Welcome to you. You have arrived at a plain text page in the 
          LoveAllPeople.org network of web pages. To visit our regular HTML
          web pages, please copy the link below, and paste it into your
          Internet Explorer or other browser. Blessings to you. - Rev. Bill McGinnis
  
     Link to copy => http://www.loveallpeople.org/chapellinks.html
   


     SEMI-FINISHED DRAFT - EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

       (Covering the First Three Centuries Of Christianity)
        
       Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, 1890
             This draft is in the Public Domain
               "Free To Copy, Free To Use"



 This classic book, written by a scholar friend of Emperor Constantine,
 provides the best available history of the first three centuries of
 Christianity. It is filled with the answers to many questions the
 serious Christian may have asked about the early Church.

 After only the Bible itself, this book is perhaps the most important
 book for a Christian to read and understand. 



 NOTE: This draft is offered "as is." There are several known
 typographical errors, and the HTML additions have not yet
 been made. Nevertheless, I am making it available at this time
 because it is very useful, even in its present form.

 
               Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director
                  LoveAllpeople.org

	
PROLEGOMENA.

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF

EUSEBIUS OF C'SAREA.

CHAPTER I.

THE LIFE OF EUSEBIUS.

§ 1. Sources and Literature.

Accents, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in 
the bishopric of C'sarea, wrote a life of the 
latter (Socr. H. E. II. 4) which is unfortunately 
lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E. III. 
2, IV. 23) and had exceptional opportunities for 
producing a full and accurate account of Eusebius' 
life; the disappearance of his work is therefore 
deeply to be regretted.
Numerous notices of Eusebius are found in the 
works of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, 
Jerome, and other writers of his own and 
subsequent ages, to many of which references will 
be made in the following pages. A collection of 
these notices, made by Valesius, is found in 
English translation on p. 57 sq. of this volume. 
The chief source for a knowledge of Eusebius' life 
and character is to be found in his own works. 
These will be discussed below, on p. 26 sq. Of the 
numerous modern works which treat at greater or 
less length of the life of Eusebius I shall 
mention here only those which I have found most 
valuable.
VALESIUS: De vita scriptisque Eusebii Diatribe (in 
his edition of Eusebius' Histaria Eccles.; English 
version in Cruse's translation of the same work). 
CAVE: Lives of the Fathers, II. 95-144 (ed. H. 
Cary, Oxf. 1840).
TILLEMONT: Hist. Eccles. VII. pp. 39-75 (compare 
also his account of the Arians in vol, VI.). 
STROTH: Leben and Schriften des Eusebius (in his 
German translation of the Hist. Eccles.). CLOSS: 
Leben and Schriflen des Eusebius (in his 
translation of the same work).
DANZ: De Eusebio C'sariensi, Historion of the sam' 
Eccles. Scriptore, ejusque fide historica recte 
rians in vol, VI.).and most val'stimanda, Cap. 
II.: de rebus ad Eusebii vitam pertinentibus (pp. 
33-75).
STEIN: Eusebius Bischof von C'sarea. Nach seinem 
Leben, seinen Schriften, and seinem dogmatischen 
Charakter dargestellt (Wurzburg, 1859; full and 
valuable). BRIGHT, in the introduction to his 
edition of Burton's text of the Hist. Eccles. 
(excellent).
LIGHTFOOT (Bishop of Durham): Eusebius of Cesarea, 
in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, vol. II. pp. 308-348. Lightfoot's 
article is a magnificent monument of patristic 
scholarship and contains the best and most 
exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of 
Eusebius that has been written.
The student may be referred finally to all the 
larger histories of the Church (e.g. Schaff, vol. 
III. 871 sqq. and 1034 sq.), which contain more or 
less extended accounts of Eusebius. § 2. Eusebius' 
Birth and Training. His Life in Ca'sarea until the 
Outbreak of the Persecution.
Our author was commonly known among the ancients 
as Eusebius of C'sarea or Eusebius Pamphili. The 
former designation arose from the fact that he was 
bishop of the church in C'sarea for many years; 
the latter from the fact that he was the intimate 
friend and devoted admirer of Pamphilus, a 
presbyter of C'sarea and a martyr. Some such 
specific appellation was

4

necessary to distinguish him from others of the 
same name. Smith and Wace's Dictionary of 
Christian Biography mentions 137 men of the first 
eight centuries who bore the name Eusebius, and of 
these at least forty were contemporaries of our 
author. The best known among them were Eusebius of 
Nicomedia (called by Arius the brother of Eusebius 
of C'sarea), Eusebius of Emesa, and Eusebius of 
Samosata.
The exact date of our author's birth is unknown to 
us, but his Ecclesiastical History contains 
notices which enable us to fix it approximately. 
In H. E. V. 28 he reports that Paul of Samosata 
attempted to revive again in his day 
(<greek>kaq</greek> <greek>hmas</greek>)  the 
heresy of Artemon. But Paul of Samosata was 
deposed from the episcopate of Antioch in 272, and 
was condemned as a heretic at least as early as 
268, so that Eusebius must have been born before 
the latter date, if his words are to be strictly 
interpreted. Again, according to H. E. III. 28, 
Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria in Eusebius' 
time (<greek>kaq</greek> <greek>hmas</greek>). But 
Dionysius was bishop from 247 or 248 to 265, and 
therefore if Eusebius' words are to be interpreted 
strictly here as in the former case, he must have 
been born before 265. On the other hand, inasmuch 
as his death occurred about 340, we cannot throw 
his birth much earlier than 260. It is true that 
the references to Paul and to Dionysius do not 
prove conclusively that Eusebius was alive in 
their day, for his words may have been used in a 
loose sense. But in H. E. VII. 26, just before 
proceeding to give an account of Paul of Samosata, 
he draws the line between his own and the 
preceding generation, declaring that he is now 
about to relate the events of his own age 
(<greek>thn</greek> <greek>kaq</greek> 
<greek>hmas</greek>). This still further confirms 
the other indications, and we shall consequently 
be safe in concluding that Eusebius was born not 
far from the year 260 A.D. His birthplace cannot 
be determined with certainty. The fact that he is 
called "Eusebius the Palestinian" by Marcellus 
(Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), Bash (Lib. ad. 
Amphil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 29), and others, does 
not prove that he was a Palestinian by birth; for 
the epithet may be used to indicate merely his 
place of residence (he was bishop of C'sarea in 
Palestine for many years). Moreover, the argument 
urged by Stein and Lightfoot in support of his 
Palestinian birth, namely, that it was customary 
to elect to the episcopate of any church a native 
of the city in preference to a native of some 
other place, does not count for much. All that 
seems to have been demanded was that a man should 
have been already a member of the particular 
church over which he was to be made bishop, and 
even this rule was not universal (see Bingham's 
Antiquities, II 10, 2 and 3). The fact that he was 
bishop of C'sarea therefore would at most warrant 
us in concluding only that he had made his 
residence in C'sarea for some time previous to his 
election to that office. Nevertheless, although 
neither of these arguments proves his Palestinian 
birth, it is very probable that he was a native of 
that country, or at least of that section. He was 
acquainted with Syriac as well as with Greek, 
which circumstance taken in connection with his 
ignorance of Latin (see below, p. 47) points to 
the region of Syria as his birthplace. Moreover, 
we learn from his own testimony that he was in 
C'sarea while still a youth (Vita Canstantini, I. 
19), and in his epistle to the church of C'sarea 
(see below, p. 16) he says that he was taught the 
creed of the C'sarean church in his childhood (or 
at least at the beginning of his Christian life: 
<greek>en</greek> <greek>th</greek> 
<greek>kathkhsei</greek>), and that he accepted it 
at baptism. It would seem therefore that he must 
have lived while still a child either in C'sarea 
itself, or in the neighborhood, where its creed 
was in use. Although no one therefore (except 
Theodorus Metochita of the fourteenth century, in 
his Cap. Miscell. 17; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLTV. 
949) directly states that Eusebius was a 
Palestinian by birth, we have every reason to 
suppose him such. His parents are entirely 
unknown. Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37) 
reports that his mother was a sister of Pamphilus. 
He does not mention his authority for this 
statement, and it is extremely unlikely, in the 
face of the silence of Eusebius himself and of all 
other writers, that it is true. It is far more 
probable that the relationship was later assumed 
to account for the close intimacy of the two men. 
Arius, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of 
Nicomedia (contained in Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. 
I. 5), calls Eusebius of C'sarea the latter's 
brother. It is objected to this that Eusebius of 
Nicomedia refers to Eusebius of C'sarea on one 
occasion as his

5

"master" (<greek>tou</greek> 
<greek>despotou</greek>, in his epistle to 
Paulinus contained in Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 
6), and that on the other hand Eusebius of C'sarea 
calls Eusebius of Nicomedia, "the great Eusebius" 
(Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), both of which 
expressions seem inconsistent with brotherhood. 
Lightfoot justly remarks that neither the argument 
itself nor the objections carry much weight. The 
term <greek>adelFos</greek> may well have been 
used to indicate merely theological or 
ecclesiastical association, while on the other 
hand, brotherhood would not exclude the form of 
expression employed by each in speaking of the 
other. Of more weight is the fact that neither 
Eusebius himself nor any historian of that period 
refers to such a relationship, and also the 
unlikelihood that two members of one family should 
bear the same name.
From Eusebius' works we gather that he must have 
received an extensive education both in secular 
philosophy and in Biblical and theological 
science. Although his immense erudition was 
doubtless the result of wide and varied reading 
continued throughout life, it is highly probable 
that he acquired the taste for such reading in his 
youth. Who his early instructors were we do not 
know, and therefore cannot estimate the degree of 
their influence over him. As he was a man, 
however, who cherished deep admiration for those 
whom he regarded as great and good men, and as he 
possessed an unusually acquisitive mind and a 
pliant disposition, we should naturally suppose 
that his instructors must have possessed 
considerable influence over him, and that his 
methods of study in later years must have been 
largely molded by their example and precept. We 
see this exemplified in a remarkable degree in the 
influence exerted over him by Pamphilus, his 
dearest friend, and at the same time the 
preceptor, as it were, of his early manhood. 
Certainly this great bibliopholist must have done 
much to strengthen Eusebius' natural taste for 
omnivorous reading, and the opportunities afforded 
by his grand library for the cultivation of such a 
taste were not lost. To the influence of 
Pamphilus, the devoted admirer and enthusiastic 
champion of Origen, was doubtless due also in 
large measure the deep respect which Eusebius 
showed for that illustrious Father, a respect to 
which we owe one of the most delightful sections 
of his Church History, his long account of Origen 
in the sixth book, and to which in part antiquity 
was indebted for the elaborate Defense of Origen, 
composed by Pamphilus and himself, but 
unfortunately no longer extant. Eusebius certainly 
owed much to the companionship of that eager 
student and noble Christian hero, and he always 
recognized with deep gratitude his indebtedness to 
him. (Compare the account of Pamphilus given below 
in Bk. VII. chap. 32, § 25 sq.) The names of his 
earlier instructors, who were eminently 
successful, at least in fostering his thirst for 
knowledge, are quite unknown to us. His abiding 
admiration for Plato, whom he always placed at the 
head of all philosophers (see Stein, p. 6), would 
lead us to think that he received at least a part 
of his secular training from some ardent 
Platonist, while his intense interest in 
apologetics, which lasted throughout his life, and 
which affected all his works, seems to indicate 
the peculiar bent of his early Christian 
education. Trithemius concluded from a passage in 
his History (VII. 32) that Eusebius was a pupil of 
the learned Dorotheus of Antioch, and Valesius, 
Lightfoot and others are apparently inclined to 
accept his conclusion. But, as Stroth remarks 
(Eusebii Kirchengeschichte, p. xix), all that 
Eusebius says is that he had heard Dorotheus 
expound the Scriptures in the church 
(<greek>toutou</greek> <greek>metriws</greek> 
<greek>tas</greek> <greek>UraFas</greek> 
<greek>eps</greek> <greek>epi</greek> 
<greek>ths</greek> <greek>ekklhsias</greek> 
<greek>dihUoumenou</greek> 
<greek>kathkousamen</greek>), that is, that he had 
heard him preach. To conclude from this statement 
that he was a pupil of Dorotheus is certainly 
quite unwarranted.
Stroth's suggestion that he probably enjoyed the 
instruction of Meletius for seven years during the 
persecution rests upon no good ground, for the 
passage which he relies upon to sustain his 
opinion (E. E. VII. 32. 28) says only that 
Eusebius "observed Meletius well" 
(<greek>katenohsamen</greek>) during those seven 
years.
In C'sarea Eusebius was at one time a presbyter of 
the church, as we may gather from his words in the 
epistle to that church already referred to, where, 
in speaking of the creed, he says, "As we believed 
and taught in the presbytery and in the episcopate 
itself." But the attempt to fix the date of his 
ordination to that office is quite vain. It is 
commonly assumed that he

6

became presbyter while Agapius was bishop of 
C'sarea, and this is not unlikely, though we 
possess no proof of it (upon Agapius see below, H. 
E. VII. 32, note 39). In his Vita Constantini, I. 
19, Eusebius reports that he saw Constantine for 
the first time in C'sarea in the train of the 
Emperor Diocletian. In his Chron. Eusebius reports 
that Diocletian made an expedition against Egypt, 
which had risen in rebellion in the year 296 A.D., 
and Theophanes, in his Chron., says that 
Constantine accompanied him. It is probable 
therefore that it was at this time that Eusebius 
first saw Constantine in C'sarea, when he was 
either on his way to Egypt, or on his way back 
(see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp., IV. p. 34).
During these years of quiet, before the great 
persecution of Diocletian, which broke out in 303 
A.D., Eusebius' life must have been a very 
pleasant one. Pamphilus' house seems to have been 
a sort of rendezvous for Christian scholars, 
perhaps a regular divinity school; for we learn 
from Eusebius' Martyrs in Palestine (Cureton's 
edition, pp. 13 and 14) that he and a number of 
others, including the martyr Apphianus, were 
living together in one house at the time of the 
persecution, and that the latter was instructed in 
the Scriptures by Pamphilus and acquired from him 
virtuous habits and conduct. The great library of 
Pamphilus would make his house a natural center 
for theological study, and the immense amount of 
work which was done by him, or under his 
direction, in the reproduction of copies of the 
Holy Scriptures, of Origen's works (see Jerome's 
de vir. ill. 75 and 8r, and contra Ruf. I. 9), and 
in other literary employments of the same kind, 
makes it probable that he had gathered about him a 
large circle of friends and students who assisted 
him in his labors and profited by his counsel and 
instruction. Amidst these associations Eusebius 
passed his early manhood, and the intellectual 
stimulus thus given him doubtless had much to do 
with his future career. He was above all a 
literary man, and remained such to the end of his 
life. The pleasant companionships of these days, 
and the mutual interest and sympathy which must 
have bound those fellow-students and 
fellow-disciples of Pamphilus very close together, 
perhaps had much to do with that broad-minded 
spirit of sympathy and tolerance which so 
characterized Eusebius in later years. He was 
always as far as possible from the character of a 
recluse. He seems ever to have been bound by very 
strong ties to the world itself and to his 
fellow-men. Had his earlier days been filled with 
trials and hardships, with the bitterness of 
disappointed hopes and unfulfilled ambitions, with 
harsh experiences of others' selfishness and 
treachery, who shall say that the whole course of 
his life might not have been changed, and his 
writings have exhibited au entirely different 
spirit from that which is now one of their 
greatest charms? Certainly he had during these 
early years in C'sarea large opportunities for 
cultivating that natural trait of admiration for 
other men, which was often so strong as to blind 
him even to their faults, and that natural 
kindness which led him to see good wherever it 
existed in his Christian brethren. At the same 
time these associations must have had considerable 
influence in fostering the apologetic temper. The 
pursuits of the little circle were apparently 
exclusively Christian, and in that day when 
Christianity stood always on its defense, it would 
naturally become to them a sacred duty to 
contribute to that defense and to employ all their 
energies in the task. It has been remarked that 
the apologetic temper is very noticeable in 
Eusebius' writings. It is more than that; we may 
say indeed in general terms that everything he 
wrote was an apology for the faith. His History 
was written avowedly with an apologetic purpose, 
his Chronicle was composed with the same end in 
view. Even when pronouncing a eulogy upon a 
deceased emperor he seized ever), possible 
opportunity to draw from that emperor's career, 
and from the circumstances of his reign, arguments 
for the truth and grandeur of the Christian 
religion. His natural temper of mind and his early 
training may have had much to do with this habit 
of thought, but certainly those years with 
Pamphilus and his friends in C'sarea must have 
emphasized and developed it.
Another characteristic which Pamphilus and the 
circle that surrounded him doubtless did something 
to develop in our author was a certain superiority 
to the trammels of mere traditionalism, or we 
might perhaps better say that they in some measure 
checked the opposite tendency of

7

slavishness to the traditional which seems to have 
been natural to him. Pamphilus' deep reverence for 
Origen proclaims him at once superior to that kind 
of narrow conservatism which led many men as 
learned and doubtless as conscientious as himself 
to pass severe and unconditional condemnation upon 
Origen and all his teaching. The effect of 
championing his cause must have fostered in this 
little circle, which was a very hotbed of 
Origenism, a contempt for the narrow and unfair 
judgments of mere traditionalists, and must have 
led them to seek in some degree the truth solely 
for its own sake, and to become in a measure 
careless of its relation to the views of any 
school or church. It could hardly be otherwise 
than that the free and fearless spirit of Origen 
should leave its impress through his writings upon 
a circle of followers so devoted to him as were 
these C'sarean students. Upon the impressionable 
Eusebius these influences necessarily operated. 
And yet he brought to them no keen speculative 
powers, no deep originality such as Origen himself 
possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not 
a productive mind, and hence it was out of the 
question that he should become a second Origen. It 
was quite certain that Origen's influence over him 
would weaken somewhat his confidence in the 
traditional as such,-a confidence which is 
naturally great in such minds as his,-- but at the 
same time would do little to lessen the real power 
of the past over him. He continued to get his 
truth from others, from the great men of the past 
with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he 
had feasted. All that he believed he had drawn 
from them; he produced nothing new for himself, 
and his creed was a traditional creed. And yet he 
had at the same time imbibed from his surroundings 
the habit of questioning and even criticising the 
past, and, in spite of his abiding respect for it, 
had learned to feel that the voice of the many is 
not always the voice of truth, and that the widely 
and anciently accepted is sometimes to be 
corrected by the clearer sight of a single man. 
Though he therefore depended for all he believed 
so completely upon the past, his associations had 
helped to free him from a slavish adherence to all 
that a particular school had accepted, and had 
made him in some small measure an eclectic in his 
relations to doctrines and opinions of earlier 
generations. A notable instance of this 
eclecticism on his part is seen in his treatment 
of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force of an 
almost universal tradition in favor of its 
apostolic origin, and yet in the face of that he 
could listen to the doubts of Dionysius, and could 
be led by his example, in a case where his own 
dissatisfaction with the book acted as an 
incentive, almost, if not quite, to reject it and 
to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a 
similar mode of conduct on his part are quite 
numerous. While he is always a staunch apologist 
for Christianity, he seldom, if ever, degenerates 
into a mere partisan of any particular school or 
sect.
One thing in fact which is particularly noticeable 
in Eusebius' works is the comparatively small 
amount of time and space which he devotes to 
heretics. With his wide and varied learning and 
his extensive acquaintance with the past, he had 
opportunities for successful heresy hunting such 
as few possessed, and yet he never was a heresy 
hunter in any sense. This is surprising when we 
remember what a fascination this employment had 
for so many scholars of his own age, and when we 
realize that his historical tastes and talents 
would seem to mark him out as just the man for 
that kind of work. May it not be that the lofty 
spirit of Origen, animating that C'sarean school, 
had something to do with the happy fact that he 
became an apologist instead of a mere polemic, 
that he chose the honorable task of writing a 
history of the Church. instead of anticipating 
Epiphanius' Panarium?
It was not that he was not alive to the evils of 
heresy. He shared with nearly all good church-men 
of his age an intense aversion for those who, as 
he believed, had corrupted the true Gospel of 
Christ. Like them he ascribed heresy to the agency 
of the evil one, and was no more able than they to 
see any good in a man whom he looked upon as a 
real heretic, or to do justice in any degree to 
the error which he taught. His condemnations of 
heretics in his Church History are most severe. 
Language is hardly strong enough to express his 
aversion for them. And yet, although he is thus 
most thoroughly the child of his age, the 
difference between him and most of his 
contemporaries is very apparent. He mentions these 
heretics only to dismiss them with dis-

8

approval or condemnation. He seldom, if ever, 
discusses and refutes their views. His interests 
lie evidently in other directions; he is concerned 
with higher things. A still more strongly marked 
difference between himself and many churchmen of 
his age lies in his large liberality towards those 
of his own day who differed with him in minor 
points of faith, and his comparative indifference 
to the divergence of views between the various 
parties in the Church. In all this we believe is 
to be seen not simply the inherent nature of the 
man, but that nature as trained in the school of 
Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen.

§ 3. The Persecution of Diocletian.

In this delightful circle and engaged in such 
congenial tasks, the time must have passed very 
happily for Eusebius, until, in 303, the terrible 
persecution of Diocletian broke upon the Church 
almost like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. The 
causes of the sudden change of policy on 
Diocletian's part, and the terrible havoc wrought 
in the Church, it is not my intention to discuss 
here (see below, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3 sq.). 
We are concerned with the persecution only in so 
far as it bears upon the present subject. In the 
first year of the persecution Procopius, the first 
martyr of Palestine, was put to death at C'sarea 
(Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton's ed. p. 
4), and from that time on that city, which was an 
important Christian center, was the scene of a 
tempest which raged with greater or less violence, 
and with occasional cessations, for seven years. 
Eusebius himself was an eyewitness of many 
martyrdoms there, of which he gives us an account 
in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle 
which surrounded Pamphilus did not escape. In the 
third year of the persecution (Mart. of Pal. p. 12 
sq.) a youth named Apphianus, or Epiphanius (the 
former is given in the Greek text, the latter in 
the Syriac), who "resided in the same house with 
us, confirming himself in godly doctrine, and 
being instructed by that perfect martyr, 
Pamphilus" (as Eusebius says), committed an act of 
fanatical daring which caused his arrest and 
martyrdom. It seems that without the knowledge of 
his friends, concealing his design even from those 
who dwelt in the same house with him, he laid hold 
of the hand of the governor, Arbanus, who was upon 
the point of sacrificing, and endeavored to 
dissuade him from offering to "lifeless idols and 
wicked devils." His arrest was of course the 
natural consequence, and he had the glory of 
witnessing a good profession and suffering a 
triumphant death. Although Eusebius speaks with 
such admiration of his conduct, it is quite 
significant of the attitude of himself, and of 
most of the circle of which he was one, that 
Apphianus felt obliged to conceal his purpose from 
them. He doubtless feared that they would not 
permit him to perform the rash act which he 
meditated, and we may conclude from that, that the 
circle in the main was governed by the precepts of 
good common sense, and avoided that fanaticism 
which so frequently led men, as in the present 
case it led Apphianus, to expose themselves 
needlessly, and even to court martyrdom. It is 
plain enough from what we know of Eusebius' 
general character that he himself was too sensible 
to act in that way. It is true that he speaks with 
admiration of Apphianus' conduct, and in H. E. 
VIII. 5, of the equally rash procedure of a 
Nicomedian Christian; but that does not imply that 
he considered their course the wisest one, and 
that he would not rather recommend the employment 
of all proper and honorable precautions for the 
preservation of life. Indeed, in H. E. IV. 15, he 
speaks with evident approval of the prudent course 
pursued by Polycarp in preserving his life so long 
as he could without violating his Christian 
profession, and with manifest disapproval of the 
rash act of the Phrygian Quintus, who 
presumptuously courted martyrdom, only to fail 
when the test itself came. Pamphilus also 
possessed too much sound Christian sense to 
advocate any such fanaticism, or to practice it 
himself, as is plain enough from the fact that he 
was not arrested until the fifth year of the 
persecution. This unhealthy temper of mind in the 
midst of persecution was indeed almost universally 
condemned by the wisest men of the Church, and yet 
the boldness and the very rashness of those who 
thus voluntarily and needlessly threw their lives 
away excited widespread admiration and too often a 
degree

9

of commendation which served only to promote a 
wider growth of the same unhealthy sentiment.
In the fifth year of the persecution Pamphilus was 
arrested and thrown into prison, where he remained 
for two years, when he finally, in the seventh 
year of the persecution, suffered martyrdom with 
eleven others, some of whom were his disciples and 
members of his own household. (Pal. Mart. 
Cureton's ed. p. 36 sq.; H. E. App. chap. 11.) 
During the two years of Pamphilus' imprisonment 
Eusebius spent a great deal of time with him, and 
the two together composed five books of an Apology 
for Origen, to which Eusebius afterward added a 
sixth (see below, p. 36). Danz (p. 37) assumes 
that Eusebius was imprisoned with Pamphilus, which 
is not an unnatural supposition when we consider 
how much they must have been together to compose 
the Apology as they did. There is, however, no 
other evidence that he was thus imprisoned, and in 
the face of Eusebius' own silence it is safer 
perhaps to assume (with most historians) that he 
simply visited Pamphilus in his prison. How it 
happened that Pamphilus and so many of his 
followers were imprisoned and martyred, while 
Eusebius escaped, we cannot tell. In his Martyrs 
of Palestine, chap. 11, he states that Pamphilus 
was the only one of the company of twelve martyrs 
that was a presbyter of the C'sarean church; and 
from the fact that he nowhere mentions the 
martyrdom of others of the presbyters, we may 
conclude that they all escaped. It is not 
surprising, therefore, that Eusebius should have 
done the same. Nevertheless, it is somewhat 
difficult to understand how he could come and go 
so frequently without being arrested and condemned 
to a like fate with the others. It is possible 
that he possessed friends among the authorities 
whose influence procured his safety. This 
supposition finds some support in the fact that he 
had made the acquaintance of Constantine (the 
Greek in Vita Const. I. 19 has 
<greek>egnwmen</greek>, which implies, as Danz 
remarks, that he not only saw, but that he became 
acquainted with Constantine) some years before in 
C'sarea. He could hardly have made his 
acquaintance unless he had some friend among the 
high officials of the city. Influential family 
connections may account in part also for the 
position of prominence which he later acquired at 
the imperial court of Constantine. If he had 
friends in authority in C'sarea during the 
persecution his exemption from arrest is 
satisfactorily accounted for. It has been supposed 
by some that Eusebius denied the faith during the 
terrible persecution, or that he committed some 
other questionable and compromising act of 
concession, and thus escaped martyrdom. In support 
of this is urged the fact that in 335, at the 
council of Tyre, Potamo, bishop of Heraclea, in 
Egypt, addressed Eusebius in the following words: 
"Dost thou sit as judge, O Eusebius; and is 
Athanasius, innocent as he is, judged by thee? Who 
can bear such things? Pray tell me, wast thou not 
with me in prison during the persecution? And I 
lost an eye in behalf of the truth, but thou 
appearest to have received no bodily injury, 
neither hast thou suffered martyrdom, but thou 
hast remained alive with no mutilation. How wast 
thou released from prison unless thou didst 
promise those that put upon us the pressure of 
persecution to do that which is unlawful, or didst 
actually do it?" Eusebius, it seems, did not deny 
the charge, but simply rose in anger and dismissed 
the council with the words, "If ye come hither and 
make such accusations against us, then do your 
accusers speak the truth. For if ye tyrannize 
here, much more do ye in your own country" 
(Epiphan. Har. LXVIII. 8). It must be noticed, 
however, that Potamo does not directly charge 
Eusebius with dishonorable conduct, he simply 
conjectures that he must have acted dishonorably 
in order to escape punishment; as if every one who 
was imprisoned with Potamo must have suffered as 
he did! As Stroth suggests, it is quite possible 
that his peculiarly excitable and violent 
temperament was one of the causes of his own loss. 
He evidently in any case had no knowledge of 
unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part, nor had any 
one else so far as we can judge. For in that age 
of bitter controversy, when men's characters were 
drawn by their opponents in the blackest lines, 
Eusebius must have suffered at the hands of the 
Athanasian party if it had been known that he had 
acted a cowardly part in the persecution. 
Athanasius himself refers to this incident (Contra 
Arian. VIII. 1), but he only says that Eusebius 
was "accused of sacrificing," he does

10

not venture to affirm that he did sacrifice; and 
thus it is evident that he knew nothing of such an 
act. Moreover, he never calls Eusebius "the 
sacrificer," as he does Asterius, and as he would 
have been sure to do had he possessed evidence 
which warranted him in making the accusation (cf. 
Lightfoot, p. 311). Still further, Eusebius' 
subsequent election to the episcopate of C'sarea, 
where his character and his conduct during the 
persecution must have been well known, and his 
appointment in later life to the important see of 
Antioch, forbid the supposition that he had ever 
acted a cowardly part in time of persecution. And 
finally, it is psychologically impossible that 
Eusebius could have written works so full of 
comfort for, and sympathy with, the suffering 
confessors, and could have spoken so openly and in 
such strong terms of condemnation of the numerous 
defections that occurred during the persecution, 
if he. was conscious of his own guilt. It is quite 
possible, as remarked above, that influential 
friends. protected him without any act of 
compromise on his part; or, supposing him to have 
been imprisoned with Potamo, it may be, as 
Lightfoot suggests, that the close of the 
persecution brought him his release as it did so 
many others. For it would seem natural to refer 
that imprisonment to the latter part of the 
persecution, when in all probability he visited 
Egypt, which was the home of Potamo. We must in 
any case vindicate Eusebius from the unfounded 
charge of cowardice and apostasy; and we ask, with 
Cave, "If every accusation against any man at any 
time were to be believed, who would be guiltless?"
From his History and his Martyrs in Palestine we 
learn that Eusebius was for much of the time in 
the very thick of the fight, and was an eyewitness 
of numerous martyrdoms not only in Palestine, but 
also in Tyre and in Egypt.
The date of his visits to the latter places (H. E. 
VIII. 7, 9) cannot be determined with exactness. 
They are described in connection with what seem to 
be the earlier events of the persecution, and yet 
it is by no means certain that chronological order 
has been observed in the narratives. The 
mutilation of prisoners--such as Potamo 
suffered--seems to have become common only in the 
year 308 and thereafter (see Mason's Persecution 
of Diocletian, p. 281), and hence if Eusebius was 
imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, 
as seems most probable, there would be some reason 
for assigning that visit to the later years of the 
persecution. In confirmation of this might be 
urged the improbability that he would leave 
C'sarea while Pamphilus was still alive, either 
before or after the latter's imprisonment, and 
still further his own statement in H. E. VII. 32, 
that he had observed Meletius escaping the fury of 
the persecution for seven years in Palestine. It 
is therefore likely that Eusebius did not make his 
journey to Egypt, which must have occupied some 
time, until toward the very end of the 
persecution, when it raged there with exceeding 
fierceness during the brief outburst of the 
infamous Maximin.

§ 4. Eusebius' Accession to the Bishopric of 
C'sarea.

Not long after the close of the persecution, 
Eusebius became bishop of C'sarea in Palestine, 
his own home, and held the position until his 
death. The exact date of his accession cannot be 
ascertained, indeed we cannot say that it did not 
take place even before the close of the 
persecution, but that is hardly probable; in fact, 
we know of no historian who places it earlier than 
313. His immediate predecessor in the episcopate 
was Agapius, whom he mentions in terms of praise 
in H. E. VII. 32. Some writers have interpolated a 
bishop Agricolaus between Agopins and Eusebius 
(see e.g. Tillemont, Hist. Ecceles. VII. 42), on 
the ground that his name appears in one of the 
lists of those present at the Council of Ancyra 
(c. 314), as bishop of C'sarea in Palestine (see 
Labbei el Cossartii Conc. I. 1475). But, as Hefele 
shows (Conciliengesch. I. 220), this list is of 
late date and not to be relied upon. On the other 
hand, as Lightfoot points out, in the Zibellus 
Synadicus (Conc. I. 1480), where Agricolaus is 
said to have been present at the Council of 
Ancyra, he is called bishop of C'sarea in 
Cappadocia; and this statement is confirmed by a 
Syriac list given in Cowper's Miscellanies, p. 41. 
Though perhaps no great reliance is to be

11

placed upon the correctness of any of these lists, 
the last two may at any rate be set over against 
the first, and we may conclude that there exists 
no ground for assuming that Agapius, who is the 
last C'sarean bishop mentioned by Eusebius, was 
not the latter's immediate predecessor. At what 
time Agapius died we do not know. That he suffered 
martyrdom is hardly likely, in view of Eusebius' 
silence on the subject. It would seem more likely 
that he outlived the persecution. However that may 
be, Eusebius was already bishop at the time of the 
dedication of a new and elegant Church at Tyre 
under the direction of his friend Paulinus, bishop 
of that city. Upon this occasion he delivered an 
address of considerable length, which he has 
inserted in his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. X. 
chap. 4. He does not name himself as its author, 
but the way in which he introduces it, and the 
very fact that he records the whole speech without 
giving the name of the man who delivered it, make 
its origin perfectly plain. Moreover, the last 
sentence of the preceding chapter makes it evident 
that the speaker was a bishop: "Every one of the 
rulers (<greek>arkontwn</greek>) present delivered 
panegyric discourses." The date of the dedication 
of this church is a matter of dispute, though it 
is commonly put in the year 315. It is plain from 
Eusebius' speech that it was uttered before 
Licinius had begun to persecute the Christians, 
and also, as G"rres remarks, at a lime when 
Constantine and Licinius were at least outwardly 
at peace with each other. In the year 314 the two 
emperors went to war, and consequently, if the 
persecution of Licinius began soon after that 
event, as it is commonly supposed to have done, 
the address must have been delivered before 
hostilities opened; that is, at least as early as 
314, and this is the year in which G"rres places 
it (Kritische Untersuchungen ueber die 
licinianische Christenverfolgung, p. 8). But if 
G"rres' date (319 A.D.) for the commencement of 
the persecution be accepted (and though he can 
hardly be said to have proved it, he has urged 
some strong grounds in support of it), then the 
address may have been delivered at almost any time 
between 315 and 319, for, as G"rres himself shows, 
Licinius and Constantine were outwardly at peace 
during the greater part of that time (ib. p. 14, 
sq.). There is nothing in the speech itself which 
prevents this later date, nor is it intrinsically 
improbable that the great basilica reached 
completion only in 315 or later. In fact, it must 
be admitted that Eusebius may have become bishop 
at any time between about 311 and 318.
The persecution of Licinius, which continued until 
his defeat by Constantine, in 323, was but local, 
and seems never to have been very severe. Indeed, 
it did not bear the character of a bloody 
persecution, though a few bishops appear to have 
met their death on one ground or another. 
Palestine and Egypt seem not to have suffered to 
any great extent (see G"rres, ib. p. 32 sq.).
§ 5. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The 
Attitude of Eusebius.
About the year 318, while Alexander was bishop of 
Alexandria, the Arian controversy broke out in 
that city, and the whole Eastern Church was soon 
involved in the strife. We cannot enter here into 
a discussion of Arius' views; but in order to 
understand the rapidity with which the Arian party 
grew, and the strong hold which it possessed from 
the very start in Syria and Asia Minor, we must 
remember that Arius was not himself the author of 
that system which we know as Arianism, but that he 
learned the essentials of it from his instructor 
Lucian. The latter was one of the most learned men 
of his age in the Oriental Church, and rounded an 
exegetico-theological school in Antioch, which for 
a number of years stood outside of the communion 
of the orthodox Church in that city, but shortly 
before the martyrdom of Lucian himself (which took 
place in 311 or 312) made its peace with the 
Church, and was recognized by it. He was held in 
the highest reverence by his disciples, and 
exerted a great influence over them even after his 
death. Among them were such men as Arius, Eusebius 
of Nicomedia, Asterius, and others who were 
afterward known as staunch Arianists. According to 
Harnack the chief points in the system of Lucian 
and his disciples were the creation of the Son, 
the denial of his co-eternity with the Father, and 
his immutability acquired by persistent progress 
and steadfastness. His doctrine, which differed

12

from that of Paul of Samosata chiefly in the fact 
that it was not a man but a created heavenly being 
who became "Lord," was evidently the result of a 
combination of the teaching of Paul and of Origen. 
It will be seen that we have here, at least in 
germ, all the essential elements of Arianism 
proper: the creation of the Son out of nothing, 
and consequently the conclusion that there was a 
time when he was not; the distinction of his 
essence from that of the Father, but at the same 
time the emphasis upon the fact that he "was not 
created as the other creatures," and is therefore 
to be sharply distinguished from them. There was 
little for Arius to do but to combine the elements 
given by Lucian in a more complete and 
well-ordered system, and then to bring that system 
forward clearly and publicly, and endeavor to make 
it the faith of the Church at large. His 
christology was essentially opposed to the 
Alexandrian, and it was natural that he should 
soon come into conflict with that church, of which 
he was a presbyter (upon Lucian's teaching and its 
relation to Arianism, see Harnack's 
Dogmengeschichte, II. p. 183 sq.).
Socrates (H. E. I. 5 sq.), Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) 
and Theodoret (H. E. I. 2 sq.), all of whom give 
accounts of the rise of Arianism, differ as to the 
immediate occasion of the controversy, but agree 
that Arius was excommunicated by a council 
convened at Alexandria, and that both he and the 
bishop Alexander sent letters to other churches, 
the latter defending his own course, the former 
complaining of his harsh treatment, and 
endeavoring to secure adherents to his doctrine. 
Eusebius of Nicomedia at once became his firm 
supporter, and was one of the leading figures on 
the Arian side throughout the entire controversy. 
His influential position as bishop of Nicomedia, 
the imperial residence, and later of 
Constantinople, was of great advantage to the 
Arian cause, especially toward the close of 
Constantine's reign. From a letter addressed by 
this Eusebius to Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, H. 
E. I. 6) we learn that Eusebius of C'sarea was 
quite zealous in behalf of the Arian cause. The 
exact date of the letter we do not know, but it 
must have been written at an early stage of the 
controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle 
addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. 
E. I. 5), claims Eusebius of C'sarea among others 
as accepting at least one of his fundamental 
doctrines ("And since Eusebius, your brother in 
C'sarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and 
Athanasius, and Gregory, and 'tius, and all the 
bishops of the East say that God existed before 
the Son, they have been condemned," etc.). More 
than this, Sozomen (H. E. I. 15 ) informs us that 
Eusebius of C'sarea and two other bishops, having 
been appealed to by Arius for "permission for 
himself and his adherents, as he had already 
attained the rank of presbyter, to form the people 
who were with them into a church," concurred with 
others "who were assembled in Palestine," in 
granting the petition of Arius, and permitting him 
to assemble the people as before; but they 
"enjoined submission to Alexander, and commanded 
Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to 
peace and communion with him." The addition of the 
last sentence is noticeable, as showing that they 
did not care to support a presbyter in open and 
persistent rebellion against his bishop. A 
fragment of a letter written by our Eusebius to 
Alexander is still extant, and is preserved in the 
proceedings of the Second Council of Nic'a, Act. 
VI. Tom. V. (Labbei et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 
497). In this epistle Eusebius strongly 
remonstrates with Alexander for having 
misrepresented the views of Arius. Still further, 
in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople, 
Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, H. E. I. 4) 
complains of three Syrian bishops "who side with 
them [i.e. the Arians] and excite them to plunge 
deeper and deeper into iniquity." The reference 
here is commonly supposed to be to Eusebius of 
C'sarean, and his two friends Paulinus of Tyre and 
Theodotus of Laodicea, who are known to have shown 
favor to Arius. It is probable, though not 
certain, that our Eusebius is one of the persons 
meant. Finally, many of the Fathers (above all 
Jerome and Photius), and in addition to them the 
Second Council of Nic'a, directly accuse Eusebius 
of holding the Arian heresy, as may be seen by 
examining the testimonies quoted below on p. 67 
sq. In agreement with these early Fathers, many 
modern historians have attacked Eusebius with 
great severity, and have endeavored to show that 
the opinion that he was an Arian is supported by 
his own writings. Among those who have judged him 
most harshly are Baronins (ad ann. 340, c. 38 
sq.), Petavius

13

(Dogm. Theol. de Trin. I. c. 11 sq.), Scaliger (In 
Elencho Trih'resii, c. 27, and De emendatione 
temporum, Bk. VI. c. 1), Mosheim (Ecclesiastical 
History, Murdock's translation, I. p. 287 sq.), 
Montfaucon (Pr'lim. in Comment. ad Psalm. c. VI.), 
and Tillemont (H. E. VII. p. 67 sq. 2d ed.).
On the other hand, as may be seen from the 
testimonies in Eusebius' favor, quoted below on, 
p. 57 sq., many of the Fathers, who were 
themselves orthodox, looked upon Eusebius as 
likewise sound on the subject of the Trinity. He 
has been defended in modern times against the 
charge of Arianism by a great many prominent 
scholars; among others by Valesius in his Life 
Eusebius, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 20, III. 
9. 3, 11), Cave (Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 
sq.), Fabricius (Bibl. Gr'c. VI. p. 32 sq.), Dupin 
(Bibl. Eccles. IL p. 7 sq.), and most fully and 
carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition 
of Eusebius' Theaphania, p. xxiv. sq. Lightfoot 
also defends him against the charge of heresy, as 
do a great many other writers whom it is not 
necessary to mention here. Confronted with such 
diversity of opinion, both ancient and modern, 
what are we to conclude? It is useless to 
endeavor, as Lee does, to clear Eusebius of all 
sympathy with and leaning toward Arianism. It is 
impossible to explain such widespread and 
continued condemnation of him by acknowledging 
only that there are many expressions in his works 
which are in themselves perfectly orthodox but 
capable of being wrested in such a way as to 
produce a suspicion of possible Arianistic 
tendencies, for there are such expressions in the 
works of multitudes of ancient writers whose 
orthodoxy has never been questioned. Nor can the 
widespread belief that he was an Arian be 
explained by admitting that he was for a time the 
personal friend of Arius, but denying that he 
accepted, or in any way sympathized with his views 
(cf. Newman's Arians, p. 262). There are in fact 
certain fragments of epistles extant, which are, 
to say the least, decidedly Arianistic in their 
modes of expression, and these must be reckoned 
with in forming an opinion of Eusebius' views; for 
there is no reason to deny, as Lee does, that they 
are from Eusebius' own hand. On the other hand, to 
maintain, with some of the Fathers and many of the 
moderns, that Eusebius was and continued through 
life a genuine Arian, will not do in the face of 
the facts that contemporary and later Fathers were 
divided as to his orthodoxy, that he was honored 
highly by the Church of subsequent centuries, 
except at certain periods, and was even canonized 
(see Lightfoot's article, p. 348), that he 
solemnly signed the Nicene Creed, which contained 
an express condemnation of the distinctive 
doctrines of Arius, and finally that at least in 
his later works he is thoroughly orthodox in his 
expressions, and is explicit in his rejection of 
the two main theses of the Arians,--that there was 
a time when the Son of God was not, and that he 
was produced out of nothing. It is impossible to 
enter here into a detailed discussion of such 
passages in Eusebius' works as bear upon the 
subject under dispute. Lee has considered many of 
them at great length, and the reader may be 
referred to him for further information.
A careful examination of them will, I believe, 
serve to convince the candid student that there is 
a distinction to be drawn between those works 
written before the rise of Arius, those written 
between that time and the Council of Nic'a, and 
those written after the latter. It has been very 
common to draw a distinction between those works 
written before and those written after the 
Council, but no one, so far as I know, has 
distinguished those productions of Eusebius' pen 
which appeared between 318 and 325, and which were 
caused by the controversy itself, from all his 
other writings. And yet such a distinction seems 
to furnish the key to the problem. Eusebius' 
opponents have drawn their strongest arguments 
from the epistles which Eusebius wrote to 
Alexander and to Euphration; his defenders have 
drawn their arguments chiefly from the works which 
he produced subsequent to the year 325; while the 
exact bearing of the expressions used in his works 
produced before the controversy broke out has 
always been a matter of sharp dispute. Lee has 
abundantly shown his Contra Marcel., his De Eccl. 
Theol., his Thephania (which was written after the 
Council of Nic'a, and not, as Lee supposes, before 
it), and other later works, to be thoroughly 
orthodox and to contain nothing which a 
trinitarian might not have written. In his Hist. 
Eccl., Pr'paratio Evang., Demanstratio Evang., and 
other earlier works,

14

although we find some expressions employed which 
it would not have been possible for an orthodox 
trinitarian to use after the Council of Nic'a, at 
least without careful limitation to guard against 
misapprehension, there is nothing even in these 
works which requires us to believe that he 
accepted the doctrines of Arius' predecessor, 
Lucian of Antioch; that is, there is nothing 
distinctly and positively Arianistic about them, 
although there are occasional expressions which 
might lead the reader to expect that the writer 
would become an Arian if he ever learned of Arius' 
doctrines. But if there is seen to be a lack of 
emphasis upon the divinity of the Son, or rather a 
lack of clearness in the conception of the nature 
of that divinity, it must be remembered that there 
was at this time no especial reason for 
emphasizing and defining it, but there was on the 
contrary very good reason for laying particular 
stress upon the subordination of the Son over 
against Sabellianism, which was so widely 
prevalent during the third century, and which was 
exerting an influence even over many orthodox 
theologians who did not consciously accept 
Sabellianistic tenets. That Eusebius was a decided 
subordinationist must be plain to every one that 
reads his works with care, especially his earlier 
ones. It would be surprising if he had not been, 
for he was born at a time when Sabellianism 
(monarchianism) was felt to be the greatest danger 
to which orthodox christology was exposed, and he 
was trained under the influence of the followers 
of Origen, who had made it one of his chief aims 
to emphasize the subordination of the Son over 
against that very monarchianism. [1] The same 
subordinationism may be clearly seen in the 
writings of Dionysius of Alexandria and of Gregory 
Thaumaturgus, two of Origen's greatest disciples. 
It must not be forgotten that at the beginning of 
the fourth century the problem of how to preserve 
the Godhood of Christ and at the same time his 
subordination to the Father (in opposition to the 
monarchianists) had not been solved. Eusebius in 
his earlier writings shows that he holds both (he 
cannot be convicted of denying Christ's divinity), 
but that he is as far from a solution of the 
problem, and is just as uncertain in regard to the 
exact relation of Father and Son, as Tertullian, 
Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, and Gregory 
Thaumaturgus were; is just as inconsistent in his 
modes of expression as they, and yet no more so 
(see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, I. pp. 628 sq. 
and 634 sq., for an exposition of the opinions of 
these other Fathers on the subject). Eusebius, 
with the same immature and undeveloped views which 
were held all through the third century, wrote 
those earlier works which have given rise to so 
much dispute between those who accuse him of 
Arianism and those who defend him against the 
charge. When he wrote them he was neither Arian 
nor Athanasian, and for that reason passages may 
be found in them which if written after the 
Council of Nicaea might prove him an Arian, and 
other passages which might as truly prove him an 
Athanasian, just as in the writings of Origen were 
found by both parties passages to support their 
views, and in Gregory Thaumaturgus passages 
apparently teaching Arianism, and others teaching 
its opposite, Sabellianism (see Harnack, ib. p. 
646).
Let us suppose now that Eusebius, holding fast to 
the divinity of Christ, and yet convinced just as 
firmly of his subordination to the Father, becomes 
acquainted through Arius, or other like-minded 
disciples of Lucian of Antioch, with a doctrine 
which seems to preserve the Godhood, while at the 
same time emphasizing strongly the subordination 
of the Son, and which formulates the relation of 
Father and Son in a clear and rational manner. 
That he should accept such a doctrine eagerly is 
just what we should expect, and just what we find 
him doing. In his epistles to Alexander and 
Euphration, he shows himself an Arian, and Arius 
and his followers were quite

15

right in claiming him as a supporter. There is 
that in the epistles which is to be found nowhere 
in his previous writings, and which distinctly 
separates him from the orthodox party. How then 
are we to explain the fact that a few years later 
he signed the Nicene creed and anathematized the 
doctrines of Arius? Before we can understand his 
conduct, it is necessary to examine carefully the 
two epistles in question. Such an examination will 
show us that what Eusebius is defending in them is 
not genuine Arianism. He evidently thinks that it 
is, evidently supposes that he and Arius are in 
complete agreement upon the subjects under 
discussion; but he is mistaken. The extant 
fragments of the two epistles are given below on 
p. 70. It will be seen that Eusebius in them 
defends the Arian doctrine that there was a time 
when the Son of God was not. It will be seen also 
that he finds fault with Alexander for 
representing the Arians as teaching that the "Son 
of God was made out of nothing, like all 
creatures," and contends that Arius teaches that 
the Son of God was begotten, and that he was not 
produced like all creatures. We know that the 
Arians very commonly applied the word "begotten" 
to Christ, using it in such cases as synonymous 
with "created," and thus not implying, as the 
Athanasians did when they used the word, that he 
was of one substance with the Father (compare, for 
instance, the explanation of the meaning of the 
term given by Eusebius of Nicomedia in his epistle 
to Paulinns; Theod. H. E. I. 6). It is evident 
that the use of this word had deceived our 
Eusebius, and that he was led by it to think that 
they taught that the Son was of the Father in a 
peculiar sense, and did in reality partake in some 
way of essential Godhood. And indeed it is not at 
all surprising that the words of Arius, in his 
epistle to Alexander of Alexandria (see Athan. Ep. 
de conc. Arim. et Seleuc., chap. II. § 3; Oxford 
edition of Athanasius' Tracts against Arianism, P. 
97), quoted by Eusebius in his epistle to the same 
Alexander, should give Eusebius that impression. 
The words are as follows: "The God of the law, and 
of the prophets, and of the New Testament before 
eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son, through 
whom also He made the ages and the universe. And 
He begat him not in appearance, but in truth, and 
subjected him to his own will, unchangeable and 
immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as 
one of the creatures." Arius' use here of the word 
"begat," and his qualification of the word 
"creature" by the adjective "perfect," and by the 
statement that he was "not as one of the 
creatures" naturally tended to make Eusebius 
think. that Arius acknowledged a real divinity of 
the Son, and that appeared to him to be all that 
was necessary. Meanwhile Alexander in his epistle 
to Alexander of Constantinople (Theod. H. E. I. 4) 
had, as Eusebius says, misstated Arius' opinion, 
or at least had attributed to him the belief that 
Christ was "made like all other men that have ever 
been born," whereas Arius expressly disclaims such 
a belief. Alexander undoubtedly thought that that 
was the legitimate result to which the other views 
of Arius must lead; but Eusebius did not think so, 
and felt himself called upon to remonstrate with 
Alexander for what seemed to him the latter's 
unfairness in the matter.
When we examine the C'sarean creed[1] which 
Eusebius presented to the Council as a fair 
statement of his belief, we find nothing in it 
inconsistent with the acceptance of the kind of 
Arianism which he defends in his epistle to 
Alexander, and which he evidently supposed to be 
practically the Arianism of Arius himself. In his 
epistle to Euphration, however, Eusebius seems at 
first glance to go further and to give up the real 
divinity of the Son. His words are, "Since the Son 
is himself God, but not true God." But we have no 
right to interpret these words, torn as they are 
from the context which might make their meaning 
perfectly plain, without due regard to Eusebius' 
belief expressed elsewhere in this epistle, and in 
his epistle to Alexander which was evidently 
written about the same time. In the epistle to 
Alexander he clearly reveals a belief in the real 
divinity of the Son, while in the other fragment 
of his epistle to Euphration he dwells upon the 
subordination of the Son and approves the Arian 
opinion, which he had defended also in the other 
epistle, that the "Father was before the Son." The 
expression, "not true God" (a very common Arian 
expression; see Athan. Orat. c. Arian. I. 6) seems 
therefore to have been

