[Editorial Note 1] they charged them with various crimes. Irons and chains were produced. There were men present who had returned from exile; certain of our fellow-ministers were also there who had been sent by those who were still kept in exile. There were relatives and friends present of those who had been put to death by them. Most b[1] serious of all, there were Bishops present, one of whom produced the irons and the chains which he had worn because of them, while other bishops gave evidence that people had been put to death because of their false accusations. In fact they had reached such a point of madness that they even attempted to kill a bishop. And he would have been killed, if he had not escaped from their hands. Certainly our colleague, Theodulus, of blessed memory, died, while he was trying to escape from their false accusations. {For} an order had been issued for him to be put to death as a result of those accusations. Others a[2] showed sword wounds, others charged that they had been c[3] starved by them. And this evidence was given not by ordinary individuals but by whole churches. Those who had come in the name of the churches and acted as envoys from them a[4], gave very reliable evidence about soldiers with swords, mobs of men with clubs, threats by Judges, and the d[5] use of fabricated documents. Letters were read out which had been written by Theognius and his associates to arouse the anger of the Emperors against our colleagues Athanasius, Marcellus and Asclepas. This fact was proved by those who had been deacons of Theognius at that time. In addition to all this they instanced a[6] stripping of virgins, firing of Churches, and the taking of our fellow-ministers into custody; and all these things for no other reason than the infamous heresy of the Ariomaniacs.

– After this the Westerners assert that Arsenius was proved by a Letter from him to be still alive; [Editorial Note 3] they also assert that the alleged doings at Mareotis were fabricated, and that, according to the testimony of two Presbyters who had left the party of Meletius [Editorial Note 4] and were taken up by Alexander, Ischyras had never been a Presbyter of Meletius. Then they proceed as follows. The book of our colleague, Marcellus, was also read, and the fraud of the Eusebians was revealed. For they alleged that Marcellus had positively stated certain points that he had actually proposed as questions. What he had said therefore <2r> {illeg} both before the questions and after the questions was read out, and the man's belief was found to be correct. For he did not attribute the beginning of the word of God to his birth from the holy Mary, as they assert, nor did he say that his kingdom would have an end; in fact, he said that his kingdom is without beginning or end. Our colleague, Asclepas, also produced Proceedings that had been drawn up at Antioch, in the presence of his accusers and of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, and proved from the verdicts of the Bishops who presided over this judicial proceeding that he was innocent ... Since then it would not have been right to pass over in silence and ignore the false accusations, killings, imprisonments, beatings, the insidious attacks by means of forged letters, the stripping of virgins, banishments, destruction of churches, arson, translations from smaller cities to larger churches, and what is worst of all, their raising of the infamous heresy of Arius against correct belief/the true faith/orthodoxy, we have pronounced that our beloved brothers and colleagues, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, Bishop of Galatia and Asclepas, Bishop of Gaza, and those who are ministers of the Lord with them, are innocent and guiltless, and we have written letters to each of their churches, so that the people of each church may understand the innocence of their bishop, and that they are to recognise him alone and await his return. But as for those who have broken into their churches like wolves – namely, Gregory of Alexandria, Basil of Ancyra and Quintianus of Gaza – they should not call them Bishops at all, nor even Christians, and they should not hold any communion with them; nor should they accept letters from them or write to them. But Theodorus of Heraclea in Europe, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Stephanus of Antioch, Ursacius of Singidunum in Moesia, and Valens from Mursa in Pannonia, Menophantus of Ephesus and Georgius of Laodicea, though he was too afraid to come from the East, nevertheless because he was deposed by the blessed Alexander, formerly bishop, and because both he and <3r> all the aforesaid persons adopt the madness of Arius – now therefore because of the various crimes that have been charged against them, the holy synod has deposed them from the Episcopate by the common consent of all. And we have decreed not only that they are not bishops but they are not even worthy to be retained in the communion of the faithful. For it is fitting that those who separate the son from the ✝[7] substance and Divinity of the father, and make the Word external to the Father (Genitore), be separated from the Catholic church, and be regarded as having lost the name of Christians. – We [Editorial Note 6] repudiate and declare to be banished from the Catholic Church those who affirm that Christ is God, but is not the true God; and that he is the son, but not the true son; and that he is begotten as well as made. For they profess that this is how they understand 'begotten', because they have said: that that which is begotten has been made. And thus although Christ is before all ages, they attribute to him a beginning and an end, which however he does not have in time but before all times. And recently two Vipers have come forth from the Arian asp, Valens and Ursatius, who claim that they are Christians and do not hesitate to say so, who assert that the Word and the spirit were crucified and slain and rose from the dead, and, as the faction of heretics obstinately insists, that the hypostases [Editorial Note 7] of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit are different and separate from one another. But we have received from our ancestors and have taught and retain this catholic and Apostolic tradition and faith and profession, that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics themselves call usia [Editorial Note 8], of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. And if they ask what exactly the hypostasis of the Son is, we profess that it is that sole hypostasis which by universal consent belongs to the Father; never has the Father been without the Son, nor the Son without the Father, nor could be. For it is completely absurd to say that the Father existed at any time without the Son. That it is impossible to name one without the other or for one to exist without the other is the testimony of the Son himself, when he says: I am in the Father and the Father in me. [Editorial Note 9] And again, I and my Father are one. [Editorial Note 10] None of us denies that he was begotten, but we say that he was begotten before all things that are called visible and invisible. – We confess that the Son is the power of the Father. We confess that he is the Wo <4r> rd of God the Father, apart from which there is no other; and the Word is true God and wisdom and power. And we teach that he is true Son, but not as other Sons are so-called. For these are called Gods because of regeneration, or they are called Sons because they have been held to be worthy, but not because of the single hypostasis which belongs to the Father and the Son. We confess that he is both only-begotten and the first-born – but the only-begotten Word which is ever in the Father, and the first-born because of his human nature. However he takes the first place in the new creation because he is the first-born from the dead. We confess that there is one God, and a single divinity of Father and Son. Nor does anyone deny that the Father is greater than the Son, not because of another hypostasis or other difference, but because the very name of Father is greater than the appellation Son. Those who argue that our Lord said 'I and my Father are one' by reason of their concord and harmony are giving an impious and a perverse interpretation. All we who are Catholics have condemned their stupid and deplorable opinion. For what they are saying is that just as mortal men, when they have started to offend and quarrel with each other, tend to split apart and then afterwards get back on to good terms with each other, so it is possible for conflict and discord to arise between the omnipotent Father and the Son – which is the most absurd thing even to imagine or contemplate. But we believe and affirm, and this is our considered opinion, that the sacred saying, 'I and the Father are one', was spoken because of the unity of the hypostasis which is one and the same in Father and Son. This too we believe that he reigns with the Father for ever without any beginning or end; and his kingdom has neither time by which it may be bounded, nor does it ever cease to be. We likewise believe and accept the holy Spirit, the Comforter, whom the Lord himself both promised and sent; and we believe that he has been sent. But he did not suffer; it is the man in whom he clothed himself and whom he [Christ] received from the Virgin Mary, who is able to suffer. For man <5r> is mortal, but God is immortal [Editorial Note 11]. We believe that he rose on the third day, not God in the man but the man in God. This [man] he offered as a gift to his Father; and he freed him from sin and corruption. We likewise believe that at an appropriate and appointed time he will judge all men for all things. But such is the madness of those men, and their minds are so deeply shrouded in darkness, that they cannot perceive the light of truth. They cannot understand for what reason the Lord said, 'that they too may be one in us.' [Editorial Note 12] And yet it is obvious why he said one. For the Apostles had received the holy spirit of God; nevertheless they themselves were not the spirit; nor was any of them the Word or wisdom or power or only-begotten. As I, he says, and you are one, so too let them be one in us. The divine utterance accurately distinguished the two things. Let them be one in us, he says. He does not say: in the same way as I and the Father are one, but that they may be one in faith and confession as disciples joined and united together, and that they may be able to be one in the grace and piety of God the father and in the love of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Thus the Westerners to all the churches. But they also published at that time another statement of faith more prolix indeed than the Nicene: – Hosius and Protogenes, who held the first place at that time among the Bishops of the West who convened at Sardica, wrote a letter to Julius, testifying that they accepted the validity of the decrees of Nicaea, but for the sake of greater clarity they had expounded the same views at greater length, so that no opportunity would be given to the Arians who might abuse the brevity of that document to mislead those who were unskilled in such disputations into making an absurd interpretation. Sozomen, bk. 3, ch. 12.

This Epistle to Julius, which I have called the third, is extant among the fragments of Hilarius [Editorial Note 13], but curtailed of that part which Sozomen refers to here; and the formula of faith is nowhere now extant. Since the decrees about the Sardican faith <6r> did not agree with those which the Athanasians taught after the time of Constantius about the three Hypostases, they evidently attempted in every way to obliterate those decrees and consign them to oblivion. Hence too Athanasius in his second Apology [Editorial Note 14] omitted all the second part of the Sardican Letter which concerns the faith, and in the Epistle to the Antiochenes he orders that the Sardican documents, i.e., the formula of faith of which Sozomen speaks, should not be read, and he adds that the Synod at Sardica did not make any statement of faith. But the perfidy of Athanasius is abundantly revealed from the actual Letter of the Council of Sardica to Julius. For this is what the Fathers of Sardica wrote to Julius: Three things, they say, were to be treated [Editorial Note 15]. The most religious Emperors themselves gave permission for everything that had been discussed to be argued afresh, and above all about the holy faith and about the integrity of the truth which they [the Eusebians] had violated. The second question was about the persons whom they said had been ✝[8] deposed [Editorial Note 16] as a result of an unjust judgement, so that if they could prove it, the confirmation might be made legal. The third question was that they had done grave wrongs to the Churches when they seized Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons and sent all the clergy into exile. The Synod treats the last two questions in what follows, explaining that the Eusebian leaders had been excommunicated by an unjust judgement, and that those who had wronged them by such a judgment continued to be in communion; but about the first question nothing at all appears. Yet the Synod had certainly mentioned the first question, with the intention of reporting what it had decided about it; accordingly the Letter has been truncated in this section. Furthermore it is clear from this that other letters in Athanasius have also been truncated. For if the Synod convened in order to discuss and determine this question first of all, as it itself affirms, it surely did discuss this first of all, and did write to the Churches to tell them what view they should take of it, whether it published a new formula of faith or stated that the Nicene was sufficient. Since nothing of this kind appears in the Letters in Athanasius, it is clear that Athanasius has truncated them. The source from which the Epistle to the Egyptians is taken is not evident. Theodoret reported that it was fairly welcome to the churches <7r> both by the creed of God which was appended to the Epistle, together with the conclusion of the Epistle in which that Creed seems to have been introduced. Evidently, after this Creed began to be separated from the rest of the epistle and was being circulated by the custom of the people ., and was condemned by the Eusebians of Sabellianism, Athanasius, since he could not otherwise reject it as spurious, both began to impugn it as wrongly ascribed to the Synod of Sardica and with his overwhelming authority ensured that it was rejected by all his people before the time of Theodoret, in the meanwhile not so much openly condemning as passing over in silence the rest of the epistle which was not currentin the hands of the people. Theodoret therefore reported the whole letter from ecclesiastical records right to its conclusion, he omitted the Creed together with the conclusion of the Epistle in which the creed is included, whether because he himself was also deceived and considered it spurious, or more likely because he did not dare to attribute it to the Synod of Sardica contrary to the received opinion of the people.


{illeg} interjecting (oblocutus) nothing more certain erint sed ad Sol {illeg} That is [Editorial Note 17], Hosius promises that he will get a fair trial from men who had previously judged him at Rome and would not be able to retract their verdict and condemn Athanasius and the rest without condemning themselves as wicked and factious persons because of their previous unjust judgement and their perverse communion with people who had been justly condemned. He promises that they will depose Athanasius provided that he is found to be guilty, that is, provided that the Westerners could be made to recognise that they had been wrong to acquit Athanasius and the others, and had up until now impiously held communion with those duly condemned persons, and had shown themselves to be more than factious by stirring up those monstrous disturbances because of these issues; he promises finally that if Athanasius were acquitted, he would himself conduct him into the Spains: a demeaning condition which no decent person – indeed no one but a villain – would either propose or accept. For if the Easterners had admitted it, who would not have thought that they had only one aim, to expel Athanasius by any means whatsoever? In the same letter Hosius proposes that even if the Easterners were unwilling that the issue should be decided by the universal Synod of the Westerners, they should at least accept the judge himself; by this alone the vanity of the man is abundantly revealed. But since the Easterners refused to betray the authority of their churches, they stir up dangerous violence against them. For mixing human things with divine, confusing private matters with the affairs of the Church, they aroused a combination and sedition of the City against them, saying that they would have done great damage to the city by their schism, if they did not hold communion with them (which was monstrous), and they repeatedly shouted this out. For the Easterners utterly refused to hold communion with them, if they did not expel those whom they had condemned and pay proper respect to a Council of the East. Eastern Council of Sardica. [Editorial Note 18]

[Editorial Note 19] The state of the whole controversy was this. The East had given judgement in the Synods of Tyre, Constantinople and Antioch. The West on the other hand had given judgement in the Synod of Rome. The former in the presence of accusers and witnesses And the authority of both was equal, and accordingly neither could give judgement on the other, both because he was not of higher authority and because a judge is not rightly recognised in his own case. There was no third judge. Accordingly, the only course remaining was that they should meet as equals, peacefully expound their mutual positions, and the West should either convince the East or acquiesce. For neither one of two equal judges can revise the other's verdict on his own authority. Both accused the other party of an unjust judgement. The westerners therefore were in the wrong on two counts, both because they were putting themselves above the Easterners and attempting to extend the authority of the Roman Pontiff over the whole world, and because they were forestalling the judgement of Sardica. For one who has once acquitted accused persons, with prejudice he is to be admitted to temples as an equal <9r> they were also in the wrong because they refused to abstain from {illeg} commmunion with Athanasius and the others until such time as the Easterners should convene, but demanded that the easterners, by holding communion with these men and their associates, should abrogate the verdict of Tyre before they were permitted to explain it. It was a grave enough sin to hold communion with the condemned men, but to require this of others who thought it wicked, and to defend so {illeg} a proposal, to require this of others before an opportunity was given them to explain their case, was not only wicked and absurd but inhuman. Finally the westerners were m{os}t at fault because they did {not} accept the Option of sending some people from both parties to Egypt, but simply demanded just one single thing, that the whole case should be considered by them alone. When two parties are in contention, if one offers a fair condition, and the other does not accept it, and will not be content with anything but himself being appointed alone as judge in his own case, the former demonstrates his honesty, the latter gives evidence of a petulant and disingenuous attitude. Since all these things are so, the Easterners rightly abhorred the ambition, tyranny and low morals of the westerners, and rightly withdrew from association with such people.

[Editorial Note 20] As both sides were wrangling, as I have said, the day set for reaching a decision on the matters for which they had convened, had already passed; in the end they became more hostile than before because of letters passed back and forth between them, and they met separately and published opposing verdicts, Sozomen, bk. 3, ch. 11. The epistles in which both parties set out their verdicts and transmitted them to the Churches are too lengthy to be given here in full. That of the Easterners is extant in Latin among the fragments of Hilary, [Editorial Note 21] and in Baronius [Editorial Note 22] under the year 347 and in the Councils; it is well worth reading, despite the fact that it is full of errors because of the unskilfulness of the Greek translator and the ravages of time. Its argument is as follows.

In the first place [Editorial Note 23] the Easterners describe how Marcellus <10r> committed the heresies of Montanus, Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, and taught that the reign of Christ did not begin before his incarnation and will not last beyond the end of the world; that despite frequent warnings before he was deposed, he refused to retract his opinion; that later after he had been deposed and was regarded as a heretic among his own people, he drummed up the means to make a tour, in order to deceive those who did not know him and his writings, and by concealing those writings and their profane implications, and advertising false things as true, he made money out of simple and innocent people. And the fathers who condemned Marcellus, stored in the archives of the church some of his very wrong opinions against the true faith so that people in the future would remember them and be warned; and now if only the Westerners would listen quietly to the judgements of the Eastern fathers, Marcellus's book itself would be in their hands, from which his heresy could be openly recognized by itself without any help from an accuser.

They then [Editorial Note 24] describe at length the crimes of Athanasius, how he broke a chalice , overturned the sacerdotal seat, demolished the basilica to the ground, killed the Bishop, and persecuted those who avoided sacrilegious communion with him throughout Egypt with beatings, chains, imprisonment and by false accusations before judges; he was summoned in vain to Caesarea, but later was finally condemned at Tyre; he then appealed to the Emperor, and when an investigation was held and all his crimes were brought before a court, he was condemned by him and sent into exile. Later when he returned from Gaul, he disturbed the Churches through the whole length of his journey, restoring Bishops who had been condemned and creating new ones where none were lacking, by murderous attacks of the pagans, and finally he pillaged the basilicas of the Alexandrians with slaughter and fighting. And when once again he was ejected as a sacrilegious enemy, he had recourse to the Pagan populace and burnt down the Temple [Editorial Note 25] and smashed the Altar and left the city secretly and went into exile. He made his way to Julius at Rome and, by means of fabricated letters of the Egyptians, he seduced certain Bishops of Italy whom he had previously deceived and who were ignorant of his actions, and was received into communion by them. They subsequently began to be troubled, not so much for his sake as because of their own actions in entering into communion with him, thinking they had trusted him too readily. <11r>

Similarly they describe the crimes of Paul, Asclepas and Lucius [Editorial Note 26], and then speak as follows about them all. These men [Editorial Note 27] going the rounds of foreign parts together persuaded people not to believe the judges who had rightly given verdicts against them, so that by this kind of manoeuvring they might sometime procure themselves a return to their bishoprics; they did not defend themselves in neighbouring places, where they had accusers, but when they were among foreigners and people who lived a long way from their home country and were ignorant of the truth of what they had done, they attempted to overturn a just sentence, referring their actions to people who did not know anything about them. They were smart to do this. For knowing that many of the Judges, accusers and witnesses had died, they thought to obtain a new trial, despite the many powerful judgements against them, and attempted to plead their case before us, who had neither accused them nor judged them. They wished also that [Westerners be set in authority] over Eastern Bishops, and so defenders appeared instead of judges, defendants instead of defenders, at a time when their defence was not strong, especially since they could not be defended at a time when they were confronting their own accusers face to face. And they thought to introduce a new law, that Eastern Bishops should be judged by Western. And they wanted the judgement of the Church to be able to be formed by men who had compassion not so much for their actions as for their own.

Therefore seeing that the discipline of the church has never accepted this monstrosity, we ask you, beloved brethren, yourselves to condemn <12r> the wicked {illeg}. For when {Atha}nasius was still a bishop, he himself condemned Asclepas who was deposed by his own verdict; but Marcellus too similarly never communicated with him. But Paul took part in Athanasius' deposition and writing his sentence in his own ha{nd}, he himself with the others al{so} condemned him ✝[9] and Marcellus condemned Paul]; and for as long as each one of them was a Bis{hop}, he confirmed his own judgements [by a sentence], but when, for {va}rious reasons and at different times, each one of them {illeg} was deservedly expelled from the church, they made a greater alliance in a united conspiracy, each of them pardoning in each other sins, which when they were Bishops, they condemned by divine au{tho}rity;, since Athanasius believed that after the death of some accusers, witnesses and judges his case could be examined afresh at a period when the passage of time obscured his crimes [Editorial Note 28]

After this he describes the altercations which they had with the Westerners at Sardica at length, and since they could not bear to watch these things without tears, they proceed {illeg} as follows. An immense multitude [Editorial Note 29] had flowed into Sardica of all sorts of criminal and abandoned persons arriving from Constantinople, from Alexandria, who were guilty of homicide, guilty of bloodshed, guilty of massacres, guilty of robbery with violence, guilty of looting, guilty of plundering, guilty of every kind of monstrous sacrilege and crime, men who had smashed altars, burned down churches, and robbed the homes of private individuals, profaners of the mysteries of God, traitors to the sacraments of Christ, who while maintaining the impious and wicked teaching of heretics against the faith of the Church, had made a savage massacre of the wisest presbyters, deacons and priests of God; and Osius and Prothogenes have gathered them all together into their sect, and by honouring them have shown contempt for all of us the Deacons and priests of God, because we were not ourselves willing at any time to be associated with such people.      [Editorial Note 30] What they themselves did or what sort of council they held, you may learn from this. For Prothogenes though in the Proceedings he anathematises Marcellus and Paul (and indeed Marcellus four times in his own voice) afterwards received him into communion. But they had in the Council with them Dionysius from Elis in the province of Achaea, whom they themselves deposed, and deposers and deposed, Judges and defendants <13r> communicate together and celebrate the divine mysteries. They ordained Bassus from Diocletianopolis as Bishop, a man who had been caught in crimes and disgraceful acts and rightly banished from Syria; and though he was caught living in a still more scandalous way among them and was condemned by them, he still seems to be associated with them to this day. And because [Editorial Note 31] John of Thessalonica frequently brought many criticisms and accusations against Prothogenes [Editorial Note 32], in that he said that that man had and still has concubines, and that he had never been willing to communicate with him, he has now been accepted into friendship, as if he had been purged by association with worse people, and is regarded as an honest man among them. Asclepas too, when he had come to Constantinople on account of Paul, after the monstrosity and atrocity of the things he committed which were done in the midst of the Church in Constantinople, after a thousand murders which stained the very altars with human blood, after killings of brothers and massacres of Pagans, and today he does not break off communication with Paul for whose sake these things were done. But they too communicate with Paul through Asclepas, receiving documents from him and sending them to him. Therefore from this curdled mess, from this congregation of morally lost persons, what kind of Council could have been held, in which they did not so much punish their sins as acknowledge them? They have condoned disgraceful acts and blasphemies which it would be wicked to pardon, since it is written: If a man has sinned against his fellowman, they will pray to the Lord for him; but if a man has sinned against God, who will pray for him? [Editorial Note 33] We do not have such a custom, nor does the Church of God. [Editorial Note 34] But since they knew that we could not communicate with them for the benefit of those wicked people, they thought that they would frighten us with the writings of the Emperors, so as to force us against our will into communion. But if Athanasius and Marcellus, because of whom the peace of the whole world is destroyed and the name of the Lord is blasphemed among the nations, [Editorial Note 35] had had any fear of God in them, it would have behoved them – in order to prevent the whirlwind that they started from continuing – to depart from their wicked presumptuousness even at this late date, so that the Church might not be split in two because of them. Or if the fear of God were in those who fight on their behalf, even if nothing deserving condemnation were found in them, nevertheless they ought to detest them and hold them in horror, because the unity <14r> of the Church is rent because of them, and its profound peace is subverted because of their madness, fury and lust for honour.

When we saw things going this way, each one of us decided to return to his own country; and we resolved to write from Sardica, and make public what happened there and declare our own opinion. For we cannot accept Athanasius and Marcellus back into the dignity of the Episcopate, now that they have been deposed and condemned; they crucified the true son of God again and put him to open shame [Editorial Note 36], they pierced him with sharp strokes. But neither do we receive in the church others who have been condemned long ago or recently, adhering to the laws of God and the traditions of our fathers and to the disciplines of the Church, believing the Prophet when he says: Do not pass the everlasting bounds which your fathers set [Editorial Note 37]. Wherefore we never strike down what is fixed and sound, but rather we preserve those things that were appointed by our fathers. ... Therefore [Editorial Note 38] abhorring those who have been deservedly deposed, and even more detest those whom you see, after all their offences, doing things still worse, and who do not hear the Lord saying, You have sinned, be still. For they regain their vigour and are made bolder by their crimes; the deeper they plunge into the whirlpool of vice, the more they turn the world upside down; devoting themselves to fomenting sedition, they bring war and the most bitter persecution upon holy Churches; in tyrannical fashion they strive to make the peoples of the Lord captive to their dominion. From these things recognise the wickedness of their ambitions, for they have brought such a tempestuous storm upon the world as to upset virtually the whole of the East and the West, so that each one of us has had to leave behind his duties to his church, deserting the peoples of God and neglecting even the teaching of the Gospel, to come here from great distances - old men heavy with age, weak of body and infirm with sickness – and be dragged through many different places, abandoning our sick on the road, all because of a few wicked men, who have already been properly condemned, who contrary to all that is right, lust after primacy in the Church. ... Both East and West, the world <15r> is turned upon its head and is tossed about in a severe and difficult storm because of a few wicked men with impious views and a disgusting manner of life, in whom there remain no seeds of religion; for if they had them, they would imitate the prophet who said: Pick me up and throw me into the sea, and you will calm the sea, for this tempest arose because of me. [Editorial Note 39] But they do not imitate these words, because they do not follow the guidance of just men either, but these leading spirits of all wicked men desire the first place in the Church as if it were a Tyrannical kingdom. That is why they were struggling to bring in this novelty, which the ancient custom of the Church rejects, anything that the Eastern Bishops had decided in Council could be reviewed, and similarly that the decisions of the Bishops of the Western regions could be annulled by the Eastern Bishops. But they behaved in this way because of their own highly depraved understanding. But the actions of our ancestors establish that the decrees of all justly and legitimately held Councils are to be maintained. For in the city of Rome the Council held against the heretics Novatus and Sabellius and Valentinus was maintained by the Easterners, and again what was decided in the East against Paul of Samosata was ratified by all.

