1. “The blessed apostles¹⁴³⁸

1438 Namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the Roman church. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.

1439 On Linus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 2, note 1; and for the succession of the early Roman bishops, see the same note.

1440 2 Tim. iv. 21.

2. Anencletus¹⁴⁴¹

1441 On Anencletus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3.

1442 On Clement, see above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.

1443 Although the identification of this Clement with the one mentioned in Phil. iv. 3 is more than doubtful, yet there is no reason to doubt that, living as he did in the first century at Rome, he was personally acquainted at least with the apostles Peter and Paul.

3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth,¹⁴⁴⁴

1444 See the Epistle of Clement itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3.

1445 Upon the epistle, see above, Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.

1446 ἀνεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παρ€δοσιν εἰλήφει. The last word being in the singular, the tradition must be that received by the Roman, not by the Corinthian church (as it is commonly understood), and hence it is necessary to supply some verb which shall govern παρ€δοσιν, for it is at least very harsh to say that the Roman church, in its epistle to the Corinthians “renewed” the faith which it had received. The truth is, that both in Rufinus and in Irenæus an extra participle is found (in the former exprimens, in the latter annuntians), and Stroth has in consequence ventured to insert the word καταγγέλουσα in his text. I have likewise, for the sake of the sense, inserted the word proclaiming, not thereby intending to imply, however, the belief that καταγγέλουσα stood in the original text of Eusebius.

1447 It is interesting to notice how strictly Eusebius carries out his principle of taking historical matter wherever he can find it, but of omitting all doctrinal statements and discussions. The few sentences which follow in Irenæus are of a doctrinal nature, and in the form of a brief polemic against Gnosticism.

4. A little farther on he says:¹⁴⁴⁸

1448 Ibid.

“Evarestus¹⁴⁴⁹

1449 Upon Evarestus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.

1450 Upon Alexander, see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 4.

1451 Upon Xystus, see IV. 4, note 3.

1452 Upon Telesphorus, see IV. 5, note 13.

1453 Upon Hyginus, see IV. 10, note 3.

1454 Upon Pius, see IV. 11, note 14.

1455 Upon Anicetus, see IV. 11, note 18.

1456 Upon Soter, see IV. 19, note 2.

1457 Upon Eleutherus, see Introd. to this book, note 2.

5. In the same order and succession¹⁴⁵⁸

1458 διαδοχῇ, which is confirmed by the ancient Latin version of Irenæus (successione), and which is adopted by Zimmermann, Heinichen, and Valesius (in his notes). All the mss. of Eusebius, followed by the majority of the editors, read διδαχῇ, which, however, makes no sense in this place, and can hardly have been the original reading (see Heinichen’s note in loco).

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH