Eustathius

ON SAINT EUSTATHIUS

PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH.

ABOUT THE YEAR 336.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch (S.)

BY THE AUTHOR P. B.

§ I. St. Eustathius' fatherland, studies of letters, constancy in the faith, episcopate of Beroea and Antioch, place and oration in the first Council of Nicaea.

This holy Eustathius, whom some less correctly write Eustachius, both his deeds and the added title of patriarch of Antioch manifestly distinguish from others of the same name. The things which have been fully disputed concerning him in the Chronological Tract, St. Eustathius which we have prefixed to this volume, I shall here take as inserted; but the things which we there only touched in passing must here be explained somewhat more at large. I shall use the instruments hitherto published, since no special ones are at hand to us, whence we might dig out anything new or singular; which indeed would be most to be lamented in the case of one whose acts were so illustrious; did he not share that lot in common with other very great men of those times, and were there not surviving at least those monuments of some of his deeds, whence concerning his whole Life, and his most excellent merits before God and the whole Church, each one might easily and solidly determine for himself.

[2] Eustathius was, according to St. Jerome On Ecclesiastical Writers chapter 85, born at Side, and imbued with liberal disciplines, by race a Pamphylian, a native of Side; or Sida, once a celebrated city on the shore of the Pamphylian sea, and archiepiscopal, under which were sixteen bishops, as Nilus Doxopatrius has it in Schelstrate tome 2 of Ecclesiastical Antiquities page 733; but now a slight place, and commonly called Chirisonda, or Scandalor, or Candalor. Which St. Chrysostom does not deny, in his Homily on St. Eustathius, when he says that he was banished from his fatherland: for the same sentence of exile, which properly drove him from Antioch, also bade him depart from Side and Pamphylia, and dwell in Thrace. Nay rather, even Antioch might be called his fatherland, who had for some time already held the patriarchate in it; although he was born elsewhere, about the year of Christ 270 or so, as we shall soon conjecture from the time of his Patriarchate. Further, there is no doubt that Eustathius spent his youthful age in the studies of letters, both sacred and profane; since the same St. Jerome, in the epistle to Magnus, reckons him among those: Who all so stuff their books with the doctrines and opinions of the philosophers that you do not know what you ought to admire in them first, the erudition of the world or the knowledge of the Scriptures.

[3] There are those who would have it that he suffered something for the cause of the faith, He was a Confessor, either before his episcopate in the Diocletian persecution, or when he had already become a bishop, in the Licinian. The name of Confessor, ascribed to him more than once by St. Athanasius, indeed favors this, as may be seen in the Apology for his Flight tome 1, page 321 d, of the Benedictine edition, and in To Those Leading the Solitary Life page 346 d. For that by this word none were wont in those times to be honored, except those who had endured either death, or at least some punishment, from the tyrants for the profession of the Christian religion, is, I think, well enough known. But although St. Eustathius merited that title fully and more than enough by that very exile in which he perished; that this is nevertheless not the reason why St. Athanasius calls him Confessor is clear from this, that in both places he reckons many other bishops, who had endured from the Eusebians, because they defended the orthodox faith, either the same or even more grievous things than Eustathius, to whom nevertheless he does not accommodate the glorious epithet of Confessor.

[4] Bishop first of Beroea, then of Antioch, "First he ruled the church of Beroea in Syria; then that of Antioch," says Jerome On Ecclesiastical Writers in the place cited; the same Sozomen testifies book 1, chapter 2: he came to the latter in the year of Christ 324, as has been shown in the Tract on the Patriarchs of Antioch; when he undertook the former is unknown. He certainly was ruling it when, after Arius with his followers had been excommunicated at Alexandria, St. Alexander of Alexandria sent synodical letters to him, as is in Theodoret Ecclesiastical History book 1, chapter 3 in the version of Sirmond; that is, as the learned think, about the year of Christ 320. And even then indeed he was contending so strenuously for the catholic faith that, among the defenders of the Church, after both Alexanders, whom the inscription of the preceding epistle sets forth, he alone with St. Philogonius is named by Theodoret in the same place: "He wrote letters," he says, "to the same purport (St. Alexander) to Philogonius, prelate of the church of Antioch, and to Eustathius, who then ruled Beroea, and to other patrons of Apostolic doctrines." And he so administered the church of Beroea that—Philogonius (I use the words of Theodoret book 1, chapter 6) having been translated to a better life—the bishops, priests, and the whole people that loves Christ, by common suffrages compelled him against his will to rule that church (of Antioch) in his place; and the bishops themselves, gathered not long after at Nicaea, since they regarded Eustathius with admiration for the merit both of his life and of his doctrine, judged him worthy to preside over the Apostolic chair, and moreover confirmed him in it, as Sozomen, assigned a little before, has it. See what has been said of his translation, succession, and confirmation in the preliminary Tract. Hence meanwhile his age may in some way be gathered: for he can scarcely be believed to have attained the patriarchal dignity before about his fiftieth year, according to the practice of the primitive Church, handed down in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions in Labbe tome 1 of the Councils, column 223 b, c: in which manner he seems to have been born not much after the year of Christ 270: which becomes the more probable because he is known to have been a bishop for at least a whole four years before he became Patriarch.

[5] he excelled in the Council of Nicaea, He had not long occupied the see of Antioch when the first synod of Nicaea was proclaimed, in which our Eustathius showed himself a most keen champion of the orthodox faith against the Ariomanites; so that he is deservedly said to have excelled there beyond the rest. Certainly in Facundus of Hermiane book 8, chapter 1 it is asserted that "The most blessed Eustachius, being the first of the holy Fathers who were gathered at Nicaea, confirmed the orthodox faith": and book 11, chapter 1: "The blessed Eustachius … is honored with many and above many Fathers, as being the first of the Council of Nicaea." St. Nicephorus in his Chronicle thus calls him: Eustathius, who in the first synod was both witness and head and chief (κορυφαῖος) of the Fathers who assembled at Nicaea. Theodoret also says book 1, chapter 6 that it was he who, when the Fathers were sitting in that synod with Constantine, straightway before the others … began to adorn the Emperor with the highest praises, requiting his excellent zeal toward sacred things in the place of proclamations. I am mistaken, unless this is the very thing which St. Jerome means to Evagrius, or rather Evangelus or Evangelium the priest, writing thus: I turned myself to … our Eustathius, who first, bishop of the church of Antioch, sounded the war-trumpet against Arius with a most clear blast. The same thing Gregory the priest of Caesarea narrates, and indeed producing that "war-trumpet," in his Oration on the holy Fathers of Nicaea in Combefis tome 2 of his Auctarium page 555, where the Greek text is thus turned into Latin:

[6] When therefore the Saints and the pious Emperor had sat down, and there he addresses Constantine, Eustathius of Antioch (for the holy Synod granted to him that he should make the address to the Emperor) said: "We give thanks to God, most excellent Emperor, who directs the earthly empire to thee: who through thee has abolished the error of idols, and has set the just souls of the faithful in liberty: the reek of the demons has ceased: by the manifold worship of God the superstition of the heathen has been overthrown: the darkness of impiety is driven out: the world is illumined with the light of divine knowledge. The Father is glorified; the Son is adored together with Him; the Holy Spirit is announced. The consubstantial Trinity, one divinity in three persons and hypostases, is proclaimed. By it, O Emperor, the empire of thy piety is fortified: preserve it for us inviolate. Let no heretic, entering into the church, take away any one thing from the Trinity, leaving without honor and stricken with ignominy that which remains. Arius, who took his name from madness, is to us the cause of this oration and assembly; who, admitted—I know not how—into the presbytery of the church of Alexandria, without our knowledge, was found alien from the doctrine of the most blessed Prophets and Apostles. For he does not fear to deprive the Only-begotten Son and Word of the Father of the fellowship of the same substance with the Father, and, a worshiper of the creature, contends to reckon the Creator among created things. But do thou persuade him, O Emperor, that with changed mind he do not resist the Apostolic doctrines: or, if he shall persist in the impiety of the sinister opinion of which he is convicted, do thou utterly exterminate him from the assembly of Christ and of us; lest it befall that the souls of the simpler be plundered by the turbid allurements of his words." Thus he.

[7] And if these things are true concerning St. Eustathius, it will be easy to gather from Eusebius and indeed the very first of all; what place he occupied in that Council: for thus he has it book 3 On the Life of Constantine chapter 11: Then he of the bishops who held the first place on the right side, rising up, addressed the Emperor in a brief oration, rendering thanks and praises on his account to almighty God. First then on the right among the Fathers sat St. Eustathius,

since it is he who addressed the Emperor in the manner just described, which, after Baronius at the year of Christ 325 from number 54, very many others think. There are not lacking, however, those who feel otherwise, as Nicetas is the authority in his Treasury of the Orthodox Faith book 5, chapter 7, in these words: And Eusebius indeed, in his third book on the Life of Constantine, testifies that he first made the address in the synod. If nevertheless we believe Theodoret, Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, was first to crown the imperial head with the little flowers of encomium. But as Theodore of Mopsuestia writes, that honor was voluntarily conferred upon Alexander of Alexandria the Pontiff; inasmuch as he had been the leader and author of the assembling of the Synod. For Eusebius Pamphili there also stands Sozomen book 1, chapter 19. "But I," says Valesius in his Annotation on the cited place of Eusebius, "in this diversity of opinions, would more willingly accede to that opinion which affirms that the first parts of speaking were conferred upon Eusebius by the Synod. First, because Eusebius was without controversy the most learned and eloquent of all. Then, because he himself openly testifies it at the beginning of this work in these words … Lately also we ourselves, seated in the midst of the assembly of God's ministers, followed the victorious Prince with vicennial hymns." Certain more recent writers have followed Valesius.

[8] as is proved, But I would rather subscribe to the opinion of those who think this is to be attributed to St. Eustathius: for Theodoret expressly asserts this: nor can Jerome, cited above at number 5, be understood otherwise: for before Eustathius St. Philogonius, bishop of the church of Antioch, had sounded the war-note against Arius with a most clear trumpet. By what reasoning, then, could St. Eustathius have done this first, unless in the battle-line of Nicaea? To these is added the priest whom I mentioned, Gregory: nay also the Author of the Tripartite History book 2, chapter 5, and Nicephorus Callistus book 8, chapter 16: for although each mentions the oration made here by Eusebius of Caesarea in the second place, yet both testify that Eustathius spoke in the first place. There favor also the things which we gave above at number 5, and other elogia of that kind, in which he is said to have been the first and the coryphaeus among the Fathers of Nicaea. There favors the very oration set forth at number 6, which, if it truly was such—and indeed it was a war-note, such as St. Jerome would have Eustathius to have first sounded against Arius—by no means suits Eusebius, who at that time was in the least harsh toward Arius. But that oration Baronius admitted as such; and those who doubt whether it really was Eustathius' are led by trifling arguments, as may be seen in Tillemont note 6 on the Council of Nicaea, which accordingly I do not think it worth the trouble even to refute. Finally, those are not weighty grounds which are brought forward either for St. Alexander of Alexandria or for Eusebius Pamphili.

[9] the opinions of others having been refuted: For for St. Alexander only the authority of Theodore of Mopsuestia makes; nay rather, of Nicetas alone: for what Theodore asserted is not established from elsewhere; he seems, however, to have said only that Alexander of Alexandria was the leader and author of the assembling of the Synod; and thence either he himself or Nicetas argued that the same Alexander spoke there in the first place, in which manner this authority is much diminished; consult the text of Nicetas described at number 7. No more solid are the testimonies brought forward for Eusebius. For 1, indeed he does not testify this of himself in book 3 On the Life of Constantine chapter 11: for he names no one, except in the title of the chapter, which, by the testimony of Valesius himself in his Annotation on the beginning of the same work, is not his. 2. In the chapter itself he rather openly denies this of himself, when he narrates that he first made the address who held the first place on the right side; assuredly Eusebius by no means held that place; or, tell me, by what example, by what right, by what order? For all these things were otherwise in the Council of Chalcedon and others. 3. Because, however, Eusebius does not name the orator, hence Sozomen book 1, chapter 19, though not rightly, could easily conjecture that Eusebius himself was designated; as though he had kept silent his own name out of modesty; and thus to take Eusebius for Eustathius: just as the same Author, because in Eusebius, the same book 3, chapter 7, the name of the Roman Pontiff was not expressed, by a much grosser error took Julius for St. Sylvester, book 1, chapter 17. 4. Nicetas could err from the very title of the Eusebian chapter, which perhaps was older than himself. 5. Nor do the arguments of Valesius adduced at number 7 make to this point, of which the one, drawn from Eusebius' own testimony, Pagi dissolves in his Critical Notes on Baronius at the year of Christ 325 number 22; the other, concerning the doctrine and eloquence of Eusebius, is far the weakest; since for a modest address neither so much doctrine nor eloquence was required; then, if it was judged necessary, Eusebius assuredly was not to be used, when St. Eustathius himself was present, a man, by the testimony of Sozomen book 2, chapter 19, both excellent in other matters and deservedly to be admired for the sake of his eloquence.

[10] But does it in any way follow from what has been said that not the Legates of the Roman Pontiff, yet he did not preside over the Council. but St. Eustathius presided over the synod of Nicaea? So indeed, after others equally derogating from the authority of the Roman See wherever they find occasion, Tillemont seems to have felt, both in the Council of Nicaea article 2, and in St. Eustathius, where he thus has it: "There are very many arguments at hand, by which it may be proved that St. Eustathius not only was present at, but even presided over, the Council of Nicaea." Who does not know from what fountain, or rather from what sewer, those things reek? For the rest, that I may not here linger in refuting those arguments, Pagi, after very many others, does it in his Critical Notes on Baronius, in whom, Reader, you will find the same things long ago confuted in Launoy, at the year of Christ 325 from number 11 up to 19. Consult also Baronius at the same year number 56, where he shows from Eustathius himself that Eustathius was not president of the Synod.

§ II. St. Eustathius' deeds and writings after the Council of Nicaea up to his exile, against the Arians and their patrons.

There are those who would have it that St. Eustathius not only promulgated in Coelesyria, in Mesopotamia, and in both Cilicias, [some attribute to St. Eustathius an Antiochene Council later than that of Nicaea;] as, according to Gelasius in the History of the Council of Nicaea book 2, last chapter, he had been ordered, the statutes of the most sacred synod of Nicaea; but they think that a council was moreover assembled by him at Antioch, for the more valid defense of the same things by new decrees of the Eastern bishops against the Arians raging there: in which council indeed certain canons were framed, which, now mingled with others, are reckoned among those twenty-five canons which, in Labbe tome 2 of the Councils column 559 and following, are all attributed to one Antiochene Council, held at the dedication festival in the year of Christ 341, no otherwise than the synodical epistle prefixed to that same council; whereas they gather that it belongs to some earlier Antiochene Council, perhaps under St. Eustathius; certainly celebrated before the year of Christ 335 and the conventicle of Tyre, from this, that subscribed to it is read Theodore, or Theodotus of Laodicea, at least before the conventicle of Tyre, and so certainly already dead long before the dedication festival of Antioch. Thus think, and try to establish by several arguments, Godfrey Hermant in the Life of St. Athanasius tome 1 declaration 2 on book 5 chapter 12; Noël Alexandre century IV part 2, dissertation 25, conclusion 2; Tillemont tome 6 of the Monuments, where he treats of St. Eustathius, page 23, and in the places there cited in the margin. Nor yet from all these do they establish anything else to our purpose than that some Antiochene synod could have been celebrated by Eustathius, and that it is not an improbable conjecture that one really was celebrated.

[12] which others probably deny to him. On the contrary Schelstrate, throughout the whole work which he learnedly composed on the sacred Antiochene Council, but especially dissertation 4, chapter 1, where he responds to Hermant's objections, contends most keenly to prove that all the aforesaid, that is, both the 25 Antiochene canons and the Synodical epistle usually prefixed to them, are to be referred altogether to that one council which was held at the dedication festival: nor indeed are the arguments to be spurned which he draws forth, unearthed from antiquity, nor was the learned Antonio Pagi ashamed to follow them, dismissing the more recent opinions of his own Frenchmen, in his Critical Notes on the Annals of Cardinal Baronius at the year of Christ 341. As to Theodore, or Theodotus of Laodicea, subscribed to the synodical epistle (which is the chief foundation of the opinion set forth before), Schelstrate replies in the cited place and dissertation 2, chapter 4, number 18, that the fault is either in the name of Theodore, or in the added episcopate of Laodicea; but that it is easily corrected from Sozomen; nor that it immediately follows that the epistle must be assigned to another synod, because an error has crept into one name; where so many ancient codices and an authority confirmed by so many centuries militate to the contrary. For the rest, it has pleased me to adduce these things; not that I may decide this dispute, which demands a longer treatise than would suit our design; but that I may show that the Eustathian council is not a matter so far freed from all controversy that it may be roundly asserted, not only that some council was gathered by St. Eustathius at Antioch, but that it was also held by him about the year of Christ 329, which a certain recent Gallican legend-writer does, not a little bolder than his leaders, who both bring it nearer to the Council of Nicaea, and propose it only timidly and almost by divination; which, in my opinion at least, can somehow be tolerated; although I incline much more to the opposite.

[13] He was most hostile to the Arians, However that may be; whether a synod against the Arians was held before his exile by St. Eustathius (of which nevertheless no mention anywhere occurs), or was not held; it matters little; for us to demonstrate his singular constancy and fortitude in the orthodox faith after the Council of Nicaea in defending it against that sect: for St. Athanasius looks back to those times, in the History of the Arians to the Monks tome 1, part 1, page 346 d (Benedictine edition), when he thus writes: "There was a certain Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, a Confessor and pious in the faith. He, since he defended the truth with the utmost zeal, and was most hostile to the Arian heresy, and did not admit those heretics, was accused before the Emperor Constantine by a fabricated calumny; namely that he had done an insult to his mother: and at once he himself was made an exile with a great throng of priests and deacons: and finally those whom he, for the cause of impiety, did not admit into the clergy, these, after the Bishop was driven into exile, they not only introduced into the church; but ordained very many of them bishops, that they might have them as associates of their conspiracy for impiety. Of whose number is Leontius the castrated, who is now bishop of Antioch, and he who before him was bishop there, Stephen, George of Laodicea, Theodosius formerly bishop of Tripoli,

Eudoxius of Germanicia, Eustathius now of Sebaste." But of the exile I shall speak more fully below. Meanwhile it is clear from this, that this catholic Prelate could never be induced to admit openly into his church any cleric suspect to him by reason of Arian-madness.

[14] This indeed was much, and the cause to him of many vexations; not only in his own church; but yet it seemed too little to Eustathius that he did not of his own accord and by public authority introduce wolves of that kind into his fold; unless he also solicitously took care that they could nowhere either break in or at least insinuate themselves, or their pestiferous doctrines through pamphlets. Concerning which there is the excellent testimony of St. Chrysostom in the Homily which I shall subjoin at the end: "At that time, then," he says, "this Blessed one (Eustathius) was ruling the church which is among us (that of Antioch), and a disease arose, like a certain hostile pestilence, from the regions of Egypt, which, having ravaged through the intervening cities, was hastening to make an assault upon our city. But he, vigilant and attentive, and foreseeing all things that threatened, warded off the impending war; and, like some wise physician, before the disease had invaded the city in which he resided, prepared medicines, and steered this sacred ship with much security, running about in every direction, rousing the sailors, the passengers, all who were sailing, and taking care that they should watch and attend, as though the pirates were now assailing it and striving to plunder the treasure of the faith." A thing indeed worthy of solicitude, that, the heresy creeping stealthily especially through the vitals of their churches, all orthodox Bishops should imitate the example to the utmost of their power!

