The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus
Advanced Information
Revised, with Notes, by the Rev. A. C. Zenos, D.D.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Theological
Seminary at Hartford, Conn.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book III.
Chapter I.--Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the
Throne; his Apostasy to Paganism.
The Emperor Constantius died on the frontiers of Cilicia on the 3d of
November, during the consulate of Taurus and Florentius; Julian
leaving the western parts of the empire about the 11th of December
following, under the same consulate, came to Constantinople, where he
was proclaimed emperor. [458] And as I must needs speak of the
character of this prince who was eminently distinguished for his
learning, let not his admirers expect that I should attempt a pompous
rhetorical style, as if it were necessary to make the delineation
correspond with the dignity of the subject: for my object being to
compile a history of the Christian religion, it is both proper in
order to the being better understood, and consistent with my original
purpose, to maintain a humble and unaffected style. [459] However, it
is proper to describe his person, birth, education, and the manner in
which he became possessed of the sovereignty; and in order to do this
it will be needful to enter into some antecedent details. Constantine
who gave Byzantium his own name, had two brothers named Dalmatius and
Constantius, the offspring of the same father, but by a different
mother. The former of these had a son who bore his own name: the
latter had two sons, Gallus and Julian. Now as on the death of
Constantine who founded Constantinople, the soldiery had put the
younger brother Dalmatius to death, the lives of his two orphan
children were also endangered: but a disease which threatened to be
fatal preserved Gallus from the violence of his father's murderers;
while the tenderness of Julian's age--for he was only eight years old
at the time--protected him. The emperor's jealousy toward them having
been gradually subdued, Gallus attended the schools at Ephesus in
Ionia, in which country considerable hereditary possessions had been
left them. And Julian, when he was grown up, pursued his studies at
Constantinople, going constantly to the palace, where the schools then
were, in plain clothes, under the superintendence of the eunuch
Mardonius. In grammar Nicocles the Lacædemonian was his instructor;
and Ecebolius the Sophist, who was at that time a Christian, taught
him rhetoric: for the emperor had made the provision that he should
have no pagan masters, lest he should be seduced to the pagan
superstitions. For Julian was a Christian at the beginning. His
proficiency in literature soon became so remarkable, that it began to
be said that he was capable of governing the Roman empire; and this
popular rumor becoming generally diffused, greatly disquieted the
emperor's mind, so that he had him removed from the Great City to
Nicomedia, forbidding him at the same time to frequent the school of
Libanius the Syrian Sophist. For Libanius having been driven at that
time from Constantinople, by a combination of the educators there, had
retired to Nicomedia, where he opened a school. Here he gave vent to
his indignation against the educators in the treatise he composed
regarding them. Julian was, however, interdicted from being his
auditor, because Libanius was a pagan in religion: nevertheless he
privately procured his orations, which he not only greatly admired,
but also frequently and with close study perused. As he was becoming
very expert in the rhetorical art, Maximus the philosopher arrived at
Nicomedia (not the Byzantine, Euclid's father) but the Ephesian, whom
the emperor Valentinian afterwards caused to be executed as a
practicer of magic. This took place later; at that time the only thing
that attracted him to Nicomedia was the fame of Julian. From him
[Julian] received, in addition to the principles of philosophy, his
own religious sentiments, and a desire to possess the empire. When
these things reached the ears of the emperor, Julian, between hope and
fear, became very anxious to lull the suspicions which had been
awakened, and therefore began to assume the external semblance of what
he once was in reality. He was shaved to the very skin, [460] and
pretended to live a monastic life: and while in private he pursued his
philosophical studies, in public he read the sacred writings of the
Christians, and moreover was constituted a reader [461] in the church
of Nicomedia. Thus by these specious pretexts he succeeded in averting
the emperor's displeasure. Now he did all this from fear, but he by no
means abandoned his hope; telling his friends that happier times were
not far distant, when he should possess the imperial sway. In this
condition of things his brother Gallus having been created Cæsar, on
his way to the East came to Nicomedia to see him. But when not long
after this Gallus was slain, Julian was suspected by the emperor;
wherefore he directed that a guard should be set over him: he soon,
however, found means of escaping from them, and fleeing from place to
place he managed to be in safety. At last the Empress Eusebia having
discovered his retreat, persuaded the emperor to leave him uninjured,
and permit him to go to Athens to pursue his philosophical studies.
From thence--to be brief--the emperor recalled him, and after created
him Cæsar; in addition to this, uniting him in marriage to his own
sister Helen, he sent him against the barbarians. For the barbarians
whom the Emperor Constantius had engaged as auxiliary forces against
the tyrant Magnentius, having proved of no use against the usurper,
were beginning to pillage the Roman cities. And inasmuch as he was
young he ordered him to undertake nothing without consulting the other
military chiefs.
Now these generals having obtained such authority, became lax in their
duties, and the barbarians in consequence strengthened themselves.
Julian perceiving this allowed the commanders to give themselves up to
luxury and revelling, but exerted himself to infuse courage into the
soldiery, offering a stipulated reward to any one who should kill a
barbarian. This measure effectually weakened the enemy and at the same
time conciliated to himself the affections of the army. It is reported
that as he was entering a town a civic crown which was suspended
between two pillars fell upon his head, which it exactly fitted: upon
which all present gave a shout of admiration, regarding it as a
presage of his one day becoming emperor. Some have affirmed that
Constantius sent him against the barbarians, in the hope that he would
perish in an engagement with them. I know not whether those who say
this speak the truth; but it certainly is improbable that he should
have first contracted so near an alliance with him, and then have
sought his destruction to the prejudice of his own interests. Let each
form his own judgment of the matter. Julian's complaint to the emperor
of the inertness of his military officers procured for him a coadjutor
in the command more in sympathy with his own ardor; and by their
combined efforts such an assault was made upon the barbarians, that
they sent him an embassy, assuring him that they had been ordered by
the emperor's letters, which were produced, to march into the Roman
territories. But he cast the ambassador into prison, and vigorously
attacking the forces of the enemy, totally defeated them; and having
taken their king prisoner, he sent him alive to Constantius.
Immediately after this brilliant success he was proclaimed emperor by
the soldiers; and inasmuch as there was no imperial crown at hand, one
of his guards took the chain which he wore about his own neck, and
bound it around Julian's head. Thus Julian became emperor: but whether
he subsequently conducted himself as became a philosopher, let my
readers determine. For he neither entered into communication with
Constantius by an embassy, nor paid him the least homage in
acknowledgment of past favors; but constituting other governors over
the provinces, he conducted everything just as it pleased him.
Moreover, he sought to bring Constantius into contempt, by reciting
publicly in every city the letters which he had written to the
barbarians; and thus having rendered the inhabitants of these places
disaffected, they were easily induced to revolt from Constantius to
himself. After this he no longer wore the mask of Christianity, but
everywhere opened the pagan temples, offering sacrifice to the idols;
and designating himself `Pontifex Maximus,' [462] gave permission to
such as would to celebrate their superstitious festivals. In this
manner he managed to excite a civil war against Constantius; and thus,
as far as he was concerned, he would have involved the empire in all
the disastrous consequences of a war. For this philosopher's aim could
not have been attained without much bloodshed: but God, in the
sovereignty of his own councils, checked the fury of these antagonists
without detriment to the state, by the removal of one of them. For
when Julian arrived among the Thracians, intelligence was brought him
that Constantius was dead; and thus was the Roman empire at that time
preserved from the intestine strife that threatened it. Julian
forthwith made his public entry into Constantinople; and considered
with himself how he might best conciliate the masses and secure
popular favor. Accordingly he had recourse to the following measures:
he knew that Constantius had rendered himself odious to the defenders
of the homoousian faith by having driven them from the churches, and
proscribed their bishops. [463] He was also aware that the pagans were
extremely discontented because of the prohibitions which prevented
their sacrificing to their gods, and were very anxious to get their
temples opened, with liberty to exercise their idolatrous rites. In
fact, he was sensible that while both these classes secretly
entertained rancorous feelings against his predecessor, the people in
general were exceedingly exasperated by the violence of the eunuchs,
and especially by the rapacity of Eusebius the chief officer of the
imperial bed-chamber. Under these circumstances he treated all parties
with subtlety: with some he dissimulated; others he attached to
himself by conferring obligations upon them, for he was fond of
affecting beneficence; but to all in common he manifested his own
predilection for the idolatry of the heathens. And first in order to
brand the memory of Constantius by making him appear to have been
cruel toward his subjects, he recalled the exiled bishops, and
restored to them their confiscated estates. He next commanded the
suitable agents to see that the pagan temples should be opened without
delay. Then he directed that such individuals as had been victims of
the extortionate conduct of the eunuchs, should receive back the
property of which they had been plundered. Eusebius, the chief of the
imperial bed-chamber, he punished with death, not only on account of
the injuries he had inflicted on others, but because he was assured
that it was through his machinations that his brother Gallus had been
killed. The body of Constantius he honored with an imperial funeral,
but expelled the eunuchs, barbers, and cooks from the palace. The
eunuchs he dispensed with, because they were unnecessary in
consequence of his wife's decease, as he had resolved not to marry
again; the cooks, because he maintained a very simple table; and the
barbers, because he said one was sufficient for a great many persons.
These he dismissed for the reasons given; he also reduced the majority
of the secretaries to their former condition, and appointed for those
who were retained a salary befitting their office. The mode of public
traveling [464] and conveyance of necessaries he also reformed,
abolishing the use of mules, oxen, and asses for this purpose, and
permitting horses only to be so employed. These various retrenchments
were highly lauded by some few, but strongly reprobated by all others,
as tending to bring the imperial dignity into contempt, by stripping
it of those appendages of pomp and magnificence which exercise so
powerful an influence over the minds of the vulgar. Not only so, but
at night he was accustomed to sit up composing orations which he
afterwards delivered in the senate: though in fact he was the first
and only emperor since the time of Julius Cæsar who made speeches in
that assembly. To those who were eminent for literary attainments, he
extended the most flattering patronage, and especially to those who
were professional philosophers; in consequence of which, abundance of
pretenders to learning of this sort resorted to the palace from all
quarters, wearing their palliums, being more conspicuous for their
costume than their erudition. These impostors, who invariably adopted
the religious sentiments of their prince, were all inimical to the
welfare of the Christians; and Julian himself, whose excessive vanity
prompted him to deride all his predecessors in a book which he wrote
entitled The Cæsars, was led by the same haughty disposition to
compose treatises against the Christians also. [465] The expulsion of
the cooks and barbers is in a manner becoming a philosopher indeed,
but not an emperor; but ridiculing and caricaturing of others is
neither the part of the philosopher nor that of the emperor: for such
personages ought to be superior to the influence of jealousy and
detraction. An emperor may be a philosopher in all that regards
moderation and self-control; but should a philosopher attempt to
imitate what might become an emperor, he would frequently depart from
his own principles. We have thus briefly spoken of the Emperor Julian,
tracing his extraction, education, temper of mind, and the way in
which he became invested with the imperial power.
Footnotes
[458] December, 361 a.d. This proclamation must be distinguished from
the one in Gaul (II. 47); the latter was the proclamation by the army,
and occurred during the lifetime of Constantius.
