ON ST. HERMIONE, DAUGHTER OF ST. PHILIP,
AT EPHESUS
About 117, as is reported.
PREVIOUS COMMENTARY.
The Saint's memory in the Fasti: whether she was the daughter of St. Philip the apostle or of the Deacon? Fabulous Acts to be published from the Menaea.
Hermione, daughter of St. Philip, at Ephesus. (S.)
BY J. S.
The Greeks on this day announce in various Fasti St. Hermione, daughter of St. Philip the apostle: yet in most of them they designate in clear words Philip the deacon, The Saint's memory in the Greek Fasti: calling him an apostle. The Sirletian Menology has this: Likewise of holy Hermione, who was one of the four daughters of Philip, who baptized the eunuch of queen Candace. This holy Hermione, under the emperor Trajan, bearing torments with brave and constant mind for the Christian confession, and having wrought many miracles, passed to the Lord. The eulogy alleged does not altogether agree with the Menaea, nor with the Menology published at the command of the emperor Basil, in which these things are read on the fourth of September: On the same day, the contest of the holy martyr Hermione, daughter of the holy apostle Philip: and this Eulogy is subjoined: The holy martyr Hermione, daughter of Philip the apostle, flourished under the emperor Trajan. And she had a sister named Eutyche, with whom she went to Ephesus, that they might venerate John the theologian: yet they did not find him: for he had already been translated. And the emperor Trajan too came to Ephesus for the Persian expedition, and heard the name of Hermione, very famous and venerable, because she was inspired with a prophetic spirit. Having therefore seized her, when he could not draw her away from the worship of Christ, he orders her to be struck with blows: to whom the Lord, appearing, gave courage and strengthened her to bear the torments bravely. But a little after she is released by Trajan, because she had foretold him that he would triumph over the Persians. But Hadrian, the son-in-law and successor of Trajan, having seized her again, compels her to deny Christ and to sacrifice to the idols. And when she refused to do this, he ordered her head to be cut off. But the hands of the executioners withering, they too believed in Christ, and were beheaded together with her.
[2] In these eulogies there is a manifest discrepancy, since in the latter a violent death is asserted, whose eulogies do not agree in everything. while in the former torments indeed are recorded as endured, but death is not said to have been inflicted by them. In the eulogy to be given from the Menaea the Saint is again said to have been tortured under Hadrian, and condemned to lose her head. But when the hands of the executioners had withered, these are asserted to have been converted, and the Saint to have died in peace in the same place. Which of these appears more probable we shall investigate below. Meanwhile the translation of St. John the apostle asserted here, as also in the Menaea, must be corrected, which pleased some of old; but it is certain enough that St. John died, as the other Apostles died. The announcement which is prefixed in the Menaea does not indicate martyrdom, nor do the verses which follow. Take the Greek words: Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ μνήμη τῆς ἁγίας Ἑρμιόνης, μιᾶς τῶν Θηγατέρων Φιλίππου τοῦ ἀποστόλου. On the same day, the memory of holy Hermione, one of the daughters of Philip the apostle.
Χωρεῖ πρὸς αὐτοὺς οὐρανοὺς Ἑρμιόνη, Ἑρμαίον εὑρηκῦα τὴν σωτηρίαν.
Hermione goes off to the very heavens, Having obtained an abiding salvation.
Ferrari in his General Catalogue calls her Hermina, and has this of her: At Hierapolis in Phrygia, of St. Hermina martyr, daughter of St. Philip the disciple, under Trajan. But Ferrari here rightly expressed neither the Saint's name nor the place of her martyrdom, because he seems not to have consulted anything but the Sirletian Menology, and not to have followed that exactly, but to have added his own conjectures. More accurately did Castellanus express the mind of the Greeks in his Universal Martyrology, announcing the Saint thus: At Ephesus, of St. Hermione, whom the Greeks make the daughter of St. Philip the apostle, and a martyr under Hadrian. These things are said more at large in the Basilian Menology already praised, and in the eulogy to be recited from the Menaea.
[3] [It is doubted whether Hermione is the daughter of Philip the apostle or of the deacon;] Nevertheless a twofold doubt arises from the monuments praised, namely whether Hermione is to be reckoned the daughter of Philip the apostle, one of the twelve, or rather of Philip the deacon, who also, from his promulgating of the Gospel, is now and then called an Apostle, especially among the Greeks. Their Fasti, since they say that she was the daughter of Philip who baptized the eunuch of queen Candace, not obscurely designate Philip the deacon, of whom this is narrated in Acts 8, and who in truth had four virgin daughters who prophesied, as is read in Acts 21 ℣ 8. But some more recent writers rather believe the epistle of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus toward the end of the second century, to Victor I, the Roman Pontiff. This Epistle Eusebius, St. Jerome and Rufinus praised, cited by us on the first of May under St. Philip the apostle, §2. It will be enough to transfer hither a fragment from St. Jerome, who recites no small part of that Epistle in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers under Polycrates, expressing his words thus: For in Asia the greatest elements have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord, when He is to come from the heavens in His majesty, and to raise up all the Saints: I mean Philip, of the twelve Apostles, who fell asleep at Hierapolis, and two of his daughters, who grew old as virgins; and another daughter of his, who, full of the Holy Spirit, lies buried at Ephesus. It can hardly be doubted that that daughter of Philip the apostle, who died at Ephesus, is Hermione herself, of whom we are treating. But Polycrates manifestly asserts that she was the daughter of Philip, one of the twelve Apostles. If therefore we wish to give credit to Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing toward the end of the second century about a Saint who died at Ephesus, it must necessarily be said that Hermione was the daughter of Philip the apostle: for that Philip the apostle had various daughters, Clement of Alexandria too wrote, and others praised by Florentini, Henschen and Tillemont. But these things will be treated a little more at large below.
[4] It can then be asked whether Hermione was a virgin; and whether a martyr, likewise whether she is virgin and martyr. as again the Fasti of the Greeks assert: for both seem ambiguous. The words of Polycrates adduced teach that the daughters of Philip who died at Hierapolis were virgins; but concerning the virginity of her who, full of the Holy Spirit, lies buried at Ephesus, Polycrates is altogether silent, and that silence brings in the greater suspicion, the more expressly he declares the virginity of the others in the same place. Clement of Alexandria increases the ambiguity, who in book 3 of the Stromata says: But Philip gave his daughters also to husbands. These things, I say, make the virginity of St. Hermione ambiguous. Yet it can be answered that Polycrates does not deny the virginity of Hermione; but is only silent about it, because Hermione was sufficiently commended from elsewhere. But this answer cannot take away every suspicion of her marriage. The authority of Clement of Alexandria too can be lessened, because he now and then fell into other errors; but it cannot be certainly shown that he erred in the words alleged. Yet this is certain, that Clement ought not to be understood of all the daughters of Philip the apostle when he says that they were married, since certainly two remained virgins; and therefore it is not necessary that those words of his be explained of Hermione: for Philip could have had several daughters, as the Menology of the emperor Basil attributes seven daughters to him; and of these the married ones could have remained in Palestine, while the virgins set out for Asia. And so nothing certain can be determined about the virginity of Hermione by those who think she was the daughter of one of the twelve Apostles. But that it is more probable that she was the daughter of the deacon, and consequently a virgin, I shall presently prove. The martyrdom is rendered equally uncertain by the words alleged of Polycrates, and by the silence of all the ancients; especially because Polycrates in the same Epistle did not omit the title of martyrdom for all the Saints whom he writes to have died in Asia: but he names St. John the Evangelist, Polycarp, Thraseas, and Sagaris as martyrs. The martyrdom therefore of Hermione, which is related in a manner of little probability in the Menaea and Menologies, seems uncertain, since it cannot be proved with sufficient certainty.
