Notes

Supplementary Notes and Tables.

————————
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 3, S: 5 (note 17, continued).

Since this note was in type Dr. Gardiner’s admirable and exhaustive
essay on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (in the Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XIV. p. 341 sq.) has come
to hand, and I have been much pleased to see that the theory that
Barnabas wrote the epistle is accepted and defended with vigor.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 3, S: 6 (note 22, continued).

Upon the last chapter of Romans and its relation to the remainder of
the epistle, see especially Farrar’s Life and Work of St. Paul, p. 450
sq., Weiss’ Einleitung in das N. T. p. 245 sq., Pfleiderer’s
Urchristenthum, p. 145 , Renan’s Saint Paul, p. 461 sq. (maintaining
that an editor has combined four copies of the one encyclical letter of
Paul, addressed severally to as many different churches), Lightfoot’s
Commentary on Philippians, p. 172 sq., and Schaff, Ch. History, I. p.
765.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 24, S: 17 (note 18 continued).

In three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, S: 17, chap.
25, S: 2, and chap. 39, S: 16) John’s ”former” epistle is referred to,
as if he had written only two. In the last passage the use of protera
instead of prote might be explained as Westcott suggests (Canon of the
New Testament, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing
the words of Papias; but in the other passages this explanation will
not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius’ own. In the Muratorian
Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Irenaeus the
second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, ibid.
p. 384, note 1). These facts lead Westcott to ask: ”Is it possible that
the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and may
we thus explain the references to two epistles of John?” He continues:
”The first epistle, as is well known, was called ad Parthos by
Augustine and some other Latin authorities; and the same title pros
PEURrthous is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62
Scholz). The Latin translation of Clement’s Outlines (IV. 66) says:
Secunda Johannis epistola quae ad virgines (parthenous) scripta
simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third
epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.).” On the other hand, in Bk.
V. chap. 8, S: 7, Eusebius speaks of the ”first” (prote) epistle of
John, and in Bk. III. chap. 25, S: 3, he expressly mentions a second
and third epistle of John. It is evident, therefore, that whatever the
use of protera instead of prote in connection with John’s first epistle
may mean as used by others, it does not indicate a knowledge of only a
first and second as used by him. It is by no means impossible, however,
that Westcott’s suggestion may be correct, and that the first and
second epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is
possible that such use of them by some of his predecessors may account
for Eusebius’ employment of the word protera in three separate
passages.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 25, S: 4 (note 18 continued).

The words he pheromene BarnEURba epistole have been commonly translated
”the so-called Epistle of Barnabas,” or ”the Epistle ascribed to
Barnabas,” implying a doubt in Eusebius’ mind as to the authenticity of
the work. This translation, however, is, in my opinion, quite
unwarranted. There are passages in Eusebius where the word pheromai
used in connection with writings cannot by any possibility be made to
bear this meaning; cases in which it can be interpreted only ”to be
extant” or ”in circulation.” Compare, for instance, Bk. II. chap. 15,
S: 1, MEURrkon hou to eungelion pheretai; II. 18. 6, monobibla autou
pheretai; III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, he legomene ‘Iakobou
pheretai; III. 37. 4; III. 39. 1; IV. 3. 1, eiseti de pheretai para
pleistois; IV. 14. 9, en te delotheise pros philippesious autou graphe
pheromene eis deuro. Compare also IV. 15. I; IV. 23. 4, 9, 12; IV. 24.
1; IV. 28; V. 5. 6; 19. 3; 23. 2; 24. 10; VI. 15. 1; VI. 20, &c. These
passages, and many others which are cited by Heinichen (Vol. III. p.
91), prove that the word is frequently used in the sense of ”extant” or
”in circulation.” But in spite of these numerous examples, Heinichen
maintains that the word is also used by Eusebius in another and quite
different sense; namely, ”so-called” or ”ascribed to,” thus equivalent
to legomene. A careful examination, however, of all the passages cited
by him in illustration of this second meaning will show that in them
too the word may be interpreted in the same way as in those already
referred to; in fact, that in many of them that is in itself the more
natural interpretation. The passages to which we refer are Bk. III.
chap. 25, S:S: 2, 3, and 4; III. 3. 1, ten de pheromenen autou
deuteran; III. 39. 6 (where I ought to have translated ”is extant under
the name of John”). To draw a distinction between the meaning of the
word as used in these and in the other passages is quite arbitrary, and
therefore unwarranted. The sense in which, as we have found, Eusebius
so commonly employs the word attaches also to the Latin word fertur in
the Muratorian Canon. I have not endeavored to trace carefully the use
of the word in other writers; but while many instances occur in which
it is certainly used in this sense, others in which either
interpretation is allowable, I have not yet found one in which this
meaning is ruled out by the nature of the case or by the context. In
view of these facts I believe we should be careful to draw a sharp
distinction between legomene or kaloumene and pheromene when used in
connection with written works.

A considerable portion of my translation was in type before I had
observed this distinction between the two words, which is commonly
quite overlooked, and as a consequence in a few cases my rendering of
the word pheromene is inaccurate. All such cases I have endeavored to
call attention to in these supplementary notes.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 28, S: 1.

For the Disputation which is ascribed to him, read his extant
Disputation.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 32, S: 6 (note 14^a).

The Greek reads pEURses ekklesias (without the article), and so, two
lines below, en pEURse ekklesi& 139;. All the translators (with the
exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII., who reads,
”the churches”) render ”the whole church,” as if reading pas with the
article. We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus’ writings to be
able to ascertain positively his use of pas, and it is possible that he
carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to
signify the definite ”all” or ”the whole.” In the absence of positive
testimony, however, that he failed to draw the proper distinction
between its use with and its use without the article, and in view of
the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far
as I am able to recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I
have not felt at liberty in my translation to depart from a strict
grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question. Moreover, upon
second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say
”every” not ”all”; for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of
the Lord to have presided literally over the whole Church, while he
might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city
in which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply. The
phrase just below, ”in every church,” is perhaps as natural as ”in the
whole church.”
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 36 S: 13.

For the Epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him, read his
extant Epistle to the Philippians.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 39, S: 1 (note 1, continued).

Since the above note was in type Resch’s important work on the
Agrapha(von Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V.
Heft 4) has come to hand. On p. 27 sq. he discusses at considerable
length the sources of the Synoptic Gospels. He accepts the theory which
is most widely adopted by New-Testament critics, that the synoptic
tradition as contained in our Synoptic Gospels rests upon an original
Gospel of Mark (nearly if not quite identical with our present Gospel
of Mark) and a pre-canonical Hebrew Gospel. In agreement with such
critics he draws a sharp distinction between this original Hebrew
Gospel and our canonical Greek Matthew, while at the same time
recognizing that the latter reproduces that original more fully than
either of the other Gospels does. This original Hebrew he then
identifies with the logia referred to by Papias as composed by Matthew
in the Hebrew tongue (see Bk. III. chap. 39, S: 16); that is, with the
traditional Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see ibid. chap. 24, note 5). The
arguments which he urges in support of this position are very strong.
Handmann regards the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the second
original source of the synoptic tradition, alongside of the Ur-Marcus,
and even suggests its identification with the logia of Papias, and yet
denies its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. On the other hand, Resch
regards the Hebrew Matthew, which he identifies with the logia of
Papias, as the second original source of the synoptic tradition,
alongside of Mark or the Ur-Marcus, and yet, like Handmann, though on
entirely different grounds, denies the identity of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews with the Hebrew Matthew. Their positions certainly tend
to confirm my suggestion that the Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel
according to the Hebrews were originally identical (see above, Bk. III.
chap. 27, note 8).
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 39, S: 6.

For ascribed by name to John, read extant under the name of John.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. III. chap. 39, S: 16.

For from the first epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise,
read from the former epistle of John and from the epistle of Peter
likewise. See p. 388.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. IV. chap. 10.

For the Pious, read Pius.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. IV. chap. 18, S: 2.

For the Pious, read Pius.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. V. Introd. S: I (note 3, continued). The Successors of Antoninus
Pius.

