ON ST. EULOGIUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,
AT ALEXANDRIA IN EGYPT.
About 605 or 606.
A HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Eulogius, bishop and confessor, at Alexandria in Egypt (St.)
BY J. S.
§ I. The saint's memory in the sacred calendars: a eulogy from the Basilian Menology: observations on the visions attributed to St. Eulogius.
[ ] Baronius at this day inserted the following words into the Roman Martyrology: At Alexandria, of St. Eulogius the bishop, St. Eulogius not only in the Roman Martyrology, but in the Greek famous for learning and sanctity. Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology, repeating these, notes in the margin that no mention of Eulogius is had in the Menologies, and that this day was probably chosen by Baronius on the occasion of Philip the martyr of Alexandria. The observation is true, if he means only that on this day St. Eulogius is not commemorated by the Greeks. But these things have already been noted among us in the "Things passed over" at the 13th of February: St. Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, is venerated on this day by the Greeks, of whom their Menaea and Cythereus. On the same day in the Basilian Menology there is had a commemoration of holy Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and there he is commended with this eulogy: Our most holy and great father Eulogius was bishop of Alexandria in the reign of the emperor Heraclius, before holy John the Almsgiver; and on account of his virtues, and the grace which he had entered upon with God, he wrought many miracles, among which this seems worthy to be recorded.
[2] For when the most holy archbishop Leo had written a letter in which he commended the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, is likewise long since commemorated. and holy Eulogius had read it, he not only praised and received it, but also called it a pillar of orthodoxy, and proclaimed it to all. And God, wishing to do honor to both pontiffs, sent his angel, who in the figure and appearance of the archdeacon of holy Leo gave thanks to holy Eulogius, because he had received the mentioned letter. But the saint, after he had held converse with him as with a man, when the angel withdrew from his sight, knew him to be an angel of God, and glorified God. At length, serving God in many things, he died. These things indeed are not accurately narrated, but they suffice to show that St. Eulogius was held in great veneration among the Greeks, and are brought forward for this cause only. Nearly the same things are read in the printed Menaea, where two little verses of no moment are added.
[3] Again in the "Things passed over" among us at the 13th of June these things were observed concerning the memory of St. Eulogius among the Greeks: [calendars; not, however, in the Coptic ones: he is honored with the title of Saint by the ancients.] St. Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria, is commemorated in the manuscript Synaxarium of the church of Constantinople, and with verses in the Chifflet manuscript and others. All these things I find in our manuscript Collection; but nowhere is there added a eulogy containing anything of the saint's deeds. In the calendars of the Abyssinians Eulogius is altogether omitted; nor is this to be wondered at, since there the other professors of the faith of Chalcedon also have been passed over, as our Sollier already observed in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, p. 68, where he treats of St. Eulogius. I do not know for what cause St. Eulogius has been passed over by most of the Latins; for we shall see him notable in sanctity and deeds. Wherefore Constantino Ghini deservedly took pains to adorn our saint at this day with a notable eulogy. Very honorable mention of Eulogius is made in the Miracles of SS. John and Cyrus among us, tom. 2 of January, p. 1088. He is also called Saint repeatedly in the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus, which work was written not long after St. Eulogius. Photius too everywhere calls the saint Holy or Blessed. These things sufficiently show that the sanctity of Eulogius was acknowledged by the ancients.
[4] A marvelous vision which But as concerns the vision given above from the Menology, it clearly appears that two related in the Spiritual Meadow were confused into one. I transfer both hither from the Greek-Latin edition of Cotelier, who in tom. 2 of the Monuments of the Greek Church, p.
414 sets forth the Latin text thus: When we were at Ennaton, in the convent of Tugara, abbot Menas the head of the convent related to us concerning the holy Pope Eulogius in these words: On a certain night, while he was performing his canon or Office of prayers apart in the oratory of the bishop's house, he saw Julian the archdeacon standing near him. And when he beheld him, he was troubled that he had dared to enter without previous announcement. He was silent, however. And the psalm being finished, he prostrated himself after the manner of penitents. And he who had appeared to him in the form of the archdeacon also prostrated himself. Then, when the Pope had risen and adored, that one remained on the pavement. And so the Pope, turning, says to him: "How long will you not rise?" But he said to him: "Unless you yourself stretch out your hand to me and raise me, I cannot rise." Then the Abbot, stretching out his hand, took hold of him and raised him. And he began the psalm again; and turning, he no longer saw anyone.
[5] is narrated to have befallen him: After therefore he had finished the morning prayers, he called his chamberlain and said to him: "Why did you not announce the archdeacon's entrance, but he thus came in to me with no notice given, and that by night?" But he asserted that he had neither seen anyone nor that he had entered. And since the Pope was unwilling to believe this, he said: "Call the doorkeeper here to me." And to him, when he came, he says: "Did not the archdeacon Julian come here?" But he affirmed with an oath that he had neither seen him nor had he returned. And then indeed the Pope kept quiet. But when morning came, the archdeacon Julian went up to adore or salute him. The Pope said to him: "Why did you not keep order, archdeacon Julian, but came in to me without announcement that night?" He answered: "By the prayers of my lord, I neither entered here, nor went out of my house, save at this hour only." Then the great Eulogius understood that he had seen Julian the martyr, exhorting him to the raising up of his church; for it was by time decayed and grown old, and was threatening ruin. But Eulogius, lover of the martyrs and a divine man, with great eagerness stretched out his hand and raised up his church, building it from the foundations and adorning it with every kind of ornament, as befitted a holy martyr. Thus far concerning the former vision.
[6] The other, in the same place on p. 417, is thus: Theodore, most holy bishop of the city of Darnis, which is in Libya, related this to us: When I was syncellus of the holy Pope Eulogius, I saw in a dream a venerable and great man saying to me: "Announce my coming to Pope Eulogius." To whom I: "Who are you, sir? How do you bid me announce it?" He answered me in these words: "I am Leo, Pope of Rome." I therefore, having entered, announced, saying: "The most holy and most blessed Pope Leo, prelate of the church of the Romans, desires to greet you." When therefore Pope Eulogius heard, rising in haste he ran to meet him; and saluting one another and prayer being made, they sat down. Then the truly divine and God-bearing Leo said to Pope Eulogius: "Do you know why I have come to you?" He answered: "No." He said to him: "I have come to give you thanks, because you have nobly and magnificently stood for and answered on behalf of my Letter which I wrote to our brother Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople; declaring indeed my meaning, but stopping the mouths of the heretics. But know, brother, that you have conferred your labor therein not on me only, but also on Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and above all on the truth itself which is preached by us, which is Christ our God." Having beheld these things not once only but thrice, and being brought to believe by the threefold apparition, I related them to the holy Pope Eulogius; who, when he heard the matter, wept, and, stretching out his hands to heaven, gave thanks to God and said: "I give thee thanks, Lord Christ our God, that thou hast made me, though unworthy, a herald of thy truth, and that through the prayers of thy servants Peter and Leo thy goodness has received our slight endeavor, like those two mites of the widow." These things John Moschus in the Spiritual Meadow.
[7] Now both accounts must be explained in a few words. Julian the martyr, certain things observed concerning both visions. whose church St. Eulogius is said to have restored, is probably St. Julian the martyr of Alexandria, who was gouty, and whose deeds were elucidated at the 27th of February. The letter of Pope St. Leo, of which mention is made in the other vision, is that famous letter to Flavian, written against the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, and received and approved by all Catholics in the council of Chalcedon. This St. Eulogius really defended against the Eutychians and other heretics, as we shall see below. Further, how much credit these two visions deserve I should prefer to leave to the judgment of the learned than to define lightly. The former is so reported that it seems to have been presented to the saint while awake, if the account is faithful. But the other is rather a dream, though thrice repeated, if what is narrated is true. For the rest, far more inept than either of these accounts is that which was given at no. 2 from the Menology, and I can scarcely doubt that the vision there related was badly stitched together out of the two. For St. Leo and his Letter seem to flow from the latter, although instead of the letter to Flavian another letter is put, by which St. Leo confirmed the council of Chalcedon. But the angel appearing in the form of the archdeacon of St. Leo seems ill adopted from the former vision of the Spiritual Meadow, since there Eulogius is said to have seen his own archdeacon, as he thought. Therefore that account of the Menology at least does not deserve credit; although the others, because they are of a nearly contemporary writer, do not seem unworthy of all credit. These things being observed, I proceed to the more certain deeds of the saint.
§ II. Eulogius consecrated priest at Antioch, then bishop of Alexandria: the beginning of his episcopate and the year of his death are discussed.
