Preface.

 Prolegomena.

 The Life of Eusebius.

 Chapter I

 §2.  Eusebius’ Birth and Training. His Life in Cæsarea until the Outbreak of the Persecution. 

 §3.  The Persecution of Diocletian. 

 §4.  Eusebius’ Accession to the Bishopric of Cæsarea. 

 §5.  The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius  .

 §6.  The Council of Nicæa  .

 §7.  Continuance of the Arian Controversy. Eusebius’ Relations to the Two Parties. 

 §8.  Eusebius and Marcellus  .

 §9.  The Death of Eusebius. 

 The Writings of Eusebius.

 Chapter II

 §2.  Catalogue of his Works  .

 Eusebius' Church History.

 Chapter III

 §2.  The Author’s Design  .

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

 §4.  Editions and Versions  .

 §5.  Literature  .

  Testimonies of the Ancients in Favor of Eusebius. 

 Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius.

 Book I

 The Church History of Eusebius.

 Chapter II.—  Summary View of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. 

 Chapter III.—  The Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were known from the Beginning, and were honored by the Inspired Prophets. 

 Chapter IV.—  The Religion Proclaimed by Him to All Nations Was Neither New Nor Strange. 

 Chapter V.—  The Time of his Appearance among Men. 

 Chapter VI.—  About the Time of Christ, in accordance with Prophecy, the Rulers who had governed the Jewish Nation in Regular Succession from the Days

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

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

 Chapter IX.—  The Times of Pilate. 

 Chapter X.—  The High Priests of the Jews under whom Christ taught. 

 Chapter XI.—  Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ. 

 Chapter XII.—  The Disciples of our Saviour. 

 Chapter XIII.—  Narrative concerning the Prince of the Edessenes. 

 Book II

 Book II.

 Chapter I.—  The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ. 

 Chapter II.—  How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate concerning Christ. 

 Chapter III.—  The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout All the World. 

 Chapter IV.—  After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa King of the Jews, having punished Herod with Perpetual Exile. 

 Chapter V.—  Philo’s Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews. 

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

 Chapter VII.—  Pilate’s Suicide. 

 Chapter VIII.—  The Famine which took Place in the Reign of Claudius. 

 Chapter IX.—  The Martyrdom of James the Apostle. 

 Chapter X.—  Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the Apostles, immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance. 

 Chapter XI.—  The Impostor Theudas and his Followers. 

 Chapter XII.—  Helen, the Queen of the Osrhœnians. 

 Chapter XIII.—  Simon Magus. 

 Chapter XIV.—  The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome. 

 Chapter XV.—  The Gospel according to Mark. 

 Chapter XVI.—  Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of Egypt. 

 Chapter XVII.—  Philo’s Account of the Ascetics of Egypt. 

 Chapter XVIII.—  The Works of Philo   that have come down to us. 

 Chapter XIX.—  The Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of the Passover. 

 Chapter XX.—  The Events which took Place in Jerusalem during the Reign of Nero. 

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

 Chapter XXII.—  Paul having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, made his Defense, and was acquitted of every Charge. 

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

 Chapter XXIV.—  Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria after Mark. 

 Chapter XXV.—  The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion. 

 Chapter XXVI.—  The Jews, afflicted with Innumerable Evils, commenced the Last War Against the Romans. 

 Book III

 Book III.

 Chapter II.—  The First Ruler of the Church of Rome. 

 Chapter III.—  The Epistles of the Apostles. 

 Chapter IV.—  The First Successors of the Apostles. 

 Chapter V.—  The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ. 

 Chapter VI.—  The Famine which oppressed them. 

 Chapter VII.—  The Predictions of Christ. 

 Chapter VIII.—  The Signs which preceded the War. 

 Chapter IX.—  Josephus and the Works which he has left. 

 Chapter X.—  The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books. 

 Chapter XI.—  Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James. 

 Chapter XII.—  Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be sought. 

 Chapter XIII.—  Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome. 

 Chapter XIV.—  Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria. 

 Chapter XV.—  Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome. 

 Chapter XVI.—  The Epistle of Clement. 

 Chapter XVII.—  The Persecution under Domitian. 

