__________________________________________________________________ Title: NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical Writings Creator(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892 Rights: Public Domain CCEL Subjects: All; Proofed; Early Church; LC Call no: BR60 LC Subjects: Christianity Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc. __________________________________________________________________ A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I-VII. UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. AND HENRY WACE, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON. VOLUME III THEODORET, JEROME, GENNADIUS, AND RUFINUS: HISTORICAL WRITINGS T&T CLARK EDINBURGH __________________________________________________ WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN __________________________________________________________________ Preface. ------------------------ This volume contains the following works: I. Theodoret: Church History, Dialogues, and Letters. Translated, with ample Prolegomena and explanatory notes, by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A., Rector of St. Bartholomew's, Cripplegate, London. II. Jerome and Gennadius: Lives of Illustrious Men. Translated, with introduction and notes, by Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.D., Librarian of Princeton College. III. Rufinus: Apology against Jerome, and Jerome: Apology in reply to Rufinus; Rufinus: Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, and Prefaces to his translations of the Clementine Recognitions, the Sayings of Xystus, Eusebius's Church History, and several of Origen's works; translated, with notes, and an introduction on the Life and Works of Rufinus by the Hon. and Rev. Wm. Henry Fremantle, M.A., Canon of Canterbury. The English reader has now, in the first three volumes of this Library, a complete collection of the historical writings of the Fathers, whose permanent value, as sources, is universally acknowledged. Several of them have never before appeared in English. The unavoidable delay in the publication of the third volume has been very annoying to the general editors and publishers, but the subscribers will be amply compensated by the addition of the writings of Rufinus, which were not promised in the prospectus. It is encouraging that this difficult and costly enterprise is beginning to be duly appreciated by competent judges on both sides of the Atlantic. It is especially gratifying to read from a thorough patristic scholar of the Anglican Church such a hearty commendation of the first volume (the work of two young American divines), as appeared in "The Church Quarterly Review" for April, 1892. We share in his hope (p. 125) that the labors of Dr. McGiffert and Dr. Richardson will stimulate a new and critical edition of all the historical works of Eusebius, after the model set by Bishop Lightfoot in his Apostolic Fathers, and that one of the English University Presses will consider it an honor to undertake the expense of publication. Philip Schaff. New York, July 12, 1892. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ The ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, Dialogues, and Letters OF theodoret. Translated with Notes by The rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A. Vicar of St. Bartholomew's, Moor Lane, and Fellow of King's College, London. __________________________________________________________________ Translator's Preface. ------------------------ The following translation has been made from the edition published in Migne's Patrologia. The plan originally proposed was, in the case of the History, to make a revision of an existing translation. This was, however, after a brief trial, abandoned, and the translation has throughout been made entirely fresh. The Letters, so far as the translator is aware, have never been published in English before. The notes indicate with sufficient clearness to whom he is indebted for such elucidation of the text as he may have been enabled to furnish. Conscious of its imperfections, and not confident that revision can have removed all blemishes and errors, he yet puts forth this English version of the History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, in the hope that he may not have done great injustice to their holy and learned author. London, July, 1892. Pros ton chratounton esmen -- AEschylus. __________________________________________________________________ Chronological Tables to accompany the History and Life of Theodoret. ------------------------ 323. Defeat and relegation of Licinius. Theod. i. 1; Soc. i. 4; Soz. i. 8; Eus. x. 9. 324. Execution of Licinius. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, Silvester of Rome, and Alexander of Alexandria. Theod. i. 2; Soc. i. 9; Soz. i. 2. Colluthus condemned at Alexandria. Theod. i. 3 325. 20th year of Constantine I. COUNCIL OF NICAEA (May 20-Aug. 25). Theod. i. 6; Soc. i. 8; Soz. i. 17. Birth of Gallus (Caesar). Theod. iii. 1 Birth of Gregory of Nazianzus. Eustathius of Beroea elected bishop of Antioch. Theod. i. 3; Soz. i. 2. Constantine writes a letter ordering the building and reparation of churches. Theod. i. 14 Also a letter to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Theod. i. 16; Soc. i. 9. 326. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, died in January (perhaps April), and Athanasius succeeds, probably on June 8th. The Festal Index gives 328. Theod. i. 25; Soc. i. 15; Soz. ii. 17. 327. ? Consecration of Frumentius to the Abyssinian bishopric. Theod. i. 22; Soc. i. 19; Soz. ii. 24. 328. Arian Council of Antioch, and deposition of Eustathius: but the date is much controverted. Possibly 330 or 331. Theod. i. 20; Soc. i. 24; Soz. ii. 19. 329. Incident of Ischyras and Macarius. Theod. ii. 6; Soc. i. 27. Birth of Basil of Caesarea, "the Great." 330. Byzantium dedicated as Constantinople, May 11th. cf. Theod. i. 18; Soc. i. 16; Soz. i. 3. 331. Birth of Julian. Perhaps the deposition of Eustathius. 333. Constantine's letter to Sapor II. Theod. i. 24 335. Division of the empire between Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, sons, and Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, nephews, of the emperor. Dedication of the Great Church at Jerusalem. Theod. i. 29; Soc. i. 28; Soz. ii. 26. Anthony summoned to Alexandria. Theod. iv. 24 Councils of Tyre and Jerusalem; first exile of Athanasius. Theod. i. 28-29; Soc. i. 28; Soz. ii. 25. 336. Athanasius at Treves. Theod. i. 29; Soc. i. 35; Soz. ii. 28. Death of Arius. Theod. i. 13; Soc. i. 38; Soz. ii. 29. Death (? Clinton gives 340) of Alexander of Constantinople. Theod. i. 19. 337. Death of Constantine I. Whitsunday. Theod. i. 30; Soc. i. 39; Soz. ii. 34. 338. Athanasius' restoration recommended by Constantine II. Theod. ii. 1; Soc. ii. 3; Soz. iii. 2. 340. Constantine II. defeated and slain near Aquileia. Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 5; Soz. iii. 2. Constantius at war with Persia. Death of Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian. Paul and Eusebius of Nicomedia rivals at Constantinople. Theod. i. 19; Soc. ii. 7; Soz. iii. 4. Athanasius withdraws to Rome. Gregory at Alexandria. Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 11; Soz. iii. 6. Arian Synod of the Dedication of the Great Church at Antioch, commonly dated 341. Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 10; Soz. iii. 5. 342. Constantius orders expulsion of Paul from Constantinople. Theod. ii. 4; Soc. ii. 7; Soz. iii. 4. 343. Persecution in Persia. 343-4 or 347. (See note on p. 67.) Council of Sardica. Theod. ii. 6; Soc. ii. 14; Soz. iii. 11. Athanasius received at Milan by Constans. 345. Murder of Gregory. Theod. ii. 9. 345 or 346. Deposition of Stephen of Antioch. Theod. ii. 8; Soc. ii. 26; Soz. iii. 20. Return of Athanasius, October 21. Theod. ii. 3; Soc. ii. 33; Soz. iii. 70. 347. Birth of John Chrysostom. 349. Council at Jerusalem (Mansi. ii. 171 u.), under bp. Maximus, in favour of Athanasius. 1st Council of Sirmium. 350. Revolt of Magnentius. Theod. ii. 12; Soc. ii. 25. Constans killed February 27. Theod. ii. 9; Soc. ii. 25; Soz. iv. 1. 351. Constantius, sole emperor, defeats Magnentius at Mursa. 2nd Council of Sirmium. 352. Liberius succeeds Julius in the See of Rome Theod. ii. 12. Paul of Constantinople strangled. Theod. ii. 4; Soc. ii. 26; Soz. iv. 2. 353. Suicide of Magnentius. 355. Council of Milan. Theod. ii. 12; Soc. ii. 36; Soz. iv. 9. 356. Intrusion of George at Alexandria. Theod. ii. 10; Soc. ii. 14; Soz. iv. 30. 357. Deposition of Cyril of Jerusalem by Acacius. Theod. ii. 22; Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 25. 3rd Council of Sirmium. 358. Return of Liberius. Theod. ii. 14; Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 15. 359. Synod of the Isaurian Seleucia. Theod. ii. 22; Soc. ii. 39; Soz. iv. 22. Birth of Gratianus. Council of Ariminum. Theod. ii. 15; Soc. ii. 37; Soz. iv. 17. 360. Synod of Nica. Theod. ii. 16. 3rd Council of Constantinople. (Semi Arian.) 361. Nov. 3 Death of Constantius. Accession of Julian. Theod. iii. 1; Soc. ii. 47; Soz. v. 1. 362. Murder of George of Alexandria. Athanasius returns Feb. 22, but goes into 4th exile in October. Theod. iii. 5; Soc. iii. 4; Soz. vi. 6. 363. Julian's baffled attempt to rebuild the Temple Theod. iii. 15; Soc. iii. 70; Soz. v. 22. Julian's Persian expedition and death, June 26. Theod. iii. 20; Soc. iii. 17; Soz. vi. 1. Accession of Jovian, June 27 364. Death of Jovian. Theod. iv. 4; Soc. iii. 26; Soz. vi. 3. Accession of Valentinian. Valens Augustus. 366. Liberius, bp. of Rome, dies and is succeeded by Damasus. Theod. ii. 17; Soc. iv. 29; Soz. vi. 23. 367. Gratianus, son of Valentinian, declared Augustus. aet. s.8. Theod. v. 1. 5th exile of Athanasius. 370. Basil becomes bishop of Caesarea. Theod. iv. 16; Soc. iv. 26; Soz. vi. 16. 372. Gregory of Nazianzus becomes bishop of Sasima. Theod. v. 7; Soc. iv. 26; Soz. vi. 17. 373. Death of Athanasius, May 2. Theod. iv. 17; Soc. iv. 20; Soz. vi. 19. Death of Ephraim Syrus, June 19. Theod. iv. 26; Soc. iii. 16. 374. Auxentius of Milan dies. Theod. iv. 5; Soc. iv. 30; Soz. i. 24. Ambrose archbishop of Milan. Theod. iv. 6. 375. Gratian emperor of the West. Theod. v. 1; Soc. iv. 31; Soz. vi. 36. 378. Death of Valens. Theod. iv. 32; Soc. iv. 37; Soz. vi. 40. 379. Theodosius named Augustus, Jan. 19. Theod. v. 5; Soc. v. 2; Soz. vii. 2. Gregory of Nazianzus at Constantinople. Theod. v. 8; Soc. v. 6; Soz. vii. 7. 381. Council of Constantinople Theod. v. 8; Soc. v. 8; Soz. vii. 7. 383. Death of Gratian. Rebellion of Maximus. Theod. v. 12; Soc. v. 11; Soz. vii. 13. 386. Birth of Theodoret, according to the less probable date of Garnerius. 387. Sedition at Antioch. Theod. v. 19; Soc. v. 15; Soz. vii. 23. 388. Defeat and death of Maximus. Death of Cyril of Jerusalem. 390. Destruction of the Serapeum. Theod. v. 22; Soc. v. 16; Soz. vii. 15. Massacre at Thessalonica. Theod. v. 17. Death of Gregory of Nazianzus. 392. Death of Valentinian II. Eugenius set up as Emperor. Theod. v. 24. 393. Birth of Theodoret, according to the more probable date of Tillemont. 394. Theodosius defeats Eugenius. Theod. v. 24; Soc. v. 25; Soz. vii. 24. 395. Death of Theodosius. Accession of Honorius and Arcadius. Theod. v. 25; Soc. v. 26; Soz. vii. 25. 398. John Chrysostom becomes bishop of Constantinople. Theod. v. 27; Soc. vi. 2; Soz. viii. 2. 400. Revolt of Gainas. cf. Theod. v. 33; Soc. vi. 6; Soz. viii. 4. 401. Roman legions withdrawn from Britain. 403. Synod of the "the Oak." Theod. v. 34; Soc. vi. 15; Soz. viii. 19. 404. Death of the empress Eudoxia. Chrysostom ordered to quit Constantinople. Theod. v. 34; Soc. vi. 18; Soz. viii. 24. 407. Death of Chrysostom. Theod. v. 34. 408. Death of Arcadius. Accession of Theodosius II. Theod. v. 36. 410. Sack of Rome by Alaric. 412. Cyril becomes patriarch of Alexandria. Theod. v. 35. 415. Murder of Hypatia at Alexandria. Theodoret loses his parents and retires to Nicerte. Theod. Epp. CXIII, CXIX. 418. Council of Carthage. 423. Death of Honorius. Theodoret becomes bishop of Cyrus. 425. Accession of Valentinian III. 428. Nestorius becomes bishop of Constantinople. Vandals in Africa. Theod. Epp. XXIX-XXXVI. 429. Death of Theodotus, patriarch of Antioch, fixed by Theodoretus as the term of his History. Theod. v. 39. 430. Letters of Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch on the Western condemnation of Nestorius. Death of St. Augustine. 431. Council of Ephesus. (3rd general.) 432. Council of Orientals at Beroea. (St. Patrick's mission.) 433. Peace between Cyril and the Orientals. 434 (c). Friendly correspondence between Theod. and Cyril. Theod. Ep. LXXXIII. 438. Translation of the relics of Chrysostom to Constantinople. Theod. v. 36; Soc. vii. 45. Cyril denounces Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia: renewal of hostilities with Theodoret. 440. Accession of Isdigerdes II., the last event referred to in the Ecc. History. Theod. v. 38. 444. Death of Cyril of Alexandria. Theod. Ep. CLXXX. Accession of Dioscorus. 446 (c). Composition of the "Dialogues." 448. Dioscorus deposes Irenaeus of Tyre. 449. (March 30.) Edict confining Theodoret within the limits of his diocese. (Aug.) Assembly of the "Latrocinium" at Ephesus. 450. (July 29.) Death of Theodosius II. Accession of Pulcheria and Marcian. 451. Council of Chalcedon. (4th general.) 453. Death of Theodoret, according to Tillemont. 458. Probable date of the death, according to Garnerius. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Prolegomena. ------------------------ The Life and Writings of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus. ------------------------ I.--Parentage, Birth, and Education. At Antioch at the close of the fourth century there were living a husband and wife, opulent and happy in the enjoyment of all the good things of this life, one thing only excepted. They were childless. Married at seventeen, the young bride lived for several years in the enjoyment of such pleasures as wealth and society could give. At the age of twenty-three she was attacked by a painful disease in one of her eyes, for which neither the books of older authorities nor later physiological discoveries could suggest a remedy. One of her domestic servants, compassionating her distress, informed her that the wife of Pergamius, at that time in authority in the East, had been healed of a similar ailment by Petrus, a famous Galatian solitary who was then living in the upper story of a tomb in the neighbourhood, to which access could only be obtained by climbing a ladder. The afflicted lady, says the story which her son himself repeats, [1] hastened to climb to the recluse's latticed cell, arrayed in all her customary elaborate costume, with earrings, necklaces, and the rest of her ornaments of gold, her silk robe blazing with embroidery, her face smeared with red and white cosmetics, and her eyebrows and eyelids artificially darkened. "Tell me," said the hermit, on beholding his brilliant visitor, "tell me, my child, if some skilful painter were to paint a portrait according to his art's strict rules and offer it for exhibition, and then up were to come some dauber dashing off his pictures on the spur of the moment, who should find fault with the artistic picture, lengthen the lines of brows and lids, make the face whiter and heighten the red of the cheeks, what would you say? Do you not think the original painter would be hurt at this insult to his art and these needless additions of an unskilled hand." These arguments, we learn, led eventually to the improvement of the young Antiochene gentlewoman both in piety and good taste and her eye is said to have been restored to health by the imposition of the sign of the cross. Not impossibly the discontinuance of the use of cosmetics may have helped, if not caused, the cure. Six years longer the husband and wife lived together a more religious life, but still unblessed with children. Among the ascetic solitaries whom the disappointed husband begged to aid him in his prayers was one Macedonius, distinguished, from the simplicity of his diet, as "the barley eater." In answer to his prayers, it was believed, a son was at last granted to the pious pair. [2] The condition of the boon being that the boy should be devoted to the divine service, he was appropriately named at his birth "Theodoretus," or "Given by God." [3] Of the exact date of this birth, productive of such important consequences to the history and literature of the Church, no precise knowledge is attainable. The less probable year is 386 as given by Garnerius, [4] the more probable and now generally accepted year 393 follows the computation of Tillemont. [5] While yet in his swaddling bands the little Theodoret began to receive training appropriate to his high career, [6] and, as he himself tells us, with the pardonable exaggeration of enthusiasm, was no sooner weaned than he began to learn the apostolic teaching. Among his earliest impressions were the lessons and exhortations of Peter of Galatia, to whom his mother owed so much, and of Macedonius "the barley eater," who had helped to save the Antiochenes in the troubles that arose about the statues. [7] Of the latter [8] Theodoret quotes the earnest charges to a holy life, and in his modesty expresses his sorrow that he had not profited better by the solitary's solemn entreaties. If however Macedonius was indeed quite ignorant of the Scriptures, [9] it may have been well for the boy's education to have been not wholly in his hands. It is not impossible that he may have had a childish recollection of Chrysostom, who left Antioch in 398. To Peter he used to pay a weekly visit, and records [10] how the holy man would take him on his knees and feed him with bread and raisins. A treasure long preserved in the household of Theodoret's parents was half Peter's girdle, woven of coarse linen, which the old man had one day wound round the loins of the boy. Frequently proved an unfailing remedy in various cases of family ailment, its very reputation led to its loss, for all the neighbours used to borrow it to cure their own complaints, and at last an unkind or careless friend omitted to return it. [11] When a stripling Theodoret was blessed by the right hand of Aphraates the monk, of whom he relates an anecdote in his Ecclesiastical History, [12] and when his beard was just beginning to grow was also blessed by the ascetic Zeno. [13] At this period he was already a lector [14] and was therefore probably past the age of eighteen. By this time his general education would be regarded as more or less complete, and to these earlier years may be traced the acquaintance which he shows with the writings of Homer, Thucydides, Plato, Euripides, and other Greek classics. Lighter literature, too, will not have been excluded from his reading, if we accept the genuineness of the famous letter on the death of Cyril, [15] and may infer that the dialogues of Lucian are more likely to have amused the leisure hours of a lad at school and college than have intruded on the genuine piety and marvellous industry of the Bishop of Cyrus. Theodoret was familiar with Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew, but is said to have been unacquainted with Latin. [16] Such I presume to be an inference from a passage in one of his works [17] in which he tells us "The Romans indeed had poets, orators, and historians, and we are informed by those who are skilled in both languages that their reasonings are closer than the Greeks` and their sentences more concise. In saying this I have not the least intention of disparaging the Greek language which is in a sense mine, [18] or of making an ungrateful return to it for my education, but I speak that I may to some extent close the lips and lower the brows of those who make too big a boasting about it, and may teach them not to ridicule a language which is illuminated by the truth.' But it is not clear from these words that Theodoret had no acquaintance with Latin. His admiration for orthodox Western theology as well as his natural literary and social curiosity would lead him to learn it. In the Ecclesiastical History (III. 16) there is a possible reference to Horace. Theodoret's chief instructor in Theology was the great light of the school of Antioch, Theodorus, known from the name of the see to which he was appointed in 392, "Mopsuestia," or "the hearth of Mopsus," in Cilicia Secunda. He also refers to his obligations to Diodorus of Tarsus. [19] Accepting 393 as the date of his birth and 392 as that of Theodore's appointment to his see, it would seem that the younger theologian must have been rather a reader than a hearer as well of Theodore as of Diodore. But Theodore expounded Scripture in many churches of the East. [20] The friendship of Theodoret for Nestorius may have begun when the latter was a monk in the convent of St. Euprepius at the gates of Antioch. It is recorded [21] that on one occasion Theodore gave offence while preaching at Antioch by refusing to give to the blessed Virgin the title theotokos. He afterwards retracted this refusal for the sake of peace. The original objection and subsequent consent have a curious significance in view of the subsequent careers of his two famous pupils. Of the school of Antioch as distinguished from that of Alexandria it may be said broadly that while the latter shewed a tendency to syntheticism and to unity of conception, the former, under the influence of the Aristotelian philosophy, favoured analytic processes. [22] And while the general bent of the school of thinkers among whom Theodoret was brought up inclined to a recognition of a distinction between the two natures in the Person of Christ, there was much in the special teaching of its great living authority which was not unlikely to lead to such division of the Person as was afterwards attributed to Nestorius. [23] Such were the influences under which Theodoret grew up. On the death of his parents he at once distributed all the property that he inherited from them, and embraced a life of poverty, [24] retiring, at about the age of three and twenty, to Nicerte, a village three miles from Apamea, and seventy-five from Antioch, in the monastery of which he passed seven calm and happy years, occasionally visiting neighbouring monasteries and perhaps during this period paying the visit to Jerusalem which left an indelible impression on his memory. "With my own eyes," he writes, [25] "I have seen that desolation. The prediction rang in my ears when I saw the fulfillment before my eyes and I lauded and worshipped the truth." Of the peace of Theodoret's earlier manhood Dr. Newman [26] says in a sentence less open to criticism than another which shall be quoted further on, "There he laid deep within him that foundation of faith and devotion, and obtained that vivid apprehension of the world unseen and future which lasted him as a secret spring of spiritual strength all through the conflict and sufferings of the years that followed." __________________________________________________________________ [1] Relig. Hist. 1188 et seq. [2] Relig. Hist. 1214. [3] The Hebrew equivalents of this very general designation are Nathaniel and Matthew. Modern English custom has travelled back to the Greek for its Theodore, Theodora, but Dieudonne and Diodati are familiar in French and Italian. [4] Garnier the French Jesuit Father, was born in Paris in 1612, and died in 1681. His "Auctarium Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis," with dissertations, was published in 1684. [5] According to this reckoning Theodoret would be fifty-six at the time of the letter to Leo, written 449, in which he speaks of his old age, and about thirty at his consecration as bishop in 423. W. Moeller in Herzog's Encyclopedia of Prot. Theol. (Ed. 1885. xv. 402) gives 390. [6] Ep. LXXXI. [7] Ecc. Hist. v. 19. p. 146. [8] Relig. Hist. 1215. [9] cf. Ecc. Hist. p. 146. [10] Relig. Hist. 1188. [11] The confidence of Theodoret in the wonder working powers of half Peter's girdle may be taken as a crucial instance of what detractors of the individual and of the age would call his foolish credulity. But an unsound process of reasoning from post hoc to propter hoc is not confined to any particular period, and it is not impossible that the scientists of the thirty-fourth century may smile benevolently at some of the cherished remedies of the nineteenth. [12] Cf. p. 127. [13] Relig. Hist. 1203. [14] Vide n. p. 34. [15] Vide p. 346. To what is said there may be added the following remarks from Dr. Salmon's "Infallibility of the Church," p. 303, n. "The letter from which these passages are taken was read as Theodoret's at the fifth General Council (fifth Session) and there accepted as his. But on questions of this kind Councils are not infallible; and the letter contains a note of spuriousness in purporting to be addressed to John, bishop of Antioch, who died before Cyril. I own that the suggestion that for `John' we ought to read `Domnus' does not suffice to remove suspicion from my mind. But it is solely for the reason just stated that I feel no confidence in accepting the letter as Theodoret's. Newman's opinion that it is incredible Theodoret could have written so `atrocious' a letter is one which it is amazing should be held by any one familiar with the controversial amenities of the time. Our modern urbanity is willing to bury party animosities in the grave; but in the fifth century Swift's translation would be thought the only proper one of the maxim `De mortuis nil nisi bonum,' `when scoundrels die let all bemoan them.' Certainly the man who half a dozen years after Chrysostom's death spoke of him as Judas Iscariot had no right to expect to be politely treated after his own death by one whom he had relentlessly persecuted." Glubowski, whose great work on Theodoret now in progress is unfortunately a sealed volume to the majority of the readers on account of its being written in the author's native Russian, is of opinion that the letter is spurious. See also Schroeckh Kircheges. xviii. 370. I am myself unable to see the force of the internal evidence of spuriousness. It may have been half playful, and never meant for publication. [16] Cf. Can. Venables Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 906. [17] Graecarum affectionum curatio 843. [18] To a Syrian it would not be literally the mother tongue but was possibly acquired in infancy. [19] Ep. xvi. [20] John of Antioch Fac. ii. 2. [21] Cyril. Alex. Ep. LXIX. [22] Glubokowski p. 63. [23] e.g. Theodorus, Migne 776. [24] Ep. CXIII. [25] Graec. Affect. Cur. 1099. [26] Historical Sketches iii. 319. __________________________________________________________________ II.--Episcopate at Cyrus. Cyrus or Cyrrhus was a town of the district of Syria called after it Cyrestica. The capital of Cyrestica was Gindarus, which Strabo describes [27] as being in his time a natural nest of robbers. Cyrus lies on a branch of the river OEnoparas, now Aphreen, and the site is still known as Koros. A tradition has long obtained that it received the name of Cyrus from the Jews in honour of their great benefactor, but this is more than doubtful. The form Cyrus may have arisen from a confusion with a Cyrus in Susiana. [28] The Cyrestica is a fertile plain lying between the spurs of the Alma Dagh and the Euphrates, irrigated by three streams and blessed with a rich soil. The diocese, which was subject to the Metropolitan of Hierapolis, contained some sixteen hundred square miles [29] and eight hundred distinct parishes each with its church. [30] But Cyrus itself was a wretched little place [31] scantily inhabited. Before it was beautified by the munificence of Theodoret it contained no buildings of any dignity or grace. The people of the town as well as of the diocese seem to have been poor in orthodoxy as well as in pocket, and the rich soil of the district grew a plentiful crop of the tares of Arianism, Marcionism, Eunomianism and Judaism. [32] Such was the diocese to which Theodoret, in spite of his honest nolo episcopari, [33] was consecrated at about the age of thirty, a.d. 423. Of the circumstances of this consecration we have no evidence. Garnerius conjectures that he must have been ordained deacon by Alexander who succeeded Porphyrius at Antioch. He was probably appointed, if not consecrated, to succeed Isidorus at Cyrus, by Theodotus the successor of Alexander on the patriarchal throne of Antioch. In this diocese certainly for five and twenty years, perhaps for five and thirty, with occasional intervals he worked night and day with unflagging patience and perseverance for the good of the people committed to his care, and in the cause of his Master and of the truth. The ecclesiastic of these early times is sometimes imagined to have been a morose and ungenial ascetic, wasting his energies in unprofitable hair-splitting, and taking little or no interest in the every day needs of his contemporaries. In marked contrast with this imaginary bishop stands out the kindly figure of the real bishop of Cyrus, as the modest statements and hints supplied by his own letters enable us to recall him. As an administrator and man of business he was munificent and efficient. Stripped, as we have already learnt, of his family property by his own act and will, he must have been dependent in his diocese on the revenues of his see. From these, which cannot have been small, he was able to spend large sums on public works. Cyrus was adorned with porticoes, with two great bridges, with baths, and with an aqueduct, all at Theodoret's expense. [34] On assuming the administration of his diocese he took measures, he tells us, [35] to secure for Cyrus "the necessary arts," and from these three words we need not hesitate to infer that architects, engineers, masons, sculptors, and carpenters, would be attracted "from all quarters" to the bishop's important works. And for this increased population it is interesting to note that Theodoret provided competent practitioners in medicine and surgery, in which it would seem he was not himself unskilled. [36] His keen interest in the temporal needs of his people is shown by the efforts he made to obtain relief for them from the cruel pressure of exorbitant taxation. [37] So unendurable was the tale of imposts under which they groaned that in many cases they were deserting their farms and the country, and he earnestly appeals to the empress Pulcheria and to his friend Anatolius to help them. [38] The tender sympathy felt by him for all those afflicted in body and estate, as well as in mind, is shown in his letters on behalf of Celestinianus, or Celestiacus, a gentleman of position at Carthage, who had suffered cruelly during the attack of the Vandals, [39] and in the admirable and touching letters of consolation addressed to survivors on the deaths of relatives. That these should have been religiously preserved need excite no surprise. [40] Of the terms on which he lived with his neighbours we can form some idea from the justifiable boast contained in his letter to Nomus. In the quarter of a century of his episcopate, he writes, he never appeared in court either as prosecutor or defendant; his clergy followed his admirable example; he never took an obol or a garment from any one; not one of his household ever received so much as a loaf or an egg; he could not bear to think that he had any property beyond his few poor clothes. [41] Yet he was always ready to give where he would not receive, and in addition to all the diocesan and literary work which he conscientiously performed, he spent more time than he could well afford in all sorts of extra diocesan business which his position thrust in his way. As a shepherd of souls he was unceasing in his efforts to win heathen, heretics and Jews to the true faith. His diocese, when he assumed its government, was a very hotbed of heresy. [42] Nevertheless in the famous letter to Leo [43] he could boast that not a tare was left to spoil the crop. His fame as a preacher was great and wide, and makes us the more regret that of the discourses which in turn roused, cheered, and blamed, so little should survive. The eloquence, so to say, of his extant writings, gives indications of the force of spoken utterances not less marked by learning and literary skill. Two of his letters give vivid pictures of the enthusiasm of oriental auditories in Antioch, once so populous and so keen in theological interest, where now, amid a people numbering only about a fiftieth part of their predecessors of the fifth century, there is not a single church. We see the patriarch John in a frenzy of gladness at Theodoret's sermons, clapping his hands and springing again and again from his chair; [44] we see the heads of the congregation receiving the bishop of Cyrus with frantic delight as he came down from the pulpit, flinging their arms round him, kissing now his head, now his breast, now his hands, now his knees, and hear them exclaiming, "This is the Voice of the Apostle!" [45] But Theodoret had to encounter sometimes the fury of opposition. Again and again in his campaign against heretics and unbelievers he was stoned, wounded, and brought nigh unto death. [46] "He from whom no secrets are hid knows all the bruises my body has received, aimed at me by ill-named heretics, and what fights I have fought in most of the cities of the East against Jews, heretics, and heathen." [47] __________________________________________________________________ [27] Strabo xvi. c. 751. [28] Glubokowski p. 31. Tillemont v. 217. [29] Ep. XLII. [30] Ep. CXIII. [31] Ep. CXXXVIII. [32] Epp. LXXXI, CXIII. [33] Ep. LXXXI. [34] Epp. LXXIX. LXXXI. [35] Ep. CXV. [36] Epp. CXIV, CXV, and Dial. p. 217 cf. also de Prov. 518 et seqq. [37] Epp. XLII, XLIII, XLV. [38] Epp. XLIII. and XLV. [39] Epp. XXIX.-XXXVI. [40] cf. Epp. VII. VIII. XIV. XV. XVII. XVIII. LXV. LXIX. [41] Ep. LXXXI. [42] "In a diocese such as his, lying as it were in a corner of the world, not reached by the public posts, isolated by the great river to the east and the mountain chains to the west, peopled by half-leavened heathen, Christianity assumed many strange forms, sometimes hardly recognisable caricatures of the truth." Canon Venables. Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 906. [43] Epp. CXIII. [44] Ep. LXXXIII. [45] Ep. CXLVII. [46] Epp. LXXXI and CXIII. [47] Ep. CXIII. __________________________________________________________________ III.--Relations with Nestorius and to Nestorianism. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, was bound by ties of close friendship both to Theodoret and to John, patriarch of Antioch. In August, 430, the western bishops, under the presidency of the Pope Celestine, assembled in council at Rome, condemned Nestorius, and threatened him with excommunication. Shortly afterwards a council of Orientals at Alexandria, summoned by Cyril, endorsed this condemnation and despatched it to Constantinople. Then John received from Celestine and Cyril letters announcing their common action. When the couriers conveying these communications reached Antioch they found John surrounded by Theodoret and other bishops who were assembled possibly for the ordination of Macarius, the new bishop of Laodicea. John took counsel with his brother bishops, and a letter was despatched in their common name to Nestorius, exhorting him to accept the term theotokos, round which the whole war waged; pointing out the sense in which it could not but be accepted by every loyal Christian, and imploring him not to embroil Christendom for a word. This letter has been generally attributed to Theodoret. But while the conciliatory sage of Cyrus was endeavouring to formulate an Eirenicon, the ardent Egyptian made peace almost impossible by the publication of his famous anathematisms. John and his friends were distressed at the apparent unorthodoxy of Cyril's condemnation of Nestorius, and asked Theodoret to refute Cyril. [48] The strong language employed in Letter CL. conveys an idea of the heat of the enthusiasm with which Theodoret entered on the task, and his profound conviction that Cyril, in blind zeal against imaginary error on the part of Nestorius, was himself falling headlong into the Apollinarian pit. An eager war of words now waged over Nestorius between Cyril and Theodoret, each denouncing the other for supposed heresy on the subject of the incarnation; and, with deep respect for the learning and motives of Theodoret, we may probably find a solution of much that he said and did in the fact that he misunderstood Nestorius as completely as he did Cyril. [49] Cyril, nursed in the synthetic principles of the Alexandrian school, could see only the unity of the two natures in the one Person. To him, to distinguish, as the analysis of Theodoret distinguished, between God the Word and Christ the Man, was to come perilously near a recognition of two Christs, keeping up as it were a mutual dialogue of speech and action. But Cyril's unqualified assertion that there is one Christ, and that Christ is God, really gave no ground for the accusation that to him the manhood was an unreality. Yet he and Theodoret were substantially at one. Theodoret's failure to apprehend Cyril's drift was no doubt due less to any want of intelligence on the part of the Syrian than to the overbearing bitterness of the fierce Egyptian. On the other hand Theodoret's loyal love for Nestorius led him to give his friend credit for meaning what he himself meant. While he was driven to contemplate the doctrines of Cyril in their most dangerous exaggeration, he shrank from seeing how the Nestorian counter statement might be dangerously exaggerated. Theodoret, as Dr. Bright remarks, [50] "uses a good deal of language which is prima facie Nestorian; his objections are pervaded by an ignoratio elenchi, and his language is repeatedly illogical and inconsistent; but he and Cyril were essentially nearer to each other in belief than at the time they would have admitted, for Theodoret virtually owns the personal oneness and explains the phrase `God assumed man' by `He assumed manhood.'" Cyril "in his letter to Euoptius earnestly disclaims both forms of Apollinarianism--the notion of a mindless manhood in Christ and the notion of a body formed out of Godhead. In his reply (on Art iv.) he admits the language appropriate to each nature." Probably both the Egyptian and the Syrian would have found no difficulty in subscribing the language of our own judicious divine; "a kind of mutual commutation there is whereby those concrete names, God and Man, when we speak of Christ, do take interchangeably one another's room, so that for truth of speech it skilleth not whether we say that the Son of God hath created the world and the Son of Man by his death hath saved it or else that the Son of Man did create, and the Son of God died to save the world. Howbeit, as oft as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to man what his Deity hath right unto, we understand by the name of God and the name of Man neither the one nor the other nature, but the whole person of Christ, in whom both natures are. When the Apostle saith of the Jews that they crucified the Lord of Glory, and when the Son of Man being on earth affirmeth that the Son of Man was in heaven at the same instant, there is in these two speeches that mutual circulation before mentioned. In the one there is attributed to God or the Lord of Glory death, whereof divine nature is not capable; in the other ubiquity unto man, which human nature admitteth not. Therefore by the Lord of Glory we must needs understand the whole person of Christ, who being Lord of Glory, was indeed crucified, but not in that nature for which he is termed the Lord of Glory. In like manner by the Son of Man the whole person of Christ must necessarily be meant, who being man upon earth, filled heaven with his glorious presence, but not according to that nature for which the title of Man is given him. Without this caution the Fathers whose belief was divine and their meaning most sound, shall seem in their writing one to deny what another constantly doth affirm. Theodoret disputeth with great earnestness that God cannot be said to suffer. But he thereby meaneth Christ's divine nature against Apollinarius, which held even Deity itself passible. Cyril on the other side against Nestorius as much contendeth that whosoever will deny very God to have suffered death doth forsake the faith. Which notwithstanding to hold were heresy, if the name of God in this assertion did not import as it doth the person of Christ, who being verily God suffered death, but in the flesh, and not in that substance for which the name of God is given him." [51] As to the part played by Theodoret throughout the whole controversy we may conclude that though he had to own himself beaten intellectually, yet the honours of the moral victory remain with him rather than with his illustrious opponent. Not for the last time in the history of the Church a great duel of dialectic issued in a conclusion wherein of the champion who was driven to say, "I was wrong," the congregation of the faithful has yet perforce felt that he was right. The end is well known. Theodosius summoned the bishops to Ephesus at the Pentecost of 431. There arrived Cyril with fifty supporters early in June; there arrived Theodoret with his Metropolitan Alexander of Hierapolis, in advance of the rest of the Orientals. The Cyrillians were vainly entreated to wait for John of Antioch and his party, and opened the Council without them. When they arrived they would not join the Council, and set up their own "Conciliabulum" apart. Under the hot Levantine sun of July and August the two parties denounced one another on the one side for not accepting the condemnation of Nestorius, which the Cyrillians had passed in the beginning of their proceedings, on the other for the informality and injustice of the condemnation. Then deputies from the Orientals, of whom Theodoret was one, hurried to Constantinople, but were allowed to proceed no further than Chalcedon. The letters written by Theodoret at this time to his friends among the bishops and at the court, and his petitions to the Emperor, [52] leave a vivid impression of the zeal, vigour and industry of the writer, as well as of the extraordinary literary readiness which could pour out letter after letter, memorial after memorial, amid all the excitement of controversy, the weariness of travel, the sojourning in strange and uncomfortable quarters, and the tension of anxiety as to an uncertain future. Though Nestorius was deposed his friends protested that they would continue true to him, and Theodoret was one of the synod held at Tarsus, and of another at Antioch, in which the protest against Cyril's action was renewed. But the oriental bishops were now themselves undergoing a process of scission, [53] John of Antioch and Acacius of Beroea heading the peacemakers who were anxious to come to terms with Cyril, while Alexander of Hierapolis led the irreconcilables. Intellectually Theodoret shrank from concession, but his moral instincts were all in favour of peace. He himself drew up a declaration of faith which was presented by Paul of Emesa to Cyril, which Cyril accepted. But still true to his friend, Theodoret refused to accept the deposition of Nestorius and his individual condemnation, and it was not till several years had elapsed that, moved less by the threat of exile and forfeiture, as the imperial penalty for refusing to accept the position, than by the entreaties of his beloved flock and of his favourite ascetic solitaries that he would not leave them, Theodoret found means of attaching a meaning to the current anathemas on Nestorianism, not, as he said, on Nestorius, which allowed him to submit. He even entered into friendly correspondence with Cyril. [54] But the truce was hollow. Cyril was indignant to find that Theodoret still maintained his old opinions. At last the protracted quarrel was ended by Cyril's death in June, 444. On the famous letter over which so many battles of criticism have been fought we have already spoken. If it was really written by Theodoret, to which opinion my own view inclines, [55] there is no reason why we should damn it as "a coarse and ferocious invective." If genuine, it was clearly a piece of grim pleasantry dashed off in a moment of excitement to a personal friend, and never intended for the publicity which has drawn such severe blame upon its writer. But though the death of Cyril might appear to bring relief to the Church and Empire as well as to his individual opponents, it was by no means a ground of unmixed gratification to Theodoret. [56] Dioscorus, who succeeded to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, however Theodoret in the language of conventional courtesy may speak of the new bishop's humble mindedness, [57] inherited none of the good qualities of Cyril and most of his faults. Theodoret, naturally viewed with suspicion and dislike as the friend and supporter of Nestorius, gave additional ground for ill-will and hostility by action which brought him into individual conflict with Dioscorus. He accepted the synodical letters issued at Constantinople at the time of Proclus, and so seemed to lower the dignity of the apostolic sees of Antioch and Alexandria; [58] he also warmly resented the tyrannical treatment of his friend Irenaeus, bishop of Tyre. [59] Irenaeus had indeed in the earlier days of his banishment to Petra after his first condemnation in 435 attacked Theodoret for not being thoroughly Nestorian, but Theodoret was able to claim Irenaeus as not objecting to the crucial term theotokos, [60] reasonably understood, and accepted him as unquestionably orthodox. When therefore Dioscorus, the Archimandrite Eutyches, and his godson the eunuch Chrysaphius attacked Domnus for consecrating Irenaeus to the Metropolitan see of Tyre, Theodoret indignantly protested and counselled Domnus as to how he had best reply. [61] But Dioscorus and his party had now the ear, and guided the fingers, of the imperial weakling at Constantinople, and the deposition of Irenaeus (Feb. 17, 448) was followed after a year's successful intrigues by the autograph edict of Theodosius confining Theodoret within the limits of his own diocese as a vexatious and turbulent busybody. __________________________________________________________________ [48] Vide the Anathematisms and Theodoret's refutation in the Prolegomena. [49] cf. Glubokowski p. 98. [50] Dict. Christ Biog. i. 767. [51] Hooker. Ecc. Pol. v. liii. 4. [52] Epp., clvii., clviii., clxvii,, clxviii., clxix., clxx. [53] Hefele. Hist. Consc. iii. 127. Can. Venables. Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 910. [54] Ep. lxxxiii. [55] Glubokowski p. 163 thinks it spurious. [56] Glubokowski, p. 163. [57] Ep. LX. [58] Ep. LXXXVI. [59] Epp. III. XII. XVI. XXXV. [60] Ep. CX. [61] Ep. CX. __________________________________________________________________ IV.--Under the Ban of Theodosius and of the Latrocinium. Theodoret was at Antioch when Count Rufus brought him the edict. His friends would have detained him, but he hurried away. [62] On reaching Cyrus he wrote to his friend Anatolius warmly protesting against the cruel and unjust action taken against him, and informing the patrician that Euphronius, a military officer, had travelled hard on the track of Rufus to ask for a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the edict of relegation. [63] The letters written at this crisis by the indignant pen of the maligned scholar and saint [64] have a peculiar value, at once biographical, literary, and theological. To Eusebius bishop of Ancyra he sends an important catalogue of his works. To Dioscorus, the chief of the cabal against him, he sends a summary of his views on the incarnation and the nature of our Lord, couched in such terms as might perhaps in earlier days have shortened his great controversy with Cyril. But the opponents of Theodoret were not in a mood to be moved by any formulation of the terms of his faith. Dioscorus received the letter with insult, and publicly joined in the shout of anathema which he permitted to be raised against his hated brother. [65] The condemnation of Eutyches by Flavian's Constantinopolian Synod had roused the Eutychian party to leave no stone unturned to secure its reversal and crush it and all who upheld it. Of the latter Theodoret was the most prominent, the ablest and perhaps the holiest. Hence he was the natural representative and personification of the doctrines that Dioscorus sought to decry and degrade. [66] The sixth Council of Ephesus of evil fame met in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin on August 8, 449. Eutyches was acquitted. Flavian was condemned. Ibas of Edessa, Domnus of Antioch, and Theodoret of Cyrus were deprived of their sees. The disgraceful scenes of violence which marked every stage of this shameful ecclesiastical gathering have been described again and again with the vivid detail [67] rendered possible by the exactitude of contemporary narrative, but, inasmuch as Theodoret was condemned in his absence we are concerned here less with the manner in which his condemnation was brought about than with the steps he took to protest against and to reverse it. To the prisoner of Cyrus courier after courier would bring intelligence of the riots and tricks of the council. At last came news of the crowning wrong. On the indictment of an Antiochene presbyter named Pelagius, Theodoret was condemned as an enemy of God, a disseminator of poison, a false teacher deserving to be burnt. In support of the accusation was quoted the careful theological statement addressed by Theodoret to the monks in the Euphratensis and the Osrhoene which appears as Letter CLI., as well as citations from his works at large. Dioscorus described the absent defendant as a blasphemous enemy of God and the Emperor whose life had been spent in damning souls. Theodoret was sentenced not merely to deposition from his see but to degradation from the priesthood and to excommunication, and his books were ordered to be burnt. [68] So the great council ended with the deposition of Flavian of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Daniel of Carrae, Irenaeus of Tyre, Aquilinus of Biblus, and Domnus of Antioch as well as of Theodoret. [69] Eutyches the heretic Archimandrite was restored and the brutal Dioscorus seemed master of Christendom. One word of manly Latin had broken in on the supple suffrages of the servile orientals, the "Contradicitur" of Hilarius the representative of the Church of Rome. To that church, and to its illustrious bishop, Theodoret naturally turned in his hour of need. He implored his friend Anatolius to get him permission to plead his own cause in person in the West, or if not to let him retire to his old home at Nicerte. [70] The latter alternative was conceded. In this retreat he received many proofs of the affectionate regard of his friends and offers of more practical help than his modest necessities demanded. [71] Thence products of his facile pen travelled far and wide. The whole series of letters written at this period gives touching testimony to the gentle and forgiving spirit of the sorely tried bishop. There is nothing of the bitterness and fierce anger which appear sometimes in the earlier controversy with Cyril. He is refined, not soured, by adversity, and, though he never approached nearer to canonization than the acquisition of the inferior title of Blessed, he appears in these dark days as no unworthy specimen of the suffering saint. [72] The chief interest of these letters is in truth moral, spiritual and theological. This, however, has been obscured by the ecclesiastical interest which has been given them by the unwarranted attempt to represent Theodoret's letter to Leo as an "appeal" to the see of Rome in the later and technical sense of the word. Whether St. Hilary of Arles ever did or did not give the lie to his short life of strenuous protest against the growing aggrandizement of the see of Rome, there is no doubt that before his death at the age of 41 in 449 his suffragans had been released by Leo from allegiance to a Metropolitan disobedient to the Roman chair, and that Valentinian had issued an edict confirming Leo's claims and making the authority of the Bishop of Rome supreme in the West. [73] It would be useful to maintainers of the Roman supremacy if they could adduce instances of any assertion or acceptance of similar authority in the East. So it has been said that Theodoret appealed to the Pope. [74] In a sense this is of course perfectly true. Theodoret did appeal to the Pope. But the whole superstructure of papal supremacy, so far as Theodoret is concerned, is really based upon a poor paronomasia. The bishop of Cyrus "appealed" to the bishop of Rome as any bishop believing himself to lie under an unjust sentence might appeal to any other bishop, and as Theodoret did appeal to other bishops. It is quite true that the church of Rome had many claims to honour and regard, as Theodoret himself felicitously and opportunely points out, and that the present occupant of its throne was a man of unblemished orthodoxy and of commanding personal dignity. But to recognise these facts is a long way from admitting that this very dignified see had either de facto or de jure any coercive jurisdiction over the Metropolitans of Alexandria or of Hierapolis, to the latter of whom Cyrus was subordinate. Theodoret himself quotes the crucial passage in St. Matthew's gospel [75] apparently without any idea that the "Petra" means all the successors of the "Petrus." [76] What Theodoret asked from Leo was not the sentence of a superior but the sympathy and support of an influential brother. What made it so peculiarly important that he should gain the ear and the approval of Leo was that Rome had been wholly unconcerned in the intrigue which condemned him. He could have had no more idea of papal authority in the later ultramontane sense than he could of the decrees of the Vatican Council. Bound as he was to do his utmost to vindicate not so much his own position and doctrinal soundness, as the truth now trampled on by the combined factions of Alexandria and the court, he naturally turned to Leo as alike the most respected and most independent bishop of his age. [77] Leo, however, could do little or nothing to help him. Theodosius, completely under the influence of Chrysaphius and Dioscorus, was quite satisfied as to the proper constitution and equity of the Latrocinium. __________________________________________________________________ [62] Epp. LXXIX and LXXX. [63] Ep. LXXIX. [64] Epp. LXXIX. LXXX. LXXXI. LXXXII. LXXXIII. [65] Ep. LXXXVI. [66] "Theodoret's condemnation was the chief object aimed at in summoning" the Latrocinium. He was "the bugbear of the whole Eutychian party and consequently condemned in advance." Canon Venables, Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 913 and Martin Brigandage `a Ephese p. 192. [67] See specially Gibbon Chap. xlvii. Milman Hist. Lat. Christ. Book II. Chap. iv. Stanley, Christian Institutions, Chap. xvi. 4 and Canon Bright Art. Dioscorus in Dict. Christ. Biog. General Councils, it may be remarked, have been depreciated and ridiculed by historians of two kinds; the anti-Christian, such as Gibbon, who have been glad of the opportunity of bringing discredit on the Church; and the Roman, such as Cardinal Newman, who are aware that the authority of Councils is not always reconcileable with the asserted authority of the Bishop of their favourite see. ("Even those councils which were oecumenical have nothing to boast of in regard to the Fathers, taken individually, which compose them. They appear as the antagonist host in a battle, not as the shepherds of their people." Hist. Sketches, p. 335.) And it must be conceded that so far as outward circumstances went the Latrocinium was as good a council as any other. As is pointed out by Dean Milman, "It is difficult to discover in what respect, either in the legality of its convocation or the number and dignity of the assembled prelates, consists its inferiority to more received and honoured councils. Two imperial commissioners attended to maintain order in the council and peace in the city. Dioscorus the patriarch of Alexandria by the Imperial command assumed the presidency. The Bishops who formed the Synod of Constantinople were excluded as parties in the transaction, but Flavianus took his place with the Metropolitans of Antioch and Jerusalem and no less than three hundred and sixty bishops and ecclesiastics. Three ecclesiastics, Julian a bishop, Renatus a presbyter, and Hilarius a deacon were to represent the bishop of Rome. The Abbot Barsumas (this was an innovation) took his seat in the Council as a kind of representative of the monks." Milman, Lat. Christ. Book II. Chap. iv. The fact is that the great Councils of the Early Church are like the great men of the Early Church. Some have authority and some have not. But their authority does not depend upon formal circumstances or outward position. They have authority because the inspired common sense of the Church has seen and valued the truth and wisdom of their utterances. Athanasius, Arius, Cyril, and Nestorius, were all great churchmen. Athanasius and Cyril stand out against the background of centuries as champions of the faith. Arius and Nestorius are counted as heretics. Character does not outweigh doctrine. Nestorius is unsound in the faith though he was an amiable and virtuous man; Cyril is an authority of orthodoxy though his personal qualities were not saintly. Of all the councils that according to Ammianus Marcellinus hamstrung the postal resources of the Empire, take Nicaea, Tyre, and the two Ephesian councils of 431 and 449. Nicaea and the earlier Ephesian are accepted by the Church Catholic. Tyre and the later Ephesian, though both were summoned at the will of princes and attended by a large concourse of bishops, are rejected. Why? The earlier Ephesian in the disorder and violence of its proceedings was as disgraceful as the Tyrian and the later Ephesian. The councils of Nicaea and of Ephesus, called the first and the third oecumenical councils, are vindicated by the assent of the wisest of the Church. The dictum securus judicat orbis terrarum here holds good, and is seen to be identical with the ultimate foundation of the great Aristotelian definition "defined by reason, and as the wise man would define." And such is also the practical outcome of the statement of Article XXI, of the Church of England. cf. the striking passage of Augustine (Cont. Maximin. Arian. ii. 14). "Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenum, nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam proejudicaturus, proferre consilium. Nec ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius detineris. Scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet." On the first four accepted oecumenical councils Dr. Salmon (Infallibility of the Church, p. 287) remarks, "Gregory the Great says that he venerates these four as the four Gospels, and describes them as the four square stones on which the structure of faith rests. Yet the hard struggle each of these councils had to make and the number of years which the struggle lasted before its decrees obtained general acceptance, show that they obtain their authority because of the truth which they declared and it was not because of their authority that the decrees were recognised as true." [68] Canon Venables Dict. Christ. Biog. Actes du Brigandage, pp. 193, 195. [69] Evagrius i. 10. [70] Ep. CXIX. [71] Ep. CXXIII. [72] Epp. CXIII. to CXXXIII. and CLXXXI. [73] Cf. Milman Lat. Christ. Book ii. Chap. iv; Const. Valentin. iii Aug. apud S. Leon. op. epist. xi. [74] Garnerius, the Jesuit, in his dissertation on the life of Theodoret writes: "When Theodoret got news of his deposition he determined to send envoys to the apostolic see, that is to the head of all the churches in the world, to plead his cause before the righteous judgment seat of St. Leo," and in his summary of his own chapter he says "Theodoret appeals to the apostolic see." [75] Matt. xvi. 18 [76] Ep. CXLVI. [77] cf. Glubokowski. pp. 237, 239. Du Pin. iv. 83. Cardinal Newman, in his very bright and sympathetic sketch of Theodoret, (Hist. Sketches ii. 308 ed. 1891) writes the following remarkable sentence. "This, at least, he has in common with St. Chrysostom that both of them were deprived of their episcopal rank by a council, both appealed to the holy see, and by the holy see both were cleared and restored to their ecclesiastical dignities." It would be difficult in the compass of so short a sentence to combine more statements so completely misleading. To say that Chrysostom and Theodoret both appealed to the "holy see" is as much an anachronism as to say that they appealed to the Court of the Vatican or to the Dome of St. Peter's. In their day there was no holy see, that is to say, kat' exochen. All sees were holy sees, just as all bishops were styled your holiness. Rome, it is true, was the only apostolical see in the West, but it was not the only apostolical see, and whatever official precedence it could claim over Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, was due to its being the see of the old imperial capital, a precedence expressly ordered at Chalcedon to be shared with the new Rome on the Bosphorus. As to the "appeal," we have seen what it meant in the case of Theodoret. It meant the same in the case of Chrysostom. Cut to the quick at the cruel and brutal treatment of his friends after his banishment from Constantinople in the summer of 404 he pleaded his cause in letters sent as well to Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia as to Innocent of Rome. Innocent very properly espoused his cause, declared his deposition void, and did his best to move Honorius to move Arcadius to convoke a council. The cruel story of the long martyrdom of bitter exile and the death in the lonely chapel at Comana is a terrible satire on the restoration to ecclesiastical dignities. The unwary reader of "the historical sketch" might imagine the famous John of the mouth of gold brought back in triumph to Constantinople by the authority of the pope in 404 as he had been by the enthusiasm of his flock in 403, and Arcadius and Eudoxia cowering before the power of Holy Church like Henry IV. at Canossa in 1077. The true picture of the three years of agony which preceded the old man's passage to the better world in 407 is a painful contrast to contemplate (Pallad. Dial. 1-3. Theodoret V. 34. Sozomen viii. 26, 27, 28.) Of Theodoret's restoration to "ecclesiastical dignity," and Leo's part in it, we shall see further on. __________________________________________________________________ V.