Church History Books 1–9 (trans.) 7 part 2/2

But now, to [return] to the order of the history: Xystus having administered the priesthood of the Roman church for eleven years, Dionysius succeeds him; and, Demetrian having died at Antioch, Paul of Samosata received the priesthood. This Paul, holding base and unworthy enough opinions concerning Christ, corrupted the tradition of ecclesiastical doctrine. Being asked to come from Alexandria to the council, [Dionysius] is prevented both by the impediment of old age and by the infirmity of his body; yet by a letter he renders himself present, and set forth what of faith and of reverence toward Christ he held.

But the rest of the shepherds of the churches [gathered] from diverse places and cities as though against an adversary. Among whom the notable ones, excelling the rest, were Firmilianus of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, priests of the province of Pontus; Helenus, bishop of the church of Tarsus; and Nicomas... [and] Theotecnus of this city of Caesarea. Maximus too, bishop of Bostra, worthy of their fellowship, adhered to them; and many others besides, whom it would be tedious to enumerate one by one.

But also very many presbyters and deacons [came] to the aforesaid city for the purpose of restraining — nay, of destroying — this new dogma; and setting Paul of Samosata in their midst, and his heresy, which he now tried to hide, now even to dissemble, they laid it bare by frequent treatment and by assiduous disputations, striving to convict and to make public his blasphemy; and yet this was not accomplished by one council only, nor by a second... The things which follow in Rufinus concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus, here omitted, were appended to the books written by Rufinus himself. Meanwhile Dionysius rested in peace at Alexandria in the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, having discharged the priesthood for seventeen years; and Maximus succeeds him.

Gallienus therefore, when he had governed the Roman empire for fifteen years, died, Claudius being his successor in the reign. In his times the last council of bishops at Antioch is assembled, in which Paul is accused and manifestly convicted a heretic and condemned by all the churches which are under heaven — Malchion, presbyter of the church of Antioch, [being the accuser], a most faithful man adorned with all virtues; to whom this too accrued, that he was most eloquent and mighty in speech and perfect in all learning, having indeed taught rhetoric in that very same city. To him therefore [the disputation] was, by [the whole assembly] of the bishops, conducted so splendidly and accurately that it was written down and published, and even now is held in admiration by all.

For he alone was able to bring to public [notice], by his own confessions, Paul, who was dissembling and hiding himself. These things being thus accomplished, by common counsel all the priests together [with the bishops] write a letter that should be sent through all the churches, whereby they might prove to all their own diligence, and make known to the knowledge of all men that Paul's heresy had been confuted and cast down.

At the same time they set forth also the questions that had been debated with him, and moreover his intemperate life. 'To Dionysius and Maximus and to all the priests and bishops throughout the whole world, together with the presbyters and deacons and the whole catholic Church that is under heaven: Helenus and Hymenaeus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proculus, Nicomas, Aelianus, Paulus, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus, Malchion, Lucius, presbyters, and all the rest who are gathered with us from the neighboring cities and nations, bishops and presbyters and deacons, to the most beloved brethren [greeting]... In sending this letter we beseech you all, that those who perchance have been infected by such doctrine may be cured by you, even as the men of blessed memory, Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilianus of Cappadocia, had already before written to the people of Antioch, disdaining — nay rather declining — to write to the person of him who was the author of the error.'

But blessed Firmilianus himself, while he yet survived, was present a second time and, being present, accused and rebuked him — as we all know and testify, we who had come together with him. But since [Paul] promised to correct his error, [Firmilianus] believed him, hoping it might come to pass that the matter should turn out for the better without reproach to our religion and without the mark of dissensions; and therefore he had overlooked it, while nevertheless Paul by guile kept deferring, and indeed deceived the man, but denied God and violated the faith in which he had been reborn.

Finally now too the blessed Firmilianus was coming to Antioch; and when he had reached as far as Tarsus, and we all who were stationed at Antioch were awaiting his arrival, it was announced [that he had died]... And after a little, describing his life and manners, they add: 'But after he turned aside from the rule of doctrine to alien and adulterate dogmas, there is no need to enumerate his former deeds — how, whereas he had before been needy and most poor and had neither any inheritance from parental succession nor any honest occasion of gain, he now, by these things which he seized through fraud, shakes down the brethren, sells patronage and good faith, undertakes men's business affairs yet does not keep faith though he has received his fee, esteeming — according to what is written — that gain is godliness.'

