Book 5:2

Chapter XIII.–Rhodo and his Account of the Dissension of Marcion.

1. At this time Rhodo, [1535] a native of Asia, who had been
instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already
become acquainted, [1536] having written several books, published among
the rest one against the heresy of Marcion. [1537] He says that this
heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; [1538] and while
describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes accurately the
falsehoods devised by each of them.

2. But hear what he writes: [1539]

”Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an
inconsistent opinion. [1540] For Apelles, [1541] one of the herd,
priding himself on his manner of life [1542] and his age, acknowledges
one principle, [1543] but says that the prophecies [1544] are from an
opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden by
name Philumene, [1545] who was possessed by a demon.

3. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, [1546] hold to two
principles, [1547] as does the mariner [1548] Marcion himself.

4. These following the wolf [1549] of Pontus, and, like him, unable to
fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any
proof asserted two principles. Others, again, drifting into a worse
error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. [1550]
Of these, Syneros [1551] is the leader and chief, as those who defend
his teaching [1552] say.”

5. The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with Apelles.
He speaks as follows:

”For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, [1553] was refuted
in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was
not at all necessary to examine one’s doctrine, [1554] but that each
one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that
those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were
found doing good works. [1555] But as we have said before, his opinion
concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one
principle, as also our doctrine does.”

6. Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds:

”When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how can you assert
that there is one principle, he replied that the prophecies refuted
themselves, because they have said nothing true; [1556] for they are
inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one
principle he said that he did not know, but that he was thus persuaded.

7. As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so
when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but
that he believed it. Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because,
though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how to confirm what he
taught.” [1557]

8. In the same work, addressing Callistio, [1558] the same writer
acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. [1559] And
he says that a book of Problems [1560] had been prepared by Tatian, in
which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the divine
Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own
solutions of Tatian’s problems. [1561] There is also extant a
Commentary of his on the Hex�meron. [1562]

9. But this Apelles wrote many things, in an impious manner, of the law
of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in many of his works, being, as
it seemed, very zealous for their refutation and overthrow. [1563]

So much concerning these.

[1535] We know nothing of Rhodo except what is contained in this
chapter. Jerome gives a very brief account of him in his de vir. ill.
37, but it rests solely upon this chapter, with the single addition of
the statement that Rhodo wrote a work Against the Phrygians. It is
plain enough, however, that he had for his account no independent
source, and that he in this statement simply attributed to Rhodo the
work quoted by Eusebius as an anonymous work in chap. 16. Jerome
permits himself such unwarranted combinations very frequently, and we
need not be at all surprised at it. With him a guess is often as good
as knowledge, and in this case he doubtless considered his guess a very
shrewd one. There is no warrant for supposing that he himself saw the
work mentioned by Eusebius, and thus learned its authorship. What
Eusebius did not learn from it he certainly could not, and his whole
account betrays the most slavish and complete dependence upon Eusebius
as his only source. In chap. 39 Jerome mentions Rhodo again as
referring, in a book which he wrote against Montanus, Prisca, and
Maximilla, to Miltiades, who also wrote against the same heretics. This
report is plainly enough taken directly from Eusebius, chap. 17, where
Eusebius quotes from the same anonymous work. Jerome’s utterly baseless
combination is very interesting, and significant of his general method.
Rhodo’s works are no longer extant, and the only fragments we have are
those preserved by Eusebius in this chapter.

[1536] See Bk. IV. chap. 29.

[1537] Upon Marcion and Marcionism, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22.

[1538] It is noticeable that Rhodo says gnomas, opinions, not parties.
Although the different Marcionites held various theoretical beliefs,
which gave rise to different schools, yet they did not split up into
sects, but remained one church, and retained the one general name of
Marcionites, and it is by this general name alone that they are always
referred to by the Fathers. The fact that they could hold such variant
beliefs (e.g. one, two, or three principles; see below, note 9) without
splitting up into sects, shows that doctrines were but a side issue
with them, and that the religious spirit was the matter upon which they
laid the chief emphasis. This shows the fundamental difference between
Marcion and the Gnostics.

[1539] These fragments of Rhodo are collected and discussed by Routh in
his Rel. Sacr�, I. 437-446.

[1540] The Fathers entirely misunderstood Marcion, and mistook the
significance of his movement. They regarded it, like Gnosticism in
general, solely as a speculative system, and entirely overlooked its
practical aim. The speculative and theological was not the chief thing
with Marcion, but it is the only thing which receives any attention
from his opponents. His positions, all of which were held only with a
practical interest, were not treated by him in a speculative manner,
nor were they handled logically and systematically. As a consequence,
many contradictions occur in them. These contradictions were felt by
his followers, who laid more and more emphasis upon the speculative
over against the practical; and hence, as Rhodo reports, they fell into
disagreement, and, in their effort to remove the inconsistencies,
formed various schools, differing among themselves according to the
element upon which the greatest weight was laid. There is thus some
justification for the conduct of the Fathers, who naturally carried
back and attributed to Marcion the principles of his followers. But it
is our duty to distinguish the man from his followers, and to recognize
his greatness in spite of their littleness. Not all of them, however,
fell completely away from his practical religious spirit. Apelles, as
we shall see below, was in many respects a worthy follower of his

[1541] Apelles was the greatest and most famous of Marcion’s disciples.
Tertullian wrote a special work against him, which is unfortunately
lost, but from his own quotations, and from those of Pseudo-Tertullian
and Hippolytus, it can be in part restored (cf. Harnack’s De Apellis
Gnosis Monarchia, p. 11 sqq.). As he was an old man (see �5, below)
when Rhodo conversed with him, he must have been born early in the
second century. We know nothing definite either as to his birth or
death. The picture which we have of him in this chapter is a very
pleasing one. He was a man evidently of deep religious spirit and moral
life, who laid weight upon ”trust in the crucified Christ” (see �5,
below), and upon holiness in life in distinction from doctrinal
beliefs; a man who was thus thoroughly Marcionitic in his principles,
although he differed so widely with Marcion in some of his doctrinal
positions that he was said to have founded a new sect (so Origen, Hom.
in Gen. II. 2). The slightest difference, however, between his teaching
and Marcion’s would have been sufficient to make him the founder of a
separate Gnostic sect in the eyes of the Fathers, and therefore this
statement must be taken with allowance (see note 4, above). The account
which Hippolytus (Phil. X. 16) gives of the doctrinal positions of
Apelles is somewhat different from that of Rhodo, but ambiguous and
less exact. The scandal in regard to him, reported by Tertullian in his
De Pr�scriptione, 30, is quite in accord with Tertullian’s usual
conduct towards heretics, and may be set aside as not having the
slightest foundation in fact, and as absolutely contradicting what we
know of Apelles from this report of his contemporary, Rhodo. His moral
character was certainly above reproach, and the same may be said of his
master, Marcion. Upon Apelles, see especially Harnack’s De Apellis
Gnosis Monarchia, Lips. 1874.

[1542] The participle (semnunomenos) carries with it the implication
that Apelles’ character was affected or assumed. The implication,
however, does not lessen the value of Rhodo’s testimony to his
character. He could not deny its purity, though he insinuated that it
was not sincere.

[1543] This means that Apelles accepted only one God, and made the
creator but an angel who was completely under the power of the Supreme
God. Marcion, on the contrary, held, as said below, two principles,
teaching that the world-creator was himself a God, eternal, uncreated,
and independent of the good God of the Christians. It is true that
Marcion represented the world-creator as limited in power and
knowledge, and taught that the Christian God would finally be supreme,
and the world-creator become subject to him; but this, while it
involves Marcion in self-contradiction as soon as the matter is looked
at theoretically, yet does not relieve him from the charge of actual
dualism. His followers were more consistent, and either accepted one
principle, subordinating the world-creator completely to the good God,
as did Apelles, or else carried out Marcion’s dualism to its logical
result and asserted the continued independence of the Old Testament God
and the world-creator, who was thus very early identified with Satan
and made the enemy of the Christian God. (Marcion’s world-creator was
not the bad God, but the righteous in distinction from the good God.)
Still others held three principles: the good God of the Christians, the
righteous God or world-creator, and the bad God, Satan. The varying
doctrines of these schools explain the discrepant and often
contradictory reports of the Fathers in regard to the doctrines of
Marcion. Apelles’ doctrine was a decided advance upon that of Marcion,
as he rejected the dualism of the latter, which was the destructive
element in his system, and thus approached the Church, whose foundation
must be one God who rules the world for good. His position is very
significant, as remarked by Harnack, because it shows that one could
hold Marcion’s fundamental principle without becoming a dualist.

[1544] i.e. the Old Testament prophecies. Apelles in his Syllogisms
(see below, note 28) exhibited the supposed contradictions of the Old
Testament in syllogistic form, tracing them to two adverse angels, of
whom the one spoke falsely, contradicting the truth spoken by the
other. Marcion, on the other hand (in his Antitheses), referred all
things to the same God, the world-creator, and from the contradictions
of the book endeavored to show his vacillating and inconsistent
character. He, however, accepted the Old Testament as in the main a
trustworthy book, but referred the prophecies to the Jewish Messiah in
distinction from the Christ of the New Testament. But Apelles, looking
upon two adverse angels as the authors of the book, regarded it as in
great part false. Marcion and Apelles were one, however, in looking
upon it as an anti-Christian book.

[1545] This virgin, Philumene, is connected with Apelles in all the
reports which we have of him (e.g. in Hippolytus, Tertullian, Jerome,
&c.), and is reported to have been looked upon by Apelles as a
prophetess who received revelations from an angel, and who worked
miracles. Tertullian, De Pr�scriptione, 6, evidently accepts these
miracles as facts, but attributes them to the agency of a demon. They
all unite in considering her influence the cause of Apelles’ heretical
opinions. Tertullian (ibid. 30, &c.) calls her a prostitute, but the
silence of Rhodo and Hippolytus is sufficient refutation of such a
charge, and it may be rejected as a baseless slander, like the report
of Apelles’ immorality mentioned in note 7. There is nothing strange in
the fact that Apelles should follow the prophecies of a virgin, and the
Fathers who mention it evidently do not consider it as anything
peculiar or reprehensible in itself. It was very common in the early
Church to appeal to the relatives of virgins and widows. Cf. e.g. the
virgin daughters of Philip who prophesied (Acts xxi. 9; Eusebius, III.
31), also the Eccles. Canons, chap. 21, where it is directed that three
widows shall be appointed, of whom two shall give themselves to prayer,
waiting for revelations in regard to any question which may arise in
the Church, and the third shall devote herself to nursing the sick.
Tertullian also appeals for proof of the materiality of the soul to a
vision enjoyed by a Christian sister (de Anima, 9). So Montanus had his
prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla (see the next chapter).

[1546] Of these two men we know only what is told us here. They are not
mentioned elsewhere.

[1547] See note 9.

[1548] ho nautes. This word is omitted by many mss., but is found in
the best ones and in Rufinus, and is accepted by most of the editors of
Eusebius. Tertullian calls Marcion a ship-master (Adv. Marc. III. 6,
and IV. 9, &c.) and a pilot (ibid. I. 18), and makes many plays upon
his profession (e.g. ibid. V. 1), and there is no reason to take the
word in a figurative sense (as has been done) and suppose that he is
called a mariner simply because of his nationality. We know that he
traveled extensively, and that he was a rich man (for he gave 200,000
sesterces at one time to the church of Rome, which was a large sum for
those days; see Tertullian, de Pr�script. 30). There is, therefore, no
reason to doubt that he was a ”ship-master,” as Tertullian calls him.

[1549] It was the custom of the Fathers to call the heretics hard
names, and Marcion received his full share of them from his opponents,
especially from Tertullian. He is compared to a wolf by Justin also,
Apol. I. 58, on account of his ”carrying away” so many ”lambs” from the

[1550] See note 9.

[1551] Of Syneros we know only what is told us here. He is not
mentioned elsewhere. Had the Marcionites split into various sects,
these leaders must have been well known among the Fathers, and their
names must have been frequently referred to. As it was, they all
remained Marcionites, in spite of their differences of opinion (see
above, note 4).

[1552] didask?lion, which is the reading of the majority of the mss.,
and is adopted by Heinichen. Burton and Schwegler read didaskaleion, on
the authority of two mss.

[1553] Apelles was evidently like Marcion in his desire to keep within
the Church as much as possible, and to associate with Church people. He
had no esoteric doctrines to conceal from the multitude, and in this he
shows the great difference between himself and the Gnostics. Marcion
did not leave the Church until he was obliged to, and he founded his
own church only under compulsion, upon being driven out of the Catholic

[1554] ton logon.

[1555] This is a truly Christian sentiment, and Apelles should be
honored for the expression of it. It reveals clearly the religious
character of Marcionism in distinction from the speculative and
theological character of the Gnostics, and indeed of many of the
Fathers. With Marcion and Apelles we are in a world of sensitive moral
principle and of deep religious feeling like that in which Paul and
Augustine lived, but few others in the early Church. Rhodo, in spite of
his orthodoxy, shows himself the real Gnostic over against the sincere
believer, though the latter was in the eyes of the Church a
”blasphemous heretic.” Apelles’ noble words do honor to the
movement–however heretical it was–which in that barren age of
theology could give them birth. The latter clause, taken as it stands,
would seem to indicate an elevation of good works to the level of
faith; but though it is possible that Apelles may have intended to
express himself thus, it is more probable, when we remember the
emphasis which Marcion laid upon Paul’s doctrine of salvation by the
grace of God alone, that he meant to do no more than emphasize good
works as a natural result of true faith, as we do to-day. The apparent
co-ordination of the two may perhaps lie simply in Rhodo’s reproduction
of Apelles’ words. He, at least, did not comprehend Paul’s grand
doctrine of Christian liberty, nor did any of his orthodox
contemporaries. The difference between the common conception of
Christ’s relation to the law, and the conception of Paul as grasped by
Marcion and perhaps by Apelles, is well illustrated by a passage in
Tertullian, in which he expresses astonishment that the Marcionites do
not sin freely, so long as they do not expect to be punished, and
exclaims (to his own dishonor), ”I would sin without scruple, if I
believed as you do.”

[1556] Rhodo had probably brought forward against Apelles proof from
prophecy which led to the discussion of the Old Testament prophecies in
general. Although Apelles had rejected Marcion’s dualism, and accepted
the ”one principle,” he still rejected the Old Testament. This is quite
peculiar, and yet perfectly comprehensible; for while Marcion was
indeed the only one of that age that understood Paul, yet as Harnack
well says, even he misunderstood him; and neither himself nor his
followers were able to rise to Paul’s noble conception of the Old
Testament law as a ”schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,” and thus a
part of the good God’s general plan of salvation. It took, perhaps, a
born Jew, as Paul was, to reach that high conception of the law in
those days. To Marcion and his followers the law seemed to stand in
irreconcilable conflict with the Gospel,–Jewish law on the one side,
Gospel liberty on the other,–they could not reconcile them; they must,
therefore, reject the former as from another being, and not from the
God of the Gospel. There was in that age no historical interpretation
of the Old Testament. It must either be interpreted allegorically, and
made a completely Christian book, or else it must be rejected as
opposed to Christianity. Marcion and his followers, in their conception
of law and Gospel as necessarily opposed, could follow only the latter
course. Marcion, in his rejection of the Old Testament, proceeded
simply upon dogmatic presumptions. Apelles, although his rejection of
it undoubtedly originated in the same presumptions, yet subjected it to
a criticism which satisfied him of the correctness of his position, and
gave him a fair basis of attack. His procedure was, therefore, more
truly historical than that of Marcion, and anticipated modern methods
of higher criticism.

[1557] A true Gnostic sentiment, over against which the pious
”agnosticism” of Apelles is not altogether unrefreshing. The Church did
not fully conquer Gnosticism,–Gnosticism in some degree conquered the
Church, and the anti-Gnostics, like Apelles, were called heretics. It
was the vicious error of Gnosticism that it looked upon Christianity as
knowledge, that it completely identified the two, and our existing
systems of theology, some of them, testify to the fact that there are
still Gnostics among us.

[1558] Of this Callistio we know nothing; but, as has been remarked by
another, he must have been a well-known man, or Eusebius would probably
have said ”a certain Callistio” (see Salmon’s article in Smith and

[1559] Upon Tatian, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.

[1560] Upon this work (problem?ton biblion) see ibid.

[1561] Whether Rhodo fulfilled this promise we do not know. The work is
mentioned by no one else, and Eusebius evidently had no knowledge of
its existence, or he would have said so.

[1562] eis ten hexaemeron hupomnema. This work of Rhodo’s, on the
Hex�meron (or six days’ work), is mentioned by no one else, and no
fragments of it are known to us. For a notice of other works on the
same subject, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 22, note 3.

[1563] Hippolytus (X. 16) also mentions works of Apelles against the
law and the prophets. We know of but one work of his, viz. the
Syllogisms, which was devoted to the criticism of the Old Testament,
and in which he worked out the antitheses of Marcion in a syllogistic
form. The work is cited only by Origen (in Gen. II. 2) and by Ambrose
(De Parad. V. 28), and they have preserved but a few brief fragments.
It must have been an extensive work, as Ambrose quotes from the 38th
book. From these fragments we can see that Apelles’ criticism of the
Old Testament was very keen and sagacious. For the difference between
himself and Marcion in the treatment of the Old Testament, see above,
note 9. The words of Eusebius, ”as it seemed,” show that he had not
himself seen the book, as might indeed be gathered from his general
account of Apelles, for which he depended solely upon secondary

Chapter XIV.–The False Prophets of the Phrygians.

The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a
lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was
again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the
Church. [1564] For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over
Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that
the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses
of Montanus. [1565]

[1564] Cf. Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 3.

[1565] On Montanus and the Montanists, see chap. 16.

Chapter XV.–The Schism of Blastus at Rome. [1566]

Others, of whom Florinus [1567] was chief, flourished at Rome. He fell
from the presbyterate of the Church, and Blastus was involved in a
similar fall. They also drew away many of the Church to their opinion,
each striving to introduce his own innovations in respect to the truth.

[1566] The separation of chaps. 14 and 15 is unfortunate. They are
closely connected (hoi men in chap. 14 and hoi de in chap. 15), and
constitute together a general introduction to the following chapters,
Montanism being treated in chaps. 16 to 19, and the schism of Florinus
and Blastus in chap. 20.

[1567] On Florinus and Blastus, see chap. 20.

Chapter XVI.–The Circumstances related of Montanus and his False
Prophets. [1568]

1. Against the so-called Phrygian [1569] heresy, the power which always
contends for the truth raised up a strong and invincible weapon,
Apolinarius of Hierapolis, whom we have mentioned before, [1570] and
with him many other men of ability, by whom abundant material for our
history has been left.

2. A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them,
[1571] first intimates that he had contended with them in oral

3. He commences his work in this manner: [1572]

”Having for a very long and sufficient time, O beloved Avircius
Marcellus, [1573] been urged by you to write a treatise against the
heresy of those who are called after Miltiades, [1574] I have hesitated
till the present time, not through lack of ability to refute the
falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and
apprehension that I might seem to some to be making additions to the
doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New Testament, which it is
impossible for one who has chosen to live according to the Gospel,
either to increase or to diminish.

4. But being recently in Ancyra [1575] in Galatia, I found the church
there [1576] greatly agitated by this novelty, not prophecy, as they
call it, but rather false prophecy, as will be shown. Therefore, to the
best of our ability, with the Lord’s help, we disputed in the church
many days concerning these and other matters separately brought forward
by them, so that the church rejoiced and was strengthened in the truth,
and those of the opposite side were for the time confounded, and the
adversaries were grieved.

5. The presbyters in the place, our fellow-presbyter Zoticus [1577] of
Otrous also being present, requested us to leave a record of what had
been said against the opposers of the truth. We did not do this, but we
promised to write it out as soon as the Lord permitted us, and to send
it to them speedily.”

6. Having said this with other things, in the beginning of his work, he
proceeds to state the cause of the above-mentioned heresy as follows:

”Their opposition and their recent heresy which has separated them from
the Church arose on the following account.

7. There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part of
Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. [1578] There first, they say, when
Gratus was proconsul of Asia, [1579] a recent convert, Montanus by
name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, [1580] gave the
adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and
being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to
babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to
the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the
beginning. [1581]

8. Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were
indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was
under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and
was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk,
remembering the distinction [1582] drawn by the Lord and his warning to
guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets. [1583] But
others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a
prophetic gift, [1584] were elated and not a little puffed up; and
forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and
insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him. In
consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to keep

9. Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the
devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily
honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings
which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred
up besides two women, [1585] and filled them with the false spirit, so
that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person
already mentioned. [1586] And the spirit pronounced them blessed as
they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude
of his promises. But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a wise and
faithful manner, that he might seem to be a reprover. But those of the
Phrygians that were deceived were few in number.

”And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal
Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received
neither honor from it nor entrance into it.

10. For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia
to consider this matter, [1587] and examined the novel utterances and
pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, and thus these
persons were expelled from the Church and debarred from communion.”

11. Having related these things at the outset, and continued the
refutation of their delusion through his entire work, in the second
book he speaks as follows of their end:

12. ”Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets [1588]
because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say,
are those that the Lord promised to send to the people, [1589] let them
answer as in God’s presence: Who is there, O friends, of these who
began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was persecuted by
the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them been seized
and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women ever
been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never
anywhere. [1590]

13. But by another kind of death Montanus and Maximilla are said to
have died. For the report is that, incited by the spirit of frenzy,
they both hung themselves; [1591] not at the same time, but at the time
which common report gives for the death of each. And thus they died,
and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.

14. So also, as general report says, that remarkable person, the first
steward, [1592] as it were, of their so-called prophecy, one
Theodotus–who, as if at sometime taken up and received into heaven,
fell into trances, and entrusted himself to the deceitful spirit–was
pitched like a quoit, and died miserably. [1593]

15. They say that these things happened in this manner. But as we did
not see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know. Perhaps in such a
manner, perhaps not, Montanus and Theodotus and the above-mentioned
woman died.”

16. He says again in the same book that the holy bishops of that time
attempted to refute the spirit in Maximilla, but were prevented by
others who plainly co-operated with the spirit.

17. He writes as follows:

”And let not the spirit, in the same work of Asterius Urbanus, [1594]
say through Maximilla, I am driven away from the sheep like a wolf.
[1595] I am not a wolf. I am word and spirit and power.’ But let him
show clearly and prove the power in the spirit. And by the spirit let
him compel those to confess him who were then present for the purpose
of proving and reasoning with the talkative spirit,–those eminent men
and bishops, Zoticus, [1596] from the village Comana, and Julian,
[1597] from Apamea, whose mouths the followers of Themiso [1598]
muzzled, refusing to permit the false and seductive spirit to be
refuted by them.”

18. Again in the same work, after saying other things in refutation of
the false prophecies of Maximilla, he indicates the time when he wrote
these accounts, and mentions her predictions in which she prophesied
wars and anarchy. Their falsehood he censures in the following manner:

19. ”And has not this been shown clearly to be false? For it is to-day
more than thirteen years since the woman died, and there has been
neither a partial nor general war in the world; but rather, through the
mercy of God, continued peace even to the Christians.” [1599] These
things are taken from the second book.

20. I will add also short extracts from the third book, in which he
speaks thus against their boasts that many of them had suffered

”When therefore they are at a loss, being refuted in all that they say,
they try to take refuge in their martyrs, alleging that they have many
martyrs, and that this is sure evidence of the power of the so-called
prophetic spirit that is with them. But this, as it appears, is
entirely fallacious. [1600]

21. For some of the heresies have a great many martyrs; but surely we
shall not on that account agree with them or confess that they hold the
truth. And first, indeed, those called Marcionites, from the heresy of
Marcion, say that they have a multitude of martyrs for Christ; yet they
do not confess Christ himself in truth.”

A little farther on he continues:

22. ”When those called to martyrdom from the Church for the truth of
the faith have met with any of the so-called martyrs of the Phrygian
heresy, they have separated from them, and died without any fellowship
with them, [1601] because they did not wish to give their assent to the
spirit of Montanus and the women. And that this is true and took place
in our own time in Apamea on the M�ander, [1602] among those who
suffered martyrdom with Gaius and Alexander of Eumenia, is well known.”

[1568] Montanism must not be looked upon as a heresy in the ordinary
sense of the term. The movement lay in the sphere of life and
discipline rather than in that of theology. Its fundamental proposition
was the continuance of divine revelation which was begun under the old
Dispensation, was carried on in the time of Christ and his apostles,
and reached its highest development under the dispensation of the
Paraclete, which opened with the activity of Montanus. This Montanus
was a Phrygian, who, in the latter part of the second century, began to
fall into states of ecstasy and to have visions, and believed himself a
divinely inspired prophet, through whom the promised Paraclete spoke,
and with whom therefore the dispensation of that Paraclete began. Two
noble ladies (Priscilla and Maximilla) attached themselves to Montanus,
and had visions and prophesied in the same way. These constituted the
three original prophets of the sect, and all that they taught was
claimed to be of binding authority on all. They were quite orthodox,
accepted fully the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church, and did
not pretend to alter in any way the revelation given by Christ and his
apostles. But they claimed that some things had not been revealed by
them, because at that early stage the Church was not able to bear them;
but that such additional revelations were now given, because the
fullness of time had come which was to precede the second coming of
Christ. These revelations had to do not at all with theology, but
wholly with matters of life and discipline. They taught a rigid
asceticism over against the growing worldliness of the Church, severe
discipline over against its laxer methods, and finally the universal
priesthood of believers (even female), and their right to perform all
the functions of church officers, over against the growing
sacerdotalism of the Church. They were thus in a sense reformers, or
perhaps reactionaries is a better term, who wished to bring back, or to
preserve against corruption, the original principles and methods of the
Church. They aimed at a puritanic reaction against worldliness, and of
a democratic reaction against growing aristocracy in the Church. They
insisted that ministers were made by God alone, by the direct endowment
of his Spirit in distinction from human ordination. They looked upon
their prophets–supernaturally called and endowed by the Spirit–as
supreme in the Church. They claimed that all gross offenders should be
excommunicated, and that neither they nor the lax should ever be
re-admitted to the Church. They encouraged celibacy, increased the
number and severity of fasts, eschewed worldly amusements, &c. This
rigid asceticism was enjoined by the revelation of the Spirit through
their prophets, and was promoted by their belief in the speedy coming
of Christ to set up his kingdom on earth, which was likewise
prophesied. They were thus pre-Millenarians or Chiliasts. The movement
spread rapidly in Asia Minor and in North Africa, and for a time in
Rome itself. It appealed very powerfully to the sterner moralists,
stricter disciplinarians, and more deeply pious minds among the
Christians. All the puritanically inclined schisms of this period
attracted many of the better class of Christians, and this one had the
additional advantage of claiming the authority of divine revelation for
its strict principles. The greatest convert was Tertullian, who, in 201
or 202, attracted by the asceticism and disciplinary rigor of the sect,
attached himself to it, and remained until his death its most powerful
advocate. He seems to have stood at the head of a separatist
congregation of Montanists in Carthage, and yet never to have been
excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Montanism made so much stir in
Asia Minor that synods were called before the end of the second century
to consider the matter, and finally, though not without hesitation, the
whole movement was officially condemned. Later, the condemnation was
ratified in Rome and also in North Africa, and Montanism gradually
degenerated, and finally, after two or three centuries, entirely
disappeared. But although it failed and passed away, Montanism had a
marked influence on the development of the Church. In the first place,
it aroused a general distrust of prophecy, and the result was that the
Church soon came to the conviction that prophecy had entirely ceased.
In the second place, the Church was led to see the necessity of
emphasizing the historical Christ and historical Christianity over
against the Montanistic claims of a constantly developing revelation,
and thus to put great emphasis upon the Scripture canon. In the third
place, the Church had to lay increased stress upon the
organization–upon its appointed and ordained officers–over against
the claims of irregular prophets who might at any time arise as organs
of the Spirit. The development of Christianity into a religion of the
book and of the organization was thus greatly advanced, and the line
began to be sharply drawn between the age of the apostles, in which
there had been direct supernatural revelations, and the later age, in
which such revelations had disappeared. We are, undoubtedly, to date
from this time that exalted conception of the glory of the apostolic
age, and of its absolute separation from all subsequent ages, which
marks so strongly the Church of succeeding centuries, and which led men
to endeavor to gain apostolic authority for every advance in the
constitution, in the customs, and in the doctrine of the Church. There
had been little of this feeling before, but now it became universal,
and it explains the great number of pseudo-apostolic works of the third
and following centuries. In the fourth place, the Chiliastic ideas of
Montanism produced a reaction in the Church which caused the final
rejection of all grossly physical Premillenarian beliefs which up to
this time had been very common. For further particulars in regard to
Montanism, see the notes on this and the following chapters. Our chief
sources for a knowledge of Montanism are to be found in the writings of
Tertullian. See, also, Epiphanius, H�r. XLVIII. and XLIX., and Jerome’s
Epistle to Marcella (Migne, Ep. 41). The fragments from the anonymous
anti-Montanistic writer quoted by Eusebius in this and the following
chapter, and the fragments of Apollonius’ work, quoted in chap. 18, are
of the greatest importance. It is to be regretted that Eusebius has
preserved for us no fragments of the anti-Montanistic writings of
Apolinarius and Melito, who might have given us still earlier and more
trustworthy accounts of the sect. It is probable that their works were
not decided enough in their opposition to Montanism to suit Eusebius,
who, therefore, chose to take his account from somewhat later, but
certainly bitter enough antagonists. The works of the Montanists
themselves (except those of Tertullian) have entirely perished, but a
few ”Oracles,” or prophetic utterances, of Montanus, Priscilla, and
Maximilla, have been preserved by Tertullian and other writers, and are
printed by Bonwetsch, p. 197-200. The literature upon Montanism is very
extensive. We may mention here C. W. F. Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, I. p.
611-666, A. Schwegler’s Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des
zweiten Jahrh. (T�bingen, 1841), and especially G. N. Bonwetzsch’s Die
Geschichte des Montanismus (Erlangen, 1881), which is the best work on
the subject, and indispensable to the student. Compare, also, Schaff’s
Ch. Hist. II. p. 415 sq., where the literature is given with great
fullness, Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and
especially Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 319 sq.

[1569] ten legomenen kata Phrugas hairesin. The heresy of Montanus was
commonly called the Phrygian heresy because it took its rise in
Phrygia. The Latins, by a solecism, called it the Cataphrygian heresy.
Its followers received other names also, e.g. Priscillianists (from the
prophetess Priscilla), and Pepuziani (from Pepuza, their headquarters).
They called themselves pneumatikoi (spiritual), and the adherents of
the Church psuchichoi (carnal).

[1570] In Bk. IV. chaps. 21, 26 and 27, and in Bk. V. chap. 5. See
especially Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.

[1571] The author of this work is unknown. Jerome (de vir. ill. 37)
ascribes it to Rhodo (but see above, chap. 13, note 1). It is sometimes
ascribed to Asterius Urbanus, mentioned by Eusebius in �17 below, but
he was certainly not its author (see below, note 27). Upon the date of
the work, see below, note 32.

[1572] The fragments of this anonymous work are given by Routh, Rel.
Sac. Vol. II. p. 183 sqq., and in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. VII. p. 335 sqq.

[1573] ‘Aouirkie, as most of the mss. read. Others have ‘Auirkie or
‘Abirkie; Nicephorus, ‘Aberkie. The name is quite commonly written
Abercius in English, and the person mentioned here is identified by
many scholars (among them Lightfoot) with Abercius, a prominent bishop
of Hieropolis (not Hierapolis, as was formerly supposed). A spurious
Life of S. Abercius is given by Simeon Metaphrastes (in Migne’s Patr.
Gr. CXV. 1211 sq.), which, although of a decidedly legendary character,
rests upon a groundwork of fact as proved by the discovery, in recent
years of an epitaph from Abercius’ tomb. This Abercius was bishop in
the time of Marcus Aurelius, and therefore must have held office at
least twelve or fifteen years (on the date of this anonymous treatise,
see below, note 32), or, if the date given by the spurious Acts for
Abercius’ visit to Rome be accepted (163 a.d.), at least thirty years.
On Abercius and Avercius, see the exhaustive note of Lightfoot, in his
Apostolic Fathers, Part II. (Ignatius and Polycarp), Vol. I. p.

[1574] eis ten ton kata Milti?den legomenon hairesin. The occurrence of
the name Miltiades, in this connection, is very puzzling, for we
nowhere else hear of a Montanist Miltiades, while the man referred to
here must have held a very prominent place among them. It is true that
it is commonly supposed that the Muratorian Canon refers to some
heretic Miltiades, but since Harnack’s discussion of the matter (see
especially his Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 1, p. 216, note) it is more
than doubtful whether a Miltiades is mentioned at all in that document.
In any case the prominent position given him here is surprising, and,
as a consequence, Valesius (in his notes), Stroth, Zimmermann,
Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen substitute ‘Alkibi?den (who is
mentioned in chap. 3 as a prominent Montanist) for Milti?den. The mss.,
however, are unanimous in reading Milti?den; and it is impossible to
see how, if ‘Alkibi?den had originally stood in the text, Milti?den
could have been substituted for it. It is not impossible that instead
of Alcibiades in chap. 3 we should read, as Salmon suggests, Miltiades.
The occurrence of the name Alcibiades in the previous sentence might
explain its substitution for Miltiades immediately afterward. It is at
least easier to account for that change than for the change of
Alcibiades to Miltiades in the present chapter. Were Salmon’s
suggestion accepted, the difficulty in this case would be obviated, for
we should then have a Montanist Miltiades of sufficient prominence to
justify the naming of the sect after him in some quarters. The
suggestion, however, rests upon mere conjecture, and it is safer to
retain the reading of our mss. in both cases. Until we get more light
from some quarter we must be content to let the matter rest, leaving
the reason for the use of Miltiades’ name in this connection
unexplained. There is, of course, nothing strange in the existence of a
Montanist named Miltiades; it is only the great prominence given him
here which puzzles us. Upon the ecclesiastical writer, Miltiades, and
Eusebius’ confusion of him with Alcibiades, see chap. 17, note 1.

[1575] Ancyra was the metropolis and one of the three principal cities
of Galatia. Quite an important town, Angora, now occupies its site.

[1576] kata topon, which is the reading of two of the mss. and
Nicephorus, and is adopted by Burton and Heinichen. The phrase seems
harsh, but occurs again in the next paragraph. The majority of the mss.
read kata Ponton, which is adopted by Valesius, Schwegler, Laemmer, and
Crus�. It is grammatically the easier reading, but the reference to
Pontus is unnatural in this connection, and in view of the occurrence
of the same phrase, kata topon, in the next paragraph, it seems best to
read thus in the present case as well.

[1577] Of this Zoticus we know only what is told us here. He is to be
distinguished, of course, from Zoticus of Comana, mentioned in �17,
below, and in chap. 18, �13. Otrous (or Otrys, as it is sometimes
written) was a small Phrygian town about two miles from Hieropolis (see
W. H. Ramsay’s paper, entitled Trois Villes Phrygiennes, in the
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Juillet, 1882). Its bishop was
present at the Council of Chalcedon, and also at the second Council of
Nic�a (see Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church). We may
gather from this passage that the anonymous author of this
anti-Montanistic work was a presbyter (he calls Zoticus
sumpresbuteros), but we have no hint of his own city, though the fact
that Avircius Marcellus, to whom the work was addressed, was from
Hieropolis (see note 6), and that the anonymous companion Zoticus was
from Otrous, would lead us to look in that neighborhood for the home of
our author, though hardly to either of those towns (the mention of the
name of the town in connection with Zoticus’ name would seem to shut
out the latter, and the opening sentences of the treatise would seem to
exclude the former).

[1578] en te kata ten Phrugian Musi& 139;. It is not said here that
Montanus was born in Ardabau, but it is natural to conclude that he
was, and so that village is commonly given as his birthplace. As we
learn from this passage, Ardabau was not in Phrygia, as is often said,
but in Mysia. The boundary line between the two districts was a very
indefinite one, however, and the two were often confounded by the
ancients themselves; but we cannot doubt in the present instance that
the very exact statement of the anonymous writer is correct. Of the
village of Ardabau itself we know nothing.

[1579] The exact date of the rise of Montanism cannot be determined.
The reports which we have of the movement vary greatly in their
chronology. We have no means of fixing the date of the proconsulship of
the Gratus referred to here, and thus the most exact and reliable
statement which we have does not help us. In his Chron. Eusebius fixes
the rise of the movement in the year 172, and it is possible that this
statement was based upon a knowledge of the time of Gratus’
proconsulship. If so, it possesses considerable weight. The first
notice we have of a knowledge of the movement in the West is in
connection with the martyrs of Lyons, who in the year 177 (see Introd.
to this book, note 3) were solicited to use their influence with the
bishop of Rome in favor of the Montanists (see above, chap. 3, note 6).
This goes to confirm the approximate accuracy of the date given by
Eusebius, for we should expect that the movement cannot have attracted
public notice in the East very many years before it was heard of in
Gaul, the home of many Christians from Asia Minor. Epiphanius (H�r.
XLVIII.) gives the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius (156-157) as the
date of its beginning, but Epiphanius’ figures are very confused and
contradictory, and little reliance can be placed upon them in this
connection. At the same time Montanus must have begun his prophesying
some years before his teaching spread over Asia Minor and began to
agitate the churches and alarm the bishops, and therefore it is
probable that Montanism had a beginning some years before the date
given by Eusebius; in fact, it is not impossible that Montanus may have
begun his work before the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius.

[1580] Ambition was almost universally looked upon by the Church
Fathers as the occasion of the various heresies and schisms. Novatian,
Donatus, and many others were accused of it by their orthodox
opponents. That heretics or schismatics could be actuated by high and
noble motives was to them inconceivable. We are thus furnished another
illustration of their utter misconception of the nature of heresy so
often referred to in these notes.

[1581] The fault found by the Church with Montanus’ prophecy was rather
because of its form than because of its substance. It was admitted that
the prophecies contained much that was true, but the soberer sense of
the Church at large objected decidedly to the frenzied ecstasy in which
they were delivered. That a change had come over the Church in this
respect since the apostolic age is perfectly clear. In Paul’s time the
speaking with tongues, which involved a similar kind of ecstasy, was
very common; so, too, at the time the Didache was written the prophets
spoke in an ecstasy (en pneumati, which can mean nothing else; cf.
Harnack’s edition, p. 122 sq.). But the early enthusiasm of the Church
had largely passed away by the middle of the second century; and though
there were still prophets (Justin, for instance, and even Clement of
Alexandria knew of them), they were not in general characterized by the
same ecstatic and frenzied utterance that marked their predecessors. To
say that there were none such at this time would be rash; but it is
plain that they had become so decidedly the exception that the revival
by the Montanists of the old method on a large scale and in its
extremest form could appear to the Church at large only a decided
innovation. Prophecy in itself was nothing strange to them, but
prophecy in this form they were not accustomed to, and did not realize
that it was but a revival of the ancient form (cf. the words of our
author, who is evidently quite ignorant of that form). That they should
be shocked at it is not to be wondered at, and that they should, in
that age, when all such manifestations were looked upon as supernatural
in their origin, regard these prophets as under the influence of Satan,
is no more surprising. There was no other alternative in their minds.
Either the prophecies were from God or from Satan; not their content
mainly, but the manner in which they were delivered aroused the
suspicion of the bishops and other leaders of the Church. Add to that
the fact that these prophets claimed supremacy over the constituted
Church authorities, claimed that the Church must be guided by the
revelations vouchsafed to women and apparently half-crazy enthusiasts
and fanatics, and it will be seen at once that there was nothing left
for the leaders of the Church but to condemn the movement, and
pronounce its prophecy a fraud and a work of the Evil One. That all
prophecy should, as a consequence, fall into discredit was natural.
Clement (Strom. I. 17) gives the speaking in an ecstasy as one of the
marks of a false prophet,–Montanism had evidently brought the Church
to distinct consciousness on that point,–while Origen, some decades
later, is no longer acquainted with prophets, and denies that they
existed even in the time of Celsus (see Contra Cels. VII. 11).

[1582] i.e. between true and false prophets.

[1583] Cf. Matt. vii. 15.

[1584] hos hagi& 251; pneumati kai prophetiko charismati

[1585] Maximilla and Priscilla, or Prisca (mentioned in chap. 14). They
were married women, who left their husbands to become disciples of
Montanus, were given the rank of virgins in his church, and with him
were the greatest prophets of the sect. They were regarded with the
most profound reverence by all Montanists, who in many quarters were
called after the name of the latter, Priscillianists. It was a
characteristic of the Montanists that they insisted upon the religious
equality of men and women; that they accorded just as high honor to the
women as to the men, and listened to their prophecies with the same
reverence. The human person was but an instrument of the Spirit,
according to their view, and hence a woman might be chosen by the
Spirit as his instrument just as well as a man, the ignorant just as
well as the learned. Tertullian, for instance, cites, in support of his
doctrine of the materiality of the soul, a vision seen by one of the
female members of his church, whom he believed to be in the habit of
receiving revelations from God (de anima, 9).

[1586] i.e. Montanus.

[1587] That synods should early be held to consider the subject
Montanism is not at all surprising. Doubtless our author is quite
correct in asserting that many such met during these years. They were
probably all of them small, and only local in their character. We do
not know the places or the dates of any of these synods, although the
Libellus Synodicus states that one was held at Hierapolis under
Apolinarius, with twenty-six bishops in attendance, and another at
Anchialus under Sotas, with twelve bishops present. The authority for
these synods is too late to be of much weight, and the report is just
such as we should expect to have arisen upon the basis of the account
of Montanism given in this chapter. It is possible, therefore, that
synods were held in those two cities, but more than that cannot be
said. Upon these synods, see Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 83 sq.), who
accepts the report of the Libellus Synodicus as trustworthy.

[1588] Cf. the complaint of Maximilla, quoted in �17, below. The words
are employed, of course, only in the figurative sense to indicate the
hostility of the Church toward the Montanists. The Church, of course,
had at that time no power to put heretics to death, even if it had
wished to do so. The first instance of the punishment of heresy by
death occurred in 385, when the Spanish bishop Priscillian and six
companions were executed at Tr�ves.

[1589] Cf. Matt. xxiii. 34.

[1590] There is a flat contradiction between this passage and �21,
below, where it is admitted by this same author that the Montanists
have had their martyrs. The sweeping statements here, considered in the
light of the admission made in the other passage, furnish us with a
criterion of the trustworthiness and honesty of the reports of our
anonymous author. It is plain that, in his hostility to Montanism, he
has no regard whatever for the truth; that his aim is to paint the
heretics as black as possible, even if he is obliged to misrepresent
the facts. We might, from the general tone of the fragment which
Eusebius has preserved, imagine this to be so: the present passage
proves it. We know, indeed, that the Montanists had many martyrs and
that their principles were such as to lead them to martyrdom, even when
the Catholics avoided it (cf. Tertullian’s De fuga in persecutione).

[1591] Whether this story is an invention of our author’s, or whether
it was already in circulation, as he says, we cannot tell. Its utter
worthlessness needs no demonstration. Even our anonymous author does
not venture to call it certain.

[1592] epitropos: a steward, or administrator of funds. The existence
of such an officer shows that the Montanists formed a compact
organization at an early date, and that much stress was laid upon it
(cf. chap. 18, �2). According to Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam; Migne, Ep.
XLI. 3) the Montanists at Pepuza had three classes of officers: first,
Patriarchs; second, Cenon�; third, Bishops (Habent enim primos de
Pepusa Phrygi� Patriarchas: secundos, quos appellant Cenonas: atque ita
in tertium, id est, pene ultimum locum Episcopi devolvuntur). The
peculiar word Cenonas occurs nowhere else, so far as I am aware, but
its meaning is plain enough. Whether it is merely a reproduction of the
Greek oikonomoi (”administrators”), or whether it is a Latin word
connected with coena, in either case the officers designated by it were
economic officers, and thus performed the same class of duties as this
epitropos, Theodotus. The reliability of Jerome’s report is confirmed
by its agreement in this point with the account of the Anonymous. Of
Theodotus himself (to be distinguished, of course, from the two
Theodoti mentioned in chap. 28) we know only what is told us in this
chapter and in chap. 3, above. It is plain that he was a prominent man
among the early Montanists.

[1593] The reference here seems to be to a death like that recorded by
a common tradition of Simon Magus, who by the help of demons undertook
to fly up to heaven, but when in mid air fell and was killed. Whether
the report in regard to Theodotus was in any way connected with the
tradition of Simon’s death we cannot tell, though our author can hardly
have thought of it, or he would certainly have likened Theodotus’ fate
to that of the arch-heretic Simon, as he likened the fate of Montanus
and Maximilla to that of Judas. Whatever the exact form of death
referred to, there is of course no more confidence to be placed in this
report than in the preceding one.

[1594] Of this Asterius Urbanus we know only what we can gather from
this reference to him. Valesius, Tillemont, and others supposed that
the words en to auto logo to kata ‘Asterion Ourbanon were a scholium
written on the margin of his copy by Eusebius himself or some ancient
commentator to indicate the authorship of the anonymous work from which
the fragments in this chapter are taken (and so in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. VII., these fragments are given as from the work of
Asterius Urbanus). But Eusebius himself evidently did not know the
author, and it is at any rate much easier to suppose the words a part
of the text, and the work of Asterius a work which our anonymous author
has been discussing and from which he quotes the words of Maximilla,
just below. Accepting this most natural interpretation of the words, we
learn that Asterius Urbanus was a Montanist who had written a work in
defense of that sect.

[1595] Cf. note 21, above.

[1596] Of this Bishop Zoticus we know only what is told us here and in
chap. 18, �13. On the proposed identification of Zoticus and Sotas,
bishop of Anchialus, see chap. 19, note 10. Comana (Kom?nes, according
to most of the mss. and editors; Koum?nes, according to a few of the
mss. followed by Laemmer and Heinichen) was a village of Pamphylia, and
is to be distinguished from Comana in Pontus and from Comana in
Cappadocia (Armenia), both of which were populous and important cities.

[1597] Of this Julian we know nothing more. His city was Apamea Cibotus
or Ciboti, which, according to Wiltsch, was a small town on Mount
Signia in Pisidia, to be distinguished from the important Phrygian
Apamea Cibotus on the M�ander. Whether Wiltsch has good grounds for
this distinction I am unable to say. It would certainly seem natural to
think in the present case of Apamea on the M�ander, inasmuch as it is
spoken of without any qualifying phrase, as if there could be no doubt
about its identity.

[1598] Themiso is mentioned again in chap. 18 as a confessor, and as
the author of a catholic epistle. It is plain that he was a prominent
man among the Montanists in the time of our anonymous author, that is,
after the death of Montanus himself; and it is quite likely that he
was, as Salmon suggests, the head of the sect.

[1599] This gives us a clear indication of the date of the composition
of this anonymous work. The thirteen years must fall either before the
wars which began in the reign of Septimius Severus, or after their
completion. The earliest possible date in the latter case is 232, and
this is certainly much too late for the composition of this work, which
speaks of Montanism more than once as a recent thing, and which it
seems clear from other indications belongs rather to the earlier period
of the movement. If we put its composition before those wars, we cannot
place it later than 192, the close of the reign of Commodus. This would
push the date of Maximilla’s death back to 179, which though it seems
rather early, is not at all impossible. The period from about 179 to
192 might very well be called a time of peace by the Christians; for no
serious wars occurred during that interval, and we know that the
Christians were left comparatively undisturbed throughout the reign of

[1600] Our author tacitly admits in this paragraph, what he has denied
in �12, above, that the Montanists had martyrs among their number; and
having admitted it, he endeavors to explain away its force. In the
previous paragraph he had claimed that the lack of martyrs among them
proved that they were heretics; here he claims that the existence of
such martyrs does not in any way argue for their orthodoxy. The
inconsistency is glaringly apparent (cf. the remarks made in note 23,

[1601] This shows the bitterness of the hostility of the Catholics
toward the Montanists. That even when suffering together for the one
Lord they could not recognize these brethren seems very sad, and it is
not to be wondered at that the Montanists felt themselves badly used,
and looked upon the Catholics as ”slayers of the prophets,” &c. More
uncompromising enmity than this we can hardly imagine. That the
Catholics, however, were sincere in their treatment of the Montanists,
we cannot doubt. It is clear that they firmly believed that association
with them meant association with the devil, and hence the deeper their
devotion to Christ, the deeper must be their abhorrence of these
instruments of Satan. Compare, for instance, Polycarp’s words to
Marcion, quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 14, above. The attitude of these
Catholic martyrs is but of a piece with that of nearly all the orthodox
Fathers toward heresy. It only shows itself here in its extremest form.

[1602] Apamea Cibotus in Eastern Phrygia, a large and important
commercial center. Of the two martyrs, Gaius and Alexander, we know
only what is told us here. They were apparently both of them from
Eumenia, a Phrygian town lying a short distance north of Apamea. We
have no means of fixing the date of the martyrdoms referred to here,
but it seems natural to assign them to the reign of Marcus Aurelius,
after Montanism had become somewhat widespread, and when martyrdoms
were a common thing both in the East and West. Thraseas, bishop of
Eumenia, is referred to as a martyr by Polycrates in chap. 24, but he
can hardly have suffered with the ones referred to here, or his name
would have been mentioned instead of the more obscure names of Gaius
and Alexander.

Chapter XVII.–Miltiades and His Works.

1. In this work he mentions a writer, Miltiades, [1603] stating that he
also wrote a certain book against the above-mentioned heresy. After
quoting some of their words, he adds:

”Having found these things in a certain work of theirs in opposition to
the work of the brother Alcibiades, [1604] in which he shows that a
prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, [1605] I made an abridgment.”

2. A little further on in the same work he gives a list of those who
prophesied under the new covenant, among whom he enumerates a certain
Ammia [1606] and Quadratus, [1607] saying:

”But the false prophet falls into an ecstasy, in which he is without
shame or fear. Beginning with purposed ignorance, he passes on, as has
been stated, to involuntary madness of soul.

3. They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was
thus carried away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Agabus, [1608]
or Judas, [1609] or Silas, [1610] or the daughters of Philip, [1611] or
Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus, or any others not belonging to

4. And again after a little he says: ”For if after Quadratus and Ammia
in Philadelphia, as they assert, the women with Montanus received the
prophetic gift, let them show who among them received it from Montanus
and the women. For the apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic
gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming. But they
cannot show it, though this is the fourteenth year since the death of
Maximilla.” [1612]

5. He writes thus. But the Miltiades to whom he refers has left other
monuments of his own zeal for the Divine Scriptures, [1613] in the
discourses which he composed against the Greeks and against the Jews,
[1614] answering each of them separately in two books. [1615] And in
addition he addresses an apology to the earthly rulers, [1616] in
behalf of the philosophy which he embraced.

[1603] This Miltiades is known to us from three sources: from the
present chapter, from the Roman work quoted by Eusebius in chap. 28,
and from Tertullian (adv. Val. chap. 5). Jerome also mentions him in
two places (de vir. ill. 39 and Ep. ad Magnum; Migne’s ed. Ep. 70, �3),
but it is evident that he derived his knowledge solely from Eusebius.
That Miltiades was widely known at the end of the second century is
clear from the notices of him by an Asiatic, a Roman, and a
Carthaginian writer. The position in which he is mentioned by
Tertullian and by the anonymous Roman writer would seem to indicate
that he flourished during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. His Apology was
addressed to the emperors, as we learn from �5, below, by which might
be meant either Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161-169), or Marcus
Aurelius and Commodus (177-180). Jerome states that he flourished
during the reign of Commodus (Floruit autem M. Antonini Commodi
temporibus; Vallarsi adds a que after Commodi, thus making him flourish
in the times of M. Antoninus and Commodus, but there is no authority
for such an addition). It is quite possible that he was still alive in
the time of Commodus (though Jerome’s statement is of no weight, for it
rests upon no independent authority), but he must at any rate have
written his Apology before the death of Marcus Aurelius. The only works
of Miltiades named by our authorities are the anti-Montanistic work
referred to here, and the three mentioned by Eusebius at the close of
this chapter (two books Against the Greeks, two books Against the Jews,
and an Apology). Tertullian speaks of him as an anti-Gnostic writer, so
that it is clear that he must have written another work not mentioned
by Eusebius, and it was perhaps that work that won for him the
commendation of the anonymous writer quoted in chap. 28, who ranks him
with Justin, Tatian, Iren�us, Melito, and Clement as one who had
asserted the divinity of Christ. Eusebius appears to have seen the
three works which he mentions at the close of this chapter, but he does
not quote from them, and no fragments of any of Miltiades’ writings
have been preserved to us; he seems indeed to have passed early out of
the memory of the Church. A very perplexing question is his relation to
Montanism. According to Eusebius, he was the author of an
anti-Montanistic work, but this report is beset with serious
difficulties. The extract which Eusebius quotes just below as his
authority has ”Alcibiades,” not ”Miltiades,” according to the unanimous
testimony of the mss. and versions. It is very difficult to understand
how Miltiades, if it stood originally in the text, could have been
changed to Alcibiades. Nevertheless, most editors have thought it
necessary to make the change in the present case, and most historians
(including even Harnack) accept the alteration, and regard Miltiades as
the author of a lost anti-Montanistic work. I confess that, imperative
as this charge at first sight seems to be, I am unable to believe that
we are justified in making it. I should be inclined to think rather
that Eusebius had misread his authority, and that, finding Miltiades
referred to in the immediate context (perhaps the Montanist Miltiades
mentioned in chap. 16), he had, in a hasty perusal of the work,
overlooked the less familiar name Alcibiades, and had confounded
Miltiades with the author of the anti-Montanistic work referred to here
by our Anonymous. He would then naturally identify him at once with the
Miltiades known to him through other works. If we suppose, as Salmon
suggests, that Eusebius did not copy his own extracts, but employed a
scribe to do that work (as we should expect so busy a man to do), it
may well be that he simply marked this extract in regard to the
anti-Montanistic work without noticing his blunder, and that the
scribe, copying the sentence just as it stood, correctly wrote
Alcibiades instead of Miltiades. In confirmation of the supposition
that Eusebius was mistaken in making Miltiades the author of an
anti-Montanistic work may be urged the fact that Tertullian speaks of
Miltiades with respect, and ranks him with the greatest Fathers of the
second century. It is true that the term by which he describes him
(ecclesiarum sophista) may not (as Harnack maintains) imply as much
praise as is given to Proculus in the same connection; nevertheless
Tertullian does treat Miltiades with respect, and does accord him a
high position among ecclesiastical writers. But it is certainly
difficult to suppose that Tertullian can thus have honored a man who
was known to have written against Montanism. Still further, it must be
noticed that Eusebius himself had not seen Miltiades’ anti-Montanistic
work; he knew it only from the supposed mention of it in this anonymous
work from which he was quoting. Certainly it is not, on the whole,
difficult to suppose him mistaken and our mss. and versions correct. I
therefore prefer to retain the traditional reading Alcibiades, and have
so translated. Of the Alcibiades who wrote the anti-Montanistic
treatise referred to, we know nothing. Upon Miltiades, see especially
Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, I. I, p. 278 sqq., Otto’s Corpus
Apol. Christ. IX. 364 sqq., and Salmon’s article in the Dict. of
Christ. Biog. III. 916.

[1604] Alkibi?dou, with all the mss. and versions, followed by Valesius
(in his text), by Burton, Laemmer, and Crus�; Nicephorus, followed by
Valesius in his notes, and by all the other editors, and by the
translations of Stroth, Closs, and Stigloher, read Milti?dou. See the
previous note.

[1605] This was the first work, so far as we know, to denounce the
practice of prophesying in ecstasy. The practice, which had doubtless
fallen almost wholly into disuse, was brought into decided disrepute on
account of the excesses of the Montanists, and the position taken by
this Alcibiades became very soon the position of the whole Church (see
the previous chapter, note 14).

[1606] Of this prophetess Ammia of Philadelphia, we know only what we
can gather from this chapter. She would seem to have lived early in the
second century, possibly in the latter part of the first, and to have
been a prophetess of considerable prominence. That the Montanists had
good ground for appealing to her, as well as to the other prophets
mentioned as their models, cannot be denied. These early prophets were
doubtless in their enthusiasm far more like the Montanistic prophets
than like those whom the Church of the latter part of the second
century alone wished to recognize.

[1607] This Quadratus is to be identified with the Quadratus mentioned
in Bk. III. chap. 37, and was evidently a man of prominence in the
East. He seems to have been a contemporary of Ammia, or to have
belonged at any rate to the succession of the earliest prophets. He is
to be distinguished from the bishop of Athens, mentioned in Bk. IV.
chap. 23, and also in all probability from the apologist, mentioned in
Bk. IV. chap. 3. Cf. Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. I. p. 102 and 104;
and see Bk. III. chap. 37, note 1, above.

[1608] On Agabus, see Acts xi. 28, xxi. 10.

[1609] On Judas, see Acts xv. 22, 27, 32.

[1610] On Silas, see Acts xv.-xviii. passim; also 2 Cor. i. 19, 1
Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1, and 1 Pet. v. 12, where Silvanus (who is
probably the same man) is mentioned.

[1611] On the daughters of Philip, see Acts xxi. 9; also Bk. III. chap.
31, note 8, above.

[1612] On the date of Maximilla’s death, see the previous chapter, note
32. To what utterance of ”the apostle” (hoapostolos, which commonly
means Paul) our author is referring, I am not able to discover. I can
find nothing in his writings, nor indeed in the New Testament, which
would seem to have suggested the idea which he here attributes to the
apostle. The argument is a little obscure, but the writer apparently
means to prove that the Montanists are not a part of the true Church,
because the gift of prophecy is a mark of that Church, and the
Montanists no longer possess that gift. This seems a strange accusation
to bring against the Montanists,–we might expect them to use such an
argument against the Catholics. In fact, we know that the accusation is
not true, at least not entirely so; for we know that there were
Montanistic prophetesses in Tertullian’s church in Carthage later than
this time, and also that there was still a prophetess at the time
Apollonius wrote (see chap. 18, �6), which was some years later than
this (see chap. 18, note 3).

[1613] peri ta theia logia. These words are used to indicate the
Scriptures in Bk. VI. chap. 23, �2, IX. 9. 7, X. 4. 28, and in the
Martyrs of Palestine, XI. 2.

[1614] ?n te hois pros Ellenas sunetaxe logois, kai tois pros
‘Ioudaious. Eusebius is the only one to mention these works, and no
fragments of either of them are now extant. See above, note 1.

[1615] hekatera& 184;dios hupothesei en dusin hupantesas sungr?mmasin

[1616] Or, ”to the rulers of the world” (pros tous kosmikous
archontas.) Valesius supposed these words to refer to the provincial
governors, but it is far more natural to refer them to the reigning
emperors, both on account of the form of the phrase itself and also
because of the fact that it was customary with all the apologists to
address their apologies to the emperors themselves. In regard to the
particular emperors addressed, see above, note 1.

Chapter XVIII.–The Manner in which Apollonius refuted the Phrygians,
and the Persons [1617] whom he Mentions.

1. As the so-called Phrygian heresy [1618] was still flourishing in
Phrygia in his time, Apollonius [1619] also, an ecclesiastical writer,
undertook its refutation, and wrote a special work against it,
correcting in detail the false prophecies current among them and
reproving the life of the founders of the heresy. But hear his own
words respecting Montanus:

2. ”His actions and his teaching show who this new teacher is. This is
he who taught the dissolution of marriage; [1620] who made laws for
fasting; [1621] who named Pepuza and Tymion, [1622] small towns in
Phrygia, Jerusalem, wishing to gather people to them from all
directions; who appointed collectors of money; [1623] who contrived the
receiving of gifts under the name of offerings; who provided salaries
for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching might prevail
through gluttony.” [1624]

3. He writes thus concerning Montanus; and a little farther on he
writes as follows concerning his prophetesses: ”We show that these
first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the
Spirit, abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who
call Prisca a virgin.” [1625]

4. Afterwards he says: ”Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a
prophet to receive gifts and money? [1626] When therefore I see the
prophetess receiving gold and silver and costly garments, how can I
avoid reproving her?”

5. And again a little farther on he speaks thus concerning one of their

”So also Themiso, [1627] who was clothed with plausible covetousness,
could not endure the sign of confession, but threw aside bonds for an
abundance of possessions. Yet, though he should have been humble on
this account, he dared to boast as a martyr, and in imitation of the
apostle, he wrote a certain catholic [1628] epistle, to instruct those
whose faith was better than his own, contending for words of empty
sound, and blaspheming against the Lord and the apostles and the holy

6. And again concerning others of those honored among them as martyrs,
he writes as follows:

”Not to speak of many, let the prophetess herself tell us of Alexander,
[1629] who called himself a martyr, with whom she is in the habit of
banqueting, and who is worshiped [1630] by many. We need not mention
his robberies and other daring deeds for which he was punished, but the
archives [1631] contain them.

7. Which of these forgives the sins of the other? Does the prophet the
robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the covetousness of the prophet?
For although the Lord said, Provide neither gold, nor silver, neither
two coats,’ [1632] these men, in complete opposition, transgress in
respect to the possession of the forbidden things. For we will show
that those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather their gain not
only from rich men, but also from the poor, and orphans, and widows.

8. But if they are confident, let them stand up and discuss these
matters, that if convicted they may hereafter cease transgressing. For
the fruits of the prophet must be tried; for the tree is known by its
fruit.’ [1633]

9. But that those who wish may know concerning Alexander, he was tried
by �milius Frontinus, [1634] proconsul at Ephesus; not on account of
the Name, [1635] but for the robberies which he had committed, being
already an apostate. [1636] Afterwards, having falsely declared for the
name of the Lord, he was released, having deceived the faithful that
were there. [1637] And his own parish, from which he came, did not
receive him, because he was a robber. [1638] Those who wish to learn
about him have the public records [1639] of Asia. And yet the prophet
with whom he spent many years knows nothing about him! [1640]

10. Exposing him, through him we expose also the pretense [1641] of the
prophet. We could show the same thing of many others. But if they are
confident, let them endure the test.”

11. Again, in another part of his work he speaks as follows of the
prophets of whom they boast:

”If they deny that their prophets have received gifts, let them
acknowledge this: that if they are convicted of receiving them, they
are not prophets. And we will bring a multitude of proofs of this. But
it is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined.
Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? [1642] Does a prophet stain his
eyelids? [1643] Does a prophet delight in adornment? Does a prophet
play with tables and dice? Does a prophet lend on usury? Let them
confess whether these things are lawful or not; but I will show that
they have been done by them.” [1644]

12. This same Apollonius states in the same work that, at the time of
his writing, it was the fortieth year since Montanus had begun his
pretended prophecy. [1645]

13. And he says also that Zoticus, who was mentioned by the former
writer, [1646] when Maximilla was pretending to prophesy in Pepuza,
resisted her and endeavored to refute the spirit that was working in
her; but was prevented by those who agreed with her. He mentions also a
certain Thraseas [1647] among the martyrs of that time.

He speaks, moreover, of a tradition that the Saviour commanded his
apostles not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years. [1648] He uses
testimonies also from the Revelation of John, [1649] and he relates
that a dead man had, through the Divine power, been raised by John
himself in Ephesus. [1650] He also adds other things by which he fully
and abundantly exposes the error of the heresy of which we have been
speaking. These are the matters recorded by Apollonius.

[1617] Or events (tinon).

[1618] On the name, see chap. 16, note 2.

[1619] Of this Apollonius we know little more than what Eusebius tells
us in this chapter. The author of Pr�destinatus (in the fifth century)
calls him bishop of Ephesus, but his authority is of no weight. Jerome
devotes chap. 40 of his de vir. ill. to Apollonius, but it is clear
that he derives his knowledge almost exclusively from Eusebius. He adds
the notice, however, that Tertullian replied to Apollonius’ work in the
seventh book of his own work, de Ecstasi (now lost). The character of
Apollonius’ work may be gathered from the fragments preserved by
Eusebius in this chapter. It was of the same nature as the work of the
anonymous writer quoted in chap. 16, very bitter in tone and not
over-scrupulous in its statements. Apollonius states (see in �12,
below) that he wrote the work forty years after the rise of Montanism.
If we accepted the Eusebian date for its beginning (172), this would
bring us down to 212, but (as remarked above, in chap. 16, note 12)
Montanism had probably begun in a quiet way sometime before this, and
so Apollonius’ forty years are perhaps to be reckoned from a somewhat
earlier date. His mention of ”the prophetess” as still living (in �6,
below) might lead us to think that Maximilia was still alive when he
wrote; but when the anonymous wrote she was already dead, and the
reasons for assigning the latter to a date as early as 192 are too
strong to be set aside. We must therefore suppose Apollonius to be
referring to some other prophetess well known in his time. That there
were many such prophetesses in the early part of the third century is
clear from the works of Tertullian. Jerome (ibid.) states that an
account of the death of Montanus and his prophetesses by hanging was
contained in Apollonius’ work, but it has been justly suspected that he
is confusing the work of the anonymous, quoted in chap. 16, above, with
the work of Apollonius, quoted in this chapter. The fragments of
Apollonius’ work, preserved by Eusebius, are given, with a commentary,
in Routh’s Rel. Sac. I. p. 467 sq., and an English translation in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775 sq.

[1620] We are not to gather from this that the Montanists forbade
marriage. They were, to be sure, decidedly ascetic in their tendencies,
and they did teach the unlawfulness of second marriages,–which had
long been looked upon with disfavor in many quarters, but whose
lawfulness the Church had never denied,–and magnified the blessedness
of the single state; but beyond this they did not go, so far as we are
able to judge. Our chief sources for the Montanistic view of marriage
are Tertullian’s works ad Uxorem, de Pudicit., de Monogamia, de Exhort.
ad castitat., and Epiphanius’ H�r. XLVIII. 9.

[1621] One great point of dispute between the Montanists and the
Catholics was the subject of fasts (cf. Hippolytus, VIII. 12, X. 21,
who makes it almost the only ground of complaint against the
Montanists). The Montanist prophetesses ordained two new fasts of a
week each in addition to the annual paschal fast of the Church; and the
regulations for these two weeks were made very severe. Still further
they extended the duration of the regular weekly (Wednesday and Friday)
fasts, making them cover the whole instead of only a part of the day.
The Catholics very strenuously opposed these ordinances, not because
they were opposed to fasting (many of them indulged extensively in the
practice), but because they objected to the imposition of such extra
fasts as binding upon the Church. They were satisfied with the
traditional customs in this matter, and did not care to have heavier
burdens imposed upon the Christians in general than their fathers had
borne. Our principal sources for a knowledge of the dispute between the
Montanists and Catholics on this subject are Tertullian’s de Jejuniis;
Epiphanius, H�r. XLVIII. 8; Jerome, Ep. ad Marcellam (Migne, Ep. XLI.
3), Comment. in Matt. c. 9, vers. 15; and Theodoret, H�r. Fab. III. 2.

[1622] Pepuza was an obscure town in the western part of Phrygia;
Tymion, otherwise unknown, was probably situated in the same
neighborhood. Pepuza was early made, and long continued, the chief
center–the Jerusalem–of the sect, and even gave its name to the sect
in many quarters. Harnack has rightly emphasized the significance of
this statement of Apollonius, and has called attention to the fact that
Montanus’ original idea must have been the gathering of the chosen
people from all the world into one region, that they might form one
fold, and freed from all the political and social relations in which
they had hitherto lived might await the coming of the Lord, who would
speedily descend, and set up his kingdom in this new Jerusalem. Only
after this idea had been proved impracticable did Montanism adapt
itself to circumstances and proceed to establish itself in the midst of
society as it existed in the outside world. That Montanus built upon
the Gospel of John, and especially upon chaps. x. and xvii., in this
original attempt of his, is perfectly plain (cf. Harnack’s
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 319 and 323. With this passage from Apollonius,
compare also Epiphanius, H�r. XLVIII. 14 and XLIX. 1., and Jerome Ep.
ad Marcellam).

[1623] This appointment of economic officers and the formation of a
compact organization were a part of the one general plan, referred to
in the previous note, and must have marked the earliest years of the
sect. Later, when it was endeavoring to adapt itself to the catholic
Church, and to compromise matters in such a way as still to secure
recognition from the Church, this organization must have been looked
upon as a matter of less importance, and indeed probably never went far
beyond the confines of Phrygia. That it continued long in that region,
however, is clear from Jerome’s words in his Epistle to Marcella
already referred to. Compare also chap 16, note 25.

[1624] There can be little doubt that the Church teachers and other
officers were still supported by voluntary contributions, and hence
Apollonius was really scandalized at what he considered making
merchandise of spiritual things (cf. the Didache, chaps. XI. and XII.;
but even in the Didache we find already a sort of stated salary
provided for the prophets; cf. chap. XII.). For him to conclude,
however, from the practice instituted by the Montanists in accordance
with their other provisions for the formation of a compact
organization, that they were avaricious and gluttonous, is quite
unjustifiable, just as much so as if our salaried clergy to-day should
be accused, as a class, of such sins.

[1625] See chap. 16, note 18.

[1626] See note 8.

[1627] On Themiso, see chap. 16, note 31.

[1628] katholiken epistolen. Catholic in the sense in which the word is
used of the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; that is, general,
addressed to no particular church. The epistle is no longer extant. Its
”blasphemy” against the Lord and his apostles lay undoubtedly in its
statement of the fundamental doctrine of the Montanists, that the age
of revelation had not ceased, but that through the promised Paraclete
revelations were still given, which supplemented or superseded those
granted the apostles by Christ.

[1629] This fragment gives us our only information in regard to this
Alexander. That there may be some truth in the story told by Apollonius
cannot be denied. It is possible that Alexander was a bad man, and that
the Montanists had been deceived in him, as often happens in all
religious bodies. Such a thing might much more easily happen after the
sect had been for a number of years in a flourishing condition than in
its earlier years; and the exactness of the account, and the challenge
to disprove it, would seem to lend it some weight. At the same time
Apollonius is clearly as unprincipled and dishonest a writer as the
anonymous, and hence little reliance can be placed upon any of his
reports to the discredit of the Montanists. If the anonymous made so
many accusations out of whole cloth, Apollonius may have done the same
in the present instance; and the fact that many still ”worshiped” him
would seem to show that Apollonius’ accusations, if they possessed any
foundation, were at any rate not proven.

[1630] A very common accusation brought against various sects. Upon the
significance of it, see Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 82, note 2.

[1631] opisthodomos, originally the back chamber of the old temple of
Athen� on the Acropolis at Athens, where the public treasure was kept.
It then came to be used of the inner chamber of any temple where the
public treasure was kept, and in the present instance is used of the
apartment which contained the public records or archives. Just below,
Apollonius uses the phrase demosion archeion, in referring to the same

[1632] Matt. x. 9, 10.

[1633] Matt. xii. 33.

[1634] We know, unfortunately, nothing about this proconsul, and hence
have no means of fixing the date of this occurrence.

[1635] i.e. of Christ.

[1636] parab?tes

[1637] eita epipseus?menos to onomati tou kuriou apolelutai planesas
tous ekei pistous. The meaning seems to be that while in prison he
pretended to be a Christian, and thus obtained the favor of the
brethren, who procured his release by using their influence with the

[1638] We have no means of controlling the truth of this statement.

[1639] demosion archeion.

[1640] hon ho prophetes sunonta pollois ?tesin agnoei, as is read by
all the mss., followed by the majority of the editors. Heinichen reads
ho ho prophetes sunon pollois ?tesin agnoei, but the emendation is
quite unnecessary. The agnoei implies ignorance of the man’s true
character; although with him so many years, he knows nothing about him,
is ignorant of his true character! The sentence is evidently ironical.

[1641] ten hupostasin

[1642] b?ptetai

[1643] stibizetai

[1644] Knowing what we do of the asceticism and the severe morality of
the Montanists, we can look upon the implications of this passage as
nothing better than baseless slanders. That there might have been an
individual here and there whose conduct justified this attack cannot be
denied, but to bring such accusations against the Montanists in general
was both unwarranted and absurd, and Apollonius cannot but have been
aware of the fact. His language is rather that of a bully or
braggadocio who knows the untruthfulness of his statements, than of a
man conscious of his own honesty and of the reliability of his account.

[1645] On the date of Apollonius’ work, see above, note 3.

[1646] See chap. 16, �17.

[1647] This Thraseas is undoubtedly to be identified with Thraseas,
”bishop and martyr of Eumenia,” mentioned by Polycrates, as quoted in
chap. 24, below. We know no more about him than is told us there.

[1648] Clement (Strom. VI. 5) records the same tradition, quoting it
from the Preaching of Peter, upon which work, see Bk. III. chap. 3,
note 8, above.

[1649] Compare Eusebius’ promise in Bk. III. chap. 24, �18, and see
note 21 on that chapter.

[1650] No one else, so far as I am aware, records this tradition, but
it is of a piece with many others in regard to John which were afloat
in the early Church.

Chapter XIX.–Serapion on the Heresy of the Phrygians.

1. Serapion, [1651] who, as report says, succeeded Maximinus [1652] at
that time as bishop of the church of Antioch, mentions the works of
Apolinarius [1653] against the above-mentioned heresy. And he alludes
to him in a private letter to Caricus and Pontius, [1654] in which he
himself exposes the same heresy, and adds the following words: [1655]

2. ”That you may see that the doings of this lying band of the new
prophecy, so called, are an abomination to all the brotherhood
throughout the world, I have sent you writings [1656] of the most
blessed Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.”

3. In the same letter of Serapion the signatures of several bishops are
found, [1657] one of whom subscribes himself as follows:

”I, Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness, [1658] pray for your health.”

And another in this manner:

”�lius Publius Julius, [1659] bishop of Debeltum, a colony of Thrace.
As God liveth in the heavens, the blessed Sotas in Anchialus desired to
cast the demon out of Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not permit
him.” [1660]

4. And the autograph signatures of many other bishops who agreed with
them are contained in the same letter.

So much for these persons.

[1651] Both versions of the Chron. agree in putting the accession of
Serapion into the eleventh year of Commodus (190 a.d.), and that of his
successor Asclepiades into the first year of Caracalla, which would
give Serapion an episcopate of twenty-one years (Syncellus says
twenty-five years, although giving the same dates of accession for both
bishops that the other versions give). Serapion was a well-known
person, and it is not too much to think that the dates given by the
Chron. in connection with him may be more reliable than most of its
dates. The truth is, that from the present chapter we learn that he was
already bishop before the end of Commodus’ reign, i.e. before the end
of 192 a.d. Were the statement of Eutychius,–that Demetrius of
Alexandria wrote at the same time to Maximus of Antioch and Victor of
Rome,–to be relied upon, we could fix his accession between 189 and
192 (see Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius, p. 45). But the truth is little
weight can be attached to his report. While we cannot therefore reach
certainty in the matter, there is no reason for doubting the
approximate accuracy of the date given by the Chron. As to the time of
his death, we can fix the date of Asclepiades’ accession approximately
in the year 211 (see Bk. VI. chap. II, note 6), and from the fragment
of Alexander’s epistle to the Antiochenes, quoted in that chapter, it
seems probable that there had been a vacancy in the see of Antioch for
some time. But from the mention of Serapion’s epistles to Domninus (Bk.
VI. chap. 12) we may gather that he lived until after the great
persecution of Severus (a.d. 202 sq.). From Bk. VI. chap. 12, we learn
that Serapion was quite a writer; and he is commemorated also by Jerome
(de vir. ill. c. 41) and by Socrates (H. E. III. 7). In addition to the
epistle quoted here, he addressed to Domninus, according to Bk. VI.
chap. 12, a treatise (Jerome, ad Domninum…volumen composuit), or
epistle (the Greek of Eusebius reads simply ta, but uses the same
article to describe the epistle or epistles to Caricus and Pontius, so
that the nature of the writing is uncertain), as well as some other
epistles, and a work on the Gospel of Peter. These were the only
writings of his which Eusebius had seen, but he reports that there were
probably other works extant. There are preserved to us only the two
fragments quoted by Eusebius in these two chapters. Serapion also
played a prominent r�le in the tradition of the Edessene church, as we
learn from Zahn’s Doctrina Addai (G�tt. Gel. Anz. 1877, St. 6, p. 173,
179, according to Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius, p. 46 sqq.).

[1652] On Maximinus, see Bk. IV. chap. 24, note 6.

[1653] See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.