 Chapter XVIII.—  The Apostle John and the Apocalypse. 

 Chapter XIX.—  Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain. 

 Chapter XX.—  The Relatives of our Saviour. 

 Chapter XXI.—  Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church of Alexandria. 

 Chapter XXII.—  Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch. 

 Chapter XXIII.—  Narrative Concerning John the Apostle. 

 Chapter XXIV.—  The Order of the Gospels. 

 Chapter XXV.—  The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not. 

 Chapter XXVI.—  Menander the Sorcerer. 

 Chapter XXVII.—  The Heresy of the Ebionites. 

 Chapter XXVIII.—  Cerinthus the Heresiarch. 

 Chapter XXIX.—  Nicolaus and the Sect named after him. 

 Chapter XXX.—  The Apostles that were Married. 

 Chapter XXXI.—  The Death of John and Philip. 

 Chapter XXXII.—  Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Martyrdom. 

 Chapter XXXIII.—  Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after. 

 Chapter XXXIV.—  Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of Rome. 

 Chapter XXXV.—  Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem. 

 Chapter XXXVI.—  Ignatius and His Epistles. 

 Chapter XXXVII.—  The Evangelists that were still Eminent at that Time. 

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

 Chapter XXXIX.—  The Writings of Papias. 

 Book IV

 Book IV.

 Chapter II.—  The Calamities of the Jews during Trajan’s Reign. 

 Chapter III.—  The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the Faith during the Reign of Adrian. 

 Chapter IV.—  The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under the Same Emperor  .

 Chapter V.—  The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration 

 Chapter VI.—  The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian  .

 Chapter VII.—  The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of Knowledge falsely so-called  .

 Chapter VIII.—  Ecclesiastical Writers  .

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

 Chapter X.—  The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of Antoninus  .

 Chapter XI.—  The Heresiarchs of that Age  .

 Chapter XII.—  The Apology of Justin addressed to Antoninus. 

 ChapterXIII.—  The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia in Regard to our Doctrine  .

 Chapter XIV.—  The Circumstances related of Polycarp, a Friend of the Apostles  .

 Chapter XV.—  Under Verus,   Polycarp with Others suffered Martyrdom at Smyrna 

 Chapter XVI.—  Justin the Philosopher preaches the Word of Christ in Rome and suffers Martyrdom. 

 Chapter XVII.—  The Martyrs whom Justin mentions in his Own Work. 

 Chapter XVIII.—  The Works of Justin which have come down to us. 

 Chapter XIX.—  The Rulers of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria during the Reign of Verus. 

 Chapter XX.—  The Rulers of the Church of Antioch. 

 Chapter XXI.—  The Ecclesiastical Writers that flourished in Those Days. 

 Chapter XXII.—  Hegesippus and the Events which he mentions. 

 Chapter XXIII.—  Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, and the Epistles which he wrote. 

 Chapter XXIV.—  Theophilus Bishop of Antioch. 

 Chapter XXV.—  Philip and Modestus. 

 Chapter XXVI.—  Melito and the Circumstances which he records. 

 Chapter XXVII.—  Apolinarius, Bishop of the Church of Hierapolis. 

 Chapter XXVIII.—  Musanus and His Writings. 

 Chapter XXIX.—  The Heresy of Tatian. 

 Chapter XXX.—  Bardesanes the Syrian and his Extant Works. 

 Book V

 Book V.

 Chapter I.—  The Number of those who fought for Religion in Gaul Under Verus and the Nature of their Conflicts. 

 Chapter II.—  The Martyrs, beloved of God, kindly ministered unto those who fell in the Persecution. 

 Chapter III.—  The Vision which appeared in a Dream to the Witness Attalus. 

 Chapter IV.—  Irenæus commended by the Witnesses in a Letter. 

 Chapter V.—  God sent Rain from Heaven for Marcus Aurelius Cæsar in Answer to the Prayers of our People. 

 Chapter VI.—  Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome. 

 Chapter VII.—  Even down to those Times Miracles were performed by the Faithful. 

 Chapter VIII.—  The Statements of Irenæus in regard to the Divine Scriptures. 

 Chapter IX.—  The Bishops under Commodus. 

 Chapter X.—  Pantænus the Philosopher. 

 Chapter XI.—  Clement of Alexandria. 

 Chapter XII.—  The Bishops in Jerusalem. 

 Chapter XIII.—  Rhodo and his Account of the Dissension of Marcion. 

 Chapter XIV.—  The False Prophets of the Phrygians. 

 Chapter XV.—  The Schism of Blastus at Rome. 

 Chapter XVI.—  The Circumstances related of Montanus and his False Prophets. 

 Chapter XVII.—  Miltiades and His Works. 

 Chapter XVIII.—  The Manner in which Apollonius refuted the Phrygians, and the Persons   whom he Mentions. 

 Chapter XIX.—  Serapion on the Heresy of the Phrygians. 

 Chapter XX.—  The Writings of Irenæus against the Schismatics at Rome. 

 Chapter XXI.—  How Appolonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome. 

 Chapter XXII.—  The Bishops that were well known at this Time. 

 Chapter XXIII.—  The Question then agitated concerning the Passover. 

 Chapter XXIV.—  The Disagreement in Asia. 

 Chapter XXV.—  How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover. 

 Chapter XXVI.—  The Elegant Works of Irenæus which have come down to us. 

 Chapter XXVII.—  The Works of Others that flourished at that Time. 

 Chapter XXVIII.—  Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures. 

 Book VI

 Book VI.

 Chapter II.—  The Training of Origen from Childhood. 

 Chapter III.—  While still very Young, he taught diligently the Word of Christ. 

 Chapter IV.—  The pupils of Origen that became Martyrs. 

 Chapter V.—  Potamiæna. 

 Chapter VI.—  Clement of Alexandria. 

 Chapter VII.—  The Writer, Judas. 

 Chapter VIII.—  Origen’s Daring Deed. 

 Chapter IX.—  The Miracles of Narcissus. 

 Chapter X.—  The Bishops of Jerusalem. 

 Chapter XI.—  Alexander. 

 Chapter XII.—  Serapion and his Extant Works. 

 Chapter XIII.—  The Writings of Clement. 

 Chapter XIV.—  The Scriptures mentioned by Him. 

 Chapter XV.—  Heraclas. 

 Chapter XVI.—  Origen’s Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures. 

 Chapter XVII.—  The Translator Symmachus. 

 Chapter XVIII.—  Ambrose. 

 Chapter XIX.—  Circumstances Related of Origen. 

 Chapter XX.—  The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age. 

 Chapter XXI.—  The Bishops that were well known at that Time. 

 Chapter XXII.—  The Works of Hippolytus which have reached us. 

 Chapter XXIII.—  Origen’s Zeal and his Elevation to the Presbyterate. 

 Chapter XXIV.—  The Commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria. 

 Chapter XXV.—  His Review of the Canonical Scriptures. 

 Chapter XXVI.—  Heraclas becomes Bishop of Alexandria. 

 Chapter XXVII.—  How the Bishops regarded Origen. 

 Chapter XXVIII.—  The Persecution under Maximinus. 

 Chapter XXIX.—  Fabianus, who was wonderfully designated Bishop of Rome by God. 

 Chapter XXX.—  The Pupils of Origen. 

 Chapter XXXI.—  Africanus. 

 Chapter XXXII.—  The Commentaries which Origen composed in Cæsarea in Palestine. 

 Chapter XXXIII.—  The Error of Beryllus. 

 Chapter XXXIV.—  Philip Cæsar. 

 Chapter XXXV.—  Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the Episcopate. 

 Chapter XXXVI.—  Other Works of Origen. 

 Chapter XXXVII.—  The Dissension of the Arabians. 

 Chapter XXXVIII.—  The Heresy of the Elkesites. 

 Chapter XXXIX.—  The Persecution under Decius, and the Sufferings of Origen. 

 Chapter XL.—  The Events which happened to Dionysius. 

 Chapter XLI.—  The Martyrs in Alexandria. 

 Chapter XLII.—  Others of whom Dionysius gives an Account. 

 Chapter XLIII.—  Novatus,   his Manner of Life and his Heresy. 

