Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Distinguished Ecclesiastics of our Day, and which of them survived until the Destruction of the Churches. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
XXXII.—The Distinguished
Ecclesiastics2436
2436 ἐκκλησιαστικῶν
ἀνδρῶν. | of our Day, and which of them survived until the Destruction of
the Churches.
1. At
this time, Felix,2437
2437 On Felix, see chap. 30, note 34. | having
presided over the church of Rome for five years, was succeeded by
Eutychianus,2438
2438 Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees with this
passage in assigning eight months to the episcopate of Eutychianus,
while the Armenian gives him only two months. The Liberian catalogue,
however, gives eight years eleven months and three days; and Lipsius
accepts these figures as correct, putting his accession on the fifth of
January, 275, and his death on the eighth of December, 283. Jerome puts
his accession in the fifth year of Probus, which is wide of the mark,
the Armenian in the second year, which is also too late by about two
years. Lipsius explains the eight months of the Church History
and the Chron. as a change, in their original source, of years
to mouths. The present error makes up in part for the error in chap.
27, where Xystus is given eleven years instead of eleven months.
Eutychianus was not a martyr, but was buried, according to the Liberian
catalogue, in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, a statement which has been
confirmed by the discovery of a stone bearing his name. | but he in less than ten months
left the position to Caius,2439
2439 According to the Liberian catalogue, Caius became bishop on the
17th of December, 283, and held office for twelve years four months and
six (or seven) days, i.e. until April 22, 296, and these dates are
accepted by Lipsius as correct. Both versions of the Chron.
agree with the History in assigning fifteen years to
Caius’ episcopate, but this error is of a piece with the others
which abound in this period. The report of his martyrdom is
fabulous. | who lived in
our day. He held it about fifteen years, and was in turn succeeded by
Marcellinus,2440
2440 According to the Liberian catalogue, Marcellinus became bishop on
the 30th of June, 296, and held office for eight years three months and
twenty-five days, i.e. until the 25th of October, 304, and these dates
Lipsius accepts as correct, although there is considerable uncertainty
as to the exact date of his death. Jerome’s version of the
Chron. puts his accession in the twelfth year of Diocletian,
which is not far out of the way, but does not give the duration of his
episcopate, nor does Eusebius in his History. The Armenian
Chron. does not mention Marcellinus at all. Tradition, although
denied by many of the Fathers, says that he proved wanting in the
Diocletian persecution, and this seems to have been a fact. It is also
said that he afterward repented and suffered martyrdom, but that is
only an invention. The expression of Eusebius in this connection is
ambiguous; he simply says he was “overtaken by the
persecution,” which might mean martyrdom, or might mean simply
arrest. The eleven bishops that preceded him from Pontianus to Caius
were buried in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, but he was buried in
those of Priscilla. | who was overtaken by the
persecution.
2. About the same time
Timæus2441
2441 Of
Timæus we know nothing, nor can we fix his dates. The
Chron. puts his accession in the year of Abr. 2288 (270 a.d.), and the accession of his successor, Cyril, in
2297 (279 a.d.), but the former at least is
certainly far too early. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53)
concludes that Cyril must have been bishop as early as 280, and hence
neither Domnus nor Timæus can have held office a great
while. | received the episcopate of Antioch
after Domnus,2442
2442 On Domnus, see chap. 30, note 24. | and Cyril,2443
2443 According to Jerome’s Chron., Cyril became bishop in
the year of Abr. 2297, or fourth year of Probus (279–280 a.d.); and Harnack accepts this as at least
approximately correct. The same authority puts the accession of his
successor, Tyrannus, in the eighteenth year of Diocletian
(301–302 a.d.), and just below Eusebius
says that the destruction of the churches (in Diocletian’s
persecution) took place under Tyrannus, not under Cyril. But the
Passio sanctorum quattuor coronatorum (see Mason’s
Persecution of Diocletian, p. 259–271) contains a
reference to him which assumes that he was condemned to the mines, and
died there after three years. The condemnation, if a fact, must have
taken place after the second edict of Diocletian (303 a.d.), and his death therefore in 306. There is no other
authority for this report, but Harnack considers it in the highest
degree probable, and the indirect way in which Cyril is mentioned
certainly argues for its truth. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome, however,
seems to have known anything about it, and this is very hard to
explain. The matter must, in fact, be left undecided. See Harnack,
Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53 sq. | who lived in our day, succeeded him. In
his time we became acquainted with Dorotheus,2444
2444 This Dorotheus and his contemporary, Lucian (mentioned below, in
Bk. VIII. chap. 13), are the earliest representatives of the sound
critical method of Biblical exegesis, for which the theological school
at Antioch was distinguished, over against the school of Alexandria, in
which the allegorical method was practiced. From Bk. VIII. chap. 6 we
learn that Dorotheus suffered martyrdom by hanging early in the
Diocletian persecution, so that it must have been from this emperor,
and not from Constantine, that he received his appointment mentioned
just below. Diocletian, before he began to persecute, had a number of
Christian officials in his household, and treated them with
considerable favor. | a man of learning among those of his
day, who was honored with the office of presbyter in Antioch. He was a
lover of the beautiful in divine things, and devoted himself to the
Hebrew language, so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures with facility.2445
2445 As
Closs remarks, the knowledge of Hebrew was by no means a common thing
among the early teachers of the Church; and therefore Dorotheus is
praised for his acquaintance with it. |
3. He belonged to those who were
especially liberal, and was not unacquainted with Grecian
propædeutics.2446
2446 προπαιδείας
τῆς καθ᾽
῞Ελληνας. Compare. Bk. VI. chap. 18, §3. | Besides this he
was a eunuch,2447
2447 According to the first canon of the Council of Nicæa (see
Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I. p. 376), persons who made
themselves eunuchs were not to be allowed to become clergymen, nor to
remain clergymen if already such. But this prohibition was not to apply
to persons who were made eunuchs by physicians or by their persecutors;
and the latter part of the canon confines the prohibition expressly to
those who have purposely performed the act upon themselves, and hence
nothing would have stood in the way of the advancement of one born a
eunuch as Dorotheus was, even had he lived after the Council of
Nicæa, and still less previous to that time. Closs (followed by
Heinichen) is therefore hardly correct in regarding the fact that
Dorotheus held office as an exception to the established order of
things. | having been so
from his very birth. On this account, as if it were a miracle, the
emperor2448 took him into his family, and
honored him by placing him over the purple dye-works at Tyre. We have
heard him expound the Scriptures wisely in the Church.
