Eusebius: On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients

[Shibboleth]

Long post incoming! I put this in book reviews, but technically, I haven't read the book that I'm reviewing, since it has been lost to history.

Eusebius (of Cæsarea), born c. 260, is known as the the "Father of Church History&, and he wrote several works, including Church History and In Praise of Constantine. He was also involved with the First Council of Nicea (325). You can read more about him in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here it is mentioned that Eusebius wrote a book about polygyny entitled On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients. Unfortunately, this book is lost to us, but there seem to be at least three references to it. Two in other works of Eusebius, and probably one by St. Basil.

(15) "On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients". This work is referred to by Eusebius twice, in the "Præp. Ev.", VII, 8, and in the "Dem. Ev.", VII, 8; and also (Lightfoot and Harnack think) by St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit 29), where he says, "I draw attention to his [Eusebius's] words in discussing the difficulties started in connexion with ancient polygamy." Arguing from St. Basil's words, Lightfoot thinks that in this treatise Eusebius dealt with the difficulty presented by the Patriarchs possessing more than one wife. But he overlooked the reference in the "Dem. Ev.", from which it would appear that the difficulty dealt with was, perhaps, a more general one, viz., the contrast presented by the desire of the Patriarchs for a numerous offspring and the honour in which continence was held by Christians.

Let's take a more in-depth look at these references. All emphases are mine.

St. Basil ("the Great"), also of Caesarea, born c. 329, probably refers to this work in Ch 29 of his De Spiritu Sancto. In context, he is providing a list of church fathers who specifically use the preposition "with" in the phrase "with the Holy Spirit" (I haven't read enough to know the significance of this to his overall argument). One such work is Eusebius, of whom he says:

If any one thinks Eusebius of Palestine worthy of credit on account of his wide experience, I point further to the very words he uses in discussing questions concerning the polygamy of the ancients. Stirring up himself to his work, he writes invoking the holy God of the Prophets, the Author of light, through our Saviour Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit.

Moving to Eusebius' own references to this work, we come first to Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Book 7, Chapter VIII. This chapter has the rather lengthy title: "That we showed good judgement and wise consideration in accepting their [i.e. the Hebrews'] history : also a brief survey, according to the authors quoted, of the lives of the men beloved of God, both those before the flood and those who afterwards continued till the generation of Moses". He references his other book in connection to Jacob, but I'm going to start with his mention of Isaac because it is both brief and enlightening in its praise of his monogamy.

And next to him [Abraham] Isaac is exhibited as the successor both to his father's knowledge of God and to divine favour, having received this from his father as the noblest and most blessed of all inheritances. United to one wife, once only, say the sacred oracles, he begat children: but being made thereby the father of twin children, he is said to have set this limit to his intercourse with his wife in his extreme self-control.

Here let me bring before you Jacob, who was also called Israel, a man who received a double name in consequence of the unusual eminence of his proper virtues. When exercised indeed in practical habits and modes of life, and experiencing troubles on behalf of religion, he was called Jacob, a name which when translated into the Greek language means a man in training, an athlete; but when afterwards he receives the rewards of victory over his opponents and is crowned, and is already in the enjoyment of the blessings of contemplation, then his name also is changed by the God who communes with him, who both vouchsafes to him a vision of God, and bestows by his new name the rewards of diviner gifts and honours.

And so the answer of God says to him: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, for thou hast had power with God, and shalt prevail with men' -- where Israel indicates 'the man who beholds and contemplates': since the very name when translated means 'a man beholding God.'

Such then was the character of this man, from whom arose the Twelve Tribes of the Jewish nation. And countless things might be told concerning the life of these men, and their philosophic endurance and discipline, some things viewed literally, and some in allegorical suggestions: of which things others have spoken, as well as myself in my treatise 'Concerning the numerous offspring of the men of old.' Such then were these patriarchs.

There's not a lot to go on here. Isaac is praised for allegedly having intercourse with his wife only once, but Jacob is not criticized (at least not here) and is said to have proper virtues. From what little is said, there's a suggestion that Jacob's polygyny may have been be viewed as allegorical, but that's not necessarily the case.

We get more details in his second reference, Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel) Book 1, Chapter 9 (note: Catholic Encyclopedia had a typo, and gave the wrong book/chapter number). In context, he's demonstrating that Christians, being under a new covenant, are not bound to the Jewish Law, and are to live differently. To give the flow of his argument, here are some of his chapter headers:

• Ch. 3 - That the System of Moses was not Suitable for All Nations.
• Ch. 4 - Why it is we reject the Jews' Way of Life, though we accept their Writings.
• Ch. 5 - The Character of the New Covenant of Christ.
• Ch. 6 - The Nature of the Life according to the New Covenant proclaimed to All Men by Christ.
• Ch. 7 - How Christ, having first fulfilled the Law of Moses, became the Introducer of a New and Fresh System.
• Ch. 8 - That the Christian Life is of Two Distinct Characters.
• Ch. 9 - Why a Numerous Offspring is not as Great a Concern to us as it was to them of Old Time.
• Ch. 10 - Why we are not bidden to burn Incense and to sacrifice the Fruits of the Earth to God as were the Men of Old Time.

