A. D. 375.] ST. AMBROSE. THE NOVATIANS. 279 of re events had been so ordered by God for the purpose storing peace to the church of Milan, and commanded that Ambrosius should be ordained as quickly as possible. He was baptized and ordained at the same time, and forthwith proceeded to bring the church under his sway to unanimity of opinion concerning the Divine nature; for, while under the guidance of Auxentius, it had been long rent by dissensions on this subject. We shall hereafter have occasion to speak of the conduct of Ambrosius after his ordination, and of the admirable and holy manner in which he discharged the functions of the priesthood. About this period, the Novatians of Phrygia, contrary to their ancient custom, began to celebrate the festival of the passover (rò Пáoxa) on the same day as the Jews. Novatius, the originator of their heresy, refused to receive those who repented of their sins into communion, and it was in this respect alone that he innovated upon established doctrines. But he and those who succeeded him celebrated the feast of the passover after the vernal equinox, according to the custom of the Roman church. Some Novatian bishops, however, assembled about this time at Pazi, a town of Phrygia, near the source of the river Sangarus, and agreeing not to follow, in this point of discipline, the practice of those who differed in doctrine from them, established a new regulation for their own observance; they determined upon keeping the feast of unleavened bread, and upon celebrating the passover on the same days as the Jews. Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople, and the bishops of the Novatians at Nicæa, Nicomedia, and Cotua,1 a noted town of Phrygia, did not take part in this synod, although they acted as chiefs and presidents, so to speak, in all the meetings and transactions of their sect. Dissension was introduced, which led to the formation of two distinct parties in this sect, as I shall presently require to show. Or Cotyæum: it is otherwise called Cosaïum. The town is known as the birth-place of Alexander the Grammarian. CHAP. XXV.-CONCERNING APOLLINARIUS: FATHER AND SON OF THAT NAME. VITALIUS, THE PRESBYTER. RELAPSE INTO HERESY. ABOUT this period, Apollinarius openly devised a heresy, to which his name has since been given.' He induced many persons to secede from the church, and formed separate assemblies. Vitalius, a presbyter of Antioch, and one of the clergy of Meletius, concurred with him in the promulgation of his peculiar opinions. In other respects, Vitalius was blameless in life and conduct, and was zealous in watching over those committed to his pastoral superintendence; hence he was greatly revered by the people. He seceded from communion with Meletius and joined Apollinarius, and presided over those at Antioch who had embraced the same opinions; by the sanctity of his life he attracted a great number of followers, who are still called Vitalians by the citizens of Antioch. It is said he was led to secede from the church from resentment at the contempt that was manifested towards him by Flavian, then one of his fellow presbyters, but who was afterwards raised to the bishopric of Antioch. Flavian having prevented him from holding his customary interview with the bishop, he fancied himself despised, and entered into communion with Apollinarius, with whom he contracted a strict friendship. From that period, the members of this sect have held separate assemblies in various cities, under the guidance of their own bishops, and have established laws and regulations contrary to those of the Catholic church. They sang the psalms composed by Apollinarius; for, besides his great attainments in other branches of literature, he was a poet, and by the beauty of his verses he induced many to adopt his sentiments. He composed verses to be sung by men at convivial meetings and at their daily labour, and by women while engaged at the loom. But, whether his songs were adapted for holidays, festivals, or other occasions, they were all alike to the praise and glory of God. Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, were the first to receive information of the rise and progress of this heresy, and they condemned it at a council held at Rome,2 as contrary to the doctrines of the Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. iv. 46. 2 In the year 373, according to Baronius. Valesius, however, considers that it must have been held one year later. A. D. 375.] HERESY OF APOLLINARIUS. 281 Catholic church. It is said that it was as much from weakness of mind as from any other cause that Apollinarius deviated from the authorized form of doctrine. For it appears that when Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was on his road back to Egypt from the place whither he had been banished by Constantine, he had to pass through Laodicea, and that while in that city he formed an intimacy with Apollinarius, which terminated in the strictest friendship. As, however, the heterodox considered it disgraceful to hold communion with Athanasius, George, the bishop of the Arians in that city, ejected Apollinarius in a very insulting manner from the church, under the plea that he had received Athanasius contrary to the canons and holy laws. The bishop did not rest here, but reproached him with crimes which he had committed and repented of at a remote period. For when Theodotus, the predecessor of George, governed the church of Laodicea, Epiphanius, the sophist, recited a hymn which he had composed in honour of Bacchus. Apollinarius, who was then a youth, and the pupil of Epiphanius, went to hear the recitation, accompanied by his father, whose name also was Apollinarius, and who was a noted grammarian, After the exordium, Epiphanius, according to the custom always observed at the public recitation of hymns, directed the uninitiated and the profane to quit the assembly. But neither Apollinarius the younger nor the elder, nor, indeed, any of the Christians who were present, left the spot. When Theodotus heard that they had been present during the recitation, he was exceedingly displeased; he, however, pardoned the laymen who had committed this error, after they had received a moderate reproof. With respect to Apollinarius, father and son, he convicted them both publicly of their crime, and ejected them from the church; for they had belonged to the order of clergy, the father being a presbyter, and the son a reader of the Holy Scriptures. After some time had elapsed, and when the father and son had evinced by tears and fasting a degree of repentance adequate to their transgression, Theodotus restored them to their offices in the church. When George succeeded to the bishopric, he excommunicated Apollinarius on account of his having, as before stated, received Athanasius into communion. It is said that Apollinarius besought him repeatedly to restore him to communion, but that as he was inexorable, Apollinarius de termined from resentment to introduce trouble and dissension in the church by broaching the aforesaid heresy; and that he thought by means of his eloquence to revenge himself on his enemy, by proving that George had deposed one who was more deeply acquainted with the Sacred Scriptures than himself. Thus do the private animosities of the clergy tend to the injury of the church, and the introduction of many heresies in religion! Had George, like Theodotus, received Apollinarius 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 extreme and contentious measures; whereas, when treated with justice, they moderate their natural impetuosity, and remain within bounds. CHAP. XXVI.-EUNOMIUS AND AETIUS, THEIR LIFE AND DOCTRINES. OPINIONS FIRST BROACHED BY THEM CONCERNING THE RITE OF BAPTISM. ABOUT this time, Eunomius, who had succeeded Eleusius in the bishopric of Cyzicus, and who presided over the Arians,1 devised another heresy, which some have called by his name, but which is sometimes denominated the Anomian heresy. Some assert that Eunomius was the first who ventured to maintain that baptism ought to be performed by immersion, and to corrupt, in this manner, the apostolical tradition which has been carefully handed down to the present day. He introduced, it is said, a mode of discipline contrary to that of the church, and endeavoured to disguise the innovation under the cloak of a grave and severe deportment. He was very eloquent, and delighted in disputations and conferences. The generality of those who entertain his sentiments have the same predilections. They do not applaud a virtuous course of life and conduct, or charity towards the needy, unless exhibited by persons of their own sect, so much as skill in disputation, and the power of triumphing in debates over the arguments of an opponent. Persons possessed of these accomplishments are accounted religious and virtuous. Others assert, I believe, with greater appearance of probability, that Theo1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. iv. 7, and v. 24. A. D. 375.] HERESY OF EUNOMIUS. 283 phranes, a native of Cappadocia, and Eutychus, both zealous propagators of this heresy, seceded from communion with Eunomius during the succeeding reign, and introduced heretical doctrines concerning the rite of baptism: they taught that baptism ought not to be administered in the name of the Trinity, but in the name of the death of Christ. It appears that Eunomius broached no new opinion on the subject, but remained from the beginning firmly attached to the sentiments of Arius. After his elevation to the bishopric of Cyzicus, he was accused by his own clergy of introducing innovations upon the established forms of doctrine. Eudoxius, bishop of the Arians at Constantinople, obliged him to undergo a public trial, and give an account of his doctrines to the people: finding, however, no fault in him, Eudoxius exhorted him to return to Cyzicus. Eunomius, however, replied, that he could not remain with people who regarded him with suspicion: and, it is said, seized this opportunity to secede from communion; although it seems that in taking this step he was really actuated by the resentment he felt at the refusal which Aetius, his teacher, had met with, of being received into communion. Eunomius, it is added, dwelt with Aetius, and never deviated from his original sentiments. Such are the conflicting accounts of various individuals: some narrate the circumstances in one way, and some in another. But whether it was Eunomius, or any other person, who first introduced heretical opinions concerning 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 the rite of holy baptism: for if, after having received baptism according to the ancient mode of the church, they found it impossible to re-confer it on themselves, it must be admitted that they introduced a practice to which they had not themselves submitted, and thus undertook to administer to others what had never been administered to themselves. Thus, after having laid down certain principles, according to their own fancy, without any data, they proceeded to bestow upon others what they had not themselves received. The absurdity of this assumption is manifest from their own confession; for they admit that those who have not received the rite of baptism have not the power of administering it. Now, according to 1 Or, rather, "pretext." Compare the parallel account given by Socrates, Eccl. Hist. iv. 12. |