4. After Cyril, Tyrannus2449
2449 According to Jerome’s Chron. Tyrannus became bishop
in the eighteenth year of Diocletian (301–302). If the account of
Cyril’s death accepted by Harnack be taken as correct, this date
is at least a year too early. If Cyril was sent to the mines in 303 and
died in 306, Tyrannus may have become bishop in 303, or not until 306.
According to Theodoret, H. E. I. 3, his successor, Vitalis, is
said to have become bishop “after peace had been restored to the
Church,” which seems to imply, though it is not directly said,
that Tyrannus himself lived until that time (i.e. until 311). We know
nothing certainly either about his character or the dates of his
episcopate. | received the episcopate of the
parish of Antioch. In his time occurred the destruction of the
churches.
5. Eusebius,2450
2450 This
Eusebius, who is mentioned with praise by Dionysius of Alexandria, in
the epistle quoted in chap. 11, above, was a deacon in the church of
Alexandria, who distinguished himself by his good offices during the
persecution of Valerian (a.d. 257), as
recorded in that epistle, and also during the revolt and siege of
Alexandria after the death of Valerian (in 262), as recorded in this
chapter. From the account given here we see that he attended the first,
or at least one of the earlier councils of Antioch in which the case of
Paul was discussed (undoubtedly as the representative of Dionysius,
whose age prevented his attending the first one, as mentioned in chap.
27), and the Laodiceans, becoming acquainted with him there, compelled
him to accept the bishopric of their church, at that time vacant. As we
see from the account of Anatolius’ appointment farther on in this
chapter, he died before the meeting of the council which condemned
Paul. We know in regard to him only what is told us in these two
chapters. The name Eusebius was a very common one in the early Church.
The Dict. of Christ. Biog. mentions 137 persons of that name
belonging to the first eight centuries. | who had come from the city of Alexandria,
ruled the parishes of Laodicea after Socrates.2451
2451 Of
this Socrates we know nothing. |
The occasion of his removal thither was the affair of Paul. He went on
this account to Syria, and was restrained from returning home by those
there who were zealous in divine things. Among our contemporaries he
was a beautiful example of religion, as is readily seen from the words
of Dionysius which we have quoted.2452
6. Anatolius2453
2453 Anatolius we are told here was a man of great distinction both for
his learning and for his practical common sense. It is not said that he
held any ecclesiastical office in Alexandria, but farther on in the
chapter we are told that he left that city after the close of the
siege, as Eusebius had done, and that he was ordained assistant bishop
by Theotecnus, bishop of Cæsarea, and was the latter’s
colleague in that church for a short time. When on his way to (possibly
on his return from) the synod of Antioch, which passed condemnation
upon Paul (and at which Theotecnus was also present), he passed through
Laodicea and was prevailed upon to accept the bishopric of that city,
Eusebius, his old friend, being deceased. The way in which Laodicea got
its two bishops is thus somewhat remarkable. The character of Anatolius
is clear from the account which follows. Jerome mentions him in his
de vir. ill. chap. 73, and in his Ep. ad Magnum (Migne,
No. 70), but adds nothing to Eusebius’ account. Upon his
writings, one of which is quoted in this chapter, see below, notes 21
and 32. | was appointed his successor; one good
man, as they say, following another. He also was an Alexandrian by
birth. In learning and skill in Greek philosophy, such as arithmetic
and geometry, astronomy, and dialectics in general, as well as in the
theory of physics, he stood first among the ablest men of our time, and
he was also at the head in rhetorical science. It is reported that for
this reason he was requested by the citizens of Alexandria to establish
there a school of Aristotelian philosophy.2454
2454 τῆς
᾽Αριστοτέλους
διαδοχῆς τὴν
διατριβήν: “A school of the Aristotelian succession,” or
“order.” |
7. They relate of him many other
eminent deeds during the siege of the Pyrucheium2455
2455 The
Pyrucheium (the mss. of Eusebius vary
considerably in their spelling, but I have adopted that form which
seems best supported) or Brucheium (as it is called by other ancient
writers and as it is more generally known) was one of the three
districts of Alexandria and was inhabited by the royal family and by
the Greeks. It was the finest and most beautiful quarter of the city,
and contained, besides the royal palaces, many magnificent public
buildings. Comprising, as it did, the citadel as well, it was besieged
a number of times, and it is uncertain which siege is meant in the
present case. It seems to me most likely that we are to think of the
time of the revolt of Æmilian (see above, chap. 11, note 4), in
260 a.d., when the Romans under Theodotus
besieged and finally (just how soon we cannot tell, but the city seems
to have been at peace again at least in 264) took the Brucheium.