--Theodoret and Chalcedon. Now, not for the last time in history, an important part was played by a horse. In July, 450, Theodosius, while hunting in the neighbourhood of his capital, was thrown from the saddle into a stream, hurt his spine, and a few days afterwards died. [78] With him died the cause of Eutyches and of Chrysaphius. The eunuch was promptly executed, and at last a Council was conceded to reconsider and rectify the crimes and blunders of the Latrocinium. [79] But the Empress and her venerable husband did not wait for the Council to undo some of the wrong done to Theodoret, and the large place he filled in the eyes and estimation of the oriental world is shewn by the interest shewn at Constantinople in his behalf. [80] The decree of relegation appears to have been rescinded, and he was free to present himself at the synod. On the first assembling of the five hundred bishops, [81] under the presidency of the imperial Commissioners, [82] the minutes of the Latrocinium were read; the presence of Dioscorus was protested against by the Roman representation as having dared to hold a synod unauthorized by Rome; and the claim of Theodoret to sit and vote, allowed both by the imperial Commissioners and by the westerns, since Leo [83] had accepted him as an orthodox bishop, was vehemently resisted by the Eutychians. He entered, but at first did not vote, and his enemies at last succeeded in wringing from him a personal anathema not only of Nestorianism, but of Nestorius. The scenes reported in detail are too characteristic alike of the earlier Councils and of Theodoret to be omitted. "The illustrious Presidents and the honorable Assessors ordered that the most religious bishop Theodoret should enter, that he might be a partaker of the Council, because the holy Archbishop Leo had restored the bishopric to him; and the most sacred and pious Emperor determined that he was to be present at the Holy Council. And on the entrance of the most religious Theodoret, the most religious bishops of Egypt, Illyricum and Palestine called out: `Have mercy upon us! The faith is destroyed. The Canons cast him out. Cast out the teacher of Nestorius.' The most religious bishops of the East and those of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace shouted out: `We had to sign a blank paper; we were scourged, and so we signed. Cast out the Manichaeans; cast out the enemies of Flavian; cast out the enemies of the faith.' Dioscorus, the most religious bishop of Alexandria said: `Why is Cyril being cast out, who is anathematized by Theodoret?' The Eastern and Pontic and Asian and Thracian most religious bishops shouted out: `Cast out Dioscorus the murderer. Who does not know the deeds of Dioscorus?' The Egyptian and the Illyrian and the Palestinian most religious bishops shouted out: `Long years to the Empress!' The Eastern and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: `Cast out the murderers!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: `The Empress has cast out Nestorius. Long years to the orthodox Empress! The Council will not receive Theodoret.' Theodoret, the most religious bishop, came up into the midst and said: `I have offered petitions to the most godlike, most religious and Christ-loving masters of the world, and I have related the disasters which have befallen me, and I claim that they shall be read.' The most illustrious Presidents and the most honourable Assessors said: `Theodoret, the most religious bishop, having received his proper place from the holy Archbishop of the renowned Rome, now occupies the place of an accuser. Wherefore, that there be no confusion in our proceedings, allow the things which have had a beginning to be finished. No prejudice will accrue to anyone from the appearance of the most religious Theodoret. Every argument for you and for him, if you desire to make one on one side or the other is of course reserved.' And after Theodoret, the most religious bishop, had sat down in the midst, the Eastern, and the most religious bishops who were with them, shouted out: `He is worthy! He is worthy!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: `Do not call him a bishop! He is not a bishop! Cast out the fighter against God! Cast out the Jew!' The Easterns and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: `The orthodox for the Council! Cast out the rebels! Cast out the murderers!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: `Cast out the fighter against God! Cast out the insulter of Christ! Long years to the Empress! Long years to the Emperor! Long years to the orthodox Emperor! Theodoret has anathematized Cyril.' The Easterns and the most religious bishops who were with them shouted out: `Cast out the murderer Dioscorus!' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: `Long years to the Assessors! He has not the right of speech. He is expelled from the whole Synod!' Basil, the most religious bishop of Trajanopolis, in the province of Rhodope, rose up and said: `Theodoret has been condemned by us.' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: `Theodoret has accused Cyril. We cast out Cyril if we receive Theodoret. The Canons cast out Theodoret. God has turned away from him.' The most illustrious Presidents and the most honourable Assessors said: `The vulgar cries are not worthy of bishops, nor will they assist either side. Suffer, therefore, the reading of all the documents.' The Egyptians and the most religious bishops with them shouted out: `Cast out one man, and we will all hear. We shout out in the cause of Religion. We say these things for the sake of the orthodox Faith.' The most illustrious Presidents and the honourable Assessors said: `Rather acquiesce, in God's name, that the hearing of the documents should take place, and concede that all shall be read in proper order.' And at last they were silent, and Constantine, the most holy Secretary and Magistrate of the Divine Synod, read these documents." [84] One more sad incident must be given--the demand made at the eighth session that Theodoret should pronounce a curse on his ancient friend. "The most reverend bishops all stood before the rails of the most holy altar, and shouted "Theodoret must now anathematize Nestorius." Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, passed into the midst, and said: "I have made my petition to the most divine and religious Emperor, and I have laid documents before the most reverend bishops occupying the place of the most sacred Archbishop Leo; and if you think fit, they shall be read to you, and you will know what I think.' The most reverend bishops shouted `We want nothing to be read--only anathematize Nestorius.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said: `I was brought up by the orthodox, I was taught by the orthodox, I have preached orthodoxy, and not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but any man who thinks not rightly, I avoid and count him an alien.' The most reverend bishops shouted out: `Speak plainly; anathema to Nestorius and his doctrine--anathema to Nestorius and to those who defend him.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop said: `Of a truth I say nothing except so far as I know it to be pleasing to God. First I will convince you that I am here, not because I care for my city, not because I covet rank. Because I have been falsely accused, I come to satisfy you that I am orthodox, and that I anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches, and every one who says that there are two Sons.' Whilst he was speaking, the most reverend bishops shouted out: `Speak plainly; anathematize Nestorius and those who think with him.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said: `Unless I set forth at length my faith I cannot speak. I believe'--And whilst he spoke the most reverend bishops shouted: `He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian! Away with the heretic! Anathema to Nestorius and to any one who does not confess that the Holy Virgin Mary is the Parent of God, and who divides the only begotten Son to two Sons.' Theodoret, the most reverend bishop, said, `Anathema to Nestorius and to whoever denies that the Holy Virgin Mary is the Parent of God, and who divides the only begotten Son into two Sons. I have subscribed the definition of faith, and the epistle of the most holy Archbishop Leo." [85] __________________________________________________________________ [78] cf. the deaths of William I. and William III. of England. [79] Though Marcian's independence of western dictation was shewn in the summoning of the bishops not to a place in Italy, as Leo had hoped and urged, but to Chalcedon, the beautiful Asiatic suburb of Constantinople. [80] Epp. CXXXIX, CXL. [81] Accounts of the numbers vary. Marcellinus says 630. There were more than 400 signatures. [82] Perhaps of the Emperor himself. (Breviar. Hist. Eutych.) The representatives of the imperial government sat in the centre of the Cancelli; on their right were Dioscorus, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian bishops; on their left Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, (Marsala) Lucentius of Asculum (Ascoli) with Boniface, a Roman presbyter, the three representatives of Leo, Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, and the orientals. Paschasinus signed as "synodo praesidens," but he did not either locally or effectively preside. [83] The acts of the Council of Chalcedon refer to Theodoret having been righted by the bishop of "the illustrious city of Rome;" "the archbishop of the senior city of Rome." The primacy is that of the ancient capital. [84] Labbe iv., 102, 103. [85] Labbe iv. 621. Bertram (Theod. Ep. Cyr. doctrina christologica, 1883) thinks Theodoret changed his views; Moeller (Herzog XV. s.v.) that he retained them, though necessarily modified in expression by stress of circumstances. __________________________________________________________________ VI.--Retirement after Chalcedon, and Death. Some doubt hangs over the question whether after his vindication at Chalcedon Theodoret resumed his labours at Cyrus, or occupied himself with literary work in the congenial seclusion of Nicerte. Garnerius makes it about the time of his quitting Chalcedon that Sporacius charged him with the duty of writing on the Heresies, [86] and if so his five books on this subject would seem to have constituted the first fruit of his comparative leisure. Sporacius [87] he styles his "Christ-loving Son," and no doubt owed something to the aid of the influential "Comes domesticorum," who was present at Chalcedon, when the question of his admission to the Council was being agitated. To this period has also been referred his commentary on the Octateuch. [88] On Dr. Newman's statement that Theodoret made over the charge of his diocese to Hypatius (one of his chorepiscopi, who had been entrusted with his appeal to Pope Leo) and retired into his monastery, and there regaining the peace which he had enjoyed in youth, passed from the peace of the Church to the peace of eternity, Canon Venables [89] remarks that there is no authority for so pleasing a picture, and that Tillemont [90] contradicts it altogether. Garnerius quotes his congratulation to Sabinianus [91] on leaving Perrha as suggestive of what conduct he might have preferred. It is at least certain that during this period he received a long and sympathetic letter from Leo, from which it is clear that the Roman bishop reposed great confidence in him. [92] It is characteristic of one in whom the mere man was merged in the theologian and ecclesiastic that, as of the year of his birth, so of the year of his death, we have no specific information, and are compelled to form our conclusions on evidence which though valuable, is not overwhelming. Theodorus Lector, the composer of the Historia Tripartita, in the 6th century, states [93] that Theodoret prepared a sepulchral urn for the burial of the famous ascetic Jacobus; that he predeceased Jacobus; but that Jacobus was buried in it. [94] Evagrius [95] mentions Jacobus Syrus as still living when the Emperor Leo sent his Circular Letter to the bishops in 458, though then he must have been in extreme old age. And Gennadius, who lived not long after Theodoret, says that he died in the reign of Leo. The evidence is not strong. Theodoret may have died some years before Jacob. But Gennadius probably knew. On the whole we may conclude that there is some probability that Theodoret survived till 458; none that he lived longer. Like Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, to whom, in his isolation, Dean Stanley [96] compares him, Theodoret must have expired with the cry of "Peace, Peace," in his heart, if not on his lips. Garnerius is careful to prove that he died in "the peace of the Church," and appeals in support of this contention to the laudatory testimony of Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I., Pelagius II., and Gregory the Great. The peace of the Church, in the narrower sense, has not always been accorded to holy men and women who have assuredly departed this life in the faith and fear of their Lord. In its truer and holier connotation it coincides with a state in which we trust we may contemplate the godly old man of Cyrus, forgetting the storms that had beaten now and again on the life he was leaving behind him, and stepping quietly into the calm of the windless haven of souls,--the Peace not of man, but of God. __________________________________________________________________ [86] Praef. Hoeret Fab. [87] Ep. XCVII. [88] Photius Cod. 204. The Octateuch comprises the first eight books of the Old Testament. [89] Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 916. [90] xv., 311. [91] Ep. CXXVI. [92] Leo. Ep. cxx., and Migne Theod. iv. 1193. Chagrined at the decision of the Council that Constantinople was to enjoy honorary precedence next after old Rome and practical equality and independence, in that the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace were to be ordained by the patriarch of Constantinople, Leo manages to write to Theodoret, par parenthese, of the Roman See as one "quam coeteris omnium Dominus statuit proesidere." If in "statuit" Leo had meant to refer to a Divine Providence overruling history, and in "proesidere" to the fact that Rome was for many years the capital of the world, his remark would have been open to little objection. But he meant something quite different. [93] Collect. Book i. Ed. Migne p. 566. [94] There seems no authority for the statement of Garnerius (Hist. Theod. xiii) repeated in Smith's Dict. Chris. Biog. that Jacobus and Theodoret shared it. [95] de Scrip. Ecc. 89. [96] Christian Institutions. Chap. xvi. __________________________________________________________________ VII.--The Condemnation of "the Three Chapters." A sketch of the life of Theodoret might well be supposed to terminate with his death. But it can hardly be regarded as complete without a brief supplementary notice of the posthumous controversy which has contributed to his fame in ecclesiastical history. The Council of Chalcedon was designed to give rest to the Church, and to undo a great wrong, and catholic common sense has since vindicated its decisions. But it was not to be supposed that the opinions and passions which had achieved a combined triumph at Ephesus in 449 would die away and disappear in consequence of the imperial and synodical action of 451. The face of the world was changing. The vandal Genseric captured and pillaged Rome. The Teutonic races were pushing to a foremost place, and accepting first of all an Arian Christianity. Clovis represented orthodoxy almost alone. Theodoric, the Arian Ostrogoth, mastered Italy. Then the turning tide saw Rome once again a city of sole empire, but not the chief city. The victories of Belisarius made of Rome a suburb of Constantinople, and empire and theology swayed and were swayed by the policy of Justinian and the palace plots of Theodora. All through monophysitism had had its friends and defenders. Metropolitans, monks, and mobs had anathematized one another for nearly a century. At Alexandria Dioscorus had won almost a local canonization, and the patriarch Timotheus, nicknamed "the Cat," had left a strong monophysite party, consolidated under Peter the Stutterer as the "acephali." [97] At Antioch Peter the Fuller had anathematized all who refused to accept the Shibboleth he appended to the Trisagion, "who wast crucified on our account." Leo, Marcian's successor on the Eastern throne, had followed Marcian's theology, and Zeno, Leo; but the usurper Basiliscus had seen elements of strength in a bold bid for monophysite support. Zeno, on the fall of Basiliscus, had attempted to atone the disunited sections of Christendom by the henoticon, or edict of unity, but the henoticon had been for years a watchword of division. Anastasius had favoured the Eutychians. And in his reign Theodoret had been twice condemned, at the synods of Constantinople and Sidon, in 499 and 512. [98] Justin I., the unlettered barbarian, supported the Chalcedonians, but in 544 Belisarius had made the Eutychian Vigilius bishop of Rome. When Justinian aspired to become a second Constantine, and give theological as well as civil law to the world, it was proposed to condemn in a fifth oecumenical council certain so-called Nestorian writings, on the plea that such a condemnation might reconcile the opponents of Chalcedon. The writings in question were the Letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris, praising Theodore of Mopsuestia; the works of Theodore himself, and the writings of Theodoret against Cyril. These three literary monuments were known as "the Three Chapters." [99] Of the controversy of the Three Chapters it has been said that it "filled more volumes than it was worth lines." [100] The Council satisfied nobody. Pope Vigilius, detained at Constantinople and Marmora with something of the same violence with which Napoleon I. detained Pius VI. at Valence, declined to preside over a gathering so exclusively oriental. The West was outraged by the constitution of the synod, irrespective of its decisions. The Monophysites were disappointed that the credit of Chalcedon should be even nominally saved by the nice distinction which damaged the writings, but professed complete agreement with the council which had refused to damn the writers. The orthodox wanted no slur cast upon Chalcedon, and, however fenced, the condemnation of the Three Chapters indubitably involved such a slur. Practically, the decrees of the fourth and fifth councils are mutually inconsistent, and it is impossible to accept both. Theodoret was reinstated at Chalcedon in spite of what he had written, and what he had written was anathematized at Constantinople in spite of his reinstatement. The xiii Canon of the fifth Council runs as follows, "if any one defends the impious writings of Theodoret which he published against the true faith, against the first holy synod of Ephesus and against the holy Cyril and his twelve chapters; and all that he wrote in defence of the impious Theodorus and Nestorius, and others who held the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodorus and Nestorius, defending them and their impiety, and accordingly calling impious the doctors of the church who confess the union according to hypostasis of God the Word in the flesh; and does not anathematize these writings and those who have held or do hold similar opinions, above all those who have written against the true faith and the holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and have remained to the day of their death in such impiety; let him be anathema." In this condemnation the works certainly included are Theodoret's "Objections to Cyril's Chapters," some of his letters, and, among his lost works, the "Pentalogium," namely five books on the Incarnation written against Cyril and his supporters at Ephesus, of which fragments are preserved, and two allocutions against Cyril delivered at Chalcedon in 431, of which portions exist in the acts of the fifth Council, and do not exhibit Theodoret at his best. The Council has at least preserved to us an interesting little record of the survival at Cyrus of the memory of her great bishop, for it appears that at the seventh collation, held at the end of May, notice was taken of an enquiry ordered by Justinian respecting a statue or portrait of Theodoret which was said to have been carried in procession into his cathedral town, by Andronicus a presbyter and George a deacon. [101] A more important tribute to his memory is the fact that, though it officially anathematized writings some of which, composed in the thick of the fight, and soiled with its indecorous dust, Theodoret himself may well have regretted and condemned, the Council advisedly abstained from directly condemning a bishop whose character and person were protected by the notorious iniquity of the robber council that had deposed him, the friendship of the illustrious Leo, and the solemn vindication of the church in Synod at Chalcedon, as well as by his own confession of the faith, his repudiation of the errors of Nestorius, and the stainless beauty and pious close of his long life. No better reconciliation between Chalcedon and Constantinople can be proffered than that which Garnerius quotes from the letter said to have been written by Gregory the Great, though sent in the name of Pelagius II, to the Illyrians on the fifth council, "It is the part of unwarrantable rashness to defend those writings of Theodoret which it is notorious that Theodoret himself condemned in his subsequent profession of the right faith. So long as we at once accept himself and repudiate the erroneous writings which have long remained unknown we do not depart in any way from the decision of the sacred synod, because so long as we only reject his heretical writings, we, with the synod, attack Nestorius, and with the synod express our veneration for Theodoret in his right confession. His other writings we not only accept, but use against our foes." [102] __________________________________________________________________ [97] 'Akephaloi = headless, i.e., without bishop. [98] Victor: Turon: and Mansi, viii. 371, Mansi, viii. 197-200. [99] Dean Milman (Lat. Christ. iv, 4), following in the wake of Gibbon, remarks that "the church was not now disturbed by the sublime, if inexplicable, dogmas concerning the nature of God, the Persons of the Trinity, or the union of the divine and human nature of Christ, concerning the revelations of Scripture, or even the opinions of the ancient fathers. The orthodoxy or heterodoxy of certain writings by bishops but recently dead became the subject of imperial edicts of a fifth so-called OEcumenic Council, held at Constantinople, and a religious war between the East and the West," but it was on their explanation of sublime if inexplicable dogmas that the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of these bishops depended, and so far as the subject matter of dispute is concerned, the position in 553 was not very different from that of 451. In both cases the church was moved at once by honest conviction and partisan passion; the state was influenced partly by a healthy desire to promote peace through out the empire, partly by the meaner ambition of posing as theological arbitrator. [100] Gibbon, chap. xlvii. Schaff Hist. Christ. iii, 770. [101] Dean Milman (Lat. Christ. iv, 4), following in the wake of Gibbon, remarks that "the church was not now disturbed by the sublime, if inexplicable, dogmas concerning the nature of God, the Persons of the Trinity, or the union of the divine and human nature of Christ, concerning the revelations of Scripture, or even the opinions of the ancient fathers. The orthodoxy or heterodoxy of certain writings by bishops but recently dead became the subject of imperial edicts of a fifth so-called OEcumenic Council, held at Constantinople, and a religious war between the East and the West," but it was on their explanation of sublime if inexplicable dogmas that the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of these bishops depended, and so far as the subject matter of dispute is concerned, the position in 553 was not very different from that of 451. In both cases the church was moved at once by honest conviction and partisan passion; the state was influenced partly by a healthy desire to promote peace through out the empire, partly by the meaner ambition of posing as theological arbitrator. [102] Labbe. Act. Conc. Const. v. Coll. vii. __________________________________________________________________ VIII.--The Works of Theodoret. Of authorities for the works of Theodoret we may first cite himself. In four of his letters he mentions his own writings; viz.: in lxxxii, to Eusebius of Ancyra; in cxiii, to Leo of Rome; in cxvi, to the Presbyter Renatus; and in cxlv, to the monks at Constantinople. Of these the first was written in 445 and the last three in 449 and a reference to them will show the works mentioned. It is to be noticed [103] that no allusion is made to the refutation of the twelve chapters; to the defence of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, nor to the Dialogues, though all are held to have been written before the Latrocinium. It may have been, as Garnerius conjectures, that Theodoret did not judge it politic at this time to call attention to these particular works, but the assumption is not based on strong grounds, and Theodoret never appears as one unwilling to avow his convictions, which indeed, were perfectly well known. Gennadius, presbyter of Marseilles, who died in 496, writes "Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus, is said to have written many works: those, however, which have come to my knowledge are the following; of the Incarnation of the Lord, against the presbyter Eutyches, and Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, who deny that there was in Christ human flesh,--powerful writings wherein he proves, as well by argument as by scriptural evidence, that Christ had very flesh of the substance of His mother, which He took from the Virgin, and very Godhead, which by eternal generation He received, in being generated, from God the father begetting Him. There exist also his books of Ecclesiastical History, which he wrote in imitation of Eusebius of Caesarea, beginning from the end of the books of Eusebius down to his own time, viz.: from the twentieth year of Constantine down to the reign of Leo I, in whose reign he died." [104] Photius, in the ninth century, says that he has read the Ecclesiastical History; twenty-seven books against Heresies, among which he reckons the "Eranistes;" five books "Haereticarum Fabularum;" five in praise of Chrysostom; with Commentaries on Daniel, the Octateuch, Kings, Chronicles, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus in the fourteenth century, Hist. Ecc. xiv. 54, writes: "Theodoretus, Syrian by birth, was a follower of the great Chrysostom, whom he set before him as a model of style. His own was flowing and copious, eloquent and easy, and not destitute of Attic grace." He mentions expositions of difficult passages of the Old Testament; Commentaries on the Prophets and the Psalms; the "de Providentia;" a volume "On the Apostles;" the Confutation of heresies, called "the battle between truth and falsehood;" the refutation of Cyril's "Twelve Chapters;" the Ecclesiastical History; the "Philotheus," a History of the Lovers of God; three books on the divine doctrines, and five hundred (?) letters. The following is the catalogue of extant works as given by Sirmondus and followed by Garnerius. (i.) Exegetical. Questions on the Octateuch, the Books of Kings and Chronicles; the Interpretation of the Psalms, Canticles, the Four Greater, and the Twelve Lesser Prophets; an exposition of all the Epistles of St. Paul, including the Hebrews. (ii.) Historical. The Ecclesiastical History, and the "Philotheus," or Religious History. (iii.) Controversial. The Eranistes, or Dialogues, and the Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium. (iv.) Theological. The Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, the Discourse on Charity, and the De Providentia. (v.) Epistolary. The Letters. (vi.) To these may be added the Refutation of the Twelve Chapters, and the following given in the Auctarium of Garnerius. (1.) Prolegomena and extracts from Commentaries on the Psalms. (2.) Part of a Commentary on St. Luke. (3.) Sermon on the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. (4.) Portions of Sermons on St. Chrysostom. (5.) Homily preached at Chalcedon in 431. (6.) Fragments of the Pentalogium, extracted from Marius Mercator, [105] who attributed the work to the instigation of the devil. Lost works. [106] (1.) The Pentalogium, of which fragments are preserved in the Auctarium. (2.) Opus mysticurn, sive mysteriorum fidei expositiones, lib. xii. (3.) Works "de theologia et Incarnatione," identified by Garnier with three Dialogues against the Macedonians, and two against the Apollinarians, erroneously attributed to Athanasius. (4.) Adversus Marcionem. (5.) Adversus Judaeos (? the Commentary on Daniel). (6.) Responsiones ad quaesitus magorum Persarum. (7.) Five sermons on St. Chrysostom. (8.) Two allocutions spoken at Chalcedon against Cyril in 431. (9.) Sermon preached at Antioch on the death of Cyril. (10.) Works on Sabellius and the Trinity, of which portions are given by Baluz. Misc. iv. __________________________________________________________________ [103] Cf. Garnerius in Migne's Theodoret V. 255. [104] The last record in the History appears to be of a.d. 440, cf. p. 159. Eusebius ends, and Theodoret begins, with the defeat of Licinius in 323. Constantine began to reign in 306. [105] A writer, supposed to be a layman, whose works were discovered in two mss. at the end of the seventeenth century. One is in the Vatican, the other was found in the Cathedral Library of Beauvais. Marius wrote fully on the Nestorian Controversy, and with acrimony against Theodoret. [106] As catalogued by Canon Venables from Cave (Hist. Lit. I. 405 ff.) Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 918. __________________________________________________________________ IX.--Contents and Character of the Extant Works. (a) The character of the Commentary on the Octateuch and the Books of Kings and Chronicles is indicated by the Title "eis ta 'apora tes theias Graphes kat' 'eklogen," or "On selected difficulties in Holy Scripture." These questions are treated, with occasional deflexions into allegory, from the historico-exegetical point of view of the Syrian School, [107] of which Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were distinguished representatives. On Diodorus Socrates [108] remarks, "he composed many works, relying on the bare letter of Scripture, and avoiding their speculative aspect." This might be said of Diodorus' great pupil too. Nevertheless, though generally following a line of interpretation in broad contrast with that of Origen, Theodoret quotes Origen as well as Diodore and Theodore of Mopsuestia as authorities. Of the 182 "questions" on Genesis and Exodus the following may be taken as specimens. Question viii. "What spirit moved upon the waters?" Theodoret's conclusion is that the wind is indicated. Question x. "Why did the author add, `And God saw that it was good'?" To persuade the thankless not to find fault with what the divine judgment pronounces good. Question xix. "To whom did God say `let us make man in our image and likeness'?" The reply, carefully elaborated, is that here is an indication of the Trinity. Question xx. "What is meant by `image'?" Here long extracts from Diodorus, Theodorus, and Origen are given. Question xxiv. "Why did God plant paradise, when He intended straightway to drive out Adam thence?" God condemns none of foreknowledge. And besides, He wished to shew the saints the Kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. [109] Question xl. "What is the meaning of the statement `The man is become as one of us'?" Theodoret thinks this is said ironically. God had forbidden Adam to take of the fruit of the tree of life, not because he grudged man immortal life, but to check the course of sin. So death is a means of cure, not a punishment. Question xlvii. "Whom did Moses call sons of God?" A long argument replies, the sons of Seth. Question lxxxi suggests an ingenious excuse for Jacob. "Did not Jacob lie when he said, I am Esau thy firstborn?" He had bought the precedence of primogeniture, and therefore spoke the truth when he called himself firstborn. Exodus. "Question xii. What is the meaning of the phrase `I will harden Pharaoh's heart'?" This is answered at great length. The information given in these notes, as we might call them, is theological, exegetic, and explanatory of peculiar terms, and is often of interest and value. On the fourteen Books of Questions and Answers Canon Venables, [110] quoting Ceillier, remarks that the whole form a literary and historical commentary of great service for the right comprehension of the text, characterized by honesty and common sense, and seldom straining or evading the meaning to avoid dangerous conclusions. (b) On the Psalms and the rest of the Books of the Old Testament the Commentary is no longer in the catechetical form, but is styled Interpretation. [111] The Psalmist, Theodoret observes, [112] in many places predicts the passion and resurrection of our Lord, and to attentive readers causes real delight by the variety of his prophesying. In view of some recent discussions concerning the authorship of certain Psalms it is interesting to find the enthusiast for orthodoxy in the 5th century writing "It has been contended by some critics that the Psalms are not all the work of David, but are to be ascribed in some cases to other writers. Accordingly, from the titles, some have been attributed to Idithum, some to Etham, some to the sons of Core, some to Asaph, by men who have learned from the Chronicles that these writers were prophets. [113] On this point I make no positive statement. What difference indeed does it make to me whether all the Psalms are David's, or some were the composition of others, when it is clear that all were written by the active operation of the Holy Spirit?" The importance of the commentary on the Psalms may be estimated by the fact that it is longer than all the catechetical commentary on the preceding Books combined. The interpretation on the Canticles follows spiritual, as distinguished from literal, lines. The lover is Jesus Christ;--the bride, the Church. From the prologue it appears that Theodoret held all the Old Testament to have been re-written, under divine inspiration, by Ezra. This is regarded as the earliest of the exegetical works. The original commentary on Isaiah has been lost. The only existing portions are passages collected from the Greek catenae by Sirmond and edited in his edition, but the opinion has been entertained [114] that these passages should be referred to Theodore of Mopsuestia who also commented on Isaiah, and who is sometimes confused with Theodoret by the compilers of the Greek catenae. The commentary on Jeremiah includes Baruch and the Lamentations. [115] (c) The epistles of St. Paul, among which Theodoret reckons the Epistle to the Hebrews, are the only portions of the New Testament on which we possess our author's commentaries. On them the late Bishop Lightfoot writes, "Theodoret's commentaries on St. Paul are superior to his other exegetical writings, and have been assigned the palm over all patristic expositions of Scripture. See Schroeckh xviii. p. 398. sqq., Simon, p. 314 sqq. Rosenmueller iv. p. 93 sqq., and the monograph of Richter, de Theodoreto Epist. Paulin, interprete (Lips. 1822.) For appreciation, terseness of expression and good sense, they are perhaps unsurpassed, and, if the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the first place; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in Theodoret which he has not seen before. It is right to add however that Theodoret modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he apologises for attempting to interpret St. Paul after two such men who are `luminaries of the world:' and he professes nothing more than to gather his stores `from the blessed fathers.' In these expressions he alludes doubtless to Chrysostom and Theodore." [116] As a specimen of the mode of treatment of a crucial passage, of interest in view of the writer's relations to the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies, the notes on I. Cor. xv. 27, 28 may be quoted. "This is a passage which Arians and Eunomians have been wont to be constantly adducing with the notion that they are thereby belittling the dignity of the only-begotten. They ought to have perceived that the divine apostle has written nothing in this passage about the Godhead of the only-begotten. He is exhorting us to believe in the resurrection of the flesh, and endeavours to prove the resurrection of the flesh by the resurrection of the Lord. It is obvious that like is conformed to like. On this account he calls Him `the first fruits of them that have fallen asleep,' and styles Him `Man,' and by comparison with Adam proves that by Him the general resurrection will come to pass, with the object of persuading objectors, by shewing the resurrection of one of like nature, to believe that all mankind will share His resurrection. It must therefore be recognised that the natures of the Lord are two: and that divine Scripture names Him sometimes from the human, and sometimes from the divine. If it speaks of God, it does not deny the manhood: if it mentions man it at the same time confesses the Godhead. It is impossible always to speak of Him in terms of sublimity, on account of the nature which He received from us, for if even when lowly terms are employed some men deny the assumption of the flesh, clearly still more would have been found infected with this unsoundness, had no lowly terms been used. What then is the meaning of `then is subjected'? This expression is applicable to sovereigns exercising sovereignty now, for if He then is subjected He is not yet subjected. So they are all in error who blaspheme and try to make subject Him who has not yet submitted to the limits of subjection. We must wait, and learn the mode of the subjection. But we have gone through long discussions on these points in our contests with them. It is enough now to indicate briefly the Apostle's aim. He is writing to the Corinthians who have only just been set free from the fables of heathendom. Their fables are full of violence and iniquity. Not to name others, and pollute my lips, they worship parricide gods, and say that sons revolted against their fathers, drove them from their realm, and seized their sovereignty. So after saying great things of Christ, in that He shall destroy all rule and authority and power, and shall put an end to death, and hath subdued all things under his feet; lest starting from those fables of theirs they should expect Him to treat His father like the Daemons whom they adore; after mentioning, as was necessary, the subjugation of all things the apostle adds `The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that did put all things under Him.' For not only shall He not subject the Father to Himself, but shall Himself accept the subjection becoming to a son. So the divine apostle, suspecting the mischief arising from the pagan mythology, uses expressions of lowliness because such terms are helpful. But let objectors tell us the form of that subjection. If they are willing to consider the truth, He shewed obedience when He was made man, and wrought out our salvation. How then shall He then be subjected, and how shall He then deliver the kingdom to God the Father? If the case be viewed in this way, it will appear that God the Father does not hold the kingdom now. So full of absurdity are their arguments. But He makes what is ours His own, since we are called His body, and He is called our Head. `He took our iniquities and bore our diseases.' [117] So He says in the Psalm `my God, my God, look upon me, why hast Thou forsaken me. The words of my transgressions are far from my health.' [118] And yet He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. But a mouth is made of our nature, in that He was made the first fruits of the nature. So He appropriates our frequent disobedience and the then subjection, and, when we are subjected after our delivery from corruption He is said to be subjected. What follows leads us on to this sense. For after the words `then shall the son be subject to Him that did put all things under Him,' the Apostle adds `that God may be all in all.' He is everywhere now in accordance with His essence, for His nature is uncircumscribed, as says the divine apostle, `in Him we live and move and have our being.' [119] But, as regards His good pleasure, He is not in all, for `the Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in his mercy.' [120] But in these He is not wholly. For no one is pure of uncleanness, and In thy sight shall no man living be justified [121] and `If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand?' Therefore the Lord taketh pleasure wherein they do right and taketh not pleasure wherein they err. But in the life to come where corruption ceases and immortality is given passions have no place; and after these have been quite driven out no kind of sin is committed for the future. Thus hereafter God shall be all in all, when all have been released from sin and turned to Him and are incapable of any inclination to the worse. And what in this place the divine Apostle has said of God in another passage he has laid down of Christ. His words are these. `Where there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian...but Christ is all and in all.' [122] He would not have applied to the Son what is attributable to the Father had he not of divine grace learnt that He is of equal honour with Him.' [123] On the meaning of the passage about them that are baptized for the dead it is curious to find only one interpretation curtly proffered in apparent unconsciousness of any other being known or possible. Theodoret's words are "He, says the apostle, who is baptized is buried with the Lord, that as he has been sharer in the death so he may be sharer in the resurrection. But if the body is dead and does not rise why then is he baptized?" The dead for which a man is baptized seems to be regarded as his own dead body i.e., dead in trespasses and sin and subject to corruption. [124] (d) Of the historical works, (i) the Ecclesiastical History needs less description, in that a translation in extenso is given in the text. Its style and spirit speak for themselves. Photius [125] well describes it as "clear, lofty, and concise." Gibbon, [126] referring to the three ecclesiastical historians of this period speaks of "Socrates, the more curious Sozomen, and the learned Theodoret." Of learning, industry, and veracity the proofs are patent in the book itself. The chief fault of the work is its want of chronological arrangement. [127] A minor shortcoming is what may be called a lack of perspective; a fulness of detail is sometimes conceded to mere episode and parenthesis, while characters and events of high and crucial importance would scarcely be known to be so, were we dependent for our estimation of them on Theodoret alone. Valesius inclines to the opinion that his opening words about supplying things omitted [128] refer to Socrates and Sozomen, and compares him in his composition of a history after those writers (there is just a possibility that he might have completed the parallel by referring to a third predecessor--Rufinus) to St. John filling up the gaps left by the synoptists. [129] But this view is open to question. Theodoret names no previous writers but Eusebius. A special importance attaches to his account of such events and persons as his local knowledge enables him to give with completeness of detail, as for instance, all that relates to Antioch and its bishops. Garnerius is of opinion that the work might with propriety be entitled A History of the Arian Heresy; all other matter introduced he views as merely episodic. [130] He also quotes the letter [131] of Gregory the great in which the Roman bishop states that "the apostolic see refuses to receive the History of `Sozomenus' (sic) inasmuch as it abounds with lies, and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia, maintaining that he was up to the day of his death, a great Doctor." "Sozomen" is supposed to be a slip of the pen, or of the memory, for "Theodoret." But, if this be so, "multa mentitur" is an unfair description of the errors of the historian. Fallible he was, and exhibits failure in accuracy, especially in chronology, but his truthfulness of aim is plain. [132] (ii) The Religious History, several times referred to in the Ecclesiastical History, and therefore an earlier composition, contains the lives of thirty-three famous ascetics, of whom three were women. The "curious intellectual problem" [133] of the readiness with which Theodoret, a disciple of the "prosaic and critical" school of Antioch, accepts and repeats marvellous tales of the miracles of his contemporary hermits, has been invested with fresh interest in our own time by the apparent sympathy and similar belief of Dr. Newman, who asks "What made him drink in with such relish what we reject with such disgust? Was it that, at least, some miracles were brought home so absolutely to his sensible experience that he had no reason for doubting the others which came to him second-hand? This certainly will explain what to most of us is sure to seem the stupid credulity of so well-read, so intellectual an author." [134] Cardinal Newman evidently implies that the evidence was irresistible, even to a keen and trained intelligence. Probably in many cases the explanation is to be found, as has been already suggested in the remarks on Theodoret's birth, in the ready acceptance of the current views of the age and place as to cause and effect. Theodoret believed in the marvels of his monks. Matthew Hale believed in witchcraft. Neither, that is, was some centuries removed from his own age. Neither need be accused of stupid credulity. The enthusiasm which led him to reckon on finding the noble army of martyrs a very present help in time of trouble because he had a little bottle of their oil, probably that burned at their graves, slung over his bed; and his assurance that the old cloak of Jacobus, folded for his pillow, was a more than adamantine bulwark against the wiles of the devil, indicate no more than an exaggerated reliance on the power of material memorials to affect the imagination. [135] And it is curious to remark that with all this acceptance of the cures effected by ascetics, Theodoret made a provision of medical skill for his flock at Cyrus. [136] (e) The works reckoned as theological, as distinct from the controversial, are three: (i) The twelve discourses entitled ;;Ellenikon therapeutike pathematon, or "Graecarum affectionum curatio, seu evangelicae veritatis ex gentilium philospohia cognitio.' They contain an elaborate apology for Christian philosophy, with a refutation of the attacks of paganism against the doctrines of the gospel, and may have been designed, as Garnerius conjectures, to serve as an antidote against whatever might still survive of the influence of Julian and his writings. Here we see at once our author's "genius and erudition" (Mosheim). In these orations he exhibits a wide acquaintance with Greek literature, and we find cited, or referred to, among other writers, Homer, Hesiod, Alcman, Theognis, Xenophanes, Pindar, Heraclitus, Zeno, Parmenides, Empedocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and Porphyry. Homer and Plato are largely quoted. Basnage, [137] indeed, contested their genuineness, but without weakening their position among Theodoret's accepted works. They have seemed to some to encourage undue honour to and invocation of saints and martyrs [138] but their author seems to anticipate later exaggeration of their reverence by the distinction, "We ascribe Godhead to nothing visible. Them that have been distinguished in virtue we honour as excellent men, but we worship none but the God and Father of all, His Word, and the Holy Spirit." [139] (ii). The Discourses against paganism were followed by ten on Divine Providence, a work justly eulogized as exhibiting Theodoret's literary power in its highest form. Of it Garnerius, who is by no means disposed to bestow indiscriminate laudation on the writer, remarks that nothing was ever published on this subject more eloquent or more admirable, either by Theodoret, or by any other. [140] The discourses may not improbably have been delivered in public at Antioch, and have been the occasion of the enthusiastic admiration described as shewn by the patriarch John. [141] In them he presses the argument of the divine guidance of the world from the constitution of the visible creation, and specially of the body of man. The preacher draws many illustrations from the animal world and shews himself to be an intelligent observer. The pursuit of righteousness is proved not to be vain, even though the achieved result is not seen until the resurrection, and it is argued that from the beginning God has not cared for one chosen race alone but for all mankind. The crowning evidence of divine providence is in the incarnation. "I have taught you"--so the great orations conclude--"the universal providence of God. You behold His unfathomable loving kindness;--His boundless mercy; cease then to strive against Him that made you; learn to do honour to your benefactor, and requite his mighty benefits with grateful utterance. Offer to God the sacrifice of praise; defile not your tongue with blasphemy, but make it the instrument of worship for which it was designed. Such divine dispensations as are plain, reverence; about such as are hidden make no ado, but wait for knowledge in the time to come. When we shall put off the senses, then we shall win perfect knowledge. Imitate not Adam who dared to pluck the forbidden fruit; lay not hold of hidden things, but leave the knowledge of them to their own fit season. Obey the words of the wise man--say not What is this? For what purpose is this! `For all things were made for good.' [142] Gathering then from every source occasion for praise, and mingling one melody, offer it with me to the Creator, the giver of good, and Christ the Saviour, our very God. To them be glory and worship and honour for endless age on age. Amen." (iii) The Discourse on Divine Love. This love, says Theodoret, is the source of the holy life of the ascetics. For his own part he would not accept the kingdom of heaven without it, or with it, were such a thing possible, shrink from the pains of hell. It was really love, he says, which led to Peter's denial; he need not have denied if he could have borne to keep aloof, but love goaded him to be near his Lord. (f.) The controversial works are (i.) The "Eranistes," or Dialogues, of which the translation is included in the text. They contain a complete refutation of the Eutychian position, and the quotations in them are in several cases valuable as giving portions of the writing of Fathers not elsewhere preserved. They are supposed to have been written shortly after the death of Cyril in 444, and are intended at once to vindicate Theodoret's own orthodoxy, and to expose the errors of the party protected by Dioscorus. (ii.) The Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, (Hairetikes kakomusias epitome) was composed at the request of Sporacius, one of the representatives of Marcian at Chalcedon, and is, as its title indicates, an account of past or present heresies. It is divided into five Books, which treat of the following heretics. I. Simon Magus, Menander, Saturnilus, [143] Basilides, Isidorus, Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Prodicus, Valentinus, Secundus, Marcus the Wizard, the Ascodruti, [144] the Colorbasii, the Barbelioti, [145] the Ophites, the Cainites, the Antitacti, the Perati, Monoimus, Hermogenes, Tatianus, Severus, Bardesanes, Harmonius, Florinus, Cerdo, Marcion, Apelles, Potitus, Prepo, and Manes. II. The Ebionites, the Nazarenes, Cerinthus, Artemon, Theodotus, the Melchisedeciani, the Elkesites, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus. III. The Nicolaitans, the Montanists, Noetus of Smyrna, the Tessarescaedecatites (i.e. Quartodecimani) Novatus, Nepos. IV. Arius, Eudoxius, Eunomius, Aetius, the Psathyriani, the Macedoniani, the Donatists, the Meletians, Appollinarius, the Audiani, the Messaliani, Nestorius, Eutyches. V. The last book is an "Epitome of the Divine Decrees." This catalogue, it has been remarked, does not include Origenism and Pelagianism. [146] But though Theodoret did not sympathize with Origen's school of scriptural interpretation, there was no reason why he should damn him as unsound in the faith. And the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus as to Origen was a distinctively western controversy. So was Pelagianism a western heresy, with which Theodoret was not brought into immediate contact. The fourth book is obviously the most important, as treating of heresies of which the writer would have contemporary knowledge. And special interest has attached to the chapter on Nestorius, who is condemned not merely for erroneous opinion on the incarnation and person of Christ, but as a timeserver and pretender, seeking rather to be thought, than to be, a Christian. Garnerius indeed doubts the genuineness of the chapter, and Schulze, in defending it, points out the similarity of its line of argument to that employed in the treatise "against Nestorius," which is very generally regarded as spurious. It may have been added after Chalcedon, when the writer had been forced into the denunciation of his old friend. But the expressions used alike of the incarnation and of Nestorius seem somewhat in contrast with other writings of Theodoret. Schroeckh [147] inclines to the view in which Ceillier concurs, that this damning account of Nestorius was really written by his old champion, and accounts for the harshness of condemnation by the influence of the clamours of Chalcedon and the induration which old age sometimes brings on tender spirits. It can only be said that if this is Theodoret, it is Theodoret at his worst. The heads of the Epitome of Divine Decrees are the following twenty-nine: Of the Father; of the Son; of the Holy Ghost; of Creation; of Matter; of AEons; of Angels; of Daemons; of Man; of Providence; of the Incarnation of the Saviour; that the Lord took a body; that He took a soul as well as His body; that the human nature which He took was perfect; that He raised the nature which He took; that He is good and just; that He gave the Old and the New Testament; of Baptism; of Resurrection; of Judgment; of Promises; of the Second Advent ('Epiphaneia) of the Saviour; of Antichrist; of Virginity; of Marriage; of Second Marriage; of Fornication; of Repentance; of Abstinence. The short chapter on the Incarnation has a special value in view of the author's connection with the Nestorian Controversy. "It is worth while," he writes in it, "to exhibit what we hold concerning the Incarnation, for this exposition proclaims more clearly the providence of the God of all. In his forged fables Valentinus maintained a distinction between the only-begotten and the Word, and further between the Christ within the pleroma and Jesus, and also the Christ who is without. He said that Jesus became man, by putting on the Christ that is without, and assuming a body of the substance of the soul; and that He made a passage only through the Virgin, having assumed nothing of the nature of man. Basilides in like manner distinguished between the only-begotten, the Word and the Wisdom. Cerdon, on the other hand, Marcion, and Manes, said that the Christ appeared as man, though he had nothing human. Cerinthus maintained that Jesus was generated of Joseph and Mary after the common manner of men, but that the Christ came down from on high on Jesus. The Ebionites, the Theodotians, the Artemonians, and Photinians said that the Christ was bare man born of the Virgin. Arius and Eunomius taught that He assumed a body, but that the Godhead discharged the function of the soul. Apollinarius held that the body of the Saviour had a soul, [148] but had not the reasonable soul; for, according to his views, intelligence was superfluous, God the Word being present. I have stated the opinions taught by the majority of heresies with the wish of making plain the truth taught by the church. Now the church makes no distinction between (ton auton onomazei) the Son, the only begotten, God the Word, the Lord the Saviour, and Jesus Christ. `Son,' `only begotten,' `God the Word,' and `Lord,' He was called before the Incarnation; and is so called also after the Incarnation; but after the Incarnation the same (Lord) was called Jesus Christ, deriving the titles from the facts. `Jesus' is interpreted to mean the Saviour, whereof Gabriel is witness in his words to the Virgin `Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.' [149] But He was styled `Christ' on account of the unction of the Spirit. So the Psalmist David says `Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' [150] And through the Prophet Isaiah the Lord Himself says `The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me.' [151] Thus the Lord Himself taught us to understand the prophecy, for when He had come into the synagogue, and opened the book of the Prophets, He read the passage quoted, and said to those present `This day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears.' [152] The great Peter, too, preached in terms harmonious with the prophets, for in his explanation of the mystery to Cornelius he said `That word ye know which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee after the Baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus Christ with the Holy Ghost and with power.' [153] Hence it is clear that He is called Christ on account of the unction of the spirit. But he was anointed not as God, but as man. And as in His human nature He was anointed, after the Incarnation He was called also `Christ.' But yet there is no distinction between God the Word and the Christ, for God the Word incarnate was named Christ Jesus. And He was incarnate that He might renew the nature corrupted by sin. The reason of His taking all the nature which had sinned was that He might heal all. For He did not take the nature of the body using it as a veil of His Godhead, according to the wild teaching of Arius and Eunomius; for it had been easy for Him even without a body to be made visible as He was seen of old by Abraham, Jacob and the rest of the saints. But he wished the very nature that had been worsted to beat down the enemy and win the victory. For this reason He took both a body and a reasonable soul. For Holy Scripture does not divide man in a threefold division, but states that this living being consists of a body and a soul. [154] For God after forming the body out of the dust breathed into it the soul and shewed it to be two natures not three. And the same Lord in the Gospels says, `Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul,' [155] and many similar passages may be found in divine Scripture. And that He did not assume man's nature in its perfection, contriving it as a veil for His Godhead, according to the heretics' fables, but achieving victory by means of the first fruits for the whole race, is truly witnessed and accurately taught by the divine apostle, for in His Epistle to the Romans, when unveiling the mystery of the Incarnation, he writes `Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that is to come.' [156] (iii.) The refutations of the Twelve Chapters of Cyril are translated in the Prolegomena. [157] In the Epistle of Cyril to Celestinus and the Commonitorium datum Posidonio [158] Cyril shows what sense he wishes to fix on the utterances of Nestorius. "The faith, or rather the `cacodoxy' of Nestorius, has this force; he says that God the Word, prescient that he who was to be born of the Holy Virgin would be holy and great, therefore chose him and arranged that he should be generated of the Virgin without a husband and conferred on him the privilege of being called by His own names, and raised him so that even though after the incarnation he is called the only begotten Word of God, he is said to have been made man because He was always with him as with a holy man born of the Virgin. And as He was with the prophets so, says Nestorius, was He by a greater conjunction (sunapheia). On this account Nestorius always shrinks from using the word union (enosis) and speaks of `conjunction,' as of some one without, and, as He says to Joshua `as I was with Moses so will I be with thee.' [159] But, to conceal his impiety, Nestorius says that He was with him from the womb. Wherefore he does not say that Christ was very God, but that Christ was so called of God's good pleasure; and, if he was called Lord, so again Nestorius understands him to be Lord because the divine Word conceded him the boon of being so named. Nor does he say as we do that the Son of God died and rose again on our behalf. The man died and the man rose, and this has nothing to do with God the Word. And in the mysteries what lies (i.e. on the Holy Table) (to prokeimenon) is a man's body; but we believe that it is flesh of the Word, having power to quicken because it is made flesh and blood of the Word that quickeneth all things." Nestorius was not unnaturally indignant at this misrepresentation of his words, and complains of Cyril for leaving out important clauses and introducing additions of his own. [160] Cyril succeeded in pressing upon Celestinus the idea that Nestorius, who had vigorously opposed the Pelagians, was really in sympathy with them, and so secured the condemnation of his opponent at Rome and at Alexandria, and published twelve anathemas to complete his own vindication. These were answered by Theodoret on behalf of the eastern church in 431. In 433 formal peace was made, so far as the theological, as apart from the personal, dispute was concerned, by the acceptance by both John of Antioch and Cyril of the formula, slightly modified, which Theodoret himself had drawn up at Ephesus two years before. [161] It is as follows: "We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, to be perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body, begotten before the ages of the Father, as touching His godhead, and in the last days on account of us and our salvation (born) of the Virgin Mary as touching His manhood; that He is of one substance with the Father as touching His godhead, of one substance with us as touching His manhood; for there is made an union of two natures; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this meaning of the unconfounded union we confess the holy Virgin to be `theotokos' on account of God the Word being made flesh and becoming man, and of this conception uniting to Himself the temple taken of her. We acknowledge that theologians use the words of evangelists and apostles about the Lord some in common, as of one person, and some distinctively, as of two natures, and deliver the divine as touching the Godhead of the Christ, and the lowly as touching His manhood." [162] This is substantially what Theodoret says again and again. This satisfied Cyril. This would probably have been accepted by Nestorius too. [163] What then was it, apart from the odium theologicum, which kept Nestorius and Cyril apart? Below the apparent special pleading and word-jugglery on the surface of the controversy lay the principle that in the Christ God and man were one; the essence of the atonement or reconciliation lying in the complete union of the human and the divine in the one Person; the "I" in the "I am" of the Temple and the "I thirst" of the Cross being really the same. "God and man is one Christ." The position which the Cyrillians viewed with alarm was a reduction of this unity to a mere partnership or alliance;--God dwelling in Jesus of Nazareth as He dwells in all good men, only to a greater degree;--the eternal Word being in close contact with the son of Mary (sunapheia). So, whatever may have been the unhappy faction-fights with which the main issue was confused there was in truth a great crisis, a great question for decision; was Jesus of Nazareth an unique personality, or only one more in the goodly fellowship of prophets? Was He God, or was He not? There can be little doubt as to the answer Nestorius would have given. There can be none as to that of Theodoret. But on the part of Cyril there was the quite mistaken conviction that Theodoret was practically contending for two Christs. On the other hand Theodoret erroneously identified Cyril with the confusion of the substance and practical patripassianism which he scathes in the "Eranistes," and which the common sense of Christendom has condemned in Eutyches. (g) To Nicephorus Callistus in the 15th century five hundred of Theodoret's letters were known, [164] and he is eloquent in their praise. Now, the collection, including several by other writers, comprises only one hundred and eighty one. The value of their contributions to the history of the times as well as of their writer will be evident on their study. The order in which they are published is preserved in the translation for the sake of reference. A chronological order would have obvious advantages, but this in many cases could only be conjectural. Where the indications of time are fairly plain the probable date is suggested in a note. The letters are divided into (a) dogmatic, (b) consolatory, (c) festal, (d) commendatory, (e) congratulatory, (f) commenting on passing events. Of them Schulze writes "Nihil eo in genere scribendi perfectius; nam quae sunt epistolarum virtutes, brevitas, perspicuitas, elegantia, urbanitas, modestia, observantia decori, et ingeniosa prudensque ac erudita simplicitas, in epistolis Theodoreti admirabiliter ita elucent ut scribentibus exempla esse possint." "They not only" says Schroeckh, [165] "vindicate the admiration of Nicephorus, but are specially attractive on account of their exhibition of the writer's simplicity, modesty, and love of peace." From the study of these letters "we rise," writes Canon Venables, [166] "with a heightened estimate of Theodoret himself, his intellectual power, his theological precision, his warm-hearted affection for his friends, and the Christian virtues with which, notwithstanding some weaknesses and an occasional bitterness for which, however distressing, his persecutions offered some palliation, his character was adorned." The reputation of Theodoret in the Church is a growing reputation, and the practical canonization which he has won in the heart of Christendom is a testimony to the power and worth of character and conduct. Though never officially dignified by a higher ecclesiastical title than "Beatus" he is yet to Marcellinus "Episcopus sanctus Cyri" [167] and to Photius [168] "divinus vir." His earnest, sometimes bitter, conflict with the great intellect and strong will of Cyril, and apparent discomfiture in the war which raged, often with dire confusion, up and down the long lines of definition, have not succeeded in robbing him of one of the highest places among the Fathers of whom the Church is proudest. He exhibits, each in a lofty and conspicuous form, all the qualities which mark a great and good churchman. His theological writings would have won high fame in a recluse. His administration of his diocese, as we learn it from his modest letters, would have gained him the character of an excellent bishop, even had he been no scholar. His temper in controversy, though occasionally breaking out into the fiery heat of the oriental, is for the most part in happy contrast with that of his opponents. His devotion to his duty is undeniable, and his industry astonishing. It is impossible not to feel as we read his writings that he is no self-seeker arguing for victory. He believes that the fate of the Church rests on the fidelity of Christians to the Nicene Confession, and in his championship of this creed, and his opposition to all that seems to him to threaten its adulteration or defeat, he knows no awe of prince or court. Owning but one Lord, he is true through evil and good report to Him, and his figure stands out large, bright, and gracious across the centuries, against a background of intrigue and controversy sometimes very dark, as of a patient and faithful soldier and servant of Christ. [169] If his shortcomings were those of his own age,--and in an age of virulent strife and of denial of all mercy to opponents his memory rises as a comparative monument of moderation,--his graces were the graces of all the ages. [170] Were it customary, or even possible, in our own church and time to maintain the ancient custom of reciting before the Holy Table the names approved as of good men and true in the past history of the Holy Society, in the long catalogue of the faithful departed for whom worshippers bless the name of their common Lord, a place must indubitably be kept for Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus. __________________________________________________________________ [107] cf. Gieseler i. 209, who refers to Muenter in Stauedlins Archiv. fuer Kirchengesch. i. 1. 13. [108] vi., 3. [109] Matt. xxv. 34 [110] Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 916. [111] hermeneia [112] In Ps. Ed. Migne 604, 605. [113] cf. 1 Chron. vi. 44., xv. 17, 19, and Art. Jeduthun in Dict. Bib. [114] Garnerius. Theod. Ed. Migne 1, 274. [115] cf. note on page 327. [116] Lightfoot. Epist. Gal. ed. 1866, p. 226. [117] Is. liii. 4 [118] Ps. xxii. 1 [119] Acts xvii. 28 [120] Ps. cxlvii. 11 [121] Psalm cxliii. 2 [122] Coloss. iii. 11 [123] Theodor. Ed. Migne iii. 271. Seqq. [124] Here Theodoret agrees in the main with Chrysostom and Theophylact, vide Reff. in Alford ad loc. [125] "Unquestionably the right view of this controverted passage is that of the Greek Fathers, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, and others. In reading their comments it is quite clear that they found no more difficulty in St. Paul's elliptical use of the Greek uper than we do in Shakespeare's use of the English `for.' They did not hesitate in their homilies to expound that the phrase `for the dead' meant `with an interest in the resurrection of the dead,' or that `for' by itself meant even so much as `in expectation of the resurrection.' Speaker's Commentary, iii. 373. [126] Chap. xxi. n. [127] Ceillier (x. 42) repeats the charge of distinct errors in chronology in (a) the statement that Arius died in 325 instead of in 336; (b) the extension of the exile of Athanasius by four months; (c) the election of Ambrose at the beginning of the reign of Valentinian, instead of ten years later; (d) the troubles at Antioch placed after instead of before those at Thessalonica; (e) the siege of Nisibis in 350 confounded with that of 359. As to (a) the truth is that Theodoret is guilty rather of vagueness than of a misstatement. (Vide I. capp. xiii, xiv.) The objection to (b) the two years and four months exile of Athanasius is due to Valerius (obs. Ecc. i). Canon Bright (Dict. Christ. Biog. i. 187) agrees with Theodoret (cf. Newman Hist. Tracts xii and Hefele, Conciliengesch. i. 467.) In (c) Theodoret is vague, in (d) wrong. According to Valerius Volagesus, and not Jacobus, was bishop of Nisibis in 350. [128] tes ekklesiastikes historias ta paraleipomena [129] Valesii annotationes--Theod: Migne III. 1522. Valesius is the Latinized form of Henri de Valois, French historiographer royal, who edited Ammianus Marcellinus and the Greek Ecclesiastical historians. He died in 1692. [130] Theod. Ed. Migne. V. 282. [131] Ep. XXXIV. [132] "Baronius obviously approves of Gregory's remark about Theodoret's lies, that is his errors in the order of events, and out of Book iv. produces no less than fifteen blunders, to say nothing of those in iii and v." Garner. loc. cit. 280, 281. [133] Canon Venables Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 918. [134] Historical Sketches iii. 314. [135] Theod. Ed. Migne. iii. 1244. Schroeckh. xviii. 362. [136] Ep. CXV. [137] Histoire de l'Eglise. II. 1225. Jacques de Beauval Basnage /-1723. [138] Schroeckh Kirchengesch., Vol. xviii. 410. [139] Graec. Cur. Aff. Ed. Migne 754. [140] "On y voit toute la beaute du genie de Theodoret; du choix dans les pensees, de la noblesse dans les expressions, de l'elegance et de la nettete dans le style, de la suite et de la force dans les raisonnements." Ceillier x. 88 (Remi Ceillier /-1761. His "Histoire Generale des auteurs sacres" was published in Paris 1729-1763.) [141] Ep. lxxxiii. [142] cf. Ecclus. xxxix. 27 [143] Satorneilos or Satornilos in Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret; but Satorninos (Saturninus) in Irenaeus and Eusebius. [144] A Galatian sect. Jerome has "Ascodrobi," Epiphanius (Haer. 416) identifies "Tascodrugitae," with Cataphrygians or Montanists, and says they were so called from the habit of putting their finger to their nose when praying. [145] In Epiphanius (i. 85, B) Barbelitae. Barbelo was a mythologic personage; -- The sect gnostic. [146] Ceillier x. 84. [147] xviii. 416. [148] empsuchon [149] Matt. i. 21 [150] Ps. xlv. 7 [151] Is. lxi. 1 [152] Luke iv. 21 [153] Acts x. 37, 38 [154] cf. note on pp. 132 and 194. [155] Matt. x. 28 [156] Rom. v. 12, 13, 14 [157] Page 26. [158] Mansi. T. IV. 1012 Seqq. Migne Pat. LXXVII. 85. [159] Jos. i. 5 [160] Gieseler Vol. I. p. 231. [161] Gieseler i. 235. [162] Synod. c. 17. Mansi V. p. 773. [163] In Walch's Hist. Ketz. V. 778, there is a good summary of Nestorius' views: he thinks the dispute a mere logomachy. So also Luther, and after him Basnage, Dupin, Jablonski. Vide reff. in Gieseler i. 236. [164] Ecc. Hist. xiv. 54. [165] xviii. 427. [166] Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 918. [167] Marc. 466. Ceiller x. 25. [168] Cod. xxiv., p. 527. [169] La vie sainte et edifiante que Theodoret mena des sa premiere jeunesse; les travaux apostoliques dont il honora son episcopat; son zele pour la conversion des ennemis de l'eglise; les persecutions qu'il souffrait pour le nom de Jesus Christ; son amour pour la solitude, pour la pauvrete et pour les pauvres; l'esprit de charite qu'il a fait paraitre dans toutes les occasions; la genereuse liberte dans la confession de la verite; sa profonde humilite qui parait dans tous ses ecrits; le succes dont Dieu benit ses soins et ses mouvements pour le salut des hommes, l'ont rendu venerable dans l'eglise. Les anciens l'ont qualifie saint, et apelle un homme divin; mais la qualite qu'ils lui donnent ordinairement c'est celle de bienheureux." Ceillier. x. 25. [170] cf. Schroeckh xviii. 356. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Manuscripts and Editions of Separate Works. ------------------------ The editions of the Ecclesiastical History are the most numerous, though of several others there are many. Of the collected works the following are the principal. (i) Editio princeps, of Paulus Manutius, Latin Version only. Rome 1556. (ii) J. Birckman, fol. 2 voll. Latin only Cologne 1573. (iii) J. Sirmond, 4 voll. fol. Greek and Latin, Paris 1642. To this the Auctarium of J. Garnier, with his dissertations was added in 1684. (iv) John Lewis Schulze, Greek and Latin, based upon the preceding, in 5 voll. Halle, 1774. (v) Migne's edition of the foregoing. Paris 1860. (The last-named is the Edition used for the translation in this work.) The mss. authority for the works of Theodoret is strong. The afore-named editions are based on ms. in the libraries of Augsburg, Florence, Rome and Naples. To works on Theodoret mentioned in the notes may be added:-- S. Kuepper, Ausgew, Schriften des sel. Theodoret aus dem Urtext uebers. E. Binder, Etudes sur Theodoret. Geneva, 1844. Specht, Theodor von Mopsuestia, und Theodoret von Cyrus. Munich, 1871. __________________________________________________________________ The Anathemas of Cyril in Opposition to Nestorius. ------------------------ (Mansi T. IV. p. 1067-1082, Migne Cat. 76, col. 391. The anathemas of Nestorius against Cyril are to be found in Hardouin i. 1297.) I. If any one refuses to confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and therefore that the holy Virgin is Mother of God (theotokos), for she gave birth after a fleshly manner to the Word of God made flesh; let him be anathema. II. If any one refuses to confess that the Word of God the Father is united in hypostasis to flesh, and is one Christ with His own flesh, the same being at once both God and man, let him be anathema. III. If any one in the case of the one Christ divides the hypostases after the union, conjoining them by the conjunction alone which is according to dignity, independence, or prerogative, and not rather by the concurrence which is according to natural union, let him be anathema. IV. If any one divides between two persons or hypostases the expressions used in the writings of evangelists and apostles, whether spoken by the saints of Christ or by Him about Himself, and applies the one as to a man considered properly apart from the Word of God, and the others as appropriate to the divine and the Word of God the Father alone, let him be anathema. V. If any one dares to maintain that the Christ is man bearing God, and not rather that He is God in truth, and one Son, and by nature, according as the Word was made flesh, and shared blood and flesh in like manner with ourselves, let him be anathema. VI. If any one dares to maintain that the Word of God the Father was God or Lord of the Christ, and does not rather confess that the same was at once both God and man, the Word being made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema. VII. If any one says that Jesus was energized as man by God the Word, and that He was invested with the glory of the only begotten as being another beside Him, let him be anathema. VIII. If any one dares to maintain that the ascended man ought to be worshipped together with the divine Word, and be glorified with Him, and with Him be called God as one with another (in that the continual rise of the preposition "with" in composition makes this sense compulsory), and does not rather in one act of worship honour the Emmanuel and praise Him in one doxology, in that He is the Word made flesh, let him be anathema. IX. If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using the power that works through Him as a foreign power, and receiving from Him the ability to operate against unclean spirits, and to complete His miracles among men; and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, whereby also He wrought His miracles, let him be anathema. X. Holy Scripture states that Christ is High Priest and Apostle of our confession, [171] and offered Himself on our behalf for a sweet-smelling savour to God and our Father. [172] If, then, any one says that He, the Word of God, was not made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made flesh and man after our manner; but as being another, other than Himself, properly man made of a woman; or if any one says that He offered the offering on His own behalf, and not rather on our behalf alone; for He that knew no sin would not have needed an offering, let him be anathema. XI. If any one confesses not that the Lord's flesh is giver of life, [173] and proper to the Word of God Himself, but (states) that it is of another than Him, united indeed to Him in dignity, yet as only possessing a divine indwelling; and not rather, as we said, giver of life, because it is proper to the Word of Him who hath might to engender all things alive, let him be anathema. XII. If any one confesses not that the Word of God suffered in flesh, and was crucified in flesh, and tasted death in flesh, and was made firstborn of the dead, in so far as He is life and giver of life, as God; let him be anathema. __________________________________________________________________ [171] Heb. iii. 1, R.V. [172] cf. Eph. v. 2 [173] zoopoion. cf. to kurion to zoopoion of the Creed of Constantinople. __________________________________________________________________ Counter-statements of Theodoret. ------------------------ (Opp. Ed. Schulze. V. I. seq. Migne, Lat. 76. col. 391.) Against I.--But all we who follow the words of the evangelists state that God the Word was not made flesh by nature, nor yet was changed into flesh; for the Divine is immutable and invariable. Wherefore also the prophet David says, "Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." [174] And this the great Paul, the herald of the truth, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, states to have been spoken of the Son. [175] And in another place God says through the Prophet, "I am the Lord: I change not." [176] If then the Divine is immutable and invariable, it is incapable of change or alteration. And if the immutable cannot be changed, then God the Word was not made flesh by mutation, but took flesh and tabernacled in us, according to the word of the evangelist. This the divine Paul expresses clearly in his Epistle to the Philippians in the words, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant." [177] Now it is plain from these words that the form of God was not changed into the form of a servant, but, remaining what it was, took the form of the servant. So God the Word was not made flesh, but assumed living and reasonable flesh. He Himself is not naturally conceived of the Virgin, fashioned, formed, and deriving beginning of existence from her; He who is before the ages, God, and with God, being with the Father and with the Father both known and worshipped; but He fashioned for Himself a temple in the Virgin's womb, and was with that which was formed and begotten. Wherefore also we style that holy Virgin theotokos, not because she gave birth in natural manner to God, but to man united to the God that had fashioned Him. Moreover if He that was fashioned in the Virgin's womb was not man but God the Word Who is before the ages, then God the Word is a creature of the Holy Ghost. For that which was conceived in her, says Gabriel, is of the Holy Ghost. [178] But if the only begotten Word of God is uncreate and of one substance and co-eternal with the Father it is no longer a formation or creation of the Spirit. And if the Holy Ghost did not fashion God the Word in the Virgin's womb, it follows that we understand the form of the servant to have been fashioned, formed, conceived, and generated. But since the form was not stripped of the form of God, but was a Temple containing God the Word dwelling in it, according to the words of Paul "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell" "bodily," [179] we call the Virgin not mother of man (anthropotokos) but mother of God (theotokos), applying the former title to the fashioning and conception, but the latter to the union. For this cause the child who was born is called Emmanuel, neither God separated from human nature nor man stripped of Godhead. For Emmanuel is interpreted to mean "God with us", according to the words of the Gospels; and the expression "God with us" at once manifests Him Who for our sakes was assumed out of us, and proclaims God the Word Who assumed. Therefore the child is called Emmanuel on account of God Who assumed, and the Virgin theotokos on account of the union of the form of God with the conceived form of a servant. For God the Word was not changed into flesh, but the form of God took the form of a servant. Against II.--We, in obedience to the divine teaching of the apostles, confess one Christ; and, on account of the union, we name the same both God and man. But we are wholly ignorant of the union according to hypostasis [180] as being strange and foreign to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers who have interpreted them. And if the author of these statements means by the union according to hypostasis that there was a mixture of flesh and Godhead, we shall oppose his statement with all our might, and shall confute his blasphemy, for the mixture is of necessity followed by confusion; and the admission of confusion destroys the individuality of each nature. Things that are undergoing mixture do not remain what they were, and to assert this in the case of God the Word and of the seed of David would be most absurd. We must obey the Lord when He exhibits the two natures and says to the Jews, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." [181] But if there had been mixture then God had not remained God, neither was the temple recognised as a temple; then the temple was God and God was temple. This is involved in the theory of the mixture. And it was quite superfluous for the Lord to say to the Jews, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." He ought to have said, Destroy me and in three days I shall be raised, if there had really been any mixture and confusion. As it is, He exhibits the temple undergoing destruction and God raising it up. Therefore the union according to hypostasis, which in my opinion they put before us instead of mixture, is superfluous. It is quite sufficient to mention the union, which both exhibits the properties of the natures and teaches us to worship the one Christ. Against III.--The sense of the terms used is misty and obscure. Who needs to be told that there is no difference between conjunction and concurrence? The concurrence is a concurrence of the separated parts; and the conjunction is a conjunction of the distinguished parts. The very clever author of the phrases has laid down things that agree as though they disagreed. It is wrong, he says, to conjoin the hypostases by conjunction; they ought to be conjoined by concurrence, and that a natural concurrence. Possibly he states this not knowing what he says; if he knows, he blasphemes. Nature has a compulsory force and is involuntary; as for instance, if I say we are naturally hungry, we do not feel hunger of free-will but of necessity; and assuredly paupers would have left off begging if the power of ceasing to be hungry had lain in their own will; we are naturally thirsty; we naturally sleep; we naturally breathe; and all these actions, I repeat, belong to the category of the involuntary, and he who is no longer capable of them necessarily ceases to exist. If then the concurrence in union of the form of God and the form of a servant was natural, then God the Word was united to the form of the servant under the compulsion of necessity, and not because He put in force His loving kindness, and the Lawgiver of the Universe will be found to be a follower of the laws of necessity. Not thus have we been taught by the blessed Paul; on the contrary, we have been taught that He took the form of a servant and "emptied Himself;" [182] and the expression "emptied Himself" indicates the voluntary act. If then He was united by purpose and will to the nature assumed from us, the addition of the term natural is superfluous. It suffices to confess the union, and union is understood of things distinguished, for if there were no division an union could never be apprehended. The apprehension then of the union implies previous apprehension of the division. How then can he say that the hypostases or natures ought not to be divided? He knows all the while that the hypostasis of God the Word was perfect before the ages; and that the form of the servant which was assumed by It was perfect; and this is the reason why he said hypostases and not hypostasis. If therefore either nature is perfect, and both came together, it is obvious that after the form of God had taken the form of a servant, piety compels us to confess one son and Christ; while to speak of the united hypostases or natures as two, so far from being absurd, follows the necessity of the case. For if in the case of the one man we divide the natures, and call the mortal nature body, but the immortal nature soul, and both man, much more consonant is it with right reason to recognise the properties alike of the God who took and of the man who was taken. We find the blessed Paul dividing the one man into two where he says in one passage, "Though our outward man perish yet the inward man is renewed," [183] and in another "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." [184] And again "that Christ may dwell in the inner man." [185] Now if the apostle divides the natural conjunction of the synchronous natures, with what reason can the man who describes the mixture to us by means of other terms indite us as impious when we divide the properties of the natures of the everlasting God and of the man assumed at the end of days? Against IV.--These statements, too, are akin to the preceding. On the assumption that there has been a mixture, he means that there is a distinction of terms as used both in the holy Gospels and in the apostolic writings. And he uses this language while glorifying himself that he is at war at once with Arius and Eunomius and the rest of the heresiarchs. Let then this exact professor of theology tells us how he would confute the blasphemy of the heretics, while applying to God the Word what is uttered humbly and appropriately by the form of the servant. They indeed while thus doing lay down that the Son of God is inferior, a creature, made, and a servant. To whom then are we, holding as we do the opposite opinion to theirs, and confessing the Son to be of one substance and co-eternal with God the Father, Creator of the Universe, Maker, Beautifier, Ruler, and Governor, All-wise, Almighty, or rather Himself, Power, Life and Wisdom, to refer the words "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me;" [186] or "Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me;" [187] or "Father save me from this hour;" [188] or "That hour no man knoweth, not even the Son of Man;" [189] and all the other passages spoken and written in lowliness by Him and by the holy apostles about Him? To whom shall we apply the weariness and the sleep? To whom the ignorance and the fear? Who was it who stood in need of angelic succour? If these belong to God the Word, how was wisdom ignorant? How could it be called wisdom when affected by the sense of ignorance? How could He speak the truth in saying that He had all that the Father hath, [190] when not having the knowledge of the Father? For He says, "The Father alone knoweth that day." [191] How could He be the unchanged image of Him that begat Him if He has not all that the Begetter hath? If then He speaks the truth when saying that He is ignorant, any one might suppose this of Him. But if He knoweth the day, but says that He is ignorant with the wish to hide it, you see in what a blasphemy the conclusion issues. For the truth lies and could not properly be called truth if it has any quality opposed to truth. But if the truth does not lie, neither is God the Word ignorant of the day which He Himself made, and which He Himself fixed, wherein He purposes to judge the world, but has the knowledge of the Father as being unchanged image. Not then to God the Word does the ignorance belong, but to the form of the servant who at that time knew as much as the indwelling Godhead revealed. The same position may be maintained about other similar cases. How for instance could it be reasonable for God the Word to say to the Father, "Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt"? [192] The absurdities which necessarily thence follow are not a few. First it follows that the Father and the Son are not of the same mind, and that the Father wishes one thing and the Son another, for He said, "Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt." Secondly we shall have to contemplate great ignorance in the Son, for He will be found ignorant whether the cup can or cannot pass from Him; but to say this of God the Word is utter impiety and blasphemy. For exactly did He know the end of the mystery of the oeconomy Who for this very reason came among us, Who of His own accord took our nature, Who emptied Himself. For this cause too He foretold to the Holy Apostles, "Behold we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed...into the hands of the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify Him, and the third day He shall rise again." [193] How then can He Who foretold these things, and, when Peter deprecated their coming to pass, rebuked him, Himself deprecate their coming to pass, when He clearly knows all that is to be? Is it not absurd that Abraham many generations ago should have seen His day and have been glad, [194] and that Isaiah in like manner, and Jeremiah, and Daniel, and Zechariah, and all the fellowship of the prophets, should have foretold His saving passion, and He Himself be ignorant, and beg release from and deprecate it, though it was destined to come to pass for the salvation of the world? Therefore these words are not the words of God the Word, but of the form of the servant, afraid of death because death was not yet destroyed. [195] Surely God the Word permitted the utterance of these expressions allowing room for fear, that the nature of Him that had to be born may be plain, and to prevent our supposing the Son of Abraham and David to be an unreality or appearance. The crew of the impious heretics has given birth to this blasphemy through entertaining these sentiments. We shall therefore apply what is divinely spoken and acted to God the Word; on the other hand what is said and done in humility we shall connect with the form of a servant, lest we be tainted with the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius. Against V.--We assert that God the Word shared like ourselves in flesh and blood, and in immortal soul, on account of the union relating to them; but that God the Word was made flesh by any change we not only refuse to say, but accuse of impiety those who do, and it may be seen that this is contrary to the very terms laid down. For if the Word was changed into flesh He did not share with us in flesh and blood: but if He shared in flesh and blood He shared as being another besides them: and if the flesh is anything other besides Him, then He was not changed into flesh. While therefore we use the term sharing [196] we worship both Him that took and that which was taken as one Son. But we reckon the distinction of the natures. We do not object to the term man bearing God, as employed by many of the holy Fathers, one of whom is the great Basil, who uses this term in his argument to Amphilochius about the Holy Ghost, and in his interpretation of the fifty-ninth psalm. But we call Him man bearing God, not because He received some particular divine grace, but as possessing all the Godhead of the Son united. For thus says the blessed Paul in his interpretation, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." [197] Against VI.--The blessed Paul calls that which was assumed by God the Word "form of a servant," [198] but since the assumption was prior to the union, and the blessed Paul was discoursing about the assumption when he called the nature which was assumed "form of a servant," after the making of the union the name of "servitude" has no longer place. For seeing that the Apostle when writing to them that believed in Him said, "So thou art not a servant but a son" [199] and the Lord said to His disciples, "Henceforth I will not call you servants but friends;" [200] much more the first fruits of our nature, through whom even we were guerdoned with the boon of adoption, would be released from the title of servant. We therefore confess even "the form of the servant" to be God on account of the form of God united to it; and we bow to the authority of the prophet when he calls the babe also Emmanuel, and the child which was born, "Angel of great counsel, wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, powerful, Prince of peace, and Father of the age to come." [201] Yet the same prophet, even after the union, when proclaiming the nature of that which was assumed, calls him who is of the seed of Abraham "servant" in the words "Thou art my servant O Israel and in thee will I be glorified;" [202] and again, "Thus says the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant;" [203] and a little further on, "Lo I have given thee for a covenant of the people, for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." [204] But what was formed from the womb was not God the Word but the form of the servant. For God the Word was not made flesh by being changed, but He assumed flesh with a rational soul. Against VII.--If the nature of man is mortal, and God the Word is life and giver of life, and raised up the temple which had been destroyed by the Jews, and carried it into heaven, how is not the form of the servant glorified through the form of God? For if being originally and by nature mortal it was made immortal through its union with God the Word, it therefore received what it had not; and after receiving what it had not, and being glorified, it is glorified by Him who gave. Wherefore also the Apostle exclaims, "According to the working of His mighty power which he wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead." [205] Against VIII.--As I have often said, the doxology which we offer to the Lord Christ is one, and we confess the same to be at once God and man, as the method of the union has taught us; but we shall not shrink from speaking of the properties of the natures. For God the Word did not undergo change into flesh, nor yet again did the man lose what he was and undergo transmutation into the nature of God. Therefore we worship the Lord Christ, while we maintain the properties of either nature. Against IX.--Here he has plainly had the hardihood to anathematize not only those who at the present time hold pious opinions, but also those who were in former days heralds of truth; aye even the writers of the divine gospels, the band of the holy Apostles, and, in addition to these, Gabriel the archangel. For he indeed it was who first, even before the conception, announced the birth of the Christ according to the flesh; saying in reply to Mary when she asked, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." [206] And to Joseph he said, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." [207] And the Evangelist says, "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph...she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." [208] And the Lord Himself when He had come into the synagogue of the Jews and had taken the prophet Isaiah, after reading the passage in which he says, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me because He hath anointed me" and so on, added, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." [209] And the blessed Peter in his sermon to the Jews said, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." [210] And Isaiah many ages before had predicted, "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;" [211] and again, "Behold my servant whom I uphold, my beloved in whom my soul delighteth. I will put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." [212] This testimony the Evangelist too has inserted in his own writings. And the Lord Himself in the Gospels says to the Jews, "If I with the spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you." [213] And John says, "He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." [214] So this exact examiner of the divine decrees has not only anathematized prophets, apostles, and even the archangel Gabriel, but has suffered his blasphemy to reach even the Saviour of the world Himself. For we have shewn that the Lord Himself after reading the passage "The spirit of the Lord is upon me because He hath anointed me," said to the Jews, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." And to those who said that He was casting out devils by Beelzebub He replied that He was casting them out by the Spirit of God. But we maintain that it was not God the Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that was formed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which was assumed by Him at the end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of the Son was His own if he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, and shall accept the expression as consistent with true piety. But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For we believe the Lord when He says, "The spirit which proceedeth from the Father;" [215] and likewise the very divine Paul saying, "We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God." [216] Against X.--The unchangeable nature was not changed into nature of flesh, but assumed human nature and set it over the common high priests, as the blessed Paul teaches in the words, "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is encompassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people so also for himself." [217] And a little further on interpreting this he says, "As was Aaron so also was the Christ." [218] Then pointing out the infirmity of the assumed nature he says, "Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplication with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard for His godly fear, though He was a son yet learned obedience by the things that He suffered: and having been made perfect He became unto all that obey Him the author of eternal salvation; named of God a high priest of the order of Melchisedec." [219] Who then is He who was perfected by toils of virtue and who was not perfect by nature? Who is He who learnt obedience by experience, and before his experience was ignorant of it? Who is it that lived with godly fear and offered supplication with strong crying and tears, not able to save Himself but appealing to Him that is able to save Him and asking for release from death? Not God the Word, the impassible, the immortal, the incorporeal, whose memory is joy and release from tears, "For he has wiped away tears from off all faces," [220] and again the prophet says, "I remembered God and was glad," [221] Who crowneth them that live in godly fear, "Who knoweth all things before they be," [222] "Who hath all things that the Father hath;" [223] Who is the unchangeable image of the Father, [224] "Who sheweth the Father in himself." [225] It is on the contrary that which was assumed by Him of the seed of David, mortal, passible, and afraid of death; although this itself afterwards destroyed the power of death through union with the God who had assumed it; [226] which walked through all righteousness and said to John, "Suffer it to be so now for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." [227] This took the name of the priesthood of Melchisedec, for it put on infirmity of nature;--not the Almighty God the Word. Wherefore also, a little before, the blessed Paul said, "We have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin." [228] It was the nature taken from us for our sakes which experienced our feelings without sin, not He that on account of our salvation assumed it. And in the beginning of this part of his subject he teaches us in the words "Consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him that appointed Him as also Moses was faithful in all His house." [229] But no one holding the right faith would call the unmade the uncreate, God the Word coeternal with the Father, a creature; but on the contrary, Him of David's seed Who being free from all sin was made our high priest and victim, after Himself offering Himself on our behalf to God having in Himself the Word, God of God, united to Himself and inseparably conjoined. Against XI.--In my opinion he appears to give heed to the truth, in order that, by concealing his unsound views by it, he may not be detected in asserting the same dogmas as the heretics. But nothing is stronger than truth, which by its own rays uncovers the darkness of falsehood. By the aid of its illumination we shall make his heterodox belief plain. In the first place he has nowhere made mention of intelligent flesh, nor confessed that the assumed man was perfect, but everywhere in accordance with the teaching of Apollinarius he speaks of flesh. Secondly, after introducing the conception of the mixture under other terms, he brings it into his arguments; for there he clearly states the flesh of the Lord to be soulless. For, he says, if any one states that the flesh of the Lord is not proper flesh of the very Word who is of God the Father, but that it is of another beside Him, let him be anathema. Hence it is plain that he does not confess God the Word to have assumed a soul, but only flesh, and that He Himself stands to the flesh in place of soul. We on the contrary assert that the flesh of the Lord having in it life [230] was life-giving and reasonable, on account of the life-giving Godhead united to it. And he himself unwillingly confesses the difference between the two natures, speaking of flesh, and "God the Word" and calling it "His own flesh." Therefore God the Word was not changed into nature of flesh, but has His own flesh, the assumed nature, and has made it life-giving by the union. Against XII.--Passion is proper to the passible; the impassible is above passions. It was then the form of the servant that suffered, the form of God of course dwelling with it, and permitting it to suffer on account of the salvation brought forth of the sufferings, and making the sufferings its own on account of the union. Therefore it was not the Christ [231] who suffered, but the man assumed of us by God. Wherefore also the blessed Isaiah exclaims in his prophecy, "A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." [232] And the Lord Christ Himself said to the Jews, "Why seek ye to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth?" [233] But what is threatened with death is not the very life, but he that hath a mortal nature. And giving this lesson in another place the Lord said to the Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." [234] Therefore what was destroyed was the (temple descended) from David, and, after its destruction, it was raised up by the only begotten Word of God impassibly begotten of the Father before the ages. __________________________________________________________________ [174] Ps. ci. 28 [175] Heb. i. 12 [176] Mal. iii. 6 [177] Phil. ii. 5, 6, 7 [178] Matt. i. 23 [179] Coloss. i. 19, and ii. 9 [180] cf. n. p. 72. [181] John ii. 19 [182] Phil. ii. 7 [183] 2 Cor. iv. 16 [184] Rom. vii. 22 [185] Ephes. iii. 17. Greek as in A.V. "in your hearts." [186] Matt. xxvii. 48 [187] Matt. xxvi. 39 [188] John xii. 27 [189] Matt. xxiv. 36 and Mk. xiii. 22. There is no manuscript authority for the variation Son "of Man." [190] John xvi. 15 [191] Matt. xxiv. 36 [192] Matt. xxvi. 39 [193] Matt. xx. 18, 19 [194] John viii. 26 [195] For the view that the cup deprecated by the Saviour was death there is no direct Scriptural authority and to adopt the exegesis of Theodoret and of many others would be to place the divine humanity of the Messiah on a lower level than that not merely of many a martyr and patriot but of many men unconscious of martyr's or patriot's high calling, who have nevertheless faced death and pain with calm and cheerful fortitude. The bitterness of the cup which the Saviour prayed might if possible pass from Him seems rather to have lain in the culmination of the sin of the race and nation with which His love for men had identified Him; the greed, the treachery, the meanness, the cruelty, the disloyalty, shewn by the Sons of Israel to the Son of David, by the sons of men to the Son of Man. [196] koinonia, in the sense of participation. [197] Coloss. ii. 8, 9 [198] Phil. ii. 7 [199] Gal. iv. 7 [200] John xv. 15 [201] Isaiah vii. 14 and ix. 6, lxx. Alex. [202] Isaiah xlix. 3 [203] Isaiah xlix. 5 [204] Isaiah xlix. 6 "covenant of the people" being imported from lxii. 6 [205] Ephes. i. 19, 20 [206] Luke i. 34, 35 [207] Matt. i. 20 [208] Matt. i. 18 [209] Luke iv. 17, 21 [210] Acts x. 38 [211] Isaiah xi. 1, 2 [212] Isaiah xlii. 1 [213] Matt. xii. 28 [214] John i. 33 [215] John x. 5, 26 [216] 1 Cor. ii. 12 [217] Hebrews v. 1-3 [218] Hebrews v. 4, 5 [219] Hebrews v. 7, 10 [220] Isaiah xxv. 8 [221] Psalm lxxvii. 3, lxx. [222] Susann. 42 [223] John xvi. 15 [224] Col. i. 15 [225] John xiv. 7 [226] Heb. ii. 14 [227] Matt. iii. 15 [228] Heb. iv. 15 [229] Heb. iii. 1-2 [230] 'empsuchon [231] For "the Christ" we might expect here "the Word," for that the Christ suffered is the plain statement of Scripture (1 Pet. ii. 21). But Theodoret uses the name Christ of the eternal word, e.g. de Providentia x. 661. "When you hear Christ mentioned, understand the only begotten Son the Word, begotten of His Father before the ages, clad in human nature." [232] Is. liii. 3 [233] John vii. 19. d. viii. 40 [234] John ii. 9 __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ The ECCLESIASTICAL HistorY of Theodoret. ------------------------ Book I. Prologue.--Design of the History. When artists paint on panels and on walls the events of ancient history, they alike delight the eye, and keep bright for many a year the memory of the past. Historians substitute books for panels, bright description for pigments, and thus render the memory of past events both stronger and more permanent, for the painter's art is ruined by time. For this reason I too shall attempt to record in writing events in ecclesiastical history hitherto omitted, deeming it indeed not right to look on without an effort while oblivion robs [235] noble deeds and useful stories of their due fame. For this cause too I have been frequently urged by friends to undertake this work. But when I compare my own powers with the magnitude of the undertaking, I shrink from attempting it. Trusting, however, in the bounty of the Giver of all good, I enter upon a task beyond my own strength. Eusebius of Palestine [236] has written a history of the Church from the time of the holy Apostles to the reign of Constantine, the prince beloved of God. I shall begin my history from the period at which his terminates. [237] __________________________________________________________________ [235] sulao. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 8 [236] Cf. Basil de Spir. Sanct., 29. "ho palaistinos" means "of Caesarea," his see, to distinguish him from his namesake, Bishop of Nicomedia. [237] The last event mentioned by Eusebius is the defeat of Licinius, who was put to death a.d. 324. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter I.--Origin of the Arian Heresy. After the overthrow of the wicked and impious tyrants, Maxentius, Maximinus, and Licinius, the surge which those destroyers, like hurricanes, had roused was hushed to sleep; the whirlwinds were checked, and the Church henceforward began to enjoy a settled calm. This was established for her by Constantine, a prince deserving of all praise, whose calling, like that of the divine Apostle, was not of men, nor by man, but from heaven. He enacted laws prohibiting sacrifices to idols, and commanding churches [238] to be erected. He appointed Christians to be governors of the provinces, ordering honour to be shown to the priests, and threatening with death those who dared to insult them. By some the churches which had been destroyed were rebuilt; others erected new ones still more spacious and magnificent. Hence, for us, all was joy and gladness, while our enemies were overwhelmed with gloom and despair. The temples of the idols were closed; but frequent assemblies were held, and festivals celebrated, in the churches. But the devil, full of all envy and wickedness, the destroyer of mankind, unable to bear the sight of the Church sailing on with favourable winds, stirred up plans of evil counsel, eager to sink the vessel steered by the Creator and Lord of the Universe. When he began to perceive that the error of the Greeks had been made manifest, that the various tricks of the demons had been detected, and that the greater number of men worshipped the Creator, instead of adoring, as heretofore, the creature, he did not dare to declare open war against our God and Saviour; but having found some who, though dignified with the name of Christians, were yet slaves to ambition and vainglory, he made them fit instruments for the execution of his designs, and by their means drew others back into their old error, not indeed by the former method of setting up the worship of the creature, but by bringing it about that the Creator and Maker of all should be reduced to a level with the creature. I shall now proceed to relate where and by what means he sowed these tares. Alexandria is an immense and populous city, charged with the leadership not only of Egypt, but also of the adjacent countries, the Thebaid and Libya. After Peter [239] , the victorious champion of the faith, had, during the sway of the aforesaid impious tyrants, obtained the crown of martyrdom, the Church in Alexandria was ruled for a short time by Achillas [240] . He was succeeded by Alexander [241] , who proved himself a noble defender of the doctrines of the gospel. At that time, Arius, who had been enrolled in the list of the presbytery, and entrusted with the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, fell a prey to the assaults of jealousy, when he saw that the helm of the high priesthood was committed to Alexander. Stung by this passion, he sought opportunities for dispute and contention; and, although he perceived that Alexander's irreproachable conduct forbade his bringing any charges against him, envy would not allow him to rest. In him the enemy of the truth found an instrument whereby to stir and agitate the angry waters of the Church, and persuaded him to oppose the apostolical doctrine of Alexander. While the Patriarch, in obedience to the Holy Scriptures, taught that the Son is of equal dignity with the Father, and of the same substance with God who begat Him, Arius, in direct opposition to the truth, affirmed that the Son of God is merely a creature or created being, adding the famous dictum, "There once was a time when He was not [242] ;" with other opinions which may be learned from his own writings. He taught these false doctrines perseveringly, not only in the church, but also in general meetings and assemblies; and he even went from house to house, endeavouring to make men the slaves of his error. Alexander, who was strongly attached to the doctrines of the Apostles, at first tried by exhortations and counsels to convince him of his error; but when he saw him playing the madman [243] and making public declaration of his impiety, he deposed him from the order of the presbytery, for he heard the law of God loudly declaring, "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee [244] ." __________________________________________________________________ [238] ekklesia. The use of the word in 1 Cor. xi. 18 indicates a transition stage between "Assembly" and "Building." The brethren met "in assembly:" soon they met in a church. Cf. Aug. Ep. 190, 5. 19: "ut nomine ecclesiae, id est populi qui continetur, significemus locum qui continet." Chrysost. Hom. xxix. in Acta: hoi progonoi tas ekklesias okodomesan [239] Succeeded Theonas as Archbishop of Alexandria, a.d. 300. Beheaded by order of Maximinus, a.d. 311. Euseb. vii. 32. [240] Patriarch of Alexandria, a.d. 311-312. Promoted Arius to the priesthood. Soz. i. 15. [241] Patriarch, a.d. 312-326. [242] en pote hote ouk en [243] korubantionta [244] ean...skandalize, St. Matt. v. 29 and xviii. 9; ei...skandalizei, cf. Mark ix. 43 __________________________________________________________________ Chapter II.--List of the Principal Bishops Of the church of Rome at this period Silvester [245] held the reins. His predecessor in the see was Miltiades [246] , the successor of that Marcellinus [247] who had so nobly distinguished himself during the persecution. In Antioch, after the death of Tyrannus [248] , when peace began to be restored to the churches, Vitalis [249] received the chief authority, and restored the church in the "Palaea [250] " which had been destroyed by the tyrants. He was succeeded by Philogonius [251] , who completed all that was wanting in the work of restoration: he had, during the time of Licinius, signalised himself by his zeal for religion. After the administration of Hermon [252] , the government of the church in Jerusalem was committed to Macarius [253] , a man whose character was equal to his name, and whose mind was adorned by every kind of virtue. At this same period also, Alexander, illustrious for his apostolical gifts, governed the church of Constantinople [254] . It was at this time that Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, perceiving that Arius, enslaved by the lust of power, was assembling those who had been taken captive by his blasphemous doctrines, and was holding private meetings, communicated an account of his heresy by letter to the rulers of the principal churches. That the authenticity of my history may not be suspected, I shall now insert in my narrative the letter which he wrote to his namesake, containing, as it does, a clear account of all the facts I have mentioned. I shall also subjoin the letter of Arius, together with the other letters which are necessary to the completeness of this narrative, that they may at once testify to the truth of my work, and make the course of events more clear. The following letter was written by Alexander of Alexandria, to the bishop of the same name as himself. __________________________________________________________________ [245] Bp. of Rome, from Jan. 31, a.d. 314, to Dec. 31, a.d. 335. [246] Otherwise Melchiades. July 2, a.d. 310, to Jan. 10, a.d. 314. [247] Jan. 30, a.d. 296, to Oct. 25, a.d. 304. Accused of apostasy, under Diocletian. [248] Bishop of Antioch during the persecution of Diocletian, kath' hon ekmasen he ton ekklesion poliorkia. Eus. H.E. vii. 32. [249] 21st Bp. of Antioch, a.d. 312-a.d. 318. [250] The ancient part of the city of Antioch. [251] a.d. 319-323. [252] a.d. 302-311. [253] Macarius = Blessed. a.d. 311-?334. Vide Chapters iv. and xvii. [254] Circa ?a.d. 313 or 317-340. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter III.--The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople. "To his most revered and likeminded brother Alexander, Alexander sendeth greeting in the Lord. "Impelled by avarice and ambition, evil-minded persons have ever plotted against the wellbeing of the most important dioceses. Under various pretexts, they attack the religion of the Church; and, being maddened by the devil, who works in them, they start aside from all piety according to their own pleasure, and trample under foot the fear of the judgment of God. Suffering as I do from them myself, I deem it necessary to inform your piety, that you may be on your guard against them, lest they or any of their party should presume to enter your diocese (for these cheats are skilful in deception), or should circulate false and specious letters, calculated to delude one who has devoted himself to the simple and undefiled faith. "Arius and Achillas have lately formed a conspiracy, and, emulating the ambition of Colluthus, have gone far beyond him [255] . He indeed sought to find a pretext for his own pernicious line of action in the charges he brought against them. But they, beholding his making a trade of Christ for lucre [256] , refused to remain any longer in subjection to the Church; but built for themselves caves, like robbers, and now constantly assemble in them, and day and night ply slanders there against Christ and against us. They revile every godly apostolical doctrine, and in Jewish fashion have organized a gang to fight against Christ, denying His divinity, and declaring Him to be on a level with other men. They pick out every passage which refers to the dispensation of salvation, and to His humiliation for our sake; they endeavour to collect from them their own impious assertion, while they evade all those which declare His eternal divinity, and the unceasing [257] glory which He possesses with the Father. They maintain the ungodly doctrine entertained by the Greeks and the Jews concerning Jesus Christ; and thus, by every means in their power, hunt for their applause. Everything which outsiders ridicule in us they officiously practise. They daily excite persecutions and seditions against us. On the one hand they bring accusations against us before the courts, suborning as witnesses certain unprincipled women whom they have seduced into error. On the other they dishonour Christianity by permitting their young women to ramble about the streets. Nay, they have had the audacity to rend the seamless garment of Christ, which the soldiers dared not divide. "When these actions, in keeping with their course of life, and the impious enterprise which had been long concealed, became tardily known to us, we unanimously ejected them from the Church which worships the divinity of Christ. They then ran hither and thither to form cabals against us, even addressing themselves to our fellow-ministers who were of one mind with us, under the pretence of seeking peace and unity with them, but in truth endeavouring by means of fair words, to sweep some among them away into their own disease. They ask them to write a wordy letter, and then read the contents to those whom they have deceived, in order that they may not retract, but be confirmed in their impiety, by finding that bishops agree with and support their views. They make no acknowledgment of the evil doctrines and practices for which they have been expelled by us, but they either impart them without comment, or carry on the deception by fallacies and forgeries. Thus concealing their destructive doctrine by persuasive and meanly truckling language, they catch the unwary, and lose no opportunity of calumniating our religion. Hence it arises that several have been led to sign their letter, and to receive them into communion, a proceeding on the part of our fellow-ministers which I consider highly reprehensible; for they thus not only disobey the apostolical rule, but even help to inflame their diabolical action against Christ. It is on this account, beloved brethren, that without delay I have stirred myself up to inform you of the unbelief of certain persons who say that "There was a time when the Son of God was not [258] ;" and "He who previously had no existence subsequently came into existence; and when at some time He came into existence He became such as every other man is." God, they say, created all things out of that which was non-existent, and they include in the number of creatures, both rational and irrational, even the Son of God. Consistently with this doctrine they, as a necessary consequence, affirm that He is by nature liable to change, and capable both of virtue and of vice, and thus, by their hypothesis of his having been created out of that which was non-existent, they overthrow the testimony of the Divine Scriptures, which declare the immutability of the Word and the Divinity of the Wisdom of the Word, which Word and Wisdom is Christ. `We are also able,' say these accursed wretches, `to become like Him, the sons of God; for it is written,--I have nourished and brought up children [259] .' When the continuation of this text is brought before them, which is, `and they have rebelled against Me,' and it is objected that these words are inconsistent with the Saviour's nature, which is immutable, they throw aside all reverence, and affirm that God foreknew and foresaw that His Son would not rebel against Him, and that He therefore chose Him in preference to all others. They likewise assert that He was not chosen because He had by nature any thing superior to the other sons of God; for no man, say they, is son of God by nature, nor has any peculiar relation to Him. He was chosen, they allege, because, though mutable by nature, His painstaking character suffered no deterioration. As though, forsooth, even if a Paul and a Peter made like endeavours, their sonship would in no respects differ from His. "To establish this insane doctrine they insult the Scriptures, and bring forward what is said in the Psalms of Christ, `Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows [260] .' Now that the Son of God was not created out of the non-existent [261] , and that there never was a time in which He was not, is expressly taught by John the Evangelist, who speaks of Him as `the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father [262] .' This divine teacher desired to show that the Father and the Son are inseparable; and, therefore, he said, `that the Son is in the bosom of the Father.' Moreover, the same John affirms that the Word of God is not classed among things created out of the non-existent, for, he says that `all things were made by Him [263] ,' and he also declares His individual personality [264] in the following words: `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made [265] .' If, then, all things were made by Him, how is it that He who thus bestowed existence on all, could at any period have had no existence himself? The Word, the creating power, can in no way be defined as of the same nature as the things created, if indeed He was in the beginning, and all things were made by Him, and were called by Him out of the non-existent into being. `That which is [266] ' must be of an opposite nature to, and essentially different from, things created out of the non-existent. This shows, likewise, that there is no separation between the Father and the Son, and that the idea of separation cannot even be conceived by the mind; while the fact that the world was created out of the non-existent involves a later and fresh genesis of its essential nature [267] , all things having been endowed with such an origin of existence by the Father through the Son. John, the most pious apostle, perceiving that the word `was' applied to the Word of God [268] was far beyond and above the intelligence of created beings, did not presume to speak of His generation or creation, nor yet dared to name the Maker and the creature in equivalent syllables. Not that the Son of God is unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten; but that the ineffable personality of the only-begotten God is beyond the keenest conception of the evangelists and perhaps even of angels. Therefore, I do not think men ought to be considered pious who presume to investigate this subject, in disobedience to the injunction, `Seek not what is too difficult for thee, neither enquire into what is too high for thee [269] .' For if the knowledge of many other things incomparably inferior is beyond the capacity of the human mind, and cannot therefore be attained, as has been said by Paul, `Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him [270] ,' and as God also said to Abraham, that the stars could not be numbered by him [271] ; and it is likewise said, `Who shall number the grains of sand by the sea-shore, or the drops of rain [272] ?' how then can any one but a madman presume to enquire into the nature of the Word of God? It is said by the Spirit of prophecy, `Who shall declare His generation [273] ?' And, therefore, our Saviour in His kindness to those men who were the pillars of the whole world, desiring to relieve them of the burden of striving after this knowledge, told them that it was beyond their natural comprehension, and that the Father alone could discern this most divine mystery; `No man,' said He, `knoweth the Son but the Father, and no man knoweth the Father save the Son [274] .' It was, I think, concerning this same subject that the Father said, `My secret is for Me and for Mine [275] .' "But the insane folly of imagining that the Son of God came into being out of that which had no being, and that His sending forth took place in time, is plain from the words `which had no being,' although the foolish are incapable of perceiving the folly of their own utterances. For the phrase `He was not' must either have reference to time, or to some interval in the ages. If then it be true that all things were made by Him, it is evident that every age, time, all intervals of time, and that `when' in which `was not' has its place, were made by Him. And is it not absurd to say that there was a time when He who created all time, and ages, and seasons, with which the `was not' is confused, was not? For it would be the height of ignorance, and contrary indeed to all reason, to affirm that the cause of any created thing can be posterior to that caused by it. The interval during which they say the Son was still unbegotten of the Father was, according to their opinion, prior to the wisdom of God, by whom all things were created. They thus contradict the Scripture which declares Him to be `the firstborn of every creature [276] .' In consonance with this doctrine, Paul with his usual mighty voice cries concerning Him; `whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds [277] ' `For by Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him: and He is before all things [278] ' Since the hypothesis implied in the phrase `out of the non-existent' is manifestly impious, it follows that the Father is always Father. And He is Father from the continual presence of the Son, on account of whom He is called [279] Father. And the Son being ever present with Him, the Father is ever perfect, wanting in no good thing, for He did not beget His only Son in time, or in any interval of time, nor out of that which had no previous existence. "Is it not then impious to say that there was a time when the wisdom of God was not? Who saith, `I was by Him as one brought up with Him: I was daily His delight [280] ?' Or that once the power of God was not, or His Word, or anything else by which the Son is known, or the Father designated, defective? To assert that the brightness of the Father's glory `once did not exist,' destroys also the original light of which it is the brightness [281] ; and if there ever was a time in which the image of God was not, it is plain that He Whose image He is, is not always: nay, by the non-existence of the express image of God's Person, He also is taken away of whom this is ever the express image. Hence it may be seen, that the Sonship of our Saviour has not even anything in common with the sonship of men. For just as it has been shown that the nature of His existence cannot be expressed by language, and infinitely surpasses in excellence all things to which He has given being, so His Sonship, naturally partaking in His paternal Divinity, is unspeakably different from the sonship of those who, by His appointment, have been adopted as sons. He is by nature immutable, perfect, and all-sufficient, whereas men are liable to change, and need His help. What further advance can be made by the wisdom of God [282] ? What can the Very Truth, or God the Word, add to itself? How can the Life or the True Light in any way be bettered? And is it not still more contrary to nature to suppose that wisdom can be susceptible of folly? that the power of God can be united with weakness? that reason itself can be dimmed by unreasonableness, or that darkness can be mixed with the true light? Does not the Apostle say, `What communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial [283] ?' and Solomon, that `the way of a serpent upon a rock [284] ' was `too wonderful' for the human mind to comprehend, which `rock,' according to St. Paul, is Christ [285] . Men and angels, however, who are His creatures, have received His blessing, enabling them to exercise themselves in virtue and in obedience to His commands, that thus they may avoid sin. And it is on this account that our Lord being by nature the Son of the Father, is worshipped by all; and they who have put off the spirit of bondage, and by brave deeds and advance in virtue have received the spirit of adoption through the kindness of Him Who is the Son of God by nature, by adoption also become sons. "His true, peculiar, natural, and special Sonship was declared by Paul, who, speaking of God, says, that `He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us [286] ,' who are not by nature His sons. It was to distinguish Him from those who are not `His own,' that he called Him `His own son.' It is also written in the Gospel, `This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased [287] ;' and in the Psalms the Saviour says, `The Lord said unto Me, Thou art My Son [288] .' By proclaiming natural sonship He shows that there are no other natural sons besides Himself. "And do not these words, I begot thee `from the womb before the morning [289] ,' plainly show the natural sonship of the paternal birth [290] of One whose lot it is, not from diligence of conduct, or exercise in moral progress, but by individuality of nature? Hence it ensues that the filiation of the only-begotten Son of the Father is incapable of fall; while the adoption of reasonable beings who are not His sons by nature, but merely on account of fitness of character, and by the bounty of God, may fall away, as it is written in the word, `The sons of God saw the daughters of men, and took them as wives,' and so forth [291] . And God, speaking by Isaiah, said, `I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me [292] .' "I have many things to say, beloved, but because I fear that I shall cause weariness by further admonishing teachers who are of one mind with myself, I pass them by. You, having been taught of God, are not ignorant that the teaching at variance with the religion of the Church which has just arisen, is the same as that propagated by Ebion [293] and Artemas [294] , and rivals that of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who was excommunicated by a council of all the bishops. Lucianus [295] , his successor, withdrew himself from communion with these bishops during a period of many years. "And now amongst us there have sprung up, `out of the non-existent' men who have greedily sucked down the dregs of this impiety, offsets of the same stock: I mean Arius and Achillas, and all their gang of rogues. Three bishops [296] of Syria, appointed no one knows how, by consenting to them, fire them to more fatal heat. I refer their sentence to your decision. Retaining in their memory all that they can collect concerning the suffering, humiliation, emptying of Himself [297] , and so-called poverty, and everything of which the Saviour for our sake accepted the acquired name, they bring forward those passages to disprove His eternal existence and divinity, while they forget all those which declare His glory and nobility and abiding with the Father; as for instance, `I and My father are one [298] .' In these words the Lord does not proclaim Himself to be the Father, neither does He represent two natures as one; but that the essence of the Son of the Father preserves accurately the likeness of the Father, His nature taking off the impress of likeness to Him in all things, being the exact image of the Father and the express stamp of the prototype. When, therefore, Philip, desirous of seeing the Father, said to Him, `Lord, show us the Father,' the Lord with abundant plainness said to him, `He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father [299] ,' as though the Father were beheld in the spotless and living mirror of His image. The same idea is conveyed in the Psalms, where the saints say, `In Thy light we shall see light [300] .' It is on this account that `he who honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father [301] .' And rightly, for every impious word which men dare to utter against the Son is spoken also against the Father. "After this no one can wonder at the false calumnies which I am about to detail, my beloved brethren, propagated by them against me, and against our most religious people. They not only set their battle in array against the divinity of Christ, but ungratefully insult us. They think it beneath them to be compared with any of those of old time, nor do they endure to be put on a par with the teachers we have been conversant with from childhood. They will not admit that any of our fellow-ministers anywhere possess even mediocrity of intelligence. They say that they themselves alone are the wise and the poor, and discoverers of doctrines, and to them alone have been revealed those truths which, say they, have never entered the mind of any other individuals under the sun. O what wicked arrogance! O what excessive folly! What false boasting, joined with madness and Satanic pride, has hardened their impious hearts! They are not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures, nor yet does the unanimous piety of all our fellow-ministers concerning Christ blunt their audacity. Even devils will not suffer impiety like this; for even they refrain from speaking blasphemy against the Son of God. "These then are the questions I have to raise, according to the ability I possess, with those who from their rude resources throw dust on the Christ, and try to slander our reverence for Him. These inventors of silly tales assert that we, who reject their impious and unscriptural blasphemy concerning the creation of Christ from the non-existent, teach that there are two unbegotten Beings. For these ill-instructed men contend that one of these alternatives must hold; either He must be believed to have come out of the non-existent, or there are two unbegotten Beings. In their ignorance and want of practice in theology they do not realize how vast must be the distance between the Father who is uncreate, and the creatures, whether rational or irrational, which He created out of the non-existent; and that the only-begotten nature of Him Who is the Word of God, by Whom the Father created the universe out of the non-existent, standing, as it were, in the middle between the two, was begotten of the self-existent Father, as the Lord Himself testified when He said, `Every one that loveth the Father, loveth also the Son that is begotten of Him [302] .' "We believe, as is taught by the apostolical Church, in an only unbegotten Father, Who of His being hath no cause, immutable and invariable, and Who subsists always in one state of being, admitting neither of progression nor of diminution; Who gave the law, and the prophets, and the gospel; of patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints, Lord: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not out of that which is not, but of the Father, Who is; yet not after the manner of material bodies, by severance or emanation, as Sabellius [303] and Valentinus [304] taught; but in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner, according to the saying which we quoted above, `Who shall declare His generation [305] ?' since no mortal intellect can comprehend the nature of His Person, as the Father Himself cannot be comprehended, because the nature of reasonable beings is unable to grasp the manner in which He was begotten of the Father [306] . "But those who are led by the Spirit of truth have no need to learn these things of me, for the words long since spoken by the Saviour yet sound in our ears, `No one knoweth who the Father is but the Son, and no one knoweth who the Son is but the Father [307] .' We have learnt that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, lacking only His "unbegotten." He is the exact and precisely similar image of His Father. For it is clear that the image fully contains everything by which the greater likeness exists, as the Lord taught us when He said, `My Father is greater than I [308] .' And in accordance with this we believe that the Son always existed of the Father; for he is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Father's Person [309] ." But let no one be led by the word `always' to imagine that the Son is unbegotten, as is thought by some who have their intellects blinded: for to say that He was, that He has always been, and that before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten. "The mind of man could not possibly invent a term expressive of what is meant by being unbegotten. I believe that you are of this opinion; and, indeed, I feel confident in your orthodox view that none of these terms in any way signify the unbegotten. For all the terms appear to signify merely the extension of time, and are not adequate to express the divinity and, as it were, the primaeval being of the only-begotten Son. They were used by the holy men who earnestly endeavoured to clear up the mystery, and who asked pardon from those who heard them, with a reasonable excuse for their failure, by saying `as far as our comprehension has reached.' But if those who allege that what was `known in part' has been `done away [310] ' for them, expect from human lips anything beyond human powers, it is plain that the terms `was,' and `ever,' and `before all ages,' fall far short of this expectation. But whatever they may mean, it is not the same as `the unbegotten.' Therefore His own individual dignity must be reserved to the Father as the Unbegotten One, no one being called the cause of His existence: to the Son likewise must be given the honour which befits Him, there being to Him a generation from the Father which has no beginning; we must render Him worship, as we have already said, only piously and religiously ascribing to Him the `was' and the `ever,' and the `before all ages;' not however rejecting His divinity, but ascribing to Him a perfect likeness in all things to His Father, while at the same time we ascribe to the Father alone His own proper glory of `the unbegotten,' even as the Saviour Himself says, `My Father is greater than I [311] .' "And in addition to this pious belief respecting the Father and the Son, we confess as the Sacred Scriptures teach us, one Holy Ghost, who moved the saints of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New. We believe in one only Catholic Church, the apostolical, which cannot be destroyed even though all the world were to take counsel to fight against it, and which gains the victory over all the impious attacks of the heterodox; for we are emboldened by the words of its Master, `Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world [312] .' After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God [313] ; in the fulness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead. He rose from the dead, was taken into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. "In this epistle I have only mentioned these things in part, deeming it, as I have said, wearisome to dwell minutely on each article, since they are well known to your pious diligence. These things we teach, these things we preach; these are the dogmas of the apostolic Church, for which we are ready to die, caring little for those who would force us to forswear them; for we will never relinquish our hope in them, though they should try to compel us by tortures. "Arius and Achillas, together with their fellow foes, have been expelled from the Church, because they have become aliens from our pious doctrine: according to the blessed Paul, who said, `If any of you preach any other gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed, even though he should pretend to be an angel from heaven [314] , and `But if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing [315] ,' and so forth. Since, then, they have been condemned by the brotherhood, let none of you receive them, nor attend to what they say or write. They are deceivers, and propagate lies, and they never adhere to the truth. They go about to different cities with no other intent than to deliver letters under the pretext of friendship and in the name of peace, and by hypocrisy and flattery to obtain other letters in return, in order to deceive a few `silly women who are laden with sins [316] .' I beseech you, beloved brethren, to avoid those who have thus dared to act against Christ, who have publicly held up the Christian religion to ridicule, and have eagerly sought to make a display before judicial tribunals, who have endeavoured to excite a persecution against us at a period of the most entire peace, and who have enervated the unspeakable mystery of the generation of Christ. Unite unanimously in opposition to them, as some of our fellow-ministers have already done, who, being filled with indignation, wrote to me against them, and signed our formulary [317] . "I have sent you these letters by my son Apion, the deacon; being those of (the ministers in) all Egypt and the Thebaid, also of those of Libya, and the Pentapolis, of Syria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and in the other adjoining countries. Whose example you likewise, I trust, will follow. Many kindly attempts have been made by me to gain back those who have been led astray, but no remedy has proved more efficacious in restoring the laity who have been deceived by them and leading them to repentance, than the manifestation of the union of our fellow-ministers. Salute one another, with the brotherhood that is with you. I pray that you may be strong in the Lord, my beloved, and that I may receive the fruit of your love to Christ. "The following are the name of those who have been anathematized as heretics: among the presbyters, Arius; among the deacons, Achillas, Euzoius, Aithales, Lucius, Sarmates, Julius, Menas, another Arius, and Helladius." Alexander wrote in the same strain to Philogonius [318] , bishop of Antioch, to Eustathius [319] , who then ruled the church of the Beroeans, and to all those who defended the doctrines of the Apostles. But Arius could not endure to keep quiet, but wrote to all those whom he believed to agree with him in opinion. His letter to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, is a clear proof that the divine Alexander wrote nothing that was false concerning him. I shall here insert his letter, in order that the names of those who were implicated in his impiety may become generally known. __________________________________________________________________ [255] Alexander's words seem to imply that Colluthus began his schismatical proceedings in assuming to exercise episcopal functions before the separation of Arius from the Church, and that one cause of his wrong action was impatience at the mild course at first adopted by Alexander towards Arius. The Council of Alexandria held in a.d. 324 under Hosius, decided that he was only a Presbyter. [256] chriostemporia. The word christemporos is applied in the "Didache" to lazy consumers of alms. Cf. Ps. Ignat. ad Trall.: ou christianoi alla christemporoi, Ps. Ignat. ad Mag. ix., and Bp. Lightfoot's note. [257] Readings vary between alektos = indescribable, and alektos = ceaseless. Cf. 'Alekto, the Fury. [258] ?;En pote hote ouk en ho hui& 232;s tou theou. kai Gegonen husteron ho proteron me huparchon toioutos genomenos hote kai pote gegonen hoios kai pas pephuken anthropos [259] Isai. i. 2 huious egennesa kai hupsosa, as in Sept. Vulg., filios enutrivi et exaltavi. Revd., marg., "made great and exalted." [260] Ps. xlv. 7, as in Sept., except that adikian is substituted for anomian [261] Oute ex ouk onton gegenetai [262] John i. 18 [263] John i. 3 [264] hupostasin [265] John i. 1, 3 [266] to on, the self-existent of philosophy. [267] The history of the word hupostasis is of crucial value in the study of the Arian controversy. Its various usages may be classified as (i) Classical; (ii) Scriptural; (iii) Ecclesiastical. The correlative substantive of the verb huphistemi, I make to stand under, [from hupo = sub. under, and histemi, [STA]; it means primarily a standing under. Hence, materially, it means in (i) Classical Greek, sediment, prop. foundation: substances as opposed to their reflexions, substantial nature, as of timber [Theoph. C. P. 5. 16. 4]. So naturally grew the signification of ground of hope, actual existence; and, in the later philosophy, it had come to be employed instead of ousia for the noetic substratum "underlying" the phaenomena. (ii) Scriptural. In the N.T. it is found five times, twice in 2 Cor. and thrice in Heb. (a) 2 Cor. ix. 4, and (b) xi. 17. "Confidence" of boasting. (g) Heb. i. 3, ho charakter tes hupostaseos, A.V. the express image of His "person." R.V., the very image of His "substance." (d) Heb. iii. 14, "Confidence". (e) Heb. xi. 1, A.V. "substance" of things hoped for. R.V. Assurance of things hoped for. (iii) Ecclesiastical. The earlier ecclesiastical use, like the later philosophical, identified it with ousia, and so the Nicene Confession anathematized those who maintained the Son to be of a different substance or essence from the Father (hupostaseos e ousias). In the version of Hilary of Poictiers (de Synodis, S:84; Op. ii. 510) ousia is translated by "substantia," the etymological equivalent of hupostasis, except in the phrase quoted, when "substantia aut essentia" represents ousia by its own etymological equivalent "essentia." Thus in a.d. 325 to have contended for treis hupostaseis would have been heretical. But as the subtilty of controversy required greater nicety of phrase, it was laid down (Basil the Great, Ep. 38) that while ousia is an universal denoting that which is common to the individuals of a species, hupostasis makes an individual that which it is, and constitutes personal existence. Hence mia hupostasis became Sabellian, and treis ousiai Arian, while treis hupostaseis was orthodox. cf Theod. Dial. i. 7. Eranistes loq. "Is there any distinction between ousia and hupostasis?" Orthodoxus. "In extra-Christian philosophy there is not; for ousia signifies to on, that which is, and hupostasis that which subsists. But according to the doctrine of the Fathers there is the same difference between ousia and hupostasis as between the common and the particular; the race, and the species or individual."..."The Divine ousia (substance) means the Holy Trinity; but the hupostasis indicates any prosopon (person) as of the Father, the Son, or of the Holy Ghost. For we who follow the definitions of the Fathers assert hupostasis, prosopon and idiotes (substantial nature, person, or individuality) to mean the same thing." Vide also Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century, Appendix, Note iv. fourth Edition. [268] "In the beginning was the word." John i. 1 [269] Ecclus. iii. 21 [270] 1 Cor. ii. 9 [271] Gen. xv. 5 [272] Ecclus. i. 2 [273] Isai. liii. 8 [274] Matt. xi. 27 [275] Is. xxiv. 16: "My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me." A.V. "Secretum meum mihi." Vulg. [276] Col. i. 15 [277] Heb. i. 2. Vide Alford. proleg. to Ep. to Heb., "Nowhere except in the Alexandrian Church does there seem to have existed any idea that the Epistle was St. Paul's." "At Alexandria the conventional habit of quoting the Epistle as St. Paul's gradually prevailed over critical suspicion and early tradition." [278] Col. i. 16, 17 [279] chrematizo = (i) to have dealings with; (ii) to deal with an oracle or divine power; (iii) to get a name for dealing, and so to be called. Cf. Matt. ii. 12; Acts xi. 26 [280] Prov. viii. 30 [281] Heb. i. 3 on apaugasma tes Doxes kai charakter tes hupostaseos autou [282] Contrast the advance of the manhood. Luke ii. 52, "proukopte," the word used in the text. [283] 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15 [284] Prov. xxx. 19 [285] 1 Cor. x. 4 [286] Rom. viii. 32 [287] Matt. iii. 17 [288] Ps. ii. 7 [289] Ps. cx. 3. Sept. ek gastros pro 'Eosphorou egennesa se [290] The readings vary between genneseos, geneseos, and maieuseos (cf. Plat. Theaet. 150 B), which is adopted by Valesius. [291] Gen. vi. 2 [292] Isa. i. 2 [293] The imaginary name for the founder of Ebionism, first started by Tertullian. N%W+J+B+i# = poor. [294] Artemas, or Artemon, a philosophizing denier of Christ's divinity, excommunicated by Pope Zephyrinus (a.d. 202-21). [295] Lucianus, the presbyter of Antioch, who became the head of the theological school of that city in which the leaders of the Arian heresy were trained, after the deposition of Paulus refused to hold communion with his three successors in the patriarchate, Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyril. During the episcopate of the last named he once more entered into communion with the church of Antioch. On the importance of Lucianus as founder of the Arians, Vide Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century, Chap. I. Sec. i. and cf. the letter of Arius post. Chap. iv. [296] Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Paulinus of Tyre. See Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, ch. iv. [297] kenosis, cf. Phil. ii. 7 [298] John x. 30 [299] John xiv. 9 [300] Ps. xxxvi. 9 [301] John v. 23 [302] 1 John v. 1 [303] Condemned a.d. 261 by Council held at Alexandria. [304] Taught in Rome in a.d. 140, and died in Cyprus in a.d. 160. [305] Isa. liii. 8 [306] he patrike theogonia [307] Matt. xi. 27: observe the slight variation. [308] John xiv. 28 [309] Heb. i. 3 [310] 1 Cor. xiii. 10 [311] John xiv. 28 [312] John xvi. 33 [313] ek tes Theotokou Marias [314] Gal. i. 9 [315] 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4 [316] 2 Tim. iii. 6 [317] Tomos. (i) a cut or slice; (ii) a portion of a roll, volume, or "tome." [318] Vide supra. [319] Bp. first Beroea in Syria and then of Antioch, c. 324-331. Beroea, the Helbon of Ezekiel (xxvii. 18) is now Aleppo or Haleb. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter IV.--The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia "To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope [320] , on account of that all-conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord. "Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethren for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned [321] against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others that He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent [322] . And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being [323] . For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist [324] , and true Eusebius [325] ." Of those whose names are mentioned in this letter, Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea [326] , Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregorius of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda. Lydda is now called Diospolis. Arius prided himself on having these men of one mind with himself. He names as his adversaries, Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus, of Tripolis, and Macarius, of Jerusalem. He spread calumnies against them because they said that the Son is eternal, existing before all ages, of equal honour and of the same substance with the Father. When Eusebius received the epistle, he too vomited forth his own impiety, and wrote to Paulinus, chief [327] of the Tyrians, in the following words. __________________________________________________________________ [320] On the name "Pope," vide Dict. Christ. Ant., s.v. 1st, it was applied to the teachers of converts, 2ndly, to Bishops and Abbots, and was, 3rdly, confined to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and to the Bp. of Rome; 4thly, it was claimed by the Bp. of Rome exclusively. [321] panta kalon kinei. Cf. Luc. Scyth. ii. The common proverb was panta exienai kalon, to let out every reef. Ar. Eq. 756 Eur. Med. 278, &c. [322] ex ouk onton estin [323] ex hupokeimenou tinos. Aristotle, Metaph. vi. 3, 1, defines to hupokeimenon as that kath' hou ta alla legetai....maliota de dokei einai ousia to hupokeimenon proton [324] Arius and Eusebius had been fellow disciples of Lucianus the Priest of Antioch martyred under Maximinus in a.d. 311 or 312. Vide note on page 38. [325] Arius plays on the name Eusebius, eusebes, pious. [326] From the phrase "ho adelphos sou ho en Kaisarei& 139;," it has been inferred by some that the two Eusebii were actually brothers. Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the letter of Chapter V., calls the Palestinian despotes; but this alone would not be fatal to the brotherhood, for Seneca (Ep. Mor. 104), calls his brother Gallio dominus. The phrase of Arius is not worth much against the silence of every one else. Vid. Dict. Christ. Biog. Article, Eusebius. Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea, Syria, (not the Phrygian Laodicea of the Apocalypse), was a Physician of the body was well as of the soul (Euseb. H.E. vii. 32). Paulinus, bishop first of Tyre, and then of Antioch for six months, died in a.d. 329. (Philost. H.E. iii. 15, cf. Bishop Lightfoot in Dict. Christian Biog. Article, Eusebius of Caesarea). Athanasius, bishop of Anazarbus, an important town of Cilicia Campestris, is accused of dangerous Arianism by his great namesake. (Athan. de Synod, 584.) Gregorius succeeded Eusebius of Nicomedia at Berytus (Beyrout), on the translation of the latter to Nicomedia. Aetius, Bishop of Lydda, (the Lydda of the Acts, on the plain of Sharon, now Ludd, the city of El-Khudr, who is identified with St. George), died soon after the Arian Synod of Antioch, a.d. 330 (Philost. H.E. iii. 12), and is to be distinguished from the arch-Arian Aetius, Julian's friend, who survived till a.d. 367 (Phil. H.E. ix. 6). Philogonius was raised to the episcopate per saltum, like St. Ambrose (Chrysost. Orat. 71, tom. v. p. 507), he preceded the Arian Paulinus. Hellanicus was present at Nicaea, but was driven from the See of Tripolis, in Phoenicia, by the Arians (Athan. Hist. Ar. ad Mon. S:5). Macarius is praised by Athanasius (Orat. I. adv. Arian. p. 291). On a possible "passage of arms" between him and Eusebius of Caesarea at Nicaea, vide Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. V. Cf. post, cap. xvii. [327] hegoumenos __________________________________________________________________ Chapter V.--The Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre. "To my lord Paulinus, Eusebius sendeth greeting in the Lord. "The zeal of my lord Eusebius in the cause of the truth, and likewise your silence concerning it, have not failed to reach our ears. Accordingly, if, on the one hand, we rejoiced on account of the zeal of my lord Eusebius; on the other we are grieved at you, because even the silence of such a man appears like a defeat of our cause. Hence, as it behoves not a wise man to be of a different opinion from others, and to be silent concerning the truth, stir up, I exhort you, within yourself the spirit of wisdom to write, and at length begin what may be profitable to yourself and to others, specially if you consent to write in accordance with Scripture, and tread in the tracks of its words and will. "We have never heard that there are two unbegotten beings, nor that one has been divided into two, nor have we learned or believed that it has ever undergone any change of a corporeal nature; but we affirm that the unbegotten is one and one also that which exists in truth by Him, yet was not made out of His substance, and does not at all participate in the nature or substance of the unbegotten, entirely distinct in nature and in power, and made after perfect likeness both of character and power to the maker. We believe that the mode of His beginning not only cannot be expressed by words but even in thought, and is incomprehensible not only to man, but also to all beings superior to man. These opinions we advance not as having derived them from our own imagination, but as having deduced them from Scripture, whence we learn that the Son was created, established, and begotten in the same substance and in the same immutable and inexpressible nature as the Maker; and so the Lord says, `God created me in the beginning of His way; I was set up from everlasting; before the hills was I brought forth [328] .' "If He had been from Him or of Him, as a portion of Him, or by an emanation of His substance, it could not be said that He was created or established; and of this you, my lord, are certainly not ignorant. For that which is of the unbegotten could not be said to have been created or founded, either by Him or by another, since it is unbegotten from the beginning. But if the fact of His being called the begotten gives any ground for the belief that, having come into being of the Father's substance, He also has from the Father likeness of nature, we reply that it is not of Him alone that the Scriptures have spoken as begotten, but that they also thus speak of those who are entirely dissimilar to Him by nature. For of men it is said, `I have begotten and brought up sons, and they have rebelled against me [329] ;' and in another place, `Thou hast forsaken God who begat thee [330] ;' and again it is said, `Who begat the drops of dew [331] ?' This expression does not imply that the dew partakes of the nature of God, but simply that all things were formed according to His will. There is, indeed, nothing which is of His substance, yet every thing which exists has been called into being by His will. He is God; and all things were made in His likeness, and in the future likeness of His Word, being created of His free will. All things were made by His means by God. All things are of God. "When you have received my letter, and have revised it according to the knowledge and grace given you by God, I beg you will write as soon as possible to my lord Alexander. I feel confident that if you would write to him, you would succeed in bringing him over to your opinion. Salute all the brethren in the Lord. May you, my lord, be preserved by the grace of God, and be led to pray for us." It is thus that they wrote to each other, in order to furnish one another with weapons against the truth [332] . And so when the blasphemous doctrine had been disseminated in the churches of Egypt and of the East, disputes and contentions arose in every city, and in every village, concerning theological dogmas. The common people looked on, and became judges of what was said on either side, and some applauded one party, and some the other. These were, indeed, scenes fit for the tragic stage, over which tears might have been shed. For it was not, as in bygone days, when the church was attacked by strangers and by enemies, but now natives of the same country, who dwelt under one roof, and sat down at one table, fought against each other not with spears, but with their tongues. And what was still more sad, they who thus took up arms against one another were members of one another, and belonged to one body. __________________________________________________________________ [328] Prov. viii. 22-26 Sept. [329] Isa. i. 2 [330] Deut. xxxii. 18 [331] Job xxxviii. 28 [332] Arius first published his heresy, a.d. 319. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter VI.--General Council of Nicaea. The emperor, who possessed the most profound wisdom, having heard of these things, endeavoured, as a first step, to stop up their fountain-head. He therefore despatched a messenger renowned for his ready wit to Alexandria with letters, in the endeavour to extinguish the dispute, and expecting to reconcile the disputants. But his hopes having been frustrated, he proceeded to summon the celebrated council of Nicaea [333] ; and pledged his word that the bishops and their officials should be furnished with asses, mules, and horses for their journey at the public expense. When all those who were capable of enduring the fatigue of the journey had arrived at Nicaea, he went thither himself, with both the wish of seeing the multitude of bishops, and the yearning desire of maintaining unanimity amongst them. He at once arranged that all their wants should be liberally supplied. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were assembled. The bishop of Rome [334] , on account of his very advanced age, was absent, but he sent two presbyters [335] to the council, with authority to agree to what was done. At this period many individuals were richly endowed with apostolical gifts; and many, like the holy apostle, bore in their bodies the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ [336] . James, bishop of Antioch, a city of Mygdonia, which is called Nisibis by the Syrians and Assyrians, raised the dead and restored them to life, and performed many other wonders which it would be superfluous to mention again in detail in this history, as I have already given an account of them in my work, entitled "Philotheus [337] ." Paul, bishop of Neo-Caesarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs. Yet this holy and celebrated gathering was not entirely free from the element of opposition; for there were some, though so few as easily to be reckoned, of fair surface, like dangerous shallows, who really, though not openly, supported the blasphemy of Arius. When they were all assembled [338] , the emperor ordered a great hall to be prepared for their accommodation in the palace, in which a sufficient number of benches and seats were placed; and having thus arranged that they should be treated with becoming dignity, he desired the bishops to enter in, and discuss the subjects proposed. The emperor, with a few attendants, was the last to enter the room; remarkable for his lofty stature, and worthy of admiration for personal beauty, and for the still more marvellous modesty which dwelt on his countenance. A low stool was placed for him in the middle of the assembly, upon which, however, he did not seat himself until he had asked the permission of the bishops. Then all the sacred assembly sat down around him. Then forthwith rose first the great Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, who, upon the translation of Philogonius, already referred to, to a better life, had been compelled reluctantly to become his successor by the unanimous suffrages of the bishops, priests, and of the Christ-loving laity. He crowned the emperor's head with the flowers of panegyric, and commended the diligent attention he had manifested in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. The excellent emperor next exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord; he recalled to their remembrance the cruelty of the late tyrants, and reminded them of the honourable peace which God had, in his reign and by his means, accorded them. He pointed out how dreadful it was, aye, very dreadful, that at the very time when their enemies were destroyed, and when no one dared to oppose them, they should fall upon one another, and make their amused adversaries laugh, especially as they were debating about holy things, concerning which they had the written teaching of the Holy Spirit. "For the gospels" (continued he), "the apostolical writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue." These and similar exhortations he, like an affectionate son, addressed to the bishops as to fathers, labouring to bring about their unanimity in the apostolical doctrines. Most members of the synod, won over by his arguments, established concord among themselves, and embraced sound doctrine. There were, however, a few, of whom mention has been already made, who opposed these doctrines, and sided with Arius; and amongst them were Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus, Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, Theognis, bishop of Nicaea, and Narcissus, bishop of Neronias, which is a town of the second Cilicia, and is now called Irenopolis; also Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais in Egypt [339] . They drew up a formulary of their faith, and presented it to the council. As soon as it was read it was torn to pieces, and was declared to be spurious and false. So great was the uproar raised against them, and so many were the reproaches cast on them for having betrayed religion, that they all, with the exception of Secundus and Theonas, stood up and took the lead in publicly renouncing Arius. This impious man, having thus been expelled from the Church, a confession of faith which is received to this day was drawn up by unanimous consent; and, as soon as it was signed, the council was dissolved. __________________________________________________________________ [333] Originally named Antigonea, after its founder; then Nicaea after the Queen of Lysimachus; now Isnik. [334] Sylvester. [335] Vitus and Vincentius. [336] Cf. Gal. vi. 17. The "stigmata" here meant are the marks of persecution. [337] i.e. The Philotheos historia, "Religious History," a work containing the lives of celebrated ascetics, composed before the Ecclesiastical History. For Dr. Newman's explanation of its apparent credulity, Vide Hist. Sketches, iii. 314, and compare his Apologia pro Vita sua, on his own acceptance of the marvellous, Appendix, p. 57. [338] On the circumstances and scene of the opening of the Council consult Stanley's Eastern Church, Lecture IV. [339] Menophantus was one of the disciples of Lucianus (Philos. H.E. ii. 14). He accepted the Nicene decision, but was excommunicated by the Sardican Fathers. Cf. Book II. Chap. 6. Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, the Bethshan of Scripture, was an ardent and persistent Arian. Theodoret mentions his share in the deposition of Eustathius (I. 20). Theognis was sentenced to banishment on account of the Arian sympathies he displayed at Nicaea, but escaped by a feigned acceptance. Narcissus of Irenopolis, a town of Cilicia Secunda, took an active part in the Arian movement: Athanasius says that he was thrice degraded by different synods, and is the worst of the Eusebians (Ath. Ap. de fuga, sec. 28). Marmarica is not a town, but a district. It lay west of Egypt, about the modern Barca. There were two cities in Egypt named Ptolemais, one in Upper Egypt below Abydos; one a port of the Red Sea. After the time of Constantine, Cilicia was divided into three districts; Cilicia Prima, with Tarsus for chief town; Secunda, with Anazarbus; Tertia, with Seleuceia. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter VII.--Confutation of Arianism deduced from the Writings of Eustathius and Athanasius. The above-named bishops, however, did not consent to it in sincerity, but only in appearance. This was afterwards shewn by their plotting against those who were foremost in zeal for religion, as well as by what these latter have written about them. For instance, Eustathius, the famous bishop of Antioch, who has been already mentioned, when explaining the text in the Proverbs, `The Lord created me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old [340] ,' wrote against them, and refuted their blasphemy. [341] "I will now proceed to relate how these different events occurred. A general council was summoned at Nicaea, and about two hundred and seventy bishops were convened. There were, however, so many assembled that I cannot state their exact number, neither, indeed, have I taken any great trouble to ascertain this point. When they began to inquire into the nature of the faith, the formulary of Eusebius was brought forward, which contained undisguised evidence of his blasphemy. The reading of it before all occasioned great grief to the audience, on account of its departure from the faith, while it inflicted irremediable shame on the writer. After the Eusebian gang had been clearly convicted, and the impious writing had been torn up in the sight of all, some amongst them by concert, under the pretence of preserving peace, imposed silence on all the ablest speakers. The Ariomaniacs, fearing lest they should be ejected from the Church by so numerous a council of bishops, sprang forward to anathematize and condemn the doctrines condemned, and unanimously signed the confession of faith. Thus having retained possession of their episcopal seats through the most shameful deception, although they ought rather to have been degraded, they continue, sometimes secretly, and sometimes openly, to patronize the condemned doctrines, plotting against the truth by various arguments. Wholly bent upon establishing these plantations of tares, they shrink from the scrutiny of the intelligent, avoid the observant, and attack the preachers of godliness. But we do not believe that these atheists can ever thus overcome the Deity. For though they `gird themselves' they `shall be broken in pieces,' according to the solemn prophecy of Isaiah [342] ." These are the words of the great Eustathius. Athanasius, his fellow combatant, the champion of the truth, who succeeded the celebrated Alexander in the episcopate, added the following, in a letter addressed to the Africans. "The bishops convened in council being desirous of refuting the impious assertions invented by the Arians, that the Son was created out of that which was non-existent [343] , that He is a creature and created being [344] , that there was a period in which He was not [345] , and that He is mutable by nature, and being all agreed in propounding the following declarations, which are in accordance with the holy Scriptures; namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, `the true God [346] ,' and, as Paul has written, `the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father [347] ,' the followers of Eusebius, drawn aside by their own vile doctrine, then began to say one to another, Let us agree, for we are also of God; `There is but one God, by whom are all things [348] ; `Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God [349] .' They also dwelt particularly upon what is contained in `The Shepherd [350] :' `Believe above all that there is one God, who created and fashioned all things, and making them to be out of that which is not.' "But the bishops saw through their evil design and impious artifice, and gave a clearer elucidation of the words `of God,' and wrote, that the Son is of the substance of God; in order that while the creatures, which do not in any way derive their existence of or from themselves, are said to be of God, the Son alone is said to be of the substance of the Father; this being peculiar to the only-begotten Son, the true Word of the Father. This is the reason why the bishops wrote, that He is of the substance of the Father. "But when the Arians, who seemed few in number, were again interrogated by the Bishops as to whether they admitted `that the Son is not a creature, but Power, and sole Wisdom, and eternal unchangeable [351] Image of the Father; and that He is very God,' the Eusebians were noticed making signs to one another to shew that these declarations were equally applicable to us. For it is said, that we are `the image and glory of God [352] ;' and `for always we who live [353] :' there are, also, they said, many powers; for it is written--`All the power of God went out of the land of Egypt [354] .' The canker-worm and the locust are said to be `a great power [355] .' And elsewhere it is written, The God of powers is with us, the God of Jacob helper [356] .' To which may be added that we are God's own not simply, but because the Son called us `brethren [357] .' The declaration that Christ is `the true God' does not distress us, for, having come into being, He is true. "Such was the corrupt opinion of the Arians; but on this the bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter, collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person; and they quoted the following words: `In thy light we shall see light [358] ;' and likewise, `I and the Father are one [359] .' They then, with still greater clearness, briefly declared that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been quoted. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in Scripture, is proved groundless by their own practice, for their own impious assertions are not taken from Scripture; for it is not written that the Son is of the non-existent, and that there was a time when He was not: and yet they complain of having been condemned by expressions which, though not actually in Scripture, are in accordance with true religion. They themselves, on the other hand, as though they had found their words on a dunghill, uttered things verily of earth. The bishops, on the contrary, did not find their expressions for themselves; but, received their testimony from the fathers, and wrote accordingly. Indeed, there were bishops of old time, nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, both of the great city of Rome and of our own city [360] , who condemned those who asserted that the Son is a creature, and that He is not of one substance with the Father. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was acquainted with these facts; he, at one time, favoured the Arian heresy, but he afterwards signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote to the people of his diocese, maintaining that the word `consubstantial' was `used by illustrious bishops and learned writers as a term for expressing the divinity of the Father and of the Son [361] .'" So these men concealed their unsoundness through fear of the majority, and gave their assent to the decisions of the council, thus drawing upon themselves the condemnation of the prophet, for the God of all cries unto them, "This people honour Me with their lips, but in their hearts they are far from Me [362] ." Theonas and Secundus, however, did not like to take this course, and were excommunicated by common consent as men who esteemed the Arian blasphemy above evangelical doctrine. The bishops then returned to the council, and drew up twenty laws to regulate the discipline of the Church. __________________________________________________________________ [340] Prov. viii. 22, lxx. Kurios ektise me archen hodon autou eis erga autou [341] At this point, according to Valesius, a quotation from the homily of Eustathius on the above text from Proverbs viii. 22, begins. On Eustathius, see notes on Chapters III. and XX. [342] Is. viii. 9, lxx. ean gar palin ischusete palin hettethesesthe [343] 'Ex ouk onton [344] Ktisma kai poiema [345] Pote hote ouk en [346] 1 Joh. v. 20 [347] Heb. i. 3. Cf. p. 37, note xxvii. [348] 2 Cor. viii. 6 [349] 2 Cor. v. 17, 18 [350] Herm. Pastor. Vis. v. Mand. i. [351] aparallaktos, cf. James i. 17, Par' o ouk eni parallage [352] 1 Cor. xi. 7 [353] 2 Cor. iv. 11 aei gar hemeis hoi zontes. The aei of St. Paul qualifies not "hoi zontes" but the paradidometha which follows, "For we who live are ever being delivered to death." [354] Exod. xii. 41, "The Hosts of the Lord," A.V. exelthe pasa he dunamis Kuriou, Sept. [355] Joel ii. 25, "My great army," A.V. [356] "The Lord of hosts is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge," Ps. xlvi. 7 [357] Heb. ii. 11 [358] Ps. xxvi. 9 [359] Joh. x. 30 [360] Alexandria. The allusion, according to Valesius, is to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, 259-269, and to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. The Letter of Athanasius to the Africans was written, according to Baronius, in 369. So trion may suit the chronology better than triakonta [361] Ath. Ep. ad Afros 5 and 6. [362] Isai. xxix. 13 __________________________________________________________________ Chapter VIII.--Facts relating to Meletius the Egyptian, from whom originated the Meletian Schism, which remains to this day.--Synodical Epistle respecting him. After Meletius [363] had been ordained bishop, which was not long before the Arian controversy, he was convicted of certain crimes by the most holy Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who also received the crown of martyrdom. After being deposed by Peter he did not acquiesce in his deposition, but filled the Thebaid and the adjacent part of Egypt with tumult and disturbance, and rebelled against the primacy of Alexandria. A letter was written by the council to the Church of Alexandria, stating what had been decreed against his revolutionary practices. It was as follows:-- Synodical Epistle. "To the Church of Alexandria which, by the grace of God, is great and holy, and to the beloved brethren in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the bishops who have been convened to the great and holy council of Nicaea, send greeting in the Lord. "The great and holy council of Nicaea having been convened by the grace of God, and by the most religious emperor, Constantine, who summoned us from different provinces and cities, we judge it requisite that a letter be sent from the whole Holy Synod to inform you also what questions have been mooted and debated, and what has been decreed and established. "In the first place, the impious doctrines of Arius were investigated before our most religious emperor Constantine; and his impiety was unanimously anathematized, as well as the blasphemous language and views which he had propounded, alleging that the Son of God was out of what was not, that before He was begotten He was not, that there was a period in which He was not, and that He can, according to His own freewill, be capable either of virtue or of vice. The holy council anathematized all these assertions, and even refused so much as to listen to such impious and foolish opinions, and such blasphemous expressions. The final decision concerning him you already know, or will soon hear; but we will not mention it now, lest we should appear to trample upon a man who has already received the recompense due to his sins. Such influence has his impiety obtained as to involve Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais, in his ruin, and they have shared his punishment. "But after Egypt had, by the grace of God, been delivered from these false and blasphemous opinions, and from persons who dared to raise discord and division among a hitherto peaceable people, there yet remained the question of the temerity of Meletius, and of those ordained by him. We now inform you, beloved brethren, of the decrees of the council on this subject. It was decided by the holy council, that Meletius should be treated with clemency, though, strictly speaking, he was not worthy of even the least concession. He was permitted to remain in his own city, but was divested of all power, whether of nomination or of ordination, neither was he to shew himself in any province or city for these purposes: but only to retain the bare name of his office. Those who had received ordination at his hands were to submit to a more religious re-ordination; and were to be admitted to communion on the terms of retaining their ministry, but of ranking in every diocese and church below those who had been ordained before them by Alexander, our much-honoured fellow-minister. Thus they would have no power of choosing or nominating others to the ministry, according to their pleasure, or indeed of doing anything with out the consent of the bishops of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, who are under Alexander. But they who, by the grace of God, and in answer to your prayers, have been detected in no schism, and have continued spotless in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have the power of electing, and of nominating men worthy of the clerical office, and are permitted to do whatsoever is in accordance with law and the authority of the Church. If it should happen, that any of those now holding an office in the Church should die, then let these recently admitted be advanced to the honours of the deceased, provided only that they appear worthy, and that the people choose them, and that the election be confirmed and ratified by the catholic bishop of Alexandria. The same privilege has been conceded to all the others. With respect to Meletius, however, an exception has been made, both on account of his former insubordination, and of the rashness and impetuosity of his disposition; for if the least authority were accorded to him, he might abuse it by again exciting confusion. These are the chief points which relate to Egypt, and to the holy Church of Alexandria. Whatever other canons were made, or dogmas decreed, you will hear of them from Alexander, our most-honoured fellow-minister and brother, who will give you still more accurate information, because he himself directed, as well as participated in, every thing that took place. "We also give you the good news that, according to your prayers, the celebration of the most holy paschal feast was unanimously rectified, so that our brethren of the East, who did not previously keep the festival at the same time as those of Rome, and as yourselves, and, indeed, all have done from the beginning, will henceforth celebrate it with you. Rejoice, then, in the success of our undertakings, and in the general peace and concord, and in the extirpation of every heresy, and receive with still greater honour and more fervent love, Alexander, our fellow-minister and your bishop, who imparted joy to us by his presence, and who, at a very advanced age, has undergone so much fatigue for the purpose of restoring peace among you. Pray for us all, that what has been rightly decreed may remain steadfast, through our Lord Jesus Christ, being done, as we trust, according to the good pleasure of God and the Father in the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Notwithstanding the endeavours of that divine assembly of bishops to apply this medicine to the Meletian disease, vestiges of his infatuation remain even to this day; for there are in some districts bodies of monks who refuse to follow sound doctrine, and observe certain vain points of discipline, agreeing with the infatuated views of the Jews and the Samaritans. __________________________________________________________________ [363] Meletius (Meletios), Bishop of Lycopolis, in Upper Egypt, was accused of apostasy. During the Patriarch Peter's withdrawal under persecution he intruded into the see of Alexandria. He was deposed in 306. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter IX.--The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present. The great emperor also wrote an account of the transactions of the council to those bishops who were unable to attend. And I consider it worth while to insert this epistle in my work, as it clearly evidences the piety of the writer. "Constantinus Augustus to the Churches. "Viewing the common public prosperity enjoyed at this moment, as the result of the great power of divine grace, I am desirous above all things that the blessed members of the Catholic Church should be preserved in one faith, in sincere love, and in one form of religion, towards Almighty God. But, since no firmer or more effective measure could be adopted to secure this end, than that of submitting everything relating to our most holy religion to the examination of all, or most of all, the bishops, I convened as many of them as possible, and took my seat among them as one of yourselves; for I would not deny that truth which is the source of my greatest joy, namely, that I am your fellow-servant. Every point obtained its due investigation, until the doctrine pleasing to the all-seeing God, and conducive to unity, was made clear, so that no room should remain for division or controversy concerning the faith. "The commemoration of the most sacred paschal feast being then debated, it was unanimously decided, that it would be well that it should be everywhere celebrated upon the same day. What can be more fair, or more seemly, than that that festival by which we have received the hope of immortality should be carefully celebrated by all, on plain grounds, with the same order and exactitude? It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. By rejecting their custom, we establish and hand down to succeeding ages one which is more reasonable, and which has been observed ever since the day of our Lord's sufferings. Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. For we have received from our Saviour another way. A better and more lawful line of conduct is inculcated by our holy religion. Let us with one accord walk therein, my much-honoured brethren, studiously avoiding all contact with that evil way. They boast that without their instructions we should be unable to commemorate the festival properly. This is the highest pitch of absurdity. For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. Hence it follows that they have so far lost sight of truth, wandering as far as possible from the correct revisal, that they celebrate a second Passover in the same year. What motive can we have for following those who are thus confessedly unsound and in dire error? For we could never tolerate celebrating the Passover twice in one year. But even if all these facts did not exist, your own sagacity would prompt you to watch with diligence and with prayer, lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. It must also be borne in mind, that upon so important a point as the celebration of a feast of such sanctity, discord is wrong. One day has our Saviour set apart for a commemoration of our deliverance, namely, of His most holy Passion. One hath He wished His Catholic Church to be, whereof the members, though dispersed throughout the most various parts of the world, are yet nourished by one spirit, that is, by the divine will. Let your pious sagacity reflect how evil and improper it is, that days devoted by some to fasting, should be spent by others in convivial feasting; and that after the paschal feast, some are rejoicing in festivals and relaxations, while others give themselves up to the appointed fasts. That this impropriety should be rectified, and that all these diversities of commemoration should be resolved into one form, is the will of divine Providence, as I am convinced you will all perceive. Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. An orderly and excellent form of commemoration is observed in all the churches of the western, of the southern, and of the northern parts of the world, and by some of the eastern; this form being universally commended, I engaged that you would be ready to adopt it likewise, and thus gladly accept the rule unanimously adopted in the city of Rome, throughout Italy, in all Africa, in Egypt, the Spains, the Gauls, the Britains, Libya, Greece, in the dioceses of Asia, and of Pontus, and in Cilicia, taking into your consideration not only that the churches of the places above-mentioned are greater in point of number, but also that it is most pious that all should unanimously agree in that course which accurate reasoning seems to demand, and which has no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews. "Briefly to summarize the whole of the preceding, the judgment of all is, that the holy Paschal feast should be held on one and the same day; for, in so holy a matter, it is not becoming that any difference of custom should exist, and it is better to follow the opinion which has not the least association with error and sin. This being the case, receive with gladness the heavenly gift and the plainly divine command; for all that is transacted in the holy councils of the bishops is to be referred to the Divine will. Therefore, when you have made known to all our beloved brethren the subject of this epistle, regard yourselves bound to accept what has gone before, and to arrange for the regular observance of this holy day, so that when, according to my long-cherished desire, I shall see you face to face, I may be able to celebrate with you this holy festival upon one and the same day; and may rejoice with you all in witnessing the cruelty of the devil destroyed by our efforts, through Divine grace, while our faith and peace and concord flourish throughout the world. May God preserve you, beloved brethren." __________________________________________________________________ Chapter X.--The daily wants of the Church supplied by the Emperor, and an account of his other virtues. Thus did the emperor write to the absent. To those who attended the council, three hundred and eighteen in number, he manifested great kindness, addressing them with much gentleness, and presenting them with gifts. He ordered numerous couches to be prepared for their accommodation and entertained them all at one banquet. Those who were most worthy he received at his own table, distributing the rest at the others. Observing that some among them had had the right eye torn out, and learning that this mutilation had been undergone for the sake of religion, he placed his lips upon the wounds, believing that he would extract a blessing from the kiss. After the conclusion of the feast, he again presented other gifts to them. He then wrote to the governors of the provinces, directing that provision-money should be given in every city to virgins and widows, and to those who were consecrated to the divine service; and he measured the amount of their annual allowance more by the impulse of his own generosity than by their need. The third part of the sum is distributed to this day. Julian impiously withheld the whole. His successor [364] conferred the sum which is now dispensed, the famine which then prevailed having lessened the resources of the state. If the pensions were formerly triple in amount to what they are at present, the generosity of the emperor can by this fact be easily seen. I do not account it right to pass over the following circumstance in silence. Some quarrelsome individuals wrote accusations against certain bishops, and presented their indictments to the emperor. This occurring before the establishment of concord, he received the lists, formed them into a packet which he sealed with his ring, and ordered them to be kept safely. After the reconciliation had been effected, he brought out these writings, and burnt them in their presence, at the same time declaring upon oath that he had not read a word of them. He said that the crimes of priests ought not to be made known to the multitude, lest they should become an occasion of offence, and lead them to sin without fear. It is reported also that he added that if he were to detect a bishop in the very act of committing adultery, he would throw his imperial robe over the unlawful deed, lest any should witness the scene, and be thereby injured. Thus did he admonish all the priests, as well as confer honours upon them, and then exhorted them to return each to his own flock. __________________________________________________________________ [364] Jovian. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XI I shall here insert the letter respecting the faith, written by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, as it describes the effrontery of the Arians, who not only despise our fathers, but reject their own: it contains a convincing proof of their madness. They certainly honour Eusebius, because he adopted their sentiments, but yet they openly contradict his writings. He wrote this epistle to some of the Arians, who were accusing him, it seems, of treachery. The letter itself explains the writer's object. Epistle of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, which he wrote from Nicaea when the great Council was assembled. "You will have probably learnt from other sources what was decided respecting the faith of the church at the general council of Nicaea, for the fame of great transactions generally outruns the accurate account of them: but lest rumours not in strict accordance with the truth should reach you, I think it necessary to send to you, first, the formulary of faith originally proposed by us, and, next, the second, published with additions made to our terms. The following is our formulary, which was read in the presence of our most pious emperor, and declared to be couched in right and proper language. The Faith put forth by us. "`As in our first catechetical instruction, and at the time of our baptism, we received from the bishops who were before us and as we have learnt from the Holy Scriptures, and, alike as presbyters, and as bishops, were wont to believe and teach; so we now believe and thus declare our faith. It is as follows:-- "`We believe in one God, Father Almighty, the Maker of all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, Only-begotten Son, First-born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all worlds; by Whom all things were made; Who for our salvation was incarnate, and lived among men [365] . He suffered and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father; and He will come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Ghost. "`We believe in the being and continual existence of each of these; that the Father is in truth the Father; the Son in truth the Son; the Holy Ghost in truth the Holy Ghost; as our Lord, when sending out His disciples to preach the Gospel, said, `Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [366] .' We positively affirm that we hold this faith, that we have always held it, and that we adhere to it even unto death, condemning all ungodly heresy. We testify, as before God the Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we have thought thus from the heart, and from the soul, ever since we have known ourselves; and we have the means of showing, and, indeed, of convincing you, that we have always during the past thus believed and preached.' "When this formulary had been set forth by us, there was no room to gainsay it; but our beloved emperor himself was the first to testify that it was most orthodox, and that he coincided in opinion with it; and he exhorted the others to sign it, and to receive all the doctrine it contained, with the single addition of the one word--`consubstantial.' He explained that this term implied no bodily condition or change [367] , for that the Son did not derive His existence from the Father either by means of division or of abscission, since an immaterial, intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be subject to any bodily condition or change [368] . These things must be understood as bearing a divine and mysterious signification. Thus reasoned our wisest and most religious emperor. The addition of the word consubstantial has given occasion for the composition of the following formulary:-- The Creed published by the Council. "`We believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father; only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father: by Whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth: Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and was made man; He suffered, and rose gain the third day; He ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge both quick and dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost. The holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes all who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; that before He was begotten He was not; that He was made out of the non-existent; or that He is of a different essence and of a different substance [369] from the Father; and that He is susceptible of variation or change.' "When they had set forth this formulary, we did not leave without examination that passage in which it is said that the Son is of the substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Questions and arguments thence arose, and the meaning of the terms was exactly tested. Accordingly they were led to confess that the word consubstantial signifies that the Son is of the Father, but not as being a part of the Father. We deemed it right to receive this opinion; for that is sound doctrine which teaches that the Son is of the Father, but not part of His substance. From the love of peace, and lest we should fall from the true belief, we also accept this view, neither do we reject the term `consubstantial.' For the same reason we admitted the expression, `begotten, but not made;' for they alleged that the word `made' applies generally to all things which were created by the Son, to which the Son is in no respect similar; and that consequently He is not a created thing, like the things made by Him, but is of a substance superior to all created objects. The Holy Scriptures teach Him to be begotten of the Father, by a mode of generation which is incomprehensible and inexplicable to all created beings. So also the term `of one substance with the Father,' when investigated, was accepted not in accordance with bodily relations or similarity to mortal beings. For it was also shown that it does not either imply division of substance, nor abscission, nor any modification or change or diminution in the power of the Father, all of which are alien from the nature of the unbegotten Father. It was concluded that the expression `being of one substance with the Father,' implies that the Son of God does not resemble, in any one respect, the creatures which He has made; but that to the Father alone, who begat Him, He is in all points perfectly like: for He is of the essence and of the substance [370] of none save of the Father. This interpretation having been given of the doctrine, it appeared right to us to assent to it, especially as we were aware that of the ancients some learned and celebrated bishops and writers have used the term `consubstantial' with respect to the divinity of the Father and of the Son. "These are the circumstances which I had to communicate respecting the published formulary of the faith. To it we all agreed, not without investigation, but, after having subjected the views submitted to us to thorough examination in the presence of our most beloved emperor, for the above reasons we all acquiesced in it. We also allowed that the anathema appended by them to their formulary of faith should be accepted, because it prohibits the use of words which are not scriptural; through which almost all the disorder and troubles of the Church have arisen. And since no passage of the inspired Scripture uses the terms `out of the non-existent,' or that `there was a time when He was not,' nor indeed any of the other phrases of the same class, it did not appear reasonable to assert or to teach such things. In this opinion, therefore, we judged it right to agree; since, indeed, we had never, at any former period, been accustomed to use such terms [371] . Moreover, the condemnation of the assertion that before He was begotten He was not, did not appear to involve any incongruity, because all assent to the fact that He was the Son of God before He was begotten according to the flesh. And here our emperor, most beloved by God, began to reason concerning His divine origin, and His existence before all ages. He was virtually in the Father without generation [372] , even before He was actually begotten, the Father having always been the Father, just as He has always been a King and a Saviour, and, virtually, all things, and has never known any change of being or action. "We have thought it requisite, beloved brethren, to transmit you an account of these circumstances, in order to show you what examination and investigation we bestowed on all the questions which we had to decide; and also to prove how at one time we resisted firmly, even to the last hour, when doctrines improperly expressed offended us, and, at another time, we, without contention, accepted the articles which contained nothing objectionable, when after a thorough and candid investigation of their signification, they appeared perfectly conformable with what had been confessed by us in the formulary of faith which we had published." __________________________________________________________________ [365] "politeusamenon." Cf. Phil. i. 27, and iii. 20, and Acts xxiii. 1 [366] Matt. xxviii. 19 [367] pathe, pathos [368] pathe, pathos [369] hupostaseos and ousias [370] hupostaseos and ousias [371] The genuineness of the following sentence is doubted. It is not found in Socrates or in Epiphanius. But it is not unreasonably held by Valesius that Socrates, who seems to have undertaken to clear the character of Eusebius of all heretical taint, purposely suppressed the passage as inconsistent with orthodoxy. Soc. i. 8. Dr. Newman writes of this passage, "It is remarkable as shewing his (Constantine's) utter ignorance of doctrines which were never intended for discussion among the unbaptized heathen, or the secularized Christian, that, in spite of bold avowal of the orthodox faith in detail" (i.e. in his letter to Arius), "yet shortly after he explained to Eusebius one of the Nicene declarations in a sense which even Arius would scarcely have allowed, expressed as it is almost after the manner of Paulus. "Arians," 3rd ed., p. 256. [372] Here it has been proposed to read for agennetos, without generation, which does not admit of an orthodox interpretation, aeigennetos, i.e. by eternal generation. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XII.--Confutation of the blasphemies of the Arians of our time, from the writings of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. Eusebius clearly testifies that the aforesaid term "consubstantial" is not a new one, nor the invention of the fathers assembled at the council; but that, from the very first [373] it has been handed down from father to son. He states that all those then assembled unanimously received the creed then published; and he again bears testimony to the same fact in another work, in which he highly extols the conduct of the great Constantine. He writes as follows [374] :-- "The emperor having delivered this discourse in Latin, it was translated into Greek by an interpreter, and then he gave liberty of speech to the leaders of the council. Some at once began to bring forward complaints against their neighbours, while others had recourse to recriminations and reproaches. Each party had much to urge, and at the beginning the debate waxed very violent. The emperor patiently and attentively listened to all that was advanced, and gave full attention to what was urged by each party in turn. He calmly endeavoured to reconcile the conflicting parties; addressing them mildly in Greek, of which language he was not ignorant, in a sweet and gentle manner. Some he convinced by argument, others he put to the blush; he commended those who had spoken well, and excited all to unanimity; until, at length, he reduced them all to oneness of mind and opinion on all the disputed points, so that they all agreed to hold the same faith, and to celebrate the festival of Salvation upon the same day. What had been decided was committed to writing, and was signed by all the bishops." Soon after the author thus continues the narrative:-- "When matters had been thus arranged, the emperor gave them permission to return to their own dioceses. They returned with great joy, and have ever since continued to be of the one opinion, agreed upon in the presence of the emperor, and, though once widely separated, now united together, as it were, in one body. Constantine, rejoicing in the success of his efforts, made known these happy results by letter to those who were at a distance. He ordered large sums of money to be liberally distributed both among the inhabitants of the country and of the cities, in order that the twentieth anniversary of his reign might be celebrated with public festivities." Although the Arians impiously gainsay the statements of the other fathers, yet they ought to believe what has been written by this father, whom they have been accustomed to admire. They ought, therefore, to receive his testimony to the unanimity with which the confession of faith was signed by all. But, since they impugn the opinions of their own leaders, they ought to become acquainted with the most foul and terrible manner of the death of Arius and with all their powers to flee from the impious doctrine of which he was the parent. As it is likely that the mode of his death is not known by all, I shall here relate it. __________________________________________________________________ [373] anothen. Cf. St. Luke i. 3. Plat. Phil. 44 D. &c. [374] Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. iii. c. 13. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XIII.--Extract from the Letter of Athanasius on the Death of Arius [375] . After Arius had remained a long time in Alexandria, he endeavoured riotously to obtrude himself again into the assemblies of the Church, professing to renounce his impiety, and promising to receive the confession of faith drawn up by the fathers. But not succeeding in obtaining the confidence of the divine Alexander, nor of Athanasius, who followed [376] Alexander alike in the patriarchate and in piety, he, helped and encouraged by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, betook himself to Constantinople. The intrigues upon which he then entered, and their punishment by the righteous Judge are all best narrated by the excellent Athanasius, in his letter to Apion [377] . I shall therefore now insert this passage in my work. He writes:-- "I was not at Constantinople when he died; but Macarius, the presbyter, was there, and from him I learnt all the circumstances. The emperor Constantine was induced by Eusebius and his party to send for Arius. Upon his arrival, the emperor asked him whether he held the faith of the Catholic church. Arius then swore that his faith was orthodox, and presented a written summary of his belief; concealing, however, the reasons of his ejection from the Church by the bishop Alexander, and making a dishonest use of the language of Holy Scripture. When, therefore, he had declared upon oath that he did not hold the errors for which he had been expelled from the Church by Alexander, Constantine dismissed him, saying, `If thy faith is orthodox, thou hast well sworn; but if thy faith is impious and yet thou hast sworn, let God from heaven judge thee.' When he quitted the emperor, the partizans of Eusebius, with their usual violence, desired to conduct him into the church; but Alexander, of blessed memory, bishop of Constantinople, refused his permission, alleging that the inventor of the heresy ought not to be admitted into communion. Then at last the partizans of Eusebius pronounced the threat: `As, against your will, we succeeded in prevailing on the emperor to send for Arius, so now, even if you forbid it, shall Arius join in communion [378] with us in this church to-morrow.' It was on Saturday that they said this. The bishop Alexander, deeply grieved at what he had heard, went into the church and poured forth his lamentations, raising his hands in supplication to God, and throwing himself on his face on the pavement in the sanctuary [379] , prayed. Macarius went in with him, prayed with him, and heard his prayers. He asked one of two things. `If Arius,' said he, `is to be joined to the Church to-morrow, let me Thy servant depart, and do not destroy the pious with the impious. If Thou wilt spare Thy Church, and I know that Thou dost spare her, look upon the words of the followers of Eusebius, and give not over Thy heritage to destruction and to shame. Remove Arius, lest if he come into the Church, heresy seem to come in with him, and impiety be hereafter deemed piety.' Having thus prayed, the bishop left the church deeply anxious, and then a horrible and extraordinary catastrophe ensued. The followers of Eusebius had launched out into threats, while the bishop had recourse to prayer. Arius, emboldened by the protection of his party, delivered many trifling and foolish speeches, when he was suddenly compelled by a call of nature to retire, and immediately, as it is written, `falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst [380] ,' and gave up the ghost, being deprived at once both of communion and of life. This, then, was the end of Arius [381] . The followers of Eusebius were covered with shame, and buried him whose belief they shared. The blessed Alexander completed the celebration, rejoicing with the Church in piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren and greatly glorifying God. This was not because he rejoiced at the death of Arius--God forbid; for `it is appointed unto all men once to die [382] ;' but because the event plainly transcended any human condemnation. For the Lord Himself passing judgment upon the menaces of the followers of Eusebius, and the prayer of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, and shewed that it was unworthy of being received into the communion of the Church; thus manifesting to all that, even if it received the countenance and support of the emperor, and of all men, yet by truth itself it stood condemned." These were the first fruits, reaped by Arius, of those pernicious seeds which he had himself sown, and formed the prelude to the punishments that awaited him hereafter. His impiety was condemned by his punishment. I shall now turn my narrative to the piety of the emperor. He addressed a letter to all the subjects of the Roman empire, exhorting them to renounce their former errors, and to embrace the doctrines of our Saviour, and trying to guide them to this truth. He stirred up the bishops in every city to build churches, and encouraged them not only by his letter, but also by presenting them with large sums of money, and defraying all the expenses of building. This his own letter sets forth, which was after this manner:-- __________________________________________________________________ [375] The letter was written to Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, not Tmi el Emdid, in Egypt. St. Anthony left one of his sheepskin to Serapion, the other to Athanasius. Cf. Jer. de Vir. illust. 99. [376] Athanasius, chosen alike by the designation of the dying Alexander, by popular acclamation, and by the election of the Bishop of the Province, was, in spite of his reluctance and retirement, consecrated, a.d. 326. [377] The name does not vary in the mss. of Theodoretus, but Schulze would alter it to Serapion on the authority of the mss. of Athanasius. [378] sunachthesetai. The word sunaxis, originally equivalent to sunagoge, and little used before the Christian era, means sometimes the gathering of the congregation, sometimes the Holy Communion. Vide Suicer s.v. Here the meaning is determined by parallel authority. (Cf. Soc. I. 38.) [379] hierateion. The sacrarium or chancel, also to hagion. Cf. Book V. cap. 17, where Ambrosius rebukes Theodosius for entering within the rails. [380] Acts i. 18 [381] We are not necessarily impaled on Gibbon's dilemma of poison or miracle. There are curious instances of sudden death under similar circumstances, e.g. that of George Valla of Piacenza, at Venice circa 1500. Vide Bayle's Dict. s.v. [382] Heb. ix. 27 __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XIV.--Letter written by the Emperor Constantine respecting the building of Churches [383] . "Constantinus Augustus, the great and the victorious, to Eusebius. "I am well aware, and am thoroughly convinced, my beloved brother, that as the servants of our Saviour Christ have been suffering up to the present time from nefarious machinations and tyrannical persecutions, the fabrics of all the churches must have either fallen into utter ruin from neglect, or, through apprehension of the impending iniquity, have been reduced below their proper dignity. But now that freedom is restored, and that dragon [384] , through the providence of God, and by our instrumentality, thrust out from the government of the Empire, I think that the divine power has become known to all, and that those who hitherto, from fear or from incredulity or from depravity, have lived in error, will now, upon becoming acquainted with Him who truly is, be led into the true and correct manner of life. Exert yourself, therefore, diligently in the reparation of the churches under your own jurisdiction, and admonish the principal bishops, priests, and deacons of other places to engage zealously in the same work; in order that all the churches which still exist may be repaired or enlarged, and that new ones may be built wherever they are required. You, and others through your intervention, can apply to magistrates [385] and to provincial governments [386] , for all that may be necessary for this purpose; for they have received written injunctions to render zealous obedience to whatever your holiness may command. May God preserve you, beloved brother." Thus the emperor wrote to the bishops in each province respecting the building of churches. From his letter to Eusebius of Palestine, it is easily learnt what measures he adopted to obtain copies of the Holy Bible [387] . __________________________________________________________________ [383] This letter, according to Du Pin, was written a.d. 324 or 325. [384] Either Maxentius or Licinius. [385] hegemoneuo, used in Luke ii. 2, of Quirinus, and iii. 1, of Pontius Pilate, but Theodoretus employs it and its correlatives of both civil and ecclesiastical authorities. [386] eparchike taxis` eparchia occurs Acts xxiii. 34, of Cilicia, and in xxv. 1, of Judaea, the province of the Procurator Festus, but in the time of Constantine the eparchoi were civil praefects, without any military command, governing four great eparchiai, viz. (i) Thrace, Egypt, and the East, (ii) Illyricum, Macedonia, and Greece, (iii) Italy and Africa, and (iv) Gaul, Spain, and Britain. (Zos. ii. 33.) On the accurate use of titles in the N.T. vide Bp. Lightfoot in Appendix to Essays on Supernatural Religion. [387] ta iera biblia, or, "the holy books:" The Books, par excellence, were about this time becoming The Book, whence Biblia Sacra as a singular. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XV.--The Epistle of Constantine concerning the preparation of copies of the Holy Scriptures. "Constantinus Augustus, the great and the victorious, to Eusebius. "In the city [388] which bears our name, a great number of persons have, through the providential care of God the Saviour, united themselves to the holy Church. As all things there are in a state of rapid improvement, we deemed it most important that an additional number of churches should be built. Adopt joyfully the mode of procedure determined upon by us, which we have thought expedient to make known to your prudence, namely, that you should get written, on fine parchment, fifty volumes [389] , easily legible and handy for use; these you must have transcribed by skilled calligraphers, accurately acquainted with their art. I mean, of course, copies of the Holy Scriptures, which, as you know, it is most necessary that the congregation of the Church should both have and use. A letter has been sent from our clemency to the catholicus [390] of the diocese, in order that he may be careful that everything necessary for the undertaking is supplied. The duty devolving upon you is to take measures to ensure the completion of these manuscripts within a short space of time. When they are finished, you are authorised by this letter to order two public carriages for the purpose of transmitting them to us; and thus the fair manuscripts will be easily submitted to our inspection. Appoint one of the deacons of your church to take charge of this part of the business; when he comes to us, he shall receive proofs of our benevolence. May God preserve you, beloved brother." What has been already said is enough to shew, nay to clearly prove, how great zeal the emperor manifested on the matters of religion. I will, however, add his noble acts with regard to the Sepulchre of our Saviour. For having learnt that the idolaters, in their frantic rage, had heaped earth over the Lord's tomb, eager thus to destroy all remembrance of His Salvation, and had built over it a temple to the goddess of unbridled lust, in mockery of the Virgin's birth, the emperor ordered the foul shrine to be demolished, and the soil polluted with abominable sacrifices to be carried away and thrown out far from the city, and a new temple of great size and beauty to be erected on the site. All this is clearly set forth in the letter which he wrote to the president [391] of the church of Jerusalem, Macarius, whom we have already mentioned as a member of the great Nicene Council, and united with his brethren in withstanding the blasphemies of Arius. The following is the letter. __________________________________________________________________ [388] Constantinople was dedicated a.d. 330 on the site of the ancient Byzantium. [389] somatia. The Codex Sinaiticus has been thought to be one of these. [390] i.e. the "Comes fisci," or officer managing the revenues of the Province. Dioecesis is used in civil sense by Cicero, Ep. Fam. 3, 8, 4, and Ammianus (17, 7, 6), mentions the compliment paid by Constantius II. to his empress Eusebia, by naming a "Diocese" of the Empire after her. [391] proedros. Cf. Thuc. iii. 25. The prutaneis in office in the Athenian ekklesia were so called. In our author a common synonym for Bishop. proedria = sedes = see. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XVI.--Letter from the Emperor to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the building of the Holy Church. "Constantinus, the victorious and the great, to Macarius. "The grace of our Saviour is so wonderful, that no words are adequate to express the present marvel. The fact that the monument of His most holy sufferings should have remained concealed beneath the earth, during so long a course of years, until the time when, on the death of the common enemy of all, it was destined to shine forth on His liberated servants, surpasses every other subject of admiration. If all the wise men throughout the world were collected into one place, and were to endeavour to express themselves worthily of it, they could not approach within an infinite distance of it; for this miracle is as much beyond all human power of belief, as heavenly things by their nature are mightier than human. Hence it is my first and only object that, as by new miracles the faith in the truth is daily confirmed, so the minds of us all may be more earnestly devoted to the holy law, wisely, zealously, and with one accord. As my design is, I think, now generally known, I desire that you, above all, should be assured that my most intense anxiety is to decorate with beautiful edifices that consecrated spot, which by God's command I have relieved from the burden of the foul idol which encumbered it. For from the beginning He declared it holy, and has rendered it still more holy from the time that He brought to light the proof and memorial of the sufferings of our Lord. I trust, then, to your sagacity to take every necessary care, not only that the basilica itself surpass all others; but that all its arrangements be such that this building may be incomparably superior to the most beautiful structures in every city throughout the world. We have entrusted our friend Dracilianus [392] , who discharges the functions of the most illustrious praefect of the province, with the superintendence of the work of the erection and decoration of the walls. He has received our orders to engage workmen and artisans, and to provide all that you may deem requisite for the building. Let us know, by letter, when you have inspected the work, what columns or marbles you consider would be most ornamental, in order that whatever you may inform us is necessary for the work may be conveyed thither from all quarters of the world. For that which is of all places the most wonderful, ought to be decorated in accordance with its dignity. I wish to learn from you whether you think that the vaulted roof of the basilica ought to be panelled [393] , or to be adorned in some other way; for if it is to be panelled it may also be gilt. Your holiness must signify to the aforesaid officers, as soon as possible, what workmen and artificers, and what sums of money, are requisite; and let me know promptly not only about the marbles and columns, but also about the panelled ceiling, if you decide that this will be the most beautiful mode of construction. May God preserve you, beloved brother [394] ." __________________________________________________________________ [392] Vide note 4 on chap. xiv. [393] lakonaria, fr. Lat lacunar, (lacuna lacus LAK) = fretted ceiling. Cf. Hor. Od. II. xviii. 2. [394] On the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre, and the buildings on it, vide Stanley's "Sinai and Palestine," pp. 457 and seqq., and Canon Bright in Dict. Christ. Ant., article "Holy Sepulchre." __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XVII.--Helena [395] , Mother of the Emperor Constantine.--Her zeal in the Erection of the Holy Church. The bearer of these letters was no less illustrious a personage than the mother of the emperor, even she who was glorious in her offspring, whose piety was celebrated by all; she who brought forth that great luminary and nurtured him in piety. She did not shrink from the fatigue of the journey on account of her extreme old age, but undertook it a little before her death, which occurred in her eightieth year [396] . When the empress beheld the place where the Saviour suffered, she immediately ordered the idolatrous temple, which had been there erected [397] , to be destroyed, and the very earth on which it stood to be removed. When the tomb, which had been so long concealed, was discovered, three crosses were seen buried near the Lord's sepulchre. All held it as certain that one of these crosses was that of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the other two were those of the thieves who were crucified with Him. Yet they could not discern to which of the three the Body of the Lord had been brought nigh, and which had received the outpouring of His precious Blood. But the wise and holy Macarius, the president of the city, resolved this question in the following manner. He caused a lady of rank, who had been long suffering from disease, to be touched by each of the crosses, with earnest prayer, and thus discerned the virtue residing in that of the Saviour. For the instant this cross was brought near the lady, it expelled the sore disease, and made her whole. The mother of the emperor, on learning the accomplishment of her desire, gave orders that a portion of the nails should be inserted in the royal helmet, in order that the head of her son might be preserved from the darts of his enemies [398] . The other portion of the nails she ordered to be formed into the bridle of his horse, not only to ensure the safety of the emperor, but also to fulfil an ancient prophecy; for long before Zechariah, the prophet, had predicted that "There shall be upon the bridles of the horses Holiness unto the Lord Almighty [399] ." She had part of the cross of our Saviour conveyed to the palace [400] . The rest was enclosed in a covering of silver, and committed to the care of the bishop of the city, whom she exhorted to preserve it carefully, in order that it might be transmitted uninjured to posterity [401] . She then sent everywhere for workmen and for materials, and caused the most spacious and most magnificent churches to be erected. It is unnecessary to describe their beauty and grandeur; for all the pious, if I may so speak, hasten thither and behold the magnificence of the buildings [402] . This celebrated and admirable empress performed another action worthy of being remembered. She assembled all the women who had vowed perpetual virginity, and placing them on couches, she herself fulfilled the duties of a handmaid, serving them with food and handing them cups and pouring out wine, and bringing a basin and pitcher, and pouring out water to wash their hands. After performing these and other laudable actions, the empress returned to her son, and not long after, she joyfully entered upon the other and a better life, after having given her son much pious advice and her fervent parting blessing. After her death, those honours were rendered to her memory which her stedfast and zealous service to God deserved [403] . __________________________________________________________________ [395] Flavia Julia Helena, the first wife of Constantius Chlorus, born of obscure parents in Bithynia, /-a.d. 328. "Stabulariam hanc primo fuisse adserunt, sic cognitam Constantio seniori." (Ambr. de obitu Theod. S:42, p. 295.) The story of her being the daughter of a British Prince, and born at York or Colchester, is part of the belief current since William of Malmesbury concerning Constantine's British Origin, which is probably due to two passages of uncertain interpretation in the Panegyrici: (a) Max. et Const. iv., "liberavit ille (Constantius) Britannias servitute, tu etiam nobiles, illic oriendo, fecisti." (b) Eum. Pan. Const. ix., "O fortunata et nunc omnibus beatior terris Britannia, quae Constantinum Caesarem prima vidisti." But is this said of birth or accession? Cf. Gibbon, chap. xiv. [396] Crispus and Fausta were put to death in 326. "If it was not in order to seek expiation for her son's crimes, and consolation for her own sorrows, that Helen made her famous journey to the Holy Land, it was immediately consequent upon them." Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 211. [397] i.e. of Venus, said to have been erected by Hadrian to pollute a spot hallowed by Christians. [398] The traditional which identifies the nail in Constantine's helmet with the iron band in the famous crown of Queen Theodolinda at Monza dates from the sixteenth century. [399] Zech. xiv. 20 estai to epi ton chalinon tou hippou ;'Lgion to Kuri& 251; to pantokratori. lxx. [400] This portion Socrates says (i. 17) was enclosed by Constantine in a statue placed on a column of porphyry in his forum at Constantinople. [401] Carried away from Jerusalem by Chosroes II. in 614, it was recovered, says the legend, by Heraclius in 628. The feast of the "Exaltation of the Cross" on Sept. 14th, combines the Commemoration of the Vision of Constantine, the exaltation of the relic at Jerusalem, and its triumphal entry after its exile under Chosroes. In later years it was, as is well known, supposed to have a miraculous power of self-multiplication, and such names as St. Cross at Winchester, Santa Croce at Florence, and Vera Cruz in Mexico illustrate its cultus. Paulinus of Nola, at the beginning of the fifth century, sending a piece to Sulpicius Severus, says that though bits were frequently taken from it, it grew no smaller (Ep. xxxi.). [402] May 3rd has been kept since the end of the eighth century in honour of the "Invention of the Cross" and the Commemoration of the ancient "Ellinmas" was retained in the reformed Anglican Calendar. [403] Tillemont puts her death in 328. Eusebius (V. Const. iii. 47), says she was carried epi ten basileuousan polin, by which he generally means Rome, but Socrates (i. 17) writes, eis ten basileuousan nean Romen, i.e. Constantinople. There is a chapel in her honour in the church of the Ara Coeli at Rome, but her traditional burial-place is a mile and a half beyond the Porta Maggiore, on the Via Labicana, and thence came the porphyry sarcophagus called St. Helena's, which was placed by Pius VI. in the Hall of the Greek Cross in the Vatican. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XVIII.--The Unlawful Translation of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. The Arian party did not desist from their evil machinations. They had only signed the confession of faith for the purpose of disguising themselves in sheeps'-skins, while they were acting the part of wolves. The holy Alexander, of Byzantium, for the city was not yet called Constantinople, who by his prayer had pierced Arius to the heart, had, at the period to which we are referring, been translated to a better life. Eusebius, the propagator of impiety, little regarding the definition which, only a short time previously, he with the other bishops had agreed upon, without delay quitted Nicomedia and seized upon the see of Constantinople, in direct violation of that canon [404] which prohibits bishops and presbyters from being translated from one city to another. But that those who carry their infatuation so far as to deny the divinity of the only-begotten Son of God, should likewise violate the other laws, cannot excite surprise. Nor was this the first occasion that he made this innovation; for, having been originally entrusted with the see of Berytus, he leapt from thence to Nicomedia. Whence he was expelled by the synod, on account of his manifest impiety, as was likewise Theognis, bishop of Nicaea. This is related a second time in the letters of the emperor Constantine; and I shall here insert the close of the letter which he wrote to the Nicomedians. __________________________________________________________________ [404] i.e. Apost. Can. xiv., which forbids translation without an "eulogos aitia, or prospect of more spiritual gain in saving souls; and guards the application of the rule by the proviso that neither the bishop himself, nor the paroikia desiring him, but many bishops, shall decide the point." Dict. Christ. Ant. i. 226. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XIX.--Epistle of the Emperor Constantine against Eusebius and Theognis, addressed to the Nicomedians. "Who has taught these doctrines to the innocent multitude? It is manifestly Eusebius, the co-operator in the cruelty of the tyrants. For that he was the creature [405] of the tyrant has been clearly shown; and, indeed, is proved by the slaughter of the bishops, and by the fact that these victims were true bishops. The relentless persecution of the Christians proclaims this fact aloud. "I shall not here say anything of the insults directed against me, by which the conspiracies of the opposite faction were mainly carried out. But he went so far as to send spies to watch me, and scarcely refrained from raising troops in aid of the tyrant. Let not any one imagine that I allege what I am not prepared to prove. I am in possession of clear evidence; for I have caused the bishops and presbyters belonging to his following to be seized. But I pass over all these facts. I only mention them for the purpose of making these persons ashamed of their conduct, and not from any feeling of resentment. "There is one thing I fear, one thing which causes me anxiety, and that is to see you charged as accomplices; for you are influenced by the doctrines of Eusebius, and have thus been led away from the truth. But your cure will be speedy, if, after obtaining a bishop who holds pure and faithful doctrines, you will but look unto God. This depends upon you alone; and you would, no doubt, have thus acted long ago, had not the aforesaid Eusebius come here, strongly supported by those then in power, and overturned all discipline. "As it is necessary to say something more about Eusebius, your patience will remember that a council was held in the city of Nicaea, at which, in obedience to my conscience, I was present, being actuated by no other motive than the desire of producing unanimity among all, and before all else of proving and dispelling the mischief which originated from the infatuation of Arius of Alexandria, and was straightway strengthened by the absurd and pernicious machinations of Eusebius. But, beloved and much-honoured brethren, you know not how earnestly and how disgracefully Eusebius, although convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, persevered in the support of the false doctrines which had been universally condemned. He secretly sent persons to me to petition on his behalf, and personally intreated my assistance in preventing his being ejected from his bishopric, although his crimes had been fully detected. God, who, I trust, will continue His goodness towards you and towards me, is witness to the truth of what I say. I was then myself deluded and deceived by Eusebius, as you shall well know. In everything he acted according to his own desire, his mind being full of every kind of secret evil. "Omitting the relation of the rest of his misdeeds, it is well that you should be informed of the crime which he lately perpetrated in concert with Theognis, the accomplice of his folly. I had sent orders for the apprehension of certain individuals in Alexandria who had deserted our faith, and by whose means the firebrand of dissension was kindled. But these good gentlemen, forsooth, bishops, whom, by the clemency of the council, I had reserved for penitence, not only received them under their protection, but also participated in their evil deeds. Hence I came to the determination to punish these ungrateful men, by apprehending and banishing them to some far-distant region. "It is now your duty to look unto God with that same faith which it is clear that you have ever held, and in which it is fitting you should abide. So let us have cause of rejoicing in the appointment of pure, orthodox, and beneficent bishops. If any one should make mention of those destroyers, or presume to speak in their praise, let him know that his audacity will be repressed by the authority which has been committed to me as the servant of God. May God preserve you, beloved brethren!" The above-mentioned bishops were then deposed and banished. Amphion [406] was entrusted with the church of Nicomedia, and Chrestus [407] with that of Nicaea. But the exiled bishops, employing their customary artifices, abused the benevolence of the emperor, renewed the previous contests, and regained their former power. __________________________________________________________________ [405] prosphux, originally a protected "runaway," then protege or client. [406] Athanasius, Disp Prima Cont. Ar., mentions an Amphion, orthodox bishop of Epiphania in Cilicia Secunda. That he is the same as the Amphion of the text is asserted by Baronius and doubted by Tillemont. Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v. [407] In 328, Chrestus and Amphion retired on the recantation of Theognis and Eusebius, whose biblion metanoias, or act of retractation, is given in Soc. i. xiv. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XX.--The artful Machinations of Eusebius and his followers against the Holy Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. Eusebius, as I have already stated, seized the diocese of Constantinople by force. And thus having acquired great power in that city, frequently visiting and holding familiar intercourse with the emperor, he gained confidence and formed plots against those who were foremost in the support of the truth. He at first feigned a desire of going to Jerusalem, to see the celebrated edifices there erected: and the emperor, who was deceived by his flattery, allowed him to set out with the utmost honour, providing him with carriages, and the rest of his equipage and retinue. Theognis, bishop of Nicaea, who, as we have before said, was his accomplice in his evil designs, travelled with him. When they arrived at Antioch, they put on the mask of friendship, and were received with the utmost deference. Eustathius, the great champion of the faith, treated them with fraternal kindness. When they arrived at the holy places, they had an interview with those who were of the same opinions as themselves, namely, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, Aetius, bishop of Lydda, Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea, and others who had imbibed the Arian sentiments; they made known the plot they had hatched to them, and went with them to Antioch. The pretext for their journey was, that due honour might be rendered to Eusebius; but their real motive was their war against religion. They bribed a low woman, who made a traffic of her beauty, to sell them her tongue, and then repaired to the council, and when all the spectators had been ordered to retire, they introduced the wretched woman. She held a babe in her arms, of which she loudly and impudently affirmed that Eustathius was the father. Eustathius, conscious of his innocence, asked her whether she could bring forward any witness to prove what she had advanced. She replied that she could not: yet these equitable judges admitted her to oath, although it is said in the law, that "at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established [408] ;" and the apostle says, "against an elder receive not any accusation but before two or three witnesses [409] ." But they despised these divine laws, and admitted the accusation against this great man without any witnesses. When the woman had again declared upon oath that Eustathius was the father of the babe, these truth-loving judges condemned him as an adulterer. When the other bishops, who upheld the apostolical doctrines, being ignorant of all these intrigues, openly opposed the sentence, and advised Eustathius not to submit to it, the originators of the plot promptly repaired to the emperor, and endeavoured to persuade him that the accusation was true, and the sentence of deposition just; and they succeeded in obtaining the banishment of this champion of piety and chastity, as an adulterer and a tyrant. He was conducted across Thrace to a city of Illyricum [410] . __________________________________________________________________ [408] Deut. xix. 15 [409] 1 Tim. v. 19 [410] Jerome says Trajanopolis, but Eustathius died at Philippi, circa 337. Athanasius, who calls Eustathius "a confessor and sound in the faith" (Hist. Ar. S:4), says the false charge which had most weight with Constantine was that the bishop of Antioch had slandered the Empress Helena. Sozomen (II. 19) records the patience with which Eustathius suffered, and sums up his character as that of "a good and true man, specially remarkable for eloquence, to which his extant writings testify, admirable as they are alike for the dignity of their style of ancient cast, the sound wisdom of their sentiments, the beauty of their language, and grace of expression." The sole survivor of his works is an attack on Origen's interpretation of Scripture. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXI.--Bishops of Heretical opinions ordained in Antioch after the Banishment of St. Eustathius [411] . Eulalius was first consecrated in place of Eustathius. But Eulalius surviving his elevation only a short period, it was intended that Eusebius of Palestine should be translated to this bishopric. Eusebius, however, refused the appointment, and the emperor forbade its being conferred on him. Next Euphronius was put forward, who also dying, after a lapse of only one year and a few months, the see was conferred on Flaccillus [412] . All these bishops secretly clung to the Arian heresy. Hence it was that most of those individuals, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who valued the true religion, left the churches and formed assemblies among themselves. They were called Eustathians, since it was after the banishment of Eustathius that they began to hold their meetings. The wretched woman above-mentioned was soon after attacked by a severe and protracted illness, and then avowed the imposture in which she had been engaged, and made known the whole plot, not only to two or three, but to a very large number of priests. She confessed that she had been bribed to bring this false and impudent charge, but yet that her oath was not altogether false, as a certain Eustathius, a coppersmith, was the father of the babe. Such were some of the crimes perpetrated in Antioch by this most excellent faction. __________________________________________________________________ [411] Socrates, H E. i. 24, says that on the deposition of Eustathius "ephexes epi ete okto legetai ton en 'Antiochei& 139; thronon tes ekklesias scholasai opse de...cheirotoneitai Euphronios." Cf. Soz. H.E. ii. 19. There is much confusion about this succession of bishops. Jerome (Chron. ii. p. 92) gives the names of the Arian bishops thrust in succession into the place of Eustathius, as Eulalius, Eusebius, Eufronius, Placillus. "Perhaps Eulalius was put forward for the vacant see, like Eusebius, but never actually appointed." Bp. Lightfoot, Dict. Christ. Biog. ii. 315. [412] This name is variously given as Placillus (Jerome), Placitus (Soz.) Flacillus (Ath. and Eus.), and in different versions of Theodoret are found Phlakitos, Plakentios, Phalkios __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXII.--Conversion of the Indians [413] . At this period, the light of the knowledge of God was for the first time shed upon India. The courage and the piety of the emperor had become celebrated throughout the world; and the barbarians, having learnt by experience to choose peace rather than war, were able to enjoy intercourse with one another without fear. Many persons, therefore, set out on long journeys; some for the desire of making discoveries, others from a spirit of commercial enterprise. About this period a native of Tyre [414] , acquainted with Greek philosophy, desiring to penetrate into the interior of India, set off for this purpose with his two young nephews. When he had accomplished the object of his wishes, he embarked for his own country. The ship being compelled to put in to land in order to obtain a fresh supply of water, the barbarians fell upon her, drowned some of the crew, and took the others prisoners. The uncle was among the number of those who were killed, and the lads were conducted to the king. The name of the one was AEdesius, and of the other Frumentius. The king of the country, in course of time, perceiving their intelligence, promoted them to the superintendence of his household. If any one should doubt the truth of this account, let him recall to mind the history of Joseph in the kingdom of Egypt, and also the history of Daniel, and of the three champions of the truth, who, from being captives, became princes of Babylon. The king died; but these young men remained with his son, and were advanced to still greater power. As they had been brought up in the true religion, they exhorted the merchants who visited the country to assemble, according to the custom of Romans [415] , to take part in the divine liturgy. After a considerable time they solicited the king to reward their services by permitting them to return to their own country. They obtained his permission, and safely reached Roman territory. AEdesius directed his course towards Tyre, but Frumentius, whose religious zeal was greater than the natural feeling of affection for his relatives, proceeded to Alexandria, and informed the bishop of that city that the Indians were deeply anxious to obtain spiritual light. Athanasius then held the rudder of that church; he heard the story, and then "Who," said he, "better than you yourself can scatter the mists of ignorance, and introduce among this people the light of Divine preaching?" After having said this, he conferred upon him the episcopal dignity, and sent him to the spiritual culture of that nation. The newly-ordained bishop left this country, caring nothing for the mighty ocean, and returned to the untilled ground of his work. There, having the grace of God to labour with him, he cheerfully and successfully played the husbandman, catching those who sought to gainsay his words by works of apostolic wonder, and thus, by these marvels, confirming his teaching, he continued each day to take many souls alive [416] . __________________________________________________________________ [413] Peri tes 'Indon pisteos. The term "India" is used vaguely, partly from the old belief that Asia and Africa joined somewhere south of the Indian Ocean. Here the Indians are Abyssinians. [414] The version adopted by Rufinus, the earliest extant authority for this story, is followed, in the main, by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. The Tyrian traveller is named Meropius. [415] The words of Sozomen (ii. 24) corresponding with the passage in which Rufinus (i. 9) speaks of meeting "romano ritu orationis caussa," are he rhomaiois ethos ekklesiazein, i.e. to assemble to worship after the manner civilized citizens of the Empire, and not like savages. The expression has nothing to do with the customs of the Church of Rome, in the later sense of the word, as has sometimes been represented. Cf. Soc. I. 19, tas christianikas ektelein euchas [416] "The king, if we identify the narrative with the Ethiopian version of the story, must have been the father of the Abreha and Atzbeha of the Ethiopian annals." "Frumentius received the title of Abbana, or Abba Salama" (cf. Absalom), "the Father of Peace." "The bishopric of Auxume" (Axum, about 100 miles S.W. of Massowah) "assumed a metropolitan character." (Dict. of Christ. Biog., Art. Ethiopian Church). Constantius afterwards wrote to the Ethiopian Prince to ask him to replace Frumentius by Theophilus, an Arian, but without success (Ath. Ap. ad Const. 31). __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXIII.--Conversion of the Iberians [417] . Frumentius thus led the Indians to the knowledge of God. Iberia, about the same time, was guided into the way of truth by a captive woman [418] . She continued instant in prayer, allowing herself no softer bed than a sack spread upon the ground, and accounted fasting her highest luxury. This austerity was rewarded by gifts similar to those of the Apostles. The barbarians, who were ignorant of medicine, were accustomed, when attacked by disease, to go to one another's houses, in order to ask those who had suffered in a similar way, and had got well, by what means they had been cured. In accordance with this custom, a mother who had a sick child, repaired to this admirable woman, to enquire if she knew of any cure for the disease. The latter took the child, placed it upon her bed, and prayed to the Creator of the world to be propitious to it, and cure the disease. He heard her prayer, and made it whole. This extraordinary woman hence obtained great celebrity; and the queen, who was suffering from a severe disease, hearing of her by report, sent for her. The captive held herself in very low estimation, and would not accept the invitation of the queen. But the queen, forced by her sore need, and careless of her royal dignity, herself ran to the captive. The latter made the queen lie down upon her mean bed, and once again applied to her disease the efficacious remedy of prayer. The queen was healed, and offered as rewards for her cure, gold, silver, tunics, and mantles, and such gifts as she thought worthy of possession, and such as royal munificence should bestow. The holy woman told her that she did not want any of these, but that she would deem her greatest reward to be the queen's knowledge of true religion. She then, as far as in her lay, explained the Divine doctrines, and exhorted her to erect a church in honour of Christ who had made her whole. The queen then returned to the palace, and excited the admiration of her consort, by the suddenness of her cure; she then made known to him the power of that God whom the captive adored, and besought him to acknowledge the one only God, and to erect a church to Him, and to lead all the nation to worship Him. The king was greatly delighted with the miracle which had been performed upon the queen, but he would not consent to erect a church. A short time after he went out hunting, and the loving Lord made a prey of him as He did of Paul; for a sudden darkness enveloped him and forbade him to move from the spot; while those who were hunting with him enjoyed the customary sunlight, and he alone was bound with the fetters of blindness. In his perplexity he found a way of escape, for calling to mind his former unbelief, he implored the help of the God of the captive woman, and immediately the darkness was dispelled. He then went to the marvellous captive, and asked her to shew him how a church ought to be built. He who once filled Bezaleel with architectural skill, graciously enabled this woman to devise the plan of a church. The woman set about the plan, and men began to dig and build. When the edifice was completed, the roof put on, and every thing supplied except the priests, this admirable woman found means to obtain these also. For she persuaded the king to send an embassy to the Roman emperor asking for teachers of religion. The king accordingly despatched an embassy for the purpose. The emperor Constantine, who was warmly attached to the cause of religion, when informed of the purport of the embassy, gladly welcomed the ambassadors, and selected a bishop endowed with great faith, wisdom, and virtue, and presenting him with many gifts, sent him to the Iberians, that he might make known to them the true God. Not content with having granted the requests of the Iberians, he of his own accord undertook the protection of the Christians in Persia; for, learning that they were persecuted by the heathens, and that their king himself, a slave to error, was contriving various cunning plots for their destruction, he wrote to him, entreating him to embrace the Christian religion himself, as well as to honour its professors. His own letter will render his earnestness in the cause the plainer. __________________________________________________________________ [417] This story, like the preceding, is copied or varied by Sozomen, Socrates, and our author, from the version found also in Rufinus. Iberia, the modern Georgia, was conquered by Pompey, and ceded by Jovian. [418] The Evangelizer of Georgia is honoured on Dec. 15th (Guerin Pet. Bolland, xiv. 306) as "Sainte Chretienne," and it is doubtful whether the name Nina, in which she appears in the Armenogregorian Calendar for June 11 (Neale, Eastern Church, ii. 799), may not be a title. "Nina" is probably a name of rank, and perhaps is connected with our nun (Neale, i. 61). Moses of Chorene (ii. 83) gives the name "Nunia." Rufinus (i. 10) states that he gives the story as he heard it from King Bacurius at Jerusalem. On the various legends of St. Nina and her work, vide S. C. Malan, Hist. of Georgian Church pp. 17-33. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXIV.--Letter written by the Emperor Constantine to Sapor [419] , the King of Persia, respecting the Christians. "In protecting the holy faith I enjoy the light of truth, and by following the light of truth I attain to fuller knowledge of the faith. Therefore, as facts prove, I recognize that most holy worship as teaching the knowledge of the most holy God. This service I profess. With the Power of this God for my ally, beginning at the furthest boundaries of the ocean, I have, one after another, quickened every part of the world with hope. Now all the peoples once enslaved by many tyrants, worn by their daily miseries, and almost extinct, have been kindled to fresh life by receiving the protection of the State. "The God I reverence is He whose emblem my dedicated troops bear on their shoulders, marching whithersoever the cause of justice leads them, and rewarding me by their splendid victories. I confess that I reverence this God with eternal remembrance. Him, who dwelleth in the highest heavens, I contemplate with pure and unpolluted mind. On Him I call on bended knees, shunning all abominable blood, all unseemly and ill-omened odours, all fire of incantation [420] , and all pollution by which unlawful and shameful error has destroyed whole nations and hurled them down to hell. "God does not permit those gifts which, in His beneficent Providence, He has bestowed upon men for the supply of their wants to be perverted according to every man's desire. He only requires of men a pure mind and a spotless soul, and by these He weighs their deeds of virtue and piety. He is pleased with gentleness [421] and modesty; He loves the meek [422] , and hates those who excite contentions; He loves faith, chastises unbelief; He breaks all power of boasting [423] , and punishes the insolence of the proud [424] . Men exalted with pride He utterly overthrows, and rewards the humble [425] and the patient [426] according to their deserts. Of a just sovereignty He maketh much, strengthens it by His aid, and guards the counsels of Princes with the blessing of peace. "I know that I am not in error, my brother, when I confess that this God is the Ruler and the Father of all men, a truth which many who preceded me upon the imperial throne were so deluded by error as to attempt to deny. But their end was so dreadful that they have become a fearful warning to all mankind, to deter others from similar iniquity [427] . Of these I count that man one whom the wrath of God, like a thunderbolt, drove hence into your country, and who made notorious the memorial of his shame which exists in your own land [428] . Indeed it appears to have been well ordered that the age in which we live should be distinguished by the open and manifest punishments inflicted on such persons. I myself have witnessed the end of those who have persecuted the people of God by unlawful edicts. Hence it is that I more especially thank God for having now, by His special Providence, restored peace to those who observe His law, in which they exalt and rejoice. "I am led to expect future happiness and security whenever God in His goodness unites all men in the exercise of the one pure and true religion. You may therefore well understand how exceedingly I rejoice to hear that the finest provinces of Persia are adorned abundantly with men of this class; I mean Christians; for it is of them I am speaking. All then is well with you and with them, for you will have the Lord of all merciful and beneficent to you. Since then you are so mighty and so pious, I commend the Christians to your care, and leave them in your protection. Treat them, I beseech you, with the affection that befits your goodness. Your fidelity in this respect will confer on yourself and on us inexpressible benefits." This excellent emperor felt so much solicitude for all who had embraced the true religion, that he not only watched over those who were his own subjects, but also over the subjects of other sovereigns. For this reason he was blessed with the special protection of God, so that although he held the reins of the whole of Europe and of Africa, and the greater part of Asia, his subjects were all well disposed to his rule, and obedient to his government. Foreign nations submitted to his sway, some by voluntary submission, others overcome in war. Trophies were everywhere erected, and the emperor was styled Victorious. The praises of Constantine have, however, been proclaimed by many other writers. We must resume the thread of our history. This emperor, who deserves the highest fame, devoted his whole mind to matters worthy of the apostles, while men who had been admitted to the sacerdotal dignity not only neglected to edify the church, but endeavoured to uproot it from the very foundations. They invented all manner of false accusations against those who governed the church in accordance with the doctrines taught by the apostles, and did their best to depose and banish them. Their envy was not satisfied by the infamous falsehood which they had invented against Eustathius, but they had recourse to every artifice to effect the overthrow of another great bulwark of religion. These tragic occurrences I shall now relate as concisely as possible. __________________________________________________________________ [419] Sapor II. (Shapur) Postumus, the son of Hormisdas II., was one of the greatest of the Sassanidae. He reigned from a.d. 310 to 381, and fought with success against Constantius II. and Julian, "augendi regni cupiditate supra homines flagrans." Amm. Marc xviii. 4. [420] The reading of Basil. Gr. and Lat., and Pini Codex, epode for geode, is approved by Schulze, and may indicate a side-hit at the Magian fire-worship. But the adjectival form epodes for epodos is doubtful. [421] Cf. 2 Cor. x. i [422] Cf. Matt xi. 29 [423] Cf. Jas. iv. 16 [424] Cf. Luke i. 51 [425] Cf. Luke i. 52 [426] Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 24 [427] The imperial writer may have had in his mind Tiberius, whose miserable old age was probably ended by murder; Caius, stabbed by his own guard; Claudius, poisoned by his wife; Nero, driven to shameful suicide; Vitellius, beaten to death by a brutal mob; Domitian, assassinated by his wife and freedmen; Commodus, murdered by his courtiers, and Pertinax by his guards; Caracalla, murdered; Heliogabalus, murdered; Alexander Severus, Maximinus, Gordianus, murdered; Decius, killed in war; Gallus, AEmilianus, Gallienus, all murdered; Aurelianus, Probus, Carus, murdered. On the other hand Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Diocletian, who persecuted the Church with less or more severity, died peaceful deaths. [428] Valerianus, proclaimed Emperor in Rhoetia, a.d. 254, was defeated in his campaign against the Persians, and treated with indignity alive and dead. After being made to crouch as a footstool for his conqueror to tread on when mounting on horseback, he was flayed alive, a.d. 260, and his tanned skin nailed in a Persian temple as a "memorial of his shame." Cf. Const. Orat. xxiv. Gibbon's catholic scepticism includes the humiliation of Valerianus. "The tale," he says, "is moral and pathetic, but the truth of it may very fairly be called in question." (Decline and Fall, Chap. X.). But the passage in the text, in which the allusion has not always been perceived, and the parallel reference in the Emperor's oration, indicate the belief of a time little more than half a century after the event. Lactantius (de Morte Persecutorum V.), was probably about ten years old when Valerianus was defeated, and, if so, gives the testimony of a contemporary. Orosius (vii. 22) and Agathias (iv. p. 133) would only copy earlier writers, but the latter states that for the fact of Sapor's thus treating Valerianus there is "abundant historical testimony." Cf. Tillemont, Hist. Emp. iii. pp. 314, 315. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXV.--An account of the plot formed against the Holy Athanasius. Alexander, that admirable bishop, who had successfully withstood the blasphemies of Arius, died five months after the council of Nicaea, and was succeeded in the episcopate of the church of Alexandria by Athanasius. Trained from his youth in sacred studies, Athanasius had attracted general admiration in each ecclesiastical office that he filled. He had, at the general council, so defended the doctrines of the apostles, that while he won the approbation of all the champions of the truth, its opponents learned to look on their antagonist as a personal foe and public enemy. He had attended the council as one of the retinue of Alexander, then a very young man, although he was the principal deacon [429] . When those who had denied the only-begotten Son of God heard that the helm of the Church of Alexandria had been entrusted to his hands knowing as they did by experience his zeal for the truth, they thought that his rule would prove the destruction of their authority. They, therefore, resorted to the following machinations against him. In order to avert suspicion, they bribed some of the adherents of Meletius, who, although deposed by the council of Nicaea, had persevered in exciting commotions in the Thebaid and in the adjacent part of Egypt, and persuaded them to go to the emperor, and to accuse Athanasius of levying a tax upon Egypt [430] , and giving the gold collected to a certain man who was preparing to usurp the imperial power [431] . The emperor being deceived by this story, Athanasius was brought to Constantinople. Upon his arrival he proved that the accusation was false, and had the charge given him by God restored to him. This is shown by a letter from the emperor to the Church of Alexandria of which I shall transcribe only the concluding paragraph. A Portion of the Letter from the Emperor Constantine to the Alexandrians. "Believe me, my brethren, the wicked men were unable to effect anything against your bishop. They surely could have had no other design than to waste our time, and to leave themselves no place for repentance in this life. Do you, therefore, help yourselves, and love that which wins your love [432] ; and exert all your power in the expulsion of those who wish to destroy your concord. Look unto God, and love one another. I joyfully welcomed Athanasius your bishop; and I have conversed with him as with one whom I know to be a man of God." __________________________________________________________________ [429] "tou chorou ton diakonon hegoumenos." The youth of Athanasius indicates a variety in the qualifications for the archidiaconate, for he can hardly have been the senior deacon. Cf. Dict. Christian Ant., Art. `Archdeacon.' [430] In order to provide sticharia or variegated vestments. Ath. Apol. cont. Ar. V. S:60. The possibility of such charges indicates the importance of the Patriarchate. [431] Philumenus. Ath. Ap. cont. Ar. V. S:60. [432] to philtron to humeteron. Athanasius (Apol. cont. Ar. V. S:62) quotes the phrase as hemeteron, "our love." __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXVI.--Another plot against Athanasius. The calumniators of Athanasius, however, did not desist from their attempts. On the contrary, they devised so bold a fiction against him, that it surpassed every invention of the ancient writers of the tragic or comic stage. They again bribed individuals of the same party, and brought them before the emperor, vociferously accusing that champion of virtue of many abominable crimes. The leaders of the party were Eusebius, Theognis, and Theodorus, bishop of Perinthus, a city now called Heraclea [433] . After having accused Athanasius of crimes which they described as too shocking to be tolerated, or even listened to, they persuaded the emperor to convene a council at Caesarea in Palestine, where Athanasius had many enemies, and to command that his cause should be there tried. The emperor, utterly ignorant of the plot that had been devised, was persuaded by them to give the required order. But the holy Athanasius, well aware of the malevolence of those who were to try him, refused to appear at the council. This served as a pretext to those who opposed the truth to criminate him still further; and they accused him before the emperor of contumacy and arrogance. Nor were their hopes altogether frustrated; for the emperor, although exceedingly forbearing, became exasperated by their representations, and wrote to him in an angry manner, commanding him to repair to Tyre. Here the council was ordered to assemble, from the suspicion, as I think, that Athanasius had an apprehension of Caesarea on account of its bishop. The emperor wrote also to the council in a style consistent with his devoted piety. His letter is as follows. __________________________________________________________________ [433] Perinthus, on the Propontis also known as Heraclea, and now Erekli, was once a flourishing town. Theodorus was deposed at Sardica. On his genuine writings, vide Jer. de Vir. Ill. c. 90, and on a Commentary on the Psalter, published in 1643, and attributed to him, vide Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 934. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXVII.--Epistle of the Emperor Constantine to the Council of Tyre [434] . "Constantinus Augustus to the holy council assembled in Tyre. "In the general prosperity which distinguishes the present time, it seems right that the Catholic Church should likewise be exempt from trouble, and that the servants of Christ should be freed from every reproach. "But certain individuals instigated by the mad desire of contention, not to say leading a life unworthy of their profession, are endeavoring to throw all into disorder. This appears to me to be the greatest of all possible calamities. I beseech you, therefore, in post haste, as the phrase goes, to assemble together, without any delay, in formal synod; so that you may support those who require your assistance, heal the brethren who are in danger, restore unanimity to the divided members, and rectify the disorders of the Church while time permits; and thus restore to those great provinces the harmony which, alas! the arrogance of a few men has destroyed. I believe every one would admit that you could not perform anything so pleasing in the sight of God, so surpassing all my prayers as well as your own, or so conducive to your own reputation, as to restore peace. "Do not ye therefore delay, but when you have come together with all that sincerity and fidelity which our Saviour demands of all His servants, almost in words that we can hear, endeavour with redoubled eagerness to put a fitting end to these dissensions. "Nothing shall be omitted on my part to further the interests of our religion. I have done all that you recommended in your letters. I have sent to those bishops whom you specified, directing them to repair to the council for the purpose of deliberating with you upon ecclesiastical matters. I have also sent Dionysius [435] , a man of consular rank, to counsel those who are to sit in synod with you, and to be himself an eye witness of your proceedings, and particularly of the order and regularity that is maintained. If any one should dare on the present occasion also to disobey our command, and refuse to come to the council, which, however, I do not anticipate, an officer will be despatched immediately to send him into banishment by imperial order, that he may learn not to oppose the decrees enacted by the emperor for the support of truth. "All that now devolves upon your holinesses is to decide with unanimous judgment, without partiality or prejudice, in accordance with the ecclesiastical and apostolical rule, and to devise suitable remedies for the offences which may have resulted from error; in order that the Church may be freed from all reproach, that my anxiety may be diminished, that peace may be restored to those now at variance, and that your renown may be increased. May God preserve you, beloved brethren." The bishops accordingly repaired to the council of Tyre. Amongst them were those who were accused of holding heterodox doctrines; of whom Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, was one. The admirable Athanasius also attended. I shall first dwell on the tragedy of the accusation, and shall then relate the proceedings of this celebrated tribunal. __________________________________________________________________ [434] The Council of Tyre met a.d. 335, on the date, vide Bp. Lightfoot in Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 316, note. "The scenes at the Council of Tyre form the most picturesque and the most shameful chapter in the Arian controversy." Id. [435] Athanasius (Apol. cont. Ar. VI. S:72) describes him as acting with gross partiality. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXVIII.--The Council of Tyre. Arsenius was a bishop of the Meletian faction. The men of his party put him in a place of concealment, and charged him to remain there as long as possible. They then cut off the right hand of a corpse, embalmed it, placed it in a wooden case, and carried it about everywhere, declaring that it was the hand of Arsenius, who had been murdered by Athanasius. But the all-seeing eye did not permit Arsenius to remain long in concealment. He was first seen alive in Egypt; then in the Thebaid; afterwards he was led by Divine Providence to Tyre, where the hand of tragic fame was brought before the council. The friends of Athanasius hunted him up, and brought him to an inn, where they compelled him to lie hid for a time. Early in the morning the great Athanasius came to the council. First of all a woman of lewd life was brought in, who deposed in a loud and impudent manner that she had vowed perpetual virginity, but that Athanasius, who had lodged in her house, had violated her chastity. After she had made her charge, the accused came forward, and with him a presbyter worthy of all praise, by name Timotheus. The court ordered Athanasius to reply to the indictment; but he was silent, as if he had not been Athanasius. Timotheus, however, addressed her thus: "Have I, O woman, ever conversed with you, or have I entered your house?" She replied with still greater effrontery, screaming aloud in her dispute with Timotheus, and, pointing at him with her finger, exclaimed, "It was you who robbed me of my virginity; it was you who stripped me of my chastity;" adding other indelicate expressions which are used by shameless women. The devisers of this calumny were put to shame, and all the bishops who were privy to it, blushed. The woman was now being led out of the Court, but the great Athanasius protested that instead of sending her away they ought to examine her, and learn the name of the hatcher of the plot. Hereupon his accusers yelled and shouted that he had perpetrated other viler crimes, of which it was utterly impossible that he could by any art or ingenuity be cleared; and that eyes, not ears, would decide on the evidence. Having said this, they exhibited the famous box and exposed the embalmed hand to view. At this sight all the spectators uttered a loud cry. Some believed the accusation to be true; the others had no doubt of the falsehood, and thought that Arsenius was lurking somewhere or other in concealment. When at length, after some difficulty, a little silence was obtained, the accused asked his judges whether any of them knew Arsenius. Several of them replying that they knew him well, Athanasius gave orders that he should be brought before them. Then he again asked them, "Is this the right Arsenius? Is this the man I murdered? Is this the man those people mutilated after his murder by cutting off his right hand?" When they had confessed that it was the same individual, Athanasius pulled off his cloak, and exhibited two hands, both the right and the left, and said, "Let no one seek for a third hand, for man has received two hands from the Creator and no more." Even after this plain proof the calumniators and the judges who were privy to the crime, instead of hiding themselves, or praying that the earth might open and swallow them up, raised an uproar and commotion in the assembly, and declared that Athanasius was a sorcerer, and that he had by his magical incantations bewitched the eyes of men. The very men who a moment before had accused him of murder now strove to tear him in pieces and to murder him. But those whom the emperor had entrusted with the preservation of order saved the life of Athanasius by dragging him away, and hurrying him on board a ship [436] . When he appeared before the emperor, he described all the dramatic plot which had been got up to ruin him. The calumniators sent bishops attached to their faction into Mareotis, viz., Theognis, bishop of Nicaea, Theodorus, bishop of Perinthus, Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, Narcissus of Cilicia [437] , with others of the same sentiments. Mareotis is a district near Alexandria, and derives its name from the lake Maria [438] . Here they invented other falsehoods, and, forging the reports of the trial, mixed up the charges which had been shown to be false with fresh accusations, as if they had been true, and despatched them to the emperor. __________________________________________________________________ [436] Here comes in the famous scene of the sudden apparition of Athanasius before Constantine. "The Emperor is entering Constantinople in state. A small figure darts across his path in the middle of the square, and stops his horse. The Emperor, thunderstruck, tries to pass on; he cannot guess who the petitioner can be. It is Athanasius, who comes to insist on justice, when thought to be leagues away at the Council of Tyre." Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. VII. [437] Bishop of Neronias, or Irenopolis. Cf. p. 44, note. [438] Marea or Maria, a town and lake of Lower Egypt, giving its name to the district: now lake Marrout. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXIX.--Consecration of the Church of Jerusalem.--Banishment of St. Athanasius. All the bishops who were present at the council of Tyre, with all others from every quarter, were commanded by the emperor to proceed to AElia [439] to consecrate the churches which he had there erected. The emperor despatched also a number of officials of the most kindly disposition, remarkable for piety and fidelity, whom he ordered to furnish abundant supplies of provisions, not only to the bishops and their followers, but to the vast multitudes who flocked from all parts to Jerusalem. The holy altar was decorated with imperial hangings and with golden vessels set with gems. When the splendid festival was concluded, each bishop returned to his own diocese. The emperor was highly gratified when informed of the splendour and magnificence of the function, and blessed the Author of all good for having thus granted his petition. Athanasius having complained of his unjust condemnation, the emperor commanded the bishops against whom this complaint was directed to present themselves at court. Upon their arrival, they desisted from urging any of their former calumnies, because they knew how clearly they could be refuted; but they made it appear that Athanasius had threatened to prevent the exportation of corn. The emperor believed what they said, and banished him to a city of Gaul called Treves [440] . This occurred in the thirtieth year of the emperor's reign [441] . __________________________________________________________________ [439] AElia Capitolina, the name given to Jerusalem on its restoration by (AElius) Hadrianus. [440] Augusta Treverorum, Treveri, Trier, or Treves, on the Moselle, was now the official Capital of Gaul. [441] i.e. a.d. 336. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXX.--Will of the blessed Emperor Constantine. A year and a few months afterwards [442] the emperor was taken ill at Nicomedia, a city of Bithynia, and, knowing the uncertainty of human life, he received the holy rite of baptism [443] , which he had intended to have deferred until he could be baptized in the river Jordan. He left as heirs of the imperial throne his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans [444] , the youngest. He ordered that the great Athanasius should return to Alexandria, and expressed this decision in the presence of Eusebius, who did all he could to dissuade him. __________________________________________________________________ [442] a.d. 337. [443] At the hand of Eusebius of Nicomedia. [444] Vide Pedigree, in the Prolegomena. Constantine II. received Gaul, Britain, Spain, and a part of Africa: Constantius the East, and Constans Illyricum, Italy, and the rest of Africa. In 340 Constans defeated his brother, who was slain near Aquileia, and became master of the West. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXXI.--Apology for Constantine. It ought not to excite astonishment that Constantine was so far deceived as to send so many great men into exile: for he believed the assertions of bishops of high fame and reputation, who skilfully concealed their malice. Those who are acquainted with the Sacred Scriptures know that the holy David, although he was a prophet, was deceived; and that too not by a priest, but by one who was a menial, a slave, and a rascal. I mean Ziba, who deluded the king by lies against Mephibosheth, and thus obtained his land [445] . It is not to condemn the prophet that I thus speak; but that I may defend the emperor, by showing the weakness of human nature, and to teach that credit should not be given only to those who advance accusations, even though they may appear worthy of credit; but that the other party ought also to be heard, and that one ear should be left open to the accused. __________________________________________________________________ [445] Our Author is of the same opinion as Sir George Grove, as against Professor Blunt, on the character of Mephibosheth. Dict. Bib. ii. 326. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXXII.--The End of the Holy Emperor Constantine. The emperor was now translated from his earthly dominions to a better kingdom [446] . The body of the emperor was enclosed in a golden coffin, and was carried to Constantinople by the governors of the provinces, the military commanders, and the other officers of state, preceded and followed by the whole army, all bitterly deploring their loss; for Constantine had been as an affectionate father to them all. The body of the emperor was allowed to remain in the palace until the arrival of his sons, and high honours were rendered to it. But these details require no description here, as a full account has been given by other writers. From their works, which are easy of access, may be learnt how greatly the Ruler of all honours His faithful servants. If any one should be tempted to unbelief, let him look at what occurs now near the tomb and the statue of Constantine [447] , and then he must admit the truth of what God has said in the Scriptures, "Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed [448] ." __________________________________________________________________ [446] Whitsunday, a.d. 337. [447] Valesius explains this allusion by quoting the Arian Philostorgius (ii. 17), who says that "the statue of Constantine, standing on its porphyry column, was honoured with sacrifices, illuminations, and incense." The accusation of idolatrous worship may be disregarded. Cf. Chron. Alex. 665, 667. [448] 1 Sam. ii. 30 __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Book II. Chapter I.--Return of St. Athanasius. The divine Athanasius returned to Alexandria, after having remained two years and four months at Treves [449] . Constantine, the eldest son of Constantine the Great, whose imperial sway extended over Western Gaul, wrote the following letter to the church of Alexandria. Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, the son of Constantine the Great, to the Alexandrians. "Constantinus Caesar to the people of the Catholic Church of Alexandria. "I think that it cannot have escaped your pious intelligence that Athanasius, the interpreter of the venerated law, was opportunely sent into Gaul, in order that, so long as the savagery of these bloodthirsty opponents was threatening peril to his sacred head, he might be saved from suffering irremediable wrongs. To avoid this imminent peril, he was snatched from the jaws of his foes, to remain in a city under my jurisdiction, where he might be abundantly supplied with every necessary. Yet the greatness of his virtue, relying on the grace of God, led him to despise all the calamities of adverse fortune. Constantine, my lord and my father, of blessed memory, intended to have reinstated him in his former bishopric, and to have restored him to your piety; but as the emperor was arrested by the hand of death before his desires were accomplished, I, being his heir, have deemed it fitting to carry into execution the purpose of this sovereign of divine memory. You will learn from your bishop himself, when you see him, with how much respect I have treated him. Nor indeed is it surprising that he should have been thus treated by me. I was moved to this line of conduct by his own great virtue, and the thought of your affectionate longing for his return. May Divine Providence watch over you, beloved brethren!" Furnished with this letter, St. Athanasius returned [450] from exile, and was most gladly welcomed both by the rich and by the poor, by the inhabitants of cities, and by those of the provinces. The followers of the madness of Arius were the only persons who felt any vexation at his return. Eusebius, Theognis, and those of their faction resorted to their former machinations, and endeavoured to prejudice the ears of the young emperor against him. I shall now proceed to relate in what manner Constantius swerved from the doctrines of the Apostles. __________________________________________________________________ [449] From Feb. 336 to June 338. The "Porta Nigra" and the ruins of the Baths still shew relics of the splendour of the imperial city. The exile was generously treated. Maximinus, the bishop of Treves, was orthodox and friendly. (Ath. ad Episc. AEgypt. S:8.) On the conclusion of the term of his relegation to Treves Constantine II. took him in the imperial suite to Viminacium, a town on the Danube, not far from the modern Passarovitz. Here the three emperors met. Athanasius continued his journey to Alexandria via Constantinople and the Cappadocian Caesarea. (Ath. Hist. Ar. S:8 and Apol. ad Const. S:5.) [450] In Nov. 338. His clergy thought it the happiest day of their lives. Ath. Ap. Cont. Ar. S:7. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter II.--Declension of the Emperor Constantius from the true Faith. Constantia, the widow of Licinius, was the half-sister of Constantine [451] . She was intimately acquainted with a certain priest who had imbibed the doctrines of Arius. He did not openly acknowledge his unsoundness; but, in the frequent conversations which he had with her, he did not refrain from declaring that Arius had been unjustly calumniated. After the death of her impious husband, the renowned Constantine did everything in his power to solace her, and strove to prevent her from experiencing the saddest trials of widowhood. He attended her also in her last illness [452] , and rendered her every proper attention. She then presented the priest whom I mentioned to the emperor, and entreated him to receive him under his protection. Constantine acceded to her request, and soon after fulfilled his promise. But though the priest was permitted the utmost freedom of speech, and was most honourably treated, he did not venture to reveal his corrupt principles, for he observed the firmness with which the emperor adhered to the truth. When Constantine was on the point of being translated to an eternal kingdom, he drew up a will, in which he directed that his temporal dominions should be divided among his sons. None of them was with him when he was dying, so he entrusted the will to this priest alone, and desired him to give it to Constantius, who, being at a shorter distance from the spot than his brothers, was expected to arrive the first. These directions the priest executed, and thus by putting the will into his hands, became known to Constantius, who accepted him as an intimate friend, and commanded him to visit him frequently. Perceiving the weakness of Constantius, whose mind was like reeds driven to and fro by the wind, he became emboldened to declare war against the doctrines of the gospel. He loudly deplored the stormy state of the churches, and asserted it to be due to those who had introduced the unscriptural word "consubstantial" into the confession of faith, and that all the disputes among the clergy and the laity had been occasioned by it. He calumniated Athanasius and all who coincided in his opinions, and formed designs for their destruction, being used as their fellow-worker by Eusebius [453] , Theognis, and Theodorus, bishop of Perinthus. The last-named, whose see is generally known by the name of Heraclea, was a man of great erudition, and had written an exposition of the Holy Scriptures [454] . These bishops resided near the emperor, and frequently visited him; they assured him that the return of Athanasius from banishment had occasioned many evils, and had excited a tempest which had shaken not only Egypt, but also Palestine, Phoenicia, and the adjacent countries [455] . __________________________________________________________________ [451] Vide Pedigree. Philostorgius (ii. 16) said the will was given to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Valesius (on Soc. i. 25) thinks that if the story had been true Athanasius would have recorded it, with the name of the Presbyter. [452] a.d. 327-328. [453] Of Nicomedia, now transferred to the see of Constantinople. [454] Vide note on p. 61. [455] The ground of objection to the return was (i) that Athanasius had been condemned by a Council--that of Tyre, and (ii) that he was restored by the authority of the state alone. The first intention was to get the Arian Pistus advanced to the patriarchate. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter III.--Second Exile of St. Athanasius.--Ordination and Death of Gregorius. With these and similar arguments, the bishops assailed the weak-minded emperor, and persuaded him to expel Athanasius from his church. But Athanasius obtained timely intimation of their design, and departed to the west. [456] The friends of Eusebius had sent false accusations against him to Julius, who was then bishop of Rome [457] . In obedience to the laws of the church, Julius summoned the accusers and the accused to Rome, that the cause might be tried [458] . Athanasius, accordingly, set out for Rome, but the calumniators refused to go because they saw that their falsehood would easily be detected [459] . But perceiving that the flock of Athanasius was left without a pastor, they appointed over it a wolf instead of a shepherd. Gregorius, for this was his name, surpassed the wild beasts in his deeds of cruelty towards the flock: but at the expiration of six years he was destroyed by the sheep themselves. Athanasius went to Constans (Constantine, the eldest brother, having fallen in battle), and complained of the plots laid against him by the Arians, and of their opposition to the apostolical faith [460] . He reminded him of his father, and how he attended in person the great and famous council which he had summoned; how he was present at its debates, took part in framing its decrees, and confirmed them by law. The emperor was moved to emulation by his father's zeal, and promptly wrote to his brother, exhorting him to preserve inviolate the religion of their father, which they had inherited; "for," he urged, "by piety he made his empire great, destroyed the tyrants of Rome, and subjugated the foreign nations on every side." Constantius was led by this letter to summon the bishops from the east and from the west to Sardica [461] , a city of Illyricum, and the metropolis of Dacia, that they might deliberate on the means of removing the other troubles of the church, which were many and pressing. __________________________________________________________________ [456] Easter, a.d. 340. The condemnation was confirmed at the Council of Antioch, a.d. 341. [457] They were met by a deputation of Athanasians, bringing the encyclical of the Egyptian Bishops in favour of the accused. Apol. Cont. Ar. S:3. [458] On the bearing of these communications with Rome on the question of Papal jurisdiction, vide Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, p. 405. Cf. Wladimir Guettee, Histoire de l'Eglise, III. p. 112. [459] The innocence of Athanasius was vindicated at the Council held at Rome in Nov. a.d. 341. [460] For the violent resentment of the Alexandrian Church at the obtrusion of Gregorius, an Ultra-Arian, and apparently an illustration of the old proverb of the three bad Kappas, "Kappadokes, Kretes, Kilikes, tria kappa kakista," for he was a Cappadocian--vide Ath. Encyc. 3, 4, Hist. Ar. 10. The sequence of events is not without difficulty, and our author gives here little help. Athanasius was in Alexandria in the spring of 340, when Gregorius made his entry, and started for Rome at or about Easter. Constantine II. was defeated and slain by the troops of his brother Constans, in the neighbourhood of Aquileia, and his corpse found in the river Alsa, in April, 340. Athanasius remained at Rome till the summer of 343, when he was summoned to Milan by Constans (Ap. ad Const. 3, 4). Results of his visit to Rome were the adherence of Latin Christianity to the orthodox opinion (Cf. Milman, Hist. of Lat. Christianity, vol. i. p. 78), and the introduction of Monachism into the West. Vide Robertson's Ch. Hist. ii. 6. [461] Now Sophia, in Bulgaria. The centre of Moesia was called Dacia Cis-Danubiana, when the tract conquered by Trajan was abandoned. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter IV.--Paulus, Bishop of Constantinople. Paulus [462] , bishop of Constantinople, who faithfully maintained orthodox doctrines, was accused by the unsound Arians of exciting seditions, and of such other crimes as they usually laid to the charge of all those who preached true piety. The people, who feared the machinations of his enemies, would not permit him to go to Sardica. The Arians, taking advantage of the weakness of the emperor, procured from him an edict of banishment against Paulus, who was, accordingly, sent to Cucusus, a little town formerly included in Cappadocia, but now in Lesser Armenia. But these disturbers of the public peace were not satisfied with having driven the admirable Paulus into a desert. They sent the agents of their cruelty to despatch him by a violent death. St. Athanasius testifies to this fact in the defence which he wrote of his own flight. He uses the following words [463] : "They pursued Paulus, bishop of Constantinople, and having seized him at Cucusus, a city of Cappadocia, they had him strangled, using as their executioner Philippus the prefect, who was the protector of their heresy, and the active agent of their most atrocious projects [464] ." Such were the murders to which the blasphemy of Arius gave rise. Their mad rage against the Only-begotten was matched by cruel deeds against His servants. __________________________________________________________________ [462] A native of Thessalonica; he had been secretary to his predecessor Alexander. [463] Ath. de fug. S:3. Cf. Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 7. [464] Flavius Philippus, praetorian praefect of the East, is described by Socrates (II. 16), as deuteros meta basilea. Paulus was removed from Constantinople in 342, and not slain till 350. Philippus died in disappointment and misery. Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 356. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter V.--The Heresy of Macedonius. The Arians, having effected the death of Paulus, or rather having despatched him to the kingdom of heaven, promoted Macedonius [465] in his place, who, they imagined, held the same sentiments, and belonged to the same faction as themselves, because he, like them, blasphemed the Holy Ghost. But, shortly after, they deposed him also, because he refused to call Him a creature Whom the Holy Scriptures affirm to be the Son of God. After his separation from them, he became the leader of a sect of his own. He taught that the Son of God is not of the same substance as the Father, but that He is like Him in every particular. He also openly affirmed that the Holy Ghost is a creature. These circumstances occurred not long afterwards as we have narrated them. __________________________________________________________________ [465] On the vicissitudes of the see of Constantinople, after the death of Alexander, in a.d. 336, vide Soc. ii. 6 and Soz. iii. 3. Paulus was murdered in 350 or 351, and the "shortly after" of the text means nine years, Macedonius being replaced by Eudoxius of Antioch, in 360. On how far the heresy of the "Pneumatomachi," called Macedonianism, was really due to the teaching of Macedonius, vide Robertson's Church Hist. II. iv. for reff. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter VI.--Council held at Sardica. Two hundred and fifty bishops assembled at Sardica [466] , as is proved by ancient records. The great Athanasius, Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, already mentioned [467] , and Marcellus [468] , bishop of Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, who also held this bishopric at the time of the council of Nicaea, all repaired thither. The calumniators, and the chiefs of the Arian faction, who had previously judged the cause of Athanasius, also attended. But when they found that the members of the synod were staunch in their adherence to sound doctrine, they would not even enter the council, although they had been summoned to it, but fled away, both accusers and judges. All these circumstances are far more clearly explained in a letter drawn up by the council; and I shall therefore now insert it. Synodical Letter from the Bishops assembled at Sardica, addressed to the other Bishops. "The holy council assembled at Sardica, from Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Campania, Calabria, Africa, Sardinia, Pannonia, Moesia, Dacia, Dardania, Lesser Dacia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Thrace, Rhodope, Asia, Caria, Bithynia, the Hellespont, Phrygia, Pisidia, Cappadocia, Pontus, the lesser Phrygia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lydia, the Cyclades, Egypt, the Thebaid, Libya, Galatia, Palestine and Arabia, to the bishops throughout the world, our fellow-ministers in the catholic and apostolic Church, and our beloved brethren in the Lord. Peace be unto you. "The madness of the Arians has often led them to the perpetration of violent atrocities against the servants of God who keep the true faith; they introduce false doctrines themselves, and persecute those who uphold orthodox principles. So violent were their attacks on the faith, that they reached the ears of our most pious emperors. Through the co-operation of the grace of God, the emperors have summoned us from different provinces and cities to the holy council which they have appointed to be held in the city of Sardica, in order that all dissensions may be terminated, all evil doctrines expelled, and the religion of Christ alone maintained amongst all people. Some bishops from the east have attended the council at the solicitation of our most religious emperors, principally on account of the reports circulated against our beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Perhaps the calumnies of the Arians have already reached you, and they have endeavoured thus to forestall the council, and make you believe their groundless accusations of the innocent, and prevent any suspicion being raised of the depraved heresy which they uphold. But they have not long been permitted so to act. The Lord is the Protector of the churches; for them and for us all He suffered death, and opened for us the way to heaven. "The adherents of Eusebius, Maris, Theodorus, Theognis, Ursacius, Valens, Menophantus, and Stephanus, had already written to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and our fellow-minister, against our aforesaid fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Some bishops of the opposite party wrote also to Julius, testifying to the innocence of Athanasius, and proving that all that had been asserted by the followers of Eusebius was nothing more than lies and slander. The refusal of the Arians to obey the summons of our beloved brother and fellow-ruler, Julius, and also the letter written by that bishop, clearly prove the falseness of their accusation. For, had they believed that what they had done and represented against our fellow-minister admitted of justification, they would have gone to Rome. But their mode of procedure in this great and holy council is a manifest proof of their fraud. Upon their arrival at Sardica, they perceived that our brethren, Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, and others, were there also; they were therefore afraid to come to the test, although they had been summoned, not once or twice only, but repeatedly. There were they waited for by the assembled bishops, particularly by the venerable Hosius, one worthy of all honour and respect, on account of his advanced age, his adherence to the faith, and his labours for the church. All urged them to join the assembly and avail themselves of the opportunity of proving, in the presence of their fellow-ministers, the truth of the charges they had brought against them in their absence, both by word and by letter. But they refused to obey the summons, as we have already stated, and so by their excesses proved the falsity of their statements, and all but proclaimed aloud the plot and schemes they had formed. Men confident of the truth of their assertions are always ready to stand to them openly. But as these accusers would not appear to substantiate what they had advanced, any future allegations which they may by their usual artifices bring against our fellow-ministers, will only be regarded as proceeding from a desire of slandering them in their absence, without the courage to confront them openly. "They fled, beloved brethren, not only because their charges were slander, but also because they saw men arrive with serious and manifold accusations against themselves. Chains and fetters were produced. Some were present whom they had exiled: others came forward as representatives of those still kept in exile. There stood relations and friends of men whom they had put to death. Most serious of all, bishops also appeared, one of whom [469] exhibited the irons and the chains with which they had laden him. Others testified that death followed their false charges. For their infatuation had led them so far as even to attempt the life of a bishop; and he would have been killed had he not escaped from their hands. Theodulus [470] , our fellow-minister, of blessed memory, passed hence with their calumny on his name; for, through it, he had been condemned to death. Some showed the wounds which had been inflicted on them by the sword; others deposed that they had been exposed to the miseries of famine. "All these depositions were made, not by a few obscure individuals, but by whole churches; the presbyters of these churches giving evidence that the persecutors had armed the military against them with swords, and the common people with clubs; had employed judicial threats, and produced spurious documents. The letters written by Theognis, for the purpose of prejudicing the emperor against our fellow-ministers, Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, were read and attested by those who had formerly been the deacons of Theognis. It was also proved that they had stripped virgins naked, had burnt churches, and imprisoned our fellow-ministers, and all because of the infamous heresy of the Ariomaniacs. For thus all who refused to make common cause with them were treated. "The consciousness of having committed all these crimes placed them in great straits. Ashamed of their deeds, which could no longer be concealed, they repaired to Sardica, thinking that their boldness in venturing thither would remove all suspicion of their guilt. But when they perceived the presence of those whom they had falsely accused, and of those who had suffered from their cruelty; and that likewise several had come with irrefragable accusations against them, they would not enter the council. Our fellow-ministers, on the other hand, Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas, took every means to induce them to attend, by tears, by urgency, by challenge, promising not only to prove the falsity of their accusations, but also to show how deeply they had injured their own churches. But they were so overwhelmed by the consciousness of their own evil deeds, that they took to flight, and by this flight clearly proved the falsity of their accusations as well as their own guilt. "But though their calumny and perfidy, which had indeed been apparent from the beginning, were now clearly perceived, yet we determined to examine the circumstances of the case according to the laws of truth, lest they should, from their very flight, derive pretexts for renewed acts of deceitfulness. "Upon carrying this resolution into effect, we proved by their actions that they were false accusers, and that they had formed plots against our fellow-ministers. Arsenius, whom they declared had been put to death by Athanasius, is still alive, and takes his place among the living. This fact alone is sufficient to show that their other allegations are false. "Although they spread a report everywhere that a chalice had been broken by Macarius, one of the presbyters of Athanasius, yet those who came from Alexandria, from Mareotis, and from other places, testified that this was not the fact; and the bishops in Egypt wrote to Julius, our fellow-minister, declaring that there was not the least suspicion that such a deed had been done. The judicial facts which the Arians assert they possess against Macarius have been all drawn up by one party; and in these documents the depositions of pagans and of catechumens were included. One of these catechumens, when interrogated, replied that he was in the church on the entry of Macarius. Another deposed that Ischyras, whom they had talked about so much, was then lying ill in his cell. Hence it appears that the mysteries could not have been celebrated at that time, as the catechumens were present, and as Ischyras was absent; for he was at that very time confined by illness. Ischyras, that wicked man who had falsely affirmed that Athanasius had burnt some of the sacred books, and had been convicted of the crime, now confessed that he was ill in bed when Macarius arrived; hence the falsehood of his accusation was clearly demonstrated. His calumny was, however, rewarded by his party; they gave him the title of a bishop, although he was not yet even a presbyter. For two presbyters came to the synod, who some time back had been attached to Meletius, and were afterwards received back by the blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and are now with Athanasius, protesting that he had never been ordained a presbyter, and that Meletius had never had any church, or employed any minister in Mareotis. Yet, although he had never been ordained a presbyter, they promote him to a bishopric, in order that his title may impose upon those who hear his false accusations [471] . "The writings of our fellow-minister, Marcellus, were also read, and plainly evinced the duplicity of the adherents of Eusebius; for what Marcellus had simply suggested as a point of inquiry, they accused him of professing as a point of faith. The statements which he had made, both before and after the inquiry, were read, and his faith was proved to be orthodox. He did not affirm, as they represented, that the beginning of the Word of God was dated from His conception by the holy Mary, or that His kingdom would have an end. On the contrary, he wrote that His kingdom had had no beginning, and would have no end. Asclepas, our fellow-minister, produced the reports drawn up at Antioch in the presence of the accusers, and of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, and proved his innocence by the sentence of the bishops who had presided as judges. "It was not then without cause, beloved brethren, that, although so frequently summoned, they would not attend the council; it was not without cause that they took to flight. The reproaches of conscience constrained them to make their escape, and thus, at the same time, to demonstrate the groundlessness of their calumnies, and the truth of those accusations which were advanced and proved against them. Besides all the other grounds of complaint, it may be added that all those who had been accused of holding the Arian heresy, and had been ejected in consequence, were not only received, but advanced to the highest dignities by them. They raised deacons to the presbyterate, and thence to the episcopate; and in all this they were actuated by no other motive than the desire of propagating and diffusing their heresy, and of corrupting the true faith. "Next to Eusebius, the following are their principal leaders; Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea, Narcissus, bishop of Neronias in Cilicia, Stephanus, bishop of Antioch, Georgius [472] , bishop of Laodicea, Acacius [473] , bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus in Asia, Ursacius, bishop of Singidunum [474] in Moesia, and Valens, bishop of Mursa [475] in Pannonia. These bishops forbade those who came with them from the east to attend the holy council, or to unite with the Church of God. On their road to Sardica they held private assemblies at different places, and formed a compact cemented by threats, that, when they arrived in Sardica, they would not join the holy council, nor assist at its deliberations; arranging that, as soon as they had arrived they should present themselves for form's sake, and forthwith betake themselves to flight. These facts were made known to us by our fellow-ministers, Macarius of Palestine [476] , and Asterius of Arabia [477] , who came with them to Sardica, but refused to share their unorthodoxy. These bishops complained before the holy council of the violent treatment they had received from them, and of the want of right principles evinced in all their transactions. They added that there were many amongst them who still held orthodox opinions, but that these were prevented from going to the council; and that sometimes threats, sometimes promises, were resorted to, in order to retain them in that party. For this reason they were compelled to reside together in one house; and never allowed, even for the shortest space of time, to be alone. "It is not right to pass over in silence and without rebuke the calumnies, the imprisonments, the murders, the stripes, the forged letters, the indignities, the stripping naked of virgins, the banishments, the destruction of churches, the acts of incendiarism, the translation of bishops from small towns to large dioceses, and above all, the ill-starred Arian heresy, raised by their means against the true faith. For these causes, therefore, we declare the innocence and purity of our beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, and of all the other servants of God who are with them; and we have written to each of their dioceses, in order that the people of each church may be made acquainted with the innocence of their respective bishops, and that they may recognise them alone and wait for their return. Men who have come down on their churches like wolves [478] , such as Gregorius in Alexandria, Basilius in Ancyra, and Quintianus [479] in Gaza, we charge them not even to call bishops, nor yet Christians, nor to have any communion with them, nor to receive any letters from them, nor to write to them. "Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea in Europe, Narcissus, bishop of Neronias in Cilicia, Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Stephanus, bishop of Antioch, Ursacius, bishop of Singidunum in Moesia, Valens, bishop of Mursa in Pannonia, Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea (for though fear kept him from leaving the East, he has been deposed by the blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and has imbibed the infatuation of the Arians), have on account of their various crimes been cast forth from their bishoprics by the unanimous decision of the holy council. We have decreed that they are not only not to be regarded as bishops, but to be refused communion with us. For those who separate the Son from the substance and divinity of the Father, and alienate the Word from the Father, ought to be separated from the Catholic Church, and alienated from all who bear the name of Christians. Let them then be anathema to you, and to all the faithful, because they have corrupted the word of truth. For the apostle's precept enjoins, if any one should bring to you another gospel than that which ye have received, let him be accursed [480] . Command that no one hold communion with them; for light can have no fellowship with darkness. Keep far off from them; for what concord has Christ with Belial? Be careful, beloved brethren, that you neither write to them nor receive their letters. Endeavour, beloved brethren and fellow-ministers, as though present with us in spirit at the council, to give your hearty consent to what is enacted, and affix to it your written signature, for the sake of preserving unanimity of opinion among all our fellow-ministers throughout the world [481] . "We declare those men excommunicate from the Catholic Church who say that Christ is God, but not the true God; that He is the Son, but not the true Son; and that He is both begotten and made; for such persons acknowledge that they understand by the term `begotten,' that which has been made; and because, although the Son of God existed before all ages, they attribute to Him, who exists not in time but before all time, a beginning and an end [482] . "Valens and Ursacius have, like two vipers brought forth by an asp, proceeded from the Arian heresy. For they boastingly declare themselves to be undoubted Christians, and yet affirm that the Word and the Holy Ghost were both crucified and slain, and that they died and rose again; and they pertinaciously maintain, like the heretics, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of diverse and distinct essences [483] . We have been taught, and we hold the catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession which teach, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one essence, which is termed substance [484] by the heretics. If it is asked, `What is the essence of the Son?' we confess, that it is that which is acknowledged to be that of the Father alone; for the Father has never been, nor could ever be, without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. It is most absurd to affirm that the Father ever existed without the Son, for that this could never be so has been testified by the Son Himself, who said, `I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [485] ;' and `I and My Father are one [486] .' None of us denies that He was begotten; but we say that He was begotten before all things, whether visible or invisible; and that He is the Creator of archangels and angels, and of the world, and of the human race. It is written, `Wisdom which is the worker of all things taught me [487] ,' and again, `All things were made by Him [488] .' "He could not have existed always if He had had a beginning, for the everlasting Word has no beginning, and God will never have an end. We do not say that the Father is Son, nor that the Son is Father; but that the Father is Father, and the Son of the Father Son. We confess that the Son is Power of the Father. We confess that the Word is Word of God the Father, and that beside Him there is no other. We believe the Word to be the true God, and Wisdom and Power. We affirm that He is truly the Son, yet not in the way in which others are said to be sons: for they are either gods by reason of their regeneration, or are called sons of God on account of their merit, and not on account of their being of one essence [489] , as is the case with the Father and the Son. We confess an Only-begotten and a Firstborn; but that the Word is only-begotten, who ever was and is in the Father. We use the word firstborn with respect to His human nature. But He is superior (to man) in the new creation [490] (of the Resurrection), inasmuch as He is the Firstborn from the dead. "We confess that God is; we confess the divinity of the Father and of the Son to be one. No one denies that the Father is greater than the Son: not on account of another essence [491] , nor yet on account of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son. The words uttered by our Lord, `I and My Father are one [492] ,' are by those men explained as referring to the concord and harmony which prevail between the Father and the Son; but this is a blasphemous and perverse interpretation. We, as Catholics, unanimously condemned this foolish and lamentable opinion: for just as mortal men on a difference having arisen between them quarrel and afterwards are reconciled, so do such interpreters say that disputes and dissension are liable to arise between God the Father Almighty and His Son; a supposition which is altogether absurd and untenable. But we believe and maintain that those holy words, `I and My Father are one,' point out the oneness of essence [493] which is one and the same in the Father and in the Son. "We also believe that the Son reigns with the Father, that His reign has neither beginning nor end, and that it is not bounded by time, nor can ever cease: for that which always exists never begins to be, and can never cease. "We believe in and we receive the Holy Ghost the Comforter, whom the Lord both promised and sent. We believe in It as sent. "It was not the Holy Ghost who suffered, but the manhood with which He clothed Himself; which He took from the Virgin Mary, which being man was capable of suffering; for man is mortal, whereas God is immortal. We believe that on the third day He rose, the man in God, not God in the man; and that He brought as a gift to His Father the manhood which He had delivered from sin and corruption. "We believe that, at a meet and fixed time, He Himself will judge all men and all their deeds. "So great is the ignorance and mental darkness of those whom we have mentioned, that they are unable to see the light of truth. They cannot comprehend the meaning of the words: `that they may be one in us [494] .' It is obvious why the word `one' was used; it was because the apostles received the Holy Spirit of God, and yet there were none amongst them who were the Spirit, neither was there any one of them who was Word, Wisdom, Power, or Only-begotten. `As Thou,' He said, `and I are one, that they, may be one in us.' These holy words, `that they may be one in us,' are strictly accurate: for the Lord did not say, `one in the same way that I and the Father are one,' but He said, `that the disciples, being knit together and united, may be one in faith and in confession, and so in the grace and piety of God the Father, and by the indulgence and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be able to become one.'" From this letter may be learnt the duplicity of the calumniators, and the injustice of the former judges, as well as the soundness of the decrees. These holy fathers have taught us not only truths respecting the Divine nature, but also the doctrine of the Incarnation [495] . Constans was much concerned on hearing of the easy temper of his brother, and was highly incensed against those who had contrived this plot and artfully taken advantage of it. He chose two of the bishops who had attended the council of Sardica, and sent them with letters to his brother; he also despatched Salianus, a military commander who was celebrated for his piety and integrity, on the same embassy. The letters which he forwarded by them, and which were worthy of himself, contained not only entreaties and counsels, but also menaces. In the first place, he charged his brother to attend to all that the bishops might say, and to take cognizance of the crimes of Stephanus and of his accomplices. He also required him to restore Athanasius to his flock; the calumny of the accusers and the injustice and ill-will of his former judges having become evident. He added, that if he would not accede to his request, and perform this act of justice, he would himself go to Alexandria, restore Athanasius to his flock which earnestly longed for him, and expel all opponents. Constantius was at Antioch when he received this letter; and he agreed to carry out all that his brother commanded. __________________________________________________________________ [466] The Council met in 343, according to Hefele; 344, according to Mansi, on the authority of the Festal Letters of Athanasius. Summoned by both Emperors, it was presided over by Hosius. The accounts of the numbers present vary. Some authorities adhere to the traditional date, 347. Soc. ii. 20; Soz. iii. 11. [467] Vide I. xxvii. [468] Perhaps present at the Synod of Ancyra (Angora), in a.d. 315. Died, a.d. 374. Marcellus played the man at Nicaea, and was accused by the Arians of Sabellianism, and deposed. He was distrusted as a trimmer, but could boast "se communione Julii et Athanasii, Romanae et Alexandrinae urbis pontificum, esse munitum" (Jer. de vir. ill. c. 86). Cardinal Newman thinks Athanasius attacked him in the IVth Oration against the Arians. Vide Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 808. [469] Probably Lucius, Bishop of Hadrianople, who had been deposed by the Arians, and appealed to Julius, who wished to right him. Still kept out by the Arians, he appealed to the Council of Sardica, and, in accordance with its decree, Constantius ordered his restoration (Soc. ii. 26). Cf. Chap. XII. [470] Bishop of Trajanopolis (Ath. Hist. Ar. 19). [471] The strange story of Ischyras is gathered from notices in the Apol. c. Arian. Without ordination, he started a small conventicle of some half-dozen people, and the Alexandrian Synod of 324 condemned his pretensions. The incident of the text may be assigned to 329. He afterwards faced both ways, to Athanasius and the Eusebians, and was recognised by them as a bishop. Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 302. [472] Georgius succeeded the Arian Theodotus, of whom mention has already been made (p. 42), in the see of the Syrian Laodicea (Latakia). Athanasius (de fug. S:26), speaks of his "dissolute life, condemned even by his own friends." [473] Known as ho monophthalmos, "The one-eyed." He succeeded the Historian Eusebius in the see of Caesarea in 340, and the Nicomedian Eusebius as a leader of the Arian Court party in 342. [474] Now Belgrade. [475] Now Esseg on the Drave. Here Constantius defeated Magnentius, a.d. 351. [476] Bishop of Petra in Palestine. (Tomus ad Antioch. 10.) There is some confusion in the names of the sees, and a doubt whether there were really two Petras. Cf. Reland, Palestine, p. 298, Le Quien, East. Christ. iii. 665, 666. [477] Bishop of Petra in Arabia, (Ath. Hist. Ar. 18, Apol. cont. Ar. 48). [478] Cf. Acts xx. 29 [479] Thrust on the see of Gaza by the Arians on the deposition of Asclepas (Soz. iii. 8, 12). [480] Gal. i. 8 [481] Here, according to the Version of Athanasius (Ap. cont. Ar. 49), the Synodical Epistle ends. An argument against the genuineness of the addition is the introduction of a new formula of faith, while from the letter of Athanasius "ex synodo Alexandrina ad legatos apostolicae sedis,"" it is plain that nothing was added to the Nicene Creed. (Labbe iii. 84.) [482] This passage is very corrupt: the translation follows the Greek of Valesius, gennetos estin hama kai genetos. It is not certain that the distinction between agennetos "unbegotten," and agenetos, "uncreate," was in use quite so early as 344. If the passage is spurious and of later date, the distinction might be more naturally found. [483] hupostaseis [484] ousia [485] John xiv. 10 [486] John x. 30 [487] Wisdom vii. 22 [488] John i. 3 [489] hupostasis [490] This translation follows the reading of the Allatian Codex, adopted by Valesius, te kaine ktisei. If we read koine for kaine, we must render "excels or differs in relation to the common creation" which He shares with man. [491] hupostasis [492] John x. 30 [493] hupostasis [494] John xvii. 21 [495] oikonomia. In classical Greek oikonomia is simply the management (a) of a household, (b) of the state. In the N.T. we have it in Luke xvi. for "stewardship," and in five other places; (i) 1 Cor. ix. 17, A.V. "dispensation," R.V. "stewardship;" (ii) Eph. i. 10 A.V. and R.V. "dispensation;" (iii) Eph. iii. 2, A.V. and R.V. "dispensation;" (iv) Col. i. 25, A.V. and R.V. "dispensation;" (v) 1 Tim. i. 4, where A.V. adopts the inferior reading oikodomen, and R.V. renders the oikonomian of #AFGKLP by "dispensation." Suicer gives as the meanings of the word (i) ministerium evangelii, (ii) providentia et numen quo Dei sapientia omnia moderatur, (iii) ipsa Christi naturae humanae assumptio, (iv) totius redemptionis mysterium et passionis Christi Sacramentum. Theodoret himself (Ed. Migne iv. 93) says ten enanthropesin de tou Theou Logou kaloumen oikonomian, and quaintly distinguishes (Cant. Cant. p. 83) he smurna kai ho libanos toutestin he theologia te kai oikonomia. On a phrase of St. Ignatius (Eph. xviii.), "ho christos ekuophorethe hupo Marias kat' oikonomian," Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, II. p. 75 note) writes: "The word oikonomia came to be applied more especially to the Incarnation because this was par excellence the system or plan which God had ordained for the government of His household and the dispensation of His stores. Hence in the province of theology, oikonomia was distinguished by the Fathers from theologia proper, the former being the teaching which was concerned with the Incarnation and its consequences, and the latter the teaching which related to the Eternal and Divine nature of Christ. The first step towards this special appropriation of oikonomia to the Incarnation is found in St. Paul; e.g. Ephes. i. 10, eis oikonomian tou pleromatos ton kairon....In this passage of Ignatius it is moreover connected with the `reserve' of God (xix. en hesuchi& 139; theou eprachthe). Thus `economy' has already reached its first stage on the way to the sense of `dissimulation,' which was afterwards connected with it, and which led to disastrous consequences in the theology and practice of a later age." Cf. Newman's Arians, chap. i. sec. 3. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter VII.--Account of the Bishops Euphratas and Vincentius, and of the plot formed in Antioch against them. The wonted opponents of the truth were so much displeased at these proceedings, that they planned a notoriously execrable and impious crime. The two bishops resided near the foot of the mountain, while the military commander had settled in a lodging in another quarter. At this period Stephanus held the rudder of the church of Antioch, and had well nigh sunk the ship, for he employed several tools in his despotic doings, and by their aid involved all who maintained orthodox doctrines in manifold calamities. The leader of these instruments was a young man of a rash and reckless character, who led a very infamous life. He not only dragged away men from the market-place, and treated them with blows and insult, but had the audacity to enter private houses, whence he carried off men and women of irreproachable character. But, not to be too prolix in relating his crimes, I will merely narrate his daring conduct towards the bishops; for this alone is sufficient to give an idea of the unlawful deeds of violence which he perpetrated against the citizens. He went to one of the lowest women of the town, and told her that some strangers had just arrived, who desired to pass the night with her. He took fifteen of his band, placed them in hiding among the stone walls at the bottom of the hill, and then went for the prostitute. After giving the preconcerted signal, and learning that the folk privy to the plot were on the spot, he went to the gate of the courtyard belonging to the inn where the bishops were lodging. The doors were opened by one of the household servants, who had been bribed by him. He then conducted the woman into the house, pointed out to her the door of the room where one of the bishops slept, and desired her to enter. Then he went out to call his accomplices. The door which he had pointed out happened to be that of Euphratas, the elder bishop, whose room was the outer of the two. Vincentius, the other bishop, occupied the inner room. When the woman entered the room of Euphratas, he heard the sound of her footsteps, and, as it was then dark, asked who was there. She spoke, and Euphratas was full of alarm, for he thought that it was a devil imitating the voice of a woman, and he called upon Christ the Saviour for aid. Onager, for this was the name of the leader of this wicked band (a name [496] peculiarly appropriate to him, as he not only used his hands but also his feet as weapons against the pious), had in the meantime returned with his lawless crew, denouncing as criminals those who were expecting to be judges of crime themselves. At the noise which was made all the servants came running in, and up got Vincentius. They closed the gate of the courtyards, and captured seven of the gang; but Onager and the rest made off. The woman was committed to custody with those who had been seized. At the break of day the bishops awoke the officer who had come with them, and they all three proceeded together to the palace, to complain of the audacious acts of Stephanus, whose evil deeds, they said, were too evident to need either trial or torture to prove them. The general loudly demanded of the emperor that the audacious act should not be dealt with synodically, but by ordinary legal process, and offered to give up the clergy attached to the bishops to be first examined, and declared that the agents of Stephanus must undergo the torture too. To this Stephanus insolently objected, alleging that the clergy ought not to be scourged. The emperor and the principal authorities then decided that it would be better to judge the cause in the palace. The woman was first of all questioned, and was asked by whom she was conducted to the inn where the bishops were lodging. She replied, that a young man came to her, and told her that some strangers had arrived who were desirous of her company; that in the evening he conducted her to the inn; that he went to look for his band, and when he had found it, brought her in through the door of the court, and desired her to go into the chamber adjoining the vestibule. She added, that the bishop asked who was there; that he was alarmed; and that he began to pray; and that then others ran to the spot. __________________________________________________________________ [496] ,'Onagros = wild ass __________________________________________________________________ Chapter VIII.--Stephanus Deposed. After the judges had heard these replies, they ordered the youngest of those who had been arrested to be brought before them. Before he was subjected to the examination by scourging, he confessed the whole plot, and stated that it was planned and carried into execution by Onager. On this latter being brought in he affirmed that he had only acted according to the commands of Stephanus. The guilt of Stephanus being thus demonstrated, the bishops then present were charged to depose him, and expel him from the Church. By his expulsion the Church was not, however, wholly freed from the plague of Arianism. Leontius, who succeeded him in his presidency, was a Phrygian of so subtle and artful a disposition, that he might be said to resemble the sunken rocks of the sea [497] . We shall presently narrate more concerning him [498] . __________________________________________________________________ [497] phasi de kai neessin haliplaneessi chereious tas huphalous petras ton phaneron spiladon --Anth. Pal. xi. 390. [498] Leontius, Bishop of Antioch from a.d. 348 to 357, was one of the School of Lucianus. (Philost. iii. 15), cf. pp. 38 and 41, notes. Athanasius says hard things of him (de fug. S:26), but Dr. Salmon (Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v.) is of opinion that "we may charitably think that the gentleness and love of peace which all attest were not mere hypocrisy, and may impute his toleration of heretics to no worse cause than insufficient appreciation of the importance of the issues involved." Vide infra. chap. xix. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter IX.--The Second Return of Saint Athanasius. The emperor Constantius, having become acquainted with the plots formed against the bishops, wrote to the great Athanasius once, and twice, aye and thrice, exhorting him to return from the West [499] . I shall here insert the second letter, because it is the shortest of the three. Constantius Augustus the Conqueror to Athanasius. "Although I have already apprised you by previous letters, that you can, without fear of molestation, return to our court, in order that you may, according to my ardent desire, be reinstated in your own bishopric, yet I now again despatch another letter to your gravity to exhort you to take immediately, without fear or suspicion, a public vehicle and return to us, in order that you may receive all that you desire." When Athanasius returned, Constantius received him with kindness, and bade him go back to the Church of Alexandria [500] . But there were some attached to the court, infected with the errors of Arianism, who maintained that Athanasius ought to cede one church to those who were unwilling to hold communion with him. On this being mentioned to the emperor, and by the emperor to Athanasius, he remarked, that the imperial command appeared to be just; but that he also wished to make a request. The emperor readily promising to grant him whatever he might ask, he said that those in Antioch [501] who objected to hold communion with the party now in possession of the churches wanted temples to pray in, and that it was only fair that one House of God also be assigned to them. This request was deemed just and reasonable by the emperor; but the leaders of the Arian faction resisted its being carried into execution, maintaining that neither party ought to have the churches assigned to them. Constantius on this was struck with high admiration for Athanasius, and sent him back to Alexandria [502] . Gregorius was dead, having met his end at the hands of the Alexandrians themselves [503] . The people kept high holiday in honour of their pastor; feasting marked their joy at seeing him again, and praise was given to God [504] . Not long after Constans departed this life [505] . __________________________________________________________________ [499] Athanasius had gone from Sardica to Naissus (in upper Dacia), and thence to Aquileia, where he was received by Constans. Ap. ad Const. S:4, S:3. [500] Athanasius went from Aquileia to Rome, where he saw Julius again, thence to Treves to the Court of Constans, and back to the East to Antioch, where the conversation about the "one church" took place. Soc. ii. 23; Soz. iii. 20. [501] i.e. the friends of Eustathius. [502] The more significant from the fact that Constantius affected a more than human impassibility. Cf. the graphic account of his entry into Rome "velut collo munito rectam aciem luminum tendens, nec dextra vultum nec laeva flectebat, tanquam figmentum hominis: non cum rota concuteret nutans nec spuens aut os aut nasum tergens vel fricans manumve agitans visus est unquam." Amm. Marc. xvi. 10. [503] About Feb. a.d. 345. [504] Oct. a.d. 346. Fest. Ind. The return is described by Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. 21). Authorities, however, differ as to which return he paints. [505] i.e. was murdered by the troops of the usurper Magnentius at Illiberis (re-named Helena by Constantine, and now Elne, in Roussillon), a.d. 350. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter X.--Third exile and flight of Athanasius. Those who had obtained entire ascendency over the mind of Constantius, and influenced him as they pleased, reminded him that Athanasius had been the cause of the differences between his brother and himself, which had nearly led to the rupture of the bonds of nature, and the kindling of a civil war. Constantius was induced by these representations not only to banish, but also to condemn the holy Athanasius to death; and he accordingly despatched Sebastianus [506] , a military commander, with a very large body of soldiery to slay him, as if he had been a criminal. How the one led the attack and the other escaped will be best told in the words of him who so suffered and was so wonderfully saved. Thus Athanasius writes in his Apology for his Flight:--"Let the circumstances of my retreat be investigated, and the testimony of the opposite faction be collected; for Arians accompanied the soldiers, as well for the purpose of spurring them on, as of pointing me out to those who did not know me. If they are not touched with sympathy at the tale I tell, at least let them listen in the silence of shame. It was night, and some of the people were keeping vigil, for a communion [507] was expected. A body of soldiers suddenly advanced upon them, consisting of a general [508] and five thousand armed men with naked swords, bows and arrows, and clubs, as I have already stated. The general surrounded the church, posting his men in close order, that those within might be prevented from going out. I deemed that I ought not in such a time of confusion to leave the people, but that I ought rather to be the first to meet the danger; so I sat down on my throne and desired the deacon to read a psalm, and the people to respond, `For His mercy endureth for ever.' Then I bade them all return to their own houses. But now the general with the soldiery forced his way into the church, and surrounded the sanctuary in order to arrest me. The clergy and the laity who had remained clamorously besought me to withdraw. This I firmly refused to do until all the others had retreated. I rose, had a prayer offered, and directed all the people to retire. `It is better,' said I, `for me to meet the danger alone, than for any of you to be hurt.' When the greater number of the people had left the church, and just as the rest were following, the monks and some of the clergy who had remained came up and drew me out. And so, may the truth be my witness, the Lord leading and protecting me, we passed through the midst of the soldiers, some of whom were stationed around the sanctuary, and others marching about the church. Thus I went out unperceived, and fervently thanked God that I had not abandoned the people, but that after they had been sent away in safety, I had been enabled to escape from the hands of those who sought my life [509] ." __________________________________________________________________ [506] Probably Syrianus, who is described by Athanasius himself as sent to get him removed from Alexandria, but as denying that he had the written authority of Constantius. This was in Jan. a.d. 356. [507] sunaxis. Cf. p. 52 note. [508] Syrianus. Ath. Ap. ad Const. S:25. [509] Ath. Ap. de fug. S:24. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XI.--The evil and daring deeds done by Georgius [510] in Alexandria. Athanasius having thus escaped the bloodstained hands of his adversaries, Georgius, who was truly another wolf, was entrusted with authority over the flock. He treated the sheep with more cruelty than wolf, or bear, or leopard could have shewn. He compelled young women who had vowed perpetual virginity, not only to disown the communion of Athanasius, but also to anathematize the faith of the fathers. The agent in his cruelty was Sebastianus, an officer in command of troops. He ordered a fire to be kindled in the centre of the city, and placed the virgins, who were stripped naked, close to it, commanding them to deny the faith. Although they formed a most sorrowful and pitiable spectacle for believers as well as for unbelievers, they considered that all these dishonours conferred the highest honour on them; and they joyfully received the blows inflicted on them on account of their faith. All these facts shall be more clearly narrated by their own pastor. "About Lent, Georgius returned from Cappadocia, and added to the evils which he had been taught by our enemies. After the Easter week virgins were cast into prison, bishops were bound and dragged away by the soldiers, the homes of widows and of orphans were pillaged, robbery and violence went on from house to house, and the Christians during the darkness of night were seized and torn away from their dwellings. Seals were fixed on many houses. The brothers of the clergy were in peril for their brothers' sake. These cruelties were very atrocious, but still more so were those which were subsequently perpetrated. In the week following the holy festival of Pentecost, the people who were keeping a fast came out to the cemetery [511] to pray, because they all renounced any communion with Georgius. This vilest of men was informed of this circumstance, and he incited Sebastianus the military commander, a Manichean [512] , to attack the people; and, accordingly, on the Lord's day itself he rushed upon them with a large body of armed soldiers wielding naked swords, and bows, and arrows. He found but few Christians in the act of praying, for most of them had retired on account of the lateness of the hour. Then he did such deeds as might be expected from one who had lent his ears to such teachers. He ordered a large fire to be lighted, and the virgins to be brought close to it, and then tried to compel them to declare themselves of the Arian creed. When he perceived that they were conquering, and giving no heed to the fire, he ordered them to be stripped naked, and to be beaten until their faces for a long while were scarcely recognisable. He then seized forty men, and inflicted on them a new kind of torture. He ordered them to be scourged with branches of palm-trees, retaining their thorns; and by these their flesh was so lacerated that some because of the thorns fixed fast in them had again and again to put themselves under the surgeon's hand; others were not able to bear the agony and died. All who survived, and also the virgins, were then banished to the Greater Oasis. They even refused to give up the bodies of the dead to their kinsfolk for burial, but flung them away unburied, and hid them just as they pleased, in order that it might appear that they had nothing to do with these cruel transactions, and were ignorant of them. But they were deceived in this foolish expectation: for the friends of the slain, while they rejoiced at the faithfulness of the deceased, deeply lamented the loss of the corpses, and spread abroad a full account of the cruelty that had been perpetrated. "The following bishops were banished from Egypt and from Libya:--Ammonius, Muius, Caius, Philo, Hermes, Plenius, Psinosiris, Nilammon, Agapius, Anagamphus, Marcus, Dracontius, Adelphius, another Ammonius, another Marcus, and Athenodorus; and also the presbyters Hierax and Dioscorus [513] . These were all driven into exile in so cruel a manner that many died on the road, and others at the place of their banishment. The persecutors caused the death [514] of more than thirty bishops. For, like Ahab, their mind was set on rooting out the truth, had it been possible [515] ." Athanasius also, in a letter addressed to the virgins [516] who were treated with so much barbarity, uses the following words: "Let none of you be grieved although these impious heretics grudge you burial and prevent your corpses being carried forth. The impiety of the Arians has reached such a height, that they block up the gates, and sit like so many demons around the tombs, in order to hinder the dead from being interred." These and many other similar atrocities were perpetrated by Georgius in Alexandria. The holy Athanasius was well aware that there was no spot which could be considered a place of safety for him; for the emperor had promised a very large reward to whoever should bring him alive, or his head as a proof of his death. __________________________________________________________________ [510] Georgius, a fraudulent contractor of Constantinople (Ath. Hist. Ar. 75), made Arian Bishop of Alexandria on the expulsion of Athanasius, in a.d. 356, was born in a fuller's shop at Epiphania in Cilicia. (Amm. Marc. xxii. 11, 3.) He was known as "the Cappadocian," and further illustrates the old saying of "Kappadokes Kretes Kilikes, tria kappa kakista," and the kindred epigram Kappadoken pot' echidna kake daken; & 135;lla kai aute katthane geusamene haimatos hiobolou The crimes of the brutal "Antipope" (Prof. Bright in Dict. Christ. Biog.) are many, but he was a book-collector. (Jul. Ep. ix. 36, cf. Gibbon 1. Chap. 23.) Gibbon says "the infamous George of Cappadocia has been transformed into the renowned St. George of England;" an identity sufficiently disproved. [511] koimeterion, or sleeping-place. Cf. Chrysost. ed. Migne. ii. 394. [512] The earliest account of the system of Manes or Mani is to be found in Euseb. H.E. vii. 31. From the end of the * century it made rapid progress. [513] One Ammonius had been consecrated by Alexander, and was bishop of Pacnemunis (Ath. ad Drac. 210, and Hist. Ar. S:72). Another was apparently consecrated by Athanasius (Hist. Ar. S:72). An Ammonius was banished to the Upper Oasis (id.). Caius was the orthodox bishop of Thmuis. Philo was banished to Babylon (Hist. Ar. S:72, cf. Jer. Vita Hilarionis 30). Muius, Psinosiris, Nilammon, Plenius, Marcus (the sees of these two Marci were Zygra and Philae), and Athenodorus, were relegated to the parts about the Libyan Ammon, nine days' journey from Alexandria, only that they might perish on the road. One did die. (Hist Ar. S:72.) Adelphius was bishop of Onuphis in the Delta, and was sent to the Thebaid. (Tom. ad Ant. 615.) Dracontius, to whom Athanasius addressed a letter, went to the deserts about Clysma (25 m. s.w. of Suez), and Hierax and Dioscorus to Syene (Assouan (Hist. Ar. S:72), whither Trajan had banished Juvenal. [514] Some authorities read more mildly, "drove into exile." [515] Ap. de fug. S:7. Cf. Hist. Ar. S:72. [516] "Haec Athanasii Epistola hodie quod sciam non extat." Valesius. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XII.--Council of Milan. After the death of Constans, Magnentius assumed the chief authority over the Western empire; and, to repress his usurpation, Constantius repaired to Europe. But this war, severe as it was, did not put an end to the war against the Church. Constantius, who had embraced Arian tenets and readily yielded to the influence of others, was persuaded to convoke a council at Milan [517] , a city of Italy, and first to compel all the assembled bishops to sign the deposition enacted by the iniquitous judges at Tyre; and then, since Athanasius had been expelled from the Church, to draw up another confession of faith. The bishops assembled in council on the receipt of the imperial letter, but they were far from acting according to its directions. On the contrary, they told the emperor to his face that what he had commanded was unjust and impious. For this act of courage they were expelled from the Church, and relegated to the furthest boundaries of the empire. The admirable Athanasius thus mentions this circumstance in his Apology [518] :--"Who," he writes, "can narrate such atrocities as they have perpetrated? A short time ago when the Churches were in the enjoyment of peace, and when the people were assembled for prayer, Liberius [519] , bishop of Rome, Paulinus, bishop of the metropolis of Gaul [520] , Dionysius, bishop of the metropolis of Italy [521] , Luciferus, bishop of the metropolis of the Isles of Sardinia [522] , and Eusebius, bishop of one of the cities of Italy [523] , who were all exemplary bishops and preachers of the truth, were seized and driven into exile, for no other cause than because they could not assent to the Arian heresy, nor sign the false accusation which had been framed against us. It is unnecessary that I should speak of the great Hosius, that aged [524] and faithful confessor of the faith, for every one knows that he also was sent into banishment. Of all the bishops he is the most illustrious. What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside, and convince all present by the power of his reasoning? What Church does not still retain the glorious memorials of his protection? Did any one ever go to him sorrowing, and not leave him rejoicing? Who ever asked his aid, and did not obtain all that he desired? Yet they had the boldness to attack this great man, simply because, from his knowledge of the impiety of their calumnies, he refused to affix his signature to their artful accusations against us." From the above narrative will be seen the violence of the Arians against these holy men. Athanasius also gives in the same book an account of the numerous plots formed by the chiefs of the Arian faction against many others:--"Did any one," said he, "whom they persecuted and got into their power ever escape from them without suffering what injuries they pleased to inflict? Was any one who was an object of their search found by them whom they did not subject to the most agonizing death, or else to the mutilation of all his limbs? The sentences inflicted by the judges are all attributable to these heretics; for the judges are but the agents of their will, and of their malice. Where is there a place which contains no memorial of their atrocities? If any one ever differed from them in opinion, did they not, like Jezebel, falsely accuse and oppress him? Where is there a church which has not been plunged in sorrow by their plots against its bishop? Antioch has to mourn the loss of Eustathius, the faithful and the orthodox [525] . Balaneae weeps for Euphration [526] ; Paltus [527] and Antaradus [528] for Cymatius and Carterius. Adrianople has been called to deplore the loss of the well-beloved Eutropius [529] , and of Lucius his successor, who was repeatedly loaded with chains, and expired beneath their weight [530] . Ancyra, Beroea, and Gaza had to mourn the absence of Marcellus [531] , Cyrus [532] and Asclepas [533] , who, after having suffered much ill-treatment from this deceitful sect, were driven into exile. Messengers were sent in quest of Theodulus [534] and Olympius [535] , bishops of Thrace, as well as of me and of the presbyters of my diocese; and had they found us, we should no doubt have been put to death. But at the very time that they were planning our destruction we effected our escape, although they had sent letters to Donatus, the proconsul, against Olympius, and to Philagrius [536] , against me." Such were the audacious acts of this impious faction against the most holy Christians. Hosius was the bishop of Cordova, and was the most highly distinguished of all those who assembled at the council of Nicaea; he also obtained the first place among those convened at Sardica. I now desire to insert in my history an account of the admirable arguments addressed by the far-famed Liberius, in defence of the truth, to the emperor Constantius. They are recorded by some of the pious men of that period in order to stimulate others to the exercise of similar zeal in divine things. Liberius had succeeded Julius, the successor of Silvester, in the government of the church of Rome. __________________________________________________________________ [517] Athanasius was condemned at Arles (353) as well as at Milan in 355. At the latter place Constantius affected more than his father's infallibility, and exclaimed, "What I will, be that a Canon." Ath. Hist. Ar. S:33. [518] Apol. de fug. S:4 and S:5. [519] For the persecution and vacillation of Liberius, "one of the few Popes that can be charged with heresy" (Principal Barmby in Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v.), see also Ath. Hist. Ar. S:35 et seqq. [520] Treves. Dionysius was the successor of St. Maximinus and a firm champion of orthodoxy. Cf. Sulp. Sev. II. 52. [521] Milan. Paulinus was banished to Cappadocia. [522] Calaris (Cagliari). Luciferus, a vehement defender of Athanasius, was banished to Eleutheropolis in Palestine. Mr. Ll. Davies (Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v.), thinks the traditional story of the imprisonment of Luciferus at Milan, to prevent his outspoken advocacy of Athanasius, shews internal evidence of probability. [523] Eusebius, bishop of Vercellae (Vercelli), was a staunch Athanasian. He was banished to Scythopolis, where the bishop Patrophilus (cf. Book I. chapter VI. and XX.), a leading Arian, was, he says, his "jailer." (Vide his letters.) [524] The epithet eugerotatos felicitously describes the honoured old age of the bishop of Cordova--he was now a hundred years old (Hist. Ar. S:45)--before his pitiable lapse. He was sent to Sirmium (Mitrovitz). [525] Cf. Book I. Chap. 20. [526] Euphration is mentioned also in Hist. Ar. S:5. Balaneae is now Banias on the coast of Syria. [527] Now Boldo, a little to the N. of Banias. [528] In Phoenicia, now Tortosa. [529] "A good and excellent man," Ath. Hist. Ar. S:5. [530] Vide p. 68, note. [531] On the question of the orthodoxy of Marcellus of Ancyra (Angora), vide the conflicting opinions of Bp Lightfoot (Dict. Christ. Biog. ii. 342), and Mr. Ffoulkes (id. iii. 810). Ath. (Apol. contra Ar. S:47) says of the Council of Sardica, "The book of our brother Marcellus was also read, by which the frauds of the Eusebians were plainly discovered...his faith was found to be correct," cf. p. 67, note. [532] The successor of Eustathius at Beroea, cf. p. 41, note 65. Socrates says the statement that Cyrus accused Eustathius of Sabellianism is an Arian calumny (Soc. i. 24; ii. 9). [533] Asclepas or AEsculapius was at Tyre (p. 62), and was deposed on the charge of overturning an altar, hos thusiasterion anatrepsas (Soz. iii. 8). [534] Vide p. 68. [535] Bishop of AEnos in Thrace, now Enos. (Hist. Ar. S:19.) Here was shown the tomb of Polydorus. Plin. 4, 11, 18. Virgil (AEn. iii. 18) makes AEneas call it AEneadae, but see Conington's note. [536] Philagrius was praefect of Egypt a.d. 335-340. Ath. (Ep. Encyc.) calls him "a persecutor of the Church and her virgins, an apostate of bad character." __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XIII.--Conference between Liberius, Pope of Rome, and the Emperor Constantius [537] . Constantius.--"We have judged it right, as you are a Christian and the bishop of our city, to send for you in order to admonish you to abjure all connexion with the folly of the impious Athanasius. For when he was separated from the communion of the Church by the synod the whole world approved of the decision." Liberius.--"O Emperor, ecclesiastical sentences ought to be enacted with strictest justice: therefore, if it be pleasing to your piety, order the court to be assembled, and if it be seen that Athanasius deserves condemnation, then let sentence be passed upon him according to ecclesiastical forms. For it is not possible for us to condemn a man unheard and untried." Constantius.--"The whole world has condemned his impiety; but he, as he has done from the first, laughs at the danger." Liberius.--"Those who signed the condemnation were not eye-witnesses of anything that occurred; but were actuated by the desire of glory, and by the fear of disgrace at thy hands." The Emperor.--"What do you mean by glory and fear and disgrace?" Liberius.--"Those who love not the glory of God, but who attach greater value to thy gifts, have condemned a man whom they have neither seen nor judged; this is very contrary to the principles of Christians." The Emperor.--"Athanasius was tried in person at the council of Tyre, and all the bishops of the world at that synod condemned him." Liberius.--"No judgment has ever been passed on him in his presence. Those who there assembled condemned him after he had retired." Eusebius the Eunuch [538] foolishly interposed.--"It was demonstrated at the council of Nicaea that he held opinions entirely at variance with the catholic faith." Liberius.--"Of all those who sailed to Mareotis, and who were sent for the purpose of drawing up memorials against the accused, five only delivered the sentence against him. Of the five who were thus sent, two are now dead, namely, Theognis and Theodorus. The three others, Maris, Valens, and Ursacius, are still living. Sentence was passed at Sardica against all those who were sent for this purpose to Mareotis. They presented a petition to the council soliciting pardon for having drawn up at Mareotis memorials against Athanasius, consisting of false accusations and depositions of only one party. Their petition is still in our hands. Whose cause are we to espouse, O Emperor? With whom are we to agree and hold communion? With those who first condemned Athanasius, and then solicited pardon for having condemned him, or with those who have condemned these latter?" Epictetus [539] the Bishop.--"O Emperor, it is not on behalf of the faith, nor in defence of ecclesiastical judgments that Liberius is pleading; but merely in order that he may boast before the Roman senators of having conquered the emperor in argument." The Emperor (addressing Liberius).--"What portion do you constitute of the universe, that you alone by yourself take part with an impious man, and are destroying the peace of the empire and of the whole world?" Liberius.--"My standing alone does not make the truth a whit the weaker. According to the ancient story, there are found but three men resisting a decree." Eusebius the Eunuch.--"You make our emperor a Nebuchadnezzar." Liberius.--"By no means. But you rashly condemn a man without any trial. What I desire is, in the first place, that a general confession of faith be signed, confirming that drawn up at the council of Nicaea. And secondly, that all our brethren be recalled from exile, and reinstated in their own bishoprics. If, when all this has been carried into execution, it can be shown that the doctrines of all those who now fill the churches with trouble are conformable to the apostolic faith, then we will all assemble at Alexandria to meet the accused, the accusers, and their defender, and after having examined the cause, we will pass judgment upon it." Epictetus the Bishop.--"There will not be sufficient post-carriages to convey so many bishops." Liberius.--"Ecclesiastical affairs can be transacted without post-carriages. The churches are able to provide means for the conveyance of their respective bishops to the sea coast [540] ." The Emperor.--"The sentence which has once been passed ought not to be revoked. The decision of the greater number of bishops ought to prevail. You alone retain friendship towards that impious man." Liberius.--"O Emperor, it is a thing hitherto unheard of, that a judge should accuse the absent of impiety, as if he were his personal enemy." The Emperor.--"All without exception have been injured by him, but none so deeply as I have been. Not content with the death of my eldest brother [541] , he never ceased to excite Constans, of blessed memory, to enmity against me; but I, with much moderation, put up alike with the vehemence of both the instigator and his victim. Not one of the victories which I have gained, not even excepting those over Magnentius and Silvanus, equals the ejection of this vile man from the government of the Church." Liberius.--"Do not vindicate your own hatred and revenge, O Emperor, by the instrumentality of bishops; for their hands ought only to be raised for purposes of blessing and of sanctification. If it be consonant with your will, command the bishops to return to their own residences; and if it appear that they are of one mind with him who to-day maintains the true doctrines of the confession of faith signed at Nicaea, then let them come together and see to the peace of the world, in order that an innocent man may not serve as a mark for reproach." The Emperor.--"One question only requires to be made. I wish you to enter into communion with the churches, and to send you back to Rome. Consent therefore to peace, and sign your assent, and then you shall return to Rome." Liberius.--"I have already taken leave of the brethren who are in that city. The decrees of the Church are of greater importance than a residence in Rome." The Emperor.--"You have three days to consider whether you will sign the document and return to Rome; if not, you must choose the place of your banishment." Liberius.--"Neither three days nor three months can change my sentiments. Send me wherever you please." After the lapse of two days the emperor sent for Liberius, and finding his opinions unchanged, he commanded him to be banished to Beroea, a city of Thrace. Upon the departure of Liberius, the emperor sent him five hundred pieces of gold to defray his expenses. Liberius said to the messenger who brought them, "Go, and give them back to the emperor; he has need of them to pay his troops." The empress [542] also sent him a sum of the same amount; he said, "Take it to the emperor, for he may want it to pay his troops; but if not, let it be given to Auxentius and Epictetus, for they stand in need of it." Eusebius the eunuch brought him other sums of money, and he thus addressed him: "You have turned all the churches of the world into a desert, and do you bring alms to me, as to a criminal? Begone, and become first a Christian [543] ." He was sent into exile three days afterwards, without having accepted anything that was offered him. __________________________________________________________________ [537] The interview took place at Milan, after the Eunuch Eusebius, Chamberlain of Constantius, had in vain tried to win over the bishop at Rome, and had exasperated him by making an improper offering at the shrine of St. Peter. (Hist. Ar. S:86.) [538] I adopt the suggestion of Valesius, that alogos refers not to the condemnation, but to the foolish remark of the imperial chamberlain. Another expedient for clearing Eusebius of the absurdity of saying that Athanasius was condemned at Nicaea, where he triumphed, has been to read Tyre for Nicaea. [539] Bishop of Centumcellae (Civita Vecchia); "a bold young fellow, ready for any mischief." A protege of the Cappadocian Georgius, he was an Arian of the worst type, and had effected the substitution of Felix for Liberius in the Roman see by irregular and scandalous means. (Ath. Hist. Ar. S:75.) [540] A passage of Ammianus Marcellinus (xxi. 16) on the "cursus publicus" has been made famous by Gibbon. "The Christian religion, which in itself is plain and simple, Constantius confounded by the dotage of superstition. Instead of reconciling the parties by the weight of his authority, he cherished and propagated, by verbal disputes, the differences which his vain curiosity had excited. The highways were covered with troops of bishops galloping from every side to the assemblies which they call synods; and while they laboured to reduce the whole sect to their own particular opinions, the public establishment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys." Gibbon, chap. xx. [541] Constantine II. had befriended Athanasius, but the patriarch was neither directly nor indirectly responsible for his attack on Constans and his death. [542] Eusebia. Constantius II. was thrice married; (i) a.d. 336 (Eus. Vit. Const. iv. 49), to his cousin Constantia, sister of Julian (vid. Pedigree in proleg.); (ii) a.d. 352, to Aurelia Eusebia, an Arian "of exceptional beauty of body and mind" (Amm. Marc. xxi. 6), and (iii) a.d. 360 or 361, to Faustina. [543] Liberius does not reckon the Arian eunuch as a Christian. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XIV.--Concerning the Banishment and Return of the Holy Liberius. This victorious champion of the truth was sent into Thrace, according to the imperial order. Two years after this event Constantius went to Rome. The ladies of rank urged their husbands to petition the emperor for the restoration of the shepherd to his flock: they added, that if this were not granted, they would desert them, and go themselves after their great pastor. Their husbands replied, that they were afraid of incurring the resentment of the emperor. "If we were to ask him," they continued, "being men, he would deem it an unpardonable offence; but if you were yourselves to present the petition, he would at any rate spare you, and would either accede to your request, or else dismiss you without injury." These noble ladies adopted this suggestion, and presented themselves before the emperor in all their customary splendour of array, that so the sovereign, judging their rank from their dress, might count them worthy of being treated with courtesy and kindness. Thus entering the presence, they besought him to take pity on the condition of so large a city, deprived of its shepherd, and made an easy prey to the attacks of wolves. The emperor replied, that the flock possessed a shepherd capable of tending it, and that no other was needed in the city. For after the banishment of the great Liberius, one of his deacons, named Felix, had been appointed bishop. He preserved inviolate the doctrines set forth in the Nicene confession of faith, yet he held communion with those who had corrupted that faith. For this reason none of the citizens of Rome would enter the House of Prayer while he was in it. The ladies mentioned these facts to the emperor. Their persuasions were successful; and he commanded that the great Liberius should be recalled from exile, and that the two bishops should conjointly rule the Church. The edict of the emperor was read in the circus, and the multitude shouted that the imperial ordinance was just; that the spectators were divided into two factions, each deriving its name from its own colours [544] , and that each faction would now have its own bishop. After having thus ridiculed the edict of the emperor, they all exclaimed with one voice, "One God, one Christ, one bishop." I have deemed it right to set down their precise words. Some time after this Christian people had uttered these pious and righteous acclamations, the holy Liberius returned, and Felix retired to another city. I have, for the sake of preserving order, appended this narrative to what relates to the proceedings of the bishops at Milan. I shall now return to the relation of events in their due course. __________________________________________________________________ [544] There were originally four factions in the Circus; blue, green, white, and red. Domitian added two more, golden and purple. But the blue and the green absorbed the rest, and divided the multitude at the games. Cf. Juv. XI. 197. "Totam hodie Romam circus capit, et fragor aurem Percutit, eventum viridis quo colligo panni." Cf. Amm. Marc. xiv. 6, and Plin. Ep. ix. 6. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XV.--Council of Ariminum [545] . When all who defended the faith had been removed, those who moulded the mind of the emperor according to their own will, flattering themselves that the faith which they opposed might be easily subverted, and Arianism established in its stead, persuaded Constantius to convene the Bishops of both East and West at Ariminum [546] , in order to remove from the Creed the terms which had been devised by the Fathers to counteract the corrupt craft of Arius,--"substance [547] ," and "of one substance [548] ." For they would have it that these terms had caused dissension between church and church. On their assembling in synod the partizans of the Arian faction strove to trick the majority of the bishops, especially those of cities of the Western Empire, who were men of simple and unsophisticated ways. The body of the Church, they argued again and again, must not be torn asunder for the sake of two terms which are not to be found in the Bible; and, while they confessed the propriety of describing the Son as in all things "like" the Father, pressed the omission of the word "substance" as unscriptural. The motives, however, of the propounders of these views were seen through by the Council, and they were consequently repudiated. The orthodox bishops declared their mind to the emperor in a letter; for, said they, we are sons and heirs of the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea, and if we were to have the hardihood to take away anything from what was by them subscribed, or to add anything to what they so excellently settled, we should declare ourselves no true sons, but accusers of them that begat us. But the exact terms of their confession of faith will be more accurately given in the words of their letter to Constantius. Letter [549] written to the Emperor Constantius by the Synod assembled at Ariminum. "Summoned, we believe, at the bidding of God, and in obedience to your piety, we bishops of the Western Church assembled in synod at Ariminum in order that the faith of the Church Catholic might be set forth, and its opponents exposed. After long consideration we have found it to be plainly best for us to hold fast and guard, and by guarding keep safe unto the end, the faith established from the first, preached by Prophets, and Evangelists, and Apostles, through our Lord Jesus Christ, warden of thy empire, and champion of thy salvation. For it is plainly absurd and unlawful to make any change in the doctrines rightly and justly defined, and in matters examined at Nicaea with the cognisance of the right glorious Constantine, thy Father and Emperor, whereof the teaching and spirit was published and preached that mankind might hear and understand. This faith was destined to be the one rival and destroyer of the Arian heresy, and by it not only the Arian itself, but likewise all other heresies were undone. To this faith to add aught is verily perilous; from it to subtract aught is to run great risk. If it have either addition or loss, our foes will feel free to act as they please. Accordingly Ursacius and Valens, declared adherents and friends of the Arian dogma, were pronounced separate from our communion. To keep their place in it, they asked to be granted a locus penitentiae and pardon for all the points wherein they had owned themselves in error; as is testified by the documents written by themselves, by means of which they obtained favour and forgiveness. These events were going on at the very time when the synod was meeting at Milan, the presbyters of the church of Rome being also present. It was known that Constantine, who, though dead, is worthy of remembrance, had, with all exactitude and care, set forth the creed drawn up: and now that, after receiving Baptism, he was dead, and had passed away to the peace which he deserved. We judged it absurd for us after him to indulge in any innovation, and throw a slur on all the holy confessors and martyrs who had devised and formulated this doctrine, in that their minds have ever remained bound by the old bond of the Church. Their faith God has handed down even to the times of thy own reign, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whose grace such empire is thine that thou rulest over all the world. Yet again those pitiable and wretched men, with lawless daring, have proclaimed themselves preachers of their unholy opinion, and are taking in hand the overthrow of all the force of the truth. For when at thy command the synod assembled, then they laid bare their own disingenuous desires. For they set about trying through villany and confusion to make innovation. They got hold of certain of their own following--one Germanius [550] , and Auxentius [551] , and Caius [552] , promoters of heresy and discord, whose doctrine, though but one, transcends a very host of blasphemies. When, however, they became aware that we were not of their way of thinking, nor in sympathy with their vicious projects, they made their way into our meeting as though to make some other proposal, but a very short time was enough to convict them of their real intentions. Therefore in order to save the management of the Church from falling from time to time into the same difficulties, and to prevent them from being confounded in whirlpools of disturbance and disorder, it has seemed the safe course to keep what has been defined aforetime fixed and unchanged, and to separate the above-named from our communion. Wherefore we have sent envoys to your clemency to signify and explain the mind of the synod as expressed in this letter. These envoys before all things we have charged to guard the truth in accordance with the old and right definitions. They are to inform your holiness, not as did Ursacius and Valens, that there will be peace if the truth be upset; for how can the destroyers of peace be agents of peace? but rather that these changes will bring strife and disturbance, as well on the rest of the cities, as on the Roman church. Wherefore we beseech your clemency to receive our envoys with kindly ears and gentle mien, and not to suffer any new thing to flout the dead. Suffer us to abide in the definition and settlement of our Fathers, whom we would unhesitatingly declare to have done all they did with intelligence and wisdom, and with the Holy Ghost. The innovation now sought to be introduced is filling the faithful with unbelief, and unbelievers with credulity [553] . "We beg you to order bishops in distant parts, who are afflicted alike by advanced age and poverty, to be provided with facilities for travelling home, that the churches be not left long deprived of their bishops. "And yet again this one thing we supplicate, that nothing be taken from or added to the established doctrines, but that all remain unbroken, as they have been preserved by your father's piety, and to our own day. Let us toil no longer nor be kept away from our own dioceses, but let the bishops with their own people spend their days in peace, in prayer, and in worship, offering supplication for thy empire, and health, and peace, which God shall grant thee for ever and ever. Our envoys, who will also instruct your holiness out of the sacred Scriptures, convey the signatures and salutations of the bishops." The letter was written, and the envoys sent, but the high officers of the Imperial Court, though they took the despatch and delivered it to their master, refused to introduce the envoys, on the ground that the sovereign was occupied with state affairs. They took this course in the hope that the bishops, annoyed at delay, and eager to return to the cities entrusted to their care, would at length be compelled themselves to break up and disperse the bulwark erected against heresy. But their ingenuity was frustrated, for the noble champions of the Faith despatched a second letter to the emperor, exhorting him to admit the envoys to audience and dissolve the synod. This letter I subjoin. The Second Letter of the Synod to Constantius. "To Constantius the Victorious, the pious emperor, the bishops assembled at Ariminum send greeting. "Most illustrious lord and autocrat, we have received the letter of your clemency, informing us that, in consequence of occupations of state, you have hitherto been unable to see our envoys. You bid us await their return, that your piety may come to a decision on the object we have in view, and on the decrees of our predecessors. But we venture in this letter to repeat to your clemency the point which we urged before, for we have in no way withdrawn from our position. We entreat you to receive with benign countenance the letter of our humility, wherein now we make answer to your piety, and the points which we have ordered to be submitted to your benignity by our envoys. Your clemency is no less aware than we are ourselves how serious and unfitting a state of things it is, that in the time of your most happy reign so many churches should seem to be without bishops. Wherefore once again, most glorious autocrat, we beseech you that, if it be pleasing to your humanity, you will command us to return to our churches before the rigour of winter, that we may be able, with our people, as we have done and ever do, to offer most earnest prayers for the health and wealth of your empire to Almighty God, and to Christ His Son, our Lord and Saviour." __________________________________________________________________ [545] a.d. 359. [546] The eastern bishops were summoned to Seleucia, in Cilicia; the western to Ariminum, (Rimini). "A previous Conference was held at Sirmium, in order to determine on the creed to be presented to the bipartite Council....The Eusebians struggled for the adoption of the Acacian Homoeon, which the Emperor had already both received and abandoned, and they actually effected the adoption of the `like in all things according to the Scriptures,' a phrase in which the semi-Arians, indeed, included their `like in substance' or Homoeuesion, but which did not necessarily refer to substance or nature at all. Under these circumstances the two Councils met in the autumn of a.d. 359, under the nominal superintendence of the semi-Arians; but, on the Eusebian side, the sharp-witted Acacius undertaking to deal with the disputatious Greeks, the overbearing and cruel Valens with the plainer Latins." (Newman, Arians, iv. S:4.) At Seleucia there were 150 bishops; at Ariminum 400. [547] ousia [548] homoousion [549] This letter exists in Ath. de Syn. Arim. et Seleu., Soc. ii. 39, Soz. iv. 10, and the Latin of Hilarius (Fr. viii.), which frequently differs considerably from the Greek. [550] Germanus (Ath. and Soz.), Germinius (according to Hilarius), bishop of Cyzicus, was translated to Sirmium, a.d. 356. The creed composed by Marcus of Arethusa with the aid of Germinius, Valens and others, is known as "the dated creed," from the minuteness, satirized by Athanasius, with which it specifies the day (May 22, a.d. XI. Kal. Jun.), in the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius (Ath. de Syn. S:8). [551] Auxentius, the elder, bishop of Milan, succeeded Dionysius in 355, and occupied the see till his death in 374, when Ambrose was chosen to fill his place. Auxentius, the younger, known also as Mercurinus, was afterwards set up by the Arian Court party as a rival bishop to Ambrose. A third Auxentius, a supporter of the heretic Jovinianus, is mentioned in the Epistle of Siricius. Vide reff. in Baronius and Tillemont. An Auxentius, Arian bishop of Mopsuestia, is mentioned by Philostorgius, v. 1. 2. [552] A Pannonian bishop. Ath. ad Epict. [553] The word in the text is omoteta, which is supposed to have stood for crudelitatem, a clerical error for credulitatem in the Latin original. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XVI.--Concerning the Synod held at Nica [554] in Thrace, and the Confession of Faith drawn up there. After this letter they [555] irritated the emperor, and got the majority of the bishops, against their will, to a certain town of Thrace, of the name of Nica. Some simple men they deluded, and others they terrified, into carrying out their old contrivance for injuring the true religion, by erasing the words "Substance" and "of one Substance" from the Creed, and inserting instead of them the word "like." I insert their formula in this history, not as being couched in proper terms, but because it convicts the faction of Arius, for it is not even accepted by the disaffected of the present time. Now, instead of "the like" they preach "the unlike [556] ." Unsound Creed put forth at Nica in Thrace. "We believe in one only true God, Father Almighty, of Whom are all things. And in the only-begotten Son of God, Who before all ages and before every beginning was begotten of God, through Whom all things were made, both visible and invisible: alone begotten, only-begotten of the Father alone, God of God: like the Father that begat Him, according to the Scriptures, Whose generation no one knoweth except only the Father that begat Him. This Only-begotten Son of God, sent by His Father, we know to have come down from heaven, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death; begotten of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, as it is written, according to the flesh. Who companied with His disciples, and when the dispensation was fulfilled, according to the Father's will, was crucified, dead, and buried, and descended to the world below, at Whom Hell himself trembled. On the third day He rose from the dead and companied with His disciples forty days. He was taken up into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of His Father, and is coming at the last day of the Resurrection, in His Father's Glory, to render to every one according to his works. And we believe in the Holy Ghost, which the Only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, both God and Lord, promised to send to man, the Comforter, as it is written, the Spirit of Truth. This Spirit He Himself sent after He had ascended into Heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father, from thence to come to judge both quick and dead. But the word `the Substance,' which was too simply inserted by the Fathers, and, not being understood by the people, was a cause of scandal through its not being found in the Scriptures, it hath seemed good to us to remove, and that for the future no mention whatever be permitted of `Substance,' on account of the sacred Scriptures nowhere making any mention of the `Substance' of the Father and the Son. Nor must one `essence [557] ' be named in relation to the person [558] of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call Him and teach; but all the heresies, both those already condemned, and any, if such there be, which have risen against the document thus put forth, let them be Anathema." This Creed was subscribed by the bishops, some being frightened and some cajoled, but those who refused to give in their adhesion were banished to the most remote regions of the world. __________________________________________________________________ [554] At or near the modern Hafsa, not far to the S. of Adrianople. [555] i.e. the Arians. [556] "The Eusebians, little pleased with the growing dogmatism of members of their own body, fell upon the expedient of confining their confession to Scripture terms; which, when separated from their context, were of course inadequate to concentrate and ascertain the true doctrine. Hence the formula of the Homoeon, which was introduced by Acacius with the express purpose of deceiving or baffling the semi-Arian members of his party. This measure was the more necessary for Eusebian interests, inasmuch as a new variety of the heresy arose in the East at the same time, advocated by Aetius and Eunomius; who, by professing boldly the pure Arian text, alarmed Constantius, and threw him back upon Basil, and the other semi-Arians. This new doctrine, called Anomoean, because it maintained that the usia or substance of the Son was unlike (anomoios) the Divine usia, was actually adopted by one portion of the Eusebians, Valens, and his rude occidentals; whose language and temper, not admitting the refinements of Grecian genius, led them to rush from orthodoxy into the most hard and undisguised impiety. And thus the parties stand at the date now before us (a.d. 356-361); Constantius being alternately swayed by Basil, Acacius, and Valens, that is by the Homousian, the Homoean, and the Anomoean, the semi-Arian, the Scripturalist, and the Arian pure" (Newman, Arians, iv. S:4). [557] hupostasis [558] prosopon __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XVII.--Synodical Act of Damasus, Bishop of Rome, and of the Western Bishops, about the Council at Ariminum. The condemnation of this formula by all the champions of the truth, and specially those of the West, is shewn by the letter which they wrote to the Illyrians [559] . First of the signatories was Damasus, who obtained the presidency of the church of Rome after Liberius, and was adorned with many virtues [560] . With him signed ninety bishops of Italy and Galatia [561] , now called Gaul, who met together at Rome. I would have inserted their names but that I thought it superfluous. ------------------------ "The bishops assembled at Rome in sacred synod, Damasus and Valerianus [562] and the rest, to their beloved brethren the bishops of Illyria, send greeting in God. "We believe that we, priests of God, by whom it is right for the rest to be instructed, are holding and teaching our people the Holy Creed which was founded on the teaching of the Apostles, and in no way departs from the definitions of the Fathers. But through a report of the brethren in Gaul and Venetia we have learnt that certain men are fallen into heresy. "It is the duty of the bishops not only to take precautions against this mischief, but also to make a stand against whatever divergent teaching has arisen, either from incomplete instruction, or the simplicity of readers of unsound commentators. They should be minded not to slide into slippery paths, but rather whensoever divergent counsels are carried to their ears, to hold fast the doctrine of our fathers. It has, therefore, been decided that Auxentius of Milan is in this matter specially condemned. So it is right that all the teachers of the law in the Roman Empire should be well instructed in the law, and not befoul the faith with divergent doctrines. "When first the wickedness of the heretics began to flourish, and when, as now, the blasphemy of the Arians was crawling to the front, our fathers, three hundred and eighteen bishops, the holiest prelates in the Roman Empire, deliberated at Nicaea. The wall which they set up against the weapons of the devil, and the antidote wherewith they repelled his deadly poisons, was their confession that the Father and the Son are of one substance, one godhead, one virtue, one power, one likeness [563] , and that the Holy Ghost is of the same essence [564] and substance. Whoever did not thus think was judged separate from our communion. Their deliberation was worthy of all respect, and their definition sound. But certain men have intended by other later discussions to corrupt and befoul it. Yet, at the very outset, error was so far set right by the bishops on whom the attempt was made at Ariminum to compel them to manipulate or innovate on the faith, that they confessed themselves seduced by opposite arguments, or owned that they had not perceived any contradiction to the opinion of the Fathers delivered at Nicaea. No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval. "Your sincerity then perceives that this one faith, which was founded at Nicaea on the authority of the Apostles, ought to be kept secure for ever. You perceive that with us, the bishops of the East, who confess themselves Catholic, and the western bishops, together glory in it. We believe that before long those who think otherwise ought without delay to be put out from our communion, and deprived of the name of bishop, that their flocks may be freed from error and breathe freely. For they cannot be expected to correct the errors of their people when they themselves are the victims of error. May the opinion of your reverence be in harmony with that of all the priests of God. We believe you to be fixed and firm in it, and thus ought we rightly to believe with you. May your charity make us glad by your reply. "Beloved brethren, farewell." __________________________________________________________________ [559] The letter is given in Soz. vi. 23. The Latin text (Coll. Rom. ed. Holsten. p. 163) differs materially from the Greek. [560] These were displayed after his establishment in his see. He was the nominee of the Arian party, and bloody scenes marked the struggle with his rival Ursinus. "Damasus et Ursinus, supra humanum modum ad rapiendam episcopatus sedem ardentes, scissis studiis asperrime conflictabantur, adusque mortis vulnerumque discrimina progressis....Constat in basilica ubi ritus christiani conventiculum uno die centum triginta septem reperta cadavera peremptorum." Amm. Marc. xxvii. 3, 13. "But we can say that he used his success well, and that the chair of St. Peter was never more respected nor more vigorous than during his bishopric." Mr. Moberly in Dict. Christ. Biog. i. 782. Jerome calls him (Ep. Hier. xlviii. 230) "an illustrious man, virgin doctor of the virgin church." But not his least claim to our regard is that in the Catacombs it was his "labour of love to rediscover the tombs which had been blocked up for concealment under Diocletian, to remove the earth, widen the passages, adorn the sepulchral chambers with marble, and support the friable tufa walls with arches of brick and stone." "Roma Sotterranea," Northcote and Brownlow, p. 97. [561] Galatai = Keltoi, the older name, which exists in Herodotus II. 33 and IV. 49. Pausanias (I. iii. 5) says opse de pote autous kaleisthai Galatas exenikese, Keltoi gar kata te sphas to archaion kai para tois allois onomazonto. Galatia occurs on the Monumentum Ancyranum. Bp. Lightfoot (Galat. p. 3) says the first instance of Gallia (Galli) which he has found in any Greek writer is in Epictetus II. 20, 17. [562] In Sozomen, Valerius, Bishop of Aquileia. "But little is known of his life, but under his rule there grew up at Aquileia the society of remarkable persons of whom Hieronymus became the most famous." Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 1102. [563] charakter; contrast the statement in Heb. i. 3, that the Son is the charakter of the person of the Father. charakter in the letter of Damasus approaches more nearly our use of "character" as meaning distinctive qualities. cf. Plato Phaed. 26 B. [564] hupostasis __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XVIII.--The Letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, concerning the same Council. The great Athanasius also, in his letter to the Africans, writes thus about the council at Ariminum. "Under these circumstances who will tolerate any mention of the council of Ariminum or any other beside the Nicene? Who would not express detestation of the setting aside of the words of the Fathers, and the preference for those introduced at Ariminum by violence and party strife? Who would wish to be associated with these men--fellows who do not, forsooth, accept their own words? In their own ten or a dozen synods they have laid down, as has been narrated already, now one thing now another; and at the present time these synods, one after another, they are themselves openly denouncing. They are now suffering the fate undergone of old by the traitors of the Jews. For as is written in the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah "they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water," [565] so these men, in their opposition to the OEcumenical synod, have hewed for themselves many synods which have all proved vain and like "buds that yield no meal," [566] let us not therefore admit those who cite the council of Ariminum or any other but that of Nicaea, for indeed the very citers of Ariminum do not seem to know what was done there; if they had they would have held their tongues. For you, beloved, have learnt from your own representatives at that Council, and are consequently very well aware, that Ursacius, Valens, Eudoxius, and Auxentius, and with them Demophilus were asked to anathematize the Arian heresy, and made excuse, choosing rather to be its champions, and so were all deposed for making propositions contrary to the Nicene decrees. The bishops, on the contrary, who were the true servants of the Lord, and of the right faith,--about two hundred in number,--declared their adherence to the Nicene Council alone, and their refusal to entertain the thought of either subtraction from, or addition to, its decrees. This conclusion they have communicated to Constantius, by whose order the council assembled. On the other hand the bishops who were deposed at Ariminum have been received by Constantius, and have succeeded in getting the two hundred who sentenced them grossly insulted, and threatened with not being allowed to return to their dioceses, and with having to undergo rigorous treatment in Thrace, and that in the winter, in order to force them to accept the innovators' measures. If, then, we hear any one appealing to Ariminum, show us, let us rejoin, first the sentence of deposition, and then the document drawn up by the bishops, in which they declare that they do not seek to go beyond the terms drawn up by the Nicene Fathers, nor appeal to any other council than that of Nicaea. In reality, these are just the facts they conceal, while they put prominently forward the forced confession of Thrace. They do but shew themselves friends of the Arian heresy, and strangers to the sound faith. Only let any one be willing to put side by side that great synod, and those others to which these men appeal, and he will perceive, on the one side, true religion, on the other, folly and disorder. The fathers of Nicaea met together not after being deposed, but after confessing that the Son was of the Substance of the Father. These men were deposed once, a second time, and again a third time at Ariminum, and then dared to lay down that it is wrong to attribute Substance or Essence to God. So strange and so many were the tricks and machinations concocted by the mad gang of Arius in the West against the dogmas of the Truth. __________________________________________________________________ [565] Jer. ii. 13 [566] Hosea viii. 7. The text "dragmata me echonta hischun" recalls the septuagint dragma ouk echon ischun __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XIX.--Concerning the cunning of Leontius, Bishop of Antioch, and the boldness of Flavianus and Diodorus. At Antioch Placidus was succeeded by Stephanus, who was expelled from the Church. Leontius then accepted the Primacy, but in violation of the decrees of the Nicene Council, for he had mutilated himself, and was an eunuch. The cause of his rash deed is thus narrated by the blessed Athanasius. Leontius, it seems, was the victim of slanderous statements on account of a certain young woman of the name of Eustolia. [567] Finding himself prevented from dwelling with her he mutilated himself for her sake, in order that he might feel free to live with her. But he did not clear himself of suspicion, and all the more for this reason was deposed from the presbyterate. So much Athanasius has written about the rest of his earlier life. I shall now give a summary exposure of his evil conduct. Now though he shared the Arian error, he always endeavoured to conceal his unsoundness. He observed that the clergy and the rest of the people were divided into two parts, the one, in giving glory to the Son, using the conjunction "and," the other using the preposition "through" of the Son, and applying "in" to the Holy Ghost. He himself offered all the doxology in silence, and all that those standing near him could hear was the "For ever and ever." And had not the exceeding wickedness of his soul been betrayed by other means, it might have been said that he adopted this contrivance from a wish to promote concord among the people. But when he had wrought much mischief to the champions of the truth, and continued to give every support to the promoters of impiety, he was convicted of concealing his own unsoundness. He was influenced both by his fear of the people, and by the grievous threats which Constantius had uttered against any who had dared to say that the Son was unlike the Father. His real sentiments were however proved by his conduct. Followers of the Apostolic doctrines never received from him either ordination or indeed the least encouragement. Men, on the other hand, who sided with the Arian superstition, were both allowed perfect liberty in expressing their opinions, and were from time to time admitted to priestly office. At this juncture Aetius, the master of Eunomius, who promoted the Arian error by his speculations, was admitted to the diaconate. Flavianus and Diodorus, however, who had embraced an ascetic career, and were open champions of the Apostolic decrees, publicly protested against the attacks of Leontius against true religion. That a man nurtured in iniquity and scheming to win notoriety by ungodliness should be counted worthy of the diaconate, was, they urged, a disgrace to the Church. They further threatened that they would withdraw from his communion, travel to the western empire, and publish his plots to the world. Leontius was now alarmed, and suspended Aetius from his sacred office, but continued to show him marked favour. That excellent pair Flavianus and Diodorus, [568] though not yet admitted to the priesthood and still ranked with the laity, worked night and day to stimulate men's zeal for truth. They were the first to divide choirs into two parts, and to teach them to sing the psalms of David antiphonally. Introduced first at Antioch, the practice spread in all directions, and penetrated to the ends of the earth. Its originators now collected the lovers of the Divine word and work into the Churches of the Martyrs, and with them spent the night in singing psalms to God. When Leontius perceived this, he did not think it safe to try to prevent them, for he saw that the people were exceedingly well-disposed towards these excellent men. However, putting a colour of courtesy on his speech, he requested that they would perform this act of worship in the churches. They were perfectly well aware of his evil intent. Nevertheless they set about obeying his behest and readily summoned their choir [569] to the Church, exhorting them to sing praises to the good Lord. Nothing, however, could induce Leontius to correct his wickedness, but he put on the mask of equity, [570] and concealed the iniquity of Stephanus and Placidus. Men who had accepted the corruption of the faith of priests and deacons, although they had embraced a life of vile irregularity, he added to the roll; while others adorned with every kind of virtue and firm adherents of apostolic doctrines, he left unrecognised. Thus it came to pass that among the clergy were numbered a majority of men tainted with heresy, while the mass of the laity were champions of the Faith, and even professional teachers lacked courage to lay bare their blasphemy. In truth the deeds of impiety and iniquity done by Placidus, Stephanus, and Leontius, in Antioch are so many as to want a special history of their own, and so terrible as to be worthy of the lament of David; for of them too it must be said "For lo thy enemies make a murmuring and they that hate thee lift up their head. They have imagined craftily against the people and taken counsel against thy secret ones. They have said come and let us root them out that they be no more a people: and that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance." [571] Let us now continue the course of our narrative. __________________________________________________________________ [567] Ath. Ap. de fug. S:26 and Hist. Ar. S:28. The question of suneisaktai was one of the great scandals and difficulties of the early Church. Some suppose that the case of Leontius was the cause of the first Canon of the Nicene Council peri ton tolmonton heautous ektemnein Theodoretus (iv. 12) relates an instance of what was considered conjugal chastity, and the mischiefs referred to in the text arose from the rash attempt to imitate such continence. Vide Suicer in voc. [568] Flavianus was a noble native of Antioch, and was afterwards (381-404) bishop of that see. Diodorus in later times (c. 379) became bishop of Tarsus, "one of the most deservedly venerated names in the Eastern church for learning, sanctity, courage in withstanding heresy, and zeal in the defence of the truth. Diodorus has a still greater claim on the grateful remembrances of the whole church, as, if not the founder, the chief promoter of the rational school of scriptural interpretation, of which his disciples, Chrysostom and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, were such distinguished representatives." Dict. Christ. Biog. i. 836. On the renewed championship of the Antiochene church by Flavianus and Diodorus under the persecution of Valens vide iv. 22. Socrates (vi. 8), describing the rivalry of the Homoousians and Arians in singing partizan hymns antiphonally in the streets of Antioch in the days of Arcadius, traces the mode of chanting to the great Ignatius, who once in a Vision heard angels so praising God. But, remarks Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers Pt. 2. I. p. 31.) "Antiphonal singing did not need to be suggested by a heavenly Vision. It existed already among the heathen in the arrangements of the Greek Chorus. It was practised with much elaboration of detail in the Psalmody of the Jews, as appears from the account which is given of the Egyptian Therapeutes. Its introduction into the Christian Church therefore was a matter of course almost from the beginning: and when we read in Pliny (Ep. x. 97) that the Christians of Bithynia sang hymns to Christ as to a god, `alternately' (secum invicem) we may reasonably infer that the practice of antiphonal singing prevailed far beyond the limits of the church of Antioch, even in the time of Ignatius himself." Augustine (Conf. ix. 7) states that the fashion of singing "secundum morem orientalium partium" was introduced into the Church of Milan at the time of the persecution of Ambrose by Justina, "ne populus moeroris toedio contabesceret," and thence spread all over the globe. Platina attributes the introduction of antiphons at Rome to Pope Damasus. Hooker (ii. 166) quotes the older authority of "the Prophet Esay," in the vision where the seraphim cried to one another in what Bp. Mant calls "the alternate hymn." [569] I prefer the reading of Basil Gr. and Steph. I. ergatas to the erastas of Steph. 2 and Pin. [570] epieikeias. "The mere existence of such a word as epieikeia is itself a signal evidence of the high development of ethics among the Greeks. It expresses exactly that moderation which recognizes the impossibility, cleaving to formal law, of anticipating or providing for all cases that will emerge, and present themselves to it for decision...It is thus more truly just than strict justice will have been; being dikaion kai beltion tinos dikaiou, as Aristotle expresses it. Eth. Nic. V. 10. 6." Archbp. Trench's synonyms of the N.T. p. 151. The "clemency" on which Tertullus reckons in Felix is epieikeia; and in 2 Cor. x. St. Paul beseeches by the "gentleness" or epieikeia of Christ. [571] Ps. 83.--2-3-4 __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XX.--Concerning the innovations of Eudoxius, [572] of Germanicia, and the zeal of Basilius [573] of Ancyra, and of Eustathius [574] of Sebasteia against him. Germanicia is a city on the coasts of Cilicia, Syria, and Cappadocia, and belongs to the province called Euphratisia. Eudoxius, the head of its church, directly he heard of the death of Leontius, betook himself to Antioch and clutched the see, where he ravaged the vineyard of the Lord like a wild boar. He did not even attempt to hide his evil ways, like Leontius, but raged in direct attack upon the apostolic decrees, and involved in various troubles all who had the hardihood to gainsay him. Now at this time Basilius had succeeded Marcellus, and held the helm of the church of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, and Sebastia, the chief city of Armenia, was under the guidance of Eustathius. No sooner had these bishops heard of the iniquity and madness of Eudoxius, than they wrote to inform the Emperor Constantius of his audacity. Constantius was now still tarrying in the west, and, after the death of the tyrants, was endeavouring to heal the harm they had caused. Both bishops were well known to the Emperor and had great influence with him on account of the high character they bore. __________________________________________________________________ [572] Eudoxius, eighth bishop of Constantinople, and formerly of Germanicia (Germanikeia, now Marash, or Banicia), was one of the most violent of the Arians. He was originally refused ordination by St. Eustathius, but on the deposition of that bishop in 331 the Eusebians pushed him forward. After ruling at Germanicia for some seventeen years he intruded himself on the see of Antioch. Under the patronage of the Acacians he became patriarch of Constantinople in 360, and died in 370. [573] Basilius, a learned physician, a Semiarian of Ancyra, was made bishop of that see on the deposition of Marcellus, in 336, and excommunicated at Sardica in 347. In 350 he was reinstated at the command of Constantius. He was again exiled under Acacian influence, failed to get restitution from Jovian, and probably died in exile. (Soc. ii, 20, 26, iv, 24.) Vide also Theod. ii, 23. His works are lost. Athanasius praises him as among those who were (de Synod. 603 ed. Migne) "not far from accepting the Homousion." [574] Eustathius was bishop of Sebasteia or Sebaste (Siwas) on the Halys, from 357 to 380. Basil, Ep. 244, S:9, says that he was a heretic "black who could not turn white"; but he exhibited many shades of theological colour, preserving through all vicissitudes a high personal character, and a something "more than human." Basil Ep. 212, S:2. Ordained by Eulalius, he was degraded because he insisted on wearing very unclerical costume. (Soc. ii, 43.) The question of the identity of this Eustathius with the Eustathius condemned at the Council of Ancyra is discussed in the Dict. Christ. Ant. i, 709. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXI.--Of the Second Council of Nicaea. On receipt of these despatches Constantius wrote to the Antiochenes denying that he had committed the see of Antioch to Eudoxius, as Eudoxius had publicly announced. He ordered that Eudoxius be banished, and be punished for the course he had taken at the Bithynian Nicaea, where he had ordered the synod to assemble. Eudoxius himself had persuaded the officers entrusted with authority in the imperial household to fix Nicaea for the Council. But the Supreme Ruler and Governor, who knows the future like the past, stopped the assembly by a mighty earthquake, whereby the greater part of the city was overthrown, and most of the inhabitants destroyed. On learning this the assembled bishops were seized with panic, and returned to their own churches. But I regard this as a contrivance of the divine wisdom, for in that city the doctrine of the faith of the apostles had been defined by the holy Fathers. In that same city the bishops who were assembling on this later occasion were intending to lay down the contrary. The sameness of name would have been sure to furnish a means of deception to the Arian crew, and trick unsophisticated souls. They meant to call the council "the Nicene," and identify it with the famous council of old. But He who has care for the churches disbanded the synod. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXII.--Of the Council held at Seleucia in Isauria. After a time, at the suggestion of the accusers of Eudoxius, Constantius ordered the synod to be held at Seleucia. This town of Isauria lies on the seashore and is the chief town of the district. Hither the bishops of the East, and with them those of Pontus in Asia, were ordered to assemble. [575] The see of Caesarea, the capital of Palestine, was now held by Acacius, who had succeeded Eusebius. He had been condemned by the council of Sardica, but had expressed contempt for so large an assembly of bishops, and had refused to accept their adverse decision. At Jerusalem Macarius, whom I have often mentioned, was succeeded by Maximus, a man conspicuous in his struggles on behalf of religion, for he had been deprived of his right eye and maimed in his right arm. [576] On his translation to the life which knows no old age, Cyrillus, an earnest champion of the apostolic decrees, [577] was dignified with the Episcopal office. These men in their contentions with one another for the first place brought great calamities on the state. Acacius seized some small occasion, deposed Cyrillus, and drove him from Jerusalem. But Cyrillus passed by Antioch, which he had found without a pastor, and came to Tarsus, where he dwelt with the excellent Silvanus, then bishop of that see. No sooner did Acacius become aware of this than he wrote to Silvanus and informed him of the deposition of Cyrillus. Silvanus however, both out of regard for Cyrillus, and not without suspicion of his people, who greatly enjoyed the stranger's teaching, refused to prohibit him from taking a part in the ministrations of the church. When however they had arrived at Seleucia, Cyrillus joined with the party of Basilius and Eustathius and Silvanus and the rest in the council. But when Acacius joined the assembled bishops, who numbered one hundred and fifty, he refused to be associated in their counsels before Cyrillus, as one stripped of his bishopric, had been put out from among them. There were some who, eager for peace, besought Cyrillus to withdraw, with a pledge that after the decision of the decrees they would enquire into his case. He would not give way, and Acacius left them and went out. Then meeting Eudoxius he removed his alarm, and encouraged him with a promise that he would stand his friend and supporter. Thus he hindered him from taking part in the council, and set out with him for Constantinople. __________________________________________________________________ [575] "Now that the Semiarians were forced to treat with their late victims on equal terms, they agreed to hold a general Council. Both parties might hope for success. If the Homoean influence was strong at Court, the Semiarians were strong in the East, and could count on some help from the Western Nicenes. But the Court was resolved to secure a decision to its own mind. As a Council of the whole Empire might have been too independent, it was divided. The Westerns were to meet at Ariminum in Italy, the Easterns at Seleucia in Isauria." "It was a fairly central spot, and easy of access from Egypt and Syria by sea, but otherwise most unsuitable. It was a mere fortress, lying in a rugged country, where the spurs of Mount Taurus reach the sea. Around it were the ever-restless marauders of Isauria." "The choice of such a place is as significant as if a Pan-Anglican synod were called to meet at the central and convenient port of Souakim." Gwatkin "The Arian Controversy." pp. 93-96. The Council met here a.d. 359. [576] He appears to have been less conspicuous for consistency in the Arian Controversy. At Tyre he is described by Sozomen and Socrates as assenting to the deposition of Athanasius but Rufinus (H. E. i. 17) tells the dramatic story of the successful interposition of the aged and mutilated Paphnutius of the Thebaid, who took his vacillating brother by the hand, and led him to the little knot of Athanasians. Sozomen (iv. 203) represents him as deposed by Acacius for too zealous orthodoxy, and replaced by Cyril, then a Semiarian. Jerome agrees with Theodoret, and makes Cyril succeed on the death of Maximus in 350 or 351. (Chron. ann. 349.) [577] Sozomen and Socrates are less favourable to his orthodoxy. In his favour see the synodical letter written by the bishops assembled at Constantinople after the Council in 381, and addressed to Pope Damasus, which is given in the Vth book of our author, Chapter 9. He was engaged in a petty controversy with Acacius on the precedence of the sees of Caesarea and AElia (Jerusalem), and in 357 deposed. On appeal to the Council of Seleucia he was reinstated, but again deposed by Constantius, partly on the pretended charge of dealing improperly with a robe given by Constantine to Macarius, which Theodoret records later (Chap. xiii.) Restored by Julian he was left in peace under Jovian and Valentinian, exiled by Valens, and restored by Theodosius. He died in 386, and left Catechetical lectures, a Homily, and an Epistle, of which the authenticity has been successfully defended, and which vindicate rather his orthodoxy than his ability. cf. Canon Venables. Dict. Ch. Biog. s.v. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXIII.--Of what befell the orthodox bishops at Constantinople. Constantius, on his return from the West, passed some time at Constantinople. There Acacius urged many accusations against the assembled bishops in presence of the emperor, called them a set of vile characters convoked for the ruin and destruction of the churches, and so fired the imperial wrath. And not least was Constantius moved by what was alleged against Cyrillus, "for," said Acachius, "the holy robe, which the illustrious Constantine the emperor, in his desire to honour the church of Jerusalem, gave to Macarius, the bishop of that city, to be worn when he performed the rite of divine baptism, all fashioned with golden threads as it was, has been sold by Cyrillus. It has been bought," he continued, "by a certain stage dancer; dancing about when he was wearing it, he fell down and perished. With a man like this Cyrillus," he went on, "they set themselves up to judge and decide for the rest of the world." The influential party at the court made this an occasion for persuading the emperor not to summon the whole synod, for they were alarmed at the concord of the majority, but only ten leading men. Of these were Eustathius of Armenia, Basilius of Galatia, Silvanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicus. [578] On their arrival they urged the emperor that Eudoxius should be convicted of blasphemy and lawlessness. Constantius, however, schooled by the opposite party, replied that a decision must first be come to on matters concerning the faith, and that afterwards the case of Eudoxius should be enquired into. Basilius, relying on his former intimacy, ventured boldly to object to the emperor that he was attacking the apostolic decrees; but Constantius took this ill, and told Basilius to hold his tongue, "for to you," said he, "the disturbance of the churches is due." When Basilius was silenced, Eustathius intervened and said, "since, sir, you wish a decision to be come to on what concerns the faith, consider the blasphemies rashly uttered against the Only Begotten by Eudoxius," and as he spoke he produced the exposition of faith wherein, besides many other impieties, were found the following expressions: "Things that are spoken of in unlike terms are unlike in substance:" "There is one God the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things." Now the term "of whom" is unlike the term "through whom;" so the Son is unlike God the Father. Constantius ordered this exposition of the faith to be read, and was displeased with the blasphemy which it involved. He therefore asked Eudoxius if he had drawn it up. Eudoxius instantly repudiated the authorship, and said that it was written by Aetius. Now Aetius was he whom Leontius, in dread of the accusations of Flavianus and Diodorus, had formerly degraded from the diaconate. He had also been the supporter of Georgius, the treacherous foe of the Alexandrians, alike in his impious words and his unholy deeds. At the present time he was associated with Eunomius and Eudoxius; for, on the death of Leontius, when Eudoxius had laid violent hands on the episcopal throne of the church at Antioch, he returned from Egypt with Eunomius, and, as he found Eudoxius to be of the same way of thinking as himself, a sybarite in luxury as well as a heretic in faith, he chose Antioch as the most congenial place of abode, and both he and Eunomius were fast fixtures at the couches of Eudoxius. His highest ambition was to be a successful parasite, and he spent his whole time in going to gorge himself at one man's table or another's. The emperor had been told all this, and now ordered Aetius to be brought before him. On his appearance Constantius showed him the document in question and proceeded to enquire if he was the author of its language. Aetius, totally ignorant of what had taken place, and unaware of the drift of the enquiry, expected that he should win praise by confession, and owned that he was the author of the phrases in question. Then the emperor perceived the greatness of his iniquity, and forthwith condemned him to exile and to be deported to a place in Phrygia. So Aetius reaped disgrace as the fruit of blasphemy, and was cast out of the palace. Eustathius then alleged that Eudoxius too held the same views, for that Aetius had shared his roof and his table, and had drawn up this blasphemous formula in submission to his judgement. In proof of his contention that Eudoxius was concerned in drawing up the document he urged the fact that no one had attributed it to Aetius except Eudoxius himself. To this the emperor enjoined that judges must not decide on conjecture, but are bound to make exact examination of the facts. Eustathius assented, and urged that Eudoxius should give proof of his dissent from the sentiments attributed to him by anathematizing the composition of Aetius. This suggestion the emperor very readily accepted, and gave his orders accordingly; but Eudoxius drew back, and employed many shifts to evade compliance. But when the emperor waxed wroth and threatened to send him off to share the exile of Aetius, on the ground that he was a partner in the blasphemy so punished, he repudiated his own doctrine, though both then and afterwards he persistently maintained it. However, he in his turn protested against the Eustathians that it was their duty to condemn the word "Homouesion" as unscriptural. Silvanus on the contrary pointed out that it was their duty to reject and expel from their holy assemblies the phrases "out of the non-existent" and "creature" and "of another substance," these terms being also unscriptural and found in the writings of neither prophets nor apostles. Constantius decided that this was right, and bade the Arians pronounce the condemnation. At first they persisted in refusing; but in the end, when they saw the emperor's wrath, they consented, though much against the grain, to condemn the terms Silvanus had put before them. But all the more earnestly they insisted on their demand for the condemnation of the "Homouesion." But then with unanswerable logic Silvanus put both before the Arians and the emperor the truth that if God the Word is not of the non-Existent, He is not a Creature, and is not of another Substance. He is then of one Substance with God Who begat Him, as God of God and Light of Light, and has the same nature as the Begetter. This contention he urged with power and with truth, but not one of his hearers was convinced. The party of Acacius and Eudoxius raised a mighty uproar; the emperor was angered, and threatened expulsion from their churches. Thereupon Eleusius and Silvanus and the rest said that while authority to punish lay with the emperor, it was their province to decide on points of piety or impiety, and "we will not," they protested, "betray the doctrine of the Fathers." Constantius ought to have admired both their wisdom and their courage, and their bold defence of the apostolic decrees, but he exiled them from their churches, and ordered others to be appointed in their place. Thereupon Eudoxius laid violent hands on the Church of Constantinople; and on the expulsion of Eleusius from Cyzicus, Eunomius was appointed in his place. __________________________________________________________________ [578] i.e., Eustathius of Sebasteia, and Basilius of Ancyra (vide note on p. 86). Silvanus of Tarsus was one of the Semiarians of high character. For his kindly entertainment of Cyril of Jerusalem vide page 87. Tillemont places his death in 363. Eleusius of Cyzicus was also a Semiarian of the better type (cf. Hil. de Syn. p. 133). The evil genius of his life was Macedorius of Constantinople, by whose influence he was made bishop of Cyzicus in 356. Here with equal zeal he destroyed pagan temples and a Novatian church, and this was remembered against him when he attempted to return to his see on the accession of Julian. At Nicomedia in 366 he was moved by the threats of Valens to declare himself an Arian and then in remorse resigned his see, but his flock refused to let him go, Socr. iv. 6. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXIV.--Synodical Epistle written against Aetius. After these transactions the emperor ordered Aetius to be condemned by a formal Letter, and, in obedience to the command, his companions in iniquity condemned their own associate. Accordingly they wrote to Georgius, bishop of Alexandria, the letter about him to which I shall give a place in my history, in order to expose their wickedness, for they treated their friends and their foes precisely in the same way. Copy of the Letter written by the whole council to Georgius against Aetius his deacon, on account of his iniquitous blasphemy. To the right honourable Lord Georgius, Bishop of Alexandria, the holy Synod in Constantinople assembled, Greeting. In consequence of the condemnation of Aetius by the Synod, on account of his unlawful and most offensive writings, he has been dealt with by the bishops in accordance with the canons of the church. He has been degraded from the diaconate and expelled from the Church, and our admonitions have gone forth that none are to read his unlawful epistles, but that on account of their unprofitable and worthless character they are to be cast aside. We have further appended an anathema on him, if he abides in his opinion, and on his supporters. It would naturally have followed that all the bishops met together in the Synod should have felt detestation of, and approved the sentence delivered against, a man who is the author of offences, disturbances and schisms, of agitation over all the world, and of rising of church against church. But in spite of our prayers, and against all our expectation, Seras, Stephanus, Heliodorus and Theophilus and their party [579] have not voted with us, and have not even consented to subscribe the sentence delivered against him, although Seras charged the aforenamed Aetius with another instance of insane arrogance, alleging that he, with still bolder impudence, had sprung forward to declare that what God had concealed from the Apostles had been now revealed to him. Even after these wild and boastful words, reported by Seras about Aetius, the aforenamed bishops were not put out of countenance, nor could they be induced to vote with us on his condemnation. We however with much long suffering bore with them [580] for a great length of time, now indignant, now beseeching, now importuning them to join with us and make the decision of the Synod unanimous; and we persevered long in the hope that they might hear and agree and give in. But when in spite of all this patience we could not shame them into acceptance of our declarations against the aforesaid offender, we counted the rule of the church more precious than the friendship of men, and pronounced against them a decree of excommunication, allowing them a period of six mouths for conversion, repentance, and the expression of a desire for union and harmony with the synod. If within the given time they should turn and accept agreement with their brethren and assent to the decrees about Aetius, we decided that they should be received into the church, to the recovery of their own authority in synods, and our affection. If however they obstinately persisted, and preferred human friendship to the canons of the church and our affection, then we judged them deposed from the rank of the bishops. If they suffer degradation it is necessary to appoint other bishops in their place, that the lawful church may be duly ordered and at unity with herself, while all the bishops of every nation by uttering the same doctrine with one mind and one counsel preserve the bond of love. To acquaint you with the decree of the Synod we have sent these present to your reverence, and pray that you may abide by them, and by the grace of Christ rule the churches under you aright and in peace. __________________________________________________________________ [579] Seras, or Serras, had been an Arian leader in Libya. In 356 Serras, together with Secundus, deposed bishop of Ptolemais, proposed to consecrate Aetius; he refused on the ground that they were tainted with Orthodoxy. Phil. iii. 19. In 359 he subscribed the decrees of Seleucia as bishop of Paraetonium (Al Bareton W. of Alexandria) (Epiph. Haer. lxxiii. 20). Now he is deposed (360) by the Constantinopolitan Synod. Vide Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v. Stephanus, a Libyan bishop ordained by Secundus of Ptolemais, and concerned with him in the murder of the Presbyter Secundus, as described by Athan. in Hist. Ar. S:65 cf. Ath. de Syn. S:12. Heliodorus was Arian bishop of Apollonia or Sozysa (Shahfah) in Libya Prima. cf. LeQuien Or. Ch. ii. 617. Theophilus, previously bishop of Eleutheropolis in Palestine, was translated, against his vow of fidelity to that see, (Soz. iv. 24) to Castabala in Cilicia. On the place Vide Bp. Lightfoot. Ap. Fathers Pt. ii. Vol. III. 136. [580] sumperienechthemen is the suggestion of Valesius for sumperiepsethisthemen, a word of no authority. __________________________________________________________________ Chapter XXV.--Of the causes which separated the Eunomians from the Arians. Eunomius in his writings praises Aetius, styles him a man of God, and honours him with many compliments. Yet he was at that time closely associated with the party by whom Aetius had been repudiated, and to them he owed his election to his bishopric. Now the followers of Eudoxius and Acacius, who had assented to the decrees put forth at Nice in Thrace, already mentioned in this history, appointed other bishops in the churches of the adherents of Basilius and Eleusius in their stead. On other points I think it superfluous to write in detail. I purpose only to relate what concerns Eunomius. For when Eunomius had seized on the see of Cyzicus in the lifetime of Eleusius, Eudoxius urged him to hide his opinions and not make them known to the party who were seeking a pretext to persecute him. Eudoxius was moved to offer this advice both by his knowledge that the diocese was sound in the faith and his experience of the anger manifested by Constantius against the party who asserted the only begotten Son of God to be a created being. "Let us" said he to Eunomius "bide our time; when it comes we will preach what now we are keeping dark; educate the ignorant; and win over or compel or punish our opponents." Eunomius, yielding to these suggestions, propounded his impious doctrine under the shadow of obscurity. Those of his hearers who had been nurtured on the divine oracles saw clearly that his utterances concealed under their surface a foul fester of error. [581] But however distressed they were they considered it less the part of prudence than of rashness to make any open protest, so they assumed a mask of heretical heterodoxy, and paid a visit to the bishop at his private residence with the earnest request that he would have regard to the distress of men borne hither and thither by different doctrines, and would plainly expound the truth. Eunomius thus emboldened declared the sentiments which he secretly held. The deputation then went on to remark that it was unfair and indeed quite wrong for the whole of his diocese to be prevented from having their share of the truth. By these and similar arguments he was induced to lay bare his blasphemy in the public assemblies of the church. Then his opponents hurried with angry fervour to Constantinople; first they indicted him before Eudoxius, and when Eudoxius refused to see them, sought an audience of the emperor and made lamentation over the ruin their bishop was wreaking among them. "The sermons of Eunomius," they said, "are more impious than the blasphemies of Arius." The wrath of Constantius was roused, and he commanded Eudoxius to send for Eunomius, and, on his conviction, to strip him of his bishopric. Eudoxius, of course, though again and again importuned by the accusers, continued to delay taking action. Then once more they approached the emperor with vociferous complaints that Eudoxius had not obeyed the imperial commands in any single particular, and was perfectly indifferent to the delivery of an important city to the blasphemies of Eunomius. Then said Constantius to Eudoxi