordianus had been Roman emperor for six years when Philip, with his
son Philip, succeeded him. [2039] It is reported that he, being a
Christian, desired, on the day of the last paschal vigil, to share with
the multitude in the prayers of the Church, [2040] but that he was not
permitted to enter, by him who then presided, [2041] until he had made
confession and had numbered himself among those who were reckoned as
transgressors and who occupied the place of penance. [2042] For if he
had not done this, he would never have been received by him, on account
of the many crimes which he had committed. It is said that he obeyed
readily, manifesting in his conduct a genuine and pious fear of God.
__________________________________________________________________

[2039] The younger Gordian reigned from the summer of 238 until early
in the year 244, when he was murdered by the soldiers, and succeeded by
his praetorian prefect, Philip of Arabia, who took the name Marcus
Julius Philippus, and reigned until 249, when he was conquered and
succeeded by Decius. His son Philip, who was seven years old at the
time of his father's accession, was immediately proclaimed Caesar and
afterward given the title of Augustus. He bore the name Marcus Julius
Philippus Severus, and was slain at the time of his father's death.

[2040] There has been much dispute as to Philip's relation to
Christianity. Eusebius is the first one known to us to represent him as
a Christian, and he gives the report only upon the authority of oral
tradition (touton katechei logos christianon onta). Jerome (de vir.
ill. 54) states explicitly that Philip was the first Christian emperor
(qui primus de regibus Romanis christianus fuit), and this became
common tradition in the Church. At the same time it must be noticed
that Eusebius does not himself state that Philip was a Christian,--he
simply records a tradition to that effect; and in his Vita Const. I. 3
he calls Constantine the first Christian emperor. Little reliance can
be placed upon Jerome's explicit statement, for he seems only to be
repeating as certain what Eusebius reported as possible. The only
things known to us which can or could have been urged in support of the
alleged fact that Philip was a Christian are his act recorded in this
chapter and the letter written to him by Origen, as recorded in chap.
36. Moreover, it happens to be the fact that no heathen writer hints
that he was a Christian, and we know that he celebrated games in Rome
with pagan rites and great pomp. It seems, on the whole, probable that
Philip showed himself favorable to Christianity, and perhaps
superstitiously desired to gain the favor of the Christians' God, and
hence went through some such process as Eusebius describes in this
chapter, looking upon it merely as a sort of sacrifice to be offered to
this God as he would offer other sacrifices to other gods. It is quite
conceivable that he may have done this much, and this would be quite
enough to start the report, after his death, that he had been a
Christian secretly, if not openly; and from this to the tradition that
he was unconditionally the first Christian emperor is but a step. Some
ground for the common tradition must be assumed, but our sources do not
warrant us in believing more than has been thus suggested as possible.
For a full discussion of the question, see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp.
III. p. 494 sq.

[2041] Chrysostom (De St. Bab. c. Gentes. Tom. I.) and Leontius of
Antioch (quoted in the Chron. pasch.) identify the bishop referred to
here with Babylas, bishop of Antioch (see above, chap. 29, note 8).
Eusebius' silence as to the name of the bishop looks as if he were
ignorant on the matter, but there is nothing inherently improbable in
the identification, which may therefore be looked upon as very likely
correct.

[2042] That is, the place assigned to penitents: metanoias choran.
Christians who had committed flagrant transgressions were excluded from
communion and required to go through a course of penance, more or less
severe according to their offense, before they could be received again
into the Church. In some cases they were excluded entirely from the
services for a certain length of time; in other cases they were allowed
to attend a part of the services, but in no case could they partake of
the communion. In the fourth century a regular system of discipline
grew up, and the penitents (poenitentes) were divided into various
classes,--mourners, hearers, and kneelers; the first of whom were
excluded entirely from the church, while the last two were admitted
during a part of the service. The statement in the present case is of
the most general character. Whether the place which he was obliged to
take was without or within the church is not indicated. Upon the whole
subject of ancient church discipline, see Bingham's Antiquities, Bk.
XVI., and the article Penitence in Smith's Dict. of Christian Antiq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 35

Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the Episcopate.

In the third year of this emperor, Heraclas [2043] died, having held
his office for sixteen years, and Dionysius [2044] received the
episcopate of the churches of Alexandria.
__________________________________________________________________

[2043] On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2. The third year of Philip's
reign extended from the summer of 246 to the summer of 247, so that if
Heraclas became bishop in 232, he cannot have held office fully sixteen
years. The agreement, however, is so close as to occasion no
difficulty.

[2044] On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 36

Other Works of Origen.

1. At this time, as the faith extended and our doctrine was proclaimed
boldly before all, [2045] Origen, being, as they say, over sixty years
old, [2046] and having gained great facility by his long practice, very
properly permitted his public discourses to be taken down by
stenographers, a thing which he had never before allowed.

2. He also at this time composed a work of eight books in answer to
that entitled True Discourse, which had been written against us by
Celsus [2047] the Epicurean, and the twenty-five books on the Gospel of
Matthew, [2048] besides those on the Twelve Prophets, of which we have
found only twenty-five. [2049]

3. There is extant also an epistle [2050] of his to the Emperor Philip,
and another to Severa his wife, with several others to different
persons. We have arranged in distinct books to the number of one
hundred, so that they might be no longer scattered, as many of these as
we have been able to collect, [2051] which have been preserved here and
there by different persons.

4. He wrote also to Fabianus, [2052] bishop of Rome, and to many other
rulers of the churches concerning his orthodoxy. You have examples of
these in the eighth book of the Apology [2053] which we have written in
his behalf.
__________________________________________________________________

[2045] tou kath' hemas para pasi logou

[2046] Since Origen was born in the year 185 or 186, this must have
been as late as 245. Most if not all of the homilies of Origen, which
are now preserved, were probably delivered after this time, and
reported, as Eusebius says, by stenographers. The increasing boldness
of the Christians referred to here was apparently due to their
uncommonly comfortable condition under Philip.

[2047] Of the personal history of Celsus, the first great literary
opponent of Christianity, we know nothing with certainty, nor did
Origen know any more. He had heard that there were two persons of the
same name, the one living in the time of Nero, the other, whom he
identifies with his opponent, in the time of Hadrian and later, and
both of them Epicurean philosophers (see contra Cels. I. 8). The work
of Celsus, however, was clearly the work, not of an Epicurean, but of a
Platonist, or at least of an eclectic philosopher, with a strong
leaning toward Platonism. The author wrote about the middle of the
second century, probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Keim fixes
the date of the work at 178 a.d.). The True Discourse (alethes logos)
is no longer extant, but it can be reconstructed in great part from
Origen's reply to it. It is seen to have been one of the ablest and
most philosophical attacks of ancient times, and to have anticipated a
great many arguments urged against Christianity by modern unbelievers.
Celsus was well acquainted with Christianity in its various forms and
with its literature, and he set himself to work with all his learning
and skill to compose a complete refutation of the whole thing. He
writes apparently less from a religious than from a political motive.
He was an ardent patriot, and considered paganism essential to the life
of the State, and Christianity its necessary antagonist. He undertakes
first to show that Christianity is historically untenable, and then
that it is false from the standpoint of philosophy and ethics. It is
noticeable that it is not his desire to exterminate Christianity
completely, but to make peace with it; to induce the Christians to give
up their claim to possess the only true religion, and, with all their
high ethics and lofty ideals, to join hands with the upholders of the
ancient religion in elevating the religious ideas of the people, and
thus benefiting the state. When we look at his work in this light (and
much misunderstanding has been caused by a failure to do this), we must
admire his ability, and respect his motives. He was, however, by no
means free from the superstitions and prejudices of his age. The most
important book upon the work of Celsus is Keim's Celsus' Wahres Wort,
Zuerich, 1873, which reconstructs, from Origen's reply, Celsus' work,
and translates and explains it. Origen's reply is philosophical and in
parts very able, but it must be acknowledged that in many places he
does not succeed in answering his opponent. His honesty, however, must
be admired in letting his adversary always speak for himself. He
attempts to answer every argument urged by Celsus, and gives the
argument usually in Celsus' own words. The result is that the work is
quite desultory in its treatment, and often weighted with unimportant
details and tiresome repetitions. At the same time, it is full of rich
and suggestive thought, well worthy of Origen's genius, and shows a
deep appreciation of the true spiritual nature of Christianity. The
entire work of eight books is extant in the original Greek, and is
printed in all editions of Origen's works (Lommatzsch, Vol. XX. p.
1-226), and is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. Vol. IV.
395-669. It was one of Origen's latest works, as we are told here by
Eusebius, and was composed (as we learn from its preface) at the urgent
request of Ambrose, to whom also it was dedicated.

[2048] The commentary on Matthew was written toward the close of
Origen's life, as Eusebius informs us here, a fact which is confirmed
by references in the work itself to many of his earlier commentaries.
There are extant a single fragment from the first book (quoted in chap.
25, above), one from the second book (quoted in the Philocalia, chap.
6), and Books X.-XVII. entire in the original Greek, covering Matt.
xiii. 36-xxii. 33. There are also extant numerous notes, which may have
been taken, some of them from the commentary, and others from the
homilies; and a Latin version of the commentary covering Matt. xvi.
13-xxvii. (See Lommatzsch, Vols. III.-V.). The catalogue of Jerome
mentions twenty-five books and twenty-five homilies, and in the preface
to his commentary on Matthew, Jerome states that he had read the
twenty-five books, but elsewhere (in the prologue to his translation of
Origen's homilies on Luke; Migne, VII. 219) he speaks of thirty-six (or
twenty-six) books of the commentary, but this is doubtless a mistake
(and so Vallarsi reads viginti quinque in the text). There is no reason
to think that Origen wrote more than twenty-five books, which must have
covered the whole Gospel (to judge from the portions extant). The books
which are preserved contain much that is interesting and suggestive.

[2049] Jerome also mentions twenty-five books upon the twelve prophets
(in duodecim Prophetas viginti quinque exegeseon Origenis volumina), of
which he had found a copy in the library of Caesarea, transcribed by
the hand of Pamphilus (de vir. ill. 75). The catalogue of Jerome
enumerates two books on Hosea, two on Joel, six on Amos, one on Jonah,
two on Micah, two on Mahum, three on Habakkuk, two on Zephaniah, one on
Haggai, two on Zechariah, two on Malachi; but in the preface to his
commentary on Malachi, Jerome mentions three books on that prophecy. Of
all these books only one fragment of the commentary on Hosea is extant,
being preserved in the Philocalia, c. 8.

[2050] These epistles to Philip and his wife Severa are no longer
extant, nor can we form an accurate idea of their contents. We are
reminded of Origen's interview with Mammaea, the mother of Alexander
Severus, mentioned in chap. 21. Whether he wrote in response to a
request from Philip is uncertain, but is not likely in view of the
silence of Eusebius. It is possible that the favor shown by the emperor
and his wife had led Origen to believe that they might be won for the
faith, and there is nothing surprising in his addressing epistles to
them with this idea. On Philip's relations to Christianity, see chap.
34, note 2.

[2051] This collection of Origen's epistles made by Eusebius is no
longer extant. The catalogue of Jerome mentions "eleven books of
letters in all; two books in defense of his works." Only two epistles
are preserved entire,--the one to Julius Africanus (see chap. 31, note
1); the other to Gregory Thaumaturgus, written, apparently, soon after
the departure of the latter from Caesarea (see chap. 30, note 1), for
Gregory was, at the time it was written, still undecided as to the
profession which he should follow. In addition to these two complete
epistles, there are extant a sentence from a letter to his father
(quoted in chap. 2); also a fragment of an epistle to some unknown
person, describing the great zeal of his friend Ambrose (see chap. 18
note 1. The fragment is preserved by Suidas s. v. 'Origenes); also a
fragment defending his study of heathen philosophy (quoted in chap. 19,
above); and two fragments in Latin, from a letter addressed to some
Alexandrian friends, complaining of the alterations made by certain
persons in the reports of disputations which he had held with them (see
chap. 32, note 4. The one fragment is preserved by Jerome, in his Apol.
adv. Ruf. II. 18; the other by Rufinus, in his apology for Origen). Of
his epistles to Fabian and others no trace remains.

[2052] On Fabian, see chap. 29, note 4. We do not know when this letter
to Fabian was written; but it cannot have been written in consequence
of Origen's condemnation by the Alexandrian synods called by Demetrius,
for they were held in 231 or 232, and Fabian did not become bishop
until 236. There must have been some later cause,--perhaps a
condemnation by a later synod of Alexandria, perhaps only the
prevalence of a report that Origen was heterodox, which was causing
serious suspicions in Rome and elsewhere. We know that the
controversies which raged so fiercely about his memory began even
before his death.