Valesius and others think of a later siege under Claudius, but that
seems to me too late (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 345
sq.). | in Alexandria, on account of which he was
especially honored by all those in high office; but I will give the
following only as an example.
8. They say that bread had
failed the besieged, so that it was more difficult to withstand the
famine than the enemy outside; but he being present provided for them
in this manner. As the other part of the city was allied with the Roman
army, and therefore was not under siege, Anatolius sent for
Eusebius,—for he was still there before his transfer to Syria,
and was among those who were not besieged, and possessed, moreover, a
great reputation and a renowned name which had reached even the Roman
general,—and he informed him of those who were perishing in the
siege from famine.
9. When he learned this he
requested the Roman commander as the greatest possible favor, to grant
safety to deserters from the enemy. Having obtained his request, he
communicated it to Anatolius. As soon as he received the message he
convened the senate of Alexandria, and at first proposed that all
should come to a reconciliation with the Romans. But when he perceived
that they were angered by this advice, he said, “But I do not
think you will oppose me, if I counsel you to send the supernumeraries
and those who are in nowise useful to us, as old women and children and
old men, outside the gates, to go wherever they may please. For why
should we retain for no purpose these who must at any rate soon die?
and why should we destroy with hunger those who are crippled and maimed
in body, when we ought to provide only for men and youth, and to
distribute the necessary bread among those who are needed for the
garrison of the city?”
10. With such arguments he
persuaded the assembly, and rising first he gave his vote that the
entire multitude, whether of men or women, who were not needful for the
army, should depart from the city, because if they remained and
unnecessarily continued in the city, there would be for them no hope of
safety, but they would perish with famine.
11. As all the others in the
senate agreed to this, he saved almost all the besieged. He provided
that first, those belonging to the church, and afterwards, of the
others in the city, those of every age should escape, not only the
classes included in the decree, but, under cover of these, a multitude
of others, secretly clothed in women’s garments; and through his
management they went out of the gates by night and escaped to the Roman
camp. There
Eusebius, like a father and physician, received all of them, wasted
away through the long siege, and restored them by every kind of
prudence and care.
12. The church of Laodicea was
honored by two such pastors in succession, who, in the providence of
God, came after the aforesaid war from Alexandria to that
city.
13. Anatolius did not write very
many works; but in such as have come down to us we can discern his
eloquence and erudition. In these he states particularly his opinions
on the passover. It seems important to give here the following extracts
from them.2456
2456 Anatolius’ work on the passover is still extant in a Latin
translation supposed to be the work of Rufinus (though this is
uncertain), and which was first published by Ægidius Bucherius in
his Doctrina Temporum, Antwerp, 1634. Ideler (Chron. II.
230) claims that this supposed translation of Anatolius is a work of
the seventh century. But there are the best of reasons for supposing it
an early translation of Anatolius’ genuine work (see Zahn,
Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, III. p. 177–196).
The Latin version is given with the other extant fragments of
Anatolius’ works in Migne’s Pat. Gr. X.
209–222, 231–236, and an English translation of the
Paschal Canons in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p.
146–151. Upon this work of Anatolius, see especially the works of
Ideler and Zahn referred to just above. |
14. From the Paschal Canons
of Anatolius. “There is then in the first year the new moon
of the first month, which is the beginning of every cycle of nineteen
years,2457
2457 Anatolius was, so far as we know, the first Christian to employ
the old Metonic nineteen-year cycle for the determination of Easter
(see above, chap. 20, note 6). | on the twenty-sixth day of the
Egyptian Phamenoth;2458
2458 Phamenoth was the seventh month of the Alexandrian year, which was
introduced in the reign of Augustus (b.c. 25)
and began on the 29th of August. The month Phamenoth, therefore, began
on the 25th of February, and the 26th of the month corresponded to the
22d of our March. | but according
to the months of the Macedonians, the twenty-second day of Dystrus,2459
2459 Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded exactly with our March, so that the 22d of Dystrus was the
22d of March, which according to the Roman method of reckoning was the
eleventh day before the Kalends of April. | or, as the Romans would say, the eleventh
before the Kalends of April.