[5] Now various writers have thought that the daughters of Philip the deacon were by error attributed to Philip the apostle; Two Philips were of old confused by some: others on the contrary contend that both Philips had some daughters. Wherefore it will be worth the labor if I examine this ambiguous controversy a little more fully. Valesius, in his Annotations on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, book 3, chapter 31, first observes that the words of Eusebius were not rightly expressed in Latin by Christophorson, who for Philip, one of the twelve Apostles, substituted Philip, one of the seven deacons. Yet following his opinion, he adds this: This was indeed an ancient error, that Philip the deacon and evangelist with Philip the apostle
were confounded. And because in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter XXI, they had read that the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist prophesied, they said that Philip the apostle had a wife and had begotten daughters. So, besides Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria above in chapter XXX, and Papias below. But from the Acts of the Apostles it is manifestly gathered that Philip the deacon, he by whom the eunuch was baptized, and who had four daughters who prophesied, was other than Philip the apostle. See Isidore of Pelusium in book one, epistle 447 and following, where he demonstrates this most openly. Thus far Valesius, not hesitating to charge Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria and Papias with error, as though they had confounded Philip the apostle and Philip the deacon. I could indeed hardly believe that the distinction of the two Philips was unknown to writers so ancient, unless Isidore of Pelusium gave credit to that confusion, and unless Eusebius himself afforded occasion for suspecting that he was not altogether free from that confusion which Florentini attributes to him. Nevertheless perhaps it will not be necessary to acknowledge a confusion of the Philips; but it will be enough if we say that the daughters of the one were attributed to the other.
[6] [and it is more probable that the deacon's daughters were attributed to the Apostle:] Various things indeed beyond expectation presented themselves to me in this question; for while I was diligently turning over the opinion about the daughters of Philip the apostle, first handed down by Florentini and confirmed by Henschen and Tillemont, which I thought altogether true and certain enough, in order, if it could be done, to strengthen it by new reasons; contrary reasons rather occurred, and cast upon me a doubt strong enough about the truth of that opinion, especially because Eusebius favors rather the contrary opinion, and thus affords occasion for suspecting that those daughters of Philip the apostle arose from mere confusion. Henschen himself showed that he doubted somewhat of the truth of his own opinion under Philip, when at number 16 he refers to this place, that, if there has been an error, it may here be amended. Yet I would not altogether assert that there was an error, or charge the opinion about the daughters of Philip the apostle with falsity; but I shall only show that it is at least uncertain, and less probable than the opposite opinion: and this, I think, the reasons presently to be given will prove. But that the disputation may be clearer, I shall briefly set down beforehand what appears certain. First, it is certain enough that Philip the apostle was buried at Hierapolis, and that there too were buried some virgin daughters of one or other Philip, but that their sister Hermione was buried at Ephesus. Secondly, I shall readily admit that Polycrates favors the adversaries, unless his passage is corrupted. These things being laid down, I begin to weigh the weights of both opinions.
[7] for the words of Papias, Polycrates, and Proculus Eusebius understood, The first who makes mention of the daughters of Philip in Eusebius is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived with the disciples of the Apostles, and testifies in Eusebius, book 3, chapter 39, that he learned many things from them, where Eusebius then has this to our purpose: That Philip the apostle was wont to live at Hierapolis together with his daughters we have taught above. But now let us set forth how Papias, who lived in the same times, relates that he received a certain wonderful narration from the daughters of Philip. For he writes that a dead man was recalled to life in his own age. These things at first sight at least favor the opinion about the daughters of Philip the apostle: and from this source Polycrates could have drawn. Eusebius has more in book 3, chapter 31, and to this place he looked back in the words alleged. He there adduces from the epistle of Polycrates the words given at number 3. Afterward he goes on thus: Then in the Dialogue of Caius, of which we made mention above, Proculus, against whom the disputation is instituted, speaking of the end of Philip and of his daughters, in plain agreement with the things we have just related, says thus: After these there were four daughters of Philip, prophetesses, at Hierapolis a city of Asia, where also their sepulchre and that of their father Philip is seen. So he. But Luke in the Acts of the Apostles makes mention of the daughters of Philip, who, adorned with the gift of prophecy, were living at that time with their father at Caesarea of Judea. "We came," he says, "to Caesarea: and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. And he had four daughters, virgins, who prophesied." Thus far Eusebius, either himself confounding the two Philips, or by a certain modest insinuation correcting the sayings of others: for the four daughters mentioned in Luke were without any doubt Philip the deacon's, as the very words declare.
