Page images
PDF
EPUB

curius. Bacurius was prince of the Iberi, and a general in the Roman service, under Valens and Theodosius, about forty years after the conversion of that people. Zosimus, who was a zealous Pagan, commends him as a very brave and very honest man. "Ελκων μεν εξ Αρμενίας το

το γένος, έξω δε πάσης κακοηθείας ανήρ, μετα του τα πολεμικα πεTaid:urba. 1. iv. See Rufinus x. 10, Socrates i. 20, Sozomen ü. 7. Theodoret i. 24.

As to the facts in these two relations, which are not miraculous, there is no sufficient reason to deny them; but the preternatural part, particularly in the story of the Iberid, calls loudly for abatements : however, the occasion, the converting of two nations to Christianity, might be worthy of miracles, such as healing the diseased, and we should rather expect to find them here than in the dens of monks, or at the graves of the martyrs. Eusebius says nothing at all of these transactions.

The miracle of the pillar was perhaps borrowed from Pliny; that of the darkness from Ovid.

• Summa miracula, epistylia tantæ molis attolli potuisse. -Difficillime hoc contigit in limine ipso quod foribus imponebat. Etenim ea maxima moles fuit: nec sedit in cųbili, anxio artifice, mortis destinatione suprema.

Tra, duntque in ea cogitatione fessum nocturno tempore in quiete vidisse præsentem Deam, cui templum fiebat, hor. tantem ut viveret : se composuisse lapidem : atque ita postero die apparuit, et pondere ipso correctus videba, tur.'

He speaks of the temple of the Ephesian Diana, Xxxvi. 21.

Exierat tecto Laurentes Picus in agros,
Indigenas fixurus apros-
Tum quoque cantato densetur carmine cælum,
Et nebulas exhalat humus, cæcisque vagantur

Limitibus comites, et abest custodia regi,'
Met. xiv. 342,

d Miracles are now ceased amongst this people, by their own ac. knowledgment. When the Popish missionaries tell the Georgians what , įniracles are still wrought in the church of Rome, the Georgians answer, That is a lie, for we have none now wrought amongst us, Galani Historia Armena,

amongst them.

To these missionaries we may add an Arian missionary, who flourished about the same time, and whose history is thus delivered by Philostorgius.

Constantius, like his father Constantine, was very desirous to spread the gospel in foreign parts.

He sent an embassy to a people called Homeritæ , supposed to have been the antient Sabæans, and the posterity of Abraham by Keturah, dwelling in Arabia Felix. They circumcised their children on the eighth day, and sacrificed to the sun, moon, and dæmons of the country, and many Jews dwelt

The emperor sent magnificent presents to their prince, and desired he would permit churches to be built in his dominions for the Roman merchants who resorted thither, and for those natives who should embrace Christianity.

One of the principal ambassadors was Theophilus, an Indian, who in his youth had been sent an hostage to Constantine, from the inhabitants of the island Diu, and, settling at Rome, led a monastic life, and had a great reputation for sanctity. Eusebius of Nicomedia had ordained him deacon, and upon this occasion the Arians made him a bishop. Perhaps, says Valesius, they did this through emulation, and to equal one of their own sect to Frumentius, who had been consecrated and sent to Æthiopia in like manner by Athanasius.

Theophilus preached the gospel to the Homeritæ, was opposed violently by the Jews, whom he put to silence ly working miracles, converted the king and many of the people, and established Christianity in those parts.

After this he went to Diu, to visit his own country, and passed through many regions of India where the gospel was already received, and where he rectified some irregularities in practice; for as to matters of faith there was nothing amiss, says Philostorgius, and they were all of the Arian persuasion.

Thence he went to the Æthiopians called Auxumitæ, and settled things pertaining to religion.

Then he returned to Rome, was highly honoured by the emperor, remained with the title of bishop, but without any

e See Gothofred on the Cod. Th. l. xii, tit, xii. p. 592.

P. 489.

particular church or diocese, and was esteemed and beloved by all those of his own sect, as a most excellent and pious man.

• Tradit Philostorgius Auxumitas a Theophilo Ariano conversos tempore Constantii; cum populi istius conversio revera tribuenda sit Frumentio orthodoxo, ordinato ab Athanasio.' Lowth. To contradict Philostorgius, he makes him affirm more than his words imply. Tois Avgo ουμίταις δε παραγεγονως, και τα εκείσε καταστησάμενος, της επί Ρωμαίους ανακομιδης είχετο. Sed cum ad Auxumitas venisset, et cuncta illic negotia probe ordinasset, inde ad Romanorum ditionem redire cæpit.' üü.

Constantius, and Gallus his nephew, had sworn friendship and fidelity to each other in the presence of this The ophilus : therefore, when Constantius was resolved to destroy Gallus, Theophilus interposed, and exclaimed against it; upon which Constantius banished him. But afterwards, the emperor's beloved wife being very ill, he had recourse to Theophilus, who was reported to work miracles and to heal the sick; he therefore recalled him, owned his fault, begged pardon, and entreated him earnestly to cure his wife. Theophilus laid his hands upon her, and she recovered. Yet, after this, he banished Theo, philus a second time, suspecting him to have been a favourer of Gallus.

