ON ST. NARCISSUS, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM,
ABOUT THE YEAR 222.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. (S.)
BHL Number: 6035
BY J. V. H.
§ Sole section. The confusion of namesakes; the order of succession of the bishops of Jerusalem; the paschal question; his old age and death.
There are various Saints of this name praised in the sacred calendars. A certain Narcissus is named on the 1st of January as a martyr in Africa together with SS. Victor, To be distinguished especially from his namesake of Gerona Felix, Argyrus, and companions Acta SS. vol. I of Jan., p. 19.. Another on the 2nd of January at Tomi in Pontus with his fellow Martyrs Argeus and Marcellinus Ibid., p. 82.. There is also the Narcissus who suffered martyrdom with Crescentius at Rome on the 17th of September, under the emperor Valerian Ibid., vol. IV of Sept., p. 476.. Likewise at Rome, on the 31st of October, a martyr with Ampliatus and Urban, whom the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans 16:8, 9 and 11, greets as friends, helpers, and hosts. There is also one at Cordoba in Spain, who appears to be known by name alone, as Bartholomew de Feria teaches us in his Palæstra Sacra Palestra Sag. vol. IV, p. 8.. Certainly these Martyrs can in no way be confused with our prelate of Jerusalem. But our Narcissus of Jerusalem was at one time confused with another Narcissus, namely the one of Gerona, who, fleeing to Augsburg because of the persecution of Diocletian, baptized St. Afra; our predecessors published his Acts on the 18th of March Acta SS. vol. II of March, p. 621.. Of the confusion of the two Narcissi Mark Welser speaks in his Notes on the History of the Conversion of St. Afra Welser's Works, p. 447. And Baronius's Notes on the Roman Martyrology.; and the non-Catholic Achilles Gasser makes it his own in his Annals of Augsburg Mencken, Scriptores rerum Germ. vol. I, col. 1396., when he teaches that Afra was burned not at Augsburg but on the island of Crete, after she had been converted to the Christian faith, together with her companions, by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. But the confusion cannot stand: for Narcissus of Jerusalem is a full century older than the one of Gerona, the latter flourishing under Diocletian at the opening of the fourth century, while the former's episcopate had its beginning under the emperor Commodus, who reigned from the year of Christ 180 to 192. But enough has been said of this distinction. We pass on to our Narcissus of Jerusalem.
[2] Eulogies of St. Narcissus in the sacred The Roman Martyrology announces the memory of St. Narcissus on this day in these words: At Jerusalem, the birthday of Blessed Narcissus, bishop, praiseworthy for sanctity, patience, and faith, who passed to the Lord at the age of one hundred and sixteen. Usuard has the same, omitting the age of 116 years and adding that his sanctity, faith, and patience are recounted in the Ecclesiastical History. But Ado celebrates the Saint most copiously of all. The birthday, he writes, of Blessed Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, a man praiseworthy for sanctity and patience and faith. It happened once, on the solemn day of the Paschal Vigil, that oil was lacking for the lamps; and when this became known through the ministers, the people's grief was very great. But Narcissus, trusting in faith, commands the ministers to draw water and bring it to him; and when they had brought it, he prayed and blessed the water and ordered it to be poured into the lamps. Then suddenly, by a wondrous kind of power unheard of in the ages, the nature of the water was turned into the richness of oil, and it rendered the brightness of the lamps even clearer than usual. For the proof of the thing, some of the same oil which had been turned from water was preserved by very many of the religious brethren. For since he was, among the other goods of his virtues, of a very constant mind and unswervingly tenacious of what is just and right, certain worthless little men, conscious of their own evil, fearing that if they were accused of their crimes they could not escape punishment, forestall him with factions and prepare to entrap him whose judgment they feared.
[3] Calendars. They therefore fabricate against him a charge infamous enough and damaging. Hearers assemble; they bring forward witnesses from among themselves, who were to confirm under the sanction of an oath the things objected. One of these witnesses testified that he spoke the truth, on pain of being consumed by fire; another, on pain of being wasted by the royal disease; the third, on pain of being deprived of his eyes. And although not one of the faithful and of those who fear the Lord believed even these oaths, because the life of Narcissus, his way of living, and his chastity were known to all, yet he, unable to bear the indignity and vexation of what had been stirred up, and at the same time always desiring to have a secret and philosophic life, stole away from the multitude of the Church and lay hidden in desert places and more remote little fields for very many years. But that great eye of divine providence does not rest for long; rather, it contrives vengeance on the impious by means of those very curses which they had laid down for themselves in their perjuries. For that first witness, his house having been set alight in the night-time by a small spark of fire, was burned up with all his kin and all his household in the avenging flames. The other was suddenly filled and consumed, from the very soles of his feet to the top of his head, by the royal disease which he had invoked upon himself. The third, seeing the destruction of the former two and perceiving that it had not escaped the divine eye, burst forth into the open, and in the hearing of all, with belated penitence, laid bare the whole train of the fabricated wickedness. And with such tears did he bewail the crime of the monstrous deed committed, and so long did he persist day and night in weeping, that he was deprived of his eyes. These men then paid such penalties for their fabrication. But when Narcissus had thus sought the desert and hidden himself in such remote places that no one knew where he was now living, it seemed necessary to the bishops to ordain another in his stead, whose name was Dius; and when he had presided over the Church for a short time, Germanio succeeded him, and Cordius succeeded Germanio. When behold, suddenly, as if come back to life and returned from heaven, Narcissus unexpectedly appeared, and is again asked by the brethren to preside over the Church. But since he himself, already weary with old age, could not suffice for the ministry of the pontificate, the divine dispensation called Alexander, who was already bishop of another place, to the assistance of the old man by the most evident revelations. And having completed one hundred and sixteen years, leaving the see to the same Alexander, he received from the Lord the fruit of his labours.
[4] He was the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem, St. Narcissus, in the Chronological History of the Bishops of Jerusalem composed by our Daniel Papebroch and prefixed to the third volume of May, is called the thirtieth patriarch. And not undeservedly: for Eusebius in his Chronicle, under the emperor Commodus, who governed the Roman world from the year of Christ 181 to 193, teaches us Mai, Veterum Script. nova collectio, p. 389. that Maximus was ordained twenty-sixth bishop at Jerusalem. After whom, he says, the twenty-seventh was Antoninus; the twenty-eighth Valens; the twenty-ninth Dulichianus; the thirtieth Narcissus. Eusebius does not well confirm this order of bishops in his Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter 12 Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XX, col. 458.: At the same time, he says, in which Clement of Alexandria was teaching, Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, flourished, a man celebrated in the speech of many even in our own age. He held the fifteenth place in the succession after that siege of the Jews which took place in the reign of Hadrian. From which time indeed, as we have related, the Church of that place first came together from the Gentiles, after those who were of the circumcision, and Mark was the first from the Gentiles to preside over them. The Acts of that St. Mark were published under the 22nd of October Acta SS. vol. IX of October, p. 477.. But since St. Mark, by the agreement of all, is called the sixteenth bishop of Jerusalem, if, as Eusebius has it, St. Narcissus held the fifteenth place after St. Mark, he must now be called the thirty-first bishop of Jerusalem. And indeed, according to Nicephorus, archbishop of Constantinople, who flourished in the ninth century, in his Compendious Chronography, which was published at the end of the Chronography of George Syncellus in the Paris and Venice editions of the Byzantines George Syncellus, p. 326., Elias must be inserted between Julian, whom I shall call the second, and Capito; by which reckoning St. Narcissus is truly to be placed in the fifteenth position, and so is the thirty-first bishop of Jerusalem.
[5] Elias, probably a Hebrew, being eliminated, But if we go to Eusebius himself, with whom St. Epiphanius also agrees in Against Heresies, book II, Heresy 66 Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XLII, col. 59., that Elias is absent from the Catalogue of bishops, so that Julian II has as his immediate successor, with no one between, Capito. For Eusebius has this in his Chronicle, which I cite from the accurate edition of Cardinal Angelo Mai Scriptt. Veterum Nova Collectio, vol. VIII, p. 387.: *At Jerusalem Cassianus takes up the episcopate after Mark as seventeenth; after him Publius as eighteenth; to whom Maximus succeeds as nineteenth; the twentieth Julian; the twenty-first Gaianus; the twenty-second Symmachus; the twenty-third Gaius; the twenty-fourth Julian:
the twenty-fifth Capito. In the same way in the Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter 12 Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XX, col. 458.: After whom (Mark) the series of the bishops, which are preserved in the archives of that Church, show that Cassianus held the episcopate, then Publius, afterwards Maximus, and next Julian. Gaius succeeded Julian, Symmachus succeeded Gaius, and another Gaius succeeded Symmachus; after whom again another Julian, who was followed by Capito, and then Valens, etc.* Elias is therefore absent from both Catalogues and is eliminated by Eusebius, who, as a domestic witness, being bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, had inspected the archives of the Church of Jerusalem. Nor is this surprising: from Mark onward all the names of the bishops are of Greek or Latin origin. This Elias alone betrays himself as of Hebrew stock, and he is thrust into the Catalogue by a writer of the ninth century. The Eusebian Catalogue is therefore to be preferred; but what is said in the History, that Narcissus held the fifteenth place of the succession, is to be corrected. For if we seek his place from the Eusebian series itself, we shall say that he stands in the fourteenth place from Mark. By which reckoning Narcissus will truly be the thirtieth of Jerusalem.
[6] and the Catalogue being in some measure dislocated. Nor should it deceive us that in the more correct Chronicle of Eusebius Alexander, the successor or coadjutor of our Saint, is written as the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem Mai, Vett. Scriptt. nov. coll. vol. VIII, p. 391., by which reckoning our Saint would have to be called the twenty-ninth. For the reading is certainly faulty, since a little above Ibid., p. 390. it numbers St. Narcissus as the thirty-fifth bishop of Jerusalem. Then in the place above, after Capito or Valens (for between the two the order is different in Eusebius's Chronicle and in his History), we see the same Narcissus numbered thirtieth, but at the same time, because of his pontificate having been as it were interrupted, Narcissus is also held again as thirty-fourth Ibid., p. 389.. All these things are surely sufficient to show that the order of the bishops at Jerusalem is dislocated. Indeed the chronologist himself speaks as if in wonder: So many bishops having been established at Jerusalem, we have not been able to distinguish the times of each one, because to the present day the years of their episcopate are by no means found. And in fact, when the thirty-third bishop was already being counted at Jerusalem, at the same time Victor sat at Rome as the thirteenth; Demetrius at Alexandria as the eleventh; Serapion at Antioch as the eighth Ibid., loc. cit..
