ON ST. HÆMORRHOISSA OF THE GOSPEL, BY NAME, AS THEY HOLD, VERONICA.
AT CÆSAREA PHILIPPI IN PHŒNICIA.
Section I.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Hæmorrhoissa by name, as they hold, Veronica, at Cæsarea Philippi in Phœnicia (S.)
BY THE AUTHOR J. P.
§ I. Notice of Cæsarea Philippi; the cult and name of the Saint; her elogium; confusion; a statue erected to Christ.
Cæsarea Philippi, in Photius Codex 271, column in my edition 1508, a city of Palestine, namely on its borders toward the region of Chalcis at the source of the Jordan, and the foot of Mount Lebanon; in Sozomen book 5, chapter 21, a city of Phœnicia, Cæsarea Philippi, situated at the sources of the Jordan, which they name Paneas, formerly had the name Dan from those who were of that tribe, which was before called Lais: so also it is read in Judges chapter 18, verse 29. This also Philostorgius observes in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History: Paneas, he says, was anciently called Dan, having obtained its appellation from Dan the son of Jacob, the phylarch of those who then inhabited it. It was also called Paneas; either the ancient name, when the Gentiles had placed in it a statue of Pan, as the same author thinks, passed into the name of Paneas; or because it lies at the foot of Mount Panius, as Eusebius says in book 7, chapter 17; or, as is in Josephus book 1, on the Jewish War, chapter 16, page 746, on account of the source of the Jordan, which place is called Phanium. St. Jerome, in the Hebrew Places of the Parisian printing of the year 1609, distinguishes Dan from Paneas in these words: Dan is a hamlet at the fourth milestone from Paneas as you go to Tyre; which is called so to this day, the boundary of the province of Judea toward the north. But by what occasion the name of Cæsarea Philippi was given to it, we learn from Josephus book 18 of the Antiquities, chapter 3, page 618: Philip the Tetrarch also furnished Paneas, situated at the sources of the Jordan, with buildings, the name of Cæsarea having been given: Labbe connects this deed with the year 25 of the Christian Era. By the same name of Cæsarea Philippi it is also called by Philostorgius in the cited place: but he is corrected by Gothofredus in the Dissertations, page 282, because he relates that this new name was given to it by Herod the Great; as you may see in the Philostorgian Supplements; who built not this, but Cæsarea of Palestine.
[2] It did not always retain that name; but, according to Josephus book 20, called by various other names. chapter 8, page 698, at this time Agrippa the younger the King, son of Agrippa I, the pomœria of Cæsarea, which is called Philip's, having been extended, the name being changed into honor of Nero, then reigning, called it Neronias. Tillemont notes, volume 7, page 363, that it is believed to have been reduced not much after by the Romans into a colony; and that this is deduced from various Latin coins; and he cites Spanheim book 9, pages 913, 914, and 895; on which it is called Cæsarea under Panium, or Cæsarea Paneas. But Eusebius, where above, says that the Phœnicians continued to name it Paneas. In the Sacred Geography of Charles of St. Paul, page 304, it appears under another name; Paneas, he says, to Ptolemy Cæsarea of Pania, commonly Belinas, according to William of Tyre and Postel as witnesses: which surname to persevere even today, Baudrand relates from the same whom he cites, and from Brocard. Not far from here the Prince of the Apostles brought forth that illustrious confession of the divinity of Jesus Christ, who rewarded him with the prerogative of the keys and of the primacy of the Church. That this place was ignorantly confused with Cæsarea of Palestine, which was also formerly called the Tower of Strato, in the Acts of St. Procopius, Duke and Martyr, we warned in his preliminary Commentary, volume 2 of July, paragraph 2, page 554, number 18: for this is nearer to Jerusalem by as much again as that; and lies at the Syrian sea, about two days' journey or even less distant from the same holy City. Concerning which matter you may see Tillemont volume 1 in the notes, page 569. Observe finally that in the middle of the 5th century there was an episcopal see at Cæsarea Philippi, as is clear from the Council of Chalcedon in Labbe volume 4, column 588; where subscribes Olympius bishop of Paneas.
[3] The cult of the Saint among the Greeks with an elogium. St. Hæmorrhoissa I do not know to be noted anywhere in the Latin Fasti on this day; on which among the Greeks she is marked in the Supplement from the Synaxary of Sirmond, and the Ms. of Chifflet with a proper name, as follows: Μνήμη τῆς ἁγίας Βερονίκης τῆς αἱμοῤῥόου, τῆς ἰαθείσης παρὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The memory of St. Veronica, suffering from an issue of blood, who was healed by Christ.
Ὅλου νοητῶς δράττεταί σου νῦν, Λόγε, Ἥ κρασπέδου σοι μόνον δραξαμένη.
She now lays hold of thee whole in spirit, O Word, who before had laid hold of thy fringe alone.