[459] Cf. I. 1.
[460] See Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. VI. 4, end.
[461] The `reader,' anagnostes , lector, was commonly a young man
possessed of a good voice, who read the Scriptures from the pulpit or
reading-desk (not the altar). Bennett, Christ. Archæol. p. 374.
[462] See Smith, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq. See also, on
sacrificing to idols as a sign of apostacy, Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. XVI.
iv. 5.
[463] See II. 7, 13, 16, &c.
[464] It is difficult to determine in what particulars the
improvements mentioned here were made. Gregory Nazianzen, Contra
Julianum, I. lxxv., confesses that Julian had made reforms in the
matter.
[465] See chap. 23.
Chapter II.--Of the Sedition excited at Alexandria, and how George was
slain.
It is now proper to mention what took place in the churches under the
same [emperor]. A great disturbance occurred at Alexandria in
consequence of the following circumstance. There was a place in that
city which had long been abandoned to neglect and filth, wherein the
pagans had formerly celebrated their mysteries, and sacrificed human
beings to Mithra. [466] This being empty and otherwise useless,
Constantius had granted to the church of the Alexandrians; and George
wishing to erect a church on the site of it, gave directions that the
place should be cleansed. In the process of clearing it, an adytum
[467] of vast depth was discovered which unveiled the nature of their
heathenish rites: for there were found there the skulls of many
persons of all ages, who were said to have been immolated for the
purpose of divination by the inspection of entrails, when the pagans
performed these and such like magic arts whereby they enchanted the
souls of men. The Christians on discovering these abominations in the
adytum of the Mithreum, went forth eagerly to expose them to the view
and execration of all; and therefore carried the skulls throughout the
city, in a kind of triumphal procession, for the inspection of the
people. When the pagans of Alexandria beheld this, unable to bear the
insulting character of the act, they became so exasperated, that they
assailed the Christians with whatever weapon chanced to come to hand,
in their fury destroying numbers of them in a variety of ways: some
they killed with the sword, others with clubs and stones; some they
strangled with ropes, others they crucified, purposely inflicting this
last kind of death in contempt of the cross of Christ: most of them
they wounded; and as it generally happens in such a case, neither
friends nor relatives were spared, but friends, brothers, parents, and
children imbrued their hands in each other's blood. Wherefore the
Christians ceased from cleansing the Mithreum: the pagans meanwhile
having dragged George out of the church, fastened him to a camel, and
when they had torn him to pieces, they burnt him together with the
camel. [468]
Footnotes
[466] The friendly or propitious divinity of the Persian theology;
hence identified with the light and life-giving sun.
[467] The secret or innermost sanctuary of the temple, where none but
priests were permitted to enter; afterwards applied to any secret
place.
[468] This George is, according to some authorities, the St. George of
the legend. In its Arian form the legend represents St. George as
warring against the wizard Athanasius; later, the wizard was
transformed to a dragon, and George to an armed knight slaying the
dragon. On other forms and features of the legend, see Smith and Wace,
Dict. of Christ. Biogr., Georgius (43).
Chapter III.--The Emperor Indignant at the Murder of George, rebukes
the Alexandrians by Letter.
The emperor being highly indignant at the assassination of George,
wrote to the citizens of Alexandria, rebuking their violence in the
strongest terms. A report was circulated that those who detested him
because of Athanasius, perpetrated this outrage upon George: but as
for me I think it is undoubtedly true that such as cherish hostile
feelings against particular individuals are often found identified
with popular commotions; yet the emperor's letter evidently attaches
the blame to the populace, rather than to any among the Christians.
George, however, was at that time, and had for some time previously
been, exceedingly obnoxious to all classes, which is sufficient to
account for the burning indignation of the multitude against him. That
the emperor charges the people with the crime may be seen from his
letter which was expressed in the following terms.
Emperor Cæsar Julian Maximus Augustus to the Citizens of Alexandria.
[469]
Even if you have neither respect for Alexander the founder of your
city, nor, what is more, for that great and most holy god Serapis; yet
how is it you have made no account not only of the universal claims of
humanity and social order, but also of what is due to us, to whom all
the gods, and especially the mighty Serapis, have assigned the empire
of the world, for whose cognizance therefore it became you to reserve
all matters of public wrong? But perhaps the impulse of rage and
indignation, which taking possession of the mind, too often stimulate
it to the most atrocious acts, has led you astray. It seems, however,
that when your fury had in some degree moderated, you aggravated your
culpability by adding a most heinous offense to that which had been
committed under the excitement of the moment: nor were you, although
but the common people, ashamed to perpetrate those very acts on
account of which you justly detested them. By Serapis I conjure you
tell me, for what unjust deed were ye so indignant at George? You will
perhaps answer, it was because he exasperated Constantius of blessed
memory against you: because he introduced an army into the sacred
city: because in consequence the governor [470] of Egypt despoiled the
god's most holy temple of its images, votive offerings, and such other
consecrated apparatus as it contained; who, when ye could not endure
the sight of such a foul desecration, but attempted to defend the god
from sacrilegious hands, or rather to hinder the pillage of what had
been consecrated to his service, in contravention of all justice, law,
and piety, dared to send armed bands against you. This he probably did
from his dreading George more than Constantius: but he would have
consulted better for his own safety had he not been guilty of this
tyrannical conduct, but persevered in his former moderation toward
you. Being on all these accounts enraged against George as the
adversary of the gods, you have again polluted your sacred city;
whereas you ought to have impeached him before the judges. For had you
thus acted, neither murder, nor any other unlawful deed would have
been committed; but justice being equitably dispensed, would have
preserved you innocent of these disgraceful excesses, while it brought
on him the punishment due to his impious crimes. Thus too, in short,
the insolence of those would have been curbed who contemn the gods,
and respect neither cities of such magnitude, nor so flourishing a
population; but make the barbarities they practice against them the
prelude, as it were, of their exercise of power. Compare therefore
this my present letter, with that which I wrote you some time since.
With what high commendation did I then greet you! But now, by the
immortal gods, with an equal disposition to praise you I am unable to
do so on account of your heinous misdoings. The people have had the
audacity to tear a man in pieces, like dogs; nor have they been
subsequently ashamed of this inhuman procedure, nor desirous of
purifying their hands from such pollution, that they may stretch them
forth in the presence of the gods undefiled by blood. You will no
doubt be ready to say that George justly merited this chastisement;
and we might be disposed perhaps to admit that he deserved still more
acute tortures. Should you farther affirm that on your account he was
worthy of these sufferings, even this might also be granted. But
should you add that it became you to inflict the vengeance due to his
offenses, that I could by no means acquiesce in; for you have laws to
which it is the duty of every one of you to be subject, and to evince
your respect for both publicly, as well as in private. If any
individual should transgress those wise and salutary regulations which
were originally constituted for the well-being of the community, does
that absolve the rest from obedience to them? It is fortunate for you,
ye Alexandrians, that such an atrocity has been perpetrated in our
reign, who, by reason of our reverence for the gods, and on account of
our grandfather and uncle [471] whose name we bear, and who governed
Egypt and your city, still retain a fraternal affection for you.
Assuredly that power which will not suffer itself to be disrespected,
and such a government as is possessed of a vigorous and healthy
constitution, could not connive at such unbridled licentiousness in
its subjects, without unsparingly purging out the dangerous distemper
by the application of remedies sufficiently potent. We shall however
in your case, for the reasons already assigned, restrict ourselves to
the more mild and gentle medicine of remonstrance and exhortation; to
the which mode of treatment we are persuaded ye will the more readily
submit, inasmuch as we understand ye are Greeks by original descent,
and also still preserve in your memory and character the traces of the
glory of your ancestors. Let this be published to our citizens of
Alexandria.
Such was the emperor's letter.
Footnotes
[469] Julian, Ep. 10.
[470] Artemius, whom the Emperor Julian afterwards beheaded for
desecrating the pagan temple.
[471] Philostorgius (VII. 10) calls this Julian `the governor of the
East, who was the uncle on the maternal side of Julian the Apostate.'
Sozomen also (V. 7 and 8) and Theodoret (H. E. III. 12, 13) furnish
information regarding him, as well as Ammianus Marcellius XXIII. i.
Cf. also Julian, Epist. XIII. (Spanheim, p. 382).
Chapter IV.--On the Death of George, Athanasius returns to Alexandria,
and takes Possession of his See.
Not long after this, Athanasius returning from his exile, was received
with great joy by the people of Alexandria. They expelled at that time
the Arians from the churches, and restored Athanasius to the
possession of them. The Arians meanwhile assembling themselves in low
and obscure buildings, ordained Lucius to supply the place of George.
Such was the state of things at that time at Alexandria.
Chapter V.--Of Lucifer and Eusebius.
About the same time Lucifer and Eusebius [472] were by an imperial
order, recalled from banishment out of the Upper Thebaïs; the former
being bishop of Carala, a city of Sardinia, the latter of Vercellæ, a
city of the Ligurians in Italy, as I have said [473] previously. These
two prelates therefore consulted together on the most effectual means
of preventing the neglected canons [474] and discipline of the church
from being in future violated and despised.
Footnotes
[472] Theodoret, H. E. III, 4, mentions Hilarius, Astenius, and some
other bishops who were at this time recalled from exile by Julian's
edict, and joined Lucifer and Eusebius in these deliberations about
restoring the authority of the canons and correcting abuses in the
church.
[473] Cf. II. 36.
[474] More especially the canons of the Council of Nicæa.
Chapter VI.--Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus.
It was decided therefore that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria,
and Eusebius to Alexandria, that by assembling a Synod in conjunction
with Athanasius, they might confirm the doctrines of the church.
Lucifer sent a deacon as his representative, by whom he pledged
himself to assent to whatever the Synod might decree; but he himself
went to Antioch, where he found the church in great disorder, the
people not being agreed among themselves. For not only did the Arian
heresy, which had been introduced by Euzoïus, divide the church, but,
as we before said, [475] the followers of Meletius also, from
attachment to their teacher, separated themselves from those with whom
they agreed in sentiment. When therefore Lucifer had constituted
Paulinus their bishop, he again departed.
Footnotes
[475] II. 44.
Chapter VII.--By the Co-operation of Eusebius and Athanasius a Synod
is held at Alexandria, wherein the Trinity is declared to be
Consubstantial.
As soon as Eusebius reached Alexandria, he in concert with Athanasius
immediately convoked a Synod. The bishops assembled on this occasion
out of various cities, took into consideration many subjects of the
utmost importance. They asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit [476]
and comprehended him in the consubstantial Trinity: they also declared
that the Word in being made man, assumed not only flesh, but also a
soul, in accordance with the views of the early ecclesiastics. For
they did not introduce any new doctrine of their own devising into the
church, but contented themselves with recording their sanction of
those points which ecclesiastical tradition has insisted on from the
beginning, and wise Christians have demonstratively taught. Such
sentiments the ancient fathers have uniformly maintained in all their
controversial writings. Irenæus, Clemens, Apollinaris of Hierapolis,
and Serapion who presided over the church at Antioch, assure us in
their several works, that it was the generally received opinion that
Christ in his incarnation was endowed with a soul. Moreover, the Synod
convened on account of Beryllus [477] bishop of Philadelphia in
Arabia, recognized the same doctrine in their letter to that prelate.