16

used by Eusebius to express a belief, not that the 
Son did not possess real divinity (as the genuine 
Arians used it), but that he was not equal to the 
Father, who, to Eusebius' thought, was "true God." 
He indeed expressly calls the Son 
<greek>qeos</greek>, which shows -- when the sense 
in which he elsewhere uses the word is considered 
-- that he certainly did believe him to partake of 
Godhood, though, in some mysterious way, in a 
smaller degree, or in a less complete manner than 
the Father. That Eusebius misunderstood Arius, and 
did not perceive that he actually denied all real 
deity to the Son, was due doubtless in part to his 
lack of theological insight (Eusebius was never a 
great theologian), in part to his habitual dread 
of Sabellianism (of which Arius had accused 
Alexander, and toward which Eusebius evidently 
thought that the latter was tending), which led 
him to look with great favor upon the pronounced 
subordinationism of Arius, and thus to overlook 
the dangerous extreme to which Arius carried that 
subordinationism.
We are now, the writer hopes, prepared to admit 
that Eusebius, after the breaking out of the Arian 
controversy, became an Arian, as he understood 
Arianism, and supported that party with 
considerable vigor; and that not as a result of 
mere personal friendship, but of theological 
conviction. At the same time, he was then, as 
always, a peace-loving man, and while lending 
Arius his approval and support, he united with 
other Palestinian bishops in enjoining upon him 
submission to his bishop (Sozomen, H. E. I. 15). 
As an Arian, then, and yet possessed with the 
desire of securing, if it were possible, peace and 
harmony between the two factions, Eusebius 
appeared at the Council of Nic'a, and there signed 
a creed containing Athanasian doctrine and 
anathematizing the chief tenets of Arius. How are 
we to explain his conduct? We shall, perhaps, do 
best to let him explain his own conduct. In his 
letter to the church of C'sarea (preserved by 
Socrates, H. E. I. 8, as well as by other 
authors), he writes as follows:--
"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical 
faith at the Great Council assembled at Nic'a you 
have probably learned, Beloved, from other 
sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate 
account of what is doing. But lest in such reports 
the circumstances of the case have been 
misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit 
to you, first, the formula of faith presented by 
ourselves; and next, the second, which the Fathers 
put forth with some additions to our words. Our 
own paper, then, which was read in the presence of 
our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good 
and unexceptionable, ran thus:--
"'As we have received from the Bishops who 
preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and 
when we received the Holy Layer, and as we have 
learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we 
believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the 
Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time 
present, we report to you our faith, and it is 
this:--
"'We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the 
Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in 
One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from 
God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son 
Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, 
before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by 
whom also all things were made; who for our 
salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and 
suffered, and rose again the third day, and 
ascended to the Father, and will come again in 
glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also 
in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be 
and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son 
truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as 
also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the 
preaching, said, Go, teach all nations, 
anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we 
have ever thought from our heart and soul, from 
the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and 
say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord 
Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs 
to show and to convince you, that, even in times 
past, such has been our belief and preaching.'
"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no 
room for contradiction appeared; but our most 
pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that 
it comprised most orthodox statements. He 
confessed, moreover, that such were his own 
sentiments; and he advised all present to agree to 
it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to 
them, with the insertion of the single word, 'One 
in substance' (<greek>omoousios</greek>), which, 
moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of 
the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son 
subsisted from the Father, in the way of division, 
or any sever-

17

ance; for that the immaterial and intellectual and 
incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any 
corporeal affection, but that it became us to 
conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable 
manner. And such were the theological remarks of 
our most wise and most religious Emperor; but 
they, with a view to the addition of 'One in 
substance,' drew up the following formula:--
"'We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, 
Maker of all things visible and invisible:-- And 
in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten 
of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the 
Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from 
Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, 
One in substance with the Father, by whom all 
things were made, both things in heaven and things 
in earth; who for us men and for our salvation 
came down and was made flesh, was made man, 
suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended 
into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.
"'And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once 
He was not," and "Before His generation He was 
not," and "He came to be from nothing," or those 
who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other 
subsistence or substance," or "created," or 
"alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic Church 
anathematizes.'
"On their dictating this formula, we did not let 
it pass without inquiry in what sense they 
introduced of the substance of the Father' and 
'one in substance with the Father.' Accordingly 
questions and explanations took place, and the 
meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of 
reason. And they professed that the phrase 'of the 
substance' was indicative of the Son's being 
indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a 
part of Him. And with this understanding we 
thought good to assent to the sense of such 
religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the 
Son was from the Father, not, however, a part of 
His substance. On this account we assented to the 
sense ourselves, without declining even the term 
'One in substance,' peace being the object which 
we set before us, and steadfastness in the 
orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted 
'begotten, not made'; since the Council alleged 
that 'made' was an appellative common to the other 
creatures which came to be through the Son, to 
whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, said 
they, He was not a work resembling the things 
which through Him came to be, but was of a 
substance which is too high for the level of any 
work, and which the Divine oracles teach to have 
been generated from the Father, the mode of 
generation being inscrutable and incalculable to 
every generated nature. And so, too, on 
examination there are grounds for saying that the 
Son is 'one in substance' with the Father; not in 
the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He 
is not such by division of substance, or by 
severance; no, nor by any affection, or 
alteration, or changing of the Father's substance 
and power (since from all such the ingenerate 
nature of the Father is alien), but because 'one 
in substance with the Father' suggests that the 
Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated 
creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat 
Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is 
not of any other subsistence and substance, but 
from the Father.
"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared 
well to assent; since we were aware that, even 
among the ancients, some learned and illustrious 
Bishops and writers have used the term 'one in 
substance' in their theological teaching 
concerning the Father and Son. So much, then, be 
said concerning the faith which was published; to 
which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but 
according to the specified senses, mentioned 
before the most religious Emperor himself, and 
justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. 
And as to the anathematism published by them at 
the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because 
it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from 
which almost all the confusion and disorder of the 
Church have come. Since, then, no divinely 
inspired Scripture has used the phrases, 'out of 
nothing' and 'once He was not,' and the rest which 
follow, there appeared no ground for using or 
teaching them; to which also we assented as a good 
decision, since it had not been our custom 
hitherto to use these terms. Moreover, to 
anathematize 'Before His generation He was not' 
did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed 
by all that the Son of God was before the 
generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most 
religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a 
speech, that He was in being even according to His 
divine generation which is before all ages, since 
even before he was generated

18

in energy, He was in virtue with the Father 
ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as 
King always and Saviour always, having all things 
in virtue, and being always in the same respects 
and in the same way. This we have been forced to 
transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you 
the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and 
how reasonably we resisted even to the last 
minute, as long as we were offended at statements 
which differed from our own, but received without 
contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, 
on a candid examination of the sense of the words, 
they appeared to us to coincide with what we 
ourselves have professed in the faith which we 
have already published."[1]
It will be seen that while the expressions "of the 
substance of the Father," "begotten not made," and 
"One in substance," or "consubstantial with the 
Father," are all explicitly anti-Arianistic, yet 
none of them contradicts the doctrines held by 
Eusebius before the Council, so far as we can 
learn them from his epistles to Alexander and 
Euphration and from the C'sarean creed. His own 
explanation of those expressions, which it is to 
be observed was the explanation given by the 
Council itself, and which therefore he was fully 
warranted in accepting,--even though it may not 
have been so rigid as to satisfy an 
Athanasius,--shows us how this is. He had believed 
before that the Son partook of the Godhood in very 
truth, that He was "begotten," and therefore "not 
made," if "made" implied something different from 
"begotten," as the Nicene Fathers held that it 
did; and he had believed before that the "Son of 
God has no resemblance to created' things, but is 
in every respect like the Father only who begat 
him, and that He is of no other substance or 
essence than the Father," and therefore if that 
was what the word "Consubstantial" 
(<greek>omoousios</greek>) meant he could not do 
otherwise than accept that too.
It is clear that the dread of Sabellianism was 
still before the eyes of Eusebius, and was the 
cause of his hesitation in assenting to the 
various changes, especially to the use of the word 
<greek>ouoousios</greek>, which had been a 
Sabellian word and had been rejected on that 
account by the Synod of Antioch, at which Paul of 
Samosata had been condemned some sixty years 
before.
It still remains to explain Eusebius' sanction of 
the anathemas attached to the creed which 
expressly condemn at least one of the beliefs 
which he had himself formerly held, viz.: that the 
"Father was before the Son," or as he puts it 
elsewhere, that "He who is begat him who was not." 
The knot might of course be simply cut by 
supposing an act of hypocrisy on his part, but the 
writer is convinced that such a conclusion does 
violence to all that we know of Eusebius and of 
his subsequent treatment of the questions involved 
in this discussion. It is quite possible to 
suppose that a real change of opinion on his part 
took place during the sessions of the Council. 
Indeed when we realize how imperfect and incorrect 
a conception of Arianism he had before the Council 
began, and how clearly its true bearing was there 
brought out by its enemies, we can see that he 
could not do otherwise than change; that he must 
have become either an out and-out Arian, or an 
opponent of Arianism as he did. When he learned, 
and learned for the first time, that Arianism 
meant the denial of all essential divinity to 
Christ, and when he saw that it involved the 
ascription of mutability and of other finite 
attributes to him, he must either change entirely 
his views on those points or he must leave the 
Arian party. To him who with all his 
subordinationism had laid in all his writings so 
much stress on the divinity of the Word (even 
though he had not realized exactly what that 
divinity involved) it would have been a revolution 
in his Christian life and faith to have admitted 
what he now learned that Arianism involved. 
Sabellianism had been his dread, but now this new 
fear, which had aroused so large a portion of the 
Church, seized him too, and he felt that stand 
must be made against this too great separation of 
Father and Son, which was leading to dangerous 
results. Under the pressure of this fear it is not 
surprising that he should become convinced that 
the Arian formula--"there was a time when the Son 
was not "--involved serious consequences, and that 
Alexander and his followers should have succeeded 
in pointing out to him its untruth, because it led 
necessarily to a false conclusion. It is not 
surprising, moreover, that they should have 
succeeded in explaining to him at least

19

partially their belief, which, as his epistle to 
Alexander shows, had before been absolutely 
incomprehensible, that the Son was generated from 
all eternity, and that therefore the Father did 
not exist before him in a temporal sense.
He says toward the close of his epistle to the 
C'sarean church that he had not been accustomed to 
use such expressions as "There was a time when he 
was not," "He came to be from nothing," etc. And 
there is no reason to doubt that he speaks the 
truth. Even in his epistles to Alexander and 
Euphration he does not use those phrases (though 
he does defend the doctrine taught by the first of 
them), nor does Arius himself, in the epistle to 
Alexander upon which Eusebius apparently based his 
knowledge of the system, use those expressions, 
although he too teaches the same doctrine. The 
fact is that in that epistle Arius studiously 
avoids such favorite Arian phrases as might 
emphasize the differences between himself and 
Alexander, and Eusebius seems to have avoided them 
for the same reason. We conclude then that 
Eusebius was not an Arian (nor an adherent of 
Lucian) before 318, that soon after that date he 
became an Arian in the sense in which he 
understood Arianism, but that during the Council 
of Nic'a he ceased to be one in any sense. His 
writings in later years confirm the course of 
doctrinal development which we have supposed went 
on in his mind. He never again defends Arian 
doctrines in his works, and yet he never becomes 
an Athanasian in his emphasis upon the 
<greek>omoousion</greek>. In fact he represents a 
mild orthodoxy, which is always orthodox- when 
measured by the Nicene creed as interpreted by the 
Nicene Council--and yet is always mild. Moreover, 
he never acquired an affection for the word 
<greek>omoousios</greek>, which to his mind was 
bound up with too many evil associations ever to 
have a pleasant sound to him. He therefore 
studiously avoided it in his own writings, 
although clearly showing that he believed fully in 
what the Nicene Council had explained it to mean. 
It must be remembered that during many years of 
his later life he was engaged in controversy with 
Marcellus, a thorough-going Sabellian, who had 
been at the time of the Council one of the 
strongest of Athanasius' colleagues. In his 
contest with him it was again anti-Sabellianistic 
polemics which absorbed him and increased his 
distaste for <greek>omoousion</greek> and 
minimized his emphasis upon the distinctively 
anti-Arianistie doctrines formulated at Nic'a. For 
any except the very wisest minds it was a matter 
of enormous difficulty to steer between the two 
extremes in those times of strife; and while 
combating Sabeilianism not to fall into Arianism, 
and while combating the latter not to be engulfed 
in the former. That Eusebius under the constant 
pressure of the one fell into the other at one 
time, and was in occasional danger of falling into 
it again in later years, can hardly be cited as an 
evidence either of wrong heart or of weak head. An 
Athanasius he was not, but neither was he an 
unsteady weather-cock, or an hypocritical 
time-server.

§ 6. The Council of Niccea.

At the Council of Nic'a, which met pursuant to an 
imperial summons in the year 315 Ensebius played a 
very prominent part. A description of the opening 
scenes of the Council is given in his Vita 
Constantini, III. 10 sq. After the Emperor had 
entered in pomp and had taken his seat, a bishop 
who sat next to him upon his right arose and 
delivered in his honor the opening oration, to 
which the Emperor replied in a brief Latin 
address. There can be no doubt that this bishop 
was our Eusebius. Sozomen (H. E. I. 19) states it 
directly; and Eusebius, although he does not name 
the speaker, yet refers to him, as he had referred 
to the orator at the dedication of Paulinus' 
church at Tyre, in such a way as to make it clear 
that it was himself; and moreover in his Fita 
Constantini, I. 1, he mentions the fact that he 
had in the midst of an assembly of the servants of 
God addressed an oration to the Emperor on the 
occasion of the latter's vicennalia, i.e. in 325 
A.D. On the other hand, however, Theodoret (H. E. 
I. 7) states that this opening oration was 
delivered by Eustathius, bishop of Antioch; while 
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Philostorgius 
(according to Nicetas Choniates, Thes. de arthod. 
rid. V. 7) assign it to Alexander of Alexandria. 
As Lightfoot suggests, it is possible to explain 
the discrepancy in the reports by

20

supposing that Eustathius and Alexander, the two 
great patriarchs, first addressed a few words to 
the Emperor and that then Eusebius delivered the 
regular oration. This supposition is not at all 
unlikely, for it would be quite proper for the two 
highest ecclesiastics present to welcome the 
Emperor formally in behalf of the assembled 
prelates, before the regular oration was delivered 
by Eusebius. At the same time, the supposition 
that one or the other of the two great patriarchs 
must have delivered the opening address was such a 
natural one that it may have been adopted by 
Theodoret and the other writers referred to 
without any historical basis. It is in any case 
certain that the regular oration was delivered by 
Eusebius himself (see the convincing arguments 
adduced by Stroth, p. xxvii. sq.). This oration is 
no longer extant, but an idea of its character may 
be formed from the address delivered by Eusebius 
at the Emperor's tricennalia (which is still 
extant under the title De laudibus Canstantini; 
see below, p. 43) and from the general tone of his 
Life of Constantine. It was avowedly a panegyric, 
and undoubtedly as fulsome as it was possible to 
make it, and his powers in that direction were by 
no means slight.
That Eusebius, instead of the bishop of some more 
prominent church, should have been selected to 
deliver the opening address, may have been in part 
owing to his recognized standing as the most 
learned man and the most famous writer in the 
Church, in part to the fact that he was not as 
pronounced a partisan as some of his distinguished 
brethren; for instance, Alexander of Alexandria, 
and Eusebius of Nicomedia; and finally in some 
measure to his intimate relations with the 
Emperor. How and when his intimacy with the latter 
grew up we do not know. As already remarked, he 
seems to have become personally acquainted with 
him many years before, when Constantine passed 
through C'sarea in the train of Diocletian, and it 
may be that a mutual friendship, which was so 
marked in later years, began at that time. However 
that may be, Eusebius seems to have possessed 
special advantages of one kind or another, 
enabling him to come into personal contact with 
official circles, and once introduced to imperial 
notice, his wide learning, sound common sense, 
genial temper and broad charity would insure him 
the friendship of the Emperor himself, or of any 
other worthy officer of state. We have no record 
of an intimacy between Constantine and Eusebius 
before the Council of Nic'a, but many clear 
intimations of it after that time. In fact, it is 
evident that during the last decade at least of 
the Emperor's life, few, if any, bishops stood 
higher in his esteem or enjoyed a larger measure 
of his confidence. Compare for instance the 
records of their conversations (contained in the 
Vita Canstantini, I. 28 and II. 9), of their 
correspondence (ib. II. 46, III. 61, IV. 35 and 
36), and the words of Constantine himself (ib. 
III. 60). The marked attention paid by him to the 
speeches delivered by Eusebius in his presence 
(ib. IV. 33 and 46) is also to be noticed. 
Eusebius' intimacy with the imperial family is 
shown likewise in the tone of the letter which he 
wrote to Constantia, the sister of Constantine and 
wife of Licinius, in regard to a likeness of 
Christ which she had asked him to send her. The 
frankness and freedom with which he remonstrates 
with her for what he considers mistaken zeal on 
her part, reveal a degree of familiarity which 
could have come only from long and cordial 
relations between himself and his royal 
correspondent. Whatever other reasons therefore 
may have combined to indicate Eusebius as the most 
fitting person to deliver the oration in honor of 
the Emperor at the Council of Nic'a, there can be 
little doubt that Constantine's personal 
friendship for him had much to do with his 
selection. The action of the Council on the 
subject of Arianism, and Eusebius' conduct in the 
matter, have already been discussed. Of the 
bishops assembled at the Council, not far from 
three hundred in number (the reports of 
eye-witnesses vary from two hundred and fifty to 
three hundred and eighteen), all but two signed 
the Nicene creed as adopted by the Council. These 
two, both of them Egyptians, were banished with 
Arius to Illyria, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and 
Theognis of Nic'a, who subscribed the creed itself 
but refused to assent to its anathemas, were also 
banished for a time, but soon yielded, and were 
restored to their churches.
Into the other purposes for which the Nicene 
Council was called,--the settlement of the dispute 
respecting the time of observing Easter and the 
healing of the Meletian schism,--it is not neces-

21

sary to enter here. We have no record of the part 
which Eusebius took in these transactions. 
Lightfoot has abundantly shown (p. 313 sq.) that 
the common supposition that Eusebius was the 
author of the paschal cycle of nineteen years is 
false, and that there is no reason to suppose that 
he had anything particular to do with the decision 
of the paschal question at this Council. § 7. 
Continuance of the Arian Controversy. Eusebius' 
Relations to the Two Parties.
The Council of Nic'a did not bring the Arian 
controversy to an end. The orthodox party was 
victorious, it is true, but the Arians were still 
determined, and could not give up their enmity 
against the opponents of Arius, and their hope 
that they might in the end turn the tables on 
their antagonists. Meanwhile, within a few years 
after the Council, a quarrel broke out between our 
Eusebius and Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, a 
resolute supporter of Nicene orthodoxy. According 
to Socrates (H. E. I. 23) and Sozomen (H. E. II. 
18) Eustathius accused Eusebius of perverting the 
Nicene doctrines, while Eusebius denied the 
charge, and in turn taxed Eustathius with 
Sabellianism. The quarrel finally became so 
serious that it was deemed necessary to summon a 
Council for the investigation of Eustathius' 
orthodoxy and the settlement of the dispute. This 
Council met in Antioch in 330 A.D. (see Tillemont, 
VII. p. 651 sq., for a discussion of the date), 
and was made up chiefly of bishops of Arian or 
semi-Arian tendencies. This fact, however, brings 
no discredit upon Eusebius. The Council was held 
in another province, and he can have had nothing 
to do with its composition. In fact, convened, as 
it was, in Eustathius' own city, it must have been 
legally organized; and indeed Eustathius himself 
acknowledged its jurisdiction by appearing before 
it to answer the charges made against him. 
Theodoret's absurd account of the origin of the 
synod and of the accusations brought against 
Eustathius (H. E. I. 21) bears upon its face the 
stamp of falsehood, and is, as Hefele has shown 
(Canciliengeschichte, I. 451), hopelessly in error 
in its chronology. It is therefore to be rejected 
as quite worthless. The decision of the Council 
doubtless fairly represented the views of the 
majority of the bishops of that section, for we 
know that Arianism had a very strong hold there. 
To think of a packed Council and of illegal 
methods of procedure in procuring the verdict 
against Eustathius is both unnecessary and 
unwarrantable. The result of the Council was the 
deposition of Eustathius from his bishopric and 
his banishment by the Emperor to Illyria, where he 
afterward died. There is a division of opinion 
among our sources in regard to the immediate 
successor of Eustathius. All of them agree that 
Eusebius was asked to become bishop of Antioch, 
but that he refused the honor, and that Euphronius 
was chosen in his stead. Socrates and Sozomen, 
however, inform us that the election of Eusebius 
took place immediately after the deposition of 
Eustathius, while Theodoret (H. E. I. 22) names 
Eulalius as Eustathius' immediate successor, and 
states that he lived but a short time, and that 
Eusebius was then asked to succeed him. Theodoret 
is Supported by Jerome (Chron., year of Abr. 2345) 
and by Philostorgius (H. E. III. 15), both of whom 
insert a bishop Eulalius between Eustathius and 
Euphronius. It is easier to suppose that Socrates 
and Sozomen may have omitted so unimportant a name 
at this point than that the other three witnesses 
inserted it without warrant. Socrates indeed 
implies in the same chapter that his knowledge of 
these affairs is limited, and it is not surprising 
that Eusebius' election, which caused a great 
stir, should have been connected in the mind of 
later writers immediately with Eustathius' 
deposition, and the intermediate steps forgotten. 
It seems probable, therefore, that immediately 
after the condemnation of Eustathius, Eulalius was 
appointed in his place, perhaps by the same 
Council, and that after his death, a few months 
later, Eusebius, who had meanwhile gone back to 
C'sarea, was elected in due order by another 
Council of neighboring bishops summoned for the 
purpose, and that he was supported by a large 
party of citizens. It is noticeable that the 
letter written by the Emperor to the Council, 
which wished to transfer Eusebius to Antioch (see 
Vita Const. III. 62), mentions in its salutation 
the names of five bishops, but among them is only 
one (Theodotus who is elsewhere named as present 
at the Council which deposed Eusta-

22

thius, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis 
of Nic'a, as well as others whom we know to have 
been on hand on that occasion, are not referred to 
by the Emperor. This fact certainly seems to point 
to a different council.
It is greatly to Eusebius' credit that he refused 
the call extended to him. Had he been governed 
simply by selfish ambition he would certainly have 
accepted it, for the patriarchate of Antioch stood 
at that time next to Alexandria in point of honor 
in the Eastern Church. The Emperor commended him 
very highly for his decision, in his epistles to 
the people of Antioch and to the Council (Vita 
Const. III. 60, 62 ), and in that to Eusebius 
himself (ib. III. 61). He saw in it a desire on 
Eusebius' part to observe the ancient canon of the 
Church, which forbade the transfer of a bishop 
from one see to another. But that in itself can 
hardly have been sufficient to deter the latter 
from accepting the high honor offered him, for it 
was broken without scruple on all sides. It is 
more probable that he saw that the schism of the 
Antiochenes would be embittered by the induction 
into the bishopric of that church of Eustathius' 
chief opponent, and that he did not feel that he 
had a right so to divide the Church of God. 
Eusebius' general character, as known to us, 
justifies us in supposing that this high motive 
had much to do with his decision. We may suppose 
also that so difficult a place can have had no 
very great attractions for a man of his age and of 
his peace-loving disposition and scholarly tastes. 
In C'sarea he had spent his life; there he had the 
great library of Pamphilus at his disposal, and 
leisure to pursue his literary work. In Antioch he 
would have found himself compelled to plunge into 
the midst of quarrels and seditions of all kinds, 
and would have been obliged to devote his entire 
attention to the performance of his official 
duties. His own tastes therefore must have 
conspired with his sense of duty to lead him to 
reject the proffered call and to remain in the 
somewhat humbler station which he already 
occupied.
Not long after the deposition of Eustathius, the 
Arians and their sympathizers began to work more 
energetically to accomplish the ruin of 
Athanasius, their greatest foe. He had become 
Alexander's successor as bishop of Alexandria in 
the year 326, and was the acknowledged head of the 
orthodox party. If he could be brought into 
discredit, there might be hopes of restoring Arius 
to his position in Alexandria, and of securing for 
Arianism a recognition, and finally a dominating 
influence in the church at large. To the overthrow 
of Athanasius therefore all good Arians bent their 
energies. They found ready accomplices in the 
schismatical Meletians of Egypt, who were bitter 
enemies of the orthodox church of Alexandria. It 
was useless to accuse Athanasius of heterodoxy; he 
was too widely known as the pillar of the orthodox 
faith. Charges must be framed of another sort, and 
of a sort to stir up the anger of the Emperor 
against him. The Arians therefore and the 
Meletians began to spread the most vile and at the 
same time absurd stories about Athanasius (see 
especially the latter's Apol. c. Arian. § 59 sq.). 
These at last became so notorious that the Emperor 
summoned Athanasius to appear and make his defense 
before a council of bishops to be held in C'sarea 
(Sozomen, H. E. II. 25; Theodoret, H. E. I. 28). 
Athanasius, however, fearing that the Council 
would be composed wholly of his enemies, and that 
it would therefore be impossible to secure fair 
play, excused himself and remained away. But in 
the following year (see Sozomen, H. E. II, 25) he 
received from the Emperor a summons to appear 
before a council at Tyre. The summons was too 
peremptory to admit of a refusal, and Athanasius 
therefore attended, accompanied by many of his 
devoted adherents (see Sozomen, ib.; Theodoret, H. 
E. I. 30; Socrates, H. E. I. 28; Athanasius, Apol. 
c. Arian. § 71 sq.; Eusebius, Vita Const. IV. 41 
sq., and Epiphanius, H'r. LXVIII. 8). After a 
time, perceiving that he had no chance of 
receiving fair play, he suddenly withdrew from the 
Council and proceeded directly to Constantinople, 
in order to lay his case before the Emperor 
himself, and to induce the latter to allow him to 
meet his accusers in his presence, and plead his 
cause before him. There was nothing for the Synod 
to do after his flight but to sustain the charges 
brought against him, some of which he had not 
stayed to refute, and to pass condemnation upon 
him. Besides various immoral and sacrilegious 
deeds of which he was accused, his refusal to 
appear before the Council of

23

C'sarea the previous year was made an important 
item of the prosecution. It was during this 
Council that Potamo flung at Eusebius the taunt of 
cowardice, to which reference was made above, and 
which doubtless did much to confirm Eusebius' 
distrust of and hostility to the Athanasian 
party-Whether Eusebius of C'sarea, as is commonly 
supposed, or Eusebius of Nicomedia, or some other 
bishop, presided at this Council we are not able 
to determine. The account of Epiphanius seems to 
imply that the former was presiding at the time 
that Potamo made his untimely accusation. Our 
sources are, most of them, silent on the matter, 
but according to Valesius, Eusebius of Nicomedia 
is named by some of them, but which they are I 
have not been able to discover. We learn from 
Socrates (H. E. I. 28), as well as from other 
sources, that this Synod of Tyre was held in the 
thirtieth year of Constantine's reign, that is, 
between July, 334, and July, 335. As the Council 
was closed only in time for the bishops to reach 
Jerusalem by July, 335, it is probable that it was 
convened in 335 rather than in 334. From Sozomen 
(H. E. II. 25) we learn also that the Synod of 
C'sarea had been held the preceding year, 
therefore in 333 or 334 (the latter being the date 
commonly given by historians). While the Council 
of Tyre was still in session, the bishops were 
commanded by Constantine to proceed immediately to 
Jerusalem to take part in the approaching festival 
to be held there on the occasion of his 
tricennalia. The scene was one of great splendor. 
Bishops were present from all parts of the world, 
and the occasion was marked by the dedication of 
the new and magnificent basilica which Constantine 
had erected upon the site of Calvary (Theodoret, 
I. 31; Socrates, I. 28 and 33; Sozomen, II. 26; 
Eusebius, Vita Canst. IV. 41 and 43). The bishops 
gathered in Jerusalem at this time held another 
synod before separating. In this they completed 
the work begun at Tyre, by re-admitting Arius and 
his adherents to the communion of the Church (see 
Socrates, 1. 33, and Sozomen, II. 27). According 
to Sozomen the Emperor, having been induced to 
recall Arius from banishment in order to 
reconsider his case, was presented by the latter 
with a confession of faith, which was so worded as 
to convince Constantine of his orthodoxy. He 
therefore sent Arius and his companion Euzoius to 
the bishops assembled in Jerusalem with the 
request that they would examine the confession, 
and if they were satisfied with its orthodoxy 
would re-admit them to communion. The Council, 
which was composed largely of Arius' friends and 
sympathizers, was only too glad to accede to the 
Emperor's request.
Meanwhile Athanasius had induced Constantine, out 
of a sense of justice, to summon the bishops that 
had condemned him at Tyre to give an account of 
their proceedings before the Emperor himself at 
Constantinople. This unexpected, and, doubtless, 
not altogether welcome summons came while the 
bishops were at Jerusalem, and the majority of 
them at once returned home in alarm, while only a 
few answered the call and repaired to 
Constantinople. Among these were Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, Theognis of Nic'a, Patrophilus of 
Scythopolis, and other prominent Arians, and with 
them our Eusebius (Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. §§ 
86 and 87; Socrates, I. 33-35; Sozomen, II. 28). 
The accusers of Athanasius said nothing on this 
occasion in regard to his alleged immoralities, 
for which he had been condemned at Tyre, but made 
another equally trivial accusation against him, 
and the result was his banishment to Gaul. Whether 
Constantine banished him because he believed the 
charge brought against him, or because he wished 
to preserve him from the machinations of his 
enemies (as asserted by his son Constantine, and 
apparently believed by Athanasius himself; see his 
Apol. c. Arian. § 87), or because he thought that 
Athanasius' absence would allay the troubles in 
the Alexandrian church we do not know. The latter 
supposition seems most probable. In any case he 
was not recalled from banishment until after 
Constantine's death. Our Eusebius has been 
severely condemned by many historians for the part 
taken by him in the Eustathian controversy and 
especially in the war against Athanasius. In 
justice to him a word or two must be spoken in his 
defense. So far as his relations to Eustathius are 
concerned, it is to be noticed that the latter 
commenced the controversy by accusing Eusebius of 
heterodoxy. Eusebius himself did not begin the 
quarrel, and very likely had no desire to engage 
in any such doctrinal strife; but he was compelled 
to defend him-

24

self, and in doing so he could not do otherwise 
than accuse Eustathius of Sabellianism; for if the 
latter was not satisfied with Eusebius' orthodoxy, 
which Eusebius himself believed to be truly 
Nicene, then he must be leaning too far toward the 
other extreme; that is, toward Sabellianism. There 
is no reason to doubt that Eusebius was perfectly 
straightforward and honorable throughout the whole 
controversy, and at the Council of Antioch itself. 
That he was not actuated by unworthy motives, or 
by a desire for revenge, is evinced by his 
rejection of the proffered call to Antioch, the 
acceptance of which would have given him so good 
an opportunity to triumph over his fallen enemy. 
It must be admitted, in fact, that Eusebius comes 
out of this controversy without a stain of any 
kind upon his character. He honestly believed 
Eustathius to be a Sabellian, and he acted 
accordingly.
Eusebius has been blamed still more severely for 
his treatment of Athanasius. But again the facts 
must be looked at impartially. It is necessary 
always to remember that Sabellianism was in the 
beginning and remained throughout his life the 
heresy which he most dreaded, and which he had 
perhaps most reason to dread. He must, even at the 
Council of Nic'a, have suspected Athanasius, who 
laid so much stress upon the unity of essence on 
the part of Father and Son, of a leaning toward 
Sabellianistic principles; and this suspicion must 
have been increased when he discovered, as he 
believed, that Athanasitis' most staunch 
supporter, Eustathius, was a genuine Sabellian. 
Moreover, on the other side, it is to be 
remembered that Eusebius of Nicomedia, and all the 
other leading Arians, had signed the Nicene creed 
and had proclaimed themselves thoroughly in 
sympathy with its teaching. Our Eusebius, knowing 
the change that had taken place in his own mind 
upon the controverted points, may well have 
believed that their views had undergone even a 
greater change, and that they were perfectly 
honest in their protestations of orthodoxy. And 
finally, when Arius himself presented a confession 
of faith which led the Emperor, who had had a 
personal interview with him, to believe that he 
had altered his views and was in complete harmony 
with the Nicene faith, it is not surprising that 
our Eusebius, who was naturally unsuspicious, 
conciliatory and peace-loving, should think the 
same thing, and be glad to receive Arius back into 
communion, while at the same time remaining 
perfectly loyal to the orthodoxy of the Nicene 
creed which he had subscribed. Meanwhile his 
suspicions of the Arian party being in large 
measure allayed, and his distrust of the orthodoxy 
of Athanasius and of his adherents being increased 
by the course of events, it was only natural that 
he should lend more or less credence to the 
calumnies which were so industriously circulated 
against Athanasius. To charge him with dishonesty 
for being influenced by these reports, which seem 
to us so absurd and palpably calumnious, is quite 
unwarranted. Constantine, who was, if not a 
theologian, at least a clear-headed and 
sharp-sighted man, believed them, and why should 
Eusebius not have done the same? The incident 
which took place at the Council of Tyre in 
connection with Potamo and himself was important; 
for whatever doubts he may have had up to that 
time as to the truth of the accusations made 
against Athanasius and his adherents, Potamo's 
conduct convinced him that the charges of tyranny 
and high-handed dealing brought against the whole 
party were quite true. It could not be otherwise 
than that he should believe that the good of the 
Alexandrian church, and therefore of the Church at 
large, demanded the deposition of the seditious 
and tyrannous archbishop, who was at the same time 
quite probably Sabellianistic in his tendencies. 
It must in justice be noted that there is not the 
slightest reason to suppose that our Eusebius had 
anything to do with the dishonorable intrigues of 
the Arian party throughout this controversy. 
Athanasius, who cannot say enough in condemnation 
of the tactics of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his 
supporters, never mentions Eusebius of C'sarea in 
a tone of bitterness. He refers to him 
occasionally as a member of the opposite party, 
but he has no complaints to utter against him, as 
he has against the others. This is very 
significant, and should put an end to all 
suspicions of unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part. 
It is to be observed that the latter, though 
having good cause as he believed to condemn 
Athanasius and his adherents, never acted as a 
leader in the war against them. His name, if 
mentioned at all, occurs always toward the end of 
the list as one of

25

the minor combatants, although his position and 
his learning would have entitled him to take the 
most prominent position in the whole affair, if he 
had cared to. He was but true to his general 
character in shrinking from such a controversy, 
and in taking part in it only in so far as his 
conscience compelled him to. We may suspect indeed 
that he would not have made one of the small party 
that repaired to Constantinople in response to the 
Emperor's imperious summons had it not been for 
the celebration of Constantine's tricennalia, 
which was taking place there at the time, and at 
which he delivered, on the special invitation of 
the Emperor and in his presence, one of his 
greatest orations. Certain it is, from the account 
which he gives in his Vita Constantini, that both 
in Constantinople and in Jerusalem the festival of 
the tricennalia, with its attendant ceremonies, 
interested him much more than did the condemnation 
of Athanasius.

§ 8. Eusebius and Marcellus.

It was during this visit to Constantinople that 
another synod was held, at which Eusebius was 
present, and the result of which was the 
condemnation and deposition of the bishop 
Marcellus of Ancyra (see Socrates, I. 36; Sozomen, 
II. 33; Eusebius, Contra Marc. II. 4). The 
attitude of our Eusebius toward Marcellus is again 
significant of his theological tendencies. 
Marcellus had written a book against Asterius, a 
prominent Arian, in which, in his zeal for the 
Nicene orthodoxy, he had laid himself open to the 
charge of Sabellianism. On this account he was 
deposed by the Constantinopolitan Synod, and our 
Eusebius was urged to write a work exposing his 
errors and defending the action of the Council. As 
a consequence he composed his two works against 
Marcelins which will be described later. That 
Eusebius, if not in the case of Athanasius and 
possibly not in that of Eustathius, had at least 
in the present case good ground for the belief 
that Marcellus was a Sabellian, or Sabellianistic 
in tendency, is abundantly proved by the citations 
which he makes from Marcellus' own works; and, 
moreover, his judgment and that of the Synod was 
later confirmed even by Athanasius himself. Though 
not suspecting Marcellus for some time, Athanasius 
finally became convinced that he had deviated from 
the path of orthodoxy, and, as Newman has shown 
(in his introduction to Athanasius' fourth 
discourse against the Arians, Oxford Library of 
the Fathers, vol. 19, p. 503 sq.), directed that 
discourse against his errors and those of his 
followers.
The controversy with Marcellus seems to have been 
the last in which Eusebius was engaged, and it was 
opposition to the dreaded heresy of Sabellius 
which moved him here as in all the other cases. It 
is important to emphasize, however, what is often 
overlooked, that though Eusebius during these 
years was so continuously engaged in controversy 
with one or another of the members of the 
anti-Arian party, there is no evidence that he 
ever deviated from the doctrinal position which he 
took at the Council of Nic'a. After that date it 
was never Arianism which he consciously supported; 
it was never the Nicene orthodoxy which he 
opposed. He supported those members of the old 
Arian party who had signed the Nicene creed and 
protested that they accepted its teaching, against 
those members of the opposite party whom he 
believed to be drifting toward Sabellianism, or 
acting tyrannously and unjustly toward their 
opponents. The anti-Sabellianistic interest 
influenced him all the time, but his post-Nicene 
writings contain no evidence that he had fallen 
back into the Arianizing position which he had 
held before 325. They reveal, on the contrary, a 
fair type of orthodoxy, colored only by its 
decidedly anti-Sabellian emphasis.

§ 9. The Death of Eusebius.

In less than two years after the celebration of 
his tricennalia, on May 22, 337 A.D., the great 
Constantine breathed his last, in Nicomedia, his 
former Capital. Eusebius, already an old man, 
produced a lasting testimonial of his own 
unbounded affection and admiration for the first 
Christian emperor, in his Life of Constantine. 
Soon afterward he followed his imperial friend at 
the

26

advanced age of nearly, if not quite, eighty 
years. The exact date of his death is unknown, but 
it can be fixed approximately. We know from 
Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) that in the summer of 341, 
when a council was held at Antioch (on the date of 
the Council, which we are able to fix with great 
exactness, see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 
sq.) Acacius, Eusebius' successor, was already 
bishop of C'sarea. Socrates (H. E. II. 4) and 
Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) both mention the death of 
Eusebius and place it shortly before the death of 
Constantine the younger, which took place early in 
340 (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp. IV. p. 357 
sq.), and after the intrigues had begun which 
resulted in Athanasius' second banishment. We are 
thus led to place Eusebius' death late in the year 
339, or early in the year 340 (cf. Lightfoot's 
article, p. 318).

CHAPTER II.

THE WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. § I. Eusebius as a 
Writer.
EUSEBIUS was one of the most voluminous writers of 
antiquity, and his labors covered almost every 
field of theological learning. In the words of 
Lightfoot he was "historian, apologist, 
topographer, exegete, critic, preacher, dogmatic 
writer, in turn." It is as an historian that he is 
best known, but the importance of his historical 
writings should not cause us to overlook, as 
modern scholars have been prone to do, his 
invaluable productions in other departments. 
Light-foot passes a very just judgment upon the 
importance of his works in the following words: 
"If the permanent utility of an author's labors 
may be taken as a test of literary excellence, 
Eusebius will hold a very high place indeed. The 
Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique and 
indispensable. The Chronicle is the vast 
storehouse of information relating to the ancient 
monarchies of the world. The Preparation and 
Demonstration are the most important contributions 
to theology in their own province. Even the minor 
works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine, the Life 
of Constantine, the Questions addressed to 
Stephanus and to Marinus, and others, would leave 
an irreparable blank, if they were obliterated. 
And the same permanent value attaches also to his 
more technical treatises. The Canons and Sections 
have never yet been superseded for their 
particular purpose. The Topography of Palestine is 
the most important contribution to our knowledge 
in its own department. In short, no ancient 
ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under 
heavier obligations."
If we look in Eusebius' works for evidences of 
brilliant genius we shall be disappointed. He did 
not possess a great creative mind like Origen's or 
Augustine's. His claim to greatness rests upon his 
vast erudition and his sterling sense. His powers 
of acquisition were remarkable and his diligence 
in study unwearied. He had at his command 
undoubtedly more acquired material than any man of 
his age, and he possessed that true literary and 
historical instinct which enabled him to select 
from his vast stores of knowledge those things 
which it was most worth his while to tell to the 
world. His writings therefore remain valuable 
while the works of many others, perhaps no less 
richly equipped than himself for the mission of 
adding to the sum of human knowledge, are entirely 
forgotten. He thus had the ability to do more than 
acquire; he had the ability to impart to others 
the very best of that which he acquired, and to 
make it useful to them. There is not in his 
writings the brilliancy which we find in some 
others, there is not the same sparkle and 
freshness of new and suggestive thought, there is 
not the same impress of an overmastering 
individuality which transforms everything it 
touches. There is, however, a true and solid merit 
which marks his works almost without exception, 
and raises them above the commonplace. His 
exegesis is superior to that of most of his 
contemporaries, and his apologetics is marked by 
fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and 
instinctive appreciation of the difference between 
the important and the unimportant points under 
discussion, which give to his apologetic works a

27

permanent value. His wide acquaintance, too, with 
other systems than his own, and with the products 
of Pagan as well as Christian thought, enabled him 
to see things in their proper relations and to 
furnish a treatment of the great themes of 
Christianity adapted to the wants of those who had 
looked beyond the confines of a single school. At 
the same time it must be acknowledged that he was 
not always equal to the grand opportunities which 
his acquaintance with the works and lives of other 
men and other peoples opened before him. He does 
not always reveal the possession of that high 
quality of genius which is able to interpret the 
most various forces and to discover the higher 
principles of unity which alone make them 
intelligible; indeed, he often loses himself 
completely in a wilderness of thoughts and notions 
which have come to him from other men and other 
ages, and the result is dire confusion.
We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the 
works of Eusebius for evidences of a refined 
literary taste, or for any of the charms which 
attach to the writings of a great master of 
composition. His style is, as a rule, involved and 
obscure, often painfully rambling and incoherent. 
This quality is due in large part to the 
desultoriness of his thinking. He did not often 
enough clearly define and draw the boundaries of 
his subject before beginning to write upon it. He 
apparently did much of his thinking after he had 
taken pen in hand, and did not subject what he had 
thus produced to a sufficiently careful revision, 
if to any revision at all. Thoughts and 
suggestions poured in upon him while he was 
writing; and he was not always able to resist the 
temptation to insert them as they came, often to 
the utter perversion of his train of thought, and 
to the ruin of the coherency and perspicuity of 
his style. It must be acknowledged, too, that his 
literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly 
vicious. Whenever a flight of eloquence is 
attempted by him, as it is altogether too often, 
his style becomes hopelessly turgid and 
pretentious. At such times his skill in mixing 
metaphors is something astounding (compare, for 
instance, H. E. II. 14). On the other hand, his 
works contain not a few passages of real beauty. 
This is especially true of his Martyrs of 
Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for 
and deep sympathy with the heroes of the faith 
cause him often to forget himself and to describe 
their sufferings in language of genuine fire or 
pathos. At times, too, when he has a sharply 
defined and absorbing aim in mind, and when the 
subject with which he is dealing does not seem to 
him to demand rhetorical adornment, he is simple 
and direct enough in his language, showing in such 
cases that his commonly defective style is not so 
much the consequence of an inadequate command of 
the Greek tongue as of desultory thinking and 
vicious literary taste.
But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius' 
writings, we ought not to fail to give him due 
credit for the conscientiousness and faithfulness 
with which he did his work. He wrote often, it is 
true, too rapidly for the good of his style, and 
he did not always revise his works as carefully as 
he should have done; but we seldom detect undue 
haste in the collection of materials or 
carelessness and negligence in the use of them. He 
seems to have felt constantly the responsibilities 
which rested upon him as a scholar and writer, and 
to have done his best to meet those 
responsibilities. It is impossible to avoid 
contrasting him in this respect with the most 
learned man of the ancient Latin Church, St. 
Jerome. The haste and carelessness with which the 
latter composed his De Viris Illustribus, and with 
which he translated and continued Eusebius' 
Chronicle, remain an everlasting disgrace to him. 
An examination of those and of some others of 
Jerome's works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly 
in our esteem. He was at least conscientious and 
honest in his work, and never allowed himself to 
palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive his 
readers by sophistries, misstatements, and pure 
inventions. He aimed to put the reader into 
possession of the knowledge which he had himself 
acquired, but was always conscientious enough to 
stop there, and not attempt to make fancy play the 
r"le of fact.
One other point, which was mentioned some pages 
back, and to which Lightfoot calls particular 
attention, should be referred to here, because of 
its bearing upon the character of Eusebius' 
writings. He was, above all things, an apologist; 
and the apologetic aim governed both the selection 
of his subjects and method of his treatment. He 
composed none of his works with a

28

purely scientific aim. He thought always of the 
practical result to be attained, and his selection 
of material and his choice of method were governed 
by that. And yet we must recognize the fact that 
this aim was never narrowing in its effects. He 
took a broad view of apologetics, and in his lofty 
conception of the Christian religion he believed 
that every field of knowledge might be laid under 
tribute to it. He was bold enough to be confident 
that history, philosophy, and science all 
contribute to our understanding and appreciation 
of divine truth; and so history and philosophy and 
science were studied and handled by him freely and 
fearlessly. He did not feel the need of distorting 
truth of any kind because it might work injury to 
the religion which he professed. On the contrary, 
he had a sublime faith which led him to believe 
that all truth must have its place and its 
mission, and that the cause of Christianity will 
be benefited by its discovery and diffusion. As an 
apologist, therefore, all fields of knowledge had 
an interest for him; and he was saved that 
pettiness of mind and narrowness of outlook which 
are sometimes characteristic of those who write 
with a purely practical motive.

§ 2. Catalogue of his Works.

There is no absolutely complete edition of 
Eusebius' extant works. The only one which can lay 
claim even to relative completeness is that of 
Migne: Eusebii Pamphili, C'sarea Palestin' 
Episcopi, Opera omnia qu' extant, curis variorum, 
nempe: Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri, Bernardi 
Montfauconii, Card. Angelo Maii edita; collegit et 
denuo recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. 1857. 6 vols 
(tom. XIX.-XXIV. of Migne's Patrologia Gr'ca). 
This edition omits the works which are extant only 
in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some 
brief but important Greek fragments (among them 
the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The 
edition, however, is invaluable and cannot be 
dispensed with. References to it (under the simple 
title Opera) will be given below in connection 
with those works which it contains. Many of 
Eusebius' writings, especially the historical, 
have been published separately. Such editions will 
be mentioned in their proper place in the 
Catalogue.
More or less incomplete lists of our author's 
writings are given by Jerome (De vir. ill. 87); by 
Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37); by Ebedjesu 
(in Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18 sq.); by 
Photius (Bibl. 9-13, 27, 39, 127); and by Suidas 
(who simply copies the Greek version of Jerome). 
Among modern works all the lives of Eusebius 
referred to in the previous chapter give more or 
less extended catalogues of his writings. In 
addition to the works mentioned there, valuable 
lists are also found in Lardner's Credibility, 
Part II chap. 72, and especially in Fabricius' 
Bibl. Gr'ca (ed. 1714), vol. VI. p. 30 sq.
The writings of Eusebius that are known to us, 
extant and non-extant, may be classified for 
convenience' sake under the following heads: I. 
Historical. II. Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV. 
Dogmatic. V. Critical and Exegetical. VI. Biblical 
Dictionaries. VII. Orations. VIII. Epistles. IX. 
Spurious or doubtful works. The classification is 
necessarily somewhat artificial, and claims to be 
neither exhaustive nor exclusive. [1]

1. HISTORICAL WORKS.

Life   of Pamphilus (<greek>h</greek> 
<greek>tou</greek> II<greek>amfilou</greek> 
<greek>biou</greek> <greek>analrafh</greek>;  see 
H. E. VI. 32). Eusebius himself refers to this 
work in four passages (H. E. VI. 32, VII. 32, 
VIII. 13, and Mart. Pal. c. In the last he informs 
us that it consisted of three books. The work is 
mentioned also more than once by Jerome (De vir. 
ill. 81; Ep. ad Marcellam, Migne's ed. Ep. 34; 
Contra Ruf. I. 9), who speaks of it in terms of 
praise, and in the last passage gives a brief 
extract from the third book, which is, so far as 
known, the only extant fragment of the work. The 
date of its composition can be fixed within 
comparatively narrow limits. It must of course 
have been written before the shorter recension of 
the Martyrs of Palestine, which contains a 
reference to it (on its relation to the

29

longer recension, which does not mention it, see 
below, p. 30), and also before the History (i.e. 
as early as 313 A.D. (?), see below, p. 45). On 
the other hand, it was written after Pamphilus' 
death (see H. E. VII. 32, 25), which occurred in 
310.
Martyrs of Palestine (<greek>peri</greek> 
<greek>tpn</greek> <greek>en</greek> 
II<greek>alaistanh</greek> 
<greek>marturhsantwn</greek>). This work is extant 
in two recensions, a longer and a shorter. The 
longer has been preserved entire only in a Syriac 
version, which was published, with English 
translation and notes, by Cureton in 1861. A 
fragment of the original Greek of this work as 
preserved by Sirecon Metaphrastes had previously 
been published by Papebroch in the Acta Sanctorum 
(June, tom. I. p. 64; reprinted by Fabricius, II. 
p. 217), but had been erroneously regarded as an 
extract. from Eusebius' Life Cureton's publication 
of the Syriac version of the Martyrs of Palestine 
showed that it was a part of the original of that 
work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts of 
St. Procopius, which were published by Valesius 
(in his edition of Eusebius' Hist. Eccles. in a 
note on the first chapter of the Mart. Pal.; 
reprinted by Cureton, Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). 
Moreover, according to Cureton, Assemani's Acta 
SS. Martyrum Orient el Occidentalium, part II. p. 
169 sq. (Rom', 1748) contains another Syriac 
version of considerable portions of this same 
work. The Syriac version published by Cureton was 
made within less than a century after the 
composition of the original work (the manuscript 
of it dates from 411 A.D.; see Cureton, ib., 
preface, p. i.), perhaps within a few years after 
it, and there is every reason to suppose that it 
represents that original with considerable 
exactness. That Eusebius himself was the author of 
the original cannot be doubted. In addition to 
this longer recension there is extant in Greek a 
shorter form of the same work which is found 
attached to the Ecclesiastical History in most 
MSS. of the latter. In some of them it is placed 
between the eighth and ninth books, in others at 
the close of the tenth book, while one MS. inserts 
it in the middle of VIII. 13. In some of the most 
important MSS. it is wanting entirely, as likewise 
in the translation of Rufinus, and, according to 
Lightfoot, in the Syriac version of the History. 
Most editions of Eusebius' History print it at the 
close of the eighth book. Migne gives it 
separately in Opera, II. 1457 sq. In the present 
volume the translation of it is given as an 
appendix to the eighth book, on p. 342 sq.
There can be no doubt that the shorter form is 
younger than the longer. The mention of the Life 
of Pamphilus which is contained in the shorter, 
but is not found in the corresponding passage of 
the longer form would seem to indicate that the 
former was a remodeling of the latter rather than 
the latter of the former (see below, p. 30). 
Moreover, as Cureton and Lightfoot both point out, 
the difference between the two works both in 
substance and in method is such as to make it 
clear that the shorter form is a revised 
abridgment of the longer. That Eusebius himself 
was the author of the shorter as well as of the 
longer form is shown by the fact that not only in 
the passages common to both recensions, but also 
in those peculiar to the shorter one, the author 
speaks in the same person and as an eye-witness of 
many of the events which he records. And still 
further, in Chap. 11 he speaks of having himself 
written the Life of Pamphilus in three books, a 
notice which is wanting in the longer form and 
therefore must emanate from the hand of the author 
of the shorter. It is interesting to inquire after 
Eusebius' motive in publishing an abridged edition 
of this work. Cureton supposes that he condensed 
it simply for the purpose of inserting it in the 
second edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the 
other hand, suggests that it may have formed "part 
of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the 
martyrs were set off against the deaths of the 
persecutors," and he is inclined to see in the 
brief appendix to the eighth book of the History 
(translated below on p. 340) "a fragment of the 
second part of the treatise of which the Martyrs 
of Palestine in the shorter recension formed the 
first." The suggestion is, to say the least, very 
plausible. If it be true, the attachment of the 
shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine to the 
Ecclesiastical History was probably the work, not 
of Eusebius himself, but of some copyist or 
copyists, and the disagreement among the various 
MSS. as to its position in the History is more 
easily explained on this supposition than on 
Cureton's theory that it was attached to a later 
edition of the latter work by Eusebius himself.