[2053] On this Defense, see above, p. 36.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 37

The Dissension of the Arabians. [2054]

About the same time others arose in Arabia, putting forward a doctrine
foreign to the truth. They said that during the present time the human
soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the
resurrection they will be renewed together. And at that time also a
synod of considerable size assembled, and Origen, being again invited
thither, spoke publicly on the question with such effect that the
opinions of those who had formerly fallen were changed.
__________________________________________________________________

[2054] The exact nature of the heresy which is here described by
Eusebius is somewhat difficult to determine. It is disputed whether
these heretics are to be reckoned with the thnetopsuchitai (whom John
of Damascus mentions in his de Haeres. c. 90, and to whom Augustine
refers, under the name of Arabici, in his de Haeres, c. 83), that is,
those who taught the death of the soul with the body, or with the
hupnopsuchitai, who taught that the soul slept between the death and
the resurrection of the body. Redepenning, in a very thorough
discussion of the matter (II. 105 sq.), concludes that the heresy to
which Eusebius refers grew up under Jewish influence, which was very
strong in Arabia, and that it did not teach the death (as Eusebius
asserts), but only the slumber of the soul. He reckons them therefore
with the second, not the first, class mentioned. But it seems to me
that Redepenning is almost hypercritical in maintaining that it is
impossible that these heretics can have taught that the soul died and
afterward was raised again; for it is no more impossible that they
should have taught it than that Eusebius and others should have
supposed that they did. In fact, there does not seem to be adequate
ground for correcting Eusebius' statement, which describes heretics who
must distinctly be classed with the thnetopsuchitai mentioned later by
John of Damascus. We do not know the date at which the synod referred
to in this chapter was held. We only know that it was subsequent to the
one which dealt with Beryllus, and therefore it must have been toward
the close of Philip's reign.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 38

The Heresy of the Elkesites.

Another error also arose at this time, called the heresy of the
Elkesites, [2055] which was extinguished in the very beginning. Origen
speaks of it in this manner in a public homily on the eighty-second
Psalm: [2056]

"A certain man [2057] came just now, puffed up greatly with his own
ability, proclaiming that godless and impious opinion which has
appeared lately in the churches, styled `of the Elkesites.' I will show
you what evil things that opinion teaches, that you may not be carried
away by it. It rejects certain parts of every scripture. Again it uses
portions of the Old Testament and the Gospel, but rejects the apostle
[2058] altogether. It says that to deny Christ is an indifferent
matter, and that he who understands will, under necessity, deny with
his mouth, but not in his heart. They produce a certain book which they
say fell from heaven. They hold that whoever hears and believes [2059]
this shall receive remission of sins, another remission than that which
Jesus Christ has given." Such is the account of these persons.
__________________________________________________________________

[2055] The Elkesites (;;Elkesaitai) were not a distinct sect, but "a
school scattered among all parties of the Judaeo-Christian Church."
They are described by Hippolytus (Phil. IX. 8-12) and by Epiphanius (in
chap. 19 among the Essenes, in 30 among the Ebionites, and in 53 among
the Sampsaeans). We learn from Hippolytus that, in the time of
Callistus or soon afterward, a certain Alcibiades, a native of Apameia
in Syria, brought to Rome a book bearing the name of Elkesai
('Elchasai), which purported to contain a revelation, made in the time
of Trajan, by the Son of God and the Holy Spirit in the form of angels,
and teaching the forgiveness of all sins, even the grossest, by means
of belief in the doctrines of the book and baptism performed with
certain peculiar rites. The controversy in regard to the forgiveness of
gross sins committed after baptism was raging high at this time in
Rome, and Hippolytus, who took the strict side, naturally opposed this
new system of indulgence with the greatest vigor. Among other doctrines
taught in the book, was the lawfulness of denying the faith in time of
persecution, as told us by Origen in this chapter, and by Epiphanius in
chap. 19. The book was strongly Ebionitic in its teaching, and bore
striking resemblances to the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. Its
exact relation to those writings has been disputed; but Uhlhorn
(Homilien und Recognition des Clemens Romanus) has shown conclusively
that it is older than the latter, and that it represents a type of
Ebionitic Christianity less modified than the latter by the influence
of Christianity. In agreement with the Ebionites, the Elkesites (as all
those were called who accepted the teachings of the book, to whatever
party they might belong) taught that Christ was a created being; and
they also repudiated sacrifices, which compelled them to reject certain
portions of the Old Testament (cf. Origen's statement just below). They
likewise refused recognition to the apostle Paul, and ordained the
observance of the Jewish law; but they went beyond the Clementines in
teaching the necessity of circumcision and the repetition of baptism as
a means to the forgiveness of sins. The origin of the name Elkesai has
also been disputed. Hippolytus says it was the name of the man who was
claimed to have received the revelation, and Epiphanius calls Elkesai a
false prophet; but some critics have thought them mistaken, and have
supposed that Elkesai must have been the name of the book, or of the
angel that gave the revelation. It is more probable, however, as Salmon
concludes, that it was the name of a man whom the book represented as
receiving the revelation, but that the man was only an imaginary
person, and not the real founder of the school, as Epiphanius supposed.
The book cannot well be put back of the beginning of the third century,
when it first began to be heard of in the Catholic Church. It claimed
to have been for a century in secret circulation, but the claim is
quite unfounded. Eusebius speaks of the heresy as extinguished in the
very beginning, and it seems, in fact, to have played no prominent part
in history; and yet it apparently lingered on for a long time in the
East, for we hear of a sect in Arabia, as late as the tenth century,
who counted El-Chasaiach as their founder (see Salmon's article, p.
98). See the work of Uhlhorn already mentioned; also Ritschl's
Entstehung d. alt. Katholischen Kirche, p. 234 sq. (Ritschl holds that
the Clementines are older than the book of Elkesai), and Hilgenfeld's
Nov. Test. extra Can. rec. III. 153, where the extant fragments of the
book are collected. See also Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. II. p. 95 sq.

[2056] On Origen's writings on the Psalms, see chap. 24, note 3. This
fragment is the only portion of his homily on the eighty-second Psalm
extant.

[2057] Alciabades, according to Hippolytus (see above, note 1).

[2058] The apostle Paul (see note 1).

[2059] Origen does not mention the baptism of the Elkesites, which is
described at length by Hippolytus. It seems that both belief in the
teachings of the book and baptism were necessary. It may be that in
Origen's opinion the receiving of the book itself involved the peculiar
baptism which it taught, and that, therefore, he thought it unnecessary
to mention the latter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 39

The Persecution under Decius, and the Sufferings of
Origen.

1. After a reign of seven years Philip was succeeded by Decius. [2060]
On account of his hatred of Philip, he commenced a persecution of the
churches, in which Fabianus [2061] suffered martyrdom at Rome, and
Cornelius succeeded him in the episcopate. [2062]

2. In Palestine, Alexander, [2063] bishop of the church of Jerusalem,
was brought again on Christ's account before the governor's judgment
seat in Caesarea, and having acquitted himself nobly in a second
confession was cast into prison, crowned with the hoary locks of
venerable age.

3. And after his honorable and illustrious confession at the tribunal
of the governor, he fell asleep in prison, and Mazabanes [2064] became
his successor in the bishopric of Jerusalem.

4. Babylas [2065] in Antioch, having like Alexander passed away in
prison after his confession, was succeeded by Fabius [2066] in the
episcopate of that church.

5. But how many and how great things came upon Origen in the
persecution, and what was their final result,--as the demon of evil
marshaled all his forces, and fought against the man with his utmost
craft and power, assaulting him beyond all others against whom he
contended at that time,--and what and how many things he endured for
the word of Christ, bonds and bodily tortures and torments under the
iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet
stretched four spaces in the stocks [2067] he bore patiently the
threats of fire and whatever other things were inflicted by his
enemies; and how his sufferings terminated, as his judge strove eagerly
with all his might not to end his life; and what words he left after
these things, full of comfort to those needing aid, a great many of his
epistles show with truth and accuracy. [2068]
__________________________________________________________________

[2060] Philip was defeated and slain near Verona, on June 17, 249 by
the Pannonian legions who had compelled Decius, the envoy sent by
Philip to quell a mutiny among them, to accept the title of Augustus.
Philip's death made Decius emperor; and he reigned for a little over
two years, when he perished in a campaign against the Goths. The cause
given by Eusebius for the terrible persecution of Decius is quite
incorrect. The emperor, who before his elevation was one of the most
highly respected senators, seems to have been a man of noble character
and of high aims. He was a thorough-going patriot and a staunch
believer in the religion and laws of Rome. He saw the terrible state of
corruption and decay into which the empire had fallen; and he made up
his mind that it could be arrested only by restoring the ancient Roman
customs, and by strengthening the ancient religion. He therefore
revived the old censorship, hoping that the moral and social habits of
the people might be improved under its influence; and he endeavored to
exterminate the Christians, believing that thus the ancient purity of
the state religion might be restored. It was no low motive of personal
revenge or of caprice which prompted the persecution. We must recognize
the fact that Decius was one of the best and noblest of the Roman
emperors, and that he persecuted as a patriot and a believer in the
religion of his fathers. He was the first one that aimed at the
complete extermination of the Christians. He went systematically to
work to put the religion out of existence; and the persecution was
consequently both universal and of terrible severity, far more terrible
than any that had preceded it. The edicts published by Decius early in
the year 250 are no longer extant; but we can gather from the notices,
especially of Cyprian and Dionysius, that the effort was first made to
induce Christians throughout the empire to deny their faith and return
to the religion of the state, and only when large numbers of them
remained obstinate did the persecution itself begin.

[2061] On Fabianus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 29, note 4.

[2062] After the martyrdom of Fabianus the church of Rome was without a
bishop for about fourteen months. The bishopric of that church was
naturally under Decius a place of the greatest danger. Cornelius became
bishop in 251, probably in March, while Decius was away from the city.
After the emperor's death, which took place in the following winter,
Gallus renewed the persecution, and Cornelius with a large part of the
church fled to Civit`a Vecchia, where he died in the summer of 253,
according to Lipsius (the Liberian catalogue says 252, which is the
commonly accepted date, but is clearly incorrect, as Lipsius has
shown). Both versions of the Chron. are greatly confused at this point,
and their statements are very faulty (Jerome's version assigning a
reign of only fifteen months to Decius and two years and four months to
Gallus). Eusebius, in Bk. VII. chap. 2, says that Cornelius held office
"about three years," which is reasonably accurate, for he was actually
bishop nearly two years and a half. It was during the episcopate of
Cornelius that the Novatian schism took place (see chap. 43). Eight
epistles from Cyprian to Cornelius are extant, and two from Cornelius
to Cyprian. In chap. 43 Eusebius makes extended quotations from an
epistle written by Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, and mentions still
others which are not preserved. In chap. 46 he refers to one against
Novatian addressed to Dionysius of Alexandria, which is likewise lost.

[2063] On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.

[2064] The time of Mazabanes' accession is fixed approximately by the
fact that Alexander's death took place in the persecution of Decius.
His death is put by Eusebius (Bk. VII. chap. 14) in the reign of
Gallienus (260-268), and with this the notice in the Chron. agrees,
which assigns it to the year 265. Since his successor, Hymenaeus, was
present at the council of Antioch, in which the case of Paul of
Samosata was considered (see below, Bk. VII. chaps. 29 and 30), it will
not do to put Mazabanes' death later than 265.

[2065] On Babylas, see chap. 29, note 8.

[2066] Eusebius gives the name of this bishop as BEURbios, Jerome as
Fabianus, and Syncellus as phlabianos. The time of his accession is
fixed by the death of Babylas in the persecution of Decius. He was
bishop of Antioch while Cornelius was bishop of Rome, as we learn from
the latter's epistle to him, quoted in chap. 43, below. From an epistle
written by Dionysius of Alexandria to Cornelius of Rome (referred to in
chap. 46), we learn that Fabius died while the latter was still bishop,
i.e. before the summer of 253 (see note 3, above). The Chron. pasch.
assigns three years to the episcopate of Fabius; and though we cannot
place much reliance upon the figure, yet it leads us to think that he
must have been bishop for some time,--at least more than a year,--and
so we are inclined to put his death as late as possible. The Chron.
puts the accession of his Successor Demetrianus in the year 254, which
is too late, at least for the death of Fabius. We may conclude that the
latter died probably in the year 253, or not long before. Harnack
decides for the time between the fall of 252 and the spring of 253.
Fabius, as we learn from the epistles addressed to him by Cornelius and
Dionysius (see chaps. 43 and 44), was inclined to indorse Novatian and
the rigoristic discipline favored by him. We know nothing more of the
life or character of Fabius.

