Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

in loco , and Otto’s note in his edition of Justin’s works, Vol. I. p. 3. ff. The Lucius addressed here was Lucius Ceionius Commodus, whose father, bearing the same name, had been adopted as Cæsar by Hadrian. The younger Lucius was adopted as Cæsar along with Marcus by Antoninus Pius, and later became Marcus’ colleague in the empire, when he added to his own name the name Verus, which Marcus had formerly borne. He is therefore commonly known in history as Lucius Verus (see the respective articles in Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog .).

Of Justin’s father and grandfather we know nothing except their names. On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note 20.

This “Assembly of Asia” (τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ᾽Ασίας) was one of the regular provincial diets which Augustus had called into being as fixed institutions. It was an annual assembly of the civic deputies of the province, and served as a general organ of the province, especially in bringing the wishes of the people to the knowledge of the governor, and through him to the emperor, and decrees of the emperor were often addressed to it, and legates chosen by it were sent to the emperor whenever occasion required. See Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung , I. p. 366. sq.

This edict is undoubtedly spurious. It contradicts all that we know in regard to the relation of Christianity to the State during this century, and both the language and the sentiments make it impossible to call it genuine. It is probably a forgery of the second century. It is found in our two (or more properly one, as one is simply a slavish copy of the other) mss . of Justin; but this is simply accidental, as it does not belong there, but was appended to the edict of Hadrian by some late copyist. The edict is now almost universally acknowledged to be a forgery; compare Overbeck, Studien zur Gesch. der alt. Kirche , p. 93 sq. Wieseler contends for its genuineness, but no good critic follows him.

Eusebius gives this as an edict of Antoninus Pius, and yet its inscription assigns it to Marcus Aurelius. Overbeck concludes that Eusebius was led by internal evidence to assign the rescript to Antoninus Pius, but that he did not venture to change the inscription of the original which lay before him. This seems the only possible explanation, and as Eusebius at any rate was badly confused in regard to the names of the Antonines, the glaring discrepancy may not have meant very much to him. In our mss . of Justin Martyr, where this edict is appended to the first Apology, the superscription and text are quite different from the form given by Eusebius. The rescript is in fact assigned there by its superscription to Antoninus Pius, instead of to Marcus Aurelius. But if that was its original form, we cannot understand the later change to Marcus Aurelius, for certainly his authorship is precluded on the very face of the document; but it is easier to see how it could have been later assigned to Antonius Pius under the influence of Eusebius’ direct statement. We have no knowledge of the original Latin of this pretended edict. Rufinus evidently did not know it, for he translates the document from the Greek of Eusebius. The text of the edict as given by Eusebius differs considerably at many points from the text found in the mss . of Justin, and the variations are such as can hardly be explained as due merely to copyists’ errors or alterations. At the same time the two texts are plainly not independent of each other, and cannot be looked upon as independent translations of one Latin original. We may perhaps suppose that one text represents the original translation, the other a revision of it. Whether the revision was made by a comparison with the original, and thus more accurately represents it, we cannot tell. If, then, one is a revision of the other, the form given in the mss . of Justin is evidently the later, for its statements in more places than one are an improvement upon those of the other text in point of clearness and decisiveness. Moreover, as remarked just above, the ascription of the edict to Antoninus Pius must be later than its ascription to Marcus Aurelius.

Numerous earthquakes took place in Asia Minor and in Rhodes during the reign of Antoninus Pius, and these, as well as famines and other occurrences of the kind which were uncomfortably frequent at this time, were always made the signal for renewed attacks upon the Christians, who were held by the people in general responsible for these misfortunes. See Julius Capitolinus’ Vita Antonini Pii , chap. 9.

This sentence has caused great difficulty. Crusè translates, “But as to those earthquakes which have taken place and still continue, it is not out of place to admonish you who are cast down whenever these happen, that you compare your own deportment with theirs.” Most of the older translators and, among the moderns, Stigloher, have translated in the same way; but the Greek of the last clause will not warrant this construction. The original runs as follows:…ὑπομνῆσαι ἀθυμοῦντας μὲν ὅταν περ᾽ ὦσι, παραβ€λλοντας δὲ τὰ ὑμέτερα πρὸς τὰ ἐκείνων. Stroth inserts μή before ἀθυμοῦντας, and translates, “Was die Erdbeben betrift, die sich ereignet haben, und noch ereignen, halte ich nicht für undienlich euch zu erinnern dass ihr den vorkommenden Fall den Muth nicht sinken lasst, sondern euer Betragen einmal mit jener ihrem vergleicht.” The insertion, however, is quite unwarranted and must be rejected. Valesius renders: Cæterum de terræ motibus, qui vel facti sunt vel etiamnum fiunt, non absurdum videtur vos commonere, qui et animos abjicitis, quoties hujusmodi casus contingunt, et vestra cum illorum institutis comparatis ; which makes excellent sense and might be accepted, were it not for the fact that it fails to bring out adequately the force of μέν and δέ. Heinichen discusses the passage at length (in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III. pp. 670–674), and translates as follows: Non alienum videtur vos admonere (corripere) de terræ motibus qui vel fuerunt vel adhuc sunt, vos qui estis quidem animo abjecto, quoties illi eveniunt, nihilo autem minus vestram agendi rationem conferre soletis cum illorum . Overbeck follows Heinichen in his German Translation of the edit ( ibid . p. 127 sqq.), and the translation of Closs is similar. It seems to be the only rendering which the Greek will properly admit, and I have therefore felt compelled to adopt it, though I should have preferred to interpret as Valesius does, had the original permitted.

An orthodox worshiper of the Roman gods, like Antoninus Pius, can hardly have called the God of the Christians “The Immortal,” in distinction from the gods of the Romans.

Among these epistles the writer of this edict undoubtedly meant to include the rescript ostensibly addressed by Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus. See chap. 9, above.

This is the climax of the whole. Not only is the accused to be set free, but the accuser is to be held as guilty! This really goes further than Constantine. See above, chap. 9, note 4.

On Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note 1.

Eusebius evidently draws this conclusion from the passage from Melito’s Apology , quoted below, in chap. 26, where Melito refers to edicts of Antoninus Pius; for had Eusebius referred to another passage, he would undoubtedly have quoted it. But according to Melito, the edicts of Antoninus were to prevent any new methods of procedure against the Christians, i.e. tumultuous proceedings in opposition to the custom established by Trajan. The edicts of which he speaks were intended, then, to perpetuate the principles of Trajan, which had been, since his time, the silent law of the empire upon the subject. The edicts cannot have been edicts of toleration (even Melito himself does not regard them so), but edicts against illegal, tumultuous proceedings, and the accusations of informers, and therefore quite in the spirit of Trajan. But as the significance of Trajan’s rescript was entirely misunderstood in the early Church (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33, note 6), so it was the common opinion that the attitude of the State toward the Church was at bottom friendly to Christianity, and therefore all edicts forbidding the introduction of new methods were regarded as favorable edicts, as in the present case by Eusebius. Again, had Melito known of such a favorable edict as this of Antoninus, he would certainly have called special and particular attention to it. Melito’s testimony, therefore, instead of being in favor of the genuineness of this edict, is really against it.

On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. He was bishop probably from 154 to 165 a.d.

γένεσθαι ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης. It is quite commonly said that Polycarp came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus; but our authorities say only that he was in Rome at that time, and do not specify the date at which he arrived there. Neither these words, nor the words of Irenæus in §5 below (ἐπιδηυήσας τῇ ῾Ρώμη), are to be translated “came to Rome,” as is often done (e.g. by Crusè, by Roberts and Rambaut, in their translation of Irenæus, and by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog .), but “was at Rome” (as Closs, Stigloher, Lightfoot, &c., correctly render the words). Inasmuch as Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 155 or 156 a.d. (see below, chap. 15, note 2), he must have left Rome soon after Anticetus’ accession (which took place probably in 154); and though of course he may have come thither sometime before that event, still the fact that his stay there is connected with Anicetus’ episcopate, and his alone, implies that he went thither either immediately after, or shortly before Anicetus became bishop.

On the paschal controversies of the early Church, see below, Bk. V. chap. 23, note 1. We learn from Bk. V. chap. 24, that though Polycarp and Anicetus did not reach an agreement on the subject, they nevertheless remained good friends, and that Polycarp celebrated the eucharist in Rome at the request of Anicetus.

Irenæus, Adv. Hær . III. 3. 4.

Eusebius takes his account of Polycarp solely from Irenæus, and from the epistle of the church of Smyrna, given in the next chapter. He is mentioned by Irenæus again in his Adv. Hær . V. 33. 4 (quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 39), and in his epistle to Florinus and to Victor. From the epistle to Florinus (quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 20), where quite an account of Polycarp is given, we learn that the latter was Irenæus’ teacher. He was one of the most celebrated men of the time, not because of his ability or scholarship, but because he had been a personal friend of some of the disciples of the Lord, and lived to a great age, when few if any were still alive that had known the first generation of Christians. He suffered martyrdom about 155 a.d. (see below, chap. 15, note 2); and as he was at least eighty-six years old at the time of his death (see the next chap., §20), he must have been born as early as 70 a.d . He was a personal disciple of John the apostle, as we learn from Irenæus’ epistle to Florinus, and was acquainted also with others that had seen the Lord. That he was at the head of the church of Smyrna cannot be doubted (cf. Ignatius’ epistle to him), but Irenæus’ statement that he was appointed bishop of Smyrna by apostles is probably to be looked upon as a combination of his own. He reasoned that bishops were the successors of the apostles; Polycarp was a bishop, and lived in the time of the apostles; and therefore he must have been appointed by them. The only known writing of Polycarp’s is his epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant (see below, note 16). His character is plainly revealed in that epistle as well as in the accounts given us by Irenæus and by the church of Smyrna in their epistle. He was a devoutly pious and simple-minded Christian, burning with intense personal love for his Master, and yet not at all fanatical like his contemporary Ignatius. The instances related in this chapter show his intense horror of heretics, of those whom he believed to be corrupting the doctrine of Christ, and yet he does not seem to have had the taste or talent to refute their errors. He simply wished to avoid them as instruments of Satan. He was pre-eminently a man that lived in the past. His epistle is full of reminiscences of New Testament thought and language, and his chief significance to the Christians of the second century was as a channel of apostolic tradition. He does not compare with Ignatius for vigor and originality of thought, and yet he was one of the most deeply venerated characters of the early Church, his noble piety, his relation to John and other disciples of the Lord, and finally his glorious martyrdom, contributing to make him such. Upon Polycarp, see especially Lightfoot’s edition of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the article of Salmon, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog .

The church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of the “seven churches of Asia,” and is mentioned in Rev. i. 11 ; ii. 8–11.

On his age and the date of his death, see chap. 15, note 2. A full account of his martyrdom is given in the epistle of the church of Smyrna, quoted in the next chapter.