II. Life of Socrates.

We cannot but regret the fact that the age in which Socrates lived cared little, if at all, about recording the lives of its literary men. The only sources of information in this respect are the writings themselves of these literary men and the public records, in case they held the double character of literary men and political or ecclesiastical officials. As Socrates did not participate in the public affairs of his day, our information respecting him is confined to the scanty and incidental items we may gather from his history. As he was not very fond of speaking of himself, these data are few and often of doubtful significance. In fact, the reconstruction of his biography from these scattered items is a matter of difficult critical investigation.

All that these inadequate materials yield of his biography may be summed up as follows:

He was born in Constantinople.

So he says in V. 24.

Nothing further is known of Socrates’ early life and education except that he studied under Ammonius and Helladius, as already noted. Valesius has conjectured from the mention of Troïlus, the famous rhetorician,

VII. 1 and 2. See note on VII. 1. Socrates speaks of Troilus as a native of Side in Pamphilia, and mentions Eusebius and Silvanus and Alabius (both the latter bishops) as distinguished pupils of Troilus, and finally adds that Anthemius, who during the minority of Theodosius acted as regent, was dependent on the influence of Troilus; in which connection he further adds that Troilus was not inferior to Anthemius in political sagacity.

Socrates always remained a resident of Constantinople, and was evidently proud of his native city, and fond of alluding to its history as well as its actual condition. He relates how the Emperor Constantine enlarged it and gave it its present name in place of the former heathen name it bore (Byzantium).

I. 16.

Although there is no distinct mention of his ever having left the great city,

V. 8.

According to the preponderance of evidence Socrates was trained as a pleader or advocate, and practiced this profession for a time. Hence his cognomen of Scholasticus.

The various meanings of this word may be found in Du Cange’s Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Græcitates and in Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. From its primary meaning of ‘student’ it came to be applied to any one who had passed through study to the professions, of which the advocate’s was one. From the absence of the cognomen in Photius’ account of Socrates, Bibliotheca Cod. 28, as well as in that of Nicephorus Callisti, H. E. I. 1, Hamburger, as quoted by Fabricius, Bibl. Græc. VII. p. 423, note g, and Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, XIII. p. 669, doubt whether the title was rightly applied to him. Valesius argues from internal grounds that Socrates was a layman and a lawyer. Harnack, on the other hand, denies that there is any evidence of juristic knowledge in Socrates’ History, even in such passages as I. 30, 31, and V. 18.

This year is the last definitely mentioned in his work. He must have lived, however, until some time after that date, as he speaks of a revision of the first two books of the History.

II. 1.

Of the character of Socrates as a man we know as little as of the events of his life. Evidently he was a lover of peace, as he constantly speaks with abhorrence of the atrocities of war, and deprecates even differences in theological standpoint on account of the strife and ill-feeling which they engender.

Socrates’ knowledge of Latin has been inferred from his use of Rufinus,

I. 12, 19; III. 19; IV. 24, 26.

Inasmuch as he lived in, and wrote of, an age of controversies, and his testimony must be weighed according to his theological standpoint, this standpoint has been made the subject of careful study. There is no doubt left by his explicit declarations about his agreement in the main with the position of the orthodox or catholic church of his age, as far as these are distinguished from those of Arians, Macedonians, Eunomians, and other heretics. But as to his attitude towards Novatianism there has been considerable difference of opinion. That he was a member of the Novatian sect has been held after Nicephorus Callisti

Niceph. H. E. I. 1.

On the other hand, Valesius, followed by most of the more recent writers on Socrates, claims that all these facts are due to the extreme impartiality of the historian, his sense of the justice due to a sect whose good he appreciated, together with his lack of interest in the differences between their standpoint and that of the Catholics. Socrates treats other heretical sects with the same generous consideration, e.g. the Arian Goths, whose death he records as a martyrdom;

IV. 33.

To account for the apparently different conclusions to which these two series of considerations point, some have assumed that Socrates had been a Novatian, but before the writing of his history had either gradually drifted into the Catholic Church, or for reasons of prudence had severed his connection with the lesser body and entered the state church, retaining, however, throughout his whole course a strong sympathy for the communion of his earlier days.

So Harnack in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encykl. and Encyclop. Britan.

In other respects it cannot be doubted that the creed of Socrates was very simple and primitive. The one essential article in it was the doctrine of the Trinity; all others were subordinate. Even as to the Trinity, he would have accepted a much less rigid definition than the one propounded at Nicæa. As, however, the latter had been generally adopted by the church, he finds himself defending it against Arianism as well as against all sorts of compromise. He believed in the inspiration of the great synods as well as in that of the Scriptures, and was satisfied to receive without questioning the decisions of the former as he did the teachings of the latter. He was not, however, particular about the logical consequences of his theological positions, but ready to break off upon sufficient extra-theological reasons. His warm defense of Origen and arraignment of Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus,

VI. 13, 17; VII. 45.

He makes a cogent defense of the use of pagan writings by Christians,

III. 16.

One more characteristic of Socrates must be mentioned; viz., his respect for the church and its institutions. He had a high regard for clergymen in virtue of their ordination. And although, as already shown, he took occasion to express himself critically of the highest dignitaries, such as Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, yet the person of a bishop or presbyter is in a certain sense surrounded by sacredness to him. Monks are models of piety. In his eulogy of Theodosius the Younger,

VII. 22.

III. Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History.

Until the beginning of the fourth century historiography remained a pagan science. With the exception of the Acts of the Apostles and its apocryphal imitations, no sort of attempt had been made to record even the annals of the Christian Church. At the opening of the fourth century Eusebius conceived the idea of writing a history which should include a complete account of the Church’s life to his own days. Hence he has correctly been called the Father of Church History. His work was done so satisfactorily to his contemporaries and immediate successors that none of them undertook to go over the same field again.

That this was not due to a general conviction that one history of a period rendered another of the same period unnecessary is evident from the fact that the period immediately succeeding is treated of by three successive historians, and that the second of these, at least, knows and uses the work of his predecessor.

Thus a school of church historians arose, and a number of continuations of Eusebius’ History were undertaken. Of these, six are known to have seen the light: three of these again are either in part or wholly lost; viz., those of Philippus Sidetes, of Philastorgius, and of Hesychius. The first because of internal characteristics which made it difficult to use; the second because its author was a heretic (an Arian), and with the wane of the sect to which he belonged, his work lost favor and was gradually ostracized by the orthodox, and thus was lost, with the exception of an abstract preserved by Photius; and the third, for reasons unknown and undiscoverable, met with the same fate, not leaving even as much as an abstract behind. The remaining three are the histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. That of Theodoret begins with the rise of Arianism, and ends with Theodore of Mopsuestia (429 a.d.). That of Sozomen was begun with the purpose of including the history of the years between 323 (date of the overthrow of Licinius by Constantine) and 439 (the seventeenth consulship of Theodosius the Younger), but for some reason was closed with the death of the Emperor Honorius (423), and so covers just one hundred years. The work of Socrates, being evidently older than either of the other two, is more directly a continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. The motives which actuated him to continue the narratives of Eusebius may be gathered from the work to be his love for history,

Harnack, however, successfully proves that Socrates’ ideal of history, in spite of his love for it, was far from being the scientific idea which existed among pagan writers even of the age preceding his own. Cf. Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyk. Vol. 14, p. 413 sq.

IV. History of Socrates’ Work.

A. Uses made before the First Printed Edition of the Greek Text.

Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History was used, according to the best authorities, by Sozomen in the composition of his parallel history.

So Harnack and Jeep. Cf. also Hartranft in the present vol., p. 00.

Epiphanius, surnamed Scholasticus, translated the history of Socrates, together with those of Sozomen and Theodoret, under the auspices of Cassiodorus, about the beginning of the sixth century. This translation, under the name of Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Tripartitæ, consists of twelve books, and was printed at Paris, without date, by Regnault in 8vo; afterwards also at Bâle in 1523, 1528, 1533, 1539, and 1568. It was revised by Beatus Rhenanus, and published in Frankfort on the Main in 1588, together with the history of Eusebius, which was translated and continued by Rufinus. It is also found in the new edition of Cassiodorus printed at Rouen by Jo. Garetius in 1679 and in Venice, 1729. It served as a basis for a French translation by Ægidius Gourlinus (Gille Gourlin), published in Paris in 1538 (cited by Cyaneus), and of a German translation by Caspar Hedio at Strasburg, 1545.

B. Editions.

There are two independent editions of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, each of which has served as a basis for reprints, secondary editions, and translations. These are:

I. Eusebii Pamphili: Hist. EccI. LL. X.; ejd. de Vita Constantini LL. V.; Socratis Hist. Eccl. LL. VII.; Theodoreti Episc. Cyrensis Hist. EccI. LL. V.; Collectaneum ex hist. eccl. Theodori Lectoris LL. II.; Hermiæ Sozomeni Hist. EccI. LL. IX.; Evagrii Hist. Eccl. LL. VI. Lut. Paris, ex off. Rob. Stephani 1544 pridie Cal. Jul.

a. Upon this edition is based a Latin translation by Wolfgang Musculus, Bâle 1544, 1549, 1557, 1594, and one by J. J. Christophorson, bishop of Chichester, Paris 1571, Cologne 1581, Bâle 1570; with notes by Grynæus and by Henricus Petri 1611; incorporated into the Bibliotheca Patrum, ed. Cologne 1618 as Vol. V. and ed. Lyons 1677 as Vol. VII.

b. The Greek text of Stephens and the Latin translation of Christophorson were published together in Geneva, 1612.

c. An English translation of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History was made by Meredith Hanmer,

Cf. Woods, Athenæ Oxonienses, Vol. I. p. 326.

2. The second independent edition of Socrates is that which has been received as standard and served as a basis for all subsequent uses, viz.:

Historia Ecclesiastica Socratis, Scholastici, Hermiæ, Sozomeni, &c., ed. Henricus Valesius. Paris 1668. Valesius ostensibly revised the text of Stephens, but as a matter of fact he made a new collation of the ms. used by Stephens, and compared this with mss. in the Vatican, so that his edition amounts to an entirely new work. He also made a new Latin translation and appended numerous notes. This edition was reprinted in Mayence in 1677. Its Latin portion was reprinted in Paris also in 1677. The reprint of Mayence was reproduced under a new title, as if in Amsterdam in 1675.

a. Gul. Reading appended additional notes, and together with the Latin translation of Valesius, published the work in Cambridge in three vols. 1720. Reading’s edition was reprinted at Turin in 1746. Valesius’ original edition was again reprinted in Oxford by Parker in 1844 and Cura Buckley in London, also in 1844. It was revised and published in Oxford in 3 vols. by R. Hussey in 1853, and again in 1860 and in 1879. Again it was incorporated into Migne’s Patrologia Græca as Vol. LXVII. (Petit Montrouge) in 1859, and finally the Greek text alone was revised and published in a single volume by William Bright in Oxford 1878.

b. The translations based on Valesius’ edition exclusive of those in Latin mentioned above are as follows:

In French by L. Cousin: Histoire de l’Eglise écrite par Eusèbe, Socrate, Sozomène, Theodoret, &c. 4 vols. Paris 1675, and 6 vols. Amsterdam 1686. [Containing also Photius’ abstract of Philostorgius.]

In English by Shorting:

So Crusè.

By S. Parker: The Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.…abridged from the originals. London 1707, 3rd ed. 1729.

And Anonymously [E. Walford]

The volume containing Sozomen in this series bears the name of Walford. The translation of Socrates is anonymous, but generally ascribed to Walford also. This cannot be a matter of inference from the appearance of the two historians in the same series, as Eusebius, also in the same series, is translated by Crusè. Those who attribute the translation to Walford give no reason for doing so.

Chapter II.—By what Means the Emperor Constantine became a Christian.

When Diocletian and Maximian,

‘Socrates is here in error; for Maximianus Herculius, who was otherwise called Maximian the Elder, was, by Constantine’s command, slain in Gallia in 310 a.d. But Maximius Cæsar, two years after, being conquered by Licinius, died at Tarsus.’ (Valesius.) On the confusion of Maximian and Maximin, see Introd. III.

Chapter III.—While Constantine favors the Christians, Licinius, his Colleague, persecutes them.

Now Constantine, the emperor, having thus embraced Christianity, conducted himself as a Christian of his profession, rebuilding the churches, and enriching them with splendid offerings: he also either closed or destroyed the temples of the pagans,

῾Ελλήνων: the word is used without the sense of nationality. So also in the New Testament often: Mark vii. 26; Gal. ii. 3 and iii. 28, where the Syriac (Peschitto) version renders, more according to sense than according to the letter, ‘an Aramæan.’

Chapter IV.—War arises between Constantine and Licinius on Account of the Christians.

By this course he drew upon himself the emperor Constantine’s heaviest displeasure; and they became enemies, the pretended treaty of friendship between them having been violated. Not long afterwards they took up arms against each other as declared enemies. And after several engagements both by sea and land, Licinius was at last utterly defeated near Chrysopolis in Bithynia, a port of the Chalcedonians, and surrendered himself to Constantine. Accordingly he having taken him alive, treated him with the utmost humanity, and would by no means put him to death, but ordered him to take up his abode and live in tranquillity at Thessalonica. He having, however, remained quiet a short time, managed afterwards to collect some barbarian mercenaries and made an effort to repair his late disaster by a fresh appeal to arms. The emperor being made acquainted with his proceedings, directed that he should be slain, which was carried into effect. Constantine thus became possessed of the sole dominion, and was accordingly proclaimed sovereign Autocrat,

After a victory the soldiers greeted their prince with acclamations of ‘Emperor!’ ‘Augustus!’ So also did the citizens on his triumphal entry into the city. So it appears Constantine was formally greeted on assuming the sole control of affairs.

Chapter V.—The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.

After Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery—the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imagining that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan,

Though Sabellius was the originator of one of the earliest and most plausible attempts at explanation of the mystery of the Trinity (for which see life of Sabellius in Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian Biog., and Hodge, System. Theol. Vol. I. p. 452, 459), nothing is known of him, not even why he is called a Libyan here (also by other ancient writers, e.g. Philastrius, de Hæres. 26, and Asterius, quoted by Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 27). Some say that he was a native and resident of Libya, others that he was an ecclesiastic appointed to some position there; nor is it known whether the Libya meant is the Libyan Pentapolis or the Pentapolitan Ptolemais.

Chapter VI.—Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.

Having drawn this inference from his novel train of reasoning, he excited many to a consideration of the question; and thus from a little spark a large fire was kindled: for the evil which began in the Church at Alexandria, ran throughout all Egypt, Libya, and the upper Thebes, and at length diffused itself over the rest of the provinces and cities. Many others also adopted the opinion of Arius; but Eusebius in particular was a zealous defender of it: not he of Cæsarea, but the one who had before been bishop of the church at Berytus, and was then somehow in possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. When Alexander became conscious of these things, both from his own observation and from report, being exasperated to the highest degree, he convened a council of many prelates; and excommunicated Arius and the abettors of his heresy; at the same time he wrote as follows to the bishops constituted in the several cities:—

The Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria.

To our beloved and most honored fellow-Ministers of the Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord.

Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body, and we are commanded in the holy Scriptures to maintain ‘the bond of unity and peace,’

Eph. iv. 3.

Chapter VII.—The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, sends Hosius the Spaniard to Alexandria, exhorting the Bishop and Arius to Reconciliation and Unity.

When the emperor was made acquainted with these disorders, he was very deeply grieved; and regarding the matter as a personal misfortune, immediately exerted himself to extinguish the conflagration which had been kindled, and sent a letter to Alexander and Arius by a trustworthy person named Hosius, who was bishop of Cordova, in Spain. The emperor greatly loved this man and held him in the highest estimation. It will not be out of place to introduce here a portion of this letter, the whole of which is given in the life of Constantine by Eusebius.

Euseb. Life of Const. II. 64–72.

Victor Constantine Maximum Augustus to Alexander and Arius.

I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you, Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you, Arius, rashly gave expression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This dispute having thus been excited among you, communion

σύνοδος; lit., ‘coming together.’

And even if any one should be considered able to satisfactorily accomplish this, how large a portion of the people would he succeed in convincing? Or who can grapple with the subtilties of such investigations without danger of lapsing into error? It becomes us therefore on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of the weakness of our nature we should be incompetent to explain the subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the audience should make them unable to apprehend clearly what is attempted to be taught: and in the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be necessarily involved either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause of difference has been started by you bearing on any important precept contained in the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection with the worship of God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on these points, which is the Creed.

κοινωνίας σύνθημα = σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως. Cf. Eus. Life of Const. II. 10.

Chapter VIII.—Of the Synod which was held at Nicæa in Bithynia, and the Creed there

Cf. the parallel account in Sozom. I. 17.

Such admirable and wise counsel did the emperor’s letter contain. But the evil had become too strong both for the exhortations of the emperor, and the authority of him who was the bearer of his letter: for neither was Alexander nor Arius softened by this appeal; and moreover there was incessant strife and tumult among the people. Moreover another local source of disquietude had pre-existed there, which served to trouble the churches,—the dispute namely in regard to the Passover, which was carried on in the regions of the East only.

In a single sentence this controversy was as to whether the Easter should be observed on a fixed day in every year or on the 14th of the lunar month Nisan of the Jews, on whatever day of the week that might happen to fall. For a fuller discussion of the controversy, see Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, and the literature there referred to.

‘Wherefore the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the churches which have filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were convened. And one sacred edifice, dilated as it were by God, contained within it on the same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians, Phœnicians, Arabs and Palestinians, and in addition to these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came from Mesopotamia. At this synod a Persian bishop was also present, neither was the Scythian absent from this assemblage. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia, supplied those who were most distinguished among them. Besides, there met there Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and even those who dwelt still further away than these, and the most celebrated of the Spaniards himself

Hosius mentioned before in chap. 7.

Such is Eusebius’ account of those who met on this occasion. The emperor having completed the festal solemnization of this triumph over Licinius, came also in person to Nice.

There were among the bishops two of extraordinary celebrity, Paphnutius, bishop of Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of Cyprus: why I have so particular referred to these two individuals, I shall state hereafter. Many of the laity were also present, who were practiced in the art of reasoning,

Dialectics.

Chapter IX.—The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation of Arius and those who agreed with him.

To the holy, by the grace of God, and great church of the Alexandrians, and to our beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the bishops assembled at Nicæa, constituting the great and holy Synod, send greeting in the Lord.

Since, by the grace of God, a great and holy Synod has been convened at Nicæa, our most pious sovereign Constantine having summoned us out of various cities and provinces for that purpose, it appeared to us indispensably necessary that a letter should be written to you on the part of the sacred Synod; in order that ye may know what subjects were brought under consideration and examined, and what was eventually determined on and decreed.

In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined into, in the presence of our most religious emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered, in affirming that ‘the Son of God sprang from nothing,’ and that ‘there was a time when he was not’; saying moreover that ‘the Son of God, because possessed of free will, was capable either of vice or virtue; and calling him a creature and a work. All these sentiments the holy Synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious opinion, or, rather, madness, and such blasphemous words. But the conclusion of our proceedings against him you must either have been informed of already or will soon learn; for we would not seem to trample on a man who has received the chastisement which his crime deserved. Yet so contagious has his pestilential error proved, as to drag into perdition Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemaïs; for they have suffered the same condemnation as himself. But when the grace of God delivered us from those execrable dogmas, with all their impiety and blasphemy, and from those persons, who had dared to cause discord and division among a people previously at peace, there still remained the contumacy of Melitius [to be dealt with] and those who had been ordained by him; and we now state to you, beloved brethren, what resolution the Synod came to on this point. It was decreed, the Synod being moved to great clemency towards Melitius, although strictly speaking he was wholly undeserving of favor, that he remain in his own city but exercise no authority either to ordain or nominate for ordination; and that he appear in no other district or city on this pretense, but simply retain a nominal dignity. That those who had received appointments from him, after having been confirmed by a more legitimate ordination, should be admitted to communion on these conditions: that they should continue to hold their rank and ministry, but regard themselves as inferior in every respect to all those who have been ordained and established in each place and church by our most-honored fellow-minister, Alexander, so that they shall have no authority to propose or nominate whom they please, or to do anything at all without the concurrence of some bishop of the Catholic Church who is one of Alexander’s suffragans. On the other hand, such as by the grace of God and your prayers have been found in no schism, but have continued in the Catholic Church blameless, shall have authority to nominate and ordain those who are worthy of the sacred office,

κλήρου: cf. Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. I. 5.

This epistle of the Synod makes it plain that they not only anathematized Arius and his adherents, but the very expressions of his tenets; and that having agreed among themselves respecting the celebration of Easter, they readmitted the heresiarch Melitius into communion, suffering him to retain his episcopal rank, but divesting him of all authority to act as a bishop. It is for this reason I suppose that even at the present time the Melitians in Egypt are separated from the church, because the Synod deprived Melitius of all power. It should be observed moreover that Arius had written a treatise on his own opinion which he entitled Thalia; but the character of the book is loose and dissolute, similar in its style and metres to the songs of Sotades.

Sotades, a Maronite, characterized as obscene. On the doctrines of the Maronites, cf. Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, Ch. XLVII. sect. 3.

The Emperor’s Letter.

Constantine Augustus, to the Catholic church of the Alexandrians. Beloved brethren, hail! We have received from Divine Providence the inestimable blessing of being relieved from all error, and united in the acknowledgment of one and the same faith. The devil will no longer have any power against us, since all that which he had malignantly devised for our destruction has been entirely overthrown from the foundations. The splendor of truth has dissipated at the command of God those dissensions, schisms, tumults, and so to speak, deadly poisons of discord. Wherefore we all worship one true God, and believe that he is. But in order that this might be done, by divine admonition I assembled at the city of Nicæa most of the bishops; with whom I myself also, who am but one of you, and who rejoice exceedingly in being your fellow-servant, undertook the investigation of the truth. Accordingly, all points which seemed in consequence of ambiguity to furnish any pretext for dissension, have been discussed and accurately examined. And may the Divine Majesty pardon the fearful enormity of the blasphemies which some were shamelessly uttering concerning the mighty Saviour, our life and hope; declaring and confessing that they believe things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures. While more than three hundred bishops remarkable for their moderation and intellectual keenness, were unanimous in their confirmation of one and the same faith, which according to the truth and legitimate construction of the law of God can only be the faith; Arius alone beguiled by the subtlety of the devil, was discovered to be the sole disseminator of this mischief, first among you, and afterwards with unhallowed purposes among others also. Let us therefore embrace that doctrine which the Almighty has presented to us: let us return to our beloved brethren from whom an irreverent servant of the devil has separated us: let us go with all speed to the common body and our own natural members. For this is becoming your penetration, faith and sanctity; that since the error has been proved to be due to him who is an enemy to the truth, ye should return to the divine favor. For that which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God; seeing that the Holy Spirit dwelling in the minds of so many dignified persons has effectually enlightened them respecting the Divine will. Wherefore let no one vacillate or linger, but let all with alacrity return to the undoubted path of duty; that when I shall arrive among you, which will be as soon as possible, I may with you return due thanks to God, the inspector of all things, for having revealed the pure faith, and restored to you that love for which ye have prayed. May God protect you, beloved brethren.

Thus wrote the emperor to the Christians of Alexandria, assuring them that the exposition of the faith was neither made rashly nor at random, but that it was dictated with much research, and after strict investigation: and not that some things were spoken of, while others were suppressed in silence; but that whatever could be fittingly advanced in support of any opinion was fully stated. That nothing indeed was precipitately determined, but all was previously discussed with minute accuracy; so that every point which seemed to furnish a pretext for ambiguity of meaning, or difference of opinion, was thoroughly sifted, and its difficulties removed. In short he terms the thought of all those who were assembled there the thought of God, and does not doubt that the unanimity of so many eminent bishops was effected by the Holy Spirit. Sabinus, however, the chief of the heresy of the Macedonians, willfully rejects these authorities, and calls those who were convened there ignorant and illiterate persons; nay, he almost accuses Eusebius of Cæsarea himself of ignorance: nor does he reflect, that even if those who constituted that synod had been laymen, yet as being illuminated by God, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, they were utterly unable to err from the truth.

It has always been the common belief of the Eastern Church that the ecumenical councils were inspired in the same sense as the writers of the Sacred Scriptures. Socrates in this respect simply reflects the opinion of the age and region.

Another Epistle of Constantine.

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to the bishops and people.—Since Arius has imitated wicked and impious persons, it is just that he should undergo the like ignominy. Wherefore as Porphyry,

Cf. III. 23, where the author makes further mention of Porphyry and his writings; see also Smith, Dict. Greek and Roman Biog.

Another Epistle.

Euseb. Life of Const. III. 17–19.

Constantine Augustus, to the Churches.

Having experienced from the flourishing condition of public affairs, how great has been the grace of divine power, I judged this to be an object above all things claiming my care, that one faith, with sincere love, and uniform piety toward Almighty God should be maintained amongst the most blessed assemblies of the Catholic Church. But inasmuch as I perceived that this could not be firmly and permanently established, unless all, or at least the greatest part of the bishops could be convened in the same place, and every point of our most holy religion should be discussed by them in council; therefore as many as possible were assembled, and I myself also as one of you was present; for I will not deny what I especially rejoice in, that I am your fellow-servant. All points were then minutely investigated, until a decision acceptable to Him who is the inspector of all things, was published for the promotion of uniformity of judgment and practice; so that nothing might be henceforth left for dissension or controversy in matters of faith. There also the question having been considered relative to the most holy day of Easter, it was determined by common consent that it should be proper that all should celebrate it on one and the same day everywhere. For what can be more appropriate, or what more solemn, than that this feast from which we have received the hope of immortality, should be invariably kept in one order, and for an obvious reason among all? And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy of this most sacred feast, that we should keep it following the custom of the Jews; a people who having imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage, have thus polluted their souls, and are deservedly blind. Having then cast aside their usage, we are free to see to it that the celebration of this observance should occur in future in the more correct order which we have kept from the first day of the Passion until the present time. Therefore have nothing in common with that most hostile people the Jews. We have received from the Saviour another way; for there is set before us both a legitimate and accurate course in our holy religion: unanimously pursuing this, let us, most honored brethren, withdraw ourselves from that detestable association. For it is truly absurd for them to boast that we are incapable of rightly observing these things without their instruction. For on what subject will they be competent to form a correct judgment, who after that murder of their Lord, having been bereft of their senses, are led not by any rational motive, but by an ungovernable impulse, wherever their innate fury may drive them? Thence it is therefore, that even in this particular they do not perceive the truth, so that they constantly erring in the utmost degree, instead of making a suitable correction, celebrate the Feast of Passover a second time in the same year.

As the Jewish Passover month was a lunar month and began on the fifth day of March and ended on the third of April, it happened sometimes that their Passover began before the equinox (the beginning of the solar year), so that they celebrated two Passovers during the same solar year. Their own year being lunar, of course they never celebrated the Passover twice in a year according to their point of view.

Since then it was desirable that this should be so amended that we should have nothing in common with that nation of parricides, and of those who slew their Lord; and since the order is a becoming one which is observed by all the churches of the western, southern, and northern parts, and by some also in the eastern; from these considerations for the present all thought it to be proper, and I pledged myself that it would be satisfactory to your prudent penetration, that what is observed with such general unanimity of sentiment in the city of Rome, throughout Italy, Africa, all Egypt, Spain, France, Britain, Libya, the whole of Greece, and the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia, your intelligence also would cheerfully accept; reflecting too that not only is there a greater number of churches in the places before mentioned, but also that this in particular is a most sacred obligation, that all should in common desire whatever strict reason seems to demand, and what has no communion with the perjury of the Jews. But to sum up matters briefly, it was determined by common consent that the most holy festival of Easter should be solemnized on one and the same day; for it is not even seemly that there should be in such a hallowed solemnity any difference: and it is more commendable to adopt that opinion in which there will be no intermixture of strange error, or deviation from what is right. These things therefore being thus consistent, do you gladly receive this heavenly and truly divine command: for whatever is done in the sacred assemblies of the bishops is referable to the Divine will. Wherefore, when ye have indicated the things which have been prescribed to all our beloved brethren, it behooves you to publish the above written statements and to accept the reasoning which has been adduced, and to establish this observance of the most holy day: that when I arrive at the long and earnestly desired view of your order, I may be able to celebrate the sacred festival with you on one and the same day; and may rejoice with you for all things, in seeing Satanic cruelty frustrated by divine power through our efforts, while your faith, peace and concord are everywhere flourishing. May God preserve you, beloved brethren.

Another Epistle to Eusebius.

Valesius thinks this letter is misplaced; as it alludes to the death of Licinius as a recent event, he thinks it must have been written about 315–316 a.d., hence ten years before the Council of Nicæa. Cf. Euseb. Life of Const. II. 46.

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius.

Since an impious purpose and tyranny have even to the present time persecuted the servants of God our Saviour, I have been credibly informed and am fully persuaded, most beloved brother, that all our sacred edifices have either by neglect gone to decay, or from dread of impending danger have not been adorned with becoming dignity. But now that liberty has been restored, and that persecuting dragon Licinius has by the providence of the Most High God, and our instrumentality, been removed from the administration of public affairs, I imagine that the divine power has been made manifest to all, and at the same time that those who either through fear or unbelief fell into any sins, having acknowledged the living God, will come to the true and right course of life. Wherefore enjoin the churches over which you yourself preside, as well as the other bishops presiding in various places, together with the presbyters and deacons whom you know, to be diligent about the sacred edifices, either by repairing those which remain standing, or enlarging them, or by erecting new ones wherever it may be requisite. And do you yourself ask, and the rest through you, the necessary supplies both from the governors of the provinces, and the officers of the prætorian prefecture: for directions have been given to them to execute with all diligence the orders of your holiness. May God preserve you, beloved brother.

These instructions, concerning the building of churches were sent by the emperor to the bishops in every province: but what he wrote to Eusebius of Palestine respecting the preparation of some copies of the Scriptures, we may ascertain from the letters themselves:

Euseb. Life of Const. IV. 36.

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius of Cæsarea.

In the city which derives its name from us, a very great multitude of persons, through the assisting providence of our Saviour God, have united themselves to the most holy Church, so that it has received much increase there. It is therefore requisite that more churches should be furnished in that place: wherefore do you most cordially enter into the purpose which I have conceived. I have thought fit to intimate this to your prudence, that you should order to be transcribed on well-prepared parchment, by competent writers accurately acquainted with their art, fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures, both legibly described, and of a portable size, the provision and use of which you know to be needful for the instruction of the Church. Letters have also been despatched from our clemency, to the financial agent

διοικήσεως καθολικόν: this office was peculiar to the Eastern Church. The nearest equivalent to it in the terminology of the Western Church is that of vicar-general; but as the non-technical expression ‘financial agent’ describes the official to the modern reader, it has been adopted in the present translation. Concerning the office, cf. Euseb. H. E. VII. 10. It may be also noted that the very common ecclesiastical term diocese (διοίκησις ) originated during the reign of Constantine, as becomes evident from his letters. See Euseb. Life of Const. III. 36.

Another Epistle to Macarius.

Euseb. Life of Const. III. 30.

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Macarius of Jerusalem.—Such is the grace of our Saviour, that no supply of words seems to be adequate to the expression of its present manifestation. For that the monument

γνώρισμα: the sepulchre near Calvary commonly known as the Saviour’s is meant.

Chapter X.—The Emperor also summons to the Synod Acesius, Bishop of the Novatians.

The emperor’s diligence induces me to mention another circumstance expressive of his mind, and serving to show how much he desired peace. For aiming at ecclesiastical harmony, he summoned to the council Acesius also, a bishop of the sect of Novatians. Now, when the declaration of faith had been written out and subscribed by the Synod, the emperor asked Acesius whether he would also agree to this creed to the settlement of the day on which Easter should be observed. He replied, ‘The Synod has determined nothing new, my prince: for thus heretofore, even from the beginning, from the times of the apostles, I traditionally received the definition of the faith, and the time of the celebration of Easter.’ When, therefore, the emperor further asked him, ‘For what reason then do you separate yourself from communion with the rest of the Church?’ he related what had taken place during the persecution under Decius; and referred to the rigidness of that austere canon which declares, that it is not right persons who after baptism have committed a sin, which the sacred Scriptures denominate ‘a sin unto death’

John v. 16.

Chapter XI.—Of the Bishop Paphnutius.

As we have promised above

Above, chap. 8.

Chapter XII.—Of Spyridon, Bishop of the Cypriots.

With respect to Spyridon, so great was his sanctity while a shepherd, that he was thought worthy of being made a Pastor of men: and having been assigned the bishopric of one of the cities in Cyprus named Trimithus, on account of his extreme humility he continued to feed his sheep during his incumbency of the bishopric. Many extraordinary things are related of him: I shall however record but one or two, lest I should seem to wander from my subject. Once about midnight, thieves having clandestinely entered his sheepfold attempted to carry off some of the sheep. But God who protected the shepherd preserved his sheep also; for the thieves were by an invisible power bound to the folds. At daybreak, when he came to the sheep and found the men with their hands tied behind them, he understood what was done: and after having prayed he liberated the thieves, earnestly admonishing and exhorting them to support themselves by honest labor, and not to take anything unjustly. He then gave them a ram, and sent them away, humorously adding, ‘that ye may not appear to have watched all night in vain.’ This is one of the miracles in connection with Spyridon. Another was of this kind. He had a virgin daughter named Irene, who was a partaker of her father’s piety. An acquaintance entrusted to her keeping an ornament of considerable value: she, to guard it more securely, hid what had been deposited with her in the ground, and not long afterwards died. Subsequently the owner of the property came to claim it; and not finding the virgin, he began an excited conversation with the father, at times accusing him of an attempt to defraud him, and then again beseeching him to restore the deposit. The old man, regarding this person’s loss as his own misfortune, went to the tomb of his daughter, and called upon God to show him before its proper season the promised resurrection. Nor was he disappointed in his hope: for the virgin again reviving appeared to her father, and having pointed out to him the spot where she had hidden the ornament, she once more departed. Such characters as these adorned the churches in the time of the emperor Constantine. These details I obtained from many inhabitants of Cyprus. I have also found a treatise composed in Latin by the presbyter Rufinus, from which I have collected these and some other things which will be hereafter adduced.

On the use Socrates made of Rufinus, and the question of his knowledge of Latin therein involved, see Introd. p. x.

Chapter XIII.—Of Eutychian the Monk.

I have heard moreover concerning Eutychian, a devout person who flourished about the same time; who also belonged to the Novatian church, yet was venerated for the performance of similar miracles. I shall unequivocally state my authority for this narrative, nor will I attempt to conceal it, even though I give offense to some parties. It was Auxanon, a very aged presbyter of the Novatian church; who when quite a youth accompanied Acesius to the Synod at Nicæa, and related to me what I have said concerning him. His life extended from that period to the reign of Theodosius the Younger; and when I was a mere youth he recounted to me the acts of Eutychian, enlarging much on the divine grace which was manifested in him: but one circumstance he alluded to, which occurred in the reign of Constantine, peculiarly worthy of mention. One of those military attendants, whom the emperor calls his domestic [or body] guards having been suspected of treasonable practices, sought his safety in flight. The indignant monarch ordered that he should be put to death, wherever he might be found: who, having been arrested on the Bithynian Olympus, was bound with heavy and painful chains and kept imprisoned near those parts of Olympus where Eutychian was leading a solitary life, and healing both the bodies and souls of many. The aged Auxanon being then very young was with him, and was being trained by him in the discipline of the monastic life. Many persons came to this Eutychian, entreating him to procure the release of the prisoner by interceding for him with the emperor. For the fame of the miracles done by Eutychian had reached the ears of the emperor. He readily promised to go to the sovereign; but as the chains inflicted intolerable suffering, those who interested themselves on his behalf declared that death caused by the effect of his chains would anticipate both the emperor’s vengeance and any intercession that might be made for the prisoner. Accordingly Eutychian sent to the jailers requesting them to relieve the man; but they having answered that they should bring themselves into danger by relieving a criminal, he went himself to the prison, attended by Auxanon; and as they refused to open the jail, the grace which rested on Eutychian was rendered more conspicuous: for the gates of the prison opened of their own accord, while the jailers had the keys in their custody. As soon as Eutychian, together with Auxanon, had entered the prison, to the great astonishment of all then present the fetters spontaneously fell from the prisoner’s limbs. He then proceeded with Auxanon to the city which was anciently called Byzantium but afterwards Constantinople, where having been admitted into the imperial palace, he saved the man from death; for the emperor, entertaining great veneration for Eutychian, readily granted his request. This indeed occurred some time after [the period to which this part of our history refers].

The bishops who were convened at the council of Nicæa, after having drawn up and enrolled certain other ecclesiastical regulations which they are accustomed to term canons, again departed to their respective cities: and as I conceive it will be appreciated by lovers of learning, I shall here subjoin the names of such as were present, as far as I have been able to ascertain them, with the province and city over which they severally presided, and likewise the date at which this assembly took place. Hosius, who was I believe bishop of Cordova in Spain, as I have before stated. Vito and Vicentius, presbyters of Rome, Alexander, bishop of Egypt, Eustathius of Antiochia Magna, Macarius of Jerusalem, and Harpocration of Cynopolis: the names of the rest are fully reported in The Synodicon

This work of Athanasius is not now extant.

Chapter XIV.—Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nicæa, who had been banished for agreeing in Opinion with Arius, having published their Recantation, and assented to the Creed, are reinstated in their Sees.

Eusebius

This is not in its place according to chronological order, inasmuch as it occurred in 328 a.d. It appears also from the accounts of the other historians of this period that Socrates does not give the correct reason for the banishment of Eusebius and Theognis. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. I. 20; also Sozom. I. 21.

Chapter XV.—After the Synod, on the Death of Alexander, Athanasius is constituted Bishop of Alexandria.

A little after this, Alexander bishop of Alexandria having died,

Socrates and Sozomen are both mistaken in putting the death of Alexander and ordination of Athanasius after the return of Eusebius and Theognis from exile. According to Theodoret (H. E. I. 26), Alexander died a few months after the Council of Nicæa, hence in 325 a.d., and Athanasius succeeded him at the end of the same year, or at the beginning of the next.

Chapter XVI.—The Emperor Constantine having enlarged the Ancient Byzantium, calls it Constantinople.

After the Synod the emperor spent some time in recreation, and after the public celebration of his twentieth anniversary of his accession,

The Vicennalia.

Chapter XVII.—The Emperor’s Mother Helena having come to Jerusalem, searches for and finds the Cross of Christ, and builds a Church.

Helena, the emperor’s mother (from whose name having made Drepanum, once a village, a city, the emperor called it Helenopolis), being divinely directed by dreams went to Jerusalem. Finding that which was once Jerusalem, desolate ‘as a Preserve for autumnal fruits,’

Isa. i. 8. ὀπωροφυλάκιον , ‘a lodge in a garden of cucumbers,’ according to the English versions (both authorized and revised), which follows the Hebrew; in the LXX the words ἐν σικυηράτῳ are added.

Chapter XVIII.—The Emperor Constantine abolishes Paganism and erects many Churches in Different Places.

After this the emperor became increasingly attentive to the interests of the Christians, and abandoned the heathen superstitions. He abolished the combats of the gladiators, and set up his own statues in the temples. And as the heathens affirmed that it was Serapis who brought up the Nile for the purpose of irrigating Egypt, because a cubit was usually carried into his temple, he directed Alexander to transfer the cubit to the church. And although they predicted that the Nile would not overflow because of the displeasure of Serapis, nevertheless there was an inundation in the following year and afterwards, taking place regularly: thus it was proved by fact that the rising of the Nile was not in consequence of their superstition, but by reason of the decrees of Providence. About the same time those barbarians the Sarmatians and Goths made incursions on the Roman territory; yet the emperor’s earnestness respecting the churches was by no means abated, but he made suitable provision for both these matters. Placing his confidence in the Christian banner,

τροπαί& 251·: see above, chap. 2.

Chapter XIX.

‘In this chapter Socrates has translated Rufinus (H. E. I. 9) almost word for word; and calls those τόπους ἰδιάζοντας , which Rufinus has termed conventicula. Now conventicula are properly private places wherein collects or short prayers are made; and from these places churches are distinguished, which belong to the right of the public, and are not in the power of any private person. It is to be observed that there are reasons for thinking that this conversion of the Indians by Frumentius happened in the reign of Constantius and not of Constantine’ (Valesius). See also Euseb. H. E. V. 10, attributing an earlier work to the apostles Matthew and Bartholomew; and Cave, Lives of the Apostles. The Indians mentioned in this chapter are no other than the Abyssinians. The name India is used as an equivalent of Ethiopia. The christianization of Ethiopia is attributed by the Ethiopians in their own records to Fremonatos and Sydracos. See Ludolf Hist. Eth. III. 2.

We must now mention in what manner Christianity was spread in this emperor’s reign: for it was in his time that the nations both of the Indians in the interior, and of the Iberians first embraced the Christian faith. But I shall briefly explain why I have used the appended expression in the interior. When the apostles went forth by lot among the nations, Thomas received the apostleship of the Parthians; Matthew was allotted Ethiopia; and Bartholomew the part of India contiguous to that country: but the interior India, in which many barbarous nations using different languages lived, was not enlightened by Christian doctrine before the times of Constantine. I now come to speak of the cause which led them to become converts to Christianity. A certain philosopher, Meropius, a Tyrian by race, determined to acquaint himself with the country of the Indians, being stimulated to this by the example of the philosopher Metrodorus, who had previously traveled through the region of India. Having taken with him therefore two youths to whom he was related, who were by no means ignorant of the Greek language, Meropius reached the country by ship; and when he had inspected whatever he wished, he touched at a certain place which had a safe harbor, for the purpose of procuring some necessaries. It so happened that a little before that time the treaty between the Romans and Indians had been violated. The Indians, therefore, having seized the philosopher and those who sailed with him, killed them all except his two youthful kinsmen; but sparing them from compassion for their tender age, they sent them as a gift to the king of the Indians. He being pleased with the personal appearance of the youths, constituted one of them, whose name was Edesius, cup-bearer at his table; the other, named Frumentius, he entrusted with the care of the royal records. The king dying soon after, left them free, the government devolving on his wife and infant son. Now the queen seeing her son thus left in his minority, begged the young men to undertake the charge of him, until he should become of adult age. Accordingly, the youths accepted the task, and entered on the administration of the kingdom. Thus Frumentius controlled all things and made it a task to enquire whether among the Roman merchants trafficking with that country, there were any Christians to be found: and having discovered some, he informed them who he was, and exhorted them to select and occupy some appropriate places for the celebration of Christian worship. In the course of a little while he built a house of prayer; and having instructed some of the Indians in the principles of Christianity, they fitted them for participation in the worship. On the young king’s reaching maturity, Frumentius and his associates resigned to him the administration of public affairs, in the management of which they had honorably acquitted themselves, and besought permission to return to their own country. Both the king and his mother entreated them to remain; but being desirous of revisiting their native place, they could not be prevailed on, and consequently departed. Edesius for his part hastened to Tyre to see his parents and kindred; but Frumentius arriving at Alexandria, reported the affair to Athanasius the bishop, who had but recently been invested with that dignity; and acquainting him both with the particulars of his wanderings and the hopes Indians had of receiving Christianity.

Christianity here must mean Christian instruction.

Chapter XX.—In what Manner the Iberians were converted to Christianity.

It is now proper to relate how the Iberians

These Iberians dwelt on the east shore of the Black Sea in the present region of Georgia. What their relation to the Spanish Iberians was, or why both the peoples had the same name it is not possible to know at present. It was probably not the one suggested by Socrates. For a similar identity of name in peoples living widely apart, compare the Gauls of Europe and the Galatæ of Asia.

Chapter XXI.—Of Anthony the Monk.

What sort of a man the monk Anthony was, who lived in the same age, in the Egyptian desert, and how he openly contended with devils, clearly detecting their devices and wily modes of warfare, and how he performed many miracles, it would be superfluous for us to say; for Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, has anticipated us, having devoted an entire book to his biography.

Athanasius’ Life of Anthony is included in the editions of his works, such as the Benedictine (1698), that of Padua (1777). On Anthony, see also Soz. I. 3; II. 31, 34.

Chapter XXII.—Manes, the Founder of the Manichæan Heresy, and on his Origin.

But amidst the good wheat, tares are accustomed to spring up; for envy loves to plot insidiously against the good. Hence it was that a little while before the time of Constantine, a species of heathenish Christianity made its appearance together with that which was real; just as false prophets sprang up among the true, and false apostles among the true apostles. For at that time a dogma of Empedocles, the heathen philosopher, by means of Manichæus, assumed the form of Christian doctrine. Eusebius Pamphilus has indeed mentioned this person in the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical History,

Cf. Eus. H. E. VII. 31. The literature of Manichæism is voluminous and will be found in Smith, Dict. of the Bible, as well as encyclopædias like Herzog, McClintock and Strong, &c.

A Saracen named Scythian married a captive from the Upper Thebes. On her account he dwelt in Egypt, and having versed himself in the learning of the Egyptians, he subtly introduced the theory of Empedocles and Pythagoras among the doctrines of the Christian faith. Asserting that there were two natures, a good and an evil one, he termed, as Empedocles had done, the latter Discord, and the former Friendship. Of this Scythian, Buddas, who had been previously called Terebinthus, became a disciple; and he having proceeded to Babylon, which the Persians inhabit, made many extravagant statements respecting himself, declaring that he was born of a virgin, and brought up in the mountains. The same man afterwards composed four books, one he entitled The Mysteries, another The Gospel, a third The Treasure, and the fourth Heads [Summaries]; but pretending to perform some mystic rites, he was hurled down a precipice by a spirit,

πνεύματος : possibly ‘wind.’

Chapter XXIII.—Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nicæa, having recovered Confidence, endeavor to subvert the Nicene Creed, by plotting against Athanasius.

The partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their exile, these latter were reinstated in their churches, having expelled, as we observed, those who had been ordained in their stead. Moreover, they came into great consideration with the emperor, who honored them exceedingly, as those who had returned from error to the orthodox faith. They, however, abused the license thus afforded them, by exciting greater commotions in the world than they had done before; being instigated to this by two causes—on the one hand the Arian heresy with which they had been previously infected, and bitter animosity against Athanasius on the other, because he had so vigorously withstood them in the Synod while the articles of faith were under discussion. And in the first place they objected to the ordination of Athanasius partly as a person unworthy of the prelacy, and partly because he had been elected by disqualified persons. But when Athanasius had shown himself superior to this calumny (for having assumed control of the church of Alexandria, he ardently contended for the Nicene creed), then Eusebius exerted himself to the utmost insidiously to cause the removal of Athanasius and to bring Arius back to Alexandria; for he thought that thus only he should be able to expunge the doctrine of consubstantiality, and introduce Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athanasius, desiring him to re-admit Arius and his adherents into the church. Now the tone of his letter indeed was that of entreaty, but openly he menaced him. And as Athanasius would by no means accede to this, he endeavored to induce the emperor to give Arius an audience, and then permit him to return to Alexandria: and by what means he attained his object, I shall mention in its proper place. Meanwhile before this another commotion was raised in the church. In fact, her own children again disturbed her peace. Eusebius Pamphilus says,

Euseb. Life of Const. III. 23.

Chapter XXIV.—Of the Synod held at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, on whose account a Sedition broke out and almost ruined the City.

Having therefore convened a Synod at Antioch, they deposed Eustathius, as a supporter of the Sabellian heresy, rather than of the tenets which the council at Nicæa had formulated. As some affirm [this measure was taken] for other and unsatisfactory reasons, though none other have been openly assigned: this is a matter of common occurrence; the bishops are accustomed to do this in all cases, accusing and pronouncing impious those whom they depose, but not explaining their warrant for so doing. George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, one of the number of those who abominated the term homoousios, assures us in his Encomium of Eusebius Emisenus, that they deposed Eustathius as favoring Sabellianism, on the impeachment of Cyrus, bishop of Berœa. Of Eusebius Emisenus we shall speak elsewhere in due order.

See II. 9.

Chapter XXV.—Of the Presbyter who exerted himself for the Recall of Arius.

Cf. Rufinus, H. E. I. 11. The fact that the name of this presbyter is not mentioned, and Athanasius’ apparent ignorance of the story, together with the untrustworthiness of Rufinus, throw suspicion on the authenticity of this account. Cf. also ch. 39, note 2.

The Emperor Constantine had a sister named Constantia, the widow of Licinius, who had for some time shared the imperial dignity with Constantine, but had assumed tyrannical powers and had been put to death in consequence. This princess maintained in her household establishment a certain confidential presbyter, tinctured with the dogmas of Arianism; Eusebius and others having prompted him, he took occasion in his familiar conversations with Constantia, to insinuate that the Synod had done Arius injustice, and that the common report concerning him was not true. Constantia gave full credence to the presbyter’s assertions, but durst not report them to the emperor. Now it happened that she became dangerously ill, and her brother visited her daily. As the disease became aggravated and she expected to die, she commended this presbyter to the emperor, testifying to his diligence and piety, as well as his devoted loyalty to his sovereign. She died soon after, whereupon the presbyter became one of the most confidential persons about the emperor; and having gradually increased in freedom of speech, he repeated to the emperor what he had before stated to his sister, affirming that Arius had no other views than the sentiments avowed by the Synod; and that if he were admitted to the imperial presence, he would give his full assent to what the Synod had decreed: he added, moreover, that he had been unreasonably slandered. The presbyter’s words appeared strange to the emperor, and he said, ‘If Arius subscribes with the Synod and holds its views, I will both give him an audience, and send him back to Alexandria with honor.’ Having thus said, he immediately wrote to him in these words:

‘Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to Arius.’

It was intimated to your reverence some time since, that you might come to my court, in order to obtain an interview with us. We are not a little surprised that you did not do this immediately. Wherefore having at once mounted a public vehicle, hasten to arrive at our court; that when you have experienced our clemency and regard for you, you may return to your own country. May God protect you, beloved. Dated the twenty-fifth of November.

This was the letter of the emperor to Arius. And I cannot but admire the ardent zeal which the prince manifested for religion: for it appears from this document that he had often before exhorted Arius to change his views, inasmuch as he censures his delaying to return to the truth, although he had himself written frequently to him. Now on the receipt of this letter, Arius came to Constantinople accompanied by Euzoïus, whom Alexander had divested of his deaconship when he excommunicated Arius and his partisans. The emperor accordingly admitted them to his presence, and asked them whether they would agree to the creed. And when they readily gave their assent, he ordered them to deliver to him a written statement of their faith.

Chapter XXVI.—Arius, on being recalled, presents a Recantation to the Emperor, and pretends to accept the Nicene Creed.

They having drawn up a declaration to the following effect, presented it to the emperor.

‘Arius and Euzoïus, to our Most Religious and Pious Lord, the Emperor Constantine.

‘In accordance with the command of your devout piety, sovereign lord, we declare our faith, and before God profess in writing, that we and our adherents believe as follows:

‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty: and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, who was begotten

The old English translation rendered ‘made’ on the assumption that the Greek was γεγενημένον , not γεγεννημένον . So also Valesius read and translated ‘factum’; but Bright without mentioning any variant reading, gives γεγεννημένον , and we have ventured to translate accordingly.

‘This faith we have received from the holy gospels, the Lord therein saying to his disciples:

Matt. xxviii. 9.

Chapter XXVII.—Arius having returned to Alexandria with the Emperor’s Consent, and not being received by Athanasius, the Partisans of Eusebius bring Many Charges against Athanasius before the Emperor.

Arius having thus satisfied the emperor, returned to Alexandria. But his artifice for suppressing the truth did not succeed; for on his arrival at Alexandria, as Athanasius would not receive him, but turned away from him as a pest, he attempted to excite a fresh commotion in that city by disseminating his heresy. Then indeed both Eusebius himself wrote, and prevailed on the emperor also to write, in order that Arius and his partisans might be readmitted into the church. Athanasius nevertheless wholly refused to receive them, and wrote to inform the emperor in reply, that it was impossible for those who had once rejected the faith, and had been anathematized, to be again received into communion on their return. But the emperor, provoked at this answer, menaced Athanasius in these terms:

‘Since you have been apprised of my will, afford unhindered access into the church to all those who are desirous of entering it. For if it shall be intimated to me that you have prohibited any of those claiming to be reunited to the church, or have hindered their admission, I will forthwith send some one who at my command shall depose you, and drive you into exile.’

The emperor wrote thus from a desire of promoting the public good, and because he did not wish to see the church ruptured; for he labored earnestly to bring them all into harmony. Then indeed the partisans of Eusebius, ill-disposed towards Athanasius, imagining they had found a seasonable opportunity, welcomed the emperor’s displeasure as an auxiliary to their own purpose: and on this account they raised a great disturbance, endeavoring to eject him from his bishopric; for they entertained the hope that the Arian doctrine would prevail only upon the removal of Athanasius. The chief conspirators against him were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidnum in Upper Mœsia, and Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia. These persons suborn by bribes certain of the Melitian heresy to fabricate various charges against Athanasius; and first they accuse him through the Melitians Ision, Eudæmon and Callinicus, of having ordered the Egyptians to pay a linen garment as tribute to the church at Alexandria. But this calumny was immediately disproved by Alypius and Macarius, presbyters of the Alexandrian church, who then happened to be at Nicomedia; they having convinced the emperor that these statements to the prejudice of Athanasius were false. Wherefore the emperor by letter severely censured his accusers, but urged Athanasius to come to him. But before he came the Eusebian faction anticipating his arrival, added to their former accusation the charge of another crime of a still more serious nature than the former; charging Athanasius with plotting against his sovereign, and with having sent for treasonable purposes a chest full of gold to one Philumenus. When, however, the emperor had himself investigated this matter at Psamathia, which is in the suburbs of Nicomedia, and had found Athanasius innocent, he dismissed him with honor; and wrote with his own hand to the church at Alexandria to assure them that their bishop had been falsely accused. It would indeed have been both proper and desirable to have passed over in silence the subsequent attacks which the Eusebians made upon Athanasius, lest from these circumstances the Church of Christ should be judged unfavorably of by those who are adverse to its interests.

From the sentiments expressed here may be inferred the respect of the author for the church. His view on the suppression of facts which did not redound to the honor of the church does not show a very high ideal of history, but it bespeaks a laudable regard for the good name of Christianity.

Chapter XXVIII.—On Account of the Charges against Athanasius, the Emperor convokes a Synod of Bishops at Tyre.

The emperor had ordered a Synod of bishops to be present at the consecration of the church which he had erected at Jerusalem. He therefore directed that, as a secondary matter, they should on their way first assemble at Tyre, to examine into the charges against Athanasius; in order that all cause of contention being removed there, they might the more peacefully perform the inaugural ceremonies

ἐπιβατηρια : lit. ‘ceremonies performed at embarkation.’

Chapter XXIX.—Of Arsenius, and his Hand which was said to have been cut off.

The special providence of God drove Arsenius also to Tyre; for, disregarding the injunctions he had received from the accusers who had bribed him, he went thither disguised to see what would be done. It by some means happened that the servants of Archelaus, the governor of the province, heard some persons at an inn affirm that Arsenius, who was reported to have been murdered, was concealed in the house of one of the citizens. Having heard this and marked the individuals by whom this statement was made, they communicated the information to their master, who causing strict search to be made for the man immediately, discovered and properly secured him; after which he gave notice to Athanasius that he need not be under any alarm, inasmuch as Arsenius was alive and there present. Arsenius on being apprehended, at first denied that he was the person; but Paul, bishop of Tyre, who had formerly known him, established his identity. Divine providence having thus disposed matters, Athanasius was shortly after summoned by the Synod; and as soon as he presented himself, his traducers exhibited the hand, and pressed their charge. He managed the affair with great prudence, for he enquired of those present, as well as of his accusers, who were the persons who knew Arsenius? and several having answered that they knew him, he caused Arsenius to be introduced, having his hands covered by his cloak. Then he again asked them, ‘Is this the person who has lost a hand?’ All were astonished at the unexpectedness of this procedure, except those who knew whence the hand had been cut off; for the rest thought that Arsenius was really deficient of a hand, and expected that the accused would make his defense in some other way. But Athanasius turning back the cloak of Arsenius on one side showed one of the man’s hands; again, while some were supposing that the other hand was wanting, permitting them to remain a short time in doubt afterward he turned back the cloak on the other side and exposed the other hand. Then addressing himself to those present, he said, ‘Arsenius, as you see, is found to have two hands: let my accusers show the place whence the third was cut off.’

A full account of the circumstances narrated in this and the following chapters is given by Athanasius in his Apol. contra Arianos, 65, 71 and 72. Parallel accounts may also be found in Sozom. II. 25; Theodoret, H. E. I. 28; Rufinus, H. E. X. 17; Philostorgius, II. 11.

Chapter XXX.—Athanasius is found Innocent of what he was accused; his Accusers take to Flight.

Matters having been brought to this issue with regard to Arsenius, the contrivers of this imposture were reduced to perplexity; and Achab,

In Athanasius’ account (Apol. c. Arian. 65) this man’s name is given as ᾽Αρχαφ(Archaph), which is an Egyptian name; its assonance with the biblical ᾽Αχαάβ may have made the latter a current appellation. John was no doubt his monastic name.

Chapter XXXI.—When the Bishops will not listen to Athanasius’ Defense on the Second Charge, he betakes himself to the Emperor.

But in refuting the false allegations against Macarius, he made use of legal forms; taking exception in the first place to Eusebius and his party, as his enemies, protesting against the injustice of any man’s being tried by his adversaries. He next insisted on its being proved that his accuser Ischyras had really obtained the dignity of presbyter; for so he had been designated in the indictment. But as the judges would not allow any of these objections, the case of Macarius was entered into, and the informers being found deficient of proofs, the hearing of the matter was postponed, until some persons should have gone into Mareotis, in order that all doubtful points might be examined on the spot. Athanasius seeing that those very individuals were to be sent to whom he had taken exception (for the persons sent were Theognis, Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, Valens, and Ursacius), exclaimed that ‘their procedure was both treacherous and fraudulent; for that it was unjust that the presbyter Macarius should be detained in bonds, while the accuser together with the judges who were his adversaries, were permitted to go, in order that an ex parte collection of the facts in evidence might be made.’ Having made this protest before the whole Synod and Dionysius the governor of the province, and finding that no one paid any attention to his appeal, he privately withdrew. Those, therefore, who were sent to Mareotis, having made an ex parte

ἐκ μονομεροῦς, Lat. ex parte; the term, however, is not restricted to this technical sense, but may be used of any form of partiality. Cf. Sophocles’ Greek Lex. of Rom. and Byz. As already noted in the Intro. p. ix, Harnack denies that there is any special juristic knowledge shown here; it must be conceded that the language used is such as might have been at the command of any intelligent and educated non-professional man.

Chapter XXXII.—On the Departure of Athanasius, those who composed the Synod vote his Deposition.

Thus Athanasius departed, hastening to the emperor, and the Synod in the first place condemned him in his absence; and when the result of the enquiry which had been instituted at Mareotis was presented, they voted to depose him; loading him with opprobrious epithets in their sentence of deposition, but being wholly silent respecting the disgraceful defeat of the charge of murder brought by his calumniators. They moreover received into communion Arsenius, who was reported to have been murdered; and he who had formerly been a bishop of the Melitian heresy subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius as bishop of the city of Hypselopolis. Thus by an extraordinary course of circumstances, the alleged victim of assassination by Athanasius, was found alive to assist in deposing him.

Chapter XXXIII.—The Members of the Synod proceed from Tyre to Jerusalem, and having celebrated the Dedication of the ‘New Jerusalem,’ receive Arius and his Followers into Communion.

Letters in the meantime were brought from the emperor directing those who composed the Synod to hasten to the New Jerusalem:

See above, ch. 17.

Chapter XXXIV.—The Emperor summons the Synod to himself by Letter, in order that the Charges against Athanasius might be carefully examined before him.

Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to the bishops convened at Tyre.

I am indeed ignorant of the decisions which have been made by your Council with so much turbulence and storm: but the truth seems to have been perverted by some tumultuous and disorderly proceedings: because, that is to say, in your mutual love of contention, which you seem desirous of perpetuating, you disregard the consideration of those things which are acceptable to God. It will, however, I trust, be the work of Divine Providence to dissipate the mischiefs resulting from this jealous rivalry, as soon as they shall have been detected; and to make it apparent to us, whether ye who have been convened have had regard to truth, and whether your decisions on the subjects which have been submitted to your judgment have been made apart from partiality or prejudice. Wherefore it is indispensable that you should all without delay attend upon my piety, that you may yourselves give a strict account of your transactions. For what reason I have deemed it proper to write thus, and to summon you before me, you will learn from what follows. As I was making my entry into the city which bears our name, in this our most flourishing home, Constantinople,—and it happened that I was riding on horseback at the time,—suddenly the Bishop Athanasius, with certain ecclesiastics whom he had around him, presented himself so unexpectedly in our path, as to produce an occasion of consternation. For the Omniscient God is my witness that at first sight I did not recognize him until some of my attendants, in answer to my enquiry, informed me, as was very natural, both who he was, and what injustice he had suffered. At that time indeed I neither conversed, nor held any communication with him. But as he repeatedly entreated an audience, and I had not only refused it, but almost ordered that he should be removed from my presence, he said with greater boldness, that he petitioned for nothing more than that you might be summoned hither, in order that in our presence, he, driven by necessity to such a course, might have a fair opportunity afforded him of complaining of his wrongs. Wherefore as this seems reasonable, and consistent with the equity of my government, I willingly gave instructions that these things should be written to you. My command therefore is, that all, as many as composed the Synod convened at Tyre, should forthwith hasten to the court of our clemency, in order that from the facts themselves you may make clear the purity and integrity of your decision in my presence, whom you cannot but own to be a true servant of God. It is in consequence of the acts of my religious service towards God that peace is everywhere reigning; and that the name of God is sincerely had in reverence even among the barbarians themselves, who until now were ignorant of the truth. Now it is evident that he who knows not the truth, does not have a true knowledge of God also: yet, as I before said even the barbarians on my account, who am a genuine servant of God, have acknowledged and learned to worship him, whom they have perceived in very deed protecting and caring for me everywhere. So that from dread of us chiefly, they have been thus brought to the knowledge of the true God whom they now worship. Nevertheless we who pretend to have a religious veneration for (I will not say who guard) the holy mysteries of his church, we, I say, do nothing but what tends to discord and animosity, and to speak plainly, to the destruction of the human race. But hasten, as I have already said, all of you to us as speedily as possible: and be assured that I shall endeavor with all my power to cause that what is contained in the Divine Law may be preserved inviolate, on which neither stigma nor reproach shall be able to fasten itself; and this will come to pass when its enemies, who under cover of the sacred profession introduce numerous and diversified blasphemies, are dispersed, broken to pieces, and altogether annihilated.

Chapter XXXV.—The Synod not having come to the Emperor, the Partisans of Eusebius accuse Athanasius of having threatened to divert the Corn supplied to Constantinople from Alexandria: the Emperor being exasperated at this banishes Athanasius into Gaul.

Cf. Theodoret, H. E. I. 31. The ancient Gallia or Gaul included the modern France, Belgium, Lombardy, and Sardinia.

This letter rendered those who constituted the Synod very fearful, wherefore most of them returned to their respective cities. But Eusebius, Theognis, Maris, Patrophilus, Ursacius, and Valens, having gone to Constantinople, would not permit any further enquiry to be instituted concerning the broken cup, the overturned communion table, and the murder of Arsenius; but they had recourse to another calumny, informing the emperor that Athanasius had threatened to prohibit the sending of corn which was usually conveyed from Alexandria to Constantinople. They affirmed also that these menaces were heard from the lips of Athanasius by the bishops Adamantius, Anubion, Arbathion and Peter, for slander is most prevalent when of the assertor of it appears to be a person worthy of credit. Hence the emperor being deceived, and excited to indignation against Athanasius by this charge, at once condemned him to exile, ordering him to reside in the Gauls. Now some affirm that the emperor came to this decision with a view to the establishment of unity in the church, since Athanasius was inexorable in his refusal to hold any communion with Arius and his adherents. He accordingly took up his abode at Treves, a city of Gaul.

Chapter XXXVI.—Of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, and Asterius the Sophist.

The bishops assembled at Constantinople deposed also Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, a city of Galatia Minor, on this account. A certain rhetorician of Cappadocia named Asterius having abandoned his art, and professed himself a convert to Christianity, undertook the composition of some treatises, which are still extant, in which he commended the dogmas of Arius; asserting that Christ is the power of God, in the same sense as the locust and the palmer-worm are said by Moses to be the power of God,

Joel ii. 25.

Chapter XXXVII.—After the Banishment of Athanasius, Arius having been sent for by the Emperor, raises a Disturbance against Alexander Bishop of Constantinople.

While these things were taking place, the thirtieth year of Constantine’s reign was completed. But Arius with his adherents having returned to Alexandria, again disturbed the whole city; for the people of Alexandria were exceedingly indignant both at the restoration of this incorrigible heretic with his partisans, and also because their bishop Athanasius had been sent to exile. When the emperor was apprised of the perverse disposition of Arius, he once more ordered him to repair to Constantinople, to give an account of the commotions he had afresh endeavored to excite. It happened at that time that Alexander, who had some time before succeeded Metrophanes, presided over the church at Constantinople. That this prelate was a man of devoted piety was distinctly manifested by the conflict he entered into with Arius; for when Arius arrived and the people were divided into two factions and the whole city was thrown into confusion: some insisting that the Nicene Creed should be by no means infringed on, while others contended that the opinion of Arius was consonant to reason. In this state of affairs, Alexander was driven to straits: more especially since Eusebius of Nicomedia had violently threatened that he would cause him to be immediately deposed, unless he admitted Arius and his followers to communion. Alexander, however, was far less troubled at the thought of his own deposition as fearful of the subversion of the principles of the faith, which they were so anxious to effect: and regarding himself as the constituted guardian of the doctrines recognized, and the decisions made by the council at Nicæa, he exerted himself to the utmost to prevent their being violated or depraved. Reduced to this extremity, he bade farewell to all logical resources, and made God his refuge, devoting himself to continued fasting and never ceased from praying. Communicating his purpose to no one, he shut himself up alone in the church called Irene: there going up to the altar, and prostrating himself on the ground beneath the holy communion table, he poured forth his fervent prayers weeping; and this he ceased not to do for many successive nights and days. What he thus earnestly asked from God, he received: for his petition was such a one: ‘If the opinion of Arius were correct, he might not be permitted to see the day appointed for its discussion; but that if he himself held the true faith, Arius, as the author of all these evils, might suffer the punishment due to his impiety.’

Chapter XXXVIII.—The Death of Arius.

For a reproduction of the circumstances related in this chapter, together with a historical estimate of them based on additional evidence, see Neander, Hist. of the Christ. Ch. Vol. II. p. 384–388.

Such was the supplication of Alexander. Meanwhile the emperor, being desirous of personally examining Arius, sent for him to the palace, and asked him whether he would assent to the determinations of the Synod at Nicæa. He without hesitation replied in the affirmative, and subscribed the declaration of the faith in the emperor’s presence, acting with duplicity. The emperor, surprised at his ready compliance, obliged him to confirm his signature by an oath. This also he did with equal dissimulation. The way he evaded, as I have heard, was this: he wrote his own opinion on paper, and carried it under his arm, so that he then swore truly that he really held the sentiments he had written. That this is so, however, I have written from hearsay, but that he added an oath to his subscription, I have myself ascertained, from an examination of the emperor’s own letters. The emperor being thus convinced, ordered that he should be received into communion by Alexander, bishop of Constantinople. It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death. So disastrous an occurrence filled with dread and alarm the party of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia; and the report of it quickly spread itself over the city and throughout the whole world. As the king grew more earnest in Christianity and confessed that the confession at Nicæa was attested by God, he rejoiced at the occurrences. He was also glad because of his three sons whom he had already proclaimed Cæsars; one of each of them having been created at every successive decennial anniversary of his reign. To the eldest, whom he called Constantine, after his own name, he assigned the government of the western parts of the empire, on the completion of his first decade. His second son Constantius, who bore his grandfather’s name, he constituted Cæsar in the eastern division, when the second decade had been completed. And Constans, the youngest, he invested with a similar dignity, in the thirtieth year of his own reign.

Chapter XXXIX.—The Emperor falls sick and dies.

A year having passed, the Emperor Constantine having just entered the sixty-fifth year of his age, was taken with a sickness; he therefore left Constantinople, and made a voyage to Helenopolis, that he might try the effect of the medicinal hot springs which are found in the vicinity of that city. Perceiving, however, that his illness increased, he deferred the use of the baths; and removing from Helenopolis to Nicomedia, he took up his residence in the suburbs, and there received Christian baptism.

It was the belief of many in the earlier ages of the church that baptism had a certain magical power purging away the sins previous to it, but having no force as regards those that might follow; this led many to postpone their baptism until disease or age warned them of the nearness of death; such delayed baptism was called ‘clinic baptism,’ and was discouraged by the more judicious and spiritual-minded Fathers, some of whom doubted its validity and rebuked those who delayed as actuated by selfishness and desire to indulge in sin. The church, however, encouraged it in the cases of gross offenders. Cf. Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. IV. 3, and XI. 11, and Bennett, Christian Archæology, pp. 407 and 409.

Chapter XL.—The Funeral of the Emperor Constantine.

The body of the emperor was placed in a coffin of gold by the proper persons, and then conveyed to Constantinople, where it was laid out on an elevated bed of state in the palace, surrounded by a guard, and treated with the same respect as when he was alive, and this was done until the arrival of one of his sons. When Constantius was come out of the eastern parts of the empire, it was honored with an imperial sepulture, and deposited in the church called The Apostles: which he had caused to be constructed for this very purpose, that the emperors and prelates might receive a degree of veneration but little inferior to that which was paid to the relics of the apostles. The Emperor Constantine lived sixty-five years, and reigned thirty-one. He died in the consulate of Felician and Tatian, on the twenty-second of May, in the second year of the 278th Olympiad.

337 a.d. The 22d of May that year was the day of Pentecost.

Book II.

Chapter I.—Introduction containing the Reason for the Author’s Revision of his First and Second Books.

Rufinus, who wrote an Ecclesiastical History in Latin,

Rufinus’ Historia Ecclesiastica, in two books, begins with Arius and ends with Theodosius the Great. It is not very accurate, but written largely from memory. It is dedicated to Chromatius, bishop of Aquileja, and translated into Greek by Gelasius and Cyril of Jerusalem. On the edition used by Socrates, see Introd. and I. 12, note 1. Cf. also on his knowledge of Latin, II. 23, 30, and 37.

Chapter II.—Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and his Party, by again endeavoring to introduce the Arian Heresy, create Disturbances in the Churches.

After the death of the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicæa, imagining that a favorable opportunity had arisen, used their utmost efforts to expunge the doctrine of homoousion, and to introduce Arianism in its place. They, nevertheless, despaired of effecting this, if Athanasius should return to Alexandria: in order therefore to accomplish their designs, they sought the assistance of that presbyter by whose means Arius had been recalled from exile a little before. How this was done shall now be described. The presbyter in question presented the will and the request of the deceased king to his son Constantius; who finding those dispositions in it which he was most desirous of, for the empire of the East was by his father’s will apportioned to him, treated the presbyter with great consideration, loaded him with favors, and ordered that free access should be given him both to the palace and to himself. This license soon obtained for him familiar intercourse with the empress, as well as with her eunuchs. There was at that time a chief eunuch of the imperial bed-chamber named Eusebius; him the presbyter persuaded to adopt Arian’s views, after which the rest of the eunuchs were also prevailed on to adopt the same sentiments. Not only this but the empress also, under the influence of the eunuchs and the presbyters, became favorable to the tenets of Arius; and not long after the subject was introduced to the emperor himself. Thus it became gradually diffused throughout the court, and among the officers of the imperial household and guards, until at length it spread itself over the whole population of the city. The chamberlains in the palace discussed this doctrine with the women; and in the family of every citizen there was a logical contest. Moreover, the mischief quickly extended to other provinces and cities, the controversy, like a spark, insignificant at first, exciting in the auditors a spirit of contention: for every one who inquired the cause of the tumult, found immediately occasion for disputing, and determined to take part in the strife at the moment of making the inquiry. By general altercation of this kind all order was subverted; the agitation, however, was confined to the cities of the East, those of Illyricum and the western parts of the empire meanwhile were perfectly tranquil, because they would not annul the decisions of the Council of Nicæa. As this affair increased, going from bad to worse, Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party looked upon popular ferment as a piece of good fortune. For only thus they thought they would be enabled to constitute some one who held their own sentiments bishop of Alexandria. But the return of Athanasius at that time defeated their purpose; for he came thither fortified by a letter from one of the Augusti, which the younger Constantine, who bore his father’s name, addressed to the people of Alexandria, from Treves, a city in Gaul.

There is some difference of opinion as to the exact year of the recall of Athanasius. Baronius and others allege that this took place in 338 a.d., the year after the death of Constantine; but Valesius maintains that Athanasius was recalled the year preceding. This he infers from the words of Athanasius (Apol. c. Arian, 61), and the title of the letter which Constantine the younger addressed to the church in Alexandria.

Chapter III.—Athanasius, encouraged by the Letter of Constantine the Younger, returns to Alexandria.

Constantine Cæsar to the members of the Catholic Church of the Alexandrians.

It cannot, I conceive, have escaped the knowledge of your devout minds, that Athanasius, the expositor of the venerated law, was sent for a while unto the Gauls, lest he should sustain some irreparable injury from the perverseness of his blood-thirsty adversaries, whose ferocity continually endangered his sacred life. To evade this [perverseness], therefore, he was taken from the jaws of the men who threatened him into a city under my jurisdiction, where, as long as it was his appointed residence, he has been abundantly supplied with every necessity: although his distinguished virtue trusting in divine aid would have made light of the pressure of a more rigorous fortune. And since our sovereign, my father, Constantine Augustus of blessed memory, was prevented by death from accomplishing his purpose of restoring this bishop to his see, and to your most sanctified piety, I have deemed it proper to carry his wishes into effect, having inherited the task from him. With how great veneration he has been regarded by us, ye will learn on his arrival among you; nor need any one be surprised at the honor I have put upon him, since I have been alike influenced by a sense of what was due to so excellent a personage, and the knowledge of your affectionate solicitude respecting him. May Divine Providence preserve you, beloved brethren.

Relying on this letter, Athanasius came to Alexandria, and was most joyfully received by the people of the city. Nevertheless as many in it as had embraced Arianism, combining together, entered into conspiracies against him, by which frequent seditions were excited, affording a pretext to the Eusebians for accusing him to the emperor of having taken possession of the Alexandrian church on his own responsibility, in spite of the adverse judgment of a general council of bishops. So far indeed did they succeed in pressing their charges, that the emperor became exasperated, and banished him from Alexandria. How indeed this came about I shall hereafter explain.

Chapter IV.—On the Death of Eusebius Pamphilus, Acacius succeeds to the Bishopric of Cæsarea.

At this time Eusebius, who was bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, and had the surname of Pamphilus, having died, Acacius, his disciple, succeeded him in the bishopric. This individual published several books, and among others a biographical sketch of his master.

Chapter V.—The Death of Constantine the Younger.

Not long after this the brother of the Emperor Constantius, Constantine the younger, who bore his father’s name, having invaded those parts of the empire which were under the government of his younger brother Constans, engaging in a conflict with his brother’s soldiery, was slain by them. This took place under the consulship of Acindynus and Proclus.

340 a.d.

Chapter VI.—Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, when at the Point of Death proposes the Election either of Paul or of Macedonius as his Successor.

About the same time another disturbance in addition to those we have recorded, was raised at Constantinople on the following account. Alexander, who had presided over the churches in that city, and had strenuously opposed Arius, departed this life,

Socrates is undoubtedly mistaken in setting the date of Alexander’s death as late as 340 a.d. The council convened to examine and confute the charges against Athanasius met in 339 a.d., and the record at that date has it (see chap. 7) that Eusebius had taken possession of the see of Constantinople. Alexander must therefore have died before 339.

Chapter VII.—The Emperor Constantius ejects Paul after his Election to the Bishopric, and sending for Eusebius of Nicomedia, invests him with the Bishopric of Constantinople.

Not long afterwards the emperor having arrived at Constantinople was highly incensed at the consecration [of Paul]; and having convened an assembly of bishops of Arian sentiments, he divested Paul of his dignity, and translating Eusebius from the see of Nicomedia, he appointed him bishop of Constantinople. Having done this the emperor proceeded to Antioch.

Chapter VIII.—Eusebius having convened Another Synod at Antioch in Syria, causes a New Creed to be promulgated.

Eusebius, however, could by no means remain quiet, but as the saying is, left no stone unturned, in order to effect the purpose he had in view. He therefore causes a Synod to be convened at Antioch in Syria, under pretense of dedicating the church which the father of the Augusti had commenced, and which his son Constantius had finished in the tenth year after its foundations were laid, but with the real intention of subverting and abolishing the doctrine of the homoousion. There were present at this Synod ninety bishops from various cities. Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome,

So called in distinction from the “New Rome,” or Constantinople. Cf. Canons of Council of Chalcedon, XXVIII.

Chapter IX.—Of Eusebius of Emisa.

On the ground of such charges as these, they proposed another bishop for the Alexandrian church, and first indeed Eusebius surnamed Emisenus. Who this person was, George, bishop of Laodicea, who was present on this occasion, informs us. For he says in the book which he has composed on his life, that Eusebius was descended from the nobility of Edessa in Mesopotamia, and that from a child he had studied the holy Scriptures;

Sozom. H. E. III. 6. From the passage in Sozomen it appears that it was customary in Edessa to teach the Scriptures to boys, and that many of them thus became quite familiar with the Bible, knowing many passages by heart.

Chapter X.—The Bishops assembled at Antioch, on the Refusal of Eusebius of Emisa to accept the Bishopric of Alexandria, ordain Gregory, and change the Language of the Nicene Creed.

Now at that time Eusebius having been proposed and fearing to go to Alexandria, the Synod at Antioch designated Gregory as bishop of that church. This being done, they altered the creed; not as condemning anything in that which was set forth at Nicæa, but in fact with a determination to subvert and nullify the doctrine of consubstantiality by means of frequent councils, and the publication of various expositions of the faith, so as gradually to establish the Arian views. How these things issued we will set forth in the course of our narrative; but the epistle then promulgated respecting the faith was as follows:

Athanas. de Synodd. 22, 23.

‘We have neither become followers of Arius,—for how should we who are bishops be guided by a presbyter?—nor have we embraced any other faith than that which was set forth from the beginning. But being constituted examiners and judges of his sentiments, we admit their soundness, rather than adopt them from him: and you will recognize this from what we are about to state. We have learned from the beginning to believe in one God of the Universe, the Creator and Preserver of all things both those thought of and those perceived by the senses: and in one only-begotten Son of God, subsisting before all ages, and co-existing with the Father who begat him, through whom also all things visible and invisible were made; who in the last days according to the Father’s good pleasure, descended, and assumed flesh from the holy virgin, and having fully accomplished his Father’s will, that he should suffer, and rise again, and ascend into the heavens, and sit at the right hand of the Father; and is coming to judge the living and the dead, continuing King and God for ever. We believe also in the Holy Spirit. And if it is necessary to add this, we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.’

Having thus written in their first epistle, they sent it to the bishops of every city. But after remaining some time at Antioch, as if to condemn the former, they published another letter in these words:

Another Exposition of the Faith.

In conformity with evangelic and apostolic tradition, we believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Framer of the universe. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, God the only-begotten, through whom all things were made: begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Whole of Whole, Only of Only, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord; the living Word, the Wisdom, the Life, the True Light, the Way of Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate; immutable and inconvertible; the unaltering image of the Divinity, Substance and Power, and Counsel and Glory of the Father; born ‘before all creation’; who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according as it is declared in the Gospel,

John i. 1.

Such was the exposition of the faith published by those then assembled at Antioch, to which Gregory also subscribed as bishop of Alexandria, although he had not yet entered that city. The Synod having done these things, and legislated some other canons, was dissolved. At this time it happened that public affairs also were disturbed. The nation called Franks made incursions into the Roman territories in Gaul, and at the same time there occurred violent earthquakes in the East, and especially at Antioch, which continued to suffer concussions during a whole year.

Chapter XI.—On the Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria, tended by a Military Escort, Athanasius flees.

After these things, Syrian, the military commander, and the corps of heavy armed soldiers, five thousand in number, conducted Gregory to Alexandria; and such of the citizens as were of Arian sentiments combined with them. But it will be proper here to relate by what means Athanasius escaped the hands of those who wished to apprehend him, after his expulsion from the church. It was evening, and the people were attending the vigil there, a service

συνάξεως: literally ‘congregation,’ from συνάγω; but later applied to any service held in the church. In mod. Συναξάριον , ‘Prayer-book.’

Chapter XII.—The People of Constantinople restore Paul to his See after the Death of Eusebius, while the Arians elect Macedonius.

But Eusebius did not live to learn the decision of Julius concerning Athanasius, for he died a short time after that Synod was held. Whereupon the people introduced Paul again into the church of Constantinople: the Arians, however, ordained Macedonius at the same time, in the church dedicated to Paul. This those who had formerly co-operated with Eusebius (that disturber of the public peace) brought about, assuming all his authority. These were Theognis, bishop of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, Ursacius of Singidunum in Upper Mysia, and Valens of Mursa in Upper Pannonia. Ursacius and Valens indeed afterward altered their opinions, and presented a written recantation of them to bishop Julius, so that on subscribing the doctrine of consubstantiability they were again admitted to communion; but at that time they warmly supported the Arian error, and were instigators of the most violent conflicts in the churches, one of which was connected with Macedonius at Constantinople. By this intestine war among the Christians, continuous seditions arose in that city, and many lives were sacrificed in consequence of these occurrences.

Chapter XIII.—Paul is again ejected from the Church by Constantius, in consequence of the Slaughter of Hermogenes, his General.

Intelligence of these proceedings reached the ears of the Emperor Constantius, whose residence was then at Antioch. Accordingly he ordered his general Hermogenes, who had been despatched to Thrace, to pass through Constantinople on his way, and expel Paul from the church. He, on arriving at Constantinople, threw the whole city into confusion, attempting to cast out the bishops; for sedition immediately arose from the people in their eagerness to defend the bishop. And when Hermogenes persisted in his efforts to drive out Paul by means of his military force, the people became exasperated as is usual in such cases; and making a desperate attack upon him, they set his house on fire, and after dragging through the city, they at last put him to death. This took place in the consulate

342 a.d. This assassination of Hermogenes was evidently recorded in that portion of Am. Marcellinus’ work which has been lost; at least a record of it is referred to in that author’s Rerum Gestarum, XIV. x. 2 (ed. Eyssenhart).

Chapter XIV.—The Arians remove Gregory from the See of Alexandria, and appoint George in his Place.

There is an error here, repeated also by Sozomen (III. 7), but corrected by Theodoret, H. E. II. 4 and 12, without the mention of the names of his predecessors. The error consists in the statement that Gregory was ejected at this time. It appears that he remained in his position until the Council of Sardica, by which he was deposed and excommunicated. He survived this council by six months.

About the same time the Arians ejected Gregory from the see of Alexandria, on the ground that he was unpopular and at the same time because he had set a church

That of Dionysius.

Chapter XV.—Athanasius and Paul

Julius, in his letter to the Eastern bishops (Ep. I. adv. Eusebianos, 4 and 5), mentions Athanasius and Marcellus, ex-bishop of Ancyra, as with him at this time, but does not allude to Paul; from which it has been inferred that Socrates is in error here in setting the date of Paul’s visit to Rome at this time, as otherwise Julius would have named him also with Athanasius and Marcellus. Sozomen, as usual, copies the mistake of Socrates; cf. Sozom. III. 15.

Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the sole power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine’s sons, his brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome’s peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed. These persons considering themselves treated with indignity by the reproaches of Julius, called a council at Antioch, assembled themselves and dictated a reply to his letters as the expression of the unanimous feeling of the whole Synod.

It appears from this that there was no recognition of any special prerogative or right belonging to the bishop of Rome as yet. The position of that bishop during these agitations in the Eastern church, when the Western church was in comparative peace, seems to be that of an arbitrator voluntarily invoked, rather than of an official judge. Cf. Neander, Hist. of the Christ. Church, Vol. II. p. 171, 172.

Chapter XVI.—The Emperor Constantius, through an Order to Philip the Prætorian Prefect, secures the Exile of Paul, and the Installation of Macedonius in his See.

When the Emperor Constantius, who then held his court at Antioch, heard that Paul had again obtained possession of the episcopal throne, he was excessively enraged at his presumption. He therefore despatched a written order to Philip, the Prætorian Prefect, whose power exceeded that of the other governors of provinces, and who was styled the second person from the emperor,

δεύτερος μετὰ βασιλέα; not only second in rank, but first after him in power, ‘his right-hand man.’ Cf. Vergil’s alter ab illo, Ecl. V. 49, and VIII. 39.

Chapter XVII.—Athanasius, intimidated by the Emperor’s Threats, returns to Rome again.

At this time another accusation was concocted against Athanasius by the Arians, who invented this pretext for it. The father of the Augusti had long before granted an allowance of corn to the church of the Alexandrians for the relief of the indigent. This, they asserted, had usually been sold by Athanasius, and the proceeds converted to his own advantage. The emperor, giving credence to this slanderous report, threatened Athanasius with death, as a penalty; who, becoming alarmed at the intimation of this threat, took to flight, and kept himself concealed. When Julius, bishop of Rome, was apprised of these fresh machinations of the Arians against Athanasius, and had also received the letter of the then deceased Eusebius, he invited the persecuted Athanasius to come to him, having ascertained where he was secreted. The epistle also of the bishops who had been some time before assembled at Antioch, just then reached him; and at the same time others from the bishops in Egypt, assuring him that the entire charge against Athanasius was a fabrication. On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council,

Sozom. X. 3 follows Socrates. The contents of the letter written by Julius to the Eusebians, found in Athanasius’ Apologia contra Arianos, c. 20, are different from those here given by Socrates. Julius there complains of their ignoring his invitation to the synod at Rome, but says nothing of any canon such as is mentioned here. Cf. ch. 8, note 2.

Chapter XVIII.—The Emperor of the West requests his Brother to send him Three Persons who could give an Account of the Deposition of Athanasius and Paul. Those who are sent publish Another Form of the Creed.

When the Western emperor

Constantine the Younger. See I. 38, end.

Another Exposition of the Faith.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, of whom the whole family in heaven and upon earth is named;

Eph. iii. 15.

Having delivered this creed to the emperor, and exhibited it to many others also, they departed without attending to anything besides. But while there was yet an inseparable communion between the Western and Eastern churches, there sprang up another heresy at Sirmium, a city of Illyricum; for Photinus, who presided over the churches in that district, a native of the Lesser Galatia, and a disciple of that Marcellus who had been deposed, adopting his master’s sentiments, asserted that the Son of God was a mere man. We shall, however, enter into this matter more fully in its proper place.

See below, ch. 59.

Chapter XIX.—Of the Creed sent by the Eastern Bishops to those in Italy, called the Lengthy Creed.

This creed was called μακρόστιχος from its length, and the date of its promulgation must be put after the Council of Sardica, according to Hefele. See Hefele, History of the Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 85, 89, and 180 (ed. T. & T. Clark).

After the lapse of about three years from the events above recorded, the Eastern bishops again assembled a Synod, and having composed another form of faith, they transmitted it to those in Italy by the hands of Eudoxius, at that time bishop of Germanicia, and Martyrius, and Macedonius, who was bishop of Mopsuestia

Μόψου ἑστία, lit. ‘the hearth of Mopsus,’ son of Apollo and Manto, daughter of Tiresias, according to the Greek mythology. Mopsuestia has become famous in the history of the church through its great citizen, Theodore. Cf. Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog.

Chapter XX.—Of the Council at Sardica.

Cf. Sozom. III. 11; Theodoret, H. E. II. 7; also Hefele, Hist. of the Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 87–176.

The Western prelates on account of their being of another language, and not understanding this exposition, would not admit of it; saying that the Nicene Creed was sufficient, and that they would not waste time on anything beyond it. But when the emperor had again written to insist on the restoration to Paul and Athanasius of their respective sees, but without effect in consequence of the continual agitation of the people—these two bishops demanded that another Synod should be convened, so that their case, as well as other questions in relation to the faith might be settled by an ecumenical council, for they made it obvious that their deposition arose from no other cause than that the faith might be the more easily perverted. Another general council was therefore summoned to meet at Sardica,—a city of Illyricum,—by the joint authority of the two emperors; the one requesting by letter that it might be so, and the other, of the East, readily acquiescing in it. It was the eleventh year after the death of the father of the two Augusti, during the consulship of Rufinus and Eusebius,

347 a.d.

Chapter XXI.—Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus.

But since some have attempted to stigmatize even Eusebius Pamphilus himself as having favored the Arian views in his works, it may not be irrelevant here to make a few remarks respecting him. In the first place then he was both present at the council of Nicæa, which defined the doctrine of the homoousion and gave his assent to what was there determined. And in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he expressed himself in these words:

Life of Const.III. 13.

Chapter XXII.—The Council of Sardica restores Paul and Athanasius to their Sees; and on the Eastern Emperor’s Refusal to admit them, the Emperor of the West threatens him with War.

Those convened at Sardica, as well as those who had formed a separate council at Philippopolis in Thrace, having severally performed what they deemed requisite, returned to their respective cities. From that time, therefore, the Western church was severed from the Eastern;

This separation was only temporary and must be distinguished from the great schism, which grew slowly and culminated with the adoption of the expression ‘filioque’ into the Apostles’ Creed by the Western church in the eleventh century. On the various degrees of unity and communion recognized in the ancient church, see Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. Bk. XVI. 1.

‘Athanasius and Paul are here with me; and I am quite satisfied after investigation, that they are persecuted for the sake of piety. If, therefore, you will pledge yourself to reinstate them in their sees, and to punish those who have so unjustly injured them, I will send them to you; but should you refuse to do this, be assured, that I will myself come thither, and restore them to their own sees, in spite of your opposition.’

Chapter XXIII.—Constantius, being Afraid of his Brother’s Threats, recalls Athanasius by Letter, and sends him to Alexandria.

On receiving this communication the emperor of the East fell into perplexity; and immediately sending for the greater part of the Eastern bishops, he acquainted them with the choice his brother had submitted to him, and asked what ought to be done. They replied, it was better to concede the churches to Athanasius, than to undertake a civil war. Accordingly the emperor, urged by necessity, summoned Athanasius and his friends to his presence. Meanwhile the emperor of the West sent Paul to Constantinople, with two bishops and other honorable attendance, having fortified him with his own letters, together with those of the Synod. But while Athanasius was still apprehensive, and hesitated to go to him,—for he dreaded the treachery of his calumniators,—the emperor of the East not once only, but even a second and a third time, invited him to come to him; this is evident from his letters, which, translated from the Latin tongue, are as follows:

Epistle of Constantius to Athanasius.

Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 51.

Constantius Victor Augustus to Athanasius the bishop.

Our compassionate clemency cannot permit you to be any longer tossed and disquieted as it were by the boisterous waves of the sea. Our unwearied piety has not been unmindful of you driven from your native home, despoiled of your property, and wandering in pathless solitudes. And although I have too long deferred acquainting you by letter with the purpose of my mind, expecting your coming to us of your own accord to seek a remedy for your troubles; yet since fear perhaps has hindered the execution of your wishes, we therefore have sent to your reverence letters full of indulgence, in order that you may fearlessly hasten to appear in our presence, whereby after experiencing our benevolence, you may attain your desire, and be re-established in your proper position. For this reason I have requested my Lord and brother Constans Victor Augustus to grant you permission to come, to the end that by the consent of us both you may be restored to your country, having this assurance of our favor.

Another Epistle to Athanasius.

Constantius Victor Augustus to the bishop Athanasius.

Although we have abundantly intimated in a former letter that you might confidently come to our court,

κομιτάτον = Lat. comitatus; by analogy of the New Test. words κῆνσος κουστωδία, σπεκουλάτωρ , &c., and frequently in Byzantine Greek κομβίνευμα σουφράγιον , &c.

Another Epistle to Athanasius.

Constantius Victor Augustus to the bishop Athanasius.

While we were residing at Edessa, where your presbyters were present, it pleased us to send one of them to you, for the purpose of hastening your arrival at our court, in order that after having been introduced to our presence, you might forthwith proceed to Alexandria. But inasmuch as a considerable time has elapsed since you received our letter, and yet have not come, we now therefore hasten to remind you to speedily present yourself before us, that so you may be able to return to your country, and obtain your desire. For the more ample assurance of our intention, we have despatched to you Achetas the deacon, from whom you will learn both our mind in regard to you, and that you will be able to secure what you wish; viz., our readiness to facilitate the objects you have in view.

When Athanasius had received these letters at Aquileia,—for there he abode after his departure from Sardica,—he immediately hastened to Rome; and having shown these communications to Julius the bishop, he caused the greatest joy in the Roman Church. For it seemed as if the emperor of the East also had recognized their faith, since he had recalled Athanasius. Julius then wrote to the clergy and laity of Alexandria on behalf of Athanasius as follows:

Epistle of Julius, Bishop of Rome, to those at Alexandria.

Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 52.

Julius, the bishop, to the presbyters, deacons, and people inhabiting Alexandria, brethren beloved, salutations in the Lord.

I also rejoice with you, beloved brethren, because you at length see before your eyes the fruit of your faith. For that this is really so, any one may perceive in reference to my brother and fellow-prelate Athanasius, whom God has restored to you, both on account of his purity of life, and in answer to your prayers. From this it is evident that your supplications to God have unceasingly been offered pure and abounding with love; for mindful of the divine promises and of the charity connected with them, which ye learned from the instruction of my brother, ye knew assuredly, and according to the sound faith which is in you clearly foresaw that your bishop would not be separated from you for ever, whom ye had in your devout hearts as though he were ever present. Wherefore it is unnecessary for me to use many words in addressing you, for your faith has already anticipated whatever I could have said; and the common prayer of you all has been fulfilled according to the grace of Christ. I therefore rejoice with you, and repeat that ye have preserved your souls invincible in the faith. And with my brother Athanasius I rejoice equally; because, while suffering many afflictions, he has never been unmindful of your love and desire; for although he seemed to be withdrawn from you in person for a season, yet was he always present with you in spirit. Moreover, I am convinced, beloved, that every trial which he has endured has not been inglorious; since both your faith and his has thus been tested and made manifest to all. But had not so many troubles happened to him, who would have believed, either that you had so great esteem and love for this eminent prelate, or that he was endowed with such distinguished virtues, on account of which also he will by no means be defrauded of his hope in the heavens? He has accordingly obtained a testimony of confession in every way glorious both in the present age and in that which is to come. For having suffered so many and diversified trials both by land and by sea, he has trampled on every machination of the Arian heresy; and though often exposed to danger in consequence of envy, he despised death, being protected by Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, ever trusting that he should not only escape the plots [of his adversaries], but also be restored for your consolation, and bring back to you at the same time greater trophies from your own conscience. By which means he has been made known even to the ends of the whole earth as glorious, his worth having been approved by the purity of his life, the firmness of his purpose, and his steadfastness in the heavenly doctrine, all being attested by your unchanging esteem and love. He therefore returns to you, more illustrious now than when he departed from you. For if the fire tries the precious metals (I speak of gold and silver) for purification, what can be said of so excellent a man proportionate to his worth, who after having overcome the fire of so many calamities and dangers, is now restored to you, being declared innocent not only by us, but also by the whole Synod? Receive therefore with godly honor and joy, beloved brethren, your bishop Athanasius, together with those who have been his companions in tribulation. And rejoice in having attained the object of your prayers, you who have supplied with meat and drink, by your supporting letters, your pastor hungering and thirsting, so to speak, for your spiritual welfare. And in fact ye were a comfort to him while he was sojourning in a strange land; and ye cherished him in your most faithful affections when he was plotted against and persecuted. As for me, it makes me happy even to picture to myself in imagination the delight of each one of you at his return, the pious greetings of the populace, the glorious festivity of those assembled to meet him, and indeed what the entire aspect of that day will be when my brother shall be brought back to you again; when past troubles will be at an end, and his prized and longed-for return will unite all hearts in the warmest expression of joy. This feeling will in a very high degree extend to us, who regard it as a token of divine favor that we should have been privileged to become acquainted with so eminent a person. It becomes us therefore to close this epistle with prayer. May God Almighty and his Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ afford you this grace continually, thus rewarding the admirable faith which ye have manifested in reference to your bishop by an illustrious testimony: that the things most excellent which ‘Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man; even the things which God has prepared for them that love him,’

1 Cor. ii. 9

Athanasius, relying on these letters, arrived at the East. The Emperor Constantius did not at that time receive him with hostility of feeling; nevertheless at the instigation of the Arians he endeavored to circumvent him, and addressed him in these words: ‘You have been reinstated in your see in accordance with the decree of the Synod, and with our consent. But inasmuch as some of the people of Alexandria refuse to hold communion with you, permit them to have one church in the city.’ To this demand Athanasius promptly replied: ‘You have the power, my sovereign, both to order, and to carry into effect, whatever you may please. I also, therefore, would beg you to grant me a favor.’ The emperor having readily promised to acquiesce, Athanasius immediately added, that he desired the same thing might be conceded to him, which the emperor had sought from him, viz.: that in every city one church should be assigned to those who might refuse to hold communion with the Arians. The Arians perceiving the purpose of Athanasius to be inimical to their interests, said that this affair might be postponed to another time: but they suffered the emperor to act as he pleased. He therefore restored to Athanasius, Paul, and Marcellus their respective sees; as also to Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, and Lucius of Adrianople. For these, too, had been received by the Council of Sardica: Asclepas, because he showed records from which it appeared that Eusebius Pamphilus, in conjunction with several others, after having investigated his case, had restored him to his former rank; and Lucius, because his accusers had fled. Hereupon the emperor’s edicts were despatched to their respective cities, enjoining the inhabitants to receive them readily. At Ancyra indeed, when Basil was ejected, and Marcellus was introduced in his stead, there was a considerable tumult made, which afforded his enemies an occasion of calumniating him: but the people of Gaza willingly received Asclepas. Macedonius at Constantinople, for a short time gave place to Paul, convening assemblies by himself separately, in a separate church in that city. Moreover the emperor wrote on behalf of Athanasius to the bishops, clergy, and laity, in regard to receiving him cheerfully: and at the same time he ordered by other letters, that whatever had been enacted against him in the judicial courts should be abrogated. The communications respecting both these matters were as follows:

The Epistle of Constantius in Behalf of Athanasius.

Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 54.

Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus, to the bishops and presbyters of the Catholic Church.

The most reverend bishop Athanasius has not been forsaken by the grace of God. But although he was for a short time subjected to trial according to men, yet has he obtained from an omniscient Providence the exoneration which was due to him; having been restored by the will of God, and our decision, both to his country and to the church over which by divine permission he presided. It was therefore suitable that what is in accordance with this should be duly attended to by our clemency: so that all things which have been heretofore determined against those who held communion with him should now be rescinded; that all suspicion against him should henceforward cease; and that the immunity which those clergymen who are with him formerly enjoyed, should be, as it is meet, confirmed to them. Moreover, we thought it just to add this to our grace toward him, that the whole ecclesiastical body should understand that protection is extended to all who have adhered to him, whether bishops or other clergymen: and union with him shall be a sufficient evidence of each person’s right intention. Wherefore we have ordered, according to the similitude of the previous providence, that as many as have the wisdom to enroll themselves with the sounder judgment and party and to choose his communion, shall enjoy that indulgence which we have now granted in accordance with the will of God.

Another Epistle sent to the Alexandrians.

Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 55.

Victor Constantius Maximus Augustus, to the people of the Catholic Church at Alexandria.

Setting before us as an aim your good order in all respects, and knowing that you have long since been bereft of episcopal oversight, we thought it just to send back to you again Athanasius your bishop, a man known to all by the rectitude and sanctity of his life and manners. Having received him with your usual and becoming courtesy, and constituted him the assistant of your prayers to God, exert yourselves to maintain at all times, according to the ecclesiastical canon, harmony and peace, which will be alike honorable to yourselves, and grateful to us. For it is unreasonable that any dissension or faction should be excited among you, hostile to the prosperity of our times; and we trust that such a misfortune will be wholly removed from you. We exhort you, therefore, to assiduously persevere in your accustomed devotions, by his assistance, as we before said: so that when this resolution of yours shall become generally known, entering into the prayers of all, even the pagans, who are still enslaved in the ignorance of idolatrous worship, may hasten to seek the knowledge of our sacred religion, most beloved Alexandrians. Again, therefore, we exhort you to give heed to these things: heartily welcome your bishop, as one appointed you by the will of God and our decree; and esteem him worthy of being embraced with all the affections of your souls. For this becomes you, and is consistent with our clemency. But in order to check all tendency to seditions and tumult in persons of a factious disposition, orders have been issued to our judges to give up to the severity of the laws all whom they may discover to be seditious. Having regard, therefore, to our determination and God’s,

τοῦ κρείτονος; cf. I. 7, and note.

An Epistle respecting the Rescinding of the Enactments against Athanasius.

Victor Constantius Augustus to Nestorius, and in the same terms to the governors of Augustamnica, Thebaïs, and Libya.

If it be found that at any time previously any enactment has been passed prejudicial and derogatory to those who hold communion with Athanasius the bishop, our pleasure is that it should now be wholly abrogated; and that his clergy should again enjoy the same immunity which was granted to them formerly. We enjoin strict obedience to this command, to the intent that since the bishop Athanasius has been restored to his church, all who hold communion with him may possess the same privileges as they had before, and such as other ecclesiastics now enjoy: that so their affairs being happily arranged, they also may share in the general prosperity.

Chapter XXIV.—Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem on his Return to Alexandria, is received into Communion by Maximus: and a Synod of Bishops, convened in that City, confirms the Nicene Creed.

Athanasius the bishop being fortified with such letters as these, passed through Syria, and came into Palestine. On arriving at Jerusalem he acquainted Maximus the bishop both with what had been done in the Council of Sardica, and also that the Emperor Constantius had confirmed its decision: he then proposed that a Synod of the bishops there should be held. Maximus,

The bishop of Jerusalem was under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan bishop of Cæsarea, and according to later usage and canon, had no right to call a synod without the permission of the metropolitan. Evidently usage had not yet become fixed into uniformity in this respect.

Chapter XXV.—Of the Usurpers Magnentius and Vetranio.

About this time an extraordinary commotion shook the whole state, of the principal heads, of which we shall give a brief account, deeming it necessary not to pass over them altogether. We mentioned in our first book,

I. 38.

Chapter XXVI.—After the Death of Constans, the Western Emperor, Paul and Athanasius are again ejected from their Sees: the Former on his Way into Exile is slain; but the Latter escapes by Flight.

The conflux of these disastrous events occurred during a short space of time; for they happened in the fourth year after the council at Sardica, during the consulate of Sergius and Nigrinian.

350 a.d.

Chapter XXVII.—Macedonius having possessed himself of the See of Constantinople inflicts much Injury on those who differ from him.

At that time Paul having been removed in the manner described, Macedonius became ruler of the churches in Constantinople; who, acquiring very great ascendancy over the emperor, stirred up a war among Christians, of a no less grievous kind than that which the usurpers themselves were waging. For having prevailed on his sovereign to co-operate with him in devastating the churches, he procured that whatever pernicious measures he determined to pursue should be ratified by law. And on this account throughout the several cities an edict was proclaimed, and a military force appointed to carry the imperial decrees into effect. Accordingly those who acknowledged the doctrine of consubstantiality were expelled not only from the churches, but also from the cities. Now at first they were satisfied with expulsion; but as the evil grew they resorted to the worse extremity of inducing compulsory communion with them, caring but little for such a desecration of the churches. Their violence indeed was scarcely less than that of those who had formerly obliged the Christians to worship idols; for they applied all kinds of scourgings, a variety of tortures, and confiscation of property. Many were punished with exile; some died under the torture; and others were put to death while they were being led into exile. These atrocities were exercised throughout all the eastern cities, but especially at Constantinople; the internal strife which was but slight before was thus savagely increased by Macedonius, as soon as he obtained the bishopric. The cities of Greece, however, and Illyricum, with those of the western parts, still enjoyed tranquillity; inasmuch as they preserved harmony among themselves, and continued to adhere to the rule of faith promulgated by the council of Nicæa.

Chapter XXVIII.—Athanasius’ Account of the Deeds of Violence committed at Alexandria by George the Arian.

What cruelties George perpetrated at Alexandria at the same time may be learned from the narration of Athanasius, who both suffered in and witnessed the occurrences. In his ‘Apology for his flight,’

Athan. Apol. de Fuga, 6.

‘Moreover, they came to Alexandria, again seeking to destroy me: and on this occasion their proceedings were worse than before; for the soldiery having suddenly surrounded the church, there arose the din of war, instead of the voice of prayer. Afterwards, on his arrival during Lent,

Τεσσαρακοστή , lit. = ‘forty days’ fast,’ formed by mistaken analogy to πεντηκοστή

Chapter XXIX.—Of the Heresiarch Photinus.

During this time Photinus,

A disciple of Marcellus (see ch. 18). See Hilar. de Synod. 61, Cave on Photinus.

Chapter XXX.—Creeds published at Sirmium in Presence of the Emperor Constantius.

As if they would rescind their former determinations respecting the faith, they published anew other expositions of the creed, viz.: one which Mark of Arethusa composed in Greek; and others in Latin, which harmonized neither in expression nor in sentiment with one another, nor with that dictated by the bishop of Arethusa. I shall here subjoin one of those drawn up in Latin, to that prepared in Greek by Mark: the other, which was afterwards recited at Sirmium,

There were three councils held at Sirmium: one in 351, as already indicated in note 3, ch. 29; another in 357, in which Hosius and Potamius composed their blasphemy; and one in 359. It was in this last council that that creed was drawn up which was recited in Ariminum. The confusion of Socrates on this point has been alluded to in the Introd.

‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things, of whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named,

Eph. iii. 15.

Chapter XXXI.—Of Hosius, Bishop of Cordova.

Since we have observed that Hosius the Spaniard was present [at the council of Sirmium] against his will, it is necessary to give some brief account of him. A short time before he had been sent into exile by the intrigues of the Arians: but at the earnest solicitation of those convened at Sirmium, the emperor summoned him thither, wishing that by persuasion, or by compulsion he should give his sanction to their proceedings; for if this could be effected, they considered it would give great authority to their sentiments. On this ground, therefore, as I have said, he was most unwillingly obliged to be present: and when he refused to concur with them, stripes and tortures were inflicted on the old man. Wherefore he was constrained by force to acquiesce in and subscribe to their exposition of the faith. Such was the issue of affairs at that time transacted at Sirmium. But the emperor Constantius after these things still continued to reside at that place, awaiting there the result of the war against Magnentius.

Chapter XXXII.—Overthrow of the Usurper Magnentius.

Magnentius in the meanwhile having made himself master of the imperial city Rome, put to death many members of the senatorial council, as well as many of the populace. But as soon as the commanders under Constantius had collected an army of Romans, and commenced their march against him, he left Rome, and retired into the Gauls. There several battles were fought, sometimes to the advantage of one party, and sometimes to that of the other: but at last Magnentius having been defeated near Mursa—a fortress of Gaul—was there closely besieged. In this place the following remarkable incident is said to have occurred. Magnentius desiring to reassure the courage of his soldiers who were disheartened by their late overthrow, ascended a lofty tribunal for this purpose. They, wishing to give utterance to the usual acclamation with which they greet emperors, contrary to their intention simultaneously all shouted the name not of Magnentius, but of Constantius Augustus. Regarding this as an omen unfavorable to himself, Magnentius immediately withdrew from the fortress, and retreated to the remotest parts of Gaul. Thither the generals of Constantius hastened in pursuit. An engagement having again taken place near Mount Seleucus,

So in the Allat. ms., with the variant reading in other mss. Μιλτοσέλευκος .

Chapter XXXIII.—Of the Jews inhabiting Dio-Cæsarea in Palestine.

About the same time there arose another intestine commotion in the East: for the Jews who inhabited Dio-Cæsarea in Palestine took up arms against the Romans, and began to ravage the adjacent places. But Gallus who was also called Constantius, whom the emperor, after creating Cæsar, had sent into the East, despatched an army against them, and completely vanquished them: after which he ordered that their city Dio-Cæsarea should be razed to the foundations.

Chapter XXXIV.—Of Gallus Cæsar.

Gallus, having accomplished these things, was unable to bear his success with moderation; but forthwith attempted innovations against the authority of him who had constituted him Cæsar, himself aspiring to the sovereign power. His purpose was, however, soon detected by Constantius: for he had dared to put to death, on his own responsibility, Domitian, at that time Prætorian prefect of the East, and Magnus the quæstor, not having disclosed his designs to the emperor. Constantius, extremely incensed at this conduct, summoned Gallus to his presence, who being in great terror went very reluctantly; and when he arrived in the western parts, and had reached the island of Flanona, Constantius ordered him to be slain. But not long after he created Julian, the brother of Gallus, Cæsar, and sent him against the barbarians in Gaul. It was in the seventh consulate

354 a.d.

Chapter XXXV.—Of Aëtius the Syrian, Teacher of Eunomius.

At Antioch in Syria another heresiarch sprang up, Aëtius, surnamed Atheus. He agreed in doctrine with Arius, and maintained the same opinions: but separated himself from the Arian party because they had admitted Arius into communion. For Arius, as I have before related,

I. 26.

Chapter XXXVI.—Of the Synod at Milan.

Now at that time the bishops met in Italy, very few indeed from the East, most of them being hindered from coming either by the firmities of age or by the distance; but of the West there were more than three hundred.

So also Sozomen, IV. 9; but the number appears exorbitant. Valesius conjectures that the texts of Socrates and Sozomen are corrupted, and that we must read thirty instead of three hundred. The smaller number agrees exactly with the list given in the epistle of this council to Eusebius of Vercellæ; in this list thirty bishops are named as agreeing to the condemnation of Athanasius, Marcellus, and Photinus. Cf. Baronius, Annal. year 355.

Chapter XXXVII.—Of the Synod at Ariminum, and the Creed there published.

Cf. Sozomen, III. 19; IV. 15–19; Theodoret, H. E. II. 18–21; Rufin. II. 21; Philostorgius, IV. 10. Also Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 246–271.

The emperor on being apprised of what had taken place, sent these three bishops into exile; and determined to convene an ecumenical council, that by drawing all the Eastern bishops into the West, he might if possible bring them all to agree. But when, on consideration, the length of the journey seemed to present serious obstacles, he directed that the Synod should consist of two divisions; permitting those present at Milan to meet at Ariminum in Italy: but the Eastern bishops he instructed by letters to assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia. The emperor’s object in these arrangements was to effect a general unity of opinion; but the issue was contrary to his expectation. For neither of the Synods was in harmony with itself, but each was divided into opposing factions: for those convened at Ariminum could not agree with one another; and the Eastern bishops assembled at Seleucia in Isauria made another schism. The details of what took place in both we will give in the course of our history,

Ch. 39.

’The catholic faith was expounded at Sirmium in presence of our lord Constantius,

The title of the emperor in Athanasius’ version is ‘The most pious and victorious emperor Constantius Augustus, eternal Augustus,’ &c., which agrees with the representations of the ancients on the vainglory of Constantius. Cf. Amm. Marcellin. Rerum Gestarum, XVI. 10. 2, 3 (ed. Eyssenhardt).

‘We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Framer of all things: and in one only-begotten Son of God, before all ages, before all beginning, before all conceivable time, and before all comprehensible thought, begotten without passion: by whom the ages were framed, and all things made: who was begotten as the only-begotten of the Father, only of only, God of God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures: whose generation no one knows, but the Father only who begat him. We know that this his only-begotten Son came down from the heavens by his Father’s consent for the putting away of sin, was born of the Virgin Mary, conversed with his disciples, and fulfilled every dispensation according to the Father’s will: was crucified and died, and descended into the lower parts of the earth, and disposed matters there; at the sight of whom the (door-keepers of Hades trembled

Job xxxviii. 17 (LXX).

These statements having been read, those who were dissatisfied with them rose and said ‘We came not hither because we were in want of a creed; for we preserve inviolate that which we received from the beginning; but we are here met to repress any innovation upon it which may have been made. If therefore what has been recited introduces no novelties, now openly anathematize the Arian heresy, in the same manner as the ancient canon of the church has rejected all heresies as blasphemous: for it is evident to the whole world that the impious dogma of Arius has excited the disturbances of the church, and the troubles which exist until now.’ This proposition, which was not accepted by Ursacius, Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Gaïus, rent the church asunder completely: for these prelates adhered to what had then been recited in the Synod of Ariminum; while the others again confirmed the Nicene Creed. They also ridiculed the superscription of the creed that had been read; and especially Athanasius, in a letter which he sent to his friends, wherein he thus expresses himself:

Athan. de Synod. 8.

‘What point of doctrine was wanting to the piety of the catholic church, that they should now make an investigation respecting the faith, and prefix moreover the consulate of the present times to their published exposition of it? For Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius have done what was neither done, nor even heard of, at any time before among Christians: having composed a creed such as they themselves are willing to believe, they prefaced it with the consulate, month, and day of the present time, in order to prove to all discerning persons that theirs is not the ancient faith, but such as was originated under the reign of the present emperor Constantius.

This appeal to antiquity, as the test of truth, is very common with the earlier Fathers; cf. Eusebius’ treatment of the Scriptures of the New Testament, H. E. III. 3, 24, 25, et al.

Chapter XXXVIII.—Cruelty of Macedonius, and Tumults raised by him.

The bishops of the Arian party began to assume greater assurance from the imperial edicts. In what manner they undertook to convene a Synod, we will explain somewhat later. Let us now briefly mention a few of their previous acts. Acacius and Patrophilus having ejected Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, installed Cyril in his see. Macedonius subverted the order of things in the cities and provinces adjacent to Constantinople, promoting to ecclesiastical honors his assistants in his intrigues against the churches.

From this place it plainly appears, as Valesius remarks, that the authority of the see of Constantinople was acknowledged, even before the council of Constantinople, throughout the region of the Hellespont and Bithynia, which conclusion is also confirmed by the acts of Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, who made Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. Two causes co-operated to secure this authority, viz. (1) the official establishment of the city as the capital of the empire by Constantine, and (2) the transference to it of Eusebius of Nicomedia, a most vigorous and aggressive bishop, who missed no opportunity for enlarging and consolidating the power of his see.

Chapter XXXIX.—Of the Synod at Seleucia, in Isauria.

But I must now give an account of the other Synod, which the emperor’s edict had convoked in the east, as a rival to that of Ariminum. It was at first determined that the bishops should assemble at Nicomedia in Bithynia; but a great earthquake having nearly destroyed that city, prevented their being convened there. This happened in the consulate

358 a.d.

Chapter XL.—Acacius, Bishop of Cæsarea, dictates a new Form of Creed in the Synod at Seleucia.

Acacius and his adherents criticised what was done: because, that is to say, they closed the church doors and thus affixed their signatures; declaring that ‘all such secret transactions were justly to be suspected, and had no validity whatever.’ These objections he made because he was anxious to bring forward another exposition of the faith drawn up by himself, which he had already submitted to the governors Leonas and Lauricius, and was now intent on getting it alone confirmed and established, instead of that which had been subscribed. The second day was thus occupied with nothing else but exertions on his part to effect this object. On the third day Leonas endeavored to produce an amicable meeting of both parties; Macedonius of Constantinople, and also Basil of Ancyra, having arrived during its course. But when the Acacians found that both the parties had come to the same position, they refused to meet; saying that not only those who had before been deposed, but also such as were at present under any accusation, ought to be excluded from the assembly.’ And as after much cavilling on both sides, this opinion prevailed; those who lay under any charge went out of the council, and the party of Acacius entered in their places. Leonas then said that a document had been put into his hand by Acacius, to which he desired to call their attention: but he did not state that it was the drought of a creed, which in some particulars covertly, and in others unequivocally contradicted the former. When those present became silent, thinking that the document contained something else besides an exposition of a creed, the following creed composed by Acacius, together with its preamble, was read.

’We having yesterday assembled by the emperor’s command at Seleucia, a city of Isauria, on the 27th day of September, exerted ourselves to the utmost, with all moderation, to preserve the peace of the church, and to determine doctrinal questions on prophetic and evangelical authority, so as to sanction nothing in the ecclesiastic confession of faith at variance with the sacred Scriptures, as our Emperor Constantius most beloved of God has ordered. But inasmuch as certain individuals in the Synod have acted injuriously toward several of us, preventing some from expressing their sentiments, and excluding others from the council against their wills; and at the same time have introduced such as have been deposed, and persons who were ordained contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that the Synod has presented a scene of tumult and disorder, of which the most illustrious Leonas, the Comes, and the most eminent Lauricius, governor of the province, have been eye-witnesses, we are therefore under the necessity of making this declaration. That we do not repudiate the faith which was ratified at the consecration of the church at Antioch;

Athanas. (de Synodd. 29) gives the following portion of this creed apparently as the only declaration made by the council.

‘We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only-begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all things were made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that he took flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to abolish sin; that he was made man, suffered for our sin, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour has denominated the Comforter, and whom he sent to his disciples after his departure, according to his promise: by whom also he sanctifies all believers in the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who preach anything contrary to this creed, we regard as aliens from the catholic church.’

This was the declaration of faith proposed by Acacius, and subscribed by himself and as many as adhered to his opinion, the number of whom we have already given. When this had been read, Sophronius bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, thus expressed himself: ‘If to express a separate opinion day after day, be received as the exposition of the faith, we shall never arrive at any accurate understanding of the truth.’ These were the words of Sophronius. And I firmly believe, that if the predecessors of these prelates, as well as their successors, had entertained similar sentiments in reference to the Nicene creed, all polemical debates would have been avoided; nor would the churches have been agitated by such violent and irrational disturbances. However let those judge who are capable of understanding how these things are. At that time after many remarks on all sides had been made both in reference to this doctrinal statement, and in relation to the parties accused, the assembly was dissolved. On the fourth day they all again met in the same place, and resumed their proceedings in the same contentious spirit as before. On this occasion Acacius expressed himself in these words: ‘Since the Nicene creed has been altered not once only, but frequently, there is no hindrance to our publishing another at this time.’ To which Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, replied: ‘The Synod is at present convened not to learn what it had no previous knowledge of, nor to receive a creed which it had not assented to before, but to confirm the faith of the fathers, from which it should never recede, either in life or death.’ Thus Eleusius opposing Acacius spoke meaning by ‘the faith of the fathers,’ that creed which had been promulgated at Antioch. But surely he too might have been fairly answered in this way: ‘How is it O Eleusius, that you call those convened at Antioch “the fathers,” seeing that you do not recognize those who were their fathers? The framers of the Nicene creed, by whom the homoousian faith was acknowledged, have a far higher claim to the title of “the fathers”; both as having the priority in point of time, and also because those assembled at Antioch were by them invested with the sacerdotal office. Now if those at Antioch have disowned their own fathers, those who follow them are unconsciously following parricides. Besides how can they have received a legitimate ordination from those whose faith they pronounce unsound and impious? If those, however, who constituted the Nicene Synod had not the Holy Spirit which is imparted by the imposition of hands,

See Chrysostom, Homilies 9 and 27, on Acts, and Hom. 1, on 2 Tim., for the belief of the ancient Church in the descent of the Holy Spirit on the ordained in and through ordination.

Chapter XLI.—On the Emperor’s Return from the West, the Acacians assemble at Constantinople, and confirm the Creed of Ariminum, after making Some Additions to it.

And now the emperor returned from the West and appointed a prefect over Constantinople, Honoratus by name, having abolished the office of proconsul.

On the distinction between the prefect and proconsul and the different functions of each, see Smith, Diction. of Greek and Roman Ant. The statement of Socrates here that Constantius first put Constantinople under a prefect is borne out by Athanasius’ mention of Donatus as proconsul of Europe, with Constantinople as chief city.

‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all ages, and before every beginning; through whom all things visible and invisible were made: who is the only-begotten born of the Father, the only of the only, God of God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures, and whose generation no one knows but the Father only that begat him. We know that this only-begotten Son of God, as sent of the Father, came down from the heavens, as it is written, for the destruction of sin and death: and that he was born of the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with his disciples; and that after every dispensation had been fulfilled according to his Father’s will, he was crucified and died, and was buried and descended into the lower parts of the earth, at whose presence hades itself trembled: who also arose from the dead on the third day, again conversed with his disciples, and after the completion of forty days was taken up into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come in the last day, the day of the resurrection, in his Father’s glory, to requite every one accord-to his works. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, whom he himself the only-begotten of God, Christ our Lord and God, promised to send to mankind as the Comforter, according as it is written,

John xv. 26.

These things were recognized at that time at Constantinople. And now as we have at length wound our way through the labyrinth of all the various forms of faith, let us reckon the number of them. After that which was promulgated at Nicæa, two others were proposed at Antioch at the dedication of the church there.

Chap. 10.

Chapter XLII.—On the Deposition of Macedonius, Eudoxius obtains the Bishopric of Constantinople.

Acacius, Eudoxius, and those at Constantinople who took part with them, became exceedingly anxious that they also on their side might depose some of the opposite party. Now it should be observed that neither of the factions were influenced by religious considerations in making depositions, but by other motives: for although they did not agree respecting the faith, yet the ground of their reciprocal depositions was not error in doctrine. The Acacian party therefore availing themselves of the emperor’s indignation against others, and especially against Macedonius, which he was cherishing and anxious to vent, in the first place deposed Macedonius, both on account of his having occasioned so much slaughter, and also because he had admitted to communion a deacon who had been found guilty of fornication.

Cf. Apost. Canon, XXV.

Chapter XLIII.—Of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia.

But Eustathius bishop of Sebastia in Armenia was not even permitted to make his defense; because he had been long before deposed by Eulalius, his own father, who was bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, for dressing in a style unbecoming the sacerdotal office.

On the prescribed dress of the clergy, and the punishment of those who did not constantly adopt it, see Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. VI. 4. 15.

Chapter XLIV.—Of Meletius

The name has been written ‘Melitius’ thus far, but is found as ‘Meletius’ from this point, and through Bk. III. Cf. Euseb. H. E. VII. 32.

It becomes us now to speak of Meletius, who, as we have recently observed, was created bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, after the deposition of Eustathius; from Sebastia he was transferred to Berœa, a city of Syria. Being present at the Synod of Seleucia, he subscribed the creed set forth there by Acacius, and immediately returned thence to Berœa. When the convention of the Synod at Constantinople was held, the people of Antioch finding that Eudoxius, captivated by the magnificence of the see of Constantinople, had contemned their church, they sent for Meletius, and invested him with the bishopric of the church at Antioch. Now he at first avoided all doctrinal questions, confining his discourses to moral subjects; but subsequently he expounded to his auditors the Nicene creed, and asserted the doctrine of the homoousion. The emperor being informed of this, ordered that he should be sent into exile; and caused Euzoïus, who had before been deposed together with Arius, to be installed bishop of Antioch in his stead. Such, however, as were attached to Meletius, separated themselves from the Arian congregation, and held their assemblies apart: nevertheless, those who originally embraced the homoousian opinion would not communicate with them, because Meletius had been ordained by the Arians, and his adherents had been baptized by them. Thus was the Antiochian church divided, even in regard to those whose views on matters of faith exactly corresponded. Meanwhile the emperor getting intelligence that the Persians were preparing to undertake another war against the Romans, repaired in great haste to Antioch.

Chapter XLV.—The Heresy of Macedonius.

Macedonius on being ejected from Constantinople, bore his condemnation ill and became restless; he therefore associated himself with the other faction that had deposed Acacius and his party at Seleucia, and sent a deputation to Sophronius and Eleusius, to encourage them to adhere to that creed which was first promulgated at Antioch, and afterwards confirmed at Seleucia, proposing to give it the counterfeit

παράσημος ; just as a counterfeit coin has the appearance of the genuine, and is meant to deceive those who do not investigate its genuineness, so the term ‘homoioousios’ (ὁμοιοούσιος ), the author implies, was meant to deceive the popular ear by its likeness to the genuine ‘homoousios.’

Chapter XLVI.—Of the Apollinarians, and their Heresy.

Cf. Sozom. VI. 25; Schaff, Hist. of the Christ. Ch., Vol. III. p. 708 seq.; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, III. p. 119–229.

There were two men of the same name at Laodicea in Syria, a father and son: their name was Apollinaris; the former of them was a presbyter, and the latter a reader in that church. Both taught Greek literature, the father grammar, and the son rhetoric. The father was a native of Alexandria, and at first taught at Berytus, but afterwards removed to Laodicea, where he married, and the younger Apollinaris was born. They were contemporaries of Epiphanius the sophist, and being true friends they became intimate with him; but Theodotus bishop of Laodicea, fearing that such communication should pervert their principles, and lead them into paganism, forbade their associating with him: they, however, paid but little attention to this prohibition, their familiarity with Epiphanius being still continued. George, the successor of Theodotus, also endeavored to prevent their conversing with Epiphanius; but not being able in any way to persuade them on this point, he excommunicated them. The younger Apollinaris regarding this severe procedure as an act of injustice, and relying on the resources of his rhetorical sophistry, originated a new heresy, which was named after its inventor, and still has many supporters. Nevertheless some affirm that it was not for the reason above assigned that they dissented from George, but because they saw the unsettledness and inconsistency of his profession of faith; since he sometimes maintained that the Son is like the Father, in accordance with what had been determined in the Synod at Seleucia, and at other times countenanced the Arian view. They therefore made this a pretext for separation from him: but as no one followed their example, they introduced a new form of doctrine, and at first they asserted that in the economy of the incarnation, God the Word assumed a human body without a soul. Afterwards, as if changing mind, they retracted, admitting that he took a soul indeed, but that it was an irrational one, God the Word himself being in the place of a mind. Those who followed them and bear their name at this day affirm that this is their only point of distinction [from the Catholics]; for they recognize the consubstantiality of the persons in the Trinity. But we will make further mention of the two Apollinares in the proper place.

III. 16.

Chapter XLVII.—Successes of Julian; Death of the Emperor Constantius.

While the Emperor Constantius continued his residence at Antioch, Julian Cæsar engaged with an immense army of barbarians in the Gauls, and obtaining the victory over them, he became extremely popular among the soldiery and was proclaimed emperor by them. When this was made known, the Emperor Constantius was affected most painfully; he was therefore baptized by Euzoïus, and immediately prepared to undertake an expedition against Julian. On arriving at the frontiers of Cappadocia and Cilicia, his excessive agitation of mind produced apoplexy, which terminated his life at Mopsucrene, in the consulate of Taurus and Florentius,

361 a.d.

Book III.

Chapter I.—Of Julian; his Lineage and Education; his Elevation to the Throne; his Apostasy to Paganism.

The Emperor Constantius died on the frontiers of Cilicia on the 3d of November, during the consulate of Taurus and Florentius; Julian leaving the western parts of the empire about the 11th of December following, under the same consulate, came to Constantinople, where he was proclaimed emperor.

December, 361 a.d. This proclamation must be distinguished from the one in Gaul (II. 47); the latter was the proclamation by the army, and occurred during the lifetime of Constantius.

Chapter II.—Of the Sedition excited at Alexandria, and how George was slain.

It is now proper to mention what took place in the churches under the same [emperor]. A great disturbance occurred at Alexandria in consequence of the following circumstance. There was a place in that city which had long been abandoned to neglect and filth, wherein the pagans had formerly celebrated their mysteries, and sacrificed human beings to Mithra.

The friendly or propitious divinity of the Persian theology; hence identified with the light and life-giving sun.

Chapter III.—The Emperor Indignant at the Murder of George, rebukes the Alexandrians by Letter.

The emperor being highly indignant at the assassination of George, wrote to the citizens of Alexandria, rebuking their violence in the strongest terms. A report was circulated that those who detested him because of Athanasius, perpetrated this outrage upon George: but as for me I think it is undoubtedly true that such as cherish hostile feelings against particular individuals are often found identified with popular commotions; yet the emperor’s letter evidently attaches the blame to the populace, rather than to any among the Christians. George, however, was at that time, and had for some time previously been, exceedingly obnoxious to all classes, which is sufficient to account for the burning indignation of the multitude against him. That the emperor charges the people with the crime may be seen from his letter which was expressed in the following terms.

Emperor Cæsar Julian Maximus Augustus to the Citizens of Alexandria.

Julian, Ep. 10.

Even if you have neither respect for Alexander the founder of your city, nor, what is more, for that great and most holy god Serapis; yet how is it you have made no account not only of the universal claims of humanity and social order, but also of what is due to us, to whom all the gods, and especially the mighty Serapis, have assigned the empire of the world, for whose cognizance therefore it became you to reserve all matters of public wrong? But perhaps the impulse of rage and indignation, which taking possession of the mind, too often stimulate it to the most atrocious acts, has led you astray. It seems, however, that when your fury had in some degree moderated, you aggravated your culpability by adding a most heinous offense to that which had been committed under the excitement of the moment: nor were you, although but the common people, ashamed to perpetrate those very acts on account of which you justly detested them. By Serapis I conjure you tell me, for what unjust deed were ye so indignant at George? You will perhaps answer, it was because he exasperated Constantius of blessed memory against you: because he introduced an army into the sacred city: because in consequence the governor

Artemius, whom the Emperor Julian afterwards beheaded for desecrating the pagan temple.

Chapter IV.—On the Death of George, Athanasius returns to Alexandria, and takes Possession of his See.

Not long after this, Athanasius returning from his exile, was received with great joy by the people of Alexandria. They expelled at that time the Arians from the churches, and restored Athanasius to the possession of them. The Arians meanwhile assembling themselves in low and obscure buildings, ordained Lucius to supply the place of George. Such was the state of things at that time at Alexandria.

Chapter V.—Of Lucifer and Eusebius.

About the same time Lucifer and Eusebius

Theodoret, H. E. III, 4, mentions Hilarius, Astenius, and some other bishops who were at this time recalled from exile by Julian’s edict, and joined Lucifer and Eusebius in these deliberations about restoring the authority of the canons and correcting abuses in the church.

Chapter VI.—Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus.

It was decided therefore that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria, and Eusebius to Alexandria, that by assembling a Synod in conjunction with Athanasius, they might confirm the doctrines of the church. Lucifer sent a deacon as his representative, by whom he pledged himself to assent to whatever the Synod might decree; but he himself went to Antioch, where he found the church in great disorder, the people not being agreed among themselves. For not only did the Arian heresy, which had been introduced by Euzoïus, divide the church, but, as we before said,

II. 44.

Chapter VII.—By the Co-operation of Eusebius and Athanasius a Synod is held at Alexandria, wherein the Trinity is declared to be Consubstantial.

As soon as Eusebius reached Alexandria, he in concert with Athanasius immediately convoked a Synod. The bishops assembled on this occasion out of various cities, took into consideration many subjects of the utmost importance. They asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit

The bishops composing the Council of Nicæa simply declared their faith in the Holy Spirit, without adding any definition; they were not met with any denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This denial was first made by Macedonius, in the fourth century.

Chapter VIII.—Quotations from Athanasius’ ‘Defense of his Flight.’

On this occasion Athanasius read to those present the Defense which he had composed some time before in justification of his flight; a few passages from which it may be of service to introduce here, leaving the entire production, which is too long to be transcribed, to be sought out and perused by the studious.

Athan. de Fuga. 7.

Chapter IX.—After the Synod of Alexandria, Eusebius proceeding to Antioch finds the Catholics at Variance on Account of Paulinus’ Consecration; and having exerted himself in vain to reconcile them, he departs; Indignation of Lucifer and Origin of a Sect called after him.

As soon as the council of Alexandria was dissolved, Eusebius bishop of Vercellæ went from Alexandria to Antioch; there finding that Paulinus had been ordained by Lucifer, and that the people were disagreeing among themselves,—for the partisans of Meletius held their assemblies apart,—he was exceedingly grieved at the want of harmony concerning this election, and in his own mind disapproved of what had taken place. His respect for Lucifer however induced him to be silent about it, and on his departure he engaged that all things should be set right by a council of bishops. Subsequently he labored with great earnestness to unite the dissentients, but did not succeed. Meanwhile Meletius returned from exile; and finding his followers holding their assemblies apart from the others, he set himself at their head. But Euzoïus, the chief of the Arian heresy, had possession of the churches: Paulinus

V. 5.

Chapter X.—Of Hilary Bishop of Poictiers.

There, however, Hilary bishop of Poictiers (a city of Aquitania Secunda) had anticipated him, having previously confirmed the bishops of Italy and Gaul in the doctrines of the orthodox faith; for he first had returned from exile to these countries. Both therefore nobly combined their energies in defense of the faith: and Hilary being a very eloquent man, maintained with great power the doctrine of the homoousion in books which he wrote in Latin. In these he gave sufficient support [to the doctrine] and unanswerably confuted the Arian tenets. These things took place shortly after the recall of those who had been banished. But it must be observed, that at the same time Macedonius, Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius, with all their partisans, who had but the one common designation Macedonians, held frequent Synods in various places.

Sozom. V. 14; Theodoret, Hæret. Fabul. IV.

Such was the answer the Macedonians made by Sophronius to that question, as Sabinus assures us in his Collection of the Synodical Acts. But in decrying Aëtius as the author of the Anomoion doctrine, and not Acacius, they flagrantly disguise the truth, in order to seem as far removed from the Arians on the one side, as from the Homoousians on the other: for their own words convict them of having separated from them both, merely from the love of innovation. With these remarks we close our notice of these persons.

Chapter XI.—The Emperor Julian extracts Money from the Christians.

Although at the beginning of his reign the Emperor Julian conducted himself mildly toward all men; but as he went on he did not continue to show the same equanimity. He most readily indeed acceded to the requests of the Christians, when they tended in any way to cast odium on the memory of Constantius; but when this inducement did not exist, he made no effort to conceal the rancorous feelings which he entertained towards Christians in general. Accordingly he soon ordered that the church of the Novatians at Cyzicus, which Euzoïus had totally demolished, should be rebuilt, imposing a very heavy penalty upon Eleusius bishop of that city, if he failed to complete that structure at his own expense within the space of two months. Moreover, he favored the pagan superstitions with the whole weight of his authority: and the temples of the heathen were opened, as we have before stated;

Chap. 1.

Chapter XII.—Of Maris Bishop of Chalcedon; Julian forbids Christians from entering Literary Pursuits.

About this time, Maris bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia being led by the hand into the emperor’s presence,—for on account of extreme old age he had a disease in his eyes termed ‘cataract,’—severely rebuked his impiety, apostasy, and atheism. Julian answered his reproaches by loading him with contumelious epithets: and he defended himself by words calling him ‘blind.’ ‘You blind old fool,’ said he, ‘this Galilæan God of yours will never cure you.’ For he was accustomed to term Christ ‘the Galilæan,’

Cf. John i. 46, and Acts ii. 7. Later the word was used by the heathen also, contemptuously, as a term of reproach.

Chapter XIII.—Of the Outrages committed by the Pagans against the Christians.

He moreover interdicted such as would not abjure Christianity, and offer sacrifice to idols, from holding any office at court: nor would he allow Christians to be governors of provinces; ‘for,’ said he, ‘their law forbids them to use the sword against offenders worthy of capital punishment.’

Based, probably, on Matt. xxvi. 52, and John xviii. 11.

Chapter XIV.—Flight of Athanasius.

But he fled again, saying to his intimates, ‘Let us retire for a little while, friends; it is but a small cloud which will soon pass away.’ He then immediately embarked, and crossing the Nile, hastened with all speed into Egypt, closely pursued by those who sought to take him. When he understood that his pursuers were not far distant, his attendants were urging him to retreat once more into the desert, but he had recourse to an artifice and thus effected his escape. He persuaded those who accompanied him to turn back and meet his adversaries, which they did immediately; and on approaching them they were simply asked ‘where they had seen Athanasius’: to which they replied that ‘he was not a great way off,’ and, that ‘if they hastened they would soon overtake him.’ Being thus deluded, they started afresh in pursuit with quickened speed, but to no purpose; and Athanasius making good his retreat, returned secretly to Alexandria; and there he remained concealed until the persecution was at an end. Such were the perils which succeeded one another in the career of the bishop of Alexandria, these last from the heathen coming after that to which he was before subjected from Christians. In addition to these things, the governors of the provinces taking advantage of the emperor’s superstition to feed their own cupidity, committed more grievous outrages on the Christians than their sovereign had given them a warrant for; sometimes exacting larger sums of money than they ought to have done, and at others inflicting on them corporal punishments. The emperor learning of these excesses, connived at them; and when the sufferers appealed to him against their oppressors, he tauntingly said, ‘It is your duty to bear these afflictions patiently; for this is the command of your God.’

Chapter XV.—Martyrs at Merum in Phrygia, under Julian.

Amachius governor of Phrygia ordered that the temple at Merum, a city of that province, should be opened, and cleared of the filth which had accumulated there by lapse of time: also that the statues it contained should be polished fresh. This in being put into operation grieved the Christians very much. Now a certain Macedonius and Theodulus and Tatian, unable to endure the indignity thus put upon their religion, and impelled by a fervent zeal for virtue, rushed by night into the temple, and broke the images in pieces. The governor infuriated at what had been done, would have put to death many in that city who were altogether innocent, when the authors of the deed voluntarily surrendered themselves, choosing rather to die themselves in defense of the truth, than to see others put to death in their stead. The governor seized and ordered them to expiate the crime they had committed by sacrificing: on their refusal to do this, their judge menaced them with tortures; but they despising his threats, being endowed with great courage, declared their readiness to undergo any sufferings, rather than pollute themselves by sacrificing. After subjecting them to all possible tortures he at last laid them on gridirons under which a fire was placed, and thus slew them. But even in this last extremity they gave the most heroic proofs of fortitude, addressing the ruthless governor thus: ‘If you wish to eat broiled flesh, Amachius, turn us on the other side also, lest we should appear but half cooked to your taste.’ Thus these martyrs ended their life.

Chapter XVI.—Of the Literary Labors of the Two Apollinares and the Emperor’s Prohibition of Christians being instructed in Greek Literature.

The imperial law

Cf. Sozom. V. 18; also above, II. 46.

Chapter XVII.—The Emperor preparing an Expedition against the Persians, arrives at Antioch, and being ridiculed by the Inhabitants, he retorts on them by a Satirical Publication entitled ‘Misopogon, or the Beard-Hater.’

The emperor having extorted immense sums of money from the Christians, hastening his expedition against the Persians, arrived at Antioch in Syria. There, desiring to show the citizens how much ­he affected glory, he unduly depressed the prices of commodities; neither taking into account the circumstances of that time, nor reflecting how much the presence of an army inconveniences the population of the provinces, and of necessity lessens the supply of provisions to the cities. The merchants and retailers

μεταβολεῖς . Cf. μεταβολή, used to designate all merchandising, Julius Pollux, III. 25; hence μεταβολεύς , a ‘retailer,’ ‘small merchant.’

Chapter XVIII.—The Emperor consulting an Oracle, the Demon gives no Response, being awed by the Nearness of Babylas the Martyr.

Having ordered that the pagan temples at Antioch should be opened, he was very eager to obtain an oracle from Apollo of Daphne. But the demon that inhabited the temple remained silent through fear of his neighbor, Babylas

See Euseb. H. E. VI. 20 and 39; also Chrysostom, de S. Babyl. According to these authorities Babylas was bishop of Antioch, succeeding Sabrinus, and was beheaded in prison during the reign of Decius. His remains were transferred to a church built over against the temple of Apollo of Daphne (Sozom. V. 19) by Gallus, Julian’s brother.

Chapter XIX.—Wrath of the Emperor, and Firmness of Theodore the Confessor.

Then indeed the emperor’s real temper and disposition, which he had hitherto kept as much as possible from observation, became fully manifested: for he who had boasted so much of his philosophy, was no longer able to restrain himself; but being goaded almost to madness by these reproachful hymns, he was ready to inflict the same cruelties on the Christians, with which Diocletian’s agents had formerly visited them. Since, however, his solicitude about the Persian expedition afforded him no leisure for personally executing his wishes, he commanded Sallust the Prætorian Prefect to seize those who had been most conspicuous for their zeal in psalm-singing, in order to make examples of them. The prefect, though a pagan, was far from being pleased with his commission; but since he durst not contravene it, he caused several of the Christians to be apprehended, and some of them to be imprisoned. One young man named Theodore, whom the heathens brought before him, he subjected to a variety of tortures, causing his person to be so lacerated and only released him from further punishment when he thought that he could not possibly outlive the torments: yet God preserved this sufferer, so that he long survived that confession. Rufinus, the author of the Ecclesiastical History written in Latin, states that he himself conversed with the same Theodore a considerable time afterwards: and enquired of him whether in the process of scourging and racking he had not felt the most intense pains; his answer was, that he felt the pain of the tortures to which he was subjected for a very short time; and that a young man stood by him who both wiped off the sweat which was produced by the acuteness of the ordeal through which he was passing, and at the same time strengthened his mind, so that he rendered this time of trial a season of rapture rather than of suffering. Let this suffice concerning the most wonderful Theodore. About this time Persian ambassadors came to the emperor, requesting him to terminate the war on certain express conditions. But Julian abruptly dismissed them, saying, ‘You shall very shortly see me in person, so that there will be no need of an embassy.’

Chapter XX.—The Jews instigated by the Emperor attempt to rebuild their Temple, and are frustrated in their Attempt by Miraculous Interposition.

The emperor in another attempt to molest the Christians exposed his superstition. Being fond of sacrificing, he not only himself delighted in the blood of victims, but considered it an indignity offered to him, if others did not do likewise. And as he found but few persons of this stamp, he sent for the Jews and enquired of them why they abstained from sacrificing, since the law of Moses enjoined it? On their replying that it was not permitted them to do this in any other place than Jerusalem, he immediately ordered them to rebuild Solomon’s temple. Meanwhile he himself proceeded on his expedition against the Persians. The Jews who had been long desirous of obtaining a favorable opportunity for rearing their temple afresh in order that they might therein offer sacrifice, applied themselves very vigorously to the work. Moreover, they conducted themselves with great insolence toward the Christians, and threatened to do them as much mischief, as they had themselves suffered from the Romans. The emperor having ordered that the expenses of this structure should be defrayed out of the public treasury, all things were soon provided, such as timber and stone, burnt brick, clay, lime, and all other materials necessary for building. On this occasion Cyril bishop of Jerusalem, called to mind the prophecy of Daniel, which Christ also in the holy gospels has confirmed, and predicted in the presence of many persons, that the time had indeed come ‘in which one stone should not be left upon another in that temple,’ but that the Saviour’s prophetic declaration

Matt. xxiv. 2, 15.

Chapter XXI.—The Emperor’s Invasion of Persia, and Death.

The emperor meanwhile invaded the country of the Persians a little before spring, having learnt that the races of Persia were greatly enfeebled and totally spiritless in winter. For from their inability to endure cold, they abstain from military service at that season, and it has become a proverb that ‘a Mede will not then draw his hand from underneath his cloak.’ And well knowing that the Romans were inured to brave all the rigors of the atmosphere he let them loose on the country. After devastating a considerable tract of country, including numerous villages and fortresses, they next assailed the cities; and having invested the great city Ctesiphon, he reduced the king of the Persians to such straits that the latter sent repeated embassies to the emperor, offering to surrender a portion of his dominions, on condition of his quitting the country, and putting an end to the war. But Julian was unaffected by these submissions, and showed no compassion to a suppliant foe: nor did he think of the adage, ‘To conquer is honorable, but to be more than conqueror gives occasion for envy.’ Giving credit to the divinations of the philosopher Maximus, with whom he was in continual intercourse, he was deluded into the belief that his exploits would not only equal, but exceed those of Alexander of Macedon; so that he spurned with contempt the entreaties of the Persian monarch. He even supposed in accordance with the teachings of Pythagoras and Plato on ‘the transmigration of souls,’

μετενσωματώσεως , lit. ‘exchange of bodies,’ formed in analogy with μετεμψύχωσις and logically inseparable from that doctrine.

Chapter XXII.—Jovian is proclaimed Emperor.

The soldiery being thrown into extreme perplexity by an event so unexpected, and without delay, on the following day proclaimed Jovian emperor, a person alike distinguished for his courage and birth. He was a military tribune when Julian put forth an edict giving his officers the option of either sacrificing or resigning their rank in the army, and chose rather to lay down his commission,

See above, chap. 13.

Chapter XXIII.—Refutation of what Libanius the Sophist said concerning Julian.

‘When the winter,’ says he,

Liban. Orat. xviii. (Opera, i. Reiske).

Chapter XXIV.—The Bishops flock around Jovian, each attempting to draw him to his own Creed.

Jovian having returned from Persia, ecclesiastical commotions were again renewed: for those who presided over the churches endeavored to anticipate each other, in the hope that the emperor would attach himself to their own tenets. He however had from the beginning adhered to the homoousian faith, and openly declared that he preferred this to all others. Moreover, he wrote letters to and encouraged Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, who immediately after Julian’s death had recovered the Alexandrian church, and at that time gaining confidence from the letters [spoken of] put away all fear. The emperor further recalled from exile all those prelates whom Constantius had banished, and who had not been re-established by Julian. Moreover, the pagan temples were again shut up, and they secreted themselves wherever they were able. The philosophers also laid aside their palliums, and clothed themselves in ordinary attire. That public pollution by the blood of victims, which had been profusely lavished even to disgust in the reign of Julian, was now likewise taken away.

Chapter XXV.—The Macedonians and Acacians meet at Antioch, and proclaim their Assent to the Nicene Creed.

Meanwhile the state of the church was by no means tranquil; for the heads of the sects assiduously paid their court to the emperor their king that protection for themselves meant also power against their acknowledged opponents. And first the Macedonians presented a petition to him, in which they begged that all those who asserted the Son to be unlike the Father, might be expelled from the churches, and themselves allowed to take their place. This supplication was presented by Basil bishop of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, Pasinicus of Zelæ,

The mss. and all the Greek texts read Ζήνων, making the name ‘Pasinicus Zenon, or Zeno.’ The translation here given assumes the alteration in the process of transcription of a single letter making the original Ζηλῶν, which probably means the city of Zeleia, on the southeastern coast of the Euxine, famous for a victory of Mithridates over Triarius, the lieutenant of Lucullus, in 67 b.c.

‘The Synod of bishops convened at Antioch out of various provinces, to the most pious and beloved of God, our lord Jovian Victor Augustus.

‘That your piety has above all things aimed at establishing the peace and harmony of the church, we ourselves, most devout emperor, are fully aware. Nor are we insensible that you have wisely judged an acknowledgment of the orthodox faith to be the sum and substance of this unity. Wherefore lest we should be included in the number of those who adulterate the doctrine of the truth, we hereby declare to your piety that we embrace and steadfastly hold the faith of the holy Synod formerly convened at Nicæa. Especially since the term homoousios, which to some seems novel

This word, whose original is ξένον, is inserted by Valesius. If it were omitted, the translation would be, ‘which to some seems acceptable.’

This declaration we found recorded in that work of Sabinus, entitled A Collection of the Acts of Synods. Now the emperor had resolved to allay if possible the contentious spirit of the parties at variance, by bland manners and persuasive language toward them all; declaring that he ‘would not molest any one on account of his religious sentiments, and that he should love and highly esteem such as would zealously promote the unity of the church.’ The philosopher Themistius attests that such was his conduct, in the oration he composed on his ‘consulate.’ For he extols the emperor for his overcoming the wiles of flatterers by freely permitting every one to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. And in allusion to the check which the sycophants received, he facetiously observes

Themist. Orat. V. (p. 80, ed. Harduin).

Chapter XXVI.—Death of the Emperor Jovian.

Thus did the emperor repress at that time the impetuosity of those who were disposed to cavil: and immediately departing from Antioch, he went to Tarsus in Cilicia, where he duly performed the funeral obsequies of Julian, after which he was declared consul. Proceeding thence directly to Constantinople, he arrived at a place named Dadastana, situated on the frontiers of Galatia and Bithynia. There Themistius the philosopher, with others of the senatorial order, met him, and pronounced the consular oration before him, which he afterwards recited before the people at Constantinople. And indeed the Roman empire, blest with so excellent a sovereign, would doubtless have flourished exceedingly, as it is likely that both the civil and ecclesiastical departments would have been happily administered, had not his sudden death bereft the state of so eminent a personage. For disease caused by some obstruction, having attacked him at the place above mentioned during the winter season, he died there on the 17th day of February, in his own and his son Varronian’s consulate,

364 a.d.

This book contains an account of the events which took place in the space of two years and five months.

Book IV.

Chapter I.—After Jovian’s Death, Valentinian is proclaimed Emperor, and takes his Brother Valens as Colleague in the Empire; Valentinian holds the Orthodox Faith, but Valens is an Arian.

The Emperor Jovian having died, as we have said, at Dadastana, in his own consulate and that of Varronian his son on the 17th of February, the army leaving Galatia arrived at Nicæa in Bithynia in seven days’ march, and there unanimously proclaimed Valentinian emperor, on the 25th of February, in the same consulate. He was a Pannonian by race, a native of the city of Cibalis, and being entrusted with a military command, had displayed great skill in tactics. He was moreover endowed with such greatness of mind, that he always appeared superior to any degree of honor he might have attained. As soon as they had created him emperor, he proceeded forthwith to Constantinople; and thirty days after his own possession of the imperial dignity, he made his brother Valens his colleague in the empire. They both professed Christianity, but did not hold the same Christian creed: for Valentinian respected the Nicene Creed; but Valens was prepossessed in favor of the Arian opinions. And this prejudice was caused by his having been baptized by Eudoxius bishop of Constantinople. Each of them was zealous for the views of his own party; but when they had attained sovereign power, they manifested very different dispositions. For previously in the reign of Julian, when Valentinian was a military tribune, and Valens held a command in the emperor’s guards, they both proved their zeal for the faith; for being constrained to sacrifice, they chose rather to give up their military rank than to do so and renounce Christianity.

Cf. III. 13.

Chapter II.—Valentinian goes into the West; Valens remains at Constantinople, and grants the Request of the Macedonians to hold a Synod, but persecutes the Adherents of the ‘Homoousion.’

Of the emperors one, i.e. Valentinian, speedily went to the western parts of the empire; for the exigencies of affairs required his presence thither: meanwhile Valens, residing at Constantinople, was addressed by most of the prelates of the Macedonion heresy, requesting that another Synod might be convened for the correction of the creed. The emperor supposing they agreed in sentiment with Eudoxius and Acacius, gave them permission to do so: they therefore made preparations for assembling in the city of Lampsacus. But Valens proceeded with the utmost despatch toward Antioch in Syria, fearing lest the Persians should violate the treaty into which they had entered for thirty years in the reign of Jovian, and invade the Roman territories. They however remained quiet; and Valens employed this season of external tranquillity to prosecute a war of extermination against all who acknowledged the homoousion. Paulinus their bishop, because of his eminent piety, he left unmolested. Melitius he punished with exile: and all the rest, as many as refused to communicate with Euzoïus, he drove out from the churches in Antioch, and subjected to various losses and punishments. It is even affirmed that he caused many to be drowned in the river Orontes, which flows by that city.

Chapter III.—While Valens persecutes the Orthodox Christians in the East, a Usurper arises at Constantinople named Procopius: and at the Same Time an Earthquake and Inundation take Place and injure Several Cities.

While Valens was thus occupied in Syria, there arose a usurper at Constantinople named Procopius; who having collected a large body of troops in a very short time, meditated an expedition against the emperor. This intelligence created extreme solicitude in the emperor’s mind and checked for a while the persecution he had commenced against all who dared to differ from him in opinion. And while the commotions of a civil war were painfully anticipated, an earthquake occurred which did much damage to many cities. The sea also changed its accustomed boundaries, and overflowed to such an extent in some places, that vessels might sail where roads had previously existed; and it retired so much from other places, that the ground became dry. These events happened in the first consulate of the two emperors.

365 a.d.

Chapter IV.—The Macedonians hold a Synod at Lampsacus, during a Period of Both Secular and Ecclesiastical Agitation; and after confirming the Antiochian Creed, and anathematizing that promulgated at Ariminum, they again ratify the Deposition of Acacius and Eudoxius.

While these events were taking place there could be no peace either in the church or in the state. Now those who had been empowered by the emperor to hold a council assembled at Lampsacus in the consulate just mentioned: this was seven years after the council of Seleucia. There, after confirming the Antiochian Creed, to which they had subscribed at Seleucia,

Cf. II. 40.

Chapter V.—Engagement between Valens and Procopius near Nacolia in Phrygia; after which the Usurper is betrayed by his Chief Officers, and with them put to Death.

Under the consulate

366 a.d.

Chapter VI.—After the Death of Procopius Valens constrains those who composed the Synod, and All Christians, to profess Arianism.

The emperor having thus successfully terminated the conflict, immediately began to move against the Christians, with the design of converting every sect to Arianism. But he was especially incensed against those who had composed the Synod at Lampsacus, not only on account of their deposition of the Arian bishops, but because they had anathematized the creed published at Ariminum. On arriving therefore at Nicomedia in Bithynia, he sent for Eleusius bishop of Cyzicus, who, as I have before said,

Cf. II. 38.

Chapter VII.—Eunomius supersedes Eleusius the Macedonian in the See of Cyzicus, His Origin and Imitation of Aëtius, whose Amanuensis he had been.

The bishop of Constantinople being informed of these circumstances, constituted Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus, inasmuch as he was a person able by his eloquence to win over the minds of the multitude to his own way of thinking. On his arrival at Cyzicus an imperial edict was published in which it was ordered that Eleusius should be ejected, and Eunomius installed in his place. This being carried into effect, those who attached themselves to Eleusius, after erecting a sacred edifice without the city, assembled there with him. But enough has been said of Eleusius: let us now give some account of Eunomius. He had been secretary to Aëtius, surnamed Atheus, of whom we have before spoken,

II. 35, end.

Chapter VIII.—Of the Oracle found inscribed an a Stone, when the Walls of Chalcedon were demolished by Order of the Emperor Valens.

An order was issued by the emperor that the walls of Chalcedon, a city opposite to Byzantium, should be demolished: for he had sworn to do this, after he should have conquered the usurper, because the Chalcedonians had sided with the usurper, and had used insulting language toward Valens,

Ammianus Marcellinus (Rerum Gestarum XXVI. viii. 2 seq.) says, ‘From the walls of Chalcedon they uttered reproaches to him and insultingly reviled him as Sabaiarius. For, sabaia is a poor drink made of wheat or barley in Illyricum (whence Valens came).’ On the Pannonian or Illyrian origin of Valens, see IV. I. It appears also that the Pannonians were accustomed to live on poor diet in general.

‘When nymphs their mystic dance with wat’ry feet

Shall tread through proud Byzantium’s stately street;

When rage the city wall shall overthrow,

Whose stones to fence a bathing-place shall go:

Then savage lands shall send forth myriad swarms,

Adorned with golden locks aud burnished arms,

That having Ister’s silver streams o’erpast,

Shall Scythian fields and Mœsia’s meadows waste.

But when with conquest flushed they enter Thrace,

Fate shall assign them there a burial-place.’

Such was the prophecy. And indeed it afterwards happened, that when Valens by building an aqueduct supplied Constantinople with abundance of water, the barbarous nations made various irruptions, as we shall hereafter see. But it happened that some explained the prediction otherwise. For when that aqueduct was completed, Clearchus the prefect of the city built a stately bath, to which the name of ‘the Plentiful Water’

Δαψιλὲς ὕδωρ.

‘their mystic dance with wat’ry feet

Shall tread through proud Byzantium’s stately street.’

But the completion of the prophecy took place afterwards. While the demolition was in progress the Constantinopolitans besought the emperor to suspend the destruction of the walls; and the inhabitants of Nicomedia and Nicæa sending from Bithynia to Constantinople, made the same request. But the emperor being exceedingly exasperated against the Chalcedonians, was with difficulty prevailed upon to listen to these petitions in their favor: but that he might perform his oath, he commanded that the walls should be pulled down, while at the same time the breaches should be repaired by being filled up with other small stones. Whence it is that in the present day one may see in certain parts of the wall very inferior materials laid upon prodigiously large stones, forming those unsightly patches which were made on that occasion. So much will be sufficient on the walls of Chalcedon.

Chapter IX.—Valens persecutes the Novatians, because they accepted the Orthodox Faith.

The emperor however did not cease his persecution of those who embraced the doctrine of the homoousion, but drove them away from Constantinople: and as the Novatians acknowledged the same faith, they also were subjected to similar treatment. He commanded that their churches should be shut up, also their bishop they sent into exile. His name was Agelius, a person that had presided over their churches from the time of Constantine, and had led an apostolic life: for he always walked barefoot, and used but one coat, observing the injunction of the gospel.

Matt. x. 10.

Chapter X.—Birth of Valentinian the Younger.

Soon after the conclusion of this war, and under the same consulate,

Sozomen (VI. 10) says the same. There were two Valentinians in the second generation; one a son of Valens, and another the son of Valentinian the Elder. According to Idatius’ Fasti, it was the former that was born during the consulate of Gratian and Dagalaifus; so that Socrates was in error here, confusing perhaps the two younger Valentinians. Valesius adduces other reasons proving the same, which it is unnecessary to repeat here.

Chapter XI.—Hail of Extraordinary Size; and Earthquakes in Bithynia and the Hellespont.

On the 2d of June of the following year, in the consulate

367 a.d.

Chapter XII.—The Macedonians, pressed by the Emperor’s Violence toward them, send a Deputation to Liberius Bishop of Rome, and subscribe the Nicene Creed.

When the maintainers of the ‘homoousian’ doctrine had been thus severely dealt with, and put to flight, the persecutors began afresh to harass the Macedonians; who impelled by fear rather than violence, send deputations to one another from city to city, declaring the necessity of appealing to the emperor’s brother, and also to Liberius bishop of Rome: and that it was far better for them to embrace their faith, than to communicate with the party of Eudoxius. They sent for this purpose Eustathius bishop of Sebastia, who had been several times deposed, Silvanus of Tarsus in Cilicia, and Theophilus of Castabala in the same province; charging them to dissent in nothing from Liberius concerning the faith, but to enter into communion with the Roman church, and confirm the doctrine of the homoousian. These persons therefore proceeded to Old Rome, carrying with them the letters of those who had separated themselves from Acacius at Seleucia. To the emperor they could not have access, he being occupied in the Gauls with a war against the Sarmatæ; but they presented their letters to Liberius. He at first refused to admit them; saying they were of the Arian faction, and could not possibly be received into communion by the church, inasmuch as they had rejected the Nicene Creed. To this they replied that by change of sentiment they had acknowledged the truth, having long since renounced the Anomœan

See II. 35, and Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 218 seq.

Chapter XIII.—Eunomius separates from Eudoxius; a Disturbance is raised at Alexandria by Eudoxius, and Athanasius flees into Voluntary Exile again, but in Consequence of the Clamors of the People the Emperor recalls and re-establishes him in his See.

About the same time Eunomius

Eunomius adopted the standpoint and also the views of Aëtius and gave them his own name. Briefly his fundamental principle was that the Son is absolutely unlike the Father in substance, and hence a creature among other creatures, a mere man.

Chapter XIV.—The Arians ordain Demophilus after the Death of Eudoxius at Constantinople; but the Orthodox Party constitute Evagrius his Successor.

The Emperor Valens leaving Constantinople again set out towards Antioch; but on his arrival at Nicomedia, a city of Bithynia, his progress was arrested by the following circumstances. Eudoxius the bishop of the Arian church who has been in possession of the seat of the Constantinopolitan church for nineteen

Epiphanius Scholasticus reads δεκαένα for δεκαεννέα ; if he be followed, the incumbency of the bishopric of Constantinople by Eudoxius lasted seven years.

Chapter XV.—The Emperor banishes Evagrius and Eustathius. The Arians persecute the Orthodox.

When this had been accomplished the Arians renewed their persecution of the Homoousians: and the emperor was very soon informed of what had taken place, and apprehending the subversion of the city in consequence of some popular tumult, immediately sent troops from Nicomedia to Constantinople; ordering that both he who had been ordained, and the one who had ordained him, should be apprehended and sent into exile in different regions. Eustathius therefore was banished to Bizya a city of Thrace; and Evagrius was conveyed to another place. After this the Arians, becoming bolder, grievously harassed the orthodox party, frequently beating them, reviling them, causing them to be imprisoned, and fined; in short they practiced distressing and intolerable annoyances against them. The sufferers were induced to appeal to the emperor for protection against their adversaries if haply they might obtain some relief from this oppression. But whatever hope of redress they might have cherished from this quarter, was altogether frustrated, inasmuch as they thus merely spread their grievances before him who was the very author of them.

Chapter XVI.—Certain Presbyters burnt in a Ship by Order of Valens. Famine in Phrygia.

Certain pious men of the clerical order, eighty in number, among whom Urbanus, Theodore, and Menedemus were the leaders, proceeded to Nicomedia, and there presented to the emperor a supplicatory petition, informing him and complaining of the ill-usage to which they had been subjected. The emperor was filled with wrath; but dissembled his displeasure in their presence, and gave Modestus the prefect a secret order to apprehend these persons, and put them to death. The manner in which they were destroyed being unusual, deserves to be recorded. The prefect fearing that he should excite the populace to a seditious movement against himself, if he attempted the public execution of so many, pretended to send the men away into exile. Accordingly as they received the intelligence of their destiny with great firmness of mind the prefect ordered that they should be embarked as if to be conveyed to their several places of banishment, having meanwhile enjoined on the sailors to set the vessel on fire, as soon as they reached the mid sea, that their victims being so destroyed, might even be deprived of burial. This injunction was obeyed; for when they arrived at the middle of the Astacian Gulf, the crew set fire to the ship, and then took refuge in a small barque which followed them, and so escaped. Meanwhile it came to pass that a strong easterly wind blew, and the burning ship was roughly driven but moved faster and was preserved until it reached a port named Dacidizus, where it was utterly consumed together with the men who were shut up in it. Many have asserted that this impious deed was not suffered to go unpunished: for there immediately after arose so great a famine throughout all Phrygia, that a large proportion of the inhabitants were obliged to abandon their country for a time, and betake themselves some to Constantinople and some to other provinces. For Constantinople, notwithstanding the vast population it supplies, yet always abounds with the necessaries of life, all manner of provisions being imported into it by sea from various regions; and the Euxine which lies near it, furnishes it with wheat to any extent it may require.

Cf. Herodot. VII. 147.

Chapter XVII.—The Emperor Valens, while at Antioch, again persecutes the Adherents of the ‘Homoousion.’

The Emperor Valens, little affected by the calamities resulting from the famine, went to Antioch in Syria, and during his residence there cruelly persecuted such as would not embrace Arianism. For not content with ejecting out of almost all the churches of the East those who maintained the ‘homoousian’ opinion, he inflicted on them various punishments besides. He destroyed a greater number even than before, delivering them up to many different kinds of death, but especially drowning in the river.

Chapter XVIII.—Events at Edessa: Constancy of the Devout Citizens, and Courage of a Pious Woman.

But we must here mention certain circumstances that occurred at Edessa in Mesopotamia. There is in that city a magnificent church

The kind of church here meant was a memorial structure to a martyr, erected where his relics were deposited, and was called Μαρτύριον . See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 1.

Chapter XIX.—Slaughter of Many Persons by Valens an Account of their Names, in Consequence of a Heathen Prediction.

Amm. Marcellinus, Rerum Gertarum, XXIX. I. 29 seq.

The cruel disposition of the emperor was at this time abused by an execrable demon, who induced certain curious persons to institute an inquiry by means of necromancy as to who should succeed Valens on the throne. To their magical incantations the demon gave responses not distinct and unequivocal, but as the general practice is, full of ambiguity; for displaying the four letters q, e, o, and d, he declared that the name of the successor of Valens began with these; and that it was a compound name. When the emperor was apprised of this oracle, instead of committing to God, who alone can penetrate futurity, the decision of this matter, in contravention of those Christian principles to which he pretended the most zealous adherence, he put to death very many persons of whom he had the suspicion that they aimed at the sovereign power: thus such as were named ‘Theodore,’ ‘Theodotus,’ ‘Theodosius,’ ‘Theodulus,’ and the like, were sacrificed to the emperor’s fears; and among the rest was Theodosiolus, a very brave man, descended from a noble family in Spain. Many persons therefore, to avoid the danger to which they were exposed, changed their names, giving up those which they had received from their parents in infancy as dangerous. This will be enough on that subject.

Chapter XX.—Death of Athanasius, and Elevation of Peter to His See.

Sozomen, VI. 19; Theodoret, H. E. IV. 20.

It must be said that as long as Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was alive, the emperor, restrained by the Providence of God, abstained from molesting Alexandria and Egypt: indeed he knew very well that the multitude of those who were attached to Athanasius was very great; and on that account he was careful lest the public affairs should be hazarded, by the Alexandrians, who are an irritable race, being excited to sedition. But Athanasius, after being engaged in so many and such severe conflicts on behalf of the church, departed this life in the second consulate

371 a.d. But Jerome Chronic. II. (ninth year of Valens), makes the consecration of Athanasius’ successor in 373 a.d., and hence also the death of Athanasius himself in the same year. The later date is now universally accepted.

Chapter XXI.—The Arians are allowed by the Emperor to imprison Peter and to set Lucius over the See of Alexandria.

Upon this the Arians, emboldened by their knowledge of the emperor’s religious sentiments, again took courage, and without delay informed him of the circumstance. He was then residing at Antioch. Then indeed Euzoïus who presided over the Arians of that city, eagerly embracing the favorable opportunity thus presented, begged permission to go to Alexandria, for the purpose of putting Lucius the Arian in possession of the churches there. The emperor acceded to this request, and as speedily as possible Euzoïus proceeded forthwith to Alexandria, attended by the imperial troops. Magnus, also, the emperor’s treasurer, went with him. Moreover an imperial mandate had been issued to Palladius, the governor of Egypt, enjoining him to aid them with a military force. Wherefore having apprehended Peter, they cast him into prison; and after dispersing the rest of the clergy, they placed Lucius in the episcopal chair.

Chapter XXII.—Silence of Sabinus on the Misdeeds of the Arians; Flight of Peter to Rome; Massacre of the Solitaries at the Instigation of the Arians.

Of the outrages perpetrated upon the installation of Lucius, and the treatment of those who were ejected, both in the courts and outside of the courts, and how some were subjected to a variety of tortures, and others sent into exile even after this excruciating process, Sabinus takes not the slightest notice. In fact, being half disposed to Arianism himself, he purposely veils the atrocities of his friends. Peter, however, has exposed them, in the letters he addressed to all the churches, when he had escaped from prison. For this [bishop] having managed to escape from prison, fled to Damasus, bishop of Rome. The Arians though not very numerous, becoming thus possessed of the Alexandrian churches soon after obtained an imperial edict directing the governor of Egypt to expel not only from Alexandria but even out of the country, the favorers of the ‘homoousian’ doctrine, and all such as were obnoxious to Lucius. After this they assailed and disturbed and terribly harassed the monastic institutions in the desert; armed men rushed in the most ferocious manner upon those who were utterly defenceless, and who would not lift an arm to repel their violence: so that numbers of unresisting victims were in this manner slaughtered with a degree of wanton cruelty beyond description.

Chapter XXIII.—The Deeds of Some Holy Persons who devoted themselves to a Solitary Life.

On the growth of the monastic system, see Bingham, Eccl. Antiq. VII.; on its philosophy, briefly, Bennett, Christian Archæol. p. 468. Socrates uses Palladius’ Historia Lausiaca copiously in this chapter.

Since I have referred to the monasteries of Egypt, it may be proper here to give a brief account of them. They were founded probably at a very early period, but were greatly enlarged and augmented by a devout man whose name was Ammoun. In his youth this person had an aversion to matrimony; but when some of his relatives urged him not to contemn marriage, but to take a wife to himself, he was prevailed upon and was married. On leading the bride with the customary ceremonies from the banquet-room to the nuptial couch, after their mutual friends had withdrawn, he took a book

βιβλίον ἀποστολικόν . The books of the New Testament came to be divided into the two classes of ‘gospels’ and ‘apostolic epistles,’ the first being called εὐαγγέλιον or εὐαγγέλια and the second, ἀπόστολος, ἀπόστολοί or βιβλίον ἀποστολικόν . Cf. Epiph. Hær. XLII. 10. Euthal. Diacon. (Ed. Migné, Vol. LXXXV. col. 720, c.

Chapter XXIV.—Assault upon the Monks, and Banishment of their Superiors, who exhibit Miraculous Power.

The emperor Valens having issued an edict commanding that the orthodox should be persecuted both in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, depopulation and ruin to an immense extent immediately followed: some were dragged before the tribunals, others cast into prison, and many tortured in various ways, and in fact all sorts of punishments were inflicted upon persons who aimed only at peace and quiet. When these outrages had been perpetrated at Alexandria just as Lucius thought proper, Euzoïus returned to Antioch, and Lucian the Arian, attended by the commander-in-chief of the army with a considerable body of troops, immediately proceeded to the monasteries of Egypt, where the general in person assailed the assemblage of holy men with greater fury even than the ruthless soldiery. On reaching these solitudes they found the monks engaged in their customary exercises, praying, healing diseases, and casting out devils. Yet they, regardless of these extraordinary evidences of Divine power, suffered them not to continue their solemn devotions, but drove them out of the oratories by force. Rufinus declares that he was not only a witness of these cruelties, but also one of the sufferers. Thus in them were renewed those things which are spoken of by the apostle:

Heb. xi. 36–38.

Chapter XXV.—Of Didymus the Blind Man.

Sozom. III. 15; Theodoret, IV. 26; Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. 4; Jerom. de Script. Eccl. 109.

About the same period God brought into observation another faithful person, deeming it worthy that through him faith might be witnessed unto: this was Didymus, a most admirable and eloquent man, instructed in all the learning of the age in which he flourished. At a very early age, when he had scarcely acquired the first elements of learning, he was attacked by disease in the eyes which deprived him of sight. But God compensated to him the loss of corporeal vision, by bestowing increased intellectual acumen. For what he could not learn by seeing, he was enabled to acquire through the sense of hearing; so that being from his childhood endowed with excellent abilities, he soon far surpassed his youthful companions who possessed the keenest sight. He made himself master of the principles of grammar and rhetoric with astonishing facility; and proceeded thence to philosophical studies, dialectics, arithmetic, music, and the various other departments of knowledge to which his attention was directed; and he so treasured up in his mind these branches of science, that he was prepared with the utmost readiness to enter into a discussion of these subjects with those who had become conversant therewith by reading books. Not only this, but he was so well acquainted with the Divine oracles contained in the Old and New Testament that he composed several treatises in exposition of them, besides three books on the Trinity. He published also commentaries

Mentioned by Jerome, adv. Rufinum, 1.

Chapter XXVI.—Of Basil of Cæsarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus.

For full accounts of the lives of these eminent men, see Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog., and the sources and literature therein referred to.

Now Providence opposed Didymus to the Arians at Alexandria. But for the purpose of confuting them in other cities, it raised up Basil of Cæsarea and Gregory of Nazianzus; concerning these it will be reasonable to give a brief account in this place. Indeed the universally prevalent memory of the men would be enough as a token of their fame; and the extent of their knowledge is sufficiently perceptible in their writings. Since, however, the exercise of their talents was of great service to the Church, tending in a high degree to the maintenance of the catholic faith, the nature of my history obliges me to take particular notice of these two persons. If any one should compare Basil and Gregory with one another, and consider the life, morals, and virtues of each, he would find it difficult to decide to which of them he ought to assign the pre-eminence: so equally did they both appear to excel, whether you regard the rectitude of their conduct, or their deep acquaintance with Greek literature and the sacred Scriptures. In their youth they were pupils at Athens of Himerius

Himerius, a native of Prusias (mod. Broussa) in Bithynia, flourished about 360 a.d. as a sophist under Julian the Apostate. He published various discourses, which, according to Photius, contained insidious attacks on Christianity. Cf. Eunapius, p. 153, under title Prohæresius; Photius, Bibl. Cod. 165.

Chapter XXVII.—Of Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder-Worker).

But since from the likeness of the name, and the title of the books attributed to Gregory, persons are liable to confound very different parties, it is important to notice that Gregory of Pontus is a different person. He was a native of Neocæsarea in Pontus, of greater antiquity than the one above referred to, inasmuch as he was a disciple of Origen.

On Gregory Thaumaturgus in general, see Euseb. H. E. VI. 30.

Chapter XXVIII.—Of Novatus and his Followers. The Novatians of Phrygia alter the Time of keeping Easter, following Jewish Usage.

About this time the Novatians

On the Novatians and their schism, see Schaff, Hist. of the Christ. Ch. Vol. I. p. 450, 451; Neander, Hist. of Christ. Ch. Vol. I. p. 237–248. On Socrates’ attitude toward Novatianism, see Introd. p. ix. Cf. also Euseb. H. E. VI. 43.

Chapter XXIX.—Damasus ordained Bishop of Rome. Sedition and Loss of Life caused by the Rivalry of Ursinus.

While the emperor Valentinian governed in peace, and interfered with no sect, Damasus after Liberius undertook the administration of the bishopric at Rome;

Socrates follows Rufinus here (cf. Rufin. H. E. II. 10; but Jerome, Chronicon, puts the consecration of Damasus as bishop of Rome in the third year of Valentinian’s reign, i.e. in 367. Cf. also Clinton, Fasti Rom. Ann. 367.

Chapter XXX.—Dissension about a Successor to Auxentius, Bishop of Milan. Ambrose, Governor of the Province, going to appease the Tumult, is by General Consent and with the Approval of the Emperor Valentinian elected to the Bishopric of that Church.

About the same time it happened that

Synchronization of the events attending the accession of Damasus and Ambrose, the former in Rome, the latter at Milan, is dependent on Rufinus. Cf. H. E. II. 11. The events of this chapter more properly fall within the time reached by Socrates, i.e. 374 a.d. (see chap. 29, note 1). Hence rightly seven years later than the events of the preceding chapter.

Chapter XXXI.—Death of Valentinian.

The Sarmatæ after this having made incursions into the Roman territories, the emperor marched against them with a numerous army but when the barbarians understood the formidable nature of this expedition, they sent an embassy to him to sue for peace on certain conditions. As the ambassadors were introduced to the emperor’s presence, and appeared to him to be not very dignified fellows, he enquired whether all the Sarmatæ were such as these? As they replied that the noblest personages of their whole nation had come to him, Valentinian became excessively enraged, and exclaimed with great vehemence, that ‘the Roman empire was indeed most wretched in devolving upon him at a time when a nation of such despicable barbarians, not content with being permitted to exist in safety within their own limits, dared to take up arms, invade the Roman territories, and break forth into open war.’ The violence of his manner and utterance of these words was so great, that all his veins were opened by the effort, and all the arteries ruptured; and from the quantity of blood which thereupon gushed forth he died. This occurred at Bergition Castle, after Gratian’s third consulate

375 a.d.