Origen also everywhere in his extant works accepts that the Incarnate
God took on himself a human soul. But he more particularly explains
this mystery in the ninth volume of his Comments upon Genesis, where
he shows that Adam and Eve were types of Christ and the church. That
holy man Pamphilus, and Eusebius who was surnamed after him, are
trustworthy witnesses on this subject: both these witnesses in their
joint life of Origen, and admirable defense of him in answer to such
as were prejudiced against him, prove that he was not the first who
made this declaration, but that in doing so he was the mere expositor
of the mystical tradition of the church. Those who assisted at the
Alexandrian Council examined also with great minuteness the question
concerning `Essence' or `Substance,' and `Existence,' `Subsistence,'
or `Personality.' For Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, who has been
before referred to as having been sent by the Emperor Constantine to
allay the excitement which Arius had caused, originated the
controversy about these terms in his earnestness to overthrow the
dogma of Sabellius the Libyan. In the council of Nicæa, however, which
was held soon after, this dispute was not agitated; but in consequence
of the contention about it which subsequently arose, the matter was
freely discussed at Alexandria. [478] It was there determined that
such expressions as ousia and hypostasis ought not to be used in
reference to God: for they argued that the word ousia is nowhere
employed in the sacred Scriptures; and that the apostle has misapplied
the term hypostasis [479] owing to an inevitable necessity arising
from the nature of the doctrine. They nevertheless decided that in
refutation of the Sabellian error these terms were admissible, in
default of more appropriate language, lest it should be supposed that
one thing was indicated by a threefold designation; whereas we ought
rather to believe that each of those named in the Trinity is God in
his own proper person. Such were the decisions of this Synod. If we
may express our own judgment concerning substance and personality, it
appears to us that the Greek philosophers have given us various
definitions of ousia, but have not taken the slightest notice of
hypostasis. Irenæus [480] the grammarian indeed, in his Alphabetical
[Lexicon entitled] Atticistes, even declares it to be a barbarous
term; for it is not to be found in any of the ancients, except
occasionally in a sense quite different from that which is attached to
it in the present day. Thus Sophocles, in his tragedy entitled
Phoenix, uses it to signify `treachery': in Menander it implies
`sauces'; as if one should call the `sediment' at the bottom of a
hogshead of wine hypostasis. But although the ancient philosophical
writers scarcely noticed this word, the more modern ones have
frequently used it instead of ousia. This term, as we before observed,
has been variously defined: but can that which is capable of being
circumscribed by a definition be applicable to God who is
incomprehensible? Evagrius in his Monachicus, [481] cautions us
against rash and inconsiderate language in reference to God;
forbidding all attempt to define the divinity, inasmuch as it is
wholly simple in its nature: `for,' says he, `definition belongs only
to things which are compound.' The same author further adds, `Every
proposition has either a "genus" which is predicted, or a "species,"
or a "differentia," or a "proprium," or an "accidens," or that which
is compounded of these: but none of these can be supposed to exist in
the sacred Trinity. Let then what is inexplicable be adored in
silence.' Such is the reasoning of Evagrius, of whom we shall again
speak hereafter. [482] We have indeed made a digression here, but such
as will tend to illustrate the subject under consideration.
Footnotes
[476] The bishops composing the Council of Nicæa simply declared their
faith in the Holy Spirit, without adding any definition; they were not
met with any denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This denial
was first made by Macedonius, in the fourth century.
[477] Euseb. H. E. VI. 33, says that this Beryllus denied that Christ
was God before the Incarnation. He, however, gives the see of Beryllus
as Bostra in Arabia, instead of Philadelphia. So also Epiphanius
Scholasticus; though Nicephorus, X. 2, calls him Cyrillus, instead of
Beryllus.
[478] Valesius conjectures that Socrates is wrong here in attributing
such an action to the Synod of Alexandria, as the term ousia does not
occur in the Nicene Creed, and such action would therefore be in
manifest contradiction to the action at Nicæa. This, however, is not
probable, in view of the dominating influence of Athanasius in both.
But, as the acts of the Alexandrian synod are not extant, it is
impossible to verify this conjecture.
[479] Heb. i. 3.
[480] See Suidas, Lexicon.
[481] The only work of Evagrius preserved to our days is his
Ecclesiastical History.
[482] IV. 23.
Chapter VIII.--Quotations from Athanasius' `Defense of his Flight.'
On this occasion Athanasius read to those present the Defense which he
had composed some time before in justification of his flight; a few
passages from which it may be of service to introduce here, leaving
the entire production, which is too long to be transcribed, to be
sought out and perused by the studious. [483] See the daring
enormities of the impious persons! Such are their proceedings: and yet
instead of blushing at their former clumsy intrigues against us, they
even now abuse us for having effected our escape out of their
murderous hands; nay, are grievously vexed that they were unable to
put us out of the way altogether. In short, they overlook the fact
that while they pretend to upbraid us with `cowardice,' they are
really criminating themselves: for if it be disgraceful to flee, it is
still more so to pursue, since the one is only endeavoring to avoid
being murdered, while the other is seeking to commit the deed. But
Scripture itself directs us to flee: [484] and those who persecute
unto death, in attempting to violate the law, constrain us to have
recourse to flight. They should rather, therefore, be ashamed of their
persecution, than reproach us for having sought to escape from it: let
them cease to harass, and those who flee will also cease. Nevertheless
they set no bounds to their malevolence, using every art to entrap us,
in the consciousness that the flight of the persecuted is the
strongest condemnation of the persecutor: for no one runs away from a
mild and beneficent person, but from one who is of a barbarous and
cruel disposition. Hence it was that `Every one that was discontented
and in debt' fled from Saul to David. [485] Wherefore these [foes of
ours] in like manner desire to kill such as conceal themselves, that
no evidence may exist to convict them of their wickedness. But in this
also these misguided men most egregiously deceive themselves: for the
more obvious the effort to elude them, the more manifestly will their
deliberate slaughters and exiles be exposed. If they act the part of
assassins, the voice of the blood which is shed will cry against them
the louder: and if they condemn to banishment, they will raise so
everywhere living monuments of their own injustice and oppression.
Surely unless their intellects were unsound they would perceive the
dilemma in which their own counsels entangle them. But since they have
lost sound judgment, their folly is exposed when they vanish, and when
they seek to stay they do not see their wickedness. [486] But if they
reproach those who succeed in secreting themselves from the malice of
their blood-thirsty adversaries, and revile such as flee from their
persecutors, what will they say to Jacob's retreat from the rage of
his brother Esau, [487] and to Moses [488] retiring into the land of
Midian for fear of Pharaoh? And what apology will these babblers make
for David's [489] flight from Saul, when he sent messengers from his
own house to dispatch him; and for his concealment in a cave, after
contriving to extricate himself from the treacherous designs of
Abimelech, [490] by feigning madness? What will these reckless
asserters of whatever suits their purpose answer, when they are
reminded of the great prophet Elijah, [491] who by calling upon God
had recalled the dead to life, hiding himself from dread of Ahab, and
fleeing on account of Jezebel's menaces? At which time the sons of the
prophets also, being sought for in order to be slain, withdrew, and
were concealed in caves by Obadiah; [492] or are they unacquainted
with these instances because of their antiquity? Have they forgotten
also what is recorded in the Gospel, that the disciples retreated and
hid themselves for fear of the Jews? [493] Paul, [494] when sought for
by the governor [of Damascus] `was let down from the wall in a basket,
and thus escaped the hands of him that sought him.' Since then
Scripture relates these circumstances concerning the saints, what
excuse can they fabricate for their temerity? If they charge us with
`cowardice,' it is in utter insensibility to the condemnation it
pronounces on themselves. If they asperse these holy men by asserting
that they acted contrary to the will of God, they demonstrate their
ignorance of Scripture. For it was commanded in the Law that `cities
of refuge' should be constituted, [495] by which provision was made
that such as were pursued in order to be put to death might have means
afforded of preserving themselves. Again in the consummation of the
ages, when the Word of the Father, who had before spoken by Moses,
came himself to the earth, he gave this express injunction, `When they
persecute you in one city, flee unto another:' [496] and shortly
after, `When therefore ye shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (let
whosoever reads, understand), then let those in Judea flee unto the
mountains: let him that is on the house-top not come down to take
anything out of his house; nor him that is in the fields return to
take his clothes.' [497] The saints therefore knowing these precepts,
had such a sort of training for their action: for what the Lord then
commanded, he had before his coming in the flesh already spoken of by
his servants. And this is a universal rule for man, leading to
perfection, `to practice whatever God has enjoined.' On this account
the Word himself, becoming incarnate for our sake, deigned to conceal
himself when he was sought for; [498] and being again persecuted,
condescended to withdraw to avoid the conspiracy against him. For thus
it became him, by hungering and thirsting and suffering other
afflictions, to demonstrate that he was indeed made man. [499] For at
the very commencement, as soon as he was born, he gave this direction
by an angel to Joseph: `Arise and take the young child and his mother,
and flee into Egypt, for Herod will seek the infant's life.' [500] And
after Herod's death, it appears that for fear of his son Archelaus he
retired to Nazareth. Subsequently, when he gave unquestionable
evidence of his Divine character by healing the withered hand, `when
the Pharisees took council how they might destroy him, [501] Jesus
knowing their wickedness withdrew himself thence.' Moreover, when he
had raised Lazarus from the dead, and they had become still more
intent on destroying him, [we are told that] `Jesus walked no more
openly among the Jews, [502] but retired into a region on the borders
of the desert.' Again when the Saviour said, `Before Abraham was, I
am;' [503] and the Jews took up stones to cast at him; Jesus concealed
himself, and going through the midst of them out of the Temple, went
away thence, and so escaped. Since then they see these things, or
rather understand them, [504] (for they will not see,) are they not
deserving of being burnt with fire, according to what is written, for
acting and speaking so plainly contrary to all that the Lord did and
taught? Finally, when John had suffered martyrdom, and his disciples
had buried his body, Jesus having heard what was done, departed thence
by ship into a desert place apart. [505] Now the Lord did these things
and so taught. But would that these men of whom I speak, had the
modesty to confine their rashness to men only, without daring to be
guilty of such madness as to accuse the Saviour himself of
`cowardice'; especially after having already uttered blasphemies
against him. But even if they be insane they will not be tolerated and
their ignorance of the gospels be detected by every one. The cause for
retreat and flight under such circumstances as these is reasonable and
valid, of which the evangelists have afforded us precedents in the
conduct of our Saviour himself: from which it may be inferred that the
saints have always been justly influenced by the same principle, since
whatever is recorded of him as man, is applicable to mankind in
general. For he took on himself our nature, and exhibited in himself
the affections of our infirmity, which John has thus indicated: `Then
they sought to take him; but no man laid hands on him, because his
hour was not yet come.' [506] Moreover, before that hour came, he
himself said to his mother, `Mine hour is not yet come;' [507] and to
those who were denominated his brethren, `My time is not yet come.'
Again when the time had arrived, he said to his disciples, `Sleep on
now, and take your rest: for behold the hour is at hand, and the Son
of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners.' [508] ... So
[509] that he neither permitted himself to be apprehended before the
time came; nor when the time was come did he conceal himself, but
voluntarily gave himself up to those who had conspired against him.
[510] ... Thus also the blessed martyrs have guarded themselves in
times of persecution: being persecuted they fled, and kept themselves
concealed; but being discovered they suffered martyrdom.
Such is the reasoning of Athanasius in his apology for his own flight.
Footnotes
[483] Athan. de Fuga. 7.
[484] Matt. x. 23.
[485] 2 Kings xxii. 2 (LXX).
[486] Athanas. de Fuga. 10.
[487] Gen. xxviii.
[488] Ex. ii. 15.
[489] 1 Sam. xix. 12.
[490] Rather Achisch, king of Gath, 1 Sam. xxi. 10.
[491] 1 Kings xix. 3.
[492] 1 Kings xviii. 4.
[493] Matt. xxvi. 56.
[494] 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33.
[495] Num. xxxv. 11.
[496] Matt. x. 23.
[497] Matt. xxiv. 15-18.
[498] John viii. 59.
[499] Abbreviated from Athanasius.
[500] Matt. ii. 13, 22.
[501] Matt. xii. 14, 15.
[502] John xi. 53, 54.
[503] John viii. 58.
[504] Matt. xiii. 13; Isa. ix. 5.
[505] Matt. xiv. 12, 13.
[506] John vii. 30.
[507] John ii. 4; iii. 6.
[508] Matt. xxvi. 45.
[509] Athan. de Fuga. 15.
[510] Athan. de Fuga. 22.
Chapter IX.--After the Synod of Alexandria, Eusebius proceeding to
Antioch finds the Catholics at Variance on Account of Paulinus'
Consecration; and having exerted himself in vain to reconcile them, he
departs; Indignation of Lucifer and Origin of a Sect called after him.
As soon as the council of Alexandria was dissolved, Eusebius bishop of
Vercellæ went from Alexandria to Antioch; there finding that Paulinus
had been ordained by Lucifer, and that the people were disagreeing
among themselves,--for the partisans of Meletius held their assemblies
apart,--he was exceedingly grieved at the want of harmony concerning
this election, and in his own mind disapproved of what had taken
place. His respect for Lucifer however induced him to be silent about
it, and on his departure he engaged that all things should be set
right by a council of bishops. Subsequently he labored with great
earnestness to unite the dissentients, but did not succeed. Meanwhile
Meletius returned from exile; and finding his followers holding their
assemblies apart from the others, he set himself at their head. But
Euzoïus, the chief of the Arian heresy, had possession of the
churches: Paulinus [511] only retained a small church within the city,
from which Euzoïus had not ejected him, on account of his personal
respect for him. But Meletius assembled his adherents without the
gates of the city. It was under these circumstances that Eusebius left
Antioch at that time. When Lucifer understood that his ordination of
Paul was not approved of by Eusebius, regarding it as an insult, he
became highly incensed; and not only separated himself from communion
with him, but also began, in a contentious spirit, to condemn what had
been determined by the Synod. These things occurring at a season of
grievous disorder, alienated many from the church; for many attached
themselves to Lucifer, and thus a distinct sect arose under the name
of `Luciferians.' [512] Nevertheless Lucifer was unable to give full
expression to his anger, inasmuch as he had pledged himself by his
deacon to assent to whatever should be decided on by the Synod.
Wherefore he adhered to the tenets of the church, and returned to
Sardinia to his own see: but such as at first identified themselves
with his quarrel, still continue separate from the church. Eusebius,
on the other hand, traveling throughout the Eastern provinces like a
good physician, completely restored those who were weak in the faith,
instructing and establishing them in ecclesiastical principles. After
this he passed over to Illyricum, and thence to Italy, where he
pursued a similar course.
Footnotes
[511] V. 5.
[512] Cf. Sozom. III. 15, and V. 12.
Chapter X.--Of Hilary Bishop of Poictiers.
There, however, Hilary bishop of Poictiers (a city of Aquitania
Secunda) had anticipated him, having previously confirmed the bishops
of Italy and Gaul in the doctrines of the orthodox faith; for he first
had returned from exile to these countries. Both therefore nobly
combined their energies in defense of the faith: and Hilary being a
very eloquent man, maintained with great power the doctrine of the
homoousion in books which he wrote in Latin. In these he gave
sufficient support [to the doctrine] and unanswerably confuted the
Arian tenets. These things took place shortly after the recall of
those who had been banished. But it must be observed, that at the same
time Macedonius, Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius, with all their
partisans, who had but the one common designation Macedonians, held
frequent Synods in various places. [513] Having called together those
of Seleucia who embraced their views, they anathematized the bishops
of the other party, that is the Acacian: and rejecting the creed of
Ariminum, they confirmed that which had been read at Seleucia. This,
as I have stated in the preceding book, [514] was the same as had been
before promulgated at Antioch. When they were asked by some one, `Why
have ye, who are called Macedonians hitherto, retained communion with
the Acacians, as though ye agreed in opinion, if ye really hold
different sentiments?' they replied thus, through Sophronius, bishop
of Pompeiopolis, a city of Paphlagonia: `Those in the West,' said he,
`were infected with the homoousian error as with a disease: Aëtius in
the East adulterated the purity of the faith by introducing the
assertion of a dissimilitude of substance. Now both of these dogmas
are illegitimate; for the former rashly blended into one the distinct
persons of the Father and the Son, binding them together by that cord
of iniquity the term homoousion; while Aëtius wholly separated that
affinity of nature of the Son to the Father, by the expression
anomoion, unlike as to substance or essence. Since then both these
opinions run into the very opposite extremes, the middle course
between them appeared to us to be more consistent with truth and
piety: we accordingly assert that the Son is "like the Father as to
subsistence."'
Such was the answer the Macedonians made by Sophronius to that
question, as Sabinus assures us in his Collection of the Synodical
Acts. But in decrying Aëtius as the author of the Anomoion doctrine,
and not Acacius, they flagrantly disguise the truth, in order to seem
as far removed from the Arians on the one side, as from the
Homoousians on the other: for their own words convict them of having
separated from them both, merely from the love of innovation. With
these remarks we close our notice of these persons.
Footnotes
[513] Sozom. V. 14; Theodoret, Hæret. Fabul. IV.
[514] II. 10. 39.
Chapter XI.--The Emperor Julian extracts Money from the Christians.
Although at the beginning of his reign the Emperor Julian conducted
himself mildly toward all men; but as he went on he did not continue
to show the same equanimity. He most readily indeed acceded to the
requests of the Christians, when they tended in any way to cast odium
on the memory of Constantius; but when this inducement did not exist,
he made no effort to conceal the rancorous feelings which he
entertained towards Christians in general. Accordingly he soon ordered
that the church of the Novatians at Cyzicus, which Euzoïus had totally
demolished, should be rebuilt, imposing a very heavy penalty upon
Eleusius bishop of that city, if he failed to complete that structure
at his own expense within the space of two months. Moreover, he
favored the pagan superstitions with the whole weight of his
authority: and the temples of the heathen were opened, as we have
before stated; [515] but he himself also publicly offered sacrifices
to Fortune, goddess of Constantinople, in the cathedral, [516] where
her image was erected.
Footnotes
[515] Chap. 1.
[516] basilike. On the origin and history of the term, see Bennett,
Christian Archæology, pp. 157-163. The special basilica meant here was
situated, according to Valesius, in the fourth precinct, and alone
called basilike, or `cathedral' without qualification. The `Theodosian
cathedral' was situated in the seventh ward.
Chapter XII.--Of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon; Julian forbids Christians
from entering Literary Pursuits.
About this time, Maris bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia being led by
the hand into the emperor's presence,--for on account of extreme old
age he had a disease in his eyes termed `cataract,'--severely rebuked
his impiety, apostasy, and atheism. Julian answered his reproaches by
loading him with contumelious epithets: and he defended himself by
words calling him `blind.' `You blind old fool,' said he, `this
Galilæan God of yours will never cure you.' For he was accustomed to
term Christ `the Galilæan,' [517] and Christians Galilæans. Maris with
still greater boldness replied, `I thank God for bereaving me of my
sight, that I might not behold the face of one who has fallen into
such awful impiety.' The emperor suffered this to pass without farther
notice at that time; but he afterwards had his revenge. Observing that
those who suffered martyrdom under the reign of Diocletian were
greatly honored by the Christians, and knowing that many among them
were eagerly desirous of becoming martyrs, he determined to wreak his
vengeance upon them in some other way. Abstaining therefore from the
excessive cruelties which had been practiced under Diocletian; he did
not however altogether abstain from persecution (for any measures
adopted to disquiet and molest I regard as persecution). This then was
the plan he pursued: he enacted a law [518] by which Christians were
excluded from the cultivation of literature; `lest,' said he, `when
they have sharpened their tongue, they should be able the more readily
to meet the arguments of the heathen.'
Footnotes
[517] Cf. John i. 46, and Acts ii. 7. Later the word was used by the
heathen also, contemptuously, as a term of reproach.
[518] Chap. 16.
Chapter XIII.--Of the Outrages committed by the Pagans against the
Christians.
He moreover interdicted such as would not abjure Christianity, and
offer sacrifice to idols, from holding any office at court: nor would
he allow Christians to be governors of provinces; `for,' said he,
`their law forbids them to use the sword against offenders worthy of
capital punishment.' [519] He also induced many to sacrifice, partly
by flatteries, and partly by gifts. Immediately, as if tried in a
furnace, it at once became evident to all, who were the real
Christians, and who were merely nominal ones. Such as were Christians
in integrity of heart, very readily resigned their commission, [520]
choosing to endure anything rather than deny Christ. Of this number
were Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens, each of whom afterwards became
emperor. But others of unsound principles, who preferred the riches
and honor of this world to the true felicity, sacrificed without
hesitation. Of these was Ecebolius, a sophist [521] of Constantinople
who, accommodating himself to the dispositions of the emperors,
pretended in the reign of Constantius to be an ardent Christian; while
in Julian's time he appeared an equally vigorous pagan: and after
Julian's death, he again made a profession of Christianity. For he
prostrated himself before the church doors, and called out, `Trample
on me, for I am as salt that has lost its savor.' Of so fickle and
inconstant a character was this person, throughout the whole period of
his history. About this time the emperor wishing to make reprisals on
the Persians, for the frequent incursions they had made on the Roman
territories in the reign of Constantius, marched with great expedition
through Asia into the East. But as he well knew what a train of
calamities attend a war, and what immense resources are needful to
carry it on successfully and that without it cannot be carried on, he
craftily devised a plan for collecting money by extorting it from the
Christians. On all those who refused to sacrifice he imposed a heavy
fine, which was exacted with great rigor from such as were true
Christians, every one being compelled to pay in proportion to what he
possessed. By these unjust means the emperor soon amassed immense
wealth; for this law was put in execution, both where Julian was
personally present, and where he was not. The pagans at the same time
assailed the Christians; and there was a great concourse of those who
styled themselves `philosophers.' They then proceeded to institute
certain abominable mysteries; [522] and sacrificing pure children both
male and female, they inspected their entrails, and even tasted their
flesh. These infamous rites were practiced in other cities, but more
particularly at Athens and Alexandria; in which latter place, a
calumnious accusation was made against Athanasius the bishop, the
emperor being assured that he was intent on desolating not that city
only, but all Egypt, and that nothing but his expulsion out of the
country could save it. The governor of Alexandria was therefore
instructed by an imperial edict to apprehend him.