For this reason we exhort you, beloved brothers, bearing in mind the orderliness of Church discipline and mindful of the peace of the whole world, to rebuke those who communicate with wicked men, and cut the evildoers completely out of the Church, so that Christ may swim over the tempest that rages because of them and command the winds and squalls of the sea to disappear, and may grant to holy Church perpetual peace and quiet. But we do injury to no man; we uphold the precepts of the law. For we have been gravely injured and badly treated by those who wished to overturn the rule of the Catholic Church by their own perversity. But having the fear of God before our eyes, and bearing in mind the true and just judgement of Christ, we have respected the person of no man [Editorial Note 40], nor have we spared anyone in our preservation of the discipline of the Church. Hence the council has condemned Julius of the City of Rome, Osius, Prothogenes in accordance with most ancient law


When a certain young man (says ✝[10] [10] Cassianus) [Editorial Note 41], who was not one of the laziest, went and made his way to a certain old man who is well-known to us, he candidly confessed that he was troubled by carnal desires and the spirit of fornication, believing that he would find from the old man's talk consolation for his troubles and cures for the wounds he had received, the old man received him short with very bitter words and quite to the contrary assailed him with reproaches, declaring him to be a miserable and unworthy young man, not to be admitted to the name and practice of a monk, if he could he could have been titillated by such vice and lust, and he so wounded him by his attacks instead of helping him, that he sent him way from his cell plunged in the deepest despair, extremely sorrowful, and deeply affected with deathly sadness. And when, sunk in such distress, he was pondering in deep reflection no longer how he might find a remedy for his passion, but how he might fulfil the lust he had conceived, the abbot Apollo happened to meet him at that moment, and conjecturing by a glance at his face the violence of his trouble and the intensity of the assault that was silently churning in his heart, he asked him the cause of it. ... He confesses that he is on his way to a town in order that, as he could not be a monk in the opinion of the old man, or restrain the promptings of the flesh, and had not the strength to find remedies for the assault, he might take a wife, and leave the monastery, and return to the world. The elderly Apollo calmed him down with soothing words, and asserted that he himself was agitated by the same promptings and waves of temptation every day, and therefore he ought not to fall headlong into despair, nor be surprised at the violence of the assault, which would be overcome not by the intensity of his effort but by the mercy and grace of the lord. He asked him for a respite of just a single day and begged him to return to his cell. With all haste he made his way to the monastery of the old man mentioned above. When he came near to him, he stretched out <17r> his hands and poured out a prayer with tears: Turn, he says, O Lord, who alone art the pious judge and secret healer of hidden strength and human weakness, the assault on that young man against this old man, so that he may learn even in old age, to be considerate of the weakness of those who are in trouble, and to sympathise with the frailty of the young. When he had concluded this prayer with a groan, he sees a foul Ethiopian standing in front of that cell and shooting fiery darts at him. As soon as he was wounded by them, he came straight out of his cell, and ran about this way and that like a madman or a drunk, and coming out and going in, he could no longer keep himself inside, and he began to go along the same road by which the disconsolate young man had departed. When Abbot Apollo saw him behaving like a mad man, as if he were being driven about by the Furies, ... he said, 'Where are you going so fast, or what can be the causes that make you forget the inveterate dignity of old age and toss you about like a child and compel you to run about all over the place.... return to your cell, and understand at last that up to now you have been ignored or despised by the Devil, and not counted among the number of those against whom he is daily driven to fight and to struggle against their efforts to improve. You were not able, I will not say to reject, but even to ward off or tolerate for a single day a single dart aimed at you after the long series of years that you have idled away in this profession, with which the Lord permitted you to be wounded because he wished you even in your old age to learn to sympathise with the infirmities of others.


But in Chrysostom we are {unskilled}. Let us look rather now at Epiphanius, Bishop of the Island of Cyprus, since he flourished at the same time as the men we have just mentioned, and was also held in great admiration. In his book against heresies [Editorial Note 42], which he brought to a conclusion in the 11th year of Valentinian and Valens (AD 374), he did not betray evidence of superstition – whether because he had remained uncorrupted down to that time, or because there was no opportunity for him to express his opinion. In arguing against the Collyridians, who worshipped the Blessed Virgin with sacrifices as God, he often repeats: Worship God, honour the Virgin. But whether he said this in the pure sense or (as the Papists insist) following the distinction between Latria and Dulia, which began at this time, I do not know. [Editorial Note 43] It is certain however that either before this time or a bit later, Epiphanius fell into these superstitions. For in the Lives of the Prophets, [Editorial Note 44] he reports invocations of Isaiah and Ezekiel with approval. Since, he says, the fountain of Siloam was obtained by the prayer of Isaiah, the inhabitants of that place, in remembrance, buried him with the greatest honour and magnificence, ἵνα διὰ τῶν ἐυχῶν ἀυτου, so that through his prayers, they might obtain the perpetual enjoyment of those waters: χρησμὸς γὰρ ἐδόθη ἀυτοις περὶ ἀυτου for an oracle was given to them about him. So much for Isaiah. And about Ezekiel he says: The Prophet Ezekiel lies in the land of the Syrians, and many were in the habit of flocking <19r> to his Tomb in order to pray. And since the crowd sometimes became massive there at his memorial, the Chaldaeans fearing that they would rise against them, had decided to make an assault upon them and kill them. But the Prophet made the water of the river stand still, so that the Israelites could get away by passing over to the further bank; and those of the enemy who dared to pursue them as they fled, were drowned behind them. The same Prophet διὰ προσευχης, by prayer, fed them when they were almost overcome by hunger, by supplying by his own efforts a massive draught of fish; and he saved the lives of many who were fading away by prayers to God. Thus Epiphanius, narrating the history/stories of those who invoke him, whether it/they was made up by Monks to support the cult of the saints or whether it/they is/are partly true.

< insertion from f 18v > ✝ To these we may add testimonies from Theodoret though he is a bit younger. Before he was Bishop of Cyrus [Editorial Note 45], a city in Syria, (about the year 406) in writing his History of the holy Fathers [Editorial Note 46], he closes the life of each saint with a prayer to obtain the intercession and blessing of that saint. And in the Life of James the Younger. he also narrates how the devil appeared to him in a dream and cried: You should know that I would have killed you long ago, if I had not seen a choir of martyrs protecting you with James. After hearing the voice therefore, as he roused himself together with his partner, he says that he looked around and saw no one; I understood then, he continues, that by Chorus of martyrs he meant the Flask of oil of the martyrs, which since it had a blessing gathered from many martyrs, hung from my bed, and under my head was an old cloak of James the great, which was more powerful in my eyes than a door-bar of adamant. And a little later when he remarks that he had begged James to pray to God for him, he adds that James replied: You do not need me or any other intercessor to God. For you have the famous John, the voice of the Word, the precursor of the Lord, constantly offering prayers here on your behalf. When therefore, continues Theodoret, I said that I both trusted his prayers and those of the other holy Apostles and Prophets, whose relics have been recently passed down to us, he replied, Be of good cheer. You have John the Baptist. The same Theodoret in his book On the cure of Greek maladies gives an excellent description of the position of the Church of his time with regard to this cult, but the passage will be more appropriately cited later.

< text from f 19r resumes >

From the evidence we have given, it can be stated that this superstition spread rapidly throughout the East and the adjacent islands when Valens and Theodosius were Emperors; but we have not yet pinpointed the moment of its origin sufficiently. We will learn this from Gregory Nazianzen. At the beginning of his Oration j. against Julian, he rhetorically invokes the soul of the Emperor Constantius with this qualification, 'if there be any sense in the dead'. Obviously Constantius was not a Martyr, nor was he regarded as a saint by the Homousians, but that Age was already beginning to assert that an Awareness of human affairs was divinely conceded not to all the dead as they have died by the force of nature, but only to the Martyrs and saints. Accordingly Nazianzen proceeded cautiously here. But a little later when he speaks of the Martyrs, he attributes to them both sense and power over human affairs. For after narrating that Julian, before he became Emperor, had unsuccessfully attempted to construct a monument to the Martyrs, but the earth shook down what had been constructed, he continues: Oh, what a novel and wonderful miracle, and yet more true than wonderful! Oh, the magnificent love of the Martyrs one for <20r> another! οὑκ ἐδέξαντο τιμὴν του πολλοὺς μάρτυρας ἀτιμάσοντας, They refused to accept an honour from a man who was about to treat many martyrs with dishonour and disgrace; they refused to accept a gift from a man who was to make many athletes [Editorial Note 47], or rather was to ban them altogether from the gymnasium and the competition out of jealousy; or rather, to speak more truly, they refused to allow insults to be directed against them alone of all the martyrs, since other sacred edifices were to be constructed and revered by pious hands, etc. Compare this with another passage in the same Oration where, rebuking Julian, he says: You did not fear the Martyrs, for whom splendid honours and festivals have been instituted; by whom demons are expelled and diseases cured; of whom appearances and prophecies occur; whose very bodies alone have the same power as their holy souls, whether they are touched or honoured; the very drops of whose blood alone and tiny emblems of their suffering have the same power as their bodies. These things you do not revere but you despise them. Compare, I say, these passages and you will plainly see that when Nazianzen wrote these things, i.e., in the year 363 in the reign of Jovian [Editorial Note 48], he believed that Martyrs both perceive human affairs and can promote or obstruct them, make appearances to men, predict the future, perform various miraculous works, and also that relics have the same powers as holy souls, whether they are touched or honoured. Note that word honoured; for it is evident from this that it is not a private opinion of Nazianzen's own but an incipient custom of Christians that is being described here. Earlier Christians preserved the memories of the Martyrs with honour; but more recent Christians had begun to honour their relics for the sake of blessings and miraculous effects – which is surely something more than invoking their souls as intercessors before God.

Since therefore Nazianzen wrote this Oration immediately after the death of the Emperor Julian, it is certain that these super <21r> stitions began when he was emperor, or rather one or two years earlier; for, as will be explained later, when Hilary returned in the year 362 from the east where he had been in exile, he brought these superstitions with him to the West [Editorial Note 49] Also since Basil and his brother Gregory of Nyssa9 were intimately united by friendship, association and common studies (as is well known to all), and these were the Fathers and Leaders of the Monks throughout Cappadocia and the regions of Asia Minor, when Basil introduced that sect at the time of the death of Constantius; from this we have a clear inference that Basil and his brother and the Asiatic Monks in general, from the moment of their institution, were addicted to these superstitions. But the world at that time admired the ways of the Monks, and very promptly followed the cult they instituted.

This superstition seems to have started at the same time in the Church of Antioch, the Metropolitan Church of the East. For when Sozomen, bk. 5, ch. 20, describes how, as we have said, the Oracle was silent when Julian consulted it in relation to the relics of the martyr, Babylas, and caused the bones to be moved away, and how subsequently the temple and the statue [Editorial Note 50] were consumed with fire, he adds: ἐδόκει δὲ τοις μὲν χριστιανοις κατ᾽ ἄιτησιν του μάρτυρος etc., the Christians thought that this fire was sent down against the Demon by God in response to the prayers of the martyr; but the Pagans insisted that the crime was committed by Christians.


Many obstacles in the meantime have caused me to return the book to your beatitude, translated into the Latin tongue, more slowly than anything – the sudden invasion of the Isaurians, the devastation of Phoenicia and Galilee, the terror of Jerusalem the chief city of Palestine, and the construction not of books but of walls. Jerome, Epistle to Theophilus of Alexandria in the Bibl. S. Patr.

On the death of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, which happened in the year 412, John Damascene tells this incident from the deacon Isidore: for that sin (i.e. that he did not allow the name of John Chrysostom to be read out in Church) Theophilus was not able to breathe his last until the Image of Chrysostom was brought to him, and when he had offered it adoration, he breathed out his spirit. Damascenus, On Images, bk. 3, towards the end. Theophilus succeeded Timotheus in 385. Socrates bk. 5, ch. 12.

[Chrysostom] had a effigy of the Apostle Paul in an Image, in a place where he from time to time used to take a rest because of physical exhaustion; for he use to stay awake longer than nature allows. He fixed the gaze of his eyes on this effigy, as he was reading through his Epistles, and he stayed with his eyes fixed upon him, just as if it was the living Paul himself, calling him blessed and directing the whole concentration of his mind upon him and speaking and conversing with him he gazed. John Damascene, On Images, Oration 1, from his Life of John Chrysostom, which is not extant.

Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne (Epistle 3 in The Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, vol. 2, ch. 19) tells how Pope Sixtus decorated the basilica of the Blessed Mary with sacred Images in golden metals, though in different histories, and how Valentinian, at the request of Sixtus, placed a golden Image of Christ above the Confession of Peter.

The Histories of the martyrs which were fabricated by the enemies of truth, in order in this way to insult the martyrs, and to lead those who should read them into infidelity, we order not to be read out in Church, but to be consigned to the fire; we anathematise those who admit them or pay attention to them as if they were true. Canon 63 of the 6th General Council, held in the year 680.

They print kisses on the clear metal

They scatter balsams, and wet their faces with their tears. Prudentius, To Hippolytus [Editorial Note 51]


It is clear [Editorial Note 52] that by a law of the Twelve tables h[11] it was forbidden to bury a dead body within the walls, although the Spartans, by a law of Lycurgus, decreed that there should be tombs within the city near the temple. – Christians too were constrained by these laws to bury their dead outside the walls. But on the other hand Christians never cremated the bodies of the dead in the manner of the pagans, but preserved them by thickly smearing them with unguents; and when they were thus laid out, they brought them down to the same places as the others; what are now called Cemeteries, were previously commonly called sometimes plots, tombs, catacombs, or sandy crypts, a name derived from the character of the place. But cemetery was more usual; they surely gave this name to the places, because their faith taught them that Christians do not die but fall asleep in God until they rise again. This manner of burying the dead in crypts, in niches excavated in them, seems to have been taken over from the Hebrews. Baronius, year 226. 7,8. Baronius also enumerates 43 such Cemeteries adjacent to the City of Rome. Year 226.9. And under the year 130.2, having mentioned similar subterranean tunnels, which, according to Dio, bk. 69 {εκιονις} the wretched Jews made for themselves as places of concealment; he describes one of those cemeteries in this manner [Editorial Note 54]. What [Editorial Note 55] Dio writes about the passages made by the Jews under the earth obviously present the same form as the cemeteries that were constructed by Christians in the sandy crypts; their use was not only for burying the bodies of the dead from which the name is derived, but also as hiding-places for Christians in the time of the persecutions. Wonderful to say, we have seen and often visited the Cemetery of Priscilla, which was discovered and excavated not long ago in the via Salaria at the third milestone from the city. We could find no more appropriate expression to describe it than underground city because of its great size, and its many diverging roads, since the primary road extends from the entrance which is wider than the others, and it has on either side many other roads, which are again divided into different little streets and passages. Again, as in cities, at regular intervals, there are larger spaces, like squares, for holding sacred meetings, and they are adorned with images of the saints; and there are also here shafts cut through the rock for receiving light from above, though they are now blocked. The City was amazed when it learned that hidden in its own suburbs it has cities which were once colonies for Christians in time of persecution, and are now only filled with tombs; [also what it read in the Chartae, etc.] – But we are going to speak more fully elsewhere about the Cemeteries; this is enough for now in connection with the <23r> hiding-places of the Jews, which they built to escape the assaults and attacks of the Romans; just as such places were constructed by Christians too both at Rome and in other regions where the nature of the place allowed it. Baronius, year 130.2.

Such cemeteries are thus described by Jerome: When I was a boy in Rome, and was being educated in liberal studies, I was accustomed, with others of the same age and situation to do the rounds every Lord's Day of the tombs of the Apostles and martyrs and frequently to enter the crypts, which are excavated in the depths and have the bodies of those buried there ranged along the walls on either side of those who enter there; and everything is so dark that the prophetic saying is almost fulfilled, Let them descend alive into the underworld; and a glimmer of light very occasionally admitted from above tempers the horror of the darkness so that you would call it not so much a window as a shaft of admitted light. Jerome on Ezekiel 40. The same cemeteries are described at length by Prudentius, Hymn 11 to St. Hippolytus.

For the glory of the martyrs, Felix laid it down that every year sacrifices should be performed in their name, and that the sacrifice, which they call the Mass, should be celebrated nowhere but in the sacred spot and by men who were holy initiates. Platina in Felix. [Editorial Note 56]

Trajan surpassed all the emperors in military glory, urbanity and moderation. For he extended far and wide the boundaries of Empire, he restored Germany across the Rhine to its former state, he subdued Dacia and many peoples across the Danube to Roman rule, he subdued the Parthians, he gave a king to the Albanians, he made provinces of the Euphrates and the Tigris, he conquered and held Armenia, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Babylon, he reached the frontier of India and the red sea, in which he also formed a fleet, to lay waste the bounds of India. Platina in the Life of Anacletus.

Augustine, On the True religion, bk, ch. 55. [Editorial Note 57] We should not make a cult of the worship of dead men; because if they have lived piously, they are not regarded as seeking such honours, but they want us to worship him by whose illumination they rejoice that we share in their merit. And below he says the same about the worship of Angels.

Ambrose (before he lapsed) on Romans, ch. 1, is a notable passage demonstrating that the Idolatry of the Papists is similar to that of the Pagans, who said that they approached God through lesser deities.

Nazianzen at the end of his Oration to his sister Gorgonia: <23v> holy souls take some account of our address, they have the gift from God to have knowledge of such things, accept this address of mine instead of many epitaphs. [Editorial Note 58]

We must not suppose that because the Martyrs are present to heal or help certain people, any and all of the dead can participate in the affairs of the living; it is rather to be understood that it is through the power of God that the martyrs participate in the affairs of the living, since in their own nature the dead cannot participate in the affairs of the living. Augustine, his book on Care for the Dead, ch. 16.

Cyprian to Pope Cornelius, bk. 1, Epistle 1.


– participation. Also the universality of this cult at this time

Furthermore, superstitions had so increased in Africa by this time that Altars [Editorial Note 59] were set up everywhere throughout the fields and roads to the memories of martyrs before the year 398; and they were venerated by the people with such affection that when the 5th Council, held at Carthage in this year, wanted a part of them to be destroyed, namely those that had been erected as a result of dreams and fictitious revelations that occurred to certain people, and which contained no body or relics of martyrs buried there, the Council was afraid that this might not be able to be done because of riots among the people, and it therefore decided that the populace should merely be admonished not to frequent those places any more.

It is clear that even before the year 391 Africa had been contaminated throughout by this filth of abominations. For in that year Augustine had just been ordained Priest, and in epistle 64 to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, advising that the banquets which the people everywhere held in the month of March, should be reformed, he says: For [Editorial Note 60] reveling and drunkenness [Editorial Note 61] are regarded as permissible and licit to such an extent – that they are indulged in to honour the blessed martyrs not only on their feast days – but on a daily basis. – This evil is such a great plague that it cannot be fully remedied, it seems to me, without the authority of a council. Or if the remedy were initiated by a single church, just as it seems presumptuous to attempt to change what the Church of Carthage retains, so it is very great impudence to try to preserve what the Church of Carthage has reformed. For this task, what Bishop would be more to be wished for than one who denounced it as a Deacon? But what was lamentable at that time should now be taken away, not brutally – but more by teaching than by commanding, more by admonishing than by threatening. For this is how one has to deal with the mass of sinners. Thus first those who are spiritual or those close to being so, will be aroused, by whose authority and most gentle but – – – – You see the universality and antiquity of this corruption, since Aurelius had vainly deplored it in his Diaconate (i.e., before the year           ), and already it had become so inveterate that it could be reformed only with the greatest difficulty. With what sort of <25r> ceremony these things were celebrated Augustine lets us see well enough in the following. But since, he says, – – – sumptuous. The people so believed, and such banquets therefore were offerings for the dead, and Augustine also believed that the dead are helped by them, and therefore he did not want them to be abolished, but only to be purged of ribaldry and drunkenness. In fact they supposed that these banquets not only benefited the dead but are blessed in return by the martyrs, as Augustine testifies in City of God bk. 8, ch. 27 in these words. All those, he says, who take their banquets there, a practice which by the better[Editorial Note 62] Christians — of the martyrs. These offerings therefore were certainly sacrifices to the martyrs, very similar to the sacrifices among the Pagans to the Idols, those namely which the Apostle describes at 1 Corinthians 8 & 10 and are termed Idolatry. Furthermore Augustine acknowledges that they are sacrifices, though he does not intend them to be sacrifices to the martyrs but sacrifices to God in the name of the martyrs. Hear what he writes to Laurentius. Nor is it to be denied, he says, of the dead – – – they have deserved. And a bit later. Since therefore sacrifices, whether of the Altar or of any kind of alms at all – damnation. [In the same passage he says that the Church practises these [sc. sacrifices] in order to commend the dead. Hence a certain universality of these sacrifices seems to be implied. Augustine does indeed say in very many passages that such revelries have either nev{er} prevailed or have been suppressed, but not those alms that the people offered and distributed with sobriety.] Hence note in passing that the sacrifices of the Mass too began to be celebrated on behalf of the dead.

At Augustine's urging therefore, Aurelius attempted to remedy the malady, but as the extravagancies ceased in those banquets, so also did the more modest offerings, and the Bishops looked askance at this, and in the aforementioned council of Carthage held in the year 398, they drew up this Canon. Those who either refuse altogether, or make some difficulty, about giving offerings to the dead are to be excommunicated as assassins of the poor. And thus reveling and holy drunkenness returned. For this seemed to the Bishops to be more tolerable than that such sacrifices should cease altogether. Now such offerings were made not only to the dead and at the tombs of martyrs, but were also supposed to bring benediction and sanctification from the Martyrs in return, and <26r> thus all who made the offerings had begun to worship the saints already; also the ritual of offerings had already before the year 391 so deeply settled into the minds of Africans that Augustine thought that the gluttonous feasts into which this ritual had at that time already degenerated, could not be easily abolished, but Augustine wanted offerings made with sobriety to continue and all the Bishops restored when they ceased. For these reasons, what could be clearer than that the superstitious cult of the Martyrs before the year 391 had became not only widespread in the minds of the people in Africa but was also to some extent inveterate and had deeply penetrated their minds. This could hardly have happened if it had not been propagated from the time of Constantius, together with the homousian faith of the redivistorum , by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and at the same time generally accepted.

And that this was the situation is very nicely confirmed by a story that Augustine tells in Confessions, bk. 6, ch. 2 about his Mother after she had moved from Africa to Italy. Namely that when she to the memorials of the saints – she was persuaded. Therefore when she understood – – – she had learned. This incident happened [12] in the year 384. These feasts therefore and offerings to martyrs had obtained such a hold in Africa before that time that Augustine's mother thought that the custom prevailed throughout the world, and Augustine himself was surprised that his mother bore it so patiently when she was rebuked. It is also clear enough from this that the same manners prevailed in Italy too. And although Ambrose had already got rid of them from the Diocese of Milan, they continued in the Diocese of the city of Rome, as Baronius infers from

It is also quite clear from Jerome that the same manners prevailed through a pretty large part of the Roman world. He deplores the situation thus in his Epistle to Eustochium: One is ashamed to say it, oh the wickedness! It is sad but it is true. How did this plague of Love Feasts get into the Churches?

From these words it is also clear that this <27r> had crept into the Churches by the time of Jerome. But as you would suppose from the fact that Jerome deplored the plague of Love Feasts, he would also be hostile to the cult of the saints, it is a good idea to extract one or two passages about this matter also.


And although it is very difficult to detect such frauds, after the books of their Opponents have been burned, after the original documents have perished, after almost all traces of fraud have been obliterated by time, we will nevertheless give such instances as we can, so that you may recognise the giant from the footprint.

Eusebius mentions that some letters were written by the aforementioned Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, against Paul of Samosata. One of these, Jerome says, circulated in his time, and he calls it famous. Today there exists such a letter in the Bibliotheca Graecorum Patrum, but I prove <29r> by the following arguments that it is corrupt. It exalts the Virgin Mary with praises beyond the custom of the time of Dionysius, calling her Mother of God and daughter of life. This is beyond the custom of the times of Dionysius, and began to occur in the period of Alexander and Athanasius. Secondly, it states that the form of God, i.e., his internal reason and wisdom, from which he is called rational and wise, is a person distinct from the person of God, which we call the son of God and his word. It says this in the following words. The form of God, it says, is his Word, is wisdom, is the son of God, and is acknowledged to be God himself, ever existing as one person and one hypostasis of a person. These things cannot be so in men. For the reason and wisdom and power and form of a man are those of one man and his parts are not self-subsistent; none of these things is a man nor the son of man. Thus therefore the form of ✝[13] God and his Word cannot be a perfect man, namely a person. But the form of God is God and the son of God, the self-subsistent Word of the Father. And thus the holy fathers have confessed him. And they have taught us to confess and to believe. From the analogy which this makes between the form of man and the form of God, of which he affirms that the former is not self-subsistent, and the latter is, the opinion of the author quite clearly appears; no one would say that it is the opinion of Dionysius, but it is very certain that it is the opinion of Athanasius and his allies. Thirdly, he calls the Son of God the Word of the Father through whom the Father made all things, and whom the holy Fathers called homousion with the Father. But this was foreign to the opinion of Dionysius, as I have shown above, and besides, it is absurd to claim that this was written to the eastern fathers, who condemned the homousion shortly thereafter. Add to this that Paul himself taught that the Word is both the internal form of God the Father, which is asserted above, and homousion with God the Father. How therefore did Dionysius assert these two points against Paul? [and that by the authority of the fathers?] Certainly these things are the points not of someone arguing against Paul, of someone who is advertising opinions foreign to the argument under the name of Dionysius; especially since throughout the whole epistle no teaching of the fathers is cited to confirm the points that they make directly against Paul, but the teaching of the fathers is {adduced} to confirm these two points which are not directed against Paul. <30r> Those teachings from Paul not against him, and besides they are falsely adduced. At that period there was no teaching of ὁμοουσίου, as the learned know, nor did the Fathers teach that Christ was the form of God but in the form of God. Similarly, he was not the form of man, but in the form of man. Therefore either the author or the interpolator of this Epistle here supplied a pretence of tradition for people who did not know the tradition.


On the reception of Arius, Socrates, p. 57 CD 58 [Editorial Note 63]

The Egyptians immediately after the Synod of Nicaea engage in mutual quarrels and seditions among themselves, Eusebius in Socrates, p. 58A. The cause of this, ibid., B.

Eustathius deposed at the Synod of Antioch, Socrates, p. 60, 61. Afterwards Arius is released from Exile, p. 60 AB.

The Meletians were not Arians from the beginning, Sozomen, bk. 2, ch. 21, p. 472 AB [Editorial Note 64]; they were Arians from the beginning, Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 6, p. 14 B & bk. 9, penultimate line, p. 29.

Arius and Euzoius, released from exile, are soon sent to the Council of Jerusalem, Sozomen, p. 485, 486.

Eusebius of Nicomedia is sent from Tyre to Constantinople, Sozomen, 488, Eusebius of Caesarea, [Editorial Note 65] Socrates

Very large crowds at the enthronement of Athanasius, Athanasius, 777 D, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 409 A.

After the Synod of Nicaea the Bishops write various letters back and forth to each other complaining about the word consubstantial, Socrates, p. 58 B. Universal peace however, Eusebius in his Life of Constantine.

Goths Christian at the time of Constantine the Great, Sozomen 451 A.

Eusebius hostile to Constantine because of Licinius.

Election of Athanasius, Philostorgius, bk. 2, ch. 11 [Editorial Note 66]

Constantine's opinion of the Word in Eusebius, 468 A, p. 470 A, 476 B, C, 480A.

Eusebius declared his view of the Word in the presence of Constantine, p. 520 D ff.


... with [Editorial Note 67] his permission they themselves administered, so that they were also provided with great riches, and yet they showed themselves most ungrateful to the Goths their benefactors. He inquired next whether they had suffered an{y} harm at the hands of the Goths; and likewise he compelled them to declare whether they had yet received any good from Justinian. He enumerated one thing after another – how they had been deprived by him of nearly all their magistrates, that they had often been beaten before this by the tax collectors, and that though they were hard-pressed by the war, they still had to pay no less tribute to the Greeks than if they were at peace; etc. Procopius, Gothic War, bk. 3. Then he destroyed a third of their walls. [Editorial Note 68] He took Roman Patricians with him against the Lucanians. All the rest he sent across with their wives and children to places in Campania, and not a single person was left in the City, which he had reduced to complete destitution. – Belisarius with a few men is besieged by Totila, and again the Goths besiege in year 15 and gain possession. In the year 18 they lose it, and that is the end of the war (in the year 26 of Justinian (Agath. [Editorial Note 69]

In the year 556 (P. Diac., [Editorial Note 70] Sindon, Count of the Goths, defected from Narses, and calls on Avingus, an ally of Buccellinus, for help

Sozomen, bk. 7, ch. 24 And when Leaving Constantinople he reached the seventh milestone, he is said to have prayed to God in the Church which he had built in honour of John the Baptist, and begged that the outcome of the war might be favourable and successful for him and the army and all the Romans, and he is said to have invoked the Baptist as his helper,          καὶ σύμμαχον ἀυτου ἐπικαλέσασθαι τὸν Βαπτιστήν.. Having said these prayers, he set out for to Italy


Besides [Editorial Note 71] the result for the Italians was that they all suffered most grievously at the hands of both armies; for they were deprived of their lands by the enemy and of all their movables by the soldiers of the Emperor once he gained control. It also happened that, while they were suffering from the want of necessities, they could be flogged with impunity and completely destroyed. For the very Roman soldiers, though they could not protect their own people from being oppressed by the enemy, were not even then ashamed of their own disgusting actions, but because of their crimes they finally brought it about that the Italians longed for the return of the barbarians.

The Commanders [Editorial Note 72] of the Roman army, and the soldiers too, plundered the property of the subjects, and practised every kind of insult and crime, and held the women they fancied in garrisons, and gave themselves over to lust and drunkenness. But when the very soldiers showed themselves disobedient and defiant towards the Prefects, they fell into every kind of absurdity and wrongdoing. Besides for the Italians – – – – above – – – – suffered. [Editorial Note 73] Procopius, Gothic War, bk. 3, under year 8 of the war in which the Greeks possessed a large portion of Italy.

In year 11 Totila lays siege to Rome in the Spring. In the following year [Editorial Note 74] they were reduced to nettles and dung, and some, overcome with hunger, laid hands upon {themselves}[Editorial Note 75] since they did not find either dogs or mice or any other dead animals of any kind. In year 12 Rome is captured. Up [Editorial Note 76] to five hundred of the common people were found to be left in the city, the rest had betaken themselves out of the city to other parts, or had perished overcome by the pestilence. – Totila [Editorial Note 77] [then] summoned men of the Senatorial order out of the city to meet him, and, reproaching and angrily rebuking them, he blamed them for many other things but especially for the fact that they had been showered by Theoderic and Atalaric with many great benefits, and that always in all things they had been appointed to the urban magistracies throughout the kingdom and had administered the Government. [Editorial Note 78]


[to speak] about the Apocalyptic Dragon {ten} horns [since] they are kingdoms of serpentine evil. it is time]

He calls the fourth Beast the Kingdom | Empire of the Romans – and by ten horns he signifies that it will happen that at about the end of the kingdom ten kings will arise, who will some of them be powerful, some very weak; for he taught this too in the visions of the Image, for there fingers were the name of feet, of which some were iro{n}, some clay. – The small horn which emerges among the ten horns signifies Antichrist. Theodoret on Daniel 7.

The followers of Basil celebrate the day of Christ's baptism by passing the whole of the preceding night in readings. And they say that it is the fifteenth year of Tiberius, the fifteenth of the month Tybus. But some say that it is the eleventh of the same month. And concerning his passion more subtly {illeg} some say the lord suffered in the 16th year of Tiberius on the 25th of Phamenoth, others on the 25th of Pharmuth, others on 15th of Pharmuth. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, bk. 1.

Jerome on Daniel 7, arguing against Porphyry, offers this conclusion about the ten horns of the Beast: Wherefore let us say that all the Writers and Ecclesiastics have taught that at the consummation of the world, when the Kingdom of the Romans is to be destroyed, there will be ten Kings, who will divide the Roman world among themselves, and from whom {illeg} a petty king will arise, who will overcome – and he is the man of sin, the son of perdition, Antichrist.

We [Editorial Note 79] must avoid not only things that are open and manifest, but also things that deceive by the subtlety of fraud. What is cleverer, what is more subtle than that the enemy, detected and prostrated by the coming of Christ, and seeing the idols abandoned and their seats and temples deserted by the too-credulous people, should work out a new fraud, so as to deceive the incautious under the very title of the Christian name? He invented heresies and schisms by which he might undermine faith, corrupt truth, split unity. Those whom he cannot keep in the blindness of the old way, he hoodwinks and deceives by error in the new way. He steals men from the church itself, and as they seem to themselves to have already approached close to the light and to have escaped from the night of the world, he once again envelopes ignorant people in other kinds of darkness, so that although they are not faithful to the Gospel of Christ and observation and his law, they call themselves Christians, and though they walk in darkness, they suppose they have light, because the adversary flatters and deceives them, for he, in the words of the apostle transforms himself as an angel of light <33v> {and asserting faithlessness under the pretext} of faith, and Antichrist {under the name} of Christ, they make a mockery of truth by their craftiness.

Dom. Augustine on the Man of sin in the temple of God, 2 Thessalonians 2.3 [Editorial Note 80], says: Some [Editorial Note 81] insist that what is meant by Antichrist in this passage is not the leader himself but his universal body, i.e., the multitude of men belonging to him, together with himself their leader; and they think that it would be more correct to say in Latin – following the Greek – not he sits in the temple of God, but he sits as the temple of God, as if he himself were the temple of God, which is the Church, as we say 'he sits {as a friend}'. Dom. Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 20, ch. 19. [Greek ἐις τὸν ναος {illeg} [Editorial Note 82] in the sacred scriptures: He chose David as King; let him be for me as a God {illeg} of refuge.

ουκ αρπαγμον ηγησατο [Editorial Note 83]

Antichrist will come when the period {of the Roman} Empire is fulfilled and the consummation of the world approaches. Ten kings of the Romans will be established, ruling in different places indeed but at the same time; and the eleventh {is} Antichrist seizing power over of the Romans by sorcery. He will humble the three kings that come before him, the remaining {illeg} seven he will subject to himself. Cyril [or John] of Jerusalem. Cath{illeg} [Editorial Note 84]

Chrysostom, Homily 7 on 2 Philip. 2. [Editorial Note 85] Critics say that those words 'not robbery' {illeg} mean the same as if he had said 'he did not rob'.

Attila is killed during the consulship of Aetius and Studius, 454 AD. Marcellinus, Chronicon. He conquered almost the whole of Europe by assaulting and destroying cities and forts.

Attila devastated the whole of Illyricum. Jornandes, Regn Success.

When Attila set out to devastate Gaul, he had in his army 700,000 {troops}

The Goths first held Pannonia, then in the 18th year of Theodosius {illeg} they lived in villas and sojourning for 58 years in Thrace the Western Empire of the {Ro}mans. Paulus Diaconus/Paul the Deacon, bk. 14.


So far empty words. Now they produce an argument as if they would rebut the accusations or the fictions of any profane calumniator. But that is rather the reason why they are not fictions. Would the Eusebians, men who were far and away above the others in intelligence, concoct false accusations, which would betray them even as they won the argument. Let the Reader judge whether it is more probable that unbelievable crimes were committed by one person or fabricated by a very large number of people. Moreover False accusers try to make up stories that cannot be shown up by opposing witnesses; but these latter crimes ascribed to Athanasius were said to have been perpetrated in the full view of cities.

723 B [Editorial Note 86] What is this zeal to accuse. In Athanasius in exile, they say, we have seen ourselves as exiles, therefore the Eusebians have punished us all with exile. See 728 A.

725 A

726 B, C

726 D. Why do you make this charge against Eusebius? Did not the Nicene Council transfer Eustathius from the see of Beroea to the see of Antioch? Did not Gregory Nazianzen get all the way from Nazianzus to Constantinople, and was he not confirmed in that see by the Bishop of Alexandria himself?

727 B Excellent argument.

727 C Because they were deposed by Imperial compulsion, but were liberated by the decision of the restored Bishops.

727 A As if it was Eusebius wanting the cities and not the cities wanting Eusebius, a man who was distinguished by the name of "great' even in his own lifetime because of his outstanding wisdom, piety, and virtue, as is clear from the History of Philostorgius and the book of Eusebius of Caesarea against Marcellus [Editorial Note 87]. If therefore the City requested Eusebius, or if the Synod decreed it for the Benefit of the Church, why do the Egyptians rail against him so much?

727 D It was not the Nicene Synod but the false accusations of the Egyptians that condemned those men. And the council of Tyre was larger and freer than the Nicene.

727 D, 728 A.

728 C But with what argument except that they acquitted the Arians of your false charges?

728 C Surely you are describing every one of the bishops as driven by hostile remarks and abuse to incite riots and escape justice, and putting aside all modesty you here describe here your own turbulent manners. Notwithstanding your accusation, Eusebius could be innocent, and Gorgius can be judged by the Synod.


728 D. It is your manners that have made these things inevitable, because of your ecclesiastical rashness. And you call the suppression of your accusations and quarrels silence.

728 D. They achieved what they sought by excommunicating Athanasius, so that he would not live in Alexandria lest he excite riots. If you bring charges, you will be false accusers; if you find fault with these measures, you find fault also with yourselves since you perpetrated the same things against Arius. That Athanasius has deserved greater punishment, is not the fault of the Synod but of Athanasius.

729 A

729 line 16. Whence you learn this / How do you know this?

729 D

730 B. But deceived by the fraud of Athanasius, and the error finally against the decisions of the congress. Why therefore do you cite the Letter of the Emperor which he himself withdrew after he had finally examined the issue? Is your cause so desperate that you need such testimonies?

730 C. 3 What the Nicene Council was like when the Emperor presided, etc.

730 C 6. How far will this impudence go? Those who were summoned to Caesarea refused to come. They were barely compelled by the commands of the Emperor to come to Tyre in the end, and yet they criticise the Synod, because they were compelled by the command of the emperor and not simply summoned by the Bishop's command.

730 C 12. Because of your disobedience. You were not willing to meet otherwise. But why do you object to edicts, since the Nicene Synod was in agreement with old edicts.

730 D Ask rather why Caesar retracted his own verdict. For Emperors are not wont to recall their decrees for frivolous reasons.

731 D last line.

731 A. 13 – Nor was Athanasius ashamed of having broken the cup and overturned the table in the presence of Catechumens and Pagans.

731 B A Smart argument. Sacred things are not to be thrown to the dogs, therefore the Pagans and catechumens who were there when Athanasius broke the chalice, overthrew the table and destroyed the Church, are not to be interrogated about those matters.

732 BC Again an inept argument. He was not ordained by Meletius, nor by Colluthus, therefore he was not ordained. Despite the fact that many people apart from the followers of Colluthus and Meletius avoided Communion with Athanasius, for example bishop Callinicus about whom

731 D. 732 C. After the Church had been destroyed, what other buildings could Ischyras live in except private houses? But the followers of Athanasius, though they have not dared to deny in open terms that the Church was destroyed, conceal that part of the accusation, and pass over it in silence; in thus speaking about the private <35r> house of a certain Ision in which Ischyras gathered his congregation after the {destr}uction of the church, they would never themselves have heard of the other Church which the Accusers said had been destroyed, but the broken cup would be said to have been smashed in the house of Ision which had not been destroyed.

732 About the lord's day and the time appointed for performing the sacred rites elsewhere.

733 A. Does it follow from the fact that the Synod wanted to learn the truth with its own {eyes} even at that stage, that therefore Ischyras could not have proved anything at Tyre, and was regarded as a false accuser? Nay further, from the fact that the Bishops who went to Mareotis discovered that what {illeg} the Witnesses brought forward at Tyre said was true, does it follow that Ischyras really proved his charges at Tyre sufficiently for the condemnation of anyone in a civil court, and that the Synod only started a further examination because of the contrary hostile clamours of the Athanasians?

733. A. If you are good and orthodox, you teach these things rightly; but if you are wicked and Sabellian, improperly. {For} the wicked man thinks that no one is more opposed to him than a good man. But the Synod delegated these men not to satisfy you but to satisfy themselves. Nor is there any doubt that you who raised objections against each one of the Fathers, would have insisted that anyone but people in your faction should be rejected.

733 14 How were the men sent out in secret whom the whole Synod had decided to send in your presence?

733 B What witnesses are more worthy of credence than some of the Bishops? But a passion for cavilling is marvellously evident throughout your whole letter.

733 C Ischyras went to Mareotis not as an accuser but as an {informant} about the witnesses. The case was heard at Mareotis, and accordingly Athanasius was not required at Mareotis nor anyone else to plead his cause there. He was seeking judgement from the witnesses produced at Tyre and not from the people of Mareotis, except in so far as the evidence of earlier witnesses received greater strength from their agreement. However six Bishops were legitimate witnesses of what they had seen and heard at Mareotis and had declared at Tyre in the presence of Athanasius.

733 C 10 In his abuse an abuser actually depicts no one but himself.

733 D By your eagerness therefore to cavil about the witnesses, so that everyone except people from your faction would be rejected, you attempted to be present, and accordingly you were deservedly rejected in order to avoid disturbances.

734 A. Hence it is clear that you vomited out whatever came into your mouth.


734 C D. Were these things done in the hopes {illeg} when the Bis{hops} {illeg} and at the very time at which the virgins {illeg} and brothers were taking their meal, having got together a crowd they suddenly invaded the inmost parts of the house to inflict violence on the Bishops? [Editorial Note 88] For what business had virgins and brothers {illeg} with the house in which the Bishops were relaxing? Why need soldiers with swords except to suppress a riot? The circumstances speak for themselves. Why were Virgins and brothers beaten with sticks and clubs unless because they were authors of sedition? And yet you who should {ex}ecrate seditious people and depose them with the thunderbolt of excommunication, you celebrate them as ho{ly and} pious persons, and treat the repression of sedition as persecution. The Reader may see therefore what kind of following Athanasius had already established when 80 Bishops not only do not fear to indulge quietly in sedition but do so in an open publication.

735 A. When the six Bishops were despatched to Mareotis, the Egyptian Bishops who were in Tyre wrote to the rest of the Bishops and among others to Alexander; and he alone, as is clear, moved by their complaints, gave the letter to the Council. But what does a letter which Alexander himself will soon retract in subscribing the condemnation of Athanasius do {rhoribum}

735 BC We have shown elsewhere that the epistle of Ischyras was made up by the Presbyters of Mareotis.

735 D The Emperor at that time seized on any excuse to find fault with the followers of Meletius, nor could he bring himself fully to hear the case; and if he had not afterwards been satisfied in this matter, he would certainly not have permitted the case to be settled. Evidently, both of them, Athanasius as much as Macarius, were always being accused of this crime, though not by all the witnesses. Of those who came from Pontus some could see and observe Athanasius, others Macarius, and others both of them. And both could have overturned the table and at the same time smashed the cup set upon it, because it was made of glass.

735 D 2 What truth exactly, etc.

736 A S. John confessed why Ischyras too does not make up similar things. The Emperor had banished John because of accusations; John therefore finally writes that he is willing to yield to the Emperor and communicate with Athanasius; and thus he was restored to his own, but it is freely admitted by the Egyptians that he acknowledged a degree of false accusation here. See

737 B

738 A No one hates to write what he does not hate to say; But those who do not dare, they speak in a public letter, betray their zeal.


Abbot Dorotheus. Didymus the Blind. Virgo Pitirum. Innocentius performed one miracle or were revealed to have declared one

Moses was troubled by lust. Pacon was tempted for 40 Years, and in the last twelve years it was on a daily basis. Elias p. 99. Anonymus, p. 123, 124. Evagrius, p. 187 ff. Philoromus

They narrated their miracles

Didymus the Blind, Elias, Copres

Those who are famous for miracles (i.e., either by curing diseases or banishing demons or by prophecy or by all these things:1 Ammon, whose soul Antony saw carried into the heavens, p. 30. 2) {Ir} in the reign of Const and Valens [not Pambo]. 3) Ammonius. 4) Benjamin. 5) Macrius junior. 6) Nathanael. 7) Macarius of Egypt. 8) Macarius of Alexandria healed such a huge multitude of people who were troubled by Demons that it is impossible to number them, he also cured diseases, etc. And he did other miracles. [7) When Macarius of Egypt was 40 years old, he received power against spirits and the grace of healing and the spirit of prediction of the future.] 8) Antony said to him: Lo, the holy spirit has come to rest, you will be henceforth the heir of my virtues. 9) The monk Moses was found worthy of grace against demons, and is numbered among the great men. 10) Paul the simple expelled a ferocious Demon, and performed other considerable miracles. 11) Stephanus was endowed with the power of discernment [Editorial Note 89] and received this grace that whenever anyone approached him, whatever trouble that person was afflicted with, he went away free of it. He was known to Antony. 12) The Virgin Piamoun[Editorial Note 90] was found worthy of the grace of prediction of the future. 13) Pachomius was found worthy of prediction of the future and angelic visions. 14) After John had spent 30 years in the life of solitude, he was found worthy of the grace of prediction of the future <36v> in particular he predicted everything to the Emperor Theodosius. 14) A certain anonymous monk was precious to God both for his virtues/powers and for the effectiveness of his miracles. 15) The monk Be performed some miracles. 16) As Theonas performed a very large number of miracles, he was regarded by the people as a prophet. For a multitude of sick people came out to him, and he laid his hands on them through the window and sent them away healed. 17) Elias/Elijah in the time of the emperor Theodosius had passed seventy years in the desert. They said that the spirit of Elias/Elijah rested upon him. He performed many signs every day, and he never stopped healing the sick. 18) Apollo: his works were great, and the lord performed great miracles through him, and many signs and wonders were done by him. When, in his eighties, he assembled a great monastery of perfect men (to the number of about five hundred), angelic food was brought to them. No one can tell all the signs and powers on account of wonders and miracles, as we have heard them from the old men who were with him, who themselves too were perfect men and were in charge of many brothers. He was celebrated as a new Prophet or Apostle. His every prayer was immediately answered by God. Moreover he received some revelations. 19) Copres performed many powerful miracles, healing diseases and performing many cures & Demons and effecting many things and even some before our own eyes. 20) Besides other miracles, Hellen many a time carried fire in his arms, while inciting the brothers who were near him to show signs. 21) The other John surpassed all the monks in miraculous powers. He bestowed benedictions on the sick, and they were immediately freed. 22) Of Paphnutius endowed with virtue, many men told many stories. [Some Monks saw the soul of Abbot Anuph carried up to the heavens by Angels and Choirs of martyrs singing hymns, p. 158]. Paphnutius saw the soul of Protocomes taken up by angels. Then certain Presbyters saw Paphnutius taken up among the Choirs of just men and Angels

23) Apollonius exhibited a great many many miraculous powers and outstanding actions. 24) Among the monks of Nitria we have seen many great Anchorites, who surpassed each other in miraculous powers. 25) In the Thebaid we have seen the Monastery of the great Isidore, which held within it a thousand monks. The Presbyter who kept the gate told me that the holy men who are within are such that they can all bring about signs and that no one falls sick before death, but <37r> when the time of each one's translation arrives, he signifies it beforehand to everybody, and then lies down and goes to sleep. 26) Ammon constantly saw visions. 27) John in Diolcus, father of Monasteries, performed miracles and cures, healing many paralytics and people suffering from gout. 28) Pityrion, disciple of Antony and father of many monks, performed many miracles and effectively expelled spirits. 29) Eulogius received such great grace of knowledge that he knew the mind of every one of the monks who came to him. 30) There are a great many things about Possidonius of Thebes and they are difficult to tell. I do not think I have ever met such a man. I lived with him for one year in Bethlehem, and I saw his many powers. Palladius then proceeds to narrate some of his miracles. 31) Moses of Lybia was held worthy of the gift of healing. 32) Paphnutius Cephala had the gift of knowledge of the divine scriptures, although he had not read them. And he was so modest that he concealed his prophetic power. 33) Julian from the region of Edessa was, at the end of his life, held worthy of the grace of healing. 34) Abbot Sisinnius, a Cappadocian, obtained grace against demons. 35) We have also seen other fathers too and monks throughout the whole of Egypt performing many miracles and signs which we do not remember because there are so many of them, but we have told a few of the many. What would anyone say about the Upper Thebaid which is around Syene, in which there are very wonderful men and an infinite multitude of monks whose manner of life one would not believe in that it is beyond the bounds of human life, who even raise the dead in our own day and walk on the waters as Peter did, and whatever the Saviour effected through the holy Apostles, they too now do. But because there was great danger threatening us if we crossed the Lycus because of an irruption of highway robbers, we did not dare to see those holy men. For we did not see the aforesaid fathers without danger.

Endowed with a prophetic spirit Ammon healed a boy who was frenzied with madness, and without a boat he crossed the river Lycus in an ecstasy transported by an Angel, and he did many other things. Antony saw his soul carried up to heaven by angels. 2) Abbot Or: An angel appeared to him saying: Those who shall be saved by you shall be ten thousand, and if you benefit so many, they will obey you in the world to come. He was at first illiterate, later he received grace from God and recited the scriptures from memory. he subsequently he read like one skilled in letters. He had also received the grace of expelling demons, so much so that many of those who were suffering, shouting out even against his will showed his life <37v> and he did not cease to perform other cures. 3) Prophecies are attributed to Ammonius. 4) When Benjamin had practised virtue at the highest level, he was found worthy of the grace of healing, so much so that any suffering person on whom he laid his hands or to whom he gave oil that he had blessed, was freed from all distress. 5) The younger Macarius was worthy of so much grace that he spurned demons who were assailing his solitude. 6) Nathanael wrestled with a Demon who took on various shapes, and overcame him. 7) Macarius of Egypt was said to be constantly in ecstasy and the greater part of the time was either with the ... of God or among the heavenly things.

Palladius, Bishop of Cappadocia in the reign of Theodosius went to Egypt to visit the habitations of the Monks in the deserts, and whatever he saw or heard narrated by the Monks who lived there he later wrote up for Lausus. Telling of their various miracles he says [e.g. gifts of prophecy, and of healing diseases and casting out demons, their struggles with demons who took on various forms, their power over Beasts, Dragons, Crocodiles, Hyenas and other monsters, and against the violence of fire and the spells of magicians] they predicted future events, they knew things that were happening far away, they saw into the hearts of men, they healed all kinds of diseases, they raised the dead, they cast out Demons, they wrestled with demons who took on various forms and appeared very frequently, they repelled the spells of magicians, they changed the shapes of men into Dragons, Crocodiles, Hyenas and other beasts, they exercised power, with their prayers they slew huge Dragons and fearful Monsters that were devastating the fields, they withstood fire without harm, they restored barren Lands to fertility, they made water to spring from arid lands, they multiplied Food, they conferred with Angels, they had visions of heaven, they saw the souls of deceased brethren carried away by angels into heaven. And other such things. It would take a book to report every single miracle. Let it suffice to report the general nature of some of them.

Performers of miracles were James, Bishop of Nisibis, who participated in the council of Nicaea, Julian in Osroene in the reign of Constantius and Valens, Marcianus, the teacher of Simeon, Symeon the ancient who, at the time when Theodoret was writing, had lived for 50 years in the desert, Palladius, Abraames, Aprates in the reign of Valens, Peter, Theodosius, Antiochenus, also Romanus, Zeno, Macedonius, Maesyinas, Acepsemnas, Maro, another James, Thalassius, Polychronius, another Symeon, Thalelaeus. These are in Theodoret, in his Lives of the Holy Fathers [Editorial Note 91]


We have now surveyed the Writers and the western regions, and we have seen that everyone fell into these pagano-christian superstitions at this time. In conclusion we shall add other testimony in which the state of the whole of the West may be surveyed at a glance. This is from the hymn of Prudentius to the Eighteen martyrs of Caesaraugusta, where we read as follows:

When God – –

– – – the whole of you will follow. [Editorial Note 92]

You see here the principal cities in each of the regions of the West, Italy, Gaul, Spain and Africa enumerated with the names of the holy men whom they summoned to be their Patrons. And just as Alexandria put itself forward as the leader of the East and as the Mother City/Metropolis on this account, as Chrysostom puts it, so in the West Rome is acknowledged to have surpassed all other cities in this function. And although he says that the eighteen martyrs of Caesaraugusta could scarcely be surpassed in number by the Romans, it is clear from his other poems that this is spoken poetically. For example in the Hymn to the Blessed Laurence, he says:

Not well-known is the story of how full Rome is of buried saints, how richly her city's soil blossoms with holy tombs. [Editorial Note 93]

And in the Passion of the martyr Hippolytus to Bishop Valerian:

We have seen innumerable ashes of the saints in the City of Romulus, O Christ, – whose names Christ alone knows. [Editorial Note 94]

If you compare this with what has been quoted above from Damasus, Bishop of this city, you will see that a very great number of these monuments were built by him and furnished with inscriptions by which the cult of the men buried there was commended to the people. [And what the City of Rome embraced as holy and pious under this man's auspices, the other cities promptly followed, so that they would not seem less religious or out of step with the religion of the Apostolic see, and they counted themselves blessed in proportion to the number and dignity of the saints whose relics they could acquire.] and thus though this <38v> cult started under Liberius, it was very much enlarged under the Auspices of Damasus. And what the City of Rome embraced ash holy and pious, the other cities promptly accepted, so that they would not seem less religious or out of step with the religion of the Apostolic See, from which they received the faith of the homousion, which was restored at this very time.