30

The date at which the Martyrs of Palestine was 
composed cannot be determined with certainty. It 
was at any rate not published until after the 
first nine books of the Ecclesiastical History 
(i.e. not before 313, see below, p. 45), for it is 
referred to as a projected work in H. E. VIII. 13. 
7. On the other hand, the accounts contained in 
the longer recension bear many marks of having 
been composed on the spot, while the impressions 
left by the martyrdoms witnessed by the author 
were still fresh upon him. Moreover, it is 
noticeable that in connection with the account of 
Pamphilus' martyrdom, given in the shorter 
recension, reference is made to the Life of 
Pamphilus as a book already published, while in 
the corresponding account in the longer recension 
no such book is referred to. This would seem to 
indicate that the Life of Pamphilus was written 
after the longer, but before the shorter recension 
of the Martyrs. But on the other hand the Life was 
written before the Ecclesiastical History (see 
above, p. 29), and consequently before the 
publication of either recension of the Martyrs. 
May it not be that the accounts of the various 
martyrdoms were written, at least some of them, 
during the persecution, but that they were not 
arranged, completed, and published until 313, or 
later? If this be admitted we may suppose that the 
account of Pamphilus' martyrdom was written soon 
after his death and before the Life was begun. 
When it was later embodied with the other accounts 
in the one work On the Martyrs of Palestine it may 
have been left just as it was, and it may not have 
occurred to the author to insert a reference to 
the Life of Pamphilus which had meanwhile been 
published. But when he came to abridge and in part 
rewrite for a new edition the accounts of the 
various martyrdoms contained in the work On 
Martyrs he would quite naturally refer the reader 
to the Life for fuller particulars.
If we then suppose that the greater part of the 
longer recension of the Martyrs was already 
complete before the end of the persecution, it is 
natural to conclude that the whole work was 
published at an early date, probably as soon as 
possible after the first edition of the History. 
How much later the abridgment was made we cannot 
tell. [1]
The differences between the two recensions lie 
chiefly in the greater fullness of detail on the 
part of the longer one. The arrangement and 
general mode of treatment is the same in both. 
They contain accounts of the Martyrs that suffered 
in Palestine during the years 303-310, most of 
whom Eusebius himself saw. Collection of Ancient 
Martyrdoms (<greek>arkaiwn</greek> 
<greek>marturiwn</greek> <greek>sunagwgh</greek>). 
This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his H. E. 
IV. 15, V. pr'f., 4, 21. These notices indicate 
that it was not an original

31

composition, but simply a compilation; a 
collection of extant accounts of martyrdoms which 
had taken place before Eusebius' day. The work is 
no longer extant, but the accounts of the 
martyrdom of Pamphilus and others at Smyrna, of 
the persecution in Lyons and Vienne, and of the 
defense of Apollonius in Rome, which Eusebius 
inserts in his Ecclesiastical History (IV. xS, V. 
1, V. 21), are taken, as he informs us, from this 
collection. As to the time of compilation, we can 
say only that it antedates the composition of the 
earlier books of the History (on whose date, see 
below, p. 45).
Chronicle (<greek>kronikoi</greek> 
<greek>kanones</greek>). Eusebius refers to this 
work in his Church History (I. 1), in his 
Pr'paratio Evang. X. 9, and at the beginning of 
his Eclog' prophetica'. It is divided into two 
books, the first of which consists of an epitome 
of universal history drawn from various sources, 
the second of chronological tables, which "exhibit 
in parallel columns the succession of the rulers 
of different nations in such a way that the reader 
can see at a glance with whom any given monarch 
was contemporary." The tables "are accompanied by 
notes, marking the years of some of the more 
remarkable historical events, these notes also 
constituting an epitome of history." Eusebius was 
not the first Christian writer to compose a work 
on universal chronology. Julius Africanus had 
published a similar work early in the third 
century, and from that Eusebius drew his model and 
a large part of the material for his own work. At 
the same time his Chronicle is more than a simple 
revision of Africanus' work, and contains the 
result of much independent investigation on his 
own part. The work of Africanus is no longer 
extant, and that of Eusebius was likewise lost for 
a great many centuries, being superseded by a 
revised Latin edition, issued by Jerome. Jerome's 
edition, which comprises only the second book of 
Eusebius' Chronicle, is a translation of the 
original work, enlarged by notices taken from 
various writers concerning human history, and 
containing a continuation of the chronology down 
to his own time. This, together with numerous 
Greek fragments preserved by various ancient 
writers, constituted our only source for a 
knowledge of the original work, until late in the 
last century an Armenian translation of the whole 
work was discovered and published in two volumes 
by J. B. Aucher: Venice, 1818. The Armenian 
translation contains a great many errors and not a 
few lacun', but it is our most valuable source for 
a knowledge of the original work.
The aim of the Chronicle was, above all, 
apologetic, the author wishing to prove by means 
of it that the Jewish religion, of which the 
Christian was the legitimate continuation, was 
older than the oldest of heathen cults, and thus 
deprive pagan opponents of their taunt of novelty, 
so commonly hurled against Christianity. As early 
as the second century, the Christian apologists 
had emphasized the antiquity of Judaism; but 
Julius Africanus was the first to devote to the 
matter scientific study, and it was with the same 
idea that Eusebius followed in his footsteps. The 
Chronology, in spite of its errors, is invaluable 
for the light it throws on many otherwise dark 
periods of history, and for the numerous extracts 
it contains from works no longer extant.
There are good and sufficient reasons (as is 
pointed out by Salmon in his article in Smith and 
Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography) for 
supposing that two editions of the Chronicle were 
published by Eusebius. But two of these reasons 
need be stated here: first, the chronology of the 
Armenian version differs from that of Jerome's 
edition in many important particulars, 
divergencies which can be satisfactorily accounted 
for only on the supposition of a difference in the 
sources from which they respectively drew; 
secondly, Jerome states directly that the work was 
brought down to the vicennalia of 
Constantine,--that is, to the year 325,--but the 
Chronicle is referred to as an already published 
work in the Eclog' prophetic' (I. 1), and in the 
Pr'paratio Evang. (X. 9), both of which were 
written before 313. We may conclude, then, that a 
first edition of the work was published during, or 
more probably before, the great persecution, and 
that a second and revised edition was issued 
probably in 325, or soon thereafter.
For further particulars in regard to the Chronicle 
see especially the article of Salmon already 
referred to. The work has been issued separately a 
great many times. We may refer here to the edition 
of Scaliger, which was published in 1606 (2d ed. 
1658), in which he attempted

32

to restore the Greek text from the fragments of 
Syncellus and other ancient writers, and to the 
new edition of Mai, which was printed in 1833 in 
his Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, Tom. VIII., 
and reprinted by Migne, Eusebii Opera, I. 99-598. 
The best and most recent edition, however, and the 
one which supersedes all earlier editions, is that 
of Alfred Schoene, in two volumes: Berlin, 1875 
and 1866. Ecclesiastical History 
(<greek>ekklhsiastikh</greek> 
<greek>istoria</greek>). For a discussion of this 
work see below, p. 45 sq. Life of Constantine 
(<greek>eis</greek> <greek>ton</greek> 
<greek>bion</greek> <greek>tou</greek> 
<greek>makarioh</greek> 
<greek>kwnstantinou</greek> <greek>tou</greek> 
<greek>basilews</greek>).For particulars in regard 
to this work, see the prolegomena of Dr. 
Richardson, on pp. sq., of this volume.

II. APOLOGETIC WORKS.

Against Hierocles (<greek>pros</greek> 
<greek>tous</greek> <greek>uper</greek> 
A<greek>pollwniou</greek> <greek>tou</greek> 
<greek>tuanews</greek> I<greek>erokleous</greek> 
<greek>logous</greek>, as Photius calls it in his 
Bibl. 39). Hierocles was governor of Bithynia 
during the early years of the Diocletian 
persecution, and afterwards governor of Egypt. In 
both places he treated the Christians with great 
severity, carrying out the edicts of the emperors 
to the fullest extent, and even making use of the 
most terrible and loathsome forms of persecution 
(see Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 16, and Eusebius, 
Mart. Pal. 5, Cureton's ed. p. 18). He was at the 
same time a Neo-Platonic philosopher, exceedingly 
well versed in the Scriptures and doctrines of the 
Christians. In a work against the Christians 
entitled <greek>logos</greek> 
<greek>filalhqhs</greek> <greek>nros</greek> 
<greek>tous</greek> <greek>kristianous</greek>, he 
brought forward many scriptural difficulties and 
alleged contradictions, and also instituted a 
comparison between Christ and Apollonius of Tyana, 
with the intention of disparaging the former. 
Eusebius feels called upon to answer the work, but 
confines himself entirely to that part of it which 
concerned Christ and Apollonius, leaving to some 
future time a refutation of the remainder of the 
work, which indeed, he says, as a mere 
reproduction of the arguments of Celsus, had been 
already virtually answered by Origen (see chap. 
1). Eusebius admits that Apollonius was a good 
man, but refuses to concede that he was anything 
more, or that he can be compared with Christ. He 
endeavors to show that the account of Apollonius 
given by Philostratus is full of contradictions 
and does not rest upon trustworthy evidence. The 
tone of the book is mild, and the arguments in the 
main sound and well presented. It is impossible to 
fix the date of the work with any degree of 
certainty. Valesius assigns it to the later years 
of the persecution, when Eusebius visited Egypt; 
Stein says that it may have been written about 312 
or 313, or even earlier; while Lightfoot simply 
remarks, "it was probably one of the earliest 
works of Eusebius." There is no ground for putting 
it at one time rather than another except the 
intrinsic probability that it was written soon 
after the work to which it was intended to be a 
reply. In fact, had a number of years elapsed 
after the publication of Hierocles' attack, 
Eusebius would doubtless, if writing against it at 
all, have given a fuller and more complete 
refutation of it, such as he suggests in the first 
chapter that he may yet give. The work of 
Hierocles, meanwhile, must have been written at 
any rate some time before the end of the 
persecution, for it is mentioned in Lactantius' 
Div. Inst. V. 2.
Eusebius' work has been published by Gaisford: 
Eusebii Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum 
libri, Oxon. 1852; and also in various editions of 
the works of Philostratus. Migne, Opera IV. 795 
sq., reprints it from Olearius' edition of 
Philostratus' works (Lips. 1709).
Against Porphyry (<greek>kata</greek> 
II<greek>orfurion</greek>). Porphyry, the 
celebrated Neo-Platonic philosopher, regarded by 
the early Fathers as the bitterest and most 
dangerous enemy of the Church, wrote toward the 
end of the third century a work against 
Christianity in fifteen books, which was looked 
upon as the most powerful attack that had ever 
been made, and which called forth refutations from 
some of the greatest Fathers of the age: from 
Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of C'sarea, and 
Apollinaris of Laodicea; and even as late as the 
end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth 
century the historian Philostorgius thought it 
necessary to write another reply to it (see his H. 
E. X. 10). Porphyry's work is no longer extant, 
but the fragments of it which remain show us that 
it was both learned and skillful. He made much of 
the alleged contra-

33

dictions in the Gospel records, and suggested 
difficulties which are still favorite weapons in 
the hands of skeptics. Like the work of Porphyry, 
and all the other refutations of it, the Apology 
of Eusebius has entirely perished. It is mentioned 
by Jerome (de vir. ill. 81 and Ep. ad Magnum, § 3, 
Migne's ed. Ep. 70), by Socrates (H. E. III. 23), 
and by Philostorgius (H. E. VIII. 14). There is 
some dispute as to the number of books it 
contained. In his Ep. ad Magn. Jerome says that 
"Eusebius et Apollinaris viginti quinque, et 
triginta volumina condiderunt," which implies that 
it was composed of twenty-five books; while in his 
de ver. ill. 81, he speaks of thirty books, of 
which he had seen only twenty. Vallarsi says, 
however, that all his MSS. agree in reading 
"twenty-five" instead of "thirty" in the latter 
passage, so that it would seem that the vulgar 
text is incorrect.
It is impossible to form an accurate notion of the 
nature and quality of Eusebius' refutation. 
Socrates speaks of it in terms of moderate praise 
("which [i.e. the work of Porphyry] has been ably 
answered by Eusebius"), and Jerome does the same 
in his Ep. ad Magnum ("Alteri [i.e. Porphyry] 
Methodius, Eusebius, et Apollinaris fortissime 
responderunt"). At the same time the fact that 
Apollinaris and others still thought it necessary 
to write against Porphyry would seem to show that 
Eusebius' refutation was not entirely 
satisfactory. In truth, Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium 
et Oceanum, § 2, Migne's ed. Ep. 84) appears to 
rank the work of Apollinaris above that of 
Eusebius, and Philostorgius expressly states that 
the former far surpassed the latter 
(<greek>epi</greek> <greek>polu</greek> 
<greek>kratein</greek> <greek>hUwnismemn</greek> 
E<greek>usebiw</greek> <greek>kat</greek> 
<greek>autou</greek>). The date of Eusebius' work 
cannot be determined. The fact that he never 
refers to it, although he mentions the work of 
Porphyry a number of times, has been urged by 
Valesius and others as proof that he did not write 
it until after 325 A.D.; but it is quite possible 
to explain his silence, as Lardner does, by 
supposing that his work was written in his earlier 
years, and that afterward he felt its inferiority 
and did not care to mention it. It seems, in fact, 
not unlikely that he wrote it as early, or even 
earlier than his work against Hierocles, at any 
rate before his attention was occupied with the 
Arian controversy and questions connected with it.
On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients 
(<greek>peri</greek> <greek>ths</greek> 
<greek>ppn</greek> <greek>palaipn</greek> 
<greek>andrpn</greek> <greek>polupaidias</greek>). 
This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his Praep. 
Evang. VII. 8. 20 (Migne, Opera, III. 525), but by 
no one else, unless it be the book to which Basil 
refers in his De Spir. Saneta, 29, as Difficulties 
respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. The work 
is no longer extant, but we can gather from the 
connection in which it is mentioned in the 
Preparatio, that it aimed at accounting for the 
polygamy of the Patriarchs and reconciling it with 
the ascetic ideal of the Christian life which 
prevailed in the Church of Eusebius' lifetime. It 
would therefore seem to have been written with an 
apologetic purpose.
Pr'paratio Evangelica 
(<greek>proparaskeuh</greek>) and Demonstratio 
Evangelica (E'<greek>uaUUelikh</greek> 
<greek>apodeixis</greek>). These two treatises 
together constitute Eusebius' greatest apologetic 
work. The former is directed against heathen, and 
aims to show that the Christians are justified in 
accepting the sacred books of the Hebrews and in 
rejecting the religion and philosophy of the 
Greeks. The latter endeavors to prove from the 
sacred books of the Hebrews themselves that the 
Christians do right in going beyond the Jews, in 
accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and in adopting 
another mode of life. The former is therefore in a 
way a preparation for the latter, and the two 
together constitute a defense of Christianity 
against all the world, Jews as well as heathen. In 
grandeur of conception, in comprehensiveness of 
treatment, and in breadth of learning, this 
apology undoubtedly surpasses all other apologetic 
works of antiquity. Lightfoot justly says, "This 
great apologetic work exhibits the same merits and 
defects which we find elsewhere in Eusebius. There 
is the same greatness of conception marred by the 
same inadequacy of execution, the same profusion 
of learning combined with the same inability to 
control his materials, which we have seen in his 
History. The divisions are not kept distinct; the 
topics start up unexpectedly and out of season. 
But with all its faults this is probably the most 
important apologetic work of the early Church. It 
necessarily lacks the historical interest of the 
apologetic

34

writings of the second century; it falls far short 
of the thoughtfulness and penetration which give a 
permanent value to Origen's treatise against 
Celsus as a defense of the faith; it lags behind 
the Latin apologists in rhetorical vigor and 
expression. But the forcible and true conceptions 
which it exhibits from time to time, more 
especially beating on the theme which may be 
briefly designated 'God in history,' arrest our 
attention now, and must have impressed his 
contemporaries still more strongly; while in 
learning and comprehensiveness it is without a 
rival." The wide acquaintance with classical 
literature exhibited by Eusebius in the Preparatio 
is very remarkable. Many writers are referred to 
whose names are known to us from no other source, 
and many extracts are given which constitute our 
only fragments of works otherwise totally lost. 
The Preparatio thus does for classical much what 
the History does for Christian literature.
A very satisfactory summary of the contents of the 
Pr'paratio is given at the beginning of the 
fifteenth book. In the first, second, and third 
books, the author exposes the absurdities of 
heathen mythology, and attacks the allegorical 
theology of the Neo-Platonists; in the fourth and 
fifth books he discusses the heathen oracles; in 
the sixth he refutes the doctrine of fate; in the 
seventh he passes over to the Hebrews, devoting 
the next seven books to an exposition of the 
excellence of their system, and to a demonstration 
of the proposition that Moses and the prophets 
lived before the greatest Greek writers, and that 
the latter drew their knowledge from the former; 
in the fourteenth and fifteenth books he exposes 
the contradictions among Greek philosophers and 
the vital errors in their systems, especially in 
that of the Peripatetics. The Pr'paratio is 
complete in fifteen books, all of which are still 
extant.
The Demonstratio consisted originally of twenty 
books (see Jerome's de vir. ill. 81, and Photius' 
Bibl. 10). Of these only ten are extant, and even 
in the time of Nicephones Callistus no more were 
known, for he gives the number of the books as ten 
(H. E. VI. 37). There exists also a fragment of 
the fifteenth book, which was discovered and 
printed by Mai (Script. vet. nova call. I. 2, p. 
173). In the first book, which is introductory, 
Eusebius shows why the Christians pursue a mode of 
life different from that of the Jews, drawing a 
distinction between Hebraism, the religion of all 
pious men from the beginning, and Judaism, the 
special system of the Jews, and pointing out that 
Christianity is a continuation of the former, but 
a rejection of the latter, which as temporary has 
passed away. In the second book he shows that the 
calling of the Gentiles and the repudiation of the 
Jews are foretold in Scripture. In books three to 
nine he discusses the humanity, divinity, 
incarnation, and earthly life of the Saviour, 
showing that all were revealed in the prophets. In 
the remainder of the work we may assume that the 
same general plan was followed, and that Christ's 
death, resurrection, and ascension, and the spread 
of his Church, were the subjects discussed in this 
as in nearly all works of the kind.
There is much dispute as to the date of these two 
works. Stroth and Cave place them after the 
Council of Nica'a, while Valesius, Lightfoot, and 
others, assign them to the ante-Nicene period. In 
two passages in the History Eusebius has been 
commonly supposed to refer to the Demonstratio (H. 
E. I. 2 and 6), but it is probable that the first, 
and quite likely the second also, refers to the 
Eclog' Proph. We can, therefore, base no argument 
upon those passages. But in Pre second a'p. Evang. 
XII. 10 (Opera, III. 969) there is a reference to 
the persecution, which seems clearly to imply that 
it was still continuing; and in the Demonstratio 
(III. 5 and IV. 6; Opera, IV. 213 and 307), which 
was written after the Preparatio, are still more 
distinct indications of the continuance of the 
persecution. On the other hand, in V. 3 and VI. 20 
(Opera, IV. 364 and 474) there are passages which 
imply that the persecution has come to an end. It 
seems necessary then to conclude, with Lightfoot, 
that the Demonstratio was begun during the 
persecution, but not completed until peace had 
been established. The Pr'paratio, which was 
completed before the Demonstratio was begun (see 
the pro'mium to the latter), must have been 
finished during the persecution. It contains in X. 
9 (Opera, III. 807) a reference to the Chronicle 
as an already published work (see above, p. 31).

35

The Pr'paratio and Demonstratio are found in 
Migne's edition of the Opera, III. and IV. 9 sq. A 
more recent text is that of Dindorf in Teubner's 
series, 1867. The Pr'paratio has been published 
separately by Heinichen, 2 vols., Lips. 1842, and 
by Gaisford, 4 vols., Oxon. 1843. The latter 
contains a full critical apparatus with Latin 
translation and notes, and is the most useful 
edition which we have. Seguier in 1846 published a 
French translation with notes. The latter are 
printed in Latin in Migne's edition of the Opera, 
III. 1457 sq. The French translation I have not 
seen. The Demonstratio was also published by 
Gaisford in 2 vols., Oxon. 1852, with critical 
apparatus and Latin translation. H'nell has made 
the two works the subject of a monograph entitled 
De Eusebio C'sariensi religionis Christianae 
subject of'e Defensore (Gotting Christianae 
subject of a monograph entitled', 1843) which I 
know only from the mention of it by Stein and 
Lightfoot.
Pr'paratio Ecclesiastica 
('E<greek>kklhsiastikh</greek> 
II<greek>roparaskeuh</greek>), and Demanstratio 
Ecclesiastica ('E <greek>kklhQiastikh</greek> 
'A<greek>podeixis</greek> ). These two works are 
no longer extant. We know of the former only from 
Photius' reference to it in Bibl. 11, of the 
latter from his mention of it in Bibl.
Lightfoot says that the latter is referred to also 
in the Fus Gr'co-Romanum (lib. IV. p. 295; ed. 
Leunclav.). We know nothing about the works 
(except that the first according to Photius 
contained extracts), and should be tempted to 
think them identical with the Pr'paratio and 
Demonstratio Evang. were it not that Photius 
expressly mentions the two latter in another part 
of his catalogue (Bibl. 10). Lightfoot supposes 
that the two lost works did for the society what 
the Pr'p. and Dem. Evang. do for the doctrines of 
which the society is the depositary, and he 
suggests that those portions of the Theophania 
(Book IV.) which relate to the foundation of the 
Church may have been adopted from the Dem. 
Ecclesiastica, as other portions of the work (Book 
V.) are adopted from the Dem. Evang.
If there is a reference in the Pr'p. Evang. I. 3 
(Opera, III 33) to the Demanstratio Eccles., as 
Lightfoot thinks there may be, and as is quite 
possible, the latter work, and consequently in all 
probability the Pr'p. Eccles, also, must have been 
written before 313 A.D. Two Books of Objection and 
Defense ('E<greek>leUkou</greek> 
<greek>kai</greek> 'A<greek>poloUias</greek> 
<greek>loUoi</greek> <greek>duo</greek>). These 
are no longer extant, but are mentioned by Photius 
in his Bibl. 13. We gather from Photius' language 
that two editions of the work were extant in his 
time. The books, as Photius clearly indicates, 
contained an apology for Christianity against the 
attacks of the heathen, and not, as Cave supposed, 
a defense of the author against the charge of 
Arianism. The tract mentioned by Gelasius of 
Cyzicus (see below, p. 64) is therefore not to be 
identified with this work, as Cave imagined that 
it might be.
Theophania or Divine Manifestation 
(<greek>qeoFaneia</greek>). A Syriac version of 
this work is extant in the same MS. which contains 
the Martyrs of Palestine, and was first published 
by Lee in 1842. In 1843 the same editor issued an 
English translation with notes and extended 
prolegomena (Cambridge, 1 vol.). The original work 
is no longer extant in its entirety, but numerous 
Greek fragments were collected and published by 
Mai in 1831 and 1833 (Script. vet. nov. call. I. 
and VIII.), and again with additions in 1847 
(Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 110 and 310; reprinted by 
Migne, Opera, VI. 607-690. Migne does not give the 
Syriac version). The manuscript which contains the 
Syriac version was written in 411, and Lee thinks 
that the translation itself may have been made 
even during the lifetime of Eusebius. At any rate 
it is very old and, so far as it is possible to 
judge, seems to have reproduced the sense of the 
original with comparative accuracy. The subject of 
the work is the manifestation of God in the 
incarnation of the Word. It aims to give, with an 
apologetic purpose, a brief exposition of the 
divine authority and influence of Christianity. It 
is divided into five books which handle 
successively the subject and the recipients of the 
revelation, that is, the Logos on the one hand, 
and man on the other; the necessity of the 
revelation; the proof of it drawn from its 
effects; the proof of it drawn from its 
fulfillment of prophecy; finally, the common 
objections brought by the heathen against Christ's 
character and wonderful works. Lee says of the 
work: "As a brief exposition of Christianity,

36

particularly of its Divine authority, and amazing 
influence, it has perhaps never been surpassed." 
"When we consider the very extensive range of 
inquiry occupied by our author, the great variety 
both of argument and information which it 
contains, and the small space which it occupies; 
we cannot, I think, avoid coming to the 
conclusion, that it is a very extraordinary work, 
and one which is as suitable to our own times as 
it was to those for which it was written. Its 
chief excellency is, that it is argumentative, and 
that its arguments are well grounded, and 
logically conducted."
The Theophania contains much that is found also in 
other works of Eusebius. Large portions of the 
first, second, and third books are contained in 
the Oratio de Laudibus Constantini, nearly the 
whole of the fifth book is given in the Dem. 
Evang., while many passages occur in the Pr'p. 
Evang.
These coincidences assist us in determining the 
date of the work. That it was written after 
persecution had ceased and peace was restored to 
the Church, is clear from II. 76, III. 20, 79, V. 
52. Lee decided that it was composed very soon 
after the close of the Diocletian persecution, but 
Lightfoot has shown conclusively (p. 333) from the 
nature of the parallels between it and other 
writings of Eusebius, that it must have been 
written toward the end of his life, certainly 
later than the De Laud. Canst. (335 A.D.), and 
indeed it is not improbable that it remained 
unfinished at the time of his death.

III Polemic Works.

Defense of Origen ('A<greek>poloUia</greek> 
<greek>uper</greek> <greek>Wrisenous</greek>). 
This was the joint work of Eusebius and Pamphilus, 
as is distinctly stated by Eusebius himself in his 
H. E. VI. 33, by Socrates, H. E. III. 7, by the 
anonymous collector of the Synodical Epistles ( 
Ep. 198), and by Photius, Bibl. 118. The last 
writer informs us that the work consisted of six 
books, the first five of which were written by 
Eusebins and Pamphilus while the latter was in 
prison, the last book being added by the former 
after Pamphilus' death (see above, p. 9). There is 
no reason to doubt the statement of Photius, and 
we may therefore assign the first five books to 
the years 307-309, and assume that the sixth was 
written soon afterward. The Defense has perished, 
with the exception of the first book, which was 
translated by Rufinus (Rufin. ad Hieron. I. 582 ), 
and is still extant in his Latin version. Rufinus 
ascribed this book expressly to Pamphilus, and 
Pamphilus' name alone appears in the translation. 
Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 8; II. 15, 23; III. 12) 
maintains that the whole work was written by 
Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, and accuses Rufinus of 
having deliberately substituted the name of the 
martyr Pamphilus for that of the Arianizing 
Eusebius in his translation of the work, in order 
to secure more favorable acceptance for the 
teachings of Origen. Jerome's unfairness and 
dishonesty in this matter have been pointed out by 
Lightfoot (p. 340). In spite of his endeavor to 
saddle the whole work upon Eusebius, it is certain 
that Pamphilus was a joint author of it, and it is 
quite probable that Rufinus was true to his 
original in ascribing to Pamphilus all the 
explanations which introduce and connect the 
extracts from Origen, which latter constitute the 
greater part of the book. Eusebius may have done 
most of his work in connection with the later 
books.
The work was intended as a defense of Origen 
against the attacks of his opponents (see 
Eusebius' H. E. VI 33, and the Preface to the 
Defense itself). According to Socrates (H. E. VI. 
13), Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and 
Theophilus all wrote against Origen. Of these only 
Methodius had written before the composition of 
the Defense, and he was expressly attacked in the 
sixth book of that work, according to Jerome 
(Contra Ruf. I. 11). The wide opposition aroused 
against Origen was chiefly in consequence not of 
his personal character, but of his theological 
views. The Apology, therefore, seems to have been 
devoted in the main to a defense of those views 
over against the attacks of the men that held and 
taught opposite opinions, and may thus be regarded 
as in some sense a regular polemic. The extant 
book is devoted principally to a discussion of 
Origen's views on the Trinity and the Incarnation. 
It is not printed in Migne's edition of Eusebius' 
Opera, but is published in the various editions of

37

Origen's works (in Lommatzsch's edition, XXIV. 
289-412). For further particulars in regard to the 
work, see Delarue's introduction to it 
(Lommatzsch, XXIV. 263 sq.), and Lightfoot's 
article on Eusebius, pp. 340 and 341.
Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra 
(<greek>kata</greek> M<greek>?rkellou</greek> 
<greek>tou</greek> 'A<greek>Ukuras</greek> 
<greek>episkopou</greek>). The occasion of this 
work has been already described (see p. 25), and 
is explained by Eusebius himself in Book II. chap, 
4. The work must have been written soon after the 
Council at which Marcellus was condemned. It aims 
simply to expose his errors, exegetical as well as 
theological. The work consists of two books, and 
is still extant (Opera, VI. 707-824).
On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of 
Marcellus (<greek>oi</greek> <greek>pros</greek> 
M<greek>arkellon</greek> <greek>eleUkoi</greek> 
<greek>peri</greek> <greek>ths</greek> 
<greek>ekklhsiastikhs</greek> 
<greek>QeoloUias</greek>). The occasion of this 
work is stated in the first chapter. In the 
previous work Eusebius had aimed merely to expose 
the opinions of Marcellus, but in this he devotes 
himself to their refutation, fearing that some 
might be led astray by their length and 
plausibility. The work, which consists of three 
books, is still extant, and is given by Migne in 
the Opera, VI. 825-1046. Both it and the preceding 
are published with the Contra Hieroclem in 
Gaisford's Euseb. Pamph. contra Hieroclem et 
Marcellum, Oxon. 1852. Zahn has written a valuable 
monograph entitled Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha, 
1867).
Against the Manicheans. Epiphanius (H'r. LXVI. 21) 
mentions, among other refutations of the 
Manicheans, one by our Eusebius. The work is 
referred to nowhere else, and it is possible that 
Epiphanius was mistaken in his reference, or that 
the refutation he has in mind formed only a part 
of some other work, but we are hardly justified in 
asserting, as Lightfoot does, that the work cannot 
have existed.

IV. Dogmatic Works.

General Elementary Introduction ('H 
<greek>kaqolou</greek> <greek>stoikeiwdhs</greek> 
<greek>eisaUwUh</greek>). This work consisted of 
ten books, as we learn from a reference to it in 
the Eclog' Propheticae, as we learn from a 
reference to it in the Eclog', IV. 35. It was 
apparently a general introduction to the study of 
theology, and covered a great variety of subjects. 
Five brief fragments have been preserved, all of 
them apparently from the first book, which must 
have dealt largely with general principles of 
ethics. The fragments were published by Mai (Bibl. 
Nova Patrum, IV. 316), and are reprinted by Migne 
(Opera, IV. 1271 sq.). In addition to these 
fragments, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth 
books of the work are extant under the title:
Prophetical Extracts (II<greek>roFhtikai</greek> 
'E<greek>kloUai</greek>). Although this formed a 
part of the larger work, it is complete in itself, 
and circulated independently of the rest of the 
Introduction. It contains extracts of prophetical 
passages from the Old Testament relating to the 
person and work of Christ, accompanied by 
explanatory notes. It is divided into four books, 
the first containing extracts from the historical 
Scriptures, the second from the Psalms, the third 
from the other poetical books and from the 
prophets, the fourth from Isaiah alone. The 
personality of the Logos is the main topic of the 
work, which is thus essentially dogmatic, rather 
than apologetic, as it might at first glance seem 
to be. It was composed during the persecution, 
which is clearly referred to in Book I. chap. 8 as 
still raging; it must have been written therefore 
between 303 and 313. The date of these books, of 
course, fixes the date of the General 
Introduction, of which they formed a part. The 
Eclog' are referred to in the History, I. 2. On 
the other hand, they mention the Chronicle as a 
work already written (I. I: Opera, p. 1023); a 
reference which goes to prove that there were two 
editions of the Chronicle (see above, p. 31). The 
four books of the Prophetical Extracts were first 
published by Gaisford in 1842 (Oxford) from a 
Vienna MS. The MS. is mutilated in many places, 
and the beginning, including the title of the 
work, is wanting. Migne has reprinted Gaisford's 
edition in the Opera, IV. 1017 sq.
On the Paschal Festival (<greek>peri</greek> 
<greek>ths</greek> <greek>tou</greek> 
<greek>paska</greek> <greek>eorths</greek>). This 
work, as Eusebius informs us in his Vita Const. 
IV. 34, was addressed to the Emperor Constantine, 
who commends it very highly in an epistle to 
Eusebius preserved in the Vita Const. IV. 35. From 
this epistle we learn, more-

38

over, that the work had been translated into 
Latin. It is no longer extant in its entirety, but 
a considerable fragment of it was discovered by 
Mai in Nicetas' Catena on Luke, and published by 
him in his Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. p. 208 sq. The 
extant portion of it contains twelve chapters, 
devoted partly to a discussion of the nature of 
the Passover and its typical significance, partly 
to an account of the settlement of the paschal 
question at the Council of Nic'a, and partly to an 
argument against the necessity of celebrating the 
paschal feast at the time of the Jewish Passover, 
based on the ground that Christ himself did not 
keep the Passover on the same day as the Jews.
Jerome, although he does not mention this work in 
his catalogue of Eusebius' writings (de vir. ill. 
81), elsewhere (ib. 61) states that Eusebius 
composed a paschal canon with a cycle of nineteen 
years. This cycle may have been published (as 
Lightfoot remarks) as a part of the writing under 
discussion. The date of the work cannot be 
determined with exactness. It was written after 
the Council of Nic'a, and, as would seem from the 
connection in which it is mentioned in the Vita 
Canstantini, before the Emperor's tricennalia (335 
A.D.), but not very long before. The extant 
fragment, as published by Mai, is reprinted by 
Migne in the Opera, VI. 693-706.

V. Critical and Exegetical Works.

Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Pr'f. in 
librum Paralip.) that Eusebius and Pamphilus 
published a number of copies of Origen's edition 
of the LXX., that is, of the fifth column of the 
Hexapla. A colophon found in a Vatican MS., and 
given in fac-simile in Migne's Opera, IV. 875, 
contains the following account of their labors 
(the translation is Lightfoot's): "It was 
transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla, and 
was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, 
which also had been corrected and furnished with 
scholia in his own handwriting; whence I, 
Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and 
Eusebius corrected [this copy]." Compare also 
Field's Hexapla, I. p. xcix.
Taylor, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
III. p. 21, says: "The whole work [i.e. the 
Hexapla] was too massive for multiplication; but 
many copies of its fifth column alone were issued 
from C'sarea under the direction of Pamphilus the 
martyr and Eusebius, and this recension of the 
LXX. came into common use. Some of the copies 
issued contained also marginal scholia, which gave 
inter alia a selection of readings from the 
remaining versions in the Hexapla. The oldest 
extant MS. of this recension is the Leiden Codex 
Sarravianus of the fourth or fifth century." These 
editions of the LXX. must have been issued before 
the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, 
and in all probability before 307, when he was 
imprisoned (see Lardner's Credibility, Part II. 
chap. 72.
In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in 
the publication of copies of the Scriptures. 
According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the 
Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare 
fifty sumptuous copies of the Scriptures for use 
in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The 
commission was carefully executed, and the MSS. 
prepared at great cost. It has been thought that 
among our extant MSS. may be some of these copies 
which were produced under Eusebius' supervision, 
but this is extremely improbable (see Lightfoot, 
p. 334).
Ten Evangelical Canons, with the Letter to 
Carpianus prefixed (<greek>kanones</greek> 
<greek>deka</greek>; Canones decem harmoniae 
evangeliorum pr'missa ad Carpianum epistola). 
Ammonius of Alexandria early in the third century 
had constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in 
which, taking Matthew as the standard, he placed 
alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages 
from the three others. Eusebius' work was 
suggested by this Harmony, as he tells us in his 
epistle to Carpianus. An inconvenient feature of 
Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel of Matthew 
could be read continuously, the sequence of the 
other Gospels being broken in order to bring their 
parallel sections into the order followed by 
Matthew. Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect, 
constructed his work on a different principle. He 
made a table of ten canons, each containing a list 
of passages as follows: Canon I. passages common 
to all four Gospels; II. those common to Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke; III. those common to Matt, Luke, 
and John; IV. those

45

Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI. 104) reports that the 
following works are extant in MS.: Fragmentum de 
Mensuris ac Ponderibus (MSS. Is. Vossii, n. 179); 
De Morte Herodis (MS. in Bibl. Basil.); Pr'fatio 
ad Canticum Mosis in Exodo (Lambec. III. p. 35).

CHAPTER III.

EUSEBIUS' CHURCH HISTORY.
§ 1. Date of its Composition.
THE work with which we are especially concerned at 
this time is the Church History, the original 
Greek of which is still extant in numerous MSS. It 
consists of ten books, to which is added in most 
of the MSS. the shorter form of the Martyrs of 
Palestine (see above, p. 29). The date of the work 
can be determined with considerable exactness. It 
closes with a eulogy of Constantine and his son 
Crispus; and since the latter was put to death by 
his father in the summer of 326, the History must 
have been completed before that time. On the other 
hand, in the same chapter Eusebius refers to the 
defeat of Licinius, which took place in the year 
323 A.D. This gives a fixed terminus a quo. It is 
not quite certain from Eusebius' words whether the 
death of Licinius had already taken place at the 
time he wrote, but it seems probable that it had, 
and if so, the completion of the work must be put 
as late as the Summer of 324. On the other band, 
not the slightest reference is made to the Council 
of Nic'a, which met in the summer of 325; and 
still further the tenth book is dedicated to 
Paulinus, at one time bishop of Tyre and afterward 
bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. I. 4, 
and Philost. H. E. III 15), who was already dead 
in the summer of 325: for at the Nicene Council, 
Zeno appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius as 
bishop of Antioch (see for further particulars 
Lightfoot, p. 322). We are thus led to place the 
completion of the History in the year 324, or, to 
give the widest possible limits, between the 
latter part of 323 and the early part of 325 A.D.
But the question has been raised whether the 
earlier books may not have been composed some 
years before this. Lightfoot (following Westcott) 
supposes that the first nine books were completed 
not long after the edict of Milan and before the 
outbreak of the quarrel between Constantine and 
Licinius in 314. There is considerable to be said 
in favor of this theory. The language used in the 
dedication of the tenth book seems to imply that 
the nine books had been completed some time 
before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of 
postscript. The close of the ninth book 
strengthens that conclusion. Moreover, it would 
seem from the last sentences of that book that 
Constantine and Licinius were in perfect harmony 
at the time it was written, a state of affairs 
which did not exist after 314. On the other hand, 
it must be noticed that in Book IX. chap. 9 
Licinius' "madness" is twice referred to as having 
"not yet" seized him (in § 1 <greek>oupw</greek> 
<greek>manentos</greek> <greek>tote</greek>, and 
in § 12 <greek>o</greek><?><greek>nw</greek> 
<greek>tote</greek> <greek>ef</greek> 
<greek>hn</greek> <greek>usteron</greek> 
<greek>ekpeptwke</greek> <greek>manian</greek>, 
<greek>thn</greek> <greek>dianaian</greek> 
<greek>ektrapeis</greek>). It is necessary either 
to interpret both these clauses as later 
insertions (possibly by Eusebius' own hand at the 
time when he added the tenth book; cf. also p. 30, 
above), or to throw the composition of the ninth 
book down to the year 319 or later. It is 
difficult to decide between these alternatives, 
but I am inclined on the whole to think that 
Westcott's theory is probably correct, and that 
the two clauses can best be interpreted as later 
insertions. The very nature of his History would 
at any rate lead us to think that Eusebius spent 
some years in the composition of it, and that the 
earlier books, if not published, were at least 
completed long before the issue of the ten books 
as a whole. The Chronicle is referred to as 
already written in I. 1; the Eclogae Proph. (? see 
below, p. 85) in I. 2 and 6; the Collection of 
Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15, V. preface, 4, and 
22; the Defense of Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36; 
the Life of Pamphilus in VI. 32, VII. 32, and 
VIII. 13. In VIII. 13 Eusebius speaks also of his 
intention of relating the sufferings of the 
martyrs in another work (but see above, p. 30).

46

§ 5. The Author's Design.

That the composition of a history of the Church 
was Eusebius' own idea, and was not due to any 
suggestion from without, seems clear, both from 
the absence of reference to any one else as 
prompting it, and from the lack of a dedication at 
the beginning of the work. The reasons which led 
him to undertake its composition seem to have been 
both scientific and apologetic. He lived, and he 
must have realized the fact, at the opening of a 
new age in the history of the Church. He believed, 
as he frequently tells us, that the period of 
struggle had come to an end, and that the Church 
was now about entering upon a new era of 
prosperity. He must have seen that it was a 
peculiarly fitting time to put on record for the 
benefit of posterity the great events which had 
taken place within the Church during the 
generations that were past, to sum up in one 
narrative all the trials and triumphs which had 
now emerged in this final and greatest triumph, 
which he was witnessing. He wrote, as any 
historian of the present day would write, for the 
information and instruction of his contemporaries 
and of those who should come after, and yet there 
was in his mind all the time the apologetic 
purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the 
history of Christianity as a proof of its divine 
origin and efficacy. The plan which he proposed to 
himself is stated at the very beginning of his 
work: "It is my purpose to write an account of the 
successions of the holy apostles, as well as of 
the times which have elapsed from the days of our 
Saviour to our own; and to relate how many and how 
important events are said to have occurred in the 
history of the Church; and to mention those who 
have governed and presided over the Church in the 
most prominent parishes, and those who in each 
generation have proclaimed the divine word either 
orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to 
give the names and the number and the times of 
those who through love of innovation have run into 
the greatest errors, and proclaiming themselves 
discoverers of knowledge, falsely so-called, have, 
like fierce wolves, unmercifully devastated the 
flock of Christ. It is my intention, moreover, to 
recount the misfortunes which immediately came 
upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of 
their plots against our Saviour, and to record the 
ways and the times in which the divine word has 
been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the 
character of those who at various periods have 
contended for it in the face of blood and 
tortures, as well as the confessions which have 
been made in our own days, and finally the 
gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour 
afforded them all." It will be seen that Eusebius 
had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of 
the Church should comprise, and that he was fully 
alive to its importance.

§ 3. Eusebius as a Historian. The Merits and 
Defects of his History.

The whole Christian world has reason to be 
thankful that there lived at the opening of the 
fourth century a man who, with his life spanning 
one of the greatest epochs that has occurred in 
the history of the Church, with an intimate 
experimental knowledge of the old and of the new 
condition of things, was able to conceive so grand 
a plan and possessed the means and the ability to 
carry it out. Had he written nothing else, 
Eusebius' Church History would have made him 
immortal; for if immortality be a fitting reward 
for large and lasting services, few possess a 
clearer title to it than the author of that work. 
The value of the History to us lies not in its 
literary merit, but in the wealth of the materials 
which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early 
Church. How many prominent figures of the first 
three centuries are known to us only from the 
pages of Eusebius; how many fragments, priceless 
on account of the light which they shed upon 
movements of momentous and far-reaching 
consequence, have been preserved by him alone; how 
often a hint dropped, a casual statement made in 
passing, or the mention of some apparently 
trifling event, gives the clue which enables us to 
unravel some perplexing labyrinth, or to fit into 
one whole various disconnected and apparently 
unrelated elements, and thus to trace the steps in 
the development of some important historical 
movement whose rise and whose bearing must

47

otherwise remain an unsolved riddle. The work 
reveals no sympathy with Ebionism, Gnosticism, and 
Montanism, and little appreciation of their real 
nature, and yet our knowledge of their true 
significance and of their place in history is due 
in considerable part to facts respecting the 
movements or their leaders which Eusebius alone 
has recorded or preserved. To understand the 
development of the Logos Christology we must 
comprehend the significance of the teaching of 
Paul of Samosata, and how inadequate would our 
knowledge of the nature of that teaching be 
without the epistle quoted in Book VII. chap. 30. 
How momentous were the consequences of the paschal 
controversies, and how dark would they be were it 
not for the light shed upon them by our author. 
How important, in spite of their tantalizing 
brevity and obscurity, the fragments of Papias' 
writings; how interesting the extracts from the 
memoirs of Hegesippus; how suggestive the meager 
notices from Dionysius of Corinth, from Victor of 
Rome, from Melito, from Caius; how instructive the 
long and numerous quotations from the epistles of 
Dionysius of Alexandria! He may often fail to 
appreciate the significance of the events which he 
records, he may in many cases draw unwarranted 
conclusions from the premises which he states, he 
may sometimes misinterpret his documents and 
misunderstand men and movements, but in the 
majority of cases he presents us with the material 
upon which to form our own judgments, and if we 
differ with him we must at the same time thank him 
for the data which have enabled us independently 
to reach other results.
But the value of Eusebius' Church History does not 
lie solely in the fact that it contains so many 
original sources which would be otherwise unknown 
to us. It is not merely a thesaurus, it is a 
history in the truest sense, and it possesses an 
intrinsic value of its own, independent of its, 
quotations from other works. Eusebius possessed 
extensive sources of knowledge no longer 
accessible to us. His History contains the results 
of his extended perusal of many works which are 
now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance 
with the current traditions of his day, of his 
familiar intercourse with many of the chief men of 
the age. If we cut out all the documents which he 
quotes, there still remains an extensive history 
whose loss would leave an irreparable blank in our 
knowledge of the early Church. How invaluable, for 
instance, to mention but one matter, are the 
researches of our author in regard to the 
circulation of the books of the New Testament: his 
testimony to the condition of the canon in his own 
time, and to the more or less widespread use of 
particular writings by the Fathers of preceding 
centuries. Great as is the value of the sources 
which Eusebius quotes, those that he does not give 
are still more extensive, and it is the knowledge 
gained from them which he has transmitted to us.
The worth of these portions of his History must 
depend in the first place upon the extent and 
reliability of his sources, and in the second 
place upon the use which he made of them.
A glance at the list of his authorities given in 
the index, reveals at once the immense range of 
his materials. The number of books which he either 
quotes or refers to as read is enormous. When to 
these are added the works employed by him in the 
composition of his Pr'p. Evang., as well as the 
great number which he must have perused, but does 
not mention, we are amazed at the extent of his 
reading. He must have been a voracious reader from 
his earliest years, and he must have possessed 
extraordinary acquisitive powers. It is safe to 
say that there was among the Fathers, with the 
possible exception of Origen, no more learned man 
than he. He thus possessed one of the primary 
qualifications of the historian. And yet even in 
this respect he had his limitations. He seems to 
have taken no pains to acquaint himself with the 
works of heretics, but to have been content to 
take his knowledge of them at second hand. And 
still further, he was sadly ignorant of Latin 
literature and of the Latin Church in general (see 
below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to 
glean from his History a very thorough or extended 
knowledge of western Christendom.
But his sources were not confined to literary 
productions. He had a wide acquaintance with the 
world, and he was enabled to pick up much from his 
intercourse with other men and with different 
peoples that he could not have found upon the 
shelves of the C'sarean or of any other

48

library. Moreover, he had access to the archives 
of state and gathered from them much information 
quite inaccessible to most men. He was thus 
peculiarly fitted, both by nature and by 
circumstances, for the task of acquiring material, 
the first task of the genuine historian.
But the value of his work must depend in the 
second place upon the wisdom and honesty with 
which he used his sources, and upon the 
faithfulness and accuracy with which he reproduced 
the results thus reached. We are therefore led to 
enquire as to his qualifications for this part of 
his work.
We notice, in the first place, that he was very 
diligent in the use of his sources. Nothing seems 
to have escaped him that might in any way bear 
upon the particular subject in hand. When he 
informs us that a certain author nowhere mentions 
a book or an event, he is, so far as I am aware, 
never mistaken. When we realize how many works he 
read entirely through for the sake of securing a 
single historical notice, and how many more he 
must have read without finding anything to his 
purpose, we are impressed with his untiring 
diligence. To-day, with our convenient indexes, 
and with the references at hand which have been 
made by many other men who have studied the 
writings of the ancients, we hardly comprehend 
what an amount of labor the production of a 
History like Eusebius' must have cost him, a 
pioneer in that kind of work.
In the second place, we are compelled to admire 
the sagacity which our author displays in the 
selection of his materials. He possessed the true 
instinct of the historian, which enabled him to 
pick out the salient points and to present to the 
reader just that information which he most 
desires. We shall be surprised upon examining his 
work to see how little it contains which it is not 
of the utmost importance for the student of early 
Church history to know, and how shrewdly the 
author has anticipated most of the questions which 
such a student must ask. He saw what it was in the 
history of the first three centuries of the Church 
which posterity would most desire to know, and he 
told them. His wisdom in this respect is all the 
more remarkable when compared with the unwisdom of 
most of his successors, who filled their works 
with legends of saints and martyrs, which, however 
fascinating they may have been to the readers of 
that age, possess little either of interest or of 
value for us. When he wishes to give us a glimpse 
of the persecutions of those early days, his 
historical and literary instinct leads him to 
dwell especially upon two thoroughly 
representative cases,--the martyrdom of Polycarp 
and the sufferings of the churches of Lyons and 
Vienne,--and to preserve for posterity two of the 
noblest specimens of martyrological literature 
which the ancient Church produced. It is true that 
he sometimes erred in his judgment as to the wants 
of future readers; we could wish that he had been 
somewhat fuller and clearer on many points, and 
that he had not so entirely neglected some others; 
but on the whole I am of the opinion that few 
historical works, ancient or modern, have in the 
same compass better fulfilled their mission in 
this respect.
In the third place, we can hardly fail to be 
impressed by the wisdom with which Eusebius 
discriminated between reliable and unreliable 
sources. Judged by the modern standard he may fall 
short as a literary critic, but judged by the 
standard of antiquity he must be given a very high 
rank. Few indeed are the historians of ancient 
times, secular or ecclesiastical, who can compare 
with Eusebius for sound judgment in this matter. 
The general freedom of his work from the fables 
and prodigies, and other improbable or impossible 
tales which disfigure the pages of the great 
majority even of the soberest of ancient 
historians, is one of its most marked features. He 
shows himself uncommonly particular in demanding 
good evidence for the circumstances which he 
records, and uncommonly shrewd in detecting 
spurious and unreliable sources. When we remember 
the great number of pseudonymous works which were 
current in his day we are compelled to admire his 
care and his discrimination. Not that he always 
succeeded in detecting the false. More than once 
he was sadly at fault (as for instance in regard 
to the Abgarus correspondence and Josephus' 
testimony to Christ), and has in consequence been 
severely denounced or held up to unsparing 
ridicule by many modern writers. But the wonder 
certainly is not that he erred as often as he did, 
but that he did not err oftener; not that he was 
sometimes careless in

49

regard to the reliability of his sources, but that 
he was ever as careful as, in the majority of 
cases, he has proved himself to be. In fact, 
comparing him with other writers of antiquity, we 
cannot commend too highly the care and the skill 
with which he usually discriminated between the 
true and the false.
In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for 
his constant sincerity and unfailing honesty. I 
believe that emphasis should be laid upon this 
point for the reason that Eusebius' reputation has 
often suffered sadly in consequence of the unjust 
imputations, and the violent accusations, which it 
was for a long time the fashion to make against 
him, and which lead many still to treat his 
statements with distrust, and his character with 
contempt. Gibbon's estimate of his honesty is well 
known and has been unquestioningly accepted in 
many quarters, but it is none the less unjust, and 
in its implications quite untrue to the facts. 
Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness upon the 
virtues than upon the vices of the early Church, 
upon its glory than upon its shame, and he tells 
us directly that it is his intention so to do (H. 
E. VIII. 2), but he never undertakes to conceal 
the sins of the Christians, and the chapter 
immediately preceding contains a denunciation of 
their corruptness and wickedness uttered in no 
faint terms. In fact, in the face of these and 
other candid passages in his work, it is the 
sheerest injustice to charge him with dishonesty 
and unfairness because he prefers, as almost any 
Christian historian must, to dwell with greater 
fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the 
dark side of the picture. Scientific, Eusebius' 
method, in this respect, doubtless is not; but 
dishonest, no one has a right to call it. The most 
severe attack which has been made upon Eusebius in 
recent years is found in an article by Jachmann 
(see below, p. 55). The evident animus which runs 
through his entire paper is very unpleasant; the 
conclusions which he draws are, to say the least, 
strained. I cannot enter here into a consideration 
of his positions; most of them are examined below 
in the notes upon the various passages which he 
discusses. The whole article, like most similar 
attacks, proceeds upon the supposition that our 
author is guilty, and then undertakes simply to 
find evidence of that which is already 
presupposed. I submit that few writers could 
endure such an ordeal. If Eusebius is tried 
according to the principles of common justice, and 
of sound literary criticism, I am convinced, after 
long and careful study, that his sincerity and 
honesty of purpose cannot be impeached. The 
particular instances which have been urged as 
proving his dishonesty will be discussed below in 
the notes upon the respective passages, and to 
those the reader is referred (compare especially 
pp. 88, 98, 100, 111, 112, 114, 127, 194).
Eusebius' critics are wont to condemn him severely 
for what they are pleased to call the dishonesty 
displayed by him in his Vita Constantini. Such 
critics forget, apparently, that that work 
pretends to be, not a history, but a panegyric. 
Judging it as such, I am unable to find anything 
in it which leads me to entertain for a moment a 
suspicion of the author's honesty, It is true that 
Eusebius emphasizes the Emperor's good qualities, 
and fails to mention the darker spots in his 
character; but so far as I am aware he misstates 
no facts, and does only what those who eulogize 
deceased friends are accustomed to do the world 
over. For a discussion of this matter the reader 
is referred to the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, 
pp. 467 sq. of this volume. I am pleased to learn 
from him that his study of the Vita has shown him 
nothing which justifies the charge of dishonesty 
brought against Eusebius.
One of the most decisive marks of veracity upon 
the part of our author is the frankness with which 
he confesses his lack of knowledge upon any 
subject (cf. IV. 5), and the care with which he 
distinguishes between the different kinds of 
evidence upon which he bases his statements. How 
frequently the phrases <greek>logos</greek> 
<greek>ekei</greek>, <greek>fasi</greek>, 
<greek>legetai</greek>, &c., occur in connection 
with accounts which a less scrupulous historian 
would not hesitate to record as undoubted fact. 
How particular he is to mention his sources for 
any unusual or startling event. If the authorities 
seem to him quite inadequate, he simply omits all 
reference to an occurrence which most of his 
con-temporaries and successors would have related 
with the greatest gusto; if the testimony seems to 
him strong, he records the circumstance and 
expressly mentions his authority, whether oral

50

tradition, the testimony of eye-witnesses, or 
written accounts, and we are thus furnished the 
material from which to form our own judgments.
He is often blamed by modern writers for what they 
are pleased to call his excessive credulity. Those 
who accuse him thus seem to forget that he lived 
in the fourth, not in the nineteenth century. That 
he believed many things which we now declare to be 
incredible is perfectly true, but that he believed 
things that other Christians of his day pronounced 
incredible is not true. Judged, in fact, according 
to the standard of his age--and indeed of eleven 
succeeding centuries--he must be pronounced 
remarkably free from the fault of over-credulity, 
in truth uncommonly skeptical in his attitude 
toward the marvelous. Not that he denies the 
occurrence of prodigies and wonders in his own and 
other ages, but that he always demands the 
strongest testimony before he allows himself to be 
convinced of their truth. Compare, e.g., the care 
with which he gives his authorities for the 
anecdote in regard to the Thundering Legion (V. 
5), and his final suspension of judgment in the 
matter; compare also the emphasis which he lays 
upon the personal testimony of the Emperor in the 
matter of the appearance of the sign of the cross 
in the sky( Vita Const. I. 28 sq.), a phenomenon 
which he himself tells us that he would have 
believed upon ,no ordinary evidence. His conduct 
in this matter is a sign rather of a skepticism 
uncommon in his age than of an excessive and 
unusual credulity. Gibbon himself gives our author 
due credit in this respect, when he speaks of his 
character as "less tinctured with credulity, and 
more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of 
almost any of his contemporaries" (Decline and 
Fall, chap. XVI.).
On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had 
many very grave faults which it is not my wish in 
the least to palliate or conceal. One of the most 
noticeable of these is his complete lack of any 
conception of historiography as a fine art. His 
work is interesting and instructive because of the 
facts which it records, but that interest is 
seldom if ever enhanced by his mode of 
presentation. There is little effective grouping, 
almost no sense of perspective, utter ignorance of 
the art of suggesting by a single line or phrase a 
finished picture of a man or of a movement. He was 
not, in other words, a Thucydides or a Tacitus; 
but the world has seen not many such as they.
A second and still more serious fault is our 
author's want of depth, if I may so express 
myself, his failure to look beneath the surface 
and to grasp the real significance of things, to 
trace the influence of opinions and events. We 
feel this defect upon every page. We read the 
annals, but we are conscious of no masterful mind 
behind them, digesting and comprehending them into 
one organic and imposing whole. This radical 
weakness in our author's method is revealed 
perhaps most clearly in his superficial and 
transcendental treatment of heretics and heresies, 
his failure to appreciate their origin and their 
bearing upon the progress of Christian thought. Of 
a development in theology, in fact, he knows 
nothing, and hence his work lacks utterly that 
which we now look upon as the most instructive 
part of Church history,--the history of doctrine.
In the third place, severe censure must be passed 
upon our author for his carelessness and 
inaccuracy in matters of chronology. We should 
expect that one who had produced the most 
extensive chronological work that had ever been 
given to the world, would be thoroughly at home in 
that province, but in truth his chronology is the 
most defective feature of his work. The difficulty 
is chiefly due to his inexcusable carelessness, we 
might almost say slovenliness, in the use of 
different and often contradictory sources of 
information. Instead of applying himself to the 
discrepancies, and endeavoring to reach the truth 
by carefully weighing the respective merits of the 
sources, or by testing their conclusions in so far 
as tests are possible, he adopts in many cases the 
results of both, apparently quite unsuspicious of 
the confusion consequent upon such a course. In 
fact, the critical spirit which actuates him in 
dealing with many other matters seems to leave him 
entirely when he is concerned with chronology; and 
instead of proceeding with the care and 
circumspection of an historian, he accepts what he 
finds with the unquestioning faith.