Footnotes
[519] Based, probably, on Matt. xxvi. 52, and John xviii. 11.
[520] zonen apetithento ; literally, `put off their girdle,' as the
badge of office.
[521] The term was used first by traveling teachers of rhetoric at the
time of the philosopher Socrates as descriptive of their profession;
and although it later acquired an unfavorable significance, it
continued to be used also as a professional name given to teachers of
rhetoric, as here.
[522] Cf. Tertull. Apol. IX. `In the bosom of Africa infants were
publicly sacrificed to Saturn, even to the days of a proconsul under
Tiberius,' &c.
Chapter XIV.--Flight of Athanasius.
But he fled again, saying to his intimates, `Let us retire for a
little while, friends; it is but a small cloud which will soon pass
away.' He then immediately embarked, and crossing the Nile, hastened
with all speed into Egypt, closely pursued by those who sought to take
him. When he understood that his pursuers were not far distant, his
attendants were urging him to retreat once more into the desert, but
he had recourse to an artifice and thus effected his escape. He
persuaded those who accompanied him to turn back and meet his
adversaries, which they did immediately; and on approaching them they
were simply asked `where they had seen Athanasius': to which they
replied that `he was not a great way off,' and, that `if they hastened
they would soon overtake him.' Being thus deluded, they started afresh
in pursuit with quickened speed, but to no purpose; and Athanasius
making good his retreat, returned secretly to Alexandria; and there he
remained concealed until the persecution was at an end. Such were the
perils which succeeded one another in the career of the bishop of
Alexandria, these last from the heathen coming after that to which he
was before subjected from Christians. In addition to these things, the
governors of the provinces taking advantage of the emperor's
superstition to feed their own cupidity, committed more grievous
outrages on the Christians than their sovereign had given them a
warrant for; sometimes exacting larger sums of money than they ought
to have done, and at others inflicting on them corporal punishments.
The emperor learning of these excesses, connived at them; and when the
sufferers appealed to him against their oppressors, he tauntingly
said, `It is your duty to bear these afflictions patiently; for this
is the command of your God.'
Chapter XV.--Martyrs at Merum in Phrygia, under Julian.
Amachius governor of Phrygia ordered that the temple at Merum, a city
of that province, should be opened, and cleared of the filth which had
accumulated there by lapse of time: also that the statues it contained
should be polished fresh. This in being put into operation grieved the
Christians very much. Now a certain Macedonius and Theodulus and
Tatian, unable to endure the indignity thus put upon their religion,
and impelled by a fervent zeal for virtue, rushed by night into the
temple, and broke the images in pieces. The governor infuriated at
what had been done, would have put to death many in that city who were
altogether innocent, when the authors of the deed voluntarily
surrendered themselves, choosing rather to die themselves in defense
of the truth, than to see others put to death in their stead. The
governor seized and ordered them to expiate the crime they had
committed by sacrificing: on their refusal to do this, their judge
menaced them with tortures; but they despising his threats, being
endowed with great courage, declared their readiness to undergo any
sufferings, rather than pollute themselves by sacrificing. After
subjecting them to all possible tortures he at last laid them on
gridirons under which a fire was placed, and thus slew them. But even
in this last extremity they gave the most heroic proofs of fortitude,
addressing the ruthless governor thus: `If you wish to eat broiled
flesh, Amachius, turn us on the other side also, lest we should appear
but half cooked to your taste.' Thus these martyrs ended their life.
Chapter XVI.--Of the Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the
Emperor's Prohibition of Christians being instructed in Greek
Literature.
The imperial law [523] which forbade Christians to study Greek
literature, rendered the two Apollinares of whom we have above spoken,
much more distinguished than before. For both being skilled in polite
learning, the father as a grammarian, and the son as a rhetorician,
they made themselves serviceable to the Christians at this crisis. For
the former, as a grammarian, composed a grammar consistent with the
Christian faith: he also translated the Books of Moses into heroic
verse; and paraphrased all the historical books of the Old Testament,
putting them partly into dactylic measure, and partly reducing them to
the form of dramatic tragedy. He purposely employed all kinds of
verse, that no form of expression peculiar to the Greek language might
be unknown or unheard of amongst Christians. The younger Apollinaris,
who was well trained in eloquence, expounded the gospels and apostolic
doctrines in the way of dialogue, as Plato among the Greeks had done.
Thus showing themselves useful to the Christian cause they overcame
the subtlety of the emperor through their own labors. But Divine
Providence was more potent than either their labors, or the craft of
the emperor: for not long afterwards, in the manner we shall hereafter
explain, [524] the law became wholly inoperative; and the works of
these men are now of no greater importance, than if they had never
been written. But perhaps some one will vigorously reply saying: `On
what grounds do you affirm that both these things were effected by the
providence of God? That the emperor's sudden death was very
advantageous to Christianity is indeed evident: but surely the
rejection of the Christian compositions of the two Apollinares, and
the Christians beginning afresh to imbue their minds with the
philosophy of the heathens, this works out no benefit to Christianity,
for pagan philosophy teaches Polytheism, and is injurious to the
promotion of true religion.' This objection I shall meet with such
considerations as at present occur to me. Greek literature certainly
was never recognized either by Christ or his Apostles as divinely
inspired, nor on the other hand was it wholly rejected as pernicious.
And this they did, I conceive, not inconsiderately. For there were
many philosophers among the Greeks who were not far from the knowledge
of God; and in fact these being disciplined by logical science,
strenuously opposed the Epicureans and other contentious Sophists who
denied Divine Providence, confuting their ignorance. And for these
reasons they have become useful to all lovers of real piety:
nevertheless they themselves were not acquainted with the Head of true
religion, being ignorant of the mystery of Christ which `had been
hidden from generations and ages.' [525] And that this was so, the
Apostle in his epistle to the Romans thus declares: [526] `For the
wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown
it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead, that they may be without excuse;
because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God.' From
these words it appears that they had the knowledge of truth, which God
had manifested to them; but were guilty on this account, that when
they knew God, they glorified him not as God. Wherefore by not
forbidding the study of the learned works of the Greeks, they left it
to the discretion of those who wished to do so. This is our first
argument in defense of the position we took: another may be thus put:
The divinely inspired Scriptures undoubtedly inculcate doctrines that
are both admirable in themselves, and heavenly in their character:
they also eminently tend to produce piety and integrity of life in
those who are guided by their precepts, pointing out a walk of faith
which is highly approved of God. But they do not instruct us in the
art of reasoning, by means of which we may be enabled successfully to
resist those who oppose the truth. Besides adversaries are most easily
foiled, when we can use their own weapons against them. But this power
was not supplied to Christians by the writings of the Apollinares.
Julian had this in mind when he by law prohibited Christians from
being educated in Greek literature, for he knew very well that the
fables it contains would expose the whole pagan system, of which he
had become the champion to ridicule and contempt. Even Socrates, the
most celebrated of their philosophers, despised these absurdities, and
was condemned on account of it, as if he had attempted to violate the
sanctity of their deities. Moreover, both Christ and his Apostle
enjoin us `to become discriminating money-changers,' [527] so that we
might `prove all things, and hold fast that which is good': [528]
directing us also to `beware lest any one should spoil us through
philosophy and vain deceit.' [529] But this we cannot do, unless we
possess ourselves of the weapons of our adversaries: taking care that
in making this acquisition we do not adopt their sentiments, but
testing them, reject the evil, but retain all that is good and true:
for good wherever it is found, is a property of truth. Should any one
imagine that in making these assertions we wrest the Scriptures from
their legitimate construction, let it be remembered that the Apostle
not only does not forbid our being instructed in Greek learning, but
that he himself seems by no means to have neglected it, inasmuch as he
knows many of the sayings of the Greeks. Whence did he get the saying,
`The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow-bellies,' [530] but
from a perusal of The Oracles of Epimenides, [531] the Cretan
Initiator? Or how would he have known this, `For we are also his
offspring,' [532] had he not been acquainted with The Phenomena of
Aratus [533] the astronomer? Again this sentence, `Evil communications
corrupt good manners,' [534] is a sufficient proof that he was
conversant with the tragedies of Euripides. [535] But what need is
there of enlarging on this point? It is well known that in ancient
times the doctors of the church by unhindered usage were accustomed to
exercise themselves in the learning of the Greeks, until they had
reached an advanced age: this they did with a view to improve
themselves in eloquence and to strengthen and polish their mind, and
at the same time to enable them to refute the errors of the heathen.
Let these remarks be sufficient in the subject suggested by the two
Apollinares.
Footnotes
[523] Cf. Sozom. V. 18; also above, II. 46.
[524] Chap. 21.
[525] Col. i. 26.
[526] Rom. i. 18-21.
[527] On this extra-Scriptural saying attributed to Jesus Christ, see
n. 54, Introd, p. xi.
[528] 1 Thess. v. 21.
[529] Col. ii. 8.
[530] Tit. i. 12.
[531] Cf. Theophrastus, VII. x. and Diogenes Lærtius, I. x. The latter
gives a list of Epimenides' works, but makes no mention of any
`Oracles.' Socrates must have used this term in a more general sense
therefore, and meant some collection of obscure and mystical writings.
He also calls Epimenides an `Initiator,' because, according to the
testimony of Theophrastus, he was versed particularly in lustration
and coruscation.
[532] Acts xvii. 28.
[533] Fabricius, Bibl. Græc. II. p. 451 seq.
[534] 1 Cor. xv. 33.
[535] Menander, and not Euripides, is the only author to whom this
line can be traced (see Tertull. ad Uxor. 1. 8, and Meineke, Fragm.
Comic. Græc. Vol. IV. p. 132), but it may have been a popular proverb,
or even originally a composition of Euripides, which Menander simply
used.
Chapter XVII.--The Emperor preparing an Expedition against the
Persians, arrives at Antioch, and being ridiculed by the Inhabitants,
he retorts on them by a Satirical Publication entitled `Misopogon, or
the Beard-Hater.'
The emperor having extorted immense sums of money from the Christians,
hastening his expedition against the Persians, arrived at Antioch in
Syria. There, desiring to show the citizens how much he affected
glory, he unduly depressed the prices of commodities; neither taking
into account the circumstances of that time, nor reflecting how much
the presence of an army inconveniences the population of the
provinces, and of necessity lessens the supply of provisions to the
cities. The merchants and retailers [536] therefore left off trading,
being unable to sustain the losses which the imperial edict entailed
upon them; consequently the necessaries failed. The Antiochians not
bearing the insult,--for they are a people naturally impatient with
insult,--instantly broke forth into invectives against Julian;
caricaturing his beard also, which was a very long one, and saying
that it ought to be cut off and manufactured into ropes. They added
that the bull which was impressed upon his coin, was a symbol of his
having desolated the world. For the emperor, being excessively
superstitious, was continually sacrificing bulls [537] on the altars
of his idols; and had ordered the impression of a bull and altar to be
made on his coin. Irritated by these scoffs, he threatened to punish
the city of Antioch, and returned to Tarsus in Cilicia, giving orders
that preparations should be made for his speedy departure thence.