Antoninus Pius was succeeded in 161 by his adopted sons, Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus Verus and Lucius Ceionius AElius Aurelius Commodus
Antoninus. Upon his accession to the throne the former transferred his
name Verus to the latter, who was thenceforth called Lucius Aurelius
Verus. In his Chronicle Eusebius keeps these two princes distinct, but
in his History he falls into sad confusion in regard to them, and this
confusion has drawn upon him the severe censure of all his critics. He
knew of course, as every one did, that Antoninus Pius had two
successors. In Bk. IV. chap. 14, S: 10, he states this directly, and
gives the names of the successors as ”Marcus Aurelius Verus, who was
also called Antoninus,” and ”Lucius.” From that point on he calls the
former of these princes simply Antoninus Verus, Antoninus, or Verus,
dropping entirely the name Marcus Aurelius. In Bk. IV. chap. 18, S: 2,
he speaks of the emperor ”whose times we are now recording,” that is,
the successor of Antoninus Pius, and calls him Antoninus Verus. In Bk.
V. Introd. S: I he refers to the same emperor as Antoninus Verus, and
in Bk. V. chap. 4, S: 3, and chap. 9, he calls him simply Antoninus,
while in Bk. IV. chap. 13, S: 8, he speaks of him as the ”Emperor
Verus.” The death of this Emperor Antoninus is mentioned in Bk. V.
chap. 9, and it is there said that he reigned nineteen years and was
then succeeded by Commodus. It is evident that in all these passages he
is referring to the emperor whom we know as Marcus Aurelius, but to
whom he gives that name only once, when he records his accession to the
empire. On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 5, S: 1, Eusebius speaks of
Marcus Aurelius Caesar and expressly distinguishes him from the Emperor
Antoninus, to whom he has referred at the close of the previous
chapter, and makes him the brother of that emperor. Again, in the same
chapter, S: 6, he calls this Marcus Aurelius Caesar, just referred to,
the ”Emperor Marcus,” still evidently distinguishing him from the
Emperor Antoninus. In this chapter, therefore, he thinks of Marcus
Aurelius as the younger of the two sons left by Antoninus Pius; that
is, he identifies him with the one whom we call Lucius Verus, and whom
he himself calls Lucius in Bk. IV. chap. 14 S: 10. Eusebius thus
commits a palpable error. How are we to explain it?

The explanation seems to me to lie in the circumstance that Eusebius
attempted to reconcile the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a
persecutor with the fact known to him as a historian, that the emperor
who succeeded Antoninus Pius was. It was the common belief in the time
of Eusebius, as it had been during the entire preceding century, that
all the good emperors had been friendly to the Christians, and that
only the bad emperors had persecuted. Of course, among the good
emperors was included the philosophical Marcus Aurelius (cf. e.g.
Tertullian’s Apol. chap. 5, to which Eusebius refers in Bk. V. chap.
5). It was of Marcus Aurelius, moreover, that the story of the
Thundering Legion was told (see ibid.). But Eusebius was not able to
overlook the fact that numerous martyrdoms occurred during the reign of
the successor of Antoninus Pius. He had the documents recording the
terrible persecution at Lyons and Vienne; he had an apology of Melito,
describing the hardships which the Christians endured under the same
emperor (see Bk. IV. chap. 26). He found himself, as an historian, face
to face with two apparently contradictory lines of facts. How was the
contradiction to be solved? He seems to have solved it by assuming that
a confusion of names had taken place, and that the prince commonly
known as Marcus Aurelius, whose noble character was traditional, and
whose friendship to the Christians he could not doubt, was the younger,
not the older of the two brothers, and therefore not responsible for
the numerous martyrdoms which took place after the death of Antoninus
Pius. And yet he is not consistent with himself even in his History;
for he gives the two brothers their proper names when he first mentions
them, and says nothing of an identification of Marcus Aurelius with
Lucius. It is not impossible that the words Marcus Aurelius, which are
used nowhere else of the older brother, are an interpolation; but for
this there is no evidence, and it may be suggested as more probable
that at the time when this passage was written the solution of the
difficulty which he gives distinctly in Bk. V. chap. 5 had not yet
occurred to him. That he should be able to fancy that Marcus Aurelius
was identical with Lucius is perhaps not strange when we remember how
much confusion was caused in the minds of other writers besides himself
by the perplexing identity of the names of the various members of the
Antonine family. To the two successors of Antoninus Pius, the three
names, Aurelius, Verus, and Antoninus, alike belonged. It is not
surprising that Eusebius should under the circumstances think that the
name Marcus may also have belonged to the younger one. This supposition
would seem to him to find some confirmation in the fact that the most
common official designation of the older successor of Antoninus Pius
was not Marcus Aurelius, but Antoninus simply, or M. Antoninus. The
name Marcus Aurelius or Marcus was rather a popular than an official
designation. Even in the Chronicle there seems to be a hint that
Eusebius thought of a possible distinction between Antoninus the
emperor and Marcus, or Marcus Aurelius; for while he speaks of the
”Emperor Antoninus” at the beginning of the passages in which he
recounts the story of the Thundering Legion (year of Abr. 2188), he
says at the close: literae quoque exstant Marci regis (the M. Aureli
gravissimi imperatoris of Jerome looks like a later expansion of the
simpler original) quibus testatur copias suas iamiam perituras
Christianorum precibus servatas esse. But even when he had reached the
solution pointed out, Eusebius did not find himself clear of
difficulties; for his sources put the occurrence of the Thundering
Legion after the date at which the younger brother was universally
supposed to have died, and it was difficult on still other grounds to
suppose the prince named Marcus Aurelius already dead in 169 (the date
given by Eusebius himself in his Chronicle for the death of Lucius). In
this emergency he came to the conclusion that there must be some
mistake in regard to the date of his death, and possessing no record of
the death of Marcus Aurelius as distinct from Antoninus, he simply
passed it by without mention.

That Eusebius in accepting such a lame theory showed himself altogether
too much under the influence of traditional views cannot be denied; but
when we remember that the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a
persecutor was supported by writers whose honesty and accuracy he could
never have thought of questioning, as well as by the very nature of the
case, we must, while we smile at the result, at least admire his effort
to solve the contradiction which he, as an historian, felt more keenly
than a less learned man, unacquainted with the facts on the other side,
would have done.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. V. chap. 1, S: 27 (note 26, continued).

See also Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note 5.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. VI. chap. 2 (note 1, continued). Origen’s Life and Writings.

Origen Adamantius (on the second name, see Bk. VI. chap. 14, note 12)
was of Christian parentage and probably of Greek descent on his
father’s side (as stated in the previous note), but whether born in
Alexandria or not we do not know. Westcott suggests that his mother may
have been of Jewish descent, because in an epistle of Jerome (ad
Paulam: Ep. 39, S: 1, Migne’s ed.) he is said to have learned Hebrew so
thoroughly that he ”vied with his mother” in the singing of psalms (but
compare the stricture of Redepenning on this passage, p. 187, note 1).
The date of his birth may be gathered from the fact (stated in this
chapter) that he was in his seventeenth year at the time of his
father’s death, which gives us 185 or 186 as the year of his birth (cf.
Redepenning, I. p. 417-420, Erste Beilage). We learn from the present
chapter that as a boy he was carefully trained by his father in the
Scriptures and afterward in Greek literature, a training of which he
made good use in later life. He was also a pupil of Clement in the
catechetical school, as we learn from chaps. 6 and 14 (on the time, see
chap. 6, note 4). He showed remarkable natural ability, and after the
death of his father (being himself saved from martyrdom only by a
device of his mother), when left in poverty with his mother and six
younger brothers (see S: 13 of this chapter), he was able, partly by
the assistance of a wealthy lady and partly by teaching literature, to
support himself (S: 14). Whether he supported the rest of the family
Eusebius does not state, but his thoroughly religious character does
not permit us to imagine that he left them to suffer. In his eighteenth
year, there being no one at the head of the catechetical school in
Alexandria, he was induced to take the school in charge and to devote
himself to the work of instruction in the Christian faith. Soon
afterward the entire charge of the work was officially committed to him
by Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria (see chap. 3). He lived at this
time a life of rigid asceticism (ibid.), and even went so far as to
mutilate himself in his zeal for the prosecution of his work (see chap.
8). His great influence naturally aroused the hostility of unbelievers
against him; but though many of his pupils suffered martyrdom (see
chap. 4), he himself escaped, we do not know how. Eusebius ascribes his
preservation to the providence of God (ibid.). During these years in
which he was at the head of the catechetical school, he devoted himself
with vigor to the study of Greek philosophy, and was for a time a pupil
of the Neo-Platonist Ammonius Saccas (chap. 19). He studied
non-Christian thought, as he tells us, in order that he might be the
better able to instruct his pagan and heretical pupils (ibid.). His
labors in the school in time grew so heavy that he was obliged to
associate with himself his friend and fellow-pupil Heraclas, to whom he
committed the work of elementary instruction (chap. 15). It was during
this time that he seems to have begun his Hexapla, having learned
Hebrew in order to fit himself the better for his work upon the Old
Testament (chap. 16). During this period (while Zephyrinus was bishop
of Rome, i.e. before 217) he made a brief visit to Rome (chap. 14), and
later he was summoned to Arabia, to give instruction to the governor of
that country, and remained there a short time (chap. 19). Afterward, on
account of a great tumult in Alexandria (see chap. 19, note 22), he
left the city and went to Caesarea in Palestine, where, although only a
layman, he publicly expounded the Scriptures in the church (chap. 19).
The bishop Demetrius strongly disapproved of this, and summoned him
back to Alexandria (ibid.). Upon his return to Alexandria he entered
upon the work of writing Commentaries on the Scriptures (see chap. 23).
During this period he wrote also other important works (see chap. 24).

In the tenth year of Alexander Severus (a.d. 231) he left Alexandria
(according to chap. 26) and took up his residence in Caesarea, leaving
his catechetical school in charge of his assistant, Heraclas. The cause
of his departure is stated in chap. 23 to have been ”some necessary
affairs of the church” which called him to Greece. (For a statement of
the reasons which lead me, contrary to the common opinion, to identify
the departure mentioned in chap. 23 with that mentioned in chap. 26,
see below, p. 395 sq.) Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 54) says that he went to
Achaia on account of heresies which were troubling the churches there.
His words are: Et propter ecclesias Achaiae, quae pluribus haeresibus
vexabantur, sub testimonio ecclesiasticae epistolae Athenas per
Palaestinam pergeret. He passed through Palestine on his way to Greece,
and it was at this time that he was ordained a presbyter by the
Palestinian bishops (chap. 23), Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander
of Jerusalem (according to Jerome, l.c.; cf. also Euseb. chap. 8).
Whether he remained long in Palestine at this time, or went on at once
to Greece, we do not know; but that a visit (to be distinguished from
the second visit mentioned in chap. 32; see note 4 on that chapter) was
made we know from a fragment of one of Origen’s epistles written from
Athens (printed in Lommatzsch’s ed. of Origen’s works, XXV. p. 388);
with which are to be compared Epiphanius, Haer. LXIV. 1, and the remark
made by Eusebius in chap. 16, S: 2. in regard to the finding of a copy
of a translation in Nicopolis. Origen’s ordination resulted in the
complete alienation of the bishop Demetrius (upon his earlier and later
attitude toward Origen, and the causes of the change, see below, p. 394
sq.), and he called a council in Alexandria of bishops and presbyters
(the council must have been held very soon after the receipt of the
news of Origen’s ordination, for Demetrius died in 232; see Bk. V.
chap. 22, note 4) which decided that Origen should be required to leave
Alexandria and not be allowed to reside or to teach there, but did not
depose him from the priesthood. Afterward, however, Demetrius,
combining with some bishops of like mind with himself, deposed Origen
from his office, and the sentence was ratified by those who had before
voted with him. Photius gives this account in Cod. 118, quoting from
the lost Defense of Pamphilus and Eusebius. Eusebius himself tells us
nothing about these proceedings in his History, but simply refers us
(chap. 23) to the second book of his Defense, which he says contained a
full account of the matter. (Upon the bearing of the words quoted by
Photius from the Defense, see below, p. 395 sq.) Demetrius wrote of the
result of the council ”to the whole world” (according to Jerome’s de
vir. ill. c. 54), and the sentence was concurred in by the bishops of
Rome and of all the other churches, except those of Palestine, Arabia,
Phoenicia, and Achaia (see Jerome ad Paul. Ep. 33; and Apol. adv.
libros Ruf. II. 18). Taking up his abode in Caesarea, Origen made this
place his headquarters for the rest of his life, and found there the
most cordial sympathy and support (chap. 27). He carried on in Caesarea
a catechetical school, expounding the Scriptures, lecturing on
theology, and at the same time continuing his literary labors in peace
until the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 235-237), during which some of
his friends in Caesarea suffered (see chaps. 27, 28, 30, 32, and 36).
How Origen escaped and where he was during the persecution we do not
know (see chap. 28, note 2). In 237 or 238 at any rate, he was (again)
in Caesarea and at this time Gregory Thaumaturgus delivered his
Panegyric, which is our best source for a knowledge of Origen’s methods
of teaching and of the influence which he exerted over his pupils.
(Upon the date, see Draeseke, Der Brief des Origenes an Gregoriosin the
Jabrbuecher f. prot. Theologie, 1887, p. 102 sq.) During this period he
did considerable traveling, making another visit to Athens (see chap.
32) and two to Arabia (see chaps. 33 and 37). It was while in Caesarea,
and when he was over sixty years old, that he first permitted his
discourses to be taken down by shorthand writers (see chap. 26). His
correspondence with the Emperor Philip and his wife is mentioned by
Eusebius in the same chapter. He was arrested during the Decian
persecution and suffered terrible torments, but not martyrdom (chap.
39). He died not much more than a year after the close of the
persecution, in the seventieth year of his age (see Bk. VII. chap. 1),
at Tyre, and was buried there (Jerome, de vir. ill. c. 54).

Origen was without doubt the greatest scholar and the most original
thinker of his age. He was at the same time a man of most devout piety,
and employed all his wonderful talents in the service of what he
believed to be the truth. His greatest labors were in the field of
exegesis, and here his writings were epoch-making, although his results
were often completely vitiated by his use of the allegorical method of
interpretation and his neglect of the grammatical and historical sense.
His services in the cause of scientific theology cannot be
overestimated, and his thinking long stimulated the brightest minds of
the Church, both orthodox and heretical. Both his natural predilections
and his training in the philosophy which prevailed in Alexandria in
that day led him in the direction of idealism, and to an excess of
this, combined with his deep desire–common also to Clement–to
reconcile Christianity with reason and to commend it to the minds of
philosophers, are due most of his errors, nearly all of which are
fascinating and lofty in conception. Those errors led the Church to
refuse him a place among its saints and even among its Fathers in the
stricter sense. Even before his death suspicions of his orthodoxy were
widespread; and although he had many followers and warm defenders, his
views were finally condemned at a home synod in Constantinople in 543
(?) (see Helele, II. 790). Into the bitter controversies which raged
during the fourth and fifth centuries, and in which Jerome and Rufinus
(the former against, the latter for, Origen) played so large a part we
cannot enter here. See the article Origenistic Controversies in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog., or any of the Church histories and lives of
Origen.

Origen was a marvelously prolific writer. Epiphanius (Haer. LXIV. 63)
says that it was commonly reported that he had written 6000 works.
Jerome reduces the number to less than a third (adv. Ruf. II. 22). But
whatever the number, we know that he was one of the most
voluminous–perhaps the most voluminous writer of antiquity. He wrote
works of the most diverse nature, critical, exegetical, philosophical
and theological, apologetic and practical, besides numerous epistles.
(On his great critical work, the Hexpla, see chap. 16, note 8.) His
exegetical works consisted of commentaries, scholia (or detached
notes), and homilies. Of his commentaries on the Old Testament, which
were very numerous, only fragments of those on Genesis, Exodus, the
Psalms, and the Song of Solomon are presented in the version of
Rufinus, and a fragment of the commentary on Ezekiel in the Philocalia.
Of the New Testament commentaries we have numerous fragments both in
Greek and Latin (especially on Matthew and John), and the whole of
Romans in the translation of Rufinus. Upon the commentaries composed by
Origen while still in Alexandria, see chap. 24; on those written
afterwards, see chaps. 32 and 36. No complete scholia are extant; but
among the numerous exegetical fragments which are preserved there may
be portions of these scholia, as well as of the commentaries and
homilies. It is not always possible to tell to which a fragment
belongs. Of the homilies, over 200 are preserved, the majority of them
in the translation of Rufinus.

The philosophical and theological works known to us are the two books
On the Resurrection (see chap. 24, note 5): the De principiis (see
ibid. note 6); and the Stromata (see ibid. note 7).

Origen’s great apologetic work is his Contra Celsum (see chap. 36, note
3).

Two works of a practical character are known to us: On Martyrdom (see
chap. 28, note 3); and On Prayer. The latter work is not mentioned by
Eusebius in his History, but is referred to in Pamphilus’ Apology for
Origen, Chap. VIII. (Lommatzsch, XXIV. p. 397). It is extant in the
original Greek, and is printed by Lommatzsch, XVII. p. 79-297. It is
addressed to two of his friends, Ambrosius and Tatiana, and is one of
his most beautiful works. As to the date at which Origen wrote the
work, we know (from chap. 23 of the work) only that it was written
after the composition of the commentary on Genesis (see above, Bk. VI.
chap. 24), but whether before or after his departure from Alexandria we
cannot tell.

Of his epistles only two are preserved entire, one to Julius Africanus,
and another to Gregory Thaumaturgus. On the former, see chap. 31, note
1. On the latter and on Origen’s other epistles, see chap. 36, note 7.

Finally must be mentioned the Philocalia (Lommatzsch, XXV. p. 1-278), a
collection of judiciously selected extracts from Origen’s works in
twenty-seven books. Its compilers were Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.

The principal edition of Origen’s works is that of the Benedictine
Delarue in 4 vols. fol.; reprinted by Migne in 8 vols. 8vo. A
convenient edition is that of Lommatzsch, in 25 vols. small 8vo., a
revision of Delarue’s. Only his De principiis, Contra Cels., and the
epistles to Africanus and to Gregory have been translated into English,
and are given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV. p. 221 sqq. Of lives
of Origen must be mentioned that of Huetius: Origeniana (Paris, 1679,
in 2 vols.; reprinted in Delarue and Lommatzsch); also Redepenning’s
Origenes. Eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre (Bonn, 1841
and 1846, in 2 vols.). The respective sections in Lardner and Tillemont
should be compared, and the thorough article of Westcott in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. IV. 96-142. For a good list of the literature on
Origen, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 785.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. VI. chap. 8, S: 5 (note 4). Origen and Demetrius.

The friendship of Demetrius for Origen began early and continued,
apparently without interruption, for many years. In 203 he committed to
him the charge of the catechetical school (chap. 3); in the present
chapter we find him encouraging him after learning of his rash deed;
some years afterward, upon Origen’s return from a visit to Rome, where
his fame as a teacher had already become very great, Demetrius still
showed the very best spirit toward him (chap. 14); and a little later
sent him into Arabia to give instruction to an officer in that country
(chap. 19). It is soon after this that the first sign of a difference
between the two men appears, upon the occasion of Origen’s preaching in
Caesarea (ibid.). There seems, however, to have been no lasting
quarrel, if there was any quarrel at all; for in 231 we find Demetrius
giving Origen letters of recommendation upon the occasion of his visit
to Achaia (see below, p. 396). The fact that he gives him these
letters, thus recognizing him as a member of his church in good
standing, and sending him upon his important mission with his official
approval, shows that no open break between himself and Origen can as
yet have taken place. But in his commentary on John (Tom. VI. praef.)
Origen shows us that his last years in Alexandria were by no means
pleasant ones. He compares his troubles there to the waves of a stormy
sea, and his final departure to the exodus of the children of Israel.
We know that he had been engaged for some time in writing commentaries,
and that the first five books of his commentary on John–epoch-making
in their significance, and sure to cause a sensation in orthodox,
conservative circles–had recently appeared. We know that his
reputation for heterodoxy was already quite widespread and that the
majority of the Egyptian clergy were by no means upon his side. The
trials to which he refers, therefore, may well have been a result of
this hostility to his teachings existing among the clergy about him,
and Demetrius may have shared to an extent in the common feeling. At
the same time his disapproval cannot have been very pronounced, or he
could not have given his official sanction to Origen’s important visit
to Achaia. But now, things being in this condition, Origen set out upon
his mission, leaving Heraclas in charge of his school, and undoubtedly
with the expectation of returning again, for he left the unfinished
sixth book of his commentary on John behind him (see preface to the
sixth book). He stopped in Palestine on his way to Athens, and there
was ordained a presbyter by the bishops of that country (upon the
motives which prompted him in the matter, see below, p. 397). The
result was a complete break between Demetrius and himself, and his
condemnation by an Alexandrian synod. To understand Demetrius’ action
in the matter, we must remember that both Eusebius and Jerome attribute
the change in his attitude to jealousy of Origen. They may be too harsh
in their judgment, and yet it is certainly not at all unnatural that
the growing power and fame of his young catechumen should in time
affect, all unconsciously, his attitude toward him. But we must not do
Demetrius an injustice. There is no sign that his jealousy led him to
attack Origen, or to seek to undermine his influence, and we have no
right to accuse him, without ground, of such unchristian conduct. At
the same time, while he remained, as he supposed, an honest friend of
Origen’s, the least feeling of jealousy (and it would have been
remarkable had he never felt the least) would make him more suspicious
of the latter’s conduct, and more prone to notice in his actions
anything which might be interpreted as an infringement of his own
prerogatives, or a disregard of the full respect due him. We seem to
see a sign of this over-sensitiveness (most natural under the
circumstances) in his severe disapproval of Origen’s preaching in
Caesarea, which surprised the Palestinian bishops, but which is not
surprising when we realize that Demetrius might so easily construe it
as a token of growing disrespect for his authority on the part of his
rising young school principal. It is plain enough, if he was in this
state of mind, that he might in all sincerity have given letters of
recommendation to Origen and have wished him God speed upon his
mission, and yet that the news of his ordination to the presbyterate by
foreign bishops, without his own approval or consent, and indeed in
opposition to his own principles and to ecclesiastical law, should at
once arouse his ire, and, by giving occasion for what seemed righteous
indignation, open the floodgates for all the smothered jealousy of
years. In such a temper of mind he could not do otherwise than listen
willingly to all the accusations of heresy against Origen, which were
no doubt busily circulated in his absence, and it was inevitable that
he should believe it his duty to take decided steps against a man who
was a heretic, and at the same time showed complete disregard of the
rules and customs of the Church, and of the rights of his bishop. The
result was the definitive and final exclusion of Origen from communion
with the Alexandrian church, and his degradation from the office of
presbyter by decree of the Alexandrian synods described above, p. 392
sq. The two grounds of the sentence passed by these synods were plainly
his irregular ordination to the priesthood when constitutionally unfit
for it (cf. what Eusebius says in this chapter), and his heterodoxy
(cf. e.g. the synodical epistle of the Egyptian bishops given in
Mansi’s Collect. Concil. IX. col. 524, and also Jerome’s epistle ad
Pammachium et Oceanum, S: 10, and Rufinus’ Apologi in Hieron. II. 21).
That the ordination to the priesthood of one who had mutilated himself
was not universally considered uncanonical in the time of Origen is
proved by the fact that the Palestinian bishops (whom Origen cannot
have allowed to remain ignorant of his condition) all united in
ordaining him. But the very fact that they all united (which has
perplexed some scholars) leads us to think that they realized that
their action was somewhat irregular, and hence wished to give it
sanction by the participation of a number of bishops. The first canon
of the Council of Nicaea forbids such ordination, and the canon is
doubtless but the repetition of an older one (cf. Apost. Canons, 21 to
24, and see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 377), and yet Origen’s
consent to his ordination makes it improbable that there was in force
in his time, even in Alexandria, a canon placing absolute and
unconditional clerical disabilities upon such as he. That the action,
however, was considered at least irregular in Alexandria, is proved by
the position taken in the matter by Demetrius; and the fact that he
made so much of it leads us to believe that the synod, called by him,
may now have made canon law of what was before only custom, and may
have condemned Origen for violating that custom which they considered
as binding as law. Certainly had there been no such custom, and had it
not seemed to Demetrius absolutely binding, he would have ordained
Origen to the priesthood long before. His ordination in Palestine was
in violation of what was known to be Demetrius’ own principle, and the
principle of the Alexandrian church, even if the principle was not,
until this time or later, formulated into a canon.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. VI. chap. 12, S: 6.

Since this passage was printed, I have seen Westcott’s translation of
this fragment of Serapion’s epistle in his Canon of the New Testament,
5th ed. p. 390 sq. (cf. especially p. 391, note), and am glad to note
that his rendering of the words katarxamenon autou is the same as my
own. His interpretation of one or two other points I am unable to
adopt.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. VI. chap. 23, S: 4 (note 6). Origen’s Visit to Achaia.

Eusebius gives as the cause of Origen’s visit to Greece simply ”a
pressing necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs,” but
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 54) tells us that it was on account of heresies
which were troubling the churches of Achaia (propter ecclesias Achaiae,
quae pluribus haeresibus vexabantur). Photius (Cod. 118) reports that
Origen went to Athens without the consent of Demetrius (choris tes tou
oikeiou gnomes episkopou), but this must be regarded as a mistake
(caused perhaps by his knowledge that it was Origen’s ordination, which
took place during this trip, that caused Demetrius’ anger; for Photius
does not say that this statement rests upon the authority of Pamphilus,
but prefaces his whole account with the words ho te PEURmphilos
mEURrtus kai heteroi pleistoi), for Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 54) says
that Origen went to Athens by way of Palestine sub testimonio
ecclesiasticae epistolae, and in chap. 62 he says that Alexander,
bishop of Jerusalem wrote an epistle in which he stated that he had
ordained Origen juxta testimonium Demetrii. We must therefore assume
that Origen left Alexandria for Athens with Demetrius’ approval, and
with letters of recommendation from him. It is the common opinion that
Origen left Alexandria this time about 228 a.d., and after his visit in
Achaia returned to Alexandria, where he remained until excommunicated
by the council called by Demetrius. Upon searching the sources,
however, I can find absolutely no authority for the statement that he
returned to Alexandria after his visit to Achaia; in fact, that he did
seems by most scholars simply to be taken for granted without further
investigation. The opinion apparently rests upon the interpretation of
two passages, one in a report of the proceedings of the Alexandrian
synod taken by Photius from Pamphilus’ Apology, the other in the
preface to the sixth book of Origen’s commentary on the Gospel of John.
In the former it is said that the synod voted to exile Origen from
Alexandria, and forbade him to reside or to teach there (psephizetai
metastenai men apo ‘Alexandreias ton ‘Origenen, kai mete diatribein en
aute, mete didEURskein). But certainly such a decree is far from
proving that Origen, at the time it was passed, was actually in
Alexandria. It simply shows that he still regarded that city as his
residence, and was supposed to be expecting to return to it after his
visit was completed. In the preface to the sixth book of his commentary
on John’s Gospel, he speaks of the troubles and trials which he had
been enduring in Alexandria before he finally left the city, and
compares that departure to the exodus of the children of Israel. But
certainly it is just as easy to refer these troubles to the time before
his visit to Achaia, a time when in all probability the early books of
his commentary on John, as well as others of his writings, had begun to
excite the hostility of the Alexandrian clergy, and thus made his
residence there uncomfortable. It is almost necessary to assume that
this hostility had arisen some time before the synods were held, in
order to account both for the hostility of the majority of the clergy,
which cannot have been so seriously aroused in an instant, and also for
the change in Demetrius’ attitude, which must have found a partial
cause in the already existing hostility of the clergy to Origen,
hostility which led them to urge him on to take decisive steps against
Origen when the fitting occasion for action came in the ordination of
the latter (see above, p. 395). The only arguments which, so far as I
am able to learn, have been or can be urged for Origen’s return to
Alexandria are thus shown to prove nothing. On the other hand, it is a
fact that Origen was ordained on his way to Achaia, and then went on
and did his business there, and it is difficult to imagine that
Demetrius and the Alexandrian church would have waited so long before
taking action in regard to this step, which appeared to them so
serious. More than that, Origen reports that he had begun the sixth
book of his commentary on John in Alexandria, but had left it there,
and therefore began it anew in Palestine. It is difficult to imagine
that his departure was so hasty that he could not take even his mss.
with him; but if he left only for his visit to Achaia, expecting to
return again, he would of course leave his mss. behind him, and when
his temporary absence was changed by the synod into permanent exile, he
might not have been in a position, or might not have cared, to send
back for the unfinished work. Still further, it does not seem probable
that, if he were leaving Alexandria an exile under the condemnation of
the church, and in such haste as the leaving of his unfinished
commentary would imply, he should be in a position to entrust the care
of his catechetical school to his assistant Heraclas (as he is said in
chap. 26 to have done). That matter would rather have been taken out of
his hands by Demetrius and the rest of the clergy. But going away
merely on a visit, he would of course leave the school in Heraclas’
charge, and after his condemnation the clergy might see that Heraclas
was the man for the place, and leave him undisturbed in it. After
having, upon the grounds mentioned, reached the conclusion, shared so
far as I knew by no one else, that it is at least unlikely that Origen
returned to Alexandria after his visit to Greece, I was pleased to find
my position strengthened by some chronological considerations urged by
Lipsius (Chronologie d. roem. Bischoefe, p. 195, note), who says that
”we do not know whether Origen ever returned to Alexandria after his
ordination,” and who seems to think it probable that he did not. He
shows that Pontianus did not become bishop of Rome until 230, and
therefore, if Eusebius is correct in putting Origen’s visit to Achaia
in the time of Pontianus’ episcopate, as he does in this passage, that
visit cannot have taken place before 230 (the commonly accepted date,
which rests upon a false chronology of Pontianus’ episcopate, is 228);
while on the other hand, according to chap. 26, Origen’s final
departure from Alexandria took place in the tenth year of Alexander’s
reign (231 a.d.), shortly before Demetrius’ death, which occurred not
later than 232 (see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4). Supposing, then, that
Origen returned to Alexandria, we must assume his journey to Palestine,
his ordination there, his visit to Achaia and settlement of the
disputes there, his return to Alexandria, the composition of at least
some part of his commentary on John, the calling of a synod, his
condemnation and exile,–all within the space of about a year. These
chronological considerations certainly increase the improbability of
Origen’s return to Alexandria. (It may be remarked that Redepenning,
who accepts the commonly received chronology, assigns two years to the
Caesarean and Achaian visit.) Assuming, then, that this departure for
Achaia is identical with that mentioned in chap. 26, we put it in the
year 231. It must have been (as of course we should expect, for he
stopped in Palestine only on his way to Achaia) very soon after his
departure that Origen’s ordination took place; and the synod must have
been called very soon after that event (as we should likewise expect),
for Demetrius died the following year.

As to the cause of Origen’s ordination, it is quite possible, as
Redepenning suggests, that when he went a second time to Palestine, his
old friends, the bishops of Caesarea, of Jerusalem, and of other
cities, wished to hear him preach again, but that remembering the
reproof of the bishop Demetrius, called forth by his preaching on the
former occasion (see chap. 19), he refused, and that then the
Palestinian bishops, in order to obviate that difficulty, insisted on
ordaining him. It is not impossible that Origen, who seems never to
have been a stickler for the exact observance of minor ecclesiastical
rules and formalities, supposed that Demetrius, who had shown himself
friendly in the past, and not hostile to him because of his youthful
imprudence (see chap. 8), would concur willingly in an ordination
performed by such eminent bishops, and an ordination which would prove
of such assistance to Origen in the accomplishment of the work in
Achaia which he was undertaking with the approval of Demetrius himself,
even though the latter could not bring himself to violate what he
considered an ecclesiastical canon against the ordination of eunuchs.
We can thus best explain Origen’s consent to the step which, when we
consider his general character, it is difficult to suppose he would
have taken in conscious opposition to the will of his bishop. (On
Demetrius’ view of the matter, see above, p. 394 sq.) He was ordained,
according to Jerome’s de vir. ill. c. 54 (cf. also chap. 8, above), by
Theoctistus, bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem,
together with ”the most distinguished bishops of Palestine” (as
Eusebius says in chap. 8).
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. VII. chap. 25, S: 11.

For in the reputed second or third Epistle of John, read in the extant
second and third Epistles of John (en te deutera pheromene ‘IoEURnnou
kai trite).
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. VII. chap. 26, S: 1 (note 4, continued).

On Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism and the occasion of the
Apology (zlenchos kai apologia) in four books, which he addressed to
Dionysius of Rome, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. This work is no longer
extant, but brief fragments of it have been preserved by Athanasius (in
his De Sent. Dionysii) and by Basil ( in his De Spir. Sancto). English
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 92 sq. The longer
work was preceded by a shorter one, now lost, to which reference is
made in one of the fragments of the longer work. We do not know the
exact date of the work, but may assign it with considerable probability
to the earlier part of the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome; that is,
soon after 259. Upon this work and upon Dionysius’ attitude toward
Sabellianism, see especially Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, p. 91. sq.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. VIII. chap. 2, S: 4 (note 3, continued). The Causes of the
Diocletian Persecution.

