Baring-Gould’s sources: Roman Martyrology. Ado, Usuardus. Authority: — Eusebius, H. E. Theodotus was made bishop of Laodicea after Stephen, who gave way in the persecution of Diocletian. “ The ' affairs of the Church,” says Eusebius, “ were not likely to be ruined by this, for these were corrected and restored by Theodotus, who, under a special providence of God, the Saviour of all, was ordained bishop of the Church there; and by his deeds proved the reality of his name (given of God) and of his office as bishop. For he excelled in his knowledge of the medical art, as applied to the body, and was skilled also in that healing science which ministers to the soul. No one was ever his equal in kindness, sincerity, sympathy, and a zeal to benefit those that needed his aid. He was, also, much exercised in the study of divine things.” To him Eusebius is supposed to have dedicated his great work on the “Evangelic Demonstration for Eusebius begins his “ Evangelic Preparation” with the words, “ Having conceived the design of setting forth before the eyes of those who are ignorant the substance which constitutes Christianity, in a book having for its title * The Evangelic Demonstration,’ I brought it out under the auspices of your name, O Theodotus, honour of the Episcopate, head precious and conse- I crated to God, with the prayer that you would assist me, and support me also with the holy sacrifices which you would offer for me to the Saviour.”
After Arius had been condemned at Alexandria, and excommunicated by his bishop, S. Alexander, the heresiarch appealed to the bishops in the East Nor. a.] •S. Theodotus.
Caesarea was the first place to afford him a retreat from Alexandrian orthodoxy, where he received a cordial reception from the learned Eusebius [Eusebius of Caesarea (d. c. 339), the first historian of the Church], Metropolitan of Palestine; whilst Athanasius, bishop of Anazarbus in Cilicia, Theodotus of Laodicea, and others, did not hesitate, by letters on his behalf, to declare their concurrence with him in the full extent of his heresy. Eusebius even declared that Christ was not very or true God; and his associate Athanasius asserted, that He was in the number of the hundred sheep of the parable — that is, one of the creatures of God. A letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia has been preserved.
“ To his most dear Lord, Eusebius, a man of God, faithful and orthodox, Arius, the man unjustly persecuted by the Pope Alexander for the all-conquering truth's sake, of which thou art a champion, sends health in the Lord. As Ammonius, my father, was going to Nicomedia, it seemed becoming to address this through him; and withal to represent to that deep-seated affection which thou bearest towards the brethren for the sake of God and His Christ, how fiercely the bishop assaults and drives us, leaving no means untried in his opposition. At length he has driven us out of the city, as men without God, for dissenting from his public declarations, that * As God is eternal, so is His Son; where the Father, there the Son; the Son co-exists in God without a beginning; ever generate, an ingenerately-generate; that neither in idea, nor by an instant of time, does God precede the Son; an eternal God, an eternal Son; the Son is from God Himself.' Since then Eusebius, thy brother of Caesarea, Theodotus (of Laodicea), Paulinus (of Tyre), Athanasius (of Anazarbus), Gregory (of Berytus), Aetius (of Lydda), and all the bishops of the East declare that God exists without origin before the Son, they are made anathema by Alexander's sentence; all but Philogonius (of Antioch), Hellanicus (of VOL. XIII. 4 Tripoli in Phoenicia), and Macarius (pf Jerusalem), heretical, ill-grounded men, who say, one that he is an utterance, another an offspring, another co-ingenerate. These blasphemies we cannot bear,” &c.1 Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ecclesiastical adviser of Constants, the Emperor’s sister, declared in favour of Arius, and offered him a refuge, which he readily accepted, from the growing unpopularity which attended him in Palestine. The Council of Nicaea met in 325. Arius appeared with several bishops of his party, variously reckoned as twenty-two or seventeen. Seven — amongst these, some reckon Theodotus — Arius believed he could thoroughly rely upon. Philostorgius, however, does not reckon Theodotus among the twentytwo of the party of Arius, but he is given as one by Theodoret. It is certain that he subscribed the Creed, and that without a struggle, such as that made by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and the Libyan bishops Theonas and Secundus. Finally all yielded, fearing the banishment with which they were threatened by the Emperor, except the two Libyans, who were condemned with Arius. Yet no sooner were Eusebius and Theognis returned to their dioceses, than they began to teach the Arian [followers of Arius, who taught that the Son is a created being, not fully God] heresy with increased vehemence, harboured the heretics who had been driven out of Alexandria, and protested that their subscription had not been given to the Nicene Creed. They had succeeded, it is said, by bribery, in getting at the document and effacing their names. These two bishops openly communicated with the Arians. Theodotus seems also to have shown his antagonism to the Nicene faith, though he probably did not go to the same extremes as Eusebius and Theognis; for whereas Constantine banished these bishops, he contented himself with writing to Theodotus to caution him to be more circumspect, and to take warning Nor by the punishment inflicted on Eusebius and Theognis, and rid himself of the evil influence they had exerted on his mind. # But in 328 Constantine fell under the influence of his sister Constantia, and this led to the recall of Eusebius of Nicomedia, of Theognis, and of Arius.
