instigated by the example of Metrodorus, who had recently travelled in search of knowledge among
The point in question is, therefore—which of these Indians, the Arabians or the Ethiopians, did Frumentius convert? In the first place, we have the positive testimony of Nicephorus that they were the Hamyarites. Among the authorities adduced by Pagi to support his contrary opinion is that of Socrates, who says it was Indiam illam Æthiopæ finitimam, which, he seems to think, denotes the region of Auxume, as neighbouring on the interior Ethiopia. Pagi, Critica, tom. iv. p. 198. Now we find this India mentioned by Ruffinus (Hist. Eccl. lib. i.)—in ea divisione orbis terræ quæ ad prædicandum verbum Dei sorte per apostolos celebrata est, cum aliæ aliis provinciæ obvenissent, Thomæ Parthia, et Matthæo Æthiopia, eique adhærens citerior India Bartholomæo dicitur sorte decreta. Socrates, from whom he has taken the passage, says, (lib. i. c. 19) ἡνικα οῖ Αποστολοι κληρῳ την εις τα εθνη πορειαν εποιουντο, Θωμας μεν την Παρθων αποστολην ὑπεδεχετο, Ματθαιος δε την Αιθιοπιαν, Βαρθολομαιος δε εκληρουτο την συνημμενην ταυτῃ Ινδιαν. Chrysostom, indeed, makes Thomas the apostle of Ethiopia, Θωμας δια βαπτισματος λευκαινει τους Αιθιοπας. (Homil. in xii. Apost. tom. viii. Append. p. 11.) Now, who the Indians were that Bartholomæus visited, we may learn from Sophronius (c. 7.)Βαρθολομαιος ὁ Αποστολος, Ινδοις τοις καλουμενοις Ευδαιμοσιν, εκηρυξε το ευαγγελιον του Χριστου,—and from the Menæa (part ii. p. 197.) Bartholomæus in Indiam Felicem profectus, ibique cruci affixus, decessit,—they were the people of Arabia Felix. It is very evident from what Ruffinus says, that the India visited by Frumentius was the same as that in which Bartholomæus preached the gospel, and he distinguishes Ethiopia from India in the same chapter. (x. 9.) In this history of the Abyssinian invasion, the Hamyarites and Ethiopians are distinguished as the Homerite Indians and the Auxumite Indians. Malala, p. 163. Nicephorus, xvii. 22. Theophanes, p. 188. And