[8] Now that Eusebius is speaking of the same daughters of Philip seems clear, or at any rate explained them of the daughters of Philip the deacon, both because, in citing Luke, he insinuates no distinction, and also because he says, who, adorned with the gift of prophecy, were living AT THAT TIME with their father at Caesarea of Judea, hinting by the words at that time that they afterward went elsewhere; and that they seemed to him the same as those buried at Hierapolis. But if they went elsewhere, as we shall see is likely from other grounds also, they could easily afford occasion for confusion; nor will there be reason why we should so greatly cling to the authority of Polycrates, who both could err, and became known from one epistle only, so that we cannot know how accurate he was in writing. I indeed reason thus with myself. Eusebius saw what Papias, what Polycrates, what Proculus in Caius, and lastly what Clement of Alexandria had said about the daughters of Philip, and, having brought forward the sayings of all, he expresses his own opinion by alleging Luke's words about the daughters of Philip the deacon, in order to confirm the sayings of the others. And so, if he believed that they were the daughters of Philip the apostle who were buried at Hierapolis and at Ephesus, he confounded both Philips: which can hardly be believed of so learned a man, especially since he alleges the words of Luke, where Philip the father of those daughters is said to be one of the seven, namely of the deacons. But if Eusebius did not confound the two Philips, as is more likely, he understood all the sayings of the others of the daughters of Philip the deacon, and thus corrected Polycrates. Rufinus saw that the mind of Eusebius was ambiguous, and for that cause, I think, in his version of Eusebius, book 3, chapter 30, he calls Philip the Apostle, but in the rest the Evangelist, even in the very Epistle of Polycrates, book 5, chapter 24, as others have already observed, deservedly complaining of Rufinus's unfaithfulness in translating. Yet it is credible that Rufinus made the words of Eusebius Latin in this way because he judged that the matter in truth concerned the daughters of Philip the deacon, and therefore he added some weight to this opinion.
[9] Florentini in his Indiculus of the Apostles, page 151, unless he confounded both Philips: which is not likely. and Tillemont, volume 1 of the Monuments of the Church, note 4 on Philip, think that both Philips were confounded by Eusebius, relying, namely, on the authority of Polycrates. Let us hear Florentini, to whom Tillemont adheres: But here I fear, he says, lest both Gaius and Eusebius confound Philip the deacon with the Apostle of the twelve, and mix up the four daughters of Philip the deacon dwelling at Caesarea in the Acts of the Apostles with the two daughters [] of the Apostle staying [] at Hierapolis, and especially Eusebius, who thinks that the four daughters of Philip, of the seven deacons, of whom Luke makes mention in the Acts of the Apostles, left Caesarea of Judea [] and dwelt at Hierapolis; whereas nevertheless from the ancient and eyewitness testimonies of Polycrates and Papias these daughters are utterly different, from utterly different fathers. So he. But it seems to me hard to say of Eusebius that he did not know how to distinguish Philip the deacon from the Apostle; and if it were needful, I would rather suspect this of Papias and of Polycrates, whose erudition was less. Hear what Eusebius himself wrote about Papias, book 3, chapter 39: This same writer testifies moreover that certain other things came to him by the tradition of bare speech, namely certain new parables of the Saviour, and other things nearer to fables. Among which he says that there will be a space of a thousand years after the resurrection of bodies, in which the kingdom of Christ shall stand bodily upon the earth. Which things indeed Papias seems to have thought from ill-understood narrations of the Apostles… For he was endowed with a very mediocre wit, as may be conjectured from his writings: yet he afforded to very many ecclesiastical writers after him the occasion of the same error, since they defended their opinion by the man's antiquity. This Eusebius says of Papias. And so the suspicion of confusion falls rather on him than on Eusebius, since the distinction of the Philips was to be drawn from the Scriptures, which Papias does not seem to have searched much, who himself is there introduced by Eusebius as speaking thus: For I did not think that I could take so much profit from the reading of books as from the living voice of men still surviving.* Why, I say, Papias could not have been the author of that confusion, and led Polycrates into error, I do not sufficiently perceive: for he himself saw neither of the Philips, and since both were called an apostle, he could attribute the deacon's daughters to the apostle, even had he seen them; or at any rate write about them so ambiguously that he led Polycrates into error.