51

of a child. There is no case in which he can be 
convicted of disingenuousness, but at times his 
obtuseness is almost beyond belief. An identity of 
names, or a resemblance between events recorded by 
different authors, will often be enough to lead 
him all unconsciously to himself into the most 
absurd and contradictory conclusions. Instances of 
this may be seen in Book I. chap. 5, and in II. 
11. His confusion in regard to the various 
Antonines (see especially the note on the preface 
to Book V.) is not at all unusual among the 
writers of his day, and in view of the frequent 
and perplexing use of the same names by the 
different emperors, might be quite excusable in a 
less scholarly man than Eusebius, but in his case 
it is evidence of unpardonable want of care. This 
serious defect in our author's method is not 
peculiar to him. Many historians, critical almost 
to a fault in most matters, accept the received 
chronology without question, and build upon it as 
if it were the surest of foundations. Such a 
consideration does not excuse Eusebius; it 
relieves him, however, of the stigma of 
peculiarity.
Finally, the character of the History is greatly 
impaired by our author's desultory method. This is 
a characteristic of his literary work in general, 
and, was referred to in the previous chapter. All 
his works are marred by it, but few suffer more 
noticeably than the History. The author does not 
confine himself as strictly as he should to the 
logical limits of the subject which he is 
treating, but allows himself to be led away from 
the main point by the suggestions that pour in 
upon him from all sides. As Lightfoot remarks, "We 
have not unfrequently to pick out from various 
parts of his work the notices bearing on one 
definite and limited subject. He relates a fact, 
or quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season 
or out of season, according as it is recalled to 
his memory by some accidental connexion." This 
unfortunate habit of Eusebius' is one into which 
men of wide learning are very apt to fall. The 
richness of their acquisitions embarrasses them, 
and the immense number of facts in their 
possession renders a comprehension of them all 
into one logical whole very difficult; and yet 
unless the facts be thus comprehended, unless they 
be thoroughly digested and arranged, the result is 
confusion and obscurity. To exclude is as 
necessary as to include, if one would write 
history with the highest measure of success; to 
exclude rigidly at one time what it is just as 
necessary to include at another. To men like 
Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult 
than this. Only a mind as intensive as it is 
extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is 
wide, can accomplish it, and few are the minds 
that are blessed with both qualities. Few are the 
writers whose histories stand upon our shelves 
that fail not sadly in the one or in the other; 
and in few perhaps does the failure seem more 
marked than in our author.
And yet, though it is apparent that the value of 
Eusebius' work is greatly impaired by its 
desultory method of treatment, I am confident that 
the defect is commonly exaggerated. The paragraph 
which Lightfoot quotes from Westcott on this 
subject leaves a false impression. Altogether too 
often our author introduces irrelevant matters, 
and repeats himself when repetition "mars the 
symmetry of his work"; and yet on the whole he 
follows a fairly well ordered plan with fairly 
good success. He endeavors to preserve a strictly 
chronological sequence in his arrangement of the 
books, and he adheres for the most part to his 
purpose. Though there may be disorder and 
confusion within the various periods, for instance 
within the apostolic age, the age of Trajan, of 
Hadrian, of the Antonines, &c., yet the periods 
themselves are kept reasonably distinct from one 
another, and having finished his account of one of 
them the author seldom returns to it. Even in his 
treatment of the New Testament canon, which is 
especially desultory, he says most of what he has 
to say about it in connection with the apostles 
themselves, and before passing on to the second 
century. I would not overlook the exceeding 
flagrancy of his desultoriness and repetitiousness 
in his accounts of the writings of many of the 
Fathers, especially of the two Clements, and yet I 
would emphasize the fact that he certainly had an 
outline plan which he designed to follow, and for 
which due credit should be given him. He compares 
favorably in this respect with at least most of 
the writers of antiquity. Only with our modern 
method of dividing history into periods, separated 
by natural boundary lines, and of handling it

52

under clearly defined rubrics, have we become able 
wholly to avoid the confused and illogical 
treatment of Eusebius and of others like him.

§ 4. Editions and Versions.

The original Greek of Eusebius' History has been 
published in many editions.
1. The editio princeps is that of Robert 
Stephanus, which appeared at Paris in 1544, and 
again, with a few changes, and with the Latin 
translation of Christophorsonus and the notes of 
Suffridus Petrus, at Geneva in 1612.
2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first 
edition of the Greek text, with a new Latin 
translation and with copious critical and 
explanatory notes, at Paris in 1659. His edition 
was reprinted at Mainz in 1672, but the reprint is 
full of errors. In 1677, after Valesius' death, a 
revised edition was issued at Paris, which in 1695 
was reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam. 
In 1720 Valesius' edition of Eusebius, together 
with his edition of Socrates, Sozomen, and the 
other Greek historians, was republished at 
Cambridge by William Reading, in three folio 
volumes. This is the best edition of Valesius, the 
commentary being supplemented by MS. notes which 
he had left among his papers, and increased by 
large additions from other writers under the head 
of Variorum. A reprint of Reading's edition was 
issued in 1746-1748, but according to Heinichen it 
is not as accurate as that of 1720. For the 
elucidation of Eusebius' History we owe more to 
Valesius than to any other man. His edition of the 
text was an immense advance upon that of 
Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all 
subsequent editions, while his notes are a perfect 
storehouse of information from which all 
annotators of Eusebius have extensively drawn. 
Migne's edition (Opera, IL 45-906) is a reprint of 
Valesius' edition of 1659.
3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779). A new edition of 
the Greek text, of which, however, only the first 
volume appeared, comprising Books I.-VII.
4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822). A 
new edition of the Greek text, containing also the 
Latin translation of Valesius, and a few critical 
notes.
5. F.A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828). An 
edition of the Greek text in three volumes, with a 
reprint of the entire commentary of Valesius, and 
with the addition of Variorum notes. The critical 
apparatus, printed in the third volume, is very 
meager. A few valuable excursuses close the work. 
Forty years later Heinichen published a second 
edition of the History in his Eusebii Pamphili 
Scripta Historica (Lips. 1868-1870, 3 vols.). The 
first volume contains the Greek text of the 
History, with valuable prolegomena, copious 
critical apparatus and very useful indices; the 
second volume contains the Vita Constantini, the 
Panegyricus or De laudibus Constantini, and 
Constantine's Oratio ad Sanctorum coetum, also 
accompanied with critical apparatus and indices; 
the third volume contains an extensive commentary 
upon the works included in the first two volumes, 
together with twenty-nine valuable excursuses. 
This entirely supersedes the first, and is on the 
whole the most complete and useful edition of the 
History which we have. The editor made diligent 
use of the labors of his predecessors, especially 
of Laemmer's. He did no independent work, however, 
in the way of collecting material for the 
criticism of the text, and was deficient in 
critical judgment. As a consequence his text has 
often to be amended on the basis of the variant 
readings, which he gives with great fullness. His 
commentary, is made up largely of quotations from 
Valesius and other writers, and is valuable for 
the material it thus contains as well as for its 
references to other works. It labors under the 
same incompleteness, however, that mars Valesius' 
commentary, and, moreover, contains almost nothing 
of independent value.
6. E. Burton (Oxford, 1838). The Greek text in two 
volumes, with the translation of Valesius and with 
critical apparatus; and again in 1845, with the 
critical apparatus omitted, but with the notes of 
Valesius, Heinichen and others added. Burton made 
large contributions to the criticism of the text, 
and had he lived to superintend the issue of the 
second edition, would perhaps have succeeded in 
giving us a better text than any which we now 
possess, for he was a far more

53

sagacious critic than Heinichen. As it is, his 
edition is marred by numerous imperfections, 
largely caused by the inaccuracy of those who 
collated MSS. for him. His text, with the 
translation, notes, and critical apparatus 
omitted, was reprinted by Bright at Oxford in 
1872, and again in 1881, in a single volume. This 
is a very handy edition, and for school use is 
unsurpassed. The typography is superb, and the 
admirable plan is followed of discarding quotation 
marks and printing all citations in smaller type, 
thus making plain to the eye at a glance what is 
Eusebius' own and what is another's. The text is 
preceded by a very interesting and graphic life of 
the historian.
7. Schwegler (Tübingen, 1852, in one volume). The 
Greek text with critical apparatus, but without 
translation and notes. An accurate and useful 
edition.
8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859-1862). The Greek 
text in one volume, with extensive critical 
apparatus, but without explanatory notes. Laemmer 
had unusual opportunities for collecting material, 
and has made larger additions to the critical 
apparatus than any one else. His edition was 
issued, however, in a most slovenly manner, and 
swarms with mistakes. Great care should therefore 
be exercised in the use of it.
9. Finally must be mentioned the text of Dindorf 
(Lips. 1871), which is published in the Teubner 
series, and like most of the volumes of that 
series is handy and convenient, but of little 
value to the critical student.
There are few writings of the Fathers which more 
sadly need and more richly deserve a new critical 
edition than the History of Eusebius. The material 
for the formation of a reliable text is extensive 
and accessible, but editors have contented 
themselves too much in the past with the results 
of their predecessors' labors, and unfortunately 
those labors have not always been accurate and 
thorough. As a consequence a new and more careful 
collation of most of the MSS. of the original, 
together with those of Rufinus' translation, must 
lie at the foundation of any new work which is to 
be done in this line. The publication of the 
Syriac version will doubtless furnish much 
valuable material which the next editor of the 
History, will be able to use to advantage. 
Anything less than such a thorough work as I have 
indicated will be of little worth. Unless the new 
edition be based upon extensive and independent 
labors, it will be little if any improvement upon 
that of Heinichen. It is to be hoped that a 
critical text, up to the standard of those of some 
other patristic works which we already possess, 
may yet be issued, which shall give us this, one 
of the noblest productions of the ancient Church, 
in a fitting and satisfactory form.
Translations of Eusebius' History are very 
numerous. Probably the earliest of all is the 
ancient Syriac version which is preserved in great 
part in two MSS., one of which is at St. 
Petersburg and contains the entire History with 
the exception of Book VI. and large portions of 
Books V. and VII. The MS. is dated 462 A.D. (see 
Wright's description of it in his Catalogue of the 
Syriac MSS. in the British Museum acquired since 
the year 1838, Part III. p. xv. sq.). The second 
MS. is in the British Museum, and contains Books 
I.-V., with some mutilations at the beginning of 
the first book. The MS. dates from the sixth 
century (see Wright's description of it in his 
Catalogue, p. 1039). From these MSS. Wright was 
engaged in preparing an edition of the Syriac, 
which remained unfinished at the time of his 
death. Whether he left his work in such shape that 
it can soon be issued by some one else I have not 
yet learned. The version was probably made at a 
very early date, possibly within the lifetime of 
Eusebius himself, though of that we can have no 
assurance. I understand that it confirms in the 
main the Greek text as now printed in our best 
editions.
The original Latin version was made by Rufinus in 
the early years of the fifth century. He 
translated only nine books, and added to them two 
of his own, in which he brought the history down 
to the death of Theodosius the Great. He allowed 
himself his customary license in translating, and 
yet, although his version is by no means exact, it 
is one of our best sources for a knowledge of the 
true text of Eusebius, for it is possible, in many 
doubtful cases where our MSS. are hopelessly 
divided, to ascertain from his rendering what 
stood in the original Greek.

54

The version of Rufinus had a large circulation, 
and became in the Western Church a substitute for 
the original throughout the Middle Ages. It was 
first printed, according to Fabricius (ib. p. 59), 
in 1476 at Rome, afterward a great many times 
there and elsewhere. The first critical edition, 
which still remains the best, is that of Cacciari 
(Rome, 1740), which has become rare, and is very 
difficult to find. A new edition is a great 
desideratum. An important work upon Rufinus' 
version is Kimmel's De Rufino Eusebii Interprete, 
Ger', 1838.
A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was 
published in Basle, in 1549, and again in 1557, 
1562, and 1611, according to Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. 
VI. p. 60). I have myself seen only the edition of 
1562.
Still another Latin version, from the hand of 
Christophorsonus, was published at Louvain in 
1570. This is the only edition of Christophorsonus 
which I have seen, but I have notices of Cologne 
editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of a Paris 
edition of 1571. According to Fabricius the Paris 
edition, and according to Brunnet the Cologne 
edition of 1581, contain the notes of Suffridus 
Petrus. A revision of Christophorsonus' version is 
said by Crusè to have been published by Curterius, 
but I have not seen it, nor am I aware of its 
date.
Another translation, by Gryn'us, was published at 
Basle in 1611. This is the only edition of 
Gryn'eus' version which I have seen, and I find in 
it no reference to an earlier one. I have been 
informed, however, that an edition appeared in 
1591. Hanmer seems to imply, in his preface, that 
Grynseus' version is only a revision of that of 
Musculus, and if that were so we should have to 
identify the 1611 edition with the 1611 edition of 
Musculus mentioned by Fabricius (see above). I am 
able, however, to find no hint in Gryn'us' edition 
itself that his version is a revision of that of 
Musculus.
The translation of Valesius, which was first 
published in 1659 (see above), was a great 
improvement upon all that had preceded it, and has 
been many times reprinted in other editions of 
Eusebius, as well as in his own.
The first German translation was published by 
Caspar Hedio. The date of publication is given by 
Fabricius as 1545, but the copy which I have seen 
is dated 1582, and contains no reference to an 
earlier edition. It comprises only nine books of 
Eusebius, supplemented by the two of Rufinus. The 
title runs as follows: Chronica, das ist:  
wahrhaftige Beschreibunge aller alten Christlichen 
Kirchen; zum ersten, die hist. eccles. Eusebii 
Pamphili C'sariensis, Eilff Bücher; zum andern, 
die hist. eccles. tripartita Sozomeni, Socratis 
und Theodoreti, Zw"lff Bucher; zum dritten die 
hist. eccles. sampt andern treffenlichen 
Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutschef Sprache wenig 
gelesen sind, ouch Zwolff Bucher. Von der Zeit an 
da die hist. eccles. tripartita aufhoret: das ist, 
yon der jarzal an, vierhundert nach Christi 
geburt, biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch D. Caspar 
Hedion zu Strassburg verteutscht und zusamen 
getragen. Getruckt zu. Franckfurt am Mayn, im jar 
1582.
A second German translation of the entire History 
(with the exception of the Martyrs of Palestine, 
and the Oration an the Building of the Churches, 
X. 4), together with the Life of Constantine, was 
published by F. A. Stroth in Quedlinburg in 1777, 
in two volumes. Stroth prefaced the translation 
with a very valuable Life of Eusebius, and added a 
number of excellent notes of his own. The 
translation is reasonably accurate.
A much more elegant German version (including the 
Oration, but omitting the Martyrs of Palestine) 
was published by Closs in Stuttgart in 1839, in 
one volume. This is in my opinion the best 
translation of the History that exists. Its style 
is admirable, but pure German idiom is sometimes 
secured at the expense of faithfulness. In fact 
the author has aimed to produce a free, rather 
than a literal translation, and has occasionally 
allowed himself to depart too far from the 
original. A few brief notes, most of them taken 
from Valesius or Stroth, accompany the 
translation.
More recently a German translation has been 
published by Stigloher (Kempten, 1880) in the 
Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. It purports 
to be a new translation, but is practically

55

nothing more than a poorly revised edition of 
Closs' version. The changes which are made are 
seldom improvements.
Fabricius mentions a French translation by 
Cloudius Seysselius, but does not give the date of 
it, and I have not myself seen it. Dr. Richardson, 
however, informs me that he has a copy of this 
translation (which is from the Latin, not from the 
Greek) bearing the following title: L'Histoire 
ecclesiastique translate de Latin au Français, par 
M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille, 
et depuis archevesque de Thurin. Paris, 1532 [or 
33], f°. He informs me also that there exist 
editions of the years 1537 and 1567.
More than a century later appeared a new French 
translation by Louis Cousin, bearing the following 
title: Historic de l'Eglise écritoric de l'Eglise 
acrité par Eusebe Cesaree, Socrate, Sozomene, 
Theodoret et Evangre, avec l'abrege de Philostorge 
par Photius, et de Theodore par Nicephore 
Calliste. Paris, 1675-1676. 4 vol. 4°. Another 
edition appeared in Holland in 1686, 5 vol. 12°.
The first English translation was made by Hanmer, 
and was issued in 1584, and, according to Crusè, 
passed through five editions. The fourth edition, 
which lies before me, was published in London in 
1636. The volume contains the Histories of 
Eusebius, of Socrates, and of Evagrius; Dorotheus' 
Lives, and Eusebius' Life of Constantine.
Another translation is said by Crusè to have been 
published about a century later by T. Shorting, 
and to be a decided improvement upon that of 
Hanmer. I have seen no copy bearing Shorting's 
name, but have examined an anonymous translation 
which bears the following title: The 
Ecclesiastical. History of Eusebius Pamphilus in 
ten books. Made into English from that edition set 
forth by Valesius, and printed at Paris in the 
year 1659; together with Valesius' notes on the 
said historian, which are done into English and 
set at their proper place in the margin. Hereto 
also is annexed an account of the life and 
writings of the aforesaid historian, collected by 
Valesius and rendered into English. Cambridge: 
John Hayes, 1683. This is evidently the 
translation of Shorting referred to by Crusè, for 
it answers perfectly the description which he 
gives of it.
An abridgment of this version, made by Porker, is 
mentioned both by Fabricius (ib. p. 62) and by 
Crusè, but I have not myself seen it. Fabricius 
gives its date as 1703, and Dr. Richardson informs 
me that he has seen an edition bearing the date 
1729, and that he has a note of another published 
in 1703 or 1720.
The latest English translation was made by the 
Rev. C. F. Crusè, an American Episcopalian of 
German descent, and was published first in 
Philadelphia in 1833, with a translation, by 
Parker, of Valesius' Life of Eusebius prefixed. It 
has been reprinted a great many times both in 
England and America, and is included in Bohn's 
Ecclesiastical Library. In Bohn's edition are 
printed a few scattered notes from Valesius' 
commentary, and in some other editions an 
historical account of the Council of Nic'a, by 
Isaac Boyle, is added. The translation is an 
improvement upon its predecessors, but is 
nevertheless very faulty and unsatisfactory. The 
translator is not thoroughly at home in the 
English, and, moreover, his version is marred by 
many serious omissions and interpolations which 
reveal an inexcusable degree of carelessness on 
his part.

§ 5. Literature.

The literature upon Eusebius' History is very 
extensive. Many of the editions already mentioned 
discuss, in their prolegomena, the History itself 
and Eusebius' character as a historian, as do also 
all the lives of Eusebius referred to above, and 
all the larger histories of the Church. In 
addition to these we have numerous important 
monographs and essays, of which the following may 
be mentioned here: M"ller, de Fide Eusebii in 
rebus christianis enarrandis, Havn. 1813; Danz, de 
Eusebio C'sariensi Hist. Ecclesiastiae Scriptore, 
Jen', 1815. This was mentioned in Chapter I. as 
containing a valuable discussion of the life of 
Eusebius. Its chief importance lies in its 
treatment of the sources of the Church History, to 
which the author devotes the whole of

56

Chap. III. which bears the title, de fontibus, 
quibus usus, historiam ecclesiasticam conscripsit 
Eusebius, pp. 76-144. Kestner, de Eusebii 
Historiae Eccles. conditoris auctoritate, et fide 
diplomatica, sive de ejus Fontibus et Ratione qua 
eis usus est, Gotting', 1816; and by the same 
author, Ueber die Einseitigkeit und Partheiligkeit 
des Eusebius als Geschichtschreibers, Jen', 1819; 
Reuterdahl, de Fontibus Historiae Eccles. 
Eusebian', Londini Gothorum, 1826; Reinstra, de 
Fontibus, ex quibus Histori' Eccles. opus hausit 
Eusebius Pamphili, et de Ratione, qua iis usus 
est, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1833; F. C. Baur, 
Comparatur Eusebius Histori' Eccles. Parens cum 
Parente Histori' Herodoto, Tüb. 1834; and pp. 9-26 
of the same author's Epochen der kirchlichen 
Geschichtschreibung, Tüb. 1852; Dowling, 
Introduction to the Critical Study of Eccles. 
History, London, 1838, pp. 11-18; Hély, Eusèbe de 
Césaree, premier Historien de l'Église, Paris, 
1877; J. Burckhardt, Zeit Constantins, 2d ed. 
1880, pp. 307 sq. Burckhardt depreciates Eusebius' 
value and questions his veracity. The review 
articles that have been written on Eusebius' 
History are legion. I shall mention only 
Engelhardt's Eusebius als 
Kirchengeschichtschreiber, in the Zeitschrift für 
hist. Theol. 1852, pp. 652-657; and Jachmann's 
Bermerkungen über die Kirchengeschichte des 
Eusebius, ib. 1839, II. pp. 10-60. The latter 
contains one of the most unsparing attacks upon 
Eusebius' honesty that has ever been made (see 
above, p. 49).

TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS IN FAVOR OF
EUSEBIUS.(1)

From Constantine's Letter to the Antiochians (in 
Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III.  chap. 
60).
"I confess, then, that on reading your records I 
perceived, by the highly eulogistic testimony 
which they bear to Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea 
(whom I have myself long well known and esteemed 
for his learning and moderation), that you are 
strongly attached to him and desire to appropriate 
him as your own prelate. What thoughts then do you 
suppose that I entertain on this subject, desirous 
as I am to seek for and act on the strict 
principles of right? What anxiety do you imagine 
this desire of yours has caused me? O holy faith, 
who givest us in our Saviour's words and precepts 
a model, as it were, of what our life should be, 
how hardly wouldst thou thyself resist the course 
of sin were it not that thou refusest to subserve 
the purposes of gain! In my own judgment, he whose 
first object is the maintenance of peace seems to 
be superior to Victory herself; and where a right 
and honorable course lies open to one's choice, 
surely no one would hesitate to adopt it. I ask 
then, brethren, why do we so decide as to inflict 
an injury on others by our choice? Why do we covet 
those objects which will destroy the credit of our 
own character? I myself highly esteem the 
individual whom ye judge worthy of your respect 
and affection; notwithstanding, it cannot be right 
that those principles should be entirely 
disregarded which should be authoritative and 
binding on all alike; for example, that each 
should be content with the limits assigned them, 
and that all should enjoy their proper privileges; 
nor can it be right in considering the claims of 
rival candidates to suppose but that not one only, 
but many, may appear worthy of comparison with 
this person. For as long as no violence or 
harshness are suffered to disturb the dignities of 
the Church, they continue to be on an equal 
footing, and worthy of the same consideration 
everywhere. Nor is it reasonable that an enquiry 
into the qualifications of one person should be 
made to the detriment of others; since the 
judgment of all churches, whether reckoned of 
greater importance in themselves, is equally 
capable of receiving and maintaining the divine 
ordinances, so that one is in no way inferior to 
another (if we will but boldly declare the truth), 
in regard to that standard of practice which is 
common to all. If this be so, we must say that you 
will be chargeable, not with retaining this 
prelate, but with wrongfully removing him; your 
conduct will be characterized rather by violence 
than justice; and whatever may be generally 
thought by others, I dare clearly and boldly 
affirm that this measure will furnish ground of 
accusation against you, and will provoke factious 
disturbances of the most mischievous kind; for 
even timid flocks can show the use and power of 
their teeth when the watchful care of their 
shepherd declines, and they find themselves bereft 
of his accustomed guidance. If this then be really 
so, if I am not deceived in my judgment, let this, 
brethren, be your first consideration (for many 
and important considerations will immediately 
present themselves, if you adopt my advice), 
whether, should you persist in your intention, 
that mutual kindly feeling and affection which 
should subsist among you will suffer no 
diminution? In the next place remember that 
Eusebius, who came among you for the purpose of 
offering disinterested counsel, now enjoys the 
reward which is due to him in the judgment of 
heaven; for he has received no ordinary recompense 
in the high testimony you have borne to his 
equitable conduct. Lastly, in accordance with your 
usual sound judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming 
diligence in selecting the person of whom you 
stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and 
tumultuous clamor: for such clamor is always 
wrong, and from the collision of discordant 
elements both sparks and flame will arise."

58

From the Emperor's Letter to Eusebius (in 
Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 
61).
"I have most carefully perused your letter, and 
perceive that you have strictly conformed to the 
rule enjoined by the discipline of the Church. Now 
to abide by that which appears at the same time 
pleasing to God, and accordant with apostolic 
tradition, is a proof of true piety: and you have 
reason to deem yourself happy on this behalf, that 
you are counted worthy, in the judgment, I may 
say, of all the world, to have the oversight of 
the whole Church. For the desire which all feel to 
claim you for their own, undoubtedly enhances your 
enviable fortune in this respect. Notwithstanding, 
your Prudence, whose resolve it is to observe the 
ordinances of God and the apostolic rule of the 
Church, has done excellently well in declining the 
bishopric of the Church at Antioch, and desiring 
to continue in that Church of which you first 
received the oversight by the will of God." From 
Constantine's Letter to the Council (in Eusebius' 
Life of Constantine, Book III. chap. 62).
"I have perused the letters written by your 
Prudences, and highly approve of the wise 
resolution of your colleague in the ministry, 
Eusebius. Having, moreover, been informed of the 
circumstances of the case, partly by your letters, 
partly by those of our illustrious friends Acacius 
and Strategius, after sufficient investigation I 
have written to the people at Antioch, suggesting 
the course which will be at once pleasing to God 
and advantageous for the Church. A copy of this I 
have ordered to be subjoined to this present 
letter, in order that ye yourselves may know what 
I thought fit, as an advocate of the cause of 
justice, to write to that people: since I find in 
your letter this proposal, that, in consonance 
with the choice of the people, sanctioned by your 
own desire, Eusebius the holy bishop of C'sarea 
should preside over and take the charge of the 
Church at Antioch. Now the letters of Eusebius 
himself on this subject appeared to be strictly 
accordant with the order prescribed by the 
Church." From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius 
(in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book IV. chap. 
35).
"It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the 
power of language itself, worthily to treat of the 
mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a fitting 
manner the controversy respecting the feast of 
Easter, its origin as well as its precious and 
toilsome accomplishment. For it is not in the 
power even of those who are able to apprehend 
them, adequately to describe the things of God. I 
am, notwithstanding, filled with admiration of 
your learning and zeal, and have not only myself 
read your work with pleasure, but have given 
directions, according to your own desire, that it 
be communicated to many sincere followers of our 
holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we 
receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be 
pleased to gladden us more frequently with those 
compositions, to the practice of which, indeed, 
you confess yourself to have been trained from an 
early period, so that I am urging a willing man 
(as they say), in exhorting you to your customary 
pursuits. And certainly the high and confident 
judgment we entertain is a proof that the person 
who has translated your writings into the Latin 
tongue is in no respect incompetent to the task, 
impossible though it be that such version should 
fully equal the excellence of the works 
themselves." From a Letter of Constantine to 
Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book 
IV. chap. 36).

"It happens, through the favoring providence of 
God our Saviour, that great numbers have united 
themselves to the most holy Church in the city 
which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, 
highly requisite, since that city is rapidly 
advancing in prosperity in all other respects, 
that the number of Churches should also be 
increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all 
readiness my determination on this behalf. I have 
thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to 
order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures (the 
provision and use of which you know to be most 
needful for the instruction of the Church) to be 
written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, 
and in a commodious and portable form, by 
transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. 
The procurator of the diocese has also received 
instructions by letter from our Clemency to be 
careful to furnish all things necessary for the 
preparation of such copies; and it will be for you 
to take special care that they be completed with 
as little delay as possible. You have authority 
also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the 
public carriages for their conveyance, by which 
arrangement the copies when fairly written will 
most easily be forwarded for my personal 
inspection; and one of the deacons of your Church 
may be intrusted with this service, who, on his 
arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God 
preserve you, beloved brother!"

59

From the Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to 
Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre (given by Theodoret in 
his Eccles. Hist. I. 6).
"Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius 
concerning the truth, nor thy silence in this 
matter been unknown, but has reached even us. And, 
as was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced 
on account of my lord Eusebius; but on the other, 
we are grieved on thy account, since we look upon 
the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our 
cause." From the Book of Basil, to Amphilochius, 
an the Holy Spirit (chap. 29).
"If to any one Eusebius of Palestine seem 
trustworthy on account of his great experience, we 
give his own words in the Difficulties concerning 
the Polygamy of the Ancients." From the Book of 
Questions an the Old and New Testaments, which is 
published among the Works of Augustine (chap. 
125).
"We remember to have read in a certain pamphlet of 
Eusebius, a man formerly distinguished among the 
rest of men, that not even the Holy Spirit knows 
the mystery of the nativity of our Lord Jesus 
Christ;  and I wonder that a man of so great 
learning should have imposed this stigma · upon 
the Holy Spirit."
From Jerome's Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus 
(Ep. 65).
"Apollinarius wrote the very strongest books 
against Porphyry; Eusebius has excellently 
composed his Ecclesiastical History. Of these men, 
one taught an incomplete human nature in Christ; 
the other was a most open defender of the heresy 
of Arius."
From the Apology of Jerome against Rufinus (Book I 
chap. 8).
"As I have already said, Eusebius, bishop of 
C'sarea, formerly leader of the Arian party, has 
written six books in defense of Origen--a very 
extensive and elaborate work; with much evidence 
he has proved that Origen was, from his point of 
view, a Catholic, that is, from ours, an Arian."

From the same book (chap. 9).

"For Eusebius himself, a friend, eulogist and 
companion of Pamphilus, has written three very 
elegant books comprising a life of Pamphilus. In 
these, after extolling other things with wondrous 
praises and exalting his humility to the skies, he 
also adds this in the third book," &c.
And a little further an in the same book (chap. 
II). "I have praised Eusebius in his 
Ecclesiastical History, in his Chronological 
Canons, in his Description of the Holy Land; and 
turning these same little works into Latin I have 
given them to those of my own tongue. Am I 
therefore an Arian, because Eusebius who wrote 
these books is an Arian?"From Jerome's second book 
against Rufinus (chap. 16).
"Eusebius, a very learned man (I have said 
learned, not Catholic; lest after the usual 
manner, even in this thing, thou heap calumny upon 
me), in six volumes does nothing else than show 
Origen to be of his own faith; that is, of the 
Arian heresy."
From the Preface of Jerome's Book on Hebrew 
Topography.
"Eusebius, who took his surname from the blessed 
martyr Pamphilus, after the ten books of his 
Ecclesiastical History, after his Chronological 
Canons, which we have published in the Latin 
tongue, after his Names of Various Nations, in 
which he showed how these were formerly, and are 
now, called among the Hebrews; after his 
Topography of the Land of Judea, with the 
inheritances of the tribes; after his Jerusalem, 
also, and his Plan of the Temple, with a very 
brief explanation,--after all these he has finally 
in this little work labored that he might collect 
for us from Holy Scripture the names of almost all 
the cities, mountains, rivers, villages, and 
divers places, which either remain the same, or 
have since been changed, or else have become 
corrupted from some source, wherefore we also, 
following the zeal of this admirable man," &c.

60

From Jerome's Bank on Ecclesiastical Writers 
(chap. 61).
"Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (I have 
not indeed been able to find out the name of the 
city), wrote a reckoning of Easter, and 
chronological tables up to the first year of the 
Emperor Alexander, and hit upon a cycle of sixteen 
years which the Greeks call 
<greek>ekkaigekaethriga</greek>; and gave an 
occasion to Eusebius, who also composed an Easter 
canon, with a cycle of nineteen years, that is 
<greek>enneagekaethriga</greek>

From the same book (chap. 81).

"Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea in Palestine, a man 
most studious in the sacred Scriptures, and along 
with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent 
investigator of sacred literature, has edited an 
inflate number of volumes, some of which are 
these: of the Demonstratio Evangelica, twenty 
books; of the Pr'paratio Evangelica, fifteen 
books; of the Theophania, five books; of the 
Ecclesiastical History, ten books; a General 
History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome of 
them; also, On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; 
On Isaiah, ten books; and Against Porphyry (who at 
the same time was writing in Sicily, as some 
think), thirty books, of which only twenty have 
come to my notice; of his Topica, one book; of the 
Apolagia, in defense of Origen, six books; On the 
Life of Pamphilus, three books; Concerning the 
Martyrs, other small works; also very learned 
commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms, and 
many other writings. He flourished chiefly under 
the emperors Constantine and Constantius; and on 
account of his friendship with Pamphilus the 
martyr, he took from him his surname."

From the same book (chap. 96).

"Eusebius, by nation a Sardinian, and, after being 
reader in Rome, bishop of Vercell', on account of 
his confession of the faith banished by the Prince 
Constantius to Scythopolis, and thence to 
Cappadocia, under Julian the emperor sent back to 
the Church, has published the Commentaries on the 
Psalms of Eusebius of C'sarea, which he had 
translated from Greek into Latin."

Jerome in the Preface to his Commentaries an 
Daniel.

"Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote a 
twelfth volume, denying that that book was 
composed by him with whose name it is inscribed, 
&c. To him Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea, has 
replied very skillfully in three volumes, that is, 
in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX. Apollinarius also 
in one large volume, that is, in the twenty-sixth 
volume, and before these, in part, Methodius." 
Jerome on the Twenty-fourth Chapter of Matthew.
"Concerning this place, that is, concerning the 
abomination of desolation which was spoken of by 
the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place, 
Porphyry has uttered many blasphemies against us 
in the thirteenth volume of his work. To whom 
Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea, has replied in three 
volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and 
XX."
The same, in his Epistle to Magnus (Ep. 84).
"Celsus and Porphyry have written against us. To 
the former Origen, to the latter Methodius, 
Eusebius, and Apollinarius have very vigorously 
replied. Of whom Origen wrote eight books, 
Methodius proceeded as far as ten thousand lines, 
Eusebius and Apollinarius composed twenty-five and 
thirty volumes respectively."
The same, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus 
(Ep. 65).
"What more skillful, more learned, more eloquent 
men can be found than Eusebius and Didymus, the 
advocates of Origen? The former of whom, in the 
six volumes of his Apologia, proves that he 
[Origen] was of the same opinion as himself."
Jerome, in the Preface to his Commentaries an 
Isaiah.
"Eusebius Pamphili also has published an 
historical commentary in fifteen volumes." The 
same, in the Preface to the Fifth Book of his 
Commentaries an Isaiah.
"Shall I take upon myself a work at which the most 
learned men have labored hard? I speak of Origen 
and Eusebius Pomphili. Of these the former wanders 
afar in the free spaces of alle-

61

gory, and his genius so interprets single names as 
to make out of them the sacred things of the 
Church. The latter, while promising in his title 
an historical exposition, meanwhile forgets his 
purpose, and yields himself up to the tenets of 
Origen."
The same, in the fifth book of his Commentaries on 
Isaiah.
"Eusebius of C'sarea, while promising in his title 
an historical exposition, strays off in divers 
notions: while reading his books I found much else 
than what he gave promise of in his title. For 
wherever history has failed him, he has crossed 
over into allegory; and in such a manner does he 
unite things that are distinct, that I wonder at 
his joining together by a new art of discourse 
stone and iron into one body."

Ferome an the first chapter of Matthew.

"This [chapter] also Africanus, a writer of 
chronology, and Eusebius of C'sarea, in his books 
on the Discrepancies of the Gospels, have 
discussed more fully."
Rufinus in his Epistle to the Bishop Chromatius.
"You charge me to translate into Latin the 
Ecclesiastical History, which the very learned 
Eusebius of C'sarea wrote in the Greek tongue."

Augustine, in his Book on Heresies (chap. 83).

"When I had searched through the History of 
Eusebius, to which Rufinus, after having himself 
translated it into the Latin tongue, has also 
added two books of subsequent history, I did not 
find any heresy which I had not read among these 
very ones, except that one which Eusebius inserts 
in his sixth book, stating that it had existed in 
Arabia. Therefore these heretics, since he assigns 
them no founder, we may call Arabians, who 
declared that the soul dies and is destroyed along 
with the body, and that at the end of the world 
both are raised again. But he states that they 
were very quickly corrected, these by the 
disputation of Origen in person, and those by his 
exhortation."
Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book 
against Eusebius of C'sarea's Apology for Origen.
"Since now, this man was very learned, having 
searched out and traced back all the books and 
writings of the more ancient writers, and having 
set forth the opinions of almost all of them, and 
having left behind very many writings, some of 
which are worthy of all acceptation, making use of 
such an estimation as this of the man, they 
attempt to lead away some, saying, that Eusebius 
would not have chosen to take this view, unless he 
had accurately ascertained that all the opinions 
of the ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and 
admit that the man was very learned, and that not 
anything of the more ancient writings escaped his 
knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial 
co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for 
his use material from whatever quarter."
From the First Book of Extracts from the 
Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius.
"Philostorgius, while praising Eusebius Pamphili 
both as to whatever of worth belongs to his 
histories and as to other things, yet declares 
that with regard to religion he has fallen into 
great error; and that he impiously sets forth this 
error of his in detail, holding that the Deity is 
unknowable and incomprehensible. Moreover, he 
holds that he has also gone astray on other such 
things. But he unites with others in attesting 
that he brought his History down to the accession 
of the sons of Constantine the Great."
Socrates in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical 
History (chap. 1).
"Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus (i.e. universally 
beloved), has composed a History of the Church in 
ten books, brought down to the time of the Emperor 
Constantine, when the persecution ceased which 
Diocletian had commenced against the Christians. 
But, in writing the life of Constantine, this 
author has very slightly treated of the Arian 
controversy, being evidently more intent on a 
highly wrought eulogium of the emperor than an 
accurate statement of facts."

62

The same Socrates in the Eighth Chapter of the 
same Book, speaking of Sabinus, Bishop of 
Macedonia, who had written a History of the Synod, 
says:--
"Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a witness 
worthy of credit, and praises the Emperor as 
capable in stating Christian doctrines; but he 
still brands the faith which was declared at Nice 
as having been set forth by ignorant men, and such 
as had no intelligence in the matter. Thus he 
voluntarily contemns the testimony of a man whom 
he himself pronounces a wise and true witness; for 
Eusebius declares that of the ministers of God who 
were present at the Nicene Synod, some were 
eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the 
strictness of their life; and that the Emperor 
himself being present, leading all into unanimity, 
established unity of judgment, and conformity of 
opinion among them."

The same Socrates, in Book II. chap.

"But since some have attempted to stigmatize 
Eusebius Pamphilus as having favored the Arian 
views in his works, it may not be irrelevant here 
to make a few remarks respecting him. In the first 
place, then, he was present at the council of 
Nice, and gave his assent to what was there 
determined in reference to the consubstantiality 
of the Son with the Father, and in the third book 
of the Life of Constantine, he thus expressed 
himself: 'The Emperor incited all to unanimity, 
until he had rendered them united in judgment on 
those points on which they were previously at 
variance: so that they were quite agreed at Nice 
in matters of faith.' Since, therefore, Eusebius, 
in mentioning the Nicene Synod, says that all 
differences were composed, and that unanimity of 
sentiment prevailed, what ground is there for 
assuming that he was himself an Arian? The Arians 
are certainly deceived in supposing him to be a 
favorer of their tenets. But some one will perhaps 
say that in his discourses he seems to have 
adopted the opinions of Arius, because of his 
frequently saying by Christ. Our answer is that 
ecclesiastical writers often use this mode of 
expression, and others of a similar kind denoting 
the economy of our Saviour's humanity: and that 
before all these the apostle made use of such 
expressions without ever being accounted a teacher 
of false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has 
dared to say that the Son is a creature, as one of 
the others, observe what Eusebius says on this 
subject in his first book against Marcellus:
"'He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, 
and is the only-begotten Son of God; whence any 
one would justly censure those who have presumed 
to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing, 
like the rest of the creatures; far how then would 
he be a Son? and how could he be God's 
only-begotten, were he assigned the same nature as 
the other creatures, and were he one of the many 
created things, seeing that he, like them, would 
in that case be partaker of a creation from 
nothing? The sacred Scriptures do not thus 
instruct us concerning these things.' He again 
adds a little afterwards: 'Whoever then determines 
that the Son is made of things that are not, and 
that he is a creature produced from nothing 
pre-existing, forgets that while he concedes the 
name of Son, he denies him to be so in reality. 
Far he that is made of nothing cannot truly be the 
Son of God, any more than the other things which 
have been made: but the true Son of God, forasmuch 
as he is begotten of the Father, is properly 
denominated the only-begotten and beloved of the 
Father. Far this reason also, he himself is God: 
for what can the offspring of God be but the 
perfect resemblance of him who begat him? A 
sovereign, indeed, builds a city, but does not 
beget it; and is said to beget a son, not to build 
one. An artificer may be called the framer, but 
not the father of his work; while he could by no 
means be styled the framer of him whom he had 
begotten. So also the God of the Universe is the 
father of the Son; but would be fitly termed the 
Framer and Maker of the world. And although it is 
once said in Scripture, The Lord created me the 
beginning of his ways on account of his works, yet 
it becomes us to consider the import of this 
phrase, which I shall hereafter explain; and not, 
as Marcellus has done, from a single passage to 
subvert one of the most important doctrines of the 
Church.'
"These and many other such expressions are found 
in the first book of Eusebius Pamphilus against 
Marcellus; and in his third book, declaring in 
what sense the term creature is to be taken, he 
says: 'Accordingly these things being established, 
it follows that in the same sense as that which 
preceded, these words also are to be understood, 
The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways 
on account of his works. Far although he says that 
he was created, it is not as if he should say that 
he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor 
that he himself also was made of nothing like the 
rest of the creatures, which some have erroneously 
supposed: but as subsisting, living, pre-existing, 
and being before the constitution of the whale 
world; and having been appointed to rule the 
universe by his Lord and Father: the word created 
being here used instead of ordained or 
constituted. Certainly the apostle expressly 
called the rulers and governors among men 
creature, when he said, Submit yourselves to every 
human creature for the Lord's sake;

63

whether to the king as supreme, or to governors as 
those sent by him. The prophet also does not use 
the word <greek>ektisen</greek> created in the 
sense of made of that which had no previous 
existence, when he says, Prepare, Israel, to 
invoke thy God. For behold he who confirms the 
thunder, creates the Spirit, and announces his 
Christ unto men. For God did not then create the 
Spirit when he declared his Christ to all men, 
since There is nothing new under the sun; but the 
Spirit was, and subsisted before: but he was sent 
at what time the apostles were gathered together, 
when like thunder, There came a sound from heaven 
as of a rushing mighty wind: and they were filled 
with the Holy Spirit. And thus they declared unto 
all men the Christ of God in accordance with that 
prophecy which says, Behold he who confirms the 
thunder, creates the spirit, and announces his 
Christ unto men: the word creates being used 
instead of sends down, or appoints; and thunder in 
a similar way implying the preaching of the 
Gospel. Again he that says, Create in me a clean 
heart, O God, said not this as if he had no heart; 
but prayed that his mind might be purified. Thus 
also it is said, That he might create the two into 
one new man, instead of unite. Consider also 
whether this passage is not of the same kind, 
Clothe yourselves with the new man, which is 
created according to God; and this, if, therefore, 
any one be in Christ, he is a new creature, and 
Whatever other expressions of a similar nature any 
one may find who shall carefully search the 
divinely-inspired Scripture. Wherefore one should 
not be surprised if in this passage, The Lord 
created me the beginning of his ways, the term 
created is used metaphorically, instead of 
appointed, or constituted.'
"These quotations from the books of Eusebius 
against Marcellus have been adduced to confute 
those who have slanderously attempted to traduce 
and criminate him. Neither can they prove that 
Eusebius attributes a beginning of subsistence to 
the Son of God, although they may find him often 
using the expressions of dispensation: and 
especially so, because he was an emulator and 
admirer of the works of Origen, in which those who 
are able to comprehend that author's writings, 
will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the 
Son was begotten of the Father. These remarks have 
been made in passing, in order to refute those who 
have misrepresented Eusebius."
Sozomen in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical 
History (chap. 1.).
"I at first felt strongly inclined to trace the 
course of events from the very commencement; but 
on reflecting that similar records of the past, up 
to their own time, had been compiled by the 
learned Clemens and Hegesippus, successors of the 
apostles, by Africanus the historian and Eusebius 
surnamed Pamphilus, a man intimately acquainted 
with the sacred Scriptures and the writings of the 
Greek poets and historians, I merely drew up an 
epitome in two books of all that is recorded to 
have happened to the churches, from the ascension 
of Christ to the deposition of Licinius."

Victorius in the Paschal Canon.

"Reviewing therefore the trustworthy histories of 
the ancients, namely the Chronicles and prologue 
of the blessed Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea, a city 
in Palestine, a man pre-eminently accomplished and 
learned; and likewise those things which have been 
added to these same Chronicles by Jerome of sacred 
memory." Jerome, in his Epistle to Chromatius and 
Heliodorus, prefixed to the Martyrology which 
bears Jerome's  Name.
"It is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ obtains 
triumphs at every martyrdom of his saints, whose 
sufferings we find described by the saintly 
Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea. For when Constantine 
Augustus came to C'sarea and told the celebrated 
bishop to ask some favors which should benefit the 
church at C'sarea, it is said that Eusebius 
answered: That a church enriched by its own 
resources was under no necessity of asking favors, 
yet that he himself had an unalterable desire, 
that whatever had been done in the Roman republic 
against God's saints by successive judges in the 
whole Roman world they should search out by a 
careful examination of the public records; and 
that they should draw from the archives themselves 
and send to Eusebius himself, by royal command, 
the names of the martyrs: under what judge, in 
what province or city, upon what day, and with 
what steadfastness, they had obtained the reward 
of their suffering. Whence it has come about that, 
being an able narrator and a diligent 
historiographer, he has both composed an 
Ecclesiastical History and has set forth the 
triumphs of nearly all of the martyrs of all the 
Roman provinces."