[1654] Caricus and Pontius (called Ponticus in this passage by most of
the mss. of Eusebius, but Pontius by one of the best of them, by
Nicephorus, Jerome, and Eusebius himself in Bk. VI. chap. 12, which
authorities are followed by Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen)
are called in Bk. VI. chap. 12, ekklesiastikous andras. They are
otherwise unknown personages. In that chapter the plural article t? is
used of the writing, or writings, addressed to Caricus and Pontius,
implying that hupomnemata is to be supplied. This seems to imply more
than one writing, but it is not necessary to conclude that more than
the single epistle mentioned here is meant, for the plural hupomnemata
was often used in a sort of collective sense to signify a collection of
notes, memoranda, &c.

[1655] This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sacr�, and, in English, in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775.

[1656] See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 5.

[1657] Valesius justly remarks that Eusebius does not say that these
bishops signed Serapion’s epistle, but only that their signatures or
notes (huposemeioseis) were contained in the epistle. He thinks it is
by no means probable that a bishop of Thrace (the nationality of the
other bishops we do not know) should have signed this epistle of
Serapion’s, and he therefore concludes that Serapion simply copies from
another epistle sent originally from Thrace. This is possible; but at
the end of the chapter Eusebius says that other bishops put in their
signatures or notes with their own hands (autographoi semeioseis),
which precludes the idea that Serapion simply copies their testimony
from another source, and if they signed thus it is possible that the
Thracian bishop did likewise. It may be that Serapion took pains to
compose a semi-official communication which should have the endorsement
of as many anti-Montanistic bishops as possible, and that, in order to
secure their signatures he sent it about from one to the other before
forwarding it to Caricus and Pontius.

[1658] Of this Aurelius Cyrenius we know nothing. It is possible that
he means to call himself simply a witness (martus) to the facts
recorded by Serapion in his epistle, but more probable that he uses the
word to indicate that he has ”witnessed for Christ” under persecution.

[1659] �lius Publius Julius is also an otherwise unknown personage.
Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western shore of
the Black Sea.

[1660] Lightfoot (Ignatius, II. 111) suggests that this Sotas (Sotas)
may be identical with the Zoticus (Zotikos) mentioned in the preceding
chapter, the interchange of the initial S and Z being very common. But
we learn from chap. 16 that Zoticus was bishop of Comana, so that he
can hardly be identified with Sotas, bishop of Anchialus.

Chapter XX.–The Writings of Iren�us against the Schismatics at Rome.

1. Iren�us [1661] wrote several letters against those who were
disturbing the sound ordinance of the Church at Rome. One of them was
to Blastus On Schism; [1662] another to Florinus On Monarchy, [1663] or
That God is not the Author of Evil. For Florinus seemed to be defending
this opinion. And because he was being drawn away by the error of
Valentinus, Iren�us wrote his work On the Ogdoad, [1664] in which he
shows that he himself had been acquainted with the first successors of
the apostles. [1665]

2. At the close of the treatise we have found a most beautiful note
which we are constrained to insert in this work. [1666] It runs as

”I adjure thee who mayest copy this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by his glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the dead,
to compare what thou shalt write, and correct it carefully by this
manuscript, and also to write this adjuration, and place it in the

3. These things may be profitably read in his work, and related by us,
that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best example
of painstaking carefulness.

4. In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, [1667] Iren�us
mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying:

”These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound
judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the
greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the
heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These
doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions
of the apostles, did not deliver to thee.

5. ”For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp,
moving in splendor in the royal court, [1668] and endeavoring to gain
his approbation.

6. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent
years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined
with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the
blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his
comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance,
and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his
intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as
he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the
Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received
them from eyewitnesses of the Word of life,’ [1669] Polycarp related
all things in harmony with the Scriptures.

7. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them
attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And
continually, through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am
able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic
presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and
stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good
God, unto what times hast thou spared me that I should endure these
things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or
standing, he had heard such words. [1670]

8. And this can be shown plainly from the letters [1671] which he sent,
either to the neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to some
of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.” Thus far Iren�us.

[1661] On Iren�us, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

[1662] Eusebius, in chap. 15, informs us that both Blastus and Florinus
drew many away from the church of Rome by their heretical innovations.
He does not tell us either there or here the nature of the opinions
which Blastus held, but from Pseudo-Tertullian’s Adv. omnes H�r. chap.
8, we learn that Blastus was a Quartodeciman. (”In addition to all
these, there is likewise Blastus, who would latently introduce Judaism.
For he says the passover is not to be kept otherwise than according to
the law of Moses, on the fourteenth of the month.”) From Pacianus’
Epistola ad Sympronian. de catholico nomine, chap. 2, we learn that he
was a Montanist; and since the Montanists of Asia Minor were, like the
other Christians of that region, Quartodecimans, it is not surprising
that Blastus should be at the same time a Montanist and a
Quartodeciman. Florinus, as will be shown in the next note, taught his
heresies while Victor was bishop of Rome (189-198 or 199); and since
Eusebius connects Blastus so closely with him, we may conclude that
Blastus flourished at about the same time. Iren�us’ epistle to Blastus,
On Schism, is no longer extant. A Syriac fragment of an epistle of
Iren�us, addressed to ”an Alexandrian,” on the paschal question
(Fragment 27 in Harvey’s edition) is possibly a part of this lost
epistle. If the one referred to in this fragment be Blastus, he was an
Alexandrian, and in that case must have adopted the Quartodeciman
position under the influence of the Asiatic Montanists, for the paschal
calendar of the Alexandrian church was the same as that of Rome (see
the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 264). If Blastus was a Montanist, as
stated by Pacianus, his heresy was quite different from that of
Florinus (who was a Gnostic); and the fact that they were leaders of
different heresies is confirmed by the words of Eusebius in chap. 15,
above: ”Each one striving to introduce his own innovations in respect
to the truth.” Whether Blastus, like Florinus, was a presbyter, and
like him was deposed from his office, we do not know, but the words of
Eusebius in chap. 15 seem to favor this supposition.

[1663] Florinus, as we learn from chap. 15, was for a time a presbyter
of the Roman Church, but lost his office on account of heresy. From the
fragment of this epistle of Iren�us to Florinus quoted by Eusebius just
below, we learn that Florinus was somewhat older than Iren�us, but like
him a disciple of Polycarp. The title of this epistle shows that
Florinus was already a Gnostic, or at least inclined toward Gnostic
views. Eusebius evidently had no direct knowledge of the opinions of
Florinus on the origin of evil, for he says that he appeared to
maintain (edokei proaspizein) the opinion that God was the author of
evil. Eusebius’ conclusion is accepted by most ancient and modern
writers, but it is suggested by Salmon (Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. 544)
that Eusebius was perhaps mistaken, ”for, since the characteristic of
dualism is not to make God the author of evil, but to clear him from
the charge by ascribing evil to an independent origin, the title would
lead us to think that the letter was directed, not against one who had
himself held God to be the author of evil, but against one who had
charged the doctrine of a single first principle with necessarily
leading to this conclusion. And we should have supposed that the object
of Iren�us was to show that it was possible to assert God to be the
sole origin and ruler of the universe, without holding evil to be his
work.” Since Eusebius had seen the epistle of Iren�us to Florinus, it
is difficult to understand how he can have misconceived Florinus’
position. At the same time, he does not state it with positiveness; and
the fact that Florinus, if not already, certainly was soon afterward a
Valentinian, and hence a dualist, makes Salmon’s supposition very
plausible. Florinus is not mentioned in Iren�us’ great work against
heresies, nor by Tertullian, Pseudo-Tertullian, Hippolytus, or
Epiphanius. It is probable, therefore, that he was not named in
Hippolytus’ earlier work, nor in the lectures of Iren�us which formed
the groundwork (see Salmon, l.c.). The silence of Iren�us is easily
explained by supposing Florinus’ fall into heresy to have taken place
after the composition of his lectures against heresies and of his great
work; and the silence of the later writers is probably due to the fact
that Iren�us’ work makes no mention of him and that, whatever his
influence may have been during his lifetime, it did not last, and hence
his name attracted no particular attention after his death. It has been
maintained by some (e.g. Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, 1875, p.
834) that this epistle to Florinus was one of the earliest of Iren�us’
writings but Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 263) has given other
and satisfactory reasons for thinking that Florinus’ heresy, and
therefore Iren�us’ epistle and his work On the Ogdoad, belonged to the
time of Victor, and hence were later than the work Against Heresies. A
Syriac fragment of an epistle concerning Florinus, addressed by Iren�us
to Victor (Harvey’s edition, Fragm. 28), is extant, and supports
Lipsius’ conclusion. It would seem that Iren�us, subsequent to the
writing of his great work, learning that Florinus was holding heretical
opinions on the origin of evil, addressed him the epistle mentioned in
this chapter. That afterward, Florinus having embraced Valentinianism,
and having written ”an abominable book” (as the fragment just referred
to says), Iren�us wrote his work On the Ogdoad, and subsequently
addressed his epistle to Victor, calling upon him to take decisive
measures against Florinus, now seen to be a regular heretic. What was
the result of Iren�us’ epistles and book we do not know; we hear
nothing more about the matter, nor do we know anything more about
Florinus (for Augustine’s mention of Florinus as the founder of a sect
of Floriniani is a mistake; see Salmon, l.c.).

[1664] This treatise, On the Ogdoad, is no longer extant, though it is
probable that we have a few fragments of it (see Harvey, I. clxvi.).
The importance which Iren�us attached to this work is seen from the
solemn adjuration with which he closed it. It must have been largely
identical in substance with the portions of his Adv. H�r. which deal
with the �ons of the Valentinians. It may have been little more than an
enlargement of those portions of the earlier work. The Ogdoad (Greek,
ogdoas, a word signifying primarily a thing in eight parts) occupied a
prominent place in the speculations of the Gnostics. Valentinus taught
eight primary �ons, in four pairs, as the root and origin of the other
�ons and of all beings. These eight he called the first or primary
Ogdoad; and hence a work upon the Ogdoad, written against a
Valentinian, must, of course, be a general discussion of the
Valentinian doctrine of the �ons. The word Ogdoad was not used by all
the Gnostics in the same sense. It was quite commonly employed to
denote the supercelestial region which lay above the seven planetary
spheres (or Hebdomad), and hence above the control of the seven angels
who severally presided over these spheres. In the Valentinian system a
higher sphere, the Pleroma, the abode of the �ons, was added, and the
supercelestial sphere, the Ogdoad of the other systems, was commonly
called the Mesotes. or middle region. For further particulars in regard
to the Ogdoad, see Salmon’s articles Hebdomad and Ogdoad in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog.

[1665] Literally, ”in which he shows that he himself had seized upon
(kateilephenai) the first succession (diadochen) of the apostles.” In
order to emphasize the fact that he was teaching true doctrine, he
pointed out, as he did so often elsewhere, the circumstance that he was
personally acquainted with disciples of the apostles.

[1666] It was not at all uncommon for copyists, both by accident and by
design, to make changes, often serious, in copying books. We have an
instance of intentional alterations mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23. It
is not at all strange, therefore, that such an adjuration should be
attached to a work which its author considered especially liable to
corruption, or whose accurate transcription be regarded as peculiarly
important. Compare the warning given in Rev. xxii. 18, 19. The
fragments from Iren�us’ works preserved in this chapter are translated
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 568 sq.

[1667] The epistle On Monarchy mentioned at the beginning of this

[1668] en te basilike aule. This expression is a little puzzling, as
the word basilike implies the imperial court, and could not properly be
used of the provincial court of the proconsul. No sojourn of an emperor
in Asia Minor is known which will meet the chronology of the case; and
hence Lightfoot (Contemporary Review May, 1875, p. 834) has offered the
plausible suggestion that the words may have been loosely employed to
denote the court of Titus Aurelius Fulvus, who was proconsul of Asia
about 136 a.d., and afterward became the emperor Antoninus Pius.

[1669] 1 John i. 1.

[1670] This would have been quite like Polycarp, who appears to have
had a special horror of heretics. Compare his words to Marcion, quoted
above, in Bk. IV. chap. 14. He seems to have inherited this horror from
John the apostle, if Iren�us’ account is to be believed; see Adv. H�r.
III. 3, 4, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28, and in Bk. IV.
chap. 14.

[1671] We know of only one epistle by Polycarp, that to the
Philippians, which is still extant. Upon his life and epistle, see Bk.
IV. chap. 14, notes 5 and 16.

Chapter XXI.–How Appolonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome.

1. About the same time, in the reign of Commodus, our condition became
more favorable, and through the grace of God the churches throughout
the entire world enjoyed peace, [1672] and the word of salvation was
leading every soul, from every race of man to the devout worship of the
God of the universe. So that now at Rome many who were highly
distinguished for wealth and family turned with all their household and
relatives unto their salvation.

2. But the demon who hates what is good, being malignant in his nature,
could not endure this, but prepared himself again for conflict,
contriving many devices against us. And he brought to the judgment seat
Apollonius, [1673] of the city of Rome, a man renowned among the
faithful for learning and philosophy, having stirred up one of his
servants, who was well fitted for such a purpose, to accuse him. [1674]

3. But this wretched man made the charge unseasonably, because by a
royal decree it was unlawful that informers of such things should live.
And his legs were broken immediately, Perennius the judge having
pronounced this sentence upon him. [1675]

4. But the martyr, highly beloved of God, being earnestly entreated and
requested by the judge to give an account of himself before the Senate,
made in the presence of all an eloquent defense of the faith for which
he was witnessing. And as if by decree of the Senate he was put to
death by decapitation; an ancient law requiring that those who were
brought to the judgment seat and refused to recant should not be
liberated. [1676] Whoever desires to know his arguments before the
judge and his answers to the questions of Perennius, and his entire
defense before the Senate will find them in the records of the ancient
martyrdoms which we have collected. [1677]

[1672] Marcia, concubine of Commodus, and possessed of great influence
over him, favored the Christians (according to Dion Cassius, LXII. 4),
and as a consequence they enjoyed comparative peace during his reign.

[1673] Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 42, and Epist. ad Magnum, 4) calls
Apollonius a Roman senator. It is possible that this is only a natural
conclusion drawn by Jerome from Eusebius’ statement that he defended
himself before the Senate; and this possibility might seem to be
strengthened by the fact that Eusebius does not call him a senator
here, as we should expect him to do if he knew him to be one. On the
other hand, it is highly probable (as shown in the next note) that
Jerome had read the fuller account of Apollonius’ martyrdom included by
Eusebius in his Collection of Martyrdoms, and hence it seems likely
that that account contained the statement that Apollonius was a
senator. Jerome makes Apollonius the author of an insigne volumen,
which he read in the Senate in defense of his faith; but there seems to
be no foundation for such a report. It is apparently the result simply
of a misunderstanding of the words of Eusebius, who states that
Apollonius delivered before the Senate a most eloquent defense of the
faith, but does not imply that he wrote an apology. The words that
Eusebius uses at the close of this chapter imply rather that the
defense made by Apollonius was recorded after its delivery, and that it
is this report of it which can be read in his Collection of Martyrdoms.

[1674] Jerome, followed by Sophronius, reports that the accusation
against Apollonius was brought by a slave. Jerome gives the slave’s
name as Severus (a servo Severo proditus); while Sophronius makes
Severus the name of the judge (para tou doulou para Sebero prodotheis
christianos einai). The latter is impossible, however, as the name of
the judge was Perennius according to Eusebius. Vallarsi states that
some mss. of Jerome read sub Commodo principe ac Severo proditus, and
supposes that ac Severo is a corruption for the words a servo (which he
thinks may have stood alone in the original text), and that some
student, perceiving the error, wrote upon the margin of his copy the
words a servo, and that subsequently the note crept into the text,
while the word Severo was still retained, thus producing our present
reading a servo Severo. This is an ingenious suggestion, but the fact
is overlooked that Sophronius undoubtedly read in the original
translated by him the words a servo Severo, for we can explain his
rendering only by supposing that he read thus, but understood the word
Severo as the dative of the indirect object after proditus, instead of
the ablative in apposition with servo. In the face of Sophronius’
testimony to the original form of the text, no alteration of the common
reading can be accepted. As to the source of Jerome’s Severus, since
there is nothing in the present chapter of Eusebius to suggest such an
addition, and no reason can be imagined for the independent insertion
of the name, the only legitimate conclusion seems to be, that the name
occurred in the account of Apollonius’ martyrdom referred to by
Eusebius just below, and that Jerome took it thence. If this be so,
then that martyrology must have been the authority also for Jerome’s
statement that Apollonius was accused by a slave; and hence the
statement may be accepted as true, and not as the result of a
misinterpretation of the reference of Eusebius’ words (hena ge tina ton
eis tauta epitedeion auto), as supposed by some. Since it is thus
almost certain that Jerome had himself examined the fuller account of
Apollonius’ martyrdom referred to by Eusebius, a favorable light is
thrown back upon his report that Apollonius was a senator, and it
becomes probable that he obtained this statement from the same source
(see the previous note).

[1675] M. de Mandajors, in his Histoire de l’Acad. des Inscript. tom.
18, p. 226 (according to Gieseler’s Ch. Hist., Harper’s edition, I. p.
127), ”thinks that the slave was put to death as the betrayer of his
master, according to an old law renewed by Trajan; but that the
occurrence had been misunderstood by the Christians, and had given rise
to the tradition, which is found in Tertullian and in the Edictum ad
Comm. Asi�, that an emperor at this period had decreed the punishment
of death for denouncing a Christian.” Such a law against the
denunciation of masters by slaves was passed under Nerva; but Gieseler
remarks that, in accordance with the principles of the laws upon this
subject, ”either Apollonius only, or his slave only, could have been
put to death, but in no case both. Jerome does not say either that
Severus was the slave of Apollonius, or that he was executed; and since
Eusebius grounds this execution expressly on a supposititious law, it
may have belonged only to the Oriental tradition, which may have
adduced this instance in support of the alleged law.” It is possible
that Gieseler is right in this conclusion; but it is also quite
possible that Eusebius’ statement that the slave was executed is
correct. The ground of the execution was, of course, not, as Eusebius
thinks, the fact that he brought an accusation against a Christian,
but, as remarked by de Mandajors, the fact that, being a slave, he
betrayed his master. Had the informant been executed because he brought
an accusation against a Christian, the subsequent execution of the
latter would be inexplicable. But it is conceivable that the prefect
Perennius may have sentenced the informant to death, in accordance with
the old law mentioned by de Mandajors, and that then, Apollonius being
a senator, he may have requested him to appear before that body, and
make his defense to them, in order that he might pass judgment upon him
in accordance with the decision of the Senate. It is quite conceivable
that, the emperor being inclined to favor the Christians, Perennius may
not have cared to pass judgment against Apollonius until he had learned
the opinion of the Senate on the matter (cf. what Neander has to say on
the subject, in his Ch. Hist.). As remarked by Valesius, the Senate was
not a judicial court, and hence could not itself sentence Apollonius;
but it could, of course, communicate to the prefect its opinion, and he
could then pass judgment accordingly. It is significant that the Greek
reads hosan apo dogmatos sunkletou, inserting the particle hos?n, ”as
if”; i.e. ”as if by decree of the Senate.”

[1676] Valesius thinks the reference here is to Pliny’s rescript to
Trajan (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33). This is possible, though the
language of Eusebius seems to imply a more general reference to all
kinds of cases, not simply to the cases of Christians.

[1677] On Eusebius’ great Collection of Martyrdoms, which is now lost,
see above, p. 30.

Chapter XXII.–The Bishops that were well known at this Time.

In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Victor [1678] succeeded
Eleutherus, [1679] the latter having held the episcopate for thirteen
years. In the same year, after Julian [1680] had completed his tenth
year, Demetrius [1681] received the charge of the parishes at
Alexandria. At this time the above-mentioned Serapion, [1682] the
eighth from the apostles, was still well known as bishop of the church
at Antioch. Theophilus [1683] presided at C�sarea in Palestine; and
Narcissus, [1684] whom we have mentioned before, still had charge of
the church at Jerusalem. Bacchylus [1685] at the same time was bishop
of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates [1686] of the parish of Ephesus.
And besides these a multitude of others, as is likely, were then
prominent. But we have given the names of those alone, the soundness of
whose faith has come down to us in writing.

[1678] The dates assigned to Victor’s episcopate by the ancient
authorities vary greatly. Eusebius here puts his accession in the tenth
year of Commodus (i.e. 189 a.d.), and this is accepted by Lipsius as
the correct date. Jerome’s version of the Chron. puts his accession in
the reign of Pertinax, or the first year of Septimius Severus (i.e.
193), while the Armenian version puts it in the seventh year of
Commodus (186). Eusebius, in his History, does not state directly the
duration of his episcopate, but in chap. 28 he says that Zephyrinus
succeded him about the ninth year of Severus, i.e. according to his
erroneous reckoning (see Bk. VI. chap. 21, note 3) about 200, which
would give Victor an episcopate of about eleven years. Jerome, in his
version of the Chron. and in his de vir. ill., assigns him ten years;
the Armenian version of the Chron. twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue
makes his episcopate something over nine years long; the Felician
Catalogue something over ten. Lipsius, considering Victor in connection
with his successors, concludes that he held office between nine and ten
years, and therefore gives as his dates 189-198 or 199 (see p. 172
sq.). According to an anonymous writer quoted in chap. 28, Victor
excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for teaching that Christ was a
mere man. He is best known, however, on account of his action in
connection with the great Quartodeciman controversy (see chap. 24).
Jerome, in his version of the Chron., says of him cujus mediocria de
religione extant volumina, and in his de vir. ill. chap. 34, he tells
us that he wrote upon the passover, and also some other works (super
qu�stione Pasch�, et alia qu�dam scribens opuscula). Harnack believes
that he has discovered one of these works (all of which have been
supposed lost) in the Pseudo-Cyprianic de Aleatoribus. In his Texte und
Unters. Bd. V. Heft 1, he has discussed the subject in a very learned
and ingenious manner. The theory has much to commend it, but there are
difficulties in its way which have not yet been removed; and I am
inclined to think it a product of the first half of the third century,
rather than of the last quarter of the second (see the writer’s review
of Harnack’s discussion in the Presbyterian Review, Jan., 1889, p. 143

[1679] On Eleutherus, see the Introduction to this book, note 2. As
remarked there, Eleutherus, according to the testimony of most of our
sources, held office fifteen years. The ”thirteen years” of this
chapter are therefore an error, clearly caused by the possession on the
part of Eusebius of a trustworthy tradition that he died in the tenth
year of Commodus, which, since he incorrectly put his accession into
the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (or Antoninus Verus, as he
calls him), made it necessary for him to draw the false conclusion that
he held office only thirteen years.

[1680] On Julian, bishop of Alexandria, see chap. 9, note 2.

[1681] The date of the accession of Demetrius, the eleventh bishop of
Alexandria, as given here and in the Chron., was 189 a.d. According to
Bk. VI. chap. 26, below, confirmed by the Chron., he held office
forty-three years. There is no reason for doubting the approximate
accuracy of these dates. Demetrius is known to us chiefly because of
his relations to Origen, which were at first friendly, but finally
became hostile. He seems to have been a man of great energy, renowned
as an administrator rather than as a literary character. He was greatly
interested in the catechetical school at Alexandria, but does not seem
to have taught in it, and he left no writings, so far as we know. His
relations with Origen will come up frequently in the Sixth Book, where
he is mentioned a number of times (see especially chap. 8, note 4).

[1682] On Serapion, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 19.

[1683] Theophilus, bishop of C�sarea, has gained prominence chiefly on
account of his connection with the paschal controversy. He presided
with Narcissus over the council mentioned in the next chapter, which
was called to consider the paschal question, and in conjunction with
the other bishops present composed an epistle, which was still extant
in Eusebius’ time (according to the next chapter), and of which he
gives a fragment in chap. 25. Jerome, in his de vir. ill. c. 43, speaks
very highly of this epistle (synodicam valde utilem composuit
epistolam); but it seems to have been no longer extant in his time, for
in mentioning it and the epistle of Bacchylus of Corinth and others in
his Chron., he says that the memory of them still endured (quarum
memoria ad nos usque perdurat). The dates of Theophilus’ accession to
office and of his death are not known to us.

[1684] On Narcissus, see above, chap. 12.

[1685] This Bacchylus is possibly identical with the Bacchylides who is
mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23 as one of those who had urged Dionysius,
bishop of Corinth, to write a certain epistle. Bacchylus also is
prominent solely on account of his connection with the paschal
controversy. According to the next chapter, he was himself the author
of an epistle on the subject, which he wrote, according to Jerome (de
vir. ill. c. 44), in the name of all the bishops of Achaia (ex omnium
qui in Achaia erant episcoporum persona). But the words of Eusebius
seem to imply that the epistle was an individual, not a synodical one,
for he does not say, ”an epistle of those in,” &c., as he does in every
other case. We must conclude, therefore, that Jerome, who had not seen
the epistle, was mistaken in making it a synodical letter. Jerome
characterizes it as an elegant composition (elegantem librum); but,
like the epistle of Theophilus, mentioned in the preceding note, it
seems not to have been extant in Jerome’s time. The dates of Bacchylus’
accession to office and of his death are not known to us.

[1686] Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, is one of the most noted men
connected with the paschal controversy, for the reason that he was the
leader of the bishops of the province of Asia, in which province alone
the Quartodeciman practice was uniformly observed. He was thus the
leading opponent of Bishop Victor of Rome. His relation to the paschal
controversy is brought out more fully in chap. 24. The dates of
Polycrates’ accession to office and of his death are not known to us;
though, of course, with Theophilus, Narcissus, Bacchylus, and the other
bishops concerned in the paschal controversy, he flourished during the
reign of Septimius Severus, while Victor was bishop of Rome. The only
writing of Polycrates of which we know is his epistle to Victor, a
portion of which is quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. III. chap. 31, and a
still larger portion in chap. 24 of this book. Jerome, in his de vir.
ill. c. 45 speaks in terms of the highest praise of Polycrates, and
quotes from Eusebius the larger fragment, given in chap. 24, adding,
H�c propterea posui, ut ingenium et auctoritatem viri ex parvo opusculo
demonstrarem. The fact that he quotes only the passages given by
Eusebius would be enough to show that he quoted from Eusebius, and not
directly from Polycrates, even were it not plain from the statement in
his Chron., referred to in note 6, that Polycrates’ epistle was, so far
as Jerome knew, no longer extant. Polycrates himself informs us, in the
second fragment given in chap. 24, that he wrote his epistle with the
consent and approval of all the bishops present at the council summoned
by him to discuss the paschal question. The fact that both Eusebius and
Jerome praise Polycrates so highly, and testify to his orthodoxy, shows
how completely the paschal question had been buried before their time,
and how little the Quartodeciman practice was feared.

Chapter XXIII.–The Question then agitated concerning the Passover.

1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the
parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the
fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to
sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s
passover. [1687] It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that
day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not
the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this
time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition,
has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other
day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.

2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, [1688]
and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an
ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord
should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should
observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still
extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over
whom Theophilus, [1689] bishop of C�sarea, and Narcissus, bishop of
Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those
who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears
the name of Bishop Victor; [1690] also of the bishops in Pontus over
whom Palmas, [1691] as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in
Gaul of which Iren�us was bishop, and of those in Osrho�ne [1692] and
the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, [1693] bishop of
the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same
opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

[1687] The great question of dispute between the church of Asia Minor
and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal communion should be
celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the Sunday of the
resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chronology. The
Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of the apostles,
John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the Church, celebrated
the Christian passover always on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day
of the week that might be, by a solemn fast, and closed the day with
the communion in commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ.
The Roman church, on the other hand, followed by all the rest of
Christendom, celebrated the death of Christ always on Friday, and his
resurrection on the Sunday following the first full moon after the
vernal equinox, and continued their paschal fast until the latter day.
It thus happened that the fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating,
as it did, with the fourteenth of Nisan, often closed some days before
the fast of the other churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned
great scandal. As Schaff says: ”The gist of the paschal controversy was
whether the Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the Christian
Sunday should control the idea and time of the entire festival.” The
former practice emphasized Christ’s death; the latter his resurrection.
The first discussion of the question took place between Polycarp and
Anicetus, bishop of Rome, when the former was on a visit to that city,
between 150 and 155. Iren�us gives an account of this which is quoted
by Eusebius in chap. 25. Polycarp clung to the Asiatic practice of
observing the 14th of Nisan, but could not persuade Anicetus to do the
same, nor could Anicetus persuade him not to observe that day. They
nevertheless communed together in Rome, and separated in peace. About
170 a.d. the controversy broke out again in Laodicea, the chief
disputants being Melito of Sardis and Apolinarius of Hierapolis (see
above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1, and chap. 27, note 1). In this
controversy Melito advocated the traditional Asiatic custom of
observing the fourteenth day, while Apolinarius opposed it. To
distinguish two parties of Quartodecimans,–a Judaizing and a more
orthodox,–as must be done if Apolinarius is regarded, as he is by
many, as a Quartodeciman, is, as Schaff shows entirely unwarranted. We
know only of the one party, and Apolinarius did not belong to it. The
third stage of the controversy, which took place while Victor was
bishop of Rome, in the last decade of the second century, was much more
bitter and important. The leaders of the two sides were Polycrates,
bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, bishop of Rome,–the latter an
overbearing man, who believed that he, as Bishop of Rome, had a right
to demand of all other churches conformity to the practices of his own
church. The controversy came to an open rupture between the churches of
Asia and that of Rome, but other churches did not sympathize with the
severe measures of Victor, and the breach was gradually healed–just
how and when we do not know; but the Roman practice gradually prevailed
over the Asiatic, and finally, at the Council of Nic�a (325), was
declared binding upon the whole Church, while the old Asiatic practice
was condemned. This decision was acquiesced in by the bishops of Asia,
as well as by the rest of the world, and only scattered churches
continued to cling to the practice of the earlier Asiatics, and they
were branded as heretics, and called Quartodecimanians (from quarta
decima), a name which we carry back and apply to all who observed the
fourteenth day, even those of the second and third centuries. This
brief summary will enable us better to understand the accounts of
Eusebius, who is our chief authority on the subject. The paschal
controversy has had an important bearing upon the question of the
authenticity of the fourth Gospel, the T�bingen critics having drawn
from this controversy one of their strongest arguments against its
genuineness. This subject cannot be discussed here, but the reader is
referred, for a brief statement of the case, to Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II.
219. The Johannine controversy has given rise to an extensive
literature on these paschal disputes. Among the most important’ works
are Hilgenfeld’s Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche nach seiner
Bedeutung fur die Kirchengesch. u. s. w.; and Sch�rer’s Die
Paschastreitigkeiten des zweiten Jahrhunderts, in the Zeitschrift f�r
hist. Theologie, 1870, p. 182-284,–the latter perhaps the ablest
extended discussion of the subject extant. The reader is also referred
to the article Easter, in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Ant.; to Hefele’s
Conciliengesch. I. p. 86-101; and especially to the chapter on the
paschal controversies in Schaff’s Ch. Hist. Vol. II. p. 209-220. This
chapter of Schaff’s is the clearest, and, in the opinion of the writer,
by far the most satisfactory, brief statement of the whole subject
which we have.

[1688] Although other synods are mentioned by the Libellus synodicus
(of the ninth century), the only ones which we have good reason for
accepting are those mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter and the next;
viz. one in Palestine (the Libellus synodicus gives two: one at
Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and another at C�sarea, presided
over by Theophilus, but the report is too late to be of authority); one
in Pontus, under the presidency of Palmas; one in Gaul, under Iren�us;
one in Osrho�ne in Mesopotamia; and one in Asia Minor, under
Polycrates. Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 101) adds one in Rome under
Victor; and although Eusebius does not distinctly mention such a synod,
we are undoubtedly to conclude that the epistle written by Victor was a
synodical epistle and hence Hefele is, in all probability, correct in
assuming that some kind of a synod, whether municipal or provincial,
took place there at this time (see note 4). From the words of Eusebius
at the close of the chapter, we may gather that still other synods than
those mentioned by him were held on this subject. The date of all of
these councils is commonly given as 198 a.d., but there is no
particular authority for that year. Jerome’s version of the Chron.
assigns the composition of the various epistles to the fourth year of
Septimius Severus (196-197); but it is clear that he is giving only an
approximate date. We can say only that the synods took place sometime
during Victor’s episcopate. All the councils, as we learn from this
chapter, except the one under Polycrates in Asia Minor, decided against
the Quartodeciman practice. Athanasius, however (de Syn. c. 5), speaks
of Christians of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia as celebrating the
paschal feast on the fourteenth day; and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 35)
says that many bishops of Asia and of the Orient kept up this
observance. It is possible that the practice was from the beginning
more widely spread than Eusebius supposed, or, what is more probable,
that the words of Athanasius and Jerome refer to individual churches
and bishops, whose observance of the fourteenth day was not general
enough to invalidate what Eusebius says of the common consent of the
whole Church, outside of Asia Minor, against the Quartodeciman
practice, and that this individual observance, not being officially
recognized by any synod, did not seem to him to require mention.

[1689] On Theophilus and Narcissus, see the preceding chapter, notes 6
and 7.

[1690] episkopon biktora delousa. This and the following epistles are
no longer extant, nor have we any fragments of them. They seem to have
disappeared, even before Jerome’s time; at least, he speaks only of the
memory of them as remaining to his day (see chap. 22, note 6).
Heinichen is certainly wrong in making this epistle an individual
letter from Victor alone, for Eusebius expressly says that the epistle
was from ”those at Rome” (ton epi Romes), which seems to imply a
council, as in the other cases. The grammatical construction naturally
leads us to supply with the ton the word used with it in the previous
sentence, sunkekrotemenon,–”those who were assembled.” Valesius,
Hefele, and others are, therefore, quite justified in assuming that,
according to Eusebius, a synod met at Rome, also, at this time.

[1691] Palmas, bishop of Amastris, in Pontus, mentioned by Dionysius,
in Bk. IV. chap. 23, above.

[1692] Osrho�ne was a region of country in northwestern Mesopotamia.

[1693] This epistle of Bacchylus is distinguished from the preceding
ones by the fact that it is not a synodical or collective epistle but
the independent production of one man, if Eusebius’ report is correct
(see the preceding chapter, note 8). The epistles ”of many others,”
mentioned in the next sentence, may have been of the same kind.

[1694] Namely, against the observance of the fourteenth day.

Chapter XXIV.–The Disagreement in Asia.

1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the
old custom handed down to them. [1695] He himself, in a letter which he
addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following
words the tradition which had come down to him: [1696]

2. ”We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in
Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on
the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from
heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one
of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged
virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit
and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness
and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a
priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.

4. And Polycarp [1697] in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and
Thraseas, [1698] bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in

5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris [1699] who fell
asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, [1700] or Melito, [1701]
the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in
Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from
the dead?

6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to
the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.
[1702] And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to
the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed.
For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my
relatives always observed the day when the people [1703] put away the

7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord,
and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone
through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words.
For those greater than I have said We ought to obey God rather than
man.'” [1704]

8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and
thought as he did. His words are as follows:

”I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your
desire; [1705] whose names, should I write them, would constitute a
great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent
to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but
had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.”

9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately
attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia,
with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote
letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to
consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words
of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

11. Among them was Iren�us, who, sending letters in the name of the
brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of
the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day.
He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole
churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and
after many other words he proceeds as follows: [1707]

12. ”For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also
concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should
fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their
day as consisting of forty hours day and night. [1708]

13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time;
but long before in that of our ancestors. [1709] It is likely that they
did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their
posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all
of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with
one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the
agreement in the faith.”

14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:

”Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the
church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus,
and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it [1710]
themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet
though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those
who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although
this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.

15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the
presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to
those of other parishes who observed it. [1712]

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome [1713] in the time of
Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they
immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over
this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to
observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord,
and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could
Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to
follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and
Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to
Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. [1714] And they parted from
each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not,
maintaining the peace of the whole church.”

18. Thus Iren�us, who truly was well named, [1715] became a peacemaker
in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the
peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted
question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers
of the churches. [1716]

[1695] For a general account of the paschal controversy, see the
preceding chapter, note 1. On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9.

[1696] A part of this passage from Polycrates’ epistle is quoted in Bk.
III. chap. 31. The extract given there begins with the second sentence
of the fragment (”For in Asia great lights,” &c.), and extends to the
report of John’s burial at Ephesus. For comments upon this portion of
the fragment, see the notes given there.

[1697] On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.

[1698] This Thraseas, said by Polycrates to have been bishop of Eumenia
(a city in the southern part of Phrygia), was mentioned also by
Apollonius in his work against the Montanists (according to Eusebius,
chap. 18, �13, of this book). He is called by Polycrates a martyr, and
by Eusebius, in reference to Apollonius’ mention of him, ”one of the
martyrs of that time.” There is no reason to doubt that he was a
martyr, in the full sense, as Polycarp was; but upon the more general
use of the word m?rtus as, e.g., in connection with John just above,
see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15. We know nothing more about this bishop

[1699] On Sagaris, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 22.

[1700] Polycrates does not call Papirius a bishop or a martyr, and we
know nothing about him. Simeon Metaphrastes, upon whose reports little
reliance can be placed, in his life of Polycarp (according to
Valesius), makes Papirius a successor of Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna.

[1701] On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.

[1702] A careful exegesis of the passages in John’s Gospel, which are
supposed by some to contradict the synoptic account, and to put
Christ’s death on the fourteenth day of Nisan instead of on the
fifteenth, shows that John agrees with the Synoptists in putting the
passover meal on the fourteenth and the death of Christ on the
fifteenth (see Schaff’s Ch. Hist. Vol. I. p. 133 ff., and the
authorities referred to by him). The Asiatic churches, in observing the
fourteenth of Nisan, were commemorating the last passover feast and the
death of the paschal Lamb. Their practice did not imply that they
believed that Christ died on the fourteenth (as can be seen from
fragments of Apolinarius’ work quoted in the Chron. Paschale, and
referred to above; see, also, Schaff, Vol. II. p. 214). They were in
full agreement with all four Gospels in putting his death on the
fifteenth. But the paschal controversy did not hinge on the day of the
month on which Christ died,–in regard to which there was no widespread
disagreement,–but on the question as to whether a particular day of
the week or of the month was to be celebrated.

[1703] i.e. the Jews. The passover feast among the Jews took place on
the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and was eaten with unleavened
bread (Ex. xii. 6 et passim). It was on the fourteenth of Nisan,
therefore, that the Jews ”threw away” the leaven, and until the evening
of the twenty-first, when the seven days’ feast of unleavened bread
closed, they used no leaven.

