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 4

Chapter 1

The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of
Trajan. [968]

1. About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned
bishop of the parish of Alexandria [969] died, and Primus, [970] the
fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.

2. At that time also Alexander, [971] the fifth in the line of
succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after
Evarestus had held the office eight years. [972]
________________________________________________________________

[968] We still have lists of bishops as old as the end of the second
century. The most ancient is that of the Roman bishops given by
Irenaeus (III. 3. 3); but this has no dates. The list is probably the
official catalogue as it had been handed down to the time of
Eleutherus; but it is not authentic, as there was no monarchical
episcopate in Rome at the time of Clement, nor even in the time of
Hermas. For other churches the oldest lists date from the end of the
third century. According to one interpretation of a passage from
Hegesippus, quoted in chapter 22, below, Hegesippus drew up a list of
Roman bishops down to the time of Anicetus; and Bishop Lightfoot thinks
he has discovered this lost catalogue in Epiphanius, Haer. XXVII. 6
(see his article in the Academy for May 27, 1887). If Lightfoot is
right, we have recovered the oldest Papal catalogue; but it is very
doubtful whether Hegesippus composed such a catalogue (see note on
chap. 22), and even if he did, it is uncertain whether the list which
Epiphanius gives is identical with it. See the writer's notice of
Lightfoot's article in the Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1887; No.
18, Col. 435 sqq. The list of Roman bishops which Eusebius gives is the
same as that of Irenaeus; but it has dates, while Irenaeus' has none.
From what source Eusebius took his dates we do not know. His Chronicle
contains different dates. It is possible that the difference is owing,
in part, to defective transcriptions or translations; but it is more
probable that Eusebius himself discovered another source, before
writing his History, which he considered more authentic, and therefore
substituted for the one he has used in his Chronicle. Lipsius
(Chronologie der roemischen Bischoefe, p. 145) says, "We may assume
that the oldest catalogue extended as far as Eleutherus, but rested
upon historical knowledge only from Xystus, or, at the farthest, from
Alexander down." On the chronology of the Roman bishops in general, see
especially the important work of Lipsius just referred to.

[969] Cerdon, mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 21.

[970] The Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian) makes Primus succeed to the
bishopric of Alexandria in the eleventh year of Trajan; the version of
Jerome, in the ninth. According to chap. 4, below, he held office
twelve years. No reliance can be placed upon any of the figures. The
Alexandrian church is shrouded in darkness until the latter part of the
second century, and all extant traditions in regard to its history
before that time are about equally worthless. Of Primus himself we have
no authentic knowledge, though he figures somewhat in later tradition.
See Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography, in loco.

[971] According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian), Alexander
became bishop of Rome in the eighth year of Trajan; according to
Jerome's version, in the twelfth year. He is said, in chap. 4, below,
to have died in the third year of Hadrian, after holding office ten
years. On the reliability of these dates, see note 1, above. Of
Alexander's life and character we know nothing.

[972] On Evarestus, see Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 2

The Calamities of the Jews during Trajan's Reign.

1. The teaching and the Church of our Saviour flourished greatly and
made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews
increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils. In the
eighteenth year of Trajan's reign [973] there was another disturbance
of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished. [974]

2. For in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, and also in Cyrene,
[975] as if incited by some terrible and factious spirit, they rushed
into seditious measures against their fellow-inhabitants, the Greeks.
The insurrection increased greatly, and in the following year, while
Lupus was governor of all Egypt, [976] it developed into a war of no
mean magnitude.

3. In the first attack it happened that they were victorious over the
Greeks, who fled to Alexandria and imprisoned and slew the Jews that
were in the city. But the Jews of Cyrene, although deprived of their
aid, continued to plunder the land of Egypt and to devastate its
districts, [977] under the leadership of Lucuas. [978] Against them the
emperor sent Marcius Turbo [979] with a foot and naval force and also
with a force of cavalry.

4. He carried on the war against them for a long time and fought many
battles, and slew many thousands of Jews, not only of those of Cyrene,
but also of those who dwelt in Egypt and had come to the assistance of
their king Lucuas.

5. But the emperor, fearing that the Jews in Mesopotamia would also
make an attack upon the inhabitants of that country, commanded Lucius
Quintus [980] to clear the province of them. And he having marched
against them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt there; and in
consequence of his success he was made governor of Judea by the
emperor. These events are recorded also in these very words by the
Greek historians that have written accounts of those times. [981]
________________________________________________________________

[973] 115 a.d.

[974] Closs says: "According to Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 32, they slew in
Cyrene 220,000 persons with terrible cruelty. At the same time there
arose in Cyprus a disturbance of the Jews, who were very numerous in
that island. According to Dion, 240,000 of the inhabitants were slain
there. Their leader was Artemion." Compare Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom.
LXVIII. 32, and LXIX. 12 sq. The Jews and the Greeks that dwelt
together in different cities were constantly getting into trouble. The
Greeks scorned the Jews, and the Jews in return hated the Greeks and
stirred up many bloody commotions against them. See Jost's Geschichte
der Israeliten, chap. III. p. 181 sq. The word "another" in this
passage is used apparently with reference to the Jewish war under
Vespasian, of which Eusebius has spoken at length in the early part of
the third Book.

[975] The Jews were very numerous both in Egypt and in Cyrene, which
lay directly west of Egypt. The Jews of Cyrene had a synagogue at
Jerusalem, according to Acts vi. 9.

[976] Lupus is, to me at least, an otherwise unknown character.

[977] nomoi. See Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10.

[978] Lucuas is called by Dion Cassius (LXVIII. 32) Andreas. Muenter
suggests that he may have borne a double name, a Jewish and a Roman, as
did many of the Jews of that time.

[979] Marcius Turbo was one of the most distinguished of the Roman
generals under Trajan and Hadrian, and finally became praetorian
prefect under Hadrian. See Dion Cassius, LXIX. 18, and Spartian, Hadr.
4-9, 15.

[980] Lucius Quintus was an independent Moorish chief, who served
voluntarily in the Roman army and became one of Trajan's favorite
generals. He was made governor of Judea by Trajan, and was afterward
raised to the consulship. According to Themistius (Orat. XVI.), Trajan
at one time intended to make him his successor. See Dion Cassius,
LXVIII. 8, 22, 30, 32; LXIX. 2; Spartian, Hadr. 5, 7, and cf. Valesius'
note on this passage.

[981] The language of Eusebius might imply that he had other sources
than the Greek writers, but this does not seem to have been the case.
He apparently followed Dion Cassius for the most part, but evidently
had some other source (the same which Orosius afterward followed), for
he differs from Dion in the name of the Jewish leader, calling him
Lucuas instead of Andreas. The only extant accounts of these affairs by
Greek historians are those of Dion Cassius and Orosius, but there were
evidently others in Eusebius' time.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 3

The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the Faith during
the Reign of Adrian.

1. After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years [982] AElius
Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a
discourse containing an apology for our religion, [983] because certain
wicked men [984] had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is
still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own,
and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his
apostolic orthodoxy. [985]

2. He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following
words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, [986] for
they were genuine:--those that were healed, and those that were raised
from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when
they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while
the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for
quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." [987] Such
then was Quadratus.

3. Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left,
like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. [988]
His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great
many persons.
________________________________________________________________

[982] Trajan reigned from Jan. 27, 98, to Aug. 7 or 8, 117.

[983] The importance of Quadratus' Apology in the mind of Eusebius is
shown by his beginning the events of Hadrian's reign with it, as well
as by the fact that he gives it also in his Chronicle, year 2041 of
Abraham (124 to 125 a.d.), where he calls Quadratus "Auditor
Apostolorum." Eusebius gives few events in his Chronicle, and therefore
the reference to this is all the more significant. We find no mention
of Quadratus and Aristides before Eusebius, and of the Apology of
Quadratus we have only the few lines which are given in this chapter.
In the Chronicle Eusebius says that Quadratus and Aristides addressed
apologies to Hadrian during his stay in Athens. One ms. of the
Chronicle gives the date as 125 a.d. (2141 Abr.), and this is correct;
for, according to Duerr (Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, Wien, 1881, p.
42 to 44, and 70 to 71), Hadrian was in Athens from the fall of 125 to
the summer of 126 and from the spring of 129 to the spring of 130.
Eusebius adds in his Chronicle (but omits here) that these apologies
were the cause of a favorable edict from Hadrian, but this is
incorrect. Eusebius (IV. 12) makes a similar statement in regard to the
Apology of Justin, making a favorable edict (which has been proved to
be unauthentic) of the Emperor Antoninus the result of it. (See
Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, I. 108 sq., 139.)
Quadratus and Aristides are the oldest apologists known to us. Eusebius
does not mention them again. This Quadratus must not be confounded with
Quadratus, bishop of Athens in the time of Marcus Aurelius, who is
mentioned in chap. 23; for the apologist Quadratus who belonged to the
time of the apostles can hardly have been a bishop during the reign of
Marcus Aurelius. Nor is there any decisive ground to identify him with
the prophet mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 37 and Bk. V. chap. 7, for
Quadratus was a very common name, and the prophet and the apologist
seem to have belonged to different countries (see Harnack,
Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol. p. 103). Many scholars, however,
identify the prophet and the apologist, and it must be said that
Eusebius' mention of the prophet in III. 37, and of the apologist in
IV. 3, without any qualifying phrases, looks as if one well-known
Quadratus were referred to. The matter must remain undecided. Jerome
speaks of Quadratus and Aristides once in the Chronicle, year 2142, and
in de vir. ill. chap. 19 and 20. In chap. 19 he identifies Quadratus,
the apologist, and Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, but he evidently
had no other source than Eusebius (as was usually the case, so that he
can very rarely be accepted as an independent witness), and his
statements here are the result simply of a combination of his own. The
later scattering traditions in regard to Quadratus and Aristides
(chiefly in the Martyrologies) rest probably only upon the accounts of
Eusebius and Jerome, and whatever enlargement they offer is
untrustworthy. The Apology of Quadratus was perhaps extant at the
beginning of the seventh century; see Photius, Cod. 162. One later
tradition made Quadratus the angel of Philadelphia, addressed in the
Apocalypse; another located him in Magnesia (this Otto accepts). Either
tradition might be true, but one is worth no more than the other.
Compare Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., and Otto, Corpus
Apol. Christ. IX. p. 333 sq.

[984] This phrase is very significant, as showing the idea of Eusebius
that the persecutions did not proceed from the emperors themselves, but
were the result of the machinations of the enemies of the Christians.

[985] orthotomia. Compare the use of orthomounta in 2 Tim. ii. 15.

[986] The fragment begins tou de soteros hemon ta zrga aei paren. The
de seems to introduce a contrast, and allows us to assume with some
measure of assurance that an exposure of the pretended wonders of
heathen magicians, who were numerous at that time, preceded this ocular
proof of the genuineness of Christ's miracles.

[987] Quadratus had evidently seen none of these persons himself; he
had simply heard of them through others. We have no record elsewhere of
the fact that any of those raised by Christ lived to a later age.