[10] nor is the authority of Polycrates to be greatly esteemed, But to maintain our opinion it is not necessary to charge Papias with error, since his words about the daughters of Philip are nowhere set forth, and therefore we do not know of which Philip's daughters he spoke. Eusebius seems to have understood him of the deacon's daughters, as Florentini had to admit, since he makes Eusebius suspect of confusion: and for this cause perhaps Tillemont does not use the authority of Papias for his own opinion. Wherefore almost the whole question is reduced to the authority of Polycrates, which Tillemont strongly presses at the place indicated, and again in volume 2, note 6, on Philip the deacon, where nevertheless he confesses that the words of Proculus in the Dialogue of Caius, cited above from Eusebius, are against him. But it is agreeable to ask why the authority of Polycrates is to be so greatly esteemed, who wrote a whole century after the death of both Philips, and eighty or more years after the death of the daughters about whom the dispute is, unless they reached an unusual age? Is that single fragment of an epistle of such moment that we must believe the writer was not liable to error? Is that single fragment of an epistle of such moment that we must believe the writer was not liable to error? But that very fragment insinuates slight erudition or skill in the things done in Asia in the first two centuries; since there is no doubt that far more great men within that time ended their lives in Asia than those whom Polycrates reviews. That epistle indeed exhibits greater boldness in asserting, and greater boastfulness, than care for truth. He says that he had often conferred discourses with the brethren scattered through the whole world, and that he with the bishops of Asia kept the true and genuine Pasch on the day, namely, on which the people of the Jews cast away the leaven. But it is certain that he did not learn this from conference with the brethren scattered through the whole world: for, Eusebius testifying, book 5, chapter 23, a Synod gathered in Palestine, and another at Rome, the bishops of Pontus and of Gaul, the churches of the province of Osrhoene, the bishop of the Corinthians and several others, all with unanimous voice declared that the Pasch was to be celebrated on the Lord's day
of the Resurrection, as was done in the rest of the churches of the whole world.
[11] But as regards the authority of Polycrates in the matter which is in question, which Eusebius, Jerome and Rufinus were unwilling to follow: Eusebius, Jerome and Rufinus do not seem to have believed him, even though all of them saw his epistle. Eusebius, as we have already seen, records the daughters of Philip the deacon in order to explain the words of Papias, Polycrates, Proculus and Clement of Alexandria. And Jerome, in book 1 against Jovinian, says: Although, except the apostle Peter, it is not manifestly related of the other Apostles: and since it is written of one, and passed over in silence concerning the rest, we ought to understand that those were without wives concerning whom Scripture signifies nothing of the sort. I confess indeed that Jerome here is treating of Scripture alone, in which nothing is written about a wife of Philip the apostle. But it would have been the part neither of an upright nor of an honorable man, much less of a holy one, to wish to infer from the silence of Scripture that the remaining Apostles were without wives, if Jerome had held certain faith in Polycrates, who records daughters of Philip the apostle. But Rufinus made his opinion manifest in his version of Eusebius, when in all the places where the daughters of Philip are treated he substitutes the Evangelist for the Apostle, with one place excepted, where he names the Apostle, but does not add of the twelve, so that that very place is ambiguous, and can be understood of the deacon — nay, must be, on account of the other places. But, someone will say, why then did neither Eusebius nor Jerome, when they adduced the words of Polycrates, indicate his error? I answer that they were not always accustomed to do so; yet that Eusebius did this modestly by adducing Luke's words. Wherefore if Eusebius, Jerome and Rufinus — to whom may be added Proculus disputing with Caius a few years after the writing of Polycrates's epistle — did not give their hands to his assertion, I judge that neither should we do so, especially since there are various things which make the confusion likely.
[12] Nevertheless Florentini objects, with whom Henschen and Tillemont agreed, [nor is it against our opinion that Philip with his daughters formerly dwelt at Caesarea,] that the home of Philip the deacon and of his daughters was at Caesarea, not at Hierapolis, and this is certain from the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 21 ℣ 21, for about the year 58, in which Paul came there. But it is uncertain from Scripture whether Philip remained there with his daughters. They try to show this also from St. Jerome, who in the Epitaph of St. Paula relates that she came to Caesarea, in which she saw the house of Cornelius (the centurion), now a church of Christ; and the little dwelling of Philip (the deacon) and the chambers of the four virgin prophetesses. But I do not see that from the sight of Philip's house, and of the chambers of his daughters, it is rightly inferred that Philip with his daughters remained at Caesarea until death. This would more rightly be inferred if it were said that their sepulchre was seen there; but of their sepulchre Jerome is silent. And that silence of Jerome about the sepulchre or relics of St. Philip and of his daughters appears to me of greater moment for denying that they met death there than is the sight of the house and chambers for attributing their death to Caesarea. For those holy women eagerly frequented the sepulchres of the Saints, and religiously venerated their sacred ashes. Hear Paula herself and her daughter Eustochium writing to Marcella in the Epistle numbered among the Hieronymian ones in the edition of Martianay 44, formerly 17, where they have this: And everywhere we venerate the sepulchres of the martyrs, and, putting the holy ashes to our eyes, we touch them, if it be lawful, even with our mouth. Then among the glories of the city of Rome they reckon the trophies of the Apostles and martyrs; but preferring Palestine on account of the precious monuments of the Lord which could be venerated there, they speak thus: Shall there then be that day when it will be permitted us to enter the cave of the Saviour?… To go to Samaria, and to venerate together the ashes of John the Baptist, of Eliseus also and of Abdias?
[13] [but it rather favors it, that he is not read to have died or been buried there with them:] The sepulchres of others too are there reviewed, as also the spring in which the eunuch was washed by Philip. But, omitting much, one may ask whether it appears likely that the house of Philip and of his daughters was held in veneration by the faithful, but their sepulchre in oblivion, if Philip with his daughters had altogether died and been buried at Caesarea? To this opinion, therefore, the words of St. Jerome alleged are more opposed than favorable. Besides, of no small moment is the silence of Eusebius, or rather that passage of his alleged before, in which he seems to place the sepulchre of the daughters of Philip the deacon at Hierapolis, Florentini himself so explaining the passage. Who would believe that Eusebius, who long held the episcopal chair in that same city, could have been ignorant that Philip and his daughters had died at Caesarea, if they had in truth died there? Was the house of Philip and of his daughters so highly esteemed that it was shown to pious pilgrims; while Philip himself with his daughters was so neglected that Eusebius himself was ignorant that they had died in his own church? Certainly the epistle of Polycrates is not of such worth as to make this likely or credible to me. There is added that the Greeks in their Menology affirm that Philip was bishop of Tralles in Asia Minor: and since in Acts 21 ℣ 8 he is called an evangelist, it cannot be doubted that he went on preaching the faith, as he had already begun in Acts 8, when he baptized the eunuch. But if he went on preaching the faith, as I have said, it can hardly be doubted either that he was ordained a bishop, and used his daughters too for the private instruction of women: for they are probably called prophesying rather from the care of instructing women than from the prediction of things to come, although I would not assert that this grace too was denied them. From all this it is very likely that the daughters of Philip set out with their father into Asia, to help him in the preaching of the Gospel. Nor does it stand in the way that in the year 58 they were still living with their father at Caesarea: for their father could keep them there until they were of an age so advanced that they could accompany him without any offense or peril to chastity; and only then take them with him.
[14] Baronius's doubt on these matters: Baronius, having considered everything that has been related among the ancients about the daughters of Philip the apostle and of the deacon, thus declares his ambiguity at the year of Christ 58: What is to be said in these ambiguous matters we know not; save that the things which are said about the daughters of Philip the deacon, and about the same as virgins, claim authority for themselves from divine Scripture: but the things which have been related by others about the daughters of the apostle are reported from an uncertain author, and are thought to have been bandied about by an error of name; since the things which are Philip the deacon's have been ascribed to Philip the apostle, especially since Jerome frankly professes that there is no certainty that, besides Peter, any other of the Apostles was bound in marriage. Now Clement's assertion about the marriages of Philip's daughters is rejected by the attestation of all; since all the writers, however many treat of them, alike name them virgins. Thus far Baronius, whose opinion cannot be maintained if we believe that Philip the deacon died and was buried with his daughters at Caesarea. But that has already been abundantly refuted.
