[a.d. 170.] Eusebius is almost diffuse in what he tells us of this Dionysius,1 “who was appointed over the church at Corinth, and imparted freely, not only to his own people, but to others, and those abroad also, the blessings of his divine labours.” He wrote “Catholic Epistles;” he addressed an epistle to the Spartans and the Athenians; and, as Eusebius says, Dionysius the Areopagite, the convert of St. Paul, was the first bishop of Athens.2 He wrote to the Nicomedians, refuting Marcion, and closely adhering to “the rule of faith.” In an epistle to the Gortynians and others in Crete, he praises Philip for his courageous ministry, and warns them against the heretics. He seems to recognise Palmas as bishop of Amastris and Pontus, and adds expositions of Scripture, and rules regarding marriage, its purity and sanctity. He also inculcates tenderness to penitent lapsers and backsliders. With Pinytus, bishop of the Gnossians, he corresponds on similar subjects; but Pinytus, while he thanks him and commends his clemency, evidently regards him as too much inclined to furnish “food for babes,” and counsels him to add “strong meat for those of full age.” He also writes to Chrysophora, his most faithful sister, imparting spiritual instruction.

Fragments from a Letter to the Roman Church.

I.

For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send resources to many churches which are in every city, thus refreshing the poverty of the needy, and granting subsidies to the brethren who are in the mines.3 Through the resources which ye have sent from the beginning, ye Romans, keep up the custom of the Romans handed down by the fathers, which your blessed Bishop Sorer has not only preserved, but added to, sending a splendid gift to the saints, and exhorting with blessed words those brethren who go up to Rome, as an affectionate father his children.

II. From the Same Epistle.4

We passed this holy Lord’s day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written through Clement.

III. From the Same.

Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went5 to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.6

IV. From the Same.7

For I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is not wonderful, then, if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings, when they have formed designs against those which are not such.8 

FOOTNOTES

1 Book iv. cap. 24, from which these Fragments are collected. See Westcott, On the Canon, p. 206.

2 See Lightfoot, Ap. Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p.555, where he corrects the reading καὶ Πολύκαρπος.

3 [Routh (also on Pinytus and Soter), R. S., p.177. This series, vol. 6. p. 102, note 188. Note also Lightfoot, A. F., part ii. vol. ii. p.192, note 1; and Westcott, Canon, p.206.]

4 [Comp: See Melito, footnote 69 Also Ignatius, vol. 1. p.63, this series.]

5 mss. “planted.”

6 The text is evidently corrupt.

7 [For the reply of Pinytus, and what is said by Eusebius of seven other epistles, see Routh, R. S., vol. i. pp. 181-184.]

8 i.e., of such importance or of such a character.

[a.d. 180.] This Rhodon2 was supposed by St. Jerome to have been the author of the work against the Cataphrygians, ascribed to Asterius Urbanus more probably.3 Eusebius4 gives us the fragment from his work against Marcion, addressed to Callistion, which is here translated. He tells us that he was a pupil of Tatian, and expresses an intention of furnishing original solutions of Scriptural problems sated by Tatian,5 and by that author explained in a manner apparently unsatisfactory. He also appears to have written against the blasphemous Apelles,6 whose Hexaëmeron was an attempt to refute Moses; but whether he also fulfilled his promise concerning an Ἐπίλυσις of Tatian’s Problems (or Questions), seems doubtful. Routh has devoted to the fragment here translated six pages of notes,7 which he subjoins to the Greek text (of Eusebius) and a Latin version of the same.

Wherefore also they8 disagree among themselves, maintaining as they do an opinion which has no consistency with itself. For one of their herd, Apelles, who prides himself on the strictness of his life,9 and on his age, admits that there is only one first principle,10 yet says that the prophecies have come from an opposing spirit, in which opinion he is influenced by the responses of a soothsaying11 maid named Philumene. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, like Marcion12 himself, introduce two first principles. These men, following the Pontic wolf, and not being able to discover any more than he the division of things, have had to recourse to rash assertion, and declared the existence of two first principles simply and without proof. Others of them, again, drifting from bad to worse, assume not two only, but even three natures. Of these men the leader and champion is Syneros, as those who adopt his teaching say….

For the old man Apelles entered into conversation with us, and was convicted of uttering many false opinions. For example, he asserted that men should on no account examine into their creed,13 but that every one ought to continue to the last in the belief he has once adopted. For he declared that those who had rested their hope on the Crucified One would be saved, provided only they were found living in the practice, of good works. But the most perplexing of all the doctrines laid down by him was, as we have remarked before, what he said concerning God: for he affirmed that there was only one first principle, precisely as our own faith teaches ….

On asking him, “Where do you get proof of this? or how are you able to assert that there is only one first principle? tell us,” – he said that the prophecies refuted themselves, because they had uttered nothing at all that was true: for that they were discordant and false, and self-contradictory. As to the question, “How does it appear that there is only one first principle?” he said he could not tell, only he was impelled to that belief. On my thereupon conjuring him to speak the truth, he solemnly declared that he was expressing his real sentiments; and that he did not know” how” there could be one uncreated God, but that he believed the fact. Here I burst into laughter and rebuked him, because he professed to be a teacher, and yet was unable to confirm by arguments what he taught.

FOOTNOTES

1 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 13.

2 Or Rhodo.

3 Vol. 7. pp. 333, 338 this series, where I neglected to insert a reference to Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. pp.283-257.

4 H. E., book v. cap. 13.

5 Vol. 2. p. 62, this series.

6 See Origen, vol. 4. p.567, this series.

7 Rel. Sac., vol. i. pp.437-446.

8 The Marcionites.

9 Πολιτείᾳ. See Migne’s note.

10 Ἀρχήν. (See vol. 7. p. 365, this series.]

11 Δαιμονώσης.

12 Some copies have “Marcion the Sailor,” and so Tertullian (de Præscriptionibus) speaks of him. [Vol. 3. cap. 30, p.257, this series.]

13 Τὸν λόγον.

[a.d. 185-196.] He was a noted character among Christians, according to Eusebius; living, according to Jerome, under Commodus and Severus. He wrote on the inveterate question concerning the Origin of Evil; and the fragment here translated, as given by Eusebius, is also textually cited by Origen against the Marcionites,1 if that Dialogue be his. The reader will not fail to recollect that liberal citations out of this work are also to be found in Methodius, On Free-Will.2 But all who desire fuller information on the subject will be gratified by the learned prolegomena and notes of Routh, to which I refer them.3 Whether Maximus was the bishop of Jerusalem (a.d. 185) mentioned by Eusebius as presiding in that See in the sixth year of Commodus, seems to be uncertain.

From the Book Concerning Matter, or in Defence of the Proposition That Matter Is Created, and Is Not the Cause of Evil.4

“That there cannot exist two uncreated substances at one and the same time, I presume that you hold equally with myself. You appear, however, very decidedly to have assumed, and to have introduced into the argument, this principle, that we must of unavoidable necessity maintain one of two things: either that God is separate from matter; or else, on the contrary, that He is indissolubly connected with it.

“If, then, any one should choose to assert that He exists in union with matter, that would be saying that there is only one uncreated substance. For either of the two must constitute a part of the other; and, since they form parts of each other, they cannot be two uncreated substances. Just as, in speaking of man, we do not describe him as subdivided into a number of distinct parts, each forming a separate created substance, but, as reason requires us to do, assert that he was made by God a single created substance consisting of many parts, – so, in like manner, if God is not separate from matter, we are driven to the conclusion that there is only one uncreated substance.

“If, on the other hand, it be affirmed that He is separate from matter, it necessarily follows that there is some other substance intermediate between the two, by which their separation is made apparent. For it is impossible that one thing should be shown to be severed by an interval from another, unless there be something else by which the interval between the two is produced. This principle, too, holds good not only with regard to this or any other single case, but in any number of cases you please For the same argument which we have employed in dealing with the two uncreated substances must in like manner be valid if the substances in question be given as three. For in regard to these also I should have to inquire whether they are separate from one another, or whether, on the contrary, each of them is united to its fellow. For, if you should say that they are united, you would hear from me the same argument as before; but if, on the contrary, you should say that they are separate, you could not escape the unavoidable assumption of a separating medium.

“If, again, perchance any one should think that there is a third view which may be consistently maintained with regard to uncreated substances, – namely, that God is not separate from matter, nor yet, on the other hand, united to it as a part, but that God exists in matter as in a place, or possibly matter exists in God, – let such a person observe the consequence: – 

“That, if we make matter God’s place, we must of necessity admit that He can be contained,5 and that He is circumscribed by matter. Nay, further, he must grant that He is, in the same way as matter, driven about hither and thither, unable to maintain His place and to stay where He is, since that in which He exists is perpetually being driven about in one direction or another. Beside this, he must also admit that God has had His place among the worst kind of elements. For if matter was once in disorder, and if he reduced it to order for the purpose of rendering it better, there was a time when God existed among the disordered elements of matter.

“I might also fairly put this question: whether God filled the whole of matter, or was in some part of it. If any one should choose to say that God was in some part of matter, he would be making Him indefinitely smaller than matter, inasmuch as a part of it contained the whole of Him;6 but, if he maintained that He pervaded the whole of matter, I need to be informed how He became the Fashioner of this matter. For we must necessarily assume, either that there was on the part of God a contraction,7 so to speak, of Himself, and a withdrawal from matter, whereupon He proceeded to fashion that from which He had retired; or else that He fashioned Himself in conjunction with matter, in consequence of having no place to retire to.