Chapter XXXII.—The Emperor Valens, appeased by the Oration of Themistius the Philosopher, abates his Persecution of the Christians.

In the meanwhile Valens, making his residence at Antioch, was wholly undisturbed by foreign wars; for the barbarians on every side restrained themselves within their own boundaries. Nevertheless, he himself waged a most cruel war against those who maintained the ‘homoousian’ doctrine, inflicting on them more grievous punishments every day; until the philosopher Themistius by his Appealing Oration

This oration of Themistius is extant in a Latin translation by Dudithius appended to G. Remo’s Themisttii Phil. orationes sex augustales, and entitled, ad Valentem, pro Libertate relligionis. The passage alluded to by Socrates is found in Dudithius as follows: ‘Wherefore, in regard God has removed himself at the greatest distance from our knowledge, and does not humble to the capacity of our understanding; it is a sufficient argument that he does not require one and the same law and rule of religion from all persons, but leaves every man a license and faculty concerning himself, according to his own, not another man’s, liberty and choice. Whence it also happens that a greater admiration of the Deity, and a more religious veneration of his eternal majesty, is engendered in the minds of men. For it usually comes to pass that we loathe and disregard those things which are readily apparent and prostrated to every understanding.’

Chapter XXXIII.—The Goths, under the Reign of Valens, embrace Christianity.

The barbarians, dwelling beyond the Danube, called the Goths,

The fullest and best ancient authors on the origin and history of the Goths are Procopius of Cæsarea (Historia, IV.–VIII., de Bello Italico adversus Gothos gesto), Jornandes (de Getarum [Gothorum] origine et rebus gestis), and Isidore Hispalensis (Historia Gothorum). On the conversion of the Goths to Christianity, see Neander, Hist. of the Christ. Ch. Vol. II. p. 125–129, and Schaff, Hist. of the Christ. Ch. Vol. III. p. 640, 641.

Chapter XXXIV.—Admission of the Fugitive Goths into the Roman Territories, which caused the Emperor’s Overthrow, and eventually the Ruin of the Roman Empire.

Not long after the barbarians had entered into a friendly alliance with one another, they were again vanquished by other barbarians, their neighbors, called the Huns; and being driven out of their own country, they fled into the territory of the Romans, offering to be subject to the emperor, and to execute whatever he should command them. When Valens was made acquainted with this, not having the least presentiment of the consequences, he ordered that the suppliants should be received with kindness; in this one instance alone showing himself compassionate. He therefore assigned them certain parts of Thrace for their habitation, deeming himself peculiarly fortunate in this matter: for he calculated that in future he should possess a ready and well-equipped army against all assailants; and hoped that the barbarians would be a more formidable guard to the frontiers of the empire even than the Romans themselves. For this reason he in the future neglected to recruit his army by Roman levies; and despising those veterans who had bravely straggled and subdued his enemies in former wars, he put a pecuniary value on the militia which the inhabitants of the provinces, village by village, had been accustomed to furnish, ordering the collectors of his tribute to demand eighty pieces of gold for every soldier, although he had never before lightened the public burdens. This change was the origin of many disasters to the Roman empire subsequently.

Chapter XXXV.—Abatement of Persecution against the Christians because of the War with the Goths.

The barbarians having been put into possession of Thrace, and securely enjoying that Roman province, were unable to bear their good fortune with moderation; but committing hostile aggressions upon their benefactors, devastated all Thrace and the adjacent countries. When these proceedings came to the knowledge of Valens, he desisted from sending the adherents of the homoousion into banishment; and in great alarm left Antioch, and came to Constantinople, where also the persecution of the orthodox Christians was for the same reason come to an end. At the same time Euzoïus, bishop of the Arians at Antioch, departed this life, in the fifth consulate

376 a.d.

Chapter XXXVI.—The Saracens, under Mavia their Queen, embrace Christianity; and Moses, a Pious Monk, is consecrated their Bishop.

No sooner had the emperor departed from Antioch, than the Saracens,

The name Saracen (Σαρακηνός , perhaps from the Arabic Sharkeen ‘Orientals’) was used vaguely at first; the Greek writers of the first centuries gave it to the Bedouin Arabs of Eastern Arabia, while others used it to designate the Arab races of Syria and Palestine, and others the Berber of North Eastern Africa, who later conquered Spain and Sicily and invaded France. The name became very familiar in Europe during the period of the Crusades. On Saracens, consult the interesting fiftieth chapter of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Chapter XXXVII.—After the Departure of Valens from Antioch, the Alexandrians expel Lucius, and restore Peter, who had come with Letters from Damasus Bishop of Rome.

About the same time, as soon as the Emperor Valens left Antioch, all those who had anywhere been suffering persecution began again to take courage, and especially those of Alexandria. Peter returned to that city from Rome, with letters from Damasus the Roman bishop, in which he confirmed the ‘homoousian’ faith, and sanctioned Peter’s ordination. The people therefore resuming confidence, expelled Lucius, who immediately embarked for Constantinople: but Peter survived his re-establishment a very short time, and at his death appointed his brother Timothy to succeed him.

Chapter XXXVIII.—The Emperor Valens is ridiculed by the People on Account of the Goths; undertakes an Expedition against them and is slain in an Engagement near Adrianople.

The Emperor Valens arrived at Constantinople on the 30th of May, in the sixth year of his own consulate,

378 a.d.

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.

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.

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,

See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. 26.

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,

Cf. IV. 7.

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.

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.

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

Cf. III. 9, and IV. 2.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

Cf. parallel account in Sozom. VII. 7–9; Theodoret, H. E. V. 8. The Synod of Constantinople was the second great œcumenical or general council. Its title as an œcumenical 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Cf. Zosimus, IV. 35 seq.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

See III. 2.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

On account of which he was called the Penitentiary. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XVIII. 3.

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,

See chap. 23 of this book.

Chapter XXI.—Peculiar Schism among the Novatians.

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.

Of the Novatian church at Constantinople Agelius was the bishop for the space of forty years,

See above, chap. 12, note 2. This was in 384 a.d.

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

Gal. iv. 21.

Chapter XXIII.—Further Dissensions among the Arians at Constantinople. The Psathyrians.

But dissensions arose among the Arians

See above, chap. 20.

Chapter XXIV.—The Eunomians divide into Several Factions.

But neither did the followers of Eunomius remain without dissensions: for Eunomius

Cf. IV. 7 and 13.

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,

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.

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.

395 a.d.

Book VI.

Introduction.

The commission with which you charged us, O holy man of God, Theodore, we have executed in the five foregoing books; in which to the best of our ability, we have comprised the history of the Church from the time of Constantine. Notice, however, that we have been by no means studious of style; for we considered that had we showed too great fastidiousness about elegance of expression we might have defeated the object in view.

Cf. V. Int.

As we begin, however, our sixth book, we must premise this, that in undertaking to detail the events of our own age, we are apprehensive of advancing such things as may be unpalatable to many: either because, according to the proverb, ‘Truth is bitter;’ on account of our not mentioning with encomium the names of those whom some may love; or from our not magnifying their actions. The zealots of our churches will condemn us for not calling the bishops ‘Most dear to God,’ ‘Most holy,’ and such like. Others will be litigious because we do not bestow the appellations ‘Most divine,’ and ‘Lords’ on the emperors, nor apply to them such other epithets as they are commonly assigned. But since I could easily prove from the testimony of ancient authors,

The comic poets, e.g. Menander, Plautus, Terence.

Chapter I.—On the Death of Theodosius his Two Sons divide the Empire. Rufinus is slain at the Feet of Arcadius.

After the death of the Emperor Theodosius, in the consulate of Olybrius and Probinus or the seventeenth of January, his two sons undertook the administration of the Roman empire. Thus Arcadius assumed the government of the East, and Honorius of the West.

Cf. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Rom. Empire, chap. 29.

Chapter II.—Death of Nectarius and Ordination of John.

A short time after Nectarius

Cf. V. 8.

Chapter III.—Birth and Education of John Bishop of Constantinople.

John was a native of Antioch in Syria-Cœle, son of Secundus and Anthusa, and scion of a noble family in that country. He studied rhetoric under Libanius the sophist, and philosophy under Andragathius the philosopher.

Sozomen (VIII. 2) also says that Chrysostom went from the school of Libanius to a private life instead of the legal profession as was expected of him, but from some utterances of Libanius, as well as from Chrysostom’s own representation, de Sacerdot. I. 1. 4, it appears that he had spent some time in the practice of the law.

Chapter IV.—Of Serapion the Deacon on whose Account John becomes Odious to his Clergy.

Being such in disposition and manners, and promoted to the episcopacy, John was led to conduct himself toward his clergy with more than proper superciliousness, designing to correct the morals of the clergy under him. Having thus chafed the temper of the ecclesiastics, he was disliked by them; and so many of them stood aloof from him as a passionate man, and others became his bitter enemies. Serapion, a deacon of his retinue, led him to alienate their minds still more from him; and once in presence of the whole assembled clergy he cried out with a loud voice to the bishop—‘You will never be able to govern these men, my lord, unless you drive them all with a rod.’ This speech of his excited a general feeling of animosity against the bishop; the bishop also not long after expelled many of them from the church, some for one cause, and some for another. And, as it usually happens when persons in office adopt such violent measures, those who were thus expelled by him formed combinations and inveighed against him to the people. What contributed greatly to gain credence for these complaints was the fact that the bishop was not willing to eat with any one else, and never accepted an invitation to a feast. On account of this the plot against him became widespread. His reasons for not eating with others no one knew with any certainty,

These reasons are given by Palladius as follows: ‘He was accustomed to eat alone, as I partially know, for these reasons: first, he drank no wine…secondly, his stomach was, on account of certain infirmities, irregular, so that often the food prepared for him was repugnant, and other food not put before him was desired. Again he at times neglected to eat, lengthening out his meal until evening, sometimes being absorbed in ecclesiastical cares and sometimes in contemplation;…but it is a custom with table companions if we do not relish the same articles of food which they do, or laugh at insignificant witticisms…to make this an occasion of ill-speech.’ Palladius, de Vita S. Joannis, 12.

Chapter V.—John draws down upon Himself the Displeasure of Many Persons of Rank and Power. Of the Eunuch Eutropius.

As long as John was in conflict with the clergy only, machinations against him were utterly powerless; but when he proceeded to rebuke many of those in public office also with immoderate vehemence, the tide of unpopularity began to set against him with far greater impetus. Hence many stories were told to his disparagement. And most of these found attentive and believing listeners. This growing prejudice was not a little increased by an oration which he pronounced at that time against Eutropius. For Eutropius was the chief eunuch of the imperial bed-chamber, and the first of all eunuchs that was admitted to the dignity of consul. He, desiring to inflict vengeance on certain persons who had taken refuge in the churches, induced the emperors to make a law

Sozomen (VIII. 7) says that this law was rescinded very soon afterwards.

Chapter VI.—Gaïnas the Goth attempts to usurp the Sovereign Power; after filling Constantinople with Disorder, he is slain.

I shall now narrate some memorable circumstances that occurred at that period, in which it will be seen how Divine Providence interposed by extraordinary agencies for the preservation of the city and Roman empire from the utmost peril. Gaïnas was a barbarian by extraction but after becoming a Roman subject, and having engaged in military service, and risen by degrees from one rank to another, he was at length appointed general-in-chief both of the Roman horse and foot. When he had obtained this lofty position, he forgot his position and relations, and was unable to restrain himself and on the other hand according to the common saying ‘left no stone unturned’ in order to gain control of the Roman government. To accomplish this he sent for the Goths out of their own country, and gave the principal commissions in the army to his relations. Then when Tribigildus, one of his kinsmen who had the command of the forces in Phrygia, had at the instigation of Gaïnas broken out into open revolt, and was filling the people of Phrygia with confusion and dismay, he managed to have deputed to him the oversight of matters in the disturbed province. Now the Emperor Arcadius not suspecting [any harm] committed the charge of these affairs to him. Gaïnas therefore immediately set out at the head of an immense number of the barbarous Goths, apparently on an expedition against Tribigildus, but with the real intention of establishing his own unjust domination. On reaching Phrygia he began to subvert everything. Consequently the affairs of the Romans were immediately thrown into great consternation, not only on account of the vast barbarian force which Gaïnas had at his command, but also because the most fertile and opulent regions of the East were threatened with desolation. In this emergency the emperor, acting with much prudence, sought to arrest the course of the barbarian by address: he accordingly sent him an embassy with instructions to appease him for the present by every kind of concession. Gaïnas having demanded that Saturninus and Aurelian, two of the most distinguished of the senatorial order, and men of consular dignity, whom he knew to be unfavorable to his pretensions, should be delivered up to him, the emperor most unwillingly yielded to the exigency of the crisis; and these two persons, prepared to die for the public good, nobly submitted themselves to the emperor’s disposal. They therefore proceeded to meet the barbarian, at a place used for horse-racing some distance from Chalcedon, being resolved to endure whatever he might be disposed to inflict; but however they suffered no harm. The usurper simulating dissatisfaction, advanced to Chalcedon, whither the emperor Arcadius also went to meet him. Both then entered the church where the body of the martyr Euphemia is deposited, and there entered into a mutual pledge on oath that neither would plot against the other. The emperor indeed kept his engagement, having a religious regard to an oath, and being on that account beloved of God. But Gaïnas soon violated it, and did not swerve from his original purpose; on the contrary he was intent on carnage, plunder, and conflagration, not only against Constantinople, but also against the whole extent of the Roman empire, if he could by any means carry it into effect. The city was accordingly quite inundated by the barbarians, and its residents were reduced to a condition equivalent to that of captives. Moreover so great was the danger of the city that a comet of prodigious magnitude, reaching from heaven even to the earth, such as was never before seen, gave forewarning of it.

Cf. Vergil, Georg. I. 488, ‘Nec diri toties arsere cometæ’; and Am. X. 272–274.

Chapter VII.—Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and the Monks of the Desert. Condemnation of Origen’s Books.

The question had been started a little before,

By Audius or Audæus, the founder of the Audian heresy. Cf. Epiphan. Hær. LXX.; Walch, Histor. der Ketzereien, Vol. III. p. 300; also Iselin, Audios und die Audianer, in Jahrbücher für Protestant. Theologie, April, 1890; p. 298 seq.

Chapter VIII.—The Arians and the Supporters of the ‘Homoousion’ hold Nocturnal Assemblies and sing Antiphonal Hymns, a Species of Composition ascribed to Ignatius, surnamed Theophorus.

Θεόφορος = ‘borne by God,’ used in the sense of being ‘possessed by a god,’ ‘inspired,’ by Æsch. Agam. 1150; but here ‘borne in the arms of God’ or ‘carried by God,’ and applied to Ignatius because tradition made him the very child whom the Saviour ‘took up in his arms,’ and set in the midst of his disciples. Cf. Mark ix. 36; to be distinguished therefore from Θεοφόρος, ‘bearing’ or ‘carrying a god.’

The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often therefore as the festal days occurred—I mean Saturday

The ancient Christians observed the Lord’s day as the greatest day of the week, and also in the second place the Jewish Sabbath or Saturday. See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XX. 2, on the Lord’s day, and 3, on the Sabbath.

We must now however make some allusion to the origin of this custom in the church of responsive singing. Ignatius

There has been some difference of opinion as to whether Socrates is correct in here ascribing the institution of responsive chants to Ignatius. Valesius doubts Socrates’ accuracy, but other authorities are inclined to the view that Ignatius did introduce these chants, and Flavian and Diodorus, during the reign of Constantine, to whom Valesius ascribes their origin, simply developed them. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XIV. 1.

Chapter IX.—Dispute between Theophilus and Peter leading to an Attempt on the Part of the Former to depose John Bishop of Constantinople.

Not long after this, the monks of the desert, together with Dioscorus and his brothers, came to Constantinople. There was also with them Isidore,

For an account of Theophilus’ outrageous treatment of Isidore, see Palladius, Vita S. Joannis Chrysost. chap. 6.

Chapter X.—Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus convenes a Synod to condemn the Books of Origen.

He moreover renewed his friendship with Epiphanius

There were thirty-five bishops, besides several presbyters and laymen of some distinction in the ancient church, who bore the name of Epiphanius. The bishop here mentioned is the most illustrious of them all, being the author of the well-known treatise de Hæres. His see—that of Constantia in Cyprus—was the old ‘Salamis’ of Acts xiii. 5.

Chapter XI.—Of Severian and Antiochus: their Disagreement from John.

The odium against John Chrysostom was considerably increased by another additional event as follows: two bishops flourished at that time, Syrians by birth, named Severian and Antiochus; Severian presided over the church at Gabala, a city of Syria, and Antiochus over that of Ptolemaïs in Phœnicia. They were both renowned for their eloquence; but although Severian was a very learned man, he did not succeed in using the Greek language perfectly; and so while speaking Greek he betrayed his Syrian origin. Antiochus came first to Constantinople, and having preached in the churches for some time with great zeal and ability, and having thus amassed a large sum of money,

The offerings of the congregations seem to have been divided usually among the officiating clergymen. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. V. 4. 1.

Chapter XII.—Epiphanius, in order to gratify Theophilus, performs Ordinations at Constantinople without John’s Permission.

Not long after this, at the suggestion of Theophilus, the bishop Epiphanius again came from Cyprus to Constantinople; he brought also with him a copy of the synodical decree in which they did not excommunicate Origen himself but condemned his books. On reaching St. John’s church, which is seven miles distant from the city, he disembarked, and there celebrated a service; then after having ordained a deacon,

It was contrary to the canons of the church for a bishop to ordain a presbyter or a deacon in another’s diocese. Cf. Apostol. Can. 35. ‘Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.’ Also Can. 16 of the Council of Nicæa; ‘If any one should dare to steal, as it were, a person who belongs to another [bishop], and to ordain him for his own church, without permission of the bishop from whom he was withdrawn, the ordination shall be void.’

Chapter XIII.—The Author’s Defence of Origen.

The views of Origen met with opposition from the very outset. During his own lifetime he was condemned at Alexandria, and after his death repeatedly until 541 a.d., and perhaps also by the fifth general council held at Constantinople in 553. For a full account of the Origenistic Controversy, see Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Antiq., art. Origenistic Controversies.

But since carping detractors have imposed upon many persons and have succeeded in deterring them from reading Origen, as though he were a blasphemous writer, I deem it not unseasonable to make a few observations respecting him. Worthless characters, and such as are destitute of ability to attain eminence themselves, often seek to get into notice by decrying those who excel them. And first Methodius, bishop of a city in Lycia named Olympus, labored under this malady; next Eustathius, who for a short time presided over the church at Antioch; after him Apollinaris; and lastly Theophilus. This quaternion of revilers has traduced Origen, but not on the same grounds, one having found one cause of accusation against him, and another another; and thus each has demonstrated that what he has taken no objection to, he has fully accepted. For since one has attacked one opinion in particular, and another has found fault with another, it is evident that each has admitted as true what he has not assailed, giving a tacit approbation to what he has not attacked. Methodius indeed, when he had in various places railed against Origen, afterwards as if retracting all he had previously said, expresses his admiration of the man, in a dialogue which he entitled Xenon.

‘The house of entertainment for strangers.’ Methodius’ works were in the literary form of the dialogue. Cf. his Convivum decem Virginum in Migne’s Patrologia Græca, Vol. XVIII.

Chapter XIV.—Epiphanius is asked to meet John; on refusing he is admonished concerning his Anticanonical Proceedings; alarmed at this he leaves Constantinople.

John was not offended because Epiphanius, contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, had made an ordination in his church;

See above, chap. 12 and note 1.

‘You do many things contrary to the canons, Epiphanius. In the first place you have made an ordination in the churches under my jurisdiction: then without my appointment, you have on your own authority officiated in them. Moreover, when heretofore I invited you hither, you refused to come, and now you take that liberty yourself. Beware therefore, lest a tumult being excited among the people, you yourself should also incur danger therefrom.’

Epiphanius becoming alarmed on hearing these admonitions, left the church; and after accusing John of many things, he set out on his return to Cyprus. Some say that when he was about to depart, he said to John, ‘I hope that you will not die a bishop’: to which John replied, ‘Expect not to arrive at your own country.’ I cannot be sure that those who reported these things to me spoke the truth; but nevertheless the event was in the case of both as prophesied above. For Epiphanius did not reach Cyprus, having died on board the ship during his voyage; and John a short time afterwards was driven from his see, as we shall show in proceeding.

Chapter XV.—John is expelled from his Church by a Synod held at Chalcedon on account of his Dispraise of Women.

When Epiphanius was gone, John was informed by some person that the Empress Eudoxia had stimulated Epiphanius against him. And being of a fiery temperament, and of a ready utterance, he soon after pronounced a public invective against women in general. The people readily took this as uttered indirectly against the empress and so the speech was laid hold of by evil-disposed persons, and reported to those in authority. At length on being informed of it the empress immediately complained to her husband, telling him that the insult offered to herself was equally an insult against him. The emperor therefore authorized Theophilus to convoke a Synod without delay against John; Severian also co-operated in promoting this, for he still retained his grudge against Chrysostom. Not long time accordingly intervened before Theophilus arrived, having induced several bishops from different cities to accompany him; these however had been summoned by the emperor’s orders also. Many of the bishops in Asia John had deposed when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. Accordingly they all by previous agreement assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Cyrinus was at that time bishop of Chalcedon, an Egyptian by birth, who said many things to the bishops in disparagement of John, denouncing him as ‘the impious,’ ‘the haughty,’ ‘the inexorable.’ They indeed were very much satisfied at these denunciations. But Maruthas bishop of Mesopotamia having involuntarily trod on Cyrinus’ foot, he was severely hurt by it and was unable to embark with the rest for Constantinople, but remained behind at Chalcedon. The rest crossed over. Now Theophilus had so openly avowed his hostility to John, that none of the clergy would go forth to meet him, or pay him the least honor; but some Alexandrian sailors happening to be on the spot—for at that time the grain transporting vessels were there—greeted him with joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called ‘The Placidian.’ Then on this account a torrent of accusations began to be poured forth against John; for no mention was now made of Origen, but all were intent on urging a variety of criminations, many of which were ridiculous. Preliminary matters being thus settled, the bishops were convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, a place called ‘The Oak,’

Hence this is called the Synod at ‘the Oak’ (Synodus ad Quercum). See Hefele, History of the Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 430.

Chapter XVI.—Sedition on Account of John Chrysostom’s Banishment. He is recalled.

The people then became intolerably tumultuous; and as it frequently happens in such cases, many who before were adversely disposed against him, now changed their hostility into compassion, and said of him whom they had so recently desired to see deposed, that he had been traduced. By this means therefore they became very numerous who exclaimed against both the emperor and the Synod of bishops; but the origin of the intrigue they more particularly referred to Theophilus. For his fraudulent conduct could no longer be concealed, being exposed by many other indications, and especially by the fact of his having held communion with Dioscorus, and those termed ‘the Tall Monks,’

See above, chap. 7.

Chapter XVII.—Conflict between the Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians on Account of Heraclides; Flight of Theophilus and the Bishops of his Party.

In the first place, then, Theophilus attempted to investigate the case of the ordination of Heraclides,

See above, chap. 11.

Chapter XVIII.—Of Eudoxia’s Silver Statue. On account of it John is exiled a Second Time.

At this time a silver statue of the Empress Eudoxia covered with a long robe was erected

From Prosper Aquitamus and Marcellinus’ Chronicon, we learn that this was done in 403 a.d., or rather the consulship of Theodosius the younger and Rumoridius.

Chapter XIX.—Ordination of Arsacius as John’s Successor. Indisposition of Cyrinus Bishop of Chalcedon.

After the lapse of a few days, Arsacius was ordained bishop of Constantinople; he was a brother of Nectarius who so ably administered the see before John, although he was then very aged, being upwards of eighty years old. While he very mildly and peacefully administered the episcopate, Cyrinus bishop of Chalcedon, upon whose foot Maruthas bishop of Mesopotamia had inadvertently trodden, became so seriously affected by the accident, that mortification ensued, and it became necessary to amputate his foot. Nor was this amputation performed once only, but was required to be often repeated: for after the injured limb was cut off, the evil so permeated his whole system, that the other foot also having become affected by the disease had to submit to the same operation.

Palladius makes mention of this case without, however, naming Cyrinus. Cf. Vit. S. Joan. Chrysostom, chap. 17 (Vol. XIII. p. 63 A. of Benedictine ed. of Chrysostom).

Chapter XX.—Death of Arsacius, and Ordination of Atticus.

But Arsacius did not long survive his accession to the bishopric; for he died on the 11th of November under the following consulate, which was Stilicho’s second, and the first of Anthemius.

405 a.d.

Chapter XXI.—John dies in Exile.

John taken into exile died in Comana on the Euxine, on the 14th of September, in the following consulate, which was the seventh of Honorius, and the second of Theodosius.

407 a.d.

Chapter XXII.—Of Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatians. His Readiness at Repartee.

It will not be out of place here, I conceive, to give some account of Sisinnius. He was, as I have often said,

Cf. V. 10 and 21.

Chapter XXIII.—Death of the Emperor Arcadius.

Not long after the death of John, the Emperor Arcadius died also. This prince was of a mild and gentle disposition, and toward the close of his life was esteemed to be greatly beloved of God, from the following circumstance. There was at Constantinople an immense mansion called Carya; for in the court of it there is a walnut tree on which it is said Acacius suffered martyrdom by hanging; on which account a chapel was built near it, which the Emperor Arcadius one day thought fit to visit, and after having prayed there, left again. All who lived near this chapel ran in a crowd to see the emperor; and some going out of the mansion referred to, endeavored to preoccupy the streets in order to get a better view of their sovereign and his suite, while others followed in his train, until all who inhabited it, including the women and children, had wholly gone out of it. No sooner was this vast pile emptied of its occupants, the buildings of which completely environed the church, than the entire building fell. On which there was a great outcry, followed by shouts of admiration, because it was believed the emperor’s prayer had rescued so great a number of persons from destruction. This event occurred in that manner. On the 1st of May, Arcadius died, leaving his son Theodosius only eight years old, under the consulate of Bassus and Philip, in the second year of the 297th Olympiad.

408 a.d.

Book VII.

Chapter I.—Anthemius the Prætorian Prefect administers the Government of the East in Behalf of Young Theodosius.

After the death of Arcadius on the first of May, during the consulate of Bassus and Philip,

408 a.d. Cf. VI. 23. See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 32.

Chapter II.—Character and Conduct of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople.

When Theodosius the emperor was in the eighth year of his age, Atticus was in the third year of his presidency over the church at Constantinople, a man as we have by anticipation said

Cf. VI. 20.

Chapter III.—Of Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops of Synada.

A certain Theodosius was bishop of Synada in Phrygia Pacata; he violently persecuted the heretics in that province—and there was a great number of them—and especially those of the Macedonian sect; he drove them out not only from the city, but also out of the country. This course he pursued not from any precedent in the orthodox church, nor from the desire of propagating the true faith; but being enslaved by the love of filthy lucre, he was impelled by the avaricious motive of amassing money, by extorting it from the heretics. To this end he made all sorts of attempts upon the Macedonians, putting arms into the hands of his clergy; and employing innumerable stratagems against them; nor did he refrain from delivering them up to the secular tribunals.

On the limits of the secular power over ecclesiastical dignitaries, and the cases in which the clergy were amenable to the civil law as well as those in which they were not, see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. V. 2.

Chapter IV.—A Paralytic Jew healed by Atticus in Baptism.

This was one important improvement in the circumstances of the Church, which happened during the administration of Atticus. Nor were these times without the attestation of miracles and healings. For a certain Jew being a paralytic had been confined to his bed for many years; and as every sort of medical skill, and the prayers of his Jewish brethren had been resorted to but had availed nothing, he had recourse at length to Christian baptism, trusting in it as the only true remedy to be used.

On the supposed miraculous effects of baptism, see Tertullian, de baptismo, passim.

Chapter V.—The Presbyter Sabbatius, formerly a Jew, separates from the Novatians.

Many, however, making no account of these events yielded to their own depravity; for not only did the Jews continue in unbelief after this miracle, but others also who love to follow them were shown to hold views similar to theirs. Among these was Sabbatius, of whom mention has before been made;

V. 21.

Chapter VI.—The Leaders of Arianism at this Time.

Dorotheus bishop of the Arians, who, as we have said,

Cf. V. 3, 12 and 23.

Chapter VII.—Cyril succeeds Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria.

Shortly afterwards Theophilus bishop of Alexandria having fallen into a lethargic state, died on the 15th of October,

412 a.d. This chapter is out of chronological sequence, as appears from the fact that Alaric took Rome in 410 a.d. See chap. 10 below.

Chapter VIII.—Propagation of Christianity among the Persians by Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia.

About this same time it happened that Christianity was disseminated in Persia, by reason of the following causes. Frequent embassies were sent to and fro between the sovereigns of Persia and the Roman empire, for which there were continual occasions. Necessity brought it about at that time that the Roman emperor thought proper to send Maruthas bishop of Mesopotamia, who has been before mentioned,

Cf. VI. 15.

Chapter IX.—The Bishops of Antioch and Rome.

During this period upon the death of Flavian

404 a.d.

Chapter X.—Rome taken and sacked by Alaric.

About this same time

On Alaric’s career, see Zosimus, V. 5, 6; 28–51 and V. 1–13. Cf. also parallel accounts in Sozomen, IX. 4, 6–9; and Philostorgius, XII. 2, 3; and Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chap. 31.

Chapter XI.—The Bishops of Rome.

After Innocent, Zosimus governed the Roman church for two years: and after him Boniface

418 a.d.

Chapter XII.—Of Chrysanthus Bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople.

After the death of Sisinnius, Chrysanthus was constrained to take upon him the episcopal office. He was the son of Marcian the predecessor of Sisinnius, and having had a military appointment in the palace at an early age, he was subsequently under Theodosius the Great made governor

ὑπατικος = consularis, consul honorarius; the title was, during the period of the republic, given to ex-consuls, but later it became a common custom, especially under the emperors, for the governors of the imperial provinces to be called consuls, and the title consularis became the established designation of those intrusted with the administration of imperial provinces. See Smith, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq.

Chapter XIII.—Conflict between the Christians and Jews at Alexandria: and breach between the Bishop Cyril and the Prefect Orestes.

About this same time it happened that the Jewish inhabitants were driven out of Alexandria by Cyril the bishop on the following account. The Alexandrian public is more delighted with tumult than any other people: and if at any time it should find a pretext, breaks forth into the most intolerable excesses; for it never ceases from its turbulence without bloodshed. It happened on the present occasion that a disturbance arose among the populace, not from a cause of any serious importance, but out of an evil that has become very popular in almost all cities, viz. a fondness for dancing exhibitions.

As to how the ancient Church looked upon theatrical shows, see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XVI. 11. 15, and passages there referred to.

Chapter XIV.—The Monks of Nitria come down and raise a Sedition against the Prefect of Alexandria.

Some of the monks inhabiting the mountains of Nitria, of a very fiery disposition, whom Theophilus some time before had unjustly armed against Dioscorus and his brethren, being again transported with an ardent zeal, resolved to fight in behalf of Cyril. About five hundred of them therefore quitting their monasteries, came into the city; and meeting the prefect in his chariot, they called him a pagan idolater, and applied to him many other abusive epithets. He supposing this to be a snare laid for him by Cyril, exclaimed that he was a Christian, and had been baptized by Atticus the bishop at Constantinople. As they gave but little heed to his protestations, and a certain one of them named Ammonius threw a stone at Orestes which struck him on the head and covered him with the blood that flowed from the wound, all the guards with a few exceptions fled, plunging into the crowd, some in one direction and some in another, fearing to be stoned to death. Meanwhile the populace of Alexandria ran to the rescue of the governor, and put the rest of the monks to flight; but having secured Ammonius they delivered him up to the prefect. He immediately put him publicly to the torture, which was inflicted with such severity that he died under the effects of it: and not long after he gave an account to the emperors of what had taken place. Cyril also on the other hand forwarded his statement of the matter to the emperor: and causing the body of Ammonius to be deposited in a certain church, he gave him the new appellation of Thaumasius,

Θαυμάσιος , ‘wonderful,’ ‘admirable.’

Chapter XV.—Of Hypatia the Female Philosopher.

There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia,

The following incident has been popularized by Charles Kingsley in his well-known novel of Hypatia, which has, however, the accessory aim of antagonizing the over-estimation of early Christianity by Dr. Pusey and his followers. The original sources for the history of Hypatia, besides the present chapter, are the letters of her pupil Synesius, and Philostorgius, VIII. 9. Cf. also Wernsdoff, de Hypatia, philosopha Alex. diss. 4, Viteb. 1748.

Chapter XVI.—The Jews commit Another Outrage upon the Christians and are punished.

Soon afterwards the Jews renewed their malevolent and impious practices against the Christians, and drew down upon themselves deserved punishment. At a place named Inmestar, situated between Chalcis and Antioch in Syria, the Jews were amusing themselves in their usual way with a variety of sports. In this way they indulged in many absurdities, and at length impelled by drunkenness they were guilty of scoffing at Christians and even Christ himself; and in derision of the cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, they seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross, began to laugh and sneer at him. But in a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands. This conduct occasioned a sharp conflict between them and the Christians; and as soon as the emperors were informed of the circumstance, they issued orders to the governor of the province to find out and punish the delinquents. And thus the Jewish inhabitants of this place paid the penalty for the wickedness they had committed in their impious sport.

Chapter XVII.—Miracle performed by Paul Bishop of the Novatians at the Baptism of a Jewish Impostor.

About this time Chrysanthus bishop of the Novatians, after presiding over the churches of his own sect seven years, died on the 26th of August, under the consulate of Monaxius and Plintha.

419 a.d.

Chapter XVIII.—Renewal of Hostilities between the Romans and Persians after the Death of Isdigerdes King of the Persians.

Isdigerdes king of the Persians, who had in no way molested the Christians in his dominions, having died,

Having reigned between 399 and 420 a.d. Cf. Clinton, Fasti Romani, year 420.

The Romans besieging Nisibis, understanding that the king of Persia was bringing with him a great number of elephants, became alarmed in their turn, burnt all the machines they had used in carrying on the siege, and retired into their own country. What engagements afterwards took place, and how Areobindus another Roman general killed the bravest of the Persians in single combat, and by what means Ardaburius destroyed seven Persian commanders in an ambuscade, and in what manner Vitian another Roman general vanquished the remnant of the Saracen forces, I believe I ought to pass by, lest I should digress too far from my subject.

Chapter XIX.—Of Palladius the Courier.

How the Emperor Theodosius received intelligence of what was done in an incredibly short space of time, and how he was quickly informed of events taking place far away, I shall attempt to explain. For he had the good fortune to possess among his subjects a man endowed with extraordinary energy both of body and mind, named Palladius; who rode so vigorously that he would reach the frontiers of the Roman and Persian dominions in three days,

Much, of course, depends, in estimating the rate of speed here recorded, on the exact distance between Constantinople and the rather indefinite limits of the Persian empire. But even if the minimum of 500 miles be taken as a basis, the speed seems almost incredible.

Chapter XX.—A Second Overthrow of the Persians by the Romans.

Now the emperor of the Romans dwelling in Constantinople being fully aware that God had plainly given him the victory was so benevolent that although those under him had been successful in war nevertheless he desired to make peace; and to that end he dispatched Helion, a man in whom he placed the greatest confidence, with a commission to enter into a pacific treaty with the Persians. Helion having arrived in Mesopotamia, at the place where the Romans for their own security had formed a trench, sent before him as his deputy Maximin an eloquent man who was the associate of Ardaburius the commander-in-chief of the army, to make preliminary arrangements concerning the terms of peace. Maximin on coming into the presence of the Persian king, said he had been sent to him on this matter, not by the Roman emperor, but by his generals; for he said this war was not even known to the emperor, and if known would be considered insignificant by him. And as the sovereign of Persia had gladly decided to receive the embassy,—for his troops were suffering from want of provisions,—there came to him that corps among them which is distinguished by the name of ‘the Immortals.’

A Persian body-guard called ᾽Αθάνατοι, ‘Immortals,’ existed during the period of the invasion of Greece by the Persians (cf. Herodotus, VII. 31). The organization and discipline of the later body must have been, of course, very different.

Chapter XXI.—Kind Treatment of the Persian Captives by Acacius Bishop of Amida.

A noble action of Acacius bishop of Amida, at that time greatly enhanced his reputation among all men. As the Roman soldiery would on no consideration restore to the Persian king the captives whom they had taken, these captives, about seven thousand in number, were being destroyed by famine in devastating Azazene, and this greatly distressed the king of the Persians. Then Acacius thought such a matter was by no means to be trifled with; having therefore assembled his clergy, he thus addressed them: ‘Our God, my brethren, needs neither dishes nor cups; for he neither eats nor drinks, nor is in want of anything. Since then, by the liberality of its faithful members the church possesses many vessels both of gold and silver, it behooves us to sell them, that by the money thus raised we may be able to redeem the prisoners and also supply them with food.’ Having said these things and many others similar to these, he ordered the vessels to be melted down, and from the proceeds paid the soldiers a ransom for their captives, whom he supported for some time; and then furnishing them with what was needful for their journey, sent them back to their sovereign. This benevolence on the part of the excellent Acacius, astonished the king of the Persians, as if the Romans were accustomed to conquer their enemies as well by their beneficence in peace as their prowess in war. They say also that the Persian king wished that Acacius should come into his presence, that he might have the pleasure of beholding such a man; a wish which by the emperor Theodosius’ order was soon gratified. So signal a victory having through Divine favor been achieved by the Romans, many who were illustrious for their eloquence, wrote panegyrics in honor of the emperor, and recited them in public. The empress herself also composed a poem in heroic verse: for she had excellent literary taste; being the daughter of Leontius the Athenian sophist, she had been instructed in every kind of learning by her father; Atticus the bishop had baptized her a little while previous to her marriage with the emperor, and had then given her the Christian name of Eudocia,

Εὐδοκία, ‘Benevolence.’

Chapter XXII.—Virtues of the Emperor Theodosius the Younger.

But although I am neither eager for the notice of the emperor, nor wish to make an exhibition of my oratorical powers, yet have I felt it my duty to record plainly the singular virtues with which the emperor is endowed: for I am persuaded that silence concerning them, as they are so excellent, would be injustice to those who should come after us. In the first place then, this prince though born and nurtured to empire, was neither stultified nor effeminated by the circumstances of his birth and education. He evinced so much prudence, that he appeared to those who conversed with him to have acquired wisdom from experience. Such was his fortitude in undergoing hardships, that he would courageously endure both heat and cold; fasting very frequently, especially on Wednesdays and Fridays;

On the observance of these two days of the week as fast days in the early Church see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XXI. 3.

Chapter XXIII.—After the Death of the Emperor Honorius John usurps the Sovereignty at Rome. He is destroyed through the Prayers of Theodosius the Younger.

When the Emperor Honorius died Theodosius—now sole ruler—having received the news concealed the truth as long as possible, misleading the people sometimes with one report, and then with another. But he privately dispatched a military force to Salonæ, a city of Dalmatia, that in the event of any revolutionary movement in the West there might be resources at hand to check it; and after making these provisional arrangements, he at length openly announced his uncle’s death. In the meantime John, the superintendent of the emperor’s secretaries,

So also Zosimus, V. 40.

Chapter XXIV.—Valentinian a Son of Constantius and Placidia, Aunt of Theodosius, is proclaimed Emperor.

After the usurper’s death, the emperor Theodosius became very anxious as to whom he should proclaim emperor of the West. He had a cousin then very young named Valentinian; the son of his aunt Placidia, daughter of Theodosius the Great, and sister of the two Augusti Arcadius and Honorius and of that Constantius who had been proclaimed emperor by Honorius,

Cf. I. 39, and II. 1.

Chapter XXV.—Christian Benevolence of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople. He registers John’s Name in the Diptychs. His Fore-knowledge of his Own Death.

Meanwhile Atticus the bishop caused the affairs of the church to flourish in an extraordinary manner; administering all things with prudence, and inciting the people to virtue by his instruction. Perceiving that the church was on the point of being divided inasmuch as the Johannites

The adherents of Chrysostom. See VI. 3.

‘Atticus to Calliopius—salutations in the Lord.

‘I have been informed that there are in your city ten thousand necessitous persons whose condition demands the compassion of the pious. And I say ten thousand, designating their multitude rather than using the number precisely. As therefore I have received a sum of money from him, who with a bountiful hand is wont to supply faithful stewards; and since it happens that some are pressed by want, that those who have may be proved, who yet do not minister to the needy—take, my friend, these three hundred pieces of gold, and dispose of them as you may think fit. It will be your care, I doubt not, to distribute to such as are ashamed to beg, and not to those who through life have sought to feed themselves at others’ expense. In bestowing these alms make no distinction on religious grounds; but feed the hungry whether they agree with us in sentiment, or not.’

Thus did Atticus consider even the poor who were at a distance from him. He labored also to abolish the superstitions of certain persons. For on being informed that those who had separated themselves from the Novatians, on account of the Jewish Passover, had transported the body of Sabbatius

See above, chaps. 5 and 12.

Chapter XXVI.—Sisinnius is chosen to succeed Atticus.

After the decease of Atticus, there arose a strong contest about the election of a successor, some proposing one person, and some another. One party, they say, was urgent in favor of a presbyter named Philip; another wished to promote Proclus who was also a presbyter; but the general desire of the people was that the bishopric should be conferred on Sisinnius. This person was also a presbyter but held no ecclesiastical office within the city, having been appointed to the sacred ministry in a church at Elæa, a village in the suburbs of Constantinople. This village is situated across the harbor from the city, and in it from an ancient custom the whole population annually assembled for the celebration of our Saviour’s ascension. All of the laity were warmly attached to the man because he was famous for his piety, and especially because he was diligent in the care of the poor even ‘beyond his power.’

2 Cor. viii. 3.

Chapter XXVII.—Voluminous Productions of Philip, a Presbyter of Side.

Philip was a native of Side; Side is a city of Pamphylia. From this place also Troïlus the sophist came, to whom Philip boasted himself to be nearly related. He was a deacon and thus admitted to the privilege of familiar intercourse with John Chrysostom, the bishop. He labored assiduously in literature, and besides making very considerable literary attainments, formed an extensive collection of books in every branch of knowledge. Affecting the Asiatic style,

This was a heavy, redundant, and turgid style deprecated by rhetoricians of the better class from the time of Cicero onwards. Cf. Cicero, Brut. XIII. 51; Quinctilian, Instit. Orat. XII. 10, and Jerome, ad Rustic. (125. 6).

Chapter XXVIII.—Proclus ordained Bishop of Cyzicus by Sisinnius, but rejected by the People.

The bishop of Cyzicus having died, Sisinnius ordained Proclus to the bishopric of that city. But while he was preparing to depart thither, the inhabitants anticipated him, by electing an ascetic named Dalmatius. This they did in disregard of a law which forbade their ordination of a bishop without the sanction of the bishop of Constantinople;

The Council in its 6th Canon declared that no one should be ordained bishop without the consent of his metropolitan; but that the bishop of Constantinople was the metropolitan of the Cyzicenes does not appear unless the decree of the (Canon 3d) Council of Constantinople making the latter a patriarchate is to be understood as rendering the see of Cyzicus subordinate to that of Constantinople, as an individual church is to the metropolitan. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. II. 16. 12.

Chapter XXIX.—Nestorius of Antioch promoted to the See of Constantinople. His Persecution of the Heretics.

After the death of Sisinnius, on account of the spirit of ambitious rivalry displayed by the ecclesiastics of Constantinople, the emperors resolved that none of that church should fill the vacant bishopric, notwithstanding the fact that many eagerly desired to have Philip ordained, and no less a number were in favor of the election of Proclus. They therefore sent for a stranger

ἐπήλυδα, perhaps in a contemptuous sense = ‘an imported fellow.’

Chapter XXX.—The Burgundians embrace Christianity under Theodosius the Younger.

