Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History - Footnotes
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here .
1. p. 429 n.1 The Books of the Maccabees are most useful in explaining the difficulties which arise in the interpretation of chapters 7th, 8th, and 11th of
Daniel, and especially that part which refers to the 'little horn,' (Dan. vii. 8,) by which the sanctuary was profaned. This 'horn' was Antiochus, whose evil deeds, alluded to by Daniel, are so clearly described in
the 1st and 2nd Books of the Maccabees, that the very time and the numher of the days mentioned by Daniel are found to coincide with the facts of history. Vales.
2. p. 430 n. 1 See the Life of Eusebius prefixed to Bohn's edition of his Ecclesiastical History, pp. xxv. and xxvi. The following is the estimate of his character as given by Fleury. 'Though the doctrine of Eusebius of Caesarea might be excused, it is hard to justify his conduct. He is marked from the beginning among the bishops who took Arius under their protection against Alexander of Alexandria. In his Ecclesiastical History he does not say a word of this famous dispute (the Arian controversy); and that it may not be said that he ended his History where it began, he speaks nothing plainly of it in his Life of Constantine, saying only in general terms, that there was a division in the church, principally in Egypt, without ever explaining the cause of it; and it might seem, according to him, that in the council of Nicaea no other important question was treated of than that of Easter. In relating the laws of Constantine against heretics, he makes no mention of that which condemned the writings of Arius to be burnt. Speaking of the council of Tyre, he says not a word of the process of St. Athanasius, who was the subject of it. This affected silence gives better authority to those among the ancients who have accused him of Arianism, than to those who would justify him from it. Acacius also, his disciple and successor in the see of Caesarea, became afterwards one of the chiefs of the Arians.' Fleury, Eccl. Hist. b. xii. ch. 6.
3. p. 431 n. 1 A.D. 336.
4. p. 431 n. 2 The learned Gothofred is of opinion that 'Baucalis' was not the name of the presbyter, but that he was named Arius, and attached to a church in Alexandria called Baucalis. He is not mentioned by any other writer.
5. p. 431 n. 3 See Socrates, Eccl. Hist, book i. chap. 8, and note in loco.
6. p. 431 n. 4 Fleury states that Arius was not only a priest, but had also charge of the church called Baucalis at Alexandria. He had aimed at the episcopal dignity, and could not bear that Alexander should be preferred before him. Finding nothing that he could blame in Alexander's conduct, Arius sought to cavil at his doctrine, and the following opportunity occurred.
Alexander, speaking of the Holy Trinity in the presence of the priests and others of the clergy, maintained that there was a Unity in the Trinity. Arius pretended that this assertion was an introduction of the heresy of Sabellius, and ran into the contrary extreme; for disputing with too much wrath, he said that if the Father begot the Son, he who was begotten must have had a beginning of his being; from which it follows that there was a time when the Son was not, and consequently that he is derived from nothing. He added that the Son of God is God's creature and work, capable of virtue and vice by his own free will, with some other consequences of the erroneous principles which he laid down. This doctrine was new and unheard of till then. On the other side, Alexander taught with the whole church that the Son of God is the same in dignity and substance with the Father. (Book x. chap. 28.)
7. p. 431 n. 5 A.D. 305.
8. p. 432 n. 1 A.D. 306.
9. p. 432 n. 2 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. book i. chap. 2, and Euseb. Life of Constantine, book i. chapters 2 and 28.
10. p. 432 n. 3 As his force was smaller than that of Maxentius, he thought that he required sonic superior assistance, and considered to what deity he should address himself. He reflected that the emperors who in his tithe were zealous for idolatry had perished miserably, and that his father Constantius, who during his life had reverenced the only Supreme God, had received visible tokens of his protection. He therefore determined to adhere to this great God, and instantly began to beseech him to stretch his favourable hand over him. The emperor Constantine prayed this with the greatest earnestness, when about noon, the sun beginning to decline, as he traversed the country with some of his forces, he saw in the sky above the sun a cross of light, with an inscription to this effect, 'By this thou shalt conquer.' . . . . Constantine's thoughts were employed the rest of the day on this miracle, considering what could be the meaning of it. At night, while he was asleep, Jesus Christ appeared to him with the same sign that lie had seen in the sky, and ordered him to make a representation of it, and to make use of it in battle against his enemies This was the fashion of it, a long pole like a pike, covered with gold, traversed by another in the form of a cross: at the upper end there was fastened a garland of gold and precious stones, enclosing the symbol of the name of Christ, namely the two first letters of the word in Greek, viz. X and P. On the cross stick hung a small square standard of very rich stuff, being
purple and gold tissue set with jewels. On the top of these colours below the sacred monogram were the images of the emnperor and his two sons wrought in gold. The form of the standard was not new, but it was called by the new name of Labarum. The emperor caused banners of the same fashion to be made for all his troops, and he himself wore upon his helmet the cross, or rather the monogram of the word Christ: his soldiers wore it on their shields, and the coins and medals of Christian emperors are full of it. Fleury's Eccl. Hist. book ix. chap. 4.3.
11. p. 433 n. 1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. b. i. ch. 8.
12. p. 433 n. 2 Or Basil ( Basi/leioj ) according to other writers. It is to be observed that all other writers agree in considering that he was killed in the persecution under Licinius, and was not therefore present at Nicaea. Valesius is of this latter opinion.
13. p. 433 n. 3 Concerning this Meletius, see the note of Valesius on Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. b. vii. ch. 32. The interpreters of Philostorgius confound him with Meletius of Sebaste, who was afterwards bishop of Antioch.
14. p. 433 n. 4 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist.. b. i. ch. 8, and note in loco. Socrates states that five bishops declined to subscribe to the exposition of faith at Nicaea. It is clear, however, that he is mistaken, not only from this passage of Philostorgius, but also from the letter of the council given by himself subsequently in chap. 9, where, it may be observed, Theon is called Theonas.
15. p. 433 n. 5 Compare note on Socrates, Eccl. Hist. b. i, ch. 8.
16. p. 434 n. 1 Compare Socrates, Eccl. Hist. b. i. ch. 16, 20.
17. p. 434 n. 2 asmata e0pimu&lia . Philostorgius here makes no mention of the song known in the "Thalia," from which Athanasius distinguishes these popular songs in his books concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Vales.
18. p. 435 n. 1 Compare the account given in Aurelius Victor, chap. 41, Ammianus Marcellinus, book xiv. 6, and others, who state that Crispus and Fausta were put to death by Constantine. It is to be observed, however, that Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine, and Socrates, in his History, make no mention of the fact, which is entirely discredited by Sozomen (Eccl. Hist. b. i. ch. 5) and Evagrius (Eccl. Hist. b iii. ch. 40, 41). Vales .
19. p. 435 n. 2 Concerning Urphilas, or Ulphilas, as others call this bishop of the Goths, and the conversion of the Goths to the Christian faith, see Socrates, Eccl. Hist. b. iv. ch. 34; Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. b. vi. ch. 37; Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. b. iv. ch. 37.