Let this then be regarded as established that Alexandria among the Easterners and Rome among the Westerners were the true prize in this matter, and served for the whole world as the two Mother cities of superstition, being certainly stocked with the largest number of relics and the greatest collection of Patrons, if not also the earliest. For Alexandria built up this cult by passing relics to the whole of the world, as you have heard, and one may infer that Rome introduced them to the cities of the West from the fact that Milan, the second city of the West, lacked almost all relics before the discovery of the bodies of Gervasius and Protasius which happened after the death of Damasus in the year 38{illeg} [Editorial Note 95], and that relics and patrons are mustered and furnished for certain other cities at this time when Rome was stacked with them. And certainly if the city of Rome had not taken the lead, the whole of the West would not have accepted this cult so eagerly on the authority of any other city apart from the fact that that proud city, under the name of the Apostolic see and guardian of tradition, was accustomed to lead and not to be led, and tended to impugn anything that came along that diverged from her own customs, so that she would not appear to be receiving laws.

We have now seen the state of both Empires, and we have not only have surveyed the writers, but also each of the regions. And now if I try to form some general description of this century, by bringing together all that has been said, I do not see how that can be better done than through the words of Theodoret, a very wise man and Author of an Ecclesiastical History. Since he flourished at about this time, being made Bishop of Cyrus in the year 422, <39r> he may also be adduced as the firmest witness of the customs imported into the Church in this century. In bk. 8 of his On the Cure of Greek Maladies he writes as follows:

I have written out this passage from Theodoret rather fully because it excellently expresses the customs of this time. And now in order that everything I have put forward may be made clearer, I would like to complete my account of the condition of this age with certain general observations, and then to discuss the nature of the charges.


The Synod of Nicaea was summoned in the consulship of Paulinus and Julianus, on the 11th day before the Kalends of June (Socrates, bk. {illeg}, at the time when the Vicennalia [Editorial Note 96] of Constantine was taking place (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, bk. 3, ch. 14 and bk. {illeg}, ch. 47). According to Atticus (in Baronius, year 325.8) it lasted from the 18th Day before the Kalends of Ju{ly} until the Kalends of September.

Before the council of Nicaea many Bishops accepted the view of Eusebius (Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 2). All of those at the beginning outside of Egypt and Libya who disclosedtheir opinions (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Epistles of Arius)

In his first Epistle Alexander falsely accuses Eusebius; he says that Arius states that the son is one of the creatures, and offers an unskilful rebuttal of Arius' opinion. Then Eusebius in another letter reproaches Alexander with error by showing that Arius states that the son is not one of the creatures. Alexander however in his second letter (where he seethes with anger and disgusting abuse) (a circulatory letter) declares that Arius denies the divinity of our Saviour and proclaims him to be in no way superior to the rest of mankind. (See Baronius under the year 318.) And he has ensnared many men in this lie,

Alexander calls the son and the Holy Spirit intermediaries, only-begotten by nature, between the Father and the creatures, through which | whom the father created all things. Baronius, 318.81. Check the Greek. He adds however later that he differs from the father in one thing alone, that he is begotten. He does not explicitly say that the holy Spirit is God, etc. See vol. 2 of the Council.

Constantine in his first letter (sent through Osius to Egypt (Socrates bk. 1, ch. 4) blames both Alexander and Arius (Eusebius in {Life of Constantine}, and both of them replied to Constantine (Epiphanius, Heresies, 69), but the letters are not extant. Then whether because of Alexander's accusations or because Arius, elated by the multitude of those who agreed with him, replied to Constantine in a letter which was written with too much boldness and was not sufficiently submissive to so great an Emperor, or for some other reason, Constantine took the side of Alexander and wrote a general Epistle to the whole Roman world which was composed in an elegant, popular and expansive style of wiring against Arius and his supporters, which he took pains to have widely distributed, so that it might have an impact in every single city (Epiphanius, Heresies, 69, Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 6 ad fin.); one may see this Epistle, published from the Vatican Library, in Baronius under the year 319, §6 ff.       In this epistle the Emperor among other things addresses Arius as follows: We have a multitude, you say. I myself therefore will come nearer as a small man, though I have been accustomed to settling wars between raging men. – Behold, you say, I come again as a suppliant; and I refuse to fight, though I am overwhelming in force of arms. But fortified by my faith in Christ, I wish to heal you and others. And yet relying on what resources or on what extent of rashness? O audacity deserving to be struck down by thunderbolts! – But you will say that a great number of men act with you, and lighten your cares. Listen, wicked Arius, and recognise your madness. For I will clearly demonstrate from very ancient writings this insanity of yours, which was prefigured and foretold about three thousand years ago by the Erythraean [Editorial Note 97], for thus she spoke: Woe to you, Libya, set beside the sea; for there will come to you a time when, together with your peoples and your daughters, you will be compelled to endure a great and {cruel} and very difficult struggle, from which a judgement of faith and piety will flow out to all men. But you are on the slippery slope towards final destruction; for you – of heavenly flowers {illeg} [Editorial Note 98] <40v> for I have your letter, which you wrote with an insane pen, in which you assert that the whole people of Libya evidently agree with you for salvation. But if you deny that these things [the prophecy] are so, I now call God as my witness that I am sending to Alexandria the ancient writing-tablets of the Erythraean written in Greek so that you may more swiftly perish. – [And after a good deal more he continues] – But I return to this point that you boast of a multitude, etc. From this it is clear (since even Constantine concedes the point) that a multitude favoured Arius.

Meanwhile from the West Osius comes to Constantine from Pope Silvester, and by chance he met Arius. Then he proceeds to Alexandria, and there a Council is convened against Arius, whose Proceedings have perished (Athanasius, Apology 2), but when the authority of the Patriarchs did not prevail against the multitude of Bishops (Sozomen, bk. 1, ch. 10), the Emperor proclaimed a Council at Nicaea to be buttressed by his own authority, and the Patriarchs encouraged him to convene this Council (Baronius, 325.13). 318 Bishops assembled (Athanasius, Epistle to the Emperor Jovian and Dispute against the Arians, Epiphanius, Heresies, 69 and in Anchora. [Editorial Note 99], Hilary's Book against Constantius, and others in Baronius 325.18. Osius (as the primary legate of the Bishop of Rome held the first place (Baronius 325.20), then Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch and Macarius of Jerusalem (ib., 20, 21), etc.

Constantine hears about the controversy over Arius soon after the war with Licinius (Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius, Oration of Constantine to the Council of Nicaea, which is also found in the Life of Constantine, bk. 2, ch. 63 and bk. 3, ch. 11) [Editorial Note 100], and as soon as the dissension reached his ears he did not neglect the report, but desiring to find a remedy by his own strenuous effort, he summoned the fathers to the Council without delay (Constantine, Oration to the Nicene Council, which is found in the life of Constantine, bk. 3, ch. 11.

At the convention at Nicaea [when the teaching of Arius was read] all the Bishops who were present closed their ears against those words, Athanasius, Against the Arians, Baronius, under the year 325.64. In addition, the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia was torn in the sight of all (Eustathius in Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 8), and quite a few of the supporters of Arius himself condemn the doctrine through fear of exile (Eustathius, ibid.)

The Bishops demanded that Arius and his followers should render an account of what they had said and prove that they were not impious. But they had barely opened their mouths to speak when they were immediately rebuked – and they also fought among themselves, were forthwith rendered speechless by the perplexity of their acknowledged heresy,, and by their very silence betrayed the enormity of their views. Athanasius, Epistle against the heretical Arian decrees. See Sandius. [Editorial Note 101]

Since the Synod was intent on abolishing the impious language of the Arians and desired to make use of words which without controversy belonged to the sacred scriptures; namely that he is the son and in no way is from non-existent things but is from God, and he is the word and Wisdom and by no means a created thing or creature, but *[15][14] the very own offspring of his father; the Eusebians insisted that the expression 'from God' should be applicable also to men, and that Christ does not differ from us at all in that regard – Then the Fathers were compelled, now that their fraud had been detected, to explain in clearer words what it is to be 'from God' and to write that the Son is of the substance of God. Athanasius, Epistle against the heretical Arian decree. [Editorial Note 102], where there is much more of this. That is, since the Fathers could not affirm the Opinion of Alexander from the scriptur{es}, they preferred to desert the scriptures rather than leave Arius uncondemned.

Their Leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia, read out his letter saying: If we truly, he declares, <41r> maintain that the son of God is uncreated, we {con}ceive we are confessing that he is Homousion, consubstantial, with the Fat{her}. When this epistle was read in the Nicene Council, {they proclaimed}, as if they had unsheathed their swords, that they must amputate the very head of the wicked heresy, Ambrose, On the Faith, to the Emperor Gratian, bk. 3, final chapter. Thus you see these fathers took the word not from tradition but from Eusebius's letter, in which though he urged it as a consequence from Alexander's doctrine which he thought so far from the sense of the Church that even they themselves would not admit of it, yet they chose it for it's being opposite of Arius. On the use of this word see Athanasius in the Epistle decr in the Nicene Council against the Arian heresy.

See the Nicene Creed in Athanasius To Jovian on the Faith, and Basil, epistle 78, and Synod of Chalcedon, Proceedings 2, on the words of the substance and consubstantial which are used there.

St. Basil admits that the controversy about the holy spirit was not started until after the Nicene Council, for after rehearsing the Nicene Creed, this is how he continues: Since therefore in this statement of faith various issues were determined with proper diligence, some for the correction of wrongs, others to guard against things which could arise in the future, but the sentence about the holy spirit was inserted in passing without any diligence, because that question had not yet been raised, but so that there might be an understanding of this in the minds of believers which was secure and not exposed to any insidious assaults; but gradually perverse seeds of impiety developed; which were first sown by Arius, the author of the heresy, but afterwards were nourished by those who took up the impious falsehoods of Arius for the ruin of the Churches. Basil, epistle 78. On the same sentence likewise St. Jerome, against the objection which was made on behalf of Origen: Certain people persistently say: How shall we condemn those whom the Nicene Synod did not touch? For the verdict which condemned Arius would undoubtedly also have condemned Origen, if it had rejected his doctrine. And the majesty of the holy spirit is to be denied simply because there was silence about his substance in that Synod. The question at that time was about Arius, not about Origen; about the son, not about the holy Spirit; They professed what was denied, they were silent about what no one was asking. Jerome, Epistle 65, Baronius, 325.75.

How Eusebius Pamphilus first {inherited. But he might be able} {illeg} <41v> {rath}er he would have inquired and concluded from their arguments, namely that 'of the substance of the father' and 'consubstantial with the Father' mean simply that he was {not} from nothing but was from the father, not however in the manner of a body derived from a body, i.e. not as a part that had been detached, not by division of substance, nor by defection or change of the essence and faculty of the father; for the inherent nature of the father is utterly alien to all of these; and this 'being consubstantial with the Father' shows simply that the son of God has no similarity with the rest of the creatures, but is exactly similar to the one Father who begat him, and not begotten from any other essence and substance than that of the Father. And this is from the judgements proclaimed in the Council in the presence of the Emperor. Thus too it approved the 'begotten not made', because 'made' applies to the creatures that were made by him with which the son has no similarity, but he is of a more excellent substance than any creature is endowed with, a substance which is begotten from the father. [Therefore this is how Eusebius understood the arguments and discussions of the Council as if they stated that the son is a substance generated not from nothing but from the substance of the father, not however in the manner of a body derived from a body, i.e., not by division of substance, etc. as above]. He assented also to the condemnation of the expression that the Son of God arose from nothing and there was a time when he was not, because these expressions tend to create confusion and discord for the Church, since they are not in the Holy Scriptures. And he immediately wrote to the congregation he was in charge of that these things were so, so that they would not be disturbed by his subscription. Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 5.

Concerning the elaboration by the Nicene Council of Glory to the Father and | through the son and | in the Holy Spirit, see Baronius under the year 325, 173 to 176.

All the Nicene fathers subscribed except five (Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 5), but more are excluded in Sandius.

It is agreed that the Nicene Council decreed, first, that the son is not the same numerical substance but is substance from substance, 1) because ὁμοούσίος means not numerically the same but of the same or similar substance; 2) because Eusebius Pamphilus so understood it, as above, in writing to His own people; 3) because in his letters Alexander {seems} to posit similar essences and a son who is the image of the father's substance(Hebrews 1), [Editorial Note 103] and otherwise distinguishes their substances. 4) Because the Fathers posited God of God, for the idea of God comprehends the idea of substance. Secondly, that the Fathers also did not suppose that the son was equal to the father, I infer from the following: 1) Because 'consubstantial' was wont to be used of unequals as readily as of equals, for 1) the word is transferred from corporeal things to incorporeal, and in corporeal things it can signify two things which are similar and of the same material though very unequal. Thus too Tertullian calls the son consubstantial with the Father, judging that he is a portion of his substance, Against Praxeas, and Irenaeus calls all the creatures consubstantial with him, and there are also some who are already insisting that human souls are not from nothing but are rays or particles of the divine light, i.e., consubstantial with the Father. Wherefore, although they meant that the son was consubstantial in a more perfect sense, it is still not necessary that by 'consubstantial' the Fathers meant coequal. 2) Although they interpreted it in this way later, nevertheless in the Council they gave it its proper sense. 3) Because Constantine stigmatises the controversy as futile and merely philosophical. This he would not have done, if it had been about the equality of the son. 4) Eusebius Pamphilus would not have subscribed it. 5) Because no mention was made of equality, despite the fact that this word has a more certain meaning, is more obvious, more accessible <42r> to the understanding of the Mass of people, and not so foreign to the scriptures. 6) Because they defined {him} as God, i.e., not numerically the same god but another God generated from another gener{ated} God. Hence it is necessary that the son be subordinated, so that the word 'God' may not be spoken univocally {illeg} of both, or that two Gods be asserted. 7) Alexander himself, although that the son differs from the father in this that he is generated from the father, nevertheless from the received understanding of the Church he was compelled to moderate his view by acknowledging that the son is a middle nature interposed between the Father and the creatures. And he says that the image of the son should embrace all those things by which the exemplar itself, which is greater, may be more perfectly expressed - just as the Lord himself taught, the Father is greater than me. Alexander, Epistle to the Nicene Council, vol. – The Council Whence.

Thirdly, by ουσιάν the Nicenes mean not substance as if the father were composed of a substance and a person but the whole father. For 'from the father' and 'from the usia of the father' are the same thing according to the understanding of the Council.

Seven months after the council was over, Alexander dies (Theodoret, bk.1, ch. 26, Athanasius, Apology, 2) and Athanasius succeeds him. The Arians accused Athanasius on the ground that by seven only only Bishops secretly ordained him contrary to the wishes of the rest, and for this reason many in Egypt, both clerical and lay, avoided communion with him. Sozomen, bk. 1, ch. 16, Athanasius Apology 2, near the beginning), and many too accused Athanasius to the Emperor of sedition, riot, imprisonment, beatings, wounds unjustly inflicted, and killing, but Athanasius placated the Emperor by saying that it was they who were the authors of the sedition and they did not firmly adhere to the faith of Nicaea (Sozomen, bk. 2, ch. 21)

All the Arians communicated with the followers of Alexander after the Nicene Council, Sozomen bk. 2, ch. 30. However the supporters of Meletius and perhaps others did not recognise the Council.

Eusebius [five months after the death of Alexander, as he says a little earlier) enters into an alliance with the Meletians; and they set up an agreed timetable with each other for managing things. For this reason he first writes a hortatory letter to us about accepting Arius – then he induces Constantine to write to me with threats that I should expect to continue suffering what I was suffering now and previously, if I did not accept Arius, and part of the letter is as follows: You shall afford unhindered acceptance to all who ask to enter into the Church. And if you prohibit anyone at all, who wishes to participate, or if you exclude anyone from entry, I will immediately send men with my instructions to depose you and deport you to another place. – Athanasius, Apology, 2. Baronius 327. 1, 4.

Constantia, the widow of Licinius, Sister of Constantine, as she was dying, persuaded her brother that Arius and his companions were innocent, and that she cared nothing for herself as she was leaving this world, but she was anxious about her brother's position, lest perchance he should suffer the destruction of his kingdom because of penalties inflicted on innocent persons, and so she commends to him a certain Presbyter, from whom he might hear the whole thing. Disturbed by these warnings, he leant an ear to the presbyter, and meanwhile orders Arius to be summoned back from exile (Ruffinus, bk. 1, ch. 11, Jerome to Ctesiphon).

Athanasius receiving Constantine's letter in support of Arius, conciliates the Emperor, then Eusebius and the Meletians, taking umbrage at this, bring charges against Athanasius in order to eject him and bring in Arius (Baronius, 327.5)

With [Editorial Note 104] what a furore [in the council at Nicaea], since he was convicted by his own conscience, and with what shamefulness, since his lies had been detected on all sides, did Eusebius first attempt to suborn some individuals to petition me on his behalf, and then sought assistance from me, so that he would not be ejected from his high position, though condemned for so great a crime – he perverted {my} judgement and shamefully diverted me from the truth. For at that time everything was done according to his own way of thinking, and he still held a highly dangerous infection hidden within the secret chambers of his own mind. And first <42v> {not to mention} the other deeds of his wickedness, listen, I beg you, to the crime which he schemed to {perpetrate} with Theognis. As it happened, I had ordered certain Alexandrians who had defected from our faith to be sent here, since their actions had kindled the flame of dissension. But these honest men, good men forsooth and bishops, who were reserved by the true judgement of the Council to do penance, not only admitted them to their company, but also shared in their depraved manners. For which reason I gave an order that these ingrates be removed from their sees and sent into exile as faraway as possible. Baronius under the year 328. Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 20. Amphion and Crestus succeeded Eusebius and Theognis in Nicomedia and Nicaea. (Athanasius, Apology, 2). Eusebius and Theognis are accused of having surreptitiously deleted their names which they had subscribed to the Nicene declaration of faith. Sozomen, bk. 2, ch. 20

In the year 330, the year in which Constantine's Quinquennalia [Editorial Note 105] was celebrated, the Arians were released from exile (Baronius, 330.57.9; see Niceph bk. 9, ch. 21) [Editorial Note 106]

In the year 334 when Athanasius was subject to many accusations from the Eusebians and the Meletians and had made excuses to reconcile himself with the Emperor, and his excuses had been proved to be specious, the Emperor ordered a Council to meet at Caesarea in Palestine in order to make a judgement about the case of Athanasius. But though Athanasius had been summoned by a letter from the Emperor, he refused to attend, and the council was dissolved after waiting a long time for his arrival. Sozomen, bk. 2, ch. 24. In the following year, when the Tricennalia [Editorial Note 107] of Constantine was being celebrated (see Baronius 335:2), a council is summoned at Tyre, which Socrates bk. 1, ch. 20, says consisted of only 60 Bishops, but Eusebius who participated, calls it a packed assembly of Bishops from the whole of Egypt, Asia, Africa and Europe. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, bk. 4, ch. 41). Again Athanasius, though seriously pressed by a letter from the Emperor, put off his departure for thirty [perhaps three] months (Sozomen, bk. 2, ch. 24). The Emperor wrote to him that if he refused to attend of his own accord: it will hardly have come to this (Athanasius, Apology). In the end he arrives at Tyre attended by a multitude of men (See, whether rightly, Life of Constantine, 4.41, 42; Socrates 1.28, Theodoret 1.28, Sozomen 2.25), to wit, 47 bishops with their attendants and followers. Baronius, 385.6; the names of these bishops are found subscribed to a certain letter in Athanasius, Apology 2. In order to understand what kind of men these were, one must understand that Egypt had begun to be filled with Monks, and Athanasius (who had long served Antony, the originator of monasticism, and was the first of the monks whom the record shows to have been raised to the clergy) held the monks in very high esteem, frequently visited Monasteries in his own person, and appointed Presbyters and Bishops from their ranks, so far as he could; accordingly, in a letter to the monk, Dracontius, written before this council, in which he urged him to accept an episcopacy, he names Serapion, Apollonius, Agathon, Areston, Ammon, Cues and Paul ~ ~ ~ as Bishops appointed from the monks as so many examples for him to follow, and says that there were many others. And in this way he persuaded Dracontius. Hence in return there was a very great affection among the monks for Athanasius, their head, and the bond of affection was the Nicene faith, which they had imbibed from Antony their Apostle and Athanasius in collaboration. By the severity of their lives, which offered an appearance of supreme piety to men who did not know the way of true piety, these two men won the admiration of the multitude, and the end result was that they bound the majority of the Egyptians to themselves with a strong bond of affection. And this is the source of nearly all the calamities and commotions of the Church. For the Egyptians above all nations were turbulent and prone {to} rioting, and the monks more than the rest of the Egyptians.


Athanasius arrived surrounded by a multitude of these men, who were afraid that {they would be deprived} of so great a treasure, and confusion and disorder are raised in the Council. The Fathers had foreseen this, and had therefore obtained from the Emperor {every} s{oldier}. Athanasius took umbrage at this, and criticised the council for it, saying that it was no longer a Synodical Council but an Imperial Conference,     Athanasius, Apology, 2, despite the fact that the reason for it was precisely the anticipated behaviour of himself and his followers. Charges therefore are laid against Athanasius, particularly that he had broken a sacred chalice, and Legates are sent to Egypt to inquire into the truth of this matter, and other charges were prepared against him, but And when he saw no hope in his situation, he meanwhile slipped away from the Council in order to make accusations against the Council to the Emperor directly. It is uncertain how things proceeded in the Council; different versions are given by different parties[Editorial Note 108]. For me certainly the suspicion is that they were all at fault in some way. Athanasius was at fault in some ways – certainly for deserving deposition – but in some things he was unjustly pressured by his accusers before the council, and the council itself also was not sufficiently frank, since the fathers were firmly bent on restoring the faith that had been altered at the Nicene Council, and since they had previously conceived a bad opinion of Athanasius, it is probable that they were more inclined than they should have been to believe his accusers. This is the origin of the conflicts between the Easterners and Westerners. After Athanasius had slipped away secretly, the Legates return from Egypt, and the Condemnation of Athanasius followed, which Sozomen bk. 2, ch. 24 reports as follows [Editorial Note 109]: And the Council taking up the case – they would elicit the truth. An instance of his calumniating the fathers Philostorgius acquaints us with saying how he brought a harlot into the Council which charged Eusebius with adultery &c The monks tell the story otherwise & Photius says that the relations of Philostorgius were in many things | most ways quite contrary to their historians. Let the world judge therefore by their story about miracles &c. what credence is to be given to them or to the Apology of Athanasius. Yet I shall not peremptorily condemn them but leave to the day of Iudgement, where both parties may be heard impartially for I suspect there were corrupt doings on all sides. If Athanasius is had been wholly innocent why so many tergiversations, had his cause been so clear as he would make it he would have come willingly to the counsel to confound his accusers &c

When he was accused of Arsenius, he pretended he had found him & appeased the Emper{or} but when his accusers desired a signt of his Arsenius, then Arsenius had hid himself for fear they should kill him & say he was dead indeed. Then they said his Arsenius was a fourgery and the Fathers desired a counsel to examine all things {to} the bottom. First they convend at Caesaria then at Tyre &c. Baron 355. 13 Sozom l 2 c 24 Had he ever found the true Arsenius, he would have lost him again before he had confronted his accusers {or} kept him for a continual shame to his enemies &c.

When these things had been transacted, a messenger arrives to warn the Synod by a letter from the Emperor to depart swiftly and without delay for Jerusalem, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, bk. 4, ch. 45 below. Present were Bishops from Macedonia, Pannonia, Mysia, Bithynia, Thracia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Palaestina, Egypt, Africa and the people of Thebes, [Editorial Note 110] Eusebius ibid., 46. The Synod was the biggest after the Nicene, and it adorned the thirtieth year of the Emperor as that had adorned the twentieth, Eusebius, Life of Constantine, bk. 4, ch. 47. And Arius and his followers are accepted into the Church, with the Bishops saying that in this matter they obeyed the letter of the Emperor in which he {illeg} admonished {them} <43v> to make a serious scrutiny of the faith of Arius and Euzoius (epistle of Constantine to the {Egyptians}, Socrates, bk. 1, ch. 22). Furthermore a letter was given by the Bishops to the Bishops of the Church at Alexandria and the Bishops of the whole world, that they should extinguish every spark of jealousy and manage their affairs with peace and tranquillity (Socrates, ibid.) This letter is extant in Athanasius, On the Synods, and contains the following: The Emperor gave us notice by his letter that we should accept the Arians with simple and calm minds; it is wicked jealousy that has kept them outside the Church for so long. And he gives testimony for them in his letter of the correctness of their faith, which he himself has now learned from their own mouths - though he had heard it previously by report, and he approves of what he has learned, and he has made this plain to us by annexing to his letter a statement of their orthodox beliefs – all of which we have acknowledged to be sound and Ecclesiastical. For this reason he has rightly admonished us that they should be accepted and united with the church of God, as you will see from the copies of his letter which we have sent to your piety. [Editorial Note 111]

When Constantine had given his support to Arius, he ordered Arius to write out a formal statement of his faith; this creed (which is extant in Sozomen, bk. 1, ch. 19 and Socrates bk. 1, ch. 19) Constantine approved, and Eusebius, now restored, writes to Athanasius about the restoration of Arius. Athanasius resisted. As he resists, the Emperor threatens him. Athanasius brings up in his defence the council of Nicaea. The Emperor backs off, because through fear of {causing} | new disturbances he had not yet openly rejected the council.

The followers of Meletius (whose glorious origin you may see in Epiphanius, Heresies 68, Baronius 306.44-47 and 310.16, and the Nicene decree about them, Baronius 325.118, 119. Athanasius gives a different, invidious account of their origin) objected from the beginning to the elevation of Athanasius [?} on the ground that it had been secretly performed by a handful of Bishops contrary to their oath they objected. And as the conflict grew, the Emperor orders their Principals to come to him, Eusebius and Theognis intercepted them on their {jo}urney and communicated with them. For this reason the Emperor sends Eusebius and Theognis into exile, and puts pressure on the Meletians because they did not agree to the Nicene faith, but later when the Emperor began to favour Arius, the Meletians are once again moved to bring charges against Athanasius; a council is called at Caesarea and Tyre, Athanasius is ejected, and subsequently Arius is restored.

