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 V.
Introduction.
Before we begin the fifth book of our history, we must beg those who
may peruse this treatise, not to censure us too hastily because having
set out to write a church history we still intermingle with
ecclesiastical matters, such an account of the wars which took place
during the period under consideration, as could be duly authenticated.
For this we have done for several reasons: first, in order to lay
before our readers an exact statement of facts; but secondly, in order
that the minds of the readers might not become satiated with the
repetition of the contentious disputes of bishops, and their insidious
designs against one another; but more especially that it might be made
apparent, that whenever the affairs of the state were disturbed, those
of the Church, as if by some vital sympathy, became disordered also.
[677] Indeed whoever shall attentively examine the subject will find,
that the mischiefs of the state, and the troubles of the church have
been inseparably connected; for he will perceive that they have either
arisen together, or immediately succeeded one another. Sometimes the
affairs of the Church come first in order; then commotions in the
state follow, and sometimes the reverse, so that I cannot believe this
invariable interchange is merely fortuitous, but am persuaded that it
proceeds from our iniquities; and that these evils are inflicted upon
us as merited chastisements, if indeed as the apostle truly says,
`Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and
some men they follow after.' [678] For this reason we have interwoven
many affairs of the state with our ecclesiastical history. Of the wars
carried on during the reign of Constantine we have made no mention,
having found no account of them that could be depended upon because of
their iniquity: but of subsequent events, as much information as we
could gather from those still living [679] in the order of their
occurrence, we have passed in rapid review. We have continually
included the emperors in these historical details; because from the
time they began to profess the Christian religion, the affairs of the
Church have depended on them, so that even the greatest Synods have
been, and still are convened by their appointment. Finally, we have
particularly noticed the Arian heresy, because it has so greatly
disquieted the churches. Let these remarks be considered sufficient in
the way of preface: we shall now proceed with our history.
Footnotes
[677] The views here expressed show a crude conception of the vital
relation between church and state. The very tone of apology which
tinges their expression is based on a misconception of the idea of
history. But Socrates was not below his age in this respect. See
Introd., p. xiii.
[678] 1 Tim. v. 24.
[679] For the risks of this method, see IV. 31 and note.
Chapter I.--After the Death of Valens the Goths again attack
Constantinople, and are repulsed by the Citizens, aided by Some
Saracen Auxiliaries.
After the Emperor Valens had thus lost his life, in a manner which has
never been satisfactorily ascertained, [680] the barbarians again
approached the very walls of Constantinople, and laid waste the
suburbs on every side of it. Whereat the people becoming indignant
armed themselves with whatever weapons they could severally lay hands
on, and sallied forth of their own accord against the enemy. The
empress Dominica caused the same pay to be distributed out of the
imperial treasury to such as volunteered to go out on this service, as
was usually allowed to soldiers. A few Saracens also assisted the
citizens, being confederates, who had been sent by Mavia their queen:
the latter we have already mentioned. [681] In this way the people
having fought at this time, the barbarians retired to a great distance
from the city.
Footnotes
[680] See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. 26.
[681] Cf. IV. 36.
Chapter II.--The Emperor Gratian recalls the Orthodox Bishops, and
expels the Heretics from the Churches. He takes Theodosius as his
Colleague in the Empire.
Gratian being now in possession of the empire, together with
Valentinian the younger, and condemning the cruel policy of his uncle
Valens towards the [orthodox] Christians, recalled those whom he had
sent into exile. He moreover enacted that persons of all sects,
without distinction, might securely assemble together in their
churches; and that only the Eunomians, [682] Photinians, [683] and
Manichæans [684] should be excluded from the churches. Being also
sensible of the languishing condition of the Roman empire, and of the
growing power of the barbarians and perceiving that the state was in
need of a brave and prudent man, he took Theodosius as his colleague
in the sovereign power. This [Theodosius] was descended from a noble
family in Spain, and had acquired so distinguished a celebrity for his
prowess in the wars, that he was universally considered worthy of
imperial dignity, even before Gratian's election of him. Having
therefore proclaimed him emperor at Sirmium a city of Illyricum in the
consulate [685] of Ausonius and Olybrius, on the 16th of January, he
divided with him the care of managing the war against the barbarians.
Footnotes
[682] Cf. IV. 7.
[683] Cf. II. 18.
[684] Cf. I. 22.
[685] 379 a.d.
Chapter III.--The Principal Bishops who flourished at that Time.
Now at this time Damasus who had succeeded Liberius then presided over
the church at Rome. Cyril was still in possession of that at
Jerusalem. The Antiochian church, as we have stated, was divided into
three parts: for the Arians had chosen Dorotheus as the successor of
their bishop Euzoïus; while one portion of the rest was under the
government of Paulinus, and the others ranged themselves with
Melitius, who had been recalled from exile. Lucius, although absent,
having been compelled to leave Alexandria, yet maintained the
episcopal authority among the Arians of that city; the Homoousians
there being headed by Timothy, who succeeded Peter. At Constantinople
Demophilus the successor of Eudoxius presided over the Arian faction,
and was in possession of the churches; but those who were averse to
communion with him held their assemblies apart. [686]
Footnotes
[686] Cf. IV. I.
Chapter IV.--The Macedonians, who had subscribed the `Homoousian'
Doctrine, return to their Former Error.
After the deputation from the Macedonians to Liberius, that sect was
admitted to entire communion with the churches in every city,
intermixing themselves indiscriminately with those who from the
beginning had embraced the form of faith published at Nicæa. But when
the law of the Emperor Gratian permitted the several sects to reunite
without restraint in the public services of religion, they again
resolved to separate themselves; and having met at Antioch in Syria,
they decided to avoid the word homoousios again, and in no way to hold
communion with the supporters of the Nicene Creed. They however
derived no advantage from this attempt; for the majority of their own
party being disgusted at the fickleness with which they sometimes
maintained one opinion, and then another, withdrew from them, and
thenceforward became firm adherents of those who professed the
doctrine of the homoousion. [687]
Footnotes
[687] For an account of this deputation and their feigned subscription
to the Nicene Creed, through which they prevailed upon Liberius to
receive them into the communion of the church, see IV. 12.
Chapter V.--Events at Antioch in Connection with Paulinus and
Meletius.
About this time a serious contest was excited at Antioch in Syria, on
account of Melitius. We have already observed [688] that Paulinus,
bishop of that city, because of his eminent piety was not sent into
exile: and that Melitius after being restored by Julian, was again
banished by Valens, and at length recalled in Gratian's reign. [689]
On his return to Antioch, he found Paulinus greatly enfeebled by old
age; his partisans therefore immediately used their utmost endeavors
to get him associated with that bishop in the episcopal office. And
when Paulinus declared that `it was contrary to the canons [690] to
take as a coadjutor one who had been ordained by the Arians,' the
people had recourse to violence, and caused him to be consecrated in
one of the churches without the city. When this was done, a great
disturbance arose; but afterwards the people were brought to unite on
the following stipulations. Having assembled such of the clergy as
might be considered worthy candidates for the bishopric, they found
them six in number, of whom Flavian was one. All these they bound by
an oath, not to use any effort to get themselves ordained, when either
of the two bishops should die, but to permit the survivor to retain
undisturbed possession of the see of the deceased. [691] Thus pledges
were given, and the people had peace and so no longer quarreled with
one another. The Luciferians, [692] however, separated themselves from
the rest, because Melitius who had been ordained by the Arians was
admitted to the episcopate. In this state of the Antiochian church,
Melitius was under the necessity of going to Constantinople.
Footnotes
[688] Cf. III. 9, and IV. 2.
[689] See above, chap. 3.
[690] In its eighth canon the Council of Nicæa, looking forward to the
reconciliation of such Novatians or Cathari as might desire to return
to the Catholic Church, enjoins that `when in villages or in cities
there are found only clergy of their own sect (Cathari), the oldest of
these clerics shall remain among the clergy, and in their position;
but if a Catholic priest or bishop be found among them, it is evident
that the bishop of the Catholic Church should preserve the episcopal
dignity whilst any one who has received the title of bishop from the
so-called Cathari would only have a right to the honors accorded to
priests, unless the bishop thinks it right to let him enjoy the honor
of the title. If he does not desire to do so let him give him the
place of rural bishop (chorepiscopus) or priest, in order that he may
appear to be altogether a part of the clergy, and that there may not
be two bishops in the same city.' Cf. Hefele, Hist. of the Councils,
Vol. I. p. 410; Bingham, Christ. Antiq. II. 13. 1 and 2.
[691] Theodoret (H. E. V. 3) gives a different account of the way in
which the dispute between Melitius and Paulinus came to an end, giving
the glory to Melitius for the eirenic overture above described, and
representing Paulinus as constrained to accept it against his will by
the political head of the community.
[692] Cf. III. 9; Sozom. III. 15, and V. 12.
Chapter VI.--Gregory of Nazianzus is transferred to the See of
Constantinople. The Emperor Theodosius falling Sick at Thessalonica,
after his Victory over the Barbarians, is there baptized by Ascholius
the Bishop.
By the common suffrage of many bishops, Gregory was at this time
translated from the see of Nazianzus to that of Constantinople, [693]
and this happened in the manner before described. About the same time
the emperors Gratian and Theodosius each obtained a victory over the
barbarians. [694] And Gratian immediately set out for Gaul, because
the Alemanni were ravaging those provinces: but Theodosius, after
erecting a trophy, hastened towards Constantinople, and arrived at
Thessalonica. There he was taken dangerously ill, and expressed a
desire to receive Christian baptism. [695] Now he had been instructed
in Christian principles by his ancestors, and professed the
`homoousian' faith. Becoming increasingly anxious to be baptized
therefore, as his malady grew worse, he sent for the bishop of
Thessalonica, and first asked him what doctrinal views he held? The
bishop having replied, `that the opinion of Arius had not yet invaded
the provinces of Illyricum, nor had the novelty to which that heretic
had given birth begun to prey upon the churches in those countries;
but they continued to preserve unshaken that faith which from the
beginning was delivered by the apostles, and had been confirmed in the
Nicene Synod,' the emperor was most gladly baptized by the bishop
Ascholius; and having recovered from his disease not many days after,
he came to Constantinople on the twenty-fourth of November, in the
fifth consulate of Gratian, and the first of his own. [696]
Footnotes
[693] So also Gregory Nazianz. Carmen de Vita Sua, 595. `The grace of
the Spirit sent us, many shepherds and members of the flock inviting.'
See, however, on Gregory's episcopate at Nazianzus, IV. 26 and note.
[694] Cf. Zosimus, IV.; Sozom. VII. 4; Am. Marcellinus, XXXI. 9 and
10.
[695] Cf. Zosimus, IV. 39, on the dangerous illness of Theodosius. On
delayed baptism, called `clinic,' see I. 39, note 2. Evidently baptism
was not thought essential to one's title to be called a Christian.