 Chapter XLIV.—  Dionysius’ Account of Serapion. 

 Chapter XLV.—  An Epistle of Dionysius to Novatus. 

 Chapter XLVI.—  Other Epistles of Dionysius. 

 Book VII

 Book VII.

 Chapter I.—  The Wickedness of Decius and Gallus. 

 Chapter II.—  The Bishops of Rome in those Times. 

 Chapter III.—  Cyprian, and the Bishops with him, first taught that it was necessary to purify by Baptism those converted from Heresy. 

 Chapter IV.—  The Epistles which Dionysius wrote on this Subject. 

 Chapter V.—  The Peace following the Persecution. 

 Chapter VI.—  The Heresy of Sabellius. 

 Chapter VII.—  The Abominable Error of the Heretics the Divine Vision of Dionysius and the Ecclesiastical Canon which he received. 

 Chapter VIII.—  The Heterodoxy of Novatus. 

 Chapter IX.—  The Ungodly Baptism of the Heretics. 

 Chapter X.—  Valerian and the Persecution under him. 

 Chapter XI.—  The Events which happened at this Time to Dionysius and those in Egypt. 

 Chapter XII.—  The Martyrs in Cæsarea in Palestine. 

 Chapter XIII.—  The Peace under Gallienus. 

 Chapter XIV.—  The Bishops that flourished at that Time. 

 Chapter XV.—  The Martyrdom of Marinus at Cæsarea. 

 Chapter XVI.—  Story in Regard to Astyrius. 

 Chapter XVII.—  The Signs at Paneas of the Great Might of our Saviour. 

 Chapter XVIII.—  The Statue which the Woman with an Issue of Blood erected. 

 Chapter XIX.—  The Episcopal Chair of James. 

 Chapter XX.—  The Festal Epistles of Dionysius, in which he also gives a Paschal Canon. 

 Chapter XXI.—  The Occurrences at Alexandria. 

 Chapter XXII.—  The Pestilence which came upon them. 

 Chapter XXIII.—  The Reign of Gallienus. 

 Chapter XXIV.—  Nepos and his Schism. 

 Chapter XXV.—  The Apocalypse of John. 

 Chapter XXVI.—  The Epistles of Dionysius. 

 Chapter XXVII.—  Paul of Samosata, and the Heresy introduced by him at Antioch. 

 Chapter XXVIII.—  The Illustrious Bishops of that Time. 

 Chapter XXIX.—  Paul, having been refuted by Malchion, a Presbyter from the Sophists, was excommunicated. 

 Chapter XXX.—  The Epistle of the Bishops against Paul. 

 Chapter XXXI.—  The Perversive Heresy of the Manicheans which began at this Time. 

 Chapter XXXII.—  The Distinguished Ecclesiastics   of our Day, and which of them survived until the Destruction of the Churches. 

 Book VIII

 Book VIII.

 Chapter I.—  The Events which preceded the Persecution in our Times. 

 Chapter II.—  The Destruction of the Churches. 

 Chapter III.—  The Nature of the Conflicts endured in the Persecution. 

 Chapter IV.—  The Famous Martyrs of God, who filled Every Place with their Memory and won Various Crowns in behalf of Religion. 

 Chapter V.—  Those in Nicomedia. 

 Chapter VI.—  Those in the Palace. 

 Chapter VII.—  The Egyptians in Phœnicia. 

 Chapter VIII.—  Those in Egypt  .

 Chapter IX.—  Those in Thebais. 

 Chapter X.—  The Writings of Phileas the Martyr describing the Occurrences at Alexandria. 

 Chapter XI.—  Those in Phrygia. 

 Chapter XII.—  Many Others, both Men and Women, who suffered in Various Ways. 

 Chapter XIII.—  The Bishops of the Church that evinced by their Blood the Genuineness of the Religion which they preached. 

 Chapter XIV.—  The Character of the Enemies of Religion. 

 Chapter XV.—  The Events which happened to the Heathen. 

 Chapter XVI.—  The Change of Affairs for the Better. 

 Chapter XVII.—  The Revocation of the Rulers. 

 Martyrs of Palestine.

 Martyrs of Palestine.

 Chapter I.

 Chapter II.

 Chapter III.

 Chapter IV.

 Chapter V.

 Chapter VI.

 Chapter VII.

 Chapter VIII.

 Chapter IX.

 Chapter X.

 Chapter XI.

 Chapter XII.

 Chapter XIII.

 Book IX

 Book IX.

 Chapter II.—  The Subsequent Reverse. 

 Chapter III.—  The Newly Erected Statue at Antioch. 

 Chapter IV.—  The Memorials against us. 

 Chapter V.—  The Forged Acts. 

 Chapter VI.—  Those who suffered Martyrdom at this Time. 

 Chapter VII.—  The Decree against us which was engraved on Pillars. 

 Chapter VIII.—  The Misfortunes which happened in Connection with these Things, in Famine, Pestilence, and War. 

 Chapter IX.—  The Victory of the God-Beloved Emperors. 

 Chapter X.—  The Overthrow of the Tyrants and the Words which they uttered before their Death. 

 Chapter XI.—  The Final Destruction of the Enemies of Religion. 

 Book X

 Book X.

 Chapter II.—  The Restoration of the Churches. 

 Chapter III.—  The Dedications in Every Place. 

 Chapter IV.—  Panegyric on the Splendor of Affairs. 

 Chapter V.—  Copies of Imperial Laws. 

  Chapter VI.   —   Copy of an Imperial Epistle in which Money is granted to the Churches. 

 Chapter VII.—  The Exemption of the Clergy. 

 Chapter VIII.—  The Subsequent Wickedness of Licinius, and his Death. 

 Chapter IX.—  The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire. 

 Supplementary Notes and Tables.

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

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

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

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

 On Bk. III. chap. 28, § 1.

 On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14  a  ).

 On Bk. III. chap. 36 § 13.

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

 On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 6.

 On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 16.

 On Bk. IV. chap. 10.

 On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.

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

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

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

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

 On Bk. VI. chap. 12, § 6.

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

 On Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 11.

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

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

 On Bk. X. chap. 8, § 4 (note I, a).

 Table of Roman Emperors.

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

  Bishops of Alexandria. 

  Bishops of Antioch. 

  Bishops of Jerusalem. 

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

 Table of Macedonian Months

Chapter XI.—  Alexander. 

1. But as on account of his great age Narcissus was no longer able to perform his official duties,  58  The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says that Narcissus is already in his 116th year. The translation of Alexander to Jerusalem must have taken place about 212 (see chap. 8, note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than 110 years old. The appointment of Alexander as Narcissus’ assistant involved two acts which were even at that time not common, and which were later forbidden by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see to another, and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop, which made two bishops in one city. The Apost. Canons (No. 14) ordain that “a bishop ought not to leave his own parish and leap to another, although the multitude should compel him, unless there be some good reason forcing him to do this, as that he can contribute much greater profit to the people of the new parish by the word of piety; but this is not to be settled by himself, but by the judgment of many bishops and very great supplication.” It has been disputed whether this canon is older or younger than the fifteenth canon of Nicæa, which forbids unconditionally the practice of translation from one see to another. Whichever may be the older, it is certain that even the Council of Nicæa considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain cases, for it translated Eustathius from Beræa to Antioch (see Sozomen, H. E. I. 2). The truth is, the rule was established—whether before or for the first time at the Council of Nicæa—chiefly in order to guard against the ambition of aspiring men who might wish to go from a smaller to a greater parish, and to prevent, as the Nicene Canon says, the many disorders and quarrels which the custom of translation caused; and a rule formed on such grounds of expediency was of course liable to exception whenever the good of the Church seemed to demand it, and therefore, whether the fourteenth Apostolic Canon is more ancient than the Nicene Council or not, it certainly embodies a principle which must long have been in force, and which we find in fact acted upon in the present case; for the translation of Alexander takes place “with the common consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches,” or, as Jerome puts it, cunctis in Palestina episcopis in unum congregatis, which is quite in accord with the provision of the Apostolic Canons. There were some in the early Church who thought it absolutely unlawful under any circumstances for a bishop to be translated (cf. Jerome’s Ep. ad Oceanum; Migne, Ep. 69, §5), but this was not the common view, as Bingham (Antiq. VI. 4. 6) well observes, and instances of translation from one see to another were during all these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. E. VII. 36), although always of course exceptional, and considered lawful only when made for good and sufficient reasons. To say, therefore, with Valesius that these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church in translating Alexander is too strong. They were evidently unconscious of anything uncanonical, or even irregular in their action, though it is clear that they regarded the step as too important to be taken without the approval of all the bishops of the neighborhood. In regard to assistant bishops, Valesius correctly remarks that this is the first instance of the kind known to us, but it is by no means the only one, for the following centuries furnish numerous examples; e.g. Theotecnus and Anatolius in Cæsarea (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 32), Maximus and Macarius in Jerusalem (see Sozomen, H. E. II. 20); and so in Africa Valerius of Hippo had Augustine as his coadjutor (Possidius, Vita. Aug. chap. 8; see Bingham’s Antiq. II. 13. 4 for other instances and for a discussion of the whole subject). The principle was in force from as early as the third century (see Cyprian to Cornelius, Ep. 40, al. 44 and to Antonianus, Ep. 51, al. 55) that there should be only one bishop in a city, and we see from the works of various Fathers that this rule was universally accepted at an early date. The eighth canon of Nicæa refers to this principle in passing as if it were already firmly established, and the council evidently did not think it necessary to promulgate a special canon on the subject. Because of this principle, Augustine hesitated to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop of Hippo; and although his scruples were overcome at the time, he afterward, upon learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice of having a coadjutor illegal and refused to ordain one for himself. But, as the instances referred to above and many others show, not all the Church interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and hence under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the rule, and were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful. The existence of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for the sake of healing a schism, formed one common exception to the general principle (see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of coadjutors, as in the present case, formed another. the Providence of God called to the office with him, by a revelation given him in a night vision, the above-mentioned Alexander, who was then bishop of another parish.  59  Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not told by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities. Valesius (note on this passage) and Tillemont (Hist. eccles. III. p. 415) give Flaviopolis or Flaviadis as the name of the city (upon the authority of Basilicon, Jur. Græco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, according to Tillemont). But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence Tillemont conjectures that it had once been taken from Cappadocia and attached to Cilicia, and that its inhabitants retained the memory of Alexander, their early bishop. The report seems to rest upon a very slender foundation; but not having access to the authority cited, I am unable to form an opinion as to the worth of the tradition.

2. Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he journeyed from the land of Cappadocia, where he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in consequence of a vow and for the sake of information in regard to its places.  60  εὐχῆς καὶ τῶν τόπων ἱστορίας ἕνεκεν. They received him there with great cordiality, and would not permit him to return, because of another revelation seen by them at night, which uttered the clearest message to the most zealous among them. For it made known that if they would go outside the gates, they would receive the bishop foreordained for them by God. And having done this, with the unanimous consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches, they constrained him to remain.

3. Alexander, himself, in private letters to the Antinoites,  61  ᾽Αντινόεια (Antinoë or Antinoöpolis) was a city of Egypt founded by Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 3). This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops were present at more than one council in later centuries (see Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473). This letter must have been written between 212, at about which time Alexander became Narcissus’ coadjutor (see chap. 8, note 6), and 216, when Origen visited Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23). For at the time of that visit Alexander is said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and no mention is made of Narcissus, who must therefore have been already dead (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1). The fragments of Alexander’s epistles quoted in this chapter are given in Routh’s Rel. Sacræ, II. p. 161 sq., and in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 154. which are still preserved among us, mentions the joint episcopate of Narcissus and himself, writing in these words at the end of the epistle:

4. “Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate here before me, and is now associated with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen years of age; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be of one mind.”

These things took place in this manner. But, on the death of Serapion,  62  On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1. Asclepiades,  63  The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year of Caracalla (211 a.d.). Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 47) believes that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices of most of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author departs from the artificial scheme which he follows in the main. But Harnack contends that the date is not quite correct, because Alexander, who suffered under Severus, was still in prison when Asclepiades became bishop, and therefore the latter’s accession must be put back into Severus’ reign. He would fix, therefore, upon about 209 as the date of it, rightly perceiving that there is good reason for thinking the Chron. at least nearly correct in its report, and that in any case his accession cannot be carried back much beyond that, because it is quite probable (from the congratulations which Alexander extends to the church of Antioch) that there had been a vacancy in that church for some time after the death of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in the midst of the persecutions of the time), while Serapion was still alive as late as 203 (see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1). But it seems to me that there is no good ground for making any alteration in the date given by the Chron., for we know that at the very end of Severus’ reign the persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and that it continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla’s accession (see Tertullian’s ad Scap.). The general amnesty issued by Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion Cassius, LXXVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the persecutions. There is therefore no ground for confining Alexander’s imprisonment to the reign of Severus. It may well have run into the time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Asclepiades did not become bishop until after the latter became emperor, so that it is not necessary to correct the date of the Chron. It is impossible to determine with certainty the length of Asclepiades’ episcopate (see chap. 21, note 6). Of Asclepiades himself we know no more than is told us in this chapter. He seems to have been a man of most excellent character, to judge from Alexander’s epistle. That epistle, of course, was written immediately after Asclepiades’ appointment. who had been himself distinguished among the confessors  64  Literally “confessions” (ὁμολογίαις). during the persecution, succeeded to the episcopate of the church at Antioch. Alexander alludes to his appointment, writing thus to the church at Antioch:

5. “Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed church of Antioch, greeting in the Lord. The Lord hath made my bonds during the time of my imprisonment light and easy, since I learned that, by the Divine Providence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the bishopric of your holy church at Antioch.”

6. He indicates that he sent this epistle by Clement,  65  On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11. writing toward its close as follows:

“My honored brethren,  66  κύριοί μου ἀδελφοί. I have sent this letter to you by Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye yourselves also know and will recognize. Being here, in the providence and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the Church of the Lord.”

58 The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says that Narcissus is already in his 116th year. The translation of Alexander to Jerusalem must have taken place about 212 (see chap. 8, note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than 110 years old. The appointment of Alexander as Narcissus’ assistant involved two acts which were even at that time not common, and which were later forbidden by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see to another, and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop, which made two bishops in one city. The Apost. Canons (No. 14) ordain that “a bishop ought not to leave his own parish and leap to another, although the multitude should compel him, unless there be some good reason forcing him to do this, as that he can contribute much greater profit to the people of the new parish by the word of piety; but this is not to be settled by himself, but by the judgment of many bishops and very great supplication.” It has been disputed whether this canon is older or younger than the fifteenth canon of Nicæa, which forbids unconditionally the practice of translation from one see to another. Whichever may be the older, it is certain that even the Council of Nicæa considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain cases, for it translated Eustathius from Beræa to Antioch (see Sozomen, H. E. I. 2). The truth is, the rule was established—whether before or for the first time at the Council of Nicæa—chiefly in order to guard against the ambition of aspiring men who might wish to go from a smaller to a greater parish, and to prevent, as the Nicene Canon says, the many disorders and quarrels which the custom of translation caused; and a rule formed on such grounds of expediency was of course liable to exception whenever the good of the Church seemed to demand it, and therefore, whether the fourteenth Apostolic Canon is more ancient than the Nicene Council or not, it certainly embodies a principle which must long have been in force, and which we find in fact acted upon in the present case; for the translation of Alexander takes place “with the common consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches,” or, as Jerome puts it, cunctis in Palestina episcopis in unum congregatis, which is quite in accord with the provision of the Apostolic Canons. There were some in the early Church who thought it absolutely unlawful under any circumstances for a bishop to be translated (cf. Jerome’s Ep. ad Oceanum; Migne, Ep. 69, §5), but this was not the common view, as Bingham (Antiq. VI. 4. 6) well observes, and instances of translation from one see to another were during all these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. E. VII. 36), although always of course exceptional, and considered lawful only when made for good and sufficient reasons. To say, therefore, with Valesius that these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church in translating Alexander is too strong. They were evidently unconscious of anything uncanonical, or even irregular in their action, though it is clear that they regarded the step as too important to be taken without the approval of all the bishops of the neighborhood. In regard to assistant bishops, Valesius correctly remarks that this is the first instance of the kind known to us, but it is by no means the only one, for the following centuries furnish numerous examples; e.g. Theotecnus and Anatolius in Cæsarea (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 32), Maximus and Macarius in Jerusalem (see Sozomen, H. E. II. 20); and so in Africa Valerius of Hippo had Augustine as his coadjutor (Possidius, Vita. Aug. chap. 8; see Bingham’s Antiq. II. 13. 4 for other instances and for a discussion of the whole subject). The principle was in force from as early as the third century (see Cyprian to Cornelius, Ep. 40, al. 44 and to Antonianus, Ep. 51, al. 55) that there should be only one bishop in a city, and we see from the works of various Fathers that this rule was universally accepted at an early date. The eighth canon of Nicæa refers to this principle in passing as if it were already firmly established, and the council evidently did not think it necessary to promulgate a special canon on the subject. Because of this principle, Augustine hesitated to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop of Hippo; and although his scruples were overcome at the time, he afterward, upon learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice of having a coadjutor illegal and refused to ordain one for himself. But, as the instances referred to above and many others show, not all the Church interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and hence under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the rule, and were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful. The existence of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for the sake of healing a schism, formed one common exception to the general principle (see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of coadjutors, as in the present case, formed another.
59 Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not told by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities. Valesius (note on this passage) and Tillemont (Hist. eccles. III. p. 415) give Flaviopolis or Flaviadis as the name of the city (upon the authority of Basilicon, Jur. Græco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, according to Tillemont). But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence Tillemont conjectures that it had once been taken from Cappadocia and attached to Cilicia, and that its inhabitants retained the memory of Alexander, their early bishop. The report seems to rest upon a very slender foundation; but not having access to the authority cited, I am unable to form an opinion as to the worth of the tradition.
60 εὐχῆς καὶ τῶν τόπων ἱστορίας ἕνεκεν.
61 ᾽Αντινόεια (Antinoë or Antinoöpolis) was a city of Egypt founded by Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 3). This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops were present at more than one council in later centuries (see Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473). This letter must have been written between 212, at about which time Alexander became Narcissus’ coadjutor (see chap. 8, note 6), and 216, when Origen visited Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23). For at the time of that visit Alexander is said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and no mention is made of Narcissus, who must therefore have been already dead (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1). The fragments of Alexander’s epistles quoted in this chapter are given in Routh’s Rel. Sacræ, II. p. 161 sq., and in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 154.
62 On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
63 The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year of Caracalla (211 a.d.). Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 47) believes that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices of most of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author departs from the artificial scheme which he follows in the main. But Harnack contends that the date is not quite correct, because Alexander, who suffered under Severus, was still in prison when Asclepiades became bishop, and therefore the latter’s accession must be put back into Severus’ reign. He would fix, therefore, upon about 209 as the date of it, rightly perceiving that there is good reason for thinking the Chron. at least nearly correct in its report, and that in any case his accession cannot be carried back much beyond that, because it is quite probable (from the congratulations which Alexander extends to the church of Antioch) that there had been a vacancy in that church for some time after the death of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in the midst of the persecutions of the time), while Serapion was still alive as late as 203 (see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1). But it seems to me that there is no good ground for making any alteration in the date given by the Chron., for we know that at the very end of Severus’ reign the persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and that it continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla’s accession (see Tertullian’s ad Scap.). The general amnesty issued by Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion Cassius, LXXVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the persecutions. There is therefore no ground for confining Alexander’s imprisonment to the reign of Severus. It may well have run into the time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Asclepiades did not become bishop until after the latter became emperor, so that it is not necessary to correct the date of the Chron. It is impossible to determine with certainty the length of Asclepiades’ episcopate (see chap. 21, note 6). Of Asclepiades himself we know no more than is told us in this chapter. He seems to have been a man of most excellent character, to judge from Alexander’s epistle. That epistle, of course, was written immediately after Asclepiades’ appointment.
64 Literally “confessions” (ὁμολογίαις).
65 On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.
66 κύριοί μου ἀδελφοί.