of a considerable amount of general information, and he has inserted in his narrative many curious geographical and other details about remote and unknown countries, and more especially about the interior of Asia and Africa. He was rather inclined to credulity, in regard to portents, monsters, prodigies, and other wonderful things, of which he gives accounts at considerable length; and Photius himself vehemently censures him for his absurdity in attributing miracles to those whom the patriarch himself regarded as heretics. He is quoted by Gibbon in the 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters of his "Decline and Fall," not however without a caution against his Arian predilections and his partiality to the cause of Gallus.

The Epitome was translated into Latin, with comments by J. Gothofredus, and published in 4to at Geneva in 1642; as also by H. de Valois, under the title of "Compendium Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ Philostorgii, quod dictavit Photius Patriarcha," Paris, 1673, with notes. It has also been translated into French, and published at Paris in 1676, under the title Abregé de l' Histoire de l'Eglise de Philostorge. It appears now for the first time in an English translation.

E. W.

THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

OF

PHILOSTORGIUS.

THE History composed by this author was comprised in twelve books, and the initial letters of each book being put together composed the author's name. Philostorgius commenced his History from the outbreak of the contest between Arius and Alexander, which he regarded as the first cause of the outbreak of the Arian heresy: and he continued it down to the date of the proclamation as emperor of Valentinian the younger, the son of Constantius and Placidia, and the violent death of John the Tyrant. The History itself was written as an encomium on the heretical party, and an attack and assault upon the orthodox, rather than a history.

EPITOME OF BOOK I.

CHAP. 1.-PHILOSTORGIUS says that he cannot tell who was the author of the two books which are commonly called those of the Maccabees. But he is especially loud in the praise of their unknown author, inasmuch as the events which he narrates in them are found to correspond exactly with the prophecies of Daniel:1 and also because of the skill which he

The Books of the Maccabees are most useful in explaining the difficulties which arise in the interpretation of chapters 7th, 8th, and 11th of Daniel, and especially that part which refers to the "little horn,” (Dan. vii. 8,) by which the sanctuary was profaned. This "horn" was Antiochus, whose evil deeds, alluded to by Daniel, are so clearly described in the 1st and 2nd Books of the Maccabees, that the very time and the number of the days mentioned by Daniel are found to coincide with the facts of history. Vales.

shows in explaining how the evil deeds of men reduced the condition of the Jewish people to the lowest depths, just as afterwards it was the valour of other men that retrieved it again; when the Jews resuscitated the spirit in which they had met their enemies of old, and had seen their temple purged of foreign superstitions. The Second Book of Maccabees, however, according to Philostorgius, would seem to be the work of a different writer from the First; and is a mere compendium of what Jason of Cyrene related at length in five books. It gives an account of the war carried on by Judas Maccabeus against Antiochus Epiphanes, and his son named Eupator. But as to the Third Book of the Maccabees, Philostorgius utterly rejects it as monstrous, and as bearing no resemblance to the two former ones. The Fourth Book he asserts to have been the work of Joseph, and to be regarded rather as an encomium upon Eleazar and his seven sons, the Maccabeans, than as a regular history of events.

CHAP. 2.-Though Philostorgius praises Eusebius Pamphilus as well on other grounds as on account of his Ecclesiastical History, yet he accuses him of erroneous opinions in matters relating to religion. The accusation which he brings against him is to the effect that Eusebius considered the Deity as unintelligible and incomprehensible, and that he was implicated in a variety of other strange opinions. He also bears

See the Life of Eusebius prefixed to Bohn's edition of his Ecclesiastical History, pp. xxv. and xxvi. The following is the estimate of his character as given by Fleury. "Though the doctrine of Eusebius of Cæsarea might be excused, it is hard to justify his conduct. He is marked from the beginning among the bishops who took Arius under their protection against Alexander of Alexandria. In his Ecclesiastical History he does not say a word of this famous dispute (the Arian controversy); and that it may not be said that he ended his History where it began, he speaks nothing plainly of it in his Life of Constantine, saying only in general terms, that there was a division in the church, principally in Egypt, without ever explaining the cause of it; and it might seem, according to him, that in the council of Nicæa no other important question was treated of than that of Easter. In relating the laws of Constantine against heretics, he makes no mention of that which condemned the writings of Arius to be burnt. Speaking of the council of Tyre, he says not a word of the process of St. Athanasius, who was the subject of it. This affected silence gives better authority to those among the ancients who have accused him of Arianism, than to those who would justify him from it. Acacius also, his disciple and successor in the see of Cæsarea, became afterwards one of the chiefs of the Arians." Fleury, Eccl. Hist. b. xii. ch. 6.

c. 3-5.]

ARIUS.

CONSTANTIUS.

431

witness that Eusebius brought down his history to the period when Constantine the Great was succeeded in the empire by his sons.1

CHAP. 3.-The impious Philostorgius says that when the votes of the people were inclining to his own side in the election of an archbishop of Alexandria, Arius preferred Alexander to himself, and so contrived to give him a majority.

CHAP. 4.-He also says that a certain presbyter of Alexandria, who was called Baucalis,2 on account of a lump of superfluous flesh which had grown upon his back to the size of an earthen vessel, such as the Alexandrians call "Baucala " in their provincial dialect, having obtained the post of honour among the presbyters next to Arius himself, brought about the beginning of contention between Alexander and Arius, and that it was from this circumstance that the preaching of the Homoöusian3 doctrine was devised.4

CHAP. 5.-Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, according to Philostorgius, was proclaimed emperor 5 of Upper Galatia and the district lying around the Alps; regions which were very remote and difficult of access. This Upper Galatia

1 A. D. 336.

2 The learned Gothofred is of opinion that "Baucalis was not the name of the presbyter, but that he was named Arius, and attached to a church in Alexandria called Baucalis. He is not mentioned by any other writer.

3 See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. book i. chap. 8, and note in loco.

Fleury states that Arius was not only a priest, but had also charge of the church called Baucalis at Alexandria. He had aimed at the episcopal dignity, and could not bear that Alexander should be preferred before him. Finding nothing that he could blame in Alexander's conduct, Arius sought to cavil at his doctrine, and the following opportunity occurred. Alexander, speaking of the Holy Trinity in the presence of the priests and others of the clergy, maintained that there was a Unity in the Trinity. Arius pretended that this assertion was an introduction of the heresy of Sabellius, and ran into the contrary extreme; for disputing with too much wrath, he said that if the Father begot the Son, he who was begotten must have had a beginning of his being; from which it follows that there was a time when the Son was not, and consequently that he is derived from nothing. He added that the Son of God is God's creature and work, capable of virtue and vice by his own free will, with some other consequences of the erroneous principles which he laid down. This doctrine was new and unheard of till then. On the other side, Alexander taught with the whole church that the Son of God is the same in dignity and substance with the Father. (Book x. chap. 28.)

5

A. D. 305.

is now called Gallia or Gaul by the Romans. The death of Constantius occurred in Britain,1 which is also called the island of Albion. Constantine succeeded in avoiding the treachery of Diocletian, and finding his father on his deathbed upon his arrival in Britain, he soon after committed his body to the tomb, and was shortly proclaimed his successor in the empire.

CHAP. 6.-As to the cause of the conversion of Constantine from heathen superstitions to the Christian faith, Philostorgius, in conformity with all other writers, ascribes it to his victory over Maxentius, in a battle in which the sign of the cross was seen in the East, vast in extent and lit up with glorious light, and surrounded on each side by stars like a rainbow, symbolizing the form of letters. The letters too were in the Latin tongue and formed these words, "In hoc signo vinces.”3 1 A. D. 306.

2 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. book i. chap. 2, and Euseb. Life of Constantine, book i. chapters 2 and 28.

3 As his force was smaller than that of Maxentius, he thought that he required some superior assistance, and considered to what deity he should address himself. He reflected that the emperors who in his time were zealous for idolatry had perished miserably, and that his father Constantius, who during his life had reverenced the only Supreme God, had received visible tokens of his protection. He therefore determined to adhere to this great God, and instantly began to beseech him to stretch his favourable hand over him. The emperor Constantine prayed thus with the greatest earnestness, when about noon, the sun beginning to decline, as he traversed the country with some of his forces, he saw in the sky above the sun a cross of light, with an inscription to this effect, "By this thou shalt conquer." . Constantine's thoughts were employed the rest of the day on this miracle, considering what could be the meaning of it. At night, while he was asleep, Jesus Christ appeared to him with the same sign that he had seen in the sky, and ordered him to make a representation of it, and to make use of it in battle against his enemies... This was the fashion of it, a long pole like a pike, covered with gold, traversed by another in the form of a cross: at the upper end there was fastened a garland of gold and precious stones, enclosing the symbol of the name of Christ, namely the two first letters of the word in Greek, viz. X and P. On the cross stick hung a small square standard of very rich stuff, being purple and gold tissue set with jewels. On the top of these colours and below the sacred monogram were the images of the emperor and his two sons wrought in gold. The form of the standard was not new, but it was called by the new name of Labarum. The emperor caused banners of the same fashion to be made for all his troops, and he himself wore upon his helmet the cross, or rather the monogram of the word Christ: his soldiers wore it on their shields, and the coins and medals of Christian emperors are full of it. Fleury's Eccl. Hist. book ix. chap. 43.