The elogium there sounds thus: Αὐτὴ ὥρμητο ἐκ πόλεως Πανήιδος. Ἥτις παρὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἰαθεῖσα, τὸν τούτου ἀνδριάντα καλῶς τεχνουργήσασα, ἔστηκε πρὸ τοῦ ταύτης οἴκου, ὑπὸ πάντων προσκυνεῖσθαι. Καλῶς δὲ καὶ θεοφιλῶς πολιτευσαμένη, τὸ ἐπίλειπον τῆς ζωῆς αὐτής, ἐν εἰρήνῃ πρὸς Κύριον ἀνεπαύσατο. She was sprung from the city of Paneas. Who, after she had been healed by Christ, having had a statue of him beautifully and skillfully made, placed it before her house, to be venerated by all. And having lived well and in a manner pleasing to God, she rested in peace with the Lord for the remaining time of her life. The Saint with the name Βερονίκη on this day the Menæum of Chifflet also has; which name Tillemont too, volume 1, page 20, commemorates; where with a slight change it is besides written Berenice.
[4] The confusion of the same is weighed in more than one way, The same Author observes that he knows not whence Macarius Magnes, an author of the third or fourth century, received what he says; namely that she was a Princess of Edessa; that this is by no means the idea which the Evangelist gives us of her. Whence he asserts this, as we do not divine, so we do not contradict an asserting author so ancient; nor do we sufficiently perceive on what side the idea of the Evangelist contradicts him, any more than it does Baronius at the year 31, number 74, indicating that she was a most noble woman as well as most rich: the Evangelist as it were tacitly insinuating that she was in great estate, when he says that, afflicted for twelve years, and having suffered much from many physicians, she had spent all her substance. Add the statue erected by her, of which presently. More concerning the said Magnes, Tillemont volume 4, from page 307; where on page 308 he relates from him that up to those times the memory of Veronica or Berenice was celebrated in Mesopotamia. Am I deceived, if I conjecture that thence that name was transfused into the Greek fasti? Unless you prefer that the pseudo-Gospel of Nicodemus shone before the same name, which this Hæmorrhoissa,
according to our à Lapide on chapter 5 of Mark the Evangelist, calls Veronica; most well-known by the meeting and the veil, as they hold, when Christ was going to Mount Calvary: concerning whom on the IV day of February; likewise on the XXV of March among the Passed-Over, and in the Responses of Papebroch, part I, page 19: where the author signifies that he doubts of the existence of that matron Veronica. The disease with which the Saint suffered gave her the name of Hæmorrhoissa, the root being derived from the Greek αἷμα, blood, and ῥέω, I flow; as if you should say "blood-flowing." For the rest, we do not think, with à Lapide, that it is probable that she was Martha, the sister of Magdalene, or of the other Mary; concerning which controversy in its own place. St. Ambrose, volume 2 of the Works, in the book on Solomon, chapter 5, hands down that Christ dried up a copious flux of blood in Martha: yet she is not on that account any the less to be distinguished from our Hæmorrhoissa; who is a Syro-Phœnician, and sprung from Cæsarea Philippi, as above we related from the tables of the Greeks, and as we shall presently relate from Eusebius; and Baronius rightly observed at the year 31, number 74, indicating another characteristic mark: Wherefore, since it was in no way lawful for the Jews to form an image of anyone on any occasion, it cannot be said that she was a Jewish woman, Martha, the sister of Mary and Lazarus. Besides this, Martha dwelt at Bethany near Jerusalem; not at Cæsarea in Phœnicia.
[5] To this purpose serve the things which from our Salmeron, volume 10 of the Commentaries on the Gospel History, treatise 33 on Nicodemus, that in his Gospel the Hæmorrhoissa was called Veronica, and it is explained. were related in volume 1 of February, page 454, on the occasion of St. Veronica the matron of Jerusalem; where it is added from the praised Salmeron, that it was hitherto not ascertained by him whether this same was she who performed this office of the veil offered to Christ. The same, as you have on the said page 454, is asserted in the Ms. Life of St. Amator, in the Ms. Florarium, and in the Chronicles under the name of Julian Peter, and of James Philip of Bergamo; who are cited in the same place in various places in the course of the Historical Commentary; where also it is set forth that for the same reason she is believed the same who is especially invoked by women in the diseases proper to this sex, though by syncope she is called St. Venica or Venisa; who near Rouen is venerated for any flux of blood whatsoever. On which subject you will find more there; with the warning, not to confound her with Veronica the matron of Jerusalem, or with St. Venisa, if this one be different from her, as some think, against whom nothing is here determined in a doubtful matter. Equally uncertain is what was the cause that they confounded Veronica of Jerusalem with our Hæmorrhoissa. Perhaps she had been healed by divine help from a flux of blood or a similar disease, and on account of the similarity of the disease and its cure, furnished occasion for the confusion with the Gospel woman; if indeed that matron Veronica of Jerusalem ever existed in the nature of things; concerning which controversy, raised by Papebroch after others, we decide nothing, not begrudging, that we may speak with him in the place cited above, to the holy woman her cult, but about to hold it most welcome, if the Apostolic See, to remove from all any doubt whatsoever, take care that her name be restored to the Roman Martyrology, and define her sanctity by supreme authority.
[6] The history of the statue erected by the Hæmorrhoissa, from Eusebius; Now indeed it will not be alien from the present undertaking to hear Eusebius, thus commemorating concerning the above-said statue of the Savior, in book 7, chapter 18 of the Ecclesiastical History, from the version and recension of Henry Valesius. But since we have made mention of this city (he speaks of Paneas or Cæsarea Philippi), it will not be incongruous to hand down to posterity a certain matter especially worthy of memory. For that woman, suffering from an issue of blood, whom we learn from the sacred Gospels to have been cured by our Savior, they report to have drawn her origin from this city; and that her house is seen there, and that there exist illustrious monuments of the benefit conferred upon her by our Savior. For beside the door of that house, a bronze effigy of a woman is said to stand, set upon a stone column, with knees bent and hands stretched forth in the manner of a suppliant. But opposite, an effigy of a man cast from the same metal, standing and becomingly clothed in a double cloak, and stretching out his hand to the woman. At whose feet, on the very base, a certain unknown plant is said to grow, which, rising up to the fringe of the bronze cloak, is a most present remedy for driving away diseases of every kind. This statue they said represented the likeness of Jesus Christ. It remained furthermore even to our times; and we ourselves, having entered that city, beheld it. Nor indeed is it to be wondered at that the Gentiles who had been affected with benefits by our Savior performed these things; since we have seen also the painted images of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Christ himself, preserved on panels even to our memory. For those ancients, without any distinction, were accustomed to honor all who had deserved well of them, by a certain Gentile custom, as saviors, with honors of this kind. Thus he, and after him Rufinus, book 7, chapter 14. Likewise the Acts of St. Artemius the Martyr in Surius on the XX of October, chapter 38. The deed is also recounted by Philostorgius book 7, number 3; concerning whom the discourse will recur several times, and by Cedrenus in the new Parisian Royal printing, volume 1, page 305. Furthermore, that the narration of this history agrees too graphically with those things which the aforesaid author of the Acts of St. Procopius recounts in the same volume, page 564, than that he there did not copy his own from him, we observed in the same place in the cited volume, page 554, number 16.
[7] whose overthrow was punished in the statue of Julian the apostate: But what was afterward done to that venerable statue by Julian, even then the most impious forerunner of the Iconoclasts who were to follow, it is pleasing to hear from Sozomen book 5, chapter 21, where he thus speaks: But of those things which happened during the reign of Julian, this is by no means to be passed over; which is a very great argument both of the power of Christ, and of the divine wrath against the Emperor. For when the Emperor had learned that at Cæsarea Philippi (it is a city of Phœnicia, which they name Paneas) there was a distinguished statue of Christ, which a woman, freed from the issue of blood with which she had long suffered, dedicated there; he overthrew it and placed his own image in its place. But immediately fire, fallen from heaven with great force, tore the breast of the statue and the parts near the breast; and cast down the head together with the neck, and fixed it face-downward on the ground, as far as the part of the breast was broken off. And from that time the statue perseveres to this very day with such an appearance, covered with the soot of the lightning. But the statue of Christ the pagans then indeed, dragging it through the city, broke to pieces. But afterward the Christians, having collected it, placed it in the church, where it is still kept.
[8] For the rest, from the base upon which this statue was set, which ought to confound the ancient and new iconoclasts. he commemorates after Eusebius that there arose a plant most potent to cure all languors and diseases, whose species, as he adds, none of the physicians or empirics knew. All which things, concerning the admirable virtue of the statue and image of our Savior, being set forth, there rightly fits the epiphonema, against the errors of the ancient and more recent iconomachs, which à Lapide has in the cited place: Our innovators imitate Julian, who cast away, drown, and burn the relics of the Saints, while they preserve and venerate the relics of their own. For the heart of Zwingli, burnt, found among the ashes, his Zwinglian followers preserve with great cult, says Capito in the life of Zwingli.
§ II. Her other elogia; the truth of the statue erected by the Hæmorrhoissa established.
But if we seek concerning the elogia of this holy Woman; even though none of the writers had made mention of her, more than one, one alone above all, ought to be a testimony to us, The elogium of this holy woman from the Gospel. brought forth even by the single Evangelist Mark, chapter 5, the Holy Spirit inspiring; where, for the memory of all posterity to follow hereafter and for the imitation of the years to come, he graphically and pathetically exhibits her faith in these words: And a Woman, who was in an issue of blood for twelve years, and had suffered much from many physicians, and had spent all her substance, and had profited nothing, but rather was worse: when she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. For she said, that if I shall touch but his garment, I shall be whole. And immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the plague. And immediately Jesus, knowing in himself the virtue that had gone out from him, turning to the crowd, said: Who touched my garments? And his disciples said to him: You see the crowd pressing you; and you say: Who touched me? And he looked about to see her who had done this. But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had been done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. But he said to her: Daughter, your faith has made you whole, go in peace, and be sound of your plague. The deed is also narrated in Matthew 9 and Luke 8.
[10] Great therefore was the confidence conceived by this Hæmorrhoissa concerning the virtue of Christ, Her great faith joined with other virtues. and no less her faith, the foundation of her confidence! But because faith, as the Council of Trent teaches, Session 6, chapter 8, is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God, and to come to the fellowship of his sons; therefore to that faith, which most perfectly excelled in this Saint, and upon which as a base was built that immense and heroic confidence of obtaining her former health, although now frustrated for the space of so many years, all human remedies having been tried; therefore, I say, to that faith as to a first principle, the exercises of her other virtues are to be referred; namely of most ardent love toward her divine Savior, of thanksgiving with perpetual memory of so great a benefit, exact observance of the commandments, intimate affection toward the divine service, etc. adorned with which ornaments of virtues, she closed her life, holily passed, with a holy end.
[11] St. Asterius excellently proclaims her. Excellently St. Asterius, who lived about the year 400, and was Bishop of Amasea in Pontus, weaves the elogium of the holy Woman, and of the statue erected by her. Thus he speaks of St. Hæmorrhoissa in Photius in the same Codex 271: She honored her healer with a bronze statue, judging this gift not unworthy of the benefit; and that statue endured for many years to the refutation of those who dared to ascribe falsehood to the Evangelists; and the statue would have been preserved even to our times, to show both the miracle of God and the grateful mind of the Woman; had not that Maximinus, who was Emperor of the Romans before Constantine, an impious worshiper of idols, and envying Christ in the statue, taken away the bronze statue; although the memory of the deed done
he could not take away. Behold therefore the statue indeed appears not, but the Gospel everywhere proclaims that miracle, and the Hæmorrhoissa is celebrated from the East even to the West: and he labored in vain who took away the material perceptible by the senses: for the statue, erected and appearing, was a silent, lifeless monument of the miracle, but fame, taking up the deed with the word, daily runs through cities and villages, proclaiming the benefit of the Lord. From the elogia collated with one another there arise certain difficulties; which we shall discuss hereafter; so that it will not have been superfluous to have here transcribed several things verbatim.
[12] Gothofredus, striving to weaken the truth of the statue The truth of this statue Jacob Gothofredus gnaws at in the Philostorgian Dissertations, page 170; until at last from a rather slight conjecture he utterly overthrows it, his reasons being first set forth. But what are they? Eusebius, the most ancient of all, a spectator of the image itself, certain only from the mouth or tradition of the common people, but not certain of the narration, has ἔλεγον (that is, they said or they were saying.) In the same way also Sozomen, though more credulous, and after him Nicephorus, places this miraculous history among those which are known only to the natives by ancient tradition. As though indeed only those things rested on historical faith which historians write from sight; but the things which they write from hearsay, and much more the things which they write from popular tradition, from times not too remote from those in which they write, are to be relegated to the apocrypha. I confess indeed that not rarely very many things stand in the way, that popular traditions may not be admitted. But what here stands in the way, let Gothofredus expound to us. In two books, he will say, where the matter treated is Images, which he confesses go about under the name of Charlemagne, that history is doubted in two places by those words twice repeated: If nonetheless it be believed to have been done. But this futile sophism is worthy rather of commiseration than of a reply. For I ask whether an author of the ninth century, or rather of none, because uncertain, as the author himself is uncertain, can prevail against Eusebius, St. Asterius, Philostorgius, and Sozomen, to say nothing of Cedrenus and Nicephorus? But Eusebius did not see this. What then? He writes that he heard it, not obscurely insinuating that public fame there and popular tradition had grown strong; as though bringing forth that which was in the mouth of all the people, and speaking from the mouth of all; He adds that he himself saw the statue, concerning which these things were commemorated. Is this not enough? What do you want more?
[13] Let therefore this truth of the statue stand unshaken both from the most ancient tradition, but in vain; and from Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century; from St. Asterius, at about the beginning of the fifth, in Photius; from Philostorgius and Sozomen about the middle of the same century, to say nothing of Rufinus, and several others, who admitted that history of Eusebius, or who cited it singly. Let us remember that which Sozomen subjoins to the narration of this history, concerning the virtue of this wonderful herb: Nor indeed does it seem to me a wonder, that certain new and unusual benefits happened to men, after God came to earth: for very many other miracles also, wrought throughout cities and villages, are celebrated only by the natives, as is probable, who received the knowledge of these things handed down from their forefathers: and that this is true I will presently show; which things I forbear to describe.
[14] But since the chief foundation of this history, so far as it regards these definite places, as is shown from the text of Eusebius persons, and circumstances, is sought from Eusebius; it will be worth the trouble to reduce certain periods from him to analysis, rendered by our interpretation more strictly and almost to the letter: that it may be plain that the word ἔλεγον, twice repeated in that whole text, but throughout nearly the whole course of the same, or at least for a great part of it, implicitly understood, in no way tends to the prejudice of the truth of the history of which we treat, nor is against it. For who would persuade me that "they said," and the like, are always used in doubtful matters, never in certain ones? namely those which are held certain indeed in substance, but uncertain in the additions or circumstances; so that when authors say "they said," it is not straightway a sign that they speak in the manner of one doubting of the substance of the matter, but only of its circumstances. And this here has place in Eusebius. Behold the text: Hence (from Paneas) THEY SAID she was sprung; and that her house is shown in the city; and that the wonderful trophies of the Savior's beneficence toward her remain. Here I will easily admit that Eusebius speaks not indeed in the manner of one doubting, by the ἔλεγον, but of one affirming less certainly not the thing itself, but the heap of additions which surround the thing. That there stands, ἑστάναι (understand ἔλεγον) on a high stone at the doors of her house a bronze effigy of the Woman, bent on her knees, with hands stretched forward like a suppliant. That the author here speaks most affirmatively and in the same manner, as if the ἔλεγον, here understood, were absent, will presently be made plain; if you except the substantive ἐκτύπωμα, so far as it signifies the same as ὁμοίωμα, say the "copy" which reproduces the πρωτότυπον; but not so far as it signifies the effigy of the Woman as such: which effigy that he himself saw I prove.
[15] For he narrates that there was opposite an effigy of a man, reduced to analysis. of the same material, which stretched out its hand to the Woman. Which how can they be understood, unless both statue or effigy existed at that time? and one indeed opposite the other, in the same place, as it seems, morally speaking; and so seen by Eusebius, as will be plain. That at his feet on the base itself a certain unknown plant grows; that it, rising up to the fringe of the bronze cloak, is a medicine of all diseases; that this statue reproduces the image of Jesus Christ, THEY SAID. In the last member of this period, by the ἔλεγον, Eusebius speaks less affirmatively; and indeed more affirmatively he could not, whether this was the image which by likeness reproduced Christ. In the first member and second he has the ἔλεγον above things which can fall with less affirmation of the matter, namely above the "unknown," and above those very wonderful additions "the healer of all diseases": for concerning the substance of the statue he speaks most affirmatively: But it remained even to our time; so that we ourselves, having gone off to that city, apprehended it by sight, ὄψει παραλαβεῖν. And so he also saw the statue of the woman: for it was opposite the statue of the Savior: and so also near at hand; since it stretched out its hand to him. Therefore unless you make Eusebius a battologist, foolish and ridiculous, when he relates that the effigy of the Woman stands, the word ἔλεγον being understood, he says just as much, ἑστάναι; as if he said absolutely and simply that it stands, otherwise about to say in the past ἑστακέναι, that it had stood, and stood no longer; if the matter were received only from the fame of the common people, separated namely in place and time. But here, since he speaks of a matter present both as to time and as to place: I do not conceive how he did not see both statues. That of the Savior he expressly asserts he saw, but that of the Woman he does not say he saw, but also does not deny. And let these things be said to show that the word ἔλεγον, rightly understood and distinguished, does not in the least hinder the Eusebian text; and that sometimes these and similar expressions no more weaken the text of an author than if they were absent.
[16] Gothofredus obtrudes fabulous conjectures. What is credible with historical faith, if this be not? And yet, according to his own inclination against the cult of sacred images, Gothofredus prefers to obtrude on us trifles and old wives' fables. As though indeed one must use empty conjectures, where antiquity speaks. Hear his follies: Certainly, if there is room for conjectures, let it rather seem that this statue exhibited the likeness of the city of Paneas itself; which namely, afflicted by some calamity, was erected either by the Emperor or by some Magistrate. For in this posture cities and provinces afflicted, and presently also restored, were formerly represented. Then he refers the reader to the ancient coins, and to Gregory Nazianzen epistle 49 or 40; and to Basil epistle 279. What Gothofredus objects in general concerning the ancient coins cannot derogate from this particular case, so solidly established by ancient authors and ancient tradition. But Gregory here objected, in the assigned epistle, beseeches the Prefect Olympius, that on account of the crime of certain men the city of Diocæsarea be not leveled with the ground; the city itself being brought in to move his commiseration through ethopœia and prosopopœia, addressing him in a tragic oration. Does it follow hence: Therefore the statue of which we here treat is fabulous, and represents other fictitious persons, not Christ and the Hæmorrhoissa? For indeed if he read the whole epistle, he could see there that sacred statues were anciently in use among Christians; concerning which I will meet him a little later. But Basil writes to Modestus the Prefect of the prætorium, asking that the presbyters and deacons continue to be immune from tribute or tax, and that he be willing to stretch out a helping hand to our fatherland, as he speaks, fallen on its knees. What here even in shadow stands against our statue?
§ III. The chief circumstances of the statue; whither it was carried; by whom it was taken away.
That by the impulse of faith, of reverence, and as a testimony of a grateful mind, that statue was erected by the Hæmorrhoissa, [The Chronicle of Malelas also vends fables, when it asserts that the Saint sought leave to erect the statue.] is sufficiently gathered from Eusebius, St. Asterius, Philostorgius, Sozomen; to pass over Cedrenus and Nicephorus in silence. But that she herself sought leave to do this by a petition or letter from Philip the Tetrarch of the region of Trachonitis, as is said in Oration 3 on Images, attributed to St. John Damascene, and is narrated in the Chronicle of John Malelas, I think altogether fabulous; nor does the letter or petition, transcribed verbatim in the said Oration and Chronicle, edited at Oxford 1691, from page 306, appear to me of better bran; Eusebius being silent with all antiquity. Nor ought John Malelas much to move us; concerning whom Henry Valesius, why he omitted him, when he edited the Excerpts of Polybius, Diodorus, Nicolaus of Damascus, and three others, gives this reason in his Preface in Vossius on the Greek Historians, page 380, and in the Commentary on Ecclesiastical Writers this year, in which I write these things, 1722, edited in three volumes, volume 2, column 415. I transcribe the passage from Vossius, since it has not been permitted to see the source itself: John Malelas (lest anyone perhaps miss him here) I have designedly passed over; because besides three or four fables about Minos, Antiope, and Bellerophon, and those woven in an ungraceful style, he contained nothing of good fruit. Which John is assigned in the said Commentary not to the sixth or seventh century, as it seemed to some, but to the tenth. Whence it little matters, that he, as he asserts in the same place, page 308, found this monument in the said city of Paneas, with a certain Bassus, who had passed from Judaism to Christianity, who in the same book also had the deeds of all the ancient
Kings of Judea written down. Wherefore, to use the words of Baronius at the year 31, number 75, against the chronicle of the said John, since in many things the faith of his writing wavers, and it is known to teem with very many falsehoods, we have thought it unworthy to weave into these our pages (I say into our Acts) the said petition.
[18] By no means ought the frivolous notation of Gothofredus to inject a scruple into pious worshipers of sacred images; who renders the words of Eusebius ἐθνικῇ συνηθείᾳ wrongly thus into Latin, "after the WHOLLY, ALTOGETHER Gentile custom"; or "by a custom WHOLLY ethnic"; [The passage of Eusebius, somewhat harsh in appearance, is explained in favor of images.] for which last interpretation he cites Rosweyde, without indicating the place; whereby it happens that it cannot easily be consulted; but that affected exaggeration by the adverbs "altogether," "wholly," is not read in the text; for he says nothing else than "by a Gentile manner or custom"; and this Valesius softened, "by a certain Gentile custom," what Eusebius said somewhat harshly in appearance; who nonetheless, if read with a mind not iconomachic, could be more kindly explained, having perhaps so spoken because that custom was especially usual among the Gentiles and almost daily, who, without any distinction, ἀπαραλλάκτως (concerning which word see the notes of Valesius), were accustomed to honor all who had deserved well of them, by a certain Gentile custom, as saviors, with honors of this kind; whereas among the neo-Christians in the first times of the nascent Church this happened more rarely, either for fear of the Gentiles, or the scandal of the perfidious Jews; for to the Jews the Cross of Christ and the Christian rites were a reproach, but to the Gentiles a scandal. Since therefore, as we related from Baronius, it was in no way lawful for the Jews to form an image of anyone on any occasion, and this was so usual among the Gentiles: what wonder, if Eusebius says that the holy Woman did this from the custom of the Gentiles, since from the manner of the Jews she could not? Hence therefore do not infer that there was no use of sacred images at the beginning of the Church; Eusebius testifying, as we saw, that he had seen the painted images of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Christ himself, preserved on panels even to his own memory. Whereby you may refute Gothofredus, contending that the words of Eusebius clearly show that there was as yet in the Church no such law, I will not say of adoring an image, nay not even a custom of publicly setting one up. As though indeed, because Eusebius does not narrate that this was done, in the case of the Hæmorrhoissa, leave having first been obtained from the Tetrarch; or according to the custom or example of the Church; there is rightly deduced hence some prejudice against the most ancient cult of sacred images: but not to put my sickle into another's harvest; I refer these things to the writers of controversies, in which you will find refuted whatever the innovating spirits and those trumpeting a reformation of the morals of the Church, imitating the ancient iconoclasts, have been accustomed impiously and blasphemously to vomit forth against the worshipers of images.
[19] The site of the statue is illustrated; Not out of place will certain things likewise here be observed concerning the site of the statue, drawn from the collation of the authors. Eusebius relates that it was placed beside the door of the house of the Hæmorrhoissa; without other additions more individually determining the place. St. Asterius and Sozomen make no mention of the place in which it was first set. The Acts of St. Artemius narrate that it was placed in a distinguished place of the city. But Philostorgius book 7, number 3, and after him Nicephorus, commemorate that it was placed beside the fountain which is in the city of Paneas. But what one affirms, another, while he is silent about it, does not deny; but you will easily reconcile all, if you suppose that beside the house of the holy Woman there was a fountain, to which that statue was placed near or upon: as even today in some places among Catholics the custom obtains, that sacred statues are set conspicuous at fountains or public pumps. Let an example be the statue of the Virgin Mother of God in the fish-market among the people of Antwerp, set upon a pump: so that it is not necessary to go to Suidas for the statues of the Gentiles; or to the author of the Life of Constantine, different from Eusebius of Cæsarea, whom Gothofredus cites for statues or symbols erected at fountains. Philostorgius adds that the often-mentioned statue stood in the open air and bare, and exposed to the rains, and so in an open place. Another thing, neither also unworthy of a brief observation, is that Asterius, Philostorgius, and Sozomen mention only the statue of Christ; Eusebius on the contrary, more ancient by one century than these two last, and than the first by a little less than one century, expresses two; the one indeed a bronze effigy of the woman, with knees bent and hands stretched forth like a suppliant. But opposite an effigy of a man etc. which, since he saw with his own eyes, there is no reason why both should not be admitted with full faith.
[20] an herb grown to it; Nor are the things to be passed over which the ancients handed down concerning the herb grown at the feet of the Savior. Eusebius says: On its base itself a certain unknown plant is said to grow, which, rising up to the fringe of the bronze cloak, is a most present remedy for driving away diseases of every kind. Sozomen adds that none of the physicians or empirics knew the species of the herb. Of little moment is the author of the book published under the name of Charlemagne, of whom above; who here again is obtruded by Gothofredus doubting. Singular is what Philostorgius notes concerning this herb, saying that it was a most efficacious remedy not only against all diseases in general, which others also proclaim, but especially against consumption. What more? That Rufinus expressly adds, book 7, chapter 14, that that herb bears no virtue at all, if, before it has touched by growing the top of the bronze fringe, it be plucked. The same author, one of all, attributes the medical virtue not only to the herb alone, but also to a draught of water in which this herb had first been dipped, when he relates that a disease was driven off by a small draught of the moistened grass. But that virtue of the herb was not perpetual; for, according to Philostorgius, after the inscription of the statue was cleared of rubbish, the plant indeed from that time was no more seen either there or elsewhere in the place.
[21] Now also the inscription of the statue itself calls us, peculiar to Philostorgius alone, the inscription; and from him to Nicephorus: By the lapse of time the memory had fallen away both whose that effigy was, and for what cause it had been placed. For the Savior, standing in the open air and bare, had been overwhelmed in no small part of the body, earth being continually heaped up to the statue from the higher places, but especially in time of rains; which had obliterated the knowledge of the letters by which the several things were narrated. When therefore a diligent inquiry was made, the part indeed of the statue which was overwhelmed with earth was dug out; but the letters were found which indicated the whole series of the matter. Nicephorus adds, transcribing this place moreover, that those who were cured by that herb inquired with the greatest diligence the cause of so great efficacy: which the interpreter rendered paraphrastically, not verbatim, from the Greek. And the Acts of St. Artemius have, that it was after a time recognized from the miracle of the herb which grew there. But nothing similar occurs in Eusebius, Asterius, and Sozomen; Gothofredus exaggerating this with affected emphasis, page 275: as though indeed, if this inscription had been there, Eusebius without doubt, some mystagogue as guide, would have surveyed it, nor would he have redoubled his ἔλεγον, and pressed it forward for all faith, when he could have had it explored from the bronze itself more than sufficiently. But to what end does he object these things? which he himself, led by conscience, is presently compelled to solve: Unless, he says, we think that already in the age of Eusebius those letters were so covered over with mud, that we may believe it could not come into anyone's mind whether there was any inscription there. But what forbids that it should have so happened? so that the matter can easily be explained, no mystagogue having been employed by Eusebius.
[22] As for the translation of the statue; Eusebius is silent about it; for whom it was enough to have said that it remained even to his own times. the translation, Asterius says nothing. From Philostorgius we have that it was transported, and placed in the Diaconicum of the church; so also Nicephorus. The Acts of St. Artemius say that the Christians received it, and placed it in the diaconicum. Sozomen book 4, chapter 21, treating of the translated fragments, mentions only the church, as likewise Cedrenus in the cited place: where nonetheless, between the diaconicum and the church, if we wish to speak properly and strictly, there is as much difference as between the church and the sacristy, or, as it is commonly called, its sacristy. Concerning which the Hierolexicon of Macri may be seen under the word Aspaticon, and Gothofredus page 277. The translation of the statue has a difficulty, on account of which it is not undeservedly rendered suspect: for it was made either before the times of Constantine, or after, yet not beyond the times of Julian, by whom it is narrated to have been destroyed. If the former; whence did the others receive their diaconicum? about which Eusebius makes no word, who nonetheless is more ancient than all, and could best of all have known it. But if it happened after Constantine; how is it credible that the statue was given over to oblivion in that time, as Philostorgius hands down; after Eusebius, writing about the year 325, about 35 years before the reign of Julian, had transmitted so graphic a memorial of it to his contemporaries and posterity?
[23] with a response, lest to the little digression of Philostorgius. Furthermore, the little digression of Philostorgius, by which, after he had said that the statue was placed in the diaconicum of the church, bringing to it the fitting care and observance; he adds, yet by no means venerating and adoring it: for it was not, as he says, lawful to adore a bronze, or any other statue whatsoever; that little digression, I say, ought not to move us in the least, as contrary to the cult of sacred images, since it was brought forth by one who, infected with the heretical poison, professed himself a follower of Eunomius; who rejected the Relics of the Saints; and whose disciples all refused to enter the basilicas of the Apostles and Martyrs. See St. Jerome against Vigilantius; and St. Asterius in the first Supplement in Combefis, columns 195 and 208. Then his expression deservedly displeases; for neither do Catholics adore a bronze or any other material, as Gothofredus here translates; but in images or statues made of bronze or of other material they venerate Christ and the Saints whom they represent, by a pious and ancient custom handed down from their forefathers. Which I would have rightly understood by the ἐικονομίσοις of our times, that they may think more equitably of images and their worshipers.
[24] When this statue was taken away Now the difficulty must be explained concerning the time at which that statue was taken away or overthrown. I do not see how it can be maintained, with Asterius, that the statue of the Savior was preserved even to his own times… had not that Maximinus, who was Emperor of the Romans before Constantine,… taken away the bronze statue. For Eusebius, who wrote after Maximinus, not only does not mention this deed; but more expressly and precisely could not affirm the contrary: It remained, he says, ἔμεινεν, or as Rufinus rightly, book 7, chapter 14, it remained through, even to our times, and we ourselves, having entered the city (of Paneas), beheld it. Sozomen in most clear words says that Julian overthrew it, as we narrated from him; and that having overthrown it he placed his own image in its place, not
with impunity: but the statue of Christ, (which) then indeed the pagans, dragging through the city, broke to pieces; but afterward the Christians, having collected it, placed it in the Church, where it is still kept. To say that Maximinus commanded it to be taken away before, and hidden somewhere, where it was afterward found, and carried back to Paneas, is to feign something gratuitously. Nor has it a foundation, if you should say that it was seen by Eusebius before the persecution of those times, and that he did not know what Maximinus afterward did with it, or rather that Eusebius neglected to speak of it, because the discourse did not then fall upon that matter. But you would never say it so prettily as to persuade that St. Asterius can be reconciled with Eusebius, Sozomen, and the others; according to whom that statue was seen, and exposed to the public gaze of men, up to the times of Julian; where on the contrary it is clear that Asterius believed it appeared no more after the times of Maximinus.
[25] it does not agree among the Authors. Clearly therefore Asterius conflicts with Eusebius, more clearly with Sozomen and Philostorgius: who last narrates the matter thus: This statue therefore, Julian reigning, the Gentiles who inhabited Paneas, incited to impiety, torn from its base, with ropes tied round the feet, dragged through the middle of the street: the rest of the body indeed, pulling apart, they broke: but the head, separated from the neck in the dragging, some, ill-bearing what was being done, secretly snatched away, and, as far as could be done, preserved; and that this was seen by himself, Philostorgius testifies; as is in Photius in the Excerpts from his ecclesiastical History: of which both here and above we have for the most part given the Latin interpretation from Henry Valesius, the edition and Latin interpretation of Gothofredus being filled with almost innumerable errors, as the praised Valesius has in the Preface on the said Excerpts, and the other authors edited together with them; as one who had tasted Greek letters only with the tips of his lips; nor was sufficiently practiced in perusing Greek manuscript copies. To conclude the matter with Sozomen; it seems that somewhat more should be granted to him, sprung from Palestine, and educated in Palestine, than to St. Asterius, however somewhat more ancient, who lived at Amasea in Pontus, much more remote from the city of Cæsarea Philippi, and perhaps not rightly informed about the statue. That Julian, out of envy of the aforesaid herb, took it down, and placed his own, we have from Cedrenus. And let these things be enough for the present argument.