Galilee, and the peasants of Lebanon, in defence of their temples; and that they even carried their audacity to such a height, as to slay a bishop named Marcellus. This bishop had commanded the demolition of all the temples in the city and neighbouring villages, under the supposition that more efficient means of deterring the people from the observance of their ancient superstitions could not be devised. Having heard that there was a very spacious temple at Aulone, a district of Apamea, he repaired thither with a body of soldiers and gladiators. He stationed himself at a distance from the scene of conflict, beyond the reach of the arrows; for he was afflicted with the gout, and was unable either to fight, or to effect an escape in case of defeat. Whilst the soldiers and gladiators were engaged in the assault against the temple, some Pagans, discovering that he was alone, hastened to the place where he was awaiting the issue of the combat, seized him, and burnt him alive. The perpetrators of this deed were not then known, but, in course of time, they were detected, and the sons of Marcellus determined upon avenging his death. The council of the province, however, prohibited them from executing this design, and declared that it was not just that the relatives or friends of Marcellus should seek to avenge his death; when they should rather return thanks to God, for having accounted him worthy to die in such a cause.

CHAP. XVI.-IN WHAT MANNER, AND FROM WHAT CAUSE, THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESBYTER, APPOINTED TO PRESIDE OVER THE IMPOSITION OF PENANCE, WERE ABOLISHED. DISSERTATION ON THE MODE OF IMPOSING PENANCE.

NECTARIUS, about this period, abolished the office of the presbyter whose duty it was to preside over the imposition of penance; and this is the first instance of the suppression of this office in the church.1 This example was followed by the bishops of every region. Various accounts have been given of the nature, the origin, and the cause of the abolition of this office. I shall state my own views on the subject. Impeccability is a Divine attribute, and belongs not to human nature;

'Comp. Socrates, Eccl. Hist. v. 19.

A. D. 390.]

DISSERTATION ON PENANCES.

335

therefore God has decreed that pardon should be extended to the patient, even after many transgressions. As in supplicating for pardon,1 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 therefore appointed a presbyter, of the utmost sanctity, and the most undoubted prudence, to act on these 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. As the custom of doing penance never gained ground among the Novatians, regulations of this nature were, of course, unnecessary among them; but the custom prevailed among all other religious sects, and exists even to the present day. It is observed with great rigour by the Western churches,2 particularly at Rome, where there is a place appropriated to the reception of penitents, where they stand and mourn until the completion of the solemn services, from which they are excluded; then they cast themselves, with groans and lamentations, prostrate on the ground. The bishop conducts the ceremony, sheds tears, and prostrates himself in like manner;3 and all the people burst into tears, and groan aloud. Afterwards, the bishop rises from the ground, and raises up the others; he offers up prayer on behalf of the penitents, and then dismisses them. Each of the penitents subjects himself in private to voluntary suffering, either by fastings, by abstaining from the bath or from divers kinds of meats, or by other prescribed means, until a certain period appointed by

1 EV TÝ παρaιTεio@ai. Christophorson renders these words, "in order to obtain pardon," but, as Valesius observes, this must be incorrect. The passage is doubtless corrupt: we have endeavoured to give the simplest meaning.

2 Hence it is inferred that it was Sozomen's opinion that it was customary in the West to have a presbyter appointed by the bishop as Pœnitentiarius: but it is remarkable that no mention is made of such an ecclesiastical officer in the early councils of the church, or in the canons which they promulgated.

3 This (observes Valesius) was the ancient custom of the Roman church, that the bishop, in conducting the ceremony of absolution, should prostrate himself upon the ground in the presence of the penitents; and a second time when he reconciled them. This is supported by the ancient "Ordo Romanus," which, though of more recent date than the days of Sozomen, preserves many vestiges of an earlier antiquity.

the bishop. When this time arrives, he is made free from the consequences of his sin, and is permitted to resume his place in the assemblies of the church. The Roman priests have carefully observed this custom from the beginning to the present time. At Constantinople, a presbyter was always appointed to preside over the penitents, until a lady of illustrious birth made a deposition to the effect, that when she resorted as a penitent to the presbyter, to fast and offer supplications to God, and tarried, for that purpose, in the church, a rape had been committed on her person by the deacon. Great displeasure was manifested by the people when this occurrence was made known to them, on account of the discredit that would result to the church; and the priests, in particular, were thereby greatly scandalized. Nectarius, after much hesitation as to what means ought to be adopted, deposed the deacon; and, at the advice of certain persons, who urged the necessity of leaving each individual to examine himself before participating in the sacred mysteries, he abolished the office of the presbyter presiding over penance. From that period, therefore, the performance of penance fell into disuse; and it seems to me, that extreme laxity of principle was thus substituted for the severity and rigour of antiquity. Under the ancient system, I think, offences were of rarer occurrence; for people were deterred from their commission, by the dread of confessing them, and of exposing them to the scrutiny of a severe judge. I believe it was from similar considerations, that the emperor Theodosius, who was always zealous in promoting the glory of the church, issued a law,' enacting that women should not be admitted into the ministry, unless they had had children, and were upwards of sixty years of age, according to the precept of the apostle Paul.2 By this law it was also decreed, that women who had shaved their heads should be ejected from the churches; and that the bishop by whom such women were admitted, should be deposed.

Lex 27, Codicis Theodos. de Episcopis et Clericis.

1 Tim. v. 9. Compare Justinian Novell. 123, ch. 13.

A. D. 391.]

HERESY OF EUTYCHUS.

337

CHAP. XVII.-BANISHMENT OF EUNOMIUS BY THEODOSIUS THE GREAT. HERESIES OF HIS SUCCESSOR THEOPHRONIUS, OF EUTYCHUS, AND OF DOROTHEUS. DIVISIONS AMONG THE ARIANS. SUCH subjects as the above, however, are best left to the decision of individual judgment.

The emperor, about this period, condemned Eunomius to banishment. This heretic had fixed his residence in the suburbs of Constantinople,2 and held frequent assemblies in private houses, where he read his own writings. He induced many to embrace his sentiments, so that the sectarians who were named after him, became very numerous. He died not long after his banishment, and was interred at Dacora, his birth-place, a village of Cappadocia, situated near Mount Argeus, in the territory of Cæsarea. Theophronius, who was also a native of Cappadocia, and who had been his disciple, continued to promulgate his doctrines. Having given some attention to the writings of Aristotle, he composed an appendix to them, which he entitled "Exercises for the Mind." But he afterwards engaged, I have understood, in many unprofitable disputations, and soon ceased to confine himself to the doctrines of his master. Under the assumption of being deeply versed in the terms of Scripture, he attempted to prove that though God is acquainted with the present, the past, and the future, his knowledge on these subjects is not the same in degree, and is subject to some kind of mutation. hypothesis appeared positively absurd to the Eunomians, they excommunicated him from their church; and he constituted himself the leader of a new sect, called, after his own name, Theophronians. Not long after, Eutychus, one of the Eunomians, originated another sect at Constantinople, to which his own name was given. For the question having been proposed, as to whether the Son of God is or is not acquainted with the day and hour of the last judgment, the words of the evangelist were quoted, in which it is stated, that the day and hour are known only to the Father. Eutychus, however, contended that this knowledge belongs also to the Son, inasmuch as he has received all things from the Father. The Eunomian bishops, having condemned this opinion, he seceded from com1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. v. 10, 20, 23, 24. 2 Or, rather, at Chalcedon.

[SOZOMEN.]

As this

munion with them, and went to join Eunomius, in his place of banishment. A deacon, and some other individuals who had been despatched from Constantinople to accuse Eutychus, and, if necessary, to oppose him, arrived first at the place of destination. When Eunomius was made acquainted with the object of their journey, he expressed himself in favour of the sentiments propounded by Eutychus; and on his arrival, prayed with him, although it was not customary to pray with any one who travels unprovided with letters written in secret characters, attesting his being in communion. Eunomius died soon after this contention; and the Eunomian bishop, at Constantinople, refused to receive Eutychus into communion, from envy and jealousy at the part he had enacted in the late controversy; more especially as he held no rank among the clergy. Eutychus, therefore, formed those who had espoused his sentiments into a separate sect. Many assert that he and Theophronius were the first who propounded the peculiar views entertained by the Eunomians concerning the rite of baptism. The above is a brief account of such details, as I have been able to ascertain, concerning the disputes of the Eunomians. I should be prolix were I to enter into further particulars; and, indeed, the subject would be by no means an easy one to me.

The following question was, in the mean time, agitated among the Arians of Constantinople :-Prior to the existence of the Son (whom they regard as having proceeded out of nothing) is God to be termed the Father? Dorotheus, who had been summoned from Antioch to rule over them in the place of Marinus, was of opinion that God could not have been called the Father prior to the existence of the Son, because the name of Father has a necessary connexion with that of Son. Marinus, on the other hand, maintained that the Father was the Father even when the Son existed not; and he advanced this opinion either from conviction, or else from the desire of contention, and from jealousy at the preference that had been shown to Dorotheus. The Arians were thus divided into two parties; Dorotheus and his followers retained possession of the houses of prayer, while Marinus and those who seceded with him erected new edifices in which to hold their assemblies. The names of Psathyrians and of Goths were given to the partisans of Marinus; Psathyrians, because