[988] Aristides of Athens, a contemporary of Quadratus, is called by
Eusebius in his Chronicle "a philosopher" (nostri dogmatis philosophus
Atheniensis). Eusebius does not quote his work, perhaps because he did
not himself possess a copy, perhaps because it contained no historical
matter suitable to his purpose. He does not mention him again (the
Aristides, the friend of Africanus, of Bk. I. chap. 7 and of Bk. VI.
chap. 31, lived a century later), and his Apology is quoted by none of
the Fathers, so far as is known. Vague and worthless traditions of the
Middle Ages still kept his name alive, as in the case of Quadratus, but
the Apology itself disappeared long ago, until in 1878 a fragment of an
Apology, bearing the name of "Aristides, the Philosopher of Athens,"
was published by the Mechitarists from a codex of the year 981. It is a
fragment of an Armenian translation of the fifth century; and although
its genuineness has been denied, it is accepted by most critics, and
seems to be an authentic fragment from the age of Hadrian. See
especially Harnack, ibid. p. 109 sq., and again in Herzog, 2d ed.,
Supplement Vol. p. 675-681; also Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 709.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 4

The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under the Same
Emperor. [989]

In the third year of the same reign, Alexander, [990] bishop of Rome,
died after holding office ten years. His successor was Xystus. [991]
About the same time Primus, bishop of Alexandria, died in the twelfth
year of his episcopate, [992] and was succeeded by Justus. [993]
________________________________________________________________

[989] I.e. the emperor Hadrian.

[990] On Alexander, see above, chap. 1, note 4.

[991] Known as Sixtus I. (Sixtus, or Sistus, being the Latin form of
the name) in the list of Roman bishops. He was supposed to be the
author of a collection of religious and moral maxims, which were widely
read in the ancient Church and are mentioned by many of the Fathers.
His authorship was disputed by Jerome and others, and the work from
that time on was commonly assigned to a heathen author, until recently
some voices have again been heard in favor of the authorship of Bishop
Sixtus (notably de Lagarde and Ewald). See Schaff's Church Hist. II. p.
703 sq. He is, according to Lipsius, the first Roman bishop whose dates
we have any means of ascertaining, and it may be assumed that he was
the first one that occupied an episcopal position in Rome; and yet,
even in his time, the monarchical episcopate can hardly have been
established in its full sense. In the next chapter we are told that he
held office ten years; and this figure, which is supported by most of
the ancient catalogues, may be accepted as approximately correct. The
date of his accession given here by Eusebius cannot, however, be
correct; for, as Lipsius has shown (Chron. de roem. Bischoefe, p. 183
sq.) he must have died at least as early as 126 a.d. (possibly as early
as 124), so that his accession took place not later than 116; that is,
before the death of Trajan. Like most of the other early Roman bishops
he is celebrated as a martyr in the martyrologies, but the fact of his
martyrdom rests upon a very late and worthless tradition.

[992] On Primus, see chap. 1, note 4. Eusebius contradicts his own
dates here. For in chap. 1 he says that Alexander of Rome and Primus of
Alexandria became bishops at the same time; but according to this
chapter, Alexander died at the close of the tenth year of his
episcopate, and Primus in the twelfth year of his. Eusebius may have
used the word "about" advisedly, to cover considerable ground, and may
have grouped the two bishops together simply for convenience' sake. No
reliance is to be placed upon the dates in any case.

[993] We know nothing about Justus except that he ruled eleven years,
according to the next chapter. If Primus died in the twelfth year of
his episcopate, as Eusebius says in this chapter, and entered upon his
office in the twelfth year of Trajan, as he says in chapter 1, Justus
must have become bishop about 120 a.d., in the third or fourth year of
Hadrian. It must be remembered, however, that all of these dates are
historically worthless.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 5

The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the
Period under Consideration

1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found
preserved in writing; [994] for tradition says that they were all short
lived.

2. But I have learned this much from writings, [995] that until the
siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, [996] there were
fifteen bishops in succession there, [997] all of whom are said to have
been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in
purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of
such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole
church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days
of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which
siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were
conquered after severe battles.

3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is
proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The
first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; [998] the
second, Symeon; [999] the third, Justus; [1000] the fourth, Zacchaeus;
[1001] the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the
eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; [1002] the
eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; [1003] the
fourteenth, Joseph; [1004] and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the
apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the
circumcision.

5. In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, Xystus, having completed
the tenth year of his episcopate, [1005] was succeeded by Telesphorus,
[1006] the seventh in succession from the apostles. In the meantime,
after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes, [1007] the sixth in
order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his
predecessor having held office eleven years. [1008]
________________________________________________________________

[994] In his Chron. Eusebius also gives the names of these bishops of
Jerusalem, without assigning dates to more than two or three of them.
But in Nicephorus Callisti the dates are given. From what source
Nicephorus drew we do not know. He is, at any rate, too late to be of
any worth as an authority on such a subject. In fact, these men were
not regular monarchical bishops, holding office in succession (see note
4), and hence Eusebius is quite excusable for his ignorance in regard
to their dates. See Ritschl's Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche, p. 246
sq.

[995] Reuterdahl (De Fontibus Hist. eccles. Euseb., p. 55) conjectures
that these "writings" were found in the church of Jerusalem itself, and
compares a passage in the Dem. Evang. III. 5: "The first bishops that
presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have been Jews, and
their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the country." Had
Hegesippus or any other known author been the source of his
information, he would probably have mentioned his name.

[996] In 135 a.d. See below, chap. 7.

[997] From Hegesippus (see above, Bk. III. chap. 32) we learn that
Symeon, the successor of James, was martyred during Trajan's reign. As
was seen in note 6 of the chapter referred to, the martyrdom probably
occurred early in that reign. Eusebius, in his Chron., refers the
martyrdom and the accession of Justus to the tenth year of Trajan (107
a.d.). This leaves thirteen bishops to be inserted between 107 (or, if
this date is not reliable, 98+) and 135 a.d., which is, to say the
least, very suspicious. The true explanation appears to be that, after
the death of Symeon, the last prominent relative of Christ, the
presbyters took the lead, and that they were afterward made by
tradition into successive monarchical bishops. Closs and Gieseler
suppose that there were bishops of a number of churches in Palestine at
the same time, whom tradition made successive bishops of Jerusalem. But
the fact is, that the episcopate is of Greek, not of Jewish, origin,
and in the strictly Jewish Christian churches of Palestine no such
person as a bishop can have existed. Only after the church there came
under the influence of the Gentile church, and lost its prevailingly
Jewish character, was it possible for a bishop, in the general sense of
the term, to exist there. The Jewish Christians assumed for their
church government the form of the Jewish Sanhedrim, though while James
and Symeon were alive, they were naturally leaders (according to the
common Oriental custom, which exalted the relatives of the founder of a
religion). The Jewish character of the Jerusalem congregation was very
marked until the destruction of the city under Hadrian (note that all
but two of the fifteen bishops have Jewish names), after which all
circumcised Jews--Christians as well as unbelievers--were excluded, and
a heathen Christian congregation took its place (see the next chapter).
According to Stroth, followed by Closs, Stigloher, and Heinichen, the
church of Jerusalem remained in Pella after 70 a.d., and was called the
church of Jerusalem because it was made up of Christians from
Jerusalem. This is possible; but Eusebius evidently did not understand
it so (compare, too, his Dem. Evang. III. 5), and Epiphanius (de Mensa
et Pond. chap 15) says expressly that, after the destruction of the
city by Titus, the church returned again to Jerusalem, and there is no
good reason to doubt the report.

[998] On James, see above, Bk. II chap. 1.

[999] On Symeon, see above, Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.

[1000] Of Justus and the following named bishops we know nothing more.
Justus is called Judas by Epiphanius, Haer. LXVI. 20.

[1001] Zacchaeus is called Zacharias by Epiphanius. According to
Jerome's version of Eusebius' Chron. he became bishop in the fifteenth
year of Trajan; according to the Armenian version, in the twelfth year.
Dates are given by the Chron. for this bishop and for Seneca, but no
confidence is to be reposed in the dates, nor in those given by
Epiphanius and Eutychius. The former, when he gives dates at all, is
hopelessly at sea. The latter gives exact dates for every bishop, but
quite without the support of ancient tradition.

[1002] The name Seneca is Latin, the only Latin name in the list. But
there is nothing particularly surprising in a Jew's bearing a Latin
name. It was quite common even for native Jews to bear both a Latin, or
Greek, and a Hebrew name, and often the former was used to the
exclusion of the latter. The name therefore does not disprove Seneca's
Hebrew origin.

[1003] 'Ephres. Epiphanius calls him 'OuEURphris. The Armenian version
of the Chron. calls him Ephrem; Jerome's version, Ephres. Syncellus
calls him 'Ephraim, which is the Hebrew form of the name.

[1004] 'Ioseph. He is called 'Iosis by Epiphanius, and Joses by Jerome.

[1005] On Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3.

[1006] Telesphorus was a martyr, according to Irenaeus, III. 3. 3
(compare below, chap. 10, and Bk. V. chap. 6), and the tradition is too
old to be doubted. Eusebius here agrees with Jerome's version of the
Chron. in putting the date of Telesphorus' accession in the year 128
a.d., but the Armenian version puts it in 124; and Lipsius, with whom
Overbeck agrees, puts it between 124 and 126. Since he held office
eleven years (according to Eusebius, chap. 10, below, and other ancient
catalogues), he must have died, according to Lipsius and Overbeck,
between 135 and 137 a.d. (the latter being probably the correct date),
and not in the first year of Antoninus Pius (138 a.d.), as Eusebius
states in chap. 10, below. Tradition says that he fought against
Marcion and Valentinus (which is quite possible), and that he was very
strict in regard to fasts, sharpening them and increasing their number,
which may or may not be true.

[1007] We know nothing more about Eumenes. He is said in chap. 11 to
have held office thirteen years, and this brings the date of his death
into agreement with the date given by the Armenian version of the
Chron., which differs by two years from the date given by Jerome.

[1008] His predecessor was Justus. See the previous chapter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 6

The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian.

1. As the rebellion of the Jews at this time grew much more serious,
[1009] Rufus, governor of Judea, after an auxiliary force had been sent
him by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, proceeded against
them without mercy, and destroyed indiscriminately thousands of men and
women and children, and in accordance with the laws of war reduced
their country to a state of complete subjection.

2. The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of
Barcocheba [1010] (which signifies a star), who possessed the character
of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon his name,
boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful
powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them
out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes.