[2067] tous podas hupo tessara tou kolasteriou xulou paratetheis
diastemata. Otto, in his edition of Justin's Apology (Corp. Apol.
Christ. I. p. 204), says: xulon erat truncus foramina habens, quibus
pedes captivorum immitebantur, ut securius in carcere servarentur aut
tormentis vexarentur ("a xulon was a block, with holes in which the
feet of captives were put, in order that they might be kept more
securely in prison, or might be afflicted with tortures"). The farther
apart the feet were stretched, the greater of course was the torture.
Four spaces seems to have been the outside limit. Compare Bk. VIII.
chap. 10, S:8.

[2068] A tradition arose in later centuries that Origen died in the
persecution of Decius (see Photius, Cod. 118); but this is certainly an
error, for Eusebius cannot have been mistaken when he cites Origen's
own letters as describing his sufferings during the persecution. The
epistles referred to here are no longer extant. On Origen's epistles in
general, see chap. 36, note 7.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 40

The Events which happened to Dionysius. [2069]

1. I shall quote from the epistle of Dionysius to Germanus [2070] an
account of what befell the former. Speaking of himself, he writes as
follows: "I speak before God, and he knows that I do not lie. I did not
flee on my own impulse nor without divine direction.

2. But even before this, at the very hour when the Decian persecution
was commanded, Sabinus [2071] sent a frumentarius [2072] to search for
me, and I remained at home four days awaiting his arrival.

3. But he went about examining all places,--roads, rivers, and
fields,--where he thought I might be concealed or on the way. But he
was smitten with blindness, and did not find the house, [2073] for he
did not suppose, that being pursued, I would remain at home. And after
the fourth day God commanded me to depart, and made a way for me in a
wonderful manner; and I and my attendants [2074] and many of the
brethren went away together. And that this occurred through the
providence of God was made manifest by what followed, in which perhaps
we were useful to some."

4. Farther on he relates in this manner what happened to him after his
flight:

"For about sunset, having been seized with those that were with me, I
was taken by the soldiers to Taposiris, [2075] but in the providence of
God, Timothy [2076] was not present and was not captured. But coming
later, he found the house deserted and guarded by soldiers, and
ourselves reduced to slavery." [2077]

5. After a little he says:

"And what was the manner of his admirable management? for the truth
shall be told. One of the country people met Timothy fleeing and
disturbed, and inquired the cause of his haste. And he told him the
truth.

6. And when the man heard it (he was on his way to a marriage feast,
for it was customary to spend the entire night in such gatherings), he
entered and announced it to those at the table. And they, as if on a
preconcerted signal, arose with one impulse, and rushed out quickly and
came and burst in upon us with a shout. Immediately the soldiers who
were guarding us fled, and they came to us lying as we were upon the
bare couches.

7. But I, God knows, thought at first that they were robbers who had
come for spoil and plunder. So I remained upon the bed on which I was,
clothed only in a linen garment, and offered them the rest of my
clothing which was lying beside me. But they directed me to rise and
come away quickly.

8. Then I understood why they were come, and I cried out, beseeching
and entreating them to depart and leave us alone. And I requested them,
if they desired to benefit me in any way, to anticipate those who were
carrying me off, and cut off my head themselves. And when I had cried
out in this manner, as my companions and partners in everything know,
they raised me by force. But I threw myself on my back on the ground;
and they seized me by the hands and feet and dragged me away.

9. And the witnesses of all these occurrences followed: Gaius, Faustus,
Peter, and Paul. [2078] But they who had seized me carried me out of
the village hastily, and placing me on an ass without a saddle, bore me
away." [2079]

Dionysius relates these things respecting himself.
__________________________________________________________________

[2069] Dionysius the Great (Eusebius in the preface to Bk. VII. calls
him ho megas 'Alexandreon episkopos) was born toward the close of the
second century (he was an aged man, between 260 and 265, as we learn
from Bk. VII. chap 27), studied under Origen, and succeeded Heraclas as
principal of the catechetical school in Alexandria (see above, chap.
29) in the year 231 or 231 (see chap. 3, note 2). In the third year of
Philip's reign (246-247) he succeeded Heraclas as bishop of Alexandria,
according to chap. 35, above. Whether he continued to preside over the
catechetical school after he became bishop we do not know. Dittrich (p.
4 sq.) gives reasons for thinking that he did, which render it at least
probable. He was still living when the earlier synods, in which the
case of Paul of Samosata was considered, were held (i.e. between 260
and 264; see Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4), but he was dead before the
last one met, i.e. before 265 a.d. (see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1).
Dionysius is one of the most prominent, and at the same time pleasing,
figures of his age. He seems to have been interested less in
speculative than in practical questions, and yet he wrote an important
work On Nature, which shows that he possessed philosophical ability,
and one of his epistles contains a discussion of the authorship of the
Apocalypse, which is unsurpassed in the early centuries as an example
of keen and yet judicious and well-balanced literary criticism (see Bk.
VII. chap. 25). His intellectual abilities must, therefore, not be
underrated, but it is as a practical theologian that he is best known.
He took an active part in all the controversies of his time, in the
Novatian difficulty in which the re-admission of the lapsed was the
burning question; in the controversy as to the re-baptism of heretics;
and in the case of Paul of Samosata. In all he played a prominent part,
and in all he seems to have acted with great wisdom and moderation (see
chaps. 44 sq., Bk. VII. chaps. 5, 7 sq., chap. 27). He was taken
prisoner during the persecution of Decius, but made his escape (see the
present chapter). In the persecution of Valerian he was banished (see
Bk. VII. chap. 11), but returned to Alexandria after the accession of
Gallienus (see Bk. VII. chap. 21). His conduct during the persecutions
exposed him to adverse criticism, and he defended himself warmly
against the accusations of a bishop Germanus, in an epistle, portions
of which are quoted in this chapter and in Bk. VII. chap. 11. The
writings of Dionysius were chiefly in the form of epistles, written for
some practical purpose. Of such epistles he wrote a great many, and
numerous fragments are extant, preserved chiefly by Eusebius. Being
called forth by particular circumstances, they contain much information
in regard to contemporary events, and are thus an important historical
source, as Eusebius wisely perceived. Such epistles are quoted, or
mentioned, in chaps. 41, 44, 45, and 46 of this book, and in Bk. VII.
chaps. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26. For particulars
in regard to them, see the notes on those chapters. In addition to his
epistles a work, On Promises, is referred to by Eusebius in Bk. VII.
chap. 28, and in Bk. VII. chaps. 24 and 25, where extracts from it are
quoted (see Bk. VII. chap. 24, note 1); also a commentary on the
beginning of Ecclesiastes in Bk. VII. chap. 26, and in the same chapter
a work in four books against Sabellius, addressed to Dionysius, bishop
of Rome, in which he defends himself against the charge of tritheism,
brought by some Sabellian adversaries. He was able to clear himself of
all suspicion of heresy in the matter, though it is quite clear that he
had carried the subordinationism of Origen to a dangerous extreme. The
attack upon him led him to be more careful in his statements, some of
which were such as in part to justify the suspicions of his
adversaries. Athanasius defended his orthodoxy in a special work, De
Sententiis Dionysii, and there can be no doubt that Dionysius was
honestly concerned to preserve the divinity of the Son; but as in the
case of Eusebius of Caesarea, and of all those who were called upon to
face Sabellianism, his tendency was to lay an over-emphasis upon the
subordination of the Son (see above, p. 11 sq.). For further
particulars in regard to this work, see the chapter referred to, note
4. Upon Dionysius' views of the Trinity, see Dittrich, p. 91 sq.
Besides the writings referred to, or quoted by Eusebius, there should
be mentioned an important canonical epistle addressed to Basilides, in
which the exact time of the expiration of the lenten fast is the chief
subject of discussion (still extant, and printed by Pitra, Routh, and
others, and translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers; see Dittrich, p. 46
sq.). There are yet a few other fragments of Dionysius' writings,
extant in various mss., which it is not necessary to mention here. See
Dittrich, p. 130. The most complete collection of the extant fragments
of his writings is that of Migne, Patr. Gr. X. 1233 sq., to which must
be added Pitra's Spic. Solesm. I. 15 sq. English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 87-120. The most complete work upon
Dionysius is the monograph of Dietrich, Dionysius der Grosse, Freiburg,
i. Br. 1867.

[2070] This Germanus, as we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, was a bishop
of some see, unknown to us, who had accused Dionysius of cowardice in
the face of persecution. In the present instance Dionysius undertakes
to refute his calumnies, by recounting accurately his conduct during
the persecutions. It must be remembered that the letter is a defense
against accusations actually made, or we shall misunderstand it, and
misinterpret Dionysius' motives in dwelling at such length upon the
details of his own sufferings. The epistle, a part of which is quoted
in this chapter, and a part in Bk. VII. chap. 11, was written, as we
learn from the latter chapter, S:18, while the persecution of Valerian
was still in progress, and recounts his experiences during the
persecutions of Decius and of Valerian. The fragment quoted in the
present chapter is devoted to the persecution of Decius, the other
fragment to the persecution of Valerian. The letter is said to have
been written pros Germanon. This might be translated either to or
against Germanus. Analogy would lead us to think the former translation
correct, for all the epistles mentioned are said to have been written
pros one or another person, and it is natural, of course, to expect the
name of the person addressed to be given. I have therefore translated
the word thus, as is done in all the versions. At the same time it must
be noticed that Germanus is spoken of in the epistle (especially in
S:18 sq. of the other chapter) not as if he were the person addressed,
but as he were the person complained of to others; and, moreover, a
letter of defense sent to him alone would probably have little effect,
and would fail to put an end to the calumnies which must have found
many ready ears. It seems, in fact, quite probable that the epistle was
rather a public than a private one, and that while it was nominally
addressed to Germanus, it was yet intended for a larger public, and was
written with that public in view. This will explain the peculiar manner
in which Germanus is referred to. Certainly it is hard to think he
would have been thus mentioned in a personal letter.

[2071] Sabinus, an otherwise unknown personage, seems to have been
prefect of Egypt at this time, as AEmilianus was during the persecution
of Valerian, according to Bk. VII. chap. 11.

[2072] One of the frumentarii milites, or military commissaries, who
were employed for various kinds of business, and under the emperors
especially as detectives or secret spies.

[2073] me heuriskon. It is not meant that the frumentarius could not
find the house, but that he did not think to go to the house at all,
through an error of judgment ("being smitten with blindness"),
supposing that Dionysius would certainly be elsewhere.

[2074] hoi paides. This is taken by many scholars to mean "children,"
and the conclusion is drawn by them that Dionysius was a married man.
Dittrich translates it "pupils," supposing that Dionysius was still at
the head of the catechetical school, and that some of his scholars
lived with him, as was quite common. Others translate "servants," or
"domestics." I have used the indefinite word" attendants" simply,
because the paides may well have included children, scholars, servants,
and others who made up his family and constituted, any or all of them,
his attendants. As shown in note 8, the word at any rate cannot be
confined in the present case to servants.

[2075] Strabo (Bk. XVII. chap. 1) mentions a small town called
Taposiris, situated in the neighborhood of Alexandria.

[2076] We know nothing about this Timothy, except that Dionysius
addressed to him his work On Nature, as reported by Eusebius in VII.
26. He is there called Timotheos ho pais. Dionysius can hardly have
addressed a book to one of his servants, and hence we may conclude that
Timothy was either Dionysius' son (as Westcott holds) or scholar (as
Dittrich believes). It is reasonable to think him one of the paides,
with others of whom Dionysius was arrested, as recorded just above. It
is in that case of course necessary to give the word as used there some
other, or at least some broader sense than "servants."

[2077] Greek exendrapodismenous, meaning literally "reduced to
slavery." The context, however, does not seem to justify such a
rendering, for the reference is apparently only to the fact that they
were captured. Their capture, had they not been released, would have
resulted probably in death rather than in slavery.

[2078] These four men are known to us only as companions of Dionysius
during the persecution of Decius, as recorded here and in Bk. VII.
chap. 11. From that chapter, S:23, we learn that Caius and Peter were
alone with Dionysius in a desert place in Libya, after being carried
away by the rescuing party mentioned here. From S:3 of the same chapter
we learn that Faustus was a deacon, and that he was with Dionysius also
during the persecution of Valerian, and from S:26 that he suffered
martyrdom at a great age in the Diocletian persecution. See also Bk.
VIII. chap. 13, note 11.

[2079] As we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, S:23, this rescuing party
carried Dionysius to a desert place in Libya, where he was left with
only two companions until the persecution ceased.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 41

The Martyrs in Alexandria.