[ ] St. Eulogius first a monk, then a priest at Antioch, Concerning St. Eulogius we have almost nothing from the Greek historians, so that everything besides his episcopate must be gathered from the letters of St. Gregory the Great to Eulogius, and from the Library of Photius, who treats of this saint's writings in various places. This scarcity of writers concerning the deeds of St. Eulogius causes us to have nothing about his parents, his native land, and his beginnings. The first thing which we can assert of the saint Photius has at cod. 230, p. 878, but only in the Greek text: namely, that he was a monk. That he was also a priest at Antioch Photius asserts at cod. 126, p. 770, in these words: For the rest, this Eulogius formerly obtained the dignity of the priesthood at Antioch. What follows is faultily expressed in Latin. Wherefore I subjoin the Greek words: Καὶ μονῆς ἡγήσατο τῆς παναγίας Θεοτόκου, τῆς λεγομένης τῶν Ἰουστινιαοῦ. And he presided over the monastery \ of the most holy Mother of God, which was called that of the Justinians. Of the church of the Mother of God founded at Antioch by Justinian Procopius speaks thus, On Buildings, book 2, p. 49: There (namely at Antioch, Justinian) founded a church of the Mother of God, truly ample; whose beauty and perfect magnificence I cannot attain in words; and he also assigned to it a splendid revenue of money.* It is very likely that this is that very church over which Eulogius presided.
[9] he presided over a monastery or church of the most holy Virgin, Hence it is doubtful whether the word μονὴ in the alleged text is to be explained of a monastery, although in the middle age it generally signifies a monastery; for since μονὴ, as well as monasterium among the Latins of the middle age, is sometimes taken for a church, it can here designate a parish church. Louis Bulteau in the Monastic History of the East, book 4, chapter 29, suspects that monks served in the said church of the Mother of God, and that St. Eulogius presided over it — which appears probable enough. But neither from these things nor from the title of Abbot, which is given him once in the Spiritual Meadow, can I certainly infer that Eulogius presided there over monks. From elsewhere, however, we have it that he was a monk. For in the place assigned above Photius has thus in Greek: Καὶ τι᾽ ποτ᾽ ἐστιν ὁ μοναχὸς, ὑπογράφει· καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς πολιτείας ἀπαγγέλλει. And he describes what a monk is, and announces that he himself is of the same institute. And so I judge that he was a monk before the priesthood, and from a monk was consecrated presbyter. I should not wish, however, to assert with Baillet that from his youth he was brought up in a monastery; for he asserts this without a witness, just as without any ancient testimony he adds that Eulogius was first set over the clergy of Antioch under the Patriarch, and then over the church of the Most Holy Virgin. Photius only says that he was ordained priest, and set over the monastery or church of the most holy Mother of God.
[10] How long he was a presbyter before the episcopate I find nowhere expressed. and thence he was made patriarch of Alexandria. But already at that time he undertook other not ignoble works, says the praised Photius, and at length he was also declared prelate of Alexandria. St. Eulogius refuted the heretics with great zeal, and began to undertake this already before his episcopate. For Photius at cod. 127, p. 774, treating of the saint's work written against the Theodosians and Cainites, has thus: And the work embraces also a letter written to Eutychius, archbishop of Constantinople, which he wrote while still a presbyter, containing an assurance of piety and of the orthodox and Catholic faith. It is very likely that many other things too were written by Eulogius before his episcopate; but since this is not altogether established, I proceed to the episcopate. Doubtless it was for his notable merits and remarkable learning that St. Eulogius was placed in the chair, since he was translated from Antioch to the patriarchate of Alexandria, in which a prelate notable for learning and virtue was needed, that he might be able to resist, on account of the multitude of heretics who opposed the council of Chalcedon. Further, before I recount the deeds and writings of the saint, it pleases me to record briefly some things concerning the chronology, because writers differ much in arranging the chronology of the patriarchs of Alexandria who flourished about those times.
[11] After Apollinaris, John ruled the see of Alexandria, From the year of the death of St. John the Almsgiver, and after John, Eulogius, says Evagrius, book 5, chapter 16. But after Eulogius, Theodore Scribo presided over the same church, and after him St. John the Almsgiver, of whom there was treatment among us at the 23rd of January. Baronius, having considered the matter less exactly, referred the death of St. John the Almsgiver to the year 620. But Henschen, who illustrated the Life of St. John, showed at the 23rd of January that the death of that saint should rather be fixed in the year 616 — namely because he died a little after his flight from the city of Alexandria, when it was about to be occupied by the Persians. For Alexandria was occupied in the year 616, and consequently in that same year St. John the Almsgiver died, as after Henschen and others Pagi also admits and proves at the year 620, no. 3. And so we have a fixed epoch for the death of St. John the Almsgiver, who was the second patriarch after St. Eulogius. Of the day too it is established; for he died on the 11th day of November, as is clearly drawn out from his Life. On these things Henschen, Pagi,
and our Sollier agree, in the Chronological History, p. 67. But I wonder that Michael Le Quien touched these things scarcely lightly, and preferred to follow the opinion of Baronius, liable to error.
[12] We have another certain epoch in Apollinaris, the second patriarch before Eulogius; [and from the beginning of the patriarch Apollinaris, and the years asserted by writers] for concerning his beginning it is established from Victor of Tunnuna, who flourished at that time. For he at the year 551, which in him is noted as After the consulship of Basil, V. C., the 11th year (in others the 12th year), has thus: Apollinaris is substituted as bishop of the church of Alexandria for Zoilus, who was unwilling to condemn the three mentioned chapters. Pagi at the year 551, no. 9, judges that Apollinaris was substituted for Zoilus in the month of July. But Sollier did not attend to the peculiar manner of speaking of Victor of Tunnuna when he wrote that the year 552 was designated by him; for the year 551 is certainly designated. These chronological notes being fixed, which seem to be held as historically certain, the years of the five patriarchs — that is, of the two predecessors of Eulogius, of Eulogius himself, and of his two successors — must be arranged according to them. But a difficulty here occurs such that anyone could easily go astray by a year or two, if he wished to assign certain years of death to each. For between the year 551, in which Apollinaris was ordained, and the year 616, in which John the Almsgiver died, there are found only sixty-five years, to which some months are added. Meanwhile in Theophanes and Nicephorus altogether sixty-nine years are attributed to the aforesaid five patriarchs. And so, if all be held as complete, nearly four years are in excess — or three years and about eight months. Nor is this to be wondered at; for the tables of Theophanes and Nicephorus are not so accurate that they do not from time to time fall short or exceed by some years.
[13] it is gathered that Eulogius, made patriarch about 579, died about 605 or 606. Pagi assigns to nearly each patriarch the years expressed in Nicephorus and Theophanes, but to St. John the Almsgiver he attributes, instead of ten, only eight years, and those incomplete at both ends; and thus, reckoning the other years, he fixes the beginning of St. Eulogius' episcopate in the year 580, and his death in the year 607. Our Sollier preferred to subtract the superfluous years from St. Eulogius' predecessors, and consequently to begin his episcopate in the year 577, but to refer his death to the year 604. Each alleges some authority for his own opinion; but the authority of the Chronicle commonly called Alexandrian, alleged by Pagi, is not so great, nor is that of Anastasius, whom Sollier sets against it — especially when they oppose one another — that I can safely establish anything certain. Wherefore I fix, with some latitude, an epoch intermediate between the two, and place the beginning of his episcopate about the year 579, and his death about 605 or 606. That he spent twenty-seven years in the episcopate, but perhaps not complete, I believe more probably, with both. For although in Nicephorus Eulogius is read to have sat only seventeen years, all everywhere judge that this happened by the fault of the copyists, and that twenty-seven should be read, as is asserted in Theophanes and Nicephorus Callistus. More certain things I cannot establish, unless, after the example of others — never approved by me — I should try to elicit certainties from uncertainties.
Notes\* or church
§ III. Some deeds and writings of the saint from Photius.
[ ] [Eulogius, having spoken with St. Gregory at Constantinople, is praised as a witness concerning St. Leo,] The author of the Spiritual Meadow, in Cotelier, chapter 147, praises St. Eulogius as a witness of an admirable fact which he had learned from St. Gregory the Great, with whom he had been at Constantinople. The fact pertains chiefly to St. Leo the Great, and is thus reported: This also abbot Menas, the head of the same convent, related to us: that he had heard the same abbot Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria, saying: When I had gone to Constantinople, I enjoyed the company of the Roman archdeacon the lord Gregory, a supreme and singular man, endowed with every virtue; and he related to me that concerning the most holy and most blessed Leo, Pope of Rome, it is held in writing in the Roman church that, when he had written a letter to holy Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, against the men of ill-omened name Eutyches and Nestorius, he placed it at the tomb of Peter the Prince of the Apostles etc. The fact, which does not properly pertain here, see in the place alleged, or in St. Leo at the 11th of April. This only I observe: that writers everywhere, all who treat of the saint, recognize from this passage that Eulogius contracted a friendship with St. Gregory at Constantinople, and that this probably happened while Eulogius was already a bishop. Yet it is not altogether certain whether Eulogius was a bishop or only a presbyter; for it is not sufficiently established in what year Gregory was sent to Constantinople by Pope Pelagius II.
