Eustathius gave him leisure for the composition of various works, almost the whole of which have perished. His address to Constantine after the Synod of Nicæa, if it be indeed his, has been preserved to us by Gregory of Neocæsarea. In his treatise on the Witch of Endor1 against Origen, he denies with some vehemence that the phantasm was in very deed the soul of that prophet. Satan, he argues, has no power whatever over the spirits of the just; it was a diabolic apparition which the sorceress invoked. If it were really Samuel, he argues, was he in, or out of, the flesh? and he endeavours to reduce either hypothesis to an absurdity. The prophecy was either a guess of the woman herself—or a permitted vaticination of the evil one, undoubtedly sometimes allowed by the Lord of all things to foretell future events. I must confess that, notwithstanding a certain neatness in the language, the arguments of this little work appear to me unsatisfactory, and its perpetual sneer against Origen unpleasing. The Commentary on the Six Days' Work, which has been published under the name of S. Eustathius, is, undoubtedly, supposititious. Fragments remain to us of his Discourse on the Soul, of his sermon on the verse The Lord possessed thee in the beginning of His ways, clearly composed against the Arians; of another on Come, eat of My Bread; several sentences from various treatises against the Arian heresy, and of Expositions on the 15th and 2nd Psalms. In the time of S. Jerome' a very large number of his letters were extant;

1 The κατὰ 'Ωριγένους διαγνωστικὸς εἰς τὸ τῆς ἐγγαστριμύθου θεώρημα was, with the work on the Creation, first published by Leo Allatus (Lyons, 1629), and the latter treatise was. thence reprinted by Bishop Pearson in the Critic. Sacr. (1660). S. Jerome refers to the Engastrimythus.

2 Quoted by Theodoret, by Eustratius of Constantinople (the treatise of this writer, who lived in the 6th century, is printed at the end of the Occident. et Orient. perpetuus de igne Purgatorio consensus, 1655) and S. John

DEATH OF MACARIUS OF JERUSALEM.

91

they would doubtless have thrown much light, had they reached us, on the controversies of his day. Sozomen' highly commends the beauty of his language, and the elegance with which the basis of his ideas is carried out".

105. How long Macarius of Jerusalem survived the Invention of the Cross is a point which we cannot accurately determine. Sozomen mentions his death between the deposition of Eustathius, which, as we have seen, occurred in A. D. 331, and the Council of Tyre, which was held in A. D. 335. Let the precise year be what it may, the good old man was happily taken away from the evil3 times to come, in which he could hardly have escaped deposition. A few short treatises of his against the Arians are referred to by S. Athanasius. In his place Maximus succeeded; an arrangement to that effect having been made in the deceased bishop's lifetime. This priest, who had confessed in the persecution of Licinius, had been consecrated by Macarius, bishop of Diospolis (or Lydda); but the laity of Jerusalem, with whom he was a great favourite, were so unwilling to lose him, that another bishop was appointed to the inferior see, and he himself appointed as a kind of associate in the capital city. Macarius, who was fearful lest the Arian faction should seize on Jerusalem after his death, gladly regarded Maximus as Maximus II. his successor; and accordingly, on the decease of the vener- Jerusal. able prelate, he was unanimously raised to the vacant dignity. His subsequent conduct unhappily belied the fairer promises of his youth.

1 H. E. II. 19.

2 S. Eustathius is celebrated in some of the Menæa with this Stichos on July 7;

πρὸς εὐστάθειαν καρδίας Εὐσταθίου, καὶ πῦρ συρίζων ἠρεμοῦν πάντως ὕδωρ. 3 S. Macarius is celebrated in the Western Church on March 10. It is singular that his name should not occur in the Eastern Menæa,

4 Sozomen, H. E. 11. 20. But later than the 12th century, Latin writers have been pleased to insert a certain S. Cyriacus as bishop of Jerusalem between Macarius and Maximus. He was, they say, advanced by Eusebius of Rome (who had been dead many years), and was a martyr under Julian the Apostate. The whole thing is a mere figment.

Patr. of
A.D. 331.

BOOK II.

THE GREAT SCHISM OF ANTIOCH:

FROM THE

DEPOSITION OF S. EUSTATHIUS,

A.D. 331,

TO THE

DEATH OF EVAGRIUS,

A.D. 392.