3. The war raged most fiercely in the eighteenth year of Adrian, [1011]
at the city of Bithara, [1012] which was a very secure fortress,
situated not far from Jerusalem. When the siege had lasted a long time,
and the rebels had been driven to the last extremity by hunger and
thirst, and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered his just
punishment, the whole nation was prohibited from this time on by a
decree, and by the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the
country about Jerusalem. For the emperor gave orders that they should
not even see from a distance the land of their fathers. Such is the
account of Aristo of Pella. [1013]

4. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and
had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was
colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently
arose changed its name and was called AElia, in honor of the emperor
AElius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles,
the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the
circumcision was Marcus. [1014]
________________________________________________________________

[1009] The rebellions of the Jews which had broken out in Cyrene and
elsewhere during the reign of Trajan only increased the cruelty of the
Romans toward them, and in Palestine, as well as elsewhere in the East,
their position was growing constantly worse. Already during the reign
of Trajan Palestine itself was the scene of many minor disturbances and
of much bitter persecution. Hadrian regarded them as a troublesome
people, and showed in the beginning of his reign that he was not very
favorably disposed toward them. Indeed, it seems that he even went so
far as to determine to build upon the site of Jerusalem a purely
heathen city. It was at about this time, when all the Jews were longing
for the Messiah, that a man appeared (his original name we do not know,
but his coins make it probable that it was Simon), claiming to be the
Messiah, and promising to free the Jews from the Roman yoke. He took
the name Bar-Cochba, "Son of a star," and was enthusiastically
supported by Rabbi Akiba and other leading men among the Jews, who
believed him to be the promised Messiah. He soon gathered a large
force, and war finally broke out between him and Rufus, the governor of
Judea, about the year 132. Rufus was not strong enough to put down the
rebellion, and Julius Severus, Hadrian's greatest general, was
therefore summoned from Britain with a strong force. Bar-Cochba and his
followers shut themselves up in Bethar, a strong fortification, and
after a long siege the place was taken in 135 a.d., in the fourth year
of the war, and Bar-Cochba was put to death. The Romans took severe
revenge upon the Jews. Hadrian built upon the site of Jerusalem a new
city, which he named AElia Capitolina, and upon the site of the temple
a new temple to the Capitoline Jupiter, and passed a law that no Jew
should henceforth enter the place. Under Bar-Cochba the Christians, who
refused to join him in his rebellion, were very cruelly treated (cf.
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 31, quoted in chap. 8, below). Upon this last
war of the Jews, see Dion Cassius, LXIX. 12-14, and compare Jost's
Gesch. der Israeliten, III. p. 227 sq., and Muenter's Juedischer Krieg.

[1010] Heb. B+R+ K+W+K+B+#, Bar-Cochba, which signifies "Son of a star"
(cf. Num. xxiv. 17). After his defeat the Jews gave him the name B+R+
K+W+Z+J+B+#, Bar-Coziba, which means "Son of a lie."

[1011] I.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135.

[1012] Biththera, Rufinus Bethara. The exact situation of this place
cannot be determined, although various localities have been suggested
by travelers (see Robinson's Bibl. Researches, III. p. 267 sqq.). We
may conclude at any rate that it was, as Eusebius says, a strongly
fortified place, and that it was situated somewhere in Judea.

[1013] Whether the whole of the previous account, or only the close of
it, was taken by Eusebius from Aristo of Pella, we do not know. Of
Aristo of Pella himself we know very little. Eusebius is the first
writer to mention him, and he and Maximus Confessor (in his notes on
the work De mystica Theol. cap. I. p. 17, ed. Corderii) are the only
ones to give us any information about him (for the notices in Moses
Chorenensis and in the Chron. Paschale--the only other places in which
Aristo is mentioned--are entirely unreliable). Maximus informs us that
Aristo was the author of a Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, a work
mentioned by many of the Fathers, but connected by none of them with
Aristo. The dialogue, according to Maximus, was known to Clement of
Alexandria and therefore must have been written as early as, or very
soon after, the middle of the second century; and the fact that it
recorded a dialogue between a Hebrew Christian and an Alexandrian Jew
(as we learn from the epistle of Celsus, De Judaica Incredulitate,
printed with the works of Cyprian, in Hartel's edition, III. p.
119-132) would lead us to expect an early date for the work. There can
be found no good reason for doubting the accuracy of Maximus'
statement; and if it be accepted, we must conclude that the writer whom
Eusebius mentions here was the author of the dialogue referred to. If
this be so, it is quite possible that it was from this dialogue that
Eusebius drew the account which he here ascribes to Aristo; for such an
account might well find a place in a dialogue between two Hebrews. It
is possible, of course, that Aristo wrote some other work in which he
discussed this subject; but if it had been an historical work, we
should expect Eusebius, according to his custom, to give its title.
Harnack is quite correct in assuming that Eusebius' silence in regard
to the work itself is significant. Doubtless the work did not please
him, and hence he neither mentions it, nor gives an account of its
author. This is just what we should expect Eusebius' attitude to be
toward such a Jewish Christian work (and at the same time, such a
`simple' work, as Origen calls it in Contra Cels. IV. 52) as we know
the dialogue to have been. We are, of course, left largely to
conjecture in this matter; but the above conclusions seem at least
probable. Compare Harnack's Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., p. 115
sq.; and for a discussion of the nature of the dialogue (which is no
longer extant), see his Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili
Christiani (Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 3), p. 115 sq. (Harnack looks
upon this Latin altercatio as, in part at least, a free reproduction of
the lost dialogue). See, also, the writer's Dialogue between a
Christian and a Jew ('Antibole Papiskou kai philonos 'Ioudaion pros
monachon tina), p. 33. The town of Pella lay east of the Jordan, in
Perea. See Bk. III. chap. 5, note 10, above.

[1014] Of this Marcus we know nothing more. Upon the Gentile bishops of
Jerusalem, see Bk. V. chap. 12.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 7

The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of Knowledge
falsely so-called. [1015]

1. As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most
brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was
flourishing among the whole human race, [1016] the demon who hates
everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most
bitterly opposed to the salvation of man, turned all his arts against
the Church. [1017] In the beginning he armed himself against it with
external persecutions.

2. But now, being shut off from the use of such means, [1018] he
devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict
with the Church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the
ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him,
impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to
the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at
the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away
from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were
ignorant of the faith.

3. Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander, whom we have already
mentioned as the successor of Simon, [1019] a certain serpent-like
power, double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the leaders of two
different heresies, Saturninus, an Antiochian by birth, [1020] and
Basilides, an Alexandrian. [1021] The former of these established
schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in Alexandria.

4. Irenaeus states [1022] that the false teaching of Saturninus agreed
in most respects with that of Menander, but that Basilides, under the
pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented monstrous fables, and
carried the fictions of his impious heresy quite beyond bounds.

5. But as there were at that time a great many members of the Church
[1023] who were fighting for the truth and defending apostolic and
ecclesiastical doctrine with uncommon eloquence, so there were some
also that furnished posterity through their writings with means of
defense against the heresies to which we have referred. [1024]

6. Of these there has come down to us a most powerful refutation of
Basilides by Agrippa Castor, [1025] one of the most renowned writers of
that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man.

7. While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote
twenty-four books upon the Gospel, [1026] and that he invented prophets
for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, [1027] and others that had no
existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order to amaze
those who marvel at such things; that he taught also that the eating of
meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the faith in
times of persecution were matters of indifference; [1028] and that he
enjoined upon his followers, like Pythagoras, a silence of five years.
[1029]

8. Other similar things the above-mentioned writer has recorded
concerning Basilides, and has ably exposed the error of his heresy.

9. Irenaeus also writes [1030] that Carpocrates was a contemporary of
these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the
heresy of the Gnostics, [1031] who did not wish to transmit any longer
the magic arts of Simon, as that one [1032] had done, in secret, but
openly. [1033] For they boasted--as of something great--of love potions
that were carefully prepared by them, and of certain demons that sent
them dreams and lent them their protection, and of other similar
agencies; and in accordance with these things they taught that it was
necessary for those who wished to enter fully into their mysteries, or
rather into their abominations, to practice all the worst kinds of
wickedness, on the ground that they could escape the cosmic powers, as
they called them, in no other way than by discharging their obligations
to them all by infamous conduct.

10. Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these
ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led
astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he
furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for
slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men
brought infamy upon the whole race of Christians.

11. In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread
abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous
and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with
mothers and sisters, and enjoyed impious feasts. [1034]

12. He did not, however, long succeed in these artifices, as the truth
established itself and in time shone with great brilliancy.

13. For the machinations of its enemies were refuted by its power and
speedily vanished. One new heresy arose after another, and the former
ones always passed away, and now at one time, now at another, now in
one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various kinds and
various forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church,
which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected
its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of its
inspired life and philosophy to every nation both of Greeks and of
Barbarians.

14. At the same time the slanderous accusations which had been brought
against the whole Church [1035] also vanished, and there remained our
teaching alone, which has prevailed over all, and which is acknowledged
to be superior to all in dignity and temperance, and in divine and
philosophical doctrines. So that none of them now ventures to affix a
base calumny upon our faith, or any such slander as our ancient enemies
formerly delighted to utter.

15. Nevertheless, in those times the truth again called forth many
champions who fought in its defense against the godless heresies,
refuting them not only with oral, but also with written arguments.
[1036]
________________________________________________________________

[1015] pseudonumou gnoseos. Compare 1 Tim. vi. 20.

[1016] This statement is of course an exaggeration. See above, Bk. II.
chap. 3, note 1.

[1017] These two paragraphs furnish an excellent illustration of
Eusebius' dualistic and transcendental conception of history. In his
opinion, heresy was not a natural growth from within, but an external
evil brought upon the Church by the devil, when he could no longer
persecute. According to this conception the Church conquers this
external enemy, heresy, and then goes on as before, unaffected by it.
In agreement with this is his conception of heretics themselves, whom
he, in common with most other Christians of that age, considered
without exception wicked and abandoned characters.

[1018] Eusebius' belief that persecution had ceased at the time of
Hadrian is an illusion (see below, chap. 8, note 14) which falls in
with his general conceptions upon this subject--conceptions which ruled
among Christian writers until the end of the fourth century.

[1019] See Bk. III. chap. 26.

[1020] Saturninus is called Saturnilus by Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and
Theodoret, and his followers Saturnilians by Hegesippus, quoted in
chap. 22, below. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I. 24) and Hippolytus (VII. 16)
give accounts of the man and his doctrine which are evidently taken
from the same source, probably the lost Syntagma of Justin Martyr.
Neither of them seems to have had any independent information, nor do
any other writers know more about him than was contained in that
original source. Irenaeus was possibly Eusebius' sole authority,
although Irenaeus assigns Saturninus only to Syria, while Eusebius
makes him a native of Antioch. Hippolytus says that he "spent his time
in Antioch of Syria," which may have been the statement of the
original, or may have been a mere deduction from a more general
statement such as Irenaeus gives. In the same way Eusebius may have
needed no authority for his still more exact statement.

[1021] Basilides was one of the greatest and most famous of the
Gnostics. Irenaeus (I. 24) and the early Compendium of Hippolytus (now
lost, but used together with Irenaeus' work by Epiphanius in his
treatise against heresies) described a form of Basilidianism which was
not the original, but a later corruption of the system. On the other
hand, Clement of Alexandria surely, and Hippolytus, in the fuller
account in his Philosoph. (VII. 2 sq.), probably drew their knowledge
of the system directly from Basilides' own work, the Exegetica, and
hence represent the form of doctrine taught by Basilides himself,--a
form differing greatly from the later corruptions of it which Irenaeus
discusses. This system was very profound, and bore in many respects a
lofty character. Basilides had apparently few followers (his son
Isidore is the only prominent one known to us); and though his system
created a great impression at the start,--so much so that his name
always remained one of the most famous of Gnostic names,--it had little
vitality, and soon died out or was corrupted beyond recognition. He was
mentioned of course in all the general works against heresies written
by the Fathers, but no one seems to have composed an especial
refutation of his system except Agrippa Castor, to whom Eusebius
refers. Irenaeus informs us that he taught at Alexandria, Hippolytus
(VII. 15) mentions simply Egypt, while Epiphanius (XXI. 1) names
various Egyptian cities in which he labored, but it is evident that he
is only enumerating places in which there were Basilidians in his time.
It is not certain whether he is to be identified with the Basilides who
is mentioned in the Acts of Archelaus as preaching in Persia. For an
excellent account of Basilides and his system, see the article by Hort
in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.; and in addition to the works of Neander,
Baur, and Lipsius on Gnosticism in general, see especially Uhlhorn's
Das Basilidianische System, Goettingen, 1855.

[1022] See Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 24.

[1023] ekklesiastikon andron.

[1024] The only one of these--"that furnished posterity with means of
defense against heresies"--whom Eusebius mentions is Agrippa Castor,
and it is evident that he knew of no others. Moreover, it is more than
doubtful whether Agrippa Castor belonged to that time. We do not know
when he wrote, but it is hardly possible that the Church had at that
period any one capable of answering such a work as the Commentary of
Basilides, or any one who would wish to if he could. The activity of
the Church was at this early period devoted chiefly if not wholly to
the production of apologies for the defense of the Church against the
attacks of enemies from the outside, and to the composition of
apocalypses. Eusebius in the next chapter mentions Hegesippus as
another of these "writers of the time." But the passage which he quotes
to prove that Hegesippus wrote then only proves that the events
mentioned took place during his lifetime, and not necessarily within
forty or fifty years of the time at which he was writing. The fact is,
that Hegesippus really wrote about 175 a.d. (later therefore than
Justin Martyr), and in chap. 21 of this book Eusebius restores him to
his proper chronological place. The general statement made here by
Eusebius in regard to the writers against heresy during the reign of
Hadrian rest upon his preconceived idea of what must have been the
case. If the devil raised up enemies against the truth, the Church must
certainly have had at the same time defenders to meet them. It is a
simple example of well-meaning subjective reconstruction. He had the
work of Agrippa Castor before him, and undoubtedly believed that he
lived at the time stated (which indeed we cannot absolutely deny), and
believed, moreover, that other similar writers, whose names he did not
know, lived at the same time.

[1025] Of Agrippa Castor we know only what Eusebius tells us here.
Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 21) adds nothing new, and Theodoret's
statement (Fab. I. 4), that Agrippa wrote against Basilides' son,
Isidore, as well as against Basilides himself, is simply an expansion
of Eusebius' account, and does not imply the existence of another work.
Agrippa's production, of which we do not know even the title, has
entirely disappeared.

[1026] eis to euangelion biblia. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV. 12)
quotes from the twenty-third book of the Exegetica of Basilides. Origen
(Hom. in Luc. I.) says that Basilides "had even the audacity to write a
Gospel according to Basilides," and this remark is repeated by Ambrose
(Exp. in Luc. I. 1), and seems to be Jerome's authority for the
enumeration of a Gospel of Basilides among the Apocryphal Gospels in
his Comment in Matt., praef. We know nothing more about this Gospel,
and it is quite possible that Origen mistook the Exegetica for a
Gospel. We do not know upon what Gospels Basilides wrote his Commentary
(or Exegetica), but it is hardly probable that he would have expounded
his own Gospel even if such a work existed. The passage from the
Exegetica which Clement quotes looks to me like a part of an exposition
of John ix. (although Lipsius, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. 715,
suggests Luke xxi. 12). Meanwhile, in the Acta Archelai, chap. 55 (see
Gallandii Bibl. PP. III. 608), is a quotation from "the thirteenth book
of the treatises (tractatuum) of Basilides," which is an exposition of
the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi.). If this is the same work,
it would seem that the Exegetica must have included at least Luke and
John, possibly Matthew also, for we know that the Gospels of Matthew,
Luke, and John were all used by the Basilidians. The respective
positions in the work of the expositions of the passages from Luke and
John (the former in the thirteenth, the latter in the twenty-third,
book) would seem, however, to exclude Matthew, if the books were at all
of equal length. If Lipsius were correct in regarding the latter
passage as an exposition of Luke xxi. 12, there would be no evidence
that the Commentary covered more than a single Gospel.

[1027] According to Epiphanius, some of the Ophites appealed to a
certain prophet called Barcabbas. What his connection was with the one
mentioned here we do not know. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 6)
speaks of the Expositions of the Prophet Parchor by Isidore, the son of
Basilides. This may be another of Basilides' prophets, but is more
probably identical with the oft-mentioned Barcoph. In the second book
of these Expositions, as quoted by Clement, occurs a reference to the
prophecy of Cham or Ham. Rienstra (De Euseb. Hist. Eccles. p. 29)
thinks that Agrippa Castor was mistaken in saying that Basilides
mentioned these prophets; but there seems to be no good reason to deny
the accuracy of the report, even though we know nothing more about the
prophets mentioned. Hort (Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Barcabbas)
thinks it likely that the prophecies current among the various Gnostic
bodies belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature.

[1028] This was not a doctrine of Basilides himself, but of his
followers (compare the accounts of Irenaeus and Hippolytus). If Agrippa
Castor represented Basilides' position thus, as Eusebius says he did
(though Eusebius may be only following Irenaeus), it is an evidence
that he did not live at the early date to which Eusebius assigns him,
and this goes to confirm the view stated above, in note 10. Basilides
himself taught at least a moderate asceticism, while his followers went
off into crude dualism and moral license (see the excellent account of
Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. 466 sq.).

[1029] Exactly what is meant by this "five years of silence" is
uncertain. Whether it denoted unquestioning and silent obedience of all
commands, as it meant in the case of the Pythagoreans (if, indeed, the
traditions in regard to the latter have any basis in fact), or strict
secrecy as to the doctrines taught, cannot be decided. The report in
regard to the Basilidians, in so far as it has any truth, probably
arose on the ground of some such prohibition, which may have been made
by some follower of Basilides, if not by the latter himself. A bond of
secrecy would lend an air of mystery to the school, which would accord
well with the character of its later teachings. But we cannot make
Basilides responsible for such proceedings. Agrippa Castor, as
reproduced here by Eusebius, is our sole authority for the enjoinment
of silence by Basilides.

[1030] See Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 25.

[1031] The date of the rise of Gnosticism cannot be fixed. Indeed, all
the requisite conditions existed from the beginning. It was the "acute
Verweltlichung" (as Harnack calls it) of Christianity, the development
of it in connection with the various ethnic philosophies, and it began
as soon as Christianity came in contact with the Greek mind. At first
it was not heretical, simply because there were no standards by which
to try it. There was only the preaching of the Christians; the canon
was not yet formed; episcopacy was not yet established; both arose as
safeguards against heresy. It was in the time of Hadrian, perhaps, that
these speculations began to be regarded as heresies, because they
contradicted certain fundamental truths to which the Christians felt
that they must cling, such as the unity of God, his graciousness, his
goodness, etc.; and therefore the Christians dated Gnosticism from that
time. Gnosticism was ostensibly conquered, but victory was achieved
only as the Church itself became in a certain sense Gnostic. It
followed the course of Gnosticism a century later; that is, it wrote
commentaries, systems of doctrine, &c., philosophizing about religious
things (cf. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 162 sq.). It must be
remembered in reading the Fathers' accounts of Gnosticism that they
took minor and unimportant details and magnified them, and treated them
as the essentials of the system or systems. In this way far greater
variety appears to have existed in Gnosticism than was the case. The
essential principles were largely the same throughout; the differences
were chiefly in regard to details. It is this conduct on the part of
the Fathers that gives us such a distorted and often ridiculous view of
Gnosticism. The Carpocratians are the first of whom Irenaeus expressly
says that they called themselves Gnostics (adv. Haer. I. 25, 6), while
Hippolytus first speaks of the name as adopted by the Naasseni (V. 1).
The Carpocratians are mentioned by Hegesippus (quoted below in chap.
22). The system was more exclusively Greek in its character than any
other of the Gnostic systems. The immorality of the sect was
proverbial; Tertullian (de Anima, c. 35) calls Carpocrates a magician
and a fornicator. He taught the superiority of man over the powers of
the world, the moral indifference of things in themselves, and hence,
whether he himself was immoral or not, his followers carried out his
principles to the extreme, and believed that the true Gnostic might and
even must have experience of everything, and therefore should practice
all sorts of immoralities. Eusebius is probably right in assigning
Carpocrates to this period. The relation of his system to those of
Saturninus and Basilides seems to imply that he followed them, but at
no great interval. Other sources for a knowledge of Carpocrates and his
sect are Irenaeus (I. 25 and II. 31-33), Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
III. 2), Hippolytus (Phil. VII. 20), Tertullian (de Anima, 23, 35),
Pseudo-Tertullian (adv. omnes Haer. 3), Epiphanius (Haer. 27), and
Philaster (c. 35). Of these only Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and
the earlier treatise of Hippolytus (which lies at the base of
Pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster) are independent; and probably, back of
Irenaeus, lies Justin Martyr's lost Syntagma; though it is very likely
that Irenaeus knew the sect personally, and made additions of his own.
Compare Harnack's Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 41 sq.

[1032] ekeinos, referring back to Basilides.

[1033] Where Eusebius secured the information that the Carpocratians
made the magic rites of Simon public, instead of keeping them secret,
as Basilides had done, I cannot tell. None of our existing sources
mentions this fact, and whether Eusebius took it from some lost source,
or whether it is simply a deduction of his own, I am not certain. In
other respects his account agrees closely with that of Irenaeus. It is
possible that he had seen the lost work of Hippolytus (see below, VI.
22, note 9), and from that had picked up this item which he states as a
fact. But the omission of it in Philaster, Pseudo-Tertullian, and
Epiphanius are against this supposition. Justin's Syntagma Eusebius
probably never saw (see below, chap. 11, note 31).

[1034] The chief accusations urged against the early Christians by
their antagonists were atheism, cannibalism, and incest. These charges
were made very early. Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 26) mentions them, and
Pliny in his epistle to Trajan speaks of the innocent meals of the
Christians, implying that they had been accused of immorality in
connection with them. (Compare, also, Tertullian's Apol. 7, 8, and Ad
Nationes, 7.) In fact, suspicions arose among the heathen as soon as
their love feasts became secret. The persecution in Lyons is to be
explained only by the belief of the officers that these and similar
accusations were true. The Christians commonly denied all such charges
in toto, and supported their denial by urging the absurdity of such
conduct; but sometimes, as in the present case, they endeavored to
exonerate themselves by attributing the crimes with which they were
charged to heretics. This course, however, helped them little with the
heathen, as the latter did not distinguish between the various parties
of Christians, but treated them all as one class. The statement of
Eusebius in the present case is noteworthy. He thinks that the crimes
were really committed by heretics, and occasioned the accusations of
the heathen, and he thus admits that the charges were founded upon
fact. In this case he acts toward the heretics in the same way that the
heathen acted toward the Christians as a whole. This method of
exonerating themselves appears as early as Justin Martyr (compare his
Apol. I. 26). Irenaeus also (I. 25, 3), whom Eusebius substantially
follows in this passage, and Philaster (c. 57), pursue the same course.

[1035] Eusebius is correct in his statement that such accusations were
no longer made in his day. The Church had, in fact, lived them down
completely. It is noticeable that in the elaborate work of Celsus
against the Christians, no such charges are found. From Origen (Contra
Cels. VI. 27), however, we learn that there were still in his time some
who believed these reports about the Christians, though they were no
longer made the basis of serious attacks. Whether Eusebius'
synchronization of the cessation of these slanderous stories with the
cessation of the heresies of which he has been talking, is correct, is
not so certain, as we know neither exactly when these heresies ran out,
nor precisely the time at which the accusations ceased. At any rate, we
cannot fully agree with Eusebius' explanation of the matter. The two
things were hardly connected as direct cause and effect, though it
cannot be denied that the actual immoralities of some of these
antinomian sects may have had some effect in confirming these tales,
and hence that their extinction may have had some tendency to hasten
the obliteration of the vile reports.

[1036] See above, note 10.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 8

Ecclesiastical Writers.

1. Among these Hegesippus was well known. [1037] We have already quoted
his words a number of times, [1038] relating events which happened in
the time of the apostles according to his account.

2. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in
a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished
when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols: "To
whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day.
Among whom is also Antinoues, [1039] a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in
whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were
instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also founded a city named
after Antinoues, [1040] and appointed prophets."

3. At the same time also Justin, a genuine lover of the true
philosophy, was still continuing to busy himself with Greek literature.
[1041] He indicates this time in the Apology which he addressed to
Antonine, where he writes as follows: [1042] "We do not think it out of
place to mention here Antinoues also, who lived in our day, and whom
all were driven by fear to worship as a god, although they knew who he
was and whence he came."

4. The same writer, speaking of the Jewish war which took place at that
time, adds the following: [1043] "For in the late Jewish war
Barcocheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, commanded that
Christians alone [1044] should be visited with terrible punishments
unless they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ."

5. And in the same work he shows that his conversion from Greek
philosophy to Christianity [1045] was not without reason, but that it
was the result of deliberation on his part. His words are as follows:
[1046] "For I myself, while I was delighted with the doctrines of
Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw that they were
afraid neither of death nor of anything else ordinarily looked upon as
terrible, concluded that it was impossible that they could be living in
wickedness and pleasure. For what pleasure-loving or intemperate man,
or what man that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome
death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather
strive to continue permanently his present life, and to escape the
notice of the rulers, instead of giving himself up to be put to death?"

6. The same writer, moreover, relates that Adrian having received from
Serennius Granianus, [1047] a most distinguished governor, a letter
[1048] in behalf of the Christians, in which he stated that it was not
just to slay the Christians without a regular accusation and trial,
merely for the sake of gratifying the outcries of the populace, sent a
rescript [1049] to Minucius Fundanus, [1050] proconsul of Asia,
commanding him to condemn no one without an indictment and a
well-grounded accusation.

7. And he gives a copy of the epistle, preserving the original Latin in
which it was written, [1051] and prefacing it with the following words:
[1052] "Although from the epistle of the greatest and most illustrious
Emperor Adrian, your father, we have good ground to demand that you
order judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we have asked this
not because it was ordered by Adrian, but rather because we know that
what we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy of Adrian's epistle
that you may know that we are speaking the truth in this matter also.
And this is the copy."

8. After these words the author referred to gives the rescript in
Latin, which we have translated into Greek as accurately as we could.
[1053] It reads as follows:
________________________________________________________________

[1037] On the life and writings of Hegesippus, see below, chap. 22,
note 1. Eusebius in this passage puts his literary activity too early
(see above, chap. 7, note 10). Jerome follows Eusebius' chronological
arrangement in his de vir ill., giving an account of Hegesippus in
chap. 22, between his accounts of Agrippa Castor and Justin Martyr.

[1038] Already quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 32.

[1039] Antinoues, a native of Bithynia, was a beautiful page of the
Emperor Hadrian, and the object of his extravagant affections. He was
probably drowned in the Nile, in 130 a.d. After his death he was raised
to the rank of the gods, and temples were built for his worship in many
parts of the empire, especially in Egypt. In Athens too games were
instituted in his honor, and games were also celebrated every fifth
year at Mantinea, in Arcadia, according to Valesius, who cites
Pausanias as his authority.

[1040] Hadrian rebuilt the city of Besa in the Thebais, in whose
neighborhood Antinoues was drowned, and called it Antinooepolis.

[1041] On Justin Martyr, see chap. 16, below. We do not know the date
of his conversion, but as it did not take place until mature years, it
is highly probable that he was still a heathen during the greater part
of Hadrian's reign. There is no reason, however, to suppose that
Eusebius is speaking here with more than approximate accuracy. He may
not have known any better than we the exact time of Justin's
conversion.

[1042] Justin, Apol. I. 29.

[1043] Justin, Apol. I. 31.

[1044] christianous monous. "This `alone' is, as Muenter remarks, not
to be understood as implying that Barcocheba did not treat the Greeks
and Romans also with cruelty, but that he persecuted the Christians
especially, from religious hate, if he could not compel them to
apostatize. Moreover, he handled the Christians so roughly because of
their hesitation to take part in the rebellion" (Closs).

[1045] epi ten theosebeian

[1046] Justin, Apol. II. 12. Eusebius here quotes from what is now
known as the Second Apology of Justin, but identifies it with the
first, from which he has quoted just above. This implies that the two
as he knew them formed but one work, and this is confirmed by his
quotations in chaps. 16 and 17, below. For a discussion of this matter,
see chap. 18, note 3.

[1047] The best mss. of Eusebius write the name Serennios Granianos,
but one ms., supported by Syncellus, writes the first word Serenios.
Rufinus writes "Serenius"; Jerome, in his version of Eusebius'
Chronicle, followed by Orosius (VII. 13), writes "Serenius Granius,"
and this, according to Kortholdt (quoted by Heinichen), is shown by an
inscription to have been the correct form (see Heinichen's edition, in
loco). We know no more of this man, except that he was Minucius
Fundanus' predecessor as proconsul of Asia, as we learn from the
opening sentence of the rescript quoted in the next chapter.

[1048] grEURmmata. The plural is often used like the Latin literae to
denote a single epistle and we learn from the opening sentence of the
rescript itself (if the Greek of Eusebius is to be relied on) that
Hadrian replies, not to a number of letters, but to a single one,--an
epistole, as Eusebius calls it.

[1049] antigrEURpsai

[1050] This Minucius Fundanus is the same person that is addressed by
Pliny, Ep. I. 9 (see Mommsen's note in Keil's ed. of Pliny's epistles,
p. 419). He is mentioned also by Melito (Eusebius, IV. 26) as proconsul
of Asia, and it is there said that Hadrian wrote to him concerning the
Christians. The authenticity of this rescript is a disputed point. Keim
(Theol. Jahrbuecher, 1856, p. 387 sqq.) was the first to dispute its
genuineness. He has been followed by many scholars, especially
Overbeck, who gives a very keen discussion of the various edicts of the
early emperors relating to the Christians in his Studien zur Gesch. der
alten Kirche, I. p. 93 sqq. The genuineness of the edict, however, has
been defended against Keim's attack by Wieseler, Renan, Lightfoot, and
others. The whole question hinges upon the interpretation of the
rescript. According to Gieseler, Neander, and some others, it is aimed
only against tumultuous proceedings, and, far from departing from the
principle laid down by Trajan, is an attempt to return to that
principle and to substitute orderly judicial processes for popular
attacks. If this be the sense of the edict, there is no reason to doubt
its genuineness, but the next to the last sentence certainly cannot be
interpreted in that way: "if any one therefore brings an accusation,
and shows that they have done something contrary to the laws (ti para
tous nomous) determine thus according to the heinousness of the crime"
(kata ten dunamin tou hamartematos). These last words are very
significant. They certainly imply various crimes of which the prisoners
are supposed to be accused. According to the heinousness of these
crimes the punishment is to be regulated. In other words, the trial of
the Christians was to be for the purpose of ascertaining whether they
were guilty of moral or political crimes, not whether they merely
professed Christianity; that is, the profession of Christianity,
according to this rescript, is not treated as a crime in and of itself.
If the edict then be genuine, Hadrian reversed completely Trajan's
principle of procedure which was to punish the profession of
Christianity in and of itself as a crime. But in the time of Antoninus
Pius and Marcus Aurelius the rescript of Trajan is seen still to be in
full force. For this and other reasons presented by Keim and Overbeck,
I am constrained to class this edict with those of Antoninus Pius and
Marcus Aurelius as a forgery. It can hardly have been composed while
Hadrian was still alive, but must have been forged before Justin wrote
his Apology, for he gives it as a genuine edict, i.e. it must belong to
the early part of the reign of Antoninus Pius. The illusion under which
the early Christian writers labored in regard to the relations of the
emperors to Christianity is very remarkable. Both Melito and Tertullian
state that no emperor had persecuted the Christians except Nero and
Domitian. Christian writers throughout the second century talk in fact
as if the mode of treatment which they were receiving was something new
and strange, and in opposition to the better treatment which previous
emperors had accorded the Christians. In doing this, they ignore
entirely the actual edicts of the emperors, all of which are now lost
and notice only forged edicts which are favorable to the Christians;
when and by whom they were forged we do not know. Thus Tertullian, in
addressing Septimius Severus, speaks of the favors which his
predecessors had granted the Christians and contrasts their conduct
with his; Melito addresses Marcus Aurelius in the same way, and so
Justin addresses Antoninus Pius. This method probably arose from a
misunderstanding of the original edict of Trajan (cf. Bk. III. chap.
33, note 6), which they all considered favorable, and therefore
presupposed a friendly attitude on the part of the emperors toward the
Christians, which, not finding in their own age, they naturally
transferred to a previous age. This led gradually to the idea--which
Lactantius first gives precise expression to--that only the bad
emperors persecuted Christianity, while the good ones were favorable to
it. But after the empire became Christian, the belief became common
that all the heathen emperors had been persecutors, the good as well as
the bad;--all the Christian emperors were placed upon one level, and
all the heathen on another, the latter being looked upon, like Nero and
Domitian, as wicked tyrants. Compare Overbeck, l.c.

