Изображения страниц

tended to point out the lessons, from the Old or the New Testament, which in the time of Hippolytus were ordered to be read at the periods in question: for the refutation of which opinion it is abundantly sufficient to refer to Blanchini's elaborate dissertation on the cycle, as it is inserted in Fabricius' edition of the works of Hippolytus, loc. cit. The truth is, the references in question were designed to indicate the dates of certain former passovers, which had occurred 224 years, or any number of years, an exact multiple of 112, before that date in the cycle to which these references are found annexed.

One of these references stands annexed to the date of the paschal full moon, Wednesday, April 2, in the second year of the first sedecennity, or column of sixteen years, in the words Γένεσις Χρίστου: and another stands parallel with the date of the paschal full moon, Friday, March 25, in the last year of the second sedecennity or column, in the words Πάθος Χρίστου. Between these dates the interval from passover to passover is thirty years exactly; which is also the interval supposed by the author of the Latin Chronicon before described, between the Nativity, in the spring, U. C. 752, and the Passion, in the spring, U. C. 782.

I understand the second of these indications to mean that the Πάθος Χρίστου, or Passion of Christ, happened on Friday, March 25, 224 years exactly before the same day of the month and the week, in the thirtysecond year of the cycle; which cycle bearing date from Saturday the 13th of April, A. D. 222, U. C. 975, this day, in its thirty-second year, answers to Friday, March 25, U. C. 1006. From this time, U. C. 1006, 224 years backwards bring us to the same time, U. C. 782, as the year of the Passion of Christ.

In like manner, the former indication, Téveσis Xpiorov,

annexed to the paschal full moon, Wednesday, April 2, in the second year of the cycle, A. D. 223, or U. C. 976, is intended to shew that the same paschal moon happened 224 years before, at the nativity of Christ. The Nativity is thus placed, U. C. 752, B. C. 2. And not only so—but as the words Πάθος Χρίστου, in the second instance, plainly imply that the death of Christ was actually to be placed on Friday, March 25, U. C. 782, so must the words Γένεσις Χρίστου in the first instance, as plainly intimate that the birth of Christ, in the opinion of Hippolytus, actually happened on Wednesday, April 2, U. C. 752.

The testimony of Hippolytus, therefore, is to be added to that of the other authorities, which shew that, at this early period, the common opinion placed the Nativity in the spring, at the time of the Jewish passover itself. The coincidence, at least, between the testimony of his canon, and that of the author, De Computo Paschali, which terminates only five years later, is striking, and may justly be appealed to in confirmation of the preceding exposition. The latter places the Nativity on a Wednesday, as well as this.

It is no objection to the truth of the above explanation of the calendar, that the application of the cycle in question is liable to error for periods even of sixteen years; and much more for periods of 112 or 224 years. It is not the case, for example, that the same paschal full moon, which, U. C. 976, happened on April 2, fell previously on the same day, U. C. 752. If it happened at all, it happened the year before, U. C. 751: and so in the other instance, that of the paschal full moon, U. C. 1006. If that ever occurred before, it was U. C. 781: not U.C. 782.

Nor is it any objection that (Reliquiæ Sacræ, i. 136.* Annott. in Melitonis fragm. p. 115) a fragment is quoted

and referred to Hippolytus, which places the Nativity A. M. 5500, and the Passion A. M. 5533. This fragment would be directly at variance with the Latin Chronicle and with the canon. But Hippolytus Thebanus, or the younger, did certainly suppose the Nativity A. M. 5500, and the Passion A. M. 5533. It is próbable therefore that the fragment really belongs to him, and is by mistake only ascribed to Hippolytus Portuensis.

ARCHELAUS-Nec in aliquo remoratus Dominus noster Jesus, intra unius anni spatium languentium multitudines reddidit sanitati, mortuos luci-Archelai et Manetis disputatio, cap. 34 t.

Ut autem credas; cum Discipuli ejus per annum integrum manserunt cum eo, quare nullus ipsorum procidit super faciem suam, sicut paulo ante dicebas, sed in una hora illa, quando sicut sol resplenduit vultus ejus? Ibid. 50".

The rise of the Manichean heresy is placed by Cyril of Jerusalem, ἐπὶ Πρόβου βασιλέως, exactly seventy years before his own time. Probus' reign bears date A. D. 276: and he was consul first, A. D. 277. In another passage he says the apostles died two hundred years before the time of Manes Y. And hence we are enabled to correct a note of time which appears in the Disputatio itself: Qui enim dixerat se non multo post missurum esse Paraclitum, invenitur post trecentos (rescribe ducentos) et eo amplius annos misisse hunc, sicut ipse sibi testimonium perhibet*. That the dis

* Epiphanius, i. 617. C. Manichæi, i. dates the rise of this sect in the fourth of Aurelian :

i. 636. C—638. B. he reckons it 276 years according to some, and 246 according to others,

t Reliquiæ Sacræ, iv. 218. Archelaus was bishop of Caschara in Mesopotamia, Socrates, E. H. i. xxii. 56. D. u Ibid. 264. x Catechesis vi. 12. l. 26. Cf. iv. 22. p. 67. l. 1. Also vi. capp. 13-18. y Catechesis xvi. 4. p. 228. l. 4.