Theodosius and Constantine were both considered Christians and
`professed the homoousian faith, and yet they both postponed their
baptism to what they believed to be the latest moments of their
lives.'
[696] 380 a.d.
Chapter VII.--Gregory, finding Some Dissatisfaction about his
Appointment, abdicates the Episcopate of Constantinople. The Emperor
orders Demophilus the Arian Bishop either to assent to the
`Homoousion,' or leave the City. He chooses the Latter.
Now at that time Gregory of Nazianzus, after his translation to
Constantinople, held his assemblies within the city in a small
oratory, adjoining to which the emperors afterwards built a
magnificent church, and named it Anastasia. [697] But Gregory, who far
excelled in eloquence and piety all those of the age in which he
lived, understanding that some murmured at his preferment because he
was a stranger, after expressing his joy at the emperor's arrival,
resigned the bishopric of Constantinople. When the emperor found the
church in this state, he began to consider by what means he could make
peace, effect a union, and enlarge the churches. Immediately,
therefore, he intimated his desire to Demophilus, [698] who presided
over the Arian party; and enquired whether he was willing to assent to
the Nicene Creed, and thus reunite the people, and establish peace.
Upon Demophilus' declining to accede to this proposal, the emperor
said to him, `Since you reject peace and harmony, I order you to quit
the churches.' When Demophilus heard this, weighing with himself the
difficulty of contending against superior power, he convoked his
followers in the church, and standing in the midst of them, thus
spoke: `Brethren, it is written in the Gospel, [699] "If they
persecute you in one city, flee ye into another." Since therefore the
emperor needs the churches, take notice that we will henceforth hold
our assemblies without the city.' Having said this he departed; not
however as rightly apprehending the meaning of that expression in the
Evangelist, for the real import of the sacred oracle is that such as
would avoid the course of this world must seek the heavenly Jerusalem.
[700] He therefore went outside the city gates, and there in future
held his assemblies. With him also Lucius went out, who being ejected
from Alexandria, as we have before related, [701] had made his escape
to Constantinople, and there abode. Thus the Arians, after having been
in possession of the churches for forty years, were in consequence of
their opposition to the peace proposed by the emperor Theodosius,
driven out of the city, in Gratian's fifth consulate, [702] and the
first of Theodosius Angustus, on the 26th of November. The adherents
of the `homoousian' faith in this manner regained possession of the
churches.
Footnotes
[697] It appears from several places in Gregory's writings (cf. Somn.
de Anastasia, Ad Popul. Anast. and Carmen de Vita Sua, 1709) that he
himself had used the name of Anastasia in speaking of the church, so
that Socrates' statement that it was so called afterwards must be
taken as inaccurate. It also appears that Gregory gave the name
Anastasia to the house which he used as a church, and meant to signify
by the name (Anastation = Resurrection) the resurrection of the
orthodox community of Constantinople. It is possible, of course, that
Socrates here means that the emperors later adopted the name given by
Gregory on the occasion of building a large church in place of the
original chapel. See also on Gregory's stay at Constantinople Sozom.
VII. 5; Philostorgius, IX. 19; Theodoret, V. 8.
[698] Cf. Philostorgius, IX. 10 and 14, whence it appears that
Demophilus was the Arian bishop who succeeded Eudoxius in
Constantinople.
[699] Matt. x. 23.
[700] A specimen of allegorical interpretation due to the influence of
Origen. See Farrar, Hist. of Interpretation, p. 183 seq. For similar
cases of allegorizing, see Huet, Origeniana passim, and De la Rue,
Origenis Opera, App. 240-244.
[701] IV. 37.
[702] The same consulate as at the end of chap. 6; i.e. 380 a.d.
Chapter VIII.--A Synod consisting of One Hundred and Fifty Bishops
meets at Constantinople. The Decrees passed. Ordination of Nectarius.
The emperor making no delay summoned a Synod [703] of the prelates of
his own faith, in order that he might establish the Nicene Creed, and
appoint a bishop of Constantinople: and inasmuch as he was not without
hope that he might win the Macedonians over to his own views, he
invited those who presided over that sect to be present also. There
met therefore on this occasion of the Homoousian party, Timothy from
Alexandria, Cyril from Jerusalem, who at that time recognized the
doctrine of homoousion, [704] having retracted his former opinion;
Melitius from Antioch, he having arrived there previously to assist at
the installation of Gregory; Ascholius also from Thessalonica, and
many others, amounting in all to one hundred and fifty. Of the
Macedonians, the leaders were Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Marcian of
Lampsacus; these with the rest, most of whom came from the cities of
the Hellespont, were thirty-six in number. Accordingly they were
assembled in the month of May, under the consulate [705] of Eucharius
and Evagrius, and the emperor used his utmost exertions, in
conjunction with the bishops who entertained similar sentiments to his
own, to bring over Eleusius and his adherents to his own side. They
were reminded of the deputation they had sent by Eustathius to
Liberius [706] then bishop of Rome; that they had of their own accord
not long before entered into promiscuous communion with the orthodox;
and the inconsistency and fickleness of their conduct was represented
to them, in now attempting to subvert the faith which they once
acknowledged, and professed agreement with the catholics in. But they
paying little heed alike to admonitions and reproofs, chose rather to
maintain the Arian dogma, than to assent to the `homoousian' doctrine.
Having made this declaration, they departed from Constantinople;
moreover they wrote to their partisans in every city, and charged them
by no means to harmonize with the creed of the Nicene Synod. The
bishops of the other party remaining at Constantinople, entered into a
consultation about the ordination of a bishop; for Gregory, as we have
before said, [707] had resigned that see, and was preparing to return
to Nazianzus. Now there was a person named Nectarius, of a senatorial
family, mild and gentle in his manners, and admirable in his whole
course of life, although he at that time bore the office of proctor.
This man was seized upon by the people, and elected [708] to the
episcopate, and was ordained accordingly by one hundred and fifty
bishops then present. The same prelates moreover published a decree,
[709] prescribing `that the bishop of Constantinople should have the
next prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because that city
was New Rome.' They also again confirmed the Nicene Creed. Then too
patriarchs were constituted, and the provinces distributed, so that no
bishop might exercise any jurisdiction over other churches [710] out
of his own diocese: for this had been often indiscriminately done
before, in consequence of the persecutions. To Nectarius therefore was
allotted the great city and Thrace. Helladius, the successor of Basil
in the bishopric of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, obtained the patriarchate
of the diocese of Pontus in conjunction with Gregory Basil's brother,
bishop of Nyssa [711] in Cappadocia, and Otreïus bishop of Melitina in
Armenia. To Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia,
was the Asiatic diocese assigned. The superintendence of the churches
throughout Egypt was committed to Timothy of Alexandria. On Pelagius
of Laodicea, and Diodorus of Tarsus, devolved the administration of
the churches of the East; without infringement however on the
prerogatives of honor reserved to the Antiochian church, and conferred
on Melitius then present. They further decreed that as necessity
required it, the ecclesiastical affairs of each province should be
managed by a Synod of the province. These arrangements were confirmed
by the emperor's approbation. Such was the result of this Synod.
Footnotes
[703] Cf. parallel account in Sozom. VII. 7-9; Theodoret, H. E. V. 8.
The Synod of Constantinople was the second great oecumenical or
general council. Its title as an oecumenical council has not been
disputed, although no Western bishop attended. Baronius, however
(Annal. 381, notes 19, 20), attempts to prove, but unsuccessfully,
that Pope Damasus summoned the council. For a full account of the
council, see Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II. p. 340-374.
[704] Sozomen adds that Cyril was previously a follower of Macedonius,
and had changed his mind at this time. Cf. Sozom. VII. 7.
[705] 381 a.d.
[706] Cf. IV. 12.
[707] See above, chap. 7.
[708] See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. 2. 8 for other examples
illustrating this method of electing bishops.
[709] Canon 3 of the Synod; see Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol.
II. p. 357. The canon is given by Socrates entire and in the original
words. Valesius holds that the primacy conferred by this canon on the
Constantinopolitan see was one of honor merely, and involved no
prerogatives of patriarchal or metropolitan jurisdiction. For a full
discussion of its significance, see Hefele, as above. The Council of
Chalcedon in 451 confirmed the above action in the following words:
`We following in all things the decision of the Holy Fathers, and
acknowledging the canon of the one hundred and fifty bishops...do also
determine and decree the same things respecting the privileges of the
most holy city of Constantinople, New Rome. For the Fathers properly
gave the primacy to the throne of the elder Rome.' Canon 28.
[710] Canon 2. The words `patriarch,' however, and `patriarchate' are
not used in the canon. According to Sophocles (Greek Lexicon) the
modern sense of these words was introduced at the close of the fourth
century. Valesius holds that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council had
given sanction to the principle of patriarchal authority; but
Beveridge is of opinion that patriarchs were first constituted by the
second general council. Hefele takes substantially the same position
as Valesius. See discussion of the subject in Hefele, Hist. of the
Councils, Vol. I. p. 389 seq.
[711] Cf. IV. 27. On Gregory of Nyssa, one of the most prominent of
the ancient Fathers, see Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog.; Schaff,
Hist. of the Christ. Church, Vol. III. p. 903 et seq., and sources
mentioned in the work.
Chapter IX.--The Body of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, is honorably
transferred from his Place of Exile. Death of Meletius.
The emperor at that time caused to be removed from the city of Ancyra,
the body of the bishop Paul, whom Philip the prefect of the Prætorium
[712] had banished at the instigation of Macedonius, and ordered to be
strangled at Cucusus a town of Armenia, as I have already mentioned.
[713] He therefore received the remains with great reverence and
honor, and deposited in the church which now takes its name from him;
which the Macedonian party were formerly in possession of while they
remained separate from the Arians, but were expelled at that time by
the emperor, because they refused to adopt his sentiments. About this
period Melitius, bishop of Antioch, fell sick and died: in whose
praise Gregory, the brother of Basil, pronounced a funeral oration.
The body of the deceased bishop was by his friends conveyed to
Antioch; where those who had identified themselves with his interests
again refused subjection to Paulinus, but caused Flavian to be
substituted in the place of Melitius, and the people began to quarrel
anew. Thus again the Antiochian church was divided into rival
factions, not grounded on any difference of faith, but simply on a
preference of bishops.
Footnotes
[712] Constantine made an advance on his predecessors by dividing the
management of the empire among four prefects of the prætorium, which
they had committed to two officers of that name. These four were
apportioned as follows: one to the East, a second to Illyricum, a
third to Italy, and a fourth to Gaul. Each of these prefects had a
number of dioceses under him, and each diocese was a combination of
several provinces into one territory. In conformity with this model of
civil government the church abandoned gradually and naturally its
metropolitan administration of the provinces and adopted the diocesan.
The exact time of the change is, of course, uncertain, it having come
about gradually. It is safe, however, to put it between the Nicene and
Constantinopolitan councils. The Fathers in the latter of those
councils seem to find it in practical operation and confirm it (Cf.