Athanasius threw a smokescreen over all the charges against him by saying that they were all Eusebian fictions, which were intended to get rid of him so that they might introduce Arianism (Athanasius, Apology 2 and On the Synods), and he persuaded the west of this.

The followers of Athanasius have told his story in a way favourable to their cause, but Photius gives evidence that Philostorgius (who followed the doctrine of the opposite party) gives an almost completely contrary narrative. Which version one should believe, the Reader may judge from the other fables which the monks were accustomed to make up from the very beginning.

While the Fathers remain in Jerusalem, Athanasius goes to meet Constantine, complains about the Council, the Emperor in anger writes to the Council to summon them to Constantinople where he was at the time. But the Fathers send only six legates to the Emperor (Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius Pamphilus, Theognis [Editorial Note 112], Patrophilus, Ursacius, Valens) to give an account of the proceedings in the council. When he heard them, the Emperor erupts in anger against Athanasius, and sends him off to exile in Gaul. The Monk Antony writes quite often to the Emperor from Egypt on behalf of Athanasius, but the Emperor refused to release him.

{illeg} by substituting for him a three-formed, saying that the son who was born and suffered was a human soul and that both were of a true and full begetting; and hence he denied both that the substance of the son is begotten, and that they hold that it is necessarily existing and not an effect originated by and dependent upon the will of the father. They separate Jesus from Christ, as Cerinthus did, for those who deny that Jesus was ever the word deny that Jesus is Christ.


In 365 or 366 AD Liberius [Editorial Note 113] sends a letter to the homousian Bishops of the east at the Council of Lampsacus, in {which} he says as follows. Even [Editorial Note 114] though the wicked and criminal Arians have ensured that all the Bishops of the West were compelled to come to Ariminum, [Editorial Note 115] so that there, either by persuasion or (to tell the truth) by the authority of the Emperor, they might either abolish or perversely deny what had been laid down in the formula of faith as a most solemn stipulation. They achieved absolutely nothing by this fraudulent machination. For almost all the bishops who convened at Ariminum and who were enticed by deceitful lures or compelled by force to desert the faith, have now returned to their sound minds and declared anathema against the formula of faith adopted by the Bishops at Ariminum, and have subscribed the Catholic and Apostolic faith which was confirmed at Nicaea, and have now entered into communion with us. All of them, I say, now blaze with the hottest flames of anger against the doctrines of Arius and against his disciples. When the Legates of your charity [Editorial Note 116] had fully investigated and understood this issue, they added your names also to their own subscription. And they pronounced an anathema against Arius and the decrees passed at Ariminum contrary to the faith established at Nicaea (decrees to which you too subscribed with the addition of an oath, when you were beguiled into the fraud by cunning blandishments). Socrates, bk. 4, ch. 11. [Editorial Note 117] These Eastern fathers were in Baronius' account dissembling hereticks. They were the Concilium Lampsacenum. Baronius 365.13.

365 AD. A homousian council is held in Sicily. Socrates, bk. 4, ch. 11. Baronius 365.16. This was called by the legates of the Council of Lampsacus on their return. And Socrates tells us that these legates brought a letter with them to the East from the bishops of Italy, Gaul, Africa and Sicily.

365 AD. A council is called in Illyricum by a letter from Liberius, in which the Trinity is confirmed, Baronius 365.18. And the Emperors, Valens and Valentinian, confirmed this council by an edict in which the verdict of the Council is repeated, where these words occur: We do not think differently from the two Councils of which one met in Rome, the other in Gaul. Theodoret, bk. 4, ch. 6.

Valens becomes an Arian and is baptised by Eudoxius. Baronius 366.4.

369 AD. Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, being harassed by Athanasians, writes as follows to the Emperors Valentinian and Valens. For myself, most pious Emperors, I do not think it is appropriate that the unity of six hundred Bishops, after such very great labours, should be shaken by the opposition of a handful of men who reject the decrees made more than ten years ago, as their writings make clear. But although some of the laity who were never in communion even with the Bishops before me have gone further and called me a heretic at the prompting of Hilary and Eusebius who have been stirring up various people – and they do not have the character of accusers or of judges since they were previously deposed, and I mean Hilary and those who agree with him; nevertheless in obedience to your serenity, I have continued to make things known to those who teach false things and blaspheme and call me an Arian. – So that your piety may truly know the proceedings of the Council at Ariminum, I have sent them to you, and I beg that you would be willing to give an instruction that they be read; for thus your serenity will learn that men who have long ago been condemned, deposed, i.e., Hilarius and Eusebius, are trying to make schisms everywhere. Hilarius against Auxentius. Baronius 369.15. As a result of this the Emperor communicates with Auxentius, {illeg} <44v> Hilary as a false accuser is ordered to leave the city of Milan (Hilary, ibid.). As a result, although Auxentius was strenuously opposing the efforts of the Homousians and was drawing a large majority of the Bishops of Illyricum to his side, Damasus summons a council at Rome, condemns Auxentius, and a letter is sent by the council to the Illyrians, in which they assert that the fathers who subscribed at Ariminum confessed that they had been led astray from the truth, and that they believed that their formula of faith in no way differed from the opinion of the Nicene Council. Since the number of Bishops who had gathered together to be present at Ariminum ought not to have the force of a precedent, especially since the Roman Bishop as well as Vincentius and others had not agreed to it, and since also (which is the capital point) the very men who seemed to have been allured into a fraud and deviated from the truth, and afterwards went back again to a better view, plainly testify that this formula very much displeased them. Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 21. Furthermore it was not long before Auxentius is condemned by other councils which convened all over the west. For Athanasius says

In different Councils held throughout Gaul and the Spains as well as in Rome, by a united verdict they anathematise all those who were at that convention, Auxentius of Milan, Ursatius, and Caius of Pannonia, because they claimed the name of Council for themselves, since no Synod in the Catholic Church is to be counted except only the Nicene. Athanasius, To Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth.

A bit before this Athanasius and the bishops had gathered in council write as follows to the Africans: The writings of Damasus and of the Bishops gathered in Rome and of the other councils which have been held partly in Gaul and partly in Italy, etc. – meanwhile we are not the only ones to write these things, but all the bishops, 90 in number, in Egypt and Africa. We have written to Damasus against Auxentius, and we are surprised that he has not yet been deposed and ejected from the church. We are grateful to his piety [Editorial Note 118] and to the others who convened at Rome, that they have preserved the Concord of the Catholic Church, now that Ursacius and Valens have been ejected along with their companions.

369 AD. Eusebius dies, and Basil is made Bishop.

Valens gave an instruction to each magistrate of every nation that the Bishops who were removed from office in the time of Constantius and were allowed back in the reign of Julian, should be expelled from their churches, Sozomen, bk. 6, ch. 12. Baronius, AD 370.2. But the Egyptians defend Athanasius by rioting. Sozomen and Baronius, ibid. However Athanasius quickly takes to flight, but, to calm things down, he is immediately ordered to return. Epiphanius, Heresies, 66. Sozomen, ibid., Baronius, ibid. At that time when the heresy of the Arians and Eunomians prevailed throughout the east with the exception of Pope [Editorial Note 119] Athanasius and Paulinus, Epiphanius, either as Presbyter of a Monastery was heard by Eutichius or later as Bishop of Cyprus, was not touched.

Because there is no great number of homousians in the East, Basil exhorts Atha{nasius} {that} he should earnestly seek the {assis}tance of the western Bishops in order to heal <45r> a certain schism in the church at Antioch. Basil, Epistle 48. Baronius explains it at greater length, 370.

The disgusting greed of the Clergy and Monks is lamented by Jerome and Ambrose, and is banned by a law of the Emperors, AD 370. Baronius 370. 117-122.

The homousians persuade the bishops and the people that, whatever the Arians may seem to say, they attribute nothing to the son that does not belong to the creatures. Baronius. 369.19.

The Goths persecute their Christians in the Year 370. Baronius year 370.105.

Basil writing to the western Churches A.C. 371 concerning the state of the east saith: Not one Church or two or three are in danger after sliding into this great tempest, but from the frontier of Illyricum all the way to the Thebaid, the evil of heresy consumes us – A clear and present shipwreck now threatens us, righteous brothers, stretch out your hands, do not neglect the half of the world that is swallowed up by errors, do not allow the faith to be extinguished among those on whom it first shone. Basil, epistle, 69. Baronius 371.16, 18. And in another letter written to them at the same time: The best thing is for us to ask your Piety [Editorial Note 120] to make known the disturbance and confusion of our World to the Emperor himself – This evil of heresy consumes everything, and the danger is that when our Churches have been devastated, it will creep also into the sound part of your domains. I beg you not to look only at your own affairs, since you have reached a tranquil haven, but stretch out your hands to those Churches that are tossed by the storm. – There are baptisms among the heretics; they escort people abroad (peregre) wherever they may be going, they visit the sick, they console the sorrowful, they assist those who labour and are heavy laden, they offer every kind of welfare, they administer the communion of the mysteries. That all these things are given and performed by them is like a kind of rope for the common people, by which they are bound in solidarity with them, so that in a short period of time, even if some freedom were restored, there will still be no hope left of reclaiming again to recognition of the truth these people who are bound to the heretics by a bond of long-standing affection. Basil, epistle 70. Baronius 371.22ff.

371 AD. Basil the Great is overwhelmed by false accusations among his own people and others; for he is accused by his own people of subverting and debasing the holy Spirit, despite the fact that no one spoke better and more excellently than he did about the son, (Gregory Nazianzen, epistle 26), and this was because he held communion with Apollinaris (Basil, epistle 8), and because, while saying prayers among the people, he said the doxology to the Father through the son in the Holy spirit, or with the son and the Holy Spirit, but not to the son and the Holy Spirit. And later when he began to preach three hypostases, his hearers said that he was preaching three gods (Basil, Oration against those who are falsely accused of worshipping three gods). / Gregory Nazianzen excuses Basil, so far as he can, for saying the first thing on the ground that he had a correct belief about the Spirit, but he hid his faith because the times did not allow him to speak out. For his enemies would eject him, and then the Arians would get the see (Gregory Nazianzen in his eulogy of Basil). Concerning the second point Basil says [Editorial Note 121] that he never thought that Apollinaris was an enemy, in fact, he says, there are certain things for the sake of which he {even} venerates the man, but he was not so closely united with him that he was willing to take the charges upon himself (Basil, epistle 8). In fact, Baronius says that before Apollinaris was condemned at Rome by Damasus in the Council (373 AD), he was by no means shunned as a heretic (See Baronius 371.50 On the Communion of Jerome, Damasus, Athanasius and Basil with Apollinaris and his companions down to this time {(200)} {And} Basilius <45v> defends himself on the third count by showing from the ancient Fathers that from the beginning the Church celebrated the doxology to the Father through the son in the Holy Spirit and with the son and the holy spirit and even now they so celebrate it through almost the whole Christian world (Basil to Amphilochius ch. 25 and 29; see the passage. And on this basis Baronius says that this new form of doxology obtained only in the Church at Antioch. Baronius 371.26. On all this see Baronius 371.48 ff.

What sort of assistance will come to us from the hauteur and contempt of the Westerners? Who neither know the truth nor care to speak it, but, fettered to false opinions, are now doing what formerly they perpetrated in the case of Marcellus, namely fighting against those who declare the truth to them, and establishing heresy through themselves – nor do they understand the truth of our countrymen nor embrace a way by which they may learn it. Basil, epistle 10, date: 370 AD. He says the same elsewhere about the Roman Church: I resent the arrogance of that Church. The accusation of heresy Baronius relates to their doctrine of the three persons in one substance, whereas the Greeks said three Hypostases in one essence. Baronius 372. 25ff.

Jerome came to Syria in 371 AD (Baronius 372. 39) and heard Apollinaris teaching at Antioch. I frequently heard Apollinaris of Laodicea at Antioch, and I studied with him, and when he was instructing me in the holy scriptures, I never accepted his controversial opinion about the meaning (Jerome, epistle 65 to Pammachius) [Editorial Note 122]. It is clear from this that belief in the divinity of the Holy Spirit was not a requisite of communion before the opposite belief was condemned in the Council of Rome in 373 AD. We have found that many of the holy Fathers joined in praising certain heretics, just as also Saints Damasus, Athanasius, and Basil praised Apollinaris and St. Leo praised Eutyches; and they did not become heretics because of this; but when their impiety became known, they condemned them with an anathema. (Emperor Justinian in the edict fid. confess. to Pope John). In fact, the Pope received into communion Legates from the Council of Lampsacus 365 AD, whose creed does not affirm his divinity (Socrates, bk. 4, ch. 11). On the communion of Gregory Nazianzen and Pope Damasus with Apollinaris and his disciple, Vitalis, before he justifies {himself}. Jerome becomes a Presbyter in 378 AD. Baronius 378. 65.

☞ Athanasius died on the 6th before the Nones of May (Baronius 372. 63). Peter is immediately put in as suffect by his supporters, but is soon expelled, and heads for Rome, and Lucius receives the see.

N.B. 3 AD Apollinaris is condemned at Rome on the ground that he denied the human soul in Christ. Basil wrote in the previous year to Damasus, saying in part: Apollinaris caused such confusion among the brothers about the incarnation that few of those who had any discussion with him retain their former habit of piety; and many, noting a change in the state of affairs, are averse to questions and contentious heresies of useless words. Basil, epistle 4 or 14. His company was sought by Gregory Nazianzen and Jerome and others, as above. Hence it is clear that they did not hold the doctrine of the homousion to be heretical before its condemnation by Damasus. This Baronius also recognises, under year 371. 50 and 373. 1, and therefore now <46r> they did not condemn heresies by means of a Council, but created them by condemning opinions.

When Auxentius died, Ambrose succeeded in the year 374./ After the death of Auxentius when Ambrose had been appointed bishop of Milan, the whole of Italy is converted to the true faith. Jerome [perhaps in his Chronicle], Baronius, 374. 1. Basil the Great died in the year 378

☞ In AD 377, the 14th year of Valens, Valens being compelled to leave Antioch, in a late act of repentance, recalls our people from exile (Jerome [perhaps in his Chronicle]; so too Orosius, bk. 7, ch. 33. In the same period, at the same time as the Emperor Valens had departed from Antioch, all those everywhere who were tossed by the storms of persecution, and especially in Alexandria, were very much heartened by the return of Peter there from Rome with a letter from Damasus, the Roman Bishop, which confirmed both the faith of the homousion and the appointment of Peter. Trusting to this, the people expel Lucius, and put Peter in his place. Socrates, bk. 4, ch. 30. This expedition of Valens was against the Goths who were devastating Thrace (Ammianus bk. 31). [Editorial Note 123]

The patrimony [Editorial Note 124] has been wasted by wicked offspring, among you alone is the inheritance of the fathers preserved uncorrupted. There from its fertile soil the earth gives back the purity of the lord's seed a hundredfold; here the corn, sunk in the furrows, degenerates into darnel and straw. Now the Sun of justice is arising in the West, but in the East Lucifer, the one who fell, has set his Throne above the stars. You are the light of the world, you are the salt of the earth, you are vessels of silver and gold; here there are vessels of clay, etc. Jerome, to Damasus, epistle 7, written in AD 372 and inquiring about the term Hypostasis because there was a dispute about this (also among the Monks). Baronius 372. 48.

Jerome, opposed by almost everybody in the East, writes as follows to Damasus: I am called a heretic for preaching that the trinity is homousion. I am charged with the impiety of Sabellius, for proclaiming three subsistent, true, whole and perfect persons. Rightly so, if the criticism comes from the Arians; but if from the orthodox, who condemn such a belief, they have ceased to be orthodox. Or if they please, let them condemn me as a heretic with the West, as a heretic with Egypt, that is, with Damasus and Peter. Why do they accuse a single man and ignore his companions? Jerome, Epistle 77, written in the year 378. Baronius 378. 60.

The trinity is opposed by the whole City of Constantinople as a doctrine of many Gods. Gregory Nazianzen in his life, and Baronius under the year 378. 59.

The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, Augusti, to the People of the city of Constantinople. We wish all the peoples governed by the moderation of our clemency to practise such a religion as the religion conveyed from him down to our own times declares that the divine Apostle Peter taught, and which it is clear that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, follow, that is, that we believe in one Divinity of Father, son and holy spirit in equal majesty and as a holy Trinity. – Dated the 3rd. before the Kalends of March at Thessalonica, in the fifth consulship of Gratian Augustus, and the first consulship of Theodosius Augustus. Theodosian Code, bk. 2, 'On the Catholic faith'. [Editorial Note 125]

381 AD In order to spread the faith of the west throughout the east, Theodosius, just after bishop Constans had been ejected) calls a council at Constantinople, on the initiative and instruction of Damasus (Baronius 381. 19). Socrates writes as follows about it: The Emperor, making no delay, convenes a council of bishops who {shared} his faith, in order to reinforce the faith of the Council of Nicaea and to appoint a Bishop of <46v> Constantinople. And since he had conceived the hope that he could bring the followers of Macedonius into concord with the Bishops of his own faith, he summoned them also. The total was 150, with 36 Macedonians.

As the fathers were about to discuss belief, a tome of the westerners is produced, and the decision about the belief in the trinity is made in accordance with it. Baronius 361. 26. There is a mention of this Tome in the fifth Canon of the Council; here is that Canon: As far as concerns the Tome of the Westerners, we have also approved those who are at Antioch confessing that there is a single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Report of the Synod of the Council of Constantinople, 1, ch. 5, and Theodorus in Nicom of Photius, Baronius 381. 27) [Editorial Note 126]. And Baronius infers from this Canon that this tome is none other than that Profession of faith written by Damasus as a result of the Roman Council (AD     ) to Paulinus, Bishop of Antioch, where the doctrine of the westerners about the trinity is faithfully given; it is extant in Volume 1 of the Council in Damasus.

Here is another Canon that the Council decreed. The heresy of the Eunomians, Arians, Semiarians or pneumatomachi, Apollinarians, etc. is condemned with extreme execration and detestation. Record of the Synod of Constantinople, vol. 1.

Since in this Council everything relating to faith had gone as the Westerners wished, Damasus, in order to bind the Easterners more firmly to his authority, immediately decreed that an Ecumenical Council should be held. Baronius, 371. 38, 49. By his authority Maximus, Bishop of Constantinople, is deposed, as well as the rest of the orthodox Bishops throughout the world, as is clear from this edict of Theodosius. We command that all Churches be handed over without delay to Bishops who confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of a single majesty and power, etc., dated 3rd. before the Kalends of August, in the consulship of Eucherius and Syagrius, Theodosian Code bk. 3 'On the Catholic faith' [Editorial Note 127]. For it is clear from Sozomen, bk. 7, ch. 9, taken together with this edict, that the edict was dated when the Fathers were about to return to their sees after the dissolution of the Council. And the Council had begun in the month of May.

383 AD At the urging of Amphilochius, the Emperor in one edict or another forbade under the severest penalties the Eunomians, the Arians, the Pneumatomachi, etc. to hold meetings, public or private, within the bounds of cities, farms or villas, to perform any ceremony of communion or to create bishops (Theodosius, Theodosian Code, bk. 5, ch. 26, bk. 11 and 12, 'On Heretics' [Editorial Note 128], but he did not execute these laws, and he endeavoured to instil fear into his subjects (Sozomen, bk. 7, ch. 12

386 AD 10th before the Kalends of February. Valentinian, with the agreement of Theodosius, also granted the right by law to hold assemblies to those who think according to the decrees of the Council of Ariminum (Theodosian Code, bk. 4, 'On the Catholic faith') [Editorial Note 129], and on the same day Theodosius promulgated part of the law in Constantinople (Theodosian Code, bk. 1, 'On those who dispute about religion') [Editorial Note 130], Baronius, 386. 4, 41.

388 AD. When Theodosius was about to set out against Maximus, he began to protect the Church with these very serious laws, so that God would favour his expedition: we command that the Apollinarians and the other sectaries of different heresies be banned from all places, from the walls of cities, from meeting with honest men, from communion with the saints; let them not have the power to appoint clergy; let them lack the right to gather congregations together whether in public or in private Churches; let them be afforded no authority to create Bishops; let the Bishops themselves also, stripped of their title, lose the appellation of this high office. Let them go to places which exclude them from human communication, as if by a defensive wall. We add also that <47r> permission to approach and accost our serenity be denied to all of the abovementioned persons. {Given} on the 4th before the Ides of March at Thessalonica, in the second consulship of Theodosius Augustus, and Cynegius. [Editorial Note 131]      In the same pre-battle situation Theodosius also added other sanctions against heretics, such as this one: Written to Tripholius: Let all those who belong to the various, perfidious sects be forbidden to hold assemblies anywhere, or to attend discussions, or to hold secret gatherings,, or impudently to erect altars of sinful transgression by the offices of an impious hand, and to make a pretence of mysteries to the injury of the true religion. So that this may have its appropriate effect, let your sublimity appoint all of the most faithful people as watchmen, so that they may be able to restrain them and hand them over when caught to the courts, so that they may pay the most severe penalty to God and to the laws in accordance with the aforesaid sanctions. Given at Stobi on the 18th day before the Kalends of July, in the second consulship of Theodosius Augustus and of Cynegius [Editorial Note 132]. And two days later he also laid this down: Let there be no opportunity for any one to go out in public and dispute about religion or discuss it or tender any advice. And if anyone hereafter, with flagrant and damnable audacity, shall believe that he must contravene such a law, or shall have the effrontery to persist in a movement of pestiferous perseverance, let him be constrained by an appropriate penalty and a fitting punishment. Given on the 16th day before the Kalends of July, at Stobi, in the second consulship of Theodosius, Augustus, and Cynegius. [Editorial Note 133] Subsequently, he also made the following law: We have learned that some of the Arians have put forward a construction of our laws that allows them to use the things that seem to be to their advantage. This construction is eliminated; let them know that no such order has issued from our sacred chancery. Given on the 5th day before the Ides of August in the second consulship of Theodosius Augustus, and Cynegius (Theodosian Code, bk. 14 and 15, 'On Heretics', bk. 2 'On those who dispute about religion', bk. 16, 'On Heretics') [Editorial Note 134]          Thus the Angels offered to God the prayers of the saints after the silence of half-an-hour [Editorial Note 135]

At the same time Theodosius brought Valentinian also to the homousian faith (Suidas s.v. Valentinian. Baronius 388. 66.

391 AD This law is made: We command that the polluted contagion of heretics be driven from the cities and from the villages, and have absolutely no access to assemblies, so that there will be no sacrilegious cohort of such men congregating anywhere. Let no meeting-places, whether public or concealed be allowed to the perversity of such persons as hiding-places for their false doctrines. Given on the 14th day before the Kalends of January at Rome in the consulship of Tatianus and Symmachus, Theodosian Code, bk. 20 'On Heretics' [Editorial Note 136]. Baronius 391. 15.

392 AD, 17th before the Kalends of July: it is enacted by law that anyone who has ordained heretic clergyman or has been ordained, or by assisting at the divine mysteries usurps the name of clergyman, shall be fined ten pounds of gold, and the place where he engaged in these forbidden acts shall be confiscated. A month later, another law is enacted that anyone who could not be reformed by the previous laws was to be sent into exile. Theodosian Code, bk. 20 'On Heretics' [Editorial Note 137] and bk. 3 'On those who dispute about religion'.      Augustine mentions the former law in his Epistle 50 to Bonifacius: By this law, he says, Theodosius of pious memory declared that any Bishop or clergyman of the heretics, wherever he had been found, should be fined ten pounds of gold, etc. He also mentions the same law to Januarius, Epistle 68, and in the Dispute against Cresconius, bk. 3, ch. 47. And these, says Baronius, were the weapons with which Theodosius armed himself when he was about to set out against Eugenius. Baronius 392. 27. / Subsequently in the year 394, so that the laws of Theodosius would not be too leniently {enforced} because of the absence of Theodosius, who had already left for the war against Eugenius, {his sons}, Arcadius and Honorius, confirm them with new edicts. bks. 22 and 23 {'On Heretics'} [Editorial Note 138] <47> And thus when, after the defeat of Eugenius, the Theodosian laws obtained currency also in the west, the Roman Church fell, in the 365th year since its inception, as the Oracle had predicted.

Eugenius was a Christian (Ambrose, Epistle 15 to Eugenius, Baronius, 393. 37), and so was Arbogastes (Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose). He resisted the Pagans on the first and second occasions (Ambrose, Epistle 19 to Eugenius), but in the end at the instance of Flavianus S. he conceded the Altar of Victory and the costs of ceremonies (Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose), and gave greater indulgence to sacrifices than befitted a Christian, but he did not restore paganism everywhere (so far as I know) (although Sozomen from hatred seems to exaggerate his crime), nor did the licence last beyond a two year period.


Heretics recently under a wrathful teacher in Gaul and the Spains avoiding the basilicas of the martyrs, shun those of us who say prayers there according to our custom as if we were unclean. Actually it is not they who do it so much as the Demons in them, who cannot bear the fortitude and lashes of the holy ashes. A{nd} which of the heretics does not sit down in the shrines, does not sleep in the catacombs of the masters? What kind of people were Marcion and Valentinus, and recentl{y} Eunomius, who gave evidence of the filthiness of their minds in their leprous flesh? Jerome, bk. 18 on Isaiah ch. 65, verse {4}: those who live among the tom{bs} and sleep in the shrines of Idols. [Editorial Note 139]

We venerate the sepulchres of Martyrs everywhere, and putting their holy as{hes} upon our eyes, if it is allowed, we even touch it with our mouths. Jerome, Epistle 17 to Marcella.

Farewell, Paula, assist with your prayers the extreme old age of your worshipper. Your faith and your works associate you with Christ; being present with him you will more easily obtain what you ask. Jerome, Epistle 27 for the Epitaph of Paula, who died on the 7th before the Kalends of February in the consulship of Honorius Augustus and Aresti{nus}.

