apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

44 El^lSTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
statue of the god, represented as Musagetes, was reduced to cinders.
The roof of the shrine also was burnt
;
but the columns and walls
were left standing as a testimony, so insists Chrysostom (pp. 534 sq,
564 sq, 572 sq, 577). One report represented the fire as accidental;
the philosopher Asclepiades had been burning tapers at the foot of the
statue, and the sparks had ignited the dry wood'. Julian not unnaturally
persuaded himself that the Christians had set it on fire^
The Christians gave a different explanation. They averred that the
in attendance to have broken out in
flames were declared by the priests
the head of the statue, not in the feet ;
that the emperor put the priests
to the torture ;
and that nevertheless they persisted in their first statement.
Plainly therefore it was struck by
fire from heaven ^ Thus the
holy martyr Babylas had a double victory. His presence had silenced
the voice of the evil demon ; his expulsion had been avenged by
the overthrow of the same^
TOiS Kara airrjaiv tov fidprvpos
p.
•*
chlsse du saint martyr, c'est a dire la
Sozomen (//.
E. v. 20) says eSwei 5^ 1. c. ntartyriiDii within the city, Chrysost. p.
XpLCTTtauols
nuit suivante.' The only passage which OerfKarov ip.Tre(jetv ry daifiovi. irvp, oi de
Tillemont quotes is Ammianus (xxii. 13) "EWTjves eXoyoTToiovv 'KpidTLavu.v elvai to
'eodem tempore die xi Kal. Novembr.,' dpcifxa K.T.X. Theodoret (I/. E. iii. 7) goes
which does not bear him out. On the so far as to state that some rustics in the
contrary the historians generally (e. g. neighbourhood saw the thunderbolt fall.
Sozom. V. 20, Theodt. iii. 7) place the It seems probable that the Christian
persecutions which followed on the procession,
account was correct. Chrysostom, Sozo-
and which must have occupied men, and Theodoret, all declare that the
some time, before the burning of the attendants of the temple were examined
temple.
and even maltreated to induce them to
1
Ammianus (xxii. 13) mentions this, inform against some one, but in vain.
and characterizes it as rumor '
levissimus.' The evidence showed that the statue had
Gibbon falls into the error of applying been ignited from above. There seems
this expression to Julian's charge against no reason for questioning the fact of this
the Christians, and compliments Ammianus
examination. Chrysostom (p. 560) ap-
on his 'extraordinary candour.' peals to his audience, of whom a large
The compliment was well deserved, but
not on this ground,
number were old enough to recollect the
facts, and asks them to contradict him if
he makes any misstatement. If this account
-
Ammian. 1. c. In Misopogon 361
he himself speaks vaguely and not very
intelligibly, ot 5^ eiVe Xa^oj'Tes eiVe /tt)
to of the ignition be not accepted, the
alternative would seem to be that the fire
irvp idei^av eKevo.
was owing to some carelessness of the
All those Christian writers who mention
priests in attendance, which they did not
the conflagration account for it in care to confess. Libanius [Or. in. p. 334)
this way.
it
They regard as an answer believes it was the work of an incendiary,
to the prayers of the martyr, who thus but does not name the Christians.
•*
confounded the demon ; Chrysost. p.
The successive resting-places of Babylas
He (i) lay in
565, etc.; Theodoret 11. cc; Philostorg.
a