But who could endure his pride? — since he wished to appear rather a ducenarius (imperial procurator) than a bishop. For even as he walked through the public square he made use of a certain ostentation, publicly rereading letters and dictating in the hearing and before the eyes of all, with notaries standing beside him in the square. He also sought, as much as could be, a marshaling of those going before him and a thronging of those following after, so that all who saw it shuddered and detested it... He orders a tribunal to be erected for himself much higher than it had been, and a throne to be set in loftier [places], and an audience-chamber also to be laid out and prepared, just as is the custom for the judges of the world.

And when making a speech to the people, [he was wont] to fling out his right hand beyond measure and to strike his palm upon his thigh, and to leap up with his foot and beat the footstool with a sound. And from his hearers he expected not only to hope for favor and applause, but, in theatrical fashion, that handkerchiefs be waved for him and that shouts be raised as if from the tiers of a theater. These things were expected, unbecomingly, not only from men but even from women. But if any of the hearers, behaving more honorably and modestly, restrained himself from excessive clamor, he was made to suffer wrong as though he were doing wrong. He even heaped insults upon the ancient and departed expositors, and, disparaging them, boasted his own praises unabashedly and shamelessly, desiring to be extolled rather as an orator than as a teacher of the Church.

The psalms that were sung unto our Lord Jesus Christ he caused to cease, as being novel and newly devised; but psalms composed unto himself he had sung, in the midst of the church on the days of Easter, by women — chiefly those whom he himself had before appointed for singing according to custom — so that one would shudder to hear it. For since he himself denied that the Son of God had descended from heaven, [asserting] rather that he took his beginning from Mary and had his origin from earth, the psalms that were sung unto him, and by which he was praised among the people, called him an angel come down from heaven. And he himself, standing by and hearing these things, not only did not forbid them to be spoken, but with lifted brow took delight in hearing them.

But of the women who dwelt together with him, whom the Antiochenes call subintroductae (synisactae), what need is there to speak? That no question might be raised against himself from their society and cohabitation, he gave to his own presbyters and deacons — at least to those who humored him — a like license of dwelling with women. He also granted them the faculty of amassing riches, so that they, being liable to the like faults as their master, might in no wise charge him with the crime. But we write these things, dearest brethren, because we know how sacrosanct the episcopal priesthood ought to be, which ought to be an example both to clergy and to people. For neither are we ignorant that some, while incautiously joining little women to themselves for cohabitation, have fallen.

And even if this does not happen, yet surely for a priest to come into suspicion concerning such things is a most grievous matter. But how will he be able to forbid those who are weaker from the company of women, when by the very things he does he lends them authority [to do the like]? So great and so ungentle was he in his power, and so puffed up with a certain appearance of tyranny, that no one dared to come forward even to reprove or to accuse him. Yet these things which we have said could be condemned even in one who keeps the catholic faith and abides in the truth of ecclesiastical dogma.

But this man, who, having abjured the mystery of the faith, betook himself to the most polluted heresy of Artemas (for it was necessary that the father also of his very error be pointed out), how [much more should he be condemned]?... And after many things, at the end of the epistle they add also these words: 'It has therefore seemed necessary that this man, who resists God and does not acquiesce in the true faith, be cast out and abjured; and that another be constituted bishop in his place for the catholic Church — one provided by the grace of God: the son of Demetrian of blessed memory, who had presided over this same church blamelessly, Domnus by name, a man adorned with all good qualities. We have made known to you concerning him, that you may know you ought to write to him and to receive from him letters of communion.'

But this man [Paul], who was accounted unworthy to be [bishop] — Domnus therefore being subrogated into the episcopate — Paul, cut off both from the priesthood and from communion, when he refused to depart from the house of the church, the emperor Aurelian being appealed to decides concerning this matter quite religiously and holily, commanding that the house of the church be handed over to those to whom the priests of Italy and of Rome [should assent by their letters]. He thus acquired this disgrace also, that he was expelled from the church by the public hand. And at that time, indeed, such was Aurelian toward us; but in the course of time he began to alter the good of his purpose and, corrupted by evil counsels, to plan persecution against the churches of God — to such a degree that it is said the divine right hand, intervening, struck down the subscription of his impious right hand.

For he who was decreeing concerning the death of the pious is condemned by a sudden death, that God might show that not when the tyrant wills it are we tormented, but when He Himself has approved us, we are chastened. When therefore Aurelian had completed his empire in the space of six years, Carus, together with his sons Carinus and Numerian, succeeds. And after the Roman kingdom had been administered by these three for not even a full three years, Diocletian assumed the principate. He indeed [stirred up] the greatest persecutions against our people... [Mani,] driven by the instigation of a demon, teaches a heresy hateful and execrable to all.

This Manes, a Persian by race, was barbarous in life and manners, so keen of wit that he seemed to rave or to be possessed by a demon; and at length, from the outcome of the matter, he proclaimed himself to be the Paraclete, and, exalted by his madness, choosing twelve disciples in the likeness of Christ, he sent them out to preach, disseminating foolish and impious dogmas borrowed from diverse heretics who had earlier been extinguished, and administering Persian poisons to our world. From this Mani, therefore... [At Rome] Felix presided over the church in the city of Rome, who, having administered the priesthood for five years, left the see to Eutychianus. He, after ten months only had passed, hands over the episcopate to Gaius.

He, having in our own times discharged the priesthood for fifteen years, left Marcellinus as successor... At Antioch, after Domnus, Timaeus had received the priesthood; and after Timaeus, Cyrillus. But to Cyrillus succeeded Dorotheus, who endured even to our own memory — a most learned man and sufficiently intent upon the divine Scriptures, who by much diligence had even learned the Hebrew tongue. He was [a eunuch] from birth; on which account the emperor also had held him in admiration and had conferred on him the honor of the overseership of the purple [dye-works]. Of him too, when he expounded the Scriptures in the church, we were hearers in our boyhood.

After this one, Tyrannus received the priesthood at Antioch, under whom the church [endured persecution]... [Anatolius was] an Alexandrian by race, a bishop, who, when he had come into the regions of Syria in the affair of Paul of Samosata, because he was learned in the divine Scriptures, was discovered by the studious brethren as though he were a certain treasure, and was permitted to go away nowhere further, as Dionysius writes in his epistles. This man was Alexandrian by race, exceedingly learned from boyhood in the studies of liberal letters and in philosophical matters, so that at Alexandria he was compelled by all learned men and philosophers to teach dialectic. They say too that this man, at the time of the war which arose among the citizens at Alexandria, [did] many [remarkable things]; but for brevity's sake I shall record only one memorable deed.

Grain, they say, being lacking to the besieged and famine pressing more grievously than the enemy, a third part of the people — while two [parts] were fighting one against another — had been set apart, which as it were kept faith with the Romans. In which part the aforesaid Anatolius then also was, without joining the fighting. He refers the matter to the master of the soldiery and informs him of the distress of famine that had befallen the besieged; and having obtained the favor [he sought], he addresses the factions dissenting among themselves and urges them to return into concord with the Romans. But when he saw them resisting, 'This at least,' he said, 'I believe you will gladly accept: that all your unwarlike host — which is by no means a sharer of the war with you, yet is a necessary sharer of the food — should go out.' [And so] they decree that the unwarlike host ought to go forth from the camp.

The opportunity being given, almost all whom famine was consuming burst forth together with the unwarlike — especially our people, to whom it was contrary to their purpose to wage war. All of whom Anatolius, receiving, cherished with the affection at once of a parent and of a physician. And thus he speedily brought salvation to the multitude through food; but to the rest — for few had remained — he struck dread of war and desire of peace. Thus by merciful and prudent counsel he at once delivered a very great city from famine... The city received a bishop after the war which we mentioned above was over. Many little works too of the aforesaid Anatolius, magnificently composed, have come down even to us. Of these it seems to me worthy to set forth, in his own words, what he thought concerning the Pascha.

The beginning of the cycle of nineteen years is, according to the Egyptians, the twenty-second of the month Dystrus, but according to the Romans the eleventh [of the Kalends of April]... one of the twelve parts. And this first particle out of twelve is the vernal equinox; and it itself is the beginning of the months, and the head of the cycle, and the completion of the course of the stars which are called 'planets,' that is, 'wandering,' and the end of the twelfth particle and the terminus of the whole cycle. And therefore they hold that it [the Pascha] is not to be celebrated [before it]. Nor yet does this reckoning take its origin first from us:

it is shown to have been approved by the ancient Jews, and is demonstrated [to have existed] before the coming [of Christ]... The more ancient Agathobulus, and, taught by him, Aristobulus of Paneas — who was one of those seventy elders who had been sent by the high priests to King Ptolemy to translate the books of the Hebrews into the Greek tongue, and who had answered many things from the traditions of Moses to the king who proposed questions and inquired — these, then, when they were expounding the questions of Exodus, said that the Pascha was not to be immolated before the equinox... and that not only [is the sun] to be observed, so that the sun cross the vernal equinox, but the moon also.

For since there are two equinoxes, he says — of spring and of autumn, equal [to each other]... after the evening, when the moon is caught directly opposite the sun in the region over against it — as it is even permitted to prove with the eyes — the sun is found indeed occupying the part of the vernal equinox, but the moon, on the contrary, that of the autumnal. I have read in their books many other things also set forth about these most valid affirmations, which evidently show that the solemnity of the Pascha [is to be kept] after [the equinox] in every case... Many other writings besides, admirable not only to religious men but even to philosophers, Anatolius left behind, whereby his salutary learning may become known to all who wish to know it.

Upon this man, Theotecnus, who first held the priesthood of Caesarea, laid hands in the episcopate, and while himself living [ordained] him for himself... (XXVIII) He presided together with Theotecnus himself over the church of Caesarea. But when [a council] was being convened at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, the church of Laodicea, Eusebius having died, forcibly claimed for itself Anatolius as he was passing by, [making him its] bishop. After him [came] the last, up to the time of the persecution... and in eloquence not inferior to the former ones, but far unlike in the virtue of faith, as the fire of persecution proved; for he showed nothing of philosophy in the necessity of trial. Yet not straightway is the poverty of God shown in his weakness; for after this man's fall God provided for that church a bishop... adorned with virtues.

This man was indeed a physician by art, but was translated by the Lord to the medicine of souls — truly incomparable, who shone above almost all men in faith, mercy, zeal, vigilance, and all the best endowments. In the divine Scriptures also [he took great] labor... having most skillfully discharged the episcopate, Agapius succeeds him.

Who himself too, applying much labor and much diligence to the governance of the people, and borne especially toward the needy with a fatherly providence... by whom also [was fostered] a man most prudent in all things, adorned in life, learning, and manners — Pamphilus. How great he was, and whence sprung — since it was not fitting to run briefly through his whole life and training from boyhood, and how much he endured in persecutions through diverse confessions, and what contests he sweated out, and how above all things he obtained the crown of martyrdom — let the reading of his own [account] teach.

But our memory still holds very many others too, admirable among the presbyters throughout that time — as at Alexandria, Hierius; but at Pontus, Meletius, who was afterward made a bishop. Hierius indeed was keen of wit, thoroughly and nobly versed in the divine Scriptures, an incomparable teacher of the Church, wonderfully disputing both privately and publicly; but Meletius was of such sweetness in manners and of such gentleness that he was called 'Attic honey' by his companions.

Perfect in all learning, in rhetoric he was such that [he surpassed others] in his other studies as well... which they divide into five disciplines; and he was so consummate in each of them that, when anyone wished to test him in any single one, he would judge that he had had his exercise from boyhood in that one alone. And though he was magnificent in the prerogative of his learning, yet the virtue of his soul and life [was greater]... placed in flight for a time in Palestine, it was permitted [us] to know [it] more diligently and fully. At Jerusalem, therefore, after Hymenaeus, of whom we made mention a little before, Zabdas received the priesthood, which, having administered it for a short time, he handed over after himself to Hermon. This man preserved there, up to the persecution of our time, the apostolic chair which he had received.

But at Alexandria, when Maximus, who had succeeded Dionysius, had passed eighteen years in the priesthood, Theonas succeeds him. In whose time Achillas, a presbyter of the same church, held the mastership of the ecclesiastical school, notable in learning, faith, conduct, and manners. But Theonas, when he had blamelessly ministered the priesthood for nineteen years, handed over the see to Peter, a man egregious among the foremost. This man spent all of twelve years in the episcopate of that city — of which three [he passed] before the persecution, but the remaining nine amid diverse kinds of trials.

And since, being ever set in every contest of the persecutions, he bound himself with the stricter bonds of self-restraint, and nobly persevered in the word of God for the profit and instruction of the Church, and toiled watchfully day and night in every care of the priesthood, in the ninth year of the persecution, but in the twelfth of his own episcopate, he received the crown of martyrdom. Thus far we have committed to history the successions of the bishops and the various events from the nativity of our Lord and Saviour down to the time of the persecution, in which the churches too were destroyed. As for the rest, describing the contests of the martyrs which we ourselves have seen with our own eyes, we shall hand them down to posterity. (The things done at Alexandria: — XII, how certain men taught.)

(from these) — Concerning our own time, that is, of Diocletian and Maximian. And concerning the Egyptians who suffered in Phoenicia. Concerning the things done at Alexandria. Concerning also the various other sufferings of men and of women. Concerning the leaders of the churches, who shed their blood for piety. Concerning the things which were once more turned back to the same state.