106 The name Saracen (Sarakhnoj, perhaps from the Arabic Sharkeen `Orientals 0') was used vaguely at first; the Greek writers of the first centuries gave it to the Bedouin Arabs of Eastern Arabia, while others used it to designate the Arab races of Syria and Palestine, and others the Berber of North Eastern Africa, who later conquered Spain and Sicily and invaded France. The name became very familiar in Europe during the period of the Crusades. On Saracens, consult the interesting fiftieth chapter of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
1 The views here expressed show a crude conception of the vital relation between church and state. The very tone of apology which tinges their expression is based on a misconception of the idea of history. But Socrates was not below his age in this respect. See Introd., p. xiii.
3 For the risks of this method, see IV. 31 and note.
4 See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. 26.
11 For an account of this deputation and their feigned subscription to the Nicene Creed, through which they prevailed upon Liberius to receive them into the communion of the church, see IV. 12.
14 In its eighth canon the Council of Nicaea, looking forward to the reconciliation of such Novatians or Cathari as might desire to return to the Catholic Church, enjoins that `when in villages or in cities there are found only clergy of their own sect (Cathari), the oldest of these clerics shall remain among the clergy, and in their position; but if a Catholic priest or bishop be found among them, it is evident that the bishop of the Catholic Church should preserve the episcopal dignity whilst any one who has received the title of bishop from the so-called Cathari would only have a right to the hot, ors accorded to priests, unless the bishop thinks it right to let him enjoy the honor of the title. If he does not desire to do so let him give him the place of rural bishop (chorepiscopus) or priest, in order that he may appear to be altogether a part of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the same city. 0' Cf. Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. I. p. 410; Bingham, Christ. Antiq. II. 13. 1 and 2.
15 Theodoret (H. E. V. 3) gives a different account of the way in which the dispute between Melitius and Paulinus came to an end, giving the glory to Melitius for the eirenic overture above described, and representing Paulinus as constrained to accept it against his will by the political head of the community.
16 Cf. III. 9; Sozom. III. 15, and V. 12.
17 So also Gregory Nazianz. Carmen de Vita Sua, 595. `The grace of the Spirit sent us, many shepherds and members of the flock inviting. 0' See, however, on Gregory's episcopate at Nazianzus, IV. 26 and note.
18 Cf. Zosimus, IV.; Sozom. VII. 4; Am. Marcellinus, XXXI. 9 and 10.
19 Cf.Zosimus, IV. 39, on the dangerous illness of Theodosius. On delayed baptism, called `clinic, 0' see I. 39, note 2. Evidently baptism was not thought essential to one's title to be called a Christian. Theodosius and Constantine were both considered Christians and `professed the homoousian faith, and yet they both postponed their baptism to what they believed to be the latest moments of their lives. 0'
21 It appears from several places in Gregory's writings (cf. Somn. de Anastasia, Ad Popul. Anast. and Carmen de Vita Sua, 1709) that he himself had used the name of Anastasia in speaking of the church, so that Socrates' statement that it was so called afterwards must be taken as inaccurate. It also appears that Gregory gave the name Anastasia to the house which he used as a church, and meant to signify by the name (Anastation = Resurrection) the resurrection of the orthodox community of Constantinople. It is possible, of course, that Socrates here means that the emperors later adopted the name given by Gregory on the occasion of building a large church in place of the original chapel. See also on Gregory's stay at Constantinople Sozom. VII. 5; Philostorgius, IX. 19; Theodoret, V. 8.
22 Cf. Philostorgius, IX. 10 and 14, whence it appears that Demophilus was the Arian bishop who succeeded Eudoxius in Constantinople.
24 A specimen of allegorical interpretation due to the influence of Origen. See Farrar, Hist. of Interpretation, p. 183 seq. For similar cases of allegorizing, see Huet, Origeniana passim, and De la Rue, Origenis Opera, App. 240-244.
26 The same consulate as at the end of chap. 6; i.e. 380 a.d.
27 Cf. parallel account in Sozom. VII. 7-9; Theodoret, H. E. V. 8. The Synod of Constantinople was the second great oecumenical or general council. Its title as an oecumenical council has not been disputed, although no Western bishop attended. Baronius, however (Annal. 381, notes 19, 20), attempts to prove, but unsuccessfully, that Pope Damasus summoned the council. For a full account of the council, see Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II. p. 340-374.
28 Sozomen adds that Cyril was previously a follower of Macedonius, and had changed his mind at this time. Cf. Sozom. VII. 7.
32 See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. IV. 2. 8 for other examples illustrating this method of electing bishops.
33 Canon 3 of the Synod; see Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II. p. 357. The canon is given by Socrates entire and in the original words. Valesius holds that the primacy conferred by this canon on the Constantinopolitan see was one of honor merely, and involved no prerogatives of patriarchal or metropolitan jurisdiction. For a full discussion of its significance, see Hefele, as above. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 confirmed the above action in the following words: `We following in all things the decision of the Holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon of the one hundred and fifty bishops ...do also determine and decree the same things respecting the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople, New Rome. For the Fathers properly gave the primacy to the throne of the elder Rome. 0' Canon 28.
34 Canon 2. The words `patriarch, 0' however, and `patriarchate 0' are not used in the canon. According to Sophocles (Greek Lexicon) the modern sense of these words was introduced at the close of the fourth century. Valesius holds that the sixth canon of the Nicene Council had given sanction to the principle of patriarchal authority; but Beveridge is of opinion that patriarchs were first constituted by the second general council. Hefele takes substantially the same position as Valesius. See discussion of the subject in Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. I. p. 389 seq.
35 Cf. IV. 27. On Gregory of Nyssa, one of the most prominent of the ancient Fathers, see Smith & Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog.; Schaff, Hist. of the Christ. Church, Vol. III. p. 903 et seq., and sources mentioned in the work.
36 Constantine made an advance on his predecessors by dividing the management of the empire among four prefects of the praetorium, which they had committed to two officers of that name. These four were apportioned as follows: one to the East, a second to Illyricum, a third to Italy, and a fourth to Gaul. Each of these prefects had a number of dioceses under him, and each diocese was a combination of several provinces into one territory. In conformity with this model of civil government the church abandone gradually and naturally its metropolitan administration of the provinces and adopted the diocesan. The exact time of the change is, of course, uncertain, it having come about gradually. It is safe, however, to put it between the Nicene and Constantinopolitan councils. The Fathers in the latter of those councils seem to find it in practical operation and confirm it (Cf. Canon 2 of the councils), decreeing explicitly that it should be unlawful for clerics to perform any office or transact any business in their official character outside of the bounds of the diocese wherein they were placed, just as it was unlawful for the civil officer to intermeddle in any affair outside the limits of his civil diocese.
38 Socrates according to his custom omits all mention of events in the Western Church. Some of them are quite important; e.g. the council of Aquileia called by the Emperor Gratian. See Hefele, Hist. of Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 315 seq.
39 This was in 382 a.d. as appears from the Fasti of Idatius. Cf. also Zosimus, IV. 34, and Jerome, Chronicon.
41 For a further account of Sisinnius, see VI. 22.
42 Referring no doubt to the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of its builders, Gen. xi. 8.