15. On the said twenty-sixth of
Phamenoth, the sun is found not only entered on the first segment,2460
2460 i.e. the first of the twelve signs of the Zodiac. On
Anatolius’ method of calculation, see Ideler,
ibid. | but already passing through the fourth day
in it. They are accustomed to call this segment the first
dodecatomorion,2461
2461 δωδεκατημόριον: “twelfth-part.” | and the equinox,
and the beginning of months, and the head of the cycle, and the
starting-point of the planetary circuit. But they call the one
preceding this the last of months, and the twelfth segment, and the
final dodecatomorion, and the end of the planetary circuit. Wherefore
we maintain that those who place the first month in it, and determine
by it the fourteenth of the passover, commit no slight or common
blunder.
16. And this is not an opinion
of our own; but it was known to the Jews of old, even before Christ,
and was carefully observed by them. This may be learned from what is
said by Philo, Josephus, and Musæus;2462
2462 So far as I am aware, Musæus is known to us only from this
reference of Anatolius. | and not only by them, but also by those
yet more ancient, the two Agathobuli,2463
2463 Who the two Agathobuli were we do not know. In the Chron.
of Eusebius a philosopher Agathobulus is mentioned under the third year
of Hadrian in connection with Plutarch, Sextus, and Œnomaus.
Valesius therefore suspects that Anatolius is in error in putting the
Agathobuli earlier than Philo and Josephus. I must confess, however,
that the connection in which Eusebius mentions Agathobulus in his
Chron. makes it seem to me very improbable that he can be
referring to either of the Agathobuli whom Anatolius mentions, and that
it is much more likely that the latter were two closely related Jewish
writers (perhaps father and son), who lived, as Anatolius says, before
the time of Philo. | surnamed ‘Masters,’ and the
famous Aristobulus,2464
2464 Aristobulus was a well-known Hellenistic philosopher of
Alexandria, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor in the second
century b.c. He was thoroughly acquainted with
Greek philosophy, and was in many respects the forerunner of Philo.
Anatolius’ statement that he wrote in the time of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, and consequently his report that he was one of the
seventy translators of the Septuagint (on the legend as to its
composition, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31) must be looked upon as
certainly an error (see Clement Alex Strom. I. 22,
Eusebius’ Præp. Evang. IX. 6, and XIII. 12, and his
Chron., year of Abr. 1841). He is mentioned often by Clement of
Alexandria, by Origen (Contra Cels. IV. 51), and by Eusebius,
who in his Præp. Evang. (VII. 14 and VIII. 10) gives two
fragments of his work (or works) On the Mosaic Law. It is
doubtless to this same work that Anatolius refers in the present
passage. No other fragments of his writings are extant. See especially
Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II. p.
760 sq. See also Bk. VI. chap. 23, note 13, above. | who was chosen
among the seventy interpreters of the sacred and divine Hebrew
Scriptures2465
2465 On
the origin of the LXX, see above, Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31. The mythical
character of the common legend in regard to its composition is referred
to in that note, and that the LXX (or at least that part of it which
comprises the law) was already in existence before the time of
Aristobulus is clear from the latter’s words, quoted by Eusebius,
Præp. Evang. XIII. 12, 1–2 (Heinichen’s
ed.). | by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his
father, and who also dedicated his exegetical books on the law of Moses
to the same kings.
17. These writers, explaining
questions in regard to the Exodus, say that all alike should sacrifice
the passover offerings after the vernal equinox, in the middle of the
first month. But this occurs while the sun is passing through the first
segment of the solar, or as some of them have styled it, the zodiacal
circle. Aristobulus adds that it is necessary for the feast of the
passover, that not only the sun should pass through the equinoctial
segment, but the moon also.
18. For as there are two
equinoctial segments, the vernal and the autumnal, directly opposite
each other, and as the day of the passover was appointed on the
fourteenth of the month, beginning with the evening, the moon will hold
a position diametrically opposite the sun, as may be seen in full
moons; and the sun will be in the segment of the vernal equinox, and of
necessity the moon in that of the autumnal.
19. I know that many other
things have been said by them, some of them probable, and some
approaching absolute demonstration, by which they endeavor to prove
that it is altogether necessary to keep the passover and the feast of
unleavened bread after the equinox. But I refrain from demanding this
sort of demonstration for matters from which the veil of the Mosaic law
has been removed, so that now at length with uncovered face we
continually behold as in a glass Christ and the teachings and
sufferings of Christ.2466 But that with
the Hebrews the first month was near the equinox, the teachings also of
the Book of Enoch show.”2467
2467 The Book of Enoch is one of the so-called Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, which was widely used in the ancient Church, and is
quoted in the Epistle of Jude, 14 sq. The work
disappeared after about the fifth century, and was supposed to have
perished (with the exception of a few fragments) until in 1773 it was
discovered entire in an Ethiopic Bible, and in 1838 was published in
Ethiopic by Lawrence, who in 1821 had already translated it into
English. Dillmann also published the Ethiopic text in 1851, and in 1853
a German translation with commentary. Dillmann’s edition of the
original entirely supersedes that of Lawrence, and his translation and
commentary still form the standard work upon the subject. More recently
it has been re-translated into English and discussed by George H.
Schodde: The Book of Enoch, translated, with Introduction and
Notes, Andover, 1882. The literature on the book of Enoch is very
extensive. See especially Schodde’s work, the German translation
of Dillmann, Schürer’s Gesch. der Juden, II. p. 616
sq., and Lipsius’ article, Enoch, Apocryphal Book of, in
the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
The teachings of the
book to which Anatolius refers are found in the seventy-second chapter
(Schodde’s ed. p. 179 sq.), which contains a detailed description
of the course of the sun during the various months of the
year. |
20. The same writer has also
left the Institutes of Arithmetic, in ten books,2468
2468 ᾽Αριθμητικὰς
εἰσαγωγ€ς. A few fragments of this work are given in the
Theologumena Arithmeticæ (Paris, 1543), p. 9, 16, 24, 34,
56, 64 (according to Fabricius), and by Fabricius in his Bibl.
Gr. II. 275–277 (ed. Harles, III. 462 sq.). | and other evidences of his experience
and proficiency in divine things.
21. Theotecnus,2469
2469 On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9. | bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine,
first ordained him as bishop, designing to make him his successor in
his own parish after his death. And for a short time both of them
presided over the same church.2470
2470 On
the custom of appointing assistant bishops, see Bk. VI. chap. 11, note
1. | But the synod
which was held to consider Paul’s case2471
2471 Eusebius doubtless refers here to the final council at which Paul
was condemned, and which has been already mentioned in chaps. 29 and 30
(on its date, see chap. 29, note 1). That it is this particular council
to which he refers is implied in the way in which it is spoken
of,—as if referring to the well-known synod, of which so much has
been said,—and still further by the fact that Eusebius, who had
attended the first one (see above, §5), and had then become bishop
of Laodicea, was already dead. | called him to Antioch, and as he passed
through the city of Laodicea, Eusebius being dead, he was detained by
the brethren there.
22. And after Anatolius had
departed this life, the last bishop of that parish before the
persecution was Stephen,2472 who was
admired by many for his knowledge of philosophy and other Greek
learning. But he was not equally devoted to the divine faith, as the
progress of the persecution manifested; for it showed that he was a
cowardly and unmanly dissembler rather than a true
philosopher.
23. But this did not seriously
injure the church, for Theodotus2473
2473 Theodotus, of whom Eusebius speaks in such high terms in this
passage, was bishop of Laodicea for a great many years, and played a
prominent part in the Arian controversy, being one of the most zealous
supporters of the Arian cause (see Theodoret, H. E. I. 5 and V.
7, and Athanasius de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. I. 17). He was
present at the Council of Nicæa (Labbe, Concil. II. 51),
and took part in the council which deposed Eustathius of Antioch, in
330 (according to Theodoret, H. E. I. 21, whose account, though
unreliable, is very likely correct so far as its list of bishops is
concerned; on the council, see also p. 21, above). He was already dead
in the year 341; for his successor, George, was present at the Council
of Antioch (In Encæniis), which was held in that year (see
Sozomen, H. E. III. 5, and cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I.
p. 502 sq.). We have no information that he was present at the Council
of Tyre, in 335 (as is incorrectly stated by Labbe, who confounds
Theodore of Heraclea with Theodotus; see Theodoret, H. E. I.
28). It is, therefore, possible that he was dead at that time, though
his absence of course does not prove it. According to Socrates, H.
E. II. 46, and Sozomen, H. E. VI. 25, Theodotus had trouble
with the two Apolinarii, father and son, who resided at Antioch. We do
not know the date of the younger Apolinarius’ birth (the
approximate date, 335, given in the article in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. is a gross error), but we can hardly put it much earlier than
320, and therefore as he was a reader in the church, according to
Socrates (Sozomen calls him only a youth) in the time of Theodotus, it
seems best to put the death of the latter as late as possible, perhaps
well on toward 340. The date of his accession is unknown to us; but as
Eusebius says that he became bishop straightway after the fall of
Stephen, we cannot well put his accession later than 311; so that he
held office in all probability some thirty years. Venables’
article on Theodotus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. is a tissue
of errors, caused by identifying Theodotus with Theodore of Heraclea
(an error committed by Labbe before him) and with another Theodotus,
present at the Council of Seleucia, in 359 (Athanasius, ibid. I.
12; cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 713). | restored
their affairs, being straightway made bishop of that parish by God
himself, the Saviour of all. He justified by his deeds both his lordly
name2474
2474 Θεόδοτος: “God-given.” | and his office of bishop. For he
excelled in the medical art for bodies, and in the healing art for
souls. Nor did any other man equal him in kindness, sincerity,
sympathy, and zeal in helping such as needed his aid. He was also
greatly devoted to divine learning. Such an one was he.