64

Pope Gelasius in his Decree concerning the 
Apocryphal Books.
"Likewise as to the Chronicles of Eusebius and the 
books of his Ecclesiastical History, although in 
the first book of his narration he has grown cold, 
and has afterwards written one book in praise and 
in defense of Origen the schismatic, yet on 
account of his singular knowledge of things which 
pertain to instruction, we do not say that they 
ought to be rejected." The same in his book On the 
Two Natures.
"That saying the same thing with one heart and one 
mouth we may also believe what we have received 
from our forefathers, and, God giving them to us, 
that we may hand them down to posterity to be 
believed in, with which things the adduced 
testimony of the Catholic masters, being summed 
up, bear witness that a united faith in a gracious 
God endures."

And a little farther on.

"From the exposition of the seventh psalm, by 
Eusebius, bishop in Palestine, by surname 
Pomphili, etc. Likewise from his Pr'paratio 
Evangelica, Book Pope Pelagius II. in his Third 
Epistle to Elias of Aquileia and other Bishops of 
Istria.
"For, indeed, among h'resiarchs who can be found 
worse than Origen, and among historiographers who 
more honorable than Eusebius? And who of us does 
not know with how great praises Eusebius extols 
Origen in his books? But because the holy Church 
deals more kindly with the hearts of her faithful 
ones than she does severely with their words, 
neither could the testimony of Eusebius remove him 
from his proper place among heretics, nor on the 
other hand has she condemned Eusebius for the 
fault of praising Origen." Evagrius, in the First 
Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).
"Eusebius Pomphili--an especially able writer, to 
the extent, in particular, of inducing his readers 
to embrace our religion, though failing to perfect 
them in the faith--and Sozomen, Theodoret, and 
Socrates have produced a most excellent record of 
the advent of our compassionate God, and his 
ascension into heaven, and of all that has been 
achieved in the endurance of the divine Apostles, 
as well as of the other martyrs," etc.
Gregory the Great in his Epistle to Eulogius, 
Bishop of Alexandria.
"I have now become one of the number of hearers, 
to whom your Holiness has taken the pains to 
write, that we ought to transmit the deeds of all 
the martyrs which have been collected by Eusebius 
of C'sarea in the age of Constantine of holy 
memory. But I was not aware before receiving your 
Holiness' letter whether these things had been 
collected or not. I therefore am thankful that 
being informed by the writings of your most holy 
learning, I have begun to know what I did not know 
before. For excepting these things which are 
contained in the books of this same Eusebius On 
the deeds of the holy martyrs, I have met with 
nothing else in the archives of this our church, 
nor in the libraries of Rome, except some few 
collected in a single volume." Gelasius of Cyzicus 
in his Second Book On the Council of Nic'a (chap. 
1).
"Let us hear now what says this the most 
illustrious husbandman in ecclesiastical farming, 
the most truth-loving Eusebius, surnamed after the 
celebrated Pamphilus. Licinius, indeed, he says, 
having followed the same path of impiety with the 
ungodly tyrants, has justly been brought to the 
same precipice with them, etc. (which may be found 
at the end of the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical 
History). As to Eusebius Pomphili, the most 
trustworthy of ancient ecclesiastical historians, 
who has investigated and set forth so many 
struggles, having made a choice from among his 
simply written works, we say that in all ten books 
of his Ecclesiastical History he has left behind 
an accurately written work. Beginning with the 
advent of our Lord he has, not without much labor, 
proceeded as far as those times. For how else 
could it be with him who took so great care to 
preserve for us the harmony of this collection? 
But as I have just said, he brought to bear upon 
it much study and an untold amount of labor. But 
let no one suppose, from those things which have 
been alleged with regard to him, that this man 
ever adopted the heresy of Arius; but let him be 
sure, that even if he did speak somewhat of, and 
did write briefly concerning the conjectures of 
Arius, he certainly did not do it on account of 
his entertaining the impious notion of that man, 
but from artless simplicity, as indeed he himself 
fully assures us in his Apology, which he 
distributed generally among orthodox bishops."

65

The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle (p. 582).

"The very learned Eusebius Pamphili has written 
thus: As the Jews crucified Christ at the feast, 
so they all perished at their own feast."

Nicephorus in the Sixth Book of his History (chap. 
37).

"Upon whose authority also we know of the divine 
Pamphilus as both living the life of a philosopher 
and wearing the dignity of presbyter in that 
place. His life and every event in it, also. his 
establishing in that place the study of sacred and 
profane philosophy, also his confession of his 
religion in divers persecutions, his struggles, 
and at last his wearing the martyr's crown, 
Eusebius his nephew, who had such a regard for him 
as to take from him his surname, has comprehended 
in detail in one separate book; to this we refer 
those who may wish to find out accurately 
concerning him. This Eusebius, indeed, although 
having prosecuted many studies, especially excels 
in the study of sacred literature. His life 
extended until the time of Constantius. Being a 
man pre-eminently Christian, and endowed with 
great zeal for Christ, he has written the poratio 
Evangelica in fifteen books, and in ten more the 
Demonstratio Evangelica. He was also the first one 
to take in hand this subject, having been the 
first to call his book an Ecclesiastical History; 
this work is contained in ten volumes. There is 
also another book of his extant which he entitled 
Canons, in which he accurately investigates 
chronological matters. He has also composed five 
books On the Life of Constantine, and another 
addressed to him which he calls 
<greek>triakont?eth</greek>. To Stephanus he also 
dedicates another concerning those things in the 
sacred Gospels which have been called in question; 
and he has also left behind divers other works 
which are of great benefit to the Church. Apart 
from being such a man as this, he in many ways 
seems to uphold the opinions of Arius," etc.

From the MS. Acts of Pope Silvester.

"Eusebius Pamphili, in writing his Ecclesiastical 
History), has in every case omitted to mention 
those things which he has pointed out in other 
works; for he has put into eleven books the 
sufferings of the martyrs, bishops, and 
confessors, who have suffered in almost all the 
provinces. But indeed as to the sufferings of 
women and maidens, such as with manly fortitude 
suffered for the sake of Christ the Lord, he 
records nothing. He is, moreover, the only one who 
has set forth in their order the sufferings of the 
bishops, from the Apostle Peter down. Moreover, he 
drew up for the benefit of the public a catalogue 
of the pontiffs of those cities and apostolic 
seats; that is, of the great city of Rome, and the 
cities of Alexandria and Antioch. Of the number 
then of those of whom, up to his own times, the 
above-mentioned author wrote in the Greek tongue, 
this man's life he was unable to paraphrase; that 
is, the life of the saint Silvester," etc.

An ancient author in the Passion of the Holy 
Valerian.

"The glorious struggles of the most blessed 
martyrs, for the honor of Christ the Lord and of 
our God, are celebrated by perpetual services and 
an annual solemnity, that while our faithful 
people know the faith of the martyrs, they may 
also rejoice in their triumphs, and may rest 
assured that it is by the protection of these that 
they themselves are to be protected. For it is 
held in repute that Eusebius the historian, of 
sacred memory, bishop of the city of C'sarea, a 
most blessed priest of excellent life, very 
learned also in ecclesiastical matters, and to be 
venerated for his extraordinary carefulness, set 
forth for every city, in so far as the truth was 
able to be ascertained, the Holy Spirit announcing 
the deeds that had been done,--inasmuch as the 
cities of single provinces and localities or towns 
have merited being made famous by the heavenly 
triumphs of martyrs,--set forth, I say, in the 
time of what rulers the innumerable persecutions 
were inflicted at the command of officials. Who, 
although he has not described entire the 
sufferings of individual martyrs, yet has truly 
intimated why they ought to be described or 
celebrated by faithful and devoted Christians. 
Thus this faithful husbandman has cultivated the 
grace of God, which has been scattered abroad in 
all the earth, while, as it were, from a single 
grain of wheat, plenteous harvests are produced on 
account of the fertility of the field, and go on 
in multiplied abundance. So through the narration 
of the above-mentioned man, diffused from the 
fountain of a single book, with the ever-spreading 
writings of the faithful, the celebrating of the 
sufferings of the martyrs has watered all the 
earth."

Usuardus in his Martyrology.

"On the twenty-first day of June, in Palestine, 
the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor, a man of 
most excellent genius, and a historiographer."

66

Notker in his Martyrology.

"On the twenty-first day of June, the deposition 
in C'sarea of the holy bishop Eusebius."

Manecharius in his Epistle to Ceraunius, Bishop of 
Paris.

"Unceasing in thy continual efforts to equal in 
merit the very excellent persons of the most 
blessed bishops in all the conversation of the 
priesthood, zealous to adorn thyself every day 
with holy religion, by thy zeal for reading thou 
hast searched through the whole of the doctrines 
of the sacred Scriptures. Now as an addition to 
thy praiseworthiness thou dost faithfully purpose, 
in the city of Paris, to gather together for the 
love of religion, the deeds of the holy martyrs. 
Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in 
zeal with Eusebius of C'sarea, and art worthy of 
being remembered perpetually with an equal share 
of glory."

From an old Manuscript Breviary of the 
Lemovicensian Church.

"Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.
"Lesson 1. Eusebius, bishop of C'sarea in 
Palestine, on account of his friendship with 
Pamphilus the martyr, took from him the surname of 
Pamphili; inasmuch as along with this same 
Pamphilus he was a most diligent investigator of 
sacred literature. The man indeed is very worthy 
of being remembered in these times, both for his 
skill in many things, and for his wonderful 
genius, and by both Gentiles and Christians he was 
held distinguished and most noble among 
philosophers. This man, after having for a time 
labored in behalf of the Arian heresy, coming to 
the council of Nic'a, inspired by the Holy Spirit, 
followed the decision of the Fathers, and 
thereafter up to the time of his death lived in a 
most holy manner in the orthodox faith.
"Lesson 2. He was, moreover, very zealous in the 
study of the sacred Scriptures, and along with 
Pamphilus the martyr was a most diligent 
investigator of sacred literature. At the same 
time he has written many things, but especially 
the following books: The Pr'paratio Evangelica, 
the Ecclesiastical History, Against Porphyry, a 
very bitter enemy of the Christians; he has also 
composed Six Apologies in Behalf of Origen, a Life 
of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on account of 
friendship he took his surname, in three books; 
likewise very learned Commentaries on the hundred 
and fifty Psalms.
"Lesson 3. Moreover, as we read, after having 
ascertained the sufferings of many holy martyrs in 
all the provinces, and the lives of confessors and 
virgins, he has written concerning these saints 
twenty books; while on account of these books 
therefore, and especially on account of his 
Pr'paratio Evangelica, he was held most 
distinguished among the Gentiles, because of his 
love of truth he contemned the ancestral worship 
of the gods. He has written also a Chronicle, 
extending from the first year of Abraham up to the 
year 300 A.D., which the divine Hieronymus has 
continued. Finally this Eusebius, after the 
conversion of Constantine the Great, was united to 
him by strong friendship as long as he lived."

In the Breviary of the same church, June 
twenty-first.

"Omnipotent, eternal God, who dost permit us to 
take part in the festivities in honor of Eusebius, 
thy holy confessor and priest, bring us, we pray 
thee, through his prayers, into the society of 
heavenly joys, through our Lord Jesus Christ," 
etc.[1]

From the book On the Lights of the Church.

"Eusebius of C'sarea, the key of the Scriptures 
and custodian of the New Testament, is proved by 
the Greeks to be greater than many in his 
treatises. There are three celebrated works of his 
which truly testify to this: the Canons of the 
Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the New 
Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical History, 
and the Chronicon, that is, a chronological 
summary. We have never found any one who has been 
able to follow in all his foot-prints."

From the Miscellanies of Theodore Metochita (chap. 
19)

"Eusebius Pamphili was also a Palestinian by 
birth, but as he himself says, he sojourner for 
quite a long time in Egypt. He was a very learned 
man, and it is evident indeed that he published 
many books, and that he used language thus."

69

Again, in the same chapter.

"Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius 
Pamphilus of perverting the Nicene Creed; but 
Eusebius denies that he violates that exposition 
of the faith, and recriminates, saying that 
Eustathius was a defender of the opinion of 
Sabellius. In consequence of these 
misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as 
if contending against adversaries: and although it 
was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has 
a distinct person and existence, and all 
acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of 
Persons; yet, from what cause I am unable to 
divine, they could not agree among themselves, and 
therefore were never at peace." Theodoritus, in 
his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the 
Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes as 
follows:
"If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, 
it at least behooves them to believe Eusebius of 
Palestine, whom they call the chief advocate of 
their own doctrines." Nicetas, in his Thesaurus of 
the Orthodox Faith, Book F. Chap. 7.
"Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that 
there were only nine persons out of all whom the 
decrees of the Synod did not please, and that 
their names are as follows: Theognis of Nic'a, 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, 
Eusebius of C'sarea in Palestine, Narcissus of 
Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called 
Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of 
Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemaïs, which borders upon 
Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica."[1] Antipater, 
Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against 
Eusebius' Apology for Origen.
"I deny that the man has yet arrived at an 
accurate knowledge of the doctrines; wherefore  he 
ought to be given place to so far as regards his 
great learning, but as regards his knowledge of 
doctrine he ought not. But, moreover, we know him 
to have been altogether lacking in such
accurate knowledge."

And a little farther on.

"So now, that we may not seem to be trampling upon 
the man,--concerning whom it is not our purpose 
for the present to speak,--examining into the 
accuracy of his Apology, we may go on to show that 
both were heretics, both he who composed the 
Apology, and he in whose behalf it was composed."

And farther on.

"For as to your attempting to show that others as 
well as he [Origen] have spoken of the 
subordination of the Son to the Father, we may not 
at first wonder at it, for such is your opinion 
and that of your followers; wherefore we say 
nothing concerning this matter for the present, 
since it was long ago submitted and condemned at 
the general Council."

From the Acts of the Seventh OEcumenical Council.

"For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and 
who of those who have obtained a knowledge of true 
doctrine, does not know that Eusebius Pamphili has 
given himself over to false ways of thinking, and 
has become of the same opinion and of the same 
mind with those who follow after the opinions of 
Arius? In all his historical books he calls the 
Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to 
be adored as second in rank. But if any speaking 
in his defense say that he subscribed in the 
council, we may admit that that is true; but while 
with his lips he has respected the truth, in his 
heart he is far from it, as all his writings and 
epistles go to show. But if from time to time, on 
account of circumstances or from different causes, 
he has become confused or has changed around, 
sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines 
of Arius, and at other times reigning the truth, 
he shows himself to be, according to James the 
brother of our Lord, a double-minded man, unstable 
in all his ways; and let him not think that he 
shall receive anything of the Lord. For if with 
the heart he had believed unto righteousness, and 
with the mouth had confessed the truth unto 
salvation, he would have asked forgiveness for his 
writings, at the same time correcting them. But 
this he has by no means done, for he remained like 
'thiops with his skin unchanged. In interpreting 
the verse 'I said to the Lord, Thou art my Lord,' 
he has strayed far away from the true sense, for 
this is what he says: 'By the laws of nature every 
son's father

70

must be his lord; wherefore God who begat him must 
be at the same time God, Lord, and Father of the 
only-begotten Son of God.' So also in his epistle 
to the holy Alexander, the teacher of the great 
Athanasius, which begins thus: 'With what anxiety 
and with what care have I set about writing this 
letter,' in most open blasphemy he speaks as 
follows concerning Arius and his followers: 'Thy 
letter accuses them of saying that the Son was 
made out of nothing, like all men. But they have 
produced their own epistle which they wrote to 
thee, in which they give an account of their 
faith, and expressly confess that "the God of the 
law and of the prophets and of the New Testament, 
before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son, 
through whom also he made the ages and the 
universe; and that he begat him not in appearance, 
but in truth, and subjected him to his own will, 
unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of 
God, but not as one of the creatures." If, 
therefore, the letter received from them tells the 
truth, they wholly contradict thee, in that they 
confess that the Son of God who existed before 
eternal ages, and through whom he made the world, 
is unchangeable and a perfect creature of God, but 
not as one of the creatures. But thy epistle 
accuses them of saying that the Son was made as 
one of the creatures. They do not say this, but 
clearly declare that he was not as one of the 
creatures. See if cause is not immediately given 
them again to attack and to misrepresent whatever 
they please. Again thou findest fault with them 
for saying that He who is begat him who was not. I 
wonder if any one is able to say anything else 
than that. For if He who is is one, it is plain 
that everything has been made by Him and after 
Him. But if He who is is not the only one, but 
there was also a Son existing, how did He who is 
beget him who was existing? For thus those 
existing would be two.' These things then Eusebius 
wrote to the illustrious Alexander; but there are 
also other epistles of his directed to the same 
holy man, in which are found various blasphemies 
in defense of the followers of Arius. So also, in 
writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes 
most openly; his letter begins thus: 'I return to 
my Lord all thanks'; and farther on: 'For we do 
not say that the Son was with the Father, but that 
the Father was before the Son. But the Son of God 
himself, knowing well that he was greater than 
all, and knowing that he was other than the 
Father, and less than and subject to Him, very 
piously teaches this to us also when he says, "The 
Father who sent me is greater than I."' And 
farther on: 'Since the Son also is himself God, 
but not true God.' So then from these writings of 
his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of 
Arius and his followers. And with this rebellious 
heresy of theirs the inventors of that Arian 
madness hold to one nature in hypostatic union, 
and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body 
without soul, in his scheme of redemption, 
affirming that the divine nature supplied the 
purposes and movements of the soul: that, as 
Gregory the Divine says, they may ascribe 
suffering to the Deity; and it is evident that 
those who ascribe suffering to the Deity are 
Patripassians. Those who share in this heresy do 
not allow images, as the impious Severus did not, 
and Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, 
and all their followers, the many-headed yet 
headless hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to 
this faction, as has been shown from his epistles 
and historical writings, as a Patripassian 
rejected the image of Christ," etc.[1]

Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine.

"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of 
Pamphilus I know not) was carried off by Arianism, 
his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling 
repentance as he pretends, and against his will, 
confesses to his infirmity; although by his 
repentance he rather shows that he has not 
repented. For he cannot show, by means of those 
writings in which he would seem to be defending 
himself, that he has withdrawn from his former 
heretical doctrines, nor can he show that he 
agreed with the holy and OEcumenical Synod. But he 
speaks of it as a marvel that the upholders of the 
Homoousion should concur with him in sentiment and 
agree with him in opinion: and this fact both many 
other things and the epistle written by him to his 
own people at C'sarea accurately confirm. But that 
from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian 
doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he 
did not cease following them, many know, and it is 
easy to gather it from many sources; but that he 
shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, 
the error with regard to the common resurrection 
of us all, is to most persons unknown. But if thou 
thyself examine carefully his books, thou shalt 
see that he was none the less truly overcome by 
that deadly disease than he was by the Arian 
madness."

Photius, in his Bibliotheca (chap. 13).

"Of the Objection and Defense of Eusebius two 
books have been read; also other two, which 
although differing in some respects from the 
former two, are in other respects the same with 
regard

71

to both diction and thought. But he presents 
certain difficulties with regard to our blameless 
religion as having originated with the Greeks. 
These he correctly solves, although not in all 
cases. But as regards his diction, it is by no 
means either pleasing or brilliant. The man is 
indeed very learned, although as regards 
shrewdness of mind and firmness of character, as 
well as accuracy in doctrine, he is deficient. For 
also in many places in these books it is plain to 
be seen that he blasphemes against the Son, 
calling him a second cause, and general-in-chief, 
and other terms which have had their origin in the 
Arian madness. It seems that he flourished in the 
time of Constantine the Great. He was also an 
ardent admirer of the excellences of the holy 
martyr Pamphilus, for which cause some say that he 
took from him the surname Pamphili."

Photius, in the Same Work (chap. 127).

"There has been read the work of Eusebius Pamphili 
In praise of the great emperor Constantine, 
consisting of four books. In this is contained the 
whole life of the man, starting with his very 
boyhood, also whatever deeds of his belong to 
ecclesiastical history, until he departed from 
life at the age of sixty-four. Eusebius is, 
however, even in this work, like himself in 
diction, except that his discourse has risen to a 
somewhat more than usual brilliancy, and that 
sometimes he has made use of more flowery 
expressions than he is wont. However, of 
pleasantness and beauty of expression there is 
little, as indeed is the case in his other works. 
He inserts, moreover, in this work of his in four 
books very many passages from the whole decalogue 
of his Ecclesiastical History. He says that 
Constantine the Great himself also was baptized in 
Nicomedia, he having put off his baptism until 
then, because he desired to be baptized in the 
Jordan. Who baptized him he does not clearly show. 
However, as to the heresy of Arius, he does not 
definitely state whether he holds that opinion, or 
whether he has changed; or even whether Arius held 
correct or incorrect views, although he ought to 
have made mention of these things, because the 
synod occupied an important place among the deeds 
of Constantine the Great, and it again demands a 
detailed account of them. But he does state that a 
'controversy' arose between Arius and Alexander 
(this is the name he cunningly gives to the 
heresy), and that the God-fearing prince was very 
much grieved at this controversy, and strove by 
epistles and through Hosius, who was then bishop 
of Cordova, to bring back the dissenting parties 
into peace and concord, they having laid aside the 
strife existing between them with regard to such 
questions; and that when he could not persuade 
them to do this he convoked a synod from all 
quarters, and that it dissolved into peace the 
strife that had arisen. These things, however, are 
not described accurately or clearly; it would seem 
then that he is ashamed, as it were, and does not 
wish to make public the vote cast against Arius in 
the Synod, and the just retribution of those who 
were his companions in impiety and who were cast 
out together with him. Finally, he does not even 
mention the terrible fate which was inflicted by 
God upon Arius in the sight of all. None of these 
things he brings to the light, nor has he drawn up 
an account of the Synod and the things that were 
done in it. Whence, also, when about to write a 
narrative concerning the divine Eustathius, he 
does not even mention his name, nor what things 
were threatened and executed against him; but 
referring these things also to sedition and 
tumult, he again speaks of the calmness of the 
bishops, who having been convened in Antioch by 
the zeal and cooperation of the Emperor, changed 
the sedition and tumult into peace. Likewise as to 
what things were maliciously contrived against the 
ever-conquering Athanasius, when he set about 
making his history cover these things, he says 
that Alexandria again was filled with sedition and 
tumult, and that this was calmed by the coming of 
the bishops, who had the imperial aid. But he by 
no means makes it clear who was the leader of the 
sedition, what sort of sedition it was, or by what 
means the strife was settled. He also keeps up 
almost the same mode of dissimulating in his 
account of the contentions existing among bishops 
with respect to doctrines, and their disagreements 
on other matters." Joannes Zonaras, in his Third 
Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of 
Constantine.
"Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of C'sarea in 
Palestine, was at that time one of those who 
upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have 
afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of Arius, 
and to have become of like mind with those who 
hold that the Son is coëqual and of the same 
nature with the Father, and to have been received 
into communion by the holy Fathers. Moreover, in 
the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to have 
defended the faithful. These things are found thus 
narrated by some; but he makes them to appear 
doubtful by certain things which he is seen to 
have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in 
many places in the above-mentioned work he seems 
to be following after Arius. In the very beginning 
of his book, where he quotes David as saying, 'He 
spake and they were made, he commanded and they 
were estab-

72

lished,' he says that the Father and Maker is to 
be considered as maker and universal ruler, 
governing by a kingly nod, and that the second 
after him in authority, the divine Word, is 
subject to the commands of the Father. And farther 
on he says, that he, as being the power and wisdom 
of the Father, is entrusted with the second place 
in the kingdom and rule over all. And again, a 
little farther on, that there is also a certain 
essence, living and subsisting before the world, 
which ministers to the God and Father of the 
universe for the creation of things that are 
created. Also Solomon, in the person of the wisdom 
of God, says, 'The Lord created me in the 
beginning of his ways,' etc., and farther on he 
says: And besides all this, as the pre-existent 
word of God, who also preëxisted before all ages 
created, he received divine honor from the Father, 
and is worshipped as God. These and other things 
show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines, 
unless some one say that they were written before 
his conversion." Suidas, under the word 
<greek>Diodwros</greek>.
"Diodorus, a monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in 
Cilicia, in the times of Julian and Valens, wrote 
divers works, as Theodorus Lector states in his 
Ecclesiastical History. These are as follows: A 
Chronicle, which corrects the error of Eusebius 
Pamphilus with regard to chronology," etc.

The same Suidas, from Sophronius.

"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, 
bishop of C'sarea in Palestine, a man zealous in 
the study of the holy Scriptures, and along with 
Pamphilus the martyr a most careful investigator 
of sacred literature, has published many books, 
among which are the following."[1]

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

BOOK I.

CHAPTER I.

The Plan of the Work.

1  It is my purpose to write an account of the 
successions of the holy apostles, as well as of 
the times which have elapsed from the days of our 
Saviour to our own; and to relate the many 
important events which are said to have occurred 
in the history of the Church; and to mention those 
who have governed and presided over the Church in 
the most prominent parishes, and those who in each 
generation have proclaimed the divine word either 
orally or in writing.
2    It is my purpose also to give the names and 
number and times of those who through love of 
innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, 
proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge 
falsely so-called[1] have like fierce wolves 
unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.
3    It is my intention, moreover, to recount the 
misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole 
Jewish nation in consequence of their plots 
against our Saviour, and to record the ways and 
the times in which the divine word has been 
attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the 
character of those who at various periods have 
contended for it in the face of blood and of 
tortures, as well as the confessions which have 
been made in our own days, and finally the 
gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has 
afforded them all. Since I propose to write of all 
these things I shall commence my work with the 
beginning of the dispensation[2] of our Saviour 
and Lord Jesus Christ.[3]
4    But at the outset I must crave for my work 
the indulgence of the wise,[4] for I confess that 
it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and 
complete history, and since I am the first to 
enter upon the subject, I am attempting to 
traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden 
path.[5] I pray that I may have God as my guide 
and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am 
unable to find even the bare footsteps of those 
who have traveled the way before me, except in 
brief fragments, in which some in one way, others 
in another, have transmitted to us particular 
accounts of the times in which they lived. From 
afar they raise their voices like torches, and 
they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous 
watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how 
to direct the course of our work steadily and 
safely. 5      Having gathered therefore from the 
matters mentioned here and there by them whatever 
we consider important for the present work, and 
having plucked like flowers from a meadow the 
appropriate passages from ancient writers,[6] we 
shall endeavor to embody the whole in an 
historical narrative, content if we preserve the 
memory of

82

the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if 
not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of 
them in those churches which are the most noted, 
and which even to the present time are held in 
honor.
6   This work seems to me of especial importance 
because I know of no ecclesiastical writer who has 
devoted himself to this subject; and I hope that 
it will appear most useful to those who are fond 
of historical research.
7   I have already given an epitome of these 
things in the Chronological Canons[7] which I have 
composed, but notwithstanding that, I have 
undertaken in the present work to write as full an 
account of them as I am able.
8   My work will begin, as I have said, with the 
dispensation[8] of the Saviour Christ,--which is 
loftier and greater than human conception,--
9   and with a discussion of his divinity[9]; 9 
for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even 
our name from Christ, for one who proposes to 
write a history of the Church to begin with the 
very origin of Christ's dispensation, a 
dispensation more divine than many think.

CHAPTER II.

Summary View of the Pre-existence and Divinity of 
Our Saviour and Lord.Jesus Christ.
1  Since in Christ there is a twofold nature, and 
the one--in so far as he is thought of as 
God--resembles the head of the body, while the 
other may be compared with the feet,--in so far as 
he, for the sake of our salvation, put on human 
nature with the same passions as our own,--the 
following work will be complete only if we begin 
with the chief and lordliest events of all his 
history. In this way will the antiquity and 
divinity of Christianity be shown to those who 
suppose it of recent and foreign origin,[1] and 
imagine that it appeared only yesterday[2]
2   No language is sufficient to express the 
origin and the worth, the being and the nature of 
Christ. Wherefore also the divine Spirit says in 
the prophecies, "Who shall declare his 
generation?"[3] For none knoweth the Father except 
the Son, neither can any one know the Son 
adequately except the Father alone who hath 
begotten him.[4]
3   For alone who beside the Father could clearly 
understand the Light which was before the world, 
the intellectual and essential Wisdom which 
existed before the ages, the living Word which was 
in the beginning with the Father and which was 
God, the first and only begotten of God which was 
before every creature and creation visible and 
invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational 
and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the 
great counsel, the executor of the Father's 
unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of 
all things, the second cause of the universe after 
the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God, 
the Lord and God and King of all created things, 
the one who has received dominion and power, with 
divinity itself, and with might and honor from the 
Father; as it is said in regard to him in the 
mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his 
divinity: "In the beginning was the Word, and the 
Word was with God, and the Word was God."[5]
4   "All things were made by him; and without him 
was not anything made."[6] This, too, the great 
Moses teaches, when, as the most ancient of all 
the prophets, he describes under the influence of 
the divine Spirit the creation and arrangement of 
the universe. He declares that the maker of the 
world and the creator of all things yielded to 
Christ himself, and to none other than his own 
clearly divine and first-born Word, the making of 
inferior things, and communed with him respecting 
the creation of man.
5  "For," says he," God said, Let us make man in 
our image and in our likeness."[7] And another of 
the prophets confirms this, speaking of God in his 
hymns as follows: "He spake and they were made; he 
commanded and they were created."[8] He here 
introduces the Father and Maker as Ruler of all, 
commanding with a kingly nod, and second to him 
the divine Word, none other than the one who is 
proclaimed by us, as carrying out

83

6  the Father's commands. All that are said to 
have excelled in righteousness and piety since the 
creation of man, the great servant Moses and 
before him in the first place Abraham and his 
children, and as many righteous men and prophets 
as afterward appeared, have contemplated him with 
the pure eyes of the mind, and have recognized him 
and offered to him the worship which is due him as 
Son of God.
7   But he, by no means neglectful of the 
reverence due to the Father, was appointed to 
teach the knowledge of the Father to them all. For 
instance, the Lord God, it is said, appeared as a 
common man to Abraham while he was sitting at the 
oak of Mambre.[9] And he, immediately failing 
down, although he saw a man with his eyes, 
nevertheless worshiped him as God, and sacrificed 
to him as Lord, and confessed that he was not 
ignorant of his identity when he uttered the 
words, "Lord, the judge of all the earth, wilt 
thou not execute righteous judgment?"[10]
8   For if it is unreasonable to suppose that the 
unbegotten and immutable essence of the almighty 
God was changed into the form of man or that it 
deceived the eyes of the beholders with the 
appearance of some created thing, and if it is 
unreasonable to suppose, on the other hand, that 
the Scripture should falsely invent such things, 
when the God and Lord who judgeth all the earth 
and executeth judgment is seen in the form of a 
man, who else can be called, if it be not lawful 
to call him the first cause of all things, than 
his only pre-existent Word?[11] Concerning whom it 
is said in the Psalms, "He sent his Word and 
healed them, and delivered them from their 
destructions."[12]
9   Moses most clearly proclaims him second Lord 
after the Father, when he says, "The Lord rained 
upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from 
the Lord."[13] The divine Scripture also calls him 
God, when he appeared again to Jacob in the form 
of a man, and said to Jacob, "Thy name shall be 
called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy 
name, because thou hast prevailed with God."[14] 
Wherefore also Jacob called the name of that place 
"Vision of God,"[15] saying, "For I have seen God 
face to face, and my life is preserved."[16]
10   Nor is it admissible to suppose that the 
theophanies recorded were appearances of 
subordinate angels and ministers of God, for 
whenever any of these appeared to men, the 
Scripture does not conceal the fact, but calls 
them by name not God nor Lord, but angels, as it 
is easy to prove by numberless testimonies.
11   Joshua, also, the successor of Moses, calls 
him, as leader of the    heavenly angels and 
archangels and of the supramundane powers, and as 
lieutenant of the Father,[17] entrusted with the 
second rank of sovereignty and rule over all, 
"captain of the host of the Lords" although he saw 
him not otherwise than again in the form and 
appearance of a man. For it is written:
12  "And it came to pass when Joshua was at 
Jericho[18] that he looked and saw a man standing 
over against him with his sword drawn in his hand, 
and Joshua went unto him and said, Art  thou for 
us or for our adversaries? And he said unto him, 
As captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. 
And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and said 
unto him, Lord, what dost thou command thy 
servant? and the captain of the Lord said unto 
Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the 
place whereon thou standest is holy."[19]
13   You will perceive also from the 13 same words 
that this was no other than he who talked with 
Moses[20] For the Scripture says in the same words 
and with reference to the same one, "When the Lord 
saw that he drew near to see, the Lord called to 
him out of the bush and said, Moses, Moses. And he 
said, What is it? And he said, Draw not nigh 
hither; loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the 
place whereon thou standest is holy ground. And he 
said unto him, I am the God of thy fathers, the 
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God 
of Jacob."[21]
14   And that there is a certain substance which 
lived and subsisted[22]  before the world, and 
which ministered unto the Father and God of the 
universe for the formation of all created things, 
and which, is called the Word of God and Wisdom, 
we may learn, to quote other  proofs in addition 
to those already cited, from the mouth of Wisdom 
herself, who reveals most clearly through Solomon 
the following mysteries concerning herself: "I, 
Wisdom, have dwelt

84

with prudence and knowledge, and I have invoked 
understanding. Through me kings reign, and princes 
ordain righteousness.
15   Through me the great are magnified, and 
through me sovereigns rule the earth."[23] To 
which she adds: "The Lord created me in the 
beginning of his ways, for his works; before the 
world he established me, in the beginning, before 
he made the earth, before he made the depths, 
before the mountains were settled, before all 
hills he begat me. When he prepared the heavens I 
was present with him, and when he established the 
fountains of the region under heaven[24] I was 
with him, disposing.
16   I was the one in whom he delighted; daily I 
rejoiced before him at all times when he was 
rejoicing at having completed the world."[25] That 
the divine Word, therefore, pre-existed and 
appeared to some, if not to all, has thus been 
briefly shown by us.
17   But why the Gospel was not preached in 
ancient times to all men and to all nations, as it 
is now, will appear from the following 
considerations.[26] The life of the ancients was 
not of such a kind as to permit them to receive 
the all-wise and all-virtuous teaching 18 of 
Christ.
18   For immediately in the beginning, after his 
original life of blessedness, the first man 
despised the command of God, and fell into this 
mortal and perishable state, and exchanged his 
former divinely inspired luxury for this 
curse-laden earth. His descendants having filled 
our earth, showed themselves much worse, with the 
exception of one here and there, and entered upon 
a certain brutal and insupportable mode of life.
19   They thought neither of city nor state, 
neither of arts nor sciences. They were ignorant 
even of the name of laws and of justice, of virtue 
and of philosophy. As nomads, they passed their 
lives in deserts, like wild and fierce beasts, 
destroying, by an excess of voluntary wickedness, 
the natural reason of man, and the seeds of 
thought and of culture implanted in the human 
soul. They gave themselves wholly over to all 
kinds of profanity, now seducing one another, now 
slaying one another, now eating human flesh, and 
now daring to wage war with the Gods and to 
undertake those battles of the giants celebrated 
by all; now planning to fortify earth against 
heaven, and in the madness of ungoverned pride to 
prepare an attack upon the very God of all.[27]
20    On account of these things, when they 
conducted themselves thus, the all-seeing God sent 
down upon them floods and conflagrations as upon a 
wild forest spread over the whole earth. He cut 
them down with continuous famines and plagues, 
with wars, and with thunderbolts from heaven, as 
if to check some terrible and obstinate disease of 
souls with more severe punishments.
21   Then, when the excess of wickedness had 
overwhelmed nearly all the race, like a deep fit 
of drunkenness, beclouding and darkening the minds 
of men, the first-born and first-created wisdom of 
God, the pre-existent Word himself, induced by his 
exceeding love for man, appeared to his servants, 
now in the form of angels, and again to one and 
another of those ancients who enjoyed the favor of 
God, in his own person as the saving power of God, 
not otherwise, however, than in the shape of man, 
because it was impossible to appear in any other 
way.
22   And as by them the seeds of piety were sown 
among a multitude of men and the whole nation, 
descended from the Hebrews, devoted themselves 
persistently to the worship of God, he imparted to 
them through the prophet Moses, as to multitudes 
still corrupted by their ancient practices, images 
and symbols of a certain mystic Sabbath and of 
circumcision, and elements of other spiritual 
principles, but he did not grant them a complete 
knowledge of the mysteries themselves.
23   But when their law became celebrated, and, 
like a sweet odor, was diffused among all men, as 
a result of their influence the dispositions of 
the majority of the heathen were softened by the 
lawgivers and philosophers who arose on every 
side, and their wild and savage brutality was 
changed into mildness, so that they enjoyed deep 
peace, friendship, and social intercourse.[28] 
Then, finally, at the time of the origin of the 
Roman Empire, there appeared again to all men and 
nations throughout the world, who had been, as it 
were, previously assisted, and were now fitted to 
receive the knowledge of the Father, that same 
teacher

85

of virtue, the minister of the Father in all good 
things, the divine and heavenly Word of God, in a 
human body not at all differing in substance from 
our own. He did and suffered the things which had 
been prophesied. For it had been foretold that one 
who was at the same time man and God should come 
and dwell in the world, should perform wonderful 
works, and should show himself a teacher to all 
nations of the piety of the Father. The marvelous 
nature of his birth, and his new teaching, and his 
wonderful works had also been foretold; so 
likewise the manner of his death, his resurrection 
from the dead, and,finally, his divine ascension 
into heaven.
24   For instance, Daniel the prophet, under the 
influence of the divine Spirit, seeing his kingdom 
at the end of time,[29] was inspired thus to 
describe the divine vision in language fitted to 
human comprehension: "For I beheld," he says, 
"until thrones were placed, and the Ancient of 
Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow and 
the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne 
was a flame of fire and his wheels burning fire. A 
river of fire flowed before him. Thousand 
thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand 
times ten thousand stood before  him.
25    He appointed judgment, and the books were 
opened."[30] And again, "I saw," says he, "and 
behold, one like the Son of man came with the 
clouds of heaven, and he hastened unto the Ancient 
of Days and was brought into his presence, and 
there was given him the dominion and the glory and 
the kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues 
serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion 
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall 
not be destroyed."[31]
26    It is clear that these words can refer to no 
one else than to our Saviour, the God Word who was 
in the beginning with God, and who was called the 
Son of man because of his final appearance in the 
flesh. But since we have collected in separate 
books as the selections from the prophets which 
relate to our Saviour Jesus Christ, and have 
arranged in a more logical form those things which 
have been revealed concerning him, what has been 
said will suffice for the present.

CHAPTER III.

The Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were known 
from the Beginning,   and were honored by the 
Inspired Prophets.
1   It is now the proper place to show that the 
very name Jesus and also the name Christ were 
honored by the ancient prophets beloved of God.[1]
2     Moses was the first 2 to make known the name 
of Christ as a name especially august and 
glorious. When he delivered types and symbols of 
heavenly things, and mysterious images, in 
accordance with the oracle which said to him, 
"Look that thou make all things according to the 
pattern which was shown thee in the mount,"[2] he 
consecrated a man high priest of God, in so far as 
that was possible, and him he called Christ.[3] 
And thus to this dignity of the high priesthood, 
which in his opinion surpassed the most honorable 
position among men, he attached for the sake of 
honor and glory the name of Christ.
3   He knew so well that in Christ was something 
divine. And the same one foreseeing, under the 
influence of the divine Spirit, the name Jesus, 
dignified it also with a certain distinguished 
privilege. For the name of Jesus, which had never 
been uttered among men before the time of Moses, 
he applied first and only to the one who he knew 
would receive after his death, again as a type and 
symbol, the supreme command.
4    His successor, therefore, who had not 
hitherto borne the name Jesus, but had been called 
by another name, Auses,[4] which had been given 
him by his parents, he now called Jesus, bestowing 
the name upon him as a gift of honor, far greater 
than any kingly diadem. For Jesus himself, the son 
of Nave, bore a resemblance to our Saviour in the 
fact that he alone, after Moses and after the 
completion of the symbolical worship which had 
been transmitted by him, succeeded to the 
government of the true
and pure religion.
5   Thus Moses bestowed the name of our Saviour, 
Jesus Christ, as a mark of the highest honor, upon 
the two men who in his time surpassed all the rest 
of the people in virtue and glory; namely, upon 
the high priest and upon his own successor in the 
government.
6   And the prophets that came after also clearly 
foretold Christ by
name, predicting at the same time the plots which 
the Jewish people would form against him, and the 
calling of the nations through him. Jeremiah, for 
instance, speaks as follows: "The

86

Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord, was taken 
in their destructions; of whom we said, under his 
shadow we shall live among the nations."[5] And 
David, in perplexity, says, "Why did the nations 
rage and the people imagine vain things? The kings 
of the earth set themselves in array, and the 
rulers were gathered together against the Lord and 
against his Christ";[6] to which he adds, in the 
person of Christ himself, "The Lord said unto me, 
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 
Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for 
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the 
earth for thy possession."[7]
7   And not only those who were honored with the 
high priesthood, and who for the sake of the 
symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, 
were adorned with the name of Christ among the 
Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets 
anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, 
and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs. 
For they also bore in their own persons types of 
the royal and sovereign power of the true and only 
Christ, the divine Word who ruleth over all.
8   And we have been told also that certain of the 
prophets themselves became, by the act of 
anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have 
reference to the true Christ, the divinely 
inspired and heavenly Word, who is the only high 
priest of all, and the only King of every 
creature, and the Father's only supreme prophet of 
prophets.
9   And a proof of this is that no one of those 
who were of old symbolically anointed, whether 
priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed so great 
a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our 
Saviour and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.
10   None of them at least, however superior in 
dignity and honor they may have been for many 
generations among their own people, ever gave to 
their followers the name of Christians from their 
own typical name of Christ. Neither was divine 
honor ever rendered to any one of them by their 
subjects; nor after their death was the 
disposition of their followers such that they were 
ready to die for the one whom they honored. And 
never did so great a commotion arise among all the 
nations of the earth in respect to any one of that 
age; for the mere symbol could not act with such 
power among them as the truth itself which was 
exhibited by our Saviour.
11   He, although he received no symbols and types 
of high priesthood from any one, although he was 
not born of a race of priests, although he was not 
elevated to a kingdom by military guards, although 
he was not a prophet like those of old, although 
he obtained no honor nor pre-eminence among the 
Jews, nevertheless was adorned by the Father with 
all, if not with the symbols, yet with the truth 
itself.
12   And therefore, although he did not possess 
like honors with those whom we have mentioned, he 
is called Christ more than all of them. And as 
himself the true and only Christ of God, he has 
filled the whole earth with the truly august and 
sacred name of Christians, committing to his 
followers no longer types and images, but the 
uncovered virtues themselves, and a heavenly life 
in the very doctrines of truth.
13   And he was not anointed with oil prepared 
from material substances, but, as befits divinity, 
with the divine Spirit himself, by participation 
in the unbegotten deity of the Father. And this is 
taught also again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as if 
in the person of Christ himself, "The Spirit of 
the Lord is upon me; therefore hath he anointed 
me. He hath sent me to preach the Gospel to the 
poor, to proclaim deliverance to captives, and 
recovery of sight to the blind."[8]
14   And not only Isaiah, but also David addresses 
him, saying, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and 
ever. A scepter of equity is the scepter of thy 
kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hast 
hated iniquity. Therefore God, thy God, hath 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy 
fellows."[9] Here the Scripture calls him God in 
the first verse, in the second it honors him with 
a royal scepter.
15    Then a little farther on, after the divine 
and royal power, it represents him in the third 
place as having become Christ, being anointed not 
with oil made of material substances, but with the 
divine oil of gladness. It thus indicates his 
especial honor, far superior to and different from 
that of those who, as types, were of old anointed 
in a more material way.
16    And elsewhere the same writer speaks of him 
as follows: "The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand 
until I make thine enemies thy footstool";[10] 
and, "Out of the womb, before the morning star, 
have I begotten thee. The Lord hath sworn and he 
will not repent. Thou art a priest forever after 
the order of Melchizedec."[11]
17    But this Melchizedec is introduced in the 
Holy Scriptures as a priest of the most high 
God,[12] not consecrated by any anointing oil, 
especially prepared, and not even belonging by 
descent to the priesthood of the Jews. Wherefore 
after his order, but not after the order of the 
others, who received symbols and types, was our 
Saviour proclaimed, with
an appeal to an oath, Christ and priest.
18   History, therefore, does not relate that he 
18 was anointed corporeally by the Jews, nor

Please choose an option.87

that he belonged to the lineage of priests, but 
that he came into existence from God himself 
before the morning star, that is before the 
organization of the world, and that he obtained an 
immortal and undecaying priesthood for eternal 
ages.
19   But it is a great and convincing proof of his 
incorporeal and divine unction that he alone of 
all those who have ever existed is even to the 
present day called Christ by all men throughout 
the world, and is confessed and witnessed to under 
this name, and is commemorated both by Greeks and 
Barbarians and even to this day is honored as a 
King by his followers throughout the world, and is 
admired as more than a prophet, and is glorified 
as the true and only high priest of God.[13] And 
besides all this, as the pre-existent Word of God, 
called into being before all ages, he has received 
august honor from the Father, and is worshiped as 
God.
20   But most wonderful of all is the fact that we 
who have consecrated ourselves to him, honor him 
not only with our voices and with the sound of 
words, but also with complete elevation of soul, 
so that we choose to give testimony unto him 
rather than to preserve our own lives.
21  I have of necessity prefaced my history with 
these matters in order that no one, judging from 
the date of his incarnation, may think that our 
Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ, has but 
recently come into being.

CHAFFER IV.

The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations was 
neither New nor Strange.
1   But that no one may suppose that his doctrine 
is new and strange, as if it were framed by a man 
of recent origin, differing in no respect from 
other men, let us now briefly consider this point 
also.
2   It is admitted that when in recent times the 
appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ had become 
known to all men there immediately made its 
appearance a new nation; a nation confessedly not 
small, and not dwelling in some corner of the 
earth, but the most numerous and pious of all 
nations,[1] indestructible and unconquerable, 
because it always receives assistance from God. 
This nation, thus suddenly appearing at the time 
appointed by the inscrutable counsel of God, is 
the one which has been honored by all with the 
name of Christ.
3   One of the prophets, when he saw beforehand 
with the eye of the Divine Spirit that which was 
to be, was so astonished at it that he cried out, 
"Who hath heard of such things, and who hath 
spoken thus? Hath the earth brought forth in one 
day, and hath a nation been born at once?"[2] And 
the same prophet gives a hint also of the name by 
which the nation was to be called, when he says, 
"Those that serve me shall be called by a new 
name, which shall be blessed upon the earth."[3]
4   But although it is clear that we are new and 
that this new name of Christians has really but 
recently been known among all nations, 
nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our 
doctrines of religion, have not been lately 
invented by us, but from the first creation of 
man, so to speak, have been established by the 
natural understanding of divinely favored men of 
old. That this is so we shall show in the 
following way.
5   That the Hebrew nation is not new, but is 
universally honored on account of its antiquity, 
is known to all. The books and writings of this 
people contain accounts of ancient men, rare 
indeed and few in number, but nevertheless 
distinguished for piety and righteousness and 
every other virtue. Of these, some excellent men 
lived before the flood, others of the sons and 
descendants of Noah lived after it, among them 
Abraham, whom the Hebrews celebrate as their own 
founder and forefather.
6   If any one should assert that all those who 
have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from 
Abraham himself back to the first man, were 
Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go 
beyond the truth.[4]
7   For that which the name indicates, that the 
Christian man, through the knowledge and the 
teaching of Christ, is distinguished for 
temperance and righteousness, for patience in life 
and manly virtue, and for a profession of piety 
toward the one and only God over all--all that was 
zealously practiced by them not less than by us.
8   They did not care about circumcision of the 
body, neither do we. They did not care about 
observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid 
certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the 
other distinctions which Moses first delivered to 
their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do 
Christians of the present day do such things. But 
they also clearly knew the very Christ of God; for 
it has already been shown that he appeared unto 
Abraham, that he imparted revelations to Isaac, 
that he talked with Jacob, that he held converse 
with Moses and with the prophets that came after.
9   Hence you will find those divinely favored men 
honored with the name of Christ, according to the 
passage which says of them, "Touch not my Christs, 
and do my prophets no harm."[5]

88

10   So that it is clearly necessary to consider 
that religion, which has lately been preached to 
all nations through the teaching of Christ, the 
first and most ancient of all religions, and the 
one discovered by those divinely favored men in 
the age of Abraham.
11   If it is said that Abraham, a long time 
afterward, was given the command of circumcision, 
we reply that nevertheless before this it was 
declared that he had received the testimony of 
righteousness through faith; as the divine word 
says, "Abraham believed in God, and it was counted 
unto him for righteousness."[6]
12   And indeed unto Abraham, who was thus before 
his circumcision a justified man, there was given 
by God, who revealed himself unto him (but this 
was Christ himself, the word of God), a prophecy 
in regard to those who in coming ages should be 
justified in the same way as he. The prophecy was 
in the following words: "And in  thee shall all 
the tribes of the earth be blessed.''[7] And 
again, "He shall become a nation great and 
numerous; and in him shall all the nations of the 
earth be blessed.''[8]
13   It is permissible to understand this as 
fulfilled in us. For he, having renounced the 
superstition of his fathers, and the former error 
of his life, and having confessed the one God over 
all, and having worshiped him with deeds of 
virtue, and not with the service of the law which 
was afterward given by Moses, was justified by 
faith in Christ, the Word of God, who appeared 
unto him. To him, then, who was a man of this 
character, it was said that all the tribes and all 
the nations of the earth should be blessed in him.
14   But that very religion of Abraham has 
reappeared at the present time, practiced in 
deeds, more efficacious than words, by Christians 
alone throughout the world.
15   What then should prevent the confession that 
we who are of Christ practice one and the same 
mode of life and have one and the same religion as 
those divinely favored men of old? Whence it is 
evident that the perfect religion committed to us 
by the teaching of Christ is not new and strange, 
but, if the truth must be spoken, it is the first 
and the true religion. This may suffice for this 
subject.

CHAPTER V.

The Time of his Appearance among Men.

1   AND now, after this necessary introduction to 
our proposed history of the Church, we can enter, 
so to speak, upon our journey, beginning with the 
appearance of our Saviour in the flesh. And we 
invoke God, the Father of the Word, and him, of 
whom we have been speaking, Jesus Christ himself 
our Saviour and Lord, the heavenly Word of God, as 
our aid and fellow-laborer in the narration of the 
truth.
2   It was in the forty-second year of the reign 
of Augustus[1] and the twenty-eighth after the 
subjugation of Egypt and the death of Antony and 
Cleopatra, with whom the dynasty of the Ptolemies 
in Egypt came to an end, that our Saviour and Lord 
Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, 
according to the prophecies which had been uttered 
concerning him.[2] His birth took place during the 
first census, while Cyrenius was governor of 
Syria.[3]
3   Flavius Josephus, the most celebrated of 
Hebrew historians, also mentions this census,[4] 
which was taken during Cyrenius'

89

term of office. In the same connection he gives an 
account of the uprising of the Galileans, which 
took place at that time, of which also Luke, among 
our writers, has made mention in the Acts, in the 
following words: "After this man rose up Judas of 
Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away a 
multitude[5] after him: he also perished; and all, 
even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."[6]
4   The above-mentioned author, in the eighteenth 
book of his Antiquities, in agreement with these 
words, adds the following, which we quote exactly: 
"Cyrenius, a member of the senate, one who had 
held other offices and had l passed through them 
all to the consulship, a man also of great dignity 
in other respects, came to Syria with a small 
retinue, being sent by C'sar to be a judge of the 
nation and to make an assessment of their 
property."[7]
5   And after a little[8] he says: "But Judas,[9] 
a Gaulonite, from a city called Gamala, taking 
with him Sadduchus,[10] a Pharisee, urged the 
people to revolt, both of them saying that the 
taxation meant nothing else than downright 
slavery, and exhorting the nation to defend their 
liberty."
6   And in the second book of his History of the 
Jewish War, he writes as follows concerning the 
same man: "At this time a certain Galilean, whose 
name was Judas, persuaded his countrymen to 
revolt, declaring that they were cowards if they 
submitted to pay tribute to the Romans, and if 
they endured, besides God, masters who were 
mortal."[11] These things are recorded by 
Josephus.