[blocks in formation]

putation was held in the reign of Probus, appears from capp. 27 and 28a. Cf. Jerome, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, lxxii. Operum iv. Pars iia. 120.

ARNOBIUS-Trecenti sunt anni ferme, minus vel plus aliquid, ex quo cœpimus esse Christiani, et terrarum in orbe censeri. Arnobius, Adversus Gentes, i. p. 9. 1. 2.

Etatis urbs Roma cujus esse in annalibus indicitur? annos ducit quinquaginta et mille, aut non multum ab his minus. Ibid. ii. 94. 1. 24.

from the Ascension, to the time of Manes, Aurelian, and Probus. The former of these dates might hold good, if referred to the Nativity; the latter, if to the Passion: Cf. 698. B. lxxvii. Operum ii. 176. A. De Mensuris et Ponderibus, xx: he dates the Disputatio of Manes and Archelaus in the ninth of Valerian and Gallienus. Suidas, under Máns, places the appearance of Manes in the reign of Aurelian: but in the fragment relating to Nerva (Népßas) he dates it under Nerva, at the time of St. John's return from banishment. Probably in this last instance he has confounded Manes with Cerinthus. The Paschal Chronicon has the same statement, i. 469. 1. 10. Jerome, in Chronico, fixes the rise of Manichæanism to the second of Probus; both by other criteria, and by specifying the synchronism of ræ Antiochena 325, coincident with it. Eræ Antiochena 325 would expire, October, U. C. 1030, which was actually the second of Probus. Eusebius' Armenian Chronicon has the same date generally with Jerome. Cassiodorus, in Chronico, dates

it A. D. 282, in the last year of Probus. Julius Pollux, 242, 244, dates the rise of this heresy under Probus or Carus: adding a Scholium, giving an account of the sect, its founder, and distinctive peculiarities, which is very like what occurs on the same subject in Socrates, E. H. i. xxii. 55. Eusebius, E. H. vii. xxxi. 283. places it generally about the beginning of the reign of Diocletian: and that it was actually of recent date, about that time, may be inferred from the exordium of one of his Constitutions, which occurs in the commentary on St. Paul's Epistles ascribed to Ambrose, Operum ii. Appendix, 310. C. in Secundam ad Timotheum, iii. 6, 7: Quippe cum Diocletianus Imperator constitutione sua designet, dicens: Sordidam hanc et impuram hæresim, quæ nuper, inquit, egressa est de Perside. Manichæanism had spread very generally by A. D. 355, in the reign of Constantius. See Ammianus Marcellinus, xv. 13. A. D. 355. and Cf. Socrates, E. H. ii. xxviii. 119. B. and Theodorit, ii. xiv. 88, 89. A. D. 350.

a P. 202.

The age of Arnobius, therefore, is about U. C. 1050. A. D. 297 : for he follows the Varronian computation : (cf. also lib. vii. 232. 1.7 :) and consequently his date for the beginning of Christianity is about U. C. 750. B.C. 4. Jerome, in Chronico, places his acne in the twentieth of Constantine, A. D. 325, or 326.


EUSEBIUS—Ἱστορεῖται δὲ ὁ πᾶς τῆς διδασκαλίας καὶ παραδοξοποιΐας ὁμοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν χρόνος τριῶν ἥμισυ γεγονὼς ἐτῶν, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἑβδομάδος ἥμισυ. τοῦτό πως Ἰωάννης ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς ἀκριβῶς ἐφιστᾶσιν αὐτοῦ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ παραστήσει. εἴη ἂν οὖν ἑβδομὰς ἐτῶν μία ὁ πᾶς χρόνος τῆς μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ συνδιατριβῆς, ὅ τε πρὸ τοῦ πάθους, καὶ ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ. πρὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ πάθους ἐπὶ τρία καὶ ἥμισυ ἔτη τοῖς πᾶσιν ἑαυτὸν παρέχων, μαθηταῖς τε καὶ τοῖς μὴ τοιούτοις, ἀναγέγραπται ....μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, τὸν ἴσον, ὡς εἰκὸς, τῶν ἐτῶν χρόνον τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς καὶ ἀποστόλοις συνῆν, δι ̓ ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς καὶ συναλιζόμενος, καὶ λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς γοῦν αἱ πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων περιέχουσιν. Demonstratio Evangelica, viii. 400. B.

If Eusebius did not mean, in this passage, to assert that there was an interval of half a week, or three years and six months, between the resurrection and the ascension, it must be confessed that he has expressed himself very obscurely. Nor is much light reflected on this obscurity by the commentary of Jerome on Daniel ix, who has occasion to quote his opinion, among other expositions of the prophecy of the seventy weeks b.

His meaning, however, may probably be collected from Theodorite, who assigns a prophetical week to the period between the commencement of our Lord's b Operum iii. 1111-1113 ad medium-1114 ad principium. 1245-1150-52. in Dan. ix.

c Operum ii.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »