The Ecclesistical History of Sozomen - Book VII
|
Advanced Information
comprising a history of the church, from a.d. 323 to a.d. 425.
translated from the Greek.
Revised by Chester d. Hartranft,
Hartford Theological Seminary.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book VII.
Chapter I.--When the Romans are pressed by the Barbarians, Mavia sends
Assistance, and some of the Populace effect a Victory. Gratian
commands each to believe as he wishes.
Such was the fate of Valens. The barbarians, [1516] flushed with
victory, overran Thrace, and advanced to the gates of Constantinople.
In this emergency, a few of the confederate Saracens sent by Mavia,
together with many of the populace, were of great service. It is
reported that Dominica, wife of Valens, furnished money out of the
public treasury, and some of the people, after hastily arming
themselves, attacked the barbarians, and drove them from the city.
Gratian, who at this period reigned conjointly with his brother over
the whole Roman Empire, disapproved of the late persecution that had
been carried on to check the diversity in religious creeds, and
recalled all those who had been banished on account of their religion.
He also enacted a law by which it was decreed that every individual
should be freely permitted the exercise of his own religion, and
should be allowed to hold assemblies, with the exception of the
Manichæans and the followers of Photinus and Eunomius. [1517]
Footnotes
[1516] Soc. v. 1, 2; Ruf. H. E. ii. 13. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 1, 2;
Eunap. Fragm. i. 6.
[1517] Cod. Theod. xvi, v. 388. 5-16; the legislation from a.d.
379-388.
|
|
Chapter II.--Gratian elects Theodosius of Spain to reign with him,
Arianism prevails throughout the Eastern Churches except that of
Jerusalem. Council of Antioch. The Settlement of the Presidency of the
Churches.
On reflecting that, while it was indispensably requisite to check the
incursions of the barbarians of the Ister in Illyria and Thrace, his
presence was equally necessary in Gaul to repel the inroads of the
Alemanni, Gratian associated Theodosius [1518] with himself at
Sirmich, in the government of the empire. Theodosius belonged to an
illustrious family of the Pyrenees in Iberia, and had acquired so much
renown in war, that before he was raised to the imperial power, he was
universally considered capable of guiding the reins of the empire.
At this period all the churches of the East, with the exception of
that of Jerusalem, were in the hands of the Arians. The Macedonians
differed but little in opinion from those who maintained the doctrine
of Nicæa, and held intercourse and communion with them in all the
cities; and this had been more especially the case with the
Macedonians of Constantinople, ever since their reconciliation with
Liberius. But after the enactment of Gratian's law, some bishops of
the Macedonian heresy took courage and repossessed the churches from
which they had been ejected by Valens. They assembled together at
Antioch in Caria, and protested that the Son is not to be declared
"consubstantial" with the Father, but only like unto Him in substance.
From that period, many of the Macedonians seceded from the others, and
held separate churches; while others, condemning this opposition and
contentiousness of those who had made these decisions, united
themselves still more firmly with the followers of the Nicene
doctrines.
Many of the bishops who had been banished by Valens, and who were
recalled about this period in consequence of the law of Gratian,
manifested no ambition to be restored to the highest offices of the
Church; but they preferred the unity of the people, and therefore
begged the Arian bishops to retain the posts they occupied, and not to
rend by dissension the Church, which had been transmitted by God and
the apostles as one, but which contentiousness and ambition for
precedence had divided into many parts. Eulalius, bishop of Amasia in
Pontus, was one of those who pursued this course of conduct. It is
said that when he returned from exile, he found that his church was
presided over by an Arian bishop, and that scarcely fifty inhabitants
of the city had submitted to the control of this new bishop. Eulalius,
desiring unity above all other considerations, offered to take part
with the Arian bishop in the government of the church, and expressly
agreed to allow him the precedence. But as the Arian would not comply
with this proposition, it was not long before he found himself
deserted by the few who had followed him, and who went over to the
other party.
Footnotes
[1518] Soc. v. 2-4; Philost. ix. 17; Ruf. H. E. ii. 14. Cf. Theodoret,
H. E. v. 5-7. Soz. has other material; Zos. iv. 24. Cf. Eunap. Fragm.
ii. 42, for an opposite view of Theodosius.
Chapter III.--Concerning St. Meletius and Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch.
Their Oath respecting the Episcopal See.
In consequence of this law, Meletius returned about this period to
Antioch in Syria; and his presence gave rise to great contention among
the people. [1519] Paulinus, whom Valens, from veneration for his
piety, had not ventured to banish, was still alive. The partisans of
Meletius, therefore, proposed his association with Paulinus, who
condemned the ordination of Meletius, because it had been conferred by
Arian bishops; and yet the supporters of Meletius went forward by
force into the work they had devised; for they were not few in number,
and so placed Meletius on the episcopal throne in one of the suburban
churches. The mutual animosity of the two parties increased, and
sedition was expected, had not a remarkable plan for the restoration
of concord prevailed. For it seemed best, to take oaths from those who
were considered eligible, or who were expected to occupy the episcopal
see of that place. Of these there were five besides Flavian. These
promised that they would neither strive for, nor accept the episcopate
should an ordination take place among them during the life of Paulinus
and Meletius, and that in the event of the decease of either of these
great men, the other alone should succeed to the bishopric. On their
ratifying this promise with oaths, unanimity was restored among almost
all the people; a few of the Luciferites still diverged because
Meletius had been ordained by heretics. On the termination of this
contest, Meletius proceeded to Constantinople, where many other
bishops had assembled together to deliberate on the necessity of
translating Gregory from the bishopric of Nazianzen to that of this
city.
Footnotes
[1519] Soc. v. 5; Ruf. H. E. ii. 21; Theodoret, H. E. v. 3.
Chapter IV.--Reign of Theodosius the Great; he was initiated into
Divine Baptism by Ascholius, Bishop of Thessalonica. The Letters he
addressed to those who did not hold the Definition of the Council of
Nice.
As Gaul was about this period infested by the incursions of the
Alemanni, [1520] Gratian returned to his paternal dominions, which he
had reserved for himself and his brother, when he bestowed the
government of Illyria and of the Eastern provinces upon Theodosius. He
effected his purpose with regard to the barbarians; and Theodosius was
equally successful against the tribes from the banks of the Ister; he
defeated them, compelled them to sue for peace, and, after accepting
hostages from them, proceeded to Thessalonica. He fell ill while in
this city, and after receiving instruction from Ascholius, the bishop,
he was initiated, and was soon after restored to health. The parents
of Theodosius were Christians, and were attached to the Nicene
doctrines; he was pleased with Ascholius, who maintained the same
doctrines, and was, in a word, endowed with every virtue of the
priesthood. He also rejoiced at finding that the Arian heresy had not
been participated in by Illyria. [1521] He inquired concerning the
religious sentiments which were prevalent in the other provinces, and
ascertained that, as far as Macedonia, [1522] all the churches were
like minded, and all held that equal homage ought to be rendered to
God the Word, and to the Holy Ghost, as to God the Father; but that
towards the East, and particularly at Constantinople, the people were
divided into many different heresies. Reflecting that it would be
better to propound his own religious views to his subjects, so as not
to appear to be using force by commanding the unwilling subject to
worship contrary to his judgment, Theodosius enacted a law at
Thessalonica, which he caused to be published at Constantinople, well
knowing that the rescript would speedily become public to all the
other cities, if issued from that city, which is as a citadel of the
whole empire. He made known by this law his intention of leading all
his subjects to the reception of that faith which Peter, the chief of
the apostles, had, from the beginning, preached to the Romans, and
which was professed by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and by Peter, bishop
of Alexandria. He enacted [1523] that the title of "Catholic Church"
should be exclusively confined to those who rendered equal homage to
the Three Persons of the Trinity, and that those individuals who
entertained opposite opinions should be treated as heretics, regarded
with contempt, and delivered over to punishment.
Footnotes
[1520] Soc. v. 6; Philost. ix. 19. Independent points by Soz. Cf. Zos.
iv. 25-27; cf. Eunap. Fragm. i. 7, ii. 43-46.
[1521] The same testimony is given by Basil, in his letter to
Valerianus, bishop of Illyria, Ep. xci., and in the letter to the
Neo-Cæsareans, Ep. cciv.
[1522] This is also plain from the acts of the council of Aquileia,
a.d. 381. Hard. vol. 1.
[1523] Cod. Theod. xvi., under "de Fide Catholica," 2.
Chapter V.--Gregory, the Theologian, receives from Theodosius the
Government of the Churches. Expulsion of Demophilus, and of all who
deny that the Son is "Consubstantial" with the Father.
Soon after the enactment of this law, Theodosius went to
Constantinople. [1524] The Arians, under the guidance of Demophilus,
still retained possession of the churches. Gregory of Nazianzen
presided over those who maintain the "consubstantiality" of the Holy
Trinity, and assembled them together in a little dwelling, which had
been altered into the form of a house of prayer, by those who held the
same opinions and had a like form of worship. It subsequently became
one of the most conspicuous in the city, and is so now, not only for
the beauty and number of its structures, but also for the advantages
accruing to it from the visible manifestations of God. For the power
of God was there manifested, and was helpful both in waking visions
and in dreams, often for the relief of many diseases and for those
afflicted by some sudden transmutation in their affairs. The power was
accredited to Mary, the Mother of God, the holy virgin, for she does
manifest herself in this way. The name of Anastasia was given to this
church, because, as I believe, the Nicene doctrines which were fallen
into disuse in Constantinople, and, so to speak, buried by reason of
the power of the heterodox, arose from the dead and were again
quickened through the discourses of Gregory; or, as I have heard, some
affirm with assurance that one day, when the people were met together
for worship in this edifice, a pregnant woman fell from the highest
gallery, and was found dead on the spot; but that, at the prayer of
the whole congregation, she was restored to life, and she and the
infant were saved. On account of the occurrence of this divine marvel,
the place, as some assert, obtained its name.
The emperor sent to command Demophilus to conform to the doctrines of
Nicæa, and to lead the people to embrace the same sentiments, or else
to vacate the churches. Demophilus assembled the people, acquainted
them with the imperial edict, and informed them that it was his
intention to hold a church the next day without the walls of the city,
in accordance, he said, with the Divine law, which commands us when we
are persecuted in one city to "flee unto another." [1525] From that
day he always held church without the city with Lucius, who was
formerly the bishop of the Arians at Alexandria; and who, after having
been expelled, as above related, from that city, fled to
Constantinople and fixed his residence there. When Demophilus and his
followers had quitted the church, the emperor entered therein and
engaged in prayer; and from that period those who maintained the
consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity held possession of the houses of
prayer. These events occurred in the fifth year of the consulate of
Gratian, and in the first of that of Theodosius, and after the
churches had been during forty years in the hands of the Arians.
Footnotes
[1524] Soc. v. 6; Philost. ix. 19; Theodoret, H. E. v. 8; Marcellinus
Comes, Chronicon, s. a.d. 380.
[1525] Matt. x. 23.
Chapter VI.--Concerning the Arians; and Further, the Success of
Eunomius. Boldness of St. Amphilochius toward the Emperor.
The Arians, who were still very strong in point of numbers, [1526] and
who, through the protection formerly granted by Constantius and
Valens, were still convening without fear, and discoursing publicly
concerning God and the Divine nature, now determined upon making an
attempt to gain over the emperor to their party, through the
intervention of individuals of their sect who held appointments at
court; and they entertained hopes of succeeding in this project, as
well as they had succeeded in the case of Constantius. These
machinations excited great anxiety and fear among the members of the
Catholic Church; but the chief cause of their apprehension was the
reasoning power of Eunomius. It appears that, during the reign of
Valens, Eunomius had some dispute with his own clergy at Cyzicus, and
had in consequence seceded from the Arians, and retired to Bithynia,
near Constantinople. Here multitudes resorted to him; some also
gathered from different quarters, a few with the design of testing his
principles, and others merely from the desire of listening to his
discourses. His reputation reached the ears of the emperor, who would
gladly have held a conference with him. But the Empress Flacilla
[1527] studiously prevented an interview from taking place between
them; for she was the most faithful guard of the Nicene doctrines, and
feared lest Eunomius might, by his powers of disputation, induce a
change in the sentiments of the emperor.
In the meantime, while these intrigues were being carried on by each
party, it is said that the bishops then residing in Constantinople
went to the emperor, to render him the customary salutations. An old
priest from a city of little note, [1528] and who was simple and
unworldly, yet well instructed in Divine subjects, formed one of this
party. The rest saluted the emperor with uncovered head and very
reverently. The aged priest greeted him in the same form; but, instead
of rendering equal honor to the prince, who was seated beside his
father, the old priest approached him, patted him familiarly, and
called him his dear child. The emperor was incensed and enraged at the
indignity offered to his son, in that he had not been accorded like
honor; and commanded that the old man should be thrust from his
presence with violence. While being pushed away, hither and thither,
however, the old priest turned around and exclaimed, "Reflect, O
emperor, on the wrath of the Heavenly Father against those who do not
honor His Son as Himself, and who have the audacity to assert that the
Son is inferior to the Father." The emperor felt the force of this
observation, recalled the priest, apologized to him for what had
occurred, and confessed that he had spoken the truth. The emperor was
henceforward less disposed to hold intercourse with heretics, and he
prohibited contests and assemblies in the markets. He made it
dangerous to hold discussions of this kind about the substance and
nature of God, by enacting a law, and defining the punishments in this
matter. [1529]
Footnotes
[1526] Independent Chapter. Cf. Philost. ix. 13, 14.
[1527] She was the first, and not the second, wife of Theodosius, and
the mother of Arcadius and Honorius. Her funeral panegyric was
delivered by Gregory of Nyssa (vol. iii. 877), as well as that of her
daughter Pulcheria, (id. 863). Cf. Philost. x. 7 (Placidia).
[1528] Theodoret, H. E. v. 16, refers this incident to Amphilochius,
bishop of Iconium and Nicephorus follows him, xii. 9.
[1529] Cod. Theod. xvi. iv. De his, qui super religione contendunt, 2.
Chapter VII.--Concerning the Second Holy General Council, and the
Place and Cause of its Convention. Abdication of Gregory the
Theologian.
The emperor soon after convened a council of orthodox bishops, for the
purpose of confirming the decrees of Nicæa, and of electing a bishop
to the vacant see of Constantinople. [1530] He likewise summoned the
Macedonians to this assembly; for as their doctrines differed but
little from those of the Catholic Church, he judged that it would be
easy to effect a reunion with them. About a hundred and fifty bishops
who maintained the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, were present
at this council, as likewise thirty-six of the Macedonian bishops,
chiefly from the cities of the Hellespont; of whom the principal were
Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, and Marcian, bishop of Lampsacus. The
other party was under the guidance of Timothy, who had succeeded his
brother Peter in the see of Alexandria; of Meletius, bishop of
Antioch, who had repaired to Constantinople a short time previously,
on account of the election of Gregory, and of Cyril, bishop of
Jerusalem, who had at this period renounced the tenets of the
Macedonians which he previously held. Ascholius, bishop of
Thessalonica, Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and Acacius, bishop of
Berea, were also present at the council. These latter unanimously
maintained the decrees of Nicæa, and urged Eleusius and his partisans
to conform to these sentiments, reminding them, at the same time, of
the embassy they had formerly deputed to Liberius, and of the
confession they conveyed to him through the medium of Eustathius,
Silvanus, and Theophilus, as has been narrated. The Macedonians,
however, declared openly that they would never admit the Son to be of
the same substance as the Father, whatever confession they might
formerly have made to Liberius, and immediately withdrew. They then
wrote to those of their adherents in every city, exhorting them not to
conform to the doctrines of Nicæa.
The bishops who remained at Constantinople now turned their attention
to the election of a prelate to the see of that city. It is said that
the emperor, from profound admiration of the sanctity and eloquence of
Gregory, judged that he was worthy of this bishopric, and that, from
reverence of his virtue, the greater number of the Synod was of the
same opinion. Gregory at first consented to accept the presidency of
the church of Constantinople; but afterwards, on ascertaining that
some of the bishops, particularly those of Egypt, objected to the
election, he withdrew his consent. For my part, this wisest of men is
worthy of admiration, not only for universal qualifications, but not
the least for his conduct under the present circumstances. His
eloquence did not inspire him with pride, nor did vainglory lead him
to desire the control of a church, which he had received when it was
no longer in danger. He surrendered his appointment to the bishops
when it was required of him, and never complained of his many labors,
or of the dangers he had incurred in the suppression of heresies. Had
he retained possession of the bishopric of Constantinople, it would
have been no detriment to the interests of any individual, as another
bishop had been appointed in his stead at Nazianzen. But the council,
in strict obedience to the laws of the fathers and ecclesiastical
order, withdrew from him, with his own acquiescence, the deposit which
had been confided to him, without making an exception in favor of so
eminent a man. The emperor and the priests therefore proceeded to the
election of another bishop, which they regarded as the most important
affair then requiring attention; and the emperor was urgent that
diligent investigations might be instituted, so that the most
excellent and best individual might be intrusted with the
high-priesthood of the great and royal city. The council, however, was
divided in sentiment; for each of the members desired to see one of
his own friends ordained over the church.
Footnotes
[1530] Soc. v. 7, 8; cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 7, 8; Ruf. H. E. ii. 19;
Marcell. Chron. s. a.d. 381.
Chapter VIII.--Election of Nectarius to the See of Constantinople; his
Birthplace and Education.
A certain man of Tarsus in Cilicia, of the illustrious order of
senator, was at this period residing at Constantinople. [1531] Being
about to return to his own country, he called upon Diodorus, bishop of
Tarsus, to inquire whether he had any letters to send by him. Diodorus
was fully intent upon the ordination, which was the subject then
engrossing universal attention of the men. He had no sooner seen
Nectarius than he considered him worthy of the bishopric, and
straightway determined this in his own mind as he reflected on the
venerable age of the man, his form so befitting a priest, and the
suavity of his manners. He conducted him, as if upon some other
business, to the bishop of Antioch, and requested him to use his
influence to procure this election. The bishop of Antioch derided this
request, for the names of the most eminent men had already been
proposed for consideration. He, however, called Nectarius to him, and
desired him to remain for a short time with him. Some time after, the
emperor commanded the priests to draw up a list of the names of those
whom they thought worthy of the ordination, reserving to himself the
right of choosing any one of those whose names were thus submitted to
him. All the bishops complied with this mandate; and, among the
others, the bishop of Antioch wrote down the names of those whom he
proposed as candidates for the bishopric, and, at the end of his list,
from consideration for Diodorus, he inserted the name of Nectarius.
The emperor read the list of those inscribed and stopped at the name
of Nectarius at the end of the document, on which he placed his
finger, and seemed for some time lost in reflection; ran it up to the
beginning, and again went through the whole, and chose Nectarius. This
nomination excited great astonishment and all the people were anxious
to ascertain who Nectarius was, his manner of life, and birthplace.
When they heard that he had not been initiated their amazement was
increased at the decision of the emperor. I believe that Diodorus
himself was not aware that Nectarius had not been baptized; for, had
he been acquainted with this fact, he would not have ventured to give
his vote for the priesthood to one uninitiated. It appears reasonable
to suppose, that on perceiving that Nectarius was of advanced age, he
took it for granted that he had been initiated long previously. But
these events did not take place without the interposition of God. For
when the emperor was informed that Nectarius had not been initiated,
he remained of the same opinion, although opposed by many priests.
When at last, consent had been given to the imperial mandate,
Nectarius was initiated, and while yet clad in his initiatory robes,
was proclaimed bishop of Constantinople by the unanimous voice of the
Synod. Many have conjectured that the emperor was led to make this
election by a Divine revelation. I shall not decide whether this
conjecture be true or false; but I feel convinced, when I reflect on
the extraordinary circumstances attending this ordination, that the
events were not brought about without the Divine strength; and that
God led this mild and virtuous and excellent man into the priesthood.
Such are the details which I have been able to ascertain concerning
the ordination of Nectarius.
Footnotes
[1531] Soc. v. 8; cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 8; Marcell. s. a.d. 381.
Soz. is entirely independent.
Chapter IX.--Decrees of the Second General Council. Maximus, the
Cynical Philosopher.
After these transactions, Nectarius and the other priests assembled
together, [1532] and decreed that the faith established by the council
of Nicæa should remain dominant, and that all heresies should be
condemned; that the churches everywhere should be governed according
to the ancient canons; that each bishop should remain in his own
church, and not go elsewhere under any light pretext; or, without
invitation, perform ordinations in which he had no right to interfere,
as had frequently been the case in the Catholic Church during the
times of persecution. They likewise decreed that the affairs of each
church should be subjected to the investigation and control of a
council of the province; and that the bishop of Constantinople should
rank next in point of precedence to the bishop of Rome, as occupying
the see of New Rome; for Constantinople was not only already favored
with this appellation, but was also in the enjoyment of many
privileges,--such as a senate of its own, and the division of the
citizens into ranks and orders; it was also governed by its own
magistrates, and possessed contracts, laws, and immunities in equal
degree with those of Rome in Italy.
The council also decreed that Maximus had not been nor was now a
bishop; and that those individuals whom he had ordained were not of
the clergy; and that all that had been done by him, or in his name,
was null and void. Maximus was a native of Alexandria, and, by
profession, a cynical philosopher. He was zealously attached to the
Nicene doctrines, and had been secretly ordained bishop of
Constantinople by bishops who had assembled in that city from Egypt.
Such were the decrees of the council. They were confirmed by the
emperor, who enacted [1533] that the faith established at Nicæa should
be dominant, and that the churches everywhere should be placed in the
hands of those who acknowledged one and the same Godhead in the
hypostasis of three Persons of equal honor and of equal power; namely,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. To designate them still more
precisely, the emperor declared that he referred to those who held
communion with Nectarius, at Constantinople, and with Timothy, bishop
of Alexandria, in Egypt; in the churches of the East with Diodorus,
bishop of Tarsus, and in Syria with Pelagius, bishop of Laodicea, and
in Asia with Amphilochius, president of the churches in Iconium; to
those in the cities by the Pontus, from Bithynia to Armenia, who held
communion with Helladius, bishop of the church of Cæsarea in
Cappadocia; with Gregory, bishop of Nyssa; and with Otreinus, bishop
of Melitine; and to the cities of Thrace and Scythia, who held
communion with Terentius, bishop of Tomi, and with Martyrius, bishop
of Marcianopolis. The emperor was personally acquainted with all these
bishops, and had ascertained that they governed their respective
churches wisely and piously. After these transactions, the council was
dissolved, and each of the bishops returned homewards.
Footnotes
[1532] Soc. v. 8; cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 8, 9. The latter Chapter
gives the text of the letter of this Synod to the Synod of Rome. Soz.
is here independent.
[1533] Cod. Theod. xvi. 3.
Chapter X.--Concerning Martyrius of Cilicia. Translation of the
Remains of St. Paul the Confessor, and of Meletius, Bishop of Antioch.
Nectarius made himself acquainted with the routine of sacerdotal
ceremonies under the instruction of Cyriacus, [1534] bishop of Adana,
whom he had requested Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, to leave with him
for a short period. Nectarius also retained several other Cilicians
with him, amongst whom was Martyrius, his physician, who had been a
witness of the irregularities of his youth. Nectarius was desirous of
ordaining him deacon; but Martyrius refused the honor under the plea
of his own unworthiness of such a divine service, and called upon
Nectarius himself to witness as to the course of his past life. To
this Nectarius replied as follows: "Although I am now a priest, do you
not know that my past career was a more guilty one than yours,
inasmuch as you were but an instrument in my numerous profligacies?"
"But you, O blessed one," replied Martyrius, "were cleansed by
baptism, and were then accounted worthy of the priesthood. Both these
ordinances are appointed by the Divine law for purification from sin,
and it seems to me that you now differ in no respect from a new-born
infant; but I long ago received holy baptism, and have since continued
in the same abusive course." It was under this plea that he excused
himself from receiving ordination; and I commend the man for his
refusal, and therefore would give him a part in my history.
The Emperor Theodosius, on being informed of various events connected
with Paul, [1535] formerly bishop of Constantinople, caused his body
to be removed to the church erected by Macedonius, his enemy, and
buried there. This temple is a spacious and most distinguished
edifice, and is still named after Paul. Hence many persons who are
ignorant of the facts of the case, particularly women and the mass of
the people, imagine that Paul, the apostle, is interred therein. The
remains of Meletius were at the same time conveyed to Antioch, and
deposited near the tomb of Babylas the martyr. It is said that through
every public way, by the command of the emperor, the relics were
received within the walls in every city, contrary to Roman custom, and
were honored with singing of psalms antiphonally in such places, until
they were transferred to Antioch.
Footnotes
[1534] Most of this Chapter is independent with Soz.
[1535] Soc. v. 9. Soz. is independent.
Chapter XI.--Ordination of Flavian as Bishop of Antioch, and
Subsequent Occurrences on Account of the Oath.
After the pompous interment of the remains of Meletius, Flavian was
ordained in his stead, and that, too, in direct violation of the oath
he had taken; [1536] for Paulinus was still alive. This gave rise to
fresh troubles in the church of Antioch. Many persons refused to
maintain communion with Flavian, and held their church apart with
Paulinus. Even the priests differed among themselves on this subject.
The Egyptians, Arabians, and Cypriots were indignant at the injustice
that had been manifested towards Paulinus. On the other hand, the
Syrians, the Palestinians, the Phoenicians, and the greater part of
Armenia, Cappadocia, Galatia, and Pontus, sided with Flavian. The
bishop of Rome, and all the Western priests, regarded the conduct of
Flavian with the utmost displeasure. They addressed the customary
epistles, called synodical, to Paulinus as bishop of Antioch, and took
no notice of Flavian. They also withdrew from communion with Diodorus,
bishop of Tarsus, and Acacius, bishop of Berea, because they had
ordained Flavian. [1537] To take further cognizance of the affair, the
Western bishops and the Emperor Gratian wrote to the bishops of the
East, and summoned them to attend a council in the West.
Footnotes
[1536] Soc. v. 9; cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 23.
[1537] Ambrose, and other bishops of Italy, convened in an
undesignated Synod, condemned Nectarius, both for his part in this
procedure and also as improperly ordained. Hard. i. c. 844.
Chapter XII.--Project of Theodosius to unify all the Heresies. The
Propositions made by Agelius and Sisinius, the Novatians. At another
Synod, the Emperor received those only who represent
Consubstantiality; those who held a different View he ejected from the
Churches.
Although all the houses of prayer were at this period in the
possession of the Catholic Church, many troubles occurred in various
parts of the empire, instigated by the Arians. [1538] The Emperor
Theodosius, therefore, soon after the council above mentioned, again
summoned together the presidents of the sects which were flourishing,
in order that they might either bring others to their own state of
conviction on disputed topics, or be convinced themselves; for he
imagined that all would be brought to oneness of opinion, if a free
discussion were entered into, concerning ambiguous points of doctrine.
The council, therefore, was convened. This occurred in the year of the
second consulate of Merobaudes, and the first of Saturninus, and at
the same period that Arcadius was associated with his father in the
government of the empire. Theodosius sent for Nectarius, consulted
with him concerning the coming Synod, and commanded him to introduce
the discussion of all questions which had given rise to heresies, so
that the church of the believers in Christ might be one, and might
agree on the doctrine according to which piety ought to be observed.
When Nectarius returned home, feeling anxious about the affair
confided to him, he made known the mandate of the emperor to Agelius,
the president of the church of the Novatians, who held the same
religious sentiments as himself. Agelius proved the virtue of his life
by works, but was unaccustomed to the finesse and deception of words;
he therefore proposed as a substitute, one of his readers, by name
Sisinius, who afterwards succeeded him as bishop, a man who could see
what was practical, and could debate, if that were necessary. Sisinius
possessed powers of intellect and of expression; he had an accurate
knowledge of the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and was well
acquainted with profane and with ecclesiastical literature. He
proposed that all disputation with the heterodox, as being a fruitful
source of contention and war, should be avoided; but recommended that
inquiries should rather be instituted, as to whether the heretics
admitted the testimony of the expositors and teachers of the sacred
words, who lived before the Church was rent in division. "If they
reject the testimony of these great men," said he, "they will be
condemned by their own followers; but if they admit their authority as
being adequate to resolve ambiguous points of doctrine, we will
produce their books." For Sisinius was well aware that, as the
ancients recognized the Son to be eternal like the Father, they had
never presumed to assert that He had had an origin from some
beginning. This suggestion received the approbation of Nectarius, and
afterwards of the emperor; and investigations were set on foot as to
the opinions entertained by heretics concerning the ancient
interpreters of Scripture. As it was found that the heretics professed
to hold these early writers in great admiration, the emperor asked
them openly whether they would defer to the authority of the aforesaid
on controverted topics, and test their own doctrines by the sentiments
propounded in those works. This proposition excited great contention
among the leaders of the various heretical sects, for they did not all
hold the same view about the books of the ancients; the emperor knew
that they were convicted by the debates over their own words alone,
and withdrew the proposition. He blamed them for their opinion, and
commanded each party to draw up a written exposition of its own creed.
On the day appointed for the presentation of these documents,
Nectarius and Agelius appeared at the palace, as representatives of
those who maintain the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity;
Demophilus, the Arian president, came forward as the deputy of the
Arians; Eunomius represented the Eunomians; and Eleusius, bishop of
Cyzicus, appeared for the sectarians denominated Macedonians. The
emperor, after receiving their formularies, expressed himself in favor
of that one alone in which consubstantiality of the Trinity was
recognized, and destroyed the others. The interests of the Novatians
were not affected by this transaction, for they held the same
doctrines as the Catholic Church concerning the Divine nature. The
members of the other sects were indignant with the priests for having
entered into unwise disputations in the presence of the emperor. Many
renounced their former opinions, and embraced the authorized form of
religion. The emperor enacted a law, prohibiting heretics from holding
churches, from giving public instructions in the faith, and from
conferring ordination on bishops or others. [1539] Some of the
heterodox were expelled from the cities and villages, while others
were disgraced and deprived of the privileges enjoyed by other
subjects of the empire. Great as were the punishments adjudged by the
laws against heretics, they were not always carried into execution,
for the emperor had no desire to persecute his subjects; he only
desired to enforce uniformity of view about God through the medium of
intimidation. Those who voluntarily renounced heretical opinions
received commendation from him.
Footnotes
[1538] Soc. v. 10, from whom Soz. borrows his facts.
[1539] Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 15.
Chapter XIII.--Maximus the Tyrant. Concerning the Occurrences between
the Empress Justina and St. Ambrose. The Emperor Gratian was killed by
Guile. Valentinian and his Mother fled to Theodosius in Thessalonica.
As the Emperor Gratian was at this period occupied with a war against
the Alamanni, [1540] Maximus quitted Britain, with the design of
usurping the imperial power. Valentinian was then residing in Italy,
but as he was a minor, the affairs of state were transacted by Probus,
a prætorian prefect, who had formerly been consul.
Justina, the mother of the emperor, having espoused the Arian heresy,
persecuted Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and disquieted the churches by
her efforts to introduce alterations in the Nicene doctrines, and to
obtain the predominance of the form of belief set forth at Ariminum.
She was incensed against Ambrose because he strenuously opposed her
attempts at innovation, and she represented to her son that he had
insulted her. Valentinian believed this calumny, and, determined to
avenge the supposed wrongs of his mother, he sent a party of soldiers
against the church. On their reaching the temple, they forced their
way into the interior, arrested Ambrose, and were about to lead him
into exile at that very moment, when the people assembled in crowds at
the church, and evinced a resolution to die rather than submit to the
banishment of their priest. Justina was still further incensed at this
occurrence; and with a view of enforcing her project by law, she sent
for Menivolus, [1541] one of the legal secretaries, and commanded him
to draw up, as quickly as possible, an edict confirmatory of the
decrees of Ariminum. Menivolus, being firmly attached to the Catholic
Church, refused to write the document, and the empress tried to bribe
him by promises of greater honors. He still, however, refused
compliance, and, tearing off his belt, he threw it at the feet of
Justina, and declared that he would neither retain his present office,
nor accept of promotion, as the reward of impiety. As he remained firm
in his refusal, others were intrusted with the compilation of the law.
By this law, all who conformed to the doctrines set forth at Ariminum
and ratified at Constantinople were exhorted to convene boldly; and it
was enacted that death should be the punishment of those who should
hinder or be running counter to this law of the emperor.
While the mother of the emperor was planning the means of carrying
this cruel law into execution, intelligence was brought of the murder
of Gratian, through the treachery of Andragathius, the general of
Maximus. Andragathius obtained possession of the imperial chariot, and
sent word to the emperor that his consort was traveling towards his
camp. Gratian, who was but recently married and youthful, as well as
passionately attached to his wife, hastened incautiously across the
river, and in his anxiety to meet her fell without forethought into
the hands of Andragathius; he was seized, and, in a little while, put
to death. He was in the twenty-fourth year of his age, and had reigned
fifteen years. This calamity quieted Justina's wrath against Ambrose.
Maximus, in the meantime, raised a large army of Britons, neighboring
Gauls, Celts, and other nations, and marched into Italy. The pretext
which he advanced for this measure was, that he desired to prevent the
introduction of innovations in the ancient form of religion and of
ecclesiastical order; but he was in reality actuated by the desire of
dispelling any suspicion that might have been excited as to his
aspirations after tyranny. He was watching and intriguing for the
imperial rule in such a way that it might appear as if he had acquired
the Roman government by law, and not by force. Valentinian was
compelled by the exigencies of the times to recognize the symbols of
his rule; but soon after, in fear of suffering, fled with his mother
Justina, and Probus, the prætorian prefect in Italy, to Thessalonica.
Footnotes
[1540] Ruf. H. E. ii. 14-16; Philost. x. 5, 7; Soc. v. 11. Cf.
Theodoret, H. E. v. 12, 13; Eunap. Fragm. ii. 48; Zos. iv. 42, 43.
[1541] In Ruf. H. E. ii. 16, Benevolus.
Chapter XIV.--Birth of Honorius. Theodosius leaves Arcadius at
Constantinople, and proceeds to Italy. Succession of the Novatian and
other Patriarchs. Audacity of the Arians. Theodosius, after destroying
the Tyrant, celebrates a Magnificent Triumph in Rome.
While Theodosius was making preparations for a war against Maximus,
his son Honorius was born. [1542] On the completion of these warlike
preparations, he left his son Arcadius to govern at Constantinople,
and proceeded to Thessalonica, where he received Valentinian. He
refused either to dismiss openly, or to give audience to the embassy
sent by Maximus, but continued his journey at the head of his troops
towards Italy.
About this period, Agelius, bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople,
feeling his end approaching, nominated Sisinius, one of the presbyters
of his church, as his successor. The people, however, murmured that
the preference had not rather been given to Marcian, who was noted on
account of his piety, and Agelius therefore ordained him, and
addressed the people who were assembled in the church in the following
words: "After me you shall have Marcian for your bishop, and after
him, Sisinius." Agelius died soon after he had uttered these words. He
had governed his church forty years with the greatest approbation from
his own heretical party; and some assert that during the times of
Pagan persecution, he had openly confessed the name of Christ.
Not long after Timothy and Cyril died; Theophilus succeeded to the see
of Alexandria, and John to that of Jerusalem. Demophilus, leader of
the Arians at Constantinople, likewise died and was succeeded by
Marinus of Thrace; but he was superseded by Dorotheus, who soon after
arrived from Antioch in Syria, and who was considered by his sect to
be better qualified for the office than Marinus.
Theodosius, having in the meantime entered Italy, various conflicting
reports were spread as to the success of his arms. It was rumored
among the Arians that the greater part of his army had been cut to
pieces in battle, and that he himself had been captured by the tyrant;
and assuming this report to be true, these sectarians became bold and
ran to the house of Nectarius and set it on fire, from indignation at
the power which the bishop had obtained over the churches. The
emperor, however, carried out his purpose in the war, for the soldiers
of Maximus, impelled by fear of the preparations against them, or
treachery, seized and slew the tyrant. Andragathius, the murderer of
Gratian, no sooner heard of the death of Maximus, than he leaped into
the river with his armor, and perished. The war having been thus
terminated, and the death of Gratian avenged, Theodosius, accompanied
by Valentinian, celebrated a triumph in Rome, and restored order in
the churches of Italy, for the Empress Justina was dead.
Footnotes
[1542] Soc. v. 12-14, 21, is the main source for Soz. Cf. Ruf. H. E.
ii. 17; Philost. x. 8, 9, 11; Theodoret, H. E. v. 15; Zos. iv. 45-47.
Chapter XV.--Flavian and Evagrius, Bishops of Antioch. The Events at
Alexandria upon the Destruction of the Temple of Dionysus. The
Serapeum and the other Idolatrous Temples which were destroyed.
Paulinus, [1543] bishop of Antioch, died about this period, and those
who had been convened into a church with him persisted in their
aversion to Flavian, although his religious sentiments were precisely
the same as their own, because he had violated the oath he had
formerly made to Meletius. They, therefore, elected Evagrius as their
bishop. Evagrius did not long survive this appointment, and although
Flavian prevented the election of another bishop, those who had
seceded from communion with him, still continued to hold their
assemblies apart.
About this period, the bishop of Alexandria, to whom the temple of
Dionysus had, at his own request, been granted by the emperor,
converted the edifice into a church. The statues were removed, the
adyta were exposed; and, in order to cast contumely on the pagan
mysteries, he made a procession for the display of these objects; the
phalli, and whatever other object had been concealed in the adyta
which really was, or seemed to be, ridiculous, he made a public
exhibition of. The pagans, amazed at so unexpected an exposure, could
not suffer it in silence, but conspired together to attack the
Christians. They killed many of the Christians, wounded others, and
seized the Serapion, a temple which was conspicuous for beauty and
vastness and which was seated on an eminence. This they converted into
a temporary citadel; and hither they conveyed many of the Christians,
put them to the torture, and compelled them to offer sacrifice. Those
who refused compliance were crucified, had both legs broken, or were
put to death in some cruel manner. When the sedition had prevailed for
some time, the rulers came and urged the people to remember the laws,
to lay down their arms, and to give up the Serapion. There came then
Romanus, the general of the military legions in Egypt; and Evagrius
was the prefect of Alexandria [1544] As their efforts, however, to
reduce the people to submission were utterly in vain, they made known
what had transpired to the emperor. Those who had shut themselves up
in the Serapion prepared a more spirited resistance, from fear of the
punishment that they knew would await their audacious proceedings, and
they were further instigated to revolt by the inflammatory discourses
of a man named Olympius, attired in the garments of a philosopher, who
told them that they ought to die rather than neglect the gods of their
fathers. Perceiving that they were greatly dispirited by the
destruction of the idolatrous statues, he assured them that such a
circumstance did not warrant their renouncing their religion; for that
the statues were composed of corruptible materials, and were mere
pictures, and therefore would disappear; whereas, the powers which had
dwelt within them, had flown to heaven. By such representations as
these, he retained the multitude with him in the Serapion.
When the emperor was informed of these occurrences, he declared that
the Christians who had been slain were blessed, inasmuch as they had
been admitted to the honor of martyrdom, and had suffered in defense
of the faith. He offered free pardon [1545] to those who had slain
them, hoping that by this act of clemency they would be the more
readily induced to embrace Christianity; and he commanded the
demolition of the temples in Alexandria which had been the cause of
the popular sedition. It is said that, when this imperial edict was
read in public, the Christians uttered loud shouts of joy, because the
emperor laid the odium of what had occurred upon the pagans. The
people who were guarding the Serapion were so terrified at hearing
these shouts, that they took to flight, and the Christians immediately
obtained possession of the spot, which they have retained ever since.
I have been informed that, on the night preceding this occurrence,
Olympius heard the voice of one singing hallelujah in the Serapion.
The doors were shut and everything was still; and as he could see no
one, but could only hear the voice of the singer, he at once
understood what the sign signified; and unknown to any one he quitted
the Serapion and embarked for Italy. It is said that when the temple
was being demolished, some stones were found, on which were
hieroglyphic characters in the form of a cross, which on being
submitted to the inspection of the learned, were interpreted as
signifying the life to come. [1546] These characters led to the
conversion of several of the pagans, as did likewise other
inscriptions found in the same place, and which contained predictions
of the destruction of the temple. It was thus that the Serapion was
taken, and, a little while after, converted into a church; it received
the name of the Emperor Arcadius.
There were still pagans in many cities, who contended zealously in
behalf of their temples; as, for instance, the inhabitants of Petræa
and of Areopolis, in Arabia; of Raphi and Gaza, in Palestine; of
Heriopolis in Phoenicia; and of Apamea, on the river Axius, in Syria.
I have been informed that the inhabitants of the last-named city often
armed the men of Galilee and the peasants of Lebanon in defense of
their temples; and that at last, they even carried their audacity to
such a height, as to slay a bishop named Marcellus. This bishop had
commanded the demolition of all the temples in the city and villages,
under the supposition that it would not be easy otherwise for them to
be converted from their former religion. Having heard that there was a
very spacious temple at Aulon, a district of Apamea, he repaired
thither with a body of soldiers and gladiators. He stationed himself
at a distance from the scene of conflict, beyond the reach of the
arrows; for he was afflicted with the gout, and was unable to fight,
to pursue, or to flee. Whilst the soldiers and gladiators were engaged
in the assault against the temple, some pagans, discovering that he
was alone, hastened to the place where he was separated from the
combat; they arose suddenly and seized him, and burnt him alive. The
perpetrators of this deed were not then known, but, in course of time,
they were detected, and the sons of Marcellus determined upon avenging
his death. The council of the province, however, prohibited them from
executing this design, and declared that it was not just that the
relatives or friends of Marcellus should seek to avenge his death;
when they should rather return thanks to God for having accounted him
worthy to die in such a cause.
Footnotes
[1543] Soc. v. 15-17; Ruf. ii. H. E. ii. 21-24; Theodoret, H. E. v.
21-23; many independent points in Soz.
[1544] Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 11.
[1545] The opinion of St. Augustine (Ep. 158, ad Marcell.) is here
quoted by Valesius: "lest the sufferings of the servants of God, which
ought to be held in esteem in the Church, be defiled by the blood of
their enemies." See, also, below, the death of Marcellus of Apamea.
[1546] Ruf. H. E. ii. 29; Soc. v. 17.
Chapter XVI.--In What Manner, and from What Cause, the Functions of
the Presbyter, Appointed to Preside over the Imposition of Penance,
were abolished. Dissertation on the Mode of Imposing Penance.
Nectarius, about this period, abolished the office of the presbyter
whose duty it was to preside over the imposition of penance; and this
is the first instance of the suppression of this office in the Church.
[1547] This example was followed by the bishops of every region.
Various accounts have been given of the nature, the origin, and the
cause of the abolition of this office. I shall state my own views on
the subject. Impeccability is a Divine attribute, and belongs not to
human nature; therefore God has decreed that pardon should be extended
to the penitent, even after many transgressions. As in supplicating
for pardon, it is requisite to confess the sin, it seems probable that
the priests, from the beginning, considered it irksome to make this
confession in public, before the whole assembly of the people. They
therefore appointed a presbyter, of the utmost sanctity, and the most
undoubted prudence, to act on these occasions; the penitents went to
him, and confessed their transgressions; and it was his office to
indicate the kind of penance adapted to each sin, and then when
satisfaction had been made, to pronounce absolution. As the custom of
doing penance never gained ground among the Novatians, regulations of
this nature were of course unnecessary among them; but the custom
prevailed among all other heretics, and prevails even to the present
day. It is observed with great rigor by the Western churches, [1548]
particularly at Rome, where there is a place appropriated to the
reception of penitents, in which spot they stand and mourn until the
completion of the services, for it is not lawful for them to take part
in the mysteries; then they cast themselves, with groans and
lamentations, prostrate on the ground. The bishop conducts the
ceremony, sheds tears, and prostrates himself in like manner; and all
the people burst into tears, and groan aloud. Afterwards, the bishop
rises first from the ground, and raises up the others; he offers up
prayer on behalf of the penitents, and then dismisses them. Each of
the penitents subjects himself in private to voluntary suffering,
either by fastings, by abstaining from the bath or from divers kinds
of meats, or by other prescribed means, until a certain period
appointed by the bishop. When the time arrives, he is made free from
the consequences of his sin, and assembles at the church with the
people. The Roman priests have carefully observed this custom from the
beginning to the present time. In the church at Constantinople, a
presbyter was always appointed to preside over the penitents, until a
lady of the nobility made a deposition to the effect, that when she
resorted as a penitent to the presbyter, to fast and offer
supplications to God, and tarried for that purpose, in the church, a
rape had been committed on her person by the deacon. Great displeasure
was manifested by the people when this occurrence was made known to
them, on account of the discredit that would result to the church; and
the priests, in particular, were thereby greatly scandalized.
Nectarius, after much hesitation as to what means ought to be adopted,
deposed the deacon; and, at the advice of certain persons, who urged
the necessity of leaving each individual to examine himself before
participating in the sacred mysteries, he abolished the office of the
presbyter presiding over penance. From that period, therefore, the
performance of penance fell into disuse; and it seems to me, that
extreme laxity of principle was thus substituted for the severity and
rigor of antiquity. Under the ancient system, I think, offences were
of rarer occurrence; for people were deterred from their commission,
by the dread of confessing them, and of exposing them to the scrutiny
of a severe judge. I believe it was from similar considerations, that
the Emperor Theodosius, who was always zealous in promoting the glory
of the Church, issued a law, [1549] enacting that women should not be
admitted into the ministry, unless they had had children, and were
upwards of sixty years of age, according to the precept of the Apostle
Paul. [1550] By this law it was also decreed, that women who had
shaved their heads should be ejected from the churches; and that the
bishop by whom such women were admitted should be deposed from the
bishopric.
Footnotes
[1547] Soc. v. 19; yet Soz.'s account and setting is different.
[1548] The Western Church preserved the earlier discipline.
[1549] Cod. Theod. xvi. 2. 27.
[1550] 1 Tim. v. 9. Cf. change in Justinian, Novell. 123. 13.
Chapter XVII.--Banishment of Eunomius by Theodosius the Great.
Theophronius, his Successor; of Eutychus, and of Dorotheus, and their
Heresies; of those called Psathyrians; Division of the Arians into
Different Parties; those in Constantinople were more Limited.
Such subjects as the above, however, are best left to the decision of
individual judgment.
The emperor, about this period, condemned Eunomius to banishment.
[1551] This heretic had fixed his residence in the suburbs of
Constantinople, and held frequent churches in private houses, where he
read his own writings. He induced many to embrace his sentiments, so
that the sectarians, who were named after him, became very numerous.
He died not long after his banishment, and was interred at Dacora, his
birthplace, a village of Cappadocia, situated near Mount Argeus, in
the territory of Cæsarea. Theophronius, who was also a native of
Cappadocia, and who had been his disciple, continued to promulgate his
doctrines. Having gotten a smattering, through the writings of
Aristotle, he composed an introduction to the study of the syllogisms
in them, which he entitled "Exercises for the Mind." But he afterwards
engaged, I have understood, in many unprofitable disputations, and
soon ceased to confine himself to the doctrines of his master. But
being eager for new things, he endeavored to prove, from the terms
which are placed in the Sacred Scriptures, that though God foreknows
that which is not, and knows that which is, and remembers what has
happened, he does not always have that knowledge in the same manner
with respect to the future and present, and changes his knowledge of
the past. As this hypothesis appeared positively absurd to the
Eunomians, they excommunicated him from their church; and he
constituted himself the leader of a new sect, called, after his name,
Theophronians. Not long after, Eutychus, one of the Eunomians,
originated another sect in Constantinople, to which his own name was
given. For the question had been proposed, as to whether the Son of
God is or is not acquainted with the last hour; and for its solution,
the words of the evangelist were quoted, in which it is stated that
the day and hour are known only to the Father. [1552] Eutychus,
however, contended that this knowledge belongs also to the Son,
inasmuch as He has received all things from the Father. The Eunomian
presidents, having condemned this opinion, he seceded from communion
with them, and went to join Eunomius in his place of banishment. A
deacon, and some other individuals, who had been dispatched from
Constantinople to accuse Eutychus, and, if necessary, to oppose him in
argument, arrived first at the place of destination. When Eunomius was
made acquainted with the object of their journey, he expressed himself
in favor of the sentiments propounded by Eutychus; and, on his
arrival, prayed with him, although it was not lawful to pray with any
one who travels unprovided with letters written in sacred characters,
attesting his being in communion. Eunomius died soon after this
contention; and the Eunomian president, at Constantinople, refused to
receive Eutychus into communion; for he antagonized him from jealousy
because he was not even of clerical rank, and because he could not
answer his arguments, and did not find it possible to solve his
problems. Eutychus, therefore, separated those who had espoused his
sentiments into a personal heresy. Many assert that he and
Theophronius were the first who propounded the peculiar views
entertained by the Eunomians concerning divine baptism. The above is a
brief account of such details as I have been able to give in order to
afford a succinct knowledge of the causes which led the Eunomians to
be divided among themselves. I should be prolix were I to enter into
further particulars; and, indeed, the subject would be by no means an
easy one to me, since I have no such dialectic skill.
The following question was, in the meantime, agitated among the Arians
of Constantinople: Prior to the existence of the Son (whom they regard
as having proceeded out of nothing), is God to be termed the Father?
Dorotheus, who had been summoned from Antioch to rule over them in the
place of Marinus, was of opinion that God could not have been called
the Father prior to the existence of the Son, because the name of
Father has a necessary connection with that of Son. Marinus, on the
other hand, maintained that the Father was the Father, even when the
Son existed not; and he advanced this opinion either from conviction,
or else from the desire of contention, and from jealousy at the
preference that had been shown to Dorotheus in the Church. The Arians
were thus divided into two parties; Dorotheus and his followers
retained possession of the houses of prayer, while Marinus, and those
who seceded with him, erected new edifices in which to hold their own
churches. The name "Psathyrians" and "Goths" were given to the
partisans of Marinus; Psathyrians, because Theoctistus, a certain
cake-vender (psathuropoles ) was a zealous advocate of their opinions;
and Goths, because their sentiments were approved by Selinus, bishop
of that nation. Almost all these barbarians followed the instructions
of Selinus, and they gathered in churches with the followers of
Marinus. The Goths were drawn to Selinus particularly because he had
formerly been the secretary of Ulphilas, and had succeeded him as
bishop. He was capable of teaching in their churches, not only in the
vernacular, but also in the Greek language.
Soon after a contest for precedency arose between Marinus and Agapius,
whom Marinus himself had ordained bishop over the Arians at Ephesus;
and in the quarrel which ensued, the Goths took the part of Agapius.
It is said that many of the Arian clergy of that city were so much
irritated through the ambition displayed by these two bishops, that
they communed with the Catholic Church. Such was the origin of the
division of the Arians into two factions,--a division which still
subsists; so that, in every city, they have separate churches. The
Arians at Constantinople, however, after a separation of thirty-five
years, were reconciled to each other by Plinthas, formerly a consul,
[1553] general of the cavalry and infantry, a man possessed of great
influence at court. To prevent the revival of the former dissensions
among them, the question which had been the cause of the division was
forbidden to be mooted. And these occurrences took place later.
Footnotes
[1551] Soc. v. 20, 23, 24; Philost. x. 6. Soz. has some independent
points.
[1552] Matt. xxiv. 36.
[1553] He held the consulate with Monaxius, a.d. 419.
Chapter XVIII.--Another Heresy, that of the Sabbatians, is originated
by the Novatians. Their Synod in Sangarus. Account in Greater Detail
of the Easter Festival.
A division arose during the same reign among the Novatians [1554]
concerning the celebration of the festival of Easter, and from this
dispute originated another, called the Sabbatian. Sabbatius, who, with
Theoctistus and Macarius, had been ordained presbyter by Marcian,
adopted the opinion of the co-presbyters, who had been convened at
Pazoucoma [1555] during the reign of Valens, and maintained that the
feast of the Passover (Easter) ought to be celebrated by Christians as
by Jews. He seceded from the Church at first for the purpose of
exercising greater austerity, for he professed to adopt a very austere
mode of life. He also declared that one motive of his secession was,
that many persons who participated in the mysteries appeared to him to
be unworthy of the honor. When, however, his design of introducing
innovations was detected, Marcian expressed his regret at having
ordained him, and, it is said, was often heard to exclaim that he
would rather have laid his hands upon thorns than upon the head of
Sabbatius. Perceiving that the people of his diocese were being rent
into two factions, Marcian summoned all the bishops of his own
persuasion to Sangarus, a town of Bithynia, near the seashore, not far
from the city of Helenopolis. When they had assembled, they summoned
Sabbatius, and asked him to state the cause of his grievance; and as
he merely complained of the diversity prevailing in regard to the
feast, they suspected that he made this a pretext to disguise his love
of precedency, and made him declare upon oath that he would never
accept the episcopal office. When he had taken the required oath, all
were of the same opinion, and they voted to hold the church together,
for the difference prevailing in the celebration of the Paschal feast
ought by no means to be made an occasion for separation from
communion; and they decided that each individual should be at liberty
to observe the feast according to his own judgment. They enacted a
canon on the subject, which they styled the "Indifferent (hadiaphoros)
Canon." Such were the transactions of the assembly at Sangarus. From
that period Sabbatius adhered to the usage of the Jews; and unless all
happened to observe the feast at the same time, he fasted, according
to the custom, but in advance, and celebrated the Passover with the
usual prescriptions by himself. He passed the Saturday, from the
evening to the appointed time, in watching and in offering up the
prescribed prayers; and on the following day he assembled with the
multitude, and partook of the mysteries. This mode of observing the
feast was at first unnoticed by the people but as, in process of time,
it began to attract observation, and to become more generally known,
he found a great many imitators, particularly in Phrygia and Galatia,
to whom this celebration of the feast became a national custom.
Eventually he openly seceded from communion, and became the bishop of
those who had espoused his sentiments, as we shall have occasion to
show in the proper place.
I am, for my own part, astonished that Sabbatius and his followers
attempted to introduce this innovation. The ancient Hebrews, as is
related by Eusebius, [1556] on the testimony of Philo, Josephus,
Aristobulus, and several others, offered the sacrifices after the
vernal equinox, when the sun is in the first sign of the zodiac,
called by the Greeks the Ram, and when the moon is in the opposite
quarter of the heavens, and in the fourteenth day of her age. Even the
Novatians themselves, who have studied the subject with some accuracy,
declare that the founder of their heresy and his first disciples did
not follow this custom, which was introduced for the first time by
those who assembled at Pazoucoma; and that at old Rome the members of
this sect still observe the same practice as the Romans, who have not
deviated from their original usage in this particular, the custom
having been handed down to them by the holy apostles Peter and Paul.
Further, the Samaritans, who are scrupulous observers of the laws of
Moses, never celebrate this festival till the first-fruits have
reached maturity; they say it is, in the law, called the Feast of
First-Fruits, and before these appear, it is not lawful to observe the
feast; and, therefore, necessarily the vernal equinox must precede.
Hence arises my astonishment that those who profess to adopt the
Jewish custom in the celebration of this feast, do not conform to the
ancient practice of the Jews. With the exception of the people above
mentioned, and the Quartodecimani of Asia, all heresies, I believe,
celebrate the Passover in the same manner as the Romans and the
Egyptians. The Quartodecimani are so called because they observe this
festival, like the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon, and hence
their name. The Novatians observe the day of the resurrection. They
follow the custom of the Jews and the Quartodecimani, except when the
fourteenth day of the moon falls upon the first day of the week, in
which case they celebrate the feast so many days after the Jews, as
there are intervening days between the fourteenth day of the moon and
the following Lord's day. The Montanists, who are called Pepuzites and
Phrygians, celebrate the Passover according to a strange fashion which
they introduced. They blame those who regulate the time of observing
the feast according to the course of the moon, and affirm that it is
right to attend exclusively to the cycles of the sun. They reckon each
month to consist of thirty days, and account the day after the vernal
equinox as the first day of the year, which, according to the Roman
method of computation, would be called the ninth day before the
calends of April. It was on this day, they say, that the two great
luminaries appointed for the indication of times and of years were
created. This they prove by the fact that every eight years the sun
and the moon meet together in the same point of the heavens. The
moon's cycle of eight years is accomplished in ninety-nine months, and
in two thousand nine hundred and twenty-two days; and during that time
there are eight revolutions made by the sun, each comprising three
hundred and sixty-five days, and the fourth part of a day. For they
compute the day of the creation of the sun, mentioned in Sacred Writ,
to have been the fourteenth day of the moon, occurring after the ninth
day before the calends of the month of April, and answering to the
eighth day prior to ides of the same month. They always celebrate the
Passover on this day, when it falls on the day of the resurrection;
otherwise they celebrate it on the following Lord's day; for it is
written according to their assertion that the feast may be held on any
day between the fourteenth and twenty-first.
Footnotes
[1554] Soc. v. 21, 22. Soz. has independent material.
[1555] Pazoukome ; Soc. en Pazo kome.
[1556] Eus. H. E. vii. 32. Extracts from the canons of Anatolius.
Chapter XIX.--A List Worthy of Study, Given by the Historian, of
Customs among Different Nations and Churches.
We have now described the various usages that prevailed in the
celebration of the Passover. [1557] It appears to me that Victor,
bishop of Rome, and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, came to a very wise
decision on the controversy that had arisen between them. [1558] For
as the bishops of the West did not deem it necessary to dishonor the
tradition handed down to them by Peter and by Paul, and as, on the
other hand, the Asiatic bishops persisted in following the rules laid
down by John the evangelist, they unanimously agreed to continue in
the observance of the festival according to their respective customs,
without separation from communion with each other. They faithfully and
justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship
ought not to separate from one another on account of customs. For
exactly similar traditions on every point are to be found in all the
churches, even though they hold the same opinions. There are, for
instance, many cities in Scythia, and yet they all have but one
bishop; whereas, in other nations a bishop serves as priest even over
a village, as I have myself observed in Arabia, and in Cyprus, and
among the Novatians and Montanists of Phrygia. Again, there are even
now but seven deacons at Rome, answering precisely to the number
ordained by the apostles, of whom Stephen was the first martyr;
whereas, in other churches, the number of deacons is a matter of
indifference. At Rome hallelujah is sung once annually, namely, on the
first day of the festival of the Passover; so that it is a common
thing among the Romans to swear by the fact of hearing or singing this
hymn. In that city the people are not taught by the bishop, nor by any
one in the Church. At Alexandria the bishop of the city alone teaches
the people, and it is said that this custom has prevailed there ever
since the days of Arius, who, though but a presbyter, broached a new
doctrine. Another strange custom also prevails at Alexandria which I
have never witnessed nor heard of elsewhere, and this is, that when
the Gospel is read the bishop does not rise from his seat. The
archdeacon alone reads the Gospel in this city, whereas in some places
it is read by the deacons, and in many churches only by the priests;
while on noted days it is read by the bishops, as, for instance, at
Constantinople, on the first day of the festival of the resurrection.
[1559] In some churches the interval called Quadragesima, which occurs
before this festival, and is devoted by the people to fasting, is made
to consist of six weeks; and this is the case in Illyria and the
Western regions, in Libya, throughout Egypt, and in Palestine; whereas
it is made to comprise seven weeks at Constantinople, and in the
neighboring provinces as far as Phoenicia. In some churches the people
fast three alternate weeks, during the space of six or seven weeks,
whereas in others they fast continuously during the three weeks
immediately preceding the festival. Some people, as the Montanists,
only fast two weeks. Assemblies are not held in all churches on the
same time or manner. The people of Constantinople, and almost
everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first
day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at
Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where,
contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together
on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake
of the mysteries. The same prayers and psalms are not recited nor the
same lections read on the same occasions in all churches. Thus the
book entitled "The Apocalypse of Peter," which was considered
altogether spurious by the ancients, is still read in some of the
churches of Palestine, on the day of preparation, when the people
observe a fast in memory of the passion of the Saviour. So the work
entitled "The Apocalypse of the Apostle Paul," though unrecognized by
the ancients, is still esteemed by most of the monks. Some persons
affirm that the book was found during this reign, by Divine
revelation, in a marble box, buried beneath the soil in the house of
Paul at Tarsus in Cilicia. I have been informed that this report is
false by Cilix, a presbyter of the church in Tarsus, a man of very
advanced age, as is indicated by his gray hairs, who says that no such
occurrence is known among them, and wonders if the heretics did not
invent the story. What I have said upon this subject must now suffice.
Many other customs are still to be observed in cities and villages;
and those who have been brought up in their observance would, from
respect to the great men who instituted and perpetuated these customs,
consider it wrong to abolish them. Similar motives must be attributed
to those who observe different practices in the celebration of the
feast which has led us into this long digression.
Footnotes
[1557] Soc. v. 22. Soz. has much new matter of his own.
[1558] Eus. H. E. iv. 14 (from Irenæus). Not Victor, but Anicetus; the
conflict of Victor was with Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Eus. H. E.
v. 24.
[1559] Nicephorus (xii. 34) declares that this custom lasted down to
his own day; and that it was practiced also on the 1st of January, as
well as at Easter.
Chapter XX.--Extension of our Doctrines, and Complete Demolition of
Idolatrous Temples. Inundation of the Nile.
While the heretics were disrupted among themselves, the Catholic
Church increased more and more by many accessions from the heterodox,
on account of the dissensions among them and especially from
multitudes of pagans. [1560] The emperor having observed that the
practice of idolatry had been greatly promoted by the facility of
constant ingress and egress to and from the temple, directed the
entrances of all temples to be closed; and eventually he commanded the
demolition of many of these edifices. [1561] When the pagans found
themselves deprived of their own houses of prayer, they began to
frequent our churches; for they did not dare to offer sacrifices after
the pagan form in secret, for it was dangerous, since the sacrifice
was under the penalty of death and of confiscation of property.
It is said that the river of Egypt did not overflow its banks this
year at the proper season; and that the Egyptians angrily ascribed
this circumstance to the prohibition of sacrifices to it, according to
the ancestral law. The governor of the province, apprehensive lest the
general discontent should terminate in sedition, sent a message to the
emperor on the subject. But the emperor, far from attaching more
importance to the temporary fertility produced by the Nile, than to
the fidelity he owed to God and the interests of religion, replied as
follows: "Let that river cease to flow, if enchantments are requisite
to insure the regularity of its course; or if it delights in
sacrifices, or if blood must be mingled with the waters that derive
their source from the paradise of God." Soon afterwards, the Nile
overflowed its banks with such violence, that the highest eminences
were submerged. When it reached the farthest limit and almost had
attained the fullest measure, the water did not the less press upward,
so that the Egyptians were thrown into the contrary fear. The dread
was lest the city of Alexandria and part of Libya should be submerged.
The pagans of Alexandria, irritated at this unexpected occurrence,
exclaimed in derision at the public theatres, that the river, like an
old man or fool, could not moderate its proceedings. Many of the
Egyptians were hence induced to abandon the superstitions of their
forefathers, and embrace Christianity. These incidents are given as I
have learned them.
Footnotes
[1560] Independent Chapter. Cf. Ruf. H. E. ii. 19; Theodoret, H. E. v.
21; Zos. iv. 28, 29.
[1561] Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 12.
Chapter XXI.--Discovery of the Honored Head of the Forerunner of our
Lord, and the Events about it.
About this time the head of John the Baptist, which Herodias had asked
of Herod the tetrarch, was removed to Constantinople. [1562] It is
said that it was discovered by some monks of the Macedonian heresy,
who originally dwelt at Constantinople, and afterwards fixed their
abode in Cilicia. Mardonius, the first eunuch of the palace, made
known this discovery at court, during the preceding reign; and Valens
commanded that the relic should be removed to Constantinople. The
officers appointed to carry it thither, placed it in a public chariot,
and proceeded with it as far as Pantichium, a district in the
territory of Chalcedon. Here the mules of the chariot suddenly
stopped; and neither the application of the lash, nor the threats of
the hostlers, could induce them to advance further. So extraordinary
an event was considered by all, and even by the emperor himself, to be
of God; and the holy head was therefore deposited at Cosilaos, a
village in the neighborhood, which belonged to Mardonius. Soon after,
the Emperor Theodosius, impelled by an impulse from God, or from the
prophet, repaired to the village. He determined upon removing the
remains of the Baptist, and it is said met with no opposition, except
from a holy virgin, Matrona, who had been the servant and guardian of
the relic. He laid aside all authority and force, and after many
entreaties, extorted a reluctant consent from her to remove the head;
for she bore in mind what had occurred at the period when Valens
commanded its removal. The emperor placed it, with the box in which it
was encased, in his purple robe, and conveyed it to a place called
Hebdomos, in the suburbs of Constantinople, where he erected a
spacious and magnificent temple. The woman who had been appointed to
the charge of the relic could not be persuaded by the emperor to
renounce her religious sentiments, although he had recourse to
entreaty and promises; for she was, it appears, of the Macedonian
heresy. A presbyter of the same tendency, named Vincent, who also took
charge of the coffin of the prophet, and performed the sacerdotal
functions over it, followed the religious opinions of the emperor, and
entered into communion with the Catholic Church. He had taken an oath,
as the Macedonians affirm, never to swerve from their doctrines; but
he afterwards openly declared that, if the Baptist would follow the
emperor, he also would enter into communion with him and be separated.
He was a Persian, and had left his country in company with a relative
named Addas, during the reign of Constantius, in order to avoid the
persecution which the Christians were then suffering in Persia. On his
arrival in the Roman territories, he was placed in the ranks of the
clergy, and advanced to the office of presbyter. Addas married and
rendered great service to the Church. He left a son named Auxentius,
who was noted for his very faithful piety, his zeal for his friends,
the moderation of his life, his love of letters, and the greatness of
his attainments in pagan and ecclesiastical literature. He was modest
and retiring in deportment, although admitted to familiarity with the
emperor and the courtiers, and possessed of a very illustrious
appointment. His memory is still revered by the monks and zealous men,
who were all acquainted with him. The woman who had been entrusted
with the relic remained during the rest of her life at Cosilaos. She
was greatly distinguished by her piety and wisdom, and instructed many
holy virgins; and I have been assured that many still survive who
reflect the honorable character which was the result of training under
Matrona.
Footnotes
[1562] An independent Chapter. Cf. Philost. vii. 4; Theodoret, H. E.
iii. 7; Marcell. Chron. a.d. 453; Ruf. H. E. ii. 28.
Chapter XXII.--Death of Valentinian the Younger, Emperor in Rome,
through Strangling. The Tyrant Eugenius. Prophecy of John, the Monk of
Thebaïs.
While Theodosius was thus occupied in the wise and peaceful government
of his subjects in the East, and in the service of God, intelligence
was brought that Valentinian had been strangled. [1563] Some say that
he was put to death by the eunuchs of the bedchamber, at the
solicitation of Arbogastes, a military chief, and of certain
courtiers, who were displeased because the young prince had begun to
walk in the footsteps of his father, concerning the government, and
contrary to the opinions approved by them. Others assert, however,
that Valentinian committed the fatal deed with his own hands, because
he found himself impeded in attempting deeds which are not lawful in
one of his years; and on this account he did not deem it worth while
to live; for although an emperor, he was not allowed to do what he
wished. It is said that the boy was noble in person, and excellent in
royal manners; and that, had he lived to the age of manhood, he would
have shown himself worthy of holding the reins of empire, and would
have surpassed his father in magnanimity and justice. But though
endowed with these promising qualities, he died in the manner above
related.
A certain man named Eugenius, who was by no means sincere in his
professions of Christianity, aspired to sovereignty, and assumed the
symbols of imperial power. He was hoping to succeed in the attempt
safely; for he was led by the predictions of individuals who professed
to foresee the future, by the examination of the entrails and livers
of animals and the course of the stars. Men of the highest rank among
the Romans were addicted to these superstitions. Flavian, then a
prætorian prefect, a learned man, and one who appeared to have an
aptitude for politics, was noted for being conversant with every means
of foretelling the future. He persuaded Eugenius to take up arms by
assuring him that he was destined for the throne, that his warlike
undertakings would be crowned with victory, and that the Christian
religion would be abolished. Deceived by these flattering
representations, Eugenius raised an army and took possession of the
gates into Italy, as the Romans call the Julian Alps, an elevated and
precipitous range of mountains; these he seized beforehand and
fortified, for they had but one path in the narrows, and were shut in
on each side by precipices and the loftiest mountains. Theodosius was
perplexed as to whether he ought to await the issue of the war, or
whether it would be better in the first place to attack Eugenius; and
in this dilemma, he determined to consult John, a monk of Thebaïs,
who, as I have before stated, was celebrated for his knowledge of the
future. He therefore sent Eutropius, a eunuch of the palace, and of
tried fidelity, to Egypt, with orders to bring John, if possible, to
court; but, in case of his refusal, to learn what ought to be done.
When he came to John, the monk could not be persuaded to go to the
emperor, but he sent word by Eutropius that the war would terminate in
favor of Theodosius, and that the tyrant would be slain; but that,
after the victory, Theodosius himself would die in Italy. The truth of
both of these predictions was confirmed by events.
Footnotes
[1563] Ruf. H. E. ii. 31-33, the source; Philost. xi. 1, 2; Theodoret,
H. E. v. 24; Soc. v. 25; Zos. iv. 53, 54; Oros. vii. 35.
Chapter XXIII.--Exaction of Tribute in Antioch, and Demolition of the
Statues of the Emperor. Embassy headed by Flavian the Chief Priest.
In this time, on account of the necessities of war, it seemed best to
the officials whose concern it was, to impose more than the customary
taxes; for this reason the populace of Antioch in Syria revolted;
[1564] the statues of the emperor and empress were thrown down and
dragged by ropes through the city, and, as is usual on such occasions,
the enraged multitude uttered every insulting epithet that passion
could suggest. The emperor determined to avenge this insult by the
death of many of the citizens of Antioch; the people were struck dumb
at the mere announcement; the rage of the citizens had subsided, and
had given place to repentance; and, as if already subjected to the
threatened punishment, they abandoned themselves to groans and tears,
and supplicated God to turn away the anger of the emperor, and made
use of some threnodic hymns for their litanies. They deputed Flavian,
their bishop, to go on an embassy to Theodosius; but on his arrival,
finding that the resentment of the emperor at what had occurred was
unabated, he had recourse to the following artifice. He caused some
young men accustomed to sing at the table of the emperor to utter
these hymns with the litanies of the Antiochans. It is said that the
humanity of the emperor was excited; he was overcome by pity at once;
his wrath was subdued, and as his heart yearned over the city, he shed
tears on the cup which he held in his hand. It is reported that, on
the night before the sedition occurred, a spectre was seen in the form
of a woman of prodigious height and terrible aspect, pacing through
the streets of the city, lashing the air with an ill-sounding whip,
similar to that which is used in goading on the beasts brought forward
at the public theatres. It might have been inferred that the sedition
was excited by the agency of some evil and malicious demon. There is
no doubt but that much bloodshed would have ensued, had not the wrath
of the emperor been stayed by his respect for this sacerdotal
entreaty.
Footnotes
[1564] Soz. is again independent. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 20;
Chrysost. Homiliæ, xxi., de Statuis ad populum Antiochenum habitæ.
Chapter XXIV.--Victory of Theodosius the Emperor over Eugenius.
When he had completed his preparations for war, [1565] Theodosius
declared his younger son Honorius emperor, and leaving him to reign at
Constantinople conjointly with Arcadius, who had previously been
appointed emperor, he departed from the East to the West at the head
of his troops. His army consisted not only of Roman soldiers, but of
bands of barbarians from the banks of the Ister. It is said that when
he left Constantinople, he came to the seventh milestone, and went to
pray to God in the church which he had erected in honor of John the
Baptist; and in his name prayed that success might attend the Roman
arms, and besought the Baptist himself to aid him. After offering up
these prayers he proceeded towards Italy, crossed the Alps, and took
the first guard-posts. On descending from the heights of these
mountains, he perceived a plain before him covered with infantry and
cavalry, and became at the same time aware that some of the enemy's
troops were lying in ambush behind him, among the recesses of the
mountains. The advance guard of his army attacked the infantry
stationed in the plain, and a desperate and very doubtful conflict
ensued. Further, when the army surrounded him, he considered that he
had come into the power of men, and could not be saved even by those
who would desire to do so, since those who had been posted in his rear
were seizing the heights; he fell prone upon the earth, and prayed
with tears, and God instantly answered him; for the officers of the
troops stationed in ambush on the height sent to offer him their
services as his allies, provided that he would assign them honorable
posts in his army. As he had neither paper nor ink within reach, he
took up some tablets, and wrote on them the high and befitting
appointments he would confer upon them, provided that they would
fulfill their promise to him. Under these conditions they advanced to
the emperor. The issue did not yet incline to either side, but the
battle was still evenly balanced in the plain, when a tremendous wind
descended into the face of the enemy. It was such an one as we have
never before recorded, and broke up the ranks of the enemies. The
arrows and darts which were sent against the Romans, as if projected
by the opposing ranks, were turned upon the bodies of those who had
cast them; and their shields were wrenched from their hands, and
whirled against them with filth and dust. Standing thus exposed, in a
defenseless condition, to the weapons of the Romans, many of them
perished, while the few who attempted to effect an escape were soon
captured. Eugenius threw himself at the feet of the emperor, and
implored him to spare his life; but while in the act of offering up
these entreaties, a soldier struck off his head. Arbogastes fled after
the battle, and fell by his own hands. It is said that while the
battle was being fought, a demoniac presented himself in the temple of
God which is in the Hebdomos, where the emperor had engaged in prayer
on starting out, and insulted John the Baptist, taunting him with
having his head cut off, and shouted the following words: "You conquer
me, and lay snares for my army." The persons who happened to be on the
spot, and who were waiting impatiently to learn some news of the war,
were amazed, and wrote an account of it on the day that it occurred,
and afterwards ascertained that it was the same day as that on which
the battle had been fought. Such is the history of these transactions.
Footnotes
[1565] Soz. has his account from an independent source. Cf. Ruf. H. E.
ii. 33; Philost. xi. 2; Soc. v. 25; Theodoret, H. E. v. 24; Zos. iv.
55-58; Olymp. Fr. 19.
Chapter XXV.--Intrepid Bearing of St. Ambrose in the Presence of the
Emperor Theodosius. Massacre at Thessalonica. Narrative of the other
Righteous Deeds of this Saint.
After the death of Eugenius, the emperor went to Milan, and repaired
towards the church to pray within its walls. [1566] When he drew near
the gates of the edifice, he was met by Ambrose, the bishop of the
city, who took hold of him by his purple robe, and said to him, in the
presence of the multitude, "Stand back! a man defiled by sin, and with
hands imbrued in blood unjustly shed, is not worthy, without
repentance, to enter within these sacred precincts, or partake of the
holy mysteries." The emperor, struck with admiration at the boldness
of the bishop, began to reflect on his own conduct, and, with much
contrition, retraced his steps. The occasion of the sin was as
follows. When Buthericus was general of the troops in Illyria, a
charioteer saw him shamefully exposed at a tavern, and attempted an
outrage; he was apprehended and put in custody. Some time after, some
magnificent races were to be held at the hippodrome, and the populace
of Thessalonica demanded the release of the prisoner, considering him
necessary to the celebration of the contest. As their request was not
attended to, they rose up in sedition and finally slew Buthericus. On
hearing of this deed, the wrath of the emperor was excited
immediately, and he commanded that a certain number of the citizens
should be put to death. The city was filled with the blood of many
unjustly shed; for strangers, who had but just arrived there on their
journey to other lands, were sacrificed with the others. There were
many cases of suffering well worthy of commiseration, of which the
following is an instance. A merchant offered himself to be slain as a
substitute for his two sons who had both been selected as victims, and
promised the soldiers to give them all the gold he possessed, on
condition of their effecting the exchange. They could not but
compassionate his misfortune, and consented to take him as a
substitute for one of his sons, but declared that they did not dare to
let off both the young men, as that would render the appointed number
of the slain incomplete. The father gazed on his sons, groaning and
weeping; he could not save either from death, but he continued
hesitating until they had been put to death, being overcome by an
equal love for each. I have also been informed, that a faithful slave
voluntarily offered to die instead of his master, who was being led to
the place of execution. It appears that it was for these and other
acts of cruelty that Ambrose rebuked the emperor, forbade him to enter
the church, and excommunicated him. Theodosius publicly confessed his
sin in the church, and during the time set apart for penance,
refrained from wearing his imperial ornaments, according to the usage
of mourners. He also enacted a law [1567] prohibiting the officers
entrusted with the execution of the imperial mandates, from inflicting
the punishment of death till thirty days after the mandate had been
issued, in order that the wrath of the emperor might have time to be
appeased, and that room might be made for the exercise of mercy and
repentance.
Ambrose, no doubt, performed many other actions worthy of his priestly
office, which are known, as is likely, only to the inhabitants of the
country. Among the illustrious deeds that are attributed to him, I
have been made acquainted with the following. It was the custom of the
emperor to take a seat in assemblies of the church within the
palisades of the altar, so that he sat apart from the rest of the
people. Ambrose, considering that this custom had originated either
from subserviency or from want of discipline, caused the emperor to be
seated without the trellis work of the altar, so that he sat in front
of the people, and behind the priests. The emperor Theodosius approved
of this best tradition, as did likewise his successors; and we are
told that it has been ever since scrupulously observed.
I think it necessary to make a record of another action worthy of
mention performed by this bishop. A pagan of distinction insulted
Gratian, affirming that he was unworthy of his father; and he was in
consequence condemned to death. As he was being led out to execution,
Ambrose went to the palace to implore a pardon. Gratian was then
engaged in witnessing a private exhibition of the hunt, such as the
emperors were wont to celebrate for their private pleasure, and not
for the public pastime. On finding this to be the case, the bishop
went to the gate where they led in the beasts; he hid himself, and
entered with the hunters who took charge of the animals, and did not
intermit, although Gratian and his attendants resisted, till he had
obtained an immediate and saving consent of the emperor, which
released the man who was to be led out to death. Ambrose was very
diligent in the observance of the laws of the Church, and in
maintaining discipline among his clergy. I have selected the above two
incidents from among the records of his numerous magnanimous deeds, in
order to show with what intrepidity he addressed those in power when
the service of God was in question.
Footnotes
[1566] An independent Chapter. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 17, 18; Ruf. H.
E. ii. 18; Ambrose, Epp. Cl. i. 51.
[1567] Not extant.
Chapter XXVI.--St. Donatus, Bishop of Euroea, and Theotimus,
High-Priest of Scythia.
There were at this period many other bishops [1568] in various parts
of the empire highly celebrated for their sanctity and high
qualifications, of whom Donatus, bishop of Euroea [1569] in Epirus,
deserves to be particularly instanced. The inhabitants of the country
relate many extraordinary miracles which he performed, of which the
most celebrated seems to have been the destruction of a dragon of
enormous size. It had stationed itself on the high road, at a place
called Chamægephyræ and devoured sheep, goats, oxen, horses, and men.
Donatus came upon this beast, attacked it unarmed, without sword,
lance, or javelin; it raised its head, and was about to dash upon him,
when Donatus made the sign of the cross with his finger in the air,
and spat upon the dragon. The saliva entered its mouth, and it
immediately expired. As it lay extended on the earth it did not appear
inferior in size to the noted serpents of India. I have been informed
that the people of the country yoked eight pair of oxen to transport
the body to a neighboring field, where they burnt it, that it might
not during the process of decomposition corrupt the air and generate
disease. The tomb of this bishop is deposited in a magnificent house
of prayer which bears his name. It is situated near a fountain of many
waters, which God caused to rise from the ground in answer to his
prayer, in an arid spot where no water had previously existed. For it
is said that one day, when on a journey, he had to pass through this
locality; and, perceiving that his companions were suffering from
thirst, he moved the soil with his hands and engaged in prayer; before
his prayer was concluded, a spring of water arose from the ground,
which has never since been dried up. The inhabitants of Isoria, a
village in the territory of Euroea, bear testimony to the truth of
this narration.
The church of Tomi, and indeed all the churches of Scythia, were at
this period under the government of Theotimus, a Scythian. He had been
brought up in the practice of philosophy; and his virtues had so won
the admiration of the barbarian Huns, who dwelt on the banks of the
Ister, that they called him the god of the Romans, for they had
experience of divine deeds wrought by him. It is said that one day,
when traveling toward the country of the barbarians, he perceived some
of them advancing towards Tomi. His attendants burst forth into
lamentations, and gave themselves up at once for lost; but he merely
descended from horseback, and prayed. The consequence was, that the
barbarians passed by without seeing him, his attendants, or the horses
from which they had dismounted. As these tribes frequently devastated
Scythia by their predatory incursions, he tried to subdue the ferocity
of their disposition by presenting them with food and gifts. One of
the barbarians hence concluded that he was a man of wealth, and,
determining to take him prisoner, leaned upon his shield, as was his
custom when parleying with his enemies; the man raised up his right
hand in order to throw a rope, which he firmly grasped, over the
bishop, for he intended to drag him away to his own country; but in
the attempt, his hand remained extended in the air, and the barbarian
was not released from his terrible bonds until his companions had
implored Theotimus to intercede with God in his behalf.
It is said that Theotimus always retained the long hair which he wore
when he first devoted himself to the practice of philosophy. He was
very temperate, had no stated hours for his repasts, but ate and drank
when compelled to do so by the calls of hunger and of thirst. I
consider it to be the part of a philosopher to yield to the demands of
these appetites from necessity, and not from the love of sensual
gratification.
Footnotes
[1568] An independent Chapter from a Greek life of Donatus, which was
probably incorporated in Anastasius' translation. A Greek biography of
Theotimus was not unlikely the basis of the account of the bishop of
Tomi.
[1569] Also Euoria.
Chapter XXVII.--St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, and a Particular
Account of his Acts.
Epiphanius was at this period at the head of the metropolitan church
of Cyprus. [1570] He was celebrated, not only for the virtues he
manifested and miraculous deeds during his life, but also for the
honor that was rendered to him by God after his death; for it was said
that demons were expelled, and diseases healed at his tomb. Many
wonderful actions wrought while he lived are attributed to him, of
which the following is one of the most remarkable that has come to our
knowledge. He was extremely liberal towards the needy, either to those
who had suffered from shipwreck or any other calamity; and after
expending the whole of his own patrimony in the relief of such cases,
he applied the treasures of the church to the same purpose. These
treasures had been greatly increased by the donations of pious men of
various provinces, who had been induced by their admiration of
Epiphanius to entrust him with the distribution of their alms during
their lives, or to bequeath their property to him for this purpose at
their death. It is said that on one occasion the treasurer, who was a
godly man, discovered that the revenues of the church had been nearly
drained, and so little remained in the treasury that he considered it
his duty to rebuke the bishop as a spendthrift. Epiphanius, however,
having, notwithstanding these remonstrances, given away the small sum
that had remained, a stranger went to the little house where the
treasurer lived, and placed in his hands a bag containing many gold
coins. Since neither the giver nor the sender was visible, it seemed
very naturally miraculous, that in a gift of so much money a man
should keep himself unknown; thus everybody thought it to be a Divine
work.
I desire also to relate another miracle that is attributed to
Epiphanius. I have heard that a similar action has been related of
Gregory, who formerly governed Neocæsarea; and I see no reason to
doubt the veracity of the account; but it does not disprove the
authenticity of the miracle attributed to Epiphanius. Peter, the
apostle, was not the only man who raised another from the dead; John,
the evangelist, wrought a similar miracle at Ephesus; as did likewise
the daughters of Philip at Hierapolis. Similar actions have been
performed in different ages by the men of God. The miracle which I
wish to instance is the following. Two beggars having ascertained when
Epiphanius would pass that way, agreed to extract a larger donation
than usual from him by having recourse to stratagem. As soon as the
bishop was seen approaching, one of the beggars flung himself on the
ground and simulated death; the other stood by and uttered loud
lamentations, deploring the loss of his companion, and his own
poverty, which made him unable to procure sepulture for him.
Epiphanius prayed to God that the deceased might rise in peace; he
gave the survivor sufficient money for the interment, and said to the
weeper, "Take measures, my son, for the burial of your companion, and
weep no more; he cannot now arise from the dead; the calamity was
inevitable, therefore you ought to bear it with resignation." Saying
these words, the bishop departed from the spot. As soon as there was
no one in sight, the beggar who had addressed Epiphanius touched the
other with his foot, as he lay extended on the ground, and said to
him, "You have well performed your part; arise now, for through your
labor, we have a good provision for to-day." He, however, lay in the
same way, neither heard any cry, nor perceived him who moved him with
all his strength; the other beggar ran after the priest and confessed
their artifice, and, with lamentations and tearing of his hair, he
besought Epiphanius to restore his companion. Epiphanius merely
exhorted him to submit with patience to the catastrophe, and sent him
away. God did not undo what had happened, because, I feel persuaded,
it was his design to show that those who practice deception on his
servants are accounted as guilty of the fraud as if it had been
perpetrated against Him who sees all, and who hears all.
Footnotes
[1570] Independent Chapter. Cf. life by alleged Polybius.
Chapter XXVIII.--Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, Zeno, and Ajax, Men
Distinguished and Renowned for Virtue.
The following details are also the results of inquiry. [1571] Acacius
[1572] was conspicuous among the bishops; he had already previously
administered the episcopate of Beroea in Syria. There are of course
many actions of his, which are worthy of record. He was from his youth
brought up to the profession of ascetic monasticism, and was rigid in
observing all the regulations of this mode of life. When he was raised
to the bishopric, he gave this evidence of greatest virtue, in that he
kept the episcopal residence open at all hours of the day, so that the
citizens and strangers were always free to visit him, even when he was
at meals or at repose. This course of conduct is, in my opinion, very
admirable; for either he was living in such a way as to be always sure
of himself, or he devised this as a means of preparation against the
evil in one's nature, so that in expecting to be caught by the sudden
entrance of persons, it would be necessary for him to be on continuous
guard, not to err in his duties, but rather to be engaged in
covenanted acts.
Zeno and Ajax, [1573] two celebrated brothers, flourished about the
same period. They devoted themselves to a life of philosophy, but did
not fix their abode as hermits in the desert, but at Gaza, a maritime
city, which was also called Majuma. They both defended the truth of
their religion with greatest fidelity, and confessed God with courage,
so that they were frequently subjected to very cruel and harsh
treatment by the pagans. It is said that Ajax married a very lovely
woman, and after he had known her thrice in all that time, had three
sons; and that subsequently he held no further intercourse with her,
but persevered in the exercises of monasticism. He brought up two of
his sons to the divine life and celibacy, and the third he permitted
to marry. He governed the church of Botolium with propriety and
distinction.
Zeno, who had from his youth renounced the world and marriage,
persevered in steadfast adherence to the service of God. It is said,
and I myself am witness of the truth of the assertion, that when he
was bishop of the church in Majuma, he was never absent at morning or
evening hymns, or any other worship of God, unless attacked by some
malady; and yet he was at this period an old man, being nearly a
hundred years of age. He continued his course of life in the monastic
philosophy, but, by pursuing his trade of weaving linen, continued to
earn the means of supplying his own wants and of providing for others.
He never deviated from this course of conduct till the close of his
life, although he exceeded all the other priests of that province in
age; and although he presided over the people and property of the
largest church.
I have mentioned these as examples of those who served as priests at
this period. It would be a task to enumerate all where the main part
of them were good, and God bore testimony to their lives by readily
hearing their prayers and by working many miracles.
Footnotes
[1571] Also independent.
[1572] Acacius, Soc. vi. 18; and Theodoret, H. E. v. 4, 8.
[1573] Cf. v. 9.
Chapter XXIX.--Discovery of the Remains of the Prophets Habakkuk and
Micah. Death of the Emperor Theodosius the Great.
While the Church everywhere was under the sway of these eminent men,
the clergy and people were excited to the imitation of their virtue
and zeal. Nor was the Church of this era distinguished only by these
illustrious examples of piety; for the relics of the proto-prophets,
[1574] Habakkuk, and a little while after, Micah, were brought to
light about this time. As I understand, God made known the place where
both these bodies were deposited by a divine vision in a dream to
Zebennus, who was then acting as bishop of the church of
Eleutheropolis. The relics of Habakkuk were found at Cela, a city
formerly called Ceila. The tomb of Micah was discovered at a distance
of ten stadia from Cela, at a place called Berathsatia. [1575] This
tomb was ignorantly styled by the people of the country, "the tomb of
the faithful"; or, in their native language, Nephsameemana. These
events, which occurred during the reign of Theodosius, were sufficient
for the good repute of the Christian religion.
After conquering Eugenius, [1576] Theodosius the emperor remained for
some time at Milan, and here he was attacked with a serious malady. He
recalled to mind the prediction of the monk, John, and conjectured
that his sickness was unto death. He sent in haste for his son
Honorius from Constantinople; and on seeing him by, he seemed to be
easier, so that he was able to be present at the sports of the
Hippodrome. After dinner, however, he suddenly grew worse, and sent to
desire his son to preside at the spectacle. He died on the following
night. This event happened during the consulate of the brothers
Olybrius and Probianus. [1577]
Footnotes
[1574] First part independent.
[1575] Or simply Bera.
[1576] Soc. v. 26; Ruf. H. E. ii. 34; Theodoret, H. E. v. 25; Philost.
xi. 2; Zos. iv. 59. For a different view of the private life of
Theodosius, see Eunap. Fragm. ii. 42, 49; Philost. xi. 2; Zos. iv. 33,
44.
[1577] a.d. 395. Idat. Descr. Coss.; Marcel. Com. chron.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlychv.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html