CHAPTER VI.

About the Time of Christ, in accordance with 
Prophecy, the Rulers who had governed the Fewish 
Nation in Regular Succession from the Days of 
Antiquity came to an End, and Herod, the First 
Foreigner, became King.
1   When Herod,[1] the first ruler of foreign 
blood, became King, the prophecy of Moses received 
its fulfillment, according to which there should 
"not be wanting a prince of Judah, nor a ruler 
from his loins, until he come for whom it is 
reserved."[2] The latter, he also shows, was to be 
the expectation of the nations.[3]
2   This prediction remained unfulfilled so long 
as it was permitted them to live under rulers from 
their own nation, that is, from the time of Moses 
to the reign of Augustus. Under the latter, Herod, 
the first foreigner, was given the Kingdom of the 
Jews by the Romans. As Josephus relates,[4] he was 
an Idumean[5] on his father's side and an Arabian 
on his mother's. But Africanus,[6] who was also no 
common writer, says that they who were more 
accurately informed about him report that he was a 
son of Antipater, and that the latter was the son 
of a certain Herod of Ascalon,[7] one of the 
so-called

90

servants[8] of the temple of Apollo.
3   This Antipater, having been taken a prisoner 
while a boy by Idumean robbers, lived with them, 
because his father, being a poor man, was unable 
to pay a ransom for him. Growing up in their 
practices he was afterward befriended by 
Hyrcanus,[9] the high priest of the Jews. A son of 
his was that Herod who lived in the, times of our 
Saviour.[10]
4   When the Kingdom of the Jews had devolved upon 
such a man the expectation of the nations was, 
according to prophecy, already at the door. For 
with him their princes and governors, who had 
ruled in regular succession from the time of Moses 
came to an end.
5   Before their captivity and their 
transportation to Babylon they were ruled by Saul 
first and then by David, and before the kings 
leaders governed them who were called Judges, and 
who came after Moses and his successor Jesus.
6   After their return from Babylon they continued 
to have without interruption an aristocratic form 
of government, with an oligarchy. For the priests 
had the direction of affairs until Pompey, the 
Roman general, took Jerusalem by force, and 
defiled the holy places by entering the very 
innermost sanctuary of the temple.[11] 
Aristobulus,[12] who, by the right of ancient 
succession, had been up to that time both king and 
high priest, he sent with his children in chains 
to Rome; and gave to Hyrcanus, brother of 
Aristobulus, the high priesthood, while the whole 
nation of the Jews was made tributary to the 
Romans from that time.[13]
7   But Hyrcanus, who was the last of the regular 
line of high priests, was, very soon afterward 
taken prisoner by the Parthians,[14] and Herod, 
the first foreigner, as I have already said, was 
made King of the Jewish nation by the Roman senate 
and by Augustus.
8   Under him Christ appeared in bodily shape, and 
the expected Salvation of the nations and their 
calling followed in accordance with prophecy.[15] 
From this time the princes and rulers of Judah, I 
mean of the Jewish nation, came to an end, and as 
a natural consequence the order of the high 
priesthood, which from ancient times had proceeded 
regularly in closest succession from generation to 
generation, was immediately thrown into 
confusion,[16]
9   Of these things Josephus is also a 
witness,[17] who shows that when Herod was made 
King by the Romans he no longer appointed the high 
priests from the ancient line, but gave the honor 
to certain obscure persons. A course similar to 
that of Herod in the appointment of the priests 
was pursued by his son Archelaus,[18] and after 
him by the Romans, who took the government into 
their own hands.[19]
10  The same writer shows[20] that Herod was the 
first that locked up the sacred garment of the 
high priest. under his own seal and refused to 
permit the high priests to keep it for themselves. 
The same course was followed by Archelaus after 
him, and after Archelaus by the Romans.
11  These things have been recorded by us in order 
to show that another prophecy has been fulfilled 
in the appearance of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For 
the Scripture, in the book of Daniel,[21] having 
expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks 
until the coming of Christ, of which we have 
treated in other books,[22] most clearly 
prophesies, that after the completion of those 
weeks the unction among the Jews should totally 
perish. And this, it has been clearly shown, was 
fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ. This has been neces-

91

sarily premised by us as a proof of the 
correctness of the time.

CHAPTER VII.

The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard
to the Genealogy of Christ.

1   Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given 
us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many 
suppose that they are at variance with one 
another. Since as a consequence every believer, in 
ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent 
some explanation which shall harmonize the two 
passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the 
matter which has come down to us,[1] and which is 
given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just 
above, in his epistle to Aristides,[2] where he 
discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. 
After refuting the opinions of others as forced 
and deceptive, he give the account which he had 
received from tradition[3] in these words: 2   
"For whereas the names of the generations were 
reckoned in Israel either according to nature or 
according to law;--according to nature by the 
succession of legitimate offspring, and according 
to law whenever another raised up a child to the 
name of a brother dying childless;[4]  for because 
a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given 
they had a representation of the future promise by 
a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the 
name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;--
3   whereas then some of those who are inserted in 
this genealogical table succeeded by natural 
descent, the son to the father, while others, 
though born of one father, were ascribed by name 
to another, mention was made of both of those who 
were progenitors in fact and of those who were so 
only in name.
4   Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for 
one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the 
line of descent from Solomon and that from 
Nathan[5] were so involved, the one with the 
other, by the raising up of children to the 
childless and by second marriages, that the same 
persons are justly considered to belong at one 
time to one, at another time to another; that is, 
at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to 
the actual fathers. So that both these accounts 
are strictly true and come down to Joseph with 
considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite 
accurately.
5   But in order that what I have said may be made 
clear I shall explain the interchange of the 
generations. If we reckon the generations from 
David through Solomon, the third from the end is 
found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of 
Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from 
Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third 
from the end is Melchi,[6] whose son Eli was the 
father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of 
Eli,the son of Melchi.
6   Joseph therefore being the object proposed to 
us, it must be shown how it is that each is 
recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived 
his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his 
from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob 
and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that 
their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of 
different families, are declared to be 
grandfathers of Joseph.
7   Matthan and Melchi having married in 
succession the same woman, begat children who were 
uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a 
widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of 
her husband, from marryinganother.
8   By Estha[7] then (for this was the woman's 
name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant 
of Solomon, first begat Jacob.

92

And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his 
descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe[8] 
but of another family,[9] married her as before 
said, and begat a son Eli.
9   Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, 
although belonging to different families, yet 
brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, 
Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, 
took the latter's wife and begat by her a son to 
Joseph, his own son by nature n and in accordance 
with reason. Wherefore also it is written: 'Jacob 
begat Joseph.'[12] But according to law[13] he was 
the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of 
the latter, raised up seed to him.
10   Hence the genealogy traced through him will 
not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew 
in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begat 
Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who 
was the son, as was supposed'[14] (for this he 
also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of 
Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the 
generation according to law. And the expression 
'he begat' he has omitted in his genealogical 
table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to 
Adam the son of God. This interpretation is 
neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle 
conjecture.[15]
11   For the relatives of our Lord according to 
the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or 
simply wishing to state the fact, in either case 
truly, have banded down the following account:[16] 
Some Idumean robbers,[17] having attacked Ascalon, 
a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of 
Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to 
other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple 
slave named Herod. And since the priest[18] was 
not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater 
was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and 
afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high 
priest of the Jews.
12   And having, been sent by Hyrcanus on an 
embassy to Pompey, and having restored to

93

him the kingdom which had been invaded by his 
brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be 
named procurator of Palestine.[19] But Antipater 
having been slain by those who were envious of his 
great good fortune[20] was succeeded by his son 
Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the 
senate, made King of the Jews[21] under Antony and 
Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other 
tetrarchs.[22] These accounts agree also with 
those of the Greeks.[23]
13   But as there had been kept in the 
archives[24] up to that time the genealogies of 
the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their 
lineage back to proselytes,[25] such as Achior 
[26] the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to 
those who were mingled with the Israelites and 
came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as 
the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing 
to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the 
consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, 
burned all the genealogical records,[27] thinking 
that he might appear of noble origin if no one 
else were able, from the public registers, to 
trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or 
proselytes and to those mingled with them, who 
were called Georae.[28]
14   A few of the careful, however, having 
obtained private records of their own, either by 
remembering the names or by getting them in some 
other way from the registers, pride themselves on 
preserving the memory of their noble extraction. 
Among these are those already mentioned, called 
Desposyni,[29] on account of their connection with 
the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and 
Cochaba,[30]  villages of Judea,[31] into other 
parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid 
genealogy from memory[32]  and from the book of 
daily records[33] as faithfully as  possible.
15   Whether then the case stand thus or not no 
one could find a clearer explanation, according to 
my own opinion and that of every candid person. 
And let this suffice us,

94

for, although we can urge no testimony in its 
support,[34] we have nothing. better or truer to 
offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth." 
And at the end of the same epistle he adds these 
words: "Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, 
begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, 
who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the 
same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine 
brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised 
up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by 
nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was 
the son of both."
17   Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph 
being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to 
be of the same tribe with him, since, according to 
the law of Moses, inter-marriages between 
different tribes were not permitted.[35] For the 
command is to marry one of the same family[36] and 
lineage,[37] so that the inheritance may not pass 
from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Cruelty of Herod toward the Infants, and
the Manner of his Death.

1   When Christ was born, according to the 
prophecies, in Bethlehem of Judea, at the time 
indicated, Herod was not a little disturbed by the 
enquiry of the magi who came from the east, asking 
where he who was born King of the Jews was to be 
found,--for they had seen his star, and this was 
their reason for taking so long a journey; for 
they earnestly desired to worship the infant as 
God,[1]-- for he imagined that his kingdom might 
be endangered; and he enquired therefore of the 
doctors of the law, who belonged to the Jewish 
nation, where they expected Christ to be born. 
When he learned that the prophecy of Micah[2] 
announced that Bethlehem was to be his birthplace 
he commanded, in a single edict, all the male 
infants in  Bethlehem, and all its borders, that 
were two  years of age or less, according to the 
time which he had accurately ascertained from the 
magi, to be slain, supposing that Jesus, as was 
indeed likely, would share the same fate as the 
others of his own age.
2   But the child anticipated the snare, being 
carried into Egypt by his parents, who had learned 
from an angel that appeared unto them what was 
about to happen, These things are recorded by the 
Holy Scriptures in the Gospel.[3]
3   It is worth while, in addition to this, to 
observe the reward which Herod received for his 
daring crime against Christ and those of the same 
age. For immediately, without the least delay, the 
divine vengeance overtook him while he was still 
alive, and gave him a foretaste of what he was to 
receive after death.
4   It is not possible to relate here how he 
tarnished the supposed felicity of his reign by 
successive calamities in his family, by the murder 
of wife and children, and others of his nearest 
relatives and dearest friends.[4] The account, 
which casts every other tragic drama into the 
shade, is detailed at length in the histories of 
Josephus.[5] 5   How, immediately after his crime 
against our Saviour and the other infants, the 
punishment sent by God drove him on to his death, 
we can best learn from the words of that historian 
who, in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities of 
the Jews, writes as follows concerning his 
end:[6]"
6   But the disease of Herod grew more severe, God 
inflicting punishment for his crimes. For a slow 
fire burned in him which was not so apparent to 
those who touched him, but augmented his internal 
distress; for he had a terrible desire for food 
which it was not possible to resist. He was 
affected also with ulceration of the intestines, 
and with especially severe pains in the colon, 
while a watery and transparent humor settled about 
his feet.
7   He suffered also from a similar trouble in his 
abdomen. Nay more, his privy member was putrefied 
and produced worms. He found also excessive 
difficulty in breathing, and it was particularly 
disagreeable because of the offensive-

95

ness of the odor and the rapidity of respiration.
8   He had convulsions also in every limb, which 
gave him uncontrollable strength. It was said, 
indeed, by those who possessed the power of 
divination and wisdom to explain such events, that 
God had inflicted this punishment upon the King on 
account of his great impiety."
9   The writer mentioned above recounts these 
things in the work referred to. And in the second 
book of his History he gives a similar account of 
the same Herod, which runs as follows:[7] "The 
disease then seized upon his whole body and 
distracted it by various torments. For he had a 
slow fever, and the itching of the skin of his 
whole body was insupportable. He suffered also 
from continuous pains in his colon, and there were 
swellings on his feet like those of a person 
suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was 
inflamed and his privy member so putrefied as to 
produce worms. Besides this he could breathe only 
in an upright posture, and then only with 
difficulty, and he had convulsions in all his 
limbs, so that the diviners said that his diseases 
were a punishment.[8] 10   But he, although 
wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung 
to life and hoped for safety, and devised methods 
of cure. For instance, crossing over Jordan he 
used the warm baths at Callirhoë,[9] which flow 
into the Lake Asphaltites,[10] but are themselves 
sweet enough to drink.
11   His physicians here thought that they could 
warm his whole body again by means of heated oil. 
But when they had let him down into a tub filled 
with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like 
the eyes of a dead person. But when his attendants 
raised an outcry, he recovered at the noise; but 
finally, despairing of a cure, he commanded about 
fifty drachms to be distributed among the 
soldiers, and great sums to be given to his 
generals 12 and friends.
12   Then returning he came to Jericho, where, 
being seized with melancholy, he planned to commit 
an impious deed, as if challenging death itself. 
For, collecting from every town the most 
illustrious men of all Judea, he commanded that 
they be shut up in the so-called hippodrome. 13   
And having summoned Salome,[11] his sister, and 
her husband, Alexander,[12]  he said: 'I know that 
the Jews will rejoice at my death. But I may be 
lamented by others and have a splendid funeral if 
you are willing to perform my commands. When I 
shall expire surround these men, who are now under 
guard, as quickly as possible with soldiers, and 
slay them, in order that all Judea and every house 
may weep for me even against their will.'"[13] And 
after a little Josephus says,
14   "And again he was so tortured by want of food 
and by a convulsive cough that, overcome by his 
pains,  he planned to anticipate his fate. Taking 
an  apple he asked also for a knife, for he was 
accustomed to cut apples and eat them. Then 
looking round to see that there was no one to 
hinder, he raised his right hand as if to stab 
himself."[14]
15   In addition to these things the same writer 
records that he slew another of his own sons[13] 
before his death, the third one slain by his 
command, and that immediately afterward he 
breathed his last, not without excessive pain.
16   Such was the end of Herod, who suffered a 
just punishment for his slaughter of the children 
of Bethlehem,[16] which was the result of his 
plots against our Saviour.
17   After this an angel appeared in a dream to 
Joseph in Egypt and commanded him to go to Judea 
with the child and its mother, revealing to him 
that those who had sought the life of the child 
were dead.[7] To this the evangelist adds, "But 
when he heard that Archelaus did reign in the room 
of his father Herod he was afraid to go thither; 
notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream he 
turned aside into the parts of Galilee."[18]

96

CHAPTER IX.
The Times of Pilate.

THE historian already mentioned agrees with the 
evangelist in regard to the fact that Archelaus[1] 
succeeded to the government after Herod. He 
records the manner in which he received the 
kingdom of the Jews by the will of his father 
Herod and by the decree of C'sar Augustus, and 
how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his 
kingdom, and his brothers Philip[2] and Herod the 
younger,[3] with Lysanias,[4] still ruled their 
own tetrarchies. The same writer, in the 
eighteenth book of his Antiquities,[5] says that 
about the twelfth year of the reign of 
Tiberius,[6] who had succeeded to the empire after 
Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years,[7] Pontius 
Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, 
and that he remained there ten full years, almost 
until the death of Tiberius.
2   Accordingly the forgery of those who have 
recently given currency to acts against our 
Saviour[8] is clearly proved. For the very date 
given in them[9] shows the falsehood of their 
fabricators.
3   For the things which they have dared to say 
concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into 
the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred 
in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it 
is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, 
if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, 
who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work[10] 
that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by 
Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

CHAPTER, X.

The High Priests of the Jews under whom 
Christtaught.

1   IT was in the fifteenth year of the reign of 
Tiberius,[1] according to the evangelist, and in 
the fourth year of the governorship of Pontius 
Pilate,[2] while Herod and Lysanias and Philip 
were ruling the rest of Judea,[3] that our Saviour 
and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being about 
thirty years of age,[4] came to John for baptism 
and began the promulgation of the Gospel.
2   The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he 
passed the entire time of his ministry under the 
high priests Annas and Caiaphas,[5] showing that 
in the time which be-

97

longed to the priesthood of those two men the 
whole period of his teaching was completed. Since 
he began his work during the high priesthood of 
Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, 
the entire time does not comprise quite four 
years.
3   For the rites of the law having been already 
abolished since that time, the customary usages in 
connection with the worship of God, according to 
which the high priest acquired his office by 
hereditary descent and held it for life, were also 
annulled and there were appointed to the high 
priesthood by the Roman governors now one and now 
another person who continued in office not more 
than one year.[6]
4   Josephus relates that there were four high 
priests in succession from Annas to Caiaphas. Thus 
in the same book of the Antiquities[7] he writes 
as follows: "Valerius Graters[8] having put an end 
to the priesthood of Ananus[9] appoints 
Ishmael,[10] the son of Fabi, high priest. And 
having removed him after a little he appoints 
Eleazer,[11] the son of Ananus the high priest, to 
the same office. And having removed him also at 
the end of a year he gives the high priesthood to 
Simon,[12] the son of Camithus. But he likewise 
held the honor no more than a year, when Josephus, 
called also Caiaphas,[13] succeeded him." 
Accordingly the whole time of our Saviour's 
ministry is shown to have been not quite four full 
years, four high priests, from Annas to the 
accession of Caiaphas, having held office a year 
each. The Gospel therefore has rightly indicated 
Caiaphas as the high priest under whom the Saviour 
suffered. From which also we can see that the time 
of our Saviour's ministry does not disagree with 
the foregoing investigation.
5   Our Saviour and Lord, not long after the 5 
beginning of his ministry, called the twelve 
apostles,[14] and these alone of all his disciples 
he named apostles, as an especial honor. And again 
he appointed seventy others whom he sent out two 
by two before his face into every place and city 
whither he himself was about to come.[15]

CHAPTER XI.

Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and
Christ.

1   NOT long after this John the Baptist was 
beheaded by the younger Herod,[1] as is stated in 
the Gospels.[2] Josephus also records the same 
fact,[3] making mention of Herodias[4]  by name, 
and stating that, although she was the wife of his 
brother, Herod made her his own wife after 
divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the 
daughter of Aretas,[5] king of Petra, and 
separating Herodias from her husband while he was 
still alive.
2   It was on her account also that he slew John, 
and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace 
inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus 
relates that in this war, when they came to 
battle, Herod's entire army was destroyed,[6] and 
that he suffered this calamity on account of his 
crime against John.
3   The same Josephus confesses in this account 
that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous 
man, and thus agrees with the things written of 
him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod 
lost his kingdom on account of

98

the same Herodias, and that he was driven into 
banishment with her, and condemned to live at 
Vienne in Gaul.[7]
4   He relates these things in the eighteenth book 
of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the 
following words:[8] "It seemed to some of the Jews 
that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who 
most justly avenged John called the Baptist.
5   For Herod slew him, a good man and one who 
exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, 
practicing virtue and exercising righteousness 
toward each other and toward God; for baptism 
would appear acceptable unto Him when they 
employed it, not for the remission of certain 
sins, but for the purification of the body, as the 
soul had been already purified in righteousness.
6   And when others gathered about him (for they 
found much pleasure in listening to his words), 
Herod feared that his great influence might lead 
to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do 
whatever he might advise. He therefore considered 
it much better, before any new thing should be 
done under John's influence, to anticipate it by 
slaying him, than to repent after revolution had 
come, and when he found himself in the midst of 
difficulties.[9] On account of Herod's suspicion 
John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned 
citadel of Mach'ra,[10] and there slain."
7   After relating these things concerning John, 
he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, 
in the following words:[11] "And there lived at 
that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be 
proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of 
wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as 
receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to 
himself many of the Jews, and many also of the 
Greeks. He was the Christ.
8   When Pilate, on the accusation of our 
principal men, condemned him to the cross, those 
who had loved him in the beginning did not cease 
loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive 
on the third day, the divine prophets having told 
these and countless other wonderful things 
concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, 
named after him, continues down to the present 
day."
9   Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews 
themselves, has recorded in his work these things 
concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what 
excuse is there left for not convicting them of 
being destitute of all shame, who have forged the 
acts against them?[12] But let this suffice here.

CHAPTER XII.

The Disciples of our Saviour.

1   THE names of the apostles of our Saviour are 
known to every one from the Gospels.[1] But there 
exists no catalogue of the seventy disciples.[2] 
Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of 
them, of whom the Acts of the apostles makes 
mention in various places,[3]

99

and especially Paul in his Epistle to the 
Galatians.[4]
2   They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to  
the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them.[5]  
This is the account of Clement[6] in the fifth  
book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says 
that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples,[7] a 
man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, 
and the one concerning whom Paul says, "When 
Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his 
face."[8]
3     Matthias,[9] also, who was numbered with the 
apostles in the place of Judas, and the one who 
was honored by being made a candidate with 
him,[10] are like-wise said to have been deemed 
worthy of the same calling with the seventy. They 
say that Thaddeus[11] also was one of them, 
concerning whom I shall presently relate an 
account which has come down to us.[12] And upon 
examination you will find that our Saviour had 
more than seventy disciples, according to the 
testimony of Paul, who says that after his 
resurrection from the dead he appeared first to 
Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to 
above five hundred brethren at once, of whom some 
had fallen asleep;[13] but the majority were still 
living 4 at the time he wrote.
4    Afterwards he says he appeared unto James, 
who was one of the so-called brethren of the 
Saviour.[14] But, since in addition to these, 
there were many others who were called apostles, 
in imitation of the Twelve, as was Paul himself, 
he adds: "Afterward he appeared to all the 
apostles."[15] So much in regard to these persons. 
But the story concerning Thaddeus is as follows.

100

CHAPTER XIII.

Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessences.
1   The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ being noised abroad among all men on 
account of his wonder-working power, he attracted 
countless numbers from foreign countries lying far 
away from Judea, who had the opening of being 
cured of their diseases and of all kinds of 
sufferings.
2    For instance the King Abgarus,[1] who ruled 
with great
glory the nations beyond the Euphrates, being 
afflicted with a terrible disease which it was 
beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he 
heard of the name of Jesus, and of his miracles, 
which were attested by all with one accord sent a 
message to him by a courier and begged him to heal 
his disease.
3    But he did not at that time comply with his 
request; yet he deemed him worthy of a personal 
letter in which he said that he would send one of 
his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same 
time promised salvation to himself and all his 
house.
4    Not long afterward his  promise was 
fulfilled. For after his resurrection from the 
dead and his ascent into heaven, Thomas,[2] one of 
the twelve apostles, under divine impulse sent 
Thaddeus, who was also numbered among the seventy 
disciples of Christ,[3] to Edessa,[4] as a 
preacher and evangelist of the teaching of Christ.
5    And all that our Saviour had promised 
received through him its fulfillment. You have 
written evidence of these things taken from the 
archives of Edessa,[5] which was at that time a 
royal city. For in the public registers there, 
which contain accounts of ancient times and the 
acts of Abgarus, these things have been found 
preserved down to the present time. But there is 
no better way than to hear the epistles themselves 
which we have taken from the archives and have 
literally translated from the Syriac language[6] 
in the following manner. Copy of an epistle 
written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, tend sent 
to him at Jerusalem by Ananias[7] the swift 
courier.
6   "Abgarus, ruler Of Edessa, to Jesus the 6 
excellent Saviour who has appeared in the country 
of Jerusalem, greeting. I have heard the reports 
of thee and of thy cures as performed by thee 
without medicines or herbs. For it is said that 
thou makest the blind to see and the lame to walk, 
that thou cleansest lepers and castest out impure 
spirits and demons, and that thou healest those 
afflicted with lingering disease, and raisest the 
dead.
7    And having heard all these things concerning 
thee, I have concluded that one of two things must 
be true: either thou art God, and having come down 
from heaven thou doest these things, or else thou, 
who doest these things, art the Son of God.[8]
8   I have therefore written to thee to ask thee 
that thou wouldest take the trouble to come to me 
and heal the disease which I have. For I have 
heard that the Jews are murmuring against thee and 
are plotting to injure thee. But I have a very 
small yet noble city which is great enough for us 
both."

101

The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the
courier Ananias.

9  "Blessed art thou who hast believed in me 
without having seen me.[9] For it is written 
concerning me, that they who have seen me will not 
believe in me, and that they who have not seen me 
will believe and be saved.[10] But in regard to 
what thou hast written me, that I should come to 
thee, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things 
here for which I have been sent, and after I have 
fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to him 
that sent me. But after I have been taken up I 
will send to thee one of my disciples, that he may 
heal thy disease and give life to thee and thine."
10  To these epistles there was added the 
following account in the Syriac language. "After 
the ascension of Jesus, Judas,[11] who was also 
called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an 
apostle,[12] one of the Seventy. When he was come 
he lodged with Tobias,[13] the son of Tobias. When 
the report of him got abroad, it was told Abgarus 
that an apostle of Jesus was come, as he had 
written him.
11   Thaddeus began then in the power of God to 
heal every disease and infirmity, insomuch that 
all wondered. And when Abgarus heard of the great 
and wonderful things which he did and of the cures 
which he performed, he began to suspect that he 
was the one of whom Jesus had written him, saying, 
'After I have been taken up I will send to thee 
one of my disciples who will heal thee.'
12    Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom 
Thaddeus lodged, he said, I have heard that a 
certain man of power has come and is lodging in 
thy house. Bring him to me. And Tobias coming to 
Thaddeus said to him, The ruler Abgarus summoned 
me and told me to bring thee to him that thou 
mightest heal him. And Thaddeus said, I will go, 
for I have been sent to him with power.
13   Tobias therefore arose early on the following 
day, and taking Thaddeus came to Abgarus. And when 
he came, the nobles were present and stood about 
Abgarus. And immediately upon his entrance a great 
vision appeared to Abgarus in the countenance of 
the apostle Thaddeus. When Abgarus saw it he 
prostrated himself before Thaddeus, while all 
those who stood about were astonished; for they 
did not see the vision, which appeared to Abgarus 
alone.
14    He then asked Thaddeus if he were in truth a 
disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who had said to 
him, 'I will send thee one of my disciples, who 
shall heal thee and give thee life.' And Thaddeus 
said, Because thou hast mightily believed in him 
that sent me, therefore have I 'been sent unto 
thee. And still further, if thou believest in him, 
the petitions of thy heart shall be granted thee 
as thou believest.
15     And Abgarus said to him, So much have I 
believed in him that I wished to take an army and 
destroy those Jews who crucified him, had I not 
been deterred from it by reason of the dominion of 
the Romans. And Thaddeus said, Our Lord has 
fulfilled the will of his Father, and having 
fulfilled it has been taken up to his Father. And 
Abgarus said to him, I too have believed in him 
and in his Father.
16    And Thaddeus said to him, Therefore I place 
my hand upon thee in his name. And when he had 
done it, immediately Abgarus was cured of the 
disease and of the suffering which he had.
17    And Abgarus marvelled, that as he had heard 
concerning Jesus, so he had received in very deed 
through his disciple Thaddeus, who healed him 
without medicines and herbs, and not only him, but 
also Abdus[14] the son of Abdus, who was afflicted 
with the gout; for he too came to him and fell at 
his feet, and having received a benediction by the 
imposition of his hands, he was healed. The same 
Thaddeus cured also many other inhabitants of the 
city, and did wonders and marvelous works, and 
preached

102

18 the word of God. And afterward Abgarus said, 
Thou, O Thaddeus, doest these things with the 
power of God, and we marvel. But, in addition to 
these things, I pray thee to inform me in regard 
to the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and in 
regard to his power, by what power he performed 
those deeds of which I have heard.
19    And Thaddeus said, Now indeed will I keep 
silence, since I have
been sent to proclaim the word publicly. But 
to-morrow assemble for me all thy citizens, and I 
will preach in their presence and sow among them 
the word of God, concerning the coming of Jesus, 
how he was born; and concerning his mission, for 
what purpose he was sent by the Father; and 
concerning the power of his works, and the 
mysteries which he proclaimed in the world, and by 
what power he did these things; and concerning his 
new preaching, and his abasement and humiliation, 
and how he humbled himself, and died and debased 
his divinity and was crucified, and descended into 
Hades,[15] and burst the bars which from eternity 
had not been broken,[16] and raised the dead; for 
he descended alone, but rose with many, and thus 
ascended to his Father.[17]
20   Abgarus 20 therefore commanded the citizens 
to assemble early in the morning to hear the 
preaching of Thaddeus, and afterward he ordered 
gold and silver to be given him. But he refused to 
take it, saying, If we have forsaken that which 
was our own, how shall we take that which is 
another's? These things were done in the three 
hundred and  fortieth year."[18]
I have inserted them here in their proper place, 
translated from the Syriac[19] literally, and I 
hope to good purpose.

BOOK II.

INTRODUCTION.

1   WE have discussed in the preceding book those 
subjects in ecclesiastical history which it was 
necessary to treat by way of introduction, and 
have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were 
the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity 
of the doctrines which we teach, as well as of 
that evangelical life which is led by Christians, 
together with the events which have taken place in 
connection with Christ's recent appearance, and in 
connection with his passion and with the choice of 
the apostles.
2    In the present book let us examine the events 
which took place after his ascension, confirming 
some of them from the divine Scriptures, and 
others from such writings as we shall refer to 
from time to time.

CHAffER I.

The Course pursued by the Apostles after the
Ascension of Christ.

1   First, then, in the place of Judas, the 
betrayer, Matthias,[1] who, as has been shown[2] 
was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the 
apostolate. And there were appointed to the 
diaconate,[2a] for the service of the 
congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the 
hands of the apostles, approved men,

104

seven in number, of whom Stephen was one.[3] He 
first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the 
time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, 
as if he had been promoted for this very 
purpose.[4] And thus he was the first to receive 
the crown, corresponding to his name,[5] which 
belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy 
of the meed of victory. 2    Then James, whom the 
ancients surnamed the Just[6] on account of the 
excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been 
the first to be made bishop of the church of 
Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of 
the Lord[7] because he was known as a son of 
Joseph,[8] and Joseph was supposed to be the 
father of Christ, because the Virgin, being 
betrothed to him, "was found with child by the 
Holy Ghost before they came together,"[9] as the 
account of the holy Gospels shows.
3     But Clement in the sixth book of his 
Hypotyposes[10] writes thus: "For they say that 
Peter and James and John after the ascension of 
our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, 
strove not after honor, but chose James the Just 
bishop of Jerusalem."[11]
4    But the same writer, in the seventh book of 
the same work, relates also the following things 
concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection 
imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John 
and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the 
apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the 
seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.[12] But there 
were two Jameses:[13] one called the Just, who was 
thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was 
beaten to death with a club by a fuller,[14] and 
another who was beheaded."[15] Paul also makes 
mention of the same James the Just, where he 
writes, "Other of the apostles saw I none, save 
James the Lord's brother."[16]
5    At that time also the promise of our Saviour 
to the king of the Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For 
Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent Thaddeus to 
Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the 
religion of Christ, as we have shown a little 
above from the document found there?
7    When he came to that place he healed Abgarus 
by the word of Christ; and after bringing all the 
people there into the right attitude of mind by 
means of his works, and leading them to adore the 
power of Christ, he made them disciples of the 
Saviour's teaching. And from that time down to the 
present the whole city of the Edessenes has been 
devoted to the name of Christ,[18] offering no 
common proof of the beneficence of our Saviour
toward them also.
8    These things have been drawn from ancient 
accounts; but let us now turn again to the divine 
Scripture. When the first and greatest persecution 
was instigated by the Jews against the church of 
Jerusalem in connection with the martyrdom of 
Stephen, and when all the disciples, except the 
Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and 
Samaria,[19] some, as the divine Scripture says, 
went as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, 
but could not yet venture to impart the word of 
faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to 
the Jews alone.[20]
9    During this time Paul was still persecuting 
the church, and entering the houses of believers 
was dragging men and women away and committing 
them to prison.[21]
10     Philip also, one of those who with Stephen 
had been entrusted with the diaconate, being among 
those who were scattered abroad, went down to 
Samaria,[22] and being filled with the divine 
power, he first preached the word to the 
inhabitants of that country. And divine grace 
worked so mightily with him that even Simon Magus 
with many others was attracted by his

105

11 words.[23] Simon was at that time so 
celebrated, and had acquired, by his jugglery, 
such influence over those who were deceived by 
him, that he was thought to be the great power of 
God.[24] But at this time, being amazed at the 
wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the 
divine power, he reigned and counterfeited faith 
in Christ, even going so far as to receive 
baptism.[25]
12   And what is surprising, the same thing is 
done even to this day by those who follow his most 
impure heresy.[26] For they, after the manner of 
their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a 
pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict 
those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly 
and terrible poison concealed in themselves.[27] 
The most of these have been expelled as soon as 
they have been caught in their wickedness, as 
Simon himself, when detected by Peter, received 
the merited punishment.[28] 
13   But as the preaching of the Saviour's   
Gospel was daily advancing, a certain providence 
led from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of 
the queen of that country,[29] for Ethiopia even 
to the present day is ruled, according to 
ancestral custom, by a woman. He, first among the 
Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the divine 
word from Philip in consequence of a revelation, 
and having become the first-fruits of believers 
throughout the world, he is said to have been the 
first on returning to his country to proclaim the 
knowledge of the God of the universe and the 
life-giving sojourn of our Saviour among men;[30]  
so that through him in truth the prophecy obtained 
its fulfillment, which declares that "Ethiopia 
stretcheth out her hand unto God."[31]
14   In addition to these, Paul, that "chosen 
vessel,"[32] "not of men neither through men, but 
by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and of 
God the Father who raised him from the dead,"[33] 
was appointed an apostle, being made worthy of the 
call by a vision and by a voice which was uttered 
in a revelation from heaven.[34]

CHAPTER II.

How Tiberius was affected when informed by 
Pilate concerning Christ.

1   AND when the wonderful resurrection and 
ascension of our Saviour were already noised 
abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which 
prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of 
reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences 
which took place in them, in order that nothing 
might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed 
Tiberius[1] of the reports which were noised 
abroad through all Palestine concerning the 
resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.
2    He gave an account also of other wonders 
which he had learned of him, and how, after his 
death, having risen from the dead, he was now 
believed by many to be a God.[2] They say that 
Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate,[3] but 
that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had 
not first examined into the matter (for an ancient 
law prevailed

106

that no one should be made a God by the Romans 
except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in 
reality because the saving teaching of the divine 
Gospel did not need the confirmation and 
recommendation of men.
3   But although the Senate of the Romans rejected 
the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, 
Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had 
held at first, and contrived no hostile measures 
against Christ.[4] 4   These things are recorded 
by Tertullian,[5] a man well versed in the laws of 
the Romans,[6] and in other respects of high 
repute, and one of those especially distinguished 
in Rome.[7] In his apology for the Christians,[8] 
which was written by him in the Latin language, 
and has been translated into Greek,[9] he writes 
as follows:[10]
5    "But in order that we may give an account of 
these laws from their origin, it was an ancient 
decree n that no one should be consecrated a God 
by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its 
approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a 
certain idol, Alburnus.[12] And this is a point in 
favor of our doctrine,[13] that among you divine 
dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God 
does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, 
according to this custom, it is necessary for man 
to be gracious to God.
6    Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of 
Christ made its entry into the world, when this 
doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where 
it first began, communicated with the Senate, 
making it clear to them that he was pleased with 
the doctrine.[14] But the Senate, since it had not 
itself proved the matter, rejected it. But 
Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and 
threatened death to the accusers of the 
Christians."[15] Heavenly providence had wisely 
instilled this into his mind in order that the 
doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at its 
beginning, might spread in all directions 
throughout the world.

107

CHAPTER III.

The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout
All the World.

1   THUS, under the influence of heavenly power, 
and with the divine co-operation, the doctrine of 
the Saviour, like the rays of the sun, quickly 
illumined the whole world;[1] and straightway, in 
accordance with the divine Scriptures,[2] the 
voice of the inspired evangelists and apostles 
went forth through all the earth, and their words 
to the end of the world.
2   In every city and village, churches were 
quickly established, filled with multitudes of 
people like a replenished threshing-floor. And 
those whose minds, in consequence of errors which 
had descended to them from their forefathers, were 
fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous 
superstition, were, by the power of Christ 
operating through the teaching and the wonderful 
works of his disciples, set free, as it were, from 
terrible masters, and found a release from the 
most cruel bondage. They renounced with abhorrence 
every species of demoniacal polytheism, and 
confessed that there was only one God, the creator 
of all things, and him they honored with the rites 
of true piety, through the inspired and rational 
worship which has been planted by our Saviour 
among men.
3    But the divine grace being now poured out 
upon the rest of the nations Cornelius, of C'sarea 
in Palestine, with his whole house, through a 
divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first 
received faith in Christ;[3] and after him a 
multitude of other Greeks in Antioch,[4] to whom 
those who were scattered by the persecution of 
Stephen had preached the Gospel. When the church 
of Antioch was now increasing and abounding, and a 
multitude of prophets from Jerusalem were on the 
ground,[5] among them Barnabas and Paul and in 
addition many other brethren, the name of 
Christians first sprang up there,[6] as from a 
fresh and life-giving fountain.[7]And Agabus, one 
of the prophets who was with them, uttered a 
prophecy concerning the famine which was about to 
take place,[8] and Paul and Barnabas were sent to 
relieve the necessities of the brethren.[9] 

CHAPTER IV.

After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed
Agrippa King of the Jews, having punished Herod 
with Perpetual Exile. Tiberius died, after having 
reigned about twenty-two years,[1] and Caius 
succeeded him in the empire.[2] He immediately 
gave the government of the Jews to Agrippa,[3] 
making him king over the tetrarchies of Philip and 
of Ly-sanias; in addition to which he bestowed 
upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of 
Herod,[4] having punished Herod (the one under 
whom the Saviour suffered[5]) and his wife 
Herodias with perpetual exile[6] on account of 
numerous crimes. Josephus is a witness to these 
facts.[7] Under this emperor, Philo[8] became 
known; 

108

a man most celebrated not only among many of our 
own, but also among many scholars without the 
Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior 
to none of those who held high dignities in 
Alexandria. How exceedingly he labored in the 
Scriptures and in the studies of his nation is 
plain to all from the work which he has done. How 
familiar he was with philosophy and with the 
liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not 
necessary to say, since he is reported to have 
surpassed all his contemporaries in the study of 
Platonic and Pythagorean. philosophy, to which he 
particularly devoted his attention.[9]

CHAPTER V.

Philo's Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews.

1   PHILO has given us an account, in five books, 
of the misfortunes of the Jews under Caius.[1] He 
recounts at the same time the madness of Caius: 
how he called himself a god, and performed as 
emperor innumerable acts of tyranny; and he 
describes further the miseries of the Jews under 
him, and gives a report of the embassy upon which 
he himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his 
fellow-countrymen in Alexandria;[2] how when he 
appeared before Caius in behalf of the laws of his 
fathers he received nothing but laughter and 
ridicule, and almost incurred the risk of his 
life. Josephus also makes mention of these things 
in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in the 
following words: a "A sedition having arisen in 
Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and 
the Greeks,[4] three deputies were chosen from 
each faction and went to Caius.
3   One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion,[5] 
who uttered many slanders against the Jews; among 
other things saying that they neglected the honors 
due to C'sar. For while all other subjects of Rome 
erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all 
other respects treated him just as they did the 
gods, they alone considered it disgraceful to 
honor him with statues and to swear by his name. 
And when Apion 4 had uttered many severe charges 
by which he hoped that Caius would be aroused, as 
indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of the Jewish 
embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a 
brother of Alexander the Alabarch,[6] and not 
unskilled in philosophy, was prepared to enter

109

upon a defense in reply to his accusations. But 
Caius prevented him and ordered him to leave, and 
being very angry, it was plain that he meditated 
some severe measure against them. And Philo 
departed covered with insult and told the Jews 
that were with him to be of good courage; for 
while Caius was raging against them he was in fact 
already contending with God." Thus far Josephus. 
And Philo himself, in the work On the Embassy[7] 
which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail 
the things which were done by him at that time. 
But I shall omit the most of them and record only 
those things which will make clearly evident to 
the reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came 
upon them not long after their daring deeds 
against Christ and on account of the same. And in 
the first place he relates that at Rome in the 
reign of Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time 
enjoyed great influence with the emperor, made 
every effort to destroy the Jewish nation 
utterly;[8] and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom 
the crimes against the Saviour were committed, 
attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in 
respect to the temple, which was at that time 
still standing in Jerusalem, and excited them to 
the greatest tumults.[9]

CHAPTER VI.

The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews
after their Presumption against Christ.

1   After the death of Tiberius, Caius received 
the empire, and, besides innumerable other acts of 
tyranny against many people, he greatly afflicted 
especially the whole nation of the Jews[1] These 
things we may learn briefly from the words of 
Philo, who writes as follows:[2] "So great was the 
caprice of Caius in his2. conduct toward all, and 
especially toward the nation of the Jews. The 
latter he so bitterly hated that he appropriated 
to himself their places of worship in the other 
cities,[3] and beginning with Alexandria he filled 
them with images and statues of himself (for in 
permitting others to erect them he really erected 
them himself). The temple in the holy city, which 
had hitherto been left untouched, and had been 
regarded as an inviolable asylum, he altered and 
transformed into a temple of his own, that it 
might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, 
the younger Caius."[4] Innumerable other terrible 
and 3 almost indescribable calamities which came 
upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of 
the same emperor, are recorded by the same author 
in a second work, to which he gave the title, On 
the Virtues.[5] With him agrees also Josephus, who 
likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the 
whole nation began with the time of Pilate, and 
with their daring crimes against the Saviour.[6] 
Hear what be says in 4 the second book of his 
Jewish War, where he writes as follows:[7] "Pilate 
being sent to Judea as procurator by Tiberius, 
secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, 
called ensigns,[8] to Jerusalem by night. The 
following day this caused the greatest disturbance 
among the Jews. For those who were near were 
confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as 
it were, trampled under foot. For they allow no 
image to be set up in their city." Comparing 5 
these things with the writings of the evangelists, 
you will see that it was not long before there 
came upon them the penalty for the exclamation 
which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when 
they cried out that they had no other king than 
C'sar.[9] The same 6 writer further records that 
after this another calamity overtook them. He 
writes as follows:[10] "After this he. stirred up 
another tumult by snaking use of the holy 
treasure, which is called Corban,[11] in the 
construction of an aqueduct

110

7  three hundred stadia in length.[12] The 
multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when 
Pilate was in Jerusalem they surrounded his 
tribunal and gave utterance to loud complaints. 
But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed 
through the crowd armed soldiers disguised in 
citizen's clothing, forbidding them to use the 
sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs 
those who should make an outcry. To them he now 
gave the preconcerted signal from the tribunal. 
And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished 
in consequence of the blows, while many others 
were trampled under foot by their own countrymen 
in their flight, and thus lost their lives. But 
the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who
8 were slain, held their peace." In addition   to 
these the same author records[13] many other 
tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, 
and shows that from that time seditions and wars 
and mischievous plots followed each other in quick 
succession, and never ceased in the city and in 
all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian 
overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance 
overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared 
to commit against Christ.

CHAPTER VII. Pilate's Suicide.

IT is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was 
governor in the time of our Saviour, is reported 
to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius, 
whose times we are recording, that he was forced 
to become his own murderer and executioner;[1] and 
thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long 
in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek 
historians who have recorded the Olympiads, 
together with the respective events which have 
taken place in each period.[2]

CHAPTER VIII.

The Famine which took Place in the Reign of
Claudius.

Caius had held the power not quite four 1 
years,[1] when he was succeeded by the emperor 
Claudius. Under him the world was visited with a 
famine,[2] which writers that are entire strangers 
to our religion have recorded in their 
histories.[3] And thus the prediction of Agabus 
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,[4] according 
to which the whole world was to be visited by a 
famine, received its fulfillment. And 2 Luke, in 
the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time 
of Claudius, and stating that the brethren of 
Antioch, each according to his ability, sent to 
the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and 
Barnabas,[5] adds the following account.
CHAPTER IX.
The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.  "[1] Now 
about that time" (it is clear that  1 he means the 
time of Claudius) "Herod the King[2] stretched 
forth his hands to vex certain of the Church. And 
he killed James the brother of John with the 
sword." And 2 concerning this James, Clement, in 
the seventh book of his Hypotyposes,[3] relates a 
story

111

which is worthy of mention; telling it as he 
received it from those who had lived before him. 
He says that the one who led James to the 
judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing his 
testimony, was moved, and confessed that he was 
himself also a Christian.
3   They were both therefore, he says, led away 
together;
and on the way he begged James to forgive him. And 
he, after considering a little, said, "Peace be 
with thee," and kissed him. And thus they were 
both beheaded at the same time.
4   And then, as the divine Scripture says,[4] 
Herod, upon the death of James, seeing that the 
deed pleased the Jews, attacked Peter also and 
committed him to prison, and would have slain him 
if he had not, by the divine appearance of an 
angel who came to him by night, been wonderfully 
released from his bonds, and thus liberated for 
the service of the Gospel. Such was the providence 
of God in respect to Peter.

CHAPTER X.

Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having 
persecuted the Apostles, immediately experienced 
the Divine Vengeance.
1   THE consequences of the king's undertaking 
against the apostles were no, long deferred, but 
the avenging minister of divine justice overtook 
him immediately after his plots against them, as 
the Book of Acts records.[1] For when he had 
journeyed to C'sarea, on a notable feast-day, 
clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he 
delivered an address to the people from a lofty 
throne in front of the tribunal. And when all the 
multitude applauded the speech, as if it were the 
voice of a god and not of a man, the Scripture 
relates that an angel of the Lord smote him, and 
being eaten of worms he gave up the ghost.[2]
2   We must admire the account of Josephus for its 
agreement with the divine Scriptures in regard to 
this wonderful event; for he clearly bears witness 
to the truth in the nineteenth book of his 
Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the 
following words:[3] 
3   "He had completed the third year of his reign 
over all Judea[4] when he  came to C'sarea, which 
was formerly called Strato's Tower.[5] There he 
held games in honor of C'sar, learning that this 
was a festival observed in behalf of C'sar's 
safety.[6] At this festival was collected a great 
multitude of the highest and most honorable men in 
the province.
4   And on the second day of the games he 
proceeded to the theater at break of day, wearing 
a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful 
texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the 
reflection of the sun's earliest rays, shone 
marvelously, gleaming so brightly as to produce a 
sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon 
him.
5   And immediately his flatterers, some from one 
place, others from another, raised up their voices 
in a way that was not for his good, calling him a 
god, and saying, 'Be thou merciful; if up to this 
time we have feared thee as a man, henceforth we 
confess that thou art superior to the nature of 
mortals.'
6   The king did not rebuke them, nor did he 
reject their impious
flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw 
an angel sitting above his head.[7] And this he 
quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as

112

it had once been the cause of good fortune,[8] and 
he was smitten with a heart-piercing pain.
7   And straightway distress, beginning with the 
greatest violence, seized his bowels. And looking 
upon his friends he said, 'I, your god, am now 
commanded to depart this life; and fate thus I on 
the spot disproves the lying words you have just 
uttered concerning me. He who has been called 
immortal by you is now led away to die; but our 
destiny must be accepted as God has determined it. 
For we have passed our life by no means 
ingloriously, but in that splendor which is 
pronounced happiness.'9
8   And when he had said this he labored with an 
increase of pain. He was accordingly carried in 
haste to the palace, while the report spread among 
all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But 
the multitude, with their wives and children, 
sitting on sackcloth after the custom of their 
fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and 
every place was filled with lamentation and 
tears.[10] And the king as he lay in a lofty 
chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the 
ground, could not refrain from weeping himself.
9   And after suffering continually for five days 
with pain in the bowels, he departed this life, in 
the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the 
seventh year of his reign.[11] Four years he ruled 
under the Emperor Caius--three of them over the 
tetrarchy of Philip, to which was added in the 
fourth year that of Herod[12] --and three years 
during the reign of the Emperor Claudius."
10  I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these 
things as well as in others, so fully agrees with 
the divine Scriptures. But if there should seem to 
any one to be a disagreement in respect to the 
name of the king, the time at least and the events 
show that the same person is meant, whether the 
change of name has been caused by the error of a 
copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so 
many, bore two names.[13]

CHAPTER XI.

The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.

1   LUKE, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as 
saying, at the consultation which was held 
concerning the apostles, that at the time referred 
to,[1] "rose up Theudas boasting himself to be 
somebody; who was slain; and all, as many as 
obeyed him, were scattered."[2] Let us therefore 
add the account of Josephus concerning this man. 
He records in the work mentioned just above, the 
following circumstances:[3]
2   "While Fadus was procurator of Judea[4] a 
certain impostor called Theudas[5] persuaded

113

a very great multitude to take their possessions 
and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said 
that he was a prophet, and that the river should 
be divided at his command, and afford them an easy 
passage.
3   And with these words he deceived many. But 
Fadus did not permit them to enjoy their folly, 
but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who 
fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them 
and took many others alive, while they took 
Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head and 
carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he also 
makes mention of the famine, which took place in 
the reign of Claudius, in the following words.

CHAPTER XII.

Helen, the Queen of the Osrhoenians.

1     [1]"AND at this time" it came to pass that 
the great famine a took place in Judea, in which 
the queen Helen,[4] having purchased grain from 
Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the 
needy."
You will find this statement also in agreement 
with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said 
that the disciples at Antioch, "each according to 
his ability, determined to send relief to the 
brethren that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, 
and sent it to the elders by 3  the hands of 
Barnabas and Paul."[5] But splendid monuments[6] 
of this Helen, Of whom the historian has made 
mention, are still shown in the suburbs of the 
city which is now called 'lia,[7] But she is said 
to have been queen of the Adiabeni.[8]

CHAPTER XIII.
Simon Magus.[1]
But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus  1 Christ 
having now been diffused among all men,[2] the 
enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for 
seizing the imperial city for himself. He 
conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon,[3] 
aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the 
inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them 
into his own power. This is  2 stated by 
Justin,[4] one of our distinguished writers who 
lived not long after the time of the apostles. 
Concerning him I shall speak in the proper 
place.[5] Take and read the work of this

114

man, who in the first Apology[6] which he 
addressed   to Antonine in behalf of our religion 
writes 3  as follows:[7] "And after the ascension 
of   the Lord into heaven the demons put forward 
certain men who said they were gods, and who were 
not only allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but 
were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was 
Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,[8] who 
in the reign of Claudius C'sar[9] performed in 
your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by 
the art of demons operating in him, and was 
considered a god, and as a god was honored by you 
with a statue, which was erected in the river 
Tiber,[10] between the two bridges, and bore this 
inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo 
Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God.[11] And 
nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other 
nations confess and worship him as the first God. 
And there went around with him at that time a 
certain Helena[12] who had formerly been a 
prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call 
the first idea that proceeded from him."[13] 
Justin relates these things, and Iren'us also 5 
agrees with him in the first book of his work, 
Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the 
man[14] and of his profane and impure teaching. It 
would be superfluous to quote his account here, 
for it is possible for those who wish to know the 
origin and the lives and the false doctrines of 
each of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as 
well as the customs practiced by them all, to find 
them treated at length in the above-mentioned work 
of Iren'us. We 6 have understood that Simon was 
the author of all heresy.[15] From his time down 
to the present those who have followed his heresy 
have reigned the sober philosophy of the 
Christians, which is celebrated among all on 
account of its purity of life. But they 
nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions 
of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and 
they fall down before pictures and images of Simon 
himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was 
with him; and they venture to worship them with 
incense and sacrifices and libations. But those 
matters which they keep 7 more secret than these, 
in regard to which they say that one upon first 
hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one 
of the written phrases in vogue among them, would 
be confounded,[16] are in truth full of amazing 
things, and of madness and folly, being of such a 
sort that it is impossible not only to commit them 
to writing, but also for modest men even to utter 
them with the lips on account of their excessive 
baseness and lewdness.[17] For what 8 ever could 
be conceived of, viler than the
vilest thing -- all that has been outdone by this 
most abominable sect, which is composed of those 
who make a sport of those miserable females that 
are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of 
vices.[18]

CHAPTER XIV.