The persecution of Diocletian, following as it did a period of more
than forty years during which Christianity had been recognized as a
religio licita, and undertaken as it was by a man who throughout the
first eighteen years of his reign had shown himself friendly to the
Christians, and had even filled his own palace with Christian servants,
presents a very difficult problem to the historian. Why did Diocletian
persecute? The question has taxed the ingenuity of many scholars and
has received a great variety of answers. Hunziker (in his Regierung und
Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Diocletianus und seiner Nachfolger,
Leipzig, 1869), Burckhardt (in his Zeit Constantins, Basel, 1853, 2d
and improved edition, Leipzig, 1880), and A. J. Mason (in his
Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge and London, 1876), not to mention
other investigators, have treated the subject with great ability and at
considerable length, and the student is referred to their works for a
fuller examination of the questions involved. It is not my purpose here
to discuss the various views that have been presented by others; but
inasmuch as I am unable fully to agree with any of them, I desire to
indicate my own conception of the causes that led to the persecution.
We are left almost wholly to conjecture in the matter; for our only
authority, Lactantius, makes so many palpably erroneous statements in
his description of the causes which produced the great catastrophe that
little reliance can be placed upon him (see Burckhardt’s demonstration
of these errors, ibid. p. 289 sq.). Nevertheless, he has preserved for
us at least one fact of deep significance, and it is a great merit of
Mason’s discussion that he has proved so conclusively the correctness
of the report. The fact I refer to is that the initiative came from
Galerius, not from Diocletian himself. Lactantius states this very
distinctly and repeatedly, but it has been argued by Hunziker and many
others that the persecution had been in Diocletian’s mind for a long
time, and that it was but the culmination of his entire policy. Having
settled political matters, it is said, he turned his attention to
religious matters, and determined as a step toward the restoration of
the old Roman religion in its purity to exterminate Christianity. But,
as Mason shows, this is an entire misconception of Diocletian’s policy.
It had never been his intention to attack Christianity. Such an attack
was opposed to all his principles, and was at length made only under
the pressure of strong external reasons. But though Mason has brought
out this important fact so clearly, and though he has shown that
Galerius was the original mover in the matter, he has, in my opinion,
gone quite astray in his explanation of the causes which led Diocletian
to accede to the wishes of Galerius. According to Mason, Diocletian was
induced against his will to undertake a course of action which his
judgment told him was unwise. ”But the Caesar [Galerius] was the
younger and the stronger man; and a determination to do has always an
advantage over the determination not to do. At length Diocletian broke
down so far as to offer to forbid the profession of the faith within
the walls of his palace and under the eagles of his legions. He was
sure it was a mistaken policy. It was certainly distasteful to himself.
The army would suffer greatly by the loss. Diocletian would have to
part with servants to whom he was attached,” &c. To my mind, it is
impossible to believe that Diocletian–great and wise emperor as he had
proved himself, and with an experience of over eighteen years of
imperial power during which he had always shown himself master–can
thus have yielded simply to the importunity of another man. Our
knowledge of Diocletian’s character should lead us to repudiate
absolutely such a supposition. Feeling the difficulty of his own
supposition, Mason suggests that Diocletian may have felt that it would
be better for him to begin the persecution himself, and thus hold it
within some bounds, than to leave it for Galerius to conduct when he
should become emperor two years later. But certainly if, as Mason
assumes, Diocletian was convinced that the measure was in itself
vicious and impolitic, that was a most remarkable course to pursue. To
do a bad thing in order to leave no excuse for a successor to do the
same thing in a worse way–certainly that is hardly what we should
expect from the strongest and the wisest ruler Rome had seen for three
centuries. If he believed it ought not to be done, we may be sure he
would not have done it, and that neither Galerius nor any one else
could compel him to. He was not such a helpless tool in the hands of
others, nor was he so devoid of resources as to be obliged to prevent a
successor’s folly and wickedness by anticipating him in it, nor so
devoid of sense as to believe that he could. It is, in my opinion,
absolutely necessary to assume that Diocletian was convinced of the
necessity of proceeding against the Christians before he took the step
he did. How then are we to account for this change in his opinions?
Burckhardt attributes the change to the discovery of a plot among the
Christians. But the question naturally arises, what motive can the
Christians have had for forming a plot against an emperor so friendly
to them and a government under which they enjoyed such high honors?
Burckhardt gives no satisfactory answer to this very pertinent query,
and consequently his theory has not found wide acceptance. And yet I
believe he is upon the right track in speaking of a plot, though he has
not formed the right conception of its causes and nature, and has not
been able to urge any known facts in direct support of his theory. In
my opinion the key to the mystery lies in the fact which Lactantius
states and the truth of which Mason demonstrates, but which Burckhardt
quite overlooks, that the initiative came from Galerius, not
Diocletian, viewed in the light of the facts that Galerius had long
been known to be a bitter enemy of the Christians, and that he was to
succeed Diocletian within a couple of years. The course of events might
be pictured somewhat as follows. Some of the Christian officials and
retainers of Diocletian, fearing what might happen upon the accession
of Galerius, who was known to be a deadly enemy of the Christians, and
who might be expected, if not to persecute, at least to be a deadly
enemy of the Christian officials that had enjoyed Diocletian’s favor
(Galerius himself had only heathen officials in his court), conceived
the idea of frustrating in some way the appointed succession and secure
it for some one who would be more favorable to them (possibly for the
young Constantine, who was then at Diocletian’s court, and who, as we
know, was later so cordially hated by Galerius). It may have been hoped
by some of them that it would be possible in the end to win Diocletian
himself over to the side of Christianity, and then induce him to change
the succession and transmit the power to a fitter prince. There may
thus have been nothing distinctly treasonable in the minds of any of
them, but there may have been enough to arouse the suspicions of
Galerius himself, who was the one most deeply interested, and who was
always well aware of the hatred which the Christians entertained toward
him. We are told by Lactantius that Galerius spent a whole winter with
Diocletian, endeavoring to persuade him to persecute. The latter is but
a conclusion drawn by Lactantius from the events which followed; for he
tells us himself that their conferences were strictly private, and that
no one knew to what they pertained. But why did the persecution of the
Christians at this particular time seem so important a thing to
Galerius that he should make this long and extraordinary visit to
Nicomedia? Was it the result of a fresh accession of religious zeal on
his part? I confess myself unable to believe that Galerius’ piety lay
at the bottom of the matter, and at any rate, knowing that he would
himself be master of the empire in two years, why could he not wait
until he could take matters into his own hands and carry them out after
his own methods? No one, so far as I know, has answered this question;
and yet it is a very pertinent one. It might be said that Galerius was
afraid that he should not be able to carry out such measures unless
they had had the sanction of his great predecessor. But Galerius never
showed, either as Caesar or Augustus, any lack of confidence in
himself, and I am inclined to think that he would have preferred to
enjoy the glory of the great undertaking himself rather than give it
all to another, had he been actuated simply by general reasons of
hostility toward the Church. But if we suppose that he had conceived a
suspicion of such a plan as has been suggested, we explain fully his
remarkable visit and his long and secret interviews with Diocletian.
There was no place in which he could discover more about the suspected
plot (which he might well fancy to be more serious than it really was)
than in Nicomedia itself; and if such a plot was on foot, it was of
vital importance to unearth it and reveal it to Diocletian. We may
believe then that Galerius busied himself during the whole winter in
investigating matters, and that long after he had become thoroughly
convinced of the existence of a plot Diocletian remained skeptical.

We may suppose that at the same time whatever vague plans were in the
minds of any of the Christians were crystallizing during that winter,
as they began to realize that Galerius’ hold upon the emperor was such
that the latter could never be brought to break with him. We may thus
imagine that while Galerius was seeking evidence of a plot, the plot
itself was growing and taking a more serious shape in the minds at
least some of the more daring and worldly minded Christians. Finally,
sufficient proof was gathered to convince even Diocletian that there
was some sort of a plot on foot, and that the plotters were Christians.
The question then arose what course should be pursued in the matter.
And this question may well have caused the calling together of a number
of counsellors and the consultation of the oracle of Apollo of which
Lactantius tells us. Galerius naturally wished to exterminate the
Christians as a whole, knowing their universal hostility to him; but
Diocletian just as naturally wished to punish only such as were
concerned in the plot, and was by no means convinced that the
Christians as a whole were engaged in it. The decision which was
reached, and which is exhibited in the edict of the 24th of February,
303 seems to confirm in a remarkable manner the theory which has been
presented. Instead of issuing an edict against Christians in general,
Diocletian directs his blows solely against Christians in governmental
circles,–public officials and servants in official families (cf. the
interpretation of the edict given above in Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 6).
This is certainly not the procedure of an emperor who is persecuting on
religious grounds. The church officers should in that case have been
first attacked as they had been by Decius and Valerian. The singling
out of Christians in official circles–and the low as well as the high
ones, the servants as well as the masters–is a clear indication that
the motive was political, not religious. Moreover, that the edict was
drawn in such mild terms is a confirmation of this. These men were
certainly not all guilty, and it was not necessary to put them all to
death. It was necessary to put an end to the plot in the most
expeditious and complete way. The plotters should be shown that their
plot was discovered, and the whole thing should be broken up by causing
some of them to renounce their faith, by degrading and depriving of
citizenship all that would not renounce it. It was a very shrewd move.
Executions would but have increased the rebellious spirit and caused
the plot to spread. But Diocletian was well aware that any one that
renounced his faith would lose caste with his fellow-Christians, and
even if he had been a plotter in the past, he could never hope to gain
anything in the future from the accession of a Christian emperor. He
was careful moreover to provide against any danger from those who
refused to renounce their faith, by putting them into a position where
it would be impossible for them to accomplish anything in that line in
the future. He knew that a plot which had no support within official
circles would be of no account and was not to be feared. The action,
based on the grounds given, was worthy of Diocletian’s genius;
explained in any other way it becomes, in my opinion, meaningless. A
further confirmation of the view which has been presented is found in
the silence of Lactantius and Eusebius. The former was in Nicomedia,
and cannot have failed to know the ostensible if not the true cause of
the great persecution. Diocletian cannot have taken such a step without
giving some reason for it, and doubtless that reason was stated in the
preambles of his edicts, as is the case in the edicts of other
emperors; but as it happens, while we know the substance of all the
edicts, not a single preamble has been preserved. May it not be
possible that the Christians, who preserved the terms of the edicts,
found the preambles distasteful because derogatory to some of
themselves and yet unfortunately not untrue? The reasons which
Lactantius gives are palpable makeshifts, and indeed he does not
venture to state them categorically. ”I have learned,” he says, ”that
the cause of his fury was as follows.” Doubtless he had heard it thus
in Christian circles; but doubtless he had heard it otherwise from
heathen or from the edicts themselves; and he can hardly, as a sensible
man, have been fully satisfied with his own explanation of the matter.
Eusebius attempts no explanation. He tells us in chapter I, above, that
the Church just before the persecution was in an abominable state and
full of unworthy Christians, and yet he informs us that he will pass by
the unpleasant facts to dwell upon the brighter side for the
edification of posterity. Was the cause of the persecution one of the
unpleasant facts? He calls it a judgment of God. Was it a merited
judgment upon some who had been traitors to their country? He gives us
his opinion as to the causes of the persecution of Decius and Valerian;
why is he silent about the causes of this greatest of all the
persecutions? His silence in the present case is eloquent.

The course of events after the publication of the First Edict is not
difficult to follow. Fire broke out twice in the imperial palace.
Lactantius ascribes it to Galerius, who was supposed to have desired to
implicate the Christians; but, as Burckhardt remarks, Diocletian was
not the man to be deceived in that way, and we may dismiss the
suspicion as groundless. That the fires were accidental is possible,
but extremely improbable. Diocletian at least believed that they were
kindled by Christians, and it must be confessed that he had some ground
for his belief. At any rate, whether true or not, the result was the
torture (for the sake of extorting evidence) and the execution of some
of his most faithful servants (see Bk. VIII. chap. 6). It had become an
earnest matter with Diocletian, and he was beginning to feel–as he had
never had occasion to feel before–that a society within the empire
whose claims were looked upon as higher than those of the state itself,
and duty to which demanded, in case of a disagreement between it and
the state, insubordination, and even treason, toward the latter, was
too dangerous an institution to tolerate longer, however harmless it
might be under ordinary circumstances. It was at about this time that
there occurred rebellions in Melitene and Syria, perhaps in consequence
of the publication of the First Edict; at any rate, the Christians, who
were regarded with ever increasing suspicion, were believed to be in
part at least responsible for the outbreaks, and the result was that a
second edict was issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches
should be thrown into prison (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6). Here
Diocletian took the same step taken by Decius and Valerian, and
instituted thereby a genuine religious persecution. It was now
Christians as Christians whom he attacked; no longer Christian
officials as traitors. The vital difference between the first and
second edicts is very clear. All that followed was but the legitimate
carrying out of the principle adopted in the Second Edict,–the
destruction of the Church as such, the extermination of Christianity.
__________________________________________________________________

On Bk. X. chap. 8, S: 4 (note I, a).

After Constantine’s victory over Maxentius, his half-sister Constantia,
daughter of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, was
married to Licinius, and thus the alliance of the two emperors was
cemented by family ties. Constantius Chlorus was a grandson of Crispus,
brother of the Emperor Claudius II., and hence could claim to be, in a
sense, of imperial extraction; a fact which gave him a dignity beyond
that of his colleagues, who were all of comparatively low birth.
Constantine himself and his panegyrists always made much of his
illustrious descent.
__________________________________________________________________

Table of Roman Emperors.

Augustus………………………………………………………
…………………………………… b.c. 27-a.d. 14

Tiberius………………………………………………………
………………………………………….. a.d. 14-37

Caius
Caligula………………………………………………………
…………………………………………. 37-41

Claudius………………………………………………………
………………………………………………… 41-54

Nero………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………. 54-68

Galba…………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………. 68-69

Otho………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………. 69

Vitellius……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………….. 69

Vespasian……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………….. 69-79

Titus…………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………… 79-81

Domitian………………………………………………………
………………………………………………… 81-96

Nerva…………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………. 96-98

Trajan………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………….. 98-117

Hadrian……………………………………………………….
…………………………………………….. 117-138

Antoninus
Pius………………………………………………………….
…………………………………. 138-161

Marcus Aurelius [Antoninus Verus]

Lucius Verus

}

……………………………………………………. 161-180

……………………………………………………. 161-169

Commodus………………………………………………………
…………………………………………. 180-192

Pertinax………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………….. 193

Didius
Julianus………………………………………………………
……………………………………………. 193

Niger…………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. 193-194

Septimius
Severus……………………………………………………….
……………………………….. 193-211

Caracalla

Geta

}

……………………………………………………………..
………………………….. 211-217

……………………………………………………………..
………………………….. 211-212

M. Opilius
Macrinus………………………………………………………
…………………………….. 217-218

Heliogabalus, or
Elagabalus…………………………………………………….
……………………… 218-222

Alexander
Severus……………………………………………………….
………………………………. 222-235

Maximin
I…………………………………………………………….
…………………………………….. 235-238

The Gordians, I and
II……………………………………………………………
…………………….. 237-238

Maximus Pupienus

Balbinus

}

……………………………………………………………..
……………………. 238

Gordian
III…………………………………………………………..
…………………………………….. 238-244

Philip………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………….. 244-249

Decius………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………… 249-251

Gallus………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………. 251-252

AEmilian………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………….. 253

Valerian………………………………………………………
……………………………………………… 253-260

Gallienus……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………… 260-268

Claudius
II……………………………………………………………
…………………………………….. 268-270

Aurelian………………………………………………………
……………………………………………… 270-275

Tacitus……………………………………………………….
……………………………………………… 275-276

Probus………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………….. 276-282

Carus…………………………………………………………
……………………………………………… 282-283

Carinus

Numerian

}

……………………………………………………………..
……………………….. 283-284

Diocletian

Maximian

}

……………………………………………………………..
……………………….. 284-305

……………………………………………………………..
……………………….. 285-305

Constantius

Galerius

Maxentius (not recognized by the others)

Licinius

Constantine

Maximin II.

}

…………..

…………..

}

………………………………… 305-306

………………………………… 305-311

………………………………… 306-312

………………………………… 307-323

………………………………… 308-313

………………………………… 308-337
__________________________________________________________________

The Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, mentioned by
Eusebius.

Bishops of Rome.

(Dates taken from the table given by Lipsius in his Chronologie der
roem. Bischoefe, p. 263 sq.)

Linus.

Pontianus, 5 years 2 months 7 days; (July 21?), 230-Sept. 28, 235.

Anencletus.

Anteros, 1 month 12 days; Nov. 21, 235-Jan. 3, 236.

Clement.

Fabianus, 14 years 10 days; 236-Jan. 20, 250. Vacancy from Jan. 21,
250-March, 251.

Evarestus.

Cornelius, 2 years 3 months 10 days; beginning of March, 251-middle of
June, 253.

Alexander.

Lucius, 8 months 10 days; June (25?), 253-March 5, 254.

Xystus I, for about ten years; died between 124 and 126.

Stephanus, 3 years 2 months 21 days; (May 12?), 254-Aug. 6, 258.

Telesphorus, 11 years; died between 135 and 137.

Xystus II., 11 months 12 (6?) days; Aug. 24 (31?), 257-Aug. 6, 258.

Hyginus, 4 years; died between 139 and 141.

Dionysius, 9 years 5 months 2 days; July 22, 259-Dec. 27, 268.

Pius, 15-16 years; died between 154 and 156.

Felix I., 5 years 11 months 25 days; Jan. 5, 269-Dec. 30, 274.

Anicetus, 11-12 years; died in 166 or 167.

Eutychian, 8 years 11 months 3 days; (Jan. 5?) 275-Dec. 8, 283.

Soter, 8-9 years; died in 174 or 175.

Caius, 12 years 4 months 6 days; Dec. 17, 283-April 22, 296.

Eleutherus, 15 years; died in 189.

Marcellinus, 8 years 3 months 25 days; June 30, 296-(Oct. 25?), 304.
Vacancy until 307.

Victor, 9-10 years; 189-198 or 199.

Marcellus, 1 year 7 months 21 days; (May 24?), 307-Jan. 15, 309.

Zephyrinus, 18-19 years; 198 or 199-217 (Aug. 26?).

Eusebius, 3 (4?) months 23 (16?) days; April 23 (16?), 309-Aug. 17,
309. Vacancy until 310.

Callistus, 5 years; 217-Oct. 14, 222.

Miltiades, 3 years 6 months 8 days; July 2, 310-Jan. 10 (11?), 314.

Urbanus, 8 years; 222-230 (May 19?).
__________________________________________________________________

Bishops of Alexandria.

Annianus.

Justus.

Agrippinus.

Dionysius.

Abilius.

Eumenes.

Julian.

Maximus.

Cerdon.

Marcus.

Demetrius.

Theonas.

Primus.

Celadion.

Heraclas.

Peter.
__________________________________________________________________

Bishops of Antioch.

(Dates taken from the table given by Harnack in his Zeit des Ignatius,
p. 62.)

Evodius.

Zebinus, died between 238 and 249.

Ignatius.

Babylas, died in 250, during the persecution of Decius.

Hero.

Fabius, died toward the end of 252 or early in 253.

Cornelius.

Demetrian, died between 257 and 260.

Eros.

Paul, deposed between 266 and 269 (probably in 268).

Theophilus, died not earlier than 182.

Domnus.

Maximinus, died between 189 and 192.

Timaeus, died about 280.

Serapion, died about 209.

Cyril, sent to the mines in 303, and died probably toward the end of
306.

Asclepiades, died between 211 and 222.

Tyrannus, succeeded Cyril probably in 303, possibly not until 306, and
lived until the close of the persecution.

Philetus, died not long before 229-231.
__________________________________________________________________

Bishops of Jerusalem.

James.

Justus.

Gaius I.

Dius.

Symeon.

Levi.

Symmachus.

Germanio.

Justus.

Ephres.

Gaius II.

Gordius.

Zacchaeus.

Joseph.

Julian II.

Narcisscus, a second time.

Tobias.

Judas.

Capito.

Alexander.

Benjamin.

Marcus.

Maximus II.

Antoninus.

} [2990]

Mazabanes.

John.

Cassianus.

Hymenaeus.

Matthias.

Publius.

Valens.

Zambdas.

Philip.

Maximus I.

Dolichianus.

Hermon.

Seneca.

Julian I.

Narcissus.
__________________________________________________________________

[2990] These two names are omitted by Eusebius in his History, but are
given in his Chron. and also by Epiphanius. See above, Bk. V. chap. 12,
note 2.
__________________________________________________________________

Table showing the Roman Method of counting the Days of the Month.

(Taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica, article Calendar.)

Days of the Month.

March.

May.

July.

October.

January.

August.

December.

April.

June.

September.

November.

February.

1

Kalendae.

Kalendae.

Kalendae.

Kalendae.

2

6

4

4

4

3

5

3

3

3

4

4

Prid. Nonas.

Prid. Nonas.

Prid. Nonas.

5

3

Nonae.

Nonae.

Nonae.

6

Prid. Nonas.

8

8

8

7

Nonae.

7

7

7

8

8

6

6

6

9

7

5

5

5

10

6

4

4

4

11

5

3

3

3

12

4

Prid. Idus.

Prid. Idus.

Prid. Idus.

13

3

Idus.

Idus.

Idus.

14

Prid. Idus.

19

18

16

15

Idus.

18

17

15

16

17

17

16

14

17

16

16

15

13

18

15

15

14

12

19

14

14

13

11

20

13

13

12

10

21

12

12

11

9

22

11

11

10

8

23

10

10

9

7

24

9

9

8

6

25

8

8

7

5

26

7

7

6

4

27

6

6

5

3

28

5

5

4

Prid. Kal. Mart.

29

4

4

3

30

3

3

Prid. Kalen.

31

Prid. Kalen.

Prid. Kalen.

”Instead of distinguishing the days by the ordinal numbers, first,
second, third, etc., the Romans counted backwards from three fixed
epochs; namely, the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides. The Kalends were
invariably the first day of the month, and were so denominated because
it had been an ancient custom of the pontiffs to call the people
together on that day, to apprise them of the festivals, or days that
were to be kept sacred during the month. The Ides (from an obsolete
verb iduare, to divide) were at the middle of the month, either the
13th or the 15th day; and the Nones were the ninth day before the Ides,
counting inclusively. From these three terms the days received their
denomination in the following manner:–

”Those which were comprised between the Kalends and the Nones were
called the days before the Nones; those between the Nones and the Ides
were called the days before the Ides; and, lastly, all the days after
the Ides to the end of the month were called the days before the
Kalends of the succeeding month.

”In the months of March, May, July, and October, the Ides fell on the
15th day, and the Nones consequently on the 7th: so that each of these
months had six days named from the Nones. In all the other months the
Ides were on the 13th and the Nones were on the 5th; consequently there
were only four days named from the Nones. Every month had eight days
named from the Ides. The number of days receiving their denomination
from the Kalends depended on the number of days in the month and the
day on which the Ides fell. For example, if the month contained 31
days, and the Ides fell on the 13th as was the case in January, August,
and December, there would remain 18 days after the Ides, which, added
to the first of the following month, made 19 days of Kalends. In
January, therefore, the 14th day of the month was called the nineteenth
before the Kalends of February (counting inclusively), the 15th was the
18th before the Kalends, and so on to the 30th, which was called the
third before the Kalends (tertio Kalendas), the last being the second
of the Kalends, or the day before the Kalends (pridie Kalendas).”
__________________________________________________________________

Table of Macedonian Months

The months of the Macedonian year, as commonly employed in the time of
Eusebius, corresponded exactly to the Roman months, but the year began
with the first of September. The names of the months were as follows:–

Macedonian.

Roman.

Macedonian.

Roman.

1. Gorpiaeus.

September.

7. Dystrus.

March.

2. Hyperberetaeus.

October.

8. Xanthicus.

April.

3. Dius.

November.

9. Artemisius.

May.

4. Apellaeus.

December.

10. Daesius.

June.

5. Audynaeus.

January.

11. Panemus.

July.

6. Peritius.

February.

12. Loues.

August.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

the life of constantine,

By Eusebius,

together with the

oration of constantine to the assembly of the saints,

and the

oration of eusebius in praise of constantine.

A Revised Translation, with Prolegomena and Notes, by

Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.d.

librarian and associate professor in hartford theological seminary.
__________________________________________________________________

Preface.

————————

In accordance with the instruction of the editor-in-chief the following
work consists of a revision of the Bagster translation of Eusebius’
”Life of Constantine,” Constantine’s ”Oration to the Saints,” and
Eusebius’ ”Oration in Praise of Constantine,” with somewhat extended
Prolegomena and limited notes, especial attention being given in the
Prolegomena to a study of the Character of Constantine. In the work of
revision care has been taken so far as possible not to destroy the
style of the original translator, which though somewhat inflated and
verbose, represents perhaps all the better, the corresponding styles of
both Eusebius and Constantine, but the number of changes really
required has been considerable, and has caused here and there a break
in style in the translation, whose chief merit is that it presents in
smooth, well-rounded phrase the generalized idea of a sentence. The
work on the Prolegomena has been done as thoroughly and originally as
circumstances would permit, and has aimed to present material in such
way that the general student might get a survey of the man Constantine;
and the various problems and discussions of which he is center. It is
impossible to return special thanks to all who have given special
facilities for work, but the peculiar kindness of various helpers in
the Bibliotheque de la Ville at Lyons demands at least the recognition
of individualized thanksgiving.

E.C.R.

Hartford, Conn., April 15, 1890.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________