[7] In the question of Easter St. Narcissus Besides those things which we relate below from Eusebius, and which will be illustrated as occasion serves, there is one matter which must be explained in a special short commentary, namely the question of the day on which Easter is to be celebrated. It is not a matter of the various cycles according to which the moon of March, or the equinoctial moon, is to be found, from which variety differences in celebrating Easter not rarely arose. Thus the Britons followed a cycle different from the Roman. And Augustine with his companions, sent into England by St. Gregory the Great, endeavoured to bring them to the Roman computation. But the controversy lasted for a whole century with the Scots, who held tenaciously to their ancient custom. This diversity of paschal cycles is neatly set forth by the Englishman John Smith in his Notes on the Ecclesiastical History of the Venerable Bede, note IX [Migne, Patrol. vol. XCV, col. 317. Compare Lanigan, Eccles. History of Ireland, vol. II, p. 369 and following.]. But, I say, the question which St. Narcissus had to treat is not to be referred to the paschal cycles, but was simply whether the paschal festival was to be celebrated in the manner of the Jews on the fourteenth moon itself, on whatever day of the week it might fall, or whether it was to be put off to the following Lord's day. From which question arose another, namely on what day the pre-paschal fast was to be begun and broken. St. Narcissus indeed, as Eusebius teaches in no. 2 of the Life to be given below, firmly held that Easter was to be celebrated on the Lord's day. There is still extant, he says, a letter of the priests who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom presided Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, and Narcissus of Jerusalem. And by this letter they declared, as Eusebius says a little above, that the mystery of the Lord's Resurrection was never to be celebrated on any day other than the Lord's day.
[8] Against certain Asiatics he holds with the Roman Church. But because bishops, especially of Asia Minor, refused to obey the decree of Pope Victor, who, as Eusebius has it, had sanctioned the same thing, Victor either separated them from his communion or threatened to separate them. This manner of acting did not please certain bishops, among whom was St. Irenæus, as the same Eusebius testifies, below in no. 5. Accordingly they exhorted Victor in reply that he should rather be willing to hold those views which were in keeping with peace, unity, and charity toward the neighbour. That is, St. Irenæus and those who held the same opinion with him judged that the question of the day of celebrating Easter pertained solely to discipline, and that therefore the peace of the universal Church was not to be disturbed on account of a question mutable by its nature and approved by the customs of the Churches. But St. Victor, the pope, seems to have traced the controversy further back, inasmuch as he perceived in the obstinacy of the Asiatics a Judaic leaven. And indeed at that time a certain Blastus was secretly endeavouring to introduce Judaism, as we read at the end of Tertullian's book on Prescriptions Migne, Patrol. vol. II, col. 72.. There are, however, those who cut the Catalogue of heretics off from the end of the book, and hold it to be another book, either of Tertullian himself or of another author Migne, Patrol. vol. II, col. 61, note.. Be that as it may, it is certainly a very ancient fragment of a book, already known to St. Jerome Ibid., loc. cit.. Of Blastus as a heretic and schismatic Eusebius also treats, book V, chapters XV and XX Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XX, col. 463 and 483.. Further, this paschal question had a twofold relation: to ecclesiastical discipline, which is of itself mutable, and to the faith, which ever stands unmoved and immutable. St. Irenæus therefore, when he exhorts Pope St. Victor to peace and charity, was directing his eyes to discipline; but on the contrary St. Victor, who scented heresy in the celebrating of Easter [Compare Orsi, Istor. Eccles. book V, §12, vol. II, p. 461, Rome edition, 1749.]. From which there arose afterwards the sect of the Quartodecimans, Τεσσερακαιδεκατιτων, which SS. Epiphanius, Against Heresies, book II, heresy 50 Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XLI, col. 882., and Augustine, book on Heresies, §29 Patrol. Latin. vol. XLII, col. 31., expose as a heresy; especially after, as is read in the Roman Synod under St. Sylvester Labbe, vol. II of the Councils, col. 411., it was decreed that the observance of Easter should be kept from the 14th moon to the 21st, so that the Lord's day should shine forth.
[9] The singular opinion of Friar Molkenbuhr, a Minorite Since the error of the Quartodecimans is in question, I do not think that the singular opinion of Marcellinus Molkenbuhr, a Minorite, should be passed over in silence, by which he contends in a special dissertation that the two famous letters of SS. Polycrates and Irenæus against Pope St. Victor in the paschal case are spurious. He therefore holds chapters XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of the fifth book to be interpolated Dissertation, p. 33.. But first of all, the History of Eusebius has been printed quite often, collated with many a manuscript copy, as may be seen in Henri de Valois in the preface which he prefixed to his edition Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XX, col. 55., and no one has ever scented an interpolation, or found the History truncated of these chapters. Next, Rufinus, the Latin translator of Eusebius and something near a contemporary of Eusebius, inasmuch as he differs from him in age by only 72 years, gives the same chapters; so that the interpolation, if there was one, would almost reach the very age of Eusebius and make it contemporary with the writer; whence Rufinus's translation too will have to be called infected with the same fault. Nay even the Chronicle of Eusebius will have to be marked with a like stain: for under the year of Christ 244 we read: A question having arisen in Asia among the bishops, whether according to the law of Moses Easter was to be observed on the fourteenth day of the month, Victor, bishop of the City of Rome, and Narcissus of Jerusalem, Polycrates also of Ephesus and Irenæus of Lyons and Bacchylus of Corinth, and very many pastors of the Churches, published in letters what seemed to them probable, the memory of which endures down to us. Unless therefore the Chronicle too is said to have been interpolated, chapters XXIV, XXV, and XXVI are not spurious, inasmuch as they preserve to this day both what St. Narcissus did in the paschal question and the letters of Polycrates, Irenæus, and Bacchylus, the memory of which endures down to us.
[10] As though the letters of Polycrates and Irenæus had been interpolated, In the same way it will have to be called spurious, what Socrates relates in his History, book V, chapter XXII Ibid., vol. LXVII, col. 627.. The author indeed holds that the paschal question pertains solely to discipline, and for that reason he attacks Pope Victor in sharp words; nevertheless he sets forth the fact itself entirely in the sense of Eusebius. For he says: In Asia Minor very many from antiquity observed the fourteenth day, neglecting the day of the sabbath (or the Lord's day). While doing this, however, they never separated themselves from others who celebrated Easter in another manner; until Victor, bishop of the Roman Church, inflamed by an immoderate heat of anger, sent a writ of excommunication to the Quartodecimans who were in Asia. Upon which Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, a city of the Gauls, severely reproved Victor by letter, rebuking his too sharp attack, and at the same time showing that the older men, who celebrated the feast of Easter in a manner differing among themselves, were by no means separated from mutual communion; and that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who afterwards suffered martyrdom when Gordian held the empire, communicated with Anicetus, bishop of Rome, in no way dissenting from him on account of this festival, although he himself, according to the ancestral custom of the Church of Smyrna, celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day, as Eusebius relates in the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical History. And so this too will be a spurious fragment, on the testimony of Molkenbuhr. But if such a criticism were applied everywhere, there will soon be no sound history and we shall fall into scepticism.
[11] they are refuted. These things seem to me so firm that they can be shaken in no part. Nevertheless let us see briefly what the aforesaid Marcellinus Molkenbuhr proposes for establishing the interpolation. 1° Polycrates defends a heresy, insofar as he holds that Easter must be celebrated according to the Gospel on the fourteenth moon. Whether this is the sense of Polycrates no one will easily say. Certainly the writer so interpreted the Gospel, and endeavoured to draw others over to his opinion, without however accusing the adversaries of the contrary opinion of heresy. Then, relying on the custom of his province, he could teach the necessity of retaining his own usage. For the rest, no one will deny that the whole letter is rather arrogant and rather profuse in its own praises. And hence 2° he is proud of his grey hair, of his conversation in Christ, of the concord and counsel held with other bishops, of his assiduous reading of Sacred Scripture, of the tradition received from his forebears, of his, with seven other bishops,
kinship: all these things are certainly written arrogantly and with exaggeration, and they exhibit the style of a man angry and more tenacious of his opinion than is right. But blemishes of this kind may be found in other writers too, without our therefore holding their writings to be interpolated. 3° Molkenbuhr also scents interpolation because he does not call the Apostle Philip a Martyr, saying that he fell asleep at Hierapolis, and because he relates that St. John the Evangelist wore a golden plate. But that Philip fell asleep at Hierapolis may be interpreted in either sense, of a natural or of a violent death; and that John wore a plate is no more surprising than what St. Epiphanius teaches of St. James the Less, Heresy XXIX Ibid., vol. XLI, col. 395., that he had a leaf of gold upon his head, in testimony of which he brings the authority of Clement and Eusebius. These are about the things by which Molkenbuhr impugns the credibility of Eusebius's statements: whence we should have to heap interpolations upon interpolations, and abrogate all the tradition of history.
[12] The Saint, broken with old age, That St. Narcissus led a long life is attested by Eusebius, book VI, chapter 11 Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XX, col. 543., citing a letter written by Alexander, the Saint's successor: Narcissus greets you, he says, who before me held the episcopal see of this Church, and who is now joined with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen years old. We have then from Eusebius that St. Narcissus, at the age of 116, assisted Alexander at least by his prayers. Domenico Giorgi, in his Notes on the Martyrology of Ado, says that the Saint ruled the Church of Jerusalem from the year of Christ 185 to 212. I strongly doubt that St. Narcissus, unless he lived on for a long time after the ordination of his successor, first began his episcopate in the year 185, or met death in the year 212. For if he finished his life about the year of Christ 212, he would first have ascended the episcopal see at the age of 89, and it can scarcely be admitted that a decrepit old man, who moreover, says Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. book VI, chapter 9 Ibid., vol. XX, col. 539., had long been possessed by love of the philosophic, that is, the solitary, life, took up so heavy a burden. Therefore I surmise that either his ordination must be moved forward by some years (because, as we said above, the years of the individual bishops, as he himself confesses, are by no means found in Eusebius), or his life must be prolonged by some years.