The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

1   The evil power,[1] who hates all that is   
good and plots against the salvation of men, 
constituted Simon at that time the father and 
author of such wickedness,[2] as if to make him a 
mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles 
of our Saviour. For that divine and celestial 
grace which co-operates with its ministers, by 
their appearance and presence, quickly 
extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and 
humbled and cast down through them "every high 
thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of 
God."[3] Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon 
nor that of any of the others who arose at that 
period could accomplish anything in those 
apostolic times. For everything was conquered and 
subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the 
divine word itself which had but lately begun to 
shine from heaven upon men, and which was then 
flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the 
apostles themselves. Immediately[4] the 
above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes 
of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and 
after the evil deeds done by him had been first 
detected by the apostle Peter in Judea,[5] he fled 
and made a great journey across the sea from the 
East to the West, thinking that only thus could he 
live according to his mind. And coming to the city 
of Rome,[6] by the mighty co-operation of that 
power which was lying in wait there, he was in a 
short time so successful in his undertaking that 
those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the 
6  erection of a statue.[7] But this did not last  
long. For immediately, during the reign of 
Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, 
which watches over all things, led Peter, that 
strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the 
one who on account of his virtue was the speaker 
for all the others, to Rome s against this great 
corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of 
God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly 
merchandise of the light of the understanding from 
the East to those who dwelt in the West, 
proclaiming the light itself, and the word which 
brings salvation to souls, and preaching the 
kingdom of heaven.[9]

CHAPTER XV.

The Gospel according to Mark.

AND thus when the divine word had made its home 
among them,[1] the power of

116

Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, 
together with the man himself.[2] And so greatly 
did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of 
Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with 
hearing once only, and were not content with the 
unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with 
all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,[3] a 
follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is 
extant, that he would leave them a written 
monument of the doctrine which had been orally 
communicated to them. Nor did they cease until 
they had prevailed with the man, and had thus 
become the occasion of the written Gospel which 
bears the name of Mark.[4] And they say that Peter 
when he had 2 learned, through a revelation of the 
Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased 
with the zeal of the men, and that the work 
obtained the sanction of his authority for the 
purpose of being used in the churches.[5] Clement 
in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this 
account, and with him agrees the bishop of 
Hierapolis named Papias.[6] And Peter makes 
mention of Mark in his first epistle which they 
say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated 
by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, 
Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The 
church that is at Babylon, elected together with 
you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."[7]

CHAPTER XVI.

Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the In-
habitants of Egypt.

And they say that this Mark was the first  1 that 
was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the 
Gospel which he had written, and first established 
churches in Alexandria. 1 And the multitude of 
believers, both men 2 and women, that were 
collected there at the very outset, and lived 
lives of the most philosophical and excessive 
asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it 
worth while to describe their pursuits, their 
meetings, their entertainments, and their whole 
manner of life."[2]

CHAPTER XVII.

Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt.

1  It is also said that Philo in the reign of 
Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who 
was then preaching there.[1] Nor is this indeed 
improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, 
and which was composed by him some years later, 
clearly contains those rules of the Church which 
are even to this day observed among us. And since 
he describes as accurately as possible the life of 
our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, 
but that he also approved, while he venerated and 
extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were 
as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence 
observed, after the manner of the Jews, the 3 most 
of the customs of the ancients. In the work to 
which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life 
or on Suppliants,[2] after affirming in the first 
place that he will add to those things which he is 
about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of 
his own invention,[3] he says that these men were 
called Therapeut' and the women that were with 
them Therapeutrides.[4] He then adds the reasons 
for such a name, explaining it from the fact that 
they applied remedies and healed the souls of 
those who came to them, by relieving them like 
physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact 
that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity 
and sincerity. Whether Philo himself gave them 
this 4 name, employing an epithet well suited to 
their mode of life, or whether the first of them 
really called themselves so in the beginning, 
since the name of Christians was not yet 
everywhere known, we need not discuss here. He 
bears witness, however, that first of all 5 they 
renounce their property. When they begin the 
philosophical[5] mode of life, he says, they give 
up their goods to their relatives, and then, 
renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth 
beyond the walls and dwell in lonely fields and 
gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people 
of a different character is unprofitable and 
harmful. They did this at that time, as seems 
probable, under the influence of a spirited and 
ardent faith, practicing in emulation the 
prophets' mode of life. For in the Acts of 6 the 
Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as 
authentic,[6] it is recorded that all the

118

companions of the apostles sold their possessions 
and their property and distributed to all 
according to the necessity of each one, so that no 
one among them was in want. "For as many as were 
possessors of lands or houses," as the account 
says, "sold them and brought the prices of the 
things that were sold, and laid them at the 
apostles' feet, so that distribution was made unto 
every man according as he had need."[7]
Philo bears witness to facts very much like those 
here described and then adds the following 
account:[8] "Everywhere in the world is this 
race[9] found. For it was fitting that both 
Greek[9a] and Barbarian should share in what is 
perfectly good. But the race particularly abounds 
in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes,[10] and 
especially about Alexandria. The best men from 
every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the 
Therapeut''s fatherland,[11]  to a certain very 
suitable spot which lies above the lake Maria[12] 
upon a low hill excellently situated on account of 
its security and the 9 mildness of the atmosphere" 
And then a    little further on, after describing 
the kind of houses which they had, he speaks as 
follows concerning their churches, which were 
scattered about here and there:[13]  "In each 
house there is a sacred apartment which is called 
a sanctuary and monastery,[14] where, quite alone, 
they perform the mysteries of the religious life. 
They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor 
food, nor any of the other things which contribute 
to the necessities of the body, but only the laws, 
and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and 
hymns and such other things as augment and 
makeperfect their knowledge and piety." 10  And 
after some other matters he says:[15]    "The 
whole interval, from morning to evening, is for 
them a time of exercise. For they read the holy 
Scriptures, and explain the philosophy of their 
fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the 
written words as symbols of hidden truth which is 
communicated in obscure 11 figures. They have also 
writings of ancient men, who were the founders of 
their sect, and who left many monuments of the 
allegorical method. These they use as models, and 
imitate their principles." These things 12 seem to 
have been stated by a man who had heard them 
expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly 
probable that the works of the ancients, which he 
says they had, were the Gospels and the writings 
of the apostles, and probably some expositions of 
the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of 
Paul's Epistles. Then again he writes as 13 
follows concerning the new psalms which they 
composed: 16 "So that they not only spend their 
time in meditation, but they also compose songs 
and hymns to God in every variety of metre and 
melody, though they divide them, of course, into 
measures of more than common solemnity." The same 
book contains an 14 account of many other things, 
but it seemed necessary to select those facts 
which exhibit the characteristics of the 
ecclesiastical mode of life. But if any one thinks 
that what 15 has been said is not peculiar to the 
Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to 
others besides those mentioned, let him be 
convinced by the subsequent words of the same 
author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will 
find undisputed testimony on this subject. Philo's 
words are as follows:[17] "Having laid down 16 
temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul, 
they build upon it the other virtues. None of them 
may take food or drink before sunset, since they 
regard philosophizing as a work worthy of the 
light, but attention to the wants of the body as 
proper only in the darkness, and therefore assign 
the day to the former, but to the latter a small 
portion of the night. But 17 some, in whom a great 
desire for knowledge dwells, forget to take food 
for three days; and some are so delighted and 
feast so luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes 
doctrines richly and without stint, that they 
abstain even twice as long as this, and are 
accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take 
necessary food." These statements of Philo we 
regard as referring clearly and indisputably to 
those of our communion.  But if after these things 
any one still obstinately persists in denying the 
reference, let him renounce his incredulity and be 
convinced by yet more striking examples, which are 
to be found nowhere else than in the evangelical 
religion of the Christians.[18] For they say 19 
that there were women also with those of whom we 
are speaking, and that the most of them were aged 
virgins[19] who had preserved

119

their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of 
the priestesses among the Greeks,[20] but rather 
by their own choice, through zeal and a desire for 
wisdom. And that in their earnest desire to live 
with it as their companion they paid no attention 
to the pleasures of the body, seeking not mortal 
but immortal progeny, which only the 20 pious soul 
is able to bear of itself. Then after a little he 
adds still more emphatically:[21] "They expound 
the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of 
allegories. For the whole law seems to these men 
to resemble a living organism, of which the spoken 
words constitute the body, while the hidden sense 
stored up within the words constitutes the soul. 
This hidden meaning has first been particularly 
studied by this sect, which sees, revealed as in a 
mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the 
thoughts." Why is it necessary to add to these 
things their meetings and the respective 
occupations of the men and of the women during 
those meetings, and the practices which are even 
to the present day habitually observed by us, 
especially such as we are accustomed to observe at 
the feast of the Saviour's passion, with fasting 
and night watching and study of the divine Word. 
These things the above-mentioned author has 
related in his  own work, indicating a mode of 
life which has been preserved to the present time 
by us alone,  recording especially the vigils kept 
in connection  with the great festival, and the 
exercises performed during those vigils, and the 
hymns customarily recited by us, and describing 
how, while one sings regularly in time, the others 
listen in silence, and join in chanting only the 
close of the hymns; and how, on the days referred 
to they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and  
to use his own words,[22] "taste no wine at all, 
nor  any flesh, but water is their only drink, and 
therelish with their bread is salt and hyssop."  
23 In addition to this Philo describes the order   
of dignities which ists among those who carry on 
the services of the church, mentioning the 
diaconate, and the office of bishop, which takes 
the precedence over all the others.[23] But 
whosoever desires a more accurate knowledge of 
these matters may get it from the history already 
cited. But that Philo, when he 24 wrote these 
things, had in view the first heralds of the 
Gospel and the customs handed down from the 
beginning by the apostles, is clear to every one.

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Works of Philo[1] that have came down to us.

Copious in language, comprehensive in I thought, 
sublime and elevated in his views of divine 
Scripture, Philo has produced manifold and various 
expositions of the sacred books. On the one hand, 
he expounds in order the events recorded in 
Genesis in the books to which he gives the title 
Allegories of the Sacred Laws;[2] on the other 
hand, he makes successive divisions-of the 
chapters in the Scriptures which are the subject 
of investigation, and gives objections and 
solutions, in the books which he quite suitably 
calls Questions and Answers an Genesis and 
Exodus.[3] There are, besides these,[2] treatises 
expressly worked out by him on certain subjects, 
such as the two books On Agriculture,[4] and the 
same number On Drunken-

120

ness'[5] and some others distinguished by 
different titles corresponding to the contents of 
each; for instance, Concerning the things which 
the Sober Mind desires and execrates,[6] On the 
Confusion of Tongues,[7] On Flight and 
Discovery,[8] On Assembly for the sake of 
Instruction,[9] On the question, Who is heir to 
things divine?' or On the division of things into 
equal and unequal,[10] and still further the work 
On the three Virtues which 3 with others have been 
described by Moses.[11]   In addition to these is 
the work On those whose Names have been changed 
and why they have  been changed,[12] in which he 
says that he had  written also two hooks On 
Covenants? And there is also a work of his On 
Emigration,[14] and one On the life of a Wise Man 
made perfect in Righteousness, or On unwritten 
taws;[15] and still further the work On Giants or 
On the Immutability of God,[16] and a first, 
second, third, fourth and fifth book On the 
proposition, that Dreams according to Moses are 
sent by God.[17] These are the hooks on Genesis 
that have come down to us. But on Exodus we are 
acquainted with the first, second, third, fourth 
and fifth books of Questions and Answers,'[18] 
also with that On tire Tabernacle,[19] and that On 
the ten Commandments,[20] and the four books

121

On the laws which refer especially to the 
principal divisions of the ten Commandments,[21] 
and another On animals intended for sacrifice and 
On the kinds of sacrifice,[22] and another On the 
re--wards fixed in the law for the good, and on 
the punishments and curses fixed for the 
wicked.[23] 6  In addition to all these there are 
extant   also some single-volumed works of his; as 
for instance, the work On Providence,[24] and the 
book composed by him On the Jews,[25] and The 
Statesman;[26] and still further, Alexander, or On 
the possession of reason by the irrational 
animals?: Besides these there is a work On the 
proposition that every wicked man is a slave, to 
which is subjoined the work On the proposition 
that every goad man is free.[28] After 7 these was 
composed by him the work On the contemplative 
life, or On suppliants,[29] from which we have 
drawn the facts concerning the life of the 
apostolic men; and still further, the 
Interpretation of the Hebrew names in the law and 
in the prophets are said to be the result of his 
industry.[30] And he is said to have 8 read in the 
presence of the whole Roman Senate during the 
reign of Claudius[31] the work which he had 
written, when he came to Rome under Coins, 
concerning Coins' hatred of the gods, and to 
which, with ironical reference to its character, 
he had given the title On the Virtues.[32] And his 
discourses were so much admired as to be deemed 
worthy of a place in the libraries.  At this time, 
while Paul was completing 9 his journey "from 
Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum,"[33] 
Claudius drove the Jews out of Rome; and Aquila 
and Priscilla, leaving Rome with the other Jews, 
came to Asia, and there abode with the apostle 
Paul, who was confirming the churches of that 
region whose

122

foundations he had newly laid. The sacred book of 
the Acts informs us also of these things.[34]

CHAPTER XIX.

The Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem
an the Day of the _Passover.

1   While Claudius was still emperor, it    
happened that so great a tumult and disturbance 
took place in Jerusalem at the feast of the 
Passover, that thirty thousand of those Jews alone 
who were forcibly crowded together at the gate of 
the temple perished,[1] being trampled under foot 
by one another. Thus the festival became a season 
of mourning for all the nation, and there was 
weeping in every house. These things are related 
literally[2] by Josephus.
But Claudius appointed Agrippa,[3] son of Agrippa, 
king of the Jews, having sent Felix[4] as 
procurator of the whole country of Samaria and 
Galilee, and of the land called Perea.[5] And 
after he had reigned thirteen years and eight 
months a he died, and left Nero as his successor 
in the empire.

CHAPTER XX.

The Events which took _Place in Jerusalem dur-
ing the Reign of Nero.

Josephus again, in the twentieth book of his 
Antiquities, relates the quarrel which arose among 
the priests during the reign of Nero, while Felix 
was procurator of Judea. His words are as 
follows[1]: "There arose a 2 quarrel between the 
high priests on the one hand and the priests and 
leaders of the people of Jerusalem on the 
other.[2] And each of them collected a body of the 
boldest and most restless men, and put himself at 
their head, and whenever they met they hurled 
invectives and stones at each other. And there was 
no one that would interpose; but these things were 
done at will as if in a city destitute of a ruler. 
And so great was the shamelessness and audacity of 
the high priests that they dared to send their 
servants to the threshing-floors to seize the 
tithes due to the priests; and thus those of the 
priests that were poor were seen to be perishing 
of want. In this way did the violence of the 
factions prevail over all justice." And the same 4 
author again relates that about the same time 
there sprang up in Jerusalem a certain kind of 
robbers,[3]" who by  day," as he says, "and in the 
middle of the city slew those who met them." For, 
especially at the feasts, 5 they mingled with the 
multitude, and with short swords, which they 
concealed under their  garments, they stabbed the 
most distinguished men. And when they fell, the 
murderers themselves were among those who 
expressed their indignation. And thus on account 
of the con-

123

fidence which was reposed in them by all, 6 they 
remained undiscovered. The first that was slain by 
them was Jonathan the
high priest;[4] and after him many were killed 
every day, until the fear became worse than the 
evil itself, each one, as in battle, hourly 
expecting death.

CHAPTER XXI.

The Egyptian, who is mentioned also in the Acts
of the Apostles.

1   After other matters he proceeds as follows:[1] 
"But the Jews were afflicted with a greater plague 
than these by the Egyptian false prophet.[2] For 
there appeared in the land an impostor who aroused 
faith in himself as a prophet, and collected about 
thirty thousand of those whom he had deceived, and 
led them from the desert to the so-called Mount of 
Olives whence he was prepared to enter Jerusalem 
by force and to overpower the Roman garrison and 
seize the government of the people, using those 
who made the attack with him as body  2.  guards. 
But Felix anticipated his attack, and went out to 
meet him with the Roman legionaries, and all the 
people joined in the defense, so that when the 
battle was fought the Egyptian fled with a few 
followers, but the most of them were destroyed or 
taken captive."  8  Josephus relates these events 
in the second  book of his History.[3] But it is 
worth while comparing the account of the Egyptian 
given here with that contained in the Acts of the 
Apostles. In the time of Felix it was said to Paul 
by the centurion in Jerusalem, when the multitude 
of the Jews raised a disturbance against the 
apostle, "Art not thou he Who before these days 
made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness 
four thousand men that were murderers?"[4] These 
are the events which took place in the time of 
Felix.[5]

CHAPTER XXII.

Paul having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, 
made his Defense, and was acquitted of every 
Charge.  Festus[1]  was sent by Nero to be Felix's 
1 successor. Under him Paul, having made his 
defense, was sent bound to Rome[2] Aristarchus was 
with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles 
quite naturally calls his fellow-prisoner.[3]

124

And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles,[4] 
brought his history to a close at this point, 
after stating that Paul spent two whole years at 
Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word 
of God without restraint.[5] Thus after he had 
made his defense it is said that the apostle was 
sent again upon the ministry of preaching,[6] and 
that upon coming to the same city a second time he 
suffered martyrdom.[7] In this imprisonment he 
wrote his second epistle to Timothy,[8] in which 
he mentions his first 3  defense and his impending 
death. But hear   his testimony on these matters: 
"At my first answer," he says, "no man stood with 
me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may 
not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the 
Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by 
me the preaching might be fully known, and that 
all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered 
out of the mouth of the lion."[9] He plainly 
indicates in these words that 4 on the former 
occasion, in order that the preaching might be 
fulfilled by him, he was rescued from the mouth of 
the lion, referring, in this expression, to Nero, 
as is probable on account of the latter's cruelty. 
He did not therefore afterward add the similar 
statement, "He will rescue me from the mouth of 
the lion"; for he saw in the spirit that his end 
would not be long delayed. Wherefore he 5 adds to 
the words, "And he delivered me from the mouth of 
the lion," this sentence: "The Lord shall deliver 
me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto 
his heavenly kingdom,"[10] indicating his speedy 
martyrdom; which he also foretells still more 
clearly in the same epistle, when he writes, "For 
I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my 
departure is at hand."[11] In his second 6 epistle 
to Timothy, moreover, he indicates that Luke was 
with him when he wrote,[12] but at  his first 
defense not even he.[13] Whence it is probable 
that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles at that 
time, continuing his history down to the period 
when he was with Paul.[14] But 7 these things have 
been adduced by us to show that Paul's martyrdom 
did not take place at the time of that Roman 
sojourn which Luke

125

8 records. It is probable indeed that as Nero was 
more disposed to mildness in the beginning, Paul's 
defense of his doctrine was more easily received; 
but that when he had advanced to the commission of 
lawless deeds of daring, he made the apostles as 
well as others the subjects of his attacks.[15]

CHAPTER XXIII

The Martyrdom of James, who was called the
Brother of the Lord.

1   But after Paul, in consequence of his    
appeal to C'sar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, 
the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of 
entrapping him by the snares which they had laid 
for him, turned against James, the brother of the 
Lord,[1] to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem 
bad been entrusted by the apostles.[2] The 
following daring measures were undertaken by them 
against him. Leading him into their midst they 
demanded of him that he should renounce faith in 
Christ in the presence of all the people. But, 
contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear 
voice, and with greater boldness than they had 
anticipated, he spoke out before the whole 
multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord 
Jesus is the  Son of God. But they were unable to 
bear  longer the testimony of the man who, on 
account of the excellence of ascetic virtue[3] and 
of piety which he exhibited in his life, was  
esteemed by all as the most just of men, and  
consequently they slew him. Opportunity for  this 
deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing 
anarchy, which was caused by the fact  that Festus 
had died just at this time in Judea,  and that the 
province was thus without a governor and head.[4] 
The manner of James' death has been already 
indicated by the  above-quoted words of Clement, 
who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle 
of the temple, and was beaten to death with a 
club.[5]  But Hegesippus,[6] who lived immediately 
after the apostles, gives the most accurate 
account in   the fifth book of his Memoirs.[7] He 
writes  4 as follows: "James, the brother of the 
Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in 
conjunction with the apostles.[8] He has been 
called the Just[9] by all from the time of our 
Saviour to the present day; for there were many 
that bore the name of James. He was holy 5 from 
his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong 
drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon 
his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and 
he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to 
enter 6 into the holy place ; for he wore not 
woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit 
of entering alone into the temple, and was 
frequently found upon his knees begging 
forgiveness for the people, so that his knees 
became hard like those of a camel, in consequence 
of his constantly bending them in his worship of 
God, and asking forgiveness for the people.[10] 
Because 7 of his exceeding great justice he was 
called the Just, and Oblias,[11] which signifies 
in Greek, Bulwark of the people' and 
'Justice,'[12] in accordance with what the 
prophets declare concerning him.[13] Now some of 
the seven  8 sects, which existed among the people 
and which have been mentioned by me in the 
Memoirs,[14]  asked him, 'What is the gate of 
Jesus ?[15]

126

and he replied that he was the Saviour. On account 
of these words some believed that Jesus is the 
Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not 
believe either in a resurrection or in one's 
coming to give to every man according to his 
works.[16]  But as many as believed did so on 
account of James. 10 Therefore when many even of 
the rulers   believed, there was a commotion among 
the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that 
there was danger that the whole people  would be 
looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore 
in a body to James they said, 'We entreat thee, 
restrain the people; for they are gone astray in 
regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christy We 
entreat thee to persuade all that have come to the 
feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all 
have confidence in thee. For we bear thee witness, 
as do all the people, that thou art just, and dost 
not respect per 11 sons.[18] Do thou therefore 
persuade the  multitude not to be led astray 
concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of 
us also, have confidence in thee. Stand therefore 
upon the pinnacle of the temple,[19] that from 
that high position thou mayest be clearly seen, 
and that thy words may be readily heard by all the 
people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles 
also, are come together on account of the 
Passover.' The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees 
therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the 
temple, and cried out to him and said:  Thou just 
one, in whom we ought all to have: confidence, 
forasmuch as the people are led, astray after 
Jesus, the crucified one, declare  to us, what is 
the gate of Jesus.'[20] And he answered with a 
loud voice,' Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, 
the Son of Man ? He himself sitteth in heaven at 
the right hand of the great Power, and is about to 
come upon the clouds of heaven.'[21] And when many 
were 14 fully convinced and gloried in the 
testimony of James, and said, 'Hosanna to the Son 
of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said 
again to one another,' We have done badly in 
supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go 
up and throw him down, in order that they may be 
afraid to believe him.' And 15 they cried out, 
saying, 'Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.' 
And they fulfilled the Scripture written in 
Isaiah,[22] ' Let us take away [23] the just man, 
because he is troublesome to us: therefore they 
shall eat the fruit of their doings.' So they went 
up and threw down 16 the just man, and said to 
each other, 'Let us stone James the Just.' And 
they began to stone him, for he was not killed by 
the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 
'I entreat thee, Lord God our Father,[24] forgive 
them, for they know not what they do.'[25] And 17 
while they were thus stoning him one of the 
priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the 
Rechabites,[26] who are mentioned by Jeremiah the 
prophet,[27] cried out, saying, 'Cease, what do 
ye? The just one prayeth for you[28]

127

18 And one of them, who was a fuller, took  the 
club with which he beat out clothes and struck the 
just man on the head. And thus he suffered 
martyrdom.[29] And they buried him on the spot, by 
the temple, and his monument still remains by the 
temple.[30] He became a true witness, both to Jews 
and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And 
immediately Vespasian besieged them."[31] 19  
These things are related at length by Hegesippus, 
who is in agreement with Clement.[32] James was so 
admirable a man and so celebrated among all for 
his justice, that the more sensible even of the 
Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause 
of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them 
immediately after his martyrdom for no other 
reason than  20  their daring act against him. 
Josephus, at    least, has not hesitated to 
testify this in his writings, where he says,[33] 
"These things happened to the Jews to  avenge 
James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that 
is called theChrist. For the Jews slew him, 
although 21 he was a most just man." And the same  
writer records his death also in the twentieth 
book of his Antiquities in the following 
words:[34] "But the emperor, when he learned of 
the death of Festus, sent Albinus[35] to be 
procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus,[36] 
who, as we have already said,[37] had obtained the 
high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and 
reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to 
the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel 
of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as 
we have already shown.[38] Ananus,22 therefore, 
being of this character, and supposing that he had 
a favorable opportunity on account of the fact 
that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the 
way, called together the Sanhedrim, and brought 
before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called 
Christ, James by name, together with some 
others,[39] and accused them of violating the law, 
and condemned them to be stoned.[40] But those in 
the city who 23 seemed most moderate and skilled 
in the law were very angry at this, and sent 
secretly to the king,[41] requesting him to order 
Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had not 
done right even this first time. And certain of 
them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying 
from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not 
lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without 
his knowledge.[42] And Albinus, being 24

128

persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger 
to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And  
the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him, 
of the high priesthood,[43] which he had held 
threemonths, and appointed Jesus, the son of 25 
Damnaeus."[44] These things are recorded in regard 
to James, who is said to be the author of the 
first of the so-called catholic[45] epistles. But 
it is to be observed that it is disputed;[46] at 
least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, 
as is the case likewise with the epistle that 
bears the name of Jude,[47] which is also one of 
the seven so-called catholic epistles. 
Nevertheless we know that these also,[48] with the 
rest, have been read publicly in very many 
churches.[49]

CHAPTER XXIV.

Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of
Alexandria after Mark.

WHEN Nero was in the eighth year of his reign,[1] 
Annianus[2] succeeded Mark the evangelist in the 
administration of the parish of Alexandria.[3]

CHAffER XXV.

The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter 
were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of 
Religion.  WHEN the government of Nero was now 1 
firmly established, he began to plunge into unholy 
pursuits, and armed himself even against the 
religion of the God of the universe. To describe 
the greatness of his depravity2 does not lie 
within the plan of the present work. As there are 
many indeed that have recorded his history in most 
accurate narratives,[1] every one may at his 
pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the 
man's extraordinary madness, under the influence 
of which, after he had accomplished the 
destruction of so many myriads without any reason, 
he ran into such blood-guiltiness that he did not 
spare even his nearest relatives and dearest 
friends, but destroyed his mother and his brothers 
and his wife,[2] with very many others of his own 
family

129

as he would private and public enemies, with 
various kinds of deaths. But with all these things 
this particular in the catalogue of his crimes was 
still wanting, that he was the first of the 
emperors who showed himself an enemy of the divine 
religion. 4 The Roman Tertullian is likewise a 
witness of this. He writes as follows:[3]  
"Examine your records. There you will find that 
Nero was the first that persecuted this 
doctrine,[4] particularly then when after subduing 
all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all 
at Rome.[5] We glory in having such a man the 
leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him 
can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero 
unless it was something 5 of great excellence." 
Thus publicly announcing himself as the first 
among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the 
slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, 
recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,[6] 
and that Peter likewise was crucified under 
Nero.[7] This account of Peter and Paul is 
substantiated by the fact that their names are 
preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to 
the present day. It is confirmed likewise by 
Caius,[8]  6

130

a member of the Church,[9] who arose[10] under 
Zephyrinus,[11] bishop of Rome. He, in a published 
disputation with Proclus,[12] the leader of the 
Phrygian heresy,[13] speaks as follows concerning 
the places where the sacred corpses 7 of the 
aforesaid apostles are laid: "But[14] I can show 
the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go 
to the Vatican[15] or to the Ostian way,[16] you 
will find the trophies of those who laid the 
foundations of this church."[17] 8 And that they 
both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated 
by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth,[18] in his 
epistle to the Romans,[19]  in the following 
words: "You have thus by such an admonition bound 
together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome 
and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise 
taught us in our Corinth.[20] And they taught 
together in like manner in Italy, and suffered 
martyrdom at the same time."[21] I have quoted 
these things in order that the truth of the 
history might be still more confirmed.

CHAPTER XXVI.

The Jews, afflicted with Innumerable Evils, 
commenced the Last War against the Romans. 
Josephus again, after relating many things  1 in 
connection with the calamity which came upon the 
whole Jewish nation, records,[1] in addition to 
many other circumstances, that a great many[2] of 
the most honorable among the Jews were scourged in 
Jerusalem itself and then crucified by Florus.[3] 
It happened that he was procurator of Judea when 
the war began to be kindled, in the twelfth year 
of Nero.[4]

131

2  Josephus says[5] that at that time a terrible 
commotion was stirred up throughout all Syria in 
consequence of the revolt of the Jews, and that 
everywhere the latter were destroyed without 
mercy, like enemies, by the inhabitants of the 
cities, "so that one could see cities filled with 
unburied corpses, and the dead bodies of the aged 
scattered about with the bodies of infants, and 
women without even a covering for their nakedness, 
and the whole province full of indescribable 
calamities, while the dread of those things that 
were threatened was greater than the sufferings 
themselves which they anywhere endured."[6] Such 
is the account of Josephus; and such was the 
condition of the Jews at that time.

BOOK III.

CHAPTER I.

The Parts of the World in which the Apostles
preached Christ.

1   Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile 
the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour 
were dispersed throughout the world.[1] 
Parthia,[2] according to tradition, was allotted 
to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia[3] to 
Andrew,[4] and Asia[5] to John,[6] who, after he 
had lived some time there,[7] died at Ephesus. 
Peter appears to have preached 6 in 2 Pontus, 
Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia[9] to the 
Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come 
to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards;[10] for 
he had requested that he might suffer in this way. 
What do we need to say concerning Paul, who 
preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to 
Illyricum,[11] and afterwards suffered martyrdom 
in Rome under

133

Nero?[12] These facts are related by Origen in the 
third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.[13]

CHAPTER II.

The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.

After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus[1] 
was the first to obtain the episcopate of the 
church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to 
Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of 
the epistle.[2]

CHAPTER III.

The Epistles of the Apostles.

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is 
acknowledged as genuine.[1] And this the ancient 
elders[2] used freely in their own writings as an 
undisputed work.[3] But we have learned that his 
extant second Epistle does not belong to the 
canon;[4] yet, as it has appeared profitable to 
many, it has been used with the other 
Scriptures.[5] The so-called Acts 2 of Peter,[6] 
however, and the Gospel[7] which bears his name, 
and the Preaching[8] and the

134

Apocalypse,[9] as they are called, we know have 
not been universally accepted,[10] because no 
ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made 
use of testimonies drawn from them.[11] 3  But in 
the course of my history I shall be careful to 
show, in addition to the official succession, what 
ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made 
use of any of the disputed works,[12] and what 
they have said in regard to the canonical and 
accepted writings,[13] as well as in regard to 
those which are not of this class. Such are the 
writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of 
which I know to be genuine[14] and acknowledged by 
the ancient elders.[15] 5  Paul's fourteen 
epistles are well known and undisputed.[16] It is 
not indeed right to overlook the fact that some 
have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,[17] 
saying that it is dis-

Please choose an option.

135

puted[18] by the church of Rome, on the ground 
that it was not written by Paul. But what has been 
said concerning this epistle by those who lived 
before our time I shall quote in the proper 
place.[19] In regard to the so-called Acts of 
Paul,[20] I have not found them among the 
undisputed writings.[21]
6   But as the same apostle, in the salutations at 
the end of the Epistle to the Romans,[22] has made 
mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book 
called The Shepherd[23] is ascribed, it should be 
observed that this too has been disputed by some, 
and on their account cannot be placed among the 
acknowledged books; while by others it is 
considered quite indispensable, especially to 
those who need instruction in the elements of the 
faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly 
read in churches, and I have found that some  of 
the most ancient writers used it. This will serve 
to show the divine writings that are undisputed as 
well as those that are not universally 
acknowledged.

136

CHAPTER IV.

The First Successors of the Apostles.

1   THAT Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid 
the foundations of the churches "from Jerusalem 
round about even unto Illyricum," is evident both 
from his own words,[1] and from theaccount which 
Luke has given in the Acts.[2]
2   And in how many provinces Peter  preached 
Christ and taught the doctrine of the new covenant 
to those of the circumcision is clear from his own 
words in his epistle already mentioned as 
undisputed,[3] in which he writes to the Hebrews 
of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Asia, and Bithynia.[4] But the number and the 
names of those among them that became true and 
zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged 
worthy to tend the churches rounded by them, it is 
not easy to tell, except those mentioned in the 
writings of Paul. For he had innumerable 
fellow-laborers, or "fellow-soldiers," as he 
called them,[5] and most of them were honored by 
him with an imperishable memorial, for he gave 
enduring testimony 5 concerning them in his own 
epistles. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his 
friends, and mentions them by name.[6]
6     Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to 
receive the episcopate of the parish in 
Ephesus,[7] Titus of the churches in Crete.[8] But 
Luke,[9] who was of Antiochian parentage and a 
physician by 7 profession,[10] and who was 
especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted 
with the rest of the apostles,[11] has left us, in 
two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual 
healing art which he learned from them. One of 
these books is the Gospel,[12] which he  testifies 
that he wrote as those who were from the beginning 
eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered 
unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed 
accurately from the first.[13] The other book is 
the Acts of the Apostles[14] which he

137

composed not from the accounts of others, but from 
what he had seen himself. And they say that Paul 
meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if 
speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the 
words, "according to my Gospel."[15] As to the 
rest of his followers, Paul testifies that 
Crescens was sent to Gaul;[16] but Linus, whom he 
mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy[17] as 
his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in 
the episcopate of the church there, as has already 
been shown.[18] Clement also, who was ap 10 
pointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, 
as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and 
fellow-soldier.[19] Besides these, that Areopa 11 
gite, named Dionysius, who was the first to 
believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in 
the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the 
Acts)[20] is mentioned by another Dionysius, an

138

ancient writer and pastor of the parish in 
Corinth,[21] as the first bishop of the church at  
12. Athens. But the events connected with the 
apostolic succession we shall relate at the proper 
time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our 
history.

CHAPTER V.

The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.

AFTER Nero had held the power thirteen years,[1] 
and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six 
months,[2] Vespasian, who had become distinguished 
in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed 
sovereign in Judea and received the title of 
Emperor from the armies there.[3] Setting out 
immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the 
conduct of the war
2.  against the Jews to his son Titus.[4] For the  
Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in 
addition to their crime against him, had been 
devising as many plots as they could against his 
apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by 
them,[5] and after him James, the son of Zebedee 
and the brother of John, was beheaded,[6] and 
finally James, the first that had obtained the 
episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of 
our Saviour, died in the manner already 
described.[7] But the rest of the apostles, who 
had been incessantly plotted against with a view 
to their destruction, and had been driven out of 
the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach 
the Gospel,[8] relying upon the power of Christ, 
who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of 
all the nations in my name."[9] 
But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been 
commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved 
men there before the war, to leave the city and to 
dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.[10] 
And when those that believed in Christ had come 
thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city 
of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were 
entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of 
God at length overtook those who had committed 
such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and 
totally destroyed that generation of impious men. 
But the number of calamities which every 4 where 
fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme 
misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were 
especially subjected, the thousands of men, as 
well as women and children, that perished by the 
sword, by famine, and by other forms of death 
innumerable,--all these things, as well as the 
many great sieges which were carried on against 
the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings 
endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as 
to a city of perfect safety, and finally the 
general course of the whole war, as well as its 
particular occurrences in detail, and how at last 
the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the 
prophets,[11] stood in the very temple of God, so 
celebrated of old, the temple which was now 
awaiting its total and final destruction by 
fire,-- all these things any one that wishes may 
find accurately described in the history written 
by Josephus.[12]
But it is necessary to state that this writer 5 
records that the multitude of those who were 
assembled from all Judea at the time of the 
Passover, to the number of three million 
souls,[13] were shut up in Jerusalem "as in a 
prison," to use his own words. For it was right 6 
that in the very days in which they had inflicted 
suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of 
all, the Christ of God, that in those days, shut 
up "as in a prison," they should meet with 
destruction at the hands of divine justice.
But passing by the particular calamities 7 which 
they suffered from the attempts made upon them by 
the sword and by other means, I think it necessary 
to relate only the misfortunes which the famine 
caused, that those who read 

139

this work may have some means of knowing that  God 
was not long in executing vengeance upon them for 
their wickedness against the Christ of God.
CHAPTER VI.

The Famine which oppressed them.

TAKING the fifth book of the History of  Josephus 
again in our hands, let us go through the tragedy 
of events which then occurred.[1] "For the 
wealthy," he says, "it was equally dangerous to 
remain. For under pretense that they were going to 
desert men were put to death for their wealth. The 
madness of the seditions increased with the famine 
and both the miseries were inflamed more and more 
day by day. Nowhere was food to be seen; but, 
bursting into the houses men searched them 
thoroughly, and whenever they found anything to 
eat they tormented the owners on the ground that 
they had denied that they had anything; but if 
they found nothing, they tortured them on the 
ground that they 4     had more carefully 
concealed it. The proof of their having or not 
having food was found in the bodies of the poor 
wretches. Those of them who were still in good 
condition they assumed were well supplied with 
food, while those who were already wasted away 
they passed by, for it seemed absurd to slay those 
who were   5  on the point of perishing for want. 
Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for 
one measure of wheat, if they belonged to the 
wealthier class, of barley if they were poorer. 
Then shutting themselves up in the innermost parts 
of their houses, some ate the grain uncooked on 
account of their terrible want, while others baked 
it according as necessity and  6  fear dictated. 
Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet 
uncooked food from the fire, they tore it in 
pieces. Wretched was the fare, and a lamentable 
spectacle it was to see the more powerful secure 
an abundance while the 7  weaker mourned. Of all 
evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and it 
destroys nothing so effectively as shame. For that 
which under other circumstances is worthy of 
respect, in the midst of famine is despised. Thus 
women snatched the food from the very mouths of 
their husbands and children, from their fathers, 
and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from 
their babes, And while their dearest ones were 
wasting away in their arms, they Were not ashamed 
to take away froth them the last
8    drops that supported life. And even while 
they were eating thus they did not remain 
undiscovered. But everywhere the rioters appeared, 
to rob them even of these portions of food. For 
whenever they saw a house shut up, they regarded 
it as a sign that those inside were taking food. 
And immediately bursting open the doors they 
rushed in and seized what they were eating, almost 
forcing it out of their very throats. Old men who 
clung to their  9 food were beaten, and if the 
women concealed it in their hands, their hair was 
torn for so doing. There was pity neither for gray 
hairs nor for infants, but, taking up the babes 
that clung to their morsels of food, they dashed 
them to the ground. But to those that anticipated 
their entrance and swallowed what they were about 
to seize, they were still more cruel, just as if 
they had been wronged by them. And  10  they, 
devised the most terrible modes of torture to 
discover food, stopping up the privy passages of 
the poor wretches with bitter herbs, and piercing 
their seats with sharp rods. And men suffered 
things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of 
compelling them to confess to the possession of 
one loaf of bread, or in order that they might be 
made to disclose a single drachm of barley which 
they had concealed. But the tormentors themselves 
did not suffer hunger. Their conduct might indeed 
have seemed less barbarous if they had been driven 
to it by necessity; but they did it for the sake 
of exercising their madness and of providing 
sustenance for themselves for days to come. And 
when any one crept out of the  12  city by night 
as far as the outposts of the Romans to collect 
wild herbs and grass, they went to meet him; and 
when he thought he had already escaped the enemy, 
they seized what he had brought with him, and even 
though oftentimes the man would entreat them, and, 
calling upon the most awful name of God, adjure 
them to give him a portion of what he had obtained 
at the risk of his life, they would give him 
nothing back. Indeed, it was fortunate if the one 
that was plundered was not also slain."
To this account Josephus, after relating other 
things, adds the following:[2] "The  13  
possibility of going out of the city being brought 
to an end,[3] all hope of safety for the Jews was 
cut off. And the famine increased and devoured the 
people by houses and families. And the rooms were 
filled with dead women and children, the lanes of 
the city with the corpses of old men. Children and 
youths, 14 swollen with the famine, wandered about 
the market-places like shadows, and fell down 
wherever the death agony overtook them. The sick 
were not strong enough to bury even their own 
relatives, and those who had the strength

140

hesitated because of the multitude of the dead and 
the uncertainty as to their own fate. Many, 
indeed, died while they were burying others,
and many betook themselves to their graves
15   before death came upon them. There was  
neither weeping nor lamentation under these 
misfortunes; but the famine stifled the natural 
affections. Those that were dying a lingering 
death looked with dry eyes upon those that had 
gone to their rest before them. Deep silence and 
death-laden night encircled the city.
16    But the robbers were more terrible than 
these miseries; for they broke open the houses, 
which were now mere sepulchres, robbed the dead 
and stripped the covering from their bodies, and 
went away with a laugh. They tried the points of 
their swords in the dead bodies, and some that 
were lying on the ground still alive they thrust 
through in order to test their weapons. But those 
that prayed that they would use their right hand 
and their sword upon them, they contemptuously 
left to be destroyed by the famine. Every one of 
these died with eyes fixed upon the temple; and 
they left the seditious
17    alive. These at first gave orders that the  
dead should be buried out of the public treasury, 
for they could not endure the stench. But 
afterward, when they were not able to do this, 
they threw the bodies from the walls  18   into 
the trenches. And as Titus went around and saw the 
trenches filled with the dead, and the thick blood 
oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned aloud, 
and, raising his hands, called God to witness that 
this was  19  not his doing." After speaking of 
some    other things, Josephus proceeds as 
follows:[4] "I cannot hesitate to declare what my 
feelings compel me to. I suppose, if the Romans 
had longer delayed in coming against these guilty 
wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by 
a chasm, or overwhelmed with a flood, or struck 
with such thunderbolts as destroyed Sodom. For it 
had brought forth a generation of men much more 
godless than were those that suffered such 
punishment. By their madness indeed was the whole 
people brought to destruction." 
20    And in the sixth book he writes as 
follows:[5] "Of those that perished by famine in 
the city the number was countless, and the 
miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if so 
much as the shadow of food appeared in any house, 
there was war, and the dearest friends engaged in 
hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and 
snatched from each other the most wretched 
supports of life. Nor would they believe 21 that 
even the dying were without food; but the robbers 
would search them while they were expiring, lest 
any one should feign death while concealing food 
in his bosom. With mouths gaping for want of food, 
they stumbled and staggered along like mad dogs, 
and beat the doors as if they were drunk, and in 
their impotence they would rush into the same 
houses twice or thrice in one hour. Necessity 
compelled them to eat anything  22 they could 
find, and they gathered and devoured things that 
were not fit even for the filthiest of irrational 
beasts. Finally they did not abstain even from 
their girdles and shoes, and they stripped the 
hides off their shields and devoured them. Some 
used even wisps of old hay for food, and others 
gathered stubble and sold the smallest weight of 
it for four Attic drachm'.[6]
"But why should I speak of the shamelessness which 
was displayed during the famine toward inanimate 
things? For I am going to relate a fact such as is 
recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians; 
horrible to relate, incredible to hear. And indeed 
I should gladly have omitted this calamity, that I 
might not seem to posterity to be a teller of 
fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses 
to it in my own age. And besides, I should render 
my country poor service if I suppressed the 
account of the sufferings which she endured.
"There was a certain woman named Mary that dwelt 
beyond Jordan, whose father was Eleazer, of the 
village of Bathezor[7] (which signifies the house 
of hyssop). She was distinguished for her family 
and her wealth, and had fled with the rest of the 
multitude to Jerusalem and was shut up there with 
them during the siege. The tyrants had robbed her 
of the  25  rest of the property which she had 
brought with her into the city from Perea. And the 
remnants of her possessions and whatever food was 
to be seen the guards rushed in daily and snatched 
away from her. This made the woman terribly angry, 
and by her frequent reproaches and imprecations 
she aroused the anger of the rapacious villains 
against herself. But no one either through anger 
or pity would slay her; and she grew weary of 
finding food for others to eat. The search, too, 
was already become everywhere difficult, and the 
famine was piercing her bowels and marrow, and 
resentment was raging more violently than famine. 
Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as her 
counsellors, she proceeded to do a most unnatural 
thing. Seizing her child, a boy which was sucking 
at her breast, she said, Oh, wretched child, m 
war, in famine, in sedition, for what do I pre-

141

serve thee? Slaves among the Romans we shall be 
even if we are allowed to live by them. But even 
slavery is anticipated by the famine, and the 
rioters are more cruel than both. Come, be food 
for me, a fury for these rioters, (8) and a 
bye-word to the world, for this is all that is 
wanting to complete the calamities of the Jews. 
And when she had said this she slew her son; 98 
and having roasted him, she ate one half herself, 
and covering up the remainder, she kept it. Very 
soon the rioters appeared on the scene, and, 
smelling the nefarious odor, they threatened to 
slay her 'immediately unless she should show them 
what she had prepared. She replied that she had 
saved an excellent portion for them, and with that 
she uncovered the 99 remains of the child. They 
were immediately seized with horror and amazement 
and stood transfixed at the sight. But she said 
This is my own son, and the deed is mine. Eat for 
I too have eaten. Be not more merciful than a 
woman, nor more compassionate than a mother. But 
if you are too pious and shrinkfrom my sacrifice, 
I have already (9) eaten of 80 it; let the rest 
also remain for me. At these words the men went 
out trembling, in this one case being affrighted; 
yet with difficulty did they yield that food to 
the mother. Forthwith the whole city was filled 
with the awful crime, and as all pictured the 
terrible deed before their own eyes, they trembled 
as if they 81 had done it themselves. Those that 
were   suffering from the famine now longed for 
death; and blessed were they that had died before 
hearing and seeing miseries like these."
32  Such was the reward which the Jews received 
for their wickedness and impiety, against the 
Christ of God.

CHAPTER VII.
The Predictions of Christ.
1It is fitting to add to these accounts the true 
prediction of our Saviour in which he 2foretold 
these very events. His words are
as follows: (1) "Woe unto them that are with 
child, and to them that give suck in those days! 
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, 
neither on the Sabbath day; For there shall be 
great tribulation, such as was not since the 
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever 
shall be." The historian, reckoning the whole 
number (3) of the slain, says that eleven hundred 
thousand persons perished by famine and sword, (2) 
and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, 
being betrayed by each other after the taking of 
the city, were slain. (3) But the tallest of the 
youths and those that were distinguished for 
beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest 
of the multitude, those that were over seventeen 
years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in 
the works of Egypt, (4)  while still more were 
scattered through the provinces to meet their 
death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. 
Those under seventeen years of age were carried 
away to be sold as slaves, and of these alone the 
number reached ninety thousand. (5) These things 4 
took place in this manner in the second year of 
the reign of Vespasian, (6) in accordance with the 
prophecies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they 
were already present, and wept and mourned 
according to the statement of the holy 
evangelists, who give the very words which be 
uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, 
he said: (7) "If thou hadst 5 known, even thou, in 
this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! 
But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days 
shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall 
cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, 
and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee 
and thy children even with the ground." And 6 
then, as if speaking concerning the people, he 
says, (8) "For there shall be great distress in 
the land, and wrath upon this people. And they 
shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be 
led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem 
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the 
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again: 
(9) "When ye shall see Jerusalem com-

142

passed with armies, then know that the desolation 
thereof is nigh." 7  If any one compares the words 
of our Saviour with the other accounts of the 
historian concerning the whole war, how can one 
fail to wonder, and to admit that the 
foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were 
8 truly divine and marvellously strange. (10) 
Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the 
whole Jewish nation after the Saviour's passion 
and after the words which the multitude of the 
Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the 
robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince 
of Life should be taken from their midst, (11) it 
is not necessary to add anything to the 9 account 
of the historian. But it may be proper to mention 
also those events which exhibited the graciousness 
of that all-good Providence which held back their 
destruction full forty years after their crime 
against Christ,--during which time many of the 
apostles and disciples, and James himself the 
first bishop there, the one who is called the 
brother of the Lord,  were still alive, and 
dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest 
bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still 
proved itself long-suffering toward them in order 
to see whether by repentance for what they had 
done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and 
in addition to such long-suffering, Providence 
also furnished wonderful signs of the things which 
were about to happen to them if they did not 
repent. 10 Since these matters have been thought 
worthy of mention by the historian already cited, 
we cannot do better than to recount them for the 
benefit of the readers of this work.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Signs which preceded the War.

1   Taking, then, the work of this author,  read 
what he records in the sixth book of his History. 
His words are as follows: (1) "Thus were the 
miserable people won over at this time by the 
impostors and false prophets; (2) but they did not 
heed nor give credit to the visions and signs that 
foretold the approaching desolation. On the 
contrary, as if struck by lightning, and as if 
possessing neither eyes nor understanding, they 
slighted the proclamations of God. At one time a 
star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, 
and a comet, which lasted for a whole year; and 
again before the revolt and before the 
disturbances that led to the war, when the people 
were gathered for the feast of unleavened bread, 
on the eighth of the month Xanthicus, (3) at the 
ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone 
about the altar and the temple that it seemed to 
be bright day; and this continued for half an 
hour. This seemed to the unskillful a good sign, 
but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as 
portending those events which very soon took 
place. And at the same feast a cow, led 3 by the 
high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb 
in the midst of the temple. And the eastern gate 
of the inner temple, 4 which was of bronze and 
very massive, and which at evening was closed with 
difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon 
iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the 
ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to 
open of itself. And not many days after the feast, 
5 on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium, (4) 
a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes 
belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it 
not related by those who saw it, and were not the 
calamities which followed deserving of such signs. 
For before the setting of the sun chariots and 
armed troops were seen throughout the whole region 
in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and 
encircling the cities. And at the feast which is 
called Pentecost, 6 when the priests entered the 
temple at night, as was their custom, to perform 
the services, they said that at first they 
perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward a 
voice as of a great multitude, saying, 'Let us go 
hence.' (5) But what follows is still more  7 
terrible; for a certain Jesus, the son of Ananias, 
a common countryman, four years before the war, 
(6) when the city was particularly

143

prosperous and peaceful, came to the feast, at 
which it was customary for all to make tents at 
the temple to the honor of God, (7) and suddenly 
began to cry out: 'A voice from the east, a voice 
from the west, a voice from the four winds, a 
voice against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice 
against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against 
all the people.' Day and night he went 8 through 
all the alleys crying thus. But certain of the 
more distinguished citizens, vexed at the ominous 
cry, seized the man and beat him with many 
stripes. But without uttering a word in his own 
behalf, or saying anything in particular to those 
that were present, he continued to cry out in the 
same words as before. And the rulers, thinking, as 
was true, that the man was moved by a higher 
power, brought him before the Roman governor. (8) 
And then, though he was scourged to the bone, he 
neither made supplication nor shed tears, but, 
changing his voice to the most lamentable tone 
possible, he answered each stroke with the words, 
'Woe, woe unto Jerusalem.'" 10  The same historian 
records another fact still more wonderful than 
this. He says (9) that a certain oracle was found 
in their sacred writings which declared that at 
that time a certain person should go forth from 
their country to rule the world. He himself 
understood 11 that this was fulfilled in 
Vespasian. But Vespasian did not rule the whole 
world, but only that part of it which was subject 
to the Romans. With better right could it be 
applied to Christ; to whom it was said by the 
Father, "Ask of me, and I will give thee the 
heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the 
earth for thy possession." (10) At that very time, 
indeed, the voice of his holy apostles "went 
throughout all the earth, and their words to the 
end of the world." (11)

CHAFFER IX.