“But suppose it to be maintained, on the other hand, that matter is in God, it will behove us similarly to inquire, whether we are to understand by this that He is sundered from Himself, and that, just like the air, which contains various kinds of animals, so is He sundered and divided into parts for the reception of those creatures which from time to time exist in8 Him; or whether matter is in God as in a place, – for instance, as water is contained in earth. For should we say ‘as in air,’ we should perforce be speaking of God as divisible into parts; but if ‘as water in earth,’ and if matter was, as is admitted, in confusion and disorder, and moreover also contained what was evil, we should have to admit that God is the place of disorder and evil. But this it does not seem to me consistent with reverence to say, but hazardous rather. For you contend that matter is uncreated,9 that you may not have to admit that God is the author of evil; and yet, while aiming to escape this difficulty, you make Him the receptacle of evil.

“If you had stated that your suspicion that matter was uncreated arose from the nature of created things as we find them,10 I should have employed abundant argument in proof that it cannot be so. But, since you have spoken of the existence of evil as the cause of such suspicion, I am disposed to enter upon a separate examination of this point. For, when once it has been made clear how it is that evil exists, and when it is seen to be impossible to deny that God is the author of evil, in consequence of His having had recourse to matter for His materials,11 it seems to me that a suspicion of this kind disappears.

“You assert, then, that matter, destitute of all qualities good or bad, co-existed at the outset with God, and that out of it He fashioned the world as we now find it.”

“Such is my opinion.”

“Well, then, if matter was without any qualities, and the world has come into existence from God, and if the world possesses qualities, the author of those qualities must be God.”

“Exactly so.”

“Since, too, I heard you say yourself just now that out of nothing12 nothing can possibly come, give me an answer to the question I am about to ask you. You seem to me to think that the qualities of the world have not sprung from pre-existing13 qualities, and moreover that they are something different from the substances themselves.”

“I do.”

“If, therefore, God did not produce the qualities in question from qualities already existing, nor yet from substances, by reason that they are not substances, the conclusion is inevitable, that they were made by God out of nothing. So that you seemed to me to affirm more than you were warranted to do, when you said that it had been proved impossible to hold the opinion14 that anything was made by God out of nothing.

“But let us put the matter thus. We see persons among ourselves making certain things out of nothing, however true it may be that they make them by means of something.15 Let us take our illustration, say, from builders. These men do not make cities out of cities; nor, similarly, temples out of temples. Nay, if you suppose that, because the substances necessary for these constructions are already provided, therefore they make them out of that which already exists, your reasoning is fallacious. For it is not the substance that makes the city or the temples, but the art which is employed about the substance. Neither, again, does the art proceed from any art inhering in the substances, but it arises independently of any such art in them.

“But I fancy you will meet the argument by saying that the artist produces the art which is manifest in the substance he has fashioned out of the art which he himself already has. In reply to this, however, I think it may be fairly said, that neither in man does art spring from any already existing art. For we cannot possibly allow that art exists by itself, since it belongs to the class of things which are accidentals, and which receive their existence only when they appear in connection with substance. For man will exist though there should be no architecture, but the latter will have no existence unless there be first of all man. Thus we cannot avoid the conclusion, that it is the nature of art to spring up in man out of nothing. If, then, we have shown that this is the case with man, we surely must allow that God can make not only the qualities of substances out of nothing, but also the substances themselves. For, if it appears possible that anything whatever can be made out of nothing, it is proved that this may be the case with substances also.

“But, since you are specially desirous of inquiring about the origin of evil, I will proceed to the discussion of this topic. And I should like to ask you a few questions. Is it your opinion that things evil are substances, or that they are qualities of substances?”

“Qualities of substances, I am disposed to say.”

“But matter was destitute of qualities and of form: this I assumed at the outset of the discussion. Therefore, if things evil are qualities of substances, and matter was destitute of qualities, and you have called God the author of qualities, God will also be the former of that which is evil. Since, then, it is not possible, on this supposition any more than on the other, to speak of God as not the cause of evil, it seems to me superfluous to add matter to Him, as if that were the cause of evil. If you have any reply to make to this, begin your argument.”

“If, indeed, our discussion had arisen from a love of contention, I should not be willing to have the inquiry raised a second time about the origin of evil; but, since we are prompted rather by friendship and the good of our neighbour to engage in controversy, I readily consent to have the question raised afresh on this subject. You have no doubt long been aware of the character of my mind, and of the object at which I aim in dispute: that I have no wish to vanquish falsehood by plausible reasoning, but rather that truth should be established in connection with thorough investigation. You yourself, too, are of the same mind, I am well assured. Whatever method, therefore, you deem successful for the discovery of truth, do not shrink from using it. For, by following a better course of argument, you will not only confer a benefit on yourself, but most assuredly on me also, instructing me concerning matters of which I am ignorant.”

“You seem clearly to agree with16 me, that things evil are in some sort substances:17 for, apart from substances, I do not see them to have any existence. Since, then, my good friend, you say that things evil are substances, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of substance. Is it your opinion that substance is a kind of bodily structure?”18

“It is.”

“And does that bodily structure exist by itself, without the need of any one to come and give it existence?” “Yes.

“And does it seem to you that things evil are connected with certain courses of action?”

“That is my belief.”

“And do actions come into existence only when an actor is there?” “Yes.”

“And, when there is no actor, neither will his action ever take place?”

“It will not.”

“If, therefore, substance is a kind of bodily structure, and this does not stand in need of some one in and through whom it may receive its existence, and if things evil are actions of some one, and actions require some one in and through whom they receive their existence,-things evil will ‘not’ be substances. And if things evil are not substances, and murder is an evil, and is the action of some one, it follows that murder is not a substance. But, if you insist that agents are substance, then I myself agree with you. A man, for instance, who is a murderer, is, in so far as he is a man, a substance; but the murder which he commits is not a substance, but a work of the substance. Moreover, we speak of a man sometimes as had because he commits murder; and sometimes, again, because he performs acts of beneficence, as good: and these names adhere to the substance, in consequence of the things which are accidents of it, which, however, are not the substance itself. For neither is the substance murder, nor, again, is it adultery, nor is it any other similar evil. But, just as the grammarian derives his name from grammar, and the orator from oratory, and the physician from physic, though the substance is not physic, nor yet oratory, nor grammar, but receives its appellation from the things which are accidents of it, from which it popularly receives its name, though it is not any one of them, – so in like manner it appears to me that the substance receives name from things regarded as evil, though it is not itself any one of them.

“I must beg you also to consider that, if you represent some other being as the cause of evil to men, he also, in so far as he acts in them, and incites them to do evil, is himself evil, by reason of the things he does. For he too is said to be evil, for the simple reason that he is the doer of evil things; but the things which a being does are not the being himself, but his actions, from which he receives his appellation, and is called evil. For if we should say that the things he does are himself, and these consist in murder, and adultery, and theft, and such-like, these things will be himself. And if these things are himself, and if when they take place they get to have a substantial existence,19 but by not taking place they also cease to exist, and if these things are done by men, – men will be the doers of these things, and the causes of existing and of no longer existing. But, if you affirm that these things are his actions, he gets to be evil from the things he does, not from those things of which the substance of him consists.

“Moreover, we have said that he is called evil from those things which are accidents of the substance, which are not themselves the substance: as a physician from the art of physic. But, if he receives the beginning of his existence from the actions he performs, he too began to be evil, and these evil things likewise began to exist. And, if so, an evil being will not be without a beginning, nor will evil things be unoriginated, since we have said that they are originated by him.” 

“The argument relating to the opinion I before expressed, you seem to me, my friend, to have handled satisfactorily: for, from the premises you assumed in the discussion, I think you have drawn a fair conclusion. For, beyond doubt, if matter was at first destitute of qualities, and if God is the fashioner of the qualities it now has, and if evil things are qualities, God is the author of those evil things. The argument, then, relating to that opinion we may consider as well discussed, and to me it now seems false to speak of matter as destitute of qualities. For it is not possible to say of any substance20 whatsoever that it is without qualities. For, in the very act of saying that it is destitute of qualities, you do in fact indicate its quality, representing of what kind matter is, which of course is ascribing to it a species of quality. Wherefore, if it is agreeable to you, rehearse the argument to me from the beginning: for, to me, matter seems to have had qualifies from all eternity.21 For in this way I can affirm that evil things also come from it in the way of emanation, so that the cause of evil things may not be ascribed to God, but that matter may be regarded as the cause of all such things.”

“I approve your desire, my friend, and praise the zeal you manifest in the discussion of opinions. For it assuredly becomes every one who is desirous of knowledge, not simply and out of hand to agree with what is said, but to make a careful examination of the arguments adduced. For, though a disputant, by laying down false premises, may make his opponent draw the conclusion he wishes, yet he will not convince a hearer of this; but only when he says that which22 it seems possible to say with fairness. So that one of two things will happen: either he will, as he listens, be decisively helped to reach that conclusion towards which he already feels himself impelled, or he will convict his adversary of not speaking the truth.

“Now, it seems to me that you have not sufficiently discussed the statement that matter has qualities from the first. For, if this is the case, what will God be the maker of? For, if we speak of substances, we affirm these to exist beforehand; or if again of qualities, we declare these also to exist already. Since, therefore both substance and qualities exist, it seems to me unreasonable to call God a creator.

