Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

epistle of the Council of Sardica.

This is a very keen bit of sarcasm. As Harnack remarks, the mention of Artemas in this way proves (or at least renders it very probable) that he was still alive at this time, in which case his activity in Rome must be put somewhat later than the commonly accepted dates, viz. the episcopate of Zephyrinus (202–217).

See chap. 27, note 4. The bishop of Rome to whose judgment Aurelian appealed was Felix, mentioned below.

Aurelian, according to tradition, was the author of the ninth of the “ten great persecutions” against the Church. But the report is a mistake. Eusebius apparently is the ultimate source to which the report is to be referred, but he says expressly that he died before he was able to begin his intended persecution, and more than that, that he was even prevented from signing the decree, so that it is not proper to speak even of an hostile edict of Aurelian (as many do who reject the actual persecution). It is true that in Lactantius’ De mort. persecutorum, chap. 6, it is said that Aurelian actually issued edicts against the Christians, but that he died before they had found their way to the most distant provinces. It seems probable, however, that Eusebius’ account is nearest the truth, and that the reports that Aurelian actually signed the edicts as well as that he commenced the persecution are both developments from the original and more correct version of the affair which Eusebius gives. There is no reason to doubt the account of Eusebius. Aurelian’s conduct in the case of Paul does not imply any special friendliness on his part toward the Church. The Christians had secured legal recognition under Gallienus; and it was a simple act of common justice to put the valuable property of the Church in Antioch into the hands of the rightful owners whoever they might be. His act does imply, however, that he cannot have been in the beginning actively hostile to the Church, for in that case he would simply have driven Paul out, and confiscated the property.

μονονουχὶ ἐξ ἀγκώνων τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως αὐτὸν ἐπιδεσμοῦσα

Aurelian reigned from 270 to 275, and was succeeded by Tacitus, who ruled only six months, and he in turn by Probus (276 to 282), who was followed by Carus and his sons Carinus and Numerian, and they in turn by Diocletian in 284. Eusebius here omits Tacitus, although he mentions him in his Chron., and assigns six months to his reign, and five years and six months to the reign of Aurelian.

Diocletian associated Maximian with himself in the government in 286, and sent him to command the West with the title of Augustus. In 293 he appointed Constantius Chlorus and Galerius as Cæsars, giving to the former the government of Gaul and Britain, to the latter that of the provinces between the Adriatic and the Euxine, while Maximian held Africa and Italy, and Diocletian himself retained the provinces of Asia. He issued an edict, opening his famous persecution against the Christians, of which Eusebius gives an account in the next book, on Feb. 23, 303.

On Dionysius, bishop of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

According to the Liberian catalogue, Felix became bishop on the fifth of January, 269, and held office five years eleven months and twenty-five days, until the thirtieth of December, 274, and these dates Lipsius accepts as correct. Eusebius, in chap. 32, gives five years as the duration of his episcopate, and with this Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees, while the Armenian gives nineteen years, which is absolutely inconsistent with its own notices, and must be of course a copyist’s mistake. Jerome puts the accession of Felix in the first year of Probus, which is wide of the mark, and the Armenian in the first year of Aurelian, which is not so far out of the way. Felix addressed a letter, in regard to Paul of Samosata, to Maximus and the clergy of Antioch, of which fragments have been preserved in the Apology of Cyril of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (given by Mansi, Conc. I. 1114). The report of his martyrdom is probably a mistake, and has resulted from confusing him with Felix II., who was bishop of Rome in the fourth century.

The name Manes, or Mani, is not of Greek, but of Persian or Semitic origin. It has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The Greek form is Μ€νης or Μανιχαῖος ; the Latin form, Manes or Manichæus. In this place Eusebius instead of giving him his true name makes a play upon it, calling him ὁ μανεὶς τὰς φρένας , “the madman.” This does not imply that Eusebius supposed his name was originally Greek. He perhaps—as others of the Fathers did—regarded it as a sign of divine providence that the Persian name chosen by himself (Mani was not his original name) should when reproduced in Greek bear such a significant meaning. See Stroth’s note on this passage. Eusebius’ brief account is the first authentic description we have of Manes and Manichæism. It is difficult to get at the exact truth in regard to the life of Manes himself. We have it reported in two conflicting forms, an Oriental and an Occidental. The former, however,—though our sources for it are much later than for the latter—is undoubtedly the more reliable of the two. The differences between the two accounts cannot be discussed here. We know that Mani was a well-educated Persian philosopher of the third century (according to Kessler, 205–276 a.d. ; according to the Oriental source used by Beausobre, about 240–276), who attempted to supersede Zoroastrianism, the old religion of Persia, by a syncretistic system made up of elements taken from Parsism, Buddhism, and Christianity. He was at first well received by the Persian king, Sapor I., but aroused the hatred of the Magian priests, and was compelled to flee from the country. Returning after some time, he gained a large following, but was put to death by King Varanes I, about 276 a.d. His sect spread rapidly throughout Christendom, and in spite of repeated persecutions flourished for many centuries. The mysteriousness of its doctrine, its compact organization, its apparent solution of the terrible problem of evil, and its show of ascetic holiness combined to make it very attractive to thoughtful minds, as, e.g. to Augustine. The fundamental principle of the system is a radical dualism between good and evil, light and darkness. This dualism runs through its morals as well as through its theology, and the result is a rigid asceticism. Christianity furnished some ideas, but its influence is chiefly seen in the organization of the sect, which had apostles, bishops, presbyters, deacons, and traveling missionaries. Manichæism cannot be called a heresy,—it was rather an independent religion as Mohammedanism was. The system cannot be further discussed here. The chief works upon the subject are Beausobre’s Hist. Crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Amst. 1734 and 1739, 2 vols.; Baur’s Das Manichäische Religionssystem, Tüb. 1831; Flügel’s Mani, Seine Lehre und seine Schriften, aus den Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadûn, Leipzig, 1882; and two works by Kessler (Leipzig, 1876 and 1882). See also the discussions of the system in the various Church histories, and especially the respective articles by Stokes and Kessler in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. and in Herzog.

Beausobre maintains that Mani did not pretend to be the Paraclete, but merely a man, the messenger of the Paraclete. The Fathers generally, however agree with Eusebius in asserting that his claims were of the very highest sort. The point cannot be satisfactorily settled.

See 1 Tim. vi. 20 .

ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἀνδρῶν .

On Felix, see chap. 30, note 34.

Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees with this passage in assigning eight months to the episcopate of Eutychianus, while the Armenian gives him only two months. The Liberian catalogue, however, gives eight years eleven months and three days; and Lipsius accepts these figures as correct, putting his accession on the fifth of January, 275, and his death on the eighth of December, 283. Jerome puts his accession in the fifth year of Probus, which is wide of the mark, the Armenian in the second year, which is also too late by about two years. Lipsius explains the eight months of the Church History and the Chron. as a change, in their original source, of years to mouths. The present error makes up in part for the error in chap. 27, where Xystus is given eleven years instead of eleven months. Eutychianus was not a martyr, but was buried, according to the Liberian catalogue, in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, a statement which has been confirmed by the discovery of a stone bearing his name.

According to the Liberian catalogue, Caius became bishop on the 17th of December, 283, and held office for twelve years four months and six (or seven) days, i.e. until April 22, 296, and these dates are accepted by Lipsius as correct. Both versions of the Chron. agree with the History in assigning fifteen years to Caius’ episcopate, but this error is of a piece with the others which abound in this period. The report of his martyrdom is fabulous.

According to the Liberian catalogue, Marcellinus became bishop on the 30th of June, 296, and held office for eight years three months and twenty-five days, i.e. until the 25th of October, 304, and these dates Lipsius accepts as correct, although there is considerable uncertainty as to the exact date of his death. Jerome’s version of the Chron. puts his accession in the twelfth year of Diocletian, which is not far out of the way, but does not give the duration of his episcopate, nor does Eusebius in his History. The Armenian Chron. does not mention Marcellinus at all. Tradition, although denied by many of the Fathers, says that he proved wanting in the Diocletian persecution, and this seems to have been a fact. It is also said that he afterward repented and suffered martyrdom, but that is only an invention. The expression of Eusebius in this connection is ambiguous; he simply says he was “overtaken by the persecution,” which might mean martyrdom, or might mean simply arrest. The eleven bishops that preceded him from Pontianus to Caius were buried in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, but he was buried in those of Priscilla.

Of Timæus we know nothing, nor can we fix his dates. The Chron. puts his accession in the year of Abr. 2288 (270 a.d. ), and the accession of his successor, Cyril, in 2297 (279 a.d. ), but the former at least is certainly far too early. Harnack ( Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53) concludes that Cyril must have been bishop as early as 280, and hence neither Domnus nor Timæus can have held office a great while.

On Domnus, see chap. 30, note 24.

According to Jerome’s Chron., Cyril became bishop in the year of Abr. 2297, or fourth year of Probus (279–280 a.d. ); and Harnack accepts this as at least approximately correct. The same authority puts the accession of his successor, Tyrannus, in the eighteenth year of Diocletian (301–302 a.d. ), and just below Eusebius says that the destruction of the churches (in Diocletian’s persecution) took place under Tyrannus, not under Cyril. But the Passio sanctorum quattuor coronatorum (see Mason’s Persecution of Diocletian, p. 259–271) contains a reference to him which assumes that he was condemned to the mines, and died there after three years. The condemnation, if a fact, must have taken place after the second edict of Diocletian (303 a.d. ), and his death therefore in 306. There is no other authority for this report, but Harnack considers it in the highest degree probable, and the indirect way in which Cyril is mentioned certainly argues for its truth. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome, however, seems to have known anything about it, and this is very hard to explain. The matter must, in fact, be left undecided. See Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53 sq.

This Dorotheus and his contemporary, Lucian (mentioned below, in Bk. VIII. chap. 13), are the earliest representatives of the sound critical method of Biblical exegesis, for which the theological school at Antioch was distinguished, over against the school of Alexandria, in which the allegorical method was practiced. From Bk. VIII. chap. 6 we learn that Dorotheus suffered martyrdom by hanging early in the Diocletian persecution, so that it must have been from this emperor, and not from Constantine, that he received his appointment mentioned just below. Diocletian, before he began to persecute, had a number of Christian officials in his household, and treated them with considerable favor.

As Closs remarks, the knowledge of Hebrew was by no means a common thing among the early teachers of the Church; and therefore Dorotheus is praised for his acquaintance with it.

προπαιδείας τῆς καθ᾽ ῞Ελληνας . Compare. Bk. VI. chap. 18, §3.

According to the first canon of the Council of Nicæa (see Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I. p. 376), persons who made themselves eunuchs were not to be allowed to become clergymen, nor to remain clergymen if already such. But this prohibition was not to apply to persons who were made eunuchs by physicians or by their persecutors; and the latter part of the