Theophilus is said to have raised a woman from the dead. Aiunt etiam eum aliquando Antiochiæ Judæam quandam ex mortuis suscitasse. Id autem affirmat Thalassius, qui cum illo diutissime versatus est, et in hujusmodi rebus extra suspicionem est mendaci: et qui alioqui haud paucos habet hujus rei testes qui eodem tempore vixerunt.'” So Suidas, who is supposed to have taken it from Philostorgius.

• Philostorgius says that Theophilus the Indian, his pretended apostle of Arianism, having been banished, was recalled by Constantius to heal his wife, and that he did heal her miraculously. Photius seems to deride this miracle by his manner of relating it, and we know how little credit Philostorgius deserves, especially in the miracles which he ascribes to those of his own sect. But moreover we are

assured that the distemper of which he says that the empress was cured by Theophilus, and which he calls juntgou avía, was the very distemper of which she died, according to Zonaras. For though Theophilus (he should have said, Philostorgius) names not the empress, there is no question but that he means Eusebia.' Tillemont Hist. des Emp. iv. 677.

That Photius speaks contemptuously of the cure, is more than I can discern. See Philostorg. p. 504. I blame not Tillemont for rejecting all these miracles, which seem to have been rumours raised and spread to serve a party ; but the true reason of his disbelief is, that they were Arian miracles; and if they had been reported concerning Athanasius, all difficulties would have been smoothed over, and accounted of small moment.

UNDER Constantine lived Spyridon, bishop of a city in Cyprus. Socrates i. 12. and Sozomen i. 11. have recorded some incredibļe miracles wrought by him, and also his preferring works of charity to the observation of a fast, his giving meat to a weary traveller on a day in Lent, and eating along with him to encourage him.

AGAPETUS, an Arian, was at first a soldier, then a presbyter, and then bishop of Synnada. He raised the dead, and healed the sick, and wrought various miracles, and converted a great number of Pagans, if we may believe Philostorgius, p. 481. Eusebius hath made no mention of this saint.

THE GREATEST of all wonders, which is said to have happened in the days of Constantine, was the discovery of the true cross, which immediately produced the superstitious veneration of it, and ended in the grossest idolatry, in worshipping the very wood. Nothing, says Tillemont, is more certain ; for it is attested by Rufinus, Sulpitius Severus, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, Ambrose, Paulinus, and Chrysostom.

· Historia hæc de inventione sanctæ crucis non occurrit apud Eusebium. Verum Cyrillus episcopus Hierosolymi

nus, qui eodem seculo vixit, aperte testatur lignum sanc

tæ crucis, imperatori Constantino divinitus ostensum.item in catechesi de ejus inventione loquitur, ut de re om. nibus nota. Quocirca de historiæ hujus fide dubitari non potest.' Lowth ad Socrat. i. 17. What did this protestant divine of ours mean? Could he believe that the true cross was found? or would he only say that a pretended one was discovered ?

I cannot give a better account of this affair, as it stands in Rufinus, &c. than in the words of Tillemont, which are extremely well adapted to the story, and full of what the French call unction, and the English, canting. But first we will transcribe a few lines from another author.

" It is said that Constantine found the cross of Jesus Christ, and that many miracles were wrought by it. And yet it is surprising enough, that Eusebius, eye-witness of these transactions, who exactly describes all the circumstances in the discovery of the sepulchre of Christ, and who forgets nothing that could turn to the advantage of religion, says not a single word either of the cross, or of the miracles which are pretended to have been performed by it.' Thus Du Pin', fairly and honestly, Bibl. ii. 15, Now for Tillemont;

* This worthy man suffered (as such men commonly do) for his frankness and candour. The archbishop of Paris published an Ordinance against his • Bibliotheque,' and condemned it, as containing “several propositions false, rash, scandalous, capable of offending pious ears; tending to weaken the proofs of tradition for the authority of Canonical Books, and for many other articles of faith ; injurious to General Councils; to the Holy Apostolic See, and to the Fathers of the Church; erroneous, and leading to heresy, respective."

The archbishop would rather have had this book purged and corrected; but “ the evil,” as he said, “ being spreaci quite through the work,” he judged it more convenient to concenin and suppress it

, and forbid the reading of it. The parliament also suppressed it. But the person of the author was spared, because of his absolute submission to the Ordinance of the prelate, to whom he presented a declaration upon twelve heads, signed with his own hand, in which he acknowledges that in some points he was mistaken; he explains bimself upon the rest, and confesses that he had not well expressed his sentiments, nor sufficiently weighed the terms which he had used.--This declaration of Du Pin was printed, together with the decrees of the archbishop and of the parliament.

"I mention not this to hurt the character of his book. On the contrary, I am persuaded that all men of sense, especially amongst the

« PreviousContinue »