[15] But not even there did the ardor of Eustathius stand still; for it was too great but also in others; to be confined within the bounds of his one church, however widely extended, or to be sufficiently expressed by himself alone. Hear St. John Chrysostom in the cited place thus continuing: "Nor indeed here only; but into all quarters he sent those who should teach, who should exhort, who should dispute, who should shut off from the enemies every approach. For he had been well taught by the grace of the Spirit that the prelate of a church ought to be solicitous not only for that which was committed to him by the Holy Spirit, but also for every one established in the world. And this he gathered from the sacred prayers: for if prayers are to be poured out for the universal Church, he says, which reaches from the ends to the ends of the world; much more ought one both to bear care for that whole Church and to be solicitous alike for all, to provide for all." But doubtless a matching ability could not be equal to so great a will and zeal: for the Arian conflagration spread and poured itself out more widely and more coveredly than that he himself with his own could suffice to extinguish it everywhere.

[16] He put forth therefore his pen, in which he was most powerful, that where he himself through his own person and his people could not be heard, also by writing books, he might at least be read and understood. St. Jerome testifies this, On Ecclesiastical Writers chapter 85, when he says that he "composed many things against the dogma of the Arians." And it is a wonder if to that do not pertain the "Infinite epistles, which it would be long to enumerate," which he asserts in the same place that Eustathius wrote. Certainly his other works, which he there notes, do not make to the Arian dogma. St. Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in Photius in the Bibliotheca codex 225, calls them six books, or dissertations, of Eustathius against the Arians: for thus he writes, according to the version of Andreas Schott: "For Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, in VI books against the Arians writes in these words: But the dancers of the Arian stage boast that Christ committed sin." And from the sixth book indeed, nay also from the eighth against the Arians, we have some things cited in Facundus of Hermiane book 11, chapter 1, and in St. Anastasius, as Sirmond teaches in the Notes on Facundus in the same place (whose annotation Tillemont did not understand, in St. Eustathius toward the end; when he thought that here was cited by Anastasius the Dissertation of St. Eustathius on the Witch of Endor). Theodoret also, Ecclesiastical History book 1, chapter 7 (in the edition of Sirmond), intimates that a history was elaborated by him, in which he set forth what was done by the Arians both in the very synod of Nicaea and after it. Nay, he even exhibits a fragment from that work, which it will not irk me to adduce; that thence the reader may make at least some conjecture concerning his other lucubrations against the Arians. "Refuting therefore the Blasphemy of the Arians, and expounding the passage of Proverbs, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works, he writes concerning them in this manner," says Theodoret:

[17] some fragments of which survive; "But I will come here also to the acts of the Council. What then, when the synod for these reasons had assembled at Nicaea in very great number, about two hundred and seventy bishops being gathered into one? For plainly, on account of their multitude, I cannot write, inasmuch as I did not investigate it more curiously. When there the question began to be raised concerning the reckoning of the faith, the blasphemy of Eusebius was clearly detected from his letters. Which, read before all, brought immense grief to the hearers on account of the man's depravity, but affected him who had written it with incurable disgrace. And now indeed, the workshop of Eusebius being laid open, and the nefarious letters torn to pieces in the sight of all, certain persons at once by arrangement, holding out the name of peace, compelled all to be silent who were wont most aptly to make their speeches. But the followers of the Arian madness, fearing lest by the authority of so great a Council they should be punished with exile, leaping into the midst, themselves indeed reject the dogma of Arius and condemn it with anathema, and subscribe with their own hand to the decree of the common consent. But after they obtained the episcopate by very many runnings-about, when the repentance they had undertaken ought to have prostrated them, they now secretly, now openly champion the condemned opinions, laying snares with divers arguments. But seeking to establish the plants of the tares, they fear scouts, they flee inspectors, and so they fight against the heralds of the truth. But we are far from believing that God can be overcome by impious men: for as they again gather forces, they will again be overthrown, according to the most grave prophet Isaiah." These things then the great Eustathius, adds Theodoret. See also Nicephorus Callistus book 8, chapter 20 and following. This writing indicates the year of Christ about 329, when, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, most keen champions of the Arian error, being now recalled from exile, were busying themselves to raise up by new arts the prostrated heresy.

[18] It is clear also from this, how little he dreaded those [and by which he vehemently kindled the hatreds of his adversaries against himself.] whom here he plainly enough lashes, and whom he knew to be no less hostile to himself than powerful in the court of Constantine. Nor did he think it mattered that they wished to be held as catholics, and openly not only detested the proscribed dogma of Arius, but also uniquely upheld the Nicene faith in magnificent words; while in the very thing itself they strove to undermine it from the foundation by ambiguous interpretations and by evil wiles. Thus he wished neither Paulinus of Tyre, nor Patrophilus of Scythopolis, bishops, nor even Eusebius of Caesarea himself, to be spared, but, as Socrates book 1, chapter 23, and Sozomen book 2, chapters 18 and 19 have it, he turned away from them and openly accused them as Arians. And Eusebius indeed dared to besmear him with the stain of the Sabellian heresy, a device then customary of the Arians against the asserters of the synod of Nicaea; but since that accusation, being most false by the testimony of Socrates in the cited place, availed little against St. Eustathius among sensible men, the Eusebians thought other engines were to be devised by them, by which they might undermine the authority of an adversary so troublesome. "What therefore happened in the case of Stephen," says St. Chrysostom Homily on St. Eustathius, "that also befell in his. For as the Jews, when they could not resist the wisdom of Stephen, stoned that Saint: so also these, when they could not resist his wisdom, and saw his ramparts fortified, then expel the herald from the city." But by what reasoning they accomplished this must be explained a little more fully.

§ III. St. Eustathius' deposition and exile.

Thus Theodoret narrates the matter, according to Sirmond, book 1, chapter 20: "But Eusebius (of Nicomedia) also violently occupied, as we have said, the see of Constantinople (Theodoret errs here; The Arians depose St. Eustathius, for that was done later, as Valesius notes on this place.) Thus, greater power being acquired, and frequenting the Emperor more closely, and confirming his confidence from frequent meeting, he set about to construct snares against the defenders of the truth. And first, making a show of a desire to see Jerusalem, the Emperor being circumvented by this fraud, he set out thence with the greatest honor, as though to behold that most famous work of construction, the Emperor supplying vehicles and the rest of the equipment. And with him departed also Theognis of Nicaea, the associate and partaker, as before said, of his perverse counsels. And when they had come to Antioch, feigning friendship with their countenance, they were received most honorably. For that champion of the truth, the great Eustathius, showed them all fraternal benevolence. But when they came to the holy places, and saw Eusebius of Caesarea, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and Aëtius of Lydda, and Theodotus of Laodicea, and others whom the Arian stain had infected, feeling the same as themselves, they indicated what they were plotting, and together with them returned to Antioch. And to the arrival of the others indeed the honor of an escort was held out: but secretly a fraud was being prepared to assail piety.

[20] they depose him in a conventicle as an adulterer; For a hired harlot, who had a form for sale, when they had persuaded her to lend them the service of her tongue, soon they come to a council. Then, all others being ordered to go out, they bring in the wretched little woman. She, showing an infant still sucking, said she had conceived and borne this from the embrace of Eustathius, and shamelessly bawled it out. But Eustathius, who held the falsity of the calumny well ascertained, demanded that, if she knew anyone conscious of that matter, she should produce him in the midst. And when she said she had no witness of the accusation, the most equitable judges tendered her an oath: although the law expressly cries out that words are confirmed by the testimony of two and three: and the Apostle manifestly prescribes that not even against a presbyter is an accusation to be received without two or three witnesses. But these, spurning the divine laws, admitted an accusation against so great a man without a witness: and when she had confirmed by oath what she had said, that it was really the son of Eustathius, these lovers of truth pronounced sentence against him as an adulterer.

[21] and they take care to have him banished into exile. But when the other bishops resisted (these were, in number not few, zealous defenders of the Apostolic doctrine, and altogether ignorant of the hidden fraud) and forbade Eustathius to undergo the unjust sentence, those who had concocted the tale hasten most speedily to the Emperor, and persuading him that the crime was true and the sentence of deposition just, brought it about that, as an adulterer and tyrant, the athlete of piety and continence was driven into exile. And he indeed was carried off through Thrace into a certain city of Illyricum. Then in the following chapter he narrates concerning that harlot the things which afterward befell: "But that wretched little woman," he says,

seized with a most grievous and long-lasting disease, betrayed the snares and disclosed the tragedy, the fraud which they had used being laid open not to two or three, but to very many priests. For she confessed that, hired for a reward, she had brought forward that false accusation. Nor yet was what she had sworn altogether false: because the infant was that of a certain treasurer named Eustathius." Thus far concerning St. Eustathius' deposition and exile Theodoret. Yet it is well here to observe some things which by this author are either passed over or only noted in passing.

[22] [The narrative of Theodoret concerning the cause of the deposition is confirmed and explained,] And first indeed, as to the crime charged against a most upright Man, on account of which he was removed from his rank, there seems no doubt that it was that very thing which has just been described: for this even before Theodoret Philostorgius asserts book 2, chapter 7, where he says: "Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, was likewise deposed by the same men (Eusebius and his associates), when they had charged him with the debauching of a certain girl and the crime of foul lust." And what else do they mean, who in Labbe tome 2 of the Councils column 709 e, in the Synodical epistle of the conventicle of Sardica, accuse Osius, that "he clung most wickedly to Eustasius and Quimassius and was dear to them; concerning whose base infamy of life nothing is to be said," they say, "for their end declared them to all"? The same Sozomen not obscurely intimates book 2, chapter 19: "A synod therefore having been gathered at Antioch," he says, "Eustathius is stripped of the episcopate of the church of Antioch: in reality indeed, as the greater part asserts, because he upheld the faith of the Council of Nicaea, and turned away from Eusebius Pamphili, Paulinus of Tyre, and Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis … as Arians, and openly accused them; but in appearance, as though he had been detected of having stained the honor of the priesthood by certain disgraceful acts." And Socrates book 1, chapter 24: "They depose Eustathius," he says, "as one who insisted rather on the dogma of Sabellius than on the decrees of the synod of Nicaea. There are those who say that he was deposed for other, less honorable causes also; which nevertheless they do not bring into the open. But bishops are wont in all cases to do this to those whom they depose: to load them indeed with reproaches, and pronounce them impious; but not to set forth the causes of the impiety." Then he shows that the accusation of Sabellianism, resting as it did on the sole faith of George of Laodicea, who narrates contradictory things in that matter, was more probably not brought against St. Eustathius in that synod; and so that he seems to have been deposed for other causes. Namely for those infamous ones, which he himself indeed knew obscurely; but which others openly, as we have seen, handed down, to say nothing of the more recent Greeks, such as Nicephorus Callistus book 8, chapter 45, and others on the day XXI February in the printed Menaea, Maximus bishop of Cythera, nay also the Copts in the Martyrology through the interpreter Simon Moyses the Maronite, here narrating almost all the same things with Theodoret: except that the said Coptic Martyrology adds that, after the public retraction of the harlot's calumny, the priests of Antioch, who had already erased the name of the Saint from the book of the Mass, restored his memory.