“But, lest I should seem to be constructing an argument to suit my purpose, be so good as to answer the question: In what way do you assert God to be a creator? Is He such because He changed the substances, so that they should no longer be the same as they had once been but become different from what they were; or because, while He kept the substances the same as they were before that period, He changed their qualities?”

“I do not at all think that any alteration took place in substances: for it appears to me absurd to say this. But I affirm that a certain change was made in their qualities; and it is in respect of these that I speak of God as a creator. Just as we might happen to speak of a house as made out of stones, in which case we could not say that the stones no longer continue to be stones as regards their substance, now that they are made into a house (for I affirm that the house owes its existence to the quality of its construction, forasmuch as the previous quality of the stones has been changed), – so does it seem to me that God, while the substance remains the same, has made a certain change in its qualities; and it is in respect of such change that I speak of the origin of this world as having come from God.”

“Since, then, you maintain that a certain change – namely, of qualifies – has been produced by God, answer me briefly what I am desirous to ask you.”

“Proceed, pray, with your question.”

“Do you agree in the opinion that evil things are qualities of substances?”

“I do.”

“Were these qualities in matter from the first, or did they begin to be?”

“I hold that these qualifies existed in combination with matter, without being originated.”

“But do you not affirm that God has made a certain change in the qualities?”

“That is what I affirm.”

“For the better, or for the worse?”

“For the better, I should say.”

“Well, then, if evil things are qualities of matter, and if the Lord of all changed its qualities for the better, whence, it behoves us to ask, come evil things? For either the qualities remained the same in their nature as they previously were, or, if they were not evil before, but you assert that, in consequence of a change wrought on them by God, the first qualities of this kind came into existence in connection with matter, – God will be the author of evil, inasmuch as He changed the qualities which were not evil, so as to make them evil.

“Possibly, however, it is not your view that God changed evil qualities for the better; but you mean that all those other qualities which happened to be neither good nor bad,23 were changed by God with a view to the adornment of the creation.”

“That has been my opinion from the outset.” 

“How, then, can you say that He has left the qualities of bad things just as they were? Is it that, although He was able to destroy those qualities as well as the others, He was not willing; or did He refrain because He had not the power? For, if you say He had the power, but not the will, you must admit Him to be the cause of these qualities: since, when He could have put a stop to the existence of evil, He chose to let it remain as it was, and that, too, at the very time when He began to fashion matter. For, if He had not concerned Himself at all with matter, He would not have been the cause of those things which He allowed to remain. But, seeing that He fashioned a certain part of it, and left a certain part as we have described it, although He could have changed that also for the better, it seems to me that He deserves to have the blame cast on Him, for having permitted a part of matter to be evil, to the ruin of that other part which He fashioned.

“Nay, more, it seems to me that the most serious wrong has been committed as regards this part, in that He constituted this part of matter so as to be now affected by evil. For, if we were to examine carefully into things, we should find that the condition of matter is worse now than in its former state, before it was reduced to order. For, before it was separated into parts, it had no sense of evil; but now every one of its parts is afflicted with a sense of evil.

“Take an illustration from man. Before he was fashioned, and became a living being through the art of the Creator, he was by nature exempt from any contact whatever with evil; but, as soon as ever he was made by God a man, he became liable to the sense of even approaching evil: and thus that very thing which you say was brought about by God for the benefit of matter,24 is found to have turned out rather to its detriment.

“But, if you say that evil has not been put a stop to, because God was unable to do away with it, you will be making God powerless. But, if He is powerless, it will be either because He is weak by nature, or because He is overcome by fear, and reduced to subjection by a stronger. If, then, you go so far as to say that God is weak by nature, it seems to me that you imperil your salvation itself; but, if you say that He is weak through being overcome by fear of a greater, things evil will be greater than God, since they frustrate the carrying out of His purpose. But this, as it seems to me, it would be absurd to say of God. For why should not ‘they’ rather be considered gods, since according to your account they are able to overcome God: if, that is to say, we mean by God that which has a controlling power over all things?

“But I wish to ask you a few questions concerning matter itself. Pray tell me, therefore, whether matter was something simple or compound. I am induced to adopt this method of investigating the subject before us by considering the diversity that obtains in existing things. For, if perchance matter was something simple and uniform, how comes it that the world is compound, 25 and consists of, divers substances and combinations? For by ‘compound’ we denote a mixture of certain simple elements. But if, on the contrary, you prefer to call matter compound, you will, of course, be asserting that it is compounded of certain simple elements. And, if it was compounded of simple elements, these simple elements must have existed at some time or other separately by themselves, and when they were compounded together matter came into being: from which it of course follows that matter is created. For, if matter is compound, and compound things are constituted from simple, there was once a time when matter had no existence, – namely, before the simple elements came together. And, if there was once a time when matter was not, and there was never a time when the uncreated was not, matter cannot be uncreated. And hence there will be many uncreated substances. For, if God was uncreated, and the simple elements out of which matter was compounded were also uncreated, there will not be two uncreated things only, – not to discuss the question what it is which constitutes objects simple, whether matter or form.

“Is it, further, your opinion that nothing in existence is opposed to itself?”

“It is.”

“Is water, then, opposed to fire?”

“So it appears to me.”

“Similarly, is darkness opposed to light, and warm to cold, and moreover moist to dry?”

“It seems to me to be so.”

“Well, then, if nothing in existence is opposed to itself, and these things are opposed to each other, they cannot be one and the same matter; no, nor yet be made out of one and the same matter.

“I wish further to ask your opinion on a matter kindred to that of which we have been speaking. Do you believe that the parts of a thing are not mutually destructive?”

“I do.”

“And you believe that fire and water, and so on, are parts of matter?”

“Quite so.”

“Do you not also believe that water is subversive of fire, and light of darkness, and so of all similar things?”

“Yes.” 

“Well, then, if the parts of a whole are not mutually destructive, and yet the parts of matter are mutually destructive, they cannot be parts of one matter. And, if they are not parts of one another, they cannot be composed of one and the same matter; nay, they cannot be matter at all, since nothing in existence is destructive of itself, as we learn from the doctrine of opposites: for nothing is opposed to itself – an opposite being by nature opposed to something else. White, for example, is not opposed to itself, but is said to be the opposite of black; and, similarly, light is shown not to be opposed to itself, but is considered an opposite in relation to darkness; and so of a very great number of things besides. If, then, matter were some one thing, it could not be opposed to itself. This, then, being the nature of opposites, it is proved that matter has no existence.”

FOOTNOTES

1 A fact which gave rise to a controversy, on which consult Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. p.78.

2 See vol. 6. p. 358, note 5, etc., this series, where I have spoken of Maximus as the original of the Dialogue ascribed to Methodius.

3 Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. ii. p.85. See pp. 77-121, devoted to this author.

4 In Eusebius, Præp. Evang., vii. 22.

5 Χωρητὸν, the reading of one ms., instead of χωρητικόν.

6 For εἰ δὲ μέρος αὐτῆς, ὅλον ἐχώρησεν αὐτόν, Migne reads, ἔι γε (or εί δὴ) μέρος αὐτῆς ὅλον, κ.τ.λ.

7 Συστολήν τινα.

8 Τῶν γινομένων (ἐν) αὐτῷ, Migne.

9 This word, ἀγέννητον, is added from Migne’s conjecture.

10 Ἐκ τῶν ὑποστάντων γενητῶν.

11 Ἐκ τοῦ ὕλην αὐτὸν ὑποτιθέναι.

12 Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. [Note this phrase. Comp. vol. 6. p.292, n. 6.]

13 Ὑποκειμένων.

14 For συλλελόγισται ὡς οὐκ ἀδύνατον εἶναι δοξάζειν, Migne reads, ὡς συλλελόγισται ἀδύνατον εἶναι δοξάζειν.

15 Lit. “in something.” Whether the materials or the art is meant is not very clear. Possibly there is a play of words in the use of the two prepositions, ἐκ and ἐν.

16 Migne, instead of παραστῆναι, conjectures παραστῆσαι, which, however, would not suit what appears to be the meaning.

17 Οὐσίας τινάς.

18 Σωματικήν τινα σύστασιν.

19 Τὴν σύστασιν ἔχει.

20 Migne reads οὐσίας for αἰτίας

21 Ἀνάρχοως.

22 Reading, with Migne, εἰ ὅ τι for εἴ τι.

23 Or “indifferent:” ἀδιάφοροι

24 Migne reads ἐπι εὐεργεσίᾳ for ἐστὶν εὐεργεσία.

25 The text has, σύνθετος δὲ ὁ κόσμος; which Migne changes to, πῶς δὴ σύνθετός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος;

[a.d. 160-180.] This author, an early apologist, is chiefly interesting as a competent witness, who tells the story of the Thundering Legion2 in an artless manner, and gives it the simple character of an answer to prayer. This subject is treated by Lightfoot, in his recent work on the Apostolic Fathers,3 in an exhaustive manner; and the story, reduced to the simple narrative as Apollinaris gives it, receives from him a just and discriminating approval.

Apollinaris, as well as Rhodon, has been imagined the author of the work (ascribed to Asterius Urbanus) against Montanism, dedicated to Abiricius Marcellus.4 This is sufficiently refuted by Routh,5 whose Greek text, with notes, must be consulted by the studious.6

Apollinaris was bishop of Hierapolis on the Mæander, and, Lightfoot thinks, was probably with Melito and Polycrates, known to Polycarp, and influenced by his example and doctrine.7 He addressed his Apology, which is honourably mentioned by Jerome, to M. Antoninus, the emperor. He also wrote Adversus Gentes and De Veritate; also against the Jews. Serapion calls him8 “most blessed.”