[13] He takes Alexander as coadjutor. But the ordination of the holy prelate can hardly be moved forward. For Eusebius refers it to the emperor Commodus, who reigned from the year of Christ 180 to 192 Mai, Vet. Scriptt. vol. VIII, p. 389.. And if we consult the Catalogue of Nicephorus of Constantinople, who assigns a number of years to the individual bishops, it is manifest that the ordination of St. Narcissus reached into the reign of Commodus. For by reckoning up the series of years from St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem, to St. Narcissus, we have altogether 140 years, to which if the 33 years of the Christian era are added we arrive at 173 years; whence, the interpontificates of twenty-nine bishops being reckoned, we easily reach the time of the reign of Commodus, or the year of Christ 180. Both the Eusebian and the Nicephorian Chronologies therefore agree well enough with each other, especially if we observe that Nicephorus carries the time of Dulichianus, the immediate predecessor of St. Narcissus, down to Commodus George Syncellus, p. 326.. Since therefore it is not permissible to place our Saint's ordination before the reign of Commodus, we must now see whether the Saint's death ought not to be put off beyond the year 212. The aforesaid Nicephorus binds his death to the reign of Alexander Severus, which began from the year of Christ 223 and ends in the year 235; for he says Ibid., loc. cit.: Narcissus again down to Alexander, son of Mamæa, not the Macedonian, but a certain other. If we accept this (and we have no other guide to follow), St. Narcissus prolonged his life at least to the year 222; indeed it may perhaps be extended by some years. From this it is deduced that the Saint was born not before the year 106, and thus ascended the chair of Jerusalem in the 79th year of his age, an advanced age, that is, yet not decrepit. For this reason I wrote at the head of this Commentary that he probably met death about the year 222. Further, the reason why complete trust is not to be placed in Nicephorus is that he says that the bishop Alexander finished his pontificate at the same time as the emperor Alexander. In which he certainly errs, since it is established from Eusebius's Chronicle that the bishop Alexander suffered martyrdom under Decius, who obtained the empire in the year 249 Mai, Vet. Scriptt. coll. vol. VIII, p. 393.; which St. Jerome also affirms in the book on Illustrious Men, chapter 62 Migne, Patrol. vol. XXIII, col. 673.. Nevertheless Eusebius agrees well enough with Nicephorus, or at least can agree, when he says that Alexander was ordained under the emperor Caracalla, who reigned from the year 211 to 217. While Narcissus was living, says Eusebius in the Chronicle Mai, Vet. Scriptt. Collect. vol. VIII, p. 391., he also rules the Church equally with him. For some years therefore Narcissus could have lived together with Alexander and reached the reign of Severus Alexander, or the year 222 of the common era.
These are the things which I had to say in the preliminary commentary. The rest we shall set forth in the Life, which we compose from fragments of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
LIFE OF ST. NARCISSUS, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM,
from book V, chapters 12, 22, 23 and 24, and book VI, chapters 8, 9, 10 and 11, of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. (S.)
FROM EUSEBIUS.
St. Narcissus, Book V, Chapter 12. At the same time a Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, flourished, a man celebrated in the speech of many even in our own age. He held the fifteenth place of the succession after that siege of the Jews which took place in the reign of Hadrian b. From which time indeed, as we have related, the Church of that place first came together from the Gentiles, after those who were of the circumcision, and Mark was the first from the Gentiles to preside over them c. After whom Cassianus held the episcopate. He then enumerates the remaining bishops of Jerusalem down to St. Narcissus. Then in chapter 22: During the same time, he says, that is, when Commodus was in the tenth year of his reign, or the year of Christ 189, Narcissus, of whom we made mention above, held the priesthood of the Church of Jerusalem. Eusebius next sets forth the question of the celebration of Easter, which, since St. Narcissus played his part in it, we shall relate here from chapter 23 of the same book of Eusebius.
[2] on the paschal question In the same times d, a grave controversy arose, because all the Churches through Asia, relying on a certain ancient tradition, held that the festal day of the saving Pasch was to be celebrated on the fourteenth moon, the day on which it had been prescribed to the Jews to sacrifice the lamb; and they decreed that on that moon, on whatever day of the week it might fall, an end was by all means to be put to the fasts; whereas the other Churches of the whole world followed another custom, which, proceeding from the tradition of the Apostles, is observed even now: namely that the fasts may be broken on no other day than that of the Lord's Resurrection e. On this account synods and assemblies of bishops came together. And all with one consent delivered by letters to all the faithful the ecclesiastical rule: namely that the mystery of the Lord's Resurrection should never be celebrated on any other than the Lord's day, and that on that day only we should observe the end of the paschal fasts. There is still extant a letter of the priests who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom presided Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine f, and Narcissus of Jerusalem. There is likewise extant another letter of the Roman synod, to which the name of Bishop Victor is prefixed g. There are besides letters of the bishops of Pontus, over whom Palmas h, as being the oldest, presided. There is extant also a letter of the Churches of Gaul, over which Irenæus presided i. Letters are also seen of the Churches established in the province of Osrhoene k and in the cities of that region. Separately there are extant the letters of Bacchylus, bishop of Corinth l, and of very many others. All of whom, professing one faith and the same doctrine, published one opinion. And this, as I have said, was their determination.
[3] Polycrates in vain protesting Chapter 24. But over the bishops of Asia, who sharply contended that the custom handed down to them by their forebears was to be retained, Polycrates presided. Who indeed, in that letter which he wrote to Victor and to the Church of the city of Rome, sets forth the tradition transmitted down to his own times in these words m: "We then keep the true and genuine day, neither adding anything nor taking away. For in Asia certain great lights have been extinguished, who shall rise again on that day of the Lord's coming, when the Lord shall come from heaven full of majesty and glory and shall raise up all the Saints: namely Philip, one of the twelve Apostles, who died at Hierapolis, and his two daughters, who grew old as virgins n; also another daughter of the same, who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, lived and rests at Ephesus. Besides John, who reclined on the Lord's bosom, who also, having been made a priest, wore the plate, and finally proved a Martyr and Doctor. This John, I say, met his last day at Ephesus. Polycarp also, who was bishop and Martyr at Smyrna o, and likewise Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia and Martyr [p], who rests at Smyrna. What need is there to speak of Sagaris, bishop and likewise Martyr, who died at Laodicea [q]? What of the blessed Papyrius [r], what of Melito the eunuch, who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did all things, and who lies at Sardis, awaiting the coming of the Lord from heaven, in which he shall rise again [s]?
[4] of Ephesus, All these observed the day of Easter on the fourteenth moon according to the Gospel, varying in nothing at all, but constantly following the rule of faith. I too, Polycrates, the least of you all, according to the tradition of my kinsmen, some of whom I also attended: for there were seven bishops in all among my kinsmen, to whom I was added as the eighth [t]. All of whom always celebrated the day of Easter when the people of the Jews put away the leaven. I, I say, brethren, being sixty-five years old in the Lord, who have often exchanged discourses with brethren dispersed through the whole world, who have read through all of Sacred Scripture, am in no way moved by the things which are threatened to frighten us. For I know that it was said by those who were far greater than I: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.'" After this he speaks thus of the bishops who were with him when he was writing these things and who held the same view with him: "I could also make mention of the bishops who are with me, whom you asked me to call together, as I have also done. Whose names, if I should write them down, would appear a huge number. These, having visited me, a puny man, approved our letter with their assent, knowing that I do not wear these grey hairs in vain, but have always conducted my life according to the precepts and institutions of Jesus Christ" [v].
[5] he stands with St. Victor, Pope. These things having been so done, Victor, bishop of the city of Rome, at once endeavoured to cut off from communion all the Churches of Asia and of the neighbouring provinces, as holding views contrary to the right faith; and having issued letters, all those who were there
were brethren he proscribes, and pronounces them utterly estranged from unity [u]. But these things did not please all the bishops. Accordingly they exhorted Victor in reply that he should rather be willing to hold those views which were in keeping with peace, unity, and charity toward the neighbour. Their letters are still extant, in which they reprove Victor rather bitterly. Of whose number Irenæus, in the letter which he wrote in the name of the brethren over whom he presided in Gaul, defends indeed the position that the mystery of the Lord's Resurrection is to be celebrated on the Lord's day alone; yet he fittingly admonishes Victor not to cut off from communion whole Churches of God which keep the custom handed down to them by their forebears. And after many other things said to that effect, he uses these words also: "For the controversy is not only about the day, but also about the very form of the fast. For some think that they ought to fast for one day, others for two, others for more; and some measure their day by reckoning forty hours of day and night [w]. And this variety in observing the fast was not first born in our age, but began long before among our forebears, who, presiding, as is likely, with too little care, handed down to posterity a custom arising from simplicity and inexperience. Nevertheless all these both maintained peace among themselves, and we maintain it with one another." Thus the diversity of the fasts commends the agreement of faith.
[6] Whom St. Irenæus strives to mollify. He then appends a narrative, which I shall opportunely insert here. It is of this kind. "But those presbyters too who, before Soter, governed the Church over which you now preside (I mean Anicetus and Pius and Hyginus with Telesphorus and Xystus [x]) neither observed it themselves, nor permitted those who were with them to observe it. Yet they, though they did not observe this, nevertheless cultivated peace with those who came to them from the Churches in which it was observed. And yet the observance seemed all the more contrary among those who did not observe it. Nor were any ever rejected on account of a custom of this kind. But those very presbyters who preceded you, although they did not observe it, sent the Eucharist to the presbyters of the Churches who did observe it. And when the most blessed Polycarp had come to Rome in the times of Anicetus, and there was some small controversy between them about certain other matters, they at once embraced with a mutual kiss of peace, not contending greatly with each other on this head. For Anicetus could never persuade Polycarp to cease observing it, inasmuch as he had always observed that custom with John, the disciple of our Lord, and with the other Apostles with whom he had lived familiarly. Nor likewise did Polycarp endeavour to persuade Anicetus to observe it, since Anicetus said that he must retain the custom of the presbyters who had been before him. Since matters stood so, they communicated with each other; and Anicetus in the church yielded the office of consecrating to Polycarp out of honour, and at length they departed from each other in peace, both those who observed and those who did not observe retaining the peace and communion of the whole Church." And Irenæus, truly answering to his name, and a peacemaker not only in name but also in the rule and purpose of his life, admonished and urged these things for the peace of the Churches. Nor indeed to Victor alone, but to many other prelates of the Churches, he sent letters to the same effect concerning the question proposed [y].