1. The same writer, in an epistle to Fabius, [2080] bishop of Antioch,
relates as follows the sufferings of the martyrs in Alexandria under
Decius:

"The persecution among us did not begin with the royal decree, but
preceded it an entire year. [2081] The prophet and author of evils
[2082] to this city, whoever he was, previously moved and aroused
against us the masses of the heathen, rekindling among them the
superstition of their country.

2. And being thus excited by him and finding full opportunity for any
wickedness, they considered this the only pious service of their
demons, that they should slay us.

3. "They seized first an old man named Metras, [2083] and commanded him
to utter impious words. But as he would not obey, they beat him with
clubs, and tore his face and eyes with sharp sticks, and dragged him
out of the city and stoned him.

4. Then they carried to their idol temple a faithful woman, named
Quinta, that they might force her to worship. And as she turned away in
detestation, they bound her feet and dragged her through the entire
city over the stone-paved streets, and dashed her against the
millstones, and at the same time scourged her; then, taking her to the
same place, they stoned her to death.

5. Then all with one impulse rushed to the homes of the pious, and they
dragged forth whomsoever any one knew as a neighbor, and despoiled and
plundered them. They took for themselves the more valuable property;
but the poorer articles and those made of wood they scattered about and
burned in the streets, so that the city appeared as if taken by an
enemy.

6. But the brethren withdrew and went away, and `took joyfully the
spoiling of their goods,' [2084] like those to whom Paul bore witness.
I know of no one unless possibly some one who fell into their hands,
who, up to this time, denied the Lord.

7. Then they seized also that most admirable virgin, Apollonia, an old
woman, and, smiting her on the jaws, broke out all her teeth. And they
made a fire outside the city and threatened to burn her alive if she
would not join with them in their impious cries. And she, supplicating
a little, was released, when she leaped eagerly into the fire and was
consumed.

8. Then they seized Serapion in his own house, and tortured him with
harsh cruelties, and having broken all his limbs, they threw him
headlong from an upper story. And there was no street, nor public road,
nor lane open to us, by night or day; for always and everywhere, all of
them cried out that if any one would not repeat their impious words, he
should immediately be dragged away and burned.

9. And matters continued thus for a considerable time. But a sedition
and civil war came upon the wretched people and turned their cruelty
toward us against one another. [2085] So we breathed for a little while
as they ceased from their rage against us. But presently the change
from that milder reign was announced to us, [2086] and great fear of
what was threatened seized us.

10. For the decree arrived, almost like unto that most terrible time
foretold by our Lord, which if it were possible would offend even the
elect. [2087]

11. All truly were affrighted. And many of the more eminent in their
fear came forward immediately; [2088] others who were in the public
service were drawn on by their official duties; [2089] others were
urged on by their acquaintances. And as their names were called they
approached the impure and impious sacrifices. Some of them were pale
and trembled as if they were not about to sacrifice, but to be
themselves sacrifices and offerings to the idols; so that they were
jeered at by the multitude who stood around, as it was plain to every
one that they were afraid either to die or to sacrifice.

12. But some advanced to the altars more readily, declaring boldly that
they had never been Christians. Of these the prediction of our Lord is
most true that they shall `hardly' [2090] be saved. Of the rest some
followed the one, others the other of these classes, some fled and some
were seized.

13. And of the latter some continued faithful until bonds and
imprisonment, and some who had even been imprisoned for many days yet
abjured the faith before they were brought to trial. Others having for
a time endured great tortures finally retracted.

14. But the firm and blessed pillars of the Lord being strengthened by
him, and having received vigor and might suitable and appropriate to
the strong faith which they possessed, became admirable witnesses of
his kingdom.

15. The first of these was Julian, a man who suffered so much with the
gout that he was unable to stand or walk. They brought him forward with
two others who carried him. One of these immediately denied. But the
other, whose name was Cronion, and whose surname was Eunus, and the old
man Julian himself, both of them having confessed the Lord, were
carried on camels through the entire city, which, as you know, is a
very large one, and in this elevated position were beaten and finally
burned in a fierce fire, [2091] surrounded by all the populace.

16. But a soldier, named Besas, who stood by them as they were led away
rebuked those who insulted them. And they cried out against him, and
this most manly warrior of God was arraigned, and having done nobly in
the great contest for piety, was beheaded.

17. A certain other one, a Libyan by birth, but in name and blessedness
a true Macar, [2092] was strongly urged by the judge to recant; but as
he would not yield he was burned alive. After them Epimachus and
Alexander, having remained in bonds for a long time, and endured
countless agonies from scrapers [2093] and scourges, were also consumed
in a fierce fire. [2094]

18. And with them there were four women. Ammonarium, a holy virgin, the
judge tortured relentlessly and excessively, because she declared from
the first that she would utter none of those things which he commanded;
and having kept her promise truly, she was dragged away. The others
were Mercuria, a very remarkable old woman, and Dionysia, the mother of
many children, who did not love her own children above the Lord. [2095]
As the governor was ashamed of torturing thus ineffectually, and being
always defeated by women, they were put to death by the sword, without
the trial of tortures. For the champion, Ammonarium, endured these in
behalf of all.

19. The Egyptians, Heron and Ater and Isidorus, and with them
Dioscorus, [2096] a boy about fifteen years old, were delivered up. At
first the judge attempted to deceive the lad by fair words, as if he
could be brought over easily, and then to force him by tortures, as one
who would readily yield. But Dioscorus was neither persuaded nor
constrained.

20. As the others remained firm, he scourged them cruelly and then
delivered them to the fire. But admiring the manner in which Dioscorus
had distinguished himself publicly, and his wise answers to his
persuasions, he dismissed him, saying that on account of his youth he
would give him time for repentance. And this most godly Dioscorus is
among us now, awaiting a longer conflict and more severe contest.

21. But a certain Nemesion, who also was an Egyptian, was accused as an
associate of robbers; but when he had cleared himself before the
centurion of this charge most foreign to the truth, he was informed
against as a Christian, and taken in bonds before the governor. And the
most unrighteous magistrate inflicted on him tortures and scourgings
double those which he executed on the robbers, and then burned him
between the robbers, thus honoring the blessed man by the likeness to
Christ.

22. A band of soldiers, Ammon and Zeno and Ptolemy and Ingenes, and
with them an old man, Theophilus, were standing close together before
the tribunal. And as a certain person who was being tried as a
Christian, seemed inclined to deny, they standing by gnashed their
teeth, and made signs with their faces and stretched out their hands,
and gestured with their bodies. And when the attention of all was
turned to them, before any one else could seize them, they rushed up to
the tribunal saying that they were Christians, so that the governor and
his council were affrighted. And those who were on trial appeared most
courageous in prospect of their sufferings, while their judges
trembled. And they went exultingly from the tribunal rejoicing in their
testimony; [2097] God himself having caused them to triumph
gloriously."
__________________________________________________________________

[2080] I read phEURbion with the majority of the mss., and with
Valesius, Stroth, Burton, Closs, and Cruse, preferring to adopt the
same spelling here that is used in the other passages in which the same
bishop is mentioned. A number of mss. read phabianon, which is
supported by Rufinus, and adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen.
On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see chap. 39, note 7. The time of his
episcopate stated in that note fixes the date of this epistle within
narrow limits, viz. between 250 and the spring of 253. The whole tone
of the letter and the discussion of the readmission of the lapsed would
lead us to think that the epistle was written after the close of the
persecution, but in S:20, Dioscorus is said to be still among them,
waiting for "a longer and more severe conflict," which seems to imply
that the persecution, if not raging at the time, was at least expected
to break out again soon. This would lead us to think of the closing
months of Decius' reign, i.e. late in the year 251, and this date finds
confirmation in the consideration that the epistle (as we learn from
chap. 44) was written after the breaking out of the Novatian schism,
and apparently after the election of Novatian as opposition bishop, for
Fabius can hardly have sided with him against his bishop, so long as he
was only a presbyter. Doubtless Novatian's official letter, announcing
his election, had influenced Fabius. But Novation was elected bishop in
251, probably in the summer or early fall; at least, some months after
Cornelius' accession which took place in February, 251. It seems, from
chap. 44, that Fabius was inclined to side with Novatian, and to favor
his rigoristic principles. This epistle was written (as we learn from
chap. 42, S:6) with the express purpose of leading him to change his
position and to adopt more lenient principles in his treatment of the
lapsed. It is with this end in view that Dionysius details at such
length in this chapter the sufferings of the martyrs. He wishes to
impress upon Fabius their piety and steadfastness, in order to beget
greater respect for their opinions. Having done this, he states that
they who best understood the temptations to which the persecuted were
exposed, had received the lapsed, when repentant, into fellowship as
before (see chap. 42, note 6). Dionysius' own position in the matter
comes out very clearly in this epistle. He was in full sympathy with
the milder treatment of the lapsed advocated in Rome and in Carthage by
Cornelius and Cyprian.

[2081] The edict of Decius was published early in the year 250, and
therefore the persecution in Alexandria, according to Dionysius, began
in 249, while Philip was still emperor. Although the latter showed the
Christians favor, yet it is not at all surprising that this local
persecution should break out during his reign. The peace which the
Christians were enjoying naturally fostered the growth of the Church,
and the more patriotic and pious of the heathen citizens of the empire
must necessarily have felt great solicitude at its constant increase,
and the same spirit which led Decius to persecute would lead many such
persons to desire to persecute when the opportunity offered itself; and
the closing months of Philip's reign were so troubled with rebellions
and revolutions that he had little time, and perhaps less inclination,
to interfere in such a minor matter as a local persecution of
Christians. The common people of Alexandria were of an excitable and
riotous disposition, and it was always easy there to stir up a tumult
at short notice and upon slight pretexts.

[2082] ho kakon te polei taute mEURntis kai poietes. The last word is
rendered "poet" by most translators, and the rendering is quite
possible; but it is difficult to understand why Dionysius should speak
of this person's being a poet, which could have no possible connection
with the matter in hand. It seems better to take poietes in its common
sense of "maker," or "author," and to suppose Dionysius to be thinking
of this man, not simply as the prophet of evils to the city, but also
as their author, in that he "moved and aroused against us the masses of
the heathen."

[2083] Of the various martyrs and confessors mentioned in this chapter,
we know only what is told us by Dionysius in this epistle.

[2084] Heb. x. 34. Upon the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17; and upon Eusebius' opinion in the
matter, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.

[2085] We know that the closing months of Philip's reign were troubled
with seditions in various quarters; but Dionysius is our only authority
for this particular one, unless it be connected, as some think, with
the revolt which Zosimus describes as aroused in the Orient by the bad
government of Philip's brother, who was governor there, and by
excessive taxation (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 272).

[2086] This refers to the death of Philip and the accession of Decius.
The hostile edicts of the latter seem not to have been published until
some months after his accession, i.e. early in 250. But his hostility
to Christianity might have been known from the start, and it might have
been understood that he would persecute as soon as he had attended to
the other more important matters connected with his accession.

[2087] Matt. xxiv. 24. Eusebius reads skandalisai; Matthew, planathai
or planesai

[2088] i.e. to sacrifice.

[2089] hoi de demosieuontes hupo ton prEURxeon egonto. Every officer of
the government under the imperial regimen was obliged to sacrifice to
the Gods upon taking office, and also to sacrifice at stated times
during his term of office, and upon special occasions, or in connection
with the performance of important official duties. He might thus be
called upon in his official capacity frequently to offer sacrifices,
and a failure to perform this part of his duties was looked upon as
sacrilege and punished as a crime against the state. Christian
officials, therefore, were always in danger of suffering for their
religion unless they were allowed as a special favor, to omit the
sacrifices, as was often the case under those emperors who were more
favorably inclined toward Christianity. A private citizen was never
obliged to sacrifice except in times of persecution, when he might be
ordered to do so as a test. But an official could not carry out fully
all the duties of his position without sacrificing. This is one reason
why many of the Christians avoided public office, and thus drew upon
themselves the accusation of a lack of patriotism (cf. Origen, Contra
Cels. VI. 5 sq., and Tertullian's Apol. c. 42); and it is also one
reason why such Christians as happened to be in office were always the
first to suffer under a hostile emperor.

[2090] Cf. Matt. xix. 23. This sentence shows that Dionysius did not
consider it impossible even for those to be saved who denied Christ
before enduring any suffering at all. He was clearly willing to leave a
possibility of salvation even to the worst offenders, and in this
agreed perfectly with Cornelius, Cyprian, and the body of the Roman and
Carthaginian churches.

[2091] asbesto puri.

[2092] The Greek word mEURkar means "blessed."

[2093] xusteras. "The instrument of torture here mentioned was an iron
scraper, calculated to wound and tear the flesh as it passed over it"
(Cruse).

[2094] puri asbesto.

[2095] Rufinus adds at this point the words et alia Ammonaria ("and
another Ammonaria"). Valesius therefore conjectures that the words kai
'AmmonEURrion hetera must have stood in the original text, and he is
followed by Stroth and Heinichen. The mss., however, are unanimous in
their omission of the words, and the second sentence below, which
speaks of only a single Ammonarium, as if there were no other,
certainly argues against their insertion. It is possible that Rufinus,
finding only three women mentioned after Dionysius had referred to
four, ventured to insert the "other Ammonaria."

[2096] It has been suggested (by Birks in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.)
that this Dioscorus may be identical with the presbyter of the same
name mentioned in Bk. VII. chap. 11, S:24. But this is quite
impossible, for Dioscorus, as we learn from this passage, was but
fifteen years old at the time of the Decian persecution, and Dionysius
is still speaking of the same persecution when he mentions the
presbyter Dioscorus in the chapter referred to (see note 31 on that
chapter).

[2097] marturi& 139;. It is difficult to ascertain from Dionysius'
language whether these five soldiers suffered martyrdom or whether they
were released. The language admits either interpretation, and some have
supposed that the magistrate was so alarmed at what he feared might be
a general defection among the troops that he dismissed these men
without punishing them. At the same time it seems as if Dionysius would
have stated this directly if it were a fact. There is nothing in the
narrative to imply that their fate was different from that of the
others; and moreover, it hardly seems probable that the defection of
five soldiers should so terrify the judge as to cause him to cease
executing the imperial decree, and of course if he did not execute it
in the case of the soldiers, he could hardly do it in the case of
others.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 42

Others of whom Dionysius gives an Account.

1. "Many others, in cities and villages, were torn asunder by the
heathen, of whom I will mention one as an illustration. Ischyrion
[2098] was employed as a steward by one of the rulers. His employer
commanded him to sacrifice, and on his refusal insulted him, and as he
remained firm, abused him. And as he still held out he seized a long
staff and thrust it through his bowels [2099] and slew him.

2. "Why need I speak of the multitude that wandered in the deserts and
mountains, and perished by hunger, and thirst, and cold, and sickness,
and robbers, and wild beasts? Those of them who survived are witnesses
of their election and victory.

3. But I will relate one occurrence as an example. Chaeremon, [2100]
who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his
wife [2101] to the Arabian mountain [2102] and did not return. And
though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them
or their bodies.

4. And many who fled to the same Arabian mountain were carried into
slavery by the barbarian Saracens. Some of them were ransomed with
difficulty and at a large price; others have not been to the present
time. I have related these things, my brother, not without an object,
but that you may understand how many and great distresses came upon us.
Those indeed will understand them the best who have had the largest
experience of them."

5. A little further on he adds: "These divine martyrs among us, who now
are seated with Christ, and are sharers in his kingdom, partakers of
his judgment and judges with him, received some of the brethren who had
fallen away and become chargeable with the guilt of sacrificing. When
they perceived that their conversion and repentance were sufficient to
be acceptable with him who by no means desires the death of the sinner,
but his repentance, having proved them they received them back and
brought them together, and met with them and had fellowship with them
in prayers and feasts. [2103]

6. What counsel then, brethren, do you give us concerning such persons?
What should we do? Shall we have the same judgment and rule as theirs,
and observe their decision and charity, and show mercy to those whom
they pitied? Or, shall we declare their decision unrighteous, and set
ourselves as judges of their opinion, and grieve mercy and overturn
order?" [2104] These words Dionysius very properly added when making
mention of those who had been weak in the time of persecution.
__________________________________________________________________

[2098] Ischyrion is known to us only from this passage.

[2099] enteron kai splEURnchnon

[2100] Of the bishop Chaeremon of Nilus we know only what is told us
here. The city Nilus or Nilopolis was situated on an island in the
Nile, in middle Egypt, some distance south of Memphis.

[2101] te sumbi& 251; heautou. The word sumbios, which means a
"companion" or "partner," can signify nothing else than "wife" as used
here in the feminine.

[2102] to 'ArEURbion oros. The name Arabicus mons, to 'ArEURbion ouros,
was given by Herodotus to the range of mountains which separated that
part of Arabia lying west of the Arabian Gulf from the Nile valley (see
Smith's Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geography).

[2103] eisedexanto kai sunegagon kai sunestesan kai proseuchon autois
kai hestiEURseon ekoinonesan. It will be observed that nothing is said
here about joining with these persons in celebrating the eucharist, or
about admitting them to that service, and hence Valesius is quite right
in distinguishing the kind of communion spoken of here from official
communion in the church, around the Lord's table. Dionysius does not
imply that these confessors had the power given them to receive the
lapsed back again into the Church, and to dispense the eucharist to
them. That was the prerogative of the bishop, and evidently Dionysius
has no thought of its being otherwise. The communion of which he speaks
was private fellowship merely, and implied a recognition on the part of
these confessors that the persons in question had truly repented of
their sin, and could be recommended for readmission into the Church. As
we see from chap. 44, S:2, the recommendation of these persons or of
the people in general was quite necessary, before the bishop would
consent to absolve the fallen person and receive him back again into
the Church. And Dionysius' words in this passage show that he felt that
the judgment of these confessors in regard to the fitness of the lapsed
for readmission ought to be received with consideration, and have
influence upon the final decision. Dionysius thus shows great respect
to the confessors, but does not accord them the privileges which they
claimed in some places (as we learn from Tertullian's de Pudicitia, 22,
and from a number of Cyprian's Epistles) of themselves absolving the
lapsed and readmitting them to church communion. In this he showed
again his agreement with Cyprian and with the principles finally
adopted in the Roman and Carthaginian churches (cf. e.g. Cyprian's
Epistles, 9 sq., al. 15; see also Dittrich, p. 51 sq.).

[2104] The object of the letter is clearly revealed in these sentences
(see chap. 41, note 1).
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 43

Novatus, [2105] his Manner of Life and his Heresy.

1. After this, Novatus, a presbyter of the church at Rome, being lifted
up with arrogance against these persons, as if there was no longer for
them a hope of salvation, not even if they should do all things
pertaining to a genuine and pure conversion, became leader of the
heresy of those who, in the pride of their imagination, call themselves
Cathari. [2106]

2. There upon a very large synod assembled at Rome, [2107] of bishops
in number sixty, and a great many more presbyters and deacons; while
the pastors of the remaining provinces deliberated in their places
privately concerning what ought to be done. A decree was confirmed by
all, that Novatus and those who joined with him, and those who adopted
his brother-hating and inhuman opinion, should be considered by the
church as strangers; but that they should heal such of the brethren as
had fallen into misfortune, [2108] and should minister to them with the
medicines of repentance.

3. There have reached us epistles [2109] of Cornelius, bishop of Rome,
to Fabius, of the church at Antioch, which show what was done at the
synod at Rome, and what seemed best to all those in Italy and Africa
and the regions thereabout. [2110] Also other epistles, written in the
Latin language, of Cyprian and those with him in Africa, [2111] which
show that they agreed as to the necessity of succoring those who had
been tempted, and of cutting off from the Catholic Church the leader of
the heresy and all that joined with him.

4. Another epistle of Cornelius, concerning the resolutions of the
synod, is attached to these; and yet others, [2112] on the conduct of
Novatus, from which it is proper for us to make selections, that any
one who sees this work may know about him.

5. Cornelius informs Fabius what sort of a man Novatus was, in the
following words:

"But that you may know that a long time ago this remarkable man desired
the episcopate, but kept this ambitious desire to himself and concealed
it,--using as a cloak for his rebellion those confessors who had
adhered to him from the beginning,--I desire to speak.

6. Maximus, [2113] one of our presbyters, and Urbanus, [2114] who twice
gained the highest honor by confession, with Sidonius, [2115] and
Celerinus, [2116] a man who by the grace of God most heroically endured
all kinds of torture, and by the strength of his faith overcame the
weakness of the flesh, and mightily conquered the adversary,--these men
found him out and detected his craft and duplicity, his perjuries and
falsehoods, his unsociability and cruel friendship. And they returned
to the holy church and proclaimed in the presence of many, both bishops
and presbyters and a large number of the laity, all his craft and
wickedness, which for a long time he had concealed. And this they did
with lamentations and repentance, because through the persuasions of
the crafty and malicious beast they had left the church for the time."
A little farther on he says:

7. "How remarkable, beloved brother, the change and transformation
which we have seen take place in him in a short time. For this most
illustrious man, who bound himself with terrible oaths in nowise to
seek the bishopric, [2117] suddenly appears a bishop as if thrown among
us by some machine. [2118]

8. For this dogmatist, this defender of the doctrine of the Church,
[2119] attempting to grasp and seize the episcopate, which had not been
given him from above, chose two of his companions who had given up
their own salvation. And he sent them to a small and insignificant
corner of Italy, that there by some counterfeit argument he might
deceive three bishops, who were rustic and very simple men. And they
asserted positively and strongly that it was necessary that they should
come quickly to Rome, in order that all the dissension which had arisen
there might be appeased through their mediation, jointly with other
bishops.

9. When they had come, being, as we have stated, very simple in the
craft and artifice of the wicked, they were shut up with certain
selected men like himself. And by the tenth hour, when they had become
drunk and sick, he compelled them by force to confer on him the
episcopate through a counterfeit and vain imposition of hands. Because
it had not come to him, he avenged himself by craft and treachery.

10. One of these bishops shortly after came back to the church,
lamenting and confessing his transgression. And we communed with him as
with a layman, all the people present interceding for him. And we
ordained successors of the other bishops, and sent them to the places
where they were.

11. This avenger of the Gospel [2120] then did not know that there
should be one bishop in a catholic church; [2121] yet he was not
ignorant (for how could he be?) that in it there were forty-six
presbyters, seven [2122] deacons, seven sub-deacons, [2123] forty-two
acolyths, [2124] fifty-two exorcists, [2125] readers, [2126] and
janitors, [2127] and over fifteen hundred widows and persons in
distress, all of whom the grace and kindness of the Master nourish.

12. But not even this great multitude, so necessary in the church, nor
those who, through God's providence, were rich and full, together with
the very many, even innumerable people, could turn him from such
desperation and presumption and recall him to the Church."

13. Again, farther on, he adds these words: "Permit us to say further:
On account of what works or conduct had he the assurance to contend for
the episcopate? Was it that he had been brought up in the Church from
the beginning, and had endured many conflicts in her behalf, and had
passed through many and great dangers for religion? Truly this is not
the fact.

14. But Satan, who entered and dwelt in him for a long time, became the
occasion of his believing. Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell
into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received
baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; [2128] if indeed we can
say that such a one did receive it.

15. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other
things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the
Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. [2129] And as he did not
receive this, [2130] how could he receive the Holy Spirit?"

16. Shortly after he says again:

"In the time of persecution, through cowardice and love of life, he
denied that he was a presbyter. For when he was requested and entreated
by the deacons to come out of the chamber in which he had imprisoned
himself and give aid to the brethren as far as was lawful and possible
for a presbyter to assist those of the brethren who were in danger and
needed help, he paid so little respect to the entreaties of the deacons
that he went away and departed in anger. For he said that he no longer
desired to be a presbyter, as he was an admirer of another philosophy."
[2131]

17. Passing by a few things, he adds the following:

"For this illustrious man forsook the Church of God, in which, when he
believed, he was judged worthy of the presbyterate through the favor of
the bishop who ordained him to the presbyterial office. This had been
resisted by all the clergy and many of the laity; because it was
unlawful that one who had been affused on his bed on account of
sickness as he had been should enter into any clerical office; [2132]
but the bishop requested that he might be permitted to ordain this one
only."

18. He adds to these yet another, the worst of all the man's offenses,
as follows:

"For when he has made the offerings, and distributed a part to each
man, as he gives it he compels the wretched man to swear in place of
the blessing. Holding his hands in both of his own, he will not release
him until he has sworn in this manner (for I will give his own words):

`Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you
will never forsake me and turn to Cornelius.'

19. And the unhappy man does not taste until he has called down
imprecations on himself; and instead of saying Amen, as he takes the
bread, he says, I will never return to Cornelius." Farther on he says
again:

20. "But know that he has now been made bare and desolate; as the
brethren leave him every day and return to the church. Moses [2133]
also, the blessed martyr, who lately suffered among us a glorious and
admirable martyrdom, while he was yet alive, beholding his boldness and
folly, refused to commune with him and with the five presbyters who
with him had separated themselves from the church."

21. At the close of his letter he gives a list of the bishops who had
come to Rome and condemned the silliness of Novatus, with their names
and the parish over which each of them presided.

22. He mentions also those who did not come to Rome, but who expressed
by letters their agreement with the vote of these bishops, giving their
names and the cities from which they severally sent them." [2134]
Cornelius wrote these things to Fabius, bishop of Antioch.
__________________________________________________________________

[2105] Eusebius, and the Greeks in general, write the name NoouEURtos
(though in Bk. VII. chap. 8, below, Dionysius writes NoouatiEURnos).
Socrates has the form NauEURtos, which appears also in some mss. of
Eusebius. Cyprian and the Latins write the name Novatianus. Lardner, in
a note on chap. 47 of his Credibility, argues with great force for the
correctness of the name Novatus, while Heinichen and others maintain
that Novatianus is the right form. The name Novatiani, Noouatianoi,
which was given to his followers, is urged with some reason by Lardner
as an argument for the shorter form of the name. But even if his
opinion is correct, the name Novatian is too long established to be
displaced, and serves to distinguish him from the Carthaginian
presbyter Novatus. The schism of Novatian was only one of the outcrops
of the old strife between lax and strict discipline in the Church, the
strife which had shown itself in connection with Montanism and also
between Callistus and Hippolytus (see above, chap. 21, note 3). But in
the present case the immediate cause of the trouble was the treatment
of the lapsed. The terrible Decian persecution had naturally caused
many to deny the faith, but afterward, when the stress was past, they
repented and desired to be readmitted to the Church. The question
became a very serious one, and opinions were divided, some advocating
their acceptance after certain prescribed penances, others their
continued exclusion. The matter caused a great deal of discussion,
especially in Rome and Carthage. The trouble came to a head in Rome,
when Cornelius, who belonged to the lax party, was chosen bishop in the
year 251, after the see had been vacant for more than a year. The
stricter party at once aroused to action and chose Novatian, the leader
of the party, opposition bishop. He had been made a presbyter by the
bishop Fabian, and occupied a very prominent position in the Roman
Church. He seems originally to have held less rigid notions in regard
to the treatment of the lapsed, but before the end of the persecution
he became very decided in his opposition to their absolution and
restoration. His position, as well as his ability and piety, made him
the natural leader of the party and the rival candidate for the
bishopric. He does not, however, seem to have desired to accept
consecration as an opposition bishop, but his party insisted. He
immediately sent the usual letters announcing the fact to the bishops
of the principal sees, to Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome. Cyprian at
once refused to recognize his appointment. Dionysius wrote to him
advising him to withdraw (see his epistle, quoted in chap. 45). But
Fabius of Antioch was inclined to take his side (see chap. 44, S:1).
Novatian was excommunicated by the council mentioned just below, and
then founded an independent church, baptizing all who came over to his
side. We know nothing of his subsequent career (according to the
tradition of his followers, and also Socrates, H. E. IV. 28, he
suffered martyrdom under Valerian), but his sect spread throughout the
East and West, and continued in existence until the sixth century.
Novatian was not at all heretical in doctrine. His work upon the
Trinity is both able and orthodox. His character was austere and of
unblemished purity (the account given by Cornelius below is a gross
misrepresentation, from the pen of an enemy) and his talents were of a
high order. But the tendency of the Church was toward a more merciful
treatment of the lapsed and of other sinners, and the stricter methods
advocated by him fell more and more into disfavor. Novatian was quite a
prolific writer. According to Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 10, he wrote
de Pascha, de Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote, de Oratione, de
Cibis Judaicis, de Instantia, de Attalo Multaque alia, et de Trinitate
grande Volumen. The de Cibis Judaicis and the de Trinitate are still
extant. The best edition of his works is that of Jackson (London,
1728). An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V.
611-650. Novatian was the author also of one of the epistles of the
Roman clergy to Cyprian (Ep. 30). Our contemporaneous sources for a
knowledge of Novatian and his schism are the epistles of Cyprian (some
ten of them), and the epistles of Dionysius and Cornelius, quoted by
Eusebius in this chapter and in chaps. 44 and 45.

[2106] katharoi, "pure."

[2107] This council is undoubtedly identical with the one mentioned in
Cyprian's epistle to Antonianus (Ep. 51, S:6; al. 55). It was held,
according to Cyprian, soon after the Carthaginian synod, in which the
treatment of the lapsi was first discussed, and accepted the decisions
of that council. The Carthaginian synod met in the spring of 251 (see
Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 112). The Roman synod must, therefore,
have been held before the end of the same year; Hefele thinks about
October (ibid. p. 114). Cornelius would not, of course, have waited
long before procuring the official condemnation of the opposition
bishop. We know nothing more about the constitution of the council than
is told us here. It was, of course, only a local synod. The pastors of
the remaining provinces were the other Italian bishops who could not be
present at the council. Cornelius solicits their opinion, in order that
the decree passed by the council may represent as large a number of
bishops as possible.

[2108] tous de te sumphorZ peripeptokotas. The Carthaginian synod had
decided that no offenses are beyond the regular power of the Church to
remit.

[2109] Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 66) gives the singular instead of the
plural (epistolam ad Fabium); so also Rufinus; but there is no reason
for doubting the integrity of the Greek text of Eusebius, which runs,
elthon d' oun eis hemas epistolai Korneliou. Valesius, although
translating epistolae Cornelii, yet follows Jerome and Rufinus in
believing that only one epistle is meant here. Neither Rufinus nor,
apparently, Jerome knew anything about the epistle, except what they
read in Eusebius, and therefore it is more probable that Eusebius was
correct in using the plural than that they were correct in using the
singular. It is easy to understand the change of Eusebius' indefinite
plural into their definite singular. They were evidently written in
Greek; for in speaking of Cyprian's epistles immediately afterward,
Eusebius especially mentions the fact that they were written in Latin.
The epistle from which Eusebius quotes just below was also written in
Greek, for Eusebius would otherwise, as is his custom have mentioned
the fact that he gives only a translation of it. This has been pointed
out by Valesius; but, as Routh remarks, we can certainly go further,
and say that the other epistle mentioned by Eusebius must have been in
Greek, too, since it was written by the same Cornelius, and addressed
to the same Fabius. These epistles are no longer extant.

[2110] Eusebius says, ta peri tes ;;Romaion sunodou kai ta doxanta pasi
tois kata ten 'Italian k.t.l., which Jerome has transformed or
compressed into de Synodo Romana, Italica, Africana, another instance
of the careless way in which his de vir. ill. was composed.

[2111] These epistles from Cyprian and the African bishops Jerome
transforms into a single epistle from Cornelius to Fabius, de
Novatiano, et de his qui lapsi sunt. At least, it seems impossible to
explain this epistle mentioned by Jerome in any other way. Knowing the
slovenly way in which he put his work together, it is not surprising
that he should attribute these epistles to the same person who wrote
the ones mentioned just before and after. Since the first epistles
mentioned are said to have been addressed to Fabius and also the last
one, from which Eusebius quotes, it is reasonable to conclude that all
mentioned in this connection were addressed to him; and it would of
course be quite natural for Cyprian, too, to write to Fabius (who was
known to be inclined to favor Novatian), in order to confirm the
account of Cornelius, and to announce that he agreed with the latter in
regard to the treatment of the lapsed. No epistle, however, of Cyprian
or of other African bishops to Fabius are extant, though the same
subject is discussed in many epistles of Cyprian addressed to the
people.

[2112] Rufinus mentions only two epistles of Cornelius in this
connection, apparently confounding this one on the deeds of the
Novatians with the one mentioned just before on the Decrees of the
Council. Jerome, on the other hand, making Cornelius, as already
mentioned, the author of the epistles of Cyprian and the African
bishops, assigns four epistles to Cornelius. None of the epistles
mentioned in this section are extant, except the long fragment of the
last one quoted just below. As mentioned in the next chapter, Fabius
inclined to take the side of Novatian over against the laxer party; and
it was on this account that Cornelius wrote him so many epistles
(compare also the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, quoted in chaps.
41 and 42, and see note 1 on the former chapter), and endeavored to
blacken the character of Novatian as he does in the passages quoted.

[2113] This Maximus was a presbyter, and one of a party of Roman
confessors who played a prominent part in the controversy about the
lapsed. He and his companions were imprisoned at the very beginning of
the Decian persecution (Cyprian, Ep. 24; al. 28), i.e. early in the
year 250, and while in prison they adopted rigoristic views and wrote
to some Carthaginian confessors, urging strict methods in dealing with
the lapsed (see Cyprian, Ep. 22; al. 27). Early in the year 251, after
eleven months in prison, the presbyter Moses, the leading spirit of the
party, died, and Maximus became the chief one among them. Moses before
his death, in spite of his rigoristic principles, refused to commune
with Novatian and his five presbyters (as we learn from S:20 of this
chapter), apparently because he saw that his insistence upon strict
discipline was tending toward schism, and that such discipline could
not be maintained without sacrificing the Church. But Maximus and those
mentioned with him here, together with some others (see Cyprian, Ep.
45; al. 49), became even stricter than at first, and finally went over
to the party of Novatian (which took its rise after the election of
Cornelius in 251), but were at length reconciled to Cornelius and the
rest of the Church, and received back with rejoicing (see Cyprian, Ep.
43, 45, 46, 49, 50; al. 46, 49, 51, 53, 54). The notices of Maximus and
Urbanus in Cyprian's epistles, which with the epistle of Cornelius
constitute our only source for a knowledge of their lives, do not
mention a second confession made by these two men, so that we cannot
tell when it took place, but it must of course have been during the
persecution of Decius.

[2114] Urbanus was a confessor only, not a presbyter or deacon as we
learn from the notices of him in Cyprian's epistles, in connection with
the party referred to in the previous note.

[2115] Sidonius likewise was a confessor simply, and is mentioned with
the others in the epistles of Cornelius and Cyprian.

[2116] Celerinus was also one of this party of Roman confessors (as we
learn from Cyprian, Ep. 15, al. 87), who, upon his release from prison,
went to Carthage, and was there ordained a reader by Cyprian (Ep. 33,
al. 39). His release from prison and departure for Carthage took place
before the release of the others and before the death of Moses (as we
learn from Ep. 15), that is, before the end of the year 250. He was
still in Rome, however, at Easter of that year, as we learn from his
epistle to Lucian, mentioned below. He came of a family of martyrs (Ep.
33), and was himself one of the most celebrated confessors of his time.
There is extant an epistle written by him to Lucian, the Carthaginian
confessor (Cyprian, Ep. 21), in which he begs absolution for his
sisters, who had denied the faith. The epistle (as we learn from its
own statements) was written at Easter time and in the year 250, for
there was no bishop of Rome at the time of its composition. As we learn
from this passage, Celerinus went over with these other Roman
confessors to the party of Novatian, and returned with them to the
Church. He is, however, mentioned neither by Cyprian nor by Cornelius
(in his epistle to Cyprian) in connection with the schism of these
confessors. This is very remarkable, especially since Celerinus was
quite a prominent character. It is possible that he was in Carthage the
greater part of the time, and did not return to Rome until shortly
before the confessors returned to the Church. He might then have thrown
in his lot with them, and have returned with them to the orthodox
church; and yet, not having been mentioned by Cornelius' earlier
epistle to Cyprian, announcing the schismatic position of the
confessors, he was omitted also in the later letters announcing their
return (which in fact only mentions the three leaders), and in
Cyprian's reply, which of course would only mention those of whom he
had been told in Cornelius' first epistle. Of the subsequent career of
Celerinus and of these other confessors we know nothing.