And now I quote Chapter 9 in full, as it gives his argument against the church being interested in growing large families:

This being so, the question naturally arises, if we claim that the Gospel teaching of our Saviour Christ bids us worship God as did the men of old, and the pre-Mosaic men of God, and that our religion is the same as theirs, and our knowledge of God the same, why were they keenly concerned with marriage and reproduction, while we to some extent disregard it? And again, why are they recorded as propitiating God with animal sacrifices, while we are forbidden to do so, and are told to regard it as impious. For those two things alone, which are by no means unimportant, would seem to conflict with what I have said; they would imply that in these matters we have not preserved the ancient ideal of religion. But it is possible for us to refute this charge by a study of the Hebrew writings. The men renowned for piety before Moses are recorded as having lived when human life was first beginning and organizing itself, while we live when it is nearing its end. And so they were anxious for the increase of their descendants, that men might multiply, that the human race might grow and flourish at that time, and reach its height; but these things are of little moment to us, who believe the world to be perishing and running down and reaching its last end, since it is expressly said that the gospel teaching will be at the door before the consummation of life, while a new creation and the birth of another age at no distant time is foretold. Such is one reply, and this is a second. The men of old days lived an easier and a freer life, and their care of home and family did not compete with their leisure for religion; they were able to worship God without distraction from their wives and children and domestic cares, and were in no way drawn by external things from the things that mattered most. But in our days there are many external interests that draw us away, and involve us in uncongenial thoughts, and seduce us from our zeal for the things which please God. The word of the Gospel teaching certainly gives this as the cause of the limitation of marriage, when it says:

29. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth that they who have wives be as though they had none. 30. And those that wept as though they wept not, and they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy as though they possessed not; 31. and they that use this world as not abusing it, for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided. 34. And the unmarried woman and the virgin careth for the things of the Lord how she may please the Lord), that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35. And this I speak for your profit; not that I may cast a cord upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.​

This expressly attributes the decrease of marriage to the evils of the time and of external circumstances, such as did not affect the ancients.

And I might give this third reason why the godly men of old were so devoted to the procreation of children. The rest of mankind were increasing in evil, they had fallen into an uncivilized, inhuman, and savage mode of life, they had given themselves up completely to godlessness and impiety, while they themselves, a very scanty remnant, had divorced themselves from the life of the many, and from common association with other men. They were living apart from other nations and in isolation, and were organizing a new kind of polity; they were evolving a life of true wisdom and religion, unmingled with other men. They wished to hand on to posterity the fiery seed of their own religion; they did not intend that their piety should fail and perish when they themselves died, and so they had foresight for producing and rearing children. They knew they could be the teachers and guides of their families, and considered it their object to hand on to posterity the inheritance of their own good qualities. Hence many prophets and righteous men, yea, even our Lord and Saviour Himself, with His apostles and disciples, have come from their line.

And if some of them turned out wicked, like straw growing up with the corn, we must not blame the sowers, nor those who tended the crop, just as we should admit that even some of our Saviour's disciples have erred from the right way through self-will. And this explanation of the ancient men of God begetting children cannot be said to apply to the Christians to-day, when by God's help through our Saviour's Gospel teaching we can see with our own eyes many peoples and nations in city and country and field all hastening together, and united in running to learn the godly course of the teaching of the Gospel, for whom I am glad to say we are able to provide teachers and preachers of the word of holiness, free from all ties of life and anxious thoughts. And in our day these men are necessarily devoted to celibacy that they may have leisure for higher things; they have undertaken to bring up not one or two children but a prodigious number, and to educate them in godliness, and to care for their life generally. On the top of all this, if we carefully examine the lives of the ancient men of whom I am speaking, we shall find that they had children in early life, but later on abstained and ceased from having them. For it is written that "Enoch pleased God after Methusaleh was born." Scripture expressly records that he pleased God after the birth of his son, and tells nothing of his having children afterwards. And Noah, that just man, who was saved alone with his family when the whole world was destroyed, after the birth of his children, though he lived many years more, is not related to have begotten more children. And Isaac is said, after becoming the father of twins by one wife, to have ceased cohabitation with her. Joseph again (and this was when he lived among the Egyptians) was only the father of two sons, and married to their mother only, while Moses himself and Aaron his brother are recorded as having had children before the appearance of God, but after the giving of the divine oracles as having begotten no more children. What must I say of Melchisedek? He had no son at all, no family, no descendants. And the same is true of Joshua, the successor of Moses, and many other prophets.

If there is any question about the families of Abraham and Jacob, a longer discussion will be found in the book I wrote about the polygamy and large families of the ancient men of God. To this I must refer the student, only warning him that according to the laws of the new covenant the producing of children is certainly not forbidden, but the provisions are similar to those followed by the ancient men of God. "For a bishop," says the Scripture, "must be the husband of one wife." Yet it is fitting that those in the priesthood and occupied in the service of God, should abstain after ordination from the intercourse of marriage. To all who have not undertaken this wondrous priesthood, Scripture almost completely gives way, when it says: "Marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." This, then, is my answer to the first question.

Eusebius' chief concern here isn't so much polygamous marriage per se, but the production of children in OT families, and why the church shouldn't be so concerned with it. This question actually drives straight to the heart of, not just Biblical Families, but many more mainstream ministries, such as Focus on the Family. To summarize, he advanced four arguments against Christians creating large families:

1. The saints lived in early times when there were fewer people, but we live in the end times when there are already many.
2. They had more leisure time (!?) to pursue religion, so their families weren't as much of a distraction.
3. They were a small remnant in isolation from mankind, while Christians are a large and growing sect, for whom their disciples are their children.
4. They produced children first, then served God later.

He does clarify at the end, as a warning to his book on polygamy, that "producing children is certainly not forbidden," but he repeats point number 4 at the end, claiming that priests should abstain after ordination. However, he admits the laity are not under such strict guidance.

Guessing from the context then, it appears that Eusebius' stance might have been that polgamy was permitted to the OT saints for the purposes of growing a large family, but that this was an allegory of the church growing, and now we as believers are under a new convenant, and should not be so concerned with creating a physical family because there are more important spiritual matters.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Well done.

Perhaps we should have a section on Early Christian writings and associated commentary on marriage and polygamy. I can see the benefits to new members or lurkers so that they can find early proofs all in one area