[7] And he gives his opinion with the other bishops of Palestine: Chapter 24. But the bishops of Palestine, whom we mentioned a little above, namely Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, bishops, and those who had assembled together with them [z], after having discoursed much in their letters on the tradition of the day of Easter, which had flowed from the Apostles down to them in continuous succession, at last at the end of the letter use these words: "Take care that copies of our letter are sent through all the Churches, lest those who easily lead their own souls astray from the straight path of truth impute a crime to us. We inform you of this also, that Easter is celebrated at Alexandria on the same day as among us. For letters are carried from us to them and in turn from them to us, so that with one consent and together we keep the most sacred day."
[8] He turns water into oil; Book VI, Chapter 8. At which time Alexander, one of the number of those who had fought bravely in the persecution, and who after the glorious contests of confession had been reserved by divine providence, who, as we related briefly above, was bishop of Jerusalem [aa], was on account of his distinguished confession of the faith promoted to the aforesaid episcopate, while Narcissus, who had been bishop there, was still surviving. Chapter 9. Of this Narcissus the inhabitants of that city recount many and varied marvels, handed down to them by the faithful in continuous succession, as if from hand to hand. It chanced that on the great vigil of Easter oil was lacking to the ministers. When for this reason the whole people had been struck with the gravest sorrow, they relate that Narcissus commanded those who had the care of lighting the lamps to bring him water drawn from a certain nearby well. When this had been carried out quicker than the word, he is said, having made a prayer over the water, to have ordered with sincere faith in Christ that they should pour it into the lamps. This likewise being done, they say that the water, against the manner of its nature, was by a certain wondrous and divine power turned into the richness of oil. And of that oil some small specimen was preserved among very many of the brethren, in memory of so great a miracle, for a very long time down to our own times [bb].
[9] Oppressed by calumniators, he seeks solitude, They recount very many other things also of the life and conversation of that man, worthy above all of memory; among which is this. Certain wicked little men, who could not bear the vigour and constancy of his life, fearing that they might at last be caught and pay the penalty, as being conscious of many crimes, resolved to forestall him, and having laid snares cast upon him a most grievous calumny; and to persuade those who heard, they confirmed the accusation by the religion of an oath. One in swearing invoked upon himself that he should perish by fire, if he were knowingly deceiving; another that his body should be consumed by a cruel and pestilent disease; the third that he should be deprived of his eyes. But however much they swore, no one from the number of the faithful gave them credence, since the continence and holiness of Narcissus's life, perfect in every measure of virtue, had always been observed and known by all. But he, since he could not endure the infamy of what was said, and was moreover long possessed by love of the philosophic life, left the people of the Church and lay hidden in solitude and in out-of-the-way fields for very many years. But that great eye of justice, these things having been done, by no means thought that it should rest; rather it at once avenged itself on those impious men with those very curses by which, perjuring themselves, they had devoted themselves. The first therefore, when a certain small spark had suddenly appeared without any cause in the house in which he was staying, the dwelling catching fire in the night, was burned up with his whole household. The body of the second was seized from the soles of his feet to the very top of his head by that kind of disease with which he had penalized himself. The third, beholding the fate of the former, and fearing the inevitable vengeance of God, the overseer of all, confessed the train of the calumny which they had fabricated by agreement. Moreover he wore himself out with such lamentations in penitence for the deed, and persevered in shedding tears to such a degree, that from it he lost the light of his eyes. And these men paid such penalties for their calumny.
[10] from which emerging, Chapter 10. But after the flight of Narcissus, all being ignorant where in the world he might be living, it seemed good to the bishops of the neighbouring Churches to ordain another bishop in his place, Dius by name. When he had presided for a short time, Germanio was given to him as successor, whom Gordius then followed [cc]. In whose times, when Narcissus suddenly emerged as if come back to life, he was asked by the brethren to take up anew the administration of the Church. For all then admired him much more, both on account of his withdrawal and of his philosophic way of living, but most of all on account of the prompt vengeance with which God had deigned to visit his calumniators. Chapter 11. But when because of extreme old age he could no longer perform his ministry, the divine dispensation, by a certain revelation which had appeared to him in sleep, called forth the aforesaid Alexander, bishop of another Church, to share the office of priest with Narcissus. Being thus admonished by this vision, as if by a divine oracle, Alexander, when he had set out from Cappadocia, where he had first been ordained bishop, to Jerusalem, both for the sake of praying and of visiting the places, the brethren of that Church, receiving him most kindly, did not suffer him thereafter to return to his native land. For another revelation had been seen by them also in sleep, and a certain most evident voice had been heard by those who were eminent in sanctity among them. For it signified to them that, going out beyond the gates of the city, they should receive the bishop destined for them by God. When they had done this, with the consent of the bishops of the neighbouring Churches, they obliged him from then on to remain with them [dd].
[11] Already an old man of 116 years, he takes Alexander as coadjutor. Indeed the same Alexander, in his letters to the people of Antinoë, which are still extant, mentions the episcopate which he held with Narcissus as colleague in these words: "Narcissus greets you, who before me held the episcopal see here, and who is now joined with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen years old, and he exhorts you with me that you may all think the same [ee]." And these things indeed were so done.
ANNOTATIONS.
p. St. Thraseas was treated on the 5th of October Ibid., vol. III of Oct., p. 7..
q. Sagaris is celebrated by our predecessors on the 6th of October Ibid., p. 261..
r. The memory of the blessed Papyrius does not occur in the Martyrologies; but he is called the second bishop of Smyrna after St. Polycarp Ibid., vol. II of Jan., p. 700..
s. Melito, bishop of Sardis, is mentioned by St. Jerome in the book on Illustrious Men, chapter 24, and he says that Tertullian the Montanist scoffed, as though they held Melito for a prophet. Our predecessors treat of him in passing on the 1st of April Ibid., vol. I of April, p. 11..
t. We should not interpret this passage as though Polycrates had had seven parents or kinsmen as bishops in order at Ephesus. For he does not say that they sat at Ephesus, and accordingly they could have held the priesthood in different cities of Asia, which is certainly quite sufficient for Polycrates to have been able to speak thus.
v. Polycrates brings forward all these things about himself boastfully; but because it lacks the modesty which befits an ecclesiastic, there is no reason why the letter should be called interpolated on account of that arrogance. Certainly if we call to mind the letters of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephen about the rebaptism of heretics, those too are haughty enough. And these too Marc. Molkenbuhr holds to be interpolated Migne, Patrol. vol. III, col. 1358.. But whoever has read the works of St. Augustine will not deny that a bitter controversy flared up. In the work on Baptism against the Donatists, book I, no. 28 Ibid., vol. XLIII, col. 124., he says: There are extant in his letters great proofs of the Blessed Martyr Cyprian, by whose authority those men (the Donatists) carnally flatter themselves, while they are spiritually slain by his charity. The holy Doctor then excuses Cyprian's error, because the consent of the whole Church had not yet resolved that question. That therefore that holy man, thinking of baptism otherwise than the matter stood, which was afterwards thoroughly treated and established with most diligent consideration, remained in Catholic unity, was both compensated for by the abundance of his charity and purged by the sickle of his suffering.
u. Whether St. Victor excommunicated the Asiatic bishops, or only threatened excommunication, the learned dispute among themselves. Valois indeed, in his Notes on this passage of Eusebius, holds that St. Victor did not proceed beyond threats; but Pagi, Crit. Baron., at the year 198, § II, teaches the contrary. This remains certain, that no one spoke against Pope Victor as though he had exceeded the limits of his power.
w. It is clear enough that when the day of the Easter solemnity was changed the day of beginning the fast was also changed: for the ancient fathers teach with one voice that the Lenten observance descends from the Apostles, and is thus common to all the Churches; let there be compared, if you please, what was said by Baronius under the year of Christ 57, §§ CXCVII and following. Nor did the Churches disagree in this: but there were three kinds of fast among the ancients, as Valois sets forth in his Notes on Eusebius Migne, Patrol. Græc. vol. XX, col. 499.. First, the fast of the fourth and sixth weekdays, which was broken at the ninth hour, the synaxis being finished. The second kind of fast is the Lenten one, which was relaxed towards evening. The third kind is the strictest of all, inasmuch as it was prolonged to cockcrow or to the rising of the light, and for that reason was called ὑπερθεσις, superposition. This threefold kind of fast is clearly explained by St. Epiphanius in the Exposition of the Catholic Faith, which is read at the end of the books against Heresies, § XXII Ibid., vol. XLII, col. 826..
x. Of these Roman pontiffs there has been treatment: of Soter on the 22nd of April Acta SS. vol. III of April, p. 5.; of Anicetus on the 17th of April Ibid., vol. II of April, p. 477.; of Pius on the 11th of July Ibid., vol. III of July, p. 178.; of Hyginus on the 15th of January Ibid., vol. I of January, p. 665.; of Telesphorus on the 5th of January Ibid., p. 156 and 1093.; and finally of Xystus I on the 5th of April Ibid., vol. I of April, p. 523 and 906..
y. Of the different manner of acting of Anicetus and Victor we treated in the Preliminary Commentary, no. 8.
z. Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, bishops, are not found in the Catalogues of Saints. Tyre, before the erection of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, which first took place under Juvenal, bishop from the year 418 or 424 to 458 Le Quien, Oriens Christ. vol. II, col. 110., belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch, of which it was the Προτοθρονος Ibid., vol. III, col. 802.. Ptolemais, formerly Acon (today Saint-Jean d'Acre), belonged to Phœnicia Prima, under Tyre as metropolis Ibid., col. 814..
aa. Our predecessors treat of St. Alexander on the 18th of March Acta SS. vol. II of March, p. 614.. It is the first example we know of a coadjutor given to an aged or infirm bishop.
bb. There are those who derive from this miracle the rite of the Greeks, in use in the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, in which fire is said to descend from heaven on Holy Saturday Madden, Shrines and Sepulchres, vol. II, p. 136.. It is reported to be a spectacle of the utmost fraud and scandal.
cc. Of these three bishops we know nothing beyond their names and the order of their succession.
dd. Alexander the bishop, says St. Jerome, on Illustrious Men, chapter 62 Migne, Patrol. vol. XXIII, col. 673., was created coadjutor with the especial support of Narcissus himself, because an assistant cannot be given to an unwilling bishop. Further, in this election two things were admitted against the ecclesiastical rule then in force. First, that Alexander was transferred from one episcopate to another; second, that an assistant and fellow bishop was given to a surviving bishop. And this, says Valois in his Notes on Eusebius, is the first example met with of coadjutor bishops.
ee. Eusebius then recites a fragment of a letter given to the Antiochenes, which, since it contains nothing that can illustrate the Acts of St. Narcissus, we consider superfluous to exhibit here.