[15] But what he says about Clement of Alexandria's assertion being rejected by all Clement of Alexandria's assertion is uncertain, nor certainly contrary to us: has no place at this time: for Tillemont strives from that passage to prove that Clement is treating of the daughters of Philip the apostle. His argument is framed thus. Clement asserts that some daughters of Philip were married: but the daughters of Philip the deacon were virgins: Clement therefore speaks of the Apostle's daughters. But Tillemont himself suggests a fit answer, when he observes that it can be said that some other daughter of Philip the deacon, distinct from the four virgins, was married: for Scripture nowhere asserts that Philip the deacon had not more daughters. This answer is certainly not inept, if nevertheless it be thought necessary: for Clement, pleading the cause of marriage, could easily assert something for marriage which was neither certain nor resting on a fit foundation, as he asserted several other things which are commonly rejected as false. And so Tillemont's reason drawn from Clement's authority rests on two equally uncertain principles: for it is uncertain whether Clement's assertion is true; and uncertain whether it is to be understood of the Apostle. And his whole argument collapses if either be false.
[16] Wherefore I would rather suspect that all those things which are said about the daughters of Philip the apostle [in what manner the confusion could arise, by which the daughters of Philip the deacon were attributed to the Apostle:] arose from mere confusion, and that they are the daughters of Philip the deacon, of whom two were buried at Hierapolis, a third at Ephesus, and a fourth in a place unknown to us. For thus we shall understand that the memory of those Virgins, who were famous in their life, was not given over to oblivion after their death. But in what manner all this could easily happen, and the said confusion could arise, I explain in a few words. Philip the deacon after the year 58 set out into Asia to preach the Gospel, his daughters accompanying him: he was then made bishop of the people of Tralles, as the Greeks assert. But he dying before Philip and John the apostles, whom it is established to have long survived, his daughters could have betaken themselves partly to Philip the apostle, partly to John, to assist them, and so to end their lives partly at Hierapolis, partly at Ephesus. Nay, it is not incredible that they, while their father lived, joined themselves to other Apostles, in order to serve them, since one would suffice for their own father's service. But whenever this happened, it is likely that they came to Ephesus and Hierapolis to bring aid to the said Apostles; and that on that occasion they were held by some for the daughters of Philip the apostle, because he had died at Hierapolis; and because Philip the deacon too was called an Apostle. Lastly, the confusion could have been brought in in other like ways; and that there is in truth a confusion in these daughters of Philip, the words of Eusebius sufficiently show, who collected the very different assertions of others as though they agreed with one another, and expounded them of the daughters of Philip the deacon. To this opinion therefore, not indeed as certain, but as more probable, I would rather adhere.
[17] [The Acts to be published from the Menaea, in which there are many fabulous things.] As regards the Acts of St. Hermione related in the Menaea, they are without doubt stained with many fables, although it may be that some true things are mixed with the false. It is said in them that the Saint first suffered under Trajan; but that she was released free by him after some tortures. But that afterward she was again seized at Hadrian's command, and, having been tried with many torments, at last died. But the whole matter is clothed with adjuncts so marvellous that the things related about her martyrdom deserve no credit. Then, since Hadrian obtained the empire in the year 117, Hermione must have reached a very long age in order to live until the reign of Hadrian. Yet this is not incredible, since Papias, who did not see the Apostles themselves, but only the disciples of the Apostles, testifies that from the daughters of Philip he
learned something, so that they seem to have survived long after the Apostles. For this cause I have fixed the Saint's death about the year 117 with much latitude, and with the words as is reported added, because that epoch is too uncertain to be asserted without doubt. The Acts, although stained with fables, as I have said, I subjoin, rendered into Latin from the Menaea by Rader of our Society.
Annotatadaughters*
staying*
Perhaps, Caesarea of Judea*
ACTS
From the Greek Menaea
Translated by Matthäus Rader S. J. in a manuscript Work
Hermione, daughter of St. Philip, at Ephesus. (S.)
From the Menaea.
The Saint's Life at Ephesus: before Trajan she is beaten with blows, The most holy apostle Philip, who baptized Candace a, had four daughters, whom the Evangelist Luke testifies to have been prophetesses and virgins. Of these Hermione and Eutychis b, having set out into Asia, sought St. John the theologian. And not finding him, because he had been translated by God c, like Enoch and Elias, they found Petronius d, a disciple of St. Paul the apostle, by whom being instructed e they also imitated his life. And Hermione gave herself to the work of medicine f, to whom a great multitude of men flocked, all of whom she cured by invoking the name of Christ g. But when the emperor Trajan h, as he was going against the Persians, was passing through Asia, St. Hermione was informed against before him as being a Christian. Therefore, when she had been brought to him, he tried by soft words to circumvent her and to draw her away from Christ. But when it was in vain, he ordered her to be beaten with blows for some hours.