24. In Cæsarea in
Palestine, Agapius2475
2475 Of Agapius we know only what Eusebius tells us in this passage. He
was the immediate predecessor of Eusebius in the church of
Cæsarea, and probably survived the persecution, but not for many
years (see above, p. 10 sq.). Eusebius speaks of him in the past tense,
so that he was clearly already dead at the time this part of the
History was written (i.e. probably in 313; see above, p.
45). | succeeded
Theotecnus, who had most zealously performed the duties of his
episcopate. Him too we know to have labored diligently, and to have
manifested most genuine providence in his oversight of the people,
particularly caring for all the poor with liberal hand.
25. In his time we became
acquainted with Pamphilus,2476
2476 Pamphilus, a presbyter of Cæsarea, was Eusebius’
teacher and most intimate friend, and after his death Eusebius showed
his affection and respect for him by adopting his name, styling himself
Eusebius Pamphili. He pursued his studies in Alexandria (according to
Photius, under Pierius, more probably under Achillas, the head of the
catechetical school there; see below, notes 42 and 53), and conceived
an unbounded admiration for Origen, the great light of that school,
which he never lost. Pamphilus is chiefly celebrated for the library
which he collected at Cæsarea and to which Eusebius owes a large
part of the materials of his history. Jerome also made extensive use of
it. It was especially rich in copies of the Scripture, of commentaries
upon it, and of Origen’s works (see above, p. 38). He wrote very
little, devoting himself chiefly to the study of Scripture, and to the
transcription of mss. of it and of the works
of Origen. During the last two years of his life, however, while in
prison, he wrote with the assistance of Eusebius a Defense of
Origen in five books, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth
(see above, p. 36 sq.). During the persecution under Maximinus, he was
thrown into prison by Urbanus, prefect of Cæsarea, in 307, and
after remaining two years in close confinement, cheered by the
companionship of Eusebius, he was put to death by Firmilian, the
successor of Urbanus, in 309, as recorded below, in the Martyrs of
Palestine, chap. 11 (see above, p. 9). The Life of Pamphilus
which Eusebius wrote is no longer extant (see above, p. 28). On
Pamphilus, see Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 75, and Photius,
Cod. 118. See also the present volume, p. 5–9
passim. | that most
eloquent man, of truly philosophical life, who was esteemed worthy of
the office of presbyter in that parish. It would be no small matter to
show what sort of a man he was and whence he came. But we have
described,
in our special work concerning him,2477
2477 On Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus, see above p. 28
sq. | all the
particulars of his life, and of the school which he established, and
the trials which he endured in many confessions during the persecution,
and the crown of martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of
all that were there he was indeed the most admirable.
26. Among those nearest our
times, we have known Pierius,2478
2478 According to Jerome (de vir. ill. 76) Pierius was a
presbyter and a teacher in Alexandria under the emperors Carus and
Diocletian, while Theonas was bishop there (see note 51, below), on
account of the elegance of his writings was called “the younger
Origen,” was skilled, moreover, in dialectics and rhetoric, lived
an ascetic life, and passed his later years, after the persecution, in
Rome. According to Photius, Cod. 118, he was at the head of the
catechetical school of Alexandria, was the teacher of Pamphilus, and
finally suffered martyrdom. Photius may be correct in the former
statements. The last statement is at variance with Jerome’s
distinct report which in the present instance at least is to be
decidedly preferred to that of Photius. The first statement also is
subject to grave doubt, for according to Eusebius (§30, below),
Achillas, who was made presbyter at the same time as Pierius, and who
lived until after the persecution (when he became bishop), was
principal of the school. Eusebius’ statement must be accepted as
correct, and in that case it is difficult to believe the report of
Photius, both on account of Eusebius’ silence in regard to
Pierius’ connection with the school, and also because if Pierius
was principal of the school, he must apparently have given it up while
he was still in Alexandria, or must have left the city earlier than
Jerome says. It is more probable that Photius’ report is false
and rests upon a combination of the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. If
both the first and third statements of Photius are incorrect, little
faith can be placed on the second, which may be true, or which may be
simply a combination of the known fact that Pamphilus studied in
Alexandria with the supposed fact that Pierius was the principal of the
catechetical school while he was there. It is quite as probable that
Pamphilus studied with Achillas. Jerome tells us that a number of works
(tractatuum) by Pierius were extant in his day, among them a
long homily on Hosea (cf. also Jerome’s Comment. in Osee,
prologus). In his second epistle to Pammachius (Migne, No. 49)
Jerome refers also to Pierius’ commentary on First Corinthians,
and quotes from it the words, “In saying this Paul openly
preaches celibacy.” Photius, Cod. 119, mentions a work in
twelve books, whose title he does not name, but in which he tells us
Pierius had uttered some dangerous sentiments in regard to the Spirit,
pronouncing him inferior to the Father and the Son. This work
contained, according to Photius, a book on Luke’s Gospel, and
another on the passover, and on Hosea. Pierius’ writings are no
longer extant. The passages from Jerome’s epistle to Pammachius
and from Photius, Cod. 119, are given, with notes, by Routh,
Rel. Sac. 2d ed. III. 429 sq., and an English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 157. Pierius was evidently a
“younger Origen” in his theology as well as in his literary
character, as we can gather from Photius’ account of him (cf.
Harnack’s Dogmengesch. I. p. 640). | of the
presbyters in Alexandria, and Meletius,2479
2479 A Meletius, bishop of Sabastopolis, is mentioned by Philostorgius
(H. E. I. 8) as in attendance upon the Council of Nicæa,
and it is commonly assumed that this is the same one referred to here
by Eusebius. But Eusebius’ words seem to me to imply clearly that
the Meletius of whom he speaks was already dead at the time he wrote;
and, therefore, if we suppose that Philostorgius is referring to the
same man, we must conclude that he was mistaken in his statement,
possibly confounding him with the later Meletius of Sebaste, afterwards
of Antioch. Our Meletius is, however, doubtless to be identified with
the orthodox Meletius mentioned in terms of praise by Athanasius, in
his Ep. ad Episc. Æg. §8, and by Basil in his De
Spir. Sanct. chap. 29, §74. It is suggested by Stroth that
Eusebius was a pupil of Meletius during the time that the latter was in
Palestine, but this is not implied in Eusebius’ words (see above,
p. 5). | bishop of the churches in
Pontus,—rarest of men.
27. The first was distinguished
for his life of extreme poverty and his philosophic learning, and was
exceedingly diligent in the contemplation and exposition of divine
things, and in public discourses in the church. Meletius, whom the
learned called the “honey of Attica,”2480
2480 τὸ μέλι τῆς
᾽Αττικῆς, in allusion to Meletius’ name. | was a man whom every one would describe
as most accomplished in all kinds of learning; and it would be
impossible to admire sufficiently his rhetorical skill. It might be
said that he possessed this by nature; but who could surpass the
excellence of his great experience and erudition in other
respects?
28. For in all branches of
knowledge had you undertaken to try him even once, you would have said
that he was the most skillful and learned. Moreover, the virtues of his
life were not less remarkable. We observed him well in the time of the
persecution, when for seven full years he was escaping from its fury in
the regions of Palestine.
29. Zambdas2481
2481 The majority of the mss. and editors
read Ζ€μβδας. A few mss. followed by Laemmer
read Ζαβαδᾶς, and a few others with Rufinus, both versions of the
Chron. and Nicephorus Ζ€βδας. We
know nothing about this bishop, except what is told us here and in the
Chron., where he is called the thirty-eighth bishop (Jerome
calls him the thirty-seventh, but incorrectly according to his own
list), and is said to have entered upon his office in the fifteenth
year of Diocletian (Armen. fourteenth), i.e. in 298. Hermon succeeded
him three years later, according to Jerome; two years later, according
to the Armenian version. | received the episcopate of the church
of Jerusalem after the bishop Hymenæus, whom we mentioned a little
above.2482
2482 In chap. 14. See note 11 on that chapter. | He died in a short time, and
Hermon,2483
2483 According to Jerome’s version of the Chron., Hermon
became bishop in the eighteenth year of Diocletian, a.d. 301; according to the Armenian, in the sixteenth
year. The accession of his successor Macharius is put by Jerome in the
eighth year of Constantine, a.d. 312.
Eusebius’ words seem to imply that Hermon was still bishop at the
time he was writing, though it is not certain that he means to say
that. Jerome’s date may be incorrect, but is probably not far out
of the way. Of Hermon himself we know nothing more. | the last before the persecution
in our day, succeeded to the apostolic chair, which has been preserved
there until the present time.2484
2484 See above, chap. 19. |
30. In Alexandria, Maximus,2485
2485 On Maximus, see chap. 28, note 10. | who, after the death of Dionysius,2486
2486 On Dionysius the Great, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note
1. | had been bishop for eighteen years,
was succeeded by Theonas.2487
2487 According to Jerome’s Chron., Theonas became bishop
in the sixth year of Probus (281 a.d.);
according to the Armenian, in the first year of Numerian and Carinus,
i.e. a year later. Both agree with the History in assigning
nineteen years to his episcopate. An interesting and admirable epistle
is extant addressed to Lucian, the chief chamberlain of the emperor,
and containing advice in regard to the duties of his position, which is
commonly and without doubt correctly ascribed to Theonas. The name of
the emperor is not given, but all of the circumstances point to
Diocletian, who had a number of Christians in influential positions in
his household during the earlier years of his reign. The epistle, which
is in Latin (according to some a translation of a Greek original), is
given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 439–445, and an English
translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p.