Jerome Epistle 29 to Theodora on her deceased Husband, says. He is now secure, and as a victor he looks down on you from on high, and supports you in your grief, and prepares a place next to him.

Who, you insane idiot, ever adored the martyrs? Who thought that a man was God? – – – Read the Gospel: the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, not the God of the dead but of the living. Therefore if they are living, they are not shut up in honourable confinement – to use your phrase. For you say that the souls of the Apostles and martyrs have their abode either in the bosom of Abraham or in the place of refreshment, [Editorial Note 140] or beneath the altar of God, and they cannot be present at their tombs or wherever they may wish. – Will you give laws to God? Will you put chains upon the Apostles so that they may be held in custody right down to the day of judgement, and not be with their Lord about whom it is written: They follow the lamb wherever he goes. If the lamb goes everywhere, therefore they too who are with the lamb, must be believed to be everywhere. And since the Devil and the Demons wander throughout the whole world and with very great speed {where} they are present, will the martyrs after the effusion of their blood await the lamb in confinement, and not be able to get out of there? You say in your little {pamphlet} that while we are alive, we can pray for each other, but once we {are} dead, the prayer of no person for {another}{{can be heard, and all the more}} because the martyrs, though they cry for {{the avenging of their blood}}[Editorial Note 141] <48v> have not been able to obtain it. If the Apostles and the Martyrs are able to pray for others while they are still in the body, when they ought to be still anxious for themselves, how much more after their victories and triumphs? A single man, Moses, obtains pardon from God for six thousand armed men, and Stephen, the imitator of his Lord and first Martyr in Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors, and after they have begun to be with Christ, will they have less power? The Apostle Paul brings with him in the boat two hundred and sixty six forgiven souls; and when, after his dissolution, he has begun to be with Christ, will he close his mouth? And will he not be able to roar? Will the living dog Vigilantius be better than that dead Lion? Etc. Jerome, Epistle 2, Against Vigilantius.[Editorial Note 142] – And we burn candles not in bright daylight, as you vainly and falsely accuse us, but in order that we may moderate the darkness of night with this comfort. – – He therefore does wrongly – –

God is propitiated by the prayers of the holy martyrs for the sins of his people. Dom Augustine, Question 109 on Exodus 2.

Celebrate the anniversaries of the saints with sobriety, so that we may imitate those who went before us, and they who pray for you may rejoice for you. Dom Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, 88 ad fin.

Augustine interprets the reign of the martyrs for a thousand years (Revelation, 20) as the honour and communion of the martyrs with the Church. Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 20, ch. 9. See Sermons 115, 119, 181 de Temp [Editorial Note 143], and Eusebius of Arles. And Andreas Caesar, Commentary on the Apocalypse.

For [Cyprian] is present not only by his letters, but also by that very charity which was strong in him and could never have died. Desiring therefore to stay with him and be close to him, if I am not prevented by the incontinence of my sins, helped by his prayers, I will learn if I can through his letters with what great peace and with how much solace the Lord governed his Church through him. Dom Augustine, Against the Donatists, bk. 5, ch. 17.

Dom Augustine, Meditations, bk. 1, ch. 24. Vol. 9, p. 341. A.B. 2. he invokes the saints in copious prayers.

When Rome was sacked by Alaric, the Pagans who fled from there and came to Carthage, frequented the Theatres daily. Dom Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 1, ch. 32, 33.

All those who take their banquets there, which is not done by the better Christians, and in most parts of the world there is no such custom, nevertheless those who do this want them to be sanctified there through the merits of the martyrs in the name of the lord of martyrs when they have placed them there, and prayed, and then taken them away, <49r> so that they may eat them or may also share them with the poor. Dom Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 8, ch. 27

The distinction between Latria and Dulia [Editorial Note 144]. Dom Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 10, ch. 1

On the Platonic Trinity. Dom Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 10, ch. 23 and commentary.

Several think that the exodus from Egypt is a type of the exodus of the Church from the persecution of Antichrist, when the nations have been destroyed, and that the ten plagues are the 10 persecutions, but Augustine does not agree with them. On the City of God, bk. 18, ch. 52.

Bellarmine, bk. 2, ch. 5 'On Monks', vol. 1, p. 1165, proves that Athanasius wrote the life of Athanasius which is still extant.

It is one thing to be pardoned, another thing to come into glory, another to be sent to Jail, another not to come out from there until one pays the last farthing, another to receive immediately the reward of faith and virtue, another to be corrected for of one's sins by torment in long pain and to be purged at length by fire, another to have purged all one's sins by suffering. Cyprian, bk. 4, epistle 2, to Antonianus.

Justin in his Second Apology, p. 2, speaking in the name of all Christians and explaining, Bellarmine says, the faith of the whole church, says: But we worship and adore both him [God the Father] and his son, who came and taught us these things, and an army of other followers and similar good Angels and the prophetic spirit, we venerate them in word and in deed or in truth, and once we are taught and instructed, we pass this on abundantly to all who want to learn.

Tertullian, On the Soldier's Crown, mentions the celebration of feasts on the anniversaries of martyrs. So too Cyprian, bk. 4, Epistle 5.

Ambrose, Sermon 69 on Eusebius of Vercelli is by Maximus, as also perhaps is sermon 6 on the Pearl (which however Bellarmine attribu{tes} to Ambrose; Sermon 77 on the Anniversary of St. Octavius Adventitius and Liberator of the people of Turin is by Maximus the Bishop of Turin.

Prudentius, On St. Hippolytus:

Whenever I prostrated myself in prayer here, sick with corruptions of both mind and body, I gained help. [Editorial Note 145] Note: I prostrated myself in prayer.

Hilary on Psalm 129 says: it is not the nature of God but our infirmity that requires the intercession of Angels; for they were sent on account of those who will inherit salvation, though God is not ignorant of the things that we do, but our infirmity needs the service of spiritual intercession in order to ask and to d{es}erve. S{imilarly} on Psalm 124 he says: Nor are there lacking {ho}ly guardians and Angelic reinforcements for those who wish to stand. And a little bit later: And we would believe there is a modest protection in the Apostles or Patriarchs and Prophets, {but} <49v> even more in the Angels who surround the Church with a kind of guard; and it is added: And the lord all around his people from this time forth and for ever more. But perhaps it may be thought that the guardianship of Apostles or Angels is sufficient. That is indeed true, but etc.

Ambrose bk. 8 on Luke, ad fin. Just as the Angels are over us, he says, so are these who have earned the life of Angels.

Jerome in his Epistle on the death of Blaesilla: For you, he says, she is praying to the Lord, and for me she begs forgiveness of sins.

Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists, bk. 7, ch. 1: Let Cyprian, he says, assist us with his prayers, as we labour in the mortality of our flesh as if we were under a dark cloud, so that, by the gift of God, we may imitate his good deeds, as much as we are able.

Jerome in his Epitaph for Paula, near the end: Farewell, he says, O Paula, and assist with your prayers the extreme old age of your worshipper; your faith and your works unite you with Christ, being present there you will more easily obtain what you ask.

Ambrose on Luke, bk. 10, in his exposition of ch. 21: the Martyrs, he says, in perpetuity surpass dead kings in the honour of grace in the heavenly kingdom, and the former become suppliants, the latter patrons.

Augustine, Treatise 84 on John. For this reason therefore, he says, at the table itself we do not commemorate them (Martyrs) as we do others who rest in peace, so as to also pray for them, but rather so that they should pray for us. Likewise in Sermon 17, On the words of the Apostle, he says: Ecclesiastical teaching holds, as the faithful know, that when they read out the names of the Martyrs at the altar of God, the prayer is not on their behalf, the prayer is on behalf of the other deceased. For it is an insult to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we ought to be commended. Likewise in the book On Care for the Dead ch. 4 [Editorial Note 146], he says, I do not see what help is given to the dead by providing them with a place for burying their bodies beside a memorial shrine to a saint, except for this purpose that they may commend them in their prayers to the same saints who have as patrons accepted them in order to assist them before the Lord. Augustine in his Sermon 1 on Saints Peter and Paul: A multitude of Nations now adores on bended knee the most blessed Peter, a fisherman. And Epistle 44: Let there be shown to me at Rome the temple of Romulus held in such great honour as I show that <50r> the shrine of Peter is held there. Who is honoured in Peter but the one who died for us? Likewise Against Faustus, bk. 20, ch. 21, to Faustus objecting that Christians had exchanged the Idols for martyrs, he replies that the Martyrs are worshipped by Christians but it is not latria. [Editorial Note 147] And on Psalm 96 to Pagans who objected that Christians worshipped Angels, he replies in the same way and adds: Would that you too were willing to worship them; for you would easily learn from them that they do not worship them; that is, they do not worship them as Gods but as Saints.

The four tribulations, Jeremiah, 15.2,3. Ezekiel 14. [Editorial Note 148]

Augustine in his book On Care for the Dead, ch. 16, says: We have heard not by uncertain rumours but from reliable witnesses that the Confessor Felix appeared not only by the benefits he provided but also in the plain sight of men, when Nola was besieged by the barbarians. For other instances of the apparition of Saints see Eusebius, History, bk. 6, ch. 5, Basil in his Oration on St. Mamas, Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 1 against Julian and his Oration concerning St. Caesarius; Gregory of Nyssa in the Life of Gregory of Neocaesarea; Theodoret, History, bk. 5, ch. 24; Evodius and Lucianus on the miracles and life of St. Stephen; Ambrose in his Sermon on Sts. Gervasius and Protasius and in Sermon 90 on St. Agnes; Prudentius in the Hymn about St. Fructuosus; Paulinus in the anniversay octave of St. Felix; Sulpicius in his Life of St. Martin; these all lived more than 1000 years ago.

Cyprian, bk. 1, Epistle 1 says: Anyone of us who departs this life ahead of us, swifter to be found worthy by God, let his love of us persevere before God on behalf of his brothers and sisters, let his Prayer before the mercy of the Father not cease.

Leo, Sermon 1 on Sts. Peter and Paul says: As We have experienced, and our ancestors have proved, we believe and are confident that among all the labours of this life we are always to be helped to obtain the mercy of God by the prayers of our special patrons.

Irenaeus, Against Heresy, bk. 5, past the middle: And just as (Eve) was led astray to run from God, so this lady (Mary) was persuaded to obey God, so that the virgin May might become the Advocate of the virgin Eve.

Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel, bk. 13, ch. 7 (or ch. 11 in another division) says: Those of us who are soldiers of true piety are accustomed to do these things every day, as honouring the friends of God, we also visit their monuments, we make {prayers} to them as to holy men, by whose intercession we profess that we are very much helped. So Bellarmin{e} <50v> But the passage properly rendered goes as follows: Eusebius citing some passages from Plato about Heroes, adds: And these things are eminently appropriate ἁρμόζει in the {case} of men who are very dear to God, whom you rightly call soldiers of true piety. ὅθεν καὶ ε᾽πὶ τὰς θήκας ἀυτον ἔθος ἡμιν παριέναι, καὶ τὰς ἐυχὰς παρὰ ταὺταις ποιεισθεν, τιμαν τε τὰς μακαρίας αυτων ψυχὰς.. For we are accustomed to frequenting their tombs, and saying prayers there, and honouring their blessed souls.

St. Cornelius, Pope, in his first letter, which is about the translation of the bodies of the Apostles, says: Praying God and our Lord Jesus Christ that with the intercession of his holy Apostles, they may wash away the stains of your sins, etc. In Bellarmine. But it is a spurious Epistle

Maximus says in his sermon on St. Agnes: Therefore, O splendid woman to Christ, beautiful daughter of God, and pleasing to all the angels and Archangels, we pray with all the prayers we can that you will deign to remember us.

St. Paulinus at the end of his poem , the Panegyric of St. Celsus:

Celsus, labouring in fraternal piety, assist your brother

that there may be a place for us in your rest.

And in Epistle 12 to Severus, inserting some poems about St. Clarus, he says as follows:

In whatever region of the pole or of Paradise you are set, Celsus, and live a blessed life in eternal peace, kindly accept the prayers of sinners, who beg you to be mindful of Paulinus and Thrasia.

Similar things in Prudentius, Victor of Utica, St. Leo, Gregory of Tours, Fulgentius, Theophylact, Theodoret.

Chrysostom in Sermon 66 to the People, towards the end says: For the very man who is clothed in purple, comes to kiss those sepulchres, and laying aside his pride, stands to supplicate the saints, that they will intercede for him before God, and he who walks crowned with a diadem, prays to a tent-maker and a fisherman. The same author exhorts people to supplicate the saints, Homily 5 and 8 on Matthew, Homily 43 on Genesis, Homily 1 on First Thessalonians, Sermon to Juventius and Maximus, and elsewhere. Bellarmine.

Dom Augustine, Question 49 on Exodus, says: We are advised that, when we are oppressed by the sense that by our deserts we are not loved by God, we are lifted up before him by the merits of those whom God loves. The same is taught by Chrysostom in Homily 42 on Genesis and 27 on Matthew.

By countless miracles the saints have often shown that they hear <51r> the prayers of the living, and can and will help those by whom they are called. On these miracles see the Epistle of Nilus cited in 7 Synod, Proceedings 4; Theodoret in his History, bk. 5, ch. 24 and To the Greeks, bk. 8; Ambrose, Sermon 90, On St. Agnes; Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 22; the book of Gregory of Tours on the glory of the Martyrs and Confessors; Gregory the Great, Dialogues, chs. 22, 24, 25 and 37.

Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, bk. 3, ch. 12 and Epiphanius, on the heresy of the Collyridians, and Augustine somewhere, teach that God alone is to be adored, and Ambrose On Romans, ch. 1, arguing against the pagans, contends that one does not approach God through them (godly men or saints), in the same way as one gains access to a King through his companions, because God knows all things and has no need of lobbyists/courtiers. But these writers mean that God alone is worshipped as God, the martyrs are worshipped only as saints, as is clear from Augustine.

Augustine teaches that in the actual prayer in which the sacrifice is offered, it is not the saints that are invoked but God, to whom alone the sacrifice is made, for Augustine also explicitly teaches in Treatise 84 on John and Sermon 17 on the words of the Apostle, that in the actual sacrifice the Martyrs are remembered and invoked, so that they may pray on our behalf.

Papists cite the following passages for the cult: Psalm 98, Worship before his footstool, for he is holy, [Editorial Note 149] i.e., the Ark of the old covenant; 1 Chronicles 28; Genesis 18, Balaam worshipped an angel; Joshua 5, Joshua worshipped an angel, prone on his face; 1 Kings 28, Saul worshipped the soul of Samuel; 3 Kings 18, Abdias worshipped Elijah while he was still alive; 4 Kings 2, the sons of the prophets worshipped Elisha [Editorial Note 150]; Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel.

Response 1: לחרם before his footstool. Rather, the Jews venerated the holy of holies, because it was there that the Cherubim were and the stool of propitiation, and the ark of the Covenant, Jerome, Epistle to Marcella, 2, 3, 4, etc. The same honour can be given to angels when they appear and to men

In addition the following texts are suggested: Jeremiah 15: Let Moses and Samuel stand thus before me; 2 Peter 1: I will make every effort that after my death you may be able to make remembrance of these things [Editorial Note 151]. Luke 16: Dives prays for his brothers. Finally the Scriptures teach the communion of the Church triumphant with the Church militant; Hebrews 12: we have come to the assembly/church of the first-born in heaven [Editorial Note 152]; Ephesians 2, Galatians 4, Our mother is Jerusalem in heaven; [Editorial Note 153] Augustine, On the City of God, bk. 20, ch. 9 argues for this communion. In addition the Saints pray for us: Tobit 12, Zechariah 1, Revelation 8, Daniel 10, Psalm 90, Mathew 18.

Genesis 48, Jacob says to the sons of Joseph, May the Angel that rescued <51v> me from all evils bless those boys [Editorial Note 154]. See also Psalm 131, where Solomon prays in the name of David. Kings bk. 3, ch. 15. Daniel 3.

Julian in Cyril, Against Julian, bk. 6, past the middle, says that Christians worship, σεβεσθαι, many unfortunate men (dead men), and in bk. 10, before the middle: You have filled the world with sepulchres and monuments, though nowhere has it been said among you that one must prostrate oneself around sepulchres | at sepulchres advolvendum, προσκαλινδεισθαι καὶ περι έπειν ἀυτοὺς [τάφους] frequent them and worship them. Jesus said that sepulchres are full of uncleanness [Editorial Note 155], how come therefore that you invoke God over them? And a little later: Why do you prostrate yourselves at sepulchres? Do you want to hear the reason? Not I, but the famous Prophet Isaiah, will tell you: They sleep in sepulchres and graves for the sake of dreams, etc., and he goes on to accuse Christians of sleeping among the sepulchres for the sake of dreams and incantations.

The Tau which Ezekiel is bidden to inscribe in the foreheads of those who mourn foreshadowed the sign of the Cross, Cyprian, the book against Demetrianus, and Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel. That the Sign of God in Revelation 7 and 14 is also the sign of the Cross is taught by Oecumenius, Bede, Anselm and Rupert on this passage. Bellarmine, On Images, bk. 2, ch. 29.

Justin, To the Gentiles, Question 118: We make the sign of the cross with the right hand rather than the left when we bless someone. Hippolytus, who was close in time to the Apostles, in Palladius, Lausiac History, ch. 148, writes that a certain virgin protected by the sign of the cross emerged unharmed from a brothel. See Tertullian On the Soldier's Crown, Cyprian, bk. 4, Epistle 6, at the end, and the book on those who Lapsed, at the beginning. Origen Homily 6 on Exodus ch. 15. Fear and trembling fall upon the Demons when they see the sign faithfully fixed upon you, Lactantius, bk. 4, ch. 26. Athanasius, book On the Incarnation of the Lord and his saving advent says, by the sign of the cross all magic spells are suppressed. ✝ < insertion from lower down f 51v > [✝ and below: May that person come who is willing to make a trial of those words, and among the very wiles of the demons and the impostures of prophecy, and amid the marvels of magic, use the sign of the cross which is derided by them, and invoke the name of Christ, and he will see how the Demons flee in fear of that sign, prophecies fall silent, and magic and poison have no effect: so Athanasius. < text from f 51v resumes > Gregory of Nyssa in his Life testifies that Gregory of Neocaesarea often used the sign of the cross. Pope Cornelius in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius, History, bk. 6, ch. 33 says that Novatianus was mauled by Dem{ons} because he had not received the sign of the cross on his forehead.


Many [Editorial Note 156] are they who grieve and groan because of the iniquities that are done in the midst of them, wanting to resist but not daring to do so through fear of worldly things, which either their human frailty still longs to acquire or their weakness fears to lose. – in that they fear a thing not to be feared, they have all fallen short, and have become useless, because the fear of man is more regarded than the fear of God, and men prefer the things that they have received from God to God himself – In such desperate straits many limitations . . . . . we be whipped. For when we accuse others, we have all fallen short, at the same time we have become useless, everyone without exception. – We preach and do not act, you hear and do not undertake to act. Deservedly we are all under the whip, both teacher and doer, both hearer and despiser. We strive to blame each other and we do not strive to dismiss our own works. Neighbour criticises neighbour, clergyman criticises clergyman, layman criticises layman. I do indeed see people accusing each other, but I see no one justly excusing himself. Let each soul interrogate itself so that it may see whether it suffers unjustly; let the scales of justice be produced, let the love of the world be weighed against the love of God, see how the love of the world weighs heavier. The Lord gave the command that he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he did not teach us to hate them, but to love him more. You would love your children truly if you loved in him Do you seem to love them because you encourage their pleasures? Do you hear them blaspheming and patiently put up with it? Do you see them frequenting the games, and do not call them back? Do you see them committing acts of lust, and do not beat them? Etc. What shall I say of the three boys who, refusing to worship the image of the king, laughed at the flames? What good things have we done like this, beloved, or rather what evil things have we not done? They were not convinced by either threats or torture to sacrifice to demons. Did he not sacrifice who very willingly watched images of Idols playing through the night which they call the Nocturnum? He did sacrifice, he certainly did. And what is worse, he did not sacrifice some victim like a bull or other kind of cattle, but an actual precious human soul. In this so wicked sacrifice it is not one man or a few who are accused, the whole country did it, because the whole country consented; not at the hands of enemies nor of barbarians but at his own hands every man kills himself within his soul by seeing, by consenting, by not forbidding, we have all continued to be guilty. Dom Augustine, Sermon on the Barbaric times.

Because some people think it is intolerable that we are judged to be worse or not much better than the barbarians, let us see either when we are better or who these barbarians are. For among all barbarians there are two kinds in every nation; they are either heretical or Pagan. In everything pertaining to the divine law, I say that we are without comparison better than all of the latter, but as far as our life and actions go, I grieve and lament that we are worse. Apart from the religious, and also some secular people who are equal to the religious, I say that all the rest or almost all perhaps you that read this and besides condemn what you read, do not reject the criticism of you; condemn if I lie, condemn if I do not pre. Then he proved to them that they are as covetous, unjust, unfaithful, unchast, drunken, cruel, rapacious, fals & otherwise vitious as any of the Barbarian heathens, & consequently much more guilty and <52v> more abominable in God's eyes, because those transgress without the law these against the law, those through ignorance, these knowingly and wilfully, and rebelliously. And Where there is no law there is no transgression Rom [3.4. and 6.] But he that knows his Master will –          For it would have been better for them not to have learned the truth, than now that they know it, to turn back from the commandment given to them. But the Proverb has come true for them: The dog is returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to wallowing in the mire. 2 Peter 2.[Editorial Note 157]        bk. 4.

Then turning lib 5 to speak of the Barbarian Heretics, as he calls them, he says. Furthermore as far as concerns the manners of the Goths or Vandals: what reason is there to prefer ourselves to them or even to compare ourselves with them? And first to speak of affection and Charity, which the lord teaches us is the special virtue, and which he himself commends not only throughout the sacred scriptures but in his own person, saying: By this it shall be known that you are my disciples, John 13, if you love one another. Almost all barbarians who in a way belong to one nation and king, love each other. Almost all Romans harass each other. For what citizen does not envy his fellow-citizen? And would that this was the worst evil, would that it was only citizens and neighbours; a worse thing is that not even members of the same family observe their family duties. Who is so close in heart as in blood that he does not who there does not feel a evident streak of malice, whose feelings have not been touched by envy, for whom another person's success is a torment? Who does not believe that another's good is his own evil? It is a new and incalculable evil in very many people. It matters little to a person if he himself is happy unless the other person is unhappy. And then what a thing it is, how cruel, how derived from this very impiety, how foreign to barbarians, how familiar to Romans, to Proscribe people for taxes, etc. Then describing at large the intolerable Roman exactions and oppressions he adds: For where and in whom are these evils except in Romans alone? whose injustice is as great as our own? For the Franks do not know this wrong. The Huns are immune from these crimes. There is nothing like this among the Vandals, or among the Goths. . . . . . . . . [see p. 344.2. E] ... and they are not able families.

Afterward lib 6 speaking of their Theatres and Circi he shows that the barbarians had nothing of that kind nor suffered them in the Roman cities which came into their power.

But evidently we who are corrupted by prosperity are reformed by adversity; Is it really possible that the populations of the cities who were shameless in prosperity have begun to be chaste in difficult times? Has drunkenness, which had flourished in peacetime, ceased, at least because of the enemy's depredations? Italy has been devastated by so many disasters; have the vices of Italians therefore ceased? The city of Rome is besieged and captured; have the Romans therefore ceased to be blasphemous and crazy? Barbarian nations have inundated the Gauls; therefore as far as concerns their abandoned morals, the – of the Gauls not the same; the condition of Spain is indeed changed, but the wickedness has not changed. – And now that barbarian nations have entered Africa, perhaps either our vices against one another have ceased or, <53r> in the manner in which the worst of slaves are often reformed, terror has imposed modesty at least and discipline. Who can estimate this evil? There sounded all around –

These things have been quoted rather generously, so that we might give clear evidence of everything we have maintained

bk. 6. But since we have spoken at very great length about public spectacles and obscenities, perhaps someone will think that we are worse than the barbarians only in the fact that they do not do these things, and we do; but that we are not so polluted by the sin of carnal lust and the filth of unclean fornication. Let us compare the Romans, if you please, with the other nations in this respect also. Then describing at length the Roman impurities he adds. But what happens in addition to our evils? Among shamefast Barbarians we are shameless. I say still more, the Barbarians themselves show up our impurities. Among the Goths no Goth is allowed to consort with prostitutes; among them only Romans are permitted to be impure, to the prejudice of our nation and name. And what hope is there for us, I ask, before God? We love shamelessness, the Goths abominate it; we shun purity, they embrace it; fornication among them is a crime and a disgrace, with us it is a boast. And we think that we can stand before God. We think that we can be saved when every crime of impurity, every disgrace of shamelessness, is accepted by the Romans and punished by the Barbarians. Here I now ask those who think that we are better than the Barbarians: let them say which of these things even a handful of Goths do, or which of these all or almost all Romans do not do. And we are surprised that the lands of the Aquitanians or of all of our own people have been given by God to the Barbarians – when those lands that the Romans polluted with fornication, the Barbarians have now cleansed with their chastity. Then he insists much upon Spain one {of} the impurest countries being given up the Vandals the Chastest of Barbarians. And afterward speaking of the ingratitude of the Romans to God in that they gave not thanks to God for their victories or other blessings nor attributed them to him but to fortune or chance, or the virtue or counsel of the leaders, etc Goes on thus But it was not like this that the Goths were raised, or the Vandals; even if they were trained by evil instructors, they were still better than us in this respect as well. I have shown, page 334

Barbarians are people who are devoid of Roman or rather of human learning, who know nothing at all but what they hear from their teachers; what they hear they follow. – Therefore the teaching and doctrine of their teachers is for them like an inveterate law, because they know only what they are taught. They are therefore heretics, but not knowingly. In the last analysis, they are heretics in your eyes but not in their own. For they are so convinced that they are Catholics that they smear us with the title of the heretic name. Therefore what they are to us, we also are to them. We are sure that they slander the divine begetting, because they say that the son is less than the father. They think that we insult the father, because we believe they are equal. The truth is with us, but they presume <53v> it is with them. The honour of God is with us, but they think that the honour of the deity lies in what they believe. They are undutiful, but for them this is the highest duty of religion. They are impious, but they think that this is true piety. They are therefore in error, but in error with a good conscience, because it is not due to hatred but to love of God, since they believe that they honour and love the Lord. Although they do not have the correct belief, they think that this is the perfect love of God. No one but the judge knows how they are to be punished for this actual error of false belief on the day of judgement. Therefore in the meanwhile, as I think, God extends his patience to them, because he sees that if they do not believe rightly, they err through affection for a pious belief, especially as he knows that they do things which they do not understand, but our people neglect what they believe. For this reason they sin by the fault of their teachers, our people by their own fault, they in ignorance, our people knowingly; they do what they think is right, our people do what they know to be perverse. – Let us not be surprised therefore that many of us are slain, because we sin not through ignorance but by rebellion. Luke 12. [Editorial Note 158]


{illeg} has shown, as he writes,            he proceeds to {describe how} Gods favours had so little influence upon them as his judgments so that nothing would turn them but whatever happened whether prosperity or adversity they grew continually wors upon't: but this is enough.