I must now relate an event well worthy of being recorded, which happened about this time. There is a barbarous nation dwelling beyond the Rhine, denominated Burgundians; they lead a peaceful life; for being almost all artisans, they support themselves by the exercise of their trades. The Huns, by making continual irruptions on this people, devastated their country, and often destroyed great numbers of them. In this perplexity, therefore, the Burgundians resolved to have recourse not to any human being, but to commit themselves to the protection of some god: and having seriously considered that the God of the Romans mightily defended those that feared him, they all with common consent embraced the faith of Christ. Going therefore to one of the cities of Gaul, they requested the bishop to grant them Christian baptism: who ordering them to fast seven days, and having meanwhile instructed them in the elementary principles of the faith, on the eighth day baptized and dismissed them. Accordingly becoming confident thenceforth, they marched against their invaders; nor were they disappointed in their hope. For the king of the Huns, Uptar

Octar, mentioned as an uncle (father’s brother) of Attila by Jornandes, Historia Getarum, chap. 35.

Chapter XXXI.—Nestorius harasses the Macedonians.

Nestorius indeed acted contrary to the usage of the Church, and caused himself to be hated in other ways also,

By a slight change in the Greek text Valesius renders this phrase ‘but caused others also to imitate him,’ alleging that the conduct of Anthony of Germa was in imitation of Nestorius; but the emendation seems unnecessary. Socrates means that Nestorius made himself odious in other ways, perhaps through other persons such as Anthony, &c.

Chapter XXXII.—Of the Presbyter Anastasius, by whom the Faith of Nestorius was perverted.

Nestorius had an associate whom he had brought from Antioch, a presbyter named Anastasius; for this man he had the highest esteem, and consulted him in the management of his most important affairs. This Anastasius preaching one day in the church said, ‘Let no one call Mary Theotocos:

Θεοτόκον, i.e. ‘Mother of God.’ See Neander, Hist. of Christ. Church, Vol. II. p. 449.

Chapter XXXIII.—Desecration of the Altar of the Great Church by Runaway Slaves.

While matters were in this state it happened that an outrage was perpetrated in the church. For the domestics of a man of quality who were foreigners, having experienced harsh treatment from their master, fled from him to the church; and thus they ran up to the very altar with their swords drawn.

Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VIII. 11.

“For such prognostics happen at a time

When temples are defiled by impious crime.”

Nor was he who made the prediction disappointed in these inauspicious forebodings: for they signified as it seems a division among the people, and the deposition of the author of it.

Chapter XXXIV.—Synod at Ephesus against Nestorius. His Deposition.

Not long time elapsed before a mandate from the emperor directed the bishops in all places to assemble at Ephesus.

This was the third of the Ecumenical or General Synods; it was convened in 431 and dealt with the Nestorian controversy. Cf. Hefele, Hist. of the Councils of the Ch. Vol. III. p. 1; also Evagrius, H. E. I. 2, 3, 4.

Chapter XXXV.—Maximian elected to the Episcopate of Constantinople, though Some wished Proclus to take that Place.

After this there was another debate concerning the election of a bishop of Constantinople. Many were in favor of Philip, of whom we have already made mention; but a still greater number advocated the claims of Proclus. And the candidacy of Proclus would have succeeded, had not some of the most influential persons interfered, on the ground of its being forbidden by the ecclesiastical canon that a person nominated to one bishopric should be translated to that of another city.

The canon referred to is probably the fifteenth of Nicæa, as follows: ‘On account of the numerous troubles and divisions which have taken place, it has been thought good that…no bishop, priest, or deacon should remove from one city to another. If any one should venture, even after this ordinance of the holy and great Synod, to act contrary to this present rule, and should follow the old custom, the translation shall be null, and he shall return to the church to which he had been ordained bishop or priest.’ Cf. also Apostol. Can. 14 and 15, and the twenty-first of the Council of Antioch given by Hefele, Hist. of the Ch. Councils, Vol. II. p. 72.

Chapter XXXVI.—The Author’s Opinion of the Validity of Translations from One See to Another.

But since some parties by appealing to a prohibition in the ecclesiastical canon, prevented the election of Proclus, because of his previous appointment to the see of Cyzicus, I wish to make a few remarks on this subject. Those who then presumed to interpose such a cause of exclusion do not appear to me to have stated the truth; but they were either influenced by prejudice against Proclus, or at least have been themselves completely ignorant both of the canons, and of the frequent and often advantageous precedents that had been established in the churches. Eusebius Pamphilus relates in the sixth book of his Ecclesiastical History,

Cf. Euseb. H. E. VI. 11.

‘If any one after having been ordained a bishop should not proceed to the church unto which he has been appointed, from no fault on his part, but either because the people are unwilling to receive him, or for some other reason arising from necessity, let him be partaker of the honor and functions of the rank with which he has been invested, provided he intermeddles not with the affairs of the church wherein he may minister. It is his duty however to submit to whatever the Synod of the province may see fit to determine, after it shall have taken cognizance of the matter.’

Such is the language of the canon. That many bishops have been transferred from one city to another to meet the exigencies of peculiar cases, I shall now prove by giving the names of those bishops who have been so translated.

In what way these canons against the translation of bishops were understood and observed by the early church is discussed by Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VI. 4. 6.

Chapter XXXVII.—Miracle performed by Silvanus Bishop of Troas formerly of Philippopolis.

Silvanus was formerly a rhetorician, and had been brought up in the school of Troïlus the sophist; but aiming at perfection in his Christian course, he entered on the ascetic mode of life, and set aside the rhetorician’s pallium. Atticus bishop of Constantinople having taken notice of him afterwards ordained him bishop of Philippopolis.

Another indication that the patriarchal functions of the bishop of Constantinople were at this time exercised and recognized. The Council of Chalcedon somewhat later (in 451 a.d.) formally ordered in its twenty-eighth canon that the metropolitans of the Thracian Pontic, and Asian dioceses should be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople, their election being first secured by the clergy and laity of the dioceses, and referred to the patriarch afterwards.

Here a miracle was performed by his instrumentality, which I shall now relate. An immense ship for carrying burdens, such as they term ‘float,’

πλατήν, a sort of raft; the word is incorrectly spelled πλατή according to Sophocles (Greek Lexic., &c.), and should be πλωτή.

We have indeed digressed pretty much from the course of our history in giving this account of Silvanus; but yet it will not, we imagine, be unprofitable. Let us now however return to the place from which we departed. Maximian, having been ordained on the 25th of October, under the consulate of Bassus and Antiochus,

431 a.d.

Chapter XXXVIII.—Many of the Jews in Crete embrace the Christian Faith.

About this period a great number of Jews who dwelt in Crete were convened to Christianity, through the following disastrous circumstance. A certain Jewish impostor pretended that he was Moses, and had been

Nothing further is heard of this strange affair.

Chapter XXXIX.—Preservation of the Church of the Novatians from Fire.

A little while after this, Paul bishop of the Novatians acquired the reputation of a man truly beloved of God in a greater measure than he had before. For a terrible conflagration having broken out at Constantinople, such as had never happened before,—for the fire destroyed the greater part of the city,—as the largest of the public granaries, the Achillean bath,

Rebuilt and rededicated, according to the Chronicon of Marcellinus, under the consuls Maximus and Paterius, i.e. 443 a.d. and ten years after the fire.

Chapter XL.—Proclus succeeds Maximian Bishop of Constantinople.

Maximian, having peacefully governed the church during two years and five months, died on the 12th of April, in the consulate of Areobindus and Aspar.

434 a.d.

Chapter XLI.—Excellent Qualities of Proclus.

Proclus was a reader at a very early age, and assiduously frequenting the schools, became devoted to the study of rhetoric. On attaining manhood he was in the habit of constant intercourse with Atticus the bishop, having been constituted his secretary. When he had made great progress, his patron promoted him to the rank of deacon; subsequently being elevated to the presbyterate, as we have before stated, he was ordained by Sisinnius to be bishop of Cyzicus.

See above, chap. 28. This was about the year 427 a.d.

Chapter XLII.—Panegyric of the Emperor Theodosius Younger.

See chap. 22, above.

For these reasons the emperor had the highest esteem for Proclus. For in fact he himself was a pattern to all true clergymen, and never approved of those who attempted to persecute others. Nay I may venture to affirm, that in meekness he surpassed all those who have ever faithfully borne the sacerdotal office. And what is recorded of Moses in the book of Numbers,

Num. xii. 3.

Chapter XLIII.—Calamities of the Barbarians who had been the Usurper John’s Allies.

After the death of the usurper, the barbarians whom he had called to his assistance against the Romans, made preparations for ravaging the Roman provinces. The emperor being informed of this, immediately, as his custom was, committed the management of the matter to God; and continuing in earnest prayer, he speedily obtained what he sought; for it is worth while to give attention to disasters which befell the barbarians.

Who these barbarians were it is impossible to find out precisely, and that not because no mention is made of barbarian inroads on the imperial territories, but because so many are mentioned by the chronographers and the historians of the Goths (Jornandes, Prosper Aquitanus, Marcellinus, &c.) that it is impossible to identify this with any of them to the exclusion of the rest. Rougas also appears in these historians as Rouas (in Priscus), Roas (in Jornandes), Rugilas (in Prosper Aquitanus), and is said to be related to Attila; but nothing certain can be drawn from the accounts.

‘And thou, son of man, prophesy against Gog the prince of Rhos, Mosoch, and Thobel. For I will judge him with death, and with blood, and with overflowing rain, and with hail-stones. I will also rain fire and brimstone upon him, and upon all his bands, and upon many nations that are with him. And I will be magnified, and glorified, and I will be known in the eyes of many nations: and they shall know that I am the Lord.’

This application of the prophecy was received with great applause, as I have said, and enhanced the estimation in which Proclus was held. Moreover the providence of God rewarded the meekness of the emperor in various other ways, one of which was the following.

Chapter XLIV.—Marriage of the Emperor Valentinian with Eudoxia the Daughter of Theodosius.

He had by the empress Eudocia, his wife, a daughter named Eudoxia. Her his cousin Valentinian, appointed by him emperor of the West, demanded for himself in marriage. When the emperor Theodosius had given his assent to this proposal, and they had consulted with each other as to the place on the frontiers of both empires, where it would be desirable that the marriage should be celebrated, it was decided that both parties should go to Thessalonica (which is about half-way) for this purpose. But Valentinian sent a message to the effect that he would not give him the trouble of coming, for that he himself would go to Constantinople. Accordingly, having secured the Western parts with a sufficient guard, he proceeded thither on account of his nuptials, which were celebrated in the consulate of Isidore and Sinator;

436 a.d.

Chapter XLV.—The Body of John Chrysostom transferred to Constantinople, and placed in the Church of the Apostles by the Emperor at the Instigation of Proclus.

Not long after this, Proclus the bishop brought back to the Church those who had separated themselves from it on account of Bishop John’s deposition, he having soothed the irritation by a prudent expedient. What this was we must now recount. Having obtained the emperor’s permission, he removed the body of John from Comana, where it was buried, to Constantinople, in the thirty-fifth year after his deposition. And when he had carried it in solemn procession through the city, he deposited it with much honor in the church termed The Apostles. By this means the admirers of that prelate were conciliated, and again associated in communion with the [catholic] Church. This happened on the 27th of January, in the sixteenth consulate of the Emperor Theodosius.

438 a.d.

Chapter XLVI.—Death of Paul Bishop of the Novatians, and Election of Marcian as his Successor.

A little while after the removal of John’s body, Paul bishop of the Novatians died, on the 21st of July, under the same consulate:

As above, 438 a.d.

Chapter XLVII.—The Empress Eudocia goes to Jerusalem; sent there by the Emperor Theodosius.

Moreover the Emperor Theodosius offered up thanksgivings to God for the blessings which had been conferred upon him; at the same time reverencing Christ with the most special honors. He also sent his wife Eudocia to Jerusalem,

On this visit of the empress to Jerusalem, see Evagrius, H. E. I. 20–23. During this visit for some reason or other—variously stated by the authors of the period—an alienation occurred between the emperor and Eudocia. See above, chap. 21, note 2.

Chapter XLVIII.—Thalassius is ordained Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia.

About this same time, under the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius,

439 a.d.

In such a flourishing condition were the affairs of the Church at this time. But we shall here close our history, praying that the churches everywhere, with the cities and nations, may live in peace; for as long as peace continues, those who desire to write histories will find no materials for their purpose. And we ourselves, O holy man of God, Theodore, should have been unable to accomplish in seven books the task we undertook at your request, had the lovers of seditions chosen to be quiet.

This last book contains an account of the transactions of thirty-two years: and the whole history which is comprised in seven books, comprehends a period of 140 years.

Evidently a round number, as he begun with the year 305 (cf. I. 1), and the exact number of years included in the history cannot be more than 135.

Part II.—Sozomen as Author.

When seized with a desire to write history, Sozomen says: “I at first felt strongly inclined to trace the course of events from the very commencement, but on reflecting that similar records of the past, up to their own time, had been compiled by those wisest of men, Clemens and Hegesippus, successors of the Apostles, by Africanus, the historian, and by Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, a man intimately acquainted with Sacred Scriptures and the writings of the Greek poets and historians, I merely drew up an epitome in two books, of all that is recorded to have happened to the churches, from the ascension of Christ to the deposition of Licinius.” This work is unfortunately lost. It was not a simple chronicle, but an abbreviated account of these events; the abridgment was probably from the authors mentioned above. The habit of succinct narration is quite in his later vein. He doubtless commingled secular with the sacred detail. It may be suggestingly asked, whether his words in ix. 1 do not give a hint of another work: “But I willingly for awhile pass over the many separate manifestations of divine favor, that were granted to the sister of the emperor, as proofs that she was loved of God, lest anybody should blame me, for having set out to do other things, and yet had turned to the use of encomiums.” This sudden arrest could not be owing to an intended resumption of such matters at a later portion of the history; for the method was already regarded as irrelevant, and the very reason for citing no more in that vein; is it not likely that he at least purposed an encomium of Pulcheria?

The attempt of Hieronymus, Wolf, Lambec, and Fenzel to ascribe Hermias’ Διασυρμὸς τῶν ἔξω φιλοσόφων (Irrisio gentilium philosophorum) to Sozomen, because of identity of name, is now held by none.

Otto, Corp. App. Vol. ix. (Migne, P. G. vi.).

(1) In the dedication, the delineation of the emperor’s culture and character discloses a man of fixity and repose; these qualities could not be ascribed to the time of his imperial majority, in his fifteenth year, nor to the time of his marriage (421); they are rather the features of settled experience; hence we would expect in general a period nearer the end of his reign, than one in the beginning or middle; certainly somewhere beyond his thirtieth year, and therefore beyond a.d. 438.

(2) Sozomen says that poets and authors, even those of prefectural dignity, as well as other subjects, celebrated the emperor. The usual literary incense was burned. Olympiodorus dedicated his history to him. Socrates was magniloquent; and more particularly did Cyrus, the friend of Eudocia, who attained the highest offices of the state from 439–441, write epigrams in praise of his monarch.

See his epigrams in Anth. Gr.

(3) In illustration of the practiced self-control of his sovereign, he narrates an incident of the royal journey in the summer heat, through Bithynia, to the fallen city of Heraclea, in Pontus,

Heraclea Pontica of the maps.

(4) The reign of Theodosius is described as above all others bloodless and pure from slaughter. This could only be moderately just, before the judicial murders connected with the jealous fits of Theodosius, from 442 on, and the united movement of outlying nations upon the East and West, as projected by the political sagacity of Attila.

(5) The professed terminus of his history is the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius: this was the year 439; hence the whole work was written after that time.

(6) The prayer at the conclusion of the proëmium may have in it a point of light; he hopes that through the favor of Christ, the imperium may be transmitted to Theodosius’ sons and grandsons. The only child born to Eudocia was a daughter, Eudoxia, who was married to Valentinian III. It was because of the lack of succession, that Pulcheria married General Marcianus. Eudocia withdrew from the court somewhere between 441–443, but that would not have had to impede the succession, had Theodosius chosen to be divorced; and this prayer rather intimates the desirability of another marriage. This, therefore, must have been written before the hope of sons was removed; certainly, therefore, before the closing years of the emperor’s reign.

(7) In Book ix, Pulcheria’s inclination to virginity is spoken of as expressed in the most solemn way, and with the consecrated gift of a table to signalize it. There is no hint in the work of the marriage with Marcian, suggested by Theodosius on his death-bed, and carried out after his demise. This would indicate that the work was completed before 450.

(8) In ix. 1, he affirms: “That new heresies have not prevailed in our times, we shall find to be due especially to her, as we shall subsequently see.” The heresies are those connected with Nestorianism, 428–444, and possibly the return of the Johannists to full communion by the triumphal restoration of Chrysostom’s remains in 438; these were to fall within the limits of his work. The Eutychean heresy in its first stage was hostile to Pulcheria’s views, while its overthrow was not effected until a year after the death of Theodosius. The close of the Nestorian controversy through the compromise was in 444, and that date would suit well with the fact of mastering the heresy at the very time he was writing this account of Pulcheria.

(9) In ix. 2, he recounts the transfer of the forty martyrs, after a public festival had been appropriately celebrated with fitting honor and pomp, with psalms, “at which I myself was present; and others who were present can also bear testimony that these things were done in the way described, for almost all of them still survive. And the event occurred much later, when Proclus governed the church of Constantinople.” Proclus was elected 434, and continued in office until his death in 447. This transfer must have taken place before 439, the proposed terminus of the history, and very likely a little while after the accession of this long-tried candidate. The time of the writing was at some considerable remove from the event itself, because of his appeal to the survivors as witnesses to the truth of his portrayal, and yet not so far, but that the most of the participants and spectators could still be appealed to. This would correspond very well with the date connected with 443, suggested by the incident in Bithynia, if we allow some interval between the writing of the dedication and Book ix.

(10) In ix. 6, the overthrow of Uldis, 406, is narrated. The settlement of the conquered Sciri as slaves and colonists is enlarged upon. Sozomen himself saw these imperial farmers at their tilling in Bithynia. This may connect itself, possibly, as to the time of the year, and place, with the emperor’s progress to Heraclea Pontica. There is evidently an interval between the capture of the Sciri, and their settled work as colonists, when Sozomen visited that region, and between that visit and the writing of the fact. If it corresponded with the imperial progress, it would of course be 443. Taking all these points together, it would seem that the work was begun about the latter part of 443; and that the dedication was written first, because that states the plan of the whole work, including the ninth book, whose record does not meet the intention, there expressed; moreover, some of the events in Book ix. indicate a considerable interval between the fact and the account of it. When he finished what he wrote, it is not so easy to tell; it would certainly take him a few years, and the end was reached before any considerable outbreak of the Eutychean heresy; therefore probably in 447, or 448, for the reason that Pulcheria did not conquer that heresy until after her marriage with Marcian; this date is supported by the fact that the breaking of her vow was unknown to the writer of ix. 1, 3; also because the Emperor Theodosius was still alive. The work was the fruit and employment of old age; the style is certainly that of an elderly man, and not that of youth or early maturity.

What were the main objects he had in view in his history?

1. He desired to present the truth with regard to the facts and their results. In i. 1, he affirms: “I will readily transcribe fully from any work that may tend to the elucidation of truth.” “Still, as it is requisite, in order to maintain historical accuracy, to pay the strictest attention to the means of eliciting truth, I felt myself bound to examine all writings of this class, according to my ability.” This is his professed purpose; however subjective or churchly his view of truth may be, we must give him the credit for the intention. In i. 1, he appeals to his readers in this wise: “Let not an impertinent or malignant spirit be imputed to me, for having dwelt upon the disputes of ecclesiastics among themselves, concerning the primacy and pre-eminence of their own heresy. In the first place, as I have already said, a historian ought to regard everything as secondary in importance to truth.” And we shall see evidences of his fairness.

2. His history is designed to be a demonstration of Christianity as from God. The vastness of the change wrought by God in the introduction and success of Christianity and the insignificant and mythical themes upon which literature had been wont to exercise itself, prompted him, with his confessed inefficiency, to undertake this line of evidence, in the conviction that God would help his believing incapacity. Hence his work is a record of immediate divine interventions, and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit; it abounds in visions, miracles, and prophecy. The celestial agents visibly direct affairs; the flow of vaticination does not cease; the power to reverse the expected order of events is not suspended. Thus, as to epiphanies of divine, angelic, or sainted beings: In i. 3, is recounted the appearance of the cross unto Constantine; and in the night during sleep, the manifestation of Christ with a cross, and the instructions given to the emperor. In ii. 1, we have a series of divine interpositions to discover the true cross, and Sozomen remarks in refutation of one explanation, “I do not think that human information is requisite, when God thinks it best to make manifest the same.” In ii. 3, the old name, Hestiæ, is changed to Michaelium, because of the reported appearance of the archangel there. The monks are favored with such direct counselors; Pachomius obeys an angel, who directs him to assemble young men for instruction; “he was frequently admitted to intercourse with the holy angels.” Apollonius yielded to direct divine advice, and withdrew from the desert to a populous region. The cross reappeared in the days of Constantius (iv. 5); Julian’s life is filled with portents (v. 1, 20, 22; vi. 2). A curious bit of speculation occurs in vi. 2; in interpreting Julian’s alleged use of his blood, he says: “I know not whether the approach of death, as is wont to be the case, when the soul is in the act of being separated from the body, and when it is enabled to behold diviner spectacles than is allotted to men, that Julian might then have beheld Christ. Few allusions have been made to this subject; and yet I dare not reject this hypothesis as absolutely false, for God often suffers still more improbable and astonishing events to take place, in order to prove that the religion named after Christ is not sustained by human energy.” Of Theodore’s confession (v. 20) he remarks: “It is said that he was afterwards asked whether he had been sensible of any pain on the rack; and that he replied he had not been entirely free from suffering, but had his pain assuaged by the attentions of a young man who had stood by him, and had wiped off the perspiration with the finest linen cloth, and supplied him with coolest water, by which he eased the inflammation and refreshed his labors. I am convinced that no man, whatever magnanimity he may possess, is capable without the special assistance of divine Power, of manifesting such entire indifference about the body.” In vi. 29, Piammon sees an angel standing near the holy table, and writing down in a book the names of the monks who were present, while he erased the names of those who were absent. Mark had the elements of the holy table administered to him by an angel (vii. 29). Malachion, while journeying with his brothers, was made invisible, and then reappeared, and pursued his way with them (vi. 32). So the portent at Hebdomas was a sign of divine favor to Theodosius the Great (vii. 24); the heavenly hosts were the real overthrowers of Gaïnas (viii. 4); Basiliscus the martyr appears to Chrysostom (viii. 28). Pulcheria’s celestial directors helps her to find the forty martyrs (ix. 2). The appearance of Zechariah to the serf pointed out the way to the discovery of the prophet’s remains (ix. 17). The demoniacal agencies are equally operant, some of which are alluded to in the above passages, but readily yield to prayer and exorcism, if not immediately overthrown by God.

For a demonstration of the same truth, miracles are wrought to effect physical cures, mental troubles, threatened dangers, casting out of demons, silencing philosophers and wordy ecclesiastics, vindicating orthodoxy, reading the thoughts of hypocrites defeating enemies, sanctifying the sacraments’ raising the dead; and they are the mighty agents for converting philosophers, Jews, pagans, and heretics. They are wrought by the hands of the eminently excellent only; the gift is associated with a high measure of grace; for example the bishops Paphnutius (i. 10) and Spyridion (i. 11) are so endowed; Alexander of Constantinople (i. 14), Eusebius of Emesa (iii. 6), Martin of Tours (iii. 14), Arsacius of Nicomedia (iv. 16), Donatus (vii. 26), Gregory of Neocæsarea (vii. 26), Theotimus of Scythia (vii. 26), Epiphanius of Salamis (vii. 27). In like manner, the monks Antony (i. 13), Amun (i. 14), Eutychianus (i. 14), Macarius the Egyptian, Apollonius, Hilarion, Julian (iii. 14), John, Copres, Helles, Apelles, Eulogius (vi. 28); Apollos, John of Diolchus, Benjamin and Pior (vi. 29). The united prayer of a congregation could effect them (vii. 5). The statue of Christ at Paneas, the fountain at Emmaus, the tree at Hermopolis (v. 21), were all miraculous centers. The spot where the Archangel Michael appeared (ii. 3), the places where the head of John the Baptist reposed (vii. 21), the tombs of monks, martyrs, and bishops,—as of Hilarion (iii. 14), Martyrius and Marcianus (iv. 3), Epiphanius (vii. 27),—were replete with restorative virtues. Sozomen had such a miracle wrought upon himself; he believed thoroughly in an uninterrupted stream of charismata; he deemed it necessary for the maintenance of the faith. He was no more credulous than Socrates, or Theodoret, or Evagrius, or Theodore. To criticise him for his belief in this respect is to forget the Christian consciousness of the age. And the historic school which seeks to eliminate the volume of testimony, in the assumption that miracles do not fall within the province of history, ignores the first law of that science, which requires the reproduction of all facts, in time and place, whatever they may be, that are affiliated with the evolution of the human will; that other older school which dismisses all ecclesiastical miracles on the a prioriassumption that these energies ceased at a time co-ordinate with the death of the Apostles, or at a point not far removed from their age, violates the spirit of induction. These miracles must be tested by evidence, and the laws of supernatural energy, and in no other way. To Sozomen and all his contemporaries the miracle appeared essential both to the proof of the divine origin of Christianity, and to offset and withstand the influence of the theurgic arts of the philosophers, such as Julianus and many of the Neoplatonists. As he remarks concerning the reply made by Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, when he silenced the philosopher by the simple authority of Christ, “It is then right to consider whether it is a greater miracle, that a man, and he a philosopher, should so easily be silenced by a word, or that a stone wall should be cleft by the power of a word, which miracle I have heard some attribute with pride to Julian, surnamed the Chaldean” (i. 18). The gift of prophecy is also represented as sustained throughout this period, and with the same logical aims in view. The monks are especially thus endowed: Antony (i. 13, vi. 5, 6), the two Macarii, Pachomius (iii. 14), Arsacius (iv. 16), John (vi. 28, vii. 22, vii. 28), Theon (vi. 28), Isaac (vi. 40); so the bishops Athanasius (iv. 10), Chrysostom and Epiphanius, rather abusively (viii. 15); so royal persons, such as the wife of Valens, passively (vi. 16), Pulcheria, directly and passively (ix. 3). The perpetuation of this charism was deemed inherently necessary for the sake of historical continuity, and to prove as well that the faith he loved had been established by God; equally was it requisite as a holy parallel whereby to gainsay the mantic spirit of Paganism; as is best illustrated in the silencing of the oracle at Daphne (v. 19), and by his reflections upon the philosopher’s tripod devised for finding the successor of Valens (vi. 35). Nor are Socrates, Theodoret, Evagrius, and others any more moderate than Sozomen in this respect.

3. Another aim of his history is to prove that Providence or the divine government is promoting the Christian faith directly. The universal order must be interpreting itself distinctly through the Church. The Father must be vindicating the good and punishing the wicked, according to the orthodox category. Sozomen’s history is as insistent in this regard as Eliphaz and his philosophic confreres. One must be able to decide infallibly in each case as to cause and effect; it is a very realistic pragmatism, and is not the exclusive property of Sozomen; it is a characteristic of all these Church historians.

There is properly enough a recognition of God in history; the sovereign will and the human will are jointly working out the world’s order, but it is the attempt to trace the cause and effect immediately and in each case, which is so repulsive and absurd. Some illustrations will show how he brings out this view. In i. 7 the comment made on Constantine’s overthrow of Licinius: “From many facts it has often appeared to me that the teaching of the Christians is supported, and its advancement secured, by the Providence of God, and not the least from what then occurred; for at the very moment that Licinius was about to persecute all the churches under him, the war in Bithynia broke out, which ended in a war between him and Constantine, and in which Constantine was so strengthened by Divine assistance, that he was victorious over his enemies by land and by sea.” More of detail comes out in the life of Athanasius. Thus in ii. 17, of his election he says: “Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, when about to depart this life, left Athanasius as his successor, in accordance, I am convinced, with the Divine will, directing the vote upon him.” And again: “He fled to escape the honor, but he was discovered in his place of concealment by the help of God, who had forecast by Divine manifestations to his blessed predecessors, that the succession was to devolve upon him.” His whole career is so viewed in v. 6. There is a large discussion of this subject in vi. 35, where he argues against the plan of pagan philosophers to foretell the future of the empire: “The philosophers, on the other hand, acted as if the deposition and restoration of emperors had depended solely on them; for if the imperial succession was to be considered dependent on the arrangement of the stars, what was requisite but to await the accession of the future emperor, whoever he might be? Or, if the succession was regarded as dependent on the will of God, what right had man to meddle? For it is not the function of human foreknowledge or zeal to understand God’s thought; nor if it were right, would it be well for men, even if they be the wisest of all, to think that they can plan better than God.” He persists in tracing a connection between God and every event in favor of mechanical goodness or orthodoxy. He follows many opponents, whether heretical or pagan, with the Divine wrath; all these historians do this,—Philostorgius, as well as Evagrius. Sozomen is not nearly so bitter or uncharitable as either of these. He is most atrabilious in the case of Julian, under whom his own family had suffered. As a consequence of this arbitrary pious pragmatism, the most deplorable incompetents are treated as the express favorites of heaven, while the larger-minded pagan or Arian is loaded with contempt. Under this law, too, the evil sides of the orthodox, and the excellences of the pagan, or Arians, are suppressed. The defeats of the Nicene emperors are not mentioned; the victories of the Anti-Nicene are passed by or belittled, while their humiliations are evidence of the impending anger of heaven. In the survey of Helena’s life (ii. 2) he says: “It seems to me that so many holy actions demanded a recompense, and indeed even in this life she was raised to the summit of magnificence.” As to Constantine, in ii. 34 he dares say: “He was more successful than any other sovereign in all his undertakings; for he formed no design, I am convinced, without God.” When Bishop Felix of Rome died, and Liberius became sole occupant of the see, he construes the fact thus: “This event was no doubt ordained by God, that the seat of Peter might not be dishonored by the occupancy of two bishops; for such an arrangement is a sign of discord, and is foreign to ecclesiastical law” (iv. 15). In all the features of Julian’s life, God is visiting him with his unappeasable anger (vi. 35, v. 21, 22, vi. 1, 2). The election of Nectarius, though it was in violation of ecclesiastical order and an accumulation of ignorant blunders, did not take place without the interposition of Divine strength (vii. 8). Theodosius is portrayed as the prime delight of heaven; thus his simple reliance upon God wins him a hopeless battle with Eugenius (vii. 24). It is so with the whole Theodosian line (viii. 1, ix. 1). Pulcheria has Divine love manifested to her in manifold ways, as does her brother, Theodosius the Younger (ix. 1, 3, 16). Even Alaric is driven by an inexplicable impulse to rebuke the luxury, debauchery, and injustice of the Romans (ix. 6). In ix. 1, he says of his own sovereign: “It appears to me that it was the design of God to show by the events of this period, that piety alone suffices for the salvation of princes; and that without piety, armies, a powerful empire, and every other resource, are of no avail. The Divine power, which is the guardian of the universe, foresaw that the emperor would be distinguished by his piety, and determined that Pulcheria, his sister, should be the protector of him and of the government.” In ix. 16, he explains his secular details in the paragraph: “This is not the proper place to enter into details concerning the deaths of the tyrants; but I considered it necessary to allude to the circumstance in order to show, that to insure the stability of imperial power, it is sufficient for an emperor to serve God with reverence, which was the course pursued by Honorius.” While of his patron he says: “It seems as if God openly manifested His favor towards the present emperor, not only by disposing of warlike affairs in an unexpected way, but also by revealing the sacred bodies of many persons who were of old most distinguished for piety.” The whole history is full of this sort of philosophy of its personages. Similarly all natural calamities and the irruption of barbarians are ethically explained, which is correct enough as a general principle; but these phenomena are punitive or vindicatory of particular deeds. Constantius’ course toward Athanasius was heralded by an invasion of the Franks, and by an earthquake in the East (iii. 6). Of Julian he says: “It is, however, very obvious that throughout the reign of this emperor, God gave manifest tokens of His displeasure and permitted many calamities to befall several of the provinces of the Roman Empire. He visited the earth with such fearful earthquakes, that the buildings were shaken, and no more safety could be found within houses than in the open air.” Then follow the inundations of the Nile; the drought and the famine in the empire, and on their heels the pestilences (vi. 2). Under Valens we read: “In the meantime although hail-storms of extraordinary magnitude fell in various places, and although many cities, particularly Nicæa in Bithynia, were shaken by earthquakes, yet Valens the emperor and Eudoxius the bishop paused not in their career, but continued to persecute all Christians who differed from them in opinion” (vi. 10). He does not make the same reflection upon Constantius, when the earthquake at Nicomedia intercepted the meeting of a council (iv. 16); Gaïnas’ attempted revolution is “pre-announced by the appearance of a comet directly over the city; this comet was of extraordinary magnitude, larger, it is said, than any that had previously been seen” (viii. 3). After Chrysostom’s exile, “hailstones of extraordinary magnitude fell at Constantinople and in the suburbs of the city. Four days afterwards, the wife of the emperor died. These occurrences were regarded by many as indications of Divine wrath, on account of the persecutions that had been carried on against John” (viii. 27).

But the earthquakes and famines and invasions that happened under Theodosius the Great and Theodosius Junior are not mentioned directly. By such unfair pragmatism Sozomen, as all his fellow-historians, sought to answer the allegations, now more directly affirmed, in the period of barbarian irruption, that the calamities were due to the desertion of the gods. Sulpicius Severus, Augustine, and Orosius built up a somewhat better apology.

4. Another object he kept before him, we will let him state in his own words: “The doctrine of the Catholic Church is shown to be especially the most genuine, since it has been tested frequently by the plots of opposing thinkers; yet, the disposal of the lot being of God, the Catholic Church has maintained its own ascendancy, has re-assumed its own power, and has led all the churches and the people to the reception of its own truth” (i. 1). Catholicity and Orthodoxy, as defined at Nicæa, are synonymous. The creed of the fathers is final. The Church which spoke in 325 and 381 is the historic and Catholic Church, and the Theodosian line is the Divinely appointed instrument for laying its foundations immovably, the others having failed. Church and State are to be indissolubly wedded. This faith is made mechanically the test of goodness and badness, and this expresses his personal belief.

He speaks of the Scriptures with uniform reverence, and holds to the θεωρία as the method of interpretation, as we see in v. 22, where he says of the Jews: “They were only acquainted with the mere letter of Scripture, and could not, like the Christians and a few of the wisest among the Hebrews, discover the hidden meaning (πρὸς θεωρίαν)”; yet he speaks with respect (viii. 2) of Chrysostom’s way of expounding the sacred records and of his “teacher Diodorus’ method, employed in the many books of that bishop,” in which he explained the significance of the sacred words and avoided allegory (θεωρία). But when bishops and monks are declared to be skilled in the Scriptures, it is in this mystical sense. His own grandfather was a solver of the amphibolies of the Word, doubtless by this convenient key (v. 5).

The dogmatic standpoint, as we have seen, was traditionalism, toward which the Church gravitated under the dictation of the councils, the influence of bishops like Athanasius, the almost uniform ictus of the Roman see, Ambrose, the Gregories, Basil the Great, Ephraim, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, the majority of monks, and finally the whole force of the State. He opposes all shades of Arianism, as also Apolinarianism; had he completed his work, from what he says of Pulcheria’s conquest over heresies, he would have opposed the Nestorian views of the Theotokos. But of Donatism and Cyprianism he has not a word. Of the anthropological struggles of the West there is not a syllable. Here is the place, also, to consider his attitude toward heresies. Sozomen does not assail any phase of Arianism with the intemperate epithets which Eusebius employed to condemn the earlier innovators, or such as abound in Theodoret and Evagrius and later historians. Indeed, he sometimes calls them Christians and members of the Catholic Church. His treatment of the Novatians, while a little offish, is yet generous as compared with other writers, except Socrates, from whom he obtains almost all their history; he devotes much space; he is generally courteous in tone; and when he speaks of the proposed union (iv. 2) between the Catholic Church and that body of believers, he omits the cause of the failure; viz., the reluctance of some legalistic Novatians to acquiesce,—a point which Socrates does not fail to expose. He mentions Montanism (Phrygianism) several times, but with no new facts, save that they were numerous in Phrygia in his day, and had peculiar Paschal usages (i. 6, ii. 18, 32, vii. 18, 19). Of the Gnostic sects, he alludes to the Valentinians only, whose conventicles were repressed by an edict of Constantius (ii. 32). The Manichæans are mentioned only as they are one of the three sects excepted from Gratian’s law of toleration (vii. 1). Of the Pricillianists, whose attempt at a world religion falls so wholly within his time, he says nothing. The Quartodecimanians are still numerous and tenacious (vii. 18). He has a bare allusion to the Encratites (v. 11). Of the Origenistic controversy, he has no more to say than he is compelled to, in order to state correctly the conflict between Theophilus and Chrysostom. Over against the Origenists he places the Anthropomorphists (viii. 12). Of Lucifer’s separatism, he gives only the rise (iii. 15). With all his emphatic adherence to the current orthodoxy, he must be regarded as the most charitable of historians next to Socrates. Mention has already been made of his kindly disposition toward the Novatians. When writing fully and favorably, as was his duty, about Aëtius (iii. 15), he is constrained to make an apology: “Let it not be accounted strange if I have bestowed commendations upon the leaders or enthusiasts of the above-mentioned heresies. I admire their eloquence and their impressiveness in discourse: I leave their doctrines to be judged by those whose prerogative it is.”

On the one hand, we find him insisting on the right of private judgment, as when he discusses the overruling Providence in Julian’s life, and especially on the infatuation which led the emperor to Persia in spite of Sallust (vi. 1): “This observation, however, is only inserted lest I should be blamed for omitting it. I leave every one to form his own opinion.” So, after discussing the use of penance, he remarks in the following chapter (vii. 17): “Such subjects as the above, however, are best left to the decision of individual judgment.” He would also allow latitude in ceremonials (vii. 19), as we shall see. On the other hand, he dreads the progressive and unsettling outcome of the private judgment in exercise. He expresses this fear in iv. 27: “The spirit of innovation is self-laudatory; hence it advanced farther and farther, and crept along to greater novelties. With increasing self-conceit, and in scorn of the fathers, it enacted laws of its own. Nor does it honor the doctrine of the ancients concerning God, but is always excogitating strange dogmas and restlessly adds novelty to novelty, as the events now show.”

Of the threatening strategies of free thought in his own day, he devoutly exclaimed: “That new heresies have not prevailed in our times, we shall find to be due especially to her” (Pulcheria) (ix. 1). Consequently he deprecates the deleterious influence of polemics. On the accession of Jovian, he says: “The presidents of the churches now resumed the agitation of doctrinal questions and discussions. They had remained quiet during the reign of Julian, when Christianity itself was endangered, and had unanimously offered up their supplications for the mercy of God. It is thus that men, when attacked by foreign enemies, remain in accord among themselves; but when external troubles are removed, then internal dissensions creep in” (vi. 4 and in vi. 25).

“Thus do the private animosities of the clergy from time to time greatly injure the Church and divide religion into many heresies! And this is a proof; for had George, like Theodotus, received Apolinarius, on his repentance, into communion, I believe that we should never have heard of the heresy that bears his name. Men are prone, when loaded with opprobrium and contempt, to resort to rivalries and innovations; whereas, when treated with justice, they become moderate and remain in the same position.” More emphatic still is his protest in vi. 26: “Those varying dogmas are the source of innumerable troubles to religion, and many are deterred from embracing Christianity by the diversity of opinion which prevails in matters of doctrine.” In the beginning of this same chapter, in speaking of the Eunomians, he delineates them thus: “They do not applaud a good course of life or manner of conduct, or mercy towards the needy, unless exhibited by persons of their own sect, so much as skill in disputation and the power of triumphing in debates.” This is a great blow at the sectores cymini, and at pride in polemics; the whole tone is much more liberal than that of the ecclesiastic Theodoret, or even the lawyer Evagrius. Sozomen, like Socrates, represents a generous feeling current among the laymen of Constantinople in court and among the trades and professions. The attitude of the Catholic Church with regard to baptism he sets forth adequately as trivial, and argues against the Eunomian innovation of one baptism and a change in the formula (vi. 21): “But whether it was Eunomius or any other person who first made these innovations upon the tradition of baptism, it seems to me that such innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in danger, according to their own representation, of quitting this life without having received Divine baptism.” The argument here is an unusually long one; with his generation he held to the magical efficacy of the rite. The theory of the sacraments as mysteries or arcane, was one which controlled him throughout, and even limited his fidelity as a historian. Thus in i. 20: “I thought it necessary to reproduce the very document (the Nicene Creed) concerning these matters, as an example of the truth, in order that posterity might possess in a fixed and clear form, the symbol of that faith which proved pacifying at the time; but since some pious friends who understood such matters, recommended that these truths ought to be spoken of and heard by the initiated and their initiators only, I agreed with their counsel: for it is not unlikely that some of the uninitiated may read this book: while I have concealed such of the prohibited material as I ought to keep silent about, I have not altogether left the reader ignorant of the opinions held by the Synod.” Nor will he repeat the symbol as subjoined to the letter of the council of Antioch (vi. 4); and when the Macedonian commission to Liberius make their statement, and the text is given to show their entire acceptance of the Nicene view, Sozomen will not reproduce it. Again in vi. 29, Mark was a monk of “such eminent piety, that Macarius himself, the presbyter of Celliæ, declared that he had never given to him what priests present to the initiated at the holy table; but that an angel, administering it to him, whose hand up to the forearm, he declared himself to have seen.” In viii. 5, in giving the account of a marvelous judgment wrought on a Macedonian wife, who pretended to be a convert to the Nicene views, and thus frequented the orthodox ceremony of the Supper, he remarks, “At the time of the celebration of the mysteries (the initiated will understand what I mean), this woman kept what was given her, and held down her head as if engaged in prayer.” In reciting the disturbances at the Easter celebration over the decree of exile against Chrysostom (viii. 21), he says: “They were charged with the commission of such disorderly acts as can be readily conceived by those who have been admitted to the mysteries, but which I consider it requisite to pass over in silence, lest my work should fall into the hands of the uninitiated.” Here we have a glimpse of the scope of the arcane as well as the weakness of the historian in submitting to the advice of narrow friends; no other historian felt bound to restrict himself in such matters. Sozomen here joined the most extreme sacramentarians of his day. On the weighty matter of discipline, he believes with the Catholic Church in receiving back the penitent into the Church, against Novatian and Donatistic practices. He expresses his opinion at some length, though not so fully as Socrates, in the chapter which relates to the abolition of the penitential presbyter (vii. 16): “Impeccability is a Divine attribute, and belongs not to human nature; therefore God has decreed that pardon should be extended to the penitent even after many transgressions. As in supplicating for pardon, it is requisite to confess the sin, it seems probable that the priests, from the beginning, considered it irksome to make this confession in public, before the whole assembly of the people. They appointed a presbyter of the utmost sanctity and the most undoubted prudence, to act on those occasions: the penitents went to him and confessed their transgressions; and it was his office to indicate the kind of penance adapted to each sin, and then when satisfaction had been made, to pronounce absolution.” He deplores the abolition of the office as the occasion of laxity. The deterrent force of public confession was now lost, and that to the danger of Christian conduct. He sympathizes also with that form of martyrdom which wantonly and ruthlessly assails paganism and is slain in the attempt. The system of relic-worship, so characteristic of any decline of opportunity for heroic action, had set in overwhelmingly, and he believed in it vigorously. Our own age reproduces the same tendency not only in religious, but in secular forms, and among Protestants as well. Thus he commemorates: of Old Testament prophets, Micah and Habakkuk (vii. 29), Zechariah (ix. 17); of the preparatory period, the head of John the Baptist (vii. 21); of the Apostolic Church, St. Stephen (vii. 29, ix. 16); of the martyrs, Babylas (v. 19), Forty Soldiers (ix. 2); of the monks, Hilarion (iii. 14), the four brothers (vii. 9). The most prominent of secondary relics is the cross with its inscriptions and nails (ii. 1). The discovery of these is mainly through prayer and heavenly signs; their possession is an object of imperial ambition; the removal and transportation of them are effected with most gorgeous and reverent pomp; and the sacred treasures become the agents of endless miracles.

Sozomen, like Socrates and Chrysostom, believes in freedom as to old-time ceremonials. He has a chapter on the varieties of religious usage (vii. 19); and the record is largely the result of his own inquiry. He remarks in conclusion: “Many other customs are still to be observed in cities and villages; and those who have been brought up in their observance would, from respect to the great men who instituted and perpetuated these customs, consider it wrong to abolish them. Similar motives must be attributed to those who observe different practices in the celebration of the fast, which has led us into this long digression.” From his point of view, uniformity may not encroach upon individualism beyond a certain point. He is certainly quietly and with dignity attacking a party of narrow uniformitarians, who are already pressing for a harmony of all ceremonials in Christendom.

Another feature of the Catholic system that he traces carefully, is the relation between Church and Empire. He devotes more attention to this aspect of polity than to its internal development; this latter he touches upon incidentally, and not at all carefully. We have seen how painstakingly he cites the imperial edicts with regard to the Church. The state laws, which at first expressed conciliar decisions, were followed by independent imperial enactments. These, indeed, are at first sporadic, but become more and more the rule. The personal views of Sozomen appear in the narrative, but they are fluctuating. He acquiesces in the imperial convocation of councils, as do all his cotemporaries. On the death of Constantine, in commenting upon the hereafter fixed Christian character of the state, he says: “The sacerdotal dignity is not only equal in honor to imperial power, but in sacred places even takes the ascendancy” (ii. 34). With the plan of producing uniformity of religion in the empire, he seems to sympathize (iv. 11). He is indignant at Julian’s indifference to the murder of Zeno by the inhabitants of Gaza, and at the deprivations of the Christians, when all their political and personal rights were taken from them (v. 9). To the charge of Libanius, that the man who aimed the dart at Julian was a Christian, and belonged to the race of habitual transgressors of the law, Sozomen replies by defending the regicide: “In the documents above quoted, Libanius clearly states that the emperor fell by the hand of a Christian; and this probably was the truth. It is not unlikely that some of the soldiers who then served in the Roman army might have conceived the idea, since Greeks and all men until this day have praised tyrannicides, for exposing themselves to death in the cause of liberty, and spiritedly standing by their country, their families, and their friends. Still less is he deserving of blame, who for the sake of God and of religion, performed so bold a deed” (vi. 2). This is the highest stand that a lawyer could take in support of individualism. In his view of the exalted prerogatives of the Church, the reply of Valentinian to the bishops, who desired to hold a council, would seem happy. “I am but one of the laity, and have, therefore, no right to interfere in these transactions; let the priests, to whom such matters appertain, assemble where they please” (vi. 7). Theodosius’ compulsory course with regard to paganism and orthodoxy, and the choice of Nectarius, are approved. On the other hand, he selected two instances out of many from the life of Ambrose, for the purpose of illustrating how, in God’s behalf, that bishop conducted himself towards those in power (vii. 25).

Throughout we find him recognizing the practical headship of Rome; he expresses himself unconsciously in vi. 22, “The question having been thus decided by the Roman Church, peace was restored and the inquiry ended.” This ignores the action of the Synod of Alexandria and that of Constantinople itself, for both had decreed the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit and opposed the christology of Apolinarius, prior to the action of the Roman Synod. The power delegated to Julius by the council of Sardica (iii. 8), the conflict between the East and the West conducted in mutually arrogant epistles (iii. 10), the subordination of new to old Rome (vii. 9), show the drift toward concentration. Sozomen does not seem to understand the rival movements of Alexandria under Athanasius and Theophilus; nor the Eastern imperial attempts to elevate Constantinople to the supremacy, nor the mutterings of Antiochan jealousy.

The Church’s servility toward the orthodox rulers is fairly expressed, and yet with comparative moderation, by Sozomen. He is an apologist for Constantine, and reflects, as do all the historians, and especially Evagrius in his criticism of Zosimus, the adulations and subterfuges of Eusebius. The religious fluctuation of that emperor is masked; his crimes are suppressed; he is made to appear orthodox, even when at his worst Eusebian stage. No wonder that Philostorgius charged the Homoöusians with worshiping Constantine as a god in the ceremonies connected with his image! Constantius, a vacillating, cruel, incompetent, is also apologized for, but to the damage of his intelligence. Julian, for his years in some respects, one of the most promising and earnest rulers of ancient times, is loaded with obloquy, his highest motives and ideals ridiculed, his victories belittled, his death savagely exulted in. Jovian’s and Valentinian’s toleration are not understood, but their personal orthodoxy is in so far praised. Valens is looked at through the eyes of his two fierce Cappadocian assailants. His excellences are entirely ignored; the most inconsequent views are imputed to him while attempting to glorify Basil; in the sad story of the emperor’s dying son, that bishop appears as a brute in his treatment of the agonized father. The stories of heroism attributed to the orthodox are only examples of insufferable insolence; one must marvel at the patience of Valens, if there be any truth in them. Gratian, that beau-ideal of Western orthodoxy, was really a nose of wax in the hands of Ambrose; he was esteemed more moderately by the East, and that rather for having called Theodosius to a share in the throne, than for any quality in himself; but his utter moral collapse, after the magnificent promise of his youth, is wholly veiled from sight. Theodosius the Great is glorified, not for his superior statecraft and generalship, but for his efforts to suppress paganism and heresy. The charges against his private life such as Eunapius and Zosimus suggest, are not hinted at. He is a man of prayer and visions, a relic-worshiper, and a persecutor of pagans and Arians. Great as he certainly was, his distinguishing and conspicuous qualities are passed by. His pitiful children, Arcadius and Honorius, the sorriest quidnuncs of those stormy times, are heroes of piety. Pulcheria, excellent as she was, was not worthy of the excessive flattery poured out upon her; while Anthemius, Troïlus, Valerianus, and other noble figures of the day are passed by. The younger Theodosius, with his good training and generally fair endeavor, is delineated in the dedication as the consummate man of all time, while he is a very third-rate soul at best. The eulogies by Socrates (vii. 22 and 42) are just as fulsome. This was the grave sin of the State Church; the Arian State Church did the same for Constantius and Valens; more and more as history reveals the truth concerning many of those idols, does the revulsion increase against a union of two functions which could so degrade both.

The relation of Church and State involves the question of persecution. It is not the history of the endeavor to enforce uniformity, with which we shall concern ourselves, but rather the views Sozomen sets forth, as to the policy of repression. The laws of Constantine suppressing heretics did not affect the Novatians (ii. 32), concerning which justice, he remarks: “The emperor, I believe, willingly relaxed the rigor of the enactment in their favor, for he only desired to strike terror into the minds of his subjects, and had no intention of persecuting them.” The punishments inflicted in Constantius’ time on the orthodox in Constantinople, both by Macedonius (iv. 23) and Eudoxius (iv. 26), call forth this reflection: “For, if the persecution did not occasion such tortures to the body as preceding ones, it appeared more grievous to all who reflected aright, on account of its disgraceful nature, for both the persecutors and the persecuted belonged to the Church; and the one was all the more disgraceful in that men of the same religion treated their fellows with a degree of cruelty which the ecclesiastical laws prohibit to be manifested towards enemies and strangers.” He spares himself the pain of registering all who were ejected from their sees (iv. 27), for no province was without its list of sufferers. The cruelties inflicted by George on pagan and orthodox, furnish a mournful narrative (iv. 30). On the elevation of Julian, a great dread fell upon the Christian world, intensified by the portents which befell him. The series of edicts soon wrought mutual dissension in the Christian ranks, as well as suffering from without. But while Sozomen attributes the refinements of cruelty to Julian, and lays the miseries of the saints at his door as parts of a subtle plan, he nevertheless cannot conceal from himself the absence of direct interference on the part of the State; these calamities were the results of a restoration of the old religion to its ancient union with the State; it was an imperial act; and he is compelled to confess the seeming magnanimity of Julian in certain cases, but even then maligns his motives. The imperial clemency did not arise from any feeling of compassion, but because persecution would only increase the number of Galilean adherents; because he was envious of their glory, did he resort to argument instead of cruelty, and manifest an unexpected benevolence instead of proceeding to rigorous measures (v. 4, 5). “It may be concluded from what has been said, that if Julian shed less blood than preceding persecutors of the Church, and that if he devised fewer punishments for the torture of the body, yet that he was severer in other respects.” Nevertheless, this statement is followed by a record of suffering in all quarters of the empire and the impression of purposed directness is given, as if the State had inflicted them, especially when we read that the emperor would not listen to the cautions of Sallust (v. 20). He does not comment on Jovian’s toleration, but only rejoices in the return of the Church to ascendancy. Unsparing is his picture of the dastardly measures of Valens against the professors of the faith; he regards that persecutor as the special victim of Divine wrath; while, on the other hand, he does not hesitate to call the Arian Goths, who fell under the anger of Athanaric, martyrs (vi. 37). He does not express an opinion as to the partial toleration of Gratian’s edict (vii. 1); but in explanation of Theodosius’ law forbidding heretics, i.e. all anti-Nicenists, from holding churches and from exercising any clerical function, he says: “Great as were the punishments adjudged by the laws against heretics, they were not always carried into execution; for the emperor had no desire to persecute his subjects; he only desired to enforce uniformity of view about God’ through the medium of intimidation. Those who voluntarily renounced heretical opinions, received commendation from him.” And it is true that the court practice of persecuting emperors, orthodox or Arian, was utterly in the teeth of their own edicts, and their most intimate counselors were elected without regard to religion. When Justina sought to revive the Arian standard in the West, her treatment of Ambrose is called persecution (vii. 13); but Ambrose’s intolerant procedures against the Arians are not even noticed. No quizzical wrinkle disturbs the flow of his narrative in vii. 15, when Theodosius I. gives a heathen temple to the Christians, and the pagans resolve to defend their rights, and do so effectually; but the Christians who perish in that hateful conflict are crowned as martyrs by an imperial edict! For the religious tyranny of Theodosius the Great he is a warm apologist, and disguises the perversion of that principle of freedom for which he pleads most earnestly, when the Arians hold the reins of power, and abuse their opportunity. The contradictions are perfectly apparent and irreconcilable, because uniformity by force has always been impossible. Yet logical men will state the most contradictory reasons, which no quidnunc can refrain from laughing at. Themistius’ plea for toleration (vi. 36) in matters of intellectual belief, on the ground of secular diversities in philosophy and from the incomprehensible nature of God, shows the existence of a party who believed in this principle. While Sozomen gives it place, and hailed the Gothic Arians who compelled Valens to cease his oppressions, he has no word of approbation for the proposition or the argument.

5. Another design of his history is stated in i. 1: “I have had to deliberate whether I ought to confine myself to the recital of events connected with the Church under the Roman government; but it seemed more advisable to include, as far as possible, the record of transactions relative to religion among the Persians and barbarians.” He regards Christianity as the universal and sole religion, and would trace its extension in all directions. Hence he is the first historian to give us a larger account of religion in Syria and Palestine, introducing us especially to some aspects of Christian life and suffering in Edessa; we are all the more surprised to have no mention of the Church in Africa, and so very little of the Church in the West, except when it comes into close relations with the East, as in the larger controversies, and especially after Arianism threatened to keep its hold upon the Byzantine section of the empire; and the Orient had to cry to the cold and unsympathetic Occident for help, and often in vain. He is also careful to give us some, if not a very original, account of the work of missions. He repeats the story of the Iberians, Armenians, Indians, Saracens, and Goths. He gives us a larger insight into Persia; the errors with which he is charged as swarming, are no more numerous than those of his cotemporaries. Of the large work of Theophilus of Dhu, or the extension of Arianism among the Germanic tribes, he says nothing. Chrysostom’s real missionary enterprises are passed by, excepting his expenditure of the funds furnished by Olympias for the redemption and restoration of Isaurian captives (viii. 27). His reflections on the methods of Church extension are more interesting and numerous. Thus, in ii. 5, of the attempt of Constantine to abolish idolatry and introduce the faith, Sozomen says, “Soldiers were not necessary; the courtiers effected it”; he does not consider it advisable to give all the details as to all the lands then won to the state religion. The barbarians he notices as converted through the instrumentality of Christian captives (ii. 6, 7). Armenian influence carried Christianity into Persia (ii. 8). Prodigies, too, are helpful agents (vi. 5, v. 22). The hieroglyphs and crux-symbols discovered in the Egyptian temples led to the repentance of pagans (vii. 15). Sometimes a kingdom will solicit the instruction of an orthodox monk, as in the case of the Saracens (vi. 38). The legal suppressions of paganism facilitate a change of sentiment on the part of many (vii. 15). The very ambitions of their clergy led numbers of the Arians to embrace Nicene views (vii. 17); and the doctrinal discussions among heretics constrain others to embrace a more uniform system of belief (viii. 1). The efficiency of the monks as evangelists is found in nearly all the biographies of them. On the other hand, he makes confession to the baleful effects of incessant indulgence in polemics. “These varying dogmas are the sources of innumerable troubles to religion; and many are deterred from embracing Christianity by the diversity of opinion which prevails in matters of doctrine” (vi. 26). This thought of universality, then, is a feature of his history.

6. Another design is to dignify monasticism as the true ethical ideal and goal of Christianity,—as the philosophy which is to supplant all the ancient intellectual strivings of reason,—and he announces this purpose as follows: “Nor is it foreign to ecclesiastical history to introduce in this work an account of those who were the fathers and originators of what is denominated monachism, and of their immediate successors, whose celebrity is well known to us either by observation or report. For I would neither be considered ungracious towards them, nor willing to consign their virtue to oblivion, nor yet be thought ignorant of their history; but would wish to leave behind me such a record of their manner of life that others, led by their example, might attain to a blessed and happy end” (i. 1). He is here quietly resisting a school of Christians and politicians who were opposed to the absorbing and destructive qualities of this manner of life; Athanasius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Chrysostom, had to write in its defense for the same reason, and he sided with these supporters of its virtues, very naturally. He is a full believer in the Divine philosophy which nurtured him; monasticism with its practical strivings after conformity to the Divine-human Pattern, and its attempt to enthrone the spiritual over the material has a zealous defender in him, of all its rapt and grotesque forms. He determined therefore to make it a unique portion of his history. The discussion of its aims in i. 12 will give us a clue to his own desire to represent it as almost the resultant force in the progress of the Divine kingdom; one reads the historian’s responsive feeling between the lines. This philosophy was the most useful thing received by man from God; it was superior to all other knowledge, and warranted the neglect of all worldly science; it strove to eliminate the adiaphora from ethics, and to make everything have a moral complexion; one must be doing good, or else he is doing evil. Its great duties are the discipline of self, the worship of the Creator, and the cultivation of a spirit of other-worldness. These canons and goals are the life of the system. It is the philosophy which is to take the place of the old theoretical schemes; and it is the great school to fill up the gap made by the decay of the Hellenic universities. The Christian university founded by Theodosius in Sozomen’s day, was indeed a blow to this educational ideal. While we may have no accord with his view of this ethical phenomenon, we must concede him the merit of discerning its significance and intent, and allow that he was wise to give us so full an account of its elaboration, and so much detail and scrap of biography; for it was a dominant element in the history of this time. It formed men and measures. The reproach of Sozomen on this score is wholly a mistake; he has done us capital service in not neglecting this element, otherwise we could have but little conception of its historical setting, of its patience, its tireless devotion, and we would have to resort to Palladius or Rufinus and the individual biographies. Moreover, it is an uncritical spirit which recoils from dissecting the awful and often repulsive details of legalistic self-denial. After discoursing on the local origin of monasticism and the forms it assumed, we have chapters containing brief sketches of hermits, laurists, and cœnobites (i. 12, 13, 14, iii. 14). The people looked to the monks for the color of their theology (iv. 10). Arianism felt its weakness without them and ineffectually sought their suppression (vi. 20). The Nicene faith uniformly received the support of these communities (vi. 27), to which they remained devoted under all persecutions. Another series of biographies follows in vi. 28–34: Theophilus (viii. 12) has a preliminary struggle with them to carry forward his plots against John. The royal court itself under Pulcheria’s leadership reflected its severe discipline (ix. 13). Sozomen seems also to have studied the rules of various bodies, some of whose details he gives, and indulges in a sort of comparative study of their regulations (vi. 30). Yet with all his implied admiration of the heroes of this system, who went to the almost extreme of abstinence, he remarks in reviewing the discipline of Theotimus (vii. 26): “I consider it to be the part of the philosopher to yield to the demand of these appetites from necessity, and not from the love of sensual gratification.” It is to be noted that he omits for the most part the immoral forms of monasticism, such as Evagrius gives us a highly rhetorical account of.

7. A more subordinate aim is to present selected secular matters so-called; he does not consider these to be wholly foreign to the scope of his work. He handles such with considerable largeness in Constantine’s life, and keeps up a thread under Constantius and Julian. He is more sparing until he reaches Arcadius and Honorius, and the chapters 3–15 of Book ix. are largely devoted to the Western struggles with usurpers.

8. A final and subordinate aim is the development of imperial law with regard to the Church; he gives little of purely synodical canons, but remarks, “I consider it necessary, however, to mention the laws enacted for the honor and consolidation of religion, as they constitute a considerable portion of ecclesiastical history.” And in the next chapter, “Having arrived at this point of my history, it would not be right to omit all mention of the laws passed in favor of those individuals in the churches, who had received their freedom” (i. 9). We have already seen how continuously this plan is sustained.

His Method. 1. He is conscious of certain limitations, and expresses them frankly. (a) A modest estimate of his own powers (Proemium, i. 1). (b) The excess of material compels him to a constant process of selection (ii. 3, 5, 14, iii. 14, 15, 16, iv. 4, 27, vii. 17, 28, ix. 1. (c) A sense of incapacity to handle some aspects of doctrine (vii. 17). (d) An occasional insufficiency of data to state a positive conclusion (iv. 2, viii. 16).

2. He acknowledges the need of research, and presents his ideal purpose in i. 7: “I shall record the transactions with which I have been connected, and also those concerning which I have heard from persons who knew or saw the affairs in our own day, or before our own generation. But I have sought for records of events of earlier date amongst the established laws appertaining to religion, amongst the proceedings of the Synods of the period, amongst the innovations that arose, and in the epistles of kings and priests.” His recurring intention was to reproduce the documents just as they were, but he finally decided to epitomize their contents and to present the entire instrument, only when the state of controversy compelled it in order to fairness. The difficulty in the way of consulting these sources lay in the fact of their dispersion in palaces, churches, and the private libraries of the erudite. He anticipates criticism by acknowledging that contradictions are likely to appear in his work, not from any fault of his own, but because of the partisan and arbitrary nature of the documents; he ingenuously confesses that men’s passions and conceptions have shaped many of these writings, and that the factious spirit has often been guilty of the willful omission of material, which was not of its side. He distinctly avers that he felt it his duty to examine all writings of this class according to his ability. Such was his intention. If now we turn to his actual methods, we can group his ways of accumulating material, somewhat as follows:—

(a) His own observation by hearing or sight, and hence knowing, as in ii. 3; vii. 19, 28.

(b) By obtaining a personally clear knowledge, the medium being undefined, as in the election of Maximus to be bishop of Jerusalem, and Macarius’ sympathy therewith; here his better information was probably due to his Palestinian origin. ᾽Ιστέον μέντοι ὡς οἱ τάδε ἠκριβωκότες, κατὰ γνώμην Μακαρίου γενέσθαί τε καὶ σπουδασθῆναι τῷ πλήθει ταῦτα, ἰσχυρίζονται (ii. 20). As to Serapion and Severianus τὰ μὲν ὧδε ἔγνων (viii. 10). As to Zechariah, where the same phrase occurs (ix. 17). At the close of a universal review of monasticism τάδε ἔγνων ὡς συνέγραψα (iii. 14). As to the Syrian and Persian monks εἰς γνῶσιν ἐμὴν ἦλθον (vi. 34). ᾽Αλλὰ τὰ μὲν ἀφηγησάμην ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μοι μαθεῖν ἐξεγένετο, περὶ τῶν τότε ἐκκλησιαστικῶν φιλοσόφων (vi. 35).

(c) By hearing from those who knew the facts ἅπερ παρὰ ἀκριβῶς ἐπισταμένων ἀκήκοα (ii. 21). As to Arsacius: οἳ παρὰ τῶν ᾽Αρσάκιον αὐτὸν θεασαμένων ἀκηκοέναι ἔφασαν (iv. 16). As to the mutual prophecies of Epiphanius and John κἀκεῖνον δὲ εἰσέτι νῦν πολλῶν ὄντα τὸν λόγον ἐπυθόμην (viii. 15). As to Atticus: καὶ τὸν μὲν τοιόνδε γενέσθαι φασὶν, οἵ γε τὸν ἄνδρα ἔγνωσαν (viii. 27).

(d) The correction of a false story by inquiring of trustworthy persons. Thus as to the origin of the Apocalypse of Paul. ᾽Ερομένῳ δέ μοι περὶ τούτου, ψεῦδος ἔφησεν εἶναι Κίλιξ (vii. 19). As to an accusation against John: τούτου δὲ πρόφασιν ἑτέραν λέγειν οὐκ ἔχω, πλὴν ὅτι ἀψευδής τις οἶμαι πυθανομένῳ περὶ τούτου ἔφη, κ.τ.λ. (viii. 9). The true and twofold causes of difficulty between Theophilus and Isadore: τῶν γε μὴν συγγενομένων τούτοις τότε τοῖς μοναχοῖς ἀνδρὸς οἵου πιστεύεσθαι ἐπυθόμην, κ.τ.λ (viii. 12).

(e) To these may be added the very frequent usage of πυνθάνομαι as a means of expressing his knowledge acquired in any form whatsoever, by hearing, by inquiry, by tradition (i. 21, ii. 8, iii. 14, iv. 25, v. 2, 9, vi. 2 bis, 17, 34 bis, 37, vii. 8, 15, 17, 20, 21, 25, viii. 2, 7, 9, 19).

(f) Also his use of ἀκριβόω, showing his effort to attain accurate information, and ἰσχυρίζομαι less frequently, to indicate the strongest confirmation. Both these are used with reserve, and not lightly. Several times he acknowledges his resort to tradition, when he uses the word παρειλήφαμεν, but we cannot always be sure of the form of transmission (iii. 15, 30, vi. 38).

(g) Also his reference to those who had more accurate information, or to works whose detail he could not reproduce, or which lay without the province of history (iv. 3).

We see then an ideal and actual plan of research, and a real effort at personal investigation; to deny his frequently iterated language, is to accuse him of deliberate falsehood; and this is palpably unfair; this his honest purpose and work must be borne in mind, in the discussion of his relation to Socrates.

3. As to method in textual criticism, there is none; we find variations in the texts quoted from those of Socrates, Athanasius, and Theodoret, but no more in him than in the rest from one another. When he reports Constantine’s speech, he treats it as Thucydides did the orations of his worthies, and as the high-flying Eusebius and the indiscriminating Theodoret do. When he copies a translation from the Greek, he simply says that he gives it just as he found it. On the whole, one is surprised at so fair an agreement in the readings of the documents.

4. There is an entire lack of genuine analytical criticism; the love of allegory (i. 1, ii. 1), the credence given to the Christic sections of Josephus (i. 1), the unquestioning acceptance of Eusebius’ turgid statements about Constantine’s life, are proofs enough of its absence; and yet Sozomen was careful to present the variety of accounts, so that one might have all points of view, if he did not carefully sift the evidence. This is indeed quite a marked feature of his method. Thus concerning the death of Arius, he gives five different views (ii. 29, 30). He states carefully the varying shades of opinion concerning Marcellus (ii. 33). The two classes of views of the election of Macedonius are recorded and skillfully weighed (iii. 3). The divisions of sentiment after the Synods of Sardica and Philippopolis are accurately grouped (iii. 13). Other instances occur in iii. 14, 18, 23, v. 2, 22, vi. 2, 12, 26, vii. 5, 22. These are but a selection of what is habitual with him, and show a desire to present all sides of a question, and to reflect the divergent convictions of his time about men and measures; but he does not always try to find the just opinion and weigh the testimony; he never tests the validity of his documents, and only a few times tries to decide between clashing judgments, as to which of them rests on a solid foundation of testimony. It is, however, to his credit, when he confesses that his research is baffled, as in iv. 2, with respect to the manner of Paul’s death, or suspends his judgment, because the data are insufficient, as in the application to the empress, of Chrysostom’s homily on female peccadilloes (viii. 6). Such language shows that he not only sought to ascertain the truth, but to elicit the facts out of conflicting testimony. We may not always think the game worth the powder, but the temper and intent are commendable.

5. Sozomen has a marked zeal for interpreting the events of history; and we can gather these hints of histories, although they do not seem to have been defined as principles in his own mind.

(a) He criticises by the rules of traditionalism and monasticism; we find small men given undue prominence, and large ones put far below their proper place (iv. 6, 9, 28, v. 7, 12, vi. 17, 26, vii. 12).

(b) He seems to have regarded it his occasional duty to explain the moral intent of a period, of the lives of men, of a special incident; in other words, he used history reflectively and ethically (viii. 4, 12, 17).

(c) He is fertile in suggesting motives for which he has no documentary warrant. The entire history of Julian is replete with the insinuation of mean motives (ὥς συμβάλλω). The solitary commendation of him for lowering the price of provisions in Antioch (v. 19) is only a ground for holding him up to ridicule for want of judgment (iii. 5, 15, v. 2, 4, 5, 11, 19, 15, 22, vi. 12).

(d) He deems it necessary to apologize for his favorites if they are in a questionable position (iii. 18, v. 6, viii. 1).

(e) He thinks it right to give recognition to men or measures who have enlisted his admiration (vii. 10).

(f) He traces cause and effect in a pragmatic way (vi. 16, 38).

(g) He delights in taking prominent figures of a period as the remarkable men who have created a remarkable time, and are Divine instruments, or as objects of Divine protection on account of their piety (iii. 13, 19, iv. 16, v. 13, vi. 17, 26, 27, viii. 3, 4, 6).

(h) He dwells at times on characteristics of human nature at play (vi. 4, 26).

(i) He gives a favorable explanation of the bad actions of the orthodox (iv. 16).

(j) He sometimes introduces speculative explanations or reflections (vi. 2, 4, 37, viii. 5).

6. Chronological method. (1) The imperial reigns are taken as the great periods for the books, and the material is distributed under them; no dates are given, only the names of the emperors. This is stated in the proëmium, and is carried out in the history. (2) He uses the consulates—

(a) To mark the beginning and the end of the entire history.

(b) Also occasionally to indicate the synchronous occupants of the apostolic sees (i. 2); the convocation of a council (iii. 12, 19, iv. 6, 17, vii. 12); the enthronement of a bishop (iv. 26); the death of an emperor (vii. 29, ix. 1); some general but important event (vii. 5, viii. 4).

(c) With this the corresponding year of the emperor is sometimes but rarely given.

(d) Another conspicuous chronological system with Sozomen, as in Eusebius, Socrates, and the church historians in general, is to keep up the roll of succession in the greater sees. This had become an essential note of the visible and Catholic Church.

(e) Occasionally intervals are indicated as so many years after such and such an event (iii. 5, 11, 12, iv. 1, ix. 1).

(f) The length of a reign or of an episcopate, the duration of the life of an emperor or bishop, and of a tendential period are stated, but not often, and without uniformity (iv. 11, v. 1, vii. 5).

(g) An unusual number of particles for indefinite time occur as substitutes for an exact method. Nevertheless, one of his main purposes was to narrate his history in strict chronological order, so as to contain the virtue of a chronicle together with a more developed presentation of events. This is almost entirely forgotten, except that the sequence of occurrences is fairly kept up. Yet he does not hesitate to break through even this sequence, when he thinks the collocation of later facts, under the head that he is writing of, may contribute to clearness and completeness, as he directly avers in iii. 3, 14, iv. 10, 11, 12, v. 11, ix. 2. It is no easy task to make a Regesta of Sozomen’s history; moreover, he often blunders in the very few dates he gives, as well as in the arrangement of the events themselves; these errors are due to the lack of a fixed system.

7. The contributions to geography are mainly confined to Palestine. Passing more familiar ones, we have a list as follows: Helenopolis (ii. 2), Majuma (ii. 5, v. 3, vii. 28), Anthedon, Bethagathon, Asalea, Thabatha (iii. 14), Diocæsarea (iv. 17), Bethelia (v. 15, vi. 32), Besanduca, Capharchobia, Gerara (vi. 32), Botolium (vii. 28), Ceila, Berathsabia with its tomb, Nephsameena (vii. 29), Chaphar Zacharia (ix. 17). Most of these terms are Hebraic or Syrian. Scythopolis is mentioned as abundant in palms (viii. 13). There is no direct, and very little indirect light on the political or ecclesiastical geography of the time; of course the seats of the bishops and of the monks that are enumerated yield a few new names of places. There are equally few hints in the physical features of the empire; the great rains, or hail-storms, or earthquakes are recorded chiefly with regard to their special ethical bearing. The topography of Constantinople has been indicated previously; outside of these, details of Alexandria, Antioch, Cæsarea, Cappadocia are given, but none of them new.

8. Statistics. There is of course no method in the presentation of statistics; there are general proportions, as in ii. 6, iv. 27, v. 15, vi. 20; and special detail, as in the enumeration of monks, iii. 14, vi. 29–34. The best illustration one finds in the account of the Persian martyrs, where there was a distinct effort at registration by Persian, Syrian, and Edessan authorities (ii. 13, 14).

9. Biography is one of the chief constituents of his history. He gives us an account of most of the distinguished Christian masters in theology, in monasticism, martyrdom, oratory, scholarship, administration; and he is refreshingly fair in giving a place to those who were not friendly to his view of the faith. Athanasius may be a chief hero, but Arius is not neglected. Here we may observe that Sozomen makes Aëtius the second head of rationalism, and the man who gave it breadth of culture by building the system on the basis of Aristotle (iii. 15, iv. 12); he regards Eunomius as but a reflection of Aëtius (vi. 29). This position accorded to Aëtius is one deserving special note and study. Philostorgius exalted Eunomius both in his special encomium and in the history. Of course the two Cappadocians, as well as Epiphanius and Chrysostom, are liberally sketched. The imperial biography is fairly full, and a large space is accorded Julian. In every book parts are devoted to the vitæ sanctorum, as the best way to set before us the inner life of the Church and the fairest exhibition of Christian character; these monastic sketches are, for the most part, mere glimpses of individuals (a line or two suffices); whereas the more conspicuous founders and organizers, such as Antony, Hilarion, Pachomius, the Macarii, Evagrius, receive a larger recognition. He feels the need of selection in the multiplicity of illustrious characters, and after a sketch of Acacius, Zeno, and Ajax, he says: “I have mentioned these as examples of those who served as priests at this period. It would be a task to enumerate all, when the major part of them were good, and God bore testimony to their lives by readily hearing their prayers and by working many miracles” (vii. 28). Prominent as is the biographical element, and earnestly as he endeavors to substantiate its claims, he confesses, as to Ephraim (iii. 16), “it would require a more experienced hand than mine to furnish a full description of his character and that of the other illustrious men, who, about the same period, had devoted themselves to a life of philosophy; and it is to be regretted that Ephraim did not enter upon this undertaking. The attempt is beyond my powers, for I possess but little knowledge of those great men, or of their exploits.”

10. In ecclesiastical culture we have many and important incidental hints, but no direct general chapter except vii. 19; and on special topics, those on the Easter controversy (i. 16, 21, vi. 24, vii. 18, viii. 17) on the penitential presbyter (vii. 16), and on relic worship, are the most significant.

11. Nor is there any methodical statement of growth in the acquisition and exposition of truth; his traditionalism in a measure precluded that, and his acknowledged incapacity to go deeply into the differentiation of these discussions prevented any system; there is no real history of dogma and ethics, except on the external side. He is frank to say: “I leave their doctrines to be judged by those whose right it is. For I have not set forth to record such matters, nor is it befitting in history” (iii. 15); that he does “not profess easily to understand or to expound these matters” (vi. 27); and again, “I should be prolix were I to enter into further particulars, and under the subject would be by no means an easy one to me, since I have no such dialectic skill” (vii. 17). He furnishes us only with such a statement of doctrine, as sprang out of polemics and councils and the variety of creeds.

12. And so with the history of literature there is no such sustained account of Christian writers and works as in Eusebius; the second stage of historians did not see fit to be as complete and accurate as their exemplar in this particular, and Photius was left to gather up the fragments for us. What strikes us as peculiar is his confessed ignorance of the works of the greatest theologians. He passes by all the technical writings of Athanasius; he has no direct knowledge of the works of Hilary, though that might be excused. Of the purely theological works of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, whom he regards as the pillars of the Nicene faith, he makes no mention; and indeed makes but the slightest use of their letters and special orations. Of the Arian theologians of all shades, he has no closer knowledge; he confesses at the outset that he had not read the Thalia (i. 21), but condemns it on Socrates’ authority; and he speaks of Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, in language that displays unfamiliarity with his treatises (viii. 2).

13. There are no conceptions of the philosophy of history or of histories in general, other than those which have been discussed before.

14. If we pass to the stylistics of Sozomen, we find the quality of the Greek to be excellent; the dedication is especially studied and rhetorical; the first chapter of the first book is scarcely inferior in these traits, after which the form becomes more abrupt, after the fashion of an epitomizer, and it is obviously affected by his authorities. The likeness to Xenophon is not continuous, any more than Socrates sustainedly imitates Thucydides, although in elevated conception, Socrates is more in the vein of that philosophic master of history, than Sozomen is a reflection of the writer of the Hellenics. The vocabulary, too, is quite meager; the same forms of expression occur again and again, yet Photius considers him superior in diction to Socrates,

Myrobib. cod. XXX.

A characteristic of our historian is the admirable generalization and the summaries he pauses to make here and there. The most notable are in iii. 17, a generalized description of the period of the Constantines. iii. 18, a doctrinal summary. iv. 17–19, conciliar movement in the West. iv. 20–22, conciliar movement in the East. iv. 23–25, united results. vi. 6, a succinct comparison of Valens with Valentinian. vi. 10, geographical centers of Nicenism. vi. 21, geographical centers of Arianism and Orthodoxy. vi. 22, geographical distribution of Macedonianism. vi. 26, genesis of Aëtianism (Eunomianism). vi. 27, geographical distribution of beliefs. vi. 28–34, geographical grouping of the monks. vii. 2, geographical supremacy of Arianism in the East. vii. 4, geographical survey of religion. vii. 17, divisions of Arianism. viii. 1, summary of Apostolic succession. The selective process is often alluded to (ii. 3, iii. 14, 15, iv. 3, 23, 27, vii. 25, 28, ix. 1); and we must confess that he has kept a very just proportion in this way among the subjects he has elected for his narrative.

The Period described.

The work was to have covered the time from 323 to 439, a period of 116 years; whereas, in fact, he writes continuously only to the death of Honorius as the latest event, 423, and the accession of Valentinian III. in 425; beyond that in time, but mentioned anticipatively in the narrative (ix. 2), is the transfer of the forty martyrs, which happened certainly after 434, the year of the election of Proclus, therefore probably not far from the proposed limit of his work, say 437 or 438; this would give a period of about 114 or 115 years. He divides the record of this time into nine books, distributed among the emperors.

i. and ii. To Constantine, 323–337=14.

iii. and iv. His sons, 337–361=24.

v. and vi. Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I., Valens, 361–375=17.

vii. and viii. Gratian and Valentinian II., Theodosius I., Arcadius (and Honorius), 375–408=33.

ix. (Honorius) and Theodosius II., 408–437=25.

A noticeable feature, save in the case of Book ix., is the grouping of books by twos, in which the intervals discussed vary from fourteen to thirty-three years. This grouping seems entirely arbitrary.

For whom he wrote.

The question for whom he wrote has been somewhat obscured by those who regard him simply as a plagiarist. He evidently turned himself to this task under the conviction that there was need of some such work as his. He addressed himself chiefly to Christians and not only to monks, because he defers to the narrow views of some friends about the mysteries,—and represses creeds and sacraments, for fear the book might fall into the hands of the uninitiated. He moreover designed his record, not for the more learned classes, but for the instruction of ordinary believers, since he professes uniformly a great modesty in treating the profounder themes of theology and the characters of the more eminent men. Yet he did not hesitate to submit it to the criticism of his emperor and invited the most erasive and final judgment. This is probably as far as we may go in the absence of any direct address to specific readers.

The Sources

I. Those enumerated in his ideal plan (i. 1).

1. The transactions in which he was engaged.

2. The transactions in which others were engaged, who either knew or saw the events in his day, or in prior generations.

3. Laws established concerning religion.

4. Acts of Synods.

5. Record of innovations.

6. Imperial letters.

7. Clerical letters.

II. The sources actually mentioned. (1) Documents.

a. Documents actually quoted with text.

The retractation, by Eusebius and Theognis (ii. 16).

The confession of Arius and Euzoïus to Constantine (ii. 27).

The Epistle of Constantine to the Synod of Tyre (ii. 28).

Constantine Cæsar to the people of the Catholic Church of the city of Alexandria (iii. 2).

Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in behalf of Athanasius (iii. 22).

Ursacius and Valens to Julius (iii. 23).

Ursacius and Valens to Athanasius (iii. 24).

George of Laodicea to Macedonius, Basilius, Cecropius, and Eugenius (iv. 13); new.

Epistle of Constantius to the church at Antioch (iv. 14); new.

Epistle of the Synod of Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius (iv. 18).

Epistle of Julian to Arsacius, the high-priest of Galatia (v. 16).

Epistle of Julian to the bishops, only a phrase quoted (v. 18); new.

Synod at Antioch, to Jovian (vi. 4).

Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus to Liberius (vi. 11).

Synod of Rome to bishops of Illyricum (vi. 23); first with Sozomen; repeated by Theodoret (H. E. ii. 22).

Innocent to John (viii. 26); also in Palladius’ Dial.

Innocent to the presbyters, deacons, all the clergy, and the people of the church of Constantinople (viii. 26); also in Palladius’ Dial.

There are five imperial letters, four synodical letters, seven episcopal letters, one presbyterial letter, making seventeen in all. This is not nearly so large a number as is given by Socrates, but we must remember the expressed purpose of Sozomen, that, as a rule, he would give abstracts only, and text when in his judgment fairness made it necessary. Of these documents, there are at least three found in no earlier author. In them all, there is only one symbol transcribed, and that is from Arius and Euzoïus!

b. Documentary acts of Synods which are mentioned by name.

Acts of the Synod of Tyre (ii. 25).

Acts of the Synod of Seleucia, taken down by tachygraphists (iv. 22).

c. Acts of those Synods only, of which an abstract is recorded.

d. Letters of which an abstract is given, or the general object is stated.

Constantine’s Letter to Alexander and Arius.............................................................. i. 16.

Imperial Letters about the Nicene Council................................................................. i. 21, 25.

Constantine to Sapor................................................................................................ ii. 15.

Constantine to the people of Alexandria.................................................................... ii. 22.

Constantine to Athanasius......................................................................................... ii. 23.

Synod of Tyre to the bishops.................................................................................... ii. 25.

Antony’s letters to the Emperor................................................................................. ii. 31.

Constantine’s letter to the Alexandrians..................................................................... ii. 31.

Eusebius to Julius...................................................................................................... iii. 7.

Julius, bishop of Rome, to the bishops of the East...................................................... iii. 8.

Synod of Antioch to Julius......................................................................................... iii. 8.

Constantius to Philip, prefect of Constantinople......................................................... iii. 9.

Bishops of Egypt in favor of Athanasius..................................................................... iii. 10.

Julius to the bishops of Antioch................................................................................. iii. 10.

Constans to Constantius............................................................................................ iii. 10.

Constans to Constantius............................................................................................ iii. 11.

Athanasius to Constans............................................................................................. iii. 11.

Paul, bishop of Constantinople.................................................................................. iii. 11.

The bishops of Philippopolis to the bishops of the West............................................. iii. 11.

Constans to Constantius............................................................................................ iii. 20.

Constantius to Athanasius......................................................................................... iii. 20.

Constantius to the Alexandrians................................................................................. iii. 20.

Julius to clergy and people of Alexandria................................................................... iii. 20.

Constantius to the bishops, presbyters, and to the people of the

church of Alexandria........................................................................................... iii. 21.

Cyril of Jerusalem to Constantius............................................................................... iv. 5.

Constantius to Athanasius......................................................................................... iv. 9.

Constantius to Basil of Ancyra.................................................................................. iv. 16.

Basil of Ancyra to Constantius.................................................................................. iv. 16.

Constantius to Basil.................................................................................................. iv. 16.

Basil to all the bishops............................................................................................... iv. 16.

Athanasius to a friend................................................................................................ iv. 17.

Constantius to the Synod of Ariminum....................................................................... iv. 19.

Reply of the bishops................................................................................................. iv. 19.

Julian to the Alexandrians.......................................................................................... v. 7.

Titus of Bostra to Julian............................................................................................. v. 15.

Julian to Jewish patriarchs, leaders, and people.......................................................... v. 22.

Reply of the Jews..................................................................................................... v. 22.

Julius to Arsacius, king of Armenia............................................................................ vi. 1.

Jovian to the governors of the provinces.................................................................... vi. 3.

Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis

et al., to Jovian................................................................................................... vi. 4.

Liberius and the Western bishop to the East.............................................................. vi. 12.

Memorial of grievances presented by eighty ecclesiastics to Valens............................ vi. 13.

Damasus in behalf of Peter of Alexandria................................................................... vi. 39.

Synodical epistles of Rome to Paulinus, bishop of Antioch......................................... vii. 11.

Western bishops and Gratian to the Eastern bishops.................................................. vii. 11.

Irenic letters to the adherents of Flavian from the priests of Egypt and the West.......... viii. 3.

Theophilus of Alexandria, paschal letter..................................................................... viii. 11.

Theophilus of Alexandria to Epiphanius..................................................................... viii. 14.

Epiphanius to the bishops and the bishop of Constantinople against Origenism............ viii. 14.

2. Authors.

(a) Authors from whose works a textual quotation appears.

Apolinarius, the Syrian, on the succession of Athanasius.......................................... ii. 17, new.

Extract from Athanasius’ Epistola ad Episcopos Ægypti et Libyæ........................ ii. 30.

Extract from Libanius, the Sophist; in oratione funebri de laudibus Juliani........... vi. 1.

Gregory Nazianzen to Nectarius, on Apolinarius; Ep. ccii....................................... vi. 27.

The first extract alone is known through no other source.

(b) Authors and works directly referred to as used.

The Sibyl......................................................................................................... i. 1, ii. 1.

Josephus......................................................................................................... i. 1.

Clemens (Romanus)......................................................................................... i. 1.

Hegesippus...................................................................................................... i. 1.

Julius Africanus................................................................................................ i. 1.

Eusebius Pamphili, Historia Ecclesiastica....................................................... i. 1.

Vita Constantini............................................................................................. i. 3, extract.

Philo (Pythagorean)......................................................................................... i. 12.

Biographies of Monks...................................................................................... i. 14.

Eusebius’ Oration............................................................................................ i. 19.

Address of Constantine.................................................................................... i. 19.

Collection of Nicene Canons............................................................................ i. 22.

Syrians’ Account of the actions and life of Bishop Milles................................... ii. 14.

Persian, Syrian, Edessan, martyrology of Persians............................................. ii. 14.

Discourse of Eudoxius, extract from................................................................. iv. 26.

Meletius’ first discourses at Antioch................................................................. iv. 28.

Athanasius, on his flight.................................................................................... v. 12.

(c) Authors and their works mentioned, but not used.

Arius, the Thalia, not read................................................................................ i. 21.

Eustathius, bishop of Antioch........................................................................... ii. 19.

Marcellus (de Subjectione Filii Dei)............................................................... ii. 33.

Asterius, a treatise on the defense of the Arian doctrine..................................... ii. 33.

Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea, works................................................................. iii. 2.

Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, an ascetic treatise, also attributed

to Basil the Great....................................................................................... iii. 14.

Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, works................................................................... iii. 14.

Titus, bishop of Bostra, works......................................................................... iii. 14.

Serapion, bishop of Ancyra, works.................................................................. iii. 14.

Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia, works............................................................ iii. 14.

Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea, works................................................................. iii. 14.

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, works..................................................................... iii. 14.

Didymus, works.............................................................................................. iii. 15.

Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, works...................................................................... iii. 15.

Hilary, bishop of Pictavium, works................................................................... iii. 15, v. 13.

Aëtius, works.................................................................................................. iii. 15.

Ephraim Syrus, works and translations............................................................. iii. 16.

Bardasanes, poems.......................................................................................... iii. 16.

Harmonius, poems........................................................................................... iii. 16.

Photinus, a work before Constantius, and many works..................................... iv. 6.

Acacius, literary works.................................................................................... iv. 23.

Apolinarius, works, with those against him........................................................ v. 18, vi. 27.

Julian, Misopogon............................................................................................ v. 19.

Eunomius, works, especially Exercises for the Mind,

with those against him................................................................................ vi. 27, vii. 17.

Evagrius, works............................................................................................... vi. 30.

Themistius, oration, outline............................................................................... vi. 36.

Ulfilas, translation of Bible into Gothic.............................................................. vi. 37.

Sisinnius, bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople, works.............................. viii. 1.

Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, works................................................................... viii. 2.

Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, works.......................................................... viii. 2.

Chrysostom, Ep. to Theodore.......................................................................... viii. 2.

——on Eutropius............................................................................................ viii. 7.

——Vices of females...................................................................................... viii. 16.

——Extempore discourse after his return......................................................... viii. 18.

——About the Silver Statue............................................................................ viii. 20.

Origen, works; especially the one from which Bishop Theotimus read............... viii. 14.

An unecclesiastic but ancient Hebrew document............................................... ix. 17.

(d) Hymns of which a line or thought is given.

Refrain of the odes at Antioch.......................................................................... iii. 20.

At procession of Babylas, Antioch................................................................... v. 19.

To Dionysos, by Epiphanius the Sophist........................................................... vi. 25.

Arian hymns.................................................................................................... viii. 8.

Unmentioned Authorities.

Sozomen has refrained in large measure from indicating directly his chief authorities for political or ecclesiastical affairs; he has indicated, indeed, some minor springs, as we have seen, but the major ones are passed by. He imitated neither Eusebius, nor Socrates, nor Evagrius in this omission. He does abound in phrases indicative of authorities; thus of the forms of λέγω, λέγουσι, λέγονται, ἔλεγον, ἐλέγετο are used somewhat sparingly, while λέγεται occurs over eighty times, and λόγος about twenty; of φήμι, ἔφησεν and φήμη occasionally, while φησί or φασί introduces about thirty statements; εἰρήσθω and εἰρήται also appear in a few cases. One has no assurance of either the method or the validity of the sources from such vague terms, and it is this uncertain and incautious manner that has so often led critics to impeach his general worth, and it must be conceded with some degree of justice; the endless iteration of such words savors of gossip rather than history; this obscurity is not diminished by his persistent οἶμαι and less frequent εἰκάζω.

1. In the discussion of his unmentioned authorities, the first to be considered is Socrates. He is nowhere hinted at, unless under an indefinite “some say,” when Sozomen presents a group of opinions.

Socrates preceded Sozomen by a few years, writing his history not long after 439.

H. E. vii. 48.

There are three views of the connection: (1) that Sozomen, excepting a few and not very valuable additions of his own, plagiarized Socrates; (2) that he used the same authorities as Socrates independently, and the points of identity arose from the language of the original in the hands of both; (3) that Socrates was his guide to the chief writers from whom he drew directly with more or less freedom; and when no other light presented itself or was to be found, he would use his path-finder. There is scarcely a more fascinating and genuine field for analytical criticism than this. It should be remarked at the outset that we cannot justly apply this term plagiarism, in its modern sense, to the use of material current in these earlier days of history. There was no more intention to appropriate the work of another in Sozomen, than there was in Socrates, when he fails to note his authority, and yet very evidently has followed him closely; or when Theodoret has taken his stuff from Sozomen, and says nothing about the original. To assail Sozomen as if he were a deliberate thief, and stigmatize him as a feeble reviser of Socrates, is wholly unfair and unwarranted by the general usage of his day and by the facts of the case. In no way can it be proved that Sozomen was a general plagiarist in the opprobrium and iniquity conveyed by the modern use of that term. That Socrates was the finer mind, that he had larger sympathies, that he was concerned to reproduce documents in an ampler degree, that he follows the development of the Church with a sharper and brighter criticism, no one can doubt; he is conspicuously superior in almost every quality of a historian, and confined himself more nearly to the modern idea of which the science should aim to do; but that does not set aside the distinct and supplemental value of Sozomen and his fullness in lines, however zigzag, which had been neglected by others. The acknowledged precedence of Socrates does not warrant us in assailing the fidelity of the lesser light. Since the notes are designed to indicate the relationship between the two, the passages need not be anticipated here. (2) The second view, that Sozomen made an independent use of the same source which Holzhausen revived, Stäudlin supported, Hefele and Nolte have espoused, seems less tenable than the first. The Novatian material cannot, under any possible conditions, be so explained; the arrangement of the details in eight of the books will not permit view. The very corrections of that arrangement require us to be convinced that Socrates was in the corrector’s eye; the close resemblance of language in many places where he might easily have expanded from the originals, but preferred to confine himself to the equally meagre tracings of his predecessor, leave no basis for this solution. (3) The third explanation of the interrelation seems thus far the most accurate.

Jeep: Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kirchenhistorikern, pp. 137–147.

(a) That some of the sources obviously consulted by both were doubtless known to Sozomen without Socrates to point them out. Rufinus and Eusebius and Sabinus were known to everybody. In all such cases we may concede an independent reading of those authors, and yet the order in which the subject-matter is arranged is at times more that of his guide-book than of his original.

(b) Moreover, he introduces many new outlines and abstracts, particularly in the transactions of the synods.

(c) He also has independent sources of biography.

(d) His ninth book is wholly unique and entirely out of the leading-strings of the master, for unexplained reasons.

The notes also try to indicate in a measure these more independent traits.

2. The next unmentioned source is Rufinus, in his continuation of Eusebius in two books; this Sozomen certainly read independently of Socrates, very likely in a Greek translation. That author’s Historia Monachorum also was sifted for a few of the monastic biographies; in these cases there is a closer resemblance to Rufinus than to the parallel sketches of Palladius.

3. Eusebius’ Life of Constantine is a primary source for Books i. and ii. In all the events pertaining to that emperor, it is drawn upon freely, just as freely as Socrates employs it, or as Sozomen handles Socrates.

4. Athanasius is also used independently, although in collocating the events, Socrates is followed. There is direct reference to one work only (v. 12), as we have seen. The unmentioned are as follows:—

The Life of St. Antony: Antonii Vita.

Epistola de Synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciæ in Isauria celebratis.

Epistola ad Serapionem, de morte Arii.

Synodicon; lost.

Tomus ad Antiochenses.

Epistola ad Episcopos Ægypti et Libyæ; ep. encyclica contra Arianos.

Epistola Encyclica ad Episcopos.

Historia Arianorum ad Monachos.

Apologia contra Arianos.

Apologia ad Constantium imperatorem.

Epistolæ heortasticæ.

5. Philostorgius: Historia Ecclesiastica, also furnished occasional material, as even the excerpts remaining to us indicate.

6. Sabinus: Collection of Synods (Συναγώγη τῶν συνόδων), which is lost; this book was written in the Macedonian and Arian interest; the author is mentioned by Socrates and criticised for his partiality. We can observe how Sozomen used it, where he adds to the statements of Socrates, which the latter had borrowed from that work. These additions are quite frequent in the transactions of the synods; and again a few records of councils, otherwise unknown, are thus preserved for us. We have here a proof of how Sozomen improved on his guide in the details.

7. Philippus of Side; the Christian History (χριστιανικὴ ἱστορία); a few fragments are preserved; Socrates criticises him severely.

H. E. vii. 27.

8. For the laws, outside of the records alluded to, he probably used the Codex Gregorianus and the Codex Hermogenianus, his old text-books, and not unlikely the Codex Theodosianus (438).

9. Basil the Great: the limited use is indicated by the notes.

10. Gregory Nazianzen: Orationes contra Julianum. Other occasional citations are indicated in the notes.

11. Sulpicius Severus: vita S. Martiniwas undoubtedly the source, possibly through a Greek translation of the same, for the summary of that saint’s life in iii. 14.

Historia sacra: sometimes there is a hint as if this work had been before him.

12. Palladius: Historia Lausica was not so constant a companion as some have suggested; Sozomen has rather borrowed from the sources out of which the bishop of Helenopolis gathered his sketches of the monks.

Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi was used in narrating the incidents of John’s life in Book viii. There is no indication of any large draught of Chrysostom’s own writings: they may have been used for a few suggestions, contained in the orations before mentioned.

One does not feel sure that Hieronymus or Orosius came under his eye.

He does not seem to have made any direct use of Ammianus Marcellinus (Res gestæ), nor of the earlier Latin chroniclers. The points of resemblance with Eutropius (Breviarium Historiæ Romanæ) are very doubtful in my judgment; Eunapius (ex historia excerpta et fragmenta) seems to have been used in his full form; Zosimus (Historia) pretty surely; and for the ninth book, hardly with a doubt the full Olympiodorus, of whom fragments only remain, and yet in that same ninth book there are entirely independent political chapters whose source cannot yet be determined.

The Ninth Book.

The most curious feature of all is Book ix., in the entire change of its method; even were the ecclesiastical affairs to have been presented, he has given here in remarkable excess the events affecting the Western state; he has done it nowhere else; to be sure, he proposes it as a demonstration of the value of imperial piety, and of the ever-present Divine grace, but nowhere else has he done this in so cumulative a form. Some wonderful change came over his purpose, whether that were a fuller view of the relation between state and church, or the desire to deepen the impression of his philosophy of history; or did some imperial domestic catastrophe make him reluctant to dwell upon the sad events which darkened the court he had so glorified?

The grave question arises, Is anything of Book ix. lost?

That it is unfinished cannot be doubted; for (a) In the Proëmium he announces his purpose to carry it to the year a.d. 439, or the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius; but this is not done with any of his ordinary fullness, although his hints reach beyond, as we have seen. (b) In lauding Pulcheria (ix. 1) he remarks, “That new heresies have not prevailed in our time, we shall find to be due especially to her, as we shall subsequently see.” Here is the declared purpose of delineating the history of Nestorianism and its overthrow, but there is no appearance of the struggle in the record itself; he altogether passes by Nestorius, as bishop of Constantinople. (c) The record of the forty martyrs he purposely took out of its normal order, to illustrate the excellence of Pulcheria; a late event is anticipated, but the whole of what would have been its normal setting is not there. (d) One would naturally expect that a book which had thus far treated mainly of state difficulties would have the usual balance, at least, and that ecclesiastical affairs would have preponderated in the remaining chapters; but there is only an initial chapter. Seventeen chapters are not his usual tale for a book; there is an evident break; the discussion of Nestorianism is not written. Most of all would one expect some allusion to the restoration of Chrysostom under Proclus. (e) In ix. 16, he says, “Among other relics, those of Zechariah, the very ancient prophet, and of Stephen, who was ordained deacon by the Apostles, were discovered; and it seems incumbent upon me to describe the mode, since the discovery of each was marvelous and divine;” but he gives only the invention of Zechariah (c. 17). The story of Stephen fails us, and would doubtless have followed immediately. It was his purpose to narrate the story,—this story which Theophanes and Marcellinus mention and Lucianus wrote a book about. (f) In c. ix. 17, this is confirmed; for he says, “I shall first speak of the relics of the prophet”; to his second he does not come. (g) The close is abrupt; one feels instinctively that something is amiss. Hence the work, as we have it, is obviously not complete.

Did he finish it, and is the conclusion lost?

The mistake into which Gregory I. fell in ascribing to Sozomen the commendation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, with which Theodoret really closes his history, led Baronius to maintain that we did not have the whole of Sozomen; and others have asserted the same for reasons which are indeed sufficient to prove that the history is unfinished, but not that anything is lost. That we have all that Sozomen wrote is more likely, because the Tripartite History at x. 24 makes the last use of Sozomen at viii. 25; it would surely have gone further in its dependence upon him had the later controversy been treated of, since he had been already a chief authority. Nicephorus Callistus, Historia Ecclesiastica, xiv. 8, gives the account of the finding of Zechariah in c. 9; the story of Stephen in c. 10; then the story of the forty martyrs. His source beyond is Socrates, until Evagrius takes up the thread of affairs. If Sozomen had written the more recent events parallel with Socrates, Nicephorus would undoubtedly have followed him as before. Of Theophanes, one cannot speak so confidently. Moreover, we cannot help asking, since we have Socrates, Theodoret, and Evagrius complete, why should Sozomen, who was so admired an author, have suffered any loss? Now, if we have Sozomen entire so far as he wrote, why did he stop where he did? There are no sufficient subjective reasons to be offered. It could scarcely have been in any unfavorable criticism of his prince, for the work seems to have been accepted by his imperial patron; and there was certainly nothing as objectionable in Sozomen, as in Socrates or in Olympiodorus. Nor is it likely that the unhappiness which invaded the court, the domestic jealousies, which rent its religious as well as connubial peace, or the quarrels over Cyrus or Paulinus or Chrysaphius, in any way restrained him; for he was beyond some, if not all of these agitations, at the time of his writing, and he had deliberately chosen to ignore such noble personages as Anthemius, Troïlus, Synesius, Aurelianus, and Eudocia, so that we can argue little from his silence, save his manifest jealousy for Pulcheria, and his hostility to certain more liberal tendencies developed under Eudocia. The Nestorian controversy would have been a choice field wherein to exalt the influence of Pulcheria, as he himself suggested. On the whole, one is constrained to believe that Sozomen died before he had completed the record which he had proposed to himself. He must have been nearing his seventieth year when thus suddenly arrested in his chosen study.

The Major uses made of his Work.

The major uses of him subsequently were by:

(a) Epiphanius Scholasticus, who made a translation into Latin, which Cassiodorus abbreviated, polished, and incorporated in the Historia Tripartita.

See preface of that work.

(b) The deacon Liberatus, in his Historia Nestorianorum, used the Tripartita.

(c) Theophanes, in his Chronographia.

(d) Theodorus Lector in his Historia Tripartita.

(e) Nicephorus Callistus, in his Historia Ecclesiastica incorporating Theodorus’ Tripartita.

The Errors.

The errors are numerous, as already suggested by Possevin, on dogmatic grounds; Du Pin, and more recently by Harnack, for historic reasons. They are due to the lack of a systematic chronology, and the blind copying of his authority, especially Socrates, and occasionally to his attempts to correct the order given by his authority.

Part III.—Bibliography.

A. Bibliography of Bibliography.

Gesner: Bibliotheca universalis. s.v. 1545.

Possevin: Appartus sacer. s.v. 1608.

Du Pin: Nouvelle bibl. d. Auteurs Eccles. Tom. iii. Pt. ii. 189–90. 1690.

Sluter: Propylæum Historiæ Christianæ, ix. 6, p. 45. 1696.

Ittig: De bibliothecis patrum apostol. s.v. 1699–1700.

Olearius: Bibliotheca scriptorum eccles. Tom. ii. s.v. 1711.

Fabricius: Bibliotheca Græc. Vol. vi. Lib. v. c. 4. xxxi. 1726.

Cave: Scriptorum Eccles. Hist. Literaria. p. 427. 1740.

Walch: Bibl. Theol. Tom. iii. p. 114. 1762.

De Bure: Bibliographie instructive. Nos. 4393–5. 1768.

Nodier: Bibliothéque sacrée gr.-lat. s.v. 1826.

Boose: Grundriss der Christ. Liter., § 230. 1828.

Clarke: Concise view of the succession of Sac. Lit. Vol. ii. p. 225. 1831.

Hoffmann, S.F.W.: Lexicon Bibliog. s.v. 1833–38.

Walch, J.G.: Biblioth. Patristica, ii. § 16. 2. ed. Danz. 1834.

Vossius (ed. Westermann): De Historicis Græcis, ii. 20. 1838.

Ceillier: Hist. Gen. des Auteurs Sacrés. Tom. viii. c. 39. 1858 sqq.

Alzog: Handb. d. Patrologie. 3d ed. 1876.

Nicolai: Griech. Literaturgesch. in neuer Bearbeitung. 1874–8.

Chevalier: Répertoire des sources hist. d. M.A. s.v. 1877 sqq.

Nirschl: Lehrbuch der Patrologie u Patristik. Vol. iii. c. 4, 235. 1881 sqq.

Harnack: Herzog R.E., Vol. xiv. s.v. 1884.

——: Encycl. Br., Vol. xxii. s.v. 1887.

Thuille: Patristisches Handbuch. 1888.

B. Texts.

I. Manuscripts.—It would indeed be a desirable work to have a uniform apparatus of the codices, not only of Sozomen, but of all the Greek Church historians. Admirable as is Heinchen’s survey of Eusebian mss., it is neither uniform nor complete. No editor of Sozomen from Stephen down, has deemed it necessary to work up the detail even as well as Heinchen. Nolte evidently had the material in hand, but the labor remains to be done. The numbers and positions of many codices have been changed since the days of Valesius, Montfaucon, and Hænelius, and it is impossible to bring harmony out of the differences without direct inspection. It would seem as if no one had consulted some of those mentioned by Montfaucon; e.g. in the Inventarium mss. monasterii S. Petri Carnutensis, the title is given without number; Socratis, Sozomenis et Theodoreti historia Ecclesiastica, vol. in fol. notat P. sæculo ix. (ii. 1246); and the two described by Hænelius (a) Socratis, Sozomenis historia ecclesiastica memb. fol. exemp. vetus., at Chartres (Fasc. i. col. 130). (b) iv. 2, Hermiæ Sozomeni Salaminis, historicæ ecclesiasticæ lib. ix. (Fasc. iii. c. 93) in the Escorial.

II. Editions of Text.—1. The first printed text without translation was by Robert Stephen: Eusebii Pamphili, Ecclesiasticæ historiæ, libri x.; ejusdem de vita Constantini, libri v.; Socratis, libri vii.; Theodoreti episc. Cyrenensis, libri v.; Collectaneorum ex historia ecclesiastica Theodori lectoris, libri ii.; Hermiæ Sozomeni, libri ix.; Evagrii, libri vi.; Græce Excud. Rob. Steph. Lutetiæ Parisior. (pridie Cal. Jul.) 1544. Fol.

The sole manuscript at the basis of this edition is the Codex Regius bibliothecæ Parisiensis, n. 1437 (Nolte, 1444) Possevin (App. crit.) says: A Græca vero edito proviget ann. 1545, but this seems a mistake.

2. The next edition of the text was accompanied with a Latin translation; Græca et Latine ex interpretatione J. Christophorsoni et recognitione Suffredi Petri una cum variis lectionibus, J. Christophorsoni, Jos. Scaligeri, Jac. Cuiaci, Jan. Gruteri, Jac. Bongarsii, Col. All. (Geneva) 1612. 2 vols. in fol. This was the text of Stephen with marginal notes of the above [see Hussey, Nolte]. The sources of the notes are not sure.

3. Reprint of Geneva edition: Bibliotheca magna veterum patrum et antiq. Scriptorum eccles. primo a Margarino de la Bigne collecta. Tom. v. has Soc. and Soz. with the Latin of Christophorson and Suff. Petrus. Colon. 1618–22.

4. The edition of Valesius, 1659–1668, with a new translation by himself. Socratis Scholastici et Hermiæ Sozomeni historia ecclesiastica. Henricus Valesius græcum textum collatis mss. Codicibus emendavit, Latine vertit, et annotationibus illustravit. Adjecta est ad calcem disputatio Archelai Episcopi adversus Manichæum. Parisiis, 1668. Fol. In this edition there are the preface to the reader, explaining his sources; an essay on the life and writings of the historians; and the text is followed by annotations. This edition is conspicuous for the number of codices, more or less accurately collated. The Codex Fuketanus is his chief reliance; the previous annotations were used; he claims to have made no alteration without warrant.

5. Biblioteca Maxima Veterum Patrum M. de la Bigne, Lugd. 1677. In vol. vii. of this series; this reproduces the Genevan edition.

6. A reprint of Valesius. Eusebii Pamph. Ep. Cæsar. et Theodoreti, Evagrii, Socratis et Sozomeni Historia Ecclesiastica. Gr. Lat. cum notis Valesii. 3 Tomi. Paris, 1678. Fol.

7. A reprint of Valesius. Socratis et Sozomeni historia ecclesiastica. Gr. et Lat. Paris 1686. Fol.

8. A reprint of Valesius. Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Eus. Pamph., Soc., Soz., Theodore ti, et Evag. cum excerptis ex historia Philost. et Theod. Lec. Græc. et Lat. c. Annot. H. Valesii. 3 Tomi. Moguntiæ, 1677–79. Fol.

9. Another reprint of Valesius, but from the Mayence edition: Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Eus., Soc., etc. Græc.-Lat. 3 Tomi. Amst. 1695. Fol.

10. Historiæ ecclesiasticæ Scriptores Græci cum excerptis ex historia Philostorgi et Theodori Lect. Gr. et Lat. c. interpret. H. Valesii. Amst. 1699. Fol. (Georgi.)

11. A separate edition of Socrates and Sozomen, with the usual Valesian apparatus, and the debate of Bishop Archelaus against the Manichæans: Socratis Scholastici et Hermiæ Sozomeni historia ecclesiastica græce et latine. Henricus Valesius Græcum textum collatis mss. codicibus emendavit, Latine vertit, et Annotationibus illustravit. Adjecta est ad calcem disputatio Archelai Episcopi adversus Manichæum. Ad novissimam editionem Parisiensem castigatissime recusa prostat Amstelodami apud Henricum Wetstenium. 1700.

12. Valesian text as basis and apparatus, with new emendations. General title:

Eusebii Pamphili, Socratis Scholastici, Hermiæ Sozomeni, Theodoreti et Evagrii, Item Philostorgii et Theodori Lectoris quæ extant historiæ ecclesiasticæ græce et latine, in tres tomos distributæ. Henricus Valesius græcum textum ex mss. codicibus emendavit, latine vertit et Annotationibus illustravit.

Gulielmus Reading novas Elucidationes, præsertim Chronologicas, in hac Editione adjecit. Cantabrigiæ, 1720.

Special title: Socratis Scholastici et Hermiæ Sozomeni historia ecclesiastica græce et latine. Henricus Valesius græcum textum collatis mss. codicibus emendavit, latine vertit et Adnotationibus illustravit. Adjecta est ad calcem disputatio Archelai Episcopi adversus Manichæum. Hanc Editionem Criticis plurium Eruditorum Observationibus locupletavit Gulielmus Reading. Cantabrigiæ, 1720.

He restores readings of Stephen for some changes made by Valesius; uses Valesius’ own manuscript annotations, suggestions of Lowth, Casaubon’s variæ lectiones from the codex Jonesianus, and the codex Jonesianus itself. But there is no general collation.

13. Reprint of the Reading edition. 3 vols. Augustæ Taurinorum (Turin).

14. Valesian text as basis; partially new apparatus and emendations.

Sozomeni ecclesiastica historia edidit Robertus Hussey, S.T.B. Oxonii: e typographeo academico, 1860. Three volumes, two of text, and the third of annotations. The Latin version is by Valesius.

Hussey died before completing his work; the apparatus was prepared by John Barrow. Besides other not far-reaching collations, Hussey used a codex in the Bodleian, called the codex Barrocianus (B.), and a partial collation of codex Severniensis, which is of inferior value.

15. Reproduction of Reading-Valesius:

Patrologiæ Cursus Completus.

Socratis Scholastici, Hermiæ Sozomeni Historia Ecclesiastica. Henricus Valesius græcum textum collatis mss. codicibus emendavit, latine vertit notis illustravit; cujus editionem criticis observationibus locupletavit Gul. Reading. Accurante et denuo recognoscente. J. P. Migne. Paris. 1864.

16. The English catalogue announced in August, 1874: Sozomeni Historia Ecclesiastica, edited by Robert Hussey, vol. i., 8°, Macmillan; but it did not appear.

C. Textual Criticism.

We have here (1) the apparatus mentioned in the greater editions; (2) the marginal notes and papers of various readings by Bishop Christophorson, Scaliger, Casaubon, Curicius, Gurterius, etc. (3) The solitary work of Dr. Nolte, who, in 1860, wrote a recension of Hussey’s edition of Sozomen. Theolog. Q. Schrift. 1861. iii. 417–451; as he had done for Socrates, and did later for Evagrius. He dwells especially on the valuable readings which could be derived from the translation of Epiphanius Scholasticus and from Nicephorus Callistus.

This shows the urgency of collation de novo, and a new edition of the text.

D. Analytical Criticism.

Besides the meagre apparatus of the editions, the following works assist in the study, although some are not directly related.

Holzhausen, F. A. Commentatio de fontibus quibus Socrates, Sozomenus ac Theodoretus in scribenda historia sacra usi sunt, adiuncta eorum epicrisi, scripta a Friderico Augusto Holzhausen. Gottingæ, 1825.

Rosenstein, J., in Forschung z. deutsch. Gesch. 1862, i., 166.

Matin: de fontibus Zosimi. Dissert. Berlin, 1865.

Sudhans: de Ratione quæ intercedat inter Zosim et Amm. cet. relationes Dissert. Bonn, 1870.

Holden-Egger, Untersuchungen über einige annalist. Quellen z. Gesch. des v. u. vi. Jahrh. Neu. Archiv. d. Gesch. f. alt. deutsch. Gesch. 1876, i. 1.

Güldenpenning, A. Die Quellen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Theod. d. Gr. Dissert. Halle, 1878.

Güldenpenning, A., and Ifland, J.: Der Kaiser Theodiosius der Grosse. Halle, 1878. Cf. Harnack in T.L.Z. 1879, 18.

Jeep, Ludwig. Quæstiones Fridericianæ, Dissert. 1881.

Sarrazin, J.V. De Theodoro Lectore Theophanis fonte præcipuo. Dissertatio inauguralis. Lips. 1881.

Jeep. L.: Quellenuntersuchungen zu den Griechischen Kirchenhistorikern. Bes. Abdruck aus dem vierzehnten Supplementbande der Jahrbücher für classische Philologie. Leipzig, 1884.

Güldenpenning, A.: Die Kirchengeschichte des Theodoret von Kyrrhos, eine Untersuchung ihrer Quellen. Halle, 1889.

The above show the sources and their interrelation.

E. Translations.

1. Latin—1. Epiphanius Scholasticus. At the suggestion of Cassiodorus he translated Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen. This version, Cassiodorus polished and selected from, for his Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita. (See Preface to that work.) This was frequently printed. The first edition, Paris, s. a.; Basle 1523, and after.

2. Eusebii. Pamph. Historia Ecclesiastica c. Sozomeno et Socrate. Basle, 1544. Fol. This was in the Stephen text. Possevin has severe criticism for Musculus (App. crit.).

3. The same: cum Eus., Soz., Theod. Lect., Evag., et Dorothei Tyri vitis Prophetarum et Apostolorum ex ejusdem Musculi interpretatione et Theodoreti H. E. ex versione Joach. Camerarii. Basle, 1549. Fol.

4. The same in Basle, 1557. Fol.

5. Ecclesiasticæ Scriptores Græci c. Interpratione lat. Jo. Christophorsoni, recogniti a Suffrido Petro. Col. Agr. 1562. Fol.

Six books of Soz. were by J.C.; the remaining three by S.P.

6. A reprint of (5). Louv. 1569. 8vo.

7. The same with all the translators. Jo. Jacobi Grynæi recognitione atque cum ejus notis. Basle, 1570. Fol.

8. The reprint of (5), according to Possevin: apud hæredis Arnoldi Birckmanni. Basle, 1570. Fol.

9. The reprint of (5), at Paris, 1571. Fol.

10. A reprint of (7). Basle, 1572. Fol.

11. The reprint of (5), Veteres Scriptores Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Græci. Col. Agr. 1581. Fol.

12. A reprint of (7). Basle, 1587. Fol.

13. Reprint of (3). Basle, 1594. Fol.

14. A new version from new collations and improvements by Grynæus:

Eusebii Pamphili, Ruffini, Socratis, Theodoriti, Sozomeni, Theodori, Evagrii, et Dorothei Ecclesiastica Historia, sex prope seculorum res gesta complectens: Latine iam olim a doctissimis viris partim scripta, partim e Græco a clarissimis viris, Vuolfgango Musculo, Joachimo Camerario, et Johanne Christophersono Britanno, eleganter conversa: et nunc ex fide Græcorum codicum sit ut novum opus videri possit, per Joan. Jacobum Grynæum locis obscuris innumeris illustrata, dubijs explicata, mutilis restituta: Chronographia insuper Abrahami Bucholceri, ad Annum Epochæ Christianæ 1598, et lectionis sacræ historæ luculenta Methodo exornata. Cum continuatione in præsentem annum 1611. Et Indicibus rerum verborumq’: lucupletiis. Basileæ, 1611. Fol.

The sources for new readings are not given.

15. Ecclesiasticæ Historiæ Scriptores. Latine tantum. Basle, 1612. Fol. (Georgi.)

16. A reprint of (11). Coll. All. 1612. Fol.

17. Ecclesiasticæ historiæ Eusebii. Soc., Soz., Theodoret, Evag., Latine tantum ex Valesii versione. Paris, 1677. Fol.

II. German.—1. Eusebii Pamphili, Sozomeni, Socratis und Theodorets Kirchen Historie durch Hestionem (Caspar Hedio). Strassb. 1545. Fol.

This was on the basis of the H. E. Tripartita.

2. A reprint of (1). Basle, 1607. Fol.

III. French.—1. General title: Histoire de l’Église. 1675.

Special title for Vol. iii.: Histoire de l’église, écrite par Sozomène. Traduite par Monsieur Cousin, President en la cour des Monnoyes. Tome iii. á Paris, 1676. 4°.

2. Reprint of (1). Amst. 1686. 6 vols. in 12°.

3. There was a French version of the Tripartite by Ludovicus Cyaneus. Paris, 1568. Fol.

4. Possevin (App. Crit. s. Soc.) ascribes a translation of Socrates (including Soz.?) into French in his day to Jacobus Billius Prunæus.

IV. English.—1. An Abridgement of the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, translated into English by Samuel Parker. 2 vols. London, 1707. 8°.

2. A reprint of (1). London, 1709. Fol. (?)

3. A third edition: The Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodorit Faithfully Translated and Abridg’d from the Originals. Together with A brief Account of the Lives of these Historians, and several Useful Notes and Illustrations, and a copius Index. By Mr. Parker.

The Third edition, carefully Review’d by the Author, and very much Corrected, Improv’d and Enlarg’d. To which is now added, by a Friend, an Abridgment of the History of Evagrius Scholasticus. The Whole chiefly design’d for Use of young Students in Divinity, and Families Religiously disposed. London, 1729. 4°.

4. A History of the Church in nine books from a.d. 324 to a.d. 440: a new translation from the Greek, with a memoir of the author. London, 1846. 8°.

This is in the Bagster series of the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians of the first six centuries. 1843–46.

5. A reprint of (4), Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library.

History of the Church by Sozomen and Philostorgius. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, comprising a History of the Church, from a.d. 324 to a.d. 440. Translated from the Greek, with a memoir of the author.

Also, the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, as epitomized by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Translated by Edward Walford, Late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford. London, 1855. 8°.

6. A reprint of (4). London, 1868. 8°.

F. Historiography.

The usual Introductions to Church Histories: on the History of Church History; particularly Schröckh, i. 148–9, vii, 188–90.

Staüdlin C.F. (Hemsen). Geschichte und Literatur der Kirchengeschichte. Hannover, 1827.

Baur, J. Ch.: Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung. Tüb. 1832.

Dowling, J.G.: An introduction to the critical study of Ecclesiastical History. London, 1838.

Ten Haar, B.: de Historiographie der Kerkgeschiedenis. Utrecht, 1870.

Nirschl, Jos.: Propädeutik d. Kirchengeschichte. Mainz, 1888.

Ceillier and Harnack as before.

This is also a field that needs scholars.

G. Literature

[This does not pretend to be exhaustive.]

1. Biographical.

Photius: Myrobiblion: codex 30, a few lines of biography and authorship.

Sigebert of Gembloux: de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (ed Fabricius), c. 11.

Trithemius: de Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus (ed. Fabricius), cxxxvi.

Hoffmann, Jo. Jac.: Lexicon Universale historiam sacram et profanam, etc. Tom. iv. s.v.

Moreri: le Grand Dictionnaire Historique. Tom. vi. s.v.

Zedler: Universal Lexicon. Tom. xxxviii. s.v.

Wetzer u. Welte: Lexicon. Art. Kirchengeschichte. vi.

Smith: Dict. G. R. Biog. and Myth. (Art. by J.C. Means). Vol. iii.

Michaud: Biographie Universelle. Tom. xxxix. s.v.

Didot Frères: Nouvelle Biographie Géneral. Tom. xliv. s.v.

Glaire, J-B.: Dict. univ. des Sciences Ecclesiastiques, s.v.

Lichtenberger: Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses. Tom.xi. s.v.

Smith: Art. Vol. iv. Dict. Christ. Biog. Art. by William Milligan.

2. Historical.

(a) Theodorus Lector was the first to have used Sozomen for a Tripartite history, and doubtless alluded to him (cf. Nic. Call. H.E. i. 1).

Evagrius Scholasticus: H.E. i. Preface.

Epiphanius Scholasticus and Cassiodorus in the preface to H.E. Tripartita.

Gregory the Great mentions him by mistake for Theodoret in Book vii. of his letters; Ep. 34.

Nicephorus Callistus: H.E. i. 1.

Baronius: An Eccl. Vols. iii.–v., ed. 1707.

Bellarmin-Labbe: Dissertationes philologicæ de Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vol. ii. 371, 372.

Pagi: Critica hist. Chronol. in An Eccles. Baronii Sæc. iv. 76–292.

Tillemont: Histoire des Emper. Rom. vi. 123–7; 613–4.

Du Cange: Historia Byzantina. Paris, 1680.

Gibbon: Decline and Fall. Vols. ii. iii. Boston, 1862.

Hertzberg, W.: D. Gesch. Griechenlands unter d. Herrschaft d. Römer. 3 Bde. Halle, 1866–75.

Sievers, G.R.: Studien z. Gesch. d. röm Kaiser. Berlin, 1870.

Finlay: History of Greece. Vol. i. Oxford, 1877.

(b) Holder, Alf.: Inventio sanctæ crucis: Actorum Cyriacus, pars i. lat. et gr. &c. Leipzig, 1889.

Nestle, Eberh.: De Sancta Cruce, ein Beitrag z. christl. Legendengeschichte. Berin, 1889.

Dräseke, J.: zu Apollinarius v. Laodicea. I. zu den dogmat. Bruchst. des A. II. zur Psalmen-Metaphrase des A. Zwth. xxxi. 469–487. Die Abfassungszeit der Psalm.-Metaphr. des Apoll. ZwTh. xxxii. 108–120.

——Vitalios von Antiochia u. sein Glaubensbekenntniss. ZWL, 186–201, 1888.

Ihm, M.: Studia Ambrosiana. Jahrbücher f. class. Philologie, 1889. Suppl. Bd. xvii. 1, pp. 1–124. rec. Jülicher, Theol. L. Z. 1889, 26.

Dräseke, J.: Apollinarios’ von Laodicea Dialoge “Uber d. heil. Dreieinigkeit.” TSK 1890, 1, pp. 137–171.

——Des Apollinarios v. Laodicea Schrift. wider Eunomius. ZKG, xi. 1, 1889.

——Phöbadius von Agennum und seine Schrift gegen die Arianer. ZWL, 335–343; 391–407. 1889.

Batiffol, R.: Fragmente d. Kirchengesch. d. Philostorgius, Röm. Quartalschr. f. christl. Alterthumskunde u. f. Kirchengesch. 1889, 2 and 3.

Batiffol, P.: Studia patristica. Études d’ancienne littérature chrétienne. Fasc. 1 (v.d., Wilpert; röm. Quartalschrift 1890, 1; v. Funk; TQS, 1890, 2).

(c) Gelzer, H.: Sextus Julianus Africanus u. d. byzantin. Chronographie. Leipzig, 1880–1885 (ii.); rec. Hilgenfeld, ZwTh, 30, 3, 1887.

(d) De Broglie (le duc Albert): L’Église et l’Empire romain au IV^e siècle. 3 parties. Paris, 1867–9.

Proudhon, P.J.: Césarisme et Christianisme de l’an 45 avant J.-C. à l’an 476 après. 2 vols. Paris, 1883.

Tozer, H.F.: The Church and the Eastern Empire. London, 1888.

Langen, Jos.: Gesch. d. Rom. Kirche bis zum Pontificate Leo’s I. Bd. i.; von Leo I. bis Nicolaus I. Bd ii. Bonn, 1881–5.

Wolff, P.: Die πρόεδροι auf d. Synode zu Nicäa. ZWL. 1889, 3, pp. 137–151.

Bright, Wm.: History of the Church, a.d. 313–451. 2d edition. London, 1869.

Newman, J.H.: Arians of the Fourth Century. 3d edition. London, 1871.

——Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical. Nos. ii and iii. London, 1874.

Gwatkin, H.M.: Studies of Arianism chiefly referring to the character and chronology of the reaction which followed the council of Nicæa. 1882.

——The Arian controversy. (Epochs of Church History, Vol. 15.) New York, 1890.

Sonnino, G.: Di uno scisma in Roma à tempi di Valentiano I. Livorno, 1888.

Dräseke, J.: Der Sieg d. Christenthums in Gaza. ZWL, 20–40. 1888.

Birt, Thdr.: De fide christiana quantum Stilichonis ætate in aula imperatoria occidentali valuerit. Marburg, 1885.

Bright, Wm.: Notes on the canons of the first four general councils. London, 1882.

Martin, P.: Le Pseudo-Synode connu dans l’histoire sous le nom de Brigandage d’ Ephèse, étudié d’après ses actes, retrouvés en syriaque. Paris, 1875.

Schultze, V.: Gesch. d. Untergangs d. Griech-Röm. Heidenthums. Bd. 1. Jena, 1887; rec. Wissowa: Nuova Centologia, Ser. iii., Vol. xvii. Fasc. 18, 1888. Dtsche. Litztg. 1888, 44. Gwatkin, H.M.: The Engl. hist. Rev. 1889, Jan.

Martin, J.P.P.: Les origines de l’église d’Edesse et des églises syriennes. Paris, 1889.

Görres, J.: D. Christenthum im Sassanidenreich. ZwTh, xxxi. 449–468.

Boissier, G.: Études d’histoire religieuse. Le Christianisme et l’invasion des Barbares…le lendemain de l’invasion. Revue des deux mondes, 1890. 1^er mai, pp. 145–172.

(e) Manso: Das Leben Constantin d. Grossen. Breslau, 1817.

Burckhardt: D. Zeit Constantin’s d. Grossen. 2 Aufl. Leipzig, 1880.

Keim: D. Übertritt Constantin’s d. Grossen z. Christenthum. Zürich, 1862.

Zahn: Constantin d. grossse u.d. Kirche. Hannover, 1876.

Brieger: Konstantin d. Grosse als Religionspolitiker. Gotha, 1880.

Görres, F.: Weitere Beitraege z. Gesch. d. constantinischen Zeitalters. ZwTh, xxxiii., 2, pp. 206–215 1890.

Crivellucci, A.: Della fide storica di Eusebio nella vita di Constantino, 1889; rec. Schultze: Theol. Litblt. 1889, 9–10.

Mariano, R.: Constantino Magno e la chiesa cristiana (Nuova Antologia, xxv., fasc. 10; 16 maggio, 1890, pp. 271–299).

Mücke, J.F.A.: Flavius Claudius Julianus. 2 abthl. Gotha, 1867–9.

Rendall, G.H.: The Emperor Julian; Paganism and Christianity. London, 1879.

Neumann, K.J.: Prolegomena zu Juliani imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quæ supersunt. Lips. 1880.

——, ——: Juliani Imperatoris Librorum contra Christianos quæ supersunt. Leipzig, 1880.

——, ——: Kaiser Julians Bücher gegen d. Christen. Leipzig, 1880.

King. C.W.: Julian, the emeror; containing Greg. Nazianzen’s two invectives, and Libanius’ Monody with Julian’s extant theosoph. works. London, 1888.

Zoeckler, O.: Julianus u.s. christl. Gegner. B.G. 41–48, 101–113. 1888.

Schwarz: De vita et de scriptis Juliani Imperatoris. Bonn, 1888; rec. Neumann: TLz, 1889, 5.

Largajolli, D., e Pietro Parisio: Nuovi studi intorno a Guiliano imperatori. Torino, 1889. (Estr. della Riv. di filol. e d’istruz. class. xvii. 7–9.)

Stuffken, J.M.: Diss. de Theodosii Magni in rem christianam meritis. Lugd., Bat., 1828.

Güldenpenning, A., Ifland, J.: D. Kaiser Theodosius d. Gr. Ein Beitrag zur röm Kaisergeschichte. Halle, 1878.

Richter, H.: D. Weström. Reich besonders unter den Kaisern Gratian, Valentianian II., und Maximus. Berlin, 1865.

Güldenpenning, A.: Gesch. d. oström. Reiches unter den Kaisern Arcadius u. Theod. II. Halle, 1885.

(f) Pallmann: D. Gesch. d. Völkerwanderung v. d. Gothenbekehrung bis z. Tode Alarichs n.d. Quellen dargestellt. 1. Tl. Gotha, 1863. 2. Tl. Weimar, 1864.

Wietersheim, Ed. v.: Gesch. d. Völkerwanderung. 2 Aufl. bes. v. F. Dahn. Leipzig, 1880.

Küpke, Rud.: Deutsche Forschungen, Die Anfänge des Königtums bei den Gothen. Berlin, 1859.

Aschbach: Gesch. d. Westgothen. Frankfurt, 1827.

Mannert: Gesch. d. Vandalen. Leipzig, 1785.

Papencordt, Fel.: Gesch. der vandal., Herrschaft in Africa. Berlin, 1837.

Procop.: Vandalenkrieg übers, v. Coste. Leipzig, 1885.

Schmidt, L.: Aelteste Gesch d. Vandalen. Beitrag. z. Völkerwanderung. Leipzig, 1888.

Klemm: Attila u. Waltter v. Aquitanien nach d. Geschichte, Sage u. Legende dargestellt. Leipzig, 1827.

Haage: Gesch. Attila’s. Prgr. Celle, 1862.

Thierry: Histoire d’Attila et de ses successeurs. Paris, 5 éd. 2 vols., 1874.

Dahn. F.: D. Könige d. Germanen. Würzburg, 1861–70.

Arnold, W.: Deutsche Geschichte. Gotha, 1881–3.

(g) Hertzberg, W.: Gesch. Griechenlands seit d. Absterben d. antiken Lebens (in Heeren u. Ukert 40, iii). Gotha, 1879.

Walter, Ferd.: Gesch. d. röm. Rechts bis auf Justinian. 2 Tle. 3 Aufl. Bonn, 1860.

Krüger, Gust.: Monophysitische Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhange mit der Reichspolitik. Jena, 1884.

Brother Azarias: Aristotle and the Christian Church. London, 1888.