Whence Libanius the sophist took occasion to compose two orations, one
addressed to the emperor in behalf of the Antiochians, the other to
the inhabitants of Antioch on the emperor's displeasure. It is however
affirmed that these compositions were merely written, and never
recited in public. Julian abandoning his former purpose of revenging
himself on his satirists by injurious deeds, expended his wrath in
reciprocating their abusive taunts; for he wrote a pamphlet against
them which he entitled Antiochicus, or Misopogon, thus leaving an
indelible stigma upon that city and its inhabitants. But we must now
speak of the evils which he brought upon the Christians at Antioch.
Footnotes
[536] metaboleis . Cf. metabole, used to designate all merchandising,
Julius Pollux, III. 25; hence metaboleus , a `retailer,' `small
merchant.'
[537] Hence Gregory of Nazianus calls him kausitauros , `a burner of
bulls.'
Chapter XVIII.--The Emperor consulting an Oracle, the Demon gives no
Response, being awed by the Nearness of Babylas the Martyr.
Having ordered that the pagan temples at Antioch should be opened, he
was very eager to obtain an oracle from Apollo of Daphne. But the
demon that inhabited the temple remained silent through fear of his
neighbor, Babylas [538] the martyr; for the coffin which contained the
body of that saint was close by. When the emperor was informed of this
circumstance, he commanded that the coffin should be immediately
removed: upon which the Christians of Antioch, including women and
children, transported the coffin from Daphne to the city, with solemn
rejoicings and chanting of psalms. The psalms [539] were such as cast
reproach on the gods of the heathen, and those who put confidence in
them and their images.
Footnotes
[538] See Euseb. H. E. VI. 20 and 39; also Chrysostom, de S. Babyl.
According to these authorities Babylas was bishop of Antioch,
succeeding Sabrinus, and was beheaded in prison during the reign of
Decius. His remains were transferred to a church built over against
the temple of Apollo of Daphne (Sozom. V. 19) by Gallus, Julian's
brother.
[539] Ps. xcvi. 7 (LXX).
Chapter XIX.--Wrath of the Emperor, and Firmness of Theodore the
Confessor.
Then indeed the emperor's real temper and disposition, which he had
hitherto kept as much as possible from observation, became fully
manifested: for he who had boasted so much of his philosophy, was no
longer able to restrain himself; but being goaded almost to madness by
these reproachful hymns, he was ready to inflict the same cruelties on
the Christians, with which Diocletian's agents had formerly visited
them. Since, however, his solicitude about the Persian expedition
afforded him no leisure for personally executing his wishes, he
commanded Sallust the Prætorian Prefect to seize those who had been
most conspicuous for their zeal in psalm-singing, in order to make
examples of them. The prefect, though a pagan, was far from being
pleased with his commission; but since he durst not contravene it, he
caused several of the Christians to be apprehended, and some of them
to be imprisoned. One young man named Theodore, whom the heathens
brought before him, he subjected to a variety of tortures, causing his
person to be so lacerated and only released him from further
punishment when he thought that he could not possibly outlive the
torments: yet God preserved this sufferer, so that he long survived
that confession. Rufinus, the author of the Ecclesiastical History
written in Latin, states that he himself conversed with the same
Theodore a considerable time afterwards: and enquired of him whether
in the process of scourging and racking he had not felt the most
intense pains; his answer was, that he felt the pain of the tortures
to which he was subjected for a very short time; and that a young man
stood by him who both wiped off the sweat which was produced by the
acuteness of the ordeal through which he was passing, and at the same
time strengthened his mind, so that he rendered this time of trial a
season of rapture rather than of suffering. Let this suffice
concerning the most wonderful Theodore. About this time Persian
ambassadors came to the emperor, requesting him to terminate the war
on certain express conditions. But Julian abruptly dismissed them,
saying, `You shall very shortly see me in person, so that there will
be no need of an embassy.'
Chapter XX.--The Jews instigated by the Emperor attempt to rebuild
their Temple, and are frustrated in their Attempt by Miraculous
Interposition.
The emperor in another attempt to molest the Christians exposed his
superstition. Being fond of sacrificing, he not only himself delighted
in the blood of victims, but considered it an indignity offered to
him, if others did not do likewise. And as he found but few persons of
this stamp, he sent for the Jews and enquired of them why they
abstained from sacrificing, since the law of Moses enjoined it? On
their replying that it was not permitted them to do this in any other
place than Jerusalem, he immediately ordered them to rebuild Solomon's
temple. Meanwhile he himself proceeded on his expedition against the
Persians. The Jews who had been long desirous of obtaining a favorable
opportunity for rearing their temple afresh in order that they might
therein offer sacrifice, applied themselves very vigorously to the
work. Moreover, they conducted themselves with great insolence toward
the Christians, and threatened to do them as much mischief, as they
had themselves suffered from the Romans. The emperor having ordered
that the expenses of this structure should be defrayed out of the
public treasury, all things were soon provided, such as timber and
stone, burnt brick, clay, lime, and all other materials necessary for
building. On this occasion Cyril bishop of Jerusalem, called to mind
the prophecy of Daniel, which Christ also in the holy gospels has
confirmed, and predicted in the presence of many persons, that the
time had indeed come `in which one stone should not be left upon
another in that temple,' but that the Saviour's prophetic declaration
[540] should have its full accomplishment. Such were the bishop's
words: and on the night following, a mighty earthquake tore up the
stones of the old foundations of the temple and dispersed them all
together with the adjacent edifices. Terror consequently possessed the
Jews on account of the event; and the report of it brought many to the
spot who resided at a great distance: when therefore a vast multitude
was assembled, another prodigy took place. Fire came down from heaven
and consumed all the builders' tools: so that the flames were seen
preying upon mallets, irons to smooth and polish stones, saws,
hatchets, adzes, in short all the various implements which the workmen
had procured as necessary for the undertaking; and the fire continued
burning among these for a whole day. The Jews indeed were in the
greatest possible alarm, and unwillingly confessed Christ, calling him
God: yet they did not do his will; but influenced by inveterate
prepossessions they still clung to Judaism. Even a third miracle which
afterwards happened failed to lead them to a belief of the truth. For
the next night luminous impressions of a cross appeared imprinted on
their garments, which at daybreak they in vain attempted to rub or
wash out. They were therefore `blinded' as the apostle says, [541] and
cast away the good which they had in their hands: and thus was the
temple, instead of being rebuilt, at that time wholly overthrown.
Footnotes
[540] Matt. xxiv. 2, 15.
[541] Rom. xi. 25; 2 Cor. iii. 14.
Chapter XXI.--The Emperor's Invasion of Persia, and Death.
The emperor meanwhile invaded the country of the Persians a little
before spring, having learnt that the races of Persia were greatly
enfeebled and totally spiritless in winter. For from their inability
to endure cold, they abstain from military service at that season, and
it has become a proverb that `a Mede will not then draw his hand from
underneath his cloak.' And well knowing that the Romans were inured to
brave all the rigors of the atmosphere he let them loose on the
country. After devastating a considerable tract of country, including
numerous villages and fortresses, they next assailed the cities; and
having invested the great city Ctesiphon, he reduced the king of the
Persians to such straits that the latter sent repeated embassies to
the emperor, offering to surrender a portion of his dominions, on
condition of his quitting the country, and putting an end to the war.
But Julian was unaffected by these submissions, and showed no
compassion to a suppliant foe: nor did he think of the adage, `To
conquer is honorable, but to be more than conqueror gives occasion for
envy.' Giving credit to the divinations of the philosopher Maximus,
with whom he was in continual intercourse, he was deluded into the
belief that his exploits would not only equal, but exceed those of
Alexander of Macedon; so that he spurned with contempt the entreaties
of the Persian monarch. He even supposed in accordance with the
teachings of Pythagoras and Plato on `the transmigration of souls,'
[542] that he was possessed of Alexander's soul, or rather that he
himself was Alexander in another body. This ridiculous fancy deluded
and caused him to reject the negotiations for peace proposed by the
king of the Persians. Wherefore the latter convinced of the
uselessness of them was constrained to prepare for conflict, and
therefore on the next day after the rejection of his embassy, he drew
out in order of battle all the forces he had. The Romans indeed
censured their prince, for not avoiding an engagement when he might
have done so with advantage: nevertheless they attacked those who
opposed them, and again put the enemy to flight. The emperor was
present on horseback, and encouraged his soldiers in battle; but
confiding simply in his hope of success, he wore no armor. In this
defenceless state, a dart cast by some one unknown, pierced through
his arm and entered his side, making a wound. In consequence of this
wound he died. Some say that a certain Persian hurled the javelin, and
then fled; others assert that one of his own men was the author of the
deed, which indeed is the best corroborated and most current report.
But Callistus, one of his body-guards, who celebrated this emperor's
deeds in heroic verse, says in narrating the particulars of this war,
that the wound of which he died was inflicted by a demon. This is
possibly a mere poetical fiction, or perhaps it was really the fact;
for vengeful furies have undoubtedly destroyed many persons. Be the
case however as it may, this is certain, that the ardor of his natural
temperament rendered him incautious, his learning made him vain, and
his affectation of clemency exposed him to contempt. Thus Julian ended
his life in Persia, [543] as we have said, in his fourth consulate,
[544] which he bore with Sallust his colleague. This event occurred on
the 26th of June, in the third year of his reign, and the seventh from
his having been created Cæsar by Constantius, he being at that time in
the thirty-first year of his age.
Footnotes
[542] metensomatoseos , lit. `exchange of bodies,' formed in analogy
with metempsuchosis and logically inseparable from that doctrine.
[543] Theodoret, H. E. III. 25, gives the familiar version of the
death of Julian, according to which, on perceiving the character of
his wound, the dying emperor filled his hand with blood and threw it
up into the air, crying, `Galilean, thou hast overcome!'
[544] 363 a.d.
Chapter XXII.--Jovian is proclaimed Emperor.
The soldiery being thrown into extreme perplexity by an event so
unexpected, and without delay, on the following day proclaimed Jovian
emperor, a person alike distinguished for his courage and birth. He
was a military tribune when Julian put forth an edict giving his
officers the option of either sacrificing or resigning their rank in
the army, and chose rather to lay down his commission, [545] than to
obey the mandate of an impious prince. Julian, however, being pressed
by the urgency of the war which was before him, retained him among his
generals. On being saluted emperor, he positively declined to accept
the sovereign power: and when the soldiers brought him forward by
force, he declared that `being a Christian, he did not wish to reign
over a people who chose to adopt paganism as their religion.' They all
then with one voice answered that they also were Christians: upon
which he accepted the imperial dignity. Perceiving himself suddenly
left in very difficult circumstances, in the midst of the Persian
territory, where his army was in danger of perishing for want of
necessaries, he agreed to terminate the war, even on terms by no means
honorable to the glory of the Roman name, but rendered necessary by
the exigencies of the crisis. Submitting therefore to the loss of the
government of Syria, [546] and giving up also Nisibis, a city of
Mesopotamia, he withdrew from their territories. The announcement of
these things gave fresh hope to the Christians; while the pagans
vehemently bewailed Julian's death. Nevertheless the whole army
reprobated his intemperate heat, and ascribed to his rashness in
listening to the wily reports of a Persian deserter, the humiliation
of ceding the territories lost: for being imposed upon by the
statements of this fugitive, he was induced to burn the ships which
supplied them with provisions by water, by which means they were
exposed to all the horrors of famine. Then also Libanius composed a
funeral oration on him, which he designated Julianus, or Epitaph,
wherein he celebrates with lofty encomiums almost all his actions; but
in referring to the books which Julian wrote against the Christians,
he says that he has therein clearly demonstrated the ridiculous and
trifling character of their sacred books. Had this sophist contented
himself with extolling the emperor's other acts, I should have quietly
proceeded with the course of my history; but since this famous
rhetorician has thought proper to take occasion to inveigh against the
Scriptures of the Christian faith, we also propose to pause a little
and in a brief review consider his words.
Footnotes
[545] See above, chap. 13.
[546] So the mss. and Bright. The same reading was also before
Epiphanius Scholasticus and Nicephorus; but Valesius conjecturally
amends the reading tous Surous tes arches into tous horous tes arches,
alleging that Socrates himself later mentions the loss as zemian ton
horon. If the reading of Valesius be considered correct, then we must
translate `submitting to the loss of the borders,' supplying `of the
empire.' This would include the districts beyond the Tigris.
Chapter XXIII.--Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said
concerning Julian.
`When the winter,' says he, [547] `had lengthened the nights, the
emperor made an attack on those books which made the man of Palestine
both God, and the Son of God: and by a long series of arguments having
proved that these writings, which are so much revered by Christians,
are ridiculous and unfounded, he has evinced himself wiser and more
skillful than the Tyrian [548] old man. But may this Tyrian sage be
propitious to me, and mildly bear with what has been affirmed, seeing
that he has been excelled by his son!' Such is the language of
Libanius the Sophist. But I confess, indeed, that he was an excellent
rhetorician, but am persuaded that had he not coincided with the
emperor in religious sentiment, he would not only have given
expression to all that has been said against him by Christians, but
would have magnified every ground of censure as naturally becomes a
rhetorician. For while Constantius was alive he wrote encomiums upon
him; but after his death he brought the most insulting and reproachful
charges against him. So that if Porphyry had been emperor, Libanius
would certainly have preferred his books to Julian's: and had Julian
been a mere sophist, he would have termed him a very indifferent one,
as he does Ecebolius in his Epitaph upon Julian. Since then he has
spoken in the spirit of a pagan, a sophist, and the friend of him whom
he lauded, we shall endeavor to meet what he has advanced, as far as
we are able. In the first place he says that the emperor undertook to
`attack' these books during the long winter nights. Now to `attack'
means to make the writing of a confutation of them a task, as the
sophists commonly do in teaching the rudiments of their art; for he
had perused these books long before, but attacked them at this time.
But throughout the long contest into which he entered, instead of
attempting to disprove anything by sound reasoning, as Libanius
asserts, in the absence of truth he had recourse to sneers and
contemptuous jests, of which he was excessively fond; and thus he
sought to hold up to derision what is too firmly established to be
overthrown. For every one who enters into controversy with another,
sometimes trying to pervert the truth, and at others to conceal it,
falsifies by every possible means the position of his antagonist. And
an adversary is not satisfied with doing malignant acts against one
with whom he is at variance, but will speak against him also, and
charge upon the object of his dislike the very faults he is conscious
of in himself. That both Julian and Porphyry, whom Libanius calls the
`Tyrian old man,' took great delight in scoffing, is evident from
their own works. For Porphyry in his History of the Philosophers has
treated with ridicule the life of Socrates, the most eminent of all
the philosophers, making such remarks on him as neither Melitus, nor
Anytus, his accusers, would have dared to utter; of Socrates, I say,
who was admired by all the Greeks for his modesty, justice, and other
virtues; whom Plato, [549] the most admirable among them, Xenophon,
and the rest of the philosophic band, not only honor as one beloved of
God, but also are accustomed to think of as having been endowed with
superhuman intelligence. And Julian, imitating his `father,' displayed
a like morbidness of mind in his book, entitled The Cæsars, wherein he
traduces all his imperial predecessors, not sparing even Mark the
philosopher. [550] Their own writings therefore show that they both
took pleasure in taunts and reviling; and I have no need of profuse
and clever expressions to do this; but what has been said is enough
concerning their mood in this respect. Now I write these things, using
the oration of each as witnesses respecting their dispositions, but of
Julian in particular, what Gregory of Nazianzus [551] says in his
Second Oration against the Pagans is in the following terms:
`These things were made evident to others by experience, after the
possession of imperial authority had left him free to follow the bent
of his inclinations: but I had foreseen it all, from the time I became
acquainted with him at Athens. Thither he came, by permission of the
emperor, soon after the change in his brother's fortune. His motive
for this visit was twofold: one reason was honorable to him, viz. to
see Greece, and attend the schools there; the other was a more secret
one, which few knew anything about, for his impiety had not yet
presumed to openly avow itself, viz. to have opportunity of consulting
the sacrificers and other impostors respecting his own destiny. I well
remember that even then I was no bad diviner concerning this person,
although I by no means pretend to be one of those skilled in the art
of divination: but the fickleness of his disposition, and the
incredible extravagancy of his mind, rendered me prophetic; if indeed
he is the "best prophet who conjectures correctly" [552] events. For
it seemed to me that no good was portended by a neck seldom steady,
the frequent shrugging of shoulders, an eye scowling and always in
motion, together with a frenzied aspect; a gait irregular and
tottering, a nose breathing only contempt and insult, with ridiculous
contortions of countenance expressive of the same thing; immoderate
and very loud laughter, nods as it were of assent, and drawings back
of the head as if in denial, without any visible cause; speech with
hesitancy and interrupted by his breathing; disorderly and senseless
questions, answers no better, all jumbled together without the least
consistency or method. Why need I enter into minute particulars? Such
I foresaw he would be beforehand as I found him afterwards from
experience. And if any of those who were then present and heard me,
were now here, they would readily testify that when I observed these
prognostics I exclaimed, "Ah! how great a mischief to itself is the
Roman empire fostering!" And that when I had uttered these words I
prayed God that I might be a false prophet. For it would have been far
better [that I should have been convicted of having formed an
erroneous judgment], than that the world should be filled with so many
calamities, and that such a monster should have appeared as never
before had been seen: although many deluges and conflagrations are
recorded, many earthquakes and chasms, and descriptions are given of
many ferocious and inhuman men, as well as prodigies of the brute
creation, compounded of different races, of which nature produced
unusual forms. His end has indeed been such as corresponds with the
madness of his career.'
This is the sketch which Gregory has given us of Julian. Moreover,
that in their various compilations they have endeavored to do violence
to the truth, sometimes by the corruption of passages of sacred
Scripture, at others by either adding to the express words, and
putting such a construction upon them as suited their own purpose,
many have demonstrated, by confuting their cavils, and exposing their
fallacies. Origen in particular, who lived long before Julian's time,
by himself raising objections to such passages of Holy Scripture [553]
as seemed to disturb some readers, and then fully meeting them, has
shut out the invidious clamors of the thoughtless. And had Julian and
Porphyry given his writings a candid and serious perusal, they would
have discoursed on other topics, and not have turned to the framing of
blasphemous sophisms. It is also very obvious that the emperor in his
discourses was intent on beguiling the ignorant, and did not address
himself to those who possess the `form' of the truth as it is
presented in the sacred Scriptures. For having grouped together
various expressions in which God is spoken of dispensationally, and
more according to the manner of men, he thus comments on them. [554]
`Every one of these expressions is full of blasphemy against God,
unless the phrase contains some occult and mysterious sense, which
indeed I can suppose.' This is the exact language he uses in his third
book against the Christians. But in his treatise On the Cynic
Philosophy, where he shows to what extent fables may be invented on
religious subjects, he says that in such matters the truth must be
veiled: `For,' to quote his very words, [555] `Nature loves
concealment; and the hidden substance of the gods cannot endure being
cast into polluted ears in naked words.' From which it is manifest
that the emperor entertained this notion concerning the divine
Scriptures, that they are mystical discourses, containing in them some
abstruse meaning. He is also very indignant because all men do not
form the same opinion of them; and inveighs against those Christians
who understand the sacred oracles in a more literal sense. But it ill
became him to rail so vehemently against the simplicity of the vulgar,
and on their account to behave so arrogantly towards the sacred
Scriptures: nor was he warranted in turning with aversion from those
things which others rightly apprehended, because forsooth they
understood them otherwise than he desired they should. But now as it
seems a similar cause of disgust seems to have operated upon him to
that which affected Porphyry, who having been beaten by some
Christians at Cæsarea in Palestine and not being able to endure [such
treatment], from the working of unrestrained rage renounced the
Christian religion: and from hatred of those who had beaten him he
took to write blasphemous works against Christians, as Eusebius
Pamphilus has proved who at the same time refuted his writings. So the
emperor having uttered disdainful expressions against the Christians
in the presence of an unthinking multitude, through the same morbid
condition of mind fell into Porphyry's blasphemies. Since therefore
they both willfully broke forth into impiety, they are punished by the
consciousness of their guilt. But when Libanius the Sophist says [556]
in derision, that the Christians make `a man of Palestine both God and
the Son of God,' he appears to have forgotten that he himself has
deified Julian at the close of his oration. `For they almost killed,'
says he, `the first messenger of his death, as if he had lied against
a god.' And a little afterwards he adds, `O thou cherished one of the
gods! thou disciple of the gods! thou associate [557] with the gods!'
Now although Libanius may have meant otherwise, yet inasmuch as he did
not avoid the ambiguity of a word which is sometimes taken in a bad
sense, he seems to have said the same things as the Christians had
done reproachfully. If then it was his intention to praise him, he
ought to have avoided equivocal terms; as he did on another occasion,
when being criticised he avoided a certain word, cutting it out of his
works. Moreover, that man in Christ was united to the Godhead, so that
while he was apparently but man, he was the invisible God, and that
both these things are most true, the divine books of Christians
distinctly teach. But the heathen before they believe, cannot
understand: for it is a divine oracle that declares [558] `Unless ye
believe, assuredly ye shall not understand.' Wherefore they are not
ashamed to place many men among the number of their gods: and would
that they had done this, at least to the good, just, and sober,
instead of the impure, unjust, and those addicted to drunkenness, like
the Hercules, the Bacchus, and the Æsculapius, by whom Libanius does
not blush to swear frequently in his orations. And were I to attempt
to enumerate the unnatural debaucheries and infamous adulteries of
these, the digression would be lengthened beyond measure: but for
those who desire to be informed on the subject, Aristotle's Peplum,
Dionysius' Corona, Rheginus' Polymnemon, and the whole host of poets
will be enough to show that the pagan theology is a tissue of
extravagant absurdities. We might indeed show by a variety of
instances that the practice of deifying human beings was far from
uncommon among the heathen, nay, that they did so without the
slightest hesitation: let a few examples suffice. The Rhodians having
consulted an oracle on some public calamity, a response was given
directing them to pay their adoration to Atys, a pagan priest who
instituted frantic rites in Phrygia. The oracle was thus expressed:
`Atys propitiate, the great god, the chaste Adonis, the blessed
fair-haired Dionysius rich in gifts.'