To this last reproof of Saint Austin a Passage in Salo is very agreeable {as below}

Now, he says, about blasp{hemy} / So that Austin had but little ground for his good opinion of the censure and might perhaps have applied it with more colour to the Pharisee in Luke 18.10.       And afterward passes to Africanus whose prodigious {illeg}tedness having describd he proceeds thus to compare them too with the same invading Vandals. Let us see what – has been achieved./– There was no one there who was polluted by the incest of the luxurious Romans./– They abominated {th}eir impurities. I add more, they abominated – – – – be polluted./ – For {their} – – – would have. – They added – – – would be feared. – To fully tell the obscene lusts outside – – – not by lust, etc. – And what is I ask – – – – they conquered     And then describing the Sodomy of the Romans of which he said above       And yet seemd to accuse the Africans most, and here subjoyns to this {illeg} accusation

{illeg} Roman province Caesar {illeg} Sidonius Apollinaris reports the cause Aber{illeg} these {fellow-soldiers} (since at that time {illeg} the ingratitude of the tribes, {illeg} the arrogance of the governors {illeg} {of the Emperor} {illeg}res and usurers. The magistrates also not so much {governed} the State as put it up for sale . There were no rewards for virtue, the Governors {illeg} wore out the people and the provincials with new taxes and fines, and reduced the {Gallic} farmers to poverty. But I will quote the words of Sidonius. The Roman State sank into these extremes of misery because. The Nation and tribe of usurers not only administer the Roman Resources uncivilly {but} also destroy it from its foundations. Opposing parties of noble men and of military men beyond expectation and belief, bellicose things are not so much done as rewards are lacking. The Bishops to whom things were delegated by the Princeps to be managed, show little concern for the public good. When they take counsel, they are not so much concerned to {improve} public concerns as their own private fortunes. Governors, prefects of provinces oppress the Romans, insult the loyal friends of the Governemnt, and make pacts with the enemy. To those {women} Codicils are given away by Quaestors, the patrician honour by Emperors. The State has no resources, no defences, the Roman princeps has no resources. I and the rest of the {Nobility} are compelled to lose either our country or our hair. Avent. Annal. Bon. in Anthemius. [Editorial Note 159]


Damasus ends the epitaph of his sister Irena [Editorial Note 160] as follows: [Editorial Note 161]

[15]Now as God comes, remember us all, Virgin,

so that, through the Lord, your torch may afford light to me.

And the epitaph of Eutychius goes like this:

[16]He is sought; being found he is worshipped, he cherishes us, he gives all things:

Damasus has declared his merit, venerate his tomb.

And this is how he concludes the epitaph of St Laurence, for whose relics he had constructed a church (Anastas):

[17]Damasus in supplication adorns this altar with gifts, in wonder at the outstanding merit of the Martyr.

And the epitaph of Saturninus:

[18]This is the word of suppliant Damasus, venerate the Sepulchre;

it is permitted to pay one's vows, and pour out chaste prayers,

because this is the tomb of St Saturninus the martyr.[19]

He [Damasus] searched out the bodies of many holy martyrs, and adorned their sarcophagi with verses. Anastasius in his Life of Damasus.

Further, Damasus says of the Martyr Agnes:

[20]O Agnes, true beauty, kindly image of modesty

I pray, famous virgin, that you will favour the prayers of Damasus.


Constantina, worshipper of God and dedicated to Christ,

Having raised all the resources with the deepest devotion

[With much assistance from God in heaven and Christ]

She consecrated a temple of the victorious Virgin, Agnes,

Which is superior to the edifices of the temples and of all earthly things;

for the golden gables of the lofty roof gleam with a ruddy glow.

Damasus on the apostle Andrew:

Now cherish the feeble persons that we are

and undertake the care of us

And on the martyr Agatha:

Now like a bride shining in the heavens, pray for wretched Damasus;

so let your festival be celebrated

that you may favour those who honour you.

Of Felix:

You grant all things to those who come to you with their cares:

nor do you allow any pilgrim to leave in sadness.

Saved by your guidance, having broken the bonds of death

I, Damasus, in supplication, pay my vows to you in these verses.


In the Bibliotheca Graecorum Patrum there are 21 couplets {by} Ambrose same number of pictures portrayed in the Ambrosian Basilica.

Antichrist will give to his own a mark on the right hand and on the forehead, let his right hand paint me with the precious sign of the cross on my forehead; after that he will not be able to mark any of my limbs. Hippolytus, On the Consummation of the World. [Editorial Note 162] Hippolytus explains the 10 horns by 10 Kings. And he rejects the Week and 12 a week (Daniel 9) at the end of the world [Editorial Note 163]. And on the day of judgement he thus presents wicked men protesting to Christ: We have confessed you as God; We have recognised you as creator; we have done signs in your power, through you we have expelled demons, for your sake we have macerated the flesh, for your sake we have preserved virginity; for your sake we have undertaken chastity; for your sake we have become strangers on the earth, and do you say, I do not know you, depart from me? Then he will reply: You have confessed, but you have not obeyed my words, etc. Hippolytus the martyr, On the Consummation of the World.

This author (not another Hippolytus, seems to have written towards the end of the 4th century or a little later.

Many build walls and construct [Editorial Note 164] columns for the Church, the marbles shine, the ceilings are splendid with gold, the altar is decorated with gems. Jerome, Epistle to Nepotianus [Editorial Note 165].

Chrysostom, Homily 66 to the people of Antioch [Editorial Note 166]. [he says that the tombs of the servants of the Crucified One surpass royal palaces in the size and beauty of the buildings and in the zeal of those who come to visit them.] The tombs of the servants of the crucified one are more famous than royal palaces not because of the magnificence and beauty of the buildings (for they surpass them also in this) but in that which is much greater, in the zeal of those who come to visit them.

Ambrose shared the remains of Protasius and Gervasius with the noble woman Vestina, who built a Church for them at Rome, also with Paulinus of Nola and Gaudentius of Brixia, as well as with the Bishops of Gaul, Africa and Noricum, as Baronius tells us on the basis of the writings of various authors.

The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, Augusti, to Cynegius, Praetorian Prefect. [Editorial Note 167]

Let no one convey a buried body to another place, let no one divide a Martyr, let no one traffic – Dated 4 days before the Kalends of March (the 26th day of February) in the consulship of Honorius and Euodius) (386). The final provision of the title, 'On the violation of sepulchres' in the Theodosian Code. [Editorial Note 168]

The very cunning enemy has sent out to every corner many hypocrites in the guise of Monks who tour around the provinces, without being on any mission, having no fixed abode, staying nowhere, settling nowhere: some sell the limbs of martyrs, if they are indeed the limbs of martyrs; others enlarge their own fringes and phylacteries, <57r> etc. Augustine, On the Work of Monks, ch. 28, written about the year {400}.

The Emperors Valentinian and Valens, Augusti, to the people of Byzantium.

We utterly forbid wealthy laypeople to be received as clerics by the Church. Given on the 4th day before the Ides of {illeg} in the consulship of Iov. and Varron., 364), Theodosian Code, bk. 17, ch., On the Bishops of the Church and the Clergy'. [Editorial Note 169] There is a similar law of Constantine in the year 320 in the same book.

– We have seen together with those who suffered martyrdom with him, and worshipping God we have greeted their bodies in the Thebaid. Palladius in the Bibliotheca Sanctorum Graecorum Patrum, vol. 2.

Bernard in his Apology to Abbot Gulielmus/William towards the end: O vanity of vanities, but not vainer than insaner! the Church is splendid in its walls, but is destitute for its poor; it clothes its stones with gold and leaves its children naked.

Cyril, Catechism, bk. 4: Those who are our present Kings, of their piety, built this holy Church of the resurrection in which we now are, and clothed it in silver and gold, and made it splendid with silver monuments.

Jerome in his Epistle to Demetrias: Let others build churches, let them clad the walls with sheets of marble. [Editorial Note 170]

And on Zechariah, ch. 8, Jerome connects the praise of princes with the glory of the Church, since though some Pagan Emperors destroyed Churches, others rebuilt the basilicas and raised lofty gables, and decorated the ceilings and roofs with gold and clothed the walls with different kinds of marble.

And on Jeremiah, ch. 7 he says: He admonished both the people of the Jews of that time and us today who are seen to constitute the church, not to put our trust in the splendour of buildings and in gilded ceilings and walls sheathed in sheets of marble and say, the temple of the lord, the temple of the lord. [Editorial Note 171]

Augustine on Psalm 113 says: And we too also have many utensils and vessels of gold and silver for the celebration of the Sacraments, which are called sacred because they are consecrated by the service itself.

Prudentius in his Hymn about St Laurence portrays a Tyrant speaking as follows [Editorial Note 172]:

It has come out that the custom and style of your secret Rites, the rule of your brotherhood, is that your Priests make offerings from vessels of gold. They say that the holy blood smokes in silver cups, and that at your services by night the candles stand fixed in golden candlesticks.

Prosper, the book concerning Promises and Predictions, part 3, ch. 38 [Editorial Note 173] says that there was a very grand <57v> Temple Templum in his time consecrated to the true god, whose the grandeur and magnificence were such that it even had an approach road leading up to it two thousand paces long, the whole of it decorated with a pavement of precious stone and columns and walls.

Paulinus writes in his 3rd. Anniversary of St. Felix that enormous crowds were accustomed to make the pilgrimage to the body of St. Felix from far distant places.

Prudentius in his Hymn about Sts. Hemeterius and Chelidonius:

And those who live in far-off places come here.

For their fame has spread through all lands broadcasting the news

that here are patrons of the world whose favour they may seek by prayer. [Editorial Note 174]

Palladius in the Lausiac History, ch. 113, writes that Philoromus, Presbyter and Monk, twice made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to fulfil a vow; he also, for a vow, made a pilgrimage to Rome to the threshold of the Apostles, and to Alexandria for the relics of St. Mark. Also in ch. 118 he writes that Melania in Jerusalem was engaged in welcoming pilgrims who came from all across the world.

So too in Epistle17 to Marcella, Jerome [Editorial Note 175] says: It is a long task now to run through all the ages from the ascension of the Lord down to the present and tell of all the Bishops, all the Martyrs and all of those who were eloquent in the learning of the Church who have come to Jerusalem, thinking that they have no piety and no knowledge and have not received the finishing touch, as they say, of the virtues, if they have not adored Christ in the places from which the Gospel first flashed out from the cross. – Nor do we say this because we deny < insertion from f 58r > from the previous page) – the Gospel flashed out from the cross. – Nor do we say this because we deny that the kingdom of God is within us and that there are also holy men in other areas, but in order that we may assert that it is especially those that are the leading people in all the world who congregate here together. – Certainly the chorus of monks and virgins is a kind of flower and precious jewel among the ornaments of the church. All the leading men in Gaul hasten here. Even the Briton, set apart though he is from our world, if it he has made any progress in piety, he leaves his western sun behind and makes for a place which is known to him only by report and by the revelation of the scriptures. Why should we mention Armenians, Persians and the peoples of India and Ethiopia, and Egypt itself close by, fertile in monks, Pontus and Cappadocia, Syria Coele and Mesopotamia, and all the swarms of the East? – They run together to these places, and show specimens of different virtues to us. Different voices indeed but one religion. Almost as many choruses to chant the psalms as different nations. Jerome, Epistle 17, to Marcella. < text from f 57v resumes > And in Epistle 154 to Desiderium he says among other things: Certainly to worship where the feet of the Lord have stood, is a part of the faith.


Jerome to Paulinus, who was {then} a young man, later Bishop of Nola, urging him not to come to Jerusalem {Epistle} [Editorial Note 176]: people come here from all over the world. The city is full of people of every sort, and such is the crowd of both sexes {that} what elsewhere you partly avoided, here you are compelled wholly to put up with. The same letter says: neither Antony nor all the swarms of Egypt and Mesopotamia, Pontus, Cappadocia and Armenia, had seen Jerusalem [Editorial Note 177]. – From the time of Hadrian right down to the Reign of Constantine, a period of about 180 years, an image of Jupiter was worshipped on the site of the Resurrection, and on the rock of the Cross a marble statue of Venus, put there by the Gentiles, was worshipped [Editorial Note 178]. Written in the year 394, Baronius 394.94

Paulinus of Nola a Monk: Jerome, Epistle 13 to Paulinus.

Jerome first goes to the East in the year 370. Baronius under the year 372, §39.

Vigilantius, a Spaniard, first comes to Jerusalem in the year 394, recommended by a letter from Paulinus, he goes down into Egypt, then around the year 404 he begins to write against the cult of the martyrs. Jerome attacked him in the year 496. Baronius under the year 394       and 406, §39 ff.

Let others build churches, clad the walls with sheets of marble, let them import massive columns, let them gild the capitals of the columns with gold (they do not feel the precious ornament) and let them decorate the great doors with ivory and silver and the gilded altars with jewels. I do not blame it, I do not reject it. Let each one abound in his own sense. It is better to do this than to hoard up your wealth and do nothing with it. But <58v> for you a different thing is intended, etc. Jerome to Demetrias. [Editorial Note 179]

At the expense of the state, they build basilicas of Churches and erect lofty gables, so that they may not only decorate the ceilings and roofs with gold, but may clad the walls with sheets of different kinds of marble, and venerate the divine books gilded and bound in purple and picked out with a variety of precious stones, for the protection of the Roman state.

The following epitaph [Editorial Note 180] demonstrates the extraordinary ornamentation put in the Church of St. Athanasia by Pope Damasus:

Bishop Damasus had adorned the ceilings with glorious painting,

to which beautiful jewels now add splendour.

The nave more precious in its rich glory

testifies what wonderful things faith can do.[21]

Chrysostom lived for 52 years, 8 months; he died in 407 AD, when Honorius was consul for the seventh time and Theodosius for the second time. [Born 354 AD] From the law court he withdrew to the Desert, taking up Monasticism at the beginning of his 22nd year, in the year after the death of Valentinian I [376 AD, when he wrote about the priesthood and composed the Panegyrical Oration on Meletius in Curius, vol. 1, under 12th February; after four years he returns to Antioch and becomes first Reader, then in the year 381, before the Council of Constantinople, he is ordained Deacon by Meletius, and after five years [386 AD] he becomes a Presbyter, and after another 12 years Bishop of Constantinople. Baronius, under the year 382.55 ff. Chrysostom wrote Oration 2 in the year 382 in Bab. Sermonem on Anathema, Five Orations against the Anomaeans.

You have indicated that certain of our brothers who were baptised by the impious Arians, want to be baptised over again, but this is not allowed. For the Apostle forbids and the canons prohibit that this should be done, and after the Council at Ariminum had ended the general decrees sent to the Provinces by my predecessor Liberius, of venerable memory, prohibit it; we unite them – together with the Novatians and other heretics – with the community of Catholics, as decided in the synod, by the invocation of the seven-fold spirit at the laying-on of an Episcopal hand. And this the whole of the East and the West maintains, Siricius [Editorial Note 181] to Hemerius of Tarragon, ch. 1.

And a little later in ch. 9: We urge that priests and deacons not have intercourse with their wives, because in the divine ministry they are occupied with daily necessities. – Perhaps [it is believed] that this is allowed because it is written, the husband of one wife. [Editorial Note 182] He spoke not of one who persists in the lust of begetting, but for the sake of future continence. Nor did he refuse to admit celibates, he who says: I would that all men were as I am. And he makes a more open declaration when he says: Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are no longer in the flesh, <59r> but in the spirit. Given at Rome in the Council of the eighty Bishops on the 8th day before the Ides of January after the Consulship of Arcadius and Bauto [385]. But this Letter's genuineness is suspect; and it is due to Innocent I in the year 404, and is ch. 9 of that Letter. And at the head of ch. 5 of the same Letter it is stated: That a Clergyman should not take a woman/married woman to wife, because it is written, Let a Priest take a Virgin to Wife, Leviticus 21.

198 AD The Equinox was on the 8th before the Kalends of April. Christ suffered on 11th before the Kalends of April, on which night he was handed over by the Jews; he rose again on the 7th before the Kalends of April. The Council of Palestine was held in 198 AD. In Bede.

The African Council under Zepherinus , about 217, wanted Heretics to be rebaptized. Cyprian follows this in Epistle 17, to Quintus. Later many Eastern Bishops meeting at Iconium in the year 258 make the same decision against the baptism of the Cataphrygian Heretics. Stephanus, the pope at Rome, later rejects them for this reason. At the same time a council also is convened at Synnada, and in many other places bishops gather and express the same opinion as the Synod at Iconium. On this, see Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius bk. 7, ch. 6 ad fin. See Baronius under the year 258, no. 17. In Africa also new councils are called that have the same views. All about the year 258.


Jerome {anon} considered [that Rome still ancient on paganism,: then su] – that his native land was corrupted by barbaric pleasures; as he himself says in one of his Epistles: In my native land they are slaves of crudity, their God is their belly, and they live for the day; and the richer a man is, the holier he is. Accordingly, after taking counsel with his friends, he meditated withdrawal, so that he might dedicate himself more freely and more easily wholly to sacred studies and to Christ. ... In addition [he perceived] that the status of clergy and Bishop was subject to grave perils because honour and wealth and worldly affairs enveloped them whether they liked it or not, and carried them off course. And the life of many was displeasing, since the ancient piety was already degenerating into the tyranny and arrogance of priests. Weighing it all up therefore and surveying the whole thing, the way of life of the monk appealed to him. Erasmus in the Life of Jerome.

33 34 35 36, 60, 79.

The Council of Elibertinum (held in the year 305) has this in Canon 34: It was decided that candles should not be burned in the cemetery during the day; for the spirits of the saints are not to be disturbed. Let anyone who does not observe this, be barred from the communion of the Church.

Canon 35 It was decided that women should be prohibited from keeping vigil in the Cemetery; because often under cover of prayer they secretly do wrong.

Canon 36 It was decided that there should be no pictures in Church, lest what is worshipped and adored should be portrayed on the walls.

Canon 60 Anyone who smashed Idols and was killed on the spot – since this is not written in the Gospel, and is not found to have been done by the Apostles, it was decided that he should not be admitted among the number of the martyrs.

Canon 79 If any of the faithful have bet money in gambling or at the tables, it was decided that he should abstain; and if he reforms and stops doing it, he will be able to be reconciled in communion after a year. Osius of Cordova was at this Synod.

Jerome calls the College of Roman clerics sometimes a Senate of Pharisees, sometimes a school of the same (somewhere). Baronius under the year 385. 10.

The senate of Pharisees cried out with one voice, as no scribe, even a counterfeit one, but the whole faction of ignorance conspired against me as if I had declared a war of doctrines against them. Jerome in the preface to his translation of Didymus, On the Holy Spirit.

About thirty years ago, I published a book on the preservation of virginity, in which it was necessary for me to oppose vices and to lay bare the devices of the devil, for the instruction of a virgin whom I was advising. This publication offended a large number of people as each one of them, understanding what was said to be about himself, did not welcome me as an adviser, but saw me as an accuser, from whose work he turned away in horror. Yet what was the value of having armed a whole army of protesters and of having demonstrated the wound of conscience by the pain? The book remains, the men <59r> have passed away. Jerome, Epistle 8 to Demetrias. This liberty of Jerome in condemning the clergy also displeased Ruffinus (adds Baronius under the year 358.8). For he says: How could he say those things of the City of Rome, which is, by God's God's favour, the head of the Christians, things which he said at a time when Gentile peoples and Persecuting Emperors were still living in it. Then Baronius minimises the corruptions by saying that some among the Roman clergy were learned and praiseworthy men, and although a large number of them were corrupt, still the faith of the Pharisees was to be followed, not their morals imitated.

The Council of Elibertinum stated that no one should lie with his wife between Easter and Pentecost and sinners should perform penance for a year – unless they had done it when drunk. See.

[Editorial Note 1]

Newton's quotation and summary of a large portion of this letter of the 'Westerners' appears to be taken from Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 2. The reference is bk. 2, ch. 8 in the edition of this work in Theodoret de Cyr, Histoire ecclésiastique, t. I (livres I-II), ed. L. Parmentier et al (Paris 2006) at p. 351 ff. The chapter number is 6 in the translation of it in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 3, Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus, pp. 68-72.

The letter is also found in a curtailed form among the Fragments of Hilary available in S. Hilarii Episcopi Pataviensis Opera, Pars Quarta, ed. A. Feder, Vienna and Leipzig, 1916, (vol. LXV in the series Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum), pp. 126-30. Newton's passage begins on p. 128. I have consulted this text. A translation of Hilary's version of the letter may be found in Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-century Church, trans. with introduction and notes by Lionel R. Wickham (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997), p. 41 ff., which I have consulted for this and other extracts from Hilary.

Athanasius gives a still briefer version in his Apologia contra Arianos, ch. 44 ff; Newton has a comment on A's version at f 6r.


b When bishop Paul intruded by force into the see of Constantinople, and had caused many riots and massacres, Constantius bound the man in irons and deported him into exile. Is Constantius therefore to be called a Persecutor? Certainly there is no modern Prince who would not punish such a rebel with death. But the Westerners wrap their own crimes in silence and think to make martyrs from the punishments alone. What if Theodulus and the other man who displayed his chains had been involved in riots and massacres exactly as Paul was? Further, what if the one had not been bound in chains and the other had not been ordered to be killed? For no eye-witnesses of these events are mentioned. Learn at least from the similar case of Athanasius what we should think about Theodulus. For since the only thing that the Easterners tried to achieve was to expel him from his see, the eighty Egyptians gathered in the Synod at Alexandria thus claim that there was a death plot against him too. The accusatory letter of the Eusebians, they say, intends nothing but death, and they are working for death, if they are allowed to get away with it, and to send men into exile. This they have demanded from the most religious father of Emperors, but he has satisfied their anger by exiling the condemned men, though they were working for capital punishment.

But since the letter of the Sardicans says that this suffering of Theodulus and that other Bishop is the most serious thing of all, and no further Bishops are noted as having suffered such things, it is clear that no Bishop was killed or beaten with clubs. For to be killed is more serious than to escape the capital penalty, and to be beaten with clubs is worse than to be merely held in prison. Hence it is clear that Athanasius at the beginning of his letter to the Arians was making up a story when he thus describes the entry of Gregory into Egypt. The Eusebians, he says, give a letter to Philagrius and are responsible for the fact that he leaves at once with Gregory for Egypt; and immediately thereafter Bishops were flogged and loaded with painful bonds. They therefore send the Bishop confessor Serapammon into exile; but Potammon and the actual Bis <2v> hop Confessor who had been an eye-witness to the persecution, they struck with blows on the neck so savagely that they did not stop until he appeared to be dead. In this condition then he was cast out, and after some hours, with treatment and dressings, he barely recovered consciousness, God granting him life. But not much later he died from the pain of the blows, obtaining the glory of a second martyrdom in Christ. And how many other followers of the monastic life were flogged, when Gregory sat upon the bench together with Duke Balacius? How many other Bishops were severely beaten with clubs there? Then after all this, the wretched Gregory invited everyone to hold communion with him. So Athanasius. But these are much more serious things than the things that the Council at Sardica describe as the most serious of all, and accordingly they cannot be true. For Athanasius and the eighty Bishops and the rest of the Egyptians would neither have failed to mention these things in the Council of Sardica, if they had been concocted by that time, nor, with the Westerners, would they have been silent about them and represented lesser offences as the most serious. Let the reader judge therefore how reliable a Martyrologue this Athanasius is.

[2] They conceal and fail to mention that Constantius was treated with inhuman barbarity, that the defences of the Church were turned upside down, that the church of Dionysius was burnt , and then they lament with loud cries what they themselves suffered either in riots or afterwards in the courts because of their great crimes, exactly as if the putting down of rebels and infliction of well-deserved penalties were to be called a persecution of good men. Of such a collection of seditious men did that Synod consist. Having been defeated in their previous seditions and brought before the Courts, they now converged on Sardica with hostile anger still seething in their hearts, in order to use the strength of the West to bring off a victory against their own Emperor, whom they had assaulted in vain with their own weapons.

[3] Note: The contents of this note are only visible in the diplomatic transcript because they are deleted on the original manuscript. [Editorial Note 2]

[Editorial Note 2] The deleted diplomatic text says: 'What sort of hunger this was, I do not know. Perhaps the reference is to the Corn which Constantius, as I think, took away from the Athanasians and ordered to be given only to his own people. But that corn had been donated by Constantine. And an Imperial donation should be distributed at the discretion of the Emperor.'


b When bishop Paul intruded by force into the see of Constantinople, and had caused many riots and massacres, Constantius bound the man in irons and deported him into exile. Is Constantius therefore to be called a Persecutor? Certainly there is no modern Prince who would not punish such a rebel with death. But the Westerners wrap their own crimes in silence and think to make martyrs from the punishments alone. What if Theodulus and the other man who displayed his chains had been involved in riots and massacres exactly as Paul was? Further, what if the one had not been bound in chains and the other had not been ordered to be killed? For no eye-witnesses of these events are mentioned. Learn at least from the similar case of Athanasius what we should think about Theodulus. For since the only thing that the Easterners tried to achieve was to expel him from his see, the eighty Egyptians gathered in the Synod at Alexandria thus claim that there was a death plot against him too. The accusatory letter of the Eusebians, they say, intends nothing but death, and they are working for death, if they are allowed to get away with it, and to send men into exile. This they have demanded from the most religious father of Emperors, but he has satisfied their anger by exiling the condemned men, though they were working for capital punishment.