[2] and is then released free. Tortured again before Hadrian, But Hermione, when she saw Christ sitting on the tribunal in the habit and form of Petronius, and addressing her and exhorting her to constancy, counted the stripes as nothing. And so the emperor, having seen her firmness of mind, and her strength and constancy, being abashed, let her go. Then the Saint opened a public hospice in Asia, in which she consoled and helped all, both in spirit and in body. And there one might see God praised and celebrated by mortals, as long as Trajan lived: and when he had been taken from among men, and Hadrian i his son-in-law had succeeded to the empire, and had heard about her, he ordered her to be brought to him by his officers: and addressing her, he said: Tell me, little old woman, how many years are you? and whence do you draw your race? and by whose authority do you live? And the Saint: How many years I am, she said, and whence I draw my race, my Christ knows. Therefore the emperor: Strip her and beat her k and warn her to answer the emperor who questions her modestly and reverently. And when she was being cruelly beaten, she publicly praised the Lord: and when the lictors had failed, he ordered others to put clamps under the soles of her feet.
[3] Which being done, the Saint praised God still more. and tried in vain with various torments, The tyrant, more enraged at this, ordered a cauldron full of pitch, lead, bitumen and sulphur to be kindled, and the Saint to be cast into it. And when it was already burning fiercely, the Saint, lifting her eyes to heaven and making the sign of the cross, entered the cauldron, and the fire was suddenly quenched, and the melted lead poured out. Seeing which, the tyrant said: Heat the cauldron, until her bones be reduced to ashes. Therefore those who added fire to fire saw the Saint standing as it were in dew: and the Saint said to the tyrant: The Lord my God lives; just as you sit and do not feel the fire of the burning cauldron, so neither do I. At which saying the emperor, thunderstruck with amazement, rose from his throne, and, having put his hand to the cauldron, suddenly the skin together with the nails fell from his hand. Then the Saint cried out: Great is the God of the Christians. And this inflamed the tyrant the more with anger. He saw to it therefore that a frying-pan be heated until sparks leapt out on every side, into which they cast the Saint stripped utterly of all her clothing. But an angel of the Lord, who was with her, dispersed the flame divided on either side, so that many who were caught near the pan were burned. But she moved about in the pan as in a warm garden of a pleasure-ground, and praised God.
[4] And when the emperor Hadrian beheld this in his presence, terrified by so unwonted a prodigy he trembled, [she overthrows and shatters the idols by her prayers: at last condemned to lose her head,] and ordered the Saint to be drawn out, fearing lest he too should become food for the fire. Being drawn out, the Saint addressed the emperor: Emperor, she said, my Lord, while I was being roasted in the pan, sent me a dream, and I seemed to adore the great Hercules. Glad at this dream, the emperor at once ordered her to be led to the temple of Hercules, which she entered, and, having secretly invoked the clemency of God, immediately a huge thunder roared from heaven, and all the idols were cast down on the ground and shattered, and as it were reduced to ashes. And coming out of the temple, the Saint said: Go in to the emperor, and stretch out a helping hand to your gods, because they have fallen and can rise no more. The emperor entered the temple, and, seeing his gods and idols cast down and crushed, commanded that the Saint's holy head should be cut off outside the city.
[5] Theodulus therefore and Timothy l, the ministers of the public execution, she converts two lictors whose hands had withered, and, praying with them, dies. having gone out of the city with her, before she could send up her prayers to God, wished to forestall her by a sudden onset, and when they tried to aim the blow, suddenly the hands of both withered. And so, falling at the Saint's feet, they sincerely with their whole heart believed in our Lord Jesus Christ, and were suddenly restored to themselves, their hands being recovered. And meanwhile they asked the Saint that she would pray for them, that they too might render their souls to the Lord God in His sight, and so it was done, and they at once fell asleep in the Lord. Nor did she herself tarry longer in life, but rested in the same place. And certain pious and religious men came, and having collected their bodies carried them to Ephesus, and there laid them in a famous place m, to the praise of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.