Here Atys, who from an amatory mania had castrated himself, is by the
oracle designated as Adonis and Bacchus.
Again, when Alexander, king of the Macedonians, passed over into Asia,
the Amphictyons courted his favor, and the Pythoness uttered this
oracle:
`To Zeus supreme among the gods, and Athene Tritogenia pay homage, and
to the king divine concealed in mortal form, him Zeus begat in honor
to be the protector and dispenser of justice among mortals, Alexander
the king.'
These are the words of the demon at Delphi, who when he wished to
flatter potentates, did not scruple to assign them a place among the
gods. The motive here was perhaps to conciliate by adulation: but what
could one say of the case of Cleomedes the pugilist, whom they ranked
among the gods in this oracle?
`The last of the heroes is Cleomedes, the Astypalian. Him honor with
sacrifices; for he is no longer a mortal.'
Because of this oracle Diogenes the cynic, and Oënomaus the
philosopher, strongly condemned Apollo. The inhabitants of Cyzicus
declared Hadrian to be the thirteenth god; and Adrian himself deified
his own catamite Antinoüs. [559] Libanius does not term these
`ridiculous and contemptible absurdities,' although he was familiar
with these oracles, as well as with the work of Adrias on the life of
Alexander [560] (the pseudo-prophet of Paphlagonia): nor does he
himself hesitate to dignify Porphyry in a similar manner, when after
having preferred Julian's books to his, he says, `May the Syrian be
propitious to me.' This digression will suffice to repel the scoffs of
the sophist, without following him farther in what he has advanced;
for to enter into a complete refutation would require an express work.
We shall therefore proceed with our history.
Footnotes
[547] Liban. Orat. xviii. (Opera, i. Reiske).
[548] Porphyry. See above, I. 9.
[549] In his Crito, Phædo, Phædrus, and Apology of Socrates. See also
Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates and Symposium.
[550] Marcus Aurelius.
[551] Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. V. 23.
[552] Euripid. Fragm.
[553] Probably Socrates means Origen's lost work, known as Stromata,
which Jerome (in his Ep. ad Magnum) says was written to show the
harmony of the Christian doctrines and the teachings of the
philosophers. The description here given does not tally more precisely
with any other work of Origen now extant.
[554] Cyril, Contra Julian. III. (p. 93, ed. Spanheim).
[555] Julian, Orat. VII.
[556] Liban. Orat. XVIII. (Oper. I. 625, Reiske).
[557] paredreuta , term applied to associates on the bench in
judicatories.
[558] Isa. vii. 9 (LXX, kai en me pisteusete, oude me sunete).
[559] For a full account of Antinoüs and his relations to Hadrian, see
Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Biogr. and Mythol., article Antinoüs.
The story has been put into literary fiction in the historical novels
Antinoüs, by George Taylor (A. Hausrath), and The Emperor, by Georg
Ebers.
[560] It is uncertain what the true reading should be here. In one of
the mss. it is 'Adrias, in another 'Andrias; according to others
;;Adrianos, or 'Arrianos. Valesius suggests the substitution of
Loukianos . If this be adopted, then the Alexander suggested is
Lucian's Alexander of Abonoteichus. For a lucid and suggestive
reproduction of this story, see Froude, Short Studies on Great
Subjects, essay on Lucian.
Chapter XXIV.--The Bishops flock around Jovian, each attempting to
draw him to his own Creed.
Jovian having returned from Persia, ecclesiastical commotions were
again renewed: for those who presided over the churches endeavored to
anticipate each other, in the hope that the emperor would attach
himself to their own tenets. He however had from the beginning adhered
to the homoousian faith, and openly declared that he preferred this to
all others. Moreover, he wrote letters to and encouraged Athanasius
bishop of Alexandria, who immediately after Julian's death had
recovered the Alexandrian church, and at that time gaining confidence
from the letters [spoken of] put away all fear. The emperor further
recalled from exile all those prelates whom Constantius had banished,
and who had not been re-established by Julian. Moreover, the pagan
temples were again shut up, and they secreted themselves wherever they
were able. The philosophers also laid aside their palliums, and
clothed themselves in ordinary attire. That public pollution by the
blood of victims, which had been profusely lavished even to disgust in
the reign of Julian, was now likewise taken away.
Chapter XXV.--The Macedonians and Acacians meet at Antioch, and
proclaim their Assent to the Nicene Creed.
Meanwhile the state of the church was by no means tranquil; for the
heads of the sects assiduously paid their court to the emperor their
king that protection for themselves meant also power against their
acknowledged opponents. And first the Macedonians presented a petition
to him, in which they begged that all those who asserted the Son to be
unlike the Father, might be expelled from the churches, and themselves
allowed to take their place. This supplication was presented by Basil
bishop of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis,
Pasinicus of Zelæ, [561] Leontius of Comana, Callicrates of
Claudiopolis, and Theophilus of Castabala. The emperor having perused
it, dismissed them without any other answer than this: `I abominate
contentiousness; but I love and honor those who exert themselves to
promote unanimity.' When this remark became generally known, it
subdued the violence of those who were desirous of altercation and
thus was realized in the design of the emperor. At this time the real
spirit of the Acacian sect, and their readiness to accommodate their
opinions to those invested with supreme authority, became more
conspicuous than ever. For assembling themselves at Antioch in Syria,
they entered into a conference with Melitius, who had separated from
them a little before, and embraced the `homoousian' opinion. This they
did because they saw Melitius was in high estimation with the emperor,
who then resided at Antioch; and assenting therefore by common
consent, they drew up a declaration of their sentiments acknowledging
the homoousion and ratifying the Nicene Creed and presented it to the
emperor. It was expressed in the following terms.
`The Synod of bishops convened at Antioch out of various provinces, to
the most pious and beloved of God, our lord Jovian Victor Augustus.
`That your piety has above all things aimed at establishing the peace
and harmony of the church, we ourselves, most devout emperor, are
fully aware. Nor are we insensible that you have wisely judged an
acknowledgment of the orthodox faith to be the sum and substance of
this unity. Wherefore lest we should be included in the number of
those who adulterate the doctrine of the truth, we hereby declare to
your piety that we embrace and steadfastly hold the faith of the holy
Synod formerly convened at Nicæa. Especially since the term
homoousios, which to some seems novel [562] and inappropriate, has
been judiciously explained by the fathers to denote that the Son was
begotten of the Father's substance, and that he is like the Father as
to substance. Not indeed that any passion is to be understood in
relation to that ineffable generation. Nor is the term ousia,
"substance," taken by the fathers in any usual signification of it
among the Greeks; but it has been employed for the subversion of what
Arius impiously dared to assert concerning Christ, viz.--that he was
made of things "not existing." Which heresy the Anomoeans, who have
lately sprung up, still more audaciously maintain, to the utter
destruction of ecclesiastical unity. We have therefore annexed to this
our declaration, a copy of the faith set forth by the bishops
assembled at Nicæa, with which also we are fully satisfied. It is
this: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty," and all the rest of
the Creed in full. We, the undersigned, in presenting this statement,
most cordially assent to its contents. Melitius bishop of Antioch,
Eusebius of Samosata, Evagrius of Sicily, Uranius of Apamæa, Zoilus of
Larissa, Acacius of Cæsarea, Antipater of Rhosus, Abramius of Urimi,
[563] Aristonicus of Seleucia-upon-Belus, Barlamenus of Pergamus,
Uranius of Melitina, Magnus of Chalcedon, Eutychius of Eleutheropolis,
Isacocis of Armenia Major, Titus of Bostra, Peter of Sippi, [564]
Pelagius of Laodicæa, Arabian of Antros, Piso of Adana through
Lamydrion a presbyter, Sabinian bishop of Zeugma, Athanasius of Ancyra
through Orphitus and Aëtius presbyters, Irenion bishop of Gaza, Piso
of Augusta, Patricius of Paltus through Lamyrion a presbyter,
Anatolius bishop of Beroea, Theotimus of the Arabs, and Lucian of
Arca.' [565]
This declaration we found recorded in that work of Sabinus, entitled A
Collection of the Acts of Synods. Now the emperor had resolved to
allay if possible the contentious spirit of the parties at variance,
by bland manners and persuasive language toward them all; declaring
that he `would not molest any one on account of his religious
sentiments, and that he should love and highly esteem such as would
zealously promote the unity of the church.' The philosopher Themistius
attests that such was his conduct, in the oration he composed on his
`consulate.' For he extols the emperor for his overcoming the wiles of
flatterers by freely permitting every one to worship God according to
the dictates of his conscience. And in allusion to the check which the
sycophants received, he facetiously observes [566] that experience has
made it evident that such persons `worship the purple and not God; and
resemble the changeful Euripus, [567] which sometimes rolls its waves
in one direction, and at others the very opposite way.'
Footnotes
[561] The mss. and all the Greek texts read Zenon, making the name
`Pasinicus Zenon, or Zeno.' The translation here given assumes the
alteration in the process of transcription of a single letter making
the original Zelon, which probably means the city of Zeleia, on the
southeastern coast of the Euxine, famous for a victory of Mithridates
over Triarius, the lieutenant of Lucullus, in 67 b.c.
[562] This word, whose original is xenon, is inserted by Valesius. If
it were omitted, the translation would be, `which to some seems
acceptable.'
[563] On the present borders of Turkey and Persia.
[564] According to Valesius Hippi.
[565] The name of this city is variously given as Archis, Arca, Arcæ,
Arcas, Arcæa, Arcena. It lies at the foot of Mount Lebanon. See
Joseph. Antiq. V. 1 and de Bello, XII. 13.
[566] Themist. Orat. V. (p. 80, ed. Harduin).
[567] Straits between Euboea and the mainland.
Chapter XXVI.--Death of the Emperor Jovian.
Thus did the emperor repress at that time the impetuosity of those who
were disposed to cavil: and immediately departing from Antioch, he
went to Tarsus in Cilicia, where he duly performed the funeral
obsequies of Julian, after which he was declared consul. Proceeding
thence directly to Constantinople, he arrived at a place named
Dadastana, situated on the frontiers of Galatia and Bithynia. There
Themistius the philosopher, with others of the senatorial order, met
him, and pronounced the consular oration before him, which he
afterwards recited before the people at Constantinople. And indeed the
Roman empire, blest with so excellent a sovereign, would doubtless
have flourished exceedingly, as it is likely that both the civil and
ecclesiastical departments would have been happily administered, had
not his sudden death bereft the state of so eminent a personage. For
disease caused by some obstruction, having attacked him at the place
above mentioned during the winter season, he died there on the 17th
day of February, in his own and his son Varronian's consulate, [568]
in the thirty-third year of his age, after having reigned seven
months.
This book contains an account of the events which took place in the
space of two years and five months.
Footnotes
[568] 364 a.d.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/earlychv.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE1@mb-soft.com
The main BELIEVE web-page (and index to subjects) is at:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/