[1704] Acts v. 29.

[1705] According to this, the Asiatic Council was summoned at the
request of Victor of Rome, and in all probability this was the case
with all the councils referred to in the last chapter.

[1706] There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor
actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do
so. Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them,
but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it. For my part, I
cannot understand that Eusebius’ words mean anything else than that he
did actually cut off communion with them. The Greek reads akoinonetous
p?ntas arden tous ekeise anakerutton adelphous. This seems to me

[1707] This epistle is no longer extant, but in addition to the
fragments given in this chapter by Eusebius, a few other extracts from
it are found in other writers; thus, in the Pseudo-Justinian Qu�stiones
et responsa ad orthodoxos occurs a quotation from Iren�us’ work On
Easter (peri tou p?scha), which is doubtless to be identified with this
epistle to Victor (ed. Harvey, Gr�c. fragm. 7; Eng. translation in
Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 569). Maximus of Turin, also, in his Sermo
VII. de Eleemos., gives a brief quotation from ”The epistle to Victor”
(Harvey, Gr�c. fragm. 5, trans. ibid.). It is possible that some other
unnamed fragments given by Harvey are from this epistle. From Eusebius’
words we learn that Iren�us agreed with Victor as to the proper time of
keeping the feast, and yet he did not agree with him in his desire to
excommunicate those who followed the other practice.

[1708] The punctuation of this sentence is a disputed matter. Some
editors omit the semicolon after the words ”yet others more,”
translating, ”For some think that they should fast one day, others two,
yet others more, and some forty; and they count the hours of the day
and night together as their day.” The sense is thus materially changed,
but the Greek seems to necessitate rather the punctuation which I have
followed in my translation, and so that punctuation is adopted by
Valesius, Zimmermann, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, Heinichen, Closs,
Crus�, and others. We should expect, moreover, that the forty hours’
fast should be mentioned in this connection by Iren�us, as we learn
from Tertullian that it was very common; whereas we have no other trace
of the forty days’ fast at so early a date (cf. the next note).

[1709] The fast preceding the celebration of the paschal supper, which
has grown gradually into our Lent of forty days preceding Easter, is,
we are told here by Iren�us, much older than his day. It is thus
carried back at least close to apostolic times, and there is no reason
to think that it was not observed about as soon as the celebration of
the paschal supper itself was established. Tertullian also mentions the
fast, which continued, according to him (de Jejunio, chap. 2), during
the period ”in which the bridegroom was taken away,” i.e. in which
Jesus was under the power of death. We learn from this passage of
Iren�us’ epistle that the duration of the fast varied greatly. From
Socrates (H. E. V. 22) and Sozomen (H. E. VII. 19) we learn that the
variation was as great in their time. Some fasted three, some six, some
seven weeks, and so on. Socrates (l.c.) informs us that the fast,
whatever its duration, was always called tessarakoste (quadrigesima).
He does not know why this is, but says that various reasons are given
by others. The time between Jesus’ death and his resurrection was very
early computed as forty hours in length,–from noon of Friday to four
o’clock Sunday morning. This may have lain at the basis of the number
forty, which was so persistently used to designate the fast, for
Tertullian tells us that the fast was intended to cover the period
during which Jesus was dead. It is this idea which undoubtedly underlay
the fast of forty hours which Iren�us mentions. The fasts of Moses, of
Elijah, and of Jesus in the desert would also of course have great
influence in determining the length of this, the most important fast of
the year. Already before the end of the third century the fast had
extended itself in many quarters to cover a number of weeks, and in the
time of Eusebius the forty days’ fast had already become a common thing
(see his de Pasch. chap. 5), and even Origen refers to it (Hom. in Lev.
X. 2). The present duration of the fast–forty days exclusive of
Sundays–was fixed in the seventh or eighth century. Cf. Sinker’s
article on Lent in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Ant. and Krieg’s article,
Feste, in Kraus’ Encyclop. der Christ. Alterth�mer, I. p. 489.

[1710] i.e. the fourteenth day.

[1711] The Greek reads: kai toi mallon enantion en to terein tois me
terousi. The meaning is, that the observance of the fourteenth day by
these strangers in Rome itself, among those who did not observe that
day, would be noticeable and more distasteful than the mere report that
the day was so observed in Asia could be. If Victor’s predecessor,
therefore, allowed such persons to observe that day even in Rome, how
much more should he allow the Asiatics to observe it in their own land.

[1712] Valesius, followed by others, interprets this sentence as
meaning that the presbyters of Rome sent the eucharist to other
parishes where the paschal festival was observed on the fourteenth of
the month. The council of Laodicea (Can. 14) forbade the sending of the
eucharist to other parishes, which shows that the custom must have been
widespread before the end of the fourth century, and it is therefore
quite possible that the bishops of Rome, even as early as the time of
Iren�us, pursued the same practice. But in regard to the statement made
here by Iren�us, it must be said that, so far as we are able to
ascertain, only the churches of Asia Minor observed the fourteenth day
at that early date, and it is difficult to imagine that the presbyters
of Rome before Victor’s time had been in the habit of sending the
eucharist all the way from Rome to Asia Minor. Moreover, this is the
only passage in which we have notice, before the fourth century, of the
existence of the general practice condemned by the council of Laodicea.
The Greek reads hoi pro sou presbuteroi tois apo ton paroikion terousin
?pempon eucharistian. These words taken by themselves can as well, if
not better, be understood of persons (whether presbyters or others is
not in any case distinctly stated) who had come to Rome from other
parishes, and who continued to observe the fourteenth day. This
transmission of the eucharist to communicants who were kept away from
the service by illness or other adequate cause was a very old custom,
being mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apol. I. 65. It is true that it
is difficult to understand why Iren�us should speak in the present case
of sending the eucharist to those persons who observed the fourteenth
day, instead of merely mentioning the fact that the Roman church
communed with them. In the face of the difficulties on both sides it
must be admitted that neither of the interpretations mentioned can be
insisted upon. On the practice of sending the eucharistic bread to
persons not present at the service or to other parishes, see the
article Eulogia, in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Ant.

[1713] epidemesantos te Rome. Upon the significance of this phrase, see
Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 19. On the date of Polycarp’s visit to Rome, see
ibid., chap. 14, note 2. In his Adv. H�r., where he mentions this visit
(as quoted in chap. 14), Iren�us does not speak of the affair of the
passover which he refers to here. The omission, however, has no
significance, as he is discussing Gnosticism there, and refers to
Polycarp’s visit to Rome only because his attitude toward Marcion was
revealed in connection with it.

[1714] The meaning of this passage has been disputed. The Greek reads:
kai en te ekklesi& 139; parechoresen ho ‘Aniketos ten eucharistian to
Poluk?rpo kat’ entropen delonoti. Valesius understands Iren�us’ meaning
to be that Anicetus invited Polycarp to administer the eucharist in
Rome; and this is the common interpretation of the passage. Heinichen
objects, however, that parechoresen ten eucharistian cannot refer to
the administration of the sacrament, and hence concludes that Iren�us
means simply to say that Anicetus permitted Polycarp to partake of the
eucharist in his church, thereby proclaiming publicly their fraternal
fellowship, in spite of their differences on the paschal question. The
common interpretation, however, seems to the writer better than
Heinichen’s; for if the latter be adopted, the sentence in question
says no more than the one which precedes it,–”they communed with each
other” (ekoinonesan heautois). And moreover, as Valesius remarks,
Anicetus would in that case have shown Polycarp no more honor than any
other Christian pilgrim who might happen to be in Rome. Iren�us seems
to intend to say that Anicetus showed Polycarp especial honor, and that
in spite of their difference of opinion on the paschal question. But
simply to have allowed Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in the
church would certainly have been no honor, and, on the other hand, not
to invite him to assist in the administration of the sacrament might
have seemed a sign of disrespect, and have emphasized their
differences. The old interpretation, therefore, must be followed, and
so far as the Greek is concerned, there is no difficulty about the
construction. In the parechoresen resides the idea of ”yielding,”
”giving place to”; and so Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the eucharist,
or gave place to him in the matter of the eucharist. This in fact
brings out the force of the parechoresen better than Heinichen’s

[1715] The Greek form of the name is Eirenaios, from eirene, which
means ”peace.”

[1716] None of these epistles are extant; but it is possible that some
of the fragments commonly assigned to Iren�us’ epistle to Victor may
belong to one or more of them (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p.
265). We do not know to what bishops or churches these epistles were
sent. Jerome does not mention them.

Chapter XXV.–How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.

1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and
Theophilus, [1717] and with them Cassius, [1718] bishop of the church
of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with
them, [1719] having stated many things respecting the tradition
concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the
apostles, at the close of their writing add these words: [1720]

2. ”Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may
not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show
you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we
do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so
that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”

[1717] In chaps. 22 and 23. For particulars in regard to them, see
chap. 22, notes 6 and 7.

[1718] Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men.

[1719] i.e. in the Palestinian council mentioned in chap. 23. Upon this
and the other councils held at the same period, see chap. 23, note 2.

[1720] This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, Rel. Sac.
II. p. 3 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p.

[1721] These epistles, like all the rest written at this time on the
paschal question, are now lost (see chap. 23, note 4).

Chapter XXVI.–The Elegant Works of Iren�us which have come down to us.

Besides the works and letters of Iren�us which we have mentioned,
[1722] a certain book of his On Knowledge, written against the Greeks,
[1723] very concise and remarkably forcible, is extant; and another,
which he dedicated to a brother Marcian, In Demonstration of the
Apostolic Preaching; [1724] and a volume containing various
Dissertations, [1725] in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews
and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, making quotations from them. These
are the works of Iren�us which have come to our knowledge.

Commodus having ended his reign after thirteen years, Severus became
emperor in less than six months after his death, Pertinax having
reigned during the intervening time. [1726]

[1722] For a general summary of the works of Iren�us mentioned by
Eusebius, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

[1723] pros Ellenas logos…peri epistemes. Jerome (de vir. ill. 35)
makes two works out of this: one Against the Gentiles, and another On
Knowledge (et contra Gentes volumen breve, et de disciplina aliud).
Harvey (I. p. clxvi.) states that one of the Syriac fragments of
Iren�us’ works mentions the work of Eusebius On Knowledge, and
specifies that it was directed against the Valentinians. In that case
it would be necessary to make two separate works, as Jerome does, and
so Harvey thinks that the text of Eusebius must be amended by the
insertion of an allos te. Unfortunately, Harvey did not name the Syriac
fragment which contains the statement referred to, and it is not to be
found among those collected in his edition (Venables, in Smith and
Wace, states that he could find no such fragment, and I have also
searched in vain for it). Evidently some blunder has been committed,
and it looks as if Harvey’s statement were unverifiable. Meanwhile,
Jerome’s testimony alone is certainly not enough to warrant an
emendation of the text in opposition to all the mss. and versions. We
must therefore conclude, with our present light, that the treatise peri
epistemes was directed against the Greeks, as Eusebius says. The work
has entirely perished, with the possible exception of a single brief
fragment (the first of the Pfaffian fragments; Gr. Frag. XXXV. in
Harvey’s edition), which Harvey refers to it.

[1724] eis epideixin tou apostolikou kerugmatos. This work, too, has
perished, though possibly a few of the fragments published by Harvey
are to be referred to it (see Harvey, I. p. clxvii.). Harvey
conjectures that the work discussed the articles of the early Rule of
faith, which is quite possible. Of the ”brother Marcian” to whom it was
addressed, we know nothing.

[1725] biblion ti dialexeon diaphoron. This work (no longer extant) was
probably, as Harvey remarks, ”a collection of sermons and expositions
of various texts and passages of Scripture.” To it are undoubtedly to
be referred a great many of the fragments in which passages of
Scripture are discussed (see Harvey, I. p. clxvii.).

[1726] Commodus was strangled on the 31st of December, 192, and
Pertinax, who immediately succeeded him, was murdered, on March 28,
193, by the Pr�torian guard, which then sold the imperial power to
Didius Julianus, who, at the approach of Septimius Severus, who had
been proclaimed emperor by the Pannonian legions, was declared a public
enemy by the Senate, and beheaded after a reign of only sixty-six days.

Chapter XXVII.–The Works of Others that flourished at that Time.

Numerous memorials of the faithful zeal of the ancient ecclesiastical
men of that time are still preserved by many. Of these we would note
particularly the writings of Heraclitus [1727] On the Apostle, and
those of Maximus on the question so much discussed among heretics, the
Origin of Evil, and on the Creation of Matter. [1728] Also those of
Candidus on the Hex�meron, [1729] and of Apion [1730] on the same
subject; likewise of Sextus [1731] on the Resurrection, and another
treatise of Arabianus, [1732] and writings of a multitude of others, in
regard to whom, because we have no data, it is impossible to state in
our work when they lived, or to give any account of their history.
[1733] And works of many others have come down to us whose names we are
unable to give, orthodox and ecclesiastical, as their interpretations
of the Divine Scriptures show, but unknown to us, because their names
are not stated in their writings. [1734]

[1727] This Heraclitus is mentioned only by Eusebius and by Jerome (de
vir. ill. chap. 46), who, in his description of him and in the five
following chapters (on Maximus, Candidus, Apion, Sextus, and
Arabianus), does nothing more than repeat the words of Eusebius in this
chapter. The work which Eusebius calls ta Erakleitou eis ton apostolon
is called by Jerome in apostolum Commentarios. The word apostolos was
quite commonly used among the Fathers to denote the epistles of Paul
(see Suicer’s Thesaurus), and hence Eusebius seems here to refer to
commentaries (the plural article ta is used) on the Pauline epistles.
These commentaries are no longer extant, and we know nothing of their

[1728] The Greek reads kai ta Maximou peri tou poluthruletou para tois
hairesiotais zetematos, tou pothen he kakia, kai peri tou geneten
hup?rchein ten hulen. The plural ta (sc. hupomnemata) might lead us to
suppose Eusebius refers here to separate works, were it not for the
fact that in his Pr�p. Evang. VII. 22 is found a long extract from a
work of Maximus On Matter (peri tes hules) in which the subject of the
origin of evil is discussed in connection with the origin and nature of
matter. In that age one could hardly discuss the origin of evil without
at the same time discussing matter, to which the origin of evil was
referred by the great majority of the ancients. We are to suppose,
then, that the work of Maximus bore the double title given by Eusebius
in this chapter. Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 47, says:
Maximus…famosam qu�stionem insigni volumine ventilavit, unde malum,
et quod materia a Deo facta sit. As remarked above, a long extract,
which must have been taken from this work, is given by Eusebius in his
Pr�p. Evang. It appears from this extract that the work was written in
the form of a dialogue between three speakers,–two inquirers, and one
orthodox Christian. The same fragment of Maximus’ work is found also in
the twenty-fourth chapter of the Philocalia of Origen, and is said by
the editors, Gregory and Basil, to have been copied by them from
Eusebius’ work. The Dialogue on Free Will, ascribed to Methodius (of
the early part of the fourth century), made large use of this work of
Maximus; and the same is to be said of the Pseudo-Origenistic Dialogue
against the Marcionites, though according to Routh (Rel. Sac. II. p.
79) the latter drew his quotations from Methodius and not directly from
Maximus. The work of Methodius undoubtedly contains much more of
Maximus’ work than is given here by Eusebius; but it is difficult to
ascertain what is his own and what belongs to Maximus, and Routh, in
publishing the fragments of Maximus’ work (ibid. p. 87-107), gives only
the extract quoted by Eusebius. In his Pr�p. Evang. Eusebius speaks of
Maximus as tes christou diatribes ouk asemos aner, but we know no more
about him than has been already indicated. Gallandius suggests that he
may be identical with Maximus, the twenty-sixth bishop of Jerusalem
(see above, chap. 12), who, it is quite probable, lived about this time
(cf. Eusebius’ Chron., year of Abr. 2202). But Eusebius, neither in
this chapter nor in his Pr�p. Evang., calls Maximus a bishop, and it
seems proper to conclude that he at least did not know that he was a
bishop; and hence Gallandius’ conjecture, which rests only upon
agreement in a very common name, must be pronounced quite baseless.

[1729] eis ten hexaemeron (sc. kosmopoiian or demiourgian). The
adjective hexaemeros was commonly used in this way, with the feminine
article, implying a noun understood, and referring to the six days’
work of creation (see Suicer’s Thesaurus). The subject was quite a
favorite one with the Fathers. Hippolytus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa,
Ambrose, and others wrote upon it, as did also the Apion mentioned in
the next sentence. The work of Candidus is no longer extant, nor do we
know anything more about it and its author than Eusebius tells us here.
The plural ta occurs again, and Jerome supplies tractatus. Whether the
word fitly describes the work, or works, or whether they were rather of
the nature of homilies, like Basil’s, we do not know. Sophronius, in
translating Jerome, puts homilias for tractatus, but this of course is
of no authority.

[1730] Apion’s work is mentioned also by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 4),
but nothing is added to the statement of Eusebius. We know nothing more
about him or his work.

[1731] Sextus also is mentioned by Jerome, in his de vir. ill. chap.
50, but we know nothing about him or his work, except what Eusebius
tells us here.

[1732] Nothing more is known of this Arabianus, and Eusebius does not
even tell us the name of his work. His silence is difficult to explain.
We can hardly imagine that the title was intentionally omitted; for had
there been a reason for such a course, there must have been as much
reason for omitting the writer’s name also. It does not seem probable
that he had never known the title of the book, for he was not in the
habit of mentioning works which he had not seen, except with the
formula logos ?chei, or something of the kind, to indicate that he
makes his statement only on the authority of others. It is possible
that he had seen this, with the other works mentioned (perhaps all
bound in one volume), at sometime in the past, but that the title of
Arabianus’ work had escaped him, and hence he simply mentioned the work
along with the others, without considering the title a matter of great
importance. He speaks of but a single work,–alle tis hupothesis,–but
Jerome (chap. 51) mentions qu�dam opuscula ad christianum dogma
pertinentia. His description is not specific enough to lead us to think
that he had personal knowledge of Arabianus’ writings. It must rather
be concluded that he allowed himself some license, and that, not
satisfied to speak of a writer without naming his works, and, at the
same time, knowing nothing definite about them, he simply calls them,
in the most general terms, ad christianum dogma pertinentia; for if
they were Christian works, he was pretty safe in concluding that they
had to do, in some way at least, with Christian doctrine. The
substitution of the plural for the singular (qu�dam opuscula for tis
hupothesis) can hardly have been an accident. It is, perhaps safe to
say, knowing Jerome’s methods, that he permitted himself to make the
change in order to conceal his own ignorance of the writings of
Arabianus; for to mention a single book, and say no more about it than
that it had to do with Christian doctrine, would be a betrayal of
entire ignorance in regard to it; but to sum up a number of writings
under the general head ad christianum dogma pertinentia, instead of
giving all the titles in detail, would be, of course, quite consistent
with an exact acquaintance with all of them. If our supposition be
correct, we have simply another instance of Jerome’s common sin, and an
instance which, in this case, reveals a sharp contrast between his
character and that of Eusebius, who never hesitated to confess his

[1733] Eusebius does not imply, in this sentence, that he is not
acquainted with these works to which he refers. As the words are
commonly translated, we might imagine that he was not familiar with
them, for all the translators make him speak of not being able to draw
any extracts from them for his own history. Thus Valesius: nec
narrationem ullam libris nostris intexere possumus; Stroth: ”noch etwas
darauserz�hlen kann”; Closs: ”noch etwas daraus anf�hren k�nnen”;
Crus�: ”we can neither insert the time nor any extracts in our
History.” The Greek of the whole sentence reads, hon dia to medemian
?chein aphormen ouch hoi& 231;n te oute tous chronous paradounai
graphe, outh’ historias mnemen huposemenasthai, which seems to mean
simply that their works contain no information which enables him to
give the dates of the authors, or to recount anything about their
lives; that is, they contain no personal allusions. This is quite
different from saying that he was not acquainted with the works; in
fact, had he not been quite familiar with them, he could not have made
such a broad statement. He seems to have searched them for personal
notices, and to have failed in the search. Whether these words of
Eusebius apply to all the works already mentioned, or only to the
murion allon just referred to, cannot be certainly determined. The
latter seems most natural; but even if the reference be only to those
last mentioned, there is every reason to think that the words are just
as true of the writings of Heraclitus, Maximus, and the others, for he
tells us nothing about their lives, nor the time in which they lived,
but introduces them in the most general terms, as ”ancient
ecclesiastical men.” There seems, therefore, no good reason for
connecting these writers with the reign of Commodus, rather than with
any other reign of the late second or of the third century. It must be
noticed that Eusebius does not say that ”these men lived at this time”;
he simply mentions them in this connection because it is a convenient
place, and perhaps because there were indications which led him to
think they could not have lived early in the second or late in the
third century. It is quite possible, as suggested in the previous note,
that the works of the writers whose names are mentioned in this chapter
were collected in a single volume, and that thus Eusebius was led to
class them all together, although the subjects of their works were by
no means the same, and their dates may have been widely different.

[1734] Eusebius mentioned first those works whose authors’ names were
known to him, but now adds that he is acquainted with many other
writings which bear the name of no author. He claims, however, that the
works testify to their authors’ orthodoxy, and he seems to imply, by
this statement, that he has convinced himself of their orthodoxy by a
personal examination of them.

Chapter XXVIII.–Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their
Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.

1. In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of
Artemon, [1735] which Paul of Samosata [1736] attempted to revive again
in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are
now examining.

2. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy
which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were
attempting to magnify it as ancient. [1737] Having given in his work
many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he
adds the following words:

3. ”For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received
and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was
preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of
Rome from Peter, [1738] but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, [1739]
the truth had been corrupted.

4. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine
Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain
brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of
the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed
in their day. I refer to Justin [1740] and Miltiades [1741] and Tatian
[1742] and Clement [1743] and many others, in all of whose works Christ
is spoken of as God. [1744]

5. For who does not know the works of Iren�us [1745] and of Melito
[1746] and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? [1747] And
how many psalms and hymns, [1748] written by the faithful brethren from
the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as

6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for
so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm,
until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to
speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from
communion Theodotus, the cobbler, [1749] the leader and father of this
God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man?
For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how
came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?”

7. So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and
Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the
reign of Severus. [1750] The author of the above-mentioned book,
concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which
occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:

8. ”I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in
our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved
a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, [1751] not
long ago, but in our own day.

9. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus [1752] and
another Theodotus, [1753] a money-changer. Both of them were disciples
of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person
excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this
sentiment, or rather senselessness. [1754]

10. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop
of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and
fifty denarii a month. [1755]

11. When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned
oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and
our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own
sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish.

12. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was
ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful
covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy
angels, and punished severely through the entire night. [1756]
Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered
himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before
Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but
also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church
of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and
showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was
he taken back into communion.”

13. We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning
them, which run as follows: [1757]

”They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear.
They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not
known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures
declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may
be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them
a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or
disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.

14. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as
ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings
of God to devote themselves to geometry. [1758] Euclid is laboriously
measured [1759] by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are
admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.

15. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical
opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by
the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to
say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine
Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.

16. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever
wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies,
and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ

17. Those of Asclepiades, [1760] for example, do not agree with those
of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their
disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them,
that is the corruptions, [1761] of each of them. Again, those of
Hermophilus [1762] do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides
[1763] are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those
prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted
later, and you will find them widely different.

18. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they
themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine
Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or
else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case
what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission
of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands.
For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor
can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.

19. But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them,
but simply deny the law and the prophets, [1764] and thus through their
lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the
lowest depths of perdition.”

Let this suffice for these things.

[1735] This anonymous work against the heresy of Artemon is no longer
extant, and the only fragments of it which we have are those preserved
by Eusebius in this chapter. Theodoret (H�r. Fab. II. 5) mentions the
work, and says that it was directed against the heresies of Theodotus
and Artemon, and that it bore the name Little Labyrinth. It is plain,
from the fragments which Eusebius gives, that it was written in Rome
some little time before the middle of the third century, probably not
far from 230 or 240 a.d. The work is commonly ascribed to Hippolytus,
in favor of which may be urged both the time and the place of its
composition as well as some internal resemblance between it and the
Philosophumena. On the other hand, Photius (Cod. 48) ascribes to Caius
of Rome a work against Artemon, which may well be identical with the
anonymous work quoted in the present chapter. It is therefore contended
by some (e.g. by Salmon) that Caius was the author of the work. It must
be noted, however, that in the same connection Photius ascribes another
work to Caius which we know to have been written by Hippolytus, and
hence his testimony is rather in favor of Hippolytus than Caius as the
author of the work. On the other hand several objections have been
urged by Salmon against the Hippolytine authorship, which, while not
decisive, yet make it extremely doubtful. In view of these facts, we
must conclude that it is possible, but very improbable, that Hippolytus
wrote the work; that it is not impossible, though we are quite without
evidence for the supposition, that Caius wrote it; that it is more
likely that a work which even to Eusebius was anonymous, was written by
an unknown man, who must remain unknown to us also. The extant
fragments of the work are given, with notes, by Routh in his Rel. Sac.,
and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V. p. 601
sq., among the works of Caius. Although the work is said by Eusebius to
have been directed against the heresy of Artemon, he has preserved only
extracts relating to the Theodoti and their heresy. They are described
also by Hippolytus, both in his lost Syntagma (as we can learn from
Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster) and in his Philosophumena
(VII. 23-24, and X. 19). Other ancient writers that mention him know
only what our anonymous author or Hippolytus reports. It seems that the
older Theodotus, a native of Byzantium, came to Rome in the time of
Eleutherus or Victor, and taught a species of adoptionism, which
reminds us somewhat of the Asia Minor Alogi, in whose circle he may
have been trained. Hippolytus informs us that he was orthodox in his
theology and cosmology, but that he was heretical in his Christology.
He did not deny Christ’s birth from a virgin (as the Ebionites had
done), but he did deny his divinity, teaching that he was a mere man
(psilos anthropos), upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at the time of
his baptism, in consequence of which he became the Christ, received
power to fulfill his special mission and by his righteousness was
raised above all other men. The descent of the Holy Spirit, however,
although raising him to a very exalted position, did not make him
divine; some of Theodotus’ followers denying that he ever acquired
divinity, others believing that he acquired it by his resurrection.
Theodotus was excommunicated by Victor on account of his heretical
Christology, but gained a number of followers, and after his
excommunication founded a schismatical sect, which had a bishop
Natalius, to whom a regular salary was paid (see below, �10), and which
continued under the leadership of another Theodotus, a banker, and a
certain Asclepiodotus, both of them disciples of the first Theodotus,
during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, but seems soon to have
disappeared, and to have exerted comparatively little influence during
its brief existence. Theodotus, the banker, appears to have agreed
substantially with the older Theodotus, but to have indulged himself in
speculations concerning Melchizedek, pronouncing him to be a heavenly
power still higher than Christ. Epiphanius makes the second Theodotus
the founder of a second party, and gives his school the name of
Melchizedekians, which appears in later works on heresy, but there is
no reason to suppose that there were two separate parties. A few years
later another attempt was made in Rome to revive the old adoptionist
Christology (essentially the same as that represented by Hermas early
in the second century), by a certain Artemon, against whom the Little
Labyrinth, quoted in this chapter, was directed. It is common to
connect Artemon and his followers with the Theodotians; but, as Harnack
remarks, it is plain that they did not look upon themselves as the
followers of the Theodoti (see below, note 15). We cannot tell,
however, in what respect their Christology differed from that of the
latter, for we know very little about them. They at any rate agreed
with the Theodotians in denying the divinity of Christ. From the
epistle of the synod of Antioch (quoted below, in Bk. VII. chap. 30) we
learn that Artemon was still living in the year 268, or thereabouts. He
seems, however to have accomplished little in Rome, and to have dropped
into comparative obscurity some time before this; at least, we hear
nothing of him during all these years. In the controversy with Paul of
Samosata he was called the father of the latter (see below Bk. VII.
chap. 30, �16), and thus acquired considerable celebrity in the East,
where his name became permanently connected with that of Paul as one of
the leading heretics. Whether Paul really learned his Christology from
Artemon we do not know, but that it closely resembled that of the
latter there can be no doubt. He really reproduced the old adoptionist
Christology of Hermas (as both the Theodotians and Artemon had done),
but modified it under the influence partly of Origen’s teachings,
partly of the Aristotelian method. For further particulars in regard to
the Theodoti and Artemon, see the remaining notes on this chapter. For
an admirable discussion of the whole subject, see Harnack’s
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 573 sq. On the Little Labyrinth, see especially
the Dict. of Christian Biog. III. p. 98.

[1736] On Paul of Samosata, see below, Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4.

[1737] The Artemonites were certainly correct in maintaining that the
adoptionism which they held was, at least in its essential principles,
an ancient thing, and their opponents were wrong in trying to deny it.
It is the Christology which Hermas represents, and early in the second
century it was undoubtedly a widespread popular belief. No one thought
of questioning the orthodoxy of Hermas. The Christology of the
Theodotians and of Artemon was an innovation, however, in so far as it
attempted to formulate in scientific terms and to treat philosophically
what had hitherto been only a popular belief. So soon as the logical
conclusions were drawn, and its consequences to the divinity of the Son
were perceived, it began to be felt as heresy, but not until then.

[1738] On Victor, see above, chap. 22, note 1. Victor is the thirteenth
bishop if Cletus and Anencletus be reckoned as one, otherwise the
fourteenth. This is used by Salmon as an argument against the
Hippolytine authorship of the Little Labyrinth, for Hippolytus reckoned
Cletus and Anencletus as two bishops, and therefore made Victor the
fourteenth (see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3).

[1739] The dates of Zephyrinus’ episcopate are to be gained by
reckoning backward from that of Callistus, which is shown in Bk. VI.
chap. 21, note 3, to have begun in the year 217. A comparison of the
various sources shows that Zephyrinus was bishop eighteen or nineteen
years, which brings us back to the year 198 or 199 as the date of his
accession. Eusebius says ”about the ninth year of the reign of
Severus,” which according to the correct reckoning would be the year
201, but according to his erroneous reckoning of the dates of the
emperors’ reigns (see the note already referred to) gives the year 200,
so that the agreement is reasonably close (see Lipsius’ Chron. der r�m.
Bisch�fe, p. 172 sq., and see above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 1). In Bk.
IX. of his great work Hippolytus gives quite an account of Zephyrinus
and his successor, Callistus. The former is described as ignorant and
illiterate, a taker of bribes, an uninformed and shamefully corrupt
man, &c. How much of this is true and how much is due to prejudice, we
cannot tell. But it seems at least to be a fact that Zephyrinus was
completely under the influence of Callistus, as Hippolytus states. We
learn from the latter that Zephyrinus at least countenanced the heresy
of Patripassianism (at the opposite extreme from that of the
Theodotians and Artemon), if he did not directly teach it.

[1740] On Justin Martyr, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 20.

[1741] On Miltiades, see above, chap. 17, note 1.

[1742] On Tatian, see Bk. III. chap. 29. The fact that Tatian is here
spoken of with respect is urged by Salmon as an argument against the
Hippolytine authorship of this work, for Hippolytus devotes two
chapters of his Philosophumena (VIII. 9, X. 14) to the heresy of

[1743] On Clement of Alexandria, see above, chap. 11, note 1.

[1744] theologeitai ho christos. Our author is quite correct in making
this statement. The apologists are agreed in their acceptance of the
Logos Christology of which they are the earliest patristic exponents,
and in the time of Clement of Alexandria it had become, as yet in an
undeveloped form, the commonly accepted doctrine of the orthodox

[1745] On Iren�us, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.

[1746] On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.

[1747] Iren�us’ utterances on this subject were epoch-making in the
history of doctrine. No one before him had emphasized so energetically
and brought out so clearly the God-manhood of Christ. His great
significance in Christology is the emphasis which he laid upon the
unity of God and man in Christ,–a unity in which the integrity both of
the divine and of the human was preserved. Our author is also doubtless
correct in saying that Melito called Christ God and man. If the two
fragments from the Discourse on the Soul and Body, and from the
Discourse on the Cross (printed from the Syriac by Cureton, in his
Spic. Syr. p. 52 sq.), be genuine, as is quite probable (see above, Bk.
IV. chap. 26, note 1), we have clear indications that Melito taught
both the humanity and the deity of Christ (”when He was become
incarnate through the womb of the Virgin, and was born man.” ”Inasmuch
as He was man, He needed food; still, inasmuch as He was God, He ceased
not to feed the universe”).

[1748] This passage is sometimes interpreted as indicating that hymns
written by the Christians themselves were sung in the church of Rome at
this time. But this is by no means implied. So far as we are able to
gather from our sources, nothing, except the Psalms and New Testament
hymns (such as the ”Gloria in Excelsis,” the ”Magnificat,” the ”Nunc
Dimittis,” &c.), was as a rule, sung in public worship before the
fourth century (the practice which had sprung up in the church of
Antioch seems to have been exceptional; see Kraus, p. 673). Before the
end of that century, however, the practice of singing other hymns in
the service of the Church had become common, both in the East and West.
On the other hand, the private use of hymns among the Christians began
very early. We need refer here only to Pliny’s epistle to Trajan
(translated above, in Bk. III. chap. 33, note 1); Clement of
Alexandria, Strom. VII. 7; Tertullian, ad Uxor. II. 8; Origen, Contra
Cels. VIII. 67; the epistle of Dionysius quoted below, in Bk. VII.
chap. 24, &c. Compare the article Hymnen in Kraus’ Real-Encyclop�die
der Christl. Alterth�mer, and the article Hymns in Smith and Cheetham’s
Dict. of Christ. Antiquities.

[1749] ton skutea: ”cobbler,” or ”worker in leather.” On Theodotus, see
above, note 1. As Harnack remarks, the Artemonites must have known that
Victor had excommunicated Theodotus, and therefore, if they regarded
themselves as his followers, it would have been impossible to claim
that all the Roman bishops, including Victor, held their opinions. When
to this is added the apparent effort of our author to identify the
Artemonites with the Theodotians, it becomes clear that they must
themselves have denied their connection with them, though in what
points they differed with them, we do not know (see above, note 1; and
cf. Harnack’s Dogmengesch. I. p. 583).

[1750] See above, note 5.

[1751] Of Natalius, we know only what is told us in this passage. The
suggestion of Valesius that he might be identified with C�cilius
Natalis, the heathen who is represented as converted by Octavius, in
the Octavius of Minucius Felix, is quite baseless.

[1752] ‘Asklepiodotou, according to all the mss. except one, which
reads ‘Asklepi?dou, and with which Nicephorus and Theodoret agree. He
is undoubtedly the same man that is referred to in �17, below, where
all the mss. unite in reading ‘Asklepi?dou. Of this man we know only
what is told us in this chapter. Theodoret (H�r. Fab. II. 5) mentions
him, but adds nothing new, while Hippolytus in his Philosophumena, and
apparently in his lost Syntagma, passes him by without notice.

[1753] On this second Theodotus, a money-changer or banker
(trapezites,) who is distinguished from the first Theodotus by both our
sources (Hippolytus and the Little Labyrinth quoted here), see above,
note 1.

[1754] The Greek contains a play of words at this point: epi taute te
phronesei, mallon de aphrosune.

[1755] This is the earliest instance we have of a salaried clergyman.
The practice of paying salaries was followed also by the Montanists,
and brought great reproach upon them (see above, chap. 18, note 8). A
Roman denarius was equal to about seventeen cents, so that Natalius’
monthly salary was a little over twenty-five dollars.

[1756] It is not necessary to doubt the truth of this report, if we
substitute ”muscular Christians” for ”holy angels.” As Stroth dryly
remarks: ”Eben kein l�blich Gesch�ft f�r die heiligen Engel; es werden
aber ohne zweifel Engel mit guten starken Knochen und Nerven gewesen

[1757] The information which is given us here in regard to the methods
of the Theodotians is very interesting. What is said in regard to their
philosophical principles makes it evident that they used the
grammatical and critical mode of exegesis as opposed to the prevalent
allegorical mode. Nothing could seem more irreverent and irreligious to
the Church of that age than such a method of interpretation, the method
which we now recognize as the only true one. They were, moreover,
textual critics. They may have been rash in their methods, but it is
not necessary to suppose them dishonest in their purposes. They seem to
have looked upon the Scriptures as inspired as truly as their opponents
did, but they believed that radical criticism was needed if the true
reading of the originals was to be reached, while their opponents were
shocked at anything of the kind. That textual criticism was necessary,
even at that early day, is clear enough from the words of Iren�us
(quoted in chap. 20, above), and from the words of Dionysius (quoted in
Bk. IV. chap. 23), as well as from many other sources. Finally, these
men seem to have offended their opponents by the use of dialectical
methods in their treatment of theology. This is very significant at
that early date. It is indeed the earliest instance known to us of that
method which seemed entirely irreligious to the author of the Little
Labyrinth, but which less than a century later prevailed in the
Antiochian school, and for a large part of the Middle Ages ruled the
whole Church.

[1758] The author makes a play here upon the word earth, which cannot
be reproduced in a translation. geometrian (literally, ”earth-measure”)
epitedeuousin, hosan ek tes ges ontes kai ek tes ges lalountes

[1759] ‘Eukleides…geometreitai: literally, Euclid is geometrized.

[1760] All the mss. read ‘Asklepi?dou, which is adopted by most of the
editors. Rufinus and Nicephorus, however, followed by a few editors,
among them Heinichen, read ‘Asklepiodotou (see above, note 18).

[1761] katorthomena, toutestin ephanismena

[1762] Of this Hermophilus we know nothing more.

[1763] ‘Apollonidou, which is the reading of one ancient ms., of
Rufinus, Theodoret, and Nicephorus, and which is adopted by Stroth,
Burton, Heinichen, and Closs. The majority of the mss. read
‘Apolloniou, while a few read ‘Apolloni?dou

[1764] These persons can hardly have rejected the Law and the Prophets
utterly,–at least, no hint is given us that they maintained a
fundamental difference between the God of the Old and the God of the
New Testament, as Marcion did,–nor would such wholesale rejection be
natural for critics such as they were. It is more likely that they
simply, as many of the Gnostics did, emphasized the merely relative
authority of the Old Testament, and that they applied historical
criticism to it, distinguishing between its various parts in the matter
of authority. Such action is just what we should expect from members of
a critical school like that of Theodotus, and such criticism in its
extremest form would naturally seem to an orthodox Catholic the same as
throwing over the whole book. Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschicte, p. 579 and
p. 488 sqq.