But since the letter of the Sardicans says that this suffering of Theodulus and that other Bishop is the most serious thing of all, and no further Bishops are noted as having suffered such things, it is clear that no Bishop was killed or beaten with clubs. For to be killed is more serious than to escape the capital penalty, and to be beaten with clubs is worse than to be merely held in prison. Hence it is clear that Athanasius at the beginning of his letter to the Arians was making up a story when he thus describes the entry of Gregory into Egypt. The Eusebians, he says, give a letter to Philagrius and are responsible for the fact that he leaves at once with Gregory for Egypt; and immediately thereafter Bishops were flogged and loaded with painful bonds. They therefore send the Bishop confessor Serapammon into exile; but Potammon and the actual Bis <2v> hop Confessor who had been an eye-witness to the persecution, they struck with blows on the neck so savagely that they did not stop until he appeared to be dead. In this condition then he was cast out, and after some hours, with treatment and dressings, he barely recovered consciousness, God granting him life. But not much later he died from the pain of the blows, obtaining the glory of a second martyrdom in Christ. And how many other followers of the monastic life were flogged, when Gregory sat upon the bench together with Duke Balacius? How many other Bishops were severely beaten with clubs there? Then after all this, the wretched Gregory invited everyone to hold communion with him. So Athanasius. But these are much more serious things than the things that the Council at Sardica describe as the most serious of all, and accordingly they cannot be true. For Athanasius and the eighty Bishops and the rest of the Egyptians would neither have failed to mention these things in the Council of Sardica, if they had been concocted by that time, nor, with the Westerners, would they have been silent about them and represented lesser offences as the most serious. Let the reader judge therefore how reliable a Martyrologue this Athanasius is.

[5] d Here is meant the letter which Theognius and other Easterner wrote to the three Augusti after the return of Athanasius. That such a letter of accusation was written (even though no one denied it), they confirm by the testimony of the Deacons of Theognius . But they call the accusations the assumptions of spurious letters; however they themselves assume they are false, and they do not undertake to prove it.


b When bishop Paul intruded by force into the see of Constantinople, and had caused many riots and massacres, Constantius bound the man in irons and deported him into exile. Is Constantius therefore to be called a Persecutor? Certainly there is no modern Prince who would not punish such a rebel with death. But the Westerners wrap their own crimes in silence and think to make martyrs from the punishments alone. What if Theodulus and the other man who displayed his chains had been involved in riots and massacres exactly as Paul was? Further, what if the one had not been bound in chains and the other had not been ordered to be killed? For no eye-witnesses of these events are mentioned. Learn at least from the similar case of Athanasius what we should think about Theodulus. For since the only thing that the Easterners tried to achieve was to expel him from his see, the eighty Egyptians gathered in the Synod at Alexandria thus claim that there was a death plot against him too. The accusatory letter of the Eusebians, they say, intends nothing but death, and they are working for death, if they are allowed to get away with it, and to send men into exile. This they have demanded from the most religious father of Emperors, but he has satisfied their anger by exiling the condemned men, though they were working for capital punishment.

But since the letter of the Sardicans says that this suffering of Theodulus and that other Bishop is the most serious thing of all, and no further Bishops are noted as having suffered such things, it is clear that no Bishop was killed or beaten with clubs. For to be killed is more serious than to escape the capital penalty, and to be beaten with clubs is worse than to be merely held in prison. Hence it is clear that Athanasius at the beginning of his letter to the Arians was making up a story when he thus describes the entry of Gregory into Egypt. The Eusebians, he says, give a letter to Philagrius and are responsible for the fact that he leaves at once with Gregory for Egypt; and immediately thereafter Bishops were flogged and loaded with painful bonds. They therefore send the Bishop confessor Serapammon into exile; but Potammon and the actual Bis <2v> hop Confessor who had been an eye-witness to the persecution, they struck with blows on the neck so savagely that they did not stop until he appeared to be dead. In this condition then he was cast out, and after some hours, with treatment and dressings, he barely recovered consciousness, God granting him life. But not much later he died from the pain of the blows, obtaining the glory of a second martyrdom in Christ. And how many other followers of the monastic life were flogged, when Gregory sat upon the bench together with Duke Balacius? How many other Bishops were severely beaten with clubs there? Then after all this, the wretched Gregory invited everyone to hold communion with him. So Athanasius. But these are much more serious things than the things that the Council at Sardica describe as the most serious of all, and accordingly they cannot be true. For Athanasius and the eighty Bishops and the rest of the Egyptians would neither have failed to mention these things in the Council of Sardica, if they had been concocted by that time, nor, with the Westerners, would they have been silent about them and represented lesser offences as the most serious. Let the reader judge therefore how reliable a Martyrologue this Athanasius is.

[Editorial Note 3] Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 102v.

[Editorial Note 4] Alternative spelling, 'Melitius'.

[7] ✝ οὐσίας [Editorial Note 5]

[Editorial Note 5] ousias

[Editorial Note 6] From this point (para. 36 in Parmentier's edition of Theodoret), the material is found only in Theodoret, not in Hilary or Athanasius.

[Editorial Note 7] Transliteration of the Greek ὑπόστασις

[Editorial Note 8] Transliteration of the Greek οὐσία.

[Editorial Note 9] John, 14.10.

[Editorial Note 10] John, 10.30.

[Editorial Note 11] Theodoret, Histoire ecclésiastique, ed. Parmentier, II.8.48.

[Editorial Note 12] John, 17.21.

[Editorial Note 13] This passage of the Letter to Julius appears in S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Opera, Pars Quarta, ed. Feder, p. 126-30 at p. 128. A translation is available in Wickham, Hilary, p. 47 ff.

[Editorial Note 14] This looks like Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, translated in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, p. 97 ff.

[Editorial Note 15] This passage is available in Wickham, Hilary, p. 49.

[8] ✝ delated.

[Editorial Note 16] But Newton may have written delectas, because that is a variant reading in the text of Hilary at this point. However it does not seem to make sense here, since it means 'select, special'. Feder (p. 128) refines on deiectas and reads deiectos.

[Editorial Note 17] There is a parallel passage at Yahuda 2.3, f 102r ff., in which this passage is Newton's comments on a passage which he attributes to Hosius, Letter to Constantius, 102.

[Editorial Note 18] Cf. Wickham, p. 31. From the Decree or Letter of the Eastern bishops at Sardica, in Hilarii Opera, ed. Feder, p. 48-78, para. 19. Translation in Wickham, Hilary, pp. 20-41.

[Editorial Note 19] Yahuda 2.3 f 102r also contains some of the material in this paragraph, but it is handled differently.

[Editorial Note 20] For this and the following paragraph, cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 102v.

[Editorial Note 21] The Decree or Letter of the Eastern bishops at Sardica, in Hilarii Opera, ed. Feder, p. 48-78, para. 19. Translation in Wickham, Hilary, pp. 20-41. Newton possessed Hilarii Quotquot extant opera... (Parisiis 1652).

[Editorial Note 22] Newton possessed Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, 12 vols. in 6 (Coloniae Agrippinae 1609-13).

[Editorial Note 23] Wickham, Hilary, p. 21 ff.

[Editorial Note 24] Cf. Letter of the Easterners, §§6-8.

[Editorial Note 25] Presumably the Basilica at Alexandria.

[Editorial Note 26] The parallel with Yahuda 2.3 ends here.

[Editorial Note 27] Cf. Letter of the Eastern bishops, §11 ff

[9] ✝ This is found towards the end of the epistle.

[Editorial Note 28] The direct quotation of paras. 11-13 ends here.

[Editorial Note 29] Direct quotation (from para 19 ff.) resumes here (Wickham, p. 31).

[Editorial Note 30] Newton omits some lines here and jumps to the beginning of para. 20.

[Editorial Note 31] Newton's et quia indicates that N. could be following the text of Faber or of Labbe here. I think Faber is early enough. Faber, Paris 1598.

[Editorial Note 32] Io. Thessalonicensis Fab. Ioannes Thessalonicensis Labbe. Both have Protogeni.

[Editorial Note 33] Cf. 1 Samuel 2.25.

[Editorial Note 34] Cf. 1 Corinthians, 11.16.

[Editorial Note 35] Or 'gentiles', 'pagans': cf. Romans 2.24.

[Editorial Note 36] Cf. Hebrews 6.6.

[Editorial Note 37] Cf. Proverbs 22.28.

[Editorial Note 38] We move on to the latter part of para. 24 (p. 34 of Wickham).

[Editorial Note 39] Cf. Jonah 1.12.

[Editorial Note 40] i.e. made no exemption for persons of high standing; Cf. Acts 10.34: 'God is no respecter of persons'.

[10] ✝ Cassian, Conferences, 2, ch. 13.

[Editorial Note 41] John Cassian, Collationes Patrum, 2 'Second Conference of Abbot Moses', ch. 13. I have consulted the text of Cassian, Collationes, ed. M. Petschenig (Vienna 2004), Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 13 and the English translation of our passage in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 11, p. 314-15.

[Editorial Note 42] This looks like Epiphanius, Panarion omnium haeresium ['A bread-basket of all the heresies']. Cf.n. 134 of Yahuda 2.3.

[Editorial Note 43] Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 4r and f 9r; the latter mentions Epiphanius.

[Editorial Note 44] This looks like one of the works by one of the later churchmen named Epiphanius, which has been ascribed to Newton's fourth century Epiphanius, i.e. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis/Constantia, Cyprus. Born c. 315, died 402.

[Editorial Note 45] Or 'Cyrrhus'.

[Editorial Note 46] Theodoret, Religious History. Newton owned Palladii ... historia, et Theodoreti Episcopi Cyri Θεοφιλὴς, id est religiosa historia ... (Paris 1555). Harrison 1233.

[Editorial Note 47] Ἄθλητες, 'champions of Christ' (Patristic Dictionary, ed. Lampe), a common appellation, I believe, of martyrs and confessors; cf. e.g., 2 Timothy, 4.7-8.

[Editorial Note 48] Jovian became emperor in June 363, on the death of Julian. This implies that Gregory published his Invective after the death of Julian, as Newton notes below.

[Editorial Note 49] This occurs near the beginning of Yahuda 2.3.

[Editorial Note 50] The temple of Apollo at Daphne.

[Editorial Note 51] Prudentius, Peristephanon liber, ['Crowns of Martyrdom'], XI.193-94. Cf. Yahuda 2.3, 17r.

[Editorial Note 52] I have consulted Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici (Lucca, 1730-38), vol. 1 for the quotations in this paragraph.

[11] h. h. Cicero, On the Laws, bk. 2. [Editorial Note 53]

[Editorial Note 53] Cf. Cicero, On Laws, 2.23.58.

[Editorial Note 54] Dio Cassius, Roman History, 69.12.3.

[Editorial Note 55] Baronius's text resumes here.

[Editorial Note 56] Platina, Bartolomeo, Historia de vitis Pontificum Romanorum (Coloniae 1600). Harrison 1323.

[Editorial Note 57] This passage occurs at De vera religione LV, 108 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini, De doctrina Christiana, De vera religione (Turnholt 1962), p. 256 (CSEL series). Presumably De vera religione was divided into books in earlier editions.

[Editorial Note 58] Gregory Nazianzen, 'Funeral Oration on his sister Gorgonia', in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 7, p. 245. In Gregory's text the first two clauses are conditional: 'if holy souls take account of our address, if they have the gift from God to have knowledge of such things, accept this address of mine instead of many epitaphs'.

[Editorial Note 59] This passage occurs at greater length in f 10r-f 11r.

[Editorial Note 60] I have the consulted the text of S. Aureli Augustini, Epistulae (CSEL, vol. 34.1) and the English translation in N.&P-N Fathers, vol. 1, p. 239, where this letter is Epistle 22.

[Editorial Note 61] Cf. Romans 13, 13 and Augustine, Confessions, 8.12.

[Editorial Note 62] Quod quidem a Christianis melioribus non fit: Sancti Aurelii Augustini Episcopi De civitate Dei libri XXII, ed. E. Hoffmann, 2 vols. (Prague, etc., 1899-1900). CSEL, vol. XL, 1 & 2. Cf. f 48v-49r below.

[12] {illeg} 384, § 32, 34.

[13] ✝ read 'of a man'

[Editorial Note 63] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History.

[Editorial Note 64] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History.

[Editorial Note 65] Presumably, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History.

[Editorial Note 66] Philostorgius, Arian author of an Ecclesiastical History which has survived in fragments (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, sv.)

[Editorial Note 67] Procopius, History of the Wars, 7.21.12 ff. This portion of the History is also known as the Gothic War. I consulted the Loeb edition, ed. and tr. H. B. Dewing (1924).

[Editorial Note 68] 7.22.7.

[Editorial Note 69] presumably Agathias, Histories.

[Editorial Note 70] Presumably Paulus Diaconus.

[Editorial Note 71] Procopius, History of the Wars, 7.9.2-4.

[Editorial Note 72] Procopius, History of the Wars, 7.9.1.

[Editorial Note 73] This is an abbreviation of the first sentence of the previous paragraph.

[Editorial Note 74] Procopius, History of the Wars, 2.17.18-20.

[Editorial Note 75] sibi supplied from σφὰς αὐτοὺς

[Editorial Note 76] Procopius, History of the Wars, 7.20.19-20.

[Editorial Note 77] Procopius, History of the Wars, 7.21.12.

[Editorial Note 78] this is reconstituted from the text of Procopius, 7.21.12, and from the first line of these extracts above at the top of f 32r. But it is highly uncertain exactly what the Latin text should be.

[Editorial Note 79] This paragraph is from Cyprian, De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, §3. I have largely restored the text from the text printed in Cyprien de Carthage, L'unité de l'église (De Ecclesiae catholicae unitate), ed. and tr. P. Siniscalco et al. (Paris 2006), pp. 172-75, though at one or two points it seemed to me that the text of the edition used by Newton differed from Siniscalco's, and I have followed Newton. I have not indicated all the bits omitted by Newton. Newton owned two editions of Cyprian's works: Harrison, 474 and 475.

[Editorial Note 80] 2 Thess. 2-3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

[Editorial Note 81] I have restored this passage in the light of the CSEL edition of The City of God. See note 77 above for the title.

[Editorial Note 82] 'into the temple'

[Editorial Note 83] Philippians 2.6: 'he thought it not robbery'.

[Editorial Note 84] Could this be a reference to Cyril, Catecheses?

[Editorial Note 85] This also is Philippians 2.6: '[Christ Jesus] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery [οὐκ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο] to be equal with God'. But there is only one letter to the Philippians.

[Editorial Note 86] These look like anti-Athanasian excerpts, perhaps from Biblotheca Patrum Graecorum – see f 31r.

[Editorial Note 87] Contra Marcellum.

[Editorial Note 88] this sentence is incoherent

[Editorial Note 89] This looks like the gift of 'discernment of spirits'; see 1 Corinthians 12.10.

[Editorial Note 90] No. XXXI in Butler's edition (p. 86).

[Editorial Note 91] Otherwise known as his Religious History.

[Editorial Note 92] Prudentius, Peristephanon liber, ['Crowns of Martyrdom'], IV.9-200.

[Editorial Note 93] Prudentius, Peristephanon liber, ['Crowns of Martyrdom'], II.541-44 (in Loeb edition, vol. 2).

[Editorial Note 94] Prudentius, Peristephanon liber, ['Crowns of Martyrdom'], XI.1-15.

[Editorial Note 95] Pope Damasus died in 384.

[Editorial Note 96] The celebration marking twenty years from Constantine's accession in 305.

[Editorial Note 97] The Erythraean Sibyl was one of a number of Sibyls that offered prophetic oracles.

[Editorial Note 98] Baronius's text continues: vos enim caelestium florum receptaculum convellere ... ausi estis: 'you have dared to tear apart the repository of heavenly flowers'.

[Editorial Note 99] This appears to be Epiphanius, Ancoratus ['The Firmly-anchored Man'].

[Editorial Note 100] Presumably the Life of Constantine by Eusebius.

[Editorial Note 101] This looks like Christophorus Sandius, Nucleus historiae ecclesiasticae ... (Amsterdam 1699). Harrison 1444.

[14] See Baronius 325.68 * {Where} Baronius gives a similar account of how they arrived at the term homousion < insertion from f 41r > ✝ – the above Bishops again affirming that it should also be written that he is the true power and image of the Father and like to the Father, and that, immutable through all things and changeless and eternal and undivided, he subsists in the father; for never was he not, but ever was, and subsisted perpetually with the Father in the splendour of light; Those things indeed the Arians | Eusebians maintained. As if the being like and being in him and being his power were common to the son with us. – For this reason the Bishops were compelled to reformulate in clearer words what they had previously said and to write that the son is consubstantial with the father, so that they might signify not merely like in the sense of similitude, but the same, by means of that expression by which he is said to be of the father. Athanasius, ibid., and on the next page, Baronius, 325.67, 68. DHe should rather have said from his premises not only like as we are but with similitude of essence. N.B. If by of the substance of God they had meant that he was the same substance and not substance of substance {tion angelic}, they would have put questions about his eternity, nor would they after 'of substance' have put consubstantial. < text from f 40v resumes >

[Editorial Note 102] haer. Arian. Decret.

[Editorial Note 103] This looks like Hebrews 1.2-3: 'his Son ... the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person' (AV), 'figura substantiae ejus' (Vulgate).

[Editorial Note 104] I have consulted the text of Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, 329.12 on this passage. I have not noted Newton's few omissions.

[Editorial Note 105] The festival to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Constantine's accession in 305.

[Editorial Note 106] This looks like Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiasticae historiae libri XVIII (Paris 1630). Harrison 1173.

[Editorial Note 107] The celebration of 30 years since Constantine's accession in 305.

[Editorial Note 108] If it was modo, it might possibly mean 'different versions are given by different people at different times', but that is a real stretch -->

[Editorial Note 109] This appears to be 1.25 in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers translation, vol. 2, p. 275 f.

[Editorial Note 110] Egyptian Thebes, presumably; perhaps a reference to the Thebaid, where there were so many monks.

[Editorial Note 111] An honorific title.

[Editorial Note 112] Newton seems to spell the name of this bishop of Nicaea, if it is indeed he, as both Theognis and Theognius.

[Editorial Note 113] Pope 352-66.

[Editorial Note 114] I have consulted Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, 365.13 on this passage.

[Editorial Note 115] Rimini.

[Editorial Note 116] An honorific title.

[Editorial Note 117] This letter of Liberius is in bk. 4, ch. 12 in the N&P-N Fathers translation, from the Greek, of Socrates' History.

[Editorial Note 118] An honorific title.

[Editorial Note 119] Papa seems to be applied at various points in this piece to the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople, as well as to the Bishop of Rome.

[Editorial Note 120] An honorific title.

[Editorial Note 121] I have consulted Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici 371.49 on this passage.

[Editorial Note 122] Jerome, Letter 84 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, p. 176. Latin text emended from Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, 371.50.

[Editorial Note 123] Ammianus Marcellinus, 31.12-13.

[Editorial Note 124] I have consulted Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae, CSEL, vol. LVI, Epistle 15.4.

[Editorial Note 125] In all N's references to the Theodosian Code, the book number he gives (e.g. bk. 2) is actually the section number. The modern reference for this one is Theodosian Code, bk. 16, title 1, section 2. On all these passages I have consulted Codex Theodosianus, ed. Krueger and Mommsen (1904/2000) and The Theodosian Code, ed. and tr. C. Pharr (Princeton 1952). The current passage is Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 1 'De fide catholica', §2; Pharr, p. 440.

[Editorial Note 126] Cf. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.14, p. 181. Baronius's marginal note reads 'Theo. in Nomocan. Photii'.

[Editorial Note 127] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 1 'De fide catholica', §3; Pharr, p. 440.

[Editorial Note 128] Krueger-Moomsen, XVI. 5 'De haereticis, §§11 and 12; Pharr, pp. 452-3.

[Editorial Note 129] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 1 'De fide catholica', §4; Pharr, p. 440.

[Editorial Note 130] This appears to be Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 4 'De his qui super religione contendunt', §1; Pharr, p. 449.

[Editorial Note 131] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 5 'De haereticis', §14, Pharr, p. 453.

[Editorial Note 132] Krueger-Mommsen, XIV.5 ,De haereticis', 15; Pharr, p. 453.

[Editorial Note 133] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 4 'De his qui super religion contendunt' §2; Pharr, p. 449.

[Editorial Note 134] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI, 5 ,De haereticis', §16; Pharr, p. 453.

[Editorial Note 135] Cf. Yahuda 2.4a f 10r ff. on this stray remark.

[Editorial Note 136] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 5 'De haereticis', §20; Pharr, p. 454.

[Editorial Note 137] This looks like Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 5 'De haereticis'. §21; Pharr, p. 454.

[Editorial Note 138] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI.5 'De Haereticis', 22-23; Pharr, p. 454.

[Editorial Note 139] This looks like Isaiah, 65.4, 'which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments' (AV).

[Editorial Note 140] Refrigerium: the place of 'refreshing' or 'consolation' to which saints and martyrs go after death.

[Editorial Note 141] Cf. Revelation 14.4.

[Editorial Note 142] Jerome, Against Vigilantius. I have made an attempt to fill in the gaps in the text with the help of the English translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 418-19. I have not been able to locate a Latin text.

[Editorial Note 143] This looks like De Tempore, 'On Time', perhaps the sermon De Tempore barbarico, excerpted at f 52r below.

[Editorial Note 144] Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 2r.

[Editorial Note 145] Prudentius, Peristephanon liber, ['Crowns of Martyrdom'], XI, 177-78.

[Editorial Note 146] De cura pro mortuis gerenda, ch. 4, Migne, PL, vol. 40, p. 596: 'non video quae sunt adjumenta mortuorum, nisi ad hoc ut dum recolunt ubi sint posita eorum quos diligent corpora, eisdem sanctis illos tamquam patronis susceptos apud Dominum adjuvandos orando commendent.' Cf. Yahuda 2,3, f 2r. Translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 3, p. 542.

[Editorial Note 147] For the difference between latria and doulia/dulia, see Yahuda 2.3, f 2r.

[Editorial Note 148] Ezekiel 14.21: 'For thus saith the Lord God: How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?'

[Editorial Note 149] Psalm 98/99.5.

[Editorial Note 150] 2 Kings 2.15.

[Editorial Note 151] 2 Peter 1.15.

[Editorial Note 152] Hebrews 12.23.

[Editorial Note 153] Cf. Galatians 4.26.

[Editorial Note 154] Genesis 48.16.

[Editorial Note 155] Cf. Matthew 23.27: 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.'

[Editorial Note 156] This paragraph consists of sentences from a sermon that appears among Augustine's sermons called Sermo de tempore barbarico, chs. 1-4.

[Editorial Note 157] 2 Peter 2.21-22.

[Editorial Note 158] This looks like Luke 12.46-8.

[Editorial Note 159] I have not been able to identify this passage of Sidonius Apollinaris, or locate a text, and the emendations I suggest in the passage are not much more than guesses.

[Editorial Note 160] Dictionary of Christian Biography, ed. M. Walsh (Collegeville, Minn. 2001), vol. 2, p. 284, s.v. 'Irene' (5).

[Editorial Note 161] This and several of the following passages fom Pope Damasus are also quoted in Yahuda 2.3, f 67r.

[15] Antiquae inscriptiones in Appen. pa{g.} 1172.

[16] pag 1172 n. 13.

[17] p. 1177. n. 1

[18] p 1172 n 2

[19] All these are in Baronius under the year 384 § 21 ff.

[20] Damasus, Eulogies of the saints in the Bibliotheca Graecorum Patrum, vol. 3, p. 844.

[Editorial Note 162] The works of Hippolytus, if this is the bishop and writer of the third century, are in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 10.

[Editorial Note 163] This looks like Daniel, 9.27.

[Editorial Note 164] The Loeb prints subtrahunt rather than Newton's substruunt (Select Letters of St. Jerome, ed. F.A. Wright. Loeb Classical Library.).

[Editorial Note 165] Jerome, Epistle 52.10. Jerome's Epistles are in Migne, PL, vol. 22. Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 18r

[Editorial Note 166] John Chrysostom, c. 347-407, Bishop of Constantinople, 398-404. Works at Migne, PG, vols. 47-64. Compare Yahuda 2.3, f 19r.

[Editorial Note 167] Codex Theodosianus 9.17.7. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, ed. and tr. Clyde Pharr (Princeton U. P. 1952), p. 240. Cf. Yahuda 2,3, f 11r.

[Editorial Note 168] Krueger-Mommsen, IX. 17 §7; Pharr, p. 240.

[Editorial Note 169] Krueger-Mommsen, XVI. 2 'De episcopis, ecclesiis et clericis', §17; Pharr, p. 443.

[Editorial Note 170] Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 18r.

[Editorial Note 171] Cf. Jeremiah 7.3-4: 'Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place. Do not trust in these deceptive words: "This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord."'

[Editorial Note 172] Prudentius, Peristephanon liber, II.65-72 (Loeb translation used). Cf. Yahuda 2.3 f18r.

[Editorial Note 173] Prosper, Liber de praedictionibus et promissionibus Dei, in Migne, PL, 51, 1-868; Newton's passage seems to be at p. 835. Cf. Yahuda f 18r.

[Editorial Note 174] Prudentius, Peristephanon liber, ['Crowns of Martyrdom'], I.10-12.

[Editorial Note 175] Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 20r. I have consulted S. Jérome, Lettres, ed. & tr. J. Labant, Lettre xlvi, in t. II, p. 109-10.

[Editorial Note 176] Jerome, Epistles, 58.4.4. Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 20r.

[Editorial Note 177] The Epistles of Jerome are in Migne, PL, vol. 22, and also in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vols. 54-56.2, which I have sometimes consulted. This quotation comes from Epistle 58.3.4.

[Editorial Note 178] Jerome, Epistles, 58.3.5

[Editorial Note 179] Cf. Yahuda 2.3, f 18r.

[Editorial Note 180] Cf. Yahuda, 2.3 f 17r.

[21] Antiq. inscript. in Append. p. 1164.

[Editorial Note 181] Siricius, Pope, 384-399.

[Editorial Note 182] Cf. 1 Timothy 3.2, 12, Titus 1.6.

© 2024 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC