[167]. § 3.
[168]. H.E. iv. 14 ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. This is all that Eusebius says with reference to Polycarp’s knowledge of the Canonical writings. It so happens that in an earlier passage (iii. 36) he has given an extract from Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name is mentioned; but the quotation is brought to illustrate the life of Ignatius, and the mention of the Apostle there is purely accidental.
[169]. H.E. v. 8 μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρώτης ἐπιστολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας.
[170]. It is necessary to press this argument, because though it has never been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful men, who have no sympathy with the Tübingen views of early Christian history, still continue to argue from the silence of Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and Irenæus, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of the epistle of the Roman Clement (H.E. iii. 38), he alludes to the coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the direct references to St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which is referred to by name, and is even silent about the numerous and patent quotations from the Epistle of St James.
[171]. Iren. Hær. v. 33. 4.
[172]. The life of this Abercius is printed in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla, the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the air to Hierapolis. But these Acts, though legendary themselves, contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts. This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. III. p. 532 sq. It is inscribed by one Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who taught him trustworthy writings (γράμματα πιστά) and sent him to visit queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of baptism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a banquet the ιχθυς from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening with severe penalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of this inscription to others found in situ in the cemetery at Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very striking. The commencement Ἐκλεκτῆς πόλεως closely resembles the form of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3906; the enumeration of foreign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages round the promontory of Malea to Italy (ib. 3920); and lastly, the prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on tombstones in this city (ib. 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the legend-writer apparently created his story, interpreting the queen, by which Abercius himself probably meant the city of Rome, to be the empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German campaign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (Civiltà Cattolica 1856, I. p. 683, II. p. 84, quoted in the Acta Sanct. l.c.), whose criticisms however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage.
The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius held or when he lived. There was a person of this name bishop of Hierapolis present at the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 (Labb. Conc. IV. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496, 1744, ed. Coleti). But a chief pastor of the Church at this late date would have declared his office plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of Christianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts than elsewhere. Already the word χριϲτιανοϲ or χρηϲτιανοϲ is found on tombstones of the third century; Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3857 g, 3857 p, 3865 l; see Renan Saint Paul p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault unless we accept the statement in the Acts.
And it is not unreasonable to suppose that, so far as regards the date and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether without confirmation. We have evidence that a person bearing this name lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism dedicates his work to one Avircius Marcellus, at whose instigation it was written. Eusebius (H.E. v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in Apollinaris at Hierapolis and ‘several other learned men of that day with him,’ who left large materials for a history of the movement. He then goes on to say; ἀρχόμενος γοῦν τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν γραφῆς τῶν εἰρημένων δή τις ... προοιμιάζεται ... τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· Ἐκ πλείστου ὅσου καὶ ἱκανωτάτου χρόνου, ἀγαπητὲ Ἀουίρκιε Μάρκελλε, ἐπιταχθεὶς ὑπὸ σοῦ συγγράψαι τινὰ λόγον κ.τ.λ., i.e. ‘One of the aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them (the Montanists) etc.’ May not the person here addressed be the Abercius of the epitaph?
But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live? Some MSS omit δή τις, and others substitute ἤδη, thus making Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if they are omitted, τῶν εἰρημένων must be connected with κατ’ αὐτῶν, where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anonymously; and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the authority of the original text of the historian himself.
But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though Eusebius was uncertain about the authorship? He quotes in succession three συγγράμματα or treatises, speaking of them as though they emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris, iv. 27 κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως ... ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης); but the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time after the death of Montanus. May not Eusebius have had before him a volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism ‘by Claudius Apollinaris and others,’ in which the authorship of the several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would explain the words with which he prefaces his extracts, and would also account for his vague manner of quotation. It would also explain the omission of δή τις in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly substitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus, Nicephorus, and others, who might have had independent information, ascribed the treatise to this father. I have already pointed out how Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, because they were collected in the same volume (p. 48, note [161]). Elsewhere too I have endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which was bound up with others, owing to the absence of a title (Caius or Hippolytus? in the Journal of Philology I. p. 98 sq.).