[15] Among the earlier writings of St. Eulogius I suspect are to be numbered those which he composed against the schismatics and heretics the Novatians. He wrote against the Novatian heretics Of that work, divided into six books, Photius treats in three places in the Greek-Latin Library, but the translation is frequently faulty, and for this cause I shall be forced to adduce the Greek words themselves whenever the Latin does not agree with them. At cod. 182, p. 411, he has thus: There were read five books of blessed Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria, against Navatus (in Latin Novatus) and on the ecclesiastical administration. What is expressed in Latin on the administration is somewhat ambiguous in Greek, περὶ οἰκονομίας. This I should explain of the dispensation, namely in reconciling the lapsed to the Church through penance. For it is established from the fathers that this was the heresy of the Novatians, that they were unwilling to admit the lapsed to penance or to absolve them. Further, it is not necessary here to set forth at length the heresy of Novatus and the schism of Novatian, for this must be treated at greater length in St. Cornelius the Pope; this only I observe, that Novatus must be distinguished from Novatian, although both concurred in the same heresy. The similarity of name caused those two to be confused by some, and this happened to Eulogius himself, if the excerpts of Photius are faithful.
[16] Of the style of the little work Photius speaks thus: The man's diction, as concerns words, A useful work, is moderately careful; but in construction it often does not depart far from a solecism. Moreover he is not unskilled in the divine Scriptures, whose testimonies he employs happily and aptly, both against the Navatians and in certain other matters. He likewise persuades, as is his genius in speaking, and teaches and pleases. A little after, of the subject treated in those books, he subjoins these things: In these four books therefore this writer, fighting with the sect of Navatus in general, scourges it wretchedly with passages of holy Scripture; while in the fifth book in particular he contends that the relics of the martyrs are to be venerated — which he says the Navatians scattered through Alexandria refuse; whether these alone labored with that disease, or the whole heresy professed it in common. But in the sixth he overthrows the Commentaries which are current concerning the Navatian sect, and the falsely entitled contest of Navatus the bishop. Then he briefly touches on what those Commentaries of the Novatians contained, and concludes that article with these words: This then is the aim of the five books of blessed Eulogius. And he, advancing in the refutation of that sect by means of passages of sacred Scripture, weaves in certain very useful explanations; although the rest of his statements do not conflict with the pious opinion of others, but are taken up suitably for the refutation of that sect.
[17] Of the same books again Photius writes these things at cod. 208: distinguished in six books: I read five books of blessed Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria, against the Navatians. And although the writer in no way cared to seek a name for himself by elegance of speech, yet the carelessness of a neglected style has been no hindrance to the full refutation and branding with ignominy of the assertions and captious arguments of Navatus' sophisms. For, abundantly furnished with the commentaries and contemplations of sacred Scripture, the very things which that man had torn out thence to assert and defend his heresy, these he here, by interpreting and at the same time uncovering the frauds of the heresy in them, snatches away and takes from Navatus. Although also by other passages of the Scriptures he publishes his madness, unworthy of pardon, and his outlandish heresy, inscribing it as though upon a pillar. And finally in the last book he assails that false and wickedly feigned martyrdom which his followers attribute to Navatus. This refutation of Navatus is therefore useful to readers; besides that here there presents itself everywhere the explanation of not a few passages of Scripture, which will profit even the chief of interpreters. But also his power of persuading and his pleasantness, in this style, no one who venerates him would reckon contemptible. Thirdly and finally, of that work against the Novatians Photius writes at cod. 280, and there recites not a few passages out of each book. It is moreover clear there that the whole work was divided into six books, although before he sometimes mentions five, sometimes six books.
[18] likewise against various Eutychians, in defense of the Letter of St. Leo Many things also St. Eulogius wrote against the Eutychian heretics, then divided into various sects and thence called by other names. Eutychians were Timothy Aelurus, intruded into the patriarchate of Alexandria, and Severus, who occupied the patriarchate of Antioch. But Severus, as a restorer of the heresy, is also held a heresiarch, from whom the Severian heretics were named. Timothy had died a whole century before, and Severus perhaps forty years, when Eulogius undertook to refute the writings of both, and defended the famous letter of St. Leo to Flavian, which is called the Tome. Of this work Photius at cod. 225 has thus: I read a work of blessed Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, comprised in two books, and it is a defense of St. Leo, Pontiff of Rome, but an accusation of Timothy and Severus, who found fault with the Tome. For their heresy compelled both proudly to assail the synod \ and the Tome — Severus indeed more diffusely (in Greek πλατύτερον, more widely), but Timothy more carefully (nay, more accurately). And he dedicates the work to Dometian of Melitene. The first book indeed is completed in four chapters, the second in sixteen. And at the beginning of the work he gives the reason for the labor undertaken, to which pious men also invited him as he wrote.* Several passages adduced from the work itself may be seen in Photius.
[19] and the council of Chalcedon: And here straightway at cod. 216 he begins to treat of another work of Eulogius, writing thus: There was read a book of Eulogius (in Greek there is added τοῦ ἁγιοτάτου, the most holy) bishop of Alexandria, in which he seems to have taken up the cause of pious doctrine, striking shame into the defenders of impiety. What follows I adduce in Greek, because it is faultily expressed in Latin: προτίθεται δὲ αὐτῷ τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πάπα Λέοντος ὁ Τόμος, that is: And there is set before it (the book) the Tome \ of the holy Pope Leo, accused and found fault with by Theodosius, but in some places by Severus the Acephali. And he assails their madness and improbability* etc. Those Eutychians were called Acephali who were unwilling to communicate with Peter Mongus, bishop of Alexandria, when he had accepted the Ἑνωτικὸν, or edict for uniting heretics and Catholics, which the emperor Zeno had conceived with ill counsel, because that edict did not reject all the errors of the Eutychian heresy. Severus was as it were the standard-bearer of the Acephali before his episcopate. Theodosius was a heretical bishop of Alexandria, of whom I shall presently say more. The manner of writing in this little work he praises thus:
But this writer is pure and pleasant, both framing his accusations briefly and lightly, and bringing forward nothing into the midst without cause. He adds that the defense of the Letter of St. Leo was divided into fourteen chapters, and that a defense of the council of Chalcedon was subjoined.
[20] Before the middle of the sixth century two heretics at once, Gaianus and Theodosius, and against the Theodosians and Gaianites, at variance with one another. claimed the patriarchate of Alexandria for themselves, and both had a party adhering to them. And those who followed Gaianus were named Gaianites, and those who followed Theodosius, Theodosians. Each party after the death of the former chose other bishops of its own sect; but once they conspired in the same man, on the testimony of Theophanes at the last year of the emperor Justinian, and presently were divided again. The Gaianites and the Theodosians alike Eulogius assailed with an invective oration, of which Photius at cod. 217 has thus: There was read an invective of the same holy man against the union suddenly arisen between the Theodosians and the Cainite Acephali. For these, when they had first disagreed among themselves, afterward, mutually handing over the dogmas for which they contended, conspired in one — but brief — impiety. Then returning again to their former impiety, both parties were cut asunder into the opinions which they had before mingled. In this little book therefore he rebukes their impiety, and shows etc. What follows is again not rightly expressed in Latin, nor is it necessary for our purpose. Eulogius will have it that each party departed from its own opinion not by any prudent economy or dispensation, but by betraying its own opinion, as may be seen more fully in the same place. But care must be taken lest the word οἰκονομία be there taken for the Incarnation, as the unskilled translator took it.
[21] The writings of St. Eulogius which I have thus far given from Photius were probably drawn up before the pontificate of St. Gregory the Great, [Other little works of Eulogius, namely to the Roman Pontiff concerning his faith,] and doubtless some also of those which I shall recount. But I find no indications by which the order and time in which each was composed may be accurately assigned. Photius at cod. 230 treats at length of a volume of eleven Orations of St. Eulogius, the first of which was given to the supreme Pontiff — doubtless Pelagius II — not long after Eulogius received the episcopate. I read, says Photius, a volume of eleven Orations of St. Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria. The occasion of the first Oration, written to the Roman Pontiff, arose from a defect in that letter which, when made Patriarch, he had written to ask for the communion of the supreme Pontiff. For the Pope had complained that in that letter not all had been expressed that was required for him to be made certain of his Catholic faith. And these were the points. He had not named the four first councils, namely the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the Ephesine, and the Chalcedonian. He had made no mention of the letter of St. Leo to Flavian. He had not pronounced anathema against Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Severus, heresiarchs. He had not clearly enough expressed that watchword of the Catholics against the Eutychians concerning the two natures. These things Photius explains more fully and more obscurely, and adds that Eulogius gave an account of all in this first Oration.
[22] The second, says Photius, is entitled DOGMATIC, which contains an exposition of the faith. against the Eutychians, Ἐν ᾗ τήν τε τριάδα εὐσεβοφρόνως θεολογεῖ. These words had been omitted in Latin. Wherefore I subjoin them with what follows in Latin. In this he treats theologically of the Trinity according to pious understanding, and pursues these things concerning the Incarnate Christ in the same manner, following them out indeed more summarily than above, yet omitting nothing of accusation; and running through these things, he ends in an admonition, and tries to recall those who have separated themselves from the Church to a common agreement. These things concerning the second Oration suffice for us. The third Oration, says Photius, contends against those who calumniate the holy Fathers and the council of Chalcedon. Many things disputed in this Oration against the Eutychians Photius adduces, and concludes with these words: Pursuing these things, bishop Eulogius, and adding to the aforesaid an admonition recalling the deserters to the union of the Church, puts an end to his discourse. Presently to the fourth Oration the same proceeds thus: The next Oration also deals seriously against the calumniators of the Chalcedonian synod. Then, some not few reasonings of Eulogius being recounted, he subjoins: When the author had set forth these things and things genuine to them (nay, like them), an exhortation to entering upon concord being added, he puts an end to this present book. These three Orations directly assail the Eutychians.
[23] other theological little works, There follows in Photius the argument of the fifth Oration; but the Greek text must be adduced, because the Latin does not answer to it. Ὁ δὲ ἐφεξῆς αὐτῷ λόγος πρὸς τοὺς οἰομένους ἀνθρωπίναις ἐπινοίαις δύνασθαι τὴν ἀληθῆ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ὑποβάλλειν θεολογίαν διαλέγεται. And the Oration which follows this discourses against those who think that they can subject the true theology of the Christians to human opinions. In this Oration many things are subtly disputed concerning the essence of God, concerning unity and Trinity, concerning hypostasis, and concerning other heads of theology, as may be seen at the place assigned. Then Photius does not so clearly distinguish the several little works, so that the eleven Orations of which he made mention before may easily be found. But the matter is of little moment. The sixth Oration perhaps begins on p. 866, where Photius speaks thus: Having pursued these and other things of this kind, he disputes against those who contend that the hypostasis is nothing else than a bare property, and by many arguments of true piety he beats back their impious opinion. In this Oration likewise he handles two incidental questions equally subtle, which may be seen in Photius. The seventh little work of that volume seems to be a Letter, of which Photius on p. 871 thus begins: And the same holy man writes to Domitian, bishop of Militene (nay, from the Greek, of Melitene). But in this Letter he explains and defends a certain manner of speaking about the Incarnation which had displeased Domitian, because he thought (he says on p. 874) that such a word was not sincerely used and set forth by him from the heart, but by a certain dispensation, that by it he might without trouble recall his hearers to unity and cut off the causes of dissensions from the Catholic Church.
[24] [and concerning the monastic life, but in these too he treats against the heretics,] The eighth little work of that book is perhaps another Letter, of which Photius on p. 874 writes in this manner: The same venerable man writes to a certain Christopher, whom he himself in the superscription of the letter calls Most Holy, being asked by him to answer certain doubts from the sacred Scriptures. Two questions, namely, were proposed, but these may be seen in the same place. Further, I have called this the eighth little work, because that is called the ninth of which Photius presently subjoins on p. 878: The same Eulogius further, in the ninth book or argument, set forth those things in which the praise of the solitary (in Greek, monastic) life is contained, and describes what a monk is. [I add from the Greek: And he declares that he is himself of the same institute.] He exhorts the followers of the monastic life to order their life according to the prescript of their profession, καὶ τῇ μονότητι καὶ ἑνότητι τῆς ἐκκλεσίας συναρμόζεσθαι, and to be fitted together to the unity of the Church. The word "unity" is repeated in a different way, but by the word μονότητι the solitary life is not signified, as the Latin text has it. And those whom his admonition regards were of the Severian faction and sect. Then, some heads of that Oration being reported, he thus concludes the account: These things being run through in his discourse, when he had said that Severus was proscribed with an anathema, he concludes the disputation with an end. If this is really the ninth little work of that volume, as it is called, twelve little works seem to be recounted by Photius. But he elsewhere too varies the number.
[25] I go on with Photius: The following Oration bears the same title, [inviting them to unity: he writes likewise against the Agnoetes, and another little work.] and contains an exhortation to those who dissented from the Church. The saint admonished them that from the fights and dissensions of the heretics they should understand that the opinion of the Catholic Church is true and pious. But these things are not rightly expressed in the Latin text. He shows besides whence it came about that the heretical opinion was drawn apart and torn asunder into almost infinite sects and opinions. From this Oration Photius brings forward a good many passages, and at last says: These things being briefly disputed, with a long exhortation he ends this book also. This was the tenth Oration, if the preceding was rightly called the ninth; and consequently the eleventh will have been that of which Photius subjoins these things: He composes another Oration against the Agnoetes; and he says that certain monks from the solitude of Palestine stirred up the doctrine, who tried to assign ignorance to our Lord Jesus Christ from those things which he himself said. This work against the Agnoetes, of which more may be seen in Photius, St. Gregory also mentions in book 10 of the latest edition, letter 35, to Eulogius, and again letter 39, in both places marvelously praising the saint's opinion and calling it wholly conformable to his own. The words of Gregory I shall give below. The last little work which Photius recounts from that volume was written concerning a council celebrated against the Samaritan heretics, and concerning the sentence passed against them. The title of that lucubration was: A decree issued against the Samaritans. The saint also treats there of the resurrection of the dead, and added another question about the clean animals which were sacrificed in the old Law. Photius may be seen, col. 884 and following. Of the council itself we shall treat more fully below.
Notes\* the Chalcedonian
\* i.e., the Letter
§ IV. The council held by Eulogius in the case of the Samaritans: whether any writings of the saint still exist.
[ ] Since there was a grave dissension among the Samaritan heretics, Of the deeds of St. Eulogius we have scarcely anything except from the letters of St. Gregory the Pope. But what Gregory narrates happened while Gregory was holding the pontificate. Hence before all these must be set the council which Eulogius held in the seventh year of the emperor Maurice, that is, in the year 588 or 589; for the seventh year of Maurice runs with part of both. Photius at col. 883 sets forth the occasion of this synod in these words: The Samaritan people, divided into contrary factions, disagreed among themselves, and defended themselves with strange opinions. For some judged him to be Jesus son of Nave, of whom he said, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from your brethren like me." Others, rejecting this opinion, proclaimed a certain man named Dosthes, or Dositheus, a Samaritan also by race, a contemporary of Simon Magus; and, having monstrously invented that he was the one foretold by Moses, they were surnamed Dostheni from his name. Various Fathers have mentioned the Dositheans.
[27] of whom some were Dositheans, Origen in book 6 against Celsus, no. 11, joins Simon Magus and Dositheus as impostors who tried in vain to acquire a name and fame for themselves by marvelous deeds. Of which sort, he says, were Simon the Samaritan Magus, and Dositheus of the same region as he. The former said he was the power of God, which he called GREAT; but the latter said he himself was the son of God. Yet nowhere in the world do the Simonians now appear… But the Dositheans neither were very strong at first, and now altogether
are extinct, so that scarcely thirty are recorded as remaining. The same, in book 1 against Celsus, no. 57, speaks thus of this Dositheus: After the times of Jesus a certain Dositheus, a Samaritan, also wished to persuade his own people that he was that Christ whom Moses had foretold, and he seemed to win over some to himself by his doctrine. Origen speaks also in other places of Dositheus and the Dosithean heretics, and in Homily 27 on Luke Dositheus is called by him the heresiarch of the Samaritans.
[28] distinct from the Dositheans mentioned in Epiphanius, St. Epiphanius in the Panarion, chapter 13, p. 30, also treats of the Dosithean heretics. But, as Petau rightly observes in his Animadversions, p. 26, that Dositheus of whom St. Epiphanius treats is more ancient than that heresiarch of whom Origen and Photius speak; and consequently those Dositheans, heretics of the Samaritans under the old Law, are not to be confused with the Dositheans arisen in the time of the Apostles. But of these Dositheans Theodoret speaks very briefly in book 1 of the Heretical Fables, in Simon Magus. Further, since they were nearly extinct in the time of Origen, it must be that their number afterward grew again. Certainly there seem to have been not a few in the time of St. Eulogius, as will be gathered from what is to be said. After the words given above, Photius subjoins these things concerning Dositheus: He was slanderous against the divine prophets of God, but chiefly insulting toward Judah, one of the twelve patriarchs, revering nothing of the immense praises written of him in the Mosaic volumes. All these prophets therefore being hissed and hooted away, he arrogated to himself all prophecies and the rest of divinity. He adulterated the Octateuch with spurious writings and with corruptions of every kind mixed in, and patched together other books full of folly and monstrosities, and left them to his followers. He also denied the resurrection. Thus far concerning the Dositheans, to whom were opposed those Samaritans who explained Moses' prediction of a prophet to come as concerning Joshua, as has just been said.
[29] Eulogius in a council condemns both parties, These factions therefore had thus been cut asunder into disagreeing, contrary, and impious sects and opinions. And each faction presented little books for its own opinion and against the opposing party, each preferring its own prophet to the other. St. Eulogius, with a very numerous synod, full of notable pontiffs and men illustrious in dignity, presided over these as judge. Marcian \ was administering the Roman empire, taken up, now in the seventh year. Blessed Eulogius, having examined what was brought forward by each party, and both being convicted of an error far removed from the truth, taught from the sacred Scriptures that that Messiah foretold by the prophets is our Lord Jesus Christ, true God; but that they labored under a most grievous error — these indeed in feigning that Jesus son of Nave was that foretold prophet, but those in monstrously inventing the impious Dosthes or Dositheus; and thus he dissolved the council. But the argument and the decree perished with Eulogius: the third book, surviving, has come into our hands.* Thus far Photius, saying that the Acts perished in which were contained the reasons and decrees of the council, but that the book written on the matter by Eulogius came into his hands.
[30] Tillemont, tom. 15 of the Monuments of the Church, in St. Leo the Pope, art. 155, treats of this council, Tillemont wrongly refers this council to earlier times. and refers it to the 7th year of the emperor Marcian, of Christ 456, and says he does not know who that Eulogius is who presided at the council, unless perhaps he be Eulogius, bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia Petraea. But Louis Bulteau in the French History of the Monastic Order, book 4, chapter 29, and following him Baillet and Le Quien, rightly attribute that deed to our Eulogius, and believe that it is by the mere fault of copyists that Marcian crept in for the emperor Maurice. Certainly there is no doubt that Photius attributes the deed to Eulogius of Alexandria, of whom he treats, and whose works he there recounts. Nor was Photius so unskilled that he could believe Eulogius of Alexandria flourished in the times of Marcian. And so it does not seem to be doubted that the council was held in the times of Maurice and of Eulogius of Alexandria, and that St. Eulogius presided over it, with whose erudition and zeal everything agrees excellently.
[31] Johann Albert Fabricius in the Bibliotheca Graeca in various places recounts all the works of St. Eulogius, The saint's little works nearly lost, nor is his synodical letter known: of which we have just now treated from Photius, and notes of each that they perished long ago, with the exception, however, of those fragments which Photius inserted into his Library. And he in tom. 9, pp. 481 and 482, recounts the eleven Orations found by Photius in one volume in an order somewhat different from that in which they were enumerated by me. He believes, namely, that the ninth Oration, in which the monastic life is treated, is not to be held for a distinct oration, but for the ninth chapter of the eighth Oration or Letter to Christopher. But I can with difficulty persuade myself of this, because Photius concludes what he says of that Letter on p. 878 before he begins to speak of the little work which seems to us another. For the rest, the matter is of little moment, so that it is not necessary to add more of these things, especially since Photius has not everywhere clearly enough distinguished the several Orations. But what the praised Fabricius has in tom. 9, p. 460 — A synodical letter of Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, to Pope Gregory, written about this time (the year indicated is 602) exists in Photius in the Library, cod. 230 — and which is also read in Hardouin in the Index before tom. 3 of the Councils, is by no means accurate. For in Photius the synodical letter itself is not found; but Photius gives certain fragments of an Apology of Eulogius, written after the synodical letter. Secondly, the synodical letter of Eulogius was not given to Pope Gregory, nor about the year 602, but doubtless to Pelagius II, in whose time Eulogius was made patriarch, and about the year 580.
[32] Combefis in the Auctarium Patrum, tom. 1, p. 671, published a Greek-Latin Sermon on the feast day of Palms and on the ass's colt, [A homily published under the name of Eulogius, who is among the defenders of the council of Chalcedon,] and attributed it to St. Eulogius. In the Catalogue of the royal Library of Paris, tom. 2, cod. 897, is placed a Homily of Eulogius of Alexandria on Palm Sunday. Of the codex, which is partly of parchment, partly of paper, these things are there noted: The parchment part of this codex seems to have been written in the twelfth century, the paper part in the fifteenth. The same Homily was published before under the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria from an Oxford codex. Hence Combefis on p. 677 observes the following: The Oxford codex had it ascribed to Cyril, likewise of Alexandria, but with the style itself repugnant, as its translator among Cyril's works had detected. Thus everywhere some more famous man draws to himself even the published writings of others, especially where they have something in common with him — as here in Eulogius and Cyril, bishops of the same see. But that it is Eulogius' the whole matter persuades, and that great affinity of it with other things of the same Eulogius culled by Photius. Everywhere he fights keenly against the Eutychians, plainly worthy that Pope Agatho in his suggestion to the sixth synod should reckon him among the first and chief defenders of the synod of Chalcedon and of Leo's Tome. It is an Oration partly festive, partly polemical etc. Thus far Combefis. But what he says about the praised Eulogius being among the chief defenders of the synod of Chalcedon according to Pope Agatho may be seen in Agatho's Letter in Hardouin, tom. 3 of the Councils, col. [ ]. Similarly by St. Sophronius, bishop of Jerusalem, in Photius, cod. 231, p. 890, there is praised among the excellent defenders of the faith blessed Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, who in many words refutes the opinion of the Acephali.
[33] it does not seem it can certainly be attributed to him: But I do not see so great an affinity between the Homily published by Combefis and the fragments of Eulogius given by Photius that from it the Homily can undoubtedly be ascribed to Eulogius. No more do I see that this is made sufficiently certain from the matter treated there, especially since the author attacks by name the Jews, the Manichaeans, the Arians, the Marcionites, and Paul of Samosata, who were all far more ancient — but neither Nestorius, nor Eutyches, nor any heretic of those times; nor does he name St. Leo or the Chalcedonian council. Wherefore, since in different codices this Homily is ascribed to different authors, and it cannot be known from elsewhere whether it is Eulogius', nor was it known to Photius, I should not dare to attribute it with certainty to our saint. The things which Combefis believes were disputed against the Eutychians do not prove that that Homily is not far more ancient than Eulogius.
[34] other more certain fragments of the same The praised Combefis in the Works of St. Maximus, tom. 2, p. 145, gave Seven chapters of the most blessed Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria, on the two natures of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ. The Greek title agrees with this; nor do I find any reason for doubting that that fragment is St. Eulogius', since he disputed like things in the various little works mentioned in Photius. There follows in the same place another fragment on substance or essence, and nature and hypostasis; and it is subjoined to the preceding without a name, as though it were of the same author. This is certain, that Eulogius disputed on like matters, and therefore it cannot deservedly be denied him, if it was found under his name. In the Catalogue of the royal Library of Paris, tom. 2, p. 35, in codex 228, there are recorded Excerpts from the books of Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, on the holy Trinity and the Incarnation. These, if they are not the same as the fragments given by Combefis, can nevertheless easily be believed to be Eulogius', since it is established that he disputed concerning the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Gregory, protosyncellus and afterward patriarch of Constantinople, in his Apology against the letter of Mark of Ephesus, in Hardouin, tom. 9 of the Councils, col. 663, praises a certain work of St. Eulogius by the name of Ανθολογία, and from it adduces a text long enough for the defense of the council of Chalcedon. The title there given to this little work does not prove that it was distinct from those things which Photius recounted as written by Eulogius for the council of Chalcedon. But from it at least we learn that some of the little works of Eulogius survived in the fifteenth century after the council of Florence; for at that time Gregory wrote that Apology. Thus far of the saint's writings. Now we shall see how much St. Gregory esteemed Eulogius.
Notes\* read Maurice
§ V. The friendship of St. Eulogius with St. Gregory the Pope, from whose letters many things are recited.
[ ] Gregory's earlier letters to Eulogius, common to others: When St. Gregory had been raised to the pontificate in the year 590, he wrote to the patriarchs of the Eastern empire, and among them to St. Eulogius, a letter well filled out concerning his own promotion, which in the latest edition is the 25th of the first book. What Eulogius answered to this we learn from no monument; but it does not seem to be doubted that he answered. Again St. Gregory sent to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch a common letter concerning John, patriarch of Constantinople, in which he strongly disapproves that he usurped the title of universal patriarch or bishop.
This letter is fixed at Indiction 13, that is, the year 595, and is had in book 5, letter 43. Eulogius did not at once answer this complaint of Gregory, although he wrote to him about other matters, as is clear from Letter 60 of book 6, which was given in the month of August, Indiction 14, that is, the year 596. For Gregory there has thus: Besides, some time ago we transmitted our writings to our common son Sabinianus the deacon, who makes the responses of the Church in the royal city, which he ought to have directed to your fraternity. And if you received them, we wonder why you have by no means answered us concerning them. And therefore, since care must be taken lest anyone's pride bring in scandal to the churches, it is necessary that, reading those same writings over carefully, you preserve with all zeal and full intention the things which pertain to your honor and to the peace of the Church.
[36] Although Eulogius had not answered this — perhaps because he had not yet received Gregory's letter, gifts sent by Eulogius to Gregory, and others sent back to him by the latter. or for another cause unknown to us — he had nevertheless sufficiently declared his reverence toward St. Gregory. For when the latter had written various things about the charity between the Roman and the Alexandrian church, he thus continues: And to this unity of hearts we are bound also by the merits of your holiness, whom we know to follow wholesomely the institutes of their author, and whom we perceive always to betake themselves with all devotion to the bosom of their Master \, whence the preaching of salvation arose there. He adds that he therefore rejoiced at his letter, but grieved at the afflictions in which he was. At last Eulogius had sent some little gift to Gregory; and he sent back another to him, concerning which Gregory writes these things: And the bearer of the present letter, Isidore the deacon, our common son, we received with the charity that was fitting, as he brought us the blessing \ of St. Mark the Evangelist. And you indeed, resplendent by the merit of a good life, have transmitted to us those sweet-smelling woods which are near to paradise. But we — because, that is, we are sinners — have transmitted to you from the West woods which, fit for building ships, signifying the tumult of our mind, are always tossed on the waves of the sea; and indeed we wished to send greater ones, but this narrow ship did not take them. More may be read in the praised letter.
[37] Gregory asks Eulogius about the heretic Eudoxius, Then St. Gregory again wrote a letter common to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, which is the 34th (formerly 31st) of the seventh book, and is fixed at Indiction 15, or the year 597, or at any rate not before the month of September of the year 596. In this letter he treats of Cyriacus, patriarch of Constantinople, who had succeeded the deceased John the Faster, and who had directed a synodical letter concerning his own promotion, with a profession of faith, to St. Gregory. The holy Pope acknowledges that the faith of Cyriacus is Catholic, but asserts that he does not know for what cause he had condemned Eudoxius among other heretics, and anxiously admonishes that the title of "universal" must be dropped by Cyriacus, which his predecessor John had usurped until his death. He writes also of other affairs of the Church, and says that he will afterward answer the letter received, when the bearer of this one was ready to depart. Further, by letter 40 (formerly 37) of the same book, which is inscribed to Eulogius alone, Gregory probably answered the letter just mentioned. He thus begins it: Your Holiness, most sweet to me, has said many things in his letters about the chair of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, saying that he himself sits in it even now in his successors, etc.
[38] he praises his zeal against the heretics, To these things, when Gregory had humbly answered, he thus continues: But paying the due address of greeting, I declare that I exult with great joy, because I have learned that you labor assiduously against the barkings of the heretics; and I beseech the almighty Lord that he may help your Beatitude with his protection, so that through your tongue he may pluck out from the bosom of holy Church every root of bitterness, lest springing up again it hinder many, and by it many be defiled. For having received a talent, you consider what was commanded: "Trade until I come." I therefore, although I can trade nothing, yet rejoice with you in the gains of your trading — knowing this, namely, that although the work does not make me a partaker, charity makes me a partaker of your labor. Because, as I judge, the good of a neighbor becomes common even to an idle man, who knows how to rejoice in common at the acts of another. Besides, I wished to send woods; but your Beatitude did not indicate whether they were needed, and we can send much greater ones, but no such ship is sent hither as could hold them. And I think it shameful to send smaller ones. What, however, I ought to do, let your Beatitude make known to me by your letters.
[39] he writes about the little gifts received from him, and sends him others. And I have sent a small blessing from the Church of St. Peter your lover: six smaller Aquitanian palls and two stoles; for since I love much, I presume even about small things. For love itself has its own authority; and it is altogether certain that there will be no wrong in anything which it has presumed in loving. And I received the blessing of St. Mark the Evangelist according to the note \ inserted in your letters. But because I do not gladly drink the strained and the viritheum, presuming I ask for cognidium, which in this city your Holiness caused to become known after many years, in the year past. For here we buy from the merchants the name of cognidium, and not the substance. And I ask that against all the bitternesses which I suffer in this life the prayer of your Holiness may support me, and defend me from them with the almighty Lord by its intercessions. Thus far Gregory. For the rest, on the words colatum or collatum, as it is otherwise read, viritheum, in another reading juritheum, and cognidium, various things are noted in the latest edition of Gregory's works. Doubtless they are different kinds of drink, but I confess I do not know whether various wines or other drinks are meant. I shall also divine in vain if I wish to explain what kind of garment Gregory designated by Aquitanian, or equitanian*, as it is in another manuscript, palls. Nevertheless I do not doubt that they were precious; for otherwise more would have been sent.
[40] Two other letters of St. Gregory to Eulogius I judge to belong to the same year 597, Other letters of Gregory about little gifts, or to Indiction 15, even though they were placed later by the editors. One of these is that which is placed as the 29th of book 8, which Gregory thus begins: The address of a learned man is always useful. And it treats of the Acts of the martyrs collected by Eusebius of Caesarea, which Eulogius had asked for, and which Gregory affirms are unknown to him, treating then of the Roman Martyrology of that time. But after those things he subjoins the following: But as to what you write about the woods, that they were short, the quality of the ship by which they were sent caused it; for if a larger ship had come, we could have sent even larger woods. But as to what you say, that if we send larger ones you will give the price, we give thanks indeed for your generosity, but we are forbidden to accept a price, the Gospel forbidding it. For we do not buy those woods which we send; and how can we accept a price, when it is written: "Freely you have received, freely give"? Now therefore, according to the measure of the ship, we have sent small woods by the shipmaster, a note of which is annexed below. But in the following year, if it shall please almighty God, we are preparing larger ones. And the blessing of St. Mark the Evangelist — nay, what is truer, of St. Peter the Apostle — we have received in that sweetness with which it was sent; and paying the address of greeting, we ask that your Beatitude may deign to pray for us, that we may deserve both to be snatched more quickly from present evils and not to be shut out from future joys. So Gregory. Of the Acts of the martyrs which Eulogius believed had been written by Eusebius I do not here treat, nor of the Martyrology here mentioned. But the reason why I judge this letter should be fixed in the year 597 is this. Eulogius is here read to have asked for the first time for longer woods and to have offered a price. But it can scarcely be doubted that he did this after he had received the woods sent by Gregory in the year 596. Besides, he as yet makes no mention here of the illness from which he suffered in the year 598, as we shall see below.
[41] Letter 78 (otherwise 79) of the ninth book, which is fixed at Indiction 2, [others about an answer not yet received concerning the title of the bishop of Constantinople.] also seems to have been written earlier. For Gregory there complains that Eulogius had not yet answered concerning the case of the patriarch of Constantinople usurping the title of "universal." Wherefore this letter was certainly drawn up before another presently to be mentioned, and given at Indiction 1. The writings of your most sweet Holiness, says Gregory, I received by the bearer of the present letter, which spoke to me of that case being ended more quickly. After a few words: But of the case about which it was altogether necessary to write to me, your Holiness wrote nothing, in which he judged me also slow; and lest perhaps it should break out into the scandal of a division, I was unwilling to be the author of that division. For I chose that what is to follow should proceed through others. But in time to come, God being the author, you will prove that in a case in which I desire to please God I do not fear men. Of which I took care to write to you already when you were coming to the city of Constantinople. After some things about larger woods, he thus commends himself to Eulogius' prayers: And I ask that your Holiness ought to pray for me more earnestly; because I am unceasingly pressed both by the pains of gout, and by the swords of the barbarians, and by the afflictions of cares. But if you bestow on me the help of your prayer, I believe that you will bravely aid me against all adversities.
[42] Gregory in another letter In letter 30 of book 8, which was certainly given at Indiction 1, and in the year 598, mention is made of a twofold answer of Eulogius: namely concerning Eudoxius, the Arian heretic of the fourth century, whom Gregory had written in the preceding year was not sufficiently known to him, and concerning the affairs of Constantinople, or the title of universal bishop, of which Gregory had already written in two letters to Eulogius. And this title, attributed to himself by Eulogius, the most modest Pope complains of. But at the beginning of the letter Gregory rejoices at the heretics converted by Eulogius, and presently announces to him the conversion of the English by St. Augustine. The whole letter I transfer hither: Gregory to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria. Our common son, the bearer of the present letter, bringing the writings of your Holiness, found me sick and left me sick; from which it happened that to the abundant fountain of your Beatitude scarcely a little water of my brief letter could ooze back.
[43] But it was of a heavenly gift that, set in bodily pain, I received the writings of your most sweet Holiness, rejoices that many heretics were converted by Eulogius, which gladdened me loftily concerning the teaching of the heretics of the city of Alexandria and concerning the concord of the faithful — so that the very gladness of mind might temper for me the vastness of my trouble. And indeed of your good things we always rejoice with new exultation, but yet that you act so perfectly is new
we in no way reckon. For that the people of holy Church grows, that the spiritual harvests are multiplied for the heavenly barn — this we have never held uncertain, from the grace of almighty God, which flows abundantly in you most blessed men. Therefore we pay thanks to almighty God, because we see fulfilled in you what is written: "Where there are very many harvests, there is the manifest strength of oxen." For if a strong ox had not drawn the plow of the tongue in the earth of the hearers' hearts, so great a harvest of the faithful would by no means have sprung up.
[44] he narrates the conversion of the English through St. Augustine, But since I know that in the good things which you do you rejoice also with others, I render you a return for your grace, and announce things not dissimilar: that whereas the nation of the English, set in a corner of the world, has hitherto remained faithless in the worship of woods and stones, it pleased me, by the help of your prayer, that, God being the author, I ought to send to it a monk of my own monastery for preaching. And he, license being given by me, having been made a bishop by the bishops of the Germanies, with their support also was brought through to the aforesaid nation at the end of the world; and already now writings have reached us concerning his welfare and his work: that either he himself, or those who were sent with him, gleam with such great miracles among that nation, that they seem to imitate the powers of the Apostles in the signs which they exhibit. And on the solemnity of the Lord's Nativity, which passed in this first Indiction, more than ten thousand English are reported by that same brother and fellow bishop of ours to have been baptized. Which I have therefore narrated, that you may know what you do among the people of Alexandria by speaking, and what you do at the ends of the world by praying. For your prayers are in that place where you are not, whose holy workings are shown in the place in which you are.
[45] [he says that he was instructed by Eulogius concerning the heretic Eudoxius and concerning errors that had arisen,] Besides, concerning the person of the heretic Eudoxius, of whose error I have found nothing in the Latin tongue, I rejoice that I have been most abundantly satisfied by your Beatitude. For you have brought forward the testimonies of those most valiant men Basil, Gregory, and Epiphanius; and we know that he has been manifestly slain, against whom our heroes have hurled so many javelins. But concerning those errors which are proved to have now arisen in the church of Constantinople, you have answered everything most learnedly, and as it befitted the judgment of so great a see to bring forth. Whence we give thanks to almighty God, because the tables of the testament are still within the ark of God. For what is a priestly heart but the ark of the testament? — in which, because spiritual doctrine flourishes, without doubt the tables of the law lie.
[46] Your Beatitude also took pains to indicate that he no longer writes to certain persons those proud words which came forth from the root of vanity; and he speaks to me, saying: "As you commanded." he complains of the title of universal Pope attributed to him by Eulogius, Which word "command" I ask you to remove from my hearing, because I know who I am and who you are. For in place you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not therefore command, but took care to indicate what seemed useful. Yet I do not find that your Beatitude wished perfectly to retain that very thing which I brought to your memory. For I said that you ought to write no such thing either to me or to anyone else; and behold, in the preface of the letter which you directed to me myself, who forbade it, you took care to imprint a word of proud appellation, calling me universal Pope. Which I ask that your Holiness, most sweet to me, may no longer do; because that is withdrawn from you which is bestowed on another more than reason requires. For I do not seek to prosper by words, but by character. Nor do I reckon it an honor in which I know my brethren lose their own honor. My honor is the solid vigor of my brethren. Then am I truly honored, when to each and every one the honor due is not denied. For if your Holiness calls me universal Pope, he denies himself to be that which he confesses me to be universally. But far be this. Let words depart which puff up vanity and wound charity.
[47] And indeed your Holiness knows that in the holy synod of Chalcedon, and afterward by the following fathers, this was offered to my predecessors. and asks his prayers. But nevertheless none of them ever wished to use this word, so that, while in this world they loved the honor of all priests, they might keep their own with almighty God. Accordingly, paying the due address of greeting, I ask that you may deign to be mindful of me in your holy prayers, that the Lord may absolve me from the bonds of my sins by your intercessions, since by my own merits I cannot. So the most modest Gregory, unwilling to use a title elsewhere offered to the Roman Pontiffs and befitting them alone, that by example no less than by words he might teach modesty to the prelates of Constantinople.
Notes\* i.e., of the Roman Pontiff
\* i.e., the gift of the bishop of Alexandria
\ elsewhere, brevo*
§ VI. Continuation of the deeds of Eulogius from the letters of St. Gregory.
[ ] Gregory writes of his long illness, I shall go on to recount the remaining letters of St. Gregory to Eulogius in the order in which I find them published. Book 10, letter 35, treats chiefly of the writings against the Agnoete heretics, against whom we have already seen at no. 25 that Eulogius wrote. St. Gregory too testifies that he wrote against the same heretics in the same manner. And he thus begins the letter: Last year I received the most sweet writings of your Holiness, to which for the excess of my sickness I have not been able to answer until now. For behold, now almost \ two years are completed in which I am held to my bed and afflicted with such great pains of gout etc. … But your most sweet and ever to be honored Beatitude wrote to me that our common son Anatolius the deacon had written to him from the city of Constantinople that certain monks had come to me from the parts of Jerusalem to inquire something of me concerning the error of the Agnoetes; and you say that he asked that your Holiness should write to me what he ought to think concerning that inquiry. But neither did monks come to me from the parts of Jerusalem inquiring anything, nor could that common son of ours write to you other than what was; but I suspect that the translator erred in his letters. For that same deacon wrote to me two years ago that monks had come from the aforesaid parts to the city of Constantinople inquiring such things, and he was zealous to ask me what I thought.*
[49] and praises the writings of Eulogius against the Agnoetes, To whom I answered, long before I received your writings, against that same heresy the very things which I afterward found in the letter of your Holiness; and I rendered great thanks to almighty God, because concerning all inquiries the fathers of the Romans and of the Greeks, whose followers we are, have spoken with one spirit. For in many things I found that same letter of yours to be as if I were reading the writings of the Latin Fathers against the aforesaid heresy. And consider how much I can love and praise the goodness of my most holy Brother, in whose mouth I recognized the venerable Fathers whom I greatly love. Let there be therefore praise to him, let there be glory in the highest, by whose gift the voice of Mark still cries out in the See of Peter; from whose outpouring of spirit, when the priest enters to search out the mysteries — that is, into the Holy of Holies — in holy Church, as in a tabernacle, spiritual bells resound from the words of preaching. Right therefore and very praiseworthy is your preaching. But we beseech the almighty Lord that he may long keep you even in this life, that from the instrument of God which you are the voice of truth may sound more widely in this world. But for me, I ask, intercede, that the way of this pilgrimage, which has been made harsher for me, may be ended with speed; that I, who cannot by my own merits, may by yours be able to attain to the promises of the eternal country, and to rejoice with the citizens of heaven.
[50] and says that he wrote against them in the same manner, In letter 39 (otherwise 42) of the same book, written not long after, he again has these things concerning the same matters: But before these days, when Abramius of Alexandria came, I had written back to your Holiness both what I thought of your writings which you published against the Agnoete heretics, and why I answered late. But that same Abramius, compelled by the necessity of his ship, is reported to have stayed long in the city of Naples; and so I write back in that sense which I wrote long since: that of your teaching against the heretics who are called Agnoetes there was much for us to admire; but what might displease, there was not. And in the same sense I had already long ago written very many things to our common son Anatolius the deacon. And your teaching so agreed in all things with the Latin Fathers, that it was not marvelous to me that in different tongues the Spirit was not different. Then he sets forth various passages of sacred Scripture against the Agnoetes, and concerning the little gift received subjoins these things: And I received the blessing of St. Mark the Evangelist and of your Beatitude. Then he says that he had wished to send woods, but that the ship was not large enough; he also prays long years for Eulogius, and begs his prayers.
[51] The beginning of this letter is such that it does not clearly appear likewise marvelously praising Eulogius, whether Gregory had received a letter from Eulogius, or only a message, when he was writing this. But he sufficiently declares how much he esteemed the man, when he thus begins: As cold water to a thirsting soul, so is good news from a far country. And what news can be good to me, so far as concerns the help of holy Church, save the life and safety of your Holiness, most sweet to me, who from the received light of truth both enlightens that same Church with the word of preaching, and forms it to a better way by the examples of your character? And as often as I read over your unanimity in my heart, and know that I remain fixed in your heart, I give thanks to almighty God; because charity cannot be divided by places. For although in body we are far separated, yet in mind we are always indivisible. What is subjoined to these words intimates clearly enough that some council of bishops was held at Constantinople, and that St. Eulogius was present there also. But the words are very obscure, and probably faulty, so that from them it cannot be gathered what matters were treated.
[52] But our common son Anatolius the deacon, (who at Constantinople was the Apostolic messenger, he intimates that he himself was present at a certain council at Constantinople: or Apocrisiarius, as he was there everywhere called) made known to me by his writings that in the royal city no ecclesiastical matters were formerly stirred concerning earthly causes. So the latest editor, saying that it is thus read in the manuscripts, and confessing that the sense is obscure. But he suspects that it is this: He made known … that no ecclesiastical matters, but certain ones concerning earthly causes, were stirred. And Gregory subjoins: But I believe that he announced this to me before your Beatitude spoke of the cause of the Church. And I rejoice that, where it happened that you were present, I do not think that I was absent. For as a Minister of truth, a follower of Peter and a preacher of holy Church, I know that
you were able to speak those things which ought to have sounded from the See of the Apostle Peter through the mouth of a teacher. Thus Gregory, intimating that ecclesiastical matters were treated in Eulogius' presence. And we can suspect with likely reason that there was discussion of the title of "universal," which Cyriacus, patriarch of Constantinople, had not yet laid aside. This, however, is not certain, since other matters unknown to us could have been treated.
[53] Further, on this occasion it pleases me to observe that that Anatolius an observation about Anatolius the Apostolic messenger. of whom Gregory speaks was not a deacon of Constantinople, as he is by an error called in various titles and superscriptions of the letters of the latest edition of the works of St. Gregory. For of him Gregory himself in book 7, letter 30: And my most beloved son Anatolius the deacon, whom I have sent into the royal city to make the responses of the Church, I ask that your most sweet charity may frequently visit. Again in letter 31 he says that Anatolius was sent by him to Constantinople. And so all the superscriptions of Gregory's letters to Anatolius in the latest Paris edition of the monks of the Congregation of St. Maur must be corrected.
[54] There follows in this edition book 12, letter 50, of Gregory to Eulogius, Gregory commends to Eulogius converted heretics, to whom he commends certain monks converted from the error of the Monophysites or Eutychians, in these words: The bearers of the present letter, coming to Sicily, were converted from the error of the Monophysites, and united themselves to the holy universal Church. And, making their way to the Church of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, they asked of me that I ought to commend them by my letters to your Beatitude, that they may not be allowed to suffer any longer any violence from the heretics who are near them. And because one of them says that the monastery in which he was had been built by his parents, he desires to receive authority from your Holiness that those who are heretics in it may either return to the bosom of holy Church, or be driven out of that same monastery. Let it suffice that these things have been indicated by us to you; for of your Beatitude we know that whatever pertains to the zeal of almighty God, he hastens to do with all fervor. But I ask that you pray for me, because amid the swords of the Lombards which I endure I am vehemently afflicted with the pains of gout. Thus far Gregory, whose letter, if it was really given at Indiction 5, as it is placed, belongs to the year 602.
[55] he exhorts him, There remain two other letters of Gregory to Eulogius, both of which are fixed at Indiction 6, or the year 603. The former is book 13, letter 41, in which Eulogius is indeed marvelously commended, but at the same time somewhat reproved, because the Simoniac heresy was said to have place at Alexandria. I should not wish to pass over this letter; yet I think the reader should be forewarned that Eulogius does not seem to be blamed on this account, both because the whole thing could have happened without his knowing it and without any fault of his, and because we do not know whether the matter was reported to St. Gregory accurately enough and without exaggeration. For however much Gregory may seem to have believed that what was reported to him was true, he could not nevertheless examine it. Wherefore he wrote what had been reported to him to Eulogius, that he, if he should find it true, might try to root out that vice. This observation being premised, I subjoin the whole letter: On a certain day, when a conversation had arisen between me and my household about the customs of the churches, a certain man who in the great city of Alexandria had been trained in the art of medicine \ reported that he had had as a fellow student with his sophist a boy of the utmost depravity, whom he said had suddenly been ordained deacon. And he added that he had been ordained through rewards and gifts, because he affirmed that this same custom had grown strong in the holy church of Alexandria.*
[56] to root out simony. Hearing which, I was astounded and greatly wondered, that the tongue of the most holy and most blessed man the lord Eulogius, which recalls so many heretics to the Catholic faith, has not erased the Simoniac heresy from the holy church of Alexandria. And who will there be whose exhortation or correction can amend this, if his great and admirable teaching leaves this without amendment? Whence for the absolution of your soul, for the increase of your reward, that before the eyes of the fearful Judge your works may be perfect in all things, you ought to hasten to pluck out and root up utterly from your most holy See, which is ours, the Simoniac heresy, which was the first to arise in the Church. For on this account it has come about that the holiness of ecclesiastical orders has fallen away in very many: because persons are brought to those orders not for their life and acts, but for rewards. But if the merits of character and not rewards are sought, unworthy persons will not come to ordination. And your reward will begin to increase the more, the more all the good who shall have been brought to sacred orders shall be zealous to think of the gains of souls.
[57] [In the last letter, which must be fixed at the end of the year 603 or the beginning of 604,] What in book 13 is letter 42 (otherwise 49) is full of the praises of St. Eulogius, and of a marvelous token of the mutual love between Gregory and Eulogius. This letter is indeed fixed at Indiction 6, or the year 603; but it should rather be placed at Indiction 7, about the end of the year 603 or the beginning of the following. The reason is this. St. Gregory in the year 603, in the month of June, wrote to the emperor Phocas to congratulate him on obtaining the empire, Letter 31 (otherwise 38) of book 13. Then he consecrated Boniface deacon, and sent him to Constantinople as his Apostolic messenger or apocrisiarius, with Letter 38 (otherwise 45) to Phocas. Boniface therefore set out for Constantinople perhaps in the month of July, certainly not before June. But Gregory had already received letters of Boniface at Constantinople before he received the Letter of Eulogius to which he answers. All these things are certain from the praised letters of Gregory, and from those to be given to Eulogius. If now we consider the length of the journey from Rome to Constantinople, and the other things already said, we shall easily see that this Letter was not written during the current Indiction 6, that is, before September of the year 603, but rather at the end of that year, and perhaps at the beginning of the following.
[58] I transfer the whole hither, as the last testimony of Gregory concerning Eulogius Gregory with great praises and the clearest indication of their mutual love. We render great thanks to almighty God, because in the mouth of the heart the sweet savor of charity is made by experience, when that is fulfilled which is written: As cold water to the thirsting, so is good news from a far country. For before this time the writings of Boniface the chartulary, my responsalis, who stays in the royal city, had greatly troubled me, which said that your Holiness, most sweet and most delightful to me, had suffered a failure of bodily sight. By which writings I was struck with grievous grief. But suddenly, the grace of our Creator and Redeemer prospering it, I received the letter of your Beatitude, and, learning that it was sound from that bodily trouble which I had heard of, I exulted vehemently: for so great a gladness of heart followed as the bitterness of sorrow had before gone before. For we know that in the help of almighty God your life is the salvation of many. For then do sailors sail secure among the waves, when a learned and skillful pilot sits at the rule of the helm.
[59] But in the joy of your safety this exultation also was added to me, celebrates Eulogius, that I learned both that the enemies of the Church have been diminished by your mouth, and that the Lord's flocks have been multiplied. For daily by the plowshare of your tongue heavenly grains increase, and are multiplied in the barns above; so that we rejoice that in you is fulfilled what is written: Where there are very many harvests, there is the manifest strength of oxen. Whence we plainly gather that, the more you lead back his fugitives to the service of almighty God, the greater merit you have with him. And the greater merit you receive, the more amply you can obtain what you ask. I beg therefore that you pray more earnestly for me a sinner, because both bodily pain, and bitterness of heart, and the immense devastation of mortality among so many swords of barbarians vehemently afflict me. Amid all which I seek not a temporal but an eternal consolation, which I cannot obtain through myself, but I trust to obtain it by the intercession of your Beatitude.
[60] he sends him a cross with relics inserted, But in the second year I received no writings of your Holiness, and I was altogether saddened. And indeed your blessing, which you sent without a letter, was given and received. But because your tongue gladdens me more than your gifts, I believed that what was given was of less grace. And I caused our common son Epiphanius the deacon to write to Alexander and Isidore, deacons of your most holy church, that it might be established that I had received the things which were sent. And I wrote that I had prepared great woods for making masts and tillers, but the small ship which had come could not carry them, and you wrote me nothing back thereupon. Whence, if they are needed, write to our common son Boniface our deacon, whom we are now sending to the royal city to make the responses, that he may write back to me, that they may be prepared, so that when your Beatitude shall send, they may be found ready. Besides, we have sent a little cross, in which is inserted a blessing from the chains of your lovers the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, which may be constantly placed upon your eyes; because many miracles have been wont to be done through that same blessing.
[61] and tells of the little gift received, with a token of mutual love. May almighty God breathe upon the heart of your Beatitude, that you may take care to pray for me assiduously; and may he protect you and all yours with his right hand, and after long courses of years lead you to the heavenly kingdoms. And the eulogiae of holy Mark sent by your most blessed Fraternity we have received, with that charity with which they were directed, according to the note of them, and we render thanks to your affection; because from these outward things we know what you are inwardly toward us. Thus far Gregory, who did not live many months after this letter. For the rest, I have not thought mention should be made of the name of St. Eulogius subscribed under that privilege which is read in Labbe, tom. 5 of the Councils, col. [ ], because the subscription is doubtless fictitious; and this, I suppose, those will readily confess who may still wish to defend the privilege itself.
Notes\ elsewhere, plene*
\ elsewhere, medicinali*