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

---

Book 6

Chapter 1

The Persecution under Severus.

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

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

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

Chapter 2

The Training of Origen from Childhood. [1767]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1776] dia to dokoun hikanon en logo.

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

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

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

[1780] epi ta grammatikEUR

[1781] See below, p. 392.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1784] See below, p. 392.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1791] See Matt. x. 10

[1792] See Matt. vi. 34

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

Chapter 4

The pupils of Origen that became Martyrs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5

Potamiaena. [1799]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6

Clement of Alexandria.

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 7

The Writer, Judas. [1807]

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

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

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

Chapter 8

Origen's Daring Deed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1810] Matt. xix. 12.

[1811] See chap. 23.

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

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

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

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

Chapter 9

The Miracles of Narcissus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 10

The Bishops of Jerusalem.

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

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

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

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

Chapter 11

Alexander.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1824] euches kai ton topon historias heneken.

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

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

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

[1828] Literally "confessions" (homologiais).

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

[1830] kurioi mou adelphoi.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 12

Serapion and his Extant Works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 13

The Writings of Clement. [1840]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1852] See note 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 14

The Scriptures mentioned by Him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1869] See the previous chapter, note 3.

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

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

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

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

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

[1875] ta som