Note:
This is merely a sample of the book of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History of the first church’s I hope it inspires you to find this wonderful book and purchase a copy for your theological growth, knowledge of our faith and its history brings fulfillment, for what else have we committed ourselves to, but the undying truth of God’s works and words of wisdom. “Amen”
ISBN- 978-1-56563-813-6
Can be found on Amazon.com
For if God no longer had hope and faith in his humble creation mankind, we would no longer exist. “Amen”
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Sincerely,
Rev. Joseph Esquivel
God’s Faith in Man Church ULC
23
The question then agitated respecting the Passover
(1) THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION raised about this time in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observance of the Paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided b a remoter tradition, supposed that they ought t keep the fourteenth day of the moon for the festival of the Savior’s Passover, in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the Paschall Lamb; and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of the fast on this day on whatever day of the week it should happen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who observed the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Savior.
(2) Hence, there were † synods and convocations of the bishops on this question; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the mystery of our Lord’s resurrection should be celebrated on no other day that the Lord’s day; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the Paschal fasts. † synods. syn•od ( ˈsɪn əd ) n. 1. an assembly of ecclesiastics or other church delegates that discusses and decides upon church affairs; ecclesiastical council. 2. any council. [1350–1400; Middle English < Latin synodus < Greek sýnodos meeting =syn- syn - +hodós way] syn′od•al, adj.
(3) There is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at the time, among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. There is also another epistle extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle exists, also, of the bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided, (4) also, of the churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus presided. Moreover, one is from those in Osrhoene and the cities there. And a particular epistle is from Bacchyllus, bishop of the Corinthians, as well as epistles of many others, who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote. And this, their unanimous determination, was the one already mentioned.
24
The dissension of the churches in Asia
(1) The Bishops of Asia, preserving in observing the custom handed down from their fathers, were headed by Polycrates. He indeed has also set forth the tradition handed down to them in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome: (2) “We” said he, “therefore, observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of the Lord’s appearing, in which he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. His other daughter, also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy Ghost, now likewise rests in Ephesus. (3) Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord; who also was a priest, ad bore the sacerdotal plate (πέταλον), both a martyr and teacher. (4) He is buried in Ephesus; also, Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr. Thraseas, also, bishop and martyr of Eumenia, (5) who is buried at Smyrna. Why should I mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea? Moreover, the blessed Papirius; and Melito, the eunuch, whose walk and conversation was altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who now rests at Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead. (6) All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. Moreover, I, Polycrates, who am the least of all of you, according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have followed. For there were seven, my relatives, bishops, and I am the eighth; and my relatives always observed the day when the people (i.e. the Jews) threw away the leaven. (7) I, therefore, brethren am now sixty-five years in the Lord, who having conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and having studied the whole of the sacred Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at those things with which I am threatened, to intimidate me. † For they who are greater than I, have said, ‘we ought to obey God rather than men.’” † Note here already our church teachings and established Paschal customs by the Apostles were under attack by man, changing established Paschal sacred customs by the original Apostles.
(8) After this, he also proceeded to write concerning all the bishops who were present and thought the same with himself: “I could also mention,” said he, “the bishops that were present, whom you requested to be summoned by me, and whom I did call. Whose names, did I write them, would present a great number. Who, however, seeing my slender body, consented to the epistle, well knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs for naught, but that I did at all times regulate my life in the Lord Jesus.”
(9) Upon this, Victor, the bishop of the church of Rome, endeavored to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with neighboring churches, as unorthodox from the common unity. And he published abroad by letters and proclaimed, that all the brethren there were wholly excommunicated. (10) But this was not the opinion of all bishops. They immediately exhorted him, on the contrary, to contemplate that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and love to one another.
There was also extant the expressions they used to press upon Victor with much severity. (11) † Among these also was Irenæus, who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, wrote an epistle in which he maintained the duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord only on the day of the Lord. He becomingly also admonished Victor not to cut off whole churches of God who observed the tradition of an ancient custom. † Again, there is mention of those who would change ancient Paschal customs put in place by the founding Apostles whom taught of Jesus Christ. Threatened with excommunication all churches who followed the original old teaching by the Apostle? Man, once again tampering with our Lord’s history.
After many other matters urged by him, he also added the following:
(12) “Not only is the dispute respecting the day, but also respecting the manner of fasting. For some think, that they ought to fast only on one day, some two, some more days; some compute their day as consisting of forty hours night and day; (13) and this diversity existing among those that observe it, is not a matter that has just sprung up in our times, but long ago among those before us, who perhaps not having ruled with sufficient strictness, established the practice that arose from their simplicity and inexperience. And yet with all maintained peace, and we have maintained peace with one another and the very difference in our fasting establishes the unanimity in our faith.”