From an Unknown Book.9

“This narration (says Eusebius, Hist., v. 5) is given” (it relates to that storm of rain which was sent to the army of the Emperor M. Antoninus, to allay the thirst of the soldiers, whilst the enemy was discomfited by thunderbolts hurled upon them) “even by those historians who are at a wide remove from the doctrines that prevail among us, and who have been simply concerned to describe what related to the emperors who are the subjects of their history; and it has been recorded also by our own writers. But historians without the pale of the Church, as being unfriendly to the faith, while they have recorded the prodigy, have refrained from acknowledging that it was sent in answer to our prayers. On the other hand, our writers, as lovers of truth, have reported the matter in a simple and artless way. To this number Apollinaris must be considered as belonging. ‘Thereupon,’ he says, ‘the legion which had by its prayer caused the prodigy received from the emperor a title suitable to the occurrence, and was called in the Roman language the Thunder-hurling Legion.’”

From the Book Concerning the Passover.10

There are, then, some who through ignorance raise disputes about these things (though their conduct is pardonable: for ignorance is no subject for blame – it rather needs further instruction), and say that on the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the law, and the Gospels seem to be at variance with them.11

From the Same Book.

The fourteenth day, the true Passover of the Lord; the great sacrifice, the Son of God instead of the lamb, who was bound, who bound the strong, and who was judged, though Judge of living and dead, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified, who was lifted up on the horns of the unicorn, and who was pierced in His holy side, who poured forth from His side the two purifying elements,12 water and blood, word and spirit, and who was buried on the day of the passover, the stone being placed upon the tomb.

FOOTNOTES

1 Westcott, Canon, p. 248

2 See vol. 1. p. 187, this series, and references in my note (83, note 2) on same page. The incident occurred during the war against the Quadi, a.d. 174.

3 Part ii. vol. i. pp. 469-476.

4 See Rhodon, footnote 3; also vol. 7., this series, p. 338.

5 Rel. Sac., tom. ii. p.196; and Ibid., tom. i. pp.157-174.

6 Rel. Sac., tom. i. p.173.

7 Ap. Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p.428.

8 See Serapion.

9 [See vol. 1. p. 187, note 82.]

10 This extract and the following are taken from the preface to the Chronicon Paschale.

11 [Routh, R. S., vol. i. p. 160.]

12 Πάλιν καθάρσια, qu. παλινκαθάρσια = “re-purifiers.”

[a.d. 130-196.] This author2 comes in as an appendix to the stories of Polycarp and Irenæus and good Anicetus, and his writings also bear upon the contrast presented by the less creditable history of Victor. If, as I suppose, the appearance of our Lord to St. John on “the Lord’s day” was on the Paschal Sunday, it may at first seem surprising that this Apostle can be claimed by Polycrates in behalf of the Eastern custom to keep Easter, with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon. But to the Jews the Apostles became “as Jews” in all things tolerable, so long as the Temple stood, and while the bishops of Jerusalem were labouring to identify the Paschal Lamb with their Passover. The long survival of St. John among Jewish Christians led them to prolong this usage, no doubt, as sanctioned by his example. He foreknew it would quietly pass away. The wise and truly Christian spirit of Irenæus prepared the way for the ultimate unanimity of the Church in a matter which lies at the base of “the Christian Sabbath,” and of our own observance of the first day of the week as a weekly Easter. Those who in our own times have revived the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, show us how much may be said on their side,3 and elucidate the tenacity of the Easterns in resisting the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance as to the Paschal, although they agreed to keep it “not with the old leaven.”

Our author belonged to a family in which he was the eighth Christian bishop; and he presided over the church of Ephesus, in which the traditions of St. John were yet fresh in men’s minds at the date of his birth. He had doubtless known Polycarp, and Irenæus also. He seems to have presided over a synod of Asiatic bishops (a.d. 196) which came together to consider this matter of the Paschal feast. It is surely noteworthy that nobody doubted that it was kept by a Christian and Apostolic ordinance. So St. Paul argues from its Christian observance, in his rebuke of the Corinthians.4 They were keeping it “unleavened” ceremonially, and he urges a spiritual unleavening as more important. The Christian hallowing of Pentecost connects with the Paschal argument. (Act_2:1, Act_10:16; 1Co_16:8) The Christian Sabbath hinges on these points.

From His Epistle to Victor and the Roman Church Concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover.5

As for us, then, we scrupulously observe the exact day,6 neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia great luminaries7 have gone to their rest, who shall rise again in the day of the coming of the Lord, when He cometh with glory from heaven and shall raise again all the saints. I speak of Philip, one of the twelve apostles,8 who is laid to rest at Hierapolis; and his two daughters, who arrived at old age unmarried;9 his other daughter also, who passed her life10 under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and reposes at Ephesus; John, moreover, who reclined on the Lord’s bosom, and who became a priest wearing the mitre,11 and a witness and a teacher – he rests at Ephesus. Then there is Polycarp, both bishop and martyr at Smyrna; and Thraseas from Eumenia, both bishop and martyr, who rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? of the blessed Papirius, moreover? and of Melito the eunuch,12 who performed all his actions under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation13 from heaven, when he shall rise again from the dead? These all kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith.

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded – seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away14 the leaven – I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act_5:29) …

I might also have made mention of the bishops associated with me, whom it was your own desire to have called together by me, and I called them together: whose names, if I were to write them down, would amount to a great number. These bishops, on coming to see me, unworthy as I am,15 signified their united approval of the letter, knowing that I wore these grey hairs not in vain, but have always regulated my conduct in obedience to the Lord Jesus.

FOOTNOTES

1 Westcott, Canon, p.432, note I; Lightfoot, Ap Fathers, pp. 379, etc., 494.

2 See Lardner, Credib., vol. ii. cap. 23, p.259.

3 They cannot be satisfactorily answered, it seems to me, save by the appeal to Joh_20:19,Joh_20:26; Act_20:7; 1Co_16:2; and Rev_1:10, for “the. Lord’s day,” and to the Council of Jerusalem (Act_15:28; Col_2:16) for the repeal of Sabbatical ordinances; and to the great laws (Mat_16:19; Joh_14:26; Mat_28:20) of plenary authority given by Christ Himself to His Apostles.

4 1Co_7:1-40, 1Co_8:1-13, and margin of Revised Version; also Act_12:4, Act_12:12

5 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v.24.

6 Ἀῤῥαδιούργητον ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν.

7 Στοιχεῖα.

8 [See vol. 7. p. 500, n. 93. Great confusions adhere to this name.]

9 Δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι.

10 Πολιτευσαμένη. [Phi_3:20, Greek.]

11 Πέταλον. [Probably the ornament of the high priest; Exo_28:35, Exo_28:36.]

12 [i.e., spiritually embracing a chaste celibacy in deference to Christ. Mat_19:12.)

13 Ἐπισκοπην.

14 Ἤρνυε. Some read ἠρτυε.

15 Τον μικρόν.

[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.1 Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history.

From His Epistle on the Question of the Passover, Written in the Name of the Synod of Cæsarea.2

Endeavour also to send abroad copies of our epistle among all the churches, so that those who easily deceive their own Souls may not be able to lay the blame on us. We would have you know, too, that in Alexandria3 also they observe the festival on the same day as ourselves. For the Paschal letters are sent from us to them, and from them to us: so that we observe the holy day in unison and together.

FOOTNOTES

1 See Polycrates, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp.222-226.

2 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v.25.

3 Note, the authority of Alexandria is quoted not that of Rome.]

[a.d. circa 190 – 200 – 211.] He was the eighth bishop of Antioch, a diligent writer and exemplary pastor. Little as we have of his remains, Lardner shows how very useful is that little. (1) He testifies to the Apostles as delivering the words of Christ Himself; (2) to the jealousy of the early Christians in siring inspired writings from those of no authority as Scriptures; (3) to their methods, as in the case of the pseudo-gospel of Peter; and (4) to the utterly apocryphal character of that book, which Grabe and others suppose to be the work of Leucius, a noted forger and falsifier. It had never been heard of in the great See of Antioch, and this famous bishop could only get sight of it by fishing it out of the dirty pool of the Docetæ.

I. From the Epistle to Caricus and Ponticus.2

That ye may see also that the proceedings of this lying confederacy,3 to which is given the name of New Prophecy, is abominated among the whole brotherhood throughout the world, I have sent you letters of the most blessed Claudius Apollinarius, who was made bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.

II. From the Book Concerning the Gospel of Peter.4

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself. But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name,5 we as experienced persons reject, knowing that no such writings have been handed down to us.6 When, indeed, I came to see you, I supposed that all were in accord with the orthodox faith; and, although I had not read through the Gospel inscribed with the name of Peter which was brought forward by them, I said: If this is the only thing which threatens7 to produce ill-feeling among you, let it be read. But, now that I have learnt from what has been told me that their mind was secretly cherishing some heresy,8 I will make all haste to come to you again. Expect me therefore, brethren, shortly. Moreover, brethren, we, having discovered to what kind of heresy Marcion adhered, and seen how he contradicted himself, not understanding of what he was speaking, as you will gather from what has been written to you9 – for, having borrowed this said Gospel from those who were familiar with it from constant perusal, namely from the successors of those who were his leaders in the heresy, whom we call Docetæ (for most of the opinions held by him are derived from their teaching), we were able to read it through; and while we found most of its contents to agree with the orthodox account of the Saviour, we found some things inconsistent with that, and these we have set down below for your inspection.