But though Arius had returned to Alexandria, S. Athanasius [bishop of Alexandria (d. 373), great defender of the Nicene faith], now bishop of that important see in the room of his friend and patron, Alexander, refused to receive him to communion. The Arian party, which now had the ear of the Emperor, resolved to effect his ruin, as well as that of other most zealous champions of the Catholic faith. Various calumnies were circulated about Athanasius, and he was summoned before the Emperor to answer to the charges made against him. Constantine speedily detected their emptiness, and discharged him.
In the meantime a more successful attack had been made against Eustathius of Antioch — a confessor [in old usage, a saint who was not martyred, or who suffered for the faith without being killed], very learned and eloquent, a writer, and a zealous opponent of Arianism. Eusebius of Nicomedia, a crafty, unprincipled man, accomplished his purpose by means most discreditable. He feigned a burning desire to see the magnificent church of the holy sepulchre, which Constantine had built at Jerusalem. The Emperor was so pleased at the expression of this wish, that he furnished him with funds to make the journey, and placed the state conveyances at his disposal. Eusebius took with him Theognis of Nicsea, and they arrived together at Antioch. S. Eustathius received them in a friendly manner, and without suspicion, and saw them on their way to Jerusalem. There they met other Arian bishops whom they had secretly summoned to assemble there, under one pretext or another, Theodotus of Laodicea, Eusebius of Caesarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, &c. When all were gathered, they set off together to Antioch, and invited Eustathius to hold a council. He was still unsuspicious, and called together some of his suffragans. Then, suddenly the Arian party introduced a. woman with a baby in her arms, and charged Eustathius with being its father. The wretched woman had been suborned to make this accusation by Eusebius and those acting in concert with him. The bishop of Antioch, taken with surprise, indignantly demanded some evidence against him other than the word of this woman. But the Arians were in the majority. They put the woman on her oath, took down her deposition, and in spite of the outcries and remonstrances of the other bishops present, condemned and deposed Eustathius. Eusebius and Theognis at once posted off to the Emperor, leaving Theodotus and the rest of their party in Antioch. Eusebius told the Emperor that the patriarch [the title of the bishops of the great ancient sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem] of Antioch had been convicted of having seduced a woman, before a Council held in his own city, that his flock were indignant, and demanded Eusebius of Caesarea in his place, and that on account of his profligacy and sabellianism, the Council had deposed Eustathius. He hinted also that the bishop of Antioch had grossly insulted Helena, the mother of Constantine, to her face. Constantine had only just lost his mother, and he took fire at once at the insidious suggestion. He sent orders that Eustathius should be brought before him. In the meantime Antioch was in an uproar. Part of the population sided with Eustathius, part believed the charges made against him. The excitement was intense; soldiers and magistrates, the very heathen, took part in the contest, and came to blows. The armed hand of the Emperor was obliged to restore tranquillity. He banished Eustathius to Trajanopolis, and the unfortunate bishop died in exile.
Shortly after, the woman who had accused him fell ill, and confessed before many bishops and clergy that she Nov. a.] 5. Theodotus.
had been bribed to make the charge, and assured that she would not be committing perjury, for the father of the child was indeed named Eustathius, but was a coppersmith in Antioch.
Eusebius of Caesarea, however, did not think fit to leave his see for that of Antioch, and wrote to the Emperor to state his reasons.
Constantine sent a letter to Theodotus, Aetius, and others of the Arian bishops assembled at Antioch, which Eusebius has reported,1 in which he approved of what had been done. Nothing more is known of Theodotus, except one circumstance of no great importance. There were at Laodicea a priest named Apollinaris and his son, a lector, bearing the same name. There was at that time in Laodicea a pagan sophist of some note, named Epiphanius, a great friend of the two Apollinares, and he gave instructions to the younger. One day Epiphanius recited a hymn in praise of Bacchus, in presence of several persons, amongst others of these two men. Before doing so, he repeated the formula, “ Let those who are uninitiated or profane depart,” but neither Apollinaris, father or son, nor any of the Christians present, left the room. When Theodotus heard of this he was indignant. After rebuking the laymen, he pardoned them; but he publicly blamed the father and son, because they were in holy orders [ordination; “orders” means the sacrament by which deacons, priests and bishops are ordained], and excommunicated them. Only after they had done penance with fasting and tears did he readmit them to communion.
Theodotus has only crept into the Roman Martyrology through an oversight Ado, Usuardus [a 9th-century monk of Paris who compiled a list of saints for each day], and other early martyrologists, seeing the high praise accorded him in the “Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius,” and knowing nothing of his Arianism, and his association with Eusebius of Nicomedia in the scandalous transaction at Antioch, rashly placed him in their Sacred Kalendars. It is much to be regretted that Baronius [Cardinal Baronius (d. 1607), church historian who edited the Roman Martyrology] did not cancel his name when he revised the Martyrology.