[2117] There is no reason to doubt, as Cornelius does, Novatian's
sincerity in declaring that he did not seek the office of bishop. Both
Cornelius and Cyprian make his ambition and his jealousy of Cornelius,
the successful candidate, the cause of his schism. But such an
accusation was made against every schismatic, even when there was not a
shadow of support for it, and there is no reason to suppose it nearer
the truth in this than in other cases. In fact, his own protestation,
as recorded here by Cornelius, and as testified to by Dionysius in
chap. 45, as well as the character of the man as revealed in his life
previous to his episcopal ordination (as certified to even by his
enemies), and in his writings, are entirely opposed to the supposition
that he sought the episcopal office and that his schism was a result of
his defeat. We shall do much better to reject entirely this exceedingly
hostile and slanderous account of his enemy Cornelius, and to accept
his own account of the matter as reported by Dionysius in chap. 25. He
was the natural head of the rigoristic party, made such by his
commanding ability, his deep piety, and his ascetic principles of
living; and when Cornelius, the head of the lax party, was made bishop
(in March, 251), the strict party revolted, and it could not be
otherwise than that Novatian should be elected bishop, and that even if
reluctant he should feel compelled to accept the office in order to
assert the principles which he believed vital, and to prevent the
complete ruin of the Church. Cornelius gives a sad story of his
ordination to the episcopate. But one thing is certain, he had with him
for some time a large portion of the best people in the Roman church,
among them Maximus and others of the most influential confessors, who
seem at length to have returned to the Church only because they saw
that the schism was injuring it. Certainly if Novatian had been a
self-seeker, as Cornelius describes him, and if his ordination had been
of such a nature as Cornelius reports, he could never have had the
support of so many earnest and prominent men. It is doubtless true, as
Cornelius states, that Novatian was ordained by three Italian bishops,
very likely bishops of rural and comparatively insignificant sees, and
it is quite possible that one of them, as he also records, afterwards
repented of his act as schismatic, and returned to the Church and
received absolution. But all this does not imply that these three
bishops were deceived by false pretenses on the part of Novatian, or
that they were intoxicated when they performed the service. This, in
fact, may be looked upon as baseless calumny. Novatus, the Carthaginian
agitator who had caused Cyprian so much trouble, took a prominent part
in the Novatian schism, though to make him the author of it, as Cyprian
does, is undoubtedly incorrect (see Lardner, Works, III. p. 94 sq.;
London ed. 1829). It was perhaps he (as reported by Eulogius, according
to Photius, Cod. 182, and by Theodoret, Haer. Fab. III. 5) that found
these three bishops to ordain Novatian. It is not at all improbable,
when so many prominent men in the Roman church favored the stricter
principles and supported Novatian, that bishops could be found in Italy
who held the same principles and would be glad to ordain Novatian as
bishop of Rome.

[2118] mEURnganon

[2119] As Closs remarks, these words are evidently an allusion to
Novatian's work, de Trinitate.

[2120] ekdikethes tou euangeliou. Possibly another sarcastic reference
to Novatian's work in defense of the doctrine of the Church; possibly
only an allusion to the fact that he prided himself on his orthodoxy.

[2121] The principle, that there should be only one bishop in a city,
was not clearly enunciated and forcibly emphasized until the third
century. Cyprian's writings are full of it (cf. his treatise On the
Unity of the Church), and in connection with this Novatian schism,
which showed so plainly the disintegrating effects of a division of the
church under two bishops, the principle was established so firmly as
never again to be questioned. I do not mean to assert here that the
principle so clearly and conclusively established at this time was a
new principle. We find it enunciated even by Ignatius at the beginning
of the second century, and it was the common opinion of Christendom, or
otherwise Cyprian could not have appealed to universal custom as he
does in discussing the matter. I mean simply that the principle had
never before been brought to such a test as to require its formal
enunciation and public recognition by the clergy and the Church at
large. The emergency which now arose compelled such formal statement of
it; and the Council of Nicaea made it canon law (cf. Bingham's
Antiquities, I. p. 160 sq.).

[2122] The limitation of the deacons to seven in number was due to the
fact that the appointment of the Seven by the apostles (Acts vi.) was
commonly looked upon as the institution of the office of the diaconate.
But upon this matter, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 2a. The practice
of limiting the number of the deacons to seven was quite a common one,
and was enacted as a law in the fifteenth canon of the Council of
Neo-Caesarea (held early in the third century). The practice, however,
was by no means universal, as we are informed by Sozomen (H. E. VII.
19). Indeed, at least in Alexandria and in Constantinople, their number
was much greater (see Bingham's Ant. I. p. 286).

[2123] The sub-deacons (the highest of the inferior orders of the
clergy) are first mentioned in this epistle of Cornelius and in various
epistles of Cyprian. At what time they arose we cannot tell, but they
seem to have appeared in the East later than in the West, at least the
first references we have to them in the Orient are in the fourth
century, e.g. in the Apost. Const. VIII. 21. They acted as deacons'
assistants, preparing the sacred vessels for use at the altar, attended
the doors during communion service, and were often employed by the
bishops for the conveyance of letters or messages to distant churches.
See Bingham's Ant. Bk. III. chap. 2.

[2124] The Acolyths (akolouthoi), another of the inferior orders of the
clergy, are likewise first mentioned here and in Cyprian's epistles.
They seem to have been of much later institution in the East, for we
first hear of them there in the time of Justinian (Justin. Novel. 59).
Their duties seem to have been to attend to the lights of the church
and to procure the wine for communion service. See Bingham, ibid. chap.
3.

[2125] The Exorcists likewise constituted one of the inferior orders of
the clergy; but although we find exorcism very frequently referred to
by the Fathers of the second century, there seems to have been no such
office until the third century, the present being the earliest distinct
reference to it. In the fourth century we find the office in all parts
of the Church East and West. Their duty was to take charge of those
supposed to be possessed of an evil spirit; to pray with them, care for
them, and exorcise the demon when possible. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 4.

[2126] The Readers, or Lectors (Greek, anagnostai; Latin, Lectores),
constituted still another of the inferior orders, and were already a
distinct office in the time of Tertullian (cf. de Praescrip. chap. 41).
From the third century on the order seems to have been universal. Their
duty was to read the Scriptures in the public services of the
sanctuary. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 5.

[2127] The Janitors, or Doorkeepers (Greek, puloroi or thuroroi; Latin,
ostiarii or janitores), are first mentioned in this passage. In the
fourth century, however, we find them frequently referred to. Their
office seems to have been about the same as that of the modern janitor
or sexton. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 6.

[2128] There is no reason to doubt that Novatian received clinical
baptism, as here stated by Cornelius. This does not imply, as is
commonly supposed, that he was of heathen parentage, for many
Christians postponed baptism as long as possible, in order not to
sacrifice baptismal grace by sins committed after baptism. We do not
know whether his parents were heathen or Christians. Upon the objection
to Novatian's ordination, based upon his irregular baptism, see below,
S:17.

[2129] tou te sphragisthenai hupo tou episkopou sphragisthenai here
means confirmation or consignation (as it was commonly called among the
Latins); that is, the imposition of the hands of the bishop which
regularly followed baptism, immediately if the bishop were on the
ground, in other cases at as early a date as possible. The imposition
of hands was for the purpose of conveying the Holy Spirit, who should
supply the newly baptized Christian with the necessary grace to fit him
for the Christian life. Confirmation was thus looked upon as completing
the baptism and as a necessary pre-condition of receiving the
eucharist. At the same time, if a person died after baptism, before it
was possible to receive imposition of hands, the baptism was not
regarded as rendered invalid by the omission, for in the baptism itself
the full remission of sins was supposed to be granted. The confirmation
was not necessary for such remission, but was necessary for the
bestowal of the requisite sustaining grace for the Christian life.
Cornelius in the present paragraph does not intend to imply that
regenerating grace was not given in Novatian's baptism. He means simply
that the Holy Spirit was not given in that full measure in which it was
given by the laying on of hands, and which was necessary for growth in
grace and Christian living. The baptism was looked on in ordinary cases
as in a sense negative,--effecting the washing away of sin, the laying
on of hands as positive, confirming the gift of the Spirit. The former,
therefore, was sufficient to save the man who died immediately
thereafter; the latter was necessary to sustain the man who still
remained in the world. Compare with these words of Cornelius
Tertullian's de Baptism. chap. 6. The earliest extant canon on this
subject is the thirty-eighth of the synod of Elvira (306 a.d.), which
decrees that a sick person may in case of necessity be baptized by a
layman, but that he is afterward, if he recovers, to be taken to the
bishop that the baptism may be perfected by the laying on of hands. The
seventy-seventh canon decrees the same thing for those baptized by
deacons, but expressly declares that if the baptized person die before
the imposition of hands, he is to be regarded as saved in virtue of the
faith which he confessed in his baptism. It is not necessary to give
other references in connection with this matter. For further
particulars, see Bingham, ibid. Bk. XII. On the signification of the
verb sthragizo, see Suicer's Thesaurus. We can hardly believe that
Novatian failed to receive imposition of hands from the bishop, for it
is inconceivable that the latter would have omitted what was regarded
as such an important prerequisite to church communion in the case of
one whom he ordained to the presbyterate. Novatian may not have
received confirmation immediately after his recovery, but he must have
received it before his ordination. As seen in S:17, it is not the
omission of confirmation that causes the objections on the part of the
clergy, but the clinical baptism.

[2130] The majority of the mss., followed by Schwegler, Laemmer, and
Heinichen, read touton. But some of the best mss., followed by all the
other editors, read toutou.

[2131] This is certainly a calumny. It is possible, as Neander
suggests, that Novatian, although a presbyter, withdrew somewhat from
active duty and lived the life of an ascetic, and that it is this to
which Cornelius refers in speaking of his admiration for "another
philosophy." But however that may be, Cornelius' interpretation of his
conduct as cowardly or unworthy is quite false. See above, note 1.

[2132] Clinic baptism (so-called from kline, "a bed") was ordinarily
looked upon in the early Church, in which immersion was the common mode
of baptism, as permanently debarring a person from the presbyterate,
and by many persons it was denied that such baptism was baptism at all.
The latter opinion, however, the Church refused to sustain (cf.
Cyprian, Ep. 75; al. 19). The twelfth canon of the Council of
Neo-Caesarea (held early in the fourth century) says, "If any man is
baptized only in time of sickness, he shall not be ordained a
presbyter; because his faith was not voluntary, but as it were of
constraint; except his subsequent faith and diligence recommend him, or
else the scarcity of men make it necessary to ordain him." It is clear
that this canon meant to apply only to persons whose baptism was
delayed by their own fault. It was common for catechumens to postpone
the rite as long as possible in order not to forfeit baptismal grace by
their post-baptismal sins, and it was to discourage this practice that
such canons as this of Neo-Caesarea were passed. Even this canon,
however, provided for exceptional cases, and the fact that Novatian was
ordained in spite of his irregular baptism is a proof that he must have
been an exceptionally pious and zealous man.

[2133] On Moses (or Moyses, as he is called by Cyprian), see note 9,
above. Lipsius (Chron. der roem. Bischoefe, p. 202, note) maintains
that Cornelius is referring, at this point, not to Novatian, but to
Novatus, the Carthaginian presbyter, and that Eusebius has confounded
the two men. He bases this opinion upon the mention of the five
presbyters, whom he identifies with those who, with Novatus, separated
from the Carthaginian church in connection with the schism of
Felicissimus (see Cyprian, Ep. 39; al. 43), and also upon the fact that
Moses died before the election of Novatian as opposition bishop. In
regard to the first point, it must be noticed that, in an epistle to
Cyprian upon the schism of Novatian (Cyprian, Ep. 47; al. 50),
Cornelius mentions five presbyters (including Novatus) as connected
with Novatian in his schism. Certainly it is most natural to refer
Cornelius' words in this paragraph to the same five men. Indeed, to
speak of Novatus and the five presbyters with him would be very
peculiar, for Novatus himself was one of the five, and therefore there
were but four with him. As to the second point, it may simply be said
that Moses might well have refused to commune with Novatian, before the
election of the latter, seeing that his position would inevitably lead
to schism. There remains, therefore, no reason for supposing Eusebius
mistaken, and for referring these words to Novatus of Carthage, instead
of Novatian of Rome.

[2134] These lists of the bishops present at the council, and of those
who expressed their agreement with the decision of the synod, are no
longer extant.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 44

Dionysius' Account of Serapion.

1. To this same Fabius, who seemed to lean somewhat toward this schism,
[2135] Dionysius of Alexandria also wrote an epistle. [2136] He writes
in this many other things concerning repentance, and relates the
conflicts of those who had lately suffered martyrdom at Alexandria.
After the other account he mentions a certain wonderful fact, which
deserves a place in this work. It is as follows:

2. "I will give thee this one example which occurred among us. There
was with us a certain Serapion, [2137] an aged believer who had lived
for a long time blamelessly, but had fallen in the trial. He besought
often, but no one gave heed to him, because he had sacrificed. But he
became sick, and for three successive days continued speechless and
senseless.

3. Having recovered somewhat on the fourth day he sent for his
daughter's son, and said, How long do you detain me, my child? I
beseech you, make haste, and absolve me speedily. Call one of the
presbyters to me. And when he had said this, he became again
speechless. And the boy ran to the presbyter. But it was night and he
was sick, and therefore unable to come.

4. But as I had commanded that persons at the point of death, if they
requested it, and especially if they had asked for it previously,
should receive remission, that they might depart with a good hope, he
gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist, telling him to soak
[2138] it and let the drops fall into the old man's mouth. [2139]

5. The boy returned with it, and as he drew near, before he entered,
Serapion again arousing, said, `Thou art come, my child, and the
presbyter could not come; but do quickly what he directed, and let me
depart.' Then the boy soaked it and dropped it into his mouth. And when
he had swallowed a little, immediately he gave up the ghost.

6. Is it not evident that he was preserved and his life continued till
he was absolved, and, his sin having been blotted out, he could be
acknowledged [2140] for the many good deeds which he had done?"

Dionysius relates these things.
__________________________________________________________________

[2135] See above, chap. 39, note 7.

[2136] This epistle, as we may gather from the description of its
contents in the next sentence, is without doubt the same from which
Eusebius has quoted at such length in chaps. 41 and 42. Upon the date
and purpose of it, see chap. 41, note 1. We possess only the fragments
quoted by Eusebius in these three chapters.

[2137] Of this Serapion we know only what is told us in this chapter.

[2138] apobrexai. This is translated by Cruse and by Salmond (in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 101) "soak (or steep) in water"; but the
liquid is not specified in the text, and it has consequently been
thought by others that the bread was dipped in the wine, as was
commonly done in the celebration of the eucharist in the Eastern Church
(see Bingham's Ant. Bk. XV.). But it must be noticed that the bread was
soaked not by the presbyter but by the boy, and that too after his
return home, where there can have been no consecrated wine for
eucharistic use, and there is no hint that wine was given him for the
purpose by the presbyter. It therefore seems probable that the bread
was soaked simply in water, and that the soaking was only in order that
the old man, in his enfeebled state, might be able to receive the
element in a liquid instead of in a solid form.

[2139] kata tou stomatos epistEURxai

[2140] homologethenai. The meaning is apparently "acknowledged or
confessed by Christ," and Valesius is doubtless correct in remarking
that Dionysius was alluding to the words of Matt. x. 32.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 45

An Epistle of Dionysius to Novatus.

1. But let us see how the same man addressed Novatus [2141] when he was
disturbing the Roman brotherhood. As he pretended that some of the
brethren were the occasion of his apostasy and schism, as if he had
been forced by them to proceed as he had, [2142] observe the manner in
which he writes to him:

2. "Dionysius to his brother Novatus, greeting. If, as thou sayest,
thou hast been led on unwillingly, thou wilt prove this if thou
retirest willingly. For it were better to suffer everything, rather
than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of
preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to
worship idols. Nay, to me it seems greater. For in the one case a man
suffers martyrdom for the sake of his own soul; in the other case in
behalf of the entire Church. And now if thou canst persuade or induce
the brethren to come to unanimity, thy righteousness will be greater
than thine error, and this will not be counted, but that will be
praised. But if thou canst not prevail with the disobedient, at least
save thine own soul. I pray that thou mayst fare well, maintaining
peace in the Lord." This he wrote to Novatus.
__________________________________________________________________

[2141] This epistle to Novatian was doubtless written in reply to a
letter from him announcing his election to the episcopate of Rome, for
we know that Novatian sent such letters, as was customary, to all the
prominent bishops of the Church. Dionysius' epistle, therefore, must
have been written soon after the election of Novatian, which took place
in the year 251. We have only the fragment quoted in this chapter.

[2142] Novatian may well have been urged against his will to permit
himself to be made opposition bishop; but of course, once having taken
the step, so long as he believed in the justice of the cause for which
he was contending, he could not turn back, but must maintain his
position with vigor and firmness. This, of course, would lead his
enemies to believe that he had himself sought the position, as
Dionysius evidently believed that he had.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 46

Other Epistles of Dionysius.

1. He wrote also an epistle to the brethren in Egypt on Repentance.
[2143] In this he sets forth what seemed proper to him in regard to
those who had fallen, and he describes the classes of transgressions.

2. There is extant also a private letter on Repentance, which he wrote
to Conon, [2144] bishop of the parish of Hermopolis, and another of an
admonitory [2145] character, to his flock at Alexandria. Among them
also is the one written to Origen on Martyrdom [2146] and to the
brethren at Laodicea, [2147] of whom Thelymidres was bishop. He
likewise sent one on Repentance to the brethren in Armenia, [2148] of
whom Merozanes was bishop.

3. Besides all these, he wrote to Cornelius of Rome, when he had
received from him an epistle against Novatus. [2149] He states in this
that he had been invited by Helenus, [2150] bishop of Tarsus, in
Cilicia, and the others who were with him, Firmilianus, [2151] bishop
in Cappadocia, and Theoctistus, [2152] of Palestine, to meet them at
the synod in Antioch, where some persons were endeavoring to establish
the schism of Novatus.

4. Besides this he writes that he had been informed that Fabius [2153]
had fallen asleep, and that Demetrianus [2154] had been appointed his
successor in the episcopate of Antioch. He writes also in these words
concerning the bishop of Jerusalem: "For the blessed Alexander [2155]
having been confined in prison, passed away happily."

5. In addition to this there is extant also a certain other diaconal
epistle of Dionysius, sent to those in Rome through Hippolytus. [2156]
And he wrote another to them on Peace, and likewise on Repentance;
[2157] and yet another to the confessors there who still held to the
opinion of Novatus. [2158] He sent two more to the same persons after
they had returned to the Church. And he communicated with many others
by letters, which he has left behind him as a benefit in various ways
to those who now diligently study his writings. [2159]
__________________________________________________________________

[2143] This epistle on the subject of repentance or penance, which was
the burning one just at this time in connection with the lapsed, was
doubtless written at about the same time with those to Fabius and
Novatian, already referred to. No fragments of it have been preserved.

[2144] This work (pros Konona idia tis peri metanoias graphe), which
was probably written at about this same time, is mentioned also by
Jerome (de vir. ill. 69). Eusebius preserves no extract from it, but
extended fragments have been preserved in various mss., and have been
published by Pitra (Spic. Solesm. I. p. 15 sq.), though it is
questionable whether all that he gives are genuine. The translation of
Dionysius' works in the Ante-Nicene Fathers omits all of these
fragments, though they are interesting and valuable. For further
particulars, see Dittrich, p. 62. The general character of the letter
must have been the same as that of the preceding.

[2145] epistreptike; literally, "calculated to turn." Musculus and
Christophorsonus translate hortatoria; Valesius, objurgatoria; Stroth
and Closs, "Ermahnungsschrift"; Cruse, "epistle of reproof." The word
does not necessarily carry the idea of reproof with it, but it is
natural to suppose in the present case that it was written while
Dionysius was absent from Alexandria, during the persecution of Decius,
and if so, may well have contained an admonition to steadfastness, and
at the same time, possibly, an argument against rigoristic measures
which some of the people may have been advocating in reference to the
lapsed. At least, the connection in which Eusebius mentions it might
lead us to think that it had something to do with that question,
though, as the epistle is no longer extant, we can reach no certainty
in the matter.

[2146] This epistle was doubtless written while Origen was suffering
imprisonment in the persecution of Decius (see above, chap. 39, and
below, p. 394), and was for the purpose of comforting and encouraging
him (cf. Origen's own work on martyrdom, referred to in chap. 28,
above). The epistle is no longer extant. Numerous fragments are given
by Gallandi, Migne, and others, which they assign to this work; but
Dittrich has shown (p. 35 sq.) that they are to be ascribed to some one
else, perhaps to another Dionysius who lived much later than the great
bishop.

[2147] This epistle to the Laodiceans, which is no longer extant, very
likely dealt, like so many of the others, with the question of
discipline. Of Thelymidres, bishop of Laodicea, we know nothing.

[2148] We know no more about this epistle to the Armenians than is told
us here. The character of the letter must have been similar to the two
upon the same subject mentioned above. Of the bishop Merozanes nothing
is known.

[2149] On Cornelius, see above, chap. 39, note. 3. His epistle to
Dionysius is no longer extant. Dionysius' epistle to him is likewise
lost, and is known to us only from what Eusebius tells us here. It was
written after the death of Fabius of Antioch (see below, S:4), and
therefore probably in 253 (see above, chap. 39, note 7). It has been
questioned whether this synod of Antioch to which, according to
Eusebius, Dionysius referred, was really held, or only projected. The
Libellus Synodicus records it as an actual synod, but its authority is
of no weight. On the other hand, Eusebius' words seem plainly to
indicate that he believed that the council was really held, for he
speaks of it as "the synod at Antioch"; had he thought of it only as
projected, he could hardly have referred to it in such definite terms.
In spite, therefore, of the doubts of Dittrich, Hefele, and others, I
am inclined to believe that Eusebius supposed that the synod had
actually been held in Antioch. Whether the epistle of Dionysius
warranted him in drawing that conclusion is another question, which
cannot be decided. I look upon it, however, as probable that, had the
synod been simply projected and failed to convene, some indication of
that fact would have been given by Dionysius, and would have caused a
modification of Eusebius' statement.

[2150] Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, played a prominent part in the
controversy concerning the re-baptism of heretics, maintaining, like
most of the Oriental bishops, the necessity of re-baptizing them (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 5), and also in the controversy which arose about
Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). From the latter
chapter we should gather that he presided at the final council in
Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul, Firmilian, who seems to
have presided at the previous councils, having died on his way to the
last one. Of Helenus' dates we know only what we can gather from the
facts here stated. He must have been bishop as early as 252; and he
cannot have died until after 265 (on the date of the Antiochian synod
at which Paul was condemned, see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1).

[2151] On Firmilian, see above, chap. 26, note 3.

[2152] On Theoctistus, see above, chap. 19, note 27.

[2153] On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 39, note 7.

[2154] Demetrianus, the successor of Fabius, and predecessor of Paul in
the bishopric of Antioch, is mentioned also in Bk. VII. chaps. 5, 14,
27, and 30. The date of his accession is uncertain; but as Fabius died
probably in 253 (possibly in 252), we can fix approximately the
beginning of his episcopate. In Bk. VII. chaps. 5 and 14, he is said to
have survived Gallienus' edict of toleration (260 a.d.); but as Harnack
has shown (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51), this notice is quite unreliable,
as are also the notices in the Chronicle. We can only say that his
successor, Paul, became bishop between the years 257 and 260.

[2155] On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see above, chap. 8, note 6.

[2156] The interpretation of this sentence is very difficult. The Greek
runs hexes taute kai hetera tis epistole tois en ;;Rome tou Dionusiou
pheretai diakonike dia ;;Ippolutou. The pheretai, according to the
usage of Eusebius, must mean "is extant," and some participle (e.g.
"written" or "sent") must then be supplied before dia ;;Ippolutou.
Whether Eusebius means that the letter was written by Hippolytus or was
carried by him to Rome cannot be determined. The latter is more
probable and is the commonly accepted interpretation. That Eusebius
should name a messenger in this particular case and in no other seems
peculiar, unless it be supposed that Hippolytus was so prominent a
character as to merit especial mention. Who he was we do not know, for
chronology will not permit us (as was formerly done by some scholars)
to identify him with the great writer of the Roman church (see above,
chaps. 20 and 22), and no other Hippolytus of prominence is known to
us. In view of Eusebius' mention of the name at this point, I am
inclined, however, to think that he, knowing so little about the Roman
Hippolytus, fancied that this was the same man. If he did, he had good
reason to mention him. The word "diaconal" (diakonike) in this sentence
has caused much dispute. Rufinus translates epistola de ministeriis;
Valesius, epistola de officio diaconi, that is, "concerning the office
(or duties) of the diaconate," and it seems out of the question to
understand the word in any other way. Why Dionysius should address an
epistle on this subject to the Roman church it is impossible to say.
Magistris supposed that it was called "diaconal" because it was to be
read in church by a deacon, and concluded that it was an exhortation to
peace, since it was customary for the deacons to offer the eirenikEUR,
or prayers for peace. The supposition is attractive, for it is natural
to think that this epistle, like the others, discussed the Novatian
schism and contained an exhortation to peace. But we cannot without
further evidence adopt Magistris' explanation, nor indeed can we assume
that a diaconal epistle as such (whether the word is a technical one or
not, and though it might seem such we have no other trace of such a use
of it) had to do with the unity or peace of the Church. We must, in
fact, leave the matter quite undetermined. Compare Dittrich, ibid. p.
55.

[2157] Of these two epistles to the Romans we know only the titles, as
given here by Eusebius.

[2158] On these confessors, and their return to the Church, see above,
chap. 43, note 9. Dionysius' epistles to them are known to us only from
Eusebius' reference to them in this passage.

[2159] Besides the epistles mentioned by Eusebius in this and the
previous chapter we know at least the titles of a number of others. In
Bk. VII. many are referred to, and extracts from some are quoted by
Eusebius. See especially Bk. VII. chap. 26, where another partial list
of them is given. Eusebius does not pretend to mention all of
Dionysius' epistles; indeed, he states that he wrote many besides those
mentioned. For further particulars in regard to all the epistles known
to us, see Dittrich's monograph.

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web zeitschrift.co.uk

We believe the following organizations are making a difference for the better in this world and encourage you to consider supporting them.


Oxfam International

Red Cross International

World Vision International

Page Design Copyright 2008 International Zeitschrift