FOOTNOTES

1 Westcott, Canon, p.444. Lardner, Credib., ii. 264, 417.

2 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v.19.

3 Ψευδοῦς τάξεως.

4 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, v. 12.

5 The reading of Migne, ὀνόματι, is adopted instead of ὁνόματα.

6 Τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐ παρελάβομεν.

7 Δοκοῦν.

8 Αἱρέσει τινὶ ὁ νοῦς αὐτῶν ἐνεφώλευεν.

9 The construction is not again resumed.

[a.d. 211.] He was a most eloquent man, according to St. Jerome; and his writings against Montanism were so forcible as to call forth Tertullian himself, to confute him, if possible. He flourished under Commodus and Severus, and probably until the times of Caracalla. He bears testimony to the existence of a canon of Scripture,2 and to its inspired authority as the rule of faith and practice; and he witnesses, by citation, to the Gospel of St. Matthew. The Revelation of St. John also, according to Eusebius, was employed by him in his works; and he preserves a tradition that our Lord bade the Apostles continue in Jerusalem for the space of twelve years. We cannot affirm that he was invested with any office in the Church.

Concerning Montanism.3

I.

But who is this new teacher? His works and teaching inform us. This is he who taught the dissolution of marriage; who inculcated fasting; who called Peruga and Tymius, small towns of Phrygia, Jerusalem, because he wished to collect thither people from all parts; who set up exactors of money; who craftily contrives the taking of gifts under the name of voluntary offerings; who grants stipends to those who publish abroad his doctrine, that by means of gluttony the teaching of the doctrine may prevail.

II.

We declare to you, then, that these first prophetesses, as soon as they were filled with the spirit, left their husbands. Of what falsehood, then, were they guilty in calling Prisca a maiden! Do you not think that all Scripture forbids a prophet to receive gifts and money? When, therefore, I see that the prophetess has received gold and silver and expensive articles of dress, how can I avoid treating her with disapproval?

III.

Moreover, Themison also, who was clothed in a garb of plausible4 covetousness, who declined to bear the sign of confessorship, but by a large sum of money put away from him the chains of martyrdom, although after such conduct it was his duty to conduct himself with humility, ye had the hardihood to boast that he was a martyr, and, in imitation of the apostle, to compose a general epistle, in which he attempted to instruct5 in the elements of the faith those who had believed to better purpose than he, and defended the doctrines of the new-fangled teaching,6 and moreover uttered blasphemy against the Lord and the apostles and the holy Church.

IV.

But, not to dwell further on these matters, let the prophetess tell us concerning Alexander, who calls himself a martyr, with whom she joins in banqueting; who himself also is worshipped by many;7 whose robberies and other deeds of daring, for which he has been punished, it is not necessary for us to speak of, since the treasury8 has him in keeping. Which of them, then, condones the sins of the other? The prophet the robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the covetousness of the prophet? For whereas the Lord has said, “Provide not gold, nor silver, nor two coats a-piece,” (Mat_10:9) these men have, on the flat contrary, transgressed the command by the acquisition of these forbidden things. For we shall show that those who are called among them prophets and martyrs obtain money not only from the rich, but also from the poor, from orphans and widows. And if they are confident that they are right in so doing, let them stand forward and discuss the point, in order that, if they be refuted, they may cease for the future so to transgress. For the fruits of the prophet must needs be brought to the test: for “from its fruit is the tree known.” (Mat_12:33) But that those that desire it may become acquainted with what relates to Alexander, he was condemned by Æmilius Frontinus, proconsul at Ephesus, not on account of the name of Christ, but for the dating robberies he committed when he was already a transgressor.9 Afterwards, when he had spoken falsely of the name of the Lord, he was released, having deceived the faithful there;10 and even the brethren of his own district,11 from which he came, did not receive him, because he was a robber. Thus, those who wish to learn what he is, have the public treasury of Asia to go to. And yet the prophet, although he spent many years with him, knows forsooth nothing about him! By convicting” him,” we by his means clearly convict of misrepresentation12 the prophet likewise. We are able to prove the like in the case of many others besides. And if they are confident of their innocence, let them abide the test.

V.

If they deny that their prophets have taken gifts, let them confess thus much, that if they be convicted of having taken them, they are not prophets; and we will adduce ten thousand proofs that they have. It is proper, too, that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined. Tell me: does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet use stibium on his eyes? Is a prophet fond of dress? Does a prophet play at gaming-tables and dice? Does a prophet lend money on interest?13 Let them confess whether these things are allowable or not. For my part, I will prove that these practices have occurred among them.

FOOTNOTES

1 Routh, Rel. Sac., vol. i. pp.465-485.

2 Westcott, Canon, p.433.

3 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, v. 18.

4 ἀξιόπιστον.

5 κατηχεῖν.

6 συναγωνίζεσθαι τοῖς τῆς καινοφωνίας λόγοις.

7 Or, “whom many of them (the Montanists – reading as αὐτῶν for αὐτῷ, worship.”

8 ὀπισθόδομός, a chamber at the back of the temple of Minerva, in which public money was kept.

9 παραβάτης, here meaning an apostate.

10 This is explained by Rufinus to mean; “When certain brethren who had influence with the judge interceded for him, he pretended that he was suffering for the name of Christ, and by this means he was released.”

11 παροικια.

12 ὑπόστασιν, from ὑφίστημι, probably in the sense of substituting one thing for another.

13 τάβλαις καὶ κύβοις.

[a.d. 177.] This letter should have been made a preface to the works of Irenæus, or at least an appendix. It is worthy of his great name; “the finest thing of the kind in all antiquity,” says Lardner. Critics of no mean name have credited it to Irenæus; but, as this cannot be proved, I have accordingly marked it as a pseudonym. The same writer condenses the arguments of others, on which he decides to adhere to the later chronology of Eusebius, assigning its date to the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius.1 Naturally humane and comparatively gentle in other respects he was; but Stoicism, as well as heathenism, showed what it could exact of such a character in maintenance of the popular and imperial superstitions. Terrible is the summary of Lightfoot concerning the barbarities of this darling of the “philosophers:” “It is a plain fact, that Christian blood flowed more freely under M. Aurelius than at any time previously during the half century since the Bithynian martyrdoms under Trajan, or was yet to flow at any time during the decades which would elapse before the Severian persecution. These persecutions extend throughout his reign: they were fierce and deliberate; aggravated, at least in some cases, by cruel tortures. They had the emperor’s direct personal sanction. They break out in all parts of the empire, – in Rome, in Asia Minor, in Gaul, in Africa, possibly also in Byzantium.”

Bishop Lightfoot accounts for the fact, that, in spite of this sanguinary character of the period, little complaint is heard from the suffering Church, by a simple statement which is honourable to Aurelius as a Roman and an emperor. He was such a contrast to the Neros and Caligulas, that the wretched Romans loved him as a father; to reproach him was, therefore, poor policy for Christians. They would have been answered, practically: “If so good a sovereign finds it necessary to punish you, the fault is your own; you have only to be as we are, and he will treat you as well as he does us.”

Of this awful outbreak in Lyons and Vienne, says Lightfoot:2 “The persecution was wholesale, so that it was not safe for any Christian to appear out of doors. No difference of age or sex was made. The prisoners were put to the most cruel tortures. All the elements of power combined to crush the brethren.”

To forbear threatenings, to revile not again, to conquer through patient suffering, to persevere, “looking unto Jesus,” and to be silent, like Him, before their murderers, was therefore the world-wide conduct of the saints. This golden letter shows what they were called to endure, and how they glorified Christ by their deaths, from the utmost Orient to the extreme limits of the West.

The Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lugdunum to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia.3

It began thus: – “The servants of Christ who sojourn in Vienna and Lugdunum of Gaul to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, who have the same faith and hope of redemption as ourselves, peace, grace, and glory from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Lord.”

After some further preliminary remarks the letter proceeds: – “The greatness of the tribulation in this region, and the exceeding anger of the heathen nations against the saints, and the sufferings which the blessed Witnesses4 endured, neither are we competent to describe accurately, nor indeed is it possible to detail them in writing. For with all his strength did the adversary assail us, even then giving a foretaste of his activity among us which is to be without restraint; and he had recourse to every means, accustoming his own subjects and exercising them beforehand against the servants of God, so that not only were we excluded from houses,5 baths, and the forum, but a universal prohibition was laid against any one of us appearing in any place whatsoever. But the grace of God acted as our general against him. It rescued the weak; it arrayed against him men like firm pillars, who could through patience bear up against the whole force of the assaults of the wicked one. These came to close quarters with him, enduring every form of reproach and torture; and, making light of grievous trials, they hastened on to Christ, showing in reality that the ‘sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed in us.’6 And first they nobly endured the evils which were heaped on them by the populace, – namely, hootings and blows, draggings, plunderings, stonings, and confinements,7 and everything that an infuriated mob is wont to perpetrate against those whom they deem bitter enemies. And at length, being brought to the forum by the tribune of the soldiers, and the magistrates that had charge of the city, they were examined in presence of the whole multitude; and having confessed, they were shut up in prison until the arrival of the governor.

