Literature Archives · Home

---

Eusebius Pamphilius

Archives

Church History

---

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

---

Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine. Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Based on the print version: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Public Domain.
_______________________________________________________________

Book 2

Introduction

1. We have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in
ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of
introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were
the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines
which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by
Christians, together with the events which have taken place in
connection with Christ's recent appearance, and in connection with his
passion and with the choice of the apostles.

2. In the present book let us examine the events which took place after
his ascension, confirming some of them from the divine Scriptures, and
others from such writings as we shall refer to from time to time.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 1
The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of
Christ.

1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, [233]
who, as has been shown [234] was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to
the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, [235] for
the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the
hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen
was one. [236] He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the
time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been
promoted for this very purpose. [237] And thus he was the first to
receive the crown, corresponding to his name, [238] which belongs to
the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just [239] on account of
the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be
made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the
brother of the Lord [240] because he was known as a son of Joseph,
[241] and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the
Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost
before they came together," [242] as the account of the holy Gospels
shows.

3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes [243] writes thus:
"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our
Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but
chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." [244]

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates
also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his
resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and
Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest
of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. [245] But
there were two Jameses: [246] one called the Just, who was thrown from
the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a
fuller, [247] and another who was beheaded." [248] Paul also makes
mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the
apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [249]

5. At that time also the promise of our Saviour to the king of the
Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent
Thaddeus to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the religion of
Christ, as we have shown a little above from the document found there.
[250]

7. When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ;
and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind
by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ,
he made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching. And from that time
down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to
the name of Christ, [251] offering no common proof of the beneficence
of our Saviour toward them also.

8. These things have been drawn from ancient accounts; but let us now
turn again to the divine Scripture. When the first and greatest
persecution was instigated by the Jews against the church of Jerusalem
in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, and when all the
disciples, except the Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and
Samaria, [252] some, as the divine Scripture says, went as far as
Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, but could not yet venture to impart
the word of faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to the Jews
alone. [253]

9. During this time Paul was still persecuting the church, and entering
the houses of believers was dragging men and women away and committing
them to prison. [254]

10. Philip also, one of those who with Stephen had been entrusted with
the diaconate, being among those who were scattered abroad, went down
to Samaria, [255] and being filled with the divine power, he first
preached the word to the inhabitants of that country. And divine grace
worked so mightily with him that even Simon Magus with many others was
attracted by his words. [256]

11. Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired, by his
jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him, that he
was thought to be the great power of God. [257] But at this time, being
amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the divine
power, he feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far
as to receive baptism. [258]

12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by
those who follow his most impure heresy. [259] For they, after the
manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a
pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they
are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in
themselves. [260] The most of these have been expelled as soon as they
have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected
by Peter, received the merited punishment. [261]

13. But as the preaching of the Saviour's Gospel was daily advancing, a
certain providence led from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of
the queen of that country, [262] for Ethiopia even to the present day
is ruled, according to ancestral custom, by a woman. He, first among
the Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the divine word from Philip
in consequence of a revelation, and having become the first-fruits of
believers throughout the world, he is said to have been the first on
returning to his country to proclaim the knowledge of the God of the
universe and the life-giving sojourn of our Saviour among men; [263] so
that through him in truth the prophecy obtained its fulfillment, which
declares that "Ethiopia stretcheth out her hand unto God." [264]

14. In addition to these, Paul, that "chosen vessel," [265] "not of men
neither through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and
of God the Father who raised him from the dead," [266] was appointed an
apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by a voice which
was uttered in a revelation from heaven. [267]
__________________________________________________________________

[233] See Acts i. 23-26.

[234] Bk. I. chap. 12, S:2.

[235] The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenaeus
(adv. Haer. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. I), then in Cyprian (Ep. 64.
3), and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman Church in the
third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters, they had only
seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has been ever since
almost universally accepted. In favor of the identification are urged
this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity of the duties
assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the use of the words
diakonia and diakonein in connection with the "Seven" in Acts vi. It
must be remarked, however, that ancient tradition is not unanimously in
favor of the identification, for Chrysostom (Homily XIV. on Acts)
denies it; still further, the functions of the Seven and of later
deacons were not identical, for the former were put in charge of the
financial affairs of the Jerusalem church, while the latter acted
simply as bishops' assistants. In fact, it was the bishop of the second
century, not the deacon, that had charge of the church finances. And
finally, no weight can be laid upon the use of the terms diakonein and
diakonia in connection with the Seven, for these words are used always
in a general, never in an official sense in other parts of the Acts and
of the New Testament, and, what is still more decisive, the same word
(diakonia) is used in the same passage in connection with the apostles;
the Seven are "to serve tables" (diakonein tais trapezais,) the
apostles are to give themselves to "the service of the word" (diakonia
tou logou.) There is just as much reason, therefore, on linguistic
grounds, for calling the apostles "deacons" as for giving that name to
the Seven. On the other hand, against the opinion that the Seven were
deacons, are to be urged the facts that they are never called "deacons"
by Luke or by any other New Testament writer; that we are nowhere told,
in the New Testament or out of it, that there were deacons in the
Jerusalem church, although Luke had many opportunities to call the
Seven "deacons" if he had considered them such; and finally, that
according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 18), the Ebionitic churches of
Palestine in his time had only presbyters and Archisynagogi (chiefs of
the synagogue). These Ebionites were the Jewish Christian reactionaries
who refused to advance with the Church catholic in its normal
development; it is therefore at least significant that there were no
deacons among them in the fourth century. In view of these
considerations I feel compelled to doubt the traditional
identification, although it is accepted without dissent by almost all
scholars (cf. e.g. Lightfoot's article on The Christian Ministry in his
Commentary on Philippians). There remain but two possibilities: either
the Seven constituted a merely temporary committee (as held by
Chrysostom, and in modern times, among others, by Vitringa, in his
celebrated work on the Synagogue, and by Stanley in his Essays on the
Apostolic Age); or they were the originals of permanent officers in the
Church, other than deacons. The former alternative is possible, but the
emphasis which Luke lays upon the appointment is against it, as also
the fact that the very duties which these men were chosen to perform
were such as would increase rather than diminish with the growth of the
Church, and such as would therefore demand the creation of a new and
similar committee if the old were not continued. In favor of the second
alternative there is, it seems to me, much to be said. The limits of
this note forbid a full discussion of the subject. But it may be urged:
First, that we find in the Acts frequent mention of a body of men in
the Jerusalem church known as "elders." Of the appointment of these
elders we have no account, and yet it is clear that they cannot have
been in existence when the apostles proposed the appointment of the
Seven. Secondly, although the Seven were such prominent and influential
men, they are not once mentioned as a body in the subsequent chapters
of the Acts, while, whenever we should expect to find them referred to
with the apostles, it is always the "elders" that are mentioned.
Finally, when the elders appear for the first time (Acts xi. 30), we
find them entrusted with the same duties which the Seven were
originally appointed to perform: they receive the alms sent by the
church of Antioch. It is certainly, to say the least, a very natural
conclusion that these "elders" occupy the office of whose institution
we read in Acts vi. Against this identification of the Seven with the
elders of the Jerusalem church it might be urged: First, that Luke does
not call them elders. But it is quite possible that they were not
called by that name at first, and yet later acquired it; and in that
case, in referring to them in later times, people would naturally call
the first appointed "the Seven," to distinguish them from their
successors, "the elders,"--the well-known and frequently mentioned
officers whose number may well have been increased as the church grew.
It is thus easier to account for Luke's omission of the name "elder,"
than it would be to account for his omission of the name "deacon," if
they were deacons. In the second place, it might be objected that the
duties which the Seven were appointed to perform were not commensurate
with those which fell to the lot of the elders as known to us. This
objection, however, loses its weight when we realize that the same kind
of a development went on in connection with the bishop, as has been
most clearly pointed out by Hatch in his Organization of the Early
Christian Churches, and by Harnack in his translation of that work and
in his edition of the Teaching of the Apostles. Moreover, in the case
of the Seven, who were evidently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem
church after the apostles, and at the same time were "full of the
Spirit," it was very natural that, as the apostles gradually scattered,
the successors of these Seven should have committed to them other
duties besides the purely financial ones. The theory presented in this
note is not a novel one. It was suggested first by Boehmer (in his
Diss. Juris eccles.), who was followed by Ritschl (in his Entstehung
der alt-kath. Kirche), and has been accepted in a somewhat modified
form by Lange (in his Apostolisches Zeitalter), and by Lechler (in his
Apost. und Nachapost. Zeitalter). Before learning that the theory had
been proposed by others, I had myself adapted it and had embodied it in
a more elaborate form in a paper read before a ministerial association
in the spring of 1888. My confidence in its validity has of course been
increased by the knowledge that it has been maintained by the eminent
scholars referred to above.