158–161. | In his time
Achillas,2488
2488 The character given to Achillas by Eusebius is confirmed by
Athanasius, who calls him “the great Achillas” (in his
Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt, §23). He succeeded Peter
as bishop of Alexandria (Epiphanius makes him the successor of
Alexander, but wrongly, for the testimony of Athanasius, to say nothing
of Jerome, Socrates, and other writers, is decisive on this point; see
Athanasius’ Apology against the Arians, §§11 and
59, and Epist. to the Bishops of Egypt, §23), but our
authorities differ as to the date of his accession and the length of
his episcopate. Eusebius, in this chapter, §31, puts the death of
Peter in the ninth year of the persecution 311–312), and with
this Jerome agrees in his Chron., and there can be no doubt as
to the correctness of the report. But afterwards, quite inconsistently
(unless it be supposed that Achillas became bishop before Peter’s
death, which, in the face of Eusebius’ silence on the subject, is
very improbable), Jerome puts the accession of Achillas into the fifth
year of Constantine, a.d. 309. Jerome commits
another error in putting the accession of his successor, Alexander, in
the sixteenth year of Constantine (a.d. 320);
for Alexander’s controversy with Arius (see above, p. 11 sq.) can
hardly have broken out later than 318 or 319, and it would appear that
Alexander had been bishop already some time when that took place.
Theodoret (H. E. I. 2) states that Achillas ruled the church but
a short time, and with him agrees Epiphanius (Hær. LXIX.
11), who says that he held office but three months. The casual way in
which Achillas is spoken of in all our sources, most of which mention
him only in passing from Peter to Alexander, would seem to confirm
Theodoret’s report, and Alexander’s accession may,
therefore, be put not long after 311. | who had been appointed a
presbyter
in Alexandria at the same time with Pierius, became celebrated. He was
placed over the school of the sacred faith,2489
2489 τῆς ἱερᾶς
πίστεως τὸ
διδασκαλεῖον. Eusebius refers here to the famous catechetical school of
Alexandria (upon which, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2). The
appointment of Achillas to the principalship of this school would seem
to exclude Pierius, who is said by Photius to have been at the head of
it (see above, note 42). | and exhibited fruits of philosophy
most rare and inferior to none, and conduct genuinely
evangelical.
31. After Theonas had held the
office for nineteen years, Peter2490
2490 Peter is mentioned again in Bk. VIII. chap. 13, and in Bk. IX.
chap. 6, and both times in the highest terms. In the latter passage his
death is said to have taken place by order of Maximinus, quite
unexpectedly and without any reason. This was in the ninth year of the
persecution, as we learn from the present passage (i.e. Feb. 311 to
Feb. 312, or according to Eusebius own reckoning, Mar. or Apr. 311 to
Mar. or Apr. 312; see below Bk. VII. chap. 2, note o), and evidently
after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius, when the
Christians were not looking for any further molestation (see below, Bk.
VIII. chap. 14, note 2). According to this passage, Peter was bishop
less than three years before the outbreak of the persecution, and hence
he cannot have become bishop before the spring of 300. On the other
hand since he died as early as the spring of 312, and was bishop twelve
years he must have become bishop not later than the spring of 300, and
he must have died not long before the spring of 312, and even then, if
Eusebius’ other statements are exact, it is impossible to make
his episcopate fully twelve years in length. The date thus obtained for
his accession is in accord with the dates given for the episcopate of
his predecessor Theonas (see above, note 51). Jerome puts his accession
in the nineteenth year of Diocletian (a.d.
302), but this is at variance with his own figures in connection with
Theonas, and is plainly incorrect.
Fourteen Canons,
containing detailed directions in regard to the lapsed were drawn up by
Peter in 306 (see the opening sentence of the first canon), and are
still extant. They are published in all collections of canons and also
in numerous other works. See especially Routh’s Rel. Sac.
IV. p. 23 sq. An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VI. p. 269–278. Brief fragments of other
works—On the Passover, On the Godhead, On the Advent of the
Saviour, On the Soul, and the beginning of an epistle addressed to
the Alexandrians—are given by Routh, ibid. p. 45 sq. These
fragments, together with a few others of doubtful origin, given by
Gallandius and Mai, are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
ibid. p. 280–283. In the same volume (p. 261–268) are
given The Genuine Acts of Peter, containing an account of his
life and martyrdom. These, however, are spurious and historically quite
worthless.
Peter seems, to judge
from the extant fragments, to have been in the main an Origenist, but
to have departed in some important respects from the teachings of
Origen, especially on the subject of anthropology (cf. Harnack’s
Dogmengesch. I. p. 644). The famous Meletian schism took its
rise during the episcopate of Peter (see Athanasius, Apology against
the Arians, §59). | received the
episcopate in Alexandria, and was very eminent among them for twelve
entire years. Of these he governed the church less than three years
before the persecution, and for the remainder of his life he subjected
himself to a more rigid discipline and cared in no secret manner for
the general interest of the churches. On this account he was beheaded
in the ninth year of the persecution, and was adorned with the crown of
martyrdom.
32. Having written out in these
books the account of the successions from the birth of our Saviour to
the destruction of the places of worship,—a period of three
hundred and five years,2491
2491 Diocletian’s edict decreeing the demolition of the churches
was published in February, 303. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note
3. | —permit me
to pass on to the contests of those who, in our day, have heroically
fought for religion, and to leave in writing, for the information of
posterity, the extent and the magnitude of those conflicts.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|