“After this, when they were brought before the governor, and when he displayed a spirit of savage hostility to us, Vettius Epagathus, one of the brethren, interposed. For he was a man who had contained the full measure of love towards God and his neighbours. His mode of life had been so strict, that though he was a young man, he deserved to be described in the words used in regard to the elderly Zacharias: ‘He had walked therefore in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.’ (Luk_1:6) He was also eager to serve his neighbour in any way, he was very zealous for God, and he was fervent in spirit. Such being the character of the man, he could not bear that judgment should be thus unreasonably passed against us, but was moved with indignation, and requested that he himself should be heard in defence of his brethren, undertaking to prove that there is nothing ungodly or impious amongst us. On this, those who were round the judgment-seat cried out against him, for he was a man of distinction; and the governor, not for a moment listening to the just request thus made to him, merely asked him if he himself were a Christian. And on his confessing in the clearest voice that he was, he also was taken up into the number of the Witnesses, receiving the appellation of the Advocate of the Christians,8 and having himself the Advocate, the Spirit, (Luk_1:67) more abundantly than Zacharias; which he showed in the fulness9 of his love, in that he had of his own good-will offered to lay down his own life in defence of the brethren. For he was and is a genuine disciple of Christ, ‘following the Lamb whithersoever He goeth.’ (Rev_14:4)

“After this the rest began to be distinguished,10 for the proto-martyrs were decided and ready, and accomplished the confession of their testimony with all alacrity. But there appeared also those who were unprepared and unpractised, and who were still feeble, and unable to bear the tension of a gear contest. Of these about ten in number proved abortions; causing great grief and immeasurable sorrow amongst us, and dumping the ardour of the rest who had not yet been apprehended. For these, although they suffered every kind of cruelty, remained nevertheless in the company of the Witnesses, and did not forsake them. But then the whole of us were greatly alarmed on account of our uncertainty as to confession, not because we feared the tortures inflicted, but because we looked to the end, and dreaded lest any one should fall away. Those who were worthy, however, were daily apprehended, filling up the number of the others: so that out of the two churches all the excellent, and those to whom the churches owed most of all their establishment and prosperity, were collected together in prison. Some heathen household slaves belonging to our people were also apprehended, since the governor had given orders publicly that all of us should be sought out. These, through the instigation of Satan, and through fear of the tortures which they saw the saints enduring, urged on also by the soldiers, falsely accused us of Thyestean banquets and dipodean connections, and other crimes which it is lawful for us neither to mention nor think of; and, indeed, we shrink from believing that any such crimes have ever taken place among men. When the rumour of these accusations was spread abroad, all raged against us like wild beasts; so that if any formerly were temperate in their conduct to us on account of relationship, they then became exceedingly indignant and exasperated against us. And thus was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord: ‘The time shall come when every one who slayeth you shall think that he offereth service to God.’ (Joh_16:2)

“Then at last the holy Witnesses suffered tortures beyond all description, Satan striving eagerly that some of the evil reports might be acknowledged by them.11 But in an exceeding degree did the whole wrath of mob, general, and soldiers fall on Sanctus, a deacon from Vienna, and on Maturus, a newly-enlightened but noble combatant, and on Attalus, a native of Pergamus, who had always been the Pillar (1Ti_3:15) and foundation of the church there, and on Blandina, through whom Christ showed that the things that to men appear mean and deformed and contemptible, are with God deemed worthy of great glory, on account of love to Him, – a love which is not a mere boastful appearance, but shows itself in the power which it exercises over the life. For while we were all afraid, and especially her mistress in the flesh, who was herself one of the combatants among the Witnesses, that she would not be able to make a bold confession on account of the weakness of her body, Blandina was filled with such power, that those who tortured her one after the other in every way from morning till evening were wearied and tired, confessing that they had been baffled, for they had no other torture they could apply to her; and they were astonished that she remained in life, when her whole body was torn and opened up, and they gave their testimony12 that one only of the modes of torture employed was sufficient to have deprived her of life, not to speak of so many excruciating inflictions. But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, recovered her strength in the midst of the confession; and her declaration, ‘I am a Christian, and there is no evil done amongst us,’ brought her refreshment, and rest, and insensibility to all the sufferings inflicted on her.

“Sanctus also nobly endured all the excessive and superhuman13 tortures which man could possibly devise against him; for the wicked hoped, on account of the continuance and greatness of the tortures, to hear him confess some of the unlawful practices. But he opposed them with such firmness that he did not tell them even his own name, nor that of his nation or city, nor if he were slave or free; but in answer to all these questions, he said in Latin, ‘I am a Christian.’ This was the confession he made repeatedly, instead of giving his name, his city, his race, and indeed in reply to every question that was put to him; and other language the heathens heard not from him. Hence arose in the minds of the governor and the torturers a determined resolution to subdue him; so that, when every other means failed, they at last fixed red-hot plates of brass to the most delicate parts of his body. And these indeed were burned, but he himself remained inflexible and unyielding, firm in his confession, being bedewed and strengthened by the heavenly fountain of the water of life which issues from the belly of Christ.14 But his body bore witness to what had happened: for it was all wounds and weals, shrunk and torn up, and had lost externally the human shape. In him Christ suffering wrought great wonders, destroying the adversary, and showing for an example to the rest that there is nothing fearful where there is the Father’s love, and nothing painful where there is Christ’s glory. For the wicked after some days again tortured the Witness, thinking that, since his body was swollen and inflamed, if they were to apply the same tortures they would gain the victory over him, especially since the parts of his body could not bear to be touched by the hand, or that he would die in consequence of the tortures, and thus inspire the rest with fear. Yet not only did no such occurrence take place in regard to him, but even, contrary to every expectation of man, his body unbent itself and became erect in the midst of the subsequent tortures, and resumed its former appearance and the use of its limbs, so that the second torture turned out through the grace of Christ a cure, not an affliction.

“Among those who had denied was a woman of the name of Biblias. The devil, thinking that he had already swallowed her, and wishing to damn her still more by making her accuse falsely, brought her forth to punishment, and employed force to constrain her, already feeble and spiritless, to utter accusations of atheism against us. But she, in the midst of the tortures, came again to a sound state of mind, and awoke as it were out of a deep sleep; for the temporary suffering reminded her of the eternal punishment in Gehenna, and she contradicted the accusers of Christians, saying, ‘How can children be eaten by those who do not think it lawful to partake of the blood of even brute beasts?’ And after this she confessed herself a Christian, and was added to the number of Witnesses.

“But when the tyrannical tortures were rendered by Christ of no avail through the patience of the blessed, the devil devised other contrivances – confinement in the darkest and most noisome cells of the prison, the stretching of the feet on the stocks,15 even up to the fifth hole, and the other indignities which attendants stirred up by wrath and full of the devil are wont to inflict on the imprisoned. The consequence was, that very many were suffocated in prison, as many at least as the Lord, showing His glory, wished to depart in this way. For there were others who were tortured so bitterly, that it seemed impossible for them to survive even though they were to obtain every kind of attention; and yet they remained alive in prison, destitute indeed of care from man, but strengthened by the Lord, and invigorated both in body and soul, and they animated and consoled the rest. But the new converts who had been recently apprehended, and whose bodies had not previously been tortured, could not indure the confinement, but died in the prison.

“Now the blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the service of the bishopric in Lugdunum, was also dragged before the judgment-seat. He was now upwards of ninety years of age, and exceedingly weak in body. Though he breathed with difficulty on account of the feebleness of the body, yet he was strengthened by the eagerness of his spirit, on account of his earnest desire to bear his testimony. His body, indeed, was already dissolved through old age and disease, yet the life was preserved in him, that Christ might triumph through him. When he was brought by the soldiers to the judgment-seat, under a convoy of the magistrates of the city, and amid exclamations of every kind from the whole population, as if he himself were the Christ, he gave the good testimony. Being asked by the governor who was the God of the Christians, he said, ‘If thou art worthy, thou shalt know.’ Thereupon he was unmercifully dragged about, and endured many blows; for those who were near maltreated him in every way with their hands and feet, showing no respect for his age, while those at a distance hurled against him each one whatever came to hand, all of them believing that they would sin greatly and act impiously if they in any respect fell short in their insulting treatment of him. For they thought that in this way they would avenge their gods. And Pothinus, breathing with difficulty, was cast into prison, and two days after he expired.

“Upon this a grand dispensation16 of God’s providence took place, and the immeasurable mercy of Jesus was made manifest, – such an occurrence as but rarely happens among the brotherhood, yet one that does not fall short of the art of Christ. For those who in the first apprehension had denied, were imprisoned along with the others, and shared their hardships. Their denial, in fact, turned out at this time to be of no advantage to them. For while those who confessed what they really were, were imprisoned simply as Christians, no other accusation being brought against them, those who denied were detained as murderers and profligates. They, moreover, were doubly punished. For the confessors were lightened by the joy of their testimony and their hope in the promises, and by their love to Christ, and by the Father’s Spirit. But the deniers were tormented greatly by their own consciences, so that when they were led forth their countenances could be distinguished among all the rest. For the confessors went forth joyous, with a mingling of glory and abundant grace in their looks, so that their chains lay like becoming ornaments around them, as around a bride adorned with golden fringes wrought with divers colours. (Psa_45:13) And they breathed at the same time the fragrance of Christ, (1Co_2:15) so that some even thought that they were anointed with this world’s perfume. But the deniers were downcast, humbled, sad-looking, and weighed down with every kind of disgrace. They were, moreover, reproached even by the heathens with being base and cowardly, and charged with the crime of murder; they had lost the altogether honourable, glorious, and life-giving appellation.17 When the rest saw this, they were strengthened, and those who were apprehended confessed unhesitatingly, not allowing the reasoning of the devil to have even a place in their thoughts.”

Eusebius omits something, saying that after a little the; letter proceeded as follows: – 

“After these things, then, their testimonies took every shape through the different ways in which they departed.18 For, plaiting a crown from different colours and flowers of every kind, they presented it to the Father. It was right therefore that the noble athletes, after having endured divers contests and gained grand victories, should receive the great crown of incorruption.

“Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus, and Blandina, and Attalus were publicly19 exposed to the wild beasts – that common spectacle of heathen barbarity; for a day was expressly assigned to fights with wild beasts on account of our people. And Maturus and Sanctus again endured every form of torture in the amphitheatre, as if they had had no suffering at all before. Or rather, like athletes who had overthrown their adversary several times,20 and were now contending for the crown itself, again they endured the lashes21 which were usual there; and they were dragged about by the wild beasts, and suffered every indignity which the maddened populace demanded in cries and exhortations proceeding from various parts of the amphitheatre. And last of all they were placed in the iron chair, on which their bodies were roasted, and they themselves were filled with the fumes of their own flesh. But the heathens did not stop even here, but became still more frantic in their desire to overcome the endurance of the Christians. But not even thus did they hear anything else from Sanctus than the utterance of the confession which he had been accustomed to make from the beginning. These, then, after life had lasted a long time throughout the great contest, were at last sacrificed,22 after they alone had formed a spectacle to the world, throughout that day, instead of all the diversity which usually takes place in gladiatorial shows.

“Blandina23 was hung up fastened to a stake, and exposed, as food to the wild beasts that were let loose against her; and through her presenting the spectacle of one suspended on something like a cross, and through her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great eagerness: for in the combat they saw, by means of their sister, with their bodily eyes, Him who was crucified for them, that He might persuade those who trust in Him that every one that has suffered for the glory of Christ has eternal communion with the living God. When none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken down from the stake and conveyed back to prison. She was thus reserved for another contest, in order that, gaining the victory in many preparative conflicts, she might make the condemnation of the Crooked Serpent24 unquestionable, and that she might encourage the brethren. For though she was an insignificant, weak, and despised woman, yet she was clothed with the great and invincible athlete Christ. On many occasions she had overpowered the adversary, and in the course of the contest had woven for herself the crown of incorruption.

“Attalus also was vehemently demanded by the mob; for he was a man of mark, He entered the lists a ready combatant on account of his good conscience, since he had been truly practised in the Christian discipline, and had always been a Witness of the truth among us. He was led round the amphitheatre, a tablet going before him, on which was written in Latin, ‘This is Attalus the Christian;’ and the people swelled with indignation against him. But the governor, learning that he was a Roman, ordered him to be taken back to prison and kept with the rest who were there, with regard to whom he had written to the Cæsar, and was now awaiting his determination.

“The intervening time did not prove barren or unfruitful to the Witnesses, but through their patient endurance the immeasurable love of Christ was made manifest. For through the living the dead were made alive; and the Witnesses conferred favours on those who were not Witnesses, and the Virgin Mother had much joy in, receiving back alive those whom she had given up as dead abortions. For through the Witnesses the greater number of those who had denied returned, as it were, into their mother’s womb, and were conceived again and re-quickened; and they learned to confess. And being now restored to life, and having their spirits braced, they went up to the judgment-seat to be again questioned by the governor, while that God who wishes not the death of the sinner, (Eze_33:11) but mercifully calls to repentance, put sweetness: into their souls. This new examination took place because the Cæsar had given orders that the Witnesses should be punished, but that if any denied they should be set free. And as now was commencing here the fair, which is attendee by vast numbers of men assembling from all nations, he brought the blessed up to the judgment-seat, exhibiting them as a theatrical show and spectacle to the mobs. Wherefore also he again questioned them, and whoever appeared to have had the rights of Roman: citizenship he beheaded, and the rest he sent to the wild beasts.

“Now Christ was greatly glorified in those who formerly denied; for, contrary to every expectation of the heathen, they confessed. For these were examined separately, under the belief that they were to be set free; but confessing, they were added to the number of the Witnesses. But there were also some who remained without; namely, those who had no trace of faith, and no perception of the marriage garment,25 nor notion of the fear of God, but through their conduct caused evil reports of our way of life, that is, sons of perdition. But all the rest were added to the Church.

“Present at the examination of these was one Alexander, a native of Phrygia, a physician by profession. He had lived for many years in Gaul, and had become well known to all for his love to God and his boldness in proclaiming the truth, for he was not without a share of apostolic grace. He stood near the judgment-seat, and, urging by signs those who had denied to confess, he looked to those who stood round the judgment-seat like one in travail. But the mobs, enraged that those who had formerly denied should now confess, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of this change. Then the governor summoned him before him, and inquired of him who he was; and when Alexander said he was a Christian, the governor burst into a passion, and condemned him to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered the amphitheatre along with Attalus; for the governor, wishing to gratify the mob, again exposed Attalus to the wild beasts. These two, after being tortured in the amphitheatre with all the instruments devised for that purpose, and having undergone an exceedingly severe contest, at last were themselves sacrificed. Alexander uttered no groan or murmur of any kind, but conversed in his heart with God; but Attalus, when he was placed on the iron chair, and all the pans of his body were burning, and when the fumes from his body were borne aloft, said to the multitude in Latin, ‘Lo! this which ye do is eating men. But as for us, we neither eat men nor practise any other wickedness.’ And being asked what name God has, he answered, ‘God has not a name as men have.’

“After all these, on the last day of the gladiatorial shows, Blandina was again brought in along with Ponticus, a boy of about fifteen years of age. These two had been taken daily to the amphitheatre to see the tortures which the rest endured, and force was used to compel them to swear by the idols of the heathen; but on account of their remaining stedfast, and setting all their devices at nought, the multitude were furious against them, so as neither to pity the tender years of the boy nor to respect the sex of the woman. Accordingly they exposed them to every terror, and inflicted on them every torture, repeatedly trying to compel them to swear. But they failed in effecting this; for Ponticus, encouraged by his sister,26 so plainly indeed that even the heathens saw that it was she that encouraged and confirmed him, after enduring nobly every kind of torture, gave up the ghost; while the blessed Blandina, last of all, after having like a noble mother encouraged her children, and sent them on before her victorious to the King, trod the same path of conflict which her children had trod, hastening on to them with joy and exultation at her departure, not as one thrown to the wild beasts, but as one invited to a marriage supper. And after she had been scourged and exposed to the wild beasts, and roasted in the iron chair, she was at last enclosed in a net and cast before a bull. And after having been well tossed by the bull, though without having any feeling of what was happening to her, through her hope and firm hold of what had been entrusted to her and her converse with Christ, she also was sacrificed, the heathens themselves acknowledging that never among them did woman endure so many and such fearful tortures.

“Yet not even thus was their madness and their savage hatred to the saints satiated. For wild and barbarous tribes, when excited by the Wild Beast, with difficulty ceased from their rage, and their insulting conduct found another and peculiar subject in the bodies of the Witnesses. For they felt no shame that they had been overcome, for they were not possessed of human reason; but their defeat only the more inflamed their rage, and governor and people, like a wild beast, showed a like unjust hatred of us, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ‘He that is unjust,’ let him be unjust still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.’27 For they threw to the dogs those who had been suffocated in prison, carefully watching them day and night, lest any one should receive burial from us. They then laid out the mangled remains left by the wild beasts, and the scorched remains left by the fire, and the heads of the rest along with their trunks, and in like manner for many days watched them lying unburied with a military guard. There were some who raged and gnashed their teeth at them, seeking to get from them further vengeance. Others derided and insulted them, at the same time magnifying their own idols, and ascribing to them the punishment inflicted on the Christians. There were persons also of a milder disposition, who to some extent seemed to sympathize; yet they also frequently upbraided, saying, ‘Where now is their God, and what good have they got from that religion which they chose in preference to their life?’ Such was the diversity which characterized the conduct of the heathens. But our state was one of deep sorrow that we could not bury the bodies. For night aided us not in this matter; money failed to persuade, and entreaty did not shame them into compliance; but they kept up the watch in every way, as if they were to gum some great advantage from the bodies of the Christians not obtaining burial.

Something is omitted. The letter then goes on: – 

“The bodies of the Witnesses, after having been maltreated in every way, and exposed in the open air for six days, were burned, reduced to ashes, and swept by the wicked into the river Rhone, which flows past, in order that not even a vestige of them might be visible on earth. And these things they did, as if they had been able to overcome God, and deprive them of their second birth,28 in order, as they said, that ‘they may not have hope in a resurrection, trusting to which they introduce some strange and new mode of worship, and despise dangers, and go readily and with joy to death. Now let us see if they will rise again, and if their God can help them, and rescue them out of our hands.’”

Eusebius here breaks off his series of continuous extracts, but he makes a few more for special purposes. The first is the account which the churches gave of the character of the Witnesses: – 

“Who also were to such an extent zealous followers and imitators of Christ, who, being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God; (Phi_2:6) that though they were in such glory, and had bone their testimony not once, nor twice, but often, and had been again taken back to prison after exposure to the wild beasts, and bore about with them the marks of the burnings and bruises and wounds all over their bodies, yet did they neither proclaim themselves Witnesses, nor indeed did they permit us to address them by this name; but if any one of us on any occasion, either by letter or in conversation, called them Witnesses, they rebuked him sharply. For they willingly gave the title of Witness to Christ, ‘the faithful and true Witness,’ (Rev_1:5, Rev_3:14) and first-born from the dead, and the leader to the divine life. And they reminded us of those Witnesses who had already departed, and said: ‘These indeed are now Witnesses, whom Christ has vouchsafed to take up to Himself in the very act of confession, thus putting His seal upon their testimony through their departure. But we are mean and humble confessors.’ And with tears they besought the brethren that earnest prayers might be made for their being perfected. They in reality did all that is implied in the term ‘testimony,’ acting with great boldness towards all the heathen; and their nobleness they made manifest through their patience, and fearlessness, and intrepidity. But the title of Witness, as implying some superiority to their brethren,29 they refused, being filled with the fear of God.” After a little they say: – 

“They humbled themselves (1Pe_5:6) under the powerful hand by which they are now highly exalted. Then they pleaded for all,30 but accused none; they absolved all, they bound none; and they prayed for those who inflicted the tortures, even as Stephen the perfect Witness, ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.’ (Act_7:60) But if he prayed for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren !”

After other things, again they say: – 

“For they had this very great conflict with him, the devil, on account of their genuine love, in order that the Beast being choked, might vomit forth those whom he thought he had already swallowed. For they assumed no airs of superiority over the fallen, but with those things in which they themselves abounded they aided the needy, displaying towards them the compassion of a mother. And pouring out many tears for them to the Father, they begged life; (Psa_20:4) and He gave it to them, and they shared it with their neighbours. And departing victorious over all to God, having always loved peace, and having recommended peace to us, in peace they went to God, leaving no sorrow to their Mother, nor division and dissension to their brethren, but joy and peace, and concord and love.”

“The same writing of the fore-mentioned martyrs,” says Eusebius, “contains a story worth remembrance.

“For there was one of them of the name of Alcibiades, who lived an exceedingly austere life, confining his diet to bread and water, and partaking of nothing else whatsoever. He tried to continue this mode of life in prison; but it was revealed to Attalus after the first conflict which he underwent in the amphitheatre that Alcibiades was not pursuing the right course in refusing to use the creatures of God, and in leaving an example which might be a stumbling-block to others. And Alcibiades was persuaded, and partook freely of all kinds of food, and thanked God. For they were not without the oversight of the grace of God, but the Holy Spirit was their counsellor.”

FOOTNOTES

1 Vol. 4. p. 125, this series. Compare Lightfoot, Ap Fathers, part ii. vol. i. pp. 499, etc., 510, etc.

2 Ap. Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p. 499.

3 This letter has come down to us in fragments quoted by Eusebius. We have used the translation of Lord Hailes as the basis of ours. (Compare Vol. 1. p.309, this series, and note the adhesion of the primitive Gallican Church to the East, – to the land of Polycarp and Pothinus. Concerning Pothinus, see Routh, Rel. Sac., i. p. 328, and the correction by Lightfoot, Ap. F., part ii. vol. i. p.430, etc. The Gallican Church may yet arise from the dust, and restore the primitive primacy of Lyons. God grant it!]

4 We have translated μάρτυρες “witnesses” and μαρτυρία “testimony” throughout.

5 Houses of friends and relatives. Olshausen takes them to be public buildings.

6 Rom_8:18. [On quotations from Scripture, etc., see Westcott, Canon, p. 378, ed. 1855.]

7 By “confinements” in this passage evidently is meant that the populace prevented them from resorting to public places, and thus shut them up in their own houses.

8 From the heathen judge.

9 The writer refers to St. John’s Gospel (Joh_15:13) “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

10 This expression seems to refer to what took place in athletic combats. The athletes were tested before fighting, and those in every way qualified were permitted to fight, while the others were rejected. This testing, Valesius supposes, was called διάκρισις.

11 The words here admit of two meanings; that something blasphemous might be uttered by them – such as speaking against Christ and swearing by Cæsar; or that some accusation against the Christians might be uttered by them – confirming, for instance, the reports of infanticide and incest prevalent against the Christians. The latter in this passage seems unquestionably to be the meaning.

12 Heinichen construes differently. He makes the “torturers astonished that Blandina gave her testimony that one kind of torture was sufficient to deprive her of life.” Perhaps the right construction is to make ὅτι mean “because” or “for:” “They were astonished at Blandina bearing her testimony, for one kind of torture was sufficient to have killed her.”

13 The words ὑπερβεβλημένως καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα ἄνθρωπον naturally go with ὑπομένων, and therefore intimate that Sanctus’ endurance was greater than human; but we doubt if this is intended by the writer.

14 Joh_7:38: “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his bosom shall flow rivers of living water.”

15 The holes were placed in a line, so that the further the hole in which one leg was put from the hole in which the other leg was put, the more nearly would the two legs form a straight line, and the greater would he the pain.

16 The dispensation is, that those who denied were not set free, but confined with the others; and that this harsh treatment and sad state of mind confirmed the resolution of those not yet apprehended to confess Christ. Various other explanations have been given, but this seems the most reasonable.

17 Of Christian.

18 We have adopted here an emendation of Routh’s. The literal version of the common text is: “The testimonies of their departure were divided into every form.”

19 The Greek is εἰς τὸ δημόσιον, was led “to the public building” to the wild beasts. The public building is taken to be the amphitheatre.

20 The words “several times” are represented in Greek by διὰ πλειόνων κλήρων, lit. “through several lots.” When there were several athletes to contend, the pairs were determined by lot. After the first contest the victors were again formed into pairs by lot, until finally there should be but one pair left. See the process at the Olympic games described in Lucian Hermotimus, c. xl. p.782.

21 The bestiarii, before fighting with wild beasts, had to run the gauntlet.

22 Rufinus translates jugulati sunt. Probably, “killed with the sword.” The term may have been a technical one, being applied to the gladiators or bestiarii, whose death may have been looked on as a sacrifice to a god or a dead hero.

23 Blandina was a slave; hence the mode of punishment. On this matter see Lipsius, de Cruce. [And my note.]

24 Lord Hailes remarks that this alludes to Isa_27:1.

25 Heinichen renders “the bride’s garment,” and explains in the following manner. The bride is the Church, the garment Christ: and the sons of perdition had no idea what garment the Church of Christ should wear, had no idea that they should be clothed with Christ, and be filled with His Spirit. It is generally taken to be the marriage garment of Mat_22:12.

26 She may have been his sister by birth, as some have supposed, but the term “Sister” would have been applied had she been connected by no other tie than that of a common faith.

27 Rev_22:11. Lardner thinks the passage is quoted from Dan_12:1-13 to. Credib., part ii. c. i6.

28 παλιγγενεσία. The term refers here to the new state of affairs at the end of the world.

29 The Greek is τὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς τῶν μαρτύρων προηγορίαν, generally translated, “offered to them by their brethren.”

30 The Greek is, πᾶσι μὲν ἀπελογοῦντο. Rufinus translated, “Placabant omnes, neminem accusabant.” Valesius thought that the words ought to be translated, “They rendered an account of their faith to all;” or, “They defended themselves before all.” Heinichen has justified the translation in the text by an appeal to a passage in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iv. 15.

Note by the American Editor.

A French writer has remarked, “Ce n’est pas Spartacus qui a supprime l’esclavage; c’est bien plutot Blandine.” 

Elucidation

(See Hegesippus, Concerning His Journey to Rome, “In every succession”.)

Here our author mentions that he noted the succession of Bishops at Rome, but he gives his list with no remark about Rome in particular. He adds that “in every succession and in every city (i.e., in every See) a primitive accordance with the law and the Gospel is maintained.” How can our excellent Lightfoot1 give it a colour wholly gratuitous in these words: “He interested himself in the succession of the Roman See, intent, like Irenæus in the next generation, on showing the permanence of the orthodox tradition, through the continuity of the Roman episcopate.” Irenæus, who, above all the Westerns, is identified with the Orient!

Where is the evidence of any such idea or “intent”? As for Irenæus, his testimony has been sufficiently illustrated before, with proof that his words have not the slightest reference to the continuity of the Roman more than any other See, save only as the influx of visitors from other Sees helped to give it orthodoxy by their concurrent testimony.2

FOOTNOTES

1 Ap. Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p.435; and the same laxity, p.384, coincident with his theory as to a virtual post-Apostolic development of episcopacy.

2 Compare vol. 1. pp.415, 460, and vol. 5. Elucidation VI.; also Elucidation XI. pp. 157-159, this series.

Note.

It may be worth while to state here, that I have uniformly (mistakes excepted) put my chronological statements, at the head of introductions, into brackets, so as to make the reader sure that the Edinburgh edition is not to be responsible for them. Some have inferred, therefore, that what follows is from the Edinburgh; but I think my modes of expression sufficient, generally, to guard against misconception. Notes (like this) are sometimes marked, “By the American Editor,” when I have feared a misleading ambiguity. Otherwise, I have been unguarded. All the introductions in these “Remains” are mine, save the prefatory paragraphs of the translator (See Remains of the Second and Third Centuries, Introductory Notice, Translator’s Introductory Notice). Annotations on my own material are not bracketed. The very large amount of work bestowed upon this edition can only be known by comparison with the Edinburgh. In several instances of delicate criticism I have obtained valuable aid from my beloved friend, F. P. NASH, Esq., of Hobart College, especially in questions of the low Latin or ambiguous Greek.

A.C.C.