Canon 2 of the councils), decreeing explicitly that it should be
unlawful for clerics to perform any office or transact any business in
their official character outside of the bounds of the diocese wherein
they were placed, just as it was unlawful for the civil officer to
intermeddle in any affair outside the limits of his civil diocese.
[713] II. 26.
Chapter X.--The Emperor orders a Convention composed of All the
Various Sects. Arcadius is proclaimed Augustus. The Novatians
permitted to hold their Assemblies in the City of Constantinople:
Other Heretics driven out.
Great disturbances occurred in other cities also, as the Arians were
ejected from the churches. But I cannot sufficiently admire the
emperor's prudence in this contingency. For he was unwilling to fill
the cities with disturbance, as far as this was dependent on him, and
so after a very short time [714] he called together a general
conference of the sects, thinking that by a discussion among their
bishops, their mutual differences might be adjusted, and unanimity
established. And this purpose of the emperor's I am persuaded was the
reason that his affairs were so prosperous at that time. In fact by a
special dispensation of Divine Providence the barbarous nations were
reduced to subjection under him: and among others, Athanaric king of
the Goths made a voluntary surrender of himself to him, [715] with all
his people, and died soon after at Constantinople. At this juncture
the emperor proclaimed his son Arcadius Augustus, on the sixteenth of
January, in the second consulate [716] of Merobaudes and Saturnilus.
Not long afterwards in the month of June, under the same consulate,
the bishops of every sect arrived from all places: the emperor,
therefore, sent for Nectarius the bishop, and consulted with him on
the best means of freeing the Christian religion from dissensions, and
reducing the church to a state of unity. `The subjects of
controversy,' said he, `ought to be fairly discussed, that by the
detection and removal of the sources of discord, a universal agreement
may be effected.' Hearing this proposition Nectarius fell into
uneasiness, and communicated it to Agelius bishop of the Novatians,
inasmuch as he entertained the same sentiments as himself in matters
of faith. This man, though eminently pious, was by no means competent
to maintain a dispute on doctrinal points; he therefore proposed to
refer the subject to Sisinnius [717] his reader, as a fit person to
manage a conference. Sisinnius, who was not only learned, but
possessed of great experience, and was well informed both in the
expositions of the sacred Scriptures and the principles of philosophy,
being convinced that disputations, far from healing divisions usually
create heresies of a more inveterate character, gave the following
advice to Nectarius, knowing well that the ancients have nowhere
attributed a beginning of existence to the Son of God, conceiving him
to be co-eternal with the Father, he advised that they should avoid
dialectic warfare and bring forward as evidences of the truth the
testimonies of the ancients. `Let the emperor,' said he, `demand of
the heads of each sect, whether they would pay any deference to the
ancients who flourished before schism distracted the church; or
whether they would repudiate them, as alienated from the Christian
faith? If they reject their authority, then let them also anathematize
them: and should they presume to take such a step, they would
themselves be instantly thrust out by the people, and so the truth
will be manifestly victorious. But if, on the other hand, they are not
willing to set aside the fathers, it will then be our business to
produce their books, by which our views will be fully attested.'
Nectarius having heard these words of Sisinnius, hastened to the
palace, and acquainted the emperor with the plan which had been
suggested to him; who at once perceiving its wisdom and propriety,
carried it into execution with consummate prudence. For without
discovering his object, he simply asked the chiefs of the heretics
whether they had any respect for and would accept the teachings of
those teachers who lived previous to the dissension in the church? As
they did not repudiate them, but replied that they highly revered them
as their masters; the emperor enquired of them again whether they
would defer to them as accredited witnesses of Christian doctrine? At
this question, the leaders of the several parties, with their logical
champions,--for many had come prepared for sophistical debate,--found
themselves extremely embarrassed. For a division was caused among them
as some acquiesced in the reasonableness of the emperor's proposition
while others shrunk from it, conscious that it was by no means
favorable to their interests: so that all being variously affected
towards the writings of the ancients, they could no longer agree among
themselves, dissenting not only from other sects, but those of the
same sect differing from one another. Accordant malice therefore, like
the tongue of the giants of old, was confounded, and their tower of
mischief overturned. [718] The emperor perceiving by their confusion
that their sole confidence was in subtle arguments, and that they
feared to appeal to the expositions of the fathers, had recourse to
another method: he commanded every sect to set forth in writing their
own peculiar tenets. Accordingly those who were accounted the most
skillful among them, drew up a statement of their respective creeds,
couched in terms the most circumspect they could devise; a day was
appointed, and the bishops selected for this purpose presented
themselves at the palace. Nectarius and Agelius appeared as the
defenders of the `homoousian' faith; Demophilus supported the Arian
dogma; Eunomius himself undertook the cause of the Eunomians; and
Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, represented the opinions of those who
were denominated Macedonians. The emperor gave them all a courteous
reception; and receiving from each their written avowal of faith, he
shut himself up alone, and prayed very earnestly that God would assist
him in his endeavors to ascertain the truth. Then perusing with great
care the statement which each had submitted to him, he condemned all
the rest, inasmuch as they introduced a separation of the Trinity, and
approved of that only which contained the doctrine of the homoousion.
This decision caused the Novatians to flourish again, and hold their
meetings within the city: for the emperor delighted with the agreement
of their profession with that which he embraced, promulgated a law
securing to them the peaceful possession of their own church
buildings, and assigned to their churches equal privileges with those
to which he gave his more especial sanction. But the bishops of the
other sects, on account of their disagreement among themselves, were
despised and censured even by their own followers: so that overwhelmed
with perplexity and vexation they departed, addressing consolatory
letters to their adherents, whom they exhorted not to be troubled
because many had deserted them and gone over to the homoousian party;
for they said, `Many are called, but few chosen' [719] --an expression
which they never used when on account of force and terror the majority
of the people was on their side. Nevertheless the orthodox believers
were not wholly exempt from inquietude; for the affairs of the
Antiochian church caused divisions among those who were present at the
Synod. The bishops of Egypt, Arabia and Cyprus, combined against
Flavian, and insisted on his expulsion from Antioch: but those of
Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria, contended with equal zeal in his
favor. What result issued from this contest I shall describe in its
proper place. [720]
Footnotes
[714] Socrates according to his custom omits all mention of events in
the Western Church. Some of them are quite important; e.g. the council
of Aquileia called by the Emperor Gratian. See Hefele, Hist. of Church
Councils, Vol. II. p. 375 seq.
[715] This was in 382 a.d. as appears from the Fasti of Idatius. Cf.
also Zosimus, IV. 34, and Jerome, Chronicon.
[716] 383 a.d.
[717] For a further account of Sisinnius, see VI. 22.
[718] Referring no doubt to the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of
its builders, Gen. xi. 8.
[719] Matt. xx. 16.
[720] Below, chap. 15.
Chapter XI.--The Emperor Gratian is slain by the Treachery of the
Usurper Maximus. From Fear of him Justina ceases persecuting Ambrose.
Nearly at the same time with the holding of these Synods at
Constantinople, the following events occurred in the Western parts.
Maximus, from the island of Britain, rebelled against the Roman
empire, and attacked Gratian, who was then wearied and exhausted in a
war with the Alemanni. [721] In Italy, Valentinian being still a
minor, Probus, a man of consular dignity, had the chief administration
of affairs, and was at that time prefect of the Prætorium. Justina,
the mother of the young prince, who entertained Arian sentiments, as
long as her husband lived had been unable to molest the Homoousians;
but going to Milan while her son was still young, she manifested great
hostility to Ambrose the bishop, and commanded that he should be
banished. [722] While the people from their excessive attachment to
Ambrose, were offering resistance to those who were charged with
taking him into exile, intelligence was brought that Gratian had been
assassinated by the treachery of the usurper Maximus. In fact
Andragathius, a general under Maximus, having concealed himself in a
litter resembling a couch, which was carried by mules, ordered his
guards to spread a report before him that the litter contained the
Emperor Gratian's wife. They met the emperor near the city of Lyons in
France just as he had crossed the river: who believing it to be his
wife, and not suspecting any treachery, fell into the hands of his
enemy as a blind man into the ditch; for Andragathius, suddenly
springing forth from the litter, slew him. [723] Gratian thus perished
in the consulate of Merogaudes and Saturninus, [724] in the
twenty-fourth year of his age, and the fifteenth of his reign. When
this happened the Empress Justina's indignation against Ambrose was
repressed. Afterwards Valentinian most unwillingly, but constrained by
the necessity of the time, admitted Maximus as his colleague in the
empire. Probus alarmed at the power of Maximus, resolved to retreat
into the regions of the East: leaving Italy therefore, he proceeded to
Illyricum, and fixed his residence at Thessalonica a city of
Macedonia.
Footnotes
[721] Cf. Zosimus, IV. 35 seq.
[722] Cf. IV. 30.
[723] The account of Gratian's death given by Zosimus, though not
inconsistent with that of Socrates, does not contain the details given
by Socrates. Andragathius is simply said to have pursued Gratian, and
overtaking him near the bridge to have slain him. Cf. Zosimus, IV. 35
end.
[724] 383 a.d.
Chapter XII.--While the Emperor Theodosius is engaged in Military
Preparations against Maximus, his Son Honorius is born. He then
proceeds to Milan in Order to encounter the Usurper.
But the Emperor Theodosius was filled with great solicitude, and
levied a powerful army against the usurper, fearing lest he should
meditate the assassination of the young Valentinian also. While
engaged in this preparation, an embassy arrived from the Persians,
requesting peace from the emperor. Then also the empress Flaccilla
bore him a son named Honorius, on the 9th of September, in the
consulate of Richomelius and Clearchus. [725] Under the same
consulate, and a little previously, Agelius bishop of the Novatians
died. [726] In the year following, wherein Arcadius Augustus bore his
first consulate in conjunction with Baudon, [727] Timothy bishop of
Alexandria died, and was succeeded in the episcopate by Theophilus.
About a year after this, Demophilus the Arian prelate having departed
this life, the Arians sent for Marinus a leader of their own heresy
out of Thrace, to whom they entrusted the bishopric: but Marinus did
not long occupy that position, for under him that sect was divided
into two parties, as we shall hereafter explain; [728] for they
invited Dorotheus [729] to come to them from Antioch in Syria, and
constituted him their bishop. Meanwhile the emperor Theodosius
proceeded to the war against Maximus, leaving his son Arcadius with
imperial authority at Constantinople. Accordingly arriving at
Thessalonica he found Valentinian and those about him in great
anxiety, because through compulsion they had acknowledged the usurper
as emperor. Theodosius, however, gave no expression to his sentiments
in public; he neither rejected nor admitted [730] the embassy of
Maximus: but unable to endure tyrannical domination over the Roman
empire, under the assumption of an imperial name, he hastily mustered
his forces and advanced to Milan, [731] whither the usurper had
already gone.
Footnotes
[725] 384 a.d. Honorius afterwards shared the empire with Arcadius,
reigning in the West from 398 to 423 a.d. But although the whole of
this period comes within the time of Socrates' history, he does not
mention Honorius but once again before his death.
[726] Having been bishop of the Novatians for forty years; see chap.
21.
[727] 385 a.d.
[728] Chap. 23.
[729] Being in the ninety-eighth year of his age as appears from VII.
6.
[730] Zosimus, however, says (IV. 37) that the embassy of Maximus was
received by Theodosius.
[731] Rather Aquileja as appears from Zosimus and other historians.
Chapter XIII.--The Arians excite a Tumult at Constantinople.
At the time when the emperor was thus occupied on his military
expedition, the Arians excited a great tumult at Constantinople by
such devices as these. Men are fond of fabricating statements
respecting matters about which they are in ignorance; and if at any
time they are given occasion they swell to a prodigious extent rumors
concerning what they wish, being ever fond of change. This was
strongly exemplified at Constantinople on the present occasion: for
each invented news concerning the war which was carrying on at a
distance, according to his own caprice, always presuming upon the most
disastrous results; and before the contest had yet commenced, they
spoke of transactions in reference to it, of which they knew nothing,
with as much assurance as if they had been spectators on the very
scene of action. Thus it was confidently affirmed that `the usurper
had defeated the emperor's army,' even the number of men slain on both
sides being specified; and that `the emperor himself had nearly fallen
into the usurper's hands.' Then the Arians, who had been excessively
exasperated by those being put in possession of the churches within
the city who had previously been the objects of their persecution,
began to augment these rumors by additions of their own. But since the
currency of such stories with increasing exaggeration, in time made
even the farmers themselves believe them--for those who had circulated
them from hearsay, affirmed to the authors of these falsehoods, that
the accounts they had received from them had been fully corroborated
elsewhere; then indeed the Arians were emboldened to commit acts of
violence, and among other outrages, to set fire to the house of
Nectarius the bishop. This was done in the second consulate [732] of
Theodosius Augustus, which he bore with Cynegius.
Footnotes
[732] 388 a.d.
Chapter XIV.--Overthrow and Death of the Usurper Maximus.
As the emperor marched against the usurper the intelligence of the
formidable preparations made by him so alarmed the troops under
Maximus, that instead of fighting for him, they delivered him bound to
the emperor, who caused him to be put to death, on the twenty-seventh
of August, under the same consulate. [733] Andragathius, who with his
own hand had slain Gratian, understanding the fate of Maximus,
precipitated himself into the adjacent river, and was drowned. Then
the victorious emperors made their public entry into Rome, accompanied
by Honorius the son of Theodosius, still a mere boy, whom his father
had sent for from Constantinople immediately after Maximus had been
vanquished. They continued therefore at Rome celebrating their
triumphal festivals: during which time the Emperor Theodosius
exhibited a remarkable instance of clemency toward Symmachus, a man
who had borne the consular office, and was at the head of the senate
at Rome. For this Symmachus was distinguished for his eloquence, and
many of his orations are still extant composed in the Latin tongue:
but inasmuch as he had written a panegyric on Maximus, and pronounced
it before him publicly, he was afterwards impeached for high treason;
wherefore to escape capital punishment he took sanctuary in a church.
[734] The emperor's veneration for religion led him not only to honor
the bishops of his own communion, but to treat with consideration
those of the Novatians also, who embraced the `homoousian' creed: to
gratify therefore Leontius the bishop of the Novatian church at Rome,
who interceded in behalf of Symmachus, he graciously pardoned him for
that crime. Symmachus, after he had obtained his pardon, wrote an
apologetic address to the Emperor Theodosius. Thus the war, which at
its commencement threatened so seriously, was brought to a speedy
termination.
Footnotes
[733] The same account is given in substance by Zosimus, IV. 46, who
also confirms the statements of Socrates concerning the end of
Andragathius. Valesius, however, relying on Idatius' Fasti, asserts
that Maximus was put to death on the 28th of July, not on the 27th of
August.
[734] The churches were considered recognized places of asylum. Cf.
Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 10 and 11.
Chapter XV.--Of Flavian Bishop of Antioch.
About the same period, the following events took place at Antioch in
Syria. After the death of Paulinus, the people who had been under his
superintendence refused to submit to the authority of Flavian, but
caused Evagrius to be ordained bishop of their own party. [735] As he
did not survive his ordination long, no other was constituted in his
place, Flavian having brought this about: nevertheless those who
disliked Flavian on account of his having violated his oath, held
their assemblies apart. [736] Meanwhile Flavian `left no stone
unturned,' as the phrase is, to bring these also under his control;
and this he soon after effected, when he appeased the anger of
Theophilus, then bishop of Alexandria, by whose mediation he
conciliated, Damasus bishop of Rome also. For both these had been
greatly displeased with Flavian, as well for the perjury of which he
had been guilty, as for the schism he had occasioned among the
previously united people. Theophilus therefore being pacified, sent
Isidore a presbyter to Rome, and thus reconciled Damasus, who was
still offended; representing to him the propriety of overlooking
Flavian's past misconduct, for the sake of producing concord among the
people. Communion being in this way restored to Flavian, the people of
Antioch were in the course of a little while induced to acquiesce in
the union secured. Such was the conclusion of this affair at Antioch.
But the Arians of that city being ejected from the churches, were
accustomed to hold their meetings in the suburbs. Meanwhile Cyril
bishop of Jerusalem having died about this time, [737] was succeeded
by John.
Footnotes
[735] Theodoret (H. E. V. 23) says that there was a double violation
of order in the ordination of Evagrius; first in that he was ordained
by his predecessor, and secondly in that he was ordained by one
bishop, whereas the canon required that not less than three should
take part in an episcopal ordination.
[736] Cf. VI. 9; also chaps. 5 and 11 of this book.
[737] In 386 a.d.
Chapter XVI.--Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and
the Consequent Conflict between the Pagans and Christians.
At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor
issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples
in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under
the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus
exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to
contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum [738] to be
cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody
mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rights of
the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full
of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried
through the midst of the forum. The pagans of Alexandria, and
especially the professors of philosophy, were unable to repress their
rage at this exposure, and exceeded in revengeful ferocity their
outrages on a former occasion: for with one accord, at a preconcerted
signal, they rushed impetuously upon the Christians, and murdered
every one they could lay hands on. The Christians also made an attempt
to resist the assailants, and so the mischief was the more augmented.
This desperate affray was prolonged until satiety of bloodshed put an
end to it. Then it was discovered that very few of the heathens had
been killed, but a great number of Christians; while the number of
wounded on each side was almost innumerable. Fear then possessed the
pagans on account of what was done, as they considered the emperor's
displeasure. For having done what seemed good in their own eyes, and
by their bloodshed having quenched their courage, some fled in one
direction, some in another, and many quitting Alexandria, dispersed
themselves in various cities. Among these were the two grammarians
Helladius and Ammonius, whose pupil I was in my youth at
Constantinople. [739] Helladius was said to be the priest of Jupiter,
and Ammonius of Simius. [740] Thus this disturbance having been
terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of
the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen
temples. These were therefore razed to the ground, and the images of
their gods molten into pots and other convenient utensils for the use
of the Alexandrian church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus
to distribute them for the relief of the poor. All the images were
accordingly broken to pieces, except one statue of the god before
mentioned, which Theophilus preserved and set up in a public place;
`Lest,' said he, `at a future time the heathens should deny that they
had ever worshiped such gods.' This action gave great umbrage to
Ammonius the grammarian in particular, who to my knowledge was
accustomed to say that `the religion of the Gentiles was grossly
abused in that that single statue was not also molten, but preserved,
in order to render that religion ridiculous.' Helladius however
boasted in the presence of some that he had slain in that desperate
onset nine men with his own hand. Such were the doings at Alexandria
at that time.
Footnotes
[738] See III. 2.
[739] Cf Introd. p. 8.
[740] pithekou, `the ape-god.'
Chapter XVII.--Of the Hieroglyphics found in the Temple of Serapis.
When the Temple of Serapis was torn down and laid bare, there were
found in it, engraven on stones, certain characters which they call
hieroglyphics, having the forms of crosses. [741] Both the Christians
and pagans on seeing them, appropriated and applied them to their
respective religions: for the Christians who affirm that the cross is
the sign of Christ's saving passion, claimed this character as
peculiarly theirs; but the pagans alleged that it might appertain to
Christ and Serapis in common; `for,' said they, `it symbolizes one
thing to Christians and another to heathens.' Whilst this point was
controverted amongst them, some of the heathen converts to
Christianity, who were conversant with these hieroglyphic characters,
interpreted the form of a cross and said that it signifies `Life to
come.' This the Christians exultingly laid hold of, as decidedly
favorable to their religion. But after other hieroglyphics had been
deciphered containing a prediction that `When the cross should
appear,'--for this was `life to come,'--`the Temple of Serapis would
be destroyed,' a very great number of the pagans embraced
Christianity, and confessing their sins, were baptized. Such are the
reports I have heard respecting the discovery of this symbol in form
of a cross. But I cannot imagine that the Egyptian priests foreknew
the things concerning Christ, when they engraved the figure of a
cross. For if `the advent' of our Saviour into the world `was a
mystery hid from ages and from generations,' [742] as the apostle
declares; and if the devil himself, the prince of wickedness, knew
nothing of it, his ministers, the Egyptian priests, are likely to have
been still more ignorant of the matter; but Providence doubtless
purposed that in the enquiry concerning this character, there should
something take place analogous to what happened heretofore at the
preaching of Paul. For he, made wise by the Divine Spirit, employed a
similar method in relation to the Athenians, [743] and brought over
many of them to the faith, when on reading the inscription on one of
their altars, he accommodated and applied it to his own discourse.
Unless indeed any one should say, that the Word of God wrought in the
Egyptian priests, as it did on Balaam [744] and Caiaphas; [745] for
these men uttered prophecies of good things in spite of themselves.
This will suffice on the subject.
Footnotes
[741] There are several cruciform signs among the Egyptian
hieroglyphics, as e.g. the simple determinative 5, meaning `to cross,'
`to multiply,' `to mix' (see Birch, Egyptian Texts, p. 99); or the
syllabic *, phonetically equivalent to am (see Birch, ibid. p. 101);
or the cross with a ring at the head *; or the still more elaborate *
(see Brugsh, Thesaurus Inscript. Egyptiacarum, p. 20; also
Champollion, Grammaire Egyptienne, XII. p. 365, 440). To which of
these Socrates refers it is impossible to say from their mere form.
They occur commonly and we must infer that the discovery described in
this passage is not the first bringing into light of the sign
mentioned, but its occurrence in the Serapeum. The third of the above
signs is usually interpreted as `life' either `happy' or `immortal,'
which agrees with the meaning given to the cruciform sign here
mentioned.
[742] 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8; Eph. iii. 5, 6; Col. i. 26.
[743] Acts xvii. 23.
[744] Num. xxiv.
[745] John xi. 51.
Chapter XVIII.--Reformation of Abuses at Rome by the Emperor
Theodosius.
The emperor Theodosius during his short stay in Italy, conferred the
greatest benefit on the city of Rome, by grants on the one hand, and
abrogations on the other. His largesses were indeed very munificent;
and he removed two most infamous abuses which existed in the city. One
of them was the following: there were buildings of immense magnitude,
erected in ancient Rome in former times, in which bread was made for
distribution among the people. [746] Those who had the charge of these
edifices, who Mancipes [747] were called in the Latin language, in
process of time converted them into receptacles for thieves. Now as
the bake-houses in these structures were placed underneath, they build
taverns at the side of each, where they kept prostitutes; by which
means they entrapped many of those who went thither either for the
sake of refreshment, or to gratify their lusts, for by a certain
mechanical contrivance they precipitated them from the tavern into the
bake-house below. This was practiced chiefly upon strangers; and such
as were in this way kidnapped were compelled to work in the
bake-houses, where many of them were immured until old age, not being
allowed to go out, and giving the impression to their friends that
they were dead. It happened that one of the soldiers of the emperor
Theodosius fell into this snare; who being shut up in the bake-house,
and hindered from going out, drew a dagger which he wore and killed
those who stood in his way: the rest being terrified, suffered him to
escape. When the emperor was made acquainted with the circumstance he
punished the Mancipes, and ordered these haunts of lawless and
abandoned characters to be pulled down. This was one of the
disgraceful nuisances of which the emperor purged the imperial city:
the other was of this nature. When a woman was detected in adultery,
they punished the delinquent not in the way of correction but rather
of aggravation of her crime. For shutting her up in a narrow brothel,
they obliged her to prostitute herself in a most disgusting manner;
causing little bells to be rung at the time of the unclean deed that
those who passed might not be ignorant of what was doing within. This
was doubtless intended to brand the crime with greater ignominy in
public opinion. As soon as the emperor was apprised of this indecent
usage, he would by no means tolerate it; but having ordered the Sistra
[748] --for so these places of penal prostitution were denominated--to
be pulled down, he appointed other laws for the punishment of
adulteresses. [749] Thus did the emperor Theodosius free the city from
two of its most discreditable abuses: and when he had arranged all
other affairs to his satisfaction, he left the emperor Valentinian at
Rome, and returned himself with his son Honorius to Constantinople,
and entered that city of the 10th of November, in the consulate of
Tatian and Symmachus. [750]
Footnotes
[746] In the earlier periods of Roman history the government undertook
to regulate the price of corn, so as to protect the poorer classes; in
time of scarcity the government was to purchase the grain and sell it
at a moderate price. This provision was gradually changed into a
dispensation of public charity, at first by the sale of the grain
below cost, and afterwards by the gratuitous distribution of the same.
Some time before the reign of Aurelian, 270-275 a.d., the distribution
of grain seems to have given place to the distribution of bread. Such
distribution was made after the reign of Constantine at Constantinople
as well as at Rome. See Smith, Dict. of the Greek and Rom. Antiq.,
art. Leges Frumentariæ.
[747] Originally this name was applied to all farmers-general of the
public revenues. See Smith, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq., art.
Manceps.
[748] Lit. = `bells.' Cf. Smith, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq., art.
Sistrum.
[749] From a law of Constantine's (Cod. 9. 30) whose genuineness is,
however, disputed, the punishment of adultery was death. The same
punishment appears to have been inflicted in specific cases mentioned
by Am. Marcellinus. Rerum Gestarum, XXVII. 1. 28. Whence it appears
that Socrates must have been misinformed concerning the facts
mentioned here.
[750] 391 a.d.
Chapter XIX.--Of the Office of Penitentiary Presbyters and its
Abolition.
At this time it was deemed requisite to abolish the office of those
presbyters in the churches who had charge of the penitences: [751]
this was done on the following account. When the Novatians separated
themselves from the Church because they would not communicate with
those who had lapsed during the persecution under Decius, the bishops
added to the ecclesiastical canon [752] a presbyter of penitence in
order that those who had sinned after baptism might confess their sins
in the presence of the presbyter thus appointed. [753] And this mode
of discipline is still maintained among other heretical institutions
by all the rest of the sects; the Homoousians only, together with the
Novatians who hold the same doctrinal views, have abandoned it. The
latter indeed would never admit of its establishment: [754] and the
Homoousians who are now in possession of the churches, after retaining
this function for a considerable period, abrogated it in the time of
Nectarius, in consequence of an event which occured in the
Constantinopolitan church, which is as follows: A woman of noble
family coming to the penitentiary, made a general confession of those
sins she had committed since her baptism: and the presbyter enjoined
fasting and prayer continually, that together with the acknowledgment
of error, she might have to show works also meet for repentance. Some
time after this, the same lady again presented herself, and confessed
that she had been guilty of another crime, a deacon of the church
having slept with her. When this was proved the deacon was ejected
from the church: [755] but the people were very indignant, being not
only offended at what had taken place, but also because the deed had
brought scandal and degradation upon the Church. When in consequence
of this, ecclesiastics were subjected to taunting and reproach,
Eudæmon a presbyter of the church, by birth an Alexandrian, persuaded
Nectarius the bishop to abolish the office of penitentiary presbyter,
and to leave every one to his own conscience with regard to the
participation of the sacred mysteries: [756] for thus only, in his
judgment, could the Church be preserved from obloquy. Having heard
this explanation of the matter from Eudæmon I have ventured to put in
the present treatise: for as I have often remarked, [757] I have
spared no pains to procure an authentic account of affairs from those
who were best acquainted with them, and to scrutinize every report,
lest I should advance what might be untrue. My observation to Eudæmon,
when he first related the circumstance, was this: `Whether, O
presbyter, your counsel has been profitable for the Church or
otherwise, God knows; but I see that it takes away the means of
rebuking one another's faults, and prevents our acting upon that
precept of the apostle, [758] "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather reprove them."' Concerning this affair
let this suffice.
Footnotes
[751] On account of which he was called the Penitentiary. Cf. Bingham,
Christ. Antiq. XVIII. 3.
[752] `The sacerdotal catalogue or order, clerical order, the clergy
in general.' See Sophocles, Greek Lex. of the Rom. and Byzant.
Periods.
[753] On the discipline of the ancient church, see Bennett, Christ.
Archæl. p. 380 seq.
[754] See Euseb. H. E. VI. 43.
[755] The regulation of the earliest church was expressed as follows:
`If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of
fornication...let him be deposed.' Apostol. Can. 25.
[756] Although the plural is used here, the reference is, no doubt, to
the sacrament of the Lord's supper only. The mysteries recognized by
Theodorus Studites, Epist. II. 165, are six; i.e. baptism, eucharist,
unction, orders, monastic tonsure, and the mystery of death or funeral
ceremonies. The Greek Church of modern times enumerates seven:
baptism, unction, eucharist, orders, penitence, marriage, and extreme
unction.
[757] Cf. I. 1; II. 1.
[758] Eph. v. 11. Valesius rightly infers from this answer of Socrates
to Eudæmon that the former was not a Novatian. For he disapproves of
the abolition of the penitentiary bishop's office, whereas as a
Novatian he would have been against its institution before it was
established, and in favor of its abolition afterwards. The Novatians
never admitted either of penitence or of the penitentiary bishop.
Chapter XX.--Divisions among the Arians and Other Heretics.
I conceive it right moreover not to leave unnoticed the proceedings of
the other religious bodies, viz. the Arians, [759] Novatians, and
those who received their denominations from Macedonius and Eunomius.
For the Church once being divided, rested not in that schism, but the
separatists taking occasion from the slightest and most frivolous
pretences, disagreed among themselves. The manner and time, as well as
the causes for which they raised mutual dissensions, we will state as
we proceed. But let it be observed here, that the emperor Theodosius
persecuted none of them except Eunomius; but inasmuch as the latter,
by holding meetings in private houses at Constantinople, where he read
the works he had composed, corrupted many with his doctrines, he
ordered him to be sent into exile. Of the other heretics he interfered
with no one; nor did he constrain them to hold communion with himself;
but he allowed them all to assemble in their own conventicles, and to
entertain their own opinions on points of Christian faith. Permission
to build themselves churches without the cities was granted to the
rest: but inasmuch as the Novatians held sentiments precisely
identical with his own as to faith, he ordered that they should be
suffered to continue unmolested in their churches within the cities,
as I have before noticed. [760] Concerning these I think it opportune,
however, to give in this place some farther account, and shall
therefore retrace a few circumstances in their history.
Footnotes
[759] See chap. 23 of this book.
[760] See chap. 10, above.
Chapter XXI.--Peculiar Schism among the Novatians. [761]
Of the Novatian church at Constantinople Agelius was the bishop for
the space of forty years, [762] viz. from the reign of Constantine
until the sixth year of that of the emperor Theodosius, as I have
stated somewhere previously. [763] He perceiving his end approaching,
ordained Sisinnius to succeed him in the bishopric. [764] This person
was a presbyter of the church over which Agelius presided, remarkably
eloquent, and had been instructed in philosophy by Maximus, at the
same time as the emperor Julian. Now as the Novatian laity were
dissatisfied with this election, and wished rather that he had
ordained Marcian, a man of eminent piety, on account of whose
influence their sect had been left unmolested during the reign of
Valens, Agelius therefore to allay his people's discontent, laid his
hands on Marcian also. Having recovered a little from his illness, he
went to the church and thus of his own accord addressed the
congregation: `After my decease let Marcian be your bishop; and after
Marcian, Sisinnius.' He survived these words but a short time; Marcian
accordingly having been constituted bishop of the Novatians, a
division arose in their church also, from this cause. Marcian had
promoted to the rank of presbyter a converted Jew named Sabbatius, who
nevertheless continued to retain many of his Jewish prejudices; and
moreover he was very ambitious of being made a bishop. Having
therefore confidentially attached to his interest two presbyters,
Theoctistus and Macarius, who were cognizant of his designs, he
resolved to defend that innovation made by the Novatians in the time
of Valens, at Pazum a village of Phrygia, concerning the festival of
Easter, to which I have already adverted. [765] And in the first
place, under pretext of more ascetic austerity, he privately withdrew
from the church, saying that `he was grieved on account of certain
persons whom he suspected of being unworthy of participation in the
sacrament.' It was however soon discovered that his object was to hold
assemblies apart. When Marcian understood this, he bitterly censured
his own error, in ordaining to the presbyterate persons so intent on
vain-glory; and frequently said, `That it had been better for him to
have laid his hands on thorns, than to have imposed them on
Sabbatius.' To check his proceedings, he procured a Synod of Novatian
bishops to be convened at Angarum, [766] a commercial town near
Helenopolis in Bithynia. On assembling here they summoned Sabbatius,
and desired him to explain the cause of his discontent. Upon his
affirming that he was troubled about the disagreement that existed
respecting the Feast of Easter, and that it ought to be kept according
to the custom of the Jews, and agreeable to that sanction which those
convened at Pazum had appointed, the bishops present at the Synod
perceiving that this assertion was a mere subterfuge to disguise his
desire after the episcopal chair, obliged him to pledge himself on
oath that he would never accept a bishopric. When he had so sworn,
they passed a canon respecting this feast, which they entitled
`indifferent,' declaring that `a disagreement on such a point was not
a sufficient reason for separation from the church; and that the
council of Pazum had done nothing prejudicial to the catholic canon.
That although the ancients who lived nearest to the times of the
apostles differed about the observance of this festival, it did not
prevent their communion with one another, nor create any dissension.
Besides that the Novatians at imperial Rome had never followed the
Jewish usage, but always kept Easter after the equinox; and yet they
did not separate from those of their own faith, who celebrated it on a
different day.' From these and many such considerations, they made the
`Indifferent' Canon, above-mentioned, concerning Easter, whereby every
one was at liberty to keep the custom which he had by predilection in
this matter, if he so pleased; and that it should make no difference
as regards communion, but even though celebrating differently they
should be in accord in the church. After this rule had been thus
established, Sabbatius being bound by his oath, anticipated the fast
by keeping it in private, whenever any discrepancy existed in the time
of the Paschal solemnity, and having watched all night, he celebrated
the sabbath of the passover; then on the next day he went to church,
and with the rest of the congregation partook of the sacraments. He
pursued this course for many years, so that it could not be concealed
from the people; in imitation of which some of the more ignorant, and
chiefly the Phrygians and Galatians, supposing they should be
justified by this conduct imitated him, and kept the passover in
secret after his manner. But Sabbatius afterwards disregarding the
oath by which he had renounced the episcopal dignity, held schismatic
meetings, and was constituted bishop of his followers, as we shall
show hereafter. [767]
Footnotes
[761] The main reason adduced for considering Socrates a Novatian is
his peculiarly detailed account of the Novatian heresy, and the
nearness in which he puts it to the orthodox faith. See Introd. p. ix
and chap. 19 of this book, note 8; also II. 38 and VI. 21.
[762] See above, chap. 12, note 2. This was in 384 a.d.
[763] IV. 9 and 12 of this book.
[764] On the irregularity of this action, see chap. 15 above, note 1.
Sisinnius is again mentioned in VI. 1. 31; VII. 6 and 12.
[765] Cf. IV. 28.
[766] Probably the modern Angora. Valesius however, had conjecturally
substituted the word Sangarum in this place, supposing that the place
named was a town on the banks of the river Sangarius.
[767] Cf. VII. 5 and 12.
Chapter XXII.--The Author's Views respecting the Celebration of
Easter, Baptism, Fasting, Marriage, the Eucharist, and Other
Ecclesiastical Rites.
As we have touched the subject I deem it not unreasonable to say a few
words concerning Easter. It appears to me that neither the ancients
nor moderns who have affected to follow the Jews, have had any
rational foundation for contending so obstinately about it. For they
have not taken into consideration the fact that when Judaism was
changed into Christianity, the obligation to observe the Mosaic law
and the ceremonial types ceased. And the proof of the matter is plain;
for no law of Christ permits Christians to imitate the Jews. On the
contrary the apostle expressly forbids it; not only rejecting
circumcision, but also deprecating contention about festival days. In
his epistle to the Galatians [768] he writes, `Tell me ye that desire
to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?' And continuing his train
of argument, he demonstrates that the Jews were in bondage as
servants, but that those who have come to Christ are `called into the
liberty of sons.' [769] Moreover he exhorts them in no way to regard
`days, and months, and years.' [770] Again in his epistle to the
Colossians [771] he distinctly declares, that such observances are
merely shadows: wherefore he says, `Let no man judge you in meat, or
in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the
sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come.' The same truths
are also confirmed by him in the epistle to the Hebrews [772] in these
words: `For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law.' Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the
Gospels, [773] have anywhere imposed the `yoke of servitude' [774] on
those who have embraced the truth; but have left Easter and every
other feast to be honored by the gratitude of the recipients of grace.
Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them
cessation from labor: each individual in every place, according to his
own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom celebrated the memory of the
saving passion. The Saviour and his apostles have enjoined us by no
law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us
with any penalty, punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the
Mosaic law does the Jews. It is merely for the sake of historical
accuracy, and for the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted
themselves with blood on their very feasts, that it is recorded in the
Gospels that our Saviour suffered in the days of `unleavened bread.'
[775] The aim of the apostles was not to appoint festival days, but to
teach a righteous life and piety. And it seems to me that just as many
other customs have been established in individual localities according
to usage. So also the feast of Easter came to be observed in each
place according to the individual peculiarities of the peoples
inasmuch as none of the apostles legislated on the matter. And that
the observance originated not by legislation, but as a custom the
facts themselves indicate. In Asia Minor most people kept the
fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath: yet they never
separated from those who did otherwise, until Victor, bishop of Rome,
influenced by too ardent a zeal, fulminated a sentence of
excommunication against the Quartodecimans [776] in Asia. Wherefore
also Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by
letter for his immoderate heat; [777] telling him that although the
ancients differed in their celebration of Easter, they did not desist
from intercommunion. Also that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who
afterwards suffered martyrdom under Gordian, [778] continued to
communicate with Anicetus bishop of Rome, although he himself,
according to the usage of his native Smyrna, kept Easter on the
fourteenth day of the moon, as Eusebius attests in the fifth book of
his Ecclesiastical History. [779] While therefore some in Asia Minor
observed the day above-mentioned, others in the East kept that feast
on the sabbath indeed, but differed as regards the month. The former
thought the Jews should be followed, though they were not exact: the
latter kept Easter after the equinox, refusing to celebrate with the
Jews; `for,' said they, `it ought to be celebrated when the sun is in
Aries, in the month called Xanthicus by the Antiochians, and April by
the Romans.' In this practice, they averred, they conformed not to the
modern Jews, who are mistaken in almost everything, but to the
ancients, and to Josephus according to what he has written in the
third book of his Jewish Antiquities. [780] Thus these people were at
issue among themselves. But all other Christians in the Western parts,
and as far as the ocean itself, are found to have celebrated Easter
after the equinox, from a very ancient tradition. And in fact these
acting in this manner have never disagreed on this subject. It is not
true, as some have pretended, that the Synod under Constantine altered
this festival: [781] for Constantine himself, writing to those who
differed respecting it, recommended that as they were few in number,
they could agree with the majority of their brethren. His letter will
be found at length in the third book of the Life of Constantine by
Eusebius; but the passage in it relative to Easter runs thus: [782]
`It is a becoming order which all the churches in the Western,
Southern, and Northern parts of the world observe, and some places in
the East also. Wherefore all on the present occasion have judged it
right, and I have pledged myself that it will have the acquiescence of
your prudence, that what is unanimously observed in the city of Rome,
throughout Italy, Africa, and the whole of Egypt, in Spain, France,
Britain, Libya, and all Greece, the diocese of Asia and Pontus, and
Cilicia, your wisdom also will readily embrace; considering not only
that the number of churches in the aforesaid places is greater, but
also that while there should be a universal concurrence in what is
most reasonable, it becomes us to have nothing in common with the
perfidious Jews.'
Such is the tenor of the emperor's letter. Moreover the Quartodecimans
affirm that the observance of the fourteenth day was delivered to them
by the apostle John: while the Romans and those in the Western parts
assure us that their usage originated with the apostles Peter and
Paul. Neither of these parties however can produce any written
testimony in confirmation of what they assert. But that the time of
keeping Easter in various places is dependent on usage, I infer from
this, that those who agree in faith, differ among themselves on
questions of usage. And it will not perhaps be unseasonable to notice
here the diversity of customs in the churches. [783] The fasts before
Easter will be found to be differently observed among different
people. Those at Rome fast three successive weeks before Easter,
excepting Saturdays and Sundays. [784] Those in Illyrica and all over
Greece and Alexandria observe a fast of six weeks, which they term
`The forty days' fast.' [785] Others commencing their fast from the
seventh week before Easter, and fasting three five days only, and that
at intervals, yet call that time `The forty days' fast.' It is indeed
surprising to me that thus differing in the number of days, they
should both give it one common appellation; but some assign one reason
for it, and others another, according to their several fancies. One
can see also a disagreement about the manner of abstinence from food,
as well as about the number of days. Some wholly abstain from things
that have life: others feed on fish only of all living creatures: many
together with fish, eat fowl also, saying that according to Moses,
[786] these were likewise made out of the waters. Some abstain from
eggs, and all kinds of fruits: others partake of dry bread only; still
others eat not even this: while others having fasted till the ninth
hour, [787] afterwards take any sort of food without distinction. And
among various nations there are other usages, for which innumerable
reasons are assigned. Since however no one can produce a written
command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one
to his own free will in the matter, to the end that each might perform
what is good not by constraint or necessity. Such is the difference in
the churches on the subject of fasts. Nor is there less variation in
regard to religious assemblies. [788] For although almost all churches
throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath
[789] of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on
account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. The
Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of
Thebaïs, hold their religious assemblies on the sabbath, but do not
participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in
general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of
all kinds, in the evening making their offerings [790] they partake of
the mysteries. At Alexandria again, on the Wednesday [791] in Passion
week and on Good Friday, the scriptures are read, and the doctors
expound them; and all the usual services are performed in their
assemblies, except the celebration of the mysteries. This practice in
Alexandria is of great antiquity, for it appears that Origen most
commonly taught in the church on those days. He being a very learned
teacher in the Sacred Books, and perceiving that the `impotence of the
law' [792] of Moses was weakened by literal explanation, gave it a
spiritual interpretation; declaring that there has never been but one
true Passover, which the Saviour celebrated when he hung upon the
cross: for that he then vanquished the adverse powers, and erected
this as a trophy against the devil. In the same city of Alexandria,
readers and chanters [793] are chosen indifferently from the
catechumens and the faithful; whereas in all other churches the
faithful only are promoted to these offices. I myself, also, learned
of another custom in Thessaly. If a clergyman in that country, after
taking orders, should sleep with his wife, whom he had legally married
before his ordination, he would be degraded. [794] In the East,
indeed, all clergymen, and even the bishops themselves, abstain from
their wives: but this they do of their own accord, and not by the
necessity of any law; for there have been among them many bishops, who
have had children by their lawful wives, during their episcopate. It
is said that the author of the usage which obtains in Thessaly was
Heliodorus bishop of Tricca in that country; under whose name there
are love books extant, entitled Ethiopica, [795] which he composed in
his youth. The same custom prevails at Thessalonica, and in Macedonia,
and in Greece. I have also known of another peculiarity in Thessaly,
which is, that they baptize there on the days of Easter only; in
consequence of which a very great number of them die without having
received baptism. At Antioch in Syria the site of the church is
inverted; so that the altar does not face toward the east, but toward
the west. [796] In Greece, however, and at Jerusalem and in Thessaly
they go to prayers as soon as the candles are lighted, in the same
manner as the Novatians do at Constantinople. At Cæsarea likewise, and
in Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, the presbyters and bishops expound the
Scriptures in the evening, after the candles are lighted. The
Novatians of the Hellespont do not perform their prayers altogether in
the same manner as those of Constantinople; in most things, however,
their usage is similar to that of the prevailing [797] church. In
short, it is impossible to find anywhere, among all the sects, two
churches which agree exactly in their ritual respecting prayers. At
Alexandria no presbyter is allowed to address the public: a regulation
which was made after Arius had raised a disturbance in that church. At
Rome they fast every Saturday. [798] At Cæsarea of Cappadocia they
exclude from communion those who have sinned after baptism as the
Novatians do. The same discipline was practiced by the Macedonians in
the Hellespont, and by the Quartodecimans in Asia. The Novatians in
Phrygia do not admit such as have twice married; [799] but those of
Constantinople neither admit nor reject them openly, while in the
Western parts they are openly received. This diversity was occasioned,
as I imagine, by the bishops who in their respective eras governed the
churches; and those who received these several rites and usages,
transmitted them as laws to their posterity. However, to give a
complete catalogue of all the various customs and ceremonial
observances in use throughout every city and country would be
difficult--rather impossible; but the instances we have adduced are
sufficient to show that the Easter Festival was from some remote
precedent differently celebrated in every particular province. They
talk at random therefore who assert that the time of keeping Easter
was altered in the Nicene Synod; for the bishops there convened
earnestly labored to reduce the first dissenting minority to
uniformity of practice with the rest of the people. Now that many
differences existed even in the apostolic age of the church occasioned
by such subjects, was not unknown even to the apostles themselves, as
the book of The Acts testifies. For when they understood that a
disturbance occurred among believers on account of a dissension of the
Gentiles, having all met together, they promulgated a Divine law,
giving it the form of a letter. By this sanction they liberated
Christians from the bondage of formal observances, and all vain
contention about these things; and they taught them the path of true
piety, prescribing such things only as were conducive to its
attainment. The epistle itself, which I shall here transcribe, is
recorded in The Acts of the Apostles. [800]
`The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren
which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch
as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled
you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised,
and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good
unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you,
with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives
for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas
and Silas, who shall also tell you the same thing by mouth. For it
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater
burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered
to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare
ye well.'
These things indeed pleased God: for the letter expressly says, `It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay upon you no greater burden than
these necessary things.' There are nevertheless some persons who,
disregarding these precepts, suppose all fornication to be an
indifferent matter; but contend about holy-days as if their lives were
at stake, thus contravening the commands of God, and legislating for
themselves, and making of none effect the decree of the apostles:
neither do they perceive that they are themselves practicing the
contrary to those things which God approved. It is possible easily to
extend our discourse respecting Easter, and demonstrate that the Jews
observe no exact rule either in the time or manner of celebrating the
paschal solemnity: and that the Samaritans, who are an offshoot from
the Jews, always celebrate this festival after the equinox. But this
subject would require a distinct and copious treatise: I shall
therefore merely add, that those who affect so much to imitate the
Jews, and are so very anxious about an accurate observance of types,
ought to depart from them in no particular. For if they have chosen to
be so correct, they must not only observe days and months, but all
other things also, which Christ (who was `made under the law') [801]
did in the manner of the Jews; or which he unjustly suffered from
them; or wrought typically for the good of all men. He entered into a
ship and taught. He ordered the Passover to be made ready in an upper
room. He commanded an ass that was tied to be loosed. He proposed a
man bearing a pitcher of water as a sign to them for hastening their
preparations for the Passover. [He did] an infinite number of other
things of this nature which are recorded in the gospels. And yet those
who suppose themselves to be justified by keeping this feast, would
think it absurd to observe any of these things in a bodily manner. For
no doctor ever dreams of going to preach from a ship--no person
imagines it necessary to go up into an upper room to celebrate the
Passover there--they never tie, and then loose an ass again--and
finally no one enjoins another to carry a pitcher of water, in order
that the symbols might be fulfilled. They have justly regarded such
things as savoring rather of Judaism: for the Jews are more solicitous
about outward solemnities than the obedience of the heart; and
therefore are they under the curse, because they do not discern the
spiritual bearing of the Mosaic law, but rest in its types and
shadows. Those who favor the Jews admit the allegorical meaning of
these things; and yet they wage a deadly warfare against the
observance of days and months, without applying to them a similar
sense: thus do they necessarily involve themselves in a common
condemnation with the Jews.
But enough I think has been said concerning these things. Let us now
return to the subject we were previously treating of, the fact that
the Church once divided did not stay with that division, but that
those separated were again divided among themselves, taking occasion
from the most trivial grounds. The Novatians, as I have stated, were
divided among themselves on account of the feast of Easter, the
controversy not being restricted to one point only. For in the
different provinces some took one view of the question, and some
another, disagreeing not only about the month, but the days of the
week also, and other unimportant matters; in some places they hold
separate assemblies because of it, in others they unite in mutual
communion.
Footnotes
[768] Gal. iv. 21.
[769] Gal. v. 13.
[770] Gal. iv. 10.
[771] Col. ii. 16, 17.
[772] Heb. vii. 12.
[773] ho apostolos...ta euangelia, the two parts of the New Testament,
speaking generally. See Sophocles' Greek Lex. of the Rom. and Byzant.
Periods under apostolos and euangelion .
[774] Gal. v. 1.
[775] Matt. xxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1; Luke xxii. 1.
[776] tessareskaidekatitai , those who observed Easter on the
fourteenth day of the lunar month (Nisan of the Jewish calendar). On
the Quartodeciman controversy, see Schürer, de Centroversiis
Paschalibus secundo post Christum natum Sæculo exortis; also, Salmon,
Introduction to the New Testament, 3 ed. p. 252-267.
[777] Irenæus, Hær. III. 3, 4.
[778] Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 156 a.d. (see Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. I. p. 629-702, containing conclusive
proof of this, as well as a history of the question); whence it
appears that it was under Antoninus Pius that he died. Valesius
therefore infers that Socrates meant to speak of Irenæus as suffering
martyrdom under Gordian, and not of Polycarp. If this be the case, we
must assume a serious corruption of the text, or an unparalleled
confusion in Socrates.
[779] Euseb. V. 24.
[780] Josephus, Antiq. III. 10. The passage is worth quoting entire,
running as follows: `In the month Xanthicus, which is called Nisan by
us, and is the beginning of the year, on the fourteenth day of the
moon, while the sun is in the sign of Aries (the Ram), for during this
month we were freed from bondage under the Egyptians, he has also
appointed that we should sacrifice each year the sacrifice which, as
we went out of Egypt, they commanded us to offer, it being called the
Passover.'
[781] The Audiani, who averred that the Synod of Nicæa first fixed the
time of Easter.
[782] Euseb. Life of Constant. III. 19.
[783] Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XX. v.
[784] Baronius (Ann. 57 and 391 a.d.) finds two mistakes here: first,
in the assertion that the Romans fasted three weeks only before
Easter, and second, in the assertion that during those three weeks
Saturdays were excepted. Cf. also Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Sacrés
et Ecclesiast. Vol. VIII. p. 523, 524. Valesius, however, quotes Pope
Leo (fourth sermon on the Lent Fast) and Venerable Beda to prove that
Socrates' assertion concerning the exception of Saturday may be
defended. See Quesnell, de Jejunio Sabbati; Bingham, Origin. Eccl.
XXI. I. 14; also Beveridge, de Jejunio Quadragesimali.
[785] Tessarakoste = Lent; the Latin equivalent is, of course,
Quadragesima.
[786] Gen. i. 20.
[787] Valesius rightly conjectures that very few observed this mode of
fasting during Lent, basing his opinion on the order of worship and
various deprecatory expressions in ancient authors with respect to it.
It may be noted that the Mohammedan Fast of Ramadan is observed on the
same principle and in a similar manner. The fast begins with the dawn
of the sun and continues until sunset, being complete for that space
of time. With the setting of the sun, however, every person is at
liberty to eat as he may please.
[788] ounaxeon. Sophocles (Greek Lex. of the Rom. and Byzant. Period)
gives the following senses to the word: 1. `Religious meeting'; 2.
`Religious service'; 3. `Place of meeting'; 4. `Congregation.' To
these we may add on the authority of Casaubon (Exercit. XVI. ad Annal.
Baronii, No. 42) 5. `The celebration of the Eucharist.' It is in the
second sense given by Sophocles that it is used here.
[789] i.e. Saturday. Sunday is never called `the Sabbath' by the
ancient Fathers and historians, but `the Lord's day' (kuriake).
Sophocles (Greek Lex. of the Rom. and Byzant. Period) gives three
senses to the word; viz., 1. `The Sabbath' [of the Jews] (so in the
LXX and Jewish writers). 2. `The week.' 3. `Saturday.' Many early
Christians, however, continued to observe the Jewish Sabbath along
with the first day of the week. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XX. 3.
[790] prospherontes , freely = `celebrating the Eucharist.' Irenæus,
Contra Hæres. XVIII. 3; Euseb. Demonstr. Evan. X. 1; Athan. Apol.
Contr. Arian, 28.
[791] `If any bishop...does not fast on Wednesday or Friday let him be
deposed.' So Apost. Can. 69. These two days are universally joined
together by the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches.
[792] Cf. Rom. viii. 3.
[793] hupoboleis, lit. = `prompters,' whose duty it was to read the
Psalms which the people chanted.
[794] On the celibacy of the clergy and its gradual growth, see
Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. 5; Apost. Can. 51, and Council of Gangra,
Can. 1 (Hefele, Hist. Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 325 seq.).
[795] A novel on the adventures of Theagenes and Chariclea. The
Heliodorus who wrote the Ethiopica was, according to Photius,
Biblioth. chap. 94, a native of Phoenicia, hence not the same as the
bishop of Tricca. Others ascribe the Ethiopica to Heliodorus the
Sophist, who flourished under the Emperor Hadrian.
[796] According to the Apost. Constit. (II. 57) a church should be
built so as to face the east. This regulation was generally followed,
but there were exceptions. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 3. 2.
[797] i.e. the catholic or orthodox church; used perhaps in the same
way as the expression `established church' in modern times.
[798] Apost. Can. 64, provides that no cleric or layman shall fast on
the Sabbath day (Saturday, see note 22, above), the former on pain of
being deposed, the latter, of being excommunicated. It appears,
however, that the Roman church observed the day as a fast, while the
Greek church held it to be a feast. Socrates, however, seems to
contradict the statement he had made above (see note 17) that at Rome
Saturdays and Sundays were excepted from the list of fasting days in
Lent. From Augustine's Epistles, 36. 31 et al., it appears that he
fasted on Saturday and regarded this the regular and proper course to
be pursued, and actually pursued by members of the church. Hence the
present statement of Socrates must be taken as correct to the
exclusion of the former.
[799] Apost. Can.17. `He who has been twice married after
baptism...cannot become bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other
[cleric] included in the sacerdotal list.'
[800] Acts xv. 23-39. The quotation is here from the Authorized
Version. The Revised has it slightly altered. We subjoin it for
comparison. `The apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren
which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting:
Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no
commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to
choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and
Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves
also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed
good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden
than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with
you. Fare ye well.'
[801] Gal. iv. 4.
Chapter XXIII.--Further Dissensions among the Arians at
Constantinople. The Psathyrians.
But dissensions arose among the Arians [802] also on this account. The
contentious questions which were daily agitated among them, led them
to start the most absurd propositions. For whereas it has been always
believed in the church that God is the Father of the Son, the Word, it
was asked whether God could be called `Father' before the Son had
subsistence? Thus in asserting that the Word of God was not begotten
of the Father, but was created out `of nothing,' and thus falling into
error on the chief and main point, they deservedly fell into absurd
cavilings about a mere name. Dorotheus therefore being sent for by
them from Antioch maintained that God neither was nor could be called
Father before the Son existed. But Marinus whom they had summoned out
of Thrace before Dorotheus, piqued at the superior deference which was
paid to his rival, undertook to defend the contrary opinion. In
consequence of these things there arose a schism among them, and being
thus divided respecting this term, each party held separate meetings.
Those under Dorotheus retained their original places of assembly: but
the followers of Marinus built distinct oratories for themselves, and
asserted that the Father had always been Father, even when the Son was
not. This section of the Arians was denominated Psathyrians, [803]
because one of the most zealous defenders of this opinion was
Theoctistus, a Syrian by birth, and a cake-seller [Psathyropola] [804]
by trade. Selenas [805] bishop of the Goths adopted the views of this
party, a man of mixed descent; he was a Goth by his father's side, but
by his mother's a Phrygian, by which means he taught in the church
with great readiness in both these languages. This faction however
soon quarreled among themselves, Marinus disagreeing with Agapius,
whom he himself had preferred to the bishopric of Ephesus. They
disputed, however, not about any point of religion, but in
narrow-mindedness about precedence, in which the Goths sided with
Agapius. Wherefore many of the ecclesiastics under their jurisdiction,
abominating the vain-glorious contest between these two, abandoned
them both, and became adherents to the `homoousian' faith. The Arians
having continued thus divided among themselves during the space of
thirty-five years, were reunited in the reign of Theodosius the
Younger, under the consulate [806] of Plintha the commander-in-chief
of the army, he being a member of the sect of Psathyrians; these were
prevailed on to desist from contention. They afterwards passed a
resolution, giving it all the cogency of law, that the question which
had led to their separation, should never be mooted again. But this
reconciliation extended no farther than Constantinople; for in other
cities where any of these two parties were found, they persisted in
their former separation. So much respecting the division among the
Arians.
Footnotes
[802] See above, chap. 20.
[803] Cf. Theodoret, Hæret. Fabal. IV. 4; also Sozomen (probably
dependent on Socrates), VII. 17.
[804] psathurion, a species of cake; hence psathuropoles ,
`cake-seller.'
[805] Sozomen (VII. 17) adds that Selenas was a secretary of Ulfilas
and had been promoted to be his successor.
[806] 419 a.d.
Chapter XXIV.--The Eunomians divide into Several Factions.
But neither did the followers of Eunomius remain without dissensions:
for Eunomius [807] himself had long before this separated from
Eudoxius who ordained him bishop of Cyzicus, taking occasion from that
bishop's refusal to restore to communion his master Aëtius who had
been ejected. But those who derived their name from him were
subsequently divided into several factions. For first Theophronius a
Cappadocian, who had been instructed in the art of disputation by
Eunomius, and had acquired a smattering of Aristotle's Categories, and
his Book of Interpretation, composed some treatises which he entitled,
On the Exercise of the Mind. Having, however, drawn down upon himself
the reprobation of his own sect, he was ejected as an apostate. He
afterwards held assemblies apart from them, and left behind him a
heresy which bore his own name. Furthermore at Constantinople a
certain Eutychius from some absurd dispute, withdrew from the
Eunomians, and still continues to hold separate meetings. The
followers of Theophronius are denominated `Eunomiotheophronians'; and
those of Eutychius have the appellation of `Eunomieutychians.' What
those nonsensical terms were about which they differed I consider
unworthy of being recorded in this history, lest I should go into
matters foreign to my purpose. I shall merely observe that they
adulterated baptism: for they do not baptize in the name of the
Trinity, but into the death of Christ. [808] Among the Macedonians
also there was for some time a division, when Eutropius a presbyter
held separate assemblies, and Carterius did not agree with him. There
are possibly in other cities sects which have emanated from these: but
living at Constantinople, where I was born and educated, I describe
more particularly what has taken place in that city; both because I
have myself witnessed some of these transactions, and also because the
events which have there occurred are of pre-eminent importance, and
are therefore more worth of commemoration. Let it however be
understood that what I have here related happened at different
periods, and not at the same time. But if any one should be desirous
of knowing the names of the various sects, he may easily satisfy
himself, by reading a book entitled Ancoratus, [809] composed by
Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus: but I shall content myself with what I
have already stated. The public affairs were again thrown into
agitation from a cause I shall now refer to.
Footnotes
[807] Cf. IV. 7 and 13.
[808] Apost. Can.50 reads: `If any bishop or presbyter does not
perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with one
immersion only into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.' Also
the Second General Synod (that of Constantinople, 381) in its 7th
Canon passed the following: `But the Eunomians, who only baptize with
one immersion, and the Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and
the Sabellians, who teach the doctrine of the Fatherhood of the
Son...(if they wish to be joined to the Orthodox faith) we receive as
heathen; on the first day we make them Christians, on the second,
catechumens, &c.' See Hefele, Hist. of the Church Councils, Vol. II.
p. 367, 368.
[809] Epiphan. Ancoratus, 13. Photius calls the Ancoratus a synopsis
of the treatise of Epiphanius on Heresies (Biblioth. 123). The subject
here referred to was treated by Epiphanius in Hær. LXVI. and LXVIII.
Chapter XXV.--The Usurper Eugenius compasses the Death of Valentinian
the Younger. Theodosius obtains a Victory over him.
There was in the Western regions a grammarian named Eugenius, [810]
who after having for some time taught the Latin language, left his
school, and was appointed to service at the palace, being constituted
chief secretary to the emperor. Possessing a considerable degree of
eloquence, and being on that account treated with greater distinction
than others, he was unable to bear his good fortune with moderation.
For associating with himself Arbogastes, a native of Galatia Minor,
who then had the command of a division of the army, a man harsh in
manner and very bloodthirsty, he determined to usurp the sovereignty.
These two therefore agreed to murder the Emperor Valentinian, having
corrupted the eunuchs of the imperial bed-chamber. These, on receiving
tempting promises of promotion, strangled the emperor in his sleep.
Eugenius immediately assuming the supreme authority in the Western
parts of the empire, conducted himself in such a manner as might be
expected from a usurper. When the Emperor Theodosius was made
acquainted with these things, he was exceedingly distressed, because
his defeat of Maximus had only prepared the way for fresh troubles. He
accordingly assembled his military forces, and having proclaimed his
son Honorius Augustus, on the 10th of January, in his own third
consulate [811] which he bore with Abundantius, he again set out in
great haste toward the Western parts, leaving both his sons invested
with imperial authority at Constantinople. As he marched against
Eugenius a very great number of the barbarians beyond the Danube
volunteered their services, and followed him in this expedition. After
a rapid march he arrived in the Gauls with a numerous army, where
Eugenius awaited him, also at the head of an immense body of troops.
Accordingly an engagement took place near the river Frigidus, which is
[about thirty-six miles] distant [from Aquileia]. In that part of the
battle where the Romans fought against their own countrymen, the
conflict was doubtful: but where the barbarian auxiliaries of the
Emperor Theodosius were engaged, the forces of Eugenius had greatly
the advantage. When the emperor saw the barbarians perishing, he cast
himself in great agony upon the ground, and invoked the help of God in
this emergency: nor was his request unheeded; for Bacurius [812] his
principal officer, inspired with sudden and extraordinary ardor,
rushed with his vanguard to the part where the barbarians were hardest
pressed, broke through the ranks of the enemy, and put to flight those
who a little before were themselves engaged in pursuit. Another
marvelous circumstance also occurred. A violent wind suddenly arose,
which retorted upon themselves the darts cast by the soldiers of
Eugenius, and at the same time drove those hurled by the imperial
forces with increased impetus against their adversaries. [813] So
prevalent was the emperor's prayer. The success of the struggle being
in this way turned, the usurper threw himself at the emperor's feet,
and begged that his life might be spared: but as he lay a prostrate
suppliant at the feet [of the emperor] he was beheaded by the
soldiers, on the 6th of September, in the third consulate of Arcadius,
and the second of Honorius. [814] Arbogastes, who had been the chief
cause of so much mischief, having continued his flight for two days
after the battle, and seeing no chance of escape, despatched himself
with his own sword.
Footnotes
[810] This account of Arbogastes and Eugenius is also given by Zosimus
(IV. 53-58), who adds that Arbogastes was a Frank; and also by
Philostorgius (XI. 1), who says that Eugenius was a pagan.
[811] 393 a.d.
[812] Cf. Zosimus, IV. 57.
[813] Cf. Zosimus, IV. 58, who gives the additional item that the sun
was eclipsed during this battle.
[814] 394 a.d.
Chapter XXVI.--Illness and Death of Theodosius the Elder.
The Emperor Theodosius was in consequence of the anxiety and fatigues
connected with this war thrown into bodily illness; and believing the
disease which had attacked him would be fatal, he became more
concerned about the public affairs than his own life, considering how
great calamities often overtook the people after the death of their
sovereign. He therefore hastily summoned his son Honorius from
Constantinople, being principally desirous of setting in order the
state of things in the western parts of the empire. After his son's
arrival at Milan, he seemed to recover a little, and gave directions
for the celebration of the games of the hippodrome on account of his
victory. Before dinner he was pretty well, and a spectator of the
sports; but after he had dined he became suddenly too ill to return to
them, and sent his son to preside in his stead; when the night came on
he died, it being the seventeenth of January, during consulate of
Olybrius and Probus. [815] This was in the first year of the two
hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad. The emperor Theodosius lived sixty
years, [816] and reigned sixteen. This book therefore comprehends the
transactions of sixteen years and eight months.
Footnotes
[815] 395 a.d.
[816] There is some doubt as to the length of Theodosius' life; most
of the ancient historians (Sozomen, Theophanes, Cedrenus) agree with
Socrates in giving it as sixty years. Am. Marcellinus Rerum Gestarum,
XXIX. 6. 15, and Victor, Epit. XLVII., leave the impression that he
was fifty.
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/