[1051] Our two mss. of Justin have substituted the Greek translation of
Eusebius for the Latin original given by the former. Rufinus, however,
in his version of Eusebius' History, gives a Latin translation which is
very likely the original one. Compare Kimmel's De Rufino, p. 175 sq.,
and Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 463 sq., and see Otto's Corpus Apol. I.
p. 190 sq., where the edict is given, both in the Greek of our mss. of
Justin and in the Latin of Rufinus. Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum, p.
184 sq.) contends that the Latin of Rufinus is not the original, but a
translation of Eusebius' Greek. His arguments, however, do not possess
any real weight, and the majority of scholars accept Kimmel's view.

[1052] Justin, Apol. I. 68.

[1053] We cannot judge as to the faithfulness of the Greek translation
which follows, because we are not absolutely sure whether the Latin of
Rufinus is its original, or itself a translation of it. Eusebius and
Rufinus, however, agree very well, and if the Latin of Rufinus is the
original of Eusebius' translation, the latter has succeeded much better
than the Greek translator of the Apology of Tertullian referred to in
Bk. II. chap. 2, above. We should expect, however, that much greater
pains would be taken with the translation of a brief official document
of this kind than with such a work as Tertullian's Apology, and
Eusebius' translation of the rescript does not by any means prove that
he was a fluent Latin scholar. As remarked above (Bk. II. chap. 2, note
9), he probably had comparatively little acquaintance with the Latin,
but enough to enable him to translate brief passages for himself in
cases of necessity.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 9

The Epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should not be
punished without a Trial.

1. "To Minucius Fundanus. I have received an epistle, [1054] written to
me by Serennius Granianus, a most illustrious man, whom you have
succeeded. It does not seem right to me that the matter should be
passed by without examination, lest the men [1055] be harassed and
opportunity be given to the informers for practicing villainy.

2. If, therefore, the inhabitants of the province can clearly sustain
this petition against the Christians so as to give answer in a court of
law, let them pursue this course alone, but let them not have resort to
men's petitions and outcries. For it is far more proper, if any one
wishes to make an accusation, that you should examine into it.

3. If any one therefore accuses them and shows that they are doing
anything contrary to the laws, do you pass judgment according to the
heinousness of the crime. [1056] But, by Hercules! if any one bring an
accusation through mere calumny, decide in regard to his criminality,
[1057] and see to it that you inflict punishment." [1058]

Such are the contents of Adrian's rescript.
________________________________________________________________

[1054] Greek, epistolen; Latin, litteras.

[1055] Greek, hoi anthropoi; Latin, innoxii.

[1056] This is the only really suspicious sentence in the edict. That
Hadrian should desire to protect his Christian subjects as well as
others from tumultuous and illegal proceedings, and from unfounded
accusations, would be of course quite natural, and quite in accord with
the spirit shown by Trajan in his rescript. But in this one sentence he
implies that the Christians are to be condemned only for actual crimes,
and that the mere profession of Christianity is not in itself a
punishable offense. Much, therefore, as we might otherwise be tempted
to accept the edict as genuine,--natural as the style is and the
position taken in the other portions of it,--this one sentence,
considered in the light of all that we know of the attitude of
Hadrian's predecessors and successors toward the Christians, and of all
that we can gather of his own views, must, as I believe, condemn it as
a forgery.

[1057] Compare this sentence with the closing words of the forged edict
of Antoninus Pius quoted by Eusebius in chap. 13. Not only are the
Christians to be released, but their accusers are to be punished. Still
there is a difference between the two commands in that here only an
accusation made with the purpose of slander is to be punished, while
there the accuser is to be unconditionally held as guilty, if actual
crimes are not proved against the accused Christian. The latter command
would be subversive of all justice, and brands itself as a counterfeit
on its very face; but in the present case the injunction to enforce the
law forbidding slander against those who should slanderously accuse the
Christians is not inconsistent with the principles of Trajan and
Hadrian, and hence not of itself alone an evidence of ungenuineness.

[1058] Greek, hopos an ekdikeseias; Latin, suppliciis severioribus
vindices.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 10

The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of
Antoninus.

Adrian having died after a reign of twenty-one years, [1059] was
succeeded in the government of the Romans by Antoninus, called the
Pious. In the first year of his reign Telesphorus [1060] died in the
eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hyginus became bishop of Rome.
[1061] Irenaeus records that Telesphorus' death was made glorious by
martyrdom, [1062] and in the same connection he states that in the time
of the above-mentioned Roman bishop Hyginus, Valentinus, the founder of
a sect of his own, and Cerdon, the author of Marcion's error, were both
well known at Rome. [1063] He writes as follows: [1064]
________________________________________________________________

[1059] Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July 10, 138 a.d.

[1060] On Telesphorus, see above, chap. 5, note 13. The date given here
by Eusebius (138-139 a.d.) is probably (as remarked there) at least a
year too late.

[1061] We know very little about Hyginus. His dates can be fixed with
tolerable certainty as 137-141, the duration of his episcopate being
four years, as Eusebius states in the next chapter. See Lipsius' Chron.
d. roem. Bischoefe, p. 169 and 263. The Roman martyrologies make him a
martyr, but this means nothing, as the early bishops of Rome almost
without exception are called martyrs by these documents. The forged
decretals ascribe to him the introduction of a number of ecclesiastical
rites.

[1062] In his Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3. The testimony of Irenaeus rests
upon Roman tradition at this point, and is undoubtedly reliable.
Telesphorus is the first Roman bishop whom we know to have suffered
martyrdom, although the Roman Catholic Church celebrates as martyrs all
the so-called popes down to the fourth century.

[1063] On Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next chapter.

[1064] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 4. 3.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 11

The Heresiarchs of that Age.

1. "For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, flourished under Pius,
and remained until Anicetus. [1065] Cerdon [1066] also, Marcion's
[1067] predecessor, entered the Church in the time of Hyginus, the
ninth [1068] bishop, and made confession, and continued in this way,
now teaching in secret, now making confession again, and now denounced
for corrupt doctrine and withdrawing [1069] from the assembly of the
brethren."

2. These words are found in the third book of the work Against
Heresies. And again in the first book he speaks as follows concerning
Cerdon: [1070] "A certain Cerdon, who had taken his system from the
followers of Simon, and had come to Rome under Hyginus, the ninth in
the episcopal succession from the apostles, [1071] taught that the God
proclaimed by the law and prophets was not the father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; and the
former was just, but the latter good. [1072] Marcion of Pontus
succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless
blasphemies."

3. The same Irenaeus unfolds with the greatest vigor the unfathomable
abyss of Valentinus' errors in regard to matter, and reveals his
wickedness, secret and hidden like a serpent lurking in its nest.

4. And in addition to these men he says that there was also another
that lived in that age, Marcus by name, [1073] who was remarkably
skilled in magic arts. And he describes also their unholy initiations
and their abominable mysteries in the following words: [1074]

5. "For some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a mystic rite
with certain forms of expression addressed to those who are being
initiated, and they say that it is a spiritual marriage which is
celebrated by them, after the likeness of the marriages above. But
others lead them to water, and while they baptize them they repeat the
following words: Into the name of the unknown father of the universe,
into truth, the mother of all things, into the one that descended upon
Jesus. [1075] Others repeat Hebrew names [1076] in order the better to
confound those who are being initiated."

6. But Hyginus [1077] having died at the close of the fourth year of
his episcopate, Pius [1078] succeeded him in the government of the
church of Rome. In Alexandria Marcus [1079] was appointed pastor, after
Eumenes [1080] had filled the office thirteen years in all. And Marcus
having died after holding office ten years was succeeded by Celadion
[1081] in the government of the church of Alexandria.

7. And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and
Anicetus [1082] assumed the leadership of the Christians there.
Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that
he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus. [1083]

8. But Justin [1084] was especially prominent in those days. In the
guise of a philosopher [1085] he preached the divine word, and
contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against
Marcion, [1086] in which he states that the latter was alive at the
time he wrote.

9. He speaks as follows: [1087] "And there is a certain Marcion [1088]
of Pontus, [1089] who is even now still teaching his followers to think
that there is some other God greater than the creator. And by the aid
of the demons [1090] he has persuaded many of every race of men [1091]
to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the
father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was
the creator. [1092] And all who followed them are, as we have said,
[1093] called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to
philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common."

10. To this he adds: [1094] "And we have also written a work against
all the heresies that have existed, [1095] which we will give you if
you wish to read it."

11. But this same Justin contended most successfully against the
Greeks, and addressed discourses containing an apology for our faith to
the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman senate. [1096] For
he lived at Rome. But who and whence he was he shows in his Apology in
the following words. [1097]
________________________________________________________________

[1065] Valentinus is the best known of the Gnostics. According to
Epiphanius (Haer. XXXI. 2) he was born on the coast of Egypt, and
studied Greek literature and science at Alexandria. The same writer, on
the authority of the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus, informs us that he
taught in Cyprus, and this must have been before he went to Rome. The
direct statement of Irenaeus as to the date of his activity there is
confirmed by Tertullian, and perhaps by Clement of Alexandria, and is
not to be doubted. Since Hyginus held office in all probability from
137-141, and Anicetus from 154 or 155 to 166 or 167, Valentinus must
have been in Rome at least thirteen years. His chronological position
between Basilides and Marcion (as given by Clement of Alexandria,
Strom. VII. 17) makes it probable that he came to Rome early in
Antoninus' reign and remained there during all or the most of that
reign, but not longer. Valentinus' followers divided into two schools,
an Oriental and an Italian, and constituted by far the most numerous
and influential Gnostic sect. His system is the most profound and
artistic of the Gnostic systems, and reveals great depth and power of
mind. For an excellent account of Valentinus and Valentinianism, see
Lipsius' article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. IV. Valentinus
occupies a prominent place in all works on Gnosticism.

[1066] Cerdon is best known as the teacher of Marcion. Epiphanius
(Haer. XLI.) and Philaster (Haer. XLIV.) call him a native of Syria.
Epiphanius speaks of a sect of Cerdonians, but there seems never to
have been such a sect, and his disciples probably early became
followers of Marcion, who joined Cerdon soon after reaching Rome. It is
not possible to distinguish his teachings from those of his pupil,
Marcion. Hippolytus (X. 15) treats Cerdon and Marcion together, making
no attempt to distinguish their doctrines. Irenaeus, in the passage
quoted, and the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus (represented by
Pseudo-Tertullian's Adv. Haer. and by Epiphanius) distinguish the two,
treating Cerdon separately but very briefly. The doctrines of Cerdon,
however, given by them, are identical with or at least very similar to
the known views of Marcion. If they were really Cerdon's positions
before Marcion came to him, then his influence over Marcion was most
decided.

[1067] On Marcion, see below, note 24.

[1068] The Latin text of Irenaeus here reads "eighth" instead of
"ninth." See below, note 7.