[236] See Acts vi. 1-6.

[237] See Acts vii

[238] stephanos, "a crown."

[239] James is not called the "Just" in the New Testament, but
Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23) says that he was called thus
by all from the time of Christ, on account of his great piety, and it
is by this name that he is known throughout history.

[240] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13.

[241] Eusebius testimony is in favor of the half-brother theory; for
had he considered James the son of Mary, he could not have spoken in
this way.

[242] Matt. i. 18.

[243] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. On
Clement's life and writings, see Bk. V. chap. 11.

[244] all' 'IEURkobon ton dikaion episkopon ton ;;Ierosolumon
helesthai, as the majority of the mss. and editions read. Laemmer,
followed by Heinichen, substitutes genesthai for helesthaion the
authority of two important codices. The other reading, however, is as
well, if not better, supported. How soon after the ascension of Christ,
James the Just assumed a leading position in the church of Jerusalem,
we do not know. He undoubtedly became prominent very soon, as Paul in
37 (or 40) a.d. sees him in addition to Peter on visiting Jerusalem.
But we do not know of his having a position of leadership until the
Jerusalem Council in 51 (Acts xv. and Gal. ii.), where he is one of the
three pillars, standing at least upon an equality in influence with
Peter and John. But this very expression "three pillars of the Church"
excludes the supposition that he was bishop of the Church in the modern
sense of the term--he was only one of the rulers of the Church. Indeed,
we have abundant evidence from other sources that the monarchical
episcopacy was nowhere known at that early age. It was the custom of
all writers of the second century and later to throw back into the
apostolic age their own church organization, and hence we hear of
bishops appointed by the apostles in various churches where we know
that the episcopacy was a second century growth.

[245] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 3.

[246] Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with
James, the son of Alphaeus (compare the words just above: "These
delivered it to the rest of the apostles," in which the word
"apostles," on account of the "Seventy" just following, seems to be
used in a narrow sense, and therefore this James to be one of the
Twelve), and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis
(see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13). Papias, too, in a fragment given
by Routh (Rel. Sac. I. p. 16) identifies the two. But Hegesippus
(quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many
of this name, and that he was therefore called James the Just to
distinguish him from others. Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement
with apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in
regard to the relationship of James to Christ. The contradiction,
indeed, appears only upon careful examination.

[247] Josephus (Ant. XX. 9. 1) says he was stoned to death. The account
of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius in chap.
23, below, which see.

[248] James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I.,
44 a.d. See Acts xii. 2, and Bk. II. chap. 9 below.

[249] Gal. i. 19.

[250] See above, Bk. I. chap. 13.

[251] The date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not
known (see above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes 1 and 3) but it was the seat
of a bishop in the third century, and in Eusebius' time was filled with
magnificent churches and monasteries.

[252] See Acts viii. 1

[253] See Acts xi. 19

[254] See Acts viii. 3

[255] See Acts viii. 5

[256] See Acts viii. 9 sqq. Upon Simon, see chap. 13, note 3.

[257] ten megEURlen dunamin tou theou. Compare Acts viii. 10, which has
he dunamis tou theou he kaloumene. According to Irenaeus (I. 23. 1) he
was called "the loftiest of all powers, i.e. the one who is father over
all things" (sublissimam virtutem, hoc est, eum qui sit nuper omnia
Pater); according to Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 (see below, chap. 13),
ton proton theon; according to the Clementine Homilies (II. 22) he
wished to be called "a certain supreme power of God" (anotEURte tis
dunamis.) According to the Clementine Recognitions (II. 7) he was
called the "Standing one" (hinc ergo Stans appellatur).

[258] Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church,
which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the
founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back
into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward
distinguished in Church history. The account of the Acts does not say
that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it be
implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring to
purchase the gift of God with money.

[259] Eusebius may refer here to the Simonians, an heretical sect
(mentioned by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others),
which recognized him as its founder and leader (though they originated
probably at a later date), and even looked upon him as a God. They were
exceedingly licentious and immoral. Their teachings gradually assumed a
decidedly Gnostic character, and Simon came to be looked upon as the
father of all Gnostics (compare Irenaeus, I. 27. 4), and hence of
heretics in general, and as himself the arch-heretic. Eusebius,
therefore, perhaps refers in this place simply to the Gnostics, or to
the heretics in general.

[260] Another instance of the external and artificial conception of
heresy which Eusebius held in common with his age.

[261] Acts viii. tells of no punishment which befell Simon further than
the rebuke of Peter which Hippolytus (Phil. vi. 15) calls a curse, and
which as such may have been regarded by Eusebius as a deserved
punishment, its effect clinging to him, and finally bringing him to
destruction (see below, chap. 14, note 8).

[262] Acts viii. 26 sqq. This queen was Candace, according to the
Biblical account; but Candace was the name, not of an individual, but
of a dynasty of queens who ruled in Meroe, an island formed by two
branches of the Nile, south of Egypt. See Pliny, H. N. VI. 35 (Delphin
edition); Dion Cassius, LIV. 5; and Strabo, XVII. 1. 54 (Mueller's
edit., Paris, 1877).

[263] Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 12. 8) says that this Eunuch returned
to Ethiopia and preached there. But by no one else, so far as I know,
is the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to him. The first
certain knowledge we have of the introduction of Christianity into
Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumentius and AEdesius, of
whom Rufinus, I. 9, gives the original account; and yet it is probable
that Christianity existed there long before this time. Compare
Neander's Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 46. See also H. R. Reynolds' article
upon the "Ethiopian Church" in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian
Biography, II. 232 sqq.

[264] Psa. xviii. 31.

[265] Acts ix. 15.

[266] Gal. i. 1.

[267] See Acts ix. 3 sqq.; xxii. 6 sqq.; xxvi. 12 sqq.; Gal. i. 16; 1
Cor. xv. 8-10
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 2
How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate
concerning Christ.

1. And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour
were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which
prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the
emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that
nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius [268] of the
reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the
resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.

2. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of
him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now
believed by many to be a God. [269] They say that Tiberius referred the
matter to the Senate, [270] but that they rejected it, ostensibly
because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law
prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a
vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving
teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and
recommendation of men.

3. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made
in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he
had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.
[271]

4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, [272] a man well versed in
the laws of the Romans, [273] and in other respects of high repute, and
one of those especially distinguished in Rome. [274] In his apology for
the Christians, [275] which was written by him in the Latin language,
and has been translated into Greek, [276] he writes as follows: [277]

5. "But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their
origin, it was an ancient decree [278] that no one should be
consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its
approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus.
[279] And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, [280] that among
you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not
please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it
is necessary for man to be gracious to God.

6. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry
into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine,
where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to
them that he was pleased with the doctrine. [281] But the Senate, since
it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius
continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers
of the Christians." [282] Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this
into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at
its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world.
__________________________________________________________________

[268] That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by
Tertullian (Apol. 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin Martyr
(Apol. I. 35 and Apol. I. 48) mentions certain Acts of Pilate as well
known in his day, but the so-called Acts of Pilate which are still
extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later
period. They are very fanciful and curious. The most important of these
Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the Gospel of
Nicodemus. There are also extant numerous spurious epistles of Pilate
addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c. The extant Acts and
Epistles are collected in Tischendorf's Evang. Apoc., and most of them
are translated by Cowper in his Apocryphal Gospels. See also the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VIII. p. 416 sqq. Compare the excellent
article of Lipsius upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf, p. lxii
sqq.

[269] The existing Report of Pilate (translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, ibid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius' description,
containing as it does a detailed account of Christ's miracles and of
his resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its
present form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely
based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by
interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf
referred to in the previous note.

[270] See below, note 12.

[271] That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but
this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and
not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.

[272] Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second
century. The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius
pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some even
into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst
Noeldechen in the Zeitschrift fuer wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1886,
Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150 and lived until about
230. Tertullian's father was a Roman centurion, and he himself became a
lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He was converted to Christianity
probably between 180 and 190, and according to Jerome, became a
presbyter and continued as such until middle life (whether in Rome or
in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in the latter, for he certainly
spent the later years of his life, while he was a Montanist, in
Carthage, and also a considerable part of his earlier life, as his
writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism (probably about 200
a.d.), and died at an advanced age (220+). That he was a presbyter
rests only upon the authority of Jerome (de vir. ill. 53), and is
denied by some Roman Catholic historians in the interest of clerical
celibacy, for Tertullian was a married man. He wrote a great number of
works,--apologetic, polemic, and practical--a few in Greek, but most of
them in Latin,--and many of the Latin ones are still extant. The best
edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes. Vol.
III. contains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of
Tertullian by various writers. An English translation of his works is
given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. III. and IV. 1-125. Our main
sources for a knowledge of his life are his own writings, and Jerome's
de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller account of Tertullian, see any of
the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by A.
Hauck, Tertullian's Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. For the
literature, see Schaff's Church Hist. II. p. 818.

[273] His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not very
conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that as a
lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of
resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne out by his
own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have
been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the
acquirement of extensive and accurate learning.

[274] Kai ton mEURlista epi ;;Romes lampron. Rufinus translates inter
nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and Valesius inter Latinos Scriptores
celeberrimus, taking epi ;;Romes to mean the Latin language. But this
is not the literal translation of the words of Eusebius. He says
expressly, one of the especially distinguished men in Rome. From his
work de cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent
some time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would
imply a residence of some duration there. He very likely practiced law
and rhetoric in Rome until his conversion.

[275] Tertullian's Apology ranks first among his extant works, and is
"one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the Church"
(Schaff). The date of its composition is greatly disputed, though it
must have been written during the reign of Septimius Severus, and
almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it to the years 197-204.
Since the investigations of Bonwetsch (Die Schriften Tertullian's,
Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte,
1878, p. 572 sqq.), and of Noeldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte
und Untersuchungen, Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning its
composition to the latter part (summer or fall) of the year 197, its
date may be accepted as practically established.

[276] Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage
from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from
an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language
appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance
with it, for he translates Hadrian's rescript to Fundanus from Latin
into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of
so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound
knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding
that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the only work of
Tertullian's which he quotes is his Apology, and he uses only a Greek
translation of that. It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of
Tertullian's works, or at least the most of them, were not translated,
and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read
them in the original with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion
in regard to his knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small
acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general.
In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of
the important Latin works which had been produced before his time,
except such as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen's note
in his edition of Eusebius' History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The
translation of Tertullian's Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as
may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted
in Bk. II. chap. 25, S:4. For the mistakes, however, of course not
Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held
responsible.

[277] Tertullian's Apology, chap. 5.

[278] Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian's Apology, p. 56)
that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero's De Legibus in
the words: Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas
nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto.

[279] MEURrkos 'Aimilios houtos peri tinos eidolou pepoieken
'Albournou. Latin: Scit M. AEmilius de deo suo Alburno. In Adv.
Marcionem, I. 18, Tertullian says, Alioquin si sic homo Deum
commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et
Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus
Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non
regem, nec imperatorem. I cannot discover that this eidolos or Deus
Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than Tertullian, nor do I
find a reference to him in any dictionary accessible to me.

[280] Literally, "This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake of)
our doctrine" (kai touto huper tou hemon logou pepoietai); but the
freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense.
The original Latin reads: facit et hoc ad causam nostram.

[281] This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and
cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine. Tertullian was probably,
as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated documents
from some Christian source. He cannot have secured his knowledge from
original state records. The falsification took place, probably, long
after the time of Tiberius. Tertullian is the first writer to mention
these circumstances, and Tertullian was not by any means a critical
historian. Compare Neander's remarks in his Church History, Vol. I. p.
93 sqq. (Torrey's Translation).

[282] Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan's rescript and all
subsequent imperial action upon the subject would become inexplicable.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 3
The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout All the
World.

1. Thus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine
co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun,
quickly illumined the whole world; [283] and straightway, in accordance
with the divine Scriptures, [284] the voice of the inspired evangelists
and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their words to the
end of the world.

2. In every city and village, churches were quickly established, filled
with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor. And those
whose minds, in consequence of errors which had descended to them from
their forefathers, were fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous
superstition, were, by the power of Christ operating through the
teaching and the wonderful works of his disciples, set free, as it
were, from terrible masters, and found a release from the most cruel
bondage. They renounced with abhorrence every species of demoniacal
polytheism, and confessed that there was only one God, the creator of
all things, and him they honored with the rites of true piety, through
the inspired and rational worship which has been planted by our Saviour
among men.

3. But the divine grace being now poured out upon the rest of the
nations, Cornelius, of Caesarea in Palestine, with his whole house,
through a divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first received
faith in Christ; [285] and after him a multitude of other Greeks in
Antioch, [286] to whom those who were scattered by the persecution of
Stephen had preached the Gospel. When the church of Antioch was now
increasing and abounding, and a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem
were on the ground, [287] among them Barnabas and Paul and in addition
many other brethren, the name of Christians first sprang up there,
[288] as from a fresh and life-giving fountain. [289]

4. And Agabus, one of the prophets who was with them, uttered a
prophecy concerning the famine which was about to take place, [290] and
Paul and Barnabas were sent to relieve the necessities of the brethren.
[291]
__________________________________________________________________

[283] Compare Col. i. 6. That Christianity had already spread over the
whole world at this time is, of course, an exaggeration; but the
statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it was believed as a
historical fact. This conception arose originally out of the idea that
the second coming of Christ was near, and the whole world must know of
him before his coming. The tradition that the apostles preached in all
parts of the world is to be traced back to the same cause.

[284] Ps. xix. 4.

[285] See Acts x. 1 sq.

[286] See Acts xi. 20. The Textus Receptus of the New Testament reads
at this point ;;EllenistEURs, a reading which is strongly supported by
external testimony and adopted by Westcott and Hort. But the internal
evidence seems to demand ;'Ellenas, and this reading is found in some
of the oldest versions and in a few mss., and is adopted by most modern
critics, including Tischendorf. Eusebius is a witness for the latter
reading. He takes the word ;'Ellenas in a broad sense to indicate all
that are not Jews, as is clear from his insertion of the allon, "other
Greeks," after speaking of Cornelius, who was not a Greek, but a Roman.
Closs accordingly translates Nichtjuden, and Stigloher Heiden.

[287] See Acts xi. 22 sqq.

[288] See Acts xi. 26. This name was first given to the disciples by
the heathen of Antioch, not by the Jews, to whom the word "Christ"
meant too much; nor by the disciples themselves, for the word seldom
appears in the New Testament, and nowhere in the mouth of a disciple.
The word christianos has a Latin termination, but this does not prove
that it was invented by Romans, for Latinisms were common in the Greek
of that day. It was probably originally given as a term of contempt,
but accepted by the disciples as a term of the highest honor.

[289] ap' euthalous kai gonimou peges. Two mss., followed by Stephanus,
Valesius, Closs, and Cruse, read ges; but all the other mss., together
with Rufinus, support the reading peges, which is adopted by the
majority of editors.

[290] See Acts xi. 28. Agabus is known to us only from this and one
other passage of the Acts (xxi. 10), where he foretells the
imprisonment of Paul. The famine here referred to took place in the
reign of Claudius, where Eusebius puts it when he mentions it again in
chap. 8. He cannot therefore be accused, as many accuse him, of putting
the famine itself into the reign of Tiberius, and hence of committing a
chronological error. He is following the account of the Acts, and
mentions the prominent fact of the famine in that connection, without
thinking of chronological order. His method is, to be sure, loose, as
he does not inform his readers that he is anticipating by a number of
years, but leaves them to discover it for themselves when they find the
same subject taken up again after a digression of four chapters. Upon
the famine itself, see below, chap. 8.

[291] See Acts xi. 29, 30.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 4
After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa King of the Jews, having punished Herod with Perpetual Exile.

1. Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two years, [292]
and Caius succeeded him in the empire. [293] He immediately gave the
government of the Jews to Agrippa, [294] making him king over the
tetrarchies of Philip and of Lysanias; in addition to which he bestowed
upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod, [295] having
punished Herod (the one under whom the Saviour suffered [296] ) and his
wife Herodias with perpetual exile [297] on account of numerous crimes.
Josephus is a witness to these facts. [298]

2. Under this emperor, Philo [299] became known; a man most celebrated
not only among many of our own, but also among many scholars without
the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior to none of those
who held high dignities in Alexandria. How exceedingly he labored in
the Scriptures and in the studies of his nation is plain to all from
the work which he has done. How familiar he was with philosophy and
with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not necessary to
say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in
the study of Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, to which he
particularly devoted his attention. [300]
__________________________________________________________________

[292] From Aug. 29, a.d. 14, to March 16, a.d. 37.

[293] Caius ruled from the death of Tiberius until Jan. 24, a.d. 41.

[294] Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grandson of
Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and gained high favor with
Caius, and upon the latter's accession to the throne received the
tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in a.d. 39 the tetrarchy of
Galilee and Perea, which had belonged to Herod Antipas. After the death
of Caius, his successor, Claudius, appointed him also king over the
province of Judea and Samaria, which made him ruler of all Palestine, a
dominion as extensive as that of Herod the Great. He was a strict
observer of the Jewish law, and courted the favor of the Jews with
success. It was by him that James the Elder was beheaded, and Peter
imprisoned (Acts xii.). He died of a terrible disease in a.d. 44. See
below, chap. 10.

[295] Herod Antipas.

[296] See Luke xxiii. 7-11.

[297] He was banished in a.d. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul (according to
Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according to his B. J. II. 9.
6), and died in Spain (according to B. J. II. 9. 6).

[298] See Ant. XVIII. 6 and 7, and B. J. II. 9.

[299] Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born
probably about 20-10 b.c. (in his Legat. ad Cajum, he calls himself an
old man). Very little is known about his life, and the time of his
death is uncertain. The only fixed date which we have is the embassy to
Caligula (a.d. 40), and he lived for at least some time after this. He
is mentioned by Jerome (de vir. ill. 11), who says he was born of a
priestly family; but Eusebius knows nothing of this, and there is
probably no truth in the statement. He is mentioned also by Josephus in
his Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. He was a Jewish philosopher, thoroughly imbued
with the Greek spirit, who strove to unite Jewish beliefs with Greek
culture, and exerted immense influence upon the thought of subsequent
ages, especially upon Christian theology. His works (Biblical,
historical, philosophical, practical, &c.) are very numerous, and
probably the majority of them are still extant. For particulars, see
chap. 18, below. For an excellent account of Philo, see Schuerer,
Geschichte des Juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi; zweite
Auflage, Bd. II. p. 831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1886), where the chief
literature upon the subject is given.

[300] Philo was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its
departments, and shows great familiarity with it in his works. The
influence of Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his
philosophical system, but also upon his language; and all the Greek
philosophers were studied and honored by him. He may, indeed, himself
be called one of them. His system is eclectic, and contains not only
Platonic, but also Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements. Upon his
doctrinal system, see especially Schuerer, ibid. p. 836 sq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 5
Philo's Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews.

1. Philo has given us an account, in five books, of the misfortunes of
the Jews under Caius. [301] He recounts at the same time the madness of
Caius: how he called himself a god, and performed as emperor
innumerable acts of tyranny; and he describes further the miseries of
the Jews under him, and gives a report of the embassy upon which he
himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in
Alexandria; [302] how when he appeared before Caius in behalf of the
laws of his fathers he received nothing but laughter and ridicule, and
almost incurred the risk of his life.

2. Josephus also makes mention of these things in the eighteenth book
of his Antiquities, in the following words: [303] "A sedition having
arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks,
[304] three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius.

3. One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion, [305] who uttered many
slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they
neglected the honors due to Caesar. For while all other subjects of
Rome erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects
treated him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it
disgraceful to honor him with statues and to swear by his name.

4. And when Apion had uttered many severe charges by which he hoped
that Caius would be aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of
the Jewish embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of
Alexander the Alabarch, [306] and not unskilled in philosophy, was
prepared to enter upon a defense in reply to his accusations.

5. But Caius prevented him and ordered him to leave, and being very
angry, it was plain that he meditated some severe measure against them.
And Philo departed covered with insult and told the Jews that were with
him to be of good courage; for while Caius was raging against them he
was in fact already contending with God."

6. Thus far Josephus. And Philo himself, in the work On the Embassy
[307] which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail the things
which were done by him at that time. But I shall omit the most of them
and record only those things which will make clearly evident to the
reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them not long after
their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the same.

7. And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of
Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the
emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly; [308]
and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour
were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in
respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in
Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults. [309]
__________________________________________________________________

[301] Upon this work, see Schuerer, p. 855 sqq. According to him, the
whole work embraced five books, and probably bore the title peri areton
kai presbeias pros GEURion. Eusebius cites what seems to be the same
work under these two different titles in this and in the next chapter;
and the conclusion that they were but one work is confirmed by the fact
that Eusebius (in chap. 18) mentions the work under the title On the
Virtues, which he says that Philo humorously prefixed to his work,
describing the impiety of Caius. The omission of the title he presbeia
in so complete a catalogue of Philo's works makes its identification
with peri areton very probable. Of the five, only the third and fourth
are extant,--eis PhlEURkkon, Adversus Flaccum, and peri presbeias pros
GEURion, de legatione ad Cajum (found in Mangey's ed. Vol. II. p.
517-600). Book I., which is lost, contained, probably, a general
introduction; Book II., which is also lost, contained an account of the
oppression of the Jews during the time of Tiberius, by Sejanus in Rome,
and by Pilate in Judea (see below, note 9); Book III., Adversus Flaccum
(still extant), contains an account of the persecution of the Jews of
Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Caius; Book IV., Legatio ad
Cajum (still extant), describes the sufferings which came upon the Jews
as a result of Caius' command that divine honors should everywhere be
paid him; Book V., the palinodia (which is lost), contained an account
of the change for the better in the Jews' condition through the death
of Caius, and the edict of toleration published by Claudius. Upon the
other works of Philo, see chap. 18, below.

[302] The occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which had
arisen between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had continued
with occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much blood had been
shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse. All efforts to secure
peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 a.d., the Greeks dispatched an
embassy to the emperor, hoping to secure from him an edict for the
extermination of the Jews. The Jews, on their side, followed the
example of the Greeks, sending an embassy for their own defense, with
Philo at its head. The result was as Eusebius relates, and the Jews
were left in a worse condition than before, from which, however, they
were speedily relieved by the death of Caius. Claudius, who succeeded
Caius, restored to them for a time religious freedom and all the rights
which they had hitherto enjoyed.

[303] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 8. 1.

[304] This sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 a.d., soon after the
accession of Caius. The Jews, since the time of Alexander the Great,
when they had come in great numbers to the newly founded city,
Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions high favor there,
and were among the most influential inhabitants. They possessed all the
rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality with their neighbors
in all respects. When Alexandria fell into the hands of the Romans, all
the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks, were compelled to take a
position subordinate to the conquerors, but their condition was not
worse than that of their neighbors. They had always, however, been
hated more or less by their fellow-citizens on account of their
prosperity, which was the result of superior education and industry.
This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when the financial condition
of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants felt themselves unusually
burdened by the Roman demands. The old hatred for their more prosperous
neighbors broke out afresh, and the terrible disturbance mentioned was
the result. The refusal of the Jews to worship Caius as a God was made
a pretext for attacking them, and it was this refusal which gained for
them the hatred of Caius himself.

[305] Apion, chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of
Alexandria who had won great fame as a writer and Greek scholar. He
seems to have been very unscrupulous and profligate, and was a bitter
and persistent enemy of the Jews, whom he attacked very severely in at
least two of his works--the Egyptian History and a special work Against
the Jews, neither of which is extant. He was very unscrupulous in his
attacks, inventing the most absurd and malicious falsehoods, which were
quite generally believed, and were the means of spreading still more
widely the common hatred of the Jews. Against him Josephus wrote his
celebrated work, Contra Apionem (more fully de antiquitate Judaeorum
contra Apionem), which is still extant, and in the second book of which
he exposes the ignorance and mendacity of Apion. In the
Pseudo-Clementines he plays an important (but of course fictitious)
role as an antagonist of the Gospel. The extant fragments of Apion's
works are given, according to Lightfoot, in Mueller's Fragm. Hist.
Graec. II. 506 sq., and in Fabricius' Bibl. Graec. I. 503, and VII. 50.
Compare Lightfoot's article in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[306] The Alabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexandria.
Alexander was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely known and
held in high esteem. His son Tiberius Alexander was appointed
procurator of Judea in 46 a.d., as successor of Cuspius Fadus. Philo
thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family. The accuracy of
Josephus' statement that Philo was the brother of the Alabarch
Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald. Gesch. des Juedischen
Volkes, Vol. VI. p. 235), and the Alabarch has been assumed to have
been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient ground (compare
Schuerer, ibid. p. 832, note 5).

[307] See note 1, above. The work is cited here under the title he
presbeia (Legatio).

[308] The Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had
increased greatly in numbers and influence there. They were first
disturbed by Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose
notice all the worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their
enemies, especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the
emperor, and was moreover a deadly enemy of the Jews. The Jews were
driven out of Rome, and suffered many acts of violence. After the death
of Sejanus, which took place in 31 a.d., they were allowed to return,
and their former rights were restored.

[309] Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical and was very
obnoxious to the Jews, offending them greatly at different times during
his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as no
procurator before him had ventured to do. Soon after his accession he
changed his quarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the
Roman standard into the Holy City. The result was a great tumult, and
Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns
(Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2; see the next chapter). At another time he
offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields inscribed with
the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon an express
order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, chap. 38). Again, he appropriated a
part of the treasure of the temple to the construction of an aqueduct,
which caused another terrible tumult which was quelled only after much
bloodshed (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4; see the next chapter). For further
particulars about Pilate, see chap. 7, below.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 6
The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their
Presumption against Christ.

1. After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and, besides
innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he greatly
afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews. [310] These things
we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as follows:
[311]

2. "So great was the caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and
especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly
hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the
other cities, [312] and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with
images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them
he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city, which had
hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an inviolable
asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that it
might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger Caius."
[313]

3. Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which
came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor,
are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the
title, On the Virtues. [314] With him agrees also Josephus, who
likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with
the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Saviour.
[315]

4. Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he
writes as follows: [316] "Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by
Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called
ensigns, [317] to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the
greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were
confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled
under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city."

5. Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you
will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty
for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when
they cried out that they had no other king than Caesar. [318]

6. The same writer further records that after this another calamity
overtook them. He writes as follows: [319] "After this he stirred up
another tumult by making use of the holy treasure, which is called
Corban, [320] in the construction of an aqueduct three hundred stadia
in length. [321]

7. The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in
Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud
complaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through
the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen's clothing, forbidding
them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those
who should make an outcry. To them he now gave the preconcerted signal
from the tribunal. And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in
consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot by
their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives. But
the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who were slain, held their
peace."

8. In addition to these the same author records [322] many other
tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from
that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other
in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea
until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine
vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit
against Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

[310] Caius' hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as mentioned
above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors,
which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects. His
demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and in
Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his worship,
the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the yielding of the
emperor, who was induced to give up his demands by the request of
Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor with him. Whether the
Jews suffered in the same way in Rome we do not know, but it is
probable that the emperor endeavored to carry out the same plan there
as elsewhere.

[311] Philo, Legat. ad Caium, 43.

[312] en tais allais polesi. The reason for the use of the word "other"
is not quite clear, though Philo perhaps means all the cities except
Jerusalem, which he mentions a little below.

[313] "`Caius the younger,' to distinguish him from Julius Caesar who
bore the name Caius, and who was also deified" (Valesius).

[314] This work is probably the same as that mentioned in the beginning
of chap. 5. (See chap. 5, note 1.) The work seems to have borne two
titles he presbeia and peri areton. See Schuerer, ibid. p. 859, who
considers the deutero here the addition of a copyist, who could not
reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius.

[315] This is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of Eusebius,
as Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities of the
nation were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour.

[316] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2.

[317] semaiai kalountai

[318] John xix. 15.

[319] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4.

[320] Heb. Q+oR+B+uoN%; Greek korban and korbanas. The word denoted
originally any offering to God, especially an offering in fulfillment
of a vow. The form korbanas, which Josephus has employed here, was used
to denote the sacred treasure or the treasury itself. In Matt. xxvii.
6, the only place where this form of the word occurs in the New
Testament, it is used with the latter meaning. Upon this act of
Pilate's, see above, chap. 5, note 9.

[321] Josephus, in Ant. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was 200
stadia long. In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number given is
400, according to the Greek mss. of Josephus, though the old Latin
translation agrees with Eusebius in reading 300. The situation of the
aqueduct we do not know, though the remains of an ancient aqueduct have
been found to the south of Jerusalem, and it is thought that this may
have been the same. It is possible that Pilate did not construct a new
aqueduct, but simply restored one that had been built in the time of
Solomon. Schultz (Jerusalem, Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 40,
supposing that the aqueduct began at Bethlehem, which is 40 stadia from
Jerusalem.

[322] See B. J. II. 10, 12 sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 7
Pilate's Suicide.

It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time
of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under
Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his
own murderer and executioner; [323] and thus divine vengeance, as it
seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek
historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the
respective events which have taken place in each period. [324]
__________________________________________________________________

[323] Pilate's downfall occurred in the following manner. A leader of
the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures which
Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the
Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters. Pilate,
supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops
against them and defeated them with great slaughter. The Samaritans
complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome (36
a.d.) to answer the charges brought against him. Upon reaching Rome he
found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the throne. He was unsuccessful in
his attempt to defend himself, and, according to tradition, was
banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a monument is still shown as Pilate's
tomb. According to another tradition he committed suicide upon the
mountain near Lake Lucerne, which bears his name.

[324] Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this
case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known to
us. We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the
trustworthiness of the account.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 8
The Famine which took Place in the Reign of Claudius.

1. Caius had held the power not quite four years, [325] when he was
succeeded by the emperor Claudius. Under him the world was visited with
a famine, [326] which writers that are entire strangers to our religion
have recorded in their histories. [327] And thus the prediction of
Agabus recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, [328] according to which
the whole world was to be visited by a famine, received its
fulfillment.

2. And Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time of
Claudius, and stating that the brethren of Antioch, each according to
his ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and
Barnabas, [329] adds the following account.
__________________________________________________________________

[325] Caius ruled from March 16, a.d. 37, to Jan. 24, a.d. 41, and was
succeeded by his uncle Claudius.

[326] Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion
Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Annal. XII. 13, and Eusebius, Chron., year of
Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but no universal famine is
recorded such as Eusebius speaks of. According to Josephus (Ant. XX.
2.5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place in Judea while Cuspius Fadus
and Tiberius Alexander were successively procurators. Fadus was sent
into Judea upon the death of Agrippa (44 a.d.), and Alexander was
succeeded by Cumanus in 48 a.d. The exact date of Alexander's accession
we do not know, but it took place probably about 45 or 46. This famine
is without doubt the one referred to by Agabus in Acts xi. 28. The
exact meaning of the word oikoumene, in that passage, is a matter of
dispute. Whether it refers simply to Palestine, or is used to indicate
a succession of famines in different parts of the world, or is employed
only in a rhetorical sense, it is impossible to say. Eusebius
understands the word in its widest sense, and therefore assumes a
universal famine; but he is mistaken in his assumption.

[327] The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record a
famine during the reign of Claudius, are Dion Cassius and Tacitus, who
mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the famine in
Judea (see the previous note for the references). Eusebius, in his
Chron., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome during this reign,
but upon what authority we do not know. As already remarked, we have no
extant account of a general famine at this time.

[328] Acts xi. 28.

[329] Acts xi. 29, 30.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 9
The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.

1. " [330] Now about that time" (it is clear that he means the time of
Claudius) "Herod the King [331] stretched forth his hands to vex
certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the
sword."

2. And concerning this James, Clement, in the seventh book of his
Hypotyposes, [332] relates a story which is worthy of mention; telling
it as he received it from those who had lived before him. He says that
the one who led James to the judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing his
testimony, was moved, and confessed that he was himself also a
Christian.

3. They were both therefore, he says, led away together; and on the way
he begged James to forgive him. And he, after considering a little,
said, "Peace be with thee," and kissed him. And thus they were both
beheaded at the same time.

4. And then, as the divine Scripture says, [333] Herod, upon the death
of James, seeing that the deed pleased the Jews, attacked Peter also
and committed him to prison, and would have slain him if he had not, by
the divine appearance of an angel who came to him by night, been
wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus liberated for the service
of the Gospel. Such was the providence of God in respect to Peter.
__________________________________________________________________

[330] Acts xii. 1, 2.

[331] Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.

[332] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3.
This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account was probably
received by Clement from oral tradition. He had a great store of such
traditions of the apostles and their immediate followers,--in how far
true or false it is impossible to say; compare the story which he tells
of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. chap. 23, below. This story of
James is not intrinsically improbable. It may have been true, though
external testimony for it is, of course, weak. The Latin legends
concerning James' later labors in Spain and his burial in Compostella
are entirely worthless. Epiphanius reports that he was unmarried, and
lived the life of a Nazarite; but he gives no authority for his
statement and it is not improbable that the report originated through a
confusion of this James with James the Just.

[333] Acts xii. 3sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 10
Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the
Apostles, immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance.

1. The consequences of the king's undertaking against the apostles were
not long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice overtook
him immediately after his plots against them, as the Book of Acts
records. [334] For when he had journeyed to Caesarea, on a notable
feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he delivered an
address to the people from a lofty throne in front of the tribunal. And
when all the multitude applauded the speech, as if it were the voice of
a god and not of a man, the Scripture relates that an angel of the Lord
smote him, and being eaten of worms he gave up the ghost. [335]

2. We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the
divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he clearly
bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities,
where he relates the wonder in the following words: [336]

3. "He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea [337]
when he came to Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower.
[338] There he held games in honor of Caesar, learning that this was a
festival observed in behalf of Caesar's safety. [339] At this festival
was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men
in the province.

4. And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the theater at
break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful
texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection of the
sun's earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly as to
produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him.

5. And immediately his flatterers, some from one place, others from
another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for his good,
calling him a god, and saying, `Be thou merciful; if up to this time we
have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art superior
to the nature of mortals.'

6. The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their impious
flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above
his head. [340] And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of
evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune, [341] and he was
smitten with a heart-piercing pain.

7. And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest violence,
seized his bowels. And looking upon his friends he said, `I, your god,
am now commanded to depart this life; and fate thus on the spot
disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me. He who
has been called immortal by you is now led away to die; but our destiny
must be accepted as God has determined it. For we have passed our life
by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor which is pronounced
happiness.' [342]

8. And when he had said this he labored with an increase of pain. He
was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the report spread
among all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But the multitude,
with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth after the custom of
their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and every place was
filled with lamentation and tears. [343] And the king as he lay in a
lofty chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, could
not refrain from weeping himself.

9. And after suffering continually for five days with pain in the
bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and
in the seventh year of his reign. [344] Four years he ruled under the
Emperor Caius--three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to which was
added in the fourth year that of Herod [345] --and three years during
the reign of the Emperor Claudius."

10. I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these things as well as in
others, so fully agrees with the divine Scriptures. But if there should
seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect to the name of the
king, the time at least and the events show that the same person is
meant, whether the change of name has been caused by the error of a
copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so many, bore two names.
[346]
__________________________________________________________________

[334] See Acts xii. 19 sqq.

[335] Acts xii. 23.

[336] Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8. 2.

[337] 44 a.d. Agrippa began to reign over the whole kingdom in 41 a.d.
See above, chap. 4, note 3.

[338] Caesarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusalem.
In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this point,
called "Strato's Tower"; but about 10 b.c. Herod the Great built the
city of Caesarea, which soon became the principal Roman city of
Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence. It became, later, the
seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a part in
Church history. Eusebius himself was Bishop of Caesarea. It was a city
of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of
utter desolation.

[339] The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have considered
it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival
in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of these
suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival mentioned
was the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of
Augustus in 12 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XV. 8. 1; B. J. I. 21. 8), and
celebrated regularly every five years. See Wieseler's Chronologie des
ap. Zeitalters, p. 131 sqq., where this question is carefully discussed
in connection with the date of Agrippa's death which is fixed by
Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 a.d.

[340] The passage in Josephus reads: "But as he presently afterward
looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and
immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil
tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him."
This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in
Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made the
gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion of
the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation of
the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of, but
in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks
serious, but so severe an accusation--an accusation which impeaches the
honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner--should not be made
except upon unanswerable grounds. Eusebius elsewhere shows himself to
be a writer who, though not always critical, is at least honest in the
use he makes of his materials. In this case, therefore, his general
conduct ought to be taken into consideration, and he ought to be given
the benefit of the doubt. Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an
explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says:
"Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod
Agrippa's death was already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in
which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where
we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this
unjust charge." And in a note he adds: "It is not the substitution of
an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result
is produced mainly by the omission of some words in the text of
Josephus, which runs thus: anakupsas d' oun met' oligon[ton boubona]
tes heautou kephales huper kathezomenon eiden[epi schoiniou tinos]
angelon[te] touton euthus enoese kakon einai, ton kai pote ton agathon
genomenon. The words bracketed are omitted, and aition is added after
einai, so that the sentence runs, eiden angelon touton euthus enoese
kakon einai aition k.t.l. This being so, I do not feel at all sure that
the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by any disingenuous
motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble over ton
boubona, which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have
been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to
extract some sense out of it. In the previous mention of the bird (Ant.
XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator, gives it as a Latin name:
boubona de hoi ;;Romaioi ton ornin touton kalousi. Moeller (quoted by
Bright, p. XLV.) calls this `the one case' in which, so far as he
recollects, `a sinceritatis via paululum deflexit noster'; and even
here the indictment cannot be made good. The severe strictures against
Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts xii. 21, are altogether
unjustifiable" (Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biog. II. p. 325).
The Greek word boubon means, according to Liddell and Scott, (1) the
groin, (2) a swelling in the groin. The Latin word Bubo signifies "an
owl," and the word is here directly transferred by Josephus from the
Latin into Greek without any explanation. A scribe unacquainted with
Latin might easily stumble at the word, as Lightfoot suggests. In Ant.
XVIII. 6, 7 where the bird is mentioned, the name is, to be sure,
explained; but the alteration at this point was made apparently by a
copyist of Eusebius, not of Josephus, and therefore by one who had
probably never seen that explanation. Whiston in his translation of
Josephus inserts a note to the following effect: "We have a mighty cry
made here by some writers, as if the great Eusebius had on purpose
falsified this account of Josephus, so as to make it agree with the
parallel account in the Acts of the Apostles, because the present
copies of his citation of it, Hist. Eccles. Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the
words boubona ...epi schoiniou, tinos, i.e. `an owl ...on a certain
rope,' which Josephus' present copies retain, and only have the
explanatory word angelon, or `angel,' as if he meant that `angel of the
Lord' which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not
that owl, which Josephus called `an angel or messenger, formerly of
good but now of bad news,' to Agrippa. This accusation is a somewhat
strange one in the case of the great Eusebius, who is known to have so
accurately and faithfully produced a vast number of other ancient
records and particularly not a few out of our Josephus also, without
any suspicion of prevarication. Now, not to allege how uncertain we
are, whether Josephus' and Eusebius' copies of the fourth century were
just like the present in this clause, which we have no distinct
evidence of, the following words preserved still in Eusebius will not
admit of any such exposition. `This [bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa
presently perceived to be the cause of ill fortune, as it was once of
good fortune'; which can belong only to that bird the `owl,' which, as
it had formerly foreboded his happy deliverance from imprisonment, Ant.
XVIII. 6. 7, so was it then foretold to prove afterward the unhappy
forewarner of his death in five days' time. If the improper word
aition, or `cause,' be changed for Josephus' proper word angelon,
`angel,' or `messenger,' and the foregoing words, boubona epi schoiniou
tinos, be inserted, Eusebius' text will truly represent that in
Josephus."

[341] Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was in
chains--having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius--an owl made
its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. A fellow-prisoner
interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying that Agrippa would
soon be released from his bonds and become king, but that the same bird
would appear to him again five days before his death. Tiberius died in
the following year, and the events prophesied came to pass. The story
was apparently implicitly believed by Josephus, who relates it in good
faith.

[342] The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the mss. of
Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read epi
tes makarizomenes lamprotetos, which I have adopted in preference to
the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good mss. in substituting
makari& 231;tetos for lamprotetos

[343] This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the favor
of the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death from that
exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.

[344] He was born in 10 b.c., and began to reign as successor of Philip
and Lysanias in 37 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.

[345] Herod Antipas.

[346] Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name,
while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is known to us
under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange that Eusebius
should not have known that he bore the two names, Herod Agrippa,
instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does. In the heading
of the chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that he
entertained any uncertainty in the matter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 11
The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.

1. Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the
consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time
referred to, [347] "rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody;
who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered." [348]
Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He
records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances:
[349]

2. "While Fadus was procurator of Judea [350] a certain impostor called
Theudas [351] persuaded a very great multitude to take their
possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he was
a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and
afford them an easy passage.

3. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them
to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who
fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others
alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head
and carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he also makes mention of the
famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following
words.
__________________________________________________________________

[347] kata ton deloumenon chronon, i.e. about the time of Agrippa's
death. But Luke writes pro gar touton ton hemeron, "Before these days."

[348] Acts v. 36.

[349] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1.

[350] About 44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2.

[351] There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this
Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by
Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by
Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that. Various
solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost any
one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the
alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare
Wieseler's Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1; Ewald's Gesch.
des Juedischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost's Gesch. der Israeliten,
Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts in
loco. A question of more importance for us, in the present instance, is
as to Eusebius' conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke
with the Theudas of Josephus,--an identification which is impossible,
if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently
been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of
promoting the credibility of Luke's accounts. But a protest must again
be entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius.
A man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not
have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a
glaring anachronism--an anachronism which every reader had the means of
exposing--for the sake of making a point in confirmation of the
narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would
certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would
not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover
in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible
reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius'
anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many
blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology.
He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar
character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without
a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the
passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting
that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of
the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 12
Helen, the Queen of the Osrhoenians.

1. [352] "And at this time [353] it came to pass that the great famine
[354] took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen, [355] having
purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the
needy."

2. You will find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the
Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, "each
according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren
that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by
the hands of Barnabas and Paul." [356]

3. But splendid monuments [357] of this Helen, of whom the historian
has made mention, are still shown in the suburbs of the city which is
now called AElia. [358] But she is said to have been queen of the
Adiabeni. [359]
__________________________________________________________________

[352] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2.

[353] In the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius
Alexander.

[354] Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of
his Ant., chap. 2, S:5.

[355] Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son
Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king Monabazus of
Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor. Both Izates and
Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening to come to
Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to relieve the
distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by her son. After their
death the bones of both mother and son were brought to Jerusalem and
buried just outside of the walls, where Helen had erected three
pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).

[356] Acts xi. 29, 30. The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul.
But the change made by Eusebius is a very natural one.

[357] "Pausanias (in Arcadicis) speaks of these great monuments of
Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome, too, testifies
that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a palace in
Jerusalem" (Stroth).

[358] AElia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by
Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6).

[359] Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris,
Lycus, and the Gordiaean Mountains (see Dion Cassius, LXVIII.), but
before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith's Dict. of Greek
and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense to indicate
Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N. VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus,
XXIII. 6). Izates was king of Adiabene in the narrower sense.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 13
Simon Magus. [360]

1. But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been
diffused among all men, [361] the enemy of man's salvation contrived a
plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither
the above-mentioned Simon, [362] aided him in his deceitful arts, led
many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his
own power.

2. This is stated by Justin, [363] one of our distinguished writers who
lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall
speak in the proper place. [364] Take and read the work of this man,
who in the first Apology [365] which he addressed to Antonine in behalf
of our religion writes as follows: [366]

3. "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put
forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only
allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of
honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,
[367] who in the reign of Claudius Caesar [368] performed in your
imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating
in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with
a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber, [369] between the two
bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo
Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God. [370]

4. And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations
confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with
him at that time a certain Helena [371] who had formerly been a
prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that
proceeded from him." [372]

5. Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in
the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account
of the man [373] and of his profane and impure teaching. It would be
superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for those who
wish to know the origin and the lives and the false doctrines of each
of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well as the customs
practiced by them all, to find them treated at length in the
above-mentioned work of Irenaeus.

6. We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. [374]
From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy
have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is
celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they
nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they
seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images
of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him;
and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and
libations.

7. But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard
to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished,
and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be
confounded, [375] are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness
and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to
commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with
the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness. [376]

8. For whatever could be conceived of, viler than the vilest thing--all
that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed
of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally
overwhelmed with all kinds of vices. [377]
__________________________________________________________________

[360] It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Eusebius'
History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which relate to
heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age than to the
author. A right understanding of heresies and an appreciation of any
truth which they might contain was utterly impossible to men who looked
upon heresy as the work of the devil, and all heretics as his chosen
tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some, because he gives his
information about heretics only from second hand, and quotes none of
them directly; but it must be remembered that this method was by no
means peculiar to Eusebius, and, moreover, it is highly probable that
he did not have access to any of their works. The accounts of the
heretics given by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others would of course be
preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves would be piously
excluded as completely as possible from all Christian libraries, and
the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the Church. The
sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for a knowledge
of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know them almost
solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in the same way
and very likely for the same reason.

[361] See chap. 3, note 1.

[362] Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts viii. 9 sqq.
(quoted above, in chap. 1), played a very prominent role in early
Church history. His life has been so greatly embellished with legends
that it is very difficult to extract a trustworthy account of him.
Indeed the Tuebingen school, as well as some other modern critics, have
denied altogether the existence of such a personage, and have resolved
the account of him into a Jewish Christian fiction produced in
hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon was attacked
as the real heretic. But this identification of Paul and Simon rests
upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can be adduced in
which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed the thought of
identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have occurred to the writer
of the Recognitions. The most that can be said is that the author of
the Homilies gives, and without doubt purposely, some Pauline traits to
his picture of Simon, but this does not imply that he makes Simon no
more than a mask for Paul (cf. the words of Salmon in his article,
Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. I. p. 576).
The original of Simon then is not to be found in Paul. The third
century fiction is based upon a real historic person whose actual
existence must be assumed to account for the early notices of him in
the Acts and in Justin Martyr, as well as the common tradition of him
among all parties in the Church. Salmon considers Simon of Gitton--the
basis of the account of Justin Martyr and of all the later Simon
legends--a second century Gnostic distinct from the Simon mentioned in
the Acts (see his excellent article Simon Magus, in the Dict. of
Christ. Biog. IV. p. 681 sqq.). In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is
represented as traveling widely and spreading his errors in all
directions, while Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing his
impostures, and refutes him repeatedly in public disputations, until at
length he conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his life by
suicide. His death, as well as his life, is recorded in various
conflicting and fabulous traditions (see note 9, below). For ancient
accounts of Simon, see Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 and 56 and Dial. c.
Trypho. CXX.; the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions;
Irenaeus, I. 23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; Tertullian's Apology, On
Idolatry, On the Soul, etc.; Apost. Constitutions, VII. 7 sq.;
Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, II. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and
Paul (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq.); Epiphanius,
Haer. XXI.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 1. See also Lipsius, article
in Schinkel's Bibel-Lexicon, Vol. V.

[363] In his Apology, I. 26, 56.

[364] In Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16-18.

[365] On Justin's Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note 2.

[366] Justin's Apology, I. 26.

[367] Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapolis (the modern
Nablus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village of
Kuryet Jit (see Robinson's Biblical Researches, III. p. 144, note).
Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin's report, for the reason that
Josephus (Ant. XXII. 7. 2) mentions a magician named Simon, of about
the same date, who was born in Cyprus. There was a town called Kition
in Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this
place for the Samaritan Gitton. But even if we assume the identity of
the two Simons as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a
native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own
country, than that Josephus was. Simon's activity may have extended to
Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken his
birthplace.

[368] Justin here assigns Simon's visit to Rome to the reign of
Claudius (41-54 a.d.), as Irenaeus also does. Other accounts assign it
to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his death;
suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, voluntary
burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c., are
reported in different traditions. All, however, agree that he visited
Rome at some time or another.

[369] That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a
short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name Isola
Tiberiana, or di S. Sebastiano.

[370] In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco deo fidio,
&c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but this statue
was erected to the Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is therefore highly
probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue of Simon Magus.
This is now the commonly accepted view, though the translator of Justin
Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to dispute it (see the Am.
ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given a second time by Justin
in his Apol. 56, and also by Irenaeus, I. 23. 1 (who, however, simply
says "It is said," and may have drawn his knowledge only from Justin
Martyr) and by Tertullian, Apol. chap. 13. The last named is in general
a poor authority even if he be independent of Justin at this point,
which is not probable. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us
an account of the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing
about the statue and his silence is a strong argument against it.

[371] A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenaeus, I. 23; by
Hippolytus, VI. 15 (who adds some important particulars); by
Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Haer. 21; and by Theodoret,
Haer. Fab. I. 1; compare also Origen, Contra Celsum, V. 62. Simon
taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind, the mother
of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence, &c. The
Simonians, according to Irenaeus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus (VI. 15;
see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom they honored
as Jupiter and Minerva. Simon's doctrines and practice, as recorded by
these Fathers, show some of the general conceptions common to all the
Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and undeveloped form of
Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II.
p. 880 sq., and all the works upon Simon Magus.

[372] This conception of the idea (znnoia) is thoroughly Gnostic, and
plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems. Most of these
systems had a dualistic element recognizing the dunamis and the
znnoiaas the original principles from whose union all beings emanated.
These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the
different systems.

[373] Irenaeus adv. Haer. I. 23.

[374] See note 3, above.

[375] thambothesesthai

[376] This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom
picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the
purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of them as
an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense. This
thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism has been
perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject. Neander was
the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treatment of it (in his
Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost. Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and since
that time the subject has been treated intelligently and
discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius, Lightfoot, Salmon
and especially Harnack who has grasped the true principle of Gnosticism
perhaps more fully than any one else. See his Dogmengeschichte, I. p.
158 sqq.

[377] This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and
licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the
Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see
below, IV. 11, note 24), Saturninus, Tatian, &c., went to the opposite
extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying both of
these extremes we perceive the same principle--a dualism of matter and
spirit, therefore of body and mind--the former considered as the work
of the devil, and therefore to be despised and abused: the latter as
divine, and therefore to be honored above all else. The abhorrence of
the body, and of matter and nature in general, logically led to one of
the two opposite results, asceticism or antinomianism, according to the
character and instincts of the person himself. See Schaff, Church Hist.
II. p. 457 sqq. The Fathers, in their hatred of all forms of heresy,
naturally saw no good in any of them, and heretics were therefore
indiscriminately accused of immorality and licentiousness in their
worst forms.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 14
The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

1. The evil power, [378] who hates all that is good and plots against
the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and
author of such wickedness, [379] as if to make him a mighty antagonist
of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.

2. For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its
ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the
kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every
high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God." [380]

3. Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the
others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those
apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the
splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but
lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then
flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.

4. Immediately [381] the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the
eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil
deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in
Judea, [382] he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the
East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to
his mind.

5. And coming to the city of Rome, [383] by the mighty co-operation of
that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so
successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as
a god by the erection of a statue. [384]

6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of
Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all
things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the
one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to
Rome [385] against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble
commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise
of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in
the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings
salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven. [386]
__________________________________________________________________

[378] See the previous chapter, note 1.

[379] See chap. 1, note 25.

[380] 2 Cor. x. 5.

[381] The significance of the word "immediately" as employed here is
somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding context
with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that Eusebius may
have been using at this point some unknown source and that the word
"immediately" refers to an encounter which Simon had had with Peter
(perhaps his Caesarean discussion, mentioned in the Clementines), of
which an account was given in the document employed by Eusebius. The
figure employed here is most remarkable.

[382] Acts viii. 9 sqq. This occurred in Samaria, not in Judea proper,
but Eusebius evidently uses the word "Judea" in a wide sense, to
indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Samaria. It
is not impossible, especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a
written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is
referred to. Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic
Constitutions, VI. 8.

[383] Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics.
They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism
which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his
transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial
seat of the devil.

[384] See above, chap. 13, note 11.

[385] Upon the historic truth of Peter's visit to Rome, see below,
chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did
visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that
he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition
that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost
universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent
years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so
long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubtedly took
its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous
chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits
of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier
date for Simon's arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also the same
date for Peter's arrival there, although Justin does not mention Peter
in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius quotes. The
assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during the reign of
Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter's later life from the
New Testament and from other early writers. In 44 a.d. he was in
Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in 51 he was again there
(according to Acts xv.); and a little later in Antioch (according to
Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in
various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle,
and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see
chap. 15, note 7). At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul
wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made
of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent. Nor can he have
been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to
63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the
extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap. 25, note 7) that
he met his death there. We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome
at any rate until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the
summer of 64 a.d. As most of the accounts put Simon Magus' visit to
Rome in the reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make
him follow Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing
and attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius
follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon's visit to Rome;
but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter,
which neither Justin nor Irenaeus mentions. The earlier date for
Simon's visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition.
Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the
reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the
presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon's meeting with
Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by
Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap.
Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the Acts of the
Apostles Peter and Paul. It is impossible to tell from what source
Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Irenaeus, nor Tertullian
mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too much,
as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow. As
to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so
conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet
recording the meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could
hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and
Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines
were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the
source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs. It is highly
probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenaeus as far as
they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact
commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no written
authority; or it is possible that he had another source, unknown to us,
as suggested above (note 4).

[386] A most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an
excellent il