(14) To these he also added a narrative, which I may here appropriately insert. It was as follows: “Those presbyters who governed the church before Soter, and over which you now preside, I mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus with Telephorus and Xystus, neither did themselves observe, not did they permit those after them to observe it. And yet, though they themselves did not keep it, they were not the less on peace with those from churches where it was kept, whenever they came to them; although to keep it then was so much the more in opposition to those who did not. (15) Neither at any time did they cast off any merely for the sake of the form. But those very presbyters before thee, who did not observe it, sent the Eucharist to those of churches who did. (16) And when the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves likewise respecting other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For neither Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he has always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated. † Neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe, who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him. † Once again man following men’s fickle teachings rather than the Apostle teachings on the sacred Paschal rite, were will the hypocrisy end?
(17) Thus, they communed with each other; and the office of consecrating. They separated from each other in peace, with all the church at peace; both those that observed and those that did not observe, maintaining peace.” (18) And this same Irenæus as one whose character answered well to his name, being in this way a peacemaker, exhorted and negotiated such matters as these for the peace of the churches. And not only to Victor, but likewise to the most of the other rulers of the churches, he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated question.
25
All agree to one opinion respecting the Passover.
(1) THE BISHOPS INDEED OF PALISTINE, whom we have just mentioned, Narcissus, Theophilus, Cassius, the bishop of the church at Tyre, Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the apostles regarding the Passover, at the close of the epistle use these words: “Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time.”
It is difficult to read the recorded Ecclesiastical History of our founding church records kept, by Eusebius in the times of our original church.
Preface
BY THE Translator
WHEN THE PROPOSITION WAS STARTED to issue a new translation of the present work, the question no doubt frequently arose, Cui bono? Have we not ecclesiastical histories enough, and do not these give us all the information that e can reasonably expect, presented, too, in a form and style which is not likely to be surpassed by any age? Many may here have thought of the judicious and learned Mosheim of the popular Milner, some perhaps of the voluminous Schroeckh and Fleury, whose researches int primitive ages have condensed the labors of their predecessors. Some, indeed, who in distinct and separate works, have confined their histories to the three first centuries of the church, as Mosheim in his Commentary de Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum, Walchii Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, and others of less notoriety, might seem to preclude the necessity of any additional aids or of recurring to the fountains whence they drew. But whatever be the superiority of modern ecclesiastical history, however justly it may represent the times recorded, it cannot give us the soirit of these times without the authors from which it is derived. It cannot, therefore, supersede the necessity of examining the same ground in the statement of an original or primitive writer.
It will not, therefore, be pronounced an indifference to the superior literature of our own age when we hold up to view a production of ages long passed away. Every age has its distinctive features, its advantages as well as defects; ours may, without arrogance, claim the character of more systematic precision in every department of learning. It has been reserved for this age, under Providence, by whose operations the human mind has attained an unprecedented expansion, to reduce the accumulated materials of the past to their correlative positions to compress them into space that brings them more within our grasp, and by rejecting the superfluous and digesting the essential, to enable us to traverse the vast ground of human attainment with pleasure and profit.
The author, however, whose history is here presented to the English reader, in order to be duly estimated, must not be measures by a standard like this. To be appreciated, he must be measured by his own times. Neither are we to expect of him the condense proportions, the judicious selections, and the comprehensive distribution of materials that mark the productions of the scientific historian, nor was it the intention of our author, If we may be allowed to judge from the work itself, his object appeared more like furnishing the materials which himself or the future historian should handle with the more masterly hand or a more enlarged view. The work, therefore, abounds with extracts from writers who flourished in the early ages of the church, in which our author presented either a striking event, expressions of sentiments, or doctrine to illustrate the religious aspect of times and places and by the express testimony of another, perhaps often restrained the hostility which would devolve upon his own narrative. Hence, the history contained generally and was more like detached incidents scattered in memoirs of the individuals that successively rise and pass away before us.
Our author, as the first that professedly entered the ground, has been justly called the father of ecclesiastical history. Priority gave him a just claim to the title. If his performance be examined by all the tests which would be applied to the scientific historians, this praise would indeed be awared to a prominent name of modern date. But Eusebius was the first and only historian of the church bordering on primitive times. No just parallel therefore can be drawn between the Ecclesiastical History here translated and the scientific labors of the present day. The business of the modern historian is to survey with comprehensive eye, to digest, to reduce to proper dimensions, and with a skillful hand to mold his materials into the form of pleasing yet faithful narrative; that of the primitive historian was rather to transcribe what was most important from the existing documents of the day.
Our author had the praise even from the hypercritical Scaliger of being a man who made extensive use of historical sources of his day. Si eruditissmus vocandus, says he, qui multa legit, sane nemo illi hanc laudem invidere potest. This writer did not, indeed, allow him all the qualifications of an historian, to use his own words, judicium cum multa lectione, but the selections that he left to posterity were nevertheless invaluable. He was at some measure the loss of their works. In the testimony thus preserved, however, we have a body of evidence, both to the existing events of the day and to the truth of those Scriptures which, without the formality of a regular system of proof, carries its conviction to the mind. Whether this testimony appeared in a plain or polished style, whether simple or embellished, the great object of our author was the evidence that it furnished and which therefore he gave as one who by the advantages of his situation, while Christianity was yet in the freshness of its morning sun, could arrest and seize some of its fleeting images ere they were erased from the memory of man.
In order to let these images, appear, Eusebius with his testimony must be allowed to speak for himself. His history, independently of its practical utility and its literary store, is unquestionably the most interesting and the most important work that appeared in the first ages of the church. It was a work adapted to all ages and classes, to furnish materials of reflection to the man of letters, to supply the retired Christian with examples of unreserved devotion and sacrifice to duty, and to furnish everyone some original views of primitive times at the hand of one who may be pronounced a primitive man.
In undertaking the present work, the translator was influenced by a firm persuasion of it utility and the necessity of a new version. A more general circulation of primitive works, whether by copious extracts of by entire translations, appears to be one of the best means of giving a primitive tone to modern Christianity. And though we might not conceive ourselves bound to acknowledge everything as biblical merely because it as primitive, yet if it were possible that we could ascertain the real state of Christianity in every respect as it was then, undoubtedly it would prove a remedial check upon many of our errors.
To show that we are not singular on this subject, we here give the sentiment of a foreign journal, which will never be regarded as enthusiastic by those who are all acquainted with its character: “ Independently, of the importance of studying the fathers with respect to exegesis, the perusal of their writings serves, among other objects, to awaken and excite religious views and ideas in the minds f the young, much more than any course of instruction, however logically exact, and in accordance with the rules of † hermeneutics.
† her•me•neu•tics ( ˌhɜr məˈnu tɪks, -ˈnyu- ) n. (used with a sing. v. ) 1. the art or science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures. 2. the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis. [1730–40]
And we are convinced that the excessive abuse that has been of late made of manuals, journals, magazines, etc., for clergymen, which for the last twenty years, and longer, has been the order of the day in many places, and by the spirit of young clergymen has been warped and perverted to indolence and carelessness, would not have made such inroads, if, together with the Holy Scriptures, which should unquestionably form the basis of every discourse, the study of the fathers had also been zealously encouraged.”
It was well observed by a modern philosopher that if every age had had its Aristotle, philosophy would long since have reached its climax; and we may observe with regard to ecclesiastical history, that if every period in primitive times had had its Eusebius, we should, besides his own, be in possession of an amount of ecclesiastical information at this day that would subserve the most salutary purposes. What our author, however, secured from the wrecks of time only leaves us room to regret what we have not. As to the matter, therefore, which the history of Eusebius embraced, no apology is necessary for presenting this to the public. It belongs to the archaeology of Christianity and therefore to Christians at least must appear in an interesting light.
As to the manner in which this is presented, various opinions will doubtless prevail. The critic will form his opinion of Eusebius from the original, and there he will perceive what cannot always be made to appear in a translation. One thing will strike him on the first survey, that the style of as ecclesiastical writer three centuries after the birth of Christ was far different from the style that prevailed three-centuries before and that the Greek authors in the age of Constantine were not the authors of the age of Alexander. Our Eusebius was not without his beauties, but they were so rarely scattered, that we can hardly allow him an eminent rank as a writer, although his subject may be offered as his apology. His use of words was sometimes without sufficient precision, which subjects hi occasionally to ambiguity, and his sentences were sometimes so involved as to requite the hand of critical dissection. His sentences, too, were sometimes of enormous length, and by their copious fullness inclined toward redundancy and hyperbole. E are not to expect the uniform suavity of an Herodotus, the terse brevity of Thucydides, though we may occasionally meet with features that would be overlooked as elegant even in these fathers of history. From the great variety of authors that he quoted, our author indeed could not aim at the same kind of excellence, neither were his quotations from others like those of Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, and others for the mere purpose of embellishment or illustration but for positive information; and, therefore, they assumed all the simplicity of a plain reference to authority. In a work so unostentatious, it would be absurd to measure our author by a standard he never adopted as a production, which like those of the fathers of history, should contend for the prize as a literary performance. The only part of the work that could perhaps aspire to this honor was contained in the last book, where he was altogether the eulogizer and where he left us, perhaps, what may be regarded as one of his most elaborate, if not one of his happiest performances as an orator.
Whether the present translator has succeeded in presenting his author to the public in a costume that shall appear worthy of the original, must be left to the judgement of others. He is not so confident as to presume hs labor is here immaculate, and a more frequent revision of the work may suggest improvements which have thus far escaped him. Some allowances are also due to a work like this, which may not pertain in those of a different description. The translator does not stand upon the same ground as one who renders a work of elegance and taste from profane antiquity. The latter leaves more scope for the display of genius and taste. The great object of the former is to give a faithful transcript of his author’s statement that the reader may derive, if possible, the same impression that he would from the original in case it were his vernacular language. He is not at liberty to improve his author, whatever may be the occasional suggestion of elegance or taste, for there if scarcely any such improvement but what involves the fidelity of the version. He more experienced reader and critic may, perhaps, discover instances where the translator might perhaps have been more easy without sacrificing much of the meaning; and the present version is not without passages where perhaps a little liberty might have obviated an apparent stiffness in the style. But the translator has sometimes preferred the latter, to what appeared a sacrifice of the sense.
The office of a translator, like that of a lexicographer, is an ungrateful office. Men who have no conception of the requisites for such a task, who measure it by the same rough standard that they do a piece of manual labor, are apt to suppose he has nothing to do but to travel on from word to word and that it amounts at last to scarcely more than a transcription of what is already written in his own mind. In the estimate which is thus made, there is little credit given for the necessary adaptation of the style and phraseology to that of the original. No allowance is made for that degree of judgement which the interpreter must constantly exercise in order to make his version tell what its original says. And yet, with all this, there is generally discrimination enough to mark what may be happily expressed; but by a singular perversion, such merit is sure to be assigned to the original work, whilst the defects are generally charged to the account of the translator. Some, ignorant of the limits of the translator’s office, even expect him to give perfection to his author’s deficiencies, and if he fails in this, he is in danger of having them heaped in upon himself.
To preclude any unwarrantable expectations, the translator does not pretend to more in the present work than to give a faithful transcript of the sense of his author. Occasionally, he thinks he has expressed that sense with more perspicuity than his original, and wherever the ambiguity seemed to justify it, it has been done, not with a view to improve his author, but to prevent mistaking his meaning.
The present version is from the accurate Greek text published by Valesius, a learned civilian of the Gallican church. The most noted Latin versions besides that of Valesius are those of Rufunus, Musculus, Christophorson, and Grinæus, Curterius also published a translation, but it is rather a revision of Christphorson.
Stroth among the Germans and Cousin among the French appear to be the fittest that have given versions in the modern languages. The first translation in English was nade by Hanmer in 1584, which passed through five editions. A translation by T. Shorting was published more than a century later, and this last, with the exception of an abridgement by Parker, is the best translation hitherto extant in the English language.
The present translator originally contemplated merely a revision or improvement of the last English version, but a slight examination will satisfy anyone that such labor would be equivalent to that of an original translation itself, while it could at best present little better than a mutilated aspect. The present, therefore, is a version entirely new. It has been finished in the midst of other vocations, and the author expected to bring it to a state of readiness for the press before or about the beginning of the past winter. At the commencement of the work, he anticipated a period of leisure which would have enabled him to meet this expectation fully. But this period of expected leisure was absorbed by care and solicitude amid sickness in his family, while his own health was but was but little calculated for the necessary effort.
It was one of the translator’s original intentions to make the work more useful by the addition of many. Eusebius admits of a constant commentary, and there are some parts of the work, which besides mere illustration, require a separate discussion. Valesius has interspersed notes, which are more extensive than the whole work. They are mostly verbal criticisms and refer to the various readings of the Greek text and as such have but little interest for the general reader. Whoever wishes to consult there will find most of them translated in Shorting’s Eusebius. The few notes that appear at the end of he following pages are by the present translator. He was diverted from his original plan of commenting on his author, partly by an apprehension of swelling the work, chiefly, however, by a conviction that the time under existing circumstances would be better employed in a more diligent revision, and lastly, because he contemplates a prosecution of the author’s historical works in which abundant room and materials will be furnished for thus purpose. In the meantime, the work is committed to the hands of the publis, and in the quaint but expressive words of the oldest English translator Eusebius: “ If aught be well done, give the praise to God, let the pains be the translator’s, an the profit the reader’s” --- Hammer
I can say without a doubt you will find this book an informative read, and the information eye opening.
“Amen”
Rev. Joseph Esquivel