[1069] ephistEURmenos. This is commonly taken to mean that Cerdon was
excommunicated. But as Valesius remarks, the participle is strictly
middle, not passive. The distinction, however, cannot be insisted upon
in the present case, and therefore we cannot determine decisively
whether Cerdon was excluded by the congregation or excluded himself.

[1070] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 27. 1-2.

[1071] Hyginus is here called the ninth bishop, and the reading is
confirmed by a passage in Cyprian's epistle to Pompey (Ep. LXXIII. 2 in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers), and also by Epiphanius (Haer. LXI. 1). In the
passage quoted just above, however, from the third book of Irenaeus,
although Eusebius calls Hyginus the "ninth," the Latin text of Irenaeus
makes him the "eighth," and according to Salmon in the Dict of Christ.
Biog.: "The ms. evidence is decisive that Irenaeus here [in the passage
quoted above from III. 4. 3] describes Hyginus as the eighth bishop,
and this agrees with the list of Roman bishops given in the preceding
chapter (Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3), and with the description of Anicetus as
the tenth bishop a couple of chapters further on. Lipsius hence infers
that Irenaeus drew his account of Cerdon from two sources in which
Hyginus was differently described, but this inference is very
precarious. In the interval between the composition of the first and
third books, Irenaeus may have been led to alter his way of counting by
investigations concerning the succession of the Roman bishops, which he
had in the meantime either made himself, or adopted from Hegesippus. As
for the numeration `ninth,' we do not venture to pronounce whether it
indicates a list in which Peter was counted first bishop, or one in
which Cletus and Anacletus were reckoned as distinct." According to
Eusebius' own reckoning up to the present chapter, Hyginus was the
eighth, not the ninth, from the apostles, for in chap. 5, above, he
calls Telesphorus (Hyginus' predecessor) the seventh, in chap. 1,
Alexander (the predecessor of Xystus, who preceded Telesphorus) the
fifth, and so on. Why, in the passage quoted at the beginning of this
chapter, he should change his reckoning, and call Hyginus the ninth if
the original list of Irenaeus from which he drew said eighth is
difficult to see. It is possible that he made the change under the
influence of the "ninth," in the present passage, which certainly stood
in the original text. It would be easier to think this if the order in
which the passages are quoted were reversed, but it may be that
Eusebius had the present quotation in mind when making the first, or
that he went back afterward and corrected that to correspond. If he
ventured to change the text of Irenaeus in that passage, he must have
done it in all good faith, assuming a mistake in transcription, where
the contradiction was so glaring. It still remains to me inexplicable,
however, why he did not change the "ninth" of the second passage to
"eighth" instead of the "eighth" of the first passage to "ninth." He
would thus have gotten rid of all contradictions, and have remained
consistent with himself. I am tempted, in fact, to believe that
Eusebius found "ninth" in the original of both passages quoted, and
copied just what he found. At the same time, I do not feel disposed in
the face of what Lipsius and Salmon say as to the original text of
Irenaeus to claim that Irenaeus himself wrote "ninth" at that point.

[1072] Marcion drew this same distinction between the strictly just God
of the Old Testament and the good or merciful God of the New, and the
distinction was a fundamental one in his system. It is noticeable that
Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. Omnes Haer. chap 6) says that Cerdon taught two
Gods, one good, the other cruel (saevum); the good being the superior
God,--the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the world.

[1073] Irenaeus gives an account of Marcus and the Marcosians in I.
13-21. He was a Gnostic of the sect of Valentinus. Jerome calls him a
Basilidian (Ep. LXXV. 3), but he was mistaken. Hippolytus and
Epiphanius (Haer. 34) copy their accounts from Irenaeus, and probably
had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus, or of his sect. Clement
of Alexandria, however, knew and used his writings. It is probable that
Asia Minor was the scene of his labors. He is spoken of in the present
tense by Irenaeus, and hence seems to have been alive when he wrote;
that is, in the latter part of the second century. His additions to
Valentinianism lay chiefly, perhaps solely, in the introduction of
worthless magic rites. He seems to have lowered greatly the tone of the
philosophical Gnosticism of Valentinus. See Salmon's article in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[1074] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 21. 3.

[1075] eis ton katelthonta eis ton 'Iesoun. Taking the Greek simply as
it stands, we should naturally put a comma before the second eis, and
translate "into the one that descended, into Jesus," identifying the
"one that descended" with Jesus. But the Gnostics in general taught
that Jesus was only a man, upon whom descended one of the aeons, or
higher spiritual powers, and hence it is plain that in the present case
the "one that descended upon [or literally "into"] Jesus" is referred
to here as the third person of the baptismal Trinity.

[1076] The Greek and Latin texts of Irenaeus add at this point widely
variant lists of these words, but in both lists the words are quite
meaningless.

[1077] On Hyginus, see the previous chapter, note 3.

[1078] Eusebius states, just below, that Pius held office fifteen
years, and in his Chronicle he gives the same figure. In that work
(Armen. version) he places his accession in the first year of Antoninus
Pius, though the version of Jerome assigns it to the fifth year, and
with this Eusebius agrees in his History, for in the previous chapter
he puts the accession of Hyginus in the first year of Antoninus Pius,
and here tells us that Hyginus held office four years. Lipsius assigns
Pius' episcopate to the years 139-154, as the earliest possible
termini; the years 141-156 as the latest. But since we learn from
chapter 14, below, that Polycarp was in Rome during the episcopate of
Anicetus, and from other sources (see chapter 15, note 2) that he was
martyred in Asia Minor in 155 or 156, we may assume it as certain that
Pius cannot have held office as late as 156. The earlier date for his
death (154) may therefore be accepted as more probable. The Liberian
and Felician Catalogues put Anicetus between Hyginus and Pius; but that
is certainly incorrect, for, in support of the order given here by
Eusebius, we have the testimony both of Hegesippus, quoted below, in
chap. 22, and of Irenaeus (III. 3). Pius is commonly regarded as the
first monarchical bishop in the strict sense, the so-called bishops
before his time having been simply leading presbyters or presbyter
bishops of the Roman church (see chap. 11, note 14). According to the
Muratorian Fragment and the Liberian Catalogue, Pius was the brother of
Hermas, the author of the Shepherd. Upon this alleged relationship, see
Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23.

[1079] Of Marcus we know only what Eusebius tells us here: that he
succeded Eumenes, after the latter had held office thirteen years, and
that he continued in office ten years. If Eumenes became bishop in 132
or 133 (see above, chap. 5, note 16), then Marcus must have succeeded
him in 145 or 146, and this agrees with the Armenian Chron. of
Eusebius, which, while it does not mention the accession of Marcus, yet
puts the accession of his successor Celadin in the eighteenth year of
Antoninus Pius, which would make the beginning of his own episcopate
the eighth year of the same ruler. Jerome's version of the Chron.,
however, puts it in the sixth year. Little reliance is to be placed
upon any of the dates of the Alexandrian bishops during the first two
centuries.

[1080] On Eumenes, see above, chap. 5, note 14.

[1081] Of Celadion we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and in
chap. 19, where he gives fourteen years as the duration of his
episcopate. As mentioned in the previous note, the Armenian Chron. of
Eusebius puts his accession in the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius,
i.e. 155 or 156, while the version of Jerome puts it in the sixteenth
year.

[1082] Anicetus, according to the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius,
succeeded Pius in the fifteenth year of Antoninus Pius; according to
Jerome's version, in the eighteenth year (i.e. 155 or 156), which is
more nearly correct. Lipsius puts his accession between 154 and 156
(see note 14, above). According to chap. 19, below, with which both
versions of the Chron. agree, Anicetus held office eleven years; i.e.
until 165 to 167, when he was succeeded by Soter. Irenaeus (as quoted
by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24) informs us that Polycarp was in Rome in
the time of Anicetus, and endeavored to induce him to adopt the
Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter; but that, while the two
remained perfectly friendly to one another, Anicetus would not change
the custom of the Roman church (see the notes on the chapter referred
to). As stated in note 13, the Liberian and Felician Catalogues
incorrectly insert the name of Anicetus between those of Hyginus and
Pius.

[1083] Eusebius evidently makes a mistake here. That Hegesippus
remained so long in Rome (Anicetus ruled from 154-168 (?), and
Eleutherus from 177-190) is upon the face of it very improbable. And in
this case we can see clearly how Eusebius made his mistake. In chap. 22
he quotes a passage from Hegesippus in regard to his stay in Rome, and
it was in all probability this passage from which Eusebius drew his
conclusion. But Hegesippus says there that he "remained in Rome until
the time of Anicetus," &c. It is probable, therefore, that he returned
to the East during Anicetus' episcopacy. He does not express himself as
one who had remained in Rome until the reign of Eleutherus; but
Eusebius, from a hasty reading, might easily have gathered that idea.
According to Hegesippus' account in chap. 22, he must, then, have come
to Rome before Anicetus, i.e. during the reign of Pius, and this
Eusebius does not here contradict, though he is said to do so by
Reading, who translates the Greek words, epidemesai te ;;Rome, "came to
the city" (so, also, Closs, Stigloher, and Cruse). But the words
properly mean "to be in Rome," not "to come to Rome," which would
require, rather, epidemesai eis ten ;;Romen, as in S:2, above, where
the words are used of Cerdon. Jerome, to be sure (de vir. ill. 22),
says that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus; but his
account rests solely upon Eusebius, whom he mistranslated. The
tradition, therefore, that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of
Anicetus has no foundation; he was already there, as he himself informs
us, in chap. 22, below. Cf. the note on this passage, in chap. 22.

[1084] Eusebius here puts Justin in his proper place, in the time of
Antoninus Pius. The date of his birth is unknown, though it cannot have
been far from the beginning of the second century. He was born in
Flavia Neapolis, a Roman town built close by the ruins of the ancient
Sychem, in Samaria. He was of heathen parentage, and received a
thoroughly Greek education. He became an earnest student of philosophy,
and after turning to many different systems in his search for truth, he
was at last converted to Christianity, where he found that for which he
had been searching; and his whole conception of Christianity shows the
influence of the manner in which he accepted it. The date of his
conversion is unknown, but it seems (from Dial. I. 1) to have taken
place at least before the close of the Barcochba war (135 a.d.). He
died as a martyr at Rome. The date of his death is difficult to
determine, but it probably took place under Marcus Aurelius, in 163+.
Upon his death, see below, chap. 16, note 4. Upon Justin, see Semich's
Justin der Maertyrer, Otto's edition of the Greek Apologists, von
Engelhardt's article in Herzog, 2d ed., Holland's article in Smith and
Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog., and finally Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p.110
sq., where the most important literature is mentioned. Upon his
theology, see especially von Engelhardt's masterly monograph, Das
Christenthum Justins des Maertyrers (Erlangen, 1878). A recent and
interesting discussion of Justin's testimony to early Christianity is
found in Purves' work on that subject (New York, 1889).

[1085] en schemati philosophou. The reference here is to the
distinctive cloak or mantle of the Greek philosophers, which was called
the pallium, and to which Justin refers in his Dial. c. Trypho, S:1.
The wearing of the mantle was an advantage to the philosophers,
inasmuch as it gave them peculiar opportunities to engage in
philosophic discourse in the street or market, or other public places,
which they could not otherwise so easily have enjoyed. Perhaps it was
this fact which led Justin to continue wearing the cloak, and we see
from the introduction to his Dialogue that it was the wearing of it
which was the immediate occasion of his conversation with Trypho and
his friends. Heraclas, the friend of Origen, also continued to wear the
philosopher's cloak after his conversion, as we learn from Bk. VI.
chap. 19.

[1086] This work against Marcion is also mentioned by Irenaeus, who
quotes from it in his Adv. Haer. IV. 16. 2 (see below, chap. 18), and
by Photius, Cod. 125. The work is lost, and we have only the single
brief fragment preserved by Irenaeus. It is possible that it formed a
part of the larger Syntagma contra omnes Haereses, mentioned by Justin
in his Apol. I. 26 (see below), and it has been urged in support of
this possibility that Irenaeus nowhere mentions a work of Justin's
Against all Heresies, although it is highly probable that he made use
of such a work (see Lipsius' Quellen der aeltesten Ketzergesch. and
Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). It would seem that
Irenaeus is referring to this work when he mentions the Syntagma contra
Marcionem. On the other hand, Photius mentions the work against Marcion
and the one against all heresies as two separate works. He does not
seem, however, to have had a personal knowledge of them, and is
possibly only repeating Eusebius (Harnack says he is certainly doing
so, Ueberlieferung d. griech. Apol. p. 150; but in view of the fact
that he omits two works mentioned by Eusebius, this seems to be
somewhat doubtful); and if this is so, no reliance is to be placed upon
his report, for it is evident that Eusebius himself knew neither of the
two works, and hence the fact that he distinguishes them has no
significance. Although, therefore, it cannot be determined whether
Justin wrote two separate works against heretics, it is quite probable
that he did not. The conduct of Eusebius in this connection is very
peculiar. After mentioning the work against Marcion, he at once gives a
quotation in such a way as to convey the impression that the quotation
is taken from this work, but it is really taken from the first Apology.
This makes it very probable that he had not seen this work against
Marcion, a conclusion which is confirmed by its omission from the list
of Justin's writings given in chap. 18. It is claimed by many that
Eusebius practices a little deception here, wishing to convey the
impression that he knew a book which he did not know. This is not in
accord with his usual conduct (as he seldom hesitates to confess his
ignorance of any matter), and his general character for candor and
honesty must be taken into account in deciding the case. He does not
state directly that the quotation is taken from the work against
Marcion, and it is possible that the seeming reference of it to that
source was an oversight on his part. But it must be acknowledged, if
that be the case, that he was very careless in making the quotation.

[1087] Justin, Apol. I. 26.

[1088] Marcion cannot be called a Gnostic in the strict sense of the
term. He was rather an anti-Jewish reformer. He had much in common with
the Gnostics, but laid stress upon belief rather than upon knowledge.
He developed no complete system as did the extreme and perverted
Paulinism, considering Paul the only true apostle and rejecting the
others as Judaizing teachers. He cut the Gospel away from its
historical connections, repudiating the Old Testament and all of the
New except a mutilated Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, and
denying the identity of the God of the Old Testament with the Supreme
God, and the identity of Jesus with the promised Jewish Messiah. He
magnified the mercy of God in redemption at the expense of creation,
which he attributed to the demiurge, and in which he saw nothing good.
He was an extreme anti-metaphysician, and the first Biblical critic. He
was born in Pontus, was the son of a bishop, went to Rome about 135
a.d., and endeavored to carry out his reforms there, but was
unsuccessful, and very soon broke with the Church. He traveled
extensively and disseminated his doctrines very widely. The sect
existed well on into the Middle Ages, and some of his opinions have
never been completely eradicated. In Rome the Gnostic Cerdon exercised
great influence over him, and to him are doubtless due many of
Marcion's Gnostic traits. The dualism which he held in common with the
Gnostics arose rather from practical than speculative considerations;
but his followers in the fourth and fifth centuries, when they had lost
his practical religious spirit and yet retained his dualism, passed
over quite naturally into Manicheeism. He was attacked by Justin,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and all the anti-heretical writers of the early
Church, and was considered one of the most dangerous of heretics. A
complete monograph upon Marcion is still a desideratum, but he is
discussed in all the general accounts of Gnosticism; see especially the
brief but excellent account by Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. 197-214.

[1089] Pontus was a province in Northeastern Asia Minor, bordering upon
the Black Sea.

[1090] Justin here agrees with Eusebius in his transcendental theory of
heresy, looking upon it not as a natural growth from within, but as an
infliction upon the Church from without, through the agency of demons.
Indeed, this was the prevailing notion of the early Church.

[1091] The extent of Marcion's influence referred to here is very
significant. Gnosticism was not intended for common people, and never
spread among the masses, but on the contrary was confined to
philosophers and speculative thinkers. In this respect, Marcion, whose
sect included multitudes of all classes, was distinguished most sharply
from them, and it was because of the popularity of his sect that his
heresy appeared so dangerous to the early Church.

[1092] allon de tina hos, onta meizona para touton homologein
pepoiekenai. The sentence as it thus stands is very difficult to
construe, for we are compelled to take the last verb without an object,
in the sense of create. Our mss. of Justin Martyr insert after the
hosonta meizona the words ta meizona, and the sentence then reads,
"some other one, greater than he, has done greater works." It is plain
that this was the original form of the sentence, and that the harsh
construction found in Eusebius is a result of defective transcription.
It was very easy for a copyist to drop out the second meizona.

[1093] Justin refers here to Apol. I. 7. He wishes to have it clear
that not all that call themselves Christians are really such. From
chaps. 26-29, we see that in Justin's time the Christians were accused
of great immoralities, and in this same chapter (chap. 26) he is rather
inclined to throw the guilt upon heretics, although he does not
expressly accuse them of it ("whether they perpetrate these shameful
deeds--we know not"). See above. His mention of philosophers here in
his appeal to the philosophical emperors is very shrewd.

[1094] Ibid. I. 26.

[1095] This work is not mentioned by Eusebius in the list of Justin's
works which he gives in chap. 18. He had, therefore, undoubtedly never
seen it. Irenaeus nowhere mentions it under this title, though he seems
to have made extensive use of it, and he does mention a work, Against
Marcion, which is very likely to be identified with the work referred
to here (see Harnack's Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). The work,
which is now lost, is mentioned by Photius (Cod. 125), but he evidently
had never seen it, and is simply copying some earlier list, perhaps
that of Eusebius. His testimony to the work, therefore, amounts to
little. Compare note 22, above.

[1096] On Justin's Apology and his work Against the Greeks, see below,
chap. 18, notes 3 and 4. As shown in note 3 of that chapter, he really
wrote only one Apology.

[1097] Justin, Apol. I. 1.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 12

The Apology of Justin addressed to Antoninus.

"To the Emperor Titus AElius Adrian Antoninus Pius Caesar Augustus,
[1098] and to Verissimus his son, [1099] the philosopher, and to Lucius
the philosopher, [1100] own son of Caesar and adopted son of Pius, a
lover of learning, and to the sacred senate and to the whole Roman
people, I , Justin, son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, [1101] of
Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, Syria, present this address and petition
in behalf of those men of every nation who are unjustly hated and
persecuted, I myself being one of them." And the same emperor having
learned also from other brethren in Asia of the injuries of all kinds
which they were suffering from the inhabitants of the province, thought
it proper to address the following ordinance to the Common Assembly
[1102] of Asia.
________________________________________________________________

[1098] On the titles of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, see Otto's notes in
his edition of Justin's works (Corpus Apol. Christianorum, Vol. I. p.
2. sq.).

[1099] That is, Marcus Aurelius, whose original name was Marcus Annius
Verus, but who, after his adoption by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, was
styled Marcus AElius Aurelius Verus Caesar. As a tribute to his
sincerity and truthfulness, he was quite commonly called, instead of
Verus, Verissimus.

[1100] The mss. are divided here between the forms philosopho and
philosophou. If the former reading be followed, we must translate, "to
Lucius, own son of Caesar the philosopher." The mss. are about equally
divided, and the latter reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius,
Stroth, and Burton. But our mss. of Justin support the former reading,
which is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and which, as the latter
remarks, is far more natural than the other reading, for Justin had
greater reason for giving the appellation of "philosopher" to a Caesar
who was still living, even though he may not have been noted for his
philosophical tastes, than to a Caesar who was already dead, and whose
character certainly entitled him to the appellation no more than, if as
much as, his son. See Heinichen's note in loco, and Otto's note in his
edition of Justin's works, Vol. I. p. 3. ff. The Lucius addressed here
was Lucius Ceionius Commodus, whose father, bearing the same name, had
been adopted as Caesar by Hadrian. The younger Lucius was adopted as
Caesar along with Marcus by Antoninus Pius, and later became Marcus'
colleague in the empire, when he added to his own name the name Verus,
which Marcus had formerly borne. He is therefore commonly known in
history as Lucius Verus (see the respective articles in Smith's Dict.
of Greek and Roman Biog.).

[1101] Of Justin's father and grandfather we know nothing except their
names. On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note 20.

[1102] This "Assembly of Asia" (to koinon tes 'Asias) was one of the
regular provincial diets which Augustus had called into being as fixed
institutions. It was an annual assembly of the civic deputies of the
province, and served as a general organ of the province, especially in
bringing the wishes of the people to the knowledge of the governor, and
through him to the emperor, and decrees of the emperor were often
addressed to it, and legates chosen by it were sent to the emperor
whenever occasion required. See Marquardt, Roem. Staatsverwaltung, I.
p. 366. sq.
________________________________________________________________

Chapter 13

The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia
in Regard to our Doctrine. [1103]

1. The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, [1104]
Armenicus, Pontifex Maximus, for the fifteenth time Tribune, for the
third time Consul, to the Common Assembly of Asia, Greeting.

2. I know that the gods also take care that such persons do not escape
detection. For they would much rather punish those who will not worship
them than you would.

3. But you throw them into confusion, and while you accuse them of
atheism you only confirm them in the opinion which they hold. It would
indeed be more desirable for them, when accused, to appear to die for
their God, than to live. Wherefore also they come off victorious when
they give up their lives rather than yield obedience to your commands.

4. And in regard to the earthquakes which have been and are still
taking place, [1105] it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart
whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare your
conduct with theirs. [1106]

5. They indeed become the more confident in God, while you, during the
whole time, neglect, in apparent ignorance, the other gods and the
worship of the Immortal, and oppress and persecute even unto death the
Christians who worship him. [1107]

6. But in regard to these persons, many of the governors of the
provinces wrote also to our most divine father, to whom he wrote in
reply that they should not trouble these people unless it should appear
that they were attempting something affecting the Roman government.