[23] Of the sedition then stirred up Theodoret does not make mention openly enough: and the sedition then stirred up, and others afterward, although he says that the orthodox bishops resisted the Eusebians, and forbade Eustathius to undergo the unjust sentence. But that sedition Socrates and Sozomen, just cited, expressly assert; the words of the former are: "Moreover at that time a huge sedition arose at Antioch upon his deposition." But of the latter: "For the rest, a huge sedition was stirred up at Antioch on account of his deposition: so that it came near to the people snatching up arms, and the whole city being brought into the most grievous peril. And this especially harmed him with the Emperor. For after the Emperor learned that these things had happened (from those who had concocted the tale, and who had hastened most speedily to the Emperor as soon as they saw the dissension arising, according to Theodoret), and that the people of the church were rent into two parts, he bore the matter very ill, and suspected that Eustathius had been the author of the sedition. He sent, however, a certain one of the nobles of his palace, and gave him in charge to strike fear into the people, and without tumult and detriment to suppress the sedition." For the rest, not these disturbances alone arose among the men of Antioch; but others were repeatedly raised up, as often as it was deliberated concerning choosing a successor to him: which, because it pleased Eusebius to confound them, Sozomen and others wrongly believed that, Eustathius being cast down, it was straightway begun to be treated of substituting Eusebius of Caesarea in his place. But see what has been more fully disputed concerning these and other things in the Tract on the Patriarchs of Antioch, from St. Eustathius himself down to Euphronius.

[24] From what has been said it is clear that the same crime indeed was brought to the Emperor which had been charged against the holy Prelate in the Antiochene conventicle; and by accusations before Constantine. but not that alone, however. The same, I say: for this Theodoret indicates, when he narrates that the impious authors of this tale hastened to the Emperor, "persuading that the crime was true (for which they had deposed Eustathius) and the sentence of deposition just." But that it was not only renewed before Constantine; but that there was also added the accusation of a sedition stirred up through Eustathius, not only Sozomen at the number above, but also Eusebius On the Life of Constantine book 3, chapter 59, and the very sentence of exile which followed a little after, demonstrates: since he was ordered to go into exile, as Theodoret has it, "as an adulterer and tyrant"; whereas he had before been deposed only "as an adulterer." To the calumny of sedition that also could pertain which above at number 13 we gave from St. Athanasius, and for which he was most unworthily impeached by them before Constantine, namely that he had done an insult to his mother.

[25] By whose agency the Eusebians thrust St. Eustathius into exile. These things therefore when the Emperor heard, one of those whom he held esteemed about himself, adorned with the honor of Count, a most faithful man, he sent thither, "addressing the people as with a bland embassy," says Eusebius in the cited place; nay rather, oppressing the catholic cause at Antioch by the fraud and at the discretion of the Eusebians: for that the Count, whom Eusebius here so greatly praises, was Strategius, says Valesius in the Annotation on book 3 of Eusebius On the Life of Constantine chapter 62, by a conjecture indeed not improbable: for he was some months later at Antioch, and by his office wrote out to the Emperor accounts of the things there done, as is clear from the epistle of Constantine chapter 62. Then he was an Antiochene, according to Libanius epistle 384 and 451, and famous for the eloquence of both tongues, namely Greek and Latin, and elsewhere employed against the Manichaeans by the same Emperor so successfully that he received from him the name of Musonianus; prudent in other matters, and tolerable to the provinces, and mild and bland as he is in Ammianus book 15 at the end; and so uniquely suited to quelling the disturbances of his own countrymen. Besides, he was venal, as the same author asserts book 16, chapter 9, and easy to be bent from the truth by money; and, what is the chief point, an Arian, or, if you prefer, a Eusebian, and even afterward wont to be hired by the Eusebians, when there was occasion of vexing the orthodox, as a tutor and advocate, relying on whose power they might accomplish what they pleased, as St. Athanasius is the author, tome 1, part 1 in the Apology against the Arians page 154 c, and To the Solitaries page 352 c. So that there can scarcely be doubt that they took care that this same man should be sent as a support to them to Antioch by Constantine, with whom they could do all things, at this time also; so that they might easily accomplish whatever they pleased against St. Eustathius and the other champions of the truth, according to their own lust.

[26] How patiently, how solicitous for the church, he was led away. What hope could remain, in a cause to be re-examined by such a judge, either to the Catholic party or to the most holy Patriarch, already before cashiered by the Eusebians; except that they should thence be compelled to depart as far as possible, where the Arians, they themselves being present, could not remain? That so it plainly happened we have said both from Athanasius above at number 13, and from St. Chrysostom at number 18, and from Theodoret at number 21. "But Eustathius, as I have received," says Sozomen book 2, chapter 19, "bore that calumny with moderation (ἡσυχῆ, calmly and silently), judging this to be better; by the example of his Lord, accused and condemned by the Jews without any defense of Himself; whom in this also he imitated, that he exhorted his own, before he was carried off, excellently to constancy and fortitude." "And so, being about to set out abroad," says St. John Chrysostom to his Antiochenes, "he dismissed the city indeed, but did not dismiss his charity toward you: nor, because he was expelled from the church, did he think himself alien even from the office of prelate, or from the care of you which he bore; but then he cared the more and was solicitous. Therefore, calling all together, he admonished them not to succumb, nor to yield to the wolves, or betray the flock to them; but to remain within: to stop their mouth, to convince them, and to confirm the simpler brothers; and the rest, which will be given below in the Homily itself." And thus the illustrious Confessor, with a great throng of priests and deacons, was led away an exile from his own. But whither?

[27] First of all to Constantine himself, who in Eusebius On the Life of Constantine book 3, first to Constantine, then into his exile, that is, to Trajanopolis in Thrace; chapter 59, writing to the Antiochene Eusebians, asserts that he "himself had heard face to face him who had been the author of the whole sedition"; by which words that St. Eustathius is designated no one fails to see. Nay rather Philostorgius book 2, chapter 7 would have it that a new conventicle of 250 bishops assembled at Nicomedia, in which the Antiochene contumely against this holy Prelate was again confirmed, Eusebius, Maris, and Theognis especially doing this; but I know not whether that can sufficiently be believed to an Arian historian without other witnesses. Thence further he was sent away to the place destined for his exile; in defining which the learned have long since sweated, distracted by the not slight and discrepant authority of the ancients: for St. Jerome On Ecclesiastical Writers chapter 85 thus pronounces: "Eustathius … under the prince Constantius (concerning which matter see what is said in the Tract on the Patriarchs of Antioch) was driven into exile to Trajanopolis of the Thraces, where until today (he was writing these things in the year of Christ 392) he is buried." That his sacred relics were also buried in Thrace St. John Chrysostom more than once affirms in the Homily so often mentioned, about the same times as Jerome, although he names no city. But who would easily believe that either of these Fathers either asserted what he did not know, or could be ignorant of what he asserted? For the one pronounced this before Flavian, to whom Eustathius on departing into exile had commended his flock, and before a most crowded assembly of the Antiochenes, among whom the most recent memory of so great a Prelate still then flourished; the other, when he wrote the same, had long ago lived in the closest union with Paulinus, at first the presbyter of Eustathius himself, then Patriarch of the Eustathians, as also with his successor Evagrius. But it is altogether incredible that so ardent and constant a love of the Catholic Antiochenes toward their Eustathius,

and the tears with which they followed him as he departed, nay also the arms which, snatched up more than once, very many of them who were still surviving down to the times already noted by SS. Chrysostom and Jerome, took up in seeking their now exiled Eustathius—it is incredible, I say, that so great an affection of theirs was joined with so great an ignorance that they did not even know the place of his exile; still less that they either gave any letters to him, or in turn received any from him. Hard therefore it seems to disbelieve either Chrysostom asserting Thrace, or Jerome asserting Trajanopolis in Thrace.

[28] But indeed against this make the things which we produced above from Theodoret: not indeed Philippi in Macedonia, as some would have it "But he indeed was carried off through Thrace into a certain city of Illyricum": for thus he does not seem to have stayed in Thrace itself: Then Theodorus Lector at the beginning of book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, treating of the translation of the relics made in his own times, thus has it: "But Calendio, when he had requested it from the Emperor Zeno, carried the relics of Eustathius from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, into which he had once been banished, and in which Eustathius had died, to Antioch." To the same opinion is adduced Victor of Tunnuna in the Chronicle, where after the Consulate of Longinus, most distinguished man, he thus writes: "Calendio, bishop of Antioch, gathers the relics of his predecessor Eustathius, bishop and confessor, from Philippi of the people of Macedonia, and brings them forth to Antioch with the highest honor," in which place the editors of the Chronicle for "Philippi of the people" or "Philippi peoples" substitute in the margin "Philippopolis," which is a town of Thrace, not of Macedonia. Theophanes also at the year of the divine Incarnation according to the Alexandrians 480: "In this year Calandion, bishop of Antioch, translated the relics of Eustathius the great from Philippi, where the Saint had died in exile"; there agrees Nicephorus Callistus book 16, chapter 10. But the printed Menaea at the day XXI February: Καὶ ἐπέμφθη διὰ τῆς Θράκης εἰς Φιλίππους πόλεως Μακεδονίας, ἔνθα καὶ τὸν βίον κατέλυσεν. "And he was sent through Thrace to Philippi in a city of Macedonia, where also he ended his life." But what construction is this, εἰς Φιλίππους πόλεως? Maximus bishop of Cythera in the Lives of the Saints at the same day, for εἰς Φιλίππους πόλεως Μακεδονίας has εἰς τὴν Φιλιππούπολιν τῆς Μακεδονίας: but there is indeed some Philippopolis in Thrace; none, however, that I know of, in Macedonia.

[29] younger than SS. Jerome and Chrysostom. However that may be, I do not see that all these things are of such weight as to compel a departure from SS. Chrysostom and Jerome: for Theodoret indeed does not openly deny that our Exile, led through some part of Thrace, stayed in Thrace; since Thrace itself is a part of Eastern Illyricum. Theodorus Anagnostes could know that his relics had been carried from Philippi of Macedonia to Antioch; and thence further he seems to have conjectured of his own that St. Eustathius underwent exile and death in the same city. The conjecture of Theodore could easily seduce the other more recent writers into the same opinion. But it could be that the holy Patriarch was in exile in Thrace and indeed at Trajanopolis, and was still buried there in the time of SS. Chrysostom and Jerome; although a whole century later his body, for whatever cause it was at last translated to Philippi, was preserved there for some time, until, as the fifth century grew old, it was thence conveyed to Antioch. These things indeed seem to me less crude than if you either impute an error to St. Jerome, or say that St. Chrysostom took Thrace for Macedonia. Thrace certainly the fragment from the Coptic Martyrology cited above also notes; nay also Trajanopolis have the Martyrologies of Ado, of Usuard, and the Roman which we now use, and others of the Latins: which Pagi also maintains at the year of Christ 482.

[30] These things happened in the year of Christ 331. Of the time of the deposition and banishment I do not here dispute; for that I did carefully enough in the Tract on the Patriarchs of Antioch; where I showed that St. Eustathius was stripped of the episcopate about the beginning of the year of Christ 331; and the cashiering was followed by the penalty of exile at no great interval: For scarcely, as above we saw from Theodoret, had the Eusebians observed that the catholic bishops resisted them in the sentence of his deposition, when most speedily (τὴν ταχίστην) they brought the matter to the Emperor; and Constantine had scarcely understood their accusation, when straightway (εὐθύς) Eustathius was made an exile, as also above we said from St. Athanasius.

§ IV. The love of the Antiochenes toward the exiled Eustathius; his happy death in exile.

[31] Easier was it for the Eusebians to drive St. Eustathius from Antioch than to drive the love and longing for Eustathius from the minds of the Antiochenes. The longing for the absent St. Eustathius among the Antiochenes, Those heretics felt this, at least down to Euphronius, as often as it was treated of substituting a Patriarch in Eustathius' place; for then they experienced such ardent zeal of all the orthodox demanding that Eustathius be restored to them, that the matter, by the testimony of Socrates book 1, chapter 24, often (πολλάκις, which word the interpreter Valesius omits) verged toward sedition: especially when there was a contest over choosing Eusebius of Caesarea after Paulinus and Eulalius; at which time so great a flame of dissension blazed up that it came near to the whole city being utterly overthrown, the people being divided into two parts (namely of the orthodox and of the Eusebians); and these indeed contending to transfer Eusebius Pamphili from Caesarea of Palestine to Antioch: but those to restore Eustathius to his see. And to each party of the Christians the whole city joined itself. The soldiers too, as against enemies, stood on either side in battle-line; and it would have come to swords, had not God and the fear of the Emperor repressed the onset of the people. For the Emperor indeed by his letters; but Eusebius by refusing the episcopate, allayed that tumult and sedition. Thus Socrates, after Eusebius himself On the Life of Constantine book 3, chapter 59.

[32] Nor did all the Catholics that were at Antioch make more of their Eustathius than of the admonitions and doctrine of Eustathius: and their observance both among the Eustathians and among the other orthodox. And some of them indeed, because, by the testimony of Chrysostom below, he on departing had so admonished, communicated with the Eusebian Patriarchs, but who nevertheless made a show of the catholic faith, for thirty years (as Theodoret has it epistle 112, to Domnus bishop of Antioch), that is, down to St. Meletius; yet lest meanwhile they should depart from either the faith or the piety of St. Eustathius even by a nail's breadth, the excellent industry of Flavian and Diodorus, not yet even then initiated into the sacred orders, brought it about: as may be gathered from Theodoret Ecclesiastical History book 2, chapter 19, and Chrysostom below toward the end. But others, lest they might seem to recede ever so little from his doctrine, judged that the admonitions of him who departed were either to be neglected by them, or to be interpreted otherwise: "And so, since the bishops substituted for St. Eustathius all alike, but secretly, labored under the Arian stain," says Theodoret book 1, chapter 21, "very many both of the clergy and of the people, who had religion at heart, declining the ecclesiastical assemblies (as well of the Eusebians as of the orthodox who communicated with the Eusebians), held their own privately: whom they commonly called Eustathians on this account, because after his departure they had begun to be segregated." See therefore that you do not confound these Antiochene Eustathians with those heretics of the same name, against whom the Council of Gangra acts in Labbe tome 2 of the Councils column 413: For our Eustathians were of the most upright doctrine; yet worthy of reprehension on this head, that afterward they would not submit themselves even to St. Meletius the Patriarch; because they said he had been promoted by the Arians; and so, having obtained Paulinus as their own proper bishop, they proceeded to rend in two the catholic church of Antioch, until at last by the work of St. John Chrysostom a great part began to adhere to Flavian in the year of Christ about 398. Nay some proceeded to act separately down to Calendio, as will soon appear from Theodorus Lector. Of these see more in the Tract on the Patriarchs of Antioch: especially where it treats of SS. Meletius, Paulinus, Flavian, Evagrius.

[33] He dies in exile, not about the year 380 or 360; For the rest, Eustathius ceased to live among the Thracians before he ceased to be loved and revered at Antioch: although the reckoning of time in his death is no less controverted than that of place. For if we hearken to Theodorus Anagnostes book 2, to Theophanes at the year of the divine Incarnation according to the Alexandrians 481, to the printed Greek Menaea at the day XXI February, he died only a hundred years before his relics were translated to Antioch in the year of Christ 482; and so lived down to the year of Christ about 380. There favor Socrates book 4, chapters 14 and 15, and Sozomen book 6, chapter 13, where they set Eustathius, recalled from his former exile by the edict of the Emperor Jovinian, as still alive at Constantinople, Valentinian for the third time and Valens for the third time being Consuls, or in the year of Christ 370, in which year they would have it that upon him, on account of the Patriarch Evagrius ordained in that city, a new exile was decreed by Valens into the town of Thrace, Bizua; whom in this also Blessed Theophanes follows at the year of the divine Incarnation 361; except that for Bizua he puts Cyzicus in the Paris edition of the year 1655. But on the contrary Theodoret Ecclesiastical History book 3, chapter 2 asserts that this holy Patriarch was already dead before the creation of Meletius, which happened at the beginning of the year of Christ 361, as has been shown elsewhere; although neither Theodoret, nor anyone else that I know of besides those already mentioned, affirms that he protracted his life down to that time: (which nevertheless seemed so to some heterodox writer) so that the opinion of Theodoret can be true and entire; even though Eustathius had died a good many years before the patriarchate of Meletius.

[34] but before Constantine, or before the year of Christ 337; And indeed that he not only did not undergo a second exile under Valens, but did not even survive the first, Constantine the Emperor, is now the sufficiently common opinion of the learned. Wherefore they think that that Eustathius was a different one, who was banished to Bizua by Valens; and that Socrates and Sozomen hallucinated, who confounded him with the former Patriarch of Antioch; consult Valesius on Socrates book 4, chapter 15. Nor further ought it to seem a wonder, if, following those leaders, Theodorus, Theophanes, and the Greek Menaea which follow these, went astray now and then. Indeed, if our Eustathius survived Constantine the great; why is no mention of him anywhere made? Why to his fatherland, nay to his own church, which did not cease to long even for the dead until it at last obtained his sacred remains; why, I say, did he not then return to that church of his, when the Bishops cast into exile by the frauds of the Arians, the three brothers, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, after the death of their father commanded ALL to return to their fatherland and their church? As St. Athanasius has it in the History of the Arians to the Monks tome 1, part 1, page 349 a, and after him Philostorgius book 2, chapter 18. Was he less

was the solicitude of the church of Antioch at heart to him; than that either of the Alexandrian was to St. Athanasius, or that of the others to the other orthodox bishops in exile? Is it then credible that that Prelate was broken by exile, who a little before had believed the care of all the churches throughout the whole world, as we saw from Chrysostom, committed to him, so that, if he were living, he would no longer look even to his own, much less to those of others? Or was he perchance not recalled with the others? But all were recalled, by the testimony of Athanasius; wherever in the world they were afflicted by exile, as Philostorgius adds; τῶν πανταχόθι μεθορίαις ταλαιπωρουμένων etc.

[35] Then, if the Authors before cited narrate true things, why at least at the Council of Sardica in the year of Christ 347, although the year of his death cannot be certainly defined. did Eustathius not appear, where there was a most safe refuge for all bishops against the past calumnies and oppressions of the Arians? Why did he not there set forth his cause with the others? Or if he himself either could not do it in person, or cared little for it; why was none of his kinsmen, none of the bishops or orthodox fellow-ministers, none finally of his friends at hand, to say at least one word for so great a man, and so illustrious a defender of the catholic church against the Arians; when patrons of that sort were by no means lacking there to other bishops still living, much more obscure? As may be read in the very Epistle of the Council of Sardica tome 2 of the Councils of Labbe column 671 c, d. Nay rather the Arians in their own conventicle of Sardica in the same year not obscurely intimate that Eustathius had already died before, when, accusing Osius, they say: "But he clung most wickedly to Eustasius and Quimassius and was dear to them; concerning whose base infamy of life nothing is to be said: for THEIR END declared them to all": for by "end" here they understand also death, as the Benedictines who edited the Works of St. Hilary in the year 1693, in the Notes: but by "Eustasius" others think our Eustathius is generally indicated; and the history altogether persuades it; and finally they would have "Quimassius" here taken for Cymatius, not the one who was bishop of Paltus (for he was still among the living in the year of Christ 362, as is clear from the Tome of St. Athanasius to the Antiochenes tome 1, part 2, page 776 b); but the other bishop of Aradus, who had likewise borne exile from the Eusebians, according to St. Athanasius To the Solitaries tome 1, part 1, page 347 b. Therefore not only before the times marked by Socrates and others; but even before the Council of Sardica, and so before the recall of the exiled Bishops proclaimed in the year of Christ 338, St. Eustathius seems to have exchanged his life for death in exile. But how much before? This indeed I confess I do not know, except that he was still living then, when the Antiochenes, Eusebius being refused, wished him restored to them about the year of Christ 332: for from the Commentary on the Hexaemeron, which counts the thirtieth year of Constantine at page 56, nothing sufficiently certain to this point is drawn out; since the learned everywhere deny that work to St. Eustathius of Antioch. The Author of the Sirletian Menology of the Greeks in Canisius at the day V June writes that he died a hundred years old; but since I have found this nowhere else, I think there is no great weight in the faith of this one Menology; since it can be also a fault of the interpreter, wrongly annexing to the life of the same holy Patriarch the hundred years which in Anagnostes and the Menaea are interposed between the death of St. Eustathius and the translation of his relics; which error indeed could easily befall one translating the Menaea not very attentively.

§ V. St. Eustathius' cult, Relics, writings, elogia.

The month and day on which he flew away to the blessed above would be easy to divine from the time which the whole Church long ago consecrated for celebrating his festal memory every year; had it not assigned it to plainly different days and months: [St. Eustathius is venerated on various days and months among the Greeks and Latins.] for among the Antiochenes indeed, even in the same fourth century in which he had lived, his sacred day was kept with a huge celebration of the people about the middle of November, as we shall gather below from the panegyric of St. John Chrysostom: the Menaea, both printed and also manuscript of the Ambrosian library, the Menology of Sirletus, Maximus bishop of Cythera, the Calendar of the Greeks edited by Genebrard, and perhaps also the Menaeum of Chifflet, whose February we do not have, mark his feast both on XXI February and on V June; but the Typicon or Horologium of Basil of Grottaferrata mentions him only on the day V June; whereas the Typicon of St. Sabas and the Slavo-Russian Martyrology, as also the manuscript Synaxarium of the Ruthenians of the diocese of Kiev, only on the day XXI February; which day likewise the manuscript Arabic-Egyptian and Coptic Martyrology that we have keeps as the sole one, both in the fragment translated at Rome by Kircher, as Papebroch noted, and in another entire one, which Grace Simonius, afterward Archbishop of Tripoli, translated for us; in the Calendar, however, which we received translated by the same from the Syriac, only the eighteenth day of the same month is noted. The Latins, who everywhere call him Eustachius, dedicated to him uniquely the sixteenth day of July, as may be seen in the Roman Martyrologies, both the little or old one of Rosweyde, and the modern one, likewise those of Ado, Usuard, and many others. On the same day a certain Eustasius the Hieronymian Martyrology reckons among the Martyrs; but without the title of bishop; concerning whom, whether he be ours or another, it has already been discussed above. From these things, further, it is clear how far and wide through the East and the West the Church long ago venerated the excellent sanctity of our Patriarch; but concerning the day, as I was just saying, or the month, on which he closed it with a blessed end, nothing can be safely determined.

[37] His Relics are translated from Philippi to Antioch, Yet among all excelled the public piety of the Antiochenes toward their Prelate at last, and it kindled no less longing for him dead in exile than once for him living: which indeed, how great it was, may be conjectured from the things which were then done, when at length they obtained the relics of their Eustathius, long sought after. Theodorus Lector narrates the matter thus, Ecclesiastical History book 2 at the beginning: "But Calendio, when he had requested it from the Emperor Zeno, carried the relics of Eustathius from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, into which he had once been banished, and in which Eustathius had died, to Antioch. These the Antiochenes received with the greatest honor, and almost every age, poured out beyond the city, went to meet them at the eighteenth milestone. But those who for Eustathius' cause had down to that time held their assemblies separately, were united to the church a hundred years after the death of Eustathius." The same has Theophanes at the year of the divine Incarnation 481, and Nicephorus book 16, chapter 10; except that the latter reckons for the eighteen milestones only twelve; but the printed Menaea, as also Maximus of Cythera at the day XXI February, write indeed also eighteen milestones, but at the day V June only ten; in this besides both differ from the more ancient Theodorus, Theophanes, Victor of Tunnuna, Nicephorus, that in this translation they make mention indeed of the emperor Zeno, but none of Calendio, which same I observe in the Sirletian Menology at the day V June. Then also, whereas the ancients say it was done by the Antiochenes "with the greatest honor," this the Menaea and Maximus hand down a little more explicitly, when they say that the sacred remains of Eustathius were received by them "with hymns and tapers and incense."

[38] It is asked now, at what time that translation was accomplished: in the year of Christ 482. for Baronius, who tied it to the year of Christ 482, Valesius thought was to be censured, Annotation on Socrates book 4, chapter 14: "Since, from the Chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna," he says, "it was done in the year of Christ 490, Longinus for the second time and Faustus being Consuls." Theophanes refers the same, as we have already said, to the year of the divine Incarnation according to the Alexandrians 481, which from the ending of August corresponds to the year of Christ 488; But Theophanes, and so with his Victor also Valesius, Pagi deservedly refutes in his Baronian Critical Notes at the year of Christ 482 number 13 and following: for since they too would have those relics translated by Calendio the Antiochene Bishop, it must altogether have been done earlier; since he was compelled to desert the see of Antioch, which he had undertaken to rule at the beginning of the year of Christ 482, and to set out into exile in the year of Christ 485 about the month of August, as we showed elsewhere. But not so solidly does Pagi refute Baronius, in ascribing this translation to the year of Christ 484; "which is the more to be said," he says, "because the translations of the Saints were of custom made in the appointed decennial years, and in the same year of Christ the dedication of the Laura of St. Euthymius the abbot was made." But that custom here Tillemont did not recognize, tome 7 of the Monuments of Ecclesiastical History Note 6 on St. Eustathius; nor without reason does he judge that Baronius is to be adhered to: for since before the end of the year 482 there was already no agreement between Calendio and Acacius of Constantinople, and so Zeno, and the aversion afterward always grew until Calendio was cast out of Antioch; it by no means appears probable that so great a benefit was after the year 482 either requested by Calendio or granted by the Emperor; which both, however, that it was done, Theodorus and others assert.

[39] Concerning those sacred ashes, further, what now, or where anything survives, The writings of St. Eustathius. is unknown. His books also, most of them, have either perished or lie hidden; not only those which we said he composed against the Arians at number 16; but others also; if you except the Dissertation on the Witch of Endor against Origen, concerning which St. Jerome in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers chapter 85, which Allatius edited in Greek and Latin at Lyon in the year of Christ 1629: for the Commentary on the Hexaemeron published under his name by the same is by the learned almost denied to Eustathius: as see in Tillemont Note 7 and the more recent Bibliographers everywhere. Only fragments of the rest of his Works are produced here and there; thus besides the others which we gave above, several are cited in Theodoret Dialogue 1, 2, and 3, testimonies of St. Eustathius From the Interpretation of Psalm XV; From his Book on the Soul, concerning which also St. Jerome in the cited place; From his Sermon on that text, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways"; From the Interpretation of Psalm XCII; From the book on the Inscriptions of the titles; From the book on the Inscriptions of the degrees. St. Jerome also cites an opinion of St. Eustathius concerning Melchizedek, to Evangelus, with the elogium which you have above at number 5. Some passage of his against Nestorius is brought forward in the Council of Ephesus part 1 chapter 13. In the second Council of Nicaea Act 6, tome 7, column 450 b c, his interpretation is cited on that text of Proverbs, "Eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you." So great, further, was the esteem of his writings, that when against the Eutychians even those things were brought forward which might seem almost Nestorian to themselves, these nevertheless not only dared stir up no ill-will of error against him

but even solemnly named him among their predecessors and successors at the sacrifices, as Facundus of Hermiane is the author, book 11, chapter 1. Excellent too is that which Sozomen pronounces concerning him and his works, book 2, chapter 19: "He was a man both in other matters, and for the sake of eloquence deservedly to be admired: as may be known from his books, which still exist, which are greatly approved both for the ancient style of elocution, and for the gravity of the sentences, and for the elegance of the words and the charm in explaining matters."

[40] He is reckoned among the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Rightly therefore is St. Eustathius reckoned not only among the holy Bishops and Confessors in the Church, but also among the Fathers and Doctors; nay he is honored "with many and above many Fathers," to use the words of Facundus just cited, "as being the first of the Council of Nicaea." Among the chief ones St. Fulgentius names him, book 2 On the Truth of Predestination toward the end: "But who," he says, "would deny the blessed bishops Innocent of Rome, Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose of Milan, Aurelius of Carthage, Augustine of Hippo, and the rest of the Pontiffs, who, governing the churches of God most vigilantly, resisted heretics whether being born or already born, the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, neither permitting the old wolves to creep into the ecclesiastical flock, nor the new perniciously to lurk within the Lord's fold; who, I say, would deny these to be vessels of mercy, which God prepared unto glory?" In the second Council of Nicaea, assigned in the preceding number, Eustathius is compared with St. Basil, "a champion of the orthodox faith and a destroyer of the Arian madness," as men who both disputed out of one and the same spirit. Hence the same surname "the Great," which clung to Basil, they grant to our Eustathius: Theodoret above at number 17, and Ephraem, his illustrious though much younger successor in the Patriarchate of Antioch, as is in Photius in the Bibliotheca codex 229. I pass over other not inferior elogia of this holy Prelate among the ancients, some of which Allatius gives at the end of the Commentary of St. Eustathius on the Hexaemeron, and at the beginning of the same work in the dedicatory Epistle to His Eminence Cardinal Barberini; I pass over also those which are found in the Menaea and the Martyrologies cited before, since these are but compends of this our commentary.

[41] The elogium of St. John Chrysostom concerning St. Eustathius. One thing, however, I can by no means pass over, which St. John Chrysostom pronounced in his praise, and which our Fronto Ducaeus gave translated into Latin in the year of Christ 1609 in tome 1 of his Works, homily 52; which I bring forward the more willingly, because it was composed and delivered by St. Chrysostom, that is, not by a Eustathian, nor before Eustathians; but by a Meletian, before the Meletians and their patriarch Flavian, when as yet the Eustathians had admitted no communion with the Meletians. So that from this it may shine forth that not among the Eustathians only at Antioch, but among all the Catholics there then, the highest striving and zeal in loving and venerating St. Eustathius flourished; for with how great a concourse and applause of the Meletians this oration was received, the Orator himself testified in the Homily on that passage of Jeremiah, "The way of man is not in himself" etc., which is had in tome 3, in the very exordium of the sermon; where also he affirms that he delivered this oration immediately before another, which he brought forth concerning St. Romanus the Martyr, no doubt on his own feast-day, or XVII November, on which St. Romanus is thought to have borne off the palm of Martyrdom. Whence also above we conjectured that the feast of St. Eustathius was then celebrated at Antioch about the middle of November. But in what year these things were said is uncertain: yet that they were said at Antioch is most evidently clear from the Homily itself throughout; from which it follows that they were said neither before the year of Christ 386, in which Chrysostom was first initiated into the priesthood by Flavian, nor after the year of Christ 397: for near the beginning of the following year Chrysostom was snatched from the Antiochenes, to preside over the church of Constantinople.

A PANEGYRIC

Of our holy Father Eustathius, Archbishop of Antioch the great.

Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch (S.)

FROM MANUSCRIPTS.

PART ONE.

On the happy death, and glorious memory of St. Eustathius among the Antiochenes.

A certain wise man and skilled in philosophizing, who had accurately learned the nature of human affairs, St. Eustathius may safely be praised and knew their fragility, and that nothing certain or stable is in them, admonishes all men generally not to praise anyone before death. When therefore blessed Eustathius has died, we can henceforth extol him with all confidence with praises. For if before death no one is to be praised, there is no doubt that after death the praise of those who are worthy is free from fault. For he has sailed past the strait of the businesses of this life; he has been freed from the tumult of the waves; he has come to a tranquil and quiet port; he does not lie subject to the uncertainty of things to come, nor is he liable to ruin: but as though now standing on some rock and lofty crag, he despises all the waves. Free therefore from all peril is his proclamation, nor can the praise be reprehended: for it no longer dreads a turning, nor fears a change. For we indeed, who still live, as those who float in the midst of the sea, are liable to many changes; and as they now indeed, the waves swelling, are lifted on high, now are pressed down into the very deep; but neither is the height safe, nor the fall stable; since both of these depend on the flowing and by no means abiding waters: so indeed also in human affairs nothing is firm and constant; but frequent are the changes, and often happen by a very light moment: this man on account of prosperity is borne aloft, that one on account of adversity is pressed down very deep. But let neither the one be puffed up, nor let the other despond in soul: since each will obtain a most swift change.

[2] But not so he who has migrated into heaven, and has set out to Him whom he desired, Jesus, after his happy death; who has come to the place free from tumults, whence grief and sickness and groaning are absent: there is no image of change, no shadow of vicissitude; but all things fixed and immovable, all firm and established, all incorrupt and immortal, all free from destruction and eternal. Therefore, he says, before death praise no one. Wherefore? Because the future is uncertain, and nature weak, the will sluggish, and sin prone to beset us; many are the snares: "For know," he says, "that thou walkest in the midst of snares": continual are the temptations, great the throng of businesses, then the perpetual war of the demons and the assiduous assaults of perturbations. Therefore before death, he says, praise no one: therefore after death it is safe to praise the worthy, or rather not simply after death; but after such a death, when one has departed to life with a crown, when with confession ^b and unfeigned faith. For if in any manner one can praise the dead, how much more those who have so died?

[3] since even the dead are praised indiscriminately above the living, But who praised those, someone will say, who have died in any manner whatever? That Solomon, Solomon the most wise: for do not lightly pass over the man; but consider who he was, and in what manner he lived, with how great security and pleasure he passed a soft life free from troubles; since he ran through every kind of delights, and just now devised manifold modes of recreation of the soul, found out various and discrepant kinds of enjoyments, which, narrating them, he said: "I built me houses, I planted vineyards, I made me gardens and orchards, I made me pools of water; I bought me menservants and maidservants, and home-born servants were born to me: I had a possession of herds of oxen and of flocks; I gathered silver and gold as sand, I made me singers, both men and women, cupbearers and women to serve wine." What then does this same man, after so great an affluence of monies, possessions, delights, pleasures, relate? "I praised," he says, "the dead, above the living; and good above these is whoever has not yet been born." Truly worthy of faith is this accuser of delights, who bears such a sentence concerning them. For if any one of those who had passed their life in poverty and mendicity had borne this sentence against delights, he would have seemed to accuse them thus not from the truth of the matter, but because he had not experienced them: but when he who ran through all, and searched out each of their ways, despises them; then the accusation is free from all suspicion.

[4] although to live is not an evil, if one lives rightly; but most praiseworthy: You think perhaps the discourse has turned aside from the proposed subject: nay rather, if we attend, we shall find that the things which have been said cohere most closely with it. For in the commemorations ^c of the Martyrs it is fitting and connected to institute a discourse concerning philosophy. Not that we may condemn the present life do we say these things; far be it: but that we may inveigh against delights. For to live is not an evil, but to live rashly and inconsiderately. And so if any one has passed his life in right deeds and in the hope of good things to come, he will be able to say with Paul: "To live in the flesh is much better: for this to me is the fruit of my work." Which surely befell blessed Eustathius, who both in life and in death, as was fitting, bore himself. For not in his own region, but in a foreign one, for Christ's sake he underwent death, which crime was his enemies': since they banished him from his fatherland ^d, that they might affect him with disgrace; but he was rendered the more celebrated and illustrious by this migration into exile; which also the outcome of things demonstrated.

[5] For so celebrated did he become, that although his body was buried in Thrace ^e, day by day his memory flourishes among us; as appeared in St. Eustathius, whose merits neither exile nor a foreign burial and although his tomb is in that barbarian little town ^f, our love toward him, who are separated from him by so great an interval, after so long a time is increased each day. Nay rather, if the truth is to be told, his sepulcher is also among us, and not in Thrace only: for the monuments of the Saints are not only coffins, caskets, columns, and letters; but deeds excellently done, and zeal of faith, and a sound conscience before God. Since more splendid than every column is this church erected to the Martyr ^g, which has letters not mute, but which by the very deeds proclaim his memory and celebrity more clearly than a trumpet; and each one of you who are present is the sepulcher of that Saint, a sepulcher animate and spiritual: for if I unfold the conscience of each of you who are present, I shall find that Saint dwelling within in your mind. You see how the adversaries profited nothing, how they did not extinguish his glory, but rather exalted it, but rather rendered it more illustrious, so many sepulchers being erected for one, sepulchers animate, sepulchers

sending forth a voice, sepulchers matched to the same zeal?

[6] Therefore I name the bodies of the Saints both fountains and roots and spiritual unguents. might obscure his glorious memory among the Antiochenes. Why so? Because each of those things which I have mentioned not only retains its virtue with itself, but also diffuses it far and wide to many other things. For example, fountains indeed gush with many waters; but they do not retain them within their bosoms, but, giving birth to long rivers, are joined with the sea, and, as it were by the extension of a certain hand, by their length they lay hold of the sea waters. Again, the root of trees is hidden below in the bowels of the earth, but it does not contain all its virtue below; and especially of the vine and shrub-plants this is the nature: for when they have extended their branches through the lofty reeds, the shoots creeping through those reeds make a certain long roof by the density of the foliage. Of such a kind is also the nature of unguents; since they are often stored away in a chamber; but their odor, bursting forth into the streets, alleys, and markets, indicates to those also who walk outside the virtue of the aromatics laid up within. But if a fountain, and a root, and the nature of trees and of unguents have so great a force, much more the bodies of the Saints. For indeed that the things which we say are not false, you are witnesses to me. For the body of the Martyr is laid in Thrace; but you, who do not dwell in Thrace, but are far removed from that region, perceive the sweet odor across so great spaces interposed, and therefore have assembled; nor did the length of the way hinder you, nor the length of time extinguish it. For such is the nature of spiritual good deeds: it is interrupted by no corporeal obstacle, but flourishes and grows day by day, and neither the length of time weakens it, nor the interval of the journey shuts it off.

[7] Nor let it seem a wonder to you, that on the very threshold of the oration and panegyric I have called the Saint a Martyr: Why he calls St. Eustathius a Martyr, though he did not die a violent death. since by his own death he was taken from the living. How then can he be a Martyr? Many a time I have said to you that not death alone makes a martyr, but also the purpose of the soul: for not by the event alone, but also by the will, is the crown of martyrdom acquired. And this definition of martyrdom not I, but Paul brings, when he thus says: "Daily I die." How dost thou daily die? How can it be that with one body thou shouldst receive six hundred deaths? "By the purpose of the soul," he says, "and because I am prepared for death." So God also declared: for Abraham did not stain the sword with blood; did not redden the altar; did not slay Isaac; but nevertheless completed the sacrifice. Who says this? That very one who received the sacrifice: "For thou hast not spared," he says, "thy beloved son for my sake." And yet He received him alive, and brought him back safe. How then did he not spare? "Because," He says, "I am wont to judge of sacrifices of this kind not from the outcome of deeds, but from the sentence of the soul." The hand did not slay, but the will slew: he did not plunge the sword into the boy's throat; did not cut the neck: but there is a sacrifice even without blood. They know, who have been initiated into the mysteries, what we say: therefore also that sacrifice was completed without blood, because it had to be a figure of the other. You see in the Old Testament the image adumbrated long before: do not deny faith to the truth. This Martyr therefore (for the Scripture showed him to us a martyr) was prepared for six hundred deaths, and endured all those by the will and alacrity of soul: but very many perils threatened he sustained also in the very deed: for they cast him out of his fatherland, and banished him into exile, and devised many other things at that time against that Blessed one; although they had nothing which they might rightly turn against him as a crime; but because, when he had heard Paul saying, "They worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator," he avoided the impiety and wickedness ^h. But this indeed was worthy of a crown, not of reprehension.

ANNOTATIONS.

PART TWO

The excellent virtues of St. Eustathius in administering the patriarchate.

But do thou, I pray, weigh the malice of the devil. For because not long before the war of the pagans had been extinguished, He solicitously defends the church of Antioch from the Arian heresy; and all the churches a little before had taken breath from grave and continual persecutions, nor had much time flowed by since all the temples had been closed, the altars extinguished, and all the rabidity of the demons destroyed, and these things galled the wicked demon, nor could he bear the peace of the church with an even mind, what then does he do? He brings in another hostile war. For that indeed was external; but this internal; and such things, further, are much more difficult to guard against, and easily overwhelm those on whom they fall. At that time therefore this Blessed one was ruling the church which is among us ^a, and a disease arose, like a certain hostile pestilence, from the regions of Egypt ^b, which, having ravaged through the intervening cities, was hastening to make an assault upon our city. But he, vigilant and attentive, and foreseeing all things that threatened, warded off the impending war: and like some wise physician, before the disease had invaded the city in which he resided, prepared medicines, and steered this sacred ship with much security, running about in every direction, rousing the sailors, the passengers, all who were sailing, and taking care that they should watch and attend, as though the pirates were now assailing it and striving to plunder the treasure of the faith.

[9] Nor indeed did he apply this care here only; nay, also to any others whatsoever. but into all quarters he sent those who should teach, who should exhort, who should dispute, who should shut off from the enemies every approach: for he had been well taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit that the prelate of a church ought to be solicitous not only for that which was committed to him by the Holy Spirit, but also for every one established in the world: and this he gathered from the sacred prayers. For if prayers are to be poured out for the universal Church, he says, which reaches from the ends to the ends of the world; much more ought one both to bear care for that whole Church and to be solicitous alike for all, to provide for all. What therefore happened in the case of Stephen, that also befell in his: for as the Jews, when they could not resist the wisdom of Stephen, stoned that Saint: so also these ^c, when they could not resist his wisdom, and saw his ramparts fortified, then expel the herald from the city. But the voice by no means was silent; but, though the man was expelled, the word of doctrine was not expelled. For Paul also was bound; but the word of God was not bound: and this man was abroad, and his doctrine was among us. Bursting forth therefore in a dense throng, like some violent torrent, they made an onset ^d: but they neither tore up the plants, nor overwhelmed the crops, nor laid waste the standing grain: so excellently, so skillfully cultivated by his wisdom, they clung with fixed roots.

[10] But truly it must be said by us, for what cause God permitted him to be expelled hence. Yet God permitted him to be vexed and expelled; The Church had not long before begun to take breath, nor did his governance bring it a mediocre consolation; on every side he fortified it, and repelled the onsets of the enemies. Why then was he cast out; and why did God permit this to those who banished him hence? For what cause at last? Do not think that what we are now handling is the solution of this question alone; but whether a discourse be made by you concerning such matters either with pagans or with heretics, for solving every question it will suffice, that which we shall say. God indeed permits His true and Apostolic faith to be assailed in many things; but suffers heresies and paganism to enjoy secure tranquillity. Why so? That you may learn the infirmity of the latter, which, when they are by no means troubled, are of their own accord destroyed; but may recognize the virtue of the faith, which, while it is assailed, is increased by the work of those who oppose it. Nor is this my conjecture, but a divine response fallen from heaven.

[11] as once the Apostle Paul; Let us hear what Paul says on this matter: for he too once suffered something human: for though he was Paul; yet he was a partaker of our nature. But what is that which he suffered? He was harassed, assailed, beaten with rods, attacked with six hundred kinds of snares, within, without, by those who seemed to be of the household, by strangers. But what need is there to commemorate how great afflictions he endured? Wearied therefore, and no longer bearing so many incursions of enemies, who always interrupted his doctrine, and opposed his word, prostrate as a suppliant before the Lord he beseeches Him and says: "There was given me a goad for the flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. For this I asked the Lord thrice, and He said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for virtue is perfected in infirmity." I know indeed that some think it to be an infirmity of the body; but it is not that, it is not at all; but he calls the men who opposed him an angel of Satan: for that word "satan" is Hebrew; and "satan" means adversary. The instruments therefore of the devil, and those men who serve him, he calls his angels. Why then, someone will say, is it added, "for the flesh"? Because the flesh was scourged; but the soul was lifted up, upheld by the hope of things to come: for it did not touch the soul, nor supplant the inner thoughts; but within the flesh stood the torments and the war, nor could they penetrate within. Since therefore this was cut down, this was scourged, this was bound: for the soul no one can bind; therefore he says: "There was given me a goad for the flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me"; intimating temptations, afflictions, persecutions. "For this thrice," he says, "I asked the Lord," that is, I prayed many a time, he says, that I might breathe a little from the temptations.

[12] that thus the divine virtue might shine forth the more. But you remember the cause on account of which I said God permits His servants to be beaten,

vexed, to suffer infinite evils, that He may show forth His virtue. For behold, here also, when he had prayed that innumerable evils and adversaries might depart from him, he did not obtain what he asked; and he adds the cause on account of which he did not obtain it. What then is the cause? For nothing hinders me from mentioning it again: "My grace," he says, "is sufficient for thee: for my virtue is perfected in infirmity." You see that God therefore permits the angels of Satan to press His servants and to exhibit to them six hundred troubles, that His own virtue may appear? For truly, whether we contend with pagans or with the wretched Jews, for showing forth the divine virtue this suffices, that the faith, harassed by infinite wars, has prevailed, and, the whole world resisting, and all men repelling with great striving those twelve men, the Apostles, I say, in a short time, beaten with rods, harassed, having endured innumerable evils, were able with prosperous success to overcome those by whom these things were inflicted. Therefore God also permitted blessed Eustathius to be led away into exile; that He might demonstrate to us more amply the virtue of the truth, and the weakness of the heretics.

[13] And so, being about to set out abroad, he dismissed the city indeed; [As indeed shone forth in St. Eustathius, about to set out for exile, and then imitating Paul.] but did not dismiss his charity toward you: nor, because he was expelled from the Church, did he think himself alien even from the office of prelate, or from the care of you which he bore; but then he cared the more and was solicitous. Therefore, calling all together, he admonished them not to succumb, nor to yield to the wolves, or betray the flock to them; but to remain within ^e; to stop their mouth, to convince them, and to confirm the simpler brothers. And indeed that he had rightly commanded, the outcome at last proved: for unless you had then remained in the church, the greater part of the city would have been corrupted, the sheep in the desert being devoured by the wolves: but his word hindered them from impudently putting forth their wickedness. Nor indeed did the outcome alone show this; but also the words of Paul: for from him this man too was taught, and so admonished. What then does Paul say? When once he was about to be led away to Rome, by his last protection, after he was no longer to see his disciples: "For no longer shall I see you," he says: but he said this, not that he might imprint grief on them; but because he wished to confirm them: about to set out thence therefore, in this manner he confirmed them, saying: "I know that after my departure grievous wolves will enter in; and from your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things." A threefold war; the nature of the beasts, the savagery of the war, and that not strangers, but those of the household, are they who bring the war. For if from outside someone wounds me, or brings war, easily shall I be able to overcome him: but if from within, from the body itself, an ulcer arises, the evil becomes hard to heal: which indeed then also came to pass. Therefore he admonished, saying: "Attend to yourselves and to the whole flock": he did not say: "Leaving the sheep, flee outward."

[14] Instructed with these things when blessed Eustathius had been, he admonished his disciples: His last admonitions Flavian keeps to the great good of the church; which admonitions indeed this wise also and noble-minded Master ^f, when he had heard, fulfilled the word with the deed. For when those men invaded, he did not desert the sheep, although he had not yet ascended into the throne of his prelacy ^g; but this noble and philosophy-excelling soul did not care for that: for the honors of prelates he left to others; but the labor of prelates he himself drained to the dregs, and dwelt within with the wolves: for the teeth of the beasts hurt him in nothing; so endued was he with a firmer faith than to be liable to their bites. When therefore he was within, and the fight, by which they engaged with him, detained all those, he procured much security and tranquillity for the sheep. Nor indeed did he do this only, to stop their mouths and refute their blasphemies; but going about the sheep themselves, he weighed whether any had been struck by a dart; whether any had received a grave wound; and straightway he applied the medicine. While he did this, he animated all to the true faith; nor did he cease before, by the gift and grant of God, blessed Meletius arrived, who received the whole mass ^h; this man sowed, that one reaped.

[15] He is therefore compared to Moses and Aaron. Something of the kind Moses and Aaron also performed: for they too, in the manner of leaven, while they dwelt in the midst of the Egyptians, rendered many emulators of the piety of their household. Moses testifies this, when he says that a great promiscuous multitude went up with the Israelites. Imitating this Moses, This man [i], even before his magistracy ^k, performed the things which belonged to a magistracy. Since he, before command over the people had been conferred on him, most bravely and nobly punished those who brought injury, avenged those who suffered injury, and, despising the royal table, honors, and dignities, ran to the clay and the brick-work, and judged the care of his kinsmen to be preferred to all delights, pleasures, and honors; to whom This man turning his eyes, admonished all magistrates by his solicitude for the people, and preferred to endure labors, to be harassed on every side, rather than to enjoy pleasures, and daily incurred perpetual enmities. Nevertheless all these things were light to him: since from those things which befell, he seized a fitting occasion of consolation. Which since it is so, giving thanks to God, let us imitate the virtues of those Saints, that we may be able to be partakers with them of the same crowns, by the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion forever. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

i. Flavian.