Josethus and the Works which he has left. AFTER 
all this it is fitting that we should know 
something in regard to the origin and family of 
Josephus, who has contributed so much to the 
history in hand. He himself gives us information 
on this point in the following words: (1) 
"Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest of 
Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Romans 
in the beginning and was compelled to be present 
at what happened afterward." He was the most noted 
of all the Jews of that day, not only among his 
own people, but also among the Romans, so that he 
was honored by the erection of a statue in Rome, 
(2) and his works were deemed worthy of a place in 
the library. (3) He wrote the whole of the 
Antiquities of the Jews (4) in twenty books, and a 
history of the war with the Romans which took 
place in his time, in seven books? He himself 
testifies that the latter work was not only 
written in Greek, but that it was also translated 
by himself

144

into his native tongue. (6) He is worthy of credit 
here because of his truthfulness in other 4  
matters. There are extant also two other books of 
his which are worth reading. They treat of the 
antiquity of the Jews, (7) and in them he replies 
to Apion the Grammarian, who had at that time 
written a treatise against the Jews, and also to 
others who had attempted to vilify the hereditary 
institutions of the Jewish people. 5  In the first 
of these books he gives the number of the 
canonical books of the so-called Old Testament. 
Apparently (8) drawing his information from 
ancient tradition, he shows what books were 
accepted without dispute among the Hebrews. His 
words are as follows.

CHAPTER X.

The Manner in which Josephus mentions the
Divine Books.

1   "We have not, therefore, a multitude of books 
disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but 
we have only twenty-two, which contain the record 
of all time and are justly held to be divine. Of 
these, five are by 2 Moses, and contain the laws 
and the tradi-

145

tion respecting the origin of man, and continue 
the history (2) down to his own death. This period 
embraces nearly three thousand years. (3) From the 
death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who 
succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets 
that followed Moses wrote the history of their own 
times in thirteen books. (4) The other four books 
contain hymns to God, and precepts for the 
regulation of the life of men. From the time of 
Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been 
recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the 
same confidence that we repose in those which 
preceded them, because there has not been during 
this time an exact 5 succession of prophets. (5) 
How much we are attached to our own writings is 
shown plainly by our treatment of them. For 
although so great a period has already passed by, 
no one has ventured either to add to or to take 
from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their 
very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, 
and to abide by them, and, if necessary, 
cheerfully to die for them."
These remarks of the historian I have thought 
might advantageously be introduced in this 
connection. Another work of no little merit 6 has 
been produced by the same writer, On the Supremacy 
of Reason, (6) which some have called Maccabaicum, 
(7) because it contains an account of the 
struggles of those Hebrews who contended manfully 
for the true religion, as is related in the books 
called Maccabees. And at the end of the twentieth 
book of (7) his Antiquities (8) Josephus himself 
intimates that he had purposed to write a work in 
four books concerning God and his existence, 
according to the traditional opinions of the Jews, 
and also concerning the laws, why it is that they 
permit some things while prohibiting others. (9) 
And the same writer also mentions in his own works 
other books written by himself. (9) In (8) 
addition to these things it is proper to quote 
also the words that are found at the close of his 
Antiquities, (10) in confirmation of the testimony 
which we have drawn from his accounts. In that 
place he attacks Justus of Tiberias, (11) who, 
like himself, had attempted to write a history of 
contemporary events, on the ground that he had not 
written truthfully. Having brought many

146

other accusations against the man, he continues in 
these words: (12) "I indeed was not afraid 9 in 
respect to my writings as you were, (13) but,  on 
the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors 
themselves when the events were almost under men's 
eyes. For I was conscious that I had preserved the 
truth in my account, and hence was not 
disappointed in my expectation 10 of obtaining 
their attestation. And I presented my history also 
to many others, some of whom were present at the 
war, as, for instance, King Agrippa (14) and some 
of his 11 relatives. For the Emperor Titus desired 
so much that the knowledge of the events should be 
communicated to men by my history alone, that he 
indorsed the books with his own hand and commanded 
that they should be published. And King Agrippa 
wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the 
truthfulness of my account." Of these epistles 
Josephus subjoins two. (15) But this will suffice 
in regard to him. Let us now proceed with our 
history.

CHAFFER XI.

Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after AFTER 
the martyrdom of James (1) and the conquest of 
Jerusalem which immediately followed, (2) it is 
said that those of the apostles and disciples of 
the Lord that were still living came together from 
all directions with those that were related to the 
Lord according to the flesh (3) (for the majority 
of them also were still alive) to take counsel as 
to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with 
one 2 consent pronounced Symeon, (4) the son of 
Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; (5) 
to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that 
parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the 
Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a 
brother of Joseph. (6)

CHAFFER XII.

Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be  
He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest 
of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to 
the lineage of David should be sought out, in 
order that none of the royal race might be left 
among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most 
terrible persecution again hung over the Jews. (1)

147

CHAPTER XIII.

Anencletus, the Second Bishop of  Rome.

After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his 
son, succeeded him. (1) In the second year of his 
reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of 
Rome for twelve years, (2) delivered his office to 
Anencletus. (3) But Titus was succeeded by his 
brother Domitian after he had reigned two years 
and the same number of months. (4)

CHAPTER XIV.

Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.
In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, (1) the 
first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died 
after holding office twenty-two years, and was 
succeeded by Abilius, (2) the second bishop.

CHAPTER XV.

Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.

In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement 
succeeded Anencletus (1) after the latter had been 
bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The 
apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs 
us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His 
words are as follows: (2) "With Clement arid the 
rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the 
book of life."

CHAPTER XVI.

The Epistle of Clement.

There is extant an epistle of this Clement (1) 
which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of 
considerable length and of remarkable merit. (2)  
He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to 
the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen 
in the latter church. (3) We know that this 
epistle also has been publicly used in a great 
many churches both in former times and in our own. 
(4) And of the fact that a sedition did take place 
in the church of Corinth at the time referred to 
Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. (5)

CHAPTER XVII.

The Persecution under Domitian.

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, 
and having unjustly put to death no small number 
of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having 
without cause exiled and confiscated the property 
of a great many other illustrious men, finally 
became a successor of Nero in his. hatred and 
enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that 
stirred up a persecution against us, (1) although 
his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing 
prejudicial to us. (2)

148

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.

1   It is said that in this persecution the 
apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, 
was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in 
consequence of his testimony to the divine word. 
(1) Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work 
Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of 
the name of Antichrist which is given in the 
so-called Apocalypse of John, (2) speaks as 
follows concerning him: a "If it were necessary 
for his name to be proclaimed openly at the 
present time, it would have been declared by him 
who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long 
ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end 
of the reign of Domitian."
4   To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of 
our faith flourish at that time that even those 
writers who were far from our religion did not 
hesitate to mention in their histories the 
persecution and the martyrdoms which took place 
during it. (4) And they, indeed, accurately 
indicated the time. For they recorded that in the 
fifteenth year of Domitian (5) Flavia Domitilla, 
daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at 
that time was one of the consuls of Rome, (6) was 
exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in 
consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

CHAPTER XIX.

Domitian commands the Descendants of David
to be slain.

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the 
descendants of David should be slain, an ancient 
tradition says (1) that some of the heretics 
brought accusation against the descendants of Jude 
(said to have been a brother of the Saviour 
according to the flesh), on the ground that they 
were of the lineage of David and were related to 
Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in 
the following words.

CHAPTER XX.

The Relatives of our Saviour.

"Of the family of the Lord there were still 1 
living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to 
have been the Lord's brother according to the 
flesh. (1) Information was given that they 
belonged to the family of David, and they 2 were 
brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. 
(2) For Domitian feared the com-

149

ing of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he 
asked them if they were descendants of David, and 
they confessed that they were. Then he asked them 
how much property they had, or how much money they 
owned. And both of them answered that they had 
only nine thousand denarii, (8) half of which 
belonged to each of them; and this property did 
not consist of silver, but of a piece of land 
which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from 
which they raised their taxes (4) and supported 
themselves by their own labor." (5) 5 Then they 
showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of 
their bodies and the callousness produced upon 
their hands by continuous toil as evidence of 
their own labor.  And when they were asked 
concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it 
was and where and when it was to appear, they, 
answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly 
kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which 
would appear at the end of the world, when he 
should come in glory to judge the quick and the 
dead, and to give unto every one according to his 
works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass 
judgment against them, but, despising them as of 
no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a 
stop to the persecution of the Church. But when 
they were released they ruled the churches because 
they were witnesses (6) and were also relatives of 
the Lord. (7) And peace being established, they 
lived until the time of Trojan. These things are 
related by Hegesippus.
9  Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the 
following words: (8) "Domitian also, who possessed 
a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do 
the same thing that the latter did. But because he 
had, I suppose, some intelligence, (9) he very 
soon ceased, and even 10 recalled those whom he 
had banished." But after Domitian had reigned 
fifteen years, (16) and Nerva had succeeded to the 
empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers 
that record the history of those days, (11) voted 
that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and 
that those who had been unjustly banished should 
return to their homes and have their property 
restored to them. It was at this time 11 that the 
apostle John returned from his banishment in the 
island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according 
to an ancient Christian tradition. (12)

CHAPTER XXI.

Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church
of Alexandria.

After Nerva had reigned a little more  1 than a 
year (1) he was succeeded by Trojan. It was during 
the first year of his reign that Abilius, (2) who 
had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen 
years, was succeeded by Cerdon. (3) He was the 
third that presided2 over that church after 
Annianus, (4) who was the first. At that time 
Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also 
the third that held the episcopate there after 
Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him 
came 3 Anencletus, (5)

CHAPTER XXII.

Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
AT this time Ignatius (1) was known as the second 
bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. 
(2) Symeon (3) likewise was at that time the 
second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the 
brother of our Saviour having been the first.

150

CHAPTER XXIII.

Narrative concerning John the Apostle.

1   At that time the apostle and evangelist  John, 
the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in 
Asia, and governing the churches of that region, 
having returned after the death of Domitian from 
his exile on the island. (1) 2  And that he was 
still alive at that time (2) may be established by 
the testimony of two witnesses. They should be 
trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of 
the Church; and such indeed were Irenaeus and 
Clement 3 of Alexandria. (3) The former in the 
second book of his work Against Heresies, writes 
as follows: (4) "And all the elders that 
associated with John the disciple of the Lord in 
Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. 
For he remained among them until the time of 
Trajan." (5) And in the third book of the same 
work he attests the same thing in the following 
words: (6) "But the church in Ephesus also, which 
was founded by Paul, and where John remained until 
the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the 
apostolic tradition." 5 Clement likewise in his 
book entitled What Rich Man can be saved? (7) 
indicates the time, (8) and subjoins a narrative 
which is most attractive to those that enjoy 
hearing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and 
read the account which rims as follows: (9) 
"Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, 6 but 
a narrative (10) concerning John the apostle, 
which has been handed down and treasured up in 
memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, (11) 
he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he 
went away upon their invitation to the neighboring 
territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in 
some places, in other places to set in order whole 
churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some 
one (12) of those that were pointed out by the 
Spirit. When he 7 had come to one of the cities 
not far away (the name of which is given by some 
(13)), and had consoled the brethren in other 
matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had 
been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful 
physique, of pleasing appearance, and of ardent 
temperament, he said, 'This one I commit to thee 
in all earnestness in the presence of the Church 
and with Christ as witness.' And when the bishop 
had accepted the Charge and had promised all, he 
repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the 
same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus. But 
the presbyter, (14) 8 taking home the youth 
committed to him,

151

reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized (15) 
him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and 
watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon 
him the seal of the Lord (16) he had given him a 
perfect protection. But some youths  9 of his own 
age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed to evil 
practices, corrupted him when he was thus 
prematurely freed from restraint. At first they 
enticed him by costly entertainments; then, when 
they went forth at night for robbery, they took 
him with them, and finally they demanded that he 
should unite with them in some greater crime. He 
gradually 10 became accustomed to such practices, 
and on account of the positiveness of his 
character, (17) leaving the right path, and taking 
the bit in his teeth like a hard-mouthed and 
powerful horse, he rushed the more violently down 
into the depths. And finally despairing of 
salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was 
insignificant, but having committed some great 
crime, since he was now lost once for all, he 
expected to suffer a like fate with the rest. 
Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of 
robbers, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most 
violent, most bloody, most cruel of them all. Time 
passed, and some necessity having arisen, they 
sent for John. But he, when he had set in order 
the other matters on account of which he had come, 
said, 'Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit 
which both I and Christ committed to thee, the 
church, over which thou presidest, being witness. 
(7) But the bishop was 13 at first confounded, 
thinking that he was falsely charged in regard to 
money which he had not received, and he could 
neither believe the accusation respecting what he 
had not, nor could he disbelieve John. But when he 
said, 'I demand the young man and the soul of the 
brother,' the old man, groaning deeply and at the 
same time bursting into tears, said, 'He is dead.' 
'How and what kind of death?' 'He is dead to God,' 
he said; 'for he turned wicked and abandoned, and 
at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, 
he haunts the mountain with a band like himself.' 
But the 14 Apostle rent his clothes, and beating 
his head with great lamentation, he said, 'A fine 
guard I left for a brother's soul !But let a horse 
be brought me, and let some one show me the way.' 
He rode away from the church just as he was, and 
coming to the place, he was 15 taken prisoner by 
the robbers' outpost. He, however, neither fled 
nor made entreaty,

152

but cried out, 'For this did I come; lead 16 me to 
your captain.' The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, 
armed as he was. But when he recognized John 
approaching, he 17 turned in shame to flee. But 
John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his 
might, crying out, 'Why, my son, dost thou flee 
from me, thine own father, unarmed, aged? Pity me, 
my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I 
will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, 
I will willingly endure thy death as the Lord 
suffered death for us. For thee will I give up my 
life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent 18 me.' And 
he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down; 
then he threw away his arms, and then trembled and 
wept bitterly. And when the old man approached, he 
embraced him, making confession with lamentations 
as he! was able, baptizing himself a second time 
with tears, and concealing only his right hand, 19 
But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on 
oath that he would find forgiveness with the 
Saviour, besought him, fell upon his knees, kissed 
his right hand itself as if now purified by 
repentance, and led him back to the church. And 
making intercession for him with copious prayers, 
and struggling together with him in continual 
fastings, and subduing his mind by various 
utterances, he did not depart, as they say, until 
he had restored him to the church, furnishing a 
great example of true repentance and a great proof 
of regeneration, a trophy of a visible 
resurrection."

CHAPTER XXIV.

The Order of the Gospels.

1   This extract from Clement I have inserted here 
for the sake of the history and for the benefit of 
my readers. Let us now point out the undisputed 
writings of this apostle. 2 And in the first place 
his Gospel, which is known to all the churches 
under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine. (1) 
That it has with good reason been put by the 
ancients in the fourth place, after the other 
three Gospels, may be made evident in the 
following way. Those great and truly divine men, I 
mean 3 the apostles of Christ, were purified in 
their life, and were adorned with every virtue of 
the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They 
were confident indeed in their trust in the divine 
and wonder-working power which was granted unto 
them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, 
nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of 
their teacher in studied and artistic language, 
but employing only the demonstration of the divine 
Spirit, which worked with them, and the 
wonder-working power of Christ, which was 
displayed through them, they published the 
knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the 
whole world, paying little attention to the 
composition of written works. And this  4 they did 
because they were assisted in their ministry by 
one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who 
surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in 
richness of thought, committed to writing no more 
than the briefest epistles, (2) although he had 
innumerable mysterious matters to communicate, for 
he had attained even unto the sights of the third 
heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of 
God, and had been deemed worthy to 'heat 
unspeakable utterances there. (3) And the rest of 
the followers of our Saviour, 5 the twelve 
apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless 
others besides, were not ignorant of these things. 
Nevertheless, of all the disciples (4) of the 
Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written 
memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to 
write only under the pressure of necessity. For 
Matthew, who had 6 at first preached to the 
Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, 
committed his Gospel to writing in his native 
tongue, (5) and thus

153

compensated those whom he was obliged 7 to leave 
for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and 
Luke had already published their Gospels, (6) they 
say that John, who had employed all his time in 
proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded 
to write for the following reason. The three 
Gospels already mentioned having come into the 
hands of all and into his own too, they say that 
he accepted them and bore witness to their 
truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them 
an account of the deeds done by Christ at the 
beginning of his ministry. 8 (7) And this indeed 
is true. For it is evident that the three 
evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the 
Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of 
John the Baptist, (8) and indicated this in the 
beginning of their account. For Matthew, after the 
forty days'  9 fast and the temptation which 
followed it,  indicates the chronology of his work 
when he says: "Now when he heard that John was 
delivered up he withdrew from Judea into 
Galilee.'' (9) Mark likewise says: "Now after 10 
that John was delivered up Jesus came into 
Galilee." (10) And Luke, before commencing his 
account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the 
time, when he says that Herod, "adding to all the 
evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in 
prison." (11) They say, therefore, 11 that the 
apostle John, being asked to do it for this 
reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the 
period which had been omitted by the earlier 
evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour 
during that period; that is, of those which were 
done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And 
this is indicated by him, they say, in the 
following words: "This beginning of miracles did 
Jesus "; (12) and again when he refers to the 
Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as 
still baptizing in [?]non near Salim; (13) where 
he states the matter clearly in the words: "For 
John was not yet cast into prison." (14) John 12 
accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of 
Christ which were performed before the Baptist was 
cast into prison, but the other three evangelists 
mention the events which happened after that time. 
One who under- 13 stands this can no longer think 
that the Gospels are at variance with one another, 
inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains 
the first acts of Christ, while the others give an 
account of the latter part of his life. And the 
genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh 
John quite naturally omitted, because it had been 
already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with 
the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it 
were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by 
the divine Spirit. (15) These 14 things may 
suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel 
of John. The cause which led to the composition of 
the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us. 
(16) But as for Luke, 15 in the beginning of his 
Gospel, he states

154

He states that since many others had more rashly 
undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of 
which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he 
himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from 
their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own 
Gospel an accurate account of those events in 
regard to which he had learned the full truth, 
being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul 
and by his acquaintance with 16 the rest of the 
apostles. (17) So much for our own account of 
these things. But in a more fitting place we shall 
attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, 
what others have said concerning them. 17  But of 
the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but 
also the former of his epistles, has been accepted 
without dispute both now and in ancient times. 
(18) But the other two 18 are disputed. (19) In 
regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men 
are still divided. (20) But at the proper time 
this question

155

likewise shall be decided from the testimony of 
the ancients. 

CHAPTER XXV.

The Divine Scriptures that are accept  and those 
that are not. (1)

1   Since we are dealing with this subject it is 
proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament 
which have been already mentioned. First then must 
be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; (2) 
following them the Acts of the Apostles. (3) After 
this must2 be reckoned the epistles of Paul; (4) 
next in

156

order the extanfinal former epistle of John, (5) 
and likewise the epistle of Peter, (6) must be 
maintained. (6) After them is to be placed, if it 
really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, (7) 
concerning which we shall give the different 
opinions at the proper time. (8) These then belong 
among the accepted writings. (9) Among the 
disputed writings, (10) which are nevertheless 
recognized n by many, are extant the so-called 
epistle of James (12) and that of Jude, (13) also 
the second epistle of Peter, (14) and those that 
are called the second and third of John, (15) 
whether they belong to the evangelist or to 
another person of the same name. Among the 
rejected 4 writings (16) must be reckoned also the 
Acts of    Paul, (17) and the so-called Shepherd, 
(18) and the Apocalypse of Peter, (19) and in 
addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, 
(20) and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; 
(21) and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of 
John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, 
reject, (22) but which others class with the 
accepted books. (23) And 5 among these some have 
placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
(24) with which

157

those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are 
especially delighted. And all these may be 
reckoned among the disputed books. (25) But we 
have nevertheless felt compelled to give a 
catalogue of these also, distinguishing those 
works which according to ecclesiastical tradition 
are true and genuine and commonly accepted, (26) 
from those others which, although not canonical 
but disputed, (27) are yet at the same time known 
to most ecclesiastical writers--we have felt 
compelled to give this catalogue in order that we 
might be able to know both these works and those 
that are cited by the heretics under the name of 
the apostles, including, for instance, such books 
as the Gospels of Peter, (28) of Thomas, (29) of 
Matthias, (30) or of any others besides them, and 
the Acts of Andrew (81) and John (82) and the 
other apostles, which no one belonging to the 
succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed 
worthy of mention in his writings. And further, 
the character of the style is at 7 variance with 
apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the 
purpose of the things that are related in them are 
so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy 
that they clearly show themselves to be the 
fictions of heretics. (33) Wherefore they are not 
to be placed even among the rejected (34) 
writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as 
absurd and impious. Let us now proceed with our 
history.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Menander the Sorcerer.

Menander, (1) who succeeded Simon Magus, (2)  
showed himself in his conduct another in-

158

strument of diabolical power, (3) not inferior to 
the former. He also was a Samaritan and carried 
his sorceries to no less an extent than his 
teacher had done, and at the same time reveled in 
still more marvelous tales than he. For he said 
that he was himself the Saviour, who had been sent 
down from invisible aeons for 2  the salvation of 
men; (4) and he taught that no one could gain the 
mastery over the world-creating angels themselves 
(5) unless he had first gone through the magical 
discipline imparted by him and had received 
baptism from him. Those who were deemed worthy of 
this would partake even in the present life of 
perpetual immortality, and would never die, but 
would remain here forever, and without growing old 
become immortal. (6) These facts can be easily 3 
learned from the works of Irenaeus. (7) And 
Justin, in the passage in which he mentions Simon, 
gives an account of this man also, in the 
following words: (8) "And we know that a certain 
Menander, who was also a Samaritan, from the 
village of Capparattea, (9) was a disciple of 
Simon, and that he also, being driven by the 
demons, came to Antioch (10) and deceived many by 
his magical art. And he persuaded his followers 
that they should not die. And there are 4 still 
some of them that assert this." And it was indeed 
an artifice of the devil to endeavor, by means of 
such sorcerers, who assumed the name of 
Christians, to defame the great mystery of 
godliness by magic art, and through them to make 
ridiculous the doctrines of the Church concerning 
the immortality of the soul and the resurrection 
of the dead. (11) But they that have chosen these 
men as their saviours have fallen away from the 
true hope.

CHAPTER XXVII.

The Heresy of the Ebionites. (1)

The evil demon, however, being unable to tear 
certain others from their allegiance

159

to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible 
in a different direction, and so brought them over 
to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly 
called these men Ebionites, because they held poor 
and mean opinions concerning Christ. (2) For they 
considered him a plain and common man, who was 
justified only because of his superior virtue, and 
who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with 
Mary. In their opinion the observance of the 
ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the 
ground that they could not be saved by faith in 
Christ 3 alone and by a corresponding life. (3) 
There were others, however, besides them, that 
were of the same name, (4) but avoided the strange 
and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny 
that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy 
Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also 
refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being 
God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the 
impiety of the former, especially when they, like 
them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily 
worship of the law. (6) These men, 4 moreover, 
thought that it was necessary to reject all the 
epistles of the apostle, whom they called an 
apostate from the law; (7) and they used only the 
so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews (8) and 
made small account of the rest. The Sabbath and 
the rest of the discipline 5 of the Jews they 
observed just like them, but at the same time, 
like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a 
memorial of the

160

6  resurrection of the Saviour. (9) Wherefore, in 
consequence of such a course they received the 
name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of 
their understanding. For this is the name by which 
a poor man is called among the Hebrews. (10)

CHAPTER XXVIII. Cerinthus the Heresiarch.
1   We have understood that at this time 
Cerinthus, (1) the author of another heresy, made 
his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted 
above, (2) in the Disputation which is ascribed to 
him, writes as follows concerning this man: "But 
Cerinthus also, by means 2 of revelations which he 
pretends were written by a great apostle, brings 
before us marvelous things which he falsely claims 
were shown him by angels; and he says that after 
the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set 
up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in 
Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and 
pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of 
God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving 
men, that there is to be a period of a thousand 
years a for marriage festivals." (4) And 
Dionysius, (5) who 3 was bishop of the parish of 
Alexandria in our day, in the second book of his 
work On the Promises, where he says some things 
concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws 
from tradition, mentions this same man in the 
following words: (6)  "But (they say that) 4 
Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, 
after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable 
authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For 
the doctrine which he taught was this: that the 
kingdom of Christ will be an

161

5 earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to 
the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual 
in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would 
consist in those things which he desired, namely, 
in the delights of the belly and of sexual 
passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking 
and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and 
the slaying of victims, under the guise of which 
he thought he could indulge his appetites with a 
better grace." These are the 6 words of Dionysius. 
But Irenaeus, in the  first book of his work 
Against Heresies, (7) gives some more abominable 
false doctrines of the same man, and in the third 
book relates a story which deserves to be 
recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, 
that the apostle John once entered a bath to 
bathe; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he 
sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, 
for he could not bear to remain under the same 
roof with him. And he advised those that were with 
him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the 
bath fall for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, 
is within." (8)

CHAPTER XXIX.

Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.

1   At this time the so-called sect of the 
Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted for a 
very short time. Mention is made of it in the 
Apocalypse of John. (1) They boasted that the 
author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the 
deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the 
apostles for the purpose of ministering to the 
poor. (2) Clement of Alexandria, in the third book 
of his Stromata, relates the following things 
concerning him. (3) "They say that he had 2 a 
beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the 
Saviour, being accused by the apostles of 
jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave 
permission to any one that wished to marry her. 
For they say that this was in accord with that 
saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh. 
And those that have followed his heresy, imitating 
blindly and foolishly that which was done and 
said, commit fornication without shame. But I 
understand that Nicolaus had to do 3 with no other 
woman than her to whom he was married, and that, 
so far as his children are concerned, his 
daughters continued in a state of virginity until 
old age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this 
is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously 
loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was 
evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used 
the expression, 'to abuse the flesh,' he was 
inculcating self-control in the face of those 
pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose 
that, in accordance with the command of the 
Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, 
pleasure and the Lord. (4) But they 4 say that 
Matthias also taught in the same manner that we 
ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and 
not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but 
strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge." (5) 
So much concerning those who then attempted to 
pervert the truth, but in less time than it has 
taken to tell it became entirely extinct.

CHAPTER XXX.
The Apostles that were married. Clement, indeed, 
whose words we have  1 just quoted, after the 
above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on 
account of those who rejected marriage, of the 
apostles that had wives. (1)

162

"Or will they," says he, (2) "reject even the 
apostles? For Peter (3) and Philip (4) begat 
children; and Philip also gave his daughters in 
marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of 
his epistles, to greet his wife, (5) whom he did 
not take about with him, that he might not be 
inconvenienced 2 in his ministry." And since we 
have mentioned this subject it is not improper to 
subjoin another account which is given by the same 
author and which is worth reading. In the seventh 
book of his Stromata he writes as follows: (6) 
"They say, accordingly, that when the blessed 
Peter saw his own wife led oat to die, he rejoiced 
because of her summons and her return home, and 
called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, 
addressing her by name, and saying, 'Oh thou, 
remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the 
blessed, and their perfect disposition toward 
those dearest to them." This account being in 
keeping with the subject in hand, I have related 
here in its proper place.

CHAPTER XXXI.

The Death of John and Philip.

The time and the manner of the death of Paul and 
Peter as well as their burial places, have been 
already shown by us. (1) The time2, of John's 
death has also been given in a general way, (2) 
but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of 
Polycrates (3) (who was bishop of the parish of 
Ephesus), addressed to Victor, (4) bishop of Rome. 
In this epistle he mentions him together with the 
apostle Philip and his daughters in the following 
words: (5) "For in 3 Asia also great lights have 
fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last 
day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come 
with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the 
saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve 
apostles, (6) who sleeps in Hierapolis, (7) and 
his two aged virgin daughters, and another 
daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now 
rests at Ephesus; (8) and

163

moreover John, who was both a witness (9) and a 
teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, 
and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. (10) 
He also sleeps at Ephesus." (11) So much 
concerning their death. And in the Dialogue of 
Caius which we mentioned a little above, (12) 
Proclus, (13) against whom he directed his 
disputation, in agreement with what has been 
quoted, (14) speaks thus concerning the death of 
Philip and his daughters: "After him (15) there 
were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, 
at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the 
tomb of their father." Such is his state-merit. 
But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions 
the daughters of Philip who were at that time at 
Caesarea in Judea with their father, and were 
honored with the gift of prophecy. His words are 
as follows: "We came unto Caesarea; and entering 
into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was 
one of the seven, we abode with him. Now this man 
had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." 
(16) We have thus set forth in these pages6 what 
has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles 
themselves and the apostolic age, and concerning 
the sacred writings which they have left us, as 
well as concerning those which are disputed, but 
nevertheless have been publicly used by many in a 
great number of churches, (17) and moreover,  
concerning those that are altogether rejected and 
are out of harmony with apostolic orthodoxy. 
Having done this, let us now proceed with our 
history.

CHAPTER XXXII.

Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Martyrdom.

It is reported that after the age of Nero and 1 
Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now 
recording, (1) a persecution was stirred up 
against us in certain cities in consequence of a 
popular uprising. (2) In this persecution we have 
understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as 
we have shown, was the second bishop of the church 
of Jerusalem, (3) suffered martyrdora. Hegesippus, 
whose words we have2 already quoted in various 
places, (4) is a witness to this fact also. 
Speaking of certain heretics (5) he adds that 
Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since 
it was clear that he was a Christian, he was 
tortured in various ways for many days, and 
astonished even the judge himself and his 
attendants in the highest degree, and finally he 
suffered a death similar to that of our Lord. (6) 
But there is nothing like hearing the historian 3 
himself, who writes as follows: "Certain of these 
heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the 
son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a 
descendant of David (7) and a Christian;

164

and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one 
hundred and twenty years, (8) while Trajan was 
emperor and Atticus governor." (9) 4 And the same 
writer says that his accusers also, when search 
was made for the descendants of David, were 
arrested as belonging to that family. (10) And it 
might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of 
those that saw and heard the Lord, (11) judging 
from the length of his life, and from the fact 
that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of 
Clopas, (12) who was the father of Symeon, as has 
been already shown. (13) The same historian says 
that there were also others, descended from one of 
the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name 
was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony 
before Domitian, as has been already recorded, 
(14) in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the 
same reign. He writes as follows: "They came, 
therefore, and took the lead of every church (14a) 
as witness (15) and as relatives of the Lord. And 
profound peace being established in every church, 
they remained until the reign of the Emperor 
Trajan, (16) and until the above-mentioned Symeon, 
son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed 
against by the heretics, and was himself in like 
manner accused for the same cause (17) before the 
governor Atticus. (18) And after being tortured 
for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, 
including even the proconsul, marveled that, at 
the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could 
endure so much. And orders were given that he 
should be crucified." In addition to these things 
the same 7 man, while recounting the events of 
that period, records that the Church up to that 
time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, 
since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt 
the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they 
lay until then concealed in obscure darkness. But 
when the sacred college of  8 apostles had 
suffered death in various forms, and the 
generation of those that had been deemed worthy to 
hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had 
passed away, then the league of godless error took 
its rise as a result of the folly of heretical 
teachers, (19) who, because none of the apostles 
was still living, attempted henceforth, with a 
bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the 
preaching of the truth, the 'knowledge which is 
falsely so-called.' (20) 

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.

So great a persecution was at that time  1 opened 
against us in many places that Plinius Secundus, 
one of the most noted of governors, being 
disturbed by the great number of martyrs, 
communicated with the emperor concerning the 
multitude of those that were put to death for

165

their faith. (1) At the same time, he informed him 
in his communication that he had not heard of 
their doing anything profane or contrary to the 
laws,--except that they arose at dawn (2) and sang 
hymns to Christ as a God; but that the), renounced 
adultery and murder and like criminal offenses, 
and did all things in accordance with the laws. In 
reply to this Trajan2. made the following decree: 
that the race of Christians should not be sought 
after, but when  found should be punished. On 
account of this the persecution which had 
threatened to be a most terrible one was to a 
certain degree checked, but there were still left 
plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us 
harm. Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers 
in various places, would lay plots against us, so 
that, although no great persecutions took place, 
local persecutions were nevertheless going on in 
particular provinces, (3) and many of the faithful 
endured martyrdom in various forms. We have taken 
our account from the 3 Latin Apology of Tertullian 
which we mentioned above. (4) The translation runs 
as follows: (5) "And indeed we have found that 
search for us has been forbidden. (6) For when 
Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had 
condemned certain Christians and deprived them of 
their dignity, (7) he was confounded by the 
multitude, and was uncertain what further course 
to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan 
the emperor, informing him that, aside from their 
unwillingness to sacrifice, (8) he had found no 
impiety in them. And he reported this also, 4 that 
the Christians arose (9) early in the

166

morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and 
for the purpose of preserving their discipline 
(10) forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, 
and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that 
the race of Christians should not be sought after, 
but when found should be punished." Such were the 
events which took place at that time.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of 
Rome.
In the third year of the reign of the emperor 
mentioned above, (1) Clement (2) committed the 
episcopal government of the church of Rome to 
Evarestus, (3) and departed this life after he had 
superintended the teaching of the divine word nine 
years in all.

CHAPTER XXXV.

Justus, the Third Bishop of` Jerusalem.

But when Symeon also had died in the manner 
described, (1) a certain Jew by the name of Justus 
(2) succeeded to the episcopal throne in 
Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the 
circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Ignatius and his Epistles.

1      At that time Polycarp, (1) a disciple of 
the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, 
having been entrusted with the episcopate of the 
church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard 
the Lord. 2      And at the same time Papias, (2) 
bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, (3) became 
well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen 
bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, 
and whose fame is still celebrated by a great 
many. (4)

167

Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, 
and became food for wild beasts on account of his 
testimony to Christ. (5) And 4 as he made the 
journey through Asia under the strictest military 
surveillance, he fortified the parishes in the 
various cities where he stopped by oral homilies 
and exhortations, and warned them above all to be 
especially on their guard against the heresies 
that were then beginning to prevail, and exhorted 
them to hold fast to the tradition of the 
apostles. Moreover, he thought it necessary to 
attest that tradition in writing, and to give it a 
fixed form for the sake of greater security. So 
when he came to 5 Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he 
wrote an epistle to the church of Ephesus, (6) in 
which he.

168

mentions Onesimus, its pastor; (7) and another to 
the church of Magnesia, situated upon the 
Maeander, in which he makes mention again of a 
bishop Damas; and finally one to the church of 
Tralles, whose bishop, he states, was at that 6 
time Polybius. In addition to these he wrote also 
to the church of Rome, entreating them not to 
secure his release from martyrdom, and thus rob 
him of his earnest hope. In confirmation of what 
has been said it is proper to quote briefly from 
this epistle. He writes 7 as follows: (8) "From 
Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by 
land and by sea, by night and by day, being bound 
amidst ten leopards? that is, a company of 
soldiers who only become worse when they are well 
treated. In the midst of their wrongdoings, 
however, I am more fully learning discipleship, 
but I 8 am not thereby justified. (10) May I have 
joy of the beasts that are prepared for me; and I 
pray that I may find them ready; I will even coax 
them to devour me quickly that they may not treat 
me as they have some whom they have refused to 
touch through fear. (11) And if they are 
unwilling, I will compel them. Forgive me. 9 I 
know what is expedient for me. Now do I begin to 
be a disciple. May naught of things visible and 
things invisible envy me; (12) that I may attain 
unto Jesus Christ. Let fire and cross and attacks 
of wild beasts, let wrenching of bones, cutting of 
limbs, crushing of the whole body, tortures of the 
devil,--let all these come upon me if only I may 
attain unto Jesus Christ." 10 These things he 
wrote from the above-mentioned city to the 
churches referred to. And when he had left Smyrna 
he wrote again from Troas (13) to the 
Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and 
particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the 
latter church. And since he knew him well as an 
apostolic man, he commended to him, like a true 
and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and 
besought him to care diligently for it. (14) And 
the same man, 11 writing to the Smyrnaeans, used 
the following words concerning Christ, taken I 
know not whence: (15) "But I know and believe that 
he was in the flesh after the resurrection. And 
when he came to Peter and his companions he said 
to them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not an 
incorporeal spirit. (16) And immediately they 
touched him and believed." (17) Irenaeus 12 also 
knew of his martyrdom and mentions his epistles in 
the following words: (18) "As one of our people 
said, when he was condemned to the beasts on 
account of his testimony unto God, I am God's 
wheat, and by the teeth of wild beasts am I 
ground, that I may be found pure bread." Polycarp 
also mentions these 13 letters in the epistle to 
the Philippians which is ascribed to him. (19) His 
words are as follows: (20) "I exhort all of you, 
therefore, to be obedient and to practice all 
patience such as ye saw with your own eyes not 
only in the blessed Ignatius and Rufus and 
Zosimus, (21) but also in others from among 
yourselves as well as in Paul himself and the rest 
of the apostles; being persuaded that all these 
ran not in vain, but in faith and righteousness, 
and that they are gone to their rightful place 
beside the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For 
they loved not the present world, but him that 
died for our sakes and was raised by God for us." 
And afterwards 14 he adds: (22) "You have written 
to me, both you and Ignatius, that if any one go 
to Syria he may carry with him the letters from 
you. And this I will do if I have a suitable 
opportunity, either I myself or one whom I send to 
be an ambassador for you also. The epistles 15 of 
Ignatius which were sent to us by him and the 
others which we had with us we sent to you as you 
gave charge. They are appended to this epistle, 
and from them you will be able

169

to derive great advantage. For they comprise faith 
and patience, and every kind of edification that 
pertaineth to our Lord." So much concerning 
Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros (23) in 
the episcopate of the church of Antioch.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

The Evangelists that were still Eminent at that
Time.

1   Among those that were celebrated at that time 
was Quadratus, (1) who, report says, was renowned 
along with the daughters of Philip for his 
prophetical gifts. And there were many others 
besides these who were known in those days, and 
who occupied the first place among the successors 
of the apostles. And they also, being illustrious 
disciples of such great men, built up the 
foundations of the churches which had been laid by 
the apostles in every place, and preached the 
Gospel more and more widely and scattered the 
saving seeds of the kingdom of heaven far and near 
throughout the whole world. (2) For indeed most of 
the disciples of that time, animated by the divine 
word with a more ardent love for philosophy, (3) 
had already fulfilled the command of the Saviour, 
and had distributed their goods to the needy. (4) 
Then starting out upon long journeys they 
performed the office of evangelists, being filled 
with the desire to preach Christ to those who had 
not yet heard the word of faith, and to deliver to 
3  them the divine Gospels. And when they   had 
only laid the foundations of the faith in foreign 
places, they appointed others as pastors, and 
entrusted them with the nurture of those that had 
recently been brought in, while they themselves 
went on again to other countries and nations, with 
the grace and the co-operation of God. For a great 
many wonderful works were done through them by the 
power of the divine Spirit, so that at the first 
hearing whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced 
the religion of the Creator of the universe. But 
since 4
it is impossible for us to enumerate the names of 
all that became shepherds or evangelists in the 
churches throughout the world in the age 
immediately succeeding the apostles, we have 
recorded, as was fitting, the names of those only 
who have transmitted the apostolic doctrine to us 
in writings still extant.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

The Epistle of Clement and the Writings falsely
ascribed to him.

Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles  1 which we 
have mentioned, (1) and Clement in his epistle 
which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in 
the name of the church of Rome to the church of 
Corinth. (2) In this epistle he gives many 
thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, 
thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent 
production. Wherefore it2. has seemed reasonable 
to reckon it with the other writings of the 
apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in 
his native tongue, some say that the evangelist 
Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated 
the epistle. The 3 latter seems more probable, 
because the epistle of Clement and that to the 
Hebrews have a similar character in regard to 
style, and still further because the thoughts 
contained in the two works are not very different. 
(3)
But it must be observed also that there is 4 said 
to be a second epistle of Clement. But we do not 
know that this is recognized like the former, for 
we do not find that the ancients have made any use 
of it. (4) And certain men  5

170

lengthy writings under his name, containing 
dialogues of Peter and Apion. (5) But no mention 
has been made of these by the ancients; for they 
do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic 
orthodoxy. The acknowledged writing of Clement is 
well known. We have spoken also of the works of 
Ignatius and Polycarp. (6)

CHAPTER XXXIX.

The Writings of Papias.

1   There are extant five books of Papias, which 
bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. 
(1) Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only 
works written by him, (2) in the following words: 
(3) "These things are attested by Papias, an 
ancient man who was a hearer of John and a 
companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For 
five books have been written by him." These are 
the words of Irenaeus. But Papias himself in the 
preface to his discourses by no means declares 
that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of 
the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which 
he uses that he received the doctrines of the 
faith from those who were their friends. (4) He 
says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down 
for you along with my interpreta-

177

his episcopate, [12] was succeeded by Telesphorus, 
[13] the seventh in succession from the apostles. 
In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and 
some months, Eumenes, [14] the sixth in order, 
succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian 
church, his predecessor having held office eleven 
years. [15]

CHAPTER VI.

The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian.

1   As the rebellion of the Jews at this time   
grew much more serious, [1] Rufus, governor of 
Judea, after an auxiliary force had been sent him 
by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, 
proceeded against them without mercy, and 
destroyed indiscriminately thousands of men and 
women and children, and in accordance with the 
laws of war reduced their country to a state of 
complete subjection. The leader of the Jews at 
this time was a man by the name of Barcocheba [2] 
(which signifies a star), who possessed the 
character of a robber and a murderer, but 
nevertheless, relying upon his name, boasted to 
them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed 
wonderful powers; and he pretended that he was a 
star that had come down to them out of heaven to 
bring them light in the midst of their 
misfortunes. The war raged most fiercely in the 
eighteenth 3 year of Adrian, [3] at the city of 
Bithara, [4] which was a very secure fortress, 
situated not far from Jerusalem. When the siege 
had lasted a long time, and the rebels had been 
driven to the last extremity by hunger and thirst, 
and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered 
his just punishment, the whole nation was 
prohibited from this time on by a decree, and by 
the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the 
country about Jerusalem. For the emperor gave 
orders that they should not even see from a 
distance the land of their fathers. Such is the 
account of Aristo of Pella. [5] And4 thus, when 
the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and 
had suffered the total destruction of its ancient 
inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, 
and the Roman city which subsequently arose 
changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of 
the emperor AElius Adrian. And as the church there 
was now com-

178

posed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the 
government of it after the bishops of the 
circumcision was Marcus. [6]

CHAPTER VII.

The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of 
Knowledge falsely so-called. [1]

1   As the churches throughout the world were now 
shining like the most brilliant stars, and faith 
in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was 
flourishing among the whole human race, [2] the 
demon who hates everything that is good, and is 
always hostile to the truth, and most bitterly 
opposed to the salvation of man,  turned all his 
arts against the Church. [3] In the beginning he 
armed himself against it with 2,external 
persecutions. But now, being shut off from the use 
of such means, [4] he devised all sorts of plans, 
and employed other methods in his conflict with 
the Church, using base and deceitful men as 
instruments for the ruin of souls and as ministers 
of destruction. Instigated by him, impostors and 
deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, 
brought to the depth of ruin such of the believers 
as they could win over  and at the same time, by 
means of the deeds  which they practiced, turned 
away from the path which leads to the word of 
salvation those 3  who were ignorant of the faith. 
Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander,  
whom we have already mentioned as the successor of 
Simon, [3] a certain serpent-like power, 
double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the 
leaders of two different heresies, Saturninus, an 
Antiochian by birth, [6] and Basilides, an 
Alexandrian. [7] The former of these established 
schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in 
Alexandria. Irenaeus states [8] that the 4 false 
teaching of Saturninus agreed in most respects 
with that of Menander, but that Basilides, under 
the pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented 
monstrous fables, and carried the fictions of his 
impious heresy quite beyond bounds. But as there 
were at that time a  5 great many members of the 
Church [9] who were fighting for the truth and 
defending apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine 
with uncommon eloquence, so there were some also 
that furnished posterity through their writings 
with means of defense against the heresies to 
which we have referred. [10] Of these there  6 has 
come down to us a most powerful refutation of 
Basilides by Agrippa Castor, [11] one of

179

the most renowned writers of that day, which shows 
the terrible imposture of the man. 7 While 
exposing his mysteries he says that   Basilides 
wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel, [12] and 
that he invented prophets for himself named 
Barcabbas and Barcoph, [13] and others that had no 
existence, and that he gave them barbarous names 
in order to amaze those who marvel at such things; 
that he taught also that the eating of meat 
offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of 
the faith in times of persecution were matters of 
indifference; [14] and that he enjoined upon his 
followers, like 8 Pythagoras, a silence of five 
years. [15] Other similar things the 
above-mentioned writer has recorded concerning 
Basilides, and has 9 ably exposed the error of his 
heresy. Irenaeus also writes [16] that Carpocrates 
was a contemporary of these men, and that he was 
the father of another heresy, called the heresy of 
the Gnostics, [17] who did not wish to transmit 
any longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one 
[18] had done, in secret, but openly. [19] For 
they boasted -- as of something great -- of love 
potions that were carefully prepared by them, and 
of certain demons that sent them dreams and lent 
them their protection, and of other similar 
agencies; and in accordance with these things they 
taught that it was necessary for those who wished 
to enter fully into their mysteries, or rather 
into their abominations, to practice all the worst 
kinds of wickedness, on the ground that they could 
escape the cosmic powers, as they called them, in 
no other way than by discharging their 

180

obligations to them all by infamous-conduct. Thus 
it came to pass that the malignant demon, making 
use of these ministers, on the one hand enslaved 
those that were so pitiably led astray by them to 
their own destruction, while on the other hand he 
furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant 
opportunities for slandering the divine word, 
inasmuch as the reputation of these men brought 
infamy 11 upon the whole race of Christians. In 
this way, therefore, it came to pass that there 
was spread abroad in regard to us among the 
unbelievers of that age, the infamous and most 
absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful 
commerce with mothers and sisters, and 12 enjoyed 
impious feasts. [20] He did not, however, long 
succeed in these artifices, as the truth 
established itself and in time shone 13 with great 
brilliancy. For the machinations of its enemies 
were refuted by its power and speedily vanished. 
One new heresy arose after another, and the former 
ones always passed away, and now at one time, now 
at another, now in one way, now in other ways, 
were lost in ideas of various kinds and various 
forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only 
true Church, which is always the same, grew in 
magnitude and power, and reflected its piety and 
simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity 
of its inspired life and philosophy to every 
nation 14 both of Greeks and of Barbarians. At the 
same time the slanderous accusations which had 
been brought against the whole Church 21 also 
vanished, and there remained our teaching alone, 
which has prevailed over all, and which is 
acknowledged to be superior to all in dignity and 
temperance, and in divine and philosophical 
doctrines. So that none of them now ventures to 
affix a base calumny upon our faith, or any such 
slander as our ancient enemies formerly delighted 
to utter. Nevertheless, 15 in those times the 
truth again called forth many champions who fought 
in its defense against the godless heresies, 
refuting them not only with oral, but also with 
written arguments. [22]

CHAPTER VIII. Ecclesiastical Writers. Among these 
Hegesippus was well 1
known. [1] We have already quoted his words a 
number of times, [2] relating events which 
happened in the time of the apostles according to 
his account. He records in five2 books the true 
tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple 
style, and he indicates the time in which he 
flourished when he writes as follows concerning 
those that first set up idols: "To whom they 
erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the 
present day. Among whom is also Antinous, [3] a 
slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are 
celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were 
instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also 
founded a city named after Antinous, [4] and 
appointed prophets." At the same time also Justin, 
a genuine lover 3 of the true philosophy, was 
still continuing to busy himself with Greek 
literature. [5] He indicates (his time in the 
Apology which he addressed to Antonine, where he 
writes as follows: [6] "We do not think it out of 
place to mention here Antinous also, who lived in 
our day, and whom all were driven by fear to 
worship as a god, although they knew who he was 
and whence he came." 4 The same writer, speaking 
of the Jewish war which took place at that time, 
adds the following: [7] "For in the late Jewish 
war Barcocheba, the leader of the Jewish 
rebellion, commanded that Christians alone [8] 
should be visited with terrible punishments unless 
they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ." And 
in the same work he shows that his conversion from 
Greek philosophy to Christianity [9] was not 
without reason, but that it was the result of 
deliberation on his part. His words are as 
follows: [10] "For I myself, while I was delighted 
with the doctrines of Plato, and heard the 
Christians slandered, and saw that they were 
afraid neither of death nor of anything else 
ordinarily looked upon as terrible, concluded that 
it was impossible that they could be living in 
wickedness and pleasure. For what pleasure-loving 
or intemperate man, or what man that counts it 
good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death 
that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and 
would not rather strive to continue permanently 
his present life, and to escape the notice of the 
rulers, instead of giving himself up to be put to 
death?" The same writer, moreover, relates that 
Adrian having received from Serennius Granianus, 
[11] a most distinguished governor, a letter [12] 
in behalf of the Christians, in which he stated 
that it was not just to slay the Christians 
without a regular accusation and trial, merely for 
the sake of gratifying the outcries of the 
populace, sent a rescript [13] to Minucius 
Fundanus, [14] proconsul of Asia, comrounding him 
to condemn no one without an indictment and a 
well-grounded accusation. And he gives a copy of 
the epistle, preserving 7 the original Latin in 
which it was written, [15] and prefacing it with 
the following words: [18] "Although from the 
epistle of the greatest and most illustrious 
Emperor Adrian, your father, we have good ground 
to demand that you order judgment to be given as 
we have desired, yet we have asked this not 
because it was ordered by Adrian, but rather 
because we know that what we ask is just. And we 
have subjoined the copy of Adrian's epistle that 
you may know that we are

182

speaking the truth in this matter also. And 8  
this is the copy." After these words the author 
referred to gives the rescript in Latin, which we 
have translated into Greek as accurately as we 
could. [17] It reads as follows:

CHAPTER IX.

The Epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should 
not be punished without a Trial.

1   "To Minucius Fundanus. I have received an 
epistle, [1] written to me by Serennius Granianus, 
a most illustrious man, whom you have succeeded. 
It does not seem right to me that the matter 
should be passed by without examination, lest the 
men [2] be harassed and opportunity be given to 
the informers for 2.  practicing villainy. If, 
therefore, the inhabitants of the province can 
clearly sustain this petition against the 
Christians so as to give answer in a court of law, 
let them pursue this course alone, but let them 
not have resort to men's petitions and outcries. 
For it is far more proper, if any one wishes to 
make an accusation, that you should examine into 
it. 3  If any one therefore accuses them and shows 
that they are doing anything contrary to the laws, 
do you pass judgment according to the heinousness 
of the crime. [3] But, by Hercules! if any one 
bring an accusation through mere calumny, decide 
in regard to his criminality, [4] and see to it 
that you inflict punishment." [5] Such are the 
contents of Adrian's rescript.

CHAPTER X.

The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during
the Reign of Antoninus.

Adrian having died after a reign of twenty-one 
years, [1] was succeeded in the government of the 
Romans by Antoninus, called the Pious. In the 
first year of his reign Telesphorus [2] died in 
the eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hyginus 
became bishop of Rome. [3] Irenaeus records that 
Telesphorus' death was made glorious by martyrdom, 
[4] and in the same connection he states that in 
the time of the above-mentioned Roman bishop 
Hyginus, Valentinus, the founder of a sect of his 
own, and Cerdon, the author of Marcion's error, 
were both well known at Rome. [5] He writes as 
follows: [6]

CHAPTER XI.
The Heresiarchs of that Age. "For Valentinus came 
to Rome under 1 Hyginus, flourished under Plus, 
and remained until Anicetus. [1] Cerdon [2] also, 
Mar-

189

by his martyrdom." After these words, before 
giving the account