This list is kept in the monastery of Debra Libanos in Shoa; the Abyssinians receive it without any sort of doubt, though to me it seems very exceptionable: If it were genuine, it would put this monarchy in a very respectable light in point of antiquity.
Great confusion has arisen in these old lists, from their kings having always two, and sometimes three names. The first is their christened name, their second a nick, or bye-name, and the third they take upon their inauguration. There is, likewise, another cause of mistake, which is, when two names occur, one of a king, the other the quality of a king only, these are set down as two brothers. For example, Atzbeha is the blessed, or the saint; and I very much suspect, therefore, that Atzbeha and Abreha, said to be two brothers, only mean Abraham the blessed, or the saint; because, in that prince’s time, the country was converted to Christianity; Caleb[342] and Elesbaas, were long thought to be contemporary princes, till it was found out, by inspecting the ancient authors of those times, that this was only the name or quality of blessed, or saint, given to Caleb, in consequence of his expedition into Arabia against Phineas king of the Jews, and persecutor of the Christians.
There are four very interesting events, in the course of the reign of these princes. The first and greatest we have already mentioned, the birth of Christ in the 8th year of Bazen. The second is the conversion of Abyssinia to Christianity, in the reign of Abreha and Atzbeha, in the year of Christ 333, according to our account. The third the war with the Jews under Caleb. The fourth, the massacre of the princes on the mountain of Damo. The time and circumstances of all these are well known, and I shall relate them in their turn with the brevity becoming a historian.
Some ecclesiastical[343] writers, rather from attachment to particular systems, than from any conviction that the opinion they espouse is truth, would persuade us, that the conversion of Abyssinia to Christianity happened at the beginning of this period, that is, soon after the reign of Bazen; others, that Saint Matthias, or Saint Bartholomew, or some others of the Apostles, after their mission to teach the nations, first preached here the faith of Christ, and converted this people to it. It is also said, that the eunuch baptized by Philip, upon his return to Candace, became the Apostle of that nation, which, from his preaching, believed in Christ and his gospel. All these might pass for dreams not worthy of examination, if they were not invented for particular purposes.
Till the death of Christ, who lived several years after Bazen, very few Jews had been converted even in Judea. We have no account in scripture that induces us to believe, that the Apostles went to any great distance from each other immediately after the crucifixion. Nay, we know positively, they did not, but lived in community together for a considerable time. Besides, it is not probable, if the Abyssinians were converted by any of the Apostles, that, for the space of 300 years, they should remain without bishops, and without church-government, in the neighbourhood of many states, where churches were already formed, without calling to their assistance some members of these churches, who might, at least, inform them of the purport of the councils held, and canons made by them, during that space of 300 years; for this was absolutely necessary to preserve orthodoxy, and the communion between this, and the churches of that time. And it should be observed, that if, in Philip’s time, the Christian religion had not penetrated (as we see in effect it had not) into the court of Candace, so much nearer Egypt, it did not surely reach so early into the more distant mountainous country of Abyssinia; and if the Ethiopia, where Candace reigned, was the same as Abyssinia, the story of the queen of Saba must be given up as a falsehood; for, in that case, there would be a woman sitting upon the throne of that country 500 years after she was excluded by a solemn deliberate fundamental law of the land.
But it is known, from credible writers, engaged in no controversy, that this Candace reigned upon the Nile in Atbara, much nearer Egypt. Her capital also was taken in the time of Augustus, a few years before the Conversion, by Philip; and we shall have occasion often to mention her successors and her kingdom, as existing in the reign of the Abyssinian kings, long after the Mahometan conquest; they existed when I passed through Atbara, and do undoubtedly exist there to this day. What puts an end to all this argument is a matter of fact, which is, that the Abyssinians continued Jews and Pagans, and were found to be so above 300 years after the time of the Apostles. Instead, therefore, of taking the first of this list (Bazen) for the prince under whom Abyssinia was converted from Judaism, as authors have advanced, in conformity to the Abyssinian annals, we shall fix upon the 13th (Abreha and Atzbeha, whom we believe to be but one prince) and, before we enter into the narrative of that remarkable event, we shall observe, that, from Bazen to Abreha, being 341 years inclusive, the eighth of Bazen being the first of Christ, by this account of the conversion, which happened under Abreha and Atzbeha, it must have been about 333 years after Christ, or 341 after Bazen.
But we certainly know, that the first bishop, ordained for the conversion of Abyssinia, was sent from Alexandria by St Athanasius, who was himself ordained to that See about the year 326. Therefore, any account, prior to this ordination and conversion, must be false, and this conversion and ordination must have therefore happened about the year 330, or possibly some few years later; for Socrates[344] says, that St Athanasius himself was then but newly elected to the See of Alexandria.
In order to clear our way of difficulties, before we begin the narrative of the conversion, we shall observe, in this place, the reason I just hinted at, why some ecclesiastical writers had attributed the conversion of Abyssinia to the Apostles. There was found, or pretended to be found in Alexandria, a canon, of a council said to be that of Nice, and this canon had never before been known, nor ever seen in any other place, or in any language, except the Arabic; and, from inspection, I may add, that it is such Arabic that scarce will convey the meaning it was intended. Indeed, if it be construed according to the strict rule of grammar, it will not convey any sense at all. This canon regulated the precedency of the Abuna of Ethiopia in all after councils, and it places him immediately after the prelate of Seleucia. This most honourable antiquity was looked upon and boasted of for their own purposes by the Jesuits, as a discovery of infinite value to the church of Ethiopia.
I shall only make one other observation to obviate a difficulty which will occur in reading what is to follow. The Abyssinian history plainly and positively says, that when Frumentius (the apostle of the Abyssinians) came first into that country, a queen reigned, which is an absolute contradiction to what we have already stated, and would seem to favour the story of queen Candace. To this I answer, That though it be true that all women are excluded from the Abyssinian throne, yet it is as true that there is a law, or custom, as strictly observed as the other, that the queen upon whose head the king shall have put the crown in his life-time, it matters not whether it be her husband or son, or any other relation, that woman is regent of the kingdom, and guardian of every minor king, as long as she shall live. Supposing, therefore, a queen to be crowned by her husband, which husband should die and leave a son, all the brothers and uncles of that son would be banished, and confined prisoners to the mountain, and the queen would have the care of the kingdom, and of the king, during his minority. If her son, moreover, was to die, and a minor succeed who was a collateral, or no relation to her, brought, perhaps, from the mountain, she would still be regent; nor does her office cease but by the king’s coming of age, whose education, cloathing, and maintenance, she, in the mean time, absolutely directs, according to her own will; nor can there be another regent during her life-time. This regent, for life, is called Iteghè; and this was probably the situation of the kingdom at the time we mention, as history informs us the king was then a minor, and consequently his education, as well as the government of his kingdom and household, were, as they appear to have been, in the queen, or Iteghè’s hands; of this office I shall speak more in its proper place.
Meropius, a philosopher at Tyre, a Greek by nation and by religion, had taken a passage in a ship on the Red Sea to India, and had with him two young men, Frumentius and Œdesius, whom he intended to bring up to trade, after having given them a very liberal education. It happened their vessel was cast away on a rock upon the coast of Abyssinia. Meropius, defending himself, was slain by the natives, and the two boys carried to Axum, the capital of Abyssinia, where the Court then resided. Though young, they soon began to shew the advantages attending a liberal education. They acquired the language very speedily; and, as that country is naturally inclined to admire strangers, these were soon looked upon as two prodigies. Œdesius, probably the dullest of the two, was set over the king’s household and wardrobe, a place that has been filled constantly by a stranger of that nation to this very day. Frumentius was judged worthy by the queen to